Talk:List of wars between democracies/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Inclusion criteria

I am not sure we are making any headway on the other disucssions, and I think part of the reason may be the lack of objective criteria for this list, which is a requirement Wikipedia:LIST#List_content. Does anyone have any offer to submit a definition that better meets Wikipedia List policy? Active Banana (talk) 16:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

There is an objective criterion: that there are significant views that there was a war and at least two of the entities in conflict were democracies. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

How do you judge that the view is "significant"? That there was a war is a fairly objective fact, whether the two countries were deemed to be democracies less so. I n regard World War One, both Polity IV and Verhanen deem Germany not to be a democracy, yet that doesn't seem to be significant enough for you. --Martin (talk) 22:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

By whether it is discussed in the mainstream literature; this case is clearly debateable, which means there are two sides. The rest of this is essentially a proposal to adopt Ted Gurr's POV, which remains contrary to policy and unacceptable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You could then start with finding sources for the side that claims that Germany was a democracy, which you so far haven't. We've yet to see any support for your claim that there is two sides to this discussion. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

If the current statement were in fact "objective criteria" then there would not be so many millions of electrons wasted in discussions of whether or not something can be included on the list. Anyone would be able to "objectively" look at the criteria and at the proposed entry and be able to say: "Yes, it meets the criteria" or "No, it doesnt meet the criteria." That is why the criteria need to be objective.Active Banana (talk) 14:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's not gonna happen, because its not an objective question. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Once (or if) we agree on a criteria, it should be no problem in listing the criteria in the intro. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

What happened to 'No such thing as objectivity'?

WP policy, at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Being neutral:

There's no such thing as objectivity. Everybody with any philosophical sophistication knows that. So how can we take the "neutrality" policy seriously? Neutrality, lack of bias, isn't possible." This is probably the most common objection to the neutrality policy. It also reflects the most common misunderstanding of the policy. The misunderstanding is that the policy says something about objectivity. It simply does not. In particular, the policy does not say that there even is such a thing as objectivity in a philosophical sense—a "view from nowhere" (in Thomas Nagel's phrase), such that articles written from that viewpoint are consequently objectively true. That is not the policy, and it is not our aim! Rather, to be neutral (in the way demanded by the neutrality policy) is to describe debates rather than engage in them. In other words, when discussing a subject, we should report what people have said about it rather than what is so.

This is fundamental WP:V. It is OR and synth to try to arrive at a definition of democracy that's particular to the creation of this list. The only criterion should be verifiability, specifically the verifiability of three points: Was a war fought? Has Polity A been described as democratic? Was Polity B? Yes, there will be disputes about individual cases, but the application of WP:V and WP:NPOV is no different in this list than in any other article. It isn't that Martin's question isn't a good one — How do you judge that the view is "significant"? — it's that it isn't unique to this article: this is covered by WP:UNDUE. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

1. Nobody said there is no such thing as objectivity. Just that this isn't an objective question.

2. Objectivity is, as mentioned, not the same thing as neutrality.

--OpenFuture (talk) 15:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think there is a certain loss of objectivity here:

We have a source which is:

• A (slightly abridgemed) publicaction of a database on crises, which states
• That it was a "full-scale war".
• Every state involved in a crisis is rated (among other things) on whether they were a democracy, civil authoritarianism, or military government.
• That India was a democracy (and discussion of the effect of that on the crisis{
• That India and Pakistan have the same ranking on regime.

Somehow this is not a citation to show that the war in question is between democracies. Ingenious, perhaps, but.... what shall I say, frivolous? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

RIght, so it's our aim to describe debates that arise in the process of verifying. Scholars may not agree with each other on whether a particular polity is a democracy; it isn't our job to decide who's right. It's our job to report what people have said about it — not to arrive at a definition of democracy that excludes other definitions used by mainstream, reputable scholars. The only criterion is the verifiability of the three points of the statement: Was a war fought? Have scholars described each of the two (or sometimes more) participants in terms of "democracy," however these scholars collectively or as individuals may have used the term? We must describe what the scholars say, not decide whose definition is "right." It is absolutely OR, synth, and non-neutral to decide to exclude a body of scholarship because of one particular school of thought. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

"RIght, so it's our aim to describe debates that arise in the process of verifying." - No, it's to describe the debate within scholarship. And to be able to describe both sides, there must actually be two sides, right? --OpenFuture (talk) 15:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

(Comment inserted out of chronological order.) OpenFuture quotes selectively in a way that does not represent what I said: "it's our aim to describe debates that arise in the process of verifying," meaning that as an editor gathers material for the article, the editor may find his preconceptions challenged, or may find that there's disagreement among scholars, as I went on to say: Scholars may not agree with each other on whether a particular polity is a democracy; it isn't our job to decide who's right. It's our job to report what people have said about it. I did NOT say that we're supposed to describe our debates among ourselves. I have no way of knowing whether this was a casual misreading of what I said, or a deliberate misrepresentation, and am assuming the former. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:AGF. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I did assume good faith; your citation of "Assume good faith" implies that I should review the policy. I said (because I'm trying to honor your request to stay away from anything that can construed as personal) that I didn't know your reason for the selective quote, which I regarded as misleading. I didn't know whether you had casually misrepresented what I said (meaning, either you didn't mean to imply that I had referred to anything other than the debate between scholars, or that in reading quickly you had in good faith mistkaen what I said) or deliberately misrepresented it. I said I was assuming the former, that you had casually mistaken what I'd said. I apologize if you're unfamiliar with the rhetorical construction the former … the latter; by saying "I'm assuming the former", I meant "I'm assuming in good faith that you were casually mistaken." Cynwolfe (talk) 19:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Heh, another mistake of me. I blame being sleepy. :-) Sorry, my bad. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

That India was a democracy (and discussion of the effect of that on the crisis - You still haven't said where the source claims this. The previous quotes do *not* say that. Only that India had democracy as a goal. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

This is an arrant falsehood; I believe it is another attempt to bait. I will not reply further to any edit by OpenFuture. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You refuse to quote the source where it according to you claims that India is a democracy. QED. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

But OpenFuture, you are also at liberty to contribute material to the article to explain, based on sources you provide, that this may be a minority view. You play a vital role in constructing the article to ensure its neutrality by representing the full range of scholarship. WP policy clearly states that neutrality is achieved through the proper balance of sources, not through deleting problematic views. If your position is the correct one, and if you are right that PMA's is a minority view, or even a fringe view, it should be fairly easy for you to frame the entry as I suggest below: "Most scholars don't consider India and Pakistan to have been democracies in 1947,"(insert your footnote here). It will be up to PMA to frame his contribution properly. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

you are also at liberty to contribute material to the article to explain, based on sources you provide, that this may be a minority view. - It's not a question of being a "Minority view". A non-fringe minority view would have been a different issue. This is a question of us not having *one single source* that supports the inclusion. Then it should be removed from the list. In my categorization above (that noone objected too) the most inclusive view accepts even synthesis between several sources. This has not even that. This is not a minority view. It is a fringe view, that doesn't have one single reliable source behind it. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

But sources were cited. Do you have sources that contradict what PMA put in the article? If he misunderstood or misrepresented his sources, you need to provide sources that prove he's wrong. You can't say "I don't agree with his interpretation of these sources, so I'm going to delete them or tag them as something that ought to be challenged." You have to produce sources of equal or greater weight to show that he's wrong. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not enough to just quote a source. The source has to actually support the statement. These sources do not. From WP:V:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate, and must clearly support the material as presented in the article.

(My emphasis) --OpenFuture (talk) 19:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

First world war.

Pmanderson:

The POLICY IV dataset does not rank any of the Central Powers as democracies; neither does the ranking of Tutu Vanhanen; on the other hand, all of the Central Powers had elected parliaments; the Reichstag had been elected by universal suffrage, and voted on whether a credit essential to the German conduct of the war should be granted. Whether this is democratic control over the foreign policy of the Kaiser is "a difficult case."

So, in fact, nobody ranks any of the central powers as democratic. Yet you add it to a list of wars between democracies. Can you explain that? Why should we list "both sides" in a case where there apparently is only one side, and that side says "do not include"? --OpenFuture (talk) 21:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Mearsheimer says that there are some - and indeed there are. Also, there is an issue. I see that the argument of suppression of information continues, unfortunately. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

There has never been any argument of suppression of information no matter what You/Cynwolfe claims. The argument is of correction. Would you claim that it's "suppression" to remove Mickey Mouse from a list of US presidents?

Mearsheimer says that there are some - And yet he isn't used as a source. Why not? It seems curious to exclude the only source that supports the entries inclusion. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to add a reference to Mearsheimer's article, if you think it important. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't see that it supports the statement either. You claim it did, so reasonably you need to quote it. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I think PMAnderson is misrepresenting what Doyle is actually saying, particularly in regard to this text he inserted to justify the inclusion of World War One: "and voted on whether a credit essential to the German conduct of the war should be granted" and "Whether this is democratic control over the foreign policy of the Kaiser is "a difficult case""

In the body of the text on page 216 of Vol. 12, No. 3, Summer, 1983 of the Journal Philosophy and Public Affairs, Doyle's clearly states in his paper "Despite their colonial rivalries, liberal France and Britain formed an entente before World War I against illiberal Germany (whose foreign relations were controlled by the Kaiser and the Army)." A subsequent footnote justifies Doyle's viewpoint that foreign relations were controlled by the Kaiser and the Army:

"8. Imperial Germany is a difficult case. The Reichstag was not only elected by universal male suffrage but, by and large, the state ruled under the law, respecting the civic equality and rights of its citizens. Moreover, Chancellor Bismarck began the creation of a social welfare society that served as an inspiration for similar reforms in liberal regimes. However, the constitutional relations between the imperial executive and the representative legislature were sufficiently complex that various practices, rather than constitutional theory, determined the actual relation between the government and the citizenry. The emperor appointed and could dismiss the chancellor. Although the chancellor was responsible to the Reichstag, a defeat in the Reichstag did not remove him nor did the government absolutely depend on the Reichstag for budgetary authority. In practice, Germany was a liberal state under republican law for domestic issues. But the emperor's direct authority over the army, the army's effective independence from the minimal authority of the War Ministry, and the emperor's active role in foreign affairs (including the influential separate channel to the emperor through the military attaches) together with the tenuous constitutional relationship between the chancellor and the Reichstag made imperial Germany a state divorced from the control of its citizenry in foreign affairs.

This authoritarian element not only influenced German foreign policymaking, but also shaped the international political environment (a lack of trust) the Reich faced and the domestic political environment that defined the government's options and capabilities (the weakness of liberal opinion as against the exceptional influence of junker militaristic nationalism). Thus direct influence on policy was but one result of the authoritarian element. Nonetheless, significant and strife-generating episodes can be directly attributed to this element. They include Tirpitz's approach to Wilhelm II to obtain the latter's sanction for a veto of Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg's proposals for a naval agreement with Britain (I909). Added to this was Wilhelm's personal assurances of full support to the Austrians early in the Sarajevo Crisis and his, together with Moltke's, erratic pressure on the Chancellor throughout July and August of I9I4, which helped destroy whatever coherence German diplomacy might otherwise have had, and which led one Austrian official to ask, "Who rules in Berlin? Moltke or Bethmann?""

Thus Doyle is actually justifying why Imperial Germany cannot be considered a democracy, the Chancellor was immune from censure by the Reichstag, the government had no real dependence on the Reichstag for budgetary authority and foreign policy that lead to the outbreak of World War One was controlled by the emperor and the arrmy. --Martin (talk) 23:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is the way he thinks the difficult case will resolve - but his statement of the difficulty and the case remains. If some of this needs to be mentioned, mention it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is the way he thinks the difficult case will resolve - but his statement of the difficulty and the case remains. If some of this needs to be mentioned, mention it; but this edit is more suppression. We are not here to make the case for the party line of any party; those who are would do better elsewhere and among others. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The difficulty is not on whether there was democratic control over the foreign policy of the Kaiser, Doyle is absolutely clear on this, there wasn't. The difficulty is with duality in the Imperial German polity, i.e. democratic, liberal and socially advanced domestic policies; non-democratic, authoritarian and militaristic foreign policy. Doyle is actually concurring with Polity IV and Vanhanen, giving justification for the classification as non-democratic in terms of going to war. --Martin (talk) 00:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

That is two falsehoods, both about Doyle and about Germany. Doyle concludes that the Kaiser was not completely subject to democratic control, but that is not the same thing. But did the Reichstag and the people have power to interfere with the war? Yes, they did; the Reichstag had voted down the appropriation for a colonial war as recently as 1906. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Your conclusion is at odds with what Doyle actually states, re-read the footnote I quoted verbatim above: "the emperor's direct authority over the army, the army's effective independence from the minimal authority of the War Ministry, and the emperor's active role in foreign affairs (including the influential separate channel to the emperor through the military attaches) together with the tenuous constitutional relationship between the chancellor and the Reichstag made imperial Germany a state divorced from the control of its citizenry in foreign affairs" --Martin (talk) 00:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You quote selectively, and read much more strongly than his earlier discussion merits. If Doyle had meant to affirm only one side, he would not have made both cases, or called it "difficult"; he does not on other subjects. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

It appears that you have selectively cherrypicked the term "a difficult case" from the footnote and prepended your own "Whether this is democratic control over the foreign policy of the Kaiser is". This seems like pure synthesis, since Doyle poses no such question, he explicitly states in the body "illiberal Germany (whose foreign relations were controlled by the Kaiser and the Army)". Lets have a poll on whether this version or the previous version more accurately reflects what Doyle says. --Martin (talk) 01:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

See WP:Polling is evil. This is victory by exhaustion; even if I type in the long stretches you omitted, you will call in the -er- politically committed editors to vote on whether to suppress the reservation that Doyle makes and Mearsheimer endorses. Wikipedia is not a democracy, winner does not take all, and a transient majority, even if you get one, cannot set aside our commitment to include all significant points of view. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you need to re-examine this, the quality of your argumentation appears to be again coming up short. There is nothing wrong in using a straw poll to gauge the quality of a peice of text, this is afterall, a collaborative project. Mearsheimer doesn't endorse Doyle, he merely observes "Lastly, some would classify Wilhelmine Germany as a democracy, or at least a quasi-democracy" without identifying who these "some" (which infers a minority viewpoint) really are. BTW Doyle, on page 210, identifies Germany as a liberal regime between 1918 and 1932, which supports the view of Polity IV and Verhanen. --Martin (talk) 01:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Verhanen's methodology classifies Germany as a democracy in 1934; there was no intervening election, so the democracy of 1930 continued to exist. This is one of the things he covers as a short-term fluctuation; for his purpose it doesn't really matter.

And as for this last tweak: what gives you the idea we are here to exclude minority viewpoints? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:UNDUE. Since Mearsheimer doesn't actually identify those who would classify Imperial Germany as a democracy, thus we cannot even name the proponents of that viewpoint, policy dictates it must be excluded. --Martin (talk) 02:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

It does? Where? WP:UNDUE says that fringe viewpoints must be escluded; but Mearsheimer's paper is in a peer-reviewed journal, and has been widely cited on precisely this point; that's how I found it. Minority viewpoints must be included. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The above non-sequitur is the fourth mischaracteristizartion of a source by Martin - all in the same tendentious interest. I will be happy to include sources he finds - insofar as they are neither redundant nor undue weight; but my time and clearly my patience are limited.

Henceforth silence in response to his posts should not be taken to imply agreement - one can only say so often that one editor is inventing policy and misrepresenting the literature. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• My apparent silence is a function of the timezone I live in, nothing else. Yes, Mearsheimer's paper is in a peer-reviewed journal, but no, he does not support the view that Imperial Germany was a democracy. He merely observes "Lastly, some would classify Wilhelmine Germany as a democracy, or at least a quasi-democracy" without identifying who these "some" really are. Since he does not explicitly identify who holds that view, that view must be considered fringe, --Martin (talk) 22:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

(A side note: I read PMA to mean his own silence, that is, if he decides not to engage in further discussion on a point, it should not be taken to imply that he concedes it. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC))

He has not mischaracterized anything, nor has he invented any policy, so you shouldn't say that at all. Your fervor is impressive, but misguided, you clearly have no sources supporting neither WWI nor the First Kashmir war. WP:UNDUE indeed says that fringe views should be excluded, the view that these two wars a re wars between democracies are clearly fringe. In fact, they are so fringe we can't find one single reliable source that support it. There is more support and reliable sources calling Cuba a democracy than there is supporting your additions. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

So OpenFuture says. Take the testimonial for what it is worth. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

If there are no sources saying WW1 or the first kashmir war were not between democracies the nthey ought to be removed, the sheer amount if synth and or in this article continues to stun me mark nutley (talk) 14:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

But there are sources saying both; the sentences which say so have been quoted here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

No, i have looked through this thread and you are reaching. Your source for the Kashimr war does not say it was a war between democracies at all. It says the Maharajah did not like the idea of democracy, it certainly does not say pakistan was one [1] mark nutley (talk) 14:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

One sentence has been quoted saying that there are those who say so. That's not enough, you need to find those who say so and quote them. Otherwise we do not know if they are reliable sources or not. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Another invention of policy to suit a PoV. We are not here to ventriloquize any party line. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

If your only line is to attack perhaps you ought to take a step back? Can you please reply to my response at 14:50 please mark nutley (talk) 15:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Since that is actually substantive, certainly; the citation of page 122 is to an assertion that the classification of India and Pakistan is identical, except for religion. One of the components of that classification is (as it says on the same page) regime type. Yherefore India and Pakistan are both classified as democracies. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Except that the source never classifies India as a democracy. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

That is a terminological inexactitude. The database classified classifies both regimes here in all four respects; they discuss the classification of India as a democracy - and its effect on the crisis - in the sentences already quoted. Have you anything better to say than denying the meaning of the source? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you repeat those quotes, because I have not seen any quotes where this is discussed. Only where the *goal* of democracy was being discussed. Which is a completely different thing. Perhaps they got lost in the discussion? --OpenFuture (talk) 15:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I should not have responded to this in the first place. (Like many of these sources, this one is widely cited as a claim of a war between democracies; James Lee Ray responds to it at length, pointing out that neither democracy was established, and so this falls under the long-established exception: the democratic peace does not apply to new states.) But this wholesale rewriting of a source is an act of desperation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

So you couldn't repeat those quotes. I guess that's because you actually mean the ones I have seen, which in no way at all supports the idea that either India nor Pakistan was democracies in 1947. They clearly do not belong. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

1948 Arab–Israeli War

I succeeded in finding the full quote about the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. The full quote is in fact:

With only very marginal exceptions, democratic states have not fought one another in the modern era. This is one of the strongest nontrivial or non- tautological generalizations that can be made about international relations. The nearest exception is Lebanon's peripheral involvement in Israel's "War of Independence" in 1948. Israel had not yet held an' election, so Melvin Small and J. David Singer did not count it as a democracy.

In other words, the source count this as the nearest you get to an exception to the rule, but does not count it as an exception, just the nearest you get to an exception. This is yet another case of Pmandersons creative interpretation of sources.

I had missed this disingenuous reading. He counts it as a "very marginal exception"; otherwise he would not use the phrase. It should be a requirement to assume that reliable sources can write competent English; like other assumptions, this would be rebuttable - but Doyle is in fact unusually clear. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, the interpretation of that part does lend itself to that interpretation, it's true. The rest of the context does not, so he is a bit unclear on this. It's still clearly a marginal view, though. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it's a marginal involvement in a war with an unestablished democracy. But it's an example here, although it is at best a marginal exception to the liberal peace. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, Polity IV does not see Lebanon as a democracy in 1948. I can't find anyone that does in fact. And although there is a great unity in seeing Israel as a democracy, Israel had it's first elections in 1949. It seem like the view that the 1948 Arab–Israeli War was a war between democracies is marginal at best. Let's see if anyone can come up with sources for this one. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

This is more selective quotation; in particular, this does not include Doyle's footnote, which discusses the question in more detail. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

More selective? Your quotation is in full:

Bruce Russett, Controlling the Sword: the Democratic Governance of National Security (1990), p.123: "the nearest exception"; Russett notes that Singer and Small (see note on the Continuation war) do not count Israel as yet being a democracy.

What I did above was give context to "the nearest exception", to show that your source does not support the case that this is a war between democracies. This has so far been the case with almost all your additions. Once I or somebody else manage to check up your sources, they simply do not support the statement. Your additions have been like that since you started adding conflicts to this list a couple of months ago. Very few of your sources supports your additions. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Once you check up on my sources, you invent new and fantastic readings of them, which nobody else - including other reliable sources, such as Ray here - agrees with. This is an ingenious method of suppressing what the sources actually claim, but no service to the reader. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

No, Pmanderson, that is absolutely not true. The fantastic readings are yours alone. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, consistency. That is as truthful as OpenFuture's claim thatthis discussion unanimously agreed with him. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Ideally, scholars would stop writing these absurdly discursive tomes, and confine themselves to Twitter posts written at the 8th-grade reading level. We could just collect tweets serially and paste them into articles. Don't they know how hard they're making our job? Cynwolfe (talk) 18:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Sarcasm doesn't suit you either. This has nothing to do with verbosity, only the simple fact that the sources does not say what Pmanderson claims.

(Good thing I didn't say it unanimously agreed with me then. I can only conclude that your readings of what sources say is as accurate as your reading of what I say). --OpenFuture (talk) 18:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

What you say differs from post to post, although some of this may be the difficulty in self-expression of someone who cannot get subject to agree with verb, and doesn't know sarcasm from irony. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

A brief tribute

I reproduce the following from the late Tony Judt's guest column "Israel without Clichés," 9 June 2010, New York Times:

Perhaps the most common defense of Israel outside the country is that it is “the only democracy in the Middle East.” This is largely true: the country has an independent judiciary and free elections, though it also discriminates against non-Jews in ways that distinguish it from most other democracies today. The expression of strong dissent from official policy is increasingly discouraged.
But the point is irrelevant. “Democracy” is no guarantee of good behavior: most countries today are formally democratic — remember Eastern Europe’s “popular democracies.” Israel belies the comfortable American cliché that “democracies don’t make war.” It is a democracy dominated and often governed by former professional soldiers: this alone distinguishes it from other advanced countries. And we should not forget that Gaza is another “democracy” in the Middle East: it was precisely because Hamas won free elections there in 2005 that both the Palestinian Authority and Israel reacted with such vehemence.

If we were to find this useful as a quote from "a leading historian of postwar Europe," it would not do to use it as some yea-or-nay litmus test for whether Israel, much less Gaza, should or should not be admitted to this list as a "democracy." As a position, it might strike a number of reasonable people as "fringe," were it not for the authority of its author, "a leading historian of postwar Europe." What then would be our responsibility in regard to this material? It would be, according to WP:NPOV, to describe what is said. We can't say, on the one hand, that this business of defining "democracy" is a complex matter, and then, on the other, blithely exclude problematic cases that demonstrate that complexity because we don't want to go to the trouble of doing the kind of thorough research and weighing of sources required by WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:UNDUE. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

What then would be our responsibility in regard to this material? - As it doesn't discuss any wars between democracies: Nothing. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you denying that the siege of Gaza was a war, that Judt disagrees with you on the other two points, or that what he says matters? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

OpenFuture's comment speaks for itself. To this provocative statement from a fascinating mind, his first and only response is nihilistic. He seizes on one point that allows him to say "no," and show no interest in any other issues it raises in regard to how we use sophisticated perspectives on a complex topic. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

You may very well think that - I couldn't possibly comment. But it would be interesting to know which he claimed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

It is indeed not a war. It is a long running occupation and lately a blockade. Gaza is not an independent country, the elected government has no real power, Israel has more power in Gaza than they have, etc. Calling it a "war between democracies" is IMO completely wrong for many reasons, therefore we can not put those words in anybodies mouth. And who would be warring then? Are you saying that it's the elected people in Gaza that are sending rockets into Israel? They themselves deny it.

It is indeed an extremely complex question. And that's exactly why we can't "interpret" sources, not even a little bit, as in this case, and definitely not by making complex multi-step conjecture as in the case of the Kashmir war above. The source needs to clearly support the statement. That's what WP:V says, and there is a reason for that. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

A blockade is an act of war. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. And it's any way largely irrelevant. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't give the passage in support of any particular entry on the list. I gave it for its inherent interest, and for what it says about definitional dependency. What OpenFuture says in his longer statement sounds reasonable. But as I said above (and then provided this passage as example), scholars don't write in tweets, and to treat their arguments reductively can also be misleading. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that. I do think it's a case of kicking in open doors, I don't think anyone disagrees. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

OF, have you ever read Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card (one of those two better have an article, or I'll have to write the bloody thing myself). It's not a trick question. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I haven't. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Indo-Pakistani War of 1947

Let's stipulate that both PMA and OpenFuture have legitimate sources to support their claims here. PMA says that the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 (as the article is called) was fought by two polities that can be viewed as democratic. OpenFuture says nope. To review: to be neutral (in the way demanded by the neutrality policy) is to describe debates rather than engage in them. In other words, when discussing a subject, we should report what people have said about it rather than what is so. So PMA puts a descriptive statement in the article to represent his sources as accurately as possible, properly sourced. OpenFuture objects, however, and adds something like the following statement: "Other scholars argue that neither India nor Pakistan should be considered democratic in 1947," perhaps with a brief explanation, with a footnote citing his sources. This has always struck me as the way to handle this article, and it's the way prescribed by the neutrality policy. Why doesn't this work? Cynwolfe (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

That, of course, would be perfectly acceptable; but OpenFuture doesn't have a source. Despite the clear intentions of the Attlee Government, of Nehru, and of the initial government of Pakistan, some scholar may well have found that they failed to set up democracies - I don't know who, but there may be a case.

Hence this nonsense, where if I decline to repeat sentences in the same section ad infinitum, OpenFuture claims they don't exist. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I should also point out that if PMA is representing a minority view among scholars, the entry should be recast as: "Although most scholars don't consider India and Pakistan to have been democracies in 1947,"(OpenFuture's footnote here) So-and-so has argued that blah blah." I think this addresses Martin's concerns about weight. I'd have to say that in general, material from books and journals published by major scholarly presses such as Cambridge, Oxford, Harvard, Yale, Michigan and so on are by definition not "fringe," though they may indeed represent a minority view, or a recent view that may or may not become the dominant one. (I have no position whatever on whether the war under discussion should be included; I'm trying to arrive at the process by which entries are verified and made neutral. Issues of OR and synth tend to arise only if these policies haven't been adequately implemented.) Cynwolfe (talk) 16:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's stipulate that both PMA and OpenFuture have legitimate sources to support their claims here. - There is no reason to stipulate. PMA clearly has no sources, and he has the burden of proof. His argument now is that "maybe they failed even though the intended" which is nonsense argumentation. India did not fail to become a democracy, and Pakistan did fail [2]. But the question is not if they failed or succeeded later, but whether they were democracies in 1947, and they were not. A minimum requirement must reasonably to have a government that is elected in some way by the people. And they did not. The claims that India an Pakistan were democratic are totally absurd, as it the logic Pmanderson are using to reach the conclusion. See the RSN for more views.

I should also point out that if PMA is representing a minority view among scholars - He isn't. He is representing a fringe view for which he can't find one single reliable source. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Then it should be quite easy for you to provide sources that show PMA's wrong. It isn't clear to me that he has no sources, only that the sources he has are less than adequate for making an unambiguous case. On the RSN page, the user Blueboar seems to think that it shouldn't even be a question, that both were democracies, while Slatersteven says yes to India, no to Pakistan; they are evidently familiar with the 1947 war and have formed their impressions somewhere. That editors argue over what's correct only indicates that this should be a case of describing what the sources actually say, which seems not to be uniform. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Even though he has the burden of proof, and there therefore is no need for me to provide such material, I have. See the link above. Even if it isn't clear to you that he has no source, it's clear to everyone else. See my previous quote from WP:V. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Your tone here is unduly belittling. It's easy enough to verify India; the question with Pakistan, which has still not achieved a form of democratic government that satisfies observers, seems to be whether one wishes to treat the subject historically. That is, the user Slatersteven points out that the constitution of Pakistan postdates the First Kashmir War; even if one agrees to examine Pakistan in light of failed efforts to fulfill its democratic goals (that is, if one categorizes Pakistan as constitutionally democratic, but with fatal failures in the democratic process), that still leaves the question of what democratic reforms or intentions or structures can be verified during the period in question. I'm trying to get hold of the scholarship on a question I've only dealt with in terms of contemporary journalism; you've obviously given this more thought and examined the historical question in greater detail, which is why I assumed you had sources at your fingertips. I only see one source you've given, and may be overlooking what else you've provided; but one source isn't overwhelming, and to make the "fringe" exclusion stick, you must show that your view is supported by a preponderance of scholarship. I'm not saying it isn't; I'm saying if you're well-informed enough to be certain about your position, then providing the sources that have given you this certainty should help outside editors join with you in a consensus that the First Kashmir War should be excluded. The source you've provided says that Pakistan's democracy failed in the period 1947–58; that means there was a democracy to fail, and that at the beginning of the war in 1947, democracy was presumably stronger than after the period of decline and failure. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

It's easy enough to verify India - If you say so. Please go ahead.

the question with Pakistan, which has still not achieved a form of democratic government that satisfies observers, seems to be whether one wishes to treat the subject historically. - No. The question if if Pakistan was a democracy in 1947. If you claim it is, please provide a source that fulfills WP:V for that statement. Everything else is completely irrelevant at this point. If you can not provide sources for both India and Pakistan, it should not be included.

If you *can* provide such sources, then the questions about synthesis,weight etc comes into play. But until there has been sources these questions are completely irrelevant. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the source you provided is the one that assumes Pakistan was a democracy in the period 1947–1958; if no form of democracy was present or attempted, the statement that democracy in Pakistan failed is nonsensical. Like saying that I failed to become a neurosurgeon, when I never made the attempt or even intended to do so. I take no position as to whether the First Kashmir War should be included in this list; I haven't read enough. I'm not arguing a position on the First Kashmir War; you are, therefore you surely have historical or political studies to share that have informed your position. I'm merely trying to look at the evidence. I don't think PMA's is unimpeachable at present; the source you point to above, unless I'm missing others, asserts that Pakistan was a democracy, but one that failed. (re-signing this section) Cynwolfe (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

That would appear to be Mansfield and Snyder's position: it did fail - in 1956; it had never flourished, as India's did. In late 1947, some months after Independence, it had not yet done so.

The basis for the government of both states were the provincial clauses of the Government of India Act 1935; the provincial governments, democratic and responsible since 1937, had elected the two national assemblies - just as the United States Senate was elected by provincial governments until 1913. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The position that this source supports Pakistan as a democracy is based on the grammatical feature that they say that the democracy failed, and that therefore they must think that it was democratic in the beginning. Such grammatical assumptions are nothing but "special pleadings" as Pmanderson likes to call them. Of course democracy can fail without being implemented first. It's not the dismantling of democracy or anything like that, but the *failure*. It's a bit like requiring the failure of Foolands invasion of Baristan to mean that Fooland has occupied Baristan. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. The failure of the Foolands invasion of Baristan indicates that Foolands and Baristan had a military conflict that may or may not meet the criteria for "war." To serve as an example of the kind of faulty reasoning at issue here, you'd have to say that although Foolands invaded Baristan, there was no military conflict, because the invasion failed. The success or outcome, however, is irrelevant to the definitional basis. Scholars discuss the First Kashmir War in relation to the constitutional status of India and Pakistan, which involves the question of democracy; that one may've eventually succeeded at achieving its own form of democracy, and the other been unable to fulfill its goals, is an interesting and relevant historical question, if we're trying to provide a neutral list instead of creating our own litmus test for who gets to be called a "democracy." Cynwolfe (talk) 14:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I used a war as a way to explain the fault in your reasoning regarding the word "failure" and thereby making it possible for you to misunderstand what I was saying as if I was discussing the definition of war. My bad. I've stricken that bit to avoid such confusion. Please read what I wrote again and ignore that part. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you mean about a hypothetical example involving war being a distraction, since one of the contentious points of the article has been the definition of "war" and how it serves as a criterion. But that isn't how the logic went wrong here. It started off as an apt analogy: "Pakistan attempted democracy, but it failed" is equivalent to "Foolands launched an invasion of Baristan, but it failed." Agreed, those are analogous kinds of statements. Since this is a statement for an encyclopedia, let's stipulate that each comes from a legitimate source. I agree with you, OF, that the conclusion "therefore, Foolands occupied Baristan" is an unjustified leap; you are right. But the analogous conclusion for Pakistan would be "therefore, Pakistan succeeded in becoming a full-fledged democracy." This is an unjustified conclusion based on what our source here has said; it is an example of probably synth, maybe OR, depending. The premise verifiable by the source is that "Foolands launched an invasion." If you line up the two statements of the analogy, you see that the equivalent part is "Pakistan attempted democracy" (that is, in terms of constitution, and other specifics to which your source makes reference, Pakistan's form of government is to be evaluated categorically as "democracy," whether it succeeded with flying colors, which it did not, or failed). The premise is structurally not a conclusion. I'm drawing no conclusion to say that according to your own source Pakistan is to be evaluated within the category "democracy." That is the premise on which your source predicates Pakistan's failure. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

India is easy to verify: a casual search of a single UP (Cambridge) turned up several good-quality sources that discussed how the war related to India's development as a constitutional democracy, including the Cambridge History of India, which l think was the one that looked at how British observers thought that India's caste system couldn't sustain a democracy because of its inherent inequality. CHI, or one of the several other sources I glanced at, seemed to see India as a unique form of democracy that shouldn't be judged by Western-centered standards but rather on how well India created its own structures for preserving its cultural traditions while becoming a democracy. You rightly and frequently have noted that "democracy" has more than one definition. That's why it would be non-neutral to impose only one definition on this list. Rather, our job according to the neutrality statement is to describe debates rather than engage in them. In other words, when discussing a subject, we should report what people have said about it rather than what is so. I don't have the slightest certainty of "what is so" in this case; I'm looking at what scholars have said. I'm not going to imagine that I understand scholarly consensus on such a complex topic after reading two or three sources. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to avoid the next silliness, I am assuming that Cynwolfe means the NCHI, in one of its several volumes. I should have thought of it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Cynwolfe is thinking of NCHI, Vol. IV, p. 5; p. 11 discusses the decision of the independent Indian government to accept democracy. This citation, however, should be even more indicative; the Government of India Act 1935 was democratic in the Westminster style - and therefore both constitutions were too. This is as near as I can come to a citation of the obvious and well-known. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly it; I remember it was p. 5. My earlier abbreviation, now corrected, was a mental glitch in response to Cambridge History, the one I use regularly being Cambridge Ancient History. As I said, I have no preconceptions about this entry; I'm just trying to look at whatever anyone recommends in addition to what I find by chance. PMA's citation, though, seems pretty clear about the constitution status of India and Pakistan at Independence — solid enough to require direct refutation by another source that asserts they were not constituted as democracies. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Volume IV you say? Page 5. But NCHI is organized as Volume 1.1, 1.2, 2.3, 4.2, etc. [3] You might mean Volume 4.1, but I can't seem to find that.

PMA's citation, though, seems pretty clear about the constitution status of India and Pakistan at Independence — solid enough to require direct refutation by another source that asserts they were not constituted as democracies. - There is absolutely no solidity in that whatsoever. The source does not once state that the countries were democratic at the outset, just that their constitutions was *based* on a democratic constitution. And note that these are constitutions that did not exist in 1947. I've also already pointed out that the assembly India had was dissolved at independence, and replaced by constitutional assemblies. I can't even find any parliaments in the countries in 1947. If the countries did have parliaments can you point me to information about these parliaments? There was no new elections until several years later. So not only are your conclusions wrong, they are also more importantly WP:OR. And your attempt to put the burden of proof on me is also wrong. Let me cite WP:V again, for clarity:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate, and must clearly support the material as presented in the article.

--OpenFuture (talk) 05:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, an editor's assertion or argument to the contrary is insufficient without sources to back it up; this seems like the "not real democracy" argument, that is, refusing to describe or explain in the article what the sources say, as is required by the neutrality policy. I'm coming to this subject new; I don't know who's accurate here. I can only compare sources. An individual editor's inability to read and explain the material is not evidence that the material is defective for its purpose. It isn't original research to provide sources for statements to be included in the article; it's required by WP:V. The material cited seems sufficient to require description or explanation of why this is a matter of debate; it's non-neutral to merely delete, to suppress the debate. If your reading is the correct one, you should rewrite the entry and add sources that more clearly point to what you think is an accurate statement. For instance, the source you cited above said that Pakistan had a democracy, but it failed. You have parsed the problems with considering India a democracy at this point in history. This needs to be in the article, clearly and concisely described. It gets at the heart of the list's criteria for inclusion and definitional dependency: we as editors don't judge what is or is not "real" democracy, we describe what scholars have said pertaining to the question. This is not a matter of sorting beads through holes in a tray, and not letting the big ones, the difficult ones, go through. That's non-neutral, because it imposes our interpretation. One of the ways that scholars discuss the First Kashmir War is by looking at the constitutional status of India and Pakistan in light of whether they're democracies; the failure at an attempt at democratic government is surely of great interest historically, and if that failure is closely related to a war it's all the more relevant to this article. I don't see what's gained by excluding such interesting questions. (A constitution, by the way, need not be a written document passed by law, the classic modern example being the UK. The formal adoption of a written constitution is just an aspect of the body of governing principles within a given polity.) Cynwolfe (talk) 14:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

You still have the burden of evidence backwards:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate, and must clearly support the material as presented in the article.

That quote is not unclear on the topic.

this seems like the "not real democracy" argument, - No, it does not seem like anything that would come up with the idea of resembling that even in it's wildest dreams. What it does seem like is that you have no sources to support your statement. It is not up to you/Pmanderson to declare India or Pakistan 1947 a democracy. You need sources. You do not have sources. That's the first thing. Neutrality and all the thing you talk about are completely irrelevant until you come up with sources supporting the inclusion if this war.

An individual editor's inability to read and explain the material is not evidence that the material is defective for its purpose. - and likewise, an individual editors inability to read material is not evidence that the material is effective for it, nor is his wishful thinking or special pleadings. That is why WP:V says and must clearly support the material as presented in the article. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

OF, if a consensus of editors says that Source A does support the assertion, then the information will go into the article. The lone editor saying that it does not cannot halt consensus simply by repeatedly saying "I don't believe you". So rather than keep repeating that section of WP:V like a mantra, why don't you go away and find some sources that say directly that either India or Pakistan were not democracies, before consensus overwhelms your protests that it's not supposed to work that way. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I've had the source up on WP:RSN. The comments there was that it clearly did not support the assertion. The only ones that support it is Pmanderson and possibly you and Cynwolfe. The consensus clearly is that the source does not support it and that there is no support for including the First Kashmir War in this list. The continued debate, and your and Cynwolfes constant hypothetical "ifs" does not change that. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• That would be

this section (the link will need to be updated when it is archived); it does not discuss the source by Omar, added since, and OpenFuture's post above has the doubtful merit of being quite as accurate as his comments on the book. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't support inclusion of the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947, given that India only became a republic in 1950. Would it make any difference if some additional source was found confirming either India or Pakistan were not democracies at that time? Polity IV and Verhanen both consider these countries were not democracies at that time. In the case of Imperial Germany, we already have a third source Doyle who considers that country to be undemocratic where it counts for this list, i.e. foreign policy, financing and conduct of the war. In relation to Germany, only Mearsheimer observes "Lastly, some would classify Wilhelmine Germany as a democracy, or at least a quasi-democracy" without explicitly identifying who those proponents of that view are. Inability to identify proponents means that view is fringe. --Martin (talk) 20:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Must a democracy be a republic? Are you prepared to defend that to our British and Canadian fellow editors? More important, do you have a citation for that really quite rare view? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Quite seriously, there are conceivable positions which make the elections of Jackson, Lincoln, Wilson, Kennedy, Gladstone, Churchill, or Blair "undemocratic" - we have already considered the mouthpiece of the Cuban Government, who so argues about Kennedy. It is possible that such positions may be current enough to deserve mention - although that would require actual evidence, something that is short supply around here.

But no such position is or can be consensus of the literature, which is what would be needed to justify exclusion of views that disagree with it. That's contrary to core policy. Please stop attempting to impose a POV - especially a point of view which is contrary to common usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

But I am not unreasonable. This is an argument that Nehru did not govern a democracy because he ruled in the name of King George VI; so did Churchill. If you can find a reliable source which asserts that Churchill was not a democratic statesman on the grounds that he governed in the King's name, I'll put in the Continuation War, amd rephrase the First Kashmir War accordingly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

This answer(s) is(are) a good example of the problem with this discussion. Instead of trying to understand or countering the actual positions and trying to reach consensus, you launch on attack of the usage of one word, to try to deflect the discussion from anything useful. No, a democracy doesn't have to be a republic. Now please come up with sources that support the inclusion of the First Kashmir war. You still have provided no sources that claim either of the countries were democracies in 1947. You have only provided conjecture and speculation. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The actual argument is I don't support inclusion of the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947, given that India only became a republic in 1950. That is not an incoherent position, but it is a minority view; whether it is a sufficiently common minority that we need to take account of it will be determined by sources. In any case, unless it is consensus, it is not grounds to exclude a war. The rest of this is OpenFuture's opinion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I notice the continued lack of sources. The inclusion of the First Kashmir War does still not, after days of discussion, fulfill WP:V. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Cynwolfe, Elen and myself appear to disagree. At this point, there are three sources; there will shortly be several more. Please stop blanking this article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not blanking anything. The three sources does not say the things you three claims it says, which can be trivially verified by reading the quotes you claim support you. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Exclusionary tactics can only lead to a non-neutral POV. My position on this is that our job is to explain/describe in accordance with the neutrality policy. I don't see the logic behind using a source that evaluates the success or failure of Pakistan within the category "democracy" as a way to exclude Pakistan from the category "democracy." That is where describing the source accurately comes into play. I see Martin as presenting a reasoned, good-faith argument that should be present in the article, through a statement such as "Although Pakistan blah blah" (cited per PMA), many scholars view Pakistan's democratic status as so nominal as to be non-existent or specious" (with citations of the sources). (Well, in whatever wording.) So the thing I'm not seeing is why those who object to PMA's presentation don't edit constructively by means other than tagging or deletion. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

My position on this is that our job is to explain/describe in accordance with the neutrality policy. - Good. Then you agree that a conflict that has ZERO reliable sources supporting it's inclusion should not be included, right?

So the thing I'm not seeing is why those who object to PMA's presentation don't edit constructively by means other than tagging or deletion - Because it should not be included, so the only constructive edit is to delete it. But instead of doing that, I tag it to give you a chance to come up with sources. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that a source evaluating Pakistan's constitutional status within the category "democracy" is a source that warrants the inclusion of Pakistan here, and hence the First Kashmir War, with the explanation that Pakistan failed as a democracy. This is OpenFuture's own source. To suppress the description of these sources is non-neutral. This requires contributing to the article by means of adding text, rather than simple deletion or tagging. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Section Break

Brecher, Wilkenfeld, and Moser, Crises in the Twentieth Century, I, 122, 129, 209-10 Using this source is OR as decided at the RSN board. [4] This source presented by OF clearly states that democracy failed in pakistan between 47-58, if democracy had failed then this could not have been a war between democracies mark nutley (talk) 21:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

So what now?

Which is the best next step? It's clear that where Pmanderson, Elen of the Roads and Cynwolfe read one thing, others read the exact opposite. How do we handle this? I tried WP:RSN but the result of that is just that Pmanderson/Elen/Cynwolfe seems to read "yes" where I read "no" again, so that didn't help. What is the best option here? --OpenFuture (talk) 18:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Others? No, one other. Mediation is the ususl next step (see WP:MEDCOM]]), but there are other methods of dispute resolution more suited to disruptive and intranisgent editors. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

On this page, Martin and RegentsPark has disagreed with your reading, and on RSN two others also disagreed with your reading. In the case of the Kashmir war, we have five people who disagree with your reading. That according to you is "only me", which I can only gather is another case of you reading the opposite of what it says. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

(Oh, and I think I rather want recommendations from somebody else of how to handle you. I can't see any other ways than mediation though, which seems like another painful and slow process to deal with something that should be fairly simple). --OpenFuture (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Handling me is simple. Don't blank sourced contributions, do some research, and don't distort texts out of all recognition (including the comments of other editors, like Regentspark and myself) - and I'm a pussycat. All of these are easier if one stays out of articles one has an emotional commitment to, a preconceived position on, and limited knowledge of the literature. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:GAME describes a great deal of what's going on here. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

If you say so. I wouldn't assume bad faith to Pmanderson, though, so that stands for you only. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem still is that you are the one misreading and misrepresenting sources, as well as what others here say. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Is OpenFuture addressing these remarks to anybody in particular? Or does he keep these repetitive responses on little pieces of paper, and draw them out of a jar willy-nilly? That would explain a lot. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The answer is the same answer as for most content disputes - more sources. OpenFuture, while you continue to argue about the interpretation of sources provided by others, and seek to remove content based on that interpretation, without providing sources of your own, it is my opinion that this unsatisfactory situation will continue. Your tactic of simply repeating that paragraph from WP:V is leaving you without a forward strategy. The better tactic is to find better sources, that clearly support your POV. Note the discussion about WWI - Marting didn't just contest the interpretation of PMAnderson's sources. He provided other sources and so did I, and the current state of play is our way, even though PMAnderson still disagrees. I appreciate that there are more sources on WWI than on some of the other conflicts, but you see how sources work. More research is almost always the way to go when conflict arises - unless one is dealing with a total POV warrior who insists that Gondor won WWII, which is not the case here. You have a legitimate POV. You're just not putting the actual evidence forward to support it. Rubbishing someone else's sources rarely works (unless it's the Sun newspaper or FOX News). Putting forward your own sources is usually a better tactic. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't see how more sources work in this case. In the case of the Kashmir war, I added a source, and the interpretation of that also went the same way, where a word "destroyed" was latched on to to make the argument that because democracy had been destroyed the countries was democratic in 1947. That is just a logic devoid of any contact with reality. How does adding more sources help? They will just also fall foul of the same dogmatic wish to read in something that is not there. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

And add me in with Cynwolfe, Elen & Pmanderson but I have been too busy this week to really take part --Snowded ^TALK 05:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

OpenFuture's position is that there never was a Pakistani democracy at all; his source said that it had failed, citing a history which holds (both in the title and in extenso in the text) that it was destroyed and which describes its destruction (in the years following the war) in great and unflattering detail. How can something which never existed be destroyed? Carthage was also destroyed, but not even OpenFuture contends that there never was a Carthage.

What has been suggested, by many voices, is that OpenFuture find reliable sources which support his point of view; he has found one which contradicts it (although adding a useful and necessary qualification to this entry). If he cannot, he might consider altering his position - say to that actually held by theorists of the democratic peace; if he can, they should be represented with due weight. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I see this as the only way to move on. OpenFuture should contribute actively and constructively to the article's content by explaining or qualifying, not just deleting, sourced statements provided by other editors. If his position is that the political term "democracy" cannot be applied to Pakistan in 1947 in any way, he must provide sources saying that. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

He has found one which contradicts it - More proof that this is not a constructive way forward. You will continue to claim that the moon is made of cheese, and every source I bring up you will simply claim that is *also* says the moon is made out of cheese. I bring a source saying "The moon is made of rock", you'll say "it says cheese!". That is not going to work as a path forward.

OpenFuture's position is that there never was a Pakistani democracy at all; his source said that it had failed - No, it did not say "the Pakistani democracy failed". That is not true. It said "democracy failed in Pakistan". That's a different statement, that does not carry the implications you claim it carries.

If his position is that the political term "democracy" cannot be applied to Pakistan in 1947 in any way, he must provide sources saying that. - Show me the the part of Wikipedia policy that claims I have the burden of proof in this case, please. Also: [5]. None of the here discussed sources support the claim of the First Kashmir war as a war between democracies. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

India elected its constituent assembly before Independence. But OpenFuture is now arguing that the source is wrong; if he disagrees with Polity IV, he should go argue with them, not with us. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

OF, this is not like CSI:Crime Scene Investigation, where Gill Grissom will produce the one conclusive piece of evidence that shows beyond doubt that the villain dunnit. Academic sources, particularly in the humanities, are rarely like that. They hedge their bets. They 'respectfully note the position of other experts'. They appraise all sides. Wikipedia is more like an English civil court. In English civil law, cases are determined on the balance of probabilities. Is it more likely that X than that Y. The more evidence you can dig up, the better your chance of shifting the balance of probability your way.Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

What balance? There are *no sources* to support that this was is a war between democracies. This is not a question of balance. Balance requires that there are two sides. Here one side is purely imaginary. The problem is that Pmanderson + devotees claim sources say something they do not say. That's the problem. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's more evidence. PITF consolidated case list (page 10 Pakistan Regime change 10/58 10/58 Decade-long experiment with parliamentary and presidential systems ends when democratic constitution is abrogated, political parties dissolved and government handed over to coalition of military officers and bureaucrats. The Polity authority trends show Pakistan starting off with a score of -4 (Polity IV's minimum for a democracy is +6) going up sharply to +4 by 1948, getting over the magic +6 by 1958, as outlined in the source above. The 2009 Global Report (start page 9 explains the -5 to +5 category an anocracy, and offers helpful comments.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Now, if we read through the full analysis of what is meant by anocracy in the third source, and compare it with the details captured in the chart, we can see that while Pakistan was moving towards democracy from 1947 to 1958, Pakistan in 1947 cannot be characterised as a democracy (at lest in Polity's view). It is this change over time, evident in the Polity source, which can be set against the rather bald statement you cite above about Pakistan 1947-1958 being a failed democracy. Yes it is - from 1947-1958 it was moving from anocracy towards becoming a democratic state, but it wasn't a democracy in 1947. Indeed, if you read the rest of the text (and this is where the peril of relying on quotes lies), it is clear that the author vies Pakistan as trying to establish a democracy that wouldn't take root, rather than having a democracy which was withering on the vine.

More discussion will and should follow, but this is how to use sources. Not just keep on and on about how you can't see it saying what everyone else sees. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

"Not just keep on and on about how you can't see it saying what everyone else sees." - Strange claim. Are you saying that one of the sides in the discussion about the Kashmir war is only one person? Who is that, in that case? --OpenFuture (talk) 15:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

And how does that help when Pmanderson claims all these sources say the moon is made out of cheese? Even if we could change his mind in this case, the same thing will happen in every single conflict he drags up. In effect he has then succeeded in violating Wikipedia policy. Suddenly the burden of proof, which actually squarely rests on him, has ended up on those who want to disprove him, just because he persists in misreading sources. And since you revert the burden of proof, all he now needs to do is to continue to claim that his sources support Pakistan as a democracy, and he can then claim that his imaginary position must be represented.

I do not see how we can allow direct and obvious misreadings of sources as if they were real. It makes all of Wikipedia policy pointless. If all that's needed for verifiability is somebodies imagination, why bother with verifiability in the first place? --OpenFuture (talk) 15:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Now that is a personal attack, if you like. But I will stand with the judgment of reliable sources that Nehru was a democratic statesman (until it became the toy of partisans on this page, I would have expected only Maoists to question it), and the assertion that Pakistan had a democracy, and that it ended by 1958, rather than the sourceless fulminations of OpenFuture.

If you know these things, where did you learn them? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Except of course, there are sources that support my position, but no sources that support your position. Your comment about Nehru is only more examples of your weird associative logic. I do not doubt Nehru was a democrat. But one person does not a democracy make. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe in the productivity of further discussion with an editor who can claim that this citation is not against the position that neither India nor Pakistan were a democracy in 1948. OpenFuture has failed to find a single assertion that Nehru was a democrat ruling an undemocratic country; but, by his track record, this suggestion will "be no longer operative" the next time he posts. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

You're doing the same search that I am. Yes, I found that - but I expected you would also. There are some other good ones if you search google books on Pakistan + democracy + 1947 [6] and several others make the case that Jinnah was trying to establish that legal status as an actual one, but his death set the process back.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

What irks me is that I found it two days ago - and it is one of the sources our cheesemonger is denying.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

And I do not believe in the productivity of discussion with an editor that claims that source supports the claim that the countries were democracies in 1947, when there is absolutely nothing in it that supports that claim. Which is why I asked "what now" above, you see.

but, by his track record, this suggestion will "be no longer operative" the next time he posts. - Clearly it is not only the reading of sources that is problematic.--OpenFuture (talk) 16:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Would you like some cheese with your whine? Try reading The India-Pakistan conflict: an enduring rivalry By T. V. Paul page 48, down at the bottom, Paul says that 1957-58 was the first period where India and Pakistan were joint democracies.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. And what now? Pmanderson still claims, as you see above, that his sources state the opposite from your sources. And they still don't. So what now? --OpenFuture (talk) 16:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, for goodness sake OF, do grow up. From the plethora of sources above, we can see that Pakistan was LEGALLY a democracy from August 1947, but never actually managed to reach the bottom level of actually working as a democracy until 1955, and never became a stable democracy until the 1990s - and wasn't that stable even then. So the write up needs to show that although India and Pakistan were legally democracies in 1947, Pakistan was not functioning as a democracy at that time (see particularly the last source I quoted PMA).--Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Have it, with some difficulty; google books is refusing to let me see it. The assertion is using Polity IV, with its "anocracy", again; the magic number seems to have increased to 7 in this source.

Please do note that the broken sentence at the top of the same page counts India as a stable democracy since 1947, even by this restricted standard, with a possible exception of the Emergency, decades later; the next page sources the Kargil War. Perhaps this will get rid of some of the phantasms. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Possibly the sources can be interpreted, at least with a bit of synthesis and OR, as that Pakistan "legally" was a democracy. But they can not be interpreted as that Pakistan *was* a democracy. Or are you going to include wars between the US and Kuba now? Or North Korea? It's also "legally" democracies.

So the write up needs to show that although India and Pakistan were legally democracies in 1947, Pakistan was not functioning as a democracy at that time - India had not had any elections. How is that a functioning democracy? And since when is a dubious interpretation of legal but not functioning democracy enough to include it in a war between democracies? You are all completely ignoring Wikipedia policies here. The sources do not support what you say, and what you say is not even enough to include the war on the list.

To include the Kashmir war, you need, as an absolute minimum, one source that claims India was a democracy in 1947, one source that claims Pakistan was a democracy in 1947, and one source saying they were in a war. You do not have that. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

My position is consonant with what Elen is saying. This is not a win-lose game played by blocking an opponent's move. If scholars evaluate Pakistan within the category of "democracy," it's worthwhile to include it. It's informative to offer the kind of explanation that Elen has just given. What is gained by trying to suppress this kind of nuanced presentation? Again, OpenFuture should actively and constructively contribute to the article, and not just delete/tag. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

This is not a game. There are no moves.

If scholars evaluate Pakistan within the category of "democracy," it's worthwhile to include it. - They don't. Stop it with the "if"s. This is not a hypothetical discussion.

Again, OpenFuture should actively and constructively contribute to the article, and not just delete/tag. - How do you constructively contribute to a statement that says the moon is made of cheese? --OpenFuture (talk) 17:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

That's just a reductio ad absurdum. Let's say that I go the article Moon and find under "Physical characteristics" the statement "the Moon is made of green cheese." I delete; the editor responsible keeps putting it back. I keep arguing on the talk page that no, it really isn't made of cheese. The editor keeps restoring the statement, refusing to see that this is a truly lunatic claim. Now, I can keep tagging or deleting till Doomsday, or I can replace the section with information on what the Moon is really made of, fully cited; see Moon#Physical characteristics. You can't just argue that other editors don't know how to read and that we lack your intellectual capacity to see the truth. At some point, you have to put up or shut up, to use a rather rude phrase. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

But he is adding the moon to a list of cheeses. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

So you say. You appear to be arguing that Parmesan is not a cheese. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Btw, does anybody but OpenFuture regard these tags as even a well-founded dispute?

He has applied the same tags to several different texts; perhaps he will do something actually helpful to the encyclopedia, like finding a source which says something more than is already in the text, if he is persuaded that this too is a dead end. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

You so far has not once single source supporting your statements in the tagged wars. Is it a well founded *dispute*? No. Are the tags well founded: yes. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Tags and edit warring

Please could all editors refrain from removing tags until a clear consensus has been reached proving they are not required, thanks mark nutley (talk) 21:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you'll find a clear consensus has been reached - OpenFuture is the only one arguing for exclusion of the 1947 India-Pakistan conflict, and the notes on WWI clearly show the discussion that has taken place. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking through it now, i assume this is about the first Kashmir war? mark nutley (talk) 21:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. And WWI. None of those wars have one single source supporting the relevant countries (Pakistan in 1947 and Germany in 1914) as democracies. The interpretation of the sources seems to be little but wishful thinking, as is Elen of the roads claims of consensus. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

This seems unduly dismissive and hyperbolic. The entry on the First Kashmir War is carefully cited; OpenFuture should edit it using his sources to give it the proper balance and weight he seeks. It's my position that the sources support including the First Kashmir War, but with text that describes the full range of scholarly views, in line with WP:UNDUE. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Stop doing this

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Pmanderson_removes_tags_and_breaks_3RR_rule. OF, that is simply disruptive, given the ongoing discussion, as is your continued insistence on tagging sections while there is discussion ongoing.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Elen, that belongs on OF`s talkpage, not here, please consider moving it mark nutley (talk) 21:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Sections should be tagged while there are discussion ongoing. Tags can be removed when the discussion ends and consensus is reached. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Could I suggest a generic "dubious" tag when an entry is currently undergoing discussion? That tag directs directs readers to the discussion. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

That's what I had on WWI (which also was removed several times) as the sources listed actually says what is quoted. It's just that none of them say Germany was a democracy. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

First Kashmir War, point by point

Can we dissect this vexatious entry point by point? Place discussion directly under the point you wish to address. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Ranked as a full-scale war between democracies in the International Crisis Behavior dataset. Citation: Ray, Democracy and International Conflict p.120.

• I quote: "India versus Pakistan, 1948. This is categorized as a war between democratic states in Wilkenfeld, Brecher, and Moses." In other words, even if WBM never make this flat-out statement, but discuss in the terms set out following in the entry, Ray serves as a secondary source in regard to summarizing WBM's position. It doesn't matter one whit that Ray cites WBM in order to argue that for him, Pakistan doesn't count as a democracy; he ratifies the use of WBM as a source for inclusion on this list, but with Ray's own demurrals to be accounted for later in the entry. Ray maintains that Pakistan doesn't count as a democracy, and cites a source for disqualifying this armed conflict as a war. But unless WBM can be proven to be fruitcakes who publish out of B's parents' basement (Pergamon Press, however, seems to publish a large number of academic journals), they stand as sufficient for including the First Kashmir War in this list article with the appropriate qualifications in line with WP:UNDUE. Attempts to exclude discussion of this war thus strike me as non-neutral. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting quote. It's also the first time it has been mentioned here. This is therefore the first source mentioned that in any way supports the inclusion of the Kashmir war. I missed that bit. Strange that nobody bothered to quote it throughout this whole discussion. It's still clear that this is a marginal opinion, in fact even fringe, as Wilkenfeld, Brecher and Moses in fact doesn't seem to say so at all. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, not the first time it's been mentioned: I'm not sure how long this has been in the article, but I assumed you had seen and checked out the citation, since you tagged it as failing verification. PMA thinks this is what WBM say, and he is supported by Ray, a source I think you acknowledge as legitimate. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

All the sources are legitimate. Most of them are hard to check for me as they are not available online. Ray has been mentioned, but not this quote, and the link with the page number was added only recently, and not noted or discussed here, so I missed that addition. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Yet Ray's book is available online; and since that reference was added (directly to the words which assert that the two countries were ranked as democracies) OpenFuture has tagged that section as failing verification three times. It would be nice if tag-cruft were supported by actually consulting the references. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I've tagged sources as failing verification, which most of them do. If, as I suggested, you would remove the sources that failed verification, this would be clearer. But of course, then your POV-pushing would collapse. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

This section was intended to be a close line-edit of the entry, focusing on rewriting for accuracy. Taunting and baiting remarks like But of course, then your POV-pushing would collapse are out of place here. First OpenFuture concedes that "all the sources" cited on this point "are legitimate," but that "most of them are hard for me to check as they are not available online" ("most" is demonstrably untrue); having said he can't check them, he then says they fail verification. How's that? "I can't check them, but I'm sure they fail to verify what you say." On what grounds does he then accuse another editor of illogic? Cynwolfe (talk) 23:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

they present a table of crises ranking it as a full-scale war, cite it as an example of a crisis where both regimes were of the same time, and discuss the influence of India's democracy on the crisis and the related crises over other princely states. Citation: Brecher, Wilkenfeld, and Moser, Crises in the Twentieth Century, I, 129, 122, 209-10

• Syntactical problems here. Who is this mysterious "they" suddenly manifest? WBM, but the reader doesn't know that: we have no antecedent for this pronoun, which seems to refer to what came previously, that is, to Ray, when it does only in a round-about way. The wording echoes the preceding statement (table … crisis … full-scale war), without alerting us that this is a different table. (Or is it?) Cynwolfe (talk) 21:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
• Both regimes were of the same time makes no sense to me. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Lege type. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
• the influence of India's democracy on the crisis (the full-scale war?) is clear, but and the related crises over other princely states is not. Do we know what these other crises are? Do we even need to know? Ditto princely states. TMI? Cynwolfe (talk) 21:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Like much of this, it probably is TMI - but at this point, I am sticking exactly to what the source says, and how it says it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Explanation within the citation: they do not generally disaggregate the differences in regime type (democracy, civil authoritarianism, or military government) in each pair of states from other differences between states, and differences between other states in the same crisis.

• I'm not sure what we're saying here. I think I'm following that they don't disaggregate differences in regime type, until I reach from other differences etc. Again, TMI? Perhaps the statement would be clearer in the positive? As in, get rid of the not and say what they do. I rather think the citation of Ray's point-blank summary takes care of some of this explanation. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Probably. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• The argument for this source is that since the Maharajah of Kashmir wasn't interested in democracy and didn't want to join a democratic India it must have been democratic at the time when he didn't want to join (which is before it existed), and since India and Pakistan was of the same governmental type Pakistan was also a democracy. This logic is obviously nonsensical. The source doesn't support inclusion, and two independent editors on RS/N came to the same conclusion. The source should be removed. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  • This is an error of fact. The outbreak of the crisis was after Independence. The 1935 GoI Act envisaged continued existence and quite substantial power for the princely states; both Pakistan and India attempted to persuade them to dissolve themselves into the newly formed states.
  • It also involves assuming that WBM (who say that they classified India and Pakistan) classified India as "civil authoritatian" or "military" and then proceeded to discuss India's democracy as part of the crisis. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
    • How is it an error of fact? Do you claim Kashmir joined India before independence, but declared it self independent? Of course not. The Maharaja did not want to join either India or Kashmir, and that refusal was done *before* the independence. The war happened when the Maharaja under threat from Muslim forces, the 27 October 1947 *did* join India. This is just slightly two months after independence, which was 15th of August. Maybe you claim that India was democratic the 16th of August, but not democratic the 27 October? --OpenFuture (talk) 05:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I see you have conceded the point, which is that India existed when he was still considering joining it; the time when he didn't want to join (which is before [India] existed) is wrong. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I see you read what I say the same way you read sources: With a big heap of imagination and illogic. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

More taunting and baiting. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Additional citation for the previous: For a briefer discussion of the emerging democracy of India and the ultimately unsuccessful democracy of the Dominion of Pakistan, see Mansfield and Snyder, Electing to Fight, MIT Press, 2007; pp. 241-2.

• Do Mansfield and Snyder indeed discuss this? Simple verifiability here. Let's deal with this much, before moving on. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, IIRC, but I do not have Electing to Fight in front of me. They are also a source for Pakistan's troubles. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC):::

Criteria for listing the FIrst Kashmir War

The definitions of 'democracy' and 'war' are apparently rather fuzzy. The first kashmir war is generally recognized as a war though it was never formally declared and, if I am not mistaken, Pakistan repeatedly denied that it was using its own troops. The kargil war is perhaps similar in intent. Democracy is fuzzy enough that the source (Ray) listed above as positively stating that Wilkenfeld et al call Pakistan a democracy goes on to fudge the issue by saying that "whereas India was arguably democratic, Pakistan was in a nascent state and never did establish a democratic system". That would imply that Ray anyway believes that while India could be called democratic, Pakistan could not (and he states that Pakistan was a 3/10 on the 1948 Polity II scale). However, apparently we have a secondary source that says that another source has labeled the war as being "between democratic states", so, its inclusion in this list doesn't seem out of line. This is a list, after all. If we have to have a list on wars between democracies, it makes sense to include even marginal entries and trust that the reader will gather the nuances when he/she reads the actual article. A list doesn't have to be picture perfect. --RegentsPark (talk) 22:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

That sounds sane to me. Inclusion on the list doesn't have to imply that we the editors endorse the polities as successful democracies. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course not. But the problem in this discussion has for a long time, even since the discussion of Babst above, been Pmandersons removal of sources that plainly does not support the entries inclusion. Perhaps we could agree to remove the sources that doesn't support the inclusion, and have only the borderline sources left? That would make the discussion much easier and less complex. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

We don't need the false suppression of complexity through excluding relevant sources. What we need is a clearly worded entry that gives due weight to scholars' views. The best way to contribute to that constructively is to rewrite the entry and add sources. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I suggested that we exclude irrelevant sources. You've opposed it before, so you answer is expected. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The run of sources above suggest that both countries were legal democracies at inception, but Pakistan had a great deal of difficulty getting it to happen in practice. If that nuance can be read into the article, that would be good. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

How do you get to that conclusion from the sources? --OpenFuture (talk) 22:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you summarize the sources in a way that supports your reading? I agree with Elen and RegentsPark: Pakistan is evaluated by scholars within the category "democracy" because that's what it was supposed to be constitutionally, but it fails in practice. I don't see what's gained by excluding this war, and interesting material that illuminates the topic would be lost by doing so. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It's very hard to summarize the non-existence of things. But I'll try:

• Brecher, Wilkenfeld, and Moser says that the Maharaja wasn't interested in democracy, so he wasn't interested in joining either India nor Pakistan, who both looked like they were going to become democracies. He also says that India and Pakistan had similar governments.
• Omar says that India and Pakistan both ended up with constitutions similar to the British.
• Talbot says that the democratic efforts in Pakistan failed.

Note how none of them say "Pakistan started out as a democracy" or similar. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't read Omar (if you mean Emergency Powers) in the same way at all. In the section "Some characteristics of the Constitutions of India and Pakistan: Parliamentary Democracy" (kind of a tip-off at the get-go), Omar says: "At Independence, both India and Pakistan were governed by the Government of India Act 1935. It is therefore not surprising to find that the colonial Act in many respects determined the general pattern of the Constitutions of both countries. Both Constitutions were based on the Westminster model of parliamentary democracy" etc. (p. 2 here). Omar sees clear and direct continuity between the Government of India Act in 1935 and the later, formal constitutions, and locates that continuity within the tradition of parliamentary democracy. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how your reading is different from mine. No matter. Still doesn't claim they were democratic in 1947. Maybe I need to clarify that the constitutions mentioned did not exist in 1947. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I repeat what Omar says "At Independence, both India and Pakistan were governed by the Government of India Act 1935. It is therefore not surprising to find that the colonial Act in many respects determined the general pattern of the Constitutions of both countries. Both Constitutions were based on the Westminster model of parliamentary democracy." Omar is pointing out the historical continuity between the Act of 1935 and the later formal constitutions. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Which is what I said above. "Omar says that India and Pakistan both ended up with constitutions similar to the British." You are saying the same thing as me. Somehow you transform this similarity/continuity into "Pakistan was a democracy", which simply does not follow. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

As for Talbot, the relevant chapter begins "Why did democracy fail in Pakistan during the period 1947–58?" If the question of democracy in Pakistan were irrelevant, it's hard to see why Talbot discusses it at such length. Talbot evaluates Pakistan within the category "democracy"; if democratic structures were non-existent in Pakistan in 1947, how could he trace the failure of democracy throughout the ensuing decade? As for WBM, I quoted Ray above and will do so again: "India versus Pakistan, 1948. This is categorized as a war between democratic states in Wilkenfeld, Brecher, and Moses." Ray confirms PMA's reading of this source. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Did I say that the question of Democracy in Pakistan is irrelevant? What I said is that the source is irrelevant, and it is *in this case* because it does not support the idea that Pakistan was democratic in 1947. It should therefore not be used to support that statement. I really find it hard to believe that you don't understand that.

if democratic structures were non-existent in Pakistan in 1947, how could he trace the failure of democracy throughout the ensuing decade? - Again, you rely on grammatical misinterpretation. Democracy can fail in many ways, and you don't have to actually succeed first to have it fail. It's like claiming that the destruction of a balloon means the balloon must have been flying. No, it can be destroyed while still on the ground and filling with air. You can't use the wordings of two headings (partly meant to summarize whole chapters, partly meant to sound good and draw readers in) as support for the view that Pakistan was democratic in 1947. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see questions of grammar here. I see questions of logic. It would be nonsensical for Talbot to evaluate Pakistan within the category "democracy" if there weren't grounds to do so. A scholar might evaluate how successful the United States has been in fulfilling its democratic goals, and find the U.S. comes up short in certain areas, particularly during certain historical periods; but it would be nonsensical to say that the United States "failed" to become a communist country and to examine how and why, since the U.S. was never constituted as communist. Why does Talbot's chapter exist? Because he's examining the failure of democratic structures and principles in Pakistan during the period in question; that means these had stronger potential in 1947, when the war started, than in 1958. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course is would be illogical. There was never in the US a significant group who tried to make US a communist state. You can't fail if you don't try. You can however fail, without you having succeeded first. This is pretty basic stuff, and you are making yourself look fairly silly by pretending that you don't understand it.

that means these had stronger potential in 1947 Yes. A stronger *potential*. Since when is a "potential for democracy" the same thing as a "democracy". Right, since never. The source does *not* support Pakistan as a democracy in 1947. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I have an unfortunate bit of mea culpa here. Since Ray says that Wilkenfeld et al classify the first kashmir war as between democratic nations, and I couldn't believe that they had interpreted the same text that I had read in that way, I thought I should check that what I had written was correct. I find that I am mistaken. The Wikenfeld et al that I am reading is A study of crisis (1993) rather than the cited source Crises in the Twentieth Century (1988). Unfortunately, I won't be near the library for the rest of this month and can't directly check the latter source, but I seriously doubt that Ray has misstated what that text says and suggest that we assume that there is a source for "war between democratic states". I apologize for the error. --RegentsPark (talk) 23:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

No apologies needed for an honest error, and what you said above didn't sound unreasonable in the first place, as far as I'm concerned. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

If the 1993 edition says something different, let us know. If you overlooked a statement that WBM did rank India as one of their three options (or they didn't repeat it), your doubts on their actual phrasing would be much sounder. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

From what you can see on Google books, they say exactly the same thing. Pmandersons description of what they say match. He has not been able to quote any part of the book that supports him. Obviously it needs to be checked up, but this together with Pmandersons history of misrepresenting sources in this article, I think assuming that the source checks out is a mistake. If it really does, Pmanderson should be able to quote the book when it does. But instead he has used the bizarre logic based on the Maharajas uninterest in joining democratic India as the basis for that quote. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

PMA's reading of WBM is confirmed by Ray's summary here. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to move this down the bottom, rather than start expanding the thread higher up: --Elen of the Roads The run of sources above suggest that both countries were legal democracies at inception, but Pakistan had a great deal of difficulty getting it to happen in practice. If that nuance can be read into the article, that would be good. --OpenFuture How do you get to that conclusion from the sources?

Honestly, the only thing I can say here is "how can you not." It must be as obvious to you as it is to everyone else by now that some sources are basing their evaluation on the constitutions of the two countries, and some are basing it on a measure of how successful the implementation of democracy was. Reading around a subject so that you gain an understanding of it is vital in an area like this. Both countries were constitutionally established as democracies by the British - it was written into the very documents that created them. So a secondary source can legitimately say that this was a conflict between two constitutional democracies. Other sources (and I have quoted several) point to substantial primary evidence that Pakistan never managed to implement a democratic constitution - never held a general election, never had effective political parties for multi-party elections etc. So these sources do not say that this is a conflict between democracies in practice. In my opinion this can only correctly be resolved by stating both positions in the article.Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

on the constitutions of the two countries - Neither country had a constitution in 1947.

Reading around a subject so that you gain an understanding of it is vital in an area like this. - Yes. Please do so. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I did, but I don't believe you ever read anything I say, just process it back at me in a peculiarly distorted form. You're not a chatbot are you?? Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

As usual you ignore every argument and instead you are rude. It's not exactly consensus building, you know. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

No, she ignores declamation sans argument. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. We were attempting a rigorous line-edit. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Consensus on First Kashmir War?

Could I just reiterate what Elen said above, in case she's gone off to recuperate and convince herself that she doesn't have to live in a madhouse? Elen wrote: "Some sources are basing their evaluation on the constitutions of the two countries, and some are basing it on a measure of how successful the implementation of democracy was. … Both countries were constitutionally established as democracies by the British - it was written into the very documents that created them. So a secondary source can legitimately say that this was a conflict between two constitutional democracies. Other sources … point to substantial primary evidence that Pakistan never managed to implement a democratic constitution - never held a general election, never had effective political parties for multi-party elections etc. So these sources do not say that this is a conflict between democracies in practice. In my opinion this can only correctly be resolved by stating both positions in the article." I didn't realize at first how absolutely clear, balanced, and well-reasoned this summary is. Consensus? Cynwolfe (talk) 04:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Some sources are basing their evaluation on the constitutions of the two countries - Neither had a constitution, so that's still impossible.

Both countries were constitutionally established as democracies by the British - it was written into the very documents that created them. - None of the sources mentioned before claim anything like that. And "the very documents that created them" is the Indian Independence act of 1947. And as far as I can see, it says no such thing.

So no consensus. Your interpretations of sources are still firmly based on wishful thinking. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

OF, I think the problem here is that you are unfamiliar with the concept of an unwritten constitution. Britain has never had a written constitution (see British Constitution), preferring to use separate legislation to manage components of what would be a written constitution if it had one. It was abundantly clear that when India and Pakistan were set off on the course of independence, they were in effect using the British constitution until they wrote their own (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=o6-wZP7Tz8YC&pg=PA2&dq=pakistan+democracy+1947&hl=en&ei=1s9iTMyHD9Dr4gbmvJzKCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CFAQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=pakistan%20democracy%201947&f=false scroll up to page 1) - the documents I was referring to were the Government of India Act 1935 together with the Indian Independence Act 1947, provided that very thing.

I'm not unfamiliar with any concept that is discussed here, and I resent your unfailing effort at WP:BAITING me. The constitutions talked about in the source are clearly the ones that was created later. The Government of India act is not a particularly democratic constitution, and since the government of India in 1947 was not elected, you can't use the act of 1935 as claims for Indian democracy. I do not believe that you don't understand this. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that you can't read English. Or, more sympathetically, that you have a condition that causes you to be unable to interpret complex written English. The Indian Independence Act 1947provided that until the adoption of constitutions by the respective Constituent Assemblies, India and Pakistan would be governed in accordance with the Government of India Act 1935, with appropriate modifications. This made Pakistan a democracy as shown here. The constitution made it a republic. This is the third time this has been explained to you. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to waste any more time on somebody as thoroughly dishonest and uncivil as you. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Oooh, Miss! Are Butt and Bandara (the source above) also "thoroughly dishonest and uncivil" when they list Pakistan as a parliamentary democracy in 1947 then??? Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

20th century section

It occurs to me that the 20th century section (and to some extent the later 19th century section) is bedevilled by what is at heart the problem raised in the discussion on India/Pakistan. In this century, nations began to move towards a modern ideal of democracy - universal suffrage, free and fair elections, freedom of speech etc etc. At the same time, we see failed democracies, corrupt democracies, and deviations from the ideal being presented as democracies (one party elections, stuffed ballot boxes, intimidation of opponents, political parties run by dynastic families etc). So you get two measures of democracy - the one that says Zimbabwe is constitutionally a democracy; and the one that says it fails on every measure as a working democracy (intimidation of opponents, rigged elections and the whole nine yards).

The arguments we are having about WWI and Kashmir are about this - do we use the first measure, or the second. I would suggest that we need to use both. Where the best sources conflict because they are using different measures, we should cover both. All the parties in WWI were constitutional democracies, but there is an alternate view of the Kaiser's Germany. Where all the mainstream sources reject an apparent constitutional democracy because of its track record, we should reject. Where all the mainstream sources prefer the constitution to the track record, we should do likewise. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

And so we water this list down further, which without a doubt is the whole POV of Pmanderson+friends from the start. Note that with this watering down, Cuba becomes a democracy. And even Pmanderson says a blockade is an act of war, so... when does the entry of USA-vs Cuba come? --OpenFuture (talk) 10:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you just forget about PMA for a minute. I know you have the wedding to discuss and everything, but.... This isn't watering down the list. There isn't some pure, true and noble list out there somewhere, going to ride in and save you from your marriage to Prince Humperdink. That's why we keep arguing, because its a messy subject, with at least two methods of definition that are both valid but which are giving different results. The question is, how do we resolve this in the context of a list article. The answer is not sticking one's fingers in one's ears and repeating "It doesn't say that, it doesn't say that." --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

It's watering down the list. Both me, Marknutley and you started with the opinion that this list should reflect scientific mainstream of wars between democracies, meaning we needed a majority of reliable sources claiming that they were wars between democracies, and that fringe views shouldn't be included. But then most of the entries Pmanderson has added shouldn't be included. So you change your mind and say that now not only majority views should be included, but all views by reliable sources. There are problems with that view, but it's not an unreasonable view. So we discuss that to exhaustion, and finally that discussion is laid aside. But Pmanderson entries here has been full of synthesis, and when we show that they are, you start arguing for that synthesis is OK. And when we finally lay that battle aside from pure exhaustion, and point out that the sources doesn't even support calling the countries democracies, and you no longer can defend the position that they do, you suggest we redefine democracy so they *do* support it. Well, one major problem with that, is that the sources doesn't support calling India an Pakistan democracies even with your redefinition. So where do we go from there? We can discuss this to exhaustion, and then without a doubt you will start arguing for that sources doesn't need to support the statement at all. You/Pmanderson/Cynwolfe win each and every battle on pure exhaustion by simply not listening to anyone else, and when you have won the battle, you move the goalposts.

This has gone far enough and way beyond anything sane. The list you arguing for is a joke and a disgrace for Wikipedia, and it will likely end up including pretty much every conflict during the 20th century. You mentioned before a "total POV warrior who insists that Gondor won WWII". Well, Elen, that's you. You are now insisting on rules and POV's for this article that mean that Cuba is a democracy and that the conflict and blockade between the USA and Cuba is a war between democracies. This has lost all forms of contact with any form of reality. This is why I below try to find if there is *anything* we agree about, because I'm starting to doubt it. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

No dear, what I'm saying is that it has become apparent as we've done more research, that there remains a pool of conflicts where the differing mainstream views of democracy collide. These are situations where one or both countries appear to have the legal status of a democracy, are not exhibiting behaviour that causes all mainstream sources to conclude that democracy has been voided (as with Zimbabwe), but do have factors that cause some/many mainstream scholars to conclude that they are not a democracy, and so this was not a war between democracies. I repeat, we need to agree a strategy to deal with those cases. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course. But *first* we need to agree to follow WP:V and other policies. And then we need to remove those sources that does not say what the article claims they say. That is in fact a pretty basic thing. We can't have articles that lie about what the sources say. That's one thing I wanted us to agree about, but it seems that you don't. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

No. Everyone is following WP:V already. You just think they are not because everyone reads one way, and you read some other way. Chatbot jokes aside, your track record of mangling what you think I meant when you repeat it back to me suggests that the problem doesn't lie with the source. When we have agreed what text we are going to use, then it will be clear what sources we are including. You've never developed text on a talkpage that way, I take it. Try it. It's very helpful sometimes. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Everyone is following WP:V already. - No you are not.

You just think they are not because everyone reads one way, and you read some other way. - I don't know why you repeat that when you know it's not true. I'm starting to think you are trying to bait me to be uncivil. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, don't worry. I shan't report you if you cuss. My personal opinion is that its lame to report people to noticeboards for things like that. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

What we agree on

I'm going to try this from another angle, because the current ones aren't working. I tried to list the different viewpoints above, that was completely ignored. So this time I'll try to find a base, something we all agree on. I'll make !votes just to make sure we have something like a consensus on the different parts. How does that sound? --OpenFuture (talk) 10:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

This is stupid. We'll all agree to this, then you'll jump out and go "aha! I told you it was a Cyberman!" Or something equally random. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

What!? And how random was that? It's funny how you always do everything you accuse me of doing. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

That's the whole point :)--Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

You still make no sense. Can you explain why you think it's stupid to find common ground? Or should I surmise that in fact you don't agree? --OpenFuture (talk) 12:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Because it's the weirdest place to pick to find common ground, so we know that if we all sign up to it, you'll just come out with some bizarre logic and delete all the content. Hence, a Cyberman. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

As usual, you assume bad faith. It's really getting quite tiring. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

No I'm not. You've just said above [7] that the reason you want everyone to sign up to agree to this is so that you can delete all the sources that you don't like. You just said that. Up there. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

No I didn't. You read what I say as you read sources, by assumptions and intentional misreading to get a twisted result that you can use to argue for your standpoint.

What I *did* say was that I wanted to get rid of sources that doesn't say what they are used to support. That is not "sources I don't like". (Also, I said that *after* your comments above, so you did assume bad faith, as your intentional misreading couldn't have happened yet.) --OpenFuture (talk) 13:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, oh dear. Lets try this again. We are all scholars, we all support WP:V. Nobody here is deliberately trying to add unsourced or poorly sourced information to the article. What we are doing is debating the sources to use. You think one source in particular does not support the inclusion of the conflict, but there are other sources to be examined, as plenty has been written about this neck of the woods. The normal way of working would be to construct the text based on the sources, agree a text that represents the mainstream view or views, and that would be that. What you want everyone to do is sign up to your little quiz, then you will delete the source that you think does not support the assertion you think it is being used to support (the source that you do not like - it's a factual statement. You don't like it). Then you will delete the assertion itself, as being unsourced, because you have at no point entered into a discussion about ANY OTHER source. And please, if I say 'don't cry' and you say 'I'm not crying', then burst into tears, you've just supported my statement regardless of the exact sequence of events. You appear in your contributions often to become fixated on the wrong thing. Could you just try discussing the sources, you never know, it might work. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Nobody here is deliberately trying to add unsourced or poorly sourced information to the article. - Yeah, sorry, I don't believe that anymore.

The normal way of working would be to construct the text based on the sources, agree a text that represents the mainstream view or views, and that would be that. - I agree that would be the normal way. I would be much happier if that was the case here.

Could you just try discussing the sources, you never know, it might work. - Evidently not, since that's what I've been doing for two months now.

Your distortions of what I say and do are disgusting. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

This list should exist in some form

• Agree --OpenFuture (talk) 10:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

If this list is in a separate article, "List of wars between democracies" is an acceptable name

• Agree --OpenFuture (talk) 10:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

This article is subject to the same policies, such as WP:V, just as the rest of Wikipedia

• Agree --OpenFuture (talk) 10:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

This is not helpful. I was attempting a constructive line edit of a contentious entry above, and OpenFuture demonstrates that he is unable to focus on the details of content editing. This is the main and perhaps only insurmountable problem here: that OpenFuture wishes to tag, delete, and argue, but refuses to rewrite or contribute content. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Lies. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Then my statement should be easy to disprove. Please show the diffs where you've added content to the article that consists of at least two sequential sentences, or where you've done a rewrite of an entry that doesn't just involve tagging and deleting, or even added a clause of qualification while citing a source. I've been unable to find any examples of this kind of constructive editing from you, but if they exist in this article, I will gladly apologize for mischaracterizing your contributions. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

OpenFuture wishes it says. Prove what I wish. No? Well, then stop lying and apologize. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Quite right. I should not have said "wishes to," which implies that I understand what you're thinking. I apologize, and amend my statement to "OpenFuture tags, deletes, and argues, but refuses to rewrite or contribute content," a statement I see as factual because it can be disproved with diffs. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. But I don't refuse to do anything. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I doubt that anybody will disagree with Wikipedia content policies; several of us have disagreed that OpenFuture is applying them correctly or helpfully. Since OpenFuture supported the deletion of this article when it was proposed, and much of the archive is made up of his argument that it should be merged or have a different name, it is genuinely helpful of him to indicate that he does not now want any of these. But we don't need three lines in the TOC to say that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

This exchange says it all for me --Elen of the Roads The run of sources above suggest that both countries were legal democracies at inception, but Pakistan had a great deal of difficulty getting it to happen in practice. If that nuance can be read into the article, that would be good. --OpenFuture How do you get to that conclusion from the sources?

I am becoming concerned that this may yet be a WP:COMPETENCY issue, and I really do not want to go there. But the fixation on what he perceives to be the problem (PMA's interpretation of this one source among many), and his resistance to compromise strategies, or indeed to any alternative to PMA backing down, is beginning to niggle. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Damn lies. I have constantly suggested compromises, backed down when discussions lead nowhere and tried to discuss another issue, I have no intention of getting PMA to "back down". --OpenFuture (talk) 22:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I had started to post a comment in the edit wars discussion related to this page, but it closed before I finished. I've put that comment on the neutral admin's page, if anyone cares to see it, but he may choose to move it somewhere more appropriate. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I wish I could have ended this with saying "Statistics!", but it doesn't really fit. Oh well. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

It is really nice to see a novel form of "You are completely wrong". I should also acknowledge this honorable clarification. Perhaps... - but I would be tempting OpenFuture to disprove that prediction if I made it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)