Talk:Liberal democracy/Archive 2

message: Allegations of POV aside, the article does not cite a single source. Especially the "Qualities" list seems to me like a violation of WP:NOR. Does anyone have any real sources to back these claims? —Gabbe 00:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: user:ultramarine is adding tons of original research as well as POV statements from biased sources as we speak! Solidusspriggan 01:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the article about R. J. Rummel.Ultramarine 01:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't consider R. J. Rummel an unbiased or reliable source on much of anything. The controversies surrounding his findings and positions are enormous.  Please find more neutral sources. In citing this man a bad name for liberal democracy will be made on wikipedia. One almost as bad as is being made by user:ultramarine. Solidusspriggan 01:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Source given by respected reseracher. You do not have veto over what to accept. I added that it it disputed by some. Note that much  of the reserach you removed are from other sources that he only quotes or not even mentioned at all by him. Ultramarine 01:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research? 

message: Whoever is doing the reverts, please explain yourself. If it you, Solidusspriggan, please state so instead of using your IP adress.Ultramarine 01:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My IP address, sir, is quite static (I believe currently 129.15.152.173) as of now. I suggest you do not imply my circumventing of wikipedia policy when you have no evidence. I am very sorry that the world does not agree with your views and does not like to leave disinformation on wikipedia. That last revert was done by someone on a quite distant domain, they are obviously concerned with the integrity of wikipedia as I am. Solidusspriggan 01:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

message: Any treatment of Amartya Sen which ignores the extent to which his paper on famine intends to blame the Bengal famine of 1943-4 on British colonialism, like the Irish famine of 1846 is misrepresentation.  I post the maltreated text below text below, in the hope that some compromise can be found: 
:According to Amartya Sen: No substantial famine has ever occurred in any independent and democratic country with a relatively free press; since his principal area of interest here is British colonialism, he is denying that the United Kingdom was a single country in 1846. The study of the disputed democratic peace theory also claim that war between liberal democracies is vanishingly rare; and that lesser conflicts are less common. Democracy and parliamentary systems have been supported to check corruption since William Cobbett's time; see also . The World Bank has also published research asserting that democracies have fewer civil wars ; the World Bank promotes capitalism and privatization, in many cases at the expense of the well being of nations and individuals.
I note Ultramarine's sterile reversions against consensus. This link goes to Sen's paper on the subject. Septentrionalis 20:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your link to Amartya Sen's article do not mention 1846 or your claim regarding UK. I guess your are trying to argue something regarding the famine that year in Ireland. But the UK was not a liberal democray before Representation of the People Act 1884 and maybe not even then.Ultramarine 15:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop guessing and read Sen's paper, especially the phrase "the famines in Ireland or India under alien rule" (italics mine). He is, naturally, primarily interested in British responsibility for the Bengali famine. Septentrionalis 00:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This paper is of course not Amartya Sen's main work and presentation of arguments. They are in his published books. Again, the 1846 famine is uninteresting. The UK was not a liberal democray before Representation of the People Act 1884 and maybe not even then. Ultramarine 02:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is to say, it doesn't interest you. Identification of sources by tendency is, however, Wikipedia policy. The date and nature of British liberalism and democracy is something on which there are many views; Wikipedia should, of course, represent all of them. Dean Babst, for example, regarded British elective government as beginning in 1832 or possibly 1841; some would date it earlier. Septentrionalis 02:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have included a section about the this dependes on the definiton used.Ultramarine 11:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Some supporters claim as an advantage of liberal democracy (as defined above) that no substantial famine has ever occurred in any independent and democratic country with a relatively free pressAmartya Sen</a>. In addition, supporters argue that war between liberal democracies is vanishingly rare and that lesser conflicts are less common<ref>The disputed democratic peace territory, including civil wars [Håvard Hegre, Tanja Ellingsen, Scott Gates and Nils Petter Gleditsch: "Towards A Democratic Civil Peace? Opportunity, Grievance, and Civil War 1816-1992" in American Political Science Review (March) 95: 1 at www.worldbank.org. They say that research also shows that democracy, parliamentary systems, political stability, and freedom of the press are all associated with lower corruptionLederman, Daniel, Loayza, Norman and Reis Soares, Rodrigo: "Accountability and Corruption: Political Institutions Matter" (November 2001). World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 2708. at papers.ssrn.com.
With this text we stay on topic, with a [{Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutral point of few, not being incorrect or poorly cited. Since furthermore I am not participating in a edit war, there is no reason not add this text. BTW: the negative critique in this section could use some references. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 12:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amartya Sen 

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

message: Why should this be included? Seems to be strange original research.
"The concept of an open society is closely related to liberal democracies. Since many liberals see democracies with strong statist reflections through the public choice theory as slow, dogmatic, conservative and not too apt for change, the liberal democracy contrasts with what could be called the "statist" democracy in that it emphasizes the civil society as the engine of its public discourse and development further.
All in all, liberal democrats often simply see the civil society as exactly the best way to satisfy the private, cultural and communitarian preferences of minorities (as well as majorities). Democratically supporting the arts, private communities, sports leagues or other associations in the civil society is seen by them to boost the majorities' preferences, either willingly or unwillingly by the policy makers." Ultramarine 12:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe all of this can be sourced to Popper himself; it's an incomplete account of the open society, but I've tried to fix that. Septentrionalis 17:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Open society" 

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

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

Political scientists generally use certain well-established data sets to measure whether or not a country is democratic, or how close or far off from democracy it is. The Polity data set and the Freedom House data sets are two examples. Australia, Canada, the member states of the European Union, Iceland, India, Japan, New Zealand, the Philippines, Norway, Brazil and the United States are all examples of liberal democracies in both the Polity and Freedom House data sets.
Freedom House: "Countries and territories that receive a rating of 1 come closest to the ideals expressed in the civil liberties checklist, including freedom of expression, assembly, association, education, and religion. They are distinguished by an established and generally equitable system of rule of law. Countries and territories with this rating enjoy free economic activity and tend to strive for equality of opportunity."
"Countries and territories that receive a rating of 1 for political rights come closest to the ideals suggested by the checklist questions, beginning with free and fair elections. Those who are elected rule, there are competitive parties or other political groupings, and the opposition plays an important role and has actual power. Minority groups have reasonable self-government or can participate in the government through informal consensus."
"Freedom House's term "electoral democracy" differs from "liberal democracy" in that the latter also implies the presence of a substantial array of civil liberties. In the survey, all Free countries qualify as both electoral and liberal democracies. By contrast, some Partly Free countries qualify as electoral, but not liberal, democracies."
* Furthermore, they violate NPOV by exluding supporting arguments:
===Support===
Supporters state that much research supports the idea that liberal democracy is beneficial. According to Amartya Sen, winner of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics: No substantial famine has ever occurred in any independent and democratic country with a relatively free press. Although this depends on how inclusive democracy is. If one considers the United Kingdom to be a liberal democracy before the Representation of the People Act 1884, then there are exceptions like the Irish Potato Famine (1845-1849). Supporters of the disputed democratic peace theory argue that there have been no wars between liberal democracies and that lesser conflicts are rare. They say that research also shows that democracy, parliamentary systems, political stability, and freedom of the press are all associated with lower corruption and that most democratic states have few civil wars . Opponents consider it to be of note however that the World Bank, from which this last information comes, promotes ideals such as capitalism and privatization, which they argue in many cases at the expense of the well being of nations and individuals. 	 
Some supporters note that a higher total score on the Freedom House ranking is associated with higher average self-reported happiness in a nation and refer to research by R. J. Rummel who finds that more democratic states have less democide, with the highest death toll by the government being in authoritarian states such as the colonial Congo Free State .
Supporters argue that a liberal democracy is preferable to a direct democracy. It can guarantee the individual liberties of its citizens and prevent the development into a dictatorship. Unmoderated majority rule could, in this view, lead to an oppression of minorities. Still, some argue that adding more referenda and plebiscites would be beneficial. E-democracy may allow a system blending the characteristics of direct and representative democracy.
* They also insist on including this strange original research:
"All in all, liberal democrats often simply see the civil society as exactly the best way to satisfy the private, cultural and communitarian preferences of minorities (as well as majorities). Democratically supporting the arts, private communities, sports leagues or other associations in the civil society is seen by them to boost the majorities' preferences, either willingly or unwillingly by the policy makers." Ultramarine 10:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality and factual accuracy 

message: Supporters state that much research supports the idea that liberal democracy is beneficial. According to Amartya Sen, winner of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics: No substantial famine has ever occurred in any independent and democratic country with a relatively free press. Although this depends on how inclusive democracy is. If one considers the United Kingdom to be a liberal democracy before the Representation of the People Act 1884, then there are exceptions like the Irish Potato Famine (1845-1849). Supporters of the disputed democratic peace theory argue that there have been no wars between liberal democracies and that lesser conflicts are rare. They say that research also shows that democracy, parliamentary systems, political stability, and freedom of the press are all associated with lower corruption and that most democratic states have few civil wars . Opponents consider it to be of note however that the World Bank, from which this last information comes, promotes ideals such as capitalism and privatization, which they argue in many cases at the expense of the well being of nations and individuals. 	 
Some supporters note that a higher total score on the Freedom House ranking is associated with higher average self-reported happiness in a nation and refer to research by R. J. Rummel who finds that more democratic states have less democide, with the highest death toll by the government being in authoritarian states such as the colonial Congo Free State .
Supporters argue that a liberal democracy is preferable to a direct democracy. It can guarantee the individual liberties of its citizens and prevent the development into a dictatorship. Unmoderated majority rule could, in this view, lead to an oppression of minorities. Still, some argue that adding more referenda and plebiscites would be beneficial. E-democracy may allow a system blending the characteristics of direct and representative democracy.
* They also insist on including this strange original research:
"All in all, liberal democrats often simply see the civil society as exactly the best way to satisfy the private, cultural and communitarian preferences of minorities (as well as majorities). Democratically supporting the arts, private communities, sports leagues or other associations in the civil society is seen by them to boost the majorities' preferences, either willingly or unwillingly by the policy makers." Ultramarine 10:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

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

message: Solidusspriggan objects that the map misrepresents Russia as not free; whatever one thinks of Putin's Russia, it is very different from North Korea or the Yezhovshchina. 
I think something really has to be done. I see three options:
#Add a long and OT discussion of Putin's Russia, which would be difficult to source.
#Add a boldface disclaimer to the map caption, like Several of the assessments on this map are bitterly disputed.
#Remove it altogether. 
I am not in favor of (1), but it is a logical possibility. Septentrionalis 21:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The map is a visible claim; it needs an equally visible disclaimer. Septentrionalis 15:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now Wikipedia is not built on original research. What source do you have for Russia being a liberal democracy? Ultramarine 15:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rudolph J. Rummel; see the map linked to in his article. Even if I were confined to more reliable sources, all one needs to show is that the "not free" claim is disputable, which is obvious. Septentrionalis 15:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: His map marks Russia as undemocratic. What is your point? Ultramarine 15:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

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

text: Here is the well-referenced material that that Septentrionalis is constantly deleting, regarding the different democracy classification: "However, they are all slightly varying measures of the basic underlying dimension of being a liberal state. They are all highly correlated with each other, and are usually in agreement in classifying particular governments."  Ultramarine 21:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ultramarine successfully copied and pasted this text. That's why I removed it - as plagiarism. Septentrionalis 22:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Citing a few sentences is allowed as fair use. Ultramarine 22:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

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

text: Some evidence has been presented that there are differences. None has been shown that they are highly significant. The world has numerous nations. Again, from a person who has actually compared them statistically: ""In this paper, I conceive of these different definitions of free states, from Doyle to Polity to Freedom House, as all being slightly varying measures of the basic underlying dimension of being a liberal state.  They are all highly correlated with each other, and are usually in agreement in classifying particular governments.  I use Doyle's because it goes back the farthest (I need to get back to 1816), and, when Doyle stops (in 1982) I update his ratings with Freedom House rankings, which go more up to the present than any other pertinent measure.  In the decade on which they overlap (1972 to 1982), Freedom House and Doyle's (1986) ratings are highly consistent with each other." Ultramarine 10:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not cut and paste the same texts over and over again. The difference between France under Mitterrand being free or not free is certainly important. Wayman's correlations are not the subject of this article. Septentrionalis 20:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

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

message: Is it really a definitional necessity that a liberal democracy have a constitution that protects individual liberty? I dispute that. A democratically elected leader may choose to not violate individual liberty even if he's not bound by law to do so. That would still be a liberal democracy. RJII 04:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: democratically elected leaders can be--and often were--tyrants. Some sort of constitutional protection is needed to guarantee the "liberal" dimension. Rjensen 05:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, democractically elected leaders can be tyrants. But, democratically elected leaders may also choose to not to violate individual liberty even if there is no constitution preventing them from violating that liberty. I would think that all that is required for a democracy to be a liberal democracy is that people vote and the rulers allow individual liberty --constitution or not. RJII 05:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, just looking around the net, the sources seem to agree. Though it doesn't count for anything, if it was up to me, I'd define it differently. It's prudent to have a constitution that guarantees individual liberty, but it's not a logically necessary prerequisite of having individual liberty --because it's always possible that the elected head of state is benevolent by choice. RJII 05:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you, Australia has no bill of rights and only the flimsiest allusion to religious freedom in its constitution, yet noone would deny that it is a liberal democracy. - Randwicked Alex B 14:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constitutionalism necessary? 

message: What are the reasons for the claim of lacking neutrality for the "Advantages and disadvantages" section? Ultramarine 17:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding more information supporting your view and removing the neutrality and factual accuaracy tag will not suffice. First thing I recommend is that we re-bold the disclaimer on the first map, and add disclaimers back to the other maps. GeorgeSears 14:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is factually incorrect? Why should a disclaimer be bolded? Ultramarine 17:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

message: We all know the disputes with democracy and what democracy really is. Why not use "Liberal Republic" since that term is more accurate? For more information please check these articles:   Zachorious 05:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't understand why Americans say this.  The term "liberal democracy" is one universally used by political scientists.  In many places in the world, the word republic means a country not governed by a monarch.  To use republic as meaning a representative democracy is chiefly an American usage. Lapafrax 20:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: Again, explain what is incorrect and missing, otherwise I will remove the tags.Ultramarine 05:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I again ask for explanation. Insisting on templates without explanations are not constructive and does not help Wikipedia.Ultramarine 03:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality and factual accuracy 

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