![]() | This page 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. |
Weart has never stated that Syracuse was as democratic as Athens. He states that the only scholar who ever possessed the documents needed study the constitution of Syracuse, Aristotle, carefully avoided calling Syracuse a democracy. One of the main reason for the Sicilian Expedition was that Syracuse was reported to have violent factional strife. Help from an inside group was essential since the Greeks lacked effective siege machinery. In every other known case when cities were betrayed to an Athenian army, it was by a democratic faction. Ultramarine 23:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
These comments are for the benefit of anyone who will read them, not a justification of text. Demands for sources will be ignored, as harassment. Septentrionalis 05:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, Weart does not make claims regarding "city-states" or "republics" only. He talks about democracies in general. And this is another of Pmanderson personal musings: "oligarchs view democracy as government by the bad men, as Theognis put it." Ultramarine 18:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Weart defines "democracy" as a type of republic; see page 12. Not all non-democracies are republics; the oligarchies are, autocracies are not. Weart's argument gives no reason for autocrats to treat each other as in-group, and he denies they can form lasting alliances. (p255ff.) Nor is there any reason for oligarchies to bond with autocrats; and in fact Sparta defied Philip of Macedon, when every other city in Greece capitulated to him. Septentrionalis 16:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Joanne Gowa has presented to most well-known criticism of the theory. Septentrionalis has however presented it incorrectly and in violation of NPOV excluded the counter-arguments.
Pmanderson's text: "Jeanne Gowa analyzed the claims of one of these theorists. She finds that there were so few democracies, by his definition, before 1939 that the claims of the theory are not significant. She also finds that there were only independent, non-allied, Great Powers for a relatively short time before the Entente Cordiale of 1904; and that there were several crises and minor conflicts, between them, in several of which war was popular on both sides. While war was averted in these cases, there was only one war between Powers in that period, and the Spanish-American War was between a democracy and a borderline democracy.) [35] The democratic peace since 1945 she finds significant, but largely explained by the external cause of the Cold War (see below)."
In another section: "Joanne Gowa observes that much of the data used to infer an absolute democratic peace consists of Western democracies not going to war with each other while allied against the Soviet Union, and argues that this offers limited hope that non-allied democracies will remain at peace"
An "absolute democratic peace" theory is something invented by Pmanderson. Some research have found no wars between democracies, with wars having more than 1000 battle deaths. Other research have found fewer MIDs between democracies, with MID being a broader concept including for example a military display of strength with no deaths. Note that this is the findings of many different researchers and studies.
Gowa briefly notes that the Spanish-American war may be an exception to no wars, based on the Polity II classification of Spain in 1898. However, this score has changed in Polity III and IV. Almost all of her criticism is instead against fewer MIDs between democracies. She finds that democracies have fewer MIDs but argues that this is a recent pattern due to the external threat during the Cold War. She argues that before 1914 inter-democratic MIDs were as likely as MIDs involving at least one nondemocracy.
Pmanderson has completely excluded the counter-arguments. "While not statistical evidence, one intuitive counter-argument is that external threat did not prevent wars between the Communist states and did not prevent wars beteen democracies and nondemocracies in the Western bloc." [4]. "More importantly, more recent studies find fewer MIDs between democracies also before the Cold War. [5] [6]. Gowa's theory does not explain the low domestic violence in democracies or why relative military strength does not influence the outcome of crises between democracies. [7] Gowa did not control for alliances, arguing that there are methodological problems. Many studies that have controlled for alliances like NATO show support for the DPT. [8]"
Also, permission to split my comments is not given. Your have previously made the flow of discussion the flow of the discussion unintelligible by doing this. Put your comments after my signature only. Ultramarine 15:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Let me make this short. Ultramarine's account of Gowa is so sketchy and inaccurate that I do not recognize the book. Ray's counterargument ignores the whole structure of her argument. The observation that she did not answer Gelpi's paper, which was published two years after her book was published, is valueless. As for the proposed structure, this is another of Ultramarine's efforts to bias this article by sandwiching any argument he dislikes between counterarguments. Septentrionalis 23:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Joanne Gowa has presented to most well-known criticism of the theory. Septentrionalis has however presented it incorrectly and in violation of NPOV excluded the counter-arguments.
Pmanderson's text: "Jeanne Gowa analyzed the claims of one of these theorists. She finds that there were so few democracies, by his definition, before 1939 that the claims of the theory are not significant. She also finds that there were only independent, non-allied, Great Powers for a relatively short time before the Entente Cordiale of 1904; and that there were several crises and minor conflicts, between them, in several of which war was popular on both sides. While war was averted in these cases, there was only one war between Powers in that period, and the Spanish-American War was between a democracy and a borderline democracy.) [35] The democratic peace since 1945 she finds significant, but largely explained by the external cause of the Cold War (see below)."
In another section: "Joanne Gowa observes that much of the data used to infer an absolute democratic peace consists of Western democracies not going to war with each other while allied against the Soviet Union, and argues that this offers limited hope that non-allied democracies will remain at peace"
An "absolute democratic peace" theory is something invented by Pmanderson. Some research have found no wars between democracies, with wars having more than 1000 battle deaths. Other research have found fewer MIDs between democracies, with MID being a broader concept including for example a military display of strength with no deaths. Note that this is the findings of many different researchers and studies.
Gowa briefly notes that the Spanish-American war may be an exception to no wars, based on the Polity II classification of Spain in 1898. However, this score has changed in Polity III and IV. Almost all of her criticism is instead against fewer MIDs between democracies. She finds that democracies have fewer MIDs but argues that this is a recent pattern due to the external threat during the Cold War. She argues that before 1914 inter-democratic MIDs were as likely as MIDs involving at least one nondemocracy.
Pmanderson has completely excluded the counter-arguments. "While not statistical evidence, one intuitive counter-argument is that external threat did not prevent wars between the Communist states and did not prevent wars beteen democracies and nondemocracies in the Western bloc."
[9]. "More importantly, more recent studies find fewer MIDs between democracies also before the Cold War.
[10]
[11]. Gowa's theory does not explain the low domestic violence in democracies or why relative military strength does not influence the outcome of crises between democracies.
[12] Gowa did not control for alliances, arguing that there are methodological problems. Many studies that have controlled for alliances like
NATO show support for the DPT.
[13]"
Also, permission to split my comments is not given. Your have previously made the flow of discussion the flow of the discussion unintelligible by doing this. Put your comments after my signature only. Ultramarine 15:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Let me make this short. Ultramarine's account of Gowa is so sketchy and inaccurate that I do not recognize the book. Ray's counterargument ignores the whole structure of her argument. The observation that she did not answer Gelpi's paper, which was published two years after her book was published, is valueless. As for the proposed structure, this is another of Ultramarine's efforts to bias this article by sandwiching any argument he dislikes between counterarguments. Septentrionalis 23:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Septentrionalis acknowledges that an "absolute democratic peace" is his own invention and not used in the literature. Again, some research have found no wars between democracies, with wars having more than 1000 battle deaths. Other research have found fewer MIDs between democracies, with MID being a broader concept including for example a military display of strength with no deaths. Note that this is the findings of many different researchers and studies. Again, Gowa mainly attacks the claims regarding MIDs. The presentation of her research is misleading.
Septentrionalis seems to misunderstand Gowa completely "She also finds that there were only independent, non-allied, Great Powers for a relatively short time before the Entente Cordiale of 1904; and that there were several crises and minor conflicts, between them, in several of which war was popular on both sides. While war was averted in these cases, there was only one war between Powers in that period, and the Spanish-American War was between a democracy and a borderline democracy." Gowa in chapter 5 is only trying to intuitively show that alliances are a good indicator of whether state interests concede. In later chapters she analyzes data for regarding alliances and all states, not just Great Powers. The DPT is certainly not limited to only Great Powers which Septentrionalis seems to argue here.
Septentrionalis states "She finds that there were so few democracies, by his definition, before 1939 that the claims of the theory are not significant." This is incorrect, she finds that there is no significant difference in war rates for democrarcies and non-democracies before WWI. (p. 104)
Septentrionalis reasons for excluding the peer-reviewed papers critical of Gowa is "These are cut-and-pastes from Ray's paper, which is a polemic. Undesirable on both counts." and "Gowa's analysis of alliances is confined to parts two chapters; one to assert that alliances do (as they are intended to) have a real effect in keeping the peace between their members; and one to show that this is a plausible explanation for the Cold War peace between the democracies. Ray is an advocate, and is (by those rules) playing fair in objecting that she does not answer a paper not yet published when her book was printed. It would be PoV for Wikipedia to do so." Most are not from Ray's peer-reviewed paper. Even if they were, that is no excuse for excluding them. His argument that one cannot include papers published after Gowa's book is strange and invalid. Ultramarine 20:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that this is prominently stated at the top: "Inflation of the position of R. J. Rummel, and advocacy of his particular findings, which is giving undue weight to a single researcher". No evidence of this has been presented. Indeed, I have previously presented many studies mentioning that most researchers and studies accept the DPT as an empirical regularity. As Rummel is specifically attacked, some of his credentials should be specifically mentioned. Therefore, I can accept changing to Robert A West's text if also removing the strange statement regarding Rummel. However, far more important than this is continuing the discussion regarding Gowa's criticism. Ultramarine 17:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Most importantly:There are two main differences among those theorists who support a democratic peace, both of which divide the field:
Rummel takes the second position on both questions; my impression is in each case this is the minority view. Both splits, however, are fairly even; and some authors take a neutral or compromise view of one or the other.
However, Rummel, Ray, and Weart are almost alone, among the hundred-some authors on DPT, in holding both the non-Kantian and the no-exceptions position.
(Note that an acknowledgement of exceptions doesn't show that there is no democratic peace, any more than the statement "My Uncle Joe lived to be a hundred, and he smoked a cigar every day of his life" shows that smoking doesn't cause cancer.)
Secondly. the opposition to any democratic peace is throughly understated. For example, Ultramarine has just added a word which implies, falsely, that Gowa objected only to particular DPT's.
Third:There is a wide difference of definitions on what consistitutes a democracy, and what constitutes a full war. Spiro remarks on this at some length, in a paper I have cited but not yet summarized. Ultramarine's parenthesized additions to the section on Specific historic examples are tendentious appeals to Rummel's particular definitions.
This applies also to Rummel's charts, which include such non-consensus claims as the democracy of Ukraine in 2004, before the Orange Revolution. (click on the PDF links, the uploaded images are illegible.) Septentrionalis 23:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I should also point out that if it is established that Rummel included international organizations and trade in his theory, the article would have to be recast, started with including them in the header. The non-Kantian writers would become such small parts of the field that they should be noted in a paragraph on exceptional writers. Septentrionalis 17:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Very good edit, reads much better. -- Scaife 00:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I feel that this section needs some work, however I haven't read this book yet so I am rather ill prepared to start editing it. What I have noticed about this section is that it takes up almost a full third of the DPT article and voices similar information in the main article, or so it seems to me. I am also concerned about the apparent editorializing at the end of the section.
How can we convey the information here in a more succinct and NPOV way? -- Scaife 17:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
The article at present cites papers by Ray, Gleditsch, and Spiro in support of the claim that Rummel established the criteria of the Correlates of War Project.
What Ray says is
(Part of this seems to have crept into the text, which would be undesirable.) This seems to say that Rummel used the data; he didn't manage it.
The other two papers both survey the history of the field, and as far as I can see, mention both Rummel and CoW; but, again as far as I can see, neither mentions both in the same paragraph. Rummel is not mentioned in the history on the CoW website. Pending an exact quote or page reference, the claim seems {{ dubious}}. Septentrionalis 04:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Do not archive material that is still discussed. Ultramarine 05:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
In that case maybe we should restore all of the archives to this page, I am sure they are relevent to those points, too. -- Scaife 08:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
(I corrected the spelling of this section. No offense meant.) Robert A West 09:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
[17] [18] [19] Ultramarine 06:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Pmanderson has still not responded to my points regarding Gowa, despite stating that he would do so in probably 24 hours, 10 days ago. Please continue this discussions now. You can of course quote and split my statements however you like. See "Gowa again" above. Ultramarine 06:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Popular article here: [20]. Scholarly here: [21] [22] Ultramarine 21:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Go tell it to the
PIRA, the
RAF and the
ALF. --
Philip Baird Shearer
11:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Material on this talk page has been archieved without consensus. For now, in order to understand the templates, read the archieves. Ultramarine 09:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
If USA attacks Iran, will that qualify as an attack by a democracy against a democracy? -- Kvaks 07:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I will let Mr. West answer Mr. Scaife's question; but I would go slightly further than "illiberal democracy". Iran is probably no less democratic thant the Constitution of 1791 or the actual conduct of the First French Republic, which some dp theorists would call democracy, without qualifier. It may also be that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his ministers are in fact conducting foreign policy on their own; we will not know until the papers of the Islamic Republic are published. If so, a forthcoming war would be an exception, probably a marginal one. This should not disprove, although it should qualify, any intellectually responsible theory of democratic peace. Septentrionalis 16:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
In part due to the repetitions under #Gowa again, this page is 57K. That is still manageable for my computer, but the time has come to consider the issue - again. Septentrionalis 21:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Sugestion, seems like a lot of discussion is needed on this page, archiving is problematic, as editors don't get to see past discussion easily. How about creating one talk page per section in the main article so we have Talk:Democratic peace theory/Never at War etc. -- Salix alba ( talk) 15:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I have made a list of possible wars between liberal democracies and included arguments from the literature. I would like serious feedback and more referenced arguments regarding this before going further.
War and liberal democracy can be defined in different ways. Research often define war as any military action with more than 1000 killed in battle. This is the definition used in the Correlates of War Project which has also supplied the data regarding the wars for many of the studies.
Repetitious. Also ignores the obvious point that 1000 deaths was chosen, not for any inherent advantage, but because it was the limit of a pre-existing database. Septentrionalis 19:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
The early researcher R.J. Rummel states that "By democracy is meant liberal democracy, where those who hold power are elected in competitive elections with a secret ballot and wide franchise (loosely understood as including at least 2/3rds of adult males); where there is freedom of speech, religion, and organization; and a constitutional framework of law to which the government is subordinate and that guarantees equal rights." [30] Furthermore, it should be well-established. Well established means that a regime had been democratic long enough for it to be stable and democratic practices to become established. In practice, this means that the democracy should be older than three to five years.
Rummellite POV. Septentrionalis 19:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
The book Never at War by Spencer R. Weart uses somewhat similar definitions. This book also proposes a related peace between oligarchies.
The book Grasping the Democratic Peace by Bruce Russet also uses somewhat similar definitions for modern wars but has different definitions for Ancient Greece.
The researcher James Lee Ray requires that at least 50% of the adult population is allowed to vote and that there has been at least one peaceful, constitutional transfer of executive power from one independent political party to another by means of an election.
Spurrious --
Scaife
(Talk)
Don't forget
Hanlon's Razor
04:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Note that the following discusses specific conflicts that may be exceptions to the claim of no wars between liberal democracies. It does not discuss other claims like that there are few Militarized Interstate Disputes between liberal democracies.
Whole section unnecessary. Rummel and Ray and Weart is undue representqation of a single faction. Septentrionalis 19:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Metic should not be capitalized; not a proper name. Any source which does so is worthless. The claim that direct democracy is not answerable to the people is novel. Applied to Athens, it also ignores the fact that foreign policy was entrusted to the ten generals, who were elected. Septentrionalis 19:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Weart's superficial knowledge and conjecture-ridden accounts of ancient history are all ready more porminent than such stuff needs to be. Its value is not just my judgment, but that of his reviewers; see notes to present text. Septentrionalis 19:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Weart's dismissal of all the wars of Rome is so hasty that he did not index it. Reference please. Septentrionalis 19:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
They were not states. However, they were subject both to the cultural and institutional causes suggested for the democratic peace. They conducted their affairs by discussion, like Weart's republics. The chiefs could be deposed or deserted in case of failure. Septentrionalis 20:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
It would be far more useful to carve out a category for wars of secession within a liberal state, including the American Revolution, the American Civil War, the Anglo-Irish War of 1921, the present troubles in Sri-Lanka, and the next intifadeh. I have not yet seen this in the literature, but I'm sure it exists. Septentrionalis 20:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
And yet Rummel counts late eighteenth-century France as a democracy.
Not a "war". --
Scaife
(Talk)
Don't forget
Hanlon's Razor
04:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
**This entire line of argument is PoV insofar as it appeals to the factional two-thirds standard. Insofar as it does not, it reveals a vast ignorance of antebellum American politics: ***Abolitionists were censored and persecuted in Alton, Illinois and in Boston in (one-party) Massachusetts, just as in the Carolinas. .
If you have a refernce for the last we could add it. Here is a new proposal. Ultramarine 17:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Spurrious evidence, does not qualify as a war. --
Scaife
(Talk)
Don't forget
Hanlon's Razor
04:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
It is arguable that the Occupation of the Ruhr valley was a major catalyst for WWI. As a seperate event it doesn't qualify as a war. Why is this even mentioned? --
Scaife
(Talk)
Don't forget
Hanlon's Razor
04:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
In summary, this is copying out Weart's doctrinaire special pleading, which amounts in fact to an admission that Rummellism excludes so many states and so many wars as to be vacuous. This is how many citations of the same book? Septentrionalis 20:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Several of these points would be valuable in refining the fallacious theories of a perfect democratic peace into a form which actually matches the world; most of the papers on the subject are real examples of the process. This, however, is doctinaire trash, drawn from Weart's book, which is, like one of DR Johnson's: "both good and original, but the good parts are not original, and the original ones not good"; proving neatly that Sturgeon's Law does apply to political science, as elsewhere. Septentrionalis 22:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
{{
cite encyclopedia}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help); Unknown parameter |ency=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help){{
cite encyclopedia}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help); Unknown parameter |ency=
ignored (
help)
[3]{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help) {{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help)
Ultramarine 17:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
While luckily few if any died in the Cod War, it might be worth a mention as an exception -- Philip Baird Shearer 11:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
The real flaw with the Rummelite claim is not that it is false (although several of the denials above are very tenuous), but that it is vacuous. Consider the requirements involved to be a democracy:
Great Britain did not meet these before 1884; nor indeed after 1884. (Setting aside Ultramarine's equivocations about whether 60% is somehow more than 2/3, the Parliament Act was not passed until August 20, 1911 - so Great Britain was not a democracy when she delcared war on Germany by this artificial definition.) But let her in 1884-1914 as a marginal case.
In fact, the only nations to pass through this sieve before 1884 are the United States, Switzerland, and San Marino (and the degree of enfranchisement in Helvetic Confederation of 1813-1847 is dubious; and did San Marino abstain from feud?).
Between 1884 and 1904, there were a handful of democracies. (Doyle actually printed his list; and includes 13, some of which (like Belgium and Chile) would not pass the requirements above; the honest Rummel count must be smaller. (licet contradictio in adjectis) Some of these are isolated from each other; some are small powers. The same studiesthat Ray quotes, which find mutual democracy a force for peace, find non-contiguity and small-power status stronger forces.
There were several crises between the Great Powers. The only one that led to war was between a democracy and a border-line democracy. Several of these crises were between democracies, and there is no sign of either institutional or cultural constraints to war. Layne is quite right, and is supported by the literature outside this little conclave of DPT, insofar as I know it.
From 1904 to 1940, Great Britain and France formed the Entente Cordiale. Most of the other democracies before 1945 were either allied with them or benevolently neutral. The same studies again show that alliance is, as it is intended to be, a force for peace.
From 1940 to 1989, most of the democracies of the world were allied against first Germany and then the Soviet Union.
Since 1945, the other articles of the Kantian triad, trade and international organization for peace, have been in existence. They have been especially widespread and effective since 1989. At that rime, furthermore, the major discords of the post-war world, which visibly spun off minor wars, the Cold War and decolonization, both ended.
Nevertheless, I believe that those studies which find democracy to be one of several independent forces for peace are probably, in some sense, correct. We have, however, a small amount of data, massively affected by external sources. Finding out what sense is almost impossible. Ultramarine's disingenuous and partisan quotations from a handful of already tendentious non-notable books are a disservice to the reader and to Wikipedia. Septentrionalis 22:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I have not enogh knowledge about this, but since I stumbled onto this article : http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HA31Ak01.html Among the examples of wars launched by democracies are: Serbia (1991): civil war Iraq (2005): Kurdish and Shi'ite militias, threat of civil war Bosnia (1995): war with Serbia Ethiopia (1998): Eritrean war India and Pakistan (1999): Kargil war Burundi (1993): Hutu genocide against Tutsi Iran (2005): election of Mahmud Ahmadinejad Indonesia (1975): East Timor independence movement Make of it what you will. I want the theory to be correct. I thought I would mention the article, since it appeared to be relevant here. DanielDemaret 14:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I note also that the book in question appears to be Mansfield/Snyder, a (somewhat cautious) theory of democratic peace, and it is being condemned for those claims it holds in common with other DPTs.
Ultramarine has been reverting this page for two points;
I am concerned about this section, in particular the links for site supporting the DPT. Almost every link is related to Rummel in some form or fashion, and I find this to be dishonest. Rummel's research merits perhaps one link, however 4 or 5 is a bit POV, don't you think? --
Scaife
(Talk)
Don't forget
Hanlon's Razor
18:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
HMMMM, Supportive
The correct answer is 4. --
Scaife
(Talk)
Don't forget
Hanlon's Razor
19:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
These are
![]() | This page 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. |
Weart has never stated that Syracuse was as democratic as Athens. He states that the only scholar who ever possessed the documents needed study the constitution of Syracuse, Aristotle, carefully avoided calling Syracuse a democracy. One of the main reason for the Sicilian Expedition was that Syracuse was reported to have violent factional strife. Help from an inside group was essential since the Greeks lacked effective siege machinery. In every other known case when cities were betrayed to an Athenian army, it was by a democratic faction. Ultramarine 23:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
These comments are for the benefit of anyone who will read them, not a justification of text. Demands for sources will be ignored, as harassment. Septentrionalis 05:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, Weart does not make claims regarding "city-states" or "republics" only. He talks about democracies in general. And this is another of Pmanderson personal musings: "oligarchs view democracy as government by the bad men, as Theognis put it." Ultramarine 18:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Weart defines "democracy" as a type of republic; see page 12. Not all non-democracies are republics; the oligarchies are, autocracies are not. Weart's argument gives no reason for autocrats to treat each other as in-group, and he denies they can form lasting alliances. (p255ff.) Nor is there any reason for oligarchies to bond with autocrats; and in fact Sparta defied Philip of Macedon, when every other city in Greece capitulated to him. Septentrionalis 16:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Joanne Gowa has presented to most well-known criticism of the theory. Septentrionalis has however presented it incorrectly and in violation of NPOV excluded the counter-arguments.
Pmanderson's text: "Jeanne Gowa analyzed the claims of one of these theorists. She finds that there were so few democracies, by his definition, before 1939 that the claims of the theory are not significant. She also finds that there were only independent, non-allied, Great Powers for a relatively short time before the Entente Cordiale of 1904; and that there were several crises and minor conflicts, between them, in several of which war was popular on both sides. While war was averted in these cases, there was only one war between Powers in that period, and the Spanish-American War was between a democracy and a borderline democracy.) [35] The democratic peace since 1945 she finds significant, but largely explained by the external cause of the Cold War (see below)."
In another section: "Joanne Gowa observes that much of the data used to infer an absolute democratic peace consists of Western democracies not going to war with each other while allied against the Soviet Union, and argues that this offers limited hope that non-allied democracies will remain at peace"
An "absolute democratic peace" theory is something invented by Pmanderson. Some research have found no wars between democracies, with wars having more than 1000 battle deaths. Other research have found fewer MIDs between democracies, with MID being a broader concept including for example a military display of strength with no deaths. Note that this is the findings of many different researchers and studies.
Gowa briefly notes that the Spanish-American war may be an exception to no wars, based on the Polity II classification of Spain in 1898. However, this score has changed in Polity III and IV. Almost all of her criticism is instead against fewer MIDs between democracies. She finds that democracies have fewer MIDs but argues that this is a recent pattern due to the external threat during the Cold War. She argues that before 1914 inter-democratic MIDs were as likely as MIDs involving at least one nondemocracy.
Pmanderson has completely excluded the counter-arguments. "While not statistical evidence, one intuitive counter-argument is that external threat did not prevent wars between the Communist states and did not prevent wars beteen democracies and nondemocracies in the Western bloc." [4]. "More importantly, more recent studies find fewer MIDs between democracies also before the Cold War. [5] [6]. Gowa's theory does not explain the low domestic violence in democracies or why relative military strength does not influence the outcome of crises between democracies. [7] Gowa did not control for alliances, arguing that there are methodological problems. Many studies that have controlled for alliances like NATO show support for the DPT. [8]"
Also, permission to split my comments is not given. Your have previously made the flow of discussion the flow of the discussion unintelligible by doing this. Put your comments after my signature only. Ultramarine 15:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Let me make this short. Ultramarine's account of Gowa is so sketchy and inaccurate that I do not recognize the book. Ray's counterargument ignores the whole structure of her argument. The observation that she did not answer Gelpi's paper, which was published two years after her book was published, is valueless. As for the proposed structure, this is another of Ultramarine's efforts to bias this article by sandwiching any argument he dislikes between counterarguments. Septentrionalis 23:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Joanne Gowa has presented to most well-known criticism of the theory. Septentrionalis has however presented it incorrectly and in violation of NPOV excluded the counter-arguments.
Pmanderson's text: "Jeanne Gowa analyzed the claims of one of these theorists. She finds that there were so few democracies, by his definition, before 1939 that the claims of the theory are not significant. She also finds that there were only independent, non-allied, Great Powers for a relatively short time before the Entente Cordiale of 1904; and that there were several crises and minor conflicts, between them, in several of which war was popular on both sides. While war was averted in these cases, there was only one war between Powers in that period, and the Spanish-American War was between a democracy and a borderline democracy.) [35] The democratic peace since 1945 she finds significant, but largely explained by the external cause of the Cold War (see below)."
In another section: "Joanne Gowa observes that much of the data used to infer an absolute democratic peace consists of Western democracies not going to war with each other while allied against the Soviet Union, and argues that this offers limited hope that non-allied democracies will remain at peace"
An "absolute democratic peace" theory is something invented by Pmanderson. Some research have found no wars between democracies, with wars having more than 1000 battle deaths. Other research have found fewer MIDs between democracies, with MID being a broader concept including for example a military display of strength with no deaths. Note that this is the findings of many different researchers and studies.
Gowa briefly notes that the Spanish-American war may be an exception to no wars, based on the Polity II classification of Spain in 1898. However, this score has changed in Polity III and IV. Almost all of her criticism is instead against fewer MIDs between democracies. She finds that democracies have fewer MIDs but argues that this is a recent pattern due to the external threat during the Cold War. She argues that before 1914 inter-democratic MIDs were as likely as MIDs involving at least one nondemocracy.
Pmanderson has completely excluded the counter-arguments. "While not statistical evidence, one intuitive counter-argument is that external threat did not prevent wars between the Communist states and did not prevent wars beteen democracies and nondemocracies in the Western bloc."
[9]. "More importantly, more recent studies find fewer MIDs between democracies also before the Cold War.
[10]
[11]. Gowa's theory does not explain the low domestic violence in democracies or why relative military strength does not influence the outcome of crises between democracies.
[12] Gowa did not control for alliances, arguing that there are methodological problems. Many studies that have controlled for alliances like
NATO show support for the DPT.
[13]"
Also, permission to split my comments is not given. Your have previously made the flow of discussion the flow of the discussion unintelligible by doing this. Put your comments after my signature only. Ultramarine 15:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Let me make this short. Ultramarine's account of Gowa is so sketchy and inaccurate that I do not recognize the book. Ray's counterargument ignores the whole structure of her argument. The observation that she did not answer Gelpi's paper, which was published two years after her book was published, is valueless. As for the proposed structure, this is another of Ultramarine's efforts to bias this article by sandwiching any argument he dislikes between counterarguments. Septentrionalis 23:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Septentrionalis acknowledges that an "absolute democratic peace" is his own invention and not used in the literature. Again, some research have found no wars between democracies, with wars having more than 1000 battle deaths. Other research have found fewer MIDs between democracies, with MID being a broader concept including for example a military display of strength with no deaths. Note that this is the findings of many different researchers and studies. Again, Gowa mainly attacks the claims regarding MIDs. The presentation of her research is misleading.
Septentrionalis seems to misunderstand Gowa completely "She also finds that there were only independent, non-allied, Great Powers for a relatively short time before the Entente Cordiale of 1904; and that there were several crises and minor conflicts, between them, in several of which war was popular on both sides. While war was averted in these cases, there was only one war between Powers in that period, and the Spanish-American War was between a democracy and a borderline democracy." Gowa in chapter 5 is only trying to intuitively show that alliances are a good indicator of whether state interests concede. In later chapters she analyzes data for regarding alliances and all states, not just Great Powers. The DPT is certainly not limited to only Great Powers which Septentrionalis seems to argue here.
Septentrionalis states "She finds that there were so few democracies, by his definition, before 1939 that the claims of the theory are not significant." This is incorrect, she finds that there is no significant difference in war rates for democrarcies and non-democracies before WWI. (p. 104)
Septentrionalis reasons for excluding the peer-reviewed papers critical of Gowa is "These are cut-and-pastes from Ray's paper, which is a polemic. Undesirable on both counts." and "Gowa's analysis of alliances is confined to parts two chapters; one to assert that alliances do (as they are intended to) have a real effect in keeping the peace between their members; and one to show that this is a plausible explanation for the Cold War peace between the democracies. Ray is an advocate, and is (by those rules) playing fair in objecting that she does not answer a paper not yet published when her book was printed. It would be PoV for Wikipedia to do so." Most are not from Ray's peer-reviewed paper. Even if they were, that is no excuse for excluding them. His argument that one cannot include papers published after Gowa's book is strange and invalid. Ultramarine 20:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that this is prominently stated at the top: "Inflation of the position of R. J. Rummel, and advocacy of his particular findings, which is giving undue weight to a single researcher". No evidence of this has been presented. Indeed, I have previously presented many studies mentioning that most researchers and studies accept the DPT as an empirical regularity. As Rummel is specifically attacked, some of his credentials should be specifically mentioned. Therefore, I can accept changing to Robert A West's text if also removing the strange statement regarding Rummel. However, far more important than this is continuing the discussion regarding Gowa's criticism. Ultramarine 17:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Most importantly:There are two main differences among those theorists who support a democratic peace, both of which divide the field:
Rummel takes the second position on both questions; my impression is in each case this is the minority view. Both splits, however, are fairly even; and some authors take a neutral or compromise view of one or the other.
However, Rummel, Ray, and Weart are almost alone, among the hundred-some authors on DPT, in holding both the non-Kantian and the no-exceptions position.
(Note that an acknowledgement of exceptions doesn't show that there is no democratic peace, any more than the statement "My Uncle Joe lived to be a hundred, and he smoked a cigar every day of his life" shows that smoking doesn't cause cancer.)
Secondly. the opposition to any democratic peace is throughly understated. For example, Ultramarine has just added a word which implies, falsely, that Gowa objected only to particular DPT's.
Third:There is a wide difference of definitions on what consistitutes a democracy, and what constitutes a full war. Spiro remarks on this at some length, in a paper I have cited but not yet summarized. Ultramarine's parenthesized additions to the section on Specific historic examples are tendentious appeals to Rummel's particular definitions.
This applies also to Rummel's charts, which include such non-consensus claims as the democracy of Ukraine in 2004, before the Orange Revolution. (click on the PDF links, the uploaded images are illegible.) Septentrionalis 23:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I should also point out that if it is established that Rummel included international organizations and trade in his theory, the article would have to be recast, started with including them in the header. The non-Kantian writers would become such small parts of the field that they should be noted in a paragraph on exceptional writers. Septentrionalis 17:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Very good edit, reads much better. -- Scaife 00:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I feel that this section needs some work, however I haven't read this book yet so I am rather ill prepared to start editing it. What I have noticed about this section is that it takes up almost a full third of the DPT article and voices similar information in the main article, or so it seems to me. I am also concerned about the apparent editorializing at the end of the section.
How can we convey the information here in a more succinct and NPOV way? -- Scaife 17:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
The article at present cites papers by Ray, Gleditsch, and Spiro in support of the claim that Rummel established the criteria of the Correlates of War Project.
What Ray says is
(Part of this seems to have crept into the text, which would be undesirable.) This seems to say that Rummel used the data; he didn't manage it.
The other two papers both survey the history of the field, and as far as I can see, mention both Rummel and CoW; but, again as far as I can see, neither mentions both in the same paragraph. Rummel is not mentioned in the history on the CoW website. Pending an exact quote or page reference, the claim seems {{ dubious}}. Septentrionalis 04:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Do not archive material that is still discussed. Ultramarine 05:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
In that case maybe we should restore all of the archives to this page, I am sure they are relevent to those points, too. -- Scaife 08:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
(I corrected the spelling of this section. No offense meant.) Robert A West 09:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
[17] [18] [19] Ultramarine 06:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Pmanderson has still not responded to my points regarding Gowa, despite stating that he would do so in probably 24 hours, 10 days ago. Please continue this discussions now. You can of course quote and split my statements however you like. See "Gowa again" above. Ultramarine 06:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Popular article here: [20]. Scholarly here: [21] [22] Ultramarine 21:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Go tell it to the
PIRA, the
RAF and the
ALF. --
Philip Baird Shearer
11:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Material on this talk page has been archieved without consensus. For now, in order to understand the templates, read the archieves. Ultramarine 09:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
If USA attacks Iran, will that qualify as an attack by a democracy against a democracy? -- Kvaks 07:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I will let Mr. West answer Mr. Scaife's question; but I would go slightly further than "illiberal democracy". Iran is probably no less democratic thant the Constitution of 1791 or the actual conduct of the First French Republic, which some dp theorists would call democracy, without qualifier. It may also be that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his ministers are in fact conducting foreign policy on their own; we will not know until the papers of the Islamic Republic are published. If so, a forthcoming war would be an exception, probably a marginal one. This should not disprove, although it should qualify, any intellectually responsible theory of democratic peace. Septentrionalis 16:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
In part due to the repetitions under #Gowa again, this page is 57K. That is still manageable for my computer, but the time has come to consider the issue - again. Septentrionalis 21:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Sugestion, seems like a lot of discussion is needed on this page, archiving is problematic, as editors don't get to see past discussion easily. How about creating one talk page per section in the main article so we have Talk:Democratic peace theory/Never at War etc. -- Salix alba ( talk) 15:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I have made a list of possible wars between liberal democracies and included arguments from the literature. I would like serious feedback and more referenced arguments regarding this before going further.
War and liberal democracy can be defined in different ways. Research often define war as any military action with more than 1000 killed in battle. This is the definition used in the Correlates of War Project which has also supplied the data regarding the wars for many of the studies.
Repetitious. Also ignores the obvious point that 1000 deaths was chosen, not for any inherent advantage, but because it was the limit of a pre-existing database. Septentrionalis 19:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
The early researcher R.J. Rummel states that "By democracy is meant liberal democracy, where those who hold power are elected in competitive elections with a secret ballot and wide franchise (loosely understood as including at least 2/3rds of adult males); where there is freedom of speech, religion, and organization; and a constitutional framework of law to which the government is subordinate and that guarantees equal rights." [30] Furthermore, it should be well-established. Well established means that a regime had been democratic long enough for it to be stable and democratic practices to become established. In practice, this means that the democracy should be older than three to five years.
Rummellite POV. Septentrionalis 19:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
The book Never at War by Spencer R. Weart uses somewhat similar definitions. This book also proposes a related peace between oligarchies.
The book Grasping the Democratic Peace by Bruce Russet also uses somewhat similar definitions for modern wars but has different definitions for Ancient Greece.
The researcher James Lee Ray requires that at least 50% of the adult population is allowed to vote and that there has been at least one peaceful, constitutional transfer of executive power from one independent political party to another by means of an election.
Spurrious --
Scaife
(Talk)
Don't forget
Hanlon's Razor
04:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Note that the following discusses specific conflicts that may be exceptions to the claim of no wars between liberal democracies. It does not discuss other claims like that there are few Militarized Interstate Disputes between liberal democracies.
Whole section unnecessary. Rummel and Ray and Weart is undue representqation of a single faction. Septentrionalis 19:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Metic should not be capitalized; not a proper name. Any source which does so is worthless. The claim that direct democracy is not answerable to the people is novel. Applied to Athens, it also ignores the fact that foreign policy was entrusted to the ten generals, who were elected. Septentrionalis 19:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Weart's superficial knowledge and conjecture-ridden accounts of ancient history are all ready more porminent than such stuff needs to be. Its value is not just my judgment, but that of his reviewers; see notes to present text. Septentrionalis 19:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Weart's dismissal of all the wars of Rome is so hasty that he did not index it. Reference please. Septentrionalis 19:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
They were not states. However, they were subject both to the cultural and institutional causes suggested for the democratic peace. They conducted their affairs by discussion, like Weart's republics. The chiefs could be deposed or deserted in case of failure. Septentrionalis 20:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
It would be far more useful to carve out a category for wars of secession within a liberal state, including the American Revolution, the American Civil War, the Anglo-Irish War of 1921, the present troubles in Sri-Lanka, and the next intifadeh. I have not yet seen this in the literature, but I'm sure it exists. Septentrionalis 20:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
And yet Rummel counts late eighteenth-century France as a democracy.
Not a "war". --
Scaife
(Talk)
Don't forget
Hanlon's Razor
04:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
**This entire line of argument is PoV insofar as it appeals to the factional two-thirds standard. Insofar as it does not, it reveals a vast ignorance of antebellum American politics: ***Abolitionists were censored and persecuted in Alton, Illinois and in Boston in (one-party) Massachusetts, just as in the Carolinas. .
If you have a refernce for the last we could add it. Here is a new proposal. Ultramarine 17:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Spurrious evidence, does not qualify as a war. --
Scaife
(Talk)
Don't forget
Hanlon's Razor
04:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
It is arguable that the Occupation of the Ruhr valley was a major catalyst for WWI. As a seperate event it doesn't qualify as a war. Why is this even mentioned? --
Scaife
(Talk)
Don't forget
Hanlon's Razor
04:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
In summary, this is copying out Weart's doctrinaire special pleading, which amounts in fact to an admission that Rummellism excludes so many states and so many wars as to be vacuous. This is how many citations of the same book? Septentrionalis 20:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Several of these points would be valuable in refining the fallacious theories of a perfect democratic peace into a form which actually matches the world; most of the papers on the subject are real examples of the process. This, however, is doctinaire trash, drawn from Weart's book, which is, like one of DR Johnson's: "both good and original, but the good parts are not original, and the original ones not good"; proving neatly that Sturgeon's Law does apply to political science, as elsewhere. Septentrionalis 22:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
{{
cite encyclopedia}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help); Unknown parameter |ency=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help){{
cite encyclopedia}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help); Unknown parameter |ency=
ignored (
help)
[3]{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help) {{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help)
Ultramarine 17:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
While luckily few if any died in the Cod War, it might be worth a mention as an exception -- Philip Baird Shearer 11:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
The real flaw with the Rummelite claim is not that it is false (although several of the denials above are very tenuous), but that it is vacuous. Consider the requirements involved to be a democracy:
Great Britain did not meet these before 1884; nor indeed after 1884. (Setting aside Ultramarine's equivocations about whether 60% is somehow more than 2/3, the Parliament Act was not passed until August 20, 1911 - so Great Britain was not a democracy when she delcared war on Germany by this artificial definition.) But let her in 1884-1914 as a marginal case.
In fact, the only nations to pass through this sieve before 1884 are the United States, Switzerland, and San Marino (and the degree of enfranchisement in Helvetic Confederation of 1813-1847 is dubious; and did San Marino abstain from feud?).
Between 1884 and 1904, there were a handful of democracies. (Doyle actually printed his list; and includes 13, some of which (like Belgium and Chile) would not pass the requirements above; the honest Rummel count must be smaller. (licet contradictio in adjectis) Some of these are isolated from each other; some are small powers. The same studiesthat Ray quotes, which find mutual democracy a force for peace, find non-contiguity and small-power status stronger forces.
There were several crises between the Great Powers. The only one that led to war was between a democracy and a border-line democracy. Several of these crises were between democracies, and there is no sign of either institutional or cultural constraints to war. Layne is quite right, and is supported by the literature outside this little conclave of DPT, insofar as I know it.
From 1904 to 1940, Great Britain and France formed the Entente Cordiale. Most of the other democracies before 1945 were either allied with them or benevolently neutral. The same studies again show that alliance is, as it is intended to be, a force for peace.
From 1940 to 1989, most of the democracies of the world were allied against first Germany and then the Soviet Union.
Since 1945, the other articles of the Kantian triad, trade and international organization for peace, have been in existence. They have been especially widespread and effective since 1989. At that rime, furthermore, the major discords of the post-war world, which visibly spun off minor wars, the Cold War and decolonization, both ended.
Nevertheless, I believe that those studies which find democracy to be one of several independent forces for peace are probably, in some sense, correct. We have, however, a small amount of data, massively affected by external sources. Finding out what sense is almost impossible. Ultramarine's disingenuous and partisan quotations from a handful of already tendentious non-notable books are a disservice to the reader and to Wikipedia. Septentrionalis 22:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I have not enogh knowledge about this, but since I stumbled onto this article : http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HA31Ak01.html Among the examples of wars launched by democracies are: Serbia (1991): civil war Iraq (2005): Kurdish and Shi'ite militias, threat of civil war Bosnia (1995): war with Serbia Ethiopia (1998): Eritrean war India and Pakistan (1999): Kargil war Burundi (1993): Hutu genocide against Tutsi Iran (2005): election of Mahmud Ahmadinejad Indonesia (1975): East Timor independence movement Make of it what you will. I want the theory to be correct. I thought I would mention the article, since it appeared to be relevant here. DanielDemaret 14:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I note also that the book in question appears to be Mansfield/Snyder, a (somewhat cautious) theory of democratic peace, and it is being condemned for those claims it holds in common with other DPTs.
Ultramarine has been reverting this page for two points;
I am concerned about this section, in particular the links for site supporting the DPT. Almost every link is related to Rummel in some form or fashion, and I find this to be dishonest. Rummel's research merits perhaps one link, however 4 or 5 is a bit POV, don't you think? --
Scaife
(Talk)
Don't forget
Hanlon's Razor
18:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
HMMMM, Supportive
The correct answer is 4. --
Scaife
(Talk)
Don't forget
Hanlon's Razor
19:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
These are