Talk:Democracy/Archive 12

"Views" section

I've removed the "Views" section, which seems to the remnant of the old "Criticsm" section after it was moved to individual articles. There doesn't seem to be anything compelling here, just a random quote from Will Durant, an instruction to see other articles, and a general blanket declaration that some groups oppose all forms of democracy. The first is unnecessary, the third, even if needed in this article, doesn't require a section to itself, and the second is even less compelling and seems an unnecessary "instruction to the reader". Furthermore, the Durant quote especially seems an invitation to random commentary being added over time, such as this (diff). If someone wants to try and find a better way to accomplish the what the second and third bits were doing, please feel free. - David Oberst 15:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think at least a brief section is needed, otherwise people will wonder why there is none. Quotes should be in Wikiquote.Ultramarine 14:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It would be a good idea to put information about democratic countries and their life quality by sector --189.164.127.68 20:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the additions of User:Mbhiii, minus the quotations the sentences are effectively "With electronic media, Madison Avenue advertising techniques, and sufficient money, it may [be possible] to subvert democracy" and "Considering Hitler's appointment as Chancellor, the Reichstag Fire, and subsequent March elections, democracy may contain the seeds of its own undoing.". These are simply commentary, opinion, "original research" or whatever phrase one wishes to use. Adding a colorful quotation does not change that. - David Oberst 16:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there any chance of the Criticism being extended? The entry says "see the appropriate articles", but I can't find the appropriate articles anywhere. User:Crablogger, 13:02, 11 June 2007 (GMT)

Someone has since added links to help people find these articles. -- Beland 22:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Economist Rankings

Shouldn't there be a date on ranking system from The Economist? Its description of a few countries like Hong Kong (now a mixed system) or Thailand (military junta) seem not to be current. Dawud —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.167.172.184 (talk) 01:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

I added a date to the image caption. -- Beland 22:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Quoting from WP:ATT - Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities; mainstream newspapers; and magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses. What these have in common is process and approval between document creation and publication. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Material that is self-published is generally not regarded as reliable, but see below for exceptions.

By this standard, the two links just removed fall short. Freedom House is not published by a known publishing house, and has no transparency of fact checking, regardless that it is famous. The personal blog of Fareed Zakaria, regardless of the fact he is famous, has similar problems. SaltyBoatr 16:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The Freedom House scores are used by numerous peer-reviewed articles. The Zakaria article is from Foreign Affairs, one of the most influential of all political journals.Ultramarine 16:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That is a separate issue. The fact remains that it fails the WP:ATT test, which requires a 'reliable publication process' and it has none. SaltyBoatr 16:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Since the FH scores are used in numerous peer-reviewed articles, they have been accepted as reliable. Foreign affaris is a reliable source.Ultramarine 16:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Foreign Affairs meets WP:ATT, but a personal blog does not. SaltyBoatr 16:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Please show how the Council on Foreign Relations has a 'reliable publication process', their journal 'Foreign Affairs' appears self published. SaltyBoatr 17:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I still do not see a 'reliable publication process' for Freedom House. SaltyBoatr 16:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I can quote the exact issue of Foreign affairs instead if your prefer. From WP:ATT: Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. FH is that in the field of political science. Also, reliable sources are not limited to peer-reviewed articles. Das Capital, for instance, was not peer-reviewed.Ultramarine 16:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

My personal preference doesn't matter. Yes, we are obligated as editors to use reliable sources, so referencing Foreign Affairs instead of the personal blog is warranted. SaltyBoatr 16:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Your Straw Man logic regarding Freedom House is irrelevant. The test is pretty simple. Please show that they have a 'reliable publishing process', I see none. SaltyBoatr 16:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, it is generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Are you arguing that Wikipedia should remove the article about Das Capital or Mein Kampf since they were not peer-reviewed? Ultramarine 16:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't question the authors. I am questioning the publishing process. Could you please stop evading my question? SaltyBoatr 16:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You misrepresent WP:ATT, wikipedia certainly does not limit it sources to only academic publishers. But even using this criteria your are wrong, Freedom in the World 2006 was published by Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, an acadmic publisher.Ultramarine 16:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I am directly quoting from WP:ATT, and not misrepresenting. The link I removed was not to that book. SaltyBoatr 16:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The link points to an article from the book.Ultramarine 16:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

No. The link points to a website without a 'reliable publication process. You could meet WP:ATT if you revised the citation link to point to a book with a 'reliable publication process' as required by WP:ATT. SaltyBoatr 16:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

No, problem I will simply cite the report. Satisfied? Ultramarine 17:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Point to a source meeting WP:ATT, and yes I would be satisfied. SaltyBoatr 17:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

But more generally, you are arguing that Wikipedia should never quote, for example, publications by Greenpeace, the Catholic Church, a political party, Amnesty, and so, regarding anything, not even regarding views, since these publications are self-published.Ultramarine 16:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Generally, yes, Wikipedia policy is quite clear, editors should avoid using primary sources. SaltyBoatr 16:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

So we cannot even quote Amnesty or Greenpeace or the Republican party regarding their view on something? Ultramarine 17:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I just ask that we follow Wikipedia policy, including WP:NOR#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources SaltyBoatr 17:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That may be your misunderstanding. If Amnesty criticzes some regime for human rights violations, that is not a primary source, which would be the actual testimonals of the victims. Instead, the press release by Amensty would be a secondary source. Also note that Wikipedia does not totally prohibit primary sources.Ultramarine 17:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I simply deleted two links because they didn't come from 'reliable published sources'. I don't want to argue hypothetical questions with you. SaltyBoatr 17:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

This will be fixed as noted above. Regarding your interpretation of reliable sources, which would require deleting many of the sources used in Wikipedia, I am starting a discussion regarding this on WP:ATT.Ultramarine 17:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

What is the ISBN of that book? I would like to check it without having to trust the website. SaltyBoatr 17:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Why did you remove the Foreign Affairs article? I will add ISBN. Satisfied then? Ultramarine 17:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Please show how the Council on Foreign Relations has a 'reliable publication process', their journal 'Foreign Affairs' appears self published.SaltyBoatr 17:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If is one of the most influential political journals, if not the most. Here is a Google scholar search: [1]

Ultramarine 17:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It may be an influential political journal without a 'reliable publishing process'. Wikipedia has clear standards, to meet WP:ATT, it must have a reliable publishing process, and I see none.SaltyBoatr 17:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Please present evidence for your claims. I have already shown that is is viewed as an academic journal. Also, the article in question have been quoted by over 300 other academic papers and books: [2] Ultramarine 18:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

By this standards we'd have a hard time to quote from any scientific journal and would demand a higher standard than any university or publisher in the world. I agree that Freedom House's classifications are very questionable, but it still is a source that's oftenly cited in scientific literature on the subject and meets WP policies. That something is controversial doesn't mean it can't be cited, it only means it shouldn't be presented as some kind of consensus or fact. - Malc82 18:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this citation can be made elsewhere, from a source that has a 'reliable publishing process'? I don't see that the material in the article is so extraordinary that we cannot find an alternate citation that squarely meets the standards of WP:ATT. SaltyBoatr 18:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Please give evidence for your claims. Again, I have shown that the journal is viewed and cited an as academic journal. How can an article that have been cited as a source by over 300 acadmic books and journals not be acceptable as a source in Wikipedia? Ultramarine 18:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The WP:V#Burden of evidence is on you, not me. The journal Foreign Affairs appears to be self published by the Council of Foreign Relations, and therefore fails to prove a 'reliable publishing process'. SaltyBoatr 18:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You have not presented any evidence for your claims, unlike I have. Again, please explain why Wikipedia should not accept a source when over 300 academic books and articles have done so? Ultramarine 18:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Quoting Wikipedia: reliable sources are books and journals published by universities; mainstream newspapers; and magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses.. The journal Foreign Affairs is not this. Your 'evidence' is based on the secret algorithm for ranking by a proprietary search engine. All I ask is what WP:ATT says: "books and journals published by universities; mainstream newspapers; and magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses". A self published journal of the Council of Foreign Relations fails that test. SaltyBoatr 19:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Please explain why the Freedom House book which you cite is not found in the Library of Congress catalog. Have you actually read this book? SaltyBoatr 19:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Freedom in the World 2006. Can be bought on Amazon: [3]. Published by an academic publihser, Rowman & Littlefield Publisher.[4] Cited by numerous peer-reviewd articles.[5] Can be found here in Library of Congress: [6], search for "freedom in the world".
• The rise of illiberal democracy. Article published in one of the most influential political journals, Foreign Affairs. Numerous articles in Google Scholar: [7]The article in question has been quoted over 300 times by academic books and article. [8] Ultramarine

You claim that Foreign affairs is self-published but present no evidence. You have not explained why Wikipedia should not allow an article as a source that is accepted as a source by over 300 academic books and journals. You refuse to discus that your novel interpretation means that Wikipedia cannot quote Amnesty, Greenpeace, the Republican party, even if they only express an opinion, meaning that much of the sources and material in Wikipedia should be removed. You selectively quote what Wikipedia:ATT says: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities; mainstream newspapers; and magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses. What these have in common is process and approval between document creation and publication. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." Both the sources fulfill these criteria, they have been checked and accepted as reliable by numerous independent academics in their field not involved with authors or publishers. Also note that there not a probhibition of other kinds of sources, those listed are just the most reliableUltramarine 21:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The WP:V#Burden of evidence is on you, not me. You have failed to show that your proposed edit meets WP:ATT. Again, I am not questioning the authors. I have asked about a dozen times for you to demonstrate a 'reliable publishing process' for your proposed sourcing and you have failed to do so. Your suggesting to use a proprietary search engine to demonstrate credibility is clever attempt at dodging the 'reliable publishing process' test, but not a policy found in WP:ATT. SaltyBoatr 21:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you quit fighting and simply find a credible secondary source. Surely, if what you want to cite is verifiable, then a credible secondary source should be very easy to find. Otherwise, it doesn't belong in this encyclopedia. SaltyBoatr 21:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You ignore what I wrote, reliability has been amply shown. See the sources added in the text above.Ultramarine 21:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not ignore what you wrote. I am asking for evidence of a 'reliable publishing process', and you provide none. I asked: 'Have you read this book?', and take your non-answer to mean, no you have not read the book you want to use for a citation. And, sorry but your Library of Congress link did not prove true, and instead points to other books with a similar title. SaltyBoatr 21:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Whether I have read it or not is not really relevant for the issue, but yes, I have read it. The LOC links goes to the annual series. Also listed above is many other links showing the existence of the report and the publication by an academic publisher, including a link to the book at the publisher itself.Ultramarine 21:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you find a credible secondary source, it should be easy. SaltyBoatr 22:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Already done, please read the text and links above.Ultramarine 22:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Please answer the following questions: 1. Why should a an article used as a source by over 300 academic books and articles not be allowed as a source in Wikipedia? 2. Why is book published by an acadmic publisher not allowed as a source? 3. Are you aware that W:ATT does not prohibit other sources than those you list, but instead only states that these are those most reliable? 4. Please present evidence that Foreign Affairs is self-published, I have presented evidence that it is cited by numerous academic journals and books? 5. Are you actually arguing that Wikipedia cannot quote Amnesty or Greenpeace or the Republican party even regarding their view on something?Ultramarine 22:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, quoting from WP:ATT the most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities, and this seems not the case with the publishing house for the book you are citing. The key issue at hand is the fact checking process that occurs with a 'reliable publishing process'. I don't need to debate your questions because the burden of evidence in on you, and I am only asking that you follow the Wikipedia guideline found in WP:ATT. My request is simple: show the 'reliable publishing process'. SaltyBoatr 22:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

This have been done above. It is now up to you to how that the sources given are false, if you are arguing that. Also please answer the questions stated.Ultramarine 22:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

No. I am not saying the sources are false. I am saying they are not the 'most reliable sources'. The credibility of the article suffers when we are to lazy to do our homework and use the most reliable sources. SaltyBoatr 16:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Answers: 1)Your personal '300' guideline is not found in WP:ATT. 2)Please re-read WP:ATT, most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities . 3) 'most reliable sources' are a good thing, which get us to a better encyclopedia. 4) Burden of evidence is on you, not me. 5) Pose that question over on WP:ATT/Talk as my answer carries no weight. I am only trying to follow the WP guidelines, not re-write them. I just want a better encyclopedia. SaltyBoatr 22:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

1. That is not an answer, please explain why Wikipedia should have deny sources accepted by peer-reviwed articles. 2. WP:ATT does not prohibit other sources than university publisher, the book is publihsed by an academic publisher. Where is the prohibition of such a source? 3. See 2 4. No, I have shown that it is accepted as an academic source, it is up to to you disprove that. 5. Are you actually arguing that deleting such sources and material will lead to a better encyclopedia? Ultramarine 22:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I have noted your claim that a non-university but academic publisher is an unreliable source at AT:ATT.Ultramarine 22:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not say it was unreliable. I say it does not meet the Wikipedia definition of 'most reliable source'. SaltyBoatr 16:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Look, a lenghty exchange of opinions can be a nice thing, but since you two have now discussed the rough equivalent of 3-4 pages, this discussion is obviously stalled. Let me try to sum up what I think about this topic:

• Please be aware that WP:ATT (like any other WP policy) isn’t written in stone, and SaltyBoatr's extremely literal interpretation of one sentence of this policy is most likely not what it was meant to say.
• every article published in Foreign Affairs is reviewed by other scientists, which is much more than you could say for any “reliable” newspaper or just about every university publication. That should be enough to make sure WP:ATT isn’t a good reason to ban them.
• I have to agree with Ultramarine: if you use your interpretation of WP:ATT consequently, there’s only a handful of WP-articles that would survive the necessary mass-deletion of references. (What’s more, I think it would be some pretty bad ones, those that rely entirely on newspaper articles)

Finally: There really is no good reason why articles that I could use in every Political Science paper and any scientific article shouldn’t be enough for Wikipedia. - Malc82 00:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You too are blowing steam, in this lengthy exchange, questioning Wikipedia guidelines and policy. This talk page is not the right place for that. I am simply trying to follow the guidelines and policy as we should. You say 'this policy is most likely not what it was meant to say'. Huh? That is a contrived rationalization. Let us just follow the policy. SaltyBoatr 16:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I continue to object to the use[9] of the personal web blog of Fareed Zakaria as a citation. Even if his blog is correct, the public perception of credibility suffers. No one has answered yet why it is an undue burden to use the most reliable sources. Certainly, if the point you are making is valid, 'most reliable sources' exist. They probably can be found in the "300 scholarly papers" which Ultramarine sees in that Google search. Use them. SaltyBoatr 16:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

No one agrees with your personal interpretation, not here or on the talk page of WP:ATT. See the arguments presented above. You seem to deliberately misrepresent the source, it is certainly not a blog as you well know. Also, the book source you removed without any explanation is from an academic publisher, are you really still arguing that this is not allowed in Wikipedia?Ultramarine 16:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Personal interpretation? Quoting from WP:ATT - Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities; mainstream newspapers; and magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses. This says what it says. No one agrees? SaltyBoatr 17:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, the website fareedzakaria.com is a personal website of Fareed Zakaria, and this is not a 'most reliable source'. Sorry, your 'book' citation[10] doesn't point to a book, and actually points to a website www.freedomhouse.org, again this is not a 'most reliable source'. The ISBN you use is a dead end, not found in the catalog of the Library of Congress and your only 'proof' has been citing Amazon.com. Per Wikipedia:ISBN a registered ISBN, even one which appears with a corresponding book page on a major book distributor database such as Amazon.com, is not definite proof that such a book exists. This ISBN is also not found[11] in the catalog of Oxford University, and not found[12] in the catalog of Harvard University. SaltyBoatr 17:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

What is your problem with using a 'most reliable source'? The time and effort you have spent arguing against WP:ATT could easily have used to find a 'most reliable source'. SaltyBoatr 17:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, no agrees with your personal interpretation here or on the talk of WP:ATT. In particular, wikipedia does not exclude for example academic publishers like you claim. Again, you seem to deliberate misrepresent the issue, as you well know the article is not from a blog but a journal. You also seem to deliberately misrepresent the book, you are well aware that it can be found at the academic publisher which you do not mention and in the LOC by searching for "freedom in the world".Ultramarine 17:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you answer my question: What is your problem with using a 'most reliable source'? SaltyBoatr 17:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You misrepresent the the text. "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities; mainstream newspapers; and magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses. What these have in common is process and approval between document creation and publication. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." Both the sources fulfill these criteria, they have been checked and accepted as reliable by numerous independent academics in their field not involved with authors or publishers. Also note that there not a probhibition of other kinds of sources, those listed are just the most reliable. There is certainly no prohibition of non-university academic publishers as you claim and as all other editors here and on the talk of WP:ATT agree.Ultramarine 17:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You keep pointing to the clause about authors. Again, I am not questioning the authors. I am questioning the 'reliable publication process', and I have asked this a dozen times. Your repeated 'answer' has been to change the question to be about the authors. SaltyBoatr 17:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Because you say 'checked and accepted as reliable by numerous independent academics' does not make it true. Your 'evidence' is based on your Google search[13], that does not qualify as 'most reliable source'. I ask again: What is your problem with using a 'most reliable source'? SaltyBoatr 17:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, there is no prohibition against using non-univsersity academic publishers as you claim. Do not deliberately misrepresent me by claiming i have only presented a Google search, I have given numerous other sources. Again, no other editor agrees with you, you are ignoring consensus.Ultramarine 17:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Ironic, you write: there is no prohibition against using non-univsersity academic publishers as you claim , which is false, I did not claim this. Then you write Do not deliberately misrepresent me.... SaltyBoatr 17:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

What consensus? That we need not use 'most reliable sources'? Please. How hard can it be? Stop fighting, just do it. SaltyBoatr 17:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• Freedom in the World 2006. Can be bought on Amazon: [14]. Published by an academic publihser, Rowman & Littlefield Publisher.[15] Cited by numerous peer-reviewd articles.[16] Can be found here in Library of Congress: [17], search for "freedom in the world". Or the Brithsh Library: [18]
• The rise of illiberal democracy. Article published in one of the most influential political journals, Foreign Affairs. Numerous articles in Google Scholar: [19]The article in question has been quoted over 300 times by academic books and article. [20] Ultramarine

You have not explained why Wikipedia should not allow an article as a source that is accepted as a source by over 300 academic books and journals. You refuse to discus that your novel interpretation means that Wikipedia cannot quote Amnesty, Greenpeace, the Republican party, even if they only express an opinion, meaning that much of the sources and material in Wikipedia should be removed. You selectively quote what Wikipedia:ATT says in full: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities; mainstream newspapers; and magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses. What these have in common is process and approval between document creation and publication. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication."Both the sources fulfill these criteria, they have been checked and accepted as reliable by numerous independent academics in their field not involved with authors or publishers. Also note that there not a probhibition of other kinds of sources, those listed are just the most reliable. In particular, non-academic publishers are certainly reliable. Again, you ignore the consensus of other editors here and on the talk of WP:ATT, see for example this: [21].Ultramarine 18:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

One post is not a consensus. Especially when the following post[22] disagrees. SaltyBoatr 18:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The following post agree that "self-published" material such as the Democratic Party Platform is perfectly acceptable in Wikipedia while you even want to ban academic publishers. Here is another view from this page: [23].Ultramarine 18:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, you use Google searches for your proof, and Google searches are not good enough to prove your point. Sorry, your book links do not work. You are searching on the title "Freedom in the World", and are only finding other books with similar titles. Per Wikipedia:ISBN Amazon.com proves nothing. When I search major libraries using the ISBN you provided I do not find the book. And you claim to have actually read this book? What ISBN is written on the title page of the book you read? What evidence have you presented showing that the 'journal' Foreign Affairs is 'published by a known publishing house? None. SaltyBoatr 18:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop misrepresenting me, I gave several other sources above beside Google Scholar, like the academic publisher itself, the LOC, and the British Library. Regarding the article, I have presented evidence that it has been considered reliable by numerous independent scholars. Everyone disagrees with your personal interpretatation, again see this: [24] Ultramarine 18:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

A publisher cannot declare themselves credible. The Library of Congress and the British Library do not show the book with your ISBN number in their catalog. You are simply searching on a title and finding other similarly titled books. Try your search using the ISBN. You evade my request for you to show that Foreign Affairs is published by a known publishing house. Instead you ask me to trust your 'proof' using your Google search. Please, stop fighting, just go find a better 'most reliable source'. The credibility of the articles suffers when you insist on less. SaltyBoatr 18:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The LOC and the British Library certainly shows that the series exist, they do not have individual records for every one of the reports in such annual series. Please state the Wikipedia policy requiring that each part of an annual series must have a separate entry in the LOC before being acceptable in Wikipedia. Regarding the article, your personal interpretation of policy is incorrect. The article has been checked by numerous scholars as shown above as required in the policy, "the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." Again see what other editors think: [25][26]Ultramarine 18:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

section break

There seem to be a number of issues conflated here, and I'm not sure of the motivation behind this interminable discussion, but some points:

• Since the citations seem merely to be supporting the summary definition of "liberal democracy", it should be possible to replace them with a reference to any number of introductory political science textbooks, etc. Arguably the citations should not be necessary here, since any summary definition here should be a fair, NPOV summary of the liberal democracy main article, which would handle the sourcing responsibilities. Having said that, some of arguments on the two sources seem either overly procedural, if they were presented in an example where the citations were more directly necessary.

• "Freedom in the World 2006" is co-published by Rowman & Littlefield (apparently both cloth and paper), with a R&L ISBN prefix, and the book is on the R&L website here, among other sources. Short of some active evidence that R&L does not publish this title, I'm baffled at the persistence of questioning the existence of this item, or R&L's status as a publisher of it.

• Even if the book had been entirely self-published by Freedom House, I don't believe the intent or practice of Wikipedia's attribution policies would be to categorically reject any usage. It would depend on the nature of the organization, the material, and the context. If, say, the Distinguished Society of Universally Quoted Physicists self-published the "Handbook of Physical Constants", which was a standard reference for those discussing physical constants, it would be an uncontroversial citation in the appropriate place. Freedom House is obviously a less clear-cut example, but some of the more persnickety guideline interpretations presented here serve mainly to muddy the question.

• On the Zakaria article, again it is probably not necessary in this usage, but in principle there seems to be two issues. One is whether Foreign Affairs is a legitimate source of citable material. This is a content decision, but it would certainly seem that a long-standing journal of this sort, which is described as "influential" in its WIkipedia article, would certainly qualify. The other issue is the link to Zakaria's website - in this case, it appears to be used as an online source of the article's text. Assuming that text is not available from the Foreign Affairs website or other more suitable source, I would see no problem with this, absent some challenge that the version on the website was not an accurate reproduction of the original article's text.

Since there seems to be no challenge to the actual text in the article, short of someone adding a citation request at that point, perhaps this could be tabled, or moved to someplace like WP:ATT if the general principles are still of concern? - David Oberst 19:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I basically agree with David Oberst in this regard, except for the word 'persnickety' which appears to dismiss the WP guidelines. Hopefully we could agree as editors that we should literally read the Wikipedia policies and guidelines as a mutual standard. They don't say one thing and mean another. I also disagree that 'influential' means 'credible' per the standards of Wikipedia. It could, for instance, be influential in the popular and political sense, and not the 'reliable publication process' sense required by the WP guideline for 'most credible sources'.SaltyBoatr 20:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

This the fourth other editor who disagrees with your personal interpretation of policy and accept sources other than university publishers. Again see what other editors think: [27][28][29]Ultramarine 20:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I am also baffled why the book with the ISBN 0-7425-5803-7, cited[30] by Ultramarine is not found in the catalog of these three major libraries: Library of Congress, Oxford University and Harvard University. This omission is truly odd and raises a credibility question. A credibility question easily avoided if we use 'most credible sources'. For the definition of 'Liberal Democracy', most credible sources should be very easy to find. SaltyBoatr 20:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, The LOC and the British Library certainly shows that the series exist, they do not have individual records for every one of the reports in such annual series, as noted earlier above. Please state the Wikipedia policy requiring that each part of an annual series must have a separate entry in the LOC before being acceptable in Wikipedia. You can fint the reports in local libraries using copac: [31] But maybe this is part of some gigantic conspircary? :)Ultramarine 20:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I never asked about 'the series'. I am asking about a specific ISBN 0-7425-5803-7 which you provided, which oddly, does not appear in major library catalogs or in your recent copac search. I don't see how you can properly cite something vague like 'the series' using, for instance, Harvard Referencing. SaltyBoatr 20:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, libraries do not have not have individual records for every one of the reports in such annual series, as noted earlier above. Since you insist on following the exact letter of rules (according to your own interpretation), please state the Wikipedia policy requiring that each part of an annual series must have a separate entry in the LOC before being acceptable in Wikipedia.Ultramarine 20:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not asking about 'each part of an annual series'. I am asking about the specific ISBN 0-7425-5803-7 which you cited, which is oddly missing from major library catalogs. That omission raises credibility questions that can be easily avoided, except you appear to prefer to fight with me instead. SaltyBoatr 21:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, libraries do not have not have individual records for every one of the reports in such annual series, as noted earlier above. Since you insist on following the exact letter of rules (according to your own interpretation), please state the Wikipedia policy requiring that each part of an annual series must have a separate entry in the LOC before being acceptable in Wikipedia. That the series actually exist can be seen at Amazon, the publisher itself, and in local libraries as noted above. But I guess this is part of the conspiracy? :) Ultramarine 21:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Amazon actually has named reviewer of the 2006 report. Is he also part of the conspiracy? :) Ultramarine 21:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Existence on Amazon.com is no proof, see WP:ISBN. The publishers website, claiming the book is co-published with Freedom House, is no proof of a 'reliable publishing process'. The link to 'local libraries' you provided only appears to link through to the eBook found on the FreedomHouse.org website. You talk of 'the series' but you must state which edition in the series, and you did, ISBN 0-7425-5803-7 you even claim[32] to have actually read this book that seems not to really exist in print in major libraries at least, that I can see. Stop fighting. SaltyBoatr 21:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The link given above usually in turn links to local reading rooms, not e-Books, like this at Brithish Library "1978- *A=1 SEE ALSO YC.1988.B.7505: Humanities and Social Sciences, St Pancras Reading Rooms". But, I guess Amazon, the named reviewer, the publisher, and the British libraries are all part of the conspiracy. :) But I am quite intersted, could you please tell us some more regarding how this conspiracy manages this? Ultramarine 21:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Which book did you read, the 1978-, the 1988 or the 2006 version? SaltyBoatr 21:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The most recent.Ultramarine 21:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is the Harvard University Library entry: [33] You can loan the 2006 edition at several differnt places and Harvard even makes the claim that it is currently available at the Kennedy Sch of Gov. But I guess Harvard is part of the conspiracy? :) Ultramarine 22:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Harvard University shows that book as being self-published by 'Freedom House'. So, again I ask, can you show that this book has a 'reliable publication process'. Similar, you have never answered my question of 'reliable publication process' for the journal Foreign Affairs. Spare me the fighting, wordy circular arguments, diversions into policy debate, Google searches, other questions not asked and sarcastic comments about conspiracy; just answer my two questions please:

Please identify the 'reliable publication process' for both of your two sources. SaltyBoatr 14:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I have given several sources showing that is published by an acadmic publisher together with Freedom House. Stop deliberately misrepresenting me, you know well the many other sources beside Google scholar I have given above. I you do not remember them, I will repeat them again. :) Similarly you ignore my comments regarding the article above. But you how not answered my question, could you please explain how this conspiracy manages to create so many false statements at Amazon, the academic pubisher, numerous libraries, and in numerous peer-reviewed articles that have used these sources? :)) Ultramarine 14:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You pointed to one library, Harvard, which says the book is self published. Rowman & Littlefield, the publisher, says that the book is "Co-published with: Freedom House". What that does for a 'reliable publication process' is very unclear, I can only guess that Rowman & Littlefield did the production adn printing, and that Freedom House did the 'fact checking', but the burden of evidence is on you. Amazon is no proof, see Wikipedia:ISBN. The Library of Congress shows[34] this book series as being self published.

More importantly, yet again, you evade my simple and fair request:

Please identify the 'reliable publication process' for both of your two sources. SaltyBoatr 15:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The two sources:

• Freedom in the World 2006. Co-published by Freedom House and an academic publisher, Rowman & Littlefield Publisher.[35]. Despite this, the editor SaltyBoatr argues that it may not actually exist in the real world since some libraries do not have a separate webpage in their catalog for each part of this annual series. This is very strange considering that it can bought at Amazon and has recieved a review by a named person.[36] The series has also been cited by numerous peer-reviewd articles.[37] The series be found here in Library of Congress: [38], search for "freedom in the world". Or the Brithsh Library.[39] Harvard library has the 2006 book available for loan at several places.[40] It has also received praise by many leading political scientists.[41]
• The rise of illiberal democracy. Article published in one of the most influential political journals, Foreign Affairs. Numerous articles in Google Scholar: [42]The article in question has been quoted over 300 times by academic books and articles. [43] Ultramarine

You have not explained why Wikipedia should not allow an article as a source that is accepted as a source by over 300 academic books and journals. You refuse to discus that your novel interpretation means that Wikipedia cannot quote Amnesty, Greenpeace, the Republican party, even if they only express an opinion, meaning that much of the sources and material in Wikipedia should be removed. You selectively quote what Wikipedia:ATT actually says: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities; mainstream newspapers; and magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses. What these have in common is process and approval between document creation and publication. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication."Both the sources fulfill these criteria, they have been checked and accepted as reliable by numerous independent academics in their field not involved with authors or publishers. Also note that there not a probhibition of other kinds of sources, those listed are just the most reliable. In particular, non-academic publishers are certainly reliable. Your personal interpretation that only university publishers are allowed, not even other academic publishers, would require deleting much of Wikipedia. Of course, this means that you ignore the consensus of all other editors here and on the talk of WP:ATT, see for example this: [44][45].[46][47].Ultramarine 15:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Even granting that everything you write in the paragraphs above to be totally true. Still, the credibility issue remains because...

Harvard University and the Library of Congress identify your book series as being self published. Per WP:ATT, self published books are not the most credible sources. (Also, you still evade my requests to identify the 'reliable publication process' for the journal Foreign Affairs.) SaltyBoatr 15:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Where do they state "self-published"? Are you saying that the academic publisher linked to above is deliberately lying? That is a very serious statement. The article has been checked and accepted by numerous political scientists as stated above. Stop ignoring my arguments above, you are well aware that there is nothing in WP:ATT prohibiting non-university academc publishers, which also all other editors agree on.Ultramarine 15:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Harvard University identifies the publisher as 'Freedom House' on this page [48], they write:

Freedom in the world / Raymond D. Gastil. New York : Freedom House, 1978-

and they do not write:

Freedom in the world / Raymond D. Gastil. New York : Rowman & Littlefield, 1978-

neither do they do not write:

Freedom in the world / Raymond D. Gastil. New York : Rowman & Littlefield and Freedom House, 1978-

Similar for the Library of Congress here[49] Even Rowman & Littlefield claims 'co-published with Freedom House', and the meaning of that equivocation is very unclear, with the burden of evidence on you. I am not accusing anyone of a lie. I see huge a credibility question, because Harvard University and the Library of Congress are 'heavyweights', and they say it is self published. The burden of evidence is on you. SaltyBoatr 15:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Libraries do not go around double-checking who the publisher is, they just accept whatever information they are given. Freedom House is a co-publisher, so their statement is correct. Your personal theories regarding the academic publisher are not interesting. Please give a source stating that Rowman & Littlefield is giving false statements.Ultramarine 15:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I am reasonable to believe the Library of Congress and Harvard University. I do not believe your rationalization that they 'do not go around double-checking'. In essence you are saying that they are wrong while you are right. Rowman & Littlefield does not claim to be publisher, they only claim to only be co-publisher, and they do not define what that equivocation means. I have to choose between believing you or the Library of Congress? Regardless, it is not up to me to provide evidence. Again, per Wikipedia policy, the burden of evidence is on you. Saying you are right and the Library of Congress is wrong doesn't cut it, sorry. SaltyBoatr 16:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, the personal theories of Wikipedia editors are not interesting. The LOC states that FH is a publisher which is correct. Rowman & Littlefield Publisher is also a co-publisher, no contradiction. Please give a source for you claim that the academic publisher is issuing false statements.Ultramarine 16:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You have not identified an academic publisher. You have only identified an 'academic' co-publisher, whatever than means. And, you have evaded my repeated requests to define what 'co-publishing' means. I don't see that Roman & Littlefield defines this. The burden of evidence in on you to prove true, not me to prove false. SaltyBoatr 16:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Please give a source for that there is a distinction in between a co-publisher and publisher, this seems to another one of your personal theories. Again, please give a source for your very serious claim that the academic publisher is issuing false statements.Ultramarine 16:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You are getting circular again. You must cite evidence that your source is credible. The first citation you gave was an ISBN not found in any known library. You then chose to instead cite as evidence a 'book series' entry found the Harvard Library catalog. Yet that evidence you provided identifies the publisher of that book series to be 'Freedom House'. If you see that as a false claim, address your complaint to Harvard University not me. I am only reading the Harvard catalog evidence you provided, and see who Harvard says is the publisher. If you can provide better evidence that clears up this huge credibility cloud, do so. SaltyBoatr 16:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

See my long earlier comment above which you ignore. Harvard states that the publisher is FH which is correct. A co-publisher is the academic publisher Rowman & Littlefield Publisher. You are arguing that the acadmic publisher is issuing a false statement, a very serious accusation that requires a source.Ultramarine 16:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Your earlier evasive and circular comments are long but not ignored. Only you make a 'co-publisher' versus 'publisher' distinction, not Harvard, not the Library of Congress and not Roman & Littlefield. Harvard and the Library of Congress clearly identify Freedom House as the sole publisher. Roman and Littlefield does not claim to be the publisher. And, you have not presented evidence defining what 'co-publisher' means regarding the fact checking phase of the publication process. What evidence have you provided that shows the role that Roman and Littlefield plays in fact checking process of their 'co-published' books? None. You still evade my request which I repeat again:

Please identify the 'reliable publication process' for both of your two sources. SaltyBoatr 17:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Ultramarine wrote Harvard states that the publisher is FH. Enough said. The book is self published per Harvard University. SaltyBoatr 17:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, your personal theory that there is distinction betwen a publisher and a co-publisher is not interesting, please give a source. Harvard and the LOC does not state there is a sole publisher, again, this is your own personal theory. Roman and Littlefield certainly state that they are co-publishers. Obviously Roman and Littlefield would risk their reputation if they published unreliable material, so they certainly want to control the material before naming themselves publisher or co-publisher. Your personal speculations regarding what role Roman and Littlefield has is of course not interesting, your really need to have sources. Your demands is really quite fascinating now, you seem to be demanding that wikipedia editors must somehow present evidence regarding the exact fact-checking process of academic publishers. What do you want, articles in peer-reviewed journals documenting that any publisher claimed as a source in Wikipedia is checking the facts? :) Ultramarine 17:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Astonishingly you claim Harvard and the LOC does not state there is a sole publisher. They both identify the publisher of the book series you identify to be Freedom House. You yourself wrote just a few minutes ago, Harvard states that the publisher is FH. SaltyBoatr 17:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

They list FH as publisher which is correct, since they co-published with Roman and Littlefield, so there is no contradiction. Again, provide a source for that Roman and Littlefield are issuing false statements when they say that they are co-publishers of the book.Ultramarine 17:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

If you are correct, the citation in the Harvard catalog would read like this:

Freedom in the world / Raymond D. Gastil. New York : Rowman & Littlefield and Freedom House, 1978-

It does not, instead it reads like this:

Freedom in the world / Raymond D. Gastil. New York : Freedom House, 1978-

I am reasonable to presume that Harvard is credible, and what they write is what they mean. You provided this evidence. I am only reading it. SaltyBoatr 17:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Your personal opinions regarding how they would write is uninteresting, please cite something from Harvard regarding how they write their entries. But for the sake of argument, assuming that Roman and Littlefield is issuing a false statement, this would still not make the report unreliable, since it has not been published by single individual, but by many researchers, and other researchers have also checked and scrutinized the book after publication. All other editors on WP:ATT agree that this is acceptable in Wikipeda, see for example this comment:[50]]Ultramarine 17:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

How Harvard 'writes' is well documented, see Harvard referencing. SaltyBoatr 18:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Harvard referencing is not the format for the Harvard library, which anyone who reads the library can see. Again, for the sake of argument, assuming that Roman and Littlefield is issuing a false statement, this would still not make the report unreliable, since it has not been published by single individual, but by many researchers, and other researchers have also checked and scrutinized the book after publication. All other editors on WP:ATT agree that this is acceptable in Wikipeda, see for example this comment:[51]Ultramarine 18:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

section break

This discussion ("interminable, the sequel"?) is still moot, as there is no citation request pending in the article, and no harm that I can see in leaving out the references (see my point above as to this being a summary of liberal democracy). In light of this, I would suggest to Ultramarine to just avoid any more responses, depriving this fire of further oxygen. If further exploration of SaltyBoatr's tendentious interpretations on these specific items are desired, I would suggest Freedom in the World, where this series of publications has an article of its own, and to which I have just added the 2006 hardcover as a reference. Or illiberal democracy, where the Zakaria article is the primary reference. - David Oberst 18:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Good points.Ultramarine 18:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I have no problem using the book series as a source for the article about the book. This matches exactly the advice[52] given to Ultramarine over at WP:ATT/Talk two days ago. SaltyBoatr 18:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

self published sources

Ultramarine is now making a new argument that organizations comprised of groups of people cannot 'self publish' because they are not a single individual. I see this distinction not relevant, because the issue at hand is whether there is a 'reliable publication process', and group self publication while perhaps somewhat more reliable than individual self publication, still clearly does not meet the 'most reliable' standard found in WP:ATT. SaltyBoatr 18:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

That is your personal inpretation by selectively quoting a few words. Fortunately, no one agrees with you, see for example this comment.[53]Ultramarine 18:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Universal Sufferage

The point of the article is to be accurate and to be a brief summary of the relevant issues. Sufferage was a missing discussion, and now we have it. The idea is to explain sufferage very briefly - but effectively, and leave the sufferage article to go into depth. I believe that all we need cover in a Democracy article is that sufferage is important, and that without universal sufferage a democracy may not qualify as a liberal democracy. Do we agree on this? This is my POV, what is yours?

Deliberative Democracy has only one primary concern, that minority rights may be taken by majorities in elections? Did I get this right? If not, please offer an alternative descriptive sentence.

If the description is accurate, deliberative democracy is about sufferage. The whole point of deliberative democracy is to change what is considered universal sufferage? If this is correct, then why not put deliberative democracy where it fits, with sufferage? Raggz 04:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop creating new sections. See my earlier answer above. Your are not correct, deliberative democracy prefers to avoid suffrage.Ultramarine 04:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Would it be possible then to explain how a democracy without sufferage works (with citations)? Is this original research?

Do you object to sufferage, should we ignore this topic? If "deliberative democracy prefers to avoid suffrage", this suggest it should be in sufferage? Raggz 04:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

See the section below.Ultramarine 04:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Please answer here, I find no answers below. Raggz 05:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I have further clarified my answer below. Please keep the discussion to one section, I will only answer in only one.Ultramarine 05:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Democracy Does Not Presume Constitutional Limits - tyranny by democracy

The weakness of this article is that it does not discuss the potential for tyranny by democracy. An unstated presumption herein for democracies modeled after the US system is that there are limits to democracy, that certain civil rights, civil liberties, and human rights cannot be removed from individuals by a majority vote.

Iraq is presently unclear on this concept. The majority party believes that the majority may impose whatever laws that the majority might prefer upon everyone. Those who have lived under authoritarian governments that operated without constitutional limits may reasonably believe that a successor democractic government can also operate without constitutional limits. Technically, this is correct.

I propose a sentence or two that state something like: Democracy only means that the government operates by majority rule. Although most democracies have constitutional limits to democracy, not all democracies protect civil liberties with strong constitutional protections. Raggz 00:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Democracy does not necessarily mean majority rulie, see for example sortition. But see the illiberal democracy article.Ultramarine 05:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, however I look forward to learning more about how a democracy can be without majority rule. Both this article and the one on illiberal democracy lack enough supporting references for me to understand how you have reached this conclusion. Presently these sections do not meet Wikipedia standards, so perhaps we can upgrade them so that they do?

The sortition article has numerous references. I can agree that democracy implies majority rule, as a contrast to an oligarchy, but not necessarily voting and in some forms even require consensus.Ultramarine 21:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The concept of a republican vs. democratic form of government, central to the development of modern democracy, are not yet mentioned. Where do you think we might best add these? Raggz 21:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a section on this.Ultramarine 21:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that the republican vs. democratic form of government is addressed.

If you have support for the thesis that democracy may include examples of minority rule, let's include them?

Agreed that the sortition article has numerous references, and this part should remain. Juries do not govern or rule but have a single function, to find facts. At some point I hope to get into democracy within the judicial systems, but I would prefer deferring this discussion. Raggz 22:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I agreed that democracy implies majority rule as contrasted with an oligarchy or an autocracy.Ultramarine 22:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not agree that democracy means majority voting, as stated above. Sortition, consensus, and deliberative democracy are exceptions.Ultramarine 23:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, do not use Wikipedia itself for references.Ultramarine 23:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Please provide verifiable references rather than state (dubious)within the article itself. Dubious implies your opinion, it would be better to actually correct errors while supporting your correction. Encyclopedias do not have semi-statements, and (dubious) negates a statement in the article without (1) correcting it or (2) offering a differing (but supported) POV.

If "Sortition, consensus, and deliberative democracy are exceptions" to majority rule, then please support this thesis before correcting the article itself. Raggz 00:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Dubious means I want to discuss in on the talk page, instead of having an edit war.Ultramarine 00:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, I have shown that some see democracy as not involving voting, see the sources in the sorition article, so it is wrong to claim that without qualifier.Ultramarine 00:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

As I stated above: "Juries do not govern or rule but have a single function, to find facts." Please offer and example of (1) any jury anywhere governing or ruling? OR (2) Any example of any ruling body of the past Millenium where sorition was employed to select anyone who governed or ruled? Raggz 00:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Are we to cite other Wikipedia articles - or not? Which sortition reference supports your thesis? Would it be that sortition is to learn God's Will? If your reference is correct, sortition belongs in another article? Raggz 00:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Sortition was used for much more than jury trials in the Athenian democracy. Those people, and modern supporters of sortition, see sorition as more democratic than elections. Here are some external references.[54][55][56][57]Ultramarine 00:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Sortition is supported and appropriate in the context of Athenian Democracy only if it was not a process for divination of the divine will (as your reference states). Are you claiming that it (1) was not and (2) has relevance within the past Millenium? Raggz 01:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

As noted in the links, there are also modern supporters of sortition, so it is relevant also today. What has "divination of the divine will" to do with anything? If you are thinking of the Wikipedia sortition article, it states "Past scholarship maintained that sortition had its roots in the use of chance to divine the will of the gods, but this view is no longer common among scholars."Ultramarine 01:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Or another form, deliberative democracy, does not advocate voting either.[58]Ultramarine 01:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Deliberative democracy - Relevance?

How is the theory of deliberative democracy relevant to anyone but a theoretical political scientist? Is deliberative democracy practised anywhere? The Deliberative Democracy article does not cite any.

The deliberative democracy article states "Deliberative democracy is usually associated with left-wing politics and often recognizes a conflict of interest between the citizen participating, those affected or victimized by the process being undertaken, and the group-entity that organizes the decision. Thus it usually involves an extensive outreach effort to include marginalized, isolated, ignored groups in decisions, and to extensively document dissent, grounds for dissent, and future predictions of consequences of actions. It focuses as much on the process as the results. In this form it is a complete theory of civics. The Green Party of the United States refers to its particular proposals for grassroots democracy and electoral reform by this name."

If we accept the above, then deliberative democracy has nothing to do with this article on Democracy because it should be covered under sufferage and universal sufferage. Universal sufferage means that everyone who should be allowed to vote gets to vote. Deliberative democracy is concerned about the exclusion of voters - and that sufferage is not universal sufferage. There is an article on universal sufferage that defines what is and what is not an appropriate limitation for sufferage in a democracy. When we state that universal sufferage to be part of democracy we have then handled sufferage issues like deliberative democracy.

Is deliberative democracy about anything relevant that is not directly a sufferage issue?

If deliberative democracy is not about majority rule, is it about minority rule? Please explain. Raggz 01:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no rule that states that only existing forms of government are relevant. Communist theory existed before Communist states, liberal democratic theory before the first liberal democracy, and so on. It is your view that democracy must mean voting. Others have different views and do not see voting or suffrage in relation to voting as the best form of democracy. It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to judge which view is correct. Instead, all should be represented.Ultramarine 01:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Implied by your answer is an agreement that no form of deliberative democracy presently exists. Also implied is that you claim relevance because it is possible that every obscure form of political theory may become relevant in the future. Do you then suggest that this article should include every non-existent potentially important form of democracy that may exist? If so, I suggest that we instead cover only existing (or prior) forms of democracy that actually exist. Why not cover deliberative democracy when it becomes relevant, why now?

I might not resist a section on Theories for the Future of Democracy. I don't have a problem with the theory being included IF relevance is firmly established. I believe that you could establish relevance as an interesting political theory that is endorsed by an obscure political party. As you correctly state, it MIGHT become important. If it interests you, certainly it interests others as well. Still, if I understand the theory, it really belongs under universal sufferage because it challenges what is universal sufferage rather than what is a liberal democracy. All liberal democracies practice universal sufferage.

If deliberative democracy is not about majority rule, is it about minority rule? I asked this before, please respond. Raggz 02:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding universal suffrage, note that the US did not have this in the beginning, but is still generally regarding as a liberal democracy anyway. Regarding deliberative democracy, it certainly includes the views of the majority, since all should preferably agree on decisions. There is no rule in Wikipedia allowing exclusion of theoretical views. In fact, NPOV explicitly states that views should be included. Again, you think that democracy must include voting; others disagree; NPOV states that both views should be repesented. Note also that sortition is another example as dicussed above, and there have been such systems.Ultramarine 02:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The entire history of the US is not claimed to meet the definition of a liberal democracy. It NOW meets this definition because it NOW has universal sufferage. At that time the US met the definition of universal sufferage of that era, definitions can change, as you pointed out obscure ideas may come to dominate. Why are we discussing this?

Your answer implies (but does not directly state) that deliberative democracy require that both the minority and the majority agree before laws are passed or officers are elected? If a single citizen objects, within deliberative democracies no decisions are valid?

There should be no rule within Wikipedia prohibiting theories. I have encouraged this theory, but differ on the degree of relevance TO THIS ARTICLE and have suggested that it belongs (1) in the sufferage article - or (2) in a section that makes it clear that it is an obscure and entirely untested theory. As it reads now it is presented in a misleading context. May we correct this? These are the issues, this has nothing to do with suppression of theories.

If I offer a citation that "democracy must include voting", will you agree to delete all language suggesting otherwise? Do you have support for your thesis? It is incorrect to suggest that any theory or opinion is appropriate for this article, these need meet standards that are not met. This is why we are discussing this. Raggz 03:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The actual definitions of liberal democracy are not clear-cut, see democratic peace theory, many political scientists accept as liberal democracies states that have, say, voting rights for 2/3 of the adult males, assuming that women would vote similarly to men with a similar SES. Regarding deliberative or Consensus democracy, the hope is that deliberation will in many cases resolve the situation. Unrealistic? Perhaps, but it is not for Wikipedia to decide that. Note that for example the Iroquois Confederacy did require consenus among the leaders, not voting, when making decisions, and this seems to have worked. Bands such as the bushmen have required consensus among all members of the band. Again, sortition is another example with real world examples. Again, if you give a citation stating "democracy must include voting", that is only one view. I have presented other views. Wikipedia should not judge who is correct, we only report the different views.Ultramarine 03:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Majority Rule

I really have no idea of what you mean in regard to having a democracy without elections. I'm not arguing, I'm completely confused. I understand consenus, and agree that decisions reached by consenus are generally democratic. Minority rule as a democratic process is entirely unfamiliar to me, and likely is unfamiliar to most. You really need to offer references on this. From my POV, you need to offer a dictionary definition of democracy if you want to offer an alternative theory of comperable standing. Democracy is a word within every dictionary, and every definition is a different and valid alternative definition. I could redefine the word "celery" to mean "money", but would my opinion of this word be an alternative definition?

May we agree to define the word "democracy" only from dictionaries? If I offer a dictionary citation that "democracy must include voting", will you agree to delete all language suggesting otherwise (or offer an alternative dictionary definition)? Raggz 04:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop creating new sections. I will repeat. Sortition is one form of democracy without voting with real world examples, such as the Athenian democracy, and current advocates. Alomost all officials were selected by lot, not voting or elections.[59][60][61][62] Deliberative democracy or Consensus democracy is another.[63] Examples include the Iroquois Confederacy who did require consenus among the leaders, not voting, when making decisions, and this seems to have worked. Bands such as the bushmen have required consensus among all members of the band. You have your own view of what democracy is, it must include voting. Other have different views. If you offer a dictionary quote with your prefered definition, that is one view. I have presented other views. As per Wikipedia:NPOV, Wikipedia should include all views and not judge who is correct.Ultramarine 04:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You mistated Wikipedia policy. It says "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)."

Every dictionary has a definition of the word "democracy". Every "significant view" of what this word means is in one of these. Pick any definition that suits you, Wikipedia policy ensures that you can cite it here. When you make up your own definition, this is original research. You may not use your own unique definitions for this reason. Raggz 05:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

"NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority." Raggz 05:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Sources are not limited to dictionaries. Sortition and deliberative are well-known views among political scientists and are mentioned only briefly.Ultramarine 05:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

And no, deliberative democray does not belong in the suffrage article, it belongs in the democracy article, as per the name.Ultramarine 05:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The "significant" definitions of words only come from dictionaries. Anyone may redefine any word that they wish, but not on Wikipedia. Your definition of democracy appears to be a "tiny-minority" view. If true, Your definition of democracy is not permitted within Wikipedia. If dictionaries are not used to define words, what do we use as "reliable sources" for word definitions? Why doesn't your definition appear in any dictionary? I claim that it is because it is a "tiny-minority" view ineligible for inclusion. Here is your chance to (1) refute my claim or (2) defer your response for some reasonable time to prepare a response. Raggz 05:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Would it be possible then to explain how a democracy without sufferage works (with citations)? Is this original research?

Do you object to sufferage, should we ignore this topic? If "deliberative democracy prefers to avoid suffrage", this suggest it should be in sufferage? Raggz 05:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding how democracy without suffrage or elections work, see my first reply in this section for real-world examples. Deliberative demoracy belongs in this article, per the name. Again, sources are not limited to dictionaries. If you want to create a dictionary, Wictionary is the place, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Note also that sortition appear in Encyclopedia Britannica as per the links above.Ultramarine 05:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You have mistated Wikipedia policy. I have explained Wikipedia policy. You refuse to comply - or engage in a discussion about this.

I have asked you to support your claims. Since you have not, Wikipedia policy requires that these be deleted. If you elect to replace these, Wikipedia policy requires that you not restore them unless sourced. We are approaching a point where I will edit the article to: better attain a NPOV and (2) bring it into compliance with Wikipedia policy. I will not engage in an "edit war". If we cannot work together, we will need to then seek a "grown-up" to arbitrate.

I have asked you to help make this a better article, to make progress toward a NPOV (which neither you nor I can attain alone). I ask again, please collaberate to improve the article, to better attain a NPOV.

True, "sources are not limited to dictionaries", but that is an irrelevant point. The definitions of words ARE limited to dictionaries, only "tiny-minority" definitions are not included in any of the many dictionaries. There likely are exceptions, but you have been asked if your definition is such an exception, and this invitation was ignored. Are you publishing original research? If not, cite.

I accept the Britanica citation to be a reliable source for your claim. Raggz 06:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I have listed many sources above. Even if we are looking at dictionaries, none of them usually require voting, see for example this: [64]. On the other hand, you have not presented any sources at all for your claims.Ultramarine 06:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The concept of voting in a democracy is a "popular" view. For this reason Wikipedia policy requires that it be emphasized. Your view may well prove correct, but potentially being correct doesn't make a "tiny-minority" view eligible. There are many "reliable" sources from many, if not all dictionaries. The unfamiliar concepts for democracy that you advance may appear only if you can support them, if they are not "tiny-minority" views. You need a dictionary citation that voting is not necessarily part of the democratic process.

I suggest the dictionary test to determine if your definitions are "tiny-minority". You need not accept this test. Come up with some fair alternative test instead? Raggz 06:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no "dictionary test" in Wikipedia for if a view should be included. Again, I have presented sources that shows various views on democracy, including very reliable sources such as scholarly books and encyclopedias. You, none at all.Ultramarine 06:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

New World Dictionary, 2nd Ed. Democracy: 3. "Majority rule".

There is no Wikipedia "dictionary test", only that "reliable sources" be cited. Your opinion conterbalances mine. So how do we now seek arbitration? I'm sure you know how this works? I have never needed to before. Raggz 06:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You claim that there is an alternative definition of "democracy" that denies "majority rule" and where "sufferage is to be avoided, not encouraged". I claim that these are "tiny-minority" views ineligible for inclusion. I claim that all of the "significant" competing definitions appear in dictionaries. Raggz 06:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Majority rule is not the same as majority decision by voting. Regarding dispute resolution, see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Note that this can take a long time, I have participated in a such a dispute that lasted around half year at the stage of the Request for Comment and Request for Arbitration, and not counting the many months before this final stage, so obviously it would be better if we try to discuss instead.Ultramarine 06:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Great! The article is interesting and generally well-written. Together, we can make it even better. Even if we end up taking the arbitration path on an issue or two, why not make this article better? I claim that all "significant" definitions appear in one of the many dictionaries. How do you propose that we decide how to sort the "tiny-minority" definitions of democracy from the "significant" ones? Raggz 07:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Why not simply accept the etymology of the word, democracy literally means "rule by the people" and contrast it with oligarchy and autocracy, as Aristotle did? Obviously the most used meaning of democracy is representative or direct democracy with majority voting. We could state this, that the word democracy usually refers to representative or direct democracy with majority voting, but that their are also other less common meanings, such as sortition or deliberative democracy.Ultramarine 07:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no problem with Aristotle, the problem is that your definition of democracy includes minority rule. Democracy always involves majority rule. The word democracy means majority rule but you insist upon redefining it. Every dictionary confirms this, you have no support for redefining democracy.

Deliberative democracy cannot be cited to change the definition of the word "democracy" because deliberative democracy is a "tiny-minority" view ineligible for inclusion, in that it does not accept the very definition of the word democracy. You do have citations to support mentioning deliberative democracy, but not enough to establish that these are not a "tiny-minority" view, you do not have citations to support redefining democracy. The issue is here popularity, not truth. When your POV becomes popular enough, then it becomes eligible for inclusion. That point will be reached when one dictionary recognize the definition of democracy that you advance here. Dictionaries are not about truth, but reflect popularity. The absence of your view from every dictionary in the world proves the "tiny-minority" status (but does not disprove truth).

Sortition is an excellent example where you have prevailed, You cite another Encyclopedia and this that sortition to be a form of democracy that is not a "tiny-minority" view. I do not agree with your interpretation, but your view is now proven to be eligible for inclusion. What you have not proven yet is that the use of sortition by the Athenian Democracy can be used to redefine the modern word democracy. If that were true, a dictionary could be cited for support. Sortition is a concept that dictionary editors are familiar, but they (not I) have rejected it. My opinion here is irrelevant, your lack of "significant" supporting references to redefine a word is why you cannot redefine this word here. Rather than insist upon your POV to be true, you need to prove that it is popular enough that it is reflected in one dictionary. Further research on your part might accomplish what you have yet to manage.

Deliberative democracy is popular enough to be mentioned, your citations are sufficient for some mention. If the language were to mention that deliberative democracy rejects majority rule and sufferage, in this context it might work. The important issue here is accuracy about how very few people accept all of this. When you redefine any word, you need to provide a dictionary definition. Redefining democracy is different than mentioning a fringe interpretation within the correct context. As you say, deliberative democracy may emerge from nearly complete obscurity. At this point it will be eligible for greater inclusion and at this point dictionaries would redefine democracy. Until this occurs, we need be accurate and this means barely mentioning deliberative democracy and not redefining the word.

We can use this to improve Wikipedia policy. There is no policy that states word redefinitions do not occur at Wikipedia, but at dictionaries. You and I could use our dispute to get new policy on this, which would have value. Raggz 12:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Neither sortition or deliberative democracy involve minority rule. Why do you think that? Again, there is no "dictionary test" in Wikipedia. If there were, Wikipedia should, for example, have to delete all articles with titles not found in dictionary. I have used accepted sources, like scholarly books and encyclopedias. Ultramarine 12:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If you have withdrawn your claim that democracy may be defined to include minority rule, and accept most of the sufferage article, then we are upon the verge of mutual success, and we can now improve the article.

There is no dictionary rule, but this case can likely lead to this. It fits nicely within existing policy, leaving the definition of words to dictionaries. Wikipedia is not a forum for redefining words, but for summarizing concepts.

I still believe that deliberative democracy should be within the sufferage article. It challenges what is universal sufferage, not what is democracy. Your opinion has equal wight however, in the spirit of compromise I agree to your view on this. Raggz 19:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

According to the dictionary, Wikipedia should delete the articles about the libertarian party, microsoft vista, problem of evil, battle of little big horn, and Rudy Giuliani, since they are not in any. Again, I have cited scholarly books and encyclopedias.Ultramarine 01:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Topics are not defined by dictionaries, words are. Democracy is both a topic and a word. When you discuss democracy as a topic you may not redefine it as a word. The names above are names, except for "problem of evil" these are not analagous.

Evil is a word. Dictionaries define it. If some scholar has published an argument for a new definition of evil, when a dictionary redefines it, then we may cite it. Wikipedia does not re-define words, it is not a dictionary, it is an encyclopedia. Raggz 02:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

As the examples show, dictionaries do not define what is in encyclopedias. I have cited reliable sources, scholarly books and encyclopedias.Ultramarine 02:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Citation

The citation on sortition that I was using to support my position that sortition was a method in Ancient Greece for the Gods to select leaders was deleted. Please restore it, or put the citation here.Raggz 23:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Give a diff.Ultramarine 01:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Theory - Aristotle

Within the theory section there is a section titled: Aristotle. I changed this to "Ancient Greece" because so few people would know that Aristotle was of this culture, and because the article does not mention this. Someone restored the old title: Aristotle. May we agree to change this title? Raggz 00:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Has only material about Aristotle.Ultramarine 01:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but how many people would know that he lived in Ancient Greece? His era can be clearer, context is helpful. Raggz 02:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

If there were material showing all the many different views in Ancient Greece, then a change would be fine. Having only Aristotle means the title is misleading.Ultramarine 02:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You have missed my point, why not let the reader know that Aristotle was from Ancient Greece?Raggz 02:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

That is not the purpose of the title. If necessary, it can be stated in the body. The title is a summary.Ultramarine 03:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Sufferage and Democracy

Sufferage is a fundamental concept for democracy. We need to integrate it into the article. If anyone else has a plan for this, please share it. Raggz 00:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It is for some forms of democracy.Ultramarine 01:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Please clarify your POV with an example? When doesn't it matter who can or cannot vote? Raggz 02:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Not part of deliberative democracy or sortition.Ultramarine 02:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Sufferage is a part of sortation, not everyone was eligible.

Deliberative democracy? There are no governments that employ it? (Correct me if I am mistaken.) If you refer to the deliberative democracy article, there is a presumption that only communities engage in deliberative democracy. Every community has boundaries. Voting boundaries are the same thing as sufferage.

James Fishkin developed the deliberative poll. You cannot have any poll without sufferage.

You deleted sufferage, so now Wikipedia policy requires that you support your claims here. Please do so. Raggz 02:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You have a point, but is not using the right word. Sufferage applies strictly to voting. Citizenship is a better term and applies to all forms of democracy. Also, have a look at the section "Democratic state" in the article.Ultramarine 03:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Good point. You write better than I do, want to do the first draft? I prefer that both Sufferage and Citizenship be in a section title. It is important to point out that what universal sufferage is has evolved since ancient Greece, and that this evolution continues today. Consider moving the material that follows Hobbs theory that minorities can be "washed out" by the powerful, that majority rule can be coerced. A coerced majority is not "majority rule". The whole "History Section" is largely about sufferage issues, the evolution of universal sufferage from greece to today. You might just rewrite it as the History of Citizenship and Sufferage? Raggz 03:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The history is about more than sufferage. How about modifing the section "Democratic states"? How about this:

"=== Democratic state ===

Though there remains some philosophical debate as to the applicability and legitimacy of criteria in defining democracy what follows may be a minimum of requirements for a state to be considered democratic (note that for example anarchists may support a form of democracy but not a state):

1. A group of citizens— a group which makes political decisions by some form of collective procedure—must exist. In modern democracies the citizens are the adults of the nation. However, there may be various restrictions. For example, regarding restrictions on the right to vote, or suffrage, see Universal suffrage. As described in the history section, historically the suffrage was much more restricted. This often caused challenges if many of the adults were excluded from citizenship and associated rights.
2. A body of rights of the citizens. Today, the citizens should have equal political rights. Historically, this was not necessarily true. For example, the votes of the wealthy may be given more weight. Exactly what these rights are is often contested. Minimally it may only be the right to vote. In liberal democracies they also include liberties and civil rights.
3. A territory must be present, where the decisions apply, and where the citizens are resident. In modern democracies, the territory is the nation-state. Even ambulatory tribes usually control a territory briefly. Colonies of democracies, where the inhabitants do not have citizenshp, are not considered democratic.
4. A decision-making procedure exists, which is either direct, in instances such as a referendum, or indirect, of which instances include the election of a parliament.
5. The procedure is regarded as legitimate by the citizens, implying that its outcome will be accepted. Political legitimacy is the willingness of the population to accept decisions of the state, its government and courts, which go against personal choices or interests.
6. The procedure is effective in the minimal sense that the citizens can use it to change the government or policy, assuming there is sufficient support for that change. Showcase elections, pre-arranged to re-elect the existing regime, are not democratic.
7. In the case of nation-states, the state must be sovereign: democratic elections are pointless if an outside authority can overrule the result."

Democracy Does Not Presume Constitutional Limits - tyranny by democracy

The weakness of this article is that is does not discuss the potential for tyranny by democracy. An unstated presumption herein for democracies modeled after the US system is that there are limits to democracy, that certain civil rights, civil liberties, and human rights cannot be removed from individuals by a majority vote.

Iraq is presently unclear on this concept. The majority party believes that the majority may impose whatever laws that the majority might prefer upon everyone. Those who have lived under authoritarian governments that operated without constitutional limits may reasonably believe that a successor democractic government can also operate without constitutional limits. Technically, this is correct.

I propose a sentence or two that state something like: Democracy only means that the government operates by majority rule. Although most democracies have constitutional limits to democracy, not all democracies protect civil liberties with strong constitutional protections. Raggz 00:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Democracy does not necessarily mean majority rulie, see for example sortition. But see the illiberal democracy article.Ultramarine 05:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, however I look forward to learning more about how a democracy can be without majority rule. Both this article and the one on illiberal democracy lack enough supporting references for me to understand how you have reached this conclusion. Presently these sections do not meet Wikipedia standards, so perhaps we can upgrade them so that they do?

The sortition article has numerous references. I can agree that democracy implies majority rule, as a contrast to an oligarchy, but not necessarily voting and in some forms even require consensus.Ultramarine 21:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The concept of a republican vs. democratic form of government, central to the development of modern democracy, are not yet mentioned. Where do you think we might best add these? Raggz 21:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a section on this.Ultramarine 21:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that the republican vs. democratic form of government is addressed.

If you have support for the thesis that democracy may include examples of minority rule, let's include them?

Agreed that the sortition article has numerous references, and this part should remain. Juries do not govern or rule but have a single function, to find facts. At some point I hope to get into democracy within the judicial systems, but I would prefer deferring this discussion. Raggz 22:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I agreed that democracy implies majority rule as contrasted with an oligarchy or an autocracy.Ultramarine 22:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not agree that democracy means majority voting, as stated above. Sortition, consensus, and deliberative democracy are exceptions.Ultramarine 23:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, do not use Wikipedia itself for references.Ultramarine 23:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Please provide verifiable references rather than state (dubious)within the article itself. Dubious implies your opinion, it would be better to actually correct errors while supporting your correction. Encyclopedias do not have semi-statements, and (dubious) negates a statement in the article without (1) correcting it or (2) offering a differing (but supported) POV.

If "Sortition, consensus, and deliberative democracy are exceptions" to majority rule, then please support this thesis before correcting the article itself. Raggz 00:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Dubious means I want to discuss in on the talk page, instead of having an edit war.Ultramarine 00:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, I have shown that some see democracy as not involving voting, see the sources in the sorition article, so it is wrong to claim that without qualifier.Ultramarine 00:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

As I stated above: "Juries do not govern or rule but have a single function, to find facts." Please offer and example of (1) any jury anywhere governing or ruling? OR (2) Any example of any ruling body of the past Millenium where sorition was employed to select anyone who governed or ruled? Raggz 00:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Are we to cite other Wikipedia articles - or not? Which sortition reference supports your thesis? Would it be that sortition is to learn God's Will? If your reference is correct, sortition belongs in another article? Raggz 00:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Sortition was used for much more than jury trials in the Athenian democracy. Those people, and modern supporters of sortition, see sorition as more democratic than elections. Here are some external references.[65][66][67][68]Ultramarine 00:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Sortition is supported and appropriate in the context of Athenian Democracy only if it was not a process for divination of the divine will (as your reference states). Are you claiming that it (1) was not and (2) has relevance within the past Millenium? Raggz 01:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

As noted in the links, there are also modern supporters of sortition, so it is relevant also today. What has "divination of the divine will" to do with anything? If you are thinking of the Wikipedia sortition article, it states "Past scholarship maintained that sortition had its roots in the use of chance to divine the will of the gods, but this view is no longer common among scholars."Ultramarine 01:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Or another form, deliberative democracy, does not advocate voting either.[69]Ultramarine 01:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Deliberative democracy - Relevance?

How is the theory of deliberative democracy relevant to anyone but a theoretical political scientist? Is deliberative democracy practised anywhere? The Deliberative Democracy article does not cite any.

The deliberative democracy article states "Deliberative democracy is usually associated with left-wing politics and often recognizes a conflict of interest between the citizen participating, those affected or victimized by the process being undertaken, and the group-entity that organizes the decision. Thus it usually involves an extensive outreach effort to include marginalized, isolated, ignored groups in decisions, and to extensively document dissent, grounds for dissent, and future predictions of consequences of actions. It focuses as much on the process as the results. In this form it is a complete theory of civics. The Green Party of the United States refers to its particular proposals for grassroots democracy and electoral reform by this name."

If we accept the above, then deliberative democracy has nothing to do with this article on Democracy because it should be covered under sufferage and universal sufferage. Universal sufferage means that everyone who should be allowed to vote gets to vote. Deliberative democracy is concerned about the exclusion of voters - and that sufferage is not universal sufferage. There is an article on universal sufferage that defines what is and what is not an appropriate limitation for sufferage in a democracy. When we state that universal sufferage to be part of democracy we have then handled sufferage issues like deliberative democracy.

Is deliberative democracy about anything relevant that is not directly a sufferage issue?

If deliberative democracy is not about majority rule, is it about minority rule? Please explain. Raggz 01:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no rule that states that only existing forms of government are relevant. Communist theory existed before Communist states, liberal democratic theory before the first liberal democracy, and so on. It is your view that democracy must mean voting. Others have different views and do not see voting or suffrage in relation to voting as the best form of democracy. It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to judge which view is correct. Instead, all should be represented.Ultramarine 01:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Implied by your answer is an agreement that no form of deliberative democracy presently exists. Also implied is that you claim relevance because it is possible that every obscure form of political theory may become relevant in the future. Do you then suggest that this article should include every non-existent potentially important form of democracy that may exist? If so, I suggest that we instead cover only existing (or prior) forms of democracy that actually exist. Why not cover deliberative democracy when it becomes relevant, why now?

I might not resist a section on Theories for the Future of Democracy. I don't have a problem with the theory being included IF relevance is firmly established. I believe that you could establish relevance as an interesting political theory that is endorsed by an obscure political party. As you correctly state, it MIGHT become important. If it interests you, certainly it interests others as well. Still, if I understand the theory, it really belongs under universal sufferage because it challenges what is universal sufferage rather than what is a liberal democracy. All liberal democracies practice universal sufferage.

If deliberative democracy is not about majority rule, is it about minority rule? I asked this before, please respond. Raggz 02:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding universal suffrage, note that the US did not have this in the beginning, but is still generally regarding as a liberal democracy anyway. Regarding deliberative democracy, it certainly includes the views of the majority, since all should preferably agree on decisions. There is no rule in Wikipedia allowing exclusion of theoretical views. In fact, NPOV explicitly states that views should be included. Again, you think that democracy must include voting; others disagree; NPOV states that both views should be repesented. Note also that sortition is another example as dicussed above, and there have been such systems.Ultramarine 02:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The entire history of the US is not claimed to meet the definition of a liberal democracy. It NOW meets this definition because it NOW has universal sufferage. At that time the US met the definition of universal sufferage of that era, definitions can change, as you pointed out obscure ideas may come to dominate. Why are we discussing this?

Your answer implies (but does not directly state) that deliberative democracy require that both the minority and the majority agree before laws are passed or officers are elected? If a single citizen objects, within deliberative democracies no decisions are valid?

There should be no rule within Wikipedia prohibiting theories. I have encouraged this theory, but differ on the degree of relevance TO THIS ARTICLE and have suggested that it belongs (1) in the sufferage article - or (2) in a section that makes it clear that it is an obscure and entirely untested theory. As it reads now it is presented in a misleading context. May we correct this? These are the issues, this has nothing to do with suppression of theories.

If I offer a citation that "democracy must include voting", will you agree to delete all language suggesting otherwise? Do you have support for your thesis? It is incorrect to suggest that any theory or opinion is appropriate for this article, these need meet standards that are not met. This is why we are discussing this. Raggz 03:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The actual definitions of liberal democracy are not clear-cut, see democratic peace theory, many political scientists accept as liberal democracies states that have, say, voting rights for 2/3 of the adult males, assuming that women would vote similarly to men with a similar SES. Regarding deliberative or Consensus democracy, the hope is that deliberation will in many cases resolve the situation. Unrealistic? Perhaps, but it is not for Wikipedia to decide that. Note that for example the Iroquois Confederacy did require consenus among the leaders, not voting, when making decisions, and this seems to have worked. Bands such as the bushmen have required consensus among all members of the band. Again, sortition is another example with real world examples. Again, if you give a citation stating "democracy must include voting", that is only one view. I have presented other views. Wikipedia should not judge who is correct, we only report the different views.Ultramarine 03:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Democracy as Majoritarian

Consensus Democracy: "Consensus democracy and deliberative democracy seek consensus among the people."[7]

All forms of Democracy seek consensus. They do not always attain consensus, but consensus is always the objective. Airplanes are supposed to fly, but even when they crash they remain airplanes. This sentence implies there is some form of intentional non-consensual democracy? This form of democracy should be added to the List of types of democracies. IF such a form of democracy exists, the sentence may stay. If not: Someone needs to edit it to make the (presumed) point more clear, that these forms seek to (1) increase the level of democratic participation or (2) increase the degree of consensus beyond a simple majority.

What form of democracy is non-consensual? Offer this and I likely will accept this sentence, offer it not, and it requires an edit or deletion. Raggz 19:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Personal websites and original research

Stop citing personal websites.Ultramarine 01:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Which one are we discussing? Raggz 01:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[70] Seems to be self-published musings.Ultramarine 01:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed.

Democracy and "Republic Section and Iran

Why was this section deleted? It was well-referenced. Raggz 01:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:No original research.Ultramarine 01:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It says "Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation." How might it be improved then, do you have a more specific objection? Raggz 02:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Your personal theories regarding Iran is original reserach.Ultramarine 02:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Which part would that be? For example: Elements of democracy, theocracy, and oligarchy were identified in the Iranian Constitution. Is this a "theory"? Raggz 02:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Citing articles in the Iranian constitution and drawing your own conclusions what this means is OR.[71]Ultramarine 02:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

If I state that the US has freedom of speech, and cite the 1st Amendment, would this also be original research? Raggz 03:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

"Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say." I complied with the OR policy by citing. Raggz 03:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Numerous dictatorships have theoretical rights in their constitution that are ignored in practce. If you are citing the constitution, you can only cite what it says. If you want to argue that there is real freedom of speech, you have to cite Reporters without borders or some similar source.Ultramarine 03:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

If I say that the US Constitution protects freedom of speech, I must cite Reporters without borders because the Constitution itself is ineligible to be cited? Raggz 03:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

No, but if you want to say that the US has freedom of speech in reality, then citing the Constitution is not enough. You can cite the Constitution, stating that this is what is says, but not as evidence regarding how things function in practice.Ultramarine 03:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

We have not discussed Islamic Republics. My contribution was deleted, will you please post your version? Raggz 04:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I you want to dicuss Islam or Iran, do that in the appropriate article. This is a general article.Ultramarine 05:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

(1) Islamic Republic. (2) elections. (3) universial sufferage. Do these make Iran a liberal democracy? Is Iran a democracy? Can you prove that it is not? Option #1, ignore the question and let me handle it. Option #2, work with me on this, Which will it be? Raggz 06:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not the article to discuss if every country in the world is democratic or not. If you want to dicuss Iran, do that in the Iran article.Ultramarine 06:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Islamic Republics are the newest emerging trend for democracy. We cover a number of theoretical forms of democracy that no one practices. We have a test for democracy that Iran passes. I believe that our "democracy test" is too weak. To ignore the form of religious democracy practised in Iran, Morocco, and Saudi Arabia is to ignore an important trend that may become our future system in the west. All it will require to extend the Iranian constitution to Europe would be about eight nuclear weapons. Detonate one every Tuesday at noon, soon enough, Europe will adopt Islamic republics.(The forced conversion part we should leave out.)

Is this article only about western democracy? If not, what is the emerging global trend in democracy from a non-western perspective? The EU and Canada are looking at the Iranian model, considering experimenting with it.Raggz 14:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

There is not place to dicuss every nations in the world in this article. It is an overview article. The US only deserves mention because it was first.Ultramarine 16:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The constitution of Iran states: " "In the Islamic Republic of Iran, the affairs of the country must be administered on the basis of public opinion expressed by the means of elections, including the election of the President, the representatives of the Islamic Consultative Assembly, and the members of councils, or by means of referenda in matters specified in other articles of this Constitution.". I would agree that Iran is a democracy, but would not agree that it is a liberal democracy.

Democracy has evolved, the newest form (non-liberal)is the islamic republic? Do you agree that a large part of the world lives under this form of democracy? Saudi Arabia has begun to experiment with local elections, to experiment with low-level democracy. Do we in the west have the exclusive right to determine what is or is not a democracy? No - we have the right to define what our version of democracy is and we have defined liberal democracy where rights and liberties are protected. Even in the west, there are significant differences in regard to what civil liberties and civil rights are recognized. Does this mean that France is not a democracy if the civil right to jury trial is not respected? Does it mean that the US is not a democracy if the civil right to not be executed for a crime is not respected? Iran's constitution provides civil rights for women absent in the US and Europe, does this mean that Iran alone is a democracy? Raggz 17:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, our own views and research are not allowed in Wikipedia, as per Wikipedia:No original research. But, personally I think rights and liberties are part of being democracy. Personally I do not see jury trial or the absence of capital punishment as essential rights, but I do see today the rights of women as essnetial. But that is only my own view.Ultramarine 18:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no original research here because all of it can easily be referenced. I just don't want to do it on this page, yet. Wiki policy on OR is met when "reliable sources" are cited, such as the Iranian Constitution or the 6th Amendment. Since Ancient Greece people have been arguing about civil liberties and I hope that we always will. These sorts of arguments and even a massive war have finally settled the slavery issue, but many did not live to see the end of slavery.

When we refer to civil rights or civil liberties we cover the subject adequately? Those articles and not here should define and explore what these are? When we refer to liberal democracy, we cover this adequately as well? Tyranny of the majority covers the abuses by majority rule?

If you lived in China a jury trial might be the civil right you would choose first, if allowed only one? With it you could begin to work to obtain the others, without it you and those who agree with you could be executed. Which would you choose if you could only choose one? Raggz 18:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Your interpretation regarding if the Iranian Constitution is democratic is OR. Again, my personal views are not relevant.Ultramarine 18:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Reference.com

I went to reference.com and it said in regard to democracy: "the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group [syn: majority rule]" May we NOW put this majority rule debate to rest? Democracy means majority rule. That said, NOTHING is without exceptions. Let me help sharpen your arguments, I don't oppose you but agree with much of what you believe. I too agree that there is great risk from a tyranny of the majority. This risk is real, and needs to be more clearly articulated than reference.com makes it seem. Don't trust me, but test me? We can butt heads Almost all of the time and STILL work together.

To move up, to be collaberative, to reach the next level: You need to agree (1) that GENERALLY democracy is about majority rule. (2) I need to agree that there are CRITICAL exceptions. (3) Collaberatatively we can make this article much better than you or I could by ourselves? (4) We need agree that an excellent article that even adolescents can understand is the objective. So, are you willing to test this? Raggz 06:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

reference.com gives many different dictionary definitions: [72]. I agree that majority rule is a common meaning of democracy, but not the only one. Personally, I think democracy also includes concepts like rights and liberties, but that is only my own POV.Ultramarine 06:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

We agree. The dictionaries agree. The order in which multiple definitions occur are the historical order of emergence. The order does not imply ranking. Any definition in any "reliable" dictionary meets the Wikipedia test equally.

There are no definitions of democracy that include individual rights because pure democracy (as in Iran) need not respect individual rights. Individual rights are fundamental to a liberal democracy, which is what we generally call "democracy" in the west? Our article would be stronger if we articulate (1) that democracy alone is subject to many abuses of individual liberties (your concerns about minority rights fit well here) (2) what is called "democracy" in the west is a balanced system known as a "liberal democracy" which implies constitutional limits, universal sufferage, and ...? Raggz 15:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

That is your view, I do not agree completely. I do not see a system as really democratic unless there are rights and liberties. But both our views do not count; Wikipedia uses reliable sources and should represent all views.Ultramarine 16:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

We agree. When we say "democracy" in the west we PRESUME rights and liberties. TECHNICALLY democracy is entirely about majority rule. We can dispute this point by searching dictionaries, and some will support rights and liberties as part of a democracy (because from a western view this IS true). The phrase "liberal democracy" is what those of us in the west mean when we say democracy, and we should state this in the article if we want it understood globally. You are correct on all points, except that you use democracy when you really mean liberal democracy. We ALL do this, in the west there is no other kind. It works here. Raggz 17:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, our view is not what counts in Wikipedia. We should describe those views that exist. So we could certainly state that democracy is often used as synonym for liberal democracy, but not they are identical or that democracy has a single true meaning.Ultramarine 17:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Majority rule almost says this. I would insert the word "western" before synonym, or somewhere. I would say that democracy and majority rule are synonyms, but that majority rule is undesirable whenever it results in tyranny of the majority. Liberal democracy is the product of two millenia of balancing the important principle of majority rule with civil rights or civil liberties. Other forms of democracy have existed and are still emerging that do not rely upon the traditions of a liberal democracy. Those in the west generally refer to democracy when technically they really mean liberal democracy. Raggz 18:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Others have used different defintions than majority rule, especially if you are advocating that it means majority voting.Ultramarine 18:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

My POV is that majority rule is the central but not exclusive definition. (Please review the first paragraph of majority rule.) My POV is that all "significant" alternatives should be discussed in this article and that they are not addressed yet. I prefer to be inclusive in regard to dictionary definitions. A complete article should address these. If you agree, how about starting a new discussion section? Raggz 18:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Us deciding which particular definition is the most central is OR.Ultramarine 18:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Not true, the OR issue only arises if my pov focus is not referenced properly. I can offer references to support my POV, and by doing this OR goes away. Once OR goes away, NPOV pops up. NPOV is popularity-based, popularity determines what is central, what is lightly mentioned, and what is ineligible for mention. You and I then debate the relative popularity of meanings, and focus on those most popular. Raggz 18:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

If you are only talking about popularity, and not which definition is in fact correct, then NPOV applies. If we decide which definition is in fact correct, then this is OR.Ultramarine 19:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia says that Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources (and) Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process. Generally this is not found by researching websites, but instead found in books and libraries. Stick to mainstream academic books and journals to be safe. Especially with an article like this one, which tends to be a lightening rod (attracting a lot of attention from ideologues); we must be especially careful and meticulous about using most reliable credible sources. SaltyBoatr 19:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

We have in the definition of democracy "Form of government in which supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodic free elections." How is this different from majority rule? Don't elections presume majority rule? Raggz 06:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

To which book do you attribute your idea? SaltyBoatr 19:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Democracy Defined

The quote in the opening paragraph is taken out of context, in that it is utilized to suggest that there are definitions of democracy that deny the principle of majority rule. First, the definition is only relevant for use in the article. Second, democratic decisions are "binding on all the members of the group", this implies majority rule. Raggz 08:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

To fix ideas, the term “democracy,” as I will use it in this article, refers very generally to a method of group decision making characterized by a kind of equality among the participants at an essential stage of the collective decision making. Four aspects of this definition should be noted. First, democracy concerns collective decision making, by which I mean decisions that are made for groups and that are binding on all the members of the group. Second, this definition means to cover a lot of different kinds of groups that may be called democratic. So there can be democracy in families, voluntary organizations, economic firms, as well as states and transnational and global organizations. Third, the definition is not intended to carry any normative weight to it. It is quite compatible with this definition of democracy that it is not desirable to have democracy in some particular context. So the definition of democracy does not settle any normative questions. Fourth, the equality required by the definition of democracy may be more or less deep. It may be the mere formal equality of one-person one-vote in an election for representatives to an assembly where there is competition among candidates for the position. Or it may be more robust, including equality in the processes of deliberation and coalition building. “Democracy” may refer to any of these political arrangements. It may involve direct participation of the members of a society in deciding on the laws and policies of the society or it may involve the participation of those members in selecting representatives to make the decisions."

If you read on, you see that some definitions of democracy include rights and liberties.Ultramarine 08:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course rights and liberties are a valid definition of democracy. Such definitions do not in any way suggest that majority rule is not synonomous with democracy. The issue is the suggestion that these conflict with rights and liberties. Raggz 09:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

As the article notes, there are many different concepts regardind democracy. The paragraph you quoted does not state majority rule, or that the majority voting decides policy.Ultramarine 09:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, which particular "New World Dictionary" are you citing? There are dozens using this name.Ultramarine 09:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Islamic Republic

Why was this removed just as I was inserting it? Please replace it. [edit] Islamic Republics An emerging form of democracy is practiced by Islamic Republics. Generally these offer some form of majority rule in that there are elections.[citation needed] The King of Saudi Arabia has authorized limited local elections, (although this government firmly remains a monarchy). Those with a western perspective might disagree that majority rule without a concurrent respect for civil liberties can be decribed as democratic. According to the Claremont Review of Books, "Across the Islamic world, democracy seems to be confused with a species of majoritarian tyranny." [9] [Tyranny of the majority]], long the bane of Western democracies for two millenia is also a major issue for the emerging Islamic Republics.[citation needed] When the word democracy is used in the west it generally actually means liberal democracy, a phrase unlikely to apply any time soon to any Islamic Republic.[10] Raggz 08:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It was moved to the definition section since it deals with "majority rule". Also, the cited website does not state what you claim.Ultramarine 08:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

"definition" section

I was about to remove the "definition" section (which seems to be recently added), but held off as it seems to be undergoing revision. It is not very helpful to present the reader with a mishmash of dueling dictionary quotations. At a minimum this would need to be completely rewritten - right now it reads like the prep notes for a debate. However, scanning the latest lengthy set of discursions that have sprouted on this Talk page since I last visited, it would appear that there is some sort of effort being made to conflate democracy with the phrase "majority rule". Setting aside the merits of the question, it is at best questionable to use one dictionary's phrasing to flatly assert that democracy "means' or "is a synonym for" majority rule in an article whose entire point is to present the subject in much greater detail than the 25 words or less allotted to a dictionary author. There also seems to be an "Islamic Republics" popping in and out of existence as I write; hopefully this will be taken care of as well.

I did delete a reference to Poland and failed "participatory democracy". As I noted at Talk:Participatory democracy where I made a similar deletion, User:Raggz seems to have mistaken the use of the phrase in a translation from a Polish source for the concepts in the article participatory democracy. Whatever ills besetting the Polish political scene, I doubt they are the result of experiments in the (somewhat fuzzy) things that article covers! More to the point, polemical statements such as "utterly failed in Poland" don't inspire confidence in the writer's understanding of the style of an encyclopedic reference article. - David Oberst 10:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete this section.Ultramarine 10:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

So delete "utterly". What is the other form you are discussing? I know only one.Raggz 10:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Are there two forms of participatory democracy? I am unfamiliar with this second version. If you claim that it exists, please offer a citation? Raggz 10:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand what you are talking about, but your source for participatory democracy in Poland actually stated that participatory democracy was avoided.Ultramarine 10:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem with your style of delete without discussion (DWD) is that I can't read the citation I provided, because you of your DWD. If you review above, I am always willing to review my citations, and when appropriate, withdraw them. DWD is inconsistent with policy. The citation is not the issue, DWD is. Will you restore the Poland material and balance it with your own citation? Poland is apparently an important experiment with participatory democracy and is relevent. Fix it - dont DWD it. Raggz 20:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that you use sources that do not state anything similar to what you claim. You can find the source here: [73].Ultramarine 20:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote on this? Here it is again:

• The first challenged citation is incorrectly challenged. This UN citation confirms that limited elections do occur in Afghanistan and Iran, which is the claim.
• In the second case case, I agree, and will move it to the correct place, replacing the one below.
• In the third case, I agree: It was a citation I am planning to use with Iraq that I had incorrectly moved here.

You probably meant to put the above in another place, we were discussing Poland.Ultramarine 20:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It is unreasonable to delete my American Heritage Dictionary citation and then demand (reference needed). Raggz 10:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

What citation? Please give it again here.Ultramarine 10:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I replaced it myself.

I agree with David Oberst. The article is being trashed. The whole point is to write a better article. I suggested an inclusive definitions section, with the most popular definition dominating (as per Wiki policy). How did we get to where we are? I restate from above: My POV is that majority rule is the central but not exclusive definition. (Please review the first paragraph of majority rule.) My POV is that all "significant" alternatives should be discussed in this article and that they are not addressed yet. I prefer to be inclusive in regard to dictionary definitions. A complete article should address these. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Raggz (talk • contribs).

What significant alternatives are not discussed? We can certainly mention which alternative is most popular, but not which definition is correct.Ultramarine 10:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, when citing sources, then check that the sources actually state what you claim. For example, you claim "An emerging form of democracy is practiced by Islamic Republics. Generally these offer some form of majority rule in that there are limited elections." There is no mention of this in your source:[74] You claim " Tyranny of the majority, the bane of Western democracies for two millenia is also a major issue for the emerging Islamic Republics" This is not mentioned in your source: [75]. Again, you claim "When the word democracy is used in the west it generally actually means liberal democracy, a phrase unlikely to apply any time soon to any Islamic Republic." which is not mentioned in your source: [76]Ultramarine 11:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The first challenged citation is incorrectly challenged. This UN citation confirms that limited elections do occur in Afghanistan and Iran, which is the claim.

In the second case case, I agree, and will move it to the correct place, replacing the one below.

In the third case, I agree: It was a citation I am planning to use with Iraq that I had incorrectly moved here.

I appreciate discussion before deletions. Please do not delete my citations before discussion. Raggz 19:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)Raggz 20:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no mention of majority rule in the first citation. Nor does it make any general statements about Islamic republics.Ultramarine 19:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Elections that are encouraged by the UN are implied to be a form of democracy. In this case, elections in these nations are already described within the article as "limited" democracy. Raggz 20:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If you do not believe that these elections are expressions of limited democracy, well then, you know what to do. Deleting, just to maintain your POV is a violation. Raggz 20:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no statement of limited democracy. OR is not allowed. Please quote the exact sentences supporting your claim that "An emerging form of democracy is practiced by Islamic Republics. Generally these offer some form of majority rule in that there are limited elections." Ultramarine 20:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

How may we debate the deleted section's text after your DWD? Elections are mentioned in these two Islamic Republics. Are you suggesting that the UN is claiming this but it is not true? If so, it remains a credible citation. NPOV Policy requires that you offer a citation that these elections never occured. If these elections never occurred, (as you claim) why would we continue this, I will withdraw the UN citation. Are you willing to either disprove your claim that there were no elections or restore your DWD? Raggz 20:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The text mention eletions but nothing in your claim.Ultramarine 20:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph

"The implementation of democracy has brought a great complexity and diversity from a large variety of concepts and ideas used at different periods of history and in different situations." This is confusing and badly worded. Raggz 23:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Most forms listed here have many elements in common with each other, but are categorized by the most prominent characteristics. Well, yes ... they are all forms of democracy, so what? Raggz 23:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

While most democratic ideas have been implemented on small scales, some of them have yet to be implemented within recognized nation states. Democracy over the past two millenia have all been "implemented on small scales"? WHAT?

All of it. Sorry, but it is true. Want to re-write, or have me try? Raggz 23:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration or Not?

Where is the Islamic Republic Section? If you have deleted it without consultation, do we have an alternative to arbitration? Your need ro review the Wikipedia: Neutral point of view policy, you don't delete sections that you disagree with for this reason alone. I do not have a copy of my references and there was a lot of work invested in it. I said "The article is being trashed." I did not agree to have all (or any) of my contributions arbitarily deleted.

You want to cover participatory democracy but not an actual example of it like that in Poland where apparently it is failing? I'm permitted to add a short discussion regarding this actual attempt to implement this largely theoretical concept, especially since I support it with an academic reference. If you believe that participatory democracy in Poland is different than my reference suggests, you should post that in one sentence in a way that reads well. This is what the Wikipedia: Neutral point of view policy requires. The Wikipedia: Neutral point of view policy is violated when you delete entire sections only because you disagree with them, and this is particularly true when properly referenced. At this point you have arbitrarily deleted dozens of properly referenced sentences without appropriate discussion. Will this continue? "Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. According to Jimmy Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable."

We have repeatedly discussed compliance with Wikipedia policies, in particular the NPOV policy. So, is there an alternative, can we work together to improve this article? Not? Which is it? Raggz 19:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If you want to try another way to resolve disputes, fine with me.Ultramarine 19:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Raggz, I take it you are complaining of this revert? I am sorry, but I agree that your section should have been reverted because you failed to give 'most reliable' attribution. Citations of websites do not meet the 'most reliable' standards. Please re-read the 'most reliable' portion of the Wikipedia guideline WP:ATT which says: "In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities; mainstream newspapers; and university level textbooks, magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses." Were you to rewrite your Islamic Republic section using attribution of that 'most reliable' type, I would strongly defend you. Otherwise, I will not. SaltyBoatr 19:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with challenges to my citations, we can work on these. This is about massive deletions without discussions. Raggz 19:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Then what is the "'most reliable' attribution"?Raggz 19:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, WP:V allows massive deletions of material lacking reliable sources. And, please re-read WP:ATT which describes attribution using 'most reliable' sources. SaltyBoatr 20:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

There are dozens of deleted references, among them the New World Dictionary. ALL of these are in your opinion "unreliable"? What about the published quotes by Thomas Jefferson, are these deemed unreliable as well? You favor the present DWD approach (delete without discussion)? Of course citations can and should be challenged, but arbitrarily deleted? What did poor Thomas Jefferson do to warrent thisRaggz 20:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Where is the Islamic Republic Section? If you have deleted it without consultation, do we have an alternative to arbitration? Your need ro review the Wikipedia: Neutral point of view policy, you don't delete sections that you disagree with for this reason alone. I do not have a copy of my references and there was a lot of work invested in it. I said "The article is being trashed." I did not agree to have all (or any) of my contributions arbitarily deleted.

You want to cover participatory democracy but not an actual example of it like that in Poland where apparently it is failing? I'm permitted to add a short discussion regarding this actual attempt to implement this largely theoretical concept, especially since I support it with an academic reference. If you believe that participatory democracy in Poland is different than my reference suggests, you should post that in one sentence in a way that reads well. This is what the Wikipedia: Neutral point of view policy requires. The Wikipedia: Neutral point of view policy is violated when you delete entire sections only because you disagree with them, and this is particularly true when properly referenced. At this point you have arbitrarily deleted dozens of properly referenced sentences without appropriate discussion. Will this continue? "Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. According to Jimmy Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable."

We have repeatedly discussed compliance with Wikipedia policies, in particular the NPOV policy. So, is there an alternative, can we work together to improve this article? Not? Which is it? Raggz 19:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If you want to try another way to resolve disputes, fine with me.Ultramarine 19:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

That "other way" is for you to comply with Wikipedia policy. We all make minor (or major errors) and then we correct each other. This is NOT what our problem is. We don't delete what we disagree with, we strengthen the article by adding the balance no one person has alone.

For example: Wikipedia policy states that YOU have an unmet obligation to explain why participatory democracy IS working in Poland. This is BECAUSE you deleted a properly referenced academic claim that it is failing. When you deleted it, you accepted this responsibility. So now meet your responsibility, do what you should have done first, research participatory democracy in Poland - and restore the original statement. THEN we can work on making it more readable.

For another example: Restore the arbitraily deleted section on Islamic Republics and the Definitions sections. If these were unreferenced they might be deleted. When they are properly referenced, they may not be deleted to maintain your POV in this article.

The "other way" to resolve this is to either: (1) comply with Wikipedia policies or (2) discuss why you believe what I have stated to be Wikipedia policy is incorrect (and resolve the policy issues before deleting). It is up to you, without a firm statement to comply with policy (and to debate disagreements), we now go to arbitration. Raggz 19:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not remove the participatory section, another user did: [77]. I support this, I mentioned in the text, "Actually, the source states only this regarding 'participatory': 'One thing was taken for granted from the beginning: participatory democracy was out of the question because it was illiberal.' This is yet another example where your sources does not match what you say. The same with the Islamic Republic section as mentioned above. Please read sources properly before using them.Ultramarine 20:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I have made errors before and cannot pledge to never make another. I cannot read and review my citation because you deleted it. I have violated policy inadvertantly, and likely will again. There is no great risk to this article given your interest in correcting these when they occur? I expect all of us to work together to make the article work, this should be our goal? Raggz 20:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that you repeatedly use sources that do not match what you say. You can find your source here: [78]Ultramarine 20:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I am far less capable than you. Is this your point? For this reason you delete without discussion? Raggz 20:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Raggz, don't expect your editing to remain in the article very long without following WP:Policy, including especially WP:V. Also, we are not obligated to engage in circular debates with you. Read the policy and follow the policy. SaltyBoatr 20:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

SaltyBoatr, I have read the policy and believe that I am complying with it. I have made errors and fixed them. Am I making errors now? "The policy" is too general for me to grasp what your claim might be? Raggz 23:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there in your opinion any alternative to arbitration about Wikipedia policy? You are not willing to continue this discussion? (This is implied - above). Raggz 20:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a rather long way to go before arbitration, read Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.Ultramarine 21:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Which part are we discussing?

My suggestion is that you disengage for a while and edit some other articles. You do not seem have support by the outside editors here, and I suspect the same will apply elsewhere.Ultramarine 22:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No thank you. Please consider instead working cooperatatively and following policy? These policies are not my policies.

• I posted a claim that limited democracy exists in Afghanistan and Iran. To support this claim I listed the relevant articles from these two constitutions for support, an an official UN statement on elections in both.

• You deleted it because you do not agree with my claim. Policy requires that you now provide evidence that there are no elections in these nations, or that there is not "limited democracy". This is not optional, policy requires that you do this. You ignore (1) any response to why you believe there is no "limited democracy" and (2) tacitly admit that policy does require that you provide support for your claim. Under what policy do you challenge these two constitutional references?

• Four or five times you have deleted the New World Dictionary citation as either (1) Original Research or (2) as an unreliable source. You have deleted Jefferson's letter to Madison about democracy as an unreliable citation, and without debate any of these times. It is silly to take your position on this to arbitration, the New World Dictionary will be sustained as a "reliable source". If you don't like a "reliable sourced" citation, counterbalance it with another that expands rather than contracting the value of the article.

I have repeatedly requested that you begin to work cooperatively, I ask this again. Your answer to this point is "There is a rather long way to go before arbitration". You want to go this "long way", will not instead consider being cooperative? Is this your "final answer"?Raggz 22:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I have answered these things above (except your comment about "Jefferson's letter to Madison" which I do not understand). If you want to go the long way, try a Request for Comment or Mediation.Ultramarine 22:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Your answer is for arbitration? I would prefer otherwise. Why (perhaps again) is the New World Dictionary "original research" or an "unreliable source"? I have missed your answer. Raggz 23:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You say "You do not seem have support by the outside editors here". This implies that you are unaware of Wikipedia policy. "Wikipedia is not a democracy." The arbitration process will likely deal harshly with all four of us, because we could not work together to improve the article and to follow policies that would tend to accomplish this. There can be no "winner" here, no compentent arbitrator will award anyone a victory. The arbitrator will have one focus, improving Wikipedia by (1) enforcing policy (2) because this is how to improve the article on Democracy.

Are you willing to work cooperatively to improve Wikipedia? Raggz 23:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. We are not making any progress. There is a rather long way to go before arbitration, read Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.Ultramarine 23:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

What is the diff for the New World Democracy revert of which you object? I don't see it. SaltyBoatr

You stated "Sorry, WP:V allows massive deletions of material lacking reliable sources. And, please re-read WP:ATT which describes attribution using 'most reliable' sources. SaltyBoatr 20:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)" On this basis you support deleting the definition of "democracy" because Wikipedia policy precludes the New World Dictionary on the basis that it is not a reliable source? What about using the Iranian and Afghanistan constitutions as citations as to what they say? What about citing the UN statement about elections to prove that both actually have elections (not just a constitution requiring them)? You supported dropping Thomas Jefferson's comments on democracy because his letters are an unreliable source.

Your position seems either wrong or confused, but if you will cite the policy that specifically suggests the New World Dictionary should be deleted as undesirable, I will admit my error. Raggz 23:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh? I can tell from your incorrect restating of 'my position' that you don't understand me. I asked you to point me to the diff about 'the New World Dictionary', (see Help:Diff) in order for me to understand your complaint. SaltyBoatr 03:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

News from Nowhere

News from Nowhere (1890) is a classic work of utopian fiction written by the artist, designer and socialist pioneer William Morris. Why is this cited to support the claim "There are also some anarchists who expect society to operate by consensus"? Sorry, this is a no-go. Raggz 01:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Because many anarchists accept Morris as one of them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

What does a fictional 1890 anarchist book teach us about democracy? We have already deleted Thomas Jefferson because his writings are not a "reliable authority". Raggz 01:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

But we should certainly mention him; as for News from Nowhere', read it first. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

We can mention him, you put him in the article and he remains there. The question is: how is News from Nowhere important to democracy. Presuming that there is an answer to this, News from Nowhere will of course remain. Raggz 04:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Sufferage Revisited

We deleted all references to sufferage. Any ideas on how and where to insert it? Raggz 01:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

First spell it correctly; Suffrage < suffragium. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you raise this issue first in the sufferage article. Is this difference important to democracy? Raggz 04:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

How do you feel about no mention of sufferage in an article on democracy? Raggz 04:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I am in favour of having no mention of sufferage on Wikipedia, or anywhere else. - David Oberst 05:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, whom is authorized to vote is irrelevant to democracy? Do I mistate your view? Raggz 06:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no such word "sufferage". - David Oberst 06:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Majority Rule Revisited

Majority Rule has vanished from democracy (again). Any ideas on how and where to insert it? Note that the majority rule article states these are synonyms. Raggz 01:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Clearly disputable; see Spinoza's Tractatus politicus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Everything is of course, disputable. People dispute that the earth is round. The Wiki mission is not to dispute everything (although it feels that way). Encyclopedias summarize the major themes, for democracy majority rule is one of these. Minority rule is at best, as you say "disputable".

You have not read WP:NPOV - or Spinoza. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

You wish to argue about what I have read or not read? OK. As I recall it was the last chapter (XI?) that spoke against democracy as then widely practiced. Spinoza correctly pointed out that only a minority was eligible to vote - so the elections were not producing majority rule. What did I miss in Spinoza that will help us improve this article?

Spinoza's Tractatus politicus was not about the flaws of democracy but about the flaws of sufferage? These are of course linked.

Shall we "dispute" that majority rule is what democracy is about? We can do that. Raggz 04:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

You also have not clicked on the link sufferage, which is a redirect.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

True. Thank you. Raggz 20:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Tyranny of the Majority

We deleted all references to Tyranny of the Majority . Any ideas on how and where to insert it? Raggz 01:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Links have since been re-inserted. -- Beland 23:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge the History of Democracy

Why does Wikipedia need two extended summaries of the History of democracy? If I add any non-duplicative material from here to History of democracy, would anyone object to referring the reader to that article? Raggz 00:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Not much left of this article if removed. Also necessary to discuss history in some detail.Ultramarine 21:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand, you object. Your objections are: (1) There would be little about democracy left and (2) ? I don't understand what your second point is. My best understanding is that the History of Democracy has some material that is important to other sections? Do I understand your second point? Raggz 21:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

History should be discussed in some detail in order to understand democracy. We could equally well move "Forms of democracy" to the Democracy (varieties) articles or much of "Democracy and Republic" section to the history article. However, I think all of this should remain in order to have a good introduction.Ultramarine 21:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't really understand your vision for integration but accept that you have one, and that you don't need to explain it to me. We need your vision for integration, presently the history is not integrated with the rest. So, I now support your vision of integration of the history with the rest. Raggz 22:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

EU

Is not a consensus democracy. For one thing, it has an elected Parliament. The given quote only refers to that when agreeing on the constitution, all member states agreed. It is like saying that the US is consensus democracy for the same reason.Ultramarine 09:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Change it then, I didn't know that. Thanks. Raggz 17:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the "Democracy within international associations" sections. NATO is not a "consensus democracy" in the sense of being a public government, or an organization that is "ruled by the people", in the words of our lead paragraph. Multi-nation organizations which use consensus as a basis for decision or policy making (NATO? OPEC? International Whaling Commission?) might be a candidate for a separate bullet in the "Beyond the public level" section, although this seems more along the lines of the consensus article, or elsewhere.

I moved the European Parliament example to a rewritten "Beyond the public level" section. - David Oberst 09:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Definitions of Democracy

I put them in, why are they deleted?

Dictionary definitions. Because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, please do not create an entry merely to define a term. An article should usually begin with a good definition; if you come across an article that is nothing more than a definition, see if there is information you can add that would be appropriate for an encyclopedia. An exception to this rule is for articles about the cultural meanings of individual numbers. WP:NOT

Wikipedia is WP:NOT a dictionary, and unless there are style examples of other major articles including such sections, and absent any compelling reason for them in this article I doubt a consensus can be found for them. I'm not sure what point your above quotation was intended to make - certainly this is not an article on the cultural meanings of individual numbers, and the rest of it is discussing adding information to dictionary-stub articles, not adding raw dictionary definitions to a major article. David Oberst 09:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT: "An article should usually begin with a good definition". I have added a definition and cited a verifiable source. The removal of this text (in my opinion) violates WP Policy. "Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider moving it to the talk page. ... Leave a note on the talk page or edit summary explaining what you have done."

You may challenge the source or challenge the relevance of having a definition. You have done neither. You may add to the definitions of "democracy" from any reliable source. Raggz 01:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT prohibits "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote." There is no other wikipedia article starting with listing different dictionary definitions. Thus, I suggest you put put the quotes in Wikiquote. Regarding a good definition, there is no agreed on, but the "Forms of democracy" section is equivalent.Ultramarine 02:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

We disagree on what the policy says. "WP:NOT prohibits "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional)." This policy seems irrelevant, can you explain why it applies? Your opinion is well expressed that you do not want to associate "majority-rule" with democracy. You view majoritarian democracy to be an abuse of minorities. Are we having this discussion because you are concerned with Policy - or because your of your long-standing advocacy of minoritarism within democracy? If so, just add "minoritarism" to this section and cite your reference. Raggz 02:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I want us to follow policy. Again, no other Wikipedia articla has this extremely strange introduction and WP:NOT prohibits such lists of quotes. Also, the quotes are selected arbitrarily from the source, picking some pieces of words from one dictionary and other from another.[79] If quoting dictionaries, then the only correct thing to quote them in full, giving all their different meanings. For example, the first dictionary states this: 1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. 2. a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies. 3. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges. 4. political or social equality; democratic spirit. 5. the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power.Ultramarine 02:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

You too have a right and a responsibility to make this article better. Go ahead and fix it, just comply with (1) "An article should usually begin with a good definition" and (2) don't delete the definitions cited, add to them - or reformat them, be creative and make the section better? Raggz 03:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I would think the fact that other major Wikipedia articles don't begin with a chunk of dictionary definitions would be a clue that you are completely misreading "begin with a good definition'. - David Oberst 06:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to revise it, just don't delete properly sourced material. Be creative, make it better. Just "begin with a good definition". Raggz 08:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The article does being with "a good definition" - the lead paragraph. A list of quoted dictionary definitions is inappropriate here, "sourced" or not, and I believe their deletion (which I have performed once more) would be supported by a wide range of editors. I would seriously suggest you try and find some support (from flesh and blood editors, not merely quoting chunks of guidelines out of context) before re-inserting - David Oberst 09:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Can we agree the goal is to have a lede paragraph that meets the standards of WP:LS? The present state is an improvement over last week's. Still, there is room for improvement. SaltyBoatr 16:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I've attempted to condense all the various meanings into a concisely written introductory paragraph. The dictionary references are still there, but not quoted in the article. I hope that this is an acceptable solution which will address all of the concerns expressed above. Rubywine 18:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it defines the word, but still fails to fulfill all the WP:LS tasks. More than a definition, it needs to also: 1) Give a concise overview of the article. 2) Summarize the most important points. 3) Explain why the subject is interesting or notable. and 4) Briefly describe the notable controversies. SaltyBoatr 18:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

OK then, let's try to develop it further. But I think it's a tall order to expect all of that for a huge concept like "democracy". The guidelines may apply to the vast majority of articles on WP but they're not necessarily feasible in every instance. Rubywine 19:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Aquillion: You have discarded my last edit with the throw-away comment that there have been slave-owning democracies. I believe that's a total contradiction in terms. Belief in equality between people is fundamental to the concept of democracy. As for your judgement on my writing style, all I can do is disagree with you, and ask for other people's opinions. Rubywine 19:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

What a particular person or a single source such as a dictionary believe is the correct definition of democracy is just one POV. There are many different POVs (for example, a dictionary usually give many different definitions and different dictionaries even more, see [80]) and wikipedia sbould not judge which one is the correct one. Please read WP:NPOV.Ultramarine 20:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

This is why the task is so hard. The word has evolved and the definition here needs to reflect this evolution. This will be my main concern for this task, that it be a full summary.

The word as used by Thomas Jefferson did not mean equality in every sense, but only in some ways. Not all in America were equal, but it was a demcracy. In that era EVERY nation in the world had a minoritarian government. The American and French Revolutions were the first majoritarian governments. The original primary meaning of "democracy" is as a synonym with majority rule. Widespread oligarchy was then the dominate form of minoritarianism. Minoritarianism has been revived after centuries of disdain, this time to protect minority rights.

The word "democracy" as used in most of the world means liberal democracy. We need to make this clear. An Iraqi who looks up the definition needs to learn about tyranny of the majority. If a democracy has elements of tyranny of the majority is still a democracy but is not a liberal democracy but is an illiberal democracy. Iraq is at the crossroads of choice.

I would hope that most of the linked concepts would appear in the summary.

A very important concept that is missing is universal sufferage. While this should be addresed mostly in that article, who votes and who does not vote is a very important democratic issue. The Reader should be refered to the sufferage article to learn about it from our article.

Fairness and democracy as synonyms is probematic. Democracy can be fair or unfair, just as majority rule can be fair or unfair. This emerging definition is valid, should be at the end of the sumary, and should link to the critical articles such as liberal democracy which does imply fairness. The US has been a democracy since it's founding, but it has not always been fair, particularly in reference to universal sufferage issues. Raggz 20:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Ultramarine is correct, we should adhere to the NOV Policy which states: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority." Raggz 20:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who aserts that democracy is "fair" will need to explain how the US was a democracy while permitting slavery. I would also ask for an example or two of actual democratic governments that are fair. The whole reason to have the liberal democracy article and illiberal democracy article is so that we don't need to duplicate the work there on fairness and democracy. Democracy always leads to the tyranny of the majority if it isn't also a liberal democracy. I believe the Reader needs to learn this in the opening paragraph. Raggz 21:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi everybody! My wise edits will last 2 seconds. About defining democracy: can we agree that we can't agree what democracy is? Rubywine isn't so off on adding some definitions because democracy has so many different ones. And as to "following policy" well...isn't it ridiculous to have a peer-produced article and then look to the wise dictatorship of our Holy Policy? Irony...I'm laughing... Openman 11:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

"What is Democracy?" section

Unsourced and inaccurate. Regarind the claim that democracy means majority rule, see the many previous discussions above.Ultramarine 03:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I have removed this section. It was an unsalvagable POV essay, expressing the writer's opinions and nothing else; looking it over, I did not see any encyclopedic content that was not already covered better elsewhere in the article. --Aquillion 04:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I will source and only then revert. You are correct, without adding the citations (which are abundant) it qualifies as original research. Your deletion stands, for now. When properly sourced, please do not start the edit war thing angain, please. This is your opportunity to prove anything you find inaccurate, do it now or do it not. Make your point here, on this page, and I will revise my text to reflect your points.

For the others here, any comments on this proposed section? Ultramarine believes that democracy is compatible with minority rule, but has never offered a source in support. Every single form of democracy involves voting, and in no version do the smallest number of votes win. Raggz 04:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue (at least for me) is not the citations at all. The issue is that it presents your personal opinions as fact; even if you try and provide citations to "prove" these opinions, they are far from universal. They could, perhaps, be represented as one view of democracy if you indicated clearly whose view this was, and provided citations of people claiming this (e.g. 'notable professor ABC has stated that Democracy is XYZ.'), but you cannot simply say, for instance "Democracy generally will lead to the loss of rights for minorities and individuals by means of the tyranny of the majority", or "The word is synonomous with majority rule or majoritarianism", or "Minoritarianism has been revived after centuries of disdain, this time with the intent to protect minority rights". These are all extremely POV statements, and cannot be expressed as fact no matter how many citation tags you put on them. You could express them as the viewpoint of certain people, perhaps... but this would belong in the sections on the different types of democracy or on the theory of democracy, both of which cover these ideas already in a much more encyclopedic fashion. See, for example, the section "Democracy" and "Republic", which covers what you were trying to say in a far more encyclopedic tone. Unless you can explain how what you want to add is not redundant with that section, please do not re-add it. --Aquillion 04:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I will reflect upon your thoughts, and read the recommended article. I prefer that we use related articles to duplication here. Meanwhile, please refrain from unecessary reversions. Edit the text, and add perspectives. Raggz 05:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Aquillion. In addition, your citations do not support you particular POV. Some seem to be random thick books inserted without giving any page numbers or quotes, making them unverifiable. Others are simply incorrect, Jefferson never claimed that "Democracy generally will lead to the loss of rights for minorities and individuals" or that democracy means majority rule in his speech (he never mentions the word democracy).Ultramarine 06:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Jefferson does not specifically refer to the US as a democracy as he is being inaugurated, consider the context? He speaks to the role of majority rule in the new nation [democracy], but he does not call the US a democracy. Do you dispute that he thought the US a democracy? Jefferson greatly feared that government and democracy would seize individual liberties, and said this hundreds of times. I believe that "tyranny of the majority" is his phrase, but I might be mistaken on this. Have you read Jefferson at all? As for Jennifer L. Hochschild, the quote is on page 2, at the end of the first paragraph. I don't plan on typing the long paragraph in tonight. Given time, I can respond to your requests to elucidate the other citations. Please make a list?

You have long-standing issues that majority rule and democracy are synonyms, but I have never been able to understand why? Where is minority rule a democracy? I know that there are many ways to "count the majority", but where does the loser in an election win? Where is there democracy without elections? Don't slide this time, please answer. Raggz 07:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Again read Wikipedia:OR. Read WP:NOT#PUBLISHER. Regarding majority rule, see earlier discussions above. Also read through Aquillion's text above again.Ultramarine 07:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Ultramarine, when I deal with all of your challenges to my citations, will we be done then, or will you shift to a different strategy here? Please assure me that you really care about the citations? I will believe you if you do this.

No Ultramarine, you have danced across many pages and never answered about how minority rule is ever democracy, now is the time. If you can't - please stop bringing it up? Where is minority rule a democracy? Where is there democracy without elections? I know that there are many ways to "count the majority", but where does the loser in an election win? Raggz 08:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I (and several others) have answered. Read the long above sections again, starting with section 5, "Democracy Does Not Presume Constitutional Limits - tyranny by democracy", and onwards. Regarding the section, I and all others agree that the section is your personal essay and should be deleted.Ultramarine 08:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Ultramarine - I understand your oft repeated concerns with the new section.

You have challenged the theory that majority rule and democracy rule are synonyms. You do this and then slide away, never explaining why. I won't write multiple pages on this anymore, YOU need to write a paragrah. We are working here, so contribute your theory. If you won't contribute on the subject, then stop bringing it up. If you don't like what I write, substitute something better, or balance it. Raggz 08:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I (and several others) have answered. Read the long above sections again, starting with section 5, "Democracy Does Not Presume Constitutional Limits - tyranny by democracy", and onwards. Or a little later section 7, "Majority rule", and onwards. Again read Aquillion above.Ultramarine 08:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

You said "I did not agree that democracy means majority voting, as stated above. Sortition, consensus, and deliberative democracy are exceptions.Ultramarine 23:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)" (1) Sortition IS majority rule. It is a form of a poll, democracy by polling, there are new forms using electronic polls. (2) Both consensus and deliberative democracy involve majority rule. HOW a majority is determined differs, not IF a majority is determined.

OK, now are we done with minority rule democracy? We have covered pages on this. Does the minority rule happen in sortition, or consensus or deliberative democracy? If not, may we move on? Raggz 08:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

To answer briefly, tyranny by a majority does not happen when using consensus decision or a random selection for selecting officials.Ultramarine 08:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

We agree on this. Please answer the question. Raggz 08:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

So is is wrong to claim that tyranny by a majority is associated with democracy as you claim in your essay.Ultramarine 08:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Jefferson said it, many have said this, I only repeat the greatest democracy theorists. Pure Democracy is a bad thing. Right now, Iraq is thinking about Pure Democracy, not a liberal democracy. Tyranny of the majority is associated with every form of democracy we list. The only reason that we have so many forms is this danger that democracy brings. The important point here is not what I say, it is what mainstream democracy theory says. Our job is to reflect that. Will you help do this? Raggz 09:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

OR is not allowed in Wikipedia, as is claiming that sources state something they do not, as per earlier comments.Ultramarine 09:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Will you agree that majority rule is a feature of every form of democracy - or if not, explain your issues? Raggz 09:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Even if I did, it is uninteresting, as other have other definitions. Read Aquillion response above. Again, the whole argument of your personal essay is incorrect. Tyranny by a majority is not associated with democracy as you claim.Ultramarine 09:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Ultramarine given your disciplinary history as a "POV Warrior" , I suggest that you either help write this article - or stop disrupting the process. You are welcome to help.Raggz 09:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Ad hominem is uninteresting. Follow policy. Wikipedia is not the place to publish personal essays.Ultramarine 09:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

the fact that this debate is going the way it is merely highlights the fact that this section which Raggz has added is little more than an essay offering personal opinions from one editor and should be deleted. Ironic as well that this user has spent a lot of time trawling a narrow range of articles and removing whole sections - which have been built up over time by several editors - from them, claiming they are based on personal opinions or are unsourced. While some articles on wikipedia may deserve quite savage treatment, equally it's not up to a single editor to undo the work of large numbers of people, because they happen to disagree with what's in a particular article, while at the same time inserting whole self-written essays themselves --Nickhh 09:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

As per Raggz' own - generally correct - precedent of deleting material where it has no value and is simply personal opinion or unverified research, I have removed this section --Nickhh 21:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Which parts do you claim are OR? What policy do you cite in support of your deletion? Do you claim that Thomas Jefferson and the other cites are irrelevant? I would prefer that you edit my section to make it better - or write a new draft. Please consider this? Raggz 23:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm open to you writing the introductory part, want to try? If not, I will revert soon.

• Raggez, whether or not we agree that "majority rule is a feature of every form of democracy" is unimportant; what is important is that that there are many prominent schools of thought that disagree. Read the article, particularly the section on "Theory". Note the paragraph on minimalism and what it says. Note the theories of, say, Anthony Downs. Note the section on Democracy and Republic, and Adams' conception of "a government of laws, and not of men." Your views are plainly, as illustrated by the article, not universal, and they should not be presented as such. --Aquillion 02:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

We are not supposed to present every theory of Democracy that a professor has ever hypothesized about. I am opposed to covering theoretical forms at all, but will compromise. Where is there a democratic government that doesn't have elctions? I say include that example. Where is there a democratic government where the candidate with the least votes, wins the election? I say cover that government as well. There are thousands of theoretical forms of democracy, I can add dozens that we are now missing.

You are correct, if our focus is political theory, an area that you seem to understand. Is this an article about political theory? Raggz 02:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You are still missing the point. Consider these lines from the essay you wish to add to the article:

• "Democracy generally will lead to the loss of rights for minorities and individuals by means of the tyranny of the majority"
• "The word is synonomous with majority rule or majoritarianism"
• "Minoritarianism has been revived after centuries of disdain, this time with the intent to protect minority rights".

This is not neutral or encyclopedic text; this is you grabbing the reader by the collar, pulling them in close, and shouting your thoughs in their face as loudly as your lungs can carry. The article lists numerous well-respected scholars and several broad schools of thought that completely and totally contradict you on each of these counts; these people (including such oh-so-non-notable professors as Thomas Jefferson) would all lecture you at length on how inaccurate and flatly wrong your opinions on the subject are. Your claim that democracy will "generally lead to the loss of rights for minorities and individuals" is a view on which there is widespread disagreement; your claim that 'minoritarianism has been revived' is highly controversal and represents a marginal viewpoint (the term minoritarianism, and its associated concepts, is itself is in fact a neologism largely limited to an intellectual fringe). You are trying to preach to people, not inform them; that will never pass muster as encyclopedic text. --Aquillion 04:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting input. It was a first draft, I expected it to evolve - but it keeps crashing. Why do I keep reviving it (next time with some edits to reflect your comments)? Because we need something like it. Why not write something better?

Jefferson did view that democracy would lead to tyranny of the majority, he feared democracy, most of the Founders did, but it held a magnetic lure as well. What I'm trying to say is that democracy means far less than liberal democracy. All the stuff you associate with democracy, technically means liberal democracy. The Third Reich had elections, it was a democracy, as was the USSR. They were not liberal democracies. How can I say this and connect with the Reader? Iraq is a democracy, but marginally a liberal democracy.

Ok, on the next revert cycle, I will delete the minoritarianism, you are correct. Btw, your UN point elsewhere was good, consider adding a sentence or two? Why is your point important? This is unclear to those who are just learning, and they need to understand your point. I had been thinking about how to make your point. Thanks for helping. Raggz 06:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

"The word is synonomous with majority rule or majoritarianism" Check the majority rule article. All democracies have some form of majority rule? All you need offer is an example of one that doesn't? 06:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I really don't want to get more involved in this but want to make clear my objections to the inclusion of this essay. It's not about the content per se (ie whether I agree or disagree with the opinions expressed), but about the fact that they are, precisely, opinions, eg "when most people say democracy, they really mean a form of democracy where fairness and individual and minority rights are protected .. ", or "Modern democracy is beginning to also mean fairness". This is not encyclopedic content, and no amount of tinkering, collaborative editing or references will make it that way. It's written like a school essay on "what democracy means to you". Apologies if that sounds rude, but it's the best way to describe it that I can think of --Nickhh 13:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Fine. You are probably correct. Please help make it better? We need your editing assistance here. We are stuck in the "no cycle" where where the text you object to is still the best text that we have. I won't revert it when there is better text, we need an introductory section (see policy on this above). Whatever you write will then enter the "no cycle", but I will revert it instead of my text. You can then move on and ignore the bickering here? (I would prefer that you stay.) It would be appreciated if you could manage a paragraph or two. Raggz 19:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Political theory of democracy

Perhap you are right. Is there a page focused upon the political theory of democracy? Maybe we need one? I'm not interested in political theory that has yet to emerge from paper to reality, but that is only POV. Few people want to know about what might be, someday, they are looking to understand how actual democracies work. We might need a page for the Political Theory of Democracy? Raggz 03:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

please explain

In this recent revert [81] by Ultramarine, he/she deleted tribal democracy section, please explain. SaltyBoatr 15:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, the 'explanation' given "(all encyclopedias and dictionaries have etymology first)" doesn't match Wikipedia standards, WP:LS, which say nothing about this encyclopedia having etymology first. Rather, per this style guide of our encyclopedia, we are to summarize the main points of the article in the lead section. We should do it the proper way, not some other way. SaltyBoatr 15:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I restored and did not delete the the tribal democracy section. Etymology is usually placed first in dictinaries because it helps understanding the word. If not in the lead, then it should be first in the article.Ultramarine 15:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, why we are discussing the intro again, any objections to removing the POV defintion? If so, please explain.Ultramarine 15:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The reason I bring this up, is that the introduction does not meet the standards of WP:LS. As Wikipedia is a collaboration among editors, we should agree to follow standards, such as WP:LS when editing. Presently, this article fails in that regard. In this specific instance, the etymology of the word is not found in the body of the article, and therefore should not be included in the introduction. Also, per WP:LS, the introduction should emphasize the predominate POV, and briefly mention the minority POV. SaltyBoatr 15:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

We can easily create a separate etymology section. There is no consensus on what is the predominant POV regarding the correct definition of democracy.Ultramarine 15:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Whatever the article says (and, presumably the article does have consensus), the introduction should simply be written to reflect and summarize the article. See my recent suggestion. The introduction should be fleshed out to extend to three or four paragraphs, per WP:LS standards. SaltyBoatr 15:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

So you agree to removing the defintion? If not, explain why? Ultramarine 15:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

What definition? All I am saying is that the intro should re-written meet the standards of WP:LS. SaltyBoatr 16:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

"in which political power is held either by the people, or by their elected representatives." Other forms of democracy exist, so this defintion is incorrect. You have also introduced errors in the intro, tribal democracy may well have existed before the Greeks and some claim also in states in India. Finally, "Per Democracy theory," looks really strange and will not be understood by many. WP:LS does not require that the section names should be repeated in the intro.Ultramarine 16:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

"With origins in ancient Greece, democracy has grown and expanded throughout history." is still questionable as per above. The problem with the definition remain.Ultramarine 16:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:LS, The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies

A concise overview will be generally accurate in the overview, and sometimes not precisely accurate in detail due to omission or summarization of all the facts. That is the inevitable essence of 'a summary'. The reader is expected to read about the precise details down in the article. I do agree that the wording is clunky, and should be expanded and improved. Presently, the three main sections each have a single sentence. Per, WP:LS, these three sentences should probably be expanded into three summary paragraphs. SaltyBoatr 16:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:LS does not allow you to introduce factual errors or violate NPOV. Again, "With origins in ancient Greece, democracy has grown and expanded throughout history." is still questionable. Tribal democracy may well have existed before the Greeks and some claim also in states in India. The given definition "in which political power is held either by the people, or by their elected representatives." is POV. Other definitions of democracy exist, so this is not the only defintion.Ultramarine 17:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I see no factual error. We don't state 'the origin', and the word 'origins' leaves it open. A reasonable reading includes some 'gray zone' for ancient history, and prehistory, but if you insist I would also support necessary weasel wording if required. I have no problem mentioning that other definitions of democracy exist, (or to address NPOV concerns) as WP:LS calls for briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. SaltyBoatr 17:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

If we change it to "One of the origins", then this is neutral. As of now, it implies that all origins are in Greece. Regarding the definition, we should not in any way imply that the current one is more correct, for no evidence have presented for this. A neutral statement would simply be to state that democracy has been defined in various way throughout history.Ultramarine 17:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality shouldn't be an issue with a summary because a summary just summarizes. Democracy#History does not say "One of the origins", it predominately describes ancient Greece as the origin, therefore we should say this too in the summary. I am not trying to argue the factual accuracy. If you dispute the factual accuracy of Democracy#History, fix it. In which case, the intro should be rewritten. Otherwise, the intro should match the article. SaltyBoatr 17:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:LS does not allow NPOV to be violated. Again, regarding the definition, we should not in any way imply that the current one is more correct, for no evidence have presented for this. A neutral statement would simply be to state that democracy has been defined in various way throughout history. Regarding origins, your current text is an improvement.Ultramarine 17:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I revised the etymology to emphasize the actual Greek word as well as the roots (to distinguish from words that have merely been created from Greek roots by non-Greek languages). The "classical Greek" could be replaced with a more accurate indication of when (and why) the word came into being if this section is going to be expanded, and mention made of what seems to be a trail through Middle Latin and French before reaching English. I left out the "literally" section for now - it isn't really necessary with the two roots defined, seems to be a point of squabbling, and in any case would probably require a competent explanation of what the Greeks meant by demos. The existing Britannica citation should probably be replaced by something with a little more formal detail on the etymology (perhaps something like [82] or [83]). If there are no plans to expand this it should be possible to condense it and put it back in the intro where it was - the notion that WP:LS or anything else requires a separate Etymology section merely to justify including an entymology in passing in the intro is highly dubious. - David Oberst 19:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

We need a concise introduction that meet WP standards. So let's do this. Ultramarine said "in which political power is held either by the people, or by their elected representatives." Other forms of democracy exist, so this defintion is incorrect." Ultramarine - name one other form of democracy that actually exists? Raggz 03:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The introduction

Please read WP:LS. Can rewrite the introduction to match the Wikipedia standard for lead sections. In short, the introduction needs to be more than a 'defintion' section. The introduction needs to summarize the main points of the article, in a few paragraphs. The points to cover and summarize are these:

1 Forms of democracy 1.1 Representative 1.1.1 Liberal Democracy 1.2 Direct Democracy 1.3 Socialist Democracy 1.4 Anarchist Democracy 1.5 Sortition 1.6 Tribal Democracy 1.7 Consensus Democracy 2 History 2.1 Ancient origins 2.2 Middle Ages 2.3 18th and 19th centuries 2.4 20th Century 3 Theory 3.1 Aristotle 3.2 Conceptions 3.3 "Democracy" and "Republic" 3.4 Constitutional monarchs and upper chambers 4 Arguments for and against 5 Beyond the public level

Can we do this? SaltyBoatr 00:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

In no more than four concise paragraphs, ideally less. I doubt it. I still think the history of democracy article is better than ours. Raggz 00:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The biggest problem is the POV claim regarding what democracy is. There are numerous other dictionary definitions, if that is what should be used, which is dubious in itself.[84].Ultramarine 03:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. My issues with Rubywine's preferred version of the intro, point-by-point:

• The word origin of 'democracy' is not significent enough to place in the lead section. It provides no special information about democracy as a concept and is generally distracting; likewise, it fails to reflect the overall content of the article, which does not focus heavily on the word's etymology. This is my chief objection, and I think it's fairly non-negotiable.
• The claims about 'primary usage' and 'alternatively' are baffling; no citation is given, and it does not reflect any part of the article. The reference to 'underlying belief system' is likewise not reflected in the article text. All of these things strike me as totally unencyclopedic in tone.
• The very first sentence (Democracy means, literally, "rule by the people".) is cringe-inducing in its tone. This is the literal meaning in greek, so it is in fact factually incorrect to disconnect it from from the Greek demos, "people", and kratos, "rule"; that part, itself, is not necessary for the reasons listed above, but can be kept as a parenthetical remark. Disconnecting it in the way it was presented gives the impression that Democracy has a single 'literal' definition and an 'alternative' definition, which does not accurately reflect the rest of the article.
• The claim that belief in equality is integral to the basic concept of democracy is likewise not supported by the article text, and, in fact, directly contradicts it. This flatly cannot be in the lead section.
• Finally, given the vast array of definitions for democracy, and ways the word is used, we have no hope of covering them all in a lead section of reasonable size. Therefore, we should instead strive to merely give the most general and universally-accepted description, without resorting to the cringe-inducing and potentially POV 'literally' ... 'alternatively' construct that Rubywine used.
• And for heaven's sakes, we should avoid citing dictionaries if at all possible... those make no attempt to cover the subject in depth, instead providing a light overview of all of a word's connotations. This is not an article on the connotations of democracy; this is an article on democracy itself. Dictionaries are, by and large, not useful sources in an encyclopedia, and this is no exception. The dictionary cites need to go.

I have reverted back to the old intro. It isn't complete, but it at least lacks the glaring tone and content issues Rubywine's edit inserted. --Aquillion 03:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The comments above are over-heated and deliberately offensive. Looking at this article in more depth, I believe that I am outnumbered here by people holding anti-democratic views and I am not going to waste any further time arguing. Rubywine 08:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Freedom House maps perennial groundhog day redux

Saltyboar, why did you remove the FH map without explanation? Ultramarine 20:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

1) Freedom is not democracy and 2) Casper/Tufis study indicates a 'limited robustness' in correleation of the FH criteria and democracy. SaltyBoatr 20:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

1. As noted in the text, FH describes Free nations as liberal democracies. 2. The study only shows that the various measures of democracy cannot be interchanged automatically, although they are highly correlated. It does not state that any of them is incorrect. It does state that FH's one if one of the most used measures.Ultramarine 20:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I just read the Casper/Tufis study, and see that they are highly skeptical of the use of the Freedom House dataset. I see no reason to include the FH image due to risks of credibility. Partial quote ..."despite high correlations, the use of these different measures can produce different results"' Hardly good enough for use in an encyclopedia. SaltyBoatr 20:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

That quote does not support your statement. Again, the study only shows that the various measures of democracy cannot be interchanged automatically, although they are highly correlated. It does not state that any of them is incorrect. It does state that FH's one if one of the most used measures. Numerous peer-reviewed studies have used FH scores.Ultramarine 20:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

If 'different uses...produce different results', then credibility is clearly at risk. This is an encyclopedia. Maintaining our credibility is paramount. I see no need to risk our credibility. The burden of evidence is on you to prove the credibility. SaltyBoatr 20:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

OR interpretation. The study never states that any of these measures are dubious or that any one them is better or worse. It is like arguing that one IQ test should be rejected because another highly correlated one may have slightly different results. The burden of evidence is on you to show that numerous peer-reviwed studies are mistaken.Ultramarine 20:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, the question is whether 'freedom' is the same as 'democracy'. The Casper/Tufis study describes the association as having limited robustness, and suggests that it is often abused by researchers. And no, per WP:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence the burden in on you not me. SaltyBoatr 21:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

1. As noted in the text, FH describes Free nations as liberal democracies. 2. The study only shows that the various measures of democracy cannot be interchanged automatically, although they are highly correlated. It does not state that any of them is incorrect or dubious or that one of them should not be used. It does state that FH's one if one of the most used measures. It has been used in numerous peer-reviewed articles. Please give the exact quote where they state that this ranking should not be used.Ultramarine 21:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

First, I do not see that Freedom House meets Wikipedia standards for use as a source, see WP:ATT. As to the Casper/Tufis study, see for instance part 5. 'Conclusion', read the whole thing, but for instance "...scholars need...explain their selection based on theoretical reasons rather than expediency or taste." and "...it is not uncommon for researches to engage in venue-shopping..." and "...researchers should explain why their results might vary...". Clearly the Casper/Tufis study is critical of use of 'freedom' to indicate 'democracy', and we too should be critical, the credibility the encyclopedia depends on it. SaltyBoatr 21:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

None of these (strangely selectively cut) statement argue that researchers should stop using these measures, that is your own OR.Ultramarine 21:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

To make this absolutely clear, I quote from two later paper which cite Casper and Tufius study. "The Polity and Freedom House indicators each take a slightly different approach to the measurement of democracy, and their respective strengths and weaknesses have been widely debated (Munck and Verkuilen 2002). While the two variables are highly correlated (r=0.89 for the period of 1974-2002), past studies have shown that they can generate different results (Casper and Tufius 2003; Teorell and Hadenius 2004). We therefore run the series of models with both measures in order to ensure that our results are not specific to any one particular operationalization of democracy."[85]"Whatever the conceptualization of democracy, the measures currently in use are very highly correlated with each other. Some scholars have warned, however, that even though measures of democracy differently arrived at correlate well, they are not interchangeable (Casper and Tufis 2002). We adopt their advice and follow a strategy of testing several accepted measures that stress one or another theoretical aspect of why democracy matters for sustainable development"[86]Ultramarine 22:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry that is not at all absolutely clear. Though, clearly, the image is a chart of freedom. This article is about democracy. Regardless, Freedom House is not a 'most reliable' source per WP:ATT, which is a problem you neglected to address. SaltyBoatr 02:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The article is presumably using the FH maps for the same purpose as the "reputable news organizations and other reliable sources" (or whatever boilerplate Ultramarine normally trots out for this) - as a generally illustrative overview of the current world situation. Assuming this, if forced to choose between existing widespread usage and the objections of a particular Wikipedia editor, I'll go with the former. Scanning Casper/Tufis, it appears to be dealing with the implications of using of multiple data sets in longitudinal and/or correlation studies, and makes no evaluation regarding the overall Freedom House scores considered by themselves, nor does it imply the FH data is somehow less valid than the others. Given this, Saltyboatr's evaluation and use of quotations is (charitably) perhaps a misunderstanding. Note the study includes the sentence "Although the Freedom House survey was created to measure freedom, it is 'essentially a survey on democracy' (Gastil 1991, 22)."

There may be editing or aesthetic arguments as to which and how many of the maps appear and in which articles. Excluding this particular map from any consideraion as inappropriate - not so much. - David Oberst 03:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Can this Casper/Tufis study be incorporated into the Freedom House article, and the Freedom in the World article? Pexise 18:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Either Freedom House is a reliable source - or it is not. In the former case, it is eligible for any editor to include UNLESS there is a compelling reason otherwise. WP does not censor or discriminate, except as to reliable sourcing - and not. There is no reason offered to believe that FH is not reliable - only that some people believe it to be wong (and others believe it to be correct). If you want FH excluded, you need another WP rule, it is "reliable" in that an effort to check facts is employed. Do we have a Blacklist of censored publishing houses? Where is it posted?

What does Freedom House say about itself? It seems not different from Human Rights Watch? "Freedom House is a clear voice for democracy and freedom around the world. Since its founding in 1941 by Eleanor Roosevelt, Wendell Willkie and other Americans concerned with the mounting threats to peace and democracy, Freedom House has been a vigorous proponent of democratic values and a steadfast opponent of dictatorships of the far left and the far right." Should organizations that advocate freedom and democracy be blacklisted? Raggz 07:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Is 'freedom' interchangable with 'democracy'?

Two recent studies trump Oberst's older 1991 Gastil quote. The Casper/Tufis 2002 study states, unequivocally, the two concepts are not interchangeable. The RM Institute report by Alex Lui 2004[87] on this question emphatically agrees: "the indicators (used by Freedom House) are not interchangable, therefore, not reliable as indicators to measure democracy". Wow, that is a bold statement. Yet some editors continue to insist to continue to use the falacious 'freedom' = 'democracy' table in this article.

I am very surprised that some editors find it necessary to stretch and equate 'freedom' to 'democracy', in light of these recent studies which bluntly criticise the FH data analysis method. So much other excellent source material on the topic of 'democracy' exists, I see no reason to risk the credibility of the encyclopedia to blur the line by using less than 'most reliable sourcing'. SaltyBoatr 15:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You misread, see Oberst's earlier comments above.Ultramarine 16:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not misread. See especially the Alex Lui analysis[88] which says: "...not reliable as indicators to measure democracy". Also, you neglect to answer my question: Why risk the credibility of the encyclopedia, when better sourcing is available? Please answer. SaltyBoatr 16:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

As I and Oberst have pointed out in the section above, citing many studies, your evaluation and selective use of quotations is (charitably) perhaps a misunderstanding.Ultramarine 16:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You neglected to answer my question and instead choose to insult me and my intent. SaltyBoatr 17:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

See comments in section above.Ultramarine 17:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, from the 2004 study "Polity IV, Polyarchy 1.2, and Freedom House are three indicators used to measure democracy as a latent variable." The authors never state that these indicators should not be used. "Casper and Tufis’s work clearly demonstrated that the random measurement errors of the three most often used democracy indicators cannot be ignored. To correct this problem of obtaining biased estimation, the best is to take these measurement errors into the consideration of our model building and estimation. One way is to construct a measurement model to estimate the random measurement errors, and then incorporate these measurement errors into our regression models (Kline 1998). Or, another easy approach is to combine these three indicators into a new democracy measurement, which usually will increase the reliability of this new measurement over the old ones." That is what several later studies have done, continuing to use the FH scores, as described in the section above.Ultramarine 17:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

For historical reasons known to Saltyboatr, I'm not inclined to get involved in fruitless circular discussions which depend solely on trying to understand his reasoning, or solo interpretations of WP guidelines. I have no particularly strong views either way on the use, quantity, or location of the FH maps in these articles, and would be happy to contribute to discussion of them if other editors take it up. I do, however, stand by my evaluation expressed above, and will, generally, revert map deletion if done on what appear to be false premises. - David Oberst 19:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Circular? Or stonewall. Neither of you have acknowledged, even once, the RM Institute/Alex Lui analysis[89] which concludes:

"In other words, Polity IV, Polyarchy 1.2, and Freedom House indicators should be combined to produce a new democracy measure more reliable than before, in order to avoid the biased estimation that may exist in hundreds of the past democracy research papers. ".

And clearly, this correction has not yet been done in the map which Mr. Oberst vows to protect. Please explain how this real risk of biased estimation is acceptable in this encyclopedia. SaltyBoatr 20:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It only states "may", and a single paper is not very interesting when weighed against hundreds of others. There is always some controversy in science. That a small minority of scholars dispute all value of IQ tests does not mean that Wikipedia should delete the info on IQ. Regardless, your own quote argues that the FH scores should continue to be used, and so it has in other papers as per the above section. Agree fully with Oberst.Ultramarine 21:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The only thing I'm vowing to protect is my sanity. And note the "other editors" part of my comment. - David Oberst 01:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The concern still remains, and Ultramarines assurances that the methodology used by Freedom House has been fixed is not backed up by citations, but rather appears to be wishful thinking. Also, the dismissal that 'there is always some controversy' does nothing to resolve the credibility problem. Bottom line: the editors inserting the table need to show that measures of freedom are interchangeable with measures of democracy. This has not been proven in light of the recent analysis of this old methodology used for the date upon which the table was based. SaltyBoatr 16:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no requirement in science in that measures should be interchangeable. That is like arguing that IQ tests should be rejected since different tests give slightly different results. See also earlier discussions.Ultramarine 16:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

"Appear"?

Democracy is a form of government in which non-elite citizens appear to exercise political power.

This is in my opinion, POV on the current status of democracy in the world. This is completely unrelated with the actual definition of the political ideology of "democracy". Democracy is one thing, and its current implementation may be a whole different thing. I haven't changed this because it seemed to survive several editions, so I'll leave it here for discussion.

P.S. We really need a stable definition as the opening paragraph for this article. Oskilian 00:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

That version (diff) seems to have been a drive-by disimprovement from a few days ago. I've restored what was there previously, without any judgement on its merits. - David Oberst 00:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

How many years to write a crappy article? "Democracy describes a series of related forms of government. With origins in ancient Greece, Rome and south Asia{As in India? You can make the case for numerous "democracies" in history throughout the world, Viking Democracy, Tribal democracies, ect.}, democracy has generally grown and expanded throughout history.{Not true! not neutral POV} The principles of democracy emphasize the importance of the individual in the context of government{No that's Monarchy} and, today, are a major influence around the world. Though the term democracy is typically used in the context of a political state, the principles are also applicable to other groups and organizations."

I disimproved it because this article is crap. "Appear" can be agreed upon...or so I thought. This whole article is far from a neutral POV. This isn't worth messing with. Go 15 year old writers.

hong kong/macau

these regions aren't on the map yet they are 'free'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Platinum inc (talk • contribs) 13:57, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Democracy=Freedom. Communism=Evil. These are the messages propagated by the US government, through propaganda mills such as "Freedom House," the think-tank responsible for the "freedom" map. The map of "Freedom", *shockingly*, also works well as a "relations with the United States" map.

Any half competent editor wouldn't allow any source from "freedom house" or any other think tank propaganda mill. But then again there is not one paragraph in this article that would pass by a decent editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.94.24 (talk) 12:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Axiocracy

Axiocracy is a political philosophy which I intend to describe here