Jump to content

Talk:Democratic peace theory/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 9

Untitled

Current status: This talk page is frequently archived to make it usable and to fit within the size limits. Current discussions may reference or continue issues raised on the archive, which interested readers may wish to consult. Last archive date: March 10, 2006.

Archive
Archives


Note to readers and peer-reviewers

Material on this talk page has been archieved without consensus. For now, in order to understand the templates, read the archieves. Ultramarine 03:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you again for stating the obvious. --Scaife (Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 03:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
And again, his idiosyncratic definition of consensus: if everyone but him agrees, it's not consensus.Robert A.West (Talk) 02:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Possible exceptions to "Well-established democracies have never made war on one another" 2

I am continuing my work on User:Ultramarine/Possible exceptions to "Well-established democracies have never made war on one another". I have included more conflicts as requested by other users. I will add more. Now I would like more explanations from the literature regarding which wars are claimed to be exceptions and why. I know Gowa's explanation for her two claimed exceptions which I will add.Ultramarine 21:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC) (Cf. Archive) --Scaife (Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 03:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

That the "literature" on this subject consists all too largely of people like Weart, who apply a cookbook knowledge of statistics to their ignorance of history, is no reason to exclude both from Wikipedia articles. I see no reason to assist, or acknowledge, a PoV fork in user space. Septentrionalis 21:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
This text is also substantially identical with the text proposed in #Possible exceptions to no wars between liberal democracies above; both are tendentious extracts from a handful of books within DPT. Ultramarine, if you want to conduct a blog on "Well-established democracies have never made war on one another", why don't you do that, instead of using WP as a free webhost? There are other webhosts, and many of them, including Rummel's, are free. I promise to link to it. Septentrionalis 22:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
This is of course meant to be an article eventually when we have found on a good version. A hope that you will in good faith work with me on this. Again, if you known any more claimed exceptions and the explanation for this from the literature, then please state this.Ultramarine 22:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
It is inherently arguing a point, which is unsuitable for Wikipedia, and I do not think it can be encyclopedic.
The explicit exceptions I know of can be found, with sources, in the footnores of the present paper. In addtion,many or most papers on the democratic peace say that full-scale wars between democracies are "rare" , "very rare or nonexistent"; few give details. On the other hand, very few say "none" or "non-existent".Septentrionalis

Ultramarine, why do you think that zero wars is important? There will still be a democratic peace if there are one or two exceptions. Maoz calmly asserts that the Spanish-American war is the only exception in the middle of a paper warmly defending his theory against Gowa. He doesn't bother to give any reason. Only you, and Weart, think zero, as opposed to very rare, matters. Septentrionalis 03:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

His words are:

we would expect to find a total of 57.63 liberal dyads [i.e dyad-years] at war. Instead we find only one: the Spanish-American War in 1898. The difference is very significant.

with a note acknowledging that he disagrees with Ray and his own previous paper. The only explanation for the change is that he has refined his coding for democracy over time. Septentrionalis 04:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is not very helpful for those trying to understand the arguments. Surely some of the opponents of the DPT must have tried to explain why some specific conflicts were wars between democracies? Ultramarine 08:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Maoz is not an opponent of democratic peace theory; he's a strong supporter. His theory differs, in this detail, from Ray's. So what? Septentrionalis 15:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

More papers

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

TIME TO ARCHIVE

Who's with me! --Scaife (Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 02:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Aye. The dispute tags up top and the list of papers immediately above should be kept; the lengthy discussion on possible exceptions should be copied to Talk:Never at War, to which it pertains. All else can be invoked by a link if it is reactivated. Septentrionalis 03:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Nice of you to ask, unlike earlier. I do of course oppose removing relevant sections and will them back if archieved.Ultramarine 03:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I was asking to avoid another stupid revert war, not out of any duty to you. Your comment is noted. --Scaife (Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 03:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I think establishing the general agreement to archive is more than a routine duty. Ultramarine, before your comment is noted and logged, which sections of this page, which you have not edited for more than a week, do you think are still being discussed?
This page is unacceptably long, and links of the form Talk:DPT/Archive 4#Section are trivial, and customary, to make - if any of those discussions revive. If, however, the entire page were to be brought back from archive, it would only be archived again. Septentrionalis 03:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I will add back the opening paragraphs from "Note to readers and peer-reviewers" and "Possible exceptions to "Well-established democracies have never made war on one another" if archieved.Ultramarine 03:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok I am archiving anything that hasn't been discussed since March 1, initially. --Scaife (Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 03:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for archiving. Robert A.West (Talk) 22:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed overview of the theory

Is here [1] and gives a fair overview, unlike the current article.Ultramarine 03:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

WHAT??! Ray is not a fair overview, he is a Rummel clone. Please try and check your POV at the door. This is an encyclopaedic endevour not a blog. --Scaife (Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 03:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Ray wrote a polemic. He does cite several, then current, papers in the process. I believe all of them are included (where not duplicative) in the present text. Chan's 1994 paper contains a better overview, as do either of Gleditsch's cited papers.Septentrionalis 05:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality and factual accuracy

Note that no agreement has been reached on an issue unless clearly stated.Ultramarine 02:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

1

  • POV and factualy incorrect "A couple of the advocates of perfect democratic peace have examined the rather extensive record of wars and lesser conflicts between "primâ facie democracies".[63]. They conclude that no democracy has gone to war with another, unless: One of the democracies perceives the other as a non-democracy. [64] There is a war of secession; and, as often, a peace party has severe difficulty remaining within the laws of the attempted secession [65] One democracy tolerates feuds among its citizens[66] One democracy is controlled by entrenched politicians, corruptly or otherwise.[67] The democracy has a limited citizen body[68] Ambitious generals or unelected Commanders-in-Chief have substantial influence on civilian decision-making.[69]. There is any other body of domestic opinion pleased by this particular war.[70] In most of these cases, the investigators declare that the blemished state is no real democracy; compare the no true Scotsman problem[71]. The blemished belligerent is often a new regime; always so, in the case of wars of secession. Some examples considered involve a small number of battlefield deaths, and so are counted as lesser conflicts. [72]"" For a correct description of the criteria used, see User:Ultramarine/Possible exceptions to "Well-established democracies have never made war on one another"Ultramarine 17:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
    • No difference of substance. "Primâ facie democracy" is a quote from Ray, as cited, and the reasons for exclusion are identical with those in Ultramarine's prolix examination of the wars individually. Septentrionalis 18:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
      • The text criticized accurately and succinctly describes the methodology, is properly sourced, and raises a cogent, and sourced, objection (the "No true Scotsman problem"). I see no valid NPOV challenge and no valid accuracy issue. Some of these exclusions fit common sense definitions unrelated to DPT, some do not. Since the term, "Democracy" exists outside of DPT, the fact that some DPT researchers are using finely-tuned distinctions should be brought out and not hidden. Robert A.West (Talk) 02:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

2

3

  • POV:Only arguments from one side "His treatment of Greek history has been severely criticized; he omits the wars of the Roman Republic altogether." The counter-arguménts are excluded, see Never at War.Ultramarine 17:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
    • His treatment of Greek history has been severely criticized. He does omit all mention of Rome, even the Social War and the wars with the Greek city-states. It doesn't even appear in his index. [N.B. it's hidden on p. 297,if anybody cares. 23:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)] Septentrionalis 18:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Also, from 3 footnotes: "His account of Greek history relies largely on conjecture. He omits several wars between oligarchic republics, including the recurrent ones between Sparta and Argos, and the Lelantine War. He excludes the earlier wars of Rome, including the Punic Wars, on the grounds that the sources are dubious; yet he uses Xenophon, who has also been doubted. Also, modern classicists agree (and we have non-Roman evidence in Aristotle) that Rome and Carthage were oligarchic republics, "which suggests that excluding them was a largely arbitrary judgment that just happened to leave Weart's central claim intact." Stephen M. Walt. "Never Say Never: Wishful Thinking on Democracy and War". Foreign Affairs (January/February 1999). Another footnote: "The possibility that the Athenians were wrong suggests a qualification to our rule. Instead of saying that well-established democracies do not make war on their own kind, perhaps we should say that they do not make war on other states they perceive to be democracies. This is an important point, to which we shall return." Weart Pp. 33-34. There is no ancient evidence for this perception, and our major source on Syracusan democracy is Thucydides, the Athenian. Eric Robinson. "Response to Spencer Weart". Journal of Peace Research (Vol. 38, No. 5. (Sep., 2001)): 615-617. The chief passage from Thucydides is 6.32-41, particularly 6.39, in which Thucydides has the Syracusan democrat Athenagoras praising the constitution of his country." Another footnote: " Weart, p.34 on the Sicilian Expedition. This unevidenced conjecture is criticized in reviews by the classicist Richardson and the democratic peace theorist John M. Owen." Again, none of the 3 footnotes mention the counter-arguments, see Never at War. Ultramarine 21:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
        • There are no "counter-arguments"; these are reviews of Weart's arguments, written after they were published. The reviewers are correct: Weart's chapter on classical antiquity does consist of conjectures, is based on theory rather the evidence, and demonstrates his ignorance of events before Marathon and after the archonship of Euclides. Septentrionalis 01:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

4

Alexander Wendt, "Social Theory of International Politics" (Cambridge: Cambridge, 1999), 68; chapter 5 passim.

A Google scholar search gives 0 hits for "Kantian triad" and neoliberalism. "Kantian peace" and neoliberalism give 15 hits, none showing that the concept is used by neoliberalists. On the other hand, it is certainly one theory within liberalism. The text should be corrected. Ultramarine 19:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • In short, Ultramarine can't be bothered to read an explicitly cited source. The scraps of quotation in scholar.google.com are no substitute; and would be none if its database were complete. Septentrionalis 19:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

5

  • POV:Excluded "Many earlier papers found that democracies in general are as warlike as nondemocracies, but according to several recent papers democracies are overall slightly less involved in war, initiate wars and MIDs less frequently than nondemocracies, and tend more frequently to seek negotiated resolutions.[3]"Ultramarine 17:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Almost entirely redundant with the next passage complained of under #6. Account of monadic DPT's could use more work, but that does not justify POV tag. Septentrionalis 18:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
      • That studies have found that democracies are less peaceful in general is certainly not the same as the findings regarding MIDs between democracies. POV to exclude these findings. Ultramarine 01:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
        • I agree that more needs to be said on the monadic theories. It is up to Ultramarine whether my time spent on DPT is spent saying it, or engaged in answering his vain repetitions of the same complaints. Septentrionalis 01:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
          • More has been said on this subject; but every claim here made can be located by finding Müller and Wolff 2004 in the notes, and reading the referenced text. It does appear several times; this may be Ultramarine's difficulty. Septentrionalis 06:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

6

  • Factually incorrect "Studies have also argued that lesser conflicts (Militarized Interstate Disputes in the jargon) between democracies have been more violent; but rare, less bloody, and less likely to spread." Incorrect, this is what the paper found "When examining these MIDs in more detail, the inter-liberal disputes have on the average more hostility, but are less likely to involve third parties, hostility is less likely to be reciprocated, when reciprocated the response is usually proportional to the provocation, and the disputes are less likely to cause any loss of life.[4]"Ultramarine 18:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

7

  • POV:Excluded"Enduring militarized competition between democratic states is rare. After both states have become democratic, there is a decreasing probability for MIDs within a year and this decreases almost to zero within five years.[5]"Ultramarine 18:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Trivial. Include it if you like; it will be edited. Septentrionalis 18:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
      • "Hensel finds that almost all lesser conflicts between two democracies involve one less than five years old." Worse than the original text. The gradual improvement in probability is still excluded. "lesser conflicts" is not well defined, could include for example purely diplomatic disputes. Ultramarine 03:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

8

  • POV:Excluded "In international crises that include the threat or use of military force, if the parties are democracies, then relative military strength has no effect on who wins. This is different from when nondemocracies are involved. This pattern is the same for both allied and nonallied parties.[6]"Ultramarine 18:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Lie; see reference to Gelpi in notes and text there referenced. Septentrionalis 18:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
      • You refer to this "if this pattern were true of all democracies, the results of military crises between them would largely depend on their relative strength. A more recent study denies this [59]; lesser powers, however, tend to avoid war altogether[60])" This is misleading, Gelpi's study did examine this: "It is well documented that major powers are disproportionately involved in military conflict (Bremer 1992), but many of the major powers between 1918 and 1994 were democratic. To ensure that the results in Table 4 were not an artifact of these two patterns, we performed an analysis on the 236 crises in our data set that were exclusively between minor powers and the 35 crises that were exclusively between major powers. The results were identical in all cases." Ultramarine 04:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

9

  • Factually incorrect "The militant democracy theory divides democracies into militant and pacifist types. Militant democracies have a tendency to distrust and use confrontational policies against dictatorships; which could actually make war more likely between a democracy and a non-democracy than in the case of relations between two non-democracies" Correct: "A recent theory is that democracies can be divided into "pacifist" and "militant". While both avoid attacking other democracies, "militant" democracies have a tendency to distrust and use confrontational policies against dictatorships. Most MIDs by democracies since 1950 have involved only four nations: the United States, the United Kingdom, Israel, and India.[7][8]"Ultramarine 18:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

10

  • POV:Exclusion supporting studies and misleading presentation of supporting study "Singer and Small explained Babst's original observation by observing that many democracies are far away from each other, and that war tend very strongly to be between neighboring states. Gleditsch has partly answered this by showing that the average distance between democracies is about 8000 miles, the same as the average distance between all states. As he observes, few states can project power anywhere near that distance; Vanuatu and Iceland may be expected to be at peace, whatever their regimes." Correct and npov: "Critics have argued that few democracies mean that they are geographically isolated and thus unable to make war with one another. As described above, several of the studies finding evidence for the DPT have controlled for this. One study has demonstrated that democratic pairs of nations have not been more geographically separated than non-democratic pairs.[9]"Ultramarine 18:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

11

  • Factually incorrect "Democracies, he asserts, have never had a full-scale war; the only exceptions between oligarchies are in trecento Italy." Spencer's exceptions between oligarchies is a conflict in Schwitzerland in 1656 and possible the War of the Pacific. Ultramarine 18:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
    • The battles between Italian oligarchic republics were the only ones of their kind in the history of the world. p. 42, second paragraph. Is Weart incapable of saying what he means, or does he simply not care about consistency?
    • If page references are supplied for the other two instances cited, all three may be incorporated in the article. Septentrionalis 00:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
      • He aruges that all the Italian city-states were proto-republics until ca 1350-1380, lacking centralized governmental authority and had frequent internal violent fighting such as vendettas. Even so, he notes that they usually did not fight one another. This war is an exception. Still, these states were not well-established republican oligarchies. (p. 300) The two exceptions he states can be found in the index under Bern vs Lucerne and War, Chile vs. Peru. Ultramarine 00:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

12

13

  • POV: Arguments and studies excluded "There are also some difficulties in the application of statistical methods to the problem, especially to question of causation." Many studies and arguments mentioned here excluded: "Supporters of the DPT do not deny that other factors affect the risk of war but argue that many studies have controlled for such factors and that the DPT is still validated. Examples of factors controlled for are contiguity, power status, alliance ties, militarization, economic wealth and economic growth, power ratio, and political stability. Studies have also controlled for reverse causality from peace or war to democracy.[10][11][12][13][14][15]"Ultramarine 18:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Lie: all those papers and their arguments are included:
    Many papers have studied the multiple correlations involving peace or war. For example, Stuart Bremer[43] did a sutdy of seven variables traditionally expected to produce peace or war. He found that six of them had a genuine effect, independent of all the others, in predicting whether a given pair of states were likely to go to war or not. Mutual democracy was fourth of these, behind the existence of a common boundary (which predicts war), an alliance between the two states, and higher than average wealth per head (both of which predict peace).
  • Ray collected a dozen such studies showing that democracy has some statistically significant correlation with peace, "even after controlling for a large number of factors" (not, of course, all controlled simultaneously); including economic interdependence, membership in international organizations, contiguity, power status, alliance ties, militarization, economic wealth and economic growth, power ratio, and political stability. [44]
  • It has also been suggested that democracies rarely fight wars because war, or impending war, tends to destroy democracy. (Such an effect should mean that surviving democracies fight nobody; which would be a monadic theory.) Mousseau and Shi studied all states, inquiring whether the onset of war decreased democracy, either temporarily or permanently, and found most wars had no significant effect, but some did. [86]
and notes. Observe that the list of controlled factors is identical. Septentrionalis 01:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
These studies are not included in the discussions regarding causality, the current text gives the impression that there is no evidence at all regarding this. Nor is the observation regarding reverse causality mentioned or that controlling for many possible factors can increase the evidence for causality.Ultramarine 01:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Since correlation is not causality, most of them should not be. I am pleased to see that Ultramarine bothered to look at the footnotes after posting, and retracted this defamatory edit.
  • Mousseau and Shi's paper increases the (relative) evidence for causality by knocking down the proposed counter-explanation. The knocking down is duly explained. I believe that we have the right to assume the reader has more intelligence than a houseplant. Septentrionalis 01:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
If you disagree with what the peer-reviewed article says, publish your own. The earlier mentioned arguments regarding causation should be included, including that several studies have controlled for reverse causality. Your description of one of these studies, Mousseau and Shi's paper, is very misleading: "Mousseau and Shi studied all states, inquiring whether the onset of war decreased democracy, either temporarily or permanently, and found most wars had no significant effect, but some did." Ultramarine 04:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
That is what Mousseau means by "reverse causality". I see no reason for this article to include every piece of jargon ever inflicted on the field. Septentrionalis 17:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

14

15

  • POV: Counterarguments excluded "The Human Security Report, released in October 2005 by the Human Security Centre, documents the dramatically decline in warfare and civil wars since the end of the Cold War. It claims that the two main causes are the end of the Cold War itself and decolonization; but claims also the underlying force of all the articles of the Kantian triad, noting that each has contributed materially." Excluded is that the report makes many claims without support but instead states "Part V of this report reviews some of the findings that will be presented in greater detail in the Human Security Report 2006." The only argument it present against democracy being the explanation for the dramatic decline is that both democratic and intermediately democratic regimes have increased; and that intermediately democratic regimes may be more prone to civil wars. Ultramarine 18:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
    • The HSR is a summary of work of which the details are published separately or not at all. So are many, probably most, of the papers in the bibliography, of all points of view. To say it of one, because Ultramarine doesn't like the conclusions, would be dishonest. Septentrionalis 00:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

16

  • Factually incorrect "She also finds that there were only independent, non-allied, Great Powers for a relatively short time before the Entente Cordiale of 1904; and that there were several crises and minor conflicts, between them, in several of which war was popular on both sides. While war was averted in these cases, there was only one war between Powers in that period, and the Spanish-American War was between a democracy and a borderline democracy." Gowa's discussion about "Great Powers" in chapter 5 was only intended to intuitively show that alliances are a good indicator of that state interests coincide. The DPT is not a "Great Power" peace theory and Gowa did include all states, Great or small, in chapter 6 when doing a statistcal analyses of alliances. A correct presentation would be that Gowa argues that alliances were rare between democracies before 1914 which she argues is an argument against the theory. Ultramarine 19:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
    • No factual error in text. Gowa is not the only source for the argument that Great Power status predicts involvement in war; and I have added another. This article is not the place, and does not have room, for a complete summary of Gowa's 114 pages. Septentrionalis 00:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Gowa's argument should be presented correctly. Also, your description of Gowa does not state "that Great Power status predicts involvement in war" but is something unclear of unknown relevance for the DPT about non-allied Great Powers and short time. Another also, that Great Power status predicts involvement in war is not an argument against the DPT, democratic Great Powers may well be involved in many wars with nondemocracies without attacking democracies.Ultramarine 05:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

17

18

  • Factually incorrect "Separate peace theories claim that democracies are more likely to go to war with non-democracies than non-democracies are with each other" Correct: "Majority opinion has it that democracies are more peaceful towards each other than any other type of state dyad, but that democracies are as warlike as anybody else in general; this dual finding is called “the separate peace”.[17]" Ultramarine 20:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

19-withdrawn

  • Factually incorrect "For example, Rummel classifies 155 of the wars since Waterloo as between democracies and non-democracies, 198 as between non-democracies. Given the limited number of democracies he acknowledges, democracies -in his sense of the word- have gone to war more often than other states, but not with each other." Rummel has not stated that "democracies have gone to war more often than other states". Ultramarine 20:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

20

  • POV:Misleading description and factually incorrect "Other Kantians do not expect the democratic peace to include undeveloped states; they find that mutual democracy does not have any pacific effect if either of the democracies is poor - in fact the chance of war increases. Naturally, the pacific effect still exists, but is lessened, for countries with less severe poverty." Do not mention that most nations pass this criteria. "One study indicates that independently of trade, democracy is not a significant factor unless both of the democracies have a GDP/capita of at least 1400 USD. This level is quite low and 91% of all the democratic pairs passed this criteria during the 1885–1992 period and all in 1992. Still, higher economic development than this makes the effect of democracy stronger. Low economic development may hinder development of liberal institutions and values.[18]"Ultramarine 21:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Lie: The present text says, in the text referring to that very paper: Naturally, the pacific effect still exists, but is lessened, for countries with less severe poverty. [62] It may well be that the culture of democracy is distorted by the stresses of poverty; the degree required to cancel or reverse the effects of the democratic peace is that of Zimbabwe - a misery unknown among democracies when the paper was written. The existence of non-democratic nations as poor as Ziombabwe is largely irrelevant to the democratic peace. Septentrionalis 00:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Your text is written like this is an opinion and does not mention what the study actually states: "This level is quite low and 91% of all the democratic pairs passed this criteria during the 1885–1992 period and all in 1992." In addition, see below.Ultramarine 00:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Another lie. The level of Zimbzbwe is more vivid than "low", and the fact that every democracy passed it at the base date of the study is mentioned. Septentrionalis 02:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Again, your text is written like this is an opinion. The "[62]" indicates that this is an opinon not mentioned in the study. The text regarding Zimbabwe is very unclear, there no mention of GDP/capita, only "misery" that can be anything. Compare to: "One study indicates that independently of trade, democracy is not a significant factor unless both of the democracies have a GDP/capita of at least 1400 USD. This level is quite low and 91% of all the democratic pairs passed this criteria during the 1885–1992 period and all in 1992. Still, higher economic development than this makes the effect of democracy stronger. Low economic development may hinder development of liberal institutions and values.[19]" Ultramarine 02:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
            • I see that Ultramarine has not bothered to read footnote 62: Less than $1400/head; see Mousseau et al. 2003, other papers by Mousseau, and Hegre 2003Septentrionalis 17:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
              • That the text about Zimbabwe comes after the footnote gives the impression that this is an opinon not mentioned in the study. Also, the study uses MIDs, not wars, so the text is factually incorrect. Ultramarine 05:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Text cited does not mention "wars". Does Ultramarine really regard a small conflict as a form of peace? If he wants the footnote moved, he should do so. Septentrionalis 17:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Factually incorrect See above. "the degree required to cancel or reverse the effects of the democratic peace is that of Zimbabwe - a misery unknown among democracies when the paper was written." The existence of non-democratic nations as poor as Ziombabwe is largely irrelevant to the democratic peace. Zimbabwe has a higher GDP/capita than 1400 USD according to the CIA which was also used in the study.[20] Ultramarine 00:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
    • The comparison to Zimbabwe is made by the paper cited. Go argue with Mousseau if you think the difference between "at least as poor as Zimbabwe" and "poorer than Zimbabwe" is worth worrying about.
    • <The next time Ultramarine divides the discussion of a single text between two of these misnumbered points, I shall consolidate them. A comprehensible discussion is worth a temper tantrum. Septentrionalis 00:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Merged. Septentrionalis 02:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Real merge.Ultramarine 02:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

21

  • Factually incorrect and POV:Misleading description "Many democratic peace theories do not count conflicts as wars which do not kill a thousand on the battlefield; thus neither the bloodless Cod Wars nor wars which kill large numbers of civilians (such as the Partition of 1947 or the Yugoslav wars of the 1990's) violate them. In some such cases, the democracy of one or both belligerents is also disputable." Misleading description, these wars are excluded primarily because of lacking democracy/new democracy less than 3 years old, not because of few battle deaths. Many of the Yugoslav wars had more than 1,000 battle deaths. See User:Ultramarine/Possible exceptions to "Well-established democracies have never made war on one another". Ultramarine 23:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
    • That is a reason given for exclusion of wars by the adherents of a perfect democratic peace; and the wars listed are excluded for that reason; in the case of the Cod War, there are no others. If Ultramarine wishes to list them under other appropriate footnotes, he should feel free to do so; it is a strategy question whether those footnotes should attempt to be exhaustive, and therefore exhausting. Septentrionalis 00:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Obviously pov that the arguments of one side should be hidden in the footnotes and that of the other side in the man text. The text is still factually incorrect, many of Yugoslav wars had more than 1,000 battle deaths. None of these wars are primarily excluded because of few battle deaths but for other reasons as noted above. Ultramarine 00:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

22

What does Ultramarine have against 22? Septentrionalis 06:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I would still appreciate an answer to this question.Septentrionalis 06:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, There is nothing called "Rummellism". Ray, the author of the article, uses a different definition for democracy than Rummel. If you with "Rummellism" means no wars between liberal demcracies, then a better neologism would be "Babstism" since it was Babst first claimed evidence for this.Ultramarine 05:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

23

  • Factually incorrect "In March 2006, there are several potential crises between arguable democracies. The Palestinian Authority and the Islamic Republic of Iran, for example, have held elections for some years, with universal suffrage, and these have removed incumbents from power; so they satisfy the formal or quantitative requirements of most theories of the democratic peace. Their adherence to democratic norms of conduct and civil liberties, however, is far more doubtful; and the anomalous position of the Supreme Leader in Iran raises more questions." Iran is one of the least democratic nations in the world.[22] Would certainly not pass for example Rummel's "where there is freedom of speech, religion, and organization; and a constitutional framework of law to which the government is subordinate and that guarantees equal rights."[23] Ultramarine 01:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

24

  • Factually incorrect Kantian theorists regard mutual democracy as a necessary but not sufficient condition for peace";. State nothing of this sort. The modern Kantian theory argues that democracy, more trade causing greater economic interdependence, and membership in more intergovernmental organizations are positively related to each other; but that each has an independent pacifying effect. Ultramarine 01:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Doyle says explicitly that democracy is a necessary condition for long-term free trade and stable membership in international organizations, loc cit. If evidence that other Kantians disagree with him on this is presented, wording can be refined. Septentrionalis 01:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

25

  • Original research "However that may be, 2006 has provided one refinement to democratic peace theory: there is little, if any, discussion in the literature of the possibility that someone should regard somebody else's election results as being in themselves an unfriendly act."

26

  • Original research "Two of the militant democracies listed above were dominant naval powers, and therefore had greater choice whether and where to fight." Not mentioned in the DPT literature and anyhow irrelevant for the theory. Note also the earlier wrong definition of "militant" democracies as discussed above in 9. Ultramarine 01:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
    • The list of militant democracies under #9 is sourced. It is not novel historical interpretation to observe that the United States and Great Britain have been dominant naval powers; the advantages of naval power are slightly less obvious, and are sourced.
      1. Any future objection this weak will be ignored as frivolous.
      2. The assumption that the only claims to appear in this article must be sourced to what Ultramarine (or indeed anyone) considers to be the DPT literature is also frivolous. Septentrionalis 02:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

27

28

  • Factually incorrect and POV "On the other hand, Mansfield and Snyder argue that democratizing leaders are more likely to fight wars, whether or not they win, as a means of handling internal tension." They argue that "that emerging democracies with weak political institutions are especially likely to go to war. Leaders of these countries attempt to rally support by invoking external threats and resorting to belligerent, nationalist rhetoric" Not that all democratizing leaders are more likely to fight war. It should also be mentioned that they support the DPT for well-established liberal democracies. Ultramarine 02:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Democratizing states, by definition, are emerging democracies; they usually have new, weak, and untried political institutions, since they were doing something else before they democratized. Frivolous, type 1.
    • Nor is this article a list of democratic peace theorists. The only reasons it has as many names as it does are:
      • To provide implicit sourcing for those allergic to footnotes
      • It's clearer and more memorable (and less friendly to original research) than the "supporters say...critics say..." style all too prevalent on WP. Septentrionalis 02:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

29

  • Factually incorrect and POV "the theories which claim that no two democracies have ever gone to war (which this article may call an "absolute" democratic peace), and argue that the Confederate States of America, the Boer republics, the Second French Republic, and so on, were not real democracies for one or another reason" The Second French Republic may well have been a real democracy but was less than 3 years old. Again, POV to present examples which may seem to be exceptions if not also presenting the more detailed arguments of the DPT supporters. Again see User:Ultramarine/Possible exceptions to "Well-established democracies have never made war on one another". Ultramarine 02:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
    • For an incomplete analysis of the errors of Ultramarine's PoV essay, see Talk:Never at War. Frivolous, type 1. Septentrionalis 02:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
      • The article is factually incorrect and a POV description of the arguments. The correct arguments from both sides should be included in the aricle.Ultramarine 07:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
        • All of Weart's correct arguments are included; so are several figments of his imagination, and of Ultramarine's. 16:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

30

Lie: The present text is Spencer Weart, the historian of twentieth-century science, has also made claims about "republics", by which he means governments by discussion between equals, in general. It has been only slightly modified, and not in those points which Ultramarine misquotes, since he made this complaint. Septentrionalis 17:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Be careful with that lie word: The text I quote is stated in the Causes section, as everyone can see here [26]. Ultramarine 21:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
A collegial editor would have removed the duplication. Septentrionalis 21:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

31 -withdrawn

  • Dubious "No ancient author seems to have considered it true." Even Thucydides thought that democracies were reluctant to attack one another.Ultramarine 19:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Unsourced claim. Septentrionalis 00:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Russet, Bruce (1993). Grasping the Democratic Peace. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0691033463. p. 62 Ultramarine 00:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Duplicate. text marked with {{dubious}}. Septentrionalis 02:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

        • Quoting Thucydides 7.55, an expression of regret for having attacked a democracy which was a great naval power, and therefore immune to subversion and capable of wresting control of the sea from the Athenians (as in fact they had). No evidence of a general rule; and, as Russett notes in the same chapter, several other democracies had gone to war with Athens. Septentrionalis 18:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The speech of Pericles on ways and means Thucydides 1.141ff., which argues that Athens must defeat, and cannot be defeated by, an enemy unlike them - a coalition of land powers, agricultural and oligarchic. This is the contrapositive; it offers no support for the democratic peace actually existing; at best it shows that a much more limited peace would have good policy, which was not followed by Athens - or Syracuse. Septentrionalis 06:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

After further research (not the above strange interpretation) it seems certain that Thucydides did not advocate any form of democratic peace. Indeed, some scholars have argued that he had a personal distaste for democracy which may have affected his views. Ultramarine 02:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Above interpretation of Thucydides is consensus; with which Russett agrees as far as it touches on his concerns. Septentrionalis 16:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

32

  • POV: Undue weight Of the hundreds or thousands of studies made in this field, this article gives extreme weight to a single one from 1983 by Doyle. It is not representative for the modern arguments but apparently the DPT opponents think that is a good straw man and should therefore represent the DPT supporters in this article. It is mentioned in no less than 13 footnotes and in the following text in the main article:


"As Doyle notes, the theory of a Kantian peace contradicts the theories of democratic peace which claim that mutual democracy, even mutual liberal democracy, will create a lasting peace without the other two Kantian articles."

Doyle is not a straw man; he may be the strongest arguer for democratic peace theory (if I were looking for a man of straw, I'd have attacked that ignoramus Weart.) His 1983 paper founded the Kantian movement, and discussed several issues for the first time; and most of them independently of the rather limited existing literature, which appears to have been inaccessible to him. No substantiation has been offered that the present Kantians repudiate his positions. Septentrionalis 04:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Also, these are fewer footnotes than refer to Weart. The notes to the section on exceptions don't mention him explicitly yet, but they will.
Incorrect, Weart is mentioned in 7 footnotes, usually only to present arguments against him. The article does not mention his or other modern arguments regarding possible exceptions, statistics, and causation but only the opposing side as discussed previously. Instead, this extreme weight to a single article more than 20 years old. Ultramarine 02:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

33

  • POV: Many advocates not mentioned "A couple of the advocates of perfect democratic peace have examined the rather extensive record of wars and lesser conflicts between "primâ facie democracies".[63]. They conclude that no democracy has gone to war with another, unless". This view is much more widepspread than this. As a study (Frank A. Wayman) notes, "it remains true that there have been no inter-state wars between a clear-cut liberal democracy and another such state. All this empirical literature hangs on the examination of MIDs rather than inter-state wars" [27]" This is an important point, most of the dispute is about MIDs, not wars. Here are some other researchers who have also stated no wars:
  • Dean Babst
  • Melvin Small
  • J. David Singer
  • Rudolph J. Rummel
  • Michael Doyle
  • Bruce Russett
  • Spencer R. Weart
  • James Lee Ray
  • Jack Levy
  • Zeev Maoz
  • Nazrin Abdoli
  • Stuart Bremer
  • Frank W. Wayman
  • John R. Oneal
  • Bruce Bueno de Mesquita
  • Randolph Siverson
  • James D. Morrow
  • Alastair Smith
  • Harald Müller
  • Jonas Wolff
  • Edward D. Mansfiled
  • Jack Snyder

See User:Ultramarine/Possible exceptions to "Well-established democracies have never made war on one another" and [28][29][30][31]Ultramarine 05:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

These papers are
I replaced the name of the author of the study that you quoted. That edit seems like it was in bad faith. --Scaife (Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 05:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Ultramarine, there is a difference between "rare" and "zero". The first four names of your list say "zero", although Russett diverges on ancient Greece IIRC. Levy's quote is "nearest thing to a law"; you put it in yourself, read it. Wayman, in the first paper you cite here, says "rare" not zero. Maoz recognises the Spanish-American War as (the only) exception; so does Bremer. The second paper you cite here quotes Russett and Maoz as saying "virtually immune"; that's not the same thing as "immune".
    • The others I have no evidence on at the moment.
  • Most of the dispute is about MIDs because there are so few wars of any kind for the data to be meaningful; not because of zero democratic wars (as opposed to one).
  • Please read your sources before presenting them. Septentrionalis 06:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
My sources clearly state no wars for all of them except Babst and there we seem to agree.Ultramarine 06:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
This is because you have failed to read half your sources, and on the other half are mistaking a generalization for a precise statement. Septentrionalis 06:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Instead of just doing a google search, why don't you go to the library and read this stuff? More than half of these people are minor players in the DPT conversation, while the others saying that there have been "zero" wars is dubious. --Scaife (Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 06:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

In terms of the analogy below, Ray, Weart and Rummel are A's. Babst is also an A, although he accomplishes this by calling the Boer War a rebellion, which it was not.

Singer and Small's 1976 paper is a C. They name two "marginal exceptions": the Roman-French war of 1849 and the Continuation War.

Russett is a C; his exceptions are 13 wars between Greek democracies, and 23 more probable ones. He also holds that the norm of interdemocratic peace developed at the close of the nineteenth century (p.5) , and was still being built by the World Wars and the Cold War. pp(73-4), even before 1939 he says "rare"

Levy is s C; "nearest thing to a law" is not "a law".

Maoz and Abdolali [sic] (1989) was an A, but Maoz expressly changed his mind in his 1994 paper, and notes the Spanish-American War as an exception. He is now a C. Nazrin Abdolali was still a graduate student when this paper was published; he does not appear to have written on DPT since. [32]

Bremer's 1992 paper is a multivariate analysis. As such, it is unlikely to speak explicitly of exceptions; but he carefully uses "less likely" and "less war-prone" towards each other. C+.

Wayman (paper cited) is an A; I note, á propos another discussion, his other comments: But, if we rely solely on whether there has been an inter-democratic war, it is going to take many more decades of peace to build our confidence in the stability of the democratic peace...The objection that there haven't been enough modern wars to feel confident that democracies don't fight each other, especially when combined with the further objection that there might be a need to control for third variables.... The reason for concentration on MID's is not that the question of war is settled, but that there is too little data there, even for those who accept zero wars.

Mesquita et al. constructs another game theoretic model to explain the democratic peace; they accept their data at second hand, with the same qualifications (Russett's "virtually immune" etc.) as the original authors The only statement made in their own voice seems to be that democracies "have a tendency not to fight one another", which is again C.

Müller and Wolff say that "democracies are more peaceful towards each other" not at peace. See also their footnote 44 : "a perceptual peace, not a perpetual peace". C.

Owen's review of Mansfield and Snyder is plainly a B, as the review of a book-length thesis. I will enquire what their actual position is; since the argument Owen is interested in is that young democracies are warlike, they may well hold that middle-aged democracies have had an exception.

"No war between mature democracies". Their definition of mature, however, reminds me of the phrase "For all sufficently nice" X, in the list of mathematical jargon. Page 78 appears to say that mature = not democratizing = at least 5 years since the attainment of complete democracy; thus, for example, Russia was still democratizing at the election of Vladimir Putin in 2000; and from the tone of their discussion, may not be done yet.

Septentrionalis 21:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC) completed 19:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)



Analogy

One problem here is that Ultramarine believes English idiom is more logical than is in fact the case. Consider students of Baseball:

  • A writes "American League players never play against the National League."
  • B writes "The American League doesn't play the National League", and turns from a brief description of baseball as a whole to batting averages (or whatever his paper is really about).
  • C writes "The two leagues hardly ever play against each other."

Both B and C are consistent with a later footnote excluding the World Series; they may or may not say different things about the All-Star Game and exhibition games - depending on what is the best definition for their present purposes.

C does, B may, disagree with A (whether he does is a question of fact). All three of them support the Two-League Theory; and will turn and rend

To further the analogy, A might then go on to argue that his paper is a theorem, by adopting the following restictions on his definition of "Baseball":
  1. It means Major League Baseball only.
  2. It means only games that count towards a team's standing in its league or division.
  3. It excludes any play involving a league that has been involved in a player lockout within the preceding fifteen years.
These "prove" A's case as follows:
  • They exclude minor leagues, little league, non-league games etc., even if major league players are present. Most people would see this as reasonable, and B and C and probably D are all doing so as well.
  • They exclude special exhibition games, such as the Baseball Hall of Fame game. Most people wouldn't care much.
  • They exclude pre-season games, which many baseball fans follow avidly and would expect to be included.
  • They exclude the All-Star Game, which nearly all fans would expect to be included
  • They exclude the World Series. This would astonish most people.
  • They exclude all play since 1994 until at least 2010. Since interleague play during the regular season began in 1997, the theorem is safe. Most people would see this as a crock.
A could, and probably would, piously intone that he is could have defined "X-ball" and no one would object, but of course the entire interest of his paper arises because people like "Baseball", and he has a responsibility to use the term as normally employed or else qualify it. "Until 1997, MLB did not involve regular-season interleague play," is a far better way to communicate the idea. Robert A.West (Talk) 13:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

34

  • Original reserach "Some democratic peace theories implicitly or explicitly exclude the first years of democracies; either explicitly, or, for example, by requiring that the executive result from a substantively contested election. ("For all intents and purposes, George Washington was unopposed for election as President, both in 1789 and 1792";[79] therefore any theory that has this requirement would exclude the entire Washington Administration from the category of democracy. Theories that require an actual transfer of power between parties would also exclude the administration of John Adams.)" This arguments regarding Washington and Adams is not mentioned in the DPT literature. However, it may reasonable be included, but a qualifier is necessary. Something like, "although not mentioned in the literature, it might be argued that this requirement would exclude..." Ultramarine 19:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Frivolous; only Ultramarine believes that this article need only cite "DPT literature"
    • I decline to weasel-word a syllogism.Septentrionalis 19:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Frivolous indeed. I quote from WP:NOR, "Research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." Every factual statement above can be trivially sourced. Synthesizing it into a concrete example is part of good writing. Robert A.West (Talk) 21:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Inocorrect. From WP:NOR: "In this context it means unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or arguments that, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation"." Ultramarine 02:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
        • You correctly cite the policy that the phrase in question does not violate in any way. IMO, there are some facts too easily verified to bother footnoting, but if you must, look at the [33] for the lack of opposition to Washington and [34] for the fact that Adams considered himself a continuity administration. The syllogism is so obvious that it passes my credulity to believe that anyone with a seventh-grade education would dispute it. Robert A.West (Talk) 22:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Ultramarine rephrased according to his lights. He seems to agree that the example is useful and appropriate if suitably qualified in some way, but I found his statement "Not mentioned in the DPT literature" both off-putting (the transfer-of-power criterion was not, SFIAK, invented by DPT theorists) and unverifiable (which of us can claim to have read the whole of the relevant literature, however defined? So how do we prove it is not lurking somewhere?). I believe "cautious" is a fair representation of Rummel's and Ray's arguments for using the criterion (to avoid including failed attempts at democracy), and so I hope for consensus on this version. Robert A.West (Talk) 16:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

35

Simply false. As noted in 33, there is relatively little disagreement regarding no wars, which is what Rummel and Ray, among others, found. Much of the current dispute is about MIDs and the question of causation, not no wars. Simply strange and false to clam that the views of Rummel and Ray are given undue weight, since the article only present a deliberate travesty of their arguments. Also false to imply that the pro-DPT arguments and studies, most excluded from the article as noted earlier, have been done mostly by Rummel and Ray, simply because some of them were mentioned in Ray's literature overview, they are from many different researchers.Ultramarine 05:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a question of pro- or anti-DPT literature, it a question of too much matierial being added from "libertarian" ideologues. This has really been discussed ad nauseam. It is also strange that you state that "there is relatively little disagreement regarding no wars" when your own research that you have presented is contradictory in many places. There is no consensus regarding what constitutes a war or a "liberal" democracy. We are aware that you are a champion of Rummel and Ray in this respect, but it is hardly the mainstream view. --Scaife (Talk) 13:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I am not a libertarian, I support relatively high taxes in order redistribute wealth. Nor are most, if any, of the pro-DPT researchers libertarians. I think democracy is supported by most groups, except for example Nazis and libertarians (anarcho-capitalists). War is usually defined as 1000 battle deaths in quantitative research. The DPT researchers arguing no wars has somewhat similar definitions of liberal democracy, see User:Ultramarine/Possible exceptions to "Well-established democracies have never made war on one another". Ultramarine 23:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

36

  • POV: Study excluded

This [37] peer-reviewed overview has been deleted from the external links. Ultramarine 05:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

37

Where exactly does it say that. If he didn't want it used, the internet isn't the best repository for it, however I will assume that if it was by Ray or Rummel that shan't be a problem, no? --Scaife (Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 06:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

38

Weart is historian, certainly a relevant field. Rummel's website uses material from his published scholarly research. Matthew's White website states his unreferenced opinions and seems to deliberately misrepresent to pro-DPT arguments.Ultramarine 02:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Weart is a historian of twentieth-century science, mostly since 1945. He has never, until this book and a preliminary paper, published anything about history before that. He does not understand that "the past is a different country; they do things differently there"; and is in fact writing like a tourist, half assuming that they *must* do things the same way as at home and half horrified when they do do things otherwise. (For example, he declares Chile to be no organized state because 27 people were killed in the national elections of 1886; does he really know nothing about the nineteenth century riots in New York City and California?) Septentrionalis 19:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Simply false description. Edit in good faith and avoid ad hominem.Ultramarine 02:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Can somebody answer me this question? Why are we spending so much time discussing a man with a PhD in Physics that wrote a book based more on his observations than political theory or good quantitative research? I am intelligent person and took a physics class or two, but I am willing to bet that if I wrote a book on physics, it wouldn't be cited on wikipedia, less anywhere else. --Scaife (Talk) 05:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

39

  • Unsourced
  • POV:Arguments and studies excluded
    A study argues that democratic states are more likely than autocratic states to win the wars. One explanation is that democracies, for internal political and economic reasons, have greater resources. This might mean that democratic leaders are unlikely to select other democratic states as targets because they perceive them to be particularly formidable opponents. One study finds that interstate wars have important impacts on the fate of political regimes, and that the probability that a political leader will fall from power in the wake of a lost war is particularly high in democratic states.
  • Septentrionalis 06:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Where is this at? I cannot find it in the article. --Scaife (Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor;; 06:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
That's because I moved it here; it was commented out, and without a source I see no reason to include it. Septentrionalis 06:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
In that case: Moot. --Scaife (Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 18:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The studies mentioned can be found here: [40]. False to state that was not sourced, see for example this version: [41] Ultramarine 02:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

See 35. --Scaife (Talk) 04:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
More incorrect arguments. Ray has not made these studies, he only mentions them in a literature ovierview.Ultramarine 04:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
While I am prepared to argue that Ray's paper is not merely a lit review is irrelevent, what is relevent is that you continue to use that paper as a hammer for your POV. While some of the material in that paper is worth looking at, it has been overused in this article, just as Rummel's material has been. You should know by now that I and the other editors of this article would like to work with you on this article, but you don't seem to be interested in that. Frankly, I am tired of the circular arguments and pretzel logic that seems to be a theme on this article. The arguments of Layne and Owen are as important today as the day they were written, and remain part of the "state of the discipline," however you dismiss them due to their age, all the while contiuously throwing this Ray article around that is four years younger. The difference, my dear Ultramarine, is that Ray's paper is not mentioned nearly as often in DPT research as the arguments posited by Layne, Owen, or Doyle, and frankly as a result that fact is not represented here. In the classes on DPT I have taken over the years at 3 universities, just reinforces this fact. Ray's article was a footnote, while Layne, Owen, and Doyle along with a slew of other researchers were writ large in the field. This omission of this research and its importance is at the least irresponsible, however I feel that the real reason is that it goes against your POV either for or against. Now, how do we rectify this situation? --Scaife (Talk) 19:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I certainly do not dismiss studies for age, only when disproven by new research. Regarding Ray, he is on the required reading list at many universities. Your argument here is ad hominem, one should ignore the arguments and studies by many different researchers in the overview simply because you do not think very highly of Ray. Furthermore, many of the supporting articles and researchers excluded from the article were not mentioned in Ray's article, they were publicized later. Please, no more ad hominem, discuss the facts, not the persons.Ultramarine 02:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I want to see these reading lists. --Scaife (Talk) 02:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Here are some including the overview article, there are many others including this and other workds by Ray: [42][43][44][45][46]Ultramarine 10:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
A fascinating list:
  • One is Ray's own course.
  • Four, including Ray, include Doyle also.
  • The fifth has only two pieces on DPT, the other being Russett's book which substantially agrees with Doyle.
As usual, this and the complaint of overuse of Doyle stand or fall together. Septentrionalis 16:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

40

CAH (second edition of 1989-90) VIII, p.211; IX Pp.31-33. Septentrionalis 16:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Would you please spare us some trouble and quote the relevant text? Ultramarine 22:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Source for the claims regarding Macedonian kings, please.Ultramarine 22:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

See added footnote. Also Peter Green: Alexander of Macedon. Pp.87, 183, 449. Septentrionalis 04:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

41

  • Factually incorrect On the support for the monadic theory: "Rummel is virtually alone in doing so". Incorrect when you yourself later admit that there have recently been many supporting studies by other researchers.Ultramarine 02:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
    • This is a deliberate lie; and proof of editing in bad faith. The present text neither divides the discussion of this point, nor does it say "many". The text of the footnote is, in full: Singer and Small 1976; Rummel is virtually alone in doing so; Rummel's evidence is drawn only from 1976-1980; and the post-Vietnam years may be exceptional. See [R]ussett 2003, p. 139 n. 3, and Gelditsch 1992. There are also some very recent monadic papers, like Müller and Wolff 2004. (the last clause should read "as cited", of course; Mueller and Wolff regard a monadic theory as "neither necessary nor convincing".) The half-dozen monadic papers do not alter Russett's judgment of "virtually alone", which is a quotation. Septentrionalis 16:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Problems noted above, including omission of first R in Russett, now fixed. Septentrionalis 17:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Mueller mentions eight researchers who in recent papers support the monadic peace. Here are two others in a very recent papers, as mentioned on this talk page before.[47] That at least ten researchers, and probably many more if doing a search of other recent papers, support the monadic theory makes it incorrect to include this statement regarding Rummel.Ultramarine 21:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Doyle and Owen encapsulated

For an outline of the argument. Go here...[48]

I think you meant Owen, not Doyle. Septentrionalis 06:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I did. Goes to show you shouldn't try and do two things at once. Cheers! --Scaife (Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 06:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Good work in presenting the two articles! However, the arguments are flawed. These articles may well disprove one particular explanation for the democratic peace. However, they do not disprove the democratic peace as an empirical fact. And they ignore many other possible explanations. For example:

  • A game-theoretic explanation for the democratic peace is that the public and the open debate in democracies send clear and reliable information regarding the intentions to other states. In contrast, it is difficult to know the intentions of nondemocratic leaders, what effect concessions will have, and if promises will be kept. Thus there will be mistrust and unwillingness to make concessions if at least one of the parties in a dispute is a nondemocracy. [49] Ultramarine Ultramarine 05:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I fail to see any point here. The present text says:
      A game-theoretic explanation is that the participation of the public and open debate send clear and reliable information regarding the intentions of democracies to other states. In contrast, it is difficult to know the intentions of nondemocratic leaders, what effect concessions will have, and if promises will be kept. Thus there will be mistrust and unwillingness to make concessions if at least one of the parties in a dispute is a nondemocracy.
    and cites the same paper. So with several of these. Septentrionalis 17:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
    What is your point? This was mentioned as another explanation than that proposed in the papers mentioned by Scaife- Ultramarine 21:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • A study argues that democratic states are more likely than autocratic states to win the wars. One explanation is that democracies, for internal political and economic reasons, have greater resources. This might mean that democratic leaders are unlikely to select other democratic states as targets because they perceive them to be particularly formidable opponents. One study finds that interstate wars have important impacts on the fate of political regimes, and that the probability that a political leader will fall from power in the wake of a lost war is particularly high in democratic states.[50] Ultramarine 02:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • "An interesting synthesis of the Bueno de Mesquita and Fearon explanations emerges from our study. The democratic peace is caused by the constraints that democratic political structures place on state leaders. These structures impose costs for using force that have at least four implications for democratic foreign policy. First, as discussed by Bueno de Mesquita and Lalman (1992), the costs prevent democracies from fighting one another. Second, due to their perceived reluctance to use force, democracies may attract a greater number of challenges than one would expect in view of their military capabilities (Grieco 2001; Rousseau et al. 1996). Third, democratic states choose conflicts in which they are especially likely to prevail. Fourth, and somewhat paradoxically, the openness of democratic societies makes their bargaining tactics credible to opponents. This credibility helps them prevail when they are willing to use force but prevents them from successfully bluffing resolve. This synthesis is attractive inasmuch as it predicts a variety of behaviors based upon a single simple assumption that lies at the core of numerous theories of the democratic peace. In sum, our analysis indicates that democratic political structures do affect international state behavior. Specifically, those structures impose costs on leaders who choose to initiate force, which in turn make their actions credible to their opponents." [51] Ultramarine 05:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • "Recent development in the liberal peace literature seems to indicate that the causal processes at work in interstate conflicts result from complex interactions. In recognition of these complex dynamics, Russett and Oneal (2001: 39) express doubt that individual causal relationships can be considered well in isolation. Peace may result from multiple and overlapping liberal behaviors, shaped by democracy and interdependence, which interact with the opportunities offered by the realist variables. A synthesis of Kantian and realist effects emphasizes an interpretation of constraints on states’ willingness and ability to resort to violence. Beck, King and Zeng (2000) similarly interpret the realist variables as creating a pre-scenario of low or high ex-ante probability of military conflict into which the influence of the liberal variables is plucked. Or the effects of relative power on dispute outcomes—strong between non-democracies—may be much weaker when democracies settle their disputes (Gelpi and Griesdorf 2001). Other studies assume that a reciprocal relationship, or feedback loop, runs between democracy and interdependence. Democratic institutions may indirectly increase the weight of the economic constraints on militarized behavior by empowering economic interest groups in the state (Papayoanou 1997). Another link may run as interdependence turn increases the number of international political constraints. High levels of dyadic trade often create a need for new institutions to manage and stabilise the existing commercial relations. These new institutions add more restraints on militarized behavior." [52] Ultramarine 06:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Gelpi and Griesdorf are mentioned; if Ultramarine had looked for their paper in the notes, he would have found If this pattern were true of all democracies, the results of military crises between them would largely depend on their relative strength. A more recent study denies this, with note to them. The rest of this is mostly the same arguments with different verbiage. Septentrionalis 21:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Again, these was mentioned as other possible explanations than that in the above papers cited by Scaife. But these possible explanations should also be mentioned in the article. Ultramarine 22:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the Realist challenge:

  • "Realists have challenged the notion of a democratic peace, but a number of these critiques have serious methodological problems. Spiro (1994), for example, relies on a flawed application of probability theory (see Russett 1995), and Layne (1994) inappropriately selects on the dependent variable and draws deterministic predictions from a probabilitistic theory." The article also find no empirical support for Gowa's and Lake's explanations, see the Concision. [53] Ultramarine 06:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
    • The objections to Spiro's work are noted, in Wikipedia's voice; Some of his criticism is unanswered. Septentrionalis 21:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Please quote, I see nothing. The other counter-criticism against the other researchers should also be included.Ultramarine 22:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Spiro also shows that both wars and democracies are so rare that a war between democracies is unlikely in most years, even before making these corrections. However, just as a pair of dice should roll seven every so often, this unlikehood should have come up over the last two centuries much more frequently than it has, other things being equal. which is the substance of Maoz's responce to Spiro. Septentrionalis 04:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

An interesting new paper on economic interdependence, including a reanalyze of earlier studies:

  • "The results indicate that the statistically significant impact of the interdependence variable evaporates when we control for the simultaneity problem. In contrast, the monadic and dyadic versions of the democratic peace are strongly supported" [54] Ultramarine 06:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Ultramarine has just spent considerable effort mmisunderstanding the purpose of a Wikipedia article, which should neither prove or disprove the democratic peace, but present the arguments. As it happens, I do think it likely that there is some democratic peace; but that is a private opinion, and I have done my best to keep it out the article, as is proper. Several of the papers Ultramarine cites here are mentioned in the present text, because I have read them. Septentrionalis 23:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

These arguments are not present in the article.

Ultramarine 01:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Lie. See example above. Septentrionalis 17:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
The others are not mentioned.Ultramarine 21:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Added another explanation above. Ultramarine 02:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

R. J. Rummel

Ultramarine has been trying to suppress unwelcome facts there too; see the edit history. Septentrionalis 06:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Tired

So, are we getting anywhere with the above? It seems like the same arguments are being restated ad nauseam. --Scaife (Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 17:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's see which complaints two people think worth further discussion for any purpose. This would include being evidence for tags, either here or at R. J. Rummel#Democratic peace. Anything that does not receive two supports in a week, say, is demonstrably rejected by consensus, and can be struck. I would set a very loose standard here; for example, I will be including 32(too much Doyle) and 35(too much Ray), although I am not convinced. I will be including 33 (sources for no wars) although I think Ultramarine's list is simply wrong; because it is worth finishing the refutation.
please include summaries, as I do; it's too easy to get numbers wrong.

Septentrionalis 18:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Septentrionalis 18:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    • 7 (militant democracies) substantive claim of error
    • 18 (Separate peace theory) ditto
    • 25 (effect of 2006 on DPT) may need rephrasing.
    • 32 (too much Doyle)
    • 33 (sources which say "no wars")
    • 35 (too much Ray)

See Wikipedia is not a democracy. "Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. Its primary method of finding consensus is discussion, not voting. In difficult cases, straw polls may be conducted to help determine consensus, but are to be used with caution and not to be treated as binding votes." See also Meta:Polls are evil in Meta. Ultramarine 02:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand.... You like democracy in theory, just not in practice? --Scaife (Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 02:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Democracy is a good political system. It it not a good way to write an encyclopedia. A straw poll conducted among the Wikipedia editors of Roswell UFO incident may well declare that Earth is visited by aliens in conspiracy with the US government. Wikipedia should still not state that this is a fact and delete opposing views. Ultramarine 03:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
It is only in Ultramarine's imagination that any opposing view has been deleted. His failure to make an credible claim of this in all his points above is the best evidence that this assertion is groundless.
The remedy, if Roswell incident were to be forcibly hijacked by a little group of willful editors, would be some form of wikipedia:dispute resolution, not railing or denouncing Wikipedia's actual method of making decisions; it is the Wikipedian wager that this will, on average, work - as it is the democratic gamble that putting decisions to popular vote is in fact "the worst method, except for all the others." Ultramarine's remedy is the same, rather than railing or hysteria; if Wikipedia does not suit him, Wikinfo welcomes tendentious articles. Septentrionalis 23:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
For that matter, Wikibooks would, I think, welcome a textbook on DPT, from whatever POV. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I am also tired of this. My comments today have found four blatant falsehoods, three of them involving misquotations of the text of this article; the fourth is a miscitation of Russett's book, which is indexed. If Ultramarine is editing in good faith, he is incapable of reading English. I move that the tags be removed (except the {{dubious}} tags in line) as unsupported. Septentrionalis 17:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Peace offer

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

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

The division anticipated appears to be:

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

I write of course, subject to correction here.

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

I do hope we can bring this to an end. I thought that Views of the Arab-Israeli conflict might be a good model.Ultramarine 08:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Democratic_peace_theory/Archive_5&oldid=789370728"