Talk:Democracy/Archive 9

message: Is a list of all the pros and cons of democracy really helpful. I think i'd still be dubious even  if they all were pros and cons of democracy, but as it stands many are just correlations which people are putting down as features of democracy. I don't even know where to begin with that terrorism 'con'. I think that section is reprsentative of the problem with a list of pors and consTommo 87 23:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

message: Another editor pagemoved the previous talk page to Archive 8 (see above). I've corrected the pagemove and added the link to the archive. Take care! ~Kylu (u|t)  02:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 8 

message: Since you insist, here are a couple of sources: Participation and Political Equality by Sidney Verba  and On Political Equality by Robert A. Dahl . On a more fundamental level, however, I just cannot understand what you could perceive as the basic premise of democracy if not political equality. What, for example, do you think is the idea behind slogans like "one man, one vote" if not political equality? What is the common principle in democratic devices like referenda and various variants of elections if not the fact that all people have approximately the same imapct on which of the available options is selected? How would you call this principle if not "political equality"? --Drono 04:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I oppose your viw that Western demoracies are in fact not democratic. Total political equality have probably never existed, whenever there is some form of leader total equality disappers. "One man, one vote" refers to equality in the election of temporary leaders, who will have more powers than others temporarily. You seem to advocate that some form of direct democracy is a superior system. Fine. However, people today do not think that direct democracy is the only "democratic" system and Wikipedia should reflect that. As noted in for example MW, Britannica, and Encarta, representative representation is also democracy.Ultramarine 05:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again: this discussion is not about whether Western democracies are democratic or not. Western democracies are democratic in the sense of M-W definition (b). I am actually not an advocate of direct democracy, but even if I were, this would be beside the point. The point is that we should distinguish between the democratic ideal and the democratic practice. Political equality is the ideal of democracy. Devices like elections and referenda make up contemporary democratic practice. These two things are both called democracy, but the question of how much the practice lives up to the ideal is debatable. In such a situation it makes sense to make this distinction explicit by having two definitions rather than having one definition confounding both aspects. --Drono 02:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Drono, please stop creating your own personal defintin of democracy. Literaly, democracy means rule by the people. Now some may argue that democracy is equal political power but that is not stated in any dictionary or encyclopedia. As such, it is a minority view and should not be mentioned in the intro.Ultramarine 02:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political equality 

message: RjII, why are you insiting on including this statement: "Peter Kropotkin approved of Renaissance Florence in Mutual Aid." There is no mention in the book that Kroptkin thought that this was a good anarchist society. Ultramarine 18:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't catch that. Didn't mean to delete it. I assumed your edit was only about Proudhon from your edit summary. RJII 18:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dissent 

message: This seems to be a pet theory of a professor at Nippising University, which is a backwater University in Northern Ontario.
:Seems dubious. The linked text is not a published journal article or an academic book, although it claims to be similar to an earlier published article. Also, "But in many states, perhaps most, political participation was restricted to a subset of all the ksatriyas . One needed to be not just a warrior, but a member of a specific royal clan, the rajanya". Ultramarine 22:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Democracy in India? 

message: Recently User:Drono and User:Ultramarine have been reverting back and forth between their preferred versions of parts of this article (example diff).   I've invited them both to discuss it here on the Talk page instead of just reverting. 
For instance, is the derivation from the Greek objectionable in itself, or just being removed along with the other text?  Is either "direct" or "participatory" substantially more common usage in political science circles as a descriptive?  Are the sections being blanked truly duplicating other articles, and if so, should at least a summary be present instead of complete removal?
Personally, I tend more to Ultramarine's wording - phrases such as "employ certain government devices", "perceived as promoting" sound like some point or other is trying to be made.  - David Oberst 17:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As seen in the diff, Drono is blanking of large parts of the article. No explanation for this has been given. As such it is Wikipedia:Vandalism. "Blanking Removing all or significant parts of articles (sometimes replacing the removed content with profanities) is a common vandal edit." Ultramarine 18:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Looking at all of his changes, , he is systematically trying to delete the advantages of democracy, like the protection of human rights in liberal democracies, research on how electoral spending affects the elections, research on mass murder, and research on happiness.Ultramarine 20:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmm, interesting. Yes, all the research showing advantages are on liberal democracy. Yes, maybe this should be pointed out.Ultramarine 20:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...in the Liberal democracy article.  BruceHallman 23:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, maybe most of the material related to liberal democracies should be moved to that article.Ultramarine 00:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I propose creating a brief summary of the material in the "Liberal democracy" section since it is now duplicated in Liberal democracy. I also think that the material in "Advantages and disadvantages of democracy" should be moved to liberal democracy since it is about that form of democracy. Thoughts? Ultramarine 00:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent back-and-forth reversions 

message: The claim that the US 'can be seen' appears like original research, is it?  Why (other than ethnocentrism) isn't the democracy practiced by the Iroquois Confederacy considered a liberal democracy?  Is appears very similar, especially when compared to 1789, it even has given suffrage to women since ancient times. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BruceHallman (talk • contribs) .
I concur, there does need to be a reference to back this up if it goes back in the article.  Captainj 20:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some differences to liberal democracies and direct democracy: Only males of certain families could be leaders. Only females from those families decided the leaders. There should be consensus among the leaders, not majority support decided by voting, when making decisions.Ultramarine 21:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: First, I like your rewrite.  Though, I wonder about the question of 'balance' when the majority of detail in the section is devoted to Athenian democracy, but independent non-European developments of democracy are touched on without even complete sentences.  And worse, they are qualified with the weasel word 'claimed'.  This appears ethnocentric.  BruceHallman 21:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First liberal democracy. 

message: We should talk about the balance tag.  BruceHallman 13:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is related: many places in the article, especially upon the reliance upon research by Freedom House, the article makes the mistake of using the word 'democracy' when it actually means 'Liberal democracy'.  This is especially a problem in the Democracy around the world section.  BruceHallman 16:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree on this. I propose moving "Democracy around the world" and "Political legitimacy and democratic culture" to the liberal democracy article. Objections? Ultramarine 22:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not from me. BruceHallman 14:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: That paragraph about Public Choice is an interesting addition to the article. BruceHallman 15:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balance tag 

message: How do they have any historical record of any democratic process, or any proof, if the people in question had only oral histories? This claim is unverifiable so I removed it. Furthermore, it is not accepted history so it should not be given prominence as the first sentence if there in the history of democracy. Likewise the claim that the there was a form of democracy in India before Greece is one professor (or claiming to be) from one an obsure university, who published only online - it is not a copy of a proper journal article. It may be true, but it has not been verified, and may be a hoax for all we know. Please try to show some rigor.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.125.238 (talk • contribs) 
:There is no requirement in history that only written records are acceptable. Oral records or historical artifacts can also be used. The Indian paper is based on another published paper.Ultramarine 15:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note also that the text states "claimed", not that it is an absolute fact.Ultramarine 15:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is extremely irritating I am trying to write a well balance, well-researched bit on the history of democracy and you seem to feel the need to very prominently preface it with, I repeat, extremely fringe research. The first sentence is important because it leads and gives the first impression for the rest of the text. You previously claimed to have an exact date in the 12th century for the Iroquois Confederacy - how is possible to pinpoint if they only had oral histories? This history is questionable at best. 24.222.125.238 15:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at the article, and my earlier notes below, you'll notice that those research references and claims are no longer present.  As written there is no specific need to have the Iroquois Confederacy as one of the examples mentioned in passing in the opening, but no great harm either.  I specifically used the "second millenium CE" phrasing, which covers the 15th century period of orthodox Iroquois study, and prevents enthusiasts of the Mann research from popping that 12th century date into the text.  Also, note that the original insertion of this date was by User:BruceHallman (see diff), not User:Ultramarine. -  David Oberst 16:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I followed the supporting links and I end up in very strange territory. I invite other wikipedians to follow the reference links. Some of it is openly hostile to conventional history, and extremely unprofessional to use as a source. It is poorly documented one or two source authors of questionable reputation --24.222.125.238 13:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, the only reference to the Iroquois Confederacy in the current revision is in passing in the opening paragraph of the "History" section.  And there is no claim of any weird dates - I used "second millenium" deliberately, since it covers what appears to be legitimate  research into "democratic principles or elements" that may be present amongst the Iroquois in, say, the 15th or 16th century.  Personally the idea of trying to establish some specific origin event based on oral histories and an 1142 eclipse seems rather wonky, but since it is no longer present in this article the debate can be moved over to Iroquois Confederacy. - David Oberst 15:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iroquois Confederacy had no written language 

message: I've written a new intro paragraph.  Whatever its faults, perhaps it can serve as a template for future efforts.  Specifically, as a general reader of this article instead of someone with any doctrinal axe to grind, I think an introductory paragraph on a broad subject such as this that requires multiple reference citations is probably a bad sign. -  David Oberst 07:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your changes: . Please do not revert everything if you disagree with one thing. Regarding quotes, they belong in wikiquote. Why did you deleted the information on illiberal elections and that most ideologies include nominal support for democracy? Ultramarine 01:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, the introduction suffers from deep seated systemic bias, assuming a perspective and bias from the Western liberal democratic point of view. The phrase 'garner legitimacy' is one example of the POV because it conveys superiority of one type of democracy over others. Also, the lead sentence based on the etymology of the word is quite irrelevant for modern usage. More valuable would be to describe the modern origin of the philosophy of 'democracy', which comes from the Age of Enlightenment and to mention the evolution of the philosophy including *both* the American/French revolutions and the birth of socialism and communism. BruceHallman 17:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does not state that democracy is superior, only that many think so and that others try gain legitamcy due to this.Ultramarine 18:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please also address my systemic bias complaint.    You wrote 'many think so', and your 'many'  tend to live in blue part of the world, in other words, the article has a 'blue' systemic bias.  Wikipedia should be edited neutral, including the perspective of the grey portions of the world too. BruceHallman 19:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Your use of the word 'legitamcy' also implies POV bias, and claiming  'Does not state that democracy is superior,'  seems wildly illogical unless you also believe that 'legitamcy' is not desireable. BruceHallman 19:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not I, but various dictatorship who claim legitamcy by having sham elections. I certainly do not consider them any more legitimate for this.Ultramarine 20:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite of intro

message: I have come to the conclusion that Democracy is best divided into Direct and Indirect. And Indirect into Representative and Non-Representative.  This is as neutral as I can make it.  Whoever disagrees, state your reasons.Skovoroda 21:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This not the place for an discussion of what kind of democracy the US has. Also why was the information about the democracy in the Communist states removed? Ultramarine 22:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: "If a non-representative democracy -- like the original soviet democracy -- all office holders are elected through "electors" or "delegates." For this reason, non-representative democracy is  best called delegative democracy." Links to two new articles by you. Wikipedia is not the place for original research.Ultramarine 22:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kinds of Democracy

message: Pakistan claims to be democratic?
Sorry, but the map needs to change, Pres Musharaff is a military dictator, as we can see, Pakistan can be a Republic, not a democracy.
(Hopes the Pakistani online diaspora does not strike back)
----
Hey, people here have claimed that Russia and China are democratic, but these are communism/socialism.  Some say that Palestine isdemocratic, but everyone knows that they support terrorism, which is the enemy of the people and therefore the enemy of democracy.  Why?  I think they just want to confuse the issue in order to weaken the power of the truth that democracy, in its purest form, is the power of the people in equality.  Opponents of democracy would blind us with false claims concerning democracy in order to prevent the true power of pure democracy from becoming truly unleashed and threatening to their visions of "world order."  Honestly, I would revise your title to more accurately read, "No pure democracy has ever been on this earth."--Landen99 20:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pakistan = No democracy right now 

message: When is the last time that government has ever waited to hear from the majority of an entire population? Woman were ignored for the longest time, and slaves too. So most of the earth's history has already been disqualified from pure democracy. These days the majority of the vote is taken to be the majority of the population, but two issues arise from that: 1) Majority vote is not majority population, 2) A small, well-organized, and motivated faction can exercise great political influence by voice and by vote, and 3) Apathy does not constitute endorsement of any view, even of the majority of the voters. In reality, modern democracy cannot be described as the rule of the people, but instead as the rule of the voters, or the rule of the factions.
When has any government been content and patient to wait for the majority of the people before closing its elections and extrapolating the will of the people? And why do intellectual elites deem their issues to be of such great importance as to berate the people for ignorance and apathy when their pet issues are neglected and thus rejected for lack of resonance with the people? And finally, how do representatives pretend to represent when most of the work represents their own interests and agendas, lacking support from the majority of their entire constituency? Who do representatives represent and how do they withold from the people the power to override their vote, which vote is considered to represent the will of the people? Such weaknesses are inherent in the nature of the current practices of government and politics, and they challenge the very foundation of power for a great many politicians and special interest groups, hence the justification for substantial opposition from those who pretend to be democracy's strongest advocates, but in reality are the strongest advocates of the modern, corrupted forms of democracy.
In a real democracy, the representatives represent the people, only acting with and according to their explicit and expressed will. Likewise, the government only governs by the established will of the majority of either the people or their representatives. The government should never have the power to discriminate, except in the execution of justice or enforcement of impartial, indiscriminate laws, or in the contracting of private agencies by bid for government work according the relevant requirements of each respectively.  --Landen99 20:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No pure democracy has ever been on this earth 

message: On one of the maps it says that China claims to be democratic and does not allow opposition groups to exist.  This is actually not quite true - opposition groups do exist and are registered.  Minority groups are represented on the NPC.  A point for debate, perhaps?  Jsw663 14:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map / China 

message: Enough fighting over terminology.  Majority rule is the foundation of democracy and no attempt should be made, even under the guise of rejecting the term pure democracy, to erase that fact.  It is the undisputed history of our civilizations and the basis for this new popular, modern movement (see Iraq, 2003-2006).  Everyone accepts that democracy holds the majority decision of the voters as if it were the majority decision of the entire population, and this stands as the foundational building block of any discussion about popular, modern understandings of democracy.  I believe that the principle is flawed, but regardless, it must be recognized as popular knowledge and the foundation of this form of government.  If the recognition of this fact reveals the flaw, then courage requires one to allow the people to see it as it is and accept the vulnerabilities and weaknesses of the systems that we love so dearly.
--Landen99 21:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology vs Truth regarding Majority Rule 

message: Please see Talk:Democracy (disambiguation)#Request for Comment: Democracy (disambiguation) for details and please leave comments. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 21:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC: [[Democracy (disambiguation)]]

message: Quote from the article: "The United States can be seen as the first liberal democracy, [2] with a relatively wide franchise (although initially limited by property and gender restrictions, and the existence of slavery) and the United States Constitution protected rights and liberties."
I don't really understand the statement. The first state with a bill of rights was England. The first constitutional monarchy was the Kingdom of Great Britain (since the last Royal Assent was withheld in 1708). The first state to implement universal suffrage was the Grand Duchy of Finland. The first states with a direct democracy (albeit no bill of rights or universal suffrage) were the Greek nation-states. So I would understand if either of these four states were claimed to be the first liberal democracy, but I do not understand the reasoning behind naming the US as the first.
If I don't understand the definition and "liberal democracy" is different from "democracy" or "democracy with a bill of rights and/or human suffrage", then what is special about liberal democracy (i.e. merits the mention)?
I would privately lean toward naming Finland as the first democracy in the true sense of the word. Of course, I don't propose making the change, I am just genuinely curious.
laddiebuck 00:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Addendum, maybe I should have said New Jersey instead of Finland. laddiebuck 00:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are thinking about the Magna Charta, it was really only intended to give some protection to the nobility and the church from the king. The rights in the Bill of Rights 1689 were extremely limited. Only a few percent could vote and there were problems like rotten boroughs. At the time of the American revolution, George III still controlled most policy. Ultramarine 00:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed, I was thinking of the 1689 document. The wiki page for it does not describe it as limited and mentions correlations between it and amendments to the US constitution, so I don't understand what you mean in practice by limited. I understand the issue of rotten boroughs (although that's more of a topic of corruption), but I had thought that it was Parliament (in opposition to Pitt, the PM) that decided policy at the time of the American Revolution? Various sources -- such as indeed the Wiki page for Declaration of Independence -- decribe the situation thus. laddiebuck 04:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here is how the National Archives describes the democratic situation: Compare the 1689 Bill to the Virginia Declaration of Rights which included things like Freedom of the Press and Religion. The king (and the nobility in the House of Lords) still had considerable powers at this time, he was certainly not a figurehead.Ultramarine 10:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So if you base democracy on voting availability (as I believe it should be), then how can any state before suffrage for women and ethnic minorities be a democracy? In that case our first candidate is the Grand Duchy of Finland (1906). laddiebuck 21:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Arguably most people had very little influence in Britain due to lack of voting rights, lack of many other rights like Freedom of Speech, and the power of the king and nobility. In the US a majority of the males had the vote and rights and tbis was the first time that this had happened in world's history. This was a dramatic revolution compared to everything before and many predicted a disaster when letting the common people decide things. Regarding women, on many issues they probably had similar views as men with similar SES. The extension of franchise to women was not as dramatic a revolution as giving the majority of males the votes and rights.Ultramarine 22:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your argument is reasonable, but I also think that a condensed version of it should be included in the article as a justification. laddiebuck 22:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also, while women may have in general had similar views, slaves would likely have dramatically different views, so that's another caveat to consider. I'd only consider the US a democracy (even without suffrage for women) until all ethnic minorities received the vote. laddiebuck 22:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question on "first democracy" 

message: the freedom map of the world is very (self evidently) inaccurate it should be replaced with another which is more representative of reality eg: freedom/democracy in in afghanistan is rated higher than russia (i am an australian with no national or political agenda just want to be a good wikizen).  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.106.19.3 (talk • contribs) .
i think there should be a way for users to edit the maps (this is a WIKI!) otherwise it should be discarded completely in favour of a list of countries and categories the posting of a "AUTHOURATATIVE" democracy map to tell the people who is free and who isn't is itself very undemocratic! how's that for irony?  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.106.19.3 (talk • contribs) .
:I've replaced the map deleted (3 times) by the above user, who has now created an account of their own (User:Esmehwk) and informed them of WP:3RR. - David Oberst 05:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Three maps representing not only one PoV, but one set of measurements of that PoV is undue weight; they always have been. Septentrionalis 23:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  map 

message: i think to be clear this needs to be added.
--Esmehwk 05:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  what democracy is: 

message: Under the criticisms of democracy section why was Hitler's example removed?  Granted, he was not directly elected but he still (ab)used the democratic process to get to where he was.  Am I missing something here?  Jsw663 03:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why was Hitler's example removed? 

message: there is a dispute over the types of democracy there are. --Esmehwk 23:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment: types of democracy 

message: I don't think the map should be on here. But the worst thing is the description in the map key next to the green box, it says: "Free: Freedom House considers these states to be liberal democracies." That sentence shouldn't be included, Freedom House doesn't include it on their website map.  It should just say free.  Whoever phrased the article that way creates the false impressions that Freedom House's ranking of "Free" should correspond to a liberal democracy, and that liberal democracy is "assumed to be" democracy.  Get rid of this map and the other map also.  The other map has no source and is ridiculous.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lecky333 (talk • contribs) 06:51, 11 August 2006  (UTC)
Does it make sense to have a map describing "freedom in the world" in an article about democracy?  Freedom is not the same as democracy.  BruceHallman 23:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing no objection, I have just deleted the map.  BruceHallman 20:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been discussed before. This is a siginificant view used in much research. Add opposing view if disagree.Ultramarine 20:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have not explained why a map showing freedom belongs in an article about democracy.  Freedom is not the same a democracy.  Please explain.  BruceHallman 05:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is about democracy. It is explicitly stated that Free nations are considered liberal democracies.Ultramarine 08:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: In research, this scale is one of the most widely used measures of democracy (and also highly correlated with the other ones widely used).Ultramarine 08:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Liberal democracy is arguable the dominant form of democracy today. In research this scale is one of the most widely used measures of democracy. So this view is certainly significant and should be included in this article.Ultramarine 15:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freedom in the world map 

message: So, just looking over the discussion, it seems like the claim that the One-Party Communists states represent a distinct type of democracy is a fairly controversial assertion.  Doing a quick search, I find many sources that list "Direct", "Representative" and "Liberal" as types of democracy, but I haven't bumped into any mention the one-party communist states as a fourth distinct type of democracy.  
I think most people would dispute the claim that the German Democratic Republic was a democracy.  Nonetheless, some of these nations DID call themselves a democracy, and we could certainly include that fact in the 20th century part of the history section.
--Alecmconroy 06:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested Comment

message: Please explain the massive unexplained deletions here, including the maps, and the sourced definition of liberal democracy previously agreed on above. Ultramarine 04:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: )
Esmehwk 04:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: So you just deleted references and maps as some sort of protest? That is not acceptable. Give concrete explanations for your deletions.Ultramarine 04:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: As noted above in the discussion on the definition of liberal democracy we agreed on a sourced definition after a discussion. You deleted this without explanation. If you disagree on something in the article, discuss it here. Just deleting large parts of the article as revenge when you do not get what you want it is not constructive and unfortunately just looks bad.Ultramarine 05:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You deleted a sourced definition that had been agreed on after a discussion and instead inserted your personal opinion. Not acceptable.Ultramarine 05:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: My sources showed how liberal democracy is used by professionals. You have given your personal opinion. Read Wikipedia:Verifiability.Ultramarine 05:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massive deletions 

message: ok lets have a proper discussion here are my postions:
* the definition i've put up either stay there(source: Ian robertsons  sociology... bla bla) or someone come up with another definition from some other respectable source and put that up the old definitino was very poor and this is an important page.
* there be a clear division of democracy onto its two forms dir&rep.
* the communist states example should go into history part
* next to the liberal democracy entry there should be ONE of the freedom house maps and if someone finds a similar map which is on democracy not "freedom" that is even better.
* liberal democracy is a subdivision of representative democracy and should be put in some other way so as not to give the impression it is part of types of democracy.
*its types not kinds of democracy
*the rest of the maps should be in the history section
* LET OTHER PEOPLE EDIT!
Esmehwk 05:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you use proper citation for your defintion in the article, then that is of course better than none. Restore you unexplained deletions and edit to show what your prefered version looks like.Ultramarine 05:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Discuss using factual arguments instead of ad hominem. Again, restore you unexplained deletions and edit to show what your prefered version looks like. Mass deletions of sourced maps and graphs, apparently as some sort of revenge for not getting what you want, is not acceptable.Ultramarine 06:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I have created only one of these charts. More ad hominem. Try to discuss the facts, not the persons. Ultramarine 13:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Freedom House is widely used by political scientists. They are a significant view. You can add your own, if you have a good source. But do not delete views you do not like.Ultramarine 00:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Please read Wikipedia:NPOV. You cannot exclude significant views because you do not like them personally. Add your sourced views instead.Ultramarine 01:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I have made some adjustments.Ultramarine 05:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I have not reverted to the prior version. As noted above, Freedom House is widely used by political scientists for measuring dmeocracy.Ultramarine 15:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus

message: Could someone please go to the history page...
look at the article that was up before ultramarine reverted it and give me some feed back specially if you can think of a better name for the "Modern Day Context" header. thank youEsmehwk 10:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Liberal democracy is gets more google hits than Representative democracy and Direct democracy and is used by political scientists as ntoed in the references in the text. It is the term to use, no need for original research.Ultramarine 15:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern Day Context 

message: I have read the discussion above, and what you have written. There is mudslinging on BOTH sides. You are both riling each other, and this isn't doing the article any good. I've noticed in the edit history that Esme does not regularly use edit summaries, and Ultramarine does not fully explain his edits on the talkpage, saying his work is sourced when it isn't (as far as I can establish through reviewing the first few edits). As a mediator, I am here to work between you two to help you to settle your differences and work towards a better article. Can I suggest you start over, by explaining with an example, what it is that you find the other editor does that you have to revert? Don't deal in acrimony, deal in hard evidence. Dev920 12:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here are sources for definition of liberal democracy:  . Regarding that Freedom House is widely used by researchers: Ultramarine 20:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Start over

message: I am closing this mediation as Esmehwk seems to have left Wikipedia. Dev920 22:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Closing