User talk:Ultramarine/Possible exceptions to "Well-established democracies have never made war on one another"

This is an interesting article. Would it be worth mentioning the Warizistan War (casualties probably less than 1,000; democracy in Pakistan less than three years old and overshadowed by executive branch) and perhaps the al-Aqsa Intifada (started before democracy in Palestine, no battles per se, not really waged by Palestinian government, but this could change with election of Hamas)? Warofdreams talk 02:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Good suggestions, will include.Ultramarine 14:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, masterful analysis. How come this isn't in article namespace? --Uncle Ed 22:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I will try to take it there eventually. The DPT has some local opposition who will probably put it up for deletion immediately. Like they are now doing with R. J. Rummel. So I will try to make it as good as possible first.Ultramarine 13:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I am beginning to read your article. My first observation is that it is a long shot to place Athenian democracy and modern liberal democracy in the same category. Ancient wars (or lack thereof) are no good indicator for a modern DPT one way or the other. -- Nikodemos 09:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I finished reading. You have good arguments, and you could certainly persuade me that well-established democracies have indeed never made war on one another. However, I'd like to see some of the opposing arguments first. As it currently stands, this article gives only the pro-DPT side of the issue... -- Nikodemos 09:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Never at War. Septentrionalis 19:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Rewritten since that discussion. If you have any objections from the literature, then please state them here with references.Ultramarine 19:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Some anti-DPT arguments regarding possible exceptions can be found here: . Note that it is a personal website by a non-researcher and unreferenced, but the local DPT opponents seem to find it very important. It presents a very inaccurate description of the arguments found in the literature and mentioned in this article. The author's homemade arguments are very strange, like that the change in leadership in Spain after it lost the Spanish-American war is proof that Spain was a democracy before the war. The same thing happened in Argentina after the Falklands war and I do no think anyone argues that this is proof that the military junta in Argentina was democratic before the war. Ultramarine 20:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for mentioning Matthew White's website. It is a much better guide to the issues than the present article. Since one of Ultramarine's sources is an amateur, and another is a personal website (which speaks warmly of White's research), the personal attack on White above is particularly uncalled for and ungracious.
 * You seem to be talking about Rummel, who is professor emeritus of political science who have published numerous academic books, and about Weart, a respected historian who have also published several academic books. All material in this article is from their published academic books. Matthew White is a librarian and has not published any academic material. He is known for collecting and presenting on his personal website various estimates by researchers of numbers killed in wars and by governments. When doing so, he has given very good sources. Regarding the DPT, he does not use sources and instead state his opinions.Ultramarine 21:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Weart is a historian of twentieth century science. As a political historian, he is an amateur, and not a particularly competent one; as the reviews of his book show. Septentrionalis 22:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Weart is a well-respected historian who have published many academic books. Most of the reviews were very positive. An amateur would be a librarian who on his personal webpage states his personal opinions without sources and who ignores the academic literature. Ultramarine 22:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The errors of fact and interpretation in the article do not seem to have been fixed, or indeed acknowledged; and removing the advocacy of an extreme and minority point of view would also remove the article's purpose.  But I will read through a printout: "One should always have something sensational to read on the train."Septentrionalis 21:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, If you have any objections from the literature, then please state them here with references.Ultramarine 21:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Ultramarine, I was never a big fan of arguments from authority. There are certain fields of study (such as economics) where people have even received Nobel Prizes for saying completely opposite things. Regardless of what opinion you hold in any issue in any of the social sciences, I guarantee that there is at least one researcher who has published solid peer-reviewed studies contradicting you. The only rational choices a person has under such circumstances is to admit that even the greatest scholars can sometimes be flat out wrong. Obviously, there is a greater statistical probability that a layman would be wrong than that a scholar would be wrong; but that is probability, not certainty. -- Nikodemos 07:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Just to make things clear, I am arguing as a reader, not as an editor. I'm not particularly opposed to the DPT, so I have done no research on the subject. -- Nikodemos 07:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is built on verifiability and no original research. I would be very happy to discuss any verifiable arguments for that there have been wars between well-established democracies.Ultramarine 08:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That is why I wanted to make it clear that I was arguing as a reader and not an editor. I'm not trying to edit any article. I consider this to be merely a discussion between the two of us, unrelated to wikipedia. As far as your dispute around the DPT article is concerned, I want to maintain my neutrality. -- Nikodemos 12:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)