Misplaced Pages

Talk:List of wars between democracies: 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 editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:15, 19 July 2010 editDarknessShines2 (talk | contribs)11,264 edits →Civil Wars: hmm← Previous edit Revision as of 21:15, 19 July 2010 edit undoPmanderson (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers62,752 edits →Civil Wars: tighten linkNext edit →
Line 462: Line 462:
(od) (od)
Do you always have to be so rude? Even in edit summerys? That looks like an excellent resource and i thank you for pointing it out to me. Ok that`s the American civil war out of the way, Lets try the American Revolution which was a revolution, not a war between democracies ] (]) 20:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Do you always have to be so rude? Even in edit summerys? That looks like an excellent resource and i thank you for pointing it out to me. Ok that`s the American civil war out of the way, Lets try the American Revolution which was a revolution, not a war between democracies ] (]) 20:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
:No, let's not. That was both a rebellion and a war; just like the American Civil War, also known as the ]. It was between democracies according to Modelski as cited; he was the first I found, but I believe others have actually bothered to state the obvious. Go read him, or find your own sources. (That would actually be helpful to the encyclopedia.) :No, let's not. That was both a rebellion and a war; just like the American Civil War, also known as the ]. It was between democracies according to Modelski as cited; he was the first I found, but I believe others have actually bothered to state the obvious. Go read him, or find your own sources. (That would actually be helpful to the encyclopedia.)


:We are not conducting a remedial education class; we are not your servants. ] <small>]</small> 21:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC) :We are not conducting a remedial education class; we are not your servants. ] <small>]</small> 21:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:15, 19 July 2010

WikiProject iconPolitics List‑class Low‑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
ListThis article has been rated as List-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
This article survived an AfD under its old name under unusual circumstances. The consensus was that the article should be kept, but with a different name and almost completely different content.

As closer, I do not feel its survival should prejudice a future AfD, because of the nature of the consensus at the previous one. I feel that any argument based on WP:NOTAGAIN should be disregarded at any future AfD for this article.—S Marshall /Cont 16:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of wars between democracies article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of wars between democracies article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 30 days 

Lebanon

Really, this will not do. Removing a sourced assertion, as this edit does, is bad enough. Explaining it by an edit summary is worse.

If there is a conflict between two sources, we should present both, in proportion to their weight - and there is likely to be a disagreement about democracy, that ill-defined term, in many cases; that's one of the reasons to compile this article in the first place. (And a peer-reviewed article, such as Doyle's, has greater weight than a website.)

But the website cited does not work. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I will add that Lebanon was described at the time as the "the only Arab democracy" (Parker T. Hart: "A New American Policy towards the Middle East" Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 390, A New American Posture toward Asia (Jul., 1970), pp. 98-113) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
And some people claim that Cuba is more democratic than the USA. That doesn't change the fact that Cuba is not a democracy, and neither was Lebanon in 1967. This article is not called "List of possible exceptions to democratic peace theory" or similar, it's called "List of wars between democracies" and then it should contain wars between democracies only. If you want to take up the previous discussion about renaming, then be my guest. Consensus can be changed. But while the article is called "List of wars between democracies", then it should *only* list wars between democracies. That some dude somewhere once called Lebanon a democracy does not make it one, and it doesn't help that he claims it's the *only* democracy in the middle east. At the least, that would make Israel a non-democracy, which means the six-day war still doesn't fulfill the requirements.
It also doesn't help that Lebanon usually is not seen as a part of the six-day war. So once again you try to list a non-war involving a non-democracy in a list of wars between democracies. Just give it up. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
We are not here to cover what is "usually seen", that's an opinion poll; we are here to document what reliable sources write. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • We are not here to cover what is "usually seen", that's an opinion poll; - Aha.
  • The conventional view of Israel and Lebanon - Well, there ya go.
Your self-contradictory stance on this point may explain why your edits usually contradict what you say here, which in turn explains why this debate is so unconstructive. --OpenFuture (talk) 03:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
There is no contradiction:
  • We do not exist to report what "everybody knows".
  • We do report the consensus of reliable sources, which often differs from what unreliable sources, like the internet, usually see.
The somewhat ineffective presence of Lebanon's airforce is indeed not part of the popular perception of the War; it wasn't one of the Arab armies swept back by the victorious Israelis. This should make no difference to us, in reporting what reliable sources do say. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 09:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
The website cited works just fine from here. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Try to understand Misplaced Pages: here we include all claims of fact from reliable sources; when they disagree on definitions of democracy and war, we say so; we don't impose some editors' favorite one. There are other sites where they do that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Also, to quote the lead: this is one of the conflicts referred to as wars between democracies - this time by a supporter of the democratic peace. If this article were titled "Wars according to Data-set A between democracies according to Dataset B", it might indeed be blank - but it would also be deleted. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I understand Misplaced Pages. I do also understand democratic peace theory, and English. If you want to make a list of all conflicts that has been claimed to be exceptions to the democratic peace theory, the article should be renamed. As long as it's called "List of wars between democracies" we should *not* list every conflict every country has been involved in that somebody somewhere once called a democracy. --OpenFuture (talk) 03:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I do also understand democratic peace theory. Those who do understand it do not refer to Michael W. Doyle as "somebody from somewhere"; unless that was a slip of the keyboard, soon to be retracted Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I have never referred to Michael W. Doyle as "somebody from somewhere" or anything similar. Your arguments are now getting more and more personal, and having less and less contact with reality. That is not a constructive way forward. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
The exact description was some dude somewhere. Doubtless this carries some profound shade of difference from "somebody somewhere" which is not visible to me. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
That this would refer to Michael W. Doyle is completely your own invention. --OpenFuture (talk) 03:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
If it does not, then the comment was meaningless obstruction. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 09:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
No, we should list every pair of countries that have met in a conflict that a reliable source has called a war between democracies. That's what following reliable sources means. It does not mean following our own judgment of wars and democracy; nor does it mean picking a favorite authority and imposing its point of view - that's called POV-pushing, and it's against policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
No, because that means that we will list what people opposed to democratic peace theory claims to be exceptions to democratic peace theory. But this article is not called "List of possible exceptions to democratic peace theory", it's called "List of wars between democracies". If we then list all possible exception to democratic peace theory, the article itself will be POV and misrepresent the theory. We can do what you want *if we rename the article*, see? If you want to rename the article, then please restart that discussion. But previous discussions ended up in the article *not* being renamed, ad consensus then was to remove everything that wasn't actually wars between democracies, and you can *not* as a single editor revert that consensus.
Is anything here unclear? --OpenFuture (talk) 07:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
No, because that means that we will list what people opposed to democratic peace theory claims to be exceptions to democratic peace theory. That is a lie; we will also list - and one of the interests of this page is in listing - what people who support the democratic peace admit to be wars between democratic states. Perhaps more importantly, we should report what historians not involved in the issues of DPT say; there are, after all, many more of them. The position of the reliable source (like Doyle, who brought the idea back into academic respectability, Russert, who extended its scope to antiquity, and Gleditsch, who supports DPT intemperately) doesn't matter. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Historians not involved in DPT rarely talk about "wars between democracies". They will discuss of a state was a democracy or not, and we can use that, but if we do, then we end up in todays situation, and you don't like it. Make up your mind. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
No, historians of particular wars are likely to mention the democracy of both sides; this may be in passing, but is more likely to consider the actual history of both regimes than "experts" looking from Athens to Waziristan. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 08:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Spanish-American war

Pmanderson: Finally something from you that is at least borderline, and at least meaningful to discuss, and not a non-war between dictatorships. This, like all instances in this article, depend upon the definition of democracy used. - So maybe we should define it? Your definition seems to be "every country anyone ever called a democracy", and that doesn't hold up. Spain was a weak, autocratic democracy and isn't a democracy according to Polity IV, but it's admittedly borderline. --OpenFuture (talk) 03:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

No, we should not define it; there's no consensus on the definition. That, if any, is the point of having this article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
We shouldn't really suggest to the reader that the inclusion depends on the definition of democracy, unless a writer makes that suggestion. We've been trying to cut down on the OR in this list after all. WikiuserNI (talk) 22:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
If we can't make any sort of definition, then we pretty much need to include any conflict ever made, as you apparently think we must accept any definition of democracy, and that would make even countries like North Korea, Soviet Union and Cuba "democracies". --OpenFuture (talk) 22:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I doubt that's true. None of them have been in very many actual conflicts - and nobody who would call them democracies would also call their principal opponents democracies. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
You mean like Parker T. Hart did with Lebanon and Israel? Which you still added to the article? --OpenFuture (talk) 07:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
No. The conventional view of Israel and Lebanon (before the civil war of the 1980s) was that both were democracies, that Israel was doing well with democracy and Lebanon reasonably well - certainly the most democratic state of the Arab world. A large number of people, including Doyle, who makes a point of it, held both positions. Until we see one source proclaiming both the Soviet Union and one of the states it was at war with were both democracies, this is a hypothetical problem. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
The list is of "wars between democracies". If one is labelled as such by a reliable third party source, include it. If we have to do the adding up (is party A a democracy? Is party B? Did they go to war? etc), then that's just OR and shouldn't be included. If that means the list sprawls or ends up with little to no entries, then we can go from here. We don't have to try to populate the list for the sake of it. WikiuserNI (talk) 22:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
The problem with that is that the article with this will automatically become extremely POV, as those opposed to democratic peace theory are the ones that call conflicts "wars between democracies", something they often do also when the conflict is not a war or not between democracies. Because *they* try to populate the list for the sake of it. This can be solved easily, by renaming the list to "List of possible exceptions to democratic peace theory". But that was decided against previously. If you want to restart that discussion, be my guest. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure I follow. I was simply suggesting the entries follow the name of the article. Who are "they" and what are they trying to do? If we use reliable third party sources, list any counterpoints to any suggestions to make the article balance, what's the problem? WikiuserNI (talk) 12:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
The problem is still that it's not a list of wars between democracies, but a list of possible exceptions to democratic peace theory, and in that case the article should be named to reflect that. If you want to restart the renaming discussion, please go ahead. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
That really does it; this article is a list of assertions in reliable sources that such-and-such a conflict was a war between democracies. What something is such a war may well be most often discussed in the context of democratic peace theory, or the liberal peace, or some such concept (although the traditional discussion of some examples goes back before any of the papers on DPT were written); but that doesn't matter. This article is about - and says it is about - wars between democracies; that most of the examples are marginal wars, involve marginal democracies, or involve just-formed democracies is part of the interest of the article, but not its subject.
If OpenFuture objects to, or reverts, a sourced assertion on the basis of this sort of bafflegab again, this will go to some form of dispute resolution. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any reason why you absolutely have to make this a list of possible exceptions to democratic peace theory, while refusing to even discuss a renaming, unless you have some sort of agenda. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Because I'm not.
Anyway, what other title could make this article have less to do with Democratic Peace Theory than one which doesn't mention it? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 08:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
That's the whole point. You want to make the article into a list of possible exceptions to democratic peace theory. Fine, then the article should be called that. Now it's called "List of wars between democracies". Then it should list only wars between democracies. I really don't see what's complicated with that. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
The only complication is your revert-warring against sourced assertions that particular conflicts are wars between democracies because you don't agree with the source. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 09:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
You have no sources that support your assertion, and you know it. You are out of line, refusing to engage in constructive debate, and you do not understand the issues. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
From my point of view, I have added only sourced assertions. I have engaged in discussion ad libitum; the most substantive issue you have raised is that one data-set refers to Lebanon as an "anocracy" - a neologism intended (and useful in its context) to cover those states which others will call marginal or formal democracies; this is playing with words - on your part, not on theirs. (Unless of course constructive debate means here what it all too often means: not disagreeing with the speaker; that I do refuse to do.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 10:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
From my point of view, I have added only sourced assertions. - Well, that may very well be true, but that seems to be based on that you didn't know that "democracy" isn't a synonym for "elections". Well, now you do. For the second source I can only surmise that you didn't actually read it before you used it, as it actually contradicts your statement. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
When I last saw this article, it was so called. Since then it has been eviscerated, largely by you, to a chorus of complaints (in which I believe you joined) that it could not be called any such thing, because no real Democratic Peace Theorist could acknowledge any exceptions. But if the restoration of this simple and useful list requires a cumbersome title, make a proposal. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 09:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
If you want to revert the renaming of the article, please restart that discussion. While the article is called a "List of wars between democracies" that's what it should contain. Is this complicated for you to understand? --OpenFuture (talk) 10:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
And it is what it does contain. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 10:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Correct. However, you try to add things to the article that are not. Is that unclear? --OpenFuture (talk) 11:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
A falsehood, and a personal attack, but not unclear. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 11:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
It's neither false, nor can it in any way be interpreted as a personal attack. This is getting ridiculous. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Indeed it is. A revert-warrior has consistently removed sourced assertions from this article, because he disagrees with them, or one data-set calls them by a neologism instead of formal, marginal, or troubled democracy. Please stop this blanking; it is tantamount to vandalism. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 11:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
None of the above is true. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
A simple response; even without evidence or argument, it might be convincing - without the diffs. 16:43 18 June, 17:21, 17:43, 21 June 04:13, 09:14, 10:18, 23 June 16:23, 24 June 07:42, 27 June 05:42, 28 June 04:23 ...Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
You are on a crusade against windmills. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Not even against windbags. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The Boer wars

Neither of Pmandersons sources for claiming the Boer wars was wars between democracies calls Britain *or* the Boer republic democracies. I removed it. Again. It doesn't only go against earlier consensus, it goes against what Pmanderson himself claim should be included. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Babst uses a synonym in his title. So what? (IIRC, he actually says "democracy" at the relevant point in his text.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 09:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
No he does not. Please stop edit warring until you understand what democracy is, and the difference between democracy and elections. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
My understanding of democracy was not invented for one theory. You may wish to consider WP:3RR; do have an excuse ready why it doesn't apply to you. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 10:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Exceptions to the "no wars between democracies" idea

It seems quite a number of examples have been brought forward, from reliable sources, of assertions that this or that conflict was a "war between democracies" and thus constitutes an exception to Rummel's Democratic peace theory, i.e., his claim that "no two democracies have ever made war on each other" (resulting in more than 1,000 casualties, that is).

If I hear no objection in about one more week, I plan to move this article to Objections to the democratic peace theory. Thereafter, I would invite all the contributors who have mentioned "wars between democracies" on this page to add information about them to the newly entitled page.

Each example should explain to what extent the various sources consider that each party to the conflict is a "democracy", as well as listing the number of casualties reported or claimed.

Recall that Rummel's own definition of democracy is quite specific, and entails "rights" as well as "expectations" along with his own view of an internal distribution of power which, he asserts, is utterly at odds with the monopoly on war-making power which he says the leaders of non-democracies enjoy (whom he labels "dictators"). But to be neutral, we must neither assume Rummel's view is correct nor assume that it is incorrect. We must only describe his viewpoint and the evidence he gives for it, along with the evidence and arguments that opponents give against it. (If there's room, we can give his rebuttals to those objections, too.) --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Object Rummel's is not the only democratic peace theory - although his website occasionally suggests he thinks so.
There are a couple dozen other advocates of the democratic peace; you will find them in the bibliography to democratic peace theory. None of them agrees with Rummel's theory; all of them but one hold that democracies are less likely to go to war with each other than other pairs of states are. From this point of view, these are not objections to the democratic peace; indeed, Doyle, Russett, and Gleditsch (whom I shall get around to) are strong advocates of it. If established democracies are unlikely to war with each other, it is quite plausible that marginal democracies will fight the occasional minor war; they are somewhere between established democracies and autocracies, and their foreign policies may be expected to be intermediate. Therefore I object to the proposed change as inaccurate; this article, while interesting to students of the democratic peace, and marginally relevant to it, is not an objection to any but the most extreme forms of it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
The real objection to Rummel's theory is that it is vacuous; there have been few enough democracies in the historical record - and many of them fail his standards; full-scale wars are also rare, as a proportion of the number of pairs of states - and getting rarer for reasons which affect the Soviet Union and the PRC as much as democratic states. It is not surprising that no war has occurred between Rummel's democracies, any more than it is surprising that no heads of state have been hit by meteorites, and for the same reasons. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Pmanderson, thanks for clarifying that. I had mostly been thinking about Rummel's idea and neglecting the other, similar ideas. I understand know that his "no war at all" idea is merely one particular view - perhaps the "strongest" statement of DP theory. Meanwhile the other theorists are saying "war is unlikely".
It appears he has tuned his Democracy Definition to get a "no war" result: i.e., what definition of democracy and war makes this statement true? That no democracies have fought a war against each other. Well, no democracy of and no war of . --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't know Rummel has tuned his definitions, and I don't know a reliable source on the subject. Certainly James Earl Ray has tuned his definition; he admits it - and calls the result "public relations"; it's more likely to seem remarkable to undergraduates or politicians than an assertion that such war is much less likely, which he thinks the statistics show.
Theorem first, definition afterward (which is what Ray does, when he's discussing never) is not a falsifiable method (every time there's an exception, tweak your definition); and the individual statements "no democracies of fight wars of " are not testable (the parameters have been set from the available data; there's no other data to test them with). In short, he's right; this is rhetoric, not science.
Ray may also be right that the fact he can do this with a definition of democracy that actually includes many democratic regimes is a sign that there's something interesting here; but that's another question. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Pmanderson: You are objecting on a detail, namely that Ed said "Rummel's theory". You are correct in that this is false, but the proposal really has nothing to do with who's theory it is. It's a proposal to rename the article to reflect what *you* think it should be; a list of exceptions/objects to democratic peace theory. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Sigh. No, I am objecting on the grounds that Rummel is an outlier among democratic peace theorists; and that this list is largely irrelevant to every DPT but his and Weart's - which introduces its own idiosyncratic classification scheme, and is even further from consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Object; When there's a pretty clear intent to this list, I cannot see what such a move would acheive. The aim is to provide a list of incidents that are cited as "wars between democracies". Is there any reason it has to become instead a "list of exceptions/objects to democratic peace theory"? WikiuserNI (talk) 08:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
It hasn't, yet. But that's what Pmanderson and Ed apparently wants it to be. Previous discussions ended on that it shouldn't be, but that can always be discussed again. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't want anything of the kind; this article has only the most tangential relation to democratic peace theory. Please try reading what I said, our article on democratic peace theory, or its sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
If you don't want that, why are you trying to make it so? I'm finding it increasingly hard to WP:AGF in your case, as you say one thing, and then do something else. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not; these aren't objections to democratic peace theory, which is (two authors excepted) the claim that democracies are less likely to go to war with each other.
The real objections to DPT are that the evidence is insufficient to prove the effect isn't chance, or that the rareness of war between democracies is a reflection of some other underlying cause (that democracies are wealthy, and the wealthy are peaceable, having much to lose; or that democracies are, in history, rare and scattered, and war tends to break out between adjacent states). I've mentioned neither.
Indeed, most of the sources here are proponents of DPT; can I phrase that some other way so it sinks in? I'm tired of repeating it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, they *are* objections or claimed exceptions to DPT. What they are *not* is wars between democracies. The Boer wars was not between democracies, yet you persist in adding them. Lebanon was not at war with Israel, yet you add it, etc, etc. Your edits contradict what you say on the talk page. As long as they do that, it's hard to take you seriously. The fact that you ignore all arguments and explanations makes it hard to WP:AGF. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
And yes, your sources are often proponents of DPT. And sometimes they in fact *contradict* your claims that the conflict was a war between democracies. This doesn't exactly help your case. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
OpenFuture complains that I am doing A when this article contains B, and I am doing B; also that the sources do not support A. This is incoherent; but needs more space than I have Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not making a case; nor am I interested in whether an author regards a war between democracies as a counter-example to his version of the democratic peace, all of which use a restricted definition of democracy.

It is true that the Boer republics limited the franchise to freeholders; so did much of the United States, and Great Britain, until quite recently (on the scale of this discussion). That is a reason why the Boer Wars were not a counterexample to most versions of the democratic peace - including Russert's; but they were democracies, as Russert says.

Similarly, most discussions of the democratic peace omit the first few years of a democratic regime - thus often omitting the whole history of many democratic regimes - because there are various reasons to expect the early years of a democracy to be less peaceable; this also includes several of the wars here listed.

That does not mean that such states are not democracies - merely that the democratic peace is a limited claim: established democracies with almost universal franchises tend not to go to war with each other. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

If you are not making a case, then you are simply vandalizing for the fun of it, and I doubt that. You have some sort of agenda, but since you say one thing and make completely opposite edits it hard to understand what that agenda is. You also completely ignore everything I say, which isn't helping. You also revert war with no explanations. I have explained why the edits I reverted was reverted, you simply just claim that they are "sourced" when they are clearly not.
Again you above start to discuss the issue, and not the article. Instead of discussing what the article should contain, which is the point of conflict here, you start discussing DPT, which is not the point of conflict.
nor am I interested in whether an author regards a war between democracies as a counter-example to his version of the democratic peace - so why did you bring it up?
but they were democracies, as Russert says - No, he says the franchise was limited, which means he says it's *not* a democracy.
You said you wanted to add those conflicts where you have sources stating that the conflict is a war between democracies. Most conflicts you have added, you HAVE NO SUCH SOURCES, which I have explained to you multiple times. Can you explain why you persist in adding them even though they don't even fulfill your own requirements? --OpenFuture (talk) 17:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Spelling it out; Russert makes two different points in his passage:
  • the Boer Republics were democracies, if marginal ones; so they were
  • They had limited franchise
These are both true; they are not the same statement; only one of them matters for this article. Russert attests both. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
If we assume you are correct in that Russert claims both countries where democracies, that means you have one source that claims it was a war between democracies, one that claims it was *not* and one that doesn't say anything about it (as is discusses electoral states, not democracies). As most sources on democracy and democratic peace claims that they were *not* democracies, how do you mean this should go into a list of wars between democracies? The scientific consensus on the issue is clear that it is *not* a war between democracies. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually one that says it was; one that hedges slightly; and one that claims it was not part of his proposed peace because the Boer Wars were rebellions (which is below the average knowledge of history displayed by theorists of the democratic peace, if not by as much as one would like). That's not a "scientific conaensus" against, except in OF's imagination; even on Misplaced Pages, consensus requires a certain measure of agreement. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
No. One says it, one contradicts it and one does not make a statement at all, as he doesn't talk about democracies. That's really how it is. And that's assuming you interpret Russert correctly, and since you misinterpreted both Babst and Cohen, I doubt that. (Which probably means I'm gonna have to buy Russetrs book, I don't have it and it's not online, and that means it will take some time to verify your claim).
Right. Consensus require a certain measure of agreement. Yet you apparently pretend that there is scientific consensus to claim the Boer wars was wars between democracies, when clearly, there is no such consensus. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
No, I contend that there is a source; the wiki way is for editors with sources who disagree is to include them and their statements. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
But then it is not a list of wars between democracies, but a list of claimed wars, and in fact, it becomes a list of possible exceptions to democratic peace theory. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Note the implication here: OpenFuture reverted a sourced assertion based on three words logically irrelevant to the issue from a book he doesn't have and hasn't consulted. Do try Interlibrary Loan. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Content proposal

Maybe we can go forward if we simplify this, so that Pmanderson cant start talking about other things. Let's take one thing at a time. First thing: I propose that this article should contain a list of wars between democracies, as per previous consensus.

That statement is blatantly incorrect for anyone that ever looked at the article at about the time it was renamed. Can you please stop being wrong about everything? It makes this really difficult. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
And my mother dresses me funny. Please try to stay on topic, with as little irrelevance and personal abuse as you can manage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
There is exactly none of that above, to be honest. The list, at the time of renaming, contained loads of things that were neither wars not between democracies. That's a fact. It possibly contained a list of every conflict between two states that someone has called "democratic", but that is *not* the same thing, and you know that. So stop claiming such nonsense as above. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
The list, at the time of renaming, contained loads of things that were neither wars not between democracies. No, that's a statement of opinion, sometimes yours, sometimes that of one of the few theorists desperately trying to prove that "democracies never, ever fight each other" without departing too obviously from the common usage of words. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
That is not a statement of opinion. That is a fact. Deal with it. I am not trying to prove that democracies never ever fight each other. Unlike you, I genuinely do NOT have a secret agenda. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposal number 2: That in the list of wars between democracies, we should include only such things that are wars, as including conflicts that are not wars would mean it no longer is a list of wars. This means that we can only include those conflicts where the general consensus is that it is a war, and only if both listed parties by general consensus was warring.

It *is* a problem, as you try to add conflicts where one part was not warring. Which means we either must define war, or rely on general consensus, which you refuse to do, or this is no longer a list of wars, which you claim you want it to be. Another solution would be to make this into a list of possible exceptions to DPT. In that case we can list it, and explain why it might be an exception, or why it may not be an exception. But you say you don't want that. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
No, I am not interested in a list of exceptions to some DPT; feel free to compile one elsewhere. As Ray also points out, it is trivial to construct a DPT with no exceptions: all one need do is require true universal suffrage (including children) and presto! there are no wars between democracies. Even requiring that all elections be unquestionably fair (and there be at least one) may be enough. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
And I am genuinely mystified by the claim that any of these involve conflicts where one side was not warring; all of these are real and bloody conflicts. (And why should we exclude one-sided conflicts? If Italy were to go to war with San Marino, the conquest might take an hour and not be resisted; but it would still be a war between democracies.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
No, I am not interested in a list of exceptions to some DPT; - Then why do you constantly try to make this into one?
And I am genuinely mystified by the claim that any of these involve conflicts where one side was not warring - Lebanon is generally not seen as being a part in the 6-day war. That you are "mystified" by this is just further proof that you ignore all arguments, as I have mentioned this several times already. Talking to you is like talking to a wall. You are not actually engaging in consensus building, you just say one thing, then edit in ways that contradict what you say, and ignore all questions and arguments, while repeating yourself. That is not constructive, that is not consensus building. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Have you got a source for that? Or is "generally seen as" = what OpenFuture thinks"? Septentrionalis
  • The Six-Day War of June 5–10, 1967 (also known as the June War) was a war between Israel and the neighboring states of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. The Arab states of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria also contributed troops and arms. - See Six-Day war. You can read the article too.
  • Despite sharing in the ongoing border tensions over water, Lebanon rejected calls by other Arab governments to participate in the 1967 Six-Day War. Militarily weak in the south, Lebanon could not afford conflict with Israel. - From Israeli–Lebanese_conflict.
--OpenFuture (talk) 06:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source; and that is policy. To save some time, I should point out that the first does not deny what Doyle asserts (and the second probably is not intended to). Lebanon did not commit troops; her air force intervened. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
No, but both of those articles uses reliable sources, and they are (as all articles involving the Israeli conflicts) heavily contested, and therefore they serve well to demonstrate the general consensus on the topic. You can find the sources if you want them on those articles, as you well know. Both articles do in fact deny your claim that Lebanon was involved in the war. It is therefore now up to you to prove that there either is a consensus that Lebanon was involved in the six-day war, or at a minimum prove that there is no consensus on the issue. If you can't do that, the mention of the six-day war should be removed from this article. Of course, unless you change your mind and want to make the article into what it was the last time you saw it: A list of possible exceptions or objections to democratic peace theory. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Even from someone who has a habit of inventing policy, this is extreme. I have cited Doyle for three assertions of fact, all neatly wrapped up in a single sentence: that Israel was a democracy, that Lebanon was a democracy, and that the Lebanese air force did intervene in the Six-Day War. I am not required to explain sweeping statements in other articles at all, much less when they are (as at least one of these is) perfectly consistent with Doyle's assertions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposal 3: That when we list wars between democracies, we list only wars between countries which it is generally accepted was democracies at the time of the war.

But that turns it from a list of wars between democracies, to a list of *alleged* wars between democracies, or in other words, a List of possible exceptions to democratic peace theory, because most claims will be contested on reasonable grounds. Which you claim you do not want. Also, you use this position to insert claims with sources that never call the countries democracies in the first place, like Babst. That way you end up adding wars that are *not* between democracies into a list of wars between democracies. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
But that turns it from a list of wars between democracies, to a list of *alleged* wars between democracies; If by alleged, you mean cited but by a reliable source that is disputed by others, I don't see what the problem is, as long as any dispute is noted. WikiuserNI (talk) 13:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that you said that this article should contain a list of wars between democracies. Not a list of possible or alleged wars, not a list of possible exceptions to democratic peace theory, but a list of wars between democracies. And you have already shown that you aren't willing to restrict the listing to reliable sources claiming the conflict is a war between democracies, but you have already added conflicts based on sources that does not support that claim. This *is* a problem, even if you don't want to see it. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
That is as rational as it is grammatical. Setting aside the minor detail that WikiuserNI, to whose post it is addressed, has not added anything to the article, I repeat his question; If by "alleged", you mean cited to a reliable source but disputed by others, what's the problem? Add the position of the conflicting source; that's how Misplaced Pages deals with conflicting sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
You can in an article about X have viewpoints for and against X. But this is not an article about X, it's a list of X's. By then listing something that is not an X you are making the article itself POV. An article claiming to contain a list of wars between democracies, but containing mostly things that are not wars or not between democracies is extremely POV. The claim that this article doesn't have anything to do with DPT, is clearly false, obviously so considering the amount of space you spend in this discussion talking about DPT. This article then becomes a POV argument against DPT, since every claim that a conflict is a war between democracies becomes listed. This is then made much worse by your insistence to misinterpret sources, and add conflicts based on sources who actually *contradict* you. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Nonsense. Neutrality and WP:NPOV are the same for lists as for other articles. (I omit the other falsehoods, since they have been long since answered - although it may be worth pointing out that I have discussed DPT only in response to the claim that this article is a list of objections to it - which it is not.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, neutrality an NPOV is the same as for other articles. Which is why we can't make a list that includes every conflict ever claimed to be a war between democracies, because that would be POV. That would mean the article would take the most extreme position on the issue. A caveat in the beginning of the article saying "it depends" is not enough to change that. Your persistence in using sources that doesn't support your statement is a also a good example of why this is an attitude that doesn't work. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Which is why we can't make a list that includes every conflict ever claimed to be a war between democracies, because that would be POV. It would be POV to say what reliable sources say; yeah, right. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it would. If you don't understand that reliable sources can be used to create a POV article, then maybe you should step back from this article for a while, until you do? --OpenFuture (talk) 05:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
If you contend that there are reliable sources with a different point of view, feel free to add them. That way we get to a representation of all sources. (There are sources which exclude most of these from one or another theory of the democratic peace, but that - as OF keeps tediously pointing out - is a different subject; which is why I haven't mentioned them.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
How is that a different subject? --OpenFuture (talk) 04:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, what I think we need to solve this content dispute is to have a sourced list of wars between democracies. That's probably the only way. We need to find people who lists wars between democracies, and present each of their lists. That's probably the only way to avoid this content dispute and also avoid that the article becomes WP:OR. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Support This is what we have been doing. Unsurprisingly, those lists do not agree; although there is a core of agreement on which wars are worth discussing - and most of them have been removed by the late spate of vandalism. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
No, that is not what you have been doing at all, and that was not how the article looked before. I proposed that we take sources lists of wars between democracies and present them. This article was only ever one list. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
As it should be one list; the sources do overlap significantly - as one might expect. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Clearly they do not overlap significantly, as the sources you use contradict each other. It's just your POV interpretation that they overlap. As mentioned before, in your three sources you use to support that the Boer war was a war between democracies, one contradicts it, one does not support it, and only one supports it, assuming you interpreted that one correctly. Your extreme POV combined with your refusal for common sense shows clearly that this is *not* a way forward for this article, as even if you could be made to see reason, sooner or later somebody else would come along, and the whole thing repeats itself. I suspect the basic cause of this is because creating such a list out of multiple sources will be WP:OR and therefore much more susceptible to POV and misinterpretation than otherwise. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's go back to WikiuserNI's proposal: we include anything that is cited by a reliable third party source as a war between democracies. We can note sourced claims that it is not a war between democracies.

  • Support Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Mainly because you have shown that you refuse to restrict yourself to conflicts that sources actually call wars between democracies, and include sources that call it wars between electoral states and also include conflicts where one of the democracies aren't warring. Now lately you included a civil war (which in no way can be caled a war *between* democracies), so you have shows that in listing wars between democracies you include things that are neither wars, not between and not democracies. Clearly, as long as you are involved in this article, this is not a viable path forwards. Also, it's probably WP:OR. If we should have a list of wars between democracies, clearly the source needs to be a list as well, and to be NPOV we need to list all notable lists. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that is indeed an often repeated lie. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

American civil war

Once again, Pmanderson adds a conflict with a source that does not support the claim that the conflict was a war between democracies. The book does *not* say so. He says two things: That many soldiers went to war because they wanted to preserve their government and it's democracy, and that the democracy also characterized the state of discipline in the armies. Neither of these is a claim that it was a war between democracies. Again, Pmanderson shows that he is not interested in making a list of wars between democracies, but only interested in making this article contain as many conflicts as possible, presumably in an effort to make a point against democratic peace theory. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Try reading more carefully; McPherson does assert the democracy of both sides, in the process of pursuing express examples; there is also David Donald's discussion of the effects of democratic government and its difficulties on the conduct of the war on both sides.
I did hope that this citation of two eminent sources who - as far as I can tell - have never heard of democratic peace theory would end this pointless chatter about it; every DPT known to me begins by excluding civil wars from consideration, so what point does OF imagine is being made? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
He does not call it a war between two democracies, and hence, your "careful reading" is interpretation or WP:SYN. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
No, both sources call each of them a democracy - in the same work; the specific context of MacPherson's reference to the Confederacy is the internal workings of the Army of Northern Virginia, bur Donald says Political democracy, too, was unimpaired in the Confederacy and discusses the matter at some length. (Will our vandal deny next that they both write of the Union as a democracy , or the Civil War as a war?) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, it's clear to me now that the problem here is that this is WP:SYN or WP:OR, and that I fell victim for the same mistake when I removed the article. The only way to solve this is to use lists of wars between democracies as sources. Everything else will continue these edit wars. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
This sounds like a declaration that any source which does not say in so many words -character by character- "X is a war between democracies", (even if one and the same source says "A is a democracy", "B is a democracy" and "X is a war between A and B"), doesn't substantiate "X is a war between democracies". Nope; Misplaced Pages is not an exercise in google searches, and anyone who would say it is would be acting in bad faith. I give OpenFuture a chance to rephrase. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Because it's a civil war, then yes, he has to say it's a war between democracies, not just that both sides are democratic. It's not obvious that civil wars, which are wars *within* a democracy should be counted as a war *between* democracies.
Then of course, your willingness to misinterpret sources doesn't exactly work to your benefit. I can't find any place where McPherson calls the states democracies, and definitely not on the two pages your quote mentioned, as described above. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Then I shall reverse the sources; there is no question that Donald is the stronger. By the way, it is customary to include the name of the author of an article, even when he is also editor of the anthology in which it appears. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
That I deleted the author name when I removed the source that doesn't support your statement was a mistake. However I don't think you should reverse the source, I think you should skip the sources that doesn't actually support the statement. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Pirates

How about various wars against pirates? I have heard that most pirate gangs were democracies where the crew elected a captain and could replace him if they didn't like how he was doing his job. Borock (talk) 05:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The difficulty being to find a pirate suppression campaign large enough to be called a war, and conducted by a democracy. Jean Lafitte's fight with the British is part of the War of 1812 (already listed); the Algerine wars were conducted against despotic - if disorderly - states. Pompey's campaign under the Lex Gabinia and the Illyrian wars are possibilities. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Babst as a source.

Once again: Babst does not list or discuss wars between democracies. He lists and discusses wars between elective governments. This is not he same thing. Pmanderson: You have gotten this explained to you repeatedly. Stop your edit-warring. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you keep repeating the same falsehood, and revert-warring in support of it. Babst is indeed discussing democracies, not merely formal elective systems, and Small and Singer so paraphrase his papers; if he were not, his conclusion would be evidently false, since Nazi Germany was created by a constitutional enactment by an elected legislature. Please find a topic you understand, and a language in which you are fluent; this would appear to be neither. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, Babst's criteria were

  • Legislation and finances controlled by a periodically elected legislature
  • administrative control by elected leaders
  • Ballot and civil liberties. Septentrionalis PMAnderson
Note that there is no requirement of the right to vote. Even you admit that the franchise was limited in both states involved in the Boer was, and that means they are not a democracy in the general sense. Including this as a source is WP:SYN at the very least. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean by a "right" to vote? That's one view of democracy (which Babst probably shared; it's an implication of "secret ballot and civil liberties"); but for most of the regimes mentioned in this article, voting is not a right, but a privilege; in many states, it still is.
No. I do not admit that the household suffrage of the Boer Republics was "restricted"; some democracies have had a wider franchise; very many have had narrower ones. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
You admitted it was restricted earlier (June 4th, see above), but no matter if you admit it or not, the source still does not say democracies, so your edits are not supported by this source. It's WP:OR or WP:SYN. Anyway, I've taken this up at Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#PMAnderson_and_Democracies_vs_electoral_states. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I will doublecheck; but sources are not to judged by character-strings, but by what they mean; in this case, Babst means "democracies" - and a reliable source says he does. Whether this agrees with OpenFuture's pet definition - or that of his favorite web-site - is not a matter of importance to me or to Misplaced Pages. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
And I have found another, as OpenFuture could have done with equal ease: Since this good soul seems to like R. J. Rummel, I present a link to Rummel's summary of Babst's paper, which uses the string democracy repeatedly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Which then makes it WP:SYN. That Rummel uses the word Democracy in relation to Babst doesn't mean that Babst uses the word democracy. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
No, it is a reliable source that Babst means "democracy", which is the point; we are not expected to quote Babst character for character - which would be plagiarism - but to represent his content. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
No, because the source does not say "Babst means democracy", that's your interpretation, and it's WP:SYN. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
This way lies Achilles and the Tortoise - Lewis Carroll's version. What part of "we are not expected to quote character for character" did you fail to understand? English words have meanings, even when Rummel uses them; Rummel attests - so do many others - that Babst is writing about democracies; OpenFuture denies it. I prefer to follow the sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
You are using "we are not expected to quote character for character" as an excuse for WP:SYN. It's completely clear that Babst does not mean democracy as the word is generally used, as most of the electoral governments he mentions are not seen as democracies in general. If Rummel sees them as democracies, then use Rummel as the source. What you do now is WP:SYN and that allows you to use any if your creative interpretations of various sources to support any statement. This is why WP:SYN isn't allowed. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
It is "completely clear" to you; it is not clear to me, to Small and Singer (op. cit), to Rummel, to Ray, to anybody else who has ever discussed Babst. Such "clarities" belong in a blog; this isn't one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Babst's full phrase is freely elective governments (as defined above).
  • Even if one considers subject peoples, the Boer Republics enfranchised more of their population than the British Empire ever did. It is possible to defend a definition of democracy which rules out Britain and France before 1960; but it is not English, which it is policy to use for our article titles.
  • It is quite true that the Boer Republics did not permit resident foreigners to vote. This is true of most democracies, including the United States; it would be even further from English to confine this article to European Union in the last few years. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
How does any of this make the Boer Wars wars between democracies in any generally accepted definition? That the British empire was *less* a democracy than the Boer republics is hardly an argument.
If you have to ask, you won't ever understand. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
This just shows how pointless this argument is. Any application of X's definition of Democracy on Y's list of conflicts is going to have this kind of pointless arguing going on. The reason for that is that it's WP:SYNTHESIS, and you and I obviously have different views of democracy. I can't apply mine, and you can't apply yours. The only definition that can be applied on Babst list of conflicts is his own definition, in that source. Everything else is Synthesis. And he does not call them democracies in that source. He calls them elective governments, and that is not the same thing. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
He calls them elective governments, and that is not the same thing He calls them, I repeat, "freely elective governments"; and it is the opinion of everyone who has written on Babst that they are the same thing. If OpenMouthFuture thinks differently, then he should publish on the subject. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Then quote "everyone else", what you are doing now it synthesis. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion

Weaponbb7 (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Viewpoint by OpenFuture
This is a list of wars between democracies. Pmanderson persists in using Dean V. Babst. "Elective Governments — A Force For Peace." a a source. That source consistently talks about "elective governments", which is not the same thing as democracies. Pmanderson claims that he means democracies, but applying Pmandersons or anyone elses viewpoint to Babsts terminology is WP:SYN, and we also can't decide who's viewpoint should be applied. The only solution is to allow only sources that actually calls the conflict in question a war, and calls the involved parties democracies. That means not using Babst. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Viewpoint by (name here)
....
Third opinion by Weaponbb7
....

I am withdrawing as The service of WP:3O seems to have turned in to conduct dispute now with the ANI. I will continue monitoring if it turns back to content dispute but right now ANI should take its course .Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. These are two separate issues, involving the same persons. Pmanderson both breaks WP:SYN and WP:UNCIVIL. I don't see why one should prevent the other. Even if Pmanderson would stop being uncivil, he still violates SYN. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Lets see where the ANI rolls, remove the offending text for now. If this ANI keeps going the way its already heading you might end up arguing with yourself if you insist on continuing this discussion. Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

What is this article supposed to be about?

The majority of supposed wars between democracy`s in this article are totally wrong. The Greek city states were not democracys, they were run by a minority of wealthy landowners and traders. Rome was never a democracy. The american revolution was not a war between democracys, it was just a rebellion. American Civil War same again, the confederacy was never a recognized state, just a civil war. I`m going to examine the rest now mark nutley (talk) 20:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for exposing your sockpuppetry. All the statements here are sourced; and Athens was a democracy. I will follow reliable sources (like Josiah Ober) over the unsourced ignorance of Misplaced Pages editors any day of the week. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Take it to WP:SPI and then you can redact your ludicrous claim mark nutley (talk) 21:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
The Greeks did not have democratic government. They had representative government mark nutley (talk) 21:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Please read the Federalist Papers. You have it almost precisely backwards; with a few marginal exceptions, representative government was unknown to the Greeks; they invented democracy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I`ll read through it later, how about the others i have pointed out? mark nutley (talk) 21:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
All of these assertion are sourced; read the sources. (And Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and Vermont all had elections before 1784.) 21:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Then they were badly sourced, the confederacy was never a recognized state. Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and Vermont were never recognized as states. Rome sure as hell was never a democratic system. The american war for independence was a revolution not a war between democracies mark nutley (talk) 21:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Both halves of this are irrelevant - nothing in this article is about recognized states. The second assertion is false; Pennsylvania and Connecticut were parties to the Treaty of Paris. I suppose it takes the gall to dismiss David Donald and James McPherson as bad sources to deny that the American Revolution was a war. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Lets go one at a time shall we. Yes the American Revolution was a war, but not a war between democracies. Next mark nutley (talk) 22:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
That's your opinion; the source you blanked was George Modelski, "Is America's Decline Inevitable?" The Bridge 19:2, pp. 11-18, (1988), who says otherwise. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok so the american rebellion ended in 1783 right? But the first election was not held until 1789 which is five years after the war. Can you tell me how a country which had not held an election to install a president was a democracy five years beforehand? mark nutley (talk) 12:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Wrong. See President of the Continental Congress; the United States was run by elected bodies from 1774 onwards; it adopted a new Constitution in 1789. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Excellent that`s this one out of the way, as the continental congress was not a government, as the people did not vote them in. and the president of it was not voted for by the people either. So what`s next? mark nutley (talk) 13:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
By that reasoning, the United States was not a democracy before 1913 when the Senate began to be directly elected by the people; indeed, it may not be one now - for the President (like the courts) is not so elected. But instead read indirect democracy.
Not at all, but a war of revolution is not a war between democracy`s and America was not one until the war was over. That is fact. Also your source is no good per wp:v i just tried to look at it online and there is no preview available mark nutley (talk) 14:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
That is two falsehoods. America was a democracy (arguably 14 democracies) from 1776 onward. Nothing requires sources to be on-line; most reliable sources are not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Of course most reliable sources are online, wp:v is a fairly hard rule on WP, how am i to verify (easily) that your source says what you say? And i would recommend you stop calling people liars, unless you are after a block? America was not a democracy during the war, this is why it is called a revolutionary war. Was the french revolution a war between democracies as well? mark nutley (talk) 14:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
(left) Who cares if USofA was a democracy or not during the revolutionary war. Britain was not, which is why they needed to war to get independent in the first place. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Unlike Mark Nutley's claims, you may actually be able to find sources for that. Find a sourced statement to that effect and we should certainly include it as well as Modelski. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
That would be WP:SYN, which still is against policy. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
We are not here to represent the statements that mark nutley makes up; we are here to represent sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Good. Then you can start with removing the references to Babst, who you are misrepresenting. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
So you say. Rummel, Ray, Singer and Small say otherwise. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
That's both doubtful, and more importantly, WP:SYN, which still is against policy. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Right, it's supposed to be a list of wars between democracies. A bit of history might help: The article was started as a List of exceptions to democratic peace theory. That correctly included a lot of conflicts that were neither wars per se, nor between democracies, per se, but that could be used to argue against many of the more extreme standpoints, eg "Democracies never go to war against another democracy", etc. But the article was after lengthy discussion renamed.

After the rename it was then trimmed, as it no longer should contain possible exceptions to democratic peace theory, but wars between democracies. All was well, until Pmanderson popped up, reverted the trimming made by several non-anonymous editors as "vandalism by anon". He has then after this persisted in trying to add back many conflicts who are either not wars, or not between democracies.

Now, enough history. :-) Are you right in that ancient Greece wasn't democracies in the modern sense? Yes. Should it therefore be deleted? Perhaps. But there are many different definitions of democracy, and with some definitions, they are democracies. So what to do? If we apply only one specific definition of democracy, which should we take? If we take all, then loads of conflicts that has never been called wars between democracies would be added. In fact, if we allow *any* definition of democracy, then probably any regime ever has been called it, and *all conflicts in the history of mankind* would end up here. That's clearly unsustainable.

There are two solutions. One is to list only those conflicts which explicitly has been called a "war between democracies". That is still probably WP:SYN though, because nobody is the source of the resulting list. So better would be to simply list all lists of wars between democracies, quoting the sources who do these listings. Such a list could even include Babst, as we could make the heading "Babst wars between electoral democracies" thereby making it clear that it's not democracies in the normal sense. But this last suggestion was rejected by Pmanderson, and I decided not to pursue it, but instead focus on the more fundamental issues of his personal attacks, misinterpretation of sources and penchant for synthesis, as those seemed more concrete and simpler. Perhaps that was a misjudgement. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Or there is the solution of finding reliable sources, citing them, and saying what they say. I have been doing so; you have been blanking everything you didn't like. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
That's the first solution above. And you have not been doing it. You have repeatedly found reliable sources, and said something they do *not* say. I have been blanking the additions when the sources has contradicted your addition. As soon as you have found a source that's not online, so I haven't been able to check them yet, I have let your edit stay. This is at least the third time I explain this to you. Why do you continue in claiming this? --OpenFuture (talk) 23:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
"One is to list only those conflicts which explicitly has been called a "war between democracies". That is still probably WP:SYN though, because nobody is the source of the resulting list. So better would be to simply list all lists of wars between democracies, quoting the sources who do these listings." I confess I don't follow. If something has been explicitly called a "war between democracies" in a reliable source, it's not synthesis. Who is calling it such? WikiuserNI (talk) 23:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, you'll have a whole different set of definitions of war and democracy, and you'll end up with a list that nobody else has. That kinda makes the whole list OR. It'll also be much bigger than anybody of the sources lists, which would imply that there are more of these wars than any researcher would say there was. So that's SYN.
Compare List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal). You couldn't make that article by listing loads of countries from different sources and their GDP. Different sources have different definitions and calculations. Such an article would be WP:OR and therefore the article in stead lists three separate prominent sources. That solution would work here too. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Precisely; that's what WP:WEIGHT is all about. There are a variety of opinions on what is, and is not, a democracy - all should be represented. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Right. But you can't do that by including everything anyone ever called a democracy in a list. That will automatically give undue weight to those who have the most "inclusive" view of democracy. In fact, it will present a view of democracy which is more extreme than the most inclusive view, as it will include much more governments and conflicts than any one single source. The only solution is therefore to present each sources list separately. That gives WP:WIEGHT to all the views of the topic, without creating a WP:SYN or WP:OR that has an WP:UNDUE weight towards inclusiveness. Such an article would start with "Different scholars have different opinion on what constitute wars between democracies." and then a heading listing those scholars who are of the opinion that there have been no wars between democracies at all, and then go on to those who list a few, and in the end we'd have Babst, noting that "Babst does not talk about wars between democracies, but wars between electoral governments, which is a closely related subject." and then we list his wars. This, as far as I can see, solves the OR/SYN issues with this article. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Athens

I came here because of PMAnderson's post at the classical Greece and Rome WikiProject. I have to say that anyone who thinks Athens wasn't a democracy is missing some basic cultural literacy, and is as well not taking a look at the sources cited in this article. Perhaps reading Athenian democracy will help (although that article needs improvement). --Akhilleus (talk) 23:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Athens at one point experimented with the most extreme form of democracy I can imagine: officials were chosen from the citizenry by lot. That is, any randomly chosen citizen was considered eligible and fit to play a role in government. (It's true that women and slaves were excluded, but that is a matter of enfranchisement, not what form of government a polity has.) Cynwolfe (talk) 02:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
The problem, which both of you are missing, is that the modern concept of Democracy requires common franchise. Every adult must have the right to vote. If women and slaves are excluded, it's not a democracy in the modern sense. So as you see, there are many different concepts of democracy. And if we then include people who think Cuba nad Orth Korea are the pinnacle of democracy, we find even more. And that's basically what the discussion is about. Athens clearly was *not* a democracy in the common modern sense. Should it then be included here or not? Well, that's tricky, and for more discussion on that issue see "What is this article supposed to be about" above. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
democracy As defined by the oxford english dictionary mark nutley (talk) 07:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
But this is not common usage. The first quotation from the actual OED is about democracy at Athens (when indeed all Athenian citizens had the right to vote); the last is The political life of the English democracy, may be said to date from the 21st of January 1841. when 3% of adult males (in the British Isles) had the vote.
Indeed this point of view would and does exclude the United States before the 1960s (see Poll tax and pauper; resident foreigners do not have the right to vote now); it would exclude England and France before 1958, for Indians and Kenyans and Malians had no right to vote. If you can find a source to uphold this POV, by all means include it here - or at Democracy if it does not mention war. But it is a minority POV and should not be accepted for the title or scope of the article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry but did you just say one man one vote is not the common usage for a democracy? And that the OED is representing a minority view of it? mark nutley (talk) 13:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
No. The definition you quote (only one of the OED's) is "a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives". What proportion of the inhabitants are eligible is one basis to classify democracies. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
For example, "one man, one vote" is an unnecessary limitation of democracy; New Zealand was the second democracy to let women vote in 1893, and the practice has been spreading ever since. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
One man one vote is a phrase, a democracy is were everyone gets a vote once they are at the age of majority. If only a few percent of people get to vote, that`s not a democracy mark nutley (talk) 13:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
That's your opinion; find a source for that point of view. Most people regard Abraham Lincoln and Robert Peel as having led democracies. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Finding sources for this view is not difficult and do try to recall what Abe said democracy is government of the people, by the people, and for the people mark nutley (talk) 14:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Try reading your own source. All citizens vote. All citizens could vote at Athens; in no state whatever have all inhabitants been citizens. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Just to add to it: Several founding fathers were against democracy, because they used the old Greek meaning of the word, what we today would call "mob rule". :-) Fighting about the definition of democracy is just the type of OR and SYN that is the problem with this article. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. The way to conduct this article is not to worry about the definition of democracy; to literate editors, there is no one the definition. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Definition of democracy

Personally i think this article is full of synth and OR. But lets see if it can be salvaged. To begin with we need a basepoint to decide what constitutes a democracy. I suggest This Paper as the basis for the article content mark nutley (talk) 19:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a very good paper, and contains a list of some 20 wars between democracies. The "public relations" (as Ray calls it) of demonstrating that there exists a definition of democracy which rules them all out is rhetoric -not science- still less a consensus definition of democracy.
If Mark Nutley bothers to read the actual text, he will find that even Ray's confidence-trick definition of democracy is not "one man, one vote" either; more like one man, half a vote. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Your rudeness aside, i do not have access to the full paper. I was looking for something we all could agree on as a baseline. Which was the following text If a political regime is categorized as democratic only if the identities of the leaders of its executive branch and the members of its national legislature are determined in elections in which at least two independent political parties participate, in which at least half the adult population are eligible to vote, and if the fairness of elections has been established by at least one peaceful transfer of power between opposing political parties, then an examination of controversial cases reveals that the proposition that democratic states never fight wars against each other is defensible would you agree to this as a starting point to decide on what constitutes a democracy? mark nutley (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Then you might consider listening to those who have read it.
The proposal of a baseline which is not consensus among the sources - and this isn't - is a proposal to impose a point of view; in this case, a point of view deliberately and admittedly chosen by Ray to make a case. This is even more contrary to policy than citing a source you haven't read. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Would you care to propose a baseline to work form? If not then i`ll just afd this as you obviously have no intention of working to improve the article and shall continue to fill it with or and synth mark nutley (talk) 20:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
No. To impose a "baseline" is to impose a point of view on a matter on which there is no consensus; that was against core policy an hour ago and it still is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Applying one definition of democracy on sources with other definitions in WP:SYN, so that would not help the SYN issues of this article. It would make them worse. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who's been around Misplaced Pages talk pages for a couple of years can see what's going on here. Party A wishes to advance the proposition that "true" democracies don't wage wars on each other; Party B wishes to disprove that thesis; and Party C wishes that the page could simply list wars fought between countries with governments constituted as democracies or democratic republics — as the word 'democracy' is used historically or in everyday speech. By "constituted," I mean "according to its constitution," whether written or not, and without judging whether the country lives up to its own democratic ideals, much less our own. (I have my doubts about whether this article needs to exist, and it's certainly more trouble than it's worth.) As for the statement in quotation marks above (I refer to the syntactic nightmare that begins "If a political regime is categorized as democratic"): I would find it an interesting and provocative thing to say in a scholarly essay, but it's argumentative, not encyclopedic. About this "synth" business I can only exclaim βολίτου δίκη. If a sufficient body of scholarship identifies each side taking part in a conflict as a democracy, on what grounds should the war be excluded? It's easy enough to note something like "although Whatever Country was constituted as a democracy, by the third year of the war it had devolved into a military junta," properly cited. Why exclude rather than explain? Cynwolfe (talk) 23:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Cow Poop :) Well a war between democracy`s would be just that. In this article we had the american war of independence, this was a revolutionary war and america was not a democracy at that time, neither was england truth be told. I`m not trying to advance a position, people go to war all the time, but it does at least have to be democracy's going to war in the article mark nutley (talk) 23:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
An agreement between editors as to what constitutes a democracy is completely irrelevant. If we can't find a source that says "This was a war between democracies", it doesn't get an entry, simple as that. WikiuserNI (talk) 23:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok then i`m good with that. I`m off to bed and shall start checking the refs tomorrow mark nutley (talk) 23:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
OK, great, then we are three that agrees with that, and only PManderson thinks differently. Maybe he'll come around once he realizes that I'm not the only one who doesn't want synthesis. This solution isn't as good as listing the separate lists IMO, but there seems to be little enthusiasm for that. :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 07:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, I saw now that Cynwolfe also prefers the synthesis way. It's not going to work, this article should evidently be deleted. Well, it should never have been renamed in the first place. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Cynwolfe: You forgot group D: Those who just want the article to list conflicts that can be reliably sourced as being a war between a democracy. That's where you end up if you were in group C, but realize why allowing synthesis in the article leads to never ending content conflicts. And there is the main problem of why we can't allow synthesis: Because it leads to never ending fight of who's view of democracy to use in each case. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Those would be the sourced statements which mark nutley has been removing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
No they wouldn't. You know, because I have pointed it out in detail, repeatedly, that the sources does not say that the conflicts are wars between democracies. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
You're not representing the synthesis policy accurately. It doesn't say "pick sources that all agree with each other and exclude those that don't." It doesn't say "never combine facts from multiple sources" (an encyclopedia article is precisely a summary of facts from multiple sources). The synthesis policy says not to "advance a position" by combining sources selectively, which is what some editors are trying to do here. I agree that it's irrelevant what contributing editors think a democracy is. Excluding Athens because you don't think Athens was a "real" democracy is synthesis (and ahistorical): it applies a particular argument as to what constitutes a democracy in order to advance a position on whether democracies go to war. A war should be listed if each side can be identified as a democracy by multiple scholarly sources of sufficient number and weight to reflect a scholarly consensus that the polity was formally a democracy, whether or not it lived up to its own democratic ideals or ours. It's extremely twisted logic to evoke the synthesis policy in attempting to use a selection of sources that confirm only one POV. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
The synthesis policy says not to "advance a position" by combining sources selectively - No it doesn't. WP:SYN says: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." This is exactly what Pmanderson is doing. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Are you saying the synthesis policy says it's OK to advance a position by combining sources selectively? Understood as a whole, the paragraph from which you quote surely warns editors not to manipulate sources to skew their meaning, period. Now, evidently you'd prefer to attack me personally on my talk page, but I'd rather have you explain what conclusion PMA is trying to reach by a misleading combination of sources. What wars is he claiming were fought by democracies when in fact the belligerents were not democracies? It's certainly possible that I'm not understanding what information he is attempting to misrepresent. Thanks for your patience. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I have not attacked you. I just explained to you that your personal attacks is against Misplaced Pages policy. I must explain this to you, as we have to make sure the editor that breaks Misplaced Pages policy understands that he/she is breaking it, so he/she has a chance to not do it again. So my explanation is also a part of wikipedia policy.
Are you saying the synthesis policy says it's OK to advance a position by combining sources selectively? - No, I'm not saying that. That is also against policy, but that's rather WP:UNDUE and not WP:SYN.
the paragraph from which you quote surely warns editors not to manipulate sources to skew their meaning, period. - No, that's not what it says. That is also not allowed, but that is not necessarily synthesis.
I'd rather have you explain what conclusion PMA is trying to reach by a misleading combination of sources - Once again: He combines Babst, who talks about wars between elective governments, and Rummel, who talks about democracy, to claim that the conflicts Babst calls wars between elective governments are wars between democracy. He applies one authors definition of democracy on another authors list of conflicts, to reach the conclusion that the list as wars between democracies, something Babst never says. It is clearly synthesis. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to trouble you again, but could you name two or three of the wars in question? As was asserted above, the article should list wars that occur between two democracies that can be verified as democracies. PMA would not be engaging in OR or synthesis if he were using sources simply to verify the constitutional status of either participant, because he would not be putting sources together in order to arrive at a conclusion — he would only be using multiple sources to verify facts. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
As was asserted above, the article should list wars that occur between two democracies that can be verified as democracies. - No, that would require us to use one source for the conflict being a war and another for it to be a democracy, and that would be WP:SYN. It should list wars that have reliable sources that say that they are wars between democracies. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Every single GA takes its facts from multiple sources. Encyclopedia articles are not single-source book reports; they involve processing good-quality sources that accurately reflect the full range of scholarship, summarizing and comparing these, organizing the material logically, and creating an effective graphic presentation that will by its nature affect how the reader perceives the material. This process requires the presence of thinking editors, not just bots cutting and pasting with electronic scissors. What you're talking about isn't at all a matter of drawing a conclusion. It's simply verifying a series of facts, as in any other article. There's no conclusion drawn. Exactly what is this syllogism you're perceiving? Cynwolfe (talk) 23:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Every single GA takes its facts from multiple sources. - Yes, but it does not make up "facts" that isn't in any of the sources. Because that would be synthesis. I really don't understand what you find unclear. I have repeated what synthesis is multiple times for you, and I've explained the synthesis in this case clearly multiple times. That's all I can do. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

You can't provide the syllogism (the synth policy gives a sort of syllogism as an example), because no conclusion is being drawn. This is a fairly straightforward matter of verifiability, not synthesis. Country A and Country B fought a war; this can be verified. Country A is a democracy; this can be verified by multiple sources, and no source says it wasn't a democracy. Country B is usually considered a democracy, with some dissent or qualification; like any other point that lacks complete scholarly consensus, this can be verified in context with a note or an explanatory sentence. Synthesis requires the drawing of a conclusion past this presentation of verifiable information. If Country A became a dictatorship after the war (verifiable), it would be synthesis if an editor then applied a scholarly theory to the results: if a scholar theorized that wars often cause democracies to change their constitutions, but did not mention Country A at all in discussing his theory, and then an editor applied this theory to add the conclusion that becoming a dictatorship was the result of this former democracy going to war, that would be synthesis and/or OR. Simply providing the information on the existence of a war and the constitutional status of the participants is neither. In fact, this is the kind of information that could be provided neutrally on a table, every cell of which would need to be verifiable, not necessarily by the same sources. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Syllogism: The syllogism is "The Boer war was a war between elective governments (Babst). Babst made research on democracies and war (Rummel). Therefore the Boer was was a war between democracies (Pmanderson)." The last part is Synthesis. Neither source calls the war a war between democracies, hence: Synthesis.
Country A and Country B fought a war; this can be verified. Country A is a democracy; this can be verified by multiple sources, and no source says it wasn't a democracy. Country B is usually considered a democracy. - No. This is not an accurate description of the cases. Usually neither country A nor B is viewed as a democracy. Pmanderson finds some sort of way to interpret some source to say that A and B are democracies, even though most other sources disagree, and claims it's a war between democracies.
Synthesis requires the drawing of a conclusion past this presentation of verifiable information. - No. It requires you to draw a conclusion not available in any of the sources. If you do, then it's synthesis. Simply put: Don't make your own conclusions.
Simply providing the information on the existence of a war and the constitutional status of the participants is neither. - Yes, if you do that in a list of wars between democracies, then it *is* synthesis, because then you are drawing a conclusion that exist in neither source.
At this point it's probably pointless to ask me to clarify more. I've since long reached the end of my pedagogical resources. I can't explain it better, you'll just have to ask at the Village Pump for more help. Sorry. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
The minor premise of your attempt at a syllogism makes no syntactical sense ('made research on democracies and war'?), so it's hard to discern what PMA was asserting and why. It may well be that I would agree with you on the specifics here. In general, however, it sounds as if you're saying that articles are created by cutting and pasting single sentences and excluding scholarship that doesn't fit. This would produce a very infantile article; certainly none of the GAs I've read are written in that manner. I originally visited this page because I was interested in why Athens wouldn't be considered a democracy; I stayed to explore the principles in play because I'm also interested in how people interpret the synthesis and OR policies. What I'd ordinarily do at this point is roll up my sleeves and try to help instead of just yammering on the talk page, but I don't really see this article as serving any vital purpose. I don't at all agree with your interpretation of "synthesis," and think there are better ways than quoting WP rules to argue against listing the Boer Wars among "wars between democracies." Thank you for your time. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
it's hard to discern what PMA was asserting and why. - How is it hard to discern what he is asserting? I agree it's hard to discern *why*. I don't know either.
In general, however, it sounds as if you're saying that articles are created by cutting and pasting single sentences and excluding scholarship that doesn't fit. - No I don't think it sounds like that. It sounds like I'm saying that Pmanderson is combining material from two sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Because that's what I'm saying, so it should sound like it. I really, honestly, don't know how I can be any more clear, nor how it's possible to interpret WP:SYN in any other way, so it's hardly a question of interpretation either. The WP:SYN part is perfectly clear. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that Cynwolfe's understanding is pretty spot-on here. While there may be highly-contested cases of "democracies", IMO, it would be fairly asanine to invoke charges of synthesis in the examples involving nations where there is no serious dispute of the status as a democracy. If a war between Switzerland and the US broke out, and sources covering the war didn't bother to make the obvious (and not-seriously-contested) assertion that the nations are democratic, there should still be little problem in including the conflict here. Invoking SYN in obvious cases of democracies would be equivalent to someone invoking a SYN problem in some other article if the source refers to "Marxists," but the article is supposed to discuss "Communist groups". BigK HeX (talk) 11:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Once again, the cases under discussion here where the synthesis goes *against* the general consensus. --OpenFuture (talk) 00:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence for that claim? If so, let's see it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Wrong burden of proof, my friend. You show that there is general consensus that the countries in question was democratic. You have not. And in any case, I believe BigK Hex interpretation is incorrect. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
It's mostly irrelevant even on contested "democracies." If there is a significant academic opinion holding that an entity qualifies as a democracy then attribute the claim of democracy to the proper source(s), and list any significant WP:RS that oppose the "democracy" characterization. Afterwards, one can list the fact that there was a war between the parties with the provision that some may not consider the involved entities as democracies. The reader will have the necessary opinions (and citations) and can be left to decide for himself. BigK HeX (talk) 06:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
If there is a significant academic opinion holding that an entity qualifies as a democracy - There isn't. You can say "If there is" how many times you want, it doesn't change anything. There is no such generic academic consensus, and Pmanderson will not be able to show that there is. It's irrelevant, what he is doing is synthesis. And the whole basic layout of the article is prone to this. I did the same mistake first, mark nutley did the same now. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
It's great that you know that! For us less-omniscient editors, we'll likely have to settle for actually dealing with the issues on a case-by-case basis. BigK HeX (talk) 07:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

AFD

{{editprotect}} I just AFD`d this article but due to the edit protect it has not shown on the page. Could someone please do that as the discussion page was created. Or delete the discussion page and i shall do the afd once the protection expires, whichever is easiest mark nutley (talk) 21:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

plus Added — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Continuation War and UK

Just reading the article and noticed this
  • Continuation War: A formal state of war between Great Britain and Finland resulting from the Finnish invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941; unlike the formal war between Australia or Canada and Finland, there was actual, if limited, conflict between the two parties.
However there are no indications that any acts of war would have been taken during the war time. There were no Finnish actions (at least no documented ones) against UK at all and only (documented) UK action against Finland happened 31 July 1941 - and even that was a small scale air raid against at the time German occupied locality of Petsamo - while the war against Finland was only declared several months later 6 December 1941. After the declaration of war UK took no action against the Finland for the rest of the WW2.
So... where are the basis for the claim of "actual, if limited, conflict between the two parties"? - Wanderer602 (talk) 09:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
The British did not bomb German installations in other, neutral, countries (Spain, for example); it would have been a violation of neutrality. There were also Finnish ships sunk, outside the domain of operations of the Soviet Union. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
British bombed the Petsamo only once and even that happened at the time when Finland and UK were still at peace. Besides Lapland (in which Petsamo belonged to) was occupied (or manned) by Germans (by German-Finnish agreement). You would closer with analogies if you compared it with the occupied portion of France or something (that is most civilians were still locals but military & military administration was German). As for sunk ships... only merchant vessels were subject to that. Merchant vessels under pretty much every flag were attacked and sunk during the WW2. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Do you have a source for that first claim? If I recall correctly, Wayman says otherwise.
Sinking merchant vessels, especially without warning, is none the less an act of war; consider the Lusitania.
But, yes, this is the existence of a formal state of war between democracies - another example of definition dependence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
British air raid on Petsamo: 31 July 1941. British declaration of war: 6 December 1941. So at the time of the attack and for good 4 months after it Finland and Britain were still at peace. As for Germans in the Lapland... Operation Silver Fox & Raid on Kirkenes and Petsamo. Or which claim did you mean? - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Should probably be rephrased; but this is still both a legal state of war between several democracies and an act of war between two. Both should be listed. Let me think about how to recast, unless somebody does it first. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
True on both counts. There was a legal state of war. And there was an attack. But those should not be mixed together. The attack did not happen during the war time nor did it lead to war either (as it was Britain that declared the war and not Finland). - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Civil Wars

Are not wars between democracies, As both Verbal and Pmanderson have now reverted the mback in would either one be good enough to explain why they think a civil war is a war between democracies. mark nutley (talk) 21:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing in the definition that means both sides can't be democratic - they are not mutually exclusive. For example, in the American civil war both sides were democracies. Verbal chat 22:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
No as the confedarcy was never a recognized state and as such there could not have been a war between democracies. Did the confederacy even hold a general election? I can`t find any source which says they did mark nutley (talk) 22:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Ted Carpenter describes the Confederacy as a democracy in a criticism of those who propose as hard fact that "democracies eliminate warring". He says,

The inconvenient matter that Southerners considered their new confederacy democratic (which it was by the standards of the day) and that most Northerners did not dispute that view (they merely regarded it as beside the point) is simply ignored. The willingness of democratic Americans to wage an enthusiastic internecine slaughter fairly cries out for a more serious discussion. If a democratic people could do that to their own, how confident can we be that two democracies divided by culture or race (e.g., the United States and Japan) would recoil from doing so? At the very least, proponents of the democratic-peace thesis cannot assume that the point is self-evident.

So, there's at least one source asserting the democratic bona fides of the Confederates, and that source is specifically in the context of inter-democratic wars. BigK HeX (talk) 23:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Interesting, but the USSR called itself democratic as it had elections :) So of course the confederacy would call themselves such. Is there a link to a preview of that book? Looks interesting. Still can`t find a source saying there were general elections in the confederacy though mark nutley (talk) 23:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
This life of Senator Davis should do nicely; "a general election was held in the Confederacy in November 1861"; another was held in November 1863 and elected the Second Confederate Congress. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

For the record: most theories of the democratic peace exclude civil wars which divide - or attempt to divide - democratic states; this is not because such wars don't occur, but because they do. It can reasonably be argued, and is, that the modes by which such wars break out differ from any mode by which two originally distinct states go to war, and are not subject to whatever constraints produce the liberal peace.

Nevertheless, both sides in such a civil war often function as democracies, as they had before the war; this may be most obvious in the Swiss Civil War, in which both sides were alliances of states which had been democratic for centuries; indeed, the Sonderbund included Uri, Schwyz, and Unterwalden, the three direct democracies which had formed the Swiss Confederation in 1291. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

SP your link to Davis only shows a book cover :(, Is there no source available online to check these things? mark nutley (talk) 07:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Not on any of the computers I have used. This source is called The twentieth century biographical dictionary of notable Americans; the fourth page of the lengthy entry on "Davis, Jefferson". Other sources on the Confederate Government are quite widely available. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
This link you posted above shows only a book cover of The twentieth century biographical dictionary of notable Americans as you say, it does not lead to a page to verify what you have said mark nutley (talk) 17:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Your mileage varies. I checked that link when I added it; I have checked it now, on a different computer; it leads me to the discussion of Davis' election. Google books sometimes works differently in different countries; in any case, you have a reference to a specific page in a specific article in a specific book (the articles are in alphabetical order); go to a library - and look up any book on the Confederate Government, or on Senator Davis, if you don't find that one. I may be obliged to find you a source; I am not obliged to be your bookstore. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Couple of issues, that book was first printed in 1904, It isnot possible to get it from a library here, I checked the British Library website. Your source is not verifiable at all. Got anything else? mark nutley (talk) 20:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Did you bother to search for this book, in the public domain in the United States (it may not be in Great Britain), on the web? You would have found this almost immediately; volume 3 of the ten-volume edition. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I note the underlying assumption in this thread: "not verifiable" = "not obtained by some random effort". This is not our definition. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

(od) Do you always have to be so rude? Even in edit summerys? That looks like an excellent resource and i thank you for pointing it out to me. Ok that`s the American civil war out of the way, Lets try the American Revolution which was a revolution, not a war between democracies mark nutley (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

No, let's not. That was both a rebellion and a war; just like the American Civil War, also known as the War of the Rebellion. It was between democracies according to Modelski as cited; he was the first I found, but I believe others have actually bothered to state the obvious. Go read him, or find your own sources. (That would actually be helpful to the encyclopedia.)
We are not conducting a remedial education class; we are not your servants. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I am getting fed up of your constant insults, Stop. Does your source actually say. This was a war between democracies? mark nutley (talk) 21:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Categories: