Talk:List of wars between democracies

Babst as a source.

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

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

Indeed, Babst's criteria were

• Legislation and finances controlled by a periodically elected legislature
• administrative control by elected leaders
• Ballot and civil liberties. Septentrionalis PMAnderson

Note that there is no requirement of the right to vote. Even you admit that the franchise was limited in both states involved in the Boer was, and that means they are not a democracy in the general sense. Including this as a source is WP:SYN at the very least. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by a "right" to vote? That's one view of democracy (which Babst probably shared; it's an implication of "secret ballot and civil liberties"); but for most of the regimes mentioned in this article, voting is not a right, but a privilege; in many states, it still is.

No. I do not admit that the household suffrage of the Boer Republics was "restricted"; some democracies have had a wider franchise; very many have had narrower ones. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

You admitted it was restricted earlier (June 4th, see above), but no matter if you admit it or not, the source still does not say democracies, so your edits are not supported by this source. It's WP:OR or WP:SYN. Anyway, I've taken this up at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#PMAnderson_and_Democracies_vs_electoral_states. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I will doublecheck; but sources are not to judged by character-strings, but by what they mean; in this case, Babst means "democracies" - and a reliable source says he does. Whether this agrees with OpenFuture's pet definition - or that of his favorite web-site - is not a matter of importance to me or to Wikipedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

And I have found another, as OpenFuture could have done with equal ease: Since this good soul seems to like R. J. Rummel, I present a link to Rummel's summary of Babst's paper, which uses the string democracy repeatedly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Which then makes it WP:SYN. That Rummel uses the word Democracy in relation to Babst doesn't mean that Babst uses the word democracy. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it is a reliable source that Babst means "democracy", which is the point; we are not expected to quote Babst character for character - which would be plagiarism - but to represent his content. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

No, because the source does not say "Babst means democracy", that's your interpretation, and it's WP:SYN. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

This way lies Achilles and the Tortoise - Lewis Carroll's version. What part of "we are not expected to quote character for character" did you fail to understand? English words have meanings, even when Rummel uses them; Rummel attests - so do many others - that Babst is writing about democracies; OpenFuture denies it. I prefer to follow the sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

You are using "we are not expected to quote character for character" as an excuse for WP:SYN. It's completely clear that Babst does not mean democracy as the word is generally used, as most of the electoral governments he mentions are not seen as democracies in general. If Rummel sees them as democracies, then use Rummel as the source. What you do now is WP:SYN and that allows you to use any if your creative interpretations of various sources to support any statement. This is why WP:SYN isn't allowed. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It is "completely clear" to you; it is not clear to me, to Small and Singer (op. cit), to Rummel, to Ray, to anybody else who has ever discussed Babst. Such "clarities" belong in a blog; this isn't one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• Babst's full phrase is freely elective governments (as defined above).
• Even if one considers subject peoples, the Boer Republics enfranchised more of their population than the British Empire ever did. It is possible to defend a definition of democracy which rules out Britain and France before 1960; but it is not English, which it is policy to use for our article titles.
• It is quite true that the Boer Republics did not permit resident foreigners to vote. This is true of most democracies, including the United States; it would be even further from English to confine this article to European Union in the last few years. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

How does any of this make the Boer Wars wars between democracies in any generally accepted definition? That the British empire was *less* a democracy than the Boer republics is hardly an argument.

If you have to ask, you won't ever understand. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

This just shows how pointless this argument is. Any application of X's definition of Democracy on Y's list of conflicts is going to have this kind of pointless arguing going on. The reason for that is that it's WP:SYNTHESIS, and you and I obviously have different views of democracy. I can't apply mine, and you can't apply yours. The only definition that can be applied on Babst list of conflicts is his own definition, in that source. Everything else is Synthesis. And he does not call them democracies in that source. He calls them elective governments, and that is not the same thing. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

He calls them elective governments, and that is not the same thing He calls them, I repeat, "freely elective governments"; and it is the opinion of everyone who has written on Babst that they are the same thing. If OpenMouthFuture thinks differently, then he should publish on the subject. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Then quote "everyone else", what you are doing now it synthesis. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion

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

Viewpoint by OpenFuture

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

Viewpoint by (name here)

....

Third opinion by Weaponbb7

....

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

I'm not sure I understand. These are two separate issues, involving the same persons. Pmanderson both breaks WP:SYN and WP:UNCIVIL. I don't see why one should prevent the other. Even if Pmanderson would stop being uncivil, he still violates SYN. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Lets see where the ANI rolls, remove the offending text for now. If this ANI keeps going the way its already heading you might end up arguing with yourself if you insist on continuing this discussion. Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

What is this article supposed to be about?

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

Thank you for exposing your sockpuppetry. All the statements here are sourced; and Athens was a democracy. I will follow reliable sources (like Josiah Ober) over the unsourced ignorance of Wikipedia editors any day of the week. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Take it to WP:SPI and then you can redact your ludicrous claim mark nutley (talk) 21:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The Greeks did not have democratic government. They had representative government mark nutley (talk) 21:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Please read the Federalist Papers. You have it almost precisely backwards; with a few marginal exceptions, representative government was unknown to the Greeks; they invented democracy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I`ll read through it later, how about the others i have pointed out? mark nutley (talk) 21:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

All of these assertion are sourced; read the sources. (And Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and Vermont all had elections before 1784.) 21:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Then they were badly sourced, the confederacy was never a recognized state. Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and Vermont were never recognized as states. Rome sure as hell was never a democratic system. The american war for independence was a revolution not a war between democracies mark nutley (talk) 21:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Both halves of this are irrelevant - nothing in this article is about recognized states. The second assertion is false; Pennsylvania and Connecticut were parties to the Treaty of Paris. I suppose it takes the gall to dismiss David Donald and James McPherson as bad sources to deny that the American Revolution was a war. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Lets go one at a time shall we. Yes the American Revolution was a war, but not a war between democracies. Next mark nutley (talk) 22:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

That's your opinion; the source you blanked was George Modelski, "Is America's Decline Inevitable?" The Bridge 19:2, pp. 11-18, (1988), who says otherwise. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok so the american rebellion ended in 1783 right? But the first election was not held until 1789 which is five years after the war. Can you tell me how a country which had not held an election to install a president was a democracy five years beforehand? mark nutley (talk) 12:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. See President of the Continental Congress; the United States was run by elected bodies from 1774 onwards; it adopted a new Constitution in 1789. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Excellent that`s this one out of the way, as the continental congress was not a government, as the people did not vote them in. and the president of it was not voted for by the people either. So what`s next? mark nutley (talk) 13:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

By that reasoning, the United States was not a democracy before 1913 when the Senate began to be directly elected by the people; indeed, it may not be one now - for the President (like the courts) is not so elected. But instead read indirect democracy.

Not at all, but a war of revolution is not a war between democracy`s and America was not one until the war was over. That is fact. Also your source is no good per wp:v i just tried to look at it online and there is no preview available mark nutley (talk) 14:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

That is two falsehoods. America was a democracy (arguably 14 democracies) from 1776 onward. Nothing requires sources to be on-line; most reliable sources are not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course most reliable sources are online, wp:v is a fairly hard rule on WP, how am i to verify (easily) that your source says what you say? And i would recommend you stop calling people liars, unless you are after a block? America was not a democracy during the war, this is why it is called a revolutionary war. Was the french revolution a war between democracies as well? mark nutley (talk) 14:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

(left) Who cares if USofA was a democracy or not during the revolutionary war. Britain was not, which is why they needed to war to get independent in the first place. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Unlike Mark Nutley's claims, you may actually be able to find sources for that. Find a sourced statement to that effect and we should certainly include it as well as Modelski. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

That would be WP:SYN, which still is against policy. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

We are not here to represent the statements that mark nutley makes up; we are here to represent sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Good. Then you can start with removing the references to Babst, who you are misrepresenting. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

So you say. Rummel, Ray, Singer and Small say otherwise. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

That's both doubtful, and more importantly, WP:SYN, which still is against policy. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Or there is the solution of finding reliable sources, citing them, and saying what they say. I have been doing so; you have been blanking everything you didn't like. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

That's the first solution above. And you have not been doing it. You have repeatedly found reliable sources, and said something they do *not* say. I have been blanking the additions when the sources has contradicted your addition. As soon as you have found a source that's not online, so I haven't been able to check them yet, I have let your edit stay. This is at least the third time I explain this to you. Why do you continue in claiming this? --OpenFuture (talk) 23:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

"One is to list only those conflicts which explicitly has been called a "war between democracies". That is still probably WP:SYN though, because nobody is the source of the resulting list. So better would be to simply list all lists of wars between democracies, quoting the sources who do these listings." I confess I don't follow. If something has been explicitly called a "war between democracies" in a reliable source, it's not synthesis. Who is calling it such? WikiuserNI (talk) 23:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, you'll have a whole different set of definitions of war and democracy, and you'll end up with a list that nobody else has. That kinda makes the whole list OR. It'll also be much bigger than anybody of the sources lists, which would imply that there are more of these wars than any researcher would say there was. So that's SYN.

Compare List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal). You couldn't make that article by listing loads of countries from different sources and their GDP. Different sources have different definitions and calculations. Such an article would be WP:OR and therefore the article in stead lists three separate prominent sources. That solution would work here too. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Precisely; that's what WP:WEIGHT is all about. There are a variety of opinions on what is, and is not, a democracy - all should be represented. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Right. But you can't do that by including everything anyone ever called a democracy in a list. That will automatically give undue weight to those who have the most "inclusive" view of democracy. In fact, it will present a view of democracy which is more extreme than the most inclusive view, as it will include much more governments and conflicts than any one single source. The only solution is therefore to present each sources list separately. That gives WP:WIEGHT to all the views of the topic, without creating a WP:SYN or WP:OR that has an WP:UNDUE weight towards inclusiveness. Such an article would start with "Different scholars have different opinion on what constitute wars between democracies." and then a heading listing those scholars who are of the opinion that there have been no wars between democracies at all, and then go on to those who list a few, and in the end we'd have Babst, noting that "Babst does not talk about wars between democracies, but wars between electoral governments, which is a closely related subject." and then we list his wars. This, as far as I can see, solves the OR/SYN issues with this article. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Athens

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

Athens at one point experimented with the most extreme form of democracy I can imagine: officials were chosen from the citizenry by lot. That is, any randomly chosen citizen was considered eligible and fit to play a role in government. (It's true that women and slaves were excluded, but that is a matter of enfranchisement, not what form of government a polity has.) Cynwolfe (talk) 02:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem, which both of you are missing, is that the modern concept of Democracy requires common franchise. Every adult must have the right to vote. If women and slaves are excluded, it's not a democracy in the modern sense. So as you see, there are many different concepts of democracy. And if we then include people who think Cuba nad Orth Korea are the pinnacle of democracy, we find even more. And that's basically what the discussion is about. Athens clearly was *not* a democracy in the common modern sense. Should it then be included here or not? Well, that's tricky, and for more discussion on that issue see "What is this article supposed to be about" above. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

democracy As defined by the oxford english dictionary mark nutley (talk) 07:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

But this is not common usage. The first quotation from the actual OED is about democracy at Athens (when indeed all Athenian citizens had the right to vote); the last is The political life of the English democracy, may be said to date from the 21st of January 1841. when 3% of adult males (in the British Isles) had the vote.

Indeed this point of view would and does exclude the United States before the 1960s (see Poll tax and pauper; resident foreigners do not have the right to vote now); it would exclude England and France before 1958, for Indians and Kenyans and Malians had no right to vote. If you can find a source to uphold this POV, by all means include it here - or at Democracy if it does not mention war. But it is a minority POV and should not be accepted for the title or scope of the article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but did you just say one man one vote is not the common usage for a democracy? And that the OED is representing a minority view of it? mark nutley (talk) 13:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

No. The definition you quote (only one of the OED's) is "a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives". What proportion of the inhabitants are eligible is one basis to classify democracies. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

For example, "one man, one vote" is an unnecessary limitation of democracy; New Zealand was the second democracy to let women vote in 1893, and the practice has been spreading ever since. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

One man one vote is a phrase, a democracy is were everyone gets a vote once they are at the age of majority. If only a few percent of people get to vote, that`s not a democracy mark nutley (talk) 13:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

That's your opinion; find a source for that point of view. Most people regard Abraham Lincoln and Robert Peel as having led democracies. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Finding sources for this view is not difficult [1] and do try to recall what Abe said democracy is government of the people, by the people, and for the people mark nutley (talk) 14:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Try reading your own source. All citizens vote. All citizens could vote at Athens; in no state whatever have all inhabitants been citizens. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to add to it: Several founding fathers were against democracy, because they used the old Greek meaning of the word, what we today would call "mob rule". :-) Fighting about the definition of democracy is just the type of OR and SYN that is the problem with this article. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. The way to conduct this article is not to worry about the definition of democracy; to literate editors, there is no one the definition. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Definition of democracy

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

That's a very good paper, and contains a list of some 20 wars between democracies. The "public relations" (as Ray calls it) of demonstrating that there exists a definition of democracy which rules them all out is rhetoric -not science- still less a consensus definition of democracy.

If Mark Nutley bothers to read the actual text, he will find that even Ray's confidence-trick definition of democracy is not "one man, one vote" either; more like one man, half a vote. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Your rudeness aside, i do not have access to the full paper. I was looking for something we all could agree on as a baseline. Which was the following text If a political regime is categorized as democratic only if the identities of the leaders of its executive branch and the members of its national legislature are determined in elections in which at least two independent political parties participate, in which at least half the adult population are eligible to vote, and if the fairness of elections has been established by at least one peaceful transfer of power between opposing political parties, then an examination of controversial cases reveals that the proposition that democratic states never fight wars against each other is defensible would you agree to this as a starting point to decide on what constitutes a democracy? mark nutley (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Then you might consider listening to those who have read it.

The proposal of a baseline which is not consensus among the sources - and this isn't - is a proposal to impose a point of view; in this case, a point of view deliberately and admittedly chosen by Ray to make a case. This is even more contrary to policy than citing a source you haven't read. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Would you care to propose a baseline to work form? If not then i`ll just afd this as you obviously have no intention of working to improve the article and shall continue to fill it with or and synth mark nutley (talk) 20:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

No. To impose a "baseline" is to impose a point of view on a matter on which there is no consensus; that was against core policy an hour ago and it still is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Anyone who's been around Wikipedia talk pages for a couple of years can see what's going on here. Party A wishes to advance the proposition that "true" democracies don't wage wars on each other; Party B wishes to disprove that thesis; and Party C wishes that the page could simply list wars fought between countries with governments constituted as democracies or democratic republics — as the word 'democracy' is used historically or in everyday speech. By "constituted," I mean "according to its constitution," whether written or not, and without judging whether the country lives up to its own democratic ideals, much less our own. (I have my doubts about whether this article needs to exist, and it's certainly more trouble than it's worth.) As for the statement in quotation marks above (I refer to the syntactic nightmare that begins "If a political regime is categorized as democratic"): I would find it an interesting and provocative thing to say in a scholarly essay, but it's argumentative, not encyclopedic. About this "synth" business I can only exclaim βολίτου δίκη. If a sufficient body of scholarship identifies each side taking part in a conflict as a democracy, on what grounds should the war be excluded? It's easy enough to note something like "although Whatever Country was constituted as a democracy, by the third year of the war it had devolved into a military junta," properly cited. Why exclude rather than explain? Cynwolfe (talk) 23:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Cow Poop :) Well a war between democracy`s would be just that. In this article we had the american war of independence, this was a revolutionary war and america was not a democracy at that time, neither was england truth be told. I`m not trying to advance a position, people go to war all the time, but it does at least have to be democracy's going to war in the article mark nutley (talk) 23:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

An agreement between editors as to what constitutes a democracy is completely irrelevant. If we can't find a source that says "This was a war between democracies", it doesn't get an entry, simple as that. WikiuserNI (talk) 23:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok then i`m good with that. I`m off to bed and shall start checking the refs tomorrow mark nutley (talk) 23:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, great, then we are three that agrees with that, and only PManderson thinks differently. Maybe he'll come around once he realizes that I'm not the only one who doesn't want synthesis. This solution isn't as good as listing the separate lists IMO, but there seems to be little enthusiasm for that. :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 07:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I saw now that Cynwolfe also prefers the synthesis way. It's not going to work, this article should evidently be deleted. Well, it should never have been renamed in the first place. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Cynwolfe: You forgot group D: Those who just want the article to list conflicts that can be reliably sourced as being a war between a democracy. That's where you end up if you were in group C, but realize why allowing synthesis in the article leads to never ending content conflicts. And there is the main problem of why we can't allow synthesis: Because it leads to never ending fight of who's view of democracy to use in each case. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Those would be the sourced statements which mark nutley has been removing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

No they wouldn't. You know, because I have pointed it out in detail, repeatedly, that the sources does not say that the conflicts are wars between democracies. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You're not representing the synthesis policy accurately. It doesn't say "pick sources that all agree with each other and exclude those that don't." It doesn't say "never combine facts from multiple sources" (an encyclopedia article is precisely a summary of facts from multiple sources). The synthesis policy says not to "advance a position" by combining sources selectively, which is what some editors are trying to do here. I agree that it's irrelevant what contributing editors think a democracy is. Excluding Athens because you don't think Athens was a "real" democracy is synthesis (and ahistorical): it applies a particular argument as to what constitutes a democracy in order to advance a position on whether democracies go to war. A war should be listed if each side can be identified as a democracy by multiple scholarly sources of sufficient number and weight to reflect a scholarly consensus that the polity was formally a democracy, whether or not it lived up to its own democratic ideals or ours. It's extremely twisted logic to evoke the synthesis policy in attempting to use a selection of sources that confirm only one POV. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The synthesis policy says not to "advance a position" by combining sources selectively - No it doesn't. WP:SYN says: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." This is exactly what Pmanderson is doing. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying the synthesis policy says it's OK to advance a position by combining sources selectively? Understood as a whole, the paragraph from which you quote surely warns editors not to manipulate sources to skew their meaning, period. Now, evidently you'd prefer to attack me personally on my talk page, but I'd rather have you explain what conclusion PMA is trying to reach by a misleading combination of sources. What wars is he claiming were fought by democracies when in fact the belligerents were not democracies? It's certainly possible that I'm not understanding what information he is attempting to misrepresent. Thanks for your patience. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I have not attacked you. I just explained to you that your personal attacks is against Wikipedia policy. I must explain this to you, as we have to make sure the editor that breaks Wikipedia policy understands that he/she is breaking it, so he/she has a chance to not do it again. So my explanation is also a part of wikipedia policy.

Are you saying the synthesis policy says it's OK to advance a position by combining sources selectively? - No, I'm not saying that. That is also against policy, but that's rather WP:UNDUE and not WP:SYN.

the paragraph from which you quote surely warns editors not to manipulate sources to skew their meaning, period. - No, that's not what it says. That is also not allowed, but that is not necessarily synthesis.

I'd rather have you explain what conclusion PMA is trying to reach by a misleading combination of sources - Once again: He combines Babst, who talks about wars between elective governments, and Rummel, who talks about democracy, to claim that the conflicts Babst calls wars between elective governments are wars between democracy. He applies one authors definition of democracy on another authors list of conflicts, to reach the conclusion that the list as wars between democracies, something Babst never says. It is clearly synthesis. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to trouble you again, but could you name two or three of the wars in question? As was asserted above, the article should list wars that occur between two democracies that can be verified as democracies. PMA would not be engaging in OR or synthesis if he were using sources simply to verify the constitutional status of either participant, because he would not be putting sources together in order to arrive at a conclusion — he would only be using multiple sources to verify facts. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

As was asserted above, the article should list wars that occur between two democracies that can be verified as democracies. - No, that would require us to use one source for the conflict being a war and another for it to be a democracy, and that would be WP:SYN. It should list wars that have reliable sources that say that they are wars between democracies. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Every single GA takes its facts from multiple sources. Encyclopedia articles are not single-source book reports; they involve processing good-quality sources that accurately reflect the full range of scholarship, summarizing and comparing these, organizing the material logically, and creating an effective graphic presentation that will by its nature affect how the reader perceives the material. This process requires the presence of thinking editors, not just bots cutting and pasting with electronic scissors. What you're talking about isn't at all a matter of drawing a conclusion. It's simply verifying a series of facts, as in any other article. There's no conclusion drawn. Exactly what is this syllogism you're perceiving? Cynwolfe (talk) 23:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Every single GA takes its facts from multiple sources. - Yes, but it does not make up "facts" that isn't in any of the sources. Because that would be synthesis. I really don't understand what you find unclear. I have repeated what synthesis is multiple times for you, and I've explained the synthesis in this case clearly multiple times. That's all I can do. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Syllogism: The syllogism is "The Boer war was a war between elective governments (Babst). Babst made research on democracies and war (Rummel). Therefore the Boer was was a war between democracies (Pmanderson)." The last part is Synthesis. Neither source calls the war a war between democracies, hence: Synthesis.

Country A and Country B fought a war; this can be verified. Country A is a democracy; this can be verified by multiple sources, and no source says it wasn't a democracy. Country B is usually considered a democracy. - No. This is not an accurate description of the cases. Usually neither country A nor B is viewed as a democracy. Pmanderson finds some sort of way to interpret some source to say that A and B are democracies, even though most other sources disagree, and claims it's a war between democracies.

Synthesis requires the drawing of a conclusion past this presentation of verifiable information. - No. It requires you to draw a conclusion not available in any of the sources. If you do, then it's synthesis. Simply put: Don't make your own conclusions.

Simply providing the information on the existence of a war and the constitutional status of the participants is neither. - Yes, if you do that in a list of wars between democracies, then it *is* synthesis, because then you are drawing a conclusion that exist in neither source.

At this point it's probably pointless to ask me to clarify more. I've since long reached the end of my pedagogical resources. I can't explain it better, you'll just have to ask at the Village Pump for more help. Sorry. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The minor premise of your attempt at a syllogism makes no syntactical sense ('made research on democracies and war'?), so it's hard to discern what PMA was asserting and why. It may well be that I would agree with you on the specifics here. In general, however, it sounds as if you're saying that articles are created by cutting and pasting single sentences and excluding scholarship that doesn't fit. This would produce a very infantile article; certainly none of the GAs I've read are written in that manner. I originally visited this page because I was interested in why Athens wouldn't be considered a democracy; I stayed to explore the principles in play because I'm also interested in how people interpret the synthesis and OR policies. What I'd ordinarily do at this point is roll up my sleeves and try to help instead of just yammering on the talk page, but I don't really see this article as serving any vital purpose. I don't at all agree with your interpretation of "synthesis," and think there are better ways than quoting WP rules to argue against listing the Boer Wars among "wars between democracies." Thank you for your time. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

it's hard to discern what PMA was asserting and why. - How is it hard to discern what he is asserting? I agree it's hard to discern *why*. I don't know either.

In general, however, it sounds as if you're saying that articles are created by cutting and pasting single sentences and excluding scholarship that doesn't fit. - No I don't think it sounds like that. It sounds like I'm saying that Pmanderson is combining material from two sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Because that's what I'm saying, so it should sound like it. I really, honestly, don't know how I can be any more clear, nor how it's possible to interpret WP:SYN in any other way, so it's hardly a question of interpretation either. The WP:SYN part is perfectly clear. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Once again, the cases under discussion here where the synthesis goes *against* the general consensus. --OpenFuture (talk) 00:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence for that claim? If so, let's see it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Wrong burden of proof, my friend. You show that there is general consensus that the countries in question was democratic. You have not. And in any case, I believe BigK Hex interpretation is incorrect. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It's mostly irrelevant even on contested "democracies." If there is a significant academic opinion holding that an entity qualifies as a democracy then attribute the claim of democracy to the proper source(s), and list any significant WP:RS that oppose the "democracy" characterization. Afterwards, one can list the fact that there was a war between the parties with the provision that some may not consider the involved entities as democracies. The reader will have the necessary opinions (and citations) and can be left to decide for himself. BigK HeX (talk) 06:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

If there is a significant academic opinion holding that an entity qualifies as a democracy - There isn't. You can say "If there is" how many times you want, it doesn't change anything. There is no such generic academic consensus, and Pmanderson will not be able to show that there is. It's irrelevant, what he is doing is synthesis. And the whole basic layout of the article is prone to this. I did the same mistake first, mark nutley did the same now. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It's great that you know that! For us less-omniscient editors, we'll likely have to settle for actually dealing with the issues on a case-by-case basis. BigK HeX (talk) 07:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Which is what this discussion is. You don't have to be omniscient, you just have to read the discussions and know what the topic is. Your excuses and "if's" won't work. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

AFD

{{editprotect}} I just AFD`d this article but due to the edit protect it has not shown on the page. Could someone please do that as the discussion page was created. [2] Or delete the discussion page and i shall do the afd once the protection expires, whichever is easiest mark nutley (talk) 21:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Continuation War and UK

Just reading the article and noticed this

• Continuation War: A formal state of war between Great Britain and Finland resulting from the Finnish invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941; unlike the formal war between Australia or Canada and Finland, there was actual, if limited, conflict between the two parties.

However there are no indications that any acts of war would have been taken during the war time. There were no Finnish actions (at least no documented ones) against UK at all and only (documented) UK action against Finland happened 31 July 1941 - and even that was a small scale air raid against at the time German occupied locality of Petsamo - while the war against Finland was only declared several months later 6 December 1941. After the declaration of war UK took no action against the Finland for the rest of the WW2.

So... where are the basis for the claim of "actual, if limited, conflict between the two parties"? - Wanderer602 (talk) 09:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The British did not bomb German installations in other, neutral, countries (Spain, for example); it would have been a violation of neutrality. There were also Finnish ships sunk, outside the domain of operations of the Soviet Union. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

British bombed the Petsamo only once and even that happened at the time when Finland and UK were still at peace. Besides Lapland (in which Petsamo belonged to) was occupied (or manned) by Germans (by German-Finnish agreement). You would closer with analogies if you compared it with the occupied portion of France or something (that is most civilians were still locals but military & military administration was German). As for sunk ships... only merchant vessels were subject to that. Merchant vessels under pretty much every flag were attacked and sunk during the WW2. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that first claim? If I recall correctly, Wayman says otherwise.

Sinking merchant vessels, especially without warning, is none the less an act of war; consider the Lusitania.

But, yes, this is the existence of a formal state of war between democracies - another example of definition dependence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

British air raid on Petsamo: 31 July 1941. British declaration of war: 6 December 1941. So at the time of the attack and for good 4 months after it Finland and Britain were still at peace. As for Germans in the Lapland... Operation Silver Fox & Raid on Kirkenes and Petsamo. Or which claim did you mean? - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Should probably be rephrased; but this is still both a legal state of war between several democracies and an act of war between two. Both should be listed. Let me think about how to recast, unless somebody does it first. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

True on both counts. There was a legal state of war. And there was an attack. But those should not be mixed together. The attack did not happen during the war time nor did it lead to war either (as it was Britain that declared the war and not Finland). - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Recast, since nobody else was. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Civil Wars

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

There is nothing in the definition that means both sides can't be democratic - they are not mutually exclusive. For example, in the American civil war both sides were democracies. Verbal chat 22:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

No as the confedarcy was never a recognized state and as such there could not have been a war between democracies. Did the confederacy even hold a general election? I can`t find any source which says they did mark nutley (talk) 22:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Ted Carpenter describes the Confederacy as a democracy in a criticism of those who propose as hard fact that "democracies eliminate warring". He says,

The inconvenient matter that Southerners considered their new confederacy democratic (which it was by the standards of the day) and that most Northerners did not dispute that view (they merely regarded it as beside the point) is simply ignored. The willingness of democratic Americans to wage an enthusiastic internecine slaughter fairly cries out for a more serious discussion. If a democratic people could do that to their own, how confident can we be that two democracies divided by culture or race (e.g., the United States and Japan) would recoil from doing so? At the very least, proponents of the democratic-peace thesis cannot assume that the point is self-evident.^{Carpenter, Ted Galen. "Death by Government." Independent Review 2.n3 (Wntr 1998): 435(7).}

So, there's at least one source asserting the democratic bona fides of the Confederates, and that source is specifically in the context of inter-democratic wars. BigK HeX (talk) 23:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, but the USSR called itself democratic as it had elections :) So of course the confederacy would call themselves such. Is there a link to a preview of that book? Looks interesting. Still can`t find a source saying there were general elections in the confederacy though mark nutley (talk) 23:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

This life of Senator Davis should do nicely; "a general election was held in the Confederacy in November 1861"; another was held in November 1863 and elected the Second Confederate Congress. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

SP your link to Davis only shows a book cover :(, Is there no source available online to check these things? mark nutley (talk) 07:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Not on any of the computers I have used. This source is called The twentieth century biographical dictionary of notable Americans; the fourth page of the lengthy entry on "Davis, Jefferson". Other sources on the Confederate Government are quite widely available. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

This link you posted above [3] shows only a book cover of The twentieth century biographical dictionary of notable Americans as you say, it does not lead to a page to verify what you have said mark nutley (talk) 17:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Your mileage varies. I checked that link when I added it; I have checked it now, on a different computer; it leads me to the discussion of Davis' election. Google books sometimes works differently in different countries; in any case, you have a reference to a specific page in a specific article in a specific book (the articles are in alphabetical order); go to a library - and look up any book on the Confederate Government, or on Senator Davis, if you don't find that one. I may be obliged to find you a source; I am not obliged to be your bookstore. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Couple of issues, that book was first printed in 1904, It isnot possible to get it from a library here, I checked the British Library website. Your source is not verifiable at all. Got anything else? mark nutley (talk) 20:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Did you bother to search for this book, in the public domain in the United States (it may not be in Great Britain), on the web? You would have found this almost immediately; volume 3 of the ten-volume edition. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I note the underlying assumption in this thread: "not verifiable" = "not obtained by some random effort". This is not our definition. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

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

No, let's not. That was both a rebellion and a war; just like the American Civil War, also known as the War of the Rebellion. It was between democracies according to Modelski as cited; he was the first I found, but I believe others have actually bothered to state the obvious. Go read him, or find your own sources. (That would actually be helpful to the encyclopedia.)

We are not conducting a remedial education class; we are not your servants. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I am getting fed up of your constant insults, Stop. Does your source actually say. This was a war between democracies? mark nutley (talk) 21:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, in the process of discussing the rarity of such wars. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

As this is again not possible for me to verify it`ll have to be put on hold. And Wars involving the Roman Republic, your trying to say Rome was a democracy? You have a source saying the Punic Wars was a war between democracy's? mark nutley (talk) 21:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Although I have doubts about whether civil wars ought to be included on this list, a better (certainly more modern) book on the question of whether the Confederacy was a democracy would be Wallace Hettle, The Peculiar Democracy: Southern Democrats in Peace and Civil War (University of Georgia Press, 2001), especially the intriguingly titled chapter "Jefferson Davis and the Confederacy's Dysfunctional Democracy" with a pertinent paragraph that begins here. Positive research and constructive editing might be a better way to build an article than arguing over WP rules and attempting merely to block the inclusion of material.

For the Roman Republic, see the following section. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

David Donald's "Died of Democracy" (1996) is also largely available here. The only reason to go to 1904 was to have a web-reference for the two general elections held by the Confederacy; although the Daughters of the Confederacy doubtless have a website too. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Roman Republic

Please be aware that when you say "Rome" it's a meaningless political label. It refers to the place and its culture in the broadest sense. There's a difference between the Roman Republic and Roman Empire (tempting to utter a "duh" there). Two still-living mega-scholars who have the most to say about the democratic element of the Roman Republic (the populus of SPQR) are Fergus Millar and T.P. Wiseman. Wiseman in particular suggests that our own common (mis)conceptions pertaining to the Roman Empire (due to Hollywood's obsession with crazy decadent emperors instead of Rome's highly functional government bureaucracy and legal system) have diluted our contemporary understanding of the political role of the "average" free citizen during the Republic. Two of the major WP articles that deal with this are Roman assemblies (stating "since the assemblies operated on the basis of direct democracy, ordinary citizens, and not elected representatives, would cast all ballots") and Constitution of the Roman Republic, which says:

Rather than creating a government that was primarily a democracy (as was ancient Athens), an aristocracy (as was ancient Sparta), or a monarchy (as was Rome before and, in many respects, after the Republic), the Roman constitution mixed these three elements, thus creating three separate branches of government. The democratic element took the form of the legislative assemblies, the aristocratic element took the form of the Senate, and the monarchical element took the form of the many term-limited executive magistrates.

It can be and has been argued that the democratic element of the Roman Republic was as fundamental as that of the United States. Although I'm sympathetic to arguments that the plutocratic U.S. is no longer a democracy if it ever was, to argue the point pretty much requires the abolition of the term "democracy" as having any constitutional reality at any time or any place. The longevity of the term's usage, however, would then suggest than defining democracy in such an exclusionary fashion would certainly be POV-pushing. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, this is too much fun to pass up. Surely, if the Republic we know is a democracy, the United States is too? Both are capable of electing novi homines, and Obama has killed fewer people without trial, and is less obsequious to financial services corporations. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Ho ho. I said I was sympathetic (check out my bank account), not that I was deranged. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I think it's a valid question and I thank you for it. If I post elsewhere on the matter, I'll send you an e-mail. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Please do. (I'm easy to bait and thought you were.) The U.S. wins on the enfranchisement of women, but not on laws against usury (see Bill Thayer's characteristically adroit note at LacusCurtius). Cynwolfe (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thought you were baiting me, I mean. Not that you were easy to bait too. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The people (free ones) voted in the comitia tributa. They had final veto on all laws proposed by the Consuls Senate and comitia centuriata. this ran from roughly 501-202 B.C So at this stage of the roman empire there was a form of democracy. Correct me if i`m wrong anywere here. But does this not fall under OR? We take three sources and add them together to make a conclusion? mark nutley (talk) 22:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The comitia centuriata and the comitia tributata were parallel bodies. The comitia tributata, which was the more democratic of the two, continued to be the chief organ for legislation and the body which elected the magistrates (who were both the executive and the judges) as long as the Republic lasted (where did you get the idea that the Roman constitution changed in 202 BC?). And, no, if Fergus Millar supports it, this is not OR. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be a waste of time to argue about Roman constitutionality with someone who dates the "roman empire" to 501–202 BC. The point is that it's utterly standard political history to recognize that the Roman Republic had a democratic element. I made no further claims. But if I said what I'm thinking at the moment, PMA would sound like your dear old granny. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that. (Elephant in the living room?) No, the Empire began with Augustus, late in the first century BC. It is an internal political term, having nothing to do with territorial extension. Please read Roman Republic and Roman Empire - although they also need a great deal of work. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I`m not dating it, the source i read used that date. But any chance of responding to the OR worries? If more than one source is being used to as here to come to a conclusion is that not OR? mark nutley (talk) 07:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

If you're using sources that give you such wildly erroneous information, and if you lack the most fundamental knowledge of the subject matter that would enable you to question the error, then please don't take this personally, but you simply aren't in a position to discuss the topic of Rome's political history. I don't know how to say it more gently. It would be like my trying to argue about string physics: I may not understand it, I may come to WP hoping to understand it better and find that the article doesn't go a good job of explaining it, I might then go on the talk page and explain why I didn't find what I needed in the article, but I wouldn't be in any position to edit and argue about the content per se. If you've read the articles Roman Republic, Roman Empire, Constitution of the Roman Republic, and Constitution of the Roman Empire and find errors based on your sources, you need to discuss that on those talk pages. That is, if the democratic element has been misconstrued there, you should go fix it. I assure you, however, that this is as banal an assertion as "the United States has a two-party system": it comes close to meeting WP criteria for Acceptable examples of common knowledge, but like the previous statement would need some qualification. Everything looks "original" to someone who doesn't know anything about it. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You did not actually give an answer did you? If we take source 1 = democracy and then source two = democracy then source three = war, is that not OR? Now i`d appreciate a straight answer to that please mark nutley (talk) 13:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I've summarized Syme; he does discuss what the constitution of the Republic actually was, and his bracing cynicism may supply a breath of fresh air to these pointless debates. Feel free to add Millar or Wiseman; I should have thought of them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The 'straight answer' that Marknutley seeks from me is this: the Roman Republic had a democratic element. This is abundantly verifiable in the work of Millar and Wiseman over several books and articles, as well as the hordes of scholars they themselves build on, and evident in the basic mechanisms of Roman Republican constitutionality. It is a major difference between 'republic' and 'imperial monarchy' in ancient Rome. A discussion above seemed to be saying that "Rome" (as vaguely labeled) did not have a constitutional element of democracy. I wanted to correct this misconception as it pertained to the Roman Republic. I'm not making an argument about whether the Punic Wars should be included. BigK HeX, however, makes a clear and cogent statement above about the difference between verifying a series of facts and drawing a conclusion. Wiseman takes as starting point Syme's thesis on oligarchy as an inevitable condition no matter what 'the name and form of government.' Cynwolfe (talk) 15:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly a straight answer is it. Bigk is wrong BTW, there is far to much OR in this article, time to clear it out methinks mark nutley (talk) 15:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus for 'clearing out.' Instead you should spend some time as a serious editor and research the topic. After demurring on the question of whether the Punic Wars should be included, I decided I should find out, which you could've done easily if you'd been serious about providing a useful article instead of posturing.

• Niebuhr was very interested in the question of how the democratic element at Rome and Carthage was related to the Punic Wars: sample passages are here and here, but this seems to have been a persistent theme of his;
• the historian and Nobel laureate Mommsen takes a look here and here;
• Duchesne here;
• the aristocratic Shuckburgh here;
• Ihne looks at the relation of Carthaginian democracy to the war here, in particular "democratic reform" as it pertains to Hannibal’s perceived plans to go war and again here;
• The Cambridge Ancient History also looks at the relation of Hannibal and democratic politics at Carthage to the buildup toward war here;
• Daly's book on the Battle of Cannae introduces the Punic Wars by discussing the mixed constitution of Carthage, including its democratic elements, here and explicitly compares the mixed constitution of Rome;
• Another explicit comparison of the constitutions of the two parties of the Punic Wars here;
• Recent scholars on Polybius have looked at the relation of democratic politics at Rome and Carthage to the Punic Wars, including Walbank here; and McGing pp. 186–189, with an unfortunate gap in the preview at p. 187;
• Mackay's observation here; the military historian Lazenby here;
• an early 20th-century presentation treats the subject as common knowledge to the extent that it's material for history teachers.

There's more readily available online, but forgive me for stopping here, now that I've done your homework for you. You can choose to continue this stupendous parade of what I hope to be faux ignorance, or you can take the time to inform yourself. Questions of "synthesis" or "OR" only come into play when information seems insufficiently verifiable. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

As i thought, this is wp:or It also refers to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by the sources and WP:SYN 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 I`m going to remove all instants of OR and Synth from the article. I was not interested in a history lesson btw, i asked you if combining sources was OR, you choose to obfuscate instead, bad form mark nutley (talk) 17:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You didn't even have time to look at any of these to see what they said, so how do you know whether this is synthesis or OR? Using multiple sources is neither. This is a list of sources that all individually (not in combination) support the statement that the Punic Wars were fought by two polities that have a mixed constitution, one of the elements of which was democratic. The burden of proof is now on you to provide even one source that can be accurately summarized as saying "the Punic Wars were fought by two polities with governments that had no democratic element." If you have no interest in history, why are you trying to edit an article on the subject? Cynwolfe (talk) 17:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I have a great interest in history, what i said was i did not ask for a history lesson. With regards to your links, [4] No mention of democratic states warring. [5] Same. [6] Same. I gave up after that as what i had asked was obviously not being answered mark nutley (talk) 18:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: if a scholar writes a book about the Punic Wars, and in Chapter 1 he discusses the democratic element of the Carthaginian constitution, and if in Chapter 3 he discusses the democratic element of the Roman constitution, and if in Chapter 4 he compares the two, and if in Chapter 5 he narrates the war between them, this doesn't count because you can't pull out a single sentence that says "the Punic Wars were fought by two polities whose governments had a democratic element"? Are you telling me you don't know how to read and summarize a discussion? How else is an encyclopedia article written? We would have a lot of GAs for you to go "clearing out" if so. Maybe it would help me understand what you're getting at if you gave me an example of a GA on a historical topic that you consider well done. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

No, if it`s one book then that`s fine as it is all one source. What i am saying is a lot of the stuff in this article is using multipile sources to come to a conclusion. (war of independence and american civil war being the most obvious to me at this time) Now if you have a source as you say then not a problem, which conflict does it pertain to? The greeks went to war a lot :) mark nutley (talk) 18:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

All of Cynwolfe's long list of sources above deal with the Punic Wars, between Rome and Carthage; none of them discusses a Greek war - indeed one of them discusses Roman measures to keep some Greeks neutral. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Walbank is perhaps the source that comes closes to the kind of statement Marknutley seems to be looking for, though you have to understand that "mixed constitution" includes a democratic element, and for that you have to be willing to look elsewhere on the page. The sources I gathered were intended to show that this was in no way OR or synthesis, but a pervasive theme among both the classic historians of the 19th century and those closer to or contemporary with us. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, wait. Another elephant. I completely overlooked Marknutley's question "What war did it pertain to?" Yes, as PMA said, the Punic Wars, as stated at the beginning of the list of sources, since this was the series of wars in question with the Roman Republic, the topic of this section. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

What all of them? (sorry about the greek thing heads all over the place today) So your source covers all the wars and says they were wars between democracys, ok now were getting somewere :). mark nutley (talk) 18:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The bulleted list of sources all deal with the Punic Wars. Most of them are focused on the so-called Hannibalic War, which is one of the series of three wars referred to as the Punic Wars. A few of them deal with either the Carthaginian constitution or the Roman, but all in the context of the Punic Wars. Sorry, I'm just now realizing you didn't know what the Punic Wars were. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Greece

It is conventional to support {{coatrack}} with some form of justification, explaining what other subject is being piled on the coatrack; I await with curiosity what justification there is to remove a discussion of the wars between the democracies of Greece, based on a chapter discussing how many there were. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Obvious is it not? You are adding massive amounts of content which has nothing to do with wars between democracies, it simply does not belong in this article mark nutley (talk) 15:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's see; that there were 38 wars between Greek democracies seems to have a great deal to do with wars between democracies. That there may be reasons why Greek democracies fought more often between themselves than the two dozen instances from all of modern history has something to do with wars between democracies. Other than that, there's not much in the section. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Lets see further, I`ll go remove what i think is coatracky and is being used to support your OR, feel free to revert me once i`m done. Then you`ll know what i`m on about mark nutley (talk) 15:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Since the paragraphs in question had several footnotes (and the other passages are clearly sourced to Russett and Ray in text), this appears to be another misunderstanding; but the question whether the particular features of Greek democracy are worth discussing here depend on whether we are likely to attract a wide audience of those who know nothing about the subject. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

What i know or do not know is irrelevant, comment on content not editors, you have been told this plenty of times, mind your manners. It does not matter if it is sourced, content about greek democracy does not belong in an article about wars between them mark nutley (talk) 15:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Who mentioned you? You flee where no man pursueth. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Since you were replying to me it is painfully obvious were your comment was pointed mark nutley (talk) 16:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This is not the first thing obvious to you to be a figment of your imagination. Even were Cynwolfe to speak her mind, and be correct, that would be one datapoint among all those who read this: insufficient basis for an editing decision. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Good example of POV/UNDUE

[7]

So, here is a scholarly disagreement. And it's taken up *in the footnote*. But no mention in the article of this. This type of editing of the article will result in an article that is SYN and POV. Again, I think the only way to make an article that's not POV and SYN is to let each scholar have his/her own list. If not, this article must be removed, possibly through a merge. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

POV and SYN are not the same; they have been regularly joined in this discussion as if the relationship between the two is inherent and necessary. One might produce a synthesis of sources that would be neutral in POV; the reverse is also true. Neither is acceptable, but they should be distinguished. As for your point about "undue": Wouldn't placing the comment in the article instead of in a footnote actually increase its weight, since many readers never bother to look at footnotes? If this is a minority or fringe view, WP policy says it doesn't have to be excluded, but it shouldn't be given undue prominence. A footnote seems a very discreet way to notice a scholar's idea without trumpeting it. I'm possibly not understanding your point; perhaps you mean this is too important to place in a footnote? So it should be moved to the body text? Seems like a pretty simple edit, if you wanted to do that. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

And what Bello says is that Rummel's definition is loose, and that there is a good case the Philippine Republic was an anti-colonial democracy. That sort of thing is covered under Definition Dependence, below; why repeat it? But I will consult Rummel's paper; if he is stating a theorem about established democracies, then he is denying not the democracy, but the applicability of the democratic peace. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Rummel says nothing at all about the Philippines, so it is difficult to tell his grounds; his definition of democracy in the paper cited is that the legislature be chosen by open and free periodic elections, and have at least parity with the executive. He acknowledges two exceptions; the War of 1849 and the Continuation War. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It's unclear what specific issue is prompting OpenFuture to object, but Cynwolfe's response about the distinctions and the weight of footnotes seems to capture my sentiments pretty well. BigK HeX (talk) 18:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. POV and SYN are not the same; - Did I say that? but they should be distinguished. - Yes, why is why I said "POV and SYN". Not POV/SYN or POYN.

A footnote seems a very discreet way to notice a scholar's idea without trumpeting it. - Yes, very discreet. IN fact so discreet it is in practice hidden. That makes the article, with the way Pmanderson wants to edit it, list pretty much every conflict in the history of humans, as a war between democracies, and opposing opinions are hidden in the footnotes. That makes the article POV. It's also SYN, because Pmanderson are happy to take two sources and drawing a conclusion that no source states, see discussions about that above. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that you think important material is relegated to the footnote, thereby placing undue weight on what's in the body of the article. This could indeed affect POV and can be corrected; would you like to rearrange the cited material yourself, or should PMA or another editor do it? (I'll sign all three paragraphs in this post, in case there are point-by-point responses to be inserted.) Cynwolfe (talk) 23:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

On the question of synthesis, what conclusion do you see PMA as drawing that is not supported by his sources? If you could state what that conclusion is, it would help other editors either verify it, or support your claim that it's synthesis. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

And finally, let's not delve into other editors' emotional states or motives with statements like PMA are happy. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Since Pmanderson both has stated earlier that he thinks only conflicts that has been named a war between democracies should be included, and that if there are contrasting opinions those opinions should be included too, it would be good if he showed that I am correct in assuming good faith, and follows those rules himself. So I would like to see him do the change, especially since he will undoubtedly otherwise revert it, as he is evidently taking WP:OWNERship of this article.

On the contrary, OpenFuture is dissatisfied; he should edit, and others may counter-edit. Since I do not understand his complaint, I am unlikely to satisfy it; indeed, I have already edited once to address the specious argument about "freely elective governments" and OpenFuture is as dissatisfied as ever. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

he should edit, and others may counter-edit. - And then you accuse me of vandalism, lies and "blanking", etc. So I "should" edit? Really? --OpenFuture (talk) 23:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Really. What response your edit will get will depend on the edit. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Your responses are unacceptable for any edit. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not claim ownership; I would welcome other sources, especially ones that disagree. I object strongly to editors without sources removing sourced material; but that's policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

On the question of synthesis, I again repeat that he takes one source that talks about wars between *electoral governments* and another source about a definition of democracy, and from that he draw the conclusion that the conflicts are wars between democracies. That is an obvious and blatant violation of WP:SYN.

This is a double falsehood. There are several sources which call the Orange Free State a democracy. There is also one source (by Dean Babst) wnich calls it (and all other states in the same class) a "freely elected government"; this (accompanied by a definition which includes civil liberties) may be intended to avoid the ambiguities of democracy. That paper is widely cited as the foundation of democratic peace theory, and those who cite it describe it as making claims about democracies. The identification as a war between democracies does not depend on Babst, and it is not my conclusion that the distinction here is purely verbal. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

There are several sources which call the Orange Free State a democracy. - That's still SYN. You need to find a source that says it's a war between democracies. Not one that says it is a war and another that say one country was a democracy and a third saying the other country was a democracy. That's WP:SYN. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

But that's the only point subject to reasonable dispute. Is there anyone who denies that the Boer War was a war? If so, does he also believe the earth is hollow? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

But that's the only point subject to reasonable dispute. - No, but that's enough. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

In any case, Russett does satisfy exactly this demand, although I agree with Cynwolfe that it may be unreasonable for common knowledge. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The dispute in this exact case is about Babst. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Yawn. Then there is no synthesis, for the statement made rests, in all three criteria, on Russert; and the note to Babst satisfies your own desire to know what list each scholar presents. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

So why do you then refuse to remove Babst as a source? You know that I do not currently have a copy of Russert, and can verify your claims about Russert. If they are correct, why don't you just remove Babst? --OpenFuture (talk) 06:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that the only step to permanently rectify the problems with this article is to stop the synthesis and instead list each notable scholars view separately, meaning that we list each notable scholars list of wars between democracies separately. That avoids all OR and SYN and UNDUE problems. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

If anybody wants that information, it can often be deduced from the footnotes, which is why I have included multiple sources. However, many discussions of wars between democracies do not claim to be a complete list: Bello is one, and I am about to add another. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Making an article that is POV doesn't become NPOV because you include footnotes. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm in at least partial agreement with you. As I've mulled over the intractability of this article, it's seemed to me the problem is structural, as most writing problems are, either at the level of sentence syntax or overall organization. This is supposed to be a list, which OpenFuture is getting at with giving the lists of individual scholars. PMA's approach has been discursive, and there he may be running into trouble, if only because the article is supposed to be a list, not a discussion.

I don't think a list by individual scholars is the solution, however. Such lists would overlap redundantly and inefficiently, render the disparate lists less useful to readers, and transform the article into something more like a scholarly review article or narrative bibliography. Also, let's say a scholar wrote a monograph called The Democratic Element in the Mixed Constitutions of Rome and Carthage and Its Effect on the Punic Wars. Such a source would clearly justify the inclusion of the Punic Wars on this list, but would not generate a list. I have some further thoughts on how the article could be restructured, mainly having to do with considering why readers would be coming to the page, what kind of information they should reasonably expect, and how best to present that in a way that accommodates all POVs neutrally. I don't have time to go into this at the moment.

In the meantime, OpenFuture, would you be willing to reflect with an open mind (taking your screen name at its word) on the point BigK HeX and I were trying to make about the difference between verifiable information presented in series, and drawing a conclusion? I'll try to present a sample entry when I return to this topic, but for now: Think of the entries as reduced to a table: column 1 names the war, column 2 names and labels the form of democracy for Polity A, column 3 names and labels Polity B. Each of the two participating polities can be verified abundantly as constitutionally one of the types of democracy (see list; I had no idea there were so many). No further claims are made, no conclusions drawn; there is no originality, no synthesis, simply a collection of verifiable information strictly in keeping with WP:SOURCE. Now, I don't think the information should be presented in tabular form, but the rigidity of that conceptually would produce an article that is what this claims to be: a list. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the article was discursive when I found it, being the remnants of a table which had tabulated a very long list of wars and reasons why they didn't controvert some version or other of democratic peace theory (some of them OR, many of them applying to one idiosyncratic theory). My entries have, except for background on Greece and Rome, been names of wars with footnotes. Were I to please myself, I would reduce the others to that form too. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that is a very important clarification. My only intention is to find a way forward. It has seemed to me that my primary sticking point is that I think a list is simply a series of verifiable information: the war was fought; the constitution of each party can be verified; nothing further need be claimed. Such a list is of likely use to those attempting to evaluate the theory of whether democracies go to war, but the theory itself should only be discussed in its own article; to attempt to exclude verifiable democracies who went to war with each other on this list, which as far as I can see is and should not be about the theory, raises serious POV issues. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the article used to be called "List of possible exception to to democratic peace theory". And that's what it contained then. Then it was renamed after lengthy discussion into the current name. With the current name, the list was completely inappropriate, as it contained a list of possible exceptions to peace theory, and not a list of wars between democracies. In fact several conflict was neither between democracies nor wars. That made the article simply factually incorrect. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think a list by individual scholars is the solution, however. - Then the article is beyond hope and can never be NPOV.

I were trying to make about the difference between verifiable information presented in series, and drawing a conclusion? - I already have. Remember, I made the exact same mistake both Pmanderson and mark nutley are doing now in the beginning of the edits of this article too. Taking a reliable source that country A was a democracy and another reliable source that country B was a democracy, and a third reliable source that C was a war is SYN. There is no way out of that. It's using three different sources with three different definitions of democracy, so that doesn't work. If we would fix that by agreeing on a definition fo democracy, then what we are doing is suddenly our own research and our own list.

We must base this on the lists of reliable sources. And if we merge *all* reliable sources into one list, then we give undue weight to those who claim that there are many wars between democracies. It's not doable without breaking Wikipedia policy. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that an article called "List of possible exceptions to to democratic peace theory" was unacceptable at the get-go, and not only because it's an ungainly long title. Even with that "possible," it seems like an attempt to make a counter argument by listing evidence (which to me personally — not me as a WP editor — shows that the theory of full of holes, if you can just rattle off possible exceptions that have to be explained away as "not true Scotsmen)." But the current article is called "List of wars between democracies," and neutrality lies in precisely what you reject as synthesis: we don't attempt to control the definition of democracy. (I should note at this point that the List of types of democracy, though useful, muddies the waters by including terms for the democratic process along with forms of constitutional government.) One problem with the article now is that the lead section doesn't meet the guidelines for WP:LSC. The criteria for inclusion are hedged. As long as both parties to a war can be verified to the usual WP standards (simple WP:V) as constitutionally democratic, what's the problem? I don't know what you mean about the lists of reliable sources, and you make it sound like merging "all" reliable sources into one list is a bad thing, when in fact that's the only way to preserve neutrality. The list would probably have to be divided into periods, with a short introduction to each period giving a brief overview about what historically "democracy" meant in that time, with "See also" notes under the subheads. It isn't up to us to dictate what "democracy" is or should be; that's a POV. I'm sure I'm missing something here. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

and neutrality lies in precisely what you reject as synthesis: we don't attempt to control the definition of democracy. - No, I reject controlling the definition as WP:OR. :-)

As long as both parties to a war can be verified to the usual WP standards (simple WP:V) as constitutionally democratic, what's the problem? - Taking a reliable source that country A was a democracy and another reliable source that country B was a democracy, and a third reliable source that C was a war is SYN. It's using three different sources with three different definitions of democracy, so that doesn't work. You can always find a source that claims a country was democratic at one point, because the word is so loaded. We can find sources claiming Cuba was a democracy, hence calling the attempted US invasion a war between democracies, even though nobody in the democratic peace theory research ever called it that. (And in fact, the people calling Cuba a democracy tend to claim the the US is not democratic). It's blatant SYN and it becomes extremely POV OR. We can only include wars that one reliable source has called a war between democracies.

and you make it sound like merging "all" reliable sources into one list is a bad thing, - We end up with a list of wars that is longer than ANY reliable source, clearly giving undue weight to those who are against the democratic peace theory. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. Most of these fall outside any given democratic peace theory - and we say so. The desire to have this article be propaganda for a different subject is deplorable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand your point, but as I said, the countries would need to be verified as democracies according to simple WP:V — that is, inclusion would NOT be determined by a only a fringe view of a given country's constitutional status. Each country's constitutional status would need to be verified according to the usual standards of verification; this would be a very painstaking, lengthy process. But that's why I see it as verifying and presenting information serially and not synthetically, because no conclusions are drawn by editors — if (and this is an emphatic "if") the article can be presented in a manner that can be reasonably described as a list. The sources to sustain the assertion that a polity had a form of democracy would need to outweigh other views. The footnote to each (if there were no scholarly consensus) might say something like "ABCDEF consider Country A a democratic republic; GH argue that during the period in which the Partalagonian War took place, it had become a military junta." WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE would apply in the usual manner to the assertion pertaining to a country's democratic status on a case-by-case basis. But limiting the article to democracies as defined by adherents of a particular theory or any group of scholars whose view excludes others — I see that as an inherent POV, unless the article is titled something more restrictive and is only a list of examples discussed in the context of the particular theory. The value of such a restricted list would not be apparent to me. Your concern about article length may be well founded, but the guideline on incomplete lists covers this; the "expand list" template should go at the top. It might result in a long list, but I can't see that virtually every war in history would have to be included. Not many wars from Medieval Europe could meet the criteria, and there were a lot of those. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Quite so. If there are sources, present them. I support their addition.

If nobody has added the template the next time I pass by - or presented a reason why not, although I can't see any - I'll do it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The main problem is that if there are *not* sources, you add the statement anyway. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The countries would need to be verified as democracies according to simple - No, that's WP:OR and WP:POV as there are many definitions of democracy, and none generally accepted.

But limiting the article to democracies as defined by adherents of a particular theory or any group of scholars whose view excludes other - Exactly. That's why I'm saying we can NOT do that.

Your concern about article lengt - I have expressed no concern about article length (except saying that a short article could be merged).

the "expand list" template should go at the top. - Why? It would be complete. But it would be OR and POV.

I think the only way forward here is that you read through my arguments again and ask me to clarify what is unclear, because you seem to ignore half of what I say, so I must have been unclear, even though I have repeated myself with different reformulations over and over and over. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I ignore what I have already answered two or three times; you should know my answer, and no one else cares. There is only so much that can be said to the same specious reasoning - except to observe that it has indeed been said "over and over again". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

you should know my answer - Yes. You answer by personal attacks. Your answers are a combination of falsehoods and ad hominemns. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps your points seem unclear, OpenFuture, because you find your interpretation of policies and guidelines to be self-evident and so you don't discuss the items on the list on a case-by-case basis. Concrete examples would help me understand how you are applying the policies to this article. My point was (forgive me for repeating myself as well) that for any listed war, the participating polities would need to be verified as democracies according to simple WP:V — that is, inclusion would NOT be determined by a (sic) only a fringe view of a given country's constitutional status. Each country's constitutional status would need to be verified according to the usual standards of verification in accordance with WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. I thought this would address your concerns that extraordinary definitions of democracy might be applied to produce erroneous or misleading results. Could you explain why you think this article is exempt from the usual procedures of verification? Also helpful to me would be an example of a GA or other article on political history that should serve as a model here, particularly in presenting multiple scholars in a balanced manner without engaging in synth; I'd see that as a great step forward in trying to envision what should or should not be done to this article. The idea that a piece of information has to be excluded because a great number of sources verify it is an interpretation of synth that I'm not familiar with. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps your points seem unclear, OpenFuture, because you find your interpretation of policies and guidelines to be self-evident and so you don't discuss the items on the list on a case-by-case basis. - I'm sorry, that's exactly what I'm doing. I don't see the interpretation of WP:SYN as self-evident, I have a concrete example that is taken up again and again, and I explain in detail exactly why it's SYN. Just again repeating that I don't, and pretty much ignoring everything I say is not helping. I don't see how repeating myself more is useful. You will have to explain what it is that I say that you find unclear. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Except that it isn't. I cited a relevant paper; I described it; I draw no original conclusion at all.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Your conclusion may be original or not, but the point is that it's not supported by your source. You know this, as we have been over it many times. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

You know it; nobody else does. I don't even know what conclusion I'm supposed to have drawn. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

This is what I'm unclear about, too. Pointing at something and saying "synth" doesn't help other editors who might be willing to do the research to locate other sources. Perhaps there are better sources to support the information PMA is trying to provide; perhaps other sources would support you in excluding this particular war. My stand on this article is that as a list, each item must be verified individually; that's part of what makes it a list rather than a discursive article. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

So, here are a partial list of every time I have told Pmanderson and Cynwolfe what the main problem is:

• Neither of Pmandersons sources for claiming the Boer wars was wars between democracies calls Britain *or* the Boer republic democracies. I removed it. Again. It doesn't only go against earlier consensus, it goes against what Pmanderson himself claim should be included. (June 21)
• Also, you use this position to insert claims with sources that never call the countries democracies in the first place, like Babst. (June 25)
• Babst does not list or discuss wars between democracies. He lists and discusses wars between elective governments. This is not he same thing. Pmanderson: You have gotten this explained to you repeatedly. (July 6)
• the source still does not say democracies, so your edits are not supported by this source. It's WP:OR or WP:SYN. (July 9)
• Then you can start with removing the references to Babst, who you are misrepresenting. (July 15)
• I have pointed it out in detail, repeatedly, that the sources does not say that the conflicts are wars between democracies. (July 16)
• WP:SYN says: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." This is exactly what Pmanderson is doing. (July 16)
• No, that would require us to use one source for the conflict being a war and another for it to be a democracy, and that would be WP:SYN. (July 16)
• Yes, but it does not make up "facts" that isn't in any of the sources. Because that would be synthesis. (July 17)
• Syllogism: The syllogism is "The Boer war was a war between elective governments (Babst). Babst made research on democracies and war (Rummel). Therefore the Boer was was a war between democracies (Pmanderson)." The last part is Synthesis. Neither source calls the war a war between democracies, hence: Synthesis.
• I again repeat that he takes one source that talks about wars between *electoral governments* and another source about a definition of democracy, and from that he draw the conclusion that the conflicts are wars between democracies. (July 23)
• You need to find a source that says it's a war between democracies. Not one that says it is a war and another that say one country was a democracy and a third saying the other country was a democracy. That's WP:SYN. (July 24)
• Taking a reliable source that country A was a democracy and another reliable source that country B was a democracy, and a third reliable source that C was a war is SYN. [If you from that conclude it was a war between democracies] (July 24)
• Taking a reliable source that country A was a democracy and another reliable source that country B was a democracy, and a third reliable source that C was a war is SYN. (July 25)
• The main problem is that if there are *not* sources, you add the statement anyway. (July 25)

Last chance for you two: What is it that is unclear? --OpenFuture (talk) 22:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• In short, you've repeated the same dubious points over and over again.

  • Russert is the source that the Boer War was between democracies; he also says that they don't fit the conditions for his theory of the democratic peace, but that's marginal here.
  • The other is a purely verbal puzzle. Babst chose to write about "freely elected governments"; he defines what he means by that - including secret ballot and civil liberties; presumably this is his effort to avoid the ambiguity of "democracy". He has always been cited as writing about democracies; he is the founder of democratic peace theory; and the footnotes say so. He is included precisely to do what OpenFuture wants, at least on Tuesdays and Thursdays: indicate which sources accept War X as a war between democracies. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Most of these claims are therefore simply false claims of fact, no matter how often repeated. There is one source which says the Boer War was between democracies; the others were added because they had more to say. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The other is a purely verbal puzzle. - No, it's WP:SYN. You can call it a verbal Puzzle if you like, but it doesn't change the fact that it's SYN. Calling the points "dubious" doesn't help either. Yes, I repeat them, but that's because you don't listen to them. I'll repeat them until you do. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, OpenFuture, I appreciate the effort you went to in putting this together. Your objections are much clearer when brought to bear on a specific item on the list. This was what I was trying to get at when I said that each entry would have to be subjected to this kind of scrutiny, and therefore producing the list article would be a lengthy, painstaking process. (And at the outset, I said I wasn't sure the article was worth it.) Now, I would still say that using multiple sources to verify that a war was waged by democratic polities doesn't violate WP:synth, if the political status of each polity meets usual verifiability standards and if these are presented only as a list. The synth for me arises only if, when, or because the democratic peace theory is brought into it at all; if the list is to be neutral, it shouldn't be constructed to disprove or prove a particular theory. The synth for me would be if the article drew the conclusion that the existence of numerous exceptions disproved the democratic peace theory; that is unacceptable. Because of this article's dubious non-neutral-POV origins, it's entangled in the disputed legitimacy of the democratic peace theory. I therefore wonder whether the lead section (which is at points weaselly) should be rewritten altogether. As I stated elsewhere, this list does not require (and does not define itself as having) an exclusionary theoretical framework, and the lead sections of list articles are often quite short. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I would still say that using multiple sources to verify that a war was waged by democratic polities doesn't violate WP:synth - SYN or not, it would in any case be WP:OR. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This is certainly ingenious: Using multiple sources is original research. Right. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. If you reach a conclusion that isn't in any of the sources, it is WP:OR. I quote from WP:OR: The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. You can not state anything controversial, unless you have a reliable sources supporting you. This means you can *not* make a list of wars between democracies by picking from several sources. That list is then WP:OR. Is there anything in this that is unclear? --OpenFuture (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

And to ask, again, the question that OpenFuture has never answered: what conclusion have I reached that isn't in any of the documents? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I just answered that question more than ten times above. After answering it ten times before. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No, you have made a lot of claims, most of them false, but what conclusion I am supposed to have drawn is lost in the haze. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, this is the last time. If you claim that you still don't know, that is clearly a direct refusal to get the point. You take one source, Babst, who talks about wars, but not between democracies, and claim that he talks about wars between democracies. Babst do not support your claims. In an effort to save Babst, you point to Rummel, who *do* talk about wars between democracies and mentions Babst. From this you draw the conclusion that Babst talks about wars between democracies, and that therefor the Boer wars are wars between democracies. This despite neither Babst nor Rummel claims the Boer wars are wars between democracies. Hence, you have drawn a conclusion; the Boer wars are wars between democracies; that exist in neither source. This is a clearly typical example of WP:SYN. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a combination of several charges; none of them is synthesis, to start with; none of them draws a conclusion.

1. I have a source (Russert) who says that the Boer Wars were between democracies. He also says that they do not form an exception to his theory of the democratic peace, but that's marginal for this article.
2. I added a source which says what is generally acknowledged: that the Orange Free State was a direct democracy, because you complained that Russert was not on the web.
3. I added Babst, because Ray and Rummel and Singer and Small all say he was writing about wars between democracies, even though he never uses the word. I indicated that his terminology was different, and put him as a see also; some readers will want to see what he says - I would.
   • (a)He does not deny that this was a war between "freely elected governments", he affirms it. What he does deny is that his thesis applies to civil wars and rebellions.
   • (b)The case that both Boer Wars were rebellions is iffy, but has been made elsewhere. It depends on Britain having an effective protectorate in 1897.
4. I don't know what Rummel says about the Boer Wars; I haven't seen him discuss them recently. Find a citation; the paper I consulted doesn't mention them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

This portion of the RFC our two blankers have started, in which OpenFuture quotes an admin writing two months ago about a different subject as though it were about this dispute is indicative. Matters of fact about obscure journal articles are one thing; clear and open falsehoods about my talk page are another. Unless there is a retraction, I will draw my own conclusions about this - and foresee no effect in answering someone who can treat the facts in this way. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Your comment is as usual a combination of falsehoods and ad hominems. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

And this is the editor who accused me of personal attacks! But no, Shell Kinney wrote in late May; I began editing this article in late June (after an edit to the old form in 2008); it is now late July. Shell even headed his entry May 2010. Yet this is presented as an effort to resolve this matter.

OpenFuture's (and mark nutley's) blanking are recorded in the RFC.

This post (and the avoidance above) are characteristic of OpenFuture's tactics. Unless things improve, I see no reason to continue to assume what the evidence disproves. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

"This matter" are your personal attacks. She attempted to solve them. There is no avoidance in anything I wrote. Your comments are as usual factually incorrect, and full of ad hominems. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

A month before anything ever happened? Yeah, right. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Claiming you made no personal attacks until a month after you got blocked for personal attacks is rather bizarre. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked - and unblocked; but what you asserted behind the link is that Shell attempted to resolve the problem with you and Mark Nutley - which is a plain falsehood. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, the issue is not personal attacks against me, but your personal attacks in general. And you were unblocked, but told to watch your behavior. You have not, as far as I tell. If anything the frequency of your personal attacks have increased. Perhaps you took your unblocking as some sort of license to ill, I don't know. All I want is for you to stop making personal attacks and instead engage in constructive debate. Is that really too much to ask for? --OpenFuture (talk) 08:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for fresh beginning

Because democratic peace theory only roils the waters here by creating the appearance that editors must take a stance pro or con, or that the list article is existentially an argument contra, I wonder whether it even belongs in the lead section. Its presence seems to be an obstacle in arriving at a neutral list. I propose cutting the lead section to the kind of minimum that is customary in list articles:

This is an incomplete list of wars between democracies, that is, wars between polities that have a constitutionally democratic form of government. See also List of types of democracy.

The resulting and inevitable debates about inclusion (see above ad infinitum) would take place on a case-by-case basis according to the usual standards of WP:V. Synth, POV, OR and similar charges would be focused on individual entries, and not on the existential battle.

I would follow the lead section with "Classical antiquity", with a see-also note for History of democracy, Athenian democracy, Military history of ancient Greece, Constitution of the Roman Republic, and Campaign history of the Roman military (or whichever of these is not embedded in the text). After a brief description of democracy as the term is used by ancient historians, there would be a bullet list of wars that meet the criteria. And so on for each historical period: the short intro to each list should reflect historical redefinitions in the History of democracy. I regard the current "Twentieth Century" section as properly presented (which is not to say that I've checked the sources — I'm talking about its construction, not its content).

I would create a "See also" section at the end that places this article in its proper context as the product of disinterested scholarship, not a veiled argument. Some links might be: War, Military history, World war, Democratic peace theory, List of military conflicts spanning multiple wars, List of wars of independence (national liberation), List of wars extended by diplomatic irregularity, List of proxy wars, List of border conflicts, Religious war. The articles beginning with the phrase "List of wars" are obvious places to look for models of how to construct "List of wars between democracies." Cynwolfe (talk) 00:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The list, or it's entries, is existentially an argument contra, or at least it is n the minds of those who are against it, which is why they are so desperate to add entries to the list no matter if they can support it or not. But I don't think not mentioning it from the lead makes a difference. People are not so stupid as to think that this article has nothing to do with democratic peace theory just because it isn't mentioned.

The resulting and inevitable debates about inclusion (see above ad infinitum) would take place on a case-by-case basis according to the usual standards of WP:V. - That would be an improvement. It's not good enough, and would still violate NPOV and SYN, but at least it would do it to a much smaller degree.

The articles beginning with the phrase "List of wars" are obvious places to look for models of how to construct "List of wars between democracies." - But with one difference. Making a list of wars from multiple sources is not automatically POV. Making a List of wars between democracies is. There is no POV that wars do not exist or are unusual, for example, while there is the POV that wars between democracies exist or are unusual. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Anybody who believes that the entries on this list are an argument contra doesn't understand democratic peace theory. The democratic peace does not apply to states with limited suffrage, or to new states; almost every such theory limits itself thus, precisely to avoid these wars. There is indeed a book, Electing to Fight, which argues that new democracies are more belligerent than other states. For that matter, I usually believe in the democratic peace myself.

Right, because those states are not democracies in the normal usage of the word. So when you make a list of wars between democracies and include loads of wars who are *not* democracies in that sense, the list is automatically POV. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. That the Second French Republic had come into being the year before, and was betrayed two years later, doesn't mean it wasn't a democracy in the meantime; if it weren't, there would have been nothing to betray - and no reason for theories of the liberal peace to exclude state-forming adventurism. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that new states is a borderline case. Limited suffrage is not. The content conflict at the moment is about limited suffrage. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The idea of a democracy with a limited suffrage is at least three centuries old; it may go back to antiquity. To deny that states with limited suffrage are democracies is to deny democracy to any colonial power, or indeed to any state before New Zealand enacted women's suffrage in 1893; that is contrary to usage, which agrees that three democracies fought in the First World War, whatever the speaker may say of Wilhelmine Germany - yet all three are ruled out on both grounds. (Indeed, if New Zealand is not counted as a sovereign state in 1893, the First World War may satisfy democratic peace theory because there were no democracies at all - an argument conspicuous by its absence from the literature.)

There may in fact be a fringe point of view which so holds, but I have not seen a source which actually holds it. Even if there is one, it should be discussed in this article, not imposed on it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The idea of a democracy with a limited suffrage is at least three centuries old; - OK, so are you saying we should define democracy for the purposes of this article to that definition, even though many of the scholars researching this doens't agree with that definition? --OpenFuture (talk) 16:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

No. I did not say that; and many of the scholars researching this doens't agree with that definition is a lie. Many scholars hold that the democratic peace only applies (or is only demonstrated) for states with wide suffrage; but that's not the same claim. We should not exclude democracies with limited suffrage even were OpenFuture right, however; that would be imposing a point of view. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You are correct in that we should not exclude democracies with limited suffrage. What we *should* exclude is sources that does not talk about wars between democracies. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Many of the sources, therefore, are advocates of the democratic peace; whether explaining that their theory does not apply to this war, or (sometimes) noting it as a marginal exception. Except for the two extremists who say "never", the democratic peace can have marginal exceptions without being falsified. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Cynwolfe's plan seems worth trying. I thought that explaining the above in the article might produce harmony. Since it hasn't...Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This is the third time you agree that only those conflicts who have sources that state that they are wars between democracies should be included, according to normal standards of WP:V, WP:OR etc . You have so far refused to follow this, even though you claim to agree. Please show good faith by self-reverting all references to Babst. Doing so would be a start. If we ca get rid of all SYN and OR, that would be an improvement. We can then look at the issues of the article as a whole in a while. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

But there isn't any such, except in OpenFuture's perfervid imagination. To remove useful references because of a false claim would be a dreadful precedent. I have made clear (and if OpenFuture thinks he can make it clearer, he is welcome to do so) that Babst's phrase is "freely elected governments", and that reliable sources say he means democracies. That seems all that this verbal quibble deserves. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Your answer is, as usual, a combination of falsehoods and ad hominems. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The only thing that I would clarify is that "democracy" in the context of this article applies to the polities who wage the war as a constitutionally descriptive term. The adjective "democratic" and less often the noun may of course also refer to "the democratic process" as it pertains to the electorate. But wars are declared and waged by governments, not the electorate per se, which is why the argument here needs to stay focused on testing the admissibility of wars by the constitutions of the countries involved, not whether they fulfill democratic ideals and not the degree of enfranchisement. Unless voters participate directly in the decision to go to war by means of a referendum or plebiscite, the degree of enfranchisement in a society is irrelevant to constructing this list. Particularly if the country has a written constitution that is recognized by the weight of scholarship as a democracy in whole or part, you can't just say "well, but that isn't a real democracy." If the information is presented in a neutral, verifiable manner, it isn't up to WP editors to dictate whether readers end up agreeing with or questioning any particular theory. In origin, the list article was unacceptably tendentious and conceptually flawed. Its current title is not, and many WP articles have rebounded from bad starts. The article shouldn't be a veiled argument for or against democratic peace theory or any other theory. A theory that could be debunked by the mere existence of a list as innocuous as the one I envision isn't much of a theory, and as I understand it, the arguments of at least some proponents of the democratic peace don't depend on whether democracies actually have gone to war with each other. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Some of the theories of the democratic peace do give reasons why franchise matters: either the democratic peace is a cultural thing, which doesn't imbue the culture unless lots of people can vote, or it's political, and depends on the common soldier having electoral influence. But that's a reason to mention franchise when available, not to exclude; if the extent of the franchise makes a difference to foreign policy, these are the test cases. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The article should and presumably will include scholars who argue from the democratic peace perspective and point out the effects of enfranchisement and voter participation on decisions to go to war. These sources provide balance and context, as is already the case with some of the Twentieth Century entries. If I'm understanding you, you're also saying that inclusion should be determined by the constitutional form of government for each country. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

So far so good. If I can be forgiven for repeating a point: it is also true that many of these wars are mentioned by people arguing for the democratic peace; I could source uses of "marginal" and "technical" for most of these if I were to look up the papers again. Do you think that would help?

There is also a book (already in the notes, by Weart) which consists largely of saying "well, but that isn't a real democracy.", lightly variegated with "well, but that isn't a real war." I would prefer to have somebody else cite it; reading it once was enough. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The words "marginal" and "technical" are modifying "democracy," I take it? I find the former less useful than the latter, but would prefer that the reasons be given if they can be expressed succinctly. That is, reasonable demurrals should be accommodated, but I don't think too much attribution needs to be in the body text: "Rhetergandia was constituted as a democratic republic,(footnote citing the preponderance of scholars) but voting was limited to blond men over six feet tall(footnote) and no national elections had been held for a decade.(footnote)" The footnotes on the two qualifications, of course, are scholars who are questioning Rhetergandia's democratic status, and not (if you want to avoid synth charges) simply scholars who noted these electoral facts without saying these are reasons to consider R. a marginal or technical democracy. (Also, iin an article like this, I want to see the sources for the assertion gathered in a single footnote, as I think you've been doing, and not be bounced around the page.) These are just my thoughts. They aren't meant to sound dictatorial. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

No, as often referring to the war as to the democracies, and usually modifying "example" or "exception". "Technical" is about the extent of Lebanon's involvement in the Six-Day war; but I have not pursued the question outside the source - since my time has been taken up with Mark nutley's distractions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah. Deciding whether a war is a war, or what extent of participation is required before including a party to it, is a matter I've not been looking at in regard to this page. Because this is such a troubled article, I wonder whether it wouldn't be best to establish the workability of the criteria with unimpeachable examples before examining marginal cases, or cases guaranteed to be inflammatory. In general, I don't see why the same process of verifiability, with careful citation and due balance, wouldn't apply. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

You two are now discussing how to go about making WP:Original research for this article. To be blunt (you say you like that, so...) that's quite bizarre. It's not up to you two to decide whether a war is a war. Neither of you (nor me, nor mark nutley) are reliable sources. It's not up to us. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

PMA clearly stated he was researching the sources. I said (or meant) I had been looking at this material mainly in regard to the constitutional question, not the question of whether certain conflicts can be legitimately called wars (verifiably), or verifying whether particular countries were officially party to a war. I don't know what you mean when you say "only sources that claim the conflict is a war between democracies should be used," because I've never said we should list wars when sources say they are not between democracies; I therefore find your statement deeply perplexing. I said I thought it best to establish the workability of the criteria through unimpeachable examples — "unimpeachable" meaning impeccably verified with careful citation and due balance. I've already said that this article was in origin non-neutral and needed to be divorced from the validity of democratic peace theory. Like you, OpenFuture, I've had existential doubts about it. I've already said that painstaking efforts on a case-by-case basis would be required. You can't produce an encyclopedia article without researching the full range of scholarship on the topic and taking it into account. I hadn't been thinking about list items that might be contested because the polity's participation in the war was contested; that's all I was saying. I often find in writing articles (or discussing them) that after I read more of the scholarship, I learn things I didn't know at first — and didn't even know I was ignorant of, because, well, I was ignorant of them. This is one of the reasons I edit WP, in fact. I like to learn stuff and organize my thoughts by writing about it. It's an activity I recommend to my friends who are amateur scholars or not-much-published college profs who would like to see more academic work made accessible to the public. They recognize the potential value of Wikipedia, but are more focused on content than procedure. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Cynwolfe: The only thing that I would clarify is that "democracy" in the context of this article applies to the polities who wage the war as a constitutionally descriptive term. - According to whom? I thought we agreed on not defining it, and instead requiring reliable sources that says it's a war between democracies. Have you changed your mind?

you can't just say "well, but that isn't a real democracy." - Right, and you can't say "well, but that *is* a democracy". Which is why we previously agreed on only including sources that explicitly call the conflict a war between democracies. The only problem that remains for that is that Pmanderson says he agrees, but refuses to follow that rule in practice. (Then other, separate issues remain).

the degree of enfranchisement in a society is irrelevant to constructing this list - Of course it isn't. The degree of enfranchisement is essential to whether it's a democracy or not. Anyhow, that's WP:OR. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

My position is that if wars are declared and conducted by governments, then the constitutional status of the government involved is a basic criterion for including it, subject to verification. In terms of generating a list, this is not a theoretical discussion of what the democratic process is or should be, but rather a matter of form of government. Unless a polity declares war only on the basis of a referendum or plebiscite, the electoral process is not the mechanism by which wars are declared and armies deployed — this is almost always a function of government (I say 'almost always' because there must be exceptions of which I'm unaware). Verifying the existence of a war, who the participants were, and the form of government as constituted for each, is covered by WP:V. "We" are not saying anything, only recording what the weight of scholarship says. Proper care must be taken to avoid WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE, but these are issues of verifiability. Enfranchisement is an aspect of the electoral process, and if that process is democratically defective, scholars are sure to have pointed out that the constitutional democratic status of the polity was undermined in practice; these are the kind of citable, qualifying statements I was talking about in my lurid example above. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, so you are now backpedaling from our earlier agreement that only sources that claim the conflict is a war between democracies should be used. I'm sorry to see that. I would be interested in seeing what your arguments are for how come this article somehow should not follow WP:POLICY. But if you don't want to explain that's fine, I have to admit that I'm not particularly likely to be convinced that this article is a special case where policy should be ignored. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

You have stated your allegations that this article violates policy in this edit. I have already responded to them here. Your charges misrepresent what the sources say; in some respects they misstate what the policies say. You have already threatened to seek victory through boredom. Have you anything novel to say? (One possibility would be mediation; this is what it is for.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Your answer does not even touch on the points I make. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't agree with the points you make; largely because they misstate the nature of the sources I have seen and used. That's not the same thing - at least here. This is not a chat-room, where such confusion is more appropriate. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I know you don't agree. My point was that you answer doesn't even respond to what I said. There is no magical special "nature" of these sources that gives you the right to use them to support things the sources do not claim. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Let me try one last explicit reply: . From this you draw the conclusion that Babst talks about wars between democracies, and that therefor the Boer wars are wars between democracies. Both halves of this are false.

• I don't conclude that Babst "talks about wars between democracies"; Rummel (and others) say' so.
• I do not conclude from that the Boer Wars were between democracies, although I think Babst's judgment on the matter is clearly relevant - and one of the reasons I would consult this article; I observe that Russert says so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

So you admit that Babst can't be used as a source, unless you create synthesis with Rummel. Which is exactly my point. So you have clearly understood exactly what I say. That's good. You however are still refusing to remove Babst as a source. That's bad. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I do not admit anything of the kind. Following what Rummel says is not synthesis; it's following sources. The article isn't using Babst as a source, and it doesn't need to. But histories of South Aftica would be better sources still. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a very strange claim. Babst is quoted twice, so clearly this article is using Babst as a source.

Following Rummel is following sources, when Rummel is the source. In this case it isn't, it's Babst that is the source. Again you admit (although apparently by mistake) that you are engaging in WP:SYN.

I've asked you before, but received no answer: If Babst is not needed, why do you refuse to remove his quotes? I've asked you, when you admit that we should only have sources that say that a conflict is a war between democracies, to remove Babst as a show of good faith from you. You refuse. Why? --OpenFuture (talk) 20:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

If I had to guess, I'd say it's because PMA knows the difference between summarizing and synthesizing. My request for examples of articles on political or military history that OpenFuture considers properly sourced has so far gone unanswered, so it's hard to evaluate how he envisions applying his unique interpretation of WP:SYNTH. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

If I had to guess, I'd say it's because PMA knows the difference between summarizing and synthesizing. - Well, so do I. And this is not a summary. It's synthesis. Maybe your question about historical articles that doesn't violate SYN comes from confusion on the topic? That would explain that very strange question. Summary is fine. Synthesis is not. This is not summary, it's clearly synthesis. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

This page has never approached anything like consensus, OpenFuture, so I'm unclear what agreement you mean. I've consistently said that this is a WP:V matter of verifying information serially by multiple sources with the proper attention to WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. It was only after I looked more closely at List of types of democracy that I realized one of the sources of confusion: wars are declared and waged by governments (I'm unclear whether you dispute this), not directly by the electorate, and the word "democracy" (whatever its many specific forms and meanings) has two broad definitions, one that defines a form of government and the other describing the electoral or democratic process. Therefore, to create a lead section that follows WP:LSC, it must be clear that wars are included if they are fought by polities having a form of government verifiable as constitutionally democratic. The questions you raise about whether these are "true" democracies are irrelevant unless scholars raise the same questions; I assume they do, as I said, and that this is readily verifiable — thus producing verifiable and non-synthetic statements such as "Tworallia was a representational democracy(footnote containing a preponderance of scholarship describing it as such, that is, sources ABCDE), but during this period it is sometimes considered a military dictatorship."(footnote citing sources FG who say so) As PMA points out, the question of who votes is a component of constitutional democracy. These things all need to be accounted for, not by excluding sources, but by making sure the full range of scholarship is represented. PMA uses the word "threatened" correctly, in my view, to describe your stated intention to simply keep repeating the same thing until everybody else gives up. How does that reflect a good-faith effort to achieve consensus? Cynwolfe (talk) 21:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

So what do you suggest I do, when you and Pmanderson refuse to listen? Let you violate Wikipedia policy? --OpenFuture (talk) 22:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how you can say I refuse to listen when I read each of your posts and do my best to explain what I think. I'm not making any edits to the article, because I'm writing other stuff at the moment, so I don't know how I'm supposed to be violating policy. But I am interested in the problems and issues raised by this list. I've tried as carefully as I can to outline what I see as the way to handle WP:V; issues of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR only arise when material hasn't been properly verified or accurately represented. A war included in this list has to be considered a war by scholarly consensus; the constitutional status of each polity has to be verified by multiple scholars according to the usual standards, including considerations of WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if this is "blunt" but you do say you like that, so I will be short and to the point. Once again: What is discussed here is the usage of Babst as a source. Babst do not ever talk about conflicts between democracies. He therefore can *not* be used as a source to claim a conflict is a war between democracies. This is fairly simple and obvious. I have multiple times asked you to explain what you find unclear with what I write, but you never do. You just seem to ignore it. I'm asking you to *not* ignore it, and open your mind to the remote possibility that your much admired Pmanderson in fact, just this once, may be incorrect. Nobody *is* perfect you know. He could have made a mistake too.

A war included in this list has to be considered a war by scholarly consensus; the constitutional status of each polity has to be verified by multiple scholars according to the usual standards, including considerations of WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. - Unless that's the same source, that would be WP:OR. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Open future is correct, you can`t take one source saying this is a democracy and another saying the same and then a third saying they had a war, that is wp:synth and wp:or, unless Babst is saying this was a war between democracies then it can`t be used as a source mark nutley (talk) 14:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe your interpretation of these policies is correct. Could you give me an example of an article on political or military history that you believe demonstrates the correct use of sources? Cynwolfe (talk) 14:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

My interpretation of policy is not in question, read it for yourself 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 Can you think of any way at all that this can be misinterpreted? mark nutley (talk) 16:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you give me an example of an article on political or military history that you believe demonstrates the correct use of sources? - All of them? That's a very strange question. I have to say again that the policy on this is 100% clear, and I do not understand your refusal to explain what you find unclear, or even explain your view of the policy. That said, it's fairly moot. I wanted a third opinion on that, but as shown earlier I can't have a third opinion on the content issue while I also have a conduct issue involving the same person. So we must first let the conduct issue go to it's end. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, let me try to get this straight for myself. You're saying that because WP:SYNTH is 100% clear (that would make it an exceptionally well-crafted example of anything that could be called a policy, guideline, or even law), you need only to invoke it to make it so. Many first-year law students have tried to argue on this basis, with little success. I disagree on your interpretation and application; I hope you aren't saying that I haven't read it or am incapable of understanding it. Synth requires a conclusion; I still don't see what conclusion is being drawn if one verifies that the Quadrillian War was fought by Mutonia and Iralu, and notes that Mutonia was a democratic republic (verifiable), while Iralu was an unusual form of direct democracy in which the electorate had to pass any declaration of war by referendum (verifiable). What conclusion is drawn or implied? That the Quadrillian War was fought between democracies? That's merely a series of verified pieces of information. As to requesting "an example," clearly I didn't ask for "all" examples; your answer demonstrates a basic flaw of logic. Two or three would be nice, though, so I could understand better your standards for using sources and we could work toward a consensus here. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I still don't see what conclusion is being drawn if one verifies that the Quadrillian War was fought by Mutonia and Iralu, and notes that Mutonia was a democratic republic (verifiable), while Iralu was an unusual form of direct democracy in which the electorate had to pass any declaration of war by referendum (verifiable). What conclusion is drawn or implied? - That is was a war between democracies. Yes, that *is* a conclusion. There is no requirement that the conclusions are incorrect. It's still WP:SYN. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see this as a conclusion, and certainly not of the kind proscribed by synth and demonstrated by the examples there. I see it as a summary or epitome of the scholarship on the question. I don't know how else an encyclopedia article could be constructed (hence my request for examples). The synth policy says that no conclusion should be drawn other than what can be explicitly supported by the sources cited; that is, it says not to use sources to advance a new position. My fictional statement about the Quadrillian War doesn't advance a position, and certainly not a new or novel or unfounded one; it merely summarizes the sources in an informational manner. An explicit synthetic conclusion of the kind proscribed would state something like "this war therefore demonstrates the fallibility of democratic peace theory." (Such a statement, however, should be acceptable if attributed: "the Quadrillian War has been cited by Clarence and others(footnote here) in arguments against democratic peace theory," though I myself would prefer to avoid such things until better foundations for the article have been laid.) It can be argued that a conclusion is implied by introducing the list (or titling it as it originally was) solely in the context of democratic peace theory and no others, which cannot avoid the impression, intended or not, that an implicit conclusion is being foisted on the reader. This is why I think the theory doesn't belong in the lead section for a list article on wars between democracies. I'm dubious even about the definition section, because this is a list article, and discourses on the nature of democracy belong elsewhere. I'm advocating for a minimalist approach, appropriate to a list article (WP:L), that may have a shot at impeccable verifiability, a non-argumentative (non-synthetic) approach, and neutrality. I also may have been unclear about why I'd like to see a couple examples from OpenFuture of relevant articles he would consider properly sourced: if his interpretation and application of the synth policy is correct, I'm finding it hard to see how any adequate article on a complex topic, let alone a GA, could be constructed without violating the founding principle of WP:NPOV. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Ouch, sorry, I'm doubtful; the section is dubious. Got a bit tangled up there. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Historical article which was FA and uses no synth nor OR Operation Ten-Go mark nutley (talk) 21:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised it passed with so much of it being sourced to a single book; but nonetheless it includes Some of the Japanese survivors reported that U.S. fighter aircraft machine-gunned Japanese survivors floating in the water.[33][34] Japanese survivors also reported that U.S. aircraft temporarily halted their attacks on the Japanese destroyers during the time that the destroyers were busy picking up survivors from the water.[35] (all three notes being different sources). No source is cited as giving both accounts; so why is "also" not synthesis? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The article presents a unified, chronological narrative based on multiple sources, including attributed limited-POV statements. It does rely heavily on a single source, that of Yoshida-Minear, though this is not as evident in the footnotes as it could be because the Requiem book is sometimes cited as Yoshida and sometimes as Minear. If it followed the methodology urged by OpenFuture, it would summarize the Yoshida-Minear narrative in one section, and any other narrative versions in separate sections. It would not, for instance, take an eyewitness or primary-source quote from one book and place it within the narrative of another book; by OpenFuture's definition, that would be synth. For instance, in the section "Background" the first graf is Harra's (A), the second graf is Feifer's (B1), and the third graf begins "The resulting plan," also attributed to Feifer (B2), but with a piece of information inserted in the middle from Minear/Yoshida (C1). Yoshida/Minear (C2) is the source for the information about initiating the plan, even though Yoshida-Minear wasn't the source for the plan itself, and for Admiral Seiichi Itō's response (C3). So we have three sources woven together in a seamless narrative, as an encyclopedia article should be written. According to OpenFuture's definition of synth, however, we can't do this because it implies that the Admiral's disinclination to order his ships to carry out the plan (disinclination noted by source C, but plan detailed from source B) is also somehow related to the information presented in the first graf, that is, the weakening of the Japanese fleet (from source A). The conclusion is implicit, and the reader can easily infer it: the Admiral recognized (source C) that the fleet was in a weakened position (source A) and this affected his thinking on the feasibility of the plan (source B). In the article to which this talk page pertains, OpenFuture would call that synth, even though nothing approaching that level of complexity is being attempted. OpenFuture finds an unacceptable level of synthesis in saying that a war was fought between two polities (verifiable), polity A was a constitutional democracy (verifiable), and polity B was a constitutional democracy (verifiable), with no further claims made. The example of proper sourcing OpenFuture has given controverts his peculiar application of WP:SYNTH in regard to List of wars between democracies. (A perhaps minor point about the Operation Ten-Go article: although I've been a regular user of IMDB.com in my personal life for more than a decade, it wouldn't rank high on my list of scholarly sources on Japanese culture.) Cynwolfe (talk) 01:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

If you want to take that article up as synthesis, be my guest. From your description I do not understand what conclusion is being drawn. (Implied doesn't cut it by the way. If you yourself draw the conclusion when reading the article, that's not the article doing Synthesis, it's you). --OpenFuture (talk) 07:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Operation Ten-Go has a synthesis problem; to the contrary. I agreed with you that it uses sources properly to create a fluent narrative. ("Properly," though it relies too heavily on Yoshida, and could assuredly use a better source on Japanese culture than the Internet Movie Database.) If one applies the same standards here, it can hardly be synthesis to say that a war was fought between two polities (verifiable), polity A was a constitutional democracy (verifiable), and polity B was a constitutional democracy (verifiable), with no further conclusion drawn. I've demonstrated a pattern in the use of sources in the article you selected that could be construed by your interpretation of synth as using Source C to draw a conclusion from the wedding of Source A and Source B. I don't think this is synth; but you have argued up and down this page that it is. I think that pieces of the total picture are filled in from various sources in Operation Ten-Go, just as it should be in an encyclopedia article, and just as in this article it should be for each entry on a much more limited and even less interpretive basis. Cynwolfe (talk) 08:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I agreed with you that it uses sources properly to create a fluent narrative. - Had have said absolutely nothing about that article, I have no interest in it, and I'm not going to waste time to figure out if it uses synthesis or not. But as I mentioned above, your description does not indicate any synthesis or other original research as there seems to be no conclusion drawn that doesn't exist in the sources. As far as I can see this whole discussion is completely irrelevant. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Section break

• OpenFuture here demonstrates the absurdity of his argumentation. I asked him for an example of an article on a political or historical topic that he thought was a good example of how to use sources. I then agreed with him and used his own example to demonstrate how the sources were put together. I hoped to show that what he was calling "synth" on this page is nothing more than how you create an article using multiple sources. Then, instead of refuting my reasoning, he says have said absolutely nothing about that article, I have no interest in it, and I'm not going to waste time to figure out if it uses synthesis or not. So why did you choose it as your model for how to use sources? And if you find it difficult to judge whether synthesis exists in an article you chose for its use of sources, why are we to take you seriously on this page? Please haul me into the speech-police tribunal if you like, but it's a waste of time to argue against such blithely blinkered illogic. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

OF did not give you an article example, i did. And that article uses not synth at all, i fail to understand how you do not understand the issue of using more than one source to reach a conclusion. mark nutley (talk) 14:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm so sorry. I did indeed misattribute that. Very bad form; if I weren't technically deficient I'd strike through OpenFuture's bolded name in the remark above, which is now quite uncalled for. It is marknutley's example, and I cannot claim to have any grasp of what he's talking about. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Done it for you, edit the article to see how it is done mark nutley (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I see what coding is required now. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Meh, no worry`s, if only it were so easy to explain to you what synth is :) mark nutley (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

you asked for an historical FA which did not use synth, it has been provided. So lets try this again, if source A say x, yes this verifiable. source B says x, yes verifiable. Adding those two sources to reach a conclusion that A & B = C is OR and Synth, your failure to grasp this is weird as it seems quite straight forward to me, what about this don`t you get? mark nutley (talk) 09:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

This one probably needs to go on a notice board to get some others involved. My understanding of Synthesis is that it is adding something that was not present in the original material and is an argument or a conclusion. So if I have a list of flora of the British Isles, I can add another plant to the list if the source says it is in the British Isles even if there is no direct link to the other plants. Or to take a more apposite example, lists of mass killings arising from communist states. It seems to me that this debate is tied into a wider position on democracy which is driving arguments. This one is a grey area, I incline to Cynwolfe but it would not surprise me if the community disagreed. Whatever, it needs to go to the wider community.--Snowded ^TALK 10:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

This one probably needs to go on a notice board to get some others involved. - Yes, but attempts to do so has failed, because of the conduct dispute. See Talk:List_of_wars_between_democracies#Third_opinion. We must wait until that RfC goes somewhere. Meanwhile I'm pretty sure we can resolve this is everyone is just open the the possibility that they might be wrong.

My understanding of Synthesis is that it is adding something that was not present in the original material and is an argument or a conclusion. - Yes, *exactly*. This is what I have been saying all the time. So yes, your examples are not synthesis because no conclusion is being drawn that doesn't exist in the sources. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Well it looks to me like this particular RfC is closing. The key word in your comment is "everyone". My point above is that factual confirmation that something is in a list is not WP:SYNTH, the Greyness comes where there are two lists with a relationship between the two. A is a democracy, B is a democracy, A&B were are at war C when they were both democracies, a list of wars between democracies therefore includes C. Now the logic is clear, the question is if a logical position in a list can be dismissed as Synth or not. To be honest I don't know and I think that specific question should be posed. --Snowded ^TALK 10:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

We can discuss the RfC at the RfC, please.

Again, the problem stated here and discussed now is that Pmanderson uses Babst as a source, even though Babst do not discuss wars between democracies. Thus, he is engaging in original research. When he supports that original research, as he does, by using a second source namely Rummel, it is a particular form of WP:OR, namely WP:SYN.

the question is if a logical position in a list can be dismissed as Synth or not. - Yes, it can, because it's not that simple. Yes, it is logical, but you can use two different definitions of "democracy", and then you says something that none of the authors would agree with. This has been explained above. For example, both USA and Cuba has been called democracies, but generally no-one agrees that both are democracies. Hence noone would claim that the failed invasion of Cuba is a war between democracies. But by using WP:SYN as above, you could claim it. This is why synthesis is not allowed. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

That is a different problem, itsWP:V and it depends on the balance of evidence, for example the debate between Oligarchy and Democracy in that case. List articles like this one and the mass killings are pretty much artificial constructs in WIkipedia anyway with no real third party sources. So if they exist they rely on validation against fact really unless people start to draw conclusions. --Snowded ^TALK 13:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Snowded, you make an extremely good point about lists being artificial constructs. Thanks for your balanced contributions to this discussion. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

That is a different problem - No, that *is* the problem. Again, the problem discussed here is using Babst as a source to support something Babst does not support. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Mark nutley has put the issue plainly. If this article put together A and B to get C, that would raise issues of synthesis (although not settle them); but this article puts together A and B to get "A and B"; so does Operation Ten-Go. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and again apologies to OpenFuture, who has declined to give an example of an article he considers properly sourced. The methodology of using sources demonstrated by Operation Ten-Go (an example provided by marknutley) is to summarize multiple sources in presenting a unified picture, which is what we're aiming for here; it does not use sources to advance a new position (as the definition of synth requires), and neither does the methodology of assembling verifiable information here. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Again: The SYN issue comes from using Babst as a source by referring to Rummels comments on Babst. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Wars involving the Roman Republic

I've tagged this section as synth. Drawing a long bow to suggest Carthage was a democracy, as I recall, it was considered to be an oligarchy. In any case is there a source that asserts that the Punic Wars was a war between two democracies? --Martin (talk) 02:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

As the humorist Will Cuppy summarizes the old-fashioned view: "Carthage was ruled by its rich men, and was therefore a plutocracy; Rome was also ruled by its rich men, and was therefore a republic." But that was most of a century ago, about sources much older, and there have certainly been assertions of Carthage's embattled democracy since (as indeed before; Mommsen remarks on the democracy of Carthage). {{Synth}}, however, seems wrong; little enough is being asserted, but all of it is consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

But you will see a long list of links in #Roman Republic above, most are about the democraticization of Carthage; ; this one says that by the Third Punic War, Carthage was more democratic than Rome. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I notice the link to the book you provided has the word "democratic" in scare quotes. That's not very reassuring. Unless there is a reliable source that clearly asserts that the Punic Wars was a war between two democracies, I think these borderline synthy cases such as this damage the overall credibility of this list, and should be removed. --Martin (talk) 02:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming you read all the sources on the list above? The classic 19th-century scholars such as Mommsen and Niebuhr are there to indicate that the relation of democratic politics in both Carthage and Rome to the Punic Wars is a longstanding theme in classical scholarship. Since their manner of writing is far more discursive than most modern scholars, it takes a lot of reading to summarize their points. In addition to the link PMA gave to Mackay, you might want to read the chapter in Lazenby, the section in McGIng in which constitutional questions are explicitly linked to the Punic Wars, and the explicit statement in Walbank, though you have to look elsewhere on the page to see that one of the elements of the "mixed constitution" is democratic. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes I have read all the sources. There is a world of difference between a mixed constitution with elements of democracy, and a constitutional democracy. Sure, some internal functions were subject to a democratic process, like Chief Magistrate to which Hanibal was elected to for a brief period, but that's unrelated to foreign relations let alone any military campaign. It's no wonder that MacKay places the term "democratic" in scare quotes, it obviously wasn't a full democracy as we understand the term today. --Martin (talk) 04:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You are a very fast reader. As a woman, I wouldn't consider Athens much of a democracy were I to be transported there to live; that doesn't mean we should delete the article Athenian democracy. The neutrality of this list depends on using sources to determine which polities have been called democracies, and not imposing our own (assuming the phrase "our own" has any collective meaning) standards of democracy. We've discussed above that since few if any polities have been "true" or "pure" democracies, the constitutional status of a given country must be verified by sources and qualified. (I'm not sure you're understanding the Polybian mixed constitution, or in the case of Rome, about which I know infinitely more than I do Carthage, the role of the populus; I would prefer not to go over this in depth, and refer you to the relevant works of Fergus Millar and T.P. Wiseman in addition to a quick glance at Constitution of the Roman Republic.) In creating a list, each section should have a brief introduction that marks historical changes in the definition of democracy; the relevant article is History of democracy. The use of the word "democracy" and "democratic" in relation to ancient politics has a long history. If you've read all 13 of the sources listed above, then you see that indeed scholars do explicitly discuss the relation of the Punic Wars to democratic politics in Rome and Carthage, both of which had mixed constitutions with a democratic element. The burden of proof would then be on you to provide sources that state with equal explicitness that the two parties to the Punic Wars had nothing to do with democracy; even so, the two points of view — that democratic politics had a bearing on the Punic Wars, and that (hypothetically) democratic politics had nothing to do with the Punic Wars — would need to be given due weight in relation to each other. Cynwolfe (talk) 05:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I should add that when I first arrived at this discussion, I doubted that the Punic Wars belonged here. Seemed like reaching. Since my main area of interest on Wikipedia is the Roman Republic (though primarily the late Republic), I choose that topic to look up. I was genuinely surprised by the amount of supporting material I found. Forgive me for pointing out, if you're already keenly aware of it, that the Republic and the Empire had two different forms of government); the democratic element of Rome's mixed constitution — the populus, as represented for instance by the tribunes of the plebs and the people's assemblies — was no surprise to me (though I've been surprised at the degree of resistance to this aspect of Roman politics here), but I hadn't realized there was such a clear scholarly tradition that treated the Punic Wars in relation to democratic politics in Rome and Carthage. Cynwolfe (talk) 05:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no dispute that being originally a Phoenician colony, Carthage had been influenced by Greek democratic elements. However there is scholarly concensus that by the time the Punic wars started, power had been concentrated into the hands of a closed oligarchy, similarly to Venice's Council of Ten. Sure there were "democratic" elements in the Venetian system, for example the Council of Ten was elected by the Grand Council, but membership of that 2000 strong Grand Council was open only to noble men through birth. Certainly not a "democracy" in terms of "rule by the people". Here are some excerts:

• "In theory the constitution of Carthage was a mixed form of government, in which the powers of the kings, lords and commons were held in equal balance. But at the outbreak of the Punic wars it had become in practice a close oligarchy, founded on wealth"
• "The constitution of Carthage was a municipal oligarchy, somewhat resembling that of Venice."
• "the Venetians follow what might be termed Carthaginian practice, as Aristotle described the Carthaginian constitution, sketching a structure of rule he defines as aristocracy deviating into oligarchy"

--Martin (talk) 06:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I myself would tend to agree with Syme (linked and/or quoted above) that all government devolves into oligarchy. And as I said, I was surprised to find the material I did — since the topic was "democracy", I searched "democracy/democratic/democratically" with "Rome" and "Carthage." You seemed to have searched "Carthage + Venice + oligarchy" (not an obvious combination for the topic) and have gotten results accordingly. I'm not here to assert my original research, which I practice elsewhere; here I confine myself to what sources say. Of the three sources you cite, one is a book on Venice (an odd choice given the vociferous synth arguments on this page); the second is an obscure book from Bibliobazaar (I'm assuming you're familiar with what they do), missing copyright and press info but looking to be 19th century or early 20th century, not in my well-outfitted-for-classics university library and by an author I can't seem to identify at the moment; and the third is an entry from an 1862 edition of Smith's Dictionary, still an extremely useful reference book, but not evenly expert on all subjects. I don't see how these would stack up against the list of sources above, which include not only classic works of scholarship and modern specialist works, but give much more expansive treatments of the subject. Cynwolfe (talk) 07:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I would say, on reading the sources, that there seems substantial agreement that there was a successful democratic reform at Carthage towards the end of the Second Punic War, and it became an radically democratic state in 151 BC, sufficiently so for Polybius to strongly disapprove of it, and having something to do with the success of the belligerent party at Rome. Google counts will not detect this, any more than searches on Russia and democracy will detect Kerensky; and any source which depends on Aristotle - who wrote two centuries earlier - is talking about something else.

This raises the question of whether we want to list states which became democracies in the course of a war, as with the February Revolution. (This again would be almost totally irrelevant to the democratic peace, which deals with the outbreak of wars; but so what?) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a way to get a feel for the weight of consensus between "Carthaginian oligarchy" and "Carthaginian democracy", consider this

Google web:

• "Carthaginian oligarchy" 675 hits
• "Carthaginian democracy" 4 hits

Google books:

• "Carthaginian oligarchy" 275 hits
• "Carthaginian democracy" 5 hits

Google scholar:

• "Carthaginian oligarchy" 14 hits
• "Carthaginian democracy" 0 hits

--Martin (talk) 09:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You miss the point, which is not quantitative but qualitative. Racking up page hits does not make an argument. The sources I cite above don't exclude the obvious fact that both Rome and Carthage were controlled by an oligarchy, as you know since you read them. Rather, they discuss the role of democratic politics in relation to the wars; in particular, the effect of democratic politics on Hannibal's career and path toward war, and how a "democratic" movement in Carthage in opposition to the traditional oligarchy contributed to that. Now, on the merge proposal page I agreed with you (and you may search through my comments here, though I'll have to apologize in advance for having lost my patience early in the game and expressing my exasperation rudely) that this list should not serve as an actual or de facto indictment of democratic peace theory. Of what potential use is it, then? It's a starting point for readers who are interested in how democratic politics relate to governments declaring and carrying out war. Like any other article, its usefulness depends on keeping its potential use in mind while constructing it. I suppose I would ask what is gained by excluding what is clearly, from the amount of discussion it's received on this page, the interesting and provocative example of the Punic Wars? The effect of the democratic element in the constitution of the Roman Republic, for instance, is a factor in the career of Julius Caesar (see populares, though that is a little beginning of an article). That is why it seems legitimate and instructive to me to include this example: framing it properly would demonstrate the nature of the political or historical question. No one's trying to say that Rome and Carthage were impeccable examples of democracy. The Punic Wars are an example of how the democratic element in these two countries related to the waging of the war, right down to the composition of the army, if you recall that discussion in one of the sources I listed. I suppose I don't understand strenuous efforts to exclude an entry that raises such illuminative questions. Whose purpose is served by that? Cynwolfe (talk) 14:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Look, it seems to me that the idea of Carthage being an oligarchy is almost universally accepted as opposed to it being a democracy, simply because more sources refer to it as "Carthaginian oligarchy" rather than "Carthaginian democracy". You concede that both Rome and Carthage were controlled by an oligarchy is an obvious fact. If one needs to dig deeply into the sources to extract the contrary idea, then that is giving undue weight if not engaging in synthesis. Sure there were democratic elements within Carthage, but it's not core to the Carthaginian regime. You say "and how a "democratic" movement in Carthage in opposition to the traditional oligarchy contributed to that", plenty of undemocratic regimes have democratic movements in opposition to it, but that doesn't make that regime democratic. If you want to discuss how the democratic elements related to the waging of the Punic wars, then I don't think this is the correct article to do that in, perhaps Punic Wars would be more appropriate. As I said, these border line cases damage the overall credibility of the list and should be removed. --Martin (talk) 19:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I neither edit this article nor contribute to its content. I'm here because of the kinds of questions it raises, both structurally and in terms of political history. You may not be interested in the same questions, or may view them differently. I'm simply interested in discussing them. I repeat, nobody ever said Carthage was a democracy. But a problem on this talk page is that no country seems to be permissible as a democracy. I do find it untenable to say that identifying a continual theme and interest among ancient historians and classical scholars is having to dig deep as if for something hidden; on the contrary, it is evidently a persistent scholarly topic, which your three sources — the merit, depth, or relevance of which are less than sterling— hardly undermine. (Lord Havell, as it turns out, is likely to have had his own biases.) It has been a unique argument on this page that the more sources support an entry, the more vigorously the validity of its inclusion has been attacked. I can't recall ever seeing this argument elsewhere on Wikipedia. As I said, I came here with your disinclination to include the Punic Wars, but discussing them has been illuminative of the topic, and so I wonder why a clear and brief presentation of the issues would damage the article. I maintain that if done well, it would actually make both the criteria for inclusion and the topic clearer. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a question of where to draw the line. I've not examined the other entries in this article as to whether they merit inclusion in this list, so I can't comment. As you say "nobody ever said Carthage was a democracy", so why is it even in this list? Perhaps we need an article List of wars between oligarchies. am I missing something here? --Martin (talk) 20:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

No, you're just coming at it from a different direction. A frequent theme on this page is that it's hard to "prove" that any polity has been or is an ideal/real/true democracy, so line-drawing is continually at issue. My current thinking on the list is that its usefulness is as a starting point for readers interested in the question of how democracy relates to war-waging. It's of no interest to me whether such a reader might be looking for evidence for or against democratic peace theory, which as far as I can see does not depend on the assertion that democracies have never gone to war with each other. One productive theme of discussion here (to my mind) has been not so much the hairsplitting over the many forms of democracy, but rather the necessary confusion between its two broadest categories, democracy as a form of government and "democracy" to mean the democratic process. Although the 'democratic' or people's branch of the Roman Republican constitution commands certainty, from the limited amount I know, the relevance of the term to Carthage lies particularly in Hannibal's use of democratic politics (democracy as democratic process) — which, however, has to do with voting, also a persistent and important theme here in the determination of what's a democracy. So that's why I've found it illustrative, and am willing to entertain the value of the entry. I just feel that when possible, articles should articulate ambiguities, controversies, or disputed facts, and not withhold problematic material. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you may be misconstruing where I am coming from. Like you I have no interest in the democratic peace theory, and believe any mention of it should be removed from this article. The frequent theme you say that is on this page is not uncommon in lists when the criteria for inclusion is not clear. To me the term used in the title "democracies" denotes the form of government, not democratic process, as in List of wars between countries that had a democratic form of government, as defined in form of government. I mean List of wars between countries that may have elements of democratic process in some areas decision making that may be related to going to war is nonsense and nobody expects that when they see the title. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a venue for original research nor should this article be an essay to be used "as a starting point for readers interested in the question of how democracy relates to war-waging". I acknowledge there may be issues of hairsplitting in some other cases, but not in regard to Carthage. The settled consensus is that the Carthiginian form of government was oligarchic, there are no ambiguities or controversies in regard to that undisputed fact, even you yourself state "nobody ever said Carthage was a democracy". So I'm scratching my head as to why you insist that Carthage should included here. --Martin (talk) 23:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Martin, you are discussing this in a useful way, but frankly, last night I was looking over all the other things I need to be working on and I feel I must let this drop. On a couple of other difficult pages I could point to, I've been able to help work through disagreements, but in those cases I rolled up my sleeves and pitched in on the article itself. Actions speak louder than words, and all that. I regret that I can't allocate my time to the research time and writing that would be required for the kind of impeccably sourced and organized article I envision here. It would take me too far off track. May reasoned voices prevail. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Babst, again.

Since the discussion about Babst has become overflowed with various verbiage and talk about completely different articles, I'll restart it. Because despite various efforts to confuse things, the issue is perfectly simple and clear.

1. This is an article listing wars between democracies.
2. To be listed here, a conflict therefore must be called a war between democracies by a reliable source.
3. Babst does not call one single conflict a war between democracies.
4. Therefore Babst can not be used as a source.

Is there any questions on this? --OpenFuture (talk) 21:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

An admirable example of unsound logic. (2) does not follow from (1); more relevantly, even if (2) were sound, it's a restriction on entries. (4) is a restriction on sources; it doesn't follow.

But the questions are:

• Does Babst mean democracies?

  Yes, he does; Rummel and Ray and Singer and Small all say so.

• Are readers harmed by including him?

  No; both entries in which he is cited have sources, from which Babst is specifically distinguished, which say that the war was between "democracies". (As I've said, if OpenFuture thinks this unclear, xe is welcome to clarify that Babst is using different terms.)

• Are readers helped by including him?

  Yes; some readers will want to know what the founder of democratic peace theory said on the subject; what he said is that the peace he finds does not include civil wars - and these are the examples he cited. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Where OpenFuture confuses me is when he says "a conflict therefore must be called a war between democracies by a reliable source." Here again is the assertion that an entry can and must be made on the basis of a single source; what does this mean? I understand the question raised by Babst not using the term 'democracy'; but does OF mean that the source must be a monograph on the subject of "war between democracies"? So if a military historian is writing about a war, and he mentions as background that one of the polities is a democratic republic, but five constitutional scholars in various books and articles identify the other as a direct democracy (not mentioned by the mil-hst), that doesn't count? Cynwolfe (talk) 22:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

No as that is wp:synth as for whom is harmed, the project is, the rules are there for a reason to stop people adding all manner of stuff to get an end result they want mark nutley (talk) 23:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Pmanderson:

• (2) does not follow from (1) - Did I ever said it did? 2 is a requirement of WP:POLICY. You yourself has agreed to it multiple times. Are you saying now that you no longer agree? Are you backtracking on our agreement that a conflict should only be listed if a reliable source claims it's a war between democracies?
• (1); more relevantly, even if (2) were sound, it's a restriction on entries. - Yes. A restriction again forced on us by Wikipedia policy. The article is called "List of wars between democracies". Then we can only list wars between democracies. Otherwise this article becomes a WP:COATRACK.
• Does Babst mean democracies? - That is only answerable by using WP:SYNT which is against Wikipedia policy. The relevant question is does he say democracies. And he does not. Hence he can't be used as a source to claim a conflict is a war between democracies.
• some readers will want to know what the founder of democratic peace theory said on the subject; - Yes, and that can be fixed, by the compromise solution I have laid forward several times, that solves all SYN and OR and UNDUE issues.

Cynwolfe:

• Here again is the assertion that an entry can and must be made on the basis of a single source; -Yes. See WP:SYN. This is not using several sources for a list, that would not be SYN (although it has other issues in this case) it is not using several sources to make a narrative, that's not SYN. It's using several sources to make a claim that neither source says.
• but does OF mean that the source must be a monograph on the subject of "war between democracies"? - No. It must claim that the conflict is a war between democracies. I don't understand why you are trying to over complicate things, unless you are just being obtuse, which I hope is not the case. I said nothing about monographs, neither does WP:SYN. Why would you drag in monographs? Why would you think it has to be a monograph? Again, it's perfectly simple: The source must actually support what it is being used to source. And Babst does *not say* that the Boer wars are wars between democracies. What in this is unclear? --OpenFuture (talk) 07:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

To make my answer simpler:

OpenFuture's position leaps from:

1. The citations must collectively do X (here, support that such-and-such a war was between A and B and that A and B were democracies), to

2. One citation must do X all by itself, to

4. No citation can do Y or Z, even if another citation for the same war does X.

I agree with 1; the leap from 1 to 2 is unsound; the leap from 2 to 4 is completely unjustified.

OpenFuture wants a different article, on a different subject, in a bizarrely chopped-up and austere style. I suggest that OpenFuture write one; we can discuss overlap later. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Does Babst say in the book that this was a war between democracy's? if not then you can`t use it as a source mark nutley (talk) 15:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Does he have to spell it democracy's, too? No, we don't have to comply with a rule mark nutley and his friends made up. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I would appreciate a reply to the question, thanks mark nutley (talk) 15:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

One thing further, if the way i spell it is good enough for the rest of the world [8] it`s good enough for me. mark nutley (talk) 15:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

And yet we're not allowed to call you a … (grits teeth and mutters "not worth it, not worth it"). The form democracy's is a singular possessive equivalent to "of a democracy." Second-graders are taught that you do not form a plural with an apostrophe. Democracies is the plural of democracy. The form democracys does not exist in contemporary orthography. I simply cannot take you seriously because you refuse to inform yourself. Therefore, Mercury the Psychopomp has shaken his stick at me and exclaimed "Get out of there!" Sorry to abandon those of you who are trying to argue from an informed perspective instead of shouting "synth!" "OR!" "POV!" and hoping one will stick. I've done my time in this purgatory. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me for using the common usage in society, how incredibly stupid i must be to not have informed myself. Regardless of how i spell it i still require a reply to the above question mark nutley (talk) 17:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed you have done your time, Cynwolfe. I admire your patience. I've taken to ignoring filibustering based on uninformed misconceptions, which, in one case, seem innocent but obstinately persistent and in the other case seem willful and intentional -- in both cases, the end results seems to be to "win" by exhaustion. Perhaps I can suggest that discussing only actual substantive comments would relieve a good deal of the tension for editing in this area. But please don't utterly jump-ship and forsake the good-faith editors yet! BigK HeX (talk) 17:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Whom are you referring to as a bad faith editor? mark nutley (talk) 17:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

To BigK HeX: Thanks for your remarks. "Filibuster" strikes me as the right word, and I should've thought of it as you do sooner. I'm retreating until I have time to contribute in a more immediately constructive and concrete way — one that allows me to avoid the kind of childish fight-picking just evidenced. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Filibustering is indeed the right word, but you need to take a deep think about who here is doing it. Who is ignoring Wikipedia policy? Who claims that Wikipedia policy is "made up" by others here? Who ignores arguments? Who tries to avoid the issues and writes long rambling essays on various more or less irrelevant topics? --OpenFuture (talk) 09:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Pmanderson: I've never claimed anything like 1. Wikipedia policy does claim both 2 and 4. If you don't like Wikipedia policy, there are forums to discuss that. Personally, I like it and will follow it. I do not know if Mark was involved with the creation of WP:V or not, but I don't see how it makes a difference. Whoever created it, it is now Wikipedia policy, and you do in fact need to follow it. All of it, including WP:RS and WP:OR and WP:SYN. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

So you say. You have not supplied any evidence of that; you have been asked for articles edited on such a principle - and have declined to provide any. We are not bound by something you made up one day either. It is true that it is convenient to have all three necessary components of "A, a democracy, was at war with B, another democracy" supplied by a single wource - which is why I have generally cited such sources; but it is not necessary, and until some uninvolved editor says something so silly, I see no reason to discuss this further. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I`m sorry but it is necessary, it is policy. Why are you refusing to see this? mark nutley (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Because your only evidence it is policy is "Because I say so". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

No because it has been pointed out to you, lets try again wp:synth 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 That is policy, not something i made up, please wp:agf and just read wp:synth mark nutley (talk) 22:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

No, what you made up is the rule against saying "A and B". But I am repeating myself. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)WP Synth prevents a conclusion being drawn that is not present in the original material. This is a LIST, and the validation of what is or is not in a list can be done in the manner suggested by PMAnderson. OpenFuture and Mark on this and at least one other page you are persistently asserting your interpretation of policy rather than making any genuine attempt to engage with other editors. Ironically on Mass killings under Communist regimes where an integrated source has been found which relegates your favored theories to a fringe or near fringe status you are arguing against integrated sources. This is Wiki-Lawyering and is becoming disruptive.--Snowded ^TALK 23:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Rubbish Snowed, and you know it. PMA is using synth here to reach a conclusion not in the sources, this is a violation of policy. That is disruptive. Please keep MKUCR on that talk page it has no place here. PMA read the policy, If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B which part of that do you think i made up? ~

This is a LIST - This is about the use of Babst as a source. It has nothing to do with anything being a list. The claim "The Boer wars is a war between democracies" is not a list. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Abd that precise sentence has a source, which is Russert, not Babst.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

That is possible, but you are also using Babst as a source for the statement, and he does *not* say it. So, Babst can not be used as a source for that statement. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Pmanderson: No, it's not policy because I say so. That's a ridiculous, demeaning and insulting statement. Please refrain from such comments in the future, they are not conductive to constructive debate. It's policy because policy says so. I'm convinced that you, as an experienced and well regarded editor, really knows these things about Wikipedia policy already, so I don't understand why you require me to tell you them. But now I did anyway, to show good faith:

Let's start at WP:V:

This policy requires that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question.

The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate, and must clearly support the material as presented in the article.

Hence, the source must support the material. Babst does *not* say that the Boer wars are wars between democracies, hence you can *not* use Babst as a source. For further information about that, see WP:RS.

Further:

Drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited by the no original research policy.

That means you can *not* infer from Rummel that Babst says "electoral governments" but means "democracies". For further information about that, see WP:OR in particular WP:SYN. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a claim that I cannot infer from Rummel what Rummel says. But that does not matter, since the present text, unless it is mutilated further, does not say that Babst says anything about "democracies", but suggests that the reader see what he did say, while making clear that he used a different terminology.

Am I correct in concluding that OpenFuture, in ignoring my long-standing offer to make the footnote clearer, concedes that it is clear as it stands? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the 23rd of July you did make a step forward by in the quote note that you need to use other sources to interpret him to make him support the statement. In other words, you now claim in the footnote that you need synthesis to have him support the claim. That's a step forward, thank you. But I think that if you want to add him to a "See also" or "Further reading" section, that's fine. But now he is under references, and used as a source, by referring to other sources, which makes it WP:SYN. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Stop putting words in my mouth. I said nothing of the kind. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, so it doesn't say there that Babst talked about electoral governments, and you need to go to other sources to draw the conclusion that Babst meant democracies? --OpenFuture (talk) 06:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I explain why the reader may be interested in the reference (I would be), and I provide it; OpenFuture's idea appears to be to tell the reader as little as possible. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

You try to put a "See also" into a Reference. Why? References are supposed to support the text. This doesn't. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

This reference informs the reader. OpenFuture has been consistently opposed to telling the reader anything the reader might want to know. Why? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Both you and Cynwolfe are very fond of making up straw men. That is not helpful for the discussion. The question is why you absolutely want it as a *reference* when it isn't. Why do you, as a source, want to put something that you now apparently agree can't be used as a source? --OpenFuture (talk) 06:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• I have never agreed that it can't be used as a source; nobody (except the ineffable mark nutley) has ever agreed to the rule you made up.
• However, in the interests of harmony, I made clear that Babst used "freely elective governments" to discuss states which elect their governments periodically, have secret ballot and civil liberties, and so on; i.e. democracies; I should not have engaged in appeasement of the intransigent - we can see how well it worked; I shall not hereafter. I should add, for those who have not seen this fraudulent argument before, that every reliable source who has ever cited Babst has done so as denying the existence of (non-civil) wars between democracies.
• But, even if he did not support the wars for which he is cited, what he did say will be of interest to the reader - and, at least until there is an article on a List of wars between freely elective governments (which I will not be writing), this is the place for it.

Having said that, I do not intend to discuss the matter further - except if necessary to prove OpenFuture's bad faith and opposition to the purpose of Wikipedia. I can always link to this the next time he bores people with it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 07:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

nobody (except the ineffable mark nutley) has ever agreed to the rule you made up. - Oh really? The rule "I made up" is that the entries should be supported by a source that says it's a war between democracies. Let's see if nobody except Marknutley agreed to that:

Remove all list items that don't have a reasonable, sourced claim to being a war between democracies. -- Locke9k

If an actual cite can be found to state that it is a "war between democracies" then it can stay. Else, it will have to be removed -- Alastairward

The list is of "wars between democracies". If one is labelled as such by a reliable third party source, include it. -- WikiuserNI

And finally:

we should list every pair of countries that have met in a conflict that a reliable source has called a war between democracies. -- Pmanderson

If you want to include yourself in a list of nobodies that's probably up to you, but it's not nice to do it to others. ;)

At least you admit that you fail WP:AGF. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Blanking by mark nutley

Mark nutley has taken to blanking sourced assertions from this page again. In his last edit summary, he has cited BRD; he has neglected, however, to discuss. Why, therefore, has be blanked the citation to David Churchman, which mentions both Rome and Carthage? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Blankings:

• 30 July 18:29
• 23:05
• 23:20

I also said per talk [9] mark nutley (talk) 23:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

No, if you're going to revert, you have to discuss - including the long list of sources on the democratization of Carthage at #Roman Republic above. But this short-circuits the whole pointless argument about whether democracy at Rome and democracy at Carthage = democracy at Rome and Carthage. Now pleae stop blanking sourced assertions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Erm no, i reverted based on what has been said above. Hence per talk. Should you wish to argue it then do so in that section, thanks mark nutley (talk) 00:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with the removal, per my discussion with Cynwolfe above. --Martin (talk) 00:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
  • per use of google to determine whether there is a source. There is a source, and it was cited. If you had brought other sources, that would have been a useful contribution. Be ashamed of yourself. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I think you are being a little bit unreasonable here, the article does not hinge on the presence of the Punic wars, its removal doesn't come even close to gutting the article, there are plenty of other wars listed. --Martin (talk) 03:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
      • The shameful aspect is editing on the basis of a google count. The gutting is progressive, and your removal of sourced material only assists it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
        • There is nothing shameful about using google search tools to get a feel for consensus for a concept. Also with 19 wars listed I hardly think that removing the Punic wars could hardly be considered "gutting", let alone justify placing these tags. --Martin (talk) 21:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Questions: Pmanderson: Do you have one source claiming these wars was wars between democracies? Not wars between republics, not one source saying A was a democracy and another saying B was a democracy. Do you have *one* source saying "these are wars between democracies"? Marknutley: Have you read the given sources? --OpenFuture (talk) 09:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I stand by my footnote:David Churchman, Why We Fight: Theories of Aggression and Human Conflict, University Pres of America (2005), p.143, who discusses Rome and Carthage (in those words). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

?Just because material is sourced does not mean it belongs. Can you not just answer the question, does your source say this was a war between democracies? Given the evidence presented above i do not see how it can mark nutley (talk) 16:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Then you haven't read Cynwolfe's list of sources; Carthage had "a democratic revolution" in 237 BC and, while there continued to be popular and conservative parties, the popular party was elected in 151 BC, which was one of things that decided Rome on the Third Punic war. It is therefore possible that Churchman is generalizing; but that would be original research. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC) See Serge Lancel: History of Carthage(1993, Eng. tr. 1995) pp. 116-120, 411; Richard Miles "Carthage must be destroyed" (2010): 214, 318, 337. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I am, I admit, curious. Since the ineffable mark nutley protests this removal, would the poster, or mark, explain how an assertion with one source, which ranks the First Kashmir War as a full-scale war, and India and Pakistan as democracies in 1948, can possibly be original research? What's original? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Last post for a few days, did i say i protested it? Please post the diff for were i did, thanks mark nutley (talk) 19:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Really? Did mark forget this edit in the space of half an hour? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

This is my last edit to your article Stop calling everything vandalism [10] adding an OR tag is not wp:vandal. Just please stop calling editors vandal`s ok were in there am i protesting over the tag`s removal? It is your accusation of calling everything vandalism i was objecting to. mark nutley (talk) 19:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm gobsmacked by the choice of books cited by User:Pmanderson to support his case. The book Carthage must be destroyed by Richard Miles is a theatrical drama written in conjunction with the Traverse Theatre of Scotland! The other book by Serge Lancel History of Carthage doesn't appear to exist, but looking at another book of his, Hannibal, doesn't mention "democracy" even once [11], but mentions "oligarchy" several times [12]. Pmanderson's assertion "Carthage had "a democratic revolution" in 237 BC and, while there continued to be popular and conservative parties, the popular party was elected in 151 BC" does not bear up to scrutiny. Lancel writes "Of course, we shall see that Hamilcar and his eldest son subsequently developed a movement that tended to make public life in Carthage evolve in a direction that has been termed "democratic"; but there was nothing at all "revolutionary" about this movement, nothing that revealed any solidarity whatsoever between its instigators and a lower social class". Note the use of scare quotes by Lancel. It wasn't a real democracy at all, just an attempt by one faction to exploit people for their our ends against the ruling oligarchy. In any case, it must be noted that these developments occurred towards the end of the Punic wars, not at the beginning, so it cannot be argued that these wars were started by two democracies. I think that Pmanderson is advocating an idea that simply doesn't exist in the sources. --Martin (talk) 21:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Lancels, Carthage is here. Carthage Must be Destroyed is a history. Apologize for the intrusion. Carry on with the arguing. Only wanted to set the record straight. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• I see Martin finally thought of searching for democratic. He will also have found this passage which does not use scare quotes.
• It is also true, and any edit to the article should reflect this, that "democratic revolution" is the phrase in one paper, and that Lancel disagrees with it; he uses "democratic evolution", instead, pointedly, and expresses it as a fact; but this is a question of the speed of a change which he agrees occurred.
• But I can see why someone so careless with sources has not supplied any. I have no idea what play he is talking about, but the amazon listing for Carthage Must Be Destroyed is here; its Library of Congress listing lists it as a history; as indeed it is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
  • It is this one by Alan Wilkins. Is it really asking too much to check the author's name before assuming there is only one book of a title? Especially when the title is a well-known, if spurious, quotation? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
• Syme would argue (and Madison would agree) that the difference between "a democratic election" and "an attempt by one faction to exploit people for their own ends against the ruling" faction is the difference between a costume and the actor wearing it; the meaning of democracy is that the exploitation uses votes and canvassing, not swords. But other points of view are welcome; suppression is not.
• As a mere point of history, the democratic change took place around 240 BC, after the first Punic War, and well before the second. The third Punic war followed several further reforms by the popular party, and their election to power in 151 BC. Therefore Churchman is probably oversimplifying. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be cherrypicking if the oligarchy were to be ignored in presenting the standard scholarly views (at any rate, that would be a POV and balance issue, not synth). The democratic element of the Polybian mixed constitution is relevant, and I'm not convinced Martin really understands why: since the time of Polybius the effects of democratic politics on the Punic Wars have presented a clear and persistent historiographical theme. Instead, Martin takes the extremist position that because the two polities represent mixed constitutions rather than "pure" democracy (as if that's ever existed), all discussion of this subject should be suppressed. Why? Explaining the issues clearly would illuminate the criteria for inclusion in the list, the historical usage of the term 'democracy', and how democratic politics in antiquity might differ from the modern world. So I have to wonder why it's so urgent to one group of editors (none of whom regularly if ever contributes in the area of ancient Greece and Rome) to exclude the important link of ancient Rome in the historical picture. I don't intend to keep up a pointless argument, but I did want to reiterate so my comments wouldn't be buried above. I don't see why you should exclude an interesting and illustrative section where an explanation of the processes of ancient democracy and its relation to a ruling oligarchy are highly informative to the reader within this topic. It may be that you can play the "rules game" in such a way so as to block a "move" that would include such a discussion. But I see no informative purpose served by that; quite the opposite. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Cyn, do you still stand by your assertion "nobody ever said Carthage was a democracy"? I have no objection to you creating an article Development of democratic elements within the Carthaginian oligarchy where you can explore the processes of ancient democratic development and its relation to a ruling oligarchy to your heart's content, but this is a list which cannot do justice to such a deep and nuanced topic, it is not appropriate here. --Martin (talk) 22:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I hope she doesn't; it's not true. This passage, linking Carthage with Tyre, Rome, and Athens, as democracies, is not really difficult to find. But text saying that the question is nuanced would be useful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Since when was Wikipedia concerned about the Truth^TM, and are the authors of the book about Japan you linked, Iichirō Tokutomi, Hiroaki Matsuzawa, Nicholas Wickenden, scholars on ancient history? --Martin (talk) 22:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It is interested in verifiability; part of verifiability is truth about sources. I suppose that it is necessary to explain this to an editor who has just made three false statements about them in the course of a personal attack. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Stay on topic User:Pmanderson, play the ball not the person. Verifibility is about ensuring all material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source to show that it is not original research and synthesis. --Martin (talk) 23:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I will try not to react to your baiting. But until you strike your unfounded attack, this conversation is over; even if platitude is an improvement on falsehood, it's not much loss. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

??? You seem confused, you linked to an edit by SmackBot claiming it was an "unfounded attack", take it up with the Bot owner. --Martin (talk) 01:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, my browser must have rebelled at the link to so many falsehoods; the comment about being gobsmacked at the beginning of this thread. I trust it is now knotted off. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Carthage with Tyre, Rome, and Athens, as democracies, is not really difficult to find. - Right, but where they both democracies at the time when the war in question started? If not, then it's not a war between democracies. That source doesn't say, so hence it can't be used. (I haven't read your other sources in this question, I don't have time to follow all WP:OR discussion here, so I'll keep to principles at the moment). --OpenFuture (talk) 06:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

One grows very bored with the speculations of doctrinaires on sources they haven't read. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Where is the speculation? And I still don't appreciate your insults. Keep off the ad hominemns, thank you. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Original research

This discussion has been copied from [[13]] 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)

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 [14] 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 lie, 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)

A modest proposal

The following conversation is indicative:

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)

This is precisely the problem. OpenFuture wants a different article, under a different title, using standards of proof that he has made up. There is a solution to this: he should go write one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 08:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

As usual, everything you (and Cynwolfe) say about me or what I want or what I say is incorrect. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course it is; you never proposed that this article be renamed Possible exceptions to democratic peace theory; you don't want a new standard of proof; you never demanded that this article be divided up into separate lists, one for each source - and two plus two equals five. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 08:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I suggested renaming back as a compromise, since you wanted to revert the article back to it's state then. You wanted to add loads of things that was not wars between democracies, but had been used as arguments against DPT. In that case the article should be renamed. To claim that this means that *I* want a different article is absurd. You are after all the one who reverted back the changes done to stop the article being a WP:COATRACK.

I do not want another article. I have suggested ways we can fix the issues with this article. You do not like them, which of course is up to you. But claiming that I therefore want another article is completely baseless.

I'm not sure why you call WP:V "new standard of proof", it doesn't seem new to me. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec)It is however the case that your editing perspective on this is that of democratic peace theory, and the same would appear to be at the case on the mass killings arguments. Given the definition of democracy (which is historically situated within the near past) within DPT it is unlikely that a list of wars between democratic states would be the same as a list of contradictions to DPT. So we have to decide one way or another what should be done. If this list has merit independently of DPT then it stands on its own and cannot be constrained by that theory. If it only has merit in that context then it should be renamed. The debate on OR and SYNTH (where you are not gaining support see comments by Ellen above which match those made by several of us over the last few weeks) is really a proxy debate to determine what is included or not. It strikes me that the first and substantive question to determine is whether this list stands along or not. I am happy either way on that subject (and on Mass Killings), but it needs to be settled. --Snowded ^TALK 09:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

My editing perspective is WP:POLICY.

Given the definition of democracy (which is historically situated within the near past) within DPT it is unlikely that a list of wars between democratic states would be the same as a list of contradictions to DPT. - Yes of course. Nobody has to my knowledge suggested that we choose sources based on their view of DPT.

If this list has merit independently of DPT then it stands on its own and cannot be constrained by that theory. - Constrained?

If it only has merit in that context then it should be renamed. - I don't think anyone has said it only has merit in that context (although perhaps that's worth discussing). I'm just saying that when Pmanderson claims that a list of wars between democracies has no relation to a theory concerning wars between democracies, he is pretty obviously wrong. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, but then I think you are going to have to accept "in general the statements X is a democracy, Y is a democracy, X and Y had an armed conflict in 1900" to quote the next section. --Snowded ^TALK 17:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

But that would require massive amounts of original research. See earlier discussion. Why do you want to ignore the research done, and make your own original research here, in blatant violation of WP:OR? --OpenFuture (talk) 20:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Another straw man argument - by our expert on the subject. Nobody has proposed original research; what has been proposed is looking for the statements of reliable sources. That does require a great deal of unoriginal research in looking for statements about the democracy of past states; if anybody can find some, I would appreciate it. The wars of interest can be found by looking at the undefaced version of this page before OpenFuture began blanking it, at Ray's list of possible wars (which is drawn from the DPT literature), and at Russert. Electing to Fight should also be consulted. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

"No necessary or inherent relation" is a different claim from "no relation." If at some point PMA said "no relation" in this informal discussion, I feel certain he didn't mean it absolutely. The point is that if democratic peace theory had never existed as an identifiable proposition or hypothesis (as I've seen it more accurately described), this list could still be compiled. Polybius could have started it in the 2nd century BC, and implicitly did. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

"No necessary or inherent relation" is a different claim from "no relation." - Not in any significant way in relating to this article.

The point is that if democratic peace theory had never existed as an identifiable proposition or hypothesis (as I've seen it more accurately described), this list could still be compiled. - *Could*, yes. But it wouldn't have been compiled. The topic is completely random if you ignore DPT, you could just as well make a "List of wars between countries who have the color red in their flags". This article exists because of democratic peace theory. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:44, 2 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)