Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Democratic peace theory/archive1

Democratic Peace Theory[edit]

Support as nominator, this is a well refrenced article that has undergone months of editing to produce a good structured and NPOV piece, with reasonable use of pictures. It's both well written and informative. Semi-self nomination, as I have contributed to the article but am far from the main contributor Robdurbar 11:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Two issues, lead-in needs a bit expansion, and Image:Fullchamber.jpg needs a suitable copyright tag. - Mailer Diablo 15:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yeah, I never felt the pciture was too relevant anyway, so I'll search for another. As for the intro, I've added a sentence but I think it quite concisely expalins the whole topic Robdurbar 15:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And don't be surprised if there are concerns raised about its length. This article is particularly shorter than usual. Perhpas it'd be good if you can expand some sections where main articles are linked to. - Mailer Diablo 15:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose. I'll be the first to object at the length; I think the real problem is that the summaries of the subarticles are too short. If some of each of the subarticles could be returned to the main article I think it would be a great improvement. - Cuivienen 23:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've just raided some of the subarticles for references, as many of the statements in the criticism section were uncited. I do think that the subarticles are too short and could use expansion, and I did a little bit already. With a bit more work in this department, I would gladly support. The Catfish 23:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Object~~. An important part of the article (the specific counter-examples) is shifted to another article. I can't find any mention of the Iceland Cod Wars in either (though this is not a huge problem). I suppose there is no problem with the specific counter-examples being shifted to another article, but the summary of that article is nowhere near sufficient - at a minimum some of the most prominent counter-examples should be mentioned in the main article. To improve the article (and its sub-article) Matthew White's "Democracies Do Not Make War on One Another...or Do They?" [1] might be helpful. Cedars 00:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Some prominent examples could well be mentioned in the main article. Matthew White's summary is unfortunately misleading since he selectively chooses to not mention many of the arguments against these wars that can be found for instance in Never at War, which he states he has read. I am unsure how many specific cases to include, Never at War discusses many other conflicts not mentioned currently or in White's list. I do think however that all the prominent examples have been mentioned. The Cod War, for instance, is arguably not a very important example since no one was killed. Ultramarine 01:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did know that the Cod Wars were casulty-free. That said, now that specific counter-examples are mentioned in the main article, I'll withdraw my objection and leave it to others to review. Cedars 09:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Far too brief for such an interesting and controversial subject. Would be nice to have captions that conform to wikipedia:captions. It is often assumed the reader knows enough to take certain examples in context; for instance, I see World War I commonly referred (and wikilinked) to as WWI, and the American presidents from both parties example presumes the reader will understand the different ideologies of the parties or even what these parties are. Johnleemk | Talk 20:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The sentences regarding World War I and the American presidents have been changed. The article was very long before so some of the contents was moved to subarticles. It was suggested above that some of this should be moved back to the main article, which has been done. Do you think that more of the contents of the subarticles should be moved back? Ultramarine 17:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think there could be some more effort made to establish what sense "democracy" is being used in here. I mean, in context it's clear that it means multiparty western-style democracy. But many people feel that kind of democracy is only superficially democratic, and that other systems are more democratic (while advocates of western-style democracy might in turn call those systems only superficially democratic). Obviously it's one of those issues where getting to NPOV is tough without being really long-winded and tip-toeing around. But at the same time, it is important to have the NPOV. I think the article needs some careful thinking about how to deal with this question more objectively before it should be featured. Everyking 09:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You are right that this could be emphasized more. The intro mentions that the theory refers to liberal democracy. I have tried to make this more explicit in the article. The subarticles have more detailed explanations of the different definitions of liberal democracy that have been used in the studies. Ultramarine 17:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What's 'the low frequency of democratic governments'? Tony 12:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Minor oppose. Please expand with the material from subarticles, and all important statements, especially those in the criticism section, should be properly footnoted.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak object great article. but the intro claims that it has had implications in the policy world. those seem to merit discussion. Also, the criticism section overlocks three of the most important criticism of the theory. (1) that even though the findings are true they are not statistically significant because they fall within expected variation (2) the definition of democracy and war is not stable and often manipulated by studies which count cases (3) the studies do not examine democratic characteristics but instead label democracies as a bionary. For example, there is little research on the correlation between a free press and war, competitive elections and war, etc. I'm sorry that I don't have citations for these, but I took several government classes and we read articles in peer reviewed journals to this effect. I'm sure that someone with access to isiknowledge.com could produce some cites quickly (i sadly no longer have it) Masterdebater 17:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This would be interesting if someone indeed have sources for the above. Ultramarine 05:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object Way too much material on Rummel, who is far from a leading authority on international relations. 172 19:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rummel is only mentioned once. I do not think this is too much since he was one of the more important early researchers. Could you please explain your objection in more detail? Ultramarine 05:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - He has an entire section in the article, though he rarely, if ever, comes up in academic surveys on international relations. Rummel's following is generally among libertarian activists, not academics. 172 05:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - He is mentioned only once and does not have a section of his own, I do not understand your objection? Ultramarine 05:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - "Statistical studies supporting the DPT" is virtually a piece of advocacy for Rummel. This will be my last reply on the talk page. The talk page is where extended discussions of the neutrality of an article should be carried out. 172 05:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Unfortunately, you are misinformed. Rummel is only one of many researchers who have shown statistical support for the theory, although he was one of the first. Ultramarine 05:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]