Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Possible wars between liberal democracies 2

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was been speedied and protected a while ago - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 19:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible wars between liberal democracies

Contested G4 speedy deletion for recreated content; for history see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Why other peace theories are wrong, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Why Rummel is always right, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democratic peace theory (Specific historic examples), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Possible wars between liberal democracies. Phew. Process nom, so no vote from me.  RasputinAXP  c 23:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Narco 23:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• It looks like a POV fork of Democratic peace theory. Most of the content is actually a duplication of Democratic peace theory. So merge anything useful back into the main article or just delete the fork. BigDT 01:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, absolute nonsense. Pavel Vozenilek 02:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. As I understand it, speedy deletions aren't contested by recreation, prods are. Speedy deletions are contested at DRV. TheProject 03:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the contesting happened at DRV.  RasputinAXP  c 03:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy--Peta 03:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Repost, POV fork, although of a very valid political science concept. Grandmasterka 04:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per BigDT, Grandmasterka and Athenaeum (below)--WilliamThweatt 14:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep

Please note that there are extensive differences between articles. For example, regarding the Spanish-American War:

Spain had the Turno system and the monarchy retained important powers at the time of Spanish-American War.

Changed to:

For being a war between liberal democracies: This is one of Gowa's two claimed exceptions to the democratic peace. She notes that Spain received a score of 6 out of 10 for democracy in the Polity data set which in this data set is categorized as "democratic". ^[1] p. 50. ^[2] In Spain all males could vote and the constitution in theory protected many civil liberties. Another argument for Spain being a democracy may be that the failed war caused a change in leadership.

Against being a war between liberal democracies: There was the Turno system where corrupt officials manipulated the elections to return to office as many of their own party as they wished. Election results were often published in the press before the elections. Dissidents were jailed. 1/4 of the members of the Cortes were appointed by the King or had hereditary positions. The monarchy retained important powers like appointing the ministry. A military coup d'etat was feared if Spain would compromise in the negotiations. ^[3] p. 111-115.^[4] p. 141-2, 204-205, 311. ^[5] p. 19. A change in leadership due to a failed war has happened in undisputed dictatorships, like in Argentina that was ruled by a military junta before the unsuccessful Falklands war.

WWI:

For the First World War critics have argued that the German Empire was a democracy, (the Reichstag was elected by universal male suffrage and it did vote overwhelmingly to fund the war), or that Britain was not a democracy (only three-fifths of British males could vote, to say nothing of the Empire beyond the Seas, the majority of which had no say in the decision at all). Supporters respond that the German Kaiser had the executive power. He appointed and dismissed the Chancellor, the Imperial officials, and the officers. He could and did declare war together with the not democratically elected Bundesrat, 30% of which was appointed by the Emperor, and most of the rest by the German princes. The Reichstag had little control over the executive power and its legislative power was greatly limited by the Bundesrat. The Emperor's appointees in the Bundesrat could themselves veto amendments to the German constitution. In 1913 the Chancellor ignored a vote of no confidence and there were often threats of a military coup d'etat if the Reichstag should ignore the Emperor on important issues. In effect, therefore, especially in foreign and military affairs, there was little democratic control. The Emperor was also the King of Prussia which had 3/5 of the German population and the Prussian constitution gave him even greater power there. The landed aristocracy of the Junkers formed the officer corps of the army, dominated Prussia, and had strong influence on national politics as well.^{[1][2][3][4][5]} If Britain was not a liberal democracy, then this is another reason why WWI was not a war between democracies.

Now some people objected to the references. Accordingly, I changed the text and reference to using only a book published by academic press.

For being a war between liberal democracies: The German Reichstag was elected by all adult males and it did vote overwhelmingly to fund the war. The United Kingdom is often considered a liberal democracy at this time but only approximately 60% of British males could vote. The British Monarch and the House of Lords was not democratically elected.

Against being a war between liberal democracies: The German Kaiser retained most of the power. All the appointments to the bureaucracy, the armed forces, and the diplomatic forces were made at his sole discretion. It was common knowledge that the army strongly supported him and would would arrest his opponents if he so desired. Open criticisms could and was punished as lese majesty. The German Chancellor in 1913 ignored a vote of no confidence, explaining that he served at the discretion of the Kaiser alone. The Reichstag was not consulted regarding the declaration of war, but only informed after the fact that its support was required to approve the allocation of funds for the defence against the Tsarist Russia. ^[4] p. 142-145, 191-195, 311-312. The comparison to the United Kingdom ignores that the House of Lords and the Monarchy had lost most real power during the previous century. The Parliament Act 1911 limited the powers of the House of Lords to reject bills. Also, if the United Kingdom was not a liberal democracy at this time, then this is another reason for WWI not being a war between democracies.

This is just two conflcits, there are many other changes. I also added many new conflicts not mentioned in the earlier article. So I do not think that speedy apply. People are already starting to ask questions about the conflicts [6], so the information is needed.Ultramarine 07:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Personal essay/research. Being interesting and provoking questions does not make it an encyclopedia article - every newspaper editorial is intended to do that. Athenaeum 11:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I think claims of POV are unsubstanted, the article is not a fork, it is an important appendix which would not be suitable for the main article, which is already too long. The article also stands in its own right as a partial history of war and democracy. Perhaphs more worring is that I think many of the delete votes are actually more to do with the main editor than the article itself and this people would instinctively vote against anything which his name is attached to. While he may be headstrong, ultramarine does have a far better grasp of the DPT litrature than most other editors (myself included)

To address the POV claim in more detail first some history on the article, this was worked on in my user space and it was my idea to present the data as a table, precicely so that opposing views of the different conflicts could be clearly illustrated, and thrus better address claims of bias.

On my talk page Pmanderson/Septentrionalis nicely outlined the different views of authors working on DPT:

1. Gowa and other Realists deny that there is an actual democratic peace altogether.
2. Are democracies at peace only among themselves, or are they more peaceful in general;
   1. Peaceful among themselves only: Doyle, Russett, Weart, Gleditsch, Owen, Singer and Small, Mansfield and Snyder, Mueller, Wolff in fact, almost everybody.
   2. Peaceable with non-democracies: Rummel, Ray and half-a-dozen other papers listed above in Mueller and Wolff
3. Is the democratic peace an automatic and mechanical thing, or is it a strong statistical tendency?
   1. Automatic (and so without exceptions): Rummel, Ray and Weart (as far as I can tell nobody else)
   2. Statistical tendency:Wayman, Bremer, Chan, Cederman, Doyle, Russett, Owen, MW, Gleditisch, Mansfield and Snyder

Now, this article only adresses point 2.1 whether democracies tend not to go to war with each other, the more contentious issue 2.2 is not addressed (this is also why the Why Rummel is always right name for the article was always off the mark, it is not primarily about Rummels more extreme theory).

So we are basically left with a debate between those who study DTP and the Realists, notably Gowa. Gowa gets appropriate coverage in the article. Also note the comment from Pmanderson at the end of 2.1 in fact, almost everybody so there really is little debate on the central thrust of the article. From talking with a friend who has reciently completed a PhD in International Relations is that the field is split into Realists, DTP and a couple of other camps, each groups tends to work in its own camp and there is little cross fertilisation, hence lack of much Realist critique.

So why the lack of references to group 3.2, (Russet gets 4 citations). Basically this is not a question adressed here, further most of the studies have been from analysis of the same set of data (compiled by Weart?) which is basically presented here.

To conclude, what we have here is the basic set of data used by all those studing DPT, as such it is a useful and interesting resource. The DPT field has in recient times moved on from the binary discussion on the DPT-hypothesis, which is now largely accepted by all in the field (with a lot a cavearts about statistical tendancies etc.) The study has now moved on to other questions examining the Why? question and more sophsticated modeling involving other factors. POV claims are a strawman not reflecing the litrature. --Salix alba (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • I thank Salix for his kindness.
  • The basic problem with this article is that it is an argument for a corollary of position 3.1, which is only regarded as important by the three who hold it (and by Ultramarine). This does not reflect the literature. The three involve themselves in a narrow definition of democracy, and peculiar views of history, precisely to prove that two real democracies have never, ever, gone to war; which the rants here are designed to prove. A good article on this could be written, and Matthew White has approached it; but this is not it. This is at best a pile of raw material. Septentrionalis 18:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This article is exhastively researched (21 footnotes--I doubt many of those who are electing to delete this article have wrote an article with 21 footnotes) and offers an excellent history substantiating the democratic peace theory. (For the record, I do not fully support the Democratic Peace Theory, which is completly opposite of Ultramarine position). Unlike these other users, I personally think I could debate Ultramarine on the merits alone. Some of these users, unable to debate Ultramarine on the merits, appear to be using wikipedia policy to silent a contrary opinion.
  This vote for deletion is a primae facia example (the evidence speaks for itself) why "democracy" for the wikipedia "braying herd" can sometimes be detrimental.
  Ultramarine has done exhastive research on the topic. I was so impressed by this article, last week I e-mailed this article to my International Relations professor who talked about Democratic Peace Theory in our masters degree class last semester.
  As per User talk:Salix alba above: "I think many of the delete votes are actually more to do with the main editor than the article itself and this people would instinctively vote against anything which his name is attached to." Please take up an RfC against Ultramarine's if you disagree with him personally, deleting hundreds of hours of exhaustively researched work for personal reasons is terribly, terribly wrong and against everything that wikipedia stands for. User:Travb (talk) 15:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Travb, you seem to misunderstand the role of Wikipeida. Whether or not the other editors agree with Ultramarine is irrelevant, whether or not they want to "take on Ultramarine on the merits alone" is irrrelvant. Wikipedia is not an ideological battleground. [7] Wikipedia is not a soapbox. [8] 172 | Talk 21:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can quote wikipolicy too: WIKIPEDIA IS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA: An encyclopedia is a written compendium aiming to convey information on all branches of knowledge. I won't debate you 172, especially when you seemed to miss my entire point. I had a long rebuttal but I deleted it.Travb (talk) 21:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're still not getting the point. I think you're having a hard time differentiating between a research paper and an encyclopedia article. 172 | Talk 22:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think you are still not getting the point that I will not argue with you. Your opinion has been noted.01:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• 'Keep!' It is a well-researched and informative article. It needs some clean-up, and a better name would help (who's going to look for it under "Possible wars between liberal democracies"?), but I think it could become a valuable resource. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ONUnicorn (talk • contribs)
• Merge to Democratic peace theory. Apparently the differences between articles are limited to a few wars and authors; the majority of this article is the same as the other. The info on those wars needs to be merged, the rest is redundant. BTW, to my knowledge, I have never had any interactions with the article authors, and have nothing against them. WP:AGF. AnonEMouse ^(squeak)
  • Comment, just to point out that the content of PWBLD was pasted into DPT following a recomendation by RasputinAXP yesterday. Depending on outcome of this the table may be removed from DPT. --Salix alba (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with permission to userify. This was deleted as PoV at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Why Rummel is always right; for the record, I opposed that deletion, because it might be a useful resource. That version of the article now exists in userspace, here; so that objection is met. This is the second time Ultramarine has recreated this article: The first recreation was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democratic peace theory (Specific historic examples); making the PoV arguments longer and making it into a table should not save it. If this were on a blog, where it belongs, I would certainly link to it; but exhaustively researched pieces of advocacy are still advocacy, and do not belong in Wikipedia.Septentrionalis 18:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have spent 100's of K debating these claims. These are the same invalid arguments. Enough. Septentrionalis 20:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as re-re-creation of a POV fork. Fantastic essay and it appears its already been userfied. Shell ^babelfish 18:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, preferably speedy delete per above. This is a re-re-creation of a POV fork. 172 | Talk 21:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the xth time. Merge anything useful back into the article that this is a POV fork of. Jkelly 00:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Delete per BigDT it's a POV fork. If Democratic peace theory has really become too long and there's a need for a page of criticism, the article should be called something like Criticism of Democratic peace theory and introduced and linked from the DPT article. --Armon 05:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename to something like Armon's suggestion above. Seemingly well-sourced and well-written article, no reason to delete it. It does need less tables though, unless it's going to be called List of possible wars between liberal democracies. --tjstrf 07:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, either speedily or not.  Grue  10:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Grandmasterka, Shell kinney at al; additionally WP:NOT a soapboax for Rummelfans. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. POV essay. --Ezeu 14:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. POV essay, soapbox, not remotely encyclopedic. Fan1967 14:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete repost, original research, POV fork and gaming the system. Just zis Guy you know? 20:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Nobody has actually criticized the article except for its being POV. Given that it is intended to be an encyclopedic listing of POVs for and against, I argue that it aims for a Neutral POV. If it doesn't achieve that goal, then editing, rather than deletion should be the course of action. RussNelson 01:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Wikipedia is not a debate club. Fan1967 01:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • If this is its aim, it is a total failure; neutral articles do not have long and tendentious arguments on only one side of the issue. Septentrionalis 14:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Needs more work but has potential. --JJay 01:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a POV fork of an existing article and the author is merely rephrasing his speculative original research (see previous AfDs above) in the hopes of keeping it after it was previously deleted (a classic POV push, in other words). So what does it need to make it a valid article which is justifiable in addition to the existing more neutral article? Just zis Guy you know? 08:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• See discussion above. Otherwise, based on your comment, you should be voting merge. --JJay 13:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. —Nightstallion (?) 15:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or Change) --23prootie The article is biased and US-centric(ex. Philippine-American War portion:"US president William McKinley stated that it would be immoral to withdraw and leave the Filipinos to fight one another or be occupied by an European power or Japan."-obviously a statement justifying American Imperialism,). If your going to Keep this article, it needs expert attention.

• Keep but needs clean up to WP:NPOV --Coroebus 11:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV fork. TomTheHand 12:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete When people post POV forks it isn't anyone else's responsibility to clean them up, they should just be deleted. Sumahoy 23:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No sympathy should be shown and no search for value in the article should be made as the author is patently gaming the system. Keeping will encourage biased editors and discourage those who work to enforce policy. Hawkestone 00:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.