Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:16, 13 August 2005

Template:FACfailed is deprecated, and is preserved only for historical reasons. Please see Template:Article history instead.

This article (or a previous version) is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed. For older candidates, please check the Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations.

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

Archives of this page are at Talk:Democratic peace theory/Archive 1. This should be read by any new editor of this page. Most of them are Septentrionalis explaining edits and User:Ultramarine protesting that the page would only be NPOV if it defended one particular version of DPT. Septentrionalis 16:42, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

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 User:Robdurbar 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. Septentrionalis 16:42, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

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. Ultramarine 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 liberum veto.
• 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 It should have been archived long ago; some editors are simply unable to read a page of that length.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:
  1. The interwoven version, condemned by every editor but Ultramarine.
  2. The criticism-and-response version, condemned by every editor but Corax and myself, and my support is weak.
  3. 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. Septentrionalis 17:30, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

How about remvoing the two-version tempalte but keeping the {npov}until further differences are ironed out? Robdurbar 18:02, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I would even keep the {accuracy} tag, or a set of {dubious} tags, if there are accuracy disputes. So far, none have been stated. Septentrionalis 18:29, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

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. Ultramarine 18:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

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. Septentrionalis 18:29, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Does Robdurbar want to bring back any of the deleted text in the last section below? Septentrionalis 18:29, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

The facts

Kant't theory

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. Ultramarine 14:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• 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.

Where's the error?

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. Septentrionalis 18:29, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

It is a false statement that I introduced the portrait of Kant or even Kant at all in this article. It existed before me. Ultramarine 19:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

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. Septentrionalis 19:52, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

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. Ultramarine 14:04, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

This is not in the present text.Septentrionalis 18:18, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect description of paper

Your version states "This website argues for the strong version of the theory". This is incorrect, is a review paper of the studies done on the DPT, both supporting and critical. Please correct. Ultramarine 14:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

*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. Septentrionalis

Having now read the article at some length, I would describe it as a skillful summing-up in the interest of DPT, including mention of the criticisms, partly to throw overboard the weaker DPTs, partly to present refutations. It argues very strongly that DPT is better founded than the alternatives. If this is Ultramarine's basis for estimating the state of the field, I am no longer surprised by his statements above. Septentrionalis 18:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

The amazing thing is that you admit not having read it, because I have repeatedly pointed it out. One would think that a serious critic would be familiar with this basic material. Ultramarine 19:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Touché! I did, however, read it weeks ago (and edited accordingly), but the memory blurred with the rest of the apologias for Rummellism with which the page is littered. Septentrionalis 14:34, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Now you have moved this scholarly summary of studies to external links while keeping your Wall Street Journal opinion article and this personal webpage as evidence in the main text. Please correct. Ultramarine 14:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The Hoover Institution article is not in the present text. I do not see the webpage. Septentrionalis 18:19, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect description of newspaper opinion article

Your text states "The third type of criticism has been expressed thus in a Hoover Institution article" This is misleading, is only a reprint of a Wall Street Journal opinion article. Please correct. Ultramarine 14:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I will accept republished by if the dates can be established. Septentrionalis 18:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Read the link. Ultramarine 19:43, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

You have still not corrected the statement. Please do. Ultramarine 03:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

See above. Septentrionalis 18:20, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Demographics of Athens

It is estimated that only 16% of the population in Athens had the right to vote.

The 16% here is the ratio between number of Athenian citizens and the total (adult male) population of Attica. Since we know neither of these, stating the ratio between them to two significant digits is irresponsible.

It's actually worse than that. The number of Athenians can be guessed, from such data as the 6000 votes required for ostracism, the 24,000 troops mustered at the beginning of the Peloponnesian War usw. The total population of Attica can only be estimated by guessing the ratio of men to women, adults to children, citizens to metics, and free to slave; doing the indicated multiplication; and then arguing the result is not inconsistent with the archaeolgical evidence. The first two factors can be estimated from other demoraphic evidence; the last two can only be guessed. Therefore 16% represents the product of two modern guesses. Septentrionalis 18:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

The point being that only a very small minority had the right to vote. Feel free to add that the numbers are uncertain. Ultramarine 19:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Those who think thata sixth or a quarter enfranchisement is very small should consider the Belgian franchise of 1892 again, which gave the vote to 5% of the men - and Belgium was, rightly, considered a parliamentary and responsible government. Septentrionalis 22:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I see no claim of PoV or factual dispute here. Even if there were, the present text does not mention Athens. Septentrionalis 18:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Ordering

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

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.

This calculation makes no allowance for loss of democracy during the Cold War; which decreases the expected number of wars significantly. Since the distribution involved is effectively Poisson, the probability of sero wars is exponential in this expectation. Therefore the .0099 is a serious underestimate.

Delenda

=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):

Proponents have responded similarly to other objections. During the War of 1812, only a small minority had the right to vote in the United Kingdom, many new urban areas had no representation, the ballot was not secret, many seats in Parliament were appointed or openly bought from the owners of rotten boroughs, and the House of Lords could veto all laws. The defenders of DPT exclude the American Civil War because, in addition to it being an internal conflict, in the Confederate States of America, 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. Nawaz Sharif, the president of Pakistan at the time of the Kargil War, used terror tactics to silence critical press and the previously independent judiciary, for example storming the Supreme Court in order to force the Chief Justice out of office. Yassir Arafat, the president of the Palestinian Authority at the start of the latest conflicts with Israel, can be criticized on similar grounds. There was never a democratic election in the Philippines before the Philippine-American war. All the Mexican presidents at the time of the conflicts with the U.S., like Mariano Paredes y Arrillaga, took their power in coup d'etats. The nations in the War of the Pacific were ruled by Caudillos or had suffrage requirements like literacy or property that excluded a large part of the populations.

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. Septentrionalis 18:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

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. Ultramarine 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? Septentrionalis 14:13, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

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. Ultramarine 03:12, 2 August 2005 (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 Wikibooks, where there is room enough to explore the issue in depth. Robert A West 17:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

What part of Articles without bias describe debates fairly rather than advocating any side of the debate does Ultramarine hold not to be policy? Septentrionalis 18:02, 2 August 2005 (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. Ultramarine 13:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

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 Anglo-Maratha Wars, four Anglo-Mysore Wars, two Anglo-Sikh Wars, three Anglo-Afghan Wars, the Anglo-Nepalese War, the Anglo-Bhutanese War, and three Anglo-Burmese Wars.

Do you really suppose that these are Britain making war on her allies? These are wars coercing them to become her allies.

They also note numerous wars in Latin America, despite belonging to an U.S. dominated bloc after the Monroe doctrine. This bloc was frequently threatened by the other imperialist blocs and sometimes direct military action occurred, like the French military invasion of Mexico. Examples of large scale wars in Latin America in this period include the War of the Triple Alliance, the War of the Pacific, the War of the Peruvian-Bolivian Confederation, the Mexican-American War, and the Chaco War.

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

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

Of course nations that make war against each other are not allies. But the above statements show that the existence of blocs and external threats does not prevent wars, as the bloc peace theory claims. Ultramarine 03:16, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

The bloc peace theory claims only that the members of a particular bloc did not make war against each other, since the bloc exists because of, and in order to implement, a common interest. "BPT" (which, remember, is a nickname, invented in this article) says nothing about wars outside the bloc; which may even have been more likely because the bloc existed. Septentrionalis 17:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

The BPT has been criticized using wars in other blocs. Ultramarine 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 Cyprus in 1974, at a time when Cyprus had British military bases and close ties to Turkey's NATO partner Greece. Another is the Football War. 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 Dominican Republic. They might argue that the 1967 Six Day War and the 1973 Yom Kippur War were wars within the Western bloc, because Iraq belonged to CENTO 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 Gulf Wars, in which Arabic nations fought each other despite belonging to the Arab League and OPEC. All of these wars had more than 1000 military casualties . The Falklands War 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. Septentrionalis 23:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Rummel's requirement that the democratic states must be older than three years excludes the war between the French Second Republic and the Roman Republic (19th century). The First Balkan War is excluded if one considers the Ottoman Empire to have become democratic after the first election in November 1908 or when the constitution was amended so that the parliament could control the cabinet in April 1909. The war started in October 1912, 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 civil wars within democracies over legitimacy or secession, such as the American Civil War, the Sonderbund war, the Anglo-Irish War and the Irish civil war which followed, and the 20th century civil wars in Colombia, Spain, Uruguay and Sri Lanka.

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. Ultramarine 18:29, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Right; now discussed, at equal length.Septentrionalis 19:52, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Still violates npov by excluding many of the strongest arguments. Ultramarine 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. Septentrionalis 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 Reichstag 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 Kaiser 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 Prussia 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 junkers 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." Ultramarine 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. Robert A West 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. Ultramarine 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. Robert A West 22:24, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Again, you include all arguments critical but excludes most of the supportive, violating npov. Correct. Ultramarine 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. Robert A West 23:08, 13 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. Ultramarine 20:44, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

This is what external links are for. Septentrionalis 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. Ultramarine 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. Ultramarine 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. Septentrionalis 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. Robert A West 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. Ultramarine 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. Robert A West 22:34, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Cold war peace or the Bloc peace theory

Violates npov by removing arguments against. Ultramarine 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. Robert A West 20:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Please do not guesss. Add back the arguments against. Ultramarine 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. Robert A West 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." Ultramarine 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." Robert A West 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. Ultramarine 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. Robert A West 23:16, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Geographic isolation

Violates npov by removing studies against. Ultramarine 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. Septentrionalis 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 ." Ultramarine 20:46, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Before the Cold War

Violates npov by only using examples against the DPT. Ultramarine 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. Robert A West 21:47, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

This still violates npov by only presenting arguments for one side. Correct. Ultramarine 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. Septentrionalis 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 Great Power includes several crises between them, including the Fashoda crisis, between the United Kingdom and France, and the Venezuela crisis between the United Kingdom and the United States. 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 Anglo-Maratha Wars, four Anglo-Mysore Wars, two Anglo-Sikh Wars, three Anglo-Afghan Wars, the Anglo-Nepalese War, the Anglo-Bhutanese War, and three Anglo-Burmese Wars. They also note numerous wars in Latin America, despite belonging to an U.S. dominated bloc after the Monroe doctrine. This bloc was frequently threatened by the other imperialist blocs and sometimes direct military action occurred, like the French military invasion of Mexico. Examples of large scale wars in Latin America in this period include the War of the Triple Alliance, the War of the Pacific, the War of the Peruvian-Bolivian Confederation, the Mexican-American War, and the Chaco War. They also note several betrayals of formal treaties within blocs during WWII. Examples include the wars of Finland, Italy, Bulgaria, Roumania, and Hungary on their German ally in WWII and the German invasion of the Soviet Union despite the Molotov-Ribbentrop Nonaggression Pact and its secret extensions.

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

I have already expressed my opinion of this text in Section 8.1; 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. Ultramarine 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. Septentrionalis 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. Ultramarine 23:16, 13 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." Ultramarine 20:54, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Substance, except for concluding speculation, included in preceeding paragraph, and properly ascribed to Kant, with quotation. Septentrionalis 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? Robert A West 21:50, 13 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 trade relations with one another create interdependence 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." Ultramarine 20:59, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Schumpeter's thesis referred to in section, and described under history. I fail to see factual inaccuracy. Septentrionalis 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. Ultramarine 21:07, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

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

Cite text supporting this. Ultramarine 22:57, 13 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 Spain and the United States as democracies in 1898, the year of the Spanish-American War.
• 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. Ultramarine 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? Robert A West 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. Ultramarine 21:58, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

emendavi. Septentrionalis 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 neural nets 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 ." Ultramarine 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. Ultramarine 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. Septentrionalis 22:38, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

The text should obviously note that it is a peer-reviewed review paper. Correct. Ultramarine 22:48, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

This is superstition. Do read peer review. I've read Babst, who not only errs on the secret ballot, but dismisses the Boer war 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. Septentrionalis 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. Ultramarine 23:12, 13 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 straw-man version of the DPT. Prune so that the length and importance is appropriate. Ultramarine 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. Septentrionalis 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. Ultramarine 22:21, 13 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. Ultramarine 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. Robert A West 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. Ultramarine 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? Robert A West 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. Ultramarine 22:49, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Accuracy

All three of these are PoV disputes. If no accuracy dispute can be cited, the {totallyDisputed} tag is unwarranted. Septentrionalis 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. Robert A West 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? Septentrionalis 22:14, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Misplaced Pages featured article candidates (contested)
• Old requests for peer review