Talk:Democratic peace theory/Archive 6

message: As both parties have requested my assistance on this article, I'll try to help, but on the priviso that we try to keep disputes to the talk page. To clearly list disputes where readers can easily find them I've created a Template talk:Todo page. I've also reduced the initial tags to just one disputed one, following the mediators User:Kim Bruning suggestion. Revert this and I'm out of here! --Salix alba (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A good idea. (although the totally disputed template would be more accurate) Ultramarine 19:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Do list 

message: Ultramarine removed:
:Setting aside the question of whether the democratic peace applies to these cases at all, the predictions of democratic peace theory are still limited. No theorist denies that democracies have acted against one another by covert or non-military means. Even small military confrontations between democracies have happened; many theorists claim they are rarer than between other states. Kantian theorists regard mutual democracy as a necessary but not sufficient condition for peace; and even non-Kantians acknowledge the possibility of war in exceptional cases.    
: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. 
Ultramarine fails to understand the purpose of these two paragraphs (and I think of the section). This talk page has gotten several notes by readers as to what DPT says about current events, and (even when the answers could be dug out of the article) not finding them.
There is a widespread misinterpretation of DPT that it says more than any actual theorist holds: that democracies do not take any sort of hostile action (including covert action) against each other. This seems to have begun with careless op-ed columnists making drastic assertions based on it, and then spread by people debunking them, and thinking they are debunking DPT. There is a note, now archived, suggesting that the election of Ahmedinejad was a violation of DPT, presumably because he's bellicose. It isn't.
Even those readers who think Iran is a democracy should be told that, say, economic sanctions against it would not disprove DPT. We should not encourage demonstrable error. 
Ultramarine further objects that the second paragraph is original research. I This is a very strict standard; on that basis, all statements about what the DPT does not hold, such as the one about covert action above, are improper. I've looked; I can't find one; either in the papers I have read or dozens and dozens of Google results - if Ultramarine knows of such a discussion (including a comment on the absence of discussion) I would prefer to include it. Septentrionalis
:I moved, not deleted, relevant parts to other section. See also general response below.Ultramarine 19:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And in so doing, you destroyed the putpose of the section and the paragraphs. If you wanted to delete it, you should have said so; its fragments are misplaced repetition. Septentrionalis 20:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Democratic peace theory#Current events|Current events]]

message: A deletion of  In a similar assertion, Islamic tradition holds that peace will prevail within the dar al-Islam, but war, including jihad, beyond that zone. This is the sort of thing that "every schoolboy knows", as Lord Macaulay put it. A citation-needed tag would have been appropriate. Septentrionalis 17:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Irrelevant for the theory. Ultramarine 19:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  It is commonplace for proponents of a religion or political system to proclaim that universal adoption of their system would (will) bring peace.  What distinguishes DPT is that there has been an attempt to put it on a scientific footing.  This is the point of the DPT literature, and it is why we three can have spirited arguments about it -- the claims are (or should be) falsifiable.  This distinction seems to me to be a natural thing to include somewhere in the introduction of the article.  Robert A.West (Talk) 14:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Democratic peace theory#Kantian peace|Kantian peace]]

message: The complete deletion of the analyis of Weart et.al., which is expressly detended by two editors in #1 above, is editing contraty to consesnsus. The deletion of sourced material in the rest of the section is contrary to policy. If Ultramarine denies them, he knows wherr the  tags are. Septentrionalis 20:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Replaced with the actual definitions used. The replaced text is a travesty of this. Ultramarine 21:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where? The word militant appears only in the sentence "Two of the militant democracies listed above were dominant naval powers, and therefore had greater choice whether and where to fight." There is no definition, and the list (Israel, India, US UK) has been removed.Septentrionalis 22:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Democratic peace theory#Exceptions|Exceptions]]

message: Please don't mix statements of different classes. Errors is intended for claims, like Rossami and some of Spiro's of mere misstatements of facts and blunders.
:One of the major propenents of a new school of thought in Democratic peace theory is Princeton University Scholar Paul M. Anderson. His consolidation and amalgamation of existing theories into a unified conception of demographic negotiation provides a benchmark by which similar future restructurings can be judged. 
Unsourced . Septentrionalis 17:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Democratic peace theory#Errors|Errors]]

message: Certainly the article should be kept up-to-date; but I don't see why the newest papers should be listed as an indiscrimate collection of facts. The section head really applies only to Ray's peacockery. 
Septentrionalis 17:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Democratic peace theory#Progressive research program?|Progressive research program?]]

message: Again, please respond by sections (I have signed each to make this easier).Septentrionalis 17:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Final note

message: I believe this moots many of Ultramarine's complaints above. We should archive, to make room for a discussion of the present text. Septentrionalis 17:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly not. Archiving should not be done to hide arguments relevant for ongoing discussions.Ultramarine 19:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Arguments about text which is no longer in the article are irrelevant for ongoing discussion. Septentrionalis 18:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving

message: See the Neutrality and factual accuracy section above and my edit comments. See also User:Ultramarine/sandbox4 and User:Salix alba/History of conflict between democracies Ultramarine 18:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be better if we can slow the pace down a bit. I'm having a hard time trying to keep up with the conservation, and read up on the litrature, let alone respond intelegently. More haste less speed etc. --Salix alba (talk) 19:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding recent edits 

message: I quite like the Wikipedia:Harvard referencing style  for referencing, as you can see who wrote what and when while reading the main text. We also seem to have the quite a few notes which should be references, which makes things confusing.
===References===
* "Harvard Referencing 2005" (pdf), Curtin University of Technology library and information service, retrieved December 17, 2005
Thoughts. --Salix alba (talk) 20:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good for quickly showing age and author. As you have shown, Wikipedia has some beta support for inline links on this, see Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles. Ultramarine 21:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objection to the change; it is functionally the same as the short form used in the present notes. It would make it slightly harder to find where we cite a given author, which seems to challenging enough now.  Septentrionalis 21:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The  template however, uses caps in its argument names. Be careful; and this may mean that the template will be replaced on those grounds, as other citation template have been. Septentrionalis 16:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: While I appear to be a minority here, I should voice my general dislike for using Harvard referencing in tertiary sources -- the form was developed for works of original research, which are read with close attention by other specialists.  The format is distracting when reading about a topic where one is not a specialist, and where one is taking the source pretty much at its word.  Thus, the use of Harvard referencing is optimizing Wikipedia for the regular editors, not for the general reader, which I believe to be a mistake.Robert A.West (Talk) 12:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harvard Referencing 

message: * "Harvard Referencing 2005" (pdf), Curtin University of Technology library and information service, retrieved December 17, 2005
Thoughts. --Salix alba (talk) 20:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good for quickly showing age and author. As you have shown, Wikipedia has some beta support for inline links on this, see Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles. Ultramarine 21:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objection to the change; it is functionally the same as the short form used in the present notes. It would make it slightly harder to find where we cite a given author, which seems to challenging enough now.  Septentrionalis 21:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The  template however, uses caps in its argument names. Be careful; and this may mean that the template will be replaced on those grounds, as other citation template have been. Septentrionalis 16:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: While I appear to be a minority here, I should voice my general dislike for using Harvard referencing in tertiary sources -- the form was developed for works of original research, which are read with close attention by other specialists.  The format is distracting when reading about a topic where one is not a specialist, and where one is taking the source pretty much at its word.  Thus, the use of Harvard referencing is optimizing Wikipedia for the regular editors, not for the general reader, which I believe to be a mistake.Robert A.West (Talk) 12:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: These paragraphs, which I will subjoin, should either be restored or removed. I wrote them in the first place because we had been asked a couple times, "So what does democratic peace theory say about X?" for some potential crisis, and (while the answer seemed clear), it was pointless to have the reader dig through the whole article for the information.  
In any case, this should either be restored (in some form) or deleted; its disjecta membra are useless.
:In April 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 norms of conduct, and treastment of civil liberties, however, suggest illiberal democracies rather than liberal ones; and the anomalous position of the Supreme Leader in Iran raises more questions.
:Setting aside the question of whether the democratic peace applies to these cases at all, the predictions of democratic peace theory are still limited. No theorist denies that democracies have acted against one another by covert or non-military means. Even small military confrontations between democracies have happened; many theorists claim they are rarer than between other states. Kantian theorists regard mutual democracy as a necessary but not sufficient condition for peace; and even non-Kantians acknowledge the possibility of war in exceptional cases.
:However that may be, 2006 has provided one opportunity to refine 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
I changed the date, and added the idea of illiberal democracy, which will probably require a cource; Fareed Zakaria should do. I don't think that we can go any further without being PoV. Although I agree with the PoV in question, as do most Westerners, discussion of the matter would be off topic; that's what the links are for. Septentrionalis 16:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who is arguing that Iran is liberal democracy? No evidence has been presented that current Kantians consider "mutual democracy as a necessary but not sufficient condition for peace". The absence of a discussion in the literature cannot provide a refinement of the theory!!! Ultramarine 17:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: * The Iranians, for one, who keep pointing out that they have a better human rights record than Saudi Arabia. I strongly disagree with this claim to liberal democracy, but this page is not the place to disprove it. We have enough to cover. Septentrionalis 17:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: *rephrased. No one seems to have envisaged something like the Hamas election, but papers are presumably being written now to cover the omission. Septentrionalis 17:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Source please for statements regarding Iran. They certainly do not try to hide the view that religion and the priests should have the dominant role in the state. Ultramarine 02:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One can be a liberal democracy and still have an Establishment. I repeat, I didn't say they were right; I'm simply trying to avoid random re-edits by Iranian nationalists. Septentrionalis 03:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The news

message: *I found one paragraph from Mueller and Wolff, which was entirely redundant with the existing references to the same paper, as the diffs will show.
**Septentrionalis had deleted this information. Please explain. See:  Ultramarine 22:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Septentrionalis's edits

message: See . Including deletion without explanation of important supporting study. And again including "Rossami 2003" despite not mentioned in the reference list. Ultramarine 16:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Spiro's argument, concluding what is unlikely in any given year is ever to happen, is specious, as Maoz pointed out. It is included chiefly because it is in the literature, and is plausible - the reader should be warned. If you think Russett's answer worth mentioning, it can certainly go in the note; but one refutation is surely enough.Septentrionalis 17:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Rossami's paper is in Rummel's bibliography. If it's not in the references, a collegial editor would go add it. Septentrionalis 17:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your text presents Spiro without counter-arguments. This is especially serious as you yourself admit that his argument is specious. Regarding Rossami, if you want to state something, you should provide the references. Ultramarine 17:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rosato, of course; a memory glitch. Thank you. Isn't explaining (sourced) why he was  wrong a counterargument? Septentrionalis 17:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please state where you explained that he was wrong. Ultramarine 17:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: End of the section, the text to the present footnote 89. (What demands dicussion is the rearrangement, not Russett's paper. I don't think it's necessary, however. If you put it back, do make the footnote Russett 2005 to make Salix's work easier.) Septentrionalis 17:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Spiro 1994; answer recast from Maoz 1997" Is this what you consider is explaining that Spiro is wrong? Ultramarine 17:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: No, that's the note. Read the text to which it links. And please stop moving things without discussion. Septentrionalis 17:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have been doing that for months. See my edit comments for explanation. Regarding Spiro, your text is obscure and it is not mentioned that it is a counter-argument. Ultramarine 17:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: It was you who started editing after Salix asked for a stop. Ultramarine 18:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Salix asked for a slow-down. I declared my intention to edit one or two paragraphs a day; if it hadn't been for your massive destruction, I would have stopped with subdividing Tpyes of theory and gone on to other things. Septentrionalis 20:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Ultramarine's deletion of accurate, sourced material has introduced massive inaccuracy; but I will review Russett 2005 before I edit. Septentrionalis 20:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Large scale revert 

message: . Back to:  Very strange, studies about MIDs do not belong in a section about exceptions to no wars. Also the unexplained restoration of the claimed COW definition of democracy. No such definition was found at the COW project. Ultramarine 17:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, no such definition of democracy was found at the COW project. Direct link please. I looked at the claimed papers but could not find anything. Quote please.Ultramarine 18:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No one ever said it was on their website, although I'm surprised it isn't. Text is almost directly from Small and Singer 1976 (and ahould have quote marks; thank you). It will take me a few days to access a hardcopy; where is it oneline? Septentrionalis 18:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That Small and Singer used a particular definiton of democracy in a study in 1976 is not evidence that the COW project uses this definiton. Please prove some sort of official document or link to their website showing this. Ultramarine 18:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a historic present like most of the other verbs in the article. Throwing this one into the past would be misleading; and the paper specifically attributes the data-crunching to COW.   No one made any claims about 2006; this complaint is fraudulent. Septentrionalis 20:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Large scale revert 2 

message: === Washington election ===
I have corrected the section to reflect that the VP election was contested -- there is no evidence that any elector thought of (or would have dared) voting against Washington.  None of the other candidates considered themselves candidates for President.  This is the absolute consensus of all scholars on the subject.  If my correction matches Ultramarine's meaning, then fine.  If not, then Ultramarine was committing original research by drawing a novel conclusion from a primary source (the raw election returns).  
As the quotation from the National Archives shows, there was no meaningful contest for the office of President in 1789 or 1792. or 1796  There was a contest for Vice President, which Ultramarine may be confusing with the presidential race.  This is distinct from the situation in 1800, when there was a contest for President, and the loser became Veep, with near-disastrous results, hence the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Additional sources of this can be found in the sources for the article George Washington, including but not limited to , .  I also refer Ultramarine to Miracle in Philadelphia -- since this is a fourth citation, I feel justified in doing it from memory and will check if Ultramarine insists.  (AGF, I have changed the title of this section.  Ultramarine may have intended my correction, and if not he may believe his original research.  Robert A.West (Talk) 20:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only one doing original reserch is you, making numerous statements without sources, your two links do not support you. Nothing in the constitution or elsewhere stated that Washington had to be elected president. There were many candidates that could have been elected instead. That Washington was very popular does not change this. Even if he was so popular that none of the other candidates thought they had any chance of winning the presidency, there was still a choice of candidates. Ultramarine 04:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: In addition, this has no relevance for any possible exceptions, since his terms were peaceful. Ultramarine 05:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please show me a secondary source that supports your position that anyone other than Washington held himself forth (or was held forth by others) as a candidate for President (as opposed to being a possible Vice President) in 1792.  Someone else cited the National Archives, which states that Washington was to all intents and purposes unopposed, which is sufficient for the claim.  You oppose to this your own novel analysis of a primary source.  That is the definition of original research. Robert A.West (Talk) 19:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The relevance is simple -- it is a useful (and reasonably common in US college lectures) illustration of the definition of democracy in question.  The importance is that even now-undoubted democracies can be historically excluded during the presidency of their founding hero.  That is just an artifact of the methodology, neither good nor bad.  Robert A.West (Talk) 19:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The National Archive states that there were several candidates. The idea that an election is not competitive if one candidate is very popular is very strange. Ultramarine 19:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Every elector, without exception, voted for Washington as often as he  could (see the unamended Article II.) No one voted against him. What seems strange about the consensus opinion that this is "effectively unopposed" to you? Septentrionalis 23:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Beautiful illustration of the reason to use secondary sources (those that provide interpretation by experienced scholars) and not primary sources.  By looking at the election returns (a primary source, even when reproduced in a secondary source), and not understanding  U.S. Electoral College#History, Ultramarine draws a conclusion that seems obvious to him and would amuse any scholar of U.S. History. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I have helped you. I cannot think of any such wars. Regarding Washington, see my prevous comments. Ultramarine 23:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your recollection is useless, as is mine.  We need sources.  Moreover, you still have not explained how you read "Unopposed" to mean "had opponents."  Robert A.West (Talk) 01:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Why not, in a footnote to the history section. It has no relevance for the current status of research. Ultramarine 04:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it does; both as the history of the development of the subject, which I find interesting (if we are not to include things like this, none of the history after Babst is interesting either); and as first recognition that civil wars are a special case. Septentrionalis 02:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no strong preference either way.  The points are of interest, and do illustrate the general methodology.  On the other hand, I like tightly-written articles.  Robert A.West (Talk) 18:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The methodology includes everything from comparative case studies to multiple regression to neural networks. Babst 1964 study is not representative for how current research is done. Ultramarine 18:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One can derive Black-Scholes using binary trees, or cellular automata, rather than analytic integration, and those methods add significantly to understanding.  Nevertheless, I would still explain it to a knowledgable non-specialist using classical methods.  Similarly, you have convinced me that we should mention Babst's method 'precisely because it is naive enough that it can easily be apprehended by non-specialists.  I think that a sentence to the effect that his method is primitive compared to modern papers would be fair summary of the state of the art, and need not be specifically footnoted.  Robert A.West (Talk) 21:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sundry Comments 5/5/06 

message: I have corrected the section to reflect that the VP election was contested -- there is no evidence that any elector thought of (or would have dared) voting against Washington.  None of the other candidates considered themselves candidates for President.  This is the absolute consensus of all scholars on the subject.  If my correction matches Ultramarine's meaning, then fine.  If not, then Ultramarine was committing original research by drawing a novel conclusion from a primary source (the raw election returns).  
As the quotation from the National Archives shows, there was no meaningful contest for the office of President in 1789 or 1792. or 1796  There was a contest for Vice President, which Ultramarine may be confusing with the presidential race.  This is distinct from the situation in 1800, when there was a contest for President, and the loser became Veep, with near-disastrous results, hence the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Additional sources of this can be found in the sources for the article George Washington, including but not limited to , .  I also refer Ultramarine to Miracle in Philadelphia -- since this is a fourth citation, I feel justified in doing it from memory and will check if Ultramarine insists.  (AGF, I have changed the title of this section.  Ultramarine may have intended my correction, and if not he may believe his original research.  Robert A.West (Talk) 20:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only one doing original reserch is you, making numerous statements without sources, your two links do not support you. Nothing in the constitution or elsewhere stated that Washington had to be elected president. There were many candidates that could have been elected instead. That Washington was very popular does not change this. Even if he was so popular that none of the other candidates thought they had any chance of winning the presidency, there was still a choice of candidates. Ultramarine 04:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: In addition, this has no relevance for any possible exceptions, since his terms were peaceful. Ultramarine 05:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please show me a secondary source that supports your position that anyone other than Washington held himself forth (or was held forth by others) as a candidate for President (as opposed to being a possible Vice President) in 1792.  Someone else cited the National Archives, which states that Washington was to all intents and purposes unopposed, which is sufficient for the claim.  You oppose to this your own novel analysis of a primary source.  That is the definition of original research. Robert A.West (Talk) 19:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The relevance is simple -- it is a useful (and reasonably common in US college lectures) illustration of the definition of democracy in question.  The importance is that even now-undoubted democracies can be historically excluded during the presidency of their founding hero.  That is just an artifact of the methodology, neither good nor bad.  Robert A.West (Talk) 19:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The National Archive states that there were several candidates. The idea that an election is not competitive if one candidate is very popular is very strange. Ultramarine 19:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Every elector, without exception, voted for Washington as often as he  could (see the unamended Article II.) No one voted against him. What seems strange about the consensus opinion that this is "effectively unopposed" to you? Septentrionalis 23:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Beautiful illustration of the reason to use secondary sources (those that provide interpretation by experienced scholars) and not primary sources.  By looking at the election returns (a primary source, even when reproduced in a secondary source), and not understanding  U.S. Electoral College#History, Ultramarine draws a conclusion that seems obvious to him and would amuse any scholar of U.S. History. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I have helped you. I cannot think of any such wars. Regarding Washington, see my prevous comments. Ultramarine 23:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your recollection is useless, as is mine.  We need sources.  Moreover, you still have not explained how you read "Unopposed" to mean "had opponents."  Robert A.West (Talk) 01:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Washington election 

message: I think there are three things that this article should say about the competitive-election/transfer-of-power rule:
#This rule does not exclude only obvious dictators: there are democracies whose first election for executive was not meaningfully competitive.  I think Washington is a great example, with a strong source in the National Archives quotation, but if Ultramarine has one he thinks is better, please say so.
#This rule must decrease the count of democratic dyads if done consistently. This will, in turn, affect the computations of significance.  We should be able to find the effect documented and quantified in the literature somewhere.
#This rule must have excluded some wars not also be excluded under the three-year rule.  How many?  We should be able to document this.  (Or if none are excluded, that fact is interesting, too.)
Does this sound reasonable?  Can we agree that these are useful facts?  I don't know the answers, but can we cooperate in looking for appropriate sources and finding the answers?  Robert A.West (Talk) 18:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have helped you. I cannot think of any such wars. Regarding Washington, see my prevous comments. Ultramarine 23:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your recollection is useless, as is mine.  We need sources.  Moreover, you still have not explained how you read "Unopposed" to mean "had opponents."  Robert A.West (Talk) 01:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effect of Stricture on Wars and Dyad Counting 

message: Since the Babst article is not on line, and is the first academic article on the subject, would Ultramarine agree that the description is worth putting into a footnote? Robert A.West (Talk) 19:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not, in a footnote to the history section. It has no relevance for the current status of research. Ultramarine 04:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it does; both as the history of the development of the subject, which I find interesting (if we are not to include things like this, none of the history after Babst is interesting either); and as first recognition that civil wars are a special case. Septentrionalis 02:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no strong preference either way.  The points are of interest, and do illustrate the general methodology.  On the other hand, I like tightly-written articles.  Robert A.West (Talk) 18:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The methodology includes everything from comparative case studies to multiple regression to neural networks. Babst 1964 study is not representative for how current research is done. Ultramarine 18:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One can derive Black-Scholes using binary trees, or cellular automata, rather than analytic integration, and those methods add significantly to understanding.  Nevertheless, I would still explain it to a knowledgable non-specialist using classical methods.  Similarly, you have convinced me that we should mention Babst's method 'precisely because it is naive enough that it can easily be apprehended by non-specialists.  I think that a sentence to the effect that his method is primitive compared to modern papers would be fair summary of the state of the art, and need not be specifically footnoted.  Robert A.West (Talk) 21:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Babst 

message: The wording of WP:CV is:
: What about fair use? Under fair use guideline, brief selections of copyrighted text may be used, but only with full attribution and only when the purpose is to comment on or criticize the text quoted.
Cutting and pasting abstracts, much less Ray's comments, without quotation marks, is not fair use. It is not lawful.
It is also not fair, in the simple ethical sense. Why should Ray, or Mueller, or Wayman, find his words floating around a Wikip[edia mirror somewhere, as though they had not written them? I omit the clear result of bad writing, as secondary. Septentrionalis 23:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Plagiarism

message: Since Ultramarine is not bold enough to pick one, I will:in alphabetical order.  I believe that Abadie 2004 is already included as one of his last miscellanea; which means we need not wait for Ultramarine to compose. But I must read it before I edit. Septentrionalis 03:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to think that I need your permission. Your are wrong. Ultramarine 03:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What have I said that could  rationally be read as implying that Ultramarine requires permission? He is welcome to add things; this was an offer to take some of the trouble involved. Septentrionalis 14:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Abadie

message: There are more than 200 references for this article. The "Arguments for the democratic peace" section is made up entirely of bullet points listing studies which support the heading of the section.
This is not a bibliography or a list; this is an encyclopedia article. Those sections can easily be reduced into paragraphs and sentences first explaining the point, and why studies think this. Most of the citations can be left out. It clutters up the article - you only need one or two citations to source a point. In short, there is way too much detail. -- infinity0 15:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. But is the supporting references are recent and follow the Harvard style used in scholarly articles. The others are much older. Especially those from the 70s and 80s should be removed. Ultramarine 15:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is Ultramarine making another attempt to impose his PoV: that this article should cite only Ray, Rummel, Weart, and those portions of other articles that agree with them. Ultramarine has removed quotes from 1998 and 2003. 
Ultramarine, that comment is very POV. It implies that all the researchers are neutral, which I doubt is the case.
The "arguments for DPT" section needs to be cleared up. Atm it's no less than a spam of studies. There is no secondary writing but only a list of studies supporting DPT. This is inproper content as well as undue weight since when people see a list they infer completeness - ie with opposing viewpoints. It is better to write out the arguments using your own words and using sources to support them, rather than to list out the sources and what they say. -- infinity0 16:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: This is the style used in academic writing. It is mostly secondary writing from what the studies say. Opposing arguments can be found in the appropriate section. Ultramarine 16:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a difference between Harvard style, and the Harvard template. The latter produces the same results as , and is likely to be merged into it eventually. Septentrionalis 16:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Feel free to add Ultramarine's collection into that version. Septentrionalis 16:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia accept Harvard style as an acceptable reference style. In principle it is no different from those of other reference styles, except giving more inline information.Ultramarine 16:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conf) I don't have a problem with the citation style, but the content style. The section consists entirely of bullet points. It seems like the whole of democratic peace theory is on it. That sort of detail shouldn't be on an encyclopedia. For example, there are two bullet points about MIDs, but MIDs aren't even real wars. -- infinity0 16:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I will rewrite it and remove the bullet points. Ultramarine 16:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, that is missing the point by a mile and a half... The section is still nothing more than a list of studies. -- infinity0 16:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the field consists of studies. If you can rewrite the text into something better, please do. The citations itself should not be removed. Ultramarine 16:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Please stop disrupting this article. Septentrionalis 16:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: As much research has been done on MIDs in regard to the theory, probably much more than on wars recently, it should be included. Ultramarine 16:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, it is mentioned that there are different views, for example regarding possible  causes. Ultramarine 16:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section on Lesser conflicts is part of Methods; it's a new method. Otherwise perfectly reasonable as a basis for work. Septentrionalis 17:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Much supporting information was removed. The main problem however, is that Pmanderson version does not fairly present the current status. He cites extensivly from obsolete ancient studies and includes much details from critical studies disproven by later research. Ultramarine 17:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added much of what you added back in. Just look for the Harvard cites in that version. -- infinity0 17:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Fixed. These two were the same problem. Septentrionalis 17:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many citations 

message: *Ultramarine's latest removal of sourced material 
**presents Mueller and Wolff as agreeing with a stand they in fact strongly disagree with. 
**Argues (see edit summaries) that "blue moon" is a neologism. Ultramarine, please use a dictionsry when editing a language in which you are not fluent. Septentrionalis 23:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Weart should be mentioned (as he is) without undue weight. Septentrionalis 17:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read NPOV. Do not hide important arguments. Add your own arguments from the literature, if there is any. Let the reader decidee for themselves. Ultramarine 14:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Because it's an argument, from their military affairs columnist. The notion that discussion of the democratic peace is, or should be, limited to academic literature is nonsense. This is not quantum electrodynamics, or even rocket science. Septentrionalis 17:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: False. This is an academic field with hundreds of academic papers.Ultramarine 14:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Add your own arguments from the literature. Obviously and arguments about the DPT should discuss why some often mentioned conflicts may or may not be wars. Ultramarine 14:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 8 April

message: Ultramarine has made the following edits (combined diff)
*The suppression of Mueller and Wolff's clear and eloquent opposition to any "monadic turn" is dishonest. Restoring. 
**Their findings on conflicts between democracies in general do not belong in the explanation of monadic/dyadic, and are included elsewhere. 
***Your description hides the current states of research. Ultramarine 14:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please name  one who asserts that the interdemocratic peace is necessary other than Ray, Rummel, and Weart. Septentrionalis 16:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: You have argued the other way about Ray  in the past. When you make up your mind, we can alter three to one or two as you decide. Septentrionalis 17:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never stated "necessary and mechanical connetion", corrected to one researcher. Ultramarine 17:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 9 April

message: Septentrionalis, why did you revert much sourced information without explanation. See this:  Ultramarine 16:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the diff. (It may take a while to load, as it did for me). The only information lost from the section Democracy is Doyle's 30% standard [and the footnote about Seneca Falls 17:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Ray's claim of statistical adequacy was inadvertant loss, essentially an edit conflict. I will restore it, although I don't think it belongs in the general description of criticisms. Septentrionalis 16:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This false, as anyone can see in the diff. Many other things were deleted, for example in the defintions section. Ultramarine 17:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please list the assertions (not the wording) removed. This section was exceedingly verbose. Septentrionalis 17:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: This is open fraud. Both Doyle and Rummel made their 1983 papers into portions of their later books; they are equally "modern", or not. You know this, even if a third reader will not. Please leave the specious suggestions of the doubtful to Ray; he gets paid for that sort of thing. Septentrionalis 21:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Large scale unexplained revert 

message: "There has been a confluence of the old theory (dating back to Richard Cobden and Benjamin Constant) that Free Trade will produce and ensure peace,[94] with the modern theory that trade will produce democracy, or at least spread it to the non-democratic trading partner, as argued by Houshang Amiramahdi and others. According to this, democracy and peace are indeed correlated, because they arise from a common cause." Source please for that any recent democratic peace researcher argues that trade is ultimate explanation. Ultramarine 14:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, the argument that only "DPT research" (whatever that means) should be cited is unacceptable. It will continue to be unacceptable the next time it is made. Septentrionalis 15:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trade produces democracy 

message: This talk page approaches 256K. It will be archived.Septentrionalis 15:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving

message: Most of the following are the result of misreading English idiom, some are already under Exceptions. The first three are assertions that many studies support the democratic peace against the Realists.    
*"The bulk of the literature centers on the absence of war between democracies." Gelpi 2001    
**So it does; this includes Maoz's finding 1 dyad-year of war where he expected to find 57. That's an absence. Septentrionalis   
*"One such generalization, sometimes even asserted to be an empirical law of international relations (Levy 1988), is that democracies do not ¯ght wars with one another. The empirical evidence for this claim is, in fact, quite strong." Mesquita et al.   
**Does not intend to distinguish no wars from very few wars; as the inclusion of Bremer's virtually immune and Maoz's later paper makes clear.   
**Is stating many supporters of some democratic peace against Layne, Gowa, and the other realists. Septentrionalis 17:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the views of recent researchers. Septentrionalis, please read on original research, a Wikipedia policy. If you disagree with these views, publish something outside Wikipedia. Evidence has been shown that more researchers than you claim support no wars. Please do not again delete this sourced information, even if you personally disagree. Ultramarine 17:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have read WP:NOR. I see no reason in it for citing papers for assertions which they do not support. Septentrionalis 17:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These are the direct quotes. Ultramarine 17:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And none' of these quotes supports the claim in the text, when read in the context of the paper in which it stands. Only one addresses the alternative none/very few  (rather than none/many, which is far more significant), and that is a reivew of a single book. Septentrionalis 18:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying that these researchers lie deliberately when they state that research has shown no wars? Ultramarine 18:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, (except for Owen) you have misread your sources, and are attempting to cite them for an argument which they do not make, and have no reason to make. They are denying the realist position that the democratic peace does not exist; not discuss the picayune division within DPT between no wars and a couple of maybe wars. Septentrionalis 18:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How can I misread when I give direct quotes? Again, are you saying that the researchers lie when they state this? Ultramarine 18:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Here is another researcher, Wayman (2002): "it remains true that there have been no inter-state wars between a clear-cut liberal democracy and another such state.  All this empirical literature hangs on the examination of MIDs rather than inter-state wars, so it is important in assessing this literature to see what the occurrence of a MID between liberal democracies has meant, in terms of severity of armed conflict." Ultramarine 18:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: These quotes certainly show that many researchers support no wars, something which you have tried to delete from the article. Ultramarine 00:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They show that three researchers support no wars. Read by an honest and competent reader of English. they democtrate no more. Septentrionalis 22:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text: You are repeating yourself. None of these, in context, supported Many say no wars when you quoted them higher in this same section, and they still don't.They do support that Wayman and Mansfield/Snyder say no wars; there are others who do.  Some do, some do not; the suggestion that that there is consensus is fraudulent; the majority ignore the silly question of none/very few.  Please find actual evidence, or withdraw the claim. Septentrionalis 17:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Many say no wars

message: The following list of articles, mostly recommended by Scaife and myself do not appear to be included:
:Review of Ray's book; Mershon International Studies Review, Vol. 40, No. 2. (Oct., 1996), pp. 304-307.
: Democracy, War, and Covert Action Forsythe 1992
:Russett on the Peloponesian War
:Lake 1992 Winning war
:Pevehouse, Jon C. 2005. Democracy from Above: Regional Organizations and Democratization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 
:Rosato, Sebastian. 2003. The Flawed Logic of Democratic Peace Theory. American Political Science Review 97 (4):585-602. 
:Rees, Stuart. 2003. Passion for Peace: Exercising Power Creatively. Sydney: UNSW Press. 
:Doyle, Michael W. 2005. Three Pillars of Democratic Peace. American Political Science Review 99 (3):463-472. 
:Dallmayr, Fred. 2004. Peace Talks-who will listen? Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. 
:Archibugi, Daniele. 2004. Cosmopolitan Democracy and its Critics: A Review. European Journal of International Relations 10 (3):437-473. 
:Braden, Susan. 2005. Promoting democracy won't necessarily produce peace. International Journal on World Peace 22 (1):3-5. 
:Deudney, Daniel. 2004. Publius before Kant: Federal-Republican Security and Democratic Peace. European Journal of International Relations 10 (3):315-356
Most of them are less than three years old. Septentrionalis 23:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List of articles

message: *Ultramarine, what is your outline for this article? 
*Why is the Kantian peace not a Type of theory, as it was when I last saw this?
*Why does the word Kantian only appear twice in the text at all?
This is unreadable. I suppose that  may be the sign of a work in progress; but sections of a dozen paragraphs are deprecated in the MOS because they are unintelligible.  
Do notify this talk page when you are quite through, that we may see what you have come up with. Septentrionalis 23:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Kantian peace theory has a section of its own. For now, I do not have a detailed outline that I am working towards. I add and correct information when needed. Ultramarine 13:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an improvement, although it should still be a Type of theory. These sections remain indiscriminate collections of information. Septentrionalis 18:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusing