Talk:Democratic peace theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Democratic peace theory is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 9, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted December 27, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted June 2, 2006 Peer review Reviewed November 17, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted Current Status: Former featured article candidate

Archives
June 2005 – August 2005 August 2005 – December 2005 December 2005 – February 2006 January 2006 – March 2006 March 2006 – April 2006 April 2006 – May 2 2006 May 2006 – July 14 2006 July 2006 – August 20 2006

[edit] Graph

This graph shows the number of nations in the different categories given by Freedom House in their survey Freedom in the World for the period for which there are surveys, 1972-2005. Nations are categorised as "Free", "Partly Free", and "Not Free". Freedom House coniders "Free" nations to be liberal democracies.

I have created this graph for other articles. However, a similar graph for this article could be good. For example, how about a graph showing the number of nations with Polity score of 8 or higher? There has been no wars and I do not think any MID causing battle deaths between such nations.Ultramarine 11:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Templates

I have no particular objection in removing the confusing template, but someone complained that the page is indeed confusing very recently. I also think the POV template is almost fixed, although some changes may still be in order. However, my main objection is that discussion on this issue should stay for some longer, say a couple of weeks, to allow people who originally made criticisms to comment on the issues. Massimamanno 17:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Two weeks have passed since I asked for concrete objections, so removing them now.Ultramarine 19:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Where does the recent Isreali/Lebanon war fit into this.

This was a war (even if no major militery response was carried out by Lebanon) and yet it happened between two democracies, Isreal and Lebanon.

You could argue that it was solely a war against Hezbollah, but Hezbollah is a part of the Lebanese democratic goverment structure and the infliction of damage by Isreal, went beyond the areas de-facto controlled by Hezbollah. It was faught largely to obtain a political concession from the Lebanese state, that is for them to move against Hezbollah.

The existance of conflicts like this, are recent examples of failiure's of the democratic peace theory in practice. I think they deserve to be mentioned.

See List of possible exceptions to democratic peace theory.Ultramarine 07:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Influence section

Do we need to move straight into a detailed musing over the legitimacy of the Iraq war before we look at the theory properly? I'm going to trim this section. Slac speak up! 03:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do not delete sourced material.Ultramarine 09:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Small and Singer 1976

Ray states this regarding this very old study: "This allowed Doyle to reiterate with more authority the claim made by Babst (1972), acknowledged somewhat begrudgingly by Small & Singer (1976) and repeated by Rummel (1975–81), that no two democratic states have ever fought an interstate war against each other." "Small & Singer did report an absence of wars between democratic states with "marginal exceptions," but they discounted the significance of this pattern. What they did not do, again at least partly because they had no comprehensive data on regime types, was to evaluate the statistical likelihood of this absence of war between democratic states."[1]

So I think we should change the text to "Melvin Small and J. David Singer (1976) responded; they found an absence of wars between democratic states with two "marginal execpetions" but denied that statistically democracies were in general less war-like than other nations, starting the academic debate." If objections, I would like to see an actual quote from the 1976 article supporting the other view.Ultramarine 20:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

This is not an accurate account. What you write gives the impression that they support the view that wars between democracies are less likely (what you write means that they don't support monadic peace) while your quote says the opposite. Massimamanno 21:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Your version is an improvement.Ultramarine 22:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't really know where to put this comment so I will just throw it under the "Influences" section. I was looking at the map posted with the article that outlines the degree of freedom in countries based on a 3 level scale: Green=Free, Orange=Some Freedom, and Red=Not Free. I was just thinking that it might need to be updated somewhat. I couldn't seem to locate a date for it, although I didn't look that hard, but I am imagining that this is a Cold War Era, or shortly after the collapse of the Soviet Union, as it still has Russia listed as a "Red" country... I would assume that it should at least be a somewhat freer country since the collapse of communism and deserve an upgrade to orange, if not green. Just a thought, and personally I wouldn't know how to update it, but maybe someone with more time on their hands could look into this... Thanks

See Freedom in the World.Ultramarine 23:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Excessive Sources

The sources section looks like a disaster to me. Wikipedia should not be a directory of every peer-reviewed article ever written about democratic peace. In fact, it looks to me like the list was created by someone entering the term "democratic peace" or something close into JSTOR. The list needs to be trimmed to a few seminal works, with additonal stuff appearing as references. Anyone have a good idea of what the seminal works are? --Beaker342 04:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I think everything, or most, is cited in the article somewhere.Ultramarine 11:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Ultramarine, do you think that those citations would be better (or even ok) inline? I hesitate to convert them myself, given all of the work you've done here, but I wouldn't mind doing it. Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes I think the references would be best placed in a references section. The parentheticals get distracting.--Beaker342 15:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Obivously it would be better if the article followed one citation style, now it uses several different ones. Personally I think Wikipedia:Harvard referencing is superior to the "number" footnote system since one can follow the development of the field by looking at the year and, for example, see what is debated now. It also gives more credit to the individual researchers. Others may find it distracting. It someone is willing to convert to a single system, then that is fine with me.Ultramarine 15:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Kudos to whoever spent all the time citing all that material. The article could be made a little clearer, but still, wow. I stumbled upon the reference section on my ongoing hunt for citation farmers, and assumed all those sources could never have been used in the article. I was wrong. --Beaker342 15:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You are right about the Harvard style. I think we should probably leave them as they are (btw, WP:CITE says that Harvard is fine, and to bring it up on the talk page if you want to change from one style to another). Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of the Idea

Hi guys, the article here states that the first clear enunciation of this theory is to be attributed to Kant. I would object: in Demosthenes (IV century BCE), De Rhodiorum libertate (On the Liberty of the Rhodians), 17-18, there is a passage that reads:

You have waged many wars both against democracies and against oligarchies; and of this no doubt you are as well aware as I. But I doubt whether any of you considers for what objects you are fighting in each case. What then are these objects? In fighting against a democracy, you are fighting either over some private quarrel, when the parties have failed to settle their disputes by the means publicly provided; or you are contending for a piece of territory, or about a boundary, or for a point of honour, or for paramountcy. But in fighting against an oligarchy, it is not for any such objects—it is your constitution and your freedom that are at stake. And therefore I should not hesitate to say that I believe it would be better for you, that all the Hellenic peoples should be democracies, and be at war with you, than that they should be governed by oligarchies, and be your friends. For with a free people you would have no difficulty, I believe, in making peace whenever you desired: but with an oligarchical State friendship itself cannot be safe. For there can be no goodwill between Few and Many—between those who seek for mastery, and those who have chosen the life of political equality. (Source: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Public_Orations_of_Demosthenes/For_the_Freedom_of_the_Rhodians )

Do you think this should be mentioned in the article somewhere? I'd rather discuss it a bit before changing the article.

Paolo (talk) 19:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Demosthenes says that democracies will find it easy to to make peace, if they are at war. That is not the same as that they will not make war on another. Regards. Ultramarine (talk) 10:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense! But don't you think that this is an -- albeit far -- precursor of this idea? Thanks, Paolo (talk) 23:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

In some sense, it argues for one kind of tendency towards peacefullness between democracies. But it is not what the current DPT is arguing. Note also that democracy in Ancient Greece was in many ways different from modern democracy, it was democracy for only for the minority who was citizens, excluding slaves and metics who often was the majority of the population.Ultramarine (talk) 12:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Exceptions???

How are the Continuation War and the Kargil War exceptions to the rule? One of the two warring parties in the Continuation War was the Soviet Union! Not exactly a liberal democracy, especially under Stalin. And one of the two perties in the Kargil War was Pakistan, which, although nominally a liberal democracy, is in fact a military dictatorship (or was at the time). And I want to make this clear, this opinion is coming from a fan of Pervez Musharraf! So I think the line about the Continuation War and the Kargil War being possible exceptions needs to be seriously rethought, if not removed. --SpudHawg948 (talk) 10:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The point is that in the Continuation War Great Britain declared war to Finland. Both countries were established democracies.--Whiskey (talk) 19:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I support this argument, and also add that Spain was not under a true democracy at that time of the Spanish-American war. This is widely discussed in List of possible exceptions to the democratic peace theory. I have modified the article adding a clarification. 62.22.162.125 (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:DP BACKSIDE V 16.JPG

Image:DP BACKSIDE V 16.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 insure 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) 06:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:DP CHART V19.JPG

Image:DP CHART V19.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 insure 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) 06:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Breakup of the Yugoslavia and the Democratic Peace Theory

Well, I don't know if it would be worth to put in the article, since it could be seem like an original research, but I've noted something curious: when Croatia broke away from Yugoslavia in 1991 and Bosnia in 1992, nasty wars followed; the Yugoslav regime in Belgrade was considered a dictatorship led by Slobodan Milosevic. But after Milosevic fell from power in 2000, Serbia became a parliamentary democracy, Montenegro broke away in 2006 and Kosovo now in 2008, and Belgrade sent no troops to these new countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.26.96.216 (talk) 05:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)