Talk:Democratic peace theory/Archive 2

message: Most of them are Septentrionalis explaining edits and User:Ultramarine protesting that the page would only be NPOV if it defended one particular version of DPT. Septentrionalis
:Robdurbar deleted this passage from the archive note above. I believe it to be fair description of the archives and so retain it, but move it here as possibly tendentious. (I would prefer if edits of my comments were discussed with me first.) Septentrionalis 20:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary of archive

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

message: Your version states "This website argues for the strong version of the theory". This is incorrect,  is a review paper of the studies done on the DPT, both supporting and critical. Please correct. Ultramarine 14:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Having now read the article at some length, I would describe it as a skillful summing-up in the interest of DPT, including mention of the criticisms, partly to throw overboard the weaker DPTs, partly to present refutations. It argues very strongly that DPT is better founded than the alternatives.  If this is Ultramarine's basis for estimating the state of the field, I am no longer surprised by his statements above. Septentrionalis 18:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The amazing thing is that you admit not having read it, because I have repeatedly pointed it out. One would think that a serious critic would be familiar with this basic material. Ultramarine 19:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Touché! I did, however, read it weeks ago (and edited accordingly), but the memory blurred with the rest of the apologias for Rummellism with which the page is littered. Septentrionalis 14:34, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Now you have moved this scholarly summary of studies to external links while keeping your Wall Street Journal opinion article and this personal webpage  as evidence in the main text. Please correct. Ultramarine 14:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect description of paper 

message: Your text states "The third type of criticism has been expressed thus in a Hoover Institution article" This is misleading,  is only a reprint of a Wall Street Journal opinion article. Please correct. Ultramarine 14:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I will accept republished by if the dates can be established. Septentrionalis 18:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the link. Ultramarine 19:43, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You have still not corrected the statement. Please do. Ultramarine 03:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See above. Septentrionalis 18:20, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect description of newspaper opinion article 

message: It is estimated that only 16% of the population in Athens had the right to vote.
The 16% here is  the ratio between number of  Athenian citizens and the total (adult male) population of Attica. Since we know neither of these, stating the ratio between them to two significant digits is irresponsible. 
It's actually worse than that. The number of Athenians can be guessed, from such data as the 6000 votes required for ostracism, the 24,000 troops mustered at the beginning of the Peloponnesian War usw. The total population of Attica can only be estimated by guessing the ratio of men to women, adults to children, citizens to metics, and free to slave;  doing the indicated multiplication; and then arguing the result is not inconsistent with the archaeolgical evidence. The first two factors can be estimated from other demoraphic evidence; the last two can only be guessed. Therefore 16% represents the product of two modern guesses. Septentrionalis 18:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The point being that only a very small minority had the right to vote. Feel free to add that the numbers are uncertain. Ultramarine 19:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Those who think thata sixth or a quarter enfranchisement is very small should consider the Belgian franchise of 1892 again, which gave the vote to 5% of the men - and Belgium was, rightly, considered a parliamentary and responsible government. Septentrionalis 22:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Demographics of Athens

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

message: This paragraph has no topic sentence. Appears not to use a coherent definition of bloc. 
:Supporters of the democratic peace theory disagree with the analysis of wars before the start of the Cold War, arguing that even when there were conflicts, democracies did not make war with each other. They also argue that there were wars within blocs. In the nineteenth century, much of the world was divided into blocs by the imperialist powers. This was often strictly regulated as when England and Russia divided Persia into two spheres of influence. Numerous wars occurred in these blocs, both by the imperialist powers when they extended direct rule and also between minor states in these blocs. For example, an incomplete list of wars in India after England had become the dominant European power includes three Anglo-Maratha Wars, four Anglo-Mysore Wars, two Anglo-Sikh Wars, three Anglo-Afghan Wars, the Anglo-Nepalese War, the Anglo-Bhutanese War, and three Anglo-Burmese Wars. 
Do you really suppose that these are Britain making war on her allies? These are wars coercing them to become her allies. 
:They also note numerous wars in Latin America, despite belonging to an U.S. dominated bloc after the Monroe doctrine. This bloc was frequently threatened by the other imperialist blocs and sometimes direct military action occurred, like the French military invasion of Mexico. Examples of large scale wars in Latin America in this period include the War of the Triple Alliance,  the War of the Pacific, the War of the Peruvian-Bolivian Confederation, the Mexican-American War, and the Chaco War. 
The Monroe doctrine is a unilateral determination, not an alliance. Therefore it does not represent a community of interest; for the Latin American states didn't agree. 
:They also note several betrayals of formal treaties within blocs during WWII. Examples include the wars of Finland, Italy, Bulgaria, Roumania, and Hungary on their German ally in WWII and the German invasion of the Soviet Union despite the Molotov-Ribbentrop Nonaggression Pact and its secret extensions.  
::Of course nations that make war against each other are not allies. But the above statements show that the existence of blocs and external threats does not prevent wars, as the bloc peace theory claims. Ultramarine 03:16, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The bloc peace theory claims only that the members of a particular bloc did not make war against each other, since the bloc exists because of, and in order to implement, a common interest. "BPT" (which, remember, is a nickname, invented in this article) says nothing about wars outside the bloc; which may even have been more likely because the bloc existed. Septentrionalis 17:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The BPT has been criticized using wars in other blocs. Ultramarine 13:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rambling paragraph

message: ===WWI===
Violates npov by not mentioning arguments against Germany being a democracy. Ultramarine 18:29, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Right; now discussed, at equal length.Septentrionalis 19:52, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Still violates npov by excluding many of the strongest arguments. Ultramarine 20:41, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Name them, and if they are stronger than the war power and the right to appoint the chancellor, I'll put them in, (subject to length). Please note that any argument which would also deny democracy to 1914 Britain will sweep away much of the statistical support for DPT. Septentrionalis 21:21, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I see no evidence that Rummel's website or "a striking formulation" is responsible for the spread of DPT beyond academia. If you have any evidence, cite. Otherwise, remove. I would rather note Clinton's endorsement, if anything, as responsible. Ultramarine 22:10, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have seen this asserted in multiple places, so it strikes me as a non-controversial statement.  He is cited in about half the Google hits on the subject, so is obviously significant.  How would you phrase? Robert A West 22:47, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, give sources for your claim regarding the spread. I would remove the text and instead note that Clinton endorsed it. Ultramarine 22:49, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You want to remove all reference to Rummel at the start of the article?  Who are you and what have you done with Ultramarine?  Robert A West 23:31, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously not. Only the sentence this section is discussing. Ultramarine 23:39, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

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

message: Violates npov by not mentioning arguments against Germany being a democracy. Ultramarine 18:29, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Right; now discussed, at equal length.Septentrionalis 19:52, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Still violates npov by excluding many of the strongest arguments. Ultramarine 20:41, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Name them, and if they are stronger than the war power and the right to appoint the chancellor, I'll put them in, (subject to length). Please note that any argument which would also deny democracy to 1914 Britain will sweep away much of the statistical support for DPT. Septentrionalis 21:21, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I see no evidence that Rummel's website or "a striking formulation" is responsible for the spread of DPT beyond academia. If you have any evidence, cite. Otherwise, remove. I would rather note Clinton's endorsement, if anything, as responsible. Ultramarine 22:10, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have seen this asserted in multiple places, so it strikes me as a non-controversial statement.  He is cited in about half the Google hits on the subject, so is obviously significant.  How would you phrase? Robert A West 22:47, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, give sources for your claim regarding the spread. I would remove the text and instead note that Clinton endorsed it. Ultramarine 22:49, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You want to remove all reference to Rummel at the start of the article?  Who are you and what have you done with Ultramarine?  Robert A West 23:31, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously not. Only the sentence this section is discussing. Ultramarine 23:39, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

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

message: All three of these are PoV disputes. If no accuracy dispute can be cited, the {totallyDisputed} tag is unwarranted. Septentrionalis 19:52, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Someone did a good job of cutting this article down to essentials: it is now quite readable.  I would say cut it down to a POV tag.  Robert A West 20:30, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Accuracy

message: This talk page is now back to 37K. Is there agreement that sections 3 through 8, which were retrieved from the archive, are either
*dealt with by deletion of the offending text, or
*included in the discussion below, points 9 and followings 
and may in either case no longer need to be on the active talk page, but may be sent back to the archive? Septentrionalis 22:14, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Most of the content and objections is still relevant for the current discussion. Ultramarine 22:38, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We can't go in circles forever.  We need to archive something before this page reaches max.  Robert A West 22:57, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Show me the Wikipedia policy that actively discussed discussion pages should be achieved. Ultramarine 23:05, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That is trivial.  Wikipedia:Archive for one.  Archiving some of the page is a technical necessity, and it we don't agree on how to do it, a sysop may do it for us with a ham hand.  Many, many active pages have archives for older parts of still-active discussions, and points made in those archives are frequently cited.  Robert A West 23:29, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: All of the contents of the page has now been added during the last few haours. And you still want to remove it?Ultramarine 23:38, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There must be something that has been resolved, at least for now.  I suppose we could subpage it, but that is a PITA.  Apparently, some Wikipedians cannot edit pages > 32K.  We are being discourteous to the community.  Robert A West 23:45, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Page length

message: One criticism has been that longer version is too long. This is valid. I suggest moving the specific historic examples to a separate page. Something like this . Comments?
:Looks like much of the same stuff that Mr. Anderson criticized as POV or dubious before, so it could be construed as a "POV fork". Also, I am not sure how useful it would be.  To take a featured article as an example, the Battle of Jutland summarizes the dispute over responsibility, but avoids going into excruciating detail on the capablities and proper role of battlecruisers in the line of battle, and there is no article on that point.  In any case, I would prefer one edit war at a time.  ;-) Robert A West 03:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Though not really in a position to comment on the pov side (i simply removed what seemed most irrelevant from the overall thread of the article), I feel that the length is now at a more acceptable standrad. A specific historic examples could be useful in reducing size further. However, my main criticism of the current article (excluding neutrality) would still be that it appears a bit unapprocahble. My main suggestion for improving this would be to delete most of the stuff about Kant's essay. This is an article on DPT, not on Kant or his essay. 
      "Kant's essay is a three-legged stool (besides the preliminary disarmament)."
The above appears a paticularly off-putting phrase and I think that everything from 'Kant's essay, however, differs...' down to the 'deomcratic peace theories' title could be shortened into one or two paragraphs. If one is so interested, one can go and read Kant's essay or a critique of it oneself! Robdurbar 21:23, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Feel free to abridge; but your last effort was condensed to the point of inaccuracy. Do leave Kant's three points, Angell, Schumpeter, Palmerston, and Wilson; they do, or should, come in again lower down. I have removed the metaphor, unless someone else thinks it helpful. Septentrionalis 22:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought subheads would help the reader.  If anyone feels I made a hash of things, feel free to re-edit or revert.  Robert A West 23:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New page about specific historic examples 

message: Unless an accuracy dispute is alleged below, which a {dubious) tag will not cover, I will remove the accuracy tag tomorrow. Septentrionalis 21:24, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See the section on Kant above. On the other hand, you have presented no evidence of factual inaccuracy in my version and I will remove the claim unless you do. Ultramarine 22:06, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no factual dispute with the present text of the article; Kant is widely cited. And  who is widely cited earlier than Kant? Even if that amounted to one, it would be properly marked by a {dubious} tag after widely. The second claim is disingenuous, since the text pruned from the longer version contained many sentences expressly disputed, with evidence, in the archive, and many of those remain in the latest irruption of the longer version. Septentrionalis 22:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Any unilateral reversion to the longer version will be rereverted; and I hold the two-version tag should be removed in the process. Septentrionalis 22:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: accuracy

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

message: Your current text states. " Monadic theories tend to be more oriented to political philosophy, and to emphasise the internally peaceful nature of democracies. More general theories developed from the monadic version claim that all systematic violence is rare within, and between, democracies. Dyadic theories, usually statistical analyses of historical data sets, also take into consideration wars between democracies and non-democracies, and for comparison, wars between non-democracies." This is false, monadic theory is that democratic states are generally more peaceful in all international relations, not only towards other democracies as the dyadic theory states. Both versions uses statistics. . Ultramarine 21:24, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Septentrionalis has responded here . He has however not corrected the above text. Please do. Ultramarine 19:19, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your version is still incorrect "Monadic theories tend to be more oriented to political philosophy, and to emphasise the internally peaceful nature of democracies. More general theories developed from the monadic version claim that all systematic violence is rare within, and between, democracies. Dyadic theories, usually statistical analyses of historical data sets, also take into consideration wars between democracies and non-democracies, and for comparison, wars between non-democracies. ". Ultramarine 13:31, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I will cite another study to make this absolutely clear "While monadic approaches hold that democracies tend towards peaceful foreign policy, dyadic approaches argue that democracies consistently restrain from war only in conflicts with their own kind." . Ultramarine 14:02, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As often, Ultramarine claims contradiction while supplying a quote perfectly consistent with the text - which could, however, use clarification. Septentrionalis 15:31, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your current text is still incorrect "Monadic theories tend to be akin to political philosophy, and  emphasise the internally peaceful nature of democracies. More general theories developed from the monadic version claim that democracies are in general less apt to engage in systematic violence; and that, therefore, violence within or between democracies is also very rare. Dyadic theories, usually statistical analyses of historical data sets, compare wars between democracies, on one hand, with wars between democracies and non-democracies and  wars between non-democracies, on the other; and argue that there are special reasons why wars between democracies do not occur." Ultramarine 22:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

text: See my first paragraph. If you accept my statement as the factually correct, I will gladly edit your text. If you do not, then it is pointless. Please state your position. Ultramarine 06:41, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement you mske in the first paragraph does not contradict the statement you quote. Both are true. I am at a loss as to what confusion exists here. Septentrionalis 16:36, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Monadic and dyadic theory

message: Your version excludes the referenced studies showing that proportional representation is associated with less violence. Explain. Ultramarine 23:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I had missed this ill-placed addition to this page. The proper and sufficient answer is that I would prefer not to. Ultramarine is free to add any such study, but I don't see why he would: he has argued, correctly, that internal peace is not the subject of a DPT, properly speaking. Septentrionalis 16:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The more general version of the DPT extends to internal systematic violence such as civil wars  . You are violating Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy/Precedents#Neutral_point_of_view_.28and_associated_principles.29 and Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy/Precedents#Source_citations by removing well-referenced information by reverting to your incorrect and unreferenced versions. Ultramarine 20:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proportional representation 

message: Except for the first, all of these changes propose to add back detail that was removed to form the shorter version. Furthermore, although much critical detail was also removed, none of it is to be added. 
There is consensus against restoring the eye-glazing detail of the longer version. Furthermore, all of the actual  points made by this partisan detail have been included in substance. To add back the detail on one side only would be imbalance.  
This suffices. I hold that much of the matter proposed is also variously inaccurate, partisan, original research, a misunderstanding of sources, or special pleading for Rummelism - and I have suggested a means for discussing that at the end of #Totally Disputed Tag, but I do not need to discuss it here. 
Nevertheless, the above section can be usefully quarried for individual points and sources. Septentrionalis 15:44, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is incorrect, my current version is very different from the earlier very long old version and has also added new facts. If you argue that there is content that is not in any of the most current versions that should be added, then please add it that to the discussion above or add it to your own version so I can see what it is. Please discuss the differences above instead of using a general dismissal that cannot be verified. Ultramarine 16:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of your statements are not supported by your own cited sources.  As an example, you say, "A recent study indicates that both economically important trade and democracy contribute to peace and that they do so independently of each other."  Mousseau goes on at great length about the three-way interaction: to say he considers the effects independent is flat-out inaccurate.  Robert A West 17:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My response is in the Trade section above. Ultramarine 17:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: General response

message: Have listed this page on the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics page, as this dispute has been going on too long Robdurbar 12:52, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please be aware that there is an ongoing RfA involving this and other articles . Ultramarine 14:12, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for comment

message: Robdurbar's latest edit expands the statistical section. Reading it, I observe that the first paragraph and part of the second are largely redundant with the section "Claims" above, and should probably be combined into it. Septentrionalis 16:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. I suppose there will be cries of outrage about the description of the neural net paper; but that is what it says, and "Kantian" is a direct quote. Septentrionalis 23:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Statistical studies

message: Since Ultramarine has conducted edit wars on Criticisms of communism and Vladimir Lenin, and then called for page protection with "his version uppermost", it may be worthwhile to state here what I believe to be the case:
Ultramarine's edits have so far represented a private fork of this article, with the clear tendency to make it a defense of one particular DPT; for details, see this talk page and the RfC and RfAr about him. Robdurbar produced a shorter version, of which Robert West and I have approved on this page. He is now merging parts of Ultramarine's edits in, with the assistance of the other two of us.
For Corax's, Michael Hardy's, and Mel Etitis's deprecation of the PoV nature of Ultramarine's edits, see the archives. Septentrionalis 23:34, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Again numerous false statements and misrepresentations. I have never in my requests for page protection asked that my version should be uppermost, only that the Two-version template should be included. The other editors insisted on simply deleting the template and referenced facts contradicting their view. Only after the page protection has the factual discussion started again, showing that the protection was necessary. Comments by other editors made months ago are not relevant anymore. For details about some of the current differences, see "List of proposed changes" above. Ultramarine 23:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is quite true that he has never been so foolhardy as to admit to WP:RfPP that this was his intention, but he threatened to do so on Criticisms of communism and pulled a last revert to his version immediately before it was protected. The claim that factual discussion ceased is a falsehood, as the edit history will show. Septentrionalis 17:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was somehat wrong, factual discussions resumed after my counter-charges in the RFA, which was somewhat earlier. Ultramarine 07:53, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This remains false. Ultramarine's complaints have been answered, once; and sometimes more than once. Repetitious whinging has often been ignored, however. I am glad to see that Ultramarine has at last considered that he may be mistaken. Septentrionalis 16:15, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I've actually now decided to give up trying to edit this page, the fun and interest has been drained from it by the numerous petty debates going on within the article. I'd like to think i've helped reduce the unwieldyness of the article and find common ground in certain places, but don't feelt aht I can be much more help here Robdurbar 08:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to hear that; would you consider doing one more compromise edit before you go? Septentrionalis 13:55, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Version conflict

message: Septentrionalis has added a template that my version contains factual inaccuracies. Please explain why. I will however add one to his version, as it contains factual inaccuracies discussed in "List of proposed changes" above. Ultramarine 00:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Several of them are the same inaccuracies I have been protesting for months now; but I have marked a number of the weirder ones. When not followed by in-line comment, please refer to the archives - usually this is the same sentence I object to there. I may have omitted to mark the exttemely tendentious account of the Hungarian revolution, but I dare Ultramarine to insert it in that article and see what happens to it. Septentrionalis 02:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

text: The wording of the template is that there are disputes about factual accuracy = a measurably different claim. Septentrionalis 02:23, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please list criticisms in the "List of proposed changes", it is impossible to have a discussion using inline comments in the text. Also, try to use factual arguments instead of simply stating "nonsense". Several of your claims are very strange, it is "peacockery" to call Jack Levy a scholar? Many of your claims have never been discussed in the talk pages. Possible arguments that are in the achieve should be moved to the current discussion since there should not be further edits in the achieve. Therefore, I will remove the inline claims and ask that you discuss criticisms in the discussion pages, as usual in Wikipedia. I will however keep the template on factual inaccuracy to give you time to make your points, if any, on the talk page. Ultramarine 06:04, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

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

message: Democratic peace theory has been developed sepatately from democratisation theory,, and that was misleading. There appears to be more inclination now to look at them together. Taken together - historical examples of democratisation and the DPT - they are the best evidence for the 'militant democracy' thesis, That is approximately, that democracies are externally oriented ideological states, comparable to revolutionary Islamic states such as early post-revolution Iran. Exporting the 'democratic revolution' is, in this thesis, an inherent quality of democracy, and the neoconservative position on that issue simply reflects their better understanding of democracy. That should be uncontroversial, but of course it is fatal for the image of moral superiority. If this article - and DPT discussions in general - was concerned less with the noble image of democracy, and more with historical realities, then DPT can take its proper place in political theory as an argument against democracy.Ruzmanci 12:57, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See my response regarding this on Talk:Democracy#War for democracy Ultramarine 14:09, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why DPT is good and useful 

message: Hopefully this intro will result in a clearer article, by explaining to those unfamiliar with DPT, what all the shadow-boxing is about. It is accurate, and highly relevant, to point out that the theory is politically loaded, and is widely assumed to be an argument for democracy, for western values, and not least, for the United States. In other words, the right assumes it is a right-wing theory, although the actaul research does not warrant that assumption - apart from the logical fallacy about lack of war proving superiority of regimes. Margaret Thatcher and George Bush are among those who quoted DPT, and aparently their fans assume that they have to 'defend' the theory, and that is what is going on on this page. A lot of wasted effort would be spared, by making the politics explicit, and that is what the new intro does. Here it is, in case someone has deleted it:
The democratic peace theory or simply democratic peace (often DPT and sometimes democratic pacifism) is a theory in political science which originally held that democratic states - specifically, liberal democracies - never or almost never go to war with one another. Monadic versions of the theory tend to be more oriented to political philosophy, and to emphasise the internally peaceful nature of democracies. More general theories developed from the monadic version claim that all systematic violence is rare within, and between, democracies. Dyadic versions, usually statistical analyses of historical data sets, also take into consideration wars between democracies and non-democracies, and for comparison, wars between non-democracies. 
The theory is highly controversial, and the findings of individual studies are often vigorously disputed. Most of that controversy has arisen from the misuse of the theory, especially dyadic versions, to suggest that democracies are objectively better than non-democracies. There is no logical or ethical basis for this belief: Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy never went to war with each other, but that is not an argument for a world of fascist dictatorships. Nevertheless, the democratic peace theory is used as an argument for western cultural superiority, and for democratisation, even by force. Crude versions of democratic peace theory have been quoted by political leaders, as an argument for wars of democratisation. For these reasons, democratic peace theory was until recently seen as a pro-western and pro-democracy theory, reflecting historicist ideas about the inevitable global triumph of western values. However, disappointment about the results of some post-Soviet democratisations, increasing scepticism about forced democratisation, and opposition to the occupation of Iraq have eroded support for the assumption of inherent superiority of democracy. More recent dyadic versions of the democratic peace theory also seek theoretical explanations for wars by democracies against non-democracies, including the 'militant democracy' thesis, which reverses the original expectations that democracies are more peaceful than non-democracies.
Please don't insert comments in the middle of the text above, keep them separate.
:Please read Wikipedia:verifiability and Wikipedia: cite sources. I will remove your claims unless you have sources for them. Ultramarine 13:09, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See "Monadic and dyadic theory" and "War for democracy" in "List of proposed changes" above where I have added your claims. Ultramarine 21:24, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I regard monadic and dyadic peace theories as a possibly preferable, although rather odd (Leibnitz's monads don't have foreign relations), way of putting Doyle's distinction between strong and weak DPTs. I think it can be usefully combined with the discussion of Doyle below - and would be more likely to do so if Ultramarine were not perpetually demanding attention for his latest mare's nest. I have adjusted the phrasing; Ultramarine is also, of course, free to edit the collaborative version. Septentrionalis 18:23, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have answered in the sections described above. Ultramarine 19:21, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New intro 

message: It may assist a meeting of the minds if I state my opinion of DPT frankly; Ultramarine appears to misunderstand that also. This section, however, is entirely PoV OR, of course.
*Some DPT is probably true.
**Given the noise of human history, and the limitations of a non-experimental science, we may not have enough data to prove that.
**We almost certainly do not have enough data to say which DPTs are true.
*Rummel's DPT is not representative of the mass of theories
**It relies on Democracy alone, and not on the other Kantian variables
**It makes the very strong claim that mutual democracy is sufficient to produce peace. 
*It is particularly unlikely to be confirmed
**Rummel includes two arbitrary parameters in his claim.
***Therefore it needs more data to confirm it than a theory without them 
**It is unlikely, in the foreseeable future, to gather more data on the interrelation of democracies, unconfounded with GATT (as "hospitality") on one hand, and the UN and other international organizations on the other. 
**Rummel's preferred mechanism, the "social fields" and "anti-fields" are unobservables. 
***It is also deeply historicist; since the fields control the human will to follow the dynamic of history. 
**Even Rummel's retrospective claims require vast amounts of special pleading in order to hold. 
***That special pleading, and other insistances on Rummellism, make up much of the PoV material that Ultramarine insists on including.
*A scientist, like Rummel can be, should not dress up as Prophet and Revelator of Truth.
**Whatever Nietzsche may have gotten wrong, he accurately described such a Prophet's followers. 
Septentrionalis 19:28, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, Rummel is only one of many researchers. Here is a list with hundreds of sources regarding the DPT . Regarding your objections and original research, you should try to publish them outside Wikipedia and not delete peer-reviewed studies simply because they do not fit with Marxist theory. Ultramarine Ultramarine 19:39, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

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

message: Ultramarine is truly eclectic in his accumulation of error. His edit summary on Athens is seriously mistaken. The tyranny of Demetrius of Phalerum was overthrown by Demetrius Poliorcetes; and the democratic politician Chremonides freed the city from Macedonia. There were many ups and downs, but the war against Rome was begun under Athenion, an elected leader. (Whether Aristion was a tyrant depends in large part on taking Livy's word on Rome's enemies; always a questionable proceeding.) See Oxford Classical Dictionary or Pauly-Wissowa. 
Of course, he could try editing the consensus version, which does not mention Athens.  Septentrionalis 03:06, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See my answer here . Ultramarine 04:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Docta ignorantia''

message: Ultramarine consistently cites sources in the form "Gleiditsch [sic] (1995) ". This form  of shorthand reference is intended to disambiguate between items in a bibliography, papers by Gleditsch from different years. While a wiki ought to take the trouble to do this by direct links, this method is acceptable. However, when no paper by Gleditsch, say, appears in the bibliography, this gives the appearance of reference without the substance. Most of Ultramarine's "improvements" to his PoV fork have had this defect. 
I see that some traces of this cargo cult version of scholarship still linger in the consensus version. This will be fixed. Septentrionalis 12:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, this is evidence that Septentrionalis does not even read what he reverts. My version no longer uses this references style. Ultramarine 16:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite true; I just read the diffs. I have, after all, read the main body of Ultramarine's ill-written special pleading both when I edited it and when Robdurbar trimmed it. Since Ultramarine's additions of a sentence or two a day almost invariably tend to make it more advocative, I doubt I've missed much. Septentrionalis 17:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have since done so; I did miss the game theory paper, and have retrieved it. Otherwise the advocacy and inconsistent argumentation continue. I hope that Ultramarine pays "liberal democracy" extra, as Humpty-Dumpty would; certainly it is due some compensation for the treatment it receives. See #Is Rummellism a science, below. Septentrionalis 19:32, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference style

message: Where does Ultramarine get the delusion that bullet points are unencyclopedic?
Like much else in the WP armory, they exist to clarify; in the immediate case to clarify the distinctions between four classes of criticism of Rummellism, since unlike the consensus version, he acknowledges no other DPT. 
I must, of course, assume that Ultramarine does not intend this change to obscure and deemphasize the criticisms of the dogma in which he so firmly believes; although it does have both effects. Septentrionalis 15:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The supporting studies are not listed using a bullet list. I have previously removed another bullet list for definitions. Every single paragraph can be turned into a bullet list if one wants to, this doesn't mean that an encyclopedia should be a bullet list. Ultramarine 16:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If Ultramarine chooses to believe that the previous state of the PoV fork was a bullet list, I cannot stop him. He is, however, mistaken. Septentrionalis 19:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bullet points

message: I see my edit summary has been curtailed. I will therefore state here that I will defend the PoV fork against vandalism, just as I would the version worked on by Robdurbar, Robert West, Ruzmanci, and myself. Septentrionalis 14:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rot-13 vandalism

message: Some clueless anon appears to have reverted to Ultramarine's last edit for the purpose of adding some historically incorrect sentences about the Iroquois. The expressed purpose for doing so is to deny the Iroquois enjoyed a democratic peace because they were at war with the French and the English. Of course, any dyadic DPT, such as Rummel's, would expect that the Iroquois would be at peace among themselves and at war with the English, and especially the French, monarchies, which Rummel expressly excludes from liberal democracy.
I have therefore not updated the 2v marker. Septentrionalis 22:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Iroquois

message: Please see the history of the main page for the correct referenced version. Unfortunately, it is continually reverted and replaced by an incorrect and unreferenced version. Ultramarine Ultramarine 20:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the complaint of a lone editor, who wishes the article to be a panegyric of a particular DPT, contrary to WP policy. The correctness involved is almost entirely imaginary, since his version persistently misrepresents his own sources, as the above discussion will show. I believe this to be genuine difficulty in reading English, rather than malice or dishonesty; but it will not do. Septentrionalis 16:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The correct and referenced version 

message: Right, Ive made another effort to both shorten the article and merge the two competing versions. Ive attempted to keep the general view points from both threads within the article, and maintain a logical, simple to undestand structure.
This version, at the moment, will be far from perfect, with repitions and some exclusions: however, please understand that it is an attempt to rationalise two overly-long and complex articles. To revert between these two is both childish, pointless and bad for Wikipedia.
I suggest archiving this rediculously long talk page and burying the hatchet over this article. If edits are made collabiratively to this merged version then a well-referenced, helpful article will soon emerge Robdurbar 17:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the prior versions was already well-referenced. This version has deleted all the footnotes. In addition, it violates NPOV by deleting, for example, that studies show less democide and civil wars in democracies. I will therefore restore the prior well-referenced version. Please explain major changes and deletions on the talk pages before making them. Ultramarine 18:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

text: Robdurbar, you claim that there is something wrong with correct and referenced version, but refuse to state what. As such your claims are uninteresting. See the arbitration case Workshop, point 6-8. Do not violate NPOV by removing well-referenced information from the article without any explanation. When you are deleting referenced information, it is certainly you, not I, who should explain exactly why. Do not include unverifiable original research, such as the "Political Use of the Theory" section. Like everyone else is expected, use arguments and sources. Ultramarine 09:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your main arguments seem to be that the correct and referenced version has too many references. This is strange, references are encouraged, especially in controversial articles. That some articles have few references is a fault in them, not a reason to remove references in other articles. The article text itself it not that long, much of the length comes from the references list. If you still think that it is too long, it can be divided into separate articles. Wikipedia has hundreds of articles about Star Trek, arguably a much less important topic. Also, I think you misunderstand NPOV, "The policy of having a neutral point of view is not to hide different points of view, but to show the diversity of viewpoints. In case of controversy, the strong points and weak points will be shown according to each point of view, without taking a side. The neutral point of view is not a "separate but equal" policy." Thus, it wrong to state that each side must get 50% of the article in any merger. Ultramarine 12:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

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

text: Well I think this article would be strongest with the mention of one war in reasonable detail, possibly WWI; then a breif mention of other conflicts that have been stuided as examples for/against DPT, with one or two papers referring to these in 'further readings' Robdurbar 13:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see nothing wrong with such a short description in an overview article. I do think Wikipedia has place for an article called something like "Democratic peace theory (Specific wars and conflicts)" where these things can be discussed in more detail for those who are interested. The main article can include a link to this page with more detail, see Race and intelligence as an example. This allows both a brief overview for the causal reader and more detail for those who are interested Ultramarine 16:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merged Version: Stop the Childishness

message: A consolidation of  variants is under way.  The following segment needs to be pasted over an obsolete part of "References":
# 
# 
# 
# 
# 
# 
# 
(SEWilco 15:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  web_reference conversion 

message: As discussed with Robdurbar above, I have moved the section "Specific historic examples" to a new article. This improves the readability for the causal reader while allowing the more interested person to read more details in the other article. The same method is used in "Race and intelligence".
Similarly, I think that clarity would be improved be moving the material in "Statistical studies supporting the DPT" and "Causation is not correlation" to subarticles. Thoughts? Ultramarine 10:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, good, unprotected agian. Bit busy personally at the mo but will be happy to collaborate in a day or two Robdurbar 11:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New subarticles 

message: Dare I say it, but since as there hasn't really been any talk on this page for about a month, and Septentrionalis appears to have buggered off, is there anyone need to:
a) Keep the contested neturality tag?
and
b) Have this very long talk page? Perhaps archiving all this talk might encourage new contributors to visit the article
Robdurbar 09:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think both suggestions are good. Ultramarine 21:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive and Remove Neutrality Tag?