Talk:List of wars between democracies/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Ok, enough

I've been analyzing edits in this attempting to review the totality of it. At this point things are breaking down again and waiting further would be pointless.

Let me start out by saying clearly that I still believe everyone's acting in good faith here. I don't feel anyone is simply seeking attention or to damage the encyclopedia here. Please keep this in mind as you read this comment...

First - it's clear that there's been a breakdown in civil and collegial discussion in general on the article talk page here and the other one, and to some degree in comments elsewhere and edit summaries on article edits. This is not a one-sided breakdown, but is clearly real. This is not a good thing - as I mentioned earlier in the PMAnderson user conduct RFC, when we have abusive communications, it degrades the quality of everyone's participation. It makes it harder for people to come to agreement, drives others away from pages and from specific discussions, raises tension levels, etc. It's generally disruptive to the function of Wikipedia as a community.

I could point specific fingers - there are some hundreds of abusive edits and edit summaries I reviewed, you all are being prolific... - but let me just generalize by saying that everyone is at least somewhat at fault. Ascribing root cause or higher levels of responsibility in a general breakdown of civil discussion is somewhat pointless. Pretty much everyone is doing it now and you all are responsible for your own respective behaviors. It's within the realm of acceptable administrator responses to a general breakdown for me to block all the involved parties, but I have no stomach for that at the moment. Everyone's already losing from the situation here, that would just rub salt in the wounds.

Wikipedia is not just "The encyclopedia that anyone can edit". It's the encyclopedia that everyone edits together. We resolve problems by having groups of people discuss problems. That discussion and an ability of people to come to a working group agreement - a consensus decision - is critical to the function of the encyclopedia.

Consensus is a tricky thing. It's not simply "majority rules" - half plus one don't win, we don't "vote", etc. But it's also not something that a single editor can hold hostage. Consensus establishes a working standard among most participants and helps set standards for where to judge neutrality from and where burdens of proof should lie.

Consensus by definition has to respect minority viewpoints and work to include them. But that doesn't mean letting anyone who disagrees run rampant on article space and have to be reverted back out.

In my opinion, there exists a functional consensus among the editors on these articles and commenting on these talk pages. OpenFuture's opinions and interpretations lie outside that consensus. This does not mean that OF cannot or should not continue to contribute to the articles - but it does establish a burden of proof, and a standard for disruptive behavior, to apply here going into the future.

Normally we encourage editors to be bold in changing articles. However, if particular changes or a pattern of changes are made over and over again and a consensus holds that those changes were not positive, then the behavior shifts into the category of disruption. Again, this is looking forwards and not at penalizing anyone for what's now purely history.

OpenFuture - Removing sources others have added, removing sections, and adding tags to sections you disagree with are actions you have done repeatedly and which have consistently been challenged by multiple editors who I believe comprise the consensus viewpoint here. I believe that you need to stop doing those changes boldly directly to the article. Continuing to do so would be disruptive and might subject you to further warnings or administrative intervention.

It's not necessarily disruptive if you bring a particular source, tag, or section objection to the article talk page for further discussion. As a rule, if you do so and nobody objects in a reasonable amount of time, then you should be OK making those changes in the article. If people do object, the best and least confrontational approach is to allow someone else to judge the validity of the arguments and decide whether to make the changes or not. The consensus here puts the burden of proof on you, and to some degree disqualifies you from judging whether you're operating in accord with reasonable consensus or not if there's disagreement.

I also am concerned that you're using novel and somewhat questionable reading of sources and of Wikipedia policy. You are entitled to your opinions, but again you're working with the responsibility to convince others and meet a burden of proof given the consensus here. You need to understand that if you can't convince other people, if there's a dispute and it's unresolved, it's not OK to simply assert that you're right and act on that assertion. If nobody is agreeing with your interpretation, you should consider that you may not be reading a source right or interpreting policy correctly.

I don't expect you to just cave in on your strongly held opinions and am not asking you to do so. What I am saying is that the burden of proof is now on you, on factual and on procedural and on source reference issues. I am saying that you need to reconsider how you interact with Wikipedia's community, and that you need to think about how consensus works, why it's important for Wikipedia, and what are reasonable and unreasonable approaches to discussing issues that you have with articles.

I'm leaving this comment on the article talk page here. I've had some specific comments to OpenFuture; followup on those points may be more productive on OF's talk page rather than here. We could rephrase this situation as a User Conduct RFC, but I hope that that's unnecessary.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I do agree that my frustration with the refusal of others to listen means I have run out of good faith here, and that the last day or maybe couple of days I've also not bothered much to be sure that I'm civil. I have pretty much given up, and been ground down by their tactics of exhaustion, denial, unvicil personal remarks, "I didn't hear that" and plain lies.

Some specific comments:

• I also am concerned that you're using novel and somewhat questionable reading of sources and of Wikipedia policy. - What is novel and questionable about it? I'm not alone in the interpretations of synthesis, and that's the only reading of policy that has been challenged. That WP:V says that sources clearly has to support the material in the article has not been challenged, only ignored.
• If people do object, the best and least confrontational approach is to allow someone else to judge the validity of the arguments and decide whether to make the changes or not. - Which is exactly what I have done. One of their sources had already been challenged not only by me, but Marting and RegentsPark. I took it to an RS/N for more views. I got two more views, both agreeing with me, Marting and RegentsPark, that the source did not say what Pmanderson/Cynwolfe/Elen said. The simply ignored that, and pretend it didn't happen. They repeatedly say I'm the only one contesting their reading of that source, even though there are two others on this talk page that did it, and two uninvolved editors on RSN that also contested it. I didn't bother to bring up any of their other interpretations anywhere, since it obviously did not help. Even with five people contradicting them, two having nothing to do with this article before, they continue to claim that I'm the only one who disagrees on that matter. This is an obvious and blatant lie and they refuse to remove or even tag the source.
• That discussion and an ability of people to come to a working group agreement - a consensus decision - is critical to the function of the encyclopedia. - Pmanderson + friends has constantly worked against all efforts to do this.
• This does not mean that OF cannot or should not continue to contribute to the articles - This has in practice been impossible since Pmanderson entered, since every effort of correcting the incorrect unsourced information he adds has been deemed "vandalism", and since he keeps any improvement away by revert warring.
• If nobody is agreeing with your interpretation, you should consider that you may not be reading a source right or interpreting policy correctly. - If I was the only one, I would do that. And I have in some cases agreed that I missed a possible interpretation of a source and backed down on that. Pma/Cynwolfe/Elen has not backed down on one single case, even when five other people say they are wrong.

As the article now stands it is a lie. It presents blatantly false information, and I'm slowly getting to accept the fact that I can't do anything about it. I do have to take your comment as final proof that Wikipedia in this case have failed. I think the main reason is that not enough people care about this article. For a long time it was only Pmanderson and me, and when it came to others attention he was able to call in help from others that will support everything he says and does, thereby faking a consensus. With more peoples eyes on it, more people would realize that Pmandersons sources simply do not support his claims. His supply of disciples must after all be limited. :-) But the sad reality is probably that these people will arrive one by one, run into the same wall of contempt and denial, and give up an go away.

And this is not criticism against you George. If you read what has been said here, obviously you must come to the conclusion you came. The problem is that most of what is said here simply is not true. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I have also read what seemed like an uncountably large number of comments on the communist genocide article talk page, and your and other's edits to the two articles and comments elsewhere. This conclusion was not one I draw from the talk page comments here alone by any means.

In a sense you've just identified your own problem - You believe that you're absolutely correct on the underlying facts, and no number of people trying to convince you otherwise is acceptable. I understand where you're coming from, but we can't assume any person here is simply factually correct and knows better by being some expert or professional in the field. Wikipedia doesn't work that way because we can't. I have no way of telling if you're a house husband with no political science education, a nationally recognized expert in these fields tenured professor who publishes all the time, a blogger for Fox News who is incognito, someone's dog, a random former political science major, or what. We require sources and verification, and consensus review of those and points made.

You have to convince us - plural, including both those actively involved in the article, and admins and others reviewing from outside. So far you seem not to understand that you have to do that and seem not to know how.

I checked a couple of sources whose interpretation was in dispute and generally agree with the others, that it seemed to me like you were misreading things. I could be wrong - these particular subfields of political science or history aren't ones I am personally well versed in. But your arguments and the source didn't convince me.

Again - this is not a conclusion that you're necessarily wrong. This is a conclusion that there's a consensus, and a restatement of fundamental Wikipedia policy that requires that people respect consensus and policy even if you believe that the consensus is wrong. You can advocate to change consensus, but again there are constraints on how you can do that without becoming disruptive.

In some cases this means that we lock in suboptimal information or a fringe viewpoint. In general, however, it avoids people trying to win arguments by impersonating someone with personal authority, which is a greater threat to Wikipedia accuracy and quality. It's not perfect. We know that, and we acknowledge it. Wikipedia is epistimologically incomplete by design - but it works reasonably well and reasonably accurately with enough oversight and participation and respect for the community.

I hope that eventually you'll come to understand this and internalize it, and come to the point that you can more effectively and less frustratingly (to yourself and others) phrase arguments and participate in consensus discussions.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree I write a lot of comments, and that definitely seems like it's not working in my benefit (and I don't have time for it either) so I should stop that. But from your comments above it seems like you again think that I'm a lone fighter against a consensus on Mass killings under Communist regimes and that's absolutely not true. There are many on both sides of that conflict. Interestingly enough, that article is tagged as having multiple problems, and the group of people that argues for those tags hardly wants to argue for them, but those tags get to stay. Here I have clear evidence that many people think one source can't be used, and I can't even tag it. In both cases it's about 50/50 in persons for and against, and each side seems unable to understand what they other side says. Shouldn't they be treated similarly?

I checked a couple of sources whose interpretation was in dispute and generally agree with the others, that it seemed to me like you were misreading things. - I'd be interested in knowing what sources you checked? --OpenFuture (talk) 12:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I would like to generally support what Georgewilliamherbert's has written above. I have been, of late, following much of this debate, on this page and elsewhere, and I must confess that I too have found the level of civil discourse sadly wanting. Paul August ☎ 15:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Original research

This discussion has been copied from [[1]] by --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we can bottom this. Getting to the bottom of people's view on sourcing may lead to better dialogue and a prevention of further issues. OpenFuture, could you perhaps confirm which of the following approaches you consider within policy and which you do not. I appreciate this may be burdensome, but it could take us further.

1. I want to create List of descendents of King Charles II who have married each other. A very reliable source (say royal.gov.uk) states that Lady Diana Spencer and Prince Charles were both descended from King Charles II, and their marriage was therefore a marriage between two descendents of King Charles II. Can I add them to the list?
2. royal.gov.uk says that Prince Charles is a descendent of Charles II, and says that he married Lady Di. The official website of the Spencer family says that Lady Di was a descendent of Charles II.
3. royal.gov.uk says that Charlie is descended from his namesake. The Spencer family site say that Diana was ditto. The BBC is my source for the wedding of the pair.
4. royal.gov.uk shows Prince Charles's legitimate descent from Charles II (it's a bit convoluted, but everyone involved was married at the time). The source I have for Lady Diana's origins shows that her connection to Charles II is through the illigitemate child of a mistress*. Historians agree that the child's father is King Charles II, but of course he never 'officially' acknowledged the child. The BBC is my source for the wedding.Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

(*(nb this is actually the case - Diana Spencer was descended from not one but two illigitemate offspring of Charles II)this is not a BLP violation for Harry and Wills)

This would be a terrible article; virtually all the British aristocracy is descended from Charles II; such an article would have serious problems with notability. BTW, I know it's a hypothetical example, but Charles II left no legitimate descendants; Diana was indeed descended from at least one illegitimate line, but that illegitimate son, the 1st duke of Richmond, was absolutely an acknowledged bastard of Charles II. The Prince of Wales, so far as I know, is not a descendant of Charles II; if he is, it would also have to be through an illegitimate line leading to the late queen mother. john k (talk) 19:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is a problem with your example, and that is that marriage and descendants are quote uncontroversial concepts. There is little doubt on who is married and who is not. There is also no dispute about what "descendant" means. I'd doubt that you find one source that claims that only illegitimate children should be counted, so that Lady Diana was descended from Charles II but Prince Charles is not. You will however, in discussions about democracies, find sources that do claim that Cuba is democratic and the US is not.

Therefore 1. Is clearly OK. 2 to 4 May be OK in your example, but it's not OK in the article about wars between democracies. This is because a war between democracies is not like a marriage, in that it is a contested controversial topic, with multiple views of what wars is and what democracies are. You could for example end up claiming that the Bay of Pigs was a war between democracies, since there are people who argues that Cuba was a democracy at that time, and there was people saying that the US was a democracy at that time. To my knowledge nobody claims *both* though. Therefore we really need to have a source that claims a conflict is a war between democracies, or we are engaging in WP:OR. (And this is just the beginning of the troubles with that article, but taking that up here is both OT and is just going to complicate the issue for no reason. Let's take one thing at a time.) --OpenFuture (talk) 13:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Question: "You will however, in discussions about democracies, find sources that do claim that Cuba is democratic and the US is not." You can find non-fringe sources that make these claims? Active Banana (talk) 13:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I do think this has taken us closer to the problem. No it is not original research to find one mainstream source that says that X is a democracy and one mainstream source that says Y is a democracy, and use both to source the sentence "X and Y are democracies". The OR policy has the same application to democracies as it does to royal descents. It would not even be OR to use one mainstream and one fringe source to source the sentence. What it might be is giving undue weight to the idea that Y is a democracy if the only source is a fringe source. If other editors find mainstream sources that agree that Y is not a democracy, then there would be problems. So in your example, if someone claimed with one source that Cuba under Castro was a democracy, and other editors found ten reliable mainstream sources that described it as something not compatible with democracy, then it would be a clear violation of WP:UNDUE to try to put Cuba in a list of democracies.

So we can knock OR on the head, and focus on the quality of sources, which is much more helpful. If a reliable source says that X is a democracy, and there are not other reliable sources that say that they are not, then the article should include X as a democracy. If all mainstream sources agree that it is, and only fringe sources say otherwise then X should be included. If one or a few mainstream sources disagree, then the article would normally be expected to include X but say "Scroggins argues that X is not a democracy."

Incidentally, I share your concerns over 'war'. Modern international law has a strict definition of 'war' 'at war' 'go to war' etc that is rarely invoked where the aggressor is a country with a functioning government (democratic or not). On that basis, there have been no wars since WWII ended. Editors of the article would therefore have to agree among themselves as to what evidence should be acceptable to conclude that something was a 'war'. One possible solution would be to rename the article List of armed conflicts between democracies, another would be to agree on an alternative definition for 'war' in the post WWII era, but of course any proposition would need consensus. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

What you are actually suggesting is that we for each and every conflict in the history of the world, completely ignore everyone who has done research on wars between democracies, and instead in every case finds out what the academic consensus of the type of government that was for the involved countries at that point, and what academic consensus is about whether the conflict was a war or not. In other words, we should according to you completely ignore the research on democratic peace theory and instead do that research all over again. I'm sorry, but that sounds completely unreasonable, and it sounds like a gigantic WP:OR violation.

Incidentally, I share your concerns over 'war'. - But not over "democracy"!? I'm very surprised at that, as "democracy" is a much more difficult case than "war".

Any proposition would need consensus. - That seems unrealistic. It seems like a way better idea to actually use the research done on wars between democracies. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

OpenFuture, there is no aspect of the sentence "democracy X (source A) and democracy Y (source B) went to war in the year dot (source C)" which constitutes WP:OR, because all three statements (X is a democracy, Y is a democracy and X and Y fought a war) are simple facts. OR is where you synthesise a conclusion based on sources that do not support it - eg "X was having an affair with Y's wife" (source A) and "Y did not give X the job" (source B) cannot be written "Y turned X down for the job because X was having an affair with his wife".

Also, if we are to have a list of "wars between democracies", then it must include all wars as defined by mainstream sources between all democracies as defined by mainstream sources, and not a subset of same written up by sources whose focus is making some point or other about wars between democracies. If a lot of historians/political commentators agree that X is a democracy, and the same or other sources agree that Y is a democracy, and there are historical or news sources that X and Y were engaged in a substantial armed conflict...BUT...sources that solely cover "wars between democracies" do not include this, then there may be a case for arguing that the "wars between democracies" sources are themselves WP:FRINGE. Or, more likely, that such sources are cherry picking wars to suit some further theory.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't agree for the previously stated reasons. A war between democracies are not three separate statements, it is one statement, because of it's controversy and connection to democratic peace theory. (That connection is blatantly obvious despite some editors claim that this list has nothing to do with democratic peace theory). But that can be solved by discussing this on some generic board board like RS/N or so, or getting third opinions etc. The only reason that hasn't happened yet is the ongoing conflict about Pmandersons personal attacks. A consensus seems to be emerging there as well, so all we need now is that someone moves the RfC from "Candidate" to "Certified" in the list here, and I'm sure this could be solved pretty quickly. It's already dragged on forever. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

it is one statement, because of it's controversy and connection to democratic peace theory No it's not. This isn't List of wars covered by the democratic peace theory' it's List of wars between democracies. There's no reason not to use mainstream sources and definitions. To claim that only countries/wars listed by democratic peace theory can be considered democracies/wars between democracies sounds extremely WP:FRINGE to me. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Amen. This list cannot exist either to prove or disprove democratic peace theory. Or any other theory. Constructing it that way would make it non-neutral. That is why each entry must be verified on a case-by-case basis, according to the relevant scholarship. In the case of antiquity, that means primarily ancient historians and classical scholars in conjunction with generalist military and political historians who deal with antiquity. Some theorists may exclude ancient democracies or democratic republics for the purposes of framing their arguments about democracy and war in the modern era, because they're interested in the, um, modern era. But since the list does not exist as evidence for the theories of any particular scholars, their theories cannot be used to exclude entries otherwise verifiable. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

No it's not. - Yes it is. It was renamed from the way less controversial "List of possible exceptions to democratic peace theory". This list is, no matter if you like it or not, a list that contains possible exceptions to democratic peace theory, and as such it is connected to it. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• (Inserting comment out of order because of edit conflict.) OpenFuture's last comment throws the problem into high relief: his objections to verifiable content expose a vulnerability to an interpretation of POV-pushing: he objects because the list might contradict a particular theory. He will object to any entry, no matter how well verified and explained, because he objects to the existence of the list. I gather that he approves of democratic peace theory and wishes not to see it challenged. The arguments of at least some forms of the theory, however, don't even depend on whether wars between democracies have historically taken place, so even in defense of a favored theory, this exclusionist approach would be intellectually untenable. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Relevant quotes: "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." "There is an extensive literature on the democratic peace other than Rummel, which is ignored here." "We can include all the wars cited by supporters and opponents of the democratic peace. " "It would include, for example the 2008 South Ossetia War, which may not yet have gotten into the democratic peace literature" "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. " (All by Pmanderson, all after rename) --OpenFuture (talk) 17:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

In which case, I suggest the best option OpenFuture has is to start a discussion to move it back to the previous name. Because as it stands, it has to accept verification of democratic status from mainstream historical or political sources, not just according to the democratic peace theory. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I've suggested this, and various other ways of solving this conflict, but Pmanderson has rejected everything. It's his way or the highway. That way has (up until a few days ago) been the following; He has claimed that we need reliable sources that claims the conflict is a war between democracies (I agree). He has then persisted in adding sources that does not do that (with which I disagree). And that was, pretty much up until yesterday, the main conflict. (The article has other problems, but I try to take one thing at a time, as listing all the problems earlier just caused confusion in the discussion). --OpenFuture (talk) 17:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I had missed this unscrupulous falsehood. Since OpenFuture has a truly remarkable fashion of changing his suggestions retrospectively, I will not attempt to discuss what he has proposed; let us see what he will now propse. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 08:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

section break

This article was originally titled List of possible exceptions to the democratic peace theory and Colonel Worden moved it to its current title [2] because it was "shorter and less vague". Which it may have been, but it also has a substantially different meaning. It's like renaming List of puddings that contain milk, cream, eggs and fruit to List of milk puddings. Either it gets moved back (because the Colonel's move reason was poor) or we modify the introductory content to be clear that its not just about the democratic peace movement. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Can we look at Mass killings under Communist regimes in the same way. In practice its the same editors and similar arguments. In that case at least in part, the argument is being made that communism leads to mass killings (as a validation of democratic peace theory). In effect both of these lists are created by a particular and controversial position within political science. Maybe they should all be linked? --Snowded ^TALK 17:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you clarify, Snowded, what you mean by "they should all be linked"? I think this article should not depend on anything but the existence of wars between polities whose constitutions qualify for discussion as democratic. I see no inherent relationship to Mass killings under Communist regimes. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, it's untrue that PMA's methods of verification are unsound. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I see what Snowded means. Both articles started out being about the Democratic Peace Theory (ie that democracies don't go to war with each other), and they use definitions of 'democracy' 'war' 'communism' etc based on the writers of the DPT. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

You got it! Ideally we should sort this in the round both in terms of common origins, but also in terms of editor behaviour. In effect one small and dedicated group are seeing things through a specific set of filters related to DPT. Those of us who come on the articles in the absence of that history phase them through more conventional filters. --Snowded ^TALK 17:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

So the question is - are these articles really about the DPT, and should they be either merged back into it or badged as such. Or are they legitimate topics outside of the DTP filter, in which case the references to DTP should largely be removed, particularly from this article. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Yep, and I am inclined to the former as they are very artificial lists. The material on mass killings is well covered in each appropriate article. It gets rids of the arguments over what is or is not fringe in a wider setting. --Snowded ^TALK 18:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a good distinction, Snowded, between two groups of editors. Above I've agreed several times with OpenFuture that the article as originally titled was inherently an argument against democratic peace theory; therefore (though I wasn't around at the time), I would've agreed that it should be deleted as inherently argumentative and non-neutral, or that it should be retitled, presented, and researched neutrally in order to present a list of wars between democracies, while recognizing that for each entry and for different historical periods "democracy" has to be verified and parsed (war, too). I've felt that his quite justified opposition to the original article has perhaps led him to apply arguments appropriate in that context to the retitled and reconceptualized article, where they are no longer so. An article that was presented solely in the context of democratic peace theory would be of no interest to me whatever, and I would gladly leave this alone. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you in all aspects there! --Snowded ^TALK 18:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

And I agree as well, except in the description of what's happened. I was never opposed to the original title. I wasn't even involved in that discussion, so I have no idea where you got that from. I'm not opposed to the current title either. When I came here, this was claimed to be a list of wars between democracies, when it fact most of the conflicts listed were either not wars or not between democracies. Many of them were in fact *neither*, including complete absurdities like the Paris Commune. That was because it earlier had been a list of possible exceptions to DPT. So the article was, when I discovered it, a WP:COATRACK. This was discussed briefly (see archives) and it was agreed that we simply should trim away everything that wasn't a war between democracies. However, I later realized that basing the article on what is "consensus" of democracies, instead of using reliable sources that talked about wars between democracies is a form of WP:OR that will just lead to never ending debates on what is a democracy. I don't think going back to that type of OR is a good idea, as mentioned before. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with OpenFuture. Getting one source that says that X is a democracy and another source that says Y is a democracy, and then finding they had a war in a third source, then including them on this list really is engaging in OR. A valid approach would be to use existing sources like the paper by Maoz and Abdolali Regime Types and International Conflict, 1816-1976. Only those countries mentioned in that paper can reasonably be included in this list, anything extra is OR. --Martin (talk) 18:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Well there are two issues here. Firstly we have the interpretation of OR and I think you will find that the community will go with Elen's interpretation there if the lists remain as they are. The second is the suggestion of making this articles DPT related which might remove the conflict. --Snowded ^TALK 18:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on the merits of the second issue about the DPT relationship, I haven't really been following that. But the first issue regarding OR, we should really be using sources that actually list countries of particular regime types that have engaged in conflict, not do the research ourselves. --Martin (talk) 18:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

There *has* been academic research on the issue done, I do not understand the suggestion that we ignore that and make our own research on the topic. I somehow doubt that the community will accept that we make this article into what must be Wikipedias biggest original research project. :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 18:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I don't think that we can apply the same academic rigour that Maoz and Abdolali would have applied when they compiled their list, I trust their research more than ours. Let's stick to the sources, they are certainly available. --Martin (talk) 18:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Not a bit of it. While this article is List of wars between democracies and ostensibly not about DPT, one cannot restrict to those wars which avowed DTP authors choose to include, when (and I'm particularly referring to wars in more ancient times) there are plenty of mainstream historical sources to confirm that X and Y were democracies, and that they went to war with each other (see any history of Athens, Rome, Carthage....). Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for misunderstanding above what OpenFuture had said about the original form of this article, and especially for implying that he and I could have any common ground. I'm not by habit merely adversarial, so it's difficult for me not to attempt incremental consensus. OF takes reasonable efforts on the part of Elen and Snowded to discuss the problem calmly and move forward, and exaggerates their proposals into flamboyant claims that they are trying to instigate "Wikipedias biggest original research project" (adding a smiley face as a guarantor of civility). Martin has already demonstrated the limitations of his research methodology, so I can understand why he may doubt that others are capable of conducting the research necessary for compiling and verifying an encyclopedia article. (Objection! — Withdrawn.) Cynwolfe (talk) 19:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Cyn, I don't appreciate your backhander, it's not helpful. It is extraordinary that editors like yourself and Elen would place more weight on your own research rather than rely upon that which has been published. Engaging in OR is simply against policy, no matter how highly you rate your research prowess, it is not permitted. How does Elen know that Maoz and Abdolali are "avowed DTP authors", and does it matter? As in any academic debate, there would be numerous viewpoints as to the countries that qualify for the list, the best course is to get those lists and determine where there is academic consensus amongst those authors for list membership. --Martin (talk) 19:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• I don't agree that the policy on original research bars article editors from reading as much scholarship as possible. Nor does it forbid editors to try to understand it as a whole, not just in bits and pieces. Nor does it forbid providing a coherent overview and summary in articles. WP:V and WP:UNDUE offer guidelines for weighing and presenting the relative value of scholarship. The citing of OR here often sounds as if people are saying you should read a book or two and present a book report instead of an encyclopedia article. My sincere apologies to Martin for sounding snide. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Come on, Cynwolfe, nobody ever claimed the things you now disagree with. Of course you don't agree, neither does any one else. Now what about the things we actually said and suggested. What is you opinion of that? --OpenFuture (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

"and especially for implying that he and I could have any common ground. " - Cynwolfe, I *agreed* with you earlier. How can there not be common ground. And I showed that I was exaggerating a bit with a smiley. Is it so bad to try to inject a little bit of humor sometimes? Do you have to try to interpret everything as negatively as possible all the time? How is that constructive? Try to WP:AGF and try to understand what we say instead of just doing all you can to misinterpret everything, or in the absence of possibilities to misinterpret, pick on words and so forth. I really think this is a fairly straightforward issue, and if you just wanted to discuss it seriously I'm sure we could reach consensus quite quickly. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

For the record, yet again: the relationship of this article to democratic peace theory is at best tangential. In particular, it does not contradict any democratic peace theory I know of - if only because the academic advocates of it are well aware of these wars - and discuss them fairly often.

• Almost all theories of the democratic (or, more commonly) liberal peace are statistical: democracies are less likely to go to war with each other; some marginal wars between marginal democracies are perfectly compatible with this.
• Almost all theories of the democratic peace (there may be one exception) exclude civil wars, new democracies, democracies with limited suffrage - and these are why. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

the relationship of this article to democratic peace theory is at best tangential. - That's clearly not true, and your comments above show that. Your arguments make a good case against changing the name back, because the list would not be exceptions as such, when the theory is only statistical. But the connection is there, and it's glaringly obvious, and the fact that is comes up, and you took it up many times by your own volition, shows that the article has a strong connection to democratic peace theory. As if it needed to be shown. A theory that says that democracies rarely/never (strike the one you don't like) goes to war with each other is necessarily and obviously connected to a list of cases when they did.

and these are why - exactly. How much more do you require in terms of relationship? --OpenFuture (talk) 20:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

As I said, tangential. Those restrictive conditions receive very little attention in modern discussions of DPT, and little in our article on the subject, largely because in 2010 they apply to very few democracies: presumably to Iraq and Afghanistan, insofar as they have a foreign policy; possibly to Kuwait or Estonia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Presumably Pmanderson's two bulleted criticisms have been published before, right? I mean, Wikipedia isn't a platform for unpublished criticisms of published theories, is it? Therefore, those authors critical of the DPT would have compiled their own list of democratic dyads that have engaged in wars to refute the proponents of the DPT, right? So let's get the list of democratic dyads published by these critics of the DPT and compare it to the list published by these "avowed DPT authors", and base this article on that comparison. --Martin (talk) 23:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. Lists of democratic dyads at war would do very little to refute any democratic peace theory (except the extreme forms, and all that would do is make them less extreme). The arguments against the democratic peace are that it is not proven to be more than a matter of chance (see Jeanne Gowa), that it is a side-effect of some other cause (e.g. that unquestioned democracies are the First World states, and avoid the risk of war because they have real wealth to lose), or that it has no satisfactory mechanism. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Presumably those that argue against the democratic peace theory would have published a list to prove precisely this point. Where is it? I have offered a paper by Maoz and Abdolali Regime Types and International Conflict, 1816-1976, how about you offer another published paper with an alternate list to that presented by Maoz and Abdolali, that would be a good start. --Martin (talk) 00:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason to presume that even political scientists would, in opposing a theory, offer a list which proves nothing about the validity of the theory. But I thank you; Maoz and Abdolali use data covering 1816-1976, and affirm that Great Britain was a democracy throughout the period; this indirect attestation that the War of 1812 was between democracies is most helpful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Far more seriously, Maoz and Abdolali are among those who use the neologism "anocracy", which includes the sort of weak, new, and marginal democracies common in this list (and also weak autocracies) and distinguish "democracies" both from autocracies and anocracies. This neologism may well represent a useful analytic method, when explained - as they do in their second or third paragraph; it certainly provides a brief phrasing of the sort of restrictions every theory of the liberal peace places on its hypothesis. For us to use "democracy" in Maoz's sense, without explanation, would be to have a private definition of "democracy", while allowing the reader to think something quite different. However, the explanation is another example of definition dependence, and should be included as such. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Could you clarify what you mean by using a private definition (I get that part) while allowing the reader to think something quite different? I sense I could easily mistake what the while allowing means. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Not letting the reader in on the secret that the claim made excludes many (not particularly successful) regimes which would nonetheless naturally be called democracies in common usage; but Orwell puts it better that I would (search down for "private").

As you said, tangential, and as I said, not tangential. Neither you nor me is a reliable source on this. Maybe you could explain how and why it's tangential in your opinion? Your argument that DPT excludes young states etc precisely because of these wars listed herein shows clearly that the relationship is very intimate and not tangential at all. As is expected. Again, a theory that says that democracies rarely/never goes to war against each other obviously has a very intimate relationship with a list of democracies that has gone to war against each other. This is the same relationship that any theory has with facts concerning the theory. It's the same relationship that the theory of gravity has with apples falling out of trees, and with the Pioneer anomaly. It doesn't get more intimate than that. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Those who don't want to listen are never going to hear. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You know others through yourself. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I suppose in answer to OF's question, I would say that while the theory is subject to the facts, the facts are not subject to the theory. If someone produces a mathematical proof in support of a theory of physics, and that proof is susceptible to challenges that jeopardize the theory (I'm still thinking, however, about the point that dpt is not a theory, but a proposition or hypothesis), then the theory is put in question, not the principles of mathematics. Therefore, the theory in question would not dictate the presentation, certainly not the exclusion, of the mathematical facts in their own separate article. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I would say that while the theory is subject to the facts, the facts are not subject to the theory. - That is absolutely true. Again, nobody has suggested that DPT dictate anything about this article. It's just yet another straw man argument. And that's what I think we could get an agreement here if you just wanted, because most of the things you say are correct. except for the straw men arguments. If you just would engage in a constructive debate I think we would find each other in agreement. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

If I had seen this open lierepeated and apparently deliberate falsehood, I would not have bothered replying to OpenFraudFuture's more specious claim below. He has done little but insist that this article be remodelled to possible exception to democratic peace theory. I will do my best to ignore him hereafter, unless he resumes blanking the text; I commend this course to others. . Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I do feel that OpenFuture is contradicting himself, but I think you have, um, created a rhetorical difficulty here, PMA. I'm not insisting that you see five fingers (or suns), but don't lose sight of the substance of what you've accomplished in the actual article. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Pmanderson, I would appreciate if you stopped your personal attacks. They do not add to the discussion, and they do not help your case. Wikipedia rests on mutual respect, and listening to each other. Please try to stay cool when discussion, so we can have a constructive discussion. I feel that you, with your knowledge of the subject should be a part of this constructive discussion, but when you instead choose to insult your opponents that is unfortunately not the case. The article, and Wikipedia, will be better if you keep your comments factual and topical. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Moving on

On reflection, I agree with the view that a list does not have to be notable to exist, as long as the criteria for inclusion are well defined and the entries themselves are notable (I think it was cymwolfe who made that point). My suggestion is to let this list be and to ask pmanderson to clearly lay out the criteria for inclusion at the top. The discussion is going around in circles and we'll all be better off doing something else (in my opinion, that is). --RegentsPark (talk) 12:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with RegentsPark. I'd prefer article to list; never mind. But on the matter of DPT I'll repeat (and hopefully not misrepresent) what others have said above; please, let's keep this in proportion. If its tagged article is anything to go by, it's a statistically based theory, first published around 1968. Democracy, war and peace have been around for rather longer, for the most part without benefit of modern statistics; thus these topics have been and still are historically dealt with as a branch of the Humanities. DPT relates to this as a linked subset, a "see also"; it should be developed in its own article. Haploidavey (talk) 14:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Pennamite-Yankee War

I have tagged this as wp:synth and wp:or due to the fact that it appears to use multipile sources to get to the conclusion desired for the war, see Clark De Leon: Pennsylvania Curiosities, p. 212; for the democracy of Pennsylvania, including tax-payer suffrage and annual elections, see Randall M. Miller and William Pencak, Pennsylvania, a History of the Commonwealth, p. 121; for the annual elections of Connecticut, even before the Revolution, and the democracy and egalitarianism of the 1780s see Stephen R. Grossbart. "Trumbull, Jonathan"; American National Biography Online Feb. 2000; for the democracy of Vermont, see Charles Miner Thompson, Independent Vermont, Houghton Mifflin, 1942 This is a clear case of synth mark nutley (talk) 10:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you need both synth and or tags? Seems superfluous. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

When i put an OR tag i was called a vandal for it, so i figure better safe than sorry mark nutley (talk) 10:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I am removing both as the wearisome and disruptive contention that something that is sourced by multiple sources is less sourced than a statement of one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Nothing in there seems to be sourced by multiple sources. You are in fact using multiple sources to claim that it's a war between democracies, when none of your sources say so. How is it then sourced? --OpenFuture (talk) 15:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a clear case of stating "A and B and C" from a source which says A, a source which says B, and a source which says C. OpenFuture's last contribution on this subject was to deny that he had ever held that there was anything wrong with that; what is his complaint now? But I forget, we have always been at war with Eastasia this has always been contrary to policy, since it is now Monday. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It's also a clear case of what I've described here and elsewhere as an interpretation of "synth" and "OR" that is unique to this page: the argument that an entry should be excluded because a great number of sources verify it. "Original research" is defined by WP:OR as "material … not already published by reliable sources." The information is attributed to published reliable sources, and so it cannot be called "original." WP:SYNTH prohibits the use of sources to advance a new position. No new position is here advanced. The entry perhaps requires more explanation in the body text to avoid any appearance of synth, and the sources/footnotes could be grouped and distributed accordingly. Elen seems to have a handle on how this is usually done. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look later this evening, but can confirm that in general the statements X is a democracy, Y is a democracy, X and Y had an armed conflict in 1900frozen to death are three factual statements without OR. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

That would be very helpful. PMA has revised the entry to do what I envisioned, but I lack the time at the moment to examine the sources carefully. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

1. It's a clear case of stating "A and B and C" from a source which says A, a source which says B, and a source which says C. - Yes. So therefore, your claim that it's sourced by multiple sources is not correct. Neither A, nor B, nor C (nor, in fact D in this particular case) is sourced by multiple sources.

2. The problem with it is the same problem I've stated all the time. Your claim that I have said it's OK is false. That was in relation to something else. Again, with your view of how to interpret SYN, the Bay of Pigs Invasion was a war between democracies. In fact, the blockade against Cuba is a war between democracies. Doesn't that strike you as at least a little bit absurd? --OpenFuture (talk) 21:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You come up with that non-FRINGE source yet that says that Cuba is a democracy?? Until you do, I suggest you take that piece of rhetoric off the table. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I did. That Cuba has elections that are open are rather common knowledge. When you start talking about non-fringe we now need to get into determining the majority view of the government every state that ever been involved in a war during thaty war, and then you are firmly into WP:OR land. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

No, the normal rules of WP:V WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE apply. I cannot base a statement only on a fringe source. I cannot sustain inclusion of text where it is clear that the mainstream view of scholars is opposed to it. What you are describing "determining the majority view of (the government)" is normal Wikipedia editing practice, and nothing to do with Original research. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Im not too sure about how to comment on this or other articles, but I have read several sections in here and get the gist. Setting source issues aside, I don’t really see why this is even considered a “War” at all, never mind the polities involved. This is a border dispute between amicable colonies/states. The two political entities never engaged in any kind of military operation. More like a settlement race to claims. If this “War” is considered than all other state boundary issues in which citizens fought should be added (Ohio/Michigan, Connecticut/Rhode Island, etc.), and that seems out of line with the purpose of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.206.106.206 (talk) 19:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

the "war" did not involve the state governments. It involved groups of settlers from the three states each with their own locally-controlled militias. There was a lot of shouting and some shooting over 30 years and a few people were killed, but the key point is that none of that was authorized by the elected state governments. Rjensen (talk) 01:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The distinction between the settlers, acting as the Pennsylvania and Connecticut militias, and the States themselves, is a bit fuzzier than that; but I will read the article - for which I thank you. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• As indeed the article says; the war was fought between the Pennsylvania and Connecticut militias, enforcing the jurisdiction of their respective states. The legal position of Vermont is not mentioned. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the militias were acting on their own, with no control or direction from the state governments. The problem was that the that the title to lands defended on old grants from their respective states. That is, if Pennsylvania owned the land, then the settlers from Connecticut, would lose their claims to the land they were living on. At this time, the militias were locally organized, locally funded (they just had rifles) and locally controlled, with the settlers electing their own officers. the state governor and Legislature seemed to have had no roles. the state histories of Pennsylvania and Connecticut, never call this a state-sponsored war. nobody does. Rjensen (talk) 05:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Is the topic of this list notable?

The more I think about it, the more I come to the conclusion that there is a fundamental flaw with this list. That flaw is the idea that "wars between democracies" are in some way different from "wars between monarchies", or between countries with other forms of government (or wars between democracies and counties with some other form of government). And that goes directly to the question of whether the topic of this list is Notable enough for a stand alone article. It seems to me that the list arbitrarily carves out a subset from a notable topic ("wars") based on a POV (and Original?) set of criteria... resulting in a non-notable sub-topic. Unless someone can establish that the topic of "wars between democracies" has been discussed by reliable sources... I would suggest that this list be sent to AfD. Blueboar (talk) 14:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, this article has meaning in connection to Democratic Peace Theory. But it was argued before that this article has or should have nothing to do with DPT. I'd say there was no consensus on that, but apparently Pmanderson+2 is enough to form consensus here so I guess I was wrong. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I took a look at the article you mention and it is not clear to me what meaning this list has vis-a-vis the Democratic Peace Theory. Could you elaborate (briefly - please!)? --RegentsPark (talk) 15:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

List started out as exceptions to dpt - which were wars between democracies (as defined by dpt gurus) Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I agree with Blueboar's comment. Also, as the protracted discussion above testifies, neither wars nor democracies are well defined making the construction of this list an impossibility. So why exactly do we need this list? Unless there is an attempt to make a point about wars and democracies - and that can easily be made, if properly supported by reliable sources, in an article about wars and democracies. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)My mouse has been hovering over the AfD button for a week now. This article started, as OF says, as List of exceptions to the democratic peace theory, and escaped being deleted by a promise to improve. It was moved to its present title with 'shorter' being the only reason given, so it should probably never have been moved. There is an article Democratic peace theory which could contain a section on the exceptions recognised by that theory (which are few, and all modern). Or there could be an article about Conflicts between democracies, although that would probably be a fork of DPT. Outside of providing exceptions to DPT, I can't personally see the notability of this list. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no opinion on whether the list should exist, just some notes. Because there are both scholars who support democratic peace theory and scholars who seek to debunk it, it's demonstrable that "wars between democracies" is a topic of scholarly discussion. This article thus has a connection to democratic peace theory, which is made explicit by a "See also" link, but it has been argued that the list should not exist to prove or disprove the theory, because that would make it non-neutral. There are several lists of wars (see Category:Lists of wars). Lists that are based on criteria other than date, country, or region include: List of proxy wars, which seems likely to be contentious; List of wars extended by diplomatic irregularity, which I find intriguing for its narrowness and potential for endless debate over what a "diplomatic irregularity" might be; List of border conflicts, for which the criterion is not simply that countries border on each other, but that the war was fought over a border dispute (again, lots of fuel there); and List of wars of independence (national liberation), where the parenthesis suggests volumes of debate. One might create a "List of wars between Catholic countries," for which the criterion would be that the official religion of both polities was Catholicism, post-Reformation, as there might also be a "List of wars between Christian nations" or even "List of wars between Christian monarchies", or "List of wars between Muslim nations" or "List of wars fought over natural resources" (that ought to be fun) or "List of wars deploying cavalry" or "LIst of wars decided by sieges". A "List of wars between dictatorships" is conceivable. I don't know what this points to, as I myself am unlikely to become the creator of any such list. Someone pointed out above that there is no "List of democracies." I would find that a more valuable list, because some of the debate here would have been more profitable there. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, I was surprised to learn that the list had existed since 2006. Again, I just point that out; it may be irrelevant. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I note that many entries seem to need an explanation as to why they has been included. Every entry except for two in the 20th century, though the 19th century has escaped unscathed, possibly because the protagonists of the war on this page lack the energy (was, for example, the kingdom of Spain a democracy?). One doesn't need a Ph.D. in Wikipedia Studies to figure out that this entire list is original research! On the face of it, it seems to me that the list exists primarily to discredit the DPT. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

By 1898, Spain was a constitutional monarchy with government responsible to the Cortes. There is a dispute among democratic peace theorists as to the extent of corruption and collusion between the two parties. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Haha, what a lovely find: List of wars extended by diplomatic irregularity. What a mess it is. I love how the source for the peace between Sweden and San Marino is just a claim that it never happened. :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 16:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The fact that there are other lists of wars (and that some of them are apparently as poorly conceived and POV as this list is) is frankly irrelevant to the question of whether this list should be nominated for AfD or not... WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS has never been a reason to keep a flawed article. No, the question is simple... is there any way to establish (through reliable sources, and not simply through a "see also" link) that the topic of "wars between democracies" is notable enough for a stand alone article? If so, then we need to establish that fact in this article. If not, then the article should be sent to AfD. Blueboar (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't offering these examples to argue for the preservation of the list, but only for comparison on the issue of notability as predicated on the arbitrariness of the list. At least, I thought the AfD issue was notability. It now seems to have shifted to POV and poorly defined criteria. Perhaps those articles are subject to deletion, too; I remarked on how contentious (or maybe I should say tendentious) they are. The fact that neither "List of wars between dictatorships" nor "List of wars between monarchies" exists isn't an argument for or against, but helps with the question of whether the constitutionality of a polity can ever be a feasible criterion in the compiling of such a list. I thought I stated quite clearly that I have no opinion on whether "List of wars between democracies" should exist; I've asked the question myself in parts of this talk page that are now archived. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no problem with having multiple reasons for taking something up to AfD. But some clearing up an be good. I mean, first of all: Is this a companion-article to Democratic Peace Theory or not? That effects lots of the other reasoning. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Not as currently written... although it sounds as if that was the original intent. Blueboar (talk) 17:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, it started out by extracting a list from the Democratic Peace Theory. See [3]. But if this is no longer a "companion article" to DPT, then it has no reason to exist. Outside of the contexts of DPT it's just a random list. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

(e/c)

I have already stated several times my doubts about the criteria used to identify content in this list and have not been presented with anything that supports the idea that the current criteria meets WP:LIST or any attempt to create criteria that do. Without proper criteria, this article should not exist. Active Banana (talk) 17:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the topic of this article shares notability with the Democratic peace theory. BigK HeX (talk) 18:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm.... If it is, then we have an additional problem. The AfD on the previous itteration of this list was closed on the basis that the list had been edited to the point that it was no longer tied to the Democratic peace theory article. If this was not done, or not done successfully, then that is a point that needs to be raised if we send this to AfD again.

To clarify my statement, the notability of this article is -- at a minimum -- equivalent to Democratic Peace Theory. It may have additional notability outside of that, though I have no input on that. BigK HeX (talk) 19:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Notability needs to be established through reference to reliable sources... are their reliable sources that discuss the topic of "wars between democracies"? Blueboar (talk) 19:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

There are such sources, yes. The sources discussing democratic peace theory are precisely such sources. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

As are many others. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Unless the wars listed in the article are explictly named by the DPT or "many other" sources that are specifically discussing "wars between democriacies" we shouldnt be including them in this list. WP:SYN. Active Banana (talk) 14:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

That is effectively selecting sources by PoV on the nature of democracy - and unacceptable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean. If published sources have not discussed the topic, then we certainly cant be creating the content on our own. WP:OR. Active Banana (talk) 14:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

He may have a point, if most people writing on DPT are for it, and has a definition of "democracy" that is adjusted for that. This is something PMA has implied before. If the reliable sources are POV in that way, then an article based on them would be POV as well. But that requires that nobody is criticizing DPT, and if they aren't, how do we know the definition is biased? If every RS have the same restrictive definition, isn't that definition then per default correct? And if it's decided that the definition isn't correct, it makes it impossible to make an article that is not POV without doing OR to counter that POV but that would likely result in a very inclusionary list, which is just as POV as an exclusionary list based on pro-DPT sources. So then it's both POV *and* OR. So if the sources are one-sided the article should probably be deleted.

So that raises a second question: Does no reliable sources criticize DPT, and offer counter examples? --OpenFuture (talk) 16:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• (left) Many reliable sources critize DPT. Few of them do it by offering counterexamples, because it's a statistical claim; the real question is whether the number of counterexamples is significant. Zero may be insignificant; if you flip two coins and they come up tails, don't leap to the conclusion they're loaded against heads. I have cited the few I have found; as I have cited the advocates' lists of exceptions, when given.
• The solution to OF's wider dilemma is to cite all reliable sources: Civil War historians on the American Civil War. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

If it's a statistical claim, offering counter-examples seems even more important. Zero may be insignificant in small numbers, but the amount of democracies in the world is no longer small. If there are few counter-examples from critics this is either because the criticism is flawed, or because DPT is so obviously flawed and fringe that nobody takes it's seriously. In the first case, the list would not become POV by including those who discuss DPT only, because academic consensus would be reflected in the article, in the second case it would, and then the article should be deleted as inherently fringe. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

AfD sub-question

Hmmm... in trying to find information on the origins of this list I came across the following:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Possible wars between liberal democracies
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Possible wars between liberal democracies 2
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democratic peace theory (Specific historic examples)

I could be wrong, but it looks like at least some previous incarnations of this list were discussed and deleted. Is this the case? Were these deleted articles previous attempts at the same POV fork, or were they something else? If they were, we should be sure to note them in any AfD. Blueboar (talk) 17:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Why_Rummel_is_always_right and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Why_other_peace_theories_are_wrong. Perhaps this explains partly why Pmanderson refuses to listen to anyone. He has had edit wars with POV-pushers before, and hence starts with assuming that anyone that edits this article, himself excepted, is a POV-pusher. That's a pretty useless attitude of course, but could explain his refusal to engage in constructive debate. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it means I recognise one through bitter experience.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, bitter experience has two effects: it does make one more sensitive to POV-pushing; but it also makes one more familiar with the more belligerent points of view on the subject, and therefore more aware of them. I believe I know which is happening here; but I am still open to evidence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, that answers the question, I was correct (and your assumption is wrong). Doesn't help much, I can't make you listen to me, but it explains why which at least lessens my frustration with you. Thanks for the answer. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Um... that exchange does not answer my question (and OpenFuture, please do not comment on specific editors... especially those that I have a lot of respect for.) My question was: Were these deleted articles previous iterations of this list? Blueboar (talk) 18:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Not if I recall correctly, they were articles "proving" that these wars were not exceptions to the democratic peace; polemics. But I can't see them anymore; they're deleted.

Now this is an important point; the democratic peace is a fairly narrow claim (largely because of these wars): that established democracies with wide suffrage (details vary from theorist to theorist) are less likely to fight full-scale wars against each other. For two reasons, therefore, these wars have only a tangential relationship to DPT: most of them are excluded from its scope, and since it's almost always a statistical claim, a few exceptions are only to be expected. WWI does matter to DPT, but it is likely that the view that Wilhelmine Germany (another parliamentary monarchy) was democratic is, while not fringe, a minority view. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I had an edit conflict when I was about to say: Nor is it constructive to bring up PMA and his "useless attitude," since he hasn't even made a comment in the AfD nom discussion. This is the kind of thing that sounds like baiting, OpenFuture, whether or not you intend it. There are several people participating in the AfD discussion; none of them is PMA, and all are behaving civilly. It's as if you're placing out the piece of cheese and hoping he'll take it. Too late; he did. As my daughter would say, I am totally out of here. You guys have fun chasing your tails. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, do stay; although you have seen some of this before. You're good for me. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, so the answer to my question is, "No, they were not previous versions of this list". I think we can end the discussion now. Blueboar (talk) 18:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

question answered.... back to more general discussion

This article is a POV fork of DPT, it should be trimmed down and merged into that article mark nutley (talk) 18:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's nonsense... it certainly looks, smells and quacks like a POV fork to my outsider's eye. Perhaps it is not intended to be a POV fork, but it sure seems like one. Perhaps you would be willing to expand on why you think the idea that this is a POV fork is nonsense. Blueboar (talk) 19:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Because most of these wars are outside the scope of the democratic peace; it varies from theorist to theorist but not by much. Minor wars (like the British contribution to the Continuation War) are not covered. New democracies (like the Second French Republic) are not part of the democratic peace, for various overlapping reasons. States with limited suffrage, like Britain before 1875 or so, are not either. Civil wars like the American Civil War are not breaches of it.

Now these theories are phrased the way they are because of the existence of these wars; and most theories are phrased in statistical terms because they acknowledge one or two exceptions. But that's not the substance of democratic peace theory even for those who oppose it.

And mark nutley got a sharp answer because I've said all this before. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's ignore DPT for the moment. Do you believe that this article should exist (and why or why not)? --RegentsPark (talk) 19:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do; because I find the question interesting - I came here to check which wars Babst counted as between democracies elective governments (although excluded from his peace), which was in this article six months ago or so, before it was -er- radically trimmed by certain editors. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Would List of wars between elected governments or similar be a better title? That way we won't need to argue about what is a democracy and what is not. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It would have to be freely elected governments. The Nazis were elected. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

But "freely" is just as undefined as "democratic", which means the problem isn't solved, but the topic isn't notable. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

PMA: you know that "Interesting" is not the same as "Notable" (WP:NOTE says nothing about whether topics need to be "interesting").

RegentsPark: We would still need to establish that the topic of "wars between elected governments" was notable enough as a topic for a stand alone list. To do that we would need sources that discuss the topic of "wars between elected governments". Do such sources exist? Blueboar (talk) 20:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I've encountered only one: Dean V. Babst. "Elective Governments — A Force For Peace. Pmanderson may know of more. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

He's the only one that I know of, but he is normally cited as discussing democracies. Of the works in the notes, Russett, Ray (both citations), Donald, Doyle, Gowa, Maoz and Abdolali, Modelski, Mueller and Gleditsch - at least - are principally concerned with wars between democracies; several of the others are discussing wars between democracies at the point cited; chiefly Hansen and the Handbook of International Crises. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

From what I can read here, babst says "no wars have been fought between independent nations with elective governments". That doesn't seem to support the need for this article? --RegentsPark (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

No - a single author writing about a topic does not notability make. Particularly when this topic seeks to refute that statement WP:OR Active Banana (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The notability of a list seems to depend on the notability of the individual entries; see Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Common selection criteria. It isn't unusual and is arguably a convention of historiography to relate a polity's form of government to its waging of war; that is, doing so isn't dependent on dpt. In Western historiography, the practice of discussing the constitutional status of polities in relation to the war they waged was established no later than Polybius in the 2nd century BC. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

And there should be something in Thucydides or Aristotle. More recently, while attempting to get away from the article, I was reading a novel from 1922, a roman-à-clef against the Washington Naval Treaties, which makes plain that the democratic peace was a Labour Party clichė 40 years before Babst. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, selection criteria is about what should and should not be included in the list, not about the notability of the list itself, AFAIK. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

As I see it, there are three grounds on which this article might be a AfD candidate: notability; POV fork; and fuzzy criteria. List articles have different parameters, and after reviewing Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Common selection criteria, it seemed to me that the notability argument fails at the get-go, since each item (each war) on the list has its own article and has met notability requirements. I don't see any further arguments pertaining to notability posted here, so I was wondering whether there was a consensus that we would no longer seek AfD on grounds of notability. Banana, any thoughts there? I consider the other two — POV fork, and fuzzy criteria — to be live AfD issues for discussion. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Can someone provide a draft of an intro and inclusion criteria that is based on the academic sources that discuss "wars between democracies"? I think it is probably very likely that such sources exist and the WP:N issue can be addressed, but without concrete evidence, I am still on the fence. Active Banana (talk) 14:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The criteria are: the war was fought, and sufficient scholarship exists for calling it a war; assuming the war was between two (and not more) polities, sufficient scholarship exists for considering each of the two polities within the category "democracy." That is, there is a verifiable constitutional basis recognized by scholars for considering the polity as a "democracy." The word "sufficient" here refers to standard procedures of WP:V, in light of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Each of the three elements that warrant inclusion must be verifiable according to the usual WP standards. Following this same model, analogous lists based on form of government could also be created: "List of wars between constitutional monarchies," "List of wars between military dictatorships," "List of wars between absolute monarchies," "List of wars between theocratic states," etc. The list is neutral because it depends on verifying three piece of information: the existence of a war, and the constitutional status of the polities involved. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

And again, are there reliable sources that discuss conflicts in those terms or is that something that we decided would be interesting? Active Banana (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there are; at least half the sources: I listed Russett, Ray (both citations), Donald, Doyle, Gowa, Maoz and Abdolali, Modelski, Mueller, and Gleditsch above. (As far as I can tell, Donald has never heard of DPT, but he is expressly discusssing a particular war between two democracies.) However, to restrict ourselves to such sources is to impose a POV on what a democracy is, and what a war is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

List articles have their own parameters that differ in some respects from those of narrative articles. A list requires only a clear set of criteria for inclusion. The existential question for the list is whether the criteria are too fuzzy. I see the criteria as three:

1. A war was fought (verifiable, with proper qualifications for cases scholars consider debatable or marginal).
2. The constitutional status of Polity A can be verified as "democratic."
3. The constitutional status of Polity B can be verified as "democratic."

I don't find the criteria themselves fuzzy; what's difficult, of course, is the process of verification for each element, but these frustrations should not be confused with the clarity of the criteria for inclusion. Verification is covered by WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE as it would be for any other article. The list does not depend on dpt, but obviously dpt scholars (pro and con) are going to be among the sources used. I found this passage from WP:SALAT useful: Some Wikipedians feel that some topics are unsuitable [for the creation of lists] by virtue of the nature of the topic. Following the policy spelled out in What Wikipedia is not, they feel that some topics are trivial, non-encyclopedic, or not related to human knowledge. If you create a list like the "list of shades of colors of apple sauce", be prepared to explain why you feel this list contributes to the state of human knowledge. The presentation of a list that relates form of government to the waging of war is non-trivial, as this is a standard topic of historiography from antiquity to the present (which would seem to apply to "state of human knowledge" question). Despite the difficulties of applying the criteria in individual cases, the criteria themselves are clear. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't find the criteria themselves fuzzy; - The discussions on whether countries are democracies or not on this talk page show beyond any doubt, reasonable or unreasonable, that the democracy criteria is fuzzy. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

What the discussion shows is that it may not be possible on the practical level to satisfy verifiability of the individual items. However, I'm addressing Banana's question, which has to do with the creation of list articles. The three criteria for inclusion can be clearly stated, and therefore I don't see lack of clearly defined criteria as AfD grounds. However, in practice the list may not be sustainable, if a sufficient number of entries can't meet verifiability. Establishing a three-point set of criteria for list inclusion is one thing; the verifiability of its individual entries is another. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Cynwolfe: About notability;

• the inclusion criteria are about *what should be in the list* not if the list itself is notable. Two different things. So the notability criteria is not solved by reading the inclusion criteria.
• However, I'd say that the list is notable since Democratic Peace Theory is notable. But that requires that we admit that this is a list that is connected to DPT. So there is no consensus on notability yet, as there are still people that earlier arguing that this article has no connection to DPT. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

If those are the criteria for the article, then they need to be clearly stated as the criteria for the article. I would ammend #2 and #3 to read something like "The constitutional status of Polity has been widely viewed as "democratic." Active Banana (talk) 16:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the verifiability has to be non-fringe; it has to be in keeping with usual guidelines pertaining to neutrality and balance. Notability as pertains to the AfD status of a list article is based on the notability of the individual elements of the list; each of these wars is notable and has its own article. I'm not arguing that this list can't be considered under AfD; I am, however, saying that notability can't serve as the basis, since each element in the list has its own article and therefore meets notability as covered by Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Common selection criteria. I see POV fork and fuzzy criteria as the grounds for considering an AfD. These alone would be sufficient, and I suggest notability be dropped from the discussion. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

In principle, however, "The constitutional status of Polity has been widely viewed as "democratic." will not do. It should say there is a significant view that Policy A is democratic; otherwise we are failing to give due weight to minority views. But I suspect that ActiveBanana has not attempted research on this subject; finding even one source on whether Polity A was democratic in Year Y can be difficult enough, much less enough of them to show whether a view was "widely held". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

No I have not done a lot o research on military history and identification of governmental forms. However, the reasoning that "sources that verify all three claims will be hard to find" does not allow an exemption of WP:SYN. Active Banana (talk) 19:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

In fact, not only doesn't allow exemptions of SYN, it's an argument against the idea that we should allow the SYN. Because if it's hard to find sources that Polity A was democratic in Year Y and even harder to show that that view was widely held, then why should we base this list on that? It really does make it even more obvious that it would be OR to do so. At the same time, there is no shortage of sources discussing wars between democracies. So why not base the list on those instead? The "alleged synthesis", if I may call it that, is both against policy, difficult to do and inherently suspect to POV and subjectivity. It's a terrible, terrible idea. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not certain that just because each of the entries in a list has its own article that the topic of the list is unquestionably Notable. See belowActive Banana (talk) 18:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

List of colors of grapes

• Red
• green
• black

The relevant passage from WP:SALAT reads: Some Wikipedians feel that some topics are unsuitable [for the creation of lists] by virtue of the nature of the topic. Following the policy spelled out in What Wikipedia is not, they feel that some topics are trivial, non-encyclopedic, or not related to human knowledge. If you create a list like the "list of shades of colors of apple sauce", be prepared to explain why you feel this list contributes to the state of human knowledge. I'm prepared to state that the relation of a country's political constitution to its decision to go to war is non-trivial, encyclopedic, and contributes to "human knowledge," as evidenced by the fact that it has been a preoccupation of historians and political theorists in the West for well over 2,000 years. The criteria for creating a list are to be non-trivial. I hope no one participating in this discussion thinks constitutionality and declarations of war, or the relation between the two, are trivial. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree. But this argument also clearly links it to democratic peace theory, which is a huge part of the preoccupation in question. In fact, one could claim that DPT just is the current name for that preoccupation. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Notability as pertains to the AfD status of a list article is based on the notability of the individual elements of the list - No, you are reading about the criteria for *inclusion* in the list, not the notability of the list. This is the third time I point this out. In what way am I unclear? --OpenFuture (talk) 18:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The notability of the list is determined by the notability of its elements, which must meet the criteria for inclusion. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

No. See above. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

"I hope no one participating in this discussion thinks constitutionality and declarations of war, or the relation between the two, are trivia"... I may have misunderstood your question... but... The thing is, I don't think it is clear that there is there a relation between the two. So, yes, I at least question whether the relation between the two is trivial. Blueboar (talk) 19:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Depends on the word "constitutionality". There definitely is no relation between whether a country calls itself a democracy or have a constitution claiming to be or possible to interpret as democratic. Countries like that include the Soviet Union. There is a clear relation between whether countries *are* democratic or not and declarations of war, countries that are democratic are less likely to open war on other democratic countries. And you may or may not say "stable independent democracies" instead, so as to minimize the number of exceptions, but that's not really the point. It is valid to take into account how democratic a country is in relation of declaring or starting wars. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

As with other subjects, we want independent, secondary sources. You speak as though this were recondite and surprising.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

No I don't. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a clear relation between whether countries *are* democratic or not and declarations of war, countries that are democratic are less likely to open war on other democratic countries... perhaps, but my reaction to that is... Who cares? I believe that the issue of whether democratic governments are more or less likely to declare war on each other is irrelevant to this article. Blueboar (talk) 03:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't follow that line of reasoning. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

It does not matter to this list whether war is likely to take place between two democracies or not, all that matters is whether a war did take place. This list does not tell us anything about how likely such wars are... since we don't discuss how many wars were avoided because the two nations were both democracies. Blueboar (talk) 12:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I see. Yes, you could say that the DPT article doesn't really affect this article. But you can not say the same thing for the opposite. The articles are clearly related. That's my point. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

List of colors of grapes 2

Grapes come in different colors. Some of the colors are:

• green
• red
• black

We have scholarly coverage of the colors of grapes. We have existing articles for each of the entries. ergo this meets WP:N for lists? Active Banana (talk) 18:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see List of grape varieties, and take up your issues with grapes there. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

As pointed out above, we are not talking about grapes. we are talking about armed conflict and polity. I would not have said notability was a problem. As I said below, a List of armed conflicts would be notable, but far too huge to manage. Most obvious methods of breaking it down - polity, historical period, geographical zone, type of conflict, types of weapon used - would have a significant corps of scholars producing sources and would therefore be notable. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

We DO have a List of wars. Active Banana (talk) 18:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

But not a List of democracies. --Martin (talk) 05:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

DPT or not DPT

The discussion about the connection to DPT has come up in two different discussions.

Discussion A: What sources to require. Here one group wants sources that call conflict X a war between democracies, and the other group claims we can use one source to show that country A was a democracy and country B was a democracy and conflict X was a war. The argument here is that if this article is *not* connected to DPT, the "synthesis" is allowed.

Discussion B: Is the topic notable. Here one group thinks that this list isn't notable. Without a connection to democratic peace theory, this because just a random list with no objective criteria and no notability.

As I see it, we can't have it both ways. We can't have both the alleged "synthesis" for sources, while still claiming that this list is connected to DPT and therefore should exist. This is, IMO, currently the fundamental discussion, and needs to be resolved.

Personally, I'm OK with both decisions, although I think it's fairly obvious that the two *are* connected. One is a theory about wars between democracies, and the other is a list of wars between democracies. How could they not be connected? The earlier claims that there is no connection is patently absurd. That means that the article does have a reason to exist (although if the list is small enough it could be merged into DPT). But it also means that the article as it currently stands are full of original research. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

If this list is connected to the DPT, then we need to state this in the lede... and I think we would actually need to go a step further in Discussion A: I think we need a source that discusses the war between Democracy A and Democracy B within the context of the DPT. Blueboar (talk) 13:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why it is absurd to say that there is no connection. The point is fairly straightforward. If there are reliable sources that explicitly connect these wars with the DPT, then there is a connection. If there is no reliable source, then the connection is original research. However, I agree that we need to decide whether the list is connected or not. If it is connected, then only those wars that are explicitly connected to the DPT by a reliable source should be included (since the definitions of wars and democracies are fuzzy, if we don't do that, we're straying well into original research territory). If it is not connected, then we have more leeway on what is includable in the list. --RegentsPark (talk) 13:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Most of the wars listed here are connected to DPT in reliable sources. Yes, if it's not connected, we have more leeway on what is includable. But then it's a question if it's notable. What notability does this list have if *not* connected to DPT? No more than a list between countries that have the color blue in it's flag. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

If you think that considering the waging of war in light of the political constitution of the countries involved is the same as considering the waging of war in light of the color of the countries' flags, then I would suggest that this is an issue of WP:COMPETENCE. The effect of a country's colors on its foreign policy has not, as far as I know, ever been a topic of scholarly discussion. The relation of a country's form of government and its political constitution to its foreign policy is a standard theme of historiography dating from antiquity (Aristotle, Polybius) and continuing to the present time, where one (but only one) of its manifestations is democratic peace theory. If you think that a country's constitution is of no more importance in its decision to wage war than the color of its flag, and that matters of constitutionality are somehow random or trivial, then I apologize in advance for stating the obvious, but you lack the political and historical competence to determine the content of this article. It would also be conceivable to apply the same set of three criteria of inclusion to a new list article, substituting other forms of government for "democracy" (absolute monarchy, theocratic states, military dictatorships). That's also why the list does not depend on the existence of any particular political theory. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll repeat with emphasis for clarity: IF you claim that this list has no connection to DPT THEN it has no more meaning than considering war in light of the color of the countries flags. Did you see the "if" now? I claim that a list of wars between democracies is highly relevant and connected to a theory about wars between democracies. Do you disagree? --OpenFuture (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The question then becomes (re your claim), if the list is connected to a theory about wars between democracies then why is it not just a POV fork of DPT? --RegentsPark (talk) 21:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

As it stands now I think it is. So the next question is: Does it have to be? And with the exception of making it a multi-list, the fact is that I don't know. I thought it was possible to make it neutral, but I'm starting to doubt it. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, this article has only tangential relationship with DPT; it concerns itself almost entirely with matters outside DPT's scope. If OpenFuture has returned to wanting an article with a different subject and different criteria, he is welcome to write one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have drifted. Above, it was a question of whether List of wars between democracies was subject to AfD nomination. Based on that discussion, I'm able to identify three possible grounds for deletion to be discussed: notability; POV fork; and fuzzy criteria for inclusion. Are we still discussing AfD? This section seems to be covering content issues if the article exists, but the article's relation to dpt would seem to belong to a POV fork discussion as it pertains to AfD. An outside mediator has already determined that OpenFuture's interpretation of synthesis is incorrect, so I think we should focus closely on AfD criteria. (BTW, I don't think anyone said there is no connection between this list and dpt, unless the remark is taken out of context; the argument has been that there is no inherent connection between the list and dpt; that is, this list could be created whether or nor dpt existed as a formal body of academic theory, on straightforward grounds of verification, just as one could create a "List of wars between constitutional monarchies" and "List of wars between military dictatorships.") Cynwolfe (talk) 14:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

An outside mediator has already determined that OpenFuture's interpretation of synthesis is incorrect, - Oh really? Where? --OpenFuture (talk) 16:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I had given up on this article, but Cynwolfe has persuaded me to come back and give my opinion. Above, I said that I'd been itching to AfD the article. This was largely because of the atmosphere and arguments. Giving it thought outside of that, my opinion is thus.

• DPT entertains a vanishingly small list of exceptions. It maintains the most stringent definitions of democracy (states must be 10 on the Polity IV scale) and the strictest definitions of war (it must be a legal war with all the trimmings. Other forms of armed conflict are excepted). If this is a list of exceptions to DTP - in which case it would have to be sourced exclusively to conflicts which scholars agree are exceptions to DTP - it will fit in the DTP article, because I would be astonished if it had more than half a dozen entries.
• You could create a counter-list of armed conflicts between democracies that DTP does not treat as exceptions, and explain why they don't, but that would be wholly POV (unlike say a List of bugs that antibiotics won't treat which could be sourced from firm scientific research).
• Having said all that, I agree with whoever it was above who looked at the criteria for stand alone lists. A list of armed conflicts would be fine if it was limited to notable armed conflicts. A list of armed conflicts which included the polities of the parties to the conflict would just be a list with more information, and at that point, one can clearly source the polities of the parties from mainstream academia, as one would in the article itself should one wish to include it. Given that such a list would likely exceed all limits for article size, breaking it up by polity is no less notable than breaking it up by geographical location or time period. In terms of definition, I would go with 'notable armed conflict' rather than 'war'. In terms of defining democracy, we have to accept that some sources regard democracy as a legal state (so Pakistan was a democracy in 1947) and some look at the type of critieria considered by the peace and freedom watch contingent (Polity IV does not consider Pakistan to be a democracy until 1952). We already have policies to deal with the situation where mainstream sources disagree. I would say (my opinion only) this article should include the situation where both parties are agreed by mainstream sources to be legal democracies, but specify clearly where they are not considered by the mainstream to be democracies in practice (all the sources I found that stated that Pakistan was legally a democracy in 1947 agreed that it wasn't a functioning democracy until much later). This disposes of the "Bay of Pigs" argument. As far as Cuba goes, while the constitutional setup is theoretically similar to a constitutional monarchy like the UK - no-one in the mainstream lists it as any kind of a democracy (legal, functional or otherwise) in 1967, so the Bay of Pigs clearly doesn't get in.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

If this list is not connected to the DPT, then I think Elen is on the right track... ideally we would reach a consensus on a set, verifiable definition of "Democracy" and a set definition of "war" that would be used through out the article, so that we are not comparing apples and oranges. Any conflict between two nations that fit these definitions would be listed. The problem with this ideal is that verification will be next to impossible... because different sources use different definitions of these terms.

The less than ideal second choice is to allow differing definitions between the various entries... as long as they are consistent within the entry. This essentially means that we have at least one source that describes the conflict as a war, and the nations involved as democracies.

What we can not continue with is the current situation... where, within one entry, we cite one source describing A as a democracy, another source describing B as a democracy and a third source describing the conflict as a war. That is an improper synthesis. Blueboar (talk) 16:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Any source would clearly have to reference the polity at the time of the conflict, that much is clear. I also do agree that it is very problematic where one party is described by some sources as a legal democracy and some as not a functioning democracy. In such cases, one would have to have sources that examined both parties and considered that they were democracies - by any definition, but both by the same definition from the same source. However, it would then surely be required to mention that other sources have a different opinion. So, taking the India/Pakistan conflict much mentioned above, several sources opine that both nations were established as legal democracies at the time of creation, and these sources do refer to the armed conflict between them. So one could create an entry, but I for one would want to add that many scholars point to Pakistan not having achieved functioning democracy until well after the conflict. How would that be?Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that should produce the kind of verifiability and balance required by WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, this may move us beyond something that fits a list format... but yes, requiring a single source for each entry (ie one source that describes both polities as being democracies and the conflict as being a war), and noting alternative wiewpoints in some way would resolve most of the issues I have with the current article. I still question whether the topic of "wars between democracies" passes WP:NOTE... but, assuming it does, I think this is the direction we should head. Blueboar (talk) 18:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

We may still have some issues with ancient democracies, but Cynwolfe and PMA are more familiar with the sources there. And yes, I wonder if this has expanded it beyond the scope of a list.Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

"this may move us beyond something that fits a list format" I agree with this as well. Active Banana (talk) 18:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It won't fit a list format if we are to list eeach entry and then give arguments for or against, we'll end up with a small treatise on every entry, and if we also allow the "alleged synthesis" we'll have to list pretty much every conflict in the 20th century.

I do have an idea on what *would* fit though: Let's compare this with listing countries and the gross domestic product per capita. You can't do that country by finding separate sources of GDP and sources of population. You'll have to use sources that make lists. But those also disagree. Solution: We include all notable lists: See List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita as an example.

See here for a different argument for the same solution. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• [4] This seems to suggest that there is quite a number of scholars who have discussed wars between democracies. Active Banana (talk) 18:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. If I may play devil's advocate … As I said above, I'm not objecting to an AfD nomination if there are sufficient grounds for deletion. I'm looking for a specific reason other than "too much trouble to salvage." The question of whether the material is suited for a list is a good one to consider. This depends in part on how in practice the three criteria for inclusion can be applied. Most lists lend themselves to a tabular presentation, even if they aren't or shouldn't be in a table. In this case, in theory the list could be a three-column table: a short cell with the name of the war (with a footnote if the conflict's status as a "war" is likely to be challenged); two longer cells, one for Polity A and one for Polity B, with a brief description of constitutional status and necessary qualifiers, each cell footnoted. This is just a way to imagine the content; I'm not proposing a tabular presentation. Sorry to sound as if I'm arguing too strongly against deletion; I just want to make sure the grounds for deletion are clear and legitimate. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

That reference specifically addresses whether war between democracies is a possibility or not and is likely better suited for the DPT article. The linkage of this article with DPT raises two questions: one whether it is a POV fork (exists solely to show that the DPT theory is suspect) and two whether there are enough explicitly identified wars between democracies for an independent list to exist (elen of the roads). Either way, the article does not make sense. A POV fork is a POV fork and should be deleted. A stand alone list doesn't make much sense (what does one gain, for example, by knowing that a couple of authors thought that India and Pakistan could possibly be classified as democracies moments after their independence because they were governed by an act passed by a ruling foreign power that other a few other authors thought was in the tradition of westminster democracy. Newly free countries can turn out any which way - as we can see in the India and Pakistan case - and this says nothing about democracy or war). A list should be useful and the items in it should have collective meaning. This list doesn't. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not familiar with "DPT" to know the "big names" that are associated with it, but that book is citing a number of scholars who have published on democracies going to/not going to war. If they are all "DPT" school scholars and all the others books that came up in the google books search are also from that school, then this is a (probably POV Fork) subarticle of "DPT". If they are general military/political historians/scholars then it should satisfy Blueboar that the topic is WP:N as something that is fairly widely discussed in certain academic circles. Active Banana (talk) 19:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It (your reference above) makes the article "Democratic Peace Theory" notable (discussions about the validity of the theory should go in that article). It doesn't make a list of wars between democracies notable. --RegentsPark (talk) 20:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think a tabular list with cells should be used (it invites separate sources for the information in each cell, which is what we want to avoid)... I think Bullet pointed text format works better. That way we can cite the single source that verifies the entire entry at the end of each entry, and would also allow for brief discussion of alternate viewpoints. I would set it up as follows:

• Anglo-US War - United Kingdom vs. United States - 1922-24 <source>
• Iceberg War - Sweeden vs. Iceland - 1950 <source>
• Franco-Narnian War - France vs. Narnia - 2004 - Disputed - Narnia was under the interregnum of the White Witch in 2004, and there is disagreement as to whether it qualifies as being a democracy. Prof. Tumnus Fawn holds that the White Witch never overturned the Constitution of King Peter, and continued to rule through "Parliament in session" (even if in name only) and thus it qualifies as a democracy.<source> Historian Bob Beaver, disagrees, noting that the members of Parliament had been turned to stone, and thus unable to approve or disapprove legistlation. He concludes that the interregnum was a "Dictatorship that usurped the trappings of a constitutional monarchy along with the crown". <source>
• Five Second War - Germany vs. US - 2010 - Disputed - There is disagreement over whether the conflict qualifies as being a war as it was over before shots had been fired by either party. <sources for each view".

Or something like this. Blueboar (talk) 20:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

They are all disputed. :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 20:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised no one has added Icelandic Cod Wars. --Martin (talk) 06:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I suppose its because there were no non-finned casualties :) Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I think they actually were included before the rename but was removed, on account of not being wars. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• support Blueboar's format suggestion. --Active Banana | Talk 16:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
• support also - although is Fawn still considered a reliable source since "the incident"? Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support this, although links to the wars are preferable to bolding them. It is inconsistent with Blueboar's comments on sources below; neither Fawn nor Beaver discuss democracy in France (and why should they?), and which of the multitude of histories of the Fifth Republic discusses Narnia? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Clarification... In the entry on the Franco-Narnian war, I was making the assumption that Fawn discussed France as being a democracy as well as saying that Narnia was, and that the dispute was over the status of Narnia. If neither source discusses France, then we would need to cite a third source to establish inclusion.... one that does mention both France and Narnia as being democracies. Blueboar (talk) 17:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not choose to make that arbitrary concession to the blankers of this article; there is no rational justification for it. The entry listed does not assert or imply anything about Tumnus' knowledge of or opinions on the Constitution of France (likely to be limited, after all). I am sorry to see an editor for whom I have had high respect appeasing our POV-pushers. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Some consensus (?) and change of lead

From what I could see in the above discussion, several arguments for deletion has been put forward.

1. That the list is not notable. - We seem to have come to the consensus that it either is notable, or that is doesn't have to be, so that argument is done with as far as I can see.
2. This list is a POV fork of Democratic Peace Theory. - This didn't seem to gather much support, so I guess the consensus is that is isn't?
3. That since neither wars nor democracies are well defined, the construction of this list is an impossibility. - I think that the consensus was that if we have clear and objective requirements for inclusion, the list would be possible and would not need to be deleted. If so, then we need to discuss what those requirements are, to see if we can agree. If we can't agree, an AfD could be the reasonable outcome of the failure to agree.
4. This list must inherently be POV or OR - Arguments have been put forward to the effect of that there not being enough research, so the article must be OR, or that if we require sources that explicitly claim wars to be wars between democracies the article must become POV, etc. This has, IMO, not been discussed enough. I also think it's ties in to the discussion about the requirements for inclusion.

So, it seems to me that we should now discuss the requirements of inclusion. The article currently says:

"Three points are involved: that there have been a war, that at least one entity on one side be a democracy, and that another entity in conflict with it be a democracy."

This sentence is clearly written to support using three separate sources for one conflict. But a clear majority of the editors here and on RS/N been of the opinion that this violates WP:OR, so I don't agree with those requirements. Also I think it fails the argument as it doesn't provide any sort of requirement on war or democracy, meaning that each and every entry gets subject to three separate pieces of contention, which means this list will become a constant battleground that can never be NPOV. The lead also says

"This is an incomplete list of wars between democracies, that is, wars between polities that have a constitutionally democratic form of government."

AFAIK Elen is the only one who argued for that, and having the requirement that is should be constitutionally a democracy, but not practically, IMO means almost every conflict in the 20th century must be included, which is plainly absurd.

I instead suggest the following lead, and inclusionary criteria:

This is an incomplete list of wars between democracies. For many of these entries, whether there has been a war between democracies is a debatable question; all significant views should be given, but the conflict must have been called a war between democracies by at least one reliable source.

Other people are better at formulating this kinda stuff than me, so improvements are of course welcome. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's quite what I said, and I don't think I'm the only one who argued for it. What I said was that the source to support inclusion must agree that both (all? - another discussion perhaps) parties were democracies. The source must be mainstream - which necessarily means that there will be other sources confirming the view. Either criterion - constitution or performance - could be used, but the source must use the same criterion of both; so if the source says that Pakistan failed to achieve democracy but India did, then that source is not supporting inclusion. A source that says both were legal democracies, but Pakistan did not get round to holding elections for 10 years is supporting inclusion. I do not think this makes it at all likely that "almost every conflict in the 20th century must be included." Are there any mainstream sources arguing that Argentina was a democracy at the time of the Falklands war? That Iraq was a democracy at the time of the invasion of Kuwait? That North Vietnam was a democracy at the time of the Vietnam war?

The other thing I think to be disposed of is whether it is necessary to have one sentence which says "the Franco-Narnian war was fought between democracies". It is not OR or synthesis to read a book and note that the author describes both parties to a war as democracies. I therefore cannot see any requirement for the phrase "called a war between democracies."

My preferred phrasing would be This is an incomplete list of wars between democracies, that is, wars between polities that have a constitutionally democratic form of government, and deemed to be democracies by mainstream sources. Polities which claim democracy but which all mainstream sources agree are not are excluded. In some cases, it may be possible for a nation to have a democratic constitution, but for the practices of democracy to be operating less than optimally. More information on such cases is given in the individual entries. Too long winded? Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

If we require that one source calls it "a war between democracies" (or at least say both are democracies and there was a war) then I'm find with whatever definition of "democracy" that source has. The real problem is, when as it is now, be both allow separate sources and allow any definition of democracy. Then we would have to include almost all 20th century conflicts. But if we agree that a source can only be used if they call both countries democracies then this is a much smaller problem.

It is not OR or synthesis to read a book and note that the author describes both parties to a war as democracies. - Right, because that's still *one* source, not two, not three.

Yeah, a bit long winded. And you are never gonna get "all mainstream sources" to agree on anything... :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 13:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest: "This is a list of wars that have taken place between nations that are (or were) deemed to have had democratic forms of government at the time that the war took place. For inclusion, a reliable source must use the term 'war' to describe an armed conflict between two or more nations, and the same source must describe all the nations involved in the conflict as having a democratic form of government." Blueboar (talk) 22:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I very strongly disagree. The condition that the same source assert the democracy of all parties is artificial and unjustified. What we want is one of two things for each party: that there be rough consensus among the sources that it is a democracy; or that there is significant disagreement among the sources on the subject which is described in the article. In the rather common case in this list in which Fooland is an undisputed (if perhaps recent) democracy and Barland's status is controversial, there will be dozens of sources which will use Fooland as an example of democracy, and there will be the sources which discuss the Barland Regency of 19AB - but there is no reason to expect them to be the same sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

That intro is good. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I beg to differ... we MUST be able to cite at least one reliable source that states that all parties in the war are democracies. Without that, we end up with an improper synthesis ...we are taking what is stated in source A and what is stated in Source B and reaching conclusion C (that the war is between democracies) ourselves. Such synthetic conclusions are explicitly forbidden by WP:NOR. Blueboar (talk) 01:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not require the same source, it requires reliable sources. If we have two reliable sources which state that A and B are democracies then that is enough for inclusion in a list (and this is just a list). If there are reliable sources which say that B was not a democracy (say) then we would have to be more cautious. A requirement to have all three statements in a single source appears to be designed to radically reduce the number of examples which would of course support DPT. --Snowded ^TALK 04:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The majority here and at OR/N disagree. Using separate sources is synthesis.

If there are reliable sources which say that B was not a democracy - That is likely to be the case for pretty much every entry in this list. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Well I just looked at the discussion here and at the OR notice board and I think your assertion of a majority is overconfidence at best. --Snowded ^TALK 11:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Then you didn't look very carefully. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Where I think the concern is, is that there are two ways (there may be more, but they seem to come down to two ways) in which sources define democracies. Either they point to the constitution and say 'this country is legally a democracy', or they point to some measure of democracy, whether their own standard or one of the 'freedom and democracy' standards such as POLITY IV. The legal consititution standard is lower but clearer. However, in the situation that a polity has a democratic constitution that is suspended, voided or just ignored, all the mainstream sources will use an upper standard to argue that the country is not a democracy in practice. Unfortunately, there are a plethora of upper standards, so it would be easy to have different sources using different criteria sets for determining whether Fooland was a democracy at the time.Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

One can see this in the discussion about WWI. Constitutionally, all parties are democracies. However, depending on the standards employed at the higher level, one or more parties may not be considered democracies in practice. At that point, one clearly needs to use the same measure, most easily achieved by using one source.Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

In other words, if there is any sort of controversy on the "democracity" of one of the parts, we need to use one source to assert both parts "democraticness". And since there is controversy in pretty much all cases, this means that in practice we need one source, and can't use the "alleged synthesis". --OpenFuture (talk) 14:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Elen's version seems acceptable for this article. BigK HeX (talk) 07:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm more or less with it to, but resolving contradictions between sources is not difficult. I must admit I think there is an increasing argument for deleting all lists that appear in practice to have been established to prove DPT. So we had advocates wanting to keep this one as short as possible, but expand mass killings under communism. If they were collapsed into DPT then it would be under that theories definitions--Snowded ^TALK 11:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

This list has if anything been established to *disprove* DPT. What mass killings under communist regimes have to do with this list is beyond me. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

This list has if anything been established to *disprove* DPT. You are completely wrong. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

If the purpose of this list is to disprove (or prove) DPT then we are back to it being a clear POV fork, and it should be deleted. Blueboar (talk) 14:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I think what the original purpose of the list was is less important than what the list can be. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Snowed, WP:NOR is quite clear on this issue ...

• Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources.

This is exactly what occurs when we use one source to say that polity A was a democracy and another source to show that polity B was a democracy. For each war listed, we must have one single source that says that both A and B were democracies. Blueboar (talk) 13:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Blueboar, not it isn't clear in the case of artificial lists like this one. In creating a list we are doing just that, we are not reaching any conclusion. Ideally the same source would say that A & B were democracies, however comparable sources saying that A is a democracy and B is would be OK.

OpenFuture, as this list expands then DPT has more less credibility and more indirectly the same is true is as the number of Mass Killings expands. As far as I can see from the origins and editing practice that appears to be the puporse and it probably is a fork --Snowded ^TALK 14:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree... List articles are not exempt from core policy. Blueboar (talk) 15:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH excludes common arithmetic operations, like adding one democracy and one democracy to get two democracies.

It isn't basic arithmetic if the two sources use differing definitions of democracy ... that is why you need the same source to say both are democracies. OK... I suppose you could use two separate sources if (and only if) it can be established that both sources use the same definition... but from my experience that would be exceedingly rare. Blueboar (talk) 15:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

If they do demonstrably use different definitions of democracy, we should mention it, or refer to the section on Definition dependence, which is intended to cover such cases. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Referring to that section doesn't help. Mentioning if they use demonstrably different definition means that we can only use sources who have an explicit definition of democracy. That would exclude most of the sources used by you in the discussions above. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Demonstrating exactly how any such proposal would be used for POV blanking. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Remember that it was your proposal. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

This is baiting; I made no such proposal. Unless there is a link explaining this extraordinary claim forthwith, I shall be forced to consider other means of dispute resolution. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, so you never said "If they do demonstrably use different definitions of democracy, we should mention it"? Did somebody fake your signature above, or? --OpenFuture (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

That is not the same proposal; one is to mention an unusual circumstance, the other to remove an entry when it occurs. If OpenFuture genuinely can't see the difference, it may explain much of his conduct. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

There is only one proposal: Mention when two sources have differing definitions, which means we can only use sources with explicit definitions. And that proposal was yours. If you feel that this needs dispute resolution, be my guest. But I suggest you instead should stop blaming others for your lack of forethought in the discussion. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing to my proposal, even if you haven't understood it, or the discussion, at all well. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I understood your proposal perfectly (and apparently better than you did yourself), and just pointed out to you that it would mean the reversal of pretty much all your additions (and then some). Apparently you think this means I support the proposal. I don't. But, but if you mean it seriously, you are welcome to start removing every source you have that doesn't have an explicit definition of democracy. It probably would empty the list in the end, but that's fine, a clean start would probably be good once we reach consensus on the requirements for inclusion. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a universal consensus on the condition of France in 2004: the Fifth Republic is a democracy - and, while this can be sourced, WP:V says it need not be: it is not challenged nor likely to be challenged. The dispute, if any, rests on the condition of Narnia; and even histories of the war and the mysterious Narnian lion-cult are unlikely to mention whether France is a democracy, even if they do mention the anti-war protests on the grounds of the Middle Eastern culture of the White Witch. Limiting ourselves to sources which do is the artificial requirement. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, how many of the conflicts on the list include two parts that both have a universal consensus that they were democracies, and hasn't been challenged? We can cut the list down to those if you like? No? Right. Reality is that almost everything on this list *is* contended and there is not universal agreement on any entry on this list. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

This is WP:SOUP. I postulated a case in which one side, France here, had universal consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

To be clearer: Do we have any cases of that in the list? I can't see any. This is an attempt to make it possible for you to in future discussions claim that something is universally accepted as a democracy, when it's not. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, yes, we have several examples where both sides are democracies by consensus. None of them are exceptions to the democratic peace; mostly because one of the states was new at the the time of the war, but the Continuation War was not a full-scale war between Finland and the Commonwealth. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

mostly because one of the states was new at the the time of the war - which automatically makes it disputed, as some scholars use definitions of democracy that include not only elections, but that a government has to step down freely and peacefully, which in practice means that any countries first government is excluded from being democracies. You are too stuck into your history books, and not enough knowledgeable about the debates about democracy with political science. And you clearly have never debated with a full blow communist. ;-) --OpenFuture (talk) 20:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

some scholars use definitions of democracy that include not only elections, but that a government has to step down freely and peacefully, which in practice means that any countries first government is excluded from being democracies. Citation please; you have failed to read your sources. That is a definition of the democratic peace, not of democracy.

But that this point should have escaped someone capable of writing countries for country's, democracies for a democracy, with for within, blow for blown is not surprising. And I have discussed with full-blown Communists, and full-blown ex-Communists; the tactics used are identical - and visible on this talk page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

As usual when you run out of arguments you start nitpicking on spelling mistakes and the like. Bad excuses.--OpenFuture (talk) 22:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• I notice This is an attempt to make it possible for you to in future discussions claim that something is universally accepted as a democracy, when it's not. OpenFuture has been engaging in telepathy again; he really should tune his mind-reader - since I have no such intention and this discussion would not fulfill it if I did. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Snowded: OpenFuture, as this list expands then DPT has more credibility and more indirectly the same is true is Mass Killings expands. - I'm sorry, I can't even parse that sentence. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

One shouldn't really edit with a body clock out by five hours, but I think it was probably fairly obvious what I was saying despite the one obvious mistake, now corrected. --Snowded ^TALK 18:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Eh... in what way would DPT get less credibility with more mass killings under communist regimes? That makes no sense, sorry. The Mass killings are neither wars not by democrats. Very strange. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

At one stage on the interminable discussions on that page that mass killings were are inherent part of communism which as anti-democratic.--Snowded ^TALK 20:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes? Are you trying to say that your attempts to expand this list as well as shrink the one on mass killings are all because you are an anti-democrat? And that people who are trying to defend Wikipedia policy on both article are doing it because they like democracy? I don't believe that is true. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I would say that I am trying to prevent attempts to restrict this list and expand the other one, both attempts seem clearly linked to a DPT position. You are also defending your interpretation of WIkipedia policy. I am more and more coming to the opinion that neither list is really notable in its own right and lists are inherently problematic when they are linked to strongly held political or religious views. --Snowded ^TALK 21:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

No, to a superstitious reverence for a single web-site, which leads its votaries to defend even points which the website and its author, eccentric though he is, does not hold or defend. Most theorists of the democratic peace do not write on the Ukrainian famines at all. 21:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

To use language you should understand, as you use it yourself: Nonsense. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

My interpretation of WP:Policy has so far gotten support from most people that has voiced an opinion. As far as I can see you, Cynwolfe and Pmanderson are the only ones that continue to defend the "alleged synthesis". You seem to imply that this means you are all anti-democrats, which is speculation I'll leave to you. Personally I leave my political views outside of Wikipedia as far as possible. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

OF, you were doing so well, but now you've started ranting and talking bollocks again. Please remember that even if PMA does propose introducing synthesis into the article, he is not outraging the virtue of your sister by doing so (in short, keep reaction proportionate to threat).Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

And for the sake of parity: PMA, we were doing so well, and now you've just started being rude again. If you can't think of anything nice to say, at least say "over my dead body" without the insults.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I can agree that OpenFuture appears to be talking ballocks. You think ascribing this to his actually talking ballocks is less rude than assuming that (some part of) it is due to his struggles with the English language. Fine; anything to oblige. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, it's not *me* who implies everyone who tries to extend this list are anti-democrats. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Neither has anyone else - that is a product of your fertile imagination. Hang on, I think I am sensing something here. You think that democracies can't really have wars by their nature, therefore you assume that people who recognise they can (as can any human political form) must be anti-democratic. At least its consistent with your assumptions, pity they are flawed --Snowded ^TALK 22:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Neither has anyone else - Oh, I see. Your logic isn't universal, it just applies when you want it too. How practical for you.

At least its consistent with your assumptions, pity they are flawed - Please explain what my assumptions are, or retract everything above. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

No, its your logic OF, you have a very strong world view and you are filtering through it. I'm not retracting anything and I commend the comment to your reflective consideration --Snowded ^TALK 22:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not mine. If it's logic or not I'll let each person decide for himself. You haven't got the slightest clue what my world view or my assumptions are. Those are just assumptions *you* make because of *your* worldview. You'd probably do well in just avoiding trying to make any sort of conclusions. Both in general, and in particular about me. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I really would prefer not to have to attempt some conclusions, but then you make (and repeat) an assertion such as your anti-democratic one then there is little alternative. You take very firm positions based on partial (sic) or incomplete readings and that makes it very very difficult to deal with you. I'm not surprised other editors are driven to breaking WP:NAP in the face of this. --Snowded ^TALK 23:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Snowded, but your claim that people want to remove entries from this is based on a political and ideological standpoints, namely that we are for democracy and hence support DPT and hence want this list to be short, is the kind of logic-free conclusions you should stop making. So now you get cause and effect backwards. My "assertion" that you criticize, comes *after* your conclusion. Hence it can't be prompted by it.

All I did was apply that kind of argumentation to you and others who want to expand this list, which obviously then must mean you are anti-democrats. If you don't like me doing that, stop making your nonsense conclusions and assumptions in the first place.

The main problem here of course is that you try to make it a personal issue, which you do because you don't have any arguments in the first place. You try to blame your lack of arguments on an imagined political agenda amongst those who have arguments. That doesn't work, mainly because you have very little knowledge about the subject, and absolutely no knowledge whatsoever about me. So my recommendation to yo, again, is to stop trying to make conclusions about me. Bring your argumentation up from the sewer, and make it topical again. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm no longer watching this page, and came here out of curiosity because of a remark I saw about it elsewhere. OpenFuture's recent responses to Snowded (note the "sewer" remark) are way out of line; I searched through all Snowded's remarks on this page, and see nothing that comes close to this kind of venom, which represents a pattern of behavior here from OpenFuture as described at Wikipedia:Civility#Identifying incivility. Newcomers to the page, beware: it's a poisonous environment. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry OF but your behaviour and attitudes are the problem on this page (and elsewhere) you have an obdurate attitude, you do not read or attempt to understand other people's arguments. You misconstrue what other people say and make absolute claims about wikipedia policies that no temperate editor would make. The only real issue for me is if its worth the energy to report this. I just hope some senior admins are monitoring what is going on. You are creating a toxic editing environment. I am sorry to be so direct, but it has to be said. --Snowded ^TALK 19:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking at this as a neutral third party... It appears to me that you are both being uncivil here. I am not an admin, but I do suggest that you both take a break from this topic for a while. Blueboar (talk) 20:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Firstly you are not a neutral third party you have activated edited this page. Secondly I am sorry but I've done my best on civil in the face of the behavior for longer than its reasonable to expect. --Snowded ^TALK 21:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with this... BigK HeX (talk) 22:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Um... I have taken part in the discussions on this talk page ... I have never made an edit to the article. I have no axe to grind as to the DPT (I have not even read that article)... nor do I care whether a particular war is or is not included in the list. I came here due to a question posted at a policy noticeboard, and my comments so far have been policy based. I consider that neutral. You are of course free to disagree. Blueboar (talk) 12:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I am sure we all consider ourselves neutral --Snowded ^TALK 12:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)