Talk:Democratic-Republican Party (United States)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Democratic-Republican Party (United States) article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Archives Archive 1 (February 2006 to October 2006)

1 Article Title
2 Requested move to Democratic Republicans
- 2.1 Survey
- 2.2 Discussion
3 Party name vs. Member labels
4 Archived discussions over the past 9 months

[edit] Article Title

I'm willing to forgo the use of 'Party' or 'party' in the title if we change the name of the article to reflect the same. Skyemoor 14:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The box below misrepresents the discussion. Skyemoor changed his !vote here, as he is entitled to do; but he appears not to realize that it is Wikipedia custom to mark changes of one's own comments after they have been responded to. Septentrionalis 20:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Pmanderson|Septentrionalis distains the use of WP guidelines, but then wants to hold me to some vague interpretation of his perception of a 'custom'. If he can provide a policy or guideline that supports his position, I will consider it. In the meantime, I would ask that he cease his practice of altering my discussion on these various talk pages. Skyemoor 02:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no move. -- tariqabjotu 06:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move to Democratic Republicans

Democratic-Republican Party (United States) → Democratic Republicans —(Discuss)— There is no consensus on the perfect name for this article; but there appears to be agreement this would be an improvement: It avoids the impression that they were a fusion, like the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party; and it evades the question of whether they were a "party", a "Party", or neither. —Septentrionalis 16:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Support as nom. See also discussion. Septentrionalis 16:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Skyemoor 00:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Wiki would be making matters worse. The name seems to be about MEMBERS of the party, but the article is actually about the PARTY itself, like all Wiki articles. Rjensen 05:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Was there a party, as opposed to its members, before, say, 1803? Septentrionalis 20:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments

There is no consensus on any further move; as the discussion above will show at length. This is a proposal for a tweak only, I would strongly oppose any further move. Septentrionalis 16:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The term 'party' should be able to be referred to in the body of the article in the context of its usage in that timeframe (primarily the way it is discussed in portions of the article now), as initially loose coalitions that grew into more formal factions, eventually leading to convention-based parties. We would also need to highlight the difference in timeframe between "Republicans" and "Democratic-Republican", and remain disambiguated from DR Societies.

Didn't this party run candidates for office? Weren't several presidents of the Democratic-Republican Party? Will the new name fit in all the places where the existng name is used? 67.166.152.250 05:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

And the Federalist Party (United States), Anti-Administration Party (United States), and Pro-Administration Party (United States)? Settler 05:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Administration Party (and its opposite) are anachronisms, if not figments. But I don't feel inclined to move them. If you want a parallel, would anyone support Anti-Federalist Party (United States), instead of Anti-Federalism, where they are, or Anti-Federalists? Septentrionalis 16:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

And then what would we do about the First Party System? I'm afraid we've both been a bit too zealous here; these are parties by the definition that historians are using for the era, so I'll retract my encouragement (and indeed will now oppose) to remove "party" from the article. Skyemoor 00:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

My naive but observant $.02 --Contemporary capitalization was haphazard; why the insistence on "republican" when (I suspect) "Republican" was more common? --"Democratic-Republican" (with or without hyphen) is a retcon to distinguish the party that evolved (a) from the Anti-Federalists and (b) into the Democratic Party from the Republican Party of 1854 to present. --A member of the contemporaneous Party would have defined himself [sic] as a Republican. Others sometimes referred to the party as composed of Democrats, due to the affiliation of the Jeffersonians and Anti-Federalists with the Democrat Clubs (pro-Jacobin social and political organizations) of the 1790s. My suggestion: rename this article Republican Party (Jeffersonian). --jperrylsu

[edit] Party name vs. Member labels

The first sentence refers to party names, though one person has been putting in member labels. I'll park the reference here so that others can discuss it. I'll also note that the use of 'Democrat' as referenced is so infrequent as to preclude mention on the same level elsewhere as "republican", "Republican", or "Jeffersonian Republican".Skyemoor 19:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Democrats^[1], Jeffersonians, or combinations of these (like Jeffersonian republicans);^[2]

I regret to see that Skyemoor's persistent and single-handed edit war has resulted in the misplacement of the use of "Democratic Members of Congress" as the authors and members of the Party's last nominating caucus. This should of course be restored. Septentrionalis 20:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

regret to see that Pmanderson|Septentrionalis's persistent and single-handed edit war has resulted in the misplacement of the use of "Democratic Members of Congress" as the party had split by this time period. This should of course be discussed further down in the article.

It would also be nice if Skyemoor would take the time to observe that his edit summary is wrong on two points; The first line does say "Democratic Republican Party" (although it should have a hyphen);

And alt names must also refer to parties, though you are trying to bend the definition to member labels. Skyemoor 21:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

and, more importantly, WP:MOS is a guideline, not policy. Septentrionalis 20:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

"Wikipedia articles should heed these guidelines." Present your justification for an exception and we will discuss it. Skyemoor 21:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Heed, yes; obey as the Ten Commandments, no. Bolding all the names given to the DR's results in a lengthy and garish stretch of bold test, which makes the paragraph diffiuclt to read.

Pmanderson|Septentrionalis's POV must be obeyed? No. The WP:MOS clearly states otherwise, even providing an example with much more bolding than we have. I'll provide the example again. Skyemoor 00:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

"Use boldface in the first sentence for synonyms of the article title (including acronyms); for example, Río de la Plata: "

The Río de la Plata (from Spanish: “River of Silver”), also known by the English name River Plate, as in the Battle of the River Plate, or sometimes (La) Plata River.

Skyemoor's effort to "solve" this problem by reducing the list to the anachronism Republican Party is tendentious and misleading.

If Pmanderson|Septentrionalis wants to call the historians that pen the majority of history textbooks 'tendentious and misleading', he may, though he shouldn't expect any of us to give it a second thought. Skyemoor 00:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

(I have said this before; if this time Skyemoor has an acrual answer, we can indeed discuss it.) Septentrionalis 23:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Pmanderson|Septentrionalis has been shown the answer many times, but prefers to cling to outdated POV. And he should quit changing the text in my responses, regardless if his case is too weak otherwise. Skyemoor 00:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The ongoing edit-war about typograhy and similar details is the very essence of WP:LAMEness. I've had to block one party for 3RR, but I seriously recommend to all involved to give it a break. Thanks, Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I consider this edit by Skyemoor a definite improvement, although not perfect. Septentrionalis 19:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)