This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article survived an AfD under its old name under unusual circumstances. The consensus was that the article should be kept, but with a different name and almost completely different content.
As closer, I do not feel its survival should prejudice a future AfD, because of the nature of the consensus at the previous one. I feel that any argument based on WP:NOTAGAIN should be disregarded at any future AfD for this article.—S MarshallTalk/Cont16:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've tagged this section as synth. Drawing a long bow to suggest Carthage was a democracy, as I recall, it was considered to be an oligarchy. In any case is there a source that asserts that the Punic Wars was a war between two democracies? --Martin (talk) 02:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As the humorist Will Cuppy summarizes the old-fashioned view: "Carthage was ruled by its rich men, and was therefore a plutocracy; Rome was also ruled by its rich men, and was therefore a republic." But that was most of a century ago, about sources much older, and there have certainly been assertions of Carthage's embattled democracy since (as indeed before; Mommsen remarks on the democracy of Carthage). {{Synth}}, however, seems wrong; little enough is being asserted, but all of it is consensus. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson02:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I notice the link to the book you provided has the word "democratic" in scare quotes. That's not very reassuring. Unless there is a reliable source that clearly asserts that the Punic Wars was a war between two democracies, I think these borderline synthy cases such as this damage the overall credibility of this list, and should be removed. --Martin (talk) 02:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming you read all the sources on the list above? The classic 19th-century scholars such as Mommsen and Niebuhr are there to indicate that the relation of democratic politics in both Carthage and Rome to the Punic Wars is a longstanding theme in classical scholarship. Since their manner of writing is far more discursive than most modern scholars, it takes a lot of reading to summarize their points. In addition to the link PMA gave to Mackay, you might want to read the chapter in Lazenby, the section in McGIng in which constitutional questions are explicitly linked to the Punic Wars, and the explicit statement in Walbank, though you have to look elsewhere on the page to see that one of the elements of the "mixed constitution" is democratic. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I have read all the sources. There is a world of difference between a mixed constitution with elements of democracy, and a constitutional democracy. Sure, some internal functions were subject to a democratic process, like Chief Magistrate to which Hanibal was elected to for a brief period, but that's unrelated to foreign relations let alone any military campaign. It's no wonder that MacKay places the term "democratic" in scare quotes, it obviously wasn't a full democracy as we understand the term today. --Martin (talk) 04:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are a very fast reader. As a woman, I wouldn't consider Athens much of a democracy were I to be transported there to live; that doesn't mean we should delete the article Athenian democracy. The neutrality of this list depends on using sources to determine which polities have been called democracies, and not imposing our own (assuming the phrase "our own" has any collective meaning) standards of democracy. We've discussed above that since few if any polities have been "true" or "pure" democracies, the constitutional status of a given country must be verified by sources and qualified. (I'm not sure you're understanding the Polybian mixed constitution, or in the case of Rome, about which I know infinitely more than I do Carthage, the role of the populus; I would prefer not to go over this in depth, and refer you to the relevant works of Fergus Millar and T.P. Wiseman in addition to a quick glance at Constitution of the Roman Republic.) In creating a list, each section should have a brief introduction that marks historical changes in the definition of democracy; the relevant article is History of democracy. The use of the word "democracy" and "democratic" in relation to ancient politics has a long history. If you've read all 13 of the sources listed above, then you see that indeed scholars do explicitly discuss the relation of the Punic Wars to democratic politics in Rome and Carthage, both of which had mixed constitutions with a democratic element. The burden of proof would then be on you to provide sources that state with equal explicitness that the two parties to the Punic Wars had nothing to do with democracy; even so, the two points of view — that democratic politics had a bearing on the Punic Wars, and that (hypothetically) democratic politics had nothing to do with the Punic Wars — would need to be given due weight in relation to each other. Cynwolfe (talk) 05:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that when I first arrived at this discussion, I doubted that the Punic Wars belonged here. Seemed like reaching. Since my main area of interest on Wikipedia is the Roman Republic (though primarily the late Republic), I choose that topic to look up. I was genuinely surprised by the amount of supporting material I found. Forgive me for pointing out, if you're already keenly aware of it, that the Republic and the Empire had two different forms of government); the democratic element of Rome's mixed constitution — the populus, as represented for instance by the tribunes of the plebs and the people's assemblies — was no surprise to me (though I've been surprised at the degree of resistance to this aspect of Roman politics here), but I hadn't realized there was such a clear scholarly tradition that treated the Punic Wars in relation to democratic politics in Rome and Carthage. Cynwolfe (talk) 05:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no dispute that being originally a Phoenician colony, Carthage had been influenced by Greek democratic elements. However there is scholarly concensus that by the time the Punic wars started, power had been concentrated into the hands of a closed oligarchy, similarly to Venice's Council of Ten. Sure there were "democratic" elements in the Venetian system, for example the Council of Ten was elected by the Grand Council, but membership of that 2000 strong Grand Council was open only to noble men through birth. Certainly not a "democracy" in terms of "rule by the people". Here are some excerts:
I myself would tend to agree with Syme (linked and/or quoted above) that all government devolves into oligarchy. And as I said, I was surprised to find the material I did — since the topic was "democracy", I searched "democracy/democratic/democratically" with "Rome" and "Carthage." You seemed to have searched "Carthage + Venice + oligarchy" (not an obvious combination for the topic) and have gotten results accordingly. I'm not here to assert my original research, which I practice elsewhere; here I confine myself to what sources say. Of the three sources you cite, one is a book on Venice (an odd choice given the vociferous synth arguments on this page); the second is an obscure book from Bibliobazaar (I'm assuming you're familiar with what they do), missing copyright and press info but looking to be 19th century or early 20th century, not in my well-outfitted-for-classics university library and by an author I can't seem to identify at the moment; and the third is an entry from an 1862 edition of Smith's Dictionary, still an extremely useful reference book, but not evenly expert on all subjects. I don't see how these would stack up against the list of sources above, which include not only classic works of scholarship and modern specialist works, but give much more expansive treatments of the subject. Cynwolfe (talk) 07:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would say, on reading the sources, that there seems substantial agreement that there was a successful democratic reform at Carthage towards the end of the Second Punic War, and it became an radically democratic state in 151 BC, sufficiently so for Polybius to strongly disapprove of it, and having something to do with the success of the belligerent party at Rome. Google counts will not detect this, any more than searches on Russia and democracy will detect Kerensky; and any source which depends on Aristotle - who wrote two centuries earlier - is talking about something else.
This raises the question of whether we want to list states which became democracies in the course of a war, as with the February Revolution. (This again would be almost totally irrelevant to the democratic peace, which deals with the outbreak of wars; but so what?) SeptentrionalisPMAnderson14:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a way to get a feel for the weight of consensus between "Carthaginian oligarchy" and "Carthaginian democracy", consider this
You miss the point, which is not quantitative but qualitative. Racking up page hits does not make an argument. The sources I cite above don't exclude the obvious fact that both Rome and Carthage were controlled by an oligarchy, as you know since you read them. Rather, they discuss the role of democratic politics in relation to the wars; in particular, the effect of democratic politics on Hannibal's career and path toward war, and how a "democratic" movement in Carthage in opposition to the traditional oligarchy contributed to that. Now, on the merge proposal page I agreed with you (and you may search through my comments here, though I'll have to apologize in advance for having lost my patience early in the game and expressing my exasperation rudely) that this list should not serve as an actual or de facto indictment of democratic peace theory. Of what potential use is it, then? It's a starting point for readers who are interested in how democratic politics relate to governments declaring and carrying out war. Like any other article, its usefulness depends on keeping its potential use in mind while constructing it. I suppose I would ask what is gained by excluding what is clearly, from the amount of discussion it's received on this page, the interesting and provocative example of the Punic Wars? The effect of the democratic element in the constitution of the Roman Republic, for instance, is a factor in the career of Julius Caesar (see populares, though that is a little beginning of an article). That is why it seems legitimate and instructive to me to include this example: framing it properly would demonstrate the nature of the political or historical question. No one's trying to say that Rome and Carthage were impeccable examples of democracy. The Punic Wars are an example of how the democratic element in these two countries related to the waging of the war, right down to the composition of the army, if you recall that discussion in one of the sources I listed. I suppose I don't understand strenuous efforts to exclude an entry that raises such illuminative questions. Whose purpose is served by that? Cynwolfe (talk) 14:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look, it seems to me that the idea of Carthage being an oligarchy is almost universally accepted as opposed to it being a democracy, simply because more sources refer to it as "Carthaginian oligarchy" rather than "Carthaginian democracy". You concede that both Rome and Carthage were controlled by an oligarchy is an obvious fact. If one needs to dig deeply into the sources to extract the contrary idea, then that is giving undue weight if not engaging in synthesis. Sure there were democratic elements within Carthage, but it's not core to the Carthaginian regime. You say "and how a "democratic" movement in Carthage in opposition to the traditional oligarchy contributed to that", plenty of undemocratic regimes have democratic movements in opposition to it, but that doesn't make that regime democratic. If you want to discuss how the democratic elements related to the waging of the Punic wars, then I don't think this is the correct article to do that in, perhaps Punic Wars would be more appropriate. As I said, these border line cases damage the overall credibility of the list and should be removed. --Martin (talk) 19:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I neither edit this article nor contribute to its content. I'm here because of the kinds of questions it raises, both structurally and in terms of political history. You may not be interested in the same questions, or may view them differently. I'm simply interested in discussing them. I repeat, nobody ever said Carthage was a democracy. But a problem on this talk page is that no country seems to be permissible as a democracy. I do find it untenable to say that identifying a continual theme and interest among ancient historians and classical scholars is having to dig deep as if for something hidden; on the contrary, it is evidently a persistent scholarly topic, which your three sources — the merit, depth, or relevance of which are less than sterling— hardly undermine. (Lord Havell, as it turns out, is likely to have had his own biases.) It has been a unique argument on this page that the more sources support an entry, the more vigorously the validity of its inclusion has been attacked. I can't recall ever seeing this argument elsewhere on Wikipedia. As I said, I came here with your disinclination to include the Punic Wars, but discussing them has been illuminative of the topic, and so I wonder why a clear and brief presentation of the issues would damage the article. I maintain that if done well, it would actually make both the criteria for inclusion and the topic clearer. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a question of where to draw the line. I've not examined the other entries in this article as to whether they merit inclusion in this list, so I can't comment. As you say "nobody ever said Carthage was a democracy", so why is it even in this list? Perhaps we need an article List of wars between oligarchies. am I missing something here? --Martin (talk) 20:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're just coming at it from a different direction. A frequent theme on this page is that it's hard to "prove" that any polity has been or is an ideal/real/true democracy, so line-drawing is continually at issue. My current thinking on the list is that its usefulness is as a starting point for readers interested in the question of how democracy relates to war-waging. It's of no interest to me whether such a reader might be looking for evidence for or against democratic peace theory, which as far as I can see does not depend on the assertion that democracies have never gone to war with each other. One productive theme of discussion here (to my mind) has been not so much the hairsplitting over the many forms of democracy, but rather the necessary confusion between its two broadest categories, democracy as a form of government and "democracy" to mean the democratic process. Although the 'democratic' or people's branch of the Roman Republican constitution commands certainty, from the limited amount I know, the relevance of the term to Carthage lies particularly in Hannibal's use of democratic politics (democracy as democratic process) — which, however, has to do with voting, also a persistent and important theme here in the determination of what's a democracy. So that's why I've found it illustrative, and am willing to entertain the value of the entry. I just feel that when possible, articles should articulate ambiguities, controversies, or disputed facts, and not withhold problematic material. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may be misconstruing where I am coming from. Like you I have no interest in the democratic peace theory, and believe any mention of it should be removed from this article. The frequent theme you say that is on this page is not uncommon in lists when the criteria for inclusion is not clear. To me the term used in the title "democracies" denotes the form of government, not democratic process, as in List of wars between countries that had a democratic form of government, as defined in form of government. I mean List of wars between countries that may have elements of democratic process in some areas decision making that may be related to going to war is nonsense and nobody expects that when they see the title. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a venue for original research nor should this article be an essay to be used "as a starting point for readers interested in the question of how democracy relates to war-waging". I acknowledge there may be issues of hairsplitting in some other cases, but not in regard to Carthage. The settled consensus is that the Carthiginian form of government was oligarchic, there are no ambiguities or controversies in regard to that undisputed fact, even you yourself state "nobody ever said Carthage was a democracy". So I'm scratching my head as to why you insist that Carthage should included here. --Martin (talk) 23:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Martin, you are discussing this in a useful way, but frankly, last night I was looking over all the other things I need to be working on and I feel I must let this drop. On a couple of other difficult pages I could point to, I've been able to help work through disagreements, but in those cases I rolled up my sleeves and pitched in on the article itself. Actions speak louder than words, and all that. I regret that I can't allocate my time to the research time and writing that would be required for the kind of impeccably sourced and organized article I envision here. It would take me too far off track. May reasoned voices prevail. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Babst, again.
Since the discussion about Babst has become overflowed with various verbiage and talk about completely different articles, I'll restart it. Because despite various efforts to confuse things, the issue is perfectly simple and clear.
This is an article listing wars between democracies.
To be listed here, a conflict therefore must be called a war between democracies by a reliable source.
Babst does not call one single conflict a war between democracies.
An admirable example of unsound logic. (2) does not follow from (1); more relevantly, even if (2) were sound, it's a restriction on entries. (4) is a restriction on sources; it doesn't follow.
But the questions are:
Does Babst mean democracies?
Yes, he does; Rummel and Ray and Singer and Small all say so.
Are readers harmed by including him?
No; both entries in which he is cited have sources, from which Babst is specifically distinguished, which say that the war was between "democracies". (As I've said, if OpenFuture thinks this unclear, xe is welcome to clarify that Babst is using different terms.)
Are readers helped by including him?
Yes; some readers will want to know what the founder of democratic peace theory said on the subject; what he said is that the peace he finds does not include civil wars - and these are the examples he cited. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson22:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where OpenFuture confuses me is when he says "a conflict therefore must be called a war between democracies by a reliable source." Here again is the assertion that an entry can and must be made on the basis of a single source; what does this mean? I understand the question raised by Babst not using the term 'democracy'; but does OF mean that the source must be a monograph on the subject of "war between democracies"? So if a military historian is writing about a war, and he mentions as background that one of the polities is a democratic republic, but five constitutional scholars in various books and articles identify the other as a direct democracy (not mentioned by the mil-hst), that doesn't count? Cynwolfe (talk) 22:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No as that is wp:synth as for whom is harmed, the project is, the rules are there for a reason to stop people adding all manner of stuff to get an end result they want mark nutley (talk) 23:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pmanderson:
(2) does not follow from (1) - Did I ever said it did? 2 is a requirement of WP:POLICY. You yourself has agreed to it multiple times. Are you saying now that you no longer agree? Are you backtracking on our agreement that a conflict should only be listed if a reliable source claims it's a war between democracies?
(1); more relevantly, even if (2) were sound, it's a restriction on entries. - Yes. A restriction again forced on us by Wikipedia policy. The article is called "List of wars between democracies". Then we can only list wars between democracies. Otherwise this article becomes a WP:COATRACK.
Does Babst mean democracies? - That is only answerable by using WP:SYNT which is against Wikipedia policy. The relevant question is does he say democracies. And he does not. Hence he can't be used as a source to claim a conflict is a war between democracies.
some readers will want to know what the founder of democratic peace theory said on the subject; - Yes, and that can be fixed, by the compromise solution I have laid forward several times, that solves all SYN and OR and UNDUE issues.
Cynwolfe:
Here again is the assertion that an entry can and must be made on the basis of a single source; -Yes. See WP:SYN. This is not using several sources for a list, that would not be SYN (although it has other issues in this case) it is not using several sources to make a narrative, that's not SYN. It's using several sources to make a claim that neither source says.
but does OF mean that the source must be a monograph on the subject of "war between democracies"? - No. It must claim that the conflict is a war between democracies. I don't understand why you are trying to over complicate things, unless you are just being obtuse, which I hope is not the case. I said nothing about monographs, neither does WP:SYN. Why would you drag in monographs? Why would you think it has to be a monograph? Again, it's perfectly simple: The source must actually support what it is being used to source. And Babst does *not say* that the Boer wars are wars between democracies. What in this is unclear? --OpenFuture (talk) 07:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To make my answer simpler:
OpenFuture's position leaps from:
1. The citations must collectively do X (here, support that such-and-such a war was between A and B and that A and B were democracies), to
2. One citation must do X all by itself, to
4. No citation can do Y or Z, even if another citation for the same war does X.
I agree with 1; the leap from 1 to 2 is unsound; the leap from 2 to 4 is completely unjustified.
OpenFuture wants a different article, on a different subject, in a bizarrely chopped-up and austere style. I suggest that OpenFuture write one; we can discuss overlap later. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson15:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And yet we're not allowed to call you a … (grits teeth and mutters "not worth it, not worth it"). The form democracy's is a singular possessive equivalent to "of a democracy." Second-graders are taught that you do not form a plural with an apostrophe. Democracies is the plural of democracy. The form democracys does not exist in contemporary orthography. I simply cannot take you seriously because you refuse to inform yourself. Therefore, Mercury the Psychopomp has shaken his stick at me and exclaimed "Get out of there!" Sorry to abandon those of you who are trying to argue from an informed perspective instead of shouting "synth!" "OR!" "POV!" and hoping one will stick. I've done my time in this purgatory. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me for using the common usage in society, how incredibly stupid i must be to not have informed myself. Regardless of how i spell it i still require a reply to the above question mark nutley (talk) 17:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed you have done your time, Cynwolfe. I admire your patience. I've taken to ignoring filibustering based on uninformed misconceptions, which, in one case, seem innocent but obstinately persistent and in the other case seem willful and intentional -- in both cases, the end results seems to be to "win" by exhaustion. Perhaps I can suggest that discussing only actual substantive comments would relieve a good deal of the tension for editing in this area. But please don't utterly jump-ship and forsake the good-faith editors yet! BigK HeX (talk) 17:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To BigK HeX: Thanks for your remarks. "Filibuster" strikes me as the right word, and I should've thought of it as you do sooner. I'm retreating until I have time to contribute in a more immediately constructive and concrete way — one that allows me to avoid the kind of childish fight-picking just evidenced. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Filibustering is indeed the right word, but you need to take a deep think about who here is doing it. Who is ignoring Wikipedia policy? Who claims that Wikipedia policy is "made up" by others here? Who ignores arguments? Who tries to avoid the issues and writes long rambling essays on various more or less irrelevant topics? --OpenFuture (talk) 09:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pmanderson: I've never claimed anything like 1. Wikipedia policy does claim both 2 and 4. If you don't like Wikipedia policy, there are forums to discuss that. Personally, I like it and will follow it. I do not know if Mark was involved with the creation of WP:V or not, but I don't see how it makes a difference. Whoever created it, it is now Wikipedia policy, and you do in fact need to follow it. All of it, including WP:RS and WP:OR and WP:SYN. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you say. You have not supplied any evidence of that; you have been asked for articles edited on such a principle - and have declined to provide any. We are not bound by something you made up one day either. It is true that it is convenient to have all three necessary components of "A, a democracy, was at war with B, another democracy" supplied by a single wource - which is why I have generally cited such sources; but it is not necessary, and until some uninvolved editor says something so silly, I see no reason to discuss this further. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson22:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No because it has been pointed out to you, lets try again wp:synthDo not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources That is policy, not something i made up, please wp:agf and just read wp:synthmark nutley (talk) 22:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)WP Synth prevents a conclusion being drawn that is not present in the original material. This is a LIST, and the validation of what is or is not in a list can be done in the manner suggested by PMAnderson. OpenFuture and Mark on this and at least one other page you are persistently asserting your interpretation of policy rather than making any genuine attempt to engage with other editors. Ironically on Mass killings under Communist regimes where an integrated source has been found which relegates your favored theories to a fringe or near fringe status you are arguing against integrated sources. This is Wiki-Lawyering and is becoming disruptive.--SnowdedTALK23:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rubbish Snowed, and you know it. PMA is using synth here to reach a conclusion not in the sources, this is a violation of policy. That is disruptive. Please keep MKUCR on that talk page it has no place here. PMA read the policy, If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B which part of that do you think i made up? ~
This is a LIST - This is about the use of Babst as a source. It has nothing to do with anything being a list. The claim "The Boer wars is a war between democracies" is not a list. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is possible, but you are also using Babst as a source for the statement, and he does *not* say it. So, Babst can not be used as a source for that statement. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pmanderson: No, it's not policy because I say so. That's a ridiculous, demeaning and insulting statement. Please refrain from such comments in the future, they are not conductive to constructive debate. It's policy because policy says so. I'm convinced that you, as an experienced and well regarded editor, really knows these things about Wikipedia policy already, so I don't understand why you require me to tell you them. But now I did anyway, to show good faith:
This policy requires that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question.
The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate, and must clearly support the material as presented in the article.
Hence, the source must support the material. Babst does *not* say that the Boer wars are wars between democracies, hence you can *not* use Babst as a source. For further information about that, see WP:RS.
Further:
Drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited by the no original research policy.
That means you can *not* infer from Rummel that Babst says "electoral governments" but means "democracies". For further information about that, see WP:OR in particular WP:SYN. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a claim that I cannot infer from Rummel what Rummel says. But that does not matter, since the present text, unless it is mutilated further, does not say that Babst says anything about "democracies", but suggests that the reader see what he did say, while making clear that he used a different terminology.
Yes, the 23rd of July you did make a step forward by in the quote note that you need to use other sources to interpret him to make him support the statement. In other words, you now claim in the footnote that you need synthesis to have him support the claim. That's a step forward, thank you. But I think that if you want to add him to a "See also" or "Further reading" section, that's fine. But now he is under references, and used as a source, by referring to other sources, which makes it WP:SYN. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so it doesn't say there that Babst talked about electoral governments, and you need to go to other sources to draw the conclusion that Babst meant democracies? --OpenFuture (talk) 06:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I explain why the reader may be interested in the reference (I would be), and I provide it; OpenFuture's idea appears to be to tell the reader as little as possible. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson23:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Both you and Cynwolfe are very fond of making up straw men. That is not helpful for the discussion. The question is why you absolutely want it as a *reference* when it isn't. Why do you, as a source, want to put something that you now apparently agree can't be used as a source? --OpenFuture (talk) 06:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have never agreed that it can't be used as a source; nobody (except the ineffable mark nutley) has ever agreed to the rule you made up.
However, in the interests of harmony, I made clear that Babst used "freely elective governments" to discuss states which elect their governments periodically, have secret ballot and civil liberties, and so on; i.e. democracies; I should not have engaged in appeasement of the intransigent - we can see how well it worked; I shall not hereafter. I should add, for those who have not seen this fraudulent argument before, that every reliable source who has ever cited Babst has done so as denying the existence of (non-civil) wars between democracies.
But, even if he did not support the wars for which he is cited, what he did say will be of interest to the reader - and, at least until there is an article on a List of wars between freely elective governments (which I will not be writing), this is the place for it.
Having said that, I do not intend to discuss the matter further - except if necessary to prove OpenFuture's bad faith and opposition to the purpose of Wikipedia. I can always link to this the next time he bores people with it. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson07:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
nobody (except the ineffable mark nutley) has ever agreed to the rule you made up. - Oh really? The rule "I made up" is that the entries should be supported by a source that says it's a war between democracies. Let's see if nobody except Marknutley agreed to that:
Remove all list items that don't have a reasonable, sourced claim to being a war between democracies. -- Locke9k
If an actual cite can be found to state that it is a "war between democracies" then it can stay. Else, it will have to be removed -- Alastairward
The list is of "wars between democracies". If one is labelled as such by a reliable third party source, include it. -- WikiuserNI
And finally:
we should list every pair of countries that have met in a conflict that a reliable source has called a war between democracies. -- Pmanderson
If you want to include yourself in a list of nobodies that's probably up to you, but it's not nice to do it to others. ;)
Mark nutley has taken to blanking sourced assertions from this page again. In his last edit summary, he has cited BRD; he has neglected, however, to discuss. Why, therefore, has be blanked the citation to David Churchman, which mentions both Rome and Carthage? SeptentrionalisPMAnderson23:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, if you're going to revert, you have to discuss - including the long list of sources on the democratization of Carthage at #Roman Republic above. But this short-circuits the whole pointless argument about whether democracy at Rome and democracy at Carthage = democracy at Rome and Carthage. Now pleae stop blanking sourced assertions. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson23:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Erm no, i reverted based on what has been said above. Hence per talk. Should you wish to argue it then do so in that section, thanks mark nutley (talk) 00:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
per use of google to determine whether there is a source. There is a source, and it was cited. If you had brought other sources, that would have been a useful contribution. Be ashamed of yourself. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson00:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are being a little bit unreasonable here, the article does not hinge on the presence of the Punic wars, its removal doesn't come even close to gutting the article, there are plenty of other wars listed. --Martin (talk) 03:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing shameful about using google search tools to get a feel for consensus for a concept. Also with 19 wars listed I hardly think that removing the Punic wars could hardly be considered "gutting", let alone justify placing these tags. --Martin (talk) 21:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Questions:
Pmanderson: Do you have one source claiming these wars was wars between democracies? Not wars between republics, not one source saying A was a democracy and another saying B was a democracy. Do you have *one* source saying "these are wars between democracies"?
Marknutley: Have you read the given sources? --OpenFuture (talk) 09:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my footnote:David Churchman, Why We Fight: Theories of Aggression and Human Conflict, University Pres of America (2005), p.143, who discusses Rome and Carthage (in those words). SeptentrionalisPMAnderson16:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
?Just because material is sourced does not mean it belongs. Can you not just answer the question, does your source say this was a war between democracies? Given the evidence presented above i do not see how it can mark nutley (talk) 16:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then you haven't read Cynwolfe's list of sources; Carthage had "a democratic revolution" in 237 BC and, while there continued to be popular and conservative parties, the popular party was elected in 151 BC, which was one of things that decided Rome on the Third Punic war. It is therefore possible that Churchman is generalizing; but that would be original research. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 17:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC) See Serge Lancel: History of Carthage(1993, Eng. tr. 1995) pp. 116-120, 411; Richard Miles "Carthage must be destroyed" (2010): 214, 318, 337. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson17:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am, I admit, curious. Since the ineffable mark nutley protests this removal, would the poster, or mark, explain how an assertion with one source, which ranks the First Kashmir War as a full-scale war, and India and Pakistan as democracies in 1948, can possibly be original research? What's original? SeptentrionalisPMAnderson19:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is my last edit to your article Stop calling everything vandalism [3] adding an OR tag is not wp:vandal. Just please stop calling editors vandal`s ok were in there am i protesting over the tag`s removal? It is your accusation of calling everything vandalism i was objecting to. mark nutley (talk) 19:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm gobsmacked by the choice of books cited by User:Pmanderson to support his case. The book Carthage must be destroyed by Richard Miles is a theatrical drama written in conjunction with the Traverse Theatre of Scotland! The other book by Serge Lancel History of Carthage doesn't appear to exist, but looking at another book of his, Hannibal, doesn't mention "democracy" even once [4], but mentions "oligarchy" several times [5]. Pmanderson's assertion "Carthage had "a democratic revolution" in 237 BC and, while there continued to be popular and conservative parties, the popular party was elected in 151 BC" does not bear up to scrutiny. Lancel writes "Of course, we shall see that Hamilcar and his eldest son subsequently developed a movement that tended to make public life in Carthage evolve in a direction that has been termed "democratic"; but there was nothing at all "revolutionary" about this movement, nothing that revealed any solidarity whatsoever between its instigators and a lower social class". Note the use of scare quotes by Lancel. It wasn't a real democracy at all, just an attempt by one faction to exploit people for their our ends against the ruling oligarchy. In any case, it must be noted that these developments occurred towards the end of the Punic wars, not at the beginning, so it cannot be argued that these wars were started by two democracies. I think that Pmanderson is advocating an idea that simply doesn't exist in the sources. --Martin (talk) 21:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see Martin finally thought of searching for democratic. He will also have found this passage which does not use scare quotes.
It is also true, and any edit to the article should reflect this, that "democratic revolution" is the phrase in one paper, and that Lancel disagrees with it; he uses "democratic evolution", instead, pointedly, and expresses it as a fact; but this is a question of the speed of a change which he agrees occurred.
It is this one by Alan Wilkins. Is it really asking too much to check the author's name before assuming there is only one book of a title? Especially when the title is a well-known, if spurious, quotation? SeptentrionalisPMAnderson22:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Syme would argue (and Madison would agree) that the difference between "a democratic election" and "an attempt by one faction to exploit people for their own ends against the ruling" faction is the difference between a costume and the actor wearing it; the meaning of democracy is that the exploitation uses votes and canvassing, not swords. But other points of view are welcome; suppression is not.
As a mere point of history, the democratic change took place around 240 BC, after the first Punic War, and well before the second. The third Punic war followed several further reforms by the popular party, and their election to power in 151 BC. Therefore Churchman is probably oversimplifying. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson22:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would be cherrypicking if the oligarchy were to be ignored in presenting the standard scholarly views (at any rate, that would be a POV and balance issue, not synth). The democratic element of the Polybian mixed constitution is relevant, and I'm not convinced Martin really understands why: since the time of Polybius the effects of democratic politics on the Punic Wars have presented a clear and persistent historiographical theme. Instead, Martin takes the extremist position that because the two polities represent mixed constitutions rather than "pure" democracy (as if that's ever existed), all discussion of this subject should be suppressed. Why? Explaining the issues clearly would illuminate the criteria for inclusion in the list, the historical usage of the term 'democracy', and how democratic politics in antiquity might differ from the modern world. So I have to wonder why it's so urgent to one group of editors (none of whom regularly if ever contributes in the area of ancient Greece and Rome) to exclude the important link of ancient Rome in the historical picture. I don't intend to keep up a pointless argument, but I did want to reiterate so my comments wouldn't be buried above. I don't see why you should exclude an interesting and illustrative section where an explanation of the processes of ancient democracy and its relation to a ruling oligarchy are highly informative to the reader within this topic. It may be that you can play the "rules game" in such a way so as to block a "move" that would include such a discussion. But I see no informative purpose served by that; quite the opposite. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cyn, do you still stand by your assertion "nobody ever said Carthage was a democracy"? I have no objection to you creating an article Development of democratic elements within the Carthaginian oligarchy where you can explore the processes of ancient democratic development and its relation to a ruling oligarchy to your heart's content, but this is a list which cannot do justice to such a deep and nuanced topic, it is not appropriate here. --Martin (talk) 22:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hope she doesn't; it's not true. This passage, linking Carthage with Tyre, Rome, and Athens, as democracies, is not really difficult to find. But text saying that the question is nuanced would be useful. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson22:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since when was Wikipedia concerned about the TruthTM, and are the authors of the book about Japan you linked, Iichirō Tokutomi, Hiroaki Matsuzawa, Nicholas Wickenden, scholars on ancient history? --Martin (talk) 22:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is interested in verifiability; part of verifiability is truth about sources. I suppose that it is necessary to explain this to an editor who has just made three false statements about them in the course of a personal attack. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson23:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stay on topic User:Pmanderson, play the ball not the person. Verifibility is about ensuring all material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source to show that it is not original research and synthesis. --Martin (talk) 23:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
??? You seem confused, you linked to an edit by SmackBot claiming it was an "unfounded attack", take it up with the Bot owner. --Martin (talk) 01:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Carthage with Tyre, Rome, and Athens, as democracies, is not really difficult to find. - Right, but where they both democracies at the time when the war in question started? If not, then it's not a war between democracies. That source doesn't say, so hence it can't be used. (I haven't read your other sources in this question, I don't have time to follow all WP:OR discussion here, so I'll keep to principles at the moment). --OpenFuture (talk) 06:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we can bottom this. Getting to the bottom of people's view on sourcing may lead to better dialogue and a prevention of further issues. OpenFuture, could you perhaps confirm which of the following approaches you consider within policy and which you do not. I appreciate this may be burdensome, but it could take us further.
I want to create List of descendents of King Charles II who have married each other. A very reliable source (say royal.gov.uk) states that Lady Diana Spencer and Prince Charles were both descended from King Charles II, and their marriage was therefore a marriage between two descendents of King Charles II. Can I add them to the list?
royal.gov.uk says that Prince Charles is a descendent of Charles II, and says that he married Lady Di. The official website of the Spencer family says that Lady Di was a descendent of Charles II.
royal.gov.uk says that Charlie is descended from his namesake. The Spencer family site say that Diana was ditto. The BBC is my source for the wedding of the pair.
royal.gov.uk shows Prince Charles's legitimate descent from Charles II (it's a bit convoluted, but everyone involved was married at the time). The source I have for Lady Diana's origins shows that her connection to Charles II is through the illigitemate child of a mistress*. Historians agree that the child's father is King Charles II, but of course he never 'officially' acknowledged the child. The BBC is my source for the wedding.Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(*(nb this is actually the case - Diana Spencer was descended from not one but two illigitemate offspring of Charles II)this is not a BLP violation for Harry and Wills)
Well, there is a problem with your example, and that is that marriage and descendants are quote uncontroversial concepts. There is little doubt on who is married and who is not. There is also no dispute about what "descendant" means. I'd doubt that you find one source that claims that only illegitimate children should be counted, so that Lady Diana was descended from Charles II but Prince Charles is not. You will however, in discussions about democracies, find sources that do claim that Cuba is democratic and the US is not.
Therefore 1. Is clearly OK. 2 to 4 May be OK in your example, but it's not OK in the article about wars between democracies. This is because a war between democracies is not like a marriage, in that it is a contested controversial topic, with multiple views of what wars is and what democracies are. You could for example end up claiming that the Bay of Pigs was a war between democracies, since there are people who argues that Cuba was a democracy at that time, and there was people saying that the US was a democracy at that time. To my knowledge nobody claims *both* though. Therefore we really need to have a source that claims a conflict is a war between democracies, or we are engaging in WP:OR. (And this is just the beginning of the troubles with that article, but taking that up here is both OT and is just going to complicate the issue for no reason. Let's take one thing at a time.) --OpenFuture (talk) 13:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question: "You will however, in discussions about democracies, find sources that do claim that Cuba is democratic and the US is not." You can find non-fringe sources that make these claims? Active Banana (talk) 13:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do think this has taken us closer to the problem. No it is not original research to find one mainstream source that says that X is a democracy and one mainstream source that says Y is a democracy, and use both to source the sentence "X and Y are democracies". The OR policy has the same application to democracies as it does to royal descents. It would not even be OR to use one mainstream and one fringe source to source the sentence. What it might be is giving undue weight to the idea that Y is a democracy if the only source is a fringe source. If other editors find mainstream sources that agree that Y is not a democracy, then there would be problems. So in your example, if someone claimed with one source that Cuba under Castro was a democracy, and other editors found ten reliable mainstream sources that described it as something not compatible with democracy, then it would be a clear violation of WP:UNDUE to try to put Cuba in a list of democracies.
So we can knock OR on the head, and focus on the quality of sources, which is much more helpful. If a reliable source says that X is a democracy, and there are not other reliable sources that say that they are not, then the article should include X as a democracy. If all mainstream sources agree that it is, and only fringe sources say otherwise then X should be included. If one or a few mainstream sources disagree, then the article would normally be expected to include X but say "Scroggins argues that X is not a democracy."
Incidentally, I share your concerns over 'war'. Modern international law has a strict definition of 'war' 'at war' 'go to war' etc that is rarely invoked where the aggressor is a country with a functioning government (democratic or not). On that basis, there have been no wars since WWII ended. Editors of the article would therefore have to agree among themselves as to what evidence should be acceptable to conclude that something was a 'war'. One possible solution would be to rename the article List of armed conflicts between democracies, another would be to agree on an alternative definition for 'war' in the post WWII era, but of course any proposition would need consensus. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What you are actually suggesting is that we for each and every conflict in the history of the world, completely ignore everyone who has done research on wars between democracies, and instead in every case finds out what the academic consensus of the type of government that was for the involved countries at that point, and what academic consensus is about whether the conflict was a war or not. In other words, we should according to you completely ignore the research on democratic peace theory and instead do that research all over again. I'm sorry, but that sounds completely unreasonable, and it sounds like a gigantic WP:OR violation.
Incidentally, I share your concerns over 'war'. - But not over "democracy"!? I'm very surprised at that, as "democracy" is a much more difficult case than "war".
Any proposition would need consensus. - That seems unrealistic. It seems like a way better idea to actually use the research done on wars between democracies. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OpenFuture, there is no aspect of the sentence "democracy X (source A) and democracy Y (source B) went to war in the year dot (source C)" which constitutes WP:OR, because all three statements (X is a democracy, Y is a democracy and X and Y fought a war) are simple facts. OR is where you synthesise a conclusion based on sources that do not support it - eg "X was having an affair with Y's wife" (source A) and "Y did not give X the job" (source B) cannot be written "Y turned X down for the job because X was having an affair with his wife".
Also, if we are to have a list of "wars between democracies", then it must include all wars as defined by mainstream sources between all democracies as defined by mainstream sources, and not a subset of same written up by sources whose focus is making some point or other about wars between democracies. If a lot of historians/political commentators agree that X is a democracy, and the same or other sources agree that Y is a democracy, and there are historical or news sources that X and Y were engaged in a substantial armed conflict...BUT...sources that solely cover "wars between democracies" do not include this, then there may be a case for arguing that the "wars between democracies" sources are themselves WP:FRINGE. Or, more likely, that such sources are cherry picking wars to suit some further theory.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't agree for the previously stated reasons. A war between democracies are not three separate statements, it is one statement, because of it's controversy and connection to democratic peace theory. (That connection is blatantly obvious despite some editors claim that this list has nothing to do with democratic peace theory). But that can be solved by discussing this on some generic board board like RS/N or so, or getting third opinions etc. The only reason that hasn't happened yet is the ongoing conflict about Pmandersons personal attacks. A consensus seems to be emerging there as well, so all we need now is that someone moves the RfC from "Candidate" to "Certified" in the list here, and I'm sure this could be solved pretty quickly. It's already dragged on forever. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Amen. This list cannot exist either to prove or disprove democratic peace theory. Or any other theory. Constructing it that way would make it non-neutral. That is why each entry must be verified on a case-by-case basis, according to the relevant scholarship. In the case of antiquity, that means primarily ancient historians and classical scholars in conjunction with generalist military and political historians who deal with antiquity. Some theorists may exclude ancient democracies or democratic republics for the purposes of framing their arguments about democracy and war in the modern era, because they're interested in the, um, modern era. But since the list does not exist as evidence for the theories of any particular scholars, their theories cannot be used to exclude entries otherwise verifiable. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not. - Yes it is. It was renamed from the way less controversial "List of possible exceptions to democratic peace theory". This list is, no matter if you like it or not, a list that contains possible exceptions to democratic peace theory, and as such it is connected to it. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Inserting comment out of order because of edit conflict.) OpenFuture's last comment throws the problem into high relief: his objections to verifiable content expose a vulnerability to an interpretation of POV-pushing: he objects because the list might contradict a particular theory. He will object to any entry, no matter how well verified and explained, because he objects to the existence of the list. I gather that he approves of democratic peace theory and wishes not to see it challenged. The arguments of at least some forms of the theory, however, don't even depend on whether wars between democracies have historically taken place, so even in defense of a favored theory, this exclusionist approach would be intellectually untenable. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant quotes: "I have restored this list from massive vandalism by an anon. Almost all of these I have seen mentioned as exceptions to the democratic peace; and my knowledge of the literature and current comment is not complete." "There is an extensive literature on the democratic peace other than Rummel, which is ignored here." "We can include all the wars cited by supporters and opponents of the democratic peace. " "It would include, for example the 2008 South Ossetia War, which may not yet have gotten into the democratic peace literature" "When I last saw this article, it was so called. Since then it has been eviscerated, largely by you, to a chorus of complaints (in which I believe you joined) that it could not be called any such thing, because no real Democratic Peace Theorist could acknowledge any exceptions. " (All by Pmanderson, all after rename) --OpenFuture (talk) 17:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In which case, I suggest the best option OpenFuture has is to start a discussion to move it back to the previous name. Because as it stands, it has to accept verification of democratic status from mainstream historical or political sources, not just according to the democratic peace theory. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've suggested this, and various other ways of solving this conflict, but Pmanderson has rejected everything. It's his way or the highway. That way has (up until a few days ago) been the following; He has claimed that we need reliable sources that claims the conflict is a war between democracies (I agree). He has then persisted in adding sources that does not do that (with which I disagree). And that was, pretty much up until yesterday, the main conflict. (The article has other problems, but I try to take one thing at a time, as listing all the problems earlier just caused confusion in the discussion). --OpenFuture (talk) 17:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had missed this unscrupulous falsehood. Since OpenFuture has a truly remarkable fashion of changing his suggestions retrospectively, I will not attempt to discuss what he has proposed; let us see what he will now propse. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson08:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can we look at Mass killings under Communist regimes in the same way. In practice its the same editors and similar arguments. In that case at least in part, the argument is being made that communism leads to mass killings (as a validation of democratic peace theory). In effect both of these lists are created by a particular and controversial position within political science. Maybe they should all be linked? --SnowdedTALK17:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify, Snowded, what you mean by "they should all be linked"? I think this article should not depend on anything but the existence of wars between polities whose constitutions qualify for discussion as democratic. I see no inherent relationship to Mass killings under Communist regimes. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I see what Snowded means. Both articles started out being about the Democratic Peace Theory (ie that democracies don't go to war with each other), and they use definitions of 'democracy' 'war' 'communism' etc based on the writers of the DPT. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You got it! Ideally we should sort this in the round both in terms of common origins, but also in terms of editor behaviour. In effect one small and dedicated group are seeing things through a specific set of filters related to DPT. Those of us who come on the articles in the absence of that history phase them through more conventional filters. --SnowdedTALK17:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So the question is - are these articles really about the DPT, and should they be either merged back into it or badged as such. Or are they legitimate topics outside of the DTP filter, in which case the references to DTP should largely be removed, particularly from this article. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Yep, and I am inclined to the former as they are very artificial lists. The material on mass killings is well covered in each appropriate article. It gets rids of the arguments over what is or is not fringe in a wider setting. --SnowdedTALK18:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good distinction, Snowded, between two groups of editors. Above I've agreed several times with OpenFuture that the article as originally titled was inherently an argument against democratic peace theory; therefore (though I wasn't around at the time), I would've agreed that it should be deleted as inherently argumentative and non-neutral, or that it should be retitled, presented, and researched neutrally in order to present a list of wars between democracies, while recognizing that for each entry and for different historical periods "democracy" has to be verified and parsed (war, too). I've felt that his quite justified opposition to the original article has perhaps led him to apply arguments appropriate in that context to the retitled and reconceptualized article, where they are no longer so. An article that was presented solely in the context of democratic peace theory would be of no interest to me whatever, and I would gladly leave this alone. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I agree as well, except in the description of what's happened. I was never opposed to the original title. I wasn't even involved in that discussion, so I have no idea where you got that from. I'm not opposed to the current title either. When I came here, this was claimed to be a list of wars between democracies, when it fact most of the conflicts listed were either not wars or not between democracies. Many of them were in fact *neither*, including complete absurdities like the Paris Commune. That was because it earlier had been a list of possible exceptions to DPT. So the article was, when I discovered it, a WP:COATRACK. This was discussed briefly (see archives) and it was agreed that we simply should trim away everything that wasn't a war between democracies. However, I later realized that basing the article on what is "consensus" of democracies, instead of using reliable sources that talked about wars between democracies is a form of WP:OR that will just lead to never ending debates on what is a democracy. I don't think going back to that type of OR is a good idea, as mentioned before. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with OpenFuture. Getting one source that says that X is a democracy and another source that says Y is a democracy, and then finding they had a war in a third source, then including them on this list really is engaging in OR. A valid approach would be to use existing sources like the paper by Maoz and Abdolali Regime Types and International Conflict, 1816-1976. Only those countries mentioned in that paper can reasonably be included in this list, anything extra is OR. --Martin (talk) 18:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well there are two issues here. Firstly we have the interpretation of OR and I think you will find that the community will go with Elen's interpretation there if the lists remain as they are. The second is the suggestion of making this articles DPT related which might remove the conflict. --SnowdedTALK18:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not commenting on the merits of the second issue about the DPT relationship, I haven't really been following that. But the first issue regarding OR, we should really be using sources that actually list countries of particular regime types that have engaged in conflict, not do the research ourselves. --Martin (talk) 18:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There *has* been academic research on the issue done, I do not understand the suggestion that we ignore that and make our own research on the topic. I somehow doubt that the community will accept that we make this article into what must be Wikipedias biggest original research project. :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 18:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I don't think that we can apply the same academic rigour that Maoz and Abdolali would have applied when they compiled their list, I trust their research more than ours. Let's stick to the sources, they are certainly available. --Martin (talk) 18:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not a bit of it. While this article is List of wars between democracies and ostensibly not about DPT, one cannot restrict to those wars which avowed DTP authors choose to include, when (and I'm particularly referring to wars in more ancient times) there are plenty of mainstream historical sources to confirm that X and Y were democracies, and that they went to war with each other (see any history of Athens, Rome, Carthage....). Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for misunderstanding above what OpenFuture had said about the original form of this article, and especially for implying that he and I could have any common ground. I'm not by habit merely adversarial, so it's difficult for me not to attempt incremental consensus. OF takes reasonable efforts on the part of Elen and Snowded to discuss the problem calmly and move forward, and exaggerates their proposals into flamboyant claims that they are trying to instigate "Wikipedias biggest original research project" (adding a smiley face as a guarantor of civility). Martin has already demonstrated the limitations of his research methodology, so I can understand why he may doubt that others are capable of conducting the research necessary for compiling and verifying an encyclopedia article. (Objection! — Withdrawn.)Cynwolfe (talk) 19:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cyn, I don't appreciate your backhander, it's not helpful. It is extraordinary that editors like yourself and Elen would place more weight on your own research rather than rely upon that which has been published. Engaging in OR is simply against policy, no matter how highly you rate your research prowess, it is not permitted. How does Elen know that Maoz and Abdolali are "avowed DTP authors", and does it matter? As in any academic debate, there would be numerous viewpoints as to the countries that qualify for the list, the best course is to get those lists and determine where there is academic consensus amongst those authors for list membership. --Martin (talk) 19:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that the policy on original research bars article editors from reading as much scholarship as possible. Nor does it forbid editors to try to understand it as a whole, not just in bits and pieces. Nor does it forbid providing a coherent overview and summary in articles. WP:V and WP:UNDUE offer guidelines for weighing and presenting the relative value of scholarship. The citing of OR here often sounds as if people are saying you should read a book or two and present a book report instead of an encyclopedia article. My sincere apologies to Martin for sounding snide. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, Cynwolfe, nobody ever claimed the things you now disagree with. Of course you don't agree, neither does any one else. Now what about the things we actually said and suggested. What is you opinion of that? --OpenFuture (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"and especially for implying that he and I could have any common ground. " - Cynwolfe, I *agreed* with you earlier. How can there not be common ground. And I showed that I was exaggerating a bit with a smiley. Is it so bad to try to inject a little bit of humor sometimes? Do you have to try to interpret everything as negatively as possible all the time? How is that constructive? Try to WP:AGF and try to understand what we say instead of just doing all you can to misinterpret everything, or in the absence of possibilities to misinterpret, pick on words and so forth. I really think this is a fairly straightforward issue, and if you just wanted to discuss it seriously I'm sure we could reach consensus quite quickly. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, yet again: the relationship of this article to democratic peace theory is at best tangential. In particular, it does not contradict any democratic peace theory I know of - if only because the academic advocates of it are well aware of these wars - and discuss them fairly often.
Almost all theories of the democratic (or, more commonly) liberal peace are statistical: democracies are less likely to go to war with each other; some marginal wars between marginal democracies are perfectly compatible with this.
the relationship of this article to democratic peace theory is at best tangential. - That's clearly not true, and your comments above show that. Your arguments make a good case against changing the name back, because the list would not be exceptions as such, when the theory is only statistical. But the connection is there, and it's glaringly obvious, and the fact that is comes up, and you took it up many times by your own volition, shows that the article has a strong connection to democratic peace theory. As if it needed to be shown. A theory that says that democracies rarely/never (strike the one you don't like) goes to war with each other is necessarily and obviously connected to a list of cases when they did.
As I said, tangential. Those restrictive conditions receive very little attention in modern discussions of DPT, and little in our article on the subject, largely because in 2010 they apply to very few democracies: presumably to Iraq and Afghanistan, insofar as they have a foreign policy; possibly to Kuwait or Estonia. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson23:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably Pmanderson's two bulleted criticisms have been published before, right? I mean, Wikipedia isn't a platform for unpublished criticisms of published theories, is it? Therefore, those authors critical of the DPT would have compiled their own list of democratic dyads that have engaged in wars to refute the proponents of the DPT, right? So let's get the list of democratic dyads published by these critics of the DPT and compare it to the list published by these "avowed DPT authors", and base this article on that comparison. --Martin (talk) 23:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. Lists of democratic dyads at war would do very little to refute any democratic peace theory (except the extreme forms, and all that would do is make them less extreme). The arguments against the democratic peace are that it is not proven to be more than a matter of chance (see Jeanne Gowa), that it is a side-effect of some other cause (e.g. that unquestioned democracies are the First World states, and avoid the risk of war because they have real wealth to lose), or that it has no satisfactory mechanism. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson00:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably those that argue against the democratic peace theory would have published a list to prove precisely this point. Where is it? I have offered a paper by Maoz and Abdolali Regime Types and International Conflict, 1816-1976, how about you offer another published paper with an alternate list to that presented by Maoz and Abdolali, that would be a good start. --Martin (talk) 00:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason to presume that even political scientists would, in opposing a theory, offer a list which proves nothing about the validity of the theory. But I thank you; Maoz and Abdolali use data covering 1816-1976, and affirm that Great Britain was a democracy throughout the period; this indirect attestation that the War of 1812 was between democracies is most helpful. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson16:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Far more seriously, Maoz and Abdolali are among those who use the neologism "anocracy", which includes the sort of weak, new, and marginal democracies common in this list (and also weak autocracies) and distinguish "democracies" both from autocracies and anocracies. This neologism may well represent a useful analytic method, when explained - as they do in their second or third paragraph; it certainly provides a brief phrasing of the sort of restrictions every theory of the liberal peace places on its hypothesis. For us to use "democracy" in Maoz's sense, without explanation, would be to have a private definition of "democracy", while allowing the reader to think something quite different. However, the explanation is another example of definition dependence, and should be included as such. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson19:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Could you clarify what you mean by using a private definition (I get that part) while allowing the reader to think something quite different? I sense I could easily mistake what the while allowing means. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not letting the reader in on the secret that the claim made excludes many (not particularly successful) regimes which would nonetheless naturally be called democracies in common usage; but Orwell puts it better that I would (search down for "private").
As you said, tangential, and as I said, not tangential. Neither you nor me is a reliable source on this. Maybe you could explain how and why it's tangential in your opinion? Your argument that DPT excludes young states etc precisely because of these wars listed herein shows clearly that the relationship is very intimate and not tangential at all. As is expected. Again, a theory that says that democracies rarely/never goes to war against each other obviously has a very intimate relationship with a list of democracies that has gone to war against each other. This is the same relationship that any theory has with facts concerning the theory. It's the same relationship that the theory of gravity has with apples falling out of trees, and with the Pioneer anomaly. It doesn't get more intimate than that. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose in answer to OF's question, I would say that while the theory is subject to the facts, the facts are not subject to the theory. If someone produces a mathematical proof in support of a theory of physics, and that proof is susceptible to challenges that jeopardize the theory (I'm still thinking, however, about the point that dpt is not a theory, but a proposition or hypothesis), then the theory is put in question, not the principles of mathematics. Therefore, the theory in question would not dictate the presentation, certainly not the exclusion, of the mathematical facts in their own separate article. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that while the theory is subject to the facts, the facts are not subject to the theory. - That is absolutely true. Again, nobody has suggested that DPT dictate anything about this article. It's just yet another straw man argument. And that's what I think we could get an agreement here if you just wanted, because most of the things you say are correct. except for the straw men arguments. If you just would engage in a constructive debate I think we would find each other in agreement. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I had seen this open lierepeated and apparently deliberate falsehood, I would not have bothered replying to OpenFraudFuture's more specious claim below. He has done little but insist that this article be remodelled to possible exception to democratic peace theory. I will do my best to ignore him hereafter, unless he resumes blanking the text; I commend this course to others. . SeptentrionalisPMAnderson21:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do feel that OpenFuture is contradicting himself, but I think you have, um, created a rhetorical difficulty here, PMA. I'm not insisting that you see five fingers (or suns), but don't lose sight of the substance of what you've accomplished in the actual article. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pmanderson, I would appreciate if you stopped your personal attacks. They do not add to the discussion, and they do not help your case. Wikipedia rests on mutual respect, and listening to each other. Please try to stay cool when discussion, so we can have a constructive discussion. I feel that you, with your knowledge of the subject should be a part of this constructive discussion, but when you instead choose to insult your opponents that is unfortunately not the case. The article, and Wikipedia, will be better if you keep your comments factual and topical. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A modest proposal
The following conversation is indicative:
Amen. This list cannot exist either to prove or disprove democratic peace theory. Or any other theory. Constructing it that way would make it non-neutral. That is why each entry must be verified on a case-by-case basis, according to the relevant scholarship. In the case of antiquity, that means primarily ancient historians and classical scholars in conjunction with generalist military and political historians who deal with antiquity. Some theorists may exclude ancient democracies or democratic republics for the purposes of framing their arguments about democracy and war in the modern era, because they're interested in the, um, modern era. But since the list does not exist as evidence for the theories of any particular scholars, their theories cannot be used to exclude entries otherwise verifiable. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not. - Yes it is. It was renamed from the way less controversial "List of possible exceptions to democratic peace theory". This list is, no matter if you like it or not, a list that contains possible exceptions to democratic peace theory, and as such it is connected to it. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Inserting comment out of order because of edit conflict.) OpenFuture's last comment throws the problem into high relief: his objections to verifiable content expose a vulnerability to an interpretation of POV-pushing: he objects because the list might contradict a particular theory. He will object to any entry, no matter how well verified and explained, because he objects to the existence of the list. I gather that he approves of democratic peace theory and wishes not to see it challenged. The arguments of at least some forms of the theory, however, don't even depend on whether wars between democracies have historically taken place, so even in defense of a favored theory, this exclusionist approach would be intellectually untenable. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is precisely the problem. OpenFuture wants a different article, under a different title, using standards of proof that he has made up. There is a solution to this: he should go write one. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson08:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested renaming back as a compromise, since you wanted to revert the article back to it's state then. You wanted to add loads of things that was not wars between democracies, but had been used as arguments against DPT. In that case the article should be renamed. To claim that this means that *I* want a different article is absurd. You are after all the one who reverted back the changes done to stop the article being a WP:COATRACK.
I do not want another article. I have suggested ways we can fix the issues with this article. You do not like them, which of course is up to you. But claiming that I therefore want another article is completely baseless.
(ec)It is however the case that your editing perspective on this is that of democratic peace theory, and the same would appear to be at the case on the mass killings arguments. Given the definition of democracy (which is historically situated within the near past) within DPT it is unlikely that a list of wars between democratic states would be the same as a list of contradictions to DPT. So we have to decide one way or another what should be done. If this list has merit independently of DPT then it stands on its own and cannot be constrained by that theory. If it only has merit in that context then it should be renamed. The debate on OR and SYNTH (where you are not gaining support see comments by Ellen above which match those made by several of us over the last few weeks) is really a proxy debate to determine what is included or not. It strikes me that the first and substantive question to determine is whether this list stands along or not. I am happy either way on that subject (and on Mass Killings), but it needs to be settled. --SnowdedTALK09:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given the definition of democracy (which is historically situated within the near past) within DPT it is unlikely that a list of wars between democratic states would be the same as a list of contradictions to DPT. - Yes of course. Nobody has to my knowledge suggested that we choose sources based on their view of DPT.
If this list has merit independently of DPT then it stands on its own and cannot be constrained by that theory. - Constrained?
If it only has merit in that context then it should be renamed. - I don't think anyone has said it only has merit in that context (although perhaps that's worth discussing). I'm just saying that when Pmanderson claims that a list of wars between democracies has no relation to a theory concerning wars between democracies, he is pretty obviously wrong. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but then I think you are going to have to accept "in general the statements X is a democracy, Y is a democracy, X and Y had an armed conflict in 1900" to quote the next section. --SnowdedTALK17:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But that would require massive amounts of original research. See earlier discussion. Why do you want to ignore the research done, and make your own original research here, in blatant violation of WP:OR? --OpenFuture (talk) 20:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another straw man argument - by our expert on the subject. Nobody has proposed original research; what has been proposed is looking for the statements of reliable sources. That does require a great deal of unoriginal research in looking for statements about the democracy of past states; if anybody can find some, I would appreciate it. The wars of interest can be found by looking at the undefaced version of this page before OpenFuture began blanking it, at Ray's list of possible wars (which is drawn from the DPT literature), and at Russert. Electing to Fight should also be consulted. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson21:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict). No, it is not original research. Original research is creating a premise that none of the sources support. If I can look up in one source that team X played team Y in the European cup final, and have separate sources that teams X and Y won their respective national leagues, it is not original research to say that the European cup final was contested by the winners of Serie A and the Bundesliga. If we must have this list, it cannot be just a list of conflicts that a limited number of sources of the same viewpoint say were wars between democracies. If reliable sources agree that X and Y fought a war, and reliable sources agree that X and Y were democracies, that is all one needs. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"No necessary or inherent relation" is a different claim from "no relation." If at some point PMA said "no relation" in this informal discussion, I feel certain he didn't mean it absolutely. The point is that if democratic peace theory had never existed as an identifiable proposition or hypothesis (as I've seen it more accurately described), this list could still be compiled. Polybius could have started it in the 2nd century BC, and implicitly did. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"No necessary or inherent relation" is a different claim from "no relation." - Not in any significant way in relating to this article.
The point is that if democratic peace theory had never existed as an identifiable proposition or hypothesis (as I've seen it more accurately described), this list could still be compiled. - *Could*, yes. But it wouldn't have been compiled. The topic is completely random if you ignore DPT, you could just as well make a "List of wars between countries who have the color red in their flags". This article exists because of democratic peace theory. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. When I first saw the title of this article, I didn't have any idea it had been created in response to dpt. The color 'red' is categorically frivolous because flag colors have nothing to do political theory or military history. Politics and forms of government are not unusual contexts for the discussion of the causes of war or how governments conduct them. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pennamite-Yankee War
I have tagged this as wp:synth and wp:or due to the fact that it appears to use multipile sources to get to the conclusion desired
for the war, see Clark De Leon: Pennsylvania Curiosities, p. 212; for the democracy of Pennsylvania, including tax-payer suffrage and annual elections, see Randall M. Miller and William Pencak, Pennsylvania, a History of the Commonwealth, p. 121; for the annual elections of Connecticut, even before the Revolution, and the democracy and egalitarianism of the 1780s see Stephen R. Grossbart. "Trumbull, Jonathan"; American National Biography Online Feb. 2000; for the democracy of Vermont, see Charles Miner Thompson, Independent Vermont, Houghton Mifflin, 1942
This is a clear case of synth mark nutley (talk) 10:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in there seems to be sourced by multiple sources. You are in fact using multiple sources to claim that it's a war between democracies, when none of your sources say so. How is it then sourced? --OpenFuture (talk) 15:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a clear case of stating "A and B and C" from a source which says A, a source which says B, and a source which says C. OpenFuture's last contribution on this subject was to deny that he had ever held that there was anything wrong with that; what is his complaint now? But I forget, we have always been at war with Eastasia this has always been contrary to policy, since it is now Monday. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson16:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's also a clear case of what I've described here and elsewhere as an interpretation of "synth" and "OR" that is unique to this page: the argument that an entry should be excluded because a great number of sources verify it. "Original research" is defined by WP:OR as "material … not already published by reliable sources." The information is attributed to published reliable sources, and so it cannot be called "original." WP:SYNTH prohibits the use of sources to advance a new position. No new position is here advanced. The entry perhaps requires more explanation in the body text to avoid any appearance of synth, and the sources/footnotes could be grouped and distributed accordingly. Elen seems to have a handle on how this is usually done. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look later this evening, but can confirm that in general the statements X is a democracy, Y is a democracy, X and Y had an armed conflict in 1900frozen to death are three factual statements without OR. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would be very helpful. PMA has revised the entry to do what I envisioned, but I lack the time at the moment to examine the sources carefully. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1. It's a clear case of stating "A and B and C" from a source which says A, a source which says B, and a source which says C. - Yes. So therefore, your claim that it's sourced by multiple sources is not correct. Neither A, nor B, nor C (nor, in fact D in this particular case) is sourced by multiple sources.
2. The problem with it is the same problem I've stated all the time. Your claim that I have said it's OK is false. That was in relation to something else. Again, with your view of how to interpret SYN, the Bay of Pigs Invasion was a war between democracies. In fact, the blockade against Cuba is a war between democracies. Doesn't that strike you as at least a little bit absurd? --OpenFuture (talk) 21:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You come up with that non-FRINGE source yet that says that Cuba is a democracy?? Until you do, I suggest you take that piece of rhetoric off the table. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did. That Cuba has elections that are open are rather common knowledge. When you start talking about non-fringe we now need to get into determining the majority view of the government every state that ever been involved in a war during thaty war, and then you are firmly into WP:OR land. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, the normal rules of WP:VWP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE apply. I cannot base a statement only on a fringe source. I cannot sustain inclusion of text where it is clear that the mainstream view of scholars is opposed to it. What you are describing "determining the majority view of (the government)" is normal Wikipedia editing practice, and nothing to do with Original research. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Im not too sure about how to comment on this or other articles, but I have read several sections in here and get the gist. Setting source issues aside, I don’t really see why this is even considered a “War” at all, never mind the polities involved. This is a border dispute between amicable colonies/states. The two political entities never engaged in any kind of military operation. More like a settlement race to claims. If this “War” is considered than all other state boundary issues in which citizens fought should be added (Ohio/Michigan, Connecticut/Rhode Island, etc.), and that seems out of line with the purpose of this article.
Suggested addition to the article
I would suggest to add the following war between democracies to the list:
* War between [[USA]] and [[Cuba]], 1961.<ref>for the war, see Q Wright: The Cuban Quarantine, American Journal of International Law Issue 57, page 546, 1963; for the democracy of United States see Polity IV data for 1961; for the democracy of Cuba, including multiple candidates in the open nomination assemblies held for the nomination of these candidates for these seats, see Arnold August, "Democracy in Cuba and the 1997-98 elections", 1999.</ref>
No, I said a reliable, non-Fringe source, prepared to state that Cuba at the time of the Bay of Pigs was a democracy, not a "scholar and activist" making the case that post Castro Cuba is holding free elections for local councillors. The normal rules of WP:V pertain. Try again.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So scholars are not reliable sources if they are activists as well? That's news. Can I remove all of Pmandersons SYNT by claiming the sources are "fringe"? That view of Cubas parliamentary system is not by any way fringe. It just uses another definition of democracy that the POLITY IV definition, for example. A definition that by the way is very close to the definition used about the greek democracies: Every citizen has the right to vote. Why is that definition not allowed for Cuba? --OpenFuture (talk) 21:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to explain the difference. I can see nothing in that article that contradicts it, and everything I read on the subject calls the Greek states "democracies" because of that. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop your insults, they are not conductive to a constructive discussion. And editor of your experience and knowledge should be able to explain the difference without insults. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to this source Cuba As Alternative: An Introduction to Cuba's Socialist Revolution the Cuban system of "People Power" is more democratic than US democracy (certainly more democratic that Cathaginian democracy), where the authors claim campaigning in the USA requires multi-million dollar budgets available only to millionaires or those with millionaire backers. So certainly there is a case for adding the Bay of Pigs Invasion to this list. In fact, given that it's claimed that communism is inherently democratic, i.e. everyone gets equality in everything, shouldn't the Cold War, the Korean War and the Vietnam War be added to the list too? --Martin (talk) 23:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:V, WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE apply. Just because I have a source that says the moon is made of green cheese, doesn't mean I can add it into the article on the moon, when 93 other sources say the moon is made of rock, and 27 of them say that the author of the moon/cheese theory is a loony. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First, I'm not a source, so what does it matter what I say? Second, this is an example of picking out a single statement and ignoring the context. I didn't think the Punic Wars belonged until I realized there was a scholarly tradition dating back to Polybius that looked at how the democratic element of the mixed constitutions of Rome and Carthage were directly related to the waging of (in particular) the Second Punic War. I think it's legitimate to include democratic republics, mixed constitutions, and so on, as long as sources make the connection between the war and democratic politics. Each entry appears to be shaping up as two to five sentences carefully specifying the criteria for inclusion. I don't see the purpose of withholding cases that may not fit some strict definition of "pure" democracy, but that are discussed by scholars in the context of democratic government and that illuminate the topic. PMA has been doing the research into democracy at Carthage; I haven't. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I though you were widely read on the antiquities, so when you said "Nor does it forbid editors to try to understand it as a whole, not just in bits and pieces" I assumed you were speaking from a position of knowledge when you stated "nobody ever said Carthage was a democracy". I apologise for making that assumption.
So apparently WP:UNDUE doesn't apply, even though the published consensus appears to be that while Carthage had a "mixed constitution" it was in practice an oligarchy, because of the PMA's research and discovery of a couple of books that make mention of some democratic elements. Yet despite documented democratic elements in Cuba's people's power democracy, some how Cuba doesn't qualify? Why not include socialist democracies (even if they weren't democratic in practice like Carthage) along with democratic republics and regimes with mixed constitutions in this list. --Martin (talk) 04:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Repeatedly calling it "fringe" isn't helping you much. We need to apply the same requirements to Cuba as we do to the Boer states and the Greek democracies. You claim that calling Cuba a democracy is fringe. I claim that calling the Boer states democracies is fringe. Marting claims that calling Carthage a democracy is fringe. Your suggestion is to make a massive tertiary research project on what wars actually are wars between democracies. I claim that is original research, as such research has already been done. Why, Elen (and you haven't answered this) do you want to ignore the research that exists on this, and make your own on Wikipedia? (And no, that is *not* stating that "identifying the majority views of scholars" is original research as you claimed, that is an insulting remark that is not helpful for constructive debate. Please discuss this seriously with an attempt to understand the oppositions viewpoint.) --OpenFuture (talk) 05:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I said your source appeared to be WP:FRINGE because it set out to present a viewpoint that was not supported by the mainstream. As far as I am aware, mainstream sources do not describe Cuba in the 1960s as a democracy. Actually, I am not sure if your source describes Cuba in the 1960s as a democracy - it seems to confine itself to Cuba in the last ten years. If mainstream sources do describe Cuba in the 1960s as a democracy, then it should be included; or if there are minority sources of good standing that do, then the consensus may be that it should be included. Your continued nonsense about massive tertiary research projects (aka reading the odd book) and ignoring the research that exists (which is actually not limiting ourselves to the subset of research acceptable to you) is getting very old now. WP:V and WP:UNDUE continue to apply, as does WP:CONSENSUS. This article is not different to all other Wikipedia articles in that respect.Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I am aware, mainstream sources do not describe Cuba in the 1960s as a democracy. - It's surely not a majority view, no, but when I made this exact claim about Pmandersons additions, he told me that if one source called it a war between democracies, then it should be added. What the majority view was not relevant, in his opinion. Now, I can see problems with that, but in an effort to move forward, I accepted his position to at least get some improvement to the article, and the discussion has lately been about the fact that Babst break his own requirements. Your position here moves that whole discussion back to the start, and apparently Pmanderson has now changed his mind and accepted my start-position in this discussion without telling me.
You have repeatedly called any removal "vandalism" with the argument that it's "sourced". This despite me pointing out that it's not a majority view. It's been "sourced" so hence you have demanded that it stays, and calls it vandalism to remove it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from that is that you don't care what the majority view is, if it has a source, no matter if that source is majority view or fringe or doesn't even support the claim, it "sourced" and so the claim and the source stays. So if you did not hold that position, you edited knowingly against your own principles. This I find hard to believe. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This entire post of 15:44 is a tissue of lies inventions.
As far as I can tell, OpenFuture first mentioned "majority view" yesterday, in response to Elen, not to me.
Our policies on including sources have nothing to do with majority views; we include each view in proportion to its prevalence in the literature: most space to the plurality view; less to lesser views; none to the fringe. Therefore we should include any war on which there is a significant view that it was between democracies.
It is not yet clear that "democracy in Cuba in 1961" has any sources, much less any independent of the Cuban government (we have learned long since to give greater weight to independent sources; the positions of official sources are too predictable to be information). If there is a significant position, we can consider what it says; and if it says that Kennedy's United States was no democracy, that would be something to include too. (If there is reason to believe nobody, even the Fidelistas, considers both sides democracies, why include?)
Please avoid personal attacks, and always assume good faith when editing. Calling people a liar is just distracting from your arguments. If you have arguments, please state them without insults. You are an editor of good standing with much respect on Wikipedia. Please don't waste it by pointless name calling. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Our policies on including sources have nothing to with majority views; we include each view in proportion to its prevalence in the literature - Thank you. Elen, are you reading this?
Therefore we should include any war on which there is a significant view that it was between democracies. - Which was my position when Elen came into this discussion. That position *does* have it's issues too, but one thing at a time. It's nice to agree with you Pmanderson. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That, interestingly enough, invalidates more than a month of discussion (and insults) from Pmanderson, which is quite interesting.
Unfortunately, I have come to realize that it is a problematic position, but let us ignore that for the moment, and discuss this position:
1. What sources do you want to use to determine the mainstream position on states democracy/non-democracy at various times? "The odd book" you say. That seems to me that you have a book that summarizes the research and majority views about how democratic a state is for all states in human history. And also a book that lists the majority views on what conflicts are wars and not. Because otherwise you will have for *each conflict* find books that does this. And that's not "the odd book". And if you can't find it for each conflict, you need to somehow show what the majority view is on these issues.
2. How do you see the issue of using different sources with different definitions of democracy involved in one war? As shown above with the Cuban example, that leads to strange situations (majority view or not) where noone claims it's a war between democracies, and noone claims both sides where democracies, but there are claims on all sides that each involved state was a democracy.
3. How do you see the issue of making such a list like this, and using wildly different definitions of democracy for different times in history, but yet presenting it as a unified list?
4. Why do you want to ignore existing research on this topic? Because, yes, you *do*. It's not nonsense.There are reliable sources that have made lists of wars between democracies, and you want to ignore them, and instead make your own list, based not on their research.
The existing research on this subject often does not bother to tabulate lists of wars, but discusses totals. Partly this is because the databases used are not immune from error; partly this is because the question of significance, which is the point actually at issue, depends on the total, not the individual items. Insofar as I have found such lists, I have used them; no one, as far as I can see, proposes to ignore them. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson15:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that very few, if any, of the current sources show the majority view on any of the issues. If we decide to go this way, the first thing we need to do is clear the list and start from scratch. Is that your suggestion? --OpenFuture (talk) 12:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I note nothing of the kind; it is not easy to find secondary statements of any kind on the questions at hand, and where I have found them, I have included them. If OpenFuture has a mass of unincluded sources, he would have been far more useful to mention them; or is this another case of "the majority view" = "what my favorite website thinks"? SeptentrionalisPMAnderson15:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that Quincy Wright's paper, which is about the Cuban quarantine of 1962, mentions the Bay of Pigs only in passing, and does not call it a war - or an action of the United States - but says that the United States may have failed to prevent a military expedition from its soil in time of peace. Therefore the proposed entry fails verification - so would the quarantine. Wright concludes that it may well have violated the rights of neutrals, and the Charter of the United Nations, but not that it was a war.
Also, August (whose book, published in Havana, has been passed by the Cuban Government) does indeed discuss 1961: he quotes Fidel's speeches on his own true democracy, given while cancelling the elections. That is neither a reliable nor a secondary source; and it is a fringe point of view, that acceptable to Raoul Castro.
The assumption of good faith does not require us to ignore bad faith; it does require us to need proof that it exists. OpenFuture, in this section alone,
cites a paper from Quincy Wright (in the format that Google Scholar would have given him, and the actual publication would not) as supporting something it opposes. Did he even look at it?
cites a unreliable primary source as a reliable secondary source; that it is a fringe source is secondary.
misstates his own actions (search this talk page and its archives for "majority")
misstates my position twice, and ascribes to Elen an intention (of ignoring the published lists of democracies at war), which she has never even hinted at.
That is quite enough. This is the sort of editor who thinks by Google search; checking his antics has wasted time which could have been used on the article. I await an apology and a retraction. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson19:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of listening to what I say, you make up straw men, invent things freely and insult me. That's still not constructive. After the barrage of name calling and insults from you, you require an apology from me. That's rich. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't insult you; I describe you. I am always willing to describe you differently, if you behave otherwise. I am always willing to read what you say, even when it depicts matters contrary to the evidence; I have even sometimes found it worth the trouble. But these four things you have done in this section, and they add up to a clear picture; shall I add diffs? SeptentrionalisPMAnderson22:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience, when people descend into ad hominem arguments, it is a clear sign that they are having difficulty justifying their position. OpenFuture makes a valid point: the problem with determining if a particular country is a democracy from different sources is that each source may use a different criteria to determine membership. To start with, what is needed is a common source that uses the same criteria, for example Tatu Vanhanen's book Democratization: a comparative analysis of 170 countries, this source lists democracies from 1818 to 1988. This seems to be a good starting point from which to conduct your research. --Martin (talk) 23:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Marting, I think that source takes us a good deal further. We do need sources that 'the democracy business' agrees are OK sources, which both Polity and Vanhanen appear to be (unlike OpenFuture's straw man source, August, who appears to be writing strictly from Castro's viewpoint). Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Vanhanen in his book "Democratization: a comparative analysis of 170 countries" mentions on page 72 that his research concurs with the Polity98 dataset, which shows Germany only emerged as a democracy in the 1918-1928 period, therefore I question the inclusion of World War One in this list as WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. --Martin (talk) 23:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That source is quite useful, as it gives two sets of results which use different methodologies to determine democracy. I note that Freedom House - which uses different criteria again - also does not see Germany moving to democracy until post WWI [8]. Are there other reliable sources (particularly those used elsewhere in this article) which would disagree with the assessment of Germany's democratic status? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I shall consider whether it is worth continuing to edit this page. I shall not be responding to any more of OpenFuture's baiting, with the possible exception of direct questions. Since I am posting here, the answer to Elen's question is Back to the Future: Instability in Europe after the Cold War by John J. Mearsheimer; International Security, Vol. 15, No. 1 (Summer, 1990), pp. 5-56; I also would appreciate evidence that Michael Doyle, whom Mearsheimer and many others cite, is fringe. I would have included Vanhanen - and the criticisms of his methodology, which he is gallant enough to quote himself - rather than blanking. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson02:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at the paper by Mearsheimer, the only mention is a single line qualified by a footnote that references another footnote: "Lastly, some would classify Wilhelmine Germany as a democracy, or at least a quasi-democracy; if so, World War I becomes a war among democracies.77". Looking at the footnote: "77. Doyle recognizes this problem and thus has a lengthy footnote that attempts to deal with it. See "Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs [Part One]," pp. 216-217, n. 8. He argues that "Germany was a liberal state under republican law for domestic issues," but that the "emperor's active role in foreign affairs . .. made imperial Germany a state divorced from the control of its citizenry in foreign affairs". So it seems that German foreign policy (and thus initiation of the war) had no democratic input or control. So inclusion of World War One is certainly WP:UNDUE, if not WP:FRINGE (not withstanding the fact that Mearsheimer's paper is arguing for a nuclear armed Germany in the post Cold War world). --Martin (talk) 04:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Without more sources I think it would be giving undue weight to this source to say that Germany was a democracy at the start of WWI. However, as this source is considered mainstream, I think we can take it as evidence that it is not fringe to consider the possibility (mainstream sources do not unanimously reject the concept). However WWI is still looking out - although I wonder if it would be helpful to add a footnote to the article to explain this, as the more casual reader may expect it to be there.
I'm posting over PMAnderson's comment on my talk page - I think he's holding off from posting on this page, but he raises a couple of interesting questions, and I'd be interested to see the view of others.
both Doyle and Mearsheimer treat it as a marginal case; but the reasons why Doyle does consider it difficult should certainly be included.
I'm not sure how much of Vanhanen's book is on the web, but he himself admits that his method of measuring democracy is approximate and subject to short term fluctuations, and quotes two different critics as calling it "unacceptable"; it is most tolerable for his chief purpose (calculating long term trends of democratization within individual countries, and then doing world-wide statistical analyses - the errors will disappear into the noise in both steps); perhaps least useful for the purpose this article needs: comparing the democracy of two countries, year by year.
It's a two-parameter method: subtract the percentage vote for the largest party from (a multiple of) the percentage of the population who vote, both as of the last election - applied strictly and without corrections; the list of democracies is generated by putting an arbitrary cutoff in the list. I'm sure you can see some oddities likely to result from this; and I doubt he's really independent of POLICY IV, since he seems to have chosen his relative weight and the cutoff to track them as closely as possible.
I neglected to say, Doyle is no fringe author - he brought democratic peace theory into general notice''
In view of these criticisms, and Vanhanen's evalustion of his own methodology as approximate and prone to fluctuations, his list of "democracies", which excludes the election of Andrew Jackson and almost all of the elections of Gladstone, is at least not in full accord with common usage; the reader should be alerted if he is quoted on democracy in a particular state and year; this can be resolved by removing him (PolityIV is a much more interesting datum for WWI, since I do not believe the anocracy question arises), but I am reluctant to do that. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson01:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restart of discussion
OK, so let's start this discussion from the beginning, and see if we can't get somewhere.
As far as I can see, there are a couple of issues.
Issue A: What should be allowed as a democracy?
Here there are three positions:
A1: Any government who has a reliable source that claims that the government is of a type that other reliable sources claim is a democracy, should be allowable as a democracy. Example: Babst talks about "Elective governments, and defined what he means with that". Others seem to think that this fits the bill of democracy, hence, Babsts "Elective governments" are democracies.
A2: Any government who has a reliable source calling it a democracy.
A3: Only those governments who we can show with tertiary/summarizing sources that there is a majority view amongst scholars that it is a democracy, should be allowed as a democracy.
These viewpoints presumably extends to whether the conflict was a war or not as well.
Issue B: What kind of sources do we need?
B1: One source that shows that country A was a democracy, one source that shows that country B was a democracy, and one source that shows that the conflict was a war. Example: Pennamite-Yankee War and it's sources.
B2: We need one source that shows that the conflict was a war between democracies.
B3: We need to show that there is a majority view amongst scholars that it was a war between democracies. (I think this position is hypothetical, I don't remember anyone arguing for it).
New addition:
Issue C: What kind of list should we have?
C1: A list listing the wars briefly.
C2: A list where each conflict is listed with all significant positions, according to weight, on whether it was a war between democracies or not.
C3: We should list each notable scholars view of which wars are wars between democracies. We should not try to make our own list.
Question for clarification: For B1 do you actually mean:
One source that shows that country A was a democracy, one source that shows that country B was a democracy, and one source that shows that the conflict was a democracywar. Example: Pennamite-Yankee War and it's sources.
OK, I realized something that was missing, and that's a third dimension. That puts the theoretical positions to 27, which is a lot. So let's skip the summary positions for the moment. Just tell me if there is any issue that I have missed, to be added as D or E or F, and if there is any position on the issues that I have missed. Then we'll all go on to list our positions.
I will note however, that the article currently is the A2B1C1 type (with some C2 thrown in), so if you want to keep the article as it is, on the way it's going now, that's the position you need to have. (And that's ignoring that Babst is used as a source, which really makes it A1B1C1, but those conflicts have other sources as well). --OpenFuture (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, the most important issues and positions seems to be covered. I'll probably refer back to this in the discussion and we might want to do a straw poll on what positions we have later. Or is that a stupid idea?--OpenFuture (talk) 16:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested straw poll
Hugely over complex at this stage. too many ideas and argument jammed into one and not really phrased to make progress. I think we need to resolve something more fundamental first. Elen above makes the following statement:
Original research is creating a premise that none of the sources support. If I can look up in one source that team X played team Y in the European cup final, and have separate sources that teams X and Y won their respective national leagues, it is not original research to say that the European cup final was contested by the winners of Serie A and the Bundesliga. If we must have this list, it cannot be just a list of conflicts that a limited number of sources of the same viewpoint say were wars between democracies. If reliable sources agree that X and Y fought a war, and reliable sources agree that X and Y were democracies, that is all one needs.
--Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC) And we can see the normal policies of Wikipedia at workd above in the discussion about Germany in WWI, where we are evaluating three sources that scrutinise multiple democracies and one source that makes specific comments about Germany.[reply]
--Cynwolfe (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC). This article should not be an exception to standard WP:V. WP:SYNTH forbids using sources to draw a conclusion; it forbids manipulating sources to advance a new position. No new position is advanced by verifying the existence of a war and the constitutional politics of the participants.[reply]
-- SeptentrionalisPMAnderson20:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC) Our policies on including sources have nothing to do with majority views; we include each view in proportion to its prevalence in the literature: most space to the plurality view; less to lesser views; none to the fringe. Therefore we should include any war on which there is a significant view that it was between democracies.[reply]
Simple arithmetic, such as adding one democracy and one democracy to make two democracies, is not original research. In cases where the democracy of one side or the other is disputed, we should say so; in cases where both are disputed. but nobody agrees that both are democracies, we should say so. The last case has not come up, except in an otherwise flawed hypothetical. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson20:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "new position", in this context means a position not stated by either source. So that may very well be a "new position". --OpenFuture (talk) 21:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The word 'position,' as with the word 'conclusion,' means something more than mere assertion. It implies that there is an argument presented that reaches beyond the facts toward interpretation or analysis. We might cite a historian named Smith who says "The Turmitian Wars were fought between Ziniq, a direct democracy, and the democratic republic of Autrow." I believe that such a statement meets your criterion for inclusion on the list (let's stipulate that Smith's book was published by CUP, and that Smith's reputation as a scholar is unquestionable). Such a statement does not advance a position or make an argument; it's simply a presentation of facts. It's information. Is this a point on which we can agree? Cynwolfe (talk) 21:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It advances a position, yes. THe position that Turmitian wars was between democracies. That something is a democracy or not is not a fact in itself, it's a position. As mentioned frequently here, democracy is not a simple unquestionable fact, but a complex issue with various possible positions. For example, the greek democracies would not have counted as democracies today. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was my intention to accept your invitation that I deal with you reasonably and in good faith, and to proceed step-by-step. I thought I could move on to a hypothetical use of "Smith" in this article that you and I could agree would be a synthesis. But you are impossible to have any kind of dialogue with: Now you're saying that we can't use "Smith" making the flat statement that "The Turmitian Wars were fought between Ziniq, a direct democracy, and the democratic republic of Autrow"? Or if I misunderstand you there, you're calling that a conclusion or a position advanced by Smith? I was envisioning it as the first sentence of a chapter, his starting point: no scholar could get a book published if his supposed thesis was something so banally a factual statement. You have no grasp of scholarly methodology, or even what an argument is. You have no grasp of the most basic principles of logic. You also demonstrate that you have no concept of scholarly neutrality: you want to impose a modern definition of democracy on Greek city-states that have been called democracies for more than 2,000 years. Excluding vast volumes of scholarship accumulated over centuries is worse than POV-pushing: it's intellectual nihilism. There is nothing in WP policy that encourages you to do that. You are simply choosing to be obstructionist. I'm sure you'll consider this a personal attack; I'm not attacking you as a person, however, but rather your faulty reasoning. Your response to my effort to establish even the tiniest point on which we agree shows you're only interested in driving other editors away. And then you accuse others of lacking good faith and failing to accommodate you. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The statement "Ziniq is a democracy" is a position yes. So when "Smith" says that, he is taking a position on the issue. This is because whether a government is democratic or not is not a simple objective fact, but an opinion and a position.
I find it interesting that when confronted with this fairly trivial observation, you react by trying to make it a personal issue. I am not to blame if you don't like that fact that democracy is not an objective fact, but a matter of political opinion, so please, stop blaming me.
no scholar could get a book published if his supposed thesis was something so banally a factual statement. - Which is why we do NOT do synthesis. And which is why the examples with football are about things that nobody would write a book about. And which is why those examples are not relevant in this case. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are a textbook case of WP:CPUSH. You somehow think you have the scholarly wherewithal to say that Athens wasn't democracy, because it doesn't suit your definition. (I'm a woman, it doesn't suit my definition either! But I don't confuse my personal political views with scholarship.) You consistently accuse others of doing what you yourself do. You are an obstructionist and a POV-pusher. You cast yourself as a victim, and then like to run and inform on others to the authorities. I find that a despicable way to treat your fellow editors. For my remarks above, you have threatened on my talk page to report me; you may do so now. I'll be happy to work on my articles about 19th-century Belgian art and obscure ancient Roman religious practices offline for a few days. I should probably be making more profitable use of my time than volunteering here anyway. But I'm not going to tell you that you're holding up five fingers when I see only four. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have issued no threat whatsoever. You should have no problem in finding more profitable use of your time than insulting people on Wikipedia, which after all must be one of the most pointless things you can spend your time on, so you have my best wishes in those exploits. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I paste in OpenFuture's not-very-veiled threat from my talk page: Please, Cynwolfe, your uncivil remarks and straw men are getting fairly tiring, and I'm not sure how long I wish to ignore them. I do understand that you and Elen admire Pmanderson, but I don't see why you therefore have to emulate him to the extent of becoming mirror copies in behavior. The block he got should be a hint that this is not the correct way forward. Stop trying to make this debate into a personal issue. Stay factual. Focus on the issue, not the editors. Thank you. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC). OpenFuture stated his strategy on this page above: he intends simply to outlast any opposing discussion by saying the same thing over and over. He baited PMA into crossing the line (not a difficult thing to do, though I can hardly blame him) to block an opposing voice from the discussion; he has now announced his intention to do the same to me and to Elen. I repeat, this is a despicable way to treat other editors, and a sign of intellectual cowardice. If you block enough editors from the opposition, you can pretend to have achieved a consensus while imposing a POV. I've participated in achieving a workable consensus on other highly contentious pages and hoped to do so here, but I have never encountered an editor as impervious to constructive dialogue and as disrespectful to others' contributions as OpenFuture. That he masks his utter disregard of the content of others' arguments behind smiley faces and the false decorum of "please" and "thank you" should not be mistaken for promoting a pleasant or even sane editing environment. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cyn, where does your response fit in this diagram ? Let's keep to the central argument. Classification of "democracy" isn't an objective fact like a football score. Even scholars like Vanhanen have strident critics of his methodology of judging whether a particular country is a democracy. Smith's view is therefore no more than just an opinion. --Martin (talk) 16:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My point above, before I lost my mind, was that throughout this discussion OpenFuture has been saying that if within a single source it's stated that a particular war was fought between democracies, that source is valid for use here. It was my sincere intention to go on from there and establish an example of synth that I think he and I could agree on. Then he seemed to imply that such a source could be excluded if it didn't conform to some specific definition of democracy. I apologize to other editors for losing it here, but believe I've accurately described the methodology and reasoning. It would be OR and/or synth to apply the definition of one scholarly theory (dpt) to exclude what might be a standard definition of democracy in ancient history or classical studies. You can't apply a scholarly theory in such an ahistorical manner. It's non-neutral to exclude standard classical scholarship from an article because it doesn't conform to a particular contemporary theory. You can't narrow the definition of democracy to create a skewed list when the weight of scholarship confirms that polities have traditionally been considered democracies; you can only explain what definition of democracy is appropriate to the historical period, as I said above before I was driven to sound like a crazy person. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I find myself here. From SYN "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Although, it does not meet the "A and B, therefore C" definition because the "therefore" is not present. Or is it implied?. Active Banana (talk) 19:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Banana, if I read a book on say the history of Athens, it would talk about Athenian democracy, and it would discuss the wars of Athens, both of those being key components of the history of Athens. How much OR is it to read a book on one of the opponents of Athens, which discusses the political governance of that opponent, and the wars of that opponent, and source 'X is a democracy' 'Athens is a democracy' 'Athens and X fought a war in Y BCE' If I were writing an article about Athens, that is exactly how I would construct it, I would read as many sources as I could, and put the article together from facts contained in those sources. OR would be to say that Athens went to war with X because it was a democracy, when the only facts I have are that they were democracies and they went to war. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the criteria for this list are inadequately defined and dont think that they can be appropriately scoped to provide an encyclopedic list that is not subject to WP:OR. Active Banana (talk) 20:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there is a peril, but I don't think it's OR. I think it is endless arguments over sourcing, with the posibility that for some countries there is no mainstream view as to whether or not they constitute a democracy. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Within the context of this article, I am still seeing this as putting content from A and B and C in such an arrangement that the reader is directed to come to a conclusion or position that was not explicitly stated by A or B or C. Active Banana (talk) 21:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just for clarity, could you state what that position or conclusion is? That is, what conclusion is the reader implicitly directed to by the use of sources described by Elen that is not in the sources themselves? Or precisely what new position does the method of sourcing advance?Cynwolfe (talk) 21:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The position is "Two democracies went to war." That is not a position explicitly stated by any of the sources. Probably if you put the information in front of them and asked the question, they would say "Yes, it is a case of two democracies going to war" - but they havent stated that and we cannot place those words in their mouths. Active Banana (talk) 21:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To answer the question: The "therefore" is usually implied, or omitted, in most cases of SYN, as I understand it. See for example the examples on WP:SYN itself. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But my main position is still: the criteria for this list are inadequately defined and I dont think that they can be appropriately scoped to provide an encyclopedic list that is not subject to WP:OR. Active Banana (talk) 21:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In practical terms, it may be true that criteria can't be established that reflect a consensus; in theory, I don't think it's impossible to create a defensible list (if a necessarily provisional one). I think it has less to do with OR than "simple" verifiability. By "simple" I mean exactly the opposite. Because of the definitional problems presented by "democracy" and even "war", I doubt entries can be produced that would satisfy everyone invested in the article. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I basically agree that WP:OR is almost unavoidable. I think there are two ways to avoid it, once that breaks WP:UNDUE and one that doesn't. :-) The first way is what I call A2B2C1 above. That is, all wars that have a reliable, non-fringe source that clearly states that it is a war between democracies can be included in a short list. That would not, IMO be OR. It would however place undue weight on those scholars who have inclusive definitions of "wars" and "democracies".
The way that would not be either WP:OR nor WP:UNDUE is to mention each significant scholars position separately, or at least group them according to some sort of general position, and list the wars they mention as wars between democracies. We'd first have to mention those scholars who are of the opinion that there has been no wars between democracies (a position they get by having high requirements on what is a democracy) and then list those scholars and wars that has a plurality position, and in the end we can even list Babst, who as noted doesn't talk about wars between democracies at all, but wars between electoral governments.
I'm almost persuaded to agree with the statement, however the danger of synthesis remains. Whereas football results are indisputable facts that can't be interpreted any other way, the issue of whether a country is a democracy is very much open to interpretation and uneven application of criteria for membership by different sources. That is why I would only support sources like Tatu Vanhanen's book Democratization: a comparative analysis of 170 countries which assesses countries by the same criteria. In regard to this: "If we must have this list, it cannot be just a list of conflicts that a limited number of sources of the same viewpoint say were wars between democracies". Why not at least mention it? At the very least this article must indicate what this list would be according to a particular viewpoint. I.e. the article should atleast have a section stating, for example, "According to Maoz and Abdolali in their paper "Regime Types and International Conflict, 1816-1976", the list of wars between democracies is as follows", then another section stating "According to XXXX and YYYY, the list of wars between democracies also includes the following:". The article should serve as a road map of these viewpoints on the topic. --Martin (talk) 20:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is plainly a danger of cherry picking sources, and scope for a great deal of argument. If we expanded it from a mere list, we could certainly add context as to the purpose of the list and the options for inclusion, although I don't personally think that 'according to Hoyle' sections are the way to go. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And expanding it and adding context and arguments for and against would mean the article pretty much becomes a fork of democratic peace theory... --OpenFuture (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When I see this list mentioned in the first sentence of the Critisms section in the article Democratic peace theory [9], it seems to me that the whole raison d'etre of this list may well be to serve as a subtle POV fork. --Martin (talk) 05:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it does seem an odd sort of article. For example, I note the inclusion of the American Revolution in this list. One wonders whether the mere presence of elections is enough to call something a democracy even if there be a distant king and non-representative parliament making the actual decisions. "No taxation without representation" would seem to imply the lack of democracy. There are several other troubling examples in this list. I cannot help but note that we're going full steam ahead with a list of wars between democracies but don't seem to have a List of democracies yet. Perhaps the struggle should move over to creating that particular list first. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's an point worth thinking about. I would hope that such a list would be in accordance with articles such as List of types of democracy and History of democracy, and not become a forum for efforts to impose modern definitions on polities that have been historically considered democracies. For instance, the rejection of ancient Athens from such a list would necessitate the deletion of the article Athenian democracy. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note: Much of the odd entries are rather recent additions, and much of the source of the conflict. But that doesn't necessarily make the article "odd" itself. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
New arguments or comments which have not already been made above.
The comparison is false. Who won in a football match is not a complex and contested issue. There are not separate definitions of "winning" based in political outlook and changing over history. Nobody claims that football games in 1920 were actually lost by the winning team, because they weren't playing with todays offside rules. You will not find one source arguing that Man City won the Premier League in 2009-2010. But, you can find one source saying country A was a democracy using one definition, and another source saying country B was a democracy using another definition, while there exists no single source that claims both countries was democratic. So what is not synthesis in the above case would be synthesis in this case. The example ignores the complexity of the issue, and pretends it's a straight forward case of "Yes/no", "Won/lost" when "Democratic/Undemocratic" clearly is *not* such a black and white issue. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It's not a question of identifying it in different manners, but having completely opposite definitions of democracy. The result is pretty much as if one source would judge the game after association football rules, and the other source would judge it as if it was golf, while the teams both thought they were playing icehockey. There is no longer a clear winner or loser, and therefore using the sources as if it's a simple case of logic no longer works. Saying "X was a war between two democracies" is not simply equivalent to saying "A is a democracy, B is a democracy and C is a war". --OpenFuture (talk) 11:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WikiuserNI, if you look at the section above discussing WWI, you can see how this plays out in actualite. There are some major sources who have put effort into evaluating the democracy levels in nations over time that we can look at, and here they are all agreeing. Even the source specifically about Germany is clear that the alternative view has only limited support, and (my reading) eventually comes down to a 'probably not' position. This is how Wikipedia works - sources are evaluated by looking at the most mainstream first. In OpenFuture's rather strange scenario above, the source that thought Bayern Munich were a golf team would simply not make it in.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that the view of democracy is as simple as that is incorrect. This is a complex issue with many different viewpoints. WP:SYN therefore applies, IMO. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, Wikipedia seems to manage in all other areas with complex viewpoints by using its policies to represent the multiple views of mainstream scholars, not by rejecting them all.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they do. And one part of the policy that manages that is WP:SYN, which you claim is not relevant here. I claim it is. I've never said that we are going to reject all views. Quite the contrary. Please stop making up straw men and argue against what I said, not against something I never said. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the whole premise of this list is in question. However, just because two sources are using two different "definitions" of democracy does not mean that they cannot be used in the same article, otherwise we would only be able to have one source used in Democracy. As long as none of the sources are WP:FRINGE. Active Banana (talk) 19:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the same article has never been a problem. It's a question of using them in the same statement. In saying "C is a war between democracies" and having two different and maybe even contradictory definitions on the word "democracies" at once. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given that Vanhanen himself admits that his method of determining democracy is approximate and there are a number of critics calling his methodology "unacceptable", is it any wonder that we can't agree on scope and and criteria. If the experts can't agree, what hope is there that Wikipedians can come up with a workable list. i'm slowly coming to the view that merging this list to Democratic peace theory may well be the best course. --Martin (talk) 05:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think that what is currently the Lead for this list appropriately lays out objective criteria for the list, but I am not yet convinced that doing so is completely impossible. Active Banana (talk) 06:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do think that agreeing to one definition or one (or a few) summarizing sources is unlikely to work. Especially since neither Vanhanen nor Polity IV etc includes the greek city states, etc. So the idea of us making our own list based from a list of democracies and a list of wars seem unlikely to me. Not to mention that I still think it smacks of original research, and would ignore all the research done by actual scholars. There simply is no objective criteria to lay out.--OpenFuture (talk) 06:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Elen, please stop implying that we are making up our own policies, and saying that WP:SYN is not a "normal policy". It's not useful for a constructive debate. This is not about making up policies, it's about how the should be applied. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You said "normal policies" implying that what I am saying is not a part of "normal policies". As since you repeatedly has claimed that I make up my own policies, the meaning of that implication is pretty clear. Just stop doing it, OK? That's all I ask. This is not an accusation or anything else, just a plea to keep the discussion civil and stop accusing each other of various imaginary wrongdoings. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then what is wrong with saying "I believe your interpretation is incorrect", instead of accusing me for "making up policy as I go along" and imply that I have polices that are "not normal"? Why do you feel the need to make a disagreement into an ad hominem? It cheapens your position, and it makes everybody angry and makes it less likely for us to reach a conclusion. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may need to look up 'ad hominem' in a dictionary, pet. Yes I do think you are making your interpretation of policy up as you go along, and yes I do think your view of several wikipolicies is not the normal one. No, that's not a personal attack either. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See this: [10]]. Please stay in the top three of the pyramid. You are now consistently in level 5 and 6 when answering me. That's not constructive. I had hoped that we could have a serious debate about this article, but that is apparently impossible. That's disappointing. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Well I can't see anything like that. I really think you need to calm down a bit and stop these constant lectures to other editors. Its mind sapping, trivial and petty.--SnowdedTALK12:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Mind sapping" would seem to be the point; well expressed, Snowded. One might also note the level of the pyramid "Responding to Tone": "criticizes the tone of the writing without addressing the substance of the argument." Cynwolfe (talk) 18:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll stop asking people to be civil, when they stop being uncivil. Please, all I want is for a serious, civil, constructive debate on this talk page? Is that really too much to ask for? Can't we debate here without having to constantly make up straw men and accuse other people of everything from vandalism and bad faith to ignorance and making up policy? I can at least try. Can't you guys please try too? --OpenFuture (talk) 19:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious why this is here. India, then the Union of India, was in transition and, afaik, had neither a constitution nor an elected government. I suspect that the same is true of Pakistan. Could these transitional entities be called 'democracies'? --RegentsPark (talk) 12:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think this exemplifies in a nutshell the problems with this list, the criteria for democracy lacks rigour; the article suffers from the use of cherry-picked sources to justify inclusion. --Martin (talk) 05:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can gather, Indias first election was in 1951. Pakistans elections are more complex, and general elections was held first in 1970, although it seems elections was held per region before, but not in a good manner. The West Pakistan provincial elections were described as "a farce, a mockery and a fraud upon the electorate (From Elections in Pakistan).
As for there being elections before independence, I can only find provincial elections and elections to the Central Legislative Assembly, that was dissolved on independence and replaced with the constituent Assemblies, which were indirectly elected, but did not actually run the country. Both countries governments seems to have been unelected.
(Pmanderson's response copy pasted from my talk page) Because the source quoted so ranks it; it is one of the few cases (because they comment on it specifically), where it is possible to be sure that they count both states as democracies. Both India and Pakistan were Dominions then, and had unwritten Consitutions after the British manner (as did Canada until the 1970s), but the legislatures on both sides were elected, before Independence, in the knowledge that they would be national legislatures and Constituent Assemblies. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson16:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I read the source and, while it indicates in two places that India may be considered a democracy at that time, both these references are indirect. In one place, "Accession to democratic India had no appeal to him; but the future looked even less promising in Muslim Pakistan" (him=the Hindu Maharaja of Kashmir). In a second place, it says "was crucial to its claim and goal of being a secular, multireligious, pluralistic democracy" (regarding why India would want to keep Kashmir). Both these 'democracy' claims are indirect and nowhere, at least in the section on Kashmir, does it state that Pakistan was a democracy at that time. I suppose if India could be identified as a democracy at that time then, perhaps, so could Pakistan but a source would be helpful because of the religious nature of that state. --RegentsPark (talk) 14:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seem to discussing democracy in a future sense, i.e. India's "goal of being a secular, multireligious, pluralistic democracy" and Kashmir's future accession to it. --Martin (talk) 16:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the second quote is referring to an aspirational state but the first one is less clear in the sense that it doesn't indicate whether the Maharaja was uneasy about joining an already democratic or a soon to be democratic India. Regardless of all that, Pakistan is definitely not identified as a democracy by the source and, interestingly, is contrasted as 'Muslim Pakistan' versus 'democratic India'. Leading me to believe that, for that source at least, the secular nature of India lent itself more readily to the idea of democracy than the islamic nature of Pakistan. (Of course, since the source is from a later time period, this could simply be reconstructive thinking based on later realities.) I think it would be really helpful to see a source that specifically identifies the Pakistan of 1947-48 as democratic before including this war in the list. --RegentsPark (talk) 02:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This "fringe" source is a work of standard reference, widely cited, published by the very respectable Pergamon Press.
It is the print version of a database, produced by the International Conflict Behavior project, and rather like the POLICY IV database, widely quoted here. Since the database has only 278 lines, one for each crisis, rather than the myriad in POLICY (country X year), it is possible to publish it in a volume, with commentary, with only a little compression.
One of the database's classifications is into democracies, civilian autocracies, and military governments. Since one point in one variable is whether all the regimes concerned are the same type, the detailed classification is abridged, but the quotes above show that the underlying classification of India in 1947-8 (and Pakistan, on similar evidence) is "democracy". Martin's claims of qualification are special pleading, unjustified by the text.
Sources are not fringe, views are. I don't think this is a common view at all, I suspect it's fringe. Can you show that it isn't? RegentsPark has read the same source as you, and seems to not even find support for the statement. Maybe you can quote the passage in question?
but the quotes above show that the underlying classification of India in 1947-8 (and Pakistan, on similar evidence) is "democracy". - No, they definitely don't. That's quite a free interpretation of that source. It seem you take some loose quotes about India and democracy, and the conflict classification to draw the conclusion that Pakistan was a democracy when the source doesn't say that.
The time-series I found does not have entries for India or Pakistan in 1947; India begins in 1950; Pakistan in 1972. This may well be reasonable, since the united Pakistan-Bangladesh of 1947 is not really comparable to Pakistan now - but I should not have described it as "not supporting". SeptentrionalisPMAnderson01:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So how would you describe lack of data then, if not as "not supporting" the statement? Lack of data is quite evidently lack of support. (In fact I suspect that the data is lacking because the countries are in transition, in which case it contradicts the position that they would be democratic, but I don't know that for sure.) --OpenFuture (talk) 05:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ach, nonsense. When they say nothing about it, it means it does not support the statement. This is just you trying to nitpick instead of admitting that I wasn't wrong. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing even remotely classifiable as personal opinion there is my claim that your interpretation of the source is "quite free", and that opinion is no more personal than your interpretation of the source is in the first place. It seems to me that you have no source claiming that neither India nor Pakistan were democracies. Also you seem to have no source supporting the inclusion of WWI. There were two sources supporting the inclusion of Cuba, but you were against that. There seems to be some sort of discrepancy in the demands on what is fringe and not here. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since this has been checked, and the stated claim (to wit, that this is a war and between two democracies) is in the source given, {{fv}} does not apply to this text. If this is restored again, I will take GWH's advice and consult an admin. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson14:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only check done is the above, where Regentspark clearly states the book does *not* support the statement. Stop revert warring. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thi9 is a misquotation of RegentsPark (who also seems to have overlooked the underlying classification into democracies, civil authoritarianisms, and military governments), as well as the source. If you ever restore this unjustified tag again, I will consult an admin. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson14:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting completely absurd. I'm starting to wonder if you are making these edits and claims in a deliberate effort to make the existence of this article impossible. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I agree it's absurd. But the existence of this article is perfectly possible; all it takes is for the True Believers to take their creeds to a blog, not to here. If it's reliable enough, we'll even add an external link. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson15:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure we are making any headway on the other disucssions, and I think part of the reason may be the lack of objective criteria for this list, which is a requirement Wikipedia:LIST#List_content. Does anyone have any offer to submit a definition that better meets Wikipedia List policy? Active Banana (talk) 16:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How do you judge that the view is "significant"? That there was a war is a fairly objective fact, whether the two countries were deemed to be democracies less so. I n regard World War One, both Polity IV and Verhanen deem Germany not to be a democracy, yet that doesn't seem to be significant enough for you. --Martin (talk) 22:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By whether it is discussed in the mainstream literature; this case is clearly debateable, which means there are two sides. The rest of this is essentially a proposal to adopt Ted Gurr's POV, which remains contrary to policy and unacceptable. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson14:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You could then start with finding sources for the side that claims that Germany was a democracy, which you so far haven't. We've yet to see any support for your claim that there is two sides to this discussion. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the current statement were in fact "objective criteria" then there would not be so many millions of electrons wasted in discussions of whether or not something can be included on the list. Anyone would be able to "objectively" look at the criteria and at the proposed entry and be able to say: "Yes, it meets the criteria" or "No, it doesnt meet the criteria." That is why the criteria need to be objective.Active Banana (talk) 14:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's no such thing as objectivity. Everybody with any philosophical sophistication knows that. So how can we take the "neutrality" policy seriously? Neutrality, lack of bias, isn't possible." This is probably the most common objection to the neutrality policy. It also reflects the most common misunderstanding of the policy. The misunderstanding is that the policy says something about objectivity. It simply does not. In particular, the policy does not say that there even is such a thing as objectivity in a philosophical sense—a "view from nowhere" (in Thomas Nagel's phrase), such that articles written from that viewpoint are consequently objectively true. That is not the policy, and it is not our aim! Rather, to be neutral (in the way demanded by the neutrality policy) is to describe debates rather than engage in them. In other words, when discussing a subject, we should report what people have said about it rather than what is so.
This is fundamental WP:V. It is OR and synth to try to arrive at a definition of democracy that's particular to the creation of this list. The only criterion should be verifiability, specifically the verifiability of three points: Was a war fought? Has Polity A been described as democratic? Was Polity B? Yes, there will be disputes about individual cases, but the application of WP:V and WP:NPOV is no different in this list than in any other article. It isn't that Martin's question isn't a good one — How do you judge that the view is "significant"? — it's that it isn't unique to this article: this is covered by WP:UNDUE. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1. Nobody said there is no such thing as objectivity. Just that this isn't an objective question.
2. Objectivity is, as mentioned, not the same thing as neutrality.
RIght, so it's our aim to describe debates that arise in the process of verifying. Scholars may not agree with each other on whether a particular polity is a democracy; it isn't our job to decide who's right. It's our job to report what people have said about it — not to arrive at a definition of democracy that excludes other definitions used by mainstream, reputable scholars. The only criterion is the verifiability of the three points of the statement: Was a war fought? Have scholars described each of the two (or sometimes more) participants in terms of "democracy," however these scholars collectively or as individuals may have used the term? We must describe what the scholars say, not decide whose definition is "right." It is absolutely OR, synth, and non-neutral to decide to exclude a body of scholarship because of one particular school of thought. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"RIght, so it's our aim to describe debates that arise in the process of verifying." - No, it's to describe the debate within scholarship. And to be able to describe both sides, there must actually be two sides, right? --OpenFuture (talk) 15:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Comment inserted out of chronological order.) OpenFuture quotes selectively in a way that does not represent what I said: "it's our aim to describe debates that arise in the process of verifying," meaning that as an editor gathers material for the article, the editor may find his preconceptions challenged, or may find that there's disagreement among scholars, as I went on to say: Scholars may not agree with each other on whether a particular polity is a democracy; it isn't our job to decide who's right. It's our job to report what people have said about it. I did NOT say that we're supposed to describe our debates among ourselves. I have no way of knowing whether this was a casual misreading of what I said, or a deliberate misrepresentation, and am assuming the former. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did assume good faith; your citation of "Assume good faith" implies that I should review the policy. I said (because I'm trying to honor your request to stay away from anything that can construed as personal) that I didn't know your reason for the selective quote, which I regarded as misleading. I didn't know whether you had casually misrepresented what I said (meaning, either you didn't mean to imply that I had referred to anything other than the debate between scholars, or that in reading quickly you had in good faith mistkaen what I said) or deliberately misrepresented it. I said I was assuming the former, that you had casually mistaken what I'd said. I apologize if you're unfamiliar with the rhetorical construction the former … the latter; by saying "I'm assuming the former", I meant "I'm assuming in good faith that you were casually mistaken." Cynwolfe (talk) 19:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That India was a democracy (and discussion of the effect of that on the crisis - You still haven't said where the source claims this. The previous quotes do *not* say that. Only that India had democracy as a goal. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But OpenFuture, you are also at liberty to contribute material to the article to explain, based on sources you provide, that this may be a minority view. You play a vital role in constructing the article to ensure its neutrality by representing the full range of scholarship. WP policy clearly states that neutrality is achieved through the proper balance of sources, not through deleting problematic views. If your position is the correct one, and if you are right that PMA's is a minority view, or even a fringe view, it should be fairly easy for you to frame the entry as I suggest below: "Most scholars don't consider India and Pakistan to have been democracies in 1947,"(insert your footnote here). It will be up to PMA to frame his contribution properly. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
you are also at liberty to contribute material to the article to explain, based on sources you provide, that this may be a minority view. - It's not a question of being a "Minority view". A non-fringe minority view would have been a different issue. This is a question of us not having *one single source* that supports the inclusion. Then it should be removed from the list. In my categorization above (that noone objected too) the most inclusive view accepts even synthesis between several sources. This has not even that. This is not a minority view. It is a fringe view, that doesn't have one single reliable source behind it. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But sources were cited. Do you have sources that contradict what PMA put in the article? If he misunderstood or misrepresented his sources, you need to provide sources that prove he's wrong. You can't say "I don't agree with his interpretation of these sources, so I'm going to delete them or tag them as something that ought to be challenged." You have to produce sources of equal or greater weight to show that he's wrong. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not enough to just quote a source. The source has to actually support the statement. These sources do not. From WP:V:
The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate, and must clearly support the material as presented in the article.
The POLICY IV dataset does not rank any of the Central Powers as democracies; neither does the ranking of Tutu Vanhanen; on the other hand, all of the Central Powers had elected parliaments; the Reichstag had been elected by universal suffrage, and voted on whether a credit essential to the German conduct of the war should be granted. Whether this is democratic control over the foreign policy of the Kaiser is "a difficult case."
So, in fact, nobody ranks any of the central powers as democratic. Yet you add it to a list of wars between democracies. Can you explain that? Why should we list "both sides" in a case where there apparently is only one side, and that side says "do not include"? --OpenFuture (talk) 21:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mearsheimer says that there are some - and indeed there are. Also, there is an issue. I see that the argument of suppression of information continues, unfortunately. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson21:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There has never been any argument of suppression of information no matter what You/Cynwolfe claims. The argument is of correction. Would you claim that it's "suppression" to remove Mickey Mouse from a list of US presidents?
Mearsheimer says that there are some - And yet he isn't used as a source. Why not? It seems curious to exclude the only source that supports the entries inclusion. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think PMAnderson is misrepresenting what Doyle is actually saying, particularly in regard to this text he inserted to justify the inclusion of World War One: "and voted on whether a credit essential to the German conduct of the war should be granted" and "Whether this is democratic control over the foreign policy of the Kaiser is "a difficult case""
In the body of the text on page 216 of Vol. 12, No. 3, Summer, 1983 of the Journal Philosophy and Public Affairs, Doyle's clearly states in his paper "Despite their colonial rivalries, liberal France and Britain formed an entente before World War I against illiberal Germany (whose foreign relations were controlled by the Kaiser and the Army)." A subsequent footnote justifies Doyle's viewpoint that foreign relations were controlled by the Kaiser and the Army:
"8. Imperial Germany is a difficult case. The Reichstag was not only elected by universal male suffrage but, by and large, the state ruled under the law, respecting the civic equality and rights of its citizens. Moreover, Chancellor Bismarck began the creation of a social welfare society that served as an inspiration for similar reforms in liberal regimes. However, the constitutional relations between the imperial executive and the representative legislature were sufficiently complex that various practices, rather than constitutional theory, determined the actual relation between the government and the citizenry. The emperor appointed and could dismiss the chancellor. Although the chancellor was responsible to the Reichstag, a defeat in the Reichstag did not remove him nor did the government absolutely depend on the Reichstag for budgetary authority. In practice, Germany was a liberal state under republican law for domestic issues. But the emperor's direct authority over the army, the army's effective independence from the minimal authority of the War Ministry, and the emperor's active role in foreign affairs (including the influential separate channel to the emperor through the military attaches) together with the tenuous constitutional relationship between the chancellor and the Reichstag made imperial Germany a state divorced from the control of its citizenry in foreign affairs.
This authoritarian element not only influenced German foreign policymaking, but also shaped the international political environment (a lack of trust) the Reich faced and the domestic political environment that defined the government's options and capabilities (the weakness of liberal opinion as against the exceptional influence of junker militaristic nationalism). Thus direct influence on policy was but one result of the authoritarian element. Nonetheless, significant and strife-generating episodes can be directly attributed to this element. They include Tirpitz's approach to Wilhelm II to obtain the latter's sanction for a veto of Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg's proposals for a naval agreement with Britain (I909). Added to this was Wilhelm's personal assurances of full support to the Austrians early in the Sarajevo Crisis and his, together with Moltke's, erratic pressure on the Chancellor throughout July and August of I9I4, which helped destroy whatever coherence German diplomacy might otherwise have had, and which led one Austrian official to ask, "Who rules in Berlin? Moltke or Bethmann?""
Thus Doyle is actually justifying why Imperial Germany cannot be considered a democracy, the Chancellor was immune from censure by the Reichstag, the government had no real dependence on the Reichstag for budgetary authority and foreign policy that lead to the outbreak of World War One was controlled by the emperor and the arrmy. --Martin (talk) 23:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is the way he thinks the difficult case will resolve - but his statement of the difficulty and the case remains. If some of this needs to be mentioned, mention it. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson00:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is the way he thinks the difficult case will resolve - but his statement of the difficulty and the case remains. If some of this needs to be mentioned, mention it; but this edit is more suppression. We are not here to make the case for the party line of any party; those who are would do better elsewhere and among others. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson00:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The difficulty is not on whether there was democratic control over the foreign policy of the Kaiser, Doyle is absolutely clear on this, there wasn't. The difficulty is with duality in the Imperial German polity, i.e. democratic, liberal and socially advanced domestic policies; non-democratic, authoritarian and militaristic foreign policy. Doyle is actually concurring with Polity IV and Vanhanen, giving justification for the classification as non-democratic in terms of going to war. --Martin (talk) 00:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is two falsehoods, both about Doyle and about Germany. Doyle concludes that the Kaiser was not completely subject to democratic control, but that is not the same thing. But did the Reichstag and the people have power to interfere with the war? Yes, they did; the Reichstag had voted down the appropriation for a colonial war as recently as 1906. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson00:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your conclusion is at odds with what Doyle actually states, re-read the footnote I quoted verbatim above: "the emperor's direct authority over the army, the army's effective independence from the minimal authority of the War Ministry, and the emperor's active role in foreign affairs (including the influential separate channel to the emperor through the military attaches) together with the tenuous constitutional relationship between the chancellor and the Reichstag made imperial Germany a state divorced from the control of its citizenry in foreign affairs" --Martin (talk) 00:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You quote selectively, and read much more strongly than his earlier discussion merits. If Doyle had meant to affirm only one side, he would not have made both cases, or called it "difficult"; he does not on other subjects. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson01:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that you have selectively cherrypicked the term "a difficult case" from the footnote and prepended your own "Whether this is democratic control over the foreign policy of the Kaiser is". This seems like pure synthesis, since Doyle poses no such question, he explicitly states in the body "illiberal Germany (whose foreign relations were controlled by the Kaiser and the Army)". Lets have a poll on whether this version or the previous version more accurately reflects what Doyle says. --Martin (talk) 01:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:Polling is evil. This is victory by exhaustion; even if I type in the long stretches you omitted, you will call in the -er- politically committed editors to vote on whether to suppress the reservation that Doyle makes and Mearsheimer endorses. Wikipedia is not a democracy, winner does not take all, and a transient majority, even if you get one, cannot set aside our commitment to include all significant points of view. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson01:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to re-examine this, the quality of your argumentation appears to be again coming up short. There is nothing wrong in using a straw poll to gauge the quality of a peice of text, this is afterall, a collaborative project. Mearsheimer doesn't endorse Doyle, he merely observes "Lastly, some would classify Wilhelmine Germany as a democracy, or at least a quasi-democracy" without identifying who these "some" (which infers a minority viewpoint) really are. BTW Doyle, on page 210, identifies Germany as a liberal regime between 1918 and 1932, which supports the view of Polity IV and Verhanen. --Martin (talk) 01:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Verhanen's methodology classifies Germany as a democracy in 1934; there was no intervening election, so the democracy of 1930 continued to exist. This is one of the things he covers as a short-term fluctuation; for his purpose it doesn't really matter.
Per WP:UNDUE. Since Mearsheimer doesn't actually identify those who would classify Imperial Germany as a democracy, thus we cannot even name the proponents of that viewpoint, policy dictates it must be excluded. --Martin (talk) 02:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It does? Where? WP:UNDUE says that fringe viewpoints must be escluded; but Mearsheimer's paper is in a peer-reviewed journal, and has been widely cited on precisely this point; that's how I found it. Minority viewpoints must be included. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson13:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above non-sequitur is the fourth mischaracteristizartion of a source by Martin - all in the same tendentious interest. I will be happy to include sources he finds - insofar as they are neither redundant nor undue weight; but my time and clearly my patience are limited.
Henceforth silence in response to his posts should not be taken to imply agreement - one can only say so often that one editor is inventing policy and misrepresenting the literature. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson13:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My apparent silence is a function of the timezone I live in, nothing else. Yes, Mearsheimer's paper is in a peer-reviewed journal, but no, he does not support the view that Imperial Germany was a democracy. He merely observes "Lastly, some would classify Wilhelmine Germany as a democracy, or at least a quasi-democracy" without identifying who these "some" really are. Since he does not explicitly identify who holds that view, that view must be considered fringe, --Martin (talk) 22:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(A side note: I read PMA to mean his own silence, that is, if he decides not to engage in further discussion on a point, it should not be taken to imply that he concedes it. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]
He has not mischaracterized anything, nor has he invented any policy, so you shouldn't say that at all. Your fervor is impressive, but misguided, you clearly have no sources supporting neither WWI nor the First Kashmir war. WP:UNDUE indeed says that fringe views should be excluded, the view that these two wars a re wars between democracies are clearly fringe. In fact, they are so fringe we can't find one single reliable source that support it. There is more support and reliable sources calling Cuba a democracy than there is supporting your additions. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If there are no sources saying WW1 or the first kashmir war were not between democracies the nthey ought to be removed, the sheer amount if synth and or in this article continues to stun me mark nutley (talk) 14:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, i have looked through this thread and you are reaching. Your source for the Kashimr war does not say it was a war between democracies at all. It says the Maharajah did not like the idea of democracy, it certainly does not say pakistan was one [11]mark nutley (talk) 14:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One sentence has been quoted saying that there are those who say so. That's not enough, you need to find those who say so and quote them. Otherwise we do not know if they are reliable sources or not. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since that is actually substantive, certainly; the citation of page 122 is to an assertion that the classification of India and Pakistan is identical, except for religion. One of the components of that classification is (as it says on the same page) regime type. Yherefore India and Pakistan are both classified as democracies. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson15:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is a terminological inexactitude. The database classified classifies both regimes here in all four respects; they discuss the classification of India as a democracy - and its effect on the crisis - in the sentences already quoted. Have you anything better to say than denying the meaning of the source? SeptentrionalisPMAnderson15:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you repeat those quotes, because I have not seen any quotes where this is discussed. Only where the *goal* of democracy was being discussed. Which is a completely different thing. Perhaps they got lost in the discussion? --OpenFuture (talk) 15:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I should not have responded to this in the first place. (Like many of these sources, this one is widely cited as a claim of a war between democracies; James Lee Ray responds to it at length, pointing out that neither democracy was established, and so this falls under the long-established exception: the democratic peace does not apply to new states.) But this wholesale rewriting of a source is an act of desperation. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson15:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you couldn't repeat those quotes. I guess that's because you actually mean the ones I have seen, which in no way at all supports the idea that either India nor Pakistan was democracies in 1947. They clearly do not belong. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indo-Pakistani War of 1947
Let's stipulate that both PMA and OpenFuture have legitimate sources to support their claims here. PMA says that the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 (as the article is called) was fought by two polities that can be viewed as democratic. OpenFuture says nope. To review: to be neutral (in the way demanded by the neutrality policy) is to describe debates rather than engage in them. In other words, when discussing a subject, we should report what people have said about it rather than what is so. So PMA puts a descriptive statement in the article to represent his sources as accurately as possible, properly sourced. OpenFuture objects, however, and adds something like the following statement: "Other scholars argue that neither India nor Pakistan should be considered democratic in 1947," perhaps with a brief explanation, with a footnote citing his sources. This has always struck me as the way to handle this article, and it's the way prescribed by the neutrality policy. Why doesn't this work? Cynwolfe (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That, of course, would be perfectly acceptable; but OpenFuture doesn't have a source. Despite the clear intentions of the Attlee Government, of Nehru, and of the initial government of Pakistan, some scholar may well have found that they failed to set up democracies - I don't know who, but there may be a case.
I should also point out that if PMA is representing a minority view among scholars, the entry should be recast as: "Although most scholars don't consider India and Pakistan to have been democracies in 1947,"(OpenFuture's footnote here) So-and-so has argued that blah blah." I think this addresses Martin's concerns about weight. I'd have to say that in general, material from books and journals published by major scholarly presses such as Cambridge, Oxford, Harvard, Yale, Michigan and so on are by definition not "fringe," though they may indeed represent a minority view, or a recent view that may or may not become the dominant one. (I have no position whatever on whether the war under discussion should be included; I'm trying to arrive at the process by which entries are verified and made neutral. Issues of OR and synth tend to arise only if these policies haven't been adequately implemented.) Cynwolfe (talk) 16:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's stipulate that both PMA and OpenFuture have legitimate sources to support their claims here. - There is no reason to stipulate. PMA clearly has no sources, and he has the burden of proof. His argument now is that "maybe they failed even though the intended" which is nonsense argumentation. India did not fail to become a democracy, and Pakistan did fail [12]. But the question is not if they failed or succeeded later, but whether they were democracies in 1947, and they were not. A minimum requirement must reasonably to have a government that is elected in some way by the people. And they did not. The claims that India an Pakistan were democratic are totally absurd, as it the logic Pmanderson are using to reach the conclusion. See the RSN for more views.
I should also point out that if PMA is representing a minority view among scholars - He isn't. He is representing a fringe view for which he can't find one single reliable source. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then it should be quite easy for you to provide sources that show PMA's wrong. It isn't clear to me that he has no sources, only that the sources he has are less than adequate for making an unambiguous case. On the RSN page, the user Blueboar seems to think that it shouldn't even be a question, that both were democracies, while Slatersteven says yes to India, no to Pakistan; they are evidently familiar with the 1947 war and have formed their impressions somewhere. That editors argue over what's correct only indicates that this should be a case of describing what the sources actually say, which seems not to be uniform. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even though he has the burden of proof, and there therefore is no need for me to provide such material, I have. See the link above. Even if it isn't clear to you that he has no source, it's clear to everyone else. See my previous quote from WP:V. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your tone here is unduly belittling. It's easy enough to verify India; the question with Pakistan, which has still not achieved a form of democratic government that satisfies observers, seems to be whether one wishes to treat the subject historically. That is, the user Slatersteven points out that the constitution of Pakistan postdates the First Kashmir War; even if one agrees to examine Pakistan in light of failed efforts to fulfill its democratic goals (that is, if one categorizes Pakistan as constitutionally democratic, but with fatal failures in the democratic process), that still leaves the question of what democratic reforms or intentions or structures can be verified during the period in question. I'm trying to get hold of the scholarship on a question I've only dealt with in terms of contemporary journalism; you've obviously given this more thought and examined the historical question in greater detail, which is why I assumed you had sources at your fingertips. I only see one source you've given, and may be overlooking what else you've provided; but one source isn't overwhelming, and to make the "fringe" exclusion stick, you must show that your view is supported by a preponderance of scholarship. I'm not saying it isn't; I'm saying if you're well-informed enough to be certain about your position, then providing the sources that have given you this certainty should help outside editors join with you in a consensus that the First Kashmir War should be excluded. The source you've provided says that Pakistan's democracy failed in the period 1947–58; that means there was a democracy to fail, and that at the beginning of the war in 1947, democracy was presumably stronger than after the period of decline and failure. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's easy enough to verify India - If you say so. Please go ahead.
the question with Pakistan, which has still not achieved a form of democratic government that satisfies observers, seems to be whether one wishes to treat the subject historically. - No. The question if if Pakistan was a democracy in 1947. If you claim it is, please provide a source that fulfills WP:V for that statement. Everything else is completely irrelevant at this point. If you can not provide sources for both India and Pakistan, it should not be included.
If you *can* provide such sources, then the questions about synthesis,weight etc comes into play. But until there has been sources these questions are completely irrelevant. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the source you provided is the one that assumes Pakistan was a democracy in the period 1947–1958; if no form of democracy was present or attempted, the statement that democracy in Pakistan failed is nonsensical. Like saying that I failed to become a neurosurgeon, when I never made the attempt or even intended to do so. I take no position as to whether the First Kashmir War should be included in this list; I haven't read enough. I'm not arguing a position on the First Kashmir War; you are, therefore you surely have historical or political studies to share that have informed your position. I'm merely trying to look at the evidence. I don't think PMA's is unimpeachable at present; the source you point to above, unless I'm missing others, asserts that Pakistan was a democracy, but one that failed. (re-signing this section)Cynwolfe (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would appear to be Mansfield and Snyder's position: it did fail - in 1956; it had never flourished, as India's did. In late 1947, some months after Independence, it had not yet done so.
The position that this source supports Pakistan as a democracy is based on the grammatical feature that they say that the democracy failed, and that therefore they must think that it was democratic in the beginning. Such grammatical assumptions are nothing but "special pleadings" as Pmanderson likes to call them. Of course democracy can fail without being implemented first. It's not the dismantling of democracy or anything like that, but the *failure*. It's a bit like requiring the failure of Foolands invasion of Baristan to mean that Fooland has occupied Baristan. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. The failure of the Foolands invasion of Baristan indicates that Foolands and Baristan had a military conflict that may or may not meet the criteria for "war." To serve as an example of the kind of faulty reasoning at issue here, you'd have to say that although Foolands invaded Baristan, there was no military conflict, because the invasion failed. The success or outcome, however, is irrelevant to the definitional basis. Scholars discuss the First Kashmir War in relation to the constitutional status of India and Pakistan, which involves the question of democracy; that one may've eventually succeeded at achieving its own form of democracy, and the other been unable to fulfill its goals, is an interesting and relevant historical question, if we're trying to provide a neutral list instead of creating our own litmus test for who gets to be called a "democracy." Cynwolfe (talk) 14:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I used a war as a way to explain the fault in your reasoning regarding the word "failure" and thereby making it possible for you to misunderstand what I was saying as if I was discussing the definition of war. My bad. I've stricken that bit to avoid such confusion. Please read what I wrote again and ignore that part. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you mean about a hypothetical example involving war being a distraction, since one of the contentious points of the article has been the definition of "war" and how it serves as a criterion. But that isn't how the logic went wrong here. It started off as an apt analogy: "Pakistan attempted democracy, but it failed" is equivalent to "Foolands launched an invasion of Baristan, but it failed." Agreed, those are analogous kinds of statements. Since this is a statement for an encyclopedia, let's stipulate that each comes from a legitimate source. I agree with you, OF, that the conclusion "therefore, Foolands occupied Baristan" is an unjustified leap; you are right. But the analogous conclusion for Pakistan would be "therefore, Pakistan succeeded in becoming a full-fledged democracy." This is an unjustified conclusion based on what our source here has said; it is an example of probably synth, maybe OR, depending. The premise verifiable by the source is that "Foolands launched an invasion." If you line up the two statements of the analogy, you see that the equivalent part is "Pakistan attempted democracy" (that is, in terms of constitution, and other specifics to which your source makes reference, Pakistan's form of government is to be evaluated categorically as "democracy," whether it succeeded with flying colors, which it did not, or failed). The premise is structurally not a conclusion. I'm drawing no conclusion to say that according to your own source Pakistan is to be evaluated within the category "democracy." That is the premise on which your source predicates Pakistan's failure. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
India is easy to verify: a casual search of a single UP (Cambridge) turned up several good-quality sources that discussed how the war related to India's development as a constitutional democracy, including the Cambridge History of India, which l think was the one that looked at how British observers thought that India's caste system couldn't sustain a democracy because of its inherent inequality. CHI, or one of the several other sources I glanced at, seemed to see India as a unique form of democracy that shouldn't be judged by Western-centered standards but rather on how well India created its own structures for preserving its cultural traditions while becoming a democracy. You rightly and frequently have noted that "democracy" has more than one definition. That's why it would be non-neutral to impose only one definition on this list. Rather, our job according to the neutrality statement is to describe debates rather than engage in them. In other words, when discussing a subject, we should report what people have said about it rather than what is so. I don't have the slightest certainty of "what is so" in this case; I'm looking at what scholars have said. I'm not going to imagine that I understand scholarly consensus on such a complex topic after reading two or three sources. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cynwolfe is thinking of NCHI, Vol. IV, p. 5; p. 11 discusses the decision of the independent Indian government to accept democracy. This citation, however, should be even more indicative; the Government of India Act 1935 was democratic in the Westminster style - and therefore both constitutions were too. This is as near as I can come to a citation of the obvious and well-known. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson23:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly it; I remember it was p. 5. My earlier abbreviation, now corrected, was a mental glitch in response to Cambridge History, the one I use regularly being Cambridge Ancient History. As I said, I have no preconceptions about this entry; I'm just trying to look at whatever anyone recommends in addition to what I find by chance. PMA's citation, though, seems pretty clear about the constitution status of India and Pakistan at Independence — solid enough to require direct refutation by another source that asserts they were not constituted as democracies. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Volume IV you say? Page 5. But NCHI is organized as Volume 1.1, 1.2, 2.3, 4.2, etc. [13] You might mean Volume 4.1, but I can't seem to find that.
PMA's citation, though, seems pretty clear about the constitution status of India and Pakistan at Independence — solid enough to require direct refutation by another source that asserts they were not constituted as democracies. - There is absolutely no solidity in that whatsoever. The source does not once state that the countries were democratic at the outset, just that their constitutions was *based* on a democratic constitution. And note that these are constitutions that did not exist in 1947. I've also already pointed out that the assembly India had was dissolved at independence, and replaced by constitutional assemblies. I can't even find any parliaments in the countries in 1947. If the countries did have parliaments can you point me to information about these parliaments? There was no new elections until several years later. So not only are your conclusions wrong, they are also more importantly WP:OR. And your attempt to put the burden of proof on me is also wrong. Let me cite WP:V again, for clarity:
The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate, and must clearly support the material as presented in the article.
Again, an editor's assertion or argument to the contrary is insufficient without sources to back it up; this seems like the "not real democracy" argument, that is, refusing to describe or explain in the article what the sources say, as is required by the neutrality policy. I'm coming to this subject new; I don't know who's accurate here. I can only compare sources. An individual editor's inability to read and explain the material is not evidence that the material is defective for its purpose. It isn't original research to provide sources for statements to be included in the article; it's required by WP:V. The material cited seems sufficient to require description or explanation of why this is a matter of debate; it's non-neutral to merely delete, to suppress the debate. If your reading is the correct one, you should rewrite the entry and add sources that more clearly point to what you think is an accurate statement. For instance, the source you cited above said that Pakistan had a democracy, but it failed. You have parsed the problems with considering India a democracy at this point in history. This needs to be in the article, clearly and concisely described. It gets at the heart of the list's criteria for inclusion and definitional dependency: we as editors don't judge what is or is not "real" democracy, we describe what scholars have said pertaining to the question. This is not a matter of sorting beads through holes in a tray, and not letting the big ones, the difficult ones, go through. That's non-neutral, because it imposes our interpretation. One of the ways that scholars discuss the First Kashmir War is by looking at the constitutional status of India and Pakistan in light of whether they're democracies; the failure at an attempt at democratic government is surely of great interest historically, and if that failure is closely related to a war it's all the more relevant to this article. I don't see what's gained by excluding such interesting questions. (A constitution, by the way, need not be a written document passed by law, the classic modern example being the UK. The formal adoption of a written constitution is just an aspect of the body of governing principles within a given polity.) Cynwolfe (talk) 14:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You still have the burden of evidence backwards:
The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate, and must clearly support the material as presented in the article.
That quote is not unclear on the topic.
this seems like the "not real democracy" argument, - No, it does not seem like anything that would come up with the idea of resembling that even in it's wildest dreams. What it does seem like is that you have no sources to support your statement. It is not up to you/Pmanderson to declare India or Pakistan 1947 a democracy. You need sources. You do not have sources. That's the first thing. Neutrality and all the thing you talk about are completely irrelevant until you come up with sources supporting the inclusion if this war.
An individual editor's inability to read and explain the material is not evidence that the material is defective for its purpose. - and likewise, an individual editors inability to read material is not evidence that the material is effective for it, nor is his wishful thinking or special pleadings. That is why WP:V says and must clearly support the material as presented in the article. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OF, if a consensus of editors says that Source A does support the assertion, then the information will go into the article. The lone editor saying that it does not cannot halt consensus simply by repeatedly saying "I don't believe you". So rather than keep repeating that section of WP:V like a mantra, why don't you go away and find some sources that say directly that either India or Pakistan were not democracies, before consensus overwhelms your protests that it's not supposed to work that way. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've had the source up on WP:RSN. The comments there was that it clearly did not support the assertion. The only ones that support it is Pmanderson and possibly you and Cynwolfe. The consensus clearly is that the source does not support it and that there is no support for including the First Kashmir War in this list. The continued debate, and your and Cynwolfes constant hypothetical "ifs" does not change that. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would be
this section (the link will need to be updated when it is archived); it does not discuss the source by Omar, added since, and OpenFuture's post above has the doubtful merit of being quite as accurate as his comments on the book. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson23:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't support inclusion of the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947, given that India only became a republic in 1950. Would it make any difference if some additional source was found confirming either India or Pakistan were not democracies at that time? Polity IV and Verhanen both consider these countries were not democracies at that time. In the case of Imperial Germany, we already have a third source Doyle who considers that country to be undemocratic where it counts for this list, i.e. foreign policy, financing and conduct of the war. In relation to Germany, only Mearsheimer observes "Lastly, some would classify Wilhelmine Germany as a democracy, or at least a quasi-democracy" without explicitly identifying who those proponents of that view are. Inability to identify proponents means that view is fringe. --Martin (talk) 20:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Must a democracy be a republic? Are you prepared to defend that to our British and Canadian fellow editors? More important, do you have a citation for that really quite rare view? SeptentrionalisPMAnderson21:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quite seriously, there are conceivable positions which make the elections of Jackson, Lincoln, Wilson, Kennedy, Gladstone, Churchill, or Blair "undemocratic" - we have already considered the mouthpiece of the Cuban Government, who so argues about Kennedy. It is possible that such positions may be current enough to deserve mention - although that would require actual evidence, something that is short supply around here.
But no such position is or can be consensus of the literature, which is what would be needed to justify exclusion of views that disagree with it. That's contrary to core policy. Please stop attempting to impose a POV - especially a point of view which is contrary to common usage. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson21:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But I am not unreasonable. This is an argument that Nehru did not govern a democracy because he ruled in the name of King George VI; so did Churchill. If you can find a reliable source which asserts that Churchill was not a democratic statesman on the grounds that he governed in the King's name, I'll put in the Continuation War, amd rephrase the First Kashmir War accordingly. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson22:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This answer(s) is(are) a good example of the problem with this discussion. Instead of trying to understand or countering the actual positions and trying to reach consensus, you launch on attack of the usage of one word, to try to deflect the discussion from anything useful. No, a democracy doesn't have to be a republic. Now please come up with sources that support the inclusion of the First Kashmir war. You still have provided no sources that claim either of the countries were democracies in 1947. You have only provided conjecture and speculation. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The actual argument is I don't support inclusion of the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947, given that India only became a republic in 1950. That is not an incoherent position, but it is a minority view; whether it is a sufficiently common minority that we need to take account of it will be determined by sources. In any case, unless it is consensus, it is not grounds to exclude a war. The rest of this is OpenFuture's opinion. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson23:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not blanking anything. The three sources does not say the things you three claims it says, which can be trivially verified by reading the quotes you claim support you. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exclusionary tactics can only lead to a non-neutral POV. My position on this is that our job is to explain/describe in accordance with the neutrality policy. I don't see the logic behind using a source that evaluates the success or failure of Pakistan within the category "democracy" as a way to exclude Pakistan from the category "democracy." That is where describing the source accurately comes into play. I see Martin as presenting a reasoned, good-faith argument that should be present in the article, through a statement such as "Although Pakistan blah blah" (cited per PMA), many scholars view Pakistan's democratic status as so nominal as to be non-existent or specious" (with citations of the sources). (Well, in whatever wording.) So the thing I'm not seeing is why those who object to PMA's presentation don't edit constructively by means other than tagging or deletion. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My position on this is that our job is to explain/describe in accordance with the neutrality policy. - Good. Then you agree that a conflict that has ZERO reliable sources supporting it's inclusion should not be included, right?
So the thing I'm not seeing is why those who object to PMA's presentation don't edit constructively by means other than tagging or deletion - Because it should not be included, so the only constructive edit is to delete it. But instead of doing that, I tag it to give you a chance to come up with sources. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a source evaluating Pakistan's constitutional status within the category "democracy" is a source that warrants the inclusion of Pakistan here, and hence the First Kashmir War, with the explanation that Pakistan failed as a democracy. This is OpenFuture's own source. To suppress the description of these sources is non-neutral. This requires contributing to the article by means of adding text, rather than simple deletion or tagging. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Section Break
Brecher, Wilkenfeld, and Moser, Crises in the Twentieth Century, I, 122, 129, 209-10 Using this source is OR as decided at the RSN board. [14] This source presented by OF clearly states that democracy failed in pakistan between 47-58, if democracy had failed then this could not have been a war between democracies mark nutley (talk) 21:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1948 Arab–Israeli War
I succeeded in finding the full quote about the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. The full quote is in fact:
With only very marginal exceptions, democratic states have not fought one another in the modern era. This is one of the strongest nontrivial or non- tautological generalizations that can be made about international relations. The nearest exception is Lebanon's peripheral involvement in Israel's "War of Independence" in 1948. Israel had not yet held an' election, so Melvin Small and J. David Singer did not count it as a democracy.
In other words, the source count this as the nearest you get to an exception to the rule, but does not count it as an exception, just the nearest you get to an exception. This is yet another case of Pmandersons creative interpretation of sources.
I had missed this disingenuous reading. He counts it as a "very marginal exception"; otherwise he would not use the phrase. It should be a requirement to assume that reliable sources can write competent English; like other assumptions, this would be rebuttable - but Doyle is in fact unusually clear. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson20:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, the interpretation of that part does lend itself to that interpretation, it's true. The rest of the context does not, so he is a bit unclear on this. It's still clearly a marginal view, though. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's a marginal involvement in a war with an unestablished democracy. But it's an example here, although it is at best a marginal exception to the liberal peace. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson23:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Polity IV does not see Lebanon as a democracy in 1948. I can't find anyone that does in fact. And although there is a great unity in seeing Israel as a democracy, Israel had it's first elections in 1949. It seem like the view that the 1948 Arab–Israeli War was a war between democracies is marginal at best. Let's see if anyone can come up with sources for this one. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bruce Russett, Controlling the Sword: the Democratic Governance of National Security (1990), p.123: "the nearest exception"; Russett notes that Singer and Small (see note on the Continuation war) do not count Israel as yet being a democracy.
What I did above was give context to "the nearest exception", to show that your source does not support the case that this is a war between democracies. This has so far been the case with almost all your additions. Once I or somebody else manage to check up your sources, they simply do not support the statement. Your additions have been like that since you started adding conflicts to this list a couple of months ago. Very few of your sources supports your additions. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Once you check up on my sources, you invent new and fantastic readings of them, which nobody else - including other reliable sources, such as Ray here - agrees with. This is an ingenious method of suppressing what the sources actually claim, but no service to the reader. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson18:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally, scholars would stop writing these absurdly discursive tomes, and confine themselves to Twitter posts written at the 8th-grade reading level. We could just collect tweets serially and paste them into articles. Don't they know how hard they're making our job? Cynwolfe (talk) 18:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sarcasm doesn't suit you either. This has nothing to do with verbosity, only the simple fact that the sources does not say what Pmanderson claims.
(Good thing I didn't say it unanimously agreed with me then. I can only conclude that your readings of what sources say is as accurate as your reading of what I say). --OpenFuture (talk) 18:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What you say differs from post to post, although some of this may be the difficulty in self-expression of someone who cannot get subject to agree with verb, and doesn't know sarcasm from irony. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson18:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So what now?
Which is the best next step? It's clear that where Pmanderson, Elen of the Roads and Cynwolfe read one thing, others read the exact opposite. How do we handle this? I tried WP:RSN but the result of that is just that Pmanderson/Elen/Cynwolfe seems to read "yes" where I read "no" again, so that didn't help. What is the best option here? --OpenFuture (talk) 18:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On this page, Martin and RegentsPark has disagreed with your reading, and on RSN two others also disagreed with your reading. In the case of the Kashmir war, we have five people who disagree with your reading. That according to you is "only me", which I can only gather is another case of you reading the opposite of what it says. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Oh, and I think I rather want recommendations from somebody else of how to handle you. I can't see any other ways than mediation though, which seems like another painful and slow process to deal with something that should be fairly simple). --OpenFuture (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Handling me is simple. Don't blank sourced contributions, do some research, and don't distort texts out of all recognition (including the comments of other editors, like Regentspark and myself) - and I'm a pussycat. All of these are easier if one stays out of articles one has an emotional commitment to, a preconceived position on, and limited knowledge of the literature. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson20:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is OpenFuture addressing these remarks to anybody in particular? Or does he keep these repetitive responses on little pieces of paper, and draw them out of a jar willy-nilly? That would explain a lot. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The answer is the same answer as for most content disputes - more sources. OpenFuture, while you continue to argue about the interpretation of sources provided by others, and seek to remove content based on that interpretation, without providing sources of your own, it is my opinion that this unsatisfactory situation will continue. Your tactic of simply repeating that paragraph from WP:V is leaving you without a forward strategy. The better tactic is to find better sources, that clearly support your POV. Note the discussion about WWI - Marting didn't just contest the interpretation of PMAnderson's sources. He provided other sources and so did I, and the current state of play is our way, even though PMAnderson still disagrees. I appreciate that there are more sources on WWI than on some of the other conflicts, but you see how sources work. More research is almost always the way to go when conflict arises - unless one is dealing with a total POV warrior who insists that Gondor won WWII, which is not the case here. You have a legitimate POV. You're just not putting the actual evidence forward to support it. Rubbishing someone else's sources rarely works (unless it's the Sun newspaper or FOX News). Putting forward your own sources is usually a better tactic. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't see how more sources work in this case. In the case of the Kashmir war, I added a source, and the interpretation of that also went the same way, where a word "destroyed" was latched on to to make the argument that because democracy had been destroyed the countries was democratic in 1947. That is just a logic devoid of any contact with reality. How does adding more sources help? They will just also fall foul of the same dogmatic wish to read in something that is not there. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OpenFuture's position is that there never was a Pakistani democracy at all; his source said that it had failed, citing a history which holds (both in the title and in extenso in the text) that it was destroyed and which describes its destruction (in the years following the war) in great and unflattering detail. How can something which never existed be destroyed? Carthage was also destroyed, but not even OpenFuture contends that there never was a Carthage.
What has been suggested, by many voices, is that OpenFuture find reliable sources which support his point of view; he has found one which contradicts it (although adding a useful and necessary qualification to this entry). If he cannot, he might consider altering his position - say to that actually held by theorists of the democratic peace; if he can, they should be represented with due weight. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson13:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see this as the only way to move on. OpenFuture should contribute actively and constructively to the article's content by explaining or qualifying, not just deleting, sourced statements provided by other editors. If his position is that the political term "democracy" cannot be applied to Pakistan in 1947 in any way, he must provide sources saying that. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He has found one which contradicts it - More proof that this is not a constructive way forward. You will continue to claim that the moon is made of cheese, and every source I bring up you will simply claim that is *also* says the moon is made out of cheese. I bring a source saying "The moon is made of rock", you'll say "it says cheese!". That is not going to work as a path forward.
OpenFuture's position is that there never was a Pakistani democracy at all; his source said that it had failed - No, it did not say "the Pakistani democracy failed". That is not true. It said "democracy failed in Pakistan". That's a different statement, that does not carry the implications you claim it carries.
If his position is that the political term "democracy" cannot be applied to Pakistan in 1947 in any way, he must provide sources saying that. - Show me the the part of Wikipedia policy that claims I have the burden of proof in this case, please. Also: [15]. None of the here discussed sources support the claim of the First Kashmir war as a war between democracies. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
India elected its constituent assembly before Independence. But OpenFuture is now arguing that the source is wrong; if he disagrees with Polity IV, he should go argue with them, not with us. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson17:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OF, this is not like CSI:Crime Scene Investigation, where Gill Grissom will produce the one conclusive piece of evidence that shows beyond doubt that the villain dunnit. Academic sources, particularly in the humanities, are rarely like that. They hedge their bets. They 'respectfully note the position of other experts'. They appraise all sides. Wikipedia is more like an English civil court. In English civil law, cases are determined on the balance of probabilities. Is it more likely that X than that Y. The more evidence you can dig up, the better your chance of shifting the balance of probability your way.Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What balance? There are *no sources* to support that this was is a war between democracies. This is not a question of balance. Balance requires that there are two sides. Here one side is purely imaginary. The problem is that Pmanderson + devotees claim sources say something they do not say. That's the problem. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's more evidence. PITF consolidated case list (page 10 Pakistan Regime change 10/58 10/58 Decade-long experiment with parliamentary and presidential systems ends when democratic constitution is abrogated, political parties dissolved and government handed over to coalition of military officers and bureaucrats.
The Polity authority trends show Pakistan starting off with a score of -4 (Polity IV's minimum for a democracy is +6) going up sharply to +4 by 1948, getting over the magic +6 by 1958, as outlined in the source above. The 2009 Global Report (start page 9 explains the -5 to +5 category an anocracy, and offers helpful comments.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now, if we read through the full analysis of what is meant by anocracy in the third source, and compare it with the details captured in the chart, we can see that while Pakistan was moving towards democracy from 1947 to 1958, Pakistan in 1947 cannot be characterised as a democracy (at lest in Polity's view). It is this change over time, evident in the Polity source, which can be set against the rather bald statement you cite above about Pakistan 1947-1958 being a failed democracy. Yes it is - from 1947-1958 it was moving from anocracy towards becoming a democratic state, but it wasn't a democracy in 1947. Indeed, if you read the rest of the text (and this is where the peril of relying on quotes lies), it is clear that the author vies Pakistan as trying to establish a democracy that wouldn't take root, rather than having a democracy which was withering on the vine.
More discussion will and should follow, but this is how to use sources. Not just keep on and on about how you can't see it saying what everyone else sees. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Not just keep on and on about how you can't see it saying what everyone else sees." - Strange claim. Are you saying that one of the sides in the discussion about the Kashmir war is only one person? Who is that, in that case? --OpenFuture (talk) 15:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And how does that help when Pmanderson claims all these sources say the moon is made out of cheese? Even if we could change his mind in this case, the same thing will happen in every single conflict he drags up. In effect he has then succeeded in violating Wikipedia policy. Suddenly the burden of proof, which actually squarely rests on him, has ended up on those who want to disprove him, just because he persists in misreading sources. And since you revert the burden of proof, all he now needs to do is to continue to claim that his sources support Pakistan as a democracy, and he can then claim that his imaginary position must be represented.
I do not see how we can allow direct and obvious misreadings of sources as if they were real. It makes all of Wikipedia policy pointless. If all that's needed for verifiability is somebodies imagination, why bother with verifiability in the first place? --OpenFuture (talk) 15:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now that is a personal attack, if you like. But I will stand with the judgment of reliable sources that Nehru was a democratic statesman (until it became the toy of partisans on this page, I would have expected only Maoists to question it), and the assertion that Pakistan had a democracy, and that it ended by 1958, rather than the sourceless fulminations of OpenFuture.
Except of course, there are sources that support my position, but no sources that support your position. Your comment about Nehru is only more examples of your weird associative logic. I do not doubt Nehru was a democrat. But one person does not a democracy make. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe in the productivity of further discussion with an editor who can claim that this citation is not against the position that neither India nor Pakistan were a democracy in 1948. OpenFuture has failed to find a single assertion that Nehru was a democrat ruling an undemocratic country; but, by his track record, this suggestion will "be no longer operative" the next time he posts. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson15:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're doing the same search that I am. Yes, I found that - but I expected you would also. There are some other good ones if you search google books on Pakistan + democracy + 1947 [16] and several others make the case that Jinnah was trying to establish that legal status as an actual one, but his death set the process back.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I do not believe in the productivity of discussion with an editor that claims that source supports the claim that the countries were democracies in 1947, when there is absolutely nothing in it that supports that claim. Which is why I asked "what now" above, you see.
but, by his track record, this suggestion will "be no longer operative" the next time he posts. - Clearly it is not only the reading of sources that is problematic.--OpenFuture (talk) 16:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. And what now? Pmanderson still claims, as you see above, that his sources state the opposite from your sources. And they still don't. So what now? --OpenFuture (talk) 16:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, for goodness sake OF, do grow up. From the plethora of sources above, we can see that Pakistan was LEGALLY a democracy from August 1947, but never actually managed to reach the bottom level of actually working as a democracy until 1955, and never became a stable democracy until the 1990s - and wasn't that stable even then. So the write up needs to show that although India and Pakistan were legally democracies in 1947, Pakistan was not functioning as a democracy at that time (see particularly the last source I quoted PMA).--Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have it, with some difficulty; google books is refusing to let me see it. The assertion is using Polity IV, with its "anocracy", again; the magic number seems to have increased to 7 in this source.
Please do note that the broken sentence at the top of the same page counts India as a stable democracy since 1947, even by this restricted standard, with a possible exception of the Emergency, decades later; the next page sources the Kargil War. Perhaps this will get rid of some of the phantasms. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson16:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly the sources can be interpreted, at least with a bit of synthesis and OR, as that Pakistan "legally" was a democracy. But they can not be interpreted as that Pakistan *was* a democracy. Or are you going to include wars between the US and Kuba now? Or North Korea? It's also "legally" democracies.
So the write up needs to show that although India and Pakistan were legally democracies in 1947, Pakistan was not functioning as a democracy at that time - India had not had any elections. How is that a functioning democracy? And since when is a dubious interpretation of legal but not functioning democracy enough to include it in a war between democracies? You are all completely ignoring Wikipedia policies here. The sources do not support what you say, and what you say is not even enough to include the war on the list.
To include the Kashmir war, you need, as an absolute minimum, one source that claims India was a democracy in 1947, one source that claims Pakistan was a democracy in 1947, and one source saying they were in a war. You do not have that. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My position is consonant with what Elen is saying. This is not a win-lose game played by blocking an opponent's move. If scholars evaluate Pakistan within the category of "democracy," it's worthwhile to include it. It's informative to offer the kind of explanation that Elen has just given. What is gained by trying to suppress this kind of nuanced presentation? Again, OpenFuture should actively and constructively contribute to the article, and not just delete/tag. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a game. There are no moves.
If scholars evaluate Pakistan within the category of "democracy," it's worthwhile to include it. - They don't. Stop it with the "if"s. This is not a hypothetical discussion.
Again, OpenFuture should actively and constructively contribute to the article, and not just delete/tag. - How do you constructively contribute to a statement that says the moon is made of cheese? --OpenFuture (talk) 17:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's just a reductio ad absurdum. Let's say that I go the article Moon and find under "Physical characteristics" the statement "the Moon is made of green cheese." I delete; the editor responsible keeps putting it back. I keep arguing on the talk page that no, it really isn't made of cheese. The editor keeps restoring the statement, refusing to see that this is a truly lunatic claim. Now, I can keep tagging or deleting till Doomsday, or I can replace the section with information on what the Moon is really made of, fully cited; see Moon#Physical characteristics. You can't just argue that other editors don't know how to read and that we lack your intellectual capacity to see the truth. At some point, you have to put up or shut up, to use a rather rude phrase. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, does anybody but OpenFuture regard these tags as even a well-founded dispute?
He has applied the same tags to several different texts; perhaps he will do something actually helpful to the encyclopedia, like finding a source which says something more than is already in the text, if he is persuaded that this too is a dead end. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson20:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You so far has not once single source supporting your statements in the tagged wars. Is it a well founded *dispute*? No. Are the tags well founded: yes. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A brief tribute
I reproduce the following from the late Tony Judt's guest column "Israel without Clichés," 9 June 2010, New York Times:
Perhaps the most common defense of Israel outside the country is that it is “the only democracy in the Middle East.” This is largely true: the country has an independent judiciary and free elections, though it also discriminates against non-Jews in ways that distinguish it from most other democracies today. The expression of strong dissent from official policy is increasingly discouraged. But the point is irrelevant. “Democracy” is no guarantee of good behavior: most countries today are formally democratic — remember Eastern Europe’s “popular democracies.” Israel belies the comfortable American cliché that “democracies don’t make war.” It is a democracy dominated and often governed by former professional soldiers: this alone distinguishes it from other advanced countries. And we should not forget that Gaza is another “democracy” in the Middle East: it was precisely because Hamas won free elections there in 2005 that both the Palestinian Authority and Israel reacted with such vehemence.
If we were to find this useful as a quote from "a leading historian of postwar Europe," it would not do to use it as some yea-or-nay litmus test for whether Israel, much less Gaza, should or should not be admitted to this list as a "democracy." As a position, it might strike a number of reasonable people as "fringe," were it not for the authority of its author, "a leading historian of postwar Europe." What then would be our responsibility in regard to this material? It would be, according to WP:NPOV, to describe what is said. We can't say, on the one hand, that this business of defining "democracy" is a complex matter, and then, on the other, blithely exclude problematic cases that demonstrate that complexity because we don't want to go to the trouble of doing the kind of thorough research and weighing of sources required by WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:UNDUE. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What then would be our responsibility in regard to this material? - As it doesn't discuss any wars between democracies: Nothing. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OpenFuture's comment speaks for itself. To this provocative statement from a fascinating mind, his first and only response is nihilistic. He seizes on one point that allows him to say "no," and show no interest in any other issues it raises in regard to how we use sophisticated perspectives on a complex topic. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed not a war. It is a long running occupation and lately a blockade. Gaza is not an independent country, the elected government has no real power, Israel has more power in Gaza than they have, etc. Calling it a "war between democracies" is IMO completely wrong for many reasons, therefore we can not put those words in anybodies mouth. And who would be warring then? Are you saying that it's the elected people in Gaza that are sending rockets into Israel? They themselves deny it.
It is indeed an extremely complex question. And that's exactly why we can't "interpret" sources, not even a little bit, as in this case, and definitely not by making complex multi-step conjecture as in the case of the Kashmir war above. The source needs to clearly support the statement. That's what WP:V says, and there is a reason for that. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't give the passage in support of any particular entry on the list. I gave it for its inherent interest, and for what it says about definitional dependency. What OpenFuture says in his longer statement sounds reasonable. But as I said above (and then provided this passage as example), scholars don't write in tweets, and to treat their arguments reductively can also be misleading. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll find a clear consensus has been reached - OpenFuture is the only one arguing for exclusion of the 1947 India-Pakistan conflict, and the notes on WWI clearly show the discussion that has taken place. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. And WWI. None of those wars have one single source supporting the relevant countries (Pakistan in 1947 and Germany in 1914) as democracies. The interpretation of the sources seems to be little but wishful thinking, as is Elen of the roads claims of consensus. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This seems unduly dismissive and hyperbolic. The entry on the First Kashmir War is carefully cited; OpenFuture should edit it using his sources to give it the proper balance and weight he seeks. It's my position that the sources support including the First Kashmir War, but with text that describes the full range of scholarly views, in line with WP:UNDUE. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sections should be tagged while there are discussion ongoing. Tags can be removed when the discussion ends and consensus is reached. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could I suggest a generic "dubious" tag when an entry is currently undergoing discussion? That tag directs directs readers to the discussion. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I had on WWI (which also was removed several times) as the sources listed actually says what is quoted. It's just that none of them say Germany was a democracy. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ranked as a full-scale war between democracies in the International Crisis Behavior dataset. Citation: Ray, Democracy and International Conflict p.120.
I quote: "India versus Pakistan, 1948. This is categorized as a war between democratic states in Wilkenfeld, Brecher, and Moses." In other words, even if WBM never make this flat-out statement, but discuss in the terms set out following in the entry, Ray serves as a secondary source in regard to summarizing WBM's position. It doesn't matter one whit that Ray cites WBM in order to argue that for him, Pakistan doesn't count as a democracy; he ratifies the use of WBM as a source for inclusion on this list, but with Ray's own demurrals to be accounted for later in the entry. Ray maintains that Pakistan doesn't count as a democracy, and cites a source for disqualifying this armed conflict as a war. But unless WBM can be proven to be fruitcakes who publish out of B's parents' basement (Pergamon Press, however, seems to publish a large number of academic journals), they stand as sufficient for including the First Kashmir War in this list article with the appropriate qualifications in line with WP:UNDUE. Attempts to exclude discussion of this war thus strike me as non-neutral. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting quote. It's also the first time it has been mentioned here. This is therefore the first source mentioned that in any way supports the inclusion of the Kashmir war. I missed that bit. Strange that nobody bothered to quote it throughout this whole discussion. It's still clear that this is a marginal opinion, in fact even fringe, as Wilkenfeld, Brecher and Moses in fact doesn't seem to say so at all. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not the first time it's been mentioned: I'm not sure how long this has been in the article, but I assumed you had seen and checked out the citation, since you tagged it as failing verification. PMA thinks this is what WBM say, and he is supported by Ray, a source I think you acknowledge as legitimate. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources are legitimate. Most of them are hard to check for me as they are not available online. Ray has been mentioned, but not this quote, and the link with the page number was added only recently, and not noted or discussed here, so I missed that addition. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yet Ray's book is available online; and since that reference was added (directly to the words which assert that the two countries were ranked as democracies) OpenFuture has tagged that section as failing verification three times. It would be nice if tag-cruft were supported by actually consulting the references. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson15:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've tagged sources as failing verification, which most of them do. If, as I suggested, you would remove the sources that failed verification, this would be clearer. But of course, then your POV-pushing would collapse. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This section was intended to be a close line-edit of the entry, focusing on rewriting for accuracy. Taunting and baiting remarks like But of course, then your POV-pushing would collapse are out of place here. First OpenFuture concedes that "all the sources" cited on this point "are legitimate," but that "most of them are hard for me to check as they are not available online" ("most" is demonstrably untrue); having said he can't check them, he then says they fail verification. How's that? "I can't check them, but I'm sure they fail to verify what you say." On what grounds does he then accuse another editor of illogic? Cynwolfe (talk) 23:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
they present a table of crises ranking it as a full-scale war, cite it as an example of a crisis where both regimes were of the same time, and discuss the influence of India's democracy on the crisis and the related crises over other princely states. Citation: Brecher, Wilkenfeld, and Moser, Crises in the Twentieth Century, I, 129, 122, 209-10
Syntactical problems here. Who is this mysterious "they" suddenly manifest? WBM, but the reader doesn't know that: we have no antecedent for this pronoun, which seems to refer to what came previously, that is, to Ray, when it does only in a round-about way. The wording echoes the preceding statement (table … crisis … full-scale war), without alerting us that this is a different table. (Or is it?) Cynwolfe (talk) 21:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the influence of India's democracy on the crisis (the full-scale war?) is clear, but and the related crises over other princely states is not. Do we know what these other crises are? Do we even need to know? Ditto princely states. TMI? Cynwolfe (talk) 21:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Explanation within the citation: they do not generally disaggregate the differences in regime type (democracy, civil authoritarianism, or military government) in each pair of states from other differences between states, and differences between other states in the same crisis.
I'm not sure what we're saying here. I think I'm following that they don't disaggregate differences in regime type, until I reach from other differences etc. Again, TMI? Perhaps the statement would be clearer in the positive? As in, get rid of the not and say what they do. I rather think the citation of Ray's point-blank summary takes care of some of this explanation. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The argument for this source is that since the Maharajah of Kashmir wasn't interested in democracy and didn't want to join a democratic India it must have been democratic at the time when he didn't want to join (which is before it existed), and since India and Pakistan was of the same governmental type Pakistan was also a democracy. This logic is obviously nonsensical. The source doesn't support inclusion, and two independent editors on RS/N came to the same conclusion. The source should be removed. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is an error of fact. The outbreak of the crisis was after Independence. The 1935 GoI Act envisaged continued existence and quite substantial power for the princely states; both Pakistan and India attempted to persuade them to dissolve themselves into the newly formed states.
It also involves assuming that WBM (who say that they classified India and Pakistan) classified India as "civil authoritatian" or "military" and then proceeded to discuss India's democracy as part of the crisis. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson00:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is it an error of fact? Do you claim Kashmir joined India before independence, but declared it self independent? Of course not. The Maharaja did not want to join either India or Kashmir, and that refusal was done *before* the independence. The war happened when the Maharaja under threat from Muslim forces, the 27 October 1947 *did* join India. This is just slightly two months after independence, which was 15th of August. Maybe you claim that India was democratic the 16th of August, but not democratic the 27 October? --OpenFuture (talk) 05:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have conceded the point, which is that India existed when he was still considering joining it; the time when he didn't want to join (which is before [India] existed) is wrong. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson13:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional citation for the previous: For a briefer discussion of the emerging democracy of India and the ultimately unsuccessful democracy of the Dominion of Pakistan, see Mansfield and Snyder, Electing to Fight, MIT Press, 2007; pp. 241-2.
The definitions of 'democracy' and 'war' are apparently rather fuzzy. The first kashmir war is generally recognized as a war though it was never formally declared and, if I am not mistaken, Pakistan repeatedly denied that it was using its own troops. The kargil war is perhaps similar in intent. Democracy is fuzzy enough that the source (Ray) listed above as positively stating that Wilkenfeld et al call Pakistan a democracy goes on to fudge the issue by saying that "whereas India was arguably democratic, Pakistan was in a nascent state and never did establish a democratic system". That would imply that Ray anyway believes that while India could be called democratic, Pakistan could not (and he states that Pakistan was a 3/10 on the 1948 Polity II scale). However, apparently we have a secondary source that says that another source has labeled the war as being "between democratic states", so, its inclusion in this list doesn't seem out of line. This is a list, after all. If we have to have a list on wars between democracies, it makes sense to include even marginal entries and trust that the reader will gather the nuances when he/she reads the actual article. A list doesn't have to be picture perfect. --RegentsPark (talk) 22:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds sane to me. Inclusion on the list doesn't have to imply that we the editors endorse the polities as successful democracies. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not. But the problem in this discussion has for a long time, even since the discussion of Babst above, been Pmandersons removal of sources that plainly does not support the entries inclusion. Perhaps we could agree to remove the sources that doesn't support the inclusion, and have only the borderline sources left? That would make the discussion much easier and less complex. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need the false suppression of complexity through excluding relevant sources. What we need is a clearly worded entry that gives due weight to scholars' views. The best way to contribute to that constructively is to rewrite the entry and add sources. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The run of sources above suggest that both countries were legal democracies at inception, but Pakistan had a great deal of difficulty getting it to happen in practice. If that nuance can be read into the article, that would be good. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you summarize the sources in a way that supports your reading? I agree with Elen and RegentsPark: Pakistan is evaluated by scholars within the category "democracy" because that's what it was supposed to be constitutionally, but it fails in practice. I don't see what's gained by excluding this war, and interesting material that illuminates the topic would be lost by doing so. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's very hard to summarize the non-existence of things. But I'll try:
Brecher, Wilkenfeld, and Moser says that the Maharaja wasn't interested in democracy, so he wasn't interested in joining either India nor Pakistan, who both looked like they were going to become democracies. He also says that India and Pakistan had similar governments.
Omar says that India and Pakistan both ended up with constitutions similar to the British.
Talbot says that the democratic efforts in Pakistan failed.
I don't read Omar (if you mean Emergency Powers) in the same way at all. In the section "Some characteristics of the Constitutions of India and Pakistan: Parliamentary Democracy" (kind of a tip-off at the get-go), Omar says: "At Independence, both India and Pakistan were governed by the Government of India Act 1935. It is therefore not surprising to find that the colonial Act in many respects determined the general pattern of the Constitutions of both countries. Both Constitutions were based on the Westminster model of parliamentary democracy" etc. (p. 2 here). Omar sees clear and direct continuity between the Government of India Act in 1935 and the later, formal constitutions, and locates that continuity within the tradition of parliamentary democracy. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how your reading is different from mine. No matter. Still doesn't claim they were democratic in 1947. Maybe I need to clarify that the constitutions mentioned did not exist in 1947. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat what Omar says "At Independence, both India and Pakistan were governed by the Government of India Act 1935. It is therefore not surprising to find that the colonial Act in many respects determined the general pattern of the Constitutions of both countries. Both Constitutions were based on the Westminster model of parliamentary democracy." Omar is pointing out the historical continuity between the Act of 1935 and the later formal constitutions. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Which is what I said above. "Omar says that India and Pakistan both ended up with constitutions similar to the British." You are saying the same thing as me. Somehow you transform this similarity/continuity into "Pakistan was a democracy", which simply does not follow. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As for Talbot, the relevant chapter begins "Why did democracy fail in Pakistan during the period 1947–58?" If the question of democracy in Pakistan were irrelevant, it's hard to see why Talbot discusses it at such length. Talbot evaluates Pakistan within the category "democracy"; if democratic structures were non-existent in Pakistan in 1947, how could he trace the failure of democracy throughout the ensuing decade? As for WBM, I quoted Ray above and will do so again: "India versus Pakistan, 1948. This is categorized as a war between democratic states in Wilkenfeld, Brecher, and Moses." Ray confirms PMA's reading of this source. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did I say that the question of Democracy in Pakistan is irrelevant? What I said is that the source is irrelevant, and it is *in this case* because it does not support the idea that Pakistan was democratic in 1947. It should therefore not be used to support that statement. I really find it hard to believe that you don't understand that.
if democratic structures were non-existent in Pakistan in 1947, how could he trace the failure of democracy throughout the ensuing decade? - Again, you rely on grammatical misinterpretation. Democracy can fail in many ways, and you don't have to actually succeed first to have it fail. It's like claiming that the destruction of a balloon means the balloon must have been flying. No, it can be destroyed while still on the ground and filling with air. You can't use the wordings of two headings (partly meant to summarize whole chapters, partly meant to sound good and draw readers in) as support for the view that Pakistan was democratic in 1947. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see questions of grammar here. I see questions of logic. It would be nonsensical for Talbot to evaluate Pakistan within the category "democracy" if there weren't grounds to do so. A scholar might evaluate how successful the United States has been in fulfilling its democratic goals, and find the U.S. comes up short in certain areas, particularly during certain historical periods; but it would be nonsensical to say that the United States "failed" to become a communist country and to examine how and why, since the U.S. was never constituted as communist. Why does Talbot's chapter exist? Because he's examining the failure of democratic structures and principles in Pakistan during the period in question; that means these had stronger potential in 1947, when the war started, than in 1958. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course is would be illogical. There was never in the US a significant group who tried to make US a communist state. You can't fail if you don't try. You can however fail, without you having succeeded first. This is pretty basic stuff, and you are making yourself look fairly silly by pretending that you don't understand it.
that means these had stronger potential in 1947 Yes. A stronger *potential*. Since when is a "potential for democracy" the same thing as a "democracy". Right, since never. The source does *not* support Pakistan as a democracy in 1947. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have an unfortunate bit of mea culpa here. Since Ray says that Wilkenfeld et al classify the first kashmir war as between democratic nations, and I couldn't believe that they had interpreted the same text that I had read in that way, I thought I should check that what I had written was correct. I find that I am mistaken. The Wikenfeld et al that I am reading is A study of crisis (1993) rather than the cited source Crises in the Twentieth Century (1988). Unfortunately, I won't be near the library for the rest of this month and can't directly check the latter source, but I seriously doubt that Ray has misstated what that text says and suggest that we assume that there is a source for "war between democratic states". I apologize for the error. --RegentsPark (talk) 23:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No apologies needed for an honest error, and what you said above didn't sound unreasonable in the first place, as far as I'm concerned. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the 1993 edition says something different, let us know. If you overlooked a statement that WBM did rank India as one of their three options (or they didn't repeat it), your doubts on their actual phrasing would be much sounder. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson00:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From what you can see on Google books, they say exactly the same thing. Pmandersons description of what they say match. He has not been able to quote any part of the book that supports him. Obviously it needs to be checked up, but this together with Pmandersons history of misrepresenting sources in this article, I think assuming that the source checks out is a mistake. If it really does, Pmanderson should be able to quote the book when it does. But instead he has used the bizarre logic based on the Maharajas uninterest in joining democratic India as the basis for that quote. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to move this down the bottom, rather than start expanding the thread higher up:
--Elen of the Roads The run of sources above suggest that both countries were legal democracies at inception, but Pakistan had a great deal of difficulty getting it to happen in practice. If that nuance can be read into the article, that would be good.
--OpenFuture How do you get to that conclusion from the sources?
Honestly, the only thing I can say here is "how can you not." It must be as obvious to you as it is to everyone else by now that some sources are basing their evaluation on the constitutions of the two countries, and some are basing it on a measure of how successful the implementation of democracy was. Reading around a subject so that you gain an understanding of it is vital in an area like this. Both countries were constitutionally established as democracies by the British - it was written into the very documents that created them. So a secondary source can legitimately say that this was a conflict between two constitutional democracies. Other sources (and I have quoted several) point to substantial primary evidence that Pakistan never managed to implement a democratic constitution - never held a general election, never had effective political parties for multi-party elections etc. So these sources do not say that this is a conflict between democracies in practice. In my opinion this can only correctly be resolved by stating both positions in the article.Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
on the constitutions of the two countries - Neither country had a constitution in 1947.
Could I just reiterate what Elen said above, in case she's gone off to recuperate and convince herself that she doesn't have to live in a madhouse? Elen wrote: "Some sources are basing their evaluation on the constitutions of the two countries, and some are basing it on a measure of how successful the implementation of democracy was. … Both countries were constitutionally established as democracies by the British - it was written into the very documents that created them. So a secondary source can legitimately say that this was a conflict between two constitutional democracies. Other sources … point to substantial primary evidence that Pakistan never managed to implement a democratic constitution - never held a general election, never had effective political parties for multi-party elections etc. So these sources do not say that this is a conflict between democracies in practice. In my opinion this can only correctly be resolved by stating both positions in the article." I didn't realize at first how absolutely clear, balanced, and well-reasoned this summary is. Consensus? Cynwolfe (talk) 04:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some sources are basing their evaluation on the constitutions of the two countries - Neither had a constitution, so that's still impossible.
Both countries were constitutionally established as democracies by the British - it was written into the very documents that created them. - None of the sources mentioned before claim anything like that. And "the very documents that created them" is the Indian Independence act of 1947. And as far as I can see, it says no such thing.
I'm not unfamiliar with any concept that is discussed here, and I resent your unfailing effort at WP:BAITING me. The constitutions talked about in the source are clearly the ones that was created later. The Government of India act is not a particularly democratic constitution, and since the government of India in 1947 was not elected, you can't use the act of 1935 as claims for Indian democracy. I do not believe that you don't understand this. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that you can't read English. Or, more sympathetically, that you have a condition that causes you to be unable to interpret complex written English. The Indian Independence Act 1947provided that until the adoption of constitutions by the respective Constituent Assemblies, India and Pakistan would be governed in accordance with the Government of India Act 1935, with appropriate modifications. This made Pakistan a democracy as shown here. The constitution made it a republic. This is the third time this has been explained to you. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
20th century section
It occurs to me that the 20th century section (and to some extent the later 19th century section) is bedevilled by what is at heart the problem raised in the discussion on India/Pakistan. In this century, nations began to move towards a modern ideal of democracy - universal suffrage, free and fair elections, freedom of speech etc etc. At the same time, we see failed democracies, corrupt democracies, and deviations from the ideal being presented as democracies (one party elections, stuffed ballot boxes, intimidation of opponents, political parties run by dynastic families etc). So you get two measures of democracy - the one that says Zimbabwe is constitutionally a democracy; and the one that says it fails on every measure as a working democracy (intimidation of opponents, rigged elections and the whole nine yards).
The arguments we are having about WWI and Kashmir are about this - do we use the first measure, or the second. I would suggest that we need to use both. Where the best sources conflict because they are using different measures, we should cover both. All the parties in WWI were constitutional democracies, but there is an alternate view of the Kaiser's Germany. Where all the mainstream sources reject an apparent constitutional democracy because of its track record, we should reject. Where all the mainstream sources prefer the constitution to the track record, we should do likewise. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And so we water this list down further, which without a doubt is the whole POV of Pmanderson+friends from the start. Note that with this watering down, Cuba becomes a democracy. And even Pmanderson says a blockade is an act of war, so... when does the entry of USA-vs Cuba come? --OpenFuture (talk) 10:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you just forget about PMA for a minute. I know you have the wedding to discuss and everything, but.... This isn't watering down the list. There isn't some pure, true and noble list out there somewhere, going to ride in and save you from your marriage to Prince Humperdink. That's why we keep arguing, because its a messy subject, with at least two methods of definition that are both valid but which are giving different results. The question is, how do we resolve this in the context of a list article. The answer is not sticking one's fingers in one's ears and repeating "It doesn't say that, it doesn't say that." --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's watering down the list. Both me, Marknutley and you started with the opinion that this list should reflect scientific mainstream of wars between democracies, meaning we needed a majority of reliable sources claiming that they were wars between democracies, and that fringe views shouldn't be included. But then most of the entries Pmanderson has added shouldn't be included. So you change your mind and say that now not only majority views should be included, but all views by reliable sources. There are problems with that view, but it's not an unreasonable view. So we discuss that to exhaustion, and finally that discussion is laid aside. But Pmanderson entries here has been full of synthesis, and when we show that they are, you start arguing for that synthesis is OK. And when we finally lay that battle aside from pure exhaustion, and point out that the sources doesn't even support calling the countries democracies, and you no longer can defend the position that they do, you suggest we redefine democracy so they *do* support it. Well, one major problem with that, is that the sources doesn't support calling India an Pakistan democracies even with your redefinition. So where do we go from there? We can discuss this to exhaustion, and then without a doubt you will start arguing for that sources doesn't need to support the statement at all. You/Pmanderson/Cynwolfe win each and every battle on pure exhaustion by simply not listening to anyone else, and when you have won the battle, you move the goalposts.
This has gone far enough and way beyond anything sane. The list you arguing for is a joke and a disgrace for Wikipedia, and it will likely end up including pretty much every conflict during the 20th century. You mentioned before a "total POV warrior who insists that Gondor won WWII". Well, Elen, that's you. You are now insisting on rules and POV's for this article that mean that Cuba is a democracy and that the conflict and blockade between the USA and Cuba is a war between democracies. This has lost all forms of contact with any form of reality. This is why I below try to find if there is *anything* we agree about, because I'm starting to doubt it. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No dear, what I'm saying is that it has become apparent as we've done more research, that there remains a pool of conflicts where the differing mainstream views of democracy collide. These are situations where one or both countries appear to have the legal status of a democracy, are not exhibiting behaviour that causes all mainstream sources to conclude that democracy has been voided (as with Zimbabwe), but do have factors that cause some/many mainstream scholars to conclude that they are not a democracy, and so this was not a war between democracies. I repeat, we need to agree a strategy to deal with those cases. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course. But *first* we need to agree to follow WP:V and other policies. And then we need to remove those sources that does not say what the article claims they say. That is in fact a pretty basic thing. We can't have articles that lie about what the sources say. That's one thing I wanted us to agree about, but it seems that you don't. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. Everyone is following WP:V already. You just think they are not because everyone reads one way, and you read some other way. Chatbot jokes aside, your track record of mangling what you think I meant when you repeat it back to me suggests that the problem doesn't lie with the source. When we have agreed what text we are going to use, then it will be clear what sources we are including. You've never developed text on a talkpage that way, I take it. Try it. It's very helpful sometimes. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone is following WP:V already. - No you are not.
You just think they are not because everyone reads one way, and you read some other way. - I don't know why you repeat that when you know it's not true. I'm starting to think you are trying to bait me to be uncivil. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to try this from another angle, because the current ones aren't working. I tried to list the different viewpoints above, that was completely ignored. So this time I'll try to find a base, something we all agree on. I'll make !votes just to make sure we have something like a consensus on the different parts. How does that sound? --OpenFuture (talk) 10:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You still make no sense. Can you explain why you think it's stupid to find common ground? Or should I surmise that in fact you don't agree? --OpenFuture (talk) 12:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's the weirdest place to pick to find common ground, so we know that if we all sign up to it, you'll just come out with some bizarre logic and delete all the content. Hence, a Cyberman. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No I'm not. You've just said above [17] that the reason you want everyone to sign up to agree to this is so that you can delete all the sources that you don't like. You just said that. Up there. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No I didn't. You read what I say as you read sources, by assumptions and intentional misreading to get a twisted result that you can use to argue for your standpoint.
What I *did* say was that I wanted to get rid of sources that doesn't say what they are used to support. That is not "sources I don't like". (Also, I said that *after* your comments above, so you did assume bad faith, as your intentional misreading couldn't have happened yet.) --OpenFuture (talk) 13:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, oh dear. Lets try this again. We are all scholars, we all support WP:V. Nobody here is deliberately trying to add unsourced or poorly sourced information to the article. What we are doing is debating the sources to use. You think one source in particular does not support the inclusion of the conflict, but there are other sources to be examined, as plenty has been written about this neck of the woods. The normal way of working would be to construct the text based on the sources, agree a text that represents the mainstream view or views, and that would be that. What you want everyone to do is sign up to your little quiz, then you will delete the source that you think does not support the assertion you think it is being used to support (the source that you do not like - it's a factual statement. You don't like it). Then you will delete the assertion itself, as being unsourced, because you have at no point entered into a discussion about ANY OTHER source. And please, if I say 'don't cry' and you say 'I'm not crying', then burst into tears, you've just supported my statement regardless of the exact sequence of events. You appear in your contributions often to become fixated on the wrong thing. Could you just try discussing the sources, you never know, it might work. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody here is deliberately trying to add unsourced or poorly sourced information to the article. - Yeah, sorry, I don't believe that anymore.
The normal way of working would be to construct the text based on the sources, agree a text that represents the mainstream view or views, and that would be that. - I agree that would be the normal way. I would be much happier if that was the case here.
Could you just try discussing the sources, you never know, it might work. - Evidently not, since that's what I've been doing for two months now.
This is not helpful. I was attempting a constructive line edit of a contentious entry above, and OpenFuture demonstrates that he is unable to focus on the details of content editing. This is the main and perhaps only insurmountable problem here: that OpenFuture wishes to tag, delete, and argue, but refuses to rewrite or contribute content. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then my statement should be easy to disprove. Please show the diffs where you've added content to the article that consists of at least two sequential sentences, or where you've done a rewrite of an entry that doesn't just involve tagging and deleting, or even added a clause of qualification while citing a source. I've been unable to find any examples of this kind of constructive editing from you, but if they exist in this article, I will gladly apologize for mischaracterizing your contributions. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quite right. I should not have said "wishes to," which implies that I understand what you're thinking. I apologize, and amend my statement to "OpenFuture tags, deletes, and argues, but refuses to rewrite or contribute content," a statement I see as factual because it can be disproved with diffs. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that anybody will disagree with Wikipedia content policies; several of us have disagreed that OpenFuture is applying them correctly or helpfully. Since OpenFuture supported the deletion of this article when it was proposed, and much of the archive is made up of his argument that it should be merged or have a different name, it is genuinely helpful of him to indicate that he does not now want any of these. But we don't need three lines in the TOC to say that. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson14:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This exchange says it all for me --Elen of the Roads The run of sources above suggest that both countries were legal democracies at inception, but Pakistan had a great deal of difficulty getting it to happen in practice. If that nuance can be read into the article, that would be good. --OpenFuture How do you get to that conclusion from the sources?
I am becoming concerned that this may yet be a WP:COMPETENCY issue, and I really do not want to go there. But the fixation on what he perceives to be the problem (PMA's interpretation of this one source among many), and his resistance to compromise strategies, or indeed to any alternative to PMA backing down, is beginning to niggle. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Damn lies. I have constantly suggested compromises, backed down when discussions lead nowhere and tried to discuss another issue, I have no intention of getting PMA to "back down". --OpenFuture (talk) 22:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've been analyzing edits in this attempting to review the totality of it. At this point things are breaking down again and waiting further would be pointless.
Let me start out by saying clearly that I still believe everyone's acting in good faith here. I don't feel anyone is simply seeking attention or to damage the encyclopedia here. Please keep this in mind as you read this comment...
First - it's clear that there's been a breakdown in civil and collegial discussion in general on the article talk page here and the other one, and to some degree in comments elsewhere and edit summaries on article edits. This is not a one-sided breakdown, but is clearly real. This is not a good thing - as I mentioned earlier in the PMAnderson user conduct RFC, when we have abusive communications, it degrades the quality of everyone's participation. It makes it harder for people to come to agreement, drives others away from pages and from specific discussions, raises tension levels, etc. It's generally disruptive to the function of Wikipedia as a community.
I could point specific fingers - there are some hundreds of abusive edits and edit summaries I reviewed, you all are being prolific... - but let me just generalize by saying that everyone is at least somewhat at fault. Ascribing root cause or higher levels of responsibility in a general breakdown of civil discussion is somewhat pointless. Pretty much everyone is doing it now and you all are responsible for your own respective behaviors. It's within the realm of acceptable administrator responses to a general breakdown for me to block all the involved parties, but I have no stomach for that at the moment. Everyone's already losing from the situation here, that would just rub salt in the wounds.
Wikipedia is not just "The encyclopedia that anyone can edit". It's the encyclopedia that everyone edits together. We resolve problems by having groups of people discuss problems. That discussion and an ability of people to come to a working group agreement - a consensus decision - is critical to the function of the encyclopedia.
Consensus is a tricky thing. It's not simply "majority rules" - half plus one don't win, we don't "vote", etc. But it's also not something that a single editor can hold hostage. Consensus establishes a working standard among most participants and helps set standards for where to judge neutrality from and where burdens of proof should lie.
Consensus by definition has to respect minority viewpoints and work to include them. But that doesn't mean letting anyone who disagrees run rampant on article space and have to be reverted back out.
In my opinion, there exists a functional consensus among the editors on these articles and commenting on these talk pages. OpenFuture's opinions and interpretations lie outside that consensus. This does not mean that OF cannot or should not continue to contribute to the articles - but it does establish a burden of proof, and a standard for disruptive behavior, to apply here going into the future.
Normally we encourage editors to be bold in changing articles. However, if particular changes or a pattern of changes are made over and over again and a consensus holds that those changes were not positive, then the behavior shifts into the category of disruption. Again, this is looking forwards and not at penalizing anyone for what's now purely history.
OpenFuture - Removing sources others have added, removing sections, and adding tags to sections you disagree with are actions you have done repeatedly and which have consistently been challenged by multiple editors who I believe comprise the consensus viewpoint here. I believe that you need to stop doing those changes boldly directly to the article. Continuing to do so would be disruptive and might subject you to further warnings or administrative intervention.
It's not necessarily disruptive if you bring a particular source, tag, or section objection to the article talk page for further discussion. As a rule, if you do so and nobody objects in a reasonable amount of time, then you should be OK making those changes in the article. If people do object, the best and least confrontational approach is to allow someone else to judge the validity of the arguments and decide whether to make the changes or not. The consensus here puts the burden of proof on you, and to some degree disqualifies you from judging whether you're operating in accord with reasonable consensus or not if there's disagreement.
I also am concerned that you're using novel and somewhat questionable reading of sources and of Wikipedia policy. You are entitled to your opinions, but again you're working with the responsibility to convince others and meet a burden of proof given the consensus here. You need to understand that if you can't convince other people, if there's a dispute and it's unresolved, it's not OK to simply assert that you're right and act on that assertion. If nobody is agreeing with your interpretation, you should consider that you may not be reading a source right or interpreting policy correctly.
I don't expect you to just cave in on your strongly held opinions and am not asking you to do so. What I am saying is that the burden of proof is now on you, on factual and on procedural and on source reference issues. I am saying that you need to reconsider how you interact with Wikipedia's community, and that you need to think about how consensus works, why it's important for Wikipedia, and what are reasonable and unreasonable approaches to discussing issues that you have with articles.
I'm leaving this comment on the article talk page here. I've had some specific comments to OpenFuture; followup on those points may be more productive on OF's talk page rather than here. We could rephrase this situation as a User Conduct RFC, but I hope that that's unnecessary.
I do agree that my frustration with the refusal of others to listen means I have run out of good faith here, and that the last day or maybe couple of days I've also not bothered much to be sure that I'm civil. I have pretty much given up, and been ground down by their tactics of exhaustion, denial, unvicil personal remarks, "I didn't hear that" and plain lies.
Some specific comments:
I also am concerned that you're using novel and somewhat questionable reading of sources and of Wikipedia policy. - What is novel and questionable about it? I'm not alone in the interpretations of synthesis, and that's the only reading of policy that has been challenged. That WP:V says that sources clearly has to support the material in the article has not been challenged, only ignored.
If people do object, the best and least confrontational approach is to allow someone else to judge the validity of the arguments and decide whether to make the changes or not. - Which is exactly what I have done. One of their sources had already been challenged not only by me, but Marting and RegentsPark. I took it to an RS/N for more views. I got two more views, both agreeing with me, Marting and RegentsPark, that the source did not say what Pmanderson/Cynwolfe/Elen said. The simply ignored that, and pretend it didn't happen. They repeatedly say I'm the only one contesting their reading of that source, even though there are two others on this talk page that did it, and two uninvolved editors on RSN that also contested it. I didn't bother to bring up any of their other interpretations anywhere, since it obviously did not help. Even with five people contradicting them, two having nothing to do with this article before, they continue to claim that I'm the only one who disagrees on that matter. This is an obvious and blatant lie and they refuse to remove or even tag the source.
That discussion and an ability of people to come to a working group agreement - a consensus decision - is critical to the function of the encyclopedia. - Pmanderson + friends has constantly worked against all efforts to do this.
This does not mean that OF cannot or should not continue to contribute to the articles - This has in practice been impossible since Pmanderson entered, since every effort of correcting the incorrect unsourced information he adds has been deemed "vandalism", and since he keeps any improvement away by revert warring.
If nobody is agreeing with your interpretation, you should consider that you may not be reading a source right or interpreting policy correctly. - If I was the only one, I would do that. And I have in some cases agreed that I missed a possible interpretation of a source and backed down on that. Pma/Cynwolfe/Elen has not backed down on one single case, even when five other people say they are wrong.
As the article now stands it is a lie. It presents blatantly false information, and I'm slowly getting to accept the fact that I can't do anything about it. I do have to take your comment as final proof that Wikipedia in this case have failed. I think the main reason is that not enough people care about this article. For a long time it was only Pmanderson and me, and when it came to others attention he was able to call in help from others that will support everything he says and does, thereby faking a consensus. With more peoples eyes on it, more people would realize that Pmandersons sources simply do not support his claims. His supply of disciples must after all be limited. :-) But the sad reality is probably that these people will arrive one by one, run into the same wall of contempt and denial, and give up an go away.
And this is not criticism against you George. If you read what has been said here, obviously you must come to the conclusion you came. The problem is that most of what is said here simply is not true. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have also read what seemed like an uncountably large number of comments on the communist genocide article talk page, and your and other's edits to the two articles and comments elsewhere. This conclusion was not one I draw from the talk page comments here alone by any means.
In a sense you've just identified your own problem - You believe that you're absolutely correct on the underlying facts, and no number of people trying to convince you otherwise is acceptable. I understand where you're coming from, but we can't assume any person here is simply factually correct and knows better by being some expert or professional in the field. Wikipedia doesn't work that way because we can't. I have no way of telling if you're a house husband with no political science education, a nationally recognized expert in these fields tenured professor who publishes all the time, a blogger for Fox News who is incognito, someone's dog, a random former political science major, or what. We require sources and verification, and consensus review of those and points made.
You have to convince us - plural, including both those actively involved in the article, and admins and others reviewing from outside. So far you seem not to understand that you have to do that and seem not to know how.
I checked a couple of sources whose interpretation was in dispute and generally agree with the others, that it seemed to me like you were misreading things. I could be wrong - these particular subfields of political science or history aren't ones I am personally well versed in. But your arguments and the source didn't convince me.
Again - this is not a conclusion that you're necessarily wrong. This is a conclusion that there's a consensus, and a restatement of fundamental Wikipedia policy that requires that people respect consensus and policy even if you believe that the consensus is wrong. You can advocate to change consensus, but again there are constraints on how you can do that without becoming disruptive.
In some cases this means that we lock in suboptimal information or a fringe viewpoint. In general, however, it avoids people trying to win arguments by impersonating someone with personal authority, which is a greater threat to Wikipedia accuracy and quality. It's not perfect. We know that, and we acknowledge it. Wikipedia is epistimologically incomplete by design - but it works reasonably well and reasonably accurately with enough oversight and participation and respect for the community.
I hope that eventually you'll come to understand this and internalize it, and come to the point that you can more effectively and less frustratingly (to yourself and others) phrase arguments and participate in consensus discussions.
I agree I write a lot of comments, and that definitely seems like it's not working in my benefit (and I don't have time for it either) so I should stop that. But from your comments above it seems like you again think that I'm a lone fighter against a consensus on Mass killings under Communist regimes and that's absolutely not true. There are many on both sides of that conflict. Interestingly enough, that article is tagged as having multiple problems, and the group of people that argues for those tags hardly wants to argue for them, but those tags get to stay. Here I have clear evidence that many people think one source can't be used, and I can't even tag it. In both cases it's about 50/50 in persons for and against, and each side seems unable to understand what they other side says. Shouldn't they be treated similarly?
I checked a couple of sources whose interpretation was in dispute and generally agree with the others, that it seemed to me like you were misreading things. - I'd be interested in knowing what sources you checked? --OpenFuture (talk) 12:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to generally support what Georgewilliamherbert's has written above. I have been, of late, following much of this debate, on this page and elsewhere, and I must confess that I too have found the level of civil discourse sadly wanting. Paul August☎15:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is the topic of this list notable?
The more I think about it, the more I come to the conclusion that there is a fundamental flaw with this list. That flaw is the idea that "wars between democracies" are in some way different from "wars between monarchies", or between countries with other forms of government (or wars between democracies and counties with some other form of government). And that goes directly to the question of whether the topic of this list is Notable enough for a stand alone article. It seems to me that the list arbitrarily carves out a subset from a notable topic ("wars") based on a POV (and Original?) set of criteria... resulting in a non-notable sub-topic. Unless someone can establish that the topic of "wars between democracies" has been discussed by reliable sources... I would suggest that this list be sent to AfD. Blueboar (talk) 14:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this article has meaning in connection to Democratic Peace Theory. But it was argued before that this article has or should have nothing to do with DPT. I'd say there was no consensus on that, but apparently Pmanderson+2 is enough to form consensus here so I guess I was wrong. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look at the article you mention and it is not clear to me what meaning this list has vis-a-vis the Democratic Peace Theory. Could you elaborate (briefly - please!)? --RegentsPark (talk) 15:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I agree with Blueboar's comment. Also, as the protracted discussion above testifies, neither wars nor democracies are well defined making the construction of this list an impossibility. So why exactly do we need this list? Unless there is an attempt to make a point about wars and democracies - and that can easily be made, if properly supported by reliable sources, in an article about wars and democracies. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)My mouse has been hovering over the AfD button for a week now. This article started, as OF says, as List of exceptions to the democratic peace theory, and escaped being deleted by a promise to improve. It was moved to its present title with 'shorter' being the only reason given, so it should probably never have been moved. There is an article Democratic peace theory which could contain a section on the exceptions recognised by that theory (which are few, and all modern). Or there could be an article about Conflicts between democracies, although that would probably be a fork of DPT. Outside of providing exceptions to DPT, I can't personally see the notability of this list. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion on whether the list should exist, just some notes. Because there are both scholars who support democratic peace theory and scholars who seek to debunk it, it's demonstrable that "wars between democracies" is a topic of scholarly discussion. This article thus has a connection to democratic peace theory, which is made explicit by a "See also" link, but it has been argued that the list should not exist to prove or disprove the theory, because that would make it non-neutral. There are several lists of wars (see Category:Lists of wars). Lists that are based on criteria other than date, country, or region include: List of proxy wars, which seems likely to be contentious; List of wars extended by diplomatic irregularity, which I find intriguing for its narrowness and potential for endless debate over what a "diplomatic irregularity" might be; List of border conflicts, for which the criterion is not simply that countries border on each other, but that the war was fought over a border dispute (again, lots of fuel there); and List of wars of independence (national liberation), where the parenthesis suggests volumes of debate. One might create a "List of wars between Catholic countries," for which the criterion would be that the official religion of both polities was Catholicism, post-Reformation, as there might also be a "List of wars between Christian nations" or even "List of wars between Christian monarchies", or "List of wars between Muslim nations" or "List of wars fought over natural resources" (that ought to be fun) or "List of wars deploying cavalry" or "LIst of wars decided by sieges". A "List of wars between dictatorships" is conceivable. I don't know what this points to, as I myself am unlikely to become the creator of any such list. Someone pointed out above that there is no "List of democracies." I would find that a more valuable list, because some of the debate here would have been more profitable there. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I note that many entries seem to need an explanation as to why they has been included. Every entry except for two in the 20th century, though the 19th century has escaped unscathed, possibly because the protagonists of the war on this page lack the energy (was, for example, the kingdom of Spain a democracy?). One doesn't need a Ph.D. in Wikipedia Studies to figure out that this entire list is original research! On the face of it, it seems to me that the list exists primarily to discredit the DPT. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By 1898, Spain was a constitutional monarchy with government responsible to the Cortes. There is a dispute among democratic peace theorists as to the extent of corruption and collusion between the two parties. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson18:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that there are other lists of wars (and that some of them are apparently as poorly conceived and POV as this list is) is frankly irrelevant to the question of whether this list should be nominated for AfD or not... WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS has never been a reason to keep a flawed article. No, the question is simple... is there any way to establish (through reliable sources, and not simply through a "see also" link) that the topic of "wars between democracies" is notable enough for a stand alone article? If so, then we need to establish that fact in this article. If not, then the article should be sent to AfD. Blueboar (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't offering these examples to argue for the preservation of the list, but only for comparison on the issue of notability as predicated on the arbitrariness of the list. At least, I thought the AfD issue was notability. It now seems to have shifted to POV and poorly defined criteria. Perhaps those articles are subject to deletion, too; I remarked on how contentious (or maybe I should say tendentious) they are. The fact that neither "List of wars between dictatorships" nor "List of wars between monarchies" exists isn't an argument for or against, but helps with the question of whether the constitutionality of a polity can ever be a feasible criterion in the compiling of such a list. I thought I stated quite clearly that I have no opinion on whether "List of wars between democracies" should exist; I've asked the question myself in parts of this talk page that are now archived. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no problem with having multiple reasons for taking something up to AfD. But some clearing up an be good. I mean, first of all: Is this a companion-article to Democratic Peace Theory or not? That effects lots of the other reasoning. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have already stated several times my doubts about the criteria used to identify content in this list and have not been presented with anything that supports the idea that the current criteria meets WP:LIST or any attempt to create criteria that do. Without proper criteria, this article should not exist. Active Banana (talk) 17:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm.... If it is, then we have an additional problem. The AfD on the previous itteration of this list was closed on the basis that the list had been edited to the point that it was no longer tied to the Democratic peace theory article. If this was not done, or not done successfully, then that is a point that needs to be raised if we send this to AfD again.
AfD sub-question
Hmmm... in trying to find information on the origins of this list I came across the following:
I could be wrong, but it looks like at least some previous incarnations of this list were discussed and deleted. Is this the case? Were these deleted articles previous attempts at the same POV fork, or were they something else? If they were, we should be sure to note them in any AfD. Blueboar (talk) 17:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, bitter experience has two effects: it does make one more sensitive to POV-pushing; but it also makes one more aware of the more belligerent points of view on the subject, and therefore more aware of them. I believe I know which is happening here; but I am still open to evidence. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson18:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um... that exchange does not answer my question (and OpenFuture, please do not comment on specific editors... especially those that I have a lot of respect for.) My question was: Were these deleted articles previous iterations of this list? Blueboar (talk) 18:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not if I recall correctly, they were articles "proving" that these wars were not exceptions to the democratic peace; polemics. But I can't see them anymore; they're deleted.
Now this is an important point; the democratic peace is a fairly narrow claim (largely because of these wars): that established democracies with wide suffrage (details vary from theorist to theorist) are less likely to fight full-scale wars against each other. For two reasons, therefore, these wars have only a tangential relationship to DPT: most of them are excluded from its scope, and since it's almost always a statistical claim, a few exceptions are only to be expected. WWI does matter to DPT, but it is likely that the view that Wilhelmine Germany (another parliamentary monarchy) was democratic is, while not fringe, a minority view. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson18:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had an edit conflict when I was about to say: Nor is it constructive to bring up PMA and his "useless attitude," since he hasn't even made a comment in the AfD nom discussion. This is the kind of thing that sounds like baiting, OpenFuture, whether or not you intend it. There are several people participating in the AfD discussion; none of them is PMA, and all are behaving civilly. It's as if you're placing out the piece of cheese and hoping he'll take it. Too late; he did. As my daughter would say, I am totally out of here. You guys have fun chasing your tails. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so the answer to my question is, "No, they were not previous versions of this list". I think we can end the discussion now. Blueboar (talk) 18:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
question answered.... back to more general discussion
![[10]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg){kind=link}