Jump to content

Talk:Democratic peace theory/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

Peace offer

Ultramarine has written my talk page, suggesting that we should start over with the draft in User:Ultramarine/sandbox4, and take half; he the pro-DPT side and the rest of us the anti-DPT side, and each agree not to edit each other's half; but answer each other on our own. His model for this is Middle East conflict, which is apparently so divided between the Jews and the Arabs.

This is an undesirable model, being rather a departure from wikiprinciples for a hard case rather than an example of them. But I put forth the suggestion; it may serve as the basis for a useful negotiation.

The division anticipated appears to be:

  • Skins
    • Ray, Rummel and Weart
    • Russett
    • A handful of other papers
  • Shirts
    • The rest of the Kantians
    • Several non-Kantian supporters of DOT, such as Gleditsch and Maoz.
    • The actual opponents of DPT: Mearsheimer, Gowa, Spiro, Layne...

I write of course, subject to correction here.

Ket ne know what you think. Septentrionalis 05:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I do hope we can bring this to an end. I thought that Views of the Arab-Israeli conflict might be a good model.Ultramarine 08:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Not at all sure about this, two articles seem to be v problamatic. I'd say the DPT article is for the most part quite good and has converged to a fairly acurate consensus, the points of disagrement are quite minor. If anything the article is overlong and all the disputed notes distract from the making it a good article.
One idea I've had is to have is to make a History of conflict between democracies article. This would be a purely factual piece, probably a table listing:
  • The parties involved
  • The level of conflict, number of casualties etc
  • The status of the democracies, what sort of suffrage the parties had
  • How various authors have interpreted the conflict, does Rummel or Gower classify this a a war between democracies.
--Salix alba (talk) 08:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC) (a lurker watching this conflict.)
Have you read User:Ultramarine/Possible exceptions to "Well-established democracies have never made war on one another"? Ultramarine 09:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes I've had a look at it. The title bothers me as it is a) too long, b) not really nutral in the style of "claim and counter claim", rather than "these are the facts", it almost invites criticism. Anyway I had a bash at putting some of the data into table form at User:Salix alba/History of conflict between democracies. I've only done one conflict so far, hopefully you can get the idea from that. Comments welcome. --Salix alba (talk) 11:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Just noting that I have added one on the discussions page of your article, I think it is better to discuss it there. Ultramarine 11:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I would call such an article War between democracies. No, Ultramarine, this is no more PoV than Unicorn. Septentrionalis 16:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Also, there are very little arguments for why specific wars are wars between democracies. I have noted the two Gowa mentions and her explanation for why. I have asked Pmanderson for other arguments from the literature, but none have been presented. Ultramarine 12:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
My comments on Ultramarine's last version in this direction can be seen at Talk:Never at War. Septentrionalis 16:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I must disagree with converging to a consensus. The current text is almost exclusively Pmanderson's version, as can be seen in the history.[6] As noted above, it systematically excludes supporting studies and arguments. I have tried to discuss the differences on the talk page instead of starting an edit war. Ultramarine 10:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Argh --Salix alba (talk) 11:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Rummel

It is stated in the tag: "Inflation of the position of R. J. Rummel, and advocacy of his particular findings, which is giving undue weight to a single researcher". Please explain, there are numerous supporting researchers. Ultramarine 10:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

There are many scholars who find that a democratic peace exists (and they have persuaded me, although I have tried to keep that out of the article). Four or five of them, including Rummel, hold a particular and extreme theory of that peace. Among the differentia of this theory are that:
  1. Democracies have never ever ever gone to full-scale war (as opposed to there being one or two marginal exceptions; no-one seems to think there are more than that.)
  2. That point (1.) somehow really and deeply matters.
Many scholars who support the democratic peace disagree with the first; all of them but the clique seem to disagree with the second. Some of my evidence for this assertion is under #33 above, some is in the article.
As Ultramarine knows, this is not a recent tag; the article used to have much more PoV writing for this school than it now does. I think the tag is now removable; Scaife #35 disagrees, but he's busy right now with the minor matter of studying for Comps ;-} (I trust he will find this funny when he sees it). Septentrionalis 17:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
From what I can make out Rummel is an important figure in the history of DPT. However, Rummels major academic work seems to be in the late 70's early 80's and his output has declined since. Other researchers seem more current with improved methodology. Has Rummel refined his methods or changed his position much since then? In the main article Rummels mentioned 3 times plus his poster. He's mentioned about 5 times in the notes. I don't understand why he is even mentioned in note 14. I feel that given his historic influence on the subject he is certainly not given undue promenance. His poster make good eye candy, might be worth noting the poster reflects Rummels POV. --Salix alba (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Most of Rummel's research has been about democide and this continued in the 90s. I agree that he has done little research recently regarding peace between democracies, but he was an important early researcher regarding this. Ultramarine 19:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

This is now Scaife's complaint, more than mine; I am reasonably satisfied with the weight now given to Weart/Ray/Rummel. It may need some adjustment, but it can wait for the article trim. Septentrionalis 23:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I've now removed Inflation of Rummel from the Talk:Democratic_peace_theory/to do. --Salix alba (talk) 08:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

To Do list

As both parties have requested my assistance on this article, I'll try to help, but on the priviso that we try to keep disputes to the talk page. To clearly list disputes where readers can easily find them I've created a Template talk:Todo page. I've also reduced the initial tags to just one disputed one, following the mediators User:Kim Bruning suggestion. Revert this and I'm out of here! --Salix alba (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

A good idea. (although the totally disputed template would be more accurate) Ultramarine 19:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

A Lakatosian View of the Democratic Peace

The beginning of this has been cut-and-pasted from my talk page, once it became clear that Ultramarine wanted a general debate with me there, rather than answering the question himself.Septentrionalis

Interested in your thoughts on this paper. Ray [http://sitemason.vanderbilt.edu/files/g/gDf5Ty/6%20ray%20demo%20peace%20FIRST%20PROOFS.pdf A Lakatosian View of the Democratic Peace Research Program] You can reply here. --Salix alba (talk) 23:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

At first look, my reaction is as follows:

  • It does not surprise me that Ray claims to be On the Wave of the Future; even though he does not use that unfashionable term. He is a historicist, as his theory shows.
  • He has changed his views. This 1998 paper,as I read it, argues that the democratic peace is a (very strong) tendency for democracies to be at peace, rather than an "absolute (or point) assertion".
  • The algebraic equation on page 5 reminds me of Euler confounding Diderot with "(ab + 1)n = infinity, so God exists; reply!"
  • I am also not convinced by his reading of Kuhn, but that's a very difficult subject, and quite off topic.
  • Babst's paper (in either of its forms) is quite short, and does little historical or statistical analysis. He does state that the list of wars he was reading contains no wars between democracies, but that statement is based on a historical error. The full form of his thesis excludes wars of secession (and it is on this basis that he excludes the American Civil War); he also excludes the Boer War as a war of secession, which is false.
  • Both Maoz and Doyle accept the democratic peace, and have written papers strongly advocating it. Doyle's original paper is independent of Rummel, and argues for a different (Kantian) structure to the democratic peace. Neither accepts it as a "point assertion".
    • Maoz counts the Spanish American War as (the only) war between democracies; as far as I can see, Ray does not mention this.
    • Doyle believes that there have, in fact, been no wars between democracies, but outlines circumstances where he would expect one. The Kantian theorists recognize three factoss to the "peaceful union", of which mutual democracy is only one. If a state lacks the other two, there is no reason not to expect it to go to war with other democracies.
    • Doyle also discusses two possible wars between democracies, but dismisses them (plausibly) as too marginal to count.
  • It is not clear to me why he regards Mansfield and Snyder as an attack on democratic peace theory.
    • Several authors (Rummel and Weart certainly) refine the statement of the democratic peace to exclude young democracies, less than three years old, as not yet "stable". One of Doyle's possible wars was betweeen Peru and Ecuador when one had been a liberal democracy for one year and the other for less than three; and he excludes it on that basis.
    • Mansfield and Snyder extend this to five years after "complete democratization" - and apply this very freely; they also emphasize this aspect of their analysis more than the (other?) absolute DPT'ers. But they also state that once this threshold has passed, there are no wars between democracies.
    • This is a difference of degree, rather than kind.

If you would like page refs for any of the above, let me know. I do not have Babst's paper to hand, although I have read both forms; I believe the papers of Maoz and Doyle to which I refer are available online only through JSTOR. Septentrionalis 02:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


I read Ray's 1998 paper as clearly stating no wars. Regarding Maoz, from the 1998 paper: "Analyzing such data, Maoz & Abdolali (1989, p. 21) reported that in the years from 1816 to 1976, "democratic states never fight one another."" I cannot remember seeing any statement by those advocating the Kantian triad that all three are necessary. Ultramarine 02:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
This is true of Maoz's 1989 paper, when he was still using somebody else's rankings for democracy. (Abdolali was his graduate student, and has since published on other subjects.) By 1997, he changed his mind, upon refining his criteria. He says so explicitly. Septentrionalis 02:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
This is not the only evidence that Ultramarine has not read Doyle's paper. I admit that it requires JSTOR, a university library, or inter-library loan, but all three do exist, and Ultramarine appears to have access to the last. Septentrionalis 02:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
None of the modern advocates of the Kantian triad, like Russet and O'Neal, state that all three are necessary. Doyle may do so in his 1983 paper, but that has not been repeated by others.
I was discussing Doyle's view, as was Ray. (Not that I believe this is true of Russett and Oneal; that's why it's a triad.) What does this have to do with the price of tea in China? Septentrionalis 03:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Anyhow, this is minor points. More importantly, many of the studies and arguments Ray mentions are excluded from the article. Pmanderson has selectively included mostly critical studies and much material from Doyle's 1983 paper, apparently as a straw man for the pro-DPT arguments. Very little of the modern pro-DPT arguments, as described by Ray in this article, are included. Compare also the pro-DPT arguments here, and Pmanderson's description of these arguments in his text: User:Ultramarine/sandbox4 Ultramarine 03:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
This is an abuse of language. These arguments have not been excluded; they were never in the article. If Ultramarine wishes to add them, he knows where the edit button is; he should read his edit screen, however: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly..., do not submit it.
If he does not, Lake is one of the first on the list to be read and included under #More_papers. However, such time as I have devoted to the article recently has largely been spent answering Ultramarine's thirty-nine articles.Septentrionalis 03:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
And many of these points have been about presenting a more correct description of the pro-DPT arguments, rather than Doyle's more than twenty years old paper. As you have opposed them, including them in the text would only have started an edit war, which I want to avoid. Ultramarine 03:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
We are in agreement that edit wars are bad things;that's good. Collaborative editing, such as has been done to your occasional edits to the article, is not a war. I have answered the articles at some length; I believe many of them vacuous, and most of the rest mistaken. I would like to know what Salix alba thinks; several of them do not depend on the DPT literature, but on the difference (or lack thereof) between two texts there given. Septentrionalis 03:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I asked you both individually as I wanted your personal views on the subject, rather than a debate.

To me this paper indicates a development of the theory and actually the type of question being asked. It seems to now be developing from a binary question about whether or not there is evidence for DP to a deeper one: how does the presence of democracies affect conflict, what are the mechanisms. In a sense trying to create a richer picture of the landscape of democracies and conflict. For the most part the wikipedia article seems to still focused on the 20th Century interpretation, the more modern analysis is barely mentioned, except on how it informs the older debate. So do we need to move this article into the 21st century? Only a brief response as I've got to go to work now. --Salix alba (talk) 08:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Ray's paper represents a small faction within the supporters of democratic peace theory, consisting only of himself, Rummel, and Weart.

So who else should have been included? Say what works from this century published in political science journals. Is there today a large camp who offer a serious critiques of DPT, as a body of work, rather that just Rummels outdated thesis. I'm principally interested in work this century as I want to get a feel for the current state of of the discipline. --Salix alba (talk) 23:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

  • His excommunication of Mansfield and Snyder is based on their publishing in Foreign Affairs, which is "obviously intended" to derail the policy implications of DPT. We would call that a violation of WP:AGF.

Manfield and Snyder, seem to me part of the process of deep exploration of DPT. They are going from a first order approximation, Democracies and Non-democracies, to a richer description involving the transitions of states. Transitional states being more likely to engage in combat, does not render the study of democracies and peace irreverent. Owen seem to be have same message. --Salix alba (talk) 23:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Quite right. The young "unstable democracies" business has been used as a device to sweep the Franco-Roman war of 1849, and some other attacks involving nascent democracies (like the Philippine-American War) under the carpet. Manfield and Snyder took it seriously. Septentrionalis 23:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • He cherry-picks his data, taking only those parts of papers favorable to his view of DPT. This is (usually) academically acceptable, but it is advocacy.
  • In the case of Stuart Bremer, whom one would think offered a proof of "no wars" and triumphed in his recoding, his account amounts to misrepresentation. Bremer does note that the one "war between democracies" he found in Chan's data-set is spurious; but goes out of his way to deplore adjusting inconvenient data without re-examining all data.
  • Bremer's view s on the "no war" question are summarized in this paragraph, as added to the text:
    Bremer, in his 1993 MID paper, which strongly supports the democratic peace as a potent and independent force, finds that this is a "stochastic regularity", and holds that "uncertainty reduction (which is not the same thing as explanation)" is the best possible result in analyzing the ultimately indeterminate onset of war, which includes an irreducibly random factor; we should avoid determinism, "'iron laws'", and "'necessary and sufficient conditions'". He also deplores the "religious fervor" which "trumpet[s] to the world that if all states were democratic, war would cease to plague mankind"[1] Since a probability of exactly zero is unprovable, it is "fruitless to debate the question of whether democracies never or only very rarely fight one another".[2].

  1. ^ Bremer 1993, Pp.231-2, 246
  2. ^ Bremer 1992, p.330

Septentrionalis 19:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Septentrionalis continues to cite his old papers, ignoring the recent research. Again, see the papers and overviews here User:Ultramarine/sandbox4. Ultramarine 19:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
This is another of Ultramarine's straw men. I've read the papers Ray cites; which were mostly published before the millenium (these so-called "older" papers are from the 90's) Ray is not claiming original research; and his citations are misrepresentations. (Ultramarine, by contrast, has read a few tendentious books and a lot of abstracts.) Septentrionalis 20:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

If Ultramarine has specific papers he thinks I should read, let him list them here. Papers that he thinks agree with Ray, Rummel, and Weart would be particularly welcome. (I would have accepted Mansfield and Snyder; but Ray clearly does not.) Septentrionalis 21:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The papers are already listed at User:Ultramarine/sandbox4. Most of them can be read on the web, including the whole article, if someone doubts what I have written. Most of the articles listed are very recent. Compare to Pmanderson article text, much of which comes from sources such as an 1983 article by Doyle. Again, old pro-DPT studies are used as a straw man, while at the same time including critical studies disproven by later research.Ultramarine 21:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
And which of those papers does Ultramarine think I haven't read?Septentrionalis 22:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I am genuinely shocked by Ray's footnote 48:

Edward Mansfield and Jack Snyder, “Democratization and War,” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 74, No. 3 (May/June 1995), pp. 79–97. Appearing as it did in a policy-oriented journal, such an argument was obviously intended to discourage policies inspired by the democratic peace proposition that were designed to bring about such transitions.

I did think (call me naïf) that this sort of judgment of a theory by political consequences had become less fashionable after the fall of the Soviet Union. Septentrionalis 22:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Ultramarine's edit

I think it promising that Ultramarine should have begun to edit this page. It is unfortunate that he should have begun with the removal of Reitberger's paper, which approaches vandalism. Septentrionalis

Please respond section by section, so we can keep the discussions of a given change together. Septentrionalis 17:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Current events

Ultramarine removed:

Setting aside the question of whether the democratic peace applies to these cases at all, the predictions of democratic peace theory are still limited. No theorist denies that democracies have acted against one another by covert or non-military means. Even small military confrontations between democracies have happened; many theorists claim they are rarer than between other states. Kantian theorists regard mutual democracy as a necessary but not sufficient condition for peace; and even non-Kantians acknowledge the possibility of war in exceptional cases.
However that may be, 2006 has provided one refinement to democratic peace theory: there is little, if any, discussion in the literature of the possibility that someone should regard somebody else's election results as being in themselves an unfriendly act.


Ultramarine fails to understand the purpose of these two paragraphs (and I think of the section). This talk page has gotten several notes by readers as to what DPT says about current events, and (even when the answers could be dug out of the article) not finding them.

There is a widespread misinterpretation of DPT that it says more than any actual theorist holds: that democracies do not take any sort of hostile action (including covert action) against each other. This seems to have begun with careless op-ed columnists making drastic assertions based on it, and then spread by people debunking them, and thinking they are debunking DPT. There is a note, now archived, suggesting that the election of Ahmedinejad was a violation of DPT, presumably because he's bellicose. It isn't.

Even those readers who think Iran is a democracy should be told that, say, economic sanctions against it would not disprove DPT. We should not encourage demonstrable error.

Ultramarine further objects that the second paragraph is original research. I This is a very strict standard; on that basis, all statements about what the DPT does not hold, such as the one about covert action above, are improper. I've looked; I can't find one; either in the papers I have read or dozens and dozens of Google results - if Ultramarine knows of such a discussion (including a comment on the absence of discussion) I would prefer to include it. Septentrionalis

I moved, not deleted, relevant parts to other section. See also general response below.Ultramarine 19:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
And in so doing, you destroyed the putpose of the section and the paragraphs. If you wanted to delete it, you should have said so; its fragments are misplaced repetition. Septentrionalis 20:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Types of theories

I acknowledge that Ultramarine disagrees that these were the correct definitions of militant democracy and separate peace. It would have been more helpful to include (from his PoV) correct ones, especially since the terms are used elsewhere; I might have agreed that they were correct. Septentrionalis

I have provided exact quotes and references for months, which you have ignored, keeping the incorrect text. Ultramarine 19:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
One editor can only do so much. You were always free to correct it yourself, The result of your mutiple deletions is that there is now no definition (or mention) of Militant democracy at all. This suppression is not helpful. Septentrionalis

Internal violence -header removed

I note the paragraph has been moved and expanded. Septentrionalis

Kantian peace

A deletion of In a similar assertion, Islamic tradition holds that peace will prevail within the dar al-Islam, but war, including jihad, beyond that zone. This is the sort of thing that "every schoolboy knows", as Lord Macaulay put it. A citation-needed tag would have been appropriate. Septentrionalis 17:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant for the theory. Ultramarine 19:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. It is commonplace for proponents of a religion or political system to proclaim that universal adoption of their system would (will) bring peace. What distinguishes DPT is that there has been an attempt to put it on a scientific footing. This is the point of the DPT literature, and it is why we three can have spirited arguments about it -- the claims are (or should be) falsifiable. This distinction seems to me to be a natural thing to include somewhere in the introduction of the article. Robert A.West (Talk) 14:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms

  • That the theorist has not applied his criteria, for democracy or war or both, accurately to the historical record.Democracy has meant different things at different times, to establishing a unilinear or ahistorical understanding of democracy as the basis of any such theory will always be ontologically flawed.

What is the source for this; surely the original is more intelligible to the common reader?

This is a misunderstanding; I will find an example. This point is intended to cover simple claims of error, as some of Rossami's (whether Rossami was correct is another matter).

  • That the criteria are not reasonable. For example, critics may prefer that liberal democracy should exclude or include both Germany and the United Kingdom at the time of World War I, rather than count one as democratic and the other non-democratic, when they were quite similar societies. One should also recall that, before World War II, Adolf Hitler was democratically elected, and so we cannot rely on democracy in itself to result in peace with other democracies.

This should go somewhere in criticism (although the process of his actual selection as Chancellor is debatable). But not here; paragraphs should not change topic in the middle.

Setting aside the question of whether the democratic peace applies to these cases at all, the predictions of democratic peace theory are still limited. No theorist denies that democracies have acted against one another by covert or non-military means. Even small military confrontations between democracies have happened.

This is, as it was in its original place, a summary of the corresponding section; it is pointless here.

The addition to the fourth point should be a paragraph in the corresponding section.

I do not see why the new fifth point is distinct from the third, although it would serve as a useful example. Septentrionalis


Exceptions

The complete deletion of the analyis of Weart et.al., which is expressly detended by two editors in #1 above, is editing contraty to consesnsus. The deletion of sourced material in the rest of the section is contrary to policy. If Ultramarine denies them, he knows wherr the {{disputed}} tags are. Septentrionalis 20:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Replaced with the actual definitions used. The replaced text is a travesty of this. Ultramarine 21:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Where? The word militant appears only in the sentence "Two of the militant democracies listed above were dominant naval powers, and therefore had greater choice whether and where to fight." There is no definition, and the list (Israel, India, US UK) has been removed.Septentrionalis 22:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Errors

Please don't mix statements of different classes. Errors is intended for claims, like Rossami and some of Spiro's of mere misstatements of facts and blunders.

One of the major propenents of a new school of thought in Democratic peace theory is Princeton University Scholar Paul M. Anderson. His consolidation and amalgamation of existing theories into a unified conception of demographic negotiation provides a benchmark by which similar future restructurings can be judged.

Unsourced . Septentrionalis 17:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

External causes

Doyle argued in 1983 that the theory of a Kantian peace contradicts the theories of democratic peace which claim that mutual democracy, even mutual liberal democracy, will create a lasting peace without the other two Kantian articles. [1] Other Kantians have not repeated this claim.

The claim that A and B and C produce peace does contradict the claim that A alone produces peace.

The last sentence is another unsourced claim of a negative. Ultramarine should consider that standards he does not abide by himself may be dubious when applied to others. Septentrionalis 17:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

They state "democracy, economic interdependence, and international organizations have strong and statistically significant effects on reducing the probability that states will be involved in militarized disputes.". Doyle's claim that all three are necessary has not been repeated since 1983. In fact, several articles do not find any effect from trade, something Septentrionalis does not mention. Just one example of devoting extremely much of the article to Doyle's more than twenty years old article and views, since it is a convenient straw man for the pro-DPT position. Recent research is ignoredUltramarine 19:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
There are Kantians; there are non-Kantians. Adding non-Kantian papers would have been helpful and encouraged; un\ilateral delection of sourced material and the suggestion that the difference between the two positions is Doyle's invention is not.Septentrionalis 20:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Here is paper describing support for the Kantian Triad by the two most noted advocates of this, Russet and O'Neal: [7] Doyle's 1983 paper is not even mentioned by them. Or another not mentioning Doyle: [8]. Ultramarine 20:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
My apologies for being so long. Your first link doesn't work, I had to go look up another copy.
  • The first paper doesn't cite Doyle's paper; instead it cites his 1997 book. For the purpose of this hobby, I will read an online paper rather than the book which subsumes it. If Ultramarine can present evidence that they differ in this case, I will put the book on the (already extensive) list of reading.
  • The second paper is not a review of the field, but a discussion of a particular issue. It leaps directly from Kant to Oneal and Russett's own 2001 book, stopping only at the source for their statistical argument (which is, btw that trade does cause peace).
Does Ultramarine have any less flimsy arguments? Septentrionalis 21:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Obviously they do not consider the 1983 paper very important, or they would have mentioned it. They never state that all three are necessary. Again, one example of devoting extremely much of the article to Doyle's more than twenty years old article and views, since it is a convenient straw man for the pro-DPT position. Ultramarine 21:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Neither paper mentions Rummel or Weart either. If this is the standard to be employed, let's get rid of all three of them. Septentrionalis 23:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

More seriously, one of the things this article does need is updating the references to Doyle to the equivalent passages in his book. If Ultramarine wants to do this, great; for my part, there are more urgent tasks.Septentrionalis 23:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Progressive research program?

Certainly the article should be kept up-to-date; but I don't see why the newest papers should be listed as an indiscrimate collection of facts. The section head really applies only to Ray's peacockery. Septentrionalis 17:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

We are neither citing Magnus Reitberger's History of democratic peace theory, 2004 nor publishing it, we are presenting a link to a file, which anyone can find, as Scaife apparently did find it, by searching on DPT and the names of some prominent authors.

As for Matthew White's dicussion, calling an essay which presents arguments on both sides and comes to no conclusion either way a criticism is an act of blind partisanship and absolutely unacceptable. Septentrionalis 15:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Magnus Reitberger explicitly states that he does not want his draft used publicly and he has not provided a reference list. It is hard to think of something more public than Wikipedia. Please respect his wishes. Matthew White is a librarian who on his personal website has published his personal opinions without references. It presents a travesty of the pro-DPT arguments regarding specific wars, ignoring the literature. It is certainly belongs in the anti-DPT section. Ultramarine 15:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
You fail, as elsewhere, to understand what constitutes publication. Copying text into Wikipedia is publication; doing so without full acknowledgement and indication that this is a verbal quotation is plagarism. Linking is not. As for the accuracy of Matthew White's summaries, they seem reasonable to me. Ultramarine has complained that he has not updated the page to include Weart's conjectures; if this is the gravamen here, this only attests the quality of White's judgment. Septentrionalis 15:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I disagree for reasons already stated.Ultramarine 15:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Ultramarine appeats to overstate Dr. Reitberger's objections.
It's just a temporary publication on the web page of a different department, chances are that it will be removed in the very near future so I don't think a link will serve much purpose unfortunately.
It's an interesting idea though, maybe I could find a more permanent page and provide a link to that.
Regards,
Magnus

If, as I suspect, "very soon" will mean the rest of the academic year, we should certainly consider using while it lasts; three months is a long time on Wikipedia. Septentrionalis 15:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Final note

Again, please respond by sections (I have signed each to make this easier).Septentrionalis 17:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Archiving

I believe this moots many of Ultramarine's complaints above. We should archive, to make room for a discussion of the present text. Septentrionalis 17:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Certainly not. Archiving should not be done to hide arguments relevant for ongoing discussions.Ultramarine 19:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Arguments about text which is no longer in the article are irrelevant for ongoing discussion. Septentrionalis 18:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding recent edits

See the Neutrality and factual accuracy section above and my edit comments. See also User:Ultramarine/sandbox4 and User:Salix alba/History of conflict between democracies Ultramarine 18:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

It might be better if we can slow the pace down a bit. I'm having a hard time trying to keep up with the conservation, and read up on the litrature, let alone respond intelegently. More haste less speed etc. --Salix alba (talk) 19:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Harvard Referencing

I quite like the Wikipedia:Harvard referencing style (Harvard 2005) for referencing, as you can see who wrote what and when while reading the main text. We also seem to have the quite a few notes which should be references, which makes things confusing.

References

Thoughts. --Salix alba (talk) 20:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Good for quickly showing age and author. As you have shown, Wikipedia has some beta support for inline links on this, see Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles. Ultramarine 21:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I have no objection to the change; it is functionally the same as the short form used in the present notes. It would make it slightly harder to find where we cite a given author, which seems to challenging enough now. Septentrionalis 21:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
The {{Harvard reference}} template however, uses caps in its argument names. Be careful; and this may mean that the template will be replaced on those grounds, as other citation template have been. Septentrionalis 16:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
While I appear to be a minority here, I should voice my general dislike for using Harvard referencing in tertiary sources -- the form was developed for works of original research, which are read with close attention by other specialists. The format is distracting when reading about a topic where one is not a specialist, and where one is taking the source pretty much at its word. Thus, the use of Harvard referencing is optimizing Wikipedia for the regular editors, not for the general reader, which I believe to be a mistake.Robert A.West (Talk) 12:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Deletions of sourced material

These are generally contrary to policy, and frowned upon by arbcom. I propose to restore, without prejudice to any future discussions. Septentrionalis 21:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

What sourced material? Ultramarine 21:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I shall demonstrate. Septentrionalis 22:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
You mean this quote? "primâ facie democracies" This is a rather obscure choice of words that may not be understood easily by most readers. I did not remove the true scotsman problem in this edit. But I did in another. A newspaper opinion piece is not evidence for this. Ultramarine 23:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • This is no excuse for failing to represent Ray's actual view. We could paraphrase, I suppose; although someone who thinks the ill-formed neologism "democide" is standard English should not balk at prima facie (which has 8.45 million google hits in English alone). Septentrionalis 04:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Irresponsible nonsense. It is evidence for the existence of the criticism, which is all that is required here. Septentrionalis 04:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Regarding Robert A. West, he is real-world friend or relative of Septentrionalis. See their extensive collaborative editing of numerous Baron West and Earl De La Warr. They have extremely deep knowledge about this particular aristocratic family. The Arbcom included him in their decision. Ultramarine 23:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
What is this smear actually insinuating? The knowledge we "share" is access to Burke's Peerage and Cokayne's Complete Peerage respectively; actually bothering to read the discussion will show that we are comparing different knowledge bases.Septentrionalis 04:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
So, which of us is being smeared? And for what? Ultramarine, do you have a point? Robert A.West (Talk) 19:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The deletion of this extensive accurate and sourced passage[11] approaches vandalism:
She also finds that there were only independent, non-allied, Great Powers for a relatively short time before the Entente Cordiale of 1904; and that there were several crises and minor conflicts, between them, in several of which war was popular on both sides. While war was averted in these cases, there was only one war between Powers in that period, and the Spanish-American War was between a democracy and a borderline democracy. [2]
  • She did so find; and it is abusive to delete it because (you suppose) you understand the matter differently. The proper course would have been to amend it, or to add a tag. Septentrionalis 04:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Discussed in Neutrality and factual accuracy. Ultramarine 04:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
That still does not justify removal, as opposed to refashioning, of sourced material. Septentrionalis
  • Deletion [12] of sourced material:
J. David Singer’s Correlates of War Project<:ref> See the Correlates of War site. Click on Available Data Sets for particular databases.<:/ref> defines democracy as : (a) free elections with opposition parties, (b) a minimum suffrage (10%), and (c) a parliament either in control of the executive or at least enjoying parity with it. <:ref>Gleditsch, Nils P. 1992. Small, Melvin, and J. David Singer. 1976. <:/ref>

The first note (disabled) is a guide to COW; the second the sources for the assertion. Septentrionalis 17:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

No such definition of democracy was found at the COW project. If a direct link is given, I would be glad to accept it. Ultramarine 17:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
He argues that the whole number of belligerent pairs is inflated by counting relatively formal states of war: In the Austro-Prussian War of 1866, several lesser German principalities took part on both sides. The number of pairs here is vastly increased by counting all of these as at war with each other, even when their forces never met. Again, Belgium was formally at war with North Korea and China during the Korean War, although fewer Belgians were killed than by falling off ladders. [3]

That isn't the argument that's specious. If Russett answered this, please put both of them back together. Septentrionalis 18:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Stylistic problems

The present edit has extremely long sections. Headers should be after several paragraphs, not every few screens. It is more important to have a clear structure (especially in an article of this length), than what the structure is. Mostimportantly, it helps to prevent inadvertent repetition; there have already been apargraphs added on subjects which were already discussed, sourced from the same paper.

Most of the sections, where they have been altered, are now also indiscriminate collections of information, which makes this problem worse. This will be better when the present extreme verbosity is trimmed; but it will still need to be dealt with.

Nevertheless, I intend to deal with a paragraph or two at a time, not altering their order. (When I do find two paragraphs discussing the same paper and topic, I will move them together before merging.) Septentrionalis 16:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Section headers have sometimes been added largely to make the flow manageable. In such cases, if the content disagrees with the header, a rational editor will consider changing the header. Septentrionalis 16:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The news

These paragraphs, which I will subjoin, should either be restored or removed. I wrote them in the first place because we had been asked a couple times, "So what does democratic peace theory say about X?" for some potential crisis, and (while the answer seemed clear), it was pointless to have the reader dig through the whole article for the information.

In any case, this should either be restored (in some form) or deleted; its disjecta membra are useless.

In April 2006, there are several potential crises between arguable democracies. The Palestinian Authority and the Islamic Republic of Iran, for example, have held elections for some years, with universal suffrage, and these have removed incumbents from power; so they satisfy the formal or quantitative requirements of most theories of the democratic peace. Their norms of conduct, and treastment of civil liberties, however, suggest illiberal democracies rather than liberal ones; and the anomalous position of the Supreme Leader in Iran raises more questions.
Setting aside the question of whether the democratic peace applies to these cases at all, the predictions of democratic peace theory are still limited. No theorist denies that democracies have acted against one another by covert or non-military means. Even small military confrontations between democracies have happened; many theorists claim they are rarer than between other states. Kantian theorists regard mutual democracy as a necessary but not sufficient condition for peace; and even non-Kantians acknowledge the possibility of war in exceptional cases.
However that may be, 2006 has provided one opportunity to refine democratic peace theory: there is little, if any, discussion in the literature of the possibility that someone should regard somebody else's election results as being in themselves an unfriendly act

I changed the date, and added the idea of illiberal democracy, which will probably require a cource; Fareed Zakaria should do. I don't think that we can go any further without being PoV. Although I agree with the PoV in question, as do most Westerners, discussion of the matter would be off topic; that's what the links are for. Septentrionalis 16:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Who is arguing that Iran is liberal democracy? No evidence has been presented that current Kantians consider "mutual democracy as a necessary but not sufficient condition for peace". The absence of a discussion in the literature cannot provide a refinement of the theory!!! Ultramarine 17:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The Iranians, for one, who keep pointing out that they have a better human rights record than Saudi Arabia. I strongly disagree with this claim to liberal democracy, but this page is not the place to disprove it. We have enough to cover. Septentrionalis 17:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • rephrased. No one seems to have envisaged something like the Hamas election, but papers are presumably being written now to cover the omission. Septentrionalis 17:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Source please for statements regarding Iran. They certainly do not try to hide the view that religion and the priests should have the dominant role in the state. Ultramarine 02:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
One can be a liberal democracy and still have an Establishment. I repeat, I didn't say they were right; I'm simply trying to avoid random re-edits by Iranian nationalists. Septentrionalis 03:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

General structure

1. The current article gives undue weight to the critical studies, especially considering that this is minority POV among researchers. This needs to be corrected.

2. Arguments about a controversial topics can be discussed in two general ways. One is dividing the article into two main parts after an introduction. See for example Views of the Arab-Israeli conflict and User:Ultramarine/sandbox4. Another is dividing the article according to the contested points and including arguments for and against. See Nuclear Power. However, the current article is an unacceptable mismatch between the two. It has both discussions ordered by points and ordered according to supporters and opponents. I will start editing the article to a consistent version. Which alternative do you prefer? Ultramarine 17:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

None of them:

  • Ultramarine's recent edits have made this article unbalanced in favor of Rummel, Ray, and Weart; he proposes to increase this imbalance further. (Scaife thinks it was unbalanced in that direction before.)
  • The two main part plan is deprecated; it happens on Arab-Israeli conflict and Nuclear Power as concessions to irresolvable conflicts. Any judgment of "opponents" would be point of view, necessarily; and I would like to see Ultramarine's in detail.
    • In any case, there are not two sides to DPT, there are at least four; each with internal differences. I considered proposing a division into schools, but decided that this was impossible: Do Mansfield and Snyder belong to the same school as Ray, or do they not? Septentrionalis 18:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The criticisms are variations on the point that one particular theory of the democratic peace, or all of them, are mistaken or trivial; this is distinct from all other points.

Any execution of this plan will be editing against the consensus of Scaife in #35, Salix alba, who desires that change take place slowly, and myself. Septentrionalis 17:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I really don't see why the next order of business cannot be a slow consideration of the several paragraphs Ultramarine has added to the article, so Salix can read them. Septentrionalis 18:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

In the meantime, Ultramarine should present a pair of outlines; a list of his proposed heads in either arrangement. That may change my mind. Septentrionalis 18:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The current situation is unacceptable. Criticisms and counter-criticisms are spread all over the article with no logical connection. The first alternative would be to reorganize similar to User:Ultramarine/sandbox4. The minor differences among researchers supporting the DPT can be mentioned without problem in the pro-DPT section. As is already done in User:Ultramarine/sandbox4 regarding possible causes. The other solution would be to dismantle the "criticisms" and "counter-criticism" sections. Studies related to wars goes to the Wars section, those about MIDs go to the MIDs section, and so one. If section gets to large, then subsections are created. Ultramarine 19:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • The major problems with the present structure result from Ultramarine's irresponsible edits. Ultramarine placed five random paragraphs at the end of this edit[14], because they were all "novel". They had nothing else in common, and one of them was already discussed. Please stop.
  • The studies now in the criticism section do not fall under any other classification; if they had, they would probably be there. Septentrionalis 19:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Ultramarine has accurately summarized the policy on which the subheaders which he has deleted were placed. Septentrionalis 19:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Septentrionalis's edits

  • I found one paragraph from Mueller and Wolff, which was entirely redundant with the existing references to the same paper, as the diffs[15][16] will show.
    • Septentrionalis had deleted this information. Please explain. See: [17] Ultramarine 22:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • The first half of Ultramerine's paragraph, removed in the first diff, repeats the definitions of "dyadic" abd "monadic", and asserts that some "recent papers" have found a slight monadic effect. This is stated: There are also some very recent monadic papers, as cited in Müller and Wolff 2004, which regards monadic theories as "neither necessary nor convincing". I think the six papers they cite justifies upgrading the monadic contingent, from virtually Rummel alone, as Russett says, to "very few".
    • The remaining ideas are in:
    • Lesser conflics between democracies have been more violent; but rarer, less bloody, and less likely to spread.[57] Democracies also reach more negotiated settlements,[58] and military conflicts between any two democracies are rarely repeated.[59]
    • Ultramarine would have found both references, as I did, by seeing where Mueller and Wolff 2004 is cited in the notes.Septentrionalis 22:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The information is hidden in a footnote. This is not mentioned "are slightly less involved in wars in general, initiate wars and MIDs less frequently than nondemocracies, and tend more frequently to seek negotiated resolutions". You are incorrect regarding the study, it is the monadic explanations they do not find convincing, not the empirical evidence. Ultramarine 22:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • slightly less involved in wars in general is the monadic peace, already discussed; I have also brought that section out of its notes.
  • initiate wars and MIDs less frequently than nondemocracies The source of rarer above. If Ultramarine meant something else, it's ambiguous. I will see what MW said. Septentrionalis 03:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Mueller and Wolff are not clear, although presumably their source was; this is one problem with cut-and-paste: since the WPian hasn't understood his source, he can't explain it.
    • Given a democracy D and a non-democracy N, does this mean:
      1. If there is a war (or MID) between D and N, N will probably have started it; or
      2. Another non-democracy M is more likely to go to war (or MID) with N than D is?
      • I recall #1 from somewhere else, and will edit accordingly.
  • negotiate more should cover both parts of negotiation.
  • Rephrased. The "empirical evidence" is that for the existence of some democratic peace, monadic or dyadic. Septentrionalis 03:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • This paragraph:
    Studies find that the probability that disputes between states will be resolved peacefully is positively affected by the degree of democracy exhibited by the least democratic state involved in that dispute. Disputes between democratic states are significantly shorter than disputes involving at least one undemocratic state. Democratic states are more likely to be amenable to third party mediation when they are involved in disputes with each other. [61]

is cut and paste from

  • Dixon, for example, provides evidence that democratic states are more likely to be amenable to thirdparty mediation when they are involved in disputes with each other.71 He also shows that the probability that disputes between states will be resolved peacefully is positively affected by the degree of democracy exhibited by the least democratic state involved in that dispute,72 and that disputes between democratic states are also significantly shorter than disputes involving at least one undemocratic state.73

from Ray's 2003 paper.

Large scale revert

See [18]. Including deletion without explanation of important supporting study. And again including "Rossami 2003" despite not mentioned in the reference list. Ultramarine 16:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Spiro's argument, concluding what is unlikely in any given year is ever to happen, is specious, as Maoz pointed out. It is included chiefly because it is in the literature, and is plausible - the reader should be warned. If you think Russett's answer worth mentioning, it can certainly go in the note; but one refutation is surely enough.Septentrionalis 17:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Rossami's paper is in Rummel's bibliography. If it's not in the references, a collegial editor would go add it. Septentrionalis 17:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Your text presents Spiro without counter-arguments. This is especially serious as you yourself admit that his argument is specious. Regarding Rossami, if you want to state something, you should provide the references. Ultramarine 17:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Rosato, of course; a memory glitch. Thank you. Isn't explaining (sourced) why he was wrong a counterargument? Septentrionalis 17:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Please state where you explained that he was wrong. Ultramarine 17:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
End of the section, the text to the present footnote 89. (What demands dicussion is the rearrangement, not Russett's paper. I don't think it's necessary, however. If you put it back, do make the footnote Russett 2005 to make Salix's work easier.) Septentrionalis 17:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
"Spiro 1994; answer recast from Maoz 1997" Is this what you consider is explaining that Spiro is wrong? Ultramarine 17:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
No, that's the note. Read the text to which it links. And please stop moving things without discussion. Septentrionalis 17:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
You have been doing that for months. See my edit comments for explanation. Regarding Spiro, your text is obscure and it is not mentioned that it is a counter-argument. Ultramarine 17:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Both Salix and I have now protested. That's the difference. You've waited months to edit this article. Waiting a few hours (at most) to consult your fellow editors will not prevent the article from improving eventually. Septentrionalis 18:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It was you who started editing after Salix asked for a stop. Ultramarine 18:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Salix asked for a slow-down. I declared my intention to edit one or two paragraphs a day; if it hadn't been for your massive destruction, I would have stopped with subdividing Tpyes of theory and gone on to other things. Septentrionalis 20:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

As for Spiro, you are welcome to clarify; please consult the source and do not introduce inaccuracy. Septentrionalis 18:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Ultramarine's deletion of accurate, sourced material has introduced massive inaccuracy; but I will review Russett 2005 before I edit. Septentrionalis 20:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Large scale revert 2

[19]. Back to: [20] Very strange, studies about MIDs do not belong in a section about exceptions to no wars. Also the unexplained restoration of the claimed COW definition of democracy. No such definition was found at the COW project. Ultramarine 17:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

  • The paragraph is about exceptions, the only mention of MID's indentifies the paper, already referred to, in which these assertions are made.
    • Please stop moving paragraphs to random locations without discussing it first. Many of them are where they are for a reason, which you should at least ask for.
  • The sources for the COW definition are the papers cited at the end of the paragraph, i.e. after the assertion. More under #deletions of sourced material. Septentrionalis 17:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Again, no such definition of democracy was found at the COW project. Direct link please. I looked at the claimed papers but could not find anything. Quote please.Ultramarine 18:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
No one ever said it was on their website, although I'm surprised it isn't. Text is almost directly from Small and Singer 1976 (and ahould have quote marks; thank you). It will take me a few days to access a hardcopy; where is it oneline? Septentrionalis 18:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
That Small and Singer used a particular definiton of democracy in a study in 1976 is not evidence that the COW project uses this definiton. Please prove some sort of official document or link to their website showing this. Ultramarine 18:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
It's a historic present like most of the other verbs in the article. Throwing this one into the past would be misleading; and the paper specifically attributes the data-crunching to COW. No one made any claims about 2006; this complaint is fraudulent. Septentrionalis 20:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Sundry Comments 5/5/06

Washington election

I have corrected the section to reflect that the VP election was contested -- there is no evidence that any elector thought of (or would have dared) voting against Washington. None of the other candidates considered themselves candidates for President. This is the absolute consensus of all scholars on the subject. If my correction matches Ultramarine's meaning, then fine. If not, then Ultramarine was committing original research by drawing a novel conclusion from a primary source (the raw election returns).

As the quotation from the National Archives shows, there was no meaningful contest for the office of President in 1789 or 1792. or 1796 There was a contest for Vice President, which Ultramarine may be confusing with the presidential race. This is distinct from the situation in 1800, when there was a contest for President, and the loser became Veep, with near-disastrous results, hence the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Additional sources of this can be found in the sources for the article George Washington, including but not limited to [21], [22]. I also refer Ultramarine to Miracle in Philadelphia -- since this is a fourth citation, I feel justified in doing it from memory and will check if Ultramarine insists. (AGF, I have changed the title of this section. Ultramarine may have intended my correction, and if not he may believe his original research. Robert A.West (Talk) 20:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The only one doing original reserch is you, making numerous statements without sources, your two links do not support you. Nothing in the constitution or elsewhere stated that Washington had to be elected president. There were many candidates that could have been elected instead. That Washington was very popular does not change this. Even if he was so popular that none of the other candidates thought they had any chance of winning the presidency, there was still a choice of candidates. Ultramarine 04:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
In addition, this has no relevance for any possible exceptions, since his terms were peaceful. Ultramarine 05:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Please show me a secondary source that supports your position that anyone other than Washington held himself forth (or was held forth by others) as a candidate for President (as opposed to being a possible Vice President) in 1792. Someone else cited the National Archives, which states that Washington was to all intents and purposes unopposed, which is sufficient for the claim. You oppose to this your own novel analysis of a primary source. That is the definition of original research. Robert A.West (Talk) 19:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
The relevance is simple -- it is a useful (and reasonably common in US college lectures) illustration of the definition of democracy in question. The importance is that even now-undoubted democracies can be historically excluded during the presidency of their founding hero. That is just an artifact of the methodology, neither good nor bad. Robert A.West (Talk) 19:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
The National Archive states that there were several candidates. The idea that an election is not competitive if one candidate is very popular is very strange. Ultramarine 19:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Every elector, without exception, voted for Washington as often as he could (see the unamended Article II.) No one voted against him. What seems strange about the consensus opinion that this is "effectively unopposed" to you? Septentrionalis 23:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Beautiful illustration of the reason to use secondary sources (those that provide interpretation by experienced scholars) and not primary sources. By looking at the election returns (a primary source, even when reproduced in a secondary source), and not understanding U.S. Electoral College#History, Ultramarine draws a conclusion that seems obvious to him and would amuse any scholar of U.S. History. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Effect of Stricture on Wars and Dyad Counting

I think there are three things that this article should say about the competitive-election/transfer-of-power rule:

  1. This rule does not exclude only obvious dictators: there are democracies whose first election for executive was not meaningfully competitive. I think Washington is a great example, with a strong source in the National Archives quotation, but if Ultramarine has one he thinks is better, please say so.
  2. This rule must decrease the count of democratic dyads if done consistently. This will, in turn, affect the computations of significance. We should be able to find the effect documented and quantified in the literature somewhere.
  3. This rule must have excluded some wars not also be excluded under the three-year rule. How many? We should be able to document this. (Or if none are excluded, that fact is interesting, too.)

Does this sound reasonable? Can we agree that these are useful facts? I don't know the answers, but can we cooperate in looking for appropriate sources and finding the answers? Robert A.West (Talk) 18:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

  1. The National Archive states that there were several candidates. The idea that an election is not competitive if one candidate is very popular is very strange.
  2. If you can find a study, include it. Or publish your own peer-reviewed study, if you think this is something significant. I disagree, see 1.
  3. None that I can think of. Ultramarine 19:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...

  1. What part of "Unopposed" (the National Archives' word, not mine) do you not understand?
  2. Careful researchers consider the importance of their constraints. I propose no original research, merely to look for what is there. If the DPT community is so haphazard that they didn't do the math, shame on them, but, it is the sort of thing I would expect to find in the detailed statistical discussions of published papers.
  3. Same comment. You are under no obligation to help do this, but this isn't even a case of writing for the enemy: This is an opportunity to actually settle a (minor) dispute between us by objective criteria. Robert A.West (Talk) 21:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I have helped you. I cannot think of any such wars. Regarding Washington, see my prevous comments. Ultramarine 23:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Your recollection is useless, as is mine. We need sources. Moreover, you still have not explained how you read "Unopposed" to mean "had opponents." Robert A.West (Talk) 01:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Babst

Since the Babst article is not on line, and is the first academic article on the subject, would Ultramarine agree that the description is worth putting into a footnote? Robert A.West (Talk) 19:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Why not, in a footnote to the history section. It has no relevance for the current status of research. Ultramarine 04:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes it does; both as the history of the development of the subject, which I find interesting (if we are not to include things like this, none of the history after Babst is interesting either); and as first recognition that civil wars are a special case. Septentrionalis 02:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I have no strong preference either way. The points are of interest, and do illustrate the general methodology. On the other hand, I like tightly-written articles. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
The methodology includes everything from comparative case studies to multiple regression to neural networks. Babst 1964 study is not representative for how current research is done. Ultramarine 18:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
One can derive Black-Scholes using binary trees, or cellular automata, rather than analytic integration, and those methods add significantly to understanding. Nevertheless, I would still explain it to a knowledgable non-specialist using classical methods. Similarly, you have convinced me that we should mention Babst's method 'precisely because it is naive enough that it can easily be apprehended by non-specialists. I think that a sentence to the effect that his method is primitive compared to modern papers would be fair summary of the state of the art, and need not be specifically footnoted. Robert A.West (Talk) 21:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Truce offer

  • If Ultramarine will content himself with editing a paragraph or two a day, I will do the same. I do mean editing, and not removal.
  • The only material I have removed permanently is what I have found redundant. I have attempted always to move the red. material next to the others and explain here or in edit summary.
  • If Ultramarine will stop removing non-redundant and sourced material, I will withdraw the protection request from WP:RfPP Regards Septentrionalis 23:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
You have reverted back extreme amounts of details from very old studies, unrepresentative of research today. This as a straw man for supporting research and in order to again include criticisms disproved by later studes. My general point is that views of most researchers and their studies and arguments are not farily represented. Again, see User:Ultramarine/sandbox4. I think anyone who tries to read your text and compares it understands the need for a massive rewrite. I will accept your offer, if the version before your massive and largely unexplaned reverts today is restored. Ultramarine 23:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
That version is the result of Ultramarine cutting out sourced material which disagrees with his PoV; it is inaccurare, biased, and unacceptable. I observe that hardly any of Ultramarine's edits have actually involved adding recent material, as I would have been doing were it not for the present campaign of destruction.
I make the peace offer in part to have time to do so.
These are the papers that appear in Ray 2003; if they are good enough for him, they are good enough for us. Septentrionalis 23:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Plagiarism

The wording of WP:CV is:

What about fair use? Under fair use guideline, brief selections of copyrighted text may be used, but only with full attribution and only when the purpose is to comment on or criticize the text quoted.

Cutting and pasting abstracts, much less Ray's comments, without quotation marks, is not fair use. It is not lawful.

It is also not fair, in the simple ethical sense. Why should Ray, or Mueller, or Wayman, find his words floating around a Wikip[edia mirror somewhere, as though they had not written them? I omit the clear result of bad writing, as secondary. Septentrionalis 23:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Truce offer 2

You have reverted back extreme amounts of details from very old studies, unrepresentative of research today. This as a straw man for supporting research and in order to again include criticisms disproved by later studes. My general point is that views of most researchers and their studies and arguments are not farily represented. Again, see User:Ultramarine/sandbox4. I think anyone who tries to read your text and compares it understands the need for a massive rewrite. Here is another offer a truce, if you do not want to accept the truce above. Either we restore the version that the Arbcom found acceptable or we start the article over from scratch. Ultramarine 00:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Can Ultramarine be arguing in good faith?

  • mentioning a wide range of supporters of DPT is not setting up a straw man; it is setting up stronger and more coherent advocates that Rummel, Ray and Weart will ever be. It is their extreme view which is getting DPT mocked.
  • Ultramarine's edits for the last few days have been primarily deletion of "reasearchers and their srudies".See this diff.
  • ArbCom does not decide content issues. Any suggestion that they "approved" of Ultramarine's POV edit of November is hooey. Septentrionalis 00:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Most of the rewriting needed is due to Ultramarine dumping his plagiarisms at random points in the article. Septentrionalis 00:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Starting the article over from scratch and editing slowly with the help from an outside arbitor is my best truce offer. You have given no explanation for most of your massive reverts today. I had carefully explained my edits. If you do not accept this truce offer, then the conflict will start again. Ultramarine 00:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • As I understand the role of mediator, it is to keep discussion productive, not to decide winners and losers in detailed content disputes. Assuming an arbitor could be found, he or she could not remain impartial -- just as a jury ceases to be impartial partway through the trial. What I don't understand is why starting over would be any better. Robert A.West (Talk) 01:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
No version is assumed to be more correct this way and all problems regarding factual inaccuracy and so on disappears. Again, alternatively, start from the version at the end of the Arbcom case. This is my best good faith truce offer. Ultramarine 01:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • If Ultramarine means the first offer, he need merely put {{prod}} on the article.
  • The second offer looks like another demand for the edit of November 7 last, the fork that Ultramarine had been editing privately for months.
    • If that is what Ultramarine means, it is bad faith.
    • If that is a good-faith offer, he should rephrase it. Septentrionalis
Wouldn't it be simpler to blank the article and the talk page, rather than deleting? There are a lot of references and I would hate to lose the history. Robert A.West (Talk) 01:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Blanking sould certainly be better than deletion. Septentrionalis 02:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I propose to edit slowly, and will remove no substantive claim without explanation. I hope Ultramarine will do the same. If Ultramarine consents to mediation, which channel would he prefer? There are several. Septentrionalis 01:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, I cannot accept your largely unexplained massive reverts today and prior to that those from the version at the end of the arbcom decision. I have given 3 alternatives 1) restore to the prior version today 2) restore the version at the end of the arbcom decision 3) Start from scratch. I find Robert A West proposal regarding the last alternative good. Ultramarine 02:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
They were, quite simply, restoration of sourced material deleted without discussion and without consensus. If Ultramarine proceeded more slowly, and did discuss, he might be able to get agreement more often.Septentrionalis 02:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I've only done a couple dozen edits, and almost all of them have summaries. Septentrionalis 02:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Small and Singer

  • "10% of the adult population votes for a parliament which controls or has equal status with the executive." Small and Singer 1976, p.55, l.7-9. On the same page, they discues the question of democracies, like Czechoslovakia in 1919 or Israel in 1948 which have not yet held elections, and decide it would be reasonable, if a fine point, to exclude them. (Remember that they are also testing the monadic peace, so the nature of Hungary or Jordan does not necessarily matter.) Septentrionalis 02:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
    • One example of excessive details from unrepresentative studies. It is 30 years old! As one isolated example, maybe acceptable to include, but your version has numerous similar details from this and other ancient studies irrelevant today. Why include this and exclude the very recent studies here: User:Ultramarine/sandbox4 Ultramarine 02:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Ultramarine asked for this example.
      • This version includes most of those papers
      • It would include more if I could count on finding this text where I left it, and unvandalized.
        • Or if Ultramarine would bother to add them in an orderly fashion, so we could all read them.

Septentrionalis 02:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

You have not explained why these details from this and other irrelevant ancient studies are included. Why not instead include numerous details from more modern studies? Here is what an outside editor stated "Still too many words in the article, in some sense hiding the main questions in the field" I agree. Ultramarine 02:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I will not put in any article until I have read it. Ultramarine is free to add, but hasn't. Septentrionalis 03:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll make an offer.

  • Pick one article not now included in the article.
  • Summarize what it says of interest, in your own words, please.
    • If I have access to the article, I will read it, and
      • Put in what it seems to me to say that is novel and interesting.
      • If it is already in the article, but interesting, I will update the footnores.
      • If I find it boring, I will explain why.

This seems a no-lose proposition. Septentrionalis 03:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Ultramarine/sandbox4 have several articles not currently included, most of which can be read online. You have still not answered the question above regarding why these detail from ancient irrelevant studies should be included. Ultramarine 03:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
First, answer the question. Ultramarine 03:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

How is this 1976 study relevant? Ultramarine 03:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a study of DPT, it used a 10% standard, Since it's from 1976, its l;st and result have been widely quoted. Septentrionalis 03:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Its methodology and results are irrelevant for current research. Ultramarine 03:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Nonsense. Current research is no longer proving that mutual democracy precludes war, because that has been done (as well as it can be done). The papers that did it are still being cited; this is one of them.
Eliminating the paper would give a false impression of Rummel's priority and of the prevalence of the two-thirds standard, which only Weart accepts. Coincidence, doubtless. Septentrionalis 15:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Abadie

Since Ultramarine is not bold enough to pick one, I will:in alphabetical order. I believe that Abadie 2004 is already included as one of his last miscellanea; which means we need not wait for Ultramarine to compose. But I must read it before I edit. Septentrionalis 03:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

You seem to think that I need your permission. Your are wrong. Ultramarine 03:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
What have I said that could rationally be read as implying that Ultramarine requires permission? He is welcome to add things; this was an offer to take some of the trouble involved. Septentrionalis 14:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

New strucurer and arguments

Added arguments and studies from User:Ultramarine/sandbox4. Reorganized. Removed duplication. More clean-up needed. Ultramarine 04:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The current structure has a serious NPOV problem: by classifying all criticism as opposition to the theory, it misrepresents significantly what the sources say and what academic debate is.Robert A.West (Talk) 14:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Example of what is criticism but not opposition? Ultramarine 14:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
For example, Bremer does not oppose a democratic peace, but supports it. Ray quotes his words to that effect. Nevertheless, he has trenchantly criticized other supporters of the democratic peace, in the same paper. Septentrionalis 14:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
The section with supporting arguments certainly states that there are different views, for example regarding causes and the Kantian Triad. Ultramarine 15:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
If memory serves, Bremer critiqued methodology as well. It is this that you seem to confuse with opposition to the conclusion. A researcher may believe that a peace exists, but that the existing studies are not (yet) valid proof. Or he may believe that the studies are flawed in detail. Thus, Spiro's pointing out that there is a difficulty about counting long or complex wars does not argue for the nonexistence of a democratic peace -- it does raise detailed questions about whether the studies up to that point had proven the case, and points out some methodological problems that are still important and still affect how the research is done. Robert A.West (Talk) 17:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
This would be criticism against the theory, since it argues that evidence is flawed and should go into the critical section. Note also that Spiro 1994 study is disproven by later research. Ultramarine 17:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
OK. We have two points of genuine disagreement on how to do an article of this type that are independent of the particular theory. That is good -- if we can identify root points where we differ, we may be able to resolve them.
  • I believe that your prose and organization confound three statements:
    1. Article X contains flaw Y. This weakens, but does not necessarily invalidate the article.
    2. Article X contains flaw Y. This invalidates the article.
    3. The apparent democratic peace does not exist, and such peace as exists is adequately explained by other factors.
  • A critical study that raises deep methodological issues is disproved by subsequent studies that attempt to correct for the methodological issues. That is just the wrong way to look at it. The issues remain. Any study that ignores them does so at its peril. There may be multiple ways of addressing the issues, and for some problems (like the counting problem) none of them is likely to be perfect. So, the best thing to do is present the problems, note that subsequent studies try to correct for them, and point out specifics if and where they matter. Robert A.West (Talk) 17:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Spiro's study had one major flaw: the argument from less likely than not in each year to always unlikely. Maoz and Russett both jumped on it, as the present text explains. His arguments that the dyadic method tends to count two many dyads in general are not addressed in those papers. Please read them. Septentrionalis 17:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Too many citations

There are more than 200 references for this article. The "Arguments for the democratic peace" section is made up entirely of bullet points listing studies which support the heading of the section.

This is not a bibliography or a list; this is an encyclopedia article. Those sections can easily be reduced into paragraphs and sentences first explaining the point, and why studies think this. Most of the citations can be left out. It clutters up the article - you only need one or two citations to source a point. In short, there is way too much detail. -- infinity0 15:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. But is the supporting references are recent and follow the Harvard style used in scholarly articles. The others are much older. Especially those from the 70s and 80s should be removed. Ultramarine 15:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
This is Ultramarine making another attempt to impose his PoV: that this article should cite only Ray, Rummel, Weart, and those portions of other articles that agree with them. Ultramarine has removed quotes from 1998 and 2003.

Ultramarine, that comment is very POV. It implies that all the researchers are neutral, which I doubt is the case.

The "arguments for DPT" section needs to be cleared up. Atm it's no less than a spam of studies. There is no secondary writing but only a list of studies supporting DPT. This is inproper content as well as undue weight since when people see a list they infer completeness - ie with opposing viewpoints. It is better to write out the arguments using your own words and using sources to support them, rather than to list out the sources and what they say. -- infinity0 16:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

This is the style used in academic writing. It is mostly secondary writing from what the studies say. Opposing arguments can be found in the appropriate section. Ultramarine 16:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
There is a difference between Harvard style, and the Harvard template. The latter produces the same results as {{book reference}}, and is likely to be merged into it eventually. Septentrionalis 16:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, however, not a research journal. I think it would be better to add information about the studies and the arguments in favour of DPT to this (Pmanderson's) version. The current version is very difficult to work with. I had a looked at it, and it's impossible to see how to rewrite the section I mentioned into flowing prose. -- infinity0 16:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to add Ultramarine's collection into that version. Septentrionalis 16:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia accept Harvard style as an acceptable reference style. In principle it is no different from those of other reference styles, except giving more inline information.Ultramarine 16:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
(edit conf) I don't have a problem with the citation style, but the content style. The section consists entirely of bullet points. It seems like the whole of democratic peace theory is on it. That sort of detail shouldn't be on an encyclopedia. For example, there are two bullet points about MIDs, but MIDs aren't even real wars. -- infinity0 16:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I will rewrite it and remove the bullet points. Ultramarine 16:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Um, that is missing the point by a mile and a half... The section is still nothing more than a list of studies. -- infinity0 16:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, the field consists of studies. If you can rewrite the text into something better, please do. The citations itself should not be removed. Ultramarine 16:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Please stop disrupting this article. Septentrionalis 16:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

As the article explains (at least, it did so yesterday) studies of MID's are important: there haven't been enough wars between democracies for statistical adequacy. I agree that we don't need very much detail on them; I believe there is another article specifically on Militarized interstate disputes. Septentrionalis 16:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

As much research has been done on MIDs in regard to the theory, probably much more than on wars recently, it should be included. Ultramarine 16:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Bullets removed. Ultramarine 16:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Ultramarine has a deeper misunderstanding. There has been one democratic peace, which many authors support. There are at least as many theories of the democratic peace as there have been major authors. I will see what I can do about this mess later. Septentrionalis 16:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, it is mentioned that there are different views, for example regarding possible causes. Ultramarine 16:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, have a look at this one: [23] - I copied much of what Ultramarine added, and left out stuff I thought was already there. Eg: # 14.4 More participatory democracies have less systematic violence was already mentioned in "lesser conflicts". The main sections are now Methods, Arguments and Evidence, Causes, and Criticisms. I may have accidentally omitted some stuff, but ignore that since you can re-insert it later - please just comment on the general structure of things. -- infinity0

The section on Lesser conflicts is part of Methods; it's a new method. Otherwise perfectly reasonable as a basis for work. Septentrionalis 17:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Much supporting information was removed. The main problem however, is that Pmanderson version does not fairly present the current status. He cites extensivly from obsolete ancient studies and includes much details from critical studies disproven by later research. Ultramarine 17:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I added much of what you added back in. Just look for the Harvard cites in that version. -- infinity0 17:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

One section seems to have gotten lost among the footnotes. It should be retrieved. Septentrionalis 17:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

There is now a line in the article saying "gelpi/democratic.winners.pdf]. </ref>". I'm trying to find its partner. -- infinity0 17:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. These two were the same problem. Septentrionalis 17:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Arguments for the democratic peace

Much of this information has been removed, in favor of obsolete studies, either used as a straw man for the supporting arguments, or critical studies disproven by later reserach.

This will serve as a useful checklist. Actually reading the article will show, however, that almost all of this is in the present text, some of it twice; often in Ultramarine's post-bullet point wording. Septentrionalis 17:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

General points

  • The theory is now widely studied with more than a hundred researchers having published many more articles. [4]
  • Many peer-reviewed studies mention in their introduction that most researchers accept the theory as an empirical fact, including many of those mentioned below.[5]
  • Some fear that the the theory may used as an argument for wars against nondemocracies in order to spread democracy. However, studies (Weart 1998), (Russett 2005) show that many attempts to spread democracy by force have eventually failed. Greater success in democratization has been achieved through diplomacy and support of internal democratic movements. Thus, the research may actually be an argument against such wars.

Evidence for less systematic violence between democracies

  • Militarized interstate disputes (MIDs) are lesser conflicts causing less than 1000 or even no battle deaths but including for example a military display of force. They also include the disputes later becoming wars. There have been more than 2000 MIDs since 1816, allowing more detailed statistical analyses than when looking at wars. A review (Ray 2003) lists many studies that have reported that democratic pairs of states are less likely to be involved in MIDs than other pairs of states.
  • Another study (Hensel, Goertz & Diehl 2000) finds that after both states have become democratic, there is a decreasing probability for MIDs within a year and this decreases almost to zero within five years.
  • When examining the MIDs in more detail, one study (Wayman 2002) finds that the inter-liberal disputes are less likely to involve third parties, the target of the hostility is less likely reciprocate, if the target reciprocates the response is usually proportional to the provocation, and the disputes are less likely to cause any loss of life. The most common action was "Seizure of Material or Personnel"
  • Many earlier papers found that democracies in general are as warlike as nondemocracies and only peaceful against other democracies. However, one paper (Müller & Wolff 2004) notes that several recent papers have found democracies are slightly less involved in wars in general, initiate wars and MIDs less frequently than nondemocracies, and tend more frequently to seek negotiated resolutions. The tendency for this varies greatly between different democracies.
  • A review (Ray 2003) lists several studies showing the probability that disputes between states will be resolved peacefully is positively affected by the degree of democracy exhibited by the least democratic state involved in that dispute. Disputes between democratic states are significantly shorter than disputes involving at least one undemocratic state. Democratic states are more likely to be amenable to third party mediation when they are involved in disputes with each other.
  • In international crises that include the threat or use of military force, one study finds that if the parties are democracies, then relative military strength has no effect on who wins. This is different from when nondemocracies are involved. These results are the same also if the conflicting parties are formal allies (Gelpi & Griesdorf 2001). Similarly, a study of the behavior of states that joined ongoing militarized disputes reports that power is important only to autocracies: democracies do not seem to base their alignment on the power of the sides in the dispute (Werner & Lemke 1997).
  • A review (Ray 2003) lists several studies finding that democracies are more likely to ally with one another than with other states. Such alliances are likely to last longer than alliances involving nondemocracies.

Evidence for less systematic violence in democracies

  • One study finds that the most democratic and the most authoritarian states have few civil wars, and intermediate regimes the most. The probability for a civil war is also increased by political change, regardless whether toward greater democracy or greater autocracy. Intermediate regimes continue to be the most prone to civil war, regardless of the time since the political change. In the long run, since intermediate regimes are less stable than autocracies, which in turn are less stable than democracies, durable democracy is the most probable end-point of the process of democratization (Hegre et al. 2001).
  • One study finds that the most democratic nations have the least terrorism (Abadie 2004).
  • One study (Davenport & Armstrong II 2004) lists several other studies and states: "Repeatedly, democratic political systems have been found to decrease political bans, censorship, torture, disappearances and mass killing, doing so in a linear fashion across diverse measurements, methodologies, time periods, countries, and contexts." It concludes: "Across measures and methodological techniques, it is found that below a certain level, democracy has no impact on human rights violations, but above this level democracy infuences repression in a negative and roughly linear manner."
  • One study (Davenport & Armstrong II 2003) states that thirty years worth of statistical research has revealed that only two variables decrease human rights violations: political democracy and economic development. Of this democracy is more important and more easily created.

Evidence for that more participatory democracies have less systematic violence

  • Another study finds that proportional representation system and decentralized territorial autonomy is positively associated with lasting peace in postconflict societies (Binningsbø 2005).

Evidence for that it is democracy that causes the peace between democracies

  • Correlation is not causation. However, many studies, as those discussed in (Ray 1998), (Ray 2005), (Oneal & Russett 2004), supporting the theory have controlled for many possible alternative causes of the peace. Examples of factors controlled for are geographic distance, geographic contiguity, power status, alliance ties, militarization, economic wealth and economic growth, power ratio, and political stability.
  • Several studies and reviews argue that the Realist criticisms, like that the external threat during the Cold War explain the peace, are flawed. This include the critical studies made by Layne, Spiro, Gowa, and Rosato. The critical realist studies are argued to have methodological problems and be contradicted by others which are better made. Also, an intuitive argument against the Cold War explanation is that such external threat did not prevent wars between Communist states (Gelpi & Griesdorf 2001), (Ray 2003), (Kinsella 2005), (Slantchev, Alexandrova & Gartzke 2005).
  • One study (Weart 1998) finds and mentions several other studies finding that democracies conduct diplomacy differently and more conciliatory compared do nondemocracies.
  • The same study argues that the peacefulness appears and disappears rapidly when democracy appears and disappears. This makes it unlikely that variables that change more slowly are the explanation.

Possible ways in which democracy can cause peace between democracies

  • The democratic culture may make the leaders accustomed to negotiation and compromise (Weart 1998)
  • A belief in human rights may make people in democracies reluctant to go to war, especially against other democracies. The decline in colonialism, also by democracies, may be related to a change in perception of non-European peoples and their rights (Ravlo & Gleditsch 2000).
  • Studies show that democratic states are more likely than autocratic states to win the wars. One explanation is that democracies, for internal political and economic reasons, have greater resources. This might mean that democratic leaders are unlikely to select other democratic states as targets because they perceive them to be particularly formidable opponents. One study finds that interstate wars have important impacts on the fate of political regimes, and that the probability that a political leader will fall from power in the wake of a lost war is particularly high in democratic states (Ray 1998).
  • As decribed in (Gelpi & Griesdorf 2001), several studies have argued that liberal leaders face institutionalized constraints that impede their capacity to mobilize the state’s resources for war without the consent of a broad spectrum of interests. Moreover, these constraints are readily apparent to other states and cannot be manipulated by leaders. Thus, democracies send credible signals to other states of an aversion to using force. These signals allow democratic states to avoid conflicts with one another, but they may attract aggression from nondemocratic states. Democracies may be pressured to respond to such aggression—perhaps even preemptively—through the use of force.
  • Also as described in (Gelpi & Griesdorf 2001), studies have argued that when democratic leaders do choose to escalate international crises, their threats are taken as highly credible, since there must be a relatively large public opinion for these actions. In disputes between liberal states, the credibility of their bargaining signals allows them to negotiate a peaceful settlement before mobilization.
  • A game-theoretic explanation similar to the last two above is that the participation of the public and the open debate send clear and reliable information regarding the intentions of democracies to other states. In contrast, it is difficult to know the intentions of nondemocratic leaders, what effect concessions will have, and if promises will be kept. Thus there will be mistrust and unwillingness to make concessions if at least one of the parties in a dispute is a nondemocracy (Levy & Razin 2004).
  • Several studies find that democracy, more trade causing greater economic interdependence, and membership in more intergovernmental organizations reduce the risk of war. This is often called the Kantian peace theory since it is similar to Kant's earlier theory about a perpetual peace. These variables positively affect each other but each has an independent pacifying effect. For example, democracy may empower economic interest groups that may be opposed to disruptive wars (Oneal & Russett 2001), (Lagazio & Russett 2004). However, some recent studies find no effect from trade but only from democracy (Goenner 2004), (Kim & Rousseau 2005).

Progressive research program

  • Imre Lakatos suggested that what he called a "progressive research program" is better than a "degenerative" when it is can explain the same phenomena as the "degenerative" one, but is also marked by growth and the discovery of important novel facts. In contrast, the supporters of the "degenerative" program do not make important new empirical discoveries, but instead mostly adjustments to their theory in order to defend it from competitors. On study argues that the democratic peace theory is now the "progressive" program in international relations. The theory can explain the empirical phenomena previously explained by the earlier dominant research program, realism in international relations. In addition, the initial discovery, that democracies do not make war on one another, has created a rapidly growing literature and a constantly growing list of novel empirical regularities, as noted above (Ray 2003), (Chernoff 2004), (Harrison 2005).

Harvard

Abadie, Alberto (2004), "Poverty, Political Freedom, and the Roots of Terrorism" (PDF), NBER Working Paper Series

Binningsbø, Helga Malmin (2005), "Consociational Democracy and Postconflict Peace. Will Power-Sharing Institutions Increase the Probability of Lasting Peace after Civil War?" (PDF), Paper prepared for presentation at the 13th Annual National Political Science Conference, Hurdalsjøen, Norway, 5–7 January, 2005

Chernoff, Fred (2004), "The Study of Democratic Peace and Progress in International Relations", International Studies Review, 6 (1): 1079–1760

Davenport, Christian; Armstrong II, David A (2003), "Peace by Piece: Towards an Understanding of Exactly How Democracy Reduces State Repression." (PDF), Presented at the Midwest Political Science Association, 61st Annual Meeting, Chicago. April 3-6, 2003

Davenport, Christian; Armstrong II, David A (2004), "Democracy and the Violation of Human Rights: A Statistical Analysis from 1976 to 1996" (PDF), American Journal of Political Science, 48 (3)

Gelpi, Christopher F.; Griesdorf, Michael (2001), "Winners or Losers? Democracies in International Crisis, 1918–94" (PDF), American Political Science Review, 95 (3): 633–647

Goenner, Cullen F (2004), "Uncertainty of the Liberal Peace" (PDF), Journal of Peace (5): 589-605 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |Research Volume= ignored (help)

Harff, Barabara (2003), "No Lessons Learned from the Holocaust? Assessing Risks of Genocide and Political Mass Murder since 1955" (PDF), American Political Science Review, 97 (1): 57-73

Harrison, Ewan (2005), "The Democratic Peace Research Program and System Level Analysis" (PDF), Paper presented at the British International Studies Association Annual Conference

Hensel, Paul R.; Goertz, Gary; Diehl, Paul F. (2000), "The Democratice Peace and Rivalries" (PDF), Journal of Politics, 64: 1173–88

Ellington, Tanja; Gates, Scott; Gleditsch, Nils Petter (2001), "Towards A Democratic Civil Peace? Opportunity, Grievance, and Civil War 1816-1992", American Political Science Review, 95 (1): 33–48 {{citation}}: Missing |author1= (help); Unknown parameter |Given1= ignored (|given1= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |Surname1= ignored (|surname1= suggested) (help)

Kim, Hyung Min; Rousseau, David L. (2005), "The Classical Liberals Were Half Right (or Half Wrong): New Tests of the 'Liberal Peace', 1960–88" (PDF), Journal of Peace Research, 42 (5): 523-543

Kinsella, David (2005), "No Rest for the Demoratic Peace", American Political Science Review, 99: 453–457

Lagazio, Monica; Russett, Bruce (2004), "A Neural Network Analysis of Militarized Disputes, 1885-1992: Temporal Stability and Causal Complexity", in Diehl, Paul (ed.), The Scourge of War: New Extensions on an Old Problem (PDF)

Leblang, David; Chan, Steve (2003), "Explaining Wars Fought by Established Democracies: Do Institutional Constraints Matter?", Political Research Quarterly, 56: 385–400

Levy, Gilat; Razin, Ronny (2004), "It Takes Two: An Explanation for the Democratic Peace" (PDF), Journal of the European Economic Association, 2 (1): 1–29

Mousseau, Michael; Shi, Yuhand (1999), "A Test for Reverse Causality in the Democratic Peace Relationship" (PDF), Journal for Peace Research, 36 (6): 639–663

Müller, Harald; Wolff, Jonas (2004), "Dyadic Democratic Peace Strikes Back" (PDF), Paper prepared for presentation at the 5th Pan-European International Relations Conference The Hague, September 9-11, 2004

Oneal, John R.; Russett, Bruce (2001), "Causes of Peace: Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations, 1885-1992" (PDF), Paper presented at the 2001 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francsco, CA

Oneal, John R.; Russett, Bruce (2004), "Rule of Three, Let it Be? When More Really Is Better" (PDF), Revised version of paper presented at the annual meeting of the Peace Science Society

Ravlo, Hilde; Gleditsch, Nils Peter (2000), "Colonial War and Globalization of Democratic Values" (PDF), Paper Presented to the Workshop on ‘Globalization and Armed Conflict’ at the Joint Session of Workshops, European Consortium for Political Research Copenhagen, 15–19 April 2000

Ray, James Lee (1998), "Does Democracy Cause Peace?", Annual Review of Political Science, 1: 27–46

Ray, James Lee (2003), "A Lakatosian View of the Democratic Peace Research Program", in Colin and Miriam Fendius Elman (ed.), Progress in International Relations Theory (PDF), MIT Press

Ray, James Lee (2005), "Constructing Multivariate Analyses (of Dangerous Dyads)" (PDF), Conflict Management and Peace Science, 22: 277–292

Reuveny, Rafael; Li, Quan (2003), "The Joint Democracy–Dyadic Conflict Nexus: A Simultaneous Equations Model" (PDF), Journal of Politics, 47: 325–346

Reiter, D. (2001), "Does Peace Nature Democracy?", Journal of Politics, 63 (3): 935–948

Rummel, Rudolph J. (1997), Power Kills: Democracy as a Method of Nonviolence, Transaction Publishers

Russett, Bruce (2005), "Bushwhacking the Democratic Peace", International Studies Perspectives, 6 (4): 395

Slantchev, Branislav L.; Alexandrova, Anna; Gartzke, Erik (2005), "Probabilistic Causality, Selection Bias, and the Logic of the Democratic Peace" (PDF), American Political Science Review, 99 (3): 459–462

Wayman, Frank (2002), "Incidence of Militarized Disputes Between Liberal States, 1816-1992", Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, New Orleans, La., Mar. 23-27, 2002

Weart, Spencer R. (1998), Never at War, Yale University Press

Werner, Suzanne; Lemke, Douglas (1997), "Opposites Do Not Attract: The Impact of Domestic Institutions, Power, and Prior Commitments on Alignment Choicesl", International Studies Quarterly, 41 (3): 529–546

Notes

  1. ^ Doyle 1983
  2. ^ See Jeanne Gowa, Bullets and Ballots, p.61 ff. For the greater tendency of the Powers to be involved in war, see Bremer 1992; the converse of this is that small-poweer status is an external cause of peace. Which side of the borderline Spain falls on depends on which edition of Ted Gurr's list you read. She finds similar, although more significant, results if lesser conflicts are included.
  3. ^ Spiro 1994; for other criticisms, see Rosato 2003
  4. ^ Rummel, R.J. "Democratic Peace Bibliography Version 3.0". Freedom, Democracy, Peace; Power, Democide, and War. Retrieved October 2, 2005.
  5. ^ For example: [1][2][3][4], [5].

8 April

  • Ultramarine's latest removal of sourced material [24]
    • presents Mueller and Wolff as agreeing with a stand they in fact strongly disagree with.
    • Argues (see edit summaries) that "blue moon" is a neologism. Ultramarine, please use a dictionsry when editing a language in which you are not fluent. Septentrionalis 23:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Septentrionalis, why have you again included much detail from Spiro (1994), when you yourself admit it is spurious? Why are the responding studies and arguments not mentioned? Ultramarine 23:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Spiro made two arguments.
    • One of them is that wars between democracies have been unlikely in each year individually, therefore they are unlikely to have occured at all.
      • This is unsound, but may appear plausible.
      • Maoz and Russett each demolished it, as it deserved. They are mentioned.
      • The present text mentions it chiefly to warn the reader away from it. It can still be found in popular discussions of the DPT.
    • The other is an argument that dyad-counting arguments tend to overcount the whole number of war dyads, and therefore overestimate the expected number of interdemocratic wars.
      • Maoz does not answer this; Russett devotes a couple sentences to it; this is also mentioned.
      • I do not think it is spurious, and it is probably valid, as far as it goes; but it would not by itself prove the democratic peace accidental. Septentrionalis 17:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Septentrionalis, why have you again removed the link to Never at War from the exceptions section? This is an article that actually discusses exceptions. Ultramarine 23:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Weart should be mentioned (as he is) without undue weight. Septentrionalis 17:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Read NPOV. Do not hide important arguments. Add your own arguments from the literature, if there is any. Let the reader decidee for themselves. Ultramarine 14:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Septentrionalis, why is this argument from a newspaper opinon piece included? "This rhetorical approach has led to the democratic peace being dismissed as subject to the no true Scotsman problem." Ultramarine 23:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Because it's an argument, from their military affairs columnist. The notion that discussion of the democratic peace is, or should be, limited to academic literature is nonsense. This is not quantum electrodynamics, or even rocket science. Septentrionalis 17:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
False. This is an academic field with hundreds of academic papers.Ultramarine 14:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

No, putting in four emphaatic paragraphs on Weart, including repeating the text Scaife removed as editorializing, just will not do. Those arguments are already in the section, insofar as we can afford space for them. Septentrionalis 17:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Add your own arguments from the literature. Obviously and arguments about the DPT should discuss why some often mentioned conflicts may or may not be wars. Ultramarine 14:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

9 April

Ultramarine has made the following edits (combined diff)

  • The suppression of Mueller and Wolff's clear and eloquent opposition to any "monadic turn" is dishonest. Restoring.
    • Their findings on conflicts between democracies in general do not belong in the explanation of monadic/dyadic, and are included elsewhere.
  • Ascription of the list of liberal democratic qualities to Rummel is peacockery, unless you can cite a democratic peace theorist who would disagree with it. Statements which are consensus should be so presented.
    • Suppression of Rummel's requirement of secret ballot is also dishonest.
  • Who claims the Revolution or the Quasi-War as exceptions? Without that they are off-topic.
    • More importantly, Weart's discussion of them shows chiefly that he doesn't know the history of his own country either. The thirteen colonies had a high property requirement (See Morison and Commager: Growth of the American Republic"' chapter on 1774-6, page numbers follow). This was changed in Pennsylvania during the Revolution, but reversed well before 1798. The United States was nowhere near the two-thirds line Weart uses either in 1775 or 1798. (Also, anyone who wishes to include the Federalists as a "democracy" and rule out the Second Directory because it suppressed opposition by force should read about the Alien and Sedition Acts.)
  • And, given that we don't want to misinform the reader, these three paragraphs on Weart's fantasies are as bad as four. Everybody else gets a couple of sentences, he should get no more. Septentrionalis 14:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Weart's and similar arguments from other researchers regarding specific wars are a very important part of the debate. Add your own counter-arguments, if there is any in the lterature. Let the readers decide for themselves. I would accept removing the examples, but there should certainly be a link in the section about possible exceptions to the article Never at War.
    • Weart's arguments are only notable in his own article, if there. His nonsense does not belong here. certainly not at greater length than any other researchers' results. Septentrionalis 15:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

But I will insert a link. Septentrionalis 15:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Please stop misrepresenting the argument over "no wars". There are two distinct questions:

  1. Have there in fact been no interdemocratic wars?
  2. Is the democratic peace a mechanical thing, which permits no wars?

These are distinct questions. It is possible to answer Yes on (1) and No on (2); and those who do, like Wayman and Bremer, are the most vehement in saying that the three authors who answer Yes on (2) are claiming the unprovable. Septentrionalis 15:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Septentrionalis, stop deleting sourced material. There are many researchers beside those 3 you point out. Read the references. Ultramarine 16:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Please name one who asserts that the interdemocratic peace is necessary other than Ray, Rummel, and Weart. Septentrionalis 16:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Nazrin Abdoli
  • Stuart Bremer
  • Frank W. Wayman
  • John R. Oneal
  • Bruce Bueno de Mesquita
  • Randolph Siverson
  • James D. Morrow
  • Alastair Smith
  • Harald Müller
  • Jonas Wolff

are some examples of recent researchers stating no wars. Ultramarine 16:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

  • You really should learn to spell Abdolali's name right; and he was a graduate student at the time.
  • Several of these are misquotations; of people who in fact say "very rare" or some such. See #33.
  • But, and most important, that's not what I asked. The section you keep mutilating is not about whether there were no wars between democracies, it's about whether there can be any, which is a different question. Whether there were none is discussed further down. Septentrionalis 16:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Septentrionalis, you state "Three theorists argue that the interdemocratic peace is a necessary and mechanical connection; an "absolute (or point) assertion", in the words of one of them.[1]." No evidence has been given that any except Rummel believes this. Ray explicitly states in his 2003 paper that there may be wars in the future between demcracies, even if he found none previously.Ultramarine 16:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

You have argued the other way about Ray in the past. When you make up your mind, we can alter three to one or two as you decide. Septentrionalis 17:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I have never stated "necessary and mechanical connetion", corrected to one researcher. Ultramarine 17:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Large scale unexplained revert

Septentrionalis, why did you revert much sourced information without explanation. See this: [25] Ultramarine 16:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Please read the diff. (It may take a while to load, as it did for me). The only information lost from the section Democracy is Doyle's 30% standard [and the footnote about Seneca Falls 17:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)], which I waive. If you insist, it can go back. It is now two sentences instead of several peacocky paragraphs.
Ray's claim of statistical adequacy was inadvertant loss, essentially an edit conflict. I will restore it, although I don't think it belongs in the general description of criticisms. Septentrionalis 16:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
This false, as anyone can see in the diff. Many other things were deleted, for example in the defintions section. Ultramarine 17:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Please list the assertions (not the wording) removed. This section was exceedingly verbose. Septentrionalis 17:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Your text: "Democracies have been defined differently by different researchers; this accounts for some of the variations in their findings. In general, they require a relatively wide franchise, at least in historical terms; competitive elections; civil rights; and a constitutional government.

There is general agreement that the democratic peace applies to liberal democracies, with "freedom of speech, religion, and organization; and a constitutional framework of law to which the government is subordinate and that guarantees equal rights." [25]

Wide franchise can be, in different authors, from half the adult population down to 10%, or even lower. Explicitly requiring women's suffrage would mean there could have been no interdemocratic wars before New Zealand enacted it in 1894. [26] The effect of this variation on the list of democracies is not great, although Great Britain can be argued to have achieved wide franchise at various dates between 1832 and 1918.

Theorists differ on the extent to which the executive must be chosen by election. Many would accept Babst's definition that he either be elected directly or freely chosen by an elected body. Singer required that the parliament be at least equal to the executive. Babst and Rummel also require secret ballot, which was first practised in 1856[27]

Doyle, who writes of "liberal régimes" rather than "democracies", allows greater power to hereditary monarchs than other theories; for example, he counts the rule of Louis-Philippe of France - and that of Robespierre - as a liberal regíme. He describes Wilhelmine Germany as "a difficult case....In practice, a liberal state under republican law for domestic affairs...divorced from the control of its citizenry in foreign affairs."[28]

In this usage he follows Kant, who opposed (direct) "democracy" since it is "necessarily despotism, as it establishes an executive power contrary to the general will; all being able to decide against one whose opinion may differ, the will of all is therefore not that of all: which is contradictory and opposite to liberty." Instead, Kant favors a constitutional republic where individual liberty is protected from the will of the majority.

Russett also uses somewhat similar definitions for modern wars but has different definitions for Ancient Greece."

As can been mostly, ancient definitions. Very little from the modern definitions, for example:

R.J. Rummel in the book Power Kills: Democracy as a Method of Nonviolence states that "By democracy is meant liberal democracy, where those who hold power are elected in competitive elections with a secret ballot and wide franchise (loosely understood as including at least 2/3rds of adult males); where there is freedom of speech, religion, and organization; and a constitutional framework of law to which the government is subordinate and that guarantees equal rights." "A well-established democracy is one for which enough time has passed since its inception for peace-sufficient democratic procedures to become accepted and democratic culture to settle in. Around three years seems to be enough for this." [2] Appendix 1.1 He also argues that the ballot must be secret. + Theorists differ on the extent to which the executive must be chosen by election. Many would accept Babst's definition that he either be elected directly or freely chosen by an elected body. Singer required that the parliament be at least equal to the executive. Babst and Rummel also require secret ballot, which was first practised in 1856[3]

The book Never at War (1998) by the historian Spencer R. Weart uses somewhat similar definitions. One difference is that Weart defines war as more than 200 battle deaths. This book also proposes a related peace between oligarchies. In his book Grasping the Democratic Peace (1993), political scientist Bruce Russett also uses somewhat similar definitions for modern wars but has different definitions for Ancient Greece. + Doyle, who writes of "liberal régimes" rather than "democracies", allows greater power to hereditary monarchs than other theories; for example, he counts the rule of Louis-Philippe of France - and that of Robespierre - as a liberal regíme. He describes Wilhelmine Germany as "a difficult case....In practice, a liberal state under republican law for domestic affairs...divorced from the control of its citizenry in foreign affairs."[4]

Political scientist James Lee Ray, in his book Democracy and International Conflict, (1995) requires that at least 50% of the adult population is allowed to vote and that there has been at least one peaceful, constitutional transfer of executive power from one independent political party to another by means of an election. Ultramarine 17:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Rummel is completely summarized; the 2/3 rule, which is used only by two authors, is somewhat more inclusive than Ray's 50%, and is mentioned. That definition goes back in substance to 1983, if not 1979, and so is pretty ancient.
  • Doyle is summarized, except as noted above.
  • Ray's is summarized, except possibly for the requirement of actual transfer, which is in any case mentioned elsewhere. I will see if it needs to be here.
  • Weart's definition of war is included elsewhere, and is out of place here.
  • The description of Russett's definition is content-free. I will go see what he actually wrote.
  • The pompous descriptions of the authors add nothing.

Septentrionalis 17:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Simply strange to clam something like this when you in the main text almost only mentions definitions used before 1983 and ignore the recent ones. Ultramarine 17:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

  • It mentions Ray's 50% standard, and cites his 1998 book.
    • Perhaps you are misled by a search engine. I wrote "half", preferring to use English.
  • Rummel's 2/3 standard falls in the same range; it is theoretically possible for a state to make Ray's and miss Rummel's, but I doubt there are any examples.

Why is this included, from 1983: "Doyle, who writes of "liberal régimes" rather than "democracies", allows greater power to hereditary monarchs than other theories; for example, he counts the rule of Louis-Philippe of France - and that of Robespierre - as a liberal regíme. He describes Wilhelmine Germany as "a difficult case....In practice, a liberal state under republican law for domestic affairs...divorced from the control of its citizenry in foreign affairs." Why not Rummel's more modern defintion instead? Why is a possible exception stated without counter-arguments, this violates NPOV. Ultramarine 18:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

This is open fraud. Both Doyle and Rummel made their 1983 papers into portions of their later books; they are equally "modern", or not. You know this, even if a third reader will not. Please leave the specious suggestions of the doubtful to Ray; he gets paid for that sort of thing. Septentrionalis 21:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Two {{Dubious}} tags:

  • While I'm on the subject, where does Ray assert that "many researchers have found no wars"? Quotation please; he's usually careful only to suggest falsehoods, not claim them. Septentrionalis 21:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
    • (Ray, 1998) "This allowed Doyle to reiterate with more authority the claim made by Babst (1972), acknowledged somewhat begrudgingly by Small & Singer (1976) and repeated by Rummel (1975–81), that no two democratic states have ever fought an interstate war against each other. This absence of wars between democratic states may be the single most important and psychologically persuasive piece of evidence supporting the democratic peace proposition and probably accounts for its current prominence more than any other. The absence of wars between democracies seems to underlie Levy's (1988, p. 662) oft-quoted assertion that the democratic peace proposition is "as close as anything we have to an empirical law in international relations," or the equally sweeping statement by Gleditsch (1992, p. 372) that the "perfect" correlation between democracy and nonwar in dyads implies that "most behavioral research on conditions for war and peace in the modern world can now be thrown on the scrap-heap of history, and researchers can start all over again on a new basis.""
      • This is Ray, cherry-picking again. Gleditsch does not believe no wars; he names and discusses both the Spanish-American War and the Continuation War, IIRC in the paper cited; as for Levy, "close to an empirical law" is not an "empirical law". Better to let the citations speak for themselves. Septentrionalis 15:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Septentrionalis, why did you delete this statement, supported by many references, because you disagre with one of them, a peer-reviewed paper? [26] Ultramarine 15:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
          • Because you have presented no evidence that the paper actually says so. Ray misleadingly quotes a scholar who does not believe in no wars; and he quotes one whose words are ambiguous, but suggest he is another who would say "very rare". Neither of these support the statement in the text, and add to the evidence that Ray should be treated with extreme caution. Septentrionalis 16:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
            • You have deleted sourced information supported by several peer-reviewed paper. Write your own academic paper. Ultramarine 16:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
              • I see no statement in any of them supporting the claim in the text. Please provide citations; but it would be better to quote the actual supporters of "no wars" under Claimed Exceptions, where I have already put those I have found. Septentrionalis 16:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
                • "The bulk of the literature centers on the absence of war between democracies. Realist scholars argue that this could be a result of common international security interests, whereas democratic peace theorists suggest numerous different ways in which either democratic political structures or norms are the cause." [27] "One such generalization, sometimes even asserted to be an empirical law of international relations (Levy 1988), is that democracies do not ¯ght wars with one another. The empirical evidence for this claim is, in fact, quite strong." [28]"After all, the “dual finding” – that democracies though not fighting each other are in war with non-democracies in many cases and initiate such wars from time to time – remains valid."[29] "Enter Mansfield and Snyder, who have been contributing to the democratic peace debate for a decade. Their thesis, first published in 1995, is that although mature democracies do not fight one another,"[30] Ultramarine 16:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I have seen absolute, or necessitarian, claims in both Weart and Ray. I believe the number should be three. Septentrionalis 21:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
    • As noted, Ray in his 2003 paper states that there may be wars between democracies in the future. Weart's explanation for the peace is not necessitarian, it can well accept exceptions, even if he has found none.Ultramarine 14:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Trade produces democracy

"There has been a confluence of the old theory (dating back to Richard Cobden and Benjamin Constant) that Free Trade will produce and ensure peace,[94] with the modern theory that trade will produce democracy, or at least spread it to the non-democratic trading partner, as argued by Houshang Amiramahdi and others. According to this, democracy and peace are indeed correlated, because they arise from a common cause." Source please for that any recent democratic peace researcher argues that trade is ultimate explanation. Ultramarine 14:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, the argument that only "DPT research" (whatever that means) should be cited is unacceptable. It will continue to be unacceptable the next time it is made. Septentrionalis 15:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Archiving

This talk page approaches 256K. It will be archived.Septentrionalis 15:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Large scale revert

Septentrionalis, you have made a large scale revert, claiming deletion of sourced material. State exactly what material was deleted: [31] Ultramarine 16:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Difficult to be complete, given that the text from which I reverted has randomized the paragraphs. Please do not make massive moves of paragraphs without discussion. In this case, you have separated Bremer's opposition to the absolute, necessitarian peace from its context, and many other pieces of destruction. Please move one paragraph at a time and stop. Septentrionalis 16:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
So this was a false claim. It is in fact you who have removed sourced material, like that many researchers have stated no wars. My moves was carefully explained. Even if you disagree with some of them, this is no excuse for a complete revert. I will give you one more chance to explain yourself. Ultramarine 16:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Explanation by edit summary is not sufficient for massive and controversial moves; and this is an example of why. I object (as do Salix and Infinity, separately) to massive restructuring of this text. Please redo one section at a time, so that the losses can be checked and the reasoning is clear.
You will observe, for example, that your move of one paragraph, some hours ago was both helpful and accepted. Septentrionalis 17:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
You have yourself done so previously. Please state your objections to the moves. For example, what was you objections to the move in the causes section. Ultramarine 17:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
And no-one objected when I did so, including yourself. My objection to the move was that it was massive and incomprehensible. Please work slowly. Septentrionalis 17:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
That is no answer. The moves were not massive. Again, state your objections. Ultramarine 17:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The moves were massive; Ultramarine himself called them large-scale at the beginning of this section
  • The move described as being of Causes [32] involved two whole sections, and shuffled them without rhyme or reason.
    • The result of this shuffle divides them into two kinds, and then jumps back and forth between the kinds.
    • It separated the paragraph beginning Democracy thus gives influence, where the thus refers to the quotation from Kant, from its referent by four (!) miscellaneous paragraphs.
    • Please do not do this again. Septentrionalis 18:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I disagree, no information was lost, only reorganized to give a better structure. However, I have restored an earlier version with less moves. What are your objections to these? Ultramarine 18:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Many say no wars

Most of the following are the result of misreading English idiom, some are already under Exceptions. The first three are assertions that many studies support the democratic peace against the Realists.

  • "The bulk of the literature centers on the absence of war between democracies." Gelpi 2001
    • So it does; this includes Maoz's finding 1 dyad-year of war where he expected to find 57. That's an absence. Septentrionalis
  • "One such generalization, sometimes even asserted to be an empirical law of international relations (Levy 1988), is that democracies do not ¯ght wars with one another. The empirical evidence for this claim is, in fact, quite strong." Mesquita et al.
    • Does not intend to distinguish no wars from very few wars; as the inclusion of Bremer's virtually immune and Maoz's later paper makes clear.
    • Is stating many supporters of some democratic peace against Layne, Gowa, and the other realists. Septentrionalis 17:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • "After all, the “dual finding” – that democracies though not fighting each other are in war with non-democracies in many cases and initiate such wars from time to time – remains valid."Mueller/Wolff 2004
    • The first description of the "dual finding" is that "democracies are more peaceful towards each other". This is not intended to exclude Maoz or Gleditsch either.
  • "Enter Mansfield and Snyder, who have been contributing to the democratic peace debate for a decade. Their thesis, first published in 1995, is that although mature democracies do not fight one another,"Owen 2005 Ultramarine 16:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Manfield/Snyder is discussed under Claimed Exceptions as no wars, since they do say it..

In short, only one of these distinguishes the none from the very rare, and the single publication mentioned in that one is already included. Septentrionalis 17:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

This is the views of recent researchers. Septentrionalis, please read on original research, a Wikipedia policy. If you disagree with these views, publish something outside Wikipedia. Evidence has been shown that more researchers than you claim support no wars. Please do not again delete this sourced information, even if you personally disagree. Ultramarine 17:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I have read WP:NOR. I see no reason in it for citing papers for assertions which they do not support. Septentrionalis 17:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
These are the direct quotes. Ultramarine 17:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
And none' of these quotes supports the claim in the text, when read in the context of the paper in which it stands. Only one addresses the alternative none/very few (rather than none/many, which is far more significant), and that is a reivew of a single book. Septentrionalis 18:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Are you saying that these researchers lie deliberately when they state that research has shown no wars? Ultramarine 18:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
No, (except for Owen) you have misread your sources, and are attempting to cite them for an argument which they do not make, and have no reason to make. They are denying the realist position that the democratic peace does not exist; not discuss the picayune division within DPT between no wars and a couple of maybe wars. Septentrionalis 18:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
How can I misread when I give direct quotes? Again, are you saying that the researchers lie when they state this? Ultramarine 18:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • (left margin)Ultramarine is taking isolated and ambiguous statements out of the discussion in which they stand, and attempting to read them by themselves.
  • The authors are not lying; they are writing colloquial English, without attempting unreadable mathematical precision.
  • It is Ultramarine who implies they are lying.
    • For example, if Mesquita meant to say "absolutely no wars ever", which he does not, his inclusion of Maoz and Bremer would be a lie. Bremer discusses possible exceptions in the paper Mesquita cites; Maoz wrote explicitly that he believes that there is (one isolated) true exception.Septentrionalis 18:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Here is another researcher, Wayman (2002): "it remains true that there have been no inter-state wars between a clear-cut liberal democracy and another such state. All this empirical literature hangs on the examination of MIDs rather than inter-state wars, so it is important in assessing this literature to see what the occurrence of a MID between liberal democracies has meant, in terms of severity of armed conflict."[33] Ultramarine 18:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Some researchers say no wars; others say very few wars; many, sensibly, ignore the difference. This was the case the last time you trotted out these quotes; it still is. Either come up with some actual evidence or stop trying to put unsupported claims into the article. Septentrionalis 19:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

These quotes certainly show that many researchers support no wars, something which you have tried to delete from the article. Ultramarine 00:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
They show that three researchers support no wars. Read by an honest and competent reader of English. they democtrate no more. Septentrionalis 22:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Those three being Weart, Ray, and Rummel according to you. Some others:

  • Wayman: "it remains true that there have been no inter-state wars between a clear-cut liberal democracy and another such state. All this empirical literature hangs on the examination of MIDs rather than inter-state wars" [34]
  • Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, James D. Morrow, Randolph Siverson, Alastair Smith, Jack Levy: "One such generalization, sometimes even asserted to be an empirical law of international relations (Levy 1988), is that democracies do not fight wars with one another. The empirical evidence for this claim is, in fact, quite strong" [35]
  • Müller, Harald & Wolff, Jonas "After all, the “dual finding” – that democracies though not fighting each other are in war with non-democracies in many cases and initiate such wars from time to time – remains valid."[36]
  • Edward Mansfield and Jack Snyder "Their thesis, first published in 1995, is that although mature democracies do not fight one another," [37]
  • Gelpi, Christopher F. & Griesdorf, Michael "The bulk of the literature centers on the absence of war between democracies." [38]
  • Various older studies mentioned in: [39] Ultramarine 08:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
You are repeating yourself. None of these, in context, supported Many say no wars when you quoted them higher in this same section, and they still don't.They do support that Wayman and Mansfield/Snyder say no wars; there are others who do. Some do, some do not; the suggestion that that there is consensus is fraudulent; the majority ignore the silly question of none/very few. Please find actual evidence, or withdraw the claim. Septentrionalis 17:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

List of articles

The following list of articles, mostly recommended by Scaife and myself do not appear to be included:

Review of Ray's book; Mershon International Studies Review, Vol. 40, No. 2. (Oct., 1996), pp. 304-307.
Democracy, War, and Covert Action Forsythe 1992
Russett on the Peloponesian War
Lake 1992 Winning war
Pevehouse, Jon C. 2005. Democracy from Above: Regional Organizations and Democratization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rosato, Sebastian. 2003. The Flawed Logic of Democratic Peace Theory. American Political Science Review 97 (4):585-602.
Rees, Stuart. 2003. Passion for Peace: Exercising Power Creatively. Sydney: UNSW Press.
Doyle, Michael W. 2005. Three Pillars of Democratic Peace. American Political Science Review 99 (3):463-472.
Dallmayr, Fred. 2004. Peace Talks-who will listen? Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
Archibugi, Daniele. 2004. Cosmopolitan Democracy and its Critics: A Review. European Journal of International Relations 10 (3):437-473.
Braden, Susan. 2005. Promoting democracy won't necessarily produce peace. International Journal on World Peace 22 (1):3-5.
Deudney, Daniel. 2004. Publius before Kant: Federal-Republican Security and Democratic Peace. European Journal of International Relations 10 (3):315-356

Most of them are less than three years old. Septentrionalis 23:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Confusing

  • Ultramarine, what is your outline for this article?
  • Why is the Kantian peace not a Type of theory, as it was when I last saw this?
  • Why does the word Kantian only appear twice in the text at all?


This is unreadable. I suppose that may be the sign of a work in progress; but sections of a dozen paragraphs are deprecated in the MOS because they are unintelligible.

Do notify this talk page when you are quite through, that we may see what you have come up with. Septentrionalis 23:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The Kantian peace theory has a section of its own. For now, I do not have a detailed outline that I am working towards. I add and correct information when needed. Ultramarine 13:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
That's an improvement, although it should still be a Type of theory. These sections remain indiscriminate collections of information. Septentrionalis 18:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  1. ^ Rummel, Ray, and Weart; quotation from Rummel 1983. For this paper being exceptional, see Gleditsch 1992
  2. ^ Rummel, Rudolph J. (1997). Power Kills: Democracy as a Method of Nonviolence. Transaction Publishers. ISBN 0765805235.
  3. ^ Rummel 1997, Appendix 1.1, Babst 1964, 1972
  4. ^ Doyle 1983, 1997. Quote from Doyle 1983 footnote 8, pp.216-7.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Democratic_peace_theory/Archive_6&oldid=789370740"