Talk:Democracy/Archive 10

Alternative forms of democracy
I don't suppose there's to be much discussion about alternative forms of democracy that could possibly exist, is there? For example, a system where the basis of lawmaking is the referendum, or where it is the courts that are elected and not the Party members, or where there are no parties? These systems must have been discussed at some point in time, and certainly on the internet.


 * They might have been discussed, but good luck finding one in reality. If you think about it, alternative democracies in themselves are pretty recent concepts, and since people tend to work with "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," we probably won't be seeing one for a very long time.Robinson0120 22:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Evolution of political system vs. Evolution of concept
There is a huge problem with this article which seems to boil down to a question of whether the history is seen as:
 * 1) the develop of a system which had various names at the time but which is now generally accepted as being democracy.
 * 2) the development of the concept of democracy which has over its history been applied to various terms.

The type of problems this is causing are:
 * the idea that America was set up as a Democracy. It was not, it is quite clearly a "republic" and I've found no comment by the founding fathers to suggest otherwise. The interpretation of this event as being the founding of a democracy is a very recent phenonema and to suggest otherwise is quite misleading.
 * The idea that Greek democracy was election. When I first found this article, whenever greek democracy was mentioned it was implied that it was elected (by default). Unfortunately, if it was elected, the Greeks would have said it was undemocratic, because the Athenians thought elections were oligarchic!
 * 18th/19th century, democracy was equated with left-wing socialism. Elections were one of several means to a "democratic" system (ie. socialist)

Obviously the subject is highly contentious, but that should not get in the way of historical fact (afterall you can't rewrite the fact that the communists thought their system was democratic!) I think it really needs the history to be split into two: "History: The concept of Democracy" (those systems that have been called democratic) to contrast with "History: the system of Democracy" (the system that Americans call democratic, although it was not called democracy at the time!) --Mike 16:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, the distinction between democracy and republic then and now is discussed in a section of its own. Obviously, Wikipedia mainly deals with the current definition of words. For example, the article about evolution does not describe the views on this one hundred years ago, but mainly the current views.Ultramarine 16:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The section on a republic is a good start, but it misses the whole 18th/19th century idea of social democracy, it fails to highlight the very different meaning in Ancient Greece, and it fails to mention the 20th century split between East (social democracy) and West (elections). Of course the article should mainly focus on the current use, but is it really the place of Wikipedia to rewrite American history and suggest that the US was set up as a democracy (the founding fathers will be rolling in their graves!) If you are serious about only using the definition currently in vogue, I think it is hard to justify having the Greek Democratic system in this article as it does not fit that definition! You can't have it both ways, either it is a full article covering the history of democracy which must explain how the term has been applied to systems that are very different to the majority use today OR you stick to the modern definition and e.g. remove references to systems that are not democratic under your definition such as Greek democracy and the 18/19th century social democrats! --Mike 19:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Introduction Marxist & Greek Democracy
The introduction is unbalanced. It focusses solely on liberal democracy and ignores contradictory views of democracy both the Greek idea of allotment (random selection is not an equal voice) and the marxist view that socialism is inherently democratic (again nothing to do with equal voice). "is a form of government for a nation state, or for an organization in which all the citizens have a voice in shaping policy" This clearly isn't an adequate all encompassing definition. My own personal view is that all forms of democracy are grouped by a belief in isonomia (equality of political rights), which covers greek, liberal and marxist views. I think we can safely say that Liberal democracy is the most common view, but it clearly is sharply at odds with the Marxist view and if I understand Wikipedia policy correctly the opening paragraph can't solely reflect one side of the debate!

So, I would like to change this sentence for one of the following:


 * 1) "is a form of government for a nation state, or for an organization based on an equality of political rights"
 * 2) "is a form of government for a nation state, or for an organization based on an equality of political rights interpreted in a liberal democracy as an equal voice or vote in shaping policy although contradictory views exist."
 * 3) "is a form of government for a nation state, or for an organization. Liberal democracy is based on an eqaul voice or vote; however other views contradict the Liberal Democratic view of democracy notably the Marxist & Ancient Greek view of democracy"
 * 4) "is a form of government for a nation state, or for an organization"

marxist view
I noticed someone simply removed someone else's contribution without putting comments on the talk page. To my mind that is simply rude, arrogant and undemocratic (based on liberal democratic interpretation, and I don't know anything about the marxists concept of rudeness?)! "Most liberal democracies are only considered as such because the citizens are allowed the token participatory act of voting, which has no effect in causing the system to reflect the will of the people."

I'm sticking the comments here so that it can be discussed. If there is no agreement how to make then introction cover all interpretations then my view is that Wikipedia policy would require us to simply allow the other side to state there view! (or is that not democracy?)--Mike 10:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Greek view
Before anyone makes any assumption about Greek democracy being "elected" and biases the whole article perhaps they should read the following:

"“it is thought to be democratic for the offices to be assigned by lot, for them to be elected is oligarchic,” 	[Aristotle, Politics 4.1294b]"

"“Democracy is a form of government in which the offices are distributed by the people among themselves by lot;” 	[Aristotle, Rhetoric]"

"“In establishing all these offices, we must make the appointments partly by election and partly by lot, mingling democratic with non-democratic methods,” 	[Plato, Laws 6:759]"

"“And a democracy, I suppose, comes into being when the poor, winning the victory, put to death some of the other party, drive out others, and grant the rest of the citizens an equal share in both citizenship and offices--and for the most part these offices are assigned by lot.”	[Plato, Republic 8.557"

As written the introduction stated that democracy was an equal vote or voice and therefore implied that Greek democracy was undemocratic.

I didn't want to start with a "it could mean this or could mean that" paragraph in such a article, but neither could I accept that you can start an article on democracy that implies the Greeks were undemocratic! To keep the flow I've used the linking concept of "isonomia" (equality of political rights/law) which the Greeks used interchangeably with democratia. As written it only said "equal votes or equal voice". Allotment is not a system of "equal voice", since only those who are selected have a right to sit in government, so I had to add the comment on Greek democracy.

I've checked the OED and the term democracy both covers Greek democracy and modern democracy, so I think the article must either embrace both ancient and modern or alternatively there might be two 1. Greek democracy (selected by lot), 2. Modern democracy (elected)--Mike 10:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no agreed on definition of democracy, only many different views. However, I do not see why allotment cannot be seen as giving an an voice in shaping policy. Alternatively, we could remove the sentence in the intro completely and instead simply just state that there are many different views without trying to give a single "true" definition.Ultramarine 13:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

My comments re: "too much democracy=elections"> --Mike 08:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The article mentins numerous form of democracy, many not including elections. The article in no place states the democracy only means elections.Ultramarine 15:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

"The democratic state" section
"Though there remains some philosophical debate as to the applicability and legitimacy of criteria in defining democracy what follows may be a minimum of requirements for a state to be considered democratic (note that for example anarchists may support a form of democracy but not a state):


 * 1) A demos&mdash;a group which makes political decisions by some form of collective procedure&mdash;must exist. Non-members of the demos do not participate. In modern democracies the demos is the adult portion of the nation, and adult citizenship is usually equivalent to membership.
 * 2) A territory must be present, where the decisions apply, and where the demos is resident. In modern democracies, the territory is the nation-state, and since this corresponds (in theory) with the homeland of the nation, the demos and the reach of the democratic process neatly coincide. Colonies of democracies are not considered democratic by themselves, if they are governed from the colonial motherland: demos and territory do not coincide.
 * 3) A decision-making procedure exists, which is either direct, in instances such as a referendum, or indirect, of which instances include the election of a parliament.
 * 4) The procedure is regarded as legitimate by the demos, implying that its outcome will be accepted. Political legitimacy is the willingness of the population to accept decisions of the state, its government and courts, which go against personal choices or interests.
 * 5) The procedure is effective in the minimal sense that it can be used to change the government, assuming there is sufficient support for that change. Showcase elections, pre-arranged to re-elect the existing regime, are not democratic.
 * 6) In the case of nation-states, the state must be sovereign: democratic elections are pointless if an outside authority can overrule the result."
 * Much of this section seems to be a discussion of the characteristics of states, not democracy. All states, democratic or not, must have a terriotory, be sovereign, have citizens, have a decision-making procedure, and be able to enforce decisions in its territory. As such, I think that it should be removed or remade.Ultramarine 00:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Democracy and dictatorship
"Even a dictatorship may be a democracy if the ruler is elected in fair and competitive elections. Some dictatorships claim to be democracies, but in reality hold "sham elections."
 * This is contradictory and a dictatorship is not democratic. Can you give an example of dictatorship which is a democracy? Ultramarine 02:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Never heard of an illiberal democracy?  If people are not allowed civil rights, as long as elections are free and competitive it's still a democracy. As long as the dictator is freely elected, it's a democracy. BillyBoom 02:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Many would dispute that this is a real democracy since in reality the people do not rule. Democracy is not the same as elections, see for example direct democracy or sortition in Athens.Ultramarine 02:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That the leader is freely elected, is a sufficient condition of democracy. "The people rule" is only the case in direct democracy. In any other kind of democracy the elected officials rule. BillyBoom 02:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Not for example with sortition which was also used in Athens. No electins but leaders. The problem is that there have been many different systems claiming to be "democratic". For example, the Communist states claimed to be democratic according to "democratic centralism". It is not really for Wikipedia to decide which definiton the correct one, only to report the different views.Ultramarine 02:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly, it's not the case for Wikipedia to decide. We can't claim that Communist states are democracies any more than we can claim that they're not. We can say they call themselves democracies but we can't say that they are democracies, unless we can find a consensus of sources that says they are. BillyBoom 02:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, so I propse this:

Democracy is, literally, rule by the people (from the Greek demos, "people," and kratos, "rule"). The methods by which this form of government is exercised, and indeed the composition of "the people" differ for the various forms of democracy, but the general principle is that of majority rule. Useful contrasts can be made with oligarchies and autocracies, where political authority is highly concentrated and not subject to meaningful control by the people. While the term democracy is often used in the context of a political state, the principles are also applicable to other areas of governance.

The definition of democracy is made complex by the varied concepts used in different contexts and discussions. Political systems, or proposed political systems, claiming to be democratic have ranged from very broadly based institutions in which adult universal suffrage is used to elect representative, to very informal assemblies in which the people voice their opinions, and leader act upon those feelings, to elected representatives who have limited power under an unelected monarch, to systems randomly selecting leaders from the population, to systems seeking consensus, and even what is usually seen as de facto dictatorships which may claim to be democratic and hold sham elections to gain legitimacy (for example, the former German Democratic Republic).Ultramarine 02:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Instead of risking either of us doing any original research, I suggest we use sourced definitions. How about that? BillyBoom 02:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * All of these various form are easily verified: See the articles on direct democracy, allotment, deliberative democracy, and German Democratic Republic.Ultramarine 02:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but it is too much original research if we go through and pick out the common theme that runs throughout each form of democracy. For example, you said yourself that if there is a dictator that it can't be a democracy. I disagree, because according to the definition of liberal democracy, all that is required is that the ruler is elected. We can argue forever about what a democracy and even if we both agree, it is still not good enough. Wikipedia is about more than consensus. It's about consensus about what the sources say. Consensus that can't be sourced is original research. BillyBoom 02:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, Wikipedia is not about consensus about what the sources say. It is about showing all significant views. So we should mention all those views regarding what democracy is without claiming that we know which one is the correct andf the "true" definiton.Ultramarine 02:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It is indeed about consensus about what the sources say. You don't understand what I said. That's not the same thing a saying that Wikipedia is about consensus about what the consensus of the sources is. I agree that all significant views should be presented. But the only way to know if they're significant is to consult sources. And the way to present a definition is for us to arrive at a consensus interpretation of what the sources say. I'm saying consensus is not enough. Original research is still original research, even if there is a consensus of Wikipedians that want to put it in the article. BillyBoom 02:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please read NPOV: "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant published points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions."Ultramarine 02:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You still don't understand what I said. It looks like you think I'm saying to present only one definition. That's not what I'm saying. Present one, two, or ten even. All I'm saying is that they can't be original research. They need to be sourced. Us arriving at a consensus on how to define define democracy is not good enough. Original research is still original research, even if we have a consensus. We need sources. BillyBoom 02:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * None of the different forms of democracy I have described above are original research. They can be easily verified, for example, by the links the articles I mentioned above.Ultramarine 02:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Here is your definition: "the general principle is that of majority rule." All I'm saying is it should be sourced. It could be original research. BillyBoom 02:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * We can, maybe, remove that sentence.Ultramarine 02:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I prefer to have a definition(s) to head off the article. BillyBoom 02:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no consensus so we should not claim to know one. This should be clearly stated.Ultramarine 02:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC) There may be a consensus. I don't know. I'm not prepared to make the claim that there is no consensus. By consensus I don't mean universal agreement, but the case where the bulk of definitions say pretty much the same thing. If there are alternate definitions they should be represented as well if there are sufficient number of sources that agree with it. BillyBoom 02:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That is not what NPOV states. As noted above, there have been numerous very different defintions of democracy, the only thing really in common is the etymology, rule by the people. Which the Greeks contrasted with rule by a few or by a single person.Ultramarine 03:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with NPOV. It has to do with "original research." If you claim that "there are very different defintions of democracy, the only thing really in common is the etymology, rule by the people" then unless it can be sourced it is original research. BillyBoom 03:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The etymology is not in doubt. Everything else is, since the defintions are so different and so many. Howver, we can certainly state that the Greeks, who created the concept, for example Aristotle, saw 3 different systems: " The true forms of government, therefore, are those in which the one, or the few, or the many, govern"Ultramarine 03:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you sure the definitions are "so different"? I'm not sure that they are. I'd have to see a survey of definitions for "democracy." If you want to present Aristotle's definition, go for it. That's certianly historically important. But that's not necessarily how it's ordinarily defined today. BillyBoom 03:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * All the definitions mentioned above are recent. For example the Communist defintion, related to democratic centralism, was not long ago used by 1/3 of the world's population.Ultramarine 03:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You're talking about the kinds of democracy? Those are not definitions of democracy, but of particular types of democracy. BillyBoom 03:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Not really different. All these systems have advocates claiming that this is, at the very least, a form of democracy.Ultramarine 03:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes they are forms of democracy, but what makes them forms of democracy. In other words, what is a democracy? Fords, Oldsmobiles, and Chevrolets are all types of automobiles but what is an automobile? Telling us what each FORM of democracy is, doesn't tell us what a democracy is. We need a definition for democracy. BillyBoom 03:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that only really common thing is that which can be found in the etymology and the comparison Aristotle made: Rule by the people as comparet to rule by a few or a single person. All the system above have at least claimed to be the best way for the people to rule, even if, as the Communists claim, the people are too stupid to know how their own good and the best rule requires that those who understand the "class consciousness" of the people guide them.Ultramarine 03:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if that is the case for this definition: "a set of guarantees that can prevent a leader from coming to power or holding power in defiance of the will of the majority." (What is Democracy?  by Alaine Touraine) That is not rule by the people, but election by the people. Whoever is elected is the one doing the ruling. BillyBoom 03:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I would say that the people rule indirectly. Rule means to hold the power, not to win an election.Ultramarine 03:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

In a democracy, the only power the people have is the power to vote for who is going rule them and the power to eventually vote in someone to replace them. Once elected, the person elected is the one that has the power which is much more powerful than the right to vote for a government official. The people do not rule in a democracy. The only have a choice over who is going to rule them. BillyBoom 03:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, many disagree with this definition of democracy. For example, this does not describe the situatiun in Athens.Ultramarine 03:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I know. I tried to add to the last sentence: "unless it is a direct democracy. In that case the majority of people rule." That's why I think there are two main definitions. Democracy is either rule by the people or elections of officials who rule." BillyBoom 03:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As noted there are many other defintions. Also, I strongly disagree with your definition of "rule". The people do rule in for example the US, indirectly.Ultramarine 03:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Whether or not there are many other definitions, the definitions need to be sourced. About the US, the people definitely do not rule. They elect government officials. To be precise, even the goverment officials do not "rule" or at least they're not supposed to. In the U.S. the law is supposed to rule. Elected officials are supposed to be stewards of the law. That's why the U.S. is technically a "constitutional republic" rather than a democracy. In a direct democracy, the people rule because the people make the law. BillyBoom 03:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You need to give a source for you defintion of "rule" and that it is universal. I think that it is your own personal defintion. Rule means to hold the power. People do in the US. They do not in for example Burma.Ultramarine 03:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

To make law is to hold power, therefore if you make law you rule. The people are said to rule in a direct democracy because they make the law without constitutional restrictions on what laws can be passed. People do not have that power in the U.S. and neither do the elected officials. The U.S. is a constitutional republic, which John Adams defined as a "a government of laws, and not of men." Any statutes that are enacted cannot violate the Constitution. Anyway, we're getting away from the point. Any definitions we present need to be sourced. You said that "the people rule" is in common with all definitions and I gave you a definition where that is not the case. That definition simply has to do with elections. BillyBoom 04:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * A dictator need not worry about laws and is still a ruler. You need to give source your definition of "rule" and that it is universal. I certainly aruge that "a set of guarantees that can prevent a leader from coming to power or holding power in defiance of the will of the majority."  means that the people rule.Ultramarine 04:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no one "universal" definition of "rule." Like most words, it has many definitions. If people can vote on a leader, then who are the people ruling? They certainly aren't ruling over other people. BillyBoom 04:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If people can vote on a leader, then they rule over themselves. Rule means to hold power and authority, it has little to do with laws. Again, a dictator ignoring laws is still a ruler.Ultramarine 04:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If people elect a leader, they are only ruling over themselves if that leader does what they consent to him doing to them. If the leader does any more than that then the people are not ruling over themselves. Electing a leader is not the same thing as giving someone carte blanche to do whatever he wants to you. As you know, a leader can be elected and do lots of things that the majority did not consent to him doing to them. That may be because the Constitution doesn't protect you from him or he's violating the Constitution. That's why a sufficient condition of democracy is simply that people elect officials. "The people rule" does not apply to all forms of democracy. It applied in direct democracy (which Aristotle opposed); actually that would be "the majority of people rule." BillyBoom 04:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, this seems be your own personal defintion of "rule" and "democracy". There are many others. All forms of democracy have claimed that the people rule, or hold the ultimate power.Ultramarine 04:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It is not my definition of democracy. I gave you a sourced definition. It doesn't say anything about the people "ruling." You're reading something into it based on your own understanding of "rule." BillyBoom 04:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC) By the way, if I vote for someone, I'm not voting for someone to rule me. I'm not voting for someone in order to self-rule either. I can already rule myself. I'm simply voting for someone to protect me from those who would wish to rule over me. BillyBoom 04:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I see nothing there that contradicts that the people have the ultimate power, or rule. You have your own definiton of "rule" that is not common, that it is somehow related to laws.Ultramarine 04:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * My definition of "rule" is not uncommon. To rule over someone is simply to have power over someone. In a democracy, there is no necessity that elected official only exercise power over the majority that elected him that they consent to. There is such a thing as illiberal democracies. In an illiberal democracy, the leader exercises power (rule) over the people that they do not consent to. "Rule by the people" is not a necessary condition of democracy (nor is it a desirable one if it means rule by the majority) BillyBoom 04:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The leaders of an illiberal democracy do claim that the people rule. "Rule by the people" is a necessary condition for claiming to be a democracy.Ultramarine 04:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

"Claiming" and actuality are two different things. "Rule by the people" is not a necessary condition of claiming to be a democracy. To be able to claim you are a democracy requires nothing more than the ability to state it. The leader can lie. BillyBoom 04:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course he can lie. So what? If he does not claim that people rule, then he is not claiming that there is a democracy. Again, it is necessary to claim rule by the people if claiming democracy. Now, using some other definition of democracy, like Freedom House's, this may not be a democracy. But Wikipedia cannot state that Freedom House has got the "true" defintion. We can only report the different opinions.Ultramarine 04:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If someone claims rule by the people, that doesn't mean there actually is rule by the people. Again, anyway, rule by the people is not a necessary condition of democracy. Merely electing officials is a sufficient condition. BillyBoom 05:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, you are supposing that there is a true defintion of democracy and that we can judge what is democracy or not with this. But there are many definitions and Wikipedia cannot state that one is correct. What is common for democracy is that all claim that the people rule, correct or not according to other people.Ultramarine 05:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No I'm not. You are. You said all definitions of democracy had in common "rule by the people." I showed you that they don't by giving you an example of one that doesn't. BillyBoom 05:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, you didn't. Also the leaders in an illiberal democracy claim rule by the people.Ultramarine 05:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

"Claiming" to be ruled by the people isn't the same thing as actually being ruled by the people. A claim can be true or it can be false. BillyBoom 05:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC) By the way, here is another definition that does not align with your "rule by the people": A system is "democratic to the extent that its most powerful collective decision-makers are selected through fait, honest, and periodic elections in which candidates freely compete for votes and in which virtually all the adult population is eligible to vote." -Sumuel Huntington BillyBoom 05:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. Communists argue that the other systems that claim to be democratic are not. Freedom House claims that some systems claiming to democratic are not. Some of those advocating direct democracy argue that representative democracy is not really democracy. They all disagree on what democracy is and state that the others give false claims. But they all claim that they themselves have a system giving the people the ultimate power.Ultramarine 05:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Who is correct? It is not for wikipedia to determine, only to report the various opinions.Ultramarine 05:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's what I'm trying to tell YOU. You're making a claim that all definitions have in common "rule by the people" but they don't, so don't claim that in the article. Look at this source. It explicitly disagrees with your claim: "If democracy were defined as rule by the people -the entire people- then, of course, there would be no place for elites in a democracy. But then, too, there would be no democracies anywhere, the universe under discussion would be empty or, in other words, there would be nothing to analyze. Hence, here, this utopian definition of democracy has been rejected in favor of a more realistic definition, whose centerpiece is the principle of free elections, coupled with the freedom of organization." (Fragile Democracy: The Use and Abuse of Power in Western Societies by Eva Etzioni-Halevy). BillyBoom 05:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not stating that they all have in common "rule by the people", I am stating they claim this, correct or not. The above is one defintion, there are many others, certainly not limited to free elections.Ultramarine 05:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Who claims this? Democracies claim this? Or regimes that claim to be democracies claim this? What does it matter what they claim?  I thought were talking about definitions of democracy, rather than who is claiming that they are ruled by the people. Definitions need to be sourced. That's all I'm trying to get through to you. We can't have original research. BillyBoom 05:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, Wikpedia states all different views and does not declare one to be the winner. The advocates of different versions of democracy have claimed that their definition means that people have the ulitmate power. I think that this is the least common factor. If you disagree, fine. We will certainly not state that democracy means elections or someting like that, but then instead simply state that there are many different views, sometimes contradictory, of what democracy is.Ultramarine 05:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, all the definitions do not state that the people have "ultimate power." I gave you some that state people merely have the power to elect officials. That's not "ultimate power" other than in the sense that they have ultimate power over who is going to be elected, and that is all. They certainly don't have the power to control the official once he's been placed in office for 4 years, so the people don't have ultimate power. BillyBoom 05:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC) By the way, I don't know that there are "many different definitions." I keep coming across the same one, which is, it is a democracy is there are elections. There may well be only 2 or 3 definitions out there. BillyBoom 05:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that this means ultimate power. You have not presented any evidence for that your view is universal. Again, we NPOV solution is to simply state that there are many different views, sometimes contradictory, of what democracy is. I have mentioned many different views above.Ultramarine 05:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No you didn't mention many different views of what democracy is. You mentioned many different TYPES of democracy. That still leaves the question of how "democracy" is defined. As far as I know, there is only one definition. I keep coming across the same general definition in my searching. You haven't provided any sourced alternatives. BillyBoom 05:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You have certainly not given any single definition of democracy. That those system I described above called themselves democratic and are very different from each other is not in dispute.Ultramarine 05:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes I have given a single definition of democracy. It's a system where the people have the power to decide who is in office through elections. The systems you mentioned say they are democratic, yes, but what about them is democractic? That's the question. A Ford, Oldsmobile, and Chevrolet are all types of automobiles and the manufacturer tells us they are all automobiles but that still doesn't tell us what it means to be an automobile. Analagously, telling us what each type of democracy is doesn't tell us what a democracy is in general. For that we need sourced definitions. We can't make them up. BillyBoom 05:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, Wikipedia does not declare one view to be correct. The other systems above have also stated that they are democratic. Read NPOV again, all views should be represented.Ultramarine 05:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with NPOV. I am not saying to state only one definition. I'm saying to state all notable definitions. So far, in my looking through sources I've only seen one general definition, which is that a democracy is a system where the people have the power to decide who is in office through elections. If you have any other definition then you need to source it. We don't allow original research on Wikipedia. BillyBoom 05:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sortition:
 * This is a method of elections that is used IN democracy. It is not a definition of democracy. BillyBoom 06:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Direct democracy:
 * This is KIND of democracy. It is not a definition of democracy but a definition of DIRECT democracy. BillyBoom 06:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Deliberative democracy:
 * This is KIND of democracy. It is not a definition of democracy but a definition of DELIBERATIVE democracy. BillyBoom 06:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This are forms of democracy that do not use eletions.Ultramarine 06:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, so then there's probably another definition of democracy out there. But you can't just make it up. You need a source. BillyBoom 06:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I have given 3 different forms of democracy that do not use elections. I do not need to give one "true" definition. I will just note that there are many different views.Ultramarine 06:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking you to give one "true" definition. I'm saying if you put in a definition then it should be sourced. You don't have to put a definition in at all if you don't want to. You can say that there are different forms of democracy. I'll probably be putting a definition in. BillyBoom 06:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What definiton? Ultramarine 06:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That a democracy is a system where an official being in office is contingent upon the will of the majority. BillyBoom 06:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That is not true for the forms above.Ultramarine 06:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't say I was going to say that it was THE definition of democracy. I was going to give at as one definition of democracy. BillyBoom 06:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

My latest proposal below.Ultramarine 06:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't like the intro, because it is saying that the literal Greek meaning of "Democracy" is THE definition today. And, it's not true, as I've shown. BillyBoom 06:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It only says literally and gives the etymology.Ultramarine 06:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the implication is that the literal meaning is the definition. Something could be added like, some/many scholars do not use this original meaning but use it to refer to a system "whose centerpiece is the principle of free elections." BillyBoom 06:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have changed it to what should be completely neutral. We are not going to declare the "true" meaning, that is not allowed in Wikipedia.Ultramarine 06:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Latest proposal
Democracy is a form of government. There are many different forms and the methods used to govern differ. While the term democracy is often used in the context of a political state, the principles are also applicable to other areas of governance.


 * This is completely uninformative. You could use the same "definition" for Monarchy or Oligarchy. --Drono 05:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Varieties
The definition of democracy is made complex by the varied concepts used in different contexts and discussions. Democracy literally means rule by the people (from the Greek demos, "people," and kratos, "rule"). Aristotle contrasted democracy, majority rule, to that of oligarchy and autocracy, where political authority is highly concentrated. Political systems, or proposed political systems, claiming or claimed to be democratic have ranged very broadly. For example:
 * Aristotle contrasted rule by the many (democracy), with rule by the few (oligarchy), and with rule by a single person (autocracy), but he also described the law courts which were selected by lot as democratic and described elections as oligarchic


 * if you are talking about Aristotle, then quite rightly the democracy/oligarchy/monarchy division is important, but it really needs to mention that Greek democracy was not elected and that e.g. the Greeks included the law courts in their definition. This shows not only that the system of selection changes, but also the government institutions covered - please stop removing it Mr Ultramarine --Mike 16:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This is original research. The Athenian democracy included elections. Also, the article does not state the Athenian dmeocracy only involved elections. Allotment is mentioned.Ultramarine 16:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If Aristotle is original research then what isn't? According to the best authority on Athenian democracy that I have (Athenian democracy at the time of desmosthenes) following an extensive review of all the historical evidence it appears about 10% of maggistrates were elected and 90% were allotted. I don't know where you get this idea of original research, read Plato, Aristotle, Herodotus and the experts and they all agree - but somehow you know better - which is the original research? --Mike 19:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * American democracy includes juries, but to suggest that it is principly a system based on the jury would be a huge distortion. But you seem to have accepted the last quote. I also like the additional info on the three layers - but I was serious about a quote, because I think people reading might want to follow it up.--Mike 17:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Tribal assemblies.
 * Systems randomly selecting leaders from the population (see Sortition).
 * Systems seeking consensus (see Deliberative democracy).
 * Even what is usually seen as de facto dictatorships which may claim to be democratic and hold sham elections to gain legitimacy (for example, the former German Democratic Republic).
 * If you use a perjorative definition "democracy=elections", then of course the idea of a socialist democracy looks stupid and a "sham", but I refer you to: [] quite clearly the East had a very different view of democracy, one which deserves to be featured in an article on democracy (THIS IS NOT JUST A US ENCYCLOPEDIA!) The communist/East idea of democracy stems from the same origins as the "DEMOCRATS" in america, an idea of giving the working class power (in which elections were one of a number of means and not an end in itself!)  --Mike 14:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Main varieties include:

Direct
Direct democracy is a political system where the people vote on government decisions, such as questions of whether to approve or reject various laws. It is called direct because the power of making decisions is exercised by the people directly, without intermediaries or representatives. Historically, this form of government has been rare because of the difficulties of getting all the people of a certain territory in one place for the purpose of voting. All direct democracies to date have been relatively small communities; usually city-states. The most notable was the ancient Athenian democracy. Today, direct democracy is existing in countries such as Switzerland, where certain cantons practice it in its literal form, and in other countries, typically those where there is also referendum.

"Modern direct democracy... is characterised by three pillars; referendums...  initiatives... and recall elections (on holders of public office)."

The last of the three is exactly NOT direct democracy. It is representative democracy. This should be obvious. - Pepper 150.203.227.130 10:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Representative
Representative democracy (or Polyarchy ) is so named because the people do not vote on most government decisions directly, but select representatives to a governing body or assembly. Representatives may be chosen by the electorate as a whole (as in many proportional systems) or represent a particular subset (usually a geographic district or constituency), with some systems using a combination of the two. Many representative democracies incorporate some elements of direct democracy, such as referenda.

Liberal
Liberal democracy is a representative democracy which has free and fair elections, and also has rule of law, a separation of powers, and protection of liberties (thus the name liberal) of speech, assembly, religion, and property. Conversely, an illiberal democracy is one where the protections that form a liberal democracy are either nonexistant, or not enforced. The experience in some post-Soviet states drew attention to the phenomenon, although it is not of recent origin. Napoleon for example used plebiscites to ratify his decisions.

Socialist/Marxist
Democracy was clearly used in the East and in the 18/19th century with a very different meaning from that currently in vogue. How can an article on democracy fail to mention this different interpretation (political prejudice?) I suggest something like the following:- --Mike 14:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The socialist view of democracy (social democracy) was developed in the 18th and 19th century by writers such as Karl Marx. Socialists concentrated primarily on putting the working class in government and voting was at best only one of a number of means to achieving a democratic (i.e. socialist) society as demonstrated by the objects of the London Democratic society of 1839: "First:- the Objects of the Democratic Association are, to avail itself of every opportunity in the progress of society, for practically establishing the principles of Social, Political and Universal Equality."

"Second:- To this end, they desire to unite the unrepresented of all classes into one bond of fraternity, for the attainment of Universal Suffrage: this Association being convinced that, until the proletarian classes are fully and faithfully represented, justice in legislation will never be rendered unto them."
 * Lenin is the spiritual father of the Communist states. Here he quotes Marx and Engels:
 * Marx: ...When the workers replace the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie by their revolutionary dictatorship ... to break down the resistance of the bourgeoisie ... the workers invest the state with a revolutionary and transitional form ...
 * Engels: ...And the victorious party” (in a revolution) “must maintain its rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionaries. Would the Paris Commune have lasted more than a day if it had not used the authority of the armed people against the bourgeoisie? Cannot we, on the contrary, blame it for having made too little use of that authority?...
 * Engels: As, therefore, the state is only a transitional institution which is used in the struggle, in the revolution, to hold down one’s adversaries by force, it is sheer nonsense to talk of a ‘free people’s state’; so long as the proletariat still needs the state, it does not need it in the interests of freedom but in order to hold down its adversaries, and as soon as it becomes possible to speak of freedom the state as such ceases to exist ....Ultramarine 14:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ultramarine. Yes they were nasty little shits, but those quotes tell me nothing about their view of democracy! --Mike 20:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ultramarine, surely you know the difference between social democracy and Communist states? Also, not all socialism is Marxist (you pointed this out yourself numerous times). -- Nikodemos 20:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "In Marxist view capitalist state cannot be democratic by its nature, representing dictatorship of bourgeoisie. In capitalist state all media and most political parties are controlled by capitalists. One should have much amount of financial resources or be supported by bourgeosie to win a elections. Even if a representative of people elected he has limited power as all the economic sphere controlled by private capital and functions of central government reduced to the minimum."
 * I've found the above, it clearly needs editing, but it should add to the discussion!--Mike 10:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I had a bit of an editing match with someone (I've forgotten their name). Over the weekend. The paragraph is now in its own section, it has an introduction to explain how the marxist view ties into other views, it gives a very brief explanation why many apparently undemocratic countries (to Americans/UK) called themselves democratic and then covers the range of marxist democracy from social democracy at one end to Marxism at the other. As I don't know much about Marxism, I don't know whether the paragraph on Marxism is too long or whether other views ought to be included. However, as I've said before it is not possible to have a fair article on democracy that does not include information on this view of democracy --Mike 09:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

the "history" section
To suggest that Athenian democracy was only the assembly is about as "economical with the truth" as if modern democracy were talked about as only being a jury. The whole section on the original democracy needs editing to make it representative of what the actual system was rather than what someone appears to want it to be!

I suggest the following:


 * This seem to be your own original research. Do you have any academic sources showing that this is a significant view? Note also the the text mentions the allotment and does not state that the democracy was only the assembly.Ultramarine 15:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, let me go through it phrase by phrase and show the authority backing every statement:


 * The word democracy was coined in ancient Greece and used interchangeably with isonomia[1](equality of political rights).

isonomia:A. equal distribution, equilibrium, balance, II. equality of political rights, Hdt.3.80, 142; (Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon)


 * Debate at Herodotus. 3.80 shows that isonomia, and not demokratia was the term used for popular government in the period between Kleisthenes and Ephialtes. The democratic constitution described at 3.80 is explicitly called demokratia at 6.43 (47).


 * Although Athenian democracy is today considered by many to have been a form of direct democracy (As original but happy, to remove it!)
 * it had two distinguishing features: Firstly the allotment (selection by lot) of ordinary citizens to government offices[1][2] and to the courts; secondarily the assembly of all the citizens.
 * To quote morgens hansen “At the beginning or Book 6 Aristotle enumerates characteristic elements of a democratic constitution. They mostly relate to the magistrates, and prescribe rotation, limited powers, short duration, prohibition of a second term, and selection by lot (or sometimes by election, but in any case from amongst all citizens). In addition all citizens act as judges, all important decisions are taken by the assembly of the people, and all must be reinbursed for political activitiy.”
 * Aristotle defines a citizen in a democracy as one who has the right to be a juror and a participator in the assembly. Of the assembly and the People’s court we know from Philokleon in the Wasps that the courts were sovereign(Ar.vesp. 526-729). And accoring to Morgan Hensen “In the orators, too, the courts are always emphasized as the highest organ of the democracy. (Dem.57.56 Hansen (1990a) 241 nn. 124-6)
 * Herodotus & Aristotle both emphasises Allotment of official ‘’’rather than’’’ the assembly:


 * "“The rule of the people has the fairest name of all, equality, and does none of the things that a monarch does. The lot determines offices, power is held accountable, and deliberation is conducted in public.”"


 * "“Democracy is a form of government in which the offices are distributed by the people among themselves by lot;”	[Aristotle, Rhetoric]"


 * Even the classic quote “. Its administration favors the many instead of the few; this is why it is called a democracy.” The word administration is ' οικειν in the intrans. = “to be managed” where the trans is to “manage, direct a household or a state”. à it is called a democracy because it is managed by the many which clearly refers to the management committees which were allotted!


 * In theory, all the Athenian citizens were eligible to speak and vote in the Assembly, which set the laws of the city-state, but neither political rights, nor citizenship, were granted to women, slaves, or metics. Of the 250,000 inhabitants only some 30,000 on average were citizens. Of those 30,000 perhaps 5,000 might regularly attend one or more meetings of the popular Assembly. (Original)
 * '''Key to the development of Athenian democracy were its huge juries allotted from the citizenry.
 * As the Greeks themselves point out, the jury was the key institution that led to the development of democracy:They not only judged legal cases but also acted as an Upper House able to overturn decisions of the assembly.'''


 * "“by making the law-court, which was elected by lot, all-powerful … as the law-court grew strong, men courted favour with the people as with a tyrant, and so brought the constitution to the present democracy”[Aristotle, Politics 2.1274a, c350BC]"


 * "“he (Solon) does appear to have founded the democracy by constituting the jury-courts from all the citizens. … (making) the law-court, which was elected by lot, all-powerful.” [Aristotle, Politics 2.1274a, c350BC]"


 * The officers & magistrates of Athenian government were mostly allotted; only the generals (strategoi) and a very few other officers were elected. [1]
 * “The 1100 or so magistrates annually selected by lot” (Morgens Hensen P.232)
 * “Just over 100 magistrates chosen not by lot by election included all the military commanders” (Morgens Hensen p233)


 * Ultramarine, if this is "original research" what do you call the rest of it? I doubt any of the rest of this article can be as well sourced!

--Mike 22:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

the 18th and 19th centuries" history section
As written this section implies quite falsely that America was set up as a democracy. This is a lie and ought to be corrected post haste! None of the founding fathers were in favour of a democracy (based on Greece), America was set up as a republic (based on Rome). I don't know why there is this modern attempt to rewrite American history to imply it was set up as a democracy when the founding fathers were in fact universally hostile to the idea of democracy! --Mike 15:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I suggest prefacing the paragraph "the United States can be seen as the first liberal democracy with relatively wide franchise." with "Although not described as a Democracy by the founding fathers," The first view is sourced, the distinction between republic and democracy for the founding fathers and today is discussed in later.Ultramarine 15:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd go further and remove the "with relatively wide suffrage". It's a phrase that really means nothing. 147.10.143.23 13:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The "Democracy and Republicanism" section
Republic, Republicanism, and Republicanism in the United States give many different meanings to the terms, sometimes contradictory, for example excluding or including a monarch. The article already explains the historical difference between republic = constitutional representative democracy and democracy = direct demcoracy. The current text in the "Democracy and Republicanism" is very unclear regarding what meanings of republicanism and democracy are discussed and how they differ. It also gives undue weight to the United States for a general democracy article. The meaning of repulicanism is already well covered in the three articles mentioned. So I suggest changing the title to "Constitutional monarchs and upper chambers" and the text to

"Initially after the American and Frenc revolutions the question was open whether democracies, in order to restrain unchecked majority rule, should have an elitist upper chamber, the members perhaps appointed meritorious experts or having lifetime tenures, or should have a constitutional monarch with limited but real powers. Some countries (as Britain, the Netherlands, Belgium, Scandinavia and Japan) turned powerful monarchs into constitutional monarchs with limited or, often gradually, merely symbolic roles. Often the monarchy was abolished along with the aristocratic system (as in the U.S., France, China, Russia, Germany, Austia, Hungary, Italy, Greece and Egypt). In Australia, the monarchy is seen as hollow shell. However, there is no consensus on how to replace it. Most voters want a powerful president (as in the U.S., France, and Russia), while most politicians want to keep the parliamentary system and have only a weak president (as in Italy and Germany). Many nations had elite upper houses of legislatures which often had lifetime tenure, but eventually these senates lost power (as in Britain) or else became elective and remained powerful (as in the United States)."Ultramarine 09:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * better keep the republicanism section. People always get confused about the two. The American model was the first and most influential for 200 years. The French of course were off-and-on regarding a republic, going through 5 of them with intervals of emperors and dictators. Rjensen 09:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I am still confused by the current text and what republicanism and democracy is supposed to mean and how they differ. Also note that it gives undue weight to the US, as noted above.Ultramarine 10:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * republicanism requires sovereignty of the people--but how does that translate into decision-making by the people is the issue. The US is the main republican model that adopted democracy in stages, so that theorists and actual practitioners looked at it especially (in countries like China, Japan, Australia, Germany, Italy) ; therefore it has to have heavy weight. calling it "undue" is POV. Rjensen 10:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That is one view of republicanism, there are many others. Also, "sovereignty of the people" seems to be the same as the literal meaning of democracy. What is the difference? Ultramarine 10:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "many others" = what evidence for that claim??? (see the article on the subject). The point about sovereignty is that it is not the king/aristocracy that "owns" the country. Before republicanism they really did own it and did sell or buy or inherit kingdoms. Republicans reject that power. Rjensen 10:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The above articles mention many views: anti-monarchy, pro-rule of law (possibly including a monarch), a virtue system, and so on. You argue for a partcular meaning, "sovereignty of the people", which seems identical to democracy in a broad sense. You may be arguing that democracy means elections, but democracy has been applied to many other political systems, like sortition.Ultramarine 10:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * oh I think "soverignty of the people" pretty well covers all forms of republicanism (see Edmund Morgan on the invention of the people.) But "soverighnty of the people" has not been covered in the democracy article, probably because it is a different concept with a different history, as Pocock has shown (very few of the people covered by Pocock believed in democracy--and "democracy" was a negative term in the US in the 1790s for example, when everyone proclaimed they were "republican' but relatively few claimed to be a "democrat". The Democracy article seems to get the soverignty of Parliament mixed up with democracy in dealing with medieval England. Rjensen 11:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Many of the meanings are not identical with "sovereignty of the people". Regarding the historical use of democracy and repubic it is mentioned in the the "Democracy and Republic" section.Ultramarine 11:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Look for example at Merriam-Webster. It mentions two main meanings for republic. The modern one, "a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president". The old one opposing direct democracy: "a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law". No mention of "sovereignty of the people".Ultramarine 11:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * the definition of "republic" is something else again--also confused with democracy. I recommend reading Edmund Morgan, Inventing the People: The Rise of Popular Sovereignty in England and America (1989) which is very clear (Morgan won the Pulitzer prize this year). Rjensen 12:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The Merriam-Webster definition of Republicanism refer to Republic.Ultramarine 12:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * agreed the dictionaries are no help. Look instead at the stanford ency of philosophy: Rjensen 12:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Dictonaries are obviously useful for brief explanations regarding what words mean. Stanford gives yet more views and definitions of republicanism. I suggest discussing these many confusing meanings in the appropriate articles. There is certainly no consensus on what Republicanism is.Ultramarine 12:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Republicanism
The article had a very garbled section on "Republic". I replaced it with the republicanism section that was blanked out some time ago, which explains the concept and discusses some of the relevant history. Rjensen 06:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, there is no consensus on what Republicanism is, see above.Ultramarine 07:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Republicanism is too important to ignore--please don't blank solid information
Ultramarine seems to think that republicanism is unimportant. The long bibliography shows that is entirely false. If he thinks the section can be improved he should try to improve it--blanking it is simply un-Wiki and akin to vandalism. Fact is many people get them mixed up --that's because of a convergence in actual practice in the 20th century. Historically democracy and republicanism were quite different. Ultramarine's argument that there is no "consensus" on republicanism is irrelevant and false. If he thinks there are alternative views he should include them. Along with citations please--he can start with the bibliography that I added to the article. Rjensen 08:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not think it is unimportant. But you insist on a single unsourced definition when there are many, as mentioned above. You have given no explanation for deleting the previous ones mentioned and have given no source for your particular prefered one. In addition, undue weight to the US.Ultramarine 08:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest the following. Please state concrete objections:

"Democracy" and "Republic"
In contemporary usage, the term "democracy" refers to a government chosen by the people, whether it is direct or representative. The term "republic" has many different meanings but today often refers to a representative democracy with an elected head of state, such as a President, serving for a limited term, in contrast to states with a hereditary monarch as a the head of state, even if these states also are representative democracies with an elected head of government such as a Prime Minister.

In historical usages and especially when considering the works of the Founding Fathers of the United States, the word "democracy" refers solely to direct democracy, whilst a representative democracy where representatives of the people govern in accordance with laws and usually also a constitution is referred to as a republic. Using the term "democracy" to refer solely to direct democracy retains some popularity in United States conservative and libertarian circles. (Republicanism can also refer to several other ideas: a virtue system, anti-monarchism, advocacy for rule of law, and especially in recent interpretations, advocacy for liberty.)

The original framers of the United States Constitution were notably cognizant of what they perceived as a danger of majority rule in oppressing freedom and liberty of the individual. For example, James Madison, in Federalist Paper No. 10, advocates a constitutional republic over a democracy to protect the individual from the majority. The framers carefully created the institutions within the Constitution and the United States Bill of Rights. They kept what they believed were the best elements of majority rule. But they were mitigated by a constitution with protections for individual liberty, a separation of powers, and a layered federal structure.Ultramarine 08:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The term "republicanism" refers to a powerful line of political thought that people often confuse with democracy. It is not to be confudes with "republic". It therefore has to be examined in the article on democracy. The passage on "republic" above is quite confused and is not based on sources, and does not even show an awareweness of the vast literature on republicanism. It simply does not do the job. One might note that in the USA, the two main parties are called "Democratic" and "Republican" for a reason--and indeed Jefferson called his party the party of republicanism in the 1790s. ("democracy" was a term of ridicule into the 1820s.)
 * There are sources. In contrast, you have given none for your prefered single defintion.Ultramarine 08:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry- the college dictionary does not do the job. A good place to start is the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article: The Wiki article on Republicanism has a long bibliography and I already added these sources to the Democracy bibliography: (as well as nearly all of the other books):


 * Joyce Appleby, Liberalism and Republicanism in the Historical Imagination (1992)
 * Becker, Peter, Juergen Heideking and James A. Henretta, eds. Republicanism and Liberalism in America and the German States, 1750-1850. Cambridge University Press. 2002.
 * Castiglione, Dario. "Republicanism and its Legacy," European Journal of Political Theory (2005) v 4 #4 pp 453-65.online version
 * Edmund Morgan, Inventing the People: The Rise of Popular Sovereignty in England and America (1989)
 * Wood, Gordon S.  The Radicalism of the American Revolution (1993), examines democratic dimensions of republicanism. Wood has been the most influential American scholar (along with Pocok and Bailyn), Rjensen 08:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Giving a long list of book is uninteresting. You need to cite exact pages. Dictionaries are obviously useful for defintions of words and how they are used. I have cited Stanford above.Ultramarine 08:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Start with the Wiki article on republicanism then go to the Stanford Encyclopedia article online (it does not have page numbers). One sentence definitions from a dictionary do not take us very far, do they? An excellent book on the American version is Lance Banning Jeffersonian Persuasion: Evolution of a Party Ideology 1978. Note that historians (starting with Jameson and Beard) have said for 90 years that it is FALSE that The framers carefully created democratic institutions within the Constitution and the United States Bill of Rights. That sentence should read: "The framers carefully created republican institutions within the Constitution and the United States Bill of Rights." The mistake shows how easy it is to mix up basic terms. Rjensen 09:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, if citing thick books you must give exact page numbers. Trust me, I have been in an arbcom case where this was stated. If citing shorter articles, then page numbers are not needed. Again, dictionaries are good sources for definitons or usages. Certainly, some define republic and republican as you do, but many others do not. NPOV requires that all views should be mentioned.Ultramarine 09:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The point is that republicanism is not especially controversial. Historians debate of course over exact dates, over whether civic virtue was essential or just very important, over whose books were most widely read. The one real debate is whether or not republicanism overshadowed Lockean liberalism, or vice versa, or whether they grew up together. But republicanism is as precisely defined as democracy, and indeed more so I think. There is a terrific debate in Australia going on in recent years (see Republicanism in Australia) -- a highly democratic society that is debating whether or not it should be republican. Rjensen 09:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, you have not given sources as Wikipedia requires. I have now given such above. NPOV requires that all the views of what republicanism is should be mentioned.Ultramarine 09:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I added the citations requested by Ultramarine re republicanism. Now shall we go through the rest of the article and flag or delete every paragraph that is not sourced?? Rjensen 10:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You are violating NPOV by stating that your preferred defintion is the correct one. Again, NPOV requires that all views should be mentioned without asserting that one in particular is correct. No explanation given for deleting other views. Still undue weight to the US. Still not always page numbers in sources.Ultramarine 10:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

In contemporary usage, the term "democracy" refers to a government chosen by the people, whether it is direct or representative. The term "republic" has many different meanings but today often refers to a representative democracy with an elected head of state, such as a President, serving for a limited term, in contrast to states with a hereditary monarch as a the head of state, even if these states also are representative democracies with an elected head of government such as a Prime Minister.

''In historical usages and especially when considering the works of the Founding Fathers of the United States, the word "democracy" refers solely to direct democracy, whilst a representative democracy where representatives of the people govern in accordance with laws and usually also a constitution is referred to as a republic. Using the term "democracy" to refer solely to direct democracy retains some popularity in United States conservative and libertarian circles. (Republicanism can also refer to several other ideas: a virtue system, anti-monarchism, advocacy for rule of law, and especially in recent interpretations, advocacy for liberty.)''

''The original framers of the United States Constitution were notably cognizant of what they perceived as a danger of majority rule in oppressing freedom and liberty of the individual. For example, James Madison, in Federalist Paper No. 10, advocates a constitutional republic over a democracy to protect the individual from the majority. The framers carefully created the institutions within the Constitution and the United States Bill of Rights. They kept what they believed were the best elements of majority rule. But they were mitigated by a constitution with protections for individual liberty, a separation of powers, and a layered federal structure.''
 * This mentions all major concepts without giving undue weight and without stating that one in particular is correct, as required by NPOV. Can you please state your objections to this version?Ultramarine 11:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Rrepublic and republicanism are different words with different meanings. Republicanism in recent decades has become one of the major topics of research in history and political science and must be covered. "This mentions all major concepts" is not true. The passage refers to part of the debate in 1787-8 ignoring the entire period 1770-1865 except for that one important point. It's not a matter of a one-line webster's dictionary definition here--it's a matter of one of the main lines of political thought in the world, one that is tied into democracy. Key issues involve the role of virtue, corruption, independence, and civic duty. (one duty is voting--but military service is also important). Leaving republicanism out results in serious confusion. I suggest looking at the Wiki articles on the Democratic-Republican Party (United States) to see how important the matter is. Rjensen 11:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Your views regarding republicanism is argued by some recently, not all. Again, Wikipedia NPOV requires that all views should be mentioned without asserting that one in particular is true. You passionately think that one particular view of Republicanism is the only correct one, but the other views should also be mentioned. Also as mentioned earlier, do not delete sourced views you do not like, still undue weight to the US, and still not always page numbers in claimed sources.Ultramarine 11:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Here is still another view of what Republicanism is: "The reconstruction of Florentine republicanism stressing the ideal of a republic of frugal, public-minded citizens in danger of being corrupted by luxury and the pursuit of private gain, a theme that could be traced back to ancient, especially Roman, authors, provided an attractive inspiration for a revisionist view of American history. Bernard Bailyn developed an image of The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (1967), based on the classical republican rhetoric to be found in the political pamphlets and controversialist literature of the time leading up to the American founding. This recovered republicanism could counterbalance the canonical view, most clearly and forcefully expressed in Louis Hartz's Liberal Tradition in America (1955), of an American consensus of Lockean derivation, centered on the defense of property rights and animated by liberal individualism, an outlook so much taken for granted in Americans' understanding of themselves as to have become the unexamined nexus of American life. The republican model provided an important corrective to the dominant orthodoxy and a great impetus to historical research."
 * Furthermore, while the difference between republic and democracy should be explained, I would like a reason for why Republicanism must be extensively mentioned in an article about democracy? NPOV would requre an equal mentioning of Liberalism, and also the many other political schools which have made claims to democracy, like Social Democracy, Democratic Socialism, Christian Democracy, and so on.Ultramarine 12:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Republicanism and democracy always get mixed up and so have to be explained. It is not NPOV to explain them. At present the article is full of references to liberalism, and indeed I agree with Ultramarine that the article should explain Social Democracy, Democratic Socialism, Christian Democracy. (add "industrial democracy" too).Rjensen 12:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You have not answered to other arguments above. Please do. We can certainly add a short section regarding different political schools. However, it violates NPOV to have several sections describing the particular variant of Republicanism that you think it the only correct one. I cannot see that the article is filled with references to liberalism. In fact, I cannot find a single link to this.Ultramarine 13:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * How does it violate NPOV to have an accurate, fully sourced discussion of an important topic? It is not true that there are multiple different republicanism. (Of course different authors emphasize different aspects.) The Wiki rule is that when there are multiple interpretations: we should report all the important variations. And we do, with discussions of liberty, upper chanbers, aristocracies, monarchies, civic virtue and corruption. (Is there a variant left out?--please tell us so we can put it in.)

As for liberalism, that is a different issue entirely. If an editor thinks article is deficient in liberalism please add information. Please do not make the article deficient in republicanism in order to "equalize" mediocrity. Rjensen 21:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, I have given many different views of what Republicanism is. Even one stating that it means opposing private gain. You are violating NPOV by stating that your prefered version is the correct one. Also as mentioned earlier, do not delete sourced views you do not like, still undue weight to the US, and still not always page numbers in claimed sources. In addition, Republicanism has enormous undue weight now and you have given no explanation for why your prefered political school should have this much weight, except stating that there may be misunderstandings regarding the concept. If so, then a simple link to Republicanism should suffcie.Ultramarine 21:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Futhermore, why are you repeatedly deleting that initially those without property were excluded from the franchise in the US?. There is no need to have an exclusively pro-Republicanism (your variant) and pro-US article and exclude every other view.Ultramarine 21:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)A
 * The majority of adult male citizens in US could vote by 1776 (according to Brown and Brown 1955 and many other studies summarized in Dinkin 1978); the property restrictions in most places were nominal (most men owned property), and the last restrictions were dropped in Jacksonian era. (see Keyssar book on Right to Vote for elaborate detail). The article is notr "pro-Republicanism"--it merely describes what Republicanism was and relates it to democracy. There are numerous refs to republicanism elsewhere, such as Australia, but the US was the first and became the model for Latin America and Europe. Rjensen 22:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * But it was certainly a restriction of the franchise for some men and should be mentioned. It is one reason the Polity Project does not give the US a top score initially. Taking just one other issue, why must we explain Republicanism in great detail in this article? What is wrong with simply stating "Republicanism and Liberalism have a complex relationship to democracy and republic. See these articles for more details".Ultramarine 22:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * yes the restrictions can be mentioned, but the article strangely spends very little on voting restrictions in different countries. You should add something on that point. (What countries allow non civitens to vote? for example, or the history of restrictions in Britain.) The problem on the 2nd suggestion is twofold: the other article do not spend much time on the democracy issue. And democracy itself gets confused with liberal democracy and repiblicanism. That is where clarity is needed.
 * The reason we mention the US in more detail is because its early democracy. We should also mention the early restrictions. No need to list this for every nation. Unfortunately, just deleting this makes that article look exclusively pro-US. If Republicanism does not spend much time on the relationship to democracy, why not correct it in that article and simply link to it from this article? It seems a very serioius omission if that article does not discuss this.Ultramarine 22:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I have corrected the problem you state in the Republicanism article by adding your text on this in this article there. So now there should be now problem with making the brief statement above, in addition to the the proposed text on democracy and republic, which respects NPOV, is sourced, and does not have undue weight to some view. Much of the above discussion is about what Republicanism is and should be discussed in that article. I hope this will satify all. If the current dispute continues about what Republicanism is, I will have to start doing extensive editing of the Republicanism article, which has many problems, but I would prefer for someone else to do this.Ultramarine 01:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I will be extensively rewriting the Democracy article to correct its many weaknesses especially ignoring minority rights, civil rights, the democratic spirit, and liberalism. Rjensen 01:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Fine. Please respond to the suggestions and arguments above.Ultramarine 01:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The democracy article is full of unsourced speculation that has to be removed. I'm working at that now. As for stripping out the republicanism business, I think that is not a service to users. Rjensen 01:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You are adding unsourced speculation and your personal opinions. Please respond to why you are selectively excluding the limited franchise, why you are deleting sourced views you do not like, why you insist on undue weight for the US, and why you still still not always give page numbers in claimed sources. In addition, expain why Republicanism should have enormous undue weight.Ultramarine 01:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ultramarine and I agree that unsources, speculative and POV material cannot be allowed. The democracy article is full of unsourced stuff taken from who-knows-where. It ios totally wrong about English history (and Slavic too). Passages that fail the #1 Wiki test of verifiability will be deleted.Rjensen 01:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the article is now am unsourced pro-Republicanism piece expressing your personal opinoins and deleting and excluding all opposing views. Why are you refusing to give an concrete answers to my objections above? Please respond to them.Ultramarine 01:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I made a lot of changes. What objections do you now have? Rjensen 01:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Some examples: You have simply deleted large parts of the history section. Why? You deleted that sortition is a form of democracy. Are you seriously arguing that Athens was not a democracy? Why are you not explaining why ýou are deleting all negative info about the US, like the lack of property rights?Ultramarine 01:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Bad unsourced history is unacceptable. Wiki first rule: reliable sources needed. Much of the history was simply false--about democracy in medieval or in monestaries period for example. I did not say Athens was not a democracy; it is included and has a link to the full article on Athenian Democracy. And yes, property restrictions are back in as per request. Rome as democracy??? Medieval Russia as democracy?? Not likely (and of course, zero sources). Rjensen 02:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You deleted some sourced material. Why? Again, why did you delete that sortition is a form of democracy? Why did you delete that some tribal assemblies have been described as democratic, like the Iroquois? What was incorrect with long material about Athens and England that you deleted? Why are you violating NPOV by stating in the intro that one particular definition of democracy is correct when there are many competing? Why are you selectively keeping unosurced pro-Republicanism and unsourced pro-US information? Why should the article have an extremely long section on your own preferred political view, Republicanism, when this material is covered in the Republicanism article? Ultramarine 02:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Why are you violating NPOV by again insisting that there is only one definition on Republicanism and that it should be mentioned in the article? Why did you delete the sourced statement that democracy today usually is assued to be liberal democracy? Ultramarine 08:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Original Greek
User comment: notice that someone has changed this article by excluding the original Greek words of the term 'democracy' written in greek alphabet. Let the one who made the original article bring it back.

Some Facts
(PURELY THEORETICAL) Notice these facts:

1. Democracy - people (culturological domains) rule themselves the way they see fit.

2. Hegemony - some organisation superimposes and rules over multiple culturological domains.

3. Democracy is an anthonym of hegemony (the sole purpose of existance of that term).

Paradox: according to above written facts, how can for example United States of America, or European Union, or indeed a whole Latin writting (Roman-catholic) domain be democracy? (one organisation superimposes rule over multitude of nations, which by definition implies hegemony, which by logic excludes democracy; further more they are all saying that membership in their hegemony is a matter of free choice, yet, if you pay attention to details you will notice that in some cases they indeed perfidiously force other culturological domains into submission)

(Just commenting on what are facts regardless of mine or anybody else's oppinion.)


 * The democracy article neds some quality upgrades. Ultramarine has been citing pocket dictionaries instead of serious scholarship: reliable sources only please. Rjensen 08:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I am citing Merriam-Webster, often considered the most important dictionary among writers. Certainly an important view for what words mean. In addition I have cited other sources.Ultramarine 08:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No the pocket dictionary is not good enough for Wikipedia when there are more reliable sources. (It's a tertiary source like another enyclopedia and Wiki rules warn against that). Rjensen 09:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, it is not a pocket dictionary. I cite many different sources, what is usually considered the most important diotionary among writers is an important view regarding what words mean. Reliable sources accepts tertiary sources, even if a dictionary is a tertiary source, which is questionable.Ultramarine 09:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Wiki rule#1 reliable sources only
Sections that do not have solid reliable sources will be deleted--a democracy after all, has to follow the rules.
 * Yes. Pleae explain why you delete sourceds statements, like that democracy is usually considered to be liberal democracy today, and insist on that your own prefered version of what Republicanism is should be stated as the truth when sources show many different views.Ultramarine 09:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Reliable sources states: "When wikipedians have the ambition to write a better encyclopedia entry than those extant, it does not suffice to rely on the content of such tertiary sources. Therefore, in general, as primary sources are also to be treated with caution (see above), secondary sources are the stock material on which Wikipedia articles depend for their references." As for the dictionaries, it is much better to rely on a serious unabridged dictionary, especially the OED, which is MUCH more useful on historical materials, rather than ones intended for college students that downplay historical usage. Rjensen 10:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Please do not avoid answering the questions above, you deleted material using other sources. Regarding dictionaries, it is answered in the section above.Ultramarine 10:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Fulfilled Request
As requested in the priority one to do list since May 14th 2006 for this article I have taken action to implement on September 29th 2006. Please read, discuss, and keep as the consensus of the group here sees fit. I plan to immediately begin work on the next to do list at priority one. Absolutely no worries at all. Neutralaccounting 03:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC) (re-edited to match generic respose template)


 * I see no need for this. There are more than 150 nations in the world. I do not think there is room to list all of them. Furthermore, original research and personal opinions should be avoided. For example Freedom House gives a published list of the state of democracy in the world's nations in their report Freedom in the World 2006.Ultramarine 22:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It was on the top of To Do list and which was listed as a priority one request!. I took several hours out of my time over two days to fulfill this to do request. If you don't like it, then have the To Do list changed.. Don't waste my time that I have to fulfill priority one requests. Neutralaccounting 22:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Changed. It would certainly be possible to discuss this but it is very difficult to avoid orginal resarch, personal opinions, edit wars, and even agree on what "democracy" is. For example, some people think that Cuba is democracy according to some particular definition of democracy. Few nations will admit that they are not democratic. The best place to discuss in detail if a nation is democratic or not is probably on pages related to that nation, like Cuba and democracy and Elections in Cuba.Ultramarine 22:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * There are other priority one requests on other to do lists that require my attention. Neutralaccounting 03:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Constitutional Monarchy Section
Hi, just dropping in and I thought I would mention that the constitutional monarchy section seems to concentrate quite a lot on australia and on hardly anything else. Zoanthrope 18:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

US history of democracy, 1960s
What is the problem with that proud US history??

Replaced vandalized phrases (obscenities) with correct words from most recent correct revision.
I'm just having a blast reading about Socrates, Plato and Aristotle and I clicked the democracy link from the Socrates article... low and behold some troglodyte has edited a few words in the article and put in profane names for body parts. I couldn't just leave them, but not knowing how to "rollback" I just looked at the original text before the vandalism and put the correct words back. Keep up the good work Wikiens - I visit at least once a day, usually more often, to learn something new!

Rome, Dutch, some comments
I noticed some problems with the article I'd like to try to correct at some point. First off, the word democracy might be Greek, but surely the idea has a longer history and can be found in primative tribal government and so forth. The article should start off by discussing what democracy is an isn't according to Aristotle and the various other thinkers on this subject. Second, Rome was not a representative democracy. The Senate was made up of former elected officials who held office for life. In contrast, Athens had a representative legislature called the Council of Five Hundred (chosen by lottery). Finally, there is a gap between the Middle Ages and the 18th century when some rather important developments were taking place. (BTW, 1688 is not the Middle Ages). Where is the Reformation, the Dutch Republic or Calvin in Geneva?

Freedom House
I don't know why there isn't a map showing all the states in the world that 'claim to be democratic'. This is an article on democracy, not a liberal democracy. So why is the only map in the article that horrid Freedom House map showing "partly free" and "free" states. Freedom House's articles on the rights of people in different countries is good, but this article deals with democracy not freedom. Furthermore I'm of the opinion that having this as the only map and so early in the article is just adding an unnecessary POV. People see this map and notice that Russia is "not free", so they might think it's a dictatorship, but it actually *is* a democracy (though perhaps a very corrupt one). So here's what I think;


 * The Freedom House Map should not be the only map of 'democracy' in the article. (It's about freedom not democracy, they aren't the same).
 * A map should show which countries "claim to be democratic". It could distinguish in two colours; those that claim to be democratic (like North Korea) and those that claim to be democratic and allow opposition parties (like Russia). That's whether opposition parties are allowed in theory or not.

Both maps would just give more information to the reader. Kyle sb 15:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I vote a strong Yes.  BruceHallman 15:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Added map.Ultramarine 16:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

hello tesa


 * The standard should be whether the top decision-making positions are subject to election, either directly or indirectly, and whether these elections are seriously contested. China calls itself a "people's democratic dictatorship." There are "opposition" parties, but they are run by the government and play little or no role in elections. Egypt is classified as democratic on the map, but Egypt's real opposition parties are illegal and the one that participates in elections (the Wafd) has been co-opted by the ruling party. And what about Iran? It has a "supreme leader" chosen by clerics and elections in which the candidates are vetted on an ideological basis. These have become such a joke that the opposition didn't even bother participating in the last one.
 * Where is a change of government through elections a serious possibility? I would say only in countries where the job of the number one decision-maker is subject to election and where the ruling party gets less than 90 percent of the vote.
 * Kauffner 13:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

hi i am a 7th grader doing a project on democracy!

A Question Concerning Democracy
I disagree with democracy solely because it could in many respects be characterized as a popularity contest marked by inefficiency, illogical or destructive decision making, and incompetence. Is there any sort of group or word that embodies or agrees with that viewpoint? Robinson0120 10:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * A chess grand master will always beat the joint effort of general public. However, it is more important to understand, that there is no alternative to democracy regarding the destiny of the planet and mankind YouTube - Chomsky speaks about human destiny. It is important to understand that the negative properties you bring up here are inherent to the psychopathic monsters who kill the life in the interests of dominating bourgeois, as explained in The Corporation. In fact, these are capitalists, our ruling class, who produces and controls the irrational consumers, which must make uninformed (controlled) choises, including marketed candidates. The capitalises are effective killing our green planet and people for profit. There is no crime they would not commit to maximize profits. The environment, social and labour protection, health care, public education and libraries — all these achievements are made by demos in struggle against the greedy governing owners. When people do not control their destiny, they are turned into slaves and the miserable wages of the biorobots prevent further technological advance. I beleive that there is always a true beauty and it is objective rather than subjective; that is, if some thing is better (more natural, optimal) for you then it will also be for the others (given we all have the same interests and education level). Just stop deceiving people by entertantment and use TV for educational purposes. Democracy is a serious work indeed, it is not voting for the fascist marketed candidates and exulting: "Hey, we are democracy, lets liberate Iraq, Iran and Venesuela by droping more bombs and white phosphorus on these barbarians!!!" Incidentially, the advertisment's purpose is killing your competitor by propaganda agencies rather by making better things, and therefore, should be banned as any tool of deception. Look at science and engeneering -- where people creatively explore and construct things they feel they need. They operate according to plans, despite the result is not unknown. Any development needs a plan. And the single plan will be good for all, it will be objective and people will agree. The meaning of human life is to advance the society by contributing the culture (knowledge). And that is why the independent indiviluals (anarchists) invoke for a rational social plan. There is only one objective, there is only one criterial of beauty (the minimum of resouse/energy waste in doing something useful), there is only one society. Unfortunately, the socialsm is unreliable in the face of capitalism which always undermines it. So there is always a group -- the dominating elite, which always considers the power of society/demos as a threat to their prosperity/property. But in addition to democracy, the capitalists also dislike the competition, leaving it for poor. Excuse me for a long message. The validity of your viewpoint is dependent on the point it is viewed from -- the consciousness (interests and intelligence) of the individual who you oppose to the group. --Javalenok 21:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

That certainly was a long reply. Let me take a few minutes (seemed to turn into hours) to respond to what you said.

First I'll discuss Noam Chomsky's statements. I have heard that he is a left-wing lunatic from a few sources and a brilliant activist from others. I personally think his comments are eloquent and thought provoking, but are also opinionated. Take, for example, this quotation:

"At this stage of history, either one of two things is possible: either the general population will take control of its own destiny and will concern itself with community interests, guided by values of solidarity, and sympathy and concern for others; or alternatively, there will be no destiny for anyone to control."

That's an incredibly strong statement. Only one of two outcomes are possible concerning today's modern events? Why should it be necessary that the "general population" concern itself with its community, especially since Chomsky later refers to the community as being the "global community" probably due to the process of globalization? Do starving children in Africa belong to this "general population?" What about developing countries that are trying to gain a foothold in trade and business? It's very noble to speak of environmental protection, moral duties concerning life and liberty, and other such concepts, but one also has to consider differences. Industrialized nations can say that we need to stop polluting the environment, ensure freedoms, and protect our rights; but what can developing countries say? Do they have the choice to turn to alternative energy? Do they have the resources? Do they have stable governments that allow freedoms? If not, how will they form these governments? Through revolutions? If so, will they be peaceful or violent? Policies and neglect in African states are prime examples of so called human rights abuse. Furthermore, how exactly is one to go about concerning itself with community interests? America donates momentous sums to African states, yet that money never seems to end up in the hands of the people, instead landing in the hands of what some would call tyrannical dictators. One cannot ignore differences and circumstances when making such a bold assertion, that only one path or another can be followed. It seems by these statements that I'm only addressing that first statement, though, (in a tangential manner) so I'll move on to my other comments.

"The question, in brief, is whether democracy and freedom are values to be preserved or threats to be avoided."

This statement is particularly troublesome. It asserts, whether intentionally or not, that democracy and freedom are linked. Even under the most tyrannical of dictators there are always civil freedoms. For example, under Stalin (who many consider as such), the rights of women improved. One could argue that democracy is the only system under which a great majority of rights can be guaranteed or even possible, given that Europe, Japan, and America, regions where freedoms are arguably most bountiful, are democratic nations. This, however, is an error in logic, because specific types of government such as meritocracy, so called enlightened despotism, and even anarchism have never truly seen the light of day, especially not in the twenty-first century. My biology teacher opens up the mind of our class to a number of interesting concepts, one of them being the fact that you cannot judge the veracity and success of a system merely by its outcome. I am quite certain that a specific term of logic refers to this concept, but I do not know of its exact title. In any event, my point is that tying democracy and freedom together, following with a suggestion that elite capitalist thought is against freedom itself is an error in logic and fact.

That's all I'm going to say for Chomsky's arguments (Which took me more time than I'd originally planned to spend...). Now on to your main argument.

"It is important to understand that the negative properties you bring up here are inherent to the psychopathic monsters who kill the life in the interests of dominating bourgeois, as explained in The Corporation. In fact, these are capitalists, our ruling class, who produces and controls the irrational consumers, which must make uninformed (controlled) choices, including marketed candidates."

Calling the ruling class psychopathic seems a little extreme, but I'm not worried about that. My main concern is the statement "which produces and controls the irrational consumers, which must make uninformed (controlled) choices, including marketed candidates." The plain fact that both of us are discussing this topic disputes that because we are making our own choices and statements which are, quite frankly, far different than the choices of any ruling class I've ever seen. Furthermore, we are, at least moderately, informed about some aspects of the topic and its ramifications. I see plenty of human sheep, if you'll excuse the insult, in my daily life (which consists mainly of home and school, but is something of an indicator), and even some of those individuals have some thought of their own which conflicts with that of the ruling class (that is to say, some ideas which are perceived to be "moral" [Like abstinence and certain laws], which one could probably attribute to elite thought, although there are quite a few morals that are basically fundamental to human civilization). To insinuate that any organization could control individuals on such a wide and massive scale to such a degree cannot be right, because there will always be at the least a minority that does not follow convention- which is, once again, why we are discussing this subject. I have one question with the statement "marketed candidates;" are you referring to political candidates? If so, I will have to disagree with that as well, because you are always eligible to vote for a non-partisan candidate- in fact, you can always vote for yourself.  "The capitalists are effectively killing our green planet and people for profit. There is no crime they would not commit to maximize profits."

I always thought are planet was more of a blue shade when seen from space. Anyways, to say that capitalists are killing the planet is somewhat erroneous. That same biology teacher I referred to brought up another point concerning the environment that made me think: that any effects of humanity on the planet are quite natural because we are organisms. In other words, our adaptations (namely our intelligence and its products) are natural creations born of our mind and effort. Therefore, one could also argue that whatever murder we commit is a natural consequence. Furthermore, is it really possible for us to "kill" our planet? The dinosaurs and other prehistoric life were wiped out by a number of simultaneous events, yet we stand (or sit) here today, essentially new kids on the metaphorical "block" of life. The best we could do to kill would involve the use of nuclear bombs and biochemical agents, and how much greater are those tools than meteors, floods, or storms? Life would remain, and would repopulate the Earth. In time, the effects of radiation would disappear and the world would simply begin anew. This is, of course, all conjecture, but it is quite theoretically possible (according to my limited understanding; I'm only 15, anyways, so take it with a grain of salt). Also, there must be some crimes that capitalists would not commit; for example, genocide of the human race- then they wouldn't exist anymore. It is also shaky to speak of "crimes-" in America, it would be a human rights violation to mutilate a woman's genitals, whereas in parts of Africa and the Middle East it is an accepted practice. It is somewhat interestingly not a crime to remove the foreskin from a male baby, however, which some consider mutilation. One should consider what actually constitutes a "crime-" I believe crimes, and morals, while we're at it, are mostly a product of society and probably elite thought, which personally seems to reduce the credence that either have.

I'll skip ahead to this statement: Democracy is a serious work indeed, it is not voting for the fascist marketed candidates and exulting: "Hey, we are democracy, lets liberate Iraq, Iran and Venezuela by dropping more bombs and white phosphorus on these barbarians!!!"

I agree; Democracy is a serious work. For a moment, let us assume that true democracy were instituted during the early 1900's in the United States of America, and somebody posed the question of whether or not to lynch a black man who reportedly raped a white woman, with only the testimony of the white woman and black man to decide. What would happen to him? I suppose the answer should be fairly obvious, but it may depend on the location. He might have lived in one of the Northern states, but his chances would be slim (most likely zero) in a Southern one. Furthermore, what would happen if everyone in the entire country voted on the issue? Would they have the time? Could they meet the costs? I believe that democracy at a local level is probably an excellent idea, but a state level is a different story. Furthermore, your statement implies that all of those who vote for the "fascist marketed candidates" agree with the following statement, which I am inclined to doubt. After all, not everybody that votes could feel so strongly about remaining in and fighting in Iraq, since so many Americans are currently disgusted with that precise subject and want American troops to leave Iraq as soon as possible.

''Incidentally, the advertisement's purpose is killing your competitor by propaganda agencies rather by making better things, and therefore, should be banned as any tool of deception. Look at science and engineering -- where people creatively explore and construct things they feel they need.''

Isn't "banned" a strong word? Don't the people that make those advertisements, regardless of their intent, have a constitutional right (in the United States of America) to freedom of speech, provided that they aren't explicitly interfering with another's rights? Besides that point, science and engineering have not only resulted in constructive creations, but in weapons of death and destruction, in nuclear weapons, gunpowder, swords, poisons, with the list stretching on and on. One could probably say that technology began with weapons, since some of the first human tools must have been used to hunt. Using science for peaceful technology other than architecture is a more modern concept than its use in weaponry. And what if one were to feel that they needed to create artificial life? Would there be ethical concerns governing such creations? Would said creations have rights? Once again, it is one thing to speak of goodness and morality, but quite another to actually consider long term ramifications and possible outcomes.

I'll add to one last comment: The validity of your viewpoint is dependent on the point it is viewed from -- the consciousness (interests and intelligence) of the individual who you oppose to the group.

Since I actually can't make heads or tails of this, I ask that you clarify exactly what you meant if you ever again reply. From what I can gather, you are saying that the validity of my viewpoint depends on the individual asked. If that is so, I guess I'll have to agree- validity in the mind of the individual must certainly be dictated by that individual's thoughts and beliefs.

I'm going to go ahead and wind up this entry now; it's probably important to say that I wasn't trying to attack with my arguments, although I did try to add my characteristic sarcasm to them. Sorry if I offended you with any statements, and I hope to see a reply or another entry, if anyone feels like doing so.

Side Note: I noticed that the title was changed to Collective vs. Master. I'm changing it back to A Question Concerning Democracy because this was the original intention of my statement- Collective vs. Master sounds like a David and Goliath kind of title to me.Robinson0120 00:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * At first listen to Parenti. Throughout the history, white man was bringing 'civilization' to the rest of the world. So, it is not surprising that the Africa is under-/mal-developed today. In fact, the funds are used not to help people but to undermine the social governments and independence movements and grab the capital (resourses) and to keep labour cheap. Look at the CIA activities. The governments are unstable because they are undermined. They do not have resourses because they are stolen. The developing counties cannot say 'we should stop polluting' because average chinees comsumes 10 times less energy and africanees 300 times less energy than one american citizen. The USA (1/20th of worlds population) consumes 30% of the oil. So stop looking at when developing countries will reduce their consumption before reducing your appetites. In the last 100 years the pretext 'civilization' was replaced by 'democratization'. You want to democratize Cuba, Russia, Iran, Venesuela, granting billions of $$ on this the but in fact you want ther resourses (the capital) and cheap labour. That is the essense of capitalistic expansion -- the imperializam. Read about imperializm and Chomsky at.


 * In fact, the lunatics are those who live in the virtual world created by mass media. Chomski's works discover the control of public mind, particularily his Manufacturing Consent. I also recommend to listen "The Lazy Law and Social Control" by Michael Parenty talking how police attacs workers and pro-democratic, anti- (-narco, -rasist, -war) leaders in USA killing and enjailing them. You are free to manifest as long as you are marginal and is not threat to the rulers. The propaganda will be easier to see, once you undetstand the hidden atrocities happening. Investigate why palestinians blow themselves, Peace, Propaganda & The Promised Land video.


 * Genocide is a favorite mean of capitalization/colonization. Look at Vietnam -- 3 mln people killed by napalm, chemical and biological weapons which are allowed to use by americans. CIA-financed war in Angola -- 2 million killed. Iraq -- a million killed in the last 20 years. You are lableled lunatic by the mainstream when you point to ongoing genocide of kurds in Turkey, Turkey's seizure of Kipr, while Iraq is not allowed to return the Kuweit, when you find it strange that Yougoslavia is not allowed to retaliate on the attacs of Kosovo Liberation Army from Albania while it is OK for USA-armed Israel, which detains thouthands of palestinians in its secret prisons without any charge, to ruin a half of Lebanon for detention of two its solders on Lebanon territory.


 * The astrobiologist Carl Sagan has discovered that the temperature on Venus is about 700C higher than it should be due to vicinity to Sun because of the greenhouse gas positive feedback: the higher is tempr the more gases in the atmosphere the hotter is the more gases and so on. So raising the temperature a couple of celsius causes thermal catastrophe, preventing any revival. Secondly, even if people vanish and later the intelligent live reappears, it will need oil to recreate the technology. As biologist, you should know that the oil and gas are fossilized procariotes which have lived 4--1.5 billon years ago preceeding the usual organic life. We are at the peak of the growing oil production and it will end in 20 years. How do you think the next civilization will be built without the oil and ores? Look for the Sagan's Cosmos video. He was enthusiast behind SETI project and predicts that the probability that intelligence apperars and develops technologically on any given planet is quite high. The single factor which drops the probability dramatically is self-destruction of the technologically developed civilization. This is how the silence of Universe explained. It is basically criminal act to justify destruction of our unique world by intelligent organisms using the "shit just happends" argument. I have to mention that the "anything what is happening is natural" argument contravenes your pro- intelligent development position.


 * Though most of americans want to withdraw troops, they feel that the "liberated iraqies" should not be left. The troops are going to be withdrawn just because too many americans are dying and the war is too costly. A dead american solder costs $400000. Meantime, the killed iraqies are not counted. Americans yet do not understand that the "terrorists" are the iraqi resistance who do not want their country under control of american oil cartels. Learn that Iraq did not organize the 9/11 nor produced WMD. These are americans, who produce and use WMD and terrorists, without any restriction. For instance, the educational system in Pakistan was dismountled under american control in 70ies and madraces were insitituted. Read the history of Ireland -- britans genocided their neigbours under the same "they are stupid and agressive barbarians and need our control" pretext . USA military actively developes pilotless war robots. Using machines instead of troops, american democrats will be happy -- establishing civilization and freedom will be much cheaper and «iraqi interestes» will not be treasoned by the withdrawal.


 * The viewpoint is dictated not only by "thoughts and beliefs". The fi(t)ness of solution also depends on your goals. If they are to stay in power by manipulating others' mind, you should go on discouraging the plebs from participating in democracy (controlling their destiny). --Javalenok 13:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that sure is a lot once again. I'll be a little more brief this time with my reply. First off, listening to Parenti was a blast. I've only listened to about 1/6 of it, but I'm getting the general idea, from what I can tell. Capitalism is a scourge upon the Earth. (I haven't heard of what he advocates humanity use instead) There's a glaring problem with that statement; it's taking into account only a single ideology, a single concept. When you're studying something as massive as inequality among humans and revenue gain you're studying a system. Systems are, by definition, creations of synergy and depend a wide and varied number of variables. One can't just say, "Capitalism is the problem." What about climate, natural resources, probability, and a host of other variables? I have to say that I definitely have less respect for Parenti than I do Chomsky at the moment, but that's another story. Your first statement:

''So stop looking at when developing countries will reduce their consumption before reducing your appetites. ''

You misunderstood my above comment. Like I said, I was going into tangential ramblings for some of it (although it was slightly coherent, in my defense...); when I referenced Africa's tough (or not so tough) decisions, I was referring to the fact that they were disadvantaged and still had to deal with pollution laws. That's something that America was able to get ahead on; child labor and excessive pollution (the same goes for the United Kingdom). It's another thing you have to consider when you're talking about whether or not capitalism is a problem; Is it just the fault of capitalism or a number of other variables working in tandem with that process?

Second:

''You want to democratize Cuba, Russia, Iran, and Venezuela, granting billions of $$ on this, but in fact you want their resources (their capital) and cheap labour. That is the essence of capitalistic expansion --imperialism.''

First off, I could care less about democracy and "bringing democracy" to any state. I disagree with government policy probably slightly less than you do, although my grievances are with other issues. When you consider that we lend money as a pretext and in reality want only labor, you are partially right and partially wrong (I believe). We do want to build the country up in a particular manner (check out the maquiladoras in Mexico); however, we want to exploit them while doing it. I will agree that current thought doesn't allow for ideal conditions for these workers, but because they are so far into it now, they can basically either continue what they're doing or revolt. Revolution seems to be out of style (and nearing impossibility, perhaps), so they're going to have to depend on their own merits. If they can't find a way out of it, they're probably sunk. Just to set the record straight, I don't agree with those tactics, either; I believe in equal opportunity, not the way it's normally used; I mean equal opportunity, no affirmative action or other garbage tied in. Casualties like that may be a consequence of capitalism, and they may also be a consequence of previous political systems (I'm sure you have an idea of what the Iberians did to South America and the populations therein); you can't merely blame one system for something of that magnitude.

The next thing you wrote about was law enforcement and control. I'll answer it with this: Establish private enforcement contractors that have nothing to do with the government, or have them work with the government! Simple concept, but it's never seen the light of day, so I can't speak of its validity. Given the success of other industries in the world, however, I'd say such a system has a pretty good chance of success. Again, in defense of capitalism, such incidents that you label are sparse, and occur with good reason; people in America today fear Islam, and some believe that Muslims are terrorists. When you have the managerial class thinking this way too, you have a problem. That is not, however, the fault of capitalism.

Next up, genocide. While I doubt that those figures are accurate, I don't particularly know any better, but remember this; Vietnam was about North vs. South (From what I understand, Communism vs. Capitalism again, thus a proxy war in essence); Vietnamese people may have died in hundreds of thousands, but they were also killing each other and NATO (mostly American) soldiers. They weren't innocent. I know nothing of Angola, but I do know about Uganda, Darfur, and Rwanda, and if those countries are any indication of what happened in Angola (which, since those events are strikingly connected, is a strong possibility), the Angolans weren't innocent either, and were probably fighting beforehand. I have to disagree with the "lunatic-Kurd" statement; it may not be in the media, but people know all about the plight of the Kurds. Once again, this is not a fault of capitalism but of Arabs (Possibly Shi'ite in particular?) vs. Kurds. Yugoslavia's a wonderful example of where the West did nothing. Once again, what caused the trouble? Religion and language. You see, when you look a little closely at conflicts of the past and present, the reasons begin to make sense, and there isn't any big conspiracy or unfathomable evil necessary to explain it- just human differences, greed, and natural reactions. Lastly, I'll add something about Israel. Since it was one of the first things besides Iraq/Afghanistan I was watching on TV it had an impact. For the entire time to me, it seemed like it was just another story and a normal occurrence. (My brother and mother disagree with me on this, but I still feel this way; not quite sure why.) I have no good reason for you why the Israelis went so ballistic over two soldiers. To tell you the truth, I believe they were looking for a good reason to go after their enemies, plain and simple. There was quite a bit of devastation in Lebanon, and then it all just disappeared. THAT I will openly admit I do not understand, unless, as some would suggest, it's the fault of the "Evil Pig Zionist Regime...!" XD

This coming point was my favorite one: The planet problem. The first thing you did was advocate Sagan's viewpoint. (Just a note; I know they may be learned scholars, but remember to take quotes and opinions, even if they are from doctors, with a grain of salt sometimes. Just because one person says it, even if he's respected, doesn't make it right. Look at how many people supported the Bush administration for a cause that was basically faulty, and for a better example, check out Hitler.) Anyways, Sagan is, as I said, one person. Concerning global warming, I think it's garbage. To me, the overwhelming majority of life's equations and patterns are either logarithmic or sinusoidal (I particularly favor sinusoidal ones). I believe that climate change is a cycle; that's probably why we had an Ice Age, a supposed Holocene, a "Little Ice Age," and are now going into a temporary warming. Sure, carbon emissions probably has something to do with it, and then again, probably not. We simply don't have enough proof. Of course, it's still a good idea to cut down on carbon emissions, but which Americans want to do that? Hybrid cars/environmentally safe ones will only arise if oil prices shoot through the roof. If the market forces the people to change they will change, plain and simple. The next argument concerning intelligent life was great. First off, to set the record straight, I do NOT believe in intelligent design. I'm no creationist; I'm a scientific thinker (or try to be). I don't believe that any sort of God created us for any purpose; reality tends to be far less grandiose and more moderate than that. Secondly, we may or may not kill ourselves with weapons, but we damn well won't die because of carbon in the atmosphere or rising temperatures; it won't even be radiation. If we go, we're going to go because some fools (or geniuses, take your pick) decided to create a virus strain capable of easily wiping out humanity. That's the only plausible reason I can really think of, considering how local nuclear weapons and ballistics really are in the grand scheme of things.

That's basically it, except for your last argument. Think about what would happen if democracy were really to disappear and power were to be put in the hands of a few individuals (an oligarchy). Would humanity be destroyed within short order? Probably not. Consider what a few terrorists can do today. If a malignant government or some grand problem got in the way, who would really support them? Would the military? Would the "masses" really want to doom themselves by destroying the "opposition" if they were themselves oppressed? Doubtful, to an incredible degree. Our world's going to keep going, even if destruction becomes easier and easier to pull off. (I of course can't back that up, since I don't have a crystal ball... but, as said in a laughable comedy, signs point to yes.)Robinson0120 22:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Democracy -- the biggest myth of modern times
The criticism tells that some groups are opposed to democracy. But the democracy shuold serve people and nature, I suppose, and the pro-people groups are the left ones. The left is opposed by the profit right, not only the far-right (the fascism). So why it is not allowd to tell that capitalism defeats democracy? When political parties are financed by the commertial ones, when capital interfere between candidates and the people effectively decoupling the demos from the political process, the capital overtakes the real state power. The wealthy minority takes control over the general majority in quite natural way in self-developing process: the business elected itself into power gains more state subsidies and accumulates more resourses allowing to buy more state power on the next election. After several iterations, the big business is indistinguishible from government -- the influence of the pro-people left is completely eliminated. It is also natural that the corporate government sets up the policy to protect the prosperity of the minority from the majority and serve its profit interests, which is acieved by enslaving the society to transfer the public property and wealth produced by people into private capital of dominating elite through big business subsidies and such affairs. The business also increases profits by abridging social programs (cuting wages, public education, heath care, social and environment protection) and investing into anti-social businesses (like military complex, tobaco, ..., marketing and overconsumption), effectively degrading society and nature. That is, profits of few are made by parasitizing on the society, destroying it Welfare for the Wealthy. For these antisocial reasons, the dominating minority interests are directly opposed to general public, which are the culture and nature, I suppose. The bourgeois dictatorship (corporatism, imperialism, fascism, polyarcy -- call it as you like) preveils the modern world. The current system is a polyarchy, at best Chomsky - America is not a Democracy. They use democracy as a veil and excuse to overthow "not democratic" governments all over the world to capture the global weath. The 'democracy' in its current form is a greatest threat to the life existance on the Earth. The bourgeois use propaganda, which pervades their mass communication, to decieve, indoctrinate and manipulate the stupid majority. If the wikipedia is really a free encyclopedia, it must address this most widespread and monstrous lie in the world. --Javalenok 21:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Further weaknesses
As far as I'm concerned the only valid form of government is democracy but that doesn't mean that it isn't flawed. One of the things that often bothers me is how qualified or unqualified the people are who are voting. The election campaigns are often executed based on the most primitive issues and often have little realistic political content. This sort of behaviour is encouraged by the fact that many people are not terribly interested and are happy reading newspapers, which live by printing equally primitive headlines. Obviously a selected group of voters is invalid and that would no longer count as a democracy anyway, however there are perhaps ways to encourage a more constructive use of the right to vote. Voting is a privilege and I believe it is perhaps one that we have to earn in part, otherwise the privilege is used carelessly, e.g. "my family has always voted XYZ and that's not going to change now!". Perhaps each voter must fill out a multiple choice test* of say 30 questions that needs to be completed along with the vote. The test would evaluate how qualified the voter is and would be used for weighting his/her vote. This should have the affect that the voter is motivated to know more about what he/she is actually voting for. Since the public would then be more focused on politics, this should carry on to the parties to base their election campaign on politics rather than meaningless personal issues. Furthermore this would force the media to raise their standards and be more constructive otherwise they'd go out of business due to lack of public interest. *Obviously the test needs to be put together by an independent group and must contain questions that were kept secret until the vote.

A further issue I have with democracy is the problem that the party in power is forced to make decisions for short term projects. Anything long term that produces cost in the short term and provides benefits only in the long term is often an unpopular decision. As a result responsible long term projects are often under financed or not approved at all. Instead the governing parties often aim for projects that return suboptimal results in the short term. However perhaps this problem exists primarily due to how fickle and unsure the general public can be, and this is perhaps helped by encouraging people to know more about what their government is trying to do (e.g. with the above idea). 212.48.126.140 13:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This concept was explored in the novel Starship Troopers by Heinlein. Only people who joined the military and successfully completed their training were eligible to vote. Not sure if it falls within the scope of the article for inclusion though. --Zero g 13:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Cool. However the idea is neither about being eligible to vote nor is it based on what institutions the voter has been involved with. It would be a weighting of the vote based on the person's political competence and not if he/she has "done the right things", which would be very questionable indeed.212.48.126.140 15:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Good points, 212.48.126.140. That multiple choice questionnaire would probably be a good idea, but you also have to take into account how long that would take. Even if they did make one, there's also no guarantee that it wouldn't be flimsy in design or that the individuals taking the test wouldn't just mark a few answers so they could vote. Nice point about the political issues, too. The way I see it, if we wanted to optimize democracy we would do away with parties, because they cause a great deal more problems than they solve and because they are used for little more than classification. "He's just a Republican," or "That's because he's a liberal" floats around WAY too often. There should also be some definite guidelines to actually become a candidate, for example, certain training and score qualifications, comprehensive understanding of history, politics, and other subjects like sociology (which I highly doubt most of our presidents, if any, really have/have had). If you're going to be leading a country, you should be able to analyze the mistakes and success of previous leaders and tailor your plans accordingly. Democratic systems also seem to have poor bureaucracies. Note that we all seem to be discussing American (or possibly European) democracy as well, and are not even factoring in other states that actually use it. Add in the fact that there are is a huge stretch of other topics and factors we haven't even discussed and you wind up with quite a problem. I'm fairly certain that the political institutions we've installed thus far haven't even come close to upper level efficiency, but addressing and fixing the actual problems that afflict such systems is a difficult task indeed. (Was I ranting again?)Robinson0120 22:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

At first, the mass communication is owned by ruling class, so analyzing it you'll conclude that more profit for burgeous, further cutting of social programms, advancing globalization (= thirdworldization) are needed. Secondly, the right answers are those which support the rightwingers, the burgeous, the ruling dictatorship! I suppose that this quest for taking the control away from the de-educated labour is their job.--Javalenok 08:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It's Their Choice
If the people wish to make a decision you find bad, it is also what those people wished, and therefore not a bad decision to them, but what they wanted, and will probably turn out good for them, as they wanted it. As for the people who didn't want that to happen, majority rules. Tough luck. Move if you so wish.


 * Was this is a reply to my question? If so, I'll respond by saying that I don't believe in "majority rules." To me, it's a stupid concept. I'll use the argument I used above- is it still "tough luck" and "majority rules" if a black man were to be lynched in a white supremacist community for raping a white woman even if there were no evidence and proof to the contrary that he were not guilty? If casualties like that are part of such a glorious political system, I'd prefer not to adhere to it, and get into a position where more logical values could be expressed and instantiated. Furthermore, democracy is a political system and nothing more. Should the views of the people really matter when it comes to matters of governance? I of course don't hold the answer, but I think (at least at the moment) that the answer is no.Robinson0120 00:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That's why the U.S. chose a constitutional republic rather than a democracy. A Constitution exists that protects individual liberty. The majority of the people voting cannot change it. The power of the people is checked because all they're allowed to do is elect representatives. And then the power of the representatives is checked is well. A majority of representative can't change the Constitution either, unless it is a super majority which is extremely difficult to achieve. A constitutional republic is "government of laws, not of men" whereas a democracy is a government of men, not of laws. "The people" have little say, as it should be. All Male Action 15:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * All right, I have few problems with a constitutional republic, but quite a few with true democracy, or, really, the majority of it's incarnations. I mean, do the candidates in that republic REALLY need to be elected?Robinson0120 22:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Marxist/Socialist view section
Ultramarine continuously removes the section which was added by consensus and has been edited by many different contributors. He also removes a paragraph about Soviet republic (as a form of government). Your comments.--Nixer 23:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As per Wikipedia policy, give sources for claims. Also, that unsourced section do not contain opposing views. If you just give good sources, then you can add material. You should certainly be able to find good sources if this is the common Marxist or Socialist view of democracy. In addition, do not massively delete material that is sourced. If we follow the Wikipedia policies we can have a good discussion and have a encyclopedic, sourced, and verifiable article. Ultramarine 00:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The matherial contains citations from Marx. I suppose it is enough autoritative to represent views of Marxism. Opposing views presented in the criticism section. Also there is no such form of government "communist state". There is Soviet republic.--Nixer 06:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no description of what kind of democracy Marxists wants, only largely unsourced criticsms of liberal democracy. This should be moved to the liberal democracy article, since this article is about democracy and there is no description of the advantages of liberal demorcracy. To be NPOV, claimed advantates and disadvantes of liberal demcracy should be presented at the same and the place for that is in the liberal democracy article. In addition, here are some real sourced statements by Marx, Engels, and Lenin:

Is it a Wikipedia policy that original research should be removed on spot? Where is it? Taxico 04:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Marx: “...When the workers replace the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie by their revolutionary dictatorship ... to break down the resistance of the bourgeoisie ... the workers invest the state with a revolutionary and transitional form ...
 * Engels: “...And the victorious party” (in a revolution) “must maintain its rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionaries. Would the Paris Commune have lasted more than a day if it had not used the authority of the armed people against the bourgeoisie? Cannot we, on the contrary, blame it for having made too little use of that authority?...
 * Engels: “As, therefore, the state is only a transitional institution which is used in the struggle, in the revolution, to hold down one’s adversaries by force, it is sheer nonsense to talk of a ‘free people’s state’; so long as the proletariat still needs the state, it does not need it in the interests of freedom but in order to hold down its adversaries, and as soon as it becomes possible to speak of freedom the state as such ceases to exist ....
 * Lenn: The revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat is rule won and maintained by the use of violence by the proletariat against the bourgeoisie, rule that is unrestricted by any laws.
 * Lenin: A state of the exploited must fundamentally differ from such a state; it must be a democracy for the exploited, ‘and a means of suppressing the exploiters; and the suppression of a class means inequality for that class, its exclusion from “democracy”
 * Lenin: the proletariat cannot achieve victory without breaking the resistance of the bourgeoisie, without forcibly suppressing its adversaries, and that, where there is “forcible suppression”, where there is no “freedom”, there is, of course, no democracy
 * Lenin: And if you exploiters attempt to offer resistance to our proletarian revolution we shall ruthlessly suppress you; we shall deprive you of all rights; more than that, we shall not give you any bread, for in our proletarian republic the exploiters will have no rights, they will be deprived of fire and water, for we are socialists in real earnest, and not in the Scheidemann or Kautsky fashion. Ultramarine 21:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ultramarine, please stop mass deletions.--Nixer 20:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Read the above. Follow wikipedia policy and add citations. Original research can be removed anytime. Do not delete sourced material. If you want to add sourced critical material of liberal democracy, do that to that article.Ultramarine 00:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Verifiability: "Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references." There has been a chance to provide references.
 * Actually, I do not object to this criticism of liberal democracy, but it should not be in the article about democracy without mentioning opposing views and without mentioning advantages of liberal democracy, like the the democratic peace theory. Detailed advantages and disadvantages of specific forms of democracy should be in the appropriate article, otherwise this article will become to big. Should we mention all the disadvantages and advantages of direct democracy, sortition and "Marxist democrcacy" (whatever that is?) in this overview article.?Ultramarine 04:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have added the Marx quote to the "Plutocracy" section in the Liberal democracy article. Hopefully this will satisfy all.Ultramarine 05:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Marx said it not about "plutocracy" but about liberal democracy as whole. Anyway it is not an excuse to remove all except the citation itself.--Nixer 16:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I see no problem, but if you can find a better title, move it a better section in liberal democracy article. Give sources as per above. Respond to the other arguments above.Ultramarine 16:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia consists not only pure citations, but also explanations of the sources, removing all except the citation only because you dont like it is not a good thing.--Nixer 16:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Follow Wikipedia policy: Verifiability: "Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references." Otherwise anyone can write their own personal essays and opinions. This is a verifiable encyclopedia, not a discussion board for pressenting personal opinions.Ultramarine 16:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, please respond to other arguments above.Ultramarine 16:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ultramarine, can you please point out what statements do you contest? May be something we can remove without pain and provide sources for the other. Do you contest the powers of the Supreme council?--Nixer 17:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I find all unsourced claims dubious. Actually, I do not object to this criticism of liberal democracy, but it should not be in the article about democracy without mentioning opposing views and without mentioning advantages of liberal democracy, like the the democratic peace theory. Detailed advantages and disadvantages of specific forms of democracy should be in the appropriate article, otherwise this article will become to big. Should we mention all the disadvantages and advantages of direct democracy, sortition and "Marxist democrcacy" (whatever that is?) in this overview article? Ultramarine 17:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I suggest removing this largely unsourced piece of original research for reasons disucssed above. Objections? Ultramarine 09:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Where do you see original research, Ultramarine? The sections are well-cited, and additional citations can be provided if necessary (although the section is already full with citations).--Nixer 18:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Most of the text is unsourced. Antyhing unsourced can be removed as per Wikpedia policy. The only sources you have given are regarding crticism of liberal democracy. Again, I do not object to this criticism of liberal democracy, but it should not be in the article about democracy without mentioning opposing views and without mentioning advantages of liberal democracy, like the the democratic peace theory. Detailed advantages and disadvantages of specific forms of democracy should be in the appropriate article, otherwise this article will become to big. Should we mention all the disadvantages and advantages of direct democracy, sortition and "Marxist democrcacy" (whatever that is?) in this overview article? I you insist I will add all the advantages of liberal democracy to the these sections and add all the disadvantages of the Communist states here.Ultramarine 19:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The only good information in the section seems to consist of a Marxist criticism of liberal democracy. Perhaps that should be added to the criticisms section in summarized form. Otherwise, I see little reason to keep the Marxist section. Socialists who support democracy generally have in mind something close to liberal democracy but with a different economic system. -- Nikodemos 21:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, keep the Marxist section, but remove references to other left-leaning parties. For instance, it comes close to calling the U.S. Democratic Party Marxist! WBHoenig 02:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

RFC comments

 * I've reverted to an earlier version by Ultramarine before he removed the Marxist/Socialist section. I think the removal of the section was a little too hasty, but some of Ultramarine's other edits seem fine to me. I think we can accomplish a lot by just working on this version. Nixer, the Marxist/Socialist view section is restored, so you should start working on improving it (so it won't get removed again). Ultramarine, I'm going to add a OR tag to the section until some of the original research is removed. Hopefully this will keep both sides happy for now. Taxico 07:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It appears that Ultramarine reversed your modifications to try and calm things down. I have restored them. Ultramarine, your contribution to the project is appreciated, but you should try and work with others to reach a consensus, rather than just reverting anything you disagree with and creating problems. ---*- u:Chazz/contact/t: 14:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Taxico's comments are old. See discussion above which has occured after that date.Ultramarine 14:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Representative Democracy existed prior to Rome
In many Greek city states, for example Sparta.
 * Ancient Greece is mentined. Note that only a minority of the males had the vote.Ultramarine 19:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for a blue-linked section
Index of Democracy

The Economist has in a study examined the state of democracy in 167 countries and rated the nations with a Economist Intelligence Unit Index of Democracy which focused on five general categories; free and fair election process, civil liberties, functioning of government, political participation and political culture. Sweden scored a total of 9,88 on the scale of ten which was the highest result, North Korea scored the lowest with 1.03.

Full democracies: 1. Sweden, 2. Iceland, 3. Netherlands, 4. Norway, 5. Denmark, 6. Finland, 7. Luxembourg, 8. Australia, 9. Canada, 10. Switzerland, 11. Ireland & New Zealand, 13. Germany, 14. Austria, 15. Malta, 16. Spain, 17. US, 18. Czech Republic, 19. Portugal, 20. Belgium & Japan, 22. Greece 23. UK, 24. France, 25. Mauritius & Costa Rica, 27. Slovenia & Uruguay. Flawed democracies: 29. South Africa, 30. Chile, 31. South Korea, 32. Taiwan, 33. Estonia, 34. Italy, 35. India, 36. Botswana & Cyprus, 38. Hungary, 39. Cape Verde & Lithuania, 41. Slovakia, 42. Brazil, 43. Latvia, 44. Panama, 45. Jamaica, 46. Poland, 47. Israel, 48. Trinidad and Tobago, 49. Bulgaria, 50. Romania, 51. Croatia, 52. Ukraine, 53. Mexico, 54. Argentina, 55. Serbia, 56. Mongolia, 57. Sri Lanka, 58. Montenegro, 59. Namibia & Papua New Guinea, 61. Suriname, 62. Moldova, 63. Lesotho & Philippines, 65. Indonesia & Timor Leste, 67. Colombia, 68. Macedonia, 69. Honduras, 70. El Salvador, 71. Paraguay & Benin, 73. Guyana, 74. Dom Rep, 75. Bangladesh & Peru, 77. Guatemala, 78. Hong Kong, 79. Palestine, 80. Mali, 81. Malaysia & Bolivia 81. Hybrid regimes: 83. Albania, 84. Singapore, 85. Madagascar & Lebanon, 87. Bosnia and Herzegovina, 88. Turkey, 89. Nicaragua, 90. Thailand, 91. Fiji, 92. Ecuador, 93. Venezuela, 94. Senegal, 95. Ghana, 96. Mozambique, 97. Zambia, 98. Liberia, 99. Tanzania, 100. Uganda, 101.Kenya, 102. Russia, 103. Malawi, 104. Georgia, 105. Cambodia, 106. Ethiopia, 107. Burundi, 108. Gambia, 109. Haiti, 110. Armenia, 111. Kyrgyzstan, 112. Iraq. Authoritarian regimes: 113. Pakistan & Jordan, 115. Comoros & Morocco & Egypt, 118. Rwanda, 119. Burkina Faso, 120. Kazakhstan, 121. Sierra Leone, 122. Niger, 123. Bahrain, 124. Cuba & Nigeria, 126. Nepal, 127. Côte d’Ivoire, 128. Belarus, 129. Azerbaijan, 130. Cameroon, 131. Congo Brazzaville, 132. Algeria, 133. Mauritania, 134. Kuwait, 135. Afghanistan & Tunisia, 137. Yemen, 138. People's Republic of China, 139. Swaziland & Iran, 141. Sudan, 142. Qatar, 143. Oman, 144. Democratic Republic of Congo, 145. Vietnam, 146. Gabon, 147. Bhutan & Zimbabwe, 149. Tajikistan, 150. UAE, 151. Angola, 152. Djibouti, 153. Syria, 154. Eritrea, 155. Laos, 156. Equatorial Guinea, 157. Guinea, 158. Guinea-Bissau, 159. Saudi Arabia, 160. Uzbekistan, 161. Libya, 162. Turkmenistan, 163. Myanmar, 164. Togo, 165. Chad, 166. Central Africa, 167. North Korea. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BishheartElsie (talk • contribs).

Refs: http://www.economist.com/theworldin/international/displayStory.cfm?story_id=8166790&d=2007 and www.economist.com/media/pdf/DEMOCRACY_INDEX_2007_v3.pdf.

Jim Douglas, can lists of countries really be copyrighted in any way? --BishheartElsie 09:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. Yes, the list is a significant portion of a copyrighted Economist article.  It looks like an excellent reference to use to improve the article, but including the entire list verbatim goes beyond what "fair use" allows. -- Jim Douglas (talk)  (contribs)  09:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I wont revert again even though I hold a different opinion. Good luck with the article and best of wishes, --BishheartElsie 09:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits
See this:. Several problems: First, deletions of sourced statements and sources. Two, the text contradicts itself. Direct democracy does sometimes include representatives. Third, "The critics of non-direct democracy argue that democracy is more than merely a procedural issue, where merely voting and the presence of representatives fulfills the definition of democracy." This an incorrect description of the view of the critics which criticze the lack of emphasis on things like civil rights. Fourth, criticisms and advantages of specific forms democracy are better left to the subarticles. Otherwise this overview article will get too long. I can add pages of of criticims and advantages otherwise of all the forms of democracy mentioned here.Ultramarine 09:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * See my reply below.Ultramarine 22:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Elections and typical, modern democratic party systems
Specifically referencing the two party system (USA) and the multi-party system (the rest of the world, in general). It seems Democracy should cover the nature of the US form of democracy in executing elections where only one primary run-off discourages the existence of a third party, as opposed to allowing those who vote for third parties which are eliminated to choose among the more popular parties, until all have been given the chance to choose among the two strongest contenders. The modern mechanism is for each voter to guess which parties will be the top two contenders (Rep vs Dem in the USA), and then to vote for the "lesser of two evils," lest they risk "throwing away" their vote for an unviable candidate/party.

The multi-party parliamentary system of coalition building should also be discussed in the light of its application to and advancement of the will of the people, i.e. Democracy.--Landen99 22:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This is not a discussion board or chat room for expressing personal opinions. Cite sources please. Also note that discussions about specific forms of democracy, and the disadvantages and advantages are better discussed in the articles about these forms of democracy, otherwise this overview article will become extremely long. For instance, I could easily add dozens of pages regarding criticisms of Soviet democracy.Ultramarine 22:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC) 	+
 * Also, note that is primarily an overview article about worldwide democracy in a general sense, and not the the place for extensive discussion about the US.Ultramarine 22:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * DO NOT EVER EDIT OR REMOVE MY TALK PAGE STATEMENTS!!! Ultramarine 22:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, Ultramarine. At first, I thought that I accidentally started my section in the middle of some other section, thus separating your comments from its original context. After it kept re-appearing, it appeared to me like your fast response and correction was some kind of automated system gliche in the saving process. My apologies for the confusion concerning your comments, but they just don't seem to fit in my section or relate to my discussion.

What is a reference without connections to specific examples, like the USA? Okay, so we don't hold an "extensive discussion about the US," but that was never an issue. The main pillar of Democracy being the Elections, where the people vote on their representatives and on (at least) some of their laws, is the main issue of which I speak. The mechanism of the Election being critical to the definition and character of the Democracy, such a discussion cannot avoid the mechanisms of the USA elections, or the parliamentary elections, as they are the two most prevalent and distinctly different examples of modern democracy. I'm interested in finding consensus on the discussion of Modern Elections, being the main pillar of Democracy, with emphasis on the mechanisms of the two party system and the parliamentary coalition; as these are the two topics of high interest to most individuals with whom I speak on the subject of Democracy. --Landen99 22:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no agreement that the main pillars of democracy are elections. See the article itself, some argue for sortition or consensus, for example. Now elections are an important part of representative democracy, but not all agree that this is the best form of democracy. Have a look at the article about liberal democracy, that article discusses various forms of electiorial systems. If you want to add a discussion about the differences between two-party system and multi-party systems, that would probably be the best place. Note that this often depends on whether the system have proportional representation or a plurality voting system.Ultramarine 23:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

How else is the will of the people decided in modern democracies except by elections? BTW, elections include more than the selection of representatives, but also include voting on other issues; the world elect, means to endorse or to decide (check any dictionary for your citation of this definition). Also, how may any form of government pretend to rule by the will of the people without first seeking their will through elections? Without establishing the will of the people, there is no "people rule" (demo-cracy). Thus democracy must rest on elections (as a pillar) lest it lack the will of the people upon which its very name derives its meaning.

BTW, I think that we should look at the disconnect between the liberal democracy section on the Democracy page and the Liberal Democracy page for a more fluid and consistent feel to the Wiki project. Also, if material seems better in a different section, then let us try to focus more on moving good material to the right places (with respectful and public disclosure of those actions), instead of deleting (vandalizing) the article. --Landen99 23:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, this the oveview democracy article. Not everyone agrees with you regarding elections. Again, read for example the sortition article. See earlier comments above.Ultramarine 07:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

After a lengthy consideration, I can honestly say that I have no idea what Ultramarine is talking about. What is he calling personal opinion? How does he envision any system of government based upon the will of the people (i.e. Democracy) without their ability to express that will (i.e. vote in an election)? Even with "sortition" those selected by casting lots are considered to represent the will of the people, but may only do so by the expression of their opinion in government by voting. Not all voting is conducted under the name of an election, but terminology aside, people must vote. Now, does the will of a random sampling represent the will of the people? Perhaps with a large enough sampling and the assurance that the selection method is completely random, but I see no difference between the two in that case, except for shear volume of popular involvement. And as we all know, "Power corrupts," so the random sampling can be assumed to quickly lose their ability to represent the people. I think that you should think a little harder about what you, Ultramarine, are deleting before you get off on your "deleting power high," because I doubt that there exists a single reputable source who would challenge the statement that "to be represented, a person's voice must be heard" and "to allow popular political sovereignty, their will must be represented in government." We can cite such common sense, but then again, anyone who doesn't like such facts being put to light will be just as quick to question the acceptibility of the sources cited. I am sick of these "citing" Nazi's advancing their biased agendas without regard for the work of the Wiki-community, and I'd really like to call attention to Ultramarine's abuses regarding my edits on the Revision as of 23:50, 13 December 2006 (edit) from Wiki editors and the Wiki community. Better to leave common sense alone and request citations for specific parts in the discussion page than to just delete people's work, as the only people to continue contributing after such abuses are the extremists who are always ever so eager to force their opinions and agendas and worldviews on everyone else.--Landen99 19:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Read No Personal Attacks. This will be my only warning. Again, not all agree that democracy must involve elections or voting, as noted by cited sources.Ultramarine 20:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Report of Utramarine (user) abuse of editing privileges
In the recent edit, " 22:06, 13 December 2006 Ultramarine (Talk | contribs) (unsourced, also the place the discuss specific criticisms and advangtaes of specific forms of democracy are on their articlesy, otherwise this article will become to long)"

Ultramarine (user) has vandalized the Democracy page under the guise of requiring "citations" by removing short, concise, obvious, and much needed clarifications/definitions of key principles of democracy. There is a place for citations (by commonly accepted experts) with statements which are not generally accepted without them, but this line has been clearly crossed today. Statements of the Obvious need no citations, else it is impossible to admit such facts as "the sky is blue," because eventually every citation must point to the observation of "the obvious," without any further citation. Does there exist a cited authority on sky color who is beyond the requirement to cite the work of another authority? And if not, then there exists no end of citations, and no evaluation of the legitimacy of a citation may end, until all of their citations have been investigated; how many other people see the obsurdity that this demand for citations has been taken. For eventually, someone must observe the obvious in such a way that all concur with the observations without requiring that person to cite another's observations and work.

I propose that the deletions of Ultramarine on 13 December at 22:06 be reversed, and that if these kinds of vandalisms continue, his editing privileges be either limited or removed. --Landen99 23:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * See my comments in the section above. The statements here are unsourced personal opinions and do not follow NPOV. Also, read No Personal AttacksUltramarine 07:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not add unsourced personal opinions. I cite the works of others as appropriate, and make logical additions and gammar corrections in order to make the article read and be understood more clearly and easily. All additions are common sense, but I have no aversion to linking specific facts with the wikipedia articles or quotes from which each can be derived.

But if you, Ultramarine (naming a specific Wiki-member so that the community does not confuse my allegations as blanket accusations against either themselves or others) disrespect the work of other members by deleting them because of your issues with their citations and you do it repeatedly to a large number of members for a very long time, then you should expect to be called onto the carpet for it. Does anyone have a better method for addressing issues of chronic vandalism under the false premise of Wikipedia rules, especifically overutilizing the citation argument? But these attacks on our work are personal attacks themselves, because they are dressed with Wikipedia rules used in ways that they weren't intended, but have the stench of personal bias and closed-minded vandalism. Deleting things without sources or ideas with which you agree is not adding to the Wiki project at all, but hurts it when you pretend to be exercising the authority of her rules. If abuses on this article are not to be discussed here, then where? If anonymity is to be maintained, then 1) Why sign our comments? and 2) How do members deal with abusers?--Landen99 20:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Personal attacks and ad hominem are the arguments of those with no factual arguments.Ultramarine 21:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The goal is not to attack the person, but to put an end to the abuse of that person. The person may feel attacked by disapproval of such abuse, but the argument does not rest on character degredation. In fact, reports of specific abuses are usually "the arguments of those with" very specific "factual arguments." Sometimes anything which indicates abuse by a specific user is deemed as a personal attack, in that one's name is used in connection with a factual allegation, specifically that member's contributions are being deleted under the premise of personal opinion and lack of citation (despite the fact that they have been in fact cited). Are not those allegations personal attacks by that definition, also? And if so, who cares, because the argument does not hinge upon it anyway, and the purpose is not to defame any member, but instead to improve Wikipedia.

I don't care who vandalizes, the argument against such behavior has nothing to do with the person, except in identifying the source of the abuse. I admit that I have been impressed with Ultramarine's intelligence and hard work, but that in no way diminishes the value and intelligence of the contributions of other authors, including myself; it in no way empowers him to tread on our work on the premises of "citations" and "personal attack." The "lack of sources" is hardly the end of any rational argument, as Aristotle (and most other sources) needed none. The argument is whether the material exists within the realm of human knowledge. From what I have seen these days, what doesn't. I haven't heard many ideas which have yet to be added to the store of human knowledge (including and especially patent ideas). It is virtually impossible to come up with new knowledge as virtually all ideas have already been considered countless times, and new knowledge is exclusively reserved for publishing and/or production for profit.

Democracy fails when individuals consider themselves better than the others, and equality is undermined by tyranny under the authority of various justifications and merits. Call that a personal opinion, but I dare you to find a source which allows tyranny in a democracy; for no government can be both rule of the people and rule of the minority faction (the smallest being the individual). Yet this self-evident truth has been declared by thousands upon thousands of respectable men, and a citation of it seems unnecessary and even cumbersome.--Landen99 21:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you have follow Wikipedia policy and cite sources. If you want to chnage policy, this is not the place. I have provided sources for that some consider sytems that do not have eletions to be democratic; you have not given sources for your personal opinions.Ultramarine 21:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Ultramarine, please stop vandalism
Please stop removing the sections that you do not like --Nixer 17:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, I do not object to this criticism of liberal democracy, but it should not be in the article about democracy without mentioning opposing views and without mentioning advantages of liberal democracy, like the the democratic peace theory. Detailed advantages and disadvantages of specific forms of democracy should be in the appropriate article, otherwise this article will become to big. Should we mention all the disadvantages and advantages of direct democracy, sortition and "Marxist democrcacy" (whatever that is?) in this overview article? I you insist I will add all the advantages of liberal democracy to the these sections and add all the disadvantages of the Communist states here. Please also explain why you deleted all other forms of socialist democracy and replaced them with the Soviet democracy section.Ultramarine 18:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Just read Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents  have you two considered branching this article off into its own article?  With a short  tag and two sentences about the subject matter?


 * User:Nixer, with a quick look at Ultramarine userpage, Ultramarine looks like someone with a very strong POV (to say the least). Further, according to this: User:Ultramarine/Hall_of_Fame_Comments someone who will fight for his version of the article clear up to Arbcom. (warning User:Ultramarine, I have seen wikipedians user pages with the same kind of swagger before, usually it is only a matter of time before they fall) I think it is better to branch this section off into a new article.


 * Further Ultramarine, you are arguing the exclusion of a section because you want something included? "I do not object to this criticism of liberal democracy, but it should not be in the article about democracy without mentioning opposing views and without mentioning advantages of liberal democracy" So why don't you write this section, balancing out the POV and leave User:Nixer's alone?  I have no patience for people who sections simply because their POV isn't represented too.  Especially when those people won't bother to write those sections.


 * Lets have a little emphathy here. Ultramarine, how did you feel when your article was deleted? I fought hard to keep your article from being deleted, to no avail,  I can imagine User:Nixer feels the same way now that you did then. Travb (talk) 19:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think your your argument for having the discussion regarding liberal democracy in a separate article is very good. In fact, there is already such an article, namely the liberal democracy article. But what Nixer wants is that this article should only have Marxist critique of liberal democracy, see his latest edits here, without opposing views, which is of course not acceptable.Ultramarine 19:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, great, hopefully there is not so much bad blood between you two, that you can agree on something amicably, without outside intevention...Travb (talk) 19:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I still argue that these criticisms and advantages of liberal democracy should be in the liberal democracy article. No other form of democracy, like direct democracy or sorition, is discussed in this way in this overview article. Any objections? Please also explain why you deleted all other forms of socialist democracy and replaced them with the Soviet democracy section.Ultramarine 08:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * To state what should be obvious, the reason 'Liberal Democracy' deserves special attention in this Democracy article is that Liberal Democracy is treated nearly synonymously as Democracy here. Read the introduction "Today, the term democracy is often used to refer to liberal democracy,...".  This claim (which is not equally true across the world) reflects and projects the systemic bias of Wikipedia.  Special attention to Liberal Democracy here is justified because of the problem of this systemic bias in Wikipedia.  BruceHallman 18:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That this mean we should copy the very long "Advantages and disadvantages of liberal democracy" from the liberal democracy article here?Ultramarine 19:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I encourage you to view democracy neutrally, as is our obligation as neutral editors. We have an obligation to edit from a perspective detached of our personal bias. You appear to view your role as editor to include a duty to defend your personal world view of democracy. BruceHallman 20:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ad hominem is the attempt to dodge the issue by those with no factual arguments. Obviously npov requires all views to be included if we should discuss liberal democracy in this article, and not only criticisms, and regarding this not only Marxist criticisms. So again, should we copy the very long "Advantages and disadvantages of liberal democracy" from the liberal democracy article here?Ultramarine 21:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I was trying to avoid degenerating into accusations of false logic. Though, please be aware that accusing me of using false logic avoids the question at hand which is: whether there is a place in the Democracy article for inclusions of the Marxist view of democracy, or not. Your extreme proposal about "should we copy the very long..." is, of course, a False dilemma logical fallacy. BruceHallman 16:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Why? Npov requires the fair inclusion of all views, not only predominantly Marxist criticisms.Ultramarine 16:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * They why do you oppose including the Marxist view of democracy? BruceHallman 17:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As stated previously, giving a fair views to all sides mean either copying the very long text regarding criticisms and advantages from the liberal democracy article here, or having a very brief summary that means reducing the Marxist views to a size proportinate to those of other views, or simply refering to the liberal democracy article. I prefer the last option. Simply having a long section with only Marxist criticims is not acceptable.Ultramarine 17:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If you favor an appropriate proportion, they why did you delete every last word? BruceHallman 17:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As I stated, I favor discussing this in detail in the appropriate article, the liberal democray article. If we should mention all the advantages and disadvantages of all forms of democracy in this overview article it will get too long.Ultramarine 17:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Comprimise suggested
Nixer, Ultramarine agreed: "I think your your argument for having the discussion regarding liberal democracy in a separate article is very good." Do you? If so, then you can start a new article, with a {{further| link here.

Ultramarine's character?

In my little experience, and if I can be so bold to say so, Ultramarine appears to be a very intellegent person, who is very good at reseaching, who is a tedious editor with a strong POV, who will go to any length to make sure that his version of the article remains. Like most tedious editors with a strong POV (like myself) I think this is both good and bad.

When Ultramarine is attempting to add content, like in Articles for deletion/Possible wars between liberal democracies 2 this is good.

But when Ultramarine is attempting to delete content, this is bad.

Unlike my fellow POV wikieditors, I think deleting content you disagree with is against wikipolicy and I have no respect for this and little patience for it. I have seen so many really good POV editors that I respect highly, delete large sections of referenced material they disagree with. They lose a lot of my respect when they do this.

Ultramarine, why not start that new article yourself, instead of deleting the content repeatedly? That way you have more time to spend injecting your POV in wikipedia. Peity edit wars take away time that you could be contributing your POV to wikipedia. (I am not being facious, I have a very strong POV too, and I have learned that most edit wars can be avoided, allowing me to dedicate more time to writing my POV into wikipedia).

WP:NPA violation

Nixer, stop calling Ultramarine a vandal, this is a WP:NPA violation.

Comprimise

So once again Nixer: would you like your contributions in another new article? Maybe ultramarine can be kind/diplomatic enough (and crafty/sly enough) to create this new article now.

Later

As per my pet template I made: {{User:travb/N}}

...I would be a hypocrite if I keep asking everyone else to make a new article on this talk page, so I went ahead and made this new article myself: Democracy in Marxist theory Nice job Nixer, very well researched article (albiet I have to admit) I didn't read a word of it--I only saw the 12 references...

Please see Talk:Democracy in Marxist theory the article as it exists Democracy in Marxist theory is an older version, the one that Nixer justifiably complained about in the ANI that Ultramarine was deleting.

Ultramarine, I will say this before it happens, because in my experience this is what happens with political POV wikiusers:
 * 1) Please refrain from starting an edit war on this new article.
 * 2) Please don't delete the new section I created, with the {{further| tag.

I will WP:AGF and cross my fingers that you won't do this to the new article. I think this is a good comprimise for everyone, which you agreed too Ultramarine.

Travb (talk) 15:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Eh, it was I, not Nixer who added almost all refernces to that text. I copied some of the material from the liberal democracy article. In contrast, Nixer wanted a version that only shows pro-Marxist arguments. When he reverts, he only adds back the pro-Marxist views and exludes the negative.


 * Regarding the Ad hominem against me, that is an attempt to dodge the issue by those with no factual arguments. Obviously npov requires all views to be included if we should discuss liberal democracy in this article, and not only criticisms, and regarding this not only Marxist criticisms. So again, should we copy the very long "Advantages and disadvantages of liberal democracy" from the liberal democracy article here or to the so called Marxit view article?Ultramarine 16:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Why rephrase this as a black and white False Dilemma? A middle ground seems possible, if you would accept it. BruceHallman 16:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That would of course mean reducing the Marxist criticims also, since they now are given disproprtionate space compared to opposing views and other criticisms.Ultramarine 16:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 *  "...now are given disporportionate space..." ? It presently has zero space.  BruceHallman 17:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The word Marxist presently does not appear once in the article. Neither do I see any reference to Marxist criticism. How do you reduce from zero?  And, you change the topic.  The real topic is whether the Marxist view of democracy be included.  Not presently the issue of Marxist criticism of Liberal Democracy.  BruceHallman 17:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The text in question is all about Marxist criticims of liberal demcoracy. There is no presentation of a "Marxist democracy". Ultramarine 17:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Differing semantics I guess, I view the text which you delete as being a Marxist view of democracy. BruceHallman 17:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you cite anything from it that presents how a Marxist democracy should function`Ultramarine 17:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Why now is your criteria for inclusion 'how it would function'? I referring to a "Marxist view of democracy". BruceHallman 17:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If there is only criticisms of liberal democracy and no presentation of what a "Marxist democracy" is, then is it misleading to have that title. By the way, the article about the dictatorship of the proletariat already discusses what Marxist want after the revolution.Ultramarine 17:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a pattern to your responses. You restate as a False Dilemma and then reject.  Is there no possible compromise?  BruceHallman 18:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * See Nixer's latest edit: . He only wants to have Marxist criticims and no opposing views. As stated previously, giving a fair views to all sides mean either copying the very long text regarding criticisms and advantages from the liberal democracy article here, or having a very brief summary that means reducing the Marxist views to a size proportinate to those of other views, or simply refering to the liberal democracy article. I prefer the last option. Simply having a long section with only Marxist criticims is not acceptable.Ultramarine 18:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I favor a compromise, with fewer words pro and con. I started to attempt to do this edit, but cannot find the con argument rebutting the main pro point which is: "The Marxist view ... that the capitalist state cannot be democratic by its nature, as it represents the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. ". Is this central Marxist point rebutted anywhere? BruceHallman 18:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * A belief cannot be rebutted. Lots of other people believe otherwise and their views should also be mentioned.Ultramarine 18:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Fine then, but to argue that inclusion of a few paragraphs of the Marxist belief about democracy is not already sufficiently balanced by the preexisting copious reliance in the article on anti-Marxist sources like Freedom House, The Economist, the CIA, etc.. suggests that your idea of 'balance' is abnormally skewed. I repeat my earlier concerns that this article suffers from systemic bias. The point of view of billions of people presently in the World coming from a Marxist historical perspective deserves strong coverage too. BruceHallman 19:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Except for the Marxist section, the article makes no claim that liberal democracy is a better or worse system than other forms of democracy. But if we are going to discuss this, then all views regarding the advantages and disadvantages should be included.Ultramarine 19:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Rather, I was questioning the balance of belief, which you claimed to be imbalanced. I see that the charts and graphs, and Index of Democracy all come from groups with anti-Marxist belief. Surely, there is already enough to provide sufficient neutrality balance, to counter a small amount of Marxist content? And, do you support the WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias here in the Democracy article? BruceHallman 19:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * None of these state that liberal democracy is better. Why cannot we discuss the advantages and disadvantages of liberal democracy in that article? Why must the overview Democracy article have a long section with Marxist criticisms with no opposing views? Ultramarine 19:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Astonishing, those 'Lists' all put the liberal democracy states at the top, and you deny the state that liberal democracy is better. 'No opposing views', of course not, again you paint this as a False Dilemma.  And, do you support the WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias here in the Democracy article? BruceHallman 19:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No other part of this article states that liberal democracy is better or worse. I see no bias, except if we we only discuss Marxist criticisms with no opposing views. Ultramarine 20:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

And the lists? They put the liberal democracies at the top and the illiberal at the bottom. How is that "No other part..." The heavy reliance on Freedom House as a source, how is that "...no opposing views"''. BruceHallman 20:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Freedom House's ranking is widely used in academic research. Their rankingd as presented on this page does not state that liberal democracies are better.Ultramarine 20:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * They put the liberal democracies at the top and the illiberal at the bottom. How is not not saying liberal democracies are better?  BruceHallman 20:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Having something at the top of list does not mean it is better. There are common lists like "Ten worst..." that have the worst thing at the top.Ultramarine 20:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Please quit playing games. What is the antonym of 'worst'?  BruceHallman 20:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Best?Ultramarine 20:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Systemic bias in the Democracy article.
I see that the Democracy article suffers from a systemic bias, defining democracy from the point of view of liberal democracy. BruceHallman 20:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hm, numerous other varietes of democracy are also described.Ultramarine 20:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The bias is systemic due to the over-reliance upon sources with a pro liberal democractic bias. Simply describing other varieties of democracy does not mitigate the systemic bias.  BruceHallman 20:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, no claims are made in the article that liberal democracies are better. Extensive discussions of this is better in the subarticles. However, if we have a long section of Marxist criticisms with no opposing views, then we certainly have a bias.Ultramarine 20:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * From your biased perspective you see no claim made. I ask if you can imagine the perspective of someone from China, Palestine, Venezuela or Cuba might be different.  Can you imagine alternate perspectives?  BruceHallman 21:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Spare me the personal attacks. I havel already stated that if we should have a discussion of advantages and disadvantages, then all views should be included. Inluding those listing the advantages of liberal democracy.Ultramarine 05:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, when discussing bias, one must consider personal perceptions, and doing such is not an 'attack' or inappropriate.  BruceHallman 16:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

This map from the article is representative of an undue bias from the perspective of liberal democracy. BruceHallman 21:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * How? It shows a ranking widely used in academic research. It does not state that liberal democracies areb better.Ultramarine 05:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I see that the 'academic research' you rely upon also suffers from systemic bias. A study of the funding sources of the research would likely reveal many liberal democratic influences.  Further, the association between 'freedom' as defined by Freedom House with the biased definition of 'democracy' used by Freedom House seems politically motivated, inappropriate in an encyclopedia.  By the way, this article is supposed to be about 'democracy', and the use of a chart of 'freedom' in this article reveals even more bias.  BruceHallman 16:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Quoting from the WikiProject Countering systemic bias article, I see that the following has happened with the Democracy article:


 * "Wikipedians also tend to self-select more heavily among strong adherents or opponents of political ideologies or religious beliefs. Those with strong opinions tend to edit more and more vigorously, while those with no obvious agenda may be less likely to edit Wikipedia than those with interest in having a particular viewpoint represented. This may lead to articles which are not entirely detached or NPOV, but instead might include a mix of heavy-handed promotion and heavy-handed criticism of the same topic. "

Trying to be constructive, I ask: can we try to improve the Democracy article by countering this form of systemic bias? BruceHallman 18:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The US government, directly or indirectly, sponser a very large part of the academic research that is done in the world, including also many academic critics of the US. Again, the map does by itself make no claims regarding which form of governmetn is the best. This view is widely used in acadedmic research. If you can find another academic view regarding which nations are democratic, add it.Ultramarine 18:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

You evaded my question about countering systemic bias. Asking again:

Quoting from the WikiProject Countering systemic bias article, I see that the following has happened with the Democracy article:


 * "Wikipedians also tend to self-select more heavily among strong adherents or opponents of political ideologies or religious beliefs. Those with strong opinions tend to edit more and more vigorously, while those with no obvious agenda may be less likely to edit Wikipedia than those with interest in having a particular viewpoint represented. This may lead to articles which are not entirely detached or NPOV, but instead might include a mix of heavy-handed promotion and heavy-handed criticism of the same topic. "

Trying to be constructive, I ask: can we try to improve the Democracy article by countering this form of systemic bias? BruceHallman 18:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I see no systematic bias, except the repeated attempts to add a large section with Marxist criticisms of liberal democracy with no opposing views.Ultramarine 18:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * From your perspective you see no bias. I ask if you can imagine the perspective of someone from China, Palestine, Venezuela, North Korea or Cuba might be different. Can you imagine alternate perspectives? BruceHallman 18:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Read No Personal Attacks and Civility. This is my notification that I have informed you of these official Wikipedia policies. Yes, I can imagine alternate perspectives. Reliable sources, please.Ultramarine 18:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * On one hand you see no systemic bias, and on the other hand you say you can imagine alternate perspectives. Therefore, do you imagine that people from China, Palestine, Venezuela, North Korea or Cuba might not agree that US sponsored research is a reliable source from their perspective?  BruceHallman 19:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I can imagine that a Maoist would label every country except China as undemocratic and a Trotskyite would label every country in the world as undemocratic. I can imagine that creationists would consider research sponsored by atheist governments as unreliable. However, all of this would be original research. Again, reliable sources as accepted in academia, please.Ultramarine 19:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * My question is about countering systemic bias in Wikipedia, specifically, in this article.

1) If Freedom House, the CIA, etc. create or influence the research used by 'academia', is that research and that 'academia' free from systemic bias? No, likely not.

2) "Wikipedians also tend to self-select more heavily among strong adherents or opponents of political ideologies...", how shall we counter this problem?


 * I suggest that we reduce or eliminate the use of polarized sources such as the CIA and conservative think tanks which are tainted by US government funding. Certainly it should be possible to give more credibility and neutrality to the article by avoiding the use of non-neutral sources.  BruceHallman 19:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, I see no systematic bias, except the repeated attempts to add a large section with Marxist criticisms of liberal democracy with no opposing views. The US government, directly or indirectly, sponser a very large part of the academic research that is done in the world, including also many academic critics of the US. Again, the Freedom House (which have liberals and labor representatives on its board) map does by itself make no claims regarding which form of governmetn is the best. This ranking is widely used in acadedmic research. If you can find another academic view regarding which nations are democratic, add it. Ultramarine 19:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Would you please answer my question #2? BruceHallman 19:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * By following NPOV, verifiability, and reliable sources, the 3 cornerstone Wikipedia policies.Ultramarine 20:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Those three measures can be subjective, when viewed by 'strong adherents or opponents of political ideologies'. Is the CIA, with its obvious bias regarding the global politics of 'democracy', always to be considered NPOV?  Also, when I look at the findings of the CIA, I do not see transparency, that is: their underlying data and assumptions.  How is that always to be considered verifiable?  Considering the history of political intent of the CIA, I see valid questions about using their findings as a 'reliable source'.  For the purpose of this article, should the CIA always be considered to meet WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV? BruceHallman 20:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I did not create the map that uses CIA as a source. Note that CIA seems only to be used as a source to find if the states describe themselves as democratic, not as a source for how CIA views the degree of democarcy in these states. I doubt that the CIA considers Syria and Iran to be demoracies.Ultramarine 20:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, that CIA map subjectively identifies 'allows opposition groups'. Whether or not the groups violate civil law.  I wonder how the CIA evaluates the validity of local law?  BruceHallman 20:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Constitutions usually state if one or several parties are officially allowed.Ultramarine 21:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The map doesn't say parties, it says opposition groups. That seems subjective, and unless there is a neutral method for determining the illegality of a group, I don't see how this is relevant to a democracy article. BruceHallman 21:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The text if you click on the map states opposition parties. Obviously the views of the states themselves are relevant. This an interesting and relatively well-sourced alternative view regarding worldwide democracy.Ultramarine 21:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I know from my study of Cuba, that the surpressed opposition groups are illegal per local law. If the 'views of the states themselves are relevant', what do the 'green' countries on that map have to do with this democracy article? I see that it introduces the subjective bias of the CIA into the article, harming our goal of avoiding sytemic bias. BruceHallman 21:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The map state that oppositin parties are not allowed in Cuba. Again, obviously the views of the states themselves are relevant. This an interesting and relatively well-sourced alternative view regarding worldwide democracy.Ultramarine 22:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with the democracy information in the map, but the 'opposition group' information on the map is subjective, and does not meet WP:V and WP:NPOV. BruceHallman 16:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * We can change it to "opposition party" as per the text when you click on the map.Ultramarine 16:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you affirmatively demonstrate WP:NPOV? Certainly the CIA has 'issues' regarding neutrality.  BruceHallman 16:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * See earlier comments above.Ultramarine 17:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not see that you have demonstrated that the CIA can be presumed to be neutral per WP:NPOV. BruceHallman 17:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the problem of systemic bias in this article: I see that an overwhelming number of the references come from people or institutions based in countries at the 'full democracy' end of the list[Democracy#Index_of_Democracy]. The fact is, this article is based on research from only the democratic elite, the top 10%, failing to include proportional representation from the other 90%. This certainly calls into question the bias of this article. BruceHallman 16:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Almost all research in the world is done in the nations.Ultramarine 17:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, resulting in systemic bias. Actually you probably should have written: "Almost all research in the world (of which I am aware) is done in these nations."    BruceHallman 17:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So we should exclude almost all research from Wikipedia? Ultramarine 17:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, you present a false dilemma. The editors of Wikipedia are obligated to attempt to counter systemic bias. Based on those guidelines, in this case, I suggest: 1) That we consciously focus on the neglected perspectives regarding democracy. 2) That we become more conscious of the bias that results when editors with strong opinions who tend to edit more and more vigorously than those with no obvious agenda.BruceHallman 18:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What we should not do is restore a secton with Marxist criticisms with no opposing views.Ultramarine 18:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That is a separate issue. BruceHallman 18:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I am calling attention to obvious systemic bias in the article, and asking for help to counter the systemic bias. I see specific problems: 1) We have neglected the perspective of the majority of the world by self selecting only research from the democratic elite.  2) The editors of this article tend to edit based on strong opinions, tending to be more vigorous than those with no obvious agenda. What can we do to counter these two forms of bias? BruceHallman 18:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * We follow Wikipedia's three cornerstone policies: NPOV, verifiability, and reliable sources.Ultramarine 18:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, those three policies do not counter systemic bias, especially the two types I have identified. BruceHallman 18:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * NPOV is certainly ained at bias.Ultramarine 18:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Aimed at, certainly, that is the goal. But effectively, WP:NPOV has not succeeded here. The article presently does not use references from countries other than the democratic elite. And, the article has been predominately edited by editors with strong opinions as versus editors with no obvious agenda. How shall we counter this systemic bias? BruceHallman 18:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If there is some view which has a reliable source add it. Arguing that an article is biased because research in the future may give other views than those stated in the article is strange.Ultramarine 18:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Quoting from the WikiProject Countering systemic bias article, I see that the following has happened with the Democracy article:


 * "Wikipedians also tend to self-select more heavily among strong adherents or opponents of political ideologies or religious beliefs. Those with strong opinions tend to edit more and more vigorously, while those with no obvious agenda may be less likely to edit Wikipedia than those with interest in having a particular viewpoint represented. This may lead to articles which are not entirely detached or NPOV, but instead might include a mix of heavy-handed promotion and heavy-handed criticism of the same topic. "

This phenomena controls the determination and evaluation and opinions as to 'reliable source' resulting in systemic bias. What shall we do to counter this form of systemic bias in the article? BruceHallman 18:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I nothing here are not already solvable by following the 3 basic Wikipedia polices stated above.Ultramarine 18:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Those three policies have failed de facto. The systemic bias am questioning is plainly obvious today in the article. 1) The article relies only upon research of the democratic elite. 2) The editors of the article are self-selected, being 'strong adherents or opponents of political ideologies'. This systemic bias is real, and I ask again what shall we do to counter this problem of bias? The policies you suggest have failed us so far. BruceHallman 19:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No they have not. See me previous answers above.Ultramarine 13:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The status quo is an article, failed with regard to systemic bias. 1) The article only relies upon research from the democratic elite.  2) The article suffers from the phenomena that the self selected editors are strong adherents or opponents of political ideologies.  Ideally, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR should be able to fix this bias, but in practice the bias remains.  These policies, and other policies, have not yet fixed the bias.  Why? BruceHallman 16:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Becuase some editors continue to insert a section having Marxist criticisms with no opposing views? Ultramarine 16:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Unlikely. The material you mention is not presently in the article, yet the article continues to suffer from systemic bias even without that material.  Indeed the now deleted material which you describe as the cause of the bias problem appears sourced from regions of the world which do not belong to the democratic elite.  Paradoxically, to reduce this systemic bias problem it appears generally desirable to seek to begin to include material based on references from non democratically elite peoples of the world.  BruceHallman 18:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, an article cannot be biased because unknown research or research in the future may show different views than those already in the article.Ultramarine 18:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it can and it does. Please review WikiProject Countering systemic bias.  It appears to be a natural risk and sometimes consequence from the fact that editors are self selected, tending to be strong adherents or opponents of political ideologies, and in our case dominated by people associated with the democratically elite countries. We have a duty to act to counter this bias, and failing that, to disclaim the bias.  BruceHallman 19:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * We should certainly avoid ad hominem. Please state some concrete problem.Ultramarine 21:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The 'concrete problem' is that the article does not reflect the perspective of the non democratic elite. This problem stems from the cognitive bias of self selected editors. Further, the editing of the article has been skewed by the disproportional participation of editors with strong political ideologies. BruceHallman 22:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ad hominem is not a valid argument. Regading the views of those in nondemocratic societies, it is difficult to know it exactly because the people there cannot express it freely.Ultramarine 22:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

That the article suffers from systemic bias is not ad hominem. Objective proof, for instance, can be seen in that all the cited references come from from democratic elite sources. Also, I see disproportionate 'pro' phrasing versus 'con' phrasing, which I believe results from systemic bias induced by the political ideology of the editors. BruceHallman 20:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Marxist criticism
Doesn't 'Marxist criticism of Democratic capitalism' better describe that new section (versus Marxist criticism of Liberal Democracy)? Considering that Democratic capitalism is the predominate form in use today, a short section including criticism seems appropriate to give some balance to the article. BruceHallman 21:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Liberal democracy is a far more common term that democratic capitalism.Ultramarine 21:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Obviously npov requires all views to be included if we should discuss pros and cons of liberal democracy in this article, and not only criticisms, and regarding this not only Marxist criticisms. So again, should we copy the very long "Advantages and disadvantages of liberal democracy" from the liberal democracy article here? Alternatively, if we should have a summary of pros and cons, then the Marxist text must be proprtionally shortened.Ultramarine 21:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Democratic capitalism is not synonymous with liberal democracy, and I see that the Marxist criticism is aimed at the former, not the latter. Which is the 'more common term' should be irrelevant. BruceHallman 21:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This is an article regarding democracy, a political system, not capitalism, an economic system.Ultramarine 21:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The 'democracy' as really practiced in the world today is associated directly with an economic system, indeed. The typical reader of this article expects that when they search out and read this article, and we should honor the expectation of the reader.  BruceHallman 21:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The typical reader expects to read about democracy, not capitalism. In addition, "democratic capitalism" is a term that the creator only used for US capitalism. He explicitly excludes capitalism in Europe: "Novak’s insight is that the European continental version of capitalism should be distinguished from capitalism as it developed in England and the United States.27 According to Novak, the former version is in accord with the Weberian vision of a selfish, miserly, greedy, grasping, coldly-calculating capitalism dedicated solely to wealth accumulation. So does Marxist criticisms only apply to US capitalism and not other varietes?Ultramarine 22:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Free market democracy then. BruceHallman 21:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Neologisms are original research. The link goes to "democratic capitalism".Ultramarine 22:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Neologisms are an entirely separate issue. That modern democracy is largely free market democracy is broadly accepted.  After a very quick check for WP:V I find verification at freedomhouse.org (see page 23 of their annual report) and verification on dozens of pages at the US State Department.  Clearly, too, Marx criticism is aimed at this same nature of modern democracy, the free market democracy.  (As opposed to the more general liberal democracy.) BruceHallman 16:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, then you should have no problems presenting some quotes by Marx or Lenin mentioning "free market democracy" or something similar and how he thought it differed from some broader conept. Also, could you give a link to the definition of "free market democracy" and how it is used in academic research?Ultramarine 16:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

A possible solution
It appears to me that the above controversy originates from the fact that the section under dispute is a section dealing with Marxist criticisms of liberal democracy. Notice my emphasis on criticisms and liberal democracy. Because the section is critical rather than descriptive, it invites counter-argument. Because the section deals with liberal democracy, it is better suited to the liberal democracy article rather than this one.

A possible solution would be to write a purely descriptive section about the positive Marxist views on democracy (that is, the Marxist views on the kind of democracy that should exist, rather than the kind that shouldn't). This section would have to feature a prominent link to dictatorship of the proletariat and soviet democracy, where the issue is discussed more in-depth. -- Nikodemos 23:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Seems very good. The socialist democracy section could be expanded in order to present the various socialist alternatives in more and accurate detail. Pros and cons are left to the subarticles.Ultramarine 23:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This avoids the Elephant in the room which is: Readers of this encyclopedia will be interested in learning about democracy as it now exists, pro and con. This article should prominently feature this information. Also it is standard practice in this encyclopedia to include in the article a 'criticism' section.  BruceHallman 16:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Obviously npov requires all views to be included if we should discuss pros and cons of liberal democracy in this article, and not only criticisms, and regarding this not only Marxist criticisms. So again, should we copy the very long "Advantages and disadvantages of liberal democracy" from the liberal democracy article here? Alternatively, if we should have a summary of pros and cons, then the Marxist text must be proprtionally shortened. My prefered alternative is of course to keep this in the subarticles, like we do for the other forms of democracy.Ultramarine 16:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

"Democracy as it now exists" is the subject of the article liberal democracy. -- 69.6.101.82 06:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * How do you figure? The subject of this democracy article should be what the typical reader expects (and hopes) to find when they type into the search box and click 'go'.  It should not be what editors, with political agendas, want.  Obviously the typical reader exists in today's world and therefore the democracy they are interested in learning about is that which now exists in their world.  BruceHallman 16:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Arguments for and against
A few minutes ago I was tempted to move the entire advantages and disadvantages section back to liberal democracy, but then I gave it some more thought. Surely there are some arguments for and against democracy in general - not just liberal democracy in particular. Those arguments should remain in this article (by the way, the Marxist one is not among them). I propose the following rule:

Those arguments that refer to democratic government in principle (such as the "tyranny of the majority") belong in this article. Those arguments that refer specifically to real instances of democracy in the past 200 years (such as statistics on the performance of democracies in various fields) belong in liberal democracy. -- Nikodemos 10:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Since "democracy" refer to so many systems I think you will have difficulty finding any criticims that can apply to them all. Regarding "tyranny of the majority" I think at least anarchists and supporters of deliberative democracy and and supporters of sortition would argue that it does not apply to a "real democracy", that is, their variant. Lenin would see it as an advantage. However, you could maybe use faith based arguments, like it is against some religous laws which demand a theocracy or monarchy, or aristocratic/racist argument that some groups naturally are superior to others and should rule.Ultramarine 11:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Marxist view
Marxism is a major political theory and its views should not be avoided. First, we of course shell include Marxist criticism of liberal democracy along with criticism from other positions. We do not need criticism of criticism here though. We should also include the Marxist view on democracy how it should be (which is impossible without including Marxist criticism of liberal democracy). We should include liberal criticism of Marxist proposals.--Nixer 22:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)