Talk:Democratization

message: My recent text on this page was quickly reverted with small amount of description of why it was done. 
Couple of questions:
1. There was a claim for OR. Could someone explain how many citations are expected per paragraph to keep my text ?
2. Also a claim for poor language. I thought Wikipedians should help each other if some parts of the text is poor. I doubt that Wikipedia articles arise from perfectly phrased paragraphs right at the start. Wikipedia was built to allow cooperation. Can you explain what language level expectation is required to participate on this Wikipedia page?
I would happily adjust my text according to the advices of the moderators of this page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iley.power (talk • contribs) 07:16, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi there. Sorry, I was a bit over-the-top in reverting your additions. I apologise. I mainly removed it because most of it was unsourced; You did include some sources, but they mainly addressed specific events such as the 2017 police strike, not democratic transitions as a whole. You could find some reputable academic sources that talk about democratic transition, and include those. TeraTIX 07:28, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent changes removed

message: There is a really amateur comment about Hitler in the section Causes of Democratization under wealth, and it's really stupid. For one, the source that is given is obviously fake: Democracy and Development: Political Institutions and Well-Being in the World, 1950-1990, noting that the Nazi's rise and fall happened before 1950. Secondly, a quick look at Google books shows that the book never mentions the words Nazi or Hitler, and with every mentioning of Germany having the prefix of East or West, with the split occurring as a by-product of World War II. Finally, the statement is just plain false. Anyone with a smattering of world history would know that Germany was facing a huge economic crisis when it became fascist. "Hitler" is not an counterexample to anything. What's up with the admins, can they not take two seconds to digest things, or do they just approve everything with a source?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.81.165.130 (talk) 15:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Wealth and Hitler

message: It is written here that A tradition of democracy is valued only positive for a prosess of democratisation. I think that has to be more nuanced, because some kinds of tradition of democracy, like having experienced democracy in near future, also gives the country an experience of how to break down the democracy and make democratisation fail. In such cases the movements in the society that might be against democratisastion, may have the knowledge of how to do coup d'etats, and thereby becomes the tradition of democracy the cause of the breakdown of the democratising system.
:That's a good point. I've changed the article to hopefully better represent this. -- Vardion 20:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: "For example, a very extreme democratization that delegates decision to very small units without any central control is sometimes referred to as anarchization." Is there any source for that term actually existing? Or any historical example? Somalia is/was often seen as an anarchy, but I do not understand how this relates to democracy.Ultramarine 06:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Somalia is only 'anarchic' if you restrict your understanding of authority to Westphalian states. The clan system continued to exist after the fall of Barre and continues to structure politics there to this day. Anarchization would have to involve a diminishing of structures of coercion, so that politics became increasingly a matter of free association. In that sense, Western Europe might be a better place to look for it.--86.134.234.199 16:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Anarchization" 

message: Removed the claim that a country cannot develop a stable democracy without a homogenous population - Canada, the United States, Belgium, Switzerland, India and Australia prove this claim absolutely wrong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.164.73.25 (talk) 00:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homogenous population 

message: Have removed Brazil from the non-western examples of democracies as Brazil is very much a western country. Latin America for goodness sake!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.181.11 (talk) 14:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Western" idea 

message: I did not remove any sourced material, see edit summaries. The claim regarding the UK is simply false, the democratization process was extremely slow. If no objections, I will restore the corrections.Ultramarine 14:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for pointing that out. I have changed the sentence with the UK example to a correct version ("consolidated" instead of "quickly consolidated"). But I do not understand why you removed the history section, describing three democratization waves. That section includes citations. Would you prefer renaming it to "Waves of democratization"? Or you have more substantial objections to the history section? Tankred 14:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right about the history section. I think that the "Effects of democratization" section could be eliminated, there are certainly many effects of democracy and democratization, covered in for example liberal democracy article, so need to mention only the effect on civil wars here. Thoughts? Ultramarine 15:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the purpose of the "Effects of democratization" section is to discuss the effects of democratization on political stability in general and organized violence in particular. According to many empirical studies, democratization from authoritarian regimes to partial democracies brings more instability, while democratization from a partial to a full democracy decreases the likelihood of violent conflict. But you are right that this section is not very clear and it is much shorter than other sections of the article. I would prefer to expand it instead of deleting it, but, as I do not have much time to work on it right now, I would not insist on retaining it in its present form. If you have time and inclination, you are more than welcome to expand and copyedit this section, though. If you think it should be deleted, feel free to do it. Tankred 18:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert 

message: Instead of spreading omnifarious difficulties and controversies of the subject over the whole body of the article, it's better to introduce this almost standard for any npov article section and collect there all the issues, practical difficulties, opposing opinions, etc.--213.208.170.194 (talk) 06:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section 

message: The last paragraph of the Views on democratization section should be clearly attributed to the author and source of these observations, Larry Pardy, to maintain NPOV. It currently reads like it is presenting the views and observation of Pardy as fact. --202.144.133.68 (talk) 13:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV issue on last paragraph under [[Democratization#Views_on_democratization|Views on democratization]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Democratization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141024130317/http://www.ait.org.tw/infousa/zhtw/DOCS/Demopaper/dmpaper2.html to http://www.ait.org.tw/infousa/zhtw/DOCS/Demopaper/dmpaper2.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070203075248/http://catoinstitute.org/pubs/journal/cj18n2/cj18n2-5.pdf to http://catoinstitute.org/pubs/journal/cj18n2/cj18n2-5.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Shouldn´t there be added a small section on gender and democracy? Gender equality as both part of democracy and prerequisite for democratisation, and also number of female dictators and female led governments after dictatorships and wars.  And I can´t see even one reference to any female writer. I don´t know enough about this subject to do it myself, besides: I am just too tired and don´t have energy to do this kind of thing, that might lead to a of quarrelling. Simply searching with words like "women democratisation" or "gender democratisasion" gives lots of interesting articles.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toove (talk • contribs) 23:23, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gender and democracy 

message: See discussion at Talk:Judiciary of Poland#Judicial independence in Poland. Whizz40 (talk) 09:31, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Judicial independence in Poland 

message: Liberalization in autocracies was more likely to succeed in countries that had the advantage of a better starting point concerning political institutions, GDP, and education. These more privileged countries could also carry out key reforms more rapidly, and were able to do so even in areas in which they had no initial advantage. This indicates the presence of a "Matthew effect" in political science: to countries that already have, more is given. PzychoPat (talk) 16:00, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested added paragraph to Economic development and modernization theory (however self-cite) 

message: It's impressive to see the evolution of this article  by an editor who made three edits on that day and then disappeared. What survived back then  for seven months without even a single source URL (three academics' names were mentioned) now has 137 watchers, any unsourced statements are unlikely to survive for more than a few minutes, and overall the article is well structured and well sourced, even if improvements are possible. Ironically, a lot of the sources are closed access (secret sources of knowledge are contrary to the whole idea of democracy), but quite a few are open access; my prediction is that in 2043, chances are that most of the sources will be open access (the 10th anniversary of Aaron Swartz's decease comes up in a few days' time). Congratulations to everybody working on the article. :) Boud (talk) 12:22, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Democratisation of this article ;)