Talk:Democracy/Archive 12

message: I've removed the "Views" section, which seems to the remnant of the old "Criticsm" section after it was moved to individual articles.  There doesn't seem to be anything compelling here, just a random quote from Will Durant, an instruction to see other articles, and a general blanket declaration that some groups oppose all forms of democracy.  The first is unnecessary, the third, even if needed in this article, doesn't require a section to itself, and the second is even less compelling and seems an unnecessary "instruction to the reader".  Furthermore, the Durant quote especially seems an invitation to random commentary being added over time, such as this (diff).  If someone wants to try and find a better way to accomplish the what the second and third bits were doing, please feel free. - David Oberst 15:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think at least a brief section is needed, otherwise people will wonder why there is none. Quotes should be in Wikiquote.Ultramarine 14:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Someone has since added links to help people find these articles. -- Beland 22:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Views" section 

message: Shouldn't there be a date on ranking system from The Economist? Its description of a few countries like Hong Kong (now a mixed system) or Thailand (military junta) seem not to be current. Dawud —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.167.172.184 (talk) 01:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a date to the image caption. -- Beland 22:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Economist Rankings

message: This discussion ("interminable, the sequel"?) is still moot, as there is no citation request pending in the article, and no harm that I can see in leaving out the references (see my point above as to this being a summary of liberal democracy).  In light of this, I would suggest to Ultramarine to just avoid any more responses, depriving this fire of further oxygen.  If further exploration of SaltyBoatr's tendentious interpretations on these specific items are desired, I would suggest Freedom in the World, where this series of publications has an article of its own, and to which I have just added the 2006 hardcover as a reference.  Or illiberal democracy, where the Zakaria article is the primary reference. - David Oberst 18:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points.Ultramarine 18:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I have no problem using the book series as a source for the article about the book.  This matches exactly the advice given to Ultramarine over at WP:ATT/Talk two days ago.  SaltyBoatr 18:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: section break

message: Ultramarine is now making a new argument that organizations comprised of groups of people cannot 'self publish' because they are not a single individual.  I see this distinction not relevant, because the issue at hand is whether there is a 'reliable publication process', and group self publication while perhaps somewhat more reliable than individual self publication, still clearly does not meet the 'most reliable' standard found in WP:ATT.  SaltyBoatr 18:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is your personal inpretation by selectively quoting a few words. Fortunately, no one agrees with you, see for example this comment.Ultramarine 18:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: self published sources

message: The point of the article is to be accurate and to be a brief summary of the relevant issues. Sufferage was a missing discussion, and now we have it. The idea is to explain sufferage very briefly - but effectively, and leave the sufferage article to go into depth. I believe that all we need cover in a Democracy article is that sufferage is important, and that without universal sufferage a democracy may not qualify as a liberal democracy. Do we agree on this? This is my POV, what is yours?
Deliberative Democracy has only one primary concern, that minority rights may be taken by majorities in elections? Did I get this right? If not, please offer an alternative descriptive sentence. 
If the description is accurate, deliberative democracy is about sufferage. The whole point of deliberative democracy is to change what is considered universal sufferage? If this is correct, then why not put deliberative democracy where it fits, with sufferage? Raggz 04:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop creating new sections. See my earlier answer above. Your are not correct, deliberative democracy prefers to avoid suffrage.Ultramarine 04:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: See the section below.Ultramarine 04:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please answer here, I find no answers below. Raggz 05:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have further clarified my answer below. Please keep the discussion to one section, I will only answer in only one.Ultramarine 05:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Universal Sufferage

message: The citation on sortition that I was using to support my position that sortition was a method in Ancient Greece for the Gods to select leaders was deleted. Please restore it, or put the citation here.Raggz 23:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about? Give a diff.Ultramarine 01:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion of Citation

message: Within the theory section there is a section titled: Aristotle. I changed this to "Ancient Greece" because so few people would know that Aristotle was of this culture, and because the article does not mention this. Someone restored the old title: Aristotle. May we agree to change this title? Raggz 00:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Has only material about Aristotle.Ultramarine 01:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, but how many people would know that he lived in Ancient Greece? His era can be clearer, context is helpful. Raggz 02:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there were material showing all the many different views in Ancient Greece, then a change would be fine. Having only Aristotle means the title is misleading.Ultramarine 02:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have missed my point, why not let the reader know that Aristotle was from Ancient Greece?Raggz 02:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not the purpose of the title. If necessary, it can be stated in the body. The title is a summary.Ultramarine 03:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Theory - Aristotle

message: Consensus Democracy: "Consensus democracy and deliberative democracy seek consensus among the people."[7]
All forms of Democracy seek consensus. They do not always attain consensus, but consensus is always the objective. Airplanes are supposed to fly, but even when they crash they remain airplanes. This sentence implies there is some form of intentional non-consensual democracy? This form of democracy should be added to the List of types of democracies. IF such a form of democracy exists, the sentence may stay. If not: Someone needs to edit it to make the (presumed) point more clear, that these forms seek to (1) increase the level of democratic participation or (2) increase the degree of consensus beyond a simple majority. 
What form of democracy is non-consensual? Offer this and I likely will accept this sentence, offer it not, and it requires an edit or deletion. Raggz 19:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Democracy as Majoritarian

message: The quote in the opening paragraph is taken out of context, in that it is utilized to suggest that there are definitions of democracy that deny the principle of majority rule. First, the definition is only relevant for use in the article. Second, democratic decisions are "binding on all the members of the group", this implies majority rule. Raggz 08:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read on, you see that some definitions of democracy include rights and liberties.Ultramarine 08:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course rights and liberties are a valid definition of democracy. Such definitions do not in any way suggest that majority rule is not synonomous with democracy. The issue is the suggestion that these conflict with rights and liberties. Raggz 09:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As the article notes, there are many different concepts regardind democracy. The paragraph you quoted does not state majority rule, or that the majority voting decides policy.Ultramarine 09:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, which particular "New World Dictionary" are you citing? There are dozens using this name.Ultramarine 09:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Democracy Defined

message: Why was this removed just as I was inserting it? Please replace it.
[edit] Islamic Republics
An emerging form of democracy is practiced by Islamic Republics. Generally these offer some form of majority rule in that there are elections.[citation needed] The King of Saudi Arabia has authorized limited local elections, (although this government firmly remains a monarchy). Those with a western perspective might disagree that majority rule without a concurrent respect for civil liberties can be decribed as democratic. According to the Claremont Review of Books, "Across the Islamic world, democracy seems to be confused with a species of majoritarian tyranny." [9] [Tyranny of the majority]], long the bane of Western democracies for two millenia is also a major issue for the emerging Islamic Republics.[citation needed] When the word democracy is used in the west it generally actually means liberal democracy, a phrase unlikely to apply any time soon to any Islamic Republic.[10]
Raggz 08:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was moved to the definition section since it deals with "majority rule". Also, the cited website does not state what you claim.Ultramarine 08:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of Islamic Republic

message: "The implementation of democracy has brought a great complexity and diversity from a large variety of concepts and ideas used at different periods of history and in different situations." This is confusing and badly worded. Raggz 23:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening Paragraph

message: News from Nowhere (1890) is a classic work of utopian fiction written by the artist, designer and socialist pioneer William Morris. Why is this cited to support the claim "There are also some anarchists who expect society to operate by consensus"? Sorry, this is a no-go. Raggz 01:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What does a fictional 1890 anarchist book teach us about democracy? We have already deleted Thomas Jefferson because his writings are not a "reliable authority". Raggz 01:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But we should certainly mention him; as for News from Nowhere', read it first. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can mention him, you put him in the article and he remains there. The question is: how is News from Nowhere important to democracy. Presuming that there is an answer to this, News from Nowhere will of course remain. Raggz 04:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[News from Nowhere]] 

message: We deleted all references to sufferage. Any ideas on how and where to insert it? Raggz 01:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First spell it correctly; Suffrage < suffragium. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you raise this issue first in the sufferage article. Is this difference important to democracy? Raggz 04:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: How do you feel about no mention of sufferage in an article on democracy? Raggz 04:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am in favour of having no mention of sufferage on Wikipedia, or anywhere else.  - David Oberst 05:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting, whom is authorized to vote is irrelevant to democracy? Do I mistate your view? Raggz 06:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no such word "sufferage". - David Oberst 06:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sufferage Revisited

message: We deleted all references to Tyranny of the Majority . Any ideas on how and where to insert it? Raggz 01:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Links have since been re-inserted. -- Beland 23:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Tyranny of the Majority]]

message: Why does Wikipedia need two extended summaries of the History of democracy? If I add any non-duplicative material from here to History of democracy, would anyone object to referring the reader to that article? Raggz 00:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Not much left of this article if removed. Also necessary to discuss history in some detail.Ultramarine 21:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand, you object. Your objections are: (1) There would be little about democracy left and (2) ?  I don't understand what your second point is. My best understanding is that the History of Democracy has some material that is important to other sections? Do I understand your second point? Raggz 21:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: History should be discussed in some detail in order to understand democracy. We could equally well move "Forms of democracy" to the Democracy (varieties) articles or much of "Democracy and Republic" section to the history article. However, I think all of this should remain in order to have a good introduction.Ultramarine 21:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really understand your vision for integration but accept that you have one, and that you don't need to explain it to me. We need your vision for integration, presently the history is not integrated with the rest. So, I now support your vision of integration of the history with the rest. Raggz 22:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge the History of Democracy 

message: Is not a consensus democracy. For one thing, it has an elected Parliament. The given quote only refers to that when agreeing on the constitution, all member states agreed. It is like saying that the US is consensus democracy for the same reason.Ultramarine 09:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Change it then, I didn't know that. Thanks. Raggz 17:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  EU 

message: Perhap you are right. Is there a page focused upon the political theory of democracy? Maybe we need one? I'm not interested in political theory that has yet to emerge from paper to reality, but that is only POV. Few people want to know about what might be, someday, they are looking to understand how actual democracies work. We might need a page for the Political Theory of Democracy? Raggz 03:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Political theory of democracy 

message: In this recent revert  by Ultramarine, he/she deleted tribal democracy section, please explain.  SaltyBoatr 15:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored and did not delete the the tribal democracy section. Etymology is usually placed first in dictinaries because it helps understanding the word. If not in the lead, then it should be first in the article.Ultramarine 15:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, why we are discussing the intro again, any objections to removing the POV defintion? If so, please explain.Ultramarine 15:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: We can easily create a separate etymology section. There is no consensus on what is the predominant POV regarding the correct definition of democracy.Ultramarine 15:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: So you agree to removing the defintion? If not, explain why? Ultramarine 15:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: "in which political power is held either by the people, or by their elected representatives." Other forms of democracy exist, so this defintion is incorrect. You have also introduced errors in the intro, tribal democracy may well have existed before the Greeks and some claim also in states in India. Finally, "Per Democracy theory," looks really strange and will not be understood by many. WP:LS does not require that the section names should be repeated in the intro.Ultramarine 16:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: "With origins in ancient Greece, democracy has grown and expanded throughout history." is still questionable as per above. The problem with the definition remain.Ultramarine 16:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: WP:LS does not allow you to introduce factual errors or violate NPOV. Again, "With origins in ancient Greece, democracy has grown and expanded throughout history." is still questionable. Tribal democracy may well have existed before the Greeks and some claim also in states in India. The given definition "in which political power is held either by the people, or by their elected representatives." is POV. Other definitions of democracy exist, so this is not the only defintion.Ultramarine 17:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: If we change it to "One of the origins", then this is neutral. As of now, it implies that all origins are in Greece. Regarding the definition, we should not in any way imply that the current one is more correct, for no evidence have presented for this. A neutral statement would simply be to state that democracy has been defined in various way throughout history.Ultramarine 17:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: WP:LS does not allow NPOV to be violated. Again, regarding the definition, we should not in any way imply that the current one is more correct, for no evidence have presented for this. A neutral statement would simply be to state that democracy has been defined in various way throughout history. Regarding origins, your current text is an improvement.Ultramarine 17:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I revised the etymology to emphasize the actual Greek word as well as the roots (to distinguish from words that have merely been created from Greek roots by non-Greek languages).  The "classical Greek" could be replaced with a more accurate indication of when (and why) the word came into being if this section is going to be expanded, and mention made of what seems to be a trail through Middle Latin and French before reaching English.  I left out the "literally" section for now - it isn't really necessary with the two roots defined, seems to be a point of squabbling, and in any case would probably require a competent explanation of what the Greeks meant by demos.  The existing Britannica citation should probably be replaced by something with a little more formal detail on the etymology (perhaps something like  or ).  If there are no plans to expand this it should be possible to condense it and put it back in the intro where it was - the notion that WP:LS or anything else requires a separate Etymology section merely to justify including an entymology in passing in the intro is highly dubious. - David Oberst 19:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We need a concise introduction that meet WP standards. So let's do this. Ultramarine said "in which political power is held either by the people, or by their elected representatives." Other forms of democracy exist, so this defintion is incorrect." Ultramarine - name one other form of democracy that actually exists? Raggz 03:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  please explain 

message: Two recent studies trump Oberst's older 1991 Gastil quote. The Casper/Tufis 2002 study states, unequivocally, the two concepts are not interchangeable.  The RM Institute report by Alex Lui 2004 on this question emphatically agrees:  "the indicators (used by Freedom House) are not interchangable, therefore, not reliable as indicators to measure democracy".  Wow, that is a bold statement. Yet some editors continue to insist to continue to use the falacious 'freedom' = 'democracy' table in this article.
I am very surprised that some editors find it necessary to stretch and equate 'freedom' to 'democracy', in light of these recent studies which bluntly criticise the FH data analysis method.  So much other excellent source material on the topic of 'democracy' exists, I see no reason to risk the credibility of the encyclopedia to blur the line by using less than 'most reliable sourcing'.  SaltyBoatr 15:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You misread, see Oberst's earlier comments above.Ultramarine 16:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not misread.  See especially the Alex Lui analysis which says: "...not reliable as indicators to measure democracy".  Also, you neglect to answer my question: Why risk the credibility of the encyclopedia, when better sourcing is available?  Please answer.  SaltyBoatr 16:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I and Oberst have pointed out in the section above, citing many studies, your evaluation and selective use of quotations is (charitably) perhaps a misunderstanding.Ultramarine 16:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You neglected to answer my question and instead choose to insult me and my intent.  SaltyBoatr 17:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See comments in section above.Ultramarine 17:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, from the 2004 study "Polity IV, Polyarchy 1.2, and Freedom House are three indicators used to measure democracy as a latent variable." The authors never state that these indicators should not be used. "Casper and Tufis’s work clearly demonstrated that the random measurement errors of the three most often used democracy indicators cannot be ignored. To correct this problem of obtaining biased estimation, the best is to take these measurement errors into the consideration of our model building and estimation. One way is to construct a measurement model to estimate the random measurement errors, and then incorporate these measurement errors into our regression models (Kline 1998). Or, another easy approach is to combine these three indicators into a new democracy measurement, which usually will increase the reliability of this new measurement over the old ones." That is what several later studies have done, continuing to use the FH scores, as described in the section above.Ultramarine 17:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: For historical reasons known to Saltyboatr, I'm not inclined to get involved in fruitless circular discussions which depend solely on trying to understand his reasoning, or solo interpretations of WP guidelines.  I have no particularly strong views either way on the use, quantity, or location of the FH maps in these articles, and would be happy to contribute to discussion of them if other editors take it up.  I do, however, stand by my evaluation expressed above, and will, generally, revert map deletion if done on what appear to be false premises. - David Oberst 19:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It only states "may", and a single paper is not very interesting when weighed against hundreds of others. There is always some controversy in science. That a small minority of scholars dispute all value of IQ tests does not mean that Wikipedia should delete the info on IQ. Regardless, your own quote argues that the FH scores should continue to be used, and so it has in other papers as per the above section. Agree fully with Oberst.Ultramarine 21:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only thing I'm vowing to protect is my sanity.  And note the "other editors" part of my comment. - David Oberst 01:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no requirement in science in that measures should be interchangeable. That is like arguing that IQ tests should be rejected since different tests give slightly different results. See also earlier discussions.Ultramarine 16:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is 'freedom' interchangable with 'democracy'?

message: Democracy is a form of government in which non-elite citizens appear to exercise political power.
This is in my opinion, POV on the current status of democracy in the world. This is completely unrelated with the actual definition of the political ideology of "democracy". Democracy is one thing, and its current implementation may be a whole different thing. I haven't changed this because it seemed to survive several editions, so I'll leave it here for discussion.
P.S. We really need a stable definition as the opening paragraph for this article. Oskilian 00:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That version (diff) seems to have been a drive-by disimprovement from a few days ago.  I've restored what was there previously, without any judgement on its merits. - David Oberst 00:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Appear"? 

message: these regions aren't on the map yet they are 'free'.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Platinum inc (talk • contribs) 13:57, August 24, 2007 (UTC) 
Democracy=Freedom. Communism=Evil. These are the messages propagated by the US government, through propaganda mills such as "Freedom House," the think-tank responsible for the "freedom" map. The map of "Freedom", *shockingly*, also works well as a "relations with the United States" map.
Any half competent editor wouldn't allow any source from "freedom house" or any other think tank propaganda mill. But then again there is not one paragraph in this article that would pass by a decent editor.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.94.24 (talk) 12:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  hong kong/macau