Talk:List of wars between democracies

Some consensus (?) and change of lead

From what I could see in the above discussion, several arguments for deletion has been put forward.

1. That the list is not notable. - We seem to have come to the consensus that it either is notable, or that is doesn't have to be, so that argument is done with as far as I can see.
2. This list is a POV fork of Democratic Peace Theory. - This didn't seem to gather much support, so I guess the consensus is that is isn't?
3. That since neither wars nor democracies are well defined, the construction of this list is an impossibility. - I think that the consensus was that if we have clear and objective requirements for inclusion, the list would be possible and would not need to be deleted. If so, then we need to discuss what those requirements are, to see if we can agree. If we can't agree, an AfD could be the reasonable outcome of the failure to agree.
4. This list must inherently be POV or OR - Arguments have been put forward to the effect of that there not being enough research, so the article must be OR, or that if we require sources that explicitly claim wars to be wars between democracies the article must become POV, etc. This has, IMO, not been discussed enough. I also think it's ties in to the discussion about the requirements for inclusion.

So, it seems to me that we should now discuss the requirements of inclusion. The article currently says:

"Three points are involved: that there have been a war, that at least one entity on one side be a democracy, and that another entity in conflict with it be a democracy."

This sentence is clearly written to support using three separate sources for one conflict. But a clear majority of the editors here and on RS/N been of the opinion that this violates WP:OR, so I don't agree with those requirements. Also I think it fails the argument as it doesn't provide any sort of requirement on war or democracy, meaning that each and every entry gets subject to three separate pieces of contention, which means this list will become a constant battleground that can never be NPOV. The lead also says

"This is an incomplete list of wars between democracies, that is, wars between polities that have a constitutionally democratic form of government."

AFAIK Elen is the only one who argued for that, and having the requirement that is should be constitutionally a democracy, but not practically, IMO means almost every conflict in the 20th century must be included, which is plainly absurd.

I instead suggest the following lead, and inclusionary criteria:

This is an incomplete list of wars between democracies. For many of these entries, whether there has been a war between democracies is a debatable question; all significant views should be given, but the conflict must have been called a war between democracies by at least one reliable source.

Other people are better at formulating this kinda stuff than me, so improvements are of course welcome. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's quite what I said, and I don't think I'm the only one who argued for it. What I said was that the source to support inclusion must agree that both (all? - another discussion perhaps) parties were democracies. The source must be mainstream - which necessarily means that there will be other sources confirming the view. Either criterion - constitution or performance - could be used, but the source must use the same criterion of both; so if the source says that Pakistan failed to achieve democracy but India did, then that source is not supporting inclusion. A source that says both were legal democracies, but Pakistan did not get round to holding elections for 10 years is supporting inclusion. I do not think this makes it at all likely that "almost every conflict in the 20th century must be included." Are there any mainstream sources arguing that Argentina was a democracy at the time of the Falklands war? That Iraq was a democracy at the time of the invasion of Kuwait? That North Vietnam was a democracy at the time of the Vietnam war?

The other thing I think to be disposed of is whether it is necessary to have one sentence which says "the Franco-Narnian war was fought between democracies". It is not OR or synthesis to read a book and note that the author describes both parties to a war as democracies. I therefore cannot see any requirement for the phrase "called a war between democracies."

My preferred phrasing would be This is an incomplete list of wars between democracies, that is, wars between polities that have a constitutionally democratic form of government, and deemed to be democracies by mainstream sources. Polities which claim democracy but which all mainstream sources agree are not are excluded. In some cases, it may be possible for a nation to have a democratic constitution, but for the practices of democracy to be operating less than optimally. More information on such cases is given in the individual entries. Too long winded? Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

If we require that one source calls it "a war between democracies" (or at least say both are democracies and there was a war) then I'm find with whatever definition of "democracy" that source has. The real problem is, when as it is now, be both allow separate sources and allow any definition of democracy. Then we would have to include almost all 20th century conflicts. But if we agree that a source can only be used if they call both countries democracies then this is a much smaller problem.

It is not OR or synthesis to read a book and note that the author describes both parties to a war as democracies. - Right, because that's still *one* source, not two, not three.

Yeah, a bit long winded. And you are never gonna get "all mainstream sources" to agree on anything... :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 13:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest: "This is a list of wars that have taken place between nations that are (or were) deemed to have had democratic forms of government at the time that the war took place. For inclusion, a reliable source must use the term 'war' to describe an armed conflict between two or more nations, and the same source must describe all the nations involved in the conflict as having a democratic form of government." Blueboar (talk) 22:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I very strongly disagree. The condition that the same source assert the democracy of all parties is artificial and unjustified. What we want is one of two things for each party: that there be rough consensus among the sources that it is a democracy; or that there is significant disagreement among the sources on the subject which is described in the article. In the rather common case in this list in which Fooland is an undisputed (if perhaps recent) democracy and Barland's status is controversial, there will be dozens of sources which will use Fooland as an example of democracy, and there will be the sources which discuss the Barland Regency of 19AB - but there is no reason to expect them to be the same sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

That intro is good. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I beg to differ... we MUST be able to cite at least one reliable source that states that all parties in the war are democracies. Without that, we end up with an improper synthesis ...we are taking what is stated in source A and what is stated in Source B and reaching conclusion C (that the war is between democracies) ourselves. Such synthetic conclusions are explicitly forbidden by WP:NOR. Blueboar (talk) 01:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not require the same source, it requires reliable sources. If we have two reliable sources which state that A and B are democracies then that is enough for inclusion in a list (and this is just a list). If there are reliable sources which say that B was not a democracy (say) then we would have to be more cautious. A requirement to have all three statements in a single source appears to be designed to radically reduce the number of examples which would of course support DPT. --Snowded ^TALK 04:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The majority here and at OR/N disagree. Using separate sources is synthesis.

If there are reliable sources which say that B was not a democracy - That is likely to be the case for pretty much every entry in this list. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Well I just looked at the discussion here and at the OR notice board and I think your assertion of a majority is overconfidence at best. --Snowded ^TALK 11:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Then you didn't look very carefully. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Where I think the concern is, is that there are two ways (there may be more, but they seem to come down to two ways) in which sources define democracies. Either they point to the constitution and say 'this country is legally a democracy', or they point to some measure of democracy, whether their own standard or one of the 'freedom and democracy' standards such as POLITY IV. The legal consititution standard is lower but clearer. However, in the situation that a polity has a democratic constitution that is suspended, voided or just ignored, all the mainstream sources will use an upper standard to argue that the country is not a democracy in practice. Unfortunately, there are a plethora of upper standards, so it would be easy to have different sources using different criteria sets for determining whether Fooland was a democracy at the time.Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

One can see this in the discussion about WWI. Constitutionally, all parties are democracies. However, depending on the standards employed at the higher level, one or more parties may not be considered democracies in practice. At that point, one clearly needs to use the same measure, most easily achieved by using one source.Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

In other words, if there is any sort of controversy on the "democracity" of one of the parts, we need to use one source to assert both parts "democraticness". And since there is controversy in pretty much all cases, this means that in practice we need one source, and can't use the "alleged synthesis". --OpenFuture (talk) 14:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Elen's version seems acceptable for this article. BigK HeX (talk) 07:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm more or less with it to, but resolving contradictions between sources is not difficult. I must admit I think there is an increasing argument for deleting all lists that appear in practice to have been established to prove DPT. So we had advocates wanting to keep this one as short as possible, but expand mass killings under communism. If they were collapsed into DPT then it would be under that theories definitions--Snowded ^TALK 11:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

This list has if anything been established to *disprove* DPT. What mass killings under communist regimes have to do with this list is beyond me. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

This list has if anything been established to *disprove* DPT. You are completely wrong. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

If the purpose of this list is to disprove (or prove) DPT then we are back to it being a clear POV fork, and it should be deleted. Blueboar (talk) 14:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I think what the original purpose of the list was is less important than what the list can be. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Snowed, WP:NOR is quite clear on this issue ...

• 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.

This is exactly what occurs when we use one source to say that polity A was a democracy and another source to show that polity B was a democracy. For each war listed, we must have one single source that says that both A and B were democracies. Blueboar (talk) 13:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Blueboar, not it isn't clear in the case of artificial lists like this one. In creating a list we are doing just that, we are not reaching any conclusion. Ideally the same source would say that A & B were democracies, however comparable sources saying that A is a democracy and B is would be OK.

OpenFuture, as this list expands then DPT has more less credibility and more indirectly the same is true is as the number of Mass Killings expands. As far as I can see from the origins and editing practice that appears to be the puporse and it probably is a fork --Snowded ^TALK 14:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree... List articles are not exempt from core policy. Blueboar (talk) 15:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH excludes common arithmetic operations, like adding one democracy and one democracy to get two democracies.

It isn't basic arithmetic if the two sources use differing definitions of democracy ... that is why you need the same source to say both are democracies. OK... I suppose you could use two separate sources if (and only if) it can be established that both sources use the same definition... but from my experience that would be exceedingly rare. Blueboar (talk) 15:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

If they do demonstrably use different definitions of democracy, we should mention it, or refer to the section on Definition dependence, which is intended to cover such cases. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Referring to that section doesn't help. Mentioning if they use demonstrably different definition means that we can only use sources who have an explicit definition of democracy. That would exclude most of the sources used by you in the discussions above. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Demonstrating exactly how any such proposal would be used for POV blanking. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Remember that it was your proposal. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

This is baiting; I made no such proposal. Unless there is a link explaining this extraordinary claim forthwith, I shall be forced to consider other means of dispute resolution. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, so you never said "If they do demonstrably use different definitions of democracy, we should mention it"? Did somebody fake your signature above, or? --OpenFuture (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

That is not the same proposal; one is to mention an unusual circumstance, the other to remove an entry when it occurs. If OpenFuture genuinely can't see the difference, it may explain much of his conduct. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

There is only one proposal: Mention when two sources have differing definitions, which means we can only use sources with explicit definitions. And that proposal was yours. If you feel that this needs dispute resolution, be my guest. But I suggest you instead should stop blaming others for your lack of forethought in the discussion. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing to my proposal, even if you haven't understood it, or the discussion, at all well. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I understood your proposal perfectly (and apparently better than you did yourself), and just pointed out to you that it would mean the reversal of pretty much all your additions (and then some). Apparently you think this means I support the proposal. I don't. But, but if you mean it seriously, you are welcome to start removing every source you have that doesn't have an explicit definition of democracy. It probably would empty the list in the end, but that's fine, a clean start would probably be good once we reach consensus on the requirements for inclusion. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a universal consensus on the condition of France in 2004: the Fifth Republic is a democracy - and, while this can be sourced, WP:V says it need not be: it is not challenged nor likely to be challenged. The dispute, if any, rests on the condition of Narnia; and even histories of the war and the mysterious Narnian lion-cult are unlikely to mention whether France is a democracy, even if they do mention the anti-war protests on the grounds of the Middle Eastern culture of the White Witch. Limiting ourselves to sources which do is the artificial requirement. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, how many of the conflicts on the list include two parts that both have a universal consensus that they were democracies, and hasn't been challenged? We can cut the list down to those if you like? No? Right. Reality is that almost everything on this list *is* contended and there is not universal agreement on any entry on this list. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

This is WP:SOUP. I postulated a case in which one side, France here, had universal consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

To be clearer: Do we have any cases of that in the list? I can't see any. This is an attempt to make it possible for you to in future discussions claim that something is universally accepted as a democracy, when it's not. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, yes, we have several examples where both sides are democracies by consensus. None of them are exceptions to the democratic peace; mostly because one of the states was new at the the time of the war, but the Continuation War was not a full-scale war between Finland and the Commonwealth. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

mostly because one of the states was new at the the time of the war - which automatically makes it disputed, as some scholars use definitions of democracy that include not only elections, but that a government has to step down freely and peacefully, which in practice means that any countries first government is excluded from being democracies. You are too stuck into your history books, and not enough knowledgeable about the debates about democracy with political science. And you clearly have never debated with a full blow communist. ;-) --OpenFuture (talk) 20:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

some scholars use definitions of democracy that include not only elections, but that a government has to step down freely and peacefully, which in practice means that any countries first government is excluded from being democracies. Citation please; you have failed to read your sources. That is a definition of the democratic peace, not of democracy.

But that this point should have escaped someone capable of writing countries for country's, democracies for a democracy, with for within, blow for blown is not surprising. And I have discussed with full-blown Communists, and full-blown ex-Communists; the tactics used are identical - and visible on this talk page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

As usual when you run out of arguments you start nitpicking on spelling mistakes and the like. Bad excuses.--OpenFuture (talk) 22:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• I notice This is an attempt to make it possible for you to in future discussions claim that something is universally accepted as a democracy, when it's not. OpenFuture has been engaging in telepathy again; he really should tune his mind-reader - since I have no such intention and this discussion would not fulfill it if I did. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Snowded: OpenFuture, as this list expands then DPT has more credibility and more indirectly the same is true is Mass Killings expands. - I'm sorry, I can't even parse that sentence. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

One shouldn't really edit with a body clock out by five hours, but I think it was probably fairly obvious what I was saying despite the one obvious mistake, now corrected. --Snowded ^TALK 18:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Eh... in what way would DPT get less credibility with more mass killings under communist regimes? That makes no sense, sorry. The Mass killings are neither wars not by democrats. Very strange. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

At one stage on the interminable discussions on that page that mass killings were are inherent part of communism which as anti-democratic.--Snowded ^TALK 20:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes? Are you trying to say that your attempts to expand this list as well as shrink the one on mass killings are all because you are an anti-democrat? And that people who are trying to defend Wikipedia policy on both article are doing it because they like democracy? I don't believe that is true. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I would say that I am trying to prevent attempts to restrict this list and expand the other one, both attempts seem clearly linked to a DPT position. You are also defending your interpretation of WIkipedia policy. I am more and more coming to the opinion that neither list is really notable in its own right and lists are inherently problematic when they are linked to strongly held political or religious views. --Snowded ^TALK 21:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

No, to a superstitious reverence for a single web-site, which leads its votaries to defend even points which the website and its author, eccentric though he is, does not hold or defend. Most theorists of the democratic peace do not write on the Ukrainian famines at all. 21:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

To use language you should understand, as you use it yourself: Nonsense. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

My interpretation of WP:Policy has so far gotten support from most people that has voiced an opinion. As far as I can see you, Cynwolfe and Pmanderson are the only ones that continue to defend the "alleged synthesis". You seem to imply that this means you are all anti-democrats, which is speculation I'll leave to you. Personally I leave my political views outside of Wikipedia as far as possible. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

OF, you were doing so well, but now you've started ranting and talking bollocks again. Please remember that even if PMA does propose introducing synthesis into the article, he is not outraging the virtue of your sister by doing so (in short, keep reaction proportionate to threat).Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

And for the sake of parity: PMA, we were doing so well, and now you've just started being rude again. If you can't think of anything nice to say, at least say "over my dead body" without the insults.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I can agree that OpenFuture appears to be talking ballocks. You think ascribing this to his actually talking ballocks is less rude than assuming that (some part of) it is due to his struggles with the English language. Fine; anything to oblige. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, it's not *me* who implies everyone who tries to extend this list are anti-democrats. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Neither has anyone else - that is a product of your fertile imagination. Hang on, I think I am sensing something here. You think that democracies can't really have wars by their nature, therefore you assume that people who recognise they can (as can any human political form) must be anti-democratic. At least its consistent with your assumptions, pity they are flawed --Snowded ^TALK 22:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Neither has anyone else - Oh, I see. Your logic isn't universal, it just applies when you want it too. How practical for you.

At least its consistent with your assumptions, pity they are flawed - Please explain what my assumptions are, or retract everything above. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

No, its your logic OF, you have a very strong world view and you are filtering through it. I'm not retracting anything and I commend the comment to your reflective consideration --Snowded ^TALK 22:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not mine. If it's logic or not I'll let each person decide for himself. You haven't got the slightest clue what my world view or my assumptions are. Those are just assumptions *you* make because of *your* worldview. You'd probably do well in just avoiding trying to make any sort of conclusions. Both in general, and in particular about me. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I really would prefer not to have to attempt some conclusions, but then you make (and repeat) an assertion such as your anti-democratic one then there is little alternative. You take very firm positions based on partial (sic) or incomplete readings and that makes it very very difficult to deal with you. I'm not surprised other editors are driven to breaking WP:NAP in the face of this. --Snowded ^TALK 23:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Snowded, but your claim that people want to remove entries from this is based on a political and ideological standpoints, namely that we are for democracy and hence support DPT and hence want this list to be short, is the kind of logic-free conclusions you should stop making. So now you get cause and effect backwards. My "assertion" that you criticize, comes *after* your conclusion. Hence it can't be prompted by it.

All I did was apply that kind of argumentation to you and others who want to expand this list, which obviously then must mean you are anti-democrats. If you don't like me doing that, stop making your nonsense conclusions and assumptions in the first place.

The main problem here of course is that you try to make it a personal issue, which you do because you don't have any arguments in the first place. You try to blame your lack of arguments on an imagined political agenda amongst those who have arguments. That doesn't work, mainly because you have very little knowledge about the subject, and absolutely no knowledge whatsoever about me. So my recommendation to yo, again, is to stop trying to make conclusions about me. Bring your argumentation up from the sewer, and make it topical again. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm no longer watching this page, and came here out of curiosity because of a remark I saw about it elsewhere. OpenFuture's recent responses to Snowded (note the "sewer" remark) are way out of line; I searched through all Snowded's remarks on this page, and see nothing that comes close to this kind of venom, which represents a pattern of behavior here from OpenFuture as described at Wikipedia:Civility#Identifying incivility. Newcomers to the page, beware: it's a poisonous environment. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry OF but your behaviour and attitudes are the problem on this page (and elsewhere) you have an obdurate attitude, you do not read or attempt to understand other people's arguments. You misconstrue what other people say and make absolute claims about wikipedia policies that no temperate editor would make. The only real issue for me is if its worth the energy to report this. I just hope some senior admins are monitoring what is going on. You are creating a toxic editing environment. I am sorry to be so direct, but it has to be said. --Snowded ^TALK 19:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking at this as a neutral third party... It appears to me that you are both being uncivil here. I am not an admin, but I do suggest that you both take a break from this topic for a while. Blueboar (talk) 20:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Firstly you are not a neutral third party you have activated edited this page. Secondly I am sorry but I've done my best on civil in the face of the behavior for longer than its reasonable to expect. --Snowded ^TALK 21:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with this... BigK HeX (talk) 22:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Um... I have taken part in the discussions on this talk page ... I have never made an edit to the article. I have no axe to grind as to the DPT (I have not even read that article)... nor do I care whether a particular war is or is not included in the list. I came here due to a question posted at a policy noticeboard, and my comments so far have been policy based. I consider that neutral. You are of course free to disagree. Blueboar (talk) 12:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I am sure we all consider ourselves neutral --Snowded ^TALK 12:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)