Talk:Democratic peace theory/Archive 7

message: A whole article and not a word about Thomas Paine?
:Sign your posts.  Further, it is rather pointless to make suggestions on the talk board.  Add the comments yourself, because 99% of the time it will not be done otherwise.Travb (talk)   00:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A whole article and not a word about Thomas Paine? 

message: Perhaps we should include a section on dependency theorists such as Immanuel Wallerstein that see DPT as a result of the North-South divide rather than intra-institutional pacifism. I included a brief section on this before but they seem to have disappeared. Sebastian789 15:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This should be included, if giving full source, including page numbers if a book. It should also be stated if there are some supporting statistical research or not. Ultramarine 16:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia standards should not be used to inhibit additions which do not conform to a particular POV. Septentrionalis 01:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia standards should be used to inhibit additions which do not conform to the standards regardless of any POV expressed in the addition. RussNelson 01:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevertheless, it is preferable to revise good-faith edits to comply with policy than to remove them. Septentrionalis 15:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dependency theory/Marxist & postmodern critiques 

message: The following sources, most of them recent, may be of service to any NPOV version of this article.:
: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
So may Infinity0's edit of 8 April 2006 Septentrionalis 01:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Omissions

message: I see that Ultramarine has inserted the deleted article Possible wars between liberal democracies into this article. For consensus condemnation of this section, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Possible wars between liberal democracies and the AfD's to which to it refers; for the numerous errors of fact and interpretation committed by its principal source, see the archives to this page. Septentrionalis 23:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Extensively rewritten text with many citations from several academic books. There are no criticisms in the talk page to that earlier rewritten article. Again, criticism should be constructive. State what is not neutral and factually incorrect.Ultramarine 00:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was speeded, I've now listed it on Wikipedia:Deletion review. --Salix alba (talk) 12:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleted, as PoV, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Possible wars between liberal democracies 2 Septentrionalis 19:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  This article is too long as it is.  This data table seems to complicate the matter.  I believe that some people reading the article may be inclined to do their own research and this table would be one source.  If this data table (and other data) is available from other locations on the net it should only be a link.  Alternatively, is it possible for an article to have a sub-page? --Blue Tie 01:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, the arguments can only be found in academic books like Never at War. I will probably do a rewrite and create a subarticle for the tables in the future.Ultramarine 02:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I might not have said it correctly.  The length of the article is not really an issue.  It should be as long as it needs to be.  But it is not as well presented as it could be and a bit discombobulated.  I think it needs a re-write by a fair and objective person.  The table is interesting, but too much detail for the average reader.  But I personally would like to see some way to get access to all of the data that these researchers are discussing (including that table) so that, if I were inclined, I could do my own Original Research (despite NP:OR I like to do it!  I guess I just can't use it here! -- not sure of that though given some recent initiatives at Wikipedia).--Blue Tie 02:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the statistical details are too complicated for most people, except researchers, to follow. The common argument against the DPT is instead typically to state "Look at WWI! England and France were at war with Germany that had universal male suffrage!" or something similar regarding other cases. So there need to be an explanation for why most researchers do not consider WWI and other cases to be wars between democracies. But maybe there could be a simple overview article and several subarticles with more in depth details for those interested? Ultramarine 02:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, state what arguments researchers have used for explaining that specific conflicts are wars between democracies.Ultramarine 19:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a straw man; those who, like Maoz, observe that there is one year of war between democracies where there should be 56, have no need to explain their conclusions on the one at length, and do not. Septentrionalis 19:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So a few researchers think there have been wars, but do not explain why. Most researcher support no war.Ultramarine 19:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ultramarine, Most researcher support no war was not true the last time we discussed it. It's not true now. Please read the sources.  Septentrionalis 19:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems to be deliberately misleading. Here is the most recent discussion:  Ultramarine 20:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies; I had forgotten that you repeated the same misreadings of the same sources between then and now. When you have a new one, do let us know. Septentrionalis 20:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible Wars

message: How come the Continuation War in considered to a possible candidate for a war between two liberal democracies? Last time I checked, the USSR wasn't a liberal democracy in the 1940's (or ever).
:See this User:Salix alba/History of conflict between democracies.Ultramarine 09:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because Britain, and probably Australia, declared war on Finland. Septentrionalis 19:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  On its face that seems like a good example of a liberal democracy attacking a liberal democracy.  Perhaps it counts.  Not sure though.  Does the theory generally confine itself to two independant liberal democracies or does it also include liberal democracies that are allied with more totalitarian regimes?  In the case of WWII the Finns were not exactly aligned but were somewhat sympathetic to the Germans because they hated the Soviets so much.  And the British were definitely aligned with the Soviets.  And in the midst of war, England had given up much of its democratic principles for a time.  Do these factors count in the theory or not? --Blue Tie 00:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most would still count Finland and England as democratic at this time. As noted in User:Salix alba/History of conflict between democracies, the main point is that the formal declaration of war meant very little. England and Finland never attacked one another after the declaration. A formal declaration often means very little. The US has not made a declaration of war after WWII despite involvment in many conflicts causing many battle deaths.Ultramarine 00:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say contrary: The formal declaration of war includes political process, and is open political decision to go to war. If that war cannot be later waged efficiently is totally another matter, and cannot be known at the time declaration was made. The lack of declaration gives opening to all black ops against and material support to democratic country outside the democratic control.--Whiskey 20:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Arguably England had no intention of attacking Finland. It only very reluctantly issued the declaration due to intense pressure from Stalin. England could easily have attacked Finland by bombing, it there had been a desire.Ultramarine 20:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, that declaration was reluctant. Reaching Finland for bombing is another matter, as at the northern Finland there wasn't any suitable targets and Southern Finland was behind neutral Sweden. But the declaration opened possible acts of war, not precluded them.--Whiskey 20:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Continuation War is maybe the most disputed example. Anyhow, the argument by those who do not see a war is the absence military attacks after the declaration and that the declaration was reluctant and forced by Stalin. There has been almost no declarations of wars since WWII but arguably many wars.Ultramarine 21:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is exactly the point. The declaration is so strong element, that it is not lightly given. It is much easier to wage war without the political load which comes with the declaration.--Whiskey 21:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly some see the Continuation war as an exception. Most researchers doing quantitative research on wars use a certain number of battlefield deaths when defining war in order to avoid the problems with declarations and intentions.Ultramarine 21:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  I see.  So to you the issue is not a matter of declaring war but actually going to war - developing casualties.  I can see that since i notice that part of the definition involves 200 combat deaths. --Blue Tie 13:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Using the formal declaration of war as the definition  of war would mean that there has been almost no wars in the world since WWII. A formal declaration today causes many juridical problems, so today no nations do it even if their military is engaged in battle. Most researchers instead look at battle deaths.Ultramarine 13:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The 200 battle deaths are an arbitrary line drawn by a single author. It is quite frequent to use 1000 battle deaths, the line drawn by a popular data set. It is more frequent to observe that there have so few full-scale wars in the past century, and so few democracies until very recently, that "wars between democracies" is, while the interesting question, not capable of proving anything beyond statistical doubt. Septentrionalis 19:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This leaves still open the question of war by proxies: Soviet Union received lavish material support from UK and USA, and this material was used against Finns. And both UK and USA did know that at the time they delivered the material. Although it wasn't UK or US soldiers who killed 1000 Finns, it was UK/US tanks, planes, trucks and ammo which was used on the deed.--Whiskey 20:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The US never issued a formal declaration. The UK declaration was very reluctant and forced by Stalin. The US and the UK wanted to support the war against Naxi Germany, not Finland.Ultramarine 20:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But did UK/US leaders even once demanded/hoped/suggested/whatsoever that Soviets NOT to use delivered material against Finns? Nope. --Whiskey 20:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would certainly say hoped.Ultramarine 21:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake.:-) They certainly hoped in their minds that, but did they communicate it to Soviets?--Whiskey 21:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not know.Ultramarine 21:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The absence of wars is statistically significant. The problems is when starting to control for numerous possible external factors. That is why much recent research looks at lesser conflicts which have been more frequent.Ultramarine 19:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for agreeing with me; the (certainly existing) other factors are part of why they're not significant; but we really should save that level of precision for article text. Septentrionalis 19:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: To Blue Tie:If democratic peace theories didn't include liberal democracies allied with more repressive regimes, they would have even less subject matter than they do. One student has proposed treating the Continuation War, which did include at least one raid by the British on Finland, as a special case: a side-effect of the general multipolar war of the sort we hope will not come again. The present text is confusing, but the note to this effect seems to have disappeared.  (One of the other points under discussion is what makes a major conflict: from one point of view it is casualties; from another, the fact of a formal declaration of war makes the Continuation war severe, all by itself.)  Septentrionalis 20:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In other words: Democratic countries can sell other democratic countries if they need support against their opponents. Pragmatic. But nullifies the idea behind the Democratic Peace theory.--Whiskey 20:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is one opinion. The DPT in its original form simply states no or almost no wars between democracies.Ultramarine 21:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It should be mentioned, but is not, that by such standards, there are prohlems with almost all democracies. Independent of questions of accuracy of this list, the standrds being applied through it would leave perhaps three democracies before the 1880's, and not many thereafter. Septentrionalis 14:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continuation war 

message: What happened to this article: Possible wars between liberal democracies?  It has been deleted. It can be found on google temporarily here
Signed:Travb (talk) 17:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found out who deleted it, this article has now been retreived, and is being voted on for speedy deletion.Travb (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible wars between liberal democracies

message: The editor Septentrionalis has on several other articles constantly tried to exclude well-sourced advantages of democracy and related research. See for example this, where he deletes every sourced advantage of liberal democracy while keeping many claimed unsourced disadvantages. Or this, where he completely deletes the painstakingly made table regarding world-wide democracy from Freedom House..
*If Ultramarine wishes to discuss actions on other articles, I shall also do so; but he may wish to consider retraction. The off-topic and inaccurate paragraph he wrote into Liberal democracy was removed by consensus, as the  talk page will show. The chart was a cut-and-paste from Freedom House's site at Freedom House; it  has also been removed from the article since he restored  it by reversion.  Septentrionalis 21:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The templates state that a Wikipedian has found this article unneutral, confusing, or based on an unbalanced choice of sources. All these things are true; several wikipedians have, and continue to do so. This is an effort by Ultramarine to remove the tags, without ever having to fix the problems that produced them. Septentrionalis 21:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, read the policy. "If you add the above code to an article which seems to be biased to you, but there is no prior discussion of the bias, you need to at least leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article. The note should address the problem with enough specificity to allow constructive discussion toward a resolution, such as identifying specific passages, elements, or phrasing that are problematic." Ultramarine 21:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I have already discussed this page for six pages of archives, cited the objections of others, and indicated my own objections on this page, I find this dilatory. When Blue Tie is ready, we can go through this article systematically. Septentrionalis 22:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has been substantially changed since your earlier objections. Any outside help from Blue Tie would be greatly helped if you try to explain why oppose the article, like Wikpedia policy states that you should do.Ultramarine 22:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The second page cited is a guideline, not a policy.  The first page cited isn't even a guideline.  If one is going to claim policy as reason for being peremptory, one should respect the distinction -- guidelines can be validly overridden by consensus, whereas policies cannot.  Moreover, the above discussion omits that the guideline also allows the use of the general templates when there is an ongoing dispute -- which is manifestly the case here, and several disagreements are detailed on this talk page as it stands.  IMO it is simplest for the present tag to stand until there is a functional consensus that it should be removed.  Robert A.West (Talk) 21:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are arguing that there should be disputed templates even if there are no explanations for them? Ultramarine 21:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr. West has said no such thing. Unfortunately, Ultramarine reads off-Wikipedia sources just as well, as the discussion with Mylos shows. Septentrionalis 22:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So if you accept that there should be constructive explanations for disputed templates, then what are they? Ultramarine 22:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by constructive explanations? The templates are statements of fact, already justified. Septentrionalis 22:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, read the policy. "If you add the above code to an article which seems to be biased to you, but there is no prior discussion of the bias, you need to at least leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article. The note should address the problem with enough specificity to allow constructive discussion toward a resolution, such as identifying specific passages, elements, or phrasing that are problematic."Ultramarine 22:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As Mr West said, this is a guideline. My program for fixing these flaws may be found at the top of the page. Septentrionalis 23:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no constructive criticism there, only things like "Statements contradicted by their own references.", without giving any examples that can be discussed and improved. Ultramarine 23:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia policy on disputed templates 

message: Ultramarine added to Liberal democracy
:However, other dispute this, arguing that savvy autocrats may now have learned how to cut the cord between growth and freedom, enjoying the benefits of the former without the risks of the latter.  
The abstract for the source of this reads:
:Conventional wisdom has long assumed that economic liberalization undermines repressive regimes. Recent events, however, suggest that savvy autocrats have learned how to cut the cord between growth and freedom, enjoying the benefits of the former without the risks of the latter. Washington and international lenders should take note.scholar.google.com result
I acknowledge that this has now been fixed, after I found it; nevertheless, nota bene.  Septentrionalis 22:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But when trying to argue for copyright infringement with others, you ignored the fix, which seems to be deliberately misleading. Ultramarine 23:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aw, did I hurt the poor plagiarist's feelings, then? Septentrionalis 23:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just pointing out that this is another tactic Septentrionalis uses when trying to prevent other from reading about the advantages of democracy. Continuing to insist on copyright infringement when there was none is deliberately misleading.Ultramarine 23:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This personal attack  would suggest that Ultramarine confuses himself, or his favorite authors, with democracy. This (erroneous) ascription of political motives is one of his favorite tactics, however.  In fact, I agree with Churchill: Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others; my objections to plagiarism, and other assaults on the republic of letters, have no connection with politics - except that to tolerate them is not likely to improve our politics. Septentrionalis 02:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As noted earlier, this is just one example of Septentrionalis selectively trying to hide the advantages of democracy from the readers.Ultramarine 02:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ultramarine and plagiarism

message: This talk page shows Ultramarine all too well.
*If he has read Mousseau's articles, he has not understood them; and on that basis, he has revert warred with Mylos for a week now. 
*He quotes Wayman's abstract as though the article contained nothing else.
*When questioned on this, he retreats to a red herring.
*He now resorts to personal attacks. 
Unfortunately, his editing is always like this. No citation he makes can be trusted without verification. Septentrionalis 02:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As usual, no constructive examples of what is supposed to be wrong in the article. See Talk:Democratic peace theory#Wikipedia policy on disputed templates above.Ultramarine 02:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, merely some reasons why no claim of sourcing which depends solely on Ultramarine's good faith and literacy should be left unchecked. Septentrionalis 16:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ad hominem instead of factual arguments. The standard tactic when there are no supporting facts.Ultramarine 16:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ultramarine in general

message: I have archived old discussions.Ultramarine 17:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ultramarine has done so selectively, and without prior discusion; this comes with singularly ill grace from someone who has objected vociferously to a consensus to archive. Either all of this goes, or none does. Septentrionalis 20:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine.Ultramarine 20:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving