Talk:Democratic peace theory/Archive 3

message: Archives of this page are at  Talk:Democratic peace theory/Archive 1. This should be read by any new editor of this page.Septentrionalis 16:42, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The above was left uinsigned by myself at about 01:51 GMT Wednesday 14 December 2005 Robdurbar 12:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I thought the chart was too prominent for the  results of one researcher; this is part of a certain editor's insistence that there is Only One DPT and it is Rummel's. We already cite Rummel as one of those who claim that democracies have never gone to war with each other; I'll put in the 155 and the 198 in under dyadic. Monadic and dyadic seem to be the actual terms of art (hence all the usage of "dyad" instead of "pair"); so we should at least define them. But we should avoid them elsewhere if convenient, I agree.Septentrionalis 18:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

message: Several of the papers Rummell cites, and some of the ones cited here, hold that peace is the result of several factors, roughly: Democracy, Enforcement measures (including international organizations), and Commerce (or, sometimes, prosperity). This was Kant's position; and several of them call their thesis the Kantian  peace. 
This is, strictly, inconsistent with Rummell's position, which is, quite clearly, that democracy is alone sufficient. We have two alternatives:
*define Kantian peace theories as a variety of DPT, and distinguish from absolute DPT when necessary.
*define DPT as Rummellism, as list these as criticisms.
I have gone both ways on this, but I will be writing in the first vein now. (This needs to be decided to write the external causes section.)  Let me know if you disagree. Septentrionalis 22:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kantian peace

message: *Excluded: "More than one hundred researchers have contributed to the literature according to an incomplete bibliography.[2] Despite criticism, it has grown in prominence among political scientists and has become influential in the policy world. Scholar Jack Levy made an oft-quoted assertion that the theory is "as close as anything we have to an empirical law in international relations"[3]" Ultramarine 14:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  State of research and status 

message: *Excluded " The fall of Communism and the increase in the number of democratic states were accompanied by a sudden and dramatic decline in total warfare, interstate wars, ethnic wars, revolutionary wars, and the number of refugees and displaced persons.[18]" Ultramarine 14:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Post Cold War peace 

message: *Excluded "upporters of the DPT do not deny that other factors affect the risk of war but argue that many studies have controlled for such factors and that the DPT is still validated. Examples of factors controlled for are contiguity, power status, alliance ties, militarization, economic wealth and economic growth, power ratio, and political stability.[44][45][46] Studies have also controlled for reverse causality from peace or war to democracy.[47][48][49]" Ultramarine 14:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Controlled factors and causality

message: *Excluded counterargument: "Critics have argued that few democracies mean that they are geographically isolated and thus unable to make war with one another. As described above, several of the studies finding evidence for the DPT have controlled for this. One study has demonstrated that democratic pairs of nations have not been more geographically separated than non-democratic pairs"Ultramarine 14:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Isolation

message: *Excluded, the two following paragraphs. DO NOT SPLIT THEM "More importantly, more recent studies find fewer MIDs between democracies also before the Cold War.[61][62] Gowa's theory does not explain the low domestic violence in democracies or why relative military strength does not influence the outcome of crises between democracies.[63] Gowa did not control for alliances, arguing that there are methodological problems. Many studies that have controlled for alliances like NATO show support for the DPT.[64]
:DPT supporters also argue that there has been continued peace between democracies after the end of the Cold War. Critics disagree and even if true they note that the European Union and NATO still exist and that they contain some of the democracies capable of maintaining a war. However, there are many democracies outside Europe.[65] The threat from the Communist states which Gowa thought explained both the peace and the existence of alliances between democracies such as NATO has largely disappeared. Contrary to what could be expected from Gowa's theory, the fall of Communism was accompanied by a sudden and dramatic decline in interstate warfare and other armed conflicts[66]. Some researchers argue that the increase in democracy associated with the end of the Cold War is the main cause for this decline in armed conflicts while others note that there has also been an increase in intermediate regimes and as noted earlier such states may be particularly prone to civil war. Other explanations for the decline in armed conflicts is the end of colonialism and the Cold War itself. [67][68]" Ultramarine 14:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (Moved. DO NOT SPLIT MY COMMENTS) Ultramarine 18:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Pmanderson refuses to give any understandable reason for excluding studies he dislikes. It is not the same studies and obviously the text is very different. His other arguments are also invalid. Does anyone think that it is NPOV to exlude this material? Ultramarine 18:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gowa

message: Excluded "Research also shows that wars involving democracies are less violent and that democracies have much less democide.[16]" Ultramarine 20:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Democide

message: ====Viewed by Septentrionalis====
There is a PoV dispute. Ultramarine wishes this article to express his PoV; this permeated  the subarticles,  for which AfD deleted them  here,  here, and here.
*One of them advocated a particular theory of the democratic peace.
*One of them argued that Joanne Gowa (the chief critic of that theory) and the alternative Kantian version of democratic peace theory, are simply wrong.
*The third was a selection of arguments for the favored theory; most of it was verbally included in the text when I returned to this article, and its substance is still incorporated in the present text. 
They derive from the text to which he wishes to revert. I have copies of them off Wikipedia, which I can post as subpages if any non-admin is interested. (For the record, I opposed the deletion of two of them.)
Note that Ultramarine's most vehement objections are to the discussion of Kant and Gowa. 
Septentrionalis 05:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: State of discussion

message: There is a PoV dispute. Ultramarine wishes this article to express his PoV; this permeated  the subarticles,  for which AfD deleted them  here,  here, and here.
*One of them advocated a particular theory of the democratic peace.
*One of them argued that Joanne Gowa (the chief critic of that theory) and the alternative Kantian version of democratic peace theory, are simply wrong.
*The third was a selection of arguments for the favored theory; most of it was verbally included in the text when I returned to this article, and its substance is still incorporated in the present text. 
They derive from the text to which he wishes to revert. I have copies of them off Wikipedia, which I can post as subpages if any non-admin is interested. (For the record, I opposed the deletion of two of them.)
Note that Ultramarine's most vehement objections are to the discussion of Kant and Gowa. 
Septentrionalis 05:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Viewed by Septentrionalis

message: **What is Ultramarine's objection to the present text? Septentrionalis
***This text is essentially your old text, somewhat reorganized. The old arguments still holds.Ultramarine 17:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From the same study you yourself cited above, Oneal and Russett, 1999 "In keeping with the Kantian perspective, we expand our analysis beyond the democratic peace, incorporating the influence of economically important trade and joint memberships in international organizations." Ultramarine 12:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, that settles the question above under #Kantian peace; if Oneal and Russett regard the Kantian peace as a variety  of democratic peace theory, it would be perverse to treat it otherwise. However, Mousseau, Hegre, and Oneal 2003 presents one  Kantian peace theory, and is written by Kantians. Septentrionalis 15:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kant

message: *No study has used voting rights for at least 50% of the male population
**The following sentence appears in the famous edit of 7 November: Another example is requiring that at least 50% of the adult population is allowed to vote and that there has been at least one peaceful, constitutional transfer of executive power from one independent political party to another by means of an election. I shall remove male, as Ultramarine was free to do. Septentrionalis

***Done.
****Note that this is false, still remains.Ultramarine 15:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 50%

message: *Stating "Only the United States, Switzerland and Monaco achieved 2/3 male suffrage in the middle of the nineteenth century.", ignoring for example the French Second Republic.
**The sentence originally included a reference to Rummel's three-year requirement. I shall recast; although I believe it is still true of the election under the Second Republic. Is Ultramarine proposing Louis Napoleon's plebiscites as examples of democracy?
 Septentrionalis
**:I am only stating that this is one of your factual errors.Ultramarine 17:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 2/3 suffrage

message: *"Separate peace theories claim that democracies are more likely to go to war with non-democracies." False, no such definiton exit of separate peace theory. Ultramarine 13:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Seperate peace theory

message: *"The Militant democracy theory divides democracies into militant and pacifist types. Militant democracies have a tendency to distrust and use confrontational policies against dictatorships, which could actually make war more likely between a democracy and a non-democracy than in the case of relations between two non-democracies." False, defintion does not say more likely Ultramarine 13:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Militant

message: *"Another idea is that democracy gives influence to those most likely to be killed or wounded in wars, and their relatives and friends (and to those who pay the bulk of the war taxes). This was Kant's argument; and it is supported by the example of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, in which the Sejm vetoed more than half the royal proposals for war." This aristocratic oligarchy certainly does not fit this description.Ultramarine 14:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Poland-Lithuania

message: *"Moreover, a democratic crusade corollary suggests that the belief in the validity DPT itself could become a cause of war." Nothing in the lterature, original reseach. Ultramarine 13:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Democratic crusade 

message: *"the Kantian peace theories generally look for explanations in the absence of international pressure, trade, or prosperity; the other modern theories will observe that any tendency will, in the perversity of human affairs, have exceptions." There is no difference between any DPT theory regarding possible wars as exceptions.Ultramarine 14:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Modern theory

message: *"Rummel also classifies 155 of the wars since Waterloo as between democracies and non-democracies, 198 as between non-democracies. Given the limited number of democracies he acknowledges, democracies have, in his view, gone to war more often than other states, but not with each other." Has never said the last. Ultramarine 13:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rummel and his soundbite

message: *" Woodrow Wilson's policy for the Versailles settlement was largely based on all three planks of Kant's program." False, nothing in the literature, probably did not known of Kant's theory, original reserach. Ultramarine 13:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your claim, your source. Maybe you need to read Wikipedia:cite sources?Ultramarine 20:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wilson

message: *"Monadic theories claim that democracies tend to conduct their affairs more peaceably, whether with other democracies or not. More general theories developed from the monadic version claim that two democracies are less likely to make war on each other than other pairs of states." No DPT theory states less likely to make war, argues no wars, less MIDs, not wars.Ultramarine 13:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Less likely

message: *"Kant's plan for a perpetual peace included more than a government answerable to the people. He proposed a League of Nations to keep the peace; and a right to "hospitality" which should be recognized everywhere. This latter was a freedom of international travel and commerce, in some ways resembling the Schengen Treaty." Schengen treaty is strange, irrelevant, and original research.Ultramarine 13:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Schengen treaty

message: *"Strictly speaking, the theory of a Kantian peace contradicts the absolute theories of democratic peace. If three factors are required for a perpetual peace, no one of them can be the only thing needed." No democractie peace theory states that it is the only thing needed. Ultramarine 13:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: One thing needful

message: *"From then until 1904, there were several crises among the democratic powers, as among the others. The only war between any two Powers that resulted was the Spanish-American War, between a democracy and a borderline democracy" Simply ridiculous, excluding for example the war between Germany and France in 1871.Ultramarine 13:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 1871

message: *"Even the Third Reform Bill of 1884 fails to meet Rummell's stated criteria for democracy" Again simply false, here is his critera "By democracy is meant liberal democracy, where those who hold power are elected in competitive elections with a secret ballot and wide franchise (loosely understood as including at least 2/3rds of adult males); where there is freedom of speech, religion, and organization; and a constitutional framework of law to which the government is subordinate and that guarantees equal rights" Ultramarine 13:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reform bill

message: *" One study finds that interstate wars have important impacts on the fate of political regimes, and that the probability that a political leader will fall from power in the wake of a lost war is particularly high in democratic states. [18] Two of the militant democracies have been dominant naval powers, and have also had greater choice as to which wars to fight." The last sentence is original reserach and has no relation to earlier discussions. Ultramarine 13:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sea power

message: "Joanne Gowa observes that much of the data used to infer an absolute democratic peace consists of Western democracies not going to war with each other while allied against the Soviet Union, and argues that this offers limited hope that non-allied democracies will remain at peace. " Gowa studied frequency of MIDs, not the "absolute democratic peace". I guess this is Pmanderson neologism for no wars between democracies. Ultramarine 14:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: She studied both. "Absolute" has been used in English since 1374; if Ultramarine has a more fluent way to differentiate between the peace theories that claim zero exceptions and those that claim rare and marginal ones, he should introduce it. "Zero-claiming" would  be a neologism. Septentrionalis 18:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gowa

message: "If one defines "war" as more than 1000 battlefield deaths, an "MID" will have less than that number". Mids includes wars. Ultramarine 00:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: MIDs

message: "It chiefly credits the end of the struggles of the Cold War and decolonization; but asserts also the underlying force of all the articles of the Kantian triad, which it calls interdependent." Page numbers for the statements regarding Kantian triad please, cannot find it.Ultramarine 17:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quote please, I searched for "Kant" and "Kantian" and found nothing.Ultramarine 16:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please quote, I cannot find your claimed statements. Also, I have searched for "interdependent" which is not in the document.Ultramarine 18:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you please quote the exact paragraph that contains "interdependence" and mentions the triad? I see some use of "interdependence", but not in that use. Nor do I see any claims that just the triad is the underlying factors, for instance, they also mention "A decline in the economic utility of war."Ultramarine 19:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They mention all three elements of the triad and call them "interrelated and mutually reinforcing"  in the paragraph next following (the "economic utility of war" is about the pacific effects of trade, another aspect of the article of hospitality). They cite Russett. Short of cutting and pasting the entire section, which would be inappropriate in this article, the text proposed is as exact a summary as possible. Septentrionalis 19:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Human security report

message: ====Viewed by Septentrionalis====
*Two slips in editing complex material for greater clarity. Corrected. 
*Kant
**Ultramarine declines to specify what inaccuracies are asserted. The past argument referenced refers to claims not made by the present text. 
*"War to end all wars".
**That Wells devised this slogan is not contested. 
**Ultramarine and I dispute what  Wells meant by this; about which the present text therefore does not assert anything.
**Ultramarine also disputes that it meant, as a slogan that the destruction of Prussian autocracy and militarism would produce a lasting democratic peace Septentrionalis 06:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: State of discussion

message: *Two slips in editing complex material for greater clarity. Corrected. 
*Kant
**Ultramarine declines to specify what inaccuracies are asserted. The past argument referenced refers to claims not made by the present text. 
*"War to end all wars".
**That Wells devised this slogan is not contested. 
**Ultramarine and I dispute what  Wells meant by this; about which the present text therefore does not assert anything.
**Ultramarine also disputes that it meant, as a slogan that the destruction of Prussian autocracy and militarism would produce a lasting democratic peace Septentrionalis 06:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Viewed by Septentrionalis

message: Point unsourced in the present text.
===Limited claims===
*For example, most of the "limited claims" section.Ultramarine 10:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This may have some resemblance to reality, but is unverifiable. The link is dead. Ultramarine 16:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But the link was to a chapter in one of Rummel's early booklets, as the note now indicates. If Rummel repairs his site, the link should still work, so I saved it. Septentrionalis 03:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Original Research

message: *For example, most of the "limited claims" section.Ultramarine 10:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Limited claims

message: *"R. J. Rummel dismisses these as superficial, [17] relying on Kurt Lewin and Andrew Ushenko's proposition that democracy involves a pervasive social mechanism (called a "social field") in which, "The primary mode of power is exchange, [the] political system is democratic, and [the] democratic government is but one of many groups and pyramids of power." In contrast, authoritarian systems involve a "social anti-field", "[which] divides its members into those who command and those who must obey, thus creating a schism separating all members and dividing all issues, a latent conflict front along which violence can break out." Thus, the citizens of a democracy are habituated to compromise, conflict resolution, and to viewing unfavorable outcomes as temporary and/or tolerable."
:This may have some resemblance to reality, but is unverifiable. The link is dead. Ultramarine 16:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But the link was to a chapter in one of Rummel's early booklets, as the note now indicates. If Rummel repairs his site, the link should still work, so I saved it. Septentrionalis 03:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rummel's explanation

message: *"Many democratic peace theories implicitly or explicitly exclude the first years of democracies; for example, by requiring that the executive derive from genuinely contested elections, which would eliminate both administrations of George Washington." More of Pmanderson's personal opinions.Ultramarine 13:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Washington

message: ====Septentrionalis====
*Ultramarine objects to the description of one of Gowa's major arguments. Even if this were completely unsourced, it would warrant only , but it is not. It may take me some days to get my hands on a copy. It would also be faster if Ultramarine would state  which points he believes are neither
**supported by Gowa, nor 
**statements of the obvious, which WP:NOR permits
Septentrionalis 06:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Present status

message: *Ultramarine objects to the description of one of Gowa's major arguments. Even if this were completely unsourced, it would warrant only , but it is not. It may take me some days to get my hands on a copy. It would also be faster if Ultramarine would state  which points he believes are neither
**supported by Gowa, nor 
**statements of the obvious, which WP:NOR permits
Septentrionalis 06:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Septentrionalis

message: *The notes are next to their respective sections to allow for extensive editing without losing notes, which I have seen much too often. If the present text remains relatively stable, I will collect them, and let the mediator decide. Septentrionalis 06:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Status

message: And what else is this supposed to cover?
Unfortunately, the article is extremely badly written and confusing, as stated in the tag. Various correct citations is mixed gross with errors and with personal essays and opinions. Various things have been selectively deleted, making the flow unintelligible. Various irrelevant things have been added, also adding to the confusion. Just one example, "Interestingly, Islamic tradition holds that peace will prevail within the dar al-Islam or "house of submission" to the faith, but war, including jihad, beyond that zone." has been added by Pmandersson as his personal musing, something completely irrelevant to to theory and not mentioned anywhere in the literature. On the other hand, he has deleted the definition of MIDs, making understanding of the claims of the theory incomprehensible.Ultramarine 10:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also don't see what this has to do with style. Septentrionalis
There is, however, a genuine style dispute: Ultramarine prefers a text full of dyads and MIDs and monadic. I would prefer to avoid jargon, believing, with Richard Feynmann, that any subject can be explained without it. In math and physics, this tends to lengthen the explanation; here it shortens it. Septentrionalis 03:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean-up of confusing writing style

message: ====Septentrionalis====
Ultramarine is claiming that the concept of Dar al-Islam does not exist, or has nothing to do with peace. He is also claiming that I put it in the article, contrary to the diff above.  <shrug> Septentrionalis 06:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also don't see what this has to do with style. Septentrionalis
There is, however, a genuine style dispute: Ultramarine prefers a text full of dyads and MIDs and monadic. I would prefer to avoid jargon, believing, with Richard Feynmann, that any subject can be explained without it. In math and physics, this tends to lengthen the explanation; here it shortens it. Septentrionalis 03:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Present status

message: Ultramarine is claiming that the concept of Dar al-Islam does not exist, or has nothing to do with peace. He is also claiming that I put it in the article, contrary to the diff above.  <shrug> Septentrionalis 06:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also don't see what this has to do with style. Septentrionalis
There is, however, a genuine style dispute: Ultramarine prefers a text full of dyads and MIDs and monadic. I would prefer to avoid jargon, believing, with Richard Feynmann, that any subject can be explained without it. In math and physics, this tends to lengthen the explanation; here it shortens it. Septentrionalis 03:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Septentrionalis

message: Hello -- I've come in as part of the totally informal medcabal, by request .
This is a long dispute, and I am not totally familiar with the details. However, I definitely agree that it is important for wikipedia to have an excellent article on DPT, and I want to help us get there.
I am currently looking over this diff:  which seems to best describe the contention between Ultra and Sept/Pmanderson. But it is very hard to see what the substance of the disagreement is about.
I note that uses of phrases like "Why Rummel is always right" (presumably meant humorously) are kind of inappropriate here. It is probably best they go, or be replaced by something more strictly NPOV.
I think a crucial thing here is that we work with the current article we have (i.e., the latest version.) Given this, I see that Ultra believes:
1. Systematic exclusion of many supporting studies and findings, extremely biased presentation of specific historic cases, systematic exclusion of counter-arguments to criticism of the theory
:So I suggest that Ultra restore (not by reversion, but by cut and paste and integration) the excluded material, and attempt to balance historical cases.
2. "This article may contain original research or unverified claims."
:So I suggest that Ultra remove stuff that he considered unverified. If it means removing huge chunks of text, however, let's hold off on that for a moment.
3. There are also criticisms of the factual accuracy. My feeling is that many of these are actually problems with NPOV. Let's hold off on this for a moment while we solve the NPOV stuff above.
How does this sound? Ultra, do you want to give it a go? Sdedeo (tips) 21:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am ready. Note that your are comparing the wrong versions. This is the correct diff . The diff you are using is incomplete since subarticles containing much of contents have been deleted.Ultramarine 21:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think that a cut and paste will work since the article has been radically changed. Neither do I think that integration will work since essentially all of the changes since january 15 are incorrect in order to give a false impression of the research. A discussion case-by-case of specific disputes would be better.Ultramarine 21:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Not from my PoV. This article contains the substance of the article I found on January 15, almost all of it in the same order, much of it in the same words. (see [diff]). I have edited for clarity, and to lighten the jargon; I have also made additions. I think the largest of these was on the meanings that the various democratic peace theories have given to democracy and peace. Septentrionalis 06:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Removing the problems would essentially meaning restoring the prior version. Every change I can see is unsourced or contradicted by its own references.Ultramarine 21:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I find this extremely difficult to do since Sept has moved so much content around. But why cannot we discuss specific disputes? For example, Sept has completely removed the rather important finding that democracies have lower democide. He has also above stated that he will not include it since I only give one reference. How should we resolve this? Ultramarine 22:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: False. I replaced the neologism. The point is still made and referred to the same source. Septentrionalis 06:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmm. Would it not be better if it was Sept who tried to follow my text and presentation? I have added almost all of the referenced material to the article and spent countless hours reading articles before doing so. In essence, he is objecting to my presentation of the literature. So it would it not be better if he started with my text and make changes we can discuss? Ultramarine 22:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has always been Ultramarine's demand, throughout the history of this article:revert to the version which Ultramarine alone wrote.Septentrionalis 06:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that this would be extremely difficult to do this in the way proposed since I consider most of the changes done by Sept to be systematic NPOV violations and adding factual errors without adding new information. Correcting them would therefore in essence consist of removing most of his changes. However, I would be very glad to discuss specific disputes case-by-case with the help of an outside party. Alternatively, as stated, I would also accept the opposite scenario with sept maintaining as much of my text and presentation as possible Ultramarine 23:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Treating this article as a conflict of two versions is contrary to the finding and remedy put forward by Arbcom, as I read them. Please continue this line of mediation. The present text is an edit of Ultramarine's version of & November, by several editors before I returned to it. Sterile reversions, such as Ultramarine proposes above, are sanctionable.   Septentrionalis 03:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another mediator, User:Kim Bruning, has said he'll give it a shot; he'll be around in the next few days. So perhaps everyone might want to wait a bit for Kim to weigh in before continuing discussion. Best of luck, Sdedeo (tips) 04:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh yes, go and blow my cover will you? *sigh* Kim Bruning 15:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I will add short summaries of my POV the discussions so far, for Kim's convenience. I encourage Ultramarine to do likewise. Also short notes here, since I disagree (naturally) with Ultramarine's account of the editing history.Septentrionalis 04:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no reason to present a strange "present status" section that will immediately get irrelevant with new arguments. Continue prior discussions instead. Ultramarine 14:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added many more specific examples of NPOV violations and factual accuracy. Please review.Ultramarine 14:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: No problem. Too many edit conflicts to continue this discussion for now anyway. Septentrionalis 20:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: medcabal

message: When an article is disputed, the rest of the complaints are somewhat implied ;-) But it's still handy to have that level of detail, so I've retained the tags on talk for now. Kim Bruning 12:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   moved tags to talk 

message: More seriously, the local reversion of the text on civil wars to the text of 7 November is non-consensus edit-warring. Please reverse.  Septentrionalis 04:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the view of the arbcom. I have added well-referenced information and moved some text to a better place, certainly not prohibited. In addition, much of your editing have essentially been reverting to your favored version.Ultramarine 04:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: False, as the diffs will show. I have carefully avoided looking at the version involved in the edit war. (I did retrieve the paragraph on social fields, because I didn't write it or know the facts, and I think two other short ones). Additions are one thing (short of recreating deleted articles. Reversions of carefully edited text are another. Rewrite, don't cut and paste.  Septentrionalis 04:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition, it is not the same text, "democide" is changed to "internal political violence" as you yourself found acceptable on this page.Ultramarine 05:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay,  we've tested the revert button, and it works. So anytime we want a revert-shootout at high noon to let off some steam, we know we can ;-) That's good to know, at least we have a worst-case alternative. In the mean time, let's discuss further changes here before we make them to the article. It's a slow and slightly unwiki method, but right now it's probably faster than the alternatives. After a while we'll hopefully get a feel for things and we can go back to editing the article outright. Kim Bruning 12:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Real reversion

message: See this:  As noted earler, Rummel is one of many researchers, but was one of the first and is certainly prominent.Ultramarine 05:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In short, one of his fans is a Swedish politician, of similar political and economic views. Rummel picked the resulting claims up from his local newspaper, exaggerated and disseminated them without verification, and is now grudgingly retracting. Ultramarine exaggerates further, and makes no retraction. None of this establishes anything about Rummel's credibility in the field; if the basking in praise were not so understandable, it would cast doubt on his professionalism. Septentrionalis 14:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is some information about Rummel. Compare this to anonymously publishing original research and systematically distorting the findings of real researchers.Ultramarine 16:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, no; I would never compare Rummel with Ultramarine. Rummel has non-consensus views of DPT and of politics, and treats the will as an ontological vector, but he is a real researcher.   Septentrionalis 16:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your old tactic of trying to make him an nutcase. His findings are supported by most studies and researchers. Most researchers in this field accept the democratic peace and you writing a homegrown essay on Wikipedia is not going to change this. Publish your thoughts outside Wikipedia if you want affect the field. Ultramarine 16:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He's a bit flaky; so was Kant. In fact, as I have said, I think some version of democratic peace is probably true. My judgment that Rummel's theory is vacuous is defended on Talk:R. J. Rummel; but even if I thought it true, I would oppose using this article as advocacy for it. Septentrionalis 16:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You "think" and have a "judgement". How about publishing something outside Wikipedia, this is not the place for original research.Ultramarine 17:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: *If Ultramarine wishes to claim that he neither thinks nor has judgment, that is his business. It does not make him a better editor, nor does it preserve him from original research.  Septentrionalis 18:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: *However, any further distortions of my view of Rummel will be violations of WP:FAITH. Septentrionalis 19:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frequently nominated for the Nobel Prize 

message: <moved from [[User Talk:Kim Bruning>
Sorry, Kim, you will have to come resolve this again; Ultramarine has moved those adjective Rummel placards up to the top of the article. Rummel has extreme views on almost all points at issue between DPT theorists: he believes almost alone that there were absolutely no wars between democracies (instead of only a few exceptions); and that the Kantian variables have nothing to do with the effect.
Furthermore, he believes (by the evidence of those placards) that the Ukraine was a liberal democracy, and that Israel was barely or partially free in 1967  Septentrionalis 03:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Simpy false, several other researchers also state that there have been no wars between democracies. Other researchers instead concentrate on the larger concept of MIDs, not wars, but they do argue against no wars. Rummel is a very respected researcher that has been mentioned for the Noble Prize for Peace.Ultramarine 04:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Here is the view of the arbcom . Reverts are explicitly allowed. And these are certainly not true reverts, they are placed in different sections and some of it simply move text that Pmanderson himself has accepted. Furhermore, it is not the same text, "democide" is changed to "internal political violence", as Pmanderson himself found acceptable on the talk page. Also, Pmanderson edits has often consisted of essentially reverting to his favored verion. Ultramarine 05:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This consists of two lies. One is answered above. IIRC, the social-field paragraph was not involved in the revert war; Robdurbar had removed it  earlier, in his edit for length. The reversion is exact, as I shall show below; the fact that Ultramarine has added it to a sentence altered by consensus is at best a mitigating factor. Septentrionalis 14:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I am perfectly willing to wait on moving them; but these images in the header are inherently PoV. Septentrionalis 14:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: DPT

message: Ultramarine's original text, from the edit of 18:33 7 November 2005 was
:The most democratic and the most authoritarian states have few civil wars, and intermediate regimes the most. The probability for a civil war is also increased by political change, regardless whether toward greater democracy or greater autocracy. Intermediate regimes continue to be the most prone to civil war, regardless of the time since the political change. In the long run, since intermediate regimes are less stable than autocracies, which in turn are less stable than democracies, durable democracy is the most probable end-point of the process of democratization. 
::I am justified in calling it Ultramarine's, since his continual revert wars have meant that no-one else has ever been able to edit his version.
I boiled this down to
:The most democratic and the most authoritarian states have few civil wars, and intermediate regimes the most. In the long run, since intermediate regimes are less stable than autocracies, which in turn are less stable than democracies, durable democracy is the most probable end-point of the process of democratization.
Ultramarine has now reverted this  to:
:The most democratic and the most authoritarian states have few civil wars, and intermediate regimes the most. The probability for a civil war is also increased by political change, regardless whether toward greater democracy or greater autocracy. Intermediate regimes continue to be the most prone to civil war, regardless of the time since the political change. In the long run, since intermediate regimes are less stable than autocracies, which in turn are less stable than democracies, durable democracy is the most probable end-point of the process of democratization.
This is an exact reversion, which is Ultramarine's usual practice. It is also what Arbcom decries. All three credited the identical source. (The intermediate text is copied from text, but it made the same links.)
Is this good faith? Septentrionalis 15:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please respect the view of our mediator and continue the facual discussions of the contents.Ultramarine 15:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are other examples of exact reversion, but I see no need to document them here - as long as the practice stops. I have said nothing to object to Ultramarine's editing the page; merely his reversions. But then local reversion appears to be Ultramarine's normal mode of editing, as other pages will show; perhaps someone should explain the difference to him.  Septentrionalis 16:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I shall return. But I must go now. Septentrionalis 04:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cut and paste

message: Septentrionalis has now made changes before discussing them here as our mediator requested. His new version still has errors. The French Second republic is sometimes excluded because three years had not passed after the elections, before the war with the short-lived Roman Republic (19th century). The Swiss Cantons were not "republics". Septentrionalis does not own the article and since he has now ignored discussing changes before making them, I will also shortly have to edit the article to correct the numerous errors.Ultramarine 14:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The edit in question is a replacement of a qualifier dropped  during editing; as Ultramarine observed under #2/3 majority above, and I agree. I do not regard Kim as imposing a voluntary protect on the article; and in any case there is consensus that this change is necessary. Septentrionalis 16:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing without agreement 

message: Septentrionalis has violated Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. He has moved	
"Democratic peace theory (Correlation is not causation)" to "Why other peace theories are wrong" . Obviously this is a POV title which is not allowed. Therefore, the article was deleted. This seems to be a serious gaming of the system in order to remove material he dislikes.Ultramarine 15:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You do not have my permission for ever editing my comments. You may of course quote them. I certainly hope that an article named that was deleted.Ultramarine 16:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see; it was intentional. Septentrionalis 16:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point]]

message: Ultramarine has not bothered to explain his latest tag. Since, as far as I can read the diffs, the changes (not additions) I made to the section consist solely of  letting out the gas and correcting grammatical errors, I am at a loss to see the justification. Does Ultramarine want to suppress these reviews too? Septentrionalis 00:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See section above.Ultramarine 00:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Weart

message: Does CIA operations to bring down democratic governments count? --Kvaks 07:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another evidence that Pmanderson's version is too confused for anyone to understand. War is usually understood to include at least 1000 battle deaths which would probably exclude most CIA operations. However, they would be included in MIDs which is a more generalized concept including also lesser conflicts. The DPT generally argues no wars and fewer MIDs between democracies.Ultramarine 07:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you for reminding me; Doyle specifically discusses that point, yet the present text does not discuss it; this is another of Ultramarine's suppressions. Democracies do engage in such operations, but the same liberal ethos which inihibits war makes them covert about them. Septentrionalis 15:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CIA vs. democracies 

message: See this edit by Pmanderson. I had added that the report presents claims with little evidence and quoted from the text. Pmanderson has changed this and moved it inside the reference so it cannot be seen. Ultramarine 17:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not reading footnotes is a poor qualification for a Wikipedia editor; and Ultramarine's polemical edit was false. Nevertheless, I can see a possible compromise. 17:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hiding of criticism

message: I see Ultramarine has slipped again into the common error of claiming statistical proof of causation, although he used the correct statement as a mantra for a while. Which paper is he thinking of? Septentrionalis 17:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added reference to oveview paper in the article.Ultramarine 17:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which carefully, and responsibly, avoids saying that any of the research concerned has demonstrated causation; although he is convinced. Text is misrepresentation. Septentrionalis 18:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I've read all of that; none of it proves, nor can prove, causation. Ray does not claim any of these papers do, and neither do the papers themselves. Septentrionalis 18:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.Ultramarine 19:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is your personal opinion. It is not Ray's; or he would not have begun this extract by warning that correlation is not causation. (None of this prevents you, or Ray, or me, from believing that some DPT is true, and basing that belief on this evidence; but that's a POV. Septentrionalis 19:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, the study argues quite clearly for causation.Ultramarine 19:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Did you read the paragraphs above "even after controlling for a large number of factors...democracy's conflict-reducing effect remains strong." Now please correct back your statements.Ultramarine 19:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did, as I said above. That is the English for "there remains a significant correlation". If Ray had meant historic causation, he would not have gone out of his way to deny it. Septentrionalis 19:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But he does. He states "The most recent research on the democratic peace proposition has considered this possibility thoroughly." And gives a long list of studie showing that a third factor is not the explanation. Here is another study in addition to those already mentioned: "support the notion that the direction of causation in the democracy and war relationship is unidirectional from democracy to peace."   Ultramarine 21:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Correlation really isn't causation

message: Septentrionalis, you have reverted to a prior version.. Also, you again tried to game the system by hiding information you do not like in the footnoes. After hiding the study you removed the statments if referenced, stating "claim not supprted by named source"!!!!  I will take this to the noticeboard shortly. However, I will give you a brief time to change back.Ultramarine 19:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want causation find a souce that says so, instead of one that explicitly denies it. Your own diff demonstrates that what I moved to the notes was a reference.   You also might want to find out what gaming the system means before crying wolf. I shall say all of this at ANI if you go through with this. Please don't waste our time and their attention. Septentrionalis 19:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert to prior version and gaming of the system 

message: Ultramarine, this really will not do. Cutting and pasting three whole paragraphs of Ray's not-very-long article is excessive, and unfair to him. (His essay is also under copyright, and noticeably  PoV - as it has every right to be; it wasn't written for Wikipedia.)
I have replaced two of them with a paraphrase, on the same scale as other arguments in this article. However, this is an improvement from six months ago, when you were including the same paragraphs and arguments without quotation marks or acknowledgements.
Whether they are a misunderstanding of Gowa's argument, by a skilled debater, is another question. Septentrionalis 06:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cutting and pasting again

message: If Kim is agreeable, this whole matter of causation (and the question of fair quotation) can be the next subject of mediation. (See the previous three sections.)
My position remains that "even after controlling for a large number of factors...democracy's conflict-reducing effect remains strong" does not imply causation. This is a quotation  from Ray's 1998 paper; it is part of Ray's summary of a number of papers which show correlations between mutual democracy and peace, and that this result remains, and remains statistically significant, after the correlations between peace and other obvious influences  are factored in. Ray begins this discussion by stating that "correlation is not causation".
This is a statement of tendency only: that mutual democracy tends to produce peace, other things being equal. Other variables may be stronger; Bremer finds, if you read his papers, that three or four of them are. Nor is the statement of this tendency the same, or even nearly the same, as the claim of "no wars between democracies". 
Reading the articles linked to may help. Septentrionalis 19:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read my previous answer. But you have still not written the promised response regarding Gowa, 5 days after stating that it would probably be available in 24 hours. Please do that. Ultramarine 19:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The best I can do for that block of claims is that your reading of Gowa is inaccurate and incomplete. If you break them out into items, which can be responded to individually,  I will see about particular page numbers, as I did for your reading of Weart above, under #Reading English. I regret this continuing impulse to suppress Gowa. Septentrionalis 20:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are free to quote my statements and can therefore split the quotes however much you like in your reply. I regret this misrepresentation of Gowa's position.Ultramarine 20:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation proposal

message: Now that I am back, I suppose I owe everyone an explanation of my absence.  From 9/16 to sometime after Thanksgiving (when I gave up trying), I was unable to sign on, edit or even in many cases read Wikipedia.  Attempts gave various results, including long hangs and crashes.  It didn't matter whether I used my machine at work or at home, I was similarly hosed.  As a result, I was unable to participate in the Arbitration, and was unaware that my conduct had been called into question until a couple of days ago.  Some day, I will take the time to read the lengthy thing, but in the meantime, I hope that simple reasonable conduct will not get me into trouble.  Meanwhile, I wonder how many other Wikipedians suffered the same fate.
To business.  I was bugged by the placement of the thumbnails at the top.  They caused a rather large visual gap between the lede and History.  I hope my solution works for everyone, and I figured an edit of this sort would be a nice olive-branch. 
Now to the caption text.  I see some problems:
A statement that someone has been nominated for a Nobel Prize is, strictly, non-verifiable, since the Committee will neither confirm nor deny receipt of a nomination. "According to the Statutes of the Nobel Foundation, information about the nominations is not to be disclosed, publicly or privately, for a period of fifty years. The restriction not only concerns the nominees and nominators, but also investigations and opinions in the awarding of a prize. Nomination information older than fifty years is public." .
In respect of the Nobel Peace Prize, even a verified nomination would mean little.  The number of people qualified to nominate is vast  and includes Rummel himself, and many of his former students.  Frankly, the claim brings to mind defense posturing in the case of Stanley Tookie Williams, company that not even Septentrionalis would think fit for Rummel.
I also agree that "Professor Emeritus" is a Peacock term in this context: no other researcher's title is so used.
The reference to Rummel's opinions on Israel may well belong in the article, but I think it makes the caption turgid.
I would propose shortening to, "Democratic Peace Charts by R. J. Rummel, presenting research by himself and others. [1].  High resolution PDF files can be found here [2][3]."  Robert A West 06:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed Whole heartedly. --Scaife 08:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With the proposed shortening, or the assertion of a curse?  Or both?  ;-)  Robert A West 17:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As you probably noticed, I moved the charts to the side as well as put some meat on some of the subjects out there (BTW let mw know what you think), however I agree shortening the caption. As far as the curse, you may be on to something. :D --Scaife 17:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason that I moved the charts and TOC into a horizontal line was to avoid having nearly a full browser-page of whitespace between the charts and the TOC.  I think it tends to create the impression that the lede is the whole article.  You have restored this condition, which strikes me as ugly (and leaves the impression that the article is just the lede).  Is this just my browser in action?  Robert A West 17:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that it may be your browser, it looks alot better this way. As you had it, it seemed to make the articel rather disjoined. -- Scaife 20:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And this way looks disjointed to me.thumb|What I see  Great!  There has to be a solution.  Robert A West 22:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I put them vertically, right aligned, in the external links. Ultramarine objected that the external links were invisible; so I moved the whole section to its (slightly non-standard) position ahead of the notes. Septentrionalis 23:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps they should be moved to the bottom of the page as external links, for the sake of argument? --Scaife 23:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illustrations and Caption at top