Talk:Democratic peace theory/Archive 1

message: see: http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm#Demopeace
:I have removed some of the communist conflicts as examples of wars which was valid critique and added why the confederate states was not a democracy. Otherwise I see no valid critique. Ultramarine 12:59, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: A union of democracies, where each member state is effectively represented in the federal legislature, should be considered a democracy for purposes of this theory if a sufficient number of states are democracies (using whatever definition applies at the moment) so that war cannot be effectively waged without their consent.
In the instant case of the American Civil War, in 1851, Virginia abolished the property requirement, and allowed all adult white men, other than felons and lunatics, to vote.  Since the slave population was a bit under half the white population, this suggests that Virginia met the 2/3 requirement, or was as close as the accuracy of census roles will permit.
Similarly, Pennsylvania had long established universal manhood sufferage by 1860 and had no slaves.  Other states on both sides qualified as well, but I think these two suffice.  Each  was practically sine qua non to effectively prosecuting the war on their respective side.  Both had 2/3 manhood sufferage and had had it for three years, both had strong democratic traditions, both qualify as democracies under the strong form, yet each enthusiastically supported the war against the other.
Rather than trying to exclude the American Civil War, would it not be better to admit that, under the special circumstances of a disintegrating union, the "better angels of our nature" are likely to be out-shouted.  If the spirit of reason and compromise had existed sufficiently in 1860 to avoid war, the same spirit would probably have sufficed to avoid secession entirely.Robert A West 6 Jun 2005 
:Foreign policy and wars was decided by the Confederacy, the individual states could not decide that on their own. Thus they cannot be considered separate nations. Ultramarine 15:58, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Virginia chose, on her own, to join and remain in the Confederacy. Without those decisions, the war would have been very different. If Pennsylvania had not responded vigorously to Lincoln's call for volunteers and other support - and she was constitutionally free to refuse what was asked in 1861-2 - the war on the Union side would have been impractical. Both Va. and Pa. chose war; and both were democracies, even by Rummel's criteria. Septentrionalis 17:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the issue is even more fundamental.  Consider a federal union of N states, of which K are democracies and (N-K) are not, and where K may be zero.  Further presume that representation is mainly indirect: there are no or only limited popular elections at the federal level.  Do we exclude all such unions from being democracies?  This excludes the United States for much of its history, even though it was the most democratic state around.  In fact, since the states technically retain the consitutional right to appoint presidential electors by legislative action, it excludes the United States today.  If, to avoid this silly result, we include such a union if K is sufficiently small, we are back to my original point. Robert A West 19:24, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Freedom House finds no nation with universal suffrage before 1900, so U.S. may have been the most democratic at the time but certainly less democratic than today. Now Rummel draws an admittedly rather arbitrary line between democracies and non-democracies. The question if whether the Confederacy fulfills those criteria or not. If the U.S. didn't, then there is no contest, the Civil War was not a war between democracies. That the states voluntarily choose to enter the Confederacy is uninteresting, by doing so they gave up their exclusive right to exercise supreme authority in their geographic region, which in politics is considered an absolute requirement to qualify as nation. You will not find any example of states belonging to a similar confederacy being accepted as independent nations in any international organization. There certainly was no foreign recognition that any of the states were independent nations at the time. Ultramarine 21:05, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Federations and Confederations 

message: [This line of discussion should be moved from the bottom of the page for clarity]
And where in Sam Hill do you read a suggestion that 1956 Egypt was either a democracy or a first world nation? The question for bloc peace theory was whether Nasser was part of the western bloc, the structure of permanent and institutionalized alliances.  (On the whole probably not) Please stop vandalizing what you have not understood. Septentrionalis 23:18, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See above regarding India and Pakistan. Ultramarine 23:26, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: addendum

message: Please give some better sources than a summary of a Wall Street Journal article.  I removed it, please use scholarly references in the future or at least state what it is. Ultramarine 12:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is one opinion article in a newspaper without any attempt at statistical analysis. Please use scholarly sources in the future. Ultramarine 15:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The extreme version claims not to be a tendency, but a  rule, even if an unexplained one. Debunking this does not require statistical tests. Furthermore, if the discussion of Rummel's theory were confined to a handful of poli-sci journals, neither he nor it would be notable. Septentrionalis 15:31, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: :I've just looked at the article, and at the series of recent edits.  First, your criticism of his English is peculiar to say the least, given the mistakes that riddle your own contributions.  Secondly, you seem to have a somewhat idiosyncratic understanding of what's meant by "neutral point of view" (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view).  I'm not saying that the issues are completely one-sided (I'm not in a position to say, to be honest), but you need to slow down and examine Wikipedia policy. Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 18:18, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I fear that to Ultramarine, "fariness" to Rummel's version of DPT maans that criticisms of it must be deleted, vandalized and reduced to gibberish. Observe how carefully  the statement of  each class of criticism has been distanced from the evidence for it. (I do acknowledge the concession of some well-known  facts.) Compare this version to the present text. Septentrionalis 21:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have included your arguments, but corrected your POV and the deletions of my arguments. Ultramarine 21:47, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: False.
****You have deleted many of my arguments.
****An argument is vandalized when it is passed through an eggbeater. For example, the statement that there are very few democracies (by Rummel's official definition) has been changed and removed two or three paragraphs from its supporting evidence. (Rummel's count of eight uses a different standard. Any assertion or implication that England or Belgium had 67% male suffrage before 1850 is a lie, pure and simple.) 
****I deleted exactly two paragraphs of arguments that are in any sense pro-Rummel (although I wrote the majority of them), because I had duplicated their content. If you want a version with them, use [this one.
****The only sense in which I changed POV was assembling arguments from their component parts.
Septentrionalis 22:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: That argues incompleteness, not incorrectness. I have no objection to adding the sentence; although it appears to be rather silly. A stronger argument should affect both the tendency form of DPT and Rummel. Septentrionalis
You declare that there was a war between Finland and the UK, thus claiming to have disproved Rummel as a fact. Rummel do not recognize that conflict as a war in his analysis because few causalities. You seem to do so because a formal declaration of war. Does this means that the many large scale conflicts without a formal declaration were not wars, like many or most conflicts after WWII? Like the two conflicts between Iraq and the U.S.? 
There was a state of war; but I have no problem changing the subtitle to British declaration of war on Finland. Septentrionalis
You moved "Supporters of the democratic peace theory disagree with the analysis of wars before the start of the Cold War, arguing that democracies did not make wars with each other before the arrival of the external threat of Communism, and claim that external causes similarly cannot explain the continued peace between democracies after the end of the Cold War." to Present democracies, totally out of place.
You're right, there should be a new == header there. Septentrionalis 02:04, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New comments

message: You would do better to try clicking on links when you create them. A few clicks would have told you that the Football war was a small war ("ended by the influence of the US and the OAS" as bloc peace theory  would suggest); that CENTO was a failure; that Cyprus belonged to the Non-Aligned Movement, that the Dominican Republic was a new regime, which was falling apart (and one side in the civil trife was suspected of Communist sympathies. I was planning to mention it as an example of BPT, but refrained. Did I forget one? No matter, I'm sure you can come up. I will admit that making Rummellism look stupid is one way to counter POV, but not the one I would choose. Septentrionalis 22:43, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: All of these conflicts had more than 1000 casualties. The usual Rummel criteria about time limit or new regime do not apply, the bloc peace theory do not make any such claims. Cento was not a failure before the 1974. Cyprus had extensive ties to Greece and had British military bases. Ultramarine 22:48, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You make a point of battlefield casualties when supporting Rummel. The majority of casualties in the Football war were Honduran civilians, leaving less (I suspect much less) than 1000 deaths in battle; if anyone wants to consider it a marginal case, stopped just  too late by the alliance, go ahead. And do try just once reading both paragraphs statement of bloc theory. The Falkland war was a classic case of limited war, which bloc peace theory would predict. The United States would have stopped it if it had threatened to break up the alliance or injure either ally seriously. Likewise, the Turkish attack on Cuprus did not affect either British base.  As for the Western Sahara, is it Mauretania or the Polisario Front that the brave defenders of Rummel suppose to be a Western state? (Again, before you answer Spain, read Western Sahara...) Septentrionalis 02:04, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You think the United States would have stopped a more extensive war and you think that there were less than 1000 deaths in battle. In fact, the only source I have seen that differentiates between civilian and military deaths counts 2000 military deaths. Regarding, Western Sahara, over 70 nations recognize its independence. Ultramarine 02:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: My webpage has references which your do not. Please use such sources in the future. The only sources that differentiates between military and civilian deaths gives 2000 military deaths. Ultramarine 22:07, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Latest exceptions

message: The present form of the article is drastically incoherent. It has one pro-Rummel sentence, then one anti-Rummel sentence, then two pro-Rummel, and so on. This will not do. It is an invitation to confusion by anyone meeting the article the first time, and is completely unnecessary. 17:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously it is better to have similar material together. Otherwise one must jump back and forth in article in order to understand argument and counter argument. Ultramarine 21:26, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The assertion that two things are similar can itself be POV; and Ultramarine has consistently misphrased snd distorted arguments on this basis. Reading Rummel's critics shows clearly that they are criticizing him on points which he ignores or dismisses. He may be right to do so, but that is for the reader to decide. This edit remains POV vandalism. Septentrionalis 21:50, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, articles where one must jump back and forth in article every sentence should be avoided. Especially when it is impossible from the structure to know when one should jump and where. Ultramarine 22:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Eggbeater edits

message: I've listed this page on RfC, in the hope that outside views (and a broader editing base) might resolve some of the problems. Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 22:18, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Mel. I stand substantially by my position in "Dispute"  The version I now find clearest is here; its merit, such as it is, is that the criticisms are presented in full, and without having to adopt Rummel's framework of thought (and I have not seen a critic who has). I will set up Template:two versions, unless you have a better idea.  Septentrionalis 23:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your version is probably incomprehensible for anyone reading is for the first time since you have spread related arguments and counter arguments all over the article. An article should be understandable, not a jigsaw puzzle. Your arguments are weak and obscuring the article to conceal this should be avoided. Restored readable form. Ultramarine 03:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC 

message: Having contributed to this article some time ago, I decided to visit and to see what changes have been made.  It seems one of the arguments that Ultramine is making in his attempt to discredit criticisms of the democratic peace theory is to reference wars amongst communist states in order to invalidate Gowa's thesis in particular.
The problem with this is that Gowa's thesis does not attempt to predict or explain the behavior of states in the communist bloc.  It applies exclusively to the democratic states, and postulates a reason why they abstained from attacking one another.  She is, after all, arguing against the "democratic peace theory" and not some imaginary "communist peace theory."
The fact that communist states engaged in conflict with one another does not detract from Gowa's overall thesis that democratic states avoided conflict with other democratic states in order to focus their firepower on the larger perceived threat of communism.
Regards, Corax 18:52, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: I've Read Gowa

message: The present text of the article is an unreadable polemic for one extreme form of DPT. This is not suitable for Wikipedia. I will make an attempt to correct it again, but not tonight. 
*remove the intewrwoven structure, which only Ultramarine finds reasonsble. 
*present a fair and comprehensible statement of the arguments on both sides. 
*eliminate the polemical tone altogether. 
*curtail the extraordinary emphasis on Rummelism. If this article is to have a central figure, Michael Doyle would be better. 
*expand other sections for balance.
It seemed logical to me to do these in the order above, but we can begin with a statement of the criticisms. Any edit of this morass must, perforce, be a work in progress. The version Mr. West critiqued attempted to do only the first two steps above.  Septentrionalis 23:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Agenda

message: The accuracy, neutrality, and readability of the present edit are disputed. Ultramarine thinks them unimpeachable. No one else does. Septentrionalis 15:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your arguments get stranger and stranger. Are you disputing that Kant's theory was a forerunner to the DPT? Or why else did put up some new strange "disputed" tags? Ultramarine 22:49, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually, Kant was not even mentioned by the earliest creators of the modern form of the DPT. Ultramarine 05:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputes

message: :Your arguments get stranger and stranger. Are you disputing that Kant's theory was a forerunner to the DPT? Or why else did put up some new strange "disputed" tags? Ultramarine 22:49, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Kant was not even mentioned by the earliest creators of the modern form of the DPT. Ultramarine 05:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Kant

message: Your version states "This website argues for the strong version of the theory". This is incorrect,  is a review paper of the studies done on the DPT, both supporting and critical. Please correct. Ultramarine 14:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Having now read the article at some length, I would describe it as a skillful summing-up in the interest of DPT, including mention of the criticisms, partly to throw overboard the weaker DPTs, partly to present refutations. It argues very strongly that DPT is better founded than the alternatives.  If this is Ultramarine's basis for estimating the state of the field, I am no longer surprised by his statements above. Septentrionalis 18:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The amazing thing is that you admit not having read it, because I have repeatedly pointed it out. One would think that a serious critic would be familiar with this basic material. Ultramarine 19:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Touché! I did, however, read it weeks ago (and edited accordingly), but the memory blurred with the rest of the apologias for Rummellism with which the page is littered. Septentrionalis 14:34, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Now you have moved this scholarly summary of studies to external links while keeping your Wall Street Journal opinion article and this personal webpage  as evidence in the main text. Please correct. Ultramarine 14:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect description of paper 

message: Your text states "The third type of criticism has been expressed thus in a Hoover Institution article" This is misleading,  is only a reprint of a Wall Street Journal opinion article. Please correct. Ultramarine 14:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I will accept republished by if the dates can be established. Septentrionalis 18:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the link. Ultramarine 19:43, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You have still not corrected the statement. Please do. Ultramarine 03:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect description of newspaper opinion article 

message: It is estimated that only 16% of the population in Athens had the right to vote.
The 16% here is  the ratio between number of  Athenian citizens and the total (adult male) population of Attica. Since we know neither of these, stating the ratio between them to two significant digits is irresponsible. 
It's actually worse than that. The number of Athenians can be guessed, from such data as the 6000 votes required for ostracism, the 24,000 troops mustered at the beginning of the Peloponnesian War usw. The total population of Attica can only be estimated by guessing the ratio of men to women, adults to children, citizens to metics, and free to slave;  doing the indicated multiplication; and then arguing the result is not inconsistent with the archaeolgical evidence. The first two factors can be estimated from other demoraphic evidence; the last two can only be guessed. Therefore 16% represents the product of two modern guesses. Septentrionalis 18:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The point being that only a very small minority had the right to vote. Feel free to add that the numbers are uncertain. Ultramarine 19:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Those who think thata sixth or a quarter enfranchisement is very small should consider the Belgian franchise of 1892 again, which gave the vote to 5% of the men - and Belgium was, rightly, considered a parliamentary and responsible government. Septentrionalis 22:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Demographics of Athens

message: The methodologies section has been moved up and recast into a section of definitions. We should explain what a democratic peace is, before we speculate on causes. Septentrionalis 22:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ordering

message: This paragraph has no topic sentence. Appears not to use a coherent definition of bloc. 
:Supporters of the democratic peace theory disagree with the analysis of wars before the start of the Cold War, arguing that even when there were conflicts, democracies did not make war with each other. They also argue that there were wars within blocs. In the nineteenth century, much of the world was divided into blocs by the imperialist powers. This was often strictly regulated as when England and Russia divided Persia into two spheres of influence. Numerous wars occurred in these blocs, both by the imperialist powers when they extended direct rule and also between minor states in these blocs. For example, an incomplete list of wars in India after England had become the dominant European power includes three Anglo-Maratha Wars, four Anglo-Mysore Wars, two Anglo-Sikh Wars, three Anglo-Afghan Wars, the Anglo-Nepalese War, the Anglo-Bhutanese War, and three Anglo-Burmese Wars. 
Do you really suppose that these are Britain making war on her allies? These are wars coercing them to become her allies. 
:They also note numerous wars in Latin America, despite belonging to an U.S. dominated bloc after the Monroe doctrine. This bloc was frequently threatened by the other imperialist blocs and sometimes direct military action occurred, like the French military invasion of Mexico. Examples of large scale wars in Latin America in this period include the War of the Triple Alliance,  the War of the Pacific, the War of the Peruvian-Bolivian Confederation, the Mexican-American War, and the Chaco War. 
The Monroe doctrine is a unilateral determination, not an alliance. Therefore it does not represent a community of interest; for the Latin American states didn't agree. 
:They also note several betrayals of formal treaties within blocs during WWII. Examples include the wars of Finland, Italy, Bulgaria, Roumania, and Hungary on their German ally in WWII and the German invasion of the Soviet Union despite the Molotov-Ribbentrop Nonaggression Pact and its secret extensions.  
::Of course nations that make war against each other are not allies. But the above statements show that the existence of blocs and external threats does not prevent wars, as the bloc peace theory claims. Ultramarine 03:16, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The bloc peace theory claims only that the members of a particular bloc did not make war against each other, since the bloc exists because of, and in order to implement, a common interest. "BPT" (which, remember, is a nickname, invented in this article) says nothing about wars outside the bloc; which may even have been more likely because the bloc existed. Septentrionalis 17:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The BPT has been criticized using wars in other blocs. Ultramarine 13:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rambling paragraph