Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:24, 25 January 2006

{{FAC}} should be substituted at the top of the article talk page

Democratic peace theory has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{GA|insert date in any format here}}.

Democratic peace theory received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Archives of this page are at Talk:Democratic peace theory/Archive 1. This should be read by any new editor of this page.Septentrionalis 16:42, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

The second archive is at Talk: Democratic peace theory/Archive 2. 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.

The above was left uinsigned by myself at about 01:51 GMT Wednesday 14 December 2005 Robdurbar 12:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I wonder what can be salvaged from my old edit that appears to have been completly removed (with the exception of the reference I added)?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

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.) Septentrionalis 18:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

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 Robdurbar 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.Septentrionalis 18:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Kantian peace

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.

This is, strictly, inconsistent with Rummell's position, which is, quite clearly, that democracy is alone sufficient. We have two alternatives:

• define Kantian peace theories as a variety of DPT, and distinguish from absolute DPT when necessary.
• define DPT as Rummellism, as list these as criticisms.

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. Septentrionalis 22:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved matter

I find no obvious place for the following:

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.

Template:Journal reference url

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: . Ultramarine 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? Septentrionalis

Please see my links for all the other inaccuraces.

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" :) :) :) Ultramarine 16:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Article titles should describe their contents, shouldn't they? And those PoV tracts may be useful to future editors of R. J. Rummel.Septentrionalis 16:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

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. Ultramarine 17:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

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.

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 almost completely different edit, of two and a half months ago.

• I can find only two claims of inaccuracy with regard to the old edit, and both regard assertions which this edit does not make.
  • There is the Wells matter discussed above.
  • 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 Ultramarine's last textual edit. I am prepared, however, to substitute another example if it will help.
• 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.
  • 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.

Shall we attempt mediation? The Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal appears to answer their mail. Septentrionalis 20:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Citation style

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. Ultramarine 05:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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.

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.

Therefore to have notes with each section, at least until a stable text is attained, seems only common sense. Septentrionalis 06:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Those interested in good references for the article can see here . Sad to see the article degenerate to this state. Ultramarine 07:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Ultramarine's modesty is an inspiration to us all. Septentrionalis 15:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

And the revision of the notes has been finished. Septentrionalis 19:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

You consider this to be a finished work?Ultramarine 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. Septentrionalis 20:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Yet another Tag

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 this diff will show. Ultramarine's grievance is with Robdurbar, not with me. I have largely been tightening and refining the summaries of the cited articles.Septentrionalis 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?" :)

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 . Ultramarine 13:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

This diff 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. Septentrionalis 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. Ultramarine 22:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

-

Please specify omissions, or retract. Septentrionalis 17:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I have already specified some of the gross deletions of sourced material from the earlier, superior version. Ultramarine 18:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Where?Septentrionalis

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."Ultramarine 21:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Specific alleged diffs or quotes please. Septentrionalis 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. Ultramarine 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. Septentrionalis 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?Ultramarine 22:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

There is policy that no position be given undue weight. I decline to change topics in the middle of a s section: start a new one. Septentrionalis 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.Ultramarine 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. Septentrionalis 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. Septentrionalis 04:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Violation of NPOV

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 this diff will show. Ultramarine's grievance is with Robdurbar, not with me. I have largely been tightening and refining the summaries of the cited articles.Septentrionalis 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?" :)

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 . Ultramarine 13:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

This diff 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. Septentrionalis 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. Ultramarine 22:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

-

Please specify omissions, or retract. Septentrionalis 17:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I have already specified some of the gross deletions of sourced material from the earlier, superior version. Ultramarine 18:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Where?Septentrionalis

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."Ultramarine 21:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Specific alleged diffs or quotes please. Septentrionalis 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. Ultramarine 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. Septentrionalis 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?Ultramarine 22:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

There is policy that no position be given undue weight. I decline to change topics in the middle of a s section: start a new one. Septentrionalis 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.Ultramarine 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. Septentrionalis 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. Septentrionalis 04:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Note, Pmanderson has a tactic of splitting my comment without my permission. Copied his comment to this place for clarity: "This diff 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: Ultramarine 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? Septentrionalis 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.Ultramarine 21:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Adding links to the forked articles.Septentrionalis 21:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Does not help, the subarticle mentioning supporting statistical studies and its referenced contents have been completely deleted.Ultramarine 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 #retrieved material above. Have you an idea where to put that? It's so far off-topic that it didn't seem to fit anywhere. Septentrionalis 21:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

As anyone who compares can see, that is incorrect. The article contained essentially this section and its references .Ultramarine 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. Septentrionalis 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!!! :) Ultramarine 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. Septentrionalis 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. Septentrionalis 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 informationUltramarine 09:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy

Points Ultramarine claims are inaccurate, in the present text.

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.

An accurate presentation of the theory can be found here: . Ultramarine 10:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Original Research

Point unsourced in the present text.

For example, most of the "limited claims" section.Ultramarine 10:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Notes

Complaints about the present note format

Dsicussed earlier. Ultramarine 10:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Clean-up of confusing writing style

And what else is this supposed to cover?

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.Ultramarine 10:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Or let's make this simple

• Does Ultramarine have any changes to suggest which are not reversions to the edit he made at 18;33, 7 November 2005?
• Which paragraphs of that edit does he propose to restore?

Septentrionalis 00:45, 25 January 2006 (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. Ultramarine 09:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Undated GA templates
• Good articles without topic parameter
• Old requests for peer review