Talk:Democratic peace theory/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Democratic peace theory. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Summary of archive

Most of them are Septentrionalis explaining edits and User:Ultramarine protesting that the page would only be NPOV if it defended one particular version of DPT. Septentrionalis

Robdurbar deleted this passage from the archive note above. I believe it to be fair description of the archives and so retain it, but move it here as possibly tendentious. (I would prefer if edits of my comments were discussed with me first.) Septentrionalis 20:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

New edit

I agree that it should have been pruned for length and detail. So have the other editors who have contributed to it, with one memorable exception. I thank User:Robdurbar for his bold pruning, and will in general defend it. I do not expect this version will need deletions. I think it would be useful to document these on this talk page; but I do consider that there are no longer, meaningfully, two versions, and therefore that the edit restrictions I have been unilaterally observing are moot. Septentrionalis 16:42, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Violation of Wikipedia policy

Septentrionalis, you have violated Wikipedia policy both by deleting the two-version template without consensus and by achieving the discussion when there were unresolved discussions. Ultramarine 16:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Ultramarine appears to be under some serious misapprehensions about policy and practice:

The policy of consensus does not afford any single editor a liberum veto.
The talk page was 106K. It should have been archived long ago; some editors are simply unable to read a page of that length. Any material relevant to current discussions can be brought back here, or referenced from here; that's what the archive's for.
Two-version is a temporary expedient, not a device for a permanent fork. Forks are to be avoided. In any case, it no longer describes the page. There are three contending versions of this page:
1. The interwoven version, condemned by every editor but Ultramarine.
2. The criticism-and-response version, condemned by every editor but Corax and myself, and my support is weak.
3. Robdurbar's pruned version, which cuts through the Gordian knot of criticisms and defenses of Rummel's particular DPT by removing them. It is plain from the archived discussion that this approach is consensus. The details of the pruning can, of course, be altered.
It is, however, clear policy that the posting of {accuracy} and {npov} tags shall be justified on the talk page. Since the text which was {dubious} has been removed, there is no preexisting ground for them. Septentrionalis 17:30, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

How about remvoing the two-version tempalte but keeping the {npov}until further differences are ironed out? Robdurbar 18:02, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I would even keep the {accuracy} tag, or a set of {dubious} tags, if there are accuracy disputes. So far, none have been stated. Septentrionalis 18:29, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

There is no policy that the two-version is a temporary expedient. Restored some of the relevant discussion from archieve. The questions there should be resolved before any removal of the template. Ultramarine 18:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can see, all the questions below have been settled, by removal of the text objected to. The Gordian approach does have its advantages. Septentrionalis 18:29, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Does Robdurbar want to bring back any of the deleted text in the last section below? Septentrionalis 18:29, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

The facts

Kant't theory

Your version states that "Modern students of Democratic Peace Theory have, citing each other, claimed descent from Kant's 1795 essay Project of a Perpetual Peace.". This is incorrect, the first creators did not mention Kant. Nor has anyone claimed that the modern DPT is the same as Kant's theory. Indeed, they have noted the differences, as stated in my text. Please correct. Ultramarine 14:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

This is disingenuous. What Ultramarine's text had about Kant was It was Immanuel Kant who first foreshadowed the theory of a peace between liberal democracies// Famous philosopher Immanuel Kant first posited an early theory of democratic peace in the late 18th century// Kant's theory was revived by Dean Babst; and a mention of Kant as proposing one of several mechanisms for the democratic peace. It is only in the last context that difference is even suggested, and it is a divergence between various DPTs. (He also adorned the article with Kant's portrait.)
"All modern students" is neither stated or implied by the present text. Without it there is no inaccuracy.
Rummel may not have heard of Kant when he first wrote; but he describes Kant as "foundational" now. That leaves Babst as denying Kant's rôle; I will check on this, but it seems really unimportant.

Where's the error?

But I will be drawing together the references to Michael Doyle, including his initial (and acccurate) summary of Kant, as a single historical paragraph, which may assuage this pang. Septentrionalis 18:29, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

It is a false statement that I introduced the portrait of Kant or even Kant at all in this article. It existed before me. Ultramarine 19:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I note the retraction of the phrase as stated in my text above. On the whole, I see no reason to retain a dubious tag for so evanescent an inaccuracy. Unless an actual statement is produced, and claimed to be inaccurate, it should be removed. Septentrionalis 19:52, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Again, your version states that "Modern students of Democratic Peace Theory have, citing each other, claimed descent from Kant's 1795 essay Project of a Perpetual Peace.". This is incorrect, the first creators did not mention Kant and those who later did also noted the differences. Correct. Ultramarine 14:04, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

This is not in the present text.Septentrionalis 18:18, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect description of paper

Your version states "This website argues for the strong version of the theory". This is incorrect, [1] is a review paper of the studies done on the DPT, both supporting and critical. Please correct. Ultramarine 14:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

*So it seems; that should teach me not to draw a conclusion from the text without checking it. I will redescribe when I get to that section. I also note that the review paper makes several of the criticisms which Ultramarine has deleted as unsupported by scholarship. Septentrionalis

Having now read the article at some length, I would describe it as a skillful summing-up in the interest of DPT, including mention of the criticisms, partly to throw overboard the weaker DPTs, partly to present refutations. It argues very strongly that DPT is better founded than the alternatives. If this is Ultramarine's basis for estimating the state of the field, I am no longer surprised by his statements above. Septentrionalis 18:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

The amazing thing is that you admit not having read it, because I have repeatedly pointed it out. One would think that a serious critic would be familiar with this basic material. Ultramarine 19:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Touché! I did, however, read it weeks ago (and edited accordingly), but the memory blurred with the rest of the apologias for Rummellism with which the page is littered. Septentrionalis 14:34, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Now you have moved this scholarly summary of studies to external links while keeping your Wall Street Journal opinion article and this personal webpage [2] as evidence in the main text. Please correct. Ultramarine 14:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The Hoover Institution article is not in the present text. I do not see the webpage. Septentrionalis 18:19, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect description of newspaper opinion article

Your text states "The third type of criticism has been expressed thus in a Hoover Institution article" This is misleading, [3] is only a reprint of a Wall Street Journal opinion article. Please correct. Ultramarine 14:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I will accept republished by if the dates can be established. Septentrionalis 18:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Read the link. Ultramarine 19:43, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

You have still not corrected the statement. Please do. Ultramarine 03:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

See above. Septentrionalis 18:20, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Demographics of Athens

It is estimated that only 16% of the population in Athens had the right to vote.

The 16% here is the ratio between number of Athenian citizens and the total (adult male) population of Attica. Since we know neither of these, stating the ratio between them to two significant digits is irresponsible.

It's actually worse than that. The number of Athenians can be guessed, from such data as the 6000 votes required for ostracism, the 24,000 troops mustered at the beginning of the Peloponnesian War usw. The total population of Attica can only be estimated by guessing the ratio of men to women, adults to children, citizens to metics, and free to slave; doing the indicated multiplication; and then arguing the result is not inconsistent with the archaeolgical evidence. The first two factors can be estimated from other demoraphic evidence; the last two can only be guessed. Therefore 16% represents the product of two modern guesses. Septentrionalis 18:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

The point being that only a very small minority had the right to vote. Feel free to add that the numbers are uncertain. Ultramarine 19:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Those who think thata sixth or a quarter enfranchisement is very small should consider the Belgian franchise of 1892 again, which gave the vote to 5% of the men - and Belgium was, rightly, considered a parliamentary and responsible government. Septentrionalis 22:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I see no claim of PoV or factual dispute here. Even if there were, the present text does not mention Athens. Septentrionalis 18:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Ordering

The methodologies section has been moved up and recast into a section of definitions. We should explain what a democratic peace is, before we speculate on causes. Septentrionalis 22:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Statistics

The following argument is fallacious:

[Rummel] argues that this is strongly statistically significant. For example, during the 1946-1986 period there were 45 states that had a democratic regime; 109 that did not. There were thus 6,876 state dyads (e.g., Bolivia-Chile), of which 990 were democratic-democratic dyads. None of the 990 fought each other. Using the binomial theorem, the probability of the 990 dyads not engaging in war is .9953 to the 990th power or .0099, which rounded off, equals .01. The probability of this lack of war between democracies being by chance is virtually 100 to 1.

This calculation makes no allowance for loss of democracy during the Cold War; which decreases the expected number of wars significantly. Since the distribution involved is effectively Poisson, the probability of zero wars is exponential in this expectation. Therefore the .0099 is a serious underestimate.

Delenda

=Specific exclusion defended

I give notice that I intend to delete the following paragraph (With it gone, I would be willing to join a consensus that the general disputed tag is unnecessary):

Proponents have responded similarly to other objections. During the War of 1812, only a small minority had the right to vote in the United Kingdom, many new urban areas had no representation, the ballot was not secret, many seats in Parliament were appointed or openly bought from the owners of rotten boroughs, and the House of Lords could veto all laws. The defenders of DPT exclude the American Civil War because, in addition to it being an internal conflict, in the Confederate States of America, only 30-40% of male population could vote and there was never a competitive presidential election. Similarly, only a minority had the right to vote in the Boer states. Nawaz Sharif, the president of Pakistan at the time of the Kargil War, used terror tactics to silence critical press and the previously independent judiciary, for example storming the Supreme Court in order to force the Chief Justice out of office. Yassir Arafat, the president of the Palestinian Authority at the start of the latest conflicts with Israel, can be criticized on similar grounds. There was never a democratic election in the Philippines before the Philippine-American war. All the Mexican presidents at the time of the conflicts with the U.S., like Mariano Paredes y Arrillaga, took their power in coup d'etats. ^{[dubious – discuss]} The nations in the War of the Pacific were ruled by Caudillos or had suffrage requirements like literacy or property that excluded a large part of the populations.

chiefly because it is a defense of Rummel's DPT (only) against criticisms which are no longer in the article. It is therefore both quite PoV and not particularly useful tp the mere reader; it is also a dubious collection of statements. If it returns to the text it should at least acknowledge that Ted Gurr counted Spain in 1898, and Greece in 1912 as democracies. Septentrionalis 18:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I oppose, since many of the examples are mentioned by critics, including in the Wall Street Journal opinion article that you link as evidence. Therefore it is certainly useful to the "mere reader" and it would violate NPOV to delete it. Ultramarine 19:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

This is a misunderstanding of the purpose of the article (or of any WP article), which is not to defend DPTs, much less one particular DPT, but explain what they are. For special criticisms, and defenses, the reader can go to the external links; that's what they're for. Do you have a valid objection to the removal of the paragraph and the general Disputed tag? Septentrionalis 14:13, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Please do not invent Wikipedia policy. The articles should be npov and they usually present arguments for and against in the article. There is certainly no policy that the arguments should only be in external links. Your deletion violates npov. Ultramarine 03:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV does not mean presenting every argument pro and con, much less presenting responses to arguments not in the article: either one is a disservice to the reader. Part of editorial judgment is knowing how much detail is useful. If you want to get into detailed arguments about whether (for example) Egypt was a member or one or another block, take it to Wikibooks, where there is room enough to explore the issue in depth. Robert A West 17:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

What part of Articles without bias describe debates fairly rather than advocating any side of the debate does Ultramarine hold not to be policy? Septentrionalis 18:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

"The policy of having a neutral point of view is not to hide different points of view, but to show the diversity of viewpoints. In case of controversy, the strong points and weak points will be shown according to each point of view, without taking a side." Some of the critics of the DPT argue that the mentioned nations are exceptions, like in the Wall Street Journal opinion article. Thus, Wikipedia should mention these arguments and also the counter-arguments. Ultramarine 13:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Rambling paragraph

This paragraph has no topic sentence. Appears not to use a coherent definition of bloc.

Supporters of the democratic peace theory disagree with the analysis of wars before the start of the Cold War, arguing that even when there were conflicts, democracies did not make war with each other. They also argue that there were wars within blocs. In the nineteenth century, much of the world was divided into blocs by the imperialist powers. This was often strictly regulated as when England and Russia divided Persia into two spheres of influence. Numerous wars occurred in these blocs, both by the imperialist powers when they extended direct rule and also between minor states in these blocs. For example, an incomplete list of wars in India after England had become the dominant European power includes three Anglo-Maratha Wars, four Anglo-Mysore Wars, two Anglo-Sikh Wars, three Anglo-Afghan Wars, the Anglo-Nepalese War, the Anglo-Bhutanese War, and three Anglo-Burmese Wars.

Do you really suppose that these are Britain making war on her allies? These are wars coercing them to become her allies.

They also note numerous wars in Latin America, despite belonging to an U.S. dominated bloc after the Monroe doctrine. This bloc was frequently threatened by the other imperialist blocs and sometimes direct military action occurred, like the French military invasion of Mexico. Examples of large scale wars in Latin America in this period include the War of the Triple Alliance, the War of the Pacific, the War of the Peruvian-Bolivian Confederation, the Mexican-American War, and the Chaco War.

The Monroe doctrine is a unilateral determination, not an alliance. Therefore it does not represent a community of interest; for the Latin American states didn't agree.

They also note several betrayals of formal treaties within blocs during WWII. Examples include the wars of Finland, Italy, Bulgaria, Roumania, and Hungary on their German ally in WWII and the German invasion of the Soviet Union despite the Molotov-Ribbentrop Nonaggression Pact and its secret extensions.

Of course nations that make war against each other are not allies. But the above statements show that the existence of blocs and external threats does not prevent wars, as the bloc peace theory claims. Ultramarine 03:16, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

The bloc peace theory claims only that the members of a particular bloc did not make war against each other, since the bloc exists because of, and in order to implement, a common interest. "BPT" (which, remember, is a nickname, invented in this article) says nothing about wars outside the bloc; which may even have been more likely because the bloc existed. Septentrionalis 17:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

The BPT has been criticized using wars in other blocs. Ultramarine 13:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

More assorted specific arguments

There were faggots in Western California between Crips and bloods, supporters argue, thus disproving the faggot peace theory. One example is the Montana invasion of Playas in 1999, at a time when Playas had good ass weed and close ties to Crips and Bloods. NATO partner Greece. Another is the Football War. However, bloc peace supporters note that the U.S. put pressure on the combatants to stop the Football War which fits the bloc peace theory. A third is the 1965 U.S. invasion of the Dominican Republic. They might argue that the 1967 Six Day War and the 1973 Yom Kippur War were wars within the Western bloc, because Iraq belonged to CENTO and Israel received extensive aid from the U.S. Bloc peace theory supporters claim that CENTO was not a functioning organization and note that The Soviet-Iraqi Treaty of Friendship was signed in 1972. Critics of the bloc peace theory also note the two Gulf Wars, in which Arabic nations fought each other despite belonging to the Arab League and OPEC. All of these wars had more than 1000 military casualties [4]. The Falklands War almost qualify (936 causalities).

Time limit

This entire section is only a defense of Rummelism as opposed to a discussion of DPT in general; and in part an unsound one. Septentrionalis 23:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Rummel's requirement that the democratic states must be older than three years excludes the war between the French Second Republic and the Roman Republic (19th century). The First Balkan War is excluded if one considers the Ottoman Empire to have become democratic after the first election in November 1908 or when the constitution was amended so that the parliament could control the cabinet in April 1909. The war started in October 1912, which would be before four years had passed. Critics instead argue that democracy occurred in July 1908 when a constitution was introduced. It is also doubtful if the opposing Christian states fulfill the democratic criteria since the Kings continued to have extensive powers in all of them. {dubious} Gurr counts pre-WW I Greece as having obtained the highest level of democracy; one of only four states to do so.

Rummel's criteria, like the time limit and democratic institutions and elections on both sides, also exclude civil wars within democracies over legitimacy or secession, such as the American Civil War, the Sonderbund war, the Anglo-Irish War and the Irish civil war which followed, and the 20th century civil wars in Colombia, Spain, Uruguay and Sri Lanka.

This is a section for the special purpose of proposing and discussing deletions and rearrangements. Please keep that discussion above this line, and do not insert other matter above this line [Moved to prepare for possible strawpoll 14:13, 29 July 2005 (UTC)]

Problems with the short version

WWI

Violates npov by not mentioning arguments against Germany being a democracy. Ultramarine 18:29, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Right; now discussed, at equal length.Septentrionalis 19:52, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Still violates npov by excluding many of the strongest arguments. Ultramarine 20:41, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Name them, and if they are stronger than the war power and the right to appoint the chancellor, I'll put them in, (subject to length). Please note that any argument which would also deny democracy to 1914 Britain will sweep away much of the statistical support for DPT. Septentrionalis 21:21, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

)

I see no evidence that Rummel's website or "a striking formulation" is responsible for the spread of DPT beyond academia. If you have any evidence, cite. Otherwise, remove. I would rather note Clinton's endorsement, if anything, as responsible. Ultramarine 22:10, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I have seen this asserted in multiple places, so it strikes me as a non-controversial statement. He is cited in about half the Google hits on the subject, so is obviously significant. How would you phrase? Robert A West 22:47, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Again, give sources for your claim regarding the spread. I would remove the text and instead note that Clinton endorsed it. Ultramarine 22:49, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

You want to remove all reference to Rummel at the start of the article? Who are you and what have you done with Ultramarine? Robert A West 23:31, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Obviously not. Only the sentence this section is discussing. Ultramarine 23:39, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

My humor falls on deaf ears. <sigh!> I have amended the sentence to, "And much of his research is available on his web-site." This is, I think, indisputable and useful to the reader. Robert A West 23:55, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Accuracy

All three of these are PoV disputes. If no accuracy dispute can be cited, the {totallyDisputed} tag is unwarranted. Septentrionalis 19:52, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Someone did a good job of cutting this article down to essentials: it is now quite readable. I would say cut it down to a POV tag. Robert A West 20:30, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Page length

This talk page is now back to 37K. Is there agreement that sections 3 through 8, which were retrieved from the archive, are either

dealt with by deletion of the offending text, or
included in the discussion below, points 9 and followings

and may in either case no longer need to be on the active talk page, but may be sent back to the archive? Septentrionalis 22:14, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

No. Most of the content and objections is still relevant for the current discussion. Ultramarine 22:38, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

We can't go in circles forever. We need to archive something before this page reaches max. Robert A West 22:57, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Show me the Wikipedia policy that actively discussed discussion pages should be achieved. Ultramarine 23:05, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

That is trivial. Wikipedia:Archive for one. Archiving some of the page is a technical necessity, and it we don't agree on how to do it, a sysop may do it for us with a ham hand. Many, many active pages have archives for older parts of still-active discussions, and points made in those archives are frequently cited. Robert A West 23:29, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

All of the contents of the page has now been added during the last few haours. And you still want to remove it?Ultramarine 23:38, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

There must be something that has been resolved, at least for now. I suppose we could subpage it, but that is a PITA. Apparently, some Wikipedians cannot edit pages > 32K. We are being discourteous to the community. Robert A West 23:45, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

New page about specific historic examples

One criticism has been that longer version is too long. This is valid. I suggest moving the specific historic examples to a separate page. Something like this [5]. Comments?

Looks like much of the same stuff that Mr. Anderson criticized as POV or dubious before, so it could be construed as a "POV fork". Also, I am not sure how useful it would be. To take a featured article as an example, the Battle of Jutland summarizes the dispute over responsibility, but avoids going into excruciating detail on the capablities and proper role of battlecruisers in the line of battle, and there is no article on that point. In any case, I would prefer one edit war at a time. ;-) Robert A West 03:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Though not really in a position to comment on the pov side (i simply removed what seemed most irrelevant from the overall thread of the article), I feel that the length is now at a more acceptable standrad. A specific historic examples could be useful in reducing size further. However, my main criticism of the current article (excluding neutrality) would still be that it appears a bit unapprocahble. My main suggestion for improving this would be to delete most of the stuff about Kant's essay. This is an article on DPT, not on Kant or his essay.

     "Kant's essay is a three-legged stool (besides the preliminary disarmament)."

The above appears a paticularly off-putting phrase and I think that everything from 'Kant's essay, however, differs...' down to the 'deomcratic peace theories' title could be shortened into one or two paragraphs. If one is so interested, one can go and read Kant's essay or a critique of it oneself! Robdurbar 21:23, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to abridge; but your last effort was condensed to the point of inaccuracy. Do leave Kant's three points, Angell, Schumpeter, Palmerston, and Wilson; they do, or should, come in again lower down. I have removed the metaphor, unless someone else thinks it helpful. Septentrionalis 22:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I thought subheads would help the reader. If anyone feels I made a hash of things, feel free to re-edit or revert. Robert A West 23:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Totally Disputed Tag

I see that Ultramarine replaced the {{totally-disputed}} tag on the shorter (collaborative) version, and justified it on the grounds of the dispute about whether two paragraphs and three bullet points are too much space to discuss Kant. While this is a genuine editorial difference of opinion, I don't see that it can be called in good faith a factual dispute.

In contrast, Ultramarine's version, which until tonight Septentrionalis and I have been content to leave marked NPOV but not totally-disputed, contains far more serious factual problems that have previously been noted on the talk page, and which were resolved only by exclusion of the dubious assertions from the shorter version. (see archive for details). These include, but are not limited to

Calculations of statistical significance that assume wars are random events -- a naive method of analysis criticized by Gowa and subsequently abandoned by Mousseau, Oneal and others. op cit.
A sharply-disputed and unsourced estimation of the German Constitution. (The one source cited does not support the contention concerning the Junkers' role in national war-making.)
Acceptance without comment of Rummel's decision to exclude states from the list of democracies in defiance of his own published criteria.

Sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. My first preference is to remove the totally-disputed tag as overkill: if Ultramarine removes it from the version Septentrionalis and I are editing, he may also remove it from "his" version without addressing any of the factual problems. I remind him about the availability of the {{Disputeabout|whatever}} tag for use where an actual factual dispute exists: this can be used on a section as well as at the top of the article. Meanwhile, I think that it is important to inform readers about the prevalence of factual disputes concerning "Ultramarine's" version. Robert A West 01:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

You make general statements that I cannot control. Please cite the exact sentence you claim is factually incorrect and explain why. Ultramarine 06:58, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

If Ultramarine will review the archived discussions, he will see disputes over most of the sentences which the longer version retains. His revisions appear to have created new ones. I do not propose to discuss them while leaving the shorter version submerged. The consensus on the shorter version is based on the separate and sufficient ground of readability.

I do, however, have a suggestion. I can set up a copy of the longer version as a subpage, and we can comment on it there. (I would propose that that copy be treated as a talk page - no deleting of already placed text, comments to be nested, and so forth. I will set up one paragraph as a demonstration of what I have in mind:

Please do not edit what follows. It is intended as a demonstration only

Longer version text is always in italics

comment

next comment

and to left margin

two point
comment

end of sample

All of this would be the subpage, leaving the talk subpage free for longer discussions.

List of proposed changes

Earlier discussions are getting convoluted.

Kant

Your version is factually incorrect. It states: "The emphasis on republican (republikanisch) government, rather than democracy, distinguishes Kant's ideas from the modern form of the theory." This is incorrect, you have just mentioned that Kant's theory includes

Hospitality, defined as the acknowledgement of the right to freely move and resettle in another state, and
A league of nations, combined with the abolition of standing armies, the funding of warfare by state debt, and repudiation of all claims to interfere with the constitution or government of another state."

and you then state "More importantly, he does not claim that republics will be at peace only with each other, but regards them as more pacific in general.". All of this is different from the modern DPT.

This is ignorance of the English language. Any major point of difference distinguishes; that does not deny the existence of others.

Your short version has deleted much of the support for the modern DPT and instead greatly expands the text on Kant's old, different theory. Sure, it gets a honorable mention in many papers but as noted above it is very different from the modern DPT. In a review article of the literature [6], Kant only get one paragraph in the "The history of the idea", while Woodrow Wilson gets four. Create a separate article for Kant's theory if you want to explain it in great detail, do not delete the support for the modern democratic peace theory. Ultramarine 02:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Wilson's program (as the phrase "League of Nations" should have made clear) ultimately derives from Kant's ideas. In a history of ideas, therefore, Kant has precedence; Ray's emphasis is misjudged. Also, the ideas concerned are, as is natural, more clearly expressed in Kant's essay than in Wilson's failed effort to implement them.

DPTs are part of a wider current of ideas. Even if Kant is not the well-spring of that stream, he is a major source. Describing the current is useful for the reader; it also helps the editors. For example, Schumpeter was not an early democratic peace theorist; he was the next eddy over, and therefore has influenced DPTs. This is clear in the present text.

I have no doubt that the section can be improved and tightened, even without loss of its applicability. I don't see how, but this is one of the advantages of a collaborative approach. Show me. Septentrionalis 15:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I feel that Ultramarine's version much more succiently explains the idea that Kant gave birth to DPT without going into too much detail. The main article bit could be kept above ultramarine's early dpt paragraph, reading much better. Robdurbar 21:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand, several modern theorists are actually working along Kantian lines, as cited above. I don't see their work as distinct enough for its own article -- Ultramarine cites some of them, and both schools cite the same statistical evidence. Perhaps it should be discussed separately as a "Yes, but" type of criticism. Hmmm...Robert A West 21:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Please, do an edit. I'm not sure that Kant gave birth to DPT, I think Wells did, and Kant was the grandfather - but I'm open to persuasion. Septentrionalis 21:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Your current version has removed several of the problems mentioned earlier. It still incorrectly states that the Democratic peace is the same thing as the Kantian peace. I have added a correct description. Please correct your version. Ultramarine 21:24, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

This is a lie. This talk page has cited Rummel's bibliography, with its fourteen papers on Kant or the Kantian peace; also the "neural net" paper, which regards their machine's high scores for the "Kantian variables" as validation of DPT - so did Ultramarine's original discussion of it. Septentrionalis 18:18, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Please read the literature. I quote from the paper THE KANTIAN PEACE The Pacific Benefits of Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations "Most political scientists now agree that the contemporary peacefulness can be traced in part to the so-called democratic peace, wherein established democratic states have fought no international wars with one another and the use or threat of force among them, even at low levels, has been rare.2 This view is incomplete, however, because it fails to recognize the pacific benefits of the other liberal elements of Kant’s program for peace."

"In keeping with the Kantian perspective, we expand our analysis beyond the democratic peace, incorporating the influence of economically important trade and joint memberships in international organizations." [7] Ultramarine 18:52, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Your version is still incorrect or at least misleading. "Despite the contradictions, the entire body of theory is referred to as democratic peace theory, abbreviated DPT. Often, that term is used to refer to the original hypothesis only, disregarding later developments in the theory. Such theories have also been referred to as the "liberal peace" or the "Kantian peace" in honor of Immanuel Kant, who proposed an early version of the theory." Ultramarine 23:46, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Statistical studies supporting the DPT

Your version excludes: "Many different kinds of statistical analyses find support for the DPT (King 1989). Studies using the Polity Data Set have concluded that the theory is also validated when a continuous measure of democracy is used (i.e. the higher two countries' joint scores, the lower their chance of being involved in a war against each other). Recently, also statistical analyses using neural nets find support for theory, both during and before the Cold War [8]."

"Some statistical research indicates that enduring rivalries of all types are rare among democracies. This pacifying effect of democracy appears to strengthen over time after the transition to democracy. Rivalries show a decreasing propensity for militarized conflict within a year of the transition to joint democracy, and this propensity decreases almost to zero within five years [9].

A recent theory is that democracies can be divided into "pacifist" and "militant". While both avoid attacking democracies, "militant" democracies have tendency to deep distrust and confrontational policies against dictatorships and may initiate wars against them. Most wars by democracies since 1950 have involved only four nations: the U.S., the U.K., Israel, and India [10][11].

The historical definition of democracy has shifted over time, as civil and political rights have been expanded to greater segments of the population. Continuous measures of democracy used in statistical studies attempt to create a consistent scale of comparison for all states. Most statistical work on the democratic peace has focused on the 19th and 20th centuries, but there is a significant body of literature on the applicability of the theory outside the modern western world." Ultramarine 02:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Ultramarine, goes over the top in his inclusion of statistacl examples; Septentrionalis' version is much stronger in this respect Robdurbar 21:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

All of these are interesting studies that in various ways strengthen the DPT and shows different aspects of it. They should not be deleted. Ultramarine 14:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Ultramarine; all the comments that I seem to get from you baiscially say: "my version says x. This should be included." We need more flexibility than this if the two version tag is ever going to go. I suggest that paragraphs 1,3,4 and 6 of your 'statistical' bit would be sufficient to explain the whole section. Is this a reasonable compromise? Robdurbar 00:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

You give no factual explanation for why some of the arguments and studies supporting the DPT should be removed. Please do. The argument that I am inflexible is false and strange; I have already reduced the text in this section compared to earlier versions; inflexibility and NPOV violation is instead for example the blank refusal to include the common and referenced criticism of Gowa's theory, see below. Ultramarine 06:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I have compacted the text and reorganized. Ultramarine 10:05, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I have inluded new referenced studies supporting the DPT. Please include. Here is the latest version [12]. Your version [13]. Ultramarine 13:52, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I have no facutal evidence for removing things; I just think that such an article only needs one or two quoted case studies; having so many seems uncessary for Wikipedia. If you think I have deleted vital parts of teh text, tell me or put them back; I make no claims to be an expert in the field of DPT. For example, why not exclude the for bullet points about the different standards for democracy used, repalcing them with the sentence 'However, the definition of a stabalized liberal democracy is highly contested and subjective.' ?

As for inflexibility; I simply meant that more constructive criticism of others' edits, rather than just telling us what has been excluded. This would hopefully make it easier to continue trying to merge both versions Robdurbar 15:19, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary, I hope that Wikipdia should allow the results of science to become known also outside academia. I see nothing wrong with giving the results from several studies that illustrates different aspects of the DPT and supports it. It is your opinion that the definition of liberal democracy is "highly contested and subjective", I prefer to let the reader decide for themselves. Note that for example the last definition is very objective and it is easy to check if a state fulfill it. That many different definitions all show the same result is instead a sign of strength for the theory. I do not understand your last two sentences, see for example the discussion on Germany below. However, I gladly admit inflexibility when no reason is given for deleting referenced facts and studies showing results that do not fit the POV of the deletionist, like in the Bloc peace section below. Ultramarine 19:19, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Whatever, I didn't come here to get into POV discussions. You include as much as you want, and let the casual reader be lost in a field of heavy-going statistical discussions Robdurbar 06:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

That may of course be true. What do you think of the most recent version that has shortened the text? Some mention of how war and democracy have been defined must be included, otherwise it is impossible to discuss specific historic cases. Your suggestion to remove the bullets seems like a good idea Ultramarine 13:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Presumely you refer to the section on statistical studies in your version? Seems just about fine to me, the other version I would agree is a bit short on that. I suggest that Ultramarine has, in this case, the superior section; this could be but into Septentrionalis' version (which i have been using as a base for the simple reason it appears 'first'), if the otehrs feel this is reasonable? Also the 2v tag has been removed without any explanation. I presume this has been an oversight on behlaf of the previous editor and so (reluctantly) have replaced it Robdurbar 17:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

As far I am concerned, Ultramrine's statistical section falls into three categories:

material included in the statistical section, at least since Robdurbar's last edit.
material substantially included in the sections on Democratic peace theories, just above.
special pleading for Rummel and Rummellism.

The first two are redundant; the last I oppose. If anything does not fall into one of these three classes, please add it.

I will keep the 2V as long as it is useful; but I hold that it is Ultrmaarine's responsibility to maintain it. See #two version, above.Septentrionalis 18:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I have recently added many new studies. Please state if you accept them, then I will insert them in your version. Ultramarine 06:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

You have been repeatedly invited to edit the consensus text; you will, of course, be edited mercilessly in return. When I just read through your PoV fork, the game theory article was the only study that seemed worth including. I continue to agree with Robdurbar's views above in this section; factuality is not enough. But I am open to persuasion; the way to do so is to produce an edit that is short, clear, readable, and balanced. Septentrionalis 16:52, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I have already presented my version. State which, if any, part you agree on so we can include it and thus reduce some of the problems. Ultramarine 16:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I have added what I choose to add. If Ultramarine manages to be bold and add more, the changes will be considered on their merits. My opinion of "his" PoV fork as a whole has been expressed above and below, and rereading his latest edit has not changed that judgment (except in finding the game-theory argument interesting). Septentrionalis 19:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Germany before WWI

Your version: "For example, the First World War is a difficult case for all DPT's, which deal with it by deciding that the Central Powers were not democracies on the grounds that the Kaiser had the power to appoint his ministers, that he and the General Staff made the decision for war, as did Franz Josef in Austria-Hungary, and that many structural features of the Reich made democratic institutions ineffective."

"The first class of critics argue that DPT is mistaken, either in denying that Germany was a democracy (the Reichstag was elected by universal suffrage, its votes of no confidence did cause governments to fall, and it did vote on whether to fund the war - which passed overwhelmingly), or in claiming it to be less democratic than Britain (the 1911 elections enfranchised only 60% of the British male population, to say nothing of the Empire beyond the Seas, the majority of which had no say in the decision at all)."

My version: "For the First World War critics have argued that supporters of the DPT are mistaken, either in denying that Germany was a democracy (the Reichstag was elected by universal male suffrage, its votes of no confidence did cause governments to fall, and it did vote on whether to fund the war - which passed overwhelmingly) or that the supporter are wrong in affirming Britain to be one (the 1911 elections enfranchised only 60% of the British electorate, to say nothing of the Empire beyond the Seas, the majority of which had no say in the decision at all). Supporters respond that at the time of World War I the German Kaiser still had much power, he had direct control over the army, appointed and could dismiss the chancellor, and played a key role in foreign affairs. In effect, therefore, in foreign and military affairs, there was little democratic control. They also note that the Kaiser was also the King in the very large state of Prussia which had much influence over national politics, that Prussian government was not responsible to the Prussian Landtag (lower chamber), that the Landstag members were elected by a suffrage system based on tax-paying ability favoring the rich, and that the landed aristocracy of the junkers dominated all the higher civil offices and officer corps of the Army and Navy [14]. If Britain was not a liberal democracy, then this is another reason why WWI was not a war between democracies. The last argument may however weaken the statistical support for the DPT, because fewer democracies means fewer possible wars."

Your version excludes many of the arguments against Germany being a liberal democracy. Ultramarine 02:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes it does; it only includes the key ones. Septentrionalis 21:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Your version keeps all of arguments for Germany being a liberal democracy while exluding many of those against. Ultramarine 14:19, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

If Ultramarine thinks that those are all the arguments for the effectively democratic nature of Wilhelmine Germany, he really should study the subject. But Robdurbar would be right to object if the article went into it at such length. Septentrionalis 18:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

The Constitution of the Reich specifies in article 11 that the Kaiser can declare war only upon the consent of the Bundesrat, or upon actual invasion -- essentially the sort of provision found in the U.S. Constitution. Was, or was not, war declared by the Reichstag as required? If it was, the assertion that the Kaiser and his ministers made the decision to go to war is misleading: instances of war being foisted upon an unwilling executive are rare in the extreme. Robert A West 20:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Note that the Bundesrat was appointed by the German princes and that one third was appointed by the Emperor. No democracy. Ultramarine 21:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

The constitution left it up to each state to determine how its delegate(s) were appointed: the parallel to the U.S. Senate is striking. While I grant it probable that most states' princes retained the power, I am not certain this was universal. Moreover, Prussia was closer to 1/4 of the Bundesrat than to 1/3 (17 out of 58), which is a non-trivial difference. I do not find the principle of equal proportions anywhere in Rummel. Robert A West 22:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Can't all have been appointed by princes: Hamburg, Lubeck, Bremen, and Frankfurt were Imperial states... Septentrionalis 02:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

17/58 is somewhat closer to 1/3. More correct is 29.3%. Anyhow, Germany was much despotic than I have stated previously. See this, the section called "The German Government. Why Germany Was a Despotic Autocracy" [15].

Thank you; I've now read that piece of Frothingham ;} Didn't you notice that this is a piece of PoV hysteria?

But in fact even this rant is consistent with the present text.

Also, by that reasoning, Great Britain was an autocracy until 1914; for the King and the House of Lords had evem greater powers. The House of Lords was the supreme court of Great Britain, after all. Furthermore, the Kaiser appointed only 17 members of the Reichsrat; the King could pack the House of Lords as much as he wanted. The Kaiser had (unlike an American president) no veto; the British royal veto is unused, but not abandoned. The King -not the Crown in Parliament, not His Majesty's Government - appointed officers, and declared war.

But the House of Lords were nowhere near so formidable in practice; so with the Reichsrat.

All the Chancellors of the Empire needed a majority in the Reichstag, and fell when they lost it; so with Bismarck, Caprivi Bernhard von Bülow, Bethmann Hollweg, Georg Michaelis, Georg von Hertling. ( Max of Baden survived the Empire.) Septentrionalis 02:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

As usual, you have no sources for your general claims. Your description of Great Britain is misleading. It had and has no clear constitution unlike the German Empire had. See British constitutional law. Formally, the Monarchy still has much power today according to the Royal Perogative, including the right to declare war, but the parliament has the right to limit this and the elected government has for centuries exercised the real power. Great Britain is certainly a democracy today. From the Encyclopedia Britannica:

"The British constitution is uncodified; it is only partly written and is flexible."

"Matters for which there is no formal law, such as the resignation of office by a government, follow precedents (conventions) that are open to development or modification."

"the Bill of Rights provided the foundation on which the government rested after the Glorious Revolution (1688–89). It purported to introduce no new principles but merely to declare explicitly the existing law. The revolution settlement, however, made monarchy clearly conditional on the will of Parliament"

"When the Whig majority in the Houseof Lords threatened to reject the Treaty of Utrecht with France in 1712, the government created enough Tory peerages in that house to guarantee support for its policy, a precedent that firmly established the superiority of the House of Commons. King George I (reigned 1714–27) largely withdrew from an active role in governance"

"Indeed, the last bill to be rejected by a monarch was the Scottish Militia Bill of 1707, which was vetoed by Queen Anne. "

"Parliament Act of 1911 act passed Aug. 10, 1911, in the British Parliament which deprived the House of Lords of its absolute power of veto on legislation." Ultramarine 13:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

And that's why I said up to 1914: the first bill to be put through under the Parliament Act was notoriously being discussed by the Cabinet when the news of the war arrived (see Barbara Tuchman: The Guns of August,and George Dangerfield: The Srange Death of Liberal England quoting Sir Winston Spencer Churchill: The World Crisis, whuch is a primary source.)

For the formal powers of the House of Lords, see Pollock and Maitland.

For the history of Wilhelmine Germany, see Golo Mann: History of Germany since 1789. Septentrionalis 17:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Ultramarine's source, however, is a WWI propaganda leafet distributed by a semi-official arm of the US Government, as revised and expanded through 1919. [16] Septentrionalis 17:30, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Please cite the statements you claim as support and give the full title and the authors of the books. I have cited Encyclopedia Britannica as above regarding England. Regarding Germany, I have previously used The Columbia Encyclopedia as a reference in my text regading Prussia [17]. Arthur L. Frothingham's "Handbook of War Facts and Peace Problems" may be biased regarding the causes of WWI but the facts presented in "The German Government. Why Germany Was a Despotic Autocracy" are correct [18]. See for example the actual text from the German Constitution [19]. I also cite MS Encarta:

"The political structure of the Second Empire reflected Bismarck’s fundamental distrust of democratic rule in general and of various parties and groups in particular. The empire’s 25 relatively sovereign states had various forms of government. They were ruled by a Bundesrat (federal council) of princes dominated by Prussia and a Reichstag (imperial assembly) of elected deputies. The executive leader of the government, the chancellor, was responsible only to the emperor. The emperor in turn dictated all foreign policy and possessed the exclusive right to interpret the constitution."

And the Encyclopedia Britannica:

"The constitution had been designed by Bismarck to give the chancellor and monarch primary decision-making power."

"Most legislativeproposals were submitted to the Bundesrat first and to the Reichstag only if they were approved by the upper house. Although members of the Reichstag could question the chancellor about his policies, the legislative bodies were rarely consulted about the conduct of foreign affairs. Imperial ministers were chosen by and were responsible to the emperor rather than to the legislature."

"Prussia, occupying more than three-fifths of the area of Germany and having approximately three-fifths of the population, remained the dominant force in the nation until the empire's demise at the end of another war in 1918."

"In Prussia the lower house was elected under a restricted three-class suffrage system, an electoral law that allowed the richest 15 percent of the male population to choose approximately 85 percent of the delegates."

"The constituencies established in 1867 and 1871 were never altered to reflect population shifts, and rural areas thus retained a vastly disproportionate share of power as urbanization progressed."

"Many contemporary observers thought that a major crisis was impending between the recalcitrant elites and the increasing number of Germans who desired political emancipation similar to that of Britain and France." Ultramarine 05:40, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

So? What inconsistency do you see, and what statements do you dispute? Septentrionalis 14:32, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Your version still has all the problems discussed in my first paragraph in this section. In addition, it is factually incorrect. You state that the Rechstag's "votes of no confidence did cause governments to fall". The government was the Chancellor and the imperial minister, appointed and dismissed by the Emperor. There is no mention in the Constitution that the Reichstag could cause the government to fall. [20][21]. Bismarck was not dismissed by a vote of no confidence, but by the new Emperor [22][23].

If I chose to edit German constitutional history I would be doing so, and I would do so in that article, not here.
We are not here to do Ultramarine's homework for him.
All the statements in the text of the article are undisputed.
I have given general sources for my statements here.
I will revise them if Ultramarine can find any instance of a Reichskanzler attempting to govern, for more than a few weeks, without a Reichstag majority. The power of the Kaiser was sufficient to retain a Chancellor while he looked for one, but that's not the same thing.
Bismarck governed Prussia alone for three years without a majority; but if he had not splendid successes during those three years, he would have fallen; and that was Bismarck.
Biussmarck did lose his majority in February 1890, and the resulting crisis led to his fall.
It is Golo Mann's judgment, first stated on p.8 and frequently repeated thereafter, that the power of the Reichstag increased steadily from Bsmarck's time. To argue, as some DPTR opponents do, that a defeat in the Reichstag would have prevented the war, is therefore a reasonable position, properly represented by balance of the present text. Septentrionalis 17:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I hope Septentrionalis will keep his word. "I will revise them if Ultramarine can find any instance of a Reichskanzler attempting to govern, for more than a few weeks, without a Reichstag majority." From the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica:

"From 1878 to 1887 there was no strong party on which Bismarck could depend for support. After 1881 the parties of opposition were considerably strengthened. Alsatians and Poles, Guelphs, Clericals and Radicals were joined in a common hostility to the government. Parliamentary history took the form of a hostile criticism of the government proposals, which was particularly bitter because of the irreconcilable opposition of the Free Traders. Few of the proposals were carried in their entirety, many were completely lost; the tobacco monopoly and the brandy monopoly were contemptuously rejected by enormous majorities; even an increase of the tax on tobacco was refused; the first proposals for a subsidy to the Norddeutsche Lloyd were rejected. The personal relations of the chancellor to Parliament were never so bitter."

On Chancellor Otto von Bismarck's dismissal:

"The difference of opinion between him and the emperor was not confined to social reform; beyond this was the more serious question as to whether the chancellor or the emperor was to direct the course of the government. The emperor, who, as Bismarck said, intended to be his own chancellor, required Bismarck to draw .up a decree reversing a cabinet order of Frederick William IV., which gave the Prussian ministerpresident the right of being the sole means of communication between the other ministers and the king. This Bismarck refused to do, and he was therefore ordered to send in his resignation."

On Chancellor Leo von Caprivi's dismissal:

"The whole agitation was extremely inconvenient to the government. The violence with which it was conducted, coming, as it did, from the highest circles of the Prussian nobility, appeared almost an imitation of Socialist methods; but the emperor, with his wonted energy, personally rebuked the leaders, and warned them that the opposition of Prussian nobles to their king was a monstrosity. Nevertheless they were able to overthrow the chancellor, who was specially obnoxious to them. In October 1894 he was dismissed suddenly, without warning, and almost without cause, while the emperor was on a visit to the Eulenburgs, one of the most influential families of the Prussian nobility."

On Chancellor Bernhard von Bülow dismissal. Note that it was the Emperor who decided when to accept the resignation and that the Finance Bill did pass.

"The contest was from the first hopeless, and, but for the personal request of the emperor that he would pilot the Finance Bill through the House in some shape or other, Prince Blow would have resigned early in the year. So soon as the budget was passed he once more tendered his resignation, and on the 14th of July a special edition of the Imperial Gazette announced that it had been accepted by the emperor."

On the parliamentary sysem in Germany:

"In spite of the election of the Reichstag by manhood suffrage, there existed, as Count Billow pointed out in 1904, no real parliamentary system in Germany, and owing to the economic, political, social and religious structure of the nation there could never be one. Of the numerous groups composing the German parliament no one ever secured a majority, and in the absence of such a majority the imperial government, practically independent of parliament, knew how to secure its assent to its measures by a process of bargaining with each group in turn."

On Prussia:

"a royal edict of 4th January 1882 affirmed the monarchical character of the Prussian constitution, the right of the king personally to direct the policy of the state, and required those officials who held appointments of a political nature to defend the policy of the government, even at elections."Ultramarine 18:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

On the last German Emperor:

"the chief control passed now into the hands of the emperor himself. He aspired by his own will to direct the policy of the state; he put aside the reserve which in modern times is generally observed even by absolute rulers, and by his public speeches and personal influence took a part in political controversy. He made very evident the monarchical character of the Prussian state, and gave to the office of emperor a prominence greater than it had hitherto had. One result of this was that it became increasingly difficult in political discussions to avoid criticizing the words and actions of the emperor. Prosecutions for lese-majeste became commoner than they were in former reigns, and the difficulty was much felt in the conduct of parliamentary debate. The rule adopted was that discussion was permitted on those speeches of the emperor which were officially published in the Reichsanzeiger. It was, indeed, not easy to combine that respect and reverence which the emperor required should be paid to him, with that open criticism of his words which seemed necessary (even for selfdefence) when the monarch condescended to become the censor of the opinions and actions of large parties and classes among his subjects."Ultramarine 19:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Nothing of all this addresses anything in the text.
Nothing of all this provides any stronger argument than the Kaiser's prerogative and his right to appoint the chancellor, discussed it the text.
Nothing of all this actually contradicts any statement I have made.
- I do, however, congratulate Ultramatine for taking acvantage of an ambiguity. Bismarck did govern Prussia without (indeed against) a majority of the Prussian parliament for three years. (He received an indemnity afterwards, which no despot would have gotten - or needed.) Failure to get a particular tax through was not what I was thinking of as loss of a majority- even British governments have suffered that without falling. No Reichschancelllor, even Bismarck, ever governed without getting a majority often enough to carry on the government, and the loss of one produced the crisis in which most of them, even Bismarck and Caprivi, fell. Septentrionalis 18:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Septentrionalis, your are violating Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Cite sources by refusing to cite sources that can be checked. Just giving several large books without quotes and page numbers is not acceptable. You have made numerous strong claims but have only presented a single citation with a page number. In contrast, I have provided numerous direct quotes when using long books or have used links to online articles. Ultramarine 15:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Since you have not backed up your claims with verifiable sources, please correct your version. Ultramarine 21:24, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I haved added to article with a reference that the Chancellor ignored a vote of no confidence in 1913. Ultramarine 21:53, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Specific historic examples

Your current version excludes them, although they are often prominently used by critics and therefore should be mentioned in Wikpedia. You previously insisted on using them. Here are two examples of this criticism that you yourself have used[24][25]. Ultramarine 02:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I thought the article had to be balanced and made comprehensible before it could be shortened. I was wrong; Robdurbar showed me better.

The only detail I see any reason for adding to the article would be a short list of wars which may be problematic for a DPT, from 1812 or the Roman war of 1849 to Karpil. It would not have any discussion, pro or con.

The only discussion I see any reason for adding would be a paragraph discussing what democracies have done to each other without violating many DPTs. This would be without examples.

I put these up for discussion. Septentrionalis 19:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Some of Ultramarine's 'historical examples' section definately warrents inclusion Robdurbar 21:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Geographic isolation

Your version excludes: "Glieditsch [sic] (1995) demonstrated that democratic pairs of nations have not been more separated than non-democratic pairs of nations." Ultramarine 02:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I suppose I am obliged to explain the obvious:

This claim adds no substance to the arguments by Bremer, Maoz and Russert, which are already included.

I am confident that that is why Robdurbar excluded the sentence; [and this is by itself sufficient.Septentrionalis] But it Ultramarine's sentence is also an exercise in proving the irrelevant; [of course, Ultramarine may be misrepresenting his source, again Septentrionalis] If the median distance between enemies is 1000 miles, say, and Gleditsch demonstrates that the average distance between democracies is equal to the 5000 average distance between all pairs of states, this says very little about the effect of distance on war. What we want is the lower tail of the distribution of democracies, the part about 0-2000 miles separation. Septentrionalis 17:19, 18 September 2005 (UTC) [I trust this documentation of the modifications complained of below does not render the paragraph illegible. Septentrionalis 20:57, 18 September 2005 (UTC)]

You are speculating. If you want to argue that the the conclusions of the study are wrong or inappropriate, then you should publish this outside Wikipedia and not simply delete published studies you do not like. Ultramarine 17:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Septentrionalis has deceptively substantially modified his earlier paragraph after my response, instead of creating a new one [26]. I therefore add that I am not and has not earlier misrepresented sources. Since I provide them, they can be checked. Ultramarine 19:37, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

And that is why I know that Ultramarine's accounts of his sources often cannot be relied upon. I hasten to add that this appears to be carelessness or illiteracy, not malice. Septentrionalis 20:57, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Trade

Your version: "A recent paper by Mousseau[27] presents statistical evidence that the democratic peace is real, and attributes it to the effects of trade as well as other economic benefits that are associated with democracy. The paper notes that that these effects only apply to relatively wealthy countries, which have greater and more sophisticated trade. The exception is consistent with earlier theories as well: it is an old observation that those with nothing to lose may be relatively undaunted by the destruction caused by war."

My version: "One theory is that since democratic states tend to be capitalist states, trade relations create interdependence among them. This interdependence constrains the ability and willingness of democratic nations to go to war with each other due to the incurred costs in lost trade. One problem with this interpretation is the existence of wars with and between non-democratic capitalist states. However, a recent study indicates that both economically important trade and democracy contribute to peace and that they do so independently of each other. This study also indicates that the DPT is not a significant factor unless both of the democracies have a GDP/capita of at least 1400 USD. Economic development below this may hinder the development of liberal institutions. [28]."

Mind-numbing detail. Septentrionalis 19:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Your version excludes that the effect of trade and democracy on peace are independent of each other. The study argues that lacking liberal institutions explains the exception in poor countries. Instead, you state that the exception is consistent with "that those with nothing to lose may be relatively undaunted by the destruction caused by war". Nowhere in this study is this theory mentioned and obviously the poor can always lose their lives. Ultramarine 02:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Robert A West has responded regarding independence here: [29]. My responise is: See the Abstract which states "Economically important trade has an independent, substantively important pacifying effect, but the conflict-reducing effect of democracy depends on the level of economic development." and also this statement from the Results section which states "The pacific benefit of economically important trade, on the other hand, is independent of both the level of development and the character of political institutions." Ultramarine 17:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

That second statement tends to put the whole article out of the class of DPTs altogether and into the Angell/Schumpeter group.

Septentrionalis 19:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

OIC. There are two distinct meanings of "independent" in this context. Ultramarine means the first, and I took him to be asserting the second, and I believe most of those who make it through his sentence will so understand it.

Is the factors T and D orthogonal, or nearly-orthogonal, in P?
Are T and D of sufficiently low correlation that knowing D leaves P relatively unconstrained?

The first is asserted in the abstract, the second denied in the text. Were the second point admitted, I would class this as an article critical of DPT. Robert A West 21:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

This is again false. From the result section "In sum, it appears that development in the absence of democracy and democracy in the absence of development do not result in peaceful interstate relations. Democracy with development, in contrast, appears to be a robust pacifying condition". The abstract also states that both democracy with development and trade causes peace. If critics argues that the paper or its data actually supports something else than it states, then they should publish this in a paper and not in Wikipedia. Ultramarine 14:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

??? I have never said that the article says anything other than it says. The article provides support for a neo-Kantian triad: trade, development, democracy. That is not pure DPT, yet you originally cited the article as support for DPT, rather than as a criticism. I tried to view the article in this light only out of courtesy to your view, but I am now realizing this was an error. The paragraph should be removed to the criticisms section, possibly under a new subhead, per Septentrionalis. Robert A West 15:06, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Returning to full-width, how does everyone feel about this new version of the paragraph?

A recent paper by Mousseau, Hegre and Oneal[30] presents statistical evidence that the democratic peace is real, but that it only applies when there is substantial economic development (at least $1400 US per capita). Moreover, the paper found that trade is also a significant force for peace, irrespective of the level of democracy. The paper goes on to note that the three factors, trade, development and democracy, are interrelated. This triad recalls the original Kantian theory, and Oneal has specifically acknowledged this in other works.

While I still defend the sentence Ultramarine finds offensive, I think considerations of length prevail. Cleanup will require making sure that Triangulating Peace is included in the bibliography, but I see no reason for an in-line reference. Robert A West 15:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

If Kant's triad was important, Oneal would have mentioned this in the this article and the abstract. Not in "other works". Also, liberal institutions should be mentioned. Ultramarine 20:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

If it were not important, he wouldn't have written a book about it. I mention the article. I mention a book written by one of the authors. What is the problem? Robert A West 21:11, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Please note that the book you refer to was published earlier and is a popular book. The paper I cite is published later and more important. It is here that the authors have their theory scrutinized by their peers. Whatever they may have written earlier about Kant in their popular book, they didn't include in their more important work. $1400 per capita is not "substantial economic development", it includes nations like Bangladesh [31]. Also, liberal institutions should be mentioned. Ultramarine 14:26, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

"Substantial" was the wrong word, perhaps "meaningful." Let me think about it. As for "liberal institutions", the phrase occurs nowhere in the article. Robert A West 06:08, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect again "Our results carry important implications for grasping the liberal peace. Apparently, the classical liberals were only partly right — interdependence does indeed have direct pacifying effects, but the benefits of democracy and development are mutually conditioned. This mutual conditionality fits the expectations of Mousseau’s model (2003b) of the rise of markets as the source of liberal values and institutions." Ultramarine 16:08, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Bloc peace theory or Cold war peace

Your version excludes "Supporters of the DPT note that Bremer (1992), Maoz & Russett (1992, 1993), Russett (1993), Oneal et al (1996), Barbieri (1996a), Oneal & Russett (1997), and Oneal & Ray (1997) all have controlled for alliance ties in their statistical studies supporting the DPT, contradicting Gowa's theory. Also other methods criticize the theory [32][33]."

You mention some of them, Bremer, Maoz & Russett, and Russett in another section, "External causes", and using a different text where alliances are only mentioned briefly, misleadingly giving the impression that there is no such criticisms against Gowa's theory.

You include from "Specific historic examples" possible examples supporting Gowa before the Cold War, but exclude all examples against Gowa before, during, and after the Cold War. Ultramarine 02:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

This represents a mistaken idea of what Gowa actually said. Ultramarine's historical examples on the subject are mostly aimed at a straw man. Even if they were all themselves correct - and many of them are not - this would be sufficient.

See also Corax's comments in the archives. Septentrionalis 18:06, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Corax he stated "Gowa's thesis does not attempt to predict or explain the behavior of states in the communist bloc. It applies exclusively to the democratic states, and postulates a reason why they abstained from attacking one another. She is, after all, arguing against the "democratic peace theory" and not some imaginary "communist peace theory." The fact that communist states engaged in conflict with one another does not detract from Gowa's overall thesis that democratic states avoided conflict with other democratic states in order to focus their firepower on the larger perceived threat of communism." I responded to this somewhat later in the achieved discussion. Gowa cannot defend against criticism by stating that the theory she favors should only be applied to data she likes. This would be like defending the theory that the Earth is flat by only allowing the data that supports this theory. Critics have thus criticized her theory by using wars in other blocs [34].

Regarding the other parts of the reply, please do not give vague claims that cannot be checked. Note that you have given no explanation regarding your exclusion of studies and misleading placement of those you have included. Or why you includes examples supporting your case but exclude those against. Ultramarine 20:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

The archives consist largely of your special pleading for Rummelism, and my counterclaims. Is this consent to the plan for examination of Ultramarine's current specious text, explained just above #tags? Septentrionalis 21:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Of course my text can and should be criticized, if there is problems with it. However, if there are things that have already been discussed in the achieve that you want to discuss again, please make a new section here in the "List of proposed changes" since the achieve should not be edited anymore.

Note that after reorganization of my version now all the arguments against Gowa's theory are placed in one section without the prior subdivisions.

Please correct to NPOV by including the examples and the studies presented in my version. Ultramarine 18:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Spanish-American War

Your version: "Babst, Singer, Rummel and Doyle claimed that democracies, properly defined, have never made war on each other; such DPTs face the difficulty that Ted Gurr classes both Spain and the United States as democracies in 1898, the year of the Spanish-American War."

This is misleading. The Polity Project score nations on scale for democracy, it is not a binary classification into democracies and nondemocracies. Spain scored 6/10 in 1898. Those studies that have used the Polity data have required a score of 7 or higher. One reason for excluding Spain is the Turno system. Ultramarine 00:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Gurr's classification, as the article explains, can be used as a binary, a ternary, or a (semi)-continuous classification. Dismissing Spain as a a non-democracy, is an ad hoc decision, which would mean dismissing the quite similar systems of alternation in post-war Austria and Uruguay, and presumably other states. It further ignores the fact that it was possible for Spanish governments to fall as the result of popular indignation, and indeed the government of 1898 did fall after the 'Disaster'.

Ultramarine's claim on the ranking of Spain is denied by Gowa. Septentrionalis 17:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

The actual Polity scores can easily be checked on homepage of the project. The score of Spain does not disprove the theory, as noted above. Whether the Spanish government changed after the war or even during the war is not interesting. Numerous dictatorships have fallen after wars, like the junta in Argentina after the Falklands war. This does not prove democracy. The Turno system certainly was not democratic. Ultramarine 17:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I can't find anything on the Polity site about Spain in 1989, but lets look at the facts: It was ruled by two parties who alternated in power. So, there is no way to start a new party, and no way to decide which party should be in power. To the elections that did happen during this period /the restored democracy) suffrage was highly limited. So, what do we call a system where only a small part of the population can vote, and you can't start political parties, and you don't get to choose which party is in power? Well, we certainly do NOT call it a democracy by any modern standards. --Regebro 07:50, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Dubious: the Spanish Government could fall in response to popular sentiment, as it did in 1898. The Turno was a compromise, produced by an electoral equilibrium; there were similar cases in post-WWII Austria and Uruguay. A decisive vote for one party would have destroyed it. Septentrionalis 17:01, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

If one does not want to register in order to get the latest version of the Polity data, then it is possible to download earlier versions here [35], although access seems to be sporadic. Whatever happened in Austria or Uruguay is not relevant for Spain. Speculations cannot be verified and are of little value. Again, that Spanish government changed after the military disasters is not proof for democracy, this happens also in dictatorships.Ultramarine 18:26, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Whatever happened in Austria or Uruguay is not relevant for Spain.

Nonsense; if an alternative arrangement occurs in democracies, then its presence in Spain does not disprove democracy. This is part of a general tendency of Rummel and his supporters to make "democracy" mean whatever it may be convenient for it to mean in any particular case. But this deserves a section of its own, since a large portion of the PoV fork is devoted to such "logic". Septentrionalis 16:05, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Canning, Palmerston, Roosevelt, and Wells

Your version states: "The peacefulness of responsible governments was the basis for the American policy of George Canning and the foreign policy of Palmerston. It was also represented in the liberal internationalism of Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and of H.G. Wells, who argued in August 1914 that popular governments would not go to war with each other, and therefore that the First World War could be the War that will End War."

(Added back sentence from my original edit which Septentrionalis has moved to another place): This is interesting history if it can be verified. However, I have trouble finding support for that they thought that liberal democracy would lead to peace. Ultramarine 23:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

As often with Ultramarine, this is a misrepresentation. The text Ultramarine has copied has never been moved; a new branch sprang up in between, beginning with the paragraph now immediately following, which begins My source for the (carefully qualified) claims. Septentrionalis 20:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

My source for the (carefully qualified) claims on Canning and Palmerston, which Ultramarine misrepresents here, happens to be the New Cambridge Modern History Vols. IX and X, but any standard history of the early nineteenth century should do. Septentrionalis 22:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

As usual you refuse to give any quote. I will give one instead from the 1911 Britannica article about Palmerston: "Lord Palmerston never was a Whig, still less a Radical; he was a statesman of the old English aristocratic type, liberal in his sentiments, favorable to the march of progress, but entirely opposed to the claims of democratic government." and " "These various circumstances, and many more, had given rise to distrust and uneasiness in the cabinet, and these feelings reached their climax when Palmerston, on the occurrence of the coup detat by which Louis Napoleon made himself master of France, expressed to the French ambassador in London, without the concurrence of his colleagues, his personal approval of that act." Ultramarine 23:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

The text says that Palmerston supported responsible government - that can be, and in Palmerston's case almost invariably was, constitutional government rather than kingless democracy - the sense which the Britannica is using. Nevertheless, he supported responsible government in Greece, Belgium, Portugal, Spain, and Italy - the ones without links are described in his own article. If this amounts to a accuracy dispute, it deserves at most a {{dubious}} tag, although I doubt it does. His support of Louis Napoleon got him sacked in part because it was against his general policy and was opposed by his colleagues and supporters. Septentrionalis 01:50, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Septentrionalis, your are violating Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Cite sources by refusing to cite sources that can be checked. Just giving several large books without quotes and page numbers is not acceptable. Ultramarine 15:13, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

The NCMH does have quite thorough indices. Try under Palmerston. Septentrionalis 20:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

This is interesting history if it can be verified. However, I have trouble finding support for that they thought that liberal democracy would lead to peace. According to this [36] , see 41 and 46, Well's pamphlet seems to to have argued for many things but I see no mention of democracy. Do you have some better sources? Ultramarine 19:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

My source for Wells is Wells, as I believe one of my edit summaries stated. Your bibliography on Wells was clearly written by someone not particularly interested in his non-fiction, and not interested at all in DPT. What is Coming is a reconsideration, not a restatement, of War that will End War. The later book asks (on p. 9) "Is the hope expressed in these phrases a dream? Is it already proven a dream?" It proposes quite different grounds for peace: the League is mentioned as a possibility in one paragraph of War; World Government is a necessary measure in What is Coming - on the other hand, the outlawing of private armament firms is dropped. Septentrionalis 22:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Please quote the text where Wells argues that liberal democracy prevents wars. Ultramarine 17:04, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Having now read through the pamphlet and its eleven reprinted newspaper articles, I see no support of your claim that he "argued in August 1914 that popular governments would not go to war with each other, and therefore that the First World War could be the War that will End War." The socialist Wells hopes that the war will bring about socialism and collectivism, not liberal democracy. Regarding world peace, Wells thinks that a nationalization of the arms industry, a general disarmament, a world confederacy, and a redrawing of national boundaries are the necessary steps. From the last chapter of the book (p. 94) "By means of a propaganda of books, newspaper articles, leaflets, tracts in English, French, German, Dutch, Swedish, Norwegian, Italian, Chinese and Japanese we have to spread this idea, repeat this idea, and impose upon this war the idea that this war must end war. We have to create a wide common conception of a re-mapped and pacified Europe, released from the abominable dangers of private trade in armaments, largely disarmed and pledged to mutual protection." Ultramarine 14:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I had missed this comment. I would not call 106 quarto pages a pamphlet myself. How has Ultramarine managed to get to Wells' conclusion without ever finding the central supporting argument?

This is, of course, that Prussian autocracy and militarism was the inevitable cause of war; that the democratic nations must fight it; that they will choose peace with other; and that if democracy and popular government prevail, peace will last, because democracies will have no need to go to war with each other. (Ultramarine's case on Germany above is indebted to the first class of arguments here; Wells put it better, so I hope U's arguments will improve.) In particular, I note the proposals to make Greece and Serbia into republics, and the insistence that Poland, as a constitutional monarchy, will restrain Russia. (This is not the only argument in the book; but it was the one was remembered, and became a slogan. Discussion of such detail belongs in another article.)

I suppose that one problem is that Wells does not provide flashy soundbites of the Rummel variety. Septentrionalis 20:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

As usual claims without sources. Here is one quote (p. 11-12) "For this is now a war for peace. It aims straight at disarmament. It aims at a settlement that shall stop this sort of thing for ever. Every soldier who fights against Germany is now a crusader against war. This, the greatest of all wars, is not just another war-it is the last war! England, France, Italy, Spain and all the little countries of Europe are heartily sick of war; the Tsar has expressed the passionate hatred for war; the most of Asia is unwarlike; the United States ha no illusions about the war. And never was war a begun so joylessly, and never was war begun with so grim a resolution. In England, France, Belgium, Russia, there is no thought of glory".

On socialism: (p. 58) "And I perceive too, that if presently my banker dissolved into the rest of this dissolving world-a thing I should have thought an unendurable calamity a month ago-I shall laugh and go on . . . Ideas that have ruled life as though they were divine truths are being chased and slaughtered in the streets. The rights of property, for example, the sturdy virtues of individualism, all toleration for the rewards of abstinence, vanished last week suddenly amidst the execrations of mankind upon a hurrying motor-car loaded with packages of sugar and flour. They bolted, leading Socialism and Collectivism in possession. The State takes over flour mills and the supply, not merely for military purposes, but for the general welfare of the community"

Your unreferenced statements that Wells should have supported the DPT is simply false, there is no mention of it in the book and my citation from the last chapter shows what Wells thought would cause peace. Wells was no friend of liberal democracy or free press. He expressed this clearly two years later "Now, however clumsy and confused the diplomacy of these present Allies may be (challenged constantly, as it is, by democracy and hampered by a free, venal and irresponsible Press in at least three of their countries), the necessity they will be under will be so urgent and so evident, that it is impossible to imagine that they will not set up some permanent organ for the direction and co-ordination of their joint international relationships." [37]. Ultramarine 21:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Your statements that Wells should have supported the DPT is simply false.

Ultramarine's dispute over Palmerston has the same 'logical' structure as:

"Ol' Betsy's a fine mule."
"'Taint so; she ain't no horse, nohow."

Whatever this is (a confusion over the meaning of responsible government?) it is not an accuracy dispute. Septentrionalis 18:53, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

You have failed to show that mentioned persons believed in the DPT or otherwise are related to it. Please correct.Ultramarine 21:24, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I have failed to show what the text does not claim. Which claim that the text actually makes do you deny? Septentrionalis 18:11, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Monadic and dyadic theory

Your current text states. " Monadic theories tend to be more oriented to political philosophy, and to emphasise the internally peaceful nature of democracies. More general theories developed from the monadic version claim that all systematic violence is rare within, and between, democracies. Dyadic theories, usually statistical analyses of historical data sets, also take into consideration wars between democracies and non-democracies, and for comparison, wars between non-democracies." This is false, monadic theory is that democratic states are generally more peaceful in all international relations, not only towards other democracies as the dyadic theory states. Both versions uses statistics. [38]. Ultramarine 21:24, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Septentrionalis has responded here [39]. He has however not corrected the above text. Please do. Ultramarine 19:19, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Your version is still incorrect "Monadic theories tend to be more oriented to political philosophy, and to emphasise the internally peaceful nature of democracies. More general theories developed from the monadic version claim that all systematic violence is rare within, and between, democracies. Dyadic theories, usually statistical analyses of historical data sets, also take into consideration wars between democracies and non-democracies, and for comparison, wars between non-democracies. ". Ultramarine 13:31, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I will cite another study to make this absolutely clear "While monadic approaches hold that democracies tend towards peaceful foreign policy, dyadic approaches argue that democracies consistently restrain from war only in conflicts with their own kind." [40]. Ultramarine 14:02, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

As often, Ultramarine claims contradiction while supplying a quote perfectly consistent with the text - which could, however, use clarification. Septentrionalis 15:31, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Your current text is still incorrect "Monadic theories tend to be akin to political philosophy, and emphasise the internally peaceful nature of democracies. More general theories developed from the monadic version claim that democracies are in general less apt to engage in systematic violence; and that, therefore, violence within or between democracies is also very rare. Dyadic theories, usually statistical analyses of historical data sets, compare wars between democracies, on one hand, with wars between democracies and non-democracies and wars between non-democracies, on the other; and argue that there are special reasons why wars between democracies do not occur." Ultramarine 22:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

What incorrectness? Perhaps if Ultramarine could find the courage to edit the consensus text, he might make clear what he thinks is wrong. Septentrionalis 01:30, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

See my first paragraph. If you accept my statement as the factually correct, I will gladly edit your text. If you do not, then it is pointless. Please state your position. Ultramarine 06:41, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

The statement you mske in the first paragraph does not contradict the statement you quote. Both are true. I am at a loss as to what confusion exists here. Septentrionalis 16:36, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

War for democracy

Your version states "Most of that controversy has arisen from the misuse of the theory, especially dyadic versions, to suggest that democracies are objectively better than non-democracies. This is a questionable claim: Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy never went to war with each other, but that is not an argument for a world of fascist dictatorships. Nevertheless, the democratic peace theory is used as an argument for western cultural superiority, and for democratisation, even by force. Crude versions of democratic peace theory have been quoted by political leaders, as an argument for wars of democratisation. For these reasons, democratic peace theory was until recently seen as a pro-western and pro-democracy theory, reflecting historicist ideas about the inevitable global triumph of western values. However, disappointment about the results of some post-Soviet democratisations, increasing scepticism about forced democratisation, and opposition to the occupation of Iraq have eroded support for the assumption of inherent superiority of democracy. More recent dyadic theories also seek theoretical explanations for wars by democracies against non-democracies, including the 'militant democracy' thesis, which reverses the original expectations that democracies are more peaceful than non-democracies."

See above regarding dyadic and monadic theory. Two fascist states that did not share a common border for a large part of their existence is not statistically significant proof for a "Fascist peace". Even if there is a "Fascist peace", this does not disprove the statistical evidence for the Democratic peace. No source is given for numerous claims about how the DPT has supposedly been used or viewed. Nor is any source given for a supposed "eroded support". Please cite sources. The "militant democracy" thesis does not reverse "that democracies are more peaceful than non-democracies". In fact, the paper using the term states that "They are slightly less involved in war, initiate wars and militarised disputes less frequently than non-democratic states, and tend more frequently to seek negotiated resolutions." [41]. Ultramarine 21:24, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

You have split your text so that it is now in two sections, in the intro and in "Political affinities". It still had all the problems mentioned above. In addition, there are new factual inaccuracies regarding definitions. "The original democratic peace hypothesis referred to peace between democracies, the later pacifist democracy hypothesis to an inherently less warlike nature of democracies. Both of these can be combined. The separate peace hypothesis implies that wars between unlike regimes (democracy and non-democracy) are more probable. The militant democracy hypothesis implies that democracies are inherently likely to go to war with non-democracies.".

Here is what the study referenced above stated: "Generally, the normative imperative on war and peace deriving from liberal thought appears to be bifurcated between a “militant” and a “pacifist” view. While the former deems it justified to use force to bring liberation, law and rights to suppressed fellow human being, the latter rejects the taking of innocent life as violating the natural, inalienable rights of humans." Ultramarine 14:08, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Athens

Septentrionalis has decided to make an exception to his usual pattern of blank denial and has questioned the removal of Rome's sacking of Athens in 86 and also my edit comment "Restored correct referenced version, whatever democracy Athens had disappeared in 322 and it had a dictator when Sulla sacked the city in 86". His response is here [42].

Regarding 322, "The Macedonian Antipater imposed a settlement on Athens, which was in no position to resist, that brought about an end of the city’s autonomy in foreign affairs and democratic self-rule at home. The revisions to the Athenian constitution limited citizenship to those whose wealth amounted to at least 1000 drachmas; there was also to be a garrison of Macedonian forces stationed in the harbor of Piraeus.

Thereafter, while many of the institutions of the Athenian democracy continued to function, and the constitution underwent further changes, sometimes toward more inclusiveness and freedom, and sometimes toward less, Athens would never again be completely free in domestic and foreign policy, and would never again be ruled by the will of the Dēmos, meeting in its Assembly." [43].

Regarding Athenion or Aristion who Septentrionalis thinks are two different persons, see this [44]. Ultramarine 04:29, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Ultramarine should consider confining his effusions to a field he understands. Smith's Dictionary is more than a century old, and seriously dated. For many entries, of course, this does not matter; for Aristion it does. I quote from the OCD(1996): " Since the 18th cent. he and Aristion have sometimes been confused: for their separate identities see I. Kidd, Posidonius: The Commentary 2 (1988), 884 ff. and in M. Griffin and J. Barnes (eds.), Philosophia Togata (1989), 41 ff.; also C. Habicht, Athen: die Geschichte der Stadt in hellenistischer Zeit (1995), ch. 13 esp. 304 n. 20."

The same source describes Athenion thus: "Athenion, a Peripatetic philosopher elected hoplite-general in 88 BC on a pro-Mithradates, anti-Rome, platform" (italics mine.) Septentrionalis 16:50, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

There is no agreement regarding whether Aristion and Athenion are the same or not. Even if they are different, Athenion also become a dictator and it was probably first after Ariston arrived with Pontian troops and become tyrant that Athens declared war [45]. Ultramarine 19:26, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Fortunately, I have no responsibility for what Ultramarine chooses to believe.
Ultramarine's statements here appear to arise from a misreading of the German text. (The English for pontisch is "Pontic", btw.)
This is any case irrelevant, even to "his" "correct" text.
"His" text remains a long and poorly written piece of advocacy of Rummel and his sound bites.
- It has therefore been deprecated by consensus. Septentrionalis 00:52, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Game theory paper

"Another paper [46]. presents the decision to go to war as a prisoner's dilemma: the best outcome for both sides is peace, but it is better to attack than be attacked. The prisoner's dilemma is not a problem if both sides can observe the deision-making of the other; which (they argue) is true for both sides if the decisions are being made democratically, and so publicly. The paper only does the game theory; it does not discuss whether modern democracies do in fact reach "open covenants openly arrived at".

First, it is good that Septentrionalis for once includes a paper from my version. However, the descrption is inaccurate. The game is about concessions between nations which influence the risk of war, not "attack". There no is mention that it is a prisoner's dilemma game or that "it is better to attack than be attacked". Ultramarine 01:55, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Does Ultramarine know what a prisoner's dilemma is?

If not, he should read the WP article on the subject.
If so, why does he suppose that Levy and Rozin's conflict game does not present one?

A competently written paper would be useful. L and R use s₁ and s_l in the same context; and force the student to reverse-engineer their assumptions from the payoff matrix. These are both offenses against the reader.Septentrionalis 17:04, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Again, there is no mention that the game is about "attack" or that it is "it is better to attack than be attacked". The game is about concessions between nations which influence the risk of war. Ultramarine 07:59, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

The Human Security Report

Septentrionalis, why are you listing this report under criticisms? The paper support the DPT and should be in the support section. I quote from p. 151: "Established democratic states almost never go to war against each other; they also have a very low risk of succumbing to civil war."

It does argue that the demise of colonialism and the end of the Cold War itself were the main causes for the rapid decline in international wars since the end of the Cold War. But it does not anywhere argue that the DPT is false. Ultramarine 21:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I put the section about After the Cold War next to Before the Cold War; but, in fact, the HSR does of course adopt three variants of the "External Causes" position on DPTs:

That external and internal wars were a product of the Cold War
That e. and i. wars were a product of decolonization
That democracy is not a [wholly 17:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)] independent cause, but is in part a product of commerce and international organization.

Please try to stop quoting sources out of context. Septentrionalis 05:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Please give the page number where the report states that democracy is not an independent cause. I can find no mention of this. As I stated previously, the report explicitly support the DPT. That other factors are claimed to explain much of the dramatic decline in armed conflicts since the end of the Cold War does not invalidate the DPT, the democratic peace existed before this and still holds. Not that I am very impressed by this report. It makes many claims and states that the evidence will "be presented in greater detail in the Human Security Report 2006." (p. 147) Ultramarine 07:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

See "interrelated and mutually reinforcing"; p.149, right next to the source of your quotation. (This is not a criticism of Kantian peace theories, although the other external causes are; but it does criticise Rummellism.)

Gowa argued that the Cold War tended to suppress conflict between members of the same bloc; the HSR argues, in effect, that the Cold War tended to aggravate conflicts between members and allies of different blocs. Both effects, if real, would exaggerate the difference between democratic-democratic pairs and other pairs. Since this period provides the bulk of the data for the democratic peace (even for those who do not defend Rummell's specious and arbitrary handling of the data before 1914), both arguments therefore tend to support the claim that the "democratic peace" is due to chance. Septentrionalis 17:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Please, no original research. The article clearly states that the DPT is true. It certainly does not attempt any statistical analysis trying to prove that the DPT is spurious which Gowa attempted. If you want to argue this, publish this outside Wikipedia. Thanks for correcting your claim that the article states that democracy is not an independent cause. Ultramarine 22:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I regret that Ultramarine remains unable to read English. I have not changed position: an independent cause is a wholly independent cause; and conversely. His reading of the HSR is equally competent. Septentrionalis 19:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Please, no uncivility. I have added the report and several others to the correct referenced version. Ultramarine 22:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Proportional representation

Your version excludes the referenced studies showing that proportional representation is associated with less violence. Explain. Ultramarine 23:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I had missed this ill-placed addition to this page. The proper and sufficient answer is that I would prefer not to. Ultramarine is free to add any such study, but I don't see why he would: he has argued, correctly, that internal peace is not the subject of a DPT, properly speaking. Septentrionalis 16:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

The more general version of the DPT extends to internal systematic violence such as civil wars [47] [48]. You are violating Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy/Precedents#Neutral_point_of_view_.28and_associated_principles.29 and Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy/Precedents#Source_citations by removing well-referenced information by reverting to your incorrect and unreferenced versions. Ultramarine 20:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Never at War

Your version excludes the scholarly book Never at War and its explanation for the DPT. Explain. Ultramarine 23:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I would prefer not to. I do not see any sign of an explanation in Never at War which is not already reflected in this article. Its scholarliness is also doubtful; any author who claims to have read both Italian and Tuscan (as though they were distinct) is a crank, and there appear to be several errors of historical fact and historiography; although this may well be Ultramarine's recurrent incompetence in reporting his source. Septentrionalis 17:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

As a general note, I will repeat: If Ultramarine wishes to add to the collaborative version, he is welcome to do so. I will not summarily revert such additions; I will consider them on their merits. Septentrionalis 17:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Modern Italian is not the same as Medieval Tuscan, although they are related, Tuscan has been slowly modified since at least Dante[49][50]. if you wish to criticize the results of the book, you should do so with sources.

Septentrionalis is of course free to edit the correct referenced versions and invited to do so, of course following NPOV and Verifiability. However, he is is violating Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy/Precedents#Neutral_point_of_view_.28and_associated_principles.29 and Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy/Precedents#Source_citations by removing well-referenced information by reverting to his incorrect and unreferenced versions. Ultramarine 20:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Never at War remains redundant. Septentrionalis 04:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Obviously false, presents another explanation for the DPT and the link has much new information. Ultramarine 15:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Obviously true of the book described in the PoV fork, or in Never at War. The only theory not made in Gurr and Rummell is the separate peace theory, which is the intro of the present text in boldface – despire Ultramarine's efforts to remove the text in question. It is of course entirely possible that Ultramarine has omitted to report some major point. Septentrionalis 19:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Obviously false, Septentrionalis version has no mention of an explanation based on a difference between ingroup or outgroup. Or of a difference regarding peace between democracies and oligarchies. Ultramarine 23:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

See the third sentence. I think this is quite enough for trite observations more than 2400 years old; but I have changed a few words for greater clarity. If Ultramarine chooses to expand the collaborative text, he knows where the edit button is.Septentrionalis 02:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

The separate peace hypothesis implies that wars between unlike regimes (democracy against non-democracy) are more probable.

General response

Except for the first, all of these changes propose to add back detail that was removed to form the shorter version. Furthermore, although much critical detail was also removed, none of it is to be added.

There is consensus against restoring the eye-glazing detail of the longer version. Furthermore, all of the actual points made by this partisan detail have been included in substance. To add back the detail on one side only would be imbalance.

This suffices. I hold that much of the matter proposed is also variously inaccurate, partisan, original research, a misunderstanding of sources, or special pleading for Rummelism - and I have suggested a means for discussing that at the end of #Totally Disputed Tag, but I do not need to discuss it here.

Nevertheless, the above section can be usefully quarried for individual points and sources. Septentrionalis 15:44, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

This is incorrect, my current version is very different from the earlier very long old version and has also added new facts. If you argue that there is content that is not in any of the most current versions that should be added, then please add it that to the discussion above or add it to your own version so I can see what it is. Please discuss the differences above instead of using a general dismissal that cannot be verified. Ultramarine 16:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Some of your statements are not supported by your own cited sources. As an example, you say, "A recent study indicates that both economically important trade and democracy contribute to peace and that they do so independently of each other." Mousseau goes on at great length about the three-way interaction: to say he considers the effects independent is flat-out inaccurate. Robert A West 17:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

My response is in the Trade section above. Ultramarine 17:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Merged Verison

Have gone through both articles and attempted a merge which can be seen at the moment. now here Having done so, I removed the two version tag though respect the right of any other author to re-instate this with their version if they feel that mine does not well represent a merger between the twoRobdurbar 11:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the sentence on Kant is inaccurate as it stands, since he specifically denied supporting "democracy" (although he meant what we call direct democracy). I will do a slight rewrite. [51] As always, feel free to reedit. Septentrionalis 15:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I also believe, having looked at this in more detail, that the present statement of criticisms is unintelligible without some example. I am therefore putting this short version of the history, which I accept, into the existing shorter version. Septentrionalis 15:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, after Septentrionalis edits this version is even worse than his earlier version. For example, he has deleted every criticism against Germany being a liberal democracy. I must therefore correct the Two-version template. Ultramarine 18:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

To quote exactly from the present text:

the Kaiser had the power to appoint his ministers, that he and the General Staff made the decision for war, as did Franz Josef in Austria-Hungary, and that many structural features of the Reich made democratic institutions ineffective.

(I think these are the key arguments against, and I have edited to make them more obvious. 22:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)) Septentrionalis 20:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

This is exactly the sought of petty debate that this article is suffering from. The point is that it is debated over whether germany was a democracy; whether it was or not is irrelevant. Ultramarine, also, I would like some feedback from you over how my edit has shown your point of view? Where do you think are the key disputes between yours and the other version? Robdurbar 21:46, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

It is relevant if Germany was a liberal democracy or not. I argue that the claim that it was ~~not~~ is weak when examined and that this should be presented. If only undisputed facts should be in wikipedia, then the article about Evolution should be removed. Regarding differences between versions, see "List of proposed changes" above, all of which still apply except "Kant". Ultramarine 14:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Did you add a not that you didn't mean? If it is a weak claim that Germany was a non-democracy, then WWI is a strong counterexample to DPT. Robert A West 20:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes. The "not" was added by mistake. Ultramarine 20:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I took the liberty of striking out the error, just for clarity of reading. Robert A West 20:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Request for comment

Have listed this page on the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics page, as this dispute has been going on too long Robdurbar 12:52, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Please be aware that there is an ongoing RfA involving this and other articles [52]. Ultramarine 14:12, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Statistical studies

Robdurbar's latest edit expands the statistical section. Reading it, I observe that the first paragraph and part of the second are largely redundant with the section "Claims" above, and should probably be combined into it. Septentrionalis 16:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Go for it! Robdurbar 18:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Done. I suppose there will be cries of outrage about the description of the neural net paper; but that is what it says, and "Kantian" is a direct quote. Septentrionalis 23:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Version conflict

Since Ultramarine has conducted edit wars on Criticisms of communism and Vladimir Lenin, and then called for page protection with "his version uppermost", it may be worthwhile to state here what I believe to be the case:

Ultramarine's edits have so far represented a private fork of this article, with the clear tendency to make it a defense of one particular DPT; for details, see this talk page and the RfC and RfAr about him. Robdurbar produced a shorter version, of which Robert West and I have approved on this page. He is now merging parts of Ultramarine's edits in, with the assistance of the other two of us.

For Corax's, Michael Hardy's, and Mel Etitis's deprecation of the PoV nature of Ultramarine's edits, see the archives. Septentrionalis 23:34, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Again numerous false statements and misrepresentations. I have never in my requests for page protection asked that my version should be uppermost, only that the Two-version template should be included. The other editors insisted on simply deleting the template and referenced facts contradicting their view. Only after the page protection has the factual discussion started again, showing that the protection was necessary. Comments by other editors made months ago are not relevant anymore. For details about some of the current differences, see "List of proposed changes" above. Ultramarine 23:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

It is quite true that he has never been so foolhardy as to admit to WP:RfPP that this was his intention, but he threatened to do so on Criticisms of communism and pulled a last revert to his version immediately before it was protected. The claim that factual discussion ceased is a falsehood, as the edit history will show. Septentrionalis 17:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I was somehat wrong, factual discussions resumed after my counter-charges in the RFA, which was somewhat earlier. Ultramarine 07:53, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

This remains false. Ultramarine's complaints have been answered, once; and sometimes more than once. Repetitious whinging has often been ignored, however. I am glad to see that Ultramarine has at last considered that he may be mistaken. Septentrionalis 16:15, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I've actually now decided to give up trying to edit this page, the fun and interest has been drained from it by the numerous petty debates going on within the article. I'd like to think i've helped reduce the unwieldyness of the article and find common ground in certain places, but don't feelt aht I can be much more help here Robdurbar 08:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that; would you consider doing one more compromise edit before you go? Septentrionalis 13:55, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Factual accuracy

Septentrionalis has added a template that my version contains factual inaccuracies. Please explain why. I will however add one to his version, as it contains factual inaccuracies discussed in "List of proposed changes" above. Ultramarine 00:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Several of them are the same inaccuracies I have been protesting for months now; but I have marked a number of the weirder ones. When not followed by in-line comment, please refer to the archives - usually this is the same sentence I object to there. I may have omitted to mark the exttemely tendentious account of the Hungarian revolution, but I dare Ultramarine to insert it in that article and see what happens to it. Septentrionalis 02:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

The wording of the template is that there are disputes about factual accuracy = a measurably different claim. Septentrionalis 02:23, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Please list criticisms in the "List of proposed changes", it is impossible to have a discussion using inline comments in the text. Also, try to use factual arguments instead of simply stating "nonsense". Several of your claims are very strange, it is "peacockery" to call Jack Levy a scholar? Many of your claims have never been discussed in the talk pages. Possible arguments that are in the achieve should be moved to the current discussion since there should not be further edits in the achieve. Therefore, I will remove the inline claims and ask that you discuss criticisms in the discussion pages, as usual in Wikipedia. I will however keep the template on factual inaccuracy to give you time to make your points, if any, on the talk page. Ultramarine 06:04, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

You have removed the template on factual inaccuracies on your own version. You seem to argue that one possible factual inaccuracy need not have a template. There is no such rule regarding the template. And there is not one factual inaccuracy in your version. There are factual inaccuracies regarding at least votes of confidence in Germany, on "substantial" economic development, and on Palmerston, as noted in "List of proposed changes" above. Ultramarine 06:04, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Why DPT is good and useful

Democratic peace theory has been developed sepatately from democratisation theory,, and that was misleading. There appears to be more inclination now to look at them together. Taken together - historical examples of democratisation and the DPT - they are the best evidence for the 'militant democracy' thesis, That is approximately, that democracies are externally oriented ideological states, comparable to revolutionary Islamic states such as early post-revolution Iran. Exporting the 'democratic revolution' is, in this thesis, an inherent quality of democracy, and the neoconservative position on that issue simply reflects their better understanding of democracy. That should be uncontroversial, but of course it is fatal for the image of moral superiority. If this article - and DPT discussions in general - was concerned less with the noble image of democracy, and more with historical realities, then DPT can take its proper place in political theory as an argument against democracy.Ruzmanci 12:57, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

See my response regarding this on Talk:Democracy#War for democracy Ultramarine 14:09, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

New intro

Hopefully this intro will result in a clearer article, by explaining to those unfamiliar with DPT, what all the shadow-boxing is about. It is accurate, and highly relevant, to point out that the theory is politically loaded, and is widely assumed to be an argument for democracy, for western values, and not least, for the United States. In other words, the right assumes it is a right-wing theory, although the actaul research does not warrant that assumption - apart from the logical fallacy about lack of war proving superiority of regimes. Margaret Thatcher and George Bush are among those who quoted DPT, and aparently their fans assume that they have to 'defend' the theory, and that is what is going on on this page. A lot of wasted effort would be spared, by making the politics explicit, and that is what the new intro does. Here it is, in case someone has deleted it:

The democratic peace theory or simply democratic peace (often DPT and sometimes democratic pacifism) is a theory in political science which originally held that democratic states - specifically, liberal democracies - never or almost never go to war with one another. Monadic versions of the theory tend to be more oriented to political philosophy, and to emphasise the internally peaceful nature of democracies. More general theories developed from the monadic version claim that all systematic violence is rare within, and between, democracies. Dyadic versions, usually statistical analyses of historical data sets, also take into consideration wars between democracies and non-democracies, and for comparison, wars between non-democracies.
The theory is highly controversial, and the findings of individual studies are often vigorously disputed. Most of that controversy has arisen from the misuse of the theory, especially dyadic versions, to suggest that democracies are objectively better than non-democracies. There is no logical or ethical basis for this belief: Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy never went to war with each other, but that is not an argument for a world of fascist dictatorships. Nevertheless, the democratic peace theory is used as an argument for western cultural superiority, and for democratisation, even by force. Crude versions of democratic peace theory have been quoted by political leaders, as an argument for wars of democratisation. For these reasons, democratic peace theory was until recently seen as a pro-western and pro-democracy theory, reflecting historicist ideas about the inevitable global triumph of western values. However, disappointment about the results of some post-Soviet democratisations, increasing scepticism about forced democratisation, and opposition to the occupation of Iraq have eroded support for the assumption of inherent superiority of democracy. More recent dyadic versions of the democratic peace theory also seek theoretical explanations for wars by democracies against non-democracies, including the 'militant democracy' thesis, which reverses the original expectations that democracies are more peaceful than non-democracies.

Please don't insert comments in the middle of the text above, keep them separate.

Please read Wikipedia:verifiability and Wikipedia: cite sources. I will remove your claims unless you have sources for them. Ultramarine 13:09, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

See "Monadic and dyadic theory" and "War for democracy" in "List of proposed changes" above where I have added your claims. Ultramarine 21:24, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I regard monadic and dyadic peace theories as a possibly preferable, although rather odd (Leibnitz's monads don't have foreign relations), way of putting Doyle's distinction between strong and weak DPTs. I think it can be usefully combined with the discussion of Doyle below - and would be more likely to do so if Ultramarine were not perpetually demanding attention for his latest mare's nest. I have adjusted the phrasing; Ultramarine is also, of course, free to edit the collaborative version. Septentrionalis 18:23, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I have answered in the sections described above. Ultramarine 19:21, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

PoV

It may assist a meeting of the minds if I state my opinion of DPT frankly; Ultramarine appears to misunderstand that also. This section, however, is entirely PoV OR, of course.

Some DPT is probably true.
- Given the noise of human history, and the limitations of a non-experimental science, we may not have enough data to prove that.
- We almost certainly do not have enough data to say which DPTs are true.
Rummel's DPT is not representative of the mass of theories
- It relies on Democracy alone, and not on the other Kantian variables
- It makes the very strong claim that mutual democracy is sufficient to produce peace.
It is particularly unlikely to be confirmed
- Rummel includes two arbitrary parameters in his claim.
  - Therefore it needs more data to confirm it than a theory without them
- It is unlikely, in the foreseeable future, to gather more data on the interrelation of democracies, unconfounded with GATT (as "hospitality") on one hand, and the UN and other international organizations on the other.
- Rummel's preferred mechanism, the "social fields" and "anti-fields" are unobservables.
  - It is also deeply historicist; since the fields control the human will to follow the dynamic of history.
- Even Rummel's retrospective claims require vast amounts of special pleading in order to hold.
  - That special pleading, and other insistances on Rummellism, make up much of the PoV material that Ultramarine insists on including.
A scientist, like Rummel can be, should not dress up as Prophet and Revelator of Truth.
- Whatever Nietzsche may have gotten wrong, he accurately described such a Prophet's followers.

Septentrionalis 19:28, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Again, Rummel is only one of many researchers. Here is a list with hundreds of sources regarding the DPT [53]. Regarding your objections and original research, you should try to publish them outside Wikipedia and not delete peer-reviewed studies simply because they do not fit with Marxist theory. Ultramarine Ultramarine 19:39, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I have seen Rummel's bibliogrphy before, of course;
It supplies the chief evidence that there is not one DPT, but dozens, if not hundreds.
Ultramarine is clearly incapable of recognizing a Marxist - or, in my case, an anti-Marxist - when he sees one. Septentrionalis 20:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- I am not an -ist; not a Romanist, Marxist, Objectivist, or Scientologist.
  - It is a sign of the constrictions of Ultramarine's imagination that he should think me one; but then he's a Rummellist.
- To the best of my knowledge and belief, Mr. West is a Christian Democrat. Septentrionalis 22:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

The point about DPT is that is also shows that democracies fight wars. If no democracy ever fought a war, then even on R. J. Rummel's statistics, there would be less wars. To my knowledge, no DPT researcher ever tried to claim, that no democracy ever fought a war. Of course their governments usually claim that the other side started it, but that is standard behaviour in wartime. Since DPT (as a body of theory) does now include hypotheses that democracies are more agressive than non-democracies, its status as alleged objective proof of the superiority of democracy is no longer relevant. It comes down to which study you quote. It would make more sense to describe who is quoting what and for what purpose - for instance Rummel's libertarianism and anti-statism, and neo-conservative regime-change advocacy. The reader can then place the statistical and definitional disputes in context.Ruzmanci 09:56, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

You as usual have no sources and make false statements. From the article which have sources "democracies are overall slightly less involved in war, initiate wars and MIDs less frequently than nondemocracies, and tend more frequently to seek negotiated resolutions". Ultramarine 10:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Docta ignorantia

Ultramarine is truly eclectic in his accumulation of error. His edit summary on Athens is seriously mistaken. The tyranny of Demetrius of Phalerum was overthrown by Demetrius Poliorcetes; and the democratic politician Chremonides freed the city from Macedonia. There were many ups and downs, but the war against Rome was begun under Athenion, an elected leader. (Whether Aristion was a tyrant depends in large part on taking Livy's word on Rome's enemies; always a questionable proceeding.) See Oxford Classical Dictionary or Pauly-Wissowa.

Of course, he could try editing the consensus version, which does not mention Athens. Septentrionalis 03:06, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

See my answer here [54]. Ultramarine 04:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Reference style

Ultramarine consistently cites sources in the form "Gleiditsch [sic] (1995) ". This form of shorthand reference is intended to disambiguate between items in a bibliography, papers by Gleditsch from different years. While a wiki ought to take the trouble to do this by direct links, this method is acceptable. However, when no paper by Gleditsch, say, appears in the bibliography, this gives the appearance of reference without the substance. Most of Ultramarine's "improvements" to his PoV fork have had this defect.

I see that some traces of this cargo cult version of scholarship still linger in the consensus version. This will be fixed. Septentrionalis 12:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is evidence that Septentrionalis does not even read what he reverts. My version no longer uses this references style. Ultramarine 16:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Quite true; I just read the diffs. I have, after all, read the main body of Ultramarine's ill-written special pleading both when I edited it and when Robdurbar trimmed it. Since Ultramarine's additions of a sentence or two a day almost invariably tend to make it more advocative, I doubt I've missed much. Septentrionalis 17:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I have since done so; I did miss the game theory paper, and have retrieved it. Otherwise the advocacy and inconsistent argumentation continue. I hope that Ultramarine pays "liberal democracy" extra, as Humpty-Dumpty would; certainly it is due some compensation for the treatment it receives. See #Is Rummellism a science, below. Septentrionalis 19:32, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Bullet points

Where does Ultramarine get the delusion that bullet points are unencyclopedic?

Like much else in the WP armory, they exist to clarify; in the immediate case to clarify the distinctions between four classes of criticism of Rummellism, since unlike the consensus version, he acknowledges no other DPT.

I must, of course, assume that Ultramarine does not intend this change to obscure and deemphasize the criticisms of the dogma in which he so firmly believes; although it does have both effects. Septentrionalis 15:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

The supporting studies are not listed using a bullet list. I have previously removed another bullet list for definitions. Every single paragraph can be turned into a bullet list if one wants to, this doesn't mean that an encyclopedia should be a bullet list. Ultramarine 16:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

If Ultramarine chooses to believe that the previous state of the PoV fork was a bullet list, I cannot stop him. He is, however, mistaken. Septentrionalis 19:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Is Rummellism a science?

Both Ultramarine and (in some cases) Rummel himself treat the words liberal democracy in the postmodern manner of Humpty-Dumpty: "The question is who is to be master, that's all." In each case, they claim whatever is convenient for the theory, whether or not it is consistent with what they claim in other cases.

This is made possible by an adroit choice of sides in the essential paradox of government:

To paraphrase Rousseau, every government is a new class; even Uri, Schwyz, and Unterwalden when the assembly is out of session.
Every government is a collective hallucination; it could disappear tomorrow if the people ceased to believe in it. (The Revolution of March 1917, and the dissipation of the Soviet Union are the best known cases of this. These both occurred in Russia, where the people are used to hallucinations. :-)

(Yes, there are better and worse governments all the same. Ultramarine will probably see a contradiction here too; but I can't help that. )

Early nineteenth century Belgium gave the vote to 5% of the male adult population; even among those they gave double votes to the wealthy and influential. But it's convenient to claim it as a liberal democracy, and so it is one.
Late nineteenth century Prussia had a more extensive gerrymander, but universal male suffrage; so it is a despotism.

1898 Spain couldn't possibly have been a democracy; it would spoil Rummel's soundbite.
- Does Ultramarine realize how much his position on Spain sounds like the Socialist Workers' Party on the "sham alternation of bourgeois parties"?
But Kuchma's Ukraine was a democracy, and an element of the world revolution.

In fact, Rummellism bears a strong resemblance to Trotskyism, in this and other matters. I think Nathaniel Hellerstein would call it para-Trotskyism: a system which accepts much of Trotsky's view of the world, but reverses his valuations. This may explain the assumption that any skeptic of the absolute truth of Rummellism must be a Marxist. Septentrionalis 16:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Publish your original research outside Wikipedia and do not delete peer-reviewed studies. Ultramarine 16:51, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

There is a remarkable condensation of claims in this short and uncivil sentence. But, for all its Dichtung, it does not achieve Wahrheit.

Ultramarine is not empowered to command his colleagues
Talk pages are not "publication".
No comment made above is original.
Peer-reviewed studies are not sacred; much peer review is comparable to surviving AfD. Many peer-reviewed articles are error-ridden, unreadable, or plain wrong. They are ignored, or repaired for book publication.
Wikipedia cannot, and should not attempt to be, complete in reviewing the literature on any subject. There is too much of it.

Septentrionalis 14:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Rot-13 vandalism

I see my edit summary has been curtailed. I will therefore state here that I will defend the PoV fork against vandalism, just as I would the version worked on by Robdurbar, Robert West, Ruzmanci, and myself. Septentrionalis 14:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

The Iroquois

Some clueless anon appears to have reverted to Ultramarine's last edit for the purpose of adding some historically incorrect sentences about the Iroquois. The expressed purpose for doing so is to deny the Iroquois enjoyed a democratic peace because they were at war with the French and the English. Of course, any dyadic DPT, such as Rummel's, would expect that the Iroquois would be at peace among themselves and at war with the English, and especially the French, monarchies, which Rummel expressly excludes from liberal democracy.

I have therefore not updated the 2v marker. Septentrionalis 22:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

The correct and referenced version

Please see the history of the main page for the correct referenced version. Unfortunately, it is continually reverted and replaced by an incorrect and unreferenced version. Ultramarine Ultramarine 20:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

This is the complaint of a lone editor, who wishes the article to be a panegyric of a particular DPT, contrary to WP policy. The correctness involved is almost entirely imaginary, since his version persistently misrepresents his own sources, as the above discussion will show. I believe this to be genuine difficulty in reading English, rather than malice or dishonesty; but it will not do. Septentrionalis 16:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Merged Version: Stop the Childishness

Right, Ive made another effort to both shorten the article and merge the two competing versions. Ive attempted to keep the general view points from both threads within the article, and maintain a logical, simple to undestand structure.

This version, at the moment, will be far from perfect, with repitions and some exclusions: however, please understand that it is an attempt to rationalise two overly-long and complex articles. To revert between these two is both childish, pointless and bad for Wikipedia.

I suggest archiving this rediculously long talk page and burying the hatchet over this article. If edits are made collabiratively to this merged version then a well-referenced, helpful article will soon emerge Robdurbar 17:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

One of the prior versions was already well-referenced. This version has deleted all the footnotes. In addition, it violates NPOV by deleting, for example, that studies show less democide and civil wars in democracies. I will therefore restore the prior well-referenced version. Please explain major changes and deletions on the talk pages before making them. Ultramarine 18:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Certainly. I have altered the section on monadic and dyadic theories, because I believe there are dyadic theories which do not make absolute peace claims. If Ultramarine wishes to add a sentence on civil wars and mass murder (preferably without the neologism democide, he should do so. Septentrionalis 19:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Ultramarine: the problem is, there was/is too much wrong with both yours and seprtronalises versions to discuss them on the talk page - the fact that this dispute has been ongoing for 6 months or so proves that. Im not going to enter this edit war so wont revert this attempted new version back on my own account. But instead of just reverting to your version, why not try to insert what you think are the most ignored and important points from your version; Spetentrionalis can do the same from his and we might reached a balanced and npov article, which is want everyone wants.

As for the civil war bit; I seriously considered leaving that part in, but it was the use of the word 'democide', which I didnt understand, in that paragraph that led me to leave it out.

Those two issues aside - do you feel that your views are well represented in this merged version? What would you like to be added to it/removed from it? How close to do you feel it is to a compromise? Similar question to Septentrionalis? Robdurbar 20:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

OK- Ive taken the comments of Ultramarine on board and made an updated version; the above comment still applies to both 'sides'. Robdurbar 20:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

It seems reasonably clear and NPoV, which are my chief requirements; not always what I would have said, but that's fine. I will have to take some time to consider whether every expression seems accurate, and which differences are worth arguing over. Septentrionalis 06:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Robdurbar, you claim that there is something wrong with correct and referenced version, but refuse to state what. As such your claims are uninteresting. See the arbitration case Workshop, point 6-8. Do not violate NPOV by removing well-referenced information from the article without any explanation. When you are deleting referenced information, it is certainly you, not I, who should explain exactly why. Do not include unverifiable original research, such as the "Political Use of the Theory" section. Like everyone else is expected, use arguments and sources. Ultramarine 09:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The information that I have included in this merged version can already be found in either the 'consensus version' or the 'correct and referenced version'; I have added nothing that was not already said there so cannot take responsibilty for unrefernced views from either. My view of Wikipedia (or at least, the way things seem to be done on most articles) is that refernces need only be provided for contested points; if an editor disagrees with a point he can raise the issue and either a) delete the point till a refernce is provided or b) ask for a refernce on the talk page, and change the article if one is not provided within a reasonable time limit.

The problem with the c & r version was: a) its length (a problem with both, btw); b) its over-emphasis on statistical studies c)The non-logical structuring of the second half of the article. Also, Ive not come accross an article with more refernces in the whole of Wikipedia, with 68 refernces, 9 further readings, 6 see alsos and 6 external links . A quick search of possible topics provides only one with more references, see alsos, further readings and external links put together (homosexuality, if you're interseted). Now, either a) the 'c & r version' is the best article on Wikipedia; b) Democractic Peace Theory is such a complex topic that it needs more refernces than, say, the articles on Islam, Water, Democracy, Christinaity, Aristotle and God; or c) There has been an over emphasis on referencing within an article that is too long.

I am attempting to build a well referenced version that does not go into too much depth, that does not present certain opinions over others and that does not favour the 'consensus version' or the 'correct and referenced version'. I admit that I am self-appointed in doing this and that no author has an obligation to work with me on it, particularly given the existence of the arbitration case. That said, for it to work, I need both Ultramarine adn Spetronanlisis (btw, I apologised about repeatedly miss spelled name) to help me. This means constructive criticism of the merged version - info on particular points that need including/excluding. Furthermore, it would have to accepted that at least 50% of each article will be deleted. If people will not work with me on this, I am happy to let you both go to back to your edit war and wait until one, or both of you, are restricted in your editing by the results of the arbitration case Robdurbar 11:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Your main arguments seem to be that the correct and referenced version has too many references. This is strange, references are encouraged, especially in controversial articles. That some articles have few references is a fault in them, not a reason to remove references in other articles. The article text itself it not that long, much of the length comes from the references list. If you still think that it is too long, it can be divided into separate articles. Wikipedia has hundreds of articles about Star Trek, arguably a much less important topic. Also, I think you misunderstand NPOV, "The policy of having a neutral point of view is not to hide different points of view, but to show the diversity of viewpoints. In case of controversy, the strong points and weak points will be shown according to each point of view, without taking a side. The neutral point of view is not a "separate but equal" policy." Thus, it wrong to state that each side must get 50% of the article in any merger. Ultramarine 12:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, that's quite a good idea. A 'Studies Concerning Democratic Peace Theory' article might be quite useful. It could also contain much of the info on the deabte between different definitions of 'democracy' and 'war' that is currently in the article. Robdurbar 12:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that seems to be a good idea. Another suggestion might a separate article for the section now called "Specific historic examples" in the correct and referenced version if you think that the discussion about specific wars it is too detailed for the current article. Ultramarine 13:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Well I think this article would be strongest with the mention of one war in reasonable detail, possibly WWI; then a breif mention of other conflicts that have been stuided as examples for/against DPT, with one or two papers referring to these in 'further readings' Robdurbar 13:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with such a short description in an overview article. I do think Wikipedia has place for an article called something like "Democratic peace theory (Specific wars and conflicts)" where these things can be discussed in more detail for those who are interested. The main article can include a link to this page with more detail, see Race and intelligence as an example. This allows both a brief overview for the causal reader and more detail for those who are interested Ultramarine 16:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

web_reference conversion

A consolidation of {{web_reference}} variants is under way. The following segment needs to be pasted over an obsolete part of "References":

^ "President and Prime Minister Blair Discussed Iraq, Middle East". Retrieved October 3, 2005.
^ "Conflict Data Set". Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. Retrieved October 3, 2005.
^ "Data". Peter D. Watson Center for Conflict and Cooperation. Retrieved October 3, 2005.
^ Wayman, Frank (2002). "Incidence of Militarized Disputes Between Liberal States, 1816-1992". Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, New Orleans, La., Mar. 23-27, 2002. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
^ Oneal, John R., and Bruce Russet (2004). "Rule of Three, Let it Be? When More Really Is Better" (PDF). Revised version of paper presented at the annual meeting of the Peace Science Society. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
^ Beck, Nathaniel, Gary King, and Langche Zend (2004). "Theory and Evidence in International Conflict: A Response to de Marchi, Gelpi, and Grynaviski" (PDF). American Political Science Review. 98(2): 379–389.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
^ Rummel, R.J. "The Democratic Peace". Freedom, Democracy, Peace; Power, Democide, and War. Retrieved October 2, 2005.

(SEWilco 15:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC))

Still not resolved?

It's been months now since this article has been beset with disputes. Are authors really so stubborn that they are still unable to come to some sort of agreement? Has this not been submitted to arbitration?

Some of you really just need to accept that wikipedia is not your presonal plaything, that you are not going to be able to dictate the content of articles down to the details and marks of punctuation, and that compromise is necessary -- not optional -- on wikipedia. Corax

New subarticles

As discussed with Robdurbar above, I have moved the section "Specific historic examples" to a new article. This improves the readability for the causal reader while allowing the more interested person to read more details in the other article. The same method is used in "Race and intelligence".

Similarly, I think that clarity would be improved be moving the material in "Statistical studies supporting the DPT" and "Causation is not correlation" to subarticles. Thoughts? Ultramarine 10:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah, good, unprotected agian. Bit busy personally at the mo but will be happy to collaborate in a day or two Robdurbar 11:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Archive and Remove Neutrality Tag?

Dare I say it, but since as there hasn't really been any talk on this page for about a month, and Septentrionalis appears to have buggered off, is there anyone need to: a) Keep the contested neturality tag? and b) Have this very long talk page? Perhaps archiving all this talk might encourage new contributors to visit the article

Robdurbar 09:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I think both suggestions are good. Ultramarine 21:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, well due to the long nature of this debate I hope we agree that 48 hours grace is reasonable; so that if there is no contention by 14 December, both of the above can take place Robdurbar 23:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)