Talk:List of wars between democracies/Archive 3

Wars involving the Roman Republic
I've tagged this section as synth. Drawing a long bow to suggest Carthage was a democracy, as I recall, it was considered to be an oligarchy. In any case is there a source that asserts that the Punic Wars was a war between two democracies? --Martin (talk) 02:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As the humorist Will Cuppy summarizes the old-fashioned view: "Carthage was ruled by its rich men, and was therefore a plutocracy; Rome was also ruled by its rich men, and was therefore a republic." But that was most of a century ago, about sources much older, and there have certainly been assertions of Carthage's embattled democracy since (as indeed before; Mommsen remarks on the democracy of Carthage). Synth, however, seems wrong; little enough is being asserted, but all of it is consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


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


 * I notice the link to the book you provided has the word "democratic" in scare quotes. That's not very reassuring. Unless there is a reliable source that clearly asserts that the Punic Wars was a war between two democracies, I think these borderline synthy cases such as this damage the overall credibility of this list, and should be removed. --Martin (talk) 02:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming you read all the sources on the list above? The classic 19th-century scholars such as Mommsen and Niebuhr are there to indicate that the relation of democratic politics in both Carthage and Rome to the Punic Wars is a longstanding theme in classical scholarship. Since their manner of writing is far more discursive than most modern scholars, it takes a lot of reading to summarize their points. In addition to the link PMA gave to Mackay, you might want to read the chapter in Lazenby, the section in McGIng in which constitutional questions are explicitly linked to the Punic Wars, and the explicit statement in Walbank, though you have to look elsewhere on the page to see that one of the elements of the "mixed constitution" is democratic. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I have read all the sources. There is a world of difference between a mixed constitution with elements of democracy, and a constitutional democracy. Sure, some internal functions were subject to a democratic process, like Chief Magistrate to which Hanibal was elected to for a brief period, but that's unrelated to foreign relations let alone any military campaign. It's no wonder that MacKay places the term "democratic" in scare quotes, it obviously wasn't a full democracy as we understand the term today. --Martin (talk) 04:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You are a very fast reader. As a woman, I wouldn't consider Athens much of a democracy were I to be transported there to live; that doesn't mean we should delete the article Athenian democracy. The neutrality of this list depends on using sources to determine which polities have been called democracies, and not imposing our own (assuming the phrase "our own" has any collective meaning) standards of democracy. We've discussed above that since few if any polities have been "true" or "pure" democracies, the constitutional status of a given country must be verified by sources and qualified. (I'm not sure you're understanding the Polybian mixed constitution, or in the case of Rome, about which I know infinitely more than I do Carthage, the role of the populus; I would prefer not to go over this in depth, and refer you to the relevant works of Fergus Millar and T.P. Wiseman in addition to a quick glance at Constitution of the Roman Republic.) In creating a list, each section should have a brief introduction that marks historical changes in the definition of democracy; the relevant article is History of democracy. The use of the word "democracy" and "democratic" in relation to ancient politics has a long history. If you've read all 13 of the sources listed above, then you see that indeed scholars do explicitly discuss the relation of the Punic Wars to democratic politics in Rome and Carthage, both of which had mixed constitutions with a democratic element. The burden of proof would then be on you to provide sources that state with equal explicitness that the two parties to the Punic Wars had nothing to do with democracy; even so, the two points of view — that democratic politics had a bearing on the Punic Wars, and that (hypothetically) democratic politics had nothing to do with the Punic Wars — would need to be given due weight in relation to each other. Cynwolfe (talk) 05:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I should add that when I first arrived at this discussion, I doubted that the Punic Wars belonged here. Seemed like reaching. Since my main area of interest on Wikipedia is the Roman Republic (though primarily the late Republic), I choose that topic to look up. I was genuinely surprised by the amount of supporting material I found. Forgive me for pointing out, if you're already keenly aware of it, that the Republic and the Empire had two different forms of government); the democratic element of Rome's mixed constitution — the populus, as represented for instance by the tribunes of the plebs and the people's assemblies — was no surprise to me (though I've been surprised at the degree of resistance to this aspect of Roman politics here), but I hadn't realized there was such a clear scholarly tradition that treated the Punic Wars in relation to democratic politics in Rome and Carthage. Cynwolfe (talk) 05:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no dispute that being originally a Phoenician colony, Carthage had been influenced by Greek democratic elements. However there is scholarly concensus that by the time the Punic wars started, power had been concentrated into the hands of a closed oligarchy, similarly to Venice's Council of Ten. Sure there were "democratic" elements in the Venetian system, for example the Council of Ten was elected by the Grand Council, but membership of that 2000 strong Grand Council was open only to noble men through birth. Certainly not a "democracy" in terms of "rule by the people". Here are some excerts: --Martin (talk) 06:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "In theory the constitution of Carthage was a mixed form of government, in which the powers of the kings, lords and commons were held in equal balance. But at the outbreak of the Punic wars it had become in practice a close oligarchy, founded on wealth"
 * "The constitution of Carthage was a municipal oligarchy, somewhat resembling that of Venice."
 * "the Venetians follow what might be termed Carthaginian practice, as Aristotle described the Carthaginian constitution, sketching a structure of rule he defines as aristocracy deviating into oligarchy"


 * I myself would tend to agree with Syme (linked and/or quoted above) that all government devolves into oligarchy. And as I said, I was surprised to find the material I did — since the topic was "democracy", I searched "democracy/democratic/democratically" with "Rome" and "Carthage." You seemed to have searched "Carthage + Venice + oligarchy" (not an obvious combination for the topic) and have gotten results accordingly. I'm not here to assert my original research, which I practice elsewhere; here I confine myself to what sources say. Of the three sources you cite, one is a book on Venice (an odd choice given the vociferous synth arguments on this page); the second is an obscure book from Bibliobazaar (I'm assuming you're familiar with what they do), missing copyright and press info but looking to be 19th century or early 20th century, not in my well-outfitted-for-classics university library and by an author I can't seem to identify at the moment; and the third is an entry from an 1862 edition of Smith's Dictionary, still an extremely useful reference book, but not evenly expert on all subjects. I don't see how these would stack up against the list of sources above, which include not only classic works of scholarship and modern specialist works, but give much more expansive treatments of the subject. Cynwolfe (talk) 07:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say, on reading the sources, that there seems substantial agreement that there was a successful democratic reform at Carthage towards the end of the Second Punic War, and it became an radically democratic state in 151 BC, sufficiently so for Polybius to strongly disapprove of it, and having something to do with the success of the belligerent party at Rome. Google counts will not detect this, any more than searches on Russia and democracy will detect Kerensky; and any source which depends on Aristotle - who wrote two centuries earlier - is talking about something else.


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


 * Perhaps a way to get a feel for the weight of consensus between "Carthaginian oligarchy" and "Carthaginian democracy", consider this
 * Google web:
 * "Carthaginian oligarchy" 675 hits
 * "Carthaginian democracy" 4 hits
 * Google books:
 * "Carthaginian oligarchy" 275 hits
 * "Carthaginian democracy" 5 hits
 * Google scholar:
 * "Carthaginian oligarchy" 14 hits
 * "Carthaginian democracy" 0 hits
 * --Martin (talk) 09:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You miss the point, which is not quantitative but qualitative. Racking up page hits does not make an argument. The sources I cite above don't exclude the obvious fact that both Rome and Carthage were controlled by an oligarchy, as you know since you read them. Rather, they discuss the role of democratic politics in relation to the wars; in particular, the effect of democratic politics on Hannibal's career and path toward war, and how a "democratic" movement in Carthage in opposition to the traditional oligarchy contributed to that. Now, on the merge proposal page I agreed with you (and you may search through my comments here, though I'll have to apologize in advance for having lost my patience early in the game and expressing my exasperation rudely) that this list should not serve as an actual or de facto indictment of democratic peace theory. Of what potential use is it, then? It's a starting point for readers who are interested in how democratic politics relate to governments declaring and carrying out war. Like any other article, its usefulness depends on keeping its potential use in mind while constructing it. I suppose I would ask what is gained by excluding what is clearly, from the amount of discussion it's received on this page, the interesting and provocative example of the Punic Wars? The effect of the democratic element in the constitution of the Roman Republic, for instance, is a factor in the career of Julius Caesar (see populares, though that is a little beginning of an article). That is why it seems legitimate and instructive to me to include this example: framing it properly would demonstrate the nature of the political or historical question. No one's trying to say that Rome and Carthage were impeccable examples of democracy. The Punic Wars are an example of how the democratic element in these two countries related to the waging of the war, right down to the composition of the army, if you recall that discussion in one of the sources I listed. I suppose I don't understand strenuous efforts to exclude an entry that raises such illuminative questions. Whose purpose is served by that? Cynwolfe (talk) 14:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Look, it seems to me that the idea of Carthage being an oligarchy is almost universally accepted as opposed to it being a democracy, simply because more sources refer to it as "Carthaginian oligarchy" rather than "Carthaginian democracy". You concede that both Rome and Carthage were controlled by an oligarchy is an obvious fact. If one needs to dig deeply into the sources to extract the contrary idea, then that is giving undue weight if not engaging in synthesis. Sure there were democratic elements within Carthage, but it's not core to the Carthaginian regime. You say "and how a "democratic" movement in Carthage in opposition to the traditional oligarchy contributed to that", plenty of undemocratic regimes have democratic movements in opposition to it, but that doesn't make that regime democratic. If you want to discuss how the democratic elements related to the waging of the Punic wars, then I don't think this is the correct article to do that in, perhaps Punic Wars would be more appropriate. As I said, these border line cases damage the overall credibility of the list and should be removed. --Martin (talk) 19:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I neither edit this article nor contribute to its content. I'm here because of the kinds of questions it raises, both structurally and in terms of political history. You may not be interested in the same questions, or may view them differently. I'm simply interested in discussing them. I repeat, nobody ever said Carthage was a democracy. But a problem on this talk page is that no country seems to be permissible as a democracy. I do find it untenable to say that identifying a continual theme and interest among ancient historians and classical scholars is having to dig deep as if for something hidden; on the contrary, it is evidently a persistent scholarly topic, which your three sources — the merit, depth, or relevance of which are less than sterling— hardly undermine. (Lord Havell, as it turns out, is likely to have had his own biases.) It has been a unique argument on this page that the more sources support an entry, the more vigorously the validity of its inclusion has been attacked. I can't recall ever seeing this argument elsewhere on Wikipedia. As I said, I came here with your disinclination to include the Punic Wars, but discussing them has been illuminative of the topic, and so I wonder why a clear and brief presentation of the issues would damage the article. I maintain that if done well, it would actually make both the criteria for inclusion and the topic clearer. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a question of where to draw the line. I've not examined the other entries in this article as to whether they merit inclusion in this list, so I can't comment. As you say "nobody ever said Carthage was a democracy", so why is it even in this list? Perhaps we need an article List of wars between oligarchies. am I missing something here? --Martin (talk) 20:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you're just coming at it from a different direction. A frequent theme on this page is that it's hard to "prove" that any polity has been or is an ideal/real/true democracy, so line-drawing is continually at issue. My current thinking on the list is that its usefulness is as a starting point for readers interested in the question of how democracy relates to war-waging. It's of no interest to me whether such a reader might be looking for evidence for or against democratic peace theory, which as far as I can see does not depend on the assertion that democracies have never gone to war with each other. One productive theme of discussion here (to my mind) has been not so much the hairsplitting over the many forms of democracy, but rather the necessary confusion between its two broadest categories, democracy as a form of government and "democracy" to mean the democratic process. Although the 'democratic' or people's branch of the Roman Republican constitution commands certainty, from the limited amount I know, the relevance of the term to Carthage lies particularly in Hannibal's use of democratic politics (democracy as democratic process) — which, however, has to do with voting, also a persistent and important theme here in the determination of what's a democracy. So that's why I've found it illustrative, and am willing to entertain the value of the entry. I just feel that when possible, articles should articulate ambiguities, controversies, or disputed facts, and not withhold problematic material. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

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


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

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


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

Is there any questions on this? --OpenFuture (talk) 21:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * An admirable example of unsound logic. (2) does not follow from (1); more relevantly, even if (2) were sound, it's a restriction on entries. (4) is a restriction on sources; it doesn't follow.


 * But the questions are:


 * Does Babst mean democracies?
 * Yes, he does; Rummel and Ray and Singer and Small all say so.
 * Are readers harmed by including him?
 * No; both entries in which he is cited have sources, from which Babst is specifically distinguished, which say that the war was between "democracies". (As I've said, if OpenFuture thinks this unclear, xe is welcome to clarify that Babst is using different terms.)
 * Are readers helped by including him?
 * Yes; some readers will want to know what the founder of democratic peace theory said on the subject; what he said is that the peace he finds does not include civil wars - and these are the examples he cited. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Where OpenFuture confuses me is when he says "a conflict therefore must be called a war between democracies by a reliable source." Here again is the assertion that an entry can and must be made on the basis of a single source; what does this mean? I understand the question raised by Babst not using the term 'democracy'; but does OF mean that the source must be a monograph on the subject of "war between democracies"? So if a military historian is writing about a war, and he mentions as background that one of the polities is a democratic republic, but five constitutional scholars in various books and articles identify the other as a direct democracy (not mentioned by the mil-hst), that doesn't count? Cynwolfe (talk) 22:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No as that is wp:synth as for whom is harmed, the project is, the rules are there for a reason to stop people adding all manner of stuff to get an end result they want mark nutley (talk) 23:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Pmanderson:
 * (2) does not follow from (1) - Did I ever said it did? 2 is a requirement of WP:POLICY. You yourself has agreed to it multiple times. Are you saying now that you no longer agree? Are you backtracking on our agreement that a conflict should only be listed if a reliable source claims it's a war between democracies?
 * (1); more relevantly, even if (2) were sound, it's a restriction on entries. - Yes. A restriction again forced on us by Wikipedia policy. The article is called "List of wars between democracies". Then we can only list wars between democracies. Otherwise this article becomes a WP:COATRACK.
 * Does Babst mean democracies? - That is only answerable by using WP:SYNT which is against Wikipedia policy. The relevant question is does he say democracies. And he does not. Hence he can't be used as a source to claim a conflict is a war between democracies.
 * some readers will want to know what the founder of democratic peace theory said on the subject; - Yes, and that can be fixed, by the compromise solution I have laid forward several times, that solves all SYN and OR and UNDUE issues.
 * Cynwolfe:
 * Here again is the assertion that an entry can and must be made on the basis of a single source; -Yes. See WP:SYN. This is not using several sources for a list, that would not be SYN (although it has other issues in this case) it is not using several sources to make a narrative, that's not SYN. It's using several sources to make a claim that neither source says.
 * but does OF mean that the source must be a monograph on the subject of "war between democracies"? - No. It must claim that the conflict is a war between democracies. I don't understand why you are trying to over complicate things, unless you are just being obtuse, which I hope is not the case. I said nothing about monographs, neither does WP:SYN. Why would you drag in monographs? Why would you think it has to be a monograph? Again, it's perfectly simple: The source must actually support what it is being used to source. And Babst does *not say* that the Boer wars are wars between democracies. What in this is unclear? --OpenFuture (talk) 07:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

To make my answer simpler:

OpenFuture's position leaps from:
 * 1. The citations must collectively do X (here, support that such-and-such a war was between A and B and that A and B were democracies), to
 * 2. One citation must do X all by itself, to
 * 4. No citation can do Y or Z, even if another citation for the same war does X.

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

OpenFuture wants a different article, on a different subject, in a bizarrely chopped-up and austere style. I suggest that OpenFuture write one; we can discuss overlap later. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Does Babst say in the book that this was a war between democracy's? if not then you can`t use it as a source mark nutley (talk) 15:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Does he have to spell it democracy's, too? No, we don't have to comply with a rule mark nutley and his friends made up. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate a reply to the question, thanks mark nutley (talk) 15:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * One thing further, if the way i spell it is good enough for the rest of the world it`s good enough for me. mark nutley (talk) 15:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * And yet we're not allowed to call you a … (grits teeth and mutters "not worth it, not worth it"). The form democracy's is a singular possessive equivalent to "of a democracy." Second-graders are taught that you do not form a plural with an apostrophe. Democracies is the plural of democracy. The form democracys does not exist in contemporary orthography. I simply cannot take you seriously because you refuse to inform yourself. Therefore, Mercury the Psychopomp has shaken his stick at me and exclaimed "Get out of there!" Sorry to abandon those of you who are trying to argue from an informed perspective instead of shouting "synth!" "OR!" "POV!" and hoping one will stick. I've done my time in this purgatory. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Excuse me for using the common usage in society, how incredibly stupid i must be to not have informed myself. Regardless of how i spell it i still require a reply to the above question mark nutley (talk) 17:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed you have done your time, Cynwolfe. I admire your patience.  I've taken to ignoring filibustering based on uninformed misconceptions, which, in one case, seem innocent but obstinately persistent and in the other case seem willful and intentional -- in both cases, the end results seems to be to "win" by exhaustion.  Perhaps I can suggest that discussing only actual substantive comments would relieve a good deal of the tension for editing in this area.  But please don't utterly jump-ship and forsake the good-faith editors yet! BigK HeX (talk) 17:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Whom are you referring to as a bad faith editor? mark nutley (talk) 17:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * To BigK HeX: Thanks for your remarks. "Filibuster" strikes me as the right word, and I should've thought of it as you do sooner. I'm retreating until I have time to contribute in a more immediately constructive and concrete way — one that allows me to avoid the kind of childish fight-picking just evidenced. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Filibustering is indeed the right word, but you need to take a deep think about who here is doing it. Who is ignoring Wikipedia policy? Who claims that Wikipedia policy is "made up" by others here? Who ignores arguments? Who tries to avoid the issues and writes long rambling essays on various more or less irrelevant topics? --OpenFuture (talk) 09:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Pmanderson: I've never claimed anything like 1. Wikipedia policy does claim both 2 and 4. If you don't like Wikipedia policy, there are forums to discuss that. Personally, I like it and will follow it. I do not know if Mark was involved with the creation of WP:V or not, but I don't see how it makes a difference. Whoever created it, it is now Wikipedia policy, and you do in fact need to follow it. All of it, including WP:RS and WP:OR and WP:SYN. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So you say. You have not supplied any evidence of that; you have been asked for articles edited on such a principle - and have declined to provide any. We are not bound by something you made up one day either. It is true that it is convenient to have all three necessary components of "A, a democracy, was at war with B, another democracy" supplied by a single wource - which is why I have generally cited such sources; but it is not necessary, and until some uninvolved editor says something so silly, I see no reason to discuss this further. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I`m sorry but it is necessary, it is policy. Why are you refusing to see this? mark nutley (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Because your only evidence it is policy is "Because I say so". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No because it has been pointed out to you, lets try again wp:synth Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources That is policy, not something i made up, please wp:agf and just read wp:synth mark nutley (talk) 22:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, what you made up is the rule against saying "A and B". But I am repeating myself. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec)WP Synth prevents a conclusion being drawn that is not present in the original material. This is a LIST, and the validation of what is or is not in a list can be done in the manner suggested by PMAnderson.  OpenFuture and Mark on this and at least one other page you are persistently asserting your interpretation of policy rather than making any genuine attempt to engage with other editors.  Ironically on Mass killings under Communist regimes where an integrated source has been found which relegates your favored theories to a fringe or near fringe status you are arguing against integrated sources.  This is Wiki-Lawyering and is becoming disruptive.-- Snowded  TALK  23:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Rubbish Snowed, and you know it. PMA is using synth here to reach a conclusion not in the sources, this is a violation of policy. That is disruptive. Please keep MKUCR on that talk page it has no place here. PMA read the policy, If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B which part of that do you think i made up? ~
 * This is a LIST - This is about the use of Babst as a source. It has nothing to do with anything being a list. The claim "The Boer wars is a war between democracies" is not a list. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Abd that precise sentence has a source, which is Russert, not Babst.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That is possible, but you are also using Babst as a source for the statement, and he does *not* say it. So, Babst can not be used as a source for that statement. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Let's start at WP:V: "This policy requires that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question."

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

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

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

That means you can *not* infer from Rummel that Babst says "electoral governments" but means "democracies". For further information about that, see WP:OR in particular WP:SYN. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a claim that I cannot infer from Rummel what Rummel says. But that does not matter, since the present text, unless it is mutilated further, does not say that Babst says anything about "democracies", but suggests that the reader see what he did say, while making clear that he used a different terminology.


 * Am I correct in concluding that OpenFuture, in ignoring my long-standing offer to make the footnote clearer, concedes that it is clear as it stands? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the 23rd of July you did make a step forward by in the quote note that you need to use other sources to interpret him to make him support the statement. In other words, you now claim in the footnote that you need synthesis to have him support the claim. That's a step forward, thank you. But I think that if you want to add him to a "See also" or "Further reading" section, that's fine. But now he is under references, and used as a source, by referring to other sources, which makes it WP:SYN. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Stop putting words in my mouth. I said nothing of the kind. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, so it doesn't say there that Babst talked about electoral governments, and you need to go to other sources to draw the conclusion that Babst meant democracies? --OpenFuture (talk) 06:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I explain why the reader may be interested in the reference (I would be), and I provide it; OpenFuture's idea appears to be to tell the reader as little as possible. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You try to put a "See also" into a Reference. Why? References are supposed to support the text. This doesn't. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This reference informs the reader. OpenFuture has been consistently opposed to telling the reader anything the reader might want to know. Why? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Both you and Cynwolfe are very fond of making up straw men. That is not helpful for the discussion. The question is why you absolutely want it as a *reference* when it isn't. Why do you, as a source, want to put something that you now apparently agree can't be used as a source? --OpenFuture (talk) 06:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have never agreed that it can't be used as a source; nobody (except the ineffable mark nutley) has ever agreed to the rule you made up.
 * However, in the interests of harmony, I made clear that Babst used "freely elective governments" to discuss states which elect their governments periodically, have secret ballot and civil liberties, and so on; i.e. democracies; I should not have engaged in appeasement of the intransigent - we can see how well it worked; I shall not hereafter. I should add, for those who have not seen this fraudulent argument before, that every reliable source who has ever cited Babst has done so as denying the existence of (non-civil) wars between democracies.
 * But, even if he did not support the wars for which he is cited, what he did say will be of interest to the reader - and, at least until there is an article on a List of wars between freely elective governments (which I will not be writing), this is the place for it.
 * Having said that, I do not intend to discuss the matter further - except if necessary to prove OpenFuture's bad faith and opposition to the purpose of Wikipedia. I can always link to this the next time he bores people with it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 07:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * nobody (except the ineffable mark nutley) has ever agreed to the rule you made up.  - Oh really? The rule "I made up" is that the entries should be supported by a source that says it's a war between democracies. Let's see if nobody except Marknutley agreed to that:
 * "Remove all list items that don't have a reasonable, sourced claim to being a war between democracies. -- Locke9k"
 * "If an actual cite can be found to state that it is a 'war between democracies' then it can stay. Else, it will have to be removed -- Alastairward"
 * "The list is of 'wars between democracies'. If one is labelled as such by a reliable third party source, include it. -- WikiuserNI"
 * And finally: "we should list every pair of countries that have met in a conflict that a reliable source has called a war between democracies. -- Pmanderson"
 * If you want to include yourself in a list of nobodies that's probably up to you, but it's not nice to do it to others. ;)
 * At least you admit that you fail WP:AGF. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Blankings:
 * 30 July 18:29
 * 23:05
 * 23:20
 * I also said per talk mark nutley (talk) 23:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, if you're going to revert, you have to discuss - including the long list of sources on the democratization of Carthage at above. But this short-circuits the whole pointless argument about whether democracy at Rome and democracy at Carthage = democracy at Rome and Carthage. Now pleae stop blanking sourced assertions.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Erm no, i reverted based on what has been said above. Hence per talk. Should you wish to argue it then do so in that section, thanks mark nutley (talk) 00:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Questions: Pmanderson: Do you have one source claiming these wars was wars between democracies? Not wars between republics, not one source saying A was a democracy and another saying B was a democracy. Do you have *one* source saying "these are wars between democracies"? Marknutley: Have you read the given sources? --OpenFuture (talk) 09:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with the removal, per my discussion with Cynwolfe above. --Martin (talk) 00:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * per use of google to determine whether there is a source. There is a source, and it was cited. If you had brought other sources, that would have been a useful contribution.  Be ashamed of yourself. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you are being a little bit unreasonable here, the article does not hinge on the presence of the Punic wars, its removal doesn't come even close to gutting the article, there are plenty of other wars listed. --Martin (talk) 03:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The shameful aspect is editing on the basis of a google count. The gutting is progressive, and your removal of sourced material only assists it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There is nothing shameful about using google search tools to get a feel for consensus for a concept. Also with 19 wars listed I hardly think that removing the Punic wars could hardly be considered "gutting", let alone justify placing these tags. --Martin (talk) 21:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I stand by my footnote:David Churchman, Why We Fight: Theories of Aggression and Human Conflict, University Pres of America (2005), p.143, who discusses Rome and Carthage (in those words). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ?Just because material is sourced does not mean it belongs. Can you not just answer the question, does your source say this was a war between democracies? Given the evidence presented above i do not see how it can mark nutley (talk) 16:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Then you haven't read Cynwolfe's list of sources; Carthage had "a democratic revolution" in 237 BC and, while there continued to be popular and conservative parties, the popular party was elected in 151 BC, which was one of things that decided Rome on the Third Punic war. It is therefore possible that Churchman is generalizing; but that would be original research.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC) See Serge Lancel: History of Carthage(1993, Eng. tr. 1995) pp. 116-120, 411; Richard Miles "Carthage must be destroyed" (2010): 214, 318, 337. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I am, I admit, curious. Since the ineffable mark nutley protests this removal, would the poster, or mark, explain how an assertion with one source, which ranks the First Kashmir War as a full-scale war, and India and Pakistan as democracies in 1948, can possibly be original research? What's original? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Last post for a few days, did i say i protested it? Please post the diff for were i did, thanks mark nutley (talk) 19:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Really? Did mark forget this edit in the space of half an hour? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This is my last edit to your article Stop calling everything vandalism adding an OR tag is not wp:vandal. Just please stop calling editors vandal`s ok were in there am i protesting over the tag`s removal? It is your accusation of calling everything vandalism  i was objecting to. mark nutley (talk) 19:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm gobsmacked by the choice of books cited by User:Pmanderson to support his case. The book Carthage must be destroyed by Richard Miles is a theatrical drama written in conjunction with the Traverse Theatre of Scotland! The other book by Serge Lancel History of Carthage doesn't appear to exist, but looking at another book of his, Hannibal, doesn't mention "democracy" even once, but mentions "oligarchy" several times. Pmanderson's assertion "Carthage had "a democratic revolution" in 237 BC and, while there continued to be popular and conservative parties, the popular party was elected in 151 BC" does not bear up to scrutiny. Lancel writes "Of course, we shall see that Hamilcar and his eldest son subsequently developed a movement that tended to make public life in Carthage evolve in a direction that has been termed "democratic"; but there was nothing at all "revolutionary" about this movement, nothing that revealed any solidarity whatsoever between its instigators and a lower social class". Note the use of scare quotes by Lancel. It wasn't a real democracy at all, just an attempt by one faction to exploit people for their our ends against the ruling oligarchy. In any case, it must be noted that these developments occurred towards the end of the Punic wars, not at the beginning, so it cannot be argued that these wars were started by two democracies. I think that Pmanderson is advocating an idea that simply doesn't exist in the sources. --Martin (talk) 21:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Lancels, Carthage is here. Carthage Must be Destroyed is a history. Apologize for the intrusion. Carry on with the arguing. Only wanted to set the record straight. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


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


 * It would be cherrypicking if the oligarchy were to be ignored in presenting the standard scholarly views (at any rate, that would be a POV and balance issue, not synth). The democratic element of the Polybian mixed constitution is relevant, and I'm not convinced Martin really understands why: since the time of Polybius the effects of democratic politics on the Punic Wars have presented a clear and persistent historiographical theme. Instead, Martin takes the extremist position that because the two polities represent mixed constitutions rather than "pure" democracy (as if that's ever existed), all discussion of this subject should be suppressed. Why? Explaining the issues clearly would illuminate the criteria for inclusion in the list, the historical usage of the term 'democracy', and how democratic politics in antiquity might differ from the modern world. So I have to wonder why it's so urgent to one group of editors (none of whom regularly if ever contributes in the area of ancient Greece and Rome) to exclude the important link of ancient Rome in the historical picture. I don't intend to keep up a pointless argument, but I did want to reiterate so my comments wouldn't be buried above. I don't see why you should exclude an interesting and illustrative section where an explanation of the processes of ancient democracy and its relation to a ruling oligarchy are highly informative to the reader within this topic. It may be that you can play the "rules game" in such a way so as to block a "move" that would include such a discussion. But I see no informative purpose served by that; quite the opposite. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Cyn, do you still stand by your assertion "nobody ever said Carthage was a democracy"? I have no objection to you creating an article Development of democratic elements within the Carthaginian oligarchy where you can explore the processes of ancient democratic development and its relation to a ruling oligarchy to your heart's content, but this is a list which cannot do justice to such a deep and nuanced topic, it is not appropriate here. --Martin (talk) 22:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope she doesn't; it's not true. This passage, linking Carthage with Tyre, Rome, and Athens, as democracies, is not really difficult to find. But text saying that the question is nuanced would be useful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Since when was Wikipedia concerned about the TruthTM, and are the authors of the book about Japan you linked, Iichirō Tokutomi, Hiroaki Matsuzawa, Nicholas Wickenden, scholars on ancient history? --Martin (talk) 22:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It is interested in verifiability; part of verifiability is truth about sources. I suppose that it is necessary to explain this to an editor who has just made three false statements about them in the course of a personal attack. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Stay on topic User:Pmanderson, play the ball not the person. Verifibility is about ensuring all material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source to show that it is not original research and synthesis. --Martin (talk) 23:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I will try not to react to your baiting. But until you strike your unfounded attack, this conversation is over; even if platitude is an improvement on falsehood, it's not much loss. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ??? You seem confused, you linked to an edit by SmackBot claiming it was an "unfounded attack", take it up with the Bot owner. --Martin (talk) 01:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, my browser must have rebelled at the link to so many falsehoods; the comment about being gobsmacked at the beginning of this thread. I trust it is now knotted off. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Carthage with Tyre, Rome, and Athens, as democracies, is not really difficult to find. - Right, but where they both democracies at the time when the war in question started? If not, then it's not a war between democracies. That source doesn't say, so hence it can't be used. (I haven't read your other sources in this question, I don't have time to follow all WP:OR discussion here, so I'll keep to principles at the moment). --OpenFuture (talk) 06:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * One grows very bored with the speculations of doctrinaires on sources they haven't read. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Where is the speculation? And I still don't appreciate your insults. Keep off the ad hominemns, thank you. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

A modest proposal
The following conversation is indicative:
 * ''Amen. This list cannot exist either to prove or disprove democratic peace theory. Or any other theory. Constructing it that way would make it non-neutral. That is why each entry must be verified on a case-by-case basis, according to the relevant scholarship. In the case of antiquity, that means primarily ancient historians and classical scholars in conjunction with generalist military and political historians who deal with antiquity. Some theorists may exclude ancient democracies or democratic republics for the purposes of framing their arguments about democracy and war in the modern era, because they're interested in the, um, modern era. But since the list does not exist as evidence for the theories of any particular scholars, their theories cannot be used to exclude entries otherwise verifiable. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No it's not.'' - Yes it is. It was renamed from the way less controversial "List of possible exceptions to democratic peace theory". This list is, no matter if you like it or not, a list that contains possible exceptions to democratic peace theory, and as such it is connected to it. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * (Inserting comment out of order because of edit conflict.)'' OpenFuture's last comment throws the problem into high relief: his objections to verifiable content expose a vulnerability to an interpretation of POV-pushing: he objects because the list might contradict a particular theory. He will object to any entry, no matter how well verified and explained, because he objects to the existence of the list. I gather that he approves of democratic peace theory and wishes not to see it challenged. The arguments of at least some forms of the theory, however, don't even depend on whether wars between democracies have historically taken place, so even in defense of a favored theory, this exclusionist approach would be intellectually untenable. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

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


 * As usual, everything you (and Cynwolfe) say about me or what I want or what I say is incorrect. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course it is; you never proposed that this article be renamed Possible exceptions to democratic peace theory; you don't want a new standard of proof; you never demanded that this article be divided up  into separate lists, one for each source - and two plus two equals five. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 08:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggested renaming back as a compromise, since you wanted to revert the article back to it's state then. You wanted to add loads of things that was not wars between democracies, but had been used as arguments against DPT. In that case the article should be renamed. To claim that this means that *I* want a different article is absurd. You are after all the one who reverted back the changes done to stop the article being a WP:COATRACK.
 * I do not want another article. I have suggested ways we can fix the issues with this article. You do not like them, which of course is up to you. But claiming that I therefore want another article is completely baseless.
 * I'm not sure why you call WP:V "new standard of proof", it doesn't seem new to me. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec)It is however the case that your editing perspective on this is that of democratic peace theory, and the same would appear to be at the case on the mass killings arguments. Given the definition of democracy (which is historically situated within the near past) within DPT it is unlikely that a list of wars between democratic states would be the same as a list of contradictions to DPT.   So we have to decide one way or another what should be done. If this list has merit independently of DPT then it stands on its own and cannot be constrained by that theory.  If it only has merit in that context then it should be renamed.   The debate on OR and SYNTH (where you are not gaining support see comments by Ellen above which match those made by several of us over the last few weeks) is really a proxy debate to determine what is included or not.   It strikes me that the first and substantive question to determine is whether this list stands along or not.  I am happy either way on that subject (and on Mass Killings), but it needs to be settled. -- Snowded  TALK  09:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My editing perspective is WP:POLICY.
 * Given the definition of democracy (which is historically situated within the near past) within DPT it is unlikely that a list of wars between democratic states would be the same as a list of contradictions to DPT. - Yes of course. Nobody has to my knowledge suggested that we choose sources based on their view of DPT.
 * If this list has merit independently of DPT then it stands on its own and cannot be constrained by that theory. - Constrained?
 * If it only has merit in that context then it should be renamed. - I don't think anyone has said it only has merit in that context (although perhaps that's worth discussing). I'm just saying that when Pmanderson claims that a list of wars between democracies has no relation to a theory concerning wars between democracies, he is pretty obviously wrong. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, but then I think you are going to have to accept "in general the statements X is a democracy, Y is a democracy, X and Y had an armed conflict in 1900" to quote the next section. -- Snowded  TALK  17:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * But that would require massive amounts of original research. See earlier discussion. Why do you want to ignore the research done, and make your own original research here, in blatant violation of WP:OR? --OpenFuture (talk) 20:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Another straw man argument - by our expert on the subject. Nobody has proposed original research; what has been proposed is looking for the statements of reliable sources. That does require a great deal of unoriginal research in looking for statements about the democracy of past states; if anybody can find some, I would appreciate it. The wars of interest can be found by looking at the undefaced version of this page before OpenFuture began blanking it, at Ray's list of possible wars (which is drawn from the DPT literature), and at Russert. Electing to Fight should also be consulted. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict). No, it is not original research. Original research is creating a premise that none of the sources support.  If I can look up in one source that team X played team Y in the European cup final, and have separate sources that teams X and Y won their respective national leagues, it is not original research to say that the European cup final was contested by the winners of Serie A and the Bundesliga.  If we must have this list, it cannot be just a list of conflicts that a limited number of sources of the same viewpoint say were wars between democracies.  If reliable sources agree that X and Y fought a war, and reliable sources agree that X and Y were democracies, that is all one needs. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "No necessary or inherent relation" is a different claim from "no relation." If at some point PMA said "no relation" in this informal discussion, I feel certain he didn't mean it absolutely. The point is that if democratic peace theory had never existed as an identifiable proposition or hypothesis (as I've seen it more accurately described), this list could still be compiled. Polybius could have started it in the 2nd century BC, and implicitly did. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "No necessary or inherent relation" is a different claim from "no relation." - Not in any significant way in relating to this article.
 * The point is that if democratic peace theory had never existed as an identifiable proposition or hypothesis (as I've seen it more accurately described), this list could still be compiled. - *Could*, yes. But it wouldn't have been compiled. The topic is completely random if you ignore DPT, you could just as well make a "List of wars between countries who have the color red in their flags". This article exists because of democratic peace theory. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. When I first saw the title of this article, I didn't have any idea it had been created in response to dpt. The color 'red' is categorically frivolous because flag colors have nothing to do political theory or military history. Politics and forms of government are not unusual contexts for the discussion of the causes of war or how governments conduct them. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Suggested addition to the article
I would suggest to add the following war between democracies to the list: * War between USA and Cuba, 1961. Or maybe not? :-) Does this make the problem with WP:SYN clearer? --OpenFuture (talk) 21:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I said a reliable, non-Fringe source, prepared to state that Cuba at the time of the Bay of Pigs was a democracy, not a "scholar and activist" making the case that post Castro Cuba is holding free elections for local councillors. The normal rules of WP:V pertain.  Try again.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So scholars are not reliable sources if they are activists as well? That's news. Can I remove all of Pmandersons SYNT by claiming the sources are "fringe"? That view of Cubas parliamentary system is not by any way fringe. It just uses another definition of democracy that the POLITY IV definition, for example. A definition that by the way is very close to the definition used about the greek democracies: Every citizen has the right to vote. Why is that definition not allowed for Cuba? --OpenFuture (talk) 21:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That, of course, is not the definition of Athenian democracy. Please stop making things up.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There's only so long I can listen to a man talk, who knows nothing about the subject of his speech.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to explain the difference. I can see nothing in that article that contradicts it, and everything I read on the subject calls the Greek states "democracies" because of that. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OpenFuture has a long habit of claiming he can't see the obvious. We cannot force him to open his eyes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please stop your insults, they are not conductive to a constructive discussion. And editor of your experience and knowledge should be able to explain the difference without insults. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If the article doesn't inform you, I can't either. And my rates for instructing political partisans are higher than Wikipedia pays me.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

According to this source Cuba As Alternative: An Introduction to Cuba's Socialist Revolution the Cuban system of "People Power" is more democratic than US democracy (certainly more democratic that Cathaginian democracy), where the authors claim campaigning in the USA requires multi-million dollar budgets available only to millionaires or those with millionaire backers. So certainly there is a case for adding the Bay of Pigs Invasion to this list. In fact, given that it's claimed that communism is inherently democratic, i.e. everyone gets equality in everything, shouldn't the Cold War, the Korean War and the Vietnam War be added to the list too? --Martin (talk) 23:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:V, WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE apply. Just because I have a source that says the moon is made of green cheese, doesn't mean I can add it into the article on the moon, when 93 other sources say the moon is made of rock, and 27 of them say that the author of the moon/cheese theory is a loony. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So how do you account for the inclusion of the Punic wars when even Cynwolfe acknowledges "nobody ever said Carthage was a democracy"? --Martin (talk) 23:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * First, I'm not a source, so what does it matter what I say? Second, this is an example of picking out a single statement and ignoring the context. I didn't think the Punic Wars belonged until I realized there was a scholarly tradition dating back to Polybius that looked at how the democratic element of the mixed constitutions of Rome and Carthage were directly related to the waging of (in particular) the Second Punic War. I think it's legitimate to include democratic republics, mixed constitutions, and so on, as long as sources make the connection between the war and democratic politics. Each entry appears to be shaping up as two to five sentences carefully specifying the criteria for inclusion. I don't see the purpose of withholding cases that may not fit some strict definition of "pure" democracy, but that are discussed by scholars in the context of democratic government and that illuminate the topic. PMA has been doing the research into democracy at Carthage; I haven't. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I though you were widely read on the antiquities, so when you said "Nor does it forbid editors to try to understand it as a whole, not just in bits and pieces" I assumed you were speaking from a position of knowledge when you stated "nobody ever said Carthage was a democracy". I apologise for making that assumption.


 * So apparently WP:UNDUE doesn't apply, even though the published consensus appears to be that while Carthage had a "mixed constitution" it was in practice an oligarchy, because of the PMA's research and discovery of a couple of books that make mention of some democratic elements. Yet despite documented democratic elements in Cuba's people's power democracy, some how Cuba doesn't qualify? Why not include socialist democracies (even if they weren't democratic in practice like Carthage) along with democratic republics and regimes with mixed constitutions in this list. --Martin (talk) 04:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Repeatedly calling it "fringe" isn't helping you much. We need to apply the same requirements to Cuba as we do to the Boer states and the Greek democracies. You claim that calling Cuba a democracy is fringe. I claim that calling the Boer states democracies is fringe. Marting claims that calling Carthage a democracy is fringe. Your suggestion is to make a massive tertiary research project on what wars actually are wars between democracies. I claim that is original research, as such research has already been done. Why, Elen (and you haven't answered this) do you want to ignore the research that exists on this, and make your own on Wikipedia? (And no, that is *not* stating that "identifying the majority views of scholars" is original research as you claimed, that is an insulting remark that is not helpful for constructive debate. Please discuss this seriously with an attempt to understand the oppositions viewpoint.) --OpenFuture (talk) 05:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I said your source appeared to be WP:FRINGE because it set out to present a viewpoint that was not supported by the mainstream. As far as I am aware, mainstream sources do not describe Cuba in the 1960s as a democracy. Actually, I am not sure if your source describes Cuba in the 1960s as a democracy - it seems to confine itself to Cuba in the last ten years. If mainstream sources do describe Cuba in the 1960s as a democracy, then it should be included; or if there are minority sources of good standing that do, then the consensus may be that it should be included. Your continued nonsense about massive tertiary research projects (aka reading the odd book) and ignoring the research that exists (which is actually not limiting ourselves to the subset of research acceptable to you) is getting very old now. WP:V and WP:UNDUE continue to apply, as does WP:CONSENSUS. This article is not different to all other Wikipedia articles in that respect.Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As far as I am aware, mainstream sources do not describe Cuba in the 1960s as a democracy. - It's surely not a majority view, no, but when I made this exact claim about Pmandersons additions, he told me that if one source called it a war between democracies, then it should be added. What the majority view was not relevant, in his opinion. Now, I can see problems with that, but in an effort to move forward, I accepted his position to at least get some improvement to the article, and the discussion has lately been about the fact that Babst break his own requirements. Your position here moves that whole discussion back to the start, and apparently Pmanderson has now changed his mind and accepted my start-position in this discussion without telling me.
 * I have held neither of the positions here ascribed to me. The rest of this appears to making other things up. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You have repeatedly called any removal "vandalism" with the argument that it's "sourced". This despite me pointing out that it's not a majority view. It's been "sourced" so hence you have demanded that it stays, and calls it vandalism to remove it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from that is that you don't care what the majority view is, if it has a source, no matter if that source is majority view or fringe or doesn't even support the claim, it "sourced" and so the claim and the source stays. So if you did not hold that position, you edited knowingly against your own principles. This I find hard to believe. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This entire post of 15:44 is a tissue of lies inventions.
 * As far as I can tell, OpenFuture first mentioned "majority view" yesterday, in response to Elen, not to me.
 * Our policies on including sources have nothing to do with majority views; we include each view in proportion to its prevalence in the literature: most space to the plurality view; less to lesser views; none to the fringe. Therefore we should include any war on which there is a significant view that it was between democracies.
 * It is not yet clear that "democracy in Cuba in 1961" has any sources, much less any independent of the Cuban government (we have learned long since to give greater weight to independent sources; the positions of official sources are too predictable to be information). If there is a significant position, we can consider what it says; and if it says that Kennedy's United States was no democracy, that would be something to include too. (If there is reason to believe nobody, even the Fidelistas, considers both sides democracies, why include?)
 * I find OpenFuture's claims difficult to believe too. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please avoid personal attacks, and always assume good faith when editing. Calling people a liar is just distracting from your arguments. If you have arguments, please state them without insults. You are an editor of good standing with much respect on Wikipedia. Please don't waste it by pointless name calling. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Our policies on including sources have nothing to with majority views; we include each view in proportion to its prevalence in the literature - Thank you. Elen, are you reading this?
 * Therefore we should include any war on which there is a significant view that it was between democracies. - Which was my position when Elen came into this discussion. That position *does* have it's issues too, but one thing at a time. It's nice to agree with you Pmanderson. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That, interestingly enough, invalidates more than a month of discussion (and insults) from Pmanderson, which is quite interesting.
 * Unfortunately, I have come to realize that it is a problematic position, but let us ignore that for the moment, and discuss this position:
 * 1. What sources do you want to use to determine the mainstream position on states democracy/non-democracy at various times? "The odd book" you say. That seems to me that you have a book that summarizes the research and majority views about how democratic a state is for all states in human history. And also a book that lists the majority views on what conflicts are wars and not. Because otherwise you will have for *each conflict* find books that does this. And that's not "the odd book". And if you can't find it for each conflict, you need to somehow show what the majority view is on these issues.
 * 2. How do you see the issue of using different sources with different definitions of democracy involved in one war? As shown above with the Cuban example, that leads to strange situations (majority view or not) where noone claims it's a war between democracies, and noone claims both sides where democracies, but there are claims on all sides that each involved state was a democracy.
 * 3. How do you see the issue of making such a list like this, and using wildly different definitions of democracy for different times in history, but yet presenting it as a unified list?


 * 4. Why do you want to ignore existing research on this topic? Because, yes, you *do*. It's not nonsense.There are reliable sources that have made lists of wars between democracies, and you want to ignore them, and instead make your own list, based not on their research.
 * The existing research on this subject often does not bother to tabulate lists of wars, but discusses totals. Partly this is because the databases used are not immune from error; partly this is because the question of significance, which is the point actually at issue, depends on the total, not the individual items. Insofar as I have found such lists, I have used them; no one, as far as I can see, proposes to ignore them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that very few, if any, of the current sources show the majority view on any of the issues. If we decide to go this way, the first thing we need to do is clear the list and start from scratch. Is that your suggestion? --OpenFuture (talk) 12:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I note nothing of the kind; it is not easy to find secondary statements of any kind on the questions at hand, and where I have found them, I have included them. If OpenFuture has a mass of unincluded sources, he would have been far more useful to mention them; or is this another case of "the majority view" = "what my favorite website thinks"? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I should add that Quincy Wright's paper, which is about the Cuban quarantine of 1962, mentions the Bay of Pigs only in passing, and does not call it a war - or an action of the United States - but says that the United States may have failed to prevent a military expedition from its soil in time of peace. Therefore the proposed entry fails verification - so would the quarantine. Wright concludes that it may well have violated the rights of neutrals, and the Charter of the United Nations, but not that it was a war.


 * This proposal is of course a violation of our policy against disrupting Wikipedia to make a point; but it is indicative how far even OpenFuture has to stretch things to even construct a hypothetical objection. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, August (whose book, published in Havana, has been passed  by the Cuban Government) does indeed discuss 1961: he quotes Fidel's speeches on his own true democracy, given while cancelling the elections. That is neither a reliable nor a secondary source; and it is a fringe point of view, that acceptable to Raoul Castro.


 * The assumption of good faith does not require us to ignore bad faith; it does require us to need proof that it exists. OpenFuture, in this section alone,
 * cites a paper from Quincy Wright (in the format that Google Scholar would have given him, and the actual publication would not) as supporting something it opposes. Did he even look at it?
 * cites a unreliable primary source as a reliable secondary source; that it is a fringe source is secondary.
 * misstates his own actions (search this talk page and its archives for "majority")
 * misstates my position twice, and ascribes to Elen an intention (of ignoring the published lists of democracies at war), which she has never even hinted at.
 * That is quite enough. This is the sort of editor who thinks by Google search; checking his antics has wasted time which could have been used on the article.  I await an apology and a retraction.    Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Instead of listening to what I say, you make up straw men, invent things freely and insult me. That's still not constructive. After the barrage of name calling and insults from you, you require an apology from me. That's rich. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't insult you; I describe you. I am always willing to describe you differently, if you behave otherwise. I am always willing to read what you say, even when it depicts matters contrary to the evidence; I have even sometimes found it worth the trouble. But these four things you have done in this section, and they add up to a clear picture; shall I add diffs? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In my experience, when people descend into ad hominem arguments, it is a clear sign that they are having difficulty justifying their position. OpenFuture makes a valid point: the problem with determining if a particular country is a democracy from different sources is that each source may use a different criteria to determine membership. To start with, what is needed is a common source that uses the same criteria, for example Tatu Vanhanen's book Democratization: a comparative analysis of 170 countries, this source lists democracies from 1818 to 1988. This seems to be a good starting point from which to conduct your research. --Martin (talk) 23:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Marting, I think that source takes us a good deal further. We do need sources that 'the democracy business' agrees are OK sources, which both Polity and Vanhanen appear to be (unlike OpenFuture's straw man source, August, who appears to be writing strictly from Castro's viewpoint). Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I responded to Pmanderson on his talk page. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

World War One
Vanhanen in his book "Democratization: a comparative analysis of 170 countries" mentions on page 72 that his research concurs with the Polity98 dataset, which shows Germany only emerged as a democracy in the 1918-1928 period, therefore I question the inclusion of World War One in this list as WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. --Martin (talk) 23:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That source is quite useful, as it gives two sets of results which use different methodologies to determine democracy. I note that Freedom House - which uses different criteria again - also does not see Germany moving to democracy until post WWI . Are there other reliable sources (particularly those used elsewhere in this article) which would disagree with the assessment of Germany's democratic status? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I shall consider whether it is worth continuing to edit this page. I shall not be responding to any more of OpenFuture's baiting, with the possible exception of direct questions. Since I am posting here, the answer to Elen's question is Back to the Future: Instability in Europe after the Cold War by John J. Mearsheimer; International Security, Vol. 15, No. 1 (Summer, 1990), pp. 5-56; I also would appreciate evidence that Michael Doyle, whom Mearsheimer and many others cite, is fringe. I would have included Vanhanen - and the criticisms of his methodology, which he is gallant enough to quote himself - rather than blanking. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've looked at the paper by Mearsheimer, the only mention is a single line qualified by a footnote that references another footnote: "Lastly, some would classify Wilhelmine Germany as a democracy, or at least a quasi-democracy; if so, World War I becomes a war among democracies.77". Looking at the footnote: "77. Doyle recognizes this problem and thus has a lengthy footnote that attempts to deal with it. See "Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs [Part One]," pp. 216-217, n. 8. He argues that "Germany was a liberal state under republican law for domestic issues," but that the "emperor's active role in foreign affairs . .. made imperial Germany a state divorced from the control of its citizenry in foreign affairs". So it seems that German foreign policy (and thus initiation of the war) had no democratic input or control. So inclusion of World War One is certainly WP:UNDUE, if not WP:FRINGE (not withstanding the fact that Mearsheimer's paper is arguing for a nuclear armed Germany in the post Cold War world). --Martin (talk) 04:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Without more sources I think it would be giving undue weight to this source to say that Germany was a democracy at the start of WWI. However, as this source is considered mainstream, I think we can take it as evidence that it is not fringe to consider the possibility (mainstream sources do not unanimously reject the concept).  However WWI is still looking out - although I wonder if it would be helpful to add a footnote to the article to explain this, as the more casual reader may expect it to be there.

Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm posting over PMAnderson's comment on my talk page - I think he's holding off from posting on this page, but he raises a couple of interesting questions, and I'd be interested to see the view of others.


 * ''both Doyle and Mearsheimer treat it as a marginal case; but the reasons why Doyle does consider it difficult should certainly be included.
 * I'm not sure how much of Vanhanen's book is on the web, but he himself admits that his method of measuring democracy is approximate and subject to short term fluctuations, and quotes two different critics as calling it "unacceptable"; it is most tolerable for his chief purpose (calculating long term trends of democratization within individual countries, and then doing world-wide statistical analyses - the errors will disappear into the noise in both steps); perhaps least useful for the purpose this article needs: comparing the democracy of two countries, year by year.


 * ''It's a two-parameter method: subtract the percentage vote for the largest party from (a multiple of) the percentage of the population who vote, both as of the last election - applied strictly and without corrections; the list of democracies is generated by putting an arbitrary cutoff in the list. I'm sure you can see some oddities likely to result from this; and I doubt he's really independent of POLICY IV, since he seems to have chosen his relative weight and the cutoff to track them as closely as possible.

''
 * I neglected to say, Doyle is no fringe author - he brought democratic peace theory into general notice''

Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In view of these criticisms, and Vanhanen's evalustion of his own methodology as approximate and prone to fluctuations, his list of "democracies", which excludes the election of Andrew Jackson and almost all of the elections of Gladstone, is at least not in full accord with common usage; the reader should be alerted if he is quoted on democracy in a particular state and year; this can be resolved by removing him (PolityIV is a much more interesting datum for WWI, since I do not believe the anocracy question arises), but I am reluctant to do that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Restart of discussion
OK, so let's start this discussion from the beginning, and see if we can't get somewhere.

As far as I can see, there are a couple of issues.

Issue A: What should be allowed as a democracy?


 * Here there are three positions:


 * A1: Any government who has a reliable source that claims that the government is of a type that other reliable sources claim is a democracy, should be allowable as a democracy. Example: Babst talks about "Elective governments, and defined what he means with that". Others seem to think that this fits the bill of democracy, hence, Babsts "Elective governments" are democracies.


 * A2: Any government who has a reliable source calling it a democracy.


 * A3: Only those governments who we can show with tertiary/summarizing sources that there is a majority view amongst scholars that it is a democracy, should be allowed as a democracy.

These viewpoints presumably extends to whether the conflict was a war or not as well.

Issue B: What kind of sources do we need?


 * B1: One source that shows that country A was a democracy, one source that shows that country B was a democracy, and one source that shows that the conflict was a war. Example: Pennamite-Yankee War and it's sources.


 * B2: We need one source that shows that the conflict was a war between democracies.


 * B3: We need to show that there is a majority view amongst scholars that it was a war between democracies. (I think this position is hypothetical, I don't remember anyone arguing for it).

New addition:

Issue C: What kind of list should we have?
 * C1: A list listing the wars briefly.


 * C2: A list where each conflict is listed with all significant positions, according to weight, on whether it was a war between democracies or not.


 * C3: We should list each notable scholars view of which wars are wars between democracies. We should not try to make our own list.

So, first discussion: Have I missed any positions? --OpenFuture (talk) 07:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Question for clarification: For B1 do you actually mean:
 * "One source that shows that country A was a democracy, one source that shows that country B was a democracy, and one source that shows that the conflict was a democracy war. Example: Pennamite-Yankee War and it's sources."


 * Active Banana (talk) 19:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I do; Fixed, thanks. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I realized something that was missing, and that's a third dimension. That puts the theoretical positions to 27, which is a lot. So let's skip the summary positions for the moment. Just tell me if there is any issue that I have missed, to be added as D or E or F, and if there is any position on the issues that I have missed. Then we'll all go on to list our positions.

I will note however, that the article currently is the A2B1C1 type (with some C2 thrown in), so if you want to keep the article as it is, on the way it's going now, that's the position you need to have. (And that's ignoring that Babst is used as a source, which really makes it A1B1C1, but those conflicts have other sources as well). --OpenFuture (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, the most important issues and positions seems to be covered. I'll probably refer back to this in the discussion and we might want to do a straw poll on what positions we have later. Or is that a stupid idea?--OpenFuture (talk) 16:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Suggested straw poll
Hugely over complex at this stage. too many ideas and argument jammed into one and not really phrased to make progress. I think we need to resolve something more fundamental first. Elen above makes the following statement:

''Original research is creating a premise that none of the sources support. If I can look up in one source that team X played team Y in the European cup final, and have separate sources that teams X and Y won their respective national leagues, it is not original research to say that the European cup final was contested by the winners of Serie A and the Bundesliga. If we must have this list, it cannot be just a list of conflicts that a limited number of sources of the same viewpoint say were wars between democracies. If reliable sources agree that X and Y fought a war, and reliable sources agree that X and Y were democracies, that is all one needs.''

I for one think that is an excellent summary, lets get that resolved and then move onto detailed cases -- Snowded TALK  07:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Those who agree with the statement

 * -- Snowded TALK  07:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC) And we can see the normal policies of Wikipedia at workd above in the discussion about Germany in WWI, where we are evaluating three sources that scrutinise multiple democracies and one source that makes specific comments about Germany.
 * -- WikiuserNI (talk) 12:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC) I can see more merit in this approach now.
 * --Cynwolfe (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC). This article should not be an exception to standard WP:V. WP:SYNTH forbids using sources to draw a conclusion; it forbids manipulating sources to advance a new position. No new position is advanced by verifying the existence of a war and the constitutional politics of the participants.
 * -- Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC) Our policies on including sources have nothing to do with majority views; we include each view in proportion to its prevalence in the literature: most space to the plurality view; less to lesser views; none to the fringe. Therefore we should include any war on which there is a significant view that it was between democracies.
 * Simple arithmetic, such as adding one democracy and one democracy to make two democracies, is not original research. In cases where the democracy of one side or the other is disputed, we should say so; in cases where both are disputed. but nobody agrees that both are democracies, we should say so. The last case has not come up, except in an otherwise flawed hypothetical. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of Cynwolfe's remark
(Please sign above if you wish to agree with the statement, and discuss below.) Cynwolfe (talk) 21:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, "new position", in this context means a position not stated by either source. So that may very well be a "new position". --OpenFuture (talk) 21:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The word 'position,' as with the word 'conclusion,' means something more than mere assertion. It implies that there is an argument presented that reaches beyond the facts toward interpretation or analysis. We might cite a historian named Smith who says "The Turmitian Wars were fought between Ziniq, a direct democracy, and the democratic republic of Autrow." I believe that such a statement meets your criterion for inclusion on the list (let's stipulate that Smith's book was published by CUP, and that Smith's reputation as a scholar is unquestionable). Such a statement does not advance a position or make an argument; it's simply a presentation of facts. It's information. Is this a point on which we can agree? Cynwolfe (talk) 21:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It advances a position, yes. THe position that Turmitian wars was between democracies. That something is a democracy or not is not a fact in itself, it's a position. As mentioned frequently here, democracy is not a simple unquestionable fact, but a complex issue with various possible positions. For example, the greek democracies would not have counted as democracies today. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it was my intention to accept your invitation that I deal with you reasonably and in good faith, and to proceed step-by-step. I thought I could move on to a hypothetical use of "Smith" in this article that you and I could agree would be a synthesis. But you are impossible to have any kind of dialogue with: Now you're saying that we can't use "Smith" making the flat statement that "The Turmitian Wars were fought between Ziniq, a direct democracy, and the democratic republic of Autrow"? Or if I misunderstand you there, you're calling that a conclusion or a position advanced by Smith? I was envisioning it as the first sentence of a chapter, his starting point: no scholar could get a book published if his supposed thesis was something so banally a factual statement. You have no grasp of scholarly methodology, or even what an argument is. You have no grasp of the most basic principles of logic. You also demonstrate that you have no concept of scholarly neutrality: you want to impose a modern definition of democracy on Greek city-states that have been called democracies for more than 2,000 years. Excluding vast volumes of scholarship accumulated over centuries is worse than POV-pushing: it's intellectual nihilism. There is nothing in WP policy that encourages you to do that. You are simply choosing to be obstructionist. I'm sure you'll consider this a personal attack; I'm not attacking you as a person, however, but rather your faulty reasoning. Your response to my effort to establish even the tiniest point on which we agree shows you're only interested in driving other editors away. And then you accuse others of lacking good faith and failing to accommodate you. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The statement "Ziniq is a democracy" is a position yes. So when "Smith" says that, he is taking a position on the issue. This is because whether a government is democratic or not is not a simple objective fact, but an opinion and a position.
 * I find it interesting that when confronted with this fairly trivial observation, you react by trying to make it a personal issue. I am not to blame if you don't like that fact that democracy is not an objective fact, but a matter of political opinion, so please, stop blaming me.
 * no scholar could get a book published if his supposed thesis was something so banally a factual statement. - Which is why we do NOT do synthesis. And which is why the examples with football are about things that nobody would write a book about. And which is why those examples are not relevant in this case. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You are a textbook case of WP:CPUSH. You somehow think you have the scholarly wherewithal to say that Athens wasn't democracy, because it doesn't suit your definition. (I'm a woman, it doesn't suit my definition either! But I don't confuse my personal political views with scholarship.) You consistently accuse others of doing what you yourself do. You are an obstructionist and a POV-pusher. You cast yourself as a victim, and then like to run and inform on others to the authorities. I find that a despicable way to treat your fellow editors. For my remarks above, you have threatened on my talk page to report me; you may do so now. I'll be happy to work on my articles about 19th-century Belgian art and obscure ancient Roman religious practices offline for a few days. I should probably be making more profitable use of my time than volunteering here anyway. But I'm not going to tell you that you're holding up five fingers when I see only four. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have issued no threat whatsoever. You should have no problem in finding more profitable use of your time than insulting people on Wikipedia, which after all must be one of the most pointless things you can spend your time on, so you have my best wishes in those exploits. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * For the record, I paste in OpenFuture's not-very-veiled threat from my talk page: Please, Cynwolfe, your uncivil remarks and straw men are getting fairly tiring, and I'm not sure how long I wish to ignore them. I do understand that you and Elen admire Pmanderson, but I don't see why you therefore have to emulate him to the extent of becoming mirror copies in behavior. The block he got should be a hint that this is not the correct way forward. Stop trying to make this debate into a personal issue. Stay factual. Focus on the issue, not the editors. Thank you. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC). OpenFuture stated his strategy on this page above: he intends simply to outlast any opposing discussion by saying the same thing over and over. He baited PMA into crossing the line (not a difficult thing to  do, though I can hardly blame him) to block an opposing voice from the discussion; he has now announced his intention to do the same to me and to Elen. I repeat, this is a despicable way to treat other editors, and a sign of intellectual cowardice. If you block enough editors from the opposition, you can pretend to have achieved a consensus while imposing a POV. I've participated in achieving a workable consensus on other highly contentious pages and hoped to do so here, but I have never encountered an editor as impervious to constructive dialogue and as disrespectful to others' contributions as OpenFuture. That he masks his utter disregard of the content of others' arguments behind smiley faces and the false decorum of "please" and "thank you" should not be mistaken for promoting a pleasant or even sane editing environment.  Cynwolfe (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Cyn, where does your response fit in this diagram [[Image:Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.svg|200px|right]]? Let's keep to the central argument. Classification of "democracy" isn't an objective fact like a football score. Even scholars like Vanhanen have strident critics of his methodology of judging whether a particular country is a democracy. Smith's view is therefore no more than just an opinion. --Martin (talk) 16:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A pretty, if not particularly legible, diagram; I'm sure it's useful in management classes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And that's still not in any way even remotely a threat of any kind. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact, not one single thing you said about me now is correct. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My point above, before I lost my mind, was that throughout this discussion OpenFuture has been saying that if within a single source it's stated that a particular war was fought between democracies, that source is valid for use here. It was my sincere intention to go on from there and establish an example of synth that I think he and I could agree on. Then he seemed to imply that such a source could be excluded if it didn't conform to some specific definition of democracy. I apologize to other editors for losing it here, but believe I've accurately described the methodology and reasoning. It would be OR and/or synth to apply the definition of one scholarly theory (dpt) to exclude what might be a standard definition of democracy in ancient history or classical studies. You can't apply a scholarly theory in such an ahistorical manner. It's non-neutral to exclude standard classical scholarship from an article because it doesn't conform to a particular contemporary theory. You can't narrow the definition of democracy to create a skewed list when the weight of scholarship confirms that polities have traditionally been considered democracies; you can only explain what definition of democracy is appropriate to the historical period, as I said above before I was driven to sound like a crazy person. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Those who disagree

 * --OpenFuture (talk) 08:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * mark nutley (talk) 11:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC) Using more than one source to get to were you want is against policy.
 * I think I find myself here. From SYN "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Although, it does not meet the "A and B, therefore C" definition because the "therefore" is not present. Or is it implied?. Active Banana (talk) 19:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm almost persuaded to agree with the statement, however the danger of synthesis remains. --Martin (talk) 20:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on Active Banana's position
(Created a subsection for discussion; those who wish to sign on with 'disagree' should do so above) Cynwolfe (talk) 21:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Banana, if I read a book on say the history of Athens, it would talk about Athenian democracy, and it would discuss the wars of Athens, both of those being key components of the history of Athens. How much OR is it to read a book on one of the opponents of Athens, which discusses the political governance of that opponent, and the wars of that opponent, and source 'X is a democracy' 'Athens is a democracy' 'Athens and X fought a war in Y BCE'  If I were writing an article about Athens, that is exactly how I would construct it, I would read as many sources as I could, and put the article together from facts contained in those sources. OR would be to say that Athens went to war with X because it was a democracy, when the only facts I have are that they were democracies and they went to war. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the criteria for this list are inadequately defined and dont think that they can be appropriately scoped to provide an encyclopedic list that is not subject to WP:OR. Active Banana (talk) 20:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that there is a peril, but I don't think it's OR. I think it is endless arguments over sourcing, with the posibility that for some countries there is no mainstream view as to whether or not they constitute a democracy. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Within the context of this article, I am still seeing this as putting content from A and B and C in such an arrangement that the reader is directed to come to a conclusion or position that was not explicitly stated by A or B or C. Active Banana (talk) 21:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just for clarity, could you state what that position or conclusion is? That is, what conclusion is the reader implicitly directed to by the use of sources described by Elen that is not in the sources themselves? Or precisely what new position does the method of sourcing advance?Cynwolfe (talk) 21:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The position is "Two democracies went to war." That is not a position explicitly stated by any of the sources. Probably if you put the information in front of them and asked the question, they would say "Yes, it is a case of two democracies going to war" - but they havent stated that and we cannot place those words in their mouths. Active Banana (talk) 21:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * To answer the question: The "therefore" is usually implied, or omitted, in most cases of SYN, as I understand it. See for example the examples on WP:SYN itself. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

But my main position is still: '''the criteria for this list are inadequately defined and I dont think that they can be appropriately scoped to provide an encyclopedic list that is not subject to WP:OR. ''' Active Banana (talk) 21:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In practical terms, it may be true that criteria can't be established that reflect a consensus; in theory, I don't think it's impossible to create a defensible list (if a necessarily provisional one). I think it has less to do with OR than "simple" verifiability. By "simple" I mean exactly the opposite. Because of the definitional problems presented by "democracy" and even "war", I doubt entries can be produced that would satisfy everyone invested in the article. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I basically agree that WP:OR is almost unavoidable. I think there are two ways to avoid it, once that breaks WP:UNDUE and one that doesn't. :-) The first way is what I call A2B2C1 above. That is, all wars that have a reliable, non-fringe source that clearly states that it is a war between democracies can be included in a short list. That would not, IMO be OR. It would however place undue weight on those scholars who have inclusive definitions of "wars" and "democracies".
 * The way that would not be either WP:OR nor WP:UNDUE is to mention each significant scholars position separately, or at least group them according to some sort of general position, and list the wars they mention as wars between democracies. We'd first have to mention those scholars who are of the opinion that there has been no wars between democracies (a position they get by having high requirements on what is a democracy) and then list those scholars and wars that has a plurality position, and in the end we can even list Babst, who as noted doesn't talk about wars between democracies at all, but wars between electoral governments.
 * But that last idea is apparently nobody except me who likes. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on Martintg's position

 * I'm almost persuaded to agree with the statement, however the danger of synthesis remains. Whereas football results are indisputable facts that can't be interpreted any other way, the issue of whether a country is a democracy is very much open to interpretation and uneven application of criteria for membership by different sources. That is why I would only support sources like Tatu Vanhanen's book Democratization: a comparative analysis of 170 countries which assesses countries by the same criteria. In regard to this: "If we must have this list, it cannot be just a list of conflicts that a limited number of sources of the same viewpoint say were wars between democracies". Why not at least mention it? At the very least this article must indicate what this list would be according to a particular viewpoint. I.e. the article should atleast have a section stating, for example, "According to Maoz and Abdolali in their paper "Regime Types and International Conflict, 1816-1976", the list of wars between democracies is as follows", then another section stating "According to XXXX and YYYY, the list of wars between democracies also includes the following:". The article should serve as a road map of these viewpoints on the topic. --Martin (talk) 20:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There is plainly a danger of cherry picking sources, and scope for a great deal of argument. If we expanded it from a mere list, we could certainly add context as to the purpose of the list and the options for inclusion, although I don't personally think that 'according to Hoyle' sections are the way to go. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And expanding it and adding context and arguments for and against would mean the article pretty much becomes a fork of democratic peace theory... --OpenFuture (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * When I see this list mentioned in the first sentence of the Critisms section in the article Democratic peace theory, it seems to me that the whole raison d'etre of this list may well be to serve as a subtle POV fork. --Martin (talk) 05:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Which raises the question, should there be another AfD on this list. If you look at the history, it was AfD'd when it was Exceptions to the democratic peace theory and was only saved by being moved to List of wars between democracies and AWAY from the democratic peace theory.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it does seem an odd sort of article. For example, I note the inclusion of the American Revolution in this list. One wonders whether the mere presence of elections is enough to call something a democracy even if there be a distant king and non-representative parliament making the actual decisions. "No taxation without representation" would seem to imply the lack of democracy. There are several other troubling examples in this list. I cannot help but note that we're going full steam ahead with a list of wars between democracies but don't seem to have a List of democracies yet. Perhaps the struggle should move over to creating that particular list first. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's an point worth thinking about. I would hope that such a list would be in accordance with articles such as List of types of democracy and History of democracy, and not become a forum for efforts to impose modern definitions on polities that have been historically considered democracies. For instance, the rejection of ancient Athens from such a list would necessitate the deletion of the article Athenian democracy. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a note: Much of the odd entries are rather recent additions, and much of the source of the conflict. But that doesn't necessarily make the article "odd" itself. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

New arguments or comments which have not already been made above.
The comparison is false. Who won in a football match is not a complex and contested issue. There are not separate definitions of "winning" based in political outlook and changing over history. Nobody claims that football games in 1920 were actually lost by the winning team, because they weren't playing with todays offside rules. You will not find one source arguing that Man City won the Premier League in 2009-2010. But, you can find one source saying country A was a democracy using one definition, and another source saying country B was a democracy using another definition, while there exists no single source that claims both countries was democratic. So what is not synthesis in the above case would be synthesis in this case. The example ignores the complexity of the issue, and pretends it's a straight forward case of "Yes/no", "Won/lost" when "Democratic/Undemocratic" clearly is *not* such a black and white issue. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If the two sources are reliable, does it matter if they identify two democratic entities in different manners? WikiuserNI (talk) 10:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. It's not a question of identifying it in different manners, but having completely opposite definitions of democracy. The result is pretty much as if one source would judge the game after association football rules, and the other source would judge it as if it was golf, while the teams both thought they were playing icehockey. There is no longer a clear winner or loser, and therefore using the sources as if it's a simple case of logic no longer works. Saying "X was a war between two democracies" is not simply equivalent to saying "A is a democracy, B is a democracy and C is a war". --OpenFuture (talk) 11:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * WikiuserNI, if you look at the section above discussing WWI, you can see how this plays out in actualite. There are some major sources who have put effort into evaluating the democracy levels in nations over time that we can look at, and here they are all agreeing.  Even the source specifically about Germany is clear that the alternative view has only limited support, and (my reading) eventually comes down to a 'probably not' position.  This is how Wikipedia works - sources are evaluated by looking at the most mainstream first.  In OpenFuture's rather strange scenario above, the source that thought Bayern Munich were a golf team would simply not make it in.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The claim that the view of democracy is as simple as that is incorrect. This is a complex issue with many different viewpoints. WP:SYN therefore applies, IMO. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Funny, Wikipedia seems to manage in all other areas with complex viewpoints by using its policies to represent the multiple views of mainstream scholars, not by rejecting them all.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course they do. And one part of the policy that manages that is WP:SYN, which you claim is not relevant here. I claim it is. I've never said that we are going to reject all views. Quite the contrary. Please stop making up straw men and argue against what I said, not against something I never said. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the whole premise of this list is in question. However, just because two sources are using two different "definitions" of democracy does not mean that they cannot be used in the same article, otherwise we would only be able to have one source used in Democracy. As long as none of the sources are WP:FRINGE. Active Banana (talk) 19:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In the same article has never been a problem. It's a question of using them in the same statement. In saying "C is a war between democracies" and having two different and maybe even contradictory definitions on the word "democracies" at once. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Given that Vanhanen himself admits that his method of determining democracy is approximate and there are a number of critics calling his methodology "unacceptable", is it any wonder that we can't agree on scope and and criteria. If the experts can't agree, what hope is there that Wikipedians can come up with a workable list. i'm slowly coming to the view that merging this list to Democratic peace theory may well be the best course. --Martin (talk) 05:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedians brought Yasser Arafat to Featured Article status - sometimes we can do the seemingly impossible. Active Banana (talk) 05:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think in comparison, Yasser Arafat was dead easy. With democratic forms like Illiberal democracy, Radical democracy, Soviet democracy and Totalitarian democracy, do you really think we can pin down acceptable criteria and scope? --Martin (talk) 06:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I dont think that what is currently the Lead for this list appropriately lays out objective criteria for the list, but I am not yet convinced that doing so is completely impossible. Active Banana (talk) 06:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I do think that agreeing to one definition or one (or a few) summarizing sources is unlikely to work. Especially since neither Vanhanen nor Polity IV etc includes the greek city states, etc. So the idea of us making our own list based from a list of democracies and a list of wars seem unlikely to me. Not to mention that I still think it smacks of original research, and would ignore all the research done by actual scholars. There simply is no objective criteria to lay out.--OpenFuture (talk) 06:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for further input
Note, I have made a request at No_original_research/Noticeboard to see if regulars of that board - who tend to a good understanding of the concept of OR - would care to give an opinion here. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Elen, please stop implying that we are making up our own policies, and saying that WP:SYN is not a "normal policy". It's not useful for a constructive debate. This is not about making up policies, it's about how the should be applied. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My dear, all I said was that you could see Wikipedia policies working. I implied nothing about yourself.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You said "normal policies" implying that what I am saying is not a part of "normal policies". As since you repeatedly has claimed that I make up my own policies, the meaning of that implication is pretty clear. Just stop doing it, OK? That's all I ask. This is not an accusation or anything else, just a plea to keep the discussion civil and stop accusing each other of various imaginary wrongdoings. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Will you knock that off. Yes, I do believe that your interpretation of OR and SYN is not correct.  No, that is not uncivil, nor a personal attack. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Then what is wrong with saying "I believe your interpretation is incorrect", instead of accusing me for "making up policy as I go along" and imply that I have polices that are "not normal"? Why do you feel the need to make a disagreement into an ad hominem? It cheapens your position, and it makes everybody angry and makes it less likely for us to reach a conclusion. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you may need to look up 'ad hominem' in a dictionary, pet. Yes I do think you are making your interpretation of policy up as you go along, and yes I do think your view of several wikipolicies is not the normal one.  No, that's not a personal attack either. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * See this: ]. Please stay in the top three of the pyramid. You are now consistently in level 5 and 6 when answering me. That's not constructive. I had hoped that we could have a serious debate about this article, but that is apparently impossible. That's disappointing. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)Well I can't see anything like that. I really think you need to calm down a bit and stop these constant lectures to other editors.  Its mind sapping, trivial and petty.-- Snowded  TALK  12:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Mind sapping" would seem to be the point; well expressed, Snowded. One might also note the level of the pyramid "Responding to Tone": "criticizes the tone of the writing without addressing the substance of the argument." Cynwolfe (talk) 18:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll stop asking people to be civil, when they stop being uncivil. Please, all I want is for a serious, civil, constructive debate on this talk page? Is that really too much to ask for? Can't we debate here without having to constantly make up straw men and accuse other people of everything from vandalism and bad faith to ignorance and making up policy? I can at least try. Can't you guys please try too? --OpenFuture (talk) 19:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that you are the only one trying to have a serious and productive debate? Cynwolfe (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Another straw man... --OpenFuture (talk) 06:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

First kashmir war
Just curious why this is here. India, then the Union of India, was in transition and, afaik, had neither a constitution nor an elected government. I suspect that the same is true of Pakistan. Could these transitional entities be called 'democracies'? --RegentsPark (talk) 12:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think this exemplifies in a nutshell the problems with this list, the criteria for democracy lacks rigour; the article suffers from the use of cherry-picked sources to justify inclusion. --Martin (talk) 05:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As far as I can gather, Indias first election was in 1951. Pakistans elections are more complex, and general elections was held first in 1970, although it seems elections was held per region before, but not in a good manner. The West Pakistan provincial elections were described as "a farce, a mockery and a fraud upon the electorate (From Elections in Pakistan).
 * As for there being elections before independence, I can only find provincial elections and elections to the Central Legislative Assembly, that was dissolved on independence and replaced with the constituent Assemblies, which were indirectly elected, but did not actually run the country. Both countries governments seems to have been unelected.
 * The position that it's a war between democracies seems to be rather fringe. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

(Pmanderson's response copy pasted from my talk page) Because the source quoted so ranks it; it is one of the few cases (because they comment on it specifically), where it is possible to be sure that they count both states as democracies. Both India and Pakistan were Dominions then, and had unwritten Consitutions after the British manner (as did Canada until the 1970s), but the legislatures on both sides were elected, before Independence, in the knowledge that they would be national legislatures and Constituent Assemblies. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I read the source and, while it indicates in two places that India may be considered a democracy at that time, both these references are indirect. In one place, "Accession to democratic India had no appeal to him; but the future looked even less promising in Muslim Pakistan" (him=the Hindu Maharaja of Kashmir). In a second place, it says "was crucial to its claim and goal of being a secular, multireligious, pluralistic democracy" (regarding why India would want to keep Kashmir). Both these 'democracy' claims are indirect and nowhere, at least in the section on Kashmir, does it state that Pakistan was a democracy at that time. I suppose if India could be identified as a democracy at that time then, perhaps, so could Pakistan but a source would be helpful because of the religious nature of that state. --RegentsPark (talk) 14:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It seem to discussing democracy in a future sense, i.e. India's "goal of being a secular, multireligious, pluralistic democracy" and Kashmir's future accession to it. --Martin (talk) 16:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that the second quote is referring to an aspirational state but the first one is less clear in the sense that it doesn't indicate whether the Maharaja was uneasy about joining an already democratic or a soon to be democratic India. Regardless of all that, Pakistan is definitely not identified as a democracy by the source and, interestingly, is contrasted as 'Muslim Pakistan' versus 'democratic India'. Leading me to believe that, for that source at least, the secular nature of India lent itself more readily to the idea of democracy than the islamic nature of Pakistan. (Of course, since the source is from a later time period, this could simply be reconstructive thinking based on later realities.) I think it would be really helpful to see a source that specifically identifies the Pakistan of 1947-48 as democratic before including this war in the list. --RegentsPark (talk) 02:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This "fringe" source is a work of standard reference, widely cited, published by the very respectable Pergamon Press.
 * It is the print version of a database, produced by the International Conflict Behavior project, and rather like the POLICY IV database,  widely quoted here. Since the database has only 278 lines, one for each crisis, rather than the myriad in POLICY (country X year), it is possible to publish it in a volume, with commentary, with only a little compression.
 * One of the database's classifications is into democracies, civilian autocracies, and military governments. Since one point in one variable is whether all the regimes concerned are the same type, the detailed classification is abridged, but the quotes above show that the underlying classification of India in 1947-8 (and Pakistan, on similar evidence) is "democracy". Martin's claims of  qualification are special pleading, unjustified by the text.
 * Please stop this. WP:FRINGE is not "I find it ideologically inconvenient." Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sources are not fringe, views are. I don't think this is a common view at all, I suspect it's fringe. Can you show that it isn't? RegentsPark has read the same source as you, and seems to not even find support for the statement. Maybe you can quote the passage in question?
 * but the quotes above show that the underlying classification of India in 1947-8 (and Pakistan, on similar evidence) is "democracy". - No, they definitely don't. That's quite a free interpretation of that source. It seem you take some loose quotes about India and democracy, and the conflict classification to draw the conclusion that Pakistan was a democracy when the source doesn't say that.
 * (Btw, I think you mean the "Polity IV" database, which does not support either India nor Pakistan as democracies in 1947). --OpenFuture (talk) 21:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The time-series I found does not have entries for India or Pakistan in 1947; India begins in 1950; Pakistan in 1972. This may well be reasonable, since the united Pakistan-Bangladesh of 1947 is not really comparable to Pakistan now - but I should not have described it as "not supporting". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So how would you describe lack of data then, if not as "not supporting" the statement? Lack of data is quite evidently lack of support. (In fact I suspect that the data is lacking because the countries are in transition, in which case it contradicts the position that they would be democratic, but I don't know that for sure.) --OpenFuture (talk) 05:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * One honest report would have been that they "say nothing about it". This is suggestio falsi. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ach, nonsense. When they say nothing about it, it means it does not support the statement. This is just you trying to nitpick instead of admitting that I wasn't wrong. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This mass of personal opinion and irrelevancy is not worth discussion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The only thing even remotely classifiable as personal opinion there is my claim that your interpretation of the source is "quite free", and that opinion is no more personal than your interpretation of the source is in the first place. It seems to me that you have no source claiming that neither India nor Pakistan were democracies. Also you seem to have no source supporting the inclusion of WWI. There were two sources supporting the inclusion of Cuba, but you were against that. There seems to be some sort of discrepancy in the demands on what is fringe and not here. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I've asked for further input on this on WP:RS/N --OpenFuture (talk) 07:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Since this has been checked, and the stated claim (to wit, that this is a war and between two democracies) is in the source given, fv does not apply to this text. If this is restored again, I will take GWH's advice and consult an admin. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The only check done is the above, where Regentspark clearly states the book does *not* support the statement. Stop revert warring. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thi9 is a misquotation of RegentsPark (who also seems to have overlooked the underlying classification into democracies, civil authoritarianisms, and military governments), as well as the source. If you ever restore this unjustified tag again, I will consult an admin. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is getting completely absurd. I'm starting to wonder if you are making these edits and claims in a deliberate effort to make the existence of this article impossible. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I agree it's absurd. But the existence of this article is perfectly possible; all it takes is for the True Believers to take their creeds to a blog, not to here. If it's reliable enough, we'll even add an external link. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've heard Wordpress.com is good. Please report back, I'd love to read it. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)