Talk:Democratization

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Globalization High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Globalization, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Globalization on Wikipedia. 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 see a list of open tasks.GlobalizationWikipedia:WikiProject GlobalizationTemplate:WikiProject GlobalizationGlobalization High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that an image or photograph of Democratization be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other websites.

Upload

My recent text on this page was quickly reverted with small amount of description of why it was done. Couple of questions: 1. There was a claim for OR. Could someone explain how many citations are expected per paragraph to keep my text ? 2. Also a claim for poor language. I thought Wikipedians should help each other if some parts of the text is poor. I doubt that Wikipedia articles arise from perfectly phrased paragraphs right at the start. Wikipedia was built to allow cooperation. Can you explain what language level expectation is required to participate on this Wikipedia page?

I would happily adjust my text according to the advices of the moderators of this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iley.power (talk • contribs) 07:16, 29 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. Sorry, I was a bit over-the-top in reverting your additions. I apologise. I mainly removed it because most of it was unsourced; You did include some sources, but they mainly addressed specific events such as the 2017 police strike, not democratic transitions as a whole. You could find some reputable academic sources that talk about democratic transition, and include those. TeraTIX 07:28, 29 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I changed quite a bit of bad wording in the "Mobility" section. A few run-on sentences, bad pluralization in the first sentence, and bad grammar and wording throughout. It didn't really make a whole lot of sense to the reader. I did not change any of the fundamental claims in the that section. Just the grammar and a couple of unnecessary words. Nihilianth (talk) 13:22, 9 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

The Economic factors - Main Heading

Economic development and modernization theory - Subheading

The subhead section "Economic development and modernization theory" is a mess. A lot of grammar problems and run on sentences throughout. It's such a mess, that I don't even know where to begin in editing this properly without having to change a lot of stuff around. I dont have the sources or research to properly rewrite it.

Is there a moderator who is paying attention and has this page flagged that might know someone who could rewrite it properly? Nihilianth (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

See discussion at Talk:Judiciary of Poland#Judicial independence in Poland. Whizz40 (talk) 09:31, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lukechartersreid.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Liberalization in autocracies was more likely to succeed in countries that had the advantage of a better starting point concerning political institutions, GDP, and education. These more privileged countries could also carry out key reforms more rapidly, and were able to do so even in areas in which they had no initial advantage. This indicates the presence of a "Matthew effect" in political science: to countries that already have, more is given.^[1][2][3] PzychoPat (talk) 16:00, 12 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

It's impressive to see the evolution of this article since its first version of 20:52, 29 September 2003 by an editor who made three edits on that day and then disappeared. What survived back then for seven months without even a single source URL (three academics' names were mentioned) now has 137 watchers, any unsourced statements are unlikely to survive for more than a few minutes, and overall the article is well structured and well sourced, even if improvements are possible. Ironically, a lot of the sources are closed access (secret sources of knowledge are contrary to the whole idea of democracy), but quite a few are open access; my prediction is that in 2043, chances are that most of the sources will be open access (the 10th anniversary of Aaron Swartz's decease comes up in a few days' time). Congratulations to everybody working on the article. :) Boud (talk) 12:22, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply