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 06:29, 29 August 2005 editRobdurbar (talk | contribs)11,477 edits →Statistical studies supporting the DPT← Previous edit Latest revision as of 14:16, 13 February 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,947,380 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}}
{{FACfailed}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1=
{{oldpeerreview}}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=Top}}
{{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
==Summary of archive==
|action3date=01:40, 2 June 2006
Most of them are ] explaining edits and ] protesting that the page would only be NPOV if it defended one particular version of DPT. ]
|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Democratic peace theory/archive3
:Robdurbar deleted this passage from the archive note above. I believe it to be fair description of the archives and so retain it, but move it here as possibly tendentious. (I would prefer if edits of my comments were discussed with me first.) ] 20:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
|action3result=reviewed
|action3oldid=56377094


|action4=FAC
|action4date=23:04, 17 November 2006
|action4link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Democratic peace theory/archive2
|action4result=not promoted
|action4oldid=88301324


|currentstatus=FFAC
==New edit==
}}
I agree that it should have been pruned for length and detail. So have the other editors who have contributed to it, with one memorable exception. I thank ] for his bold pruning, and will in general defend it. I do not expect this version will need deletions. I think it would be useful to document these on this talk page; but I do consider that there are no longer, meaningfully, two versions, and therefore that the edit restrictions I have been unilaterally observing are moot. ] 16:42, 12 August 2005 (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 ==
==Violation of Misplaced Pages policy==
Septentrionalis, you have violated Misplaced Pages policy both by deleting the two-version template without consensus and by achieving the discussion when there were unresolved discussions. ] 16:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
:Ultramarine appears to be under some serious misapprehensions about policy and practice:
:*The policy of consensus does not afford any single editor a ].
:*The talk page was 106K. It should have been archived long ago; some editors are simply unable to read a page of that length. Any material relevant to current discussions can be brought back here, or referenced from here; that's what the archive's for.
:*Two-version is a temporary expedient, not a device for a permanent fork. Forks are to be avoided. In any case, it no longer describes the page. There are '''three''' contending versions of this page:
:*# The '''interwoven''' version, condemned by every editor but Ultramarine.
:*# The '''criticism-and-response''' version, condemned by every editor but Corax and myself, and my support is weak.
:*# Robdurbar's '''pruned''' version, which cuts through the Gordian knot of criticisms and defenses of Rummel's particular DPT by removing them. It is plain from the archived discussion that this approach is consensus. The details of the pruning can, of course, be altered.
:*It is, however, clear policy that the posting of {accuracy} and {npov} tags shall be justified on the talk page. Since the text which was {dubious} has been removed, there is no preexisting ground for them. ] 17:30, 13 August 2005 (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:
:How about remvoing the two-version tempalte but keeping the {npov}until further differences are ironed out? ] 18:02, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
"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. "
::I would even keep the {accuracy} tag, or a set of {dubious} tags, if there are accuracy disputes. So far, none have been stated. ] 18:29, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
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")
::There is no policy that the two-version is a temporary expedient. Restored some of the relevant discussion from archieve. The questions there should be resolved before any removal of the template. ] 18:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
(Inconsistant With)
:::As far as I can see, all the questions below have been settled, by removal of the text objected to. The Gordian approach does have its advantages. ] 18:29, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
( (Argument) based on
:::Does Robdurbar want to bring back any of the deleted text in the last section below? ] 18:29, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
(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
== The facts ==
(Constraints)
===Kant't theory===
(Deriving from)
Your version states that "Modern students of Democratic Peace Theory have, citing each other, claimed descent from Kant's 1795 essay Project of a Perpetual Peace.". This is incorrect, the first creators did not mention Kant. Nor has anyone claimed that the modern DPT is the same as Kant's theory. Indeed, they have noted the differences, as stated in my text. Please correct. ] 14:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
(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).
*This is disingenuous. What Ultramarine's text had about Kant was ''It was Immanuel Kant who first foreshadowed the theory of a peace between liberal democracies''// ''Famous philosopher Immanuel Kant first posited an early theory of democratic peace in the late 18th century''// ''Kant's theory was revived by Dean Babst''; and a mention of Kant as proposing one of several mechanisms for the democratic peace. It is only in the last context that difference is even suggested, and it is a divergence between various DPTs. (He also adorned the article with Kant's portrait.)
*"'''All''' modern students" is neither stated or implied by the present text. Without it there is no inaccuracy.
*Rummel may not have heard of Kant when he first wrote; but he describes Kant as "foundational" now. That leaves Babst as denying Kant's rôle; I will check on this, but it seems really unimportant.


(Argument) based on
:Where's the error?
(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
:But I will be drawing together the references to Michael Doyle, including his initial (and acccurate) summary of Kant, as a single historical paragraph, which may assuage this pang. ] 18:29, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
(Constraints)
::It is a false statement that I introduced the portrait of Kant or even Kant at all in this article. It existed before me. ] 19:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
(Establishing)
:::I note the retraction of the phrase '''as stated in my text''' above. On the whole, I see no reason to retain a dubious tag for so evanescent an inaccuracy. Unless an actual statement is produced, and claimed to be inaccurate, it should be removed. ] 19:52, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
(A Group Held Belief About How Members Should Behave in a Given Context)
::::Again, your version states that "Modern students of Democratic Peace Theory have, citing each other, claimed descent from Kant's 1795 essay Project of a Perpetual Peace.". This is incorrect, the first creators did not mention Kant and those who later did also noted the differences. Correct. ] 14:04, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
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
This is not in the present text.] 18:18, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
( (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
=== Incorrect description of paper ===
( (Constraints)
Your version states "This website argues for the strong version of the theory". This is incorrect, is a review paper of the studies done on the DPT, both supporting and critical. Please correct. ] 14:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
((Relating to)
(A Group Held Belief About How Members Should Behave in a Given Context)
OR
(Something Usual, Typical, or Standard)) )


(Argument) based on
<s>*So it seems; that should teach me not to draw a conclusion from the text without checking it. I will redescribe when I get to that section. I also note that the review paper makes several of the criticisms which Ultramarine has deleted as unsupported by scholarship. ]</s>
( (Constraints)
::Having now read the article at some length, I would describe it as a skillful summing-up in the interest of DPT, including mention of the criticisms, partly to throw overboard the weaker DPTs, partly to present refutations. It argues very strongly that DPT is better founded than the alternatives. If this is Ultramarine's basis for estimating the state of the field, I am no longer surprised by his statements above. ] 18:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
((Establishing)
:::The amazing thing is that you admit not having read it, because I have repeatedly pointed it out. One would think that a serious critic would be familiar with this basic material. ] 19:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
(A Group Held Belief About How Members Should Behave in a Given Context)
::::''Touché!'' I did, however, read it weeks ago (and edited accordingly), but the memory blurred with the rest of the ''apologia''s for Rummellism with which the page is littered. ] 14:34, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
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))
:::::Now you have moved this scholarly summary of studies to external links while keeping your Wall Street Journal opinion article and this personal webpage as evidence in the main text. Please correct. ] 14:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


(Argument) based on
The Hoover Institution article is not in the present text. I do not see the webpage. ] 18:19, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
( (Constraint) that is
((Derived from) something (Typical)) )


(Argument) based on
=== Incorrect description of newspaper opinion article ===
( (Constraint) that is
Your text states "The third type of criticism has been expressed thus in a Hoover Institution article" This is misleading, is only a reprint of a Wall Street Journal opinion article. Please correct. ] 14:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
((Related to) something (Typical)) )
:I will accept '''republished by''' if the dates can be established. ] 18:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
::Read the link. ] 19:43, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


(Argument) based on
:::You have still not corrected the statement. Please do. ] 03:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
( (Constraint) that is
((Established by) something (Typical)) )


(Argument)--based-on--->( (Constraint)--that-is--->( (Established by/Related to/Derived from)--something--->(Usual/Typical/Standard) ) )
::::See above. ] 18:20, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


(Argument)---"based on"--->((Constraint)---"derived from"--->(Norm))
==Demographics of Athens==


((Norm)---derive from it--->(Constraint))---basis for--->(Argument)
''' It is estimated that only 16% of the population in Athens had the right to vote.'''


(arguments) based on (constraints) that are (related to/derived from) a (standard/norm)
The '''16%''' here is the ratio between number of Athenian citizens and the total (adult male) population of Attica. Since we know neither of these, stating the ratio between them to two significant digits is irresponsible.


arguments based on constraints that are (Establishing, Relating to, or Deriving from) a (standard or norm)
It's actually worse than that. The number of Athenians can be guessed, from such data as the 6000 votes required for ], the 24,000 troops mustered at the beginning of the ] ''usw.'' The total population of Attica can only be estimated by guessing the ratio of men to women, adults to children, citizens to metics, and free to slave; doing the indicated multiplication; and then arguing the result is not inconsistent with the archaeolgical evidence. The first two factors can be estimated from other demoraphic evidence; the last two can only be guessed. Therefore '''16%''' represents the product of two modern guesses. ] 18:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
:The point being that only a very small minority had the right to vote. Feel free to add that the numbers are uncertain. ] 19:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
::Those who think thata sixth or a quarter enfranchisement is very small should consider the Belgian franchise of 1892 again, which gave the vote to 5% of the men - and Belgium was, rightly, considered a parliamentary and responsible government. ] 22:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


Normative = Establishing, Relating to, or Deriving from a standard or norm.
I see no claim of PoV or factual dispute here. Even if there were, the present text does not mention Athens. ] 18:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


(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.
==Ordering==


== Answer to criticism ==
The '''methodologies''' section has been moved up and recast into a section of definitions. We should explain what a democratic peace is, before we speculate on causes. ] 22:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


Democratic peace theory has been criticised for lacking a clear definition of “democracy”. This criticism was actually answered by ] in 2005:
==Statistics==
The following argument is fallacious:
:'' argues that this is strongly statistically significant. For example, during the 1946-1986 period there were 45 states that had a democratic regime; 109 that did not. There were thus 6,876 state dyads (e.g., Bolivia-Chile), of which 990 were democratic-democratic dyads. None of the 990 fought each other. Using the binomial theorem, the probability of the 990 dyads not engaging in war is .9953 to the 990th power or .0099, which rounded off, equals .01. The probability of this lack of war between democracies being by chance is virtually 100 to 1.''


:Q: Are not your findings a matter of definition? <br>
This calculation makes no allowance for loss of democracy during the Cold War; which decreases the expected number of wars significantly. Since the ] involved is effectively ], the probability of sero wars is ] in this ]. Therefore the .0099 is a serious underestimate.
: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.


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.


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


==Our World In Data interactive map==
===Specific exclusion defended==
I give notice that I intend to delete the following paragraph (With it gone, I would be willing to join a consensus that the general '''disputed''' tag is unnecessary):


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 -->
''Proponents have responded similarly to other objections. During the ], only a small minority had the right to vote in the ], many new urban areas had no representation, the ballot was not secret, many seats in ] were appointed or openly bought from the owners of ]s, and the ] could ] all laws. The defenders of DPT exclude the ] because, in addition to it being an internal conflict, in the ], only 30-40% of male population could vote and there was never a competitive presidential election. Similarly, only a minority had the right to vote in the Boer states. <!--Hence the importance of the Transvaal War --> ], the president of ] at the time of the ], used terror tactics to silence critical press and the previously independent judiciary, for example storming the ] in order to force the Chief Justice out of office. ], the president of the Palestinian Authority at the start of the latest conflicts with ], can be criticized on similar grounds. There was never a democratic election in the ] before the ]. All the Mexican presidents at the time of the conflicts with the U.S., like ], took their power in ]s. {{dubious}} The nations in the ] were ruled by ]s or had suffrage requirements like literacy or property that excluded a large part of the populations.


{{Image frame
chiefly because it is a defense of Rummel's DPT (only) against criticisms which are no longer in the article. It is therefore both quite PoV and not particularly useful tp the mere reader; it is also a dubious collection of statements. If it returns to the text it should at least acknowledge that Ted Gurr counted Spain in 1898, and Greece in 1912 as democracies. ] 18:39, 27 July 2005 (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}}
:I oppose, since many of the examples are mentioned by critics, including in the Wall Street Journal opinion article that you link as evidence. Therefore it is certainly useful to the "mere reader" and it would violate NPOV to delete it. ] 19:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
::This is a misunderstanding of the purpose of the article (or of any WP article), which is not to defend DPTs, much less one particular DPT, but explain what they are. For special criticisms, and defenses, the reader can go to the external links; that's what they're for. Do you have a valid objection to the removal of the paragraph and the general Disputed tag? ] 14:13, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


== Citations are a mess ==
:::Please do not invent Misplaced Pages policy. The articles should be npov and they usually present arguments for and against in the article. There is certainly no policy that the arguments should only be in external links. Your deletion violates npov. ] 03:12, 2 August 2005 (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)
::::NPOV does not mean presenting '''every''' argument pro and con, much less presenting responses to arguments not in the article: either one is a disservice to the reader. Part of editorial judgment is knowing how much detail is useful. If you want to get into detailed arguments about whether (for example) Egypt was a member or one or another block, take it to ], where there is room enough to explore the issue in depth. ] 17:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


== Merger proposal ==
::::What part of ] does Ultramarine hold not to be policy? ] 18:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


I propose to merge ] into ]. The ] article is just a smaller, poorly written and poorly sourced version of ]. ] (]) 14:03, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
:::::"The policy of having a neutral point of view is not to hide different points of view, but to show the diversity of viewpoints. In case of controversy, the strong points and weak points will be shown according to each point of view, without taking a side." Some of the critics of the DPT argue that the mentioned nations are exceptions, like in the Wall Street Journal opinion article. Thus, Misplaced Pages should mention these arguments and also the counter-arguments. ] 13:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
* '''Support'''. There is not much in ] that is not already in ]. ] (]) 06:22, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
* '''Support''', it can probably be adapted into a section. ] (]) 04:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
* '''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" ==
===Rambling paragraph===
This paragraph has no topic sentence. Appears not to use a coherent definition of bloc.
:''Supporters of the democratic peace theory disagree with the analysis of wars before the start of the Cold War, arguing that even when there were conflicts, democracies did not make war with each other. They also argue that there were wars within blocs. In the nineteenth century, much of the world was divided into blocs by the imperialist powers. This was often strictly regulated as when England and Russia divided Persia into two spheres of influence. Numerous wars occurred in these blocs, both by the imperialist powers when they extended direct rule and also between minor states in these blocs. For example, an incomplete list of wars in India after England had become the dominant European power includes three ], four ], two ]s, three ], the ], the ], and three ].


Or "other countries" in general? <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 08:52, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Do you really suppose that these are Britain making war on her allies? These are wars coercing them to ''become'' her allies.

:''They also note numerous wars in Latin America, despite belonging to an U.S. dominated bloc after the ]. This bloc was frequently threatened by the other imperialist blocs and sometimes direct military action occurred, like the French military invasion of Mexico. Examples of large scale wars in Latin America in this period include the ], the ], the ], the ], and the ].

The Monroe doctrine is a unilateral determination, not an alliance. Therefore it does not represent a community of interest; for the Latin American states didn't agree.

:''They also note several betrayals of formal treaties within blocs during WWII. Examples include the wars of Finland, Italy, Bulgaria, Roumania, and Hungary on their German ally in WWII and the German invasion of the Soviet Union despite the ] and its secret extensions.

::Of course nations that make war against each other are not allies. But the above statements show that the existence of blocs and external threats does not prevent wars, as the bloc peace theory claims. ] 03:16, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
::The bloc peace theory claims '''only''' that the members of a particular bloc did not make war ''against each other'', since the bloc exists because of, and in order to implement, a common interest. "BPT" (which, remember, is a nickname, invented in this article) says nothing about wars outside the bloc; which may even have been more likely because the bloc existed. ] 17:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

:::The BPT has been criticized using wars in other blocs. ] 13:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

===More assorted specific arguments===

:''There were wars in the Western bloc between democracies and dictatorships, supporters argue, thus disproving the bloc peace theory. One example is the Turkish invasion of ] in ], at a time when Cyprus had British military bases and close ties to Turkey's NATO partner Greece. Another is the ]. However, bloc peace supporters note that the U.S. put pressure on the combatants to stop the Football War which fits the bloc peace theory. A third is the 1965 U.S. invasion of the ]. They might argue that the ] and the ] were wars within the Western bloc, because Iraq belonged to ] and Israel received extensive aid from the U.S. Bloc peace theory supporters claim that CENTO was not a functioning organization and note that The Soviet-Iraqi Treaty of Friendship was signed in 1972. Critics of the bloc peace theory also note the two ]s, in which Arabic nations fought each other despite belonging to the ] and ]. All of these wars had more than 1000 military casualties . The ] almost qualify (936 causalities).

===Time limit===
This entire section is only a defense of Rummelism as opposed to a discussion of DPT in general; and in part an unsound one. ] 23:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

:''Rummel's requirement that the democratic states must be older than three years excludes the war between the ] and the ]. The ] is excluded if one considers the ] to have become democratic after the first election in November ] or when the constitution was amended so that the parliament could control the cabinet in April ]. The war started in October ], which would be before four years had passed. Critics instead argue that democracy occurred in July 1908 when a constitution was introduced. It is also doubtful if the opposing Christian states fulfill the democratic criteria since the Kings continued to have extensive powers in all of them. {dubious} Gurr counts pre-WW I Greece as having obtained the highest level of democracy; one of only four states to do so.

:''Rummel's criteria, like the time limit and democratic institutions and elections on both sides, also exclude ]s within democracies over legitimacy or secession, such as the ], the ] war, the ] and the ] which followed, and the ] civil wars in ], ], ] and ].


----
:''This is a section for the special purpose of proposing and discussing deletions and rearrangements. Please keep that discussion above this line, and do not insert other matter above this line''

== Problems with the short version ==
===WWI===
Violates npov by not mentioning arguments against Germany being a democracy. ] 18:29, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
:Right; now discussed, at equal length.] 19:52, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
::Still violates npov by excluding many of the strongest arguments. ] 20:41, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
:::Name them, and if they are stronger than the war power and the right to appoint the chancellor, I'll put them in, (subject to length). Please note that any argument which would also deny democracy to 1914 ''Britain'' will sweep away much of the statistical support for DPT. ] 21:21, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

::::Here is what the more complete version states: "For the First World War critics have argued that Rummel was mistaken, either in denying that Germany was a democracy (the ] was elected by universal male suffrage, its votes of no confidence did cause governments to fall, and it did vote on whether to fund the war - which passed overwhelmingly) or that he erred in affirming Britain to be one (the 1911 elections enfranchised only 60% of the British electorate, to say nothing of the Empire beyond the Seas, the majority of which had no say in the decision at all). Supporters respond that at the time of World War I the German ] still had much power, he had direct control over the army, appointed and could dismiss the chancellor, and played a key role in foreign affairs. In effect, therefore, in foreign and military affairs, there was little democratic control. They also note that the Kaiser was also the King in the very large state of ] which had much influence over national politics, that Prussian government was not responsible to the Prussian Landtag (lower chamber), that the Landstag members were elected by a suffrage system based on tax-paying ability favoring the rich, and that the landed aristocracy of the ]s dominated all the higher civil offices and officer corps of the Army and Navy. If Britain was not a liberal democracy, then this is another reason why WWI was not a war between democracies." ] 21:28, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
::::This version is too long, and *way* too detailed. While you are correct that eliminating Britain as a liberal democracy eliminates WWI, but it may reduce DPT below the threshold of meaningfulness, at least for the pre-WWII period. ] 21:32, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
:::::Your version includes all the arguments critical of the DPT but excludes most the supportive arguments. This violates npov. Feel free to add your point above statistical support to the text. Either remove WWI completely or add the view of the other side. If you argue that the text is too long, we can create a separate article for various historical examples and counter-examples of the DPT. ] 21:55, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
::::::The section '''begins with''' the DPT arguments (and the rebuttal is essentially more detail about those arguments), and gives each class of critics one quick bite at the apple. I added a phrase that there were "structural features of the Reich" that militate against calling it a democracy. We can probably fine-tune in other ways, but we can't give both sides the last say, and this *is* the section on criticisms. At some point, the interested reader is best left to the sources themselves, and I think this article is getting close to that point. ] 22:24, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
:::::::Again, you include all arguments critical but excludes most of the supportive, violating npov. Correct. ] 22:29, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
::::::::Disagree. Several important lines of criticism are omitted, including important detailed critiques about statistical methods that would IMO merely clutter the article and be unintelligible to most readers. The criticisms listed are those that are most accessible to a general audience -- this is valid judgment. The arguments against those criticisms are, for the most part, detailed and technical in nature. This is proper in academic papers, but will cause MEGO if included here. Maybe in the morning I will have a brilliant thought about how to summarize, but I honestly think that both sides are fairly covered with no conclusion drawn. ] 23:08, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
:::::::::We are discussing WWI here, not the whole article. Again, you include all arguments critical but excludes most of the supportive, violating npov. Correct. ] 23:33, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
::::::::::I don't see that your text raises any new issue: whether Germany was democratic is already raised as an issue, and the role of the Kaiser and structure of the Reich are both cited as reasons to exclude. Your assertions about Prussian polity are unsourced and disputed: please provide a source. And if even Britain was not a democracy in 1914, the statistical significance of pre-Cold-War DPT vanishes. ] 02:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
:::::::::::Here is a source . Again, add your objection that it may change the statistical significanse to the text, do not exclude the argument. ] 03:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Reverting to full width for sanity's sake.

If that is your best source on the subject, Mr. Anderson's objection is well-founded indeed. The Columbia Encyclopedia article does not draw the conclusion that the polity of Prussia made the Reich a functional non-democracy, which is the point at issue. In fact, it points out that the power of the Junkers to dominate national policy was an issue for 1932, not 1914. You need, at minimum, another source to connect the dots or the assertion goes beyond fair commentary and into OR. 20:09, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

:The source is certainly sufficent to support my arguments about Prussia and Junkers. ] 20:30, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

:The text notes "The Prussian constitution was liberalized after Prussia became a republic in 1918, and the Junkers lost many of their estates through the cession of Prussian territory to Poland." Thus, the text supports that the earlier mentioned influence of the Prussian King stopped and that of the Junkers was greatest before WWI. ] 16:47, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

::IMO, your source does not support your text. Having estates, and influencing Prussia, is a matter distinct from being able to force '''national''' policy in defiance of the legislature. Bill Gates has wealth greater and the ] land vaster than any Junker possessed, but the US remains a democracy.
::Now, it is true that the Junkers held various offices under the Reich, but the power of those offices was a delegated power and the holder served at the pleasure of the Kaiser. The real issue is whether the Kaiser had too much power to count Germany as a democracy: if he did, the issue is settled; if not, the Junkers' power changes nothing.
::Feel free to look for a better a source that clearly supports your contention, but I really think we have more important issues to discuss. ] 23:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

===Other possible exceptions===
Many of the critics have listed other possible examples as important arguments against the DPT. Therefore, Misplaced Pages should mention these and arguments against. ] 20:44, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
:This is what external links are for. ] 21:07, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

::No, there is no such Misplaced Pages policy. Major arguments should be in Misplaced Pages and critics have often used claimed counter-examples. Correct. ] 21:11, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

::Here are two examples of this critic that you yourself have used . Therefore, it should be in the article with arguments against. ] 21:20, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

:Once more around the mulberry bush. It is not the business of this article to discuss every possible point on DPT; it is not even the business of this article to discuss every ''citable'' point on DPT. If you want another site like Rummel's, go talk to a web-hosting service, which is one of the things Misplaced Pages is not. Clarity and comprehensibility count. ] 21:26, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

:I have to agree. It is not a matter of '''policy''' but of '''good writing'''. Unless the additional examples add something that WWI does not, I would oppose adding them on grounds of kindness to the reader. ] 21:34, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

::The arguments are prominently presented outside Misplaced Pages. Therefore, Misplaced Pages should present them. Read npov, Misplaced Pages should not hide arguments. ] 21:36, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

:::Read it yourself. And, while you are at it, read the articles on good writing and encyclopedic content. Read some featured articles and learn from them. Criticisms that are not meaningfully distinct are not distinct arguments within the meaning of the policy. They can't be, or every article in WP would be a hundred times its current size and spawn a host of sub-pages. ] 22:34, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

::::I find it strange that you first insisted that the arguments should be included, but when counter-arguments were added, you suddenly argue for removal of both. Such arguments are prominent and should be mentioned. ] 12:03, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

===Cold war peace or the Bloc peace theory ===
Violates npov by removing arguments against. ] 18:31, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

:Counter-criticisms of the "Bloc peace theory" in this article have, mostly, suffered from what appears (to me, at least) to be a misunderstanding of the underlying statistical issue. BPT does not need to explain the entire apparent peace, it merely needs to explain enough cases that the remaining cases no longer present a strong statistical case. And, it doesn't need to do this by itself -- it is not uncommon to find that a correlation is explained by a combination of five more-or-less independent mechanisms. Has Gowa done this analysis? Perhaps this point should be made in the article: it can be sourced to any standard text on statistical methods in research. ] 20:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
::Please do not guesss. Add back the arguments against. ] 20:42, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
:::I am not guessing: I am diagnosing. As phrased, the counter-criticisms were (mostly) not germane to the issue: they need to be more carefully and succinctly phrased, and I haven't come up with a way to do that. A list of arguments about specific instances is (mostly) a distraction. If you have a good, succinct, version, please try adding it, rather than ordering me to restore something I did not delete. ] 21:43, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
::::One of the most serious deletion is of course this. "Supporters of the DPT note that Rummel is indeed only one of many who have shown statistical support for the DPT and that Bremer (1992), Maoz & Russett (1992, 1993), Russett (1993), Oneal et al (1996), Barbieri (1996a), Oneal & Russett (1997), and Oneal & Ray (1997) all have controlled for alliance ties in their statistical studies supporting the DPT, contradicting Gowa's theory." ] 22:03, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
:::::Look again: "Some democratic peace theorists have controlled for these variables. Bremer (1992, 1993) controlled for contiguity, power status, alliance ties, militarization, economic development, and power ratios. Maoz & Russett (1992, 1993) and Russett (1993) controlled for contiguity, alliance ties, economic wealth and growth, political stability, and power ratios. They also studied the period from 1945 and 1986 and discounted all pairs that did not involve a major power or nations that were not geographically continuous." The paragraph wasn't deleted, it was made stronger and placed in a better location." ] 22:37, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
::::::That still excludes several studies. And none is presented in the section about the BPT, misleadingly leading to the impresseion that there is no relevant critique. ] 22:41, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
:::::::This point falls below the the NPOV threshold, and into copyediting: the text is directly above where you would like it to be. Of course, that is a good sign. I will look to see what distinguishes the Oneal studies from the others: if they focused particularly on alliances, they would be appropriate to mention after Gowa's assertions. ] 23:16, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
::::::::Add back this critque now unless you can cite sources supporting your claim, not sometime in the future. And there are other studies mentioned beside Oneal and those mentioned by your version in another section. ] 23:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
:::::::::Is this civility? ] 23:50, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
:::::::::No it is not. Ultramarine, please read the policy: ]. Ordering people around is a good way to lose their coöperation. You can tell me to do something '''now''' when you start paying my billing rate and not a second sooner. And, in case you haven't noticed, the two of us have been bending over backwards to accomodate your objections. I was about to save an edit that added more and better studies to the text than you asked for, but I cancelled it when I saw this demand. ] 02:53, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
::::::::::When was did asking for sources become incivility? You have still not responded to my objections. ] 03:37, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
:::::::::::Are you really so tone-deaf that you cannot see, "Add back this critique now" as imperious and insulting? Your demand for a source makes no sense in context: there is no assertion at issue, therefore nothing requiring sourcing. We differ on an editorial judgment. Many articles on both sides are not mentioned explicitly, and that will be true in any readable article. ] 20:30, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
::::::::::::Asking for sources to support claims is not incivility, but a Wikipdedia policy. Here is the claim " I will look to see what distinguishes the Oneal studies from the others: if they focused particularly on alliances, they would be appropriate to mention after Gowa's assertions." If you do not provide sources, you have no reason for excluding the studies. Guesses do not count. ] 20:41, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
:::::::::::::You have still not included the mentioned studies, an obvious npov violation. ] 16:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

===Geographic isolation===
Violates npov by removing studies against. ] 18:34, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

:On both of these, I quote from the present text:

::''Some democratic peace theorists have controlled for these variables. Bremer (1992, 1993) controlled for contiguity, power status, alliance ties, militarization, economic development, and power ratios. Maoz & Russett (1992, 1993) and Russett (1993) controlled for contiguity, alliance ties, economic wealth and growth, political stability, and power ratios. They also studied the period from 1945 and 1986 and discounted all pairs that did not involve a major power or nations that were not geographically continuous. .

:Should this paragraph be clarified? Should it be moved into the "Cold War peace" main section? Quite possibly.

:Are these the sourced arguments against isolation and the Cold War peace as systematic causes? Yes. ] 19:52, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

::Add back this: "Glieditsch (1995) demonstrated that democratic dyads have not been more separated than non-democratic dyads. Supporters also note that today more than 50% of all nations are democratic ." ] 20:46, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

:::'''Please''' can we avoid the word "dyad"? "Pair" will do nicely and will be understood by more readers. ] 21:45, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

::::Sure. Add back. ] 22:04, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

=== Before the Cold War ===
Violates npov by only using examples against the DPT. ] 20:49, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
:I changed the level to be a subhead of "Criticisms," which makes the phrasing appropriate, and may well be what was intended. ] 21:47, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
::This still violates npov by only presenting arguments for one side. Correct. ] 21:49, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
:::What "arguments" do you suggest? "Much of the time they were not in crisis"? That's true of almost any three non-allied states. ] 22:07, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

::::Here is the content from the more complete version:
"Critics of the DPT argue that before the Cold War, the limited period during which there was more than one non-allied democratic ] includes several crises between them, including the ] crisis, between the ] and ], and the ] crisis between the ] and the ]. These were conducted as fiercely as many diplomatic conflicts involving a non-democratic state; and war was popular on both sides.

Supporters of the democratic peace theory disagree with the analysis of wars before the start of the Cold War, arguing that even when there were conflicts, democracies did not make war with each other. They also argue that there were wars within blocs. In the nineteenth century, much of the world was divided into blocs by the imperialist powers. This was often strictly regulated as when England and Russia divided Persia into two spheres of influence. Numerous wars occurred in these blocs, both by the imperialist powers when they extended direct rule and also between minor states in these blocs. For example, an incomplete list of wars in India after England had become the dominant European power includes three ], four ], two ]s, three ], the ], the ], and three ]. They also note numerous wars in Latin America, despite belonging to an U.S. dominated bloc after the ]. This bloc was frequently threatened by the other imperialist blocs and sometimes direct military action occurred, like the French military invasion of Mexico. Examples of large scale wars in Latin America in this period include the ], the ], the ], the ], and the ]. They also note several betrayals of formal treaties within blocs during WWII. Examples include the wars of Finland, Italy, Bulgaria, Roumania, and Hungary on their German ally in WWII and the German invasion of the Soviet Union despite the ] and its secret extensions.

However, Gowa presents statistical evidence that the major bloc were more effective at organizing their members than previous imperial orders." ] 22:15, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

::I have already expressed my opinion of this text in ]; if it can be mined down to a sentence or two, that may be worth inserting. It would be preferable sourced. 22:55, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

:::Obvious npov violation to keep your examples while deleting all of the other side. The above statements show that the existence of blocs and external threats does not prevent wars, as the bloc peace theory claims. The BPT has been criticzed using wars in other blocs. ] 22:59, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
::::'''Please''' do not use the name BPT, which is a bad habit of this article. It does not claim, nor does it need to, that alliances prevent '''all''' wars; just that the unprecedented NATO alliance, and the common interest it represented, caused enough peace that the rest may be chance. Come to think of it, I'll add the last two comments. ] 23:13, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

:::::Again, the Bloc peace theory has been critczed using wars in other blocs. Read npov, Misplaced Pages should not hide arguments. ] 23:16, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

The short version now states:
"There have been wars between members of other alliances, although one study finds that 88% of the treaties made in the last two centuries have been kept. This line of criticism need not claim that alliances prevent ''all'' wars; just that the ] alliance, and the common interest it represented, caused enough peace that the rest may be the result of other causes or of chance."

::Give source for this study. And you have just noted that there must be some other factors beside alliances that explains whether there is peace or wars in blocs. ] 23:31, 13 August 2005 (UTC) ] 23:28, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
:::1) Gowa: Bullets and Ballots. 2) Other factors or chance, yes. ] 15:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
::::::That 12% of all formal alliances fail can be seen as as very high and certainly shows that one cannot rely on them. Indeed, several studies which you above in a gross npov violation have refused to include shows that the DPT still holds when correcting for alliances. ] 16:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

=== Causes ===
Violates npov by completely deleting "Following Rummel, some support the idea that democracies are inherently peaceful because wide citizen participation ensures that decision making power lies in the hands of those most likely to be killed or wounded in wars, and their relatives and friends. This last argument cannot explain why democracies are very bellicose towards non-democratic states while remaining peaceful towards each other, unless we also suppose that citizens of democratic states feel constantly threatened by the existence of non-democracies or otherwise are provoked by them. The argument that democratic peace arises from citizens avoiding casualties is strengthened by democracies seeming less reluctant to start low-conflict conflicts. This idea also suggests that the relationship in the DPT became stronger when graphic movies and television made wars less romantic." ] 20:54, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

:Substance, except for concluding speculation, included in preceeding paragraph, and properly ascribed to Kant, with quotation. ] 21:03, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

:I also added a description of the "social field/anti-field" theory, since I don't think most readers would know what it is, and the idea appears (to me) to be significant enough for inclusion, rather than just sending people to a paper. Have I been fair? ] 21:50, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

:::Has the "social field/anti-field" ever been used in connection with the DPT? Which cause is it supposed the to support, culture? Please clarify. ] 12:18, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
::::See link to Rummel in the sentence. I think, peering through the jargon, that it ''is'' a cultural explanation, but ''not'' the same one as two paragraphs above, which belongs to one of the classes Rummel dismisses. As for a clarification, you will have to ask Rummel; the present text derives from him. I agree in finding it obscure. ] 17:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
:::::The first sentence is some other editor's, the rest I derived, as you point out, largely from Rummel, although I did some other research, and believe his summary to be accurate. ] 21:31, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

=== Trade ===
From the more complete version:
"Following Schumpeter, some hypothesize that the phenomenon is explained by the fact that democratic countries tend to be capitalist states, whose ] relations with one another create ] among them. This interdependence constrains the ability and willingness of democratic nations to go to war with each other due to the incurred costs in lost trade. However, one problem with this interpretation is the existence of non-democratic capitalist states, who often have made war with each other or with democratic states. However, a recent study shows that economically important trade has a substantively important pacifying effect which is independent of democracy. It also shows that democracy does have a pacifying effect independent of trade. This study also indicates that the DPT is not a significant factor unless both of the democracies have a GDP/capita of at least 1400 USD. Economic development below this may hinder the development of liberal institutions. ."

This has been changed to the factually inaccurate and pov:
"A recent paper suggests that the democratic peace is real, and results from economic causes, but that these effects only apply to relatively wealthy countries. . This would not be surprising; the argument that war costs too much should be less persuasive to those with nothing to lose." ] 20:59, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

:Schumpeter's thesis referred to in section, and described under history. I fail to see factual inaccuracy. ] 21:04, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

::The statement "This would not be surprising; the argument that war costs too much should be less persuasive to those with nothing to lose." is not what the study found. It talks about liberal institutions. Therefore, inaccurate original reserach. ] 21:07, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

:::Fair commentary is permitted. The phrasing is novel, but the idea is clearly in the article cited. ] 22:54, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

::::Cite text supporting this. ] 22:57, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

:::::You could have read the abstract: "If the less developed state in a dyad has a per capita GDP below 1400USD, joint democracy is not a significant force for peace." He goes on to say that, "The liberal peace is not unconditional, but is contingent on the wealth of nations." Q.E.D. ] 23:42, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

::::::There is nothing there supporting that "This would not be surprising; the argument that war costs too much should be less persuasive to those with nothing to lose." ] 23:52, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

::::::The study argues for explanations like liberal institutions. Obviously even the poorest can always loose their life. ] 00:09, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I am reverting to full width. Let's go back to the disputed sentence.

:''This would not be surprising; the argument that war costs too much should be less persuasive to those with nothing to lose.''

This phrasing '''carefully avoids''' saying that Mousseau is '''concluding''' this. It states explicitly (and correctly) that Mousseau's statistical finding shouldn't surprise anyone. Consider Mousseau's survey of previous literature.

:''Finally, economic development affects the costs associated with interstate violence. War waged on territory with the vast investments in plants, equipment and infrastructure assoticated with developmetn is apt to be costly in absolute terms, and it is likely to destroy a larger fraction of a state's productive resources than war fought on less developed territory. This increases the expected costs of war for a political leader contemplating the use of force, at least if there is any risk that the war will be fought on his own territory.''

Your assertion that the phrase in the article is original research is shown to be ill-founded. Since Mousseau is one of your sources, I am tempted to say, "frivolous." Your complaint that it does not reflect Mousseau's opinion is both doubtful and inapt. Doubtful, because Mousseau never repudiates the historic idea as having at least some explanatory power in the limited instance of poor democracies, and inapt because one cannot validly criticize a statement for an assertion it carefully avoids making.

I add that the assertion that poor people can be talked into war more easily has been made repeatedly. Off the top of my head, I can think of Schumpeter, Ho Chi Minh, Lederer and Burdick (''The Ugly American''), and JFK (in his speeches advocating the creation of a "peace corps"). Whether you agree with the assertion is irrelevant: it has been common current in political thought for a long time. And, before you demand it, no, I won't look up the detailed citations for you. ] 01:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

:Your text is still inaccurate. The study does not support your current text and theory: "This conclusion is consistent with earlier theories as well: the destruction caused by war should be less daunting to those with nothing to lose." Your citation says nothing about the poor, only about the politcal leader. In fact, the text from the study contradicts your theory. "Autocratic leaders have a greater ability to insulate themselves and the relatively small number of individuals upon whom they are politically dependent from the economic costs of using force. In this view, Saddam Hussein withstood the consequences of fighting and losing the first Gulf War because he was able to provide private goods to a sufficient number of the political leadership and the military to maintain his dictatorship." Thus, the view of the poor is unimportant, contradicting your theory. Correct your text. ] 04:32, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
::The text is accurate as it stands. The study found a result (poor democracies are not more pacific than other poor countries) that is also predicted by earlier work. The fact that the study does not go into great length about this is irrelevant. ] 19:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

:::I just note that you still refuse to correct the text, even when pointed out that the text in the study contradicts your theory. ] 20:44, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
::::I have duly and carefully considered your objection and found it ill-founded for the reasons above stated. No policy, guideline or principle of collegiality requires me to do more. ] 20:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

:And why is there no mention of the effect of trade, one of the important findings of the study? The abstract concludes with "To advance further the cause of peace, we must encourage increased global trade and development along with democratic institutions.". ] 04:10, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

::The trade argument is mentioned above, and I read the study as focusing on trade mostly because it would foster economic development. I'll see if I can find a way to phrase better to cover both bases. ] 19:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

:::Your version is still incorrect, trade is mentioned not as associated but as independent of the effect of democracy. ] 16:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
::::If true, and that is not how I read the article, then Mousseau does not provide statistical support for DPT and should be removed from this section. I will re-read the article in question. ] 16:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
:::::Both trade and democracy contributes to peace. Correct. ] 16:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
::::::To be precise, he discusses economic development and interdependence. Mousseau has extensive sections on the three-way interaction: development is a precondition for democracy; democracies are more interdependent; both increase development. He cites earlier work that a market economy decouples legal and social interactions (my phrasing), and while he feels that view by itself is too simplistic, he equally clearly does not dismiss it. I believe that the existing paragraph is a fair summary of the core concept underlying a very complex and nuanced idea, but you don't. Since you know what you want much better than I do, wouldn't it be simpler for you just to edit the paragraph? ] 22:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

:::::::See my version. Do you accept it? ] 07:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

===Types of DPT===
The short version is factually inaccurate by stating that:
"Democratic peace theorists fall into three groups:
*Some claim that democracies, properly defined, have ''never'' made war on each other; these face the difficulty that Ted Gurr classes both ] and the ] as democracies in ], the year of the ].
*Some claim that two democracies are ''less likely'' to make war on each other than other pairs of states.
*Some claim that democracies use less violence in their ''internal'' affairs."

No DPT claims anything about internal affairs. ] 21:07, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

:Agreed -- I moved it down to "other claims," rephrased other claims and moved the claim that "The more democratic the two states, the less violence between them" as DPT in substance. Do you agree this was both fair and an improvement? ] 21:55, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
::That is an improvment, but now there is little differences between the last two "versions". Should be combined into one. ] 21:58, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
:::emendavi. ] 22:36, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

===Statistcal studies supporting the DPT===
This was deleted in the short version. Correct.
"Several different kinds of statistical analyses find support for the DPT, including such techniques as logistic regression, poisson regression, and negative binomial analyses (King 1989). Studies using the Polity Data Set have concluded that the theory is also validated when a continuous measure of democracy is used (i.e. the higher two countries' joint scores, the lower their chance of being involved in a war against each other). Recently, also statistical analyses using ]s find support for theory, both during and before the Cold War .

Democracies do sometimes initiate wars against authoritarian states. Some argue that democracies usually enter these wars because they are provoked by authoritarian states. Several papers shows that democracies are slightly, but significantly less involved in wars in general than others states, and that they also initiate wars less frequently than non-democratic states .

Some statistical research indicates that enduring rivalries of all types are rare among democratic dyads. This pacifying effect of democracy appears to strengthen over time after the transition to joint democracy, which is consistent with the onset and deepening of democratic norms. Rivalries show a decreasing propensity for militarized conflict within a year of the transition to joint democracy, and this propensity decreases almost to zero within five years .

A recent theory is that democracies can be divided into "pacifist" and "militant". While both avoid attacking democracies, "militant" democracies have tendency to deep distrust and confrontational policies against dictatorships and may initiate wars against them. Most wars by democracies since 1950 have involved only four nations: the U.S., the U.K., Israel, and India ." ] 21:16, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

===External links===
The short version describes a peer-reviewed reviewed study presenting both arguments against and for the DPT as "a summing-up in favor of DPT". Correct. ] 21:26, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
:that is a correct summary of the paper in question. The thesis of the paper is abstracted thus; "The diverse empirical evidence and developing theoretical bases that support the democratic peace proposition warrant confidence in its validity. " A competent advocate will both acknowledge the evidence against his client (before telling the jury why they should listen to him instead); and dismiss over-sealous testimony by his own witnesses. Ray has done so. ] 22:38, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

:::The text should obviously note that it is a peer-reviewed review paper. Correct. ] 22:48, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
::::This is superstition. Do read ]. I've read Babst, who not only errs on the ], but dismisses the ] on the grounds that the Boer republics were not independent at the beginning of the war. Peer review is not proof against error in the social sciences, any more than the physical sciences. ] 23:07, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
:::::Of course not. But a review by peers stop many errors and is the golden standard in science today. Therefore, they should be given greater weight than say, opinion articles in newspapers or blog like websites. Again, note that this is a peer-reviewed review of studies. ] 23:12, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
::::::But not greater weight than scholarly books, or even carefully-done websites. Inserting "peer-reviewed" before some papers and not others, or for all papers without mentioning that books are written for a scholarly audience, etc. will have a POV effect. The mantra is not needed. ] 23:37, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
:::::::Incorrect. Peer-reviewed studies are more important than websites and books which are not peer-reviewed. ] 23:41, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
::::::::Wrong. Just flat-out wrong. How is this wrong? Let me count the ways. Anyone who actually does academic research knows that (for the most part, there are exceptions) scholarly books trump peer-reviewed articles. The books are more comprehensive, better edited, amd usually consolidate years of research, often improving significantly on the peer-reviewed articles that were produced along the way. In fact, many peer-reviewed articles are rough drafts of a chapter, or section, being sent out for comment. General-readership books and websites are more readable by the non-specialist than either the peer-reviewed articles or scholarly books, but when carefully done by a recognized scholar are no less reliable than the originals. They may be more useful for a purpose such as Misplaced Pages. Many academics use their scholarly websites to present draft versions of their peer-reviewed articles, so they may be more up-to-date. The standard texts in any field are, still, books. Need I go on? ] 01:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
:::::::::Your arguments would obviously apply to a scholarly summary of peer-reviewed studies, and that is what this external link is. The critical external links presented are certainly not by any scholar in the field. ] 01:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
::::::::::You object not to the lack of peer review, but to the qualifications of the person making the critiqe. Mousseau takes Gowa seriously enough to design his research to meet her objections. I see no reason to disagree with him. ] 02:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
:::::::::::Again, this is about the proper descripton of the external link which I note have changed somewhat to the better. However, it is not a survery but a peer-reviewed review. ] 03:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
::::::::::::You make a distinction without a difference. The vast majority of survey articles appear in peer-reviewed publications, and those that don't appear in strongly-edited publications, such as ], which are as reliable, if less technical. ] 19:01, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

===Kant===
The short version, in contrast to other areas, goes to great length to explain Kant's theory that has little relevance for modern reserach. Rather, it seems to be a ] version of the DPT. Prune so that the length and importance is appropriate. ] 21:41, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

:This seems to me the historic context out of which DPT arose. Other edits have suggested, I believe misleadingly, that Schumpeter, and even Kant, were early versions of DPT itself. I observe the ideas of economic co-dependence, culture, separation of powers, and alliances run through the article. They all occur in Kant - better to get all the pieces on the board at once. ] 22:02, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

::Again, Kant's theory is not the same of the modern version and it is inaccurate to explain it in great length while deleting many arguments supporting modern research. Create a separate article about Kant's old theory if you want to explain it in great detail. ] 22:21, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

:::Of course it is not the modern version -- that is why it is explained under historical background. But, Rummel and others quote Kant repeatedly -- he can hardly be dismissed as irrelevant. ] 03:05, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

::::They do not quote Kant repeatedly. In fact, the first modern researchers did not mention him at all. There is no reason that this section should be expanded and others reduced. ] 03:31, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

:::::I count 62 references on just two documents on Rummel's website, and 14 citations that are either by Kant or mention Kant in their title, i.e. "Kantian Peace". He gets at least a courteous mention in most, if not all, the peer-reviewed articles you cite. The three-legged nature of the Kantian peace is discussed and critiqued. This is a clear admission of intellectual debt, or at least priority. I would rework the history section for other reasons, but that is not my priority today. ] 18:58, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

And, actually, veryThat ends the matter as far as I am concerned. ] 18:58, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

:Again, you do not give sources, making your claims impossible to check. Let see what a the review article says about Kant "The most often cited classical source of the idea that democracy is an important force for peace is Immanuel Kant's 1795 essay, "Perpetual Peace." Kant was, however, no admirer of democracy. According to him, perpetual peace would occur only when states had civil constitutions establishing republics. According to Doyle (1983a, p. 226), for Kant a republic was a regime that respected private property and established a legal equality among citizens as subjects "on the basis of a representative government with a separation of powers."" As you noted, a courteous mention, and nothing more. Certainly no need to greately expand his section while removing many arguments of the modern version. ] 20:24, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
::I don't follow the assertion of no sources. The history section is full of sources. The claim that Kant is widely cited is evident from the bibliographies of the sources you yourself employ. Kant is the source for what Kant said. ] 16:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

:::Gvie sources for this "I count 62 references on just two documents on Rummel's website, and 14 citations that are either by Kant or mention Kant in their title, i.e. "Kantian Peace"." ] 16:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

::::The source for the contents of Rummel's website is Rummel's website, perforce. The source for the number of references in his bibilography is his bibliography. Is there an actual question in there? ] 22:08, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

:::::It is of course impossible for me to guess which two documents you loooked at and where "14 citations" might be. Give the exact address or I must conclude that you have no sources. ] 05:38, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Fortunately, Ultramarine doesn't have to guess.
*Rummel's website homepage and bibliography are linked to the article, under References; they are even labelled "website" and "bibliography", respectively
**These links have been in the article since I first edited it.
**Ultramarine knows about them. He cited the bibliography to me at the end of ]; the bibliography links to the home page.
*All fourteen articles using "Kant" or "Kantian" in the title are in the bibliography, as linked to.
*The home page has a search engine; searching for "Kant" returns the bibliography as third document; the two documents which come in above the bibliography (chapters 30 and 31 of Rummel's book) have 44 and 18 instances of "Kant", respectively. 44 plus 18 is 62.
*Mr West typed "14" and "62" six days ago.
**Has Ultramarine looked at these pages since then?
***If he has, is his demand above in good faith?

***If he hasn't, why hasn't he?

And, lastly, the assertion being quarrelled over is a minor piece of evidence on a talk page. ] 16:56, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

:Aha. It was the two first pages found when using a search engine on Rummel's webpage. Since I am not psychic, I didn't know that, or even that it had a search engine. The two webpages do not mention "democratic peace theory" or even "democracy". They are named "DETERMINISM AND FREE WILL" "FREEDOM OF THE WILL". Regarding the importance of Kant, I again refer to the review article, , where Kant only gets a a courteous mention in one paragraph in the "THE HISTORY OF THE IDEA", while ] gets four.

::Aha. It did not occur to Ultramarine, when checking whether a website discussed a given subject, to '''use the search engine on its homepage'''. I see, said the blind man. ] 23:03, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Note: Incompetence does not fully excuse Ultramarine's manners. ] would have implied that Mr West had seen something; ] would have inspired some phrasing like:

"Which two documents? I can't find them." ] 23:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

:Again, I find it strange that the very short version that has excluded so much of the support for the modern DPT instead greatly expands the text on Kant's old, different theory.

:Their version states "The emphasis on republican (''republikanisch'') government, rather than democracy, distinguishes Kant's ideas from the modern form of the theory." This is incorrect, they have just mentioned that Kant's theory includes

: #Hospitality, defined as the acknowledgement of the ] to freely move and resettle in another state, and
: #A ], combined with the abolition of ], the funding of warfare by state debt, and repudiation of all claims to interfere with the constitution or government of another state."

:and they then state

:"More importantly, he does not claim that republics will be at peace only with each other, but regards them as more pacific in general."

:All of this is different from the modern DPT and seem to be a ]. ] 18:23, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

::Ultramarine, I encourage you to read your own link. A straw man is, "A point of view that was created in order to be easily defeated in argument." Kant's triadic view was created by Kant, not by me and not by Septentrionalis. It is used, with variations, by Oneal and Russet at the least, and Mousseau's triad of development, interdependence and democracy isn't that far away from it. Kagan's view is also influential, although I have not ventured to mention it in the article so far (and may never choose to do so). Since the assertion is weaker than the pure modern form of DPT, Kant is actually '''harder''' to refute.
::See, for example, Oneal, John, and Bruce Russett. 1999c. “The Kantian Peace: The Pacific Benefits Of Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations, 1885-1992.” World Politics (52:1) 1-37. Also, ''Triangulating Peace: Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations'' by Bruce M. Russett and John R. O'Neal. New York: W. W. Norton, 2001. ] 23:23, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

===Debate the arguments, not the persons===
The short version includes specific irrelevant details about the researchers in favor of the DPT like a "A gifted publicist, who has both a striking formulation of DPT and a web-site, he has gained much attention for DPT beyond academia." Use the short text to debate the arguments, not the persons. ] 21:48, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

:Hmmm...I didn't write it, but I read it as a compliment. Is it not a fair observation that, but for Rummel, this idea would probably never had made it into the WSJ and the Times? Would you be happier with, "Rummel's striking formulation of DPT web-site, are responsible for much of the attention that DPT has gained beyond academia." I think this is a non-controversial fact, not POV. ] 22:02, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

::I see no evidence that Rummel's website or "a striking formulation" is responsible for the spread of DPT beyond academia. If you have any evidence, cite. Otherwise, remove. I would rather note Clinton's endorsement, if anything, as responsible. ] 22:10, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

:::I have seen this asserted in multiple places, so it strikes me as a non-controversial statement. He is cited in about half the Google hits on the subject, so is obviously significant. How would you phrase? ] 22:47, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

::::Again, give sources for your claim regarding the spread. I would remove the text and instead note that Clinton endorsed it. ] 22:49, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

:::::You want to remove all reference to Rummel at the start of the article? Who are you and what have you done with Ultramarine? ] 23:31, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

::::::Obviously not. Only the sentence this section is discussing. ] 23:39, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

::::::My humor falls on deaf ears. <sigh!> I have amended the sentence to, "And much of his research is available on his web-site." This is, I think, indisputable and useful to the reader. ] 23:55, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

==Accuracy==
All three of these are PoV disputes. If no accuracy dispute can be cited, the {totallyDisputed} tag is unwarranted. ] 19:52, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

:I agree. Someone did a good job of cutting this article down to essentials: it is now quite readable. I would say cut it down to a POV tag. ] 20:30, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

==Page length==
This talk page is now back to 37K. Is there agreement that sections 3 through 8, which were retrieved from the archive, are either
*dealt with by deletion of the offending text, or
*included in the discussion below, points 9 and followings
and may in either case no longer need to be on the active talk page, but may be sent back to the archive? ] 22:14, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

:No. Most of the content and objections is still relevant for the current discussion. ] 22:38, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

::We can't go in circles forever. We need to archive something before this page reaches max. ] 22:57, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

:::Show me the Misplaced Pages policy that actively discussed discussion pages should be achieved. ] 23:05, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

::::That is trivial. ] for one. Archiving some of the page is a technical necessity, and it we don't agree on how to do it, a sysop may do it for us with a ham hand. Many, many active pages have archives for older parts of still-active discussions, and points made in those archives are frequently cited. ] 23:29, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

:::::All of the contents of the page has now been added during the last few haours. And you still want to remove it?] 23:38, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

::::::There must be something that has been resolved, at least for now. I suppose we could subpage it, but that is a PITA. Apparently, some Wikipedians cannot edit pages > 32K. We are being discourteous to the community. ] 23:45, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

== New page about specific historic examples ==
One criticism has been that longer version is too long. This is valid. I suggest moving the specific historic examples to a separate page. Something like this . Comments?
:Looks like much of the same stuff that Mr. Anderson criticized as POV or dubious before, so it could be construed as a "POV fork". Also, I am not sure how useful it would be. To take a featured article as an example, the ] summarizes the dispute over responsibility, but avoids going into excruciating detail on the capablities and proper role of ]s in the ], and there is no article on that point. In any case, I would prefer one edit war at a time. ;-) ] 03:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

: Though not really in a position to comment on the pov side (i simply removed what seemed most irrelevant from the overall thread of the article), I feel that the length is now at a more acceptable standrad. A specific historic examples could be useful in reducing size further. However, my main criticism of the current article (excluding neutrality) would still be that it appears a bit unapprocahble. My main suggestion for improving this would be to delete most of the stuff about Kant's essay. This is an article on DPT, not on Kant or his essay.

"Kant's essay is a three-legged stool (besides the preliminary disarmament)."

The above appears a paticularly off-putting phrase and I think that everything from 'Kant's essay, however, differs...' down to the 'deomcratic peace theories' title could be shortened into one or two paragraphs. If one is so interested, one can go and read Kant's essay or a critique of it oneself! ] 21:23, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
:Feel free to abridge; but your last effort was condensed to the point of inaccuracy. Do leave Kant's three points, Angell, Schumpeter, Palmerston, and Wilson; they do, or should, come in again lower down. I have removed the metaphor, unless someone else thinks it helpful. ] 22:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
::I thought subheads would help the reader. If anyone feels I made a hash of things, feel free to re-edit or revert. ] 23:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

== Totally Disputed Tag ==

I see that Ultramarine replaced the <nowiki>{{totally-disputed}}</nowiki> tag on the shorter (collaborative) version, and justified it on the grounds of the dispute about whether two paragraphs and three bullet points are too much space to discuss Kant. While this is a genuine editorial difference of opinion, I don't see that it can be called in good faith a factual dispute.

In contrast, Ultramarine's version, which until tonight Septentrionalis and I have been content to leave marked NPOV but not totally-disputed, contains far more serious factual problems that have previously been noted on the talk page, and which were resolved only by exclusion of the dubious assertions from the shorter version. (see archive for details). These include, but are not limited to
*Calculations of statistical significance that assume wars are random events -- a naive method of analysis criticized by Gowa and subsequently abandoned by Mousseau, Oneal and others. ''op cit.''
*A sharply-disputed and unsourced estimation of the German Constitution. (The one source cited does not support the contention concerning the Junkers' role in national war-making.)
*Acceptance without comment of Rummel's decision to exclude states from the list of democracies in defiance of his own published criteria.

Sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. My first preference is to remove the totally-disputed tag as overkill: if Ultramarine removes it from the version Septentrionalis and I are editing, he may also remove it from "his" version without addressing any of the factual problems. I remind him about the availability of the <nowiki>{{Disputeabout|whatever}}</nowiki> tag for use where an actual factual dispute exists: this can be used on a section as well as at the top of the article. Meanwhile, I think that it is important to inform readers about the prevalence of factual disputes concerning "Ultramarine's" version. ] 01:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
:You make general statements that I cannot control. Please cite the exact sentence you claim is factually incorrect and explain why. ] 06:58, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
::If Ultramarine will review the archived discussions, he will see disputes over ''most'' of the sentences which the longer version retains. His revisions appear to have created new ones. I do not propose to discuss them while leaving the shorter version submerged. The consensus on the shorter version is based on the separate and sufficient ground of readability.
::I do, however, have a suggestion. I can set up a copy of the longer version as a subpage, and we can comment on it there. (I would propose that that copy be treated as a talk page - no deleting of already placed text, comments to be nested, and so forth. I will set up one paragraph as a demonstration of what I have in mind:

''Please do not edit what follows. It is intended as a demonstration '''''only'''
------
''Longer version text is always in italics
:comment
::next comment
''and to left margin
*two point
*comment

----------
''end of sample

All of this would ''be'' the subpage, leaving the talk subpage free for longer discussions.

==Tags==
===Two version===
As far as I can see, there is consensus to use and edit the shorter version. Robdurbar made it; Mr. West praised it; I concur; Corax, Mel Etitis, Michael Hardy have deprecated the longer version. I am not going to remove the tag unilaterality, but I do not intend to maintain it.

:After some thought I realize: this is largely a non-problem.
:*If the long version does not resurface, the tag will remain correct indefinitely; that's what it's for.
:*If it does resurface, that is an action contrary to consensus, which should not recognized or encouraged.

:Therefore, '''without agreement''' to do something with the long version, the two-version tag should not be altered in either case. This agreement need not be consensus; any agreement sufficient to block consensus would be enough: more than a third of the active editors, say. However, if the longer version surfaces without agreement, I suggest removal of the two-version tag from the restored shorter version. ] 22:31, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

There is also a third case, only implied above, but the normal courteous practice when the two versions are merely majority and minority:
*The longer version may be edited freely, '''provided''' that afterwards the editor reverts ''himself'', and restores the shorter version. Presumably his next action will be to update the 2V tag, so this again is a non-problem for the other editors.
*:This solitary pleasure is, by its nature, unlikely to be fruitful; there is consensus on the general scale of the shorter version; and even if Ultramarine is going to end at that scale, he should probably ''begin'' with the shorter version. Also, 3RR implies such practices should not be indulged in to excess. And if Ultramarine doesn't want his private exercises interrupted, he should consider having his first edit summary include "I will rerevert". But I have no objection, as long as he cleans up after himself. ] 14:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
**:I saw that Ultramarine had not yet cleaned up after himself, so I did it for him. ] 17:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

My main problem with the two version tag is that it creates a situation where the casual reader/editor is driven to the following two conclusions:

*1. The ''second'' version is less accurate and valid than the ''first''
*2. That only two editors have the right to edit either of these versions, effectively ending all hope of a resolution in the conflict (and I praise ] for getting involved but staying fairly netural.)

I do not see how, at the moment, this article can be improved. An article should not have a 'two-version' tag lasting for more than a few weeks, never mind indefinately. If the two versions cannot be merged, I think it would benefit Misplaced Pages for other editors to come and look at the article(s) and make suggestions, whilst both ] and ] briefly take a backseat. ] 21:20, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
:Fine by me: I came here with the sole purpose of making the article clear and NPoV, and I think it is. If you like, I can include the
:*list of wars problematic for DPT's, or
:*the list of things one democracy can do to each other without violating DPT
:Both of these were originally in the article. ] 21:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

===accuracy===
Unless an accuracy dispute is alleged below, which a {dubious) tag will not cover, I will remove the accuracy tag tomorrow. ] 21:24, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

:See the section on Kant above. On the other hand, you have presented no evidence of factual inaccuracy in my version and I will remove the claim unless you do. ] 22:06, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

::I see no factual dispute with the present text of the article; Kant '''is''' widely cited. And who is widely cited earlier than Kant? Even if that amounted to one, it would be properly marked by a {dubious} tag after widely. The second claim is disingenuous, since the text pruned from the longer version contained many sentences expressly disputed, with evidence, in the archive, and many of those remain in the latest irruption of the longer version. ] 22:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

::Any unilateral reversion to the longer version will be rereverted; and I hold the two-version tag should be removed in the process. ] 22:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

==List of proposed changes==
Earlier discussions are getting convoluted.
===Kant===
Your version is factually incorrect. It states: "The emphasis on republican (''republikanisch'') government, rather than democracy, distinguishes Kant's ideas from the modern form of the theory." This is incorrect, you have just mentioned that Kant's theory includes
#Hospitality, defined as the acknowledgement of the ] to freely move and resettle in another state, and
#A ], combined with the abolition of ], the funding of warfare by state debt, and repudiation of all claims to interfere with the constitution or government of another state."
and you then state "More importantly, he does not claim that republics will be at peace only with each other, but regards them as more pacific in general.". All of this is different from the modern DPT.
:This is ignorance of the English language. Any major point of difference '''distinguishes'''; that does not deny the existence of others.

Your short version has deleted much of the support for the modern DPT and instead greatly expands the text on Kant's old, different theory. Sure, it gets a honorable mention in many papers but as noted above it is very different from the modern DPT. In a review article of the literature , Kant only get one paragraph in the "The history of the idea", while ] gets four. Create a separate article for Kant's theory if you want to explain it in great detail, do not delete the support for the modern democratic peace theory. ] 02:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

:Wilson's program (as the phrase "]" should have made clear) ultimately ''derives'' from Kant's ideas. In a history of ideas, therefore, Kant has precedence; Ray's emphasis is misjudged. Also, the ideas concerned are, as is natural, more clearly expressed in Kant's essay than in Wilson's failed effort to implement them.

:DPTs are part of a wider current of ideas. Even if Kant is not the well-spring of that stream, he is a major source. Describing the current is useful for the reader; it also helps the editors. For example, Schumpeter was ''not'' an early democratic peace theorist; he was the next eddy over, and therefore has influenced DPTs. This is clear in the present text.

:I have no doubt that the section can be improved and tightened, even without loss of its applicability. I don't see how, but this is one of the advantages of a collaborative approach. Show me. ] 15:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

:I feel that ]'s version much more succiently explains the idea that Kant gave birth to DPT without going into too much detail. The ''main article'' bit could be kept above ultramarine's early dpt paragraph, reading much better. ] 21:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

::On the other hand, several modern theorists are actually working along Kantian lines, as cited above. I don't see their work as distinct enough for its own article -- Ultramarine cites some of them, and both schools cite the same statistical evidence. Perhaps it should be discussed separately as a "Yes, but" type of criticism. Hmmm...] 21:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

::Please, do an edit. I'm not sure that Kant gave birth to DPT, I think Wells did, and Kant was the grandfather - but I'm open to persuasion. ] 21:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

===Statistical studies supporting the DPT===
Your version excludes:
"Many different kinds of statistical analyses find support for the DPT (King 1989). Studies using the Polity Data Set have concluded that the theory is also validated when a continuous measure of democracy is used (i.e. the higher two countries' joint scores, the lower their chance of being involved in a war against each other). Recently, also statistical analyses using ]s find support for theory, both during and before the Cold War ."

"Some statistical research indicates that enduring rivalries of all types are rare among democracies. This pacifying effect of democracy appears to strengthen over time after the transition to democracy. Rivalries show a decreasing propensity for militarized conflict within a year of the transition to joint democracy, and this propensity decreases almost to zero within five years .

A recent theory is that democracies can be divided into "pacifist" and "militant". While both avoid attacking democracies, "militant" democracies have tendency to deep distrust and confrontational policies against dictatorships and may initiate wars against them. Most wars by democracies since 1950 have involved only four nations: the U.S., the U.K., Israel, and India .

The historical definition of democracy has shifted over time, as ] and political ]s have been expanded to greater segments of the population. Continuous measures of democracy used in statistical studies attempt to create a consistent scale of comparison for all states. Most statistical work on the democratic peace has focused on the 19th and 20th centuries, but there is a significant body of literature on the applicability of the theory outside the modern western world." ] 02:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Ultramarine, goes over the top in his inclusion of statistacl examples; ]' version is much stronger in this respect ] 21:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

:All of these are interesting studies that in various ways strengthen the DPT and shows different aspects of it. They should not be deleted. ] 14:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Ultramarine; all the comments that I seem to get from you baiscially say: "my version says ''x''. This should be included." We need more flexibility than this if the two version tag is ever going to go. I suggest that paragraphs 1,3,4 and 6 of your 'statistical' bit would be sufficient to explain the whole section. Is this a reasonable compromise? ] 00:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

:You give no factual explanation for why some of the arguments and studies supporting the DPT should be removed. Please do. The argument that I am inflexible is false and strange; I have already reduced the text in this section compared to earlier versions; inflexibility and NPOV violation is instead for example the blank refusal to include the common and referenced criticism of Gowa's theory, see below. ] 06:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
::I have compacted the text and reorganized. ] 10:05, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
:::I have inluded new referenced studies supporting the DPT. Please include. Here is the latest version . Your version . ] 13:52, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

:I have no facutal evidence for removing things; I just think that such an article only needs one or two quoted case studies; having so many seems uncessary for Misplaced Pages. If you think I have deleted vital parts of teh text, tell me or put them back; I make no claims to be an expert in the field of DPT. For example, why not exclude the for bullet points about the different standards for democracy used, repalcing them with the sentence 'However, the definition of a stabalized liberal democracy is highly contested and subjective.' ?
As for inflexibility; I simply meant that more constructive criticism of others' edits, rather than just telling us what has been excluded. This would hopefully make it easier to continue trying to merge both versions ] 15:19, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
:On the contrary, I hope that Wikipdia should allow the results of science to become known also outside academia. I see nothing wrong with giving the results from several studies that illustrates different aspects of the DPT and supports it. It is your opinion that the definition of liberal democracy is "highly contested and subjective", I prefer to let the reader decide for themselves. Note that for example the last definition is very objective and it is easy to check if a state fulfill it. That many different definitions all show the same result is instead a sign of strength for the theory. I do not understand your last two sentences, see for example the discussion on Germany below. However, I gladly admit inflexibility when no reason is given for deleting referenced facts and studies showing results that do not fit the POV of the deletionist, like in the Bloc peace section below. ] 19:19, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Whatever, I didn't come here to get into POV discussions. You include as much as you want, and let the casual reader be lost in a field of heavy-going statistical discussions ] 06:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

===Germany before WWI===
Your version:
"For example, the ] is a difficult case for all DPT's, which deal with it by deciding that the ] were not democracies on the grounds that the ] had the power to appoint his ministers, that he and the General Staff made the decision for war, as did ] in ], and that many structural features of the ] made democratic institutions ineffective."

"The first class of critics argue that DPT is mistaken, either in denying that Germany was a democracy (the ] was elected by universal suffrage, its votes of no confidence did cause governments to fall, and it did vote on whether to fund the war - which passed overwhelmingly), or in claiming it to be less democratic than Britain (the 1911 elections enfranchised only 60% of the British male population, to say nothing of the Empire beyond the Seas, the majority of which had no say in the decision at all)."

My version:
"For the First World War critics have argued that supporters of the DPT are mistaken, either in denying that Germany was a democracy (the ] was elected by universal male suffrage, its votes of no confidence did cause governments to fall, and it did vote on whether to fund the war - which passed overwhelmingly) or that the supporter are wrong in affirming Britain to be one (the 1911 elections enfranchised only 60% of the British electorate, to say nothing of the Empire beyond the Seas, the majority of which had no say in the decision at all). Supporters respond that at the time of World War I the German ] still had much power, he had direct control over the army, appointed and could dismiss the chancellor, and played a key role in foreign affairs. In effect, therefore, in foreign and military affairs, there was little democratic control. They also note that the Kaiser was also the King in the very large state of ] which had much influence over national politics, that Prussian government was not responsible to the Prussian Landtag (lower chamber), that the Landstag members were elected by a suffrage system based on tax-paying ability favoring the rich, and that the landed aristocracy of the ]s dominated all the higher civil offices and officer corps of the Army and Navy . If Britain was not a liberal democracy, then this is another reason why WWI was not a war between democracies. The last argument may however weaken the statistical support for the DPT, because fewer democracies means fewer possible wars."

Your version excludes many of the arguments against Germany being a liberal democracy. ] 02:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

:Yes it does; it only includes the key ones. ] 21:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

::Your version keeps all of arguments for Germany being a liberal democracy while exluding many of those against. ] 14:19, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
:::If Ultramarine thinks that those are all the arguments for the effectively democratic nature of Wilhelmine Germany, he really should study the subject. But Robdurbar would be right to object if the article went into it at such length. ] 18:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
::::The specifies in article 11 that the Kaiser can declare war only upon the consent of the Bundesrat, or upon actual invasion -- essentially the sort of provision found in the U.S. Constitution. Was, or was not, war declared by the Reichstag as required? If it was, the assertion that the Kaiser and his ministers made the decision to go to war is misleading: instances of war being foisted upon an unwilling executive are rare in the extreme. ] 20:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
:::::Note that the Bundesrat was appointed by the German princes and that one third was appointed by the Emperor. No democracy. ] 21:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
::::::The constitution left it up to each state to determine how its delegate(s) were appointed: the parallel to the U.S. Senate is striking. While I grant it probable that most states' princes retained the power, I am not certain this was universal. Moreover, Prussia was closer to 1/4 of the Bundesrat than to 1/3 (17 out of 58), which is a non-trivial difference. I do not find the principle of equal proportions anywhere in Rummel. ] 22:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
::::::::Can't all have been appointed by princes: ], ], ], and ] were Imperial states... ] 02:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
:::::::17/58 is somewhat closer to 1/3. More correct is 29.3%. Anyhow, Germany was much despotic than I have stated previously. See this, the section called "The German Government. Why Germany Was a Despotic Autocracy" .

Thank you; I've now read that piece of Frothingham ;} Didn't you notice that this is a piece of PoV hysteria?

But in fact even this rant is consistent with the present text.

Also, by that reasoning, ''Great Britain'' was an autocracy until 1914; for the King and the House of Lords had evem greater powers. The House of Lords was the supreme court of Great Britain, after all. Furthermore, the Kaiser appointed only 17 members of the Reichsrat; the King could pack the House of Lords as much as he wanted. The Kaiser had (unlike an American president) no veto; the British royal veto is unused, but not abandoned. The King -not the Crown in Parliament, not His Majesty's Government - appointed officers, and declared war.

But the House of Lords were nowhere near so formidable in practice; so with the Reichsrat.

All the Chancellors of the Empire needed a majority in the ''Reichstag'', and fell when they lost it; so with ], ] ], ], ], ]. ( ] survived the Empire.) ] 02:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

:As usual, you have no sources for your general claims. Your description of Great Britain is misleading. It had and has no clear constitution unlike the German Empire had. See ]. Formally, the Monarchy still has much power today according to the ], including the right to declare war, but the parliament has the right to limit this and the elected government has for centuries exercised the real power. Great Britain is certainly a democracy today. From the Encyclopedia Britannica:

::"The British constitution is uncodified; it is only partly written and is flexible."

::"Matters for which there is no formal law, such as the resignation of office by a government, follow precedents (conventions) that are open to development or modification."

::"the Bill of Rights provided the foundation on which the government rested after the Glorious Revolution (1688–89). It purported to introduce no new principles but merely to declare explicitly the existing law. The revolution settlement, however, made monarchy clearly conditional on the will of Parliament"

::"When the Whig majority in the Houseof Lords threatened to reject the Treaty of Utrecht with France in 1712, the government created enough Tory peerages in that house to guarantee support for its policy, a precedent that firmly established the superiority of the House of Commons. King George I (reigned 1714–27) largely withdrew from an active role in governance"

::"Indeed, the last bill to be rejected by a monarch was the Scottish Militia Bill of 1707, which was vetoed by Queen Anne. "

::"Parliament Act of 1911 act passed Aug. 10, 1911, in the British Parliament which deprived the House of Lords of its absolute power of veto on legislation." ] 13:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

And that's why I said up to 1914: the first bill to be put through under the Parliament Act was notoriously being discussed by the Cabinet when the news of the war arrived (see Barbara Tuchman: ''The Guns of August'',and George Dangerfield: ''The Srange Death of Liberal England'' quoting Sir ]: ''The World Crisis'', whuch is a primary source.)

For the formal powers of the House of Lords, see Pollock and Maitland.

For the history of Wilhelmine Germany, see Golo Mann: ''History of Germany since 1789.'' ] 17:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

:Ultramarine's source, however, is a WWI propaganda leafet distributed by a semi-official arm of the US Government, as revised and expanded through 1919. ] 17:30, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

::Please cite the statements you claim as support and give the full title and the authors of the books. I have cited Encyclopedia Britannica as above regarding England. Regarding Germany, I have previously used The Columbia Encyclopedia as a reference in my text regading Prussia . Arthur L. Frothingham's "Handbook of War Facts and Peace Problems" may be biased regarding the causes of WWI but the facts presented in "The German Government. Why Germany Was a Despotic Autocracy" are correct . See for example the actual text from the German Constitution . I also cite MS Encarta:

:::"The political structure of the Second Empire reflected Bismarck’s fundamental distrust of democratic rule in general and of various parties and groups in particular. The empire’s 25 relatively sovereign states had various forms of government. They were ruled by a Bundesrat (federal council) of princes dominated by Prussia and a Reichstag (imperial assembly) of elected deputies. The executive leader of the government, the chancellor, was responsible only to the emperor. The emperor in turn dictated all foreign policy and possessed the exclusive right to interpret the constitution."

::And the Encyclopedia Britannica:

:::"The constitution had been designed by Bismarck to give the chancellor and monarch primary decision-making power."

:::"Most legislativeproposals were submitted to the Bundesrat first and to the Reichstag only if they were approved by the upper house. Although members of the Reichstag could question the chancellor about his policies, the legislative bodies were rarely consulted about the conduct of foreign affairs. Imperial ministers were chosen by and were responsible to the emperor rather than to the legislature."

:::"Prussia, occupying more than three-fifths of the area of Germany and having approximately three-fifths of the population, remained the dominant force in the nation until the empire's demise at the end of another war in 1918."

:::"In Prussia the lower house was elected under a restricted three-class suffrage system, an electoral law that allowed the richest 15 percent of the male population to choose approximately 85 percent of the delegates."

:::"The constituencies established in 1867 and 1871 were never altered to reflect population shifts, and rural areas thus retained a vastly disproportionate share of power as urbanization progressed."

:::"Many contemporary observers thought that a major crisis was impending between the recalcitrant elites and the increasing number of Germans who desired political emancipation similar to that of Britain and France." ] 05:40, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

So? What inconsistency do you see, and what statements do you dispute? ] 14:32, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
:Your version still has all the problems discussed in my first paragraph in this section. In addition, it is factually incorrect. You state that the Rechstag's "votes of no confidence did cause governments to fall". The government was the Chancellor and the imperial minister, appointed and dismissed by the Emperor. There is no mention in the Constitution that the Reichstag could cause the government to fall. . Bismarck was not dismissed by a vote of no confidence, but by the new Emperor .

*If I chose to edit ] I would be doing so, and I would do so in that article, not here.
*We are not here to do Ultramarine's homework for him.
*All the statements in the text of the article are undisputed.
*I have given general sources for my statements here.
*I will revise them if Ultramarine can find ''any'' instance of a ''Reichskanzler'' attempting to govern, for more than a few weeks, without a Reichstag majority. The power of the Kaiser was sufficient to retain a Chancellor while he looked for one, but that's not the same thing.
*Bismarck governed ''Prussia'' alone for three years without a majority; but if he had not splendid successes during those three years, he would have fallen; and that was Bismarck.
*Biussmarck did lose his majority in February 1890, and the resulting crisis led to his fall.
*It is Golo Mann's judgment, first stated on p.8 and frequently repeated thereafter, that the power of the ''Reichstag'' increased steadily from Bsmarck's time. To argue, as some DPTR opponents do, that a defeat in the Reichstag would have prevented the war, is therefore a reasonable position, properly represented by balance of the present text. ] 17:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
:I hope Septentrionalis will keep his word. "I will revise them if Ultramarine can find ''any'' instance of a ''Reichskanzler'' attempting to govern, for more than a few weeks, without a Reichstag majority." From the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica:
::"From 1878 to 1887 there was no strong party on which Bismarck could depend for support. After 1881 the parties of opposition were considerably strengthened. Alsatians and Poles, Guelphs, Clericals and Radicals were joined in a common hostility to the government. Parliamentary history took the form of a hostile criticism of the government proposals, which was particularly bitter because of the irreconcilable opposition of the Free Traders. Few of the proposals were carried in their entirety, many were completely lost; the tobacco monopoly and the brandy monopoly were contemptuously rejected by enormous majorities; even an increase of the tax on tobacco was refused; the first proposals for a subsidy to the Norddeutsche Lloyd were rejected. The personal relations of the chancellor to Parliament were never so bitter."
:On Chancellor ]'s dismissal:
::"The difference of opinion between him and the emperor was not confined to social reform; beyond this was the more serious question as to whether the chancellor or the emperor was to direct the course of the government. The emperor, who, as Bismarck said, intended to be his own chancellor, required Bismarck to draw .up a decree reversing a cabinet order of Frederick William IV., which gave the Prussian ministerpresident the right of being the sole means of communication between the other ministers and the king. This Bismarck refused to do, and he was therefore ordered to send in his resignation."
:On Chancellor ]'s dismissal:
::"The whole agitation was extremely inconvenient to the government. The violence with which it was conducted, coming, as it did, from the highest circles of the Prussian nobility, appeared almost an imitation of Socialist methods; but the emperor, with his wonted energy, personally rebuked the leaders, and warned them that the opposition of Prussian nobles to their king was a monstrosity. Nevertheless they were able to overthrow the chancellor, who was specially obnoxious to them. In October 1894 he was dismissed suddenly, without warning, and almost without cause, while the emperor was on a visit to the Eulenburgs, one of the most influential families of the Prussian nobility."
:On Chancellor ] dismissal. Note that it was the Emperor who decided when to accept the resignation and that the Finance Bill did pass.
::"The contest was from the first hopeless, and, but for the personal request of the emperor that he would pilot the Finance Bill through the House in some shape or other, Prince Blow would have resigned early in the year. So soon as the budget was passed he once more tendered his resignation, and on the 14th of July a special edition of the Imperial Gazette announced that it had been accepted by the emperor."
:On the parliamentary sysem in Germany:
::"In spite of the election of the Reichstag by manhood suffrage, there existed, as Count Billow pointed out in 1904, no real parliamentary system in Germany, and owing to the economic, political, social and religious structure of the nation there could never be one. Of the numerous groups composing the German parliament no one ever secured a majority, and in the absence of such a majority the imperial government, practically independent of parliament, knew how to secure its assent to its measures by a process of bargaining with each group in turn."
:On Prussia:
::"a royal edict of 4th January 1882 affirmed the monarchical character of the Prussian constitution, the right of the king personally to direct the policy of the state, and required those officials who held appointments of a political nature to defend the policy of the government, even at elections."] 18:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
:On the last German Emperor:
::"the chief control passed now into the hands of the emperor himself. He aspired by his own will to direct the policy of the state; he put aside the reserve which in modern times is generally observed even by absolute rulers, and by his public speeches and personal influence took a part in political controversy. He made very evident the monarchical character of the Prussian state, and gave to the office of emperor a prominence greater than it had hitherto had. One result of this was that it became increasingly difficult in political discussions to avoid criticizing the words and actions of the emperor. Prosecutions for lese-majeste became commoner than they were in former reigns, and the difficulty was much felt in the conduct of parliamentary debate. The rule adopted was that discussion was permitted on those speeches of the emperor which were officially published in the Reichsanzeiger. It was, indeed, not easy to combine that respect and reverence which the emperor required should be paid to him, with that open criticism of his words which seemed necessary (even for selfdefence) when the monarch condescended to become the censor of the opinions and actions of large parties and classes among his subjects."] 19:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

===Specific historic examples===
Your current version excludes them, although they are often prominently used by critics and therefore should be mentioned in Wikpedia. You previously insisted on using them. Here are two examples of this criticism that you yourself have used. ] 02:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I thought the article had to be balanced and made comprehensible before it could be shortened. I was wrong; Robdurbar showed me better.

The ''only'' detail I see any reason for adding to the article would be a short list of wars which may be problematic for a DPT, from 1812 or the Roman war of 1849 to Karpil. It would not have any discussion, pro or con.

The only discussion I see any reason for adding would be a paragraph discussing what democracies have done to each other without violating many DPTs. This would be without examples.

I put these up for discussion. ] 19:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Some of Ultramarine's 'historical examples' section definately warrents inclusion ] 21:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

===Geographic isolation===
Your version excludes:
"Glieditsch (1995) demonstrated that democratic pairs of nations have not been more separated than non-democratic pairs of nations." ] 02:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

===Trade===
Your version:
"A recent paper by Mousseau presents statistical evidence that the democratic peace is real, and attributes it to the effects of trade as well as other economic benefits that are associated with democracy. The paper notes that that these effects only apply to relatively wealthy countries, which have greater and more sophisticated trade. The exception is consistent with earlier theories as well: it is an old observation that those with nothing to lose may be relatively undaunted by the destruction caused by war."

My version:
"One theory is that since democratic states tend to be capitalist states, ] relations create ] among them. This interdependence constrains the ability and willingness of democratic nations to go to war with each other due to the incurred costs in lost trade. One problem with this interpretation is the existence of wars with and between non-democratic capitalist states. However, a recent study indicates that both economically important trade and democracy contribute to peace and that they do so independently of each other. This study also indicates that the DPT is not a significant factor unless both of the democracies have a GDP/capita of at least 1400 USD. Economic development below this may hinder the development of liberal institutions. ."

:Mind-numbing detail. ] 19:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Your version excludes that the effect of trade and democracy on peace are independent of each other. The study argues that lacking liberal institutions explains the exception in poor countries. Instead, you state that the exception is consistent with "that those with nothing to lose may be relatively undaunted by the destruction caused by war". Nowhere in this study is this theory mentioned and obviously the poor can always lose their lives. ] 02:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

:Robert A West has responded regarding independence here: . My responise is: See the Abstract which states "Economically important trade has an independent, substantively important pacifying effect, but the conflict-reducing effect of democracy depends on the level of economic development." and also this statement from the Results section which states "The pacific benefit of economically important trade, on the other hand, is independent of both the level of development and the character of political institutions." ] 17:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
:That second statement tends to put the whole article out of the class of DPTs altogether and into the Angell/Schumpeter group.
] 19:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

:OIC. There are two distinct meanings of "independent" in this context. Ultramarine means the first, and I took him to be asserting the second, and I believe most of those who make it through his sentence will so understand it.
#Is the factors T and D orthogonal, or nearly-orthogonal, in P?
#Are T and D of sufficiently low correlation that knowing D leaves P relatively unconstrained?
:The first is asserted in the abstract, the second denied in the text. Were the second point admitted, I would class this as an article ''critical'' of DPT. ] 21:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

::This is again false. From the result section "In sum, it appears that development in the absence of democracy and democracy in the absence of development do not result in peaceful interstate relations. Democracy with development, in contrast, appears to be a robust pacifying condition". The abstract also states that both democracy with development and trade causes peace. If critics argues that the paper or its data actually supports something else than it states, then they should publish this in a paper and not in Misplaced Pages. ] 14:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

:::??? I have never said that the article says anything other than it says. The article provides support for a neo-Kantian triad: trade, development, democracy. That is not pure DPT, yet you originally cited the article as support for DPT, rather than as a criticism. I tried to view the article in this light only out of courtesy to your view, but I am now realizing this was an error. The paragraph should be removed to the criticisms section, possibly under a new subhead, per Septentrionalis. ] 15:06, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Returning to full-width, how does everyone feel about this new version of the paragraph?

::A recent paper by Mousseau, Hegre and Oneal presents statistical evidence that the democratic peace is real, but that it only applies when there is substantial economic development (at least $1400 US ''per capita''). Moreover, the paper found that trade is also a significant force for peace, irrespective of the level of democracy. The paper goes on to note that the three factors, trade, development and democracy, are interrelated. This triad recalls the original Kantian theory, and Oneal has specifically acknowledged this in other works.

While I still defend the sentence Ultramarine finds offensive, I think considerations of length prevail. Cleanup will require making sure that ''Triangulating Peace'' is included in the bibliography, but I see no reason for an in-line reference. ] 15:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

:If Kant's triad was important, Oneal would have mentioned this in the this article and the abstract. Not in "other works". Also, liberal institutions should be mentioned. ] 20:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

::If it were not important, he wouldn't have written a book about it. I mention the article. I mention a book written by one of the authors. What is the problem? ] 21:11, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

:::Please note that the book you refer to was published earlier and is a popular book. The paper I cite is published later and more important. It is here that the authors have their theory scrutinized by their peers. Whatever they may have written earlier about Kant in their popular book, they didn't include in their more important work. $1400 per capita is not "substantial economic development", it includes nations like Bangladesh . Also, liberal institutions should be mentioned. ] 14:26, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

::::"Substantial" was the wrong word, perhaps "meaningful." Let me think about it. As for "liberal institutions", the phrase occurs nowhere in the article. ] 06:08, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

===Bloc peace theory or Cold war peace===
Your version excludes
"Supporters of the DPT note that Bremer (1992), Maoz & Russett (1992, 1993), Russett (1993), Oneal et al (1996), Barbieri (1996a), Oneal & Russett (1997), and Oneal & Ray (1997) all have controlled for alliance ties in their statistical studies supporting the DPT, contradicting Gowa's theory. Also other methods criticize the theory ."

You mention some of them, Bremer, Maoz & Russett, and Russett in another section, "External causes", and using a different text where alliances are only mentioned briefly, misleadingly giving the impression that there is no such criticisms against Gowa's theory.

You include from "Specific historic examples" possible examples supporting Gowa before the Cold War, but exclude all examples against Gowa before, during, and after the Cold War. ] 02:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

:This represents a mistaken idea of what Gowa actually said. Ultramarine's historical examples on the subject are mostly aimed at a straw man. Even if they were all themselves correct - and many of them are not - this would be sufficient.
See also Corax's comments in the archives. ] 18:06, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

::Regarding Corax he stated "Gowa's thesis does not attempt to predict or explain the behavior of states in the communist bloc. It applies exclusively to the democratic states, and postulates a reason why they abstained from attacking one another. She is, after all, arguing against the "democratic peace theory" and not some imaginary "communist peace theory." The fact that communist states engaged in conflict with one another does not detract from Gowa's overall thesis that democratic states avoided conflict with other democratic states in order to focus their firepower on the larger perceived threat of communism." I responded to this somewhat later in the achieved discussion. Gowa cannot defend against criticism by stating that the theory she favors should only be applied to data she likes. This would be like defending the theory that the Earth is flat by only allowing the data that supports this theory. Critics have thus criticized her theory by using wars in other blocs .

::Regarding the other parts of the reply, please do not give vague claims that cannot be checked. Note that you have given no explanation regarding your exclusion of studies and misleading placement of those you have included. Or why you includes examples supporting your case but exclude those against. ] 20:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
:::The archives consist largely of your special pleading for Rummelism, and my counterclaims. Is this consent to the plan for examination of Ultramarine's current specious text, explained just above ]? ] 21:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

=== Spanish-American War ===
Your version: "Babst, Singer, Rummel and Doyle claimed that democracies, properly defined, have never made war on each other; such DPTs face the difficulty that Ted Gurr classes both Spain and the United States as democracies in 1898, the year of the Spanish-American War."

This is misleading. The Polity Project score nations on scale for democracy, it is not a binary classification into democracies and nondemocracies. Spain scored 6/10 in 1898. Those studies that have used the Polity data have required a score of 7 or higher. One reason for excluding Spain is the ] system. ] 00:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

:Gurr's classification, as the article explains, can be used as a binary, a ternary, or a (semi)-continuous classification. Dismissing Spain as a a non-democracy, is an ''ad hoc'' decision, which would mean dismissing the quite similar systems of alternation in post-war Austria and Uruguay, and presumably other states. It further ignores the fact that it ''was'' possible for Spanish governments to fall as the result of popular indignation, and indeed the government of 1898 did fall after the 'Disaster'.
::Ultramarine's claim on the ranking of Spain is denied by Gowa. ] 17:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

==General response==
Except for the first, all of these changes propose to add back detail that was removed to form the shorter version. Furthermore, although much critical detail was also removed, none of it is to be added.

There is consensus against restoring the eye-glazing detail of the longer version. Furthermore, all of the actual points made by this partisan detail have been included in substance. To add back the detail on one side only would be imbalance.

This suffices. I hold that much of the matter proposed is also variously inaccurate, partisan, original research, a misunderstanding of sources, or special pleading for Rummelism - and I have suggested a means for discussing that at the end of ], but I do not need to discuss it here.


Nevertheless, the above section can be usefully quarried for individual points and sources. ] 15:44, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

:This is incorrect, my current version is very different from the earlier very long old version and has also added new facts. If you argue that there is content that is not in any of the most current versions that should be added, then please add it that to the discussion above or add it to your own version so I can see what it is. Please discuss the differences above instead of using a general dismissal that cannot be verified. ] 16:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

::Some of your statements are not supported by your own cited sources. As an example, you say, "A recent study indicates that both economically important trade and democracy contribute to peace and that they do so independently of each other." Mousseau goes on at great length about the three-way interaction: to say he considers the effects independent is flat-out inaccurate. ] 17:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

:::My response is in the Trade section above. ] 17:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

==Merged Verison==

Have gone through both articles and attempted a merge which can be seen at the moment. Having done so, I removed the two version tag though respect the right of any other author to re-instate this with their version if they feel that mine does not well represent a merger between the two] 11:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
:I think the sentence on Kant is inaccurate as it stands, since he specifically denied supporting "democracy" (although he meant what we call direct democracy). I will do a slight rewrite. As always, feel free to reedit. ] 15:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

:I also believe, having looked at this in more detail, that the present statement of criticisms is unintelligible without some example. I am therefore putting this short version of the history, which I accept, into the existing shorter version. ] 15:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

::Unfortunately, after Septentrionalis edits this version is even worse than his earlier version. For example, he has deleted every criticism against Germany being a liberal democracy. I must therefore correct the Two-version template. ] 18:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
:::To quote exactly from the present text:
::::the Kaiser had the power to appoint his ministers, that he and the General Staff made the decision for war, as did Franz Josef in Austria-Hungary, and that many structural features of the Reich made democratic institutions ineffective.
::: (I think these are the key arguments against, and I have edited to make them more obvious. 22:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)) ] 20:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

::::This is exactly the sought of petty debate that this article is suffering from. The point is that it is debated over whether germany was a democracy; whether it was or not is irrelevant. Ultramarine, also, I would like some feedback from you over how my edit has shown your point of view? Where do you think are the key disputes between yours and the other version? ] 21:46, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

:::::It is relevant if Germany was a liberal democracy or not. I argue that the claim that it was <s>not</s> is weak when examined and that this should be presented. If only undisputed facts should be in wikipedia, then the article about ] should be removed. Regarding differences between versions, see "List of proposed changes" above, all of which still apply except "Kant". ] 14:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

::::::Did you add a not that you didn't mean? If it is a weak claim that Germany was a non-democracy, then WWI is a strong counterexample to DPT. ] 20:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

:::::::Yes. The "not" was added by mistake. ] 20:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

::::::::I took the liberty of striking out the error, just for clarity of reading. ] 20:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

==Request for comment==
Have listed this page on the ] page, as this dispute has been going on too long ] 12:52, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
:Please be aware that there is an ongoing RfA involving this and other articles . ] 14:12, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
==Statistical studies==
Robdurbar's latest edit expands the statistical section. Reading it, I observe that the first paragraph and part of the second are largely redundant with the section "Claims" above, and should probably be combined into it. ] 16:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Go for it! ] 18:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
:Done. I suppose there will be cries of outrage about the description of the neural net paper; but that ''is'' what it says, and "Kantian" is a direct quote. ] 23:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

==Version conflict==
Since Ultramarine has conducted edit wars on ] and ], and then called for page protection with "his version uppermost", it may be worthwhile to state here what I believe to be the case:

Ultramarine's edits have so far represented a private fork of this article, with the clear tendency to make it a defense of one particular DPT; for details, see this talk page and the RfC and RfAr about him. Robdurbar produced a shorter version, of which Robert West and I have approved on this page. He is now merging parts of Ultramarine's edits in, with the assistance of the other two of us.

For Corax's, Michael Hardy's, and Mel Etitis's deprecation of the PoV nature of Ultramarine's edits, see the archives. ] 23:34, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
:Again numerous false statements and misrepresentations. I have never in my requests for page protection asked that my version should be uppermost, only that the Two-version template should be included. The other editors insisted on simply deleting the template and referenced facts contradicting their view. Only after the page protection has the factual discussion started again, showing that the protection was necessary. Comments by other editors made months ago are not relevant anymore. For details about some of the current differences, see "List of proposed changes" above. ] 23:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

::It is quite true that he has never been so foolhardy as to admit to WP:RfPP that this was his intention, but he threatened to do so on ] and pulled a last revert to his version immediately before it was protected. The claim that factual discussion ceased is a falsehood, as the edit history will show. ] 17:04, 28 August 2005 (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:
Talk:Democratic peace theory: Difference between revisions Add topic