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.
The second archive is at Talk: Democratic peace theory/Archive 2. It contains much which relates to the above discussion. Many of the page's problems were solved by division into the current smaller sections and any new contributions are encouraged, without an author being expected to read the entirity of these two long debates on the article's content.
The above was left uinsigned by myself at about 01:51 GMT Wednesday 14 December 2005 Robdurbar 12:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I wonder what can be salvaged from my old edit that appears to have been completly removed (with the exception of the reference I added)?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul PiotrusTalk 01:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
So what do you think so far? In addition to the present changes, I intend to add Piotrus's example too, and I think the four classes of criticism need work. (Unmatched notes can be postponed until the text is agreed.) Septentrionalis 18:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think its fairly reasonable. I question the need to mention mondaic and dyadic - these ideas are already expressed elsewhere using less jargon. Oh, and I don't see why Rummel's findings should be removed, as long as they are attributed to him as one researcher Robdurbar 18:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I thought the chart was too prominent for the results of one researcher; this is part of a certain editor's insistence that there is Only One DPT and it is Rummel's. We already cite Rummel as one of those who claim that democracies have never gone to war with each other; I'll put in the 155 and the 198 in under dyadic. Monadic and dyadic seem to be the actual terms of art (hence all the usage of "dyad" instead of "pair"); so we should at least define them. But we should avoid them elsewhere if convenient, I agree.Septentrionalis 18:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Kantian peace
Several of the papers Rummell cites, and some of the ones cited here, hold that peace is the result of several factors, roughly: Democracy, Enforcement measures (including international organizations), and Commerce (or, sometimes, prosperity). This was Kant's position; and several of them call their thesis the Kantian peace.
This is, strictly, inconsistent with Rummell's position, which is, quite clearly, that democracy is alone sufficient. We have two alternatives:
define Kantian peace theories as a variety of DPT, and distinguish from absolute DPT when necessary.
define DPT as Rummellism, as list these as criticisms.
I have gone both ways on this, but I will be writing in the first vein now. (This needs to be decided to write the external causes section.) Let me know if you disagree. Septentrionalis 22:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved matter
I find no obvious place for the following:
In international crises that include the threat or use of military force, if the parties are democracies, then relative military strength has no effect on who wins. This is different from when nondemocracies are involved. This pattern is the same for both allied and nonallied parties.[4]
Pmanderson has returned :) As usual he has no interest in factual accuracy or NPOV and is unable to ever admit making even the slightest mistakes. He has even again incorporated his statements regarding Wells .) Please see earlier discussions here [5]. An accurate presentation of the theory can be found here: [6]. Ultramarine 07:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Strange; the bulk of the editing I have done has been to simplify and clarify the prose, as a comparison of the two versions will show. What does Ultramarine find PoV?
The only factual dispute I can find in the archives is Ultramarine's claim that Wells' book, The War that will End War (August 1914) does not argue for the lasting character of democratic peace. In deference to this objection, the present text asserts merely that it inspired the slogan. Does Ultramarine dispute this too? Septentrionalis
Please see my links for all the other inaccuraces.
Now this is amusing: Pmanderson has renamed "Democratic peace theory (Correlation is not causation)" to "Why other peace theories are wrong"!!! And "Democratic peace theory (Specific historic examples)" to "Why Rummel is always right" :) :) :) Ultramarine 16:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Article titles should describe their contents, shouldn't they? And those PoV tracts may be useful to future editors of R. J. Rummel.Septentrionalis 16:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
You never change. :) You are still unable to even admit that there are many other researchers beside Rummel and regardless of accuracy change to very strange and POV titles. Ultramarine 17:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Strange; the present text cites many researchers, and will cite more. Some rather interesting papers seem to have gotten lost in the cracks while I was away from Wikipedia.
Ultramarine adds, in effect, three tags to this page. It is customary to provide support on Talk for all of these; but the only substantion here is a reference to Ultramarine's objections to an almost completely different edit, of two and a half months ago.
I can find only two claims of inaccuracy with regard to the old edit, and both regard assertions which this edit does not make.
There is the Wells matter discussed above.
Ultramarine also argued at length, before, that the Germany of Wilhelm II was a despotism. The only mention of Germany in the present text is a sentence which is retained, unaltered, from Ultramarine's last textual edit. I am prepared, however, to substitute another example if it will help.
I am not prepared to write a text proclaiming that there is Only One DPT, and it is The Truth. That really would be contrary to policy. Short of that, I will consider any suggestions on the issue.
I find the claims of POV very odd, since most of the edits I have made to this article in January have been simplification and clarification of the existing text.
If Ultramarine considers "A democratic peace theory has to define what it means by "democracy" and what it means by "peace"" original research, so be it.
Added another template for the amazingly bad citation style, probably the worst in any Wikipedia article. A totally incoherent mixing of different citation styles with the cited references spread all over the article. Ultramarine 05:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
At least Ultramarine explains this tag with reference to the actual text of the article. And it is true that I have not yet finished rescuing the notes from the verbose state in which I found them.
If, however, even this incomplete project is the worst reference Ultramarine has seen, he has not seen many articles with numbered footnotes in active multi-user editing. References are removed and added without notes, and conversely. The normal practice in printed texts to refer to multiple invocations of the same text is either to have multiple footnotes of the same number, or to say "see footnote 13". The first defeats the fmb property; the second is not, in practice, maintained - new footnotes are always introduced (It can be implemented with footnotes to footnotes; but all that seems silly.
Therefore to have notes with each section, at least until a stable text is attained, seems only common sense. Septentrionalis 06:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Those interested in good references for the article can see here [7]. Sad to see the article degenerate to this state. Ultramarine 07:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Ultramarine's modesty is an inspiration to us all. Septentrionalis 15:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
And the revision of the notes has been finished. Septentrionalis 19:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
You consider this to be a finished work?Ultramarine 20:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
The text will change; the notes will change with it. However, the notes are now in a stable and readable format, suitable for continuous editing. There are others. Septentrionalis 20:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Yet another Tag
Systematic exclusions of many supporting studies and findings, extremely biased presentation of specific historic cases, systematic exclusion of counter-arguments to criticism of the theory.
This template also requires details to be placed on the talk page. Please supply. As best as I can guess at them, these claims are, at least, somewhat exaggerated.
As far as I see, the only references I have removed are redundant citations of Rummel's bibliography (and Beck and Tucker 1998, since the link doesn't work). The note on Winning wars did not exist when I began to edit; if it can be retrieved, fine. (The point it would document is tangential to this article anyway.)
The specific historical cases are a simple list of links, for the reader to make up his mind about. What bias?
As for the "sandwich" style of description:
Democratic peace theories say,
Critics object,
But this is why the critics are wrong,
I still find the practice PoV, but I did not remove it, as this diff will show. Ultramarine's grievance is with Robdurbar, not with me. I have largely been tightening and refining the summaries of the cited articles.Septentrionalis 18:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Amazing misreprsentation. Some of the things Pmandersson has selectively excluded: studies showing lower democide in democracies, studies countering Gowa's critic, and counter-arguments from the literature regarding specific historic wars. He has deleted all this and instead inserted numerous original research claims, like the "limited claims" sections. After this completely invented and unreferenced section, he states "Even if it were so explained, is this handful of facts sufficient to count on a democratic peace forever?" :)
Now for a good version of the article citing extensively from the literature, instead of Pmanderson's personal opinions and essays, which he unfortunately thinks should replace research by real scientists, see this [8]. Ultramarine 13:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
This diff is between the edit immediately before I began editing in early January. The left hand side, representing removed or changed text, is relatively blank; most of the changes have been purely to style, not content; and some of them have been expansions. Furthermore, the only work removed from the notes is Beck and Tucker 1998, which is not on-line and so not yet verified.
Now included, although still unvertfied. Septentrionalis 22:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Simply false, for example Rummel's study about democide is excluded. Regarding Pmanderson's very misleading diff, see below. Ultramarine 22:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
-
Please specify omissions, or retract. Septentrionalis 17:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I have already specified some of the gross deletions of sourced material from the earlier, superior version. Ultramarine 18:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Again. "Some of the things Pmandersson has selectively excluded: studies showing lower democide in democracies, studies countering Gowa's critic, and counter-arguments from the literature regarding specific historic wars."Ultramarine 21:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Specific alleged diffs or quotes please. Septentrionalis 21:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Note that this is only some of the NPOV violations, but are enough for the moment. Ultramarine 21:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
The substance of all three of these is in the article; the phrasing of the sentence on Gowa may be better than the present text. I agree with Robdurbar above that Rummel is one researcher. His particular findings deserve no more emphasis than this. His neologism belongs in his own article, if anywhere. Septentrionalis 21:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Incorrect, as anyone who compares can see. There is no requirements that there should be more than one supporting article for a statement. Otherwise I could argue that for example all the Gowa material should be removed.However, would you please remove your own unsourced essays and original research, like most of the "limited claims" section?Ultramarine 22:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
There is policy that no position be given undue weight. I decline to change topics in the middle of a s section: start a new one. Septentrionalis 22:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
NPOV is not an "equal space" policy. The NPOV violations shown above should be corrected. Incomprehensible what you mean regarding change in topic. The tags will remain until you explain yourself clearly and reach a consensus with me, as required by the arbcom.Ultramarine 22:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Precisely, it is a proportional space policy. Rummel's space should be appropriate for one theorist. You kept protesting to the FAC people that he was only one of many; don't make it seem otherwise. Septentrionalis 00:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
As for the "change in topic"; charges of OR require at least a section of their own. I'll make some. Septentrionalis 04:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Violation of NPOV
Systematic exclusions of many supporting studies and findings, extremely biased presentation of specific historic cases, systematic exclusion of counter-arguments to criticism of the theory.
This template also requires details to be placed on the talk page. Please supply. As best as I can guess at them, these claims are, at least, somewhat exaggerated.
As far as I see, the only references I have removed are redundant citations of Rummel's bibliography (and Beck and Tucker 1998, since the link doesn't work). The note on Winning wars did not exist when I began to edit; if it can be retrieved, fine. (The point it would document is tangential to this article anyway.)
The specific historical cases are a simple list of links, for the reader to make up his mind about. What bias?
As for the "sandwich" style of description:
Democratic peace theories say,
Critics object,
But this is why the critics are wrong,
I still find the practice PoV, but I did not remove it, as this diff will show. Ultramarine's grievance is with Robdurbar, not with me. I have largely been tightening and refining the summaries of the cited articles.Septentrionalis 18:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Amazing misreprsentation. Some of the things Pmandersson has selectively excluded: studies showing lower democide in democracies, studies countering Gowa's critic, and counter-arguments from the literature regarding specific historic wars. He has deleted all this and instead inserted numerous original research claims, like the "limited claims" sections. After this completely invented and unreferenced section, he states "Even if it were so explained, is this handful of facts sufficient to count on a democratic peace forever?" :)
Now for a good version of the article citing extensively from the literature, instead of Pmanderson's personal opinions and essays, which he unfortunately thinks should replace research by real scientists, see this [12]. Ultramarine 13:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
This diff is between the edit immediately before I began editing in early January. The left hand side, representing removed or changed text, is relatively blank; most of the changes have been purely to style, not content; and some of them have been expansions. Furthermore, the only work removed from the notes is Beck and Tucker 1998, which is not on-line and so not yet verified.
Now included, although still unvertfied. Septentrionalis 22:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Simply false, for example Rummel's study about democide is excluded. Regarding Pmanderson's very misleading diff, see below. Ultramarine 22:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
-
Please specify omissions, or retract. Septentrionalis 17:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I have already specified some of the gross deletions of sourced material from the earlier, superior version. Ultramarine 18:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Again. "Some of the things Pmandersson has selectively excluded: studies showing lower democide in democracies, studies countering Gowa's critic, and counter-arguments from the literature regarding specific historic wars."Ultramarine 21:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Specific alleged diffs or quotes please. Septentrionalis 21:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Note that this is only some of the NPOV violations, but are enough for the moment. Ultramarine 21:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
The substance of all three of these is in the article; the phrasing of the sentence on Gowa may be better than the present text. I agree with Robdurbar above that Rummel is one researcher. His particular findings deserve no more emphasis than this. His neologism belongs in his own article, if anywhere. Septentrionalis 21:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Incorrect, as anyone who compares can see. There is no requirements that there should be more than one supporting article for a statement. Otherwise I could argue that for example all the Gowa material should be removed.However, would you please remove your own unsourced essays and original research, like most of the "limited claims" section?Ultramarine 22:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
There is policy that no position be given undue weight. I decline to change topics in the middle of a s section: start a new one. Septentrionalis 22:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
NPOV is not an "equal space" policy. The NPOV violations shown above should be corrected. Incomprehensible what you mean regarding change in topic. The tags will remain until you explain yourself clearly and reach a consensus with me, as required by the arbcom.Ultramarine 22:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Precisely, it is a proportional space policy. Rummel's space should be appropriate for one theorist. You kept protesting to the FAC people that he was only one of many; don't make it seem otherwise. Septentrionalis 00:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
As for the "change in topic"; charges of OR require at least a section of their own. I'll make some. Septentrionalis 04:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Note, Pmanderson has a tactic of splitting my comment without my permission. Copied his comment to this place for clarity: "This diff is between the edit immediately before I began editing in early January. The left hand side, representing removed or changed text, is relatively blank; most of the changes have been purely to style, not content; and some of them have been expansions."
Also, thank you, Pmanderson, for your diff, clearly showing you true intents and arguing style. You did not mention that you have deleted the links to the earlier subarticles where much material was located, making your diff grossly inaccurate and misleading. The true diff to the complete earlier version with all the information later moved to the subarticles is here: [16]Ultramarine 18:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Let me get this straight; you want to revert to a version of November 7, 2005 undoing all the edits of Roduburbar, Catfish and others? Septentrionalis 21:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
These edits consists almost exclusively of moving contents to subarticles, contents which you have deleted or now no longer link to. That is the last complete version with all the well-sourced information that you have selectively deleted. Note also that article was completely stable with no changes at all for two weeks before you returned and started your current campaign.Ultramarine 21:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Adding links to the forked articles.Septentrionalis 21:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Does not help, the subarticle mentioning supporting statistical studies and its referenced contents have been completely deleted.Ultramarine 21:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
That article, deleted as hopelessly POV, is in substance included in the present text. The only thing that was there and not in the present text is in #retrieved material above. Have you an idea where to put that? It's so far off-topic that it didn't seem to fit anywhere. Septentrionalis 21:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
As anyone who compares can see, that is incorrect. The article contained essentially this section and its references [17].Ultramarine 22:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Looks like all those references, except for Gelpi/Griesdorf (above) are in the present text. I have edited for brevity and English. On Gelpi, I am awaiting your advice. Septentrionalis 22:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Another is Rummel. You have edited for factual errors and POV. For example, you state "Many have claimed support for some theory of democratic peace; many have denied any such support." and link to four supporting studies!!! :) Ultramarine 22:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I presume Ultramarine means footnote 6 of that version, which uses a obsolete template and is therefore illegible. It is an unadorned reference to Rummel's bibliography, which is cited at least twice in the ptesent text. But, for the sake of consensus, I will add a mention of it to the corresponding footnote, if it's not already there. Septentrionalis 00:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Ultramarine appears to have followed the wrong footnote. Many have claimed support for some theory of democratic peace; many have denied any such support is followed by footnote 11 in the present text, which sites Ray, Gowa, and (now) Rummel's bibliography. Each in turn cites dozens or hundreds of studies; Ray and Rummel mostly pro- Gowa, mostly con. Septentrionalis 00:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
In fact, Gowa is a fringe reseracher. The overwhelming majority of studies support the DPT which your own references show. Most of the studies Gown cites are supporting studies the she objects to. Her claims have been disproven, even if you have selectively removed this informationUltramarine 09:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
There is certainly a PoV that her claims have been disproven. The references are given; let the reader decide. Septentrionalis 16:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
How can they when you have deleted the counter-arguments? [18]Ultramarine 16:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Those counter-arguments are Ultramarine's original research. I would mind this less if they were stronger arguments, or represented a clearer understanding of what Gowa actually wrote. This is also another demand for the sandwich method of PoV, as above. Septentrionalis 17:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
False, sources cited.Ultramarine 17:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
For the assertions employed in the arguments; not the arguments themselves. Septentrionalis 18:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Please specify such source; I certainly don't see it. Septentrionalis 18:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Already given the necessary link. Read the studies if you want more details.Ultramarine 18:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Excluded material
Material which Ultramarine claims has been omitted, and which he claims is necessary for NPoV.
State of research and status
Excluded: "More than one hundred researchers have contributed to the literature according to an incomplete bibliography.[2] Despite criticism, it has grown in prominence among political scientists and has become influential in the policy world. Scholar Jack Levy made an oft-quoted assertion that the theory is "as close as anything we have to an empirical law in international relations"[3]" Ultramarine 14:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Bibliography is mentioned repeatedly in the present text
Who is Jack Levy? He is not described, nor is any context given, in the source for the quote, which is Ray 1998, the advocacy article. Advertising. Septentrionalis
Peer-reviewed article.Ultramarine 18:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Post Cold War peace
Excluded " The fall of Communism and the increase in the number of democratic states were accompanied by a sudden and dramatic decline in total warfare, interstate wars, ethnic wars, revolutionary wars, and the number of refugees and displaced persons.[18]" Ultramarine 14:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Condensed to The improvement in the peace of the world since the end of the Cold War has been tabulated here. [15] (with same source) Since the post-1989 peace is accompanied by an increase in several factors which may produce peace (effectiveness of international organizations, free trade, the end of the Cold War), the former phrasing is tendentious. Septentrionalis 18:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Since this article is about peace, it certainly very POV to exclude this dramatic improvement. The possible causes are discussed later.Ultramarine 18:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Is this merely a demand for adjectives before improvement? Add some. Septentrionalis 19:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Not adjectives. These important peace findings should all be mentioned.Ultramarine 19:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
What is Ultramarine's point here? Septentrionalis 03:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
All these these important findings should be presented. Ultramarine 11:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
What findings?
Please. Do you accept inclusion of all the material I stated in the first paragraph.Ultramarine 18:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
No I do not.
Dating by a marker like "the increase of democratic states" is PoV, especially since there are other plausible causes.
Dramatic is PoV; and the applicability of sudden is debatable.
The rest of the sentence is both long and florid. A more detailed description than the present text would be acceptable; it may well be an overreaction to the text I found.
Please have a look at this [19]. As can be seen, the decrease in various variables of systematic violence is dramatic and happens at the same time as the increase in democracy. Obviously these developments should be included in an article about democracy and peace for completeness and NPoV. Again, that there are other possible explanations is already explained in the text. Please state your alternative text that respects NPOV.Ultramarine 08:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Again, no valid reason given for exclusion of this dramatic improvement in peace at the same time that democracy increases. Ultramarine 17:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Controlled factors and causality
Excluded "upporters of the DPT do not deny that other factors affect the risk of war but argue that many studies have controlled for such factors and that the DPT is still validated. Examples of factors controlled for are contiguity, power status, alliance ties, militarization, economic wealth and economic growth, power ratio, and political stability.[44][45][46] Studies have also controlled for reverse causality from peace or war to democracy.[47][48][49]" Ultramarine 14:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Rephrased, with single footnote to the same sources, as . Other critics have ascribed the democratic peace to the relative isolation of democratic states (particularly those not part of the Western alliance). This again overlaps with the third category above, since there is also an argument that the relative peace of the twenty-first century (so far), is due to the completion of decolonization.
As often on academic matters, these criticisms are disputed. Papers have been done claiming significant correlation[, even] after controlling for such variables. [23]
One of the papers cited here is a Kantian peace theory paper, of the class which Ultramarine claims elsewhere is opposed to dpt, and should be removed. Septentrionalis
You excludes to mention of most the factors that have been studied. You delete that reverse causality has been studied. Decolonisation has nothing to do with this. I certainly do not claim the the Kantian peace theory is opposed to the DPT, it is just one variant. More falsehood.Ultramarine 18:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Noted. Please decide on one position;and if this is it, please do not claim again that Kant should be removed from the article as irrelevant to dpt, as above. Septentrionalis 03:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Include the above material neccessary for NPOV. Please do not accuse me of something I do not advocate. Ultramarine 11:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
If Ultramarine has not advocated it in the first discussion of Kant on this page, and others in the archives, he has expressed himself very badly. Septentrionalis 18:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I position I have taken months ago is nor relevant anymore. Pleae do not try to avoid the question. Do you accept inclusion of the material in my first paragraph.Ultramarine 18:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I quote Ultramarine's post of 4 days ago, in full.
"Kant
What is Ultramarine's objection to the present text?" Septentrionalis
This text is essentially your old text, somewhat reorganized. The old arguments still holds.Ultramarine 17:08, 25 January 2006
Please explain.
As for the text above, I find it verbose, unnecessarily detailed, ill-written and obscure. A compromise may well be possible. Septentrionalis 04:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
You stated "a Kantian peace theory paper, of the class which Ultramarine claims elsewhere is opposed to dpt, and should be removed", which I certainly do not advocate now. Nor did I do this on 15 september 2005, as can be seen in the archieve, I objected to the incorrect description. Regarding controlled factors and causality, I find your text extremely NPOV by excluding this well-sourced material and instead inserting your homegrown arguments against the theory. Please state your alternative version that respects NPOV.Ultramarine 08:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
This clotted and unreadable text is unacceptable. It is, however, good material for a footnote, which were devised for horrors like this. Septentrionalis 18:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Isolation
Excluded counterargument: "Critics have argued that few democracies mean that they are geographically isolated and thus unable to make war with one another. As described above, several of the studies finding evidence for the DPT have controlled for this. One study has demonstrated that democratic pairs of nations have not been more geographically separated than non-democratic pairs"Ultramarine 14:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
More falsehood. Sourced in my version and this is not included in his version.Ultramarine 18:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
So add the source. Septentrionalis 02:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Gowa
Excluded, the two following paragraphs. DO NOT SPLIT THEM "More importantly, more recent studies find fewer MIDs between democracies also before the Cold War.[61][62] 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.[63] 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.[64]
DPT supporters also argue that there has been continued peace between democracies after the end of the Cold War. Critics disagree and even if true they note that the European Union and NATO still exist and that they contain some of the democracies capable of maintaining a war. However, there are many democracies outside Europe.[65] The threat from the Communist states which Gowa thought explained both the peace and the existence of alliances between democracies such as NATO has largely disappeared. Contrary to what could be expected from Gowa's theory, the fall of Communism was accompanied by a sudden and dramatic decline in interstate warfare and other armed conflicts[66]. Some researchers argue that the increase in democracy associated with the end of the Cold War is the main cause for this decline in armed conflicts while others note that there has also been an increase in intermediate regimes and as noted earlier such states may be particularly prone to civil war. Other explanations for the decline in armed conflicts is the end of colonialism and the Cold War itself. [67][68]" Ultramarine 14:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
DO NOT AGAIN SPLIT MY COMMENTS!!!
{Pleasa do not move my comments away ftom the matter to which they reply. Making them meaningless in this manner might be seen as malice.)
The first sentence has been clarified to Studies have also argued that lesser conflicts (Militarized Interstate Disputes in the jargon) have been more violent, but less bloody, and less likely to spread.[12] with same sources. The next two sentences rest on a misunderstanding of Gowa's book, which contains a number of criticisms of Rummel on different grounds. (The theory referred to is the argument of a single chapter, that the Cold War explains the democratic peace of 1945-1991) The last sentence refers to an article also included in the countercriticism footnote 23 above.
(Moved. DO NOT SPLIT MY COMMENTS) Ultramarine 18:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The first sentence has been clarified to Studies have also argued that lesser conflicts (Militarized Interstate Disputes in the jargon) have been more violent, but less bloody, and less likely to spread.[12] with same sources. The next two sentences rest on a misunderstanding of Gowa's book, which contains a number of criticisms of Rummel on different grounds. (The theory referred to is the argument of a single chapter, that the Cold War explains the democratic peace of 1945-1991) The last sentence refers to an article also included in the countercriticism footnote 23 above.
This is also a prime example of the "sandwich" rhetorical structure Ultramarine prefers:
The Communist war counterargument to Gowa is Ultramarine's original research. Septentrionalis
Pmanderson refuses to give any understandable reason for excluding studies he dislikes. It is not the same studies and obviously the text is very different. His other arguments are also invalid. Does anyone think that it is NPOV to exlude this material? Ultramarine 18:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Democide
Excluded "Research also shows that wars involving democracies are less violent and that democracies have much less democide.[16]" Ultramarine 20:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Democide is a neologism. Its mention should be confined to the article R. J. Rummel, since he perpetrated it. This sentence was also unsourced; the footnote, which led to the whole of Rummel's bibliography, is inadequate. Translated into English as Some democratic peace theorists also hold that violence, especially mass violence, is less common within democracies. If it's important, mass state violence would be acceptable. Septentrionalis 02:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Here is material [20][21] from Rummel's exact source [22]. Democide gives about 90,000 google hits. However, if you for some reason finds this objectionable, we can use Internal political violence since this is the term used by Rummel here. Ultramarine 02:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
So? The unspeakable proactive gets 39 million. But internal political violence' would be acceptable. Septentrionalis 03:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Excluded, essentially all material here [23]. Instead, a list of conficts that people easily may think are exceptions without including any of the arguments for why they are not. Extremely POV.Ultramarine 13:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC
This link works badly; click down to the section "Specific historical examples"
The text Ultramarine prefers is most of the article which AfD unanimously found to be PoV here. Although I opposed the deletion, I agree. Replaced by a list of examples for the reader to make up his own mind. Septentrionalis 18:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
It was not the same material. I have certainly never contributed to an article named anything so POV as "Why Rummel is always right". An article with that name, whoever created it, deserves deletion. If I remember correctly, you had edited the material beyond all former recognition. Thus, uninteresting. Again, the material in my link should be included for NPOV and you have not given any explanation for not doing so.Ultramarine 18:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Kim, please check the diffs. This is a lie. The only edits I made to that essay were to tag it and rename it. If I had known it was going to be put to AfD, I would not have renamed it; I expected to have (and win) a discussion on the appropriateness of the new name at WP:RM. (If it will help this discussion, I have the deleted text off Wikipedia and can post it as a subarticle.) Septentrionalis 04:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Could you please explain why you created an article with that extremely POV name. Again, an article with that name deserved deletion. Unfortunately, the history seems to have been lost, but I remember correctly you changed the contents as much and in the same way as you changed the title and as you have changed the contents of this article.Ultramarine 08:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I did not create that article; I found it, as a subarticle of dpt, when I returned to editing this article. It was a lengthy article, strewn with disputable historical statements, arguing that Rummel's full standards (the 2/3 rule, the three-year duration, contested elections, 1000 battlefield casualties, etc.) excluded every apparent war between democracies. I tagged it, properly, {{pov}}, and {{accuracy}}.
Not descriptive of the article. Since it dealt solely with Rummel's standards, it should have been associated with R. J. Rummel, not with this article. As Ultramarine has argued (at least half the time), Rummel's is only one democratic peace theory.
Long, complex, non-idiomatic, unsuited for running text, and typo-prone.
I probably should not have chosen the name I did; but it's too late now. (I chose it because it matched the content.) These are the only edits I made to it.
Robdurbar nominated it for AfD, where it was unanimously held to be PoV. Salix alba commented (early on) that it had been moved; this is a judgment of the contents, not the title. I saved a copy off Wikipedia late in the debate, because it might be useful for the Rummel article; it had not been edited since nomination.
The text to which Ultramarine proposes to revert, above, is a subset of the deleted article. If it has any function in Wikipedia, which is doubtful, it is as raw material for R. J. Rummel; it does not belong here. Septentrionalis 17:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
And this is not the only article with very POV name that Pmanderson has created. See this article "Why other peace theories are wrong"! [24]. As can be seen, Robdurbar notes that Pmanderson seems to have done this only to prove a point. Again, if I remember correctly he had edited it extensively like this article, making the prior contents unrecognizable. Ultramarine 17:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
This is another lie. The history of that article is almost identical with the one above.
Ultramarine created it, under the title Democratic peace theory(Correlation is not causation). It was a set of arguments, which are apparently original with Ultramarine, why Kantian peace theory, Gowa, and so forth are just plain wrong. It had some pretty pictures.
I tagged it as PoV and original research.
In this case, I put in a redirect to this article, and took it out.
I moved it, because the existing title was long, clumsy, and non-descriptive.
Again, I should probably have chosen a different title; but that's what the article said.
Again, these are the only edits I performed. I did not touch the text, as unsalvagable.
Salix alba commented, remarking that the title had been changed.
The finding of POV was unanimous.
I have a copy offline, from late in the AFD; again, the difference between Rummellism and other peace theories may be useful to his article. The text had not been edited then.
I can post this text too, if it will help.Septentrionalis 18:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
That single reference nevertheless was a vote to delete as PoV. Septentrionalis 18:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
And that's why I think the actual new names, however descriptive, were a mistake. I wasn't expecting AfD nominations. Septentrionalis 19:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
It was probably wrong without AfD. I've said this.
WP:Point is concerned with larger events than renaming two obscure articles; see its Talk page.
Is anyone proposing to reuse those names? I'm not. Septentrionalis 19:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Before Ultramarine gets around to it, there was a third subarticle, Democratic peace theory (Statistical studies supporting the DPT). Ultramarine had copied the statistical sections in his long text, which included a few mentions of critical articles, and made a separate article of them, but also left almost all the material here.
This one I did nominate for AfD, as redundant and POV; almost all of it was verbally included in the text I found, and is substantively included here. AfD deleted. Salix alba was the only keep; and he argued that the article could be saved by moving to an NPOV name and that "If you read carefully near the bottom it also includes some counter examples to the theory."
I have an analysis of the redundancy text off-line. I did not save the text itself, but the analysis contains almost all of it. Septentrionalis 18:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
As can be seen from the vote, the objection was to the name, not the contents.[27].
Yet another lie. That is Salix alba's lone dissenting vote, arguing that the article could be salvaged, under another name. The AfD decision was to delete title, contents, and all. Note that Salix does not claim the article is balanced; merely that it can become so. Septentrionalis 03:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
So again, excluded, essentially all material here [28]. Instead, a list of conficts that people easily may think are exceptions without including any of the arguments for why they are not. Extremely POV.Ultramarine 18:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Another proposal for sandwich rhetoric:
Theorists say there were no wars between democracies
Critics say these examples were such wars.
And this is why the critics are wrong.
I suppose Ultramarine really does believe this neutral. Septentrionalis 19:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Huh? Where is the Wikipedia policy forbidding counter-arguments? Present your own-well referenced arguments, if there is any, instead of completely excluding the arguments of the other side. Ultramarine 19:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
He does. I suppose this is why he writes PoV articles.Septentrionalis
State of discussion
Viewed by Septentrionalis
There is a PoV dispute. Ultramarine wishes this article to express his PoV; this permeated the subarticles, for which AfD deleted them here, here, and here.
One of them advocated a particular theory of the democratic peace.
One of them argued that Joanne Gowa (the chief critic of that theory) and the alternative Kantian version of democratic peace theory, are simply wrong.
The third was a selection of arguments for the favored theory; most of it was verbally included in the text when I returned to this article, and its substance is still incorporated in the present text.
They derive from the text to which he wishes to revert. I have copies of them off Wikipedia, which I can post as subpages if any non-admin is interested. (For the record, I opposed the deletion of two of them.)
Note that Ultramarine's most vehement objections are to the discussion of Kant and Gowa.
Septentrionalis 05:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Viewed by Ultramarine
Accuracy
Warning: the footnotes referred to hereafter have been automatically renumbered, as a consquence of Ultramarine's reversions. A contemporary version of the text should be consulted. Septentrionalis 15:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Points Ultramarine claims are inaccurate, in the present text.
Please see earlier discussions here [29]. Sone new inaccuracies in this version is a completely inaccurate description of Gowa's criticism. Another what criteria has been used for liberal democracy, for example no study has used voting rights for at least 50% of the male population. Stating "Only the United States, Switzerland and Monaco achieved 2/3 male suffrage in the middle of the nineteenth century.", ignoring for example the French Second Republic.
An accurate presentation of the theory can be found here: [30]. Ultramarine 10:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Another request to revert to the edit Ultramarine made on 7 November, 2005 <sigh>
Kant
What is Ultramarine's objection to the present text? Septentrionalis
This text is essentially your old text, somewhat reorganized. The old arguments still holds.Ultramarine 17:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Ultramarine's chief prior argument over Kant was about the difference between democracy and republic in Kant, which the present text does not mention. Please state objections to the present text, if any. On the broader question of whether Kantian peace theories are DPT's or not, see section above on the subject. If they are not, then they are criticisms (and numerous ones) of DPT's in the narrow sense. I can, as I said, go either way with this, although usage would be appear to be to include them. Septentrionalis 18:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Here, what erroneous fact does the present text assert? Septentrionalis 18:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
"The last is sometimes world prosperity rather than freedom of trade or travel, which are harder to measure." No Kantian peace theory includes world properity. And you do not mention which factors are included today. They are trade causing greater economic interdependence, membership in more intergovernmental organizations, and democracy. These are positively related to each other but each has an independent pacifying effect.Ultramarine 15:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
World is a typo, and should be removed. Septentrionalis 18:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
No kantian peace theory includes prosperity.Ultramarine 18:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
False; see the conclusion of Oneal and Russett 1999 as cited in the bibliography of this article.
Huh? From the conlusion "Our analyses for the years 1885–1992 indicate that Kant was substantially correct:democracy, economic interdependence, and involvement in international organizations reduce the incidence of militarized interstate disputes." The usual three factors, which do not include prosperity.Ultramarine 19:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
If Ultramarine had searched on prosperity he would have found a passage on "the importance of peace, democracy, and prosperity" and their interrelations. It is clearly included because it agree with the aurhots' results.
That is not part of the three factors of the theory. The Kantian peace theory does not argue that prosperity reduce the risk of war.Ultramarine 11:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
See footnote 19, present text, and Mousseau 2003; Hegre 2003 there cited. Septentrionalis 00:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Your own footnotes contradict you. The three factors are democracy, economic interdependence, and involvement in international organizations. Other studies have investigated many other factors, but they are not the three "Kantian".Ultramarine 17:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
This is more evidence of Ultramarine's ignorance of the literature. The three factors, as cited, are Doyle's interpretation of Kant, as widely adopted. See Doyle 1983. Surely the fact that one of the co-authors is John R. Oneal, author of the Kantian Peace, referenced in the article would have made a responsible editor pause before writing such nonsense? Septentrionalis 04:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
From the same study you yourself cited above, Oneal and Russett, 1999 "In keeping with the Kantian perspective, we expand our analysis beyond the democratic peace, incorporating the influence of economically important trade and joint memberships in international organizations." Ultramarine 12:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, that settles the question above under #Kantian peace; if Oneal and Russett regard the Kantian peace as a variety of democratic peace theory, it would be perverse to treat it otherwise. However, Mousseau, Hegre, and Oneal 2003 presents one Kantian peace theory, and is written by Kantians. Septentrionalis 15:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
50%
No study has used voting rights for at least 50% of the male population
The following sentence appears in the famous edit of 7 November: Another example is requiring 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. I shall remove male, as Ultramarine was free to do. Septentrionalis
Done.
Note that this is false, still remains.Ultramarine 15:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Not the first edit to be lost by WP, unfortunately. Fixed as of 18:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC) Septentrionalis
The text is still incorrect " The studies claiming absolute democratic peace often require that two-thirds of adult males, or half the whole adult population, be able to vote". This implies that the studies use both of these conditions which is false. And they do not often use these criteria, most use polity or similar continuous variables.Ultramarine 18:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Fine, omit often. I find the alleged implication perverse, but do recast to avoid it. Septentrionalis 19:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Recast; First paragraph of Democracy, present textSeptentrionalis 00:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
2/3 suffrage
Stating "Only the United States, Switzerland and Monaco achieved 2/3 male suffrage in the middle of the nineteenth century.", ignoring for example the French Second Republic.
The sentence originally included a reference to Rummel's three-year requirement. I shall recast; although I believe it is still true of the election under the Second Republic. Is Ultramarine proposing Louis Napoleon's plebiscites as examples of democracy? Septentrionalis
I am only stating that this is one of your factual errors.Ultramarine 17:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Recast as above. Septentrionalis 18:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Changed but still inaccurate. "From 1815 until the 1880's, there were at most three democratic states in his sense (the United States, Switzerland and San Marino)." Here is what Rummel says " For certain years of the 18th century, for example, it would include the Swiss Cantons, French Republic, and United States; for certain years during 1800-1850 it would include the Swiss Confederation, United States, France, Belgium, Great Britain, Netherlands, Piedmont, and Denmark" Ultramarine 15:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Rummel uses liberal democracy in several different ways; his website collects documents written independently and for different audiences. In this case he is using a very inclusive definition of democracy. E.g. the United States did not have an executive chosen by contested election in the eighteenth century; and, as for Belgium: "Prior to 1893, the electorate was exceedingly small....in the year named there were only 137,772 voters out of a total population of 6½ millions." Septentrionalis 19:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
You have not described what "his sense" is regarding your examples and you have provided no source that he has stated this. Remove inaccurate original reserach.Ultramarine 19:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Rephrased in effort to remove Ultramarine's confusion. Septentrionalis 00:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
The text now states: "Only half a dosen republics or crowned republics achieved 2/3 male suffrage, and several of those only for a few years." This is so obviously incorrect, looking for example on the world today, that Pmanderson must have by mistake forgotten some necessary qualifier.Ultramarine 17:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
It is difficult to proof one's own writing. However, an editor seeking to improve the text would have inserted the (obvious) qualifier instead of arguing. This would also have been faster. Septentrionalis 04:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Seperate peace theory
"Separate peace theories claim that democracies are more likely to go to war with non-democracies." False, no such definiton exit of separate peace theory. Ultramarine 13:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
More likely than they are with each other. If others find this unclear, add the phrase. If Ultramarine disputes the term, See MacMillan, John (March 2003). Beyond the Separate Democratic Peace. Journal Of Peace Research, (vol. 40, no. 2).
That addition is not included in your statement. From your own study "This article argues that the balance of evidence and argument supports a shift from the conventional 'separate democratic peace' position that liberal states are peace prone only in relations with other liberal states to the view that they are also more peace prone in relations with non-liberal states than usually thought." Ultramarine 19:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Added. I don't see why Ultramarine couldn't have done this. Septentrionalis 00:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
States " Separate peace theories claim that democracies are more likely to go to war with non-democracies than non-democracies are with each other" which is still incorrect.Ultramarine 17:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Militant
"The Militant democracy theory divides democracies into militant and pacifist types. Militant democracies have a tendency to distrust and use confrontational policies against dictatorships, which could actually make war more likely between a democracy and a non-democracy than in the case of relations between two non-democracies." False, defintion does not say more likely Ultramarine 13:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
"Militant democracies have a tendency to distrust and use confrontational policies against dictatorships; which could actually make war more likely between a democracy and a non-democracy than in the case of relations between two non-democracies" This is still false. Militant democracies are more ready to go to war than not militant democracies. This does not "make war more likely between a democracy and a non-democracy than in the case of relations between two non-democracies".Ultramarine 17:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Poland-Lithuania
"Another idea is that democracy gives influence to those most likely to be killed or wounded in wars, and their relatives and friends (and to those who pay the bulk of the war taxes). This was Kant's argument; and it is supported by the example of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, in which the Sejm vetoed more than half the royal proposals for war." This aristocratic oligarchy certainly does not fit this description.Ultramarine 14:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Inclusion supported by Piotrus above, and a tenth of the Polish population was noble. All adult male nobles were entitled to vote at the Sejm, enough to give influence to the bereaved and the taxpapers. Septentrionalis
Please, what a wikipedia user may have thought is not interesting. Nobility usually avoided much of the taxes or had the legal right to avoid them completely. Again, an oligoarchy formed by the nobility does not include those most likely to be killed. This nation would pass none of the test for liberal democracy.Ultramarine 20:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Nota Bene Ultramarine holds that the (repeated) advice of a Wikipedia editor is not interesting in determining Wikipedia text. Septentrionalis 02:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Please try to answer the objections.Ultramarine 13:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I will let Piotrus do that; it's his text. For my part:
Ultramarine's PoV in this section of Talk is class-warfare, of a vehemence and scurrility I have seen only in Marxist polemics; which makes me discount it, as I do them.
Poland's proportion of represented citizens is in the same range as post-1832 England or the French First Republic. In all three cases, representation was strongly associated with wealth and privilege; in all three cases, there was a tendency to class legislation. So what?
The Polish nobility were the military class.
If the Sejm refused to confirm a war, it probably was against their self-interest. Is Ultramarine suggested they did so out of idealism?
The little-known example is interesting. Septentrionalis 17:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I find the ad hominem uninsteresting. Please, Pmanderson, this is not the place the publish original research. Please cite the sources in the literature for the connection between this oligarchy and the DPT, a claim especially remarkable considering that the nobility paid no taxes and did not have to pay for military expeditions outside Poland with their own funds.[31]Ultramarine 17:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't see any ad hominem others then your statement that you find my thoughts uninteresting. Moving beside this misunderstanding, you are incorrect in saying that nobility paid no taxes. I assume you have based your critique on our szlachta article (In 1355 King Kazimierz III the Great decreed that the nobility would no longer be required to pay taxes, or pay with their own funds for military expeditions outside Poland.). This statement was not correct (which is probably my fault, as I wrote most if this article) - I have corrected it. The 1355 privilige only lessened the tax burden, not eliminated it. It's true it paid little taxes, but some were paid, plus the Sejm passed (not often enough, but that's another story) special one-time taxes to fund some wars. Besides class-warfare statement, all of what Pmanderson writes is true. While it is true that the nobility did not pay for the wars (outside Poland), the lesser nobility formed a significant part of the army (attracted by the plunder opportunities). I will try to look for some specific citations when I have some time - atm I think that I saw the statement that Polish political system lead to pacificsm in the works of Paweł Jasienica. Although I am all in favour of Wikipedia:Verifiability and citing one's sources, I think that PLC example is a pretty clear: it was the most democratic country of it's time (Golden Freedoms) and also one of the least agressive (see List of Polish wars: a quick analysis show that with the exception of Northern Seven Years' War, Magnate wars in Moldavia and Polish-Muscovite War (1605-1618) all the others were either defensive or civil wars). And there are many known examples of Polish monarchs wanting to delcare a war, and Sejm blocking them (see article on Władysław IV Vasa for some examples). PS. Another interesting group which definetly expressed pacifist views were the Polish Brethren, but since they never had any significant influence, they would not be very realted to our discussion.
Thanks for your input. However, it would pass none of the criteria used for liberal democracy in the literature. Why use an example not mentioned in the literature, this seems to be original research. Worse, it gives a false impression of what kind of governments that the academic literature has included. A better example would be any modern democracy.Ultramarine 19:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I was writing that under the assumption we are talking about non-modern, historical examples for the historical section of the article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul PiotrusTalk 01:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
However, it would pass none of the criteria used for liberal democracy in the literature. Athens fulfill that criteria ? They are mentioned after all.--Molobo 00:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Athens would not pass the usual criteria since at most 50% of the males could vote. However, Weart in his book Never at War has a different view.Ultramarine 22:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Any sense of democracy that excludes both Pericles and Disraeli is not common usage. Persistence in using it is a "private definition", in the sense of Politics and the English Language. Septentrionalis 03:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
All things considered, I'd love to find a nice citation to prove my point. I'll be back once I do, but I understand your reluctance to use this as an example without any citation.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul PiotrusTalk 02:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
See footnote 26, and Frost, there cited. Text modified also. Septentrionalis 00:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! I don't see much connection between f26 (Spiro, Layne 1994) and the Commonwealth, but the f24 (Frost, 2000) sounds very interesting. Could you copy the relevant parts of his arguments mentioning the PLC here? I am afraid I cannot find his book in the Google Print :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul PiotrusTalk 16:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
This is because Ultramarine's reversions changed the footnote numbering. Inter-library loan might help. Unfortunately, I have more or less summarized what Frost says in the article; this is a military history, and discusses civil affairs only briefly. Septentrionalis 04:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
*"Moreover, a democratic crusade corollary suggests that the belief in the validity DPT itself could become a cause of war." Nothing in the lterature, original reseach. Ultramarine 13:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Steve Chan (1997). "In Search of Democratic Peace:Problems and Promise". Mershon International studies review (47). {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |Page= ignored (|page= suggested) (help) "Worse still, this thesis can fuel a spirit of democratic crusade and be used to justify overt and covert interventions against others" and papers there cited. Septentrionalis 19:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
At last a good reference. Agreed.
Modern theory
*"the Kantian peace theories generally look for explanations in the absence of international pressure, trade, or prosperity; the other modern theories will observe that any tendency will, in the perversity of human affairs, have exceptions." There is no difference between any DPT theory regarding possible wars as exceptions.Ultramarine 14:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)**Huh? Any theory which claims only a tendency admits possible exceptions.Septentrionalis 19:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC) ***"Any theory of democratic peace must face certain difficult counter-examples. The theories which claim an absolute democratic peace solve the following problems by restricting the definition of democracy (and sometimes of war); the Kantian peace theories generally look for explanations in the absence of international pressure, trade, or prosperity; the other modern theories will observe that any tendency will, in the perversity of human affairs, have exceptions." Again, this is false, all the variants of the DPT state no war between democracies. And they all respond similarly to all quoted exceptions to this. There is no "modern theory" that is different.Ultramarine 19:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)****This is the same claim as #less likely, below.******False. Give a source for that there is a "modern theory" that observe exceptions to the DPT. And source for that any Kantian peace theory looks at exceptions differently.Ultramarine 12:03, 28 January 2006 *(UTC)See footnotes 33 34 abd 35; and papers there cited. Septentrionalis 00:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)******Your references do not support you. Talks about MIDs. The claim of fewer Mids is not the same as the claim of no Wars.Ultramarine 17:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
"Rummel also classifies 155 of the wars since Waterloo as between democracies and non-democracies, 198 as between non-democracies. Given the limited number of democracies he acknowledges, democracies have, in his view, gone to war more often than other states, but not with each other." Has never said the last. Ultramarine 13:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Present text does not assert he said it. Septentrionalis 03:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Your claim, your source. Where is the evidence that this is his view Ultramarine 12:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
" Woodrow Wilson's policy for the Versailles settlement was largely based on all three planks of Kant's program." False, nothing in the literature, probably did not known of Kant's theory, original reserach. Ultramarine 13:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Seen it. No mention that "Woodrow Wilson's policy for the Versailles settlement was largely based on all three planks of Kant's program." And give external sources, not wikipedia articles.Ultramarine 19:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Spare my your original research. Use proper citation.Ultramarine 12:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
This is abuse of WP:NOR to impose a PoV. Brief statements of the obvious and well-known are not original research. Septentrionalis 17:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Your claim is certainly not obvious and well-known. It would be widely mentioned in the literature if true, so please cite sources.Ultramarine 17:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
It is widely mentioned, in the literature on Kant and Wilson. Septentrionalis 19:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Like many of Ultramarine's claims about the literature, this is false; see quote from Russett at footnote 2.Septentrionalis 00:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I see that you have changed your text. Good.Ultramarine 17:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I have, but not its content. Will Ultramarine acknowledge that his claim above is, and was, groundless?Septentrionalis 04:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Less likely
"Monadic theories claim that democracies tend to conduct their affairs more peaceably, whether with other democracies or not. More general theories developed from the monadic version claim that two democracies are less likely to make war on each other than other pairs of states." No DPT theory states less likely to make war, argues no wars, less MIDs, not wars.Ultramarine 13:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Give source please.Ultramarine 12:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
See footnote to text, also 33,34,35 Septentrionalis 00:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Your references do not support you. Talks about MIDs.Ultramarine 17:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
This is another lie:
Chan 1997 says: "Wars between them have been very rare" , and mentions a "possible exception of a few doubtful cases" (which is the source of the text.)
Maoz 1997 says, after discussing Spiro: "We would expect to find...democratic dyads at war. Instead we find only one: the Spanish-American War of 1898."
Doyle 1983 specifically lists the Lebanese incursion and the war between Ecuador and Peru.
The point of Cederman's paper is to argue that occasional wars are consistent with Kantian peace theory, and in fact Kant predicted them. Kant worte of "devastating wars" and Cederman quotes this without attempting to downgrade, or waffle, about MIDs as opposed to wars.
The italics on war above are always mine. Septentrionalis 18:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Schengen treaty
"Kant's plan for a perpetual peace included more than a government answerable to the people. He proposed a League of Nations to keep the peace; and a right to "hospitality" which should be recognized everywhere. This latter was a freedom of international travel and commerce, in some ways resembling the Schengen Treaty." Schengen treaty is strange, irrelevant, and original research.Ultramarine 13:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Best short summary I can make of Kant's "hospitality" Both involve complete freedom of movement and trade. Septentrionalis 19:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Schengen does not involve trade. Totally irrelevant for the theory. Why have you inserted this and deleted the defintion of MIDs? Ultramarine 19:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Of course abolition of border controls involves trade.
There's a perfectly good footnote, which leads any reader to papaer with definition of the jargon. For my part, I think it is clear that if the lower border of "war" is 1000 battle casualties, that is also the upper border of a conflict less than full scale war. Septentrionalis 03:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Please give a source stating that the Schengen involves trade. Regarding MIDs, you simply states "lesser conflicts" without reference to war. This may mean diplomatic conflicts with no causalities.Ultramarine 12:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Rephrased, and (obvious) definition of MIDs added. Septentrionalis 00:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
One thing needful
"Strictly speaking, the theory of a Kantian peace contradicts the absolute theories of democratic peace. If three factors are required for a perpetual peace, no one of them can be the only thing needed." No democractie peace theory states that it is the only thing needed. Ultramarine 13:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Another contrived reading. Septentrionalis 03:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Please do not avoid the question. Give source for claims.Ultramarine 12:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
1871
"From then until 1904, there were several crises among the democratic powers, as among the others. The only war between any two Powers that resulted was the Spanish-American War, between a democracy and a borderline democracy" Simply ridiculous, excluding for example the war between Germany and France in 1871.Ultramarine 13:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The preceeding sentence is
From 1815 until the 1880's, there were at most three democratic states in his sense (the United States, Switzerland and San Marino). It is true they did not go to war, but some would ascribe this to geography.
From the 1880's to 1904 does not include 1871. Septentrionalis 03:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
You have removed this statement. Good.Ultramarine 12:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Reform bill
"Even the Third Reform Bill of 1884 fails to meet Rummell's stated criteria for democracy" Again simply false, here is his critera "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" Ultramarine 13:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The figures are: in 1884, about 5 and a half million out of about 9.2 adult males (8.897 million in 1881 census; 9.794 in 1891) For 1911, seven and a half out of 12.846. International historical statistics. Europe, 1750-2000 Pp. 3,8, 26, 44-5. 60% is less than two-thirds.Septentrionalis 03:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Rummel stated "loosely understood as including at least 2/3rds of adult males", not exactly 66.6% Ultramarine 12:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
This is not material to the text, as phrases; and I see that Weart engages in no such waffle, although his treatment of the Second Reform Bill is disingenuous. Septentrionalis 15:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Sea power
" One study finds that interstate wars have important impacts on the fate of political regimes, and that the probability that a political leader will fall from power in the wake of a lost war is particularly high in democratic states. [18] Two of the militant democracies have been dominant naval powers, and have also had greater choice as to which wars to fight." The last sentence is original reserach and has no relation to earlier discussions. Ultramarine 13:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
If it is original research to say that Great Britain and the United States have been dominant naval powers, make the most of it.
Does the fact that control of the sea enables its possessor to decide where, and if to attack need sourcing? If it does, I choose the introductory chapter of The Influence of Sea Power upon History. Septentrionalis 03:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Again, cite sources for your claims regarding "militant democracies" and naval powers in relation to the DPT. Explanation of relation to prior sentence.Ultramarine 12:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
rephrased and sourced. "Militant democracies", of course, is a reference to the text of footnote 22. Septentrionalis 00:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Still no evidence that sea power is relevant to the DPT or has been mentioned anywhere in the DPT literature.Ultramarine 17:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Wells
Another factual error is regarding "a war to end all war" (originated by H.G. Wells)." No relation to the DPT at all, as dicussed in the relevant section here [32].Ultramarine 19:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Is Ultramarine suggesting that the slogan has no relation to democratic peace? If so, he should probably read Ray's paper again. The lengthy argument over whether Wells argued for a democraric peace addresses a point not made in the present text. Septentrionalis 22:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
" The hope of a democratic peace was embodied by the First World War slogan: "a war to end all war" (originated by H.G. Wells).". Simply false, Wells slogan have no connection to the theory, in fact he was an opponent to liberal democracy as previously discussed. And Ray certainly does not mention Wells.Ultramarine 08:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
See summary section below
Seen it, still not correct. Wells hoped that factors like disarmament would stop new wars. He was a socialist and an opponent to liberal democracy. It this was relevant for the theory, it would certainly be mentioned in the literature. Original research verified to be false.Ultramarine 19:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I will not discuss this in three places. Please answer #Wells.
Ultramarine and I dispute what Wells meant by this; about which the present text therefore does not assert anything.
Ultramarine also appears dispute that it meant, as a slogan that the destruction of Prussian autocracy and militarism would produce a lasting democratic peace; but his remarks on this matter have been so various I am not sure. Septentrionalis 06:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
If he would clarify what he disputes, and discuss it here, it might help. Septentrionalis
Again, Wells hoped that factors like disarmament would stop new wars. He was a socialist and an opponent to liberal democracy. It this was relevant for the theory, it would certainly be mentioned in the literature. Original research verified to be false.Ultramarine 12:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
So what, even if this claim were true? The only thing the present text says about Wells is that he coined the phrase. Septentrionalis 00:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
"The hope of a democratic peace was the content of the First World War slogans: "a war to end all war"" False.Ultramarine 17:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, what does Ultramarine suppose it to have meant? Septentrionalis 04:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Pmanderson is of course perfectly aware of this. From the archives: The socialist Wells hopes that the war will bring about socialism and collectivism, not liberal democracy. Regarding world peace, Wells thinks that a nationalization of the arms industry, a general disarmament, a world confederacy, and a redrawing of national boundaries are the necessary steps. From the last chapter of the book (p. 94) "By means of a propaganda of books, newspaper articles, leaflets, tracts in English, French, German, Dutch, Swedish, Norwegian, Italian, Chinese and Japanese we have to spread this idea, repeat this idea, and impose upon this war the idea that this war must end war. We have to create a wide common conception of a re-mapped and pacified Europe, released from the abominable dangers of private trade in armaments, largely disarmed and pledged to mutual protection."
Well's view on democray "Now, however clumsy and confused the diplomacy of these present Allies may be (challenged constantly, as it is, by democracy and hampered by a free, venal and irresponsible Press in at least three of their countries), the necessity they will be under will be so urgent and so evident, that it is impossible to imagine that they will not set up some permanent organ for the direction and co-ordination of their joint international relationships."Ultramarine 13:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
This is a dishonestly incomplete view of Wells, who repeatedly argues that the responsible and popular governments on the Allied side will produce a lasting peace after "Prussian militarism and autocracy" are destroyed. The quotation just above admits that the pressures of democratic politics can hamper the war effort, and make diplomacy difficult; Wells is neither the first nor the last to say this.
Even if this were true and honest, it would be irrelevant. The present text refers to the general understanding of the two slogans, after they were out in the world. The only claim made about Wells is that he devised one of them, which Ultramarine does not contest.Septentrionalis 15:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
No wars before 1894
"The studies claiming absolute democratic peace often require that two-thirds of adult males, or half the whole adult population, be able to vote (requiring universal suffrage would mean no war between democracies was even possible before 1894)" False. Again, this is what Rummel has stated regarding his criteria: " For certain years of the 18th century, for example, it would include the Swiss Cantons, French Republic, and United States; for certain years during 1800-1850 it would include the Swiss Confederation, United States, France, Belgium, Great Britain, Netherlands, Piedmont, and Denmark" Ultramarine 11:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
This is a failure to read the text. Rummel speaks only of male suffrage; an odd point, which the sentence under discussion clarifies. The list Ultramarine last cites is that of Doyle 1983, who does not require anywhere near universality of male suffrage, much less female suffrage.
1894 is the date of the second enactment of universal, as opposed to universal male, suffrage; the first was New Zealand in December 1893. (Britannica 1911, Womenad fin..) If this is a confusion about the meaning of universal suffrage, Ultramarine could have clicked on the link provided. Septentrionalis 18:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Gowa
"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. " Gowa studied frequency of MIDs, not the "absolute democratic peace". I guess this is Pmanderson neologism for no wars between democracies. Ultramarine 14:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
She studied both. "Absolute" has been used in English since 1374; if Ultramarine has a more fluent way to differentiate between the peace theories that claim zero exceptions and those that claim rare and marginal ones, he should introduce it. "Zero-claiming" would be a neologism. Septentrionalis 18:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
MIDs
"If one defines "war" as more than 1000 battlefield deaths, an "MID" will have less than that number". Mids includes wars. Ultramarine 00:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Human security report
"It chiefly credits the end of the struggles of the Cold War and decolonization; but asserts also the underlying force of all the articles of the Kantian triad, which it calls interdependent." Page numbers for the statements regarding Kantian triad please, cannot find it.Ultramarine 17:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Chapter V, conclusions: at beginning. Septentrionalis 18:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Quote please, I searched for "Kant" and "Kantian" and found nothing.Ultramarine 16:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
See pages 148-150; section on "Decline of international war" and the one following. The technical term "Kantian" would be inappropriate for a report addressed to the general public. Septentrionalis 17:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Please quote, I cannot find your claimed statements. Also, I have searched for "interdependent" which is not in the document.Ultramarine 18:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
How odd. "Democracy" is discussed on page 148, "economic interdependence" on p. 149 (citing Russett and Oneal in the footnote), "international organizations" also on p. 149; "interdependence" on p. 149 and p.150; colonialism and the Cold War on p 150 and following. Septentrionalis 19:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Could you please quote the exact paragraph that contains "interdependence" and mentions the triad? I see some use of "interdependence", but not in that use. Nor do I see any claims that just the triad is the underlying factors, for instance, they also mention "A decline in the economic utility of war."Ultramarine 19:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
They mention all three elements of the triad and call them "interrelated and mutually reinforcing" in the paragraph next following (the "economic utility of war" is about the pacific effects of trade, another aspect of the article of hospitality). They cite Russett. Short of cutting and pasting the entire section, which would be inappropriate in this article, the text proposed is as exact a summary as possible. Septentrionalis 19:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
State of discussion
Viewed by Septentrionalis
Two slips in editing complex material for greater clarity. Corrected.
Kant
Ultramarine declines to specify what inaccuracies are asserted. The past argument referenced refers to claims not made by the present text.
Ultramarine and I dispute what Wells meant by this; about which the present text therefore does not assert anything.
Ultramarine also disputes that it meant, as a slogan that the destruction of Prussian autocracy and militarism would produce a lasting democratic peace Septentrionalis 06:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Ultramarine
Original Research
Point unsourced in the present text.
Limited claims
For example, most of the "limited claims" section.Ultramarine 10:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Largely derived from Gowa, as sourced, and as Ultramarine admits above. Please be specific. Septentrionalis 16:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
False, most of it is not. Also, you should give page numbers from Gowa's book. Remember, you have been warned by the arbcom for not giving page numbers but only whole books as claimed sources.Ultramarine 17:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
The reference to Gowa's general criticism should be passimin any case. I will look up Gowa's references to the Cold War the next time I have my hands on a copy. Are they in one of the past edits? I don't remember ever seeing them in the article.
Since you refuse to give any page numbers as required by the arbcom, this whole section is your own original research.Ultramarine 08:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
This is the pot calling the kettle black. The notes to the version Ultramarine wishes to restore has no page numbers on the citations of books at all. This includes the citation of Gowa in another context.Septentrionalis 06:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
These are mostly short studies, not books. The arbcom did not require page numbers for papers. And I have given extensive page numbers from for example Never at War. All the references with Weart are book references with page numvers. I can certainly remove the citation from Gowa. Ultramarine 16:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Rummel's explanation
"R. J. Rummel dismisses these as superficial, [17] relying on Kurt Lewin and Andrew Ushenko's proposition that democracy involves a pervasive social mechanism (called a "social field") in which, "The primary mode of power is exchange, [the] political system is democratic, and [the] democratic government is but one of many groups and pyramids of power." In contrast, authoritarian systems involve a "social anti-field", "[which] divides its members into those who command and those who must obey, thus creating a schism separating all members and dividing all issues, a latent conflict front along which violence can break out." Thus, the citizens of a democracy are habituated to compromise, conflict resolution, and to viewing unfavorable outcomes as temporary and/or tolerable."
This may have some resemblance to reality, but is unverifiable. The link is dead. Ultramarine 16:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
But the link was to a chapter in one of Rummel's early booklets, as the note now indicates. If Rummel repairs his site, the link should still work, so I saved it. Septentrionalis 03:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Washington
"Many democratic peace theories implicitly or explicitly exclude the first years of democracies; for example, by requiring that the executive derive from genuinely contested elections, which would eliminate both administrations of George Washington." More of Pmanderson's personal opinions.Ultramarine 13:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Who was Washington's opponent in 1788?
Who was Washington's opponent in 1792?
Is Ultramarine misreading this?
It doesn't say the Washington administration was undemocratic
It says definitions of democracy that exclude him are narrow. Septentrionalis 03:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
You may think that it excludes him, but that seems to be your own original research. Please cite sources. Regardless, this seems irrelevant, as far as I know, nothing has ever been claimed about Washington in the DPT literature, regardless if you look at supporters or opponents. The only purpose seems to be to discredit the theory using homegrown arguments. Again, why include this original research and exclude a correct definitions of MIDs or discussion of specific historic cases that has been discussed in the literature? Anyhow, I moving this to original research.Ultramarine 19:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Just noticed that Pmandeson also states that "Many democratic peace theories" exclude the first years which is incorrect. Most studies seems to use a continuous variable like the scores from the Polity database, not Rummel's binary definition.Ultramarine 08:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I have rewritten, in an effort to make clear that the text is a syllogism.Septentrionalis 19:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Present status
Septentrionalis
Ultramarine objects to the description of one of Gowa's major arguments. Even if this were completely unsourced, it would warrant only {{SectOR}}, but it is not. It may take me some days to get my hands on a copy. It would also be faster if Ultramarine would state which points he believes are neither
Dsicussed earlier. Ultramarine 10:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
That discussion took place before the notes were in their present format. Septentrionalis 18:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
References are still spread all over the article and use several different citation systems.Ultramarine 18:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
They are spread over the article for ease of editing; consider the non-trivial rearrangement done by the anon in the dar al-Islam edit. When the text appears to be stable, they can be regathered in minutes.
I have certainly endeavored to follow a clear and simple system of citation in the notes:
[URL author date] for articles;
Author Title for books.
If Ultramarine sees any accidental inconsistencies, I would be obliged if he would do the usual thing on a wiki, and fix them; instead of spending much more time on these vague statements. Septentrionalis 22:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I have already contributed excellent citation style here [33]. Unfortunately, it had been reduced to the current incoherence. Ultramarine 08:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Status
The notes are next to their respective sections to allow for extensive editing without losing notes, which I have seen much too often. If the present text remains relatively stable, I will collect them, and let the mediator decide. Septentrionalis 06:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Clean-up of confusing writing style
And what else is this supposed to cover?
Unfortunately, the article is extremely badly written and confusing, as stated in the tag. Various correct citations is mixed gross with errors and with personal essays and opinions. Various things have been selectively deleted, making the flow unintelligible. Various irrelevant things have been added, also adding to the confusion. Just one example, "Interestingly, Islamic tradition holds that peace will prevail within the dar al-Islam or "house of submission" to the faith, but war, including jihad, beyond that zone." has been added by Pmandersson as his personal musing, something completely irrelevant to to theory and not mentioned anywhere in the literature. On the other hand, he has deleted the definition of MIDs, making understanding of the claims of the theory incomprehensible.Ultramarine 10:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Dar al-Islam
The sentence quoted was added by an anon. I have not deleted it, because I believe in collaborative editing (now my attention is drawn to it, I will remove Interestingly). The fact is well-known; is a variety of peace theory; and (depending on one's view of the Congregation of the Faithful) conceivably describes a democratic peace. I hold a different PoV on Islam; but so what? Septentrionalis 17:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Not mentioned anywhere in the literature, simply your own irrelevant original research.Ultramarine 08:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Present status
Septentrionalis
Ultramarine is claiming that the concept of Dar al-Islam does not exist, or has nothing to do with peace. He is also claiming that I put it in the article, contrary to the diff above. <shrug> Septentrionalis 06:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I also don't see what this has to do with style. Septentrionalis
There is, however, a genuine style dispute: Ultramarine prefers a text full of dyads and MIDs and monadic. I would prefer to avoid jargon, believing, with Richard Feynmann, that any subject can be explained without it. In math and physics, this tends to lengthen the explanation; here it shortens it. Septentrionalis 03:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Ultramarine
Or let's make this simple
Does Ultramarine have any changes to suggest which are not reversions to the edit he made at 18;33, 7 November 2005?
Which paragraphs of that edit does he propose to restore?
The totally stable and undisputed version which existed before your recent campaign starting on January 15 was also good, including all the subarticles. You have since started deleting subarticles and renamed "Democratic peace theory (Correlation is not causation)" to "Why other peace theories are wrong"!!! And "Democratic peace theory (Specific historic examples)" to "Why Rummel is always right". This is Disruption to prove a point, clearly showing your intentions. Ultramarine 09:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
When Robdurbar invited me to resume edit this article, it was clogged with jargon and eye-glazing detail. He would go further than I have done, and not even define monadic and dyadic, (see above TOC).
I proposed a deletion only of the Statistical studies article, which was substantially included in the present text (and almost entirely included verbally in the edit of 3 January). I have opposed the deletion of the other two. As I stated on their talk pages, I was planning to link to them from R. J. Rummel, whom alone they concern. Their previous long, inaccurate, and typo-prone titles were simply too inconvenient. Septentrionalis 17:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
medcabal
Hello -- I've come in as part of the totally informal medcabal, by request [34].
This is a long dispute, and I am not totally familiar with the details. However, I definitely agree that it is important for wikipedia to have an excellent article on DPT, and I want to help us get there.
I am currently looking over this diff: [35] which seems to best describe the contention between Ultra and Sept/Pmanderson. But it is very hard to see what the substance of the disagreement is about.
I note that uses of phrases like "Why Rummel is always right" (presumably meant humorously) are kind of inappropriate here. It is probably best they go, or be replaced by something more strictly NPOV.
I think a crucial thing here is that we work with the current article we have (i.e., the latest version.) Given this, I see that Ultra believes:
1. Systematic exclusion of many supporting studies and findings, extremely biased presentation of specific historic cases, systematic exclusion of counter-arguments to criticism of the theory
So I suggest that Ultra restore (not by reversion, but by cut and paste and integration) the excluded material, and attempt to balance historical cases.
2. "This article may contain original research or unverified claims."
So I suggest that Ultra remove stuff that he considered unverified. If it means removing huge chunks of text, however, let's hold off on that for a moment.
3. There are also criticisms of the factual accuracy. My feeling is that many of these are actually problems with NPOV. Let's hold off on this for a moment while we solve the NPOV stuff above.
How does this sound? Ultra, do you want to give it a go? Sdedeo (tips) 21:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I am ready. Note that your are comparing the wrong versions. This is the correct diff [36]. The diff you are using is incomplete since subarticles containing much of contents have been deleted.Ultramarine 21:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
OK. Please do your best to add only the minimum necessary to attain NPOV (i.e., don't try to expand or improve the article for now -- let's just try to solve the pressing NPOV problem.) Thanks, and good luck. Sept, please chime in as you see fit. Sdedeo (tips) 21:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I do not think that a cut and paste will work since the article has been radically changed. Neither do I think that integration will work since essentially all of the changes since january 15 are incorrect in order to give a false impression of the research. A discussion case-by-case of specific disputes would be better.Ultramarine 21:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Not from my PoV. This article contains the substance of the article I found on January 15, almost all of it in the same order, much of it in the same words. (see [diff]). I have edited for clarity, and to lighten the jargon; I have also made additions. I think the largest of these was on the meanings that the various democratic peace theories have given to democracy and peace. Septentrionalis 06:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, we are trying to mediate the discussion here using the article as a "scratch page". Start as small as you like -- e.g., take a particular section that you feel has problems outlined in (1) above, and tweak it as minimally as possible to remove those problems. Do your best to maintain as much of Sept's text and presentation as possible. We will probably have to take this very slowly. If Sept disputes that particular section tweak, we can hash it out further. Sdedeo (tips) 21:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Removing the problems would essentially meaning restoring the prior version. Every change I can see is unsourced or contradicted by its own references.Ultramarine 21:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I can only help out here if you're willing to give my suggestion a shot. I don't have the skill or time to mediate between two competing versions. If you can follow the suggestion I've made in my 21:32 comment, let me know. Sdedeo (tips) 21:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I find this extremely difficult to do since Sept has moved so much content around. But why cannot we discuss specific disputes? For example, Sept has completely removed the rather important finding that democracies have lower democide. He has also above stated that he will not include it since I only give one reference. How should we resolve this? Ultramarine 22:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
False. I replaced the neologism. The point is still made and referred to the same source. Septentrionalis 06:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
As I've said, I don't have the skill to mediate specific disputes. I wouldn't know where to begin; I am not an expert in the field. If you feel there is a section that would become more NPOV by mentioning a (sourced) study finding lower democide in democracies, then go ahead and add it in to that specific section. Again, just to be clear: let me know if you can follow the suggestion I've made in my 21:32 comment so we can proceed (or not.) And, again, just to be clear: take it slowly, don't try to fix it all at once. We'll wait to see Sept's response to your edits. Sdedeo (tips) 22:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. Would it not be better if it was Sept who tried to follow my text and presentation? I have added almost all of the referenced material to the article and spent countless hours reading articles before doing so. In essence, he is objecting to my presentation of the literature. So it would it not be better if he started with my text and make changes we can discuss? Ultramarine 22:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
This has always been Ultramarine's demand, throughout the history of this article:revert to the version which Ultramarine alone wrote.Septentrionalis 06:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't know the details of how the article arose, but from looking at the history, it seems that both you and Sept have put a great deal of work into the article. Wikipedia practice is that, in the absence of a revert war, you work with the article as it currently stands. One last time -- I don't want to keep going in circles here, and I thought carefully about what the best course of action would be -- are you willing to work with my suggestion of 21:32? Sdedeo (tips) 22:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I think that this would be extremely difficult to do this in the way proposed since I consider most of the changes done by Sept to be systematic NPOV violations and adding factual errors without adding new information. Correcting them would therefore in essence consist of removing most of his changes. However, I would be very glad to discuss specific disputes case-by-case with the help of an outside party. Alternatively, as stated, I would also accept the opposite scenario with sept maintaining as much of my text and presentation as possible Ultramarine 23:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
OK. You are unwilling to begin with my suggestion of 21:32. I will "punt" the case to another mediator. I wish you and Sept the best of luck resolving the conflict. Sdedeo (tips) 23:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Treating this article as a conflict of two versions is contrary to the finding and remedy put forward by Arbcom, as I read them. Please continue this line of mediation. The present text is an edit of Ultramarine's version of & November, by several editors before I returned to it. Sterile reversions, such as Ultramarine proposes above, are sanctionable. Septentrionalis 03:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Another mediator, User:Kim Bruning, has said he'll give it a shot; he'll be around in the next few days. So perhaps everyone might want to wait a bit for Kim to weigh in before continuing discussion. Best of luck, Sdedeo (tips) 04:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh yes, go and blow my cover will you? *sigh* Kim Bruning 15:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I will add short summaries of my POV the discussions so far, for Kim's convenience. I encourage Ultramarine to do likewise. Also short notes here, since I disagree (naturally) with Ultramarine's account of the editing history.Septentrionalis 04:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I see no reason to present a strange "present status" section that will immediately get irrelevant with new arguments. Continue prior discussions instead. Ultramarine 14:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I have added many more specific examples of NPOV violations and factual accuracy. Please review.Ultramarine 14:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Guys, take your time. :-) I have some wrist injury or so it feels like. So I'll be a tad slow, but I'll be reading! Kim Bruning 15:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
No problem. Too many edit conflicts to continue this discussion for now anyway. Septentrionalis 20:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Background for mediation
An observation. Since most of the disputes are regarding factual contents referenced from the literature, I think that a mediator must have the necessary background and the sufficient time to examine the references. I suggest that a mediator start by reading this basic overview of the literature [37]. Ultramarine 11:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
This "basic overview of the literature" is a summing-up in favor of the particular theory Ultramarine believes. Like a competent advocate, Ray acknowledges the existence of other views briefly, before explaining why the jury should not believe a word of them. Septentrionalis 18:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest that Pmanderson publish his own peer-reviewed article instead of trying to delete and hide the results of those who have spent much effort in doing research.Ultramarine 18:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I can see no reponse to this defamation which would not be uncharitable. Prehaps it will suffice that Ray's article is frequently cited, and prominently linked to, in the present text. Septentrionalis 19:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Hm. You seemed to object to it above. As being a peer-reviewed overview, I hope you now agree that this is good introduction.Ultramarine 19:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Also, I would also suggest reading the alternative version here [38] and compare it to the current. Ultramarine 12:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
This is the version of 7 November 2005, which I shall be referring below. Because of Ultramarine's continual reversions in this article, it is effectively his sole handiwork. Septentrionalis 18:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, as can be seen I have spent considerable time reading the literature and citing articles.Ultramarine 18:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
You're very welcome. It would have been better, however, if Ultramarine had read a wider selection of the literature and were more willing to assume good faith in those editors who have read other portions of it. (see #democratic crusade above, for an example; this is Ruzmanci's text, not mine.) It would also be better if he had not written a blatantly PoV screed. Septentrionalis
That you dislike the findings of real researchers does not make it a "blatantly PoV screed". Ultramarine 19:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Is it Rummel, or himself, that Ultramarine describes as a real researcher here? I have no doubts that Rummel is a real researcher; real researchers have convinced themselves of vacuous theories before now. Septentrionalis 19:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Again, the old tactic of trying the paint the DPT as Rummel's personal theory when over a hundred different researchers have contributed many more peer-reviewed articles.Ultramarine 19:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Since I don't dislike the findings of most of them, and have said above that one of them (but which?) is probably right, this is a very odd reply. Septentrionalis 19:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
How to edit a wiki
Ultramarine's comments display some difficulty imagining any alternative to the present text other than reversion to the text of 7 November. The discussion under #Democide above is an honorable exception, and shows how quickly issues can be resolved, with a spirit of compromise.
Several comments suggest the idea that I really must suppose that the text of 7 November is superior, and need only be nagged and chivied into admitting it. I am human, and fallible; there are some cases, crossed off above, where my edit was wrong. But in general, I edited the text I found because I didn't like it, and after a second look, I still don't.
This approach ignores the rule of wiki=ing, found on every edit screen: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly ... do not submit it. It is also contrary to the only finding of fact and the only ruling found in the ArbCom decision.
The proper response to being edited is generally
to accept the change
to figure out what the editor found wrong with the original, and replace it with a revised version to meet that objection.
This is the means to compromise; and (in the Wikipedian view) a better version than either editor could have achieved separately. Anything "that differs from this, to the extent of the difference" is a blog; bloghosts are available everywhere. Septentrionalis 18:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I certainly agree that you do not like what the research has found. This hardly seems an excuse for deleting and misrepresenting it in Wikipedia.Ultramarine 18:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Ultramarine consistently misrepresents my interest in the matter; my chief interest here is in making this article NPOV; if I had come across it tagged POV because it was written by an ardent opponent of democratic peace theory, I would be arguing the other way.
I in fact believe that some theory of democratic peace is probably true; I doubt there is enough data to determine which. Rummel's claims I suspect to vacuous, rather than false (for more, see Talk:R. J. Rummel ; and the effort to substitute his quite limiting definitions of democracy and war for common usage is Orwellian. Septentrionalis 19:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
But I may be feeling more conciliatory another day. In the past few days, Ultramarine has
made repeated baseless misstatements about the history of this dispute. See #Specific historic examples above;
dismissed the judgment of a Wikipedia editor as "not interesting" (See #Poland-Lithuania.
Piotrus is quite right; Ultramarine does not distinguish between ad hominem and ad verbum remarks.
Abused the OR rules by demanding sources for
Washington being elected without opposition
Great Britain ruling the waves,
and other matters to be found in any relevant source.
Why he believes this is civil, or conducive to amicable settlement, is "not beyond conjecture".Septentrionalis 19:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I fail to understand this intense animosity towards Rummel? He is only one of many researchers supporting the DPT. Regarding specific disputes, please discuss them in the proper sections of the talk page. Stating them here without my response unfortunately casts doubt on whether you want to dicuss the differences or make a speech presenting only one side.Ultramarine 19:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
All of these have been; follow the cross-references, and reply there. This is a list, for convenience. And now I think Kim has enough to read. Septentrionalis 19:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Move notes to bottom of page?
Hi All,
I think having notes scattered throughout the article looks rather messy. I'd like to more them to the end. Any objections? Also should footnote reference be before the punctuation mark? --Salix alba (talk) 12:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I believe citation style was one of the tags mentioned above. Go ahead, let's tidy it so we can get a good look at what's up.
moved tags to talk
When an article is disputed, the rest of the complaints are somewhat implied ;-) But it's still handy to have that level of detail, so I've retained the tags on talk for now. Kim Bruning 12:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Expert Analysis and editing of article
Before I make my suggestion, can anyone confirm whether Ultramarine, Pmanderson,or anyone else involved in the talk page, have any certification for International Relations or Political Science? If not, I could recommend my IR and Poli. Sci. professors from college review the article and edit accordingly.
I think it might be best that we have a fair-minded individual withqualifications in the field to edit this article.User: Yusuf_mumtaz
My academic qualifications touch on this field on both ends, being in Mathematics and Classical History. This seems to be sufficient both to find papers and to understand them. Septentrionalis 04:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Probably the best suggestion ever on this talk page. Please do. Here is my alternative version [39]. I am sure that they can make a much better version if they have the time and interest.Ultramarine 13:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I am a graduate student in Political Science and have some experience with DPT, I would be happy to help, let me know what you would like me to do. As an aside I would mention that the DPT is in no way an "accepted" theory academically, however it has been used by many liberal or neo-liberal governments, esp. the Bush and Blair administrations. Therefore by its very nature there really isn't a NPOV on the subject, you either agree with it or not. Unfortunately, most of the evidence presented on the subject is reduced to the definitions of what constitutes war, liberal democracies, or sufferage. Cheers! Cf. Layne, Christopher 1994. “Kant or Cant.” International Security 19: 5-49. and Owen, John M. 1994. “How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace.” International Security 19: 87-125. Scaife 15:22, 02 February 2006 (UTC)
I've read Layne, I skimmed Owen. Ultramarine has a long list of disputes which take up most of this talk page. Many of them I've altered the article text in response to. The questions are, I think
Is the present text fair to DPT, both for and against?
Is it accurate as it stands?
Are any of the individual points above still justified? Septentrionalis 22:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Hm, I think that the first suggestion to have professors review the article would be preferable. I find it somewhat odd that you quote an article more than 10 years old. Most of the research has happened recently. You might find this somewhat more recent overview article interesting: [40]Ultramarine 12:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The articles I cited from Owen and Layne were to demonstrate my above stated point. I am aware that the articles are 12 years old and that other research has been conducted since then, however my intent was not to supply an entire bibliography. I have read the article by Ray and found it to be useful as a rather general overview of the arguments for and against DPT, which was also demonstrated with more effect in Layne and Owen's articles, however I am sure that you knew that. Also, Ray's article is not usually included in the mainstream DPT "canon", additionally Ray is a somewhat minor player in DPT literature and this article is mainly a restatement of other major players works, e.g. Rummell. Since you are seemingly opposed to "old" articles I have included for your pleasure an abbreviated bibliography of the work done in DPT over the past 3 years.
Pevehouse, Jon C. 2005. Democracy from Above: Regional Organizations and Democratization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rosato, Sebastian. 2003. The Flawed Logic of Democratic Peace Theory. American Political Science Review 97 (4):585-602.
Rees, Stuart. 2003. Passion for Peace: Exercising Power Creatively. Sydney: UNSW Press.
Doyle, Michael W. 2005. Three Pillars of Democratic Peace. American Political Science Review 99 (3):463-472.
Dallmayr, Fred. 2004. Peace Talks-who will listen? Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
Archibugi, Daniele. 2004. Cosmopolitan Democracy and its Critics: A Review. European Journal of International Relations 10 (3):437-473.
Braden, Susan. 2005. Promoting democracy won't necessarily produce peace. International Journal on World Peace 22 (1):3-5.
Deudney, Daniel. 2004. Publius before Kant: Federal-Republican Security and Democratic Peace. European Journal of International Relations 10 (3):315-356.
Hm, I find your attack on Ray to be close to ad hominem. Obviously it is the arguments and studies presented in his overview that should be disucssed, not him. Here are some studie citing him [41]. Unfortunately, your presentation of the literature in the past 3 years is very biased, mostly presenting critical studies. There has been around a thousand studies mentioning the theory in the past 3 years, most of them accepting it [42] Some of them can be found the alternative version.[43]. See also, for example, one the replies to Rosato [44].Ultramarine 12:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
This is Ultramarine's second use (on this talkpage) of ad hominem as an abuse of all work; he would do well to click on the link he has created and see what it means. But I see that this is also a part of his continuing effort to suppress mention of the publications he dislikes. Septentrionalis 15:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I re-read what I wrote and it seems to me that your argument that I used an "ad hominem" attack on Ray is impossible. Not only did I not attack Ray, I didn't attack you either. If you had read the selections that I gave you, instead of searching the internet for their names, I am sure that you would find that there is almost a 50/50 split in those pro-DPT and anti-DPT. I would have to agree with Septentrionalis that you seem to be more interested in cherry picking literature that supports your Neo-liberal POV. In the spirit of wikipedia's policy on NPOV, I expected that there would be a vigirous debate as to inclusion and exclusion of literature on both sides of the argument. Unfortunately, like my "ad hominem" attck on Ray, that expectation seems impossible. -- Scaife 14:01. 06 February 2006 (UTC)
Now direct ad hominem on me for my political views. Here are some articles that mention that the DPT is an empirical regularity accepted by most reserachers. [45][46][47][48][49].Ultramarine 17:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Again, you seem to be missing the point. I can present as many articles against DPT as you can find in support. DPT is hardly an "empirical regularity" that is accepted by most researchers. Whereas most researchers would agree that DPT is a disputed theorum, your above statements have indicated that you believe it to be gospel. As for my alleged "ad hominem" attack, I feel that you need to brush up on your logic. An "ad hominem" attack occurs when the arguer presents an argument thusly:
A makes claim B;
there is something objectionable about A,
therefore claim B is false.
This has never been done, you falsely assume that I am attacking you or DPT because I mentioned that it can be demonstrated that it is not a generally accepted theorum. When I stated that you seem to be more interested in cherry picking literature that supports your Neo-liberal POV it was more of an observation than an argument, however your above post has proven my point. I will however discontinue this "argument" with you as I feel that it will go on ad nauseam. -- Scaife 17:18, 06 February 2006 (UTC)
I could also of course state that you seem interested in supporting your own POV, those on the far left often reject liberal democracy on ideological grounds. However, I would prefer factual arguments. So I would be glad for your referenced input on the numerous factual and other disputes that are presented in great length on this talk page.Ultramarine 18:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you; and what do you think of the present text?Septentrionalis 04:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I would be happy to have either opinion. However, the basic issues here are POV and OR, neither of which apply to academic papers. (A robust POV paper is acceptable; it will be answwered by a counterblast. New arguments are welcomed.) So the professor should have WP policy explained before they decide.
Equally important is factually accuracy since your text contains numerous gross errors. Note also that NPOV is not an "equal space" polcy.Ultramarine 23:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I do not believe it is; I do not recall ever having said so. What has Ultramarine been reading, and how has he distorted it to this? Septentrionalis 04:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Reverts
Pmanderson, you have reverted my edits. Please read the arbitration decision. I will you give you a brief time to restore the reverts before taking this to the arbcom.Ultramarine 21:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
On the contrary; I have edited your edits. Please specify alleged reversions. Removal of tags on alteration or removal of the offending material is customary - if you dispute the new text, put them back and state new disagreements. Septentrionalis 21:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
You have deleted information and templates added by me without reaching a consensus with me, as required by arbcom decision. I did not agree to these changes. Again, I will give you a brief time to restore them before requesting that the arbcom remedy should be applied to you.Ultramarine 22:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Sigh. What have I been landed in. I think you're both acting in good faith. Ultramarine: do the tags you placed earlier still apply? Why is that? Kim Bruning 22:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
(ps, sorry for being so slow, I was basically dragged in and left here. Oh well, I guess I'd better get up and do my job then, nothing better to do anyway Kim Bruning )
See the sections "Excluded material", "Accuracy", and "Original reserach" above. I have not reached a consensus with Pmanderson on almost any of these points. In addition, Pmanderson has reverted for example the addition of professor and early researcher R.J. Rummel's images without reaching a consensus with me. Ultramarine 22:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, I was reading just as you answered. I sort of stopped reading after the part where you both started arguing about how to run a threaded discussion on a wiki. Before that you were both are arguing in levels of detail which most wikipedia pages could only wish for. That's great. I love working with wikipedians. :-)
There's so much discussion to wade through above, (and I daren't cut Ultramarines' comments ;-) ), so how about we take things a step at a time.
Ok, so let's start with Rummels images. Hmmm, so Septentrionalis, could we start with what was your reasoning there? Kim Bruning 22:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
In other news, do either or both of you have irc? Try joining irc.freenode.net #wikipedia. It's not quite as good as sannses pub-mediation (take both blokes to the pub and talk over a nice cold glass of beer), but it's the nearest we can get in simulation. (short of skype :-) ) Kim Bruning 22:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I do not have IRC. I removed these images (and did other editing to Ultramarine's new paragraph) because from most to least:
They are, in this size, illegible and uninspiring. I can't quite read even the full scan.
They deal only with Rummel. To include them gives him Undue weight.
They are tagged as promotional fair use. This seems to indicate that use on R. J. Rummel (where they are now) would be permissible; use in Democide, which Rummel coined, might be - but this use is close to copyvio (and advertising).
Democratic Peace Charts by professor emeritus and early researcher R. J. Rummel. Click on images two times to enlarge. Higher resolution PDF files can be found here [1].
As noted, can be enlarged by clicking twice and there are higher resolution images available as PDF files. They do not deal only with Rummel, they point out many works by many other researchers. Obviously they are about the DPT and thus appropriate for this page. Ultramarine 22:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I would have no objection to links to the originals, which would be readable. Even the enlarged versions, as scanned, cause eyestrain. Septentrionalis 23:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
They look like they might be nice references, but the versions provided here require clicking twice, and contain JPG artifacts. Would it be an ok compromise to have a direct link to the original source for these? I guess a thumbnail could be argued for or against, but like put it in, and let some third party take that out if they hate it. (it's very hard to leave it out and then wait for a third party to come and put it in, hence options are somewhat constrained there.)
So, would either of you have problems with that? If so, please say why and let's see what can be done. If not, that'd be a good start :-) Kim Bruning 23:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
As stated in the tag, a low-resolution image should be used, so some clicking and artifacts are unavoidable. This is not forbidden by policy. As this is a summary of by one of the most prominent reserachers on this topic, I strongly argue for its inclusion. Especially as it gives some balance to the original research in the rest of the article.Ultramarine 23:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Rummel is one of many, but one of the first and most prominent. Again, this is a summary by professor who actually done research and published studies and books in this field. This is an essential addition to the systematic pov deletions, original research, and factual inaccuracies that Pmanderson has contributed.Ultramarine 23:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
For the record, I deny this description root and branch.
I have just been reading several of the papers in this field, and Rummel seems no more important than Doyle, Owen, or Maoz; and less important than Bruce Russett. Septentrionalis 23:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm... I can't really make heads or tails of this particular low-res image though. I did try! <scratching head> If I were a reader, I might be more pleased with a direct link to the actual originals. Does that sound like a fairly logical argument? That way we have a low res thumbnail here (just use the same image) + we add an external link in the image legend. I think that way both of you should be fairly happy. Am I missing anything? Kim Bruning 23:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. How about this?
Democratic Peace Charts by professor emeritus and early researcher R. J. Rummel. High resolution PDF files can be found here [2][3].
Much better to have the captions be the pdf links, if these charts (which make several claims which do not appear to be consensus in the field) are to be linked to at all. I'll put them in, and ask the copyright questions elsewhere. Septentrionalis 23:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
You placed them at the end of the article where no one will see them and deleted all the text! Are you editing in good faith?Ultramarine 00:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I placed them with the rest of the external links; but that was negotiatable, as is the true and sourced addition to the caption. Placing this eccentric and unrepresentative scholar in the intro is bad faith. Septentrionalis 04:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Rummel is a very respected scholar that has often been mentioned for the Nobel Prize for Peace. His views are shared by many other researchers and he include many works by others in the charts.Ultramarine 04:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Mentioned by whom? Mentioned by his own advocates and social circle is a distinction shared by myriads of cranks. Please note that I do not here say Rummel is one. Septentrionalis 04:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
"Associated Press
February 29, 1996; Thursday 09:21 Eastern Time
SECTION: International news
BYLINE: DOUG MELLGREN
DATELINE: OSLO, Norway
BODY:
Taiwan's president, Lee Teng-hui, has been nominated for the 1996 Nobel Peace Prize for his pro-democracy drive, one of 117 names on the final list tallied by Nobel officials this week.
Lee, Taiwan's president since 1988, was nominated by a former Swedish deputy prime minister, Per Ahlmark. Ahlmark also submitted the names of Chinese dissident Wei Jingsheng and Rudolph J. Rummel, professor emeritus at Hawaii University, who has collected evidence on repressive political regimes."Ultramarine 04:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Presumably the same report as the one which Rummel admits was mistaken here. Septentrionalis 16:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Real reversion
More seriously, the local reversion of the text on civil wars to the text of 7 November is non-consensus edit-warring. Please reverse. Septentrionalis 04:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Here is the view of the arbcom.[50] I have added well-referenced information and moved some text to a better place, certainly not prohibited. In addition, much of your editing have essentially been reverting to your favored version.Ultramarine 04:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
False, as the diffs will show. I have carefully avoided looking at the version involved in the edit war. (I did retrieve the paragraph on social fields, because I didn't write it or know the facts, and I think two other short ones). Additions are one thing (short of recreating deleted articles. Reversions of carefully edited text are another. Rewrite, don't cut and paste. Septentrionalis 04:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
In addition, it is not the same text, "democide" is changed to "internal political violence" as you yourself found acceptable on this page.Ultramarine 05:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Okay, we've tested the revert button, and it works. So anytime we want a revert-shootout at high noon to let off some steam, we know we can ;-) That's good to know, at least we have a worst-case alternative. In the mean time, let's discuss further changes here before we make them to the article. It's a slow and slightly unwiki method, but right now it's probably faster than the alternatives. After a while we'll hopefully get a feel for things and we can go back to editing the article outright. Kim Bruning 12:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Frequently nominated for the Nobel Prize
See this: [51] As noted earler, Rummel is one of many researchers, but was one of the first and is certainly prominent.Ultramarine 05:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
In short, one of his fans is a Swedish politician, of similar political and economic views. Rummel picked the resulting claims up from his local newspaper, exaggerated and disseminated them without verification, and is now grudgingly retracting. Ultramarine exaggerates further, and makes no retraction. None of this establishes anything about Rummel's credibility in the field; if the basking in praise were not so understandable, it would cast doubt on his professionalism. Septentrionalis 14:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Here is some information about Rummel.[52] Compare this to anonymously publishing original research and systematically distorting the findings of real researchers.Ultramarine 16:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh, no; I would never compare Rummel with Ultramarine. Rummel has non-consensus views of DPT and of politics, and treats the will as an ontological vector, but he is a real researcher. Septentrionalis 16:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Your old tactic of trying to make him an nutcase. His findings are supported by most studies and researchers. Most researchers in this field accept the democratic peace and you writing a homegrown essay on Wikipedia is not going to change this. Publish your thoughts outside Wikipedia if you want affect the field. Ultramarine 16:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
He's a bit flaky; so was Kant. In fact, as I have said, I think some version of democratic peace is probably true. My judgment that Rummel's theory is vacuous is defended on Talk:R. J. Rummel; but even if I thought it true, I would oppose using this article as advocacy for it. Septentrionalis 16:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
You "think" and have a "judgement". How about publishing something outside Wikipedia, this is not the place for original research.Ultramarine 17:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
If Ultramarine wishes to claim that he neither thinks nor has judgment, that is his business. It does not make him a better editor, nor does it preserve him from original research. Septentrionalis 18:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
However, any further distortions of my view of Rummel will be violations of WP:FAITH. Septentrionalis 19:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
In addition to containing the nonsense in the subtitle of this section, the picture captions advertise Rummel by mentioning his Professorship Emeritus. This is a false distinction. All of the authors cited have academic affiliations; presumably most or all of them Professorships. Septentrionalis 19:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
DPT
<moved from [[User Talk:Kim Bruning>
Sorry, Kim, you will have to come resolve this again; Ultramarine has moved those adjective Rummel placards up to the top of the article. Rummel has extreme views on almost all points at issue between DPT theorists: he believes almost alone that there were absolutely no wars between democracies (instead of only a few exceptions); and that the Kantian variables have nothing to do with the effect.
Furthermore, he believes (by the evidence of those placards) that the Ukraine was a liberal democracy, and that Israel was barely or partially free in 1967 [53]Septentrionalis 03:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
More seriously, This edit is (except for its first sentence) is a complete and verbal revert to Ultramarine's
favored edit of 18:33, 7 November 2005. I will give you time to revert. Septentrionalis 03:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Simpy false, several other researchers also state that there have been no wars between democracies. Other researchers instead concentrate on the larger concept of MIDs, not wars, but they do argue against no wars. Rummel is a very respected researcher that has been mentioned for the Noble Prize for Peace.Ultramarine 04:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Here is the view of the arbcom [54]. Reverts are explicitly allowed. And these are certainly not true reverts, they are placed in different sections and some of it simply move text that Pmanderson himself has accepted. Furhermore, it is not the same text, "democide" is changed to "internal political violence", as Pmanderson himself found acceptable on the talk page. Also, Pmanderson edits has often consisted of essentially reverting to his favored verion. Ultramarine 05:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
This consists of two lies. One is answered above. IIRC, the social-field paragraph was not involved in the revert war; Robdurbar had removed it earlier, in his edit for length. The reversion is exact, as I shall show below; the fact that Ultramarine has added it to a sentence altered by consensus is at best a mitigating factor. Septentrionalis 14:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh well, the placards are still there, but now they're fully sourced, and we have high resolution links. I didn't think we'd get a perfect solution in 24 hours. :-P Hmmm, maybe there's some nicer images already on commons (or elsewhere) that you might use near the top? Then those particular images will move down the page by themselves. :-)
So we've gotten some improvements to the images, it's not perfect yet. When you're playing on a Go board and get stuck in one part of the board for a second, you play in other places, and at some point the context changes, and you'll find yourself unstuck again. In the same way, let's try another part of the article for a bit, and we'll come back to the images later, and hopefully have a fresh perspective.
I am perfectly willing to wait on moving them; but these images in the header are inherently PoV. Septentrionalis 14:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
What's the next largest niggle on your lists, Ultramarine and Septentrionalis? Kim Bruning 12:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Gowa again
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."[55]. "More importantly, more recent studies find fewer MIDs between democracies also before the Cold War.[56][57]. 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.[58] 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.[59]"
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)
Then split them yourself! This gallimaufry of separate (and mostly false) claims cannot be answered together. Septentrionalis 14:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I will present a new structure under which Ultramarine's separate claims can be answered separately; but at a better computer. Septentrionalis 15:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
No answers yet, despite Pmanderson initial statement that there would be one in 24 hours. I will give him a little more time before making the necessary changes.Ultramarine 12:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
This is a misquotation. I said I would probably be able to edit at a suitable computer in 24 hours. It was in fact somewhat more; and when I did ge to one, I had only time to answer a couple of points above.
If Ultramarine is impatient, he can divide this section into separate heads himself, as requested. Septentrionalis 15:50, 6 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)
This is the response that took several days to produce and required moving to a different computer??? This is your response to the scholarly articles??? Thanks for showing your true interest in discussing the factual issues.Ultramarine 07:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
No, this is the short version, which doesn't take several days to produce. Divide the complaints into separate points, or permit your complaint to be divided; and I will, in time, address those that do not arise from a simple failure to read the sources or the text of the article. Septentrionalis 17:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
The most democratic and the most authoritarian states have few civil wars, and intermediate regimes the most. The probability for a civil war is also increased by political change, regardless whether toward greater democracy or greater autocracy. Intermediate regimes continue to be the most prone to civil war, regardless of the time since the political change. In the long run, since intermediate regimes are less stable than autocracies, which in turn are less stable than democracies, durable democracy is the most probable end-point of the process of democratization.
I am justified in calling it Ultramarine's, since his continual revert wars have meant that no-one else has ever been able to edit his version.
I boiled this down to
The most democratic and the most authoritarian states have few civil wars, and intermediate regimes the most. In the long run, since intermediate regimes are less stable than autocracies, which in turn are less stable than democracies, durable democracy is the most probable end-point of the process of democratization.
The most democratic and the most authoritarian states have few civil wars, and intermediate regimes the most. The probability for a civil war is also increased by political change, regardless whether toward greater democracy or greater autocracy. Intermediate regimes continue to be the most prone to civil war, regardless of the time since the political change. In the long run, since intermediate regimes are less stable than autocracies, which in turn are less stable than democracies, durable democracy is the most probable end-point of the process of democratization.
This is an exact reversion, which is Ultramarine's usual practice. It is also what Arbcom decries. All three credited the identical source. (The intermediate text is copied from text, but it made the same links.)
Is this good faith? Septentrionalis 15:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Here is the view of the arbcom.[60] Again, moved some text from your own version to a different place and added some well-sourced information. The text is not in the same sections and not in the same context. Furhermore, it is not the same text, "democide" is changed to "internal political violence", as you yourself found acceptable on this talk page. You have made numerous edits that in essence reverted to your version. I have not reported this and instead have tried to discuss the changes on the talk page in good faith. However, also I am allowed to add contents to the article, you do not own it. Pmanderson, please instead discuss the factual contents and arguments, we have a mediator.Ultramarine 15:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
This does in fact appear to be the same prevarication presented at ANI; cutting and pasting again, I see. Septentrionalis 15:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Please respect the view of our mediator and continue the facual discussions of the contents.Ultramarine 15:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
There are other examples of exact reversion, but I see no need to document them here - as long as the practice stops. I have said nothing to object to Ultramarine's editing the page; merely his reversions. But then local reversion appears to be Ultramarine's normal mode of editing, as other pages will show; perhaps someone should explain the difference to him. Septentrionalis 16:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I have several things to do other than Wikipedia; and even on WP there are other articles. I am fighting this computer every step of the way, and edit conflicts are intractable; I am glad to see from Ultramarine's [erased] comment that this was invisible, and acknowledge the retraction. I will get back to this when I can. Septentrionalis 16:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I shall return. But I must go now. Septentrionalis 04:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Editing without agreement
Septentrionalis has now made changes before discussing them here as our mediator requested.[61] His new version still has errors. The French Second republic is sometimes excluded because three years had not passed after the elections, before the war with the short-lived Roman Republic (19th century). The Swiss Cantons were not "republics". Septentrionalis does not own the article and since he has now ignored discussing changes before making them, I will also shortly have to edit the article to correct the numerous errors.Ultramarine 14:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
The edit in question is a replacement of a qualifier dropped during editing; as Ultramarine observed under #2/3 majority above, and I agree. I do not regard Kim as imposing a voluntary protect on the article; and in any case there is consensus that this change is necessary. Septentrionalis 16:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I will address the bizarre cut-and-paste above under that section, in time.
As for the "numerous" errors alleged, almost all of Ultramarine's claims are false, produced by misreading of the sources. If he resumes his practice of local reversion, I shall request that the ArbCom ruling be enforced. Septentrionalis 16:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Septentrionalis has violated Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. He has moved
"Democratic peace theory (Correlation is not causation)" to "Why other peace theories are wrong" [62]. Obviously this is a POV title which is not allowed. Therefore, the article was deleted. This seems to be a serious gaming of the system in order to remove material he dislikes.Ultramarine 15:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
This is a misreading of policy; even if the event, which Ultramarine has known about for two weeks, were everything Ultramarine says it is.
The title, like the article itself, is deleted. (I opposed the deletion, btw).
If it had not been, the remedy was to appeal to WP:RM. But Ultramarine would rather argue than edit.
The occurrence is fully discussed under #Specific historic examples above. I moved the article from a long, clumsy, non-descriptive title to a short and accurate one. I probably should not have chosen the one I did, but it's too late now. Septentrionalis 16:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Ultramarine objects to the wikification of Why other peace theories are wrong. Does this mean that the fraudulent suggestion that this event was recent, and the article still exists, is intentional? Septentrionalis 16:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
You do not have my permission for ever editing my comments. You may of course quote them. I certainly hope that an article named that was deleted.Ultramarine 16:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I see; it was intentional. Septentrionalis 16:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Weart
Ultramarine has not bothered to explain his latest tag. Since, as far as I can read the diffs, the changes (not additions) I made to the section consist solely of letting out the gas and correcting grammatical errors, I am at a loss to see the justification. Does Ultramarine want to suppress these reviews too? Septentrionalis 00:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
See section above.Ultramarine 00:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Reading English
I added the reviews of Weart's book. Two of them, as indicated, cited Weart's qualifier that democracies can attack other democracies if they wrongly perceive them as oligarchic.
Ultramarine flatly denies that any such statement is in the book; he's read it.
I will bear this in mind every time Ultramarine attempts to claim the content of a source hereafter. Then again, he writes sentences like this:
Democracies includes other democracies in the ingroup; the elites of oligarchies similarly include the elites of other oligarchies.
which is both ungrammatical and jargon. Septentrionalis 05:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
You are incorrect. Weart has never stated that "Syracuse was about as democratic as Athens when Athens attacked her" Ultramarine 07:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Has Ultramarine read the present text, any more than he's read Weart? The reviews were a bad guide to Weart's actual tone, so I rephrased. Septentrionalis 15:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Never at War
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)
In so saying, he persuades me, as he persuaded Eric Robinson, the classicist, that he is out of his field and out of his depth.
It is unlikely that the Constitution of Syracuse was written from "documents", rather than oral traditions and monuments. Certainly there is no trace of them in the Constitution of Athens, which survives.
Whatever sources were available to Aristotle, or his student, were also available to Timaeus of Tauromenium, whose work is reflected in Diodorus.
The meaning of politeia in Aristotle is one of the most vexed philological questions. It is entirely possible that the passage in question means a transition from elected officials to direct democracy.
The remarks on siege warfare show profound ignorance of the subject, as I have remarked in the text. I see that Weart cites a modern count of 27 betrayals during the war; one a year is a remarkably small number, considering the number of operations against cities that took place.
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)
Would Ultramarine explain what difference he imagines between democracies as governed by inferior men and democracy as government by the bad men, except in vividness and the use of an actual quotation from an oligarch? Septentrionalis 18:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
That is your opinion and original research. However, Weart has never used Theognis.Ultramarine 19:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Weart is very incomplete and non-consensus in his treatment of classical antiquity in general, as his reviews make clear. This might be a valid objection to mentioning the canonical sources on the subject in Never at War; but not here. Septentrionalis 20:08, 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 defied him. Septentrionalis 16:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
CIA vs. democracies
Does CIA operations to bring down democratic governments count? --Kvaks 07:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Another evidence that Pmanderson's version is too confused for anyone to understand. War is usually understood to include at least 1000 battle deaths which would probably exclude most CIA operations. However, they would be included in MIDs which is a more generalized concept including also lesser conflicts. The DPT generally argues no wars and fewer MIDs between democracies.Ultramarine 07:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for reminding me; Doyle specifically discusses that point, yet the present text does not discuss it; this is another of Ultramarine's suppressions. Democracies do engage in such operations, but the same liberal ethos which inihibits war makes them covert about them. Septentrionalis 15:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Hiding of criticism
See this edit by Pmanderson.[63] I had added that the report presents claims with little evidence and quoted from the text. Pmanderson has changed this and moved it inside the reference so it cannot be seen. Ultramarine 17:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Not reading footnotes is a poor qualification for a Wikipedia editor; and Ultramarine's polemical edit was false. Nevertheless, I can see a possible compromise. 17:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Correlation really isn't causation
I see Ultramarine has slipped again into the common error of claiming statistical proof of causation, although he used the correct statement as a mantra for a while. Which paper is he thinking of? Septentrionalis 17:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Added reference to oveview paper in the article.Ultramarine 17:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Which carefully, and responsibly, avoids saying that any of the research concerned has demonstrated causation; although he is convinced. Text is misrepresentation. Septentrionalis 18:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
"Since Small & Singer (1976) were unable to generate data on the relative rates of warfare for democratic pairs versus other pairs of states, they could not evaluate the possibility that the difference between those rates (even if statistically significant) might not result from regime type. In other words, correlation does not prove causation, and even if there is a correlation between regime type and conflict or war proneness, the pattern might be produced by some third factor that has an impact on both war proneness and regime type. The most recent research on the democratic peace proposition has considered this possibility thoroughly.
Bremer (1992, 1993), for example, examined the relationship between regime type and international conflict while controlling for contiguity, power status, alliance ties, militarization, economic development, and power ratios. Maoz & Russett (1992, 1993), Russett (1993) focused, unlike Bremer, only on the period from 1946 to 1986, and primarily on "politically relevant" pairs of states. They controlled for contiguity, alliance ties, economic wealth and growth, political stability, and power ratios. These analyses represent significant progress over the effort made by Small & Singer (1976) not only because they control for additional factors, but also because they take advantage of such techniques as logistic regression, poisson regression, and negative binomial analyses, which are better suited to the type of data being analyzed than the traditional ordinary least squares method relied on in earlier decades (King 1989). In general, the findings of these analyses are supportive of the democratic peace proposition. Bremer (1993, p. 246) concludes, for example, that "even after controlling for a large number of factors...democracy's conflict-reducing effect remains strong."Ultramarine 18:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I've read all of that; none of it proves, nor can prove, causation. Ray does not claim any of these papers do, and neither do the papers themselves. Septentrionalis 18:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I disagree.Ultramarine 19:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
That is your personal opinion. It is not Ray's; or he would not have begun this extract by warning that correlation is not causation. (None of this prevents you, or Ray, or me, from believing that some DPT is true, and basing that belief on this evidence; but that's a POV. Septentrionalis 19:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I disagree, the study argues quite clearly for causation.Ultramarine 19:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Did you read the paragraphs above "even after controlling for a large number of factors...democracy's conflict-reducing effect remains strong." Now please correct back your statements.Ultramarine 19:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I did, as I said above. That is the English for "there remains a significant correlation". If Ray had meant historic causation, he would not have gone out of his way to deny it. Septentrionalis 19:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
But he does. He states "The most recent research on the democratic peace proposition has considered this possibility thoroughly." And gives a long list of studie showing that a third factor is not the explanation. Here is another study in addition to those already mentioned: "support the notion that the direction of causation in the democracy and war relationship is unidirectional from democracy to peace." [64]Ultramarine 21:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Revert to prior version and gaming of the system
Septentrionalis, you have reverted to a prior version.[65]. Also, you again tried to game the system by hiding information you do not like in the footnoes.[66]After hiding the study you removed the statments if referenced, stating "claim not supprted by named source"!!!![67] I will take this to the noticeboard shortly. However, I will give you a brief time to change back.Ultramarine 19:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
If you want causation find a souce that says so, instead of one that explicitly denies it. Your own diff demonstrates that what I moved to the notes was a reference. You also might want to find out what gaming the system means before crying wolf. I shall say all of this at ANI if you go through with this. Please don't waste our time and their attention. Septentrionalis 19:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Cutting and pasting again
Ultramarine, this really will not do. Cutting and pasting three whole paragraphs of Ray's not-very-long article is excessive, and unfair to him. (His essay is also under copyright, and noticeably PoV - as it has every right to be; it wasn't written for Wikipedia.)
I have replaced two of them with a paraphrase, on the same scale as other arguments in this article. However, this is an improvement from six months ago, when you were including the same paragraphs and arguments without quotation marks or acknowledgements.
Whether they are a misunderstanding of Gowa's argument, by a skilled debater, is another question. Septentrionalis 06:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Mediation proposal
If Kim is agreeable, this whole matter of causation (and the question of fair quotation) can be the next subject of mediation. (See the previous three sections.)
My position remains that "even after controlling for a large number of factors...democracy's conflict-reducing effect remains strong" does not imply causation. This is a quotation from Ray's 1998 paper; it is part of Ray's summary of a number of papers which show correlations between mutual democracy and peace, and that this result remains, and remains statistically significant, after the correlations between peace and other obvious influences are factored in. Ray begins this discussion by stating that "correlation is not causation".
This is a statement of tendency only: that mutual democracy tends to produce peace, other things being equal. Other variables may be stronger; Bremer finds, if you read his papers, that three or four of them are. Nor is the statement of this tendency the same, or even nearly the same, as the claim of "no wars between democracies".
Reading the articles linked to may help. Septentrionalis 19:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Read my previous answer. But you have still not written the promised response regarding Gowa, 5 days after stating that it would probably be available in 24 hours. Please do that. Ultramarine 19:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
The best I can do for that block of claims is that your reading of Gowa is inaccurate and incomplete. If you break them out into items, which can be responded to individually, I will see about particular page numbers, as I did for your reading of Weart above, under #Reading English. I regret this continuing impulse to suppress Gowa. Septentrionalis 20:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
You are free to quote my statements and can therefore split the quotes however much you like in your reply. I regret this misrepresentation of Gowa's position.Ultramarine 20:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Illustrations and Caption at top
Now that I am back, I suppose I owe everyone an explanation of my absence. From 9/16 to sometime after Thanksgiving (when I gave up trying), I was unable to sign on, edit or even in many cases read Wikipedia. Attempts gave various results, including long hangs and crashes. It didn't matter whether I used my machine at work or at home, I was similarly hosed. As a result, I was unable to participate in the Arbitration, and was unaware that my conduct had been called into question until a couple of days ago. Some day, I will take the time to read the lengthy thing, but in the meantime, I hope that simple reasonable conduct will not get me into trouble. Meanwhile, I wonder how many other Wikipedians suffered the same fate.
To business. I was bugged by the placement of the thumbnails at the top. They caused a rather large visual gap between the lede and History. I hope my solution works for everyone, and I figured an edit of this sort would be a nice olive-branch.
Now to the caption text. I see some problems:
A statement that someone has been nominated for a Nobel Prize is, strictly, non-verifiable, since the Committee will neither confirm nor deny receipt of a nomination. "According to the Statutes of the Nobel Foundation, information about the nominations is not to be disclosed, publicly or privately, for a period of fifty years. The restriction not only concerns the nominees and nominators, but also investigations and opinions in the awarding of a prize. Nomination information older than fifty years is public." [68].
In respect of the Nobel Peace Prize, even a verified nomination would mean little. The number of people qualified to nominate is vast [69] and includes Rummel himself, and many of his former students. Frankly, the claim brings to mind defense posturing in the case of Stanley Tookie Williams, company that not even Septentrionalis would think fit for Rummel.
I also agree that "Professor Emeritus" is a Peacock term in this context: no other researcher's title is so used.
The reference to Rummel's opinions on Israel may well belong in the article, but I think it makes the caption turgid.
I would propose shortening to, "Democratic Peace Charts by R. J. Rummel, presenting research by himself and others. [1]. High resolution PDF files can be found here [2][3]." Robert A West 06:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I may have spoken too soon. After editing several articles without problem, I find that I must now log off and log back on with every edit. Obviously the article on DPT is cursed. Robert A West 07:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Agreed Whole heartedly. --Scaife 08:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
With the proposed shortening, or the assertion of a curse? Or both? ;-) Robert A West 17:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
As you probably noticed, I moved the charts to the side as well as put some meat on some of the subjects out there (BTW let mw know what you think), however I agree shortening the caption. As far as the curse, you may be on to something. :D --Scaife 17:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
The reason that I moved the charts and TOC into a horizontal line was to avoid having nearly a full browser-page of whitespace between the charts and the TOC. I think it tends to create the impression that the lede is the whole article. You have restored this condition, which strikes me as ugly (and leaves the impression that the article is just the lede). Is this just my browser in action? Robert A West 17:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I believe that it may be your browser, it looks alot better this way. As you had it, it seemed to make the articel rather disjoined. -- Scaife 20:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I put them vertically, right aligned, in the external links. Ultramarine objected that the external links were invisible; so I moved the whole section to its (slightly non-standard) position ahead of the notes. Septentrionalis 23:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps they should be moved to the bottom of the page as external links, for the sake of argument? --Scaife 23:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
![[20]](http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/PK.FIG5.1.GIF){kind=link}
![[21]](http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/PK.TAB5.2.GIF){kind=link}
