Talk:Liberal-democracy/archive 2006

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.

Contents

Original research?

Allegations of POV aside, the article does not cite a single source. Especially the "Qualities" list seems to me like a violation of WP:NOR. Does anyone have any real sources to back these claims? —Gabbe 00:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

user:ultramarine is adding tons of original research as well as POV statements from biased sources as we speak! Solidusspriggan 01:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Read the article about R. J. Rummel.Ultramarine 01:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't consider R. J. Rummel an unbiased or reliable source on much of anything. The controversies surrounding his findings and positions are enormous. Please find more neutral sources. In citing this man a bad name for liberal democracy will be made on wikipedia. One almost as bad as is being made by user:ultramarine. Solidusspriggan 01:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Source given by respected reseracher. You do not have veto over what to accept. I added that it it disputed by some. Note that much of the reserach you removed are from other sources that he only quotes or not even mentioned at all by him. Ultramarine 01:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Reverts

Whoever is doing the reverts, please explain yourself. If it you, Solidusspriggan, please state so instead of using your IP adress.Ultramarine 01:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

My IP address, sir, is quite static (I believe currently 129.15.152.173) as of now. I suggest you do not imply my circumventing of wikipedia policy when you have no evidence. I am very sorry that the world does not agree with your views and does not like to leave disinformation on wikipedia. That last revert was done by someone on a quite distant domain, they are obviously concerned with the integrity of wikipedia as I am. Solidusspriggan 01:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

If anyone would look at the history HERE [2],they can see they [[User:ultramarine has removed an entire three paragraph critque of liberal deomcracy and labeled it as removal of a "weasal statement".Solidusspriggan 02:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

There were no references. I find it strange that you want to keep this when you removed the material added by me that did mention the sources.Ultramarine 02:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority of registered and anon editors prefer the current version, please do not change back to tangental version of user:ultramarine. Editing the liberal democracy article like a dictator sure is ironic. only user ultramarine is reverting to his prefered version while everyone else seems to think the other version is more appropriate. Anything can be sourced, if wikipedia was merely a repository for all the information on the internet then there would be no need for wikipedia, please Wikipedia:Stay on topic Solidusspriggan 03:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Give sources, do not remove unsourced material.Ultramarine 08:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Bourgeois Democracy

Doubtful if this is the same as liberal democracy. Marx used the term and spoke of the very limited democracy that existed in his time that excluded most people. Please provide a source for that liberal democracy is the same thing.Ultramarine 02:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of sourced material

Again, do not delete sourced material. Ultramarine 13:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The praise and apology for those qouted in response to criticisms is unneeded. We do not need to add all of someone's fame and merit in an article that is not about them. This is not following the Stay on Topic wikipedia policy as [user:Solidusspriggan|SolidusSpriggan]] has pointed out: "wikipedia is not a repository for all the information on the internet." Anything can be sourced, the addition of information from vast internet sources could go on forever and all the wikipedia articles would be unnavigable. Furthermore, we must not fill the "critique" section with more positive than negative information. This is a blatent violation of NPOV. Most of the advocations for liberal democracy are self evident in the primary text in the article. Please leave version current. The article is more than complete.GeorgeSears 15:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Amartya Sen

Any treatment of Amartya Sen which ignores the extent to which his paper on famine intends to blame the Bengal famine of 1943-4 on British colonialism, like the Irish famine of 1846 is misrepresentation. I post the maltreated text below text below, in the hope that some compromise can be found:

According to Amartya Sen: No substantial famine has ever occurred in any independent and democratic country with a relatively free press; since his principal area of interest here is British colonialism, he is denying that the United Kingdom was a single country in 1846. The study of the disputed democratic peace theory also claim that war between liberal democracies is vanishingly rare; and that lesser conflicts are less common. Democracy and parliamentary systems have been supported to check corruption since William Cobbett's time; see also [3]. The World Bank has also published research asserting that democracies have fewer civil wars [4]; the World Bank promotes capitalism and privatization, in many cases at the expense of the well being of nations and individuals.[5]

I note Ultramarine's sterile reversions against consensus. This link goes to Sen's paper on the subject. Septentrionalis 20:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC) I suggest reverting to the version of the article before the critique section became ultramarine's personal theater of edit war some weeks ago. Solidusspriggan 22:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Your link to Amartya Sen's article do not mention 1846 or your claim regarding UK. I guess your are trying to argue something regarding the famine that year in Ireland. But the UK was not a liberal democray before Representation of the People Act 1884 and maybe not even then.Ultramarine 15:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Please stop guessing and read Sen's paper, especially the phrase "the famines in Ireland or India under alien rule" (italics mine). He is, naturally, primarily interested in British responsibility for the Bengali famine. Septentrionalis 00:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
This paper is of course not Amartya Sen's main work and presentation of arguments. They are in his published books. Again, the 1846 famine is uninteresting. The UK was not a liberal democray before Representation of the People Act 1884 and maybe not even then. Ultramarine 02:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
That is to say, it doesn't interest you. Identification of sources by tendency is, however, Wikipedia policy. The date and nature of British liberalism and democracy is something on which there are many views; Wikipedia should, of course, represent all of them. Dean Babst, for example, regarded British elective government as beginning in 1832 or possibly 1841; some would date it earlier. Septentrionalis 02:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I have included a section about the this dependes on the definiton used.Ultramarine 11:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

For me it is not about Sen, so I could live with the following text:

Some supporters claim as an advantage of liberal democracy (as defined above) that no substantial famine has ever occurred in any independent and democratic country with a relatively free press[1], including civil wars[2]. They say that research also shows that democracy, parliamentary systems, political stability, and freedom of the press are all associated with lower corruption[3].

With this text we stay on topic, with a [{Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutral point of few, not being incorrect or poorly cited. Since furthermore I am not participating in a edit war, there is no reason not add this text. BTW: the negative critique in this section could use some references. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 12:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Sen

Is it really very relevant to the article to discuss and criticize Sen. Couldn't we exclude that section. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 07:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes I believe we could, I think we should revert the entire thing to this version, before the edit war that created this terrible tangent began, the article was clean and presented multiple viewpoints,[6] In the ultramarines interest it really was already pro-liberal democracy in the first place, he just went in and made it super biased, adding more and more, which i tried to balance, but to no end, he just kept adding more and more support until a huge off topic critque came about, so i tried to at least lower the tangental material w/o detracting from his biased viewpoint so he would leave it alone, but still to no avail, he added more and more about Sen, the simple truth is if you look at the edit history there are 2 versions that are being switched between, and about 5 or 6 editors switch to one, while ultramarine is the only editor reverting to his preferred version. Just put it back how it was liek so [[7]] Solidusspriggan 08:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

If nothing else, just delete this tangential section

According to Amartya Sen: No substantial famine has ever occurred in any independent and democratic country with a relatively free press; since his principal area of interest here is British colonialism, he is denying that the United Kingdom was a single country in 1846. The study of the disputed democratic peace theory also claim that war between liberal democracies is vanishingly rare; and that lesser conflicts are less common. Democracy and parliamentary systems have been supported to check corruption since William Cobbett's time; see also [3]. The World Bank has also published research asserting that democracies have fewer civil wars [4]; the World Bank promotes capitalism and privatization, in many cases at the expense of the well being of nations and individuals.[5]

Obviously POV to only include criticisms. Several of the editors deleting this were anonymous editors and this was their first edit in Wikipedia. Why should Marxists be allowd to criticize liberal democracy and supporters not be allowed to respond? Ultramarine 11:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Solidus is right. With the excception of the criticism section, the entire article is extremely pro-liberal democracy, the criticism section is the one section where the other view is stated, to add more pro statements would make it more pov in favor of supporters than it already is. GeorgeSears 23:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


Great, it is all fixed up now. Leave it be.

"Open society"

Why should this be included? Seems to be strange original research.

"The concept of an open society is closely related to liberal democracies. Since many liberals see democracies with strong statist reflections through the public choice theory as slow, dogmatic, conservative and not too apt for change, the liberal democracy contrasts with what could be called the "statist" democracy in that it emphasizes the civil society as the engine of its public discourse and development further.

All in all, liberal democrats often simply see the civil society as exactly the best way to satisfy the private, cultural and communitarian preferences of minorities (as well as majorities). Democratically supporting the arts, private communities, sports leagues or other associations in the civil society is seen by them to boost the majorities' preferences, either willingly or unwillingly by the policy makers." Ultramarine 12:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe all of this can be sourced to Popper himself; it's an incomplete account of the open society, but I've tried to fix that. Septentrionalis 17:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
    • "All in all, liberal democrats often simply see the civil society as exactly the best way to satisfy the private, cultural and communitarian preferences of minorities (as well as majorities). Democratically supporting the arts, private communities, sports leagues or other associations in the civil society is seen by them to boost the majorities' preferences, either willingly or unwillingly by the policy makers." Still very strange. "exactly the best way"? "willingly or unwillingly"? What is "Democratically supporting". Ultramarine 03:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Electoral democracy

In addition to the strange section about "open society", the anti-democracy version also contains a factual error regrading electoral democracy, "score of 4 or better is considered an electoral democracy". See the correct version for clarification. Ultramarine 03:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Ultramarine, what you need the GW System, you are a marine, so why don't you grab an MGR and take it from the Navy?

Neutrality and factual accuracy

  • Some opponents of liberal democracy are insisting to reverting to a POV and factually incorrect version. They insist that an electoral democracy is defined by Freedom House as "score of 4 or better", there are several countries in the Freedom House article that score this without being classified as an electoral democracy. The correct description from the other version:

Which countries are liberal democracies?

This map reflects the findings of Freedom House's 2006 survey Freedom in the World, concerning the state of world freedom in 2005. In the survey, all Free countries qualify as liberal democracies.[1]      Free      Partly Free      Not Free
This map reflects the findings of Freedom House's 2006 survey Freedom in the World, concerning the state of world freedom in 2005. In the survey, all Free countries qualify as liberal democracies.[1]      Free      Partly Free      Not Free

Political scientists generally use certain well-established data sets to measure whether or not a country is democratic, or how close or far off from democracy it is. The Polity data set and the Freedom House data sets are two examples. Australia, Canada, the member states of the European Union, Iceland, India, Japan, New Zealand, the Philippines, Norway, Brazil and the United States are all examples of liberal democracies in both the Polity and Freedom House data sets.

Freedom House: "Countries and territories that receive a rating of 1 come closest to the ideals expressed in the civil liberties checklist, including freedom of expression, assembly, association, education, and religion. They are distinguished by an established and generally equitable system of rule of law. Countries and territories with this rating enjoy free economic activity and tend to strive for equality of opportunity."

"Countries and territories that receive a rating of 1 for political rights come closest to the ideals suggested by the checklist questions, beginning with free and fair elections. Those who are elected rule, there are competitive parties or other political groupings, and the opposition plays an important role and has actual power. Minority groups have reasonable self-government or can participate in the government through informal consensus."

"Freedom House's term "electoral democracy" differs from "liberal democracy" in that the latter also implies the presence of a substantial array of civil liberties. In the survey, all Free countries qualify as both electoral and liberal democracies. By contrast, some Partly Free countries qualify as electoral, but not liberal, democracies."[8]

  • Furthermore, they violate NPOV by exluding supporting arguments:

Support

Supporters state that much research supports the idea that liberal democracy is beneficial. According to Amartya Sen, winner of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics: No substantial famine has ever occurred in any independent and democratic country with a relatively free press. Although this depends on how inclusive democracy is. If one considers the United Kingdom to be a liberal democracy before the Representation of the People Act 1884, then there are exceptions like the Irish Potato Famine (1845-1849). Supporters of the disputed democratic peace theory argue that there have been no wars between liberal democracies and that lesser conflicts are rare. They say that research also shows that democracy, parliamentary systems, political stability, and freedom of the press are all associated with lower corruption[9] and that most democratic states have few civil wars [10]. Opponents consider it to be of note however that the World Bank, from which this last information comes, promotes ideals such as capitalism and privatization, which they argue in many cases at the expense of the well being of nations and individuals.[11] Some supporters note that a higher total score on the Freedom House ranking is associated with higher average self-reported happiness in a nation[12] and refer to research by R. J. Rummel who finds that more democratic states have less democide, with the highest death toll by the government being in authoritarian states such as the colonial Congo Free State[13] [14].

Supporters argue that a liberal democracy is preferable to a direct democracy. It can guarantee the individual liberties of its citizens and prevent the development into a dictatorship. Unmoderated majority rule could, in this view, lead to an oppression of minorities. Still, some argue that adding more referenda and plebiscites would be beneficial. E-democracy may allow a system blending the characteristics of direct and representative democracy.

  • They also insist on including this strange original research:

"All in all, liberal democrats often simply see the civil society as exactly the best way to satisfy the private, cultural and communitarian preferences of minorities (as well as majorities). Democratically supporting the arts, private communities, sports leagues or other associations in the civil society is seen by them to boost the majorities' preferences, either willingly or unwillingly by the policy makers." Ultramarine 10:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Reaction

See the following section for my opinion on the texts. But I cannot follow Ultramarine in his view that the article wouldn't be neutral and accurate without these text. I appeal to both sides to be more flexible in allowing positive and negative critique in the article. At the moment I would favour deleting the Neutrality and factual accuracy-warning. If not, I would like to know what is not neutral or factual accurate in the text as it stands now. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 11:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Question

What would be against the following texts added to the article:

Supporters argue that a liberal democracy is preferable to a direct democracy. They argue that it can guarantee the individual liberties of its citizens and prevent the development into a dictatorship. Unmoderated majority rule could, in this view, lead to an oppression of minorities. Still, some argue that adding more referenda and plebiscites would be beneficial. E-democracy may allow a system blending the characteristics of direct and representative democracy.

and

Supporters state that much research supports the idea that liberal democracy is beneficial. According to Amartya Sen, winner of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics: No substantial famine has ever occurred in any independent and democratic country with a relatively free press.[4]Supporters of the disputed democratic peace theory argue that there have been no wars between liberal democracies and that lesser conflicts are rare. They say that research also shows that democracy, parliamentary systems, political stability, and freedom of the press are all associated with lower corruption[5] and that most democratic states have few civil wars[6]. Opponents consider it to be of note however that the World Bank, from which this last information comes, promotes ideals such as capitalism and privatization, which they argue in many cases at the expense of the well being of nations and individuals.[7]

The last text would lead to the following extra references:

  1. ^ Amartya Sen</a>. In addition, supporters argue that war between liberal democracies is vanishingly rare and that lesser conflicts are less common<ref>The disputed [[democratic peace territory]]</li> <li id="cite_note-1">'''[[#cite_ref-1|^]]''' [Håvard Hegre, Tanja Ellingsen, Scott Gates and Nils Petter Gleditsch: "Towards A Democratic Civil Peace? Opportunity, Grievance, and Civil War 1816-1992" in American Political Science Review (March) 95: 1 at [http://www.worldbank.org/research/conflict/papers/peace.htm www.worldbank.org]</li> <li id="cite_note-2">'''[[#cite_ref-2|^]]''' Lederman, Daniel, Loayza, Norman and Reis Soares, Rodrigo: "Accountability and Corruption: Political Institutions Matter" (November 2001). World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 2708. at [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=632777 papers.ssrn.com]</li> <li id="cite_note-3">'''[[#cite_ref-3|^]]''' Although this depends on how inclusive democracy is. If one considers the United Kingdom to be a liberal democracy before the [[Representation of the People Act 1884]], then there are exceptions like the [[Irish Potato Famine (1845-1849)]].</li> <li id="cite_note-4">'''[[#cite_ref-4|^]]''' Lederman, Daniel, Loayza, Norman and Reis Soares, Rodrigo: "Accountability and Corruption: Political Institutions Matter" (November 2001). World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 2708. at [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=632777 papers.ssrn.com]</li> <li id="cite_note-5">'''[[#cite_ref-5|^]]''' [Håvard Hegre, Tanja Ellingsen, Scott Gates and Nils Petter Gleditsch: "Towards A Democratic Civil Peace? Opportunity, Grievance, and Civil War 1816-1992" in American Political Science Review (March) 95: 1 at [http://www.worldbank.org/research/conflict/papers/peace.htm www.worldbank.org]</li> <li id="cite_note-6">'''[[#cite_ref-6|^]]''' Stehanie Black: "LIFE and DEBT" at [http://www.pbs.org/pov/pov2001/lifeanddebt/moreabouttheissues.html#worldbank www.pbs.org]</li></ol></ref> It is a part of the text in the previous section. I cannot see what is not neutral or not accurate about it. Furthermore an entry must be balanced. The first sections (intro, Preconditions and structure, Rights and freedoms and Essentials of liberal democracies) are descriptive, neutral, Critique is opposing and Relation to indirect democracy as well as Liberal democracies around the world are descriptive. A paragraph with positive critique does fit in well and does not make the article not neutral. I would really consider it an improvement of the article. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 10:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC) The article is quite fine as it is, I really appreciate your improvements wilfried. As you can see by the edit history almost every single registered and anon editor involved in the editing of this article has revert ultramarines edits. The article is in good shape thanks to you. Please do not worry about the totally disputed tag, as it is a common tactic of the user:ultramarine to add a totally disputed tag when everyone will not allow him his preferred version. It has come to the point that any totally disputed tag set by ultramarine is not taken seriously by the wikipedia community. He has already had one RfA and should be deserving another as he constantly does the following.
    1. adding tangental information
    2. adding biased information
    3. adding incorrect information
    4. adding poorly cited information
    5. participating in Edit wars
    See similar disputes in Dictatorship of the Proletatiat, Lenin, and Stalin. I have talked with user:GeorgeSears and he agrees. we are removing the tag. Solidusspriggan 00:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
    Several of the earlier editors were anonymous with very few edits and for some it was their first edit in Wikipedia. Are you and GeorgeSears the same person, he has very few edits but seems to edit the same articles that you do?
    Spare me the incivility and the ad hominem. Please discuss arguments, not persons. What are your objections to Wilfried Derksen's proposed addition and his arguments? Ultramarine 00:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
    Please do not question my existence, it is rude. GeorgeSears 20:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC) George Sears is a friend of mine who happens to have more authority on these subjects than either of us. He works at the university that I attend in a the political science department, I frequent his office and send him IMs wikipedia issues every now and then, we have discussions on the topics and more than not we are in agreement and I look up to him for his scholarly character and honesty. Is that a problem? I suggest you stop criticizing other editors regardless of their number of edits, if everyone's first edit were considered illigitimate then nothing would ever get done here. It is quite hypocritical to complain about incivility and ad hominem attacks while you simultaneously carry out the same actions against every editor that opposes you whether they are anon or registered. The simple truth is there were not issues until you:
    1. added tangential information
    2. added biased information
    3. added incorrect information
    4. added poorly cited information
    5. participated in an Edit war against the entire world
    within this article. The article is in good shape after the recent additions by wilfried dirkson, this editor also seems to be concerned with upholding the integrity of wikipedia. There are also quite a few non-anon editors with a history of editing, you sir are the ONLY one that continues to revert to your preferred version which deletes the criticisms section and adds a support section to an article which is already entirely supportive of itself with the exception of the critique section. It is a small section that shows the other side. It is more fair and balanced than Fox News(humor). Solidusspriggan 07:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC) Dear Solidusspriggan, you didn't answer my question. The article might be fine, but it can be improved. I certainly think the suggestions I do, are improvements and neutral. It doesn't make the article unbalanced and nobody argued against it. So I plan to add the second paragraph of the text. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 08:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
    This paragraph is off topic for this article, and it misrepresents Amartya Sen's position, which is that Ireland (like Bengal in 1943) was not independent. I shall therefore be removing it. Septentrionalis 18:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
    I agree, the amartya sen reference is off topic, it is highly tangential and misrepresentative. Also i do not think economic institutions such as the World Bank and IMO should be referenced here. These are organizations whose primary function is of monetary concern. Also, just by looking at the sheer amount of text that is in defence of the system versus the critical points it is obvious that it is now a non-neutral article. GeorgeSears 20:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
    Obviously pov to only present the arguments from one side. Sen's position is not misrepresented.Ultramarine 22:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
    The famines in Iraland and India under alien rule. [15] The entire article is a description of destructive effect of British imperialism, not the absence of the Third Reform Bill. Septentrionalis 02:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    The misrepresentation reminds me of the sociobiology controversy, the critics and proponents of sociobiology may very well have reason to be upset, but they spend all their time arguing for or against misrepresentations of the others' position to further their political agendas. (some have even used the controversy to popularize their own unrelated theories through publicity in the very same way that some of the information is being represented in this tangential "support" section. Solidusspriggan 02:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    Let I repeat: I cannot see what is not neutral or not accurate about it. Furthermore an entry must be balanced. The first sections (intro, Preconditions and structure, Rights and freedoms and Essentials of liberal democracies) are descriptive, neutral, Critique is opposing and Relation to indirect democracy as well as Liberal democracies around the world are descriptive. A paragraph with positive critique does fit in well and does not make the article not neutral. I would really consider it an improvement of the article. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 23:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
    If it were accurate, it might improve the article. Since it is not, and it is tangential, it is no loss. Septentrionalis 02:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    agreed, Please refer to Stay on Topic Even if it were accurate the tangential nature, such as brief descriptions of each party or person, is not acceptable for this article. Things like Sen's award in economics has nothing to do with the article, it is merely promoting a man and his various honors, detracting from the primary topic of the article. Pmanderson is right on this one. Solidusspriggan 02:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    For me it is not about Sen, so I could live with the following text:
    Some supporters claim as an advantage of liberal democracy (as defined above) that no substantial famine has ever occurred in any independent and democratic country with a relatively free press[1], including civil wars[2]. They say that research also shows that democracy, parliamentary systems, political stability, and freedom of the press are all associated with lower corruption[3].
    With this text we stay on topic, with a [{Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutral point of view]], not being incorrect or poorly cited. Since furthermore I am not participating in a edit war, there is no reason not add this text. BTW: the negative critique in this section could use some references. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 12:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    I think this still needs recasting, and if it is in the article, I propose to try. Septentrionalis 03:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
    Added back sourced information with clarification that this is not arguments for capitalism.Ultramarine 07:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

    Consensus version

    I can agree with the consensus version as it stands now. But I do not understand why the world map cannot be included. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 11:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

    I find the accompanying paragraph misleading and verbose. I am not sure what Ultramarine intends by "well-established"; but there are several of these data-sets, they are inherently subjective, and they can disagree radically. This is Freedom House's opinion; it appears to be relatively moderate, as such things go. Let Solidusspriggan say why he removed it. Septentrionalis 17:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
    by what standards is the modern day Russian Federation not even "partially free" but rather listed as "not free"?

    In the russian constitution it clearly states that everyone shall be guaranteed the many of the freedoms referred to in this article including the most famous on of (as it says in their constitution "ideas and speech". They also hold free elections. As a matter of fact most of the "qualities of liberal democracies" in this article are listed in the russian constitution. At the very least this country should be listed on that map as "partially free", "not free" is just simply not the case. Even venezuala, that gets alot of flak from the current american leadership is listed as "partially free" when from what I understand of the structure of the government that it is not as "free" as Russia.

    A list of freedoms provided by the Constitution of the Russian Federation

    1. Everyone shall be guaranteed the freedom of ideas and speech.
    2. The freedom of mass communication shall be guaranteed. Censorship shall be banned.
    3. No one may be forced to express his views and convictions or to reject them.
    4. The freedom of activity of public association shall be guaranteed.
    5. Citizens of the Russian Federation shall have the right to assemble peacefully, without weapons,
    6. Everyone shall have the right to life.
    7. hold rallies, meetings and demonstrations, marches and pickets.

    The list goes on and on, that was only what I pulled from the first 1/6th of the chapter which describes the freedoms the russian people are entitled to. This is actually a much more moderate form of government than even the United States. I argue that the map is innaccurate for this reason. Furthermore I believe that after finding this innaccuracy, had some of us been familiar with other foreign constitutions, then we may find more discrepencies such as this. Solidusspriggan 20:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

    http://www.constitution.ru/en/10003000-01.htm

    You can read the report for 2005 about Russia here: [16] Ultramarine 20:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
    Did you read that article? I just read it and it doesn't sound to me like the country is not at least "partially free". Remove the map, it is innaccurate even when referrenced in relation to the very Freedom House information from which it is based. It is also innaccurate when comparing the actual constitution of the Russian Federation to the listed qualities in the article. Russia may not be a Liberal democracy but they are far from the opposite and definitely not "not free". As a matter of fact I would argue that they are "free" by Freedom House standards since the very few isolated examples of impedament of freedoms by the russian government given in the article are hardly different than similar isolated cases in the United States, which I am sure we all would consider "free". Solidusspriggan 21:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
    This is your opinion. Please read about Wikipedia:No original research. Ultramarine 21:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
    I think you have failed to seperate out multiple points in the last paragraph. Some of the information may be my opinion however it is not my opinion that "the map is innaccurate even when referrenced in relation to the very Freedom House information from which it is based.", " It is also innaccurate when comparing the actual constitution of the Russian Federation to the listed qualities in the article.". What is my opinion is the latter half of the paragraph beginning with "as a matter of fact I would argue". Oh I see you must have started reading at that point or your mind has selected against retaining the factual information contained in the beginning. Furthermore I doubt you have read the article in question due to your position that the map is accurate and helpful.Solidusspriggan 21:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
    Lots of opinions here without sources. That is original research. Publish something outside Wikipedia, then it can be included in Wikipedia.Ultramarine 22:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
    You obviously aren't reading the talk page. It is not an opinion that the Russian constitution allows for specific freedoms. It is also not an opinion the the Freedom House itself recognizes these freedoms and still marks Russia as "not free". From now on please read the my full comment before you respond with policy violation accusations(especially considering you refuse to have a real time debate with me and will only communicate through the archaic and slow posting method you must read the entire talk page).Solidusspriggan 22:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
    Freedom House have never stated that what the constitution officially states is what is important. What matters is the real-world situation and there Russia have great problems.Ultramarine 22:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
    That is original research. If we are to avoid biased, innaccurate or original research then we must refer directly to the source, which is that of the Russian Constitution. The map misrepresents russian government.Solidusspriggan 22:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
    Please edit in good faith. The Freedom House map is not a map of constitutional freedoms, but of real-world freedom. Ultramarine 22:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
    Those constitutional freedoms are real world freedoms, if that were not the case then they would be declared unconstitutional obviously. I feel that you still have not read my comments fully.Solidusspriggan 22:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
    Again, please edit in good faith. Freedom House has published a well-respected view of the state of democracy in the world. Your opinions is your original research which is not allowed in Wikipedia.Ultramarine 08:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

    Furthermore I question the inclusion of information from research sponsered by the World Bank. The WB and IMF have specific political and economic agendas and many times are detrimental to societies as seen during the argentinine crisis of the early 21st century.

    This is your view and the source is mentioned. Note that the bank is owned by 184 nations, not corporations, including both democracies and non-democracies. Its research is widely quoted. Ultramarine 20:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
    It is actually not my view, but rather a popular view. The research of Eugenists is widely quoted . Using research of this sort to justify political and economic action is dangerous however and widely disrespected within the academic community. I suggest you look into the even of Argentina's involvment with the IMF/World Bank.
    The International Monetary Fund and World Bank build "Country Assistance Strategies" around their involvement with nations. For the 100-plus that rely on IMF and World Bank loans - countries such as Argentina, Tanzania, Ecuador, Sierra Leone - such agreements serve as de facto legislation, meticulous in detail and ideological in thrust. Although couched as loan conditions or as helpful development advice, these reports more closely resemble the minutes of a financial coup d'etat.

    Solidusspriggan 21:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

    At the World Bank's urging, Argentina partially privatized even its social security system, diverting much of it into private accounts. The US-based Center for Economic and Policy Research calculated the revenue loss from this decision alone to be almost equal to the nation's budget deficit during the period. The World Bank further coerced the government into decentralizing collective bargaining and reducing the power of labor unions. Labor unions are a quintessential example of democracy in action and to lessen their power is to promote oligarchy and oppression.Solidusspriggan 21:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
    It could equally be argued that Marxism has caused great suffering and therefore Marxists should not be allowed as a source. I think few have criticized the Bank for advocating democracy, this is not part of their policy :) Importantly, that the researchers may have some connection with the Bank does not invalidate the research. The results have also been published in outside journals. Ultramarine 21:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

    Marxism hasn't caused great suffering, I have no idea what you are talking about. Marxist may have caused suffering just as christians, democrats, republicans, maoists, muslims, etc...but that is another matter, these are people and societies causeing suffering, there is no part of marxist doctrine which allows for the causation of suffering by the government in an established socialist state. Furthermore, it is the case that capitalism is inevitably heirarchical creating power differentials where marxism is innately egalitarian.

    We have all worked very hard to form this consensus version, the version was agreed to be very good before the massive amount of edits recently made by ultramarine. I would ask that ultramarine please not undertake massive restructuring and change of nature of the article without discussion on the talk page. What I did was not blanking, but a responsible deletion of what ultramarine had made at least 10 edits making separating the contributions very difficult. Please discuss major structure changes to the article before making them. Solidusspriggan 05:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

    Map

    Solidusspriggan objects that the map misrepresents Russia as not free; whatever one thinks of Putin's Russia, it is very different from North Korea or the Yezhovshchina.

    I think something really has to be done. I see three options:

    1. Add a long and OT discussion of Putin's Russia, which would be difficult to source.
    2. Add a boldface disclaimer to the map caption, like Several of the assessments on this map are bitterly disputed.
    3. Remove it altogether.

    I am not in favor of (1), but it is a logical possibility. Septentrionalis 21:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

    The map is a visible claim; it needs an equally visible disclaimer. Septentrionalis 15:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
    Now Wikipedia is not built on original research. What source do you have for Russia being a liberal democracy? Ultramarine 15:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
    Rudolph J. Rummel; see the map linked to in his article. Even if I were confined to more reliable sources, all one needs to show is that the "not free" claim is disputable, which is obvious. Septentrionalis 15:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
    His map marks Russia as undemocratic. What is your point? Ultramarine 15:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

    "Highly correlated" is a technical term, which Ultramarine does not appear to understand. Two lists of democracies, which differ by 50%, may still be highly correlated - if democracies are about a quarter of all states, as is the historic norm, they will agree on 3/4 of all states (5/8 non-democracies and 1/8 democracies). In fact, Wayman includes both the lists Spiro mentioned, and relies on one of them.

    I also agree, as above, that Freedom House's picks are reasonable. But their list is not consensus; no list is.

    None of this, therefore, answers Solidus's objection that the map, which represents one specific set of opinions, needs caution to be neutral. I will make one more try before labelling this another hopelessly PoV Politics article, of the sort which gives WP a bad name. Septentrionalis 20:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

    It's not Wiki's job to define liberal democracy. It's our job to report what specialists say about it. Freedom House is one of the leading agencies and its reports need to be included. And the map. If there is an alternative map by some other agency it can go in too. Rjensen 21:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
    Here is the well-referenced material that that Septentrionalis is constantly deleting, regarding the different democracy classification: "However, they are all slightly varying measures of the basic underlying dimension of being a liberal state. They are all highly correlated with each other, and are usually in agreement in classifying particular governments." [17] Ultramarine 21:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
    Ultramarine successfully copied and pasted this text. That's why I removed it - as plagiarism. Septentrionalis 22:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
    Citing a few sentences is allowed as fair use. Ultramarine 22:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

    I don't object on copyright grounds. I object to taking Wayman's prose as WP's own, out of context, without credit for the words, in an effort to make a point with which Wayman would not agree. Septentrionalis 22:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

    Here is the complete paragraph. What point do you disagree with: "In this paper, I conceive of these different definitions of free states, from Doyle to Polity to Freedom House, as all being slightly varying measures of the basic underlying dimension of being a liberal state. They are all highly correlated with each other, and are usually in agreement in classifying particular governments. I use Doyle's because it goes back the farthest (I need to get back to 1816), and, when Doyle stops (in 1982) I update his ratings with Freedom House rankings, which go more up to the present than any other pertinent measure. In the decade on which they overlap (1972 to 1982), Freedom House and Doyle's (1986) ratings are highly consistent with each other." Ultramarine 22:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

    The context is the entire paper, Ultramarine. You are attempting to make Wayman say that these differences are trivial, and they are not; nor does he say so. This is another example of the variation of purpose and method of which Wayman does speak: It matters to Solidus whether Russia is "not free" or "partially free". It should matter to Wikipedia, because it matters to him. For Wayman's purpose, correlation studies, this one-point divergence would be unimportant. Septentrionalis 23:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
    can someone give a few examples of countries where the ratings are "radically" different." Rjensen 23:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

    Sorry I missed this. It will take me a while to answer properly. Three lists are most important:

    • Freedom House[18]
    • Doyle, to which Wayman compares it above.
    • A yes/no version of Ted Gurr's list (mentioned in the text), which Spiro compares to Doyle.
      • Gurr ranks "democracy" and "autocracy" on 0 to 10 scales. There are several ways to reduce these figures to Liberal Democracy/Not LD
      • Gurr's list has had two new editions since, which have changed some figures.

    These lists overlap for 1972-1982

    For now, this example:

    • Freedom House and Doyle count France as free under Mitterand. The Gurr list disagrees. Septentrionalis 20:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

    later:

    • Freedom House counts Argentina as Free in 1973, PF in 1972, 1974-5. Doyle never considers it free.
    • Freedom House considers Cyprus Free for 1972-3 and 1981; PF for the rest of the period. Doyle counts it not free.
    • Doyle considers the Dominican Republic Free for 1978 onwards. FH adds 1972-3. Gurr considers it Not Free throughout.
    • Freedom House considers El Salvador Free 1972-75, and PF the rest of the period. Gurr considers it Free 1981-2 and NF the rest of the period. Doyle considers it NF throughout.

    That should be enough. I haven't looked at the rest of the alphabet; and I haven't checked all of A-F. None of these results is unreasonable or indefensible, but they do differ. Septentrionalis 20:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

    The option of describing in detail various political and social systems of russia would result in the need for such descriptions of many other nations, making this article highly tangential. The boldface disclaimer should be avoided for the good of wikipedia, as the neither the map nor the disclaimer are at all necessary in explaining liberal democracy to the reader, and in fact both would actually detract from the article in their own ways. The above information shows the differing opinions among authorities on the topic. Because of these discrepencies I move the map not be included due to the fact that it only displays one representation of one of the many conflicting interpretations of the of "freedom" of each country. Solidusspriggan 07:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

    Some evidence has been presented that there are differences. None has been shown that they are highly significant. The world has numerous nations. Again, from a person who has actually compared them statistically: ""In this paper, I conceive of these different definitions of free states, from Doyle to Polity to Freedom House, as all being slightly varying measures of the basic underlying dimension of being a liberal state. They are all highly correlated with each other, and are usually in agreement in classifying particular governments. I use Doyle's because it goes back the farthest (I need to get back to 1816), and, when Doyle stops (in 1982) I update his ratings with Freedom House rankings, which go more up to the present than any other pertinent measure. In the decade on which they overlap (1972 to 1982), Freedom House and Doyle's (1986) ratings are highly consistent with each other." Ultramarine 10:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
    Please do not cut and paste the same texts over and over again. The difference between France under Mitterrand being free or not free is certainly important. Wayman's correlations are not the subject of this article. Septentrionalis 20:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

    So then do you support the detailed description of russian politics and society? Solidusspriggan 19:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

    I also object, because I don't find my country - Bulgaria - as a free and liberal democratic country. Bulgaria has severe economical and corruption problems and the authorites are overstraining, pardon me, their control over the people. Elan Morin Tedronai 20:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

    The article is only showing the rankings of Freedom House. Regarding their ranking of Bulgaria, see [19].Ultramarine 20:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

    Constitutionalism necessary?

    Is it really a definitional necessity that a liberal democracy have a constitution that protects individual liberty? I dispute that. A democratically elected leader may choose to not violate individual liberty even if he's not bound by law to do so. That would still be a liberal democracy. RJII 04:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

    democratically elected leaders can be--and often were--tyrants. Some sort of constitutional protection is needed to guarantee the "liberal" dimension. Rjensen 05:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    Yes, democractically elected leaders can be tyrants. But, democratically elected leaders may also choose to not to violate individual liberty even if there is no constitution preventing them from violating that liberty. I would think that all that is required for a democracy to be a liberal democracy is that people vote and the rulers allow individual liberty --constitution or not. RJII 05:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    Ok, just looking around the net, the sources seem to agree. Though it doesn't count for anything, if it was up to me, I'd define it differently. It's prudent to have a constitution that guarantees individual liberty, but it's not a logically necessary prerequisite of having individual liberty --because it's always possible that the elected head of state is benevolent by choice. RJII 05:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    I agree with you, Australia has no bill of rights and only the flimsiest allusion to religious freedom in its constitution, yet noone would deny that it is a liberal democracy. - Randwicked Alex B 14:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

    Blanking

    Please stop making large scale blanking of referenced information. Add sourced oppposing views if you disagree. Note that this is not new material, but simply material that was previously at the Democracy article and moved here since it assumes a liberal democracy.Ultramarine 05:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

    PLEASE LEAVE IT IN THE DEMOCRACY ARTICLE. There was much debate to form consensus on this article. Not only have you added information from the democracy article but you have downplayed the disclaimer on the map that everyone but you seems to agree with. I cannot stand by and allow this terrible violation of consensus after such long deliberations. Wikipedia integrity is being compromised.

    Please, do not shout. It does not give a good impression. Again, if your disagree with anything, add your own sourced arguements.Ultramarine 10:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

    I disagree with moving information between articles after consensus was reached.

    Nothing in wikipedia policy states that one version is holy and must not be changed. What polikcy are you refering to? Articles are improved by adding more sourced information. That is how Wikpedia grows. The added info comes from the Democracy article and was moved here since it is about this particular form of democracy. Again, if you disagree with the information, give sources. Blanking of large sections with sourced information is not acceptable.
    Also, 129.15.127.254, is that you, Solidusspriggan? Ultramarine 19:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

    nope, not me, furthermore we have had a discussion about "adding sourced material" you add any sourced material no matter how dubious the source or how tangential the material. The main problem I have with this is that you took the emphasis of the dispute on the map we discussed at such length. Please leave the bold lettering on the map disute or remove the map!

    Ok. You have put up a tag disputing the Neutrality and Factual accuracy of the "Advantages and disadvantages of liberal democracy section". Lets start with factual accuracy. What is incorrect? Ultramarine 22:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

    I regret to see that Ultramarine has restored his specious citation from Wayman. Wayman's lists of democracies differ by as much as half (Spiro, David E. (1994). "Give Democratic Peace a Chance? The Insignificance of the Liberal Peace". International Security (Vol. 19, No. 2. (Autumn, 1994)): 50-86. ). This remains "highly correlated" in the mathematical sense, since they do agree on some democracies and large numbers of non-democracies; but it is misleading to the point of dishonesty. Septentrionalis 01:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

    The list commonly used do not differ much. "This article compares three measures of democracy: Polity IV, Polyarchy 1.2, and Freedom House. First, they are three of the most widely used measures in democratization research (Munck and Verkuilen forthcoming). Second, they are the most similar in that all three consciously start from Dahl's definition of democracy. Finally, these three measures are highly correlated with each other (ranging between .85and .92)." [20]Ultramarine 01:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
    a correlation coefficient of .85 implies vast differences in the lists of democracies, as we discussed the last time this sophistry was presented for WP text. Septentrionalis 02:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
    The lists Spiro cites include obscure ones. The ones commonly used do not have large differences.Ultramarine 02:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
    Spiro's comparison, cited, uses two lists; both of which Wayman uses in the paper here cited. It is a desperate cause which requires defense by lies. Septentrionalis 02:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
    The ones commonly used are Freedom House and Polity. Please state the ones Spiro uses.Ultramarine 02:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
    If you don't know, on what basis do you call them obscure? Septentrionalis 02:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
    I do know them. Doyle's list and Freedom House. Doyle's is obscure. Again, "This article compares three measures of democracy: Polity IV, Polyarchy 1.2, and Freedom House. First, they are three of the most widely used measures in democratization research (Munck and Verkuilen forthcoming). Second, they are the most similar in that all three consciously start from Dahl's definition of democracy. Finally, these three measures are highly correlated with each other (ranging between .85and .92)." [21]Ultramarine 02:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

    Last time there was a dispute with freedom house findings you provided a link to an article that explained nothing of those measures of democracy, hence the disputed tags on the maps. It seems that your reliance on Freedom House and the World Bank are too high, you need to find some sources from reputable research instituations that have no goals other than research. The politcal, economic, and social aspirations of the organizations you are citing skews their research.

    The examples above show as much difference between Freedom House and the Policy Set as either is from Doyle. The present text is dishonest and misleading. Enough of it. Septentrionalis 00:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

    If the extent of correlation is being mentioned to suggest essential identity, this is fraudulent use of statistics. If it is being mentioned for some other purpose, that purpose should be clarified. Septentrionalis 01:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

    "Unbalanced"

    A template claims that a section is "Unbalanced". Please explain.Ultramarine 04:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

    Self evident, If you need an explanation you need not be editing the wikipedia.

    —Preceding unsigned comment added by Solidusspriggan (talk • contribs)

    I must agree: three maps and other sourcing from Freedom House is excessive; and would be doubtful even if they were no0t an advocacy group. Two of them are OT here anyway. Septentrionalis 18:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
    Hm, the template links to WP:NPOV#Undue weight. I can see at most 2 maps related to Freedom House and the organization it only mentioned in this section. As a very often used ranking regarding worldwide democracy, I do not see how it is given undue weight. Exactly what views are excluded or given to little weight?Ultramarine 20:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

    Plagiarism

    Really, Ultramarine, this will not do; the permission in WP:Copyvio to quote sentences is to permit acknowledged quotations from original works, in order to comment on them. Thus, for example, the transformation of

    Summary: 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.

    into

    Even if economic growth has caused democratization in the past, it may not do so in the future. Some evidence suggests that savvy autocrats may have learned how to cut the cord between growth and freedom, enjoying the benefits of the former without the risks of the latter.

    Is theft of Professor Mequita and Downes' wording. Read, understand, and explain; don't steal. Septentrionalis 19:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

    The exact phrasing of WP:Copyvio is Under fair use guideline, brief selections of copyrighted text may be used, but only with full attribution and only when the purpose is to comment on or criticize the text quoted. This fulfills neither condition. Septentrionalis 19:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

    Restated text. Copyright does not extend to ideas and data from studies.Ultramarine 19:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    All three of these are unacknowledged quotations, which is a violation of copyright. This breach of policy endangers Wikipedia. Please stop. I quote the Carnegie copyright notice:
    • © 2006 Carnegie Council on Ethics and International Affairs. No material on this site may be used in part or in whole by any other publication or website without the written permission of the Carnegie Council.
    Septentrionalis 19:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    Standard copyright notice. Again, Copyright does not extend to ideas and data from studies.Ultramarine 19:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

    More examples:

    If leaving out East Asia, then during the last forty-five years poor democracies have grown their economies 50% more rapidly than nondemocracies. Poor democracies such as the Baltic countries, Botswana, Costa Rica, Ghana, and Senegal have grown more rapidly than nondemocracies such as Angola, Syria, Uzbekistan, and Zimbabwe.[4]

    is from

    If you leave out East Asia, you see that poor democracies have grown 50 percent more rapidly, on average, during this period. The Baltic countries, Botswana, Costa Rica, Ghana, and Senegal have grown more rapidly than the Angolas, the Syrias, the Uzbekistans, and the Zimbabwes of the world.

    Note that Ultramarine's efforts to hide his thefts have altered the force of his original.

    Of the eighty worst financial catastrophes during the last four decades, only five were in democracies. Similarly, poor democracies are half likely as autocracies to experience a 10 percent contraction in GDP per capita.

    is from

    If we look at financial catastrophes for each of the last four decades and look at the twenty worst performers over each of those decades, we find that of eighty cases, only five are democracies. Similarly, if you look at a 10 percent contraction in GDP per capita on an annual basis, you find that poor democracies are half as likely to experience this sort of acute recession as are autocracies.

    Again, ideas, concepts, principles, or discoveries cannot be copyrighted, see [22], and paraphrasing or summarizing is not copyright infringement, see [23]. Ultramarine 10:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

    Words can be and are; I see that Ultramarine has admitted this by ceasing to use his sources' phrasing. Septentrionalis 17:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

    Neutrality

    What are the reasons for the claim of lacking neutrality for the "Advantages and disadvantages" section? Ultramarine 17:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC) This article is FUBAR!

    Adding more information supporting your view and removing the neutrality and factual accuaracy tag will not suffice. First thing I recommend is that we re-bold the disclaimer on the first map, and add disclaimers back to the other maps. GeorgeSears 14:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
    What is factually incorrect? Why should a disclaimer be bolded? Ultramarine 17:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

    Because it is a makeshift disclaimer, most disclaimers would not only contain bold text but would be surrounded by a brightly colored box indicating the problem. I asked that the maps be removed long ago because of all the inaccuracies within them. Statements which I have shown to be inaccurate by means of quoting various constitutions of many of the countries listed as "not free" and c. What is factually incorrect is that. That is why the disclaimer is there, because that data in the maps is factually incorrect. And ultramarine's constant additions that are promotional of liberal democracy are never countered by an equal number of constant additions that are oppositional to liberal democracy. Liberal democracy itself is a misnomer. Any political scientist would read this article and know that it is totally inaccurate, unbalanced, and mostly a badly arranged propaganda pamphlet. (and if they checked the edit history they would see that that pamphlet has been written primarily by ultramarine, and in gross violation of wikipedia policy to boot). Ultramarine makes so many small additions and so quickly that it is impossible to sort through them, I recommend reverting this article to how it was before ultramarine ever began editing it(that is by default before I started editing it, so don't accuse me of being one sided). Without this revision I know this article will never meet wikipedia standards, and I move that the current version NOT be placed on the wikipedia cd. The article was of a better quality then, even though it was missing lots of informaiton, it had more accurate information and wasn't a soapbox article for ultramarine. As soon as he starts editing a political article it becomes some kind of party platform promo item for him. When is someone going to stop this guy? He is always

    1. adding tangental information
    2. adding biased information
    3. adding incorrect information
    4. adding poorly cited information
    5. participating in Edit wars

    and brags about his RfASolidusspriggan 21:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

    I would be happy to discuss any objections. You may be right, maybe the disclaimer should be in bold. What do you think is missing from the article? Ultramarine 21:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
    The Advantage and Disadvantage section is moade of weasel words and uses other misleading nonspecific language. Perhaps there is no need for such a section in this article.Desmodrome 04:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

    Rename To Liberal Republic

    We all know the disputes with democracy and what democracy really is. Why not use "Liberal Republic" since that term is more accurate? For more information please check these articles: [24] [25] Zachorious 05:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

    I don't understand why Americans say this. The term "liberal democracy" is one universally used by political scientists. In many places in the world, the word republic means a country not governed by a monarch. To use republic as meaning a representative democracy is chiefly an American usage. Lapafrax 20:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    See the discussion on democracy regarding democracy vs. republic. Democracy is the term in common use today and is what is used when doing research.Ultramarine 14:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    Um, half these countries are constitutional monarchies, not republics. - ҉ Randwicked ҉ 14:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    "Liberal democracy" is not an arbitrary term invented by Wikipedia editors. It is standard parlance in the study and practice of international affairs. -Joshuapaquin 20:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

    Neutrality and factual accuracy

    Again, explain what is incorrect and missing, otherwise I will remove the tags.Ultramarine 05:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

    I again ask for explanation. Insisting on templates without explanations are not constructive and does not help Wikipedia.Ultramarine 03:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)