Talk:Democratic peace theory/Archive 5

message: Material on this talk page has been archieved without consensus. For now, in order to understand the templates, read the archieves. Ultramarine 03:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you again for stating the obvious. --Scaife (Talk)  Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 03:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And again, his idiosyncratic definition of consensus: if everyone but him agrees, it's not consensus.Robert A.West (Talk) 02:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note to readers and peer-reviewers 

message: Is here  and gives a fair overview, unlike the current article.Ultramarine 03:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WHAT??! Ray is not a fair overview, he is a Rummel clone. Please try and check your POV at the door. This is an encyclopaedic endevour not a blog. --Scaife (Talk)  Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 03:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ray wrote a polemic. He does cite several, then current, papers in the process. I believe all of them are included (where not duplicative) in the present text. Chan's 1994 paper contains a better overview, as do either of Gleditsch's cited papers.Septentrionalis 05:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer-reviewed overview of the theory 

message: *POV and factualy incorrect "A couple of the advocates of perfect democratic peace have examined the rather extensive record of wars and lesser conflicts between "primâ facie democracies".[63]. They conclude that no democracy has gone to war with another, unless: One of the democracies perceives the other as a non-democracy. [64] There is a war of secession; and, as often, a peace party has severe difficulty remaining within the laws of the attempted secession [65] One democracy tolerates feuds among its citizens[66] One democracy is controlled by entrenched politicians, corruptly or otherwise.[67] The democracy has a limited citizen body[68] Ambitious generals or unelected Commanders-in-Chief have substantial influence on civilian decision-making.[69]. There is any other body of domestic opinion pleased by this particular war.[70] In most of these cases, the investigators declare that the blemished state is no real democracy; compare the no true Scotsman problem[71]. The blemished belligerent is often a new regime; always so, in the case of wars of secession. Some examples considered involve a small number of battlefield deaths, and so are counted as lesser conflicts. [72]"" For a correct description of the criteria used, see User:Ultramarine/Possible exceptions to "Well-established democracies have never made war on one another"Ultramarine 17:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1 

message: *POV:Only arguments from one side "The most coomon exceptions of this kind are the Spanish American War and the (somewhat technical) state of war between Finland and the Western Allies during World War II;" See User:Ultramarine/Possible exceptions to "Well-established democracies have never made war on one another" for excluded counter-arguments.Ultramarine 17:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 

message: *POV:Only arguments from one side "His treatment of Greek history has been severely criticized; he omits the wars of the Roman Republic altogether." The counter-arguménts are excluded, see Never at War.Ultramarine 17:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  3 

message: *Factually incorrect "The modern Kantian theory argues that democracy, more trade causing greater economic interdependence, and membership in more intergovernmental organizations are positively related to each other; but that each has an independent pacifying effect.[35] This idea is in keeping with the theory of Institutionalism or Neoliberalism." No DPT is accepted by Neoliberalism in international relations, which is "Realist" theory.Ultramarine 17:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A Google scholar search gives 0 hits for "Kantian triad" and neoliberalism. "Kantian peace" and neoliberalism give 15 hits, none showing that the concept is used by neoliberalists. On the other hand, it is certainly one theory within liberalism. The text should be corrected. Ultramarine 19:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: *In short, Ultramarine can't be bothered to read an explicitly cited source. The scraps of quotation in scholar.google.com are no substitute; and would be none if its database were complete. Septentrionalis 19:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  4 

message: *POV:Excluded "Many earlier papers found that democracies in general are as warlike as nondemocracies, but according to several recent papers democracies are overall slightly less involved in war, initiate wars and MIDs less frequently than nondemocracies, and tend more frequently to seek negotiated resolutions."Ultramarine 17:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  5 

message: *Factually incorrect "Studies have also argued that lesser conflicts (Militarized Interstate Disputes in the jargon) between democracies have been more violent; but rare, less bloody, and less likely to spread." Incorrect, this is what the paper found "When examining these MIDs in more detail, the inter-liberal disputes have on the average more hostility, but are less likely to involve third parties, hostility is less likely to be reciprocated, when reciprocated the response is usually proportional to the provocation, and the disputes are less likely to cause any loss of life."Ultramarine 18:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  6 

message: *POV:Excluded"Enduring militarized competition between democratic states is rare. After both states have become democratic, there is a decreasing probability for MIDs within a year and this decreases almost to zero within five years."Ultramarine 18:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  7 

message: *POV:Excluded "In international crises that include the threat or use of military force, if the parties are democracies, then relative military strength has no effect on who wins. This is different from when nondemocracies are involved. This pattern is the same for both allied and nonallied parties."Ultramarine 18:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  8 

message: *Factually incorrect "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" Correct: "A recent theory is that democracies can be divided into "pacifist" and "militant". While both avoid attacking other democracies, "militant" democracies have a tendency to distrust and use confrontational policies against dictatorships. Most MIDs by democracies since 1950 have involved only four nations: the United States, the United Kingdom, Israel, and India."Ultramarine 18:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  9 

message: *POV:Exclusion supporting studies and misleading presentation of supporting study "Singer and Small explained Babst's original observation by observing that many democracies are far away from each other, and that war tend very strongly to be between neighboring states. Gleditsch has partly answered this by showing that the average distance between democracies is about 8000 miles, the same as the average distance between all states. As he observes, few states can project power anywhere near that distance; Vanuatu and Iceland may be expected to be at peace, whatever their regimes." Correct and npov: "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 18:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  10 

message: *Factually incorrect "Democracies, he asserts, have never had a full-scale war; the only exceptions between oligarchies are in trecento Italy." Spencer's exceptions between oligarchies is a conflict in Schwitzerland in 1656 and possible the War of the Pacific. Ultramarine 18:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  11 

message: *POV:Counter-arguments excluded "He describes Wilhelmine Germany as "a difficult case....In practice, a liberal state under republican law for domestic affairs...divorced from the control of its citizenry in foreign affairs." Again, the counter-arguments are excluded, see User:Ultramarine/Possible exceptions to "Well-established democracies have never made war on one another"Ultramarine 18:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  12 

message: *POV: Study excluded "However, other studies find an effect from more democracy but no effect from more trade." Ultramarine 18:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  14 

message: *POV: Counterarguments excluded "The Human Security Report, released in October 2005 by the Human Security Centre, documents the dramatically decline in warfare and civil wars since the end of the Cold War. It claims that the two main causes are the end of the Cold War itself and decolonization; but claims also the underlying force of all the articles of the Kantian triad, noting that each has contributed materially." Excluded is that the report makes many claims without support but instead states "Part V of this report reviews some of the findings that will be presented in greater detail in the Human Security Report 2006." The only argument it present against democracy being the explanation for the dramatic decline is that both democratic and intermediately democratic regimes have increased; and that intermediately democratic regimes may be more prone to civil wars. Ultramarine 18:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  15 

message: *Factually incorrect "She also finds that there were only independent, non-allied, Great Powers for a relatively short time before the Entente Cordiale of 1904; and that there were several crises and minor conflicts, between them, in several of which war was popular on both sides. While war was averted in these cases, there was only one war between Powers in that period, and the Spanish-American War was between a democracy and a borderline democracy." Gowa's discussion about "Great Powers" in chapter 5 was only intended to intuitively show that alliances are a good indicator of that state interests coincide. The DPT is not a "Great Power" peace theory and Gowa did include all states, Great or small, in chapter 6 when doing a statistcal analyses of alliances. A correct presentation would be that Gowa argues that alliances were rare between democracies before 1914 which she argues is an argument against the theory. Ultramarine 19:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  16 

message: *POV:Argument excluded Gowa's theory predicts more wars and violence betweeen democracies after the end of the Cold War. The continued peace contradicts her theory. Ultramarine 19:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  17 

message: *Factually incorrect "Separate peace theories claim that democracies are more likely to go to war with non-democracies than non-democracies are with each other" Correct: "Majority opinion has it that democracies are more peaceful towards each other than any other type of state dyad, but that democracies are as warlike as anybody else in general; this dual finding is called “the separate peace”." Ultramarine 20:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  18 

message: *Factually incorrect "For example, Rummel 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 -in his sense of the word- have gone to war more often than other states, but not with each other." Rummel has not stated that "democracies have gone to war more often than other states". Ultramarine 20:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  19-withdrawn 

message: *POV:Misleading description and factually incorrect "Other Kantians do not expect the democratic peace to include undeveloped states; they find that mutual democracy does not have any pacific effect if either of the democracies is poor - in fact the chance of war increases. Naturally, the pacific effect still exists, but is lessened, for countries with less severe poverty." Do not mention that most nations pass this criteria. "One study indicates that independently of trade, democracy is not a significant factor unless both of the democracies have a GDP/capita of at least 1400 USD. This level is quite low and 91% of all the democratic pairs passed this criteria during the 1885–1992 period and all in 1992. Still, higher economic development than this makes the effect of democracy stronger. Low economic development may hinder development of liberal institutions and values."Ultramarine 21:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Real merge.Ultramarine 02:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  20 

message: *Factually incorrect and POV:Misleading description "Many democratic peace theories do not count conflicts as wars which do not kill a thousand on the battlefield; thus neither the bloodless Cod Wars nor wars which kill large numbers of civilians (such as the Partition of 1947 or the Yugoslav wars of the 1990's) violate them. In some such cases, the democracy of one or both belligerents is also disputable." Misleading description, these wars are excluded primarily because of lacking democracy/new democracy less than 3 years old, not because of few battle deaths. Many of the Yugoslav wars had more than 1,000 battle deaths. See User:Ultramarine/Possible exceptions to "Well-established democracies have never made war on one another". Ultramarine 23:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  21 

message: What does Ultramarine have against 22? Septentrionalis 06:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, There is nothing called "Rummellism". Ray, the author of the article, uses a different definition for democracy than Rummel. If you with "Rummellism" means no wars between liberal demcracies, then a better neologism would be "Babstism" since it was Babst first claimed evidence for this.Ultramarine 05:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 22

message: *Factually incorrect "In March 2006, there are several potential crises between arguable democracies. The Palestinian Authority and the Islamic Republic of Iran, for example, have held elections for some years, with universal suffrage, and these have removed incumbents from power; so they satisfy the formal or quantitative requirements of most theories of the democratic peace. Their adherence to democratic norms of conduct and civil liberties, however, is far more doubtful; and the anomalous position of the Supreme Leader in Iran raises more questions." Iran is one of the least democratic nations in the world. Would certainly not pass for example Rummel's "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 01:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  23 

message: *Factually incorrect Kantian theorists regard mutual democracy as a necessary but not sufficient condition for peace";. State nothing of this sort. The modern Kantian theory argues that democracy, more trade causing greater economic interdependence, and membership in more intergovernmental organizations are positively related to each other; but that each has an independent pacifying effect. Ultramarine 01:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  24 

message: *Original research "However that may be, 2006 has provided one refinement to democratic peace theory: there is little, if any, discussion in the literature of the possibility that someone should regard somebody else's election results as being in themselves an unfriendly act."
**"little if any" is a reasonable summary of finding none, either in the papers read or with the help of a search engine. If some is found, the text can be altered. This is a wiki. Septentrionalis 01:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  25 

message: *Original research "Two of the militant democracies listed above were dominant naval powers, and therefore had greater choice whether and where to fight." Not mentioned in the DPT literature and anyhow irrelevant for the theory. Note also the earlier wrong definition of "militant" democracies as discussed above in 9. Ultramarine 01:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  26 

message: *Original research "Interestingly, Islamic tradition holds that peace will prevail within the dar al-Islam, but war, including jihad, beyond that zone." Not mentioned in the DPT literature and irrelevant for the theory. Ultramarine 01:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  27 

message: *Factually incorrect and POV "On the other hand, Mansfield and Snyder argue that democratizing leaders are more likely to fight wars, whether or not they win, as a means of handling internal tension." They argue that "that emerging democracies with weak political institutions are especially likely to go to war. Leaders of these countries attempt to rally support by invoking external threats and resorting to belligerent, nationalist rhetoric" Not that all democratizing leaders are more likely to fight war. It should also be mentioned that they support the DPT for well-established liberal democracies. Ultramarine 02:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  28 

message: *Factually incorrect and POV "the theories which claim that no two democracies have ever gone to war (which this article may call an "absolute" democratic peace), and argue that the Confederate States of America, the Boer republics, the Second French Republic, and so on, were not real democracies for one or another reason" The Second French Republic may well have been a real democracy but was less than 3 years old. Again, POV to present examples which may seem to be exceptions if not also presenting the more detailed arguments of the DPT supporters. Again see User:Ultramarine/Possible exceptions to "Well-established democracies have never made war on one another". Ultramarine 02:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  29 

message: *Factually incorrect "Republics, which he defines as "goernments by discussion". Weart: "a republic is a regime where political decisions are made through public contestation by a body of citizens who hold equal rights" (p. 28) Ultramarine 02:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Be careful with that lie word: The text I quote is stated in the Causes section, as everyone can see here . Ultramarine 21:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A collegial editor would have removed the duplication. Septentrionalis 21:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text: *Moot. Septentrionalis 04:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  30 

message: *Dubious "No ancient author seems to have considered it true." Even Thucydides thought that democracies were reluctant to attack one another.Ultramarine 19:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After further research (not the above strange interpretation) it seems certain that Thucydides did not advocate any form of democratic peace. Indeed, some scholars have argued that he had a personal distaste for democracy which may have affected his views. Ultramarine 02:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Above interpretation of Thucydides is consensus; with which Russett agrees as far as it touches on his concerns. Septentrionalis 16:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  31 -withdrawn 

message: *Original reserach "Some democratic peace theories implicitly or explicitly exclude the first years of democracies; either explicitly, or, for example, by requiring that the executive result from a substantively contested election. ("For all intents and purposes, George Washington was unopposed for election as President, both in 1789 and 1792";[79] therefore any theory that has this requirement would exclude the entire Washington Administration from the category of democracy. Theories that require an actual transfer of power between parties would also exclude the administration of John Adams.)" This arguments regarding Washington and Adams is not mentioned in the DPT literature. However, it may reasonable be included, but a qualifier is necessary. Something like, "although not mentioned in the literature, it might be argued that this requirement would exclude..." Ultramarine 19:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  34 

message: *Undue weight given to minor DPT researchers and ancillary research. Most of mainstream DPT is not focused on the work of Rummell, Ray, or even Babst. They are mentioned in passing (Rummell and Babst) or rarely at all (Ray). Their heavy inclusion smacks of POV. --Scaife (Talk)  Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 17:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't a question of pro- or anti-DPT literature, it a question of too much matierial being added from "libertarian" ideologues.  This has really been discussed ad nauseam.  It is also strange that you state that "there is relatively little disagreement regarding no wars" when your own research that you have presented is contradictory in many places. There is no consensus regarding what constitutes a war or a "liberal" democracy. We are aware that you are a champion of Rummel and Ray in this respect, but it is hardly the mainstream view. --Scaife (Talk)  13:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not a libertarian, I support relatively high taxes in order redistribute wealth. Nor are most, if any, of the pro-DPT researchers libertarians. I think democracy is supported by most groups, except for example Nazis and libertarians (anarcho-capitalists). War is usually defined as 1000 battle deaths in quantitative research. The DPT researchers arguing no wars has somewhat similar definitions of liberal democracy, see User:Ultramarine/Possible exceptions to "Well-established democracies have never made war on one another". Ultramarine 23:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 35

message: *POV: Study excluded
This  peer-reviewed overview has been deleted from the external links. Ultramarine 05:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 36

message: *Not reliable source This draft  has been included in the external links. It has no reference list and the author in Swedish explicitly states that it should not be cited. Ultramarine 05:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where exactly does it say that. If he didn't want it used, the internet isn't the best repository for it, however I will assume that if it was by Ray or Rummel that shan't be a problem, no? --Scaife (Talk)  Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 06:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 37

message: *Not reliable source "One list of such wars is at Matthew's White's website , with arguments on both sides." This is a personal website that does not cite sources. It presents a travesty of the pro-DPT arguments. Compare to User:Ultramarine/Possible exceptions to "Well-established democracies have never made war on one another" which cites the actual arguments used.Ultramarine 05:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Weart is a historian of twentieth-century science, mostly since 1945. He has never, until this book and a preliminary paper, published anything about history before that. He does not understand that "the past is a different country; they do things differently there"; and is in fact writing like a tourist, half assuming that they *must* do things the same way as at home and half horrified when they do do things otherwise. (For example, he declares Chile to be no organized state because 27 people were killed in the national elections of 1886; does he really know nothing about the nineteenth century riots in New York City and California?) Septentrionalis 19:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply false description. Edit in good faith and avoid ad hominem.Ultramarine 02:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can somebody answer me this question? Why are we spending so much time discussing a man with a PhD in Physics that wrote a book based more on his observations than political theory or good quantitative research? I am intelligent person and took a physics class or two, but I am willing to bet that if I wrote a book on physics, it wouldn't be cited on wikipedia, less anywhere else. --Scaife (Talk)  05:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 38

message: *Original research "Athens usually prefered democracy among its subject allies; conversely, Sparta usually prefered oligarchies (as did the Roman Republic and the Macedonian kings)." Unreferenced. However, Athens is mentioned in the literature in this context. The other examples seems to be original research. Ultramarine 03:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you please spare us some trouble and quote the relevant text? Ultramarine 22:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text: See added footnote. Also Peter Green: Alexander of Macedon. Pp.87, 183, 449. Septentrionalis 04:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 40

message: *Factually incorrect On the support for the monadic theory: "Rummel is virtually alone in doing so". Incorrect when you yourself later admit that there have recently been many supporting studies by other researchers.Ultramarine 02:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 41

message: For an outline of the argument. Go here...
:I think you meant Owen, not Doyle. Septentrionalis 06:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did. Goes to show you shouldn't try and do two things at once. Cheers! --Scaife (Talk)  Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 06:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gelpi and Griesdorf are mentioned; if Ultramarine had looked for their paper in the notes, he would have found If this pattern were true of all democracies, the results of military crises between them would largely depend on their relative strength. A more recent study denies this, with note to them. The rest of this is mostly the same arguments with different verbiage. Septentrionalis 21:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, these was mentioned as other possible explanations than that in the above papers cited by Scaife. But these possible explanations should also be mentioned in the article. Ultramarine 22:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text: These arguments are not present in the article.
Ultramarine 01:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lie. See example above. Septentrionalis 17:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The others are not mentioned.Ultramarine 21:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Added another explanation above. Ultramarine 02:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Doyle and Owen encapsulated

message: Ultramarine has been trying to suppress unwelcome facts there too; see the edit history. Septentrionalis 06:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[R. J. Rummel]]

message: Ultramarine has written my talk page, suggesting that we should start over with the draft in User:Ultramarine/sandbox4, and take half; he the pro-DPT side and the rest of us  the anti-DPT side, and each agree not to edit each other's half; but answer each other on our own. His model for this is Middle East conflict, which is apparently so divided between the Jews and the Arabs. 
This is an undesirable model, being rather a departure from wikiprinciples for a hard case rather than an example of them. But I put forth the suggestion; it may serve as the basis for a useful negotiation. 
The division anticipated appears to be:
*Skins
**Ray, Rummel and Weart
**Russett
**A handful of other papers
*Shirts
**The rest of the Kantians
**Several non-Kantian supporters of DOT, such as Gleditsch and Maoz.
**The actual opponents of DPT: Mearsheimer, Gowa, Spiro, Layne...
I write of course, subject to correction here. 
Ket ne know what you think. Septentrionalis 05:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do hope we can bring this to an end. I thought that Views of the Arab-Israeli conflict might be a good model.Ultramarine 08:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Peace offer