Misplaced Pages

Talk:Democratic peace theory: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:57, 25 January 2006 editUltramarine (talk | contribs)33,507 edits →Violation of NPOV← Previous edit Latest revision as of 14:16, 13 February 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,635,932 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 4 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 3 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Politics}}, {{WikiProject International relations}}, {{WikiProject History}}.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{merged-from|Republican liberalism|26 September 2022}}
{{fac}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1=
{{GA}}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=Top}}
{{oldpeerreview}}
{{WikiProject International relations|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject History|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Military history |SciTech=yes|class=C|b1=no|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}
}}
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=FAC
|action1date=06:33, 9 Jan 2005
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Democratic peace theory/Archive 1
|action1result=not promoted
|action1oldid=10276713


|action2=FAC
Archives of this page are at ]. This should be read by any new editor of this page.] 16:42, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
|action2date=05:39, 27 December 2005
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Democratic peace theory/archive1
|action2result=not promoted
|action2oldid=32581123


|action3=PR
The second archive is at ]. It contains much which relates to the above discussion. Many of the page's problems were solved by division into the current smaller sections and any new contributions are encouraged, without an author being expected to read the entirity of these two long debates on the article's content.
|action3date=01:40, 2 June 2006
:The above was left uinsigned by myself at about 01:51 GMT Wednesday 14 December 2005 ] 12:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Democratic peace theory/archive3
|action3result=reviewed
|action3oldid=56377094


|action4=FAC
I wonder what can be salvaged from that appears to have been completly removed (with the exception of the reference I added)?--] <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> 01:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
|action4date=23:04, 17 November 2006
|action4link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Democratic peace theory/archive2
|action4result=not promoted
|action4oldid=88301324


|currentstatus=FFAC
So what do you think so far? In addition to the present changes, I intend to add Piotrus's example too, and I think the four classes of criticism need work. (Unmatched notes can be postponed until the text is agreed.) ] 18:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
}}
{{Online source
| title = Please, Russia, Don't Vindicate Tom Friedman's Silly McDonald's Theory
| author = Joshua Keating
| year = 2014
| monthday = 4 April
| url = http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_world_/2014/04/04/mcdonald_s_pulls_out_of_crimea_will_tom_friedman_be_retroactively_proven.html
| org = ]
| accessdate = April 4, 2014
| archiveurl = <!-- url where page was archived, typically on archive.org -->
| archivedate = <!-- date page was archived; mandatory if archiveurl is used -->
| section = 2014
| wikilink = ]
| small = no
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo=old(180d)
| archive=Talk:Democratic peace theory/Archive %(counter)d
| counter=9
| maxarchivesize=75K
| archiveheader={{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minthreadsleft=5
| minthreadstoarchive=2
}}
{{Archives|age=180|units=days|bot=lowercase sigmabot III}}


== A Monumentally Horrific Sentence ==
Well, I think its fairly reasonable. I question the need to mention mondaic and dyadic - these ideas are already expressed elsewhere using less jargon. Oh, and I don't see why Rummel's findings should be removed, as long as they are attributed to him as ''one'' researcher ] 18:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
:I thought the chart was too prominent for the results of one researcher; this is part of a certain editor's insistence that there is Only One DPT and it is Rummel's. We already cite Rummel as one of those who claim that democracies have '''never''' gone to war with each other; I'll put in the 155 and the 198 in under ''dyadic''. Monadic and dyadic seem to be the actual terms of art (hence all the usage of "dyad" instead of "pair"); so we should at least define them. But we should avoid them elsewhere if convenient, I agree.] 18:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


About a week ago, I decided that the next time I found a sentence in a wikipedia article that seemed completely incoherant, yet not filled with scientific jargon, that I would take the time, look up every key word, diagram the whole thing out, and try and force my brain to comprehend what is being communicated. While reading this article, I found the following sentence:
==Kantian peace==
"Arguments based on normative constraints, he argues, are not consistent with the fact that democracies do go to war no less than other states, thus violating norms preventing war; for the same reason he refutes arguments based on the importance of public opinion. "
Several of the papers Rummell cites, and some of the ones cited here, hold that peace is the result of several factors, roughly: Democracy, Enforcement measures (including international organizations), and Commerce (or, sometimes, prosperity). This was Kant's position; and several of them call their thesis the Kantian peace.
and seeing how it made no sense to me, I decided it would be perfect. Two hours later, here are my results (chronological order from bottom to top):


(Fact That: Rate Democracies Go to War = Rate non-Democracies Go to War")
This is, strictly, inconsistent with Rummell's position, which is, quite clearly, that democracy is alone sufficient. We have two alternatives:
(Inconsistant With)
*define Kantian peace theories as a variety of DPT, and distinguish from ''absolute DPT'' when necessary.
( (Argument) based on
*define DPT as Rummellism, as list these as criticisms.
(Constraints)
I have gone both ways on this, but I will be writing in the first vein now. (This needs to be decided to write the ''external causes'' section.) Let me know if you disagree. ] 22:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
(Deriving from)
(A Group Held Belief About How Members Should Behave in a Given Context) )
(AND)
( (Arguments) based on
(Importance of)
(Public Opinion) )
(Thus)
( (Failing to comply with)
(Group Held Beliefs About How Members Should Behave in a Given Contexts) related to
(Preventing War) )


( (Argument) based on
==Retrieved matter==
(Constraints)
I find no obvious place for the following:
(Deriving from)
:''In international crises that include the threat or use of military force, if the parties are democracies, then relative military strength has no effect on who wins. This is different from when nondemocracies are involved. This pattern is the same for both allied and nonallied parties.{{ref|WinLoss}}
(A Group Held Belief About How Members Should Behave in a Given Context) )
::{{note|WinLoss}} <small>{{Journal reference url | Author=Gelpi, Christopher F., and Michael Griesdorf | Title=Winners or Losers? Democracies in International Crisis, 1918–94 | Journal=American Political Science Review | Year=2001 | Volume=95(3) | Pages= 633&ndash;647 | URL=http://www.duke.edu/~gelpi/democratic.winners.pdf }}</small>
(Inconsistant with)
(Fact That: Rate Democracies Go to War = Rate non-Democracies Go to War)
(Thus)
( (Failing to comply with)
(Group Held Beliefs About How Members Should Behave in a Given Contexts) related to
(Preventing War) )
(Also)
( (Fact That: Rate Democracies Go to War = Rate non-Democracies Go to War")
(Refutes)
(Arguments) based on
(Importance of)
(Public Opinion) )


Violate = break or fail to comply with (a rule or formal agreement).
==Factual inaccuracies and NPOV violations ==
Pmanderson has returned :) As usual he has no interest in factual accuracy or NPOV and is unable to ever admit making even the slightest mistakes. He has even again incorporated his statements regarding Wells .) Please see earlier discussions here . An accurate presentation of the theory can be found here: . ] 07:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
*Strange; the bulk of the editing I have done has been to simplify and clarify the prose, as a comparison of the two versions will show. What does Ultramarine find PoV?
*The only ''factual'' dispute I can find in the archives is Ultramarine's claim that Wells' book, ''The War that will End War'' (August 1914) does not argue for the lasting character of democratic peace. In deference to this objection, the present text asserts merely that it inspired the slogan. Does Ultramarine dispute this too? ]


(Argument) based on
::Please see my links for all the other inaccuraces.
(Constraints)
(Related to)
(A Group Held Belief About How Members Should Behave in a Given Context)
are not consistent with the fact that democracies do go to war no less than other states, thus violating norms preventing war; for the same reason he refutes arguments based on the importance of public opinion.


(Argument) based on
::Now this is amusing: Pmanderson has renamed "Democratic peace theory (Correlation is not causation)" to "Why other peace theories are wrong"!!! And "Democratic peace theory (Specific historic examples)" to "Why Rummel is always right" :) :) :) ] 16:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
(Constraints)
:::Article titles should describe their contents, shouldn't they? And those PoV tracts may be useful to future editors of ].] 16:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
(Establishing)
:::: You never change. :) You are still unable to even admit that there are many other researchers beside Rummel and regardless of accuracy change to very strange and POV titles. ] 17:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
(A Group Held Belief About How Members Should Behave in a Given Context)
:::::Strange; the present text cites many researchers, and will cite more. Some rather interesting papers seem to have gotten lost in the cracks while I was away from Misplaced Pages.
he argues, are not consistent with the fact that democracies do go to war no less than other states, thus violating norms preventing war; for the same reason he refutes arguments based on the importance of public opinion.


(Argument) based on
Ultramarine adds, in effect, three tags to this page. It is customary to provide support on Talk for all of these; but the only substantion here is a reference to Ultramarine's objections to an , of two and a half months ago.
( (Constraints)
*I can find only two claims of ''inaccuracy'' with regard to the old edit, and both regard assertions which this edit ''does not make''.
((Derived from)
**There is the Wells matter discussed above.
(A Group Held Belief About How Members Should Behave in a Given Context)
**Ultramarine also argued at length, before, that the Germany of Wilhelm II was a despotism. The ''only'' mention of Germany in the present text is a sentence which is retained, unaltered, from . I am prepared, however, to substitute another example if it will help.
OR
*I am not prepared to write a text proclaiming that there is Only One DPT, and it is The Truth. That really would be contrary to policy. Short of that, I will consider any suggestions on the issue.
(Something Usual, Typical, or Standard)) )
**I find the claims of POV very odd, since most of the edits I have made to this article in January have been simplification and clarification of the existing text.
*If Ultramarine considers "A democratic peace theory has to define what it means by "democracy" and what it means by "peace"" ''original research'', so be it.


(Argument) based on
Shall we attempt mediation? The ] appears to answer their mail. ] 20:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
( (Constraints)
((Relating to)
(A Group Held Belief About How Members Should Behave in a Given Context)
OR
(Something Usual, Typical, or Standard)) )


(Argument) based on
== Citation style ==
( (Constraints)
Added another template for the amazingly bad citation style, probably the worst in any Misplaced Pages article. A totally incoherent mixing of different citation styles with the cited references spread all over the article. ] 05:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
((Establishing)
:At least Ultramarine explains '''this''' tag with reference to the actual text of the article. And it is true that I have not yet finished rescuing the notes from the verbose state in which I found them.
(A Group Held Belief About How Members Should Behave in a Given Context)
OR
(Something Usual, Typical, or Standard)) )


Normative = (Establishing, Relating to, or Deriving from) ((Something Usual, Typical, or Standard) OR (A Group Held Belief About How Members Should Behave in a Given Context))
:If, however, even this incomplete project is the worst reference Ultramarine has seen, he has not seen many articles with numbered footnotes in active multi-user editing. References are removed and added without notes, and conversely. The normal practice in printed texts to refer to multiple invocations of the same text is either to have multiple footnotes of the same number, or to say "see footnote 13". The first defeats the ''fmb'' property; the second is not, in practice, maintained - new footnotes are always introduced (It can be implemented with footnotes to footnotes; but all that seems silly.


(Argument) based on
:Therefore to have notes with each section, at least until a stable text is attained, seems only common sense. ] 06:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
( (Constraint) that is
((Derived from) something (Typical)) )


(Argument) based on
::Those interested in good references for the article can see here . Sad to see the article degenerate to this state. ] 07:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
( (Constraint) that is
:::Ultramarine's modesty is an inspiration to us all. ] 15:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
((Related to) something (Typical)) )
::::And the revision of the notes has been finished. ] 19:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
:::::You consider this to be a finished work?] 20:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
::::::The text will change; the notes will change with it. However, the notes are ''now'' in a stable and readable format, suitable for continuous editing. There are others. ] 20:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


(Argument) based on
==Yet another Tag==
( (Constraint) that is
:''Systematic exclusions of many supporting studies and findings, extremely biased presentation of specific historic cases, systematic exclusion of counter-arguments to criticism of the theory.
((Established by) something (Typical)) )
This template also requires details to be placed on the talk page. Please supply. As best as I can guess at them, these claims are, at least, somewhat exaggerated.
*As far as I see, the only references I have removed are redundant citations of Rummel's bibliography (and Beck and Tucker 1998, since the link doesn't work). The note on Winning wars did not exist when I began to edit; if it can be retrieved, fine. (The point it would document is tangential to this article anyway.)
*The specific historical cases are a simple list of links, for the reader to make up his mind about. What bias?
*As for the "sandwich" style of description:
**Democratic peace theories say,
**Critics object,
**But this is why the critics are wrong,
I still find the practice PoV, but I did not remove it, as will show. Ultramarine's grievance is with Robdurbar, not with me. I have largely been tightening and refining the summaries of the cited articles.] 18:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
:Amazing misreprsentation. Some of the things Pmandersson has selectively excluded: studies showing lower democide in democracies, studies countering Gowa's critic, and counter-arguments from the literature regarding specific historic wars. He has deleted all this and instead inserted numerous original research claims, like the "limited claims" sections. After this completely invented and unreferenced section, he states "Even if it were so explained, is this handful of facts sufficient to count on a democratic peace forever?" :)


(Argument)--based-on--->( (Constraint)--that-is--->( (Established by/Related to/Derived from)--something--->(Usual/Typical/Standard) ) )
:Now for a good version of the article citing extensively from the literature, instead of Pmanderson's personal opinions and essays, which he unfortunately thinks should replace research by real scientists, see this . ] 13:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
is between the edit immediately before I began editing in early January. The left hand side, representing removed or changed text, is relatively blank; most of the changes have been purely to style, not content; and some of them have been expansions. Furthermore, the only work removed from the notes is Beck and Tucker 1998, which is not on-line and so not yet verified.
::Now included, although still unvertfied. ] 22:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
:::Simply false, for example Rummel's study about democide is excluded. Regarding Pmanderson's very misleading diff, see below. ] 22:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
:-
Please '''specify''' omissions, or retract. ] 17:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


(Argument)---"based on"--->((Constraint)---"derived from"--->(Norm))
:I have already specified some of the gross deletions of sourced material from the earlier, superior version. ] 18:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
::Where?]
:::Again. "Some of the things Pmandersson has selectively excluded: studies showing lower democide in democracies, studies countering Gowa's critic, and counter-arguments from the literature regarding specific historic wars."] 21:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
::::Specific alleged diffs or quotes please. ] 21:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
:::::'''Democide'''
:::::'''Gowa'''
:::::'''Specific historic examples'''
:::::Note that this is only some of the NPOV violations, but are enough for the moment. ] 21:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
::::::The substance of all three of these is in the article; the phrasing of the sentence on Gowa may be better than the present text. I agree with Robdurbar above that Rummel is ''one'' researcher. His particular findings deserve no more emphasis than this. His neologism belongs in his own article, if anywhere. ] 21:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Incorrect, as anyone who compares can see. There is no requirements that there should be more than one supporting article for a statement. Otherwise I could argue that for example all the Gowa material should be removed.However, would you please remove your own unsourced essays and original research, like most of the "limited claims" section?] 22:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::There is policy that no position be given ]. I decline to change topics in the middle of a s section: start a new one. ] 22:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::NPOV is not an "equal space" policy. The NPOV violations shown above should be corrected. Incomprehensible what you mean regarding change in topic. The tags will remain until you explain yourself clearly and reach a consensus with me, as required by the arbcom.] 22:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::Precisely, it is a proportional space policy. Rummel's space should be appropriate for one theorist. You kept protesting to the FAC people that he was only one of many; don't make it seem otherwise. ] 00:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
::As for the "change in topic"; charges of OR require at least a section of their own. I'll make some. ] 04:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
==Violation of NPOV==


((Norm)---derive from it--->(Constraint))---basis for--->(Argument)
:''Systematic exclusions of many supporting studies and findings, extremely biased presentation of specific historic cases, systematic exclusion of counter-arguments to criticism of the theory.
This template also requires details to be placed on the talk page. Please supply. As best as I can guess at them, these claims are, at least, somewhat exaggerated.
*As far as I see, the only references I have removed are redundant citations of Rummel's bibliography (and Beck and Tucker 1998, since the link doesn't work). The note on Winning wars did not exist when I began to edit; if it can be retrieved, fine. (The point it would document is tangential to this article anyway.)
*The specific historical cases are a simple list of links, for the reader to make up his mind about. What bias?
*As for the "sandwich" style of description:
**Democratic peace theories say,
**Critics object,
**But this is why the critics are wrong,
I still find the practice PoV, but I did not remove it, as will show. Ultramarine's grievance is with Robdurbar, not with me. I have largely been tightening and refining the summaries of the cited articles.] 18:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
:Amazing misreprsentation. Some of the things Pmandersson has selectively excluded: studies showing lower democide in democracies, studies countering Gowa's critic, and counter-arguments from the literature regarding specific historic wars. He has deleted all this and instead inserted numerous original research claims, like the "limited claims" sections. After this completely invented and unreferenced section, he states "Even if it were so explained, is this handful of facts sufficient to count on a democratic peace forever?" :)


(arguments) based on (constraints) that are (related to/derived from) a (standard/norm)
:Now for a good version of the article citing extensively from the literature, instead of Pmanderson's personal opinions and essays, which he unfortunately thinks should replace research by real scientists, see this . ] 13:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
is between the edit immediately before I began editing in early January. The left hand side, representing removed or changed text, is relatively blank; most of the changes have been purely to style, not content; and some of them have been expansions. Furthermore, the only work removed from the notes is Beck and Tucker 1998, which is not on-line and so not yet verified.
::Now included, although still unvertfied. ] 22:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
:::Simply false, for example Rummel's study about democide is excluded. Regarding Pmanderson's very misleading diff, see below. ] 22:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
:-
Please '''specify''' omissions, or retract. ] 17:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


arguments based on constraints that are (Establishing, Relating to, or Deriving from) a (standard or norm)
:I have already specified some of the gross deletions of sourced material from the earlier, superior version. ] 18:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
::Where?]
:::Again. "Some of the things Pmandersson has selectively excluded: studies showing lower democide in democracies, studies countering Gowa's critic, and counter-arguments from the literature regarding specific historic wars."] 21:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
::::Specific alleged diffs or quotes please. ] 21:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
:::::'''Democide'''
:::::'''Gowa'''
:::::'''Specific historic examples'''
:::::Note that this is only some of the NPOV violations, but are enough for the moment. ] 21:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
::::::The substance of all three of these is in the article; the phrasing of the sentence on Gowa may be better than the present text. I agree with Robdurbar above that Rummel is ''one'' researcher. His particular findings deserve no more emphasis than this. His neologism belongs in his own article, if anywhere. ] 21:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Incorrect, as anyone who compares can see. There is no requirements that there should be more than one supporting article for a statement. Otherwise I could argue that for example all the Gowa material should be removed.However, would you please remove your own unsourced essays and original research, like most of the "limited claims" section?] 22:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::There is policy that no position be given ]. I decline to change topics in the middle of a s section: start a new one. ] 22:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::NPOV is not an "equal space" policy. The NPOV violations shown above should be corrected. Incomprehensible what you mean regarding change in topic. The tags will remain until you explain yourself clearly and reach a consensus with me, as required by the arbcom.] 22:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::Precisely, it is a proportional space policy. Rummel's space should be appropriate for one theorist. You kept protesting to the FAC people that he was only one of many; don't make it seem otherwise. ] 00:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
::As for the "change in topic"; charges of OR require at least a section of their own. I'll make some. ] 04:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


Normative = Establishing, Relating to, or Deriving from a standard or norm.


(Arguments based on normative constraints,) he argues, are not consistent with the fact that democracies do go to war no less than other states, thus violating norms preventing war; for the same reason he refutes arguments based on the importance of public opinion.
Note, Pmanderson has a tactic of splitting my comment without my permission. Copied his comment to this place for clarity: " is between the edit immediately before I began editing in early January. The left hand side, representing removed or changed text, is relatively blank; most of the changes have been purely to style, not content; and some of them have been expansions."
:Also, thank you, Pmanderson, for your diff, clearly showing you true intents and arguing style. You did not mention that you have deleted the links to the earlier subarticles where much material was located, making your diff grossly inaccurate and misleading. The true diff to the complete earlier version with all the information later moved to the subarticles is here: ] 18:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
::Let me get this straight; you want to ''revert'' to a version of ''November 7, 2005'' undoing all the edits of Roduburbar, Catfish and others? ] 21:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
:::These edits consists almost exclusively of moving contents to subarticles, contents which you have deleted or now no longer link to. That is the last complete version with all the well-sourced information that you have selectively deleted. Note also that article was completely stable with no changes at all for two weeks before you returned and started your current campaign.] 21:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
::::Adding links to the forked articles.] 21:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
:::::Does not help, the subarticle mentioning supporting statistical studies and its referenced contents have been completely deleted.] 21:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
::::::That article, deleted as hopelessly POV, is in substance included in the present text. The only thing that was there and not in the present text is in ] above. Have you an idea where to put that? It's so far off-topic that it didn't seem to fit anywhere. ] 21:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
:::::::As anyone who compares can see, that is incorrect. The article contained essentially this section and its references .] 22:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::Looks like all those references, except for Gelpi/Griesdorf (above) are in the present text. I ''have'' edited for brevity and English. On Gelpi, I am awaiting your advice. ] 22:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::Another is Rummel. You have edited for factual errors and POV. For example, you state "Many have claimed support for some theory of democratic peace; many have denied any such support." and link to four supporting studies!!! :) ] 22:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I presume Ultramarine means footnote 6 of that version, which uses a obsolete template and is therefore illegible. It is an unadorned reference to Rummel's bibliography, which is cited at least twice in the ptesent text. But, for the sake of consensus, I will add a mention of it to the corresponding footnote, if it's not already there. ] 00:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
:Ultramarine appears to have followed the wrong footnote. ''Many have claimed support for some theory of democratic peace; many have denied any such support'' is followed by footnote 11 in the present text, which sites Ray, Gowa, and (now) Rummel's bibliography. Each in turn cites dozens or hundreds of studies; Ray and Rummel mostly pro- Gowa, mostly con. ] 00:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
::In fact, Gowa is a fringe reseracher. The overwhelming majority of studies support the DPT which your own references show. Most of the studies Gown cites are supporting studies the she objects to. Her claims have been disproven, even if you have selectively removed this information] 09:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
:::There is certainly a PoV that her claims have been disproven. The references are given; let the reader decide. ] 16:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
::::How can they when you have deleted the counter-arguments? ] 16:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
:::::Those counter-arguments are Ultramarine's original research. I would mind this less if they were stronger arguments, or represented a clearer understanding of what Gowa actually wrote. This is also another demand for the ''sandwich'' method of PoV, as above. ] 17:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
::::::False, sources cited.] 17:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


== Answer to criticism ==
==Accuracy==
Points Ultramarine claims are inaccurate, in the '''present''' text.


Democratic peace theory has been criticised for lacking a clear definition of “democracy”. This criticism was actually answered by ] in 2005:
Please see earlier discussions here . Sone new inaccuracies in this version is a completely inaccurate description of Gowa's criticism. Another what criteria has been used for liberal democracy, for example no study has used voting rights for at least 50% of the male population. Stating "Only the United States, Switzerland and Monaco achieved 2/3 male suffrage in the middle of the nineteenth century.", ignoring for example the French Second Republic.


:Q: Are not your findings a matter of definition? <br>
An accurate presentation of the theory can be found here: . ] 10:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
:A: I do provide an explicit definition in . But not everyone is happy with this. The question of definition can be carried too far, however, and risks a kind of definitionalism that can stand in the way of theory and empirical research. First, there is certainly a core group of nations that one generally would be considered perverse for calling nondemocratic. For example, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Belgium, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, etc. One does not need to focus on precise definition. Point and clicking is sufficient. Perhaps this undoubted set of democracies would comprise 20 or 30 nations. Now, while democratic none of them have made war on each other. Now, extend this list by increments. Add say the United States, Greece, France, and others for which a small minority would say that their being liberal democracies is questioned. Has the any member of this enlarged group made war on each other? No. Now add to this list those for which there is a larger group of scholars who would say they are nondemocratic, such as Japan, Israel, and India. Still no wars between them. And so on. Obviously, we would eventually add supposed democracies that have engaged in war, such as Great Britain and the war of 1812 and ], or ] in World War I. But the point is that we would still have a large, undoubted list of core democracies that have not made war on each other and that number of democracies would be of such a size that the lack of war between these core democracies would be significant.
:Another request to revert to the edit Ultramarine made on 7 November, 2005 <sigh>


This text is found under the sixth question . While the author died last year it is good to know that his text is still available on the Net.
*Kant
**What is Ultramarine's objection to the ''present'' text? ]
***This text is essentially your old text, somewhat reorganized. The old arguments still holds.] 17:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
*50 % of male population
**The following sentence appears in the famous edit of 7 November: ''Another example is requiring that at least 50% of the adult population is allowed to vote and that there has been at least one peaceful, constitutional transfer of executive power from one independent political party to another by means of an election.'' I shall remove ''male'', as Ultramarine was free to do. ]
*2/3 Male suffrage.
**The sentence originally included a reference to Rummel's three-year requirement. I shall recast; although I believe it is still true of the ''election'' under the Second Republic. Is Ultramarine proposing Louis Napoleon's ''plebiscitss'' as examples of democracy? ]
**:I am only stating that this is one of your factual errors.] 17:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


2015-12-31 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.
==Original Research==
Point unsourced in the present text.


==Our World In Data interactive map==
*For example, most of the "limited claims" section.] 10:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
**Largely derived from Gowa, as sourced, and as Ultramarine admits above. Please be specific. ] 16:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
***False, most of it is not. Also, you should give page numbers from Gowa's book. Remember, you have been warned by the arbcom for not giving page numbers but only whole books as claimed sources.] 17:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


Are we able to make an interactive map like this on this page?<!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Xsign -->
==Notes==
Complaints about the present note format


{{Image frame
Dsicussed earlier. ] 10:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
|width=520<!-- Must be kept at this size at this point (December 2017) -->
|content ={{Global Heat Maps by Year| title=| table=CO2PerCapita.tab| column=tonnes| columnName=tonnes of CO2 per capita| year=2017|%=}}
|caption=CO{{sub|2}} emissions per capita from 1900 to 2017.<ref>{{cite web |title=Where in the world do people emit the most CO2? |url=https://ourworldindata.org/per-capita-co2 |website=Our World in Data |accessdate=7 October 2019}}</ref>
|align=right
}}


{{reflist-talk}}
==Clean-up of confusing writing style==
And what else is ''this'' supposed to cover?


== Citations are a mess ==
Unfortunately, the article is extremely badly written and confusing, as stated in the tag. Various correct citations is mixed gross with errors and with personal essays and opinions. Various things have been selectively deleted, making the flow unintelligible. Various irrelevant things have been added, also adding to the confusion. Just one example, "Interestingly, Islamic tradition holds that peace will prevail within the dar al-Islam or "house of submission" to the faith, but war, including jihad, beyond that zone." has been added by Pmandersson as his personal musing, something completely irrelevant to to theory and not mentioned anywhere in the literature. On the other hand, he has deleted the definition of MIDs, making understanding of the claims of the theory incomprehensible.] 10:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


Can someone please change the citations so that they don't just cite "Author Year", but incorporate the full citation in easy editing mode? It's an extraordinary hassle to try to figure out what citations are already in the article when editing in easy mode. ] (]) 16:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
*Dar al-Islam
**The sentence quoted was added . I have not deleted it, because I believe in collaborative editing (now my attention is drawn to it, I will remove ''Interestingly''). The fact is well-known; is a variety of peace theory; and (depending on one's view of the Congregation of the Faithful) conceivably describes a democratic peace. I hold a different PoV on Islam; but so what? ] 17:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


==Or let's make this simple== == Merger proposal ==
*Does Ultramarine have any changes to suggest which are '''not''' reversions to the edit he made at ?
**
**
**
*Which paragraphs of that edit does he propose to restore?
**
**
**


I propose to merge ] into ]. The ] article is just a smaller, poorly written and poorly sourced version of ]. ] (]) 14:03, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
] 00:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Support'''. There is not much in ] that is not already in ]. ] (]) 06:22, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
:The totally stable and undisputed version which existed before your recent campaign starting on January 15 was also good, including all the subarticles. You have since started deleting subarticles and renamed "Democratic peace theory (Correlation is not causation)" to "Why other peace theories are wrong"!!! And "Democratic peace theory (Specific historic examples)" to "Why Rummel is always right". This is Disruption to prove a point, clearly showing your intentions. ] 09:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Support''', it can probably be adapted into a section. ] (]) 04:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
::When Robdurbar to resume edit this article, it was clogged with jargon and eye-glazing detail. He would go further than I have done, and not even define ''monadic'' and ''dyadic'', (see above).
* '''Support'''. Go for it! ] (]) 21:20, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
:{{merge done}} ] (]) 06:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)


== " are hesitant to engage in armed conflict with other identified democracies" ==
::I proposed a deletion ''only'' of the Statistical studies article, which was substantially included in the present text (and almost entirely included verbally in the edit of 3 January. I have opposed the deletion of the other two. As I stated on their talk pages, I was planning to link to them from ], whom alone they concern. Their previous long, inaccurate, and typo-prone titles were simply too inconvenient. ] 17:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Or "other countries" in general? <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 08:52, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:16, 13 February 2024

The contents of the Republican liberalism page were merged into Democratic peace theory on 26 September 2022. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconPolitics Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconInternational relations Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconHistory High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Technology
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion not met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Military science, technology, and theory task force
Former featured article candidateDemocratic peace theory is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 9, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 27, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 2, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
November 17, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Former featured article candidate
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Archiving icon
Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

A Monumentally Horrific Sentence

About a week ago, I decided that the next time I found a sentence in a wikipedia article that seemed completely incoherant, yet not filled with scientific jargon, that I would take the time, look up every key word, diagram the whole thing out, and try and force my brain to comprehend what is being communicated. While reading this article, I found the following sentence: "Arguments based on normative constraints, he argues, are not consistent with the fact that democracies do go to war no less than other states, thus violating norms preventing war; for the same reason he refutes arguments based on the importance of public opinion. " and seeing how it made no sense to me, I decided it would be perfect. Two hours later, here are my results (chronological order from bottom to top):

(Fact That: Rate Democracies Go to War = Rate non-Democracies Go to War") (Inconsistant With) ( (Argument) based on (Constraints) (Deriving from) (A Group Held Belief About How Members Should Behave in a Given Context) ) (AND) ( (Arguments) based on (Importance of) (Public Opinion) ) (Thus) ( (Failing to comply with) (Group Held Beliefs About How Members Should Behave in a Given Contexts) related to (Preventing War) )

( (Argument) based on (Constraints) (Deriving from) (A Group Held Belief About How Members Should Behave in a Given Context) ) (Inconsistant with) (Fact That: Rate Democracies Go to War = Rate non-Democracies Go to War) (Thus) ( (Failing to comply with) (Group Held Beliefs About How Members Should Behave in a Given Contexts) related to (Preventing War) ) (Also) ( (Fact That: Rate Democracies Go to War = Rate non-Democracies Go to War") (Refutes) (Arguments) based on (Importance of) (Public Opinion) )

Violate = break or fail to comply with (a rule or formal agreement).

(Argument) based on (Constraints) (Related to) (A Group Held Belief About How Members Should Behave in a Given Context) are not consistent with the fact that democracies do go to war no less than other states, thus violating norms preventing war; for the same reason he refutes arguments based on the importance of public opinion.

(Argument) based on (Constraints) (Establishing) (A Group Held Belief About How Members Should Behave in a Given Context) he argues, are not consistent with the fact that democracies do go to war no less than other states, thus violating norms preventing war; for the same reason he refutes arguments based on the importance of public opinion.

(Argument) based on ( (Constraints) ((Derived from) (A Group Held Belief About How Members Should Behave in a Given Context) OR (Something Usual, Typical, or Standard)) )

(Argument) based on ( (Constraints) ((Relating to) (A Group Held Belief About How Members Should Behave in a Given Context) OR (Something Usual, Typical, or Standard)) )

(Argument) based on ( (Constraints) ((Establishing) (A Group Held Belief About How Members Should Behave in a Given Context) OR (Something Usual, Typical, or Standard)) )

Normative = (Establishing, Relating to, or Deriving from) ((Something Usual, Typical, or Standard) OR (A Group Held Belief About How Members Should Behave in a Given Context))

(Argument) based on ( (Constraint) that is ((Derived from) something (Typical)) )

(Argument) based on ( (Constraint) that is ((Related to) something (Typical)) )

(Argument) based on ( (Constraint) that is ((Established by) something (Typical)) )

(Argument)--based-on--->( (Constraint)--that-is--->( (Established by/Related to/Derived from)--something--->(Usual/Typical/Standard) ) )

(Argument)---"based on"--->((Constraint)---"derived from"--->(Norm))

((Norm)---derive from it--->(Constraint))---basis for--->(Argument)

(arguments) based on (constraints) that are (related to/derived from) a (standard/norm)

arguments based on constraints that are (Establishing, Relating to, or Deriving from) a (standard or norm)

Normative = Establishing, Relating to, or Deriving from a standard or norm.

(Arguments based on normative constraints,) he argues, are not consistent with the fact that democracies do go to war no less than other states, thus violating norms preventing war; for the same reason he refutes arguments based on the importance of public opinion.

Answer to criticism

Democratic peace theory has been criticised for lacking a clear definition of “democracy”. This criticism was actually answered by Rudolph Rummel in 2005:

Q: Are not your findings a matter of definition?
A: I do provide an explicit definition in Chapter 3 of my Saving Lives. But not everyone is happy with this. The question of definition can be carried too far, however, and risks a kind of definitionalism that can stand in the way of theory and empirical research. First, there is certainly a core group of nations that one generally would be considered perverse for calling nondemocratic. For example, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Belgium, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, etc. One does not need to focus on precise definition. Point and clicking is sufficient. Perhaps this undoubted set of democracies would comprise 20 or 30 nations. Now, while democratic none of them have made war on each other. Now, extend this list by increments. Add say the United States, Greece, France, and others for which a small minority would say that their being liberal democracies is questioned. Has the any member of this enlarged group made war on each other? No. Now add to this list those for which there is a larger group of scholars who would say they are nondemocratic, such as Japan, Israel, and India. Still no wars between them. And so on. Obviously, we would eventually add supposed democracies that have engaged in war, such as Great Britain and the war of 1812 and Boar War, or Kaiser German in World War I. But the point is that we would still have a large, undoubted list of core democracies that have not made war on each other and that number of democracies would be of such a size that the lack of war between these core democracies would be significant.

This text is found under the sixth question here. While the author died last year it is good to know that his text is still available on the Net.

2015-12-31 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

Our World In Data interactive map

Are we able to make an interactive map like this on this page?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.5.195.209 (talk) 16:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. Updates on reimplementing the Graph extension, which will be known as the Chart extension, can be found on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.
See or edit source data. CO2 emissions per capita from 1900 to 2017.

References

  1. "Where in the world do people emit the most CO2?". Our World in Data. Retrieved 7 October 2019.

Citations are a mess

Can someone please change the citations so that they don't just cite "Author Year", but incorporate the full citation in easy editing mode? It's an extraordinary hassle to try to figure out what citations are already in the article when editing in easy mode. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose to merge Republican liberalism into Democratic peace theory. The Republican liberalism article is just a smaller, poorly written and poorly sourced version of Democratic peace theory. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

  checkY Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 06:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

" are hesitant to engage in armed conflict with other identified democracies"

Or "other countries" in general? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:52, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Categories: