Talk:Democratic peace theory

A Monumentally Horrific Sentence

About a week ago, I decided that the next time I found a sentence in a wikipedia article that seemed completely incoherant, yet not filled with scientific jargon, that I would take the time, look up every key word, diagram the whole thing out, and try and force my brain to comprehend what is being communicated. While reading this article, I found the following sentence: "Arguments based on normative constraints, he argues, are not consistent with the fact that democracies do go to war no less than other states, thus violating norms preventing war; for the same reason he refutes arguments based on the importance of public opinion. " and seeing how it made no sense to me, I decided it would be perfect. Two hours later, here are my results (chronological order from bottom to top):

(Fact That: Rate Democracies Go to War = Rate non-Democracies Go to War") (Inconsistant With) ( (Argument) based on (Constraints) (Deriving from) (A Group Held Belief About How Members Should Behave in a Given Context) ) (AND) ( (Arguments) based on (Importance of) (Public Opinion) ) (Thus) ( (Failing to comply with) (Group Held Beliefs About How Members Should Behave in a Given Contexts) related to (Preventing War) )

( (Argument) based on (Constraints) (Deriving from) (A Group Held Belief About How Members Should Behave in a Given Context) ) (Inconsistant with) (Fact That: Rate Democracies Go to War = Rate non-Democracies Go to War) (Thus) ( (Failing to comply with) (Group Held Beliefs About How Members Should Behave in a Given Contexts) related to (Preventing War) ) (Also) ( (Fact That: Rate Democracies Go to War = Rate non-Democracies Go to War") (Refutes) (Arguments) based on (Importance of) (Public Opinion) )

Violate = break or fail to comply with (a rule or formal agreement).

(Argument) based on (Constraints) (Related to) (A Group Held Belief About How Members Should Behave in a Given Context) are not consistent with the fact that democracies do go to war no less than other states, thus violating norms preventing war; for the same reason he refutes arguments based on the importance of public opinion.

(Argument) based on (Constraints) (Establishing) (A Group Held Belief About How Members Should Behave in a Given Context) he argues, are not consistent with the fact that democracies do go to war no less than other states, thus violating norms preventing war; for the same reason he refutes arguments based on the importance of public opinion.

(Argument) based on ( (Constraints) ((Derived from) (A Group Held Belief About How Members Should Behave in a Given Context) OR (Something Usual, Typical, or Standard)) )

(Argument) based on ( (Constraints) ((Relating to) (A Group Held Belief About How Members Should Behave in a Given Context) OR (Something Usual, Typical, or Standard)) )

(Argument) based on ( (Constraints) ((Establishing) (A Group Held Belief About How Members Should Behave in a Given Context) OR (Something Usual, Typical, or Standard)) )

Normative = (Establishing, Relating to, or Deriving from) ((Something Usual, Typical, or Standard) OR (A Group Held Belief About How Members Should Behave in a Given Context))

(Argument) based on ( (Constraint) that is ((Derived from) something (Typical)) )

(Argument) based on ( (Constraint) that is ((Related to) something (Typical)) )

(Argument) based on ( (Constraint) that is ((Established by) something (Typical)) )

(Argument)--based-on--->( (Constraint)--that-is--->( (Established by/Related to/Derived from)--something--->(Usual/Typical/Standard) ) )

(Argument)---"based on"--->((Constraint)---"derived from"--->(Norm))

((Norm)---derive from it--->(Constraint))---basis for--->(Argument)

(arguments) based on (constraints) that are (related to/derived from) a (standard/norm)

arguments based on constraints that are (Establishing, Relating to, or Deriving from) a (standard or norm)

Normative = Establishing, Relating to, or Deriving from a standard or norm.

(Arguments based on normative constraints,) he argues, are not consistent with the fact that democracies do go to war no less than other states, thus violating norms preventing war; for the same reason he refutes arguments based on the importance of public opinion.

Answer to criticism

Democratic peace theory has been criticised for lacking a clear definition of “democracy”. This criticism was actually answered by Rudolph Rummel in 2005:

Q: Are not your findings a matter of definition?

A: I do provide an explicit definition in Chapter 3 of my Saving Lives. But not everyone is happy with this. The question of definition can be carried too far, however, and risks a kind of definitionalism that can stand in the way of theory and empirical research. First, there is certainly a core group of nations that one generally would be considered perverse for calling nondemocratic. For example, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Belgium, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, etc. One does not need to focus on precise definition. Point and clicking is sufficient. Perhaps this undoubted set of democracies would comprise 20 or 30 nations. Now, while democratic none of them have made war on each other. Now, extend this list by increments. Add say the United States, Greece, France, and others for which a small minority would say that their being liberal democracies is questioned. Has the any member of this enlarged group made war on each other? No. Now add to this list those for which there is a larger group of scholars who would say they are nondemocratic, such as Japan, Israel, and India. Still no wars between them. And so on. Obviously, we would eventually add supposed democracies that have engaged in war, such as Great Britain and the war of 1812 and Boar War, or Kaiser German in World War I. But the point is that we would still have a large, undoubted list of core democracies that have not made war on each other and that number of democracies would be of such a size that the lack of war between these core democracies would be significant.

This text is found under the sixth question here. While the author died last year it is good to know that his text is still available on the Net.

2015-12-31 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

Our World In Data interactive map

Are we able to make an interactive map like this on this page?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.5.195.209 (talk) 16:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

See or edit source data.

CO₂ emissions per capita from 1900 to 2017.

References

Citations are a mess

Can someone please change the citations so that they don't just cite "Author Year", but incorporate the full citation in easy editing mode? It's an extraordinary hassle to try to figure out what citations are already in the article when editing in easy mode. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose to merge Republican liberalism into Democratic peace theory. The Republican liberalism article is just a smaller, poorly written and poorly sourced version of Democratic peace theory. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support. There is not much in Republican liberalism that is not already in Democratic peace theory. Agnerf (talk) 06:22, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support, it can probably be adapted into a section. FelipeFritschF (talk) 04:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Go for it! Daask (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 06:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

" are hesitant to engage in armed conflict with other identified democracies"

Or "other countries" in general? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:52, 14 June 2023 (UTC)