Talk:List of wars between democracies/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

First comment

This list is a fine resource - congratulations to the people who put it together. - Pepper 150.203.227.130 11:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Images

Are images necessary? I would avoid advertisement... this page is at high risk of being voted for deletion.Furthermore, they make the first table less readableMassimamanno

I hoped that they could show that this is not a crank theory invented on Wikipedia, which some previous voters may have thought. So I think they should remain, Pmanderson will list this article for deletion.Ultramarine 07:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

A good point, but perhaps we could use an author supporting the theory who isn't Weart? He is cited in each row, adding his book cover makes the whole thing really look like a sermon. However I am really doubtful about readability also.Massimamanno

How about Ray's book?Ultramarine 07:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

That's fine for me.Massimamanno

How about this?Ultramarine 07:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

No to the flag of ASEAN... please... find a place for it in the main article, the table must be more than anything else readable. regarding the other 2, ok, let me first try placing them one left and one right of the intro.Massimamanno

Hmmm... what do you think of the experiment?.Massimamanno

Looks very good! What do you think about remvoing the Burundi Civil War, I cannot think of a reason for this being a democratic war? Ultramarine 08:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok.Massimamanno

Removed images to make discussion page more readable Massimamanno 18:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Ray's review of Never at War

I have found an interesting review of Weart's book: [1].Ultramarine 18:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, indeed. There are positive comments about the book also, but I'd say that the statement about Weart's book being "obviously outside the mainstream" of democratic peace research would alone suggest toning down the number references to Weart in this article. In any case something should be added about ray's criticisms to Weart on specific wars (Athens vs. Syracuse, for example) Massimamanno 02:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Outside the mainstream refers only to his culture only or normative explanation and to not using statistics. Ray, as many others, prefer structural explanations. He notes "Surely, regardless of what one may ultimately think about the work, the place to begin a consideration of the pre-Cold War evidence regarding the relationship between democracy and peace is Never at War by Spencer Weart."Ultramarine 02:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I have clarified Ray's position regarding Ancient Greece.Ultramarine 03:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

As I said, there are positive comments also, but in my reading the tone of the review is politely, but clearly, negative. In modern research, the criticism of "not using quantitative methods", which Ray repeats more than once, almost amounts to "not being science". But, instead, "historical narrative". My opinion, of course, don't take it personally. After all, you are not Weart (I suppose :p) Massimamanno 03:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

On Athens, minor correction but I was mostly referring to other people's positions cited such as Robinson's. but I may look to direct sources. At the moment I am concentrating on the main article Massimamanno 03:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Most of Weart's book is about recent wars and there seem to be no disagreement regarding this. Note that his book is really the only one that studies these issues in great detail. Russett has one chapter regarding Ancient Greece and only a few pages regarding modern specific conflicts. Ray has one chapter. Both use much less sources than Weart, often only a single English source for a conflict, while Weart has used at least 5, often citing research in many different languages, often including reserch only available in the language of country in question. The main disagreement is regarding Athens, which is not unexpected. Those arguing for structural explanations, like Ray, must probably argue that Athens is an exception, since the structures there were different from today. Those who argue for normative explanations, like Weart, must probably argue that Athens is not an exception, since both Athens and modern states had democratic norms among the leaders and voters. So it is not unexpected that those who argues for structural explanations criticize Weart regarding Athens.

It is easy for Ray to criticize the lack of statistical calculations when he himself uses easily available prefabricated datasets created by large teams of other researchers, such as polity and COW, that only studies the period after 1815. Weart looks at a much wider period for which there are no data sets, and it seems a bit harsh to demand statistics for this. In principle this would require that Weart himself creates a new data set for most of human history listing for every state and year battle deaths and degree of democracy. It also misleading to state that Weart aims at a "historical narrative". His aim is to find the minimum requirements that prevents wars. He does this by comparative case studies. In particular, he looks at the most ambiguous conflicts in order to determine exactly when states with democratic characteristics make war with one another or not. (I am not Weart or in any way connected with him, but I have read the various DPT works that goes through specific conflicts, and his is by far the most detailed and sourced.)Ultramarine 09:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is Robinson's article [2] and Weart's response [3]. Robinson has replied briefly in return, but there is no link.Ultramarine 19:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Proportion of voters in Chile and Peru

There has been some opposing sources to Weart's statement than 1/50 could vote. The Polyarchy Data Set seems to support him. It states that 0.1% of the population voted in Peru and 2.5% voted in Chile. It gives several sources.Ultramarine 09:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Then it seems that there are conflicting sources. I will check, although it does not seem to be such a big problem to justify a splitting. A sentence such as "other sources report 2.5% instead" could suffice?Massimamanno 15:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. It is really not an important issue.Ultramarine 15:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Civilian deaths

Regarding casualties, Correlates of War not including civilian deaths is a debated issue, since in modern wars it is estimated that about 75% casualties are civilians. Also, it is an ongoing event and a provisionary count. I insist that the number stays, with the appropriate specification, as I wrote it. You can insert the number of "battle" deaths in the rebuttal sectionMassimamanno 15:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Battle deaths and COW numbers are what is usually used in research on wars. A general criticsm of this could be in the general article. Since Israel is planning a major invasion, it will probably be more than 1000 battle deaths next week anyhow, if using Israel's numbers for Hezbollah deaths.Ultramarine 15:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Israel-Lebanon Conflict

The current conflict isn't a war between sovereign states, it's a (lawful or unlawful, that's another discussion) military operation between a sovereign state and a militia. Lebanon's army is not involved in combat (except collateral damage). I don't see this article arguing that Hezbollah is a liberal democracy... Wouter Lievens 13:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Good point. The text should be clearer.Ultramarine 06:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Falklands War of 1982

Should the Falklands War of 1982 be included in this list as well?

Argentina had a military dictatorship, see National Reorganization Process. I do not think anyone argues that Argentina was a democracy then.Ultramarine 05:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Allende 1973

The following is a quotation from this site: Chilean coup of 1973 1973 President Salvador Allende was democratically elected. The United States tried to undermine Salvador Allende's regime but was not directly involved in the coup d'etat. Chile was perceived as turning into a Communist dictatorship.[2] p. 227-228. Less than 1000 battle deaths in the coup.

This one is taken from the article about the Chilean coup of 1973: The worst violence occurred in the first few months after the coup, with the number of suspected leftists killed or "disappeared" soon reaching into the thousands.

Frankly, I am not an expert, but I never came across numbers of death below 1000, so could it be reviewed?

Not battle deaths.Ultramarine 09:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Moving

Should be moved to "List of possible exceptions to the democratic peace theory". Objections? Ultramarine 08:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• That seems to have happened but we have now moved on to List of wars between democracies per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of possible exceptions to the democratic peace theory Colonel Warden (talk) 17:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Contra War

The Contra war between the USA (by proxy) and Nicaragua in the 1980s needs to be added to this list. Whatever people say about the Sandinistas they had massive popular support and did hold democratic elections. If the older wars involving barely-democratic countries merit involvement on this list there is absoloutely no reason why the contra war does not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dancloney (talk • contribs) 14:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

I will add this conflict.Ultramarine 15:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Irish War of Independence

Arguing British and Irish constitutional theory over the events of 1919-1922 is always messy, but have any of the authors cited noted that:

a) The 1918 general election was for a single, UK wide parliament and it was only Sinn Fein candidates who declared it to be the opportunity to elect a breakaway parliament

b) International practice tends to regard plebiscites not election results as a means for self-determination (for one thing it can get some clarity as to the precise area that would self-determine - the "mandate in all Ireland" vs "mandate in Northern Ireland" argument is basically "who gets to determine who gets to self-determine?!") - the Sinn Fein victory in this context would be a mandate to negotiate an independence settlement, not a legal act of separation in and of itself. See The Irish Election of 1918 And even if the election is a legitimate tool for independence, it turns the Irish election into an act of self-determination, not a choice of government for running the resultant state. So would the Irish Republic have qualified as a democracy?

Indeed in general can any war of separatism be considered to be between two democracies? Usually at least one does not recognise the legimitacy of the other's proclaimed government. Timrollpickering 01:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Italian Republics

Would it be worth mentioning some of the wars between the Italian Republics, such as the Venetian-Genoese War, War of Chioggia, etc? They could be summarised together, as the major objection that the states were essentially oligarchies would apply to each war. Warofdreams talk 02:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Reference formatting

Page numbers belong inside the reference tags, not outside them as is the case numerous times in this article. This is an annoying thing to fix, but it will be necessary if this article can be considered for featured list status. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Trail of Tears

how was the trail of tears a war? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.104.199 (talk) 19:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Grasping the Democratic Peace.jpg

Image:Grasping the Democratic Peace.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ballots and Bullets.jpg

Image:Ballots and Bullets.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Current Russia/Georgia War

Doesn't the war between Georgia and Russia count as an exception to this theory. Richardkselby (talk) 23:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

That depends on which Peace Theory you use. The largely vacuous one pushed by Rummel, Ray and Weart (and nobody else) requires a thousand battlefield deaths to count as full-scale war; other theorists have other limitations (and so they admit there have already been a handful of exceptions; since they claim correlation, this is not a problem). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with this article

• There are numerous democratic peace theories. The claim that there has never been a war between democracies is restricted to three authors, and is not characteristic of most of the literature.
• Those authors (two of which differ slightly from the third) use an extremely restrictive definition of democracy, and a quite narrow definition of war (as mentioned above, the current mess in Georgia does not meet it). It is not difficult to claim that there have been no wars between democracies in a given century if one acknowledges the existence of no democracies; before about 1880, there were democratic governments (by the definition here cited) in the United States and Switzerland only. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
• having discussed only this extreme view, the article then proceeds to argue for its favored position; in the process, mischaracterizing and misdescribing such views of the majority as it deigns to cite. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The most known version of the theory is that an inter-democracy war has never occured. This article provides arguments for and against this theory. It is balanced and one of Wikipedia's best articles IMO. Jacob Lundberg (talk) 16:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Sophist definitions

Sophistry runs rampant in the analysis of several posited wars between democracies, with ad-hoc limits placed to make a country "not a democracy" based on the proportion of adults voting or its pre war years of existence, or making a war "not a war" due to limited battle deaths. The requirement of number of battle deaths, the duration of the democracy before the war, and the proportion of adults voting stated to exclude particular wars seem to come from the ad-hoc desire to exclude certain cases. As for the 2/3 of adults voting, does this mean the U.S was not a democracy before women got the right to vote after World War 1? A better standard would be whether reliable sources now or at the time of the conflict considered the country to be a "democracy" by the standards of the day. Edison (talk) 17:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The article cites what various researchers have said about the cases and gives the reader an oppurtunity to form his own opinion. Jacob Lundberg (talk) 16:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

October War/Yom Kippur War

Weren't Egypt and Istrael democracies in 1973? 24.160.242.185 (talk) 05:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't merge

This is an excellent article. The nature of the theory makes the debate focus on cases (see e.g. Tony Blair at Jon Stewart). It provides arguments for and against and is therefore NPOV. Jacob Lundberg (talk) 23:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The Merge tag diverts the discussion to here. I've copied this comment to there; please make any further comments there also. Moonraker12 (talk) 16:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Typo or revert?

This edit was labelled "typo" but it seems more like a revert to me. It should be examined closer. Jacob Lundberg (talk) 00:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Is "Freedom House" a neutral party?

Should the article revolve entirely around their definition of liberal democracy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.70.177 (talk) 18:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

|}

Dubious-discuss in intro

Its not clear to me what is meant by the "dubious-discuss" templates in the intro. The first line of the article on democratic peace theory is "The democratic peace theory (or liberal peace theory[1] or simply the democratic peace) holds that democracies — usually, liberal democracies — never go to war with one another." This is pretty much clear from the name of the theory. So why is it dubious? The statement doesn't seem dubious at all. Can someone explain what they meant with these templates? If not, I am inclined to delete them as unjustified clutter. Locke9k (talk) 14:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Such templates are commonly placed by editors using automated tools. If they are not followed up with proper discussion then they should be removed as they are unsightly and unhelpful. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Massive Rework

Per the discussion on the AFD, a massive rework of this page is necessary. The page has been moved to List of wars between democracies, and the content needs to be adjusted accordingly. The major issue raised in the AFD was that a lot of this probably constitutes original research in the form of unpublished synthesis. It is also possibly open to charged of nonencyclopedic cross-categorization, so the usefulness of this categorization needs to be well established. In order to improved this article, several things are necessary from my perspective.

• Remove all list items that don't have a reasonable, sourced claim to being a war between democracies. For instance, the US revolutionary war should be removed (which I have done) because there was no sourced reasonable claim that Britain was truly a democracy.
• Rework the article out of this table format. First of all, two of the columns no longer make sense. Second, the amount of explanation necessary for each item isn't really conducive to a table format.
• Refocus and shorten the explanation section for each item. The explanation should just give an overview of the basic facts justifying its inclusion (overview of war and evidence of democracy) and an overview of any published arguments against inclusion (note the new title when deciding what is relevant). These sections need to be well sourced to ensure they don't consist of independent research. They should be fairly short. This is a list - for more information the reader should go to the relevant article, where available.

I have started work on this stuff, but its a big project, so any assistance would be helpful. Just getting the stuff out of the table is fairly lengthy. Thanks - Locke9k (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• • I really like the new focus of this article. Well done so far!
  • The intro should be carefully worded. "This is list of wars between democracies" sounds POV, since the fact that the article is not empty seems to falsify the democratic peace theory.
  • Perhaps archiving the discussion above would be appropriate. Jacob Lundberg (talk) 23:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Unfortunately I don't actually know how to archive chat sections, but I agree that the previous discussion sections are basically outdated now and would support archival. As to your second point, I am very concerned about that also. I probably should have mentioned it in the list above. I'm not really sure how to address this other than the caveat I have added regarding varying definitions of "democracy" and "war". This sort of helps but I'm not sure it really takes care of the problem. If you or anyone else has other ideas they would be much appreciated. Locke9k (talk) 23:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I've placed the old content into a collapse box at the top. I'm about to add a form of words at the top that refers to the outcome of the AfD without prejudicing TreasuryTag's ability to raise a new AfD at a later date. Please feel free to amend that form of words if you disagree with it, there's nothing "official" about what I'm trying to say.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your wording. I'm still not entirely sure we will be able to get this article into a 'saveable' state, but I am hopeful. Locke9k (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Operations / supported coups

There are several items in this list that are essentially coups in a democratic nation, that were supported by other democratic nation (the US). I am skeptical as to whether these belong here as they don't seem to meet the definition of war. Any opinions? Locke9k (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. especially since this article revolves around democratic-peace theory. democracies find alternatives to direct war. 12.156.208.3 (talk) 09:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

another possible rename

In order to avoid issues over the proper definition of 'war', what would people think about another rename of this page to "List of military conflicts between democracies". This might short circuit a lot of the debate associated with the democratic peace theory that might cause problems here. Opinions? Locke9k (talk) 16:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it's easier to say "wars". See for example the "Troubles" in Northern Ireland for the kind of thing that would get introduced by a form of words like "military conflicts".—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that people could argue that 'wars' is limited to declared wars, which eliminates most post-WWII conflicts since nations frequently just don't bother to declare war now. "Military Conflict" would solve this problem, and we could just apply a notability criterion to decide what would go into this article. Or maybe there is another way to avoid the 'declared wars only' problem that I'm not thinking of. Any ideas? Locke9k (talk) 03:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

We could say "Military conflicts between democratic nations", I suppose, but that's getting a little specific for an encyclopaedia. I think leave it as it is but make clear that we're including undeclared wars in the lede.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I do agree somewhat with the section below that there is a POV issue here. This is clearly the object of extensive debate within the field, and the title may need to reflect that. I think that we should change the title to "List of putative wars between democracies" to reflect the fact that there is debate over the issue. I may go ahead and do that. The rework is starting to stall and I think we need some bold action to keep the steam up.Locke9k (talk) 06:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Colonel Warden, can you explain the reasoning for your page move back to "List of wars between democracies"? As we have discussed here, there is a serious POV issue with this name as there is apparently a major debate within the field as to whether of these actually qualify. It is important that the title be NPOV and not appear to take a side within that debate. Locke9k (talk) 22:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

POV-pushing

The new, current name of this article (List of wars between democracies) is POV in itself, since many (the majority) of the cases described are clearly wars involved non-democratic nations. The older title (List of possible exceptions to democratic peace theory) and the former, table-based format, were much more NPOV.--MaGioZal (talk) 05:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

If that is the case they should be removed. If necessary the list can be whittled down to a very few cases. A major problem with the previous article was that it was inherently speculative. It read as an original research thesis constituting unpublished synthesis of multiple different sources. It probably would have lost the deletion debate that was going on at the time, but we proposed this rework as an attempt to save it. It needed to be somewhat decoupled from the democratic peace theory page so that it could be written as a freestanding verifiable article. Also, its hard to see how a table-based format could be more or less POV than this format. The problem with that format was that its not really appropriate to use a table when there needs to be a massive amount of content in each cell of the table. When there is that much content it aught to be in a more standard article layout. I do still think that perhaps the current title is not the best possible one, and if you have any suggestions for succinct, useful alternatives, they would be greatly appreciated. Locke9k (talk) 06:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, I don't think it is reasonable to characterize anything presently happening as POV pushing. I personally had never heard of the democratic peace theory before reading the article, and as far as I can see the other major editors working on this revamp don't have any attachment one way or the other either. We are just trying to save the article from a delete on OR grounds because we think it has potential and is a valuable contribution. Locke9k (talk) 06:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

the older title does sound more appropriate and instead of just organizing by date, also by reasons it is or isn't an exception. like not a war, or neither participant a democracy. 12.156.208.3 (talk) 09:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

instead of changing the name, I am changing the context. 12.156.208.3 (talk) 22:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The older title is still more appropriate. It declares flatly (that democracies have gone to war) something that the text treats as being in dispute. Further, it is questionable whether this should be an article on its own or should be merged into democratic peace theory. 164.214.1.51 (talk) 15:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The only purpose of this article is to challenge the Democratic peace theory (which claims that "democracies" to not make war on each other) by providing a list of exceptions. A better title, therefore, would be Objections to the democratic peace theory or - more strongly - Counterexamples to the democratic peace theory. At issue is whether the list of counterexamples really does disprove the theory.

Of course, it all depends on the Definitions of democracy and democratic, as well as on how big "war" must be. Rummel has tinkered with his definition of "democracy" and "war" in such a way the list of wars between democracies is empty. His idea of democracy requires maturity and/or experience, so that simply having been democratically elected is nowhere near enough. His requirements are stringent and extensive:

• People have equal rights before the law. Fundamental civil liberties like freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of association. Free markets. Constitutional limitations on government power. Policies and leaders are determined through open, competitive elections where at least two-thirds of adult males have the franchise. Countries like the United States, Canada, Denmark, France, Great Britain, Sweden, and Switzerland. [4]

He also defines "war" for this purpose as any conflict in which 1,000 or more people were killed. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

This article survived a previous AfD by being renamed from "List of possible exceptions to the democratic peace theory", that would seem to prejudice against changing the intent of this article.

We also cannot place wars here that we think should fit the bill. Unless a cite is found to say "this is a war between democracies" it doesn't belong here. Assessing whether something is a war and whether the participants were/are democracies doesn't wash. WikiuserNI (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Roman republic

This whole subject is like wrestling with smoke: But isn't part of the point of this theory that if people have a choice they choose against war? So isn't it relevant that the republic had a citizen army? That it was only citizens (who did vote) that were required to serve in the army (and provide their own armour)? Moonraker12 (talk) 11:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

too technical

I have posted the 'technical' template, because many of the discussions are written in a very clipped and advanced way that seems to presuppose a lot of outside knowledge on the part of the reader. It would be very helpful for the discussion of some of these wars to be rewritten in a brief way that is accessible to the normal person. Locke9k (talk) 06:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

how to format the discussions

It would be helpful if the discussion of each war was approached in a parallel way, where possible and appropriate. To me, here is the ideal approach. Open the section with a (referenced) statement as to the overall strength of the argument for inclusion in this list. Is it a fringe case or is there a strong body of argument suggesting inclusion? Second, give a brief overview of the nature of the war. Who were the participants, when did it occur, what was it about, any other pertinent details. Very succinct. Third, give a summary of the main arguments for an against inclusion. The key is for all of this to be well referenced, since by its nature every item in the list is contentious. The objective here is for the discussion of each list item to consist of a coherent discussion of the war, rather that the fragmented approach offered right now. Unfortunately due to my lack of knowledge on the subject I am not the ideal person for this, but I will make as much headway as a I can. Unless someone else proposes a superior organizational approach to this one (and by all means, please do so) I'd propose that we try to edit most sections into this format as soon as the references are found to do so. Expert help would be appreciated. Thanks - Locke9k (talk) 06:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Intro NPOV

Colonel Warden - I have reverted your intro edits because they present a serious POV problem. As I mention in the rename discussion above, there is a significant debate within the field as to whether this list should contain any items. It is very important in the intro to make this clear so as to avoid endorsement of a particular position. I agree that the intro is presently somewhat awkward, but we need to fix it in a way that continues to make clear what inclusion in the list actually signifies. Locke9k (talk) 22:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

No, there are three scholars who contend that it contains no items. Most scholars acknowledge a few marginal cases, and almost all of those disagree on which items. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

This page reflects, all too clearly, the arguments and POV of one Spencer Weart. He's a historian of science - out of his field, and (some would say) out of his depth. This article could benefit from wider reading; Debating the Democratic Peace seems useful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Armenia and Afghanistan

The war between Armenia and Afghanistan in the early 1990s needs to be added to this list. James Lee Ray, a proponent of democratic peace theory, seemed to view this war as the biggest threat to the theory. Unfortunately, I know nothing about the conflict except what is on page 123 of this book, so I can't write anything decent. Epa101 (talk) 19:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Armenia and Afghanistan have ever been at war with each other. Do you mean Armenia and Azerbaijan? Moonraker12 (talk) 01:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did. That was embarrassing. Epa101 (talk) 19:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

2006 Lebanon War

This is described as a conflict between various armed groups within Lebanon and the state of Israel. Why has this been included? Alastairward (talk) 15:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

On this, I would agree with you. Hezbollah is hardly a democracy. Epa101 (talk) 00:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

occupation

I have never heard of an occupation being called a war. to be a war there has to be fighting, right? and to be between democracies, it has to be between two states, right? not government vs. private nationals. the Ruhr Occupation should be removed, or we are missing several other occupations. 12.156.208.3 (talk) 09:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed near-wars

they aren't wars, that could be a whole other list. besides it has no bearing on the theory, unless someone important is arguing that a governments' near miss/war ratio is evidence for or against the theory. 12.156.208.3 (talk) 09:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Operation Ajax

the source cited may be of questionable validity, but it states the Iran was a Constitutional Monarchy, not a parliamentary democracy, I don't think it should be here cause it isn't a war, but this is another issue. 12.156.208.3 (talk) 06:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Why are civil wars in this list?

A civil war within a democracy is not a war between two democracies. And besides, the examples are not very democratic.

How is the American civil war a war between two democracies? And how can the confederation be claimed to be a democracy? It was only months old, there had been no elections, and no democratic basis for the attack that started the civil war. And of course most people had no right to vote anyway.

The Paris commune was a reaction to the defeat of France in the war with Prussia. A war between two military empires. France became a republic during that war when Napoleon III was captured, and the government in the newly formed republic that was in power during the Paris commune was a provisional government.

The Irish war of independence is equally weird. Here it is one part of a country that wants to be independent, but are not allowed. How is that democratic in the first place, it rather disproves the case that Britain was democratic during this time. And even then it's a sort of civil war, not a war between two democracies, but within one. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

This article is really about democratic peace theory and the possible exceptions to it. I think a better title would be "List of possible exceptions to democratic peace theory". Nobody writes a book about wars between democracies: some books have been written about whether any war has ever occurred between democracies, usually arguing that all those on the list don't count for one reason or another.

The examples that you list have been discussed by the main proponents of the theory: James Lee Ray, RJ Rummel, Spencer Weart. The Irish War of Independence has only been discussed by Spencer Weart. (Perhaps I'm a cynic, but I think the others ignore it because it's the most difficult one to explain) I think they should remain in the list as they form part of the academic debate (if it's still going?) about the theory. Epa101 (talk) 10:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, if the article was renamed the inclusion of these would make more sense. In fact, that title makes a lot more sense, full stop. :) --OpenFuture (talk) 11:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll start a rename section right now. Epa101 (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Rename the article

I think the article should be renamed "List of possible exceptions to democratic peace theory". The current title makes a strong statement: that all the wars in the list were between democracies. That's not what the article is really about: the whole discussion revolves around democratic peace theory, and those who believe in that theory believe that all the articles in the list were (for whatever reason) not wars between democracies. The current title seems to impy that democratic peace theory is wrong, although I'm sure that's not the intention. Any thoughts on this? Epa101 (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It was called that before and as above, survived an AfD by being renamed. Alastairward (talk) 20:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

And as a result has a content that doesn't match the title. Only a few of the examples in here are wars between democracies in any sense. It should either be renamed, or everything that isn't actually wars between democracies should be removed. That includes civil wars and any war before 1900, with the possible exclusion of the greek 'democracies'. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I've had a look at the discussion that led to the rename. This was a deletion proposal: to be clear, I am not proposing that the article is deleted. In the discussion, people were concerned about original research, but the current article seems to be full of original research. For example, I don't think any scholar has put forward that the South Ossetia War was between two democracies yet. I don't think the discussion about wars between democracies makes sense outside the context of democratic peace theory. Epa101 (talk) 12:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we might concentrate on the content of the article first, look at the Lebanon War and the South Ossetia wars. Neither one seems to be cited as a war between democracies. But someone has pulled cites to make a case that they were. Original research or synthesis is the problem. Alastairward (talk) 21:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

But concentrating on the article would have different effects dependning on the article name. With it's current name, what we should do is remove most of the content. That seems amazingly silly. Let's rename. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

And if its renamed, won't that open it up to the same AfD? Alastairward (talk) 22:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

No. It may open it up for a new one, but I don't see why that would be a problem. It's either that, or delete most of the content. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Nobody has adequately explained why it should be renamed, why information would be deleted, why the information should be deleted and why a rename would save it. Alastairward (talk) 20:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It is currently not a list of wars between democracies. If we keep the name, we need to remove everything that isn't wars between democracies. what it *is* is a list of conflicts that have been used to argue against the democratic peace theory. So if we want to save the information, we need to rename it. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

To save the entire article from an AfD it was already renamed! What good would returning the article to a pre-AfD state do? Alastairward (talk) 12:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, was my answer unclear? --OpenFuture (talk) 16:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

@Alastairward. It should be renamed because its current name leads to too much original research and too much synthesising material to come to a novel opinion, neither of which is not allowed on Wikipedia. The academic interest in wars between democracy is (as far as I know) entirely confined to the question of democratic peace theory: renaming it to something that includes DPT in the title will keep the article in line with the academic discussions rather than the latest Freedom House/Polity IV reports. The material that should be removed is everything that does not include at least one academic reference (e.g. South Ossetia). Epa101 (talk) 18:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

So why doesn't anyone take this to a sand box and show how it should look under its new name? It's very easy to just mass delete and then turn around and say we should rename it and then leave. Alastairward (talk) 13:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you make no sense. What do you mean mass delete AND rename? And has anybody left? --OpenFuture (talk) 13:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I was unaware of sand boxes until just now. I may experiment with it soon when I have a bit more time. As I said earlier on, I am NOT proposing that this article should be deleted. Epa101 (talk) 15:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems like this debate has led to excessive gutting of the article. Why have so many seemingly well-sourced sections been blanked? Was there no information of value in these sections? Also, if you go back to the original deletion debate, you will see that there was a pretty strong argument to delete under that name. If the article is reverted to "List of possible exceptions to the democratic peace theory", then someone needs to propose a way to do so while addressing the issues raised in that debate. Locke9k (talk) 20:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully its not someone making a point. But ideas on how this article should look other than to gut it seem to be thin on the ground. Alastairward (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The gutting is not excessive. It's a list of wars between democracies. Then it should not contain loads of things that are not wars between democracies at least in some sort of wide meaning of the word war and democracy. I think the article as it is is rather silly. It's just a random list of no particular use outside the context of democratic peace theory. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The list before and after seem a bit pointless to be honest. Alastairward (talk) 21:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

As I recall the majority of wars listed had a cited explanation for why they were at least marginally considered a war between democracies. The article did not consist of just a bunch of wars with no justification for their inclusion. What, then, is the justification for overriding reliable sources that argued the wars might fall into this category? Or do you believe that my characterization of the formerly included wars is incorrect? I am happy to provide diffs to demonstrate that they had cited claims to being marginally wars between democracies. Locke9k (talk) 22:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

There were quite a few entries that had links to suggest that the participating countries were democracies. But this was opposed to links that suggested they were examples of wars between democracies. For this reason, some were removed.

I saw a few instances of cites from Hearst being removed. Not having access to the material, I can't comment on the validity of their entry or removal. Alastairward (talk) 23:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It's of course perfectly possible to discuss each removal separately, but there were several people involved in the removals, and we can't treat them as a bunch. I did much of the initial ones, and I think most of them were pretty obvious. The other ones I don't know about. --OpenFuture (talk) 00:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Ecuador vs. Colombia

Its says Ecuadorian President had an autocratic regime, yet I can find little about it. The war is not mentioned in the wiki's of either nation's article. apparently it is a minor war, where the sources tend to be biased. 12.156.208.3 (talk) 23:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Synthesising entries

The 21st century entries are all without supporting cites, by which I mean, no source that specifically mentions them as wars between democracies. The editors who added those conflicts may well be correct, but we just don't know that and can't without a more appropriate source. I would like to remove them for that reason, but would like other views. Alastairward (talk) 23:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you on this. Epa101 (talk) 15:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no objections. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Is anything sourced now?

Well, is it? Everything seems to cite opinions of democracy that is or isn't active in a country at a certain time, but little to say whether or not something is a "war between democracies". Alastairward (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Polish-Lihuanian war?

Fought in 1920, with about 1000 estimated battle deaths.[8] In both states, elections had been held with universal suffrage. In the polity scale, Poland receives a +8 rating in combined democracy/autocracy, while Lithuania receives a 7 in democracy and a +4 in combined democracy/autocracy.

Ecuador receives a rating of +9 in the polity scale of combined democracy/autocracy, while Peru receives a +7, meaning that both countries are classified as democratic, and Ecuador even as "very democratic".

the reference [8] leads to some page about Irish elections? Is it possible there is some data on how Poland and Lithuania scored in polity scale back in 1920? or are these some modern numbers - making them quite irrelevant? In either case, wherever this was taken from must be sourced. The other claim about ecuador and peru gives similar numbers, but quite explicitly sources it to modern, rather than relevant 1981 data. I'll remove the entire paragraph until it is. Aryah (talk) 01:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion should be verifiability via reliable third party sources. Not a decision by editors that one state or another is democratic enough to be included. WikiuserNI (talk) 22:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that was the issue, simply whether a reliable third party source actually says what is claimed or implied it says. But apparently it does, or at least might - the actual reference given certainly did not; raw data seems to be in a large spreadsheet somewhere on the linked page, not on the link itself. So I have no objections anymore for the text in question being included, only hope better links will be provided. Aryah (talk) 05:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Other missing instances

Near misses

• The Venezuela Crisis of 1895;
• The Runr confrontation of 1923

Actual wars

• First Balkan War. Greece had a high degree of democracy; Turkey was a parliamentary constitutional monarchy.

If we were to actually include near misses, we could include a lot. near misses are not war 12.156.208.3 (talk) 22:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The first Balkan war is between two constitutional monarchies, however, that does not make them democratic. I am not going to add it because the Ottoman Empire seems oligarchical to me. It would be one thing, if it was nominally a democracy, or if a scholar claims it is 12.156.208.3 (talk) 22:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

We do not edit articles on the basis of feelings. The Ottoman Empire held parliamentary elections in 1909, and the parliament ran the war. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Ireland

I was wondering why Ireland was inlcuded, if it was still a part of the United Kingdom until it's independence after the aptly named Irish War of Independence? Alastairward (talk) 00:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

That could be said for a large part of the list: the US war of independence, the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, the Yugoslav wars. I've never heard the Irish War of Independence referred to as a civil war within the UK; it was a war between two governments, even though one of them had only just been set up. Epa101 (talk) 12:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

But that's the point, it wasn't between two governments. Ireland (the Free State) wasn't established until after the war. As per the lead to the Irish War of Independence article;

"The Irish War of Independence (Irish: Cogadh na Saoirse, also known as the Anglo-Irish War or Tan War) was a guerrilla war mounted against the British government in Ireland by the Irish Republican Army (IRA)."

So it's an insurrection then, not a war between two countries. As such, the addition of this item in the article reflects some synthesis and cross referencing of sources. If an actual cite can be found to state that it is a "war between democracies" then it can stay. Else, it will have to be removed, as could a lot of other entries. Alastairward (talk) 13:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

(I've since noticed the American war of independence is not on the list)

That's a strict definition of "government": the Irish MPs elected for the British Parliament had set up their own government, which eventually became the Irish government. Would you also remove the American civil war, the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and the Yugoslav wars from the list? In each case, at least one side was not an internationally-recognised government at the time the war was fought. How are these other cases different? All references to an Irish insurgency are only within Ireland itself: no insurgencies happened within England, Scotland or Wales, so it doesn't seem like a civil war. Epa101 (talk) 00:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Spencer Weart, one of the main proponants of democratic peace theory, sees the Irish War of Independence as one of the main borderline cases: he classes Britain as a democracy and Ireland as an anocracy-cum-democracy: see page 312 of his Never at War. I think a lot of Irish people would object to the way he paints the Irish side as the bad guys, since Ireland had not always been treated well by Britain. (Btw I'm British) Epa101 (talk) 00:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

That's another problem, there's no definition of "government" here, just a "democracy". The definitions are pretty fast and loose, wars and democracies being used to include any sort of groups with any sort of organised leadership in any sort of conflict.

Short of cites that specifically state "wars between democracies", I probably would remove some of the entries here.

Here's a nice quote from Grasping the democratic peace by Bruce Russell; "By lowering the standards we are making it more likely that some events will be labelled wars between democracies".

Take the American Civil War as your example, it is specifically excluded by this author; "Whatever it may be called be called below the Mason-Dixon line, the Civil War is rightly named, in that the Confederacy never gained international recognition of its sovereignty". The author goes on to state that the two groups at war shared a common statehood. As did Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom.

You admit to a similar situation in Ireland "the Irish MPs elected for the British Parliament had set up their own government, which eventually became the Irish government". Eventually, after the War of Independence.

Pending specific cites, a lot of these entries could very well disappear from the list. There's no point in editors trying to cross reference cites themselves when this is frowned upon by Wikipedia itself. Alastairward (talk) 00:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Most scholars of the democratic peace have ignored the Irish War of Independence; Bruce Russell is like James Lee Ray and Rummel in this regard. I would say that it was more akin to the 1948 Israeli war than to the American Civil War. As you say, the Confederacy never gained international recognition, but Ireland was like Israel in that it did gain such recognition. Russell says, "the authenticity of Israel's leadership was hardly in question" even though an election had not been held. It seems to me that the Irish leadership was even more authentic since they had been elected. Even if we do apply strict definitions of "government", this war remains a big problem for democratic peace theory. If democracy is so peaceful, why did the Irish want to leave democratic Britain? If the people fighting on both sides believed in democratic values, this was still a war between democrats, government or not. Why have people fought in democratic Northern Ireland for so long as to whether they want to be ruled from democratic London or from democratic Dublin? Spencer Weart is the only one who has addressed the issue; he does so on page 312 of Never at War. My criticism of his work here is that he blurs the Irish War of Independence with the subsequent Irish Civil War. He says that the Irish army had a great deal of influence over the politicans as if this makes Ireland less democratic, but that seems typical of most modern democracies.

I can see what you mean when you say that this article is short on definitions. I suspect there is a lot of original research in the article, although I must admit that I find it useful in its present state. Epa101 (talk) 16:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I think most civil wars and wars of independence do not qualify as democratic governments, mainly because of their illegal nature. However, when an already established local government starts war with the central democratic government, you do have one democracy fighting another. The American Revolution was fought between a democracy and a monarchy. How democratic the colonies was is not relevant, because you need two democracies to make this list.

the question still remains in this case; was the irish war of independence started by the democratic government and does democratic mean in ideals or in action. I think the article addresses that but could address it more. 12.156.208.3 (talk) 09:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised that neither the Irish War of Independence nor the Irish Civil War has been investigated in the Correlates of War project. For the former, estimates are usually around 1000 dead, which is the threshold to be included in the project. As the project has been important for peace/war studies, this might be why it receives such little attention. Epa101 (talk) 23:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Civil wars have always been treated as exceptions. There are several justifications fot this, beside the problem that they would falsify the theory: civil wars are likely to be different from international wars, since there aren't two sides to begin with; there is an argument that new regimes are in general more likely to be violent as a means of reestablishing national cohesion. One scholar actually argues that Virginia was not a democracy because it voted as a bloc against Fremont, who ran against slavery; doubtless others are capable of making the same argument about Edward Carson. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Move proposal

The title implies that there have been a number of wars between democracies, which contradicts Rummel's Democratic peace theory. As such, the title presents a point of view. In my opinion, this violates our neutrality policy.

I'd prefer that we either:

1. rename the article so that it doesn't take sides, or
2. merge the article into Democratic peace theory, as a section --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd support a merge. Keep a section of well cited examples instead of the back and forwards on this list. WikiuserNI (talk) 15:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

All right, but I'll wait for a while to see whether anyone else has an idea. Better a delay than an NPOV dispute. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Merging may be a good idea. After everything that wasn't actually wars between democracies got removed, the article is small enough. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I hate to rain on my own parade, but there doesn't seem to be a consensus here. Rather, I see a vigorous debate over whether (a) it is merely a "fringe" view that there have been no wars between democracies or (b) it is really true as claimed that there haven't been any.

If this is a matter of debate, then we need to describe the debate - not act as one side is correct. So how do we proceed from here? --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Please note that Pmandersons comment has nothing to do with your discussion, he just didn't put in a new header. I'll refactor that so it's clearer. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

If there is any debate here, it should only be as to whether we have sources to adequately cite the entries to this list. WikiuserNI (talk) 10:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

There are three scholars who hold that there have been no wars between democracies; many more hold there have been some (the following quotation from DPT, despite its apologetic tone, accurately lists some of them - it is quite incomplete, but should be unpacked here); several scholars have argued that DPT has enough exceptions to not be interesting.

Some theorists cite these or other exceptions, but nevertheless regard them as marginal cases.[2] Gleditsch (1995) and Bremer (1993) each discuss one or two marginal exceptions; but neither of them find this an obstacle to supporting the existence and force of the democratic peace. The data set Bremer happened to be using showed one exception, the French-Thai War of 1940, which is spurious; it happened after the setting up of the Vichy régime. Gleditsch sees the (somewhat technical) state of war between Finland and the Western Allies during World War II, as a special case, which should probably be treated separately: an incidental state of war between democracies during large multi-polar wars, which are fortunately rare. The importance of this exception depends on what forms of hostility you regard as serious. (Gowa 1999) (Maoz 1997, p.165). Page Fortna (2004) discusses the 1974 Turkish invasion of Cyprus and the Kargil War as exceptions, finding the latter to be the most significant.

The citations can be found in DPT's bibliography; here, and probably there, full footnotes may be more useful than Harvard style. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Italian allies

The treatment of Rome is particularly deplorable. The Italian allies were, for most of Roman history, no more part of the Roman state than the other NATO countries are of the US; after the Social War, they were fully parts of the Roman Republic. The sentence on the Senate is simply silly: one got to be a Senator in Rome by being elected to public office. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Restore

I have restored this list from massive vandalism by an anon. Almost all of these I have seen mentioned as exceptions to the democratic peace; and my knowledge of the literature and current comment is not complete. The Venezuela crisis of 1895 and the Ruhr crisis of 1923 should be mentioned with Fashoda. (Most of these have been mentioned by authors supporting the democratic peace; most authors who support it do not belong to the doctrinaire fringe which holds that there can be no exceptions, however marginal.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

There has been no vandalism. Per earlier discussion under "renaming the article" above, consensus was reached to remove everything from the list that was not wars between democracies. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Past consensus cannot bind present editors, unless they join it. That is ownership and contrary to policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You can not break past consensus without discussion. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

And where do you claim to find that? Not that I have done any such thing; I began with discussion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Please read what I write before you answer it. And yes you have, you did a massive revert against previous consensus without first getting consensus to do that revert. --OpenFuture (talk) 03:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

See WP:BRD, which is custom. A handful of editors depopulated this page, against protest from Locke and others; that's being bold; you have been reverted. Now is the time for discussion, and what we see is Wikilawyering. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

There is an extensive literature on the democratic peace other than Rummel, which is ignored here. (I have read your talk page - and one member of your "consensus" doesn't seem to have read Rummel, who is perfectly willing to include constitutional monarchies as democracies if they enfranchise two-thirds of their adult male citizens - without doing so, he would have even fewer democracies, excluding Britain and Canada and Sweden.)

All of the literature supporting the democratic peace, with two exceptions that I know of, argues that the democratic peace is a very strong correlation. Very strong correlation is a better argument (Spiro's paper, which should still be in the references of the main DPT article, argues that the claims of zero are not statistically significant, because they acknowledge so few warring pairs and so few democracies that it is not surprising that there is no overlap); but every one of them acknowledges marginal exceptions.

Thus for example, Dean Bobst, in the very first paper on the subject, calls the Boer War a war between democracies; Singer and Small acknowledged two marginal exceptions; Bruce Russert, in his theory of the gradual emergence of the liberal peace, counts numerous exceptions in Greek history - but then Greek democracies didn't conduct their internal politics peaceably either. Gleditsch finds the democratic peace much stronger, and perhaps more explainable, if one considers only formally declared wars; but then the Finnish-UK war of 1940 shows up as a lone exception; which doesn't weaken his theory - for it is so obviously marginal.

Which cases turned up as the handful of exceptions depends, obviously, on what standards of war and democracy you use. There are several policy sets on war; there are many, many definitions of democracy. What is important, and also worth saying, is there are normally only a handful.

And so on. It was useful to have a list of these cases; it was also useful to have a list of the cases (the First Balkan War, the Spanish-American war, the Venezuela crisis, and so on) cited by the skeptics of DPT. The article you edit war for is unbalanced, incomplete (in that it does not even mention the question of multiple definition), and lacking due weight on, say, Russert or Debating the Democratic Peace. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM. Discuss the article, not the topic. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's see. I discussed this article as I edited it this week - although I did also contribute to it years ago.

However, this is certainly not a forum; it might well be acceptable at a forum to insist on one view of a subject - at least until a moderator intervened to avert terminal boredom.

At Wikipedia, however, we are required to consider all published views; this article was more useful to the reader when it did. Spiro, Bobst, Singer and Small, Russett, Doyle, Gleditsch, are all reliable sources; all but one of them support the democratic peace, btw, although not Rummel's version of it; all of them should be considered (accurately) in this article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes we are. And we are also required to follow policy, which you are consistently breaking. And you are also repeating everything both here and on my talk page, which is unnecessary and annoying. Please cool down. --OpenFuture (talk) 03:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I am cool, cool enough to reuse something put as I wish it.

I have met the sort of editor who invents policy before; the inability to cite it when challenged is indicative. The desperation to support an untenable position to which one is nonetheless committed has caused centuries of extreme mental gymnastics; although calling a direct quote from policy complete and utter nonsense does suggest an unusual degree of desperation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Good quote. Your creative interpretation of policy may or may not quality as "inventing", but it definitely qualifies as both "mental gymnastics" and complete and utter nonsense. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Options

I see several ways to go here.

1. We can acknowledge that we use Rummel's definitions of war and democracy; in which case this article should indeed be merged to R. J. Rummel, if the content is not already there.
2. We can generalize to For sufficiently restrictive definitions of war and democracy, no two democracies have ever gone to war. Doubtless true, but is it worth saying?
3. We can include all the wars cited by supporters and opponents of the democratic peace. This will mean including almost all of the list which I restored, and most of those left out will be twenty-first century wars - which nobody has gotten around to mentioning yet. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

For the purposes of a simple list, we could just plump for including anything that is cited by a reliable third party source as a war between democracies. WikiuserNI (talk) 16:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that would be simple and straightforward. It would include, for example the 2008 South Ossetia War, which may not yet have gotten into the democratic peace literature, which is (after all) a few dozen authors, some of whom have turned to other subjects. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Or we can acknowledge that having a list of wars between democracies is a bit of a nonsense list, and that the existance of this article in itself is POV-pushing, and that it should be renamed or merged into Democratic peace theory. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

But it isn't nonsense, except to those to whom the views of the fringe on one side of the question are neutrality. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry to say, you are as usual utterly wrong. --OpenFuture (talk) 03:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKETHAT, yet again. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that you don't like it, but I fail to see how that is even remotely relevant. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Do click on links when provided; there is a widely held viewpoint (not limited to deletion discussions) that simply saying "I don't like it" or "you're wrong" is not a useful or persuasive contribution to discussions. Prove I'm wrong, and you may convince me to change my mind. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You have to excuse me, but I don't feel that it's a good use of my time to try to "disprove" your feeble efforts of insulting those who don't agree with you. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

How idiomatic your English is! But the lesson of WP:IDONTLIKEIT remains: those who present opinion, unsuuported by argument or evidence. are likely to be ignored. As for how you waste your time, suit yourself. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand who is being ignored here. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Weird tags

I find the tags on the first two paragraphs of the lead peculiar. As this diff shows, 90% of the first paragraph and all of the second paragraph are exactly as they were a week ago; if they didn't need tags then, what requires citation now?

This is particularly true of the second paragraph, which is a description of this article, not of anything exterior to it:

Inclusion of each item in this list should thus be understood as indicating that it is the subject of debate, rather than as an authoritative statement as to its correct classification. For each item, a brief overview is offered as well as arguments for and against its inclusion, as appropriate.

I await the customary explanation of these tags on this talk page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Who said they didn't need tags then? --OpenFuture (talk) 03:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Silence implies consent; dozens of editors (including yourself) let that second paragraph go untagged. But this is no answer to the question: what requires citation now? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)`

The answer was in the change comment: That's like WP:OR or WP:SYN unless you can get sources for the statement. That a source has been missing for a long time does not mean it doesn't need a source. Your constant attempts of inventing your own Wikipedia policies are getting a bit annoying, to be honest. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

What synthesis is there in making statements about this article? What statements require citation? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

1. "and therefore find marginal exceptions to be unsurprising, and in some cases illuminating" - Oh really?
2. "Inclusion of each item in this list should thus be understood as indicating that it is the subject of debate, rather than as an authoritative statement as to its correct classification." - Sais who?
3. "Few students of the democratic peace discuss wars prior to the nineteenth century" - according to whom?
4. "and whether Athens or Florence is comparable to modern democracies is debateable" - No, not really.
5. "Data sets on wars do not always extend back any further; data on much earlier wars - including such questions as the number of troops on each side - are difficult to obtain." - So?

We can remove the tags, sure. If we remove the intro. That seemed rather radical to me, so I added tags. Feel free to remove/rewrite the intro if you want to. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

1. Yes, really, and several of the sources say so.
2. We, the authors, say so; we comple the list.
3. Rummel and Russett; probably others. Do you dispute the assertion, and if so, who are the many who have considered the democratic peace before 1800? ~
4. Yes really; for the other side of the argument see Alfred Zimmern or Josiah Ober - or, again, Russett.
5. So there are few studies before 1800; it's not carelessness, there's much less data. Not a demand for citation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

1. So why is it a problem to find a source?
2. That's WP:SYN. We are *not* authors.
3. So why is it a problem to find a source?
4. So why is it a problem to find a source?
5. So why is it a problem to find a source?

--OpenFuture (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia: 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 Wikipedia. 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)

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)

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)

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)

• Accept - Well, rebuttals are necessary to preserve POV. ;) I'm not 100% sure the name the the best one, but I'm not against the move. --OpenFuture (talk) 02:35, 22 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 [this type] and no war of [this severity]. --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 [this type] fight wars of [this severity]" 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 [and are therefore not within the restricted set of democracies for which Russert holds there is a democratic peace]

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 Wikipedia, 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.

• Support That's what previous discussions ended up with, so why not? --OpenFuture (talk) 17:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support That's what this article always contained, whatever title it was under. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

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.

• Support --OpenFuture (talk) 17:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
• Not a problem as long as we do not attempt to impose one point of view on what constitutes "war". The declared war between Canada and Finland is a war; so is the War of 1849; but not in the same sense. The differences in the use of "war" are part of the interest of the article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

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,[23] Lebanon rejected calls by other Arab governments to participate in the 1967 Six-Day War.[24] Militarily weak in the south, Lebanon could not afford conflict with Israel.[24] - From Israeli–Lebanese_conflict.

--OpenFuture (talk) 06:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia 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.

• Support for equally obvious reasons as above. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Where there is a difference of opinion among reliable sources, present it - that's WP:NPOV means. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia 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)
  • Please don't talk nonsense; it was a war between two belligerents, the United States of America and the Confederate States of America, both democracies; it has two sources, both of which discuss the democracy of both states - their legitimacy is another question. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
  • As for the often repeated lie, everything on this page is a war between democracies. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:51, 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 [Donald explicitly compares the two sides in that respect], 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; Wikipedia 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)