Talk:Democratic National Committee

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Is there a difference between the Party and the Committee

I question this redirect. The National Committees are not the same thing as the parties. -- Zoe

Really. Enlighten me, what is the difference? Hercus Insert non-formatted text here

[edit] Campaign finance scandal

I am sorry if facts make people uncomfortable, but historical facts cannot and will not be whitewashed. Whoever deleted this info from this page deleted it with no discussion or reason given. This is not acceptable. Please refrain from doing this in the future. I have added this page to my watchlist so this cannot happen again in the future. Thank you. --Jayzel 18:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 50% of fundraising by jews

The link to the supporting article reveals this:

While trying to retrieve the URL: http://atlanta.jewish.com/archives/2003/011703cs.htm

The following error was encountered:

Unable to determine IP address from host name for atlanta.jewish.com The dnsserver returned:

Server Failure: The name server was unable to process this query. This means that:

Paragraph will be deleted until this sourced and found to be true, however I dont know if I really see the relevance.

True or not, I don't understand what that has to do with anything Rotundo 05:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Content/deletion

Well, I took this directly from the democratic party wikipedia page to add a little bit more information. I hope that doesnt violate any rules. If it does, we can take it out. However, I think it fits rather nicely and will work to expand it. SOMEone took out the page of controversies which I think was a good move. It was taking up most of the page and I dont think it was very encyclopedic. Maybe if the page gets fleshed out a bit more than we can put some of it back in. Until then I vote to keep it out. Jasper23 05:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why are the Jews important in this context? NNPOV

Why not Christians or Hindus?

This information is completely unsourced and irrelevant. "Sources within the democratic party" is the authors opinion at best.The paper cited is an editorial in a weekly. The Jew text was lifted directly from this article without attribution and the second article you listed does not have modern reference to Jewish contributions to the Democratic party. I believe you are trying to cite the footnotes where it talks about Ford and Carter. Neither article has factual information to support your claim. Also, this will not go into the article until relevance is established. Text: Sources within the Democratic Party estimate that contributions from Jews make up 50 percent of the donations the party receives from individuals each election cycle. The party does not admit publicly that it tracks donations via religion or ethnicity.[1],[2] Jasper23 15:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I think the text was added to promote an offensive POV. WVhybrid 18:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy section removed

I dont think this article is long enough to have a controversy section such as this. How about a seperate article with this info...there seems to be enough relevant information to do that. I think this section is far too long and does not belong in this article especially considering the small size and lack of in-depth information on the DNC itself. So what do you think? Disagreement?

Here is the text:

[edit] 1996 campaign fund-raising controversy

Main article: 1996 U.S. campaign finance scandal

In late September 1996, questions arose regarding the Democratic Party's fund-raising practices. In February of the following year, the People's Republic of China's alleged role in the controversy first gained public attention after Republican media figure Bob Woodward's Washington Post published a story stating that an investigation by the Democratic Party-controlled Department of Justice had discovered evidence that agents of China sought to direct contributions from foreign sources to the DNC before the 1996 presidential campaign. The paper wrote that intelligence information had shown the Chinese Embassy in Washington, D.C. was used for coordinating contributions to the DNC[1] in violation of U.S. law forbidding non-American citizens from giving monetary donations to U.S. politicians and political parties. DNC fund-raisers John Huang, Charlie Trie, James Riady, and Johnny Chung, were convicted for fraud or for funneling Asian funds into the U.S. elections.

In 2002, the Federal Election Commission fined the Democratic National Committee $115,000 for its part in illegal fund-raising during the 1996 U.S. election campaigns. The FEC's general counsel recommended more severe penalties, but the three Democratic election commissioners on the committee blocked the recommendation on a 3-3 tie vote.[2]

Just notice that there is another article. Should we just have a link?

Jasper23 16:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

That article is quite sufficient in itself. Someone keeps spamming every page associated with Democrats with extensive coverage of the 1996 irregularities. Derex 02:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The truth frightens you, doesn't it? I am putting this back on the page. This is part of the Democratic party's history. "The article is too short" is the most pathetic excuse for censorship I have ever seen. If you think an article is too short, then lengthen it! --Jayzel 01:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


Sorry, I didnt see you posted on the talk page. Please, lets keep it civil. I was just wondering if the page is too short for a controversy section. I dont know if thats a pathetic excuse or not. Please assume good faith. I really do think that this takes up too much of the article. This is already covered in-depth on the 1996 campaign scandal page. Jasper23 01:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

This has been off the page for some time. I was also not the first one to remove it. I have asked for discussion for some time. By you saying "there is nothing to discuss" and calling my edits vandalism, I have a hard time trying to assume good faith in your edits. But I still do. I think that you just may be a little upset. Please be civil and I am sure that we can reach some sort of compromise. Thanks Jasper23 01:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing to discuss because there is no logical reason given for the removal of this paragraph. If the article is "too short" in your opinion then you should lengthen it, not shorten it even more. Where is the precedent or rule at Wikipedia that says if an article is short you should remove any negative, documented history from the article? The logic is absurd. I can very well say the article is too short for a section on recent fundraising and just decide to remove that. What compromise are you looking for? I readded a link to the article and a very brief paragraph and apparently that is too much for you and that ideologue "Derex". You removed the item, YOU need to give a logical explaination for your actions. The article is too short doesn't cut it. --Jayzel 02:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Please, there is no need for name calling. Neither Derex or I, should be called ideologues or any such derogatory term. You dont even know us. I would ask you to be civil and stop with the needless namecalling and general disrespect that you have shown to me. I have done nothing to warrant such behavior and have not treated you in such a manner.Jasper23 02:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

As for an explanation, I believe that the shortness of the article and the length of the controversy section constitute a potentially nnpov wikipedia article. The DNC has been an organization since 1848 and the inclusion of a relatively long 1996 fundraising scandal section causes the article to lose its balance. If the article isnt balanced then it has a nnpov. This controversy already has a very long page on its own and it is my opinion that it should stay on its own page until this article is more fleshed out. Without a more complete article, the fundraising controversy throws off any balance the article could have. I would rather see a sterile article than a unbalanced and potentially nnpov article. What are your thoughts on the matter? Does anyone else have anything to add?Jasper23 05:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I know Derex very well. He has been stalking me ever since I wrote the campaign finance article 6 months ago. I tell him if he finds anything incorrect in what I write to help himself and fix it, but he then ignores me and I find comments of his later on talk pages with vailed insults about spamming pages and calling me a zealot. He is clearly a stealth idealogue who has no intention of making constructive edits. His only goal appears to be stalking other constructive editors.

As for your statement that I am placing a "relatively long 1996 fundraising scandal section" into this article: Hogwash. A short two sentence paragraph with a link to the main article is not a long section. Wikipedia rules clearly state we are to link relevant articles to eachother. As the DNC was fined for illegal fundraising and many of its fundraiser were convicted of crimes, this page is the most relevant page to link my article to. An article, by the way, that has FEATURED STATUS and has been showcased on Wikipedia's main page. I am putting the info back into the article where it belongs. I am not waiting months for some imaginary discussion to take place here. No one reads talk pages and the few that would actually stop by will be partisans. If you continue to delete factual, referenced history from this article I will report you to the moderators. Good day --Jayzel 18:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to work out a solution that we can both agree on. I am not inflexible. But open discussion is necessary. Would you agree to wiki moderation to find an amicable solution? Jasper23 19:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I am more than open to moderation for a solution. If you haven't noticed, I shrink the paragraph I add more and more each time and each time it is apparent NOTHING is acceptable to you except complete censorship. --Jayzel 04:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, please check your tone. There is absolutely no REASON to talk to me like that. Why do you think we havent had a CONSTRUCTIVE conversation. Honestly, I am all for mediation and am willing to be flexible in what is included in the article. I have been the whole time. When you are openly hostile to someone without assuming good faith it reflects poorly upon yourself and your personal character. Jasper23 09:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Truth hurts, I take it. --Jayzel 15:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To Jayzel: please don't make personal attacks on this page

Crossposted to User talk:Jayzel68

Jayzel, this is an official administrator warning. I urgently request you to moderate your combative tone and desist with the personal attacks on this page. Please review Wikipedia's policy against personal attacks, WP:NPA. The essence of that policy is comment on content, not on the contributor. Feel free to criticize people's edits (civilly); don't criticize editors personally, and don't call names. Frankly, I hardly see a single post by you above that isn't unacceptably aggressive. To launch attacks like "pathetic excuse for censorship" as your very first response to a polite request for your opinion about removal of material poisons the climate of the page and makes collegial editing and consensus that much harder to achieve. Just don't do it. Bishonen | talk 01:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC).

[edit] MedCab Case

[edit] This section is for the discussion regarding the mediation-cabal case about the campaign fund-raising controversy

Mediator: Addhoc. Involved Parties: Jayzel68 Jasper23

Would any other involved parties add their name to the list. Thanks, Addhoc 11:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, I've posted an initial suggested compromise for discussion on the mediation-cabal case page. Would the involved parties post their comments about this initial suggestion in the discussion section of the case page. Thanks, Addhoc 14:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I have introduced the compromise version into the article, hope that's ok. Addhoc 15:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Democratic Party Charter and Bylaws

The main source for much of this article really ought to be the Charter and Bylaws of the Democratic Party[3]. I will work on adding material when I have the time. Sam 21:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Wiki should be describing the rwal world, not regurgitate the rules book. Rjensen 21:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
It's nice to get the facts right first; I just removed material indicating that the Chair was selected by the President when the President is a Democrat. Our current sources focus on CNN and websites, not Polsby. I think this is an article that needs to walk before it can run. But, I agree, if someone wants to add something drawing on cited sources for things like organizational influence, party composition, history of conventions and of different factions, etc., I think it would be great. I'll be a bit more modest and try to just get some of the basic facts in here, with support. Sam 22:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Mc Cain skelton closet www.realchange.org/mccain.htm this will open some eyes


== Some facts ==

I'd love to get citations for those campaign finance numbers in the bottom - they conflict with the Press Release I cited to in the lead from the FEC, which shows lower amounts of funds raised in the 2001-02 cycle (and it may be we want to update for a later cycle anyways). Citations would also be useful on the history - e.g., 1866 date for DCCC (does anyone have a date for DSCC?). On DSCC and DCCC, I'm not sure it's right to say they are governed by the Caucus - I believe the current structure is ostensibly governed by the DNC, but in practice dominated by the Democratic Leadership, but haven't been able to quickly track this down. I've added some other citation needed tags as reminders for where we needs cites, and will try to track some of these down. Sam 22:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Mitchell

Stephen Mitchell, poet (born 1943) of Brooklyn and later CA is listed as the 1952-1955 DNC Chair. I suspect this was a different man. I'd add the new listing myself, but I'm a newbie and frankly don't know the protocol for creating a new listing for Stephen Mitchell, Chicago lawyer. -- Gene Ha

Gene - good catch. I edited the article to relink Mitchell, but now as "Stephen Mitchell (Illinois)". If you want to create an article for him, just click on the redlink, and it will take you right to the edit page for the new article.Simon12 20:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia editing

An editor added a section based on two references -- the first of which ([4]) is original research, and the second of which ([5]) says only that somebody using a computer at "Democrat HQ" edited the Rush Limbaugh article. In fact, as another report reveals, the computer used was at the DCCC, not the DNC. The DCCC spokesperson said it didn't condone the activities. See [6]. Given these facts, I can't see this as being important enough to include in the DCCC article, let alone the DNC article. I'm removing it. JamesMLane t c 14:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it disingenuous to simply edit out such instances - at most refine them. So far most organizations have pointed out how others have transgressed but not how they have transgressed - I see only the BBC admitting this so far [7]. We deserve accountability from our institutions and we should have it in wikipedia as well. If there is a problem with the information refine it but it's pretty darn clear it's beyond spin control. Take ownership of the problems. I'm sure other parts of wikipedia will soon have such entries. Let's set the standard of conduct on this one high, shall we?--Smkolins 19:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean by setting a high standard of conduct and by "accountability". It's not our job as Wikipedia editors to say to the DNC or anyone else, "Thou has sinned and thou shalt pay the price by being exposed on these pages." Our job is to give the readers an encyclopedia article about the DNC. A reader who comes to this article wants to know the basics about the article subject. That some employee, without authorization and against DCCC policy, used a DCCC computer to make a few objectionable edits to Wikipedia isn't an important item of information about the DCCC or the DNC. Suppose an employee of Corporation X used a company computer to post an obscene Photoshopped image of another employee. Should that be mentioned in the article on Company X? No, because it's just not very important information about that company. JamesMLane t c 23:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re-vote Florida and Michigan

why the hell would you spend 20 million dollars for another election it these states when the people have already voted, unlessyou are looking to change the results. Something smells.

dave —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.108.163.98 (talk) 18:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Democrat Party or Democratic Party

Is the D in DNC Democratic or Democrat ? Seems like it should be Democrat since that is the name of the Party.

99.132.130.219 (talk) 00:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The name of the party is The Democratic Party, and DNC stands for Democratic National Committee. [8] Simon12 (talk) 04:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] General Chairperson

Can someone explain the doubling up of chairs between 1995 and 2001? Timrollpickering (talk) 14:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)