Talk:Democratic Party (United States)/Archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

List

what should we do with the "list of notable democrats"? I really don't have a problem with it, but it's taking up a lot of space. --Revolución (talk) 22:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I suggest moving it to another page or making a new page for it. Tom harrison 22:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
I have moved it to List of notable Democrats and included a link in "see also" to the page. --Revolución (talk) 00:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Preparations for FAC

I'd like to get this ready for featured article candidacy in the near-future, so any help is appreciated. --Revolución (talk) 22:43, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Question to Stirling Newberry

How the hell is the third intro paragraph "POV inaccurate trash"? Maybe you should discuss this, instead of going on a revert rampage? I've tried to reason with you, but you don't seem to get it. The paragraph you want there is not organized, it is too big. I simply can not let the intro look like that. --Revolución (talk) 03:33, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

First I protest your fourth revert - it is clear you are not editing in good faith. The current paragraph is completely inaccurate in that it both divides the party into two factions of arguable utility and mischaracterizes both of them. Further I protest your article ownership claims - declaring that you can determine what is and is not to be in, and then lying in edit summaries. Stirling Newberry 03:39, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

It would be great if you could provide an instance of myself lying to you, instead of just saying it. --Revolución (talk) 03:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
I find your attitude towards me combative and egotistical, unwilling to take criticism and shocked that somebody reverts something you write. I see you're a Clarkbot, not surprising that you act like a Republican then. Cheers. --Revolución (talk) 03:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Here's your "oh so wonderful" paragraph:

The Democratic Party has several factions that can be seen from congressional voting records and proposals. The main leadership of the Democratic Party espouses a centrist ideology which seeks to pragmatically use government to solve perceived economic and social problems, many of these are Clintonians, that is supporters of Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton, this faction is noted for its focus on balanced budgets and Free trade, arguing that A rising tide lifts all boats. On the right flank of the party are Blue Dog Democrats who often vote with the Republicans on such issues as the Bankruptcy bill of 2005 and on Taxes, as well as on social issues such as the confirmation of judges. The left flank of the party consists of Progressives, this faction is notable for its demand to withdrawal from Iraq as quickly as is feasible, and pressing for some for of "Universal Health Care". Much of the Progressive movement is based in urban areas, particularly in the 90 or so urban congressional districts, or from the upper mid-west. Another important faction of the Democratic Party is the Union wing of the party, which supplies a great deal of the political funding and grassroots political apparatus, it tends to be more protectionist than the centrist wing of the party.

  • Clintonians is not a real word. Maybe you mean DLCers
  • I don't know why you put universal health care in quotations.
  • Progressives are mostly in urban areas, but what about rural Progressives too?
  • same here with "upper mid-west", I think you'll find progressives everywhere in the U.S., and not that specific region you decided to mention.

I could go on, but my main problem is the size anyway. --Revolución (talk) 03:53, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

First I again note that you have violated the four revert rule. Second you get every single fact wrong "Clintonian" turns up 167,000 google hits. Maybe you don't like it, but it is a real word. Second the DLC and Clintonians are not synomous. Howard Dean was a DLC, he was never a Clintonian. The DLC supports Clinton, but it is not the sum and total of the faction. I happen to be a citable expert on this, you are not.
Your complaints about the paragraph are pure dishonesty - the graf did not claim they were exclusively from these areas, merely that they were associated with them. The Progressive Caucus in the house is overwhelmingly composed of urban representatives. That's a measurable fact, as opposed to your uncited, and demonstrable false opinions.
Since I can't revert the article for 24 hours, and since you are completely in capable of 1. acting in good faith 2. telling the truth 3. citing sources there is nothing that can be done.
There is no size policy, you have broken the three revert rule for the sole purpose of imposing your incorrect, uncited, POV on the article.

Stirling Newberry 05:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Easy Redirect

I got tired of typing in the full name of this page for internal links, so I made a redirect page: USDP, which will save us wikifiers a lot of time, I think. Matt Yeager 17:23, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

thanks. --Revolución (talk) 17:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

history

should we condense the history section and create a new article called History of the United States Democratic Party? --Revolución (talk) 17:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


Election of 2000

Shouldn't this section at least mention Bush v. Gore? I realize there is a main article on this subject, but it seems odd that the article talks about the September 11 attacks, which occurred ten months after the election, without mentioning the fact that the outcome of the election was disputed for a month. Elliotreed 20:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

The Republican article doesn't mention it either, although one user has been campaigning diligently for days to have the voting irregularities of the 2004 elections included. For balance, they ought to be mentioned here as well, if they're not already. Bjsiders 21:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

"Conservative party"

I've just removed the following paragraph from the lead:

It started out as a conservative party in the middle 19th century, later moving to the left throughout the 20th century. The Republican Party had experienced a similar transition, from a progressive party to conservative party. Thus, the parties are said to have "switched sides" with each other on the political spectrum.

While encapsulating some truth, this a huge oversimplification of the American party system. Modern American conservatism and American liberalism would be entirely foreign to Americans of 150 years ago. The defining and divisive issues of that day -- from slavery to foreign tariffs -- have been long settled, and the defining and divisive issues of today -- from abortion to foreign terrorism -- simply were not issues those politicians would have any conception of.

Moreover, there's many ways of looking at the historical evolution which run rather contrary to this notion. Since Jackson, and arguably since Jefferson, Democrats have seen themselves as champions of the ordinary man. Meanwhile, Republicans have, at least since the end of the Civil War, identified with the forces of national commerce and large-scale industry.

Incidentally, to the best of my knowledge, there is precisely one issue on which Democrats and the GOP can be said to have "switched sides" wholesale. That's civil rights, and it can be dated rather specifically to the 1960s, not to some gradual century-long ideological shift.

RadicalSubversiv E 04:40, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Republicans only began moving to the right at the very beginning of the 20th century, before that they were a very progressive party (for their time). Democrats were very conservative, but became divided by conservative and liberal factions during the early 20th century under FDR and such, but didn't make the full move to the left until the late 60s I would say. It was a gradual century-long ideological shift, so to speak. The paragraph deserves inclusion because it explains the political transition that the party has taken over time. --Revolución (talk) 18:14, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
I could debate that. President McKinley, (sp) was not a progressive president, nor were several of his predecessors. (Ok, I'm not using spell-check, sue me.) The Progressive movement of the last quarter century between 1875 and 1900 identified more with the Republican Party than the Democratic Party because they were the party in power more often than not, and the changes that the Farmer's Alliance, Populist and original Progressive movement people wanted done had to go through the hands of the people that were in power. But the power held by the hands of the Republicans in the later part of the 19th century mostly came from the Railroad barrons, whom the Progressive movement, including farmers & labor, was fighting against. In many ways, the Democratic Party was very far left on a lot of issues, especially in the heartland but most certainly not in the South. Just take a look at the Cross of Gold speech by William Jennings Bryan in 1896. T. Roosevelt was a Republican because he believed in the party of Lincoln, and over the course of his years in office from 1901 to 1908, he moved steadily in a progressive direction, then came back in 1912 as a very strong progressive because the conservative business controlled House and Senate leaders in the Republican Party had corrupted the presidency of Taft. That's why TR accepted the breakaway of the Progressive Party from the Republican Party at their 1912 convention. Issues of the day in the 1920's and 1930's erased many of the old lines and drew new ones, and the same thing happened in the 1960's during the civil rights movement, the 1970's with the anti-war movement, the 1980's with the anti-Reaganomics, the 1990's with the rise to power of the Republicans under Gingrich, and the 2000's with the new anti-war/pro-america factions. It's the continuation of the long ideological shifts that historians in the 2100's will study with vigor. Let's give them something to talk about. Chadlupkes 21:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

With all due to respect to the hard work you've put into this article, you haven't answered my concerns, and on several points you're flat wrong. The Republicans were not progressive in the 19th century, because the Progressive movement dates to the early 20th century. And I'd be very curious to hear by what criteria you would use labels like "liberal" and "conservative" in speaking of Democrats in the 19th century. Surely Andy Jackson's contemporaries would be shocked to hear him called a conservative, since in those days the word connoted a Burkean respect for the traditional social order.

I'm removing the paragraph again, because I think its continued presence in the lead seriously misreads readers. If you're planning to restore it, please consult reputable sources on the American party system and offer citations.

RadicalSubversiv E 19:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't matter much to me, I'll continue to improve the article while you try to make this into some kind of dispute. Any more useless drama you want to add to this talk page? --Revolución (talk) 20:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Explanation

I was removing text mostly from the History section because some have commented in both the peer review and FAC nomination that the History section was too long and needed to be split into a separate article, so I created the separate article for History of the United States Democratic Party and then I was working on getting the History section to a reasonable size. If I removed something during this you think should definitely be included then please tell me. Unfortunately due to a misunderstanding my edits were reverted, but I'll make sure to explain my edits next time to prevent such a misunderstanding. --Revolución (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

numerous errors

Apparently someone is relying on their faulty memory for some of the facts. When Jim Jeffords for example bolted from the Republicans it was a split chamber 50-50. The Democrats were not in charge because the VP breaks all ties. It was only after the switch that Democrats won controll. I was pretty sure that was the case but I checked anyway!

-- Mccommas

POV problems

The section on the 19th century is full of errors and POV problems. For example it is POV to claim that the Dem party was founded by Jefferson. (This is the claim made by Dem party activist Claude Bowers 70 years ago and picked up by FDR who pushed the idea.) Jefferson's party completely vanished by the late 1820s and the totally new structure created around 1830 by Van Buren did not name itself "Democrats" till later. Both the Democrats and the Republicans were indeed inspired by Jefferson, as was everyone else. But both were also greatly inspired by George Washington too. Rjensen 05:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I have a history book right in front of me that explains how the Democratic Party evolved from Jefferson's Republican Party to the present party. I believe this is an historical fact. Griot 05:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)Griot
Rjensen does have a point, though, in that this is disputed. Rjensen, if you can rewrite your edits to reflect both the view points that the Democratic Party is and is not a continuation of the Democratic-Republican Party, I am all for it, because I do believe that it is arguable both ways. --Nlu 06:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
OK I did that. The point is disputed: Democratic party officials, led by FDR, made a big push in 1930s that Jefferson was their founder. Historians are split but most of them say that the Jeffersonian party totally vanished about 1820. The minority says there was continuity "in spirit". It took 10 years for Van Buren & boys to build a quite new party, and to downplay that achievement would be to contradict most of the scholarship in the last 30 years. Rjensen 23:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

What does this sentence mean?

What does this sentence mean? "In 1824, a particularly bitter election was thrown to the House of Representatives, and John Quincy Adams." -- SGBailey 11:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I can answer that
Not speaking to the historical accuracy, but the President and VP have not always been elected by popular vote. In the early days when no one obtained the required number of electoral votes, the election of the Prez and his VP was decided in the House of Representatives.
This could have happened in 1992 had Independent "Ross Perot" and George H. W. Bush had both done better denying William Jefferson Clinton the needed electoral votes. But of course that did not happen.
I have read that some think the founding fathers always intended to have the presidency decided by the House. And in the early days, it was.
I do not think there was any change to the Constitution. I think the founding fathers just picked a number of electoral votes they thought no one would ever get just to make it look good on paper. Or so goes my theory...
Little did they suspect, we could do it thanks mostly to the two party system.
-Mccommas
OK, so does the sentence mean "In 1824, the result of a particularly bitter election was finally decided by the House of Representatives and Independent candidate John Quincy Adams."?
If it does mean that I (or anyone else) will edit that into the article. If it doesn't mean that, what does it mean?
-- SGBailey 14:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't understand your question. The sentance is incomplete:
"In 1824, the result of a particularly bitter election was finally decided by the House of Representatives and Independent candidate John Quincy Adams."
I was responding to the "thrown in the House" refference. -mccommas
The original sentence from the article is pobviously incomplete. My sentence that you quote is complete but needs context (not shown here) and is likely wrong. Thus I conclude the original question remains - what does that sentence in the article mean?
I'll give it a few more days and then delete it. -- SGBailey 17:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
It was badly phrased and irrelevant. There was no Democratic party organization anywhere. Four or 5 major candidates built personal followings that were not linked to candiates for lower office. It was every man for himself in 1824-- no parties. It became bitter when Adams cut a deal with Clay and left Jackson out in the cold. Boy was he mad! Rjensen 23:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Donkey Logo?

These two assertions seem to be contradictory:

[U]nlike the Republican elephant, the donkey has never been officially adopted as the Party's logo. The DNC's official logo, pictured above, depicts a stylized kicking donkey.

I'm removing the first claim, because I'm pretty sure the logo at the top of the pag is the current Democratic logo. Jpers36 01:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Questionable Paragraph

I have a couple of questions about this paragraph:

2005 has provided a major boost for Democrats. Numerous scandals affecting Republicans - including the indictment of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay for money laundering and the indictment of Vice Presidential Chief of Staff Lewis Libby over his alleged involvement in the Plame affair - coupled with Bush's low approval rating, provided momentum for the Democrats. Democrats have said their party's victories in the 2005 elections for governorships in New Jersey and Virginia offered further evidence that people support their party's agenda, while Republicans say voters in those states based their votes more on the candidates themselves and not on the parties. Democrats hope the 2005 elections are a foreshadowing of the November 7, 2006, elections for the House, Senate, and governorships.

I didn't want to simply remove this section, but there seem to be a couple of issues with this. First, what proof is there that any of these things have had any impact on the Democratic Party? Have they won more elections? Second, the 2 governorships won by Democrats, were already held by Democrats, so is that really any proof that Republicans are losing ground? Isn't it just more of the status quo? So if Democrats hope the 2005 elections are a foreshadowing of the 2006 elections, wouldn't that just mean they want to keep Washington, the state legislatures, and governorships the same? I am just a little confused. --LV (Dark Mark) 15:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

well in a historical sense, the short answer to your question is nothing. - Mccommas
I'd remove the paragraph. There's a tendancy to turn articles like this one (and the Republican one) into encyclopedic blogs. Nothing has happened since the 2004 election that is significant enough to justify updating either party's article. Bjsiders 21:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
People come to Wikipedia to understand what is happening now. The Dems did quite well in 2005-- they carried a red state (VA) that the GOP tried hard to win. They blasted Schwarznegger's plans in California to circumvent the Dem legislature. Dems did very poorly indeed in NYC. What will happen in 2006? You don't go to an encyclopedia for predictions, but rather a discussion of the lineup of forces that are right now preparing for 2006 and 2008. Corruption is always a handy issue for the out-party, and with the troubles of DeLay and his friends (Abramoff), and Taft (Ohio), Frist, etc there is plenty of red meat there. Rjensen 23:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Name choice

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the name of the party is Democrat Party, not Democratic Party. If this is incorrect, any idea where this widespread idea comes from? Tomertalk 06:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

You are not correct. The term "Democrat party" is a rightwing language meme from Frank Luntz and his ilk. Bush's language people don't want you to think of members of the Democratic party when he repeats the words Iraq and Democracy over and over again in his speeches. It is the Democratic Party and it has been called that since the days of President Jackson. The correct term to refert to an elected official is a "Democratic Senator" and members of the Democratic party are individually called Democrats. I myself am a member of the Democratic wing of the Democratic party like the late great Seantor Paul Wellstone. It is insulting to say "Democrat Senator" and "Democrat Party". --8bitJake 08:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Um, excuse me for saying this, but "blahblahblahblahblah". Nothing you've said is demonstrative of intellectual thought. I'm not interested in engaging in politically motivated polemics. "Democratic" is, as it happens, an adjective, and so any insistence that it's a natural descriptor is a nonsequitor, since such a claim does nothing to reduce the legitimacy of the position that the name of the DNC's party is "Democrat", not "Democratic". That said, statements such as "I ... am a member of the Democratic wing of the Democratic party" ring like "tinkling brass". If you have something substantive to add to the discussion, by all means, please do so. If all you have to show for yourself is that you went to band camp, please keep that to yourself. Tomertalk 09:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Here's the party's own website, prominently headlined "The Democratic Party". I agree with 8bitJake that such usages as "Democrat Party" and "Democrat ideas" are incorrect. These solecisms are popular, however, within the Republican Party (including its media arm, FOX News). Perhaps it arises because "Republican" is both the noun and the adjective, making it harder for Republicans to recognize that references to their opponents don't follow that pattern. JamesMLane 10:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Your argument is undermined, as a legitimate response to by inquiry, by the fact that the official name of the Republican party is actually the Grand Old Party. I don't care about your personal political opinions, I'm talking about the official names by which the parties are registered! I don't understand why this has to become an issue of party loyalty. That's certainly not how I intended my initial inquiry to be interpreted! Tomertalk 11:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
You said to "feel free to correct me", so we are. The party calls itself the Democratic Party on its website. I have downloaded several pdf files of sample ballots from red and blue states, and on each ballot the party is called "Democratic Party". I've never in my life ever seen a Democrat or heard of a Democrat (and I grew up around plenty) refer to the party entity as anything except the "Democratic Party". I've checked the Federal Election Commission website but I cannot find a page detailing precisely the registered official name of the party. I find it very unlikely, however, that it would differ from the name on the sample ballots I downloaded. -Kasreyn 09:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you that the party loyalties of individual editors aren't relevant to this inquiry. I gave evidence that the answer to your initial inquiry is that the correct name is "Democratic Party". If you have any basis for thinking otherwise, please feel free to present it. My suggestion as to why so many Republicans get it wrong is obviously just speculation, but it's not countered by your comment, unless you can support your assertion that "Grand Old Party" is an official name by which the party is registered. In New York State, at least, parties are listed on the ballot in the order of their respective candidates' finish in the most recent gubernatorial election. George Pataki must have told the Board of Elections that he was a member of the Republican Party, not the Grand Old Party, because column A has been labeled "Republican" on our ballots. JamesMLane 11:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Can you really be that dumb? The adjective form is "Democratic". The official name is "Democratic Party". Members are called "Democrats". Understand it now? --Revolución (talk) 18:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, whoa... WP:NPA. What happened to assuming good faith? Perhaps that is what he actually thought. It might be possible for someone not to be a troll on a political page. --LV (Dark Mark) 18:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
fine. --Revolución (talk) 18:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Also, Tomer... please try and refrain from personal attacks as well. Everyone should read WP:CIVIL. Let's try and be nice on these contentious pages. Thanks. --LV (Dark Mark) 18:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

If you want you arguments and opionions to be taken seriously, avoid sprinkling them with political ideology. Which of these responses is more likely to be read and analyzed critically be a reader of any political stripe?

Q. Why was Mr. Smith fined by the city?

A1. Mr. Smith's was fined on Thursday because his dog bit a 9-year old girl in his neighborhood while it was off its leash. A2. Mr. Smith's vicious dog bit a little girl because Mr. Smith is an irresponsible rube for lets his dog wander around unmonitored in a neighborhood full of children.

"DEMOCRAT PARTY" was introduced by Republicans about 1952 to needle Democrats. Democrats really hate the term so the GOP uses it every chance it can. Independents and scholars never use it. Rjensen 00:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Now, whose response are you more inclined to read and accept? Any intelligent person who reads response A1 is likely to accept the facts, and if they have any doubts or questions about the completeness of the information, they'll go find out. Reading response A2 is just going to incite a bickerfest full of finger-pointing, name-calling, and accusations of editorializing.

So when you answer a question like, "Is it the Democrat or Democratic party", the best way to answer is with the correct answer, a source for it, and check your political baggage at the door. Bjsiders 20:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

"DEMOCRAT PARTY" was introduced by Republicans about 1952 to needle Democrats. Democrats really hate the term so the GOP uses it every chance it can. Independents and scholars never use it and Wikipedia should probably say what the controversy is all about. Rjensen 00:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Progressive/Liberal

Can someone explain to me the difference between the "progressive" faction and the "liberal" faction? They seem synonymous. --12.217.121.245 22:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

  • they're not, in my opinion. I consider progressives to be more to the left of "liberals". --Revolución (talk) 23:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Progressivism and Liberalism are not the same thing. "Progressivism is a political philosophy whose adherents promote policies that they believe would reform a country's government, economy, or society." and "Liberalism is an ideology, or current of political thought, which strives to maximize liberty." The idea that there is a simple scale between left and right political thought and ever politician and political thinker can be defined on a linear scale is just plain nuts if you ask me. --8bitJake 08:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

People use these terms in different ways, obviously, and they have historically very different origins, but in their most common usage with reference to Democrats, they're basically synonymous. 20 or so years ago, the left-wing of the party would near-universally be described as "liberal", but that term has gradually come to be viewed as pejorative by some, and so most of the very same people would today self-identify as "progressive". Conservatives and most political journalists continue to prefer liberal, and the whole matter is confounded by the fact that some centrists in the party like to use "progressive" also (e.g., the Progressive Policy Institute).

Incidentally, I think that the "factions" sections of the both the Democratic and Republican parties articles are pretty terrible and lean heavily towards original research. I'm not a 100% sure they can ever be NPOV and accurate as currently structured, but I'll save further comments until I have the time to suggest a more concrete alternative.

RadicalSubversiv E 18:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

You can have a Progressive Conservative. Progressive is about CHANGE. There was a Progressive party in the early 1800's. It was all about amending the constitution and bringing about big changes.

I would actually categorize people like Al Gore and John Edwards as POPULIST, another word that can be co-opted by either side from time to time.

Herb Riede

Edwards' factional placement.

I disagree that John Edwards is a "centrist." He is significantly to the left of the DLC and its most prominent members on most economic and foreign policy issues, and he is the new-found friend of the NAACP, the SEIU, and ACORN. Read this to see what I mean. --12.217.121.245 22:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I think this has to do with what "Democratic centrism" is all about. And on that question, this article and its related articles (such as Democratic Leadership Council) are rather muddled. I think most editors would agree that the DLC is the quintessential centrist group in the democratic party. The DLC article suggests that economic populism is at odds with the centrist tendencies of the DLC. But that article also identifiesDick Gephardt, very much a populaist, as a DLC stalwart.
I would argue that part of what makes a centrist is a focus on economic issues (rather than social issues like guns, gay rights, and abortion). Therefore, I find Edwards "two Americas" rhetoric very much in keeping with my definition of centrism and think it is appropriate to classify him as such. TMS63112 07:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
By that definition, Russ Feingold is a centrist. --12.217.121.245 05:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Feingold is more of a maverick. He is very progressive on some issues, but also pro-gun. He was one of the few Demcratson the judiciary committee to vote for John Roberts confirmation, despite the opposition of liberal interest groups. And I think he was the only Democrat to vote to censure Clinton. TMS63112 07:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
If Edwards describes himself as a centrist, then refer to him as a self-described centrist. If other people in the party generally regard him as a centrist, say so. Whether or not he is a centrist is STRICTLY a matter of opinion. Indicate WHO thinks he is a centrist. To just say, "Edwards is a centrist" is clearly POV. It's another matter, however, to say, "Edwards is generally regarded as a centrist by Democrats..." Bjsiders 16:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest Populist, along with people like Al Gore (of late)... Herb Riede

Adding more history

Although there is a separate article on history, it really is necessary to say something about Bryan, Wilson and Smith, so I did so. Rjensen 07:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes it's amazing to have a long history of the Democratic party and miss John F Kennedy!! of course Truman is missing too. This calls for more work! Rjensen 18:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Howard Dean Photo

In the 21st century section can we get a picture of DNC Chairman Howard Dean? That would be boss. I have some that I took and own the copyright for.

  • Go for it! The section is pretty heavy on pictures so how about replacing the image of John Kerry with the one for Howard Dean. Kerry has less notability than Gore. --Revolución (talk) 06:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd agree. Dean is the current head of the party. Kerry was just some random failed Presidential nominee and Junior Senator. Just like we don't have a picture of James M. Cox. My thoughts, though. --LV (Dark Mark) 14:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

In the American party system, a presidential nominee is of far greater significance than the chair of the national committee. Quick, which of the following do you recognize as major political figures?

  • George McGovern
  • Walter Mondale
  • Michael Dukakis
  • Al Gore
  • Don Fowler
  • Steve Grossman
  • Joseph Andrew
  • Terry McAuliffe

The first four are obviously failed presidential nominees -- the others are DNC chairs. Dean has unusual prominence right now because he's in the unusual position of being both a former presidential candidate and a current party chair. But his importance pales in comparison to Kerry, or even Gore (and I say this as someone who worked for Dean in the primaries).

RadicalSubversiv E 05:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Then I suggest a picture of Edward Kennedy rather than Kerry. Failed presidential candidate, Senior Senator, still probably better known to the average American despite Kerry's presidential bid, etc. I just don't get the point of having Kerry here. --LV (Dark Mark) 14:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Huh? Ted Kennedy ran for president 25 years ago, and didn't win the nomination. John Kerry, on the other hand, was the party's standardbearer just last year, and thus remains an important political figure. (I'd wager that the Clintons, and maybe Gore, are probably the only better-known Democrats at this point). You're entitled to your opinion of him as a lightweight (and I'm often inclined to agree), but that's not the legitimate basis for an editorial decision. RadicalSubversiv E 14:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't quite explain myself well enough. I'd say the average American, someone who does not follow politics too much, knows the name Ted Kennedy. Either in a good sense (Senator, Pres. hopeful, being a Kennedy, etc.) or in a not so good sense (The parodies in American culture, being a Kennedy, etc.). I don't necessarily think of John Kerry as a lightweight, he won the nomination for goodness sakes, I just don't think people 20 years down the road, when asked to name prominent Democrats, will respond first with "John Kerry". Looking at the "big picture", though, John Kerry is a lightweight and doesn't deserve a picture in this article. Throughout history, there have been many more well-known Democrats that John Kerry. Just like the article on the Republicans shouldn't feature a picture of Bill Frist or, more analogously, Bob Dole, this article shouldn't feature Kerry. We need to stop this whole, "recent and current events should trump history" mentality. Look at this article 20, 50, or 100 years down the road... See you around, my friend. --LV (Dark Mark) 15:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that when his obituary is written, Ted Kennedy will be seen as a giant in Democratic politics. Kerry may or may not be. But in deciding on a photo to illustrate a section of the article on the 21st century in the history of the Democratic Party (i.e., now, not 25 years ago), Kerry is an obvious choice, and Ted Kennedy definitely is not. RadicalSubversiv E 15:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Howard Dean is no ordinary chair of the DNC. He is trying to make serious changes to the working of the party and reform DNC. I think he represents more of the future of the party than the two Senators from MA. --8bitJake 21:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

None of these people will emerge as defining figures of the party for some time to come. Frankly I can't think of who really might in the days to come. If you need a photo for the 21st century Democratic party, you need several. I'd suggest Presidents Truman, Kennedy, and Clinton. Bjsiders 22:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I doubt Presidents Truman, Kennedy and Clinton are going to run for office again in the 21st century. Howard Dean is an active figure and the most important DNC chair in decades. --8bitJake 23:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

a little thing

I just added a bit under "Issues" stating that some Democrats do not support abortion rights -- especially in areas like the South. I'd appreciate someone checking to make sure it's NPOV as I'm a n00b and prone to make mistakes :) --Elizabeth of North Carolina 22:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The edit looks reasonable to me. It's a polarizing issue and there are severe fractions within all political identities on it. Bjsiders 22:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I reworded it to

"Some Democratic Party members from Republican leaning districts or states have different stances on the issue."

I don’t consider limiting reproductive freedoms as Traditional so I tried to make it NPOV. I also changed "Abortion" to "Reproductive Freedoms". That is current political framing used by the party. --8bitJake 23:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

ah, right, I forgot. I've only heard it used in passing, not actively as a vocab change yet -- those things take a little time to trickle down to NC :)--Elizabeth of North Carolina 11:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Talking about "abortion rights" make it sound like you're in favor of women having abortions, when approximately 99.9% of rational people probably are NOT in favor of abortions (I'm using hyperbole, humor me). So we have phrases like "pro-choice" and "reproductive freedom" that more clearly articulate that the supporters advocate the 'right' to an abortion, but not necessarily the act itself. Much like a person who might find personally find flag burning abhorrent but recognize it as protected free speech. We wouldn't describe such a person as pro flag burning, but pro free speech. It's more than slick marketing for a difficult and complex issue. Bjsiders 16:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

So what. I don't see how the republican party is Pro-life when they are pro-war, pro-starving, anti-enviromental, anti-science. "Reproductive Freedoms" is a framing term used by the party and it should be included to describe the stance of the party. Also the term “reproductive freedom” and “reproductive rights” cover education, birth control, family planning, access to healthcare, medical privacy, protection from harassment, emergency contraception, the separation of church and state and the right to have your prescription filled for both women and men. There is so much more to the issues than just ending a pregnancy. --8bitJake 17:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand the importance of the phrasing here better now, thanks for articulating it so clearly. Like a vast majority of democrats, I am anti-abortion and pro-choice, and the phrasing surrounding this particular issue has changed several times to avoid negative stigma. However, even though I've been pretty heavily involved in the NCDP, living in NC, I can tell you that I've heard the phrase reproductive freedoms about twice in my life. If you're going to say reproductive freedoms, the article should contain a bit more about them.--Elizabeth of North Carolina 19:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I plan on re-writing the article on "Reproductive Freedoms" and "Reproductive Right". I am going to do some research from NARAL and plan on using current Democratic framing. The issues are much more than Black and White Rightwing framing. --8bitJake 20:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's Hope Jake you show more NPOV than you have with your lastest comments. They are pro-war-Actually many Democrats at first supported the war. May we also add that Dems have a track record of engaging Americans into conflicts. Anti-Science- Actually they are no more anti-science than Dems are Anti-Religion. Just because many Teachers want to teach Evolution as the truth (sorry it is not natural law yet) and not even state some of the fallacies of the theory, is actually just as anti-science as the Intelligent Design argument (Which I find non-scientific). Remember science means challenging even widely accepted theories to scrunity. pro-starving- Do not know the meaning of that. If you assume cutting welfare benefits, then a Rep can accuse the Dems of being Pro-Complacency and Pro-Laziness. I am not going to go on all accounts. Let's hope you show fairness in your article (I will check out to see if it pertains to neutrality), I believe you call yourself a Liberal, so be one. Charles Ronsin Mar 9, 2006

Freemarket edits are POV and must go

The Wiki User "Freemarket" has added lots of anti-Democratic Party POV commentary and these need to be taken out. --8bitJake 18:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

    • The information I added are not rem|otely POV, what I did is made the article LESS POV. I'm readding the information, if you don't like the info in its current form then slightly reword it. By the way, correcting links and adding the Dem platform is a completely legit thing to do. I have know idea why you would revert that. -- Freemarket 16:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree with 8bitJacke. These are wholesale POVs Freemarket (for example, since when do poor people not pay any taxes?). Griot 17:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Griot
  • I'm trying to be very civil about this issues. The article simply needs to be a bit more balanced and specific on the issues. Please don't start a revert war over this. And I still can't think of a reason the platform keeps being reverted. Could somebody please explain that for me. -- Freemarket 19:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • By the way, ignore the fact that the above post just have "AmeriCan" as the user. That's my brother and he was just on Wikipedia and I guess there was some king of problem. -- Freemarket 19:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Look you are an admitted right wing Libertarian activist as per your user page. You are not quite the best person to have a neutral view of the Democratic Party. I don’t want to include my views on Libertarians on their Wikipedia entry. I doubt that you would be interested in my facts and views on the Cato Institute and Grover Norquest. --8bitJake 19:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Either are you...Howard Dean is my homeboy. --Ronsin1976 15:00, 9 March 2006.

party handouts and NPOV

Wiki must be completely neutral between the parties especially on a hot topic like this one. Campaign rhetoric can be described but it cannot be the basis of articles. To say that Republicans had lots of commercials attacking Kerry on Iraq is important to say: it was probably the #1 attack the GOP used and readers need to know that. The article should NOT say whether the GOP or Dem ads & rhetoric were true or false. But it should tell the readers what happened in 2004. For example the gay marriage issue came out of Massachusetts (state supreme court), it was not concocted by the GOP national committee and to say the GOP invented the issue is not true at all. Politically the issue hurt the Democrats and we should say why. Rjensen 03:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Since when is a statement of truth POV? If claims were made that were shown later to be untrue, that's simply fact. Anyone defending a position that the facts are biased against them isn't defending a logical position. Wisco 03:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
The way truth works in Wiki, if other editors object then it's a POV issue. Party handouts are generally considered partisan, and Wiki has to be nonpartisan. Out job is to tell people what the partisans said and did. Attributing actions to the Republican Party is OK in the case of paid ads, and when the GOP officially claims credit, but generally it's dubious otherwise. Rjensen 04:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Please define 'party handouts'. I don't know what you mean. Wisco 04:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Goodd question. The original statement strongly suggested that the Swift Boat vets were a GOP party operation (that was the defense handed out by the Kerry campaign), but it does not seem to be true (see the Wiki article). Likewise article suggsted that gay rights issue was set up by the Republican party. Actually it was set up by Massachusetts liberals on one side and Christian conservative relkigious activists on the other. Rjensen 04:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm still stuck on how a truthful statement can be biased. Wisco 05:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The Swift Boat groups had finacial ties to Karl Rove and the Bush campaign media firms and Texas doners. It is the best example of Astroterfing that I have ever seen. You should actually do some research on the issue. [1] [2] --8bitJake 04:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

It's false to say that Karl Rove gave any money to the Swift Boat. What the article shows is that he was a friend of a fellow named Perry who did give money. Rove has hundreds of friends. Another Swift advisor had been an advisor to the GOP a year before. Do you agree that the GOP is not resonsible for the 2004 actions of someone it paid a fee to in 2003...and that Rove's friends are capable of acting without his control? Rjensen 05:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Can a truthful statement be biased? Sure, if it deliberately misleads the reader into believing something else. Suppose XXX is an old friend of Karl Rove, and XXX does YYY. A misleading POV statment would be "Close associates of Republican leader Karl Rove did YYY." People read that as Karl Rove approved or initiated the action. So the reader gets a false idea. Rjensen 05:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck.. --8bitJake 05:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

If it looks and quacks like a duck Wiki still has to run a DNA test. This has to be a nonpartisan encyclopedia acceptable to both Kerry and Bush supporters. Rjensen 06:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Jefferson called it "Republican Party"

Jefferson, Madsion and other leaders 95 times out of 100 always called theirs the "Republican Party" in 1790s-1820 era. The term "Democratic Republican" was occasionally used. There is an excellent current (Jan 2006) discussion of this issue by scholars in the online H-Net list called "H-SHEAR" (Society for Historians of the Early Republic)... if you are interested look at the discussion --it's open to all at http://www.h-net.org/~shear/ Rjensen 10:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Back then, those DEMs were REPUBs. Nowadays, DEMs are Socialists/Statists. 67.15.76.188 07:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

although the name has changed, i don't think the values have changed since jefferson. what is currently called the republican party, on the other hand, is a different story. Kevin Baastalk 02:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's not forget that it was the Republicans who freed the slaves, not the Democrats. Merecat 05:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Liberal Vandalism

There was a recent revert on the grounds of "vandalism." I looked at the change and noted that somebody had gone through and changed "progressive" and "progressivism" to "liberal" and "liberalism" throughout the article; the revert changed it back. I'm not sure if it warrants a discussion, but I am uncomfortable with the idea that referring to Democratic ideology as being "liberal" in nature is a form of vandalism. Liberal may have been twisted into a dirty word but are we prepared to call it "vandalism" if somebody claims that the Democratic party traffics in it? I'm not. Bjsiders 15:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I was actually kind of surprised it was labeled as "vandalism" as well. American liberalism has a proud history, and assuming good faith, it might not have been vandalism. I don't really care if it was reverted (if progressivism and liberalism are the same thing and accurately describe the Party's politics), I just take a little issue in calling it "vandalism". --LV (Dark Mark) 16:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, you are right I shouldn't have called it vandalism, I just didn't think it was appropriate to refer to every motive for the party's actions as liberal, the democrats are conservative on many issues. I stand by the revert but concede the point that it is not vandalism. Bartimaeus 02:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

This is an intersting discussion, and it gets to something that has been discussed for some time at the American liberalism article. When is the word "liberal" and when is the word "progressive" appropriate? The "American liberalism" article notes how "liberal" has become a perjorative term and that many liberal politicans now favor the word "progressive" so they won't be tagged with the negative L word. Personally, I think there is a difference between these two words, and that "liberal" belongs in the Democratic Party article in some places where "progressive" is now used. "Progressive," I think, refers to the progressive movement that occurred in the U.S. from 1900-1920. However, Franklin Roosevelt's policies were decidely liberal, not progressive, because they didn't fall under the perlieus of the progressive movement. Let's not let the enemies of liberalism win this one and have us converting "liberal" to "progressive" at every turn. There is a genuine difference between these two words. Griot 18:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)Griot

There's an additional problem in the simple definition of "liberal." What "liberalism" meant to the colonists in 1760 is a world different from what it means now. It may be best to use "liberal" only where the party itself identifies with the term, perhaps by references to quotes from party members using the terminology. We need a fairly objective way to include the terminology at least as a heritage of the party without confusing it with what the modern usage of "liberalism" can suggest in America. Bjsiders 01:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Liberalism vs Progressivism

The solution to this problem is fairly easy. the two "isms" are the opposite side of the same coin. Two members of the same political family are responsible for the viability of the two political beliefs. Teddy Roosevelt coined the "Progressive" name for his independent run for the Presidency, while his cousin Franklin used "Liberal." Franklin and Teddy had very similar political beliefs, and might have supported each other politically except that Teddy's branch of the family were Republicans, while Franklin's branch of the family were Democrats. A lot of Teddy's policies as New York Governor and US President were almost identical with those of New York Governor and US President Franklin. Franklin would have had no problem with being identified with "borrowed" policies from Teddy.

CORNELIUSSEON 02:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes but 2/3 or so of the surviving Bull Moosers opposed FDR. There was political bad blood between the Progressives of 1912 and the New Dealers. The main reason was the New Deal was very close to the big city bosses who were the #1 enemies of the early 20c Progressive movement. Not to mention the Progressives of 1924 (LaFollettes) who HATED TR but supported FDR. Rjensen

Merge from Democratic presidents

  • Agreed. That page doesn't have any value on its own. -Jcbarr 04:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree. The reader who wants to see the list of Democratic Presidents can find the information in the "Presidential tickets" section here by looking to see which tickets won. (I think the only Democrats who succeeded to the presidency other than by elecction were Truman and Johnson, and both went on to win in their own right, so they also appear on the list.) JamesMLane 07:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Lincoln's veep, Andrew Johnson, was a Democrat, I believe, and initially took office by succeeding Lincoln upon his assassination. Bjsiders 14:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Johnson has an ambiguous status--he did not identify with either party while president--though he did try for the Democratic nomination in 1868. Asked why he did not become a Dem in July 1868 he said "It is true I am asked why don't I join the Democratic party. Why don't they join me?" [Trefouuse biog p 339] He was not elected Pres as a Democrat and did not join the party while president, so I say leave him out. Rjensen 14:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Perhaps he merely needs a footnote, akin to the one he has in the Republican article? Bjsiders 15:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, he wasn't elected President at all. He had always been a Democrat before, which is largely the reason Lincoln chose him. But you're right that he wasn't a Democratic president, exactly.Bjones 14:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree. Chadlupkes 22:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree this article is about the Party not the Presidents. The legislative branch is just as important. --8bitJake 23:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree The legislative branch IS just as important, but people may have a particular interest in a list of Democratic Presidents placed here that they are not likely to have for Democratic Congresspeople, which would be rather unwieldy in any case. KrazyCaley 06:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree --JW1805 (Talk) 22:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree. Not a big fan of list articles, really. Olin 16:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Founded in 1792 claim

I moved the "founded in 1792" claim to the history section and clarified. This was reverted once, and I reinstated the changes. It is simply inaccurate, or at the very least needs to be explained more, and is furthermore contradicted by our own articles on the subject. In short: There is disagreement among historians over whether the current Democratic Party is essentially a continuation of the 1792 "Republican Party" (sometimes called "Democratic-Republican Party") of Jefferson, or is instead a new party formed in the 1820s or 30s. Most historians tend to consider it more of a new party than the same party, but in any case flatly saying "founded in 1792" without further explanation is not consistent with historical writings on the subject. For more details, see our articles: History of the United States Democratic Party and Democratic-Republican Party (United States). --Delirium 02:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

You can go to the Democratic Party's official Web site, where it clearly tells you what the party was founded in 1792. [3] I don't think this needs "clarification," as it's already clear, and indeed the source I list here makes it so. I don't know of a better source than the party itself. Furthermore, most historians believe that the Demo Party IS a contination of the 1792 party. GriotGriot
It's true that loyal Democrats believe their party was founded in 1792. They rely on old popular histories. The newer scholarship (last 30 years, since Remini) emphasizes 1820s. For example major new book by Wilentz (2005). The job of Wiki is not to pick sides but to tell users this dispute exists. Rjensen 05:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Looks like an intern wrote the Dem website. Its fiorst three statements are not accurate:

"1792 Organized by Thomas Jefferson as a Congressional Caucus to fight for the Bill of Rights and against the elite Federalist Party" The Bill of Rights had already been unanimously approved in 1791. "1798 Became the "party of the common man" and was officially called the Democratic-Republicans" First part is garbled; they NEVER called themselves the "Democratic-Republicans." That is a term invented by historians years later (after 1854). "1800 Jefferson elected as the first Democratic President" Jefferson never used the word "Democratic" top refer to his party, according to word searched of his collected works. He used "anti-federal" or "Republican". Rjensen 05:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't you just hate websites that you can't edit and fix now? You see an error and look for the "edit this page" tab. D'oh. Oh well. You could always drop them a note. --LV (Dark Mark) 14:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
yes indeed, i've become so addicted to Wiki that I assume everything on the web can be edited. Actually, almost nothing can be. The next step however will be a Wiki policy that people have to register before they make any changes.Rjensen 14:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The Democrats.org page is factually wrong on several counts and quite misleading. Why don't we just forget about actual history (and the use of reputable academic sources) and just write whatever works for the political wonks! Frankly I don't care what you do with this article, but stop butchering Democratic-Republican Party (United States) to fit your political motives. It used to be a well-written article. Kaldari 19:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The Dem National Committee is in business to fight Republicans so they tailor all their PR to that end. Wiki can do better by relying on scholarly studies. I confess I am driven to getting the story right--that is, an article that if a student used it for a research paper the prof will give a good grade. I think that's important for the world. Rjensen 19:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Here, here! Wikipedia must not be co-opted by pundits and wonks. This is an encyclopedia, not a PR platform. Kaldari 19:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
What about wankers? 67.15.76.188 07:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

This matter has now been resolved at Democratic-Republican Party (United States), where the consensus is now that the modern Democratic Party can trace its beginning to Jefferson in 1792. It's not a matter of "wonks" or whatever. We are obliged, I believe, to present what the actual party says about itself. Is there a better source? The Democratic-Republican Party article states, "Outside the scholarly community it is popularly believed that today's Democratic Party is the inheritor of the original Democratic-Republican Party, a theme emphasized by Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s," and "However, only the Democratic Party has a direct link to original Democratic-Republican Party, and indeed the party notes on its official website that it was founded in 1792 by Thomas Jefferson. The Democratic Party is often called 'the party of Jefferson'; whereas the Republican Party, which was founded in 1854, is called 'the party of Lincoln.'" GriotGriot

Is there a better source than a handout by the Democratic National Committee written by a poorly informed intern? Well yes, we can rely on a few thousand scholars. (Most of them Democrats to be sure.) Wiki must not become a place for partisan handouts. Rjensen 07:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
What? Academia, especially historians, is full of Democrats? Shocking. ;-) I think it would be good to get some outside sources. Of course the Democrats want to self-identify with Jefferson, etc. (much like the Republicans want to self-identify with Lincoln), no matter how weak a connection. I would like to see at least a couple of sources either way before making a decision. And even then, no decision is final. --LV (Dark Mark) 16:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
What gives you the authority to say who wrote that page at the Democratic Party's official Web site? How can you be sure this was written by "a poorly informed intern." With all due respect, the above posts display a certain amount of arrogance, as if the Wiki crowd knows more or has more authority than the people who are responsible for stating their political party's history and ideals. Scholars will debate the origins of the Demo Party and how far the party has traveled from its origins, but no one doubts that there is a direct line from the present-day Demo Party to the Republican Party started by Jefferson in 1792, and the wiki article should not gloze this over. GriotGriot
Ummm... actually, I think a few people doubt the direct lineage. I think that's the issue you fellas are debating, at hand. --LV (Dark Mark)16:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
The DNC history page is full of mistakes and is not professionally done. Would you like a list of howlers? try: "Jefferson founded the Democratic Party in 1792 ... to fight for the Bill of Rights." FALSE-- the Billl of Rights was approved by Congress in 1789 and ratified by all the states in 1791. .. or how about Madison "defeating the British in the War of 1812." False. Or this mistake: "The Jacksonian Democrats created the national convention process, the party platform," False again. They leave out the Civil War, Korea and Vietnam because they are embarrassed. They leave out WW2 as well, which is very odd and suggests the author did not take a history course. (These errors have long been pointed out on H-NET). At Wiki we are in the business of getting history right. At the DNC they are in the business of bashing Republicans. "No one doubts" -- well Remini started the doubts in 1959 with his book showing that VanBuren started the party. Wiki's job is to get it right, and I suggest that reliance on scholars (most of whom like Remini are Dems) is better strategy than reliance on low quality self-serving stuff. Rjensen 18:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Origin of the Donkey symbol

Right now the article claims that the 1870 cartoon by Nast in Harper's "for the first time symbolized the Democratic Party as a donkey." Anyone got a source on that? I ask, because this 1846 cartoon seems to be doing the same thing. Or maybe it's part of the evolution of the symbol, like this one from 1844 election, which uses a donkey to symbolize the Loco-Foco Democrats. Either way, I think a source is called for. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 03:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I see in the archives that others have brought this up before, even providing references to the symbol originating in the 1830s, but this apparently has not been addressed in the article. If you archive topics that have not been resolved, the terrorists win. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 09:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
If you use the phrase "the terrorists win", the Republicans win. ;-) --LV (Dark Mark) 15:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

McGovern run

The sentence is a bit short and seems to imply he never had a chance, but actually in the early stages of the race McGovern was looking like a potential winner. Most conspicuously, there is no mention of the Eagleton fiasco which may have been the turning point in his fortunes. It's overly simplistic to just say "America did not listen to his rhetoric". Does anyone object to a rewrite that would briefly mention the Eagleton scandal? -Kasreyn 07:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I've made an edit that makes brief mention of Eagleton, while removing a POV and uninformative statement about McGovern's "rhetoric". I hope this will be acceptable. -Kasreyn 08:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

1980s

Shouldn't the section feature more on Congressional Democrats, where the party seemed to make its biggest mark, instead of spending a whole paragraph explaining the term "Reagan Democrat"?Habsfannova 04:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

good point, but the Congressional Dems were usually outmaneuvered by Reagan BECAUSE he had all those Reagan Dems behind him. Rjensen 04:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Centrism?

Don't you think it's time we had another serious discussion about removing that bit of propaganda from the article?--I-2-d2 13:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

An interesting point of view. Can you provide any sort of evidence that the centrism claim is no NPOV? Because the onus is upon you to prove your changes will be more NPOV. I'm not so sure the claim can be easily disputed. After all, the Democratic Party may be socially liberal but they're essentially conservative when it comes to economics (protectionism, etc). Just as the Republicans are economically liberal and socially conservative. I've often found it bizarre that everyone thinks they're right and left wing parties, when there's actually no major party to choose if you happen to be thoroughly liberal in America. Just my $USD 0.02. -Kasreyn 17:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Explain why they've just allied themselves with the European Democratic Party, which is centrist. --Revolución hablar ver 20:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Centrism term is not in common usage in US by policians, commentators or scholars. So it seriously confuses readers when given as main characteristic of Dem party. Confusion is what Wiki prevents, we cannot encourage it. Wait 10 years and see if usage becomes common. In Europe it comes from Center partries which US lacks. Rjensen 22:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Try again. Centrism is term used for a middle party in a multiparty system. It is never used in US to describe a major party. Rjensen 22:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
No, centrism is used as an ideology which incorporates issues of both left and right political ideologies. It has nothing to do with parties, it's an ideology. --Revolución hablar ver 22:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
well you're inventing that application to Dem party. (That is forbiden original research in Wiki) Americans don't use the term. Encyclopedias have to report what terms actually are in use. Rjensen 22:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Exactly, you cannot say centrism. Also, many could argue that Democrats are the economically liberal by the use of their programs. I'd advize not to say that. Caf3623 19:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

"Centrism" is certainly a term which can be used, and which is occasionally used to refer to the Democratic Party - usually by people to the left of it. But "Centrism" is a term which has no clear ideological meaning. john k 21:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Speculative Information

Speculative information, like Barack Obama being a presidential candidate should stay out of the article. Also, Tip O'Neil's picture should go. --Shaunnol 04:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I think Obama can stay--Wiki did not invent that point but is reporting a widespread thought. And certainly keep O'Neill's picture, otherwise it's all White House history. Rjensen 06:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Alright- stop it. stop putting john edwards' picture in 2008 outlook. Hillary Clinton's should be there, if we are guessing on presumptive nominees, she's the one, not him. He's polling 12% at best. She's polling over 30%. MargaretZ 07:05, 6, March 06 (EST)

What the heck is going on?

This article was fairly good at one point, and now (especially after some of today's sketchy editing) is not that good. And can we please use the talk page before making big edits? Thank you. --LV (Dark Mark) 22:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

answer: we have Revolución -- a radical socialist in Florida-- who wants to rewrite the Democratic party according to his offbeat philosophy. Sigh. Rjensen 23:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, to be fair, it isn't just Revolucion. You have made a few odd edits yourself. Perhaps we need to add things to the to do list at the top of this page. That way, we can identify the problems we need to work on. And I know {{sofixit}}, and I may later, I just thought I'd remind people that it is up there. Cheers. --LV (Dark Mark) 00:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

What have I done that is so terrible? Rjensen has reverted all my edits, and I strongly resent this. I replaced the non-notable House Speaker in the 1980s section to a picture of Dukakis, which is relevant. I clarified the party's actual ideology. I added a citation notice to a claim which might need to be supported with sources, "The Democratic Party is more notably factional than most countries in the industralized world". I don't even like the Democratic Party, as an independent, but I thought I could make the article better. Rjensen seems to be confused about certain things. He thinks centrism is a term which only describes a middle party in a "multi-party" system, I disagree, it is a political ideology. A further examination of some of his comments on talk page reveals he thinks the label neoliberal is only used to describe Democrats, which is not true. I've given up editing to this article because defenders of the Democratic Party are so quick to pretend their party is a party of the left even though it is rampant with pro-war centrists. It's hopeless to insert some accurate, neutral reality into this article. --Revolución hablar ver 00:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, to be fair (again), you made some good additions, and some questionable ones. But one thing you forget is that "liberal" does not automatically mean anti-war. You can be liberal and still support war (especially when defined in terms of national defence). As to the centrism discussion, I am going to add it to the to do list. Personally, I think that either both the Republican's article AND the Democrat's article deserve it, or neither does. But since we've already had this discussion, I think I know where you stand. ;-) --LV (Dark Mark) 00:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
The obvious reality is that the Republican Party is not only conservative, but far-right. The "they have it on their page, so we must have it too" argument is just ridiculous. The reason conservatives get bent out of shape over labeling the Democratic Party as centrist is because they see the Democratic Party as some sort of left-wing radical party, which is not really true. They are so far right, they think the Democratic Party are left-wing radicals when they're really centrists. --Revolución hablar ver 01:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, the Republican controlled Congress and Presidency has increased the American Government's spending by quite a bit. They also have gone outside the isolationist ideals of the far-right, increased the size of the Federal government, support amnesty (if not in the exact term) for illegal aliens, as well as supporting other progressive ideals. They also have members who are far-right, as well as members who support centrist principles. Democrats are basically left/moderate, and the Republicans are basically conservative/moderate. Both are big tent parties that aim to get moderate voters by pushing centrist ideas. --LV (Dark Mark) 01:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Government spending has nothing to do with ideology. Republicans spend just as much as liberals/progressives, they just spend it on different things. Progressives want to spend on helping the poor, conservatives want to spend on war and the military. Republicans don't "support progressive ideals", that is ridiculous. They have moderates, but they have much much less centrists than the Democratic Party. Democratic Party is mostly centrist, Republican Party is mostly far-right conservative. --Revolución hablar ver 02:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I have a question for you. Did you ever think your far-left views give you a slightly slanted view of the political spectrum? What you see as left may be far-left, what you see as moderate may actually be left-wing, what you see as conservative may actually be moderate, and what you see as extreme, far-right may actually be slightly right-wing? Your POV may be blinding you from editing correctly. The Republicans in charge are mostly Neoconservatives, which is another name for "liberal". Both the Democrats and the Republicans hold moderate views. It just depends on the issue. If you cannot see that, you may want to take a hard look at your own POV and how it is influencing your editing. --LV (Dark Mark) 03:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I continue to be amazed that the issue is painted in terms of "liberal" and "conservative", with no regard to whether those terms are being applied to the social or economic aspects of governance. For instance, I consider myself both economically liberal and socially liberal, and both parties turn my stomach. The Democrats insist on foolish economic conservatism that can only result in America's continued slide into debt and recession, while the Republicans seem to favor turning back the social clock to a "golden age" that only exists in their myopic fantasies.
To the best of my knowledge there is no truly liberal political party in America, and no truly conservative one, so it constantly makes me smile to see so many people wrangling so furiously over whether they vote "liberal" or "conservative". In America, the only votes available are "compromise" or "abstain". -Kasreyn 11:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Wiki editors should keep their own opinions under wraps. The goal here is to produce an authoritative and verifiable encyclopedia that minimizes POV (or at least clearly explains whose POV is which.) Rjensen 11:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately you will not get that. This is a reason why wikipedia's credibility is shot. You have too many extremists from all sides editing their works and making the other side look like "radicals" Ex: Revolución. This is where an editor's credibility is shot, just like Revolucion. That is why I think it is academic suicide if a student were to use Wikipedia as a source for research papers, theises, dissertations, etc.

User:Ronsin1976 15:13, 9 March 2006

taxes

Move to United States Democratic Party?

Since my move of this page was apparently reversed, I'd like to propose it be moved to United States Democratic Party (and to that similar format, the Republican Party article as well). While I know it's a redirect page, I think it makes more sense to have the article there instead. Not only does the name sound better (imo), United States Democratic Party has more links to (not including redirects, of course). I made my reasoning pretty clear when I moved it, though the reasons for reversal were really not. Political Lefty 04:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The proposed move to United States Democratic Party makes sense to me. Rjensen 04:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, everything else is Common name (disambiguation), so I'm torn. It might be common, but I don't know if the Party's name is "United States Democratic Party" or simply the "Democratic Party". The website doesn't seem to say much. Any idea where we can find a verifiable source on the actual name? --LV (Dark Mark) 05:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I think the official name is the "Democratic National Committee". Rjensen 05:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
That's the official name of the party?? --LV (Dark Mark) 05:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
No, the website says, "The Democratic National Committee plans the Party's quadrennial presidential nominating convention..." so obviously it's a different entity. --LV (Dark Mark) 05:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
There is no national "party" apart from the Democratic National Committee, which is in charge of everything. It's been that way since 1832. Rjensen 05:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
The Democratic Party is managed by the DNC. I would support the move, using "Democratic Party" as a redirect or disambiguation. Nmpenguin 05:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The Charter and Constitution of the party names it "the Democratic Party of the United States of America". [4] Not sure what this means though. --LV (Dark Mark) 05:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

This was discussed before; see Talk:Democratic Party (United States)/Archive#Move?. The consensus then was to use "Democratic Party (United States)". We wouldn't use "Democratic Party of the United States of America", the official name, because it's almost never called that. Its common name is simply "Democratic Party". We don't use that title, though, because there are other organizations that call themselves the "Democratic Party". In such instances, the parenthetical disambiguation is the normal Wikipedia style. JamesMLane t c 06:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Factions

Can anyone explain why there are two first level subheadings with nearly identical titles, "Factions" and "Factions within the party"? Also, how about explaining why there is a "factions" section in this article while the same section in the Republican article, while essentially just as long, is split out into its own article and merely summarized briefly in the main article? - Jersyko·talk 15:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Probably because two different sets of editors have worked on each article and each group organized the information differently. Bjsiders 18:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Need to merge Bob Hagan and Robert Hagan

We need to merge Bob Hagan and Robert Hagan.

Note that there is some disageement between these two articles on some facts. -- Writtenonsand 19:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Basic Values

I kinda took the liberty to alphebetize the Basic Values section. Since everyone can disagree with what are the most important issues, I think this is the best, clearest way to list them. I don't think they're well put nor do I think they represent the party's stated priorities.

The Democratic Party lists its priorities like this on its national website ([5]):

Keeping America Safe at Home/Strength Overseas/Honoring Our Troops, Veterans, and Their Families/A Strong Economy/Education/Retirement Security/Affordable Health Care/Honest Government/Election Reform/Protecting Our Environment/Civil Rights

I think this might be a good method for stating the party's principles. It could be stated like this:

Civil Rights

Economy

Education

Environment

Foreign Policy

Health Care

National Security


I'd ditch some of the issues du jour and stick with the party's main tenets.

By the way, this is a place to clearly state the party's positions, not a place to debate them. Njsamizdat 17:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Third way

I'll not readd the removed |third way from the political ideology section, but I certainly think several concerns militate in favor of its inclusion, notwithstanding the perception of the term in Britain (as observed in an edit summary reverting the original addition) as applying exclusively to Tony Blair, whom, the editor noted, is largely seen as linked with the Republican G.W. Bush, inasmuch as the article is about American politics. First, many notable Democrats would surely ascribe the appellative "third way" to themselves (see, e.g., those enumerated in the Democratic Leadership Council article, where the "third way" trope is employed passim). Second and similarly, President Clinton, even as he may be out of office and, given the apolitical nature of much of his work, no longer considered a "notable Democrat", surely still is the face for many of the Democratic Party, and it cannot be incorrect to say that his influence has been sufficient to leave so-called "third way" policies as an important part of extant conversation and work within the Democratic Party. If other editors are in accord with this thinking, I will welcome their readding third way to the political ideology section; if not, I'll infer from their failure so to do that mine is not the prevailing view and will let it drop straightaway. Joe 23:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The proper war to proceed is someone should add a whole section under "factions" and explain who these folks are besides Bill Clinton--and what they believe. Don't slip into the summary a highly dubious conclusion based on British politics 10 years old. Rjensen 00:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Social liberalism, anyone?

I was looking at the different "varities" of liberalism, and in my opinion, the Democratic Party of the United States can also be classified as a social liberal party. Sure, the ideology is usually seen as a center-right ideology, but from a world view, aren't both major US parties officially (ideologically) center-right? (With the Republican Party just being slightly more to the right?) I'm looking for a consensus on whether to add or not add this as a possible additional political ideology listed on the article. Chef Ketone 03:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Separate "factions" page?

Should there be a separate page for factions like the Republican Party page on party factions. I personally say yes as it is a vital part of the party to show the diversity of opinion within the party today. --Blue387 12:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The Democratic Party, not being in power, doesn't get as much focus on its different factions as the Republican coalition does, but this shouldn't lead to a false impression that the Democratic Party has a completely unified viewpoint. There are indeed factions within the coalition which often have to be persuaded or coerced into working together by party leaders, just like any other political organization. -Kasreyn 02:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm of the belief that if something is one of a set (American political parties for instance) and contains similar enough content, the pages should function the same. So I think that would be a good idea purely in that sense. -- Fearfulsymmetry 04:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

"Democrat" vs. "Democratic" Party

A couple editors (not me) have added a paragraph on Republican efforts to distort the proper name of the Party into the article. Recently, it was removed as unsourced and unverified. Well, here's a reputable source that verifies what was said.[6] I haven't added the info because i'm just not sure (1) if the info belongs in this article, and, if so, (2) where to put it. I did want to post the source, though, so others can discuss this. - Jersyko·talk 13:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty well documented. I don't think it really belongs here, but if you do, add it and source it. Bjsiders 15:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
This Republican distortion is significant enough that it's surfaced here before, brought up by editors who've been so influenced by the spin that they wrongly suggest "Democrat Party" as the correct name. See Talk:Democratic Party (United States)/Archive#"Democratic" vs. "Democrat" and, on this page, #Name choice. It's not just an occasional error but a deliberate tactic. It deserves mention because a significant number of readers could be confused about the point. JamesMLane t c 03:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I have a new article on Democrat Party (United States) that covers the history of the term. the term "Democrat party" goes back over 75 years (Hoover used it in 1932) and was widely used in 1950s for example--by Robert Taft for example ["Nor can we expect any other policy from any Democrat Party or any Democrat President under present day conditions. They can not possibly win an election solely through the support of the solid South, and yet their political strategists believe the Southern Democrat Party will not break away no matter how radical the allies imposed upon it." Papers 3:313] Alf Landon complained in 1958, "Two years ago we drove thousands of votes into the Democrat party by blanket abuse of all labor leaders as 'goons' and 'racketeers.'". Newt Gingrich revived the term in mid 1990s. It's false to say it's some recent gimmick based on focus groups or something. In 1964 civil rights groups in Mississippi formed the Mississippi Freedom Democrat Party (MFDP) and sought admission to the Dem national convention (they were made observers). So you get AP headlines like "[Martin Luther] King Plans to Boost New Democrat Party,” AP, 21 July 1964. The term is very common outside the USA: Britain in 1988 formed a major new party called "Liberal Democrat" party. The "Democrat Party" was dominant in New Zealand in 1930s. Do scholars use it? a few, yes. for example: Grossman, Lawrence, The Democratic Party and the Negro: Northern and National Politics, 1868-92 Publisher University of Illinois Press, 1976. Also: Perry H. Howard 1971; Stephen C. Craig 1993; Timothy J.Barnett; Garland, 1999; oldest citation: Charles Henry Carey on Oregon in 1840s, 1926 ). The Blair family tried to set up an "Independent Democrat party" in 1856. In 1861 California called its party "Union Democrat Party". For negative reactions see see William F. Buckley's comments repudiating this usage in National Review 52 (December 31, 2000): p 18 Rjensen 07:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I put a revised version of the paragraph in the article but got an edit conflict in responding to your comment, which you were changing. I agree that we shouldn't ascribe the use solely to contemporary focus groups, but we do have a published source identifying polling as one factor. Your citations confirm that the solecism's use by Republicans (or "Repugs" as the people at Democratic Underground call them) is significant enough to deserve mention here, so if my rewording doesn't seem right to you, I urge you to edit it rather than simply blanking the paragraph. JamesMLane t c 07:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
You've changed it to read, "The party prefers using the name 'Democratic Party'." You described this change as removing POV, as if it were a matter of dispute or simply a difference in taste. It's not. Whether the Democratic Party is right to oppose the privatization of Social Security, for example, is indeed a matter of what it "prefers", but the name of the party is not a matter of opinion. "Democratic Party" is correct. "Democrat Party" is incorrect. This is fact, not POV. JamesMLane t c 12:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
No: Wiki's job is not to announce what is correct or incorrect usage. We report what usage people make out there. It often happens in history that groups get names they don't like--and sometimes (Quakers, Shakers, Methodists, Locofocos) they actually adopt the name. In fact "Democratic party" was originally a term of abuse by the Federalists and it was eventually adopted! The article states that opponents use the term (true) and that it annoys Dems (true.) The story about it coming out of focus groups is false--Hoover used the term in 1932, Willkie in 1940, Taft in 1952. Rjensen 12:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
While I think Rjensen is correct that the wording was somewhat POV (I've tweaked it), I do not understand why Rjensen calls the focus group blurb a "rumor" when a reliable source is cited. The article doesn't attribute the origin of the term to the focus groups, but rather the recent use of the word. - Jersyko·talk 13:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
every party and politician uses focus groups, and all issues I think get vetted by them. The suggestion that the term originated there or was promoted by a pollster is false. the term has been in continuous usage for at least 10-15 years (Gingrich used it all the time in 1994). Will it become standard usage? possibly, but not yet since I think it is deliberately used to rile Democrats. Why they get riled is quite a mystery--surely it is not because the term grates on the ears--the Brits adopted it in 1988 for their new party. Anyone have a suggestion on why it bothers Dems? By the way, the ICPSR at Michigan, which is the main data repository for election studies, prefers "Democrat party" in its codebooks. Rjensen 13:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
"The suggestion that the term originated" with focus groups -- straw man. The passage I wrote incorporated your research about the history, and then said that, "More recently," poll results had played a role. This obviously doesn't refer to the origin. More important, you still want to use "prefers". Here's an analogy: Some people use the spelling "AmeriKKKa" (see here). Would it be correct to say, "The country's government officially prefers the name 'United States of America'."? No, it would be misleading to characterize this as a preference. "America" is the correct spelling, and, yes, it is our job to announce that. As for why the incorrect "Democrat Party" bothers Dems, it bothers me simply because it's wrong. I react to it the same way I do to "accomodate" or to "wholly-owned subsidiary". JamesMLane t c 14:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
The party charter says it's name is "The Democratic Party of the United States of America" -- but I believe that name is VERY rarely used in full. Everyone abbreviates it--some to "Democrat party" and most to "Democratic party". Usage in fact changes and the idea that Wiki (or the Dem Ntl committee) controls how to shorten an official name usage is false. The term "USA" is not the correct name of the country but it is VERY widely used without any controversy. It is NOT "wrong" for someone to say "I'm from the USA." Some terms go out of usage ("The Democracy") and others come into common use, all the time. To say that using the term "Democrat party" is "wrong" is simply POV. It means you don't like the word, and probably do not like the users (Hoover, Taft, Eisenhower, Ginrich, Reagan, DeLay, Bush--not to mention the National Review and GOP national committee). We all have to work hard to keep our own POV out of Wiki, especially on political articles. Rjensen
But only the first version of the blurb said anything about it being "wrong". While I'm pleased that the version now in the article discusses the historical origin of the term, you've removed the cited reference about the pollster in every subsequent version. The current version does not say that the abbreviated name is "wrong" per se, but merely that a right-wing pollster found that the public is less receptive to its use. The information is cited to a reliable source. If you still want to exclude it, please provide an argument relevant to the current rewritten version of the blurb instead of one relevant to the original version of it. - Jersyko·talk 14:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
pollster and focus groups: no one has offered a reliable source for this bit of trivia. [[7] by a columnist, not a reporter, is too vague to be a reliable source. Rjensen 14:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia has no such rule. We don't insert a sneering "supposedly" in such contexts. We provide the link (which is more than is done for many assertions in Wikipedia that are much more contentious). A reader who's sufficiently interested in "this bit of trivia" can see what our source is and can evaluate its credibility for himself or herself. As for your other argument, "Democrat" is not an abbreviation for "Democratic". It's a different word. "USA" is an abbreviation for "United States of America" but "AmeriKKKa" is a different word, and the choice between the two ways of referring to the United States of America is not simply a matter of which one the speaker "prefers". One is a correct abbreviation of the name of the country; the other is not. Or would you be perfectly content if half the uses of "USA" on Wikipedia were replaced by "AmeriKKKa", so that we could be fair to both preferences? JamesMLane t c 17:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The longer a debate on a political issue takes place, the closer it approaches WP:LAME. This is pretty close. How many times will we have to discuss this whole name thing? My thoughts, I'll bugger off now. --LV (Dark Mark) 17:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

2004 vote-counting

"Flaws in vote-counting systems may also have played a role in Kerry's defeat" really needs to be cited and shown verifiable. While it may be true, it has a certain POV tone to it. Olin 21:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC) I removed it until it is cited. Olin 03:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually I put the sentence back in, with a link to 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities. Olin 03:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

"Oldest Party In The World"

I have filed an Rfc for this question. There seem to be three options here:

  1. The Democratic party is the oldest political party in the world
  2. The Democratic party is one of the oldest, if not the oldest, political party in the world
  3. The Democratic party is one of the oldest political parties in the world
  4. The Democratic party is the oldest political party in the United States.

I hope we can reach consensus on this issue. Per my comments below, I like number 3. Actually, number 4 seems to be the least controversial and most accurate, given The Minister of War's comments below. - Jersyko·talk 23:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The British Conservative party claims the same thing, and states that it dates - officially - from 1783, and evolved from the so-called "Tory Faction" which was much older. A Brief History of the Conservative Party SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 21:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Contributors to this article have gone around and around this topic many times. This article used to say that the Demo Party was the second oldest party in the world after the British Tories. However, some English historians believe that the Tory Party ceased being the Tory Party after it became the Conservative Party, and that the two parties are not the same. The question of whether the Demo Party is the oldest seems to hinge on whether you believe the English Tory and Conservative Party are one and the same. I personally don't know much about this. I do know that an argument about whether the Demo Party is the oldest doesn't belong in the first paragraph of this article. Please note changes. Griot 17:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
But saying "along with the Tory Party, it is the oldest" doesn't make logical sense, one must be older unless they were created at the exact moment. It's not argumentative to say that it is one of the oldest political parties in the world--this holds true even if it is the oldest. I'm not saying that the Tory claim is correct, I'm merely saying that (1) we cannot say that the Dems are the oldest because there's a legitimate argument that the Tory Party is older and (2) the current wording is illogical. Also, can you please provide a link to where this has been discussed previously? - Jersyko·talk 19:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps we could reword it to say "The Democratic Party is one of the oldest, if not the oldest, policital parties in the world" or something similar? - Jersyko·talk 19:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
::But saying "along with the Tory Party, it is the oldest" doesn't make logical sense, one must be older unless they were created at the exact moment. This is a false dilemma. It is impossible to determine which is older because it depends on how one defines a political party. I don't think there's anything wrong with the current phrasing. Just to add something - I don't think 1783 makes any real sense as a birthdate for the Conservatives. Pitt didn't even call himself a Tory, that name being only really taken up by his followers after his death (Fox and his Whigs compatriots did, of course, refer to Pitt's followers as Tories). The modern Conservative Party probably dates to Peel's Tamworth Manifesto in 1835. The modern Democratic Party dates to almost the same time - probably to the 1832 presidential election. (BTW, what about the Liberal Democrats? While, as such, they came into existence in 1988, the Liberal part of it dates back at least to 1859, and is the descendant of an organized Whig Party going back to, well, 1783 or so. I don't see why the Conservatives and the Democrats get to claim vaguely affiliated predecessor parties as their own, but the Lib Dems do not get to do the same.) john k 19:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
In re false dilemma: true, I suppose, but the amorphous nature of the definition of "party" also helps my point, I think. Regardless, I'm satisfied with the version Griot has implemented. - Jersyko·talk 19:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not right to say that,"if not the oldest". Please just say,"The Democratic Party is one of the oldest policital parties in the world" Caf3623 19:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I like that wording, and have added it in the past, only to have it removed. It's much less clunky and still gets the point across. I think it's the better choice. - Jersyko·talk 22:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Assuming arguendo, as I think we are right to do, that one, as John K. and Jerysko suggest, cannot assess exactly at what moment a party has been created, or, in any case, which parties follow others such that the followers should be understood as components of the predecessors, I cannot imagine what objections one might essay to the "one of the oldest political parties in the world" language. It is surely as accurate as any pronouncement may be and reads much better than other locutions previoulsy used. Toward the proposition that the creation and evolution of a party are relatively nebulous, I adduce the case of the Republican Party; on the occasion of the (roughly) 150th anniversary of the creation of the party, officials and historians from the two towns in which its birthplace is most often said to be, Ripon, Wisconsin and Jackson, Michigan, argued in the press rather stridently over which historical version is correct, producing, in the end, no real result. Joe 23:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
The problem with "is one of the oldest political parties in the world" is that it gives the idea that the Demo Party is one of a handful of old parties." Actually, the party is either the oldest or the second oldest, depending on where you date the beginning of the English Tory/Conservative Party (as explained above). Even if you date the Demo Party beginnings to 1823, it is still older than the English Conservative Party. I say leave the wording as is, because it accurately states where the Demo Party stands in age in relation to other parties. Griot 00:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
If you trace the Liberal Dems back to the Whigs, then they are also older than the Democrats. But there's really very few political parties dating even back to the 19th century - the two main American parties, the Tories in Britain, arguably the Liberal Democrats (I think it's fair to trace them at least back to the formation of the Liberal party in 1859), the Canadian Liberals...the German Social Democrats...probably some of the other continental socialist parties...and that's really about the extent of it, and most date to the 1850s or later... john k 08:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Placement of this reference

I don't feel strongly about which wording appears. FWIW, I've seen the occasional reference to the Democrats as "the world's oldest continuing political party" (as in Mo Udall's speech to the 1976 Democratic Convention). Does adding the word "continuing" exclude any claim by the Tories?

What seems clear to me, though, is that the issue isn't important enough to be in the lead section. If the age of the party is mentioned at all, it should be as the oldest political party in the United States, which is clearly true. Any elaboration about its claims to longevity vis-a-vis parties in other countries should be in the body of the article, not the lead section. JamesMLane t c 02:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. If a mountain is the tallest in the world, that gets mentioned in the first paragraph. If a city is the most populous, that gets mentioned. Similarly, that the Demo Party is the oldest deserves mention in the first paragraphs. Griot 03:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Historical perspective

Hey people,

Just came in through WP:RFC, and was puzzled by this entire discussion. Perhaps people should take a look at History of democracy. The competition for "Oldest political party" is pretty stiff; I'd personally expect one of the parties of the Roman Republic to take away the cake, but I cant be sure there werent elligible candidates from earlier in history.

Hence the correct phrasing would seem to be the "oldest surviving political party" (which already loses a lot of charm). But personally, I'd hate to go on record with even this claim. Are we sure about more recent possibilities? Democracy in Switzerland is pretty consolidated, dating from the 12th century. Has anybody checked whether there may be links there? For that matter, is anybody sure that some modern political parties in Iceland do not have their roots in the Icelandic Commonwealth (sporting, if memory serves, the oldest parliament)?

Concluding, be very VERY careful about putting such claims in the article, and be prepared to do a lot of explaining if you dont want them to be reverted by random passers-by who think they know differently.

Cheers, The Minister of War (Peace) 14:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I would prefer option 4 (sadly not listed above) "The oldest party in the United States". The Minister of War (Peace) 15:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/e/m/Talk%7EDemocratic_Party_%28United_States%29_Archive3_5d3b.html"