Talk:Democratic peace theory

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pmanderson (talk | contribs) at 20:14, 27 January 2006 (→‎Original Research). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

{{FAC}} should be substituted at the top of the article talk page

current status:

Template:POV-because

Archives of this page are at Talk:Democratic peace theory/Archive 1. This should be read by any new editor of this page.Septentrionalis 16:42, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The second archive is at Talk: Democratic peace theory/Archive 2. It contains much which relates to the above discussion. Many of the page's problems were solved by division into the current smaller sections and any new contributions are encouraged, without an author being expected to read the entirity of these two long debates on the article's content.

The above was left uinsigned by myself at about 01:51 GMT Wednesday 14 December 2005 Robdurbar 12:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what can be salvaged from my old edit that appears to have been completly removed (with the exception of the reference I added)?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So what do you think so far? In addition to the present changes, I intend to add Piotrus's example too, and I think the four classes of criticism need work. (Unmatched notes can be postponed until the text is agreed.) Septentrionalis 18:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think its fairly reasonable. I question the need to mention mondaic and dyadic - these ideas are already expressed elsewhere using less jargon. Oh, and I don't see why Rummel's findings should be removed, as long as they are attributed to him as one researcher Robdurbar 18:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the chart was too prominent for the results of one researcher; this is part of a certain editor's insistence that there is Only One DPT and it is Rummel's. We already cite Rummel as one of those who claim that democracies have never gone to war with each other; I'll put in the 155 and the 198 in under dyadic. Monadic and dyadic seem to be the actual terms of art (hence all the usage of "dyad" instead of "pair"); so we should at least define them. But we should avoid them elsewhere if convenient, I agree.Septentrionalis 18:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kantian peace

Several of the papers Rummell cites, and some of the ones cited here, hold that peace is the result of several factors, roughly: Democracy, Enforcement measures (including international organizations), and Commerce (or, sometimes, prosperity). This was Kant's position; and several of them call their thesis the Kantian peace.

This is, strictly, inconsistent with Rummell's position, which is, quite clearly, that democracy is alone sufficient. We have two alternatives:

  • define Kantian peace theories as a variety of DPT, and distinguish from absolute DPT when necessary.
  • define DPT as Rummellism, as list these as criticisms.

I have gone both ways on this, but I will be writing in the first vein now. (This needs to be decided to write the external causes section.) Let me know if you disagree. Septentrionalis 22:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved matter

I find no obvious place for the following:

In international crises that include the threat or use of military force, if the parties are democracies, then relative military strength has no effect on who wins. This is different from when nondemocracies are involved. This pattern is the same for both allied and nonallied parties.[1]
^ Template:Journal reference url

Factual inaccuracies and NPOV violations

Pmanderson has returned :) As usual he has no interest in factual accuracy or NPOV and is unable to ever admit making even the slightest mistakes. He has even again incorporated his statements regarding Wells .) Please see earlier discussions here [2]. An accurate presentation of the theory can be found here: [3]. Ultramarine 07:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strange; the bulk of the editing I have done has been to simplify and clarify the prose, as a comparison of the two versions will show. What does Ultramarine find PoV?
  • The only factual dispute I can find in the archives is Ultramarine's claim that Wells' book, The War that will End War (August 1914) does not argue for the lasting character of democratic peace. In deference to this objection, the present text asserts merely that it inspired the slogan. Does Ultramarine dispute this too? Septentrionalis
Please see my links for all the other inaccuraces.
Now this is amusing: Pmanderson has renamed "Democratic peace theory (Correlation is not causation)" to "Why other peace theories are wrong"!!! And "Democratic peace theory (Specific historic examples)" to "Why Rummel is always right" :) :) :) Ultramarine 16:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article titles should describe their contents, shouldn't they? And those PoV tracts may be useful to future editors of R. J. Rummel.Septentrionalis 16:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You never change. :) You are still unable to even admit that there are many other researchers beside Rummel and regardless of accuracy change to very strange and POV titles. Ultramarine 17:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strange; the present text cites many researchers, and will cite more. Some rather interesting papers seem to have gotten lost in the cracks while I was away from Wikipedia.

Ultramarine adds, in effect, three tags to this page. It is customary to provide support on Talk for all of these; but the only substantion here is a reference to Ultramarine's objections to an almost completely different edit, of two and a half months ago.

  • I can find only two claims of inaccuracy with regard to the old edit, and both regard assertions which this edit does not make.
    • There is the Wells matter discussed above.
    • Ultramarine also argued at length, before, that the Germany of Wilhelm II was a despotism. The only mention of Germany in the present text is a sentence which is retained, unaltered, from Ultramarine's last textual edit. I am prepared, however, to substitute another example if it will help.
  • I am not prepared to write a text proclaiming that there is Only One DPT, and it is The Truth. That really would be contrary to policy. Short of that, I will consider any suggestions on the issue.
    • I find the claims of POV very odd, since most of the edits I have made to this article in January have been simplification and clarification of the existing text.
  • If Ultramarine considers "A democratic peace theory has to define what it means by "democracy" and what it means by "peace"" original research, so be it.

Shall we attempt mediation? The Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal appears to answer their mail. Septentrionalis 20:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citation style

Added another template for the amazingly bad citation style, probably the worst in any Wikipedia article. A totally incoherent mixing of different citation styles with the cited references spread all over the article. Ultramarine 05:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At least Ultramarine explains this tag with reference to the actual text of the article. And it is true that I have not yet finished rescuing the notes from the verbose state in which I found them.
If, however, even this incomplete project is the worst reference Ultramarine has seen, he has not seen many articles with numbered footnotes in active multi-user editing. References are removed and added without notes, and conversely. The normal practice in printed texts to refer to multiple invocations of the same text is either to have multiple footnotes of the same number, or to say "see footnote 13". The first defeats the fmb property; the second is not, in practice, maintained - new footnotes are always introduced (It can be implemented with footnotes to footnotes; but all that seems silly.
Therefore to have notes with each section, at least until a stable text is attained, seems only common sense. Septentrionalis 06:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those interested in good references for the article can see here [4]. Sad to see the article degenerate to this state. Ultramarine 07:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ultramarine's modesty is an inspiration to us all. Septentrionalis 15:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And the revision of the notes has been finished. Septentrionalis 19:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You consider this to be a finished work?Ultramarine 20:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The text will change; the notes will change with it. However, the notes are now in a stable and readable format, suitable for continuous editing. There are others. Septentrionalis 20:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another Tag

Systematic exclusions of many supporting studies and findings, extremely biased presentation of specific historic cases, systematic exclusion of counter-arguments to criticism of the theory.

This template also requires details to be placed on the talk page. Please supply. As best as I can guess at them, these claims are, at least, somewhat exaggerated.

  • As far as I see, the only references I have removed are redundant citations of Rummel's bibliography (and Beck and Tucker 1998, since the link doesn't work). The note on Winning wars did not exist when I began to edit; if it can be retrieved, fine. (The point it would document is tangential to this article anyway.)
  • The specific historical cases are a simple list of links, for the reader to make up his mind about. What bias?
  • As for the "sandwich" style of description:
    • Democratic peace theories say,
    • Critics object,
    • But this is why the critics are wrong,

I still find the practice PoV, but I did not remove it, as this diff will show. Ultramarine's grievance is with Robdurbar, not with me. I have largely been tightening and refining the summaries of the cited articles.Septentrionalis 18:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing misreprsentation. Some of the things Pmandersson has selectively excluded: studies showing lower democide in democracies, studies countering Gowa's critic, and counter-arguments from the literature regarding specific historic wars. He has deleted all this and instead inserted numerous original research claims, like the "limited claims" sections. After this completely invented and unreferenced section, he states "Even if it were so explained, is this handful of facts sufficient to count on a democratic peace forever?" :)
Now for a good version of the article citing extensively from the literature, instead of Pmanderson's personal opinions and essays, which he unfortunately thinks should replace research by real scientists, see this [5]. Ultramarine 13:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This diff is between the edit immediately before I began editing in early January. The left hand side, representing removed or changed text, is relatively blank; most of the changes have been purely to style, not content; and some of them have been expansions. Furthermore, the only work removed from the notes is Beck and Tucker 1998, which is not on-line and so not yet verified.

Now included, although still unvertfied. Septentrionalis 22:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Simply false, for example Rummel's study about democide is excluded. Regarding Pmanderson's very misleading diff, see below. Ultramarine 22:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-

Please specify omissions, or retract. Septentrionalis 17:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have already specified some of the gross deletions of sourced material from the earlier, superior version. Ultramarine 18:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where?Septentrionalis
Again. "Some of the things Pmandersson has selectively excluded: studies showing lower democide in democracies, studies countering Gowa's critic, and counter-arguments from the literature regarding specific historic wars."Ultramarine 21:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Specific alleged diffs or quotes please. Septentrionalis 21:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Democide[6]
Gowa[7]
Specific historic examples[8]
Note that this is only some of the NPOV violations, but are enough for the moment. Ultramarine 21:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The substance of all three of these is in the article; the phrasing of the sentence on Gowa may be better than the present text. I agree with Robdurbar above that Rummel is one researcher. His particular findings deserve no more emphasis than this. His neologism belongs in his own article, if anywhere. Septentrionalis 21:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect, as anyone who compares can see. There is no requirements that there should be more than one supporting article for a statement. Otherwise I could argue that for example all the Gowa material should be removed.However, would you please remove your own unsourced essays and original research, like most of the "limited claims" section?Ultramarine 22:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is policy that no position be given undue weight. I decline to change topics in the middle of a s section: start a new one. Septentrionalis 22:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV is not an "equal space" policy. The NPOV violations shown above should be corrected. Incomprehensible what you mean regarding change in topic. The tags will remain until you explain yourself clearly and reach a consensus with me, as required by the arbcom.Ultramarine 22:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely, it is a proportional space policy. Rummel's space should be appropriate for one theorist. You kept protesting to the FAC people that he was only one of many; don't make it seem otherwise. Septentrionalis 00:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As for the "change in topic"; charges of OR require at least a section of their own. I'll make some. Septentrionalis 04:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of NPOV

Systematic exclusions of many supporting studies and findings, extremely biased presentation of specific historic cases, systematic exclusion of counter-arguments to criticism of the theory.

This template also requires details to be placed on the talk page. Please supply. As best as I can guess at them, these claims are, at least, somewhat exaggerated.

  • As far as I see, the only references I have removed are redundant citations of Rummel's bibliography (and Beck and Tucker 1998, since the link doesn't work). The note on Winning wars did not exist when I began to edit; if it can be retrieved, fine. (The point it would document is tangential to this article anyway.)
  • The specific historical cases are a simple list of links, for the reader to make up his mind about. What bias?
  • As for the "sandwich" style of description:
    • Democratic peace theories say,
    • Critics object,
    • But this is why the critics are wrong,

I still find the practice PoV, but I did not remove it, as this diff will show. Ultramarine's grievance is with Robdurbar, not with me. I have largely been tightening and refining the summaries of the cited articles.Septentrionalis 18:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing misreprsentation. Some of the things Pmandersson has selectively excluded: studies showing lower democide in democracies, studies countering Gowa's critic, and counter-arguments from the literature regarding specific historic wars. He has deleted all this and instead inserted numerous original research claims, like the "limited claims" sections. After this completely invented and unreferenced section, he states "Even if it were so explained, is this handful of facts sufficient to count on a democratic peace forever?" :)
Now for a good version of the article citing extensively from the literature, instead of Pmanderson's personal opinions and essays, which he unfortunately thinks should replace research by real scientists, see this [9]. Ultramarine 13:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This diff is between the edit immediately before I began editing in early January. The left hand side, representing removed or changed text, is relatively blank; most of the changes have been purely to style, not content; and some of them have been expansions. Furthermore, the only work removed from the notes is Beck and Tucker 1998, which is not on-line and so not yet verified.

Now included, although still unvertfied. Septentrionalis 22:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Simply false, for example Rummel's study about democide is excluded. Regarding Pmanderson's very misleading diff, see below. Ultramarine 22:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-

Please specify omissions, or retract. Septentrionalis 17:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have already specified some of the gross deletions of sourced material from the earlier, superior version. Ultramarine 18:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where?Septentrionalis
Again. "Some of the things Pmandersson has selectively excluded: studies showing lower democide in democracies, studies countering Gowa's critic, and counter-arguments from the literature regarding specific historic wars."Ultramarine 21:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Specific alleged diffs or quotes please. Septentrionalis 21:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Democide[10]
Gowa[11]
Specific historic examples[12]
Note that this is only some of the NPOV violations, but are enough for the moment. Ultramarine 21:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The substance of all three of these is in the article; the phrasing of the sentence on Gowa may be better than the present text. I agree with Robdurbar above that Rummel is one researcher. His particular findings deserve no more emphasis than this. His neologism belongs in his own article, if anywhere. Septentrionalis 21:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect, as anyone who compares can see. There is no requirements that there should be more than one supporting article for a statement. Otherwise I could argue that for example all the Gowa material should be removed.However, would you please remove your own unsourced essays and original research, like most of the "limited claims" section?Ultramarine 22:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is policy that no position be given undue weight. I decline to change topics in the middle of a s section: start a new one. Septentrionalis 22:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV is not an "equal space" policy. The NPOV violations shown above should be corrected. Incomprehensible what you mean regarding change in topic. The tags will remain until you explain yourself clearly and reach a consensus with me, as required by the arbcom.Ultramarine 22:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely, it is a proportional space policy. Rummel's space should be appropriate for one theorist. You kept protesting to the FAC people that he was only one of many; don't make it seem otherwise. Septentrionalis 00:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As for the "change in topic"; charges of OR require at least a section of their own. I'll make some. Septentrionalis 04:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Note, Pmanderson has a tactic of splitting my comment without my permission. Copied his comment to this place for clarity: "This diff is between the edit immediately before I began editing in early January. The left hand side, representing removed or changed text, is relatively blank; most of the changes have been purely to style, not content; and some of them have been expansions."

Also, thank you, Pmanderson, for your diff, clearly showing you true intents and arguing style. You did not mention that you have deleted the links to the earlier subarticles where much material was located, making your diff grossly inaccurate and misleading. The true diff to the complete earlier version with all the information later moved to the subarticles is here: [13]Ultramarine 18:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me get this straight; you want to revert to a version of November 7, 2005 undoing all the edits of Roduburbar, Catfish and others? Septentrionalis 21:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These edits consists almost exclusively of moving contents to subarticles, contents which you have deleted or now no longer link to. That is the last complete version with all the well-sourced information that you have selectively deleted. Note also that article was completely stable with no changes at all for two weeks before you returned and started your current campaign.Ultramarine 21:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Adding links to the forked articles.Septentrionalis 21:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does not help, the subarticle mentioning supporting statistical studies and its referenced contents have been completely deleted.Ultramarine 21:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That article, deleted as hopelessly POV, is in substance included in the present text. The only thing that was there and not in the present text is in #retrieved material above. Have you an idea where to put that? It's so far off-topic that it didn't seem to fit anywhere. Septentrionalis 21:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As anyone who compares can see, that is incorrect. The article contained essentially this section and its references [14].Ultramarine 22:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like all those references, except for Gelpi/Griesdorf (above) are in the present text. I have edited for brevity and English. On Gelpi, I am awaiting your advice. Septentrionalis 22:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another is Rummel. You have edited for factual errors and POV. For example, you state "Many have claimed support for some theory of democratic peace; many have denied any such support." and link to four supporting studies!!! :) Ultramarine 22:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I presume Ultramarine means footnote 6 of that version, which uses a obsolete template and is therefore illegible. It is an unadorned reference to Rummel's bibliography, which is cited at least twice in the ptesent text. But, for the sake of consensus, I will add a mention of it to the corresponding footnote, if it's not already there. Septentrionalis 00:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ultramarine appears to have followed the wrong footnote. Many have claimed support for some theory of democratic peace; many have denied any such support is followed by footnote 11 in the present text, which sites Ray, Gowa, and (now) Rummel's bibliography. Each in turn cites dozens or hundreds of studies; Ray and Rummel mostly pro- Gowa, mostly con. Septentrionalis 00:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, Gowa is a fringe reseracher. The overwhelming majority of studies support the DPT which your own references show. Most of the studies Gown cites are supporting studies the she objects to. Her claims have been disproven, even if you have selectively removed this informationUltramarine 09:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is certainly a PoV that her claims have been disproven. The references are given; let the reader decide. Septentrionalis 16:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How can they when you have deleted the counter-arguments? [15]Ultramarine 16:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those counter-arguments are Ultramarine's original research. I would mind this less if they were stronger arguments, or represented a clearer understanding of what Gowa actually wrote. This is also another demand for the sandwich method of PoV, as above. Septentrionalis 17:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
False, sources cited.Ultramarine 17:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the assertions employed in the arguments; not the arguments themselves. Septentrionalis 18:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
False.Ultramarine 18:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please specify such source; I certainly don't see it. Septentrionalis 18:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Already given the necessary link. Read the studies if you want more details.Ultramarine 18:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excluded material

  • Excluded: "More than one hundred researchers have contributed to the literature according to an incomplete bibliography.[2] Despite criticism, it has grown in prominence among political scientists and has become influential in the policy world. Scholar Jack Levy made an oft-quoted assertion that the theory is "as close as anything we have to an empirical law in international relations"[3]" Ultramarine 14:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bibliography is mentioned repeatedly in the present text
    • Who is Jack Levy? He is not described, nor is any context given, in the source for the quote, which is Ray 1998, the advocacy article. Advertising. Septentrionalis
  • Excluded " The fall of Communism and the increase in the number of democratic states were accompanied by a sudden and dramatic decline in total warfare, interstate wars, ethnic wars, revolutionary wars, and the number of refugees and displaced persons.[18]" Ultramarine 14:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Condensed to The improvement in the peace of the world since the end of the Cold War has been tabulated here. [15] (with same source) Since the post-1989 peace is accompanied by an increase in several factors which may produce peace (effectiveness of international organizations, free trade, the end of the Cold War), the former phrasing is tendentious. Septentrionalis 18:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since this article is about peace, it certainly very POV to exclude this dramatic improvement. The possible causes are discussed later.Ultramarine 18:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Is this merely a demand for adjectives before improvement? Add some. Septentrionalis 19:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not adjectives. These important peace findings should all be mentioned.Ultramarine 19:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excluded "upporters of the DPT do not deny that other factors affect the risk of war but argue that many studies have controlled for such factors and that the DPT is still validated. Examples of factors controlled for are contiguity, power status, alliance ties, militarization, economic wealth and economic growth, power ratio, and political stability.[44][45][46] Studies have also controlled for reverse causality from peace or war to democracy.[47][48][49]" Ultramarine 14:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rephrased, with single footnote to the same sources, as . Other critics have ascribed the democratic peace to the relative isolation of democratic states (particularly those not part of the Western alliance). This again overlaps with the third category above, since there is also an argument that the relative peace of the twenty-first century (so far), is due to the completion of decolonization.
    • As often on academic matters, these criticisms are disputed. Papers have been done claiming significant correlation[, even] after controlling for such variables. [23]
    • One of the papers cited here is a Kantian peace theory paper, of the class which Ultramarine claims elsewhere is opposed to dpt, and should be removed. Septentrionalis
      • You excludes to mention of most the factors that have been studied. You delete that reverse causality has been studied. Decolonisation has nothing to do with this. I certainly do not claim the the Kantian peace theory is opposed to the DPT, it is just one variant. More falsehood.Ultramarine 18:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excluded counterargument: "Critics have argued that few democracies mean that they are geographically isolated and thus unable to make war with one another. As described above, several of the studies finding evidence for the DPT have controlled for this. One study has demonstrated that democratic pairs of nations have not been more geographically separated than non-democratic pairs"Ultramarine 14:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unsourced, and included in summary above. Septentrionalis
      • More falsehood. Sourced in my version and this is not included in his version.Ultramarine 18:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excluded "More importantly, more recent studies find fewer MIDs between democracies also before the Cold War.[61][62] Gowa's theory does not explain the low domestic violence in democracies or why relative military strength does not influence the outcome of crises between democracies.[63] Gowa did not control for alliances, arguing that there are methodological problems. Many studies that have controlled for alliances like NATO show support for the DPT.[64]
DPT supporters also argue that there has been continued peace between democracies after the end of the Cold War. Critics disagree and even if true they note that the European Union and NATO still exist and that they contain some of the democracies capable of maintaining a war. However, there are many democracies outside Europe.[65] The threat from the Communist states which Gowa thought explained both the peace and the existence of alliances between democracies such as NATO has largely disappeared. Contrary to what could be expected from Gowa's theory, the fall of Communism was accompanied by a sudden and dramatic decline in interstate warfare and other armed conflicts[66]. Some researchers argue that the increase in democracy associated with the end of the Cold War is the main cause for this decline in armed conflicts while others note that there has also been an increase in intermediate regimes and as noted earlier such states may be particularly prone to civil war. Other explanations for the decline in armed conflicts is the end of colonialism and the Cold War itself. [67][68]" Ultramarine 14:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Moved. DO NOT SPLIT MY COMMENTS) Ultramarine 18:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first sentence has been clarified to Studies have also argued that lesser conflicts (Militarized Interstate Disputes in the jargon) have been more violent, but less bloody, and less likely to spread.[12] with same sources. The next two sentences rest on a misunderstanding of Gowa's book, which contains a number of criticisms of Rummel on different grounds. (The theory referred to is the argument of a single chapter, that the Cold War explains the democratic peace of 1945-1991) The last sentence refers to an article also included in the countercriticism footnote 23 above.
    • This is also a prime example of the "sandwich" rhetorical structure Ultramarine prefers:
      • supporters of DPT (which?) say X
      • Critics say Y
      • The critics are wrong because Z.
      This is PoV. Septentrionalis
    • Another example of PoV sandwich technique.
    • The Communist war counterargument to Gowa is Ultramarine's original research. Septentrionalis
  • Pmanderson refuses to give any understandable reason for excluding studies he dislikes. It is not the same studies and obviously the text is very different. His other arguments are also invalid. Does anyone think that it is NPOV to exlude this material? Ultramarine 18:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excluded "Research also shows that wars involving democracies are less violent and that democracies have much less democide.[16]" Ultramarine 20:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

State of discussion

Viewed by Septentrionalis

There is a PoV dispute. Ultramarine wishes this article to express his PoV; this permeated the subarticles, for which AfD deleted them here, here, and here.

  • One of them advocated a particular theory of the democratic peace.
  • One of them argued that Joanne Gowa (the chief critic of that theory) and the alternative Kantian version of democratic peace theory, are simply wrong.
  • The third was a selection of arguments for the favored theory; most of it was verbally included in the text when I returned to this article, and its substance is still incorporated in the present text.

They derive from the text to which he wishes to revert. I have copies of them off Wikipedia, which I can post as subpages if any non-admin is interested. (For the record, I opposed the deletion of two of them.)

Note that Ultramarine's most vehement objections are to the discussion of Kant and Gowa. Septentrionalis 05:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Viewed by Ultramarine

Accuracy

Points Ultramarine claims are inaccurate, in the present text.

Please see earlier discussions here [16]. Sone new inaccuracies in this version is a completely inaccurate description of Gowa's criticism. Another what criteria has been used for liberal democracy, for example no study has used voting rights for at least 50% of the male population. Stating "Only the United States, Switzerland and Monaco achieved 2/3 male suffrage in the middle of the nineteenth century.", ignoring for example the French Second Republic.

An accurate presentation of the theory can be found here: [17]. Ultramarine 10:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another request to revert to the edit Ultramarine made on 7 November, 2005 <sigh>
  • Kant
    • What is Ultramarine's objection to the present text? Septentrionalis
      • This text is essentially your old text, somewhat reorganized. The old arguments still holds.Ultramarine 17:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ultramarine's chief prior argument over Kant was about the difference between democracy and republic in Kant, which the present text does not mention. Please state objections to the present text, if any. On the broader question of whether Kantian peace theories are DPT's or not, see section above on the subject. If they are not, then they are criticisms (and numerous ones) of DPT's in the narrow sense. I can, as I said, go either way with this, although usage would be appear to be to include them. Septentrionalis 18:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Here, what erroneous fact does the present text assert? Septentrionalis 18:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • "The last is sometimes world prosperity rather than freedom of trade or travel, which are harder to measure." No Kantian peace theory includes world properity. And you do not mention which factors are included today. They are trade causing greater economic interdependence, membership in more intergovernmental organizations, and democracy. These are positively related to each other but each has an independent pacifying effect.Ultramarine 15:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • World is a typo, and should be removed. Septentrionalis 18:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • No kantian peace theory includes prosperity.Ultramarine 18:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • False; see the conclusion of Oneal and Russett 1999 as cited in the bibliography of this article.
                  • Huh? From the conlusion "Our analyses for the years 1885–1992 indicate that Kant was substantially correct:democracy, economic interdependence, and involvement in international organizations reduce the incidence of militarized interstate disputes." The usual three factors, which do not include prosperity.Ultramarine 19:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 50 % of male population
    • The following sentence appears in the famous edit of 7 November: Another example is requiring that at least 50% of the adult population is allowed to vote and that there has been at least one peaceful, constitutional transfer of executive power from one independent political party to another by means of an election. I shall remove male, as Ultramarine was free to do. Septentrionalis
      • Done.
        • Note that this is false, still remains.Ultramarine 15:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not the first edit to be lost by WP, unfortunately. Fixed as of 18:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC) Septentrionalis
            • The text is still incorrect " The studies claiming absolute democratic peace often require that two-thirds of adult males, or half the whole adult population, be able to vote". This implies that the studies use both of these conditions which is false. And they do not often use these criteria, most use polity or similar continuous variables.Ultramarine 18:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Fine, omit often. I find the alleged implication perverse, but do recast to avoid it. Septentrionalis 19:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2/3 Male suffrage.
    • The sentence originally included a reference to Rummel's three-year requirement. I shall recast; although I believe it is still true of the election under the Second Republic. Is Ultramarine proposing Louis Napoleon's plebiscites as examples of democracy? Septentrionalis
      I am only stating that this is one of your factual errors.Ultramarine 17:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Recast as above. Septentrionalis 18:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Changed but still inaccurate. "From 1815 until the 1880's, there were at most three democratic states in his sense (the United States, Switzerland and San Marino)." Here is what Rummel says " For certain years of the 18th century, for example, it would include the Swiss Cantons, French Republic, and United States; for certain years during 1800-1850 it would include the Swiss Confederation, United States, France, Belgium, Great Britain, Netherlands, Piedmont, and Denmark" Ultramarine 15:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Rummel uses liberal democracy in several different ways; his website collects documents written independently and for different audiences. In this case he is using a very inclusive definition of democracy. E.g. the United States did not have an executive chosen by contested election in the eighteenth century; and, as for Belgium: "Prior to 1893, the electorate was exceedingly small....in the year named there were only 137,772 voters out of a total population of 6½ millions." Septentrionalis 19:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • You have not described what "his sense" is regarding your examples and you have provided no source that he has stated this. Remove inaccurate original reserach.Ultramarine 19:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another factual error is regarding "a war to end all war" (originated by H.G. Wells)." No relation to the DPT at all, as dicussed in the relevant section here [18].Ultramarine 19:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is Ultramarine suggesting that the slogan has no relation to democratic peace? If so, he should probably read Ray's paper again. The lengthy argument over whether Wells argued for a democraric peace addresses a point not made in the present text. Septentrionalis 22:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
" The hope of a democratic peace was embodied by the First World War slogan: "a war to end all war" (originated by H.G. Wells).". Simply false, Wells slogan have no connection to the theory, in fact he was an opponent to liberal democracy as previously discussed. And Ray certainly does not mention Wells.Ultramarine 08:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See summary section below
Seen it, still not correct. Wells hoped that factors like disarmament would stop new wars. He was a socialist and an opponent to liberal democracy. It this was relevant for the theory, it would certainly be mentioned in the literature. Original research verified to be false.Ultramarine 19:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Separate peace theories claim that democracies are more likely to go to war with non-democracies." False, no such definiton exit of separate peace theory. Ultramarine 13:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • More likely than they are with each other. If others find this unclear, add the phrase. If Ultramarine disputes the term, See Beyond the Separate Democratic Peace.
      • That addition is not included in your statement. From your own study "This article argues that the balance of evidence and argument supports a shift from the conventional 'separate democratic peace' position that liberal states are peace prone only in relations with other liberal states to the view that they are also more peace prone in relations with non-liberal states than usually thought." Ultramarine 19:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The militant democracy theory divides democracies into militant and pacifist types. Militant democracies have a tendency to distrust and use confrontational policies against dictatorships, which could actually make war more likely between a democracy and a non-democracy than in the case of relations between two non-democracies." False, defintion does not say more likely Ultramarine 13:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not part of definition; hence the comma. Septentrionalis
      • Thanks. Clearly shows your intentions. Obviously misleading. And unsourced original reserach. Ultramarine 19:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Another idea is that democracy gives influence to those most likely to be killed or wounded in wars, and their relatives and friends (and to those who pay the bulk of the war taxes). This was Kant's argument; and it is supported by the example of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, in which the Sejm vetoed more than half the royal proposals for war." This aristocratic oligarchy certainly does not fit this description.Ultramarine 14:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Inclusion supported by Piotrus above, and a tenth of the Polish population was noble. All adult male nobles were entitled to vote at the Sejm, enough to give influence to the bereaved and the taxpapers. Septentrionalis
      • Please, what a wikipedia user may have thought is not interesting. Nobility usually avoided much of the taxes or had the legal right to avoid them completely. Again, an oligoarchy formed by the nobility does not include those most likely to be killed. This nation would pass none of the test for liberal democracy.Ultramarine 20:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Moreover, a democratic crusade corollary suggests that the belief in the validity DPT itself could become a cause of war." Nothing in the lterature, original reseach. Ultramarine 13:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Template:Journal reference "Worse still, this thesis can fuel a spirit of democratic crusade and be used to justify overt and covert interventions against others" and papers there cited. Septentrionalis 19:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • At last a good reference. Agreed.
  • "the Kantian peace theories generally look for explanations in the absence of international pressure, trade, or prosperity; the other modern theories will observe that any tendency will, in the perversity of human affairs, have exceptions." There is no difference between any DPT theory regarding possible wars as exceptions.Ultramarine 14:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huh? Any theory which claims only a tendency admits possible exceptions.Septentrionalis 19:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Any theory of democratic peace must face certain difficult counter-examples. The theories which claim an absolute democratic peace solve the following problems by restricting the definition of democracy (and sometimes of war); the Kantian peace theories generally look for explanations in the absence of international pressure, trade, or prosperity; the other modern theories will observe that any tendency will, in the perversity of human affairs, have exceptions." Again, this is false, all the variants of the DPT state no war between democracies. And they all respond similarly to all quoted exceptions to this. There is no "modern theory" that is different.Ultramarine 19:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rummel also classifies 155 of the wars since Waterloo as between democracies and non-democracies, 198 as between non-democracies. Given the limited number of democracies he acknowledges, democracies have, in his view, gone to war more often than other states, but not with each other." Has never said the last. Ultramarine 13:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Woodrow Wilson's policy for the Versailles settlement was largely based on all three planks of Kant's program." False, nothing in the literature, probably did not known of Kant's theory, original reserach. Ultramarine 13:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • See article League of Nations, the name of which is derived from Kant. Septentrionalis
      • Seen it. No mention that "Woodrow Wilson's policy for the Versailles settlement was largely based on all three planks of Kant's program." And give external sources, not wikipedia articles.Ultramarine 19:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Monadic theories claim that democracies tend to conduct their affairs more peaceably, whether with other democracies or not. More general theories developed from the monadic version claim that two democracies are less likely to make war on each other than other pairs of states." No DPT theory states less likely to make war, argues no wars, less MIDs, not wars.Ultramarine 13:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kant's plan for a perpetual peace included more than a government answerable to the people. He proposed a League of Nations to keep the peace; and a right to "hospitality" which should be recognized everywhere. This latter was a freedom of international travel and commerce, in some ways resembling the Schengen Treaty." Schengen treaty is strange, irrelevant, and original research.Ultramarine 13:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Best short summary I can make of Kant's "hospitality" Both involve complete freedom of movement and trade. Septentrionalis 19:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Schengen does not involve trade. Totally irrelevant for the theory. Why have you inserted this and deleted the defintion of MIDs? Ultramarine 19:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Strictly speaking, the theory of a Kantian peace contradicts the absolute theories of democratic peace. If three factors are required for a perpetual peace, no one of them can be the only thing needed." No democractie peace theory states that it is the only thing needed. Ultramarine 13:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "From then until 1904, there were several crises among the democratic powers, as among the others. The only war between any two Powers that resulted was the Spanish-American War, between a democracy and a borderline democracy" Simply ridiculous, excluding for example the war between Germany and France in 1871.Ultramarine 13:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Even the Third Reform Bill of 1884 fails to meet Rummell's stated criteria for democracy" Again simply false, here is his critera "By democracy is meant liberal democracy, where those who hold power are elected in competitive elections with a secret ballot and wide franchise (loosely understood as including at least 2/3rds of adult males); where there is freedom of speech, religion, and organization; and a constitutional framework of law to which the government is subordinate and that guarantees equal rights" Ultramarine 13:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • " One study finds that interstate wars have important impacts on the fate of political regimes, and that the probability that a political leader will fall from power in the wake of a lost war is particularly high in democratic states. [18] Two of the militant democracies have been dominant naval powers, and have also had greater choice as to which wars to fight." The last sentence is original reserach and has no relation to earlier discussions. Ultramarine 13:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Many democratic peace theories implicitly or explicitly exclude the first years of democracies; for example, by requiring that the executive derive from genuinely contested elections, which would eliminate both administrations of George Washington." More of Pmanderson's personal opinions.Ultramarine 13:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

State of discussion

Viewed by Septentrionalis

  • Two slips in editing complex material for greater clarity. Corrected.
  • Kant
    • Ultramarine declines to specify what inaccuracies are asserted. The past argument referenced refers to claims not made by the present text.
  • "War to end all wars".
    • That Wells devised this slogan is not contested.
    • Ultramarine and I dispute what Wells meant by this; about which the present text therefore does not assert anything.
    • Ultramarine also disputes that it meant, as a slogan that the destruction of Prussian autocracy and militarism would produce a lasting democratic peace Septentrionalis 06:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ultramarine

Original Research

Point unsourced in the present text.

  • For example, most of the "limited claims" section.Ultramarine 10:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Largely derived from Gowa, as sourced, and as Ultramarine admits above. Please be specific. Septentrionalis 16:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • False, most of it is not. Also, you should give page numbers from Gowa's book. Remember, you have been warned by the arbcom for not giving page numbers but only whole books as claimed sources.Ultramarine 17:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The reference to Gowa's general criticism should be passimin any case. I will look up Gowa's references to the Cold War the next time I have my hands on a copy. Are they in one of the past edits? I don't remember ever seeing them in the article.
            • Since you refuse to give any page numbers as required by the arbcom, this whole section is your own original research.Ultramarine 08:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • This is the pot calling the kettle black. The notes to the version Ultramarine wishes to restore has no page numbers on the citations of books at all. This includes the citation of Gowa in another context.Septentrionalis 06:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • These are mostly short studies, not books. The arbcom did not require page numbers for papers. And have given extensive page numbers from for example Never at War. I can certainly remove the citation from Gowa. Ultramarine 16:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "R. J. Rummel dismisses these as superficial, [17] relying on Kurt Lewin and Andrew Ushenko's proposition that democracy involves a pervasive social mechanism (called a "social field") in which, "The primary mode of power is exchange, [the] political system is democratic, and [the] democratic government is but one of many groups and pyramids of power." In contrast, authoritarian systems involve a "social anti-field", "[which] divides its members into those who command and those who must obey, thus creating a schism separating all members and dividing all issues, a latent conflict front along which violence can break out." Thus, the citizens of a democracy are habituated to compromise, conflict resolution, and to viewing unfavorable outcomes as temporary and/or tolerable."
This may have some resemblance to reality, but is unverifiable. The link is dead. Ultramarine 16:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Present status

Septentrionalis

  • Ultramarine objects to the description of one of Gowa's major arguments. Even if this were completely unsourced, it would warrant only {{SectOR}}, but it is not. It may take me some days to get my hands on a copy. It would also be faster if Ultramarine would state which points he believes are neither
    • supported by Gowa, nor
    • statements of the obvious, which WP:NOR permits

Septentrionalis 06:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ultramarine

Notes

Complaints about the present note format

Dsicussed earlier. Ultramarine 10:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion took place before the notes were in their present format. Septentrionalis 18:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
References are still spread all over the article and use several different citation systems.Ultramarine 18:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They are spread over the article for ease of editing; consider the non-trivial rearrangement done by the anon in the dar al-Islam edit. When the text appears to be stable, they can be regathered in minutes.
I have certainly endeavored to follow a clear and simple system of citation in the notes:
  • [URL author date] for articles;
  • Author Title for books.

If Ultramarine sees any accidental inconsistencies, I would be obliged if he would do the usual thing on a wiki, and fix them; instead of spending much more time on these vague statements. Septentrionalis 22:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have already contributed excellent citation style here [19]. Unfortunately, it had been reduced to the current incoherence. Ultramarine 08:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Status

  • The notes are next to their respective sections to allow for extensive editing without losing notes, which I have seen much too often. If the present text remains relatively stable, I will collect them, and let the mediator decide. Septentrionalis 06:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clean-up of confusing writing style

And what else is this supposed to cover?

Unfortunately, the article is extremely badly written and confusing, as stated in the tag. Various correct citations is mixed gross with errors and with personal essays and opinions. Various things have been selectively deleted, making the flow unintelligible. Various irrelevant things have been added, also adding to the confusion. Just one example, "Interestingly, Islamic tradition holds that peace will prevail within the dar al-Islam or "house of submission" to the faith, but war, including jihad, beyond that zone." has been added by Pmandersson as his personal musing, something completely irrelevant to to theory and not mentioned anywhere in the literature. On the other hand, he has deleted the definition of MIDs, making understanding of the claims of the theory incomprehensible.Ultramarine 10:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dar al-Islam
    • The sentence quoted was added by an anon. I have not deleted it, because I believe in collaborative editing (now my attention is drawn to it, I will remove Interestingly). The fact is well-known; is a variety of peace theory; and (depending on one's view of the Congregation of the Faithful) conceivably describes a democratic peace. I hold a different PoV on Islam; but so what? Septentrionalis 17:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not mentioned anywhere in the literature, simply your own irrelevant original research.Ultramarine 08:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Present status

Septentrionalis

Ultramarine is claiming that the concept of Dar al-Islam does not exist, or has nothing to do with peace. He is also claiming that I put it in the article, contrary to the diff above. <shrug> Septentrionalis 06:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't see what this has to do with style. Septentrionalis

Ultramarine

Or let's make this simple

  • Does Ultramarine have any changes to suggest which are not reversions to the edit he made at 18;33, 7 November 2005?
  • Which paragraphs of that edit does he propose to restore?

Septentrionalis 00:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The totally stable and undisputed version which existed before your recent campaign starting on January 15 was also good, including all the subarticles. You have since started deleting subarticles and renamed "Democratic peace theory (Correlation is not causation)" to "Why other peace theories are wrong"!!! And "Democratic peace theory (Specific historic examples)" to "Why Rummel is always right". This is Disruption to prove a point, clearly showing your intentions. Ultramarine 09:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When Robdurbar invited me to resume edit this article, it was clogged with jargon and eye-glazing detail. He would go further than I have done, and not even define monadic and dyadic, (see above TOC).
I proposed a deletion only of the Statistical studies article, which was substantially included in the present text (and almost entirely included verbally in the edit of 3 January). I have opposed the deletion of the other two. As I stated on their talk pages, I was planning to link to them from R. J. Rummel, whom alone they concern. Their previous long, inaccurate, and typo-prone titles were simply too inconvenient. Septentrionalis 17:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

medcabal

Hello -- I've come in as part of the totally informal medcabal, by request [20].

This is a long dispute, and I am not totally familiar with the details. However, I definitely agree that it is important for wikipedia to have an excellent article on DPT, and I want to help us get there.

I am currently looking over this diff: [21] which seems to best describe the contention between Ultra and Sept/Pmanderson. But it is very hard to see what the substance of the disagreement is about.

I note that uses of phrases like "Why Rummel is always right" (presumably meant humorously) are kind of inappropriate here. It is probably best they go, or be replaced by something more strictly NPOV.

I think a crucial thing here is that we work with the current article we have (i.e., the latest version.) Given this, I see that Ultra believes:

1. Systematic exclusion of many supporting studies and findings, extremely biased presentation of specific historic cases, systematic exclusion of counter-arguments to criticism of the theory

So I suggest that Ultra restore (not by reversion, but by cut and paste and integration) the excluded material, and attempt to balance historical cases.

2. "This article may contain original research or unverified claims."

So I suggest that Ultra remove stuff that he considered unverified. If it means removing huge chunks of text, however, let's hold off on that for a moment.

3. There are also criticisms of the factual accuracy. My feeling is that many of these are actually problems with NPOV. Let's hold off on this for a moment while we solve the NPOV stuff above.

How does this sound? Ultra, do you want to give it a go? Sdedeo (tips) 21:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am ready. Note that your are comparing the wrong versions. This is the correct diff [22]. The diff you are using is incomplete since subarticles containing much of contents have been deleted.Ultramarine 21:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Please do your best to add only the minimum necessary to attain NPOV (i.e., don't try to expand or improve the article for now -- let's just try to solve the pressing NPOV problem.) Thanks, and good luck. Sept, please chime in as you see fit. Sdedeo (tips) 21:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that a cut and paste will work since the article has been radically changed. Neither do I think that integration will work since essentially all of the changes since january 15 are incorrect in order to give a false impression of the research. A discussion case-by-case of specific disputes would be better.Ultramarine 21:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not from my PoV. This article contains the substance of the article I found on January 15, almost all of it in the same order, much of it in the same words. (see [diff]). I have edited for clarity, and to lighten the jargon; I have also made additions. I think the largest of these was on the meanings that the various democratic peace theories have given to democracy and peace. Septentrionalis 06:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we are trying to mediate the discussion here using the article as a "scratch page". Start as small as you like -- e.g., take a particular section that you feel has problems outlined in (1) above, and tweak it as minimally as possible to remove those problems. Do your best to maintain as much of Sept's text and presentation as possible. We will probably have to take this very slowly. If Sept disputes that particular section tweak, we can hash it out further. Sdedeo (tips) 21:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the problems would essentially meaning restoring the prior version. Every change I can see is unsourced or contradicted by its own references.Ultramarine 21:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can only help out here if you're willing to give my suggestion a shot. I don't have the skill or time to mediate between two competing versions. If you can follow the suggestion I've made in my 21:32 comment, let me know. Sdedeo (tips) 21:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find this extremely difficult to do since Sept has moved so much content around. But why cannot we discuss specific disputes? For example, Sept has completely removed the rather important finding that democracies have lower democide. He has also above stated that he will not include it since I only give one reference. How should we resolve this? Ultramarine 22:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
False. I replaced the neologism. The point is still made and referred to the same source. Septentrionalis 06:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said, I don't have the skill to mediate specific disputes. I wouldn't know where to begin; I am not an expert in the field. If you feel there is a section that would become more NPOV by mentioning a (sourced) study finding lower democide in democracies, then go ahead and add it in to that specific section. Again, just to be clear: let me know if you can follow the suggestion I've made in my 21:32 comment so we can proceed (or not.) And, again, just to be clear: take it slowly, don't try to fix it all at once. We'll wait to see Sept's response to your edits. Sdedeo (tips) 22:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Would it not be better if it was Sept who tried to follow my text and presentation? I have added almost all of the referenced material to the article and spent countless hours reading articles before doing so. In essence, he is objecting to my presentation of the literature. So it would it not be better if he started with my text and make changes we can discuss? Ultramarine 22:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This has always been Ultramarine's demand, throughout the history of this article:revert to the version which Ultramarine alone wrote.Septentrionalis 06:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the details of how the article arose, but from looking at the history, it seems that both you and Sept have put a great deal of work into the article. Wikipedia practice is that, in the absence of a revert war, you work with the article as it currently stands. One last time -- I don't want to keep going in circles here, and I thought carefully about what the best course of action would be -- are you willing to work with my suggestion of 21:32? Sdedeo (tips) 22:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this would be extremely difficult to do this in the way proposed since I consider most of the changes done by Sept to be systematic NPOV violations and adding factual errors without adding new information. Correcting them would therefore in essence consist of removing most of his changes. However, I would be very glad to discuss specific disputes case-by-case with the help of an outside party. Alternatively, as stated, I would also accept the opposite scenario with sept maintaining as much of my text and presentation as possible Ultramarine 23:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. You are unwilling to begin with my suggestion of 21:32. I will "punt" the case to another mediator. I wish you and Sept the best of luck resolving the conflict. Sdedeo (tips) 23:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Treating this article as a conflict of two versions is contrary to the finding and remedy put forward by Arbcom, as I read them. Please continue this line of mediation. The present text is an edit of Ultramarine's version of & November, by several editors before I returned to it. Sterile reversions, such as Ultramarine proposes above, are sanctionable. Septentrionalis 03:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another mediator, User:Kim Bruning, has said he'll give it a shot; he'll be around in the next few days. So perhaps everyone might want to wait a bit for Kim to weigh in before continuing discussion. Best of luck, Sdedeo (tips) 04:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, go and blow my cover will you? *sigh* Kim Bruning 15:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will add short summaries of my POV the discussions so far, for Kim's convenience. I encourage Ultramarine to do likewise. Also short notes here, since I disagree (naturally) with Ultramarine's account of the editing history.Septentrionalis 04:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason to present a strange "present status" section that will immediately get irrelevant with new arguments. Continue prior discussions instead. Ultramarine 14:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have added many more specific examples of NPOV violations and factual accuracy. Please review.Ultramarine 14:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, take your time. :-) I have some wrist injury or so it feels like. So I'll be a tad slow, but I'll be reading! Kim Bruning 15:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Background for mediation

An observation. Since most of the disputes are regarding factual contents referenced from the literature, I think that a mediator must have the necessary background and the sufficient time to examine the references. I suggest that a mediator start by reading this basic overview of the literature [23]. Ultramarine 11:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I would also suggest reading the alternative version here [24] and compare it to the current. Ultramarine 12:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move notes to bottom of page?

Hi All, I think having notes scattered throughout the article looks rather messy. I'd like to more them to the end. Any objections? Also should footnote reference be before the punctuation mark? --Salix alba (talk) 12:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe citation style was one of the tags mentioned above. Go ahead, let's tidy it so we can get a good look at what's up.

moved tags to talk

When an article is disputed, the rest of the complaints are somewhat implied ;-) But it's still handy to have that level of detail, so I've retained the tags on talk for now. Kim Bruning 12:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Democratic_peace_theory&oldid=36985600"