Talk:List of wars between democracies/Archive 6

Sovereign state
I changed polity to sovereign state. Using the term polity in that first sentence is awful. The whole intro may be undergoing a rewording, but sovereign state is so much more accurate and clear. I also note there are quite a few wars missing, even obvious ones.. like Lebanon vs Israel the other year and Georgia vs Russia. Both need adding. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please add them. "Sovereign state" is an interesting and fresh approach to managing the issue of list criteria. Well worth considering, whether or not it attracts a consensus. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have restored entity because I foresee endless timewasting on the subject of whether various entities, like Israel of those proposed, or Canada before 1931, are truly sovereign. This list has two terms of variable definition already. But it's better than polity, which is hand-waving in the modern world, and redundant in antiquity; if there is consensus for sovereign state, I will join it; every war listed so qualifies.


 * The reason I haven't included the South Ossetia war is that I don't have a reliable source for it yet, although I have seen it discussed in precisely these terms. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think sovereign state would cause problems for Pakistan in 1947 as well, although anything is better than polity in the lede of the article.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It was, like India, a Dominion under the Statute of Westminster; it even had (unlike Canada in 1947) the power to amend its own constitution. The exact phrase Sovereign Dominion turned up, as I recall, in the search we both did on Pakistan and democracy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So what are the relative advantages/disadvantages of "state" and "sovereign state"? (There is a merge discussion about this very thing, I fear.) I don't know what PMA means about polity being 'redundant' in antiquity (redundant in addition to some other term?), but I suspect this would be a digression. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In antiquity, "polity" means politeia; I'm not sure that its usage of modern entities is well-defined - or falsifiable. A democracy is a state with a democratic politeia; so "democracy" implies "polity". I indent to permit conversation to go on past this classicizing digression.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds backwards to me. Wouldn't we say that politeia means "polity" (or "constitution") and that therefore there's nothing redundant about specifying "democratic polity" as distinguished from some other kind of polity? That is, "democracy" implies "polity," but "polity" doesn't necessarily imply "democracy." If we say "sovereign state," aren't we still looking at constitutional status as a criterion for inclusion? Cynwolfe (talk) 00:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It sounds like we are differing on the meaning of "redundant". What I meant by it was: if we already say A and A implies B, adding B explicitly does not change matters. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Getting back to the question, could someone educate me on the relative merits of "sovereign state" and "state" to introduce the list? Cynwolfe (talk) 11:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well people with a better knowledge of history should comment here, but my understanding is that the notion of a state, and in particular a sovereign state is a late mediaeval construct if not later. Democratic states if we look at British History maybe 18th C?  Depends a bit on how much of a franchise makes something a democracy.   We need a word which includes the Greek and other States in classical times, handles Dominions which in effect make their own decisions but are not constitutionally sovereign.  Polity seemed OK to me, but I'm open -- Snowded  TALK  12:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I may have been the one who brought in the "hand-waving" term "polity," for the reasons Snowded indicates: it seemed the most capacious term to cover political entities that were constituted as or have been called "democracies" historically. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... I agree that "Polity" is too broad... but "sovereign state" seems too narrow. How would this change  affect inclusion of something like the American Civil War... the CSA certainly considered itself a "sovereign state", but I am not sure that anyone else recognized the CSA's sovereignty.  Blueboar (talk) 14:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So what are the pros and cons of just 'state'? For the article to move forward, the criteria must be clear and reflect a consensus, and I see the current discussion as an aspect of "clear criteria." So Blueboar's question has a broader significance: once the criteria are established, each entry can be discussed case by case, but my feeling is that the criteria should not be established on the basis of what individual wars editors may want to include/exclude. That is, if the list makes sense, it makes sense in theory, regardless of individual entries that will prove difficult for various reasons. (This unfortunately reminds me of a joke about the French at the UN that was makng the rounds a few years ago, with the punchline "Yes, that will work in practice, but will it work in theory?") Cynwolfe (talk) 14:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In theory the inclusion criteria is simple... a) the conflict must rate as being a war and b) the polities/states/nations/(whatever term we adopt) must be democracies.  However, in practice both of these criteria are problematic, because they require sub-criteria... a) what is the sub-criteria for saying something rates as a war? and b) what is the sub-criteria for saying the polities/states/nations/(whatever term we adopt) is democratic?  Unless we answer these questions, we can not populate a viable list. Blueboar (talk) 15:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. That has been and continues to be the problem. My position is still that these are not sub-criteria, but matters of verification, subject to usual WP standards of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. That's why I see a need to separate discussion on establishing the criteria for inclusion from individual cases. The problems inherent in these definitions are not unique to this list. When we say that a war (inclusion criterion depending on due weight of scholarship as to the conflict being a war) is fought between "democracies," what is "democratic" a descriptive of? State, polity, constitution, etc. This is a definitional problem of "democracy," but hasn't precluded other WP articles on subjects pertaining to "democracy," so working usage based on how scholars use the term has been feasible. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * On reading this article I was interested to see that there was a link to List of democracies. Does this article claim to list all wars between all types of democracies? Would a war between a constitutional democracy and a soviet democracy be included? I'm sorry, lot's of questions and no real input here. Truth be told I find it difficult to see a viable list here that should not include all forms of democracy, and as we all know defining a democracy can be very difficult. I find that peoples idea of a democracy very much depends on which democratic country they originate from. I agree with Blueboar above in that it would be very hard to populate this list. Would a sub-criteria really work on this? Looking at the list of democracies article I have my doubts. Sorry again, more questions than answers. Ally74 (talk) 15:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Welcome to WP, Ally74. I see that this is your very first edit ever, and that Active Banana, a participant in this discussion, has already welcomed you on your talk page. There is no List of democracies article. There is a List of types of democracy, however. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Am I in the crossfire yet? As I said on my talk page, I'll check out other articles to contribute to. Ally74 (talk) 16:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Lede: "constitutionally democratic form of government"
The lede states this is a list of "wars between entities that have a constitutionally democratic form of government." Does that mean we can include the Korean war, because North korea definitely fits this criteria. According to the North Korean constitution, the legislative Supreme People's Assembly (SPA) is the highest organ of state power. Under its constitution, all citizens 17 and older, regardless of party affiliation, political views, or religion, are eligible to be elected to the parliament and vote in elections. --Martin (talk) 01:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Find a significant number of independent secondary sources - not your reading of the North Korean Constitution, which is neither - which say so, and we will reuturn to this issue. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The North Korean Constitution is what it is. Whether or not a country adheres to its constitution in practice doesn't appear to be a factor, or is it? --Martin (talk) 01:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A country which is as undemocratic in practice as the People's Republic of Korea is unlikely to have "a significant view" that it is democratic. Is there substance here, or is this another hypothetical built on conjecture? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * According to Dae-Sook Suh and Chae-Jin Lee, in their book Political leadership in Korea the North Korean 1948 constitution, which would have been in force during the Korean War, was a document designed for the "bourgeois democratic" stage in North Korea. --Martin (talk) 01:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * How nice. Does anyone else think this is reaching for straws? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And including the Pennamite-Yankee War isn't? --Martin (talk) 04:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Until an editor contributes a properly sourced entry on the Korean War, I don't see the point of discussing it. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Pennamite-Yankee War may or may not be a legitimate entry, but this mode of argumentation isn't helpful. Asking a rhetorical question, as if the answer should be self-evident, isn't a positive step forward. Stating "the parties to this war were not sovereign states" would get us to the point more quickly. A consensus should be reached on the quite recent edit "sovereign state" and its usefulness within the criteria before individual entries are accepted or rejected on that basis. The criteria shouldn't be rigged to include or exclude anybody's pet war. In my view, the workability of the criteria can be tested by substituting other forms of government for "democracy" to see whether other lists could be generated; this is one indication that List of wars between democracies does not exist as an argument for or against a particular political theory, but as a neutral list based only on verifiable data. Cynwolfe (talk) 11:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually this is one of the problems with sovereign state; Pennsylvania and Connecticut and Vermont were - and still are - sovereign. (They limited the exercise of their sovereignty shortly after the Pennamite War, and in part because of it; but that did not have effect in 1784. I'm not going to include the Toledo War until I find a source calling it a war.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec)(od) While sovereign states sounds reasonable, it is unworkable because the concept is a modern one. Clearly, with modern definitions of nations, states, and democracy, many of the early entries will not qualify for inclusion because they were neither nations in the modern sense nor were the democratic as is commonly understood today. Using the commonly understood notion of democracy, only those modern nation-states that have constitutions and meaningful universal suffrage would qualify. But then, we would be forced to consider modern western states as being democracies only after the property and income requirements for voting were removed, after women got the right to vote, and, in the case of the US, after the civil rights act. Obviously we can't do that because that would be original research. I think that we should stop arguing about the list, let reliable sources determine whether or not a state is a 'democracy' and whether or not a squabble is a 'war' and list everything that qualifies under those two criteria. The only reason, IMO, to restrict the list to modern notions of democracies or states would be if this were a list that had a connection with the DPT, which, apparently, everyone agrees (or chooses to agree, since this discussion seems to have many layers of complexity!) is not the case. Meanwhile, arguing that North Korea is a democracy is stretching the limits of reality (or WP:POINT). --RegentsPark (talk) 15:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If I understand RegentsPark correctly, I am in agreement. Other articles have managed to deal with the problem of what "democracy" means while accommodating historical usages. We don't set the definitions; the verification process takes care of that, particularly since this is a list. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't really see what was so bad about "polity". It allows us to avoid awkward questions about whether a Swiss canton, say, is a sovereign state. john k (talk) 15:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Anglo-Dutch war
I am curious as to why the Fourth Anglo-Dutch War is included, but none of the other, earlier Anglo-Dutch Wars? Blueboar (talk) 12:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Would there be any objection to adding them? Blueboar (talk) 16:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Can Protectorate and Stuart England be considered a democracy? john k (talk) 18:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Can Hanoverian England? I think England under the later Stewarts was as much a democracy as it was under Hanoverian rule... and I think there is an argument to be made that it was more of a democracy under the Commonwealth than it was under George III. Blueboar (talk) 19:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The Glorious Revolution and Hanoverian Succession assured parliamentary supremacy. Cromwell was a dictator; the Stuarts conducted a foreign policy largely in opposition to parliament.  By this standard, why couldn't the Eighty Years War be considered a war between democracies?  The Habsburg kings of Spain had to deal with a variety of different early modern parliaments in much the same way that the Stuarts did. john k (talk) 00:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... You have a point. I suppose this highlights the need for clarification as to what constitutes a "democracy".  I know there is a source that says the 4th Anglo-Dutch war qualifies for this list... but does it really?  Is it really correct to call Hanoverian England a democracy?  Where do we draw the line between "democracy" and "not democracy" when it comes to nations (like England) that were in transition... nations that were becoming increasingly democratic throughout the 17th and 18th centuries... but where that transition was a slow, evolutionary process?  There are some scholars who would argue that England did not become a true democracy until Victoria's reign. Blueboar (talk) 14:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Or possibly Edward VII's; Asquith had the first Cabinet without a majority of peers. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Proxy conflicts
In 1982 Israel bombed the Iraqi nuclear facility at Osirak. French technicians were present at the facility. There were also covert operations on French soil. Can proxy conflicts between democracies be included? 71.178.178.40 (talk) 04:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The EZLN
The EZLN, a democratic socialist movement, has been under military attack and harassment since declaring independence from the Mexican government in 1994. Can this be added to the list? 71.178.196.158 (talk) 01:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, this is for wars between two sovereign states. --BDD (talk) 22:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

But that's an arbitrary limitation. It's also inconsistent because you've included the Israeli war of independence etc. 72.83.141.47 (talk) 17:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You should make the Israeli argument separately, if you wish, but BDD is right that an uprising or civil war doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion on this list. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The EZLN is for all purposes a sovereign state with a government administration, there's no reason to exclude it. 71.178.178.40 (talk) 04:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a) not a recognised sovereign state and b) it was born out of an uprising against Mexico and wasn't an established democracy or state. For these same reasons, I think the Israeli WoI shouldn't be included either. Neither should the USS Cole Incident or the American revolution. Alot of the entries should be omitted and the rest should be explained. I won't edit them as yet though. - 86.42.243.198 (talk) 17:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

War of 1812?
Was Britain really a democracy in 1812?-- RM ( Be my friend ) 20:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes and no. Parliament ruled, and was chosen by election. The electorates were often limited, and the elections often corrupt; but the same can be said of most democracies; not least the United States of 1812. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Kant died in 1804. The definition of "democracy" and "war" should be that of Kant's i guess? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.47.19.43 (talk) 12:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No. Britain was not near a democracy until the Representation of the People Act 1884.It took till 1928 before Britain had universal sufferage.User:ruskin — Preceding undated comment added 18:41, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Declined speedy
I've declined this because it doesn't really fit under G11 since it's not exactly invented per se. I have no opinion on the content as a whole as far as notability or other content-related issues go, but this doesn't really fit well under the various speedy deletion criteria since it's not exactly something that someone came up with one day and since it's a list page it doesn't really fit under A7 or any of the other criteria. Hidemyip123, if you want to pursue further deletion, this will have to be via AfD. I'll also alert WikiProject Military history to the article and let them look it over as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  10:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * please do not delete. Political scientists have endless debates about wars between democracies, so it's a major topic. 1) "Wars between democracies: rare, or nonexistent?" International Interactions, 1993 is cited by 160 scholars; 2) "Kant or cant: The myth of the democratic peace" by C Layne - International security, 1994 - is cited by over 700 scholars. see opening page. Rjensen (talk) 14:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd be inclined to let this go through afd just to get a sense about what the community thinks should eb done with the article. Its a little odd, I'll give it that, but I think Tokyogirl was wise in declining csd here since there is enough information to merit a discussion on the article as opposed to a summary execution. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Making this more NPOV
I think this article can be made cleaner and more NPOV, if we first convert it into a table, listing the name of the war, the supposed involved democratic parties, and how democratic they were, and how many died (because that's relevant if it fits a definition of war or not). However, I'm not going to do that work if other editors oppose it, so please comment here. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

No sense at all
I had seen bad articles, but this is one of the worst definitely. Implying that pre 19 century governments could be democratic in anyway that resembles the meaning of the word today is just laughable. Guidaw (talk) 03:24, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * This is absolutely true, but previous attempts to fix it was strongly opposed by one single very determined editor, and those who wanted more NPOV viewpoint just ran out of energy. Perhaps it's time, many years later, to try again. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Common to say, especially with such over-the-top language. But the word has changed its meaning over time. It's an old word. In a 19th century context it would have a 19th century meaning. A list of 19th century democracies, as opposed to absolute monarchies or the like, would be good to see, at least as candidates for discussion. Removing them would be giving less information, not more. Especially since there is simply no fully direct and unquestionably fair sovereign democracy in the world today, so it sets a very flimsy bias to the present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harsimaja (talk • contribs) 02:30, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

ZOG
How about the Jew-controlled UK's invasion of Iceland? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.185.247.147 (talk) 15:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I suggest that the incendiary language that I have put in scratch-out format be deleted or amended. For "ZOG (Zionist Occupation Government)", a commonplace smear by neo-Nazis, I suggest "British occupation of Iceland and the Faeroe Islands, WWII".

Iceland was not independent, the UK was at war with Nazi Germany; Denmark had just been conquered by Nazi Germany and was in no condition to defend Iceland, but the UK was; the British kept Icelandic institutions intact; there is no reason to believe that Icelanders would have preferred (Nazi) German administration. British occupation was remarkably gentle and did not constitute any effort to dissolve the relationship between Iceland and Denmark. I can say much the same of the Faeroe Islands, also a Danish territory.Pbrower2a (talk) 16:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

There is no question it was an invasion, but there is a question as to whether it was a war between them. It was never declared, but maybe it's still open to debate. The Icelandic government acquiesced peacefully and almost immediately to being occupied (not that they were necessarily very happy about it in principle, many of them were quite aware of the possibility and implications of an alternative German occupation). Harsimaja (talk) 02:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Paquisha war
The paragraph about the Paquisha War says that it saw up to 200 deaths in battle, but the main article Paquisha War seems to say that there were "only" 17 killed. Both are ostensibly sourced, so probably the sources here don't refer to this figure (it's an offline source). Can anyone with knowledge about the war correct this? —Ynhockey (Talk) 07:49, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

2006 war between Israel and Lebanon?
What about the 2006 war, when Israel attacked Lebanon? Though Israel's status as a democracy can be called into question (since Arabs in the illegally Occupied Palestinian Territories don't have voting rights, only Jews have), it is still regarded as such by most, and other instances of war between Israel and Lebanon are also named in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C6:3700:6600:D134:67E3:77DD:882 (talk) 21:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC)