Talk:Democratic peace theory/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive
Archives

This whole article is really very badly laid out, I cannot re-structure the whole thing, but it all needs moved around. The English is frequently pretty dreadful also. Dunc

Contents

The article is not based on the facts

This is page is very biased and does not reflect the actual facts of the democratic peace. Whenever it is pointed out that Mousseau (2000; 2002; 2003; 2005) finds that democracy is a significant factor only when both democracies have levels of economic development above the global median, within 24 hours somebody either deletes it or adds the falsehood that, “Oneal & Russett (2004) lists several other studies which find little effect from economic development when controlling for trade.” In fact, Oneal & Russett (2004) do not report any evidence whatsoever that the economic limitation to the democratic peace is explained by trade. Also, when it is pointed out that the economic limitation indicates that all the theories that claim that democracy, alone, causes peace are probably in error—a true fact—within 24 hours it is erased! This page is demonstrates that the democratic peace is not based on objective knowledge but is a cult. Mylos 14:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

"Bremer (1992) was the first to control for GDP per capita. He noted that developed economies tend to be more economically interdependent and suggested that this might account for the conflictreducing benefit of development. Indeed, Oneal, Oneal, Maoz, and Russett (1996) subsequently reported that GDP per capita was not significant when the trade-to-GDP ratio was also entered in the equation."
"Mousseau, Hegre, and Oneal (2003) report that joint democracy is not a significant force for peace if one democratic state in a dyad has a GDP per capita below $1400 (constant 1990 dollars). Fortunately, this level of income is low enough that 91% of the democratic dyads in their sample of politically relevant dyads, over the years 1885-1992, were in the zone of peace."
"We have confirmed in tests to be reported elsewhere (Oneal forthcoming) that the pacific benefits of democracy and interdependence are not a consequence of economic development. Both the lower democracy score and the trade-to-GDP ratio remain very significant (p < .001) when the lower GDP per capita in the dyad is introduced. We do find evidence of an interactive effect between democracy and development, but in 2000 only one percent of democratic dyads were below the threshold level at which the peacefulness of democracy is nullified." Ultramarine 06:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Ultamarine's comments above prove this page is biased. None of the above published studies identified by Ultramarine considered the interaction of development with democracy, so none of them investigate (let alone overturn) the economic limitation to the democratic peace. That Oneal (forthcoming) claims that in the year 2000 the limitation includes only "one percent of democratic dyads" confirms that the economic limitation is a fact and that theories of democracy, supposedly acting alone in causing peace, are probably erroneous. Also, one study may claim that only "one percent of democratic dyads" are excluded from the peace, but many others (Mousseau 2000; 2002; 2003; 2005) show that this percentage is much, much higher. One must wonder why Ultramarine wants us to be unaware of the many studies and know only of the single one he prefers. Ultramarine also continues to reach back to studies in the early 1990s (Bremer 1992) that do not even examine the interaction of democracy with development, and claims to Wikipedia readers that they do. I have given up seeking to correct the fictions in the main democratic peace page, as Ultramarine replaces the facts with his opinion within minutes of my editing.Mylos 14:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I have read Mousseau's 2005 paper. He does not control for trade. All the above studies controlled for GDP. And it is not I, but Oneal and Russet who make these statements. I merely quote them.Ultramarine 07:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
You select the studies you want, ignoring counter evidence. In fact, Mousseau (2000) controls for trade and finds that democracy is not a significant force for peace for nations below median incomes. Somebody is deleting reports of this and other studies from the main democratic peace page.Mylos 14:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Mousseau's studies are still included. I have just added other studies showing opposing results.Ultramarine 07:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
This is false, because there is no study showing opposing results. Again, none of the claimed 'opposing' studies considered the interaction of democracy with development, which is the only way to properly test for an economic limitation to the democratic peace. --Mylos 14:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)ff

Please do not insert incorrect statements. It is only his 2005 study that states above median income. His 2000 study does not state that. All the following studies controls for GDP, that is development. Again, from Oneal and Russett (2004):

"Bremer (1992) was the first to control for GDP per capita. He noted that developed economies tend to be more economically interdependent and suggested that this might account for the conflictreducing benefit of development. Indeed, Oneal, Oneal, Maoz, and Russett (1996) subsequently reported that GDP per capita was not significant when the trade-to-GDP ratio was also entered in the equation."
"Mousseau, Hegre, and Oneal (2003) report that joint democracy is not a significant force for peace if one democratic state in a dyad has a GDP per capita below $1400 (constant 1990 dollars). Fortunately, this level of income is low enough that 91% of the democratic dyads in their sample of politically relevant dyads, over the years 1885-1992, were in the zone of peace."
"We have confirmed in tests to be reported elsewhere (Oneal forthcoming) that the pacific benefits of democracy and interdependence are not a consequence of economic development. Both the lower democracy score and the trade-to-GDP ratio remain very significant (p < .001) when the lower GDP per capita in the dyad is introduced. We do find evidence of an interactive effect between democracy and development, but in 2000 only one percent of democratic dyads were below the threshold level at which the peacefulness of democracy is nullified." Ultramarine 17:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Once again it took less than 24 hours for someone to remove knowledge that goes against the democratic peace from the main democratic peace page. In his 2000 article Mousseau reports that democracy is a significant force for peace only when both states have per capita incomes above $1,696, "not far below the development low mean of $1,933" (p. 496). Ultramarine can quibble about being just above or just below the global mean, but the state of knowlege is that the impact of democracy is significant only after some place near it. Also, Mousseau (2000) shows that the placement of the 'cut off' point at which democracy becomes significant depends on the sample observed. If one includes all dyads, which includes numerous poor states like Botswana and Bolivia that can not possibly fight each other, then the development 'cut off' point where the democratic peace takes effect is lower. If one observes only contiguous dyads where poor states actually have a chance equal to wealthy ones to fight, this level is around the global median. It's up to readers to decide what sample is most convincing. My view is that since poor states cannot fight each other unless they border each other, if you want to genuinely know the impact of development on conflict (other then its impact on power projection capabilities) you have to observe only contiguous dyads.--Mylos 19:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I have not removed any of your sourced and correct statements. It is you who selectively removes studies you do not like. Also, "Global median" and "development low mean" are not the same thing.Ultramarine 20:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Is this what the democratic peace stands on, quibbles over differences in mean and median? Note that Ultramarine now accepts the economic limitation to the democratic peace: the controversy now is simply the placement of the development cut-off point. It is obvious that the economic limitation, and explanations for it, belong in the 'causes of the democratic peace' section of the main democratic peace page, but someone keeps deleting it. --Mylos 09:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
The difference between "global" and "development low" is large. Maybe it would be better to rename the causes section to "possible explanation for how democracy may cause peace". Development and other possible external factors, like distance, should be in another section for clarity.Ultramarine 11:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
The distinction between "interdependence as external cause" and "interdependence as part of the democratic peace" is a difference of emphasis; in fact, the chief difference between Kantian and non-Kantian theories. Oneal's results are formally different from Mousseau's; one discusses wealth, one economic structure, as the quotation above makes clear. Using one to exile the other is deplorable. Septentrionalis 15:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we should move to Kantian Triad to correlation is not causation section? Ultramarine 15:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
No, this article should be structured on a logical basis. It was in Infinity0's edit, cited above; it has had other structures. The present indiscrimate collection of information is not one of them.
There should be no "Correlation is not causation" section. This is a piece of jargon which Ultramarine has picked up from Ray, and which he shows no sign of understanding. Septentrionalis 16:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
There is no difference between "global mean" and "development low mean": they mean the same exact thing. --Mylos 11:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
The "development low mean" is $1933. The "global median" is about $6800.Ultramarine 12:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
The putting together of Mousseau's '$1933' with '$6800' has no universally validity. An awful lot depends on how gross domstic product is converted to US dollars, whether purchasing power parity is used, and, very important, the temporal domain of the sample and whether constant dollars are used. That is why we must debate in terms of means and medians, and, in the larger perspective of the issue at hand, there is not much difference between the two.--Mylos 16:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
It is Mousseau who uses these terms in different articles. As such, these articles are not directly compatible.Ultramarine 21:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
This discussion is now ridiculous. No wonder you didn't sign your post.--Mylos 19:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
It was you who stated that the articles stated the same thing.Ultramarine 21:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Why is it only now, after a new explanation is offered for the democratic peace (Mousseau's culture of contracting), that we suddenly get the suggestion that we should rename the causes section to "possible explanation for how democracy may cause peace"? This shows, once again, the incredible bias towards democracy alone as the only possible cause of democratic peace. --Mylos 11:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
There are many proposed explanation for how democracy can cause peace, so that deserves a section of its own. Note that these explanations do not exclude that other things may also influence peace. No democratic peace researcher has stated that democracy is the only thing that affects the risk of conflicts. Obviously other things also affect this, like how distant two states are. Ultramarine 12:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the explanations of democratic peace deserve a section of their own. At issue is why Ultramarine (or somebody) refuses to allow Mousseau's explanation to be discussed in it. It is a theory of how development and democracy interact and cause peace. This is far different than arguments for potentially confounding variables like distance, which are not theories of democratic peace.--Mylos 16:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
There are numerous possible confounding factors: distance, the Cold War, trade, international organisations, GDP/capita, alliances, power status, and so on. They are discussed in a section of their own. Mousseau gives no explanation for why democracies are different from nondemocracies with a high development. As such, he offers no explanation for how democracy can cause peace, he only notes that democracy and development interacts without explaining how democracies are different from nondemocracies. Ultramarine 16:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually Mousseau does (2002:154-155). --Mylos 19:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You are right, but not on the pages you state. Here is what he says:

"Democratic institutions translate popular domestic preferences into public policy, and thus the leaders of states that have both developed market-oriented economies (and thus liberal culture) and democratic institutions will generally behave as if they think alike and share common interests in international affairs. Common notions of legal and social equality foster mutual respect among such states; shared respect for individualism and equity—and universal extensions of empathy—foster common notions of, and preferences for, human rights; shared recognition of common law yields a mutual perceived interest in international organization, law, and regimes.

Sharing in common the nonparochial notion that the pursuit of self-interest is not incompatible with extended trust, when joint conflict does arise among the leaders of developed market democracies they easily resolve their differences with negotiation and compromise facilitated with the principles of equity and law."

"These states continue to engage in coercive diplomacy with other states, however, because the developed democratic peace rests on shared constructions of negotiation and compromise, legal and social equality, respect for common law, and extensions of trust. The median voters in democracies without developed market economies, in contrast— and the leaders of all other states—are predicted to have not market but other more parochial political values and social constructions."

I will add this to the explantions section.Ultramarine 21:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I have added this "Mousseau (2002) argues that it is the market economy that has created the shared norms in economically developed democracies. The market economy creates a market culture which encourages shared respect for individualism, negotiations, compromise, respect for the law, and equality before the law. The democratically elected leaders shares these norms and their voters expect them to be followed. In contrast, median voters in democracies without developed market economies and the leaders in nondemocracies have other norms and values which encourage conflict."
It is a very interesting explanation. Thanks for pointing it out. I hope you are satisfied. Ultramarine 21:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok. I made some small changes for clarification. With recent changes I am no longer as critical as the headline at the start of this talk indicates. --Mylos 12:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
In the longer term this page should be re-organized. The democratic peace is about militarized conflict, not only wars. The reason the democratic peace matters is because democracies were found to be in fewer wars or militarized conflicts than chance would predict. A single (or few) exceptions cannot change this. This should be explained early on, and the whole war section should be dropped (or if kept demoted with this qualifier added). I recommend the following changes: (1) History, expanded to include the inclusion of lower-lever conflicts in the early 1990s, and after consideration of many control variables (Bremer 1992; Maoz and Russett 1992). (2) Influence (changed the study of International Relations in 1990s [Lakatos stuff here - later related findings on democracy and alliances, compromise, agreement, etc.]; impact on policy). (3) Explanation (structures [audience costs, etc.], democratic norms, economic norms). (4) Evidence for Explanations (structures [audience costs, etc.], democratic norms, economic norms). (5) Definitions (democracy, war, militarized conflicts, militarized crises). (6) Criticisms (Realist challenges [reverse causality, etc.; may yet be spurious]). (7) Possible Exceptions (maybe the war stuff here, with the qualifier). --Mylos 12:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Sounds interesting. What conflicts are you thinking of? Aside from reorganising the article, do you see any important excluded arguments or incorrect statements? Ultramarine 17:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
While Babst and Rummel were pioneers and deserve their prominent places at the top, the turning point in social science was in the early 1990s with articles by Bremer (1992) and Maoz and Russett (1992). Three reactions followed: a) the Realist response (see the special issue of International Security, 1995, plus articles by Bill Thopmson and Patrick James and colleagues), b) investigations of other matters related to democratic foreign policy behavior (eg., alliance and collaboration), and c) attempts to explain it (a lot of rational choice work, eg., Fearon 1995; Bueno de Mesquita and colleagues 1999). I haven't noticed any substantial excluded literature, or anything incorrect in the page as it is (though I haven't read everything and am not an expert in all areas). In my view it's the organization and the emphasis that can be improved. --Mylos 19:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
How about this? "Maoz & Abdolali (1989) extended the research to lesser conflicts than wars. Bremer (1992) and Maoz & Russett (1992) found the peacefulness significant also after controlling for many possible confounding variables. This moved the theory into the mainstream of social science. Supporters of Realism in international relations and others responded by raising many new objections. Other researchers started to more systematically try to explain how democracy may cause peace and how democracy may affect other aspects of foreign relations like alliances and collaboration." Ultramarine 21:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Well said. I forgot about Maoz & Abdolali (1989). You are right, they deserve their important place too.--Mylos 14:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

A whole article and not a word about Thomas Paine?

A whole article and not a word about Thomas Paine?

Sign your posts. Further, it is rather pointless to make suggestions on the talk board. Add the comments yourself, because 99% of the time it will not be done otherwise.Travb (talk) 00:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Dependency theory/Marxist & postmodern critiques

Perhaps we should include a section on dependency theorists such as Immanuel Wallerstein that see DPT as a result of the North-South divide rather than intra-institutional pacifism. I included a brief section on this before but they seem to have disappeared. Sebastian789 15:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

This should be included, if giving full source, including page numbers if a book. It should also be stated if there are some supporting statistical research or not. Ultramarine 16:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia standards should not be used to inhibit additions which do not conform to a particular POV. Septentrionalis 01:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia standards should be used to inhibit additions which do not conform to the standards regardless of any POV expressed in the addition. RussNelson 01:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Nevertheless, it is preferable to revise good-faith edits to comply with policy than to remove them. Septentrionalis 15:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Omissions

The following sources, most of them recent, may be of service to any NPOV version of this article.:

Review of Ray's book; Mershon International Studies Review, Vol. 40, No. 2. (Oct., 1996), pp. 304-307.
Democracy, War, and Covert Action Forsythe 1992
Russett on the Peloponesian War
Lake 1992 Winning war
Pevehouse, Jon C. 2005. Democracy from Above: Regional Organizations and Democratization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rosato, Sebastian. 2003. The Flawed Logic of Democratic Peace Theory. American Political Science Review 97 (4):585-602.
Rees, Stuart. 2003. Passion for Peace: Exercising Power Creatively. Sydney: UNSW Press.
Doyle, Michael W. 2005. Three Pillars of Democratic Peace. American Political Science Review 99 (3):463-472.
Dallmayr, Fred. 2004. Peace Talks-who will listen? Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
Archibugi, Daniele. 2004. Cosmopolitan Democracy and its Critics: A Review. European Journal of International Relations 10 (3):437-473.
Braden, Susan. 2005. Promoting democracy won't necessarily produce peace. International Journal on World Peace 22 (1):3-5.
Deudney, Daniel. 2004. Publius before Kant: Federal-Republican Security and Democratic Peace. European Journal of International Relations 10 (3):315-356

So may Infinity0's edit of 8 April 2006 Septentrionalis 01:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Septentrionalis Criticisms

A ToDo list is not the correct place for one side to present POV. I have therefore moved Septentrionalis criticisms here:

  • Systematic exclusion of supporting studies, findings, and arguments.
  • Statements contradicted by their own references.
  • False claims of original research.
  • This article or section may contain original research
  • This article may contain unverified claims.
  • Verify that claims made are accurately and honestly represent the source.
  • Verify that quotations, both from the source and from Ray's papers, are identified, and necessary (see WP:Copyvio).
  • Remove peacock terms.
  • Remove the "supporters say"/"Critics say" style.
  • Check that the references to Ray, Rummel, and Weart are not disproportionate.
  • Rewrite whatever remains into clear and comprehensible English, without jargon.
  • Add recent papers of all PoV to article.
  • restore context and criticisms.Ultramarine 01:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

This list is more or less what every observer (except Ultramarine) has agreed needs to be done with this article (including the anon commentary in this version of the talk page. For the time being, I am letting the wiki process work itself out; as I have said elsewhere, I look forward to the clear, grammatical, and NPOV version that will result. Septentrionalis 02:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

You have repeatedly tried to present your case to for example WP:ANI. No administrator has agreed with you.Ultramarine 02:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
No administrator has found either of our proceedural complaints worth acting on. I do not see what this has to do with a list of substantive issues. Nor do I see why Ultramarine objects to a program of checking that this article complies with policy. Septentrionalis 15:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:To-do list:

"The To-do list (template {{todo}}) of an article shows, as its name implies, the list of improvements that are suggested for the article. This list is maintained by editors, writers, reviewers or readers like you as a way to focus your collaborative efforts. As such, they represent a tentative consensus, helping improve the efficiency of the editing process."

"==What a to-do list is not==

  • Not a place for discussion (use the talk page for that)
  • Not a place for experimental ideas (these should be discussed first to reach a consensus)
  • Not a place to express a point of view (obviously, one would hope, but experience shows it needs to be said)"

So, the ToDO list is not the place to present your POV. There is no consensus on these points.Ultramarine 20:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

When I created the TODO list its actual intention was more as a convient means to list the the many disputes in a clear manner, rather than filling the main article with 5 or more different tags, which did make the main article look ugly. While not precicely what todo was intended for I think it serves a useful function to clrealy list the disputes. One day we may be able to clear all these disputes and get featured article status. --Salix alba (talk) 07:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the TODO list is now used as a place for discussion and to express a POV, instead of doing so on the talk page proper. If it should be kept, it should be clearly stated that this is the case in the text of the list.Ultramarine 08:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Lets see if we can cross some of these off. (I'll miss the first as its a biggie), for the second
  • Statements contradicted by their own references.
are there any remaining instances after the big rewrite the article has seen? --Salix alba (talk) 15:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
No.Ultramarine 15:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
This was Ultramarine's complaint originally; so I have no deep objection to removing it. Septentrionalis 22:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Septentrionalis states that the article is confusing. Please explain why.Ultramarine 22:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Because that appears to be the general opinion; for example, this anon [1]. Septentrionalis 22:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
You mean the same anonymous editor who made this strange edit: [2]. Anyhow, criticisms is supposed to be constructive. Again, what is confusing? Ultramarine 23:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I find nothing strange about that edit; it improved both the sense and the English. Septentrionalis 23:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Anyhow, criticisms is supposed to be constructive. Again, what is confusing? Ultramarine 23:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
"False claims of original research." I can see no such claims, so it should be removed.Ultramarine 08:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
"This article or section may contain original research" Please stat what. Ultramarine 09:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
"This article may contain unverified claims." Again, please state what.Ultramarine 09:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
"Verify that claims made are accurately and honestly represent the source." Done, are correct.Ultramarine 09:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
"Verify that quotations, both from the source and from Ray's papers, are identified, and necessary (see WP:Copyvio)." Done, no violation.Ultramarine 09:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
"Remove peacock terms." What terms? Ultramarine 09:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
"Remove the "supporters say"/"Critics say" style." Any examples? Ultramarine 09:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
"Check that the references to Ray, Rummel, and Weart are not disproportionate." Done, are not.Ultramarine 09:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
"Rewrite whatever remains into clear and comprehensible English, without jargon." Again, give examples of problems.
"Add recent papers of all PoV to article." All significant topics are covered. Please state is missing.Ultramarine 09:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
"restore context and criticisms."Again, give examples of problems.Ultramarine 09:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I am removing the ToDo list. As noted above, Septentrionalis does not give any explanations for his statements and it does not follow policy for ToDo lists.Ultramarine 03:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

At the moment, I do have more useful things to do for Wikipedia than to spend more 100K's examining the flaws of this article; previous examinations may be found in the archives). If I were going to do so, I would not need the to-do list (originally placed and explained above by Salix Alba); it is a recommmendation that this article be checked for its compliance with policies which several editors have seen it as failing in the past. Further blanking of this talk-page may be treated as a concession that this article cannot bear such an examination. Septentrionalis 15:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I will continue to remove thee ToDo list. As noted, Septentrionalis does not give any explanations for his statements and it does not follow policy for ToDo lists. Ultramarine 16:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
This is a program for improving the article. I trust it will be an easy one. Septentrionalis 16:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


You guys have made it very difficult for peer review to help. You have a HUGE laundry list of supposed problems but absolutely no examples of those problems to look at. At first read, the article looks pretty good to me. How about if someone take the first item: Systematic exclusion of articles and describe what the problem is? --Blue Tie 00:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The articles listed under #Omissions, above; most of which were recommended by Scaife, a political scientist in real life, and which have been ignored. Septentrionalis 19:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Scaife is a student. There are hundreds of articles in this field. What arguments have been excluded? Ultramarine 19:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
We'll get to that as we add them, won't we? Septentrionalis 19:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Possible Wars

I see that Ultramarine has inserted the deleted article Possible wars between liberal democracies into this article. For consensus condemnation of this section, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Possible wars between liberal democracies and the AfD's to which to it refers; for the numerous errors of fact and interpretation committed by its principal source, see the archives to this page. Septentrionalis 23:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Extensively rewritten text with many citations from several academic books. There are no criticisms in the talk page to that earlier rewritten article. Again, criticism should be constructive. State what is not neutral and factually incorrect.Ultramarine 00:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
It was speeded, I've now listed it on Wikipedia:Deletion review. --Salix alba (talk) 12:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Deleted, as PoV, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Possible wars between liberal democracies 2 Septentrionalis 19:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
This article is too long as it is. This data table seems to complicate the matter. I believe that some people reading the article may be inclined to do their own research and this table would be one source. If this data table (and other data) is available from other locations on the net it should only be a link. Alternatively, is it possible for an article to have a sub-page? --Blue Tie 01:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the arguments can only be found in academic books like Never at War. I will probably do a rewrite and create a subarticle for the tables in the future.Ultramarine 02:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I might not have said it correctly. The length of the article is not really an issue. It should be as long as it needs to be. But it is not as well presented as it could be and a bit discombobulated. I think it needs a re-write by a fair and objective person. The table is interesting, but too much detail for the average reader. But I personally would like to see some way to get access to all of the data that these researchers are discussing (including that table) so that, if I were inclined, I could do my own Original Research (despite NP:OR I like to do it! I guess I just can't use it here! -- not sure of that though given some recent initiatives at Wikipedia).--Blue Tie 02:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I think that the statistical details are too complicated for most people, except researchers, to follow. The common argument against the DPT is instead typically to state "Look at WWI! England and France were at war with Germany that had universal male suffrage!" or something similar regarding other cases. So there need to be an explanation for why most researchers do not consider WWI and other cases to be wars between democracies. But maybe there could be a simple overview article and several subarticles with more in depth details for those interested? Ultramarine 02:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Most researchers hold that the sparse exceptional wars do not detract from the reality of the democratic peace; they differ to some extent on which, if any, these exceptions are. This piece of advocacy represents the views of three extremists, and therefore misrepresents the field. Septentrionalis 19:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, state what arguments researchers have used for explaining that specific conflicts are wars between democracies.Ultramarine 19:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
This is a straw man; those who, like Maoz, observe that there is one year of war between democracies where there should be 56, have no need to explain their conclusions on the one at length, and do not. Septentrionalis 19:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
So a few researchers think there have been wars, but do not explain why. Most researcher support no war.Ultramarine 19:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Ultramarine, Most researcher support no war was not true the last time we discussed it. It's not true now. Please read the sources. Septentrionalis 19:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
This seems to be deliberately misleading. Here is the most recent discussion: [3] Ultramarine 20:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
My apologies; I had forgotten that you repeated the same misreadings of the same sources between then and now. When you have a new one, do let us know. Septentrionalis 20:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Continuation war

How come the Continuation War in considered to a possible candidate for a war between two liberal democracies? Last time I checked, the USSR wasn't a liberal democracy in the 1940's (or ever).

See this User:Salix alba/History of conflict between democracies.Ultramarine 09:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Because Britain, and probably Australia, declared war on Finland. Septentrionalis 19:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
On its face that seems like a good example of a liberal democracy attacking a liberal democracy. Perhaps it counts. Not sure though. Does the theory generally confine itself to two independant liberal democracies or does it also include liberal democracies that are allied with more totalitarian regimes? In the case of WWII the Finns were not exactly aligned but were somewhat sympathetic to the Germans because they hated the Soviets so much. And the British were definitely aligned with the Soviets. And in the midst of war, England had given up much of its democratic principles for a time. Do these factors count in the theory or not? --Blue Tie 00:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Most would still count Finland and England as democratic at this time. As noted in User:Salix alba/History of conflict between democracies, the main point is that the formal declaration of war meant very little. England and Finland never attacked one another after the declaration. A formal declaration often means very little. The US has not made a declaration of war after WWII despite involvment in many conflicts causing many battle deaths.Ultramarine 00:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I would say contrary: The formal declaration of war includes political process, and is open political decision to go to war. If that war cannot be later waged efficiently is totally another matter, and cannot be known at the time declaration was made. The lack of declaration gives opening to all black ops against and material support to democratic country outside the democratic control.--Whiskey 20:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Arguably England had no intention of attacking Finland. It only very reluctantly issued the declaration due to intense pressure from Stalin. England could easily have attacked Finland by bombing, it there had been a desire.Ultramarine 20:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree, that declaration was reluctant. Reaching Finland for bombing is another matter, as at the northern Finland there wasn't any suitable targets and Southern Finland was behind neutral Sweden. But the declaration opened possible acts of war, not precluded them.--Whiskey 20:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
The Continuation War is maybe the most disputed example. Anyhow, the argument by those who do not see a war is the absence military attacks after the declaration and that the declaration was reluctant and forced by Stalin. There has been almost no declarations of wars since WWII but arguably many wars.Ultramarine 21:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
That is exactly the point. The declaration is so strong element, that it is not lightly given. It is much easier to wage war without the political load which comes with the declaration.--Whiskey 21:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Certainly some see the Continuation war as an exception. Most researchers doing quantitative research on wars use a certain number of battlefield deaths when defining war in order to avoid the problems with declarations and intentions.Ultramarine 21:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I see. So to you the issue is not a matter of declaring war but actually going to war - developing casualties. I can see that since i notice that part of the definition involves 200 combat deaths. --Blue Tie 13:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Using the formal declaration of war as the definition of war would mean that there has been almost no wars in the world since WWII. A formal declaration today causes many juridical problems, so today no nations do it even if their military is engaged in battle. Most researchers instead look at battle deaths.Ultramarine 13:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
The 200 battle deaths are an arbitrary line drawn by a single author. It is quite frequent to use 1000 battle deaths, the line drawn by a popular data set. It is more frequent to observe that there have so few full-scale wars in the past century, and so few democracies until very recently, that "wars between democracies" is, while the interesting question, not capable of proving anything beyond statistical doubt. Septentrionalis 19:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
This leaves still open the question of war by proxies: Soviet Union received lavish material support from UK and USA, and this material was used against Finns. And both UK and USA did know that at the time they delivered the material. Although it wasn't UK or US soldiers who killed 1000 Finns, it was UK/US tanks, planes, trucks and ammo which was used on the deed.--Whiskey 20:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
The US never issued a formal declaration. The UK declaration was very reluctant and forced by Stalin. The US and the UK wanted to support the war against Naxi Germany, not Finland.Ultramarine 20:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
But did UK/US leaders even once demanded/hoped/suggested/whatsoever that Soviets NOT to use delivered material against Finns? Nope. --Whiskey 20:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I would certainly say hoped.Ultramarine 21:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
My mistake.:-) They certainly hoped in their minds that, but did they communicate it to Soviets?--Whiskey 21:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I do not know.Ultramarine 21:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
The absence of wars is statistically significant. The problems is when starting to control for numerous possible external factors. That is why much recent research looks at lesser conflicts which have been more frequent.Ultramarine 19:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for agreeing with me; the (certainly existing) other factors are part of why they're not significant; but we really should save that level of precision for article text. Septentrionalis 19:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
To Blue Tie:If democratic peace theories didn't include liberal democracies allied with more repressive regimes, they would have even less subject matter than they do. One student has proposed treating the Continuation War, which did include at least one raid by the British on Finland, as a special case: a side-effect of the general multipolar war of the sort we hope will not come again. The present text is confusing, but the note to this effect seems to have disappeared. (One of the other points under discussion is what makes a major conflict: from one point of view it is casualties; from another, the fact of a formal declaration of war makes the Continuation war severe, all by itself.) Septentrionalis 20:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
In other words: Democratic countries can sell other democratic countries if they need support against their opponents. Pragmatic. But nullifies the idea behind the Democratic Peace theory.--Whiskey 20:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
That is one opinion. The DPT in its original form simply states no or almost no wars between democracies.Ultramarine 21:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It should also be mentioned that there were a few problems with the democracy in both Britain and Finland. Britain postponed elections. Finland imprisoned many of the leaders of the Communist party on rather dubious grounds. A small group of Finnish leaders controlled policy, like the army's Marshal Mannerheim. Some expressed admiration for the Nazis and contempt for politicians. They did not always consult Parliament or even the entire Cabinet when when making major commitment for Finland. Still, some of these things are not uncommon in wartime republics, so both nations should still probably be considered democracies.Ultramarine 11:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It should be mentioned, but is not, that by such standards, there are prohlems with almost all democracies. Independent of questions of accuracy of this list, the standrds being applied through it would leave perhaps three democracies before the 1880's, and not many thereafter. Septentrionalis 14:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Possible wars between liberal democracies

What happened to this article: Possible wars between liberal democracies? It has been deleted. It can be found on google temporarily here

Signed:Travb (talk) 17:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I found out who deleted it[4], this article has now been retreived, and is being voted on for speedy deletion.Travb (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


PEER REVIEW

One Question. You guys have requested a Peer Review. Do you really want one? Would you like a mediation instead?

I believe the article has a core that is very good but it is a bit confusing since people seem to be "arguing by proxy" through the article.

I would be willing to help with a re-write and or resolution. I have not been involved in this issue before and I had no pre-conceived notions. But you may want to know where I stand now that I have read some of the papers referenced in the article. I believe that basically there are 3 things at work here and I hope that there is not also a fourth:

  1. Studies almost (not quite) unanimously agree that there is a correlation between Democracy and Peace.
  2. The general trend of the studies seems to be away from finding that this correlation exists, to determining the nature of the cause and effect relationships.
  3. A hidden agenda issue is that George Bush has at least tacitly used this theory as a basis for his war in Iraq. This has, to a degree, politicized the debate (perhaps in academia as well as here), however it seems to be more at a covert rather than overt level with regard to the opponents in this article. (My view: I do not think that current and rather temporary political issues should hold high sway over the statistical research on the matter. I would consider that to be highly POV).
  4. I do not think that there is an issue here about the overall desirability of democracy, but perhaps there is. I do have a POV in that area: I consider democracy, with certain reasonable restrictions, to be the best form of government available to us at this time. I do not know of any exceptions. This is POV. And perhaps part of the argument here stems from a belief that democracy is not superior. If that is part of the problem, then someone here might object to my involvement, though I can try to be fair and objective.

I should also add that I am entirely open to the notion that other factors besides democracy could be more important to peace. I can think of economic freedom or economic prosperity as one specific thing that might help ensure peace. I can also suppose that distance has a relationship. There may be other things. I think the article has a core sense of this concern but it is a bit lost in the somewhat odd details and edits here and there.

The effect of trade and prosperity on peace, and whether it is a separate effect, was discussed at some length when I last edited the text of this article; under the Kantian peace. So was Gleditsch's work, which concluded that distance and democracy were the only significant factors. I regret to see that the article has degraded so far since. For the record, I welcome oversight by as many editors as can be obtained. Septentrionalis 19:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
These factors are mentioned in the article.Ultramarine 19:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
The citation of Gleditsch is incomplete, dishonest, and unduly lightweight. If the last were not true, BlueTie would have found it. Septentrionalis 19:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I look forward to your responses. --Blue Tie 02:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I would be happy to work with you in any way.Ultramarine 02:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Let's see if Septentrionalis also feels that way. Are there other people involved besides you two? (there should be... this is an interesting and potentially important topic!). --Blue Tie 02:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
User:Salix alba is a more recent participant. The democratic peace may in the end stop warfare between humans. So I agree it is important.Ultramarine 02:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
User:Blue Tie thanks for the invitation on my user page, but I had no part in this article. I simply was involved with an article which was deleted relating to this subject. I don't know enough, nor I don't think I want to learn enough about the subject to get involved in the peer review.Travb (talk) 10:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


To everyone who has responded to my posts, thank you. I apologize for taking so long to get back to you. I am inundated at work, I am trying to write a new article and I am ruminating over your comments. I can see that nerves are frayed, the feelings that the other person has 'best intentions' is not present and there is resentment for past acts. Everyone seemed willing to work on the problem but, to my eye, not very many people were optimistic. Fair enough. I need to think about every comment and see if I can help. I want to emphasize, that though I am not exactly a lightweight and I have to deal with substantial and critical interpersonal relationships in my line of work, I am extremely impressed and humbled by the credentials of the people contributing to this article. I do not think that I have generally superior capabilities to anyone here, but perhaps I come at this without all the baggage of historical disagreements. I have also described my general feelings regarding the topic and perhaps I am able to be reasonably neutral on the matter. I want to help make this a really good article. I think that it has the potential - the core is there. But it is also badly mangled by the dispute. I do not yet have a clear strategy for how to proceed but I am working on it. I hope you will be patient with me as I seek to bring some harmony to this process and produce a great article. My sincere thanks to all of you for working so hard to this point.
As a "heads-up" kind of comment, I am thinking that a good way to start is to have what is called in some legal circles as a process of discovery. Not a process to discover ALL positions, but a process to discover where we have substantial agreements. I hope that we have at least a few areas where our feelings about this subject overlap! I invite comments on this suggestion for determining where we agree. Is starting the conversation this way, a good use of time (as opposed to the waste of time debating) or is it just one more waste of time? Do you think that there are substantial areas of agreement? --Blue Tie 01:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Septentrionalis has stated that he thinks some form of the DPT is true. I do not know if there is any more agreement than that. Since he does not give any exact details regarding what he think is incorrect with or missing from the current article, it is difficult to know what we agree on.Ultramarine 05:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I find Frank Wayman's suggestion that we do not yet have enough data to decide between the various theories of the democratic peace appealling. This is why all the variants should be clearly and separately presented. They were before Ultramarine spent two menths trashing disorganizing this article. Septentrionalis 15:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
What suggestion are you thinking of? Here is the abstract:
ABSTRACT: Although liberal states have not fought a war against each other, they have occasionally been on opposing sides in the militarized interstate disputes that can escalate to war. Among some 2,000 militarized interstate disputes (MIDs) since 1816, I have identified sixty-two that have been between liberal states. What is the implication of this for the democratic peace literature? This paper examines the severity of these sixty-two clashes to assess what degree of hostility they represent. While often involving the use of force, liberal MIDs are almost always confined to two parties (i.e., do not escalate horizontally), and are usually unreciprocated or tit-for-tat incidents (i.e., rarely escalate vertically). While inter-state war between liberal societies may occur in the future, not many of the MIDs that have occurred between them in the past two centuries can be seen as cause for alarm.Ultramarine 15:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Ultramarine follows this semi-literate practice of taking the abstract for the paper far too often. Read the third and fourth paragraphs of the introduction. Septentrionalis 16:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I see nothing there that contradicts the abstract.Ultramarine 16:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Another straw-man. The article is not the abstract; and the position I am citing occurs in the article, not the abstract. The map is not the territory. Septentrionalis
Exactly what is your objection? The article already states that many reserchers now prefers to study MIDs and even quote Wayman.Ultramarine 16:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It is this sort of bad reading that makes editing with Ultramarine ultimately so frustrating. Beither Wayman nor I made an objection; Wayman says the evidence from wars will not be enough to prove the existence of the democratic peace beyond statistical doubt, perhaps for some centuries. A fortiori, it is insufficient to decide between the various theories. The evidence from MID's, which is more numerous but open to more objections, is probably still insufficient to decide between them; the question of whether the true theory of MID's, when found, applies to full-scale wars may well be indecidable. Septentrionalis 17:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

This is original research. Most researchers support the DPT. Again, Wayman's abstract:
ABSTRACT: Although liberal states have not fought a war against each other, they have occasionally been on opposing sides in the militarized interstate disputes that can escalate to war. Among some 2,000 militarized interstate disputes (MIDs) since 1816, I have identified sixty-two that have been between liberal states. What is the implication of this for the democratic peace literature? This paper examines the severity of these sixty-two clashes to assess what degree of hostility they represent. While often involving the use of force, liberal MIDs are almost always confined to two parties (i.e., do not escalate horizontally), and are usually unreciprocated or tit-for-tat incidents (i.e., rarely escalate vertically). While inter-state war between liberal societies may occur in the future, not many of the MIDs that have occurred between them in the past two centuries can be seen as cause for alarm.Ultramarine 17:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • This is illiteracy. Both Wayman and I support the existence of the democratic peace; and nothing I have written says otherwise. Repeated quotation of his abstract is irrelevant noise. Septentrionalis 17:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
You have still not managed to explain what is incorrect or missing from the article. Please explain.Ultramarine 17:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Since I wasn't discussing the article, but responding to a comment on my views on the democratic peace, this is not surprising. But I suspect I have just violated WP:DNFT. Septentrionalis 18:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Spare me the personal attacks. If you cannot explain your templates, then they should be removed.Ultramarine 18:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I see; Ultramarine now claims that his previous message wasn't a reply to the posting it is subbed to. <sigh> Septentrionalis 19:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Blue Tie has asked for a disclosure of personal positions and biasses. That is reasonable, as we all read things through the prism of our personality. I quote Churchill: "Democracy is the worst system devised by the wit of man, except for all the others." I expect no better system until the Second Coming. That said, I will not pretend that it is perfect.

I hope that a Democratic Peace is true. It ought to be on a priori grounds. I admit to a suspicion of overmining the data -- given the paucity of democracies until very recently, claiming a high degree of confidence is like waving a red flag. The technique of crafting a definition of democracy to support a finding of no wars strikes me as disingenuous. The interest of the subject comes from interpreting "democracy" according to the common understanding. Better and more informative to say that established democracies with strong civilian control of the military, a market economy and so on do not fight one another than to define away those cases and let the press report the findings misleadingly. Robert A.West (Talk) 07:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Disputes

  • On this page, Blue Tie and the anon at the top have both found the article confusing.
  • Mylos has declared it biased.
    • The tagging reflects these opinions, which should be discussed with the users who hold them.
  • As for the balance of sources, this article is excessively dependent on three extreme authors Ray, Rummel and Weart. This is especially true of the section on Possible wars between liberal democracies; which is a recreation of a four times deleted article. The errors, partisanship, and misunderstandings of this section are largely true also of the partial recreation in Never at War, in whose talk page they are discussed at length. Septentrionalis 19:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
The issues has been discussed with the other editors. I ask them to state here if there are any remaining problems and explain why. The discussion at Never at War is many months old and much has changed in the article. Regarding balance, what views are missing? Regarding errors, what is incorrect? Ultramarine 19:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
The discussion at Talk;Never at War is still germane, since these are the same errors. As for the others, that will turn up in the process of review this article needs; to demand that it be completed immediately is mere obstruction. Septentrionalis 21:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
That is incorrect, the article has been substantially changed since that many months old discussion. For the current version, regarding balance, what views are missing? Regarding errors, what is incorrect? Ultramarine 21:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
You are again demanding a complete review of the article as precondition to a review of the article. This is nonsense. I presume you will insist on having the last word, as usual; but any more vain repetitions will be ignored. Septentrionalis 21:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Obviously someone putting up templates claiming that there is a problem must explain why. That a review may show problems is not acceptable. Then we should have templates disputing factual accuracy and neutrality on every Wikipedia article. Again, for the current version, regarding balance, what views are missing? Regarding errors, what is incorrect? Ultramarine 22:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I am again asking any other editors to explain the tags. Otherwise I will shortly remove them.Ultramarine 21:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I think Mylos is doing an excellent job of explaining his position. As for other editors, I present the four deletion discussions for the Possible wars on liberal democracies.
These are a consensus that this is a PoV essay; there is some minority sentiment that it can be fixed. Septentrionalis 19:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Looking at the last discussion, there is no explanation of what is incorrect. If something is wrong, it should be explained so it can be fixed. Again, for the current version, regarding balance, what views are missing? Regarding errors, what is incorrect? Ultramarine 19:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy on disputed templates

The editor Septentrionalis has on several other articles constantly tried to exclude well-sourced advantages of democracy and related research. See for example this, where he deletes every sourced advantage of liberal democracy while keeping many claimed unsourced disadvantages.[5] Or this, where he completely deletes the painstakingly made table regarding world-wide democracy from Freedom House.[6].

  • If Ultramarine wishes to discuss actions on other articles, I shall also do so; but he may wish to consider retraction. The off-topic and inaccurate paragraph he wrote into Liberal democracy was removed by consensus, as the talk page will show. The chart was a cut-and-paste from Freedom House's site at Freedom House; it has also been removed from the article since he restored it by reversion. Septentrionalis 21:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
    • That seems to be deliberately misleading. There was no consensus for Septentrionalis POV that there should only be criticisms of democracy and that the sourced material on advantages should be deleted. Regarding the Freedom house material, it has not been deleted, but moved to subarticle. Ultramarine 22:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
      • The first statement is a falsehood. For the second, I regret to hear that Wikipedia still contains plagiarisms. Septentrionalis 22:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
        • That is another tactic Septentrionalis uses when trying to prevent other from reading about the advantages of democracy. He has tried to delete such advantages and claimed copyright violation and made formal complaints. He was of course ignored. Ideas cannot be copyrighted and paraphrasing and summaries are not copyright infringement. Ultramarine 22:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Septentrionalis has put up numerous disputed templates on this article. However, he has refuses to follow policy and make any constructive explanations for this. Wikipedia:NPOV dispute states: "If you add the above code to an article which seems to be biased to you, but there is no prior discussion of the bias, you need to at least leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article. The note should address the problem with enough specificity to allow constructive discussion toward a resolution, such as identifying specific passages, elements, or phrasing that are problematic."Ultramarine 22:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The templates state that a Wikipedian has found this article unneutral, confusing, or based on an unbalanced choice of sources. All these things are true; several wikipedians have, and continue to do so. This is an effort by Ultramarine to remove the tags, without ever having to fix the problems that produced them. Septentrionalis 21:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Again, read the policy. "If you add the above code to an article which seems to be biased to you, but there is no prior discussion of the bias, you need to at least leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article. The note should address the problem with enough specificity to allow constructive discussion toward a resolution, such as identifying specific passages, elements, or phrasing that are problematic." Ultramarine 21:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Since I have already discussed this page for six pages of archives, cited the objections of others, and indicated my own objections on this page, I find this dilatory. When Blue Tie is ready, we can go through this article systematically. Septentrionalis 22:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
The article has been substantially changed since your earlier objections. Any outside help from Blue Tie would be greatly helped if you try to explain why oppose the article, like Wikpedia policy states that you should do.Ultramarine 22:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Septentrionalis also disputes factual accuracy. This requires that at least 5 examples and explanations, see Wikipedia:Disputed statement. Otherwise the [dubious – discuss] template should be used, also with explanations. Septentrionalis has provided no examples or explanations.

I therefore in good faith ask Septentrionalis to follow policy and explain his templates. Otherwise I will remove them according to policy.Ultramarine 20:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)Ultramarine 22:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The second page cited is a guideline, not a policy. The first page cited isn't even a guideline. If one is going to claim policy as reason for being peremptory, one should respect the distinction -- guidelines can be validly overridden by consensus, whereas policies cannot. Moreover, the above discussion omits that the guideline also allows the use of the general templates when there is an ongoing dispute -- which is manifestly the case here, and several disagreements are detailed on this talk page as it stands. IMO it is simplest for the present tag to stand until there is a functional consensus that it should be removed. Robert A.West (Talk) 21:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
You are arguing that there should be disputed templates even if there are no explanations for them? Ultramarine 21:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Mr. West has said no such thing. Unfortunately, Ultramarine reads off-Wikipedia sources just as well, as the discussion with Mylos shows. Septentrionalis 22:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
So if you accept that there should be constructive explanations for disputed templates, then what are they? Ultramarine 22:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean by constructive explanations? The templates are statements of fact, already justified. Septentrionalis 22:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Again, read the policy. "If you add the above code to an article which seems to be biased to you, but there is no prior discussion of the bias, you need to at least leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article. The note should address the problem with enough specificity to allow constructive discussion toward a resolution, such as identifying specific passages, elements, or phrasing that are problematic."Ultramarine 22:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
As Mr West said, this is a guideline. My program for fixing these flaws may be found at the top of the page. Septentrionalis 23:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
There are no constructive criticism there, only things like "Statements contradicted by their own references.", without giving any examples that can be discussed and improved. Ultramarine 23:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Ultramarine and plagiarism

Ultramarine added to Liberal democracy

However, other dispute this, arguing that savvy autocrats may now have learned how to cut the cord between growth and freedom, enjoying the benefits of the former without the risks of the latter. [7]

The abstract for the source of this reads:

Conventional wisdom has long assumed that economic liberalization undermines repressive regimes. Recent events, however, suggest that savvy autocrats have learned how to cut the cord between growth and freedom, enjoying the benefits of the former without the risks of the latter. Washington and international lenders should take note.[8]scholar.google.com result

I acknowledge that this has now been fixed, after I found it; nevertheless, nota bene. Septentrionalis 22:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

But when trying to argue for copyright infringement with others, you ignored the fix, which seems to be deliberately misleading. Ultramarine 23:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Aw, did I hurt the poor plagiarist's feelings, then? Septentrionalis 23:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Just pointing out that this is another tactic Septentrionalis uses when trying to prevent other from reading about the advantages of democracy. Continuing to insist on copyright infringement when there was none is deliberately misleading.Ultramarine 23:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
This personal attack would suggest that Ultramarine confuses himself, or his favorite authors, with democracy. This (erroneous) ascription of political motives is one of his favorite tactics, however. In fact, I agree with Churchill: Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others; my objections to plagiarism, and other assaults on the republic of letters, have no connection with politics - except that to tolerate them is not likely to improve our politics. Septentrionalis 02:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
As noted earlier, this is just one example of Septentrionalis selectively trying to hide the advantages of democracy from the readers.Ultramarine 02:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Ultramarine in general

This talk page shows Ultramarine all too well.

  • If he has read Mousseau's articles, he has not understood them; and on that basis, he has revert warred with Mylos for a week now.
  • He quotes Wayman's abstract as though the article contained nothing else.
  • When questioned on this, he retreats to a red herring.
  • He now resorts to personal attacks.

Unfortunately, his editing is always like this. No citation he makes can be trusted without verification. Septentrionalis 02:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

As usual, no constructive examples of what is supposed to be wrong in the article. See Talk:Democratic peace theory#Wikipedia policy on disputed templates above.Ultramarine 02:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
No, merely some reasons why no claim of sourcing which depends solely on Ultramarine's good faith and literacy should be left unchecked. Septentrionalis 16:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Ad hominem instead of factual arguments. The standard tactic when there are no supporting facts.Ultramarine 16:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Three constructive suggestions

We can wait for a mediator, whether Blue Tie or some other, to direct fixing this article.

We can examine the present text, paragraph-by-paragraph, against the standards set up above. This will be a long slow process, but by the end of it there will be general consent to remove the tags.

Ultrmarine and I can agree to go away for a period of time, leaving the article as it is, to be edited by others. If the tags are in fact unjustified, they will be removed shortly thereafter, by consensus.

I will accept any of these. Septentrionalis 01:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I am only asking you to follow policy see above. "If you add the above code to an article which seems to be biased to you, but there is no prior discussion of the bias, you need to at least leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article. The note should address the problem with enough specificity to allow constructive discussion toward a resolution, such as identifying specific passages, elements, or phrasing that are problematic."Ultramarine 07:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
What you are quoting is still not policy, but a guideline. Repeating a falsehood does not make it true, either here or in the article. Septentrionalis 23:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
But how can there by any resolution if you refuse to state what is incorrect or missing? Ultramarine 23:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I have just suggested three methods, all of which should work. Pick one. Septentrionalis
The first two require that you explain what is incorrect or missing. Also the third requires that the other editors understand what you claim is missing or incorrect, otherwise they cannot decide if the templates are correct.Ultramarine 00:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Nonsense. The first two are proposals to find what is incorrect and missing; the third is a proposal to leave that judgment to others. I concur to their removal by any agreement of third parties. Septentrionalis 16:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
So you cannot find anything incorrect or missing. You think that there may be a problem that may be found if doing a review.Ultramarine 18:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Do try to have your responses have something to do with what I've actually written; not just with what you'd like to see. Septentrionalis 01:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
To quote yourself "The first two are proposals to find what is incorrect and missing". Thus, you cannot find anything incorrect or missing. The templates are unsupported. Using this argument, we should have templates on every Wikipedia page.Ultramarine 15:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Since no one has offered any support for keeping Septentrionalis unexplained tags, I while shortly remove them. Anyone opposing? Ultramarine 22:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The explanation remains the same as the last two times Ultramarine ignored it; he continues to be the only editor who regards this piece of advocacy as clear, fair, or balanced. I will support any effort by a third party to fix it. Septentrionalis 20:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
As can be seen, no one supported your tags when I asked. Please explain the tags yourself instead of stating that someone else may find a problem. If you have no arguments, please admit it.Ultramarine 20:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Ultramarine is repeating himself again. I shall not imitate him by repeating my arguments; they may be found above. Henceforth, silence does not imply consent to any statement by Ultramarine; it implies that there is nothing new in it. Septentrionalis 20:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is built on discussion. Refusing to discuss edits and to give support for claims is not acceptable in Wikipedia. I again ask if anyone supports the tag Septentrionalis has inserted. I again ask him or anyone else to give concrete examples of what is incorrect or missing. If no explanations are given, then the tags will be removed.Ultramarine 20:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I also note that other editors have criticized Septentrionalis for his tactic of inserting unsupported tags when he has no arguments. [9]Ultramarine 20:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
No one supports you, Ultramarine; I am merely the msot vocal of those who criticize you. Septentrionalis 21:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I have several times asked if anyone supports you. No one does.Ultramarine 21:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Also, I thought that this was a dispute about the contents. It is unfortunate that you think that this is about me as a person. That is ad hominem. The common tactic of those who have no factual arguments.Ultramarine 15:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Archiving

I have archived old discussions.Ultramarine 17:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Ultramarine has done so selectively, and without prior discusion; this comes with singularly ill grace from someone who has objected vociferously to a consensus to archive. Either all of this goes, or none does. Septentrionalis 20:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Fine.Ultramarine 20:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)