Talk:Liberal democracy/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Original research?

Allegations of POV aside, the article does not cite a single source. Especially the "Qualities" list seems to me like a violation of WP:NOR. Does anyone have any real sources to back these claims? —Gabbe 00:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

user:ultramarine is adding tons of original research as well as POV statements from biased sources as we speak! Solidusspriggan 01:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Read the article about R. J. Rummel.Ultramarine 01:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't consider R. J. Rummel an unbiased or reliable source on much of anything. The controversies surrounding his findings and positions are enormous. Please find more neutral sources. In citing this man a bad name for liberal democracy will be made on wikipedia. One almost as bad as is being made by user:ultramarine. Solidusspriggan 01:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Source given by respected reseracher. You do not have veto over what to accept. I added that it it disputed by some. Note that much of the reserach you removed are from other sources that he only quotes or not even mentioned at all by him. Ultramarine 01:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Reverts

Whoever is doing the reverts, please explain yourself. If it you, Solidusspriggan, please state so instead of using your IP adress.Ultramarine 01:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

My IP address, sir, is quite static (I believe currently 129.15.152.173) as of now. I suggest you do not imply my circumventing of wikipedia policy when you have no evidence. I am very sorry that the world does not agree with your views and does not like to leave disinformation on wikipedia. That last revert was done by someone on a quite distant domain, they are obviously concerned with the integrity of wikipedia as I am. Solidusspriggan 01:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

If anyone would look at the history HERE [5],they can see they [[User:ultramarine has removed an entire three paragraph critque of liberal deomcracy and labeled it as removal of a "weasal statement".Solidusspriggan 02:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

There were no references. I find it strange that you want to keep this when you removed the material added by me that did mention the sources.Ultramarine 02:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority of registered and anon editors prefer the current version, please do not change back to tangental version of user:ultramarine. Editing the liberal democracy article like a dictator sure is ironic. only user ultramarine is reverting to his prefered version while everyone else seems to think the other version is more appropriate. Anything can be sourced, if wikipedia was merely a repository for all the information on the internet then there would be no need for wikipedia, please Wikipedia:Stay on topic Solidusspriggan 03:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Give sources, do not remove unsourced material.Ultramarine 08:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Bourgeois Democracy

Doubtful if this is the same as liberal democracy. Marx used the term and spoke of the very limited democracy that existed in his time that excluded most people. Please provide a source for that liberal democracy is the same thing.Ultramarine 02:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of sourced material

Again, do not delete sourced material. Ultramarine 13:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The praise and apology for those qouted in response to criticisms is unneeded. We do not need to add all of someone's fame and merit in an article that is not about them. This is not following the Stay on Topic wikipedia policy as [user:Solidusspriggan|SolidusSpriggan]] has pointed out: "wikipedia is not a repository for all the information on the internet." Anything can be sourced, the addition of information from vast internet sources could go on forever and all the wikipedia articles would be unnavigable. Furthermore, we must not fill the "critique" section with more positive than negative information. This is a blatent violation of NPOV. Most of the advocations for liberal democracy are self evident in the primary text in the article. Please leave version current. The article is more than complete.GeorgeSears 15:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Amartya Sen

Any treatment of Amartya Sen which ignores the extent to which his paper on famine intends to blame the Bengal famine of 1943-4 on British colonialism, like the Irish famine of 1846 is misrepresentation. I post the maltreated text below text below, in the hope that some compromise can be found:

According to Amartya Sen: No substantial famine has ever occurred in any independent and democratic country with a relatively free press; since his principal area of interest here is British colonialism, he is denying that the United Kingdom was a single country in 1846. The study of the disputed democratic peace theory also claim that war between liberal democracies is vanishingly rare; and that lesser conflicts are less common. Democracy and parliamentary systems have been supported to check corruption since William Cobbett's time; see also [6]. The World Bank has also published research asserting that democracies have fewer civil wars [7]; the World Bank promotes capitalism and privatization, in many cases at the expense of the well being of nations and individuals.[8]

I note Ultramarine's sterile reversions against consensus. This link goes to Sen's paper on the subject. Septentrionalis 20:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC) I suggest reverting to the version of the article before the critique section became ultramarine's personal theater of edit war some weeks ago. Solidusspriggan 22:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Your link to Amartya Sen's article do not mention 1846 or your claim regarding UK. I guess your are trying to argue something regarding the famine that year in Ireland. But the UK was not a liberal democray before Representation of the People Act 1884 and maybe not even then.Ultramarine 15:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Please stop guessing and read Sen's paper, especially the phrase "the famines in Ireland or India under alien rule" (italics mine). He is, naturally, primarily interested in British responsibility for the Bengali famine. Septentrionalis 00:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

This paper is of course not Amartya Sen's main work and presentation of arguments. They are in his published books. Again, the 1846 famine is uninteresting. The UK was not a liberal democray before Representation of the People Act 1884 and maybe not even then. Ultramarine 02:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

That is to say, it doesn't interest you. Identification of sources by tendency is, however, Wikipedia policy. The date and nature of British liberalism and democracy is something on which there are many views; Wikipedia should, of course, represent all of them. Dean Babst, for example, regarded British elective government as beginning in 1832 or possibly 1841; some would date it earlier. Septentrionalis 02:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I have included a section about the this dependes on the definiton used.Ultramarine 11:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

For me it is not about Sen, so I could live with the following text:

Some supporters claim as an advantage of liberal democracy (as defined above) that no substantial famine has ever occurred in any independent and democratic country with a relatively free press, including civil wars. They say that research also shows that democracy, parliamentary systems, political stability, and freedom of the press are all associated with lower corruption.

With this text we stay on topic, with a [{Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutral point of few, not being incorrect or poorly cited. Since furthermore I am not participating in a edit war, there is no reason not add this text. BTW: the negative critique in this section could use some references. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 12:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Sen

Is it really very relevant to the article to discuss and criticize Sen. Couldn't we exclude that section. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 07:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes I believe we could, I think we should revert the entire thing to this version, before the edit war that created this terrible tangent began, the article was clean and presented multiple viewpoints,[9] In the ultramarines interest it really was already pro-liberal democracy in the first place, he just went in and made it super biased, adding more and more, which i tried to balance, but to no end, he just kept adding more and more support until a huge off topic critque came about, so i tried to at least lower the tangental material w/o detracting from his biased viewpoint so he would leave it alone, but still to no avail, he added more and more about Sen, the simple truth is if you look at the edit history there are 2 versions that are being switched between, and about 5 or 6 editors switch to one, while ultramarine is the only editor reverting to his preferred version. Just put it back how it was liek so [[10]] Solidusspriggan 08:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

If nothing else, just delete this tangential section

According to Amartya Sen: No substantial famine has ever occurred in any independent and democratic country with a relatively free press; since his principal area of interest here is British colonialism, he is denying that the United Kingdom was a single country in 1846. The study of the disputed democratic peace theory also claim that war between liberal democracies is vanishingly rare; and that lesser conflicts are less common. Democracy and parliamentary systems have been supported to check corruption since William Cobbett's time; see also [3]. The World Bank has also published research asserting that democracies have fewer civil wars [4]; the World Bank promotes capitalism and privatization, in many cases at the expense of the well being of nations and individuals.[5]

Obviously POV to only include criticisms. Several of the editors deleting this were anonymous editors and this was their first edit in Wikipedia. Why should Marxists be allowd to criticize liberal democracy and supporters not be allowed to respond? Ultramarine 11:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Solidus is right. With the excception of the criticism section, the entire article is extremely pro-liberal democracy, the criticism section is the one section where the other view is stated, to add more pro statements would make it more pov in favor of supporters than it already is. GeorgeSears 23:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Great, it is all fixed up now. Leave it be.

"Open society"

Why should this be included? Seems to be strange original research.

"The concept of an open society is closely related to liberal democracies. Since many liberals see democracies with strong statist reflections through the public choice theory as slow, dogmatic, conservative and not too apt for change, the liberal democracy contrasts with what could be called the "statist" democracy in that it emphasizes the civil society as the engine of its public discourse and development further.

All in all, liberal democrats often simply see the civil society as exactly the best way to satisfy the private, cultural and communitarian preferences of minorities (as well as majorities). Democratically supporting the arts, private communities, sports leagues or other associations in the civil society is seen by them to boost the majorities' preferences, either willingly or unwillingly by the policy makers." Ultramarine 12:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe all of this can be sourced to Popper himself; it's an incomplete account of the open society, but I've tried to fix that. Septentrionalis 17:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• • "All in all, liberal democrats often simply see the civil society as exactly the best way to satisfy the private, cultural and communitarian preferences of minorities (as well as majorities). Democratically supporting the arts, private communities, sports leagues or other associations in the civil society is seen by them to boost the majorities' preferences, either willingly or unwillingly by the policy makers." Still very strange. "exactly the best way"? "willingly or unwillingly"? What is "Democratically supporting". Ultramarine 03:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Electoral democracy

In addition to the strange section about "open society", the anti-democracy version also contains a factual error regrading electoral democracy, "score of 4 or better is considered an electoral democracy". See the correct version for clarification. Ultramarine 03:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Ultramarine, what you need the GW System, you are a marine, so why don't you grab an MGR and take it from the Navy?

Neutrality and factual accuracy

• Some opponents of liberal democracy are insisting to reverting to a POV and factually incorrect version. They insist that an electoral democracy is defined by Freedom House as "score of 4 or better", there are several countries in the Freedom House article that score this without being classified as an electoral democracy. The correct description from the other version:

Which countries are liberal democracies?

This map reflects the findings of Freedom House's 2006 survey Freedom in the World, concerning the state of world freedom in 2005. In the survey, all Free countries qualify as liberal democracies.[4]

  Free

  Partly Free

  Not Free

Political scientists generally use certain well-established data sets to measure whether or not a country is democratic, or how close or far off from democracy it is. The Polity data set and the Freedom House data sets are two examples. Australia, Canada, the member states of the European Union, Iceland, India, Japan, New Zealand, the Philippines, Norway, Brazil and the United States are all examples of liberal democracies in both the Polity and Freedom House data sets.

Freedom House: "Countries and territories that receive a rating of 1 come closest to the ideals expressed in the civil liberties checklist, including freedom of expression, assembly, association, education, and religion. They are distinguished by an established and generally equitable system of rule of law. Countries and territories with this rating enjoy free economic activity and tend to strive for equality of opportunity."

"Countries and territories that receive a rating of 1 for political rights come closest to the ideals suggested by the checklist questions, beginning with free and fair elections. Those who are elected rule, there are competitive parties or other political groupings, and the opposition plays an important role and has actual power. Minority groups have reasonable self-government or can participate in the government through informal consensus."

"Freedom House's term "electoral democracy" differs from "liberal democracy" in that the latter also implies the presence of a substantial array of civil liberties. In the survey, all Free countries qualify as both electoral and liberal democracies. By contrast, some Partly Free countries qualify as electoral, but not liberal, democracies."[11]

• Furthermore, they violate NPOV by exluding supporting arguments:

Support

Supporters state that much research supports the idea that liberal democracy is beneficial. According to Amartya Sen, winner of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics: No substantial famine has ever occurred in any independent and democratic country with a relatively free press. Although this depends on how inclusive democracy is. If one considers the United Kingdom to be a liberal democracy before the Representation of the People Act 1884, then there are exceptions like the Irish Potato Famine (1845-1849). Supporters of the disputed democratic peace theory argue that there have been no wars between liberal democracies and that lesser conflicts are rare. They say that research also shows that democracy, parliamentary systems, political stability, and freedom of the press are all associated with lower corruption[12] and that most democratic states have few civil wars [13]. Opponents consider it to be of note however that the World Bank, from which this last information comes, promotes ideals such as capitalism and privatization, which they argue in many cases at the expense of the well being of nations and individuals.[14] Some supporters note that a higher total score on the Freedom House ranking is associated with higher average self-reported happiness in a nation[15] and refer to research by R. J. Rummel who finds that more democratic states have less democide, with the highest death toll by the government being in authoritarian states such as the colonial Congo Free State[16] [17].

Supporters argue that a liberal democracy is preferable to a direct democracy. It can guarantee the individual liberties of its citizens and prevent the development into a dictatorship. Unmoderated majority rule could, in this view, lead to an oppression of minorities. Still, some argue that adding more referenda and plebiscites would be beneficial. E-democracy may allow a system blending the characteristics of direct and representative democracy.

• They also insist on including this strange original research:

"All in all, liberal democrats often simply see the civil society as exactly the best way to satisfy the private, cultural and communitarian preferences of minorities (as well as majorities). Democratically supporting the arts, private communities, sports leagues or other associations in the civil society is seen by them to boost the majorities' preferences, either willingly or unwillingly by the policy makers." Ultramarine 10:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Reaction

See the following section for my opinion on the texts. But I cannot follow Ultramarine in his view that the article wouldn't be neutral and accurate without these text. I appeal to both sides to be more flexible in allowing positive and negative critique in the article. At the moment I would favour deleting the Neutrality and factual accuracy-warning. If not, I would like to know what is not neutral or factual accurate in the text as it stands now. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 11:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Question

What would be against the following texts added to the article:

Supporters argue that a liberal democracy is preferable to a direct democracy. They argue that it can guarantee the individual liberties of its citizens and prevent the development into a dictatorship. Unmoderated majority rule could, in this view, lead to an oppression of minorities. Still, some argue that adding more referenda and plebiscites would be beneficial. E-democracy may allow a system blending the characteristics of direct and representative democracy.

and

Supporters state that much research supports the idea that liberal democracy is beneficial. According to Amartya Sen, winner of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics: No substantial famine has ever occurred in any independent and democratic country with a relatively free press.Supporters of the disputed democratic peace theory argue that there have been no wars between liberal democracies and that lesser conflicts are rare. They say that research also shows that democracy, parliamentary systems, political stability, and freedom of the press are all associated with lower corruption and that most democratic states have few civil wars. Opponents consider it to be of note however that the World Bank, from which this last information comes, promotes ideals such as capitalism and privatization, which they argue in many cases at the expense of the well being of nations and individuals.

The last text would lead to the following extra references:

It is a part of the text in the previous section. I cannot see what is not neutral or not accurate about it. Furthermore an entry must be balanced. The first sections (intro, Preconditions and structure, Rights and freedoms and Essentials of liberal democracies) are descriptive, neutral, Critique is opposing and Relation to indirect democracy as well as Liberal democracies around the world are descriptive. A paragraph with positive critique does fit in well and does not make the article not neutral. I would really consider it an improvement of the article. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 10:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The article is quite fine as it is, I really appreciate your improvements wilfried. As you can see by the edit history almost every single registered and anon editor involved in the editing of this article has revert ultramarines edits. The article is in good shape thanks to you. Please do not worry about the totally disputed tag, as it is a common tactic of the user:ultramarine to add a totally disputed tag when everyone will not allow him his preferred version. It has come to the point that any totally disputed tag set by ultramarine is not taken seriously by the wikipedia community. He has already had one RfA and should be deserving another as he constantly does the following.

1. adding tangental information
2. adding biased information
3. adding incorrect information
4. adding poorly cited information
5. participating in Edit wars

See similar disputes in Dictatorship of the Proletatiat, Lenin, and Stalin. I have talked with user:GeorgeSears and he agrees. we are removing the tag. Solidusspriggan 00:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Several of the earlier editors were anonymous with very few edits and for some it was their first edit in Wikipedia. Are you and GeorgeSears the same person, he has very few edits but seems to edit the same articles that you do?

Spare me the incivility and the ad hominem. Please discuss arguments, not persons. What are your objections to Wilfried Derksen's proposed addition and his arguments? Ultramarine 00:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do not question my existence, it is rude. GeorgeSears 20:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

George Sears is a friend of mine who happens to have more authority on these subjects than either of us. He works at the university that I attend in a the political science department, I frequent his office and send him IMs wikipedia issues every now and then, we have discussions on the topics and more than not we are in agreement and I look up to him for his scholarly character and honesty. Is that a problem? I suggest you stop criticizing other editors regardless of their number of edits, if everyone's first edit were considered illigitimate then nothing would ever get done here. It is quite hypocritical to complain about incivility and ad hominem attacks while you simultaneously carry out the same actions against every editor that opposes you whether they are anon or registered. The simple truth is there were not issues until you:

1. added tangential information
2. added biased information
3. added incorrect information
4. added poorly cited information
5. participated in an Edit war against the entire world

within this article. The article is in good shape after the recent additions by wilfried dirkson, this editor also seems to be concerned with upholding the integrity of wikipedia. There are also quite a few non-anon editors with a history of editing, you sir are the ONLY one that continues to revert to your preferred version which deletes the criticisms section and adds a support section to an article which is already entirely supportive of itself with the exception of the critique section. It is a small section that shows the other side. It is more fair and balanced than Fox News(humor). Solidusspriggan 07:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Solidusspriggan, you didn't answer my question. The article might be fine, but it can be improved. I certainly think the suggestions I do, are improvements and neutral. It doesn't make the article unbalanced and nobody argued against it. So I plan to add the second paragraph of the text. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 08:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

This paragraph is off topic for this article, and it misrepresents Amartya Sen's position, which is that Ireland (like Bengal in 1943) was not independent. I shall therefore be removing it. Septentrionalis 18:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the amartya sen reference is off topic, it is highly tangential and misrepresentative. Also i do not think economic institutions such as the World Bank and IMO should be referenced here. These are organizations whose primary function is of monetary concern. Also, just by looking at the sheer amount of text that is in defence of the system versus the critical points it is obvious that it is now a non-neutral article. GeorgeSears 20:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Obviously pov to only present the arguments from one side. Sen's position is not misrepresented.Ultramarine 22:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The famines in Iraland and India under alien rule. [18] The entire article is a description of destructive effect of British imperialism, not the absence of the Third Reform Bill. Septentrionalis 02:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The misrepresentation reminds me of the sociobiology controversy, the critics and proponents of sociobiology may very well have reason to be upset, but they spend all their time arguing for or against misrepresentations of the others' position to further their political agendas. (some have even used the controversy to popularize their own unrelated theories through publicity in the very same way that some of the information is being represented in this tangential "support" section. Solidusspriggan 02:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Let I repeat: I cannot see what is not neutral or not accurate about it. Furthermore an entry must be balanced. The first sections (intro, Preconditions and structure, Rights and freedoms and Essentials of liberal democracies) are descriptive, neutral, Critique is opposing and Relation to indirect democracy as well as Liberal democracies around the world are descriptive. A paragraph with positive critique does fit in well and does not make the article not neutral. I would really consider it an improvement of the article. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 23:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

If it were accurate, it might improve the article. Since it is not, and it is tangential, it is no loss. Septentrionalis 02:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

agreed, Please refer to Stay on Topic Even if it were accurate the tangential nature, such as brief descriptions of each party or person, is not acceptable for this article. Things like Sen's award in economics has nothing to do with the article, it is merely promoting a man and his various honors, detracting from the primary topic of the article. Pmanderson is right on this one. Solidusspriggan 02:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

For me it is not about Sen, so I could live with the following text:

Some supporters claim as an advantage of liberal democracy (as defined above) that no substantial famine has ever occurred in any independent and democratic country with a relatively free press, including civil wars. They say that research also shows that democracy, parliamentary systems, political stability, and freedom of the press are all associated with lower corruption.

With this text we stay on topic, with a [{Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutral point of view]], not being incorrect or poorly cited. Since furthermore I am not participating in a edit war, there is no reason not add this text. BTW: the negative critique in this section could use some references. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 12:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I think this still needs recasting, and if it is in the article, I propose to try. Septentrionalis 03:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Added back sourced information with clarification that this is not arguments for capitalism.Ultramarine 07:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Consensus version

I can agree with the consensus version as it stands now. But I do not understand why the world map cannot be included. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 11:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I find the accompanying paragraph misleading and verbose. I am not sure what Ultramarine intends by "well-established"; but there are several of these data-sets, they are inherently subjective, and they can disagree radically. This is Freedom House's opinion; it appears to be relatively moderate, as such things go. Let Solidusspriggan say why he removed it. Septentrionalis 17:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

by what standards is the modern day Russian Federation not even "partially free" but rather listed as "not free"?

In the russian constitution it clearly states that everyone shall be guaranteed the many of the freedoms referred to in this article including the most famous on of (as it says in their constitution "ideas and speech". They also hold free elections. As a matter of fact most of the "qualities of liberal democracies" in this article are listed in the russian constitution. At the very least this country should be listed on that map as "partially free", "not free" is just simply not the case. Even venezuala, that gets alot of flak from the current american leadership is listed as "partially free" when from what I understand of the structure of the government that it is not as "free" as Russia.

A list of freedoms provided by the Constitution of the Russian Federation

1. Everyone shall be guaranteed the freedom of ideas and speech.
2. The freedom of mass communication shall be guaranteed. Censorship shall be banned.
3. No one may be forced to express his views and convictions or to reject them.
4. The freedom of activity of public association shall be guaranteed.
5. Citizens of the Russian Federation shall have the right to assemble peacefully, without weapons,
6. Everyone shall have the right to life.
7. hold rallies, meetings and demonstrations, marches and pickets.

The list goes on and on, that was only what I pulled from the first 1/6th of the chapter which describes the freedoms the russian people are entitled to. This is actually a much more moderate form of government than even the United States. I argue that the map is innaccurate for this reason. Furthermore I believe that after finding this innaccuracy, had some of us been familiar with other foreign constitutions, then we may find more discrepencies such as this. Solidusspriggan 20:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

http://www.constitution.ru/en/10003000-01.htm

You can read the report for 2005 about Russia here: [19] Ultramarine 20:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Did you read that article? I just read it and it doesn't sound to me like the country is not at least "partially free". Remove the map, it is innaccurate even when referrenced in relation to the very Freedom House information from which it is based. It is also innaccurate when comparing the actual constitution of the Russian Federation to the listed qualities in the article. Russia may not be a Liberal democracy but they are far from the opposite and definitely not "not free". As a matter of fact I would argue that they are "free" by Freedom House standards since the very few isolated examples of impedament of freedoms by the russian government given in the article are hardly different than similar isolated cases in the United States, which I am sure we all would consider "free". Solidusspriggan 21:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

This is your opinion. Please read about Wikipedia:No original research. Ultramarine 21:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you have failed to seperate out multiple points in the last paragraph. Some of the information may be my opinion however it is not my opinion that "the map is innaccurate even when referrenced in relation to the very Freedom House information from which it is based.", " It is also innaccurate when comparing the actual constitution of the Russian Federation to the listed qualities in the article.". What is my opinion is the latter half of the paragraph beginning with "as a matter of fact I would argue". Oh I see you must have started reading at that point or your mind has selected against retaining the factual information contained in the beginning. Furthermore I doubt you have read the article in question due to your position that the map is accurate and helpful.Solidusspriggan 21:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Lots of opinions here without sources. That is original research. Publish something outside Wikipedia, then it can be included in Wikipedia.Ultramarine 22:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

You obviously aren't reading the talk page. It is not an opinion that the Russian constitution allows for specific freedoms. It is also not an opinion the the Freedom House itself recognizes these freedoms and still marks Russia as "not free". From now on please read the my full comment before you respond with policy violation accusations(especially considering you refuse to have a real time debate with me and will only communicate through the archaic and slow posting method you must read the entire talk page).Solidusspriggan 22:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Freedom House have never stated that what the constitution officially states is what is important. What matters is the real-world situation and there Russia have great problems.Ultramarine 22:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

That is original research. If we are to avoid biased, innaccurate or original research then we must refer directly to the source, which is that of the Russian Constitution. The map misrepresents russian government.Solidusspriggan 22:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Please edit in good faith. The Freedom House map is not a map of constitutional freedoms, but of real-world freedom. Ultramarine 22:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Those constitutional freedoms are real world freedoms, if that were not the case then they would be declared unconstitutional obviously. I feel that you still have not read my comments fully.Solidusspriggan 22:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, please edit in good faith. Freedom House has published a well-respected view of the state of democracy in the world. Your opinions is your original research which is not allowed in Wikipedia.Ultramarine 08:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore I question the inclusion of information from research sponsered by the World Bank. The WB and IMF have specific political and economic agendas and many times are detrimental to societies as seen during the argentinine crisis of the early 21st century.

This is your view and the source is mentioned. Note that the bank is owned by 184 nations, not corporations, including both democracies and non-democracies. Its research is widely quoted. Ultramarine 20:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

It is actually not my view, but rather a popular view. The research of Eugenists is widely quoted . Using research of this sort to justify political and economic action is dangerous however and widely disrespected within the academic community. I suggest you look into the even of Argentina's involvment with the IMF/World Bank.

The International Monetary Fund and World Bank build "Country Assistance Strategies" around their involvement with nations. For the 100-plus that rely on IMF and World Bank loans - countries such as Argentina, Tanzania, Ecuador, Sierra Leone - such agreements serve as de facto legislation, meticulous in detail and ideological in thrust. Although couched as loan conditions or as helpful development advice, these reports more closely resemble the minutes of a financial coup d'etat.

Solidusspriggan 21:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

At the World Bank's urging, Argentina partially privatized even its social security system, diverting much of it into private accounts. The US-based Center for Economic and Policy Research calculated the revenue loss from this decision alone to be almost equal to the nation's budget deficit during the period. The World Bank further coerced the government into decentralizing collective bargaining and reducing the power of labor unions. Labor unions are a quintessential example of democracy in action and to lessen their power is to promote oligarchy and oppression.Solidusspriggan 21:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

It could equally be argued that Marxism has caused great suffering and therefore Marxists should not be allowed as a source. I think few have criticized the Bank for advocating democracy, this is not part of their policy :) Importantly, that the researchers may have some connection with the Bank does not invalidate the research. The results have also been published in outside journals. Ultramarine 21:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Marxism hasn't caused great suffering, I have no idea what you are talking about. Marxist may have caused suffering just as christians, democrats, republicans, maoists, muslims, etc...but that is another matter, these are people and societies causeing suffering, there is no part of marxist doctrine which allows for the causation of suffering by the government in an established socialist state. Furthermore, it is the case that capitalism is inevitably heirarchical creating power differentials where marxism is innately egalitarian.

We have all worked very hard to form this consensus version, the version was agreed to be very good before the massive amount of edits recently made by ultramarine. I would ask that ultramarine please not undertake massive restructuring and change of nature of the article without discussion on the talk page. What I did was not blanking, but a responsible deletion of what ultramarine had made at least 10 edits making separating the contributions very difficult. Please discuss major structure changes to the article before making them. Solidusspriggan 05:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Map

Solidusspriggan objects that the map misrepresents Russia as not free; whatever one thinks of Putin's Russia, it is very different from North Korea or the Yezhovshchina.

I think something really has to be done. I see three options:

1. Add a long and OT discussion of Putin's Russia, which would be difficult to source.
2. Add a boldface disclaimer to the map caption, like Several of the assessments on this map are bitterly disputed.
3. Remove it altogether.

I am not in favor of (1), but it is a logical possibility. Septentrionalis 21:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The map is a visible claim; it needs an equally visible disclaimer. Septentrionalis 15:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Now Wikipedia is not built on original research. What source do you have for Russia being a liberal democracy? Ultramarine 15:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Rudolph J. Rummel; see the map linked to in his article. Even if I were confined to more reliable sources, all one needs to show is that the "not free" claim is disputable, which is obvious. Septentrionalis 15:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

His map marks Russia as undemocratic. What is your point? Ultramarine 15:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

"Highly correlated" is a technical term, which Ultramarine does not appear to understand. Two lists of democracies, which differ by 50%, may still be highly correlated - if democracies are about a quarter of all states, as is the historic norm, they will agree on 3/4 of all states (5/8 non-democracies and 1/8 democracies). In fact, Wayman includes both the lists Spiro mentioned, and relies on one of them.

I also agree, as above, that Freedom House's picks are reasonable. But their list is not consensus; no list is.

None of this, therefore, answers Solidus's objection that the map, which represents one specific set of opinions, needs caution to be neutral. I will make one more try before labelling this another hopelessly PoV Politics article, of the sort which gives WP a bad name. Septentrionalis 20:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not Wiki's job to define liberal democracy. It's our job to report what specialists say about it. Freedom House is one of the leading agencies and its reports need to be included. And the map. If there is an alternative map by some other agency it can go in too. Rjensen 21:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is the well-referenced material that that Septentrionalis is constantly deleting, regarding the different democracy classification: "However, they are all slightly varying measures of the basic underlying dimension of being a liberal state. They are all highly correlated with each other, and are usually in agreement in classifying particular governments." [20] Ultramarine 21:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Ultramarine successfully copied and pasted this text. That's why I removed it - as plagiarism. Septentrionalis 22:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Citing a few sentences is allowed as fair use. Ultramarine 22:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't object on copyright grounds. I object to taking Wayman's prose as WP's own, out of context, without credit for the words, in an effort to make a point with which Wayman would not agree. Septentrionalis 22:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is the complete paragraph. What point do you disagree with: "In this paper, I conceive of these different definitions of free states, from Doyle to Polity to Freedom House, as all being slightly varying measures of the basic underlying dimension of being a liberal state. They are all highly correlated with each other, and are usually in agreement in classifying particular governments. I use Doyle's because it goes back the farthest (I need to get back to 1816), and, when Doyle stops (in 1982) I update his ratings with Freedom House rankings, which go more up to the present than any other pertinent measure. In the decade on which they overlap (1972 to 1982), Freedom House and Doyle's (1986) ratings are highly consistent with each other." Ultramarine 22:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The context is the entire paper, Ultramarine. You are attempting to make Wayman say that these differences are trivial, and they are not; nor does he say so. This is another example of the variation of purpose and method of which Wayman does speak: It matters to Solidus whether Russia is "not free" or "partially free". It should matter to Wikipedia, because it matters to him. For Wayman's purpose, correlation studies, this one-point divergence would be unimportant. Septentrionalis 23:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

can someone give a few examples of countries where the ratings are "radically" different." Rjensen 23:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this. It will take me a while to answer properly. Three lists are most important:

• Freedom House[21]
• Doyle, to which Wayman compares it above.
• A yes/no version of Ted Gurr's list (mentioned in the text), which Spiro compares to Doyle.
  • Gurr ranks "democracy" and "autocracy" on 0 to 10 scales. There are several ways to reduce these figures to Liberal Democracy/Not LD
  • Gurr's list has had two new editions since, which have changed some figures.

These lists overlap for 1972-1982

For now, this example:

• Freedom House and Doyle count France as free under Mitterand. The Gurr list disagrees. Septentrionalis 20:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

later:

• Freedom House counts Argentina as Free in 1973, PF in 1972, 1974-5. Doyle never considers it free.
• Freedom House considers Cyprus Free for 1972-3 and 1981; PF for the rest of the period. Doyle counts it not free.
• Doyle considers the Dominican Republic Free for 1978 onwards. FH adds 1972-3. Gurr considers it Not Free throughout.
• Freedom House considers El Salvador Free 1972-75, and PF the rest of the period. Gurr considers it Free 1981-2 and NF the rest of the period. Doyle considers it NF throughout.

That should be enough. I haven't looked at the rest of the alphabet; and I haven't checked all of A-F. None of these results is unreasonable or indefensible, but they do differ. Septentrionalis 20:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The option of describing in detail various political and social systems of russia would result in the need for such descriptions of many other nations, making this article highly tangential. The boldface disclaimer should be avoided for the good of wikipedia, as the neither the map nor the disclaimer are at all necessary in explaining liberal democracy to the reader, and in fact both would actually detract from the article in their own ways. The above information shows the differing opinions among authorities on the topic. Because of these discrepencies I move the map not be included due to the fact that it only displays one representation of one of the many conflicting interpretations of the of "freedom" of each country. Solidusspriggan 07:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Some evidence has been presented that there are differences. None has been shown that they are highly significant. The world has numerous nations. Again, from a person who has actually compared them statistically: ""In this paper, I conceive of these different definitions of free states, from Doyle to Polity to Freedom House, as all being slightly varying measures of the basic underlying dimension of being a liberal state. They are all highly correlated with each other, and are usually in agreement in classifying particular governments. I use Doyle's because it goes back the farthest (I need to get back to 1816), and, when Doyle stops (in 1982) I update his ratings with Freedom House rankings, which go more up to the present than any other pertinent measure. In the decade on which they overlap (1972 to 1982), Freedom House and Doyle's (1986) ratings are highly consistent with each other." Ultramarine 10:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do not cut and paste the same texts over and over again. The difference between France under Mitterrand being free or not free is certainly important. Wayman's correlations are not the subject of this article. Septentrionalis 20:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

So then do you support the detailed description of russian politics and society? Solidusspriggan 19:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I also object, because I don't find my country - Bulgaria - as a free and liberal democratic country. Bulgaria has severe economical and corruption problems and the authorites are overstraining, pardon me, their control over the people. Elan Morin Tedronai 20:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The article is only showing the rankings of Freedom House. Regarding their ranking of Bulgaria, see [22].Ultramarine 20:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Constitutionalism necessary?

Is it really a definitional necessity that a liberal democracy have a constitution that protects individual liberty? I dispute that. A democratically elected leader may choose to not violate individual liberty even if he's not bound by law to do so. That would still be a liberal democracy. RJII 04:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

democratically elected leaders can be--and often were--tyrants. Some sort of constitutional protection is needed to guarantee the "liberal" dimension. Rjensen 05:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, democractically elected leaders can be tyrants. But, democratically elected leaders may also choose to not to violate individual liberty even if there is no constitution preventing them from violating that liberty. I would think that all that is required for a democracy to be a liberal democracy is that people vote and the rulers allow individual liberty --constitution or not. RJII 05:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, just looking around the net, the sources seem to agree. Though it doesn't count for anything, if it was up to me, I'd define it differently. It's prudent to have a constitution that guarantees individual liberty, but it's not a logically necessary prerequisite of having individual liberty --because it's always possible that the elected head of state is benevolent by choice. RJII 05:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, Australia has no bill of rights and only the flimsiest allusion to religious freedom in its constitution, yet noone would deny that it is a liberal democracy. - Randwicked Alex B 14:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Blanking

Please stop making large scale blanking of referenced information. Add sourced oppposing views if you disagree. Note that this is not new material, but simply material that was previously at the Democracy article and moved here since it assumes a liberal democracy.Ultramarine 05:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE LEAVE IT IN THE DEMOCRACY ARTICLE. There was much debate to form consensus on this article. Not only have you added information from the democracy article but you have downplayed the disclaimer on the map that everyone but you seems to agree with. I cannot stand by and allow this terrible violation of consensus after such long deliberations. Wikipedia integrity is being compromised.

Please, do not shout. It does not give a good impression. Again, if your disagree with anything, add your own sourced arguements.Ultramarine 10:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with moving information between articles after consensus was reached.

Nothing in wikipedia policy states that one version is holy and must not be changed. What polikcy are you refering to? Articles are improved by adding more sourced information. That is how Wikpedia grows. The added info comes from the Democracy article and was moved here since it is about this particular form of democracy. Again, if you disagree with the information, give sources. Blanking of large sections with sourced information is not acceptable.

Also, 129.15.127.254, is that you, Solidusspriggan? Ultramarine 19:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

nope, not me, furthermore we have had a discussion about "adding sourced material" you add any sourced material no matter how dubious the source or how tangential the material. The main problem I have with this is that you took the emphasis of the dispute on the map we discussed at such length. Please leave the bold lettering on the map disute or remove the map!

Ok. You have put up a tag disputing the Neutrality and Factual accuracy of the "Advantages and disadvantages of liberal democracy section". Lets start with factual accuracy. What is incorrect? Ultramarine 22:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I regret to see that Ultramarine has restored his specious citation from Wayman. Wayman's lists of democracies differ by as much as half (Spiro, David E. (1994). "Give Democratic Peace a Chance? The Insignificance of the Liberal Peace". International Security (Vol. 19, No. 2. (Autumn, 1994)): 50–86. {{cite journal}}: |issue= has extra text (help)). This remains "highly correlated" in the mathematical sense, since they do agree on some democracies and large numbers of non-democracies; but it is misleading to the point of dishonesty. Septentrionalis 01:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The list commonly used do not differ much. "This article compares three measures of democracy: Polity IV, Polyarchy 1.2, and Freedom House. First, they are three of the most widely used measures in democratization research (Munck and Verkuilen forthcoming). Second, they are the most similar in that all three consciously start from Dahl's definition of democracy. Finally, these three measures are highly correlated with each other (ranging between .85and .92)." [23]Ultramarine 01:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

a correlation coefficient of .85 implies vast differences in the lists of democracies, as we discussed the last time this sophistry was presented for WP text. Septentrionalis 02:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The lists Spiro cites include obscure ones. The ones commonly used do not have large differences.Ultramarine 02:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Spiro's comparison, cited, uses two lists; both of which Wayman uses in the paper here cited. It is a desperate cause which requires defense by lies. Septentrionalis 02:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The ones commonly used are Freedom House and Polity. Please state the ones Spiro uses.Ultramarine 02:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

If you don't know, on what basis do you call them obscure? Septentrionalis 02:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I do know them. Doyle's list and Freedom House. Doyle's is obscure. Again, "This article compares three measures of democracy: Polity IV, Polyarchy 1.2, and Freedom House. First, they are three of the most widely used measures in democratization research (Munck and Verkuilen forthcoming). Second, they are the most similar in that all three consciously start from Dahl's definition of democracy. Finally, these three measures are highly correlated with each other (ranging between .85and .92)." [24]Ultramarine 02:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Last time there was a dispute with freedom house findings you provided a link to an article that explained nothing of those measures of democracy, hence the disputed tags on the maps. It seems that your reliance on Freedom House and the World Bank are too high, you need to find some sources from reputable research instituations that have no goals other than research. The politcal, economic, and social aspirations of the organizations you are citing skews their research.

The examples above show as much difference between Freedom House and the Policy Set as either is from Doyle. The present text is dishonest and misleading. Enough of it. Septentrionalis 00:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

If the extent of correlation is being mentioned to suggest essential identity, this is fraudulent use of statistics. If it is being mentioned for some other purpose, that purpose should be clarified. Septentrionalis 01:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

"Unbalanced"

A template claims that a section is "Unbalanced". Please explain.Ultramarine 04:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Self evident, If you need an explanation you need not be editing the wikipedia.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Solidusspriggan (talk • contribs)

I must agree: three maps and other sourcing from Freedom House is excessive; and would be doubtful even if they were no0t an advocacy group. Two of them are OT here anyway. Septentrionalis 18:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Hm, the template links to WP:NPOV#Undue weight. I can see at most 2 maps related to Freedom House and the organization it only mentioned in this section. As a very often used ranking regarding worldwide democracy, I do not see how it is given undue weight. Exactly what views are excluded or given to little weight?Ultramarine 20:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Plagiarism

Really, Ultramarine, this will not do; the permission in WP:Copyvio to quote sentences is to permit acknowledged quotations from original works, in order to comment on them. Thus, for example, the transformation of

Summary: Conventional wisdom has long assumed that economic liberalization undermines repressive regimes. Recent events, however, suggest that savvy autocrats have learned how to cut the cord between growth and freedom, enjoying the benefits of the former without the risks of the latter. Washington and international lenders should take note.

into

Even if economic growth has caused democratization in the past, it may not do so in the future. Some evidence suggests that savvy autocrats may have learned how to cut the cord between growth and freedom, enjoying the benefits of the former without the risks of the latter.

Is theft of Professor Mequita and Downes' wording. Read, understand, and explain; don't steal. Septentrionalis 19:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The exact phrasing of WP:Copyvio is Under fair use guideline, brief selections of copyrighted text may be used, but only with full attribution and only when the purpose is to comment on or criticize the text quoted. This fulfills neither condition. Septentrionalis 19:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Restated text. Copyright does not extend to ideas and data from studies.Ultramarine 19:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

All three of these are unacknowledged quotations, which is a violation of copyright. This breach of policy endangers Wikipedia. Please stop. I quote the Carnegie copyright notice:

• © 2006 Carnegie Council on Ethics and International Affairs. No material on this site may be used in part or in whole by any other publication or website without the written permission of the Carnegie Council.

Septentrionalis 19:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Standard copyright notice. Again, Copyright does not extend to ideas and data from studies.Ultramarine 19:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

More examples:

If leaving out East Asia, then during the last forty-five years poor democracies have grown their economies 50% more rapidly than nondemocracies. Poor democracies such as the Baltic countries, Botswana, Costa Rica, Ghana, and Senegal have grown more rapidly than nondemocracies such as Angola, Syria, Uzbekistan, and Zimbabwe.

is from

If you leave out East Asia, you see that poor democracies have grown 50 percent more rapidly, on average, during this period. The Baltic countries, Botswana, Costa Rica, Ghana, and Senegal have grown more rapidly than the Angolas, the Syrias, the Uzbekistans, and the Zimbabwes of the world.

Note that Ultramarine's efforts to hide his thefts have altered the force of his original.

Of the eighty worst financial catastrophes during the last four decades, only five were in democracies. Similarly, poor democracies are half likely as autocracies to experience a 10 percent contraction in GDP per capita.

is from

If we look at financial catastrophes for each of the last four decades and look at the twenty worst performers over each of those decades, we find that of eighty cases, only five are democracies. Similarly, if you look at a 10 percent contraction in GDP per capita on an annual basis, you find that poor democracies are half as likely to experience this sort of acute recession as are autocracies.

Again, ideas, concepts, principles, or discoveries cannot be copyrighted, see [25], and paraphrasing or summarizing is not copyright infringement, see [26]. Ultramarine 10:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Words can be and are; I see that Ultramarine has admitted this by ceasing to use his sources' phrasing. Septentrionalis 17:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

What are the reasons for the claim of lacking neutrality for the "Advantages and disadvantages" section? Ultramarine 17:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC) This article is FUBAR!

Adding more information supporting your view and removing the neutrality and factual accuaracy tag will not suffice. First thing I recommend is that we re-bold the disclaimer on the first map, and add disclaimers back to the other maps. GeorgeSears 14:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

What is factually incorrect? Why should a disclaimer be bolded? Ultramarine 17:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Because it is a makeshift disclaimer, most disclaimers would not only contain bold text but would be surrounded by a brightly colored box indicating the problem. I asked that the maps be removed long ago because of all the inaccuracies within them. Statements which I have shown to be inaccurate by means of quoting various constitutions of many of the countries listed as "not free" and c. What is factually incorrect is that. That is why the disclaimer is there, because that data in the maps is factually incorrect. And ultramarine's constant additions that are promotional of liberal democracy are never countered by an equal number of constant additions that are oppositional to liberal democracy. Liberal democracy itself is a misnomer. Any political scientist would read this article and know that it is totally inaccurate, unbalanced, and mostly a badly arranged propaganda pamphlet. (and if they checked the edit history they would see that that pamphlet has been written primarily by ultramarine, and in gross violation of wikipedia policy to boot). Ultramarine makes so many small additions and so quickly that it is impossible to sort through them, I recommend reverting this article to how it was before ultramarine ever began editing it(that is by default before I started editing it, so don't accuse me of being one sided). Without this revision I know this article will never meet wikipedia standards, and I move that the current version NOT be placed on the wikipedia cd. The article was of a better quality then, even though it was missing lots of informaiton, it had more accurate information and wasn't a soapbox article for ultramarine. As soon as he starts editing a political article it becomes some kind of party platform promo item for him. When is someone going to stop this guy? He is always

1. adding tangental information
2. adding biased information
3. adding incorrect information
4. adding poorly cited information
5. participating in Edit wars

and brags about his RfASolidusspriggan 21:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I would be happy to discuss any objections. You may be right, maybe the disclaimer should be in bold. What do you think is missing from the article? Ultramarine 21:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The Advantage and Disadvantage section is moade of weasel words and uses other misleading nonspecific language. Perhaps there is no need for such a section in this article.Desmodrome 04:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Rename To Liberal Republic

We all know the disputes with democracy and what democracy really is. Why not use "Liberal Republic" since that term is more accurate? For more information please check these articles: [27] [28] Zachorious 05:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why Americans say this. The term "liberal democracy" is one universally used by political scientists. In many places in the world, the word republic means a country not governed by a monarch. To use republic as meaning a representative democracy is chiefly an American usage. Lapafrax 20:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

See the discussion on democracy regarding democracy vs. republic. Democracy is the term in common use today and is what is used when doing research.Ultramarine 14:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Um, half these countries are constitutional monarchies, not republics. - ҉ Randwicked ҉ 14:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

"Liberal democracy" is not an arbitrary term invented by Wikipedia editors. It is standard parlance in the study and practice of international affairs. -Joshuapaquin 20:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality and factual accuracy

Again, explain what is incorrect and missing, otherwise I will remove the tags.Ultramarine 05:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I again ask for explanation. Insisting on templates without explanations are not constructive and does not help Wikipedia.Ultramarine 03:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The prominence of the liberalism template

I dislike the current prominence of the liberalism template on this article. It seems to imply that liberal democracy is the exclusive domain of liberalism, which is utterly false. Perhaps it would be better to create a section explaining the use of the term "liberal" in "liberal democracy", and place the liberalism template there. -- Nikodemos 21:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Good point. How about creating a section called "the term "liberal" in Liberal democracy"? Ultramarine 22:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and do that, but I'll name the section "the origins of liberal democracy", because that's where liberalism actually comes in. There is a good paragraph briefly explaining the meaning of "liberal" in the intro, and I think it is important to keep that paragraph there. At the same time, perhaps we could write a bit more about the early days of liberal democracy when most people were skeptical about it and only liberals were considered crazy enough to support it. -- Nikodemos 22:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. -- Nikodemos 01:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Good improvement. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 06:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes.Ultramarine 09:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Now the artilce seems to imply that liberal democracy has nothing to do with liberalism, which is utterly false. The kernel of liberal democracy is Liberalism. Fix this article, it's biased. - CapsLock

Okay do you read the sources you add? :) It is clearly that liberal democracy derives from liberalism. It's the democracy that liberals created, it is the kind of democracy that exists in liberalism. The democracy of i.e. socialists gives emphasis to the collective not to the individual.

"The term marries two closely connected ideas. It is liberal because it draws on the philosophical strain, beginning with the Greeks, that emphasizes individual liberty. It is constitutional because it rests on the tradition, beginning with the Romans, of the rule of law. Constitutional liberalism developed in Western Europe and the United States as a defense of the individual's right to life and property, and freedom of religion and speech. To secure these rights, it emphasized checks on the power of each branch of government, equality under the law, impartial courts and tribunals, and separation of church and state. Its canonical figures include the poet John Milton, the jurist William Blackstone, statesmen such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, and philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Adam Smith, Baron de Montesquieu, John Stuart Mill, and Isaiah Berlin. In almost all of its variants, constitutional liberalism argues that human beings have certain natural (or "inalienable") rights and that governments must accept a basic law, limiting its own powers, that secures them." from your source. --CapsLock

That it derived from classical liberalism, not modern liberalism, does not mean that only modern liberals support. Many of the nations Freedom House describes as liberal democracies are not ruled by liberals.Ultramarine 11:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

They dont have to be ruled by liberals but the goverments have to respect the core of liberalism which are individual rights. Liberal Democracy has at its kernel liberalism, it's not merely created by liberals. I know that you dont like that fact but truth is not there to be liked. Read the source you cited. --CapsLock —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.46.9.50 (talk) 11:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

Again, classical liberalism is not the same as liberals. The source states that it is talking about classic liberalism.Ultramarine 11:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

From the source: "The term "liberal" is used here in its older, European sense, now often called classical liberalism. In America today the word has come to mean something quite different, namely policies upholding the modern welfare state."Ultramarine 11:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Man who care what this term means in America? The international use of liberalism means classical liberalism. The essence of liberalism is that "Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual)." (Ayn Rand). What do you mean that the following phrase is dubious? "rights and that governments must accept a basic law, limiting its own powers, that secures them" Isnt it that what distinguishes liberal democracy from other types of democracy? --CapsLock —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.46.9.50 (talk) 12:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

Most speakers of English are Americans. Ayn Rand is a minority viewpont and I see no mention of liberalism or democracy in the quote. Here is what the source states "for almost a century in the West, democracy has meant liberal democracy -- a political system marked not only by free and fair elections, but also by the rule of law, a separation of powers, and the protection of basic liberties of speech, assembly, religion, and property."Ultramarine 12:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Most speakers of English are non Americans because english is the modern koine. What was greek, latin, french in the past now is English. It's not only in the Uk, Ireland, Australia and Canada that speak english. The english wikipedia isn't for the US citizens it's for all the people in the world. It's the international page of wikipedia for the reasons I said. Please remove the dubious remark in the phrase I told you above. This very article says that this is what liberal democracy is all about, governments have limited power, the limit is individual rights. --CapsLock —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.46.9.50 (talk) 12:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

I have given a sourced citation for almost a century in the West, democracy has meant liberal democracy -- a political system marked not only by free and fair elections, but also by the rule of law, a separation of powers, and the protection of basic liberties of speech, assembly, religion, and property. The source also states The term "liberal" is used here in its older, European sense, now often called classical liberalism. In America today the word has come to mean something quite different, namely policies upholding the modern welfare state. You have give no source except for quote by Rand that does not even mention democracy or liberalism and a quote from the same source as mine that notes the relationship to classic liberalism, but as I pointed out explictly states that modern liberalism is not what is meant by "liberal" in liberal democracy.Ultramarine 12:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

What it means in America is irrelevant, the countries that have as official language english are something like 250.000.000 and the rest of the people that speak english are billions, the US recently reached 300.000.000 (and not even all the americans mean liberalism in the way you understand it. I can cite you many us modern political thinkers and economists). The english wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. In the quote of Ayn Rand (a liberal) she speaks about individual rights (which are the raison d'etre of liberalism), she also says that the public can not vote away the individual rights (i.e. freedom of speech) which is what liberal democracy is all about (read this very same article!). Your source says "for almost a century in the West, democracy has meant liberal democracy -- a political system marked not only by free and fair elections, but also by the rule of law, a separation of powers, and the protection of basic liberties of speech, assembly, religion, and property." because now we see also other democracies that are not liberal (based in what liberalism advocates, that is limited goverment by the individual rights). As your source says "From Peru to the Palestinian Authority, from Sierra Leone to Slovakia, from Pakistan to the Philippines, we see the rise of a disturbing phenomenon in international life -- illiberal democracy.". That is why now we make a distinction and we dont say we have a democracy but a liberal democracy. Please remove the dubious remark in "individuals[3] have certain natural (or "inalienable") rights and that governments must accept a basic law, limiting its own powers, that secures them" This is the Definition of Liberal Democracy :-) --CapsLock

Rand was an Objectivist or Libertarian, not a liberal. She would have detested the term since she wanted a very small state, the opposite of what liberals want. Obviously there is a distinction between democracy and liberal democracy. I have given sources that support my statements for what this difference is, you have not.Ultramarine 12:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

First you have putted the dubious remark in "individuals[3] have certain natural (or "inalienable") rights and that governments must accept a basic law, limiting its own powers, that secures them" which is the very Definition of Liberal Democracy. Obviously you don't know what are you talking about. Please read the first lines of this very article to understand what is a Liberal Democracy. Second Liberalism has many branches, it has Objectivism, Anarcho-capitalism, Minarchism etc. Ayn Rand is one of the Liberal Thinkers [29]. Please stop speaking with american terms, this is an international page, use the terms in their international meaning so we can understand each other. What you say as modern liberalism has no sense outside the US. Check in wikipedia what Liberalism is. --CapsLock —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.46.9.50 (talk) 13:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

Eh, but you have stated that the article should not be trusted since it is American. How can you selectively quote some parts and ignore other parts? Either you have to accept the article as a whole, inluding the view of the author that "liberal" in liberal democracy does not refer to modern liberalism, or reject the article as a whole and provide another source. Regarding the term liberal and Rand, she was a classic liberal, but she would never have supported for example the policies of the Liberal Democrats (An UK party, not American!) since she was a libertarian, not a modern liberal.Ultramarine 13:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay if you do not like your source you may as well remove it along with the dubious remark. Is it news to you that the rest of the world when it says liberalism it doesn't mean social-democracy? lol do I have to find a source to indicate that the kernel of liberalism is that "individuals[3] have certain natural (or "inalienable") rights" or that the Definition of Liberal Democracy is "that governments must accept a basic law, limiting its own powers, that secures them"? Man do you know anything about political ideologies and political systems? This is the "Alphabet" of political theory. The fact that Ayn Rand wouldn't support the policies of the uk Liberal Democrats doesnt mean that she isnt liberal. I dont, does that mean that I'm not liberal? As I said there are many branches of Liberalism, maybe for example Ayn Rand doesnt aggree in some things with Robert Nozick but they are both liberals. --CapsLock —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.46.9.50 (talk) 13:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

I argue that my source is reliable. You argue otherwise but have given no evidenoce. On the contrary, I have shown that liberal, today, also in the UK means left-wing.Ultramarine 13:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

So what you actually saying is that what liberalism means now in the entire world is what most americans understand as liberal? There is no misunderstanding between i.e. Europeans and Americans. You must be kidding. You don't know that it has other meaning in the rest of the world? As for the Uk liberal party you should visit their site, they want to provide "a long term home for those who believe in the personal, economic and social liberalism which we have always represented, and which we are now reclaiming." (David Laws is MP for Yeovil and Liberal Democrat Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury) Economic+social liberalism = liberalism. By social liberalism they mean civil liberities (same sex marriage, no nanny-state laws etc) not only economic liberties (law taxes etc). --CapsLock —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.46.9.50 (talk) 14:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

Liberal Democrats was formed partially by an earlier social democratic party. It is sometimes considered to be to the left of Labour. So, in the US and the UK liberalism today means left-wing. Not all parties who support liberal democracy are left-wing parties. So your statements in the article are false. Unless you give sources, I will remove them and restore the earlier verions.Ultramarine 14:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Why do you classify the Liberal Democrats as leftists and not as liberals? Which are the policies that they support and they are not liberal but socialist? Do you have any sources that show that liberalism in the Uk means clearly social-democracy? Which of my statements is false? Honestly do you think that what the term liberalism means in the USA has the same meaning in other places? I think that is what you're implying. That there is no conflict. We all mean the same thing! Which is not true, see wikipedia: American versus European use of the term "liberalism"[30] --CapsLock

You have not provided any sources for your claims regarding the relationship between liberal democracy and liberalism. I have. Obviously Liberal Democrats consider themselves liberal. Most people in the UK consider them to be left-wing: [31]. Liberalism has many different meanings in different places. In Japan it means conservatism, not left-wing, not libertarianism, and not classical liberalilsm. See Liberal Democratic Party (Japan). So liberalism has many different meanings; however, no evidence has been provided that all who support liberal democracy most be liberals. If you give a source for this, then things get interersting.Ultramarine 15:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually the source you provided shows that most people in the UK consider them to the center (I believe that the right-left axis cannot show where liberals stand, a two axis system is better where economic liberty and other liberties are misured. For example in Greece we put liberals to the right but we liberals differ from the right nationalist conservative parties as we differ to left socialist parties, in the center there are parties that share both right and left policies which we liberals we do not adhere. Obviously we cannot stand in the center either. So a two axis system is better[32]) I do not say anywhere in that text I writed that all the parties that exist in a liberal democracy are liberal. What I say is that the definition of liberal democracy is: "a representative democracy in which the ability of the elected representatives to exercise decision-making power is subject to the rule of law, and usually moderated by a constitution that emphasizes the protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals, and which places constraints on the leaders and on the extent to which the will of the majority can be exercised against the rights of minorities.". So what is the difference between any other form of democracy (for example socialistic) and the liberal democracy? That the majority cannot do whatever it wants the individual. That individual has inalienable rights. Do you have any objection till now? I guess not because I cited wikipedia itself (not the part I edited). What you seem to object is that this kind of democracy isn't based on liberalism. But what is liberalism? It's the ideology that supports individual freedoms above all. If the liberal democracy isn't based on Liberalism then on what is it based? Conservatism? Why a conservative would put such restrictions on government as those that exist in liberal democracy? Conservatives want to use government to impose their beliefs (see same-sex marriages in the USA), they are willing to limit individual liberties so that they conserve what they found from their fathers. Would it be based on Socialism? Why a socialist would put such restrictions on government as those that exist in liberal democracy? Socialists want to use government to take the property of the individuals and use the individual as they see fit to serve the society. In our country we have in the parliament also a communist party but of course it isn't liberal, it just have to accept the fact that this kind of democracy is liberal, if it ever gets elected to government it cant expropriate peoples properties. Same thing also about the conservative party, it cant restrict the freedom of speech if I insult religion or something they hold sacred. So the problem remains if it is not based on Liberalism then on what? --CapsLock —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.46.9.50 (talk) 16:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

30% consider the UK Liberal Democrats left of centre, 10% right. You have given no source for you claims. Obviously we should mention the relation to liberty, as shown in my source. Both conservatives, like in the UK, and the social democrats, like in Sweden, have ruled liberal democracies, as categorized by Freedom House. Communists is another matter, but I have never claimed that they support liberal democracy. Note that the definition of "liberal" in French, Russian, Chinese, or Greek is irrelevant for the English Wikipedia. The same word can mean different things in different languages. Again, give sources for you claims.Ultramarine 16:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Do we see the same page[33]? (I've mistakenly wrote before right instead of center)

Q2. Where would you put the Liberal Democrats on this scale?

Very left wing 3%

Fairly left wing 8%

Slightly left of centre 19%

Centre 35%

Slightly right of centre 6%

Fairly right wing 2%

Very right wing 2%

Don't know/refused 25%

In the English wikipedia we must use the international meaning of the term liberal (as I pointed in the Usa it has a different meaning[34]) I don't claim anywhere that in a liberal democracy you have to be liberal to be in the government. The political system doesn't change according to who is currently in the government, it could be a social-democrat or a communist party but they cant act unconstitutionally. To change the political system it needs a referendum or something. Do you accept that liberal democracy is founded by liberals[35]? What exactly should I provide? That it was created by liberals or the obvious that the liberals that created it, they based it on Liberalism (see definition[[36]])?!? Isn't it obvious that this kind of democracy -"with a constitution that emphasizes the protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals, and which places constraints on the leaders and on the extent to which the will of the majority can be exercised against the rights of minorities."- could be invented only by liberals who hold "that liberty is the primary political value"? --CapsLock

In the English Wikipedia we use English, not international meaning, whatever that is. Words means different things is different languages. Again, classic liberalism is different from modern liberalism. I have given a sourced citation for almost a century in the West, democracy has meant liberal democracy -- a political system marked not only by free and fair elections, but also by the rule of law, a separation of powers, and the protection of basic liberties of speech, assembly, religion, and property. The source also states The term "liberal" is used here in its older, European sense, now often called classical liberalism. In America today the word has come to mean something quite different, namely policies upholding the modern welfare state.[37] Note also that quite different parties have claimed the title liberal, like the centre-left Liberal Democrats in the UK, the conservative Liberal Democratic Party (Japan), and far-right Liberal Democratic Party of Russia. Finally, Freedom House: "electoral democracy" differs from "liberal democracy" in that the latter also implies the presence of a substantial array of civil liberties"[38]Ultramarine 17:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

"Liberalism, a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties." (dictionary.com[39]) Okay I have other things to do so if I change it to classical liberalism would you have any objections that Liberal Democracy was founded by Classical Liberals[40] and based it on classical liberal ideas? (that is a democracy that respects individual freedoms) --CapsLock

That is certainly okay, but we should equally point out that this is not the same as modern liberalism, and that many other ideologies support liberal democracy. Also, we should certainly mention the relation to liberty.Ultramarine 17:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I should point out that it is disputed whether classical liberalism and democracy are compatible. Democracy is often seen as antithetical to liberalism. But, the term "liberal democracy" comes from the idea that liberalism and democracy has been synthesized. All Male Action 17:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Sources please.Ultramarine 17:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

For example, "I think Satori's opinion that suddenly in 1848, democracy and liberalism are enemies no more: they join forces. His [Alexes de Tocqueville] antithesis is no longer between liberalism and democracy, but between democracy and socialism. His democracy was now liberal democracy. has to be seriously disputed. Precisely, an understanding of the prolonged liberal rejection of democracy might give us a clue to the debasement of political liberalism and its replacement by economic "liberalism."...The historian E. H. Carr preceived that effects of the time-honored disjunction between democracy and liberalism when he wrote that:in England...the word democracy long remained in bad odor with the English ruling classes." John Stuart Mill remained a considered opponent of democracy, advocating an exclusivist system of plural votes for the capitalists and their lieutenants "in order to forestall proletarian class legislation." Norberto Bobbio shares Carr's views: "today we are so used to the expression "liberal democracy" that we ahve forgotten that pure liberals up the the beginnning of this century have alwas regarded democracy as the open road towards the loss of all liberties, towards rebellion of the masses against the elites, as the triumpth of the 'mass-herd' against the herdsman." In sum, the coincidence of liberalism and democracy is a novelty of our century." Douglas Greenberg, Constitutionalism and Democracy. Oxford U Press 1993, page 348. All Male Action 18:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This seems to depende on how "democracy" should be interpreted. If "democracy" means universal suffrage, then it was opposed by almost everyone until the twentieth century.Ultramarine 18:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

If you define democracy as government by the will of the people then liberal democracy is not democracy. Liberal democracy is actually rule of law rather than of people. Therefore, it's probably a misnomer. All Male Action 18:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Rule of law could mean a dictator ruling according to a constitution. That is not liberal democracy.Ultramarine 18:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You know what I mean. Rule of law that protects individual liberty and property. Individual liberty is protected from the will of the people. The people are not able to exercise their will over others, at least in theory. That's why the U.S. is actually a constitutional republic, rather than a democracy, which John Adams defined as a "government of laws, not of men." All Male Action 18:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I do not know what you mean. For example, "We the people" clearly shows that the power comes from the people. When the founding fathers used the term "democracy", they meant direct democracy. Today democracy includes both representative and direct democracy. Dictators have alwyas claimed that they ruled according to some law, sometimes divine, sometimes not.Ultramarine 18:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It shows nothing. The power does not come from the people. The power comes from the law that was established by the founders in the U.S. Constitution - that's who "we the people" actually refers to. The whole point was to try to prevent the future people (us), as well as government officials, from changing that law by having all factions and branches checking each other. And, whether a democracy is direct or representative has no bearing on whether it is a liberal democracy. Either one can be tyrannical. It is only when liberty is protected by constitutional law from the people as well as from their representatives that something could be called a "liberal democracy." All Male Action 18:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Obviously the US constitution is important, it clearly spells out that the power comes from the people, not to protect against the people. However, that was of course the common justification of Medieval kings, that the people were to stupid to govern and needed an autocrat to protect them against themselves. Most dictators have claimed to follow constitutions, Stalin created his own and Hitler always stated that he followed the Enabling act.Ultramarine 18:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

That's flat wrong. The purpose of the constitution was to protect individual liberty from the majority of the people as well as from government officials. The U.S. political system was designed so that the majority of people are not able to exercise their will to change the law (the constitution). This is done by limiting their power to electing officials. Then protections are put in place to prevent those elected officials from changing the law as well. Not to mention that the people are not allowed to vote for Supreme Court justices, which is another check on the will of the majority of the people. That's why it's so difficult to change the Constitution. Again, we are a government of laws, not of men. The U.S. is a "liberal democracy" but again, that's probably a misnomer because it's not government by the will of people. The will of the people is extremely limited. It's more properly called a constitutional republic. All Male Action 18:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

That may be the purpose of some constitutions, not others. There is nothing magical about having a constitution that makes a state good. Of course the people can change the constitution, it has happened many times. Ultimately the power comes from the people, the checks in a liberal democracy can be seen as making changes happen slower than in a direct democracy, but if the people want to, they can change every law and and every government official. Including the Supreme Court if they wanted to, by electing presidents who change the judges.Ultramarine 18:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes there is something "magical" about having a constitution that makes a state good. Without one, the state is not going to be good. I'm not sure what you're point is. Are you saying that a "constitutional republic" could not have protections for individual liberty? That would defy the definition of a "constitutional republic." It doesn't simply mean that a constitution exists, but that one exists that protects individual liberty from the will of the majority and from elected officials. And, yes the Constitution can be changed, but it is very difficult. That's the whole point. That's why it has changed so little. The U.S. political was designed to make changing the constitution extremely difficult. The will of the people is extremely limited. All Male Action 18:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

No, there is nothing magical about having a constitution that makes a state good. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the former German Democratic Republic are and was republics with constitutions. In the US, the will of the peope is extremely wide compared to these republics with constitutions.Ultramarine 18:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok then. Tell me how individual liberty is going to be protected without a constitution. All Male Action 18:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

A good constitution is one part, but a constitution by itself means very little. Elections is one important part because it puts check on the abuses of the rulers, which protects liberty.Ultramarine 18:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

A constitution means very little? What??? Again, how are you going to protect individual liberty in a political system, without a constitution. And yes, the will of the people does have an effect but it's effect is limited. All the people can do is elect officials and vote them out of they don't like them. That's really not much power at all. And, that's the way it was meant to be. The people check the state, and the state checks the people, and branches within the state check each other. The object of a constitutional republic is to prevent anyone from having power, so that the law is supreme and extremely difficult to change. All Male Action 19:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Obviously a constitution is one part, but, again, the Islamic Republic of Iran and the former German Democratic Republic are and was republics with constitutions. In the US, the will of the peope is extremely wide compared to these republics with constitutions. Yes, elections are very important and powerful, extremely bad rulers are removed and the rulers must constantly think about the next election, putting checks on what they can do. In dictatorships with constitutions, the rulers do not have worry about the people, and are free to ignore the constitution.Ultramarine 19:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Simply being a republic and having a constitution does not define you as a "constitutional republic." A constitutional republic is defined as having a constitution with protection of individual liberties from the majority of the people and from government officials. I'm not disagreeing the majority of the people have some power. I'm saying it's limited power. The U.S. political system was designed so that everyone would fight amongst each other, voting people in, voting people out, the three branches fighting each other, etc, in order to prevent large enough factions to form that could change the Constitution. All Male Action 19:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you. But free and fair elections of the rulers are an essential part. The Communist constitutions had lots of nice words about protections and rights of the people, which of course were ignored.Ultramarine 19:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

There are differences between classical and modern liberalism, but they are irrelevant to the subject of liberal democracy, since the idea of a constitutional republic with popularly elected leaders (liberal democracy) is and has been shared by all branches of liberalism, in addition to many other ideologies. No ideology can claim a monopoly over liberal democracy as defined in this article. -- Nikodemos 06:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the issue of liberal democracy and classical liberalism, I have two questions for you:

1. Is the US a liberal democracy?
2. Does the US government practice classical liberalism?

If the US is a liberal democracy but its government does not practice classical liberalism, then you agree that a liberal democracy does not always have a liberal government. It only has a constitution which upholds the rule of law and certain individual rights. -- Nikodemos 08:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Brunei and India

"This is a statistical tendency, and there are individual exceptions like India, which is democratic but arguably not prosperous, or Brunei". Is it right to compare a large overpopulated nation with a very small oil rich country? Besides, India's economy has obviously improved a lot after 1991 when India's markets were opened to the world. It is, however, true that economic inequality is very high in India and there are millions of people over there living below the poverty line. Bui I still believe that Brunei and India cannot be compared like this.--59.93.213.147 08:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Removal of sourced information

Please explain why this sourced information was removed and changed: "The term "liberal" in "liberal democracy" does not imply that the government of such a democracy must follow the political ideology of modern liberalism. It is merely a reference to the fact that the initial framework for modern liberal democracy was created during the Age of Enlightenment by philosophers advocating liberty (that is, classical liberalism). They emphasized the right of the individual to have immunity from the arbitrary exercise of authority. At present, there are numerous different political ideologies that support and rule in liberal democracies. Examples include conservatism, Christian Democracy, social democracy and some forms of socialism. For example, the Conservative Party (UK), the Democrazia Cristiana, and the Swedish Social Democratic Party have a long history of rule in nations classified as liberal democratic."Ultramarine 21:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Notes

I do not believe this is the place to discuss the various distinctions between different schools of liberalism and other ideologies. The point we have to convey is simple: (a) liberal democracy was originally created by 18th and 19th century liberals; (b) since the 19th century, liberal democracy has gathered the support of many ideologies, most of which do not call themselves liberal. To my knowledge, this is not controversial. -- Nikodemos 06:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, Ultramarine doesn't like for it to be associated with liberalism. Apparently this is because he is afraid people will mistake "liberalism" for the way it is used in America which refers to welfare liberalism. So we change it to classical liberalism to be safe then apparently you don't like that for some reason. All Male Action 08:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I do not like your partial deletions of the material above, like the mentioning of liberty.Ultramarine 08:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't like your deletion of the sourced fact that "liberal" in "liberal democracy" refers to liberalism. Liberal democracy is the supposed synthesis of liberalism and democracy. All Male Action 08:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It is sourced that Freedom House means liberty. The other source also mentions liberty.Ultramarine 08:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

"It is liberal because it draws on the philosophical strain, beginning with the Greeks, that emphasizes individual liberty."[41]Ultramarine 08:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't intentionally targetting that. I have no problem with that. Maybe I deleted it for grammar reasons or something. I don't remember. I have a problem with it saying that the term "liberal" doesnt refer to liberalism. Of course it does. All Male Action 08:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

So what is wrong the version above? Ultramarine 08:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Not much except that it should point out that while "liberal" does not refer to "modern liberalism," it does refer to "liberalism" in the international sense or to "classical" liberalism. All Male Action 08:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I added a sentence to the above. Acceptable? Ultramarine 08:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. I would take out "merely" though. All Male Action 08:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

But if Nikodemos comes back, I think he'll delete mention that it doesnt refer to modern liberalism, like he just recently did. All Male Action 08:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

No no need for "merely". Nikodemos, what is your view? Ultramarine 08:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The difference between classical and modern liberalism lies in their respective views on economic issues. Liberal democracy is a system of government, and classical and modern liberals are in full agreement with regards to systems of government. Thus the distinction is unnecessary. Also, equating "liberty" with "classical liberalism" involves enormous POV. The version I support is as follows:

The term "liberal" in "liberal democracy" does not imply that the government of such a democracy must follow the political ideology of liberalism. It is merely a reference to the fact that liberal democracies feature constitutional protections of individual rights from government power which were first proposed during the Age of Enlightenment by philosophers advocating liberty. At present, there are numerous different political ideologies that support liberal democracy. Examples include conservatism, Christian Democracy, social democracy and some forms of socialism.

All Male Action, you should distinguish between the government and the constitution of a country. It is as clear as day that the government (that is, the elected officials) of a liberal democracy does not need to be composed of classical liberals, or even liberals in general. The distinguishing feature of liberal democracies is that they have constitutions protecting certain individual rights. A liberal constitution does not imply that the people in government are all liberals. -- Nikodemos 09:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems very reasonable.Ultramarine 10:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Then you should reword that. It's not clear at all what it's saying. I think the government does have to comply with political liberalism in the sense that it has to respect individual rights by protecting those rights from majority rule and state power. Yes, all the people in goverment do not have to be liberals, but government as a whole has to behave as a liberal for it to be a liberal democracy. If I have a source saying that "liberal" in liberal democrac refers to liberalism, then I don't think a statement sourced by that should be removed. All Male Action 21:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's try to get some common ground here. When you speak about "liberalism", do you mean "classic liberalism"? Ultramarine 21:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm using the word in the traditional sense (which is how scholarly articles and books also use it). I'm not talking about welfare liberalism. All Male Action 21:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Good. Here is what I think is the problem. The article is not talkinb about "classic liberalism" which includes things like a very small state and other economic views. The article talks about "constitutional liberalism": It has been difficult to recognize this problem because for almost a century in the West, democracy has meant liberal democracy -- a political system marked not only by free and fair elections, but also by the rule of law, a separation of powers, and the protection of basic liberties of speech, assembly, religion, and property. In fact, this latter bundle of freedoms -- what might be termed constitutional liberalism -- is theoretically different and historically distinct from democracy.

So I agree with Nikodemos when he says that there is no support for stating that liberal democracies must follow the views of classic liberalism regarding economics. Regarding the political system, classical and modern liberalism agree, as do conservatism and social democracy.Ultramarine 21:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Classical liberalism is a blend of political liberalism (also known as constitutional liberalism) and economic liberalism. It's the political liberalism that liberal democracy borrows from classical liberalism. So, just point that out. All Male Action 21:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully we agree. So we should make it clear that liberal democracies are founded on liberalism in the sense of a political system, as initally advocated by enlightenment philosophers, but that there is no agreement that economic liberalism, whether classic or modern, must be followed.Ultramarine 21:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Wikipedia needs an article on constitutional liberalism, aka political liberalism. All Male Action 21:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The key features of political liberalism that have been incorporated into liberal democracy are constitutional protections of individual rights from government power - which is precisely what I want the paragraph to say. Many readers may not know exactly what "political liberalism" is. Saying "constitutional protections of individual rights from government power" helps to clear up any confusion associated with the use of the word "liberalism". -- Nikodemos 21:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

This sentence is wrong: "The term "liberal" in "liberal democracy" does not imply that the government of such a democracy must follow the political ideology of liberalism." It does have to follow the political ideology of liberalism. What it doesn't have to follow is the economic ideology of liberalism. All Male Action 21:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

How about this: The term "liberal" in "liberal democracy" does not imply that the government of such a democracy must follow the economic ideology of modern liberalism or classic liberalism. It is a reference to the fact that liberal democracies support constitutional liberalism, the constitutional protections of individual rights from government power which were first proposed during the Age of Enlightenment by philosophers advocating liberty. At present, there are numerous different political ideologies that support liberal democracy. Examples include conservatism, Christian Democracy, modern liberalism, social democracy and some forms of socialism.Ultramarine 21:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks pretty good. All Male Action 22:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Another idea:

The term "liberal" in "liberal democracy" is a reference to the fact that liberal democracies feature constitutional protections of individual rights from government power (an idea often called constitutional liberalism). This does not imply that a liberal democracy must necessarily follow all the other ideas associated with classical or modern liberalism. In particular, since liberal democracy is a system of government (not an economic system), there are many different economic arrangements possible under the framework of a liberal democratic government. Because of this flexibility, there are numerous different political ideologies that support liberal democracy. Examples include conservatism, Christian Democracy, social democracy and some forms of socialism.

-- Nikodemos 22:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I do no think this is accurate, since liberal democracy do include some ideas likesome form of markets and property rights that are not compatiblle with all economic ideologies.Ultramarine 22:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's important to mention "constitutional liberalism." All Male Action 22:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph does not state that liberal democracies are compatible with all economic views - merely that they are compatible with "many different economic arrangements". I have also revised it to mention constitutional liberalism. -- Nikodemos 22:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It states "not an economic system", which I think is not correct. It allows very different economic views, but not all. I do think we should mention liberty. What is wrong with the other version? Ultramarine 22:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It's true that at some point of increasing violations of private property rights that it's no longer liberal democracy. All Male Action 22:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

A form of government is not an economic system... but in any case, that's not the point. I would support the other version, except it seems to imply that liberal democracies do support all the non-economic views of liberals. This is not necessarily true - for example many liberal democracies have an established religion. Conservative and Christian Democratic governments in particular are opposed to many of the cultural aspects of liberalism. I would edit the other paragraph as follows:

The term "liberal" in "liberal democracy" is a reference to the fact that liberal democracies support the constitutional protection of individual rights from government power (an idea called constitutional liberalism), which was first proposed during the Age of Enlightenment by philosophers advocating liberty. This does not imply that the government of a liberal democracy must follow any of the other aspects of the ideology of liberalism. At present, there are numerous different political ideologies that support liberal democracy. Examples include conservatism, Christian Democracy, social democracy, and some forms of socialism.

-- Nikodemos 22:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks good.Ultramarine 22:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Part of those "individual rights" is the right to private property. At some point of increasing violations of private property rights, it's not longer liberal democracy. It can be democracy sure, but not liberal democracy. So, what "individual rights" this refers to should be pointed out. All Male Action 23:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It does, later in the article. No need to do it in this paragraph. (As a sidenote, an anarcho-capitalist would argue that only the absence of a state protects private property rghts, but that is not a liberal democracy)Ultramarine 23:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

True, protection of individual rights isn't restricted to liberal democracy. An absolute monarchy the defends individual rights can be liberal as well (as in Hobbes). Anarchocapitalism as well since they believe in purchased protection of rights. All Male Action 17:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

What forms of socialism, except for the social democracy, support liberal democracy? -- Vision Thing -- 11:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Good question. One possibility may be a form of market socialism where cooperatives or other assoiations have property rights.Ultramarine 14:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Democratic socialism also supports liberal democracy, as do most reformist schools of socialism. -- Nikodemos 22:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The statement of principles of the Socialist International contains the following text: [42]

"19.Forms of democracy of course may vary. However, it is only possible to speak of democracy if people have a free choice between various political alternatives in the framework of free elections; if there is a possibility for a change of government by peaceful means based on the free will of the people; if individual and minority rights are guaranteed; and, if there is an independent judicial system based on the rule of law impartially applied to all citizens. Political democracy is an indispensable element of a socialist society. Democratic socialism is a continuing process of social and economic democratisation and of increasing social justice."

"20. Individual rights are fundamental to the values of socialism. Democracy and human rights are also the substance of popular power, and the indispensable mechanism whereby people can control the economic structures which have so long dominated them. Without democracy, social policies cannot disguise the dictatorial character of a government."

"21. There can be no doubt that different cultures will develop their own institutional forms of democracy. But whatever form democracy assumes - nationally or internationally - it must provide full rights for individuals and for organised minority opinions. For socialists, democracy is of its very nature pluralist, and this pluralism provides the best guarantee of its vitality and creativity."

"22. Freedom from arbitrary and dictatorial government is essential. It constitutes the precondition whereby peoples and societies can create a new and better world of peace and international cooperation - a world in which political, economic and social destinies will be democratically determined."

Sounds like liberal democracy to me. -- Nikodemos 06:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Nowhere is "liberal democracy" mentioned. Socialists support direct democracy, not representative democracy. All Male Action 06:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

They may not use the term "liberal democracy", but they endorse:

1. Free elections
2. Individual and minority rights
3. Rule of law
4. "Individual rights are fundamental to the values of socialism"
5. "full rights for individuals and for organised minority opinions"
6. "Freedom from arbitrary and dictatorial government"

How is this not liberal democracy? Also, according to the Freedom in the World survey and the map used in this article, all social democracies are liberal democracies. -- Nikodemos 07:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yet, no mention of elected representatives. Liberal democracies are representative democracies. If it's not a representative democracy, it's not a liberal democracy. Also, where is mention of private property rights? Liberal democracy protects private property. Besides, why on Earth would a socialist say he supports "liberal" democracy? Socialists oppose liberalism. All Male Action 07:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The Socialist International is an organization of political parties that stand in elections throughout the world. Their member parties have won elections and formed governments numerous times, particularly in Europe and Latin America. They have to support representative democracy, since that is the very basis of their existence. They are political parties who want to represent the people. If they believed in direct democracy, they would disband. Also, point 62 of their declaration of principles states that "markets can and must function as a dynamic way of promoting innovation and signalling the desires of consumers through the economy as a whole." -- Nikodemos 07:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of what they say, that's not good enough. You need a secondary source from a scholar saying that socialists support liberal democracy. It's need to be explicit. Liberalism and socialism are supposed to be at odds. All Male Action 07:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Socialism is at odds with many aspects of liberalism, but not with constitutional liberalism. Or, at least, some forms of socialism are not at odds with it. Notice that the article does not claim that all kinds of socialism support liberal democracy. That is of course not true. But some socialists do support liberal democracy. It is late at night here; tomorrow I will go to the library and look for a secondary source. But remember: All I'm trying to prove is that some - not all - socialists support liberal democracy.

By the way, here is a map of countries currently ruled by member parties of the Socialist International: [43] Would you say that none of these countries are liberal democracies? -- Nikodemos 07:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It sounds to me like they're "market socialists," which is not actually socialism, but a compromise between market economy and socialism. I can accept that a "market socialist" can support liberal democracy, but again, there needs to be a source. All Male Action 07:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

They're not "market socialists" - they are social democrats and democratic socialists. In any case, their opinion supersedes yours (or my opinion, for that matter - I actually agree with you on this issue, but I cannot let my own personal views get in the way of accurate reporting; the fact is that millions of people claim to be socialists and support liberal democracy at the same time). -- Nikodemos 07:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact remains that they don't use the term "liberal democracy." The source doesn't work. "Liberal" demoracy implies liberalism. Socialism is well established to be in opposition to liberalism. All Male Action 07:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Liberal democracy does not imply all aspects of liberalism. Not all liberal democracies are ruled by liberal parties. And the source clearly shows support for all features of liberal democracy as defined in this article. -- Nikodemos 07:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It implies the essential aspects of liberalism, which are protection of individual liberty and property from the state. State ownership of the means of production is not protection of private property, of course. All Male Action 07:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Not all socialists support state ownership over all the means of production. Not all socialists are Marxists. -- Nikodemos 07:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

They may not support state ownership of all means of production, but they do support state ownership of most of the means of production. That's what defines them as socialist. A liberal system is capitalist or mixed in favor of capitalism. All Male Action 07:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

"The heritage of socialism thus consists in a preference for a certain normative model of democracy that does not correspond to the implemented liberal democracy." Norris Pippa, Critical Citizens, Oxford All Male Action 07:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)