Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democrat Party (United States)

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

The result of the debate was Redirect to Democratic Party (United States). OK, this was a tough one. There is a lot to read here and consensus is not clear cut. A careful review of the material in the article itself suggests that there might be SOME value in some of it. By leaving it as a redirect, that material is accessible to people that want to move it to the target article. I have half an expectation that this will go to DRV, which is fine, I may be reading the sense wrong, but that's what it feels like to me. I welcome review by others. --++Lar: t/c 03:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Democrat Party (United States)

This is a polemic and not an encyclopedia article. One also notes that there are two links in the references, and the second of these links contradicts the thesis of this article. But that doesn't matter; this article has a thesis, and is thereby encyclopedic unencyclopedic. Deville (Talk) 22:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC) I guess everyone read my comments as carefully as I did  :-) --Deville (Talk) 01:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Note the history of this article, which started out as a redirect to Democratic Party (United States) which Rjenson turned into something else [1] whereas the current version acts as if it's about the Democratic Party and Democratic Party (United States) is for historical context. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 22:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Per nom ... biased opinion piece. After deletion, it should be changed back to a redirect to Democratic Party (United States) BigDT 22:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep with a massive, massive cleanup and NPOVing. The use of the term "Democrat Party" as a possibly pejorative term has been advanced by such popular scholarly hacks like George Lakoff [2] around the idea of political "framing" of issues. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • As the article itself states, another 'hack' includes William Safire (in a 1984 column):
    • "Who started this and when? Acting on a tip, I wrote to the man who was campaign director of Wendell Willkie's race against Franklin Delano Roosevelt. "In the Willkie campaign of 1940," responded Harold Stassen, "I emphasized that the party {...} should not be called a 'Democratic Party.' It should be called the 'Democrat party.' . . ." -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but cleanup as above. It looks to me like there are grounds for having an article about this phrase (as opposed to simply redirecting to Democratic Party (United States)), but this one needs a substantial amount of improvement to be brought up to standard. Terraxos 23:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete & Redirect. Including this article in an encyclopedia dignifies a perjorative talk-radio term that is always used disparagingly. I appreciate the cleanup and NPOV sentiment, but the topic is too controversal to be cleaned up or NPOVed. I believe it should be deleted for the sake of Wikipedia's integrity. Griot 23:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I wouldn't even call it a pejorative talk-radio term. I'd call it Southern Drawl. BigDT 23:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or revert to redirect. Obvious POV fork. There should be one article about the party. Fan1967 23:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge & Redirect I thought it was really called the Democrat party and Democratic was just an improper common useage. Nertz 23:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

*Cleanup, Merge & Redirect per Badlydrawnjeff and Nertz. -- FRCP11 00:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• • But I don't want it merged or redirected. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and edit for POV While I understand the concerns about including pejorative terms, I don't think they're necessarily valid, if the article does not display an overt bias. There are dozens of examples of pejorative terms that probably should be kept in WP, for documentation and to enhance understanding (see: nigger, kike).

Because this is documented, verifiable, and includes references to scholarly material, I think it is hard to argue that this article is, in itself, POV, though some of the material included in it should be reviewed to ensure NPOV stance (it is difficult to maintain such a stance in an inherently POV discussion, but we're not going to remove nigger, even if it takes a negative POV toward the use of the word--edit, perhaps, but not remove).

I think part of the perceived problem with this article is that it's also very close in name to another article. This is only a problem of perception--if the concepts are distinct (which in this case they are), the articles should be distinct. Merging should not be a course of action, nor is it a good compromise, since the terms are definitely distinct. Fearwig 00:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It can be as documented, verifiable, referenced, and scholarly as it wants, but if it's on a subject that isn't noteworthy, it shouldn't be included in this project. The material is already covered quite adequately on the real article on the party. Before material is even considered on grounds of NPOV and Verifiability, it must first pass the test of notability. This does not. Kasreyn 04:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Really? My google check for "Democrat party" and "pejorative" (which in itself is a very limiting term, with many possible synonyms) pulls up 999 links. That's not a small number at all, especially (as I said) considering the limiting factor of a term like "pejorative". I'd like to know from what objective basis you derived your claim that this does not pass the notability test. "Democrat party" with "offensive" pulls up 187,000 links. Note that a few of these links (especially the latter) also pull up sites that are actively using the term in a pejorative or negative light (saying, coincidentally, that the "democrat party" is doing something offensive, racist, whatever). That's as strong of proof as references to the term. [3]Fearwig 05:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Persuaded by Fearwig. Cleanup and Keep, but add disambiguation to top of article. -- FRCP11 00:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. This discussion may need a ballot-stuffing tag, judging by the recruiting going on for deletion. -- FRCP11 00:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I don't want to escalate any perception the commenter may have of 'vote stacking', but I'd be glad to refer the article to the editors I know of both right- and left-wing persuasion. This is the kind of thing that should be discussed openly with folks of all sorts of points-of-view (and hopefully folks with an interest in history and civics). I won't do so without approval/discussion though, in order to avoid any additional heat being added to the issue. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Take a look at my talk page if you have any doubt. Fearwig 00:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
        • • There's a little, but hardly mass spamming like I've seen elsewere. Derex 05:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
        • I don't understand your response. Shall we take the discussion to your talk page to avoid cluttering up the VfD? Thanks. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Sorry, I think it's significant. I was "recruited" to vote against this article on my talk page, which is how my attention was brought to it. I think the results of this vote will be less than representative of WP as a result. See User talk: Fearwig Fearwig 01:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
            • I am completely lost. What are you talking about? If editors are vote stacking, that's bad. If they are informing a broad base of editors with varying POV, I don't see the conflict. I don't think 'votes for deletion' are the exclusive purview of folks who watch the page. The difference is intent - to slant the results or just to broaden the base of the vote. I don't claim to know the political views of the folks who were contacted, so I can't say it's 'stacking'... but we definitely agree that stacking is certainly bad and not in the interests of WP. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
              • I was told "Our old friend Rjensen is up to his tricks again," or somesuch, presumedly because I had a drawn-out talk discussion on American History with Rjensen at some point. I feel that's a very biased way to advertise an AfD, though I don't know for sure it is vote stacking since he did suggest I "weigh in" and not "vote to delete". I wonder if he did a talk page search for Rjensen and contacted everyone who's argued with him? Sorry, I'm not usually a conspiracy theorist. Fearwig 01:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
                • Hehe. We just edit conflicted on this very phrase. I had the same response to the message on your talk page from Griot that (while clearly indicating his desire to delete) says he 'hope(s) you will weigh in on the topic'. That seems less than an outright attempt to instruct you on how to vote. Just my observation, you're welcome to your opinion (whether theory or fact), Fearwig. :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
            • The most important thing is whether this article has merits on its own. It is simply an attempt to create another "Democratic Party" article using the perjorative. I would not approve of a Republicrat Party article for the same reason. Neither term is more than dictionary definition that merits inclusion in the main article namely Democratic Party (United States) and Republican Party (United States) - See my other reasons below. I understand your objections to being recruited - but I wouldn't let that get in the way of looking out for Wikipedia and the project to provide the best information to the public at large we can. Misdirection articles like this one are not helpful. --Northmeister 01:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
            • I think that if it is notable enough for scholarly research to have been performed specifically on the subject, it is notable enough for WP. If I am mistaken in my understanding that it has, then I am perhaps mistaken on my vote. Fearwig 01:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
              • That's the problem. It is a term of reference for the Democratic Party - should be included in a brief synopsis on the Democratic Party (United States) page - and a redirect from Democrat Party (United States) should be restored as it was there originally. --Northmeister 01:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
                • Slight correction - it's a term of reference for a phrase used to describe both the Democratic Party and past iterations. Why make it brief if there's enough information to support a detailed article? --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge & Redirect The use of this phrase as a perjorative is notable and historical fact. An enlightening and historically-based commentary on this topic can be found here [4], [5]. The perjorative nature of the phrase is not, however, appropriate as a basis for maintaining a separate article. A redirect and mention of the use of the phrase as a perjorative is a perfectly acceptable topic for the main article, 'Democratic Party'. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't know that rantings on a blog count as "enlightening and historically-based commentary" BigDT 00:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment A commentary on a blog (the Washington Monthly, in this case, or a UPenn 'language log') does not diminish the words of William Safire, President Hoover, etc. to 'rantings'. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I don't know that just because information is gleaned from a blog it is automatically discounted. --kizzle 00:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge & Redirect per Ryan. --kizzle 00:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge & Redirect. Wikipedia is not a Dictionary. An article Democratic Party (United States) already exists on Wikipedia and treats the subject in the NPOV manner that it should be treated. Mention of that perjorative "Democrat Party" is okay in a criticism section of the Democratic Party article but does not warrant an article itself. The way the article reads now, it is as if it is about the Democratic Party in the United States and thus is a repeat of that topic. Since there is no Democrat Party and the term directly applies to the Democratic Party in the United States, it should be mentioned in that article and does not warrant an article of its own. Further, users of Wikipedia, especially children may be directed to the wrong article as a result of this article and not typing in the correct spelling. At best there should be a redirect to Democratic Party (United States)--Northmeister 00:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • That depends on the quantity of information available. I think it is a lacking article, but there is a great deal of information to be related, judging from the quantity of work that has apparently been done on the topic. I think the article should remove any similarity between itself and Democratic Party (United States) to focus on its distinction, however. Since your argument was not at all the rationale behind the nomination, I could not think it appropriate to vote "delete" on its basis, but it is your prerogative, of course. I agree that there should be a prominent redirect link, but not a redirect. Fearwig 01:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and Redirect No need to merge. The material is already adequately covered at the article on the Democratic Party. Refer to WP:NOTABILITY. This material does not deserve an offshoot article. Kasreyn 00:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and Redirect as per Kasreyn. ~ trialsanderrors 01:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete & Redirect as per numerous mentions above, deserve at most a mention in the Democratic Party article if even that, not an entire offshoot. Its used as a denigrating term also which is sad that some should feel the need to dedicate and maintain an entire article on a term republicans use to remove the association of democratic from Democratic Party. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 01:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete & Redirect Do we really need a separate article on the mispronuciation of something that already has its own article? --JW1805 (Talk) 01:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete & Redirect to Democratic party. The phrase isn't particularly notable. At the very least it ought to be renamed. There is no such thing as the "Democrat Party", so the title is highly deceptive. If kept, "Democrat Party (phrase)" would be better, per the recent Israeli apartheid (phrase). Derex 01:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I think that's reasonable, (phrase). --badlydrawnjeff

talk 02:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - the name is not significant (I am a lifelong member of the Democratic Party, and I have never seen or heard that name, except as a grammatical mistake) and I doubt that its use is widespread, even as an insult. Even if it was worthwhile, the page is way too long for a slogan. --Tjss(Talk) 02:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect per above. KleenupKrew 03:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect as per above. --InShaneee 03:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Fearwig--RWR8189 03:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - This is pointless. If this stays I might as well start my Neocons are Nazis page--8bitJake 03:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I (jokingly) propose a speedy, based on a clear and flagrant violation of Godwin's Law. This isn't exactly Goebbels and goosesteppers, here. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Isn't the party suppose to be the Democratic Party? Because the official name of the party is the Democratic Party of the United States. This article is just an act of vandalism against the article on the Democratic Party. Or maybe if we can't delete it, we can just merge it with the History of the Democratic Party, since the article tackles the party's old name during the 1930s to 50s. --Glenncando 08:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not trying to be aggressive, but I think that you misunderstand the article. The article is citing examinations of "Democrat Party" as a pejorative term for the "Democratic Party". Calling it insufficiently notable would be understandable, but vandalism it is not. It does have an excessive focus on the party itself, though, which is not conducive to its usefulness (and seems to reinforce the mistaken notion that it is supposed to be about the party itself, like Democratic Party (United States). Fearwig 20:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Democratic Party. This term alone isn't notable enough for an entire entry, it can be explained succinctly in the Democratic Party article. Other parties that used the name "Independent Democrat Party" or whatever should get an article to that effect and not fall under this catch-all. Bjsiders 13:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect. NPOV and rambling fork. -- GWO

• Delete - The reference is archaic, inappropriate and obfuscating in modern usage and serves no encyclopedic purpose.62.77.181.16 15:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

  What he or she said! Kasreyn 09:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Wouldn't that make it a political history article? Hmm... Fearwig 20:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep & edit per Fearwig; interesting as semantic history. And F and I haven't been seeing eye to eye so far, so this is not vote-stacking. <g> ♥ Her Pegship♥ 19:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and Redirect POV-fork; biased opinion piece. No need to merge. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect, fork. BryanG^(talk) 22:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect per Kasreyn. - Maximusveritas 22:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The article isn't an attack on the Democratic Party; it's a report of an attack on the Democratic Party. We do have articles on other pejorative political terms, such as Chickenhawk (politics). I don't favor merger because this particular petty nastiness by the Republicans isn't important enough in the overall history of the Democratic Party to deserve this much detail in the Democratic Party article. A separate article preserves the information without cluttering the main article. JamesMLane t c 23:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Finally, we disagree. Let the games begin. I agree with your characterization that this section is or should be a report on the Democratic Party rather than an attack itself, however my reasons for merge are because it would fit much better within the main Democratic Party article as a subsection, unless there is a large amount of significant and salient information that would justify a daughter article. Eat it, bitch. --kizzle 00:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I think there's good evidence that there is such information. Additionally, this much information does not need to be placed under the header of the Democratic Party (United States), as it is not so directly related to the party itself that it should be "required reading" for anyone researching the party itself. It is significant as a term, and for the history and secondary analysis of its use, not for its direct relation to the party itself. Fearwig 01:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't see that the article makes the case it's a significant term. Historically, it seems some have used it as a synonym, some have used it casually. George W Bush has used it, but let's face it, he's not exactly known for being a precise and careful speaker ;-). The Republican party seems to like it, but even they can't really say why, or what, if anything, it means. Fan1967 02:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Also, as it stands, James, your Chickenhawk example says right up front that it's a perjorative term, whereas this page starts going over the history of the Democratic party. If you're voting keep, you're also voting for substantial changes within the text, I assume? --kizzle 04:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
          • I know I am, and I think most others are. This is a badly written article, and a good plan for an article, with substantial information or potential sources of information to include. As for Fan1967: I think there's a good argument that it does mean something, specifically that the Democratic Party is not necessarily democratic. Additionally there is the uh, pun debate (if you can call it a pun)--googling the term brings up a lot of talk of the "DemocRAT Party", a further matter of possible discussion, though I'm not sure that there's as much established material on that specific aspect (there does seem to be on the original point). Fearwig 05:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
            • I agree that this article is badly written, but I think the topic lends itself to bad writing. It strains to have anything to say about this term, as it must, because there isn't really that much to say. The term is used by a handful of Republicans to complain about perceived faults in the Democratic Party. It's really a code word. It is very hard to write an objective article about a code word without using POV. A better place for "Democrat Party" is List of political epithets, where indeed it already is. Griot 18:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
              • Yes, kizzle, I agree with you that the article must report the attack as opposed to furthering it. The point you're making is that, as was so brilliantly stated on the article's talk page, an alternative term like this one "should be identified as a colloquialism or a political attack or whatever else distinguishes it from the correct name." JamesMLane t c 20:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
                • I try not to read previous discussions. It tends to provide for interesting and heated future discussions. As long as this article blatantly states, as the Chickenhawk article does, that "Democrat Party" is a perjorative term, than I'm ok with that.--kizzle 20:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per JamesMLane and cleanup as a number of others have said. I oppose the idea of a merger with the Democratic Party article, since this article is clearly talking about the use of Democrat Party as an oppositional term. The article is heavily referenced, and there is plenty of evidence gathered for the notability and importance (even if obscure) of the phrase and its use. It is badly in need of cleanup, though. ---Charles 04:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Delete or substantially change and shorten If kept, the article should be much shortened to eliminate redundant examples and should elaborate much more clearly the context of this variant name: (1) that it has a long history as an occasionally used name for the party, even by Democrats, (2) that its current usage is largely driven by Republican Party politicians, officials and partisans (aka "talk radio"), who have fastened on promoting this as their preferred name for their opponents, and (3) that almost universally in major reference sources and news media the name "Democratic Party" is standard usage, as it is by the party itself. A non-tendentious article along these lines may be possible, but the present article isn't it. I see (surprisingly) it has been done elsewhere, e.g. "Queer" and "Faggot (epithet}." RickDC 05:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

All or most of us agree that the current material is deficient. A vote for deletion is an indication that the article, as a concept, has no possible salvation. When an article is simply poorly written or lacks focus/neutrality, we rewrite it. This is a wiki, after all. Fearwig 15:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point about concept vs. execution. I'll change my fence-sitting then to Delete, since the justification for a separate article seems weak. As simply a variant name, it can be dealt with briefly in the main article for the Democratic Party, with a redirect, as has been done for the variant name "GOP." RickDC 21:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to make a counterintuitive argument now--GOP, being a semi-official name for the party, is more significant and more related to the actual Republican Party article. Thus it makes sense that it's included. While I think this article is sufficiently significant to host on Wikipedia (despite my usual tendency towoard uh, deletionism), it is not closely related to the topic of the party itself due to its use only as a pejorative euphamism. It is historically and politically significant as a reference, but not because it is a major issue relating to the Democratic Party (United States). It is a concept in its own right, one that references the party but which should not be included in an overview article of the party's history, platform, etc. As such, while I do not think it should be deleted, I think it is far better that it be deleted than merged. Fearwig 02:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep now that it has been cleaned up and expanded. Jonathunder 05:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

  Regardless of the cleanup, it is still insufficiently notable to merit its own article, or this level of detail. Kasreyn 09:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

  Can you objectively justify that assessment somehow? With notability tests perhaps? Fearwig 15:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

  From WP:NOTABILITY: A topic has notability if it is known outside a narrow interest group or constituency, or should be because of its particular importance or impact. The pointed use of, and controversy over, the term "Democrat Party" is not known outside a narrow interest group (devoted political partisans of either side), and has no particular importance or impact. It is about as notable as the term "jigaboo", which you will find redirects, quite appropriately, to List of ethnic slurs. Wikipedia has no need to have a separate article for every nasty term and slur someone has ever thought to call someone else. Likewise, there is no need to detail every attack against the Democratic Party which has ever been made with its own article. They have no relevance beyond a discussion of the Democratic Party itself (or possibly within a discussion of the Republican Party's actions regarding their opponents), and therefore the information should be found under the article on the Democratic Party. If it is appropriate to create an article for "Democrat Party", then it is also appropriate to create articles for "spendocrat" and "tax-and-spend liberal" and other pejoratives for Democratic Party members. Since such articles clearly would not be appropriate, we can by analogy safely presume that "Democrat Party" is not either.

  Wait. Okay, this means that were the human population to suddenly become stupider and more ill-informed, everything on Wikipedia would lose its notability! Okay, that's a joke--I'm not saying anyone that hasn't heard the term is an idiot, because that is pretty silly. But there is a whole lot of stuff on WP that you (and I) don't know yet. Might not have even heard of it. That doesn't make it worthless... in fact that's what makes it useful to begin with. I think the notability tests prove that this is significant, in that 1,850,000 sites on the Internet were created by people who knew the term, as well as 999 people who specifically stated that it is "pejorative". That far surpasses the notability of a great deal of the material on Wikipedia. I find it damn near impossible to claim this is not notable, as a result. Fearwig 02:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  As I've said before, I have nothing against the information or its sourcing, or its being included in Wikipedia. My vote for deletion is a matter of categorization of information, nothing more. This should be merged & redirected to Democratic Party. Kasreyn 02:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  P.S. you have changed my mind in one way - this article is now so informative and well-sourced that I no longer feel it should be deleted outright without merging. The main article on the Party could do with some of this material being added. The effort that went into creating this article should not all be thrown away. Kasreyn 02:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  "Jigaboo" very well possibly shouldn't reirect to the list. Considering the amount of sourcing available for this term specifically, it seems like it isn't a "narrow interest group" and has some significant impact. I'm not sure why you believe otherwise. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  I don't understand. On List of ethnic slurs, I only see one endnote providing sourcing for "jigaboo". In any case, I have no particular interest or opinion on the term. I only grabbed it for use in analogy. If it doesn't fit my case, I'd be happy to retract my usage of it. I will attempt to pick my analogies with more care in the future, but I don't feel my argument is in any way disproved. There are many examples available of details which lack notability beyond a narrow interest group. Cheers, Kasreyn 02:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  The point is just because you can point to example x, y, and z doesn't mean they should be that way, especially on Wikipedia. Meanwhile, you haven't demonstrated how this is a narrow term, especially in the face of overwhelming historical significance and real-world evidence. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  How which is a narrow term? I want to make sure we're on the same page here. Kasreyn 03:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  For the purposes of this discussion, "Democrat Party." --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Keep. This is the standard term used by the White House for the last 5 years. It has been the subject of scholarly articles and discussions for over 50 years. Will people hear this term on talk radio--or when President Bush gives an address? Yes. If they turn to Wiki they might learn a good deal of history that goes back 75 years. Rjensen 05:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The White House uses a pejorative term for the opposition party? That's just stupid. --kizzle 05:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

the White House website gives over 2000 hits for "Democrat" (mostly to Democrat as adjective); it usually saves "democratic" for foreign visitors. Note the adjective is NOT pejorative to all Democreats. Google shows 56,500 hits for "Democrat Club" --the great majority sponsored by Democrats. Rjensen 06:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

As you should know the term "Democrat" is used to describe someone in the Democratic Party, which is the official name of that party and should be honored here at Wikipedia. Further as you should know, any hits for "Democrat" must include description of members. But, the term "Democrat Party" is not widely accepted and when used is used a perjorative by the Republican Party or more so right-wing Republican's on talk radio. The honest thing to do here is redirect to the Democratic Party page and be done with it. As far as "Democrat Clubs" that makes perfect sense because people in the Democratic Party are called Democrats; but the PARTY is called the DEMOCRATIC PARTY and has been OFFICIALLY since JACKSON. This article needs to be redirected to the PROPER PAGE. --Northmeister 12:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The proper thing is that, when there's substantial evidence of a certain occurance such as this, that we have an article on it. A redirect will not do it justice, and, if you're concerned about an "honest" assessment of the Democratic party, a redirect will only serve to "accept" the pejorative as a normal, unintentional rephrasing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a very good point that I had not thought to investigate. Especially with Fleischer, it seems the White House used the term repeatedly. The point that should be noted is that it's not pejorative enough to draw attention to itself... it sounds like a mistake. But it's used every time. It seems clear (and research indicates) that the purpose is to produce dissociation between "democratic" and "Democratic" in the listener. E.g. "And I think, frankly, that that's a view -- Senator Miller, for example, was -- noted yesterday that he warned his own party, the Democrat Party, to stay away from that type of argument because he thought it would not work and it would hurt the Democrats." (Ari Fleischer in randomly selected snippet)

KEEP Keep this article which is highly informative about the rhetoric and flavor of actual political speech. Jozil 22:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep and rename as Democrat Party (phrase). Based on arguments above, I think the phrase has (barely) enough historic context to have its own article. The article still needs some cleanup like organization and a reduction in the amount of weasel words, though. -Big Smooth 23:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• That's the best idea I've heard yet. --kizzle 23:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I stole it from User:Derex above. :) -Big Smooth 23:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

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