Privacy Policy Cookie Policy Terms and Conditions Talk:Democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk:Democracy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Politics This article is related to the WikiProject Politics, an attempt to improve, organise and standardise Wikipedia's articles in the area of Politics. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
Wikipedia CD Selection Democracy is either included in the Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.

To-do list for Democracy:

 edit - history - watch - refresh
  • Provide coverage for the wide array of democratic activities (yes, I know that's general, but I'd rather let contributors decide for themselves what this should mean).
  • Cover the idea that democratic decisions are sometimes made with pluralities.
  • Review external links to see if they're appropriate; that is, do they extend the content of this article sufficiently or not, or do they link only to promiment democracy-related sites?

Archive 1 : Discussion in and before 2002. Topics: Should there be a distinction between a republic and a democracy?, Right to vote denied to prisoners?, Denial of right to vote on basis of race or ethnicity, Participatory Democracy, Direct democracy, Clear and practical examples of participative democracy
Archive 2 : Discussion from 2002 to January 2004. Topics: Origin of democratic system, Confusing paragraphs, 146.124.102.84's POV edits, Constitution, Anon's announcement, Weird edit, Statement removed, Moved paragraph, Sortition, Unencyclopedical quotes?
Archive 3 : Discussion from January to May 2004. Topics: Czaktisto's complaints/change requests, Democracy, Democracy and franchise, Democracy definition, Proposed refactoring, Direct Democracy
Archive 4 : Lengthy discussion in May-June 2004 about controversial parts of the article
Archive 5 : Discussion from June to September 2004.
Archive 6 : Discussion from October to December 2004.
Archive 7 : Discussion from all of 2005.
Archive 8 : Discussion from 2005 to 8 May 2006
Archive 9 : Discussion from 8 May 2006 to 25 August

Contents

[edit] Evolution of political system vs. Evolution of concept

There is a huge problem with this article which seems to boil down to a question of whether the history is seen as:

  1. the develop of a system which had various names at the time but which is now generally accepted as being democracy.
  2. the development of the concept of democracy which has over its history been applied to various terms.

The type of problems this is causing are:

  • the idea that America was set up as a Democracy. It was not, it is quite clearly a "republic" and I've found no comment by the founding fathers to suggest otherwise. The interpretation of this event as being the founding of a democracy is a very recent phenonema and to suggest otherwise is quite misleading.
  • The idea that Greek democracy was election. When I first found this article, whenever greek democracy was mentioned it was implied that it was elected (by default). Unfortunately, if it was elected, the Greeks would have said it was undemocratic, because the Athenians thought elections were oligarchic!
  • 18th/19th century, democracy was equated with left-wing socialism. Elections were one of several means to a "democratic" system (ie. socialist)

Obviously the subject is highly contentious, but that should not get in the way of historical fact (afterall you can't rewrite the fact that the communists thought their system was democratic!) I think it really needs the history to be split into two: "History: The concept of Democracy" (those systems that have been called democratic) to contrast with "History: the system of Democracy" (the system that Americans call democratic, although it was not called democracy at the time!) --Mike 16:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, the distinction between democracy and republic then and now is discussed in a section of its own. Obviously, Wikipedia mainly deals with the current definition of words. For example, the article about evolution does not describe the views on this one hundred years ago, but mainly the current views.Ultramarine 16:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
The section on a republic is a good start, but it misses the whole 18th/19th century idea of social democracy, it fails to highlight the very different meaning in Ancient Greece, and it fails to mention the 20th century split between East (social democracy) and West (elections). Of course the article should mainly focus on the current use, but is it really the place of Wikipedia to rewrite American history and suggest that the US was set up as a democracy (the founding fathers will be rolling in their graves!) If you are serious about only using the definition currently in vogue, I think it is hard to justify having the Greek Democratic system in this article as it does not fit that definition! You can't have it both ways, either it is a full article covering the history of democracy which must explain how the term has been applied to systems that are very different to the majority use today OR you stick to the modern definition and e.g. remove references to systems that are not democratic under your definition such as Greek democracy and the 18/19th century social democrats! --Mike 19:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Introduction" section

[edit] Introduction Marxist & Greek Democracy

The introduction is unbalanced. It focusses solely on liberal democracy and ignores contradictory views of democracy both the Greek idea of allotment (random selection is not an equal voice) and the marxist view that socialism is inherently democratic (again nothing to do with equal voice).

is a form of government for a nation state, or for an organization in which all the citizens have a voice in shaping policy

This clearly isn't an adequate all encompassing definition. My own personal view is that all forms of democracy are grouped by a belief in isonomia (equality of political rights), which covers greek, liberal and marxist views. I think we can safely say that Liberal democracy is the most common view, but it clearly is sharply at odds with the Marxist view and if I understand Wikipedia policy correctly the opening paragraph can't solely reflect one side of the debate!

So, I would like to change this sentence for one of the following:

  1. is a form of government for a nation state, or for an organization based on an equality of political rights

  2. is a form of government for a nation state, or for an organization based on an equality of political rights interpreted in a liberal democracy as an equal voice or vote in shaping policy although contradictory views exist.

  3. is a form of government for a nation state, or for an organization. Liberal democracy is based on an eqaul voice or vote; however other views contradict the Liberal Democratic view of democracy notably the Marxist & Ancient Greek view of democracy

  4. is a form of government for a nation state, or for an organization

[edit] marxist view

I noticed someone simply removed someone else's contribution without putting comments on the talk page. To my mind that is simply rude, arrogant and undemocratic (based on liberal democratic interpretation, and I don't know anything about the marxists concept of rudeness?)!

Most liberal democracies are only considered as such because the citizens are allowed the token participatory act of voting, which has no effect in causing the system to reflect the will of the people.

I'm sticking the comments here so that it can be discussed. If there is no agreement how to make then introction cover all interpretations then my view is that Wikipedia policy would require us to simply allow the other side to state there view! (or is that not democracy?)--Mike 10:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greek view

Before anyone makes any assumption about Greek democracy being "elected" and biases the whole article perhaps they should read the following:

“it is thought to be democratic for the offices to be assigned by lot, for them to be elected is oligarchic,” [Aristotle, Politics 4.1294b]

“Democracy is a form of government in which the offices are distributed by the people among themselves by lot;” [Aristotle, Rhetoric]

“In establishing all these offices, we must make the appointments partly by election and partly by lot, mingling democratic with non-democratic methods,” [Plato, Laws 6:759]

“And a democracy, I suppose, comes into being when the poor, winning the victory, put to death some of the other party, drive out others, and grant the rest of the citizens an equal share in both citizenship and offices--and for the most part these offices are assigned by lot.” [Plato, Republic 8.557

As written the introduction stated that democracy was an equal vote or voice and therefore implied that Greek democracy was undemocratic.

I didn't want to start with a "it could mean this or could mean that" paragraph in such a article, but neither could I accept that you can start an article on democracy that implies the Greeks were undemocratic! To keep the flow I've used the linking concept of "isonomia" (equality of political rights/law) which the Greeks used interchangeably with democratia. As written it only said "equal votes or equal voice". Allotment is not a system of "equal voice", since only those who are selected have a right to sit in government, so I had to add the comment on Greek democracy.

I've checked the OED and the term democracy both covers Greek democracy and modern democracy, so I think the article must either embrace both ancient and modern or alternatively there might be two 1. Greek democracy (selected by lot), 2. Modern democracy (elected)--Mike 10:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no agreed on definition of democracy, only many different views. However, I do not see why allotment cannot be seen as giving an an voice in shaping policy. Alternatively, we could remove the sentence in the intro completely and instead simply just state that there are many different views without trying to give a single "true" definition.Ultramarine 13:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

<snip> My comments re: "too much democracy=elections"> --Mike 08:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The article mentins numerous form of democracy, many not including elections. The article in no place states the democracy only means elections.Ultramarine 15:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "The democratic state" section

"Though there remains some philosophical debate as to the applicability and legitimacy of criteria in defining democracy what follows may be a minimum of requirements for a state to be considered democratic (note that for example anarchists may support a form of democracy but not a state):

  1. A demos—a group which makes political decisions by some form of collective procedure—must exist. Non-members of the demos do not participate. In modern democracies the demos is the adult portion of the nation, and adult citizenship is usually equivalent to membership.
  2. A territory must be present, where the decisions apply, and where the demos is resident. In modern democracies, the territory is the nation-state, and since this corresponds (in theory) with the homeland of the nation, the demos and the reach of the democratic process neatly coincide. Colonies of democracies are not considered democratic by themselves, if they are governed from the colonial motherland: demos and territory do not coincide.
  3. A decision-making procedure exists, which is either direct, in instances such as a referendum, or indirect, of which instances include the election of a parliament.
  4. The procedure is regarded as legitimate by the demos, implying that its outcome will be accepted. Political legitimacy is the willingness of the population to accept decisions of the state, its government and courts, which go against personal choices or interests.
  5. The procedure is effective in the minimal sense that it can be used to change the government, assuming there is sufficient support for that change. Showcase elections, pre-arranged to re-elect the existing regime, are not democratic.
  6. In the case of nation-states, the state must be sovereign: democratic elections are pointless if an outside authority can overrule the result."
Much of this section seems to be a discussion of the characteristics of states, not democracy. All states, democratic or not, must have a terriotory, be sovereign, have citizens, have a decision-making procedure, and be able to enforce decisions in its territory. As such, I think that it should be removed or remade.Ultramarine 00:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Democracy and dictatorship

"Even a dictatorship may be a democracy if the ruler is elected in fair and competitive elections. Some dictatorships claim to be democracies, but in reality hold "sham elections."

This is contradictory and a dictatorship is not democratic. Can you give an example of dictatorship which is a democracy? Ultramarine 02:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Never heard of an illiberal democracy? If people are not allowed civil rights, as long as elections are free and competitive it's still a democracy. As long as the dictator is freely elected, it's a democracy. BillyBoom 02:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Many would dispute that this is a real democracy since in reality the people do not rule. Democracy is not the same as elections, see for example direct democracy or sortition in Athens.Ultramarine 02:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
That the leader is freely elected, is a sufficient condition of democracy. "The people rule" is only the case in direct democracy. In any other kind of democracy the elected officials rule. BillyBoom 02:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Not for example with sortition which was also used in Athens. No electins but leaders. The problem is that there have been many different systems claiming to be "democratic". For example, the Communist states claimed to be democratic according to "democratic centralism". It is not really for Wikipedia to decide which definiton the correct one, only to report the different views.Ultramarine 02:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, it's not the case for Wikipedia to decide. We can't claim that Communist states are democracies any more than we can claim that they're not. We can say they call themselves democracies but we can't say that they are democracies, unless we can find a consensus of sources that says they are. BillyBoom 02:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, so I propse this:

Democracy is, literally, rule by the people (from the Greek demos, "people," and kratos, "rule"). The methods by which this form of government is exercised, and indeed the composition of "the people" differ for the various forms of democracy, but the general principle is that of majority rule. Useful contrasts can be made with oligarchies and autocracies, where political authority is highly concentrated and not subject to meaningful control by the people. While the term democracy is often used in the context of a political state, the principles are also applicable to other areas of governance.

The definition of democracy is made complex by the varied concepts used in different contexts and discussions. Political systems, or proposed political systems, claiming to be democratic have ranged from very broadly based institutions in which adult universal suffrage is used to elect representative, to very informal assemblies in which the people voice their opinions, and leader act upon those feelings, to elected representatives who have limited power under an unelected monarch, to systems randomly selecting leaders from the population, to systems seeking consensus, and even what is usually seen as de facto dictatorships which may claim to be democratic and hold sham elections to gain legitimacy (for example, the former German Democratic Republic).Ultramarine 02:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Instead of risking either of us doing any original research, I suggest we use sourced definitions. How about that? BillyBoom 02:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
All of these various form are easily verified: See the articles on direct democracy, allotment, deliberative democracy, and German Democratic Republic.Ultramarine 02:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe, but it is too much original research if we go through and pick out the common theme that runs throughout each form of democracy. For example, you said yourself that if there is a dictator that it can't be a democracy. I disagree, because according to the definition of liberal democracy, all that is required is that the ruler is elected. We can argue forever about what a democracy and even if we both agree, it is still not good enough. Wikipedia is about more than consensus. It's about consensus about what the sources say. Consensus that can't be sourced is original research. BillyBoom 02:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
No, Wikipedia is not about consensus about what the sources say. It is about showing all significant views. So we should mention all those views regarding what democracy is without claiming that we know which one is the correct andf the "true" definiton.Ultramarine 02:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
It is indeed about consensus about what the sources say. You don't understand what I said. That's not the same thing a saying that Wikipedia is about consensus about what the consensus of the sources is. I agree that all significant views should be presented. But the only way to know if they're significant is to consult sources. And the way to present a definition is for us to arrive at a consensus interpretation of what the sources say. I'm saying consensus is not enough. Original research is still original research, even if there is a consensus of Wikipedians that want to put it in the article. BillyBoom 02:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:NPOV: "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant published points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions."Ultramarine 02:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You still don't understand what I said. It looks like you think I'm saying to present only one definition. That's not what I'm saying. Present one, two, or ten even. All I'm saying is that they can't be original research. They need to be sourced. Us arriving at a consensus on how to define define democracy is not good enough. Original research is still original research, even if we have a consensus. We need sources. BillyBoom 02:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

None of the different forms of democracy I have described above are original research. They can be easily verified, for example, by the links the articles I mentioned above.Ultramarine 02:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Here is your definition: "the general principle is that of majority rule." All I'm saying is it should be sourced. It could be original research. BillyBoom 02:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
We can, maybe, remove that sentence.Ultramarine 02:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I prefer to have a definition(s) to head off the article. BillyBoom 02:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no consensus so we should not claim to know one. This should be clearly stated.Ultramarine 02:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC) There may be a consensus. I don't know. I'm not prepared to make the claim that there is no consensus. By consensus I don't mean universal agreement, but the case where the bulk of definitions say pretty much the same thing. If there are alternate definitions they should be represented as well if there are sufficient number of sources that agree with it. BillyBoom 02:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

That is not what NPOV states. As noted above, there have been numerous very different defintions of democracy, the only thing really in common is the etymology, rule by the people. Which the Greeks contrasted with rule by a few or by a single person.Ultramarine 03:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with NPOV. It has to do with "original research." If you claim that "there are very different defintions of democracy, the only thing really in common is the etymology, rule by the people" then unless it can be sourced it is original research. BillyBoom 03:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
The etymology is not in doubt. Everything else is, since the defintions are so different and so many. Howver, we can certainly state that the Greeks, who created the concept, for example Aristotle, saw 3 different systems: " The true forms of government, therefore, are those in which the one, or the few, or the many, govern"Ultramarine 03:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Are you sure the definitions are "so different"? I'm not sure that they are. I'd have to see a survey of definitions for "democracy." If you want to present Aristotle's definition, go for it. That's certianly historically important. But that's not necessarily how it's ordinarily defined today. BillyBoom 03:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
All the definitions mentioned above are recent. For example the Communist defintion, related to democratic centralism, was not long ago used by 1/3 of the world's population.Ultramarine 03:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You're talking about the kinds of democracy? Those are not definitions of democracy, but of particular types of democracy. BillyBoom 03:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Not really different. All these systems have advocates claiming that this is, at the very least, a form of democracy.Ultramarine 03:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes they are forms of democracy, but what makes them forms of democracy. In other words, what is a democracy? Fords, Oldsmobiles, and Chevrolets are all types of automobiles but what is an automobile? Telling us what each FORM of democracy is, doesn't tell us what a democracy is. We need a definition for democracy. BillyBoom 03:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I think that only really common thing is that which can be found in the etymology and the comparison Aristotle made: Rule by the people as comparet to rule by a few or a single person. All the system above have at least claimed to be the best way for the people to rule, even if, as the Communists claim, the people are too stupid to know how their own good and the best rule requires that those who understand the "class consciousness" of the people guide them.Ultramarine 03:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if that is the case for this definition: "a set of guarantees that can prevent a leader from coming to power or holding power in defiance of the will of the majority." (What is Democracy? by Alaine Touraine) That is not rule by the people, but election by the people. Whoever is elected is the one doing the ruling. BillyBoom 03:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
No, I would say that the people rule indirectly. Rule means to hold the power, not to win an election.Ultramarine 03:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

In a democracy, the only power the people have is the power to vote for who is going rule them and the power to eventually vote in someone to replace them. Once elected, the person elected is the one that has the power which is much more powerful than the right to vote for a government official. The people do not rule in a democracy. The only have a choice over who is going to rule them. BillyBoom 03:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, many disagree with this definition of democracy. For example, this does not describe the situatiun in Athens.Ultramarine 03:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I know. I tried to add to the last sentence: "unless it is a direct democracy. In that case the majority of people rule." That's why I think there are two main definitions. Democracy is either rule by the people or elections of officials who rule." BillyBoom 03:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
As noted there are many other defintions. Also, I strongly disagree with your definition of "rule". The people do rule in for example the US, indirectly.Ultramarine 03:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Whether or not there are many other definitions, the definitions need to be sourced. About the US, the people definitely do not rule. They elect government officials. To be precise, even the goverment officials do not "rule" or at least they're not supposed to. In the U.S. the law is supposed to rule. Elected officials are supposed to be stewards of the law. That's why the U.S. is technically a "constitutional republic" rather than a democracy. In a direct democracy, the people rule because the people make the law. BillyBoom 03:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
You need to give a source for you defintion of "rule" and that it is universal. I think that it is your own personal defintion. Rule means to hold the power. People do in the US. They do not in for example Burma.Ultramarine 03:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

To make law is to hold power, therefore if you make law you rule. The people are said to rule in a direct democracy because they make the law without constitutional restrictions on what laws can be passed. People do not have that power in the U.S. and neither do the elected officials. The U.S. is a constitutional republic, which John Adams defined as a "a government of laws, and not of men." Any statutes that are enacted cannot violate the Constitution. Anyway, we're getting away from the point. Any definitions we present need to be sourced. You said that "the people rule" is in common with all definitions and I gave you a definition where that is not the case. That definition simply has to do with elections. BillyBoom 04:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

A dictator need not worry about laws and is still a ruler. You need to give source your definition of "rule" and that it is universal. I certainly aruge that "a set of guarantees that can prevent a leader from coming to power or holding power in defiance of the will of the majority." means that the people rule.Ultramarine 04:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
There is no one "universal" definition of "rule." Like most words, it has many definitions. If people can vote on a leader, then who are the people ruling? They certainly aren't ruling over other people. BillyBoom 04:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
If people can vote on a leader, then they rule over themselves. Rule means to hold power and authority, it has little to do with laws. Again, a dictator ignoring laws is still a ruler.Ultramarine 04:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
If people elect a leader, they are only ruling over themselves if that leader does what they consent to him doing to them. If the leader does any more than that then the people are not ruling over themselves. Electing a leader is not the same thing as giving someone carte blanche to do whatever he wants to you. As you know, a leader can be elected and do lots of things that the majority did not consent to him doing to them. That may be because the Constitution doesn't protect you from him or he's violating the Constitution. That's why a sufficient condition of democracy is simply that people elect officials. "The people rule" does not apply to all forms of democracy. It applied in direct democracy (which Aristotle opposed); actually that would be "the majority of people rule." BillyBoom 04:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, this seems be your own personal defintion of "rule" and "democracy". There are many others. All forms of democracy have claimed that the people rule, or hold the ultimate power.Ultramarine 04:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not my definition of democracy. I gave you a sourced definition. It doesn't say anything about the people "ruling." You're reading something into it based on your own understanding of "rule." BillyBoom 04:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC) By the way, if I vote for someone, I'm not voting for someone to rule me. I'm not voting for someone in order to self-rule either. I can already rule myself. I'm simply voting for someone to protect me from those who would wish to rule over me. BillyBoom 04:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I see nothing there that contradicts that the people have the ultimate power, or rule. You have your own definiton of "rule" that is not common, that it is somehow related to laws.Ultramarine 04:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
My definition of "rule" is not uncommon. To rule over someone is simply to have power over someone. In a democracy, there is no necessity that elected official only exercise power over the majority that elected him that they consent to. There is such a thing as illiberal democracies. In an illiberal democracy, the leader exercises power (rule) over the people that they do not consent to. "Rule by the people" is not a necessary condition of democracy (nor is it a desirable one if it means rule by the majority) BillyBoom 04:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
The leaders of an illiberal democracy do claim that the people rule. "Rule by the people" is a necessary condition for claiming to be a democracy.Ultramarine 04:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

"Claiming" and actuality are two different things. "Rule by the people" is not a necessary condition of claiming to be a democracy. To be able to claim you are a democracy requires nothing more than the ability to state it. The leader can lie. BillyBoom 04:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course he can lie. So what? If he does not claim that people rule, then he is not claiming that there is a democracy. Again, it is necessary to claim rule by the people if claiming democracy. Now, using some other definition of democracy, like Freedom House's, this may not be a democracy. But Wikipedia cannot state that Freedom House has got the "true" defintion. We can only report the different opinions.Ultramarine 04:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
If someone claims rule by the people, that doesn't mean there actually is rule by the people. Again, anyway, rule by the people is not a necessary condition of democracy. Merely electing officials is a sufficient condition. BillyBoom 05:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Again, you are supposing that there is a true defintion of democracy and that we can judge what is democracy or not with this. But there are many definitions and Wikipedia cannot state that one is correct. What is common for democracy is that all claim that the people rule, correct or not according to other people.Ultramarine 05:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
No I'm not. You are. You said all definitions of democracy had in common "rule by the people." I showed you that they don't by giving you an example of one that doesn't. BillyBoom 05:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
No, you didn't. Also the leaders in an illiberal democracy claim rule by the people.Ultramarine 05:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

"Claiming" to be ruled by the people isn't the same thing as actually being ruled by the people. A claim can be true or it can be false. BillyBoom 05:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC) By the way, here is another definition that does not align with your "rule by the people": A system is "democratic to the extent that its most powerful collective decision-makers are selected through fait, honest, and periodic elections in which candidates freely compete for votes and in which virtually all the adult population is eligible to vote." -Sumuel Huntington BillyBoom 05:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Communists argue that the other systems that claim to be democratic are not. Freedom House claims that some systems claiming to democratic are not. Some of those advocating direct democracy argue that representative democracy is not really democracy. They all disagree on what democracy is and state that the others give false claims. But they all claim that they themselves have a system giving the people the ultimate power.Ultramarine 05:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Who is correct? It is not for wikipedia to determine, only to report the various opinions.Ultramarine 05:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
That's what I'm trying to tell YOU. You're making a claim that all definitions have in common "rule by the people" but they don't, so don't claim that in the article. Look at this source. It explicitly disagrees with your claim: "If democracy were defined as rule by the people -the entire people- then, of course, there would be no place for elites in a democracy. But then, too, there would be no democracies anywhere, the universe under discussion would be empty or, in other words, there would be nothing to analyze. Hence, here, this utopian definition of democracy has been rejected in favor of a more realistic definition, whose centerpiece is the principle of free elections, coupled with the freedom of organization." (Fragile Democracy: The Use and Abuse of Power in Western Societies by Eva Etzioni-Halevy). BillyBoom 05:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I am not stating that they all have in common "rule by the people", I am stating they claim this, correct or not. The above is one defintion, there are many others, certainly not limited to free elections.Ultramarine 05:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Who claims this? Democracies claim this? Or regimes that claim to be democracies claim this? What does it matter what they claim? I thought were talking about definitions of democracy, rather than who is claiming that they are ruled by the people. Definitions need to be sourced. That's all I'm trying to get through to you. We can't have original research. BillyBoom 05:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, Wikpedia states all different views and does not declare one to be the winner. The advocates of different versions of democracy have claimed that their definition means that people have the ulitmate power. I think that this is the least common factor. If you disagree, fine. We will certainly not state that democracy means elections or someting like that, but then instead simply state that there are many different views, sometimes contradictory, of what democracy is.Ultramarine 05:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

No, all the definitions do not state that the people have "ultimate power." I gave you some that state people merely have the power to elect officials. That's not "ultimate power" other than in the sense that they have ultimate power over who is going to be elected, and that is all. They certainly don't have the power to control the official once he's been placed in office for 4 years, so the people don't have ultimate power. BillyBoom 05:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC) By the way, I don't know that there are "many different definitions." I keep coming across the same one, which is, it is a democracy is there are elections. There may well be only 2 or 3 definitions out there. BillyBoom 05:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I think that this means ultimate power. You have not presented any evidence for that your view is universal. Again, we NPOV solution is to simply state that there are many different views, sometimes contradictory, of what democracy is. I have mentioned many different views above.Ultramarine 05:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
No you didn't mention many different views of what democracy is. You mentioned many different TYPES of democracy. That still leaves the question of how "democracy" is defined. As far as I know, there is only one definition. I keep coming across the same general definition in my searching. You haven't provided any sourced alternatives. BillyBoom 05:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
You have certainly not given any single definition of democracy. That those system I described above called themselves democratic and are very different from each other is not in dispute.Ultramarine 05:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes I have given a single definition of democracy. It's a system where the people have the power to decide who is in office through elections. The systems you mentioned say they are democratic, yes, but what about them is democractic? That's the question. A Ford, Oldsmobile, and Chevrolet are all types of automobiles and the manufacturer tells us they are all automobiles but that still doesn't tell us what it means to be an automobile. Analagously, telling us what each type of democracy is doesn't tell us what a democracy is in general. For that we need sourced definitions. We can't make them up. BillyBoom 05:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, Wikipedia does not declare one view to be correct. The other systems above have also stated that they are democratic. Read NPOV again, all views should be represented.Ultramarine 05:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with NPOV. I am not saying to state only one definition. I'm saying to state all notable definitions. So far, in my looking through sources I've only seen one general definition, which is that a democracy is a system where the people have the power to decide who is in office through elections. If you have any other definition then you need to source it. We don't allow original research on Wikipedia. BillyBoom 05:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Sortition: [1]
This is a method of elections that is used IN democracy. It is not a definition of democracy. BillyBoom 06:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Direct democracy:[2]
This is KIND of democracy. It is not a definition of democracy but a definition of DIRECT democracy. BillyBoom 06:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Deliberative democracy:[3]
This is KIND of democracy. It is not a definition of democracy but a definition of DELIBERATIVE democracy. BillyBoom 06:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
This are forms of democracy that do not use eletions.Ultramarine 06:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, so then there's probably another definition of democracy out there. But you can't just make it up. You need a source. BillyBoom 06:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I have given 3 different forms of democracy that do not use elections. I do not need to give one "true" definition. I will just note that there are many different views.Ultramarine 06:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to give one "true" definition. I'm saying if you put in a definition then it should be sourced. You don't have to put a definition in at all if you don't want to. You can say that there are different forms of democracy. I'll probably be putting a definition in. BillyBoom 06:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
What definiton? Ultramarine 06:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
That a democracy is a system where an official being in office is contingent upon the will of the majority. BillyBoom 06:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
That is not true for the forms above.Ultramarine 06:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say I was going to say that it was THE definition of democracy. I was going to give at as one definition of democracy. BillyBoom 06:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

My latest proposal below.Ultramarine 06:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the intro, because it is saying that the literal Greek meaning of "Democracy" is THE definition today. And, it's not true, as I've shown. BillyBoom 06:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
It only says literally and gives the etymology.Ultramarine 06:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but the implication is that the literal meaning is the definition. Something could be added like, some/many scholars do not use this original meaning but use it to refer to a system "whose centerpiece is the principle of free elections." BillyBoom 06:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I have changed it to what should be completely neutral. We are not going to declare the "true" meaning, that is not allowed in Wikipedia.Ultramarine 06:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Latest proposal

Democracy is a form of government. There are many different forms and the methods used to govern differ. While the term democracy is often used in the context of a political state, the principles are also applicable to other areas of governance.

This is completely uninformative. You could use the same "definition" for Monarchy or Oligarchy. --Drono 05:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Varieties

Main article: Democracy (varieties)

The definition of democracy is made complex by the varied concepts used in different contexts and discussions. Democracy literally means rule by the people (from the Greek demos, "people," and kratos, "rule"). Aristotle contrasted democracy, majority rule, to that of oligarchy and autocracy, where political authority is highly concentrated. Political systems, or proposed political systems, claiming or claimed to be democratic have ranged very broadly. For example:

  • Aristotle contrasted rule by the many (democracy), with rule by the few (oligarchy), and with rule by a single person (autocracy)[citation needed], but he also described the law courts which were selected by lot as democratic[1] and described elections as oligarchic [2]
  • if you are talking about Aristotle, then quite rightly the democracy/oligarchy/monarchy division is important, but it really needs to mention that Greek democracy was not elected and that e.g. the Greeks included the law courts in their definition. This shows not only that the system of selection changes, but also the government institutions covered - please stop removing it Mr Ultramarine --Mike 16:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
This is original research. The Athenian democracy included elections. Also, the article does not state the Athenian dmeocracy only involved elections. Allotment is mentioned.Ultramarine 16:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
If Aristotle is original research then what isn't? According to the best authority on Athenian democracy that I have (Athenian democracy at the time of desmosthenes) following an extensive review of all the historical evidence it appears about 10% of maggistrates were elected and 90% were allotted. I don't know where you get this idea of original research, read Plato, Aristotle, Herodotus and the experts and they all agree - but somehow you know better - which is the original research? --Mike 19:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
American democracy includes juries, but to suggest that it is principly a system based on the jury would be a huge distortion. But you seem to have accepted the last quote. I also like the additional info on the three layers - but I was serious about a quote, because I think people reading might want to follow it up.--Mike 17:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Tribal assemblies.
  • Systems randomly selecting leaders from the population (see Sortition).
  • Systems seeking consensus (see Deliberative democracy).
  • Even what is usually seen as de facto dictatorships which may claim to be democratic and hold sham elections to gain legitimacy (for example, the former German Democratic Republic).
  • If you use a perjorative definition "democracy=elections", then of course the idea of a socialist democracy looks stupid and a "sham", but I refer you to: [[4]] quite clearly the East had a very different view of democracy, one which deserves to be featured in an article on democracy (THIS IS NOT JUST A US ENCYCLOPEDIA!) The communist/East idea of democracy stems from the same origins as the "DEMOCRATS" in america, an idea of giving the working class power (in which elections were one of a number of means and not an end in itself!) --Mike 14:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Main varieties include:

[edit] Direct

Direct democracy is a political system where the people vote on government decisions, such as questions of whether to approve or reject various laws. It is called direct because the power of making decisions is exercised by the people directly, without intermediaries or representatives. Historically, this form of government has been rare because of the difficulties of getting all the people of a certain territory in one place for the purpose of voting. All direct democracies to date have been relatively small communities; usually city-states. The most notable was the ancient Athenian democracy. Today, direct democracy is existing in countries such as Switzerland, where certain cantons practice it in its literal form, and in other countries, typically those where there is also referendum.

[edit] Representative

Representative democracy (or Polyarchy[3]) is so named because the people do not vote on most government decisions directly, but select representatives to a governing body or assembly. Representatives may be chosen by the electorate as a whole (as in many proportional systems) or represent a particular subset (usually a geographic district or constituency), with some systems using a combination of the two. Many representative democracies incorporate some elements of direct democracy, such as referenda.

[edit] Liberal

Liberal democracy is a representative democracy which has free and fair elections, and also has rule of law, a separation of powers, and protection of liberties (thus the name liberal) of speech, assembly, religion, and property. [5] [6] Conversely, an illiberal democracy is one where the protections that form a liberal democracy are either nonexistant, or not enforced. The experience in some post-Soviet states drew attention to the phenomenon, although it is not of recent origin. Napoleon for example used plebiscites to ratify his decisions.

[edit] Socialist/Marxist

Democracy was clearly used in the East and in the 18/19th century with a very different meaning from that currently in vogue. How can an article on democracy fail to mention this different interpretation (political prejudice?) I suggest something like the following:- --Mike 14:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The socialist view of democracy (social democracy) was developed in the 18th and 19th century by writers such as Karl Marx. Socialists concentrated primarily on putting the working class in government and voting was at best only one of a number of means to achieving a democratic (i.e. socialist) society as demonstrated by the objects of the London Democratic society of 1839:

First:- the Objects of the Democratic Association are, to avail itself of every opportunity in the progress of society, for practically establishing the principles of Social, Political and Universal Equality.

Second:- To this end, they desire to unite the unrepresented of all classes into one bond of fraternity, for the attainment of Universal Suffrage: this Association being convinced that, until the proletarian classes are fully and faithfully represented, justice in legislation will never be rendered unto them.[4]

  • Lenin is the spiritual father of the Communist states. Here he quotes Marx and Engels:
Marx: ...When the workers replace the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie by their revolutionary dictatorship ... to break down the resistance of the bourgeoisie ... the workers invest the state with a revolutionary and transitional form ...
Engels: ...And the victorious party” (in a revolution) “must maintain its rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionaries. Would the Paris Commune have lasted more than a day if it had not used the authority of the armed people against the bourgeoisie? Cannot we, on the contrary, blame it for having made too little use of that authority?...
Engels: As, therefore, the state is only a transitional institution which is used in the struggle, in the revolution, to hold down one’s adversaries by force, it is sheer nonsense to talk of a ‘free people’s state’; so long as the proletariat still needs the state, it does not need it in the interests of freedom but in order to hold down its adversaries, and as soon as it becomes possible to speak of freedom the state as such ceases to exist ....[7]Ultramarine 14:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Ultramarine. Yes they were nasty little shits, but those quotes tell me nothing about their view of democracy! --Mike 20:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Ultramarine, surely you know the difference between social democracy and Communist states? Also, not all socialism is Marxist (you pointed this out yourself numerous times). -- Nikodemos 20:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • In Marxist view capitalist state cannot be democratic by its nature, representing dictatorship of bourgeoisie. In capitalist state all media and most political parties are controlled by capitalists. One should have much amount of financial resources or be supported by bourgeosie to win a elections. Even if a representative of people elected he has limited power as all the economic sphere controlled by private capital and functions of central government reduced to the minimum.

I've found the above, it clearly needs editing, but it should add to the discussion!--Mike 10:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I had a bit of an editing match with someone (I've forgotten their name). Over the weekend. The paragraph is now in its own section, it has an introduction to explain how the marxist view ties into other views, it gives a very brief explanation why many apparently undemocratic countries (to Americans/UK) called themselves democratic and then covers the range of marxist democracy from social democracy at one end to Marxism at the other. As I don't know much about Marxism, I don't know whether the paragraph on Marxism is too long or whether other views ought to be included. However, as I've said before it is not possible to have a fair article on democracy that does not include information on this view of democracy --Mike 09:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the "history" section

To suggest that Athenian democracy was only the assembly is about as "economical with the truth" as if modern democracy were talked about as only being a jury. The whole section on the original democracy needs editing to make it representative of what the actual system was rather than what someone appears to want it to be!

I suggest the following: <snip>


  • This seem to be your own original research. Do you have any academic sources showing that this is a significant view? Note also the the text mentions the allotment and does not state that the democracy was only the assembly.Ultramarine 15:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, let me go through it phrase by phrase and show the authority backing every statement:
The word democracy was coined in ancient Greece and used interchangeably with isonomia[1](equality of political rights).

isonomia:A. equal distribution, equilibrium, balance, II. equality of political rights, Hdt.3.80, 142; (Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon)

Debate at Herodotus. 3.80 shows that isonomia, and not demokratia was the term used for popular government in the period between Kleisthenes and Ephialtes. The democratic constitution described at 3.80 is explicitly called demokratia at 6.43 (47).
Although Athenian democracy is today considered by many to have been a form of direct democracy (As original but happy, to remove it!)
it had two distinguishing features: Firstly the allotment (selection by lot) of ordinary citizens to government offices[1][2] and to the courts; secondarily the assembly of all the citizens.
To quote morgens hansen “At the beginning or Book 6 Aristotle enumerates characteristic elements of a democratic constitution. They mostly relate to the magistrates, and prescribe rotation, limited powers, short duration, prohibition of a second term, and selection by lot (or sometimes by election, but in any case from amongst all citizens). In addition all citizens act as judges, all important decisions are taken by the assembly of the people, and all must be reinbursed for political activitiy.”
Aristotle defines a citizen in a democracy as one who has the right to be a juror and a participator in the assembly. Of the assembly and the People’s court we know from Philokleon in the Wasps that the courts were sovereign(Ar.vesp. 526-729). And accoring to Morgan Hensen “In the orators, too, the courts are always emphasized as the highest organ of the democracy. (Dem.57.56 Hansen (1990a) 241 nn. 124-6)
Herodotus & Aristotle both emphasises Allotment of official ‘’’rather than’’’ the assembly:

“The rule of the people has the fairest name of all, equality, and does none of the things that a monarch does. The lot determines offices, power is held accountable, and deliberation is conducted in public.”

“Democracy is a form of government in which the offices are distributed by the people among themselves by lot;” [Aristotle, Rhetoric]

Even the classic quote “. Its administration favors the many instead of the few; this is why it is called a democracy.” The word administration is ' οικειν in the intrans. = “to be managed” where the trans is to “manage, direct a household or a state”. à it is called a democracy because it is managed by the many which clearly refers to the management committees which were allotted!
In theory, all the Athenian citizens were eligible to speak and vote in the Assembly, which set the laws of the city-state, but neither political rights, nor citizenship, were granted to women, slaves, or metics. Of the 250,000 inhabitants only some 30,000 on average were citizens. Of those 30,000 perhaps 5,000 might regularly attend one or more meetings of the popular Assembly. (Original)
Key to the development of Athenian democracy were its huge juries allotted from the citizenry.
As the Greeks themselves point out, the jury was the key institution that led to the development of democracy:They not only judged legal cases but also acted as an Upper House able to overturn decisions of the assembly.

“by making the law-court, which was elected by lot, all-powerful … as the law-court grew strong, men courted favour with the people as with a tyrant, and so brought the constitution to the present democracy”[Aristotle, Politics 2.1274a, c350BC]

“he (Solon) does appear to have founded the democracy by constituting the jury-courts from all the citizens. … (making) the law-court, which was elected by lot, all-powerful.” [Aristotle, Politics 2.1274a, c350BC]

The officers & magistrates of Athenian government were mostly allotted; only the generals (strategoi) and a very few other officers were elected. [1]
“The 1100 or so magistrates annually selected by lot” (Morgens Hensen P.232)
“Just over 100 magistrates chosen not by lot by election included all the military commanders” (Morgens Hensen p233)
Ultramarine, if this is "original research" what do you call the rest of it? I doubt any of the rest of this article can be as well sourced!

--Mike 22:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the 18th and 19th centuries" history section

As written this section implies quite falsely that America was set up as a democracy. This is a lie and ought to be corrected post haste! None of the founding fathers were in favour of a democracy (based on Greece), America was set up as a republic (based on Rome). I don't know why there is this modern attempt to rewrite American history to imply it was set up as a democracy when the founding fathers were in fact universally hostile to the idea of democracy! --Mike 15:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I suggest prefacing the paragraph

the United States can be seen as the first liberal democracy with relatively wide franchise.

with

Although not described as a Democracy by the founding fathers,

The first view is sourced, the distinction between republic and democracy for the founding fathers and today is discussed in later.Ultramarine 15:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd go further and remove the "with relatively wide suffrage". It's a phrase that really means nothing. 147.10.143.23 13:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The "Democracy and Republicanism" section

Republic, Republicanism, and Republicanism in the United States give many different meanings to the terms, sometimes contradictory, for example excluding or including a monarch. The article already explains the historical difference between republic = constitutional representative democracy and democracy = direct demcoracy. The current text in the "Democracy and Republicanism" is very unclear regarding what meanings of republicanism and democracy are discussed and how they differ. It also gives undue weight to the United States for a general democracy article. The meaning of repulicanism is already well covered in the three articles mentioned. So I suggest changing the title to "Constitutional monarchs and upper chambers" and the text to

"Initially after the American and Frenc revolutions the question was open whether democracies, in order to restrain unchecked majority rule, should have an elitist upper chamber, the members perhaps appointed meritorious experts or having lifetime tenures, or should have a constitutional monarch with limited but real powers. Some countries (as Britain, the Netherlands, Belgium, Scandinavia and Japan) turned powerful monarchs into constitutional monarchs with limited or, often gradually, merely symbolic roles. Often the monarchy was abolished along with the aristocratic system (as in the U.S., France, China, Russia, Germany, Austia, Hungary, Italy, Greece and Egypt). In Australia, the monarchy is seen as hollow shell. However, there is no consensus on how to replace it. Most voters want a powerful president (as in the U.S., France, and Russia), while most politicians want to keep the parliamentary system and have only a weak president (as in Italy and Germany). Many nations had elite upper houses of legislatures which often had lifetime tenure, but eventually these senates lost power (as in Britain) or else became elective and remained powerful (as in the United States)."Ultramarine 09:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

better keep the republicanism section. People always get confused about the two. The American model was the first and most influential for 200 years. The French of course were off-and-on regarding a republic, going through 5 of them with intervals of emperors and dictators. Rjensen 09:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I am still confused by the current text and what republicanism and democracy is supposed to mean and how they differ. Also note that it gives undue weight to the US, as noted above.Ultramarine 10:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
republicanism requires sovereignty of the people--but how does that translate into decision-making by the people is the issue. The US is the main republican model that adopted democracy in stages, so that theorists and actual practitioners looked at it especially (in countries like China, Japan, Australia, Germany, Italy) ; therefore it has to have heavy weight. calling it "undue" is POV. Rjensen 10:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
That is one view of republicanism, there are many others. Also, "sovereignty of the people" seems to be the same as the literal meaning of democracy. What is the difference? Ultramarine 10:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
"many others" = what evidence for that claim??? (see the article on the subject). The point about sovereignty is that it is not the king/aristocracy that "owns" the country. Before republicanism they really did own it and did sell or buy or inherit kingdoms. Republicans reject that power. Rjensen 10:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
The above articles mention many views: anti-monarchy, pro-rule of law (possibly including a monarch), a virtue system, and so on. You argue for a partcular meaning, "sovereignty of the people", which seems identical to democracy in a broad sense. You may be arguing that democracy means elections, but democracy has been applied to many other political systems, like sortition.Ultramarine 10:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
oh I think "soverignty of the people" pretty well covers all forms of republicanism (see Edmund Morgan on the invention of the people.) But "soverighnty of the people" has not been covered in the democracy article, probably because it is a different concept with a different history, as Pocock has shown (very few of the people covered by Pocock believed in democracy--and "democracy" was a negative term in the US in the 1790s for example, when everyone proclaimed they were "republican' but relatively few claimed to be a "democrat". The Democracy article seems to get the soverignty of Parliament mixed up with democracy in dealing with medieval England. Rjensen 11:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. Many of the meanings are not identical with "sovereignty of the people". Regarding the historical use of democracy and repubic it is mentioned in the the "Democracy and Republic" section.Ultramarine 11:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Look for example at Merriam-Webster. It mentions two main meanings for republic. The modern one, "a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president". The old one opposing direct democracy: "a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law". No mention of "sovereignty of the people".Ultramarine 11:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
the definition of "republic" is something else again--also confused with democracy. I recommend reading Edmund Morgan, Inventing the People: The Rise of Popular Sovereignty in England and America (1989) which is very clear (Morgan won the Pulitzer prize this year). Rjensen 12:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
The Merriam-Webster definition of Republicanism refer to Republic.Ultramarine 12:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
agreed the dictionaries are no help. Look instead at the stanford ency of philosophy: [8] Rjensen 12:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Dictonaries are obviously useful for brief explanations regarding what words mean. Stanford gives yet more views and definitions of republicanism. I suggest discussing these many confusing meanings in the appropriate articles. There is certainly no consensus on what Republicanism is.Ultramarine 12:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Republicanism

The article had a very garbled section on "Republic". I replaced it with the republicanism section that was blanked out some time ago, which explains the concept and discusses some of the relevant history. Rjensen 06:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, there is no consensus on what Republicanism is, see above.Ultramarine 07:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Republicanism is too important to ignore--please don't blank solid information

Ultramarine seems to think that republicanism is unimportant. The long bibliography shows that is entirely false. If he thinks the section can be improved he should try to improve it--blanking it is simply un-Wiki and akin to vandalism. Fact is many people get them mixed up --that's because of a convergence in actual practice in the 20th century. Historically democracy and republicanism were quite different. Ultramarine's argument that there is no "consensus" on republicanism is irrelevant and false. If he thinks there are alternative views he should include them. Along with citations please--he can start with the bibliography that I added to the article. Rjensen 08:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not think it is unimportant. But you insist on a single unsourced definition when there are many, as mentioned above. You have given no explanation for deleting the previous ones mentioned and have given no source for your particular prefered one. In addition, undue weight to the US.Ultramarine 08:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest the following. Please state concrete objections:

[edit] "Democracy" and "Republic"

In contemporary usage, the term "democracy" refers to a government chosen by the people, whether it is direct or representative.[9] The term "republic" has many different meanings but today often refers to a representative democracy with an elected head of state, such as a President, serving for a limited term, in contrast to states with a hereditary monarch as a the head of state, even if these states also are representative democracies with an elected head of government such as a Prime Minister.[10]

In historical usages and especially when considering the works of the Founding Fathers of the United States, the word "democracy" refers solely to direct democracy, whilst a representative democracy where representatives of the people govern in accordance with laws and usually also a constitution is referred to as a republic.[11][12] Using the term "democracy" to refer solely to direct democracy retains some popularity in United States conservative and libertarian circles. (Republicanism can also refer to several other ideas: a virtue system, anti-monarchism, advocacy for rule of law, and especially in recent interpretations, advocacy for liberty.[13])

The original framers of the United States Constitution were notably cognizant of what they perceived as a danger of majority rule in oppressing freedom and liberty of the individual. For example, James Madison, in Federalist Paper No. 10, advocates a constitutional republic over a democracy to protect the individual from the majority. [5] The framers carefully created the institutions within the Constitution and the United States Bill of Rights. They kept what they believed were the best elements of majority rule. But they were mitigated by a constitution with protections for individual liberty, a separation of powers, and a layered federal structure.Ultramarine 08:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The term "republicanism" refers to a powerful line of political thought that people often confuse with democracy. It is not to be confudes with "republic". It therefore has to be examined in the article on democracy. The passage on "republic" above is quite confused and is not based on sources, and does not even show an awareweness of the vast literature on republicanism. It simply does not do the job. One might note that in the USA, the two main parties are called "Democratic" and "Republican" for a reason--and indeed Jefferson called his party the party of republicanism in the 1790s. ("democracy" was a term of ridicule into the 1820s.)
There are sources. In contrast, you have given none for your prefered single defintion.Ultramarine 08:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry- the college dictionary does not do the job. A good place to start is the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article:[14] The Wiki article on Republicanism has a long bibliography and I already added these sources to the Democracy bibliography: (as well as nearly all of the other books):
  • Joyce Appleby, Liberalism and Republicanism in the Historical Imagination (1992)
  • Becker, Peter, Juergen Heideking and James A. Henretta, eds. Republicanism and Liberalism in America and the German States, 1750-1850. Cambridge University Press. 2002.
  • Castiglione, Dario. "Republicanism and its Legacy," European Journal of Political Theory (2005) v 4 #4 pp 453-65.online version
  • Edmund Morgan, Inventing the People: The Rise of Popular Sovereignty in England and America (1989)
  • Wood, Gordon S. The Radicalism of the American Revolution (1993), examines democratic dimensions of republicanism. Wood has been the most influential American scholar (along with Pocok and Bailyn), Rjensen 08:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Giving a long list of book is uninteresting. You need to cite exact pages. Dictionaries are obviously useful for defintions of words and how they are used. I have cited Stanford above.Ultramarine 08:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Start with the Wiki article on republicanism then go to the Stanford Encyclopedia article online (it does not have page numbers). One sentence definitions from a dictionary do not take us very far, do they? An excellent book on the American version is Lance Banning Jeffersonian Persuasion: Evolution of a Party Ideology 1978. Note that historians (starting with Jameson and Beard) have said for 90 years that it is FALSE that The framers carefully created democratic institutions within the Constitution and the United States Bill of Rights. That sentence should read: "The framers carefully created republican institutions within the Constitution and the United States Bill of Rights." The mistake shows how easy it is to mix up basic terms. Rjensen 09:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Again, if citing thick books you must give exact page numbers. Trust me, I have been in an arbcom case where this was stated. If citing shorter articles, then page numbers are not needed. Again, dictionaries are good sources for definitons or usages. Certainly, some define republic and republican as you do, but many others do not. Wikipedia:NPOV requires that all views should be mentioned.Ultramarine 09:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
The point is that republicanism is not especially controversial. Historians debate of course over exact dates, over whether civic virtue was essential or just very important, over whose books were most widely read. The one real debate is whether or not republicanism overshadowed Lockean liberalism, or vice versa, or whether they grew up together. But republicanism is as precisely defined as democracy, and indeed more so I think. There is a terrific debate in Australia going on in recent years (see Republicanism in Australia) -- a highly democratic society that is debating whether or not it should be republican. Rjensen 09:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Again, you have not given sources as Wikipedia requires. I have now given such above. Wikipedia:NPOV requires that all the views of what republicanism is should be mentioned.Ultramarine 09:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I added the citations requested by Ultramarine re republicanism. Now shall we go through the rest of the article and flag or delete every paragraph that is not sourced?? Rjensen 10:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
You are violating Wikipedia:NPOV by stating that your preferred defintion is the correct one. Again, NPOV requires that all views should be mentioned without asserting that one in particular is correct. No explanation given for deleting other views. Still undue weight to the US. Still not always page numbers in sources.Ultramarine 10:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

In contemporary usage, the term "democracy" refers to a government chosen by the people, whether it is direct or representative.[15] The term "republic" has many different meanings but today often refers to a representative democracy with an elected head of state, such as a President, serving for a limited term, in contrast to states with a hereditary monarch as a the head of state, even if these states also are representative democracies with an elected head of government such as a Prime Minister.[16]

In historical usages and especially when considering the works of the Founding Fathers of the United States, the word "democracy" refers solely to direct democracy, whilst a representative democracy where representatives of the people govern in accordance with laws and usually also a constitution is referred to as a republic.[17][18] Using the term "democracy" to refer solely to direct democracy retains some popularity in United States conservative and libertarian circles. (Republicanism can also refer to several other ideas: a virtue system, anti-monarchism, advocacy for rule of law, and especially in recent interpretations, advocacy for liberty.[19])

The original framers of the United States Constitution were notably cognizant of what they perceived as a danger of majority rule in oppressing freedom and liberty of the individual. For example, James Madison, in Federalist Paper No. 10, advocates a constitutional republic over a democracy to protect the individual from the majority. [6] The framers carefully created the institutions within the Constitution and the United States Bill of Rights. They kept what they believed were the best elements of majority rule. But they were mitigated by a constitution with protections for individual liberty, a separation of powers, and a layered federal structure.

This mentions all major concepts without giving undue weight and without stating that one in particular is correct, as required by Wikipedia:NPOV. Can you please state your objections to this version?Ultramarine 11:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Rrepublic and republicanism are different words with different meanings. Republicanism in recent decades has become one of the major topics of research in history and political science and must be covered. "This mentions all major concepts" is not true. The passage refers to part of the debate in 1787-8 ignoring the entire period 1770-1865 except for that one important point. It's not a matter of a one-line webster's dictionary definition here--it's a matter of one of the main lines of political thought in the world, one that is tied into democracy. Key issues involve the role of virtue, corruption, independence, and civic duty. (one duty is voting--but military service is also important). Leaving republicanism out results in serious confusion. I suggest looking at the Wiki articles on the Democratic-Republican Party (United States) to see how important the matter is. Rjensen 11:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Your views regarding republicanism is argued by some recently, not all. Again, Wikipedia NPOV requires that all views should be mentioned without asserting that one in particular is true. You passionately think that one particular view of Republicanism is the only correct one, but the other views should also be mentioned. Also as mentioned earlier, do not delete sourced views you do not like, still undue weight to the US, and still not always page numbers in claimed sources.Ultramarine 11:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Here is still another view of what Republicanism is: "The reconstruction of Florentine republicanism stressing the ideal of a republic of frugal, public-minded citizens in danger of being corrupted by luxury and the pursuit of private gain, a theme that could be traced back to ancient, especially Roman, authors, provided an attractive inspiration for a revisionist view of American history. Bernard Bailyn developed an image of The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (1967), based on the classical republican rhetoric to be found in the political pamphlets and controversialist literature of the time leading up to the American founding. This recovered republicanism could counterbalance the canonical view, most clearly and forcefully expressed in Louis Hartz's Liberal Tradition in America (1955), of an American consensus of Lockean derivation, centered on the defense of property rights and animated by liberal individualism, an outlook so much taken for granted in Americans' understanding of themselves as to have become the unexamined nexus of American life. The republican model provided an important corrective to the dominant orthodoxy and a great impetus to historical research."[20]
Furthermore, while the difference between republic and democracy should be explained, I would like a reason for why Republicanism must be extensively mentioned in an article about democracy? NPOV would requre an equal mentioning of Liberalism, and also the many other political schools which have made claims to democracy, like Social Democracy, Democratic Socialism, Christian Democracy, and so on.Ultramarine 12:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Republicanism and democracy always get mixed up and so have to be explained. It is not NPOV to explain them. At present the article is full of references to liberalism, and indeed I agree with Ultramarine that the article should explain Social Democracy, Democratic Socialism, Christian Democracy. (add "industrial democracy" too).Rjensen 12:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
You have not answered to other arguments above. Please do. We can certainly add a short section regarding different political schools. However, it violates NPOV to have several sections describing the particular variant of Republicanism that you think it the only correct one. I cannot see that the article is filled with references to liberalism. In fact, I cannot find a single link to this.Ultramarine 13:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
How does it violate NPOV to have an accurate, fully sourced discussion of an important topic? It is not true that there are multiple different republicanism. (Of course different authors emphasize different aspects.) The Wiki rule is that when there are multiple interpretations: we should report all the important variations. And we do, with discussions of liberty, upper chanbers, aristocracies, monarchies, civic virtue and corruption. (Is there a variant left out?--please tell us so we can put it in.)

As for liberalism, that is a different issue entirely. If an editor thinks article is deficient in liberalism please add information. Please do not make the article deficient in republicanism in order to "equalize" mediocrity. Rjensen 21:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, I have given many different views of what Republicanism is. Even one stating that it means opposing private gain. You are violating Wikipedia:NPOV by stating that your prefered version is the correct one. Also as mentioned earlier, do not delete sourced views you do not like, still undue weight to the US, and still not always page numbers in claimed sources. In addition, Republicanism has enormous undue weight now and you have given no explanation for why your prefered political school should have this much weight, except stating that there may be misunderstandings regarding the concept. If so, then a simple link to Republicanism should suffcie.Ultramarine 21:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Futhermore, why are you repeatedly deleting that initially those without property were excluded from the franchise in the US?. There is no need to have an exclusively pro-Republicanism (your variant) and pro-US article and exclude every other view.Ultramarine 21:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)A
The majority of adult male citizens in US could vote by 1776 (according to Brown and Brown 1955 and many other studies summarized in Dinkin 1978); the property restrictions in most places were nominal (most men owned property), and the last restrictions were dropped in Jacksonian era. (see Keyssar book on Right to Vote for elaborate detail). The article is notr "pro-Republicanism"--it merely describes what Republicanism was and relates it to democracy. There are numerous refs to republicanism elsewhere, such as Australia, but the US was the first and became the model for Latin America and Europe. Rjensen 22:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
But it was certainly a restriction of the franchise for some men and should be mentioned. It is one reason the Polity Project does not give the US a top score initially. Taking just one other issue, why must we explain Republicanism in great detail in this article? What is wrong with simply stating "Republicanism and Liberalism have a complex relationship to democracy and republic. See these articles for more details".Ultramarine 22:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
yes the restrictions can be mentioned, but the article strangely spends very little on voting restrictions in different countries. You should add something on that point. (What countries allow non civitens to vote? for example, or the history of restrictions in Britain.) The problem on the 2nd suggestion is twofold: the other article do not spend much time on the democracy issue. And democracy itself gets confused with liberal democracy and repiblicanism. That is where clarity is needed.
The reason we mention the US in more detail is because its early democracy. We should also mention the early restrictions. No need to list this for every nation. Unfortunately, just deleting this makes that article look exclusively pro-US. If Republicanism does not spend much time on the relationship to democracy, why not correct it in that article and simply link to it from this article? It seems a very serioius omission if that article does not discuss this.Ultramarine 22:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I have corrected the problem you state in the Republicanism article by adding your text on this in this article there. So now there should be now problem with making the brief statement above, in addition to the the proposed text on democracy and republic, which respects NPOV, is sourced, and does not have undue weight to some view. Much of the above discussion is about what Republicanism is and should be discussed in that article. I hope this will satify all. If the current dispute continues about what Republicanism is, I will have to start doing extensive editing of the Republicanism article, which has many problems, but I would prefer for someone else to do this.Ultramarine 01:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I will be extensively rewriting the Democracy article to correct its many weaknesses especially ignoring minority rights, civil rights, the democratic spirit, and liberalism. Rjensen 01:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Fine. Please respond to the suggestions and arguments above.Ultramarine 01:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
The democracy article is full of unsourced speculation that has to be removed. I'm working at that now. As for stripping out the republicanism business, I think that is not a service to users. Rjensen 01:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
You are adding unsourced speculation and your personal opinions. Please respond to why you are selectively excluding the limited franchise, why you are deleting sourced views you do not like, why you insist on undue weight for the US, and why you still still not always give page numbers in claimed sources. In addition, expain why Republicanism should have enormous undue weight.Ultramarine 01:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Ultramarine and I agree that unsources, speculative and POV material cannot be allowed. The democracy article is full of unsourced stuff taken from who-knows-where. It ios totally wrong about English history (and Slavic too). Passages that fail the #1 Wiki test of verifiability will be deleted.Rjensen 01:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the article is now am unsourced pro-Republicanism piece expressing your personal opinoins and deleting and excluding all opposing views. Why are you refusing to give an concrete answers to my objections above? Please respond to them.Ultramarine 01:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I made a lot of changes. What objections do you now have? Rjensen 01:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Some examples: You have simply deleted large parts of the history section. Why? You deleted that sortition is a form of democracy. Are you seriously arguing that Athens was not a democracy? Why are you not explaining why ýou are deleting all negative info about the US, like the lack of property rights?Ultramarine 01:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Bad unsourced history is unacceptable. Wiki first rule: reliable sources needed. Much of the history was simply false--about democracy in medieval or in monestaries period for example. I did not say Athens was not a democracy; it is included and has a link to the full article on Athenian Democracy. And yes, property restrictions are back in as per request. Rome as democracy??? Medieval Russia as democracy?? Not likely (and of course, zero sources). Rjensen 02:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
You deleted some sourced material. Why? Again, why did you delete that sortition is a form of democracy? Why did you delete that some tribal assemblies have been described as democratic, like the Iroquois? What was incorrect with long material about Athens and England that you deleted? Why are you violating NPOV by stating in the intro that one particular definition of democracy is correct when there are many competing? Why are you selectively keeping unosurced pro-Republicanism and unsourced pro-US information? Why should the article have an extremely long section on your own preferred political view, Republicanism, when this material is covered in the Republicanism article? Ultramarine 02:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Why are you violating NPOV by again insisting that there is only one definition on Republicanism and that it should be mentioned in the article? Why did you delete the sourced statement that democracy today usually is assued to be liberal democracy? Ultramarine 08:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original Greek

User comment: notice that someone has changed this article by excluding the original Greek words of the term 'democracy' written in greek alphabet. Let the one who made the original article bring it back.

[edit] Some Facts

(PURELY THEORETICAL) Notice these facts:

1. Democracy - people (culturological domains) rule themselves the way they see fit.

2. Hegemony - some organisation superimposes and rules over multiple culturological domains.

3. Democracy is an anthonym of hegemony (the sole purpose of existance of that term).

Paradox: according to above written facts, how can for example United States of America, or European Union, or indeed a whole Latin writting (Roman-catholic) domain be democracy? (one organisation superimposes rule over multitude of nations, which by definition implies hegemony, which by logic excludes democracy; further more they are all saying that membership in their hegemony is a matter of free choice, yet, if you pay attention to details you will notice that in some cases they indeed perfidiously force other culturological domains into submission)

(Just commenting on what are facts regardless of mine or anybody else's oppinion.)

The democracy article neds some quality upgrades. Ultramarine has been citing pocket dictionaries instead of serious scholarship: reliable sources only please. Rjensen 08:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I am citing Merriam-Webster, often considered the most important dictionary among writers. Certainly an important view for what words mean. In addition I have cited other sources.Ultramarine 08:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
No the pocket dictionary is not good enough for Wikipedia when there are more reliable sources. (It's a tertiary source like another enyclopedia and Wiki rules warn against that). Rjensen 09:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Again, it is not a pocket dictionary. I cite many different sources, what is usually considered the most important diotionary among writers is an important view regarding what words mean. Wikipedia:Reliable sources accepts tertiary sources, even if a dictionary is a tertiary source, which is questionable.Ultramarine 09:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki rule#1 reliable sources only

Sections that do not have solid reliable sources will be deleted--a democracy after all, has to follow the rules.

Yes. Pleae explain why you delete sourceds statements, like that democracy is usually considered to be liberal democracy today, and insist on that your own prefered version of what Republicanism is should be stated as the truth when sources show many different views.Ultramarine 09:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable sources states: "When wikipedians have the ambition to write a better encyclopedia entry than those extant, it does not suffice to rely on the content of such tertiary sources. Therefore, in general, as primary sources are also to be treated with caution (see above), secondary sources are the stock material on which Wikipedia articles depend for their references." As for the dictionaries, it is much better to rely on a serious unabridged dictionary, especially the OED, which is MUCH more useful on historical materials, rather than ones intended for college students that downplay historical usage. Rjensen 10:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Please do not avoid answering the questions above, you deleted material using other sources. Regarding dictionaries, it is answered in the section above.Ultramarine 10:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fulfilled Request

[edit] Fulfilled Request

As requested in the priority one to do list since May 14th 2006 for this article I have taken action to implement on September 29th 2006. Please read, discuss, and keep as the consensus of the group here sees fit. I plan to immediately begin work on the next to do list at priority one. Absolutely no worries at all. Neutralaccounting 03:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC) (re-edited to match generic respose template)

I see no need for this. There are more than 150 nations in the world. I do not think there is room to list all of them. Furthermore, original research and personal opinions should be avoided. For example Freedom House gives a published list of the state of democracy in the world's nations in their report Freedom in the World 2006.Ultramarine 22:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
It was on the top of To Do list and which was listed as a priority one request!. I took several hours out of my time over two days to fulfill this to do request. If you don't like it, then have the To Do list changed.. Don't waste my time that I have to fulfill priority one requests. Neutralaccounting 22:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Changed. It would certainly be possible to discuss this but it is very difficult to avoid orginal resarch, personal opinions, edit wars, and even agree on what "democracy" is. For example, some people think that Cuba is democracy according to some particular definition of democracy. Few nations will admit that they are not democratic. The best place to discuss in detail if a nation is democratic or not is probably on pages related to that nation, like Cuba and democracy and Elections in Cuba.Ultramarine 22:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
There are other priority one requests on other to do lists that require my attention. Neutralaccounting 03:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Constitutional Monarchy Section

Hi, just dropping in and I thought I would mention that the constitutional monarchy section seems to concentrate quite a lot on australia and on hardly anything else. Zoanthrope 18:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] US history of democracy, 1960s

What is the problem with that proud US history??

[edit] Replaced vandalized phrases (obscenities) with correct words from most recent correct revision.

I'm just having a blast reading about Socrates, Plato and Aristotle and I clicked the democracy link from the Socrates article... low and behold some troglodyte has edited a few words in the article and put in profane names for body parts. I couldn't just leave them, but not knowing how to "rollback" I just looked at the original text before the vandalism and put the correct words back. Keep up the good work Wikiens - I visit at least once a day, usually more often, to learn something new!

[edit] Rome, Dutch, some comments

I noticed some problems with the article I'd like to try to correct at some point. First off, the word democracy might be Greek, but surely the idea has a longer history and can be found in primative tribal government and so forth. The article should start off by discussing what democracy is an isn't according to Aristotle and the various other thinkers on this subject. Second, Rome was not a representative democracy. The Senate was made up of former elected officials who held office for life. In contrast, Athens had a representative legislature called the Council of Five Hundred (chosen by lottery). Finally, there is a gap between the Middle Ages and the 18th century when some rather important developments were taking place. (BTW, 1688 is not the Middle Ages). Where is the Reformation, the Dutch Republic or Calvin in Geneva?

[edit] Freedom House

I don't know why there isn't a map showing all the states in the world that 'claim to be democratic'. This is an article on democracy, not a liberal democracy. So why is the only map in the article that horrid Freedom House map showing "partly free" and "free" states. Freedom House's articles on the rights of people in different countries is good, but this article deals with democracy not freedom. Furthermore I'm of the opinion that having this as the only map and so early in the article is just adding an unnecessary POV. People see this map and notice that Russia is "not free", so they might think it's a dictatorship, but it actually *is* a democracy (though perhaps a very corrupt one). So here's what I think;

  • The Freedom House Map should not be the only map of 'democracy' in the article. (It's about freedom not democracy, they aren't the same).
  • A map should show which countries "claim to be democratic". It could distinguish in two colours; those that claim to be democratic (like North Korea) and those that claim to be democratic and allow opposition parties (like Russia). That's whether opposition parties are allowed in theory or not.

Both maps would just give more information to the reader. Kyle sb 15:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I vote a strong Yes. BruceHallman 15:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Added map.Ultramarine 16:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

hello tesa

The standard should be whether the top decision-making positions are subject to election, either directly or indirectly, and whether these elections are seriously contested. China calls itself a "people's democratic dictatorship." There are "opposition" parties, but they are run by the government and play little or no role in elections. Egypt is classified as democratic on the map, but Egypt's real opposition parties are illegal and the one that participates in elections (the Wafd) has been co-opted by the ruling party. And what about Iran? It has a "supreme leader" chosen by clerics and elections in which the candidates are vetted on an ideological basis. These have become such a joke that the opposition didn't even bother participating in the last one.
Where is a change of government through elections a serious possibility? I would say only in countries where the job of the number one decision-maker is subject to election and where the ruling party gets less than 90 percent of the vote.
Kauffner 13:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

hi i am a 7th grader doing a project on democracy!

[edit] Question on Criticism

[edit] A Question Concerning Democracy

I disagree with democracy solely because it could in many respects be characterized as a popularity contest marked by inefficiency, illogical or destructive decision making, and incompetence. Is there any sort of group or word that embodies or agrees with that viewpoint? Robinson0120 10:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

A chess grand master will always beat the joint effort of general public. However, it is more important to understand, that there is no alternative to democracy regarding the destiny of the planet and mankind YouTube - Chomsky speaks about human destiny. It is important to understand that the negative properties you bring up here are inherent to the psychopathic monsters who kill the life in the interests of dominating bourgeois, as explained in The Corporation. In fact, these are capitalists, our ruling class, who produces and controls the irrational consumers, which must make uninformed (controlled) choises, including marketed candidates. The capitalises are effective killing our green planet and people for profit. There is no crime they would not commit to maximize profits. The environment, social and labour protection, health care, public education and libraries — all these achievements are made by demos in struggle against the greedy governing owners. When people do not control their destiny, they are turned into slaves and the miserable wages of the biorobots prevent further technological advance. I beleive that there is always a true beauty and it is objective rather than subjective; that is, if some thing is better (more natural, optimal) for you then it will also be for the others (given we all have the same interests and education level). Just stop deceiving people by entertantment and use TV for educational purposes. Democracy is a serious work indeed, it is not voting for the fascist marketed candidates and exulting: "Hey, we are democracy, lets liberate Iraq, Iran and Venesuela by droping more bombs and white phosphorus on these barbarians!!!" Incidentially, the advertisment's purpose is killing your competitor by propaganda agencies rather by making better things, and therefore, should be banned as any tool of deception. Look at science and engeneering -- where people creatively explore and construct things they feel they need. They operate according to plans, despite the result is not unknown. Any development needs a plan. And the single plan will be good for all, it will be objective and people will agree. The meaning of human life is to advance the society by contributing the culture (knowledge). And that is why the independent indiviluals (anarchists) invoke for a rational social plan. There is only one objective, there is only one criterial of beauty (the minimum of resouse/energy waste in doing something useful), there is only one society. Unfortunately, the socialsm is unreliable in the face of capitalism which always undermines it. So there is always a group -- the dominating elite, which always considers the power of society/demos as a threat to their prosperity/property. But in addition to democracy, the capitalists also dislike the competition, leaving it for poor. Excuse me for a long message. The validity of your viewpoint is dependent on the point it is viewed from -- the consciousness (interests and intelligence) of the individual who you oppose to the group. --Javalenok 21:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

That certainly was a long reply. Let me take a few minutes (seemed to turn into hours) to respond to what you said.

First I'll discuss Noam Chomsky's statements. I have heard that he is a left-wing lunatic from a few sources and a brilliant activist from others. I personally think his comments are eloquent and thought provoking, but are also opinionated. Take, for example, this quotation:

"At this stage of history, either one of two things is possible: either the general population will take control of its own destiny and will concern itself with community interests, guided by values of solidarity, and sympathy and concern for others; or alternatively, there will be no destiny for anyone to control."

That's an incredibly strong statement. Only one of two outcomes are possible concerning today's modern events? Why should it be necessary that the "general population" concern itself with its community, especially since Chomsky later refers to the community as being the "global community" probably due to the process of globalization? Do starving children in Africa belong to this "general population?" What about developing countries that are trying to gain a foothold in trade and business? It's very noble to speak of environmental protection, moral duties concerning life and liberty, and other such concepts, but one also has to consider differences. Industrialized nations can say that we need to stop polluting the environment, ensure freedoms, and protect our rights; but what can developing countries say? Do they have the choice to turn to alternative energy? Do they have the resources? Do they have stable governments that allow freedoms? If not, how will they form these governments? Through revolutions? If so, will they be peaceful or violent? Policies and neglect in African states are prime examples of so called human rights abuse. Furthermore, how exactly is one to go about concerning itself with community interests? America donates momentous sums to African states, yet that money never seems to end up in the hands of the people, instead landing in the hands of what some would call tyrannical dictators. One cannot ignore differences and circumstances when making such a bold assertion, that only one path or another can be followed. It seems by these statements that I'm only addressing that first statement, though, (in a tangential manner) so I'll move on to my other comments.


"The question, in brief, is whether democracy and freedom are values to be preserved or threats to be avoided."

This statement is particularly troublesome. It asserts, whether intentionally or not, that democracy and freedom are linked. Even under the most tyrannical of dictators there are always civil freedoms. For example, under Stalin (who many consider as such), the rights of women improved. One could argue that democracy is the only system under which a great majority of rights can be guaranteed or even possible, given that Europe, Japan, and America, regions where freedoms are arguably most bountiful, are democratic nations. This, however, is an error in logic, because specific types of government such as meritocracy, so called enlightened despotism, and even anarchism have never truly seen the light of day, especially not in the twenty-first century. My biology teacher opens up the mind of our class to a number of interesting concepts, one of them being the fact that you cannot judge the veracity and success of a system merely by its outcome. I am quite certain that a specific term of logic refers to this concept, but I do not know of its exact title. In any event, my point is that tying democracy and freedom together, following with a suggestion that elite capitalist thought is against freedom itself is an error in logic and fact.

That's all I'm going to say for Chomsky's arguments (Which took me more time than I'd originally planned to spend...). Now on to your main argument.

"It is important to understand that the negative properties you bring up here are inherent to the psychopathic monsters who kill the life in the interests of dominating bourgeois, as explained in The Corporation. In fact, these are capitalists, our ruling class, who produces and controls the irrational consumers, which must make uninformed (controlled) choices, including marketed candidates."

Calling the ruling class psychopathic seems a little extreme, but I'm not worried about that. My main concern is the statement "which produces and controls the irrational consumers, which must make uninformed (controlled) choices, including marketed candidates." The plain fact that both of us are discussing this topic disputes that because we are making our own choices and statements which are, quite frankly, far different than the choices of any ruling class I've ever seen. Furthermore, we are, at least moderately, informed about some aspects of the topic and its ramifications. I see plenty of human sheep, if you'll excuse the insult, in my daily life (which consists mainly of home and school, but is something of an indicator), and even some of those individuals have some thought of their own which conflicts with that of the ruling class (that is to say, some ideas which are perceived to be "moral" [Like abstinence and certain laws], which one could probably attribute to elite thought, although there are quite a few morals that are basically fundamental to human civilization). To insinuate that any organization could control individuals on such a wide and massive scale to such a degree cannot be right, because there will always be at the least a minority that does not follow convention- which is, once again, why we are discussing this subject. I have one question with the statement "marketed candidates;" are you referring to political candidates? If so, I will have to disagree with that as well, because you are always eligible to vote for a non-partisan candidate- in fact, you can always vote for yourself. "The capitalists are effectively killing our green planet and people for profit. There is no crime they would not commit to maximize profits."

I always thought are planet was more of a blue shade when seen from space. Anyways, to say that capitalists are killing the planet is somewhat erroneous. That same biology teacher I referred to brought up another point concerning the environment that made me think: that any effects of humanity on the planet are quite natural because we are organisms. In other words, our adaptations (namely our intelligence and its products) are natural creations born of our mind and effort. Therefore, one could also argue that whatever murder we commit is a natural consequence. Furthermore, is it really possible for us to "kill" our planet? The dinosaurs and other prehistoric life were wiped out by a number of simultaneous events, yet we stand (or sit) here today, essentially new kids on the metaphorical "block" of life. The best we could do to kill would involve the use of nuclear bombs and biochemical agents, and how much greater are those tools than meteors, floods, or storms? Life would remain, and would repopulate the Earth. In time, the effects of radiation would disappear and the world would simply begin anew. This is, of course, all conjecture, but it is quite theoretically possible (according to my limited understanding; I'm only 15, anyways, so take it with a grain of salt). Also, there must be some crimes that capitalists would not commit; for example, genocide of the human race- then they wouldn't exist anymore. It is also shaky to speak of "crimes-" in America, it would be a human rights violation to mutilate a woman's genitals, whereas in parts of Africa and the Middle East it is an accepted practice. It is somewhat interestingly not a crime to remove the foreskin from a male baby, however, which some consider mutilation. One should consider what actually constitutes a "crime-" I believe crimes, and morals, while we're at it, are mostly a product of society and probably elite thought, which personally seems to reduce the credence that either have.

I'll skip ahead to this statement: Democracy is a serious work indeed, it is not voting for the fascist marketed candidates and exulting: "Hey, we are democracy, lets liberate Iraq, Iran and Venezuela by dropping more bombs and white phosphorus on these barbarians!!!"

I agree; Democracy is a serious work. For a moment, let us assume that true democracy were instituted during the early 1900's in the United States of America, and somebody posed the question of whether or not to lynch a black man who reportedly raped a white woman, with only the testimony of the white woman and black man to decide. What would happen to him? I suppose the answer should be fairly obvious, but it may depend on the location. He might have lived in one of the Northern states, but his chances would be slim (most likely zero) in a Southern one. Furthermore, what would happen if everyone in the entire country voted on the issue? Would they have the time? Could they meet the costs? I believe that democracy at a local level is probably an excellent idea, but a state level is a different story. Furthermore, your statement implies that all of those who vote for the "fascist marketed candidates" agree with the following statement, which I am inclined to doubt. After all, not everybody that votes could feel so strongly about remaining in and fighting in Iraq, since so many Americans are currently disgusted with that precise subject and want American troops to leave Iraq as soon as possible.

Incidentally, the advertisement's purpose is killing your competitor by propaganda agencies rather by making better things, and therefore, should be banned as any tool of deception. Look at science and engineering -- where people creatively explore and construct things they feel they need.

Isn't "banned" a strong word? Don't the people that make those advertisements, regardless of their intent, have a constitutional right (in the United States of America) to freedom of speech, provided that they aren't explicitly interfering with another's rights? Besides that point, science and engineering have not only resulted in constructive creations, but in weapons of death and destruction, in nuclear weapons, gunpowder, swords, poisons, with the list stretching on and on. One could probably say that technology began with weapons, since some of the first human tools must have been used to hunt. Using science for peaceful technology other than architecture is a more modern concept than its use in weaponry. And what if one were to feel that they needed to create artificial life? Would there be ethical concerns governing such creations? Would said creations have rights? Once again, it is one thing to speak of goodness and morality, but quite another to actually consider long term ramifications and possible outcomes.

I'll add to one last comment: The validity of your viewpoint is dependent on the point it is viewed from -- the consciousness (interests and intelligence) of the individual who you oppose to the group.

Since I actually can't make heads or tails of this, I ask that you clarify exactly what you meant if you ever again reply. From what I can gather, you are saying that the validity of my viewpoint depends on the individual asked. If that is so, I guess I'll have to agree- validity in the mind of the individual must certainly be dictated by that individual's thoughts and beliefs.

I'm going to go ahead and wind up this entry now; it's probably important to say that I wasn't trying to attack with my arguments, although I did try to add my characteristic sarcasm to them. Sorry if I offended you with any statements, and I hope to see a reply or another entry, if anyone feels like doing so.

Side Note: I noticed that the title was changed to Collective vs. Master. I'm changing it back to A Question Concerning Democracy because this was the original intention of my statement- Collective vs. Master sounds like a David and Goliath kind of title to me.Robinson0120 00:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

At first listen to Parenti. Throughout the history, white man was bringing 'civilization' to the rest of the world. So, it is not surprising that the Africa is under-/mal-developed today. In fact, the funds are used not to help people but to undermine the social governments and independence movements and grab the capital (resourses) and to keep labour cheap. Look at the CIA activities. The governments are unstable because they are undermined. They do not have resourses because they are stolen. The developing counties cannot say 'we should stop polluting' because average chinees comsumes 10 times less energy and africanees 300 times less energy than one american citizen. The USA (1/20th of worlds population) consumes 30% of the oil. So stop looking at when developing countries will reduce their consumption before reducing your appetites. In the last 100 years the pretext 'civilization' was replaced by 'democratization'. You want to democratize Cuba, Russia, Iran, Venesuela, granting billions of $$ on this the but in fact you want ther resourses (the capital) and cheap labour. That is the essense of capitalistic expansion -- the imperializam. Read about imperializm and Chomsky at [21].
In fact, the lunatics are those who live in the virtual world created by mass media. Chomski's works discover the control of public mind, particularily his Manufacturing Consent. I also recommend to listen "The Lazy Law and Social Control" by Michael Parenty talking how police attacs workers and pro-democratic, anti- (-narco, -rasist, -war) leaders in USA killing and enjailing them. You are free to manifest as long as you are marginal and is not threat to the rulers. The propaganda will be easier to see, once you undetstand the hidden atrocities happening. Investigate why palestinians blow themselves [22], Peace, Propaganda & The Promised Land video.
Genocide is a favorite mean of capitalization/colonization. Look at Vietnam -- 3 mln people killed by napalm, chemical and biological weapons which are allowed to use by americans. CIA-financed war in Angola -- 2 million killed. Iraq -- a million killed in the last 20 years. You are lableled lunatic by the mainstream when you point to ongoing genocide of kurds in Turkey, Turkey's seizure of Kipr, while Iraq is not allowed to return the Kuweit, when you find it strange that Yougoslavia is not allowed to retaliate on the attacs of Kosovo Liberation Army from Albania while it is OK for USA-armed Israel, which detains thouthands of palestinians in its secret prisons without any charge, to ruin a half of Lebanon for detention of two its solders on Lebanon territory.
The astrobiologist Carl Sagan has discovered that the temperature on Venus is about 700C higher than it should be due to vicinity to Sun because of the greenhouse gas positive feedback: the higher is tempr the more gases in the atmosphere the hotter is the more gases and so on. So raising the temperature a couple of celsius causes thermal catastrophe, preventing any revival. Secondly, even if people vanish and later the intelligent live reappears, it will need oil to recreate the technology. As biologist, you should know that the oil and gas are fossilized procariotes which have lived 4--1.5 billon years ago preceeding the usual organic life. We are at the peak of the growing oil production and it will end in 20 years. How do you think the next civilization will be built without the oil and ores? Look for the Sagan's Cosmos video. He was enthusiast behind SETI project and predicts that the probability that intelligence apperars and develops technologically on any given planet is quite high. The single factor which drops the probability dramatically is self-destruction of the technologically developed civilization. This is how the silence of Universe explained. It is basically criminal act to justify destruction of our unique world by intelligent organisms using the "shit just happends" argument. I have to mention that the "anything what is happening is natural" argument contravenes your pro- intelligent development position.
Though most of americans want to withdraw troops, they feel that the "liberated iraqies" should not be left. The troops are going to be withdrawn just because too many americans are dying and the war is too costly. A dead american solder costs $400000. Meantime, the killed iraqies are not counted. Americans yet do not understand that the "terrorists" are the iraqi resistance who do not want their country under control of american oil cartels. Learn that Iraq did not organize the 9/11 nor produced WMD. These are americans, who produce and use WMD and terrorists, without any restriction. For instance, the educational system in Pakistan was dismountled under american control in 70ies and madraces were insitituted. Read the history of Ireland -- britans genocided their neigbours under the same "they are stupid and agressive barbarians and need our control" pretext [23]. USA military actively developes pilotless war robots. Using machines instead of troops, american democrats will be happy -- establishing civilization and freedom will be much cheaper and «iraqi interestes» will not be treasoned by the withdrawal.
The viewpoint is dictated not only by "thoughts and beliefs". The fi(t)ness of solution also depends on your goals. If they are to stay in power by manipulating others' mind, you should go on discouraging the plebs from participating in democracy (controlling their destiny). --Javalenok 13:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Democracy -- the biggest myth of modern times

The criticism tells that some groups are opposed to democracy. But the democracy shuold serve people and nature, I suppose, and the pro-people groups are the left ones. The left is opposed by the profit right, not only the far-right (the fascism). So why it is not allowd to tell that capitalism defeats democracy? When political parties are financed by the commertial ones, when capital interfere between candidates and the people effectively decoupling the demos from the political process, the capital overtakes the real state power. The wealthy minority takes control over the general majority in quite natural way in self-developing process: the business elected itself into power gains more state subsidies and accumulates more resourses allowing to buy more state power on the next election. After several iterations, the big business is indistinguishible from government -- the influence of the pro-people left is completely eliminated. It is also natural that the corporate government sets up the policy to protect the prosperity of the minority from the majority and serve its profit interests, which is acieved by enslaving the society to transfer the public property and wealth produced by people into private capital of dominating elite through big business subsidies and such affairs. The business also increases profits by abridging social programs (cuting wages, public education, heath care, social and environment protection) and investing into anti-social businesses (like military complex, tobaco, ..., marketing and overconsumption), effectively degrading society and nature. That is, profits of few are made by parasitizing on the society, destroying it Welfare for the Wealthy. For these antisocial reasons, the dominating minority interests are directly opposed to general public, which are the culture and nature, I suppose. The bourgeois dictatorship (corporatism, imperialism, fascism, polyarcy -- call it as you like) preveils the modern world. The current system is a polyarchy, at best Chomsky - America is not a Democracy. They use democracy as a veil and excuse to overthow "not democratic" governments all over the world to capture the global weath. The 'democracy' in its current form is a greatest threat to the life existance on the Earth. The bourgeois use propaganda, which pervades their mass communication, to decieve, indoctrinate and manipulate the stupid majority. If the wikipedia is really a free encyclopedia, it must address this most widespread and monstrous lie in the world. --Javalenok 21:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Further weaknesses

As far as I'm concerned the only valid form of government is democracy but that doesn't mean that it isn't flawed. One of the things that often bothers me is how qualified or unqualified the people are who are voting. The election campaigns are often executed based on the most primitive issues and often have little realistic political content. This sort of behaviour is encouraged by the fact that many people are not terribly interested and are happy reading newspapers, which live by printing equally primitive headlines. Obviously a selected group of voters is invalid and that would no longer count as a democracy anyway, however there are perhaps ways to encourage a more constructive use of the right to vote. Voting is a privilege and I believe it is perhaps one that we have to earn in part, otherwise the privilege is used carelessly, e.g. "my family has always voted XYZ and that's not going to change now!". Perhaps each voter must fill out a multiple choice test* of say 30 questions that needs to be completed along with the vote. The test would evaluate how qualified the voter is and would be used for weighting his/her vote. This should have the affect that the voter is motivated to know more about what he/she is actually voting for. Since the public would then be more focused on politics, this should carry on to the parties to base their election campaign on politics rather than meaningless personal issues. Furthermore this would force the media to raise their standards and be more constructive otherwise they'd go out of business due to lack of public interest. *Obviously the test needs to be put together by an independent group and must contain questions that were kept secret until the vote.

A further issue I have with democracy is the problem that the party in power is forced to make decisions for short term projects. Anything long term that produces cost in the short term and provides benefits only in the long term is often an unpopular decision. As a result responsible long term projects are often under financed or not approved at all. Instead the governing parties often aim for projects that return suboptimal results in the short term. However perhaps this problem exists primarily due to how fickle and unsure the general public can be, and this is perhaps helped by encouraging people to know more about what their government is trying to do (e.g. with the above idea). 212.48.126.140 13:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

This concept was explored in the novel Starship Troopers by Heinlein. Only people who joined the military and successfully completed their training were eligible to vote. Not sure if it falls within the scope of the article for inclusion though. --Zero g 13:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Cool. However the idea is neither about being eligible to vote nor is it based on what institutions the voter has been involved with. It would be a weighting of the vote based on the person's political competence and not if he/she has "done the right things", which would be very questionable indeed.212.48.126.140 15:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Good points, 212.48.126.140. That multiple choice questionnaire would probably be a good idea, but you also have to take into account how long that would take. Even if they did make one, there's also no guarantee that it wouldn't be flimsy in design or that the individuals taking the test wouldn't just mark a few answers so they could vote. Nice point about the political issues, too. The way I see it, if we wanted to optimize democracy we would do away with parties, because they cause a great deal more problems than they solve and because they are used for little more than classification. "He's just a Republican," or "That's because he's a liberal" floats around WAY too often. There should also be some definite guidelines to actually become a candidate, for example, certain training and score qualifications, comprehensive understanding of history, politics, and other subjects like sociology (which I highly doubt most of our presidents, if any, really have/have had). If you're going to be leading a country, you should be able to analyze the mistakes and success of previous leaders and tailor your plans accordingly. Democratic systems also seem to have poor bureaucracies. Note that we all seem to be discussing American (or possibly European) democracy as well, and are not even factoring in other states that actually use it. Add in the fact that there are is a huge stretch of other topics and factors we haven't even discussed and you wind up with quite a problem. I'm fairly certain that the political institutions we've installed thus far haven't even come close to upper level efficiency, but addressing and fixing the actual problems that afflict such systems is a difficult task indeed. (Was I ranting again?)Robinson0120 22:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

At first, the mass communication is owned by ruling class, so analyzing it you'll conclude that more profit for burgeous, further cutting of social programms, advancing globalization (= thirdworldization) are needed. Secondly, the right answers are those which support the rightwingers, the burgeous, the ruling dictatorship! I suppose that this quest for taking the control away from the de-educated labour is their job.--Javalenok 08:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It's Their Choice

If the people wish to make a decision you find bad, it is also what those people wished, and therefore not a bad decision to them, but what they wanted, and will probably turn out good for them, as they wanted it. As for the people who didn't want that to happen, majority rules. Tough luck. Move if you so wish.

Was this is a reply to my question? If so, I'll respond by saying that I don't believe in "majority rules." To me, it's a stupid concept. I'll use the argument I used above- is it still "tough luck" and "majority rules" if a black man were to be lynched in a white supremacist community for raping a white woman even if there were no evidence and proof to the contrary that he were not guilty? If casualties like that are part of such a glorious political system, I'd prefer not to adhere to it, and get into a position where more logical values could be expressed and instantiated. Furthermore, democracy is a political system and nothing more. Should the views of the people really matter when it comes to matters of governance? I of course don't hold the answer, but I think (at least at the moment) that the answer is no.Robinson0120 00:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/e/m/Talk%7EDemocracy_bcc4.html"
THIS WEB:

aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - be - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - closed_zh_tw - co - cr - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - en - eo - es - et - eu - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - haw - he - hi - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - ms - mt - mus - my - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - ru_sib - rw - sa - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - searchcom - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sq - sr - ss - st - su - sv - sw - ta - te - test - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tokipona - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu

Static Wikipedia 2008 (no images)

aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - bcl - be - be_x_old - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - co - cr - crh - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dsb - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - en - eo - es - et - eu - ext - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gan - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - hak - haw - he - hi - hif - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kaa - kab - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mdf - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - mt - mus - my - myv - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - quality - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - rw - sa - sah - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sr - srn - ss - st - stq - su - sv - sw - szl - ta - te - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu -

Static Wikipedia 2007:

aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - be - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - closed_zh_tw - co - cr - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - en - eo - es - et - eu - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - haw - he - hi - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - ms - mt - mus - my - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - ru_sib - rw - sa - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - searchcom - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sq - sr - ss - st - su - sv - sw - ta - te - test - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tokipona - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu

Static Wikipedia 2006:

aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - be - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - closed_zh_tw - co - cr - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - en - eo - es - et - eu - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - haw - he - hi - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - ms - mt - mus - my - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - ru_sib - rw - sa - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - searchcom - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sq - sr - ss - st - su - sv - sw - ta - te - test - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tokipona - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu