Talk:Democratic peace theory/Archive 4

message: Septentrionalis acknowledges that an "absolute democratic peace" is his own invention and not used in the literature. Again, some research have found no wars between democracies, with wars having more than 1000 battle deaths. Other research have found fewer MIDs between democracies, with MID being a broader concept including for example a military display of strength with no deaths. Note that this is the findings of many different researchers and studies. Again, Gowa mainly attacks the claims regarding MIDs. The presentation of her research is misleading.
*This article does not, and I think cannot, include a complete summary of Gowa's book. It is, after all, 114 pages long, excluding the index. The argument is included as both interesting and sourced.Septentrionalis 21:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: third iteration

message: Very good edit, reads much better. --Scaife 00:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Robert A West 01:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now this is interesting, Pmanderson is starting to remove supporting statements from the history, apparently you were not critical enough.Ultramarine 18:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I did remove certain redundant statements, most of them introduced after Mr. West's edit; Ultramarine insists on expressing his point of view repeatedly, in every possible place. Septentrionalis 18:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: The article at present cites papers by Ray, Gleditsch, and Spiro in support of the claim that Rummel established the criteria of the Correlates of War Project.
What Ray says is
: In addition Doyle, like Rummel, performed a systematic analysis of data regarding the validity of the democratic peace proposition. That is, both authors analyzed authoritative data on interstate wars (from the Correlates of War project at the University of Michigan; see Singer & Small 1972, Small & Singer 1982) and systematically attempted to classify by regime type all the states involved in those wars.
(Part of this seems to have crept into the text, which would be undesirable.) This seems to say that Rummel used the data; he didn't manage it. 
The other two papers both survey the history of the field, and as far as I can see, mention both Rummel and CoW; but, again as far as I can see, neither mentions both in the same paragraph. Rummel is not mentioned in the history on the CoW website. Pending an exact quote or page reference, the claim seems . Septentrionalis 04:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you mean, since I wrote it I went back and looked at my sources. I incorrectly misled the reader. From what I read he did not work on the CoW project w/ Singer, but worked with the CoW research in developing his ideas of what constitutes war and liberal democracy. Sorry for the confusion. --Scaife 04:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rummel and CoW

message: Ultramarine 06:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some briefs overviews available online 

message: Pmanderson has still not responded to my points regarding Gowa, despite stating that he would do so in probably 24 hours, 10 days ago. Please continue this discussions now. You can of course quote and split my statements however you like. See "Gowa again" above. Ultramarine 06:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm! That sounds like a good offer :-) Kim Bruning 07:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Accepted, now I have my hands on a copy of Gowa. Ultramarine's text also remains undivided at Talk:Democratic_peace_theory/Archive_3#Gowa__againSeptentrionalis 18:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gowa 

message: In part due to the repetitions under #Gowa again, this page is 57K. That is still manageable for my computer, but the time has come to consider the issue - again. Septentrionalis 21:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree --Scaife (Talk)  Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 21:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support some archiving. Obviously the part relevant to the templates should be kept and those that were removed without agreement should be restored.Ultramarine 21:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like a good idea. The main problem is however the archiving of ongoing disuscussions without agreement. Especially troublesome is the removal by one side of the arguments by the other side disputing NPOV, factual accuracy, and original research.Ultramarine 16:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those arguments mostly refer to text that has now been changed, often by Ultramarine himself. Sorting by section (which Salix's proposal would enforce) would certainly permit the complaints to be addressed in the order of the text, which might make things easier to follow. What do we do when verbosity requires archiving of the subpages, however? This page is chiefly about one or two sections as it is. Septentrionalis 17:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving

message: War and liberal democracy can be defined in different ways. Research often define war as any military action with more than 1000 killed in battle. This is the definition used in the Correlates of War Project which has also supplied the data regarding the wars for many of the studies. 
Repetitious. Also ignores the obvious point that 1000 deaths was chosen, not for any inherent advantage, but because it was the limit of a pre-existing database. Septentrionalis 19:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the definition used in most conflict studies. Also the studies using MIDs use it since they exclude wars.Ultramarine 06:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Please explain. Ultramarine 12:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Definitions

message: Ultramarine 17:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes

message: While luckily few if any died in the Cod War, it might be worth a mention as an exception --Philip Baird Shearer 11:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mentioned above.Ultramarine 12:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cod War 

message: The real flaw with the Rummelite claim is not that it is false (although several of the denials above are very tenuous), but that it is vacuous. Consider the requirements involved to be a democracy:
*2/3 male suffrage
*Contested elections
*regimes at least three years old. 
*No effective power in the hands of hereditary officers.
**And Ultramaine invokes several others above, ad hoc
Great Britain did not meet these before 1884; nor indeed after 1884. (Setting aside Ultramarine's equivocations about whether 60% is somehow more than 2/3, the Parliament Act was not passed until August 20, 1911 - so Great Britain was not a democracy when she delcared war on Germany by this artificial definition.) But let her in 1884-1914 as a marginal case.
In fact, the only nations to pass through this sieve before 1884 are the United States, Switzerland, and San Marino (and  the degree of enfranchisement in  Helvetic Confederation of 1813-1847 is dubious; and did San Marino abstain from feud?). 
Between 1884 and 1904, there were a handful of democracies. (Doyle actually printed his list; and includes 13, some of which (like Belgium and Chile) would not pass the requirements above; the honest Rummel count must be smaller. (licet contradictio in adjectis) Some of these are isolated from each other; some are small powers. The same studiesthat Ray quotes, which find mutual democracy a force for peace, find non-contiguity and small-power status stronger forces. 
There were several crises between the Great Powers. The only one that led to war was between a democracy and a border-line democracy. Several of these crises were between democracies, and there is no sign of either institutional or cultural constraints to war. Layne is quite right, and is supported by the literature outside this little conclave of DPT, insofar as I know it.
From 1904 to 1940, Great Britain and France formed the Entente Cordiale. Most of the other democracies before 1945 were either allied with them or benevolently neutral. The same studies again show that alliance is, as it is intended to be, a force for peace. 
From 1940 to 1989, most of the democracies of the world were allied against first Germany and then the Soviet Union. 
Since 1945, the other articles of the Kantian triad, trade and international organization for peace, have been in existence. They have been especially widespread and effective since 1989. At that rime, furthermore, the major discords of the post-war world, which visibly spun off minor wars, the Cold War and decolonization, both ended. 
Nevertheless, I believe that those studies which find democracy to be one of several independent forces for peace are probably, in some sense, correct. We have, however, a small amount of data, massively affected by external sources. Finding out what sense is almost impossible. Ultramarine's disingenuous and partisan quotations from a handful of already tendentious non-notable books are a disservice to the reader and to Wikipedia.  Septentrionalis 22:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lots of claims here without sources but you are of course correct that liberal democracies were rare before the 20th century. But in the last 30 years there have been many liberal democracies. There were 43 liberal democracies in 1972 and 87 in 2004. Using other data and a broader definition of conflict than 1000 battle deaths there has still not been a single conflict between liberal democracies. I find the arguments regarding the Cold War strange, Gowa's theory predicts an increase in wars between liberal democracies when the threat from the Communist states disappeared. The claim regarding decolonization is also strange, this greatly increased the number of states and democracies so again more wars should have been expected.Ultramarine 13:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The perfect democratic peace

message: I have not enogh knowledge about this, but since I stumbled onto this article :
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HA31Ak01.html
Among the examples of wars launched by democracies are:
Serbia (1991): civil war
Iraq (2005): Kurdish and Shi'ite militias, threat of civil war
Bosnia (1995): war with Serbia
Ethiopia (1998): Eritrean war
India and Pakistan (1999): Kargil war
Burundi (1993): Hutu genocide against Tutsi
Iran (2005): election of Mahmud Ahmadinejad
Indonesia (1975): East Timor independence movement 
Make of it what you will. I want the theory to be correct. I thought I would mention the article, since it appeared to be relevant here.
DanielDemaret 14:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From the article, in reference to the cited book: I do not recommend the book; what is true in it is trivial, and what is not trivial is silly.  I have to agree, none of these examples demonstrates an established democracy going to war, or initiating a war. Civil wars and revolutions are usually excluded, as by definition a nation in a civil war is divided and therefore not a "democracy" in the truest sense. And if a "democratic" state goes to war due to an election, it's probably not a liberal democracy. That being said this article is a good look at how the mainstream media looks at DPT and some of the false assumptions attached to it either pro or con. --Scaife (Talk)  Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 15:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points. Still, I will look into some of them for User:Ultramarine/sandbox3. Some of the examples seem very strange, how is "Iran (2005): election of Mahmud Ahmadinejad" a war? Ultramarine 15:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the same sense that the election of Hamas is a war; as a casus belli.Septentrionalis 22:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not sure if relevant 

message: Ultramarine has been reverting this page for two points;
*To get rid of a reference to Matthew White's webpage, in a footnote. Since Rummel considers him a foe worthy of his steel, shouldn't discuss him?
*To claim that this page, as modified, disagrees with Ultramarine's account of why there are no real democracies at war. Since what I have done is to summarize his excuses above, which he repeated on Never at War, this seems perverse. Septentrionalis 22:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added Rummel's response to White's unreferenced personal webpage. Obviously the arguments by DPT researchers should be presented correctly and in full, they are what essential to understanding the dispute. Ultramarine 22:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To be perfectly accurate, Ultramarine has added blatantly prejudical language about a source which Professor Rummel treats with full respect even while disagreeing with it. See diff. He has also repeatedly placed a tag, unsupported anywhere. On which wars does he claim that the present text represents Weart's view differently than in Never at War? Septentrionalis 22:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Never_at_War#Definitions or R.J._Rummell#Democratic peace for the correct definitions used. Compare to your strange text Democratic peace theory#Exceptions that is completely different. And of course the actual claimed exceptions should be discussed.Ultramarine 22:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is remarkably unspecific. I did not change a single argument, I simply condensed. Feel free to add to the footnotes. Actual tags require actual documentation, not these vague and airy charges. Septentrionalis 22:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ultramarine's continued reversions

message: I am concerned about this section, in particular the links for site supporting the DPT. Almost every link is related to Rummel in some form or fashion, and I find this to be dishonest. Rummel's research merits perhaps one link, however 4 or 5 is a bit POV, don't you think? --Scaife (Talk)  Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 18:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm, I count at most 3, including one that is simply a listing of the literature. The others are certainly better than unreferenced personal webesites by nonresearchers provided by the opposite side. However, we can certainly remove the link to his website and the interview. I suggest replacing them with these online overviews:  Ultramarine 18:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The strangely titled "A summing-up in favor of Rummellism" is a review of the literaure not written by  Rummel. Nor is his charts links and also contain research by other reserachers.Ultramarine 19:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The summing-up is Ray's 1998 paper, often mentioned in the notes, especially Ultramarine's notes. It strongly advocates Rummel's particular positions, which he and Ray and Weart appear to hold alone against the field. In the process, it does give an overview of the field, somewhat longer, but considerably more PoV, than Chan's or Gleditsch's. Septentrionalis 20:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Incorrect again, please read the paper, there are many other supporting reserachers. Here it is and also some other online reviews: Ultramarine 20:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Links