![]() | 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. |
Ultramarine has written my talk page, suggesting that we should start over with the draft in User:Ultramarine/sandbox4, and take half; he the pro-DPT side and the rest of us the anti-DPT side, and each agree not to edit each other's half; but answer each other on our own. His model for this is Middle East conflict, which is apparently so divided between the Jews and the Arabs.
This is an undesirable model, being rather a departure from wikiprinciples for a hard case rather than an example of them. But I put forth the suggestion; it may serve as the basis for a useful negotiation.
The division anticipated appears to be:
I write of course, subject to correction here.
Ket ne know what you think. Septentrionalis 05:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I must disagree with converging to a consensus. The current text is almost exclusively Pmanderson's version, as can be seen in the history. [6] As noted above, it systematically excludes supporting studies and arguments. I have tried to discuss the differences on the talk page instead of starting an edit war. Ultramarine 10:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
It is stated in the tag: "Inflation of the position of R. J. Rummel, and advocacy of his particular findings, which is giving undue weight to a single researcher". Please explain, there are numerous supporting researchers. Ultramarine 10:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
This is now Scaife's complaint, more than mine; I am reasonably satisfied with the weight now given to Weart/Ray/Rummel. It may need some adjustment, but it can wait for the article trim. Septentrionalis 23:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
As both parties have requested my assistance on this article, I'll try to help, but on the priviso that we try to keep disputes to the talk page. To clearly list disputes where readers can easily find them I've created a Template talk:Todo page. I've also reduced the initial tags to just one disputed one, following the mediators User:Kim Bruning suggestion. Revert this and I'm out of here! -- Salix alba ( talk) 18:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Interested in your thoughts on this paper. Ray [ http://sitemason.vanderbilt.edu/files/g/gDf5Ty/6%20ray%20demo%20peace%20FIRST%20PROOFS.pdf A Lakatosian View of the Democratic Peace Research Program] You can reply here. -- Salix alba ( talk) 23:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
At first look, my reaction is as follows:
If you would like page refs for any of the above, let me know. I do not have Babst's paper to hand, although I have read both forms; I believe the papers of Maoz and Doyle to which I refer are available online only through JSTOR. Septentrionalis 02:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I asked you both individually as I wanted your personal views on the subject, rather than a debate.
To me this paper indicates a development of the theory and actually the type of question being asked. It seems to now be developing from a binary question about whether or not there is evidence for DP to a deeper one: how does the presence of democracies affect conflict, what are the mechanisms. In a sense trying to create a richer picture of the landscape of democracies and conflict. For the most part the wikipedia article seems to still focused on the 20th Century interpretation, the more modern analysis is barely mentioned, except on how it informs the older debate. So do we need to move this article into the 21st century? Only a brief response as I've got to go to work now. -- Salix alba ( talk) 08:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
So who else should have been included? Say what works from this century published in political science journals. Is there today a large camp who offer a serious critiques of DPT, as a body of work, rather that just Rummels outdated thesis. I'm principally interested in work this century as I want to get a feel for the current state of of the discipline. -- Salix alba ( talk) 23:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Manfield and Snyder, seem to me part of the process of deep exploration of DPT. They are going from a first order approximation, Democracies and Non-democracies, to a richer description involving the transitions of states. Transitional states being more likely to engage in combat, does not render the study of democracies and peace irreverent. Owen seem to be have same message. -- Salix alba ( talk) 23:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Septentrionalis 19:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
If Ultramarine has specific papers he thinks I should read, let him list them here. Papers that he thinks agree with Ray, Rummel, and Weart would be particularly welcome. (I would have accepted Mansfield and Snyder; but Ray clearly does not.) Septentrionalis 21:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I am genuinely shocked by Ray's footnote 48:
I did think (call me naïf) that this sort of judgment of a theory by political consequences had become less fashionable after the fall of the Soviet Union. Septentrionalis 22:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I think it promising that Ultramarine should have begun to edit this page. It is unfortunate that he should have begun with the removal of Reitberger's paper, which approaches vandalism. Septentrionalis
Please respond section by section, so we can keep the discussions of a given change together. Septentrionalis 17:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Ultramarine removed:
Ultramarine fails to understand the purpose of these two paragraphs (and I think of the section). This talk page has gotten several notes by readers as to what DPT says about current events, and (even when the answers could be dug out of the article) not finding them.
There is a widespread misinterpretation of DPT that it says more than any actual theorist holds: that democracies do not take any sort of hostile action (including covert action) against each other. This seems to have begun with careless op-ed columnists making drastic assertions based on it, and then spread by people debunking them, and thinking they are debunking DPT. There is a note, now archived, suggesting that the election of Ahmedinejad was a violation of DPT, presumably because he's bellicose. It isn't.
Even those readers who think Iran is a democracy should be told that, say, economic sanctions against it would not disprove DPT. We should not encourage demonstrable error.
Ultramarine further objects that the second paragraph is original research. I This is a very strict standard; on that basis, all statements about what the DPT does not hold, such as the one about covert action above, are improper. I've looked; I can't find one; either in the papers I have read or dozens and dozens of Google results - if Ultramarine knows of such a discussion (including a comment on the absence of discussion) I would prefer to include it. Septentrionalis
I acknowledge that Ultramarine disagrees that these were the correct definitions of militant democracy and separate peace. It would have been more helpful to include (from his PoV) correct ones, especially since the terms are used elsewhere; I might have agreed that they were correct. Septentrionalis
I note the paragraph has been moved and expanded. Septentrionalis
A deletion of In a similar assertion, Islamic tradition holds that peace will prevail within the dar al-Islam, but war, including jihad, beyond that zone. This is the sort of thing that "every schoolboy knows", as Lord Macaulay put it. A citation-needed tag would have been appropriate. Septentrionalis 17:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
What is the source for this; surely the original is more intelligible to the common reader?
This is a misunderstanding; I will find an example. This point is intended to cover simple claims of error, as some of Rossami's (whether Rossami was correct is another matter).
This should go somewhere in criticism (although the process of his actual selection as Chancellor is debatable). But not here; paragraphs should not change topic in the middle.
This is, as it was in its original place, a summary of the corresponding section; it is pointless here.
The addition to the fourth point should be a paragraph in the corresponding section.
I do not see why the new fifth point is distinct from the third, although it would serve as a useful example. Septentrionalis
The complete deletion of the analyis of Weart et.al., which is expressly detended by two editors in #1 above, is editing contraty to consesnsus. The deletion of sourced material in the rest of the section is contrary to policy. If Ultramarine denies them, he knows wherr the {{ disputed}} tags are. Septentrionalis 20:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Please don't mix statements of different classes. Errors is intended for claims, like Rossami and some of Spiro's of mere misstatements of facts and blunders.
Unsourced . Septentrionalis 17:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The claim that A and B and C produce peace does contradict the claim that A alone produces peace.
The last sentence is another unsourced claim of a negative. Ultramarine should consider that standards he does not abide by himself may be dubious when applied to others. Septentrionalis 17:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Neither paper mentions Rummel or Weart either. If this is the standard to be employed, let's get rid of all three of them. Septentrionalis 23:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Certainly the article should be kept up-to-date; but I don't see why the newest papers should be listed as an indiscrimate collection of facts. The section head really applies only to Ray's peacockery. Septentrionalis 17:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
We are neither citing Magnus Reitberger's History of democratic peace theory, 2004 nor publishing it, we are presenting a link to a file, which anyone can find, as Scaife apparently did find it, by searching on DPT and the names of some prominent authors.
As for Matthew White's dicussion, calling an essay which presents arguments on both sides and comes to no conclusion either way a criticism is an act of blind partisanship and absolutely unacceptable. Septentrionalis 15:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
If, as I suspect, "very soon" will mean the rest of the academic year, we should certainly consider using while it lasts; three months is a long time on Wikipedia. Septentrionalis 15:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Again, please respond by sections (I have signed each to make this easier). Septentrionalis 17:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I believe this moots many of Ultramarine's complaints above. We should archive, to make room for a discussion of the present text. Septentrionalis 17:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
See the Neutrality and factual accuracy section above and my edit comments. See also User:Ultramarine/sandbox4 and User:Salix alba/History of conflict between democracies Ultramarine 18:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I quite like the Wikipedia:Harvard referencing style ( Harvard 2005) for referencing, as you can see who wrote what and when while reading the main text. We also seem to have the quite a few notes which should be references, which makes things confusing.
Thoughts. -- Salix alba ( talk) 20:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
These are generally contrary to policy, and frowned upon by arbcom. I propose to restore, without prejudice to any future discussions. Septentrionalis 21:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
The first note (disabled) is a guide to COW; the second the sources for the assertion. Septentrionalis 17:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
That isn't the argument that's specious. If Russett answered this, please put both of them back together. Septentrionalis 18:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The present edit has extremely long sections. Headers should be after several paragraphs, not every few screens. It is more important to have a clear structure (especially in an article of this length), than what the structure is. Mostimportantly, it helps to prevent inadvertent repetition; there have already been apargraphs added on subjects which were already discussed, sourced from the same paper.
Most of the sections, where they have been altered, are now also indiscriminate collections of information, which makes this problem worse. This will be better when the present extreme verbosity is trimmed; but it will still need to be dealt with.
Nevertheless, I intend to deal with a paragraph or two at a time, not altering their order. (When I do find two paragraphs discussing the same paper and topic, I will move them together before merging.) Septentrionalis 16:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Section headers have sometimes been added largely to make the flow manageable. In such cases, if the content disagrees with the header, a rational editor will consider changing the header. Septentrionalis 16:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
These paragraphs, which I will subjoin, should either be restored or removed. I wrote them in the first place because we had been asked a couple times, "So what does democratic peace theory say about X?" for some potential crisis, and (while the answer seemed clear), it was pointless to have the reader dig through the whole article for the information.
In any case, this should either be restored (in some form) or deleted; its disjecta membra are useless.
I changed the date, and added the idea of illiberal democracy, which will probably require a cource; Fareed Zakaria should do. I don't think that we can go any further without being PoV. Although I agree with the PoV in question, as do most Westerners, discussion of the matter would be off topic; that's what the links are for. Septentrionalis 16:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
1. The current article gives undue weight to the critical studies, especially considering that this is minority POV among researchers. This needs to be corrected.
2. Arguments about a controversial topics can be discussed in two general ways. One is dividing the article into two main parts after an introduction. See for example Views of the Arab-Israeli conflict and User:Ultramarine/sandbox4. Another is dividing the article according to the contested points and including arguments for and against. See Nuclear Power. However, the current article is an unacceptable mismatch between the two. It has both discussions ordered by points and ordered according to supporters and opponents. I will start editing the article to a consistent version. Which alternative do you prefer? Ultramarine 17:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
None of them:
Any execution of this plan will be editing against the consensus of Scaife in #35, Salix alba, who desires that change take place slowly, and myself. Septentrionalis 17:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I really don't see why the next order of business cannot be a slow consideration of the several paragraphs Ultramarine has added to the article, so Salix can read them. Septentrionalis 18:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
The current situation is unacceptable. Criticisms and counter-criticisms are spread all over the article with no logical connection. The first alternative would be to reorganize similar to User:Ultramarine/sandbox4. The minor differences among researchers supporting the DPT can be mentioned without problem in the pro-DPT section. As is already done in User:Ultramarine/sandbox4 regarding possible causes. The other solution would be to dismantle the "criticisms" and "counter-criticism" sections. Studies related to wars goes to the Wars section, those about MIDs go to the MIDs section, and so one. If section gets to large, then subsections are created. Ultramarine 19:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
The information is hidden in a footnote. This is not mentioned "are slightly less involved in wars in general, initiate wars and MIDs less frequently than nondemocracies, and tend more frequently to seek negotiated resolutions". You are incorrect regarding the study, it is the monadic explanations they do not find convincing, not the empirical evidence. Ultramarine 22:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
is cut and paste from
from Ray's 2003 paper.
See [18]. Including deletion without explanation of important supporting study. And again including "Rossami 2003" despite not mentioned in the reference list. Ultramarine 16:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Both Salix and I have now protested. That's the difference. You've waited months to edit this article. Waiting a few hours (at most) to consult your fellow editors will not prevent the article from improving eventually. Septentrionalis 18:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
As for Spiro, you are welcome to clarify; please consult the source and do not introduce inaccuracy. Septentrionalis 18:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
[19]. Back to: [20] Very strange, studies about MIDs do not belong in a section about exceptions to no wars. Also the unexplained restoration of the claimed COW definition of democracy. No such definition was found at the COW project. Ultramarine 17:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I have corrected the section to reflect that the VP election was contested -- there is no evidence that any elector thought of (or would have dared) voting against Washington. None of the other candidates considered themselves candidates for President. This is the absolute consensus of all scholars on the subject. If my correction matches Ultramarine's meaning, then fine. If not, then Ultramarine was committing original research by drawing a novel conclusion from a primary source (the raw election returns).
As the quotation from the National Archives shows, there was no meaningful contest for the office of President in 1789 or 1792. or 1796 There was a contest for Vice President, which Ultramarine may be confusing with the presidential race. This is distinct from the situation in 1800, when there was a contest for President, and the loser became Veep, with near-disastrous results, hence the
Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Additional sources of this can be found in the sources for the article George Washington, including but not limited to [21], [22]. I also refer Ultramarine to Miracle in Philadelphia -- since this is a fourth citation, I feel justified in doing it from memory and will check if Ultramarine insists. ( AGF, I have changed the title of this section. Ultramarine may have intended my correction, and if not he may believe his original research. Robert A.West ( Talk) 20:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I think there are three things that this article should say about the competitive-election/transfer-of-power rule:
Does this sound reasonable? Can we agree that these are useful facts? I don't know the answers, but can we cooperate in looking for appropriate sources and finding the answers? Robert A.West ( Talk) 18:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm...
Since the Babst article is not on line, and is the first academic article on the subject, would Ultramarine agree that the description is worth putting into a footnote? Robert A.West ( Talk) 19:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
The wording of WP:CV is:
Cutting and pasting abstracts, much less Ray's comments, without quotation marks, is not fair use. It is not lawful.
It is also not fair, in the simple ethical sense. Why should Ray, or Mueller, or Wayman, find his words floating around a Wikip[edia mirror somewhere, as though they had not written them? I omit the clear result of bad writing, as secondary. Septentrionalis 23:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
You have reverted back extreme amounts of details from very old studies, unrepresentative of research today. This as a straw man for supporting research and in order to again include criticisms disproved by later studes. My general point is that views of most researchers and their studies and arguments are not farily represented. Again, see User:Ultramarine/sandbox4. I think anyone who tries to read your text and compares it understands the need for a massive rewrite. Here is another offer a truce, if you do not want to accept the truce above. Either we restore the version that the Arbcom found acceptable or we start the article over from scratch. Ultramarine 00:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Can Ultramarine be arguing in good faith?
I propose to edit slowly, and will remove no substantive claim without explanation. I hope Ultramarine will do the same. If Ultramarine consents to mediation, which channel would he prefer? There are several. Septentrionalis 01:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Septentrionalis 02:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I'll make an offer.
This seems a no-lose proposition. Septentrionalis 03:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
How is this 1976 study relevant? Ultramarine 03:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Since Ultramarine is not bold enough to pick one, I will:in alphabetical order. I believe that Abadie 2004 is already included as one of his last miscellanea; which means we need not wait for Ultramarine to compose. But I must read it before I edit. Septentrionalis 03:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Added arguments and studies from User:Ultramarine/sandbox4. Reorganized. Removed duplication. More clean-up needed. Ultramarine 04:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Spiro's study had one major flaw: the argument from less likely than not in each year to always unlikely. Maoz and Russett both jumped on it, as the present text explains. His arguments that the dyadic method tends to count two many dyads in general are not addressed in those papers. Please read them. Septentrionalis 17:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
There are more than 200 references for this article. The "Arguments for the democratic peace" section is made up entirely of bullet points listing studies which support the heading of the section.
This is not a bibliography or a list; this is an encyclopedia article. Those sections can easily be reduced into paragraphs and sentences first explaining the point, and why studies think this. Most of the citations can be left out. It clutters up the article - you only need one or two citations to source a point. In short, there is way too much detail. -- infinity 0 15:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Ultramarine, that comment is very POV. It implies that all the researchers are neutral, which I doubt is the case.
The "arguments for DPT" section needs to be cleared up. Atm it's no less than a spam of studies. There is no secondary writing but only a list of studies supporting DPT. This is inproper content as well as undue weight since when people see a list they infer completeness - ie with opposing viewpoints. It is better to write out the arguments using your own words and using sources to support them, rather than to list out the sources and what they say. -- infinity 0 16:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia, however, not a research journal. I think it would be better to add information about the studies and the arguments in favour of DPT to this (Pmanderson's) version. The current version is very difficult to work with. I had a looked at it, and it's impossible to see how to rewrite the section I mentioned into flowing prose. -- infinity 0 16:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
As the article explains (at least, it did so yesterday) studies of MID's are important: there haven't been enough wars between democracies for statistical adequacy. I agree that we don't need very much detail on them; I believe there is another article specifically on Militarized interstate disputes. Septentrionalis 16:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Bullets removed. Ultramarine 16:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Ultramarine has a deeper misunderstanding. There has been one democratic peace, which many authors support. There are at least as many theories of the democratic peace as there have been major authors. I will see what I can do about this mess later. Septentrionalis 16:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, have a look at this one: [23] - I copied much of what Ultramarine added, and left out stuff I thought was already there. Eg: # 14.4 More participatory democracies have less systematic violence was already mentioned in "lesser conflicts". The main sections are now Methods, Arguments and Evidence, Causes, and Criticisms. I may have accidentally omitted some stuff, but ignore that since you can re-insert it later - please just comment on the general structure of things. -- infinity 0
One section seems to have gotten lost among the footnotes. It should be retrieved. Septentrionalis 17:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
There is now a line in the article saying "gelpi/democratic.winners.pdf]. </ref>". I'm trying to find its partner. -- infinity 0 17:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Much of this information has been removed, in favor of obsolete studies, either used as a straw man for the supporting arguments, or critical studies disproven by later reserach.
Abadie, Alberto (2004), "Poverty, Political Freedom, and the Roots of Terrorism" (PDF), NBER Working Paper Series
Binningsbø, Helga Malmin (2005), "Consociational Democracy and Postconflict Peace. Will Power-Sharing Institutions Increase the Probability of Lasting Peace after Civil War?" (PDF), Paper prepared for presentation at the 13th Annual National Political Science Conference, Hurdalsjøen, Norway, 5–7 January, 2005
Chernoff, Fred (2004), "The Study of Democratic Peace and Progress in International Relations", International Studies Review, 6 (1): 1079–1760
Davenport, Christian; Armstrong II, David A (2003), "Peace by Piece: Towards an Understanding of Exactly How Democracy Reduces State Repression." (PDF), Presented at the Midwest Political Science Association, 61st Annual Meeting, Chicago. April 3-6, 2003
Davenport, Christian; Armstrong II, David A (2004), "Democracy and the Violation of Human Rights: A Statistical Analysis from 1976 to 1996" (PDF), American Journal of Political Science, 48 (3)
Gelpi, Christopher F.; Griesdorf, Michael (2001), "Winners or Losers? Democracies in International Crisis, 1918–94" (PDF), American Political Science Review, 95 (3): 633–647
Goenner, Cullen F (2004),
"Uncertainty of the Liberal Peace" (PDF), Journal of Peace (5): 589-605 {{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |Research Volume=
ignored (
help)
Harff, Barabara (2003), "No Lessons Learned from the Holocaust? Assessing Risks of Genocide and Political Mass Murder since 1955" (PDF), American Political Science Review, 97 (1): 57-73
Harrison, Ewan (2005), "The Democratic Peace Research Program and System Level Analysis" (PDF), Paper presented at the British International Studies Association Annual Conference
Hensel, Paul R.; Goertz, Gary; Diehl, Paul F. (2000), "The Democratice Peace and Rivalries" (PDF), Journal of Politics, 64: 1173–88
Ellington, Tanja; Gates, Scott; Gleditsch, Nils Petter (2001),
"Towards A Democratic Civil Peace? Opportunity, Grievance, and Civil War 1816-1992", American Political Science Review, 95 (1): 33–48 {{
citation}}
: Missing |author1=
(
help); Unknown parameter |Given1=
ignored (|given1=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |Surname1=
ignored (|surname1=
suggested) (
help)
Kim, Hyung Min; Rousseau, David L. (2005), "The Classical Liberals Were Half Right (or Half Wrong): New Tests of the 'Liberal Peace', 1960–88" (PDF), Journal of Peace Research, 42 (5): 523-543
Kinsella, David (2005), "No Rest for the Demoratic Peace", American Political Science Review, 99: 453–457
Lagazio, Monica; Russett, Bruce (2004), "A Neural Network Analysis of Militarized Disputes, 1885-1992: Temporal Stability and Causal Complexity", in Diehl, Paul (ed.), The Scourge of War: New Extensions on an Old Problem (PDF)
Leblang, David; Chan, Steve (2003), "Explaining Wars Fought by Established Democracies: Do Institutional Constraints Matter?", Political Research Quarterly, 56: 385–400
Levy, Gilat; Razin, Ronny (2004), "It Takes Two: An Explanation for the Democratic Peace" (PDF), Journal of the European Economic Association, 2 (1): 1–29
Mousseau, Michael; Shi, Yuhand (1999), "A Test for Reverse Causality in the Democratic Peace Relationship" (PDF), Journal for Peace Research, 36 (6): 639–663
Müller, Harald; Wolff, Jonas (2004), "Dyadic Democratic Peace Strikes Back" (PDF), Paper prepared for presentation at the 5th Pan-European International Relations Conference The Hague, September 9-11, 2004
Oneal, John R.; Russett, Bruce (2001), "Causes of Peace: Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations, 1885-1992" (PDF), Paper presented at the 2001 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francsco, CA
Oneal, John R.; Russett, Bruce (2004), "Rule of Three, Let it Be? When More Really Is Better" (PDF), Revised version of paper presented at the annual meeting of the Peace Science Society
Ravlo, Hilde; Gleditsch, Nils Peter (2000), "Colonial War and Globalization of Democratic Values" (PDF), Paper Presented to the Workshop on ‘Globalization and Armed Conflict’ at the Joint Session of Workshops, European Consortium for Political Research Copenhagen, 15–19 April 2000
Ray, James Lee (1998), "Does Democracy Cause Peace?", Annual Review of Political Science, 1: 27–46
Ray, James Lee (2003), "A Lakatosian View of the Democratic Peace Research Program", in Colin and Miriam Fendius Elman (ed.), Progress in International Relations Theory (PDF), MIT Press
Ray, James Lee (2005), "Constructing Multivariate Analyses (of Dangerous Dyads)" (PDF), Conflict Management and Peace Science, 22: 277–292
Reuveny, Rafael; Li, Quan (2003), "The Joint Democracy–Dyadic Conflict Nexus: A Simultaneous Equations Model" (PDF), Journal of Politics, 47: 325–346
Reiter, D. (2001), "Does Peace Nature Democracy?", Journal of Politics, 63 (3): 935–948
Rummel, Rudolph J. (1997), Power Kills: Democracy as a Method of Nonviolence, Transaction Publishers
Russett, Bruce (2005), "Bushwhacking the Democratic Peace", International Studies Perspectives, 6 (4): 395
Slantchev, Branislav L.; Alexandrova, Anna; Gartzke, Erik (2005), "Probabilistic Causality, Selection Bias, and the Logic of the Democratic Peace" (PDF), American Political Science Review, 99 (3): 459–462
Wayman, Frank (2002), "Incidence of Militarized Disputes Between Liberal States, 1816-1992", Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, New Orleans, La., Mar. 23-27, 2002
Weart, Spencer R. (1998), Never at War, Yale University Press
Werner, Suzanne; Lemke, Douglas (1997), "Opposites Do Not Attract: The Impact of Domestic Institutions, Power, and Prior Commitments on Alignment Choicesl", International Studies Quarterly, 41 (3): 529–546
Septentrionalis, why have you again included much detail from Spiro (1994), when you yourself admit it is spurious? Why are the responding studies and arguments not mentioned? Ultramarine 23:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Septentrionalis, why have you again removed the link to Never at War from the exceptions section? This is an article that actually discusses exceptions. Ultramarine 23:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Septentrionalis, why is this argument from a newspaper opinon piece included? "This rhetorical approach has led to the democratic peace being dismissed as subject to the no true Scotsman problem." Ultramarine 23:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
No, putting in four emphaatic paragraphs on Weart, including repeating the text Scaife removed as editorializing, just will not do. Those arguments are already in the section, insofar as we can afford space for them. Septentrionalis 17:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Ultramarine has made the following edits ( combined diff)
But I will insert a link. Septentrionalis 15:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Please stop misrepresenting the argument over "no wars". There are two distinct questions:
These are distinct questions. It is possible to answer Yes on (1) and No on (2); and those who do, like Wayman and Bremer, are the most vehement in saying that the three authors who answer Yes on (2) are claiming the unprovable. Septentrionalis 15:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Septentrionalis, stop deleting sourced material. There are many researchers beside those 3 you point out. Read the references. Ultramarine 16:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
are some examples of recent researchers stating no wars. Ultramarine 16:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Septentrionalis, you state "Three theorists argue that the interdemocratic peace is a necessary and mechanical connection; an "absolute (or point) assertion", in the words of one of them. [1]." No evidence has been given that any except Rummel believes this. Ray explicitly states in his 2003 paper that there may be wars in the future between demcracies, even if he found none previously. Ultramarine 16:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Septentrionalis, why did you revert much sourced information without explanation. See this: [25] Ultramarine 16:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Your text: "Democracies have been defined differently by different researchers; this accounts for some of the variations in their findings. In general, they require a relatively wide franchise, at least in historical terms; competitive elections; civil rights; and a constitutional government.
There is general agreement that the democratic peace applies to liberal democracies, with "freedom of speech, religion, and organization; and a constitutional framework of law to which the government is subordinate and that guarantees equal rights." [25]
Wide franchise can be, in different authors, from half the adult population down to 10%, or even lower. Explicitly requiring women's suffrage would mean there could have been no interdemocratic wars before New Zealand enacted it in 1894. [26] The effect of this variation on the list of democracies is not great, although Great Britain can be argued to have achieved wide franchise at various dates between 1832 and 1918.
Theorists differ on the extent to which the executive must be chosen by election. Many would accept Babst's definition that he either be elected directly or freely chosen by an elected body. Singer required that the parliament be at least equal to the executive. Babst and Rummel also require secret ballot, which was first practised in 1856[27]
Doyle, who writes of "liberal régimes" rather than "democracies", allows greater power to hereditary monarchs than other theories; for example, he counts the rule of Louis-Philippe of France - and that of Robespierre - as a liberal regíme. He describes Wilhelmine Germany as "a difficult case....In practice, a liberal state under republican law for domestic affairs...divorced from the control of its citizenry in foreign affairs."[28]
In this usage he follows Kant, who opposed (direct) "democracy" since it is "necessarily despotism, as it establishes an executive power contrary to the general will; all being able to decide against one whose opinion may differ, the will of all is therefore not that of all: which is contradictory and opposite to liberty." Instead, Kant favors a constitutional republic where individual liberty is protected from the will of the majority.
Russett also uses somewhat similar definitions for modern wars but has different definitions for Ancient Greece."
As can been mostly, ancient definitions. Very little from the modern definitions, for example:
R.J. Rummel in the book Power Kills: Democracy as a Method of Nonviolence 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." "A well-established democracy is one for which enough time has passed since its inception for peace-sufficient democratic procedures to become accepted and democratic culture to settle in. Around three years seems to be enough for this." [2] Appendix 1.1 He also argues that the ballot must be secret. + Theorists differ on the extent to which the executive must be chosen by election. Many would accept Babst's definition that he either be elected directly or freely chosen by an elected body. Singer required that the parliament be at least equal to the executive. Babst and Rummel also require secret ballot, which was first practised in 1856 [3]
The book Never at War (1998) by the historian Spencer R. Weart uses somewhat similar definitions. One difference is that Weart defines war as more than 200 battle deaths. This book also proposes a related peace between oligarchies. In his book Grasping the Democratic Peace (1993), political scientist Bruce Russett also uses somewhat similar definitions for modern wars but has different definitions for Ancient Greece. + Doyle, who writes of "liberal régimes" rather than "democracies", allows greater power to hereditary monarchs than other theories; for example, he counts the rule of Louis-Philippe of France - and that of Robespierre - as a liberal regíme. He describes Wilhelmine Germany as "a difficult case....In practice, a liberal state under republican law for domestic affairs...divorced from the control of its citizenry in foreign affairs." [4]
Political scientist James Lee Ray, in his book Democracy and International Conflict, (1995) 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. Ultramarine 17:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Septentrionalis 17:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Simply strange to clam something like this when you in the main text almost only mentions definitions used before 1983 and ignore the recent ones. Ultramarine 17:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Why is this included, from 1983: "Doyle, who writes of "liberal régimes" rather than "democracies", allows greater power to hereditary monarchs than other theories; for example, he counts the rule of Louis-Philippe of France - and that of Robespierre - as a liberal regíme. He describes Wilhelmine Germany as "a difficult case....In practice, a liberal state under republican law for domestic affairs...divorced from the control of its citizenry in foreign affairs." Why not Rummel's more modern defintion instead? Why is a possible exception stated without counter-arguments, this violates NPOV. Ultramarine 18:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Two {{ Dubious}} tags:
"There has been a confluence of the old theory (dating back to Richard Cobden and Benjamin Constant) that Free Trade will produce and ensure peace,[94] with the modern theory that trade will produce democracy, or at least spread it to the non-democratic trading partner, as argued by Houshang Amiramahdi and others. According to this, democracy and peace are indeed correlated, because they arise from a common cause." Source please for that any recent democratic peace researcher argues that trade is ultimate explanation. Ultramarine 14:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
This talk page approaches 256K. It will be archived. Septentrionalis 15:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Septentrionalis, you have made a large scale revert, claiming deletion of sourced material. State exactly what material was deleted: [31] Ultramarine 16:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Most of the following are the result of misreading English idiom, some are already under Exceptions. The first three are assertions that many studies support the democratic peace against the Realists.
In short, only one of these distinguishes the none from the very rare, and the single publication mentioned in that one is already included. Septentrionalis 17:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Some researchers say no wars; others say very few wars; many, sensibly, ignore the difference. This was the case the last time you trotted out these quotes; it still is. Either come up with some actual evidence or stop trying to put unsupported claims into the article. Septentrionalis 19:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Those three being Weart, Ray, and Rummel according to you. Some others:
The following list of articles, mostly recommended by Scaife and myself do not appear to be included:
Most of them are less than three years old. Septentrionalis 23:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
This is unreadable. I suppose that may be the sign of a work in progress; but sections of a dozen paragraphs are deprecated in the MOS because they are unintelligible.
Do notify this talk page when you are quite through, that we may see what you have come up with. Septentrionalis 23:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
![]() | 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. |
Ultramarine has written my talk page, suggesting that we should start over with the draft in User:Ultramarine/sandbox4, and take half; he the pro-DPT side and the rest of us the anti-DPT side, and each agree not to edit each other's half; but answer each other on our own. His model for this is Middle East conflict, which is apparently so divided between the Jews and the Arabs.
This is an undesirable model, being rather a departure from wikiprinciples for a hard case rather than an example of them. But I put forth the suggestion; it may serve as the basis for a useful negotiation.
The division anticipated appears to be:
I write of course, subject to correction here.
Ket ne know what you think. Septentrionalis 05:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I must disagree with converging to a consensus. The current text is almost exclusively Pmanderson's version, as can be seen in the history. [6] As noted above, it systematically excludes supporting studies and arguments. I have tried to discuss the differences on the talk page instead of starting an edit war. Ultramarine 10:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
It is stated in the tag: "Inflation of the position of R. J. Rummel, and advocacy of his particular findings, which is giving undue weight to a single researcher". Please explain, there are numerous supporting researchers. Ultramarine 10:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
This is now Scaife's complaint, more than mine; I am reasonably satisfied with the weight now given to Weart/Ray/Rummel. It may need some adjustment, but it can wait for the article trim. Septentrionalis 23:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
As both parties have requested my assistance on this article, I'll try to help, but on the priviso that we try to keep disputes to the talk page. To clearly list disputes where readers can easily find them I've created a Template talk:Todo page. I've also reduced the initial tags to just one disputed one, following the mediators User:Kim Bruning suggestion. Revert this and I'm out of here! -- Salix alba ( talk) 18:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Interested in your thoughts on this paper. Ray [ http://sitemason.vanderbilt.edu/files/g/gDf5Ty/6%20ray%20demo%20peace%20FIRST%20PROOFS.pdf A Lakatosian View of the Democratic Peace Research Program] You can reply here. -- Salix alba ( talk) 23:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
At first look, my reaction is as follows:
If you would like page refs for any of the above, let me know. I do not have Babst's paper to hand, although I have read both forms; I believe the papers of Maoz and Doyle to which I refer are available online only through JSTOR. Septentrionalis 02:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I asked you both individually as I wanted your personal views on the subject, rather than a debate.
To me this paper indicates a development of the theory and actually the type of question being asked. It seems to now be developing from a binary question about whether or not there is evidence for DP to a deeper one: how does the presence of democracies affect conflict, what are the mechanisms. In a sense trying to create a richer picture of the landscape of democracies and conflict. For the most part the wikipedia article seems to still focused on the 20th Century interpretation, the more modern analysis is barely mentioned, except on how it informs the older debate. So do we need to move this article into the 21st century? Only a brief response as I've got to go to work now. -- Salix alba ( talk) 08:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
So who else should have been included? Say what works from this century published in political science journals. Is there today a large camp who offer a serious critiques of DPT, as a body of work, rather that just Rummels outdated thesis. I'm principally interested in work this century as I want to get a feel for the current state of of the discipline. -- Salix alba ( talk) 23:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Manfield and Snyder, seem to me part of the process of deep exploration of DPT. They are going from a first order approximation, Democracies and Non-democracies, to a richer description involving the transitions of states. Transitional states being more likely to engage in combat, does not render the study of democracies and peace irreverent. Owen seem to be have same message. -- Salix alba ( talk) 23:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Septentrionalis 19:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
If Ultramarine has specific papers he thinks I should read, let him list them here. Papers that he thinks agree with Ray, Rummel, and Weart would be particularly welcome. (I would have accepted Mansfield and Snyder; but Ray clearly does not.) Septentrionalis 21:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I am genuinely shocked by Ray's footnote 48:
I did think (call me naïf) that this sort of judgment of a theory by political consequences had become less fashionable after the fall of the Soviet Union. Septentrionalis 22:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I think it promising that Ultramarine should have begun to edit this page. It is unfortunate that he should have begun with the removal of Reitberger's paper, which approaches vandalism. Septentrionalis
Please respond section by section, so we can keep the discussions of a given change together. Septentrionalis 17:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Ultramarine removed:
Ultramarine fails to understand the purpose of these two paragraphs (and I think of the section). This talk page has gotten several notes by readers as to what DPT says about current events, and (even when the answers could be dug out of the article) not finding them.
There is a widespread misinterpretation of DPT that it says more than any actual theorist holds: that democracies do not take any sort of hostile action (including covert action) against each other. This seems to have begun with careless op-ed columnists making drastic assertions based on it, and then spread by people debunking them, and thinking they are debunking DPT. There is a note, now archived, suggesting that the election of Ahmedinejad was a violation of DPT, presumably because he's bellicose. It isn't.
Even those readers who think Iran is a democracy should be told that, say, economic sanctions against it would not disprove DPT. We should not encourage demonstrable error.
Ultramarine further objects that the second paragraph is original research. I This is a very strict standard; on that basis, all statements about what the DPT does not hold, such as the one about covert action above, are improper. I've looked; I can't find one; either in the papers I have read or dozens and dozens of Google results - if Ultramarine knows of such a discussion (including a comment on the absence of discussion) I would prefer to include it. Septentrionalis
I acknowledge that Ultramarine disagrees that these were the correct definitions of militant democracy and separate peace. It would have been more helpful to include (from his PoV) correct ones, especially since the terms are used elsewhere; I might have agreed that they were correct. Septentrionalis
I note the paragraph has been moved and expanded. Septentrionalis
A deletion of In a similar assertion, Islamic tradition holds that peace will prevail within the dar al-Islam, but war, including jihad, beyond that zone. This is the sort of thing that "every schoolboy knows", as Lord Macaulay put it. A citation-needed tag would have been appropriate. Septentrionalis 17:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
What is the source for this; surely the original is more intelligible to the common reader?
This is a misunderstanding; I will find an example. This point is intended to cover simple claims of error, as some of Rossami's (whether Rossami was correct is another matter).
This should go somewhere in criticism (although the process of his actual selection as Chancellor is debatable). But not here; paragraphs should not change topic in the middle.
This is, as it was in its original place, a summary of the corresponding section; it is pointless here.
The addition to the fourth point should be a paragraph in the corresponding section.
I do not see why the new fifth point is distinct from the third, although it would serve as a useful example. Septentrionalis
The complete deletion of the analyis of Weart et.al., which is expressly detended by two editors in #1 above, is editing contraty to consesnsus. The deletion of sourced material in the rest of the section is contrary to policy. If Ultramarine denies them, he knows wherr the {{ disputed}} tags are. Septentrionalis 20:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Please don't mix statements of different classes. Errors is intended for claims, like Rossami and some of Spiro's of mere misstatements of facts and blunders.
Unsourced . Septentrionalis 17:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The claim that A and B and C produce peace does contradict the claim that A alone produces peace.
The last sentence is another unsourced claim of a negative. Ultramarine should consider that standards he does not abide by himself may be dubious when applied to others. Septentrionalis 17:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Neither paper mentions Rummel or Weart either. If this is the standard to be employed, let's get rid of all three of them. Septentrionalis 23:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Certainly the article should be kept up-to-date; but I don't see why the newest papers should be listed as an indiscrimate collection of facts. The section head really applies only to Ray's peacockery. Septentrionalis 17:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
We are neither citing Magnus Reitberger's History of democratic peace theory, 2004 nor publishing it, we are presenting a link to a file, which anyone can find, as Scaife apparently did find it, by searching on DPT and the names of some prominent authors.
As for Matthew White's dicussion, calling an essay which presents arguments on both sides and comes to no conclusion either way a criticism is an act of blind partisanship and absolutely unacceptable. Septentrionalis 15:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
If, as I suspect, "very soon" will mean the rest of the academic year, we should certainly consider using while it lasts; three months is a long time on Wikipedia. Septentrionalis 15:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Again, please respond by sections (I have signed each to make this easier). Septentrionalis 17:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I believe this moots many of Ultramarine's complaints above. We should archive, to make room for a discussion of the present text. Septentrionalis 17:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
See the Neutrality and factual accuracy section above and my edit comments. See also User:Ultramarine/sandbox4 and User:Salix alba/History of conflict between democracies Ultramarine 18:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I quite like the Wikipedia:Harvard referencing style ( Harvard 2005) for referencing, as you can see who wrote what and when while reading the main text. We also seem to have the quite a few notes which should be references, which makes things confusing.
Thoughts. -- Salix alba ( talk) 20:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
These are generally contrary to policy, and frowned upon by arbcom. I propose to restore, without prejudice to any future discussions. Septentrionalis 21:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
The first note (disabled) is a guide to COW; the second the sources for the assertion. Septentrionalis 17:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
That isn't the argument that's specious. If Russett answered this, please put both of them back together. Septentrionalis 18:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The present edit has extremely long sections. Headers should be after several paragraphs, not every few screens. It is more important to have a clear structure (especially in an article of this length), than what the structure is. Mostimportantly, it helps to prevent inadvertent repetition; there have already been apargraphs added on subjects which were already discussed, sourced from the same paper.
Most of the sections, where they have been altered, are now also indiscriminate collections of information, which makes this problem worse. This will be better when the present extreme verbosity is trimmed; but it will still need to be dealt with.
Nevertheless, I intend to deal with a paragraph or two at a time, not altering their order. (When I do find two paragraphs discussing the same paper and topic, I will move them together before merging.) Septentrionalis 16:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Section headers have sometimes been added largely to make the flow manageable. In such cases, if the content disagrees with the header, a rational editor will consider changing the header. Septentrionalis 16:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
These paragraphs, which I will subjoin, should either be restored or removed. I wrote them in the first place because we had been asked a couple times, "So what does democratic peace theory say about X?" for some potential crisis, and (while the answer seemed clear), it was pointless to have the reader dig through the whole article for the information.
In any case, this should either be restored (in some form) or deleted; its disjecta membra are useless.
I changed the date, and added the idea of illiberal democracy, which will probably require a cource; Fareed Zakaria should do. I don't think that we can go any further without being PoV. Although I agree with the PoV in question, as do most Westerners, discussion of the matter would be off topic; that's what the links are for. Septentrionalis 16:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
1. The current article gives undue weight to the critical studies, especially considering that this is minority POV among researchers. This needs to be corrected.
2. Arguments about a controversial topics can be discussed in two general ways. One is dividing the article into two main parts after an introduction. See for example Views of the Arab-Israeli conflict and User:Ultramarine/sandbox4. Another is dividing the article according to the contested points and including arguments for and against. See Nuclear Power. However, the current article is an unacceptable mismatch between the two. It has both discussions ordered by points and ordered according to supporters and opponents. I will start editing the article to a consistent version. Which alternative do you prefer? Ultramarine 17:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
None of them:
Any execution of this plan will be editing against the consensus of Scaife in #35, Salix alba, who desires that change take place slowly, and myself. Septentrionalis 17:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I really don't see why the next order of business cannot be a slow consideration of the several paragraphs Ultramarine has added to the article, so Salix can read them. Septentrionalis 18:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
The current situation is unacceptable. Criticisms and counter-criticisms are spread all over the article with no logical connection. The first alternative would be to reorganize similar to User:Ultramarine/sandbox4. The minor differences among researchers supporting the DPT can be mentioned without problem in the pro-DPT section. As is already done in User:Ultramarine/sandbox4 regarding possible causes. The other solution would be to dismantle the "criticisms" and "counter-criticism" sections. Studies related to wars goes to the Wars section, those about MIDs go to the MIDs section, and so one. If section gets to large, then subsections are created. Ultramarine 19:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
The information is hidden in a footnote. This is not mentioned "are slightly less involved in wars in general, initiate wars and MIDs less frequently than nondemocracies, and tend more frequently to seek negotiated resolutions". You are incorrect regarding the study, it is the monadic explanations they do not find convincing, not the empirical evidence. Ultramarine 22:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
is cut and paste from
from Ray's 2003 paper.
See [18]. Including deletion without explanation of important supporting study. And again including "Rossami 2003" despite not mentioned in the reference list. Ultramarine 16:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Both Salix and I have now protested. That's the difference. You've waited months to edit this article. Waiting a few hours (at most) to consult your fellow editors will not prevent the article from improving eventually. Septentrionalis 18:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
As for Spiro, you are welcome to clarify; please consult the source and do not introduce inaccuracy. Septentrionalis 18:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
[19]. Back to: [20] Very strange, studies about MIDs do not belong in a section about exceptions to no wars. Also the unexplained restoration of the claimed COW definition of democracy. No such definition was found at the COW project. Ultramarine 17:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I have corrected the section to reflect that the VP election was contested -- there is no evidence that any elector thought of (or would have dared) voting against Washington. None of the other candidates considered themselves candidates for President. This is the absolute consensus of all scholars on the subject. If my correction matches Ultramarine's meaning, then fine. If not, then Ultramarine was committing original research by drawing a novel conclusion from a primary source (the raw election returns).
As the quotation from the National Archives shows, there was no meaningful contest for the office of President in 1789 or 1792. or 1796 There was a contest for Vice President, which Ultramarine may be confusing with the presidential race. This is distinct from the situation in 1800, when there was a contest for President, and the loser became Veep, with near-disastrous results, hence the
Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Additional sources of this can be found in the sources for the article George Washington, including but not limited to [21], [22]. I also refer Ultramarine to Miracle in Philadelphia -- since this is a fourth citation, I feel justified in doing it from memory and will check if Ultramarine insists. ( AGF, I have changed the title of this section. Ultramarine may have intended my correction, and if not he may believe his original research. Robert A.West ( Talk) 20:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I think there are three things that this article should say about the competitive-election/transfer-of-power rule:
Does this sound reasonable? Can we agree that these are useful facts? I don't know the answers, but can we cooperate in looking for appropriate sources and finding the answers? Robert A.West ( Talk) 18:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm...
Since the Babst article is not on line, and is the first academic article on the subject, would Ultramarine agree that the description is worth putting into a footnote? Robert A.West ( Talk) 19:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
The wording of WP:CV is:
Cutting and pasting abstracts, much less Ray's comments, without quotation marks, is not fair use. It is not lawful.
It is also not fair, in the simple ethical sense. Why should Ray, or Mueller, or Wayman, find his words floating around a Wikip[edia mirror somewhere, as though they had not written them? I omit the clear result of bad writing, as secondary. Septentrionalis 23:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
You have reverted back extreme amounts of details from very old studies, unrepresentative of research today. This as a straw man for supporting research and in order to again include criticisms disproved by later studes. My general point is that views of most researchers and their studies and arguments are not farily represented. Again, see User:Ultramarine/sandbox4. I think anyone who tries to read your text and compares it understands the need for a massive rewrite. Here is another offer a truce, if you do not want to accept the truce above. Either we restore the version that the Arbcom found acceptable or we start the article over from scratch. Ultramarine 00:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Can Ultramarine be arguing in good faith?
I propose to edit slowly, and will remove no substantive claim without explanation. I hope Ultramarine will do the same. If Ultramarine consents to mediation, which channel would he prefer? There are several. Septentrionalis 01:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Septentrionalis 02:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I'll make an offer.
This seems a no-lose proposition. Septentrionalis 03:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
How is this 1976 study relevant? Ultramarine 03:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Since Ultramarine is not bold enough to pick one, I will:in alphabetical order. I believe that Abadie 2004 is already included as one of his last miscellanea; which means we need not wait for Ultramarine to compose. But I must read it before I edit. Septentrionalis 03:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Added arguments and studies from User:Ultramarine/sandbox4. Reorganized. Removed duplication. More clean-up needed. Ultramarine 04:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Spiro's study had one major flaw: the argument from less likely than not in each year to always unlikely. Maoz and Russett both jumped on it, as the present text explains. His arguments that the dyadic method tends to count two many dyads in general are not addressed in those papers. Please read them. Septentrionalis 17:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
There are more than 200 references for this article. The "Arguments for the democratic peace" section is made up entirely of bullet points listing studies which support the heading of the section.
This is not a bibliography or a list; this is an encyclopedia article. Those sections can easily be reduced into paragraphs and sentences first explaining the point, and why studies think this. Most of the citations can be left out. It clutters up the article - you only need one or two citations to source a point. In short, there is way too much detail. -- infinity 0 15:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Ultramarine, that comment is very POV. It implies that all the researchers are neutral, which I doubt is the case.
The "arguments for DPT" section needs to be cleared up. Atm it's no less than a spam of studies. There is no secondary writing but only a list of studies supporting DPT. This is inproper content as well as undue weight since when people see a list they infer completeness - ie with opposing viewpoints. It is better to write out the arguments using your own words and using sources to support them, rather than to list out the sources and what they say. -- infinity 0 16:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia, however, not a research journal. I think it would be better to add information about the studies and the arguments in favour of DPT to this (Pmanderson's) version. The current version is very difficult to work with. I had a looked at it, and it's impossible to see how to rewrite the section I mentioned into flowing prose. -- infinity 0 16:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
As the article explains (at least, it did so yesterday) studies of MID's are important: there haven't been enough wars between democracies for statistical adequacy. I agree that we don't need very much detail on them; I believe there is another article specifically on Militarized interstate disputes. Septentrionalis 16:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Bullets removed. Ultramarine 16:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Ultramarine has a deeper misunderstanding. There has been one democratic peace, which many authors support. There are at least as many theories of the democratic peace as there have been major authors. I will see what I can do about this mess later. Septentrionalis 16:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, have a look at this one: [23] - I copied much of what Ultramarine added, and left out stuff I thought was already there. Eg: # 14.4 More participatory democracies have less systematic violence was already mentioned in "lesser conflicts". The main sections are now Methods, Arguments and Evidence, Causes, and Criticisms. I may have accidentally omitted some stuff, but ignore that since you can re-insert it later - please just comment on the general structure of things. -- infinity 0
One section seems to have gotten lost among the footnotes. It should be retrieved. Septentrionalis 17:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
There is now a line in the article saying "gelpi/democratic.winners.pdf]. </ref>". I'm trying to find its partner. -- infinity 0 17:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Much of this information has been removed, in favor of obsolete studies, either used as a straw man for the supporting arguments, or critical studies disproven by later reserach.
Abadie, Alberto (2004), "Poverty, Political Freedom, and the Roots of Terrorism" (PDF), NBER Working Paper Series
Binningsbø, Helga Malmin (2005), "Consociational Democracy and Postconflict Peace. Will Power-Sharing Institutions Increase the Probability of Lasting Peace after Civil War?" (PDF), Paper prepared for presentation at the 13th Annual National Political Science Conference, Hurdalsjøen, Norway, 5–7 January, 2005
Chernoff, Fred (2004), "The Study of Democratic Peace and Progress in International Relations", International Studies Review, 6 (1): 1079–1760
Davenport, Christian; Armstrong II, David A (2003), "Peace by Piece: Towards an Understanding of Exactly How Democracy Reduces State Repression." (PDF), Presented at the Midwest Political Science Association, 61st Annual Meeting, Chicago. April 3-6, 2003
Davenport, Christian; Armstrong II, David A (2004), "Democracy and the Violation of Human Rights: A Statistical Analysis from 1976 to 1996" (PDF), American Journal of Political Science, 48 (3)
Gelpi, Christopher F.; Griesdorf, Michael (2001), "Winners or Losers? Democracies in International Crisis, 1918–94" (PDF), American Political Science Review, 95 (3): 633–647
Goenner, Cullen F (2004),
"Uncertainty of the Liberal Peace" (PDF), Journal of Peace (5): 589-605 {{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |Research Volume=
ignored (
help)
Harff, Barabara (2003), "No Lessons Learned from the Holocaust? Assessing Risks of Genocide and Political Mass Murder since 1955" (PDF), American Political Science Review, 97 (1): 57-73
Harrison, Ewan (2005), "The Democratic Peace Research Program and System Level Analysis" (PDF), Paper presented at the British International Studies Association Annual Conference
Hensel, Paul R.; Goertz, Gary; Diehl, Paul F. (2000), "The Democratice Peace and Rivalries" (PDF), Journal of Politics, 64: 1173–88
Ellington, Tanja; Gates, Scott; Gleditsch, Nils Petter (2001),
"Towards A Democratic Civil Peace? Opportunity, Grievance, and Civil War 1816-1992", American Political Science Review, 95 (1): 33–48 {{
citation}}
: Missing |author1=
(
help); Unknown parameter |Given1=
ignored (|given1=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |Surname1=
ignored (|surname1=
suggested) (
help)
Kim, Hyung Min; Rousseau, David L. (2005), "The Classical Liberals Were Half Right (or Half Wrong): New Tests of the 'Liberal Peace', 1960–88" (PDF), Journal of Peace Research, 42 (5): 523-543
Kinsella, David (2005), "No Rest for the Demoratic Peace", American Political Science Review, 99: 453–457
Lagazio, Monica; Russett, Bruce (2004), "A Neural Network Analysis of Militarized Disputes, 1885-1992: Temporal Stability and Causal Complexity", in Diehl, Paul (ed.), The Scourge of War: New Extensions on an Old Problem (PDF)
Leblang, David; Chan, Steve (2003), "Explaining Wars Fought by Established Democracies: Do Institutional Constraints Matter?", Political Research Quarterly, 56: 385–400
Levy, Gilat; Razin, Ronny (2004), "It Takes Two: An Explanation for the Democratic Peace" (PDF), Journal of the European Economic Association, 2 (1): 1–29
Mousseau, Michael; Shi, Yuhand (1999), "A Test for Reverse Causality in the Democratic Peace Relationship" (PDF), Journal for Peace Research, 36 (6): 639–663
Müller, Harald; Wolff, Jonas (2004), "Dyadic Democratic Peace Strikes Back" (PDF), Paper prepared for presentation at the 5th Pan-European International Relations Conference The Hague, September 9-11, 2004
Oneal, John R.; Russett, Bruce (2001), "Causes of Peace: Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations, 1885-1992" (PDF), Paper presented at the 2001 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francsco, CA
Oneal, John R.; Russett, Bruce (2004), "Rule of Three, Let it Be? When More Really Is Better" (PDF), Revised version of paper presented at the annual meeting of the Peace Science Society
Ravlo, Hilde; Gleditsch, Nils Peter (2000), "Colonial War and Globalization of Democratic Values" (PDF), Paper Presented to the Workshop on ‘Globalization and Armed Conflict’ at the Joint Session of Workshops, European Consortium for Political Research Copenhagen, 15–19 April 2000
Ray, James Lee (1998), "Does Democracy Cause Peace?", Annual Review of Political Science, 1: 27–46
Ray, James Lee (2003), "A Lakatosian View of the Democratic Peace Research Program", in Colin and Miriam Fendius Elman (ed.), Progress in International Relations Theory (PDF), MIT Press
Ray, James Lee (2005), "Constructing Multivariate Analyses (of Dangerous Dyads)" (PDF), Conflict Management and Peace Science, 22: 277–292
Reuveny, Rafael; Li, Quan (2003), "The Joint Democracy–Dyadic Conflict Nexus: A Simultaneous Equations Model" (PDF), Journal of Politics, 47: 325–346
Reiter, D. (2001), "Does Peace Nature Democracy?", Journal of Politics, 63 (3): 935–948
Rummel, Rudolph J. (1997), Power Kills: Democracy as a Method of Nonviolence, Transaction Publishers
Russett, Bruce (2005), "Bushwhacking the Democratic Peace", International Studies Perspectives, 6 (4): 395
Slantchev, Branislav L.; Alexandrova, Anna; Gartzke, Erik (2005), "Probabilistic Causality, Selection Bias, and the Logic of the Democratic Peace" (PDF), American Political Science Review, 99 (3): 459–462
Wayman, Frank (2002), "Incidence of Militarized Disputes Between Liberal States, 1816-1992", Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, New Orleans, La., Mar. 23-27, 2002
Weart, Spencer R. (1998), Never at War, Yale University Press
Werner, Suzanne; Lemke, Douglas (1997), "Opposites Do Not Attract: The Impact of Domestic Institutions, Power, and Prior Commitments on Alignment Choicesl", International Studies Quarterly, 41 (3): 529–546
Septentrionalis, why have you again included much detail from Spiro (1994), when you yourself admit it is spurious? Why are the responding studies and arguments not mentioned? Ultramarine 23:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Septentrionalis, why have you again removed the link to Never at War from the exceptions section? This is an article that actually discusses exceptions. Ultramarine 23:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Septentrionalis, why is this argument from a newspaper opinon piece included? "This rhetorical approach has led to the democratic peace being dismissed as subject to the no true Scotsman problem." Ultramarine 23:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
No, putting in four emphaatic paragraphs on Weart, including repeating the text Scaife removed as editorializing, just will not do. Those arguments are already in the section, insofar as we can afford space for them. Septentrionalis 17:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Ultramarine has made the following edits ( combined diff)
But I will insert a link. Septentrionalis 15:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Please stop misrepresenting the argument over "no wars". There are two distinct questions:
These are distinct questions. It is possible to answer Yes on (1) and No on (2); and those who do, like Wayman and Bremer, are the most vehement in saying that the three authors who answer Yes on (2) are claiming the unprovable. Septentrionalis 15:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Septentrionalis, stop deleting sourced material. There are many researchers beside those 3 you point out. Read the references. Ultramarine 16:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
are some examples of recent researchers stating no wars. Ultramarine 16:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Septentrionalis, you state "Three theorists argue that the interdemocratic peace is a necessary and mechanical connection; an "absolute (or point) assertion", in the words of one of them. [1]." No evidence has been given that any except Rummel believes this. Ray explicitly states in his 2003 paper that there may be wars in the future between demcracies, even if he found none previously. Ultramarine 16:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Septentrionalis, why did you revert much sourced information without explanation. See this: [25] Ultramarine 16:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Your text: "Democracies have been defined differently by different researchers; this accounts for some of the variations in their findings. In general, they require a relatively wide franchise, at least in historical terms; competitive elections; civil rights; and a constitutional government.
There is general agreement that the democratic peace applies to liberal democracies, with "freedom of speech, religion, and organization; and a constitutional framework of law to which the government is subordinate and that guarantees equal rights." [25]
Wide franchise can be, in different authors, from half the adult population down to 10%, or even lower. Explicitly requiring women's suffrage would mean there could have been no interdemocratic wars before New Zealand enacted it in 1894. [26] The effect of this variation on the list of democracies is not great, although Great Britain can be argued to have achieved wide franchise at various dates between 1832 and 1918.
Theorists differ on the extent to which the executive must be chosen by election. Many would accept Babst's definition that he either be elected directly or freely chosen by an elected body. Singer required that the parliament be at least equal to the executive. Babst and Rummel also require secret ballot, which was first practised in 1856[27]
Doyle, who writes of "liberal régimes" rather than "democracies", allows greater power to hereditary monarchs than other theories; for example, he counts the rule of Louis-Philippe of France - and that of Robespierre - as a liberal regíme. He describes Wilhelmine Germany as "a difficult case....In practice, a liberal state under republican law for domestic affairs...divorced from the control of its citizenry in foreign affairs."[28]
In this usage he follows Kant, who opposed (direct) "democracy" since it is "necessarily despotism, as it establishes an executive power contrary to the general will; all being able to decide against one whose opinion may differ, the will of all is therefore not that of all: which is contradictory and opposite to liberty." Instead, Kant favors a constitutional republic where individual liberty is protected from the will of the majority.
Russett also uses somewhat similar definitions for modern wars but has different definitions for Ancient Greece."
As can been mostly, ancient definitions. Very little from the modern definitions, for example:
R.J. Rummel in the book Power Kills: Democracy as a Method of Nonviolence 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." "A well-established democracy is one for which enough time has passed since its inception for peace-sufficient democratic procedures to become accepted and democratic culture to settle in. Around three years seems to be enough for this." [2] Appendix 1.1 He also argues that the ballot must be secret. + Theorists differ on the extent to which the executive must be chosen by election. Many would accept Babst's definition that he either be elected directly or freely chosen by an elected body. Singer required that the parliament be at least equal to the executive. Babst and Rummel also require secret ballot, which was first practised in 1856 [3]
The book Never at War (1998) by the historian Spencer R. Weart uses somewhat similar definitions. One difference is that Weart defines war as more than 200 battle deaths. This book also proposes a related peace between oligarchies. In his book Grasping the Democratic Peace (1993), political scientist Bruce Russett also uses somewhat similar definitions for modern wars but has different definitions for Ancient Greece. + Doyle, who writes of "liberal régimes" rather than "democracies", allows greater power to hereditary monarchs than other theories; for example, he counts the rule of Louis-Philippe of France - and that of Robespierre - as a liberal regíme. He describes Wilhelmine Germany as "a difficult case....In practice, a liberal state under republican law for domestic affairs...divorced from the control of its citizenry in foreign affairs." [4]
Political scientist James Lee Ray, in his book Democracy and International Conflict, (1995) 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. Ultramarine 17:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Septentrionalis 17:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Simply strange to clam something like this when you in the main text almost only mentions definitions used before 1983 and ignore the recent ones. Ultramarine 17:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Why is this included, from 1983: "Doyle, who writes of "liberal régimes" rather than "democracies", allows greater power to hereditary monarchs than other theories; for example, he counts the rule of Louis-Philippe of France - and that of Robespierre - as a liberal regíme. He describes Wilhelmine Germany as "a difficult case....In practice, a liberal state under republican law for domestic affairs...divorced from the control of its citizenry in foreign affairs." Why not Rummel's more modern defintion instead? Why is a possible exception stated without counter-arguments, this violates NPOV. Ultramarine 18:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Two {{ Dubious}} tags:
"There has been a confluence of the old theory (dating back to Richard Cobden and Benjamin Constant) that Free Trade will produce and ensure peace,[94] with the modern theory that trade will produce democracy, or at least spread it to the non-democratic trading partner, as argued by Houshang Amiramahdi and others. According to this, democracy and peace are indeed correlated, because they arise from a common cause." Source please for that any recent democratic peace researcher argues that trade is ultimate explanation. Ultramarine 14:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
This talk page approaches 256K. It will be archived. Septentrionalis 15:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Septentrionalis, you have made a large scale revert, claiming deletion of sourced material. State exactly what material was deleted: [31] Ultramarine 16:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Most of the following are the result of misreading English idiom, some are already under Exceptions. The first three are assertions that many studies support the democratic peace against the Realists.
In short, only one of these distinguishes the none from the very rare, and the single publication mentioned in that one is already included. Septentrionalis 17:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Some researchers say no wars; others say very few wars; many, sensibly, ignore the difference. This was the case the last time you trotted out these quotes; it still is. Either come up with some actual evidence or stop trying to put unsupported claims into the article. Septentrionalis 19:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Those three being Weart, Ray, and Rummel according to you. Some others:
The following list of articles, mostly recommended by Scaife and myself do not appear to be included:
Most of them are less than three years old. Septentrionalis 23:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
This is unreadable. I suppose that may be the sign of a work in progress; but sections of a dozen paragraphs are deprecated in the MOS because they are unintelligible.
Do notify this talk page when you are quite through, that we may see what you have come up with. Septentrionalis 23:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)