Talk:Democratic-Republican Party

Democratic Republican Party
I don't know if I'm right, but I feel that the intro should at least mention that the party started off as the republican party only. This is cause the current textbook I'm learning it from only calls it the republican party (Brinkly, American History, A Survey, Twelfth Edition) and most (if not all) of the first few sources on this page call it the republican party (at least in the summary of the source) &eta;oian   &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  03:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You are not right. I would hope your teacher is in fact taking a more measured view; the current fad to call them Republicans is a recent and minority view, which distorts the contemporary evidence.
 * This is incorrect. First off, historian David McCullough and Joseph Ellis both refer to Jefferson's party as Republican in their Pulitzer Prize winning works.  I also have a history book published in 1922 that refers to Jefferson's party as Republican and describes how Jackson formed the Democratic-Republican party.  The opposite of what you claim is true.  It was only recently that people have tried to attache the label "Democrat-Republican" to Jefferson's party.  This effort appears to date back to the '90's and be a political attempt to whitewash the Democratic Party's true history and back-peddle from the fact that the party's early history included the Trail of Tears and a defense of slavery.
 * When the DR's were an informal group in Congress, Jefferson called them "republican federalists" (small r). This distinguished them from, on one side, the opponents of the existence of the Federal Government, like George Clinton and Patrick Henry (both of whom were to give up their insistance on this later), who were anti-federalists; on the other side, from those Jefferson called "monarchist federalists", who became the Federalist Party; they supported the Federal Government, and wished to make it stronger. (How unfair Jefferson was in calling them monarchists is disputed, then and now.)
 * They became a national party as an alliance between a Virginia group, centered around Jefferson, who often called themselves Republicans, and northern groups (chiefly in Pennsylvania and New York) who often called themselves Democrats. The Federalists called them all Democrats or Jacobins, as terms of abuse.
 * By Madison's second term, Democratic was becoming the normal term, North and South alike. In Monroe's presidency, the Federalist Party broke up, and had ceased to act in national politics; almost all of the national politicians belonged to Monroe's party. So divisions on policy and candidates became factions within the party, and they broke up into four divisions, each claiming the mantle of Jefferson: the National Republicans, the Democratic Republicans, and so on. Of these, the Democratic Republicans, who supported Jackson, were the largest, and eventually prevailed; they have a direct institutional affiliation with the present Democratic Party.
 * The DR's, properly so called, had virtually no national party institutions at all: only a Congressional caucus, frequently defied. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The word "Democrat" was popularized by the French revolutionaries, especially "Citizen Genêt," French ambassador to the U.S. in 1793-94. To say that the D-R party was founded in 1792, as the article does, is an anachronism since no one called themselves a Democrat at that time.
 * The party existed, as a group within Congress, before 1792, and did not give themselves any proper noun. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source for the assertion that Jackson's supporters were Democratic Republicans? At least in this example, from the 1832 convention, they called themselves Republicans. Kauffner (talk) 17:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * They called themselves many things, especially before Jackson's re-election; the Democratic Republican usage was particularly common before the breakup, while the four factions were competing ideologies struggling for Monroe's favor and the nomination to succeed him. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * ''Despite such variations, at the beginning 1824 the party was generally known as "Republican."<:ref>Gammon, 155-156. In example:

This shortening has changed Gammon's meaning. What he means is that, at the beginning of 1824, there was one party: that often called Republican. (invariably is demonstrably false; the Caucus proclamation linked to in the footnote says Democratic Members of Congress.) At that time there were factions within the party, several of them with names. By the end of 1824, they were separate parties. Gammon is not discussing the name of the united party at this point. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Read the document in that footnote more carefully. It states that the "Democratic members of congress" are seceding from, and I quote, "The republican party."  The party name was Republican.  It is disconcerting that some keep pointing to that one document (that doesn't even show what they claim it shows) as a supposed counter-weight to an avalanche of examples that demonstrate the party name was republican.
 * This topic has come up several times. The term 'republican' or 'Republican' saw the most usage during the 1790 up into the 1800s. However, the term "Democratic-Republican" has been used by some historians to help disambiguate the name from the current Republican party, perhaps because most stances on issues could be interpreted as be quite divergent.  The term "democrats" as referring to the party had infrequent usage by significant party members, at least up until Madison's second term, so let's not give that excessive weight.  Skyemoor (talk) 18:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Historians prefer "Republican Party" and political scientists prefer "Democratic Republican Party." Jefferson and Madison always called it "republican". The political scientists started in late -- about the 1880s-- and ever since their textbooks typically list the various major parties. They avoid having "republican party" appear twice in the list--a guaranteed way to confuse students..  The modern GOP was indeed named after Jefferson's party in 1854. Rjensen (talk) 06:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

National Republicans
A conservative wing of the DR party, under John Quincy Adams, called themselves, and were called National Republicans; in general, they backed Clay and his program in 1824. Much the same group were later to organize themselves as the National Republican Party, before merging with the Whigs. This is not a bug, it's a feature. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Requested move
Move Parsecboy (talk) 00:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This page was moved in September from the hyphenated version to a dash version without discussion and with a summary reference to "WP:DASH". "Democratic-Republican" should be hyphenated, and nothing at WP:MOS contradicts that. -Rrius (talk) 05:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Wikipedia is a bureaucracy. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 08:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per nom, should be hyphen.  TJ   Spyke   17:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Always ignore MOS, but in this case, it should be hyphenated, as a compound. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Grammatically correct. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Republican Party Roots
The Republican Party is often said to come out of the Federalist Party with the Democratic Party coming out of the Democrat-Republican Party of the 1790s. Can anyone clarify this for me because this seems just the opposite of what the parties have stood for for the past 50 years. The Federalist Party was the party of big government while the Democrat-Republican party was always the state's rights party. Republican Party currently is big about being anti big government while the Democrats are all for increasing government involvement in daily life. So, the comparison between modern parties and the original parties seems to be reverse, at least for the past 50 years. --RossF18 (talk) 19:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Long standing political parties in a lot of countries have gone through significant shifts in their ideologies - look for instance at the history of both the British and Canadian Conservatives on issues like free trade or respective continental relationships where the position has shifted at several times and one generation finds itself implicitly repudiating the basic philosophy that defined the party at a crucial moment beforehand. Outside of single issue fringes and vanity vehicles, most political parties are broad tents that bring together a lot of personalities and interest groups who aren't 100% in agreement. The party as a whole follows a broad course that reflects the needs and demands of the interest groups as well as the national & world situation of the day. Over time the national & world situation changes, in turn changing the needs and demands of the interest groups backing the party. At the same time mini realignments can occur as one or more interest groups move from one broad party to another, shifting the balance within the party. Electoral effects also play a role as parties will seek to drop unpopular elements, even what might once have been seen as fundamental to the party in earlier times.
 * A few examples of the British Conservatives - they were protectionist until the 1850s (even deposing their Corn Laws repealing Prime Minister in 1846), then accepted free trade until the 1900s, then gradually adopted protectionism in spirit if not actual policy until finally implementing it in the 1930s, but then slowly embracing free trade, free markets and a firm opposition to state intervention across the post war years, culminating in the Thatcher era. They were also very enthusiastic about British membership of (what is now) the European Union from the early 1960s to the mid 1980s, but have since become decidedly more sceptical as the EU is now a very different beast.
 * US parties were traditionally quite loose beasts because different states had different issues, whilst the election system & dynamics place much greater emphasis on individual candidates and make it relatively easy for mavericks to win nominations and slowly push the party their way. Over time this just adds to the shift effect. Timrollpickering (talk) 06:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * 3 things. First, as noted, party ancestry does not always coincide with party ideology, particularly in the USA where the two biggest political parties are 1)firmly, legally entrenched and unassailable; and 2)vulnerable to entryism 3)not obliged to offer a single national program. In America it has always been more cost-effective for an ideological group to take over an existing party (Dem/Rep) than it has been to uproot them and establish an entirely new party.


 * Secondly, I don't think it is true to say that the Democrats' ideology owes nothing to the Jeffersonians, unless you conside the "size" of the government to be the only political issue that matters. Both parties share the characteristics pro-immigrant, pro-civil liberty, pro-farmer and anti-finance. Both Republicans and Federalists share a concern for national security, law and order, and the interests of business. Of course there are any number of issues (government size, protectionism, black suffrage, treatment of Amerindians, slavery, expansion) where Democrats and Republicans have taken different sides in different generations, or have taken one position in one part of the USA and the opposing position in another part.


 * Thirdly, while it is basically true to say that the Democrats are descended from the Jeffersonians, it is a gross oversimplification to say that the Republicans are the descendent of the Federalists. The Federalists expired as a party in the 1820s, essentially because the Jeffersonians had moved closer to their way of thinking, and the ex-Feds became a powerful "wing" of the Jeffs.


 * The ex- (or neo-)feds later formed the national republican party, which got nowhere. After that party folded, they formed the Whigs, who had modestly more success. Then they folded too. The Republicans were formed as a coalition between northern industry and finance interests (historically Federalist supporters) and the anti-slavery movement. Once abolition had been achieved, the antislavery aspect of their ideology receded, and they became the party of business in the 1870s-1890s.


 * So, that is the link between the modern Republicans and the federalists. As you can see, there is a gap of 100 years between the formation of the Federalists and the Republican party as we know it today. That said, it is hardly surprising that the two parties, though linked, faced different issues and reached different conclusions about them. BillMasen (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The modern party system, with a conservative pro-business Republican Party and a pro-labor Democratic Party, dates from the 1896 election. In the 19th century, mainstream politicians were generally conservative, whatever party they belonged to. The 1800 election pitted liberal Jefferson against conservative Adams, but most early elections did not have a left/right division of this kind. You mustn’t extend Jefferson’s philosophy to the D-R party since the party had both a liberal "Old Republican" wing and a conservative "National Republican" wing. Nineteenth century presidential nominees were often chosen on the basis of their status as war heroes, their political views unknown or concealed until after the election. Historians have tried to categorize Jackson ideologically based on his various policies, but to the voters he was guy who defeated the Brits at New Orleans, which made him either a can-do war hero or an untrustworthy and brutal would be Napoleon. Whig ideology was to support the supremacy of the legislature over the executive, but on most other issues they could be found on both sides. For a pre-1896 liberal tradition, you have to look to the Workingman's Party, Locofocos, abolitionists, populists and similar groups on the outside looking in. Under Cleveland and the "Bourbon Democrats", it was the Democratic Party that was pro-business and conservative. Kauffner (talk) 04:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits in lede

 * (1) The unsourced claim the name "Democratic-Republican" originated post-1824 has been repeatedly reinserted into the lede. The Party name section cites numerous earlier examples.
 * (2) Disputes about the name belong in the "Party name" section, not the lede. "Once such a (name) section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line," according to WP:Lede. The title of this article was chosen by a formal vote and consensus. The lede is "a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article," not the place to dispute this decision. As far as which name is more common goes, "Jeffersonian Republican Party" gets 267 hits on Google Scholar while "Democratic-Republican Party" gets 1,800. Kauffner (talk) 02:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking about the current version of the lede? If so, most of your comments are no longer relevant; the current version is accurate (unlike some previous versions) and reasonably succinct, though it could be tightened. "Jeffersonian Republican Party" absolutely belongs in the lede, since that's the label (along with simply "Republican") favored by scholars over the last 25 years or so. Witness Gordon Wood's recent entry in the Oxford History of the United States series, Empire of Liberty (2009), in which the chapter on this topic is called "The Emergence of the Jeffersonian Republican Party". It's fairly uncommon to find scholars in the 21st century who uses the label "Democratic-Republican" for Jefferson's party; I could find no examples in my own library. In the archives of this talk page, a user did a nice survey of current college textbooks, and found that "Jeffersonian" and "Republican" was preferred to "Democratic-Republican" by 7 to 1. He was casting his pearls before swine, however, since he was unable to get his arguments past a now-banned abusive sockpuppet. As always, Wikipedia suffers when knowledgeable people get shouted down by naifs.

Your citation from WP:Lede is for when there are more than two alternate names, so it does not apply here. Also, your Google Scholar count is off, since it includes hundreds of entries for the Korean Democratic-Republican Party, among other false positives, and does not account for the name most commonly used by scholars, which is simply "Republican".

Your comments also conflate two issues: the wording of the lede, and the title of the article. I don't care what the article is called; Britannica's article is entitled "Democratic-Republican Party", so that's good enough for me, but note their second sentence: "Organized in 1792 as the Republican Party...." —Kevin Myers 04:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There are many more than two alternative names for this party, so the citation from WP:Lede certainly applies. "Jeffersonian" and "Republican" are two other alternative names for the party, neither of which should be conflated with the name "Jeffersonian Republican."
 * Perhaps there are one or two contemporary citations for "Jeffersonian Republican Party", but this is almost entirely a historian's term. To say that the Madison or Monroe were Jeffersonian Republican presidents is confusing the poor reader for no good reason. If we say someone is a Reagan Republican, it doesn't imply that non-Reagan Republicans are in a different party. Even if J-R really was a better name than D-R, the lede is not the place to compare the two.
 * I can do a more sophisticated searches, but the bottom line is that "Democratic Republican" still ends up with a substantial edge. |+%22Jefferson+Republican+Party%22&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0 "Jeffersonian Republicans" | "Jefferson Republican Party" gets 1,980 hits, while |+%22Democratic+Republican+Party%22+-Korea&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0 "Democratic Republicans" | "Democratic Republican Party" -Korea" gets 3,050. Restricted to 1985-2010, its 1,470-2,140. Kauffner (talk) 15:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, I don't really see the relevance of your comments. I guess your argument is not really with me, but with the many historians who use a term that you think might be confusing to readers. You'll have to take that up with them; in the meantime, we'll have to be guided by WP:RS, and mention in the lede the label that leading scholars like Gordon S. Wood use. For my part, I think it's essential for readers to understand that Madison and Monroe were Jeffersonians; they were, after all, his most famous protégés. But my opinion about the labels, like yours about confusing the readers, is irrelevant here; it's what the reliable sources think that matters, as always. —Kevin Myers 13:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you read what I write before replying? The stuff about alternative names belongs in the "Party name" section, not the lede. That is what the guidelines say and it is only common sense when there are so many alternatives, as in this case. Kauffner (talk) 08:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The Party name and lede
The lede is again filled with various unsourced pet theories about the party's name. No, Jackson didn't call his party "Democratic Republican". It was "Republican", as you can see here. It you don't like "Democratic Republican Party" as the title, propose a vote to change the name. The text of the article, and especially the lede, is not a place to filibuster. Kauffner (talk) 13:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Did Jackson ever name his party? the 1832 source given here does not give an official party name, nor an unofficial party name. it does refer to "Republicans", but avoids the term Republican Party except once, on page 23, where it is talking about the past not the present.  This goes to show the folly of depending on primary sources, which are very hard to interpret, and neglecting the many high quality secondary sources, prepared by scholars.  Rjensen (talk) 14:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "Republican" is on the title page. "Republican party" is used six times. On page 13, the "republican party" is contrasted with "national republicans." Historians call Jackson's party the "Democratic Party," not D-R. In any case, it wasn't the D-R party as defined in this article, so this stuff should be removed from the lede. Kauffner (talk) 14:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Four names in the lede??
The party is called four different names in the first paragraph -- Democratic-Republican, Republican, Jeffersonian, and Jeffersonian Republican. I quote WP:lede: "if there are more than two alternative names, these names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section." Kauffner (talk) 15:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * What the PARTY is named and what the MEMBERS are called are different issues. The party itself gets two names in the lede (D-R and JR). The members of the party are called republicans or Jeffersonians. so we fit the guidelines. Rjensen (talk) 15:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You are claiming that "republican" refers only to the members and not to the party? What about the next section? Madison started the party among Congressmen in Philadelphia (the national capital) as the Republican party; Kauffner (talk) 15:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) it's not in the lede; 2) it's paraphrasing a quote (in the note)Rjensen (talk) 15:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You put the alternatives in the lede when there ARE only two alternatives. There are many alternatives names in this case. It's not, "Pick the two that you like." Is there some reason for putting so many names in the lede? Those unfamiliar with the topic might think that more than one group is being referred to. "Democratic Party" isn't mentioned even though it is probably the most common way to refer to this party nowadays -- think of all the references to Jefferson as the founder of the Democratic Party. Kauffner (talk) 16:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * We should call the entire thing Democratic-Republicans, and mention J-R as only an alternative name. Not everybody in the D-R party followed Jefferson's ideals (he didn't follow his own ideals particularly well; he carried on the policies of the Federalists).
 * We can't be guided solely by what they called themselves. Their use of party names was not only inconsistent, but disingenuous. All parties at the time wanted to maintain the fiction (current in US politics today) that their prescriptions were just common sense, and didn't spring from any ideological source. This was, and remains, untrue.
 * Sometimes the D-Rs even called themselves Federalists, and vice versa. After all both names were chosen because of their positive associations, not their descriptive power. BillMasen (talk) 17:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * the rule at Wikipedia is to follow what the reliable sources are doing. In the last two decades, historians have strongly preferred Republican party, and Republicans;  while political scientists prefer Democratic-Republican. Rjensen (talk) 17:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Right. And the reliable sources use more than two names, such as Old Republican and Democratic. Therefore we pick one and put the rest in another section. BillMasen (talk) 20:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The "Old Republicans" (or "Quids") were a distinctive faction. Few if any RS use "Democratic" alone--I cannot think of any.Rjensen (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, and the list of reliable sources that use "Republican" or "Jeffersonian Republican" without ever mentioning the somewhat obsolete term "Democratic-Republican" is quite long: Wood, Wilentz, Elkins & McKitrick, all the way back to Henry Adams. As far as I can tell, these guys, in their standard, prize-winning works, never use the term "Democratic-Republican" to describe Jefferson's party, and never even mention the term as an alternative. Even the Library of Congress Subject Heading, not exactly on the leading edge of current terminology, gives you this response if you search for the term: "Democratic Republican Party is not used in this library's catalog; Republican Party (U.S. : 1792-1828) is used instead." The argument that "Democratic-Republican Party" need be the only name mentioned in the lede is not rooted in a knowledge of the reliable sources. —Kevin Myers 21:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * to repeat: historians strongly prefer "R" and political scientists strongly prefer "D-R". So we include both in the lede. Rjensen (talk) 21:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, the lede must include the terms preferred by reliable sources, or our lede gives the reader an insufficient introduction to the topic. —Kevin Myers 21:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested move: → Republican Party (1792–1824)
no consensus to move. The argument that the shorter form may confuse the modern republican party with the jeffersonian party is persuasive. We should aim for clarity over confusion. I also note that, while there is a little more support for Jeffersonian Republican Party, there doesn't appear to be consensus for that name either (that surprised me but I am just the argument evaluator!). --RegentsPark (talk) 22:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Democratic-Republican Party → Republican Party (1792–1824) — Jefferson, the leader of this party, called it "Republican." D-R is a minority form among modern historians, in modern popular usage, and in the usage of contemporary newspapers. Kauffner (talk) 00:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

After reading through the lengthy debate on this issue, I give the following summary:


 * 1) "Republican" is the usage favored in the recent major historical works on the party, including The Age of Federalism (1995) by Stanley M. Elkins and Eric McKitrick; The Rise of American Democracy (2005) by Sean Wilentz; Joseph J. Ellis (several books); and Undaunted Courage (2003) by Stephen Ambrose. When there is a need to disambiguate between this party and the modern Republican Party, the pros use "Jeffersonian Republican", not D-R, e.g. Gordon Wood's Empire of Liberty (2009). On Google scholar, Jefferson Federalist "Republican party" -"Democratic Republican" gets 7,350 hits, while Jefferson Federalist "Democratic Republican Party" gets 923 hits. This comparison counts scholars who use both terms as D-R users, but still shows an overwhelming advantage for "Republican Party."
 * 2) As far as popular usage goes, there are 569,000 Google hits for vs. 23,900 for . Again, this comparison counts those who use both terms as D-R users, but still shows an overwhelming advantage for "Republican Party."
 * 3) Using Niles Weekly Register as a guide to contemporary usage, "Republican" was two to three times more common than "Democratic". "Democratic-Republican" was used only occasionally. The caucus that renominated Jefferson in 1804 was the "regular republican caucus" (Niles, Vol 25, p. 258), the closest I could find to an official statement of the party's name.
 * 4) Names may be used by historians' that were unknown to contemporaries, e.g. "Byzantine Empire." But writers who use D-R often give incorrect or confusing explanations for it. Some claim that the name evolved from Republican to Democratic-Republican, e.g. Britannica. Others think that the Democrats and Republicans were factions within a Democratic-Republican Party. So the D-R usage both reflects and perpetuates misunderstanding of the party. (For the record, party members used "Republican" and "Democratic" interchangably. The compound form reflects the need of later authors to disambiguate from the two modern parties.)
 * 5) The No. 1 reason people are interested in this party is because Jefferson belonged to it. To Jefferson, the party was "republican." There is a 14 MB archive of Jefferson's writing online. In his first inaugural he said, "We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists."
 * 6) For those who favor "Jeffersonian Republican Party", I note that this form gets only 274 hits on Google Scholar. Kauffner (talk) 09:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose This name change could not fail to give the impression that this party is the direct ancestor of the modern republican party, which it wasn't. Weren't you in favour of Democratic Republican before? BillMasen (talk) 11:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't know what I wrote that gave people this impression, but, yes, I have noticed a whole series of messages blaming me for the D-R title, both here and on my talk page. The modern Republican Party was intentionally named after Jefferson's party. Kauffner (talk) 14:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Yeah, I know. But just because the modern Republican party wants to confuse people into believing it was the descendant of Jefferson, that doesn't mean we should help them out.
 * It's clear that we have to make a choice between several terms used by the academic community. Why not choose the one which isn't ambiguous? As you've demonstrated before, the name D-R was used at the time and has been used by scholars both, and moreover it can't be understood to mean anything other than what it does, in fact, mean. Someone stumbling across the article Republican Party (1792—1824) could well think it was about the history of the modern party, which it isn't. BillMasen (talk) 16:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose I think article text should use "Republican Party" most of the time but that the title, which needs to distinguish this party from the later one, should stick with its current title, especially since the beginning and end dates are debatable - Kevin Myers notes above that the Library of Congress gives 1828 as the end date. "Democratic-Republican Party" is, at this point, perhaps less used than "Republican Party."  But we're not deciding between Democratic-Republican Party and Republican Party.  We're deciding between Democratic-Republican Party and Republican Party (1792-1824), and the latter is not used by anyone that I'm aware of. john k (talk) 14:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment No one else uses "Republican Party (United States)" either. It is standard Wiki practice to use a "disambiguating tag in parentheses" in order to create a unique article title, which is required for technical reasons. See WP:PRECISION. Kauffner (talk) 14:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is true, but a commonly used form without parentheses is better. I'll note that my opposition is weak, though. I'd not especially mind the move. john k (talk) 23:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. The very nice summary by Kauffner of current and past usage shows that a name change is needed to bring this article title in line with modern and historic labels for the party. I previously wrote that D-R was adequate, but Kauffner has changed my mind. Additionally, during a recent rewrite of Whiskey Rebellion I became convinced that the title of this article was misleading other editors. Browse the "history" of the Whiskey Rebellion article and you'll find a number of editors confidently informing us that no, Jefferson's party was not called "Republican", which of course is erroneous. A formulation of Republican Party (some sort of disambiguation) would be more clear, accurate, and in line with Wikipedia naming conventions: whether that's Republican Party (1792—1824), Republican Party (1792—1828), Republican Party (Jeffersonian), etc., is open to question. —Kevin Myers 16:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. These should be en (rather than em) dashes, i.e. – Republican Party (1792–1824), Republican Party (1792–1828). —Kevin Myers 16:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I dislike the ugly "Republican Party (1792—1824)" (with arbitrary dates that come from no RS) -- and please note that political scientists are the ones who use the D-R form and they use it in all their college and high school AP textbooks. I recommend "Jeffersonian Republican"--it avoids the arbitrary dates and makes the link to Jefferson and his era explicit. Rjensen (talk) 23:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I certainly support "Jeffersonian Republican" too. Any of these options are better than D-R. —Kevin Myers 02:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment, oppose move to Republican Party (1792—1824), support move to something like Jeffersonian Republican Party: Republican Party (1792—1824) would be misleading because, although the modern Republican party is named after the Democratic-Republican Party, it is not the same political party. Personally, I've always heard it referred to as the Demoratic Republican Party (no hyphen), but Jeffersonian Republican Party would be an appropriate name. --- cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 16:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, I think this belongs under the "Contested" section of the Requested moves page. --- cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 16:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose move. The current title is the most readily recognizable of the options and is frequently enough used to not be OR.  Powers T 23:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Your claim that it is "the most readily recognizable" is unsourced, and, as far as I can tell, not rooted in a knowledge of the reliable sources. Unsourced speculation doesn't do us much good here, and should be disregarded without prejudice. —Kevin Myers 04:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Recent scholarship does not trump a couple centuries of usage. --Orlady (talk) 14:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC) I suppose I'm showing my age, but when (as a U.S. kid) studied U.S. history (not U.S. political science, but history) in school and in college, this party was universally identified as the "Democrat-Republican" (or minor variants "Democratic Republican") Party. I find that this is the usage that appears in the historical Congressional biographies (see Henry Clay), the "Social Studies for Kids" website, the ushistory.org list of signers of the Declaration of Independence, and the U.S. government's america.gov website. My paper reference book entitled "Dictionary of American History," published in 1978, has an entry for "Democratic-Republican Party" that indicates that this group was commonly called "Republicans" and states "Jeffersonian Republicans" is an alternate name; it has an entry for "Jeffersonian Republicans" that points the reader to the "Democratic-Republican" entry; and there is no mention of this entity under "Republican". I am prepared to believe that many modern historians would prefer "Jeffersonian Republican," but because long and widespread usage has favored "Democratic-Republican", that should continue to be the primary term in this encyclopedia. --Orlady (talk) 19:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You could use that line of reasoning to argue that "African American" should be renamed "Negro". After all, when I was a kid, my text books called black people "Negroes", and recent scholarship does not trump a couple centuries of usage. But of course, that argument would be silly, unless you want to write an encyclopedia that is deliberately outdated. Perhaps you do, but I don't.


 * Moreover, I question your undocumented assertion that "long and widespread usage has favored 'Democratic-Republican'". Perhaps this is true, but the reliable sources seem to suggest otherwise. Jefferson called himself a Republican. The standard scholarly source a century ago was the work of Henry Adams; he always called Jefferson's party the Republican Party. The standard scholarly source 50 years ago was the work of Noble Cunningham; he called Jefferson's party the Jeffersonian Republican Party. The current standard scholarly sources, as people here have pointed out over and over again, don't use the term you remember from your childhood text books. Yes, we can find some older tertiary sources that use the term, and some web sources like "Social Studies for Kids", but those aren't the best sources to base our decisions upon. —Kevin Myers 04:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * By the way, when they revised the Dictionary of American History in 2003 (the 3rd edition), they renamed the "Democratic-Republican Party" entry to "Jeffersonian Republicans" (or "Jeffersonian Republican Party", I forget which). I realize that this will probably have no effect on the curious argument that modern scholarship is not particularly important, but I mention it just in case. —Kevin Myers 13:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Alternate proposal: Move to Jeffersonian Republican Party
Several editors have expressed support for renaming the article Jeffersonian Republican Party, the name many scholars use to disambiguate Jefferson's Republican Party from Lincoln's Republican Party. It has the advantage of being less cumbersome than the disambiguation proposed above, and more historically accurate than the current title. On the minus side, it's not as well known as the named preferred by scholars, which is simply the "Republican Party". This subsection is meant to gage support or opposition for renaming the article Jeffersonian Republican Party. —Kevin Myers 04:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. I believe that either option gives us a title more in line with our reliable sources. —Kevin Myers 04:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support I think it solves the problems and is very close to standard usage in the RS. Historians often use "Jeffersonian Republicans"; they drop the "Jeffersonian" when they are dealing entirely with the Jeffersonian era so that the J term is implicit. Rjensen (talk) 05:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose per my comments above. Powers T 12:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support gets about the same number of hits as . J-R is straightforwardly a historian's name, so perhaps less confusing than the ambiguous D-R. Even if the reader has never heard the name before, he can figure out that it is Jefferson's party. Inside the article, I'd like to see the name changed to "Republican" used. Kauffner (talk) 16:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support I still think D-R is better, but at least this avoids confusion with the modern party. BillMasen (talk) 16:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose; I'd much prefer the first suggested move to this one. john k (talk) 16:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * note that the D-R form is the common usage by political scientists, and historians rarely use the D-R form . Rjensen (talk) 17:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support--see my comments above —Preceding unsigned comment added by cymru.lass (talk • contribs)


 * Oppose. As described above in the section on the "Republican Party (1792–1824)" proposal, I believe that "Democratic-Republican" is favored by long-standing and widespread usage. However, if a different term is adopted, "Jeffersonian Republican Party" would be a far better choice than "Republican Party (1792–1824)". --Orlady (talk) 19:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me try to shed light on the usage differential by political scientists and historians. Since the late 19th century, political scientists have preferred the D-R form; they usually include a short statement about the party in their textbooks and civics guides; they rarely do extended research as long as an article or book.  On the other hand historians strongly preferred the R or JR formation, and they do write the scholarly books and articles -- the basic RS on which this article is built.  Given the widespread usage in political science and government books, it is essential to keep a cross reference, and that is not at issue.  At issue is whether this is primarily a history article based on the extensive in-depth historical scholarship, or a stub that reflects the brief coverage in government textbooks.Rjensen (talk) 19:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion of discussion?

 * Aren't these discussions supposed to be closed after 7 days? It's been almost 2 weeks and it's clear that there is no consensus for the move. BillMasen (talk) 23:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a huge backlog at WP:Requested moves.... --Orlady (talk) 03:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * When someone gets around to it, they should keep in mind that, according to the closing instructions, "the quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority." The Wikipedians who favor a move have, on this and previous occasions, cited many reliable sources to support their argument, and many more could be listed. Aside from Orlady, those who favor the current title have not really attempted to make a case or cite any reliable sources. Since an opinion is not the same thing as an argument, I think it's pretty clear that there's a consensus of informed opinion to rename the article. —Kevin Myers 04:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You can't be part of the disagreement and simultaneouly judge the 'quality' of the other side's arguments. The point is, D-R is used in the sources, and it's just naive to expect sources to give a definitive answer to every question of this kind. So we have to use our own judgment. BillMasen (talk) 12:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course I can comment on the quality of the other side's arguments. If the other side does not engage with the reliable sources when making its argument, an essential part of my argument is to point this out. I'm a big believer basing Wikipedia decisions upon a survey of the reliable sources, even when it means that I must change my initial opinion, as has happened here. I'm always a bit surprised when I encounter Wikipedians who don't share this philosophy. —Kevin Myers 13:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As has been demonstrated, D-R is used by reliable sources, among other names including Republican. My point is that they do not give a clear answer as to what title should be used. So why not use the only one which is neither misleading nor ambiguous? Given that the sources are capable of supporting either title, we have to choose somehow. BillMasen (talk) 14:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

POV Problem
The article contains the following text: "The Republican party of 2010 bears little resemblance to the original, as it is now a promoter of big business, corporation, millionaires/billionaires and have little sympathy for the "common" people."

Just delete, no? This is partisan propaganda and would seem to have no place in an encyclopedia article. . . Nomenclaturist (talk) 20:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed. I reverted the edit and sent a message to the user who added that statement. --Orlady (talk) 20:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Party name in article
I suggest that the name "Republican Party" or "the party" be use internal to the article, esp. on the tables. Aside from the reasons given above (it was contemporary usage, it is the usage of modern historians, etc.), it is a standard practice to use a shorter form after the first reference. If "D-R" is required in the title to disambiguate Jefferson's party from that of Lincoln and Reagan, that is certainly not true inside the article. Kauffner (talk) 08:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that is the correct approach. (The "D-R" title probably won't last in the long run as we attract more editors who are familiar with the reliable sources.) How do you feel about occasional alternatives within the text, for the sake of stylistic variety, such as "Jeffersonians" and "Jefferson's party"? —Kevin Myers 13:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kauffner & Kevin Myers on this.Rjensen (talk) 07:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we should call them D-R all the way through. But as long as the page has the right title, it doesn't matter that much. Moreover, apparently it will make you all very happy to do it your way, and I'm sick of arguing :) BillMasen (talk) 11:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I see that User:Kauffner, a primary advocate of renaming the "D-R" party the "Republicans", has subsequently been banned for sockpuppetry. I suggest that this entire argument needs to reopened in light of that. 70.131.148.238 (talk) 08:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

IP Vandals
Make it semi-protected! There has been some IP vandals now. SomeDudeWithAUserName (talk) 22:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Small font when printing
Why is the font so small (compared to other wiki pages) when I print this? (Mozilla Firefox) Dave C.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.174.144.156 (talk) 20:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Party Name
I know this has been discussed to death, but I would like to make a case with links in favor of using the "Democratic Republican" term for Jefferson's party. The term is used by the | White House, by | Monticello, and most importantly by sources in the Library of Congress. A search of their Jefferson Papers for the term "Democratic Republican Party" will produce primary documents that use the term: party members use the term "Democratic Republicans" in their correspondence | here and | here, and Jefferson uses the term | here and | here. There are literally hundreds of primary documents at the Library of Congress Jefferson Papers | query that show the contemporary use of the term. The terms "Republicans" and "Democratic citizens" also seem to be used - as the party wasn't a modern, branded mass political party, names seem to have been used interchangeably - but the term "Democratic Republicans" should not be dismissed as some sort of archaic fringe term that is only used by a subset of political scientists. There is actual historical use behind that term.Konchevnik81 (talk) 20:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Konchevnik81 is relying on his OR into primary sources--that's great but the Wikipedia rules say we have to follow the Reliable Secondary Sources (RS). Basically the problem is that today most historians use "Republican Party" and while the political scientists use the D-R version. I favor the R version since this article relies mostly on historians. Rjensen (talk) 20:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * But how is using primary documents available free online OR? Literally, the Library of Congress has letters written by Thomas Jefferson himself and scanned online that are addressed to the "Democratic Republican" party. That's pretty backward if primary sources are somehow not considered as reliable as secondary sources (which for some reason do not include the official White House historian, or the Monticello Foundation, or Encyclopedia Britannica, all of which refer to the "Democratic Republican Party"). Also, I would say that "most historians" sounds suspiciously like weasel words. I'm not arguing that the "Democratic Republican" label should predominate, but I think it definitely deserves a stronger mention in the lede as a term used contemporaneously, and by current histories.Konchevnik81 (talk) 21:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I consulted the No Original Research page. That's not what I'm doing. I'm not basing the entire argument on primary sources: I've cited two (admittedly short) secondary sources from organizations that are pretty reputable when discussing Jefferson (I can provide a Britannica link too, although I understand that Britannica is not looked upon very highly in these parts). The primary sources are backup for the claim that the term has wider use than solely among modern political scientists - the claim of which currently has a request for a citation in the article. The primary sources are being used with care, and with minimal interpretation: the letters literally are addressed to or from Democratic Republicans, usually on the first line (it's also used in the name that the Library of Congress uses to sum up the letters' contents). As I wrote, I just think that the term "Democratic Republican" deserves an equal footing as a term used for this party, and should not be dismissed without a citation as a term invented in later periods by political scientists, and that is one no longer used by historians.Konchevnik81 (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * the problem is that old primary documents are very easy to misinterpret, as Konchevnik81 has done here. For example TJ never called his party the D-R party--though he did address a couple letters to groups that used D-R in their title. The vast majority of local Republican groups never used D-R, although a few did. The compromise worked out over time was to use D-R in the title and R in the text of this article. As for historians' usage, look at the titles in the bibliography for solid evidence. Rjensen (talk) 22:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * But that's a greater interpretation of the primary sources than I'm doing. How can Jefferson never call his party the "Democratic Republican party" and at the same time write letters to "Democratic Republicans". That doesn't even make sense. He's using the term, as are people considering themselves members of the party, even if other terms like strictly "Republicans" are simultaneously being used. "Democratic Republican" was a term in use during the first decade of the 19th century. And the White House blurb is from Michael Beschloss. That's not "solid evidence" that a well-known and respected historian of presidents uses the term to discuss the party?Konchevnik81 (talk) 22:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "The vast majority of local Republican groups never used D-R, although a few did" Then why not write this (in a more neutral way) in the lede, instead of an uncited claim that "Democratic-Republican" is a term invented by political scientists?Konchevnik81 (talk) 22:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I did that. Rjensen (talk) 00:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * So, Primary sources can be used to demonstrate that Jefferson used "Republican" (as is currently the case (see note 1), but it's naughty OR to use them to demonstrate that Jefferson used "Democratic Republican"? that's blatant POV pushing. 70.131.148.238 (talk) 07:56, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "D-R Party", stress here on the word 'party', I think was first used in the 1830 period to designate the party we now call the Democratic Party. Jefferson, the other party leaders & newspapers did not call it the D-R Party, although there were a few D-R local clubs. I have not seen any group that called itself the "D-R Party". I don't think Jefferson ever used "D-R Party". However in modern scholarship political scientists use the "D-R Party" because it keeps their comparative tables easier to read. Historians usually use "R Party" because that was its name when it was active. Jefferson when writing to club members of course used the club's official name but notice that neither the club nor Jefferson used the term "D-R Party." Rjensen (talk) 08:57, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Ambiguous source citations
Several sources in this article are cited in common shorthand, like so:
 * Chambers, 80.

While this may be acceptable formatting for Wikipedia, it introduces responsibilities in the editors to ensure the citations make sense. I just repaired such a citation that failed to identify which of several listed sources it referred to:
 * Adams, 207–208.

which could have represented any of three cited works by someone named "Adams": two from Henry Adams (listed at the top of the lengthy References section), and one by John Quincy Adams (the correct one) at the very bottom. (And this assumes that no one deleted any other "Adams" works from the "References" section, which can happen due to simple error or vandalism.) It took some effort for me to find that the third is the correct one.

I resolved this problem by updating the reference to be a full citation. I did this for several reasons. First, it's not only unambiguous, it's also not likely to be made ambiguous by people adding other references by people with the same surname. Second, it avoids the problems of desynchronized "Notes" and "References" sections that frequently occur with the continuous, multi-party editing of Wikipedia. Third, there's no need in a digital work like Wikipedia to "save space" by abbreviating. It does reduce clutter, but this advantage, in a section that very few people read anyway, is more than offset by unanticipated editing problems often caused by crowd-sourcing. (The full citation also made it easy to add a Google Books link to the actual quote for easier verification.)

I'd ask other editors of this article to review all the abbreviated cited references to ensure there are no other ambiguities or outright mistakes, and consider using more detailed citations to avoid future problems like this. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested move September 2014

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 13:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Democratic-Republican Party → Jeffersonian Republicans – This U.S. political party, active from 1792 to 1825, was rarely if ever called “Democratic Republican” when it existed, but rather "Republican." You can search either the [ http://www.amazon.com/American-Aurora-Supressed-Beginnings-Newspaper/dp/0312150520/ref=sr_1_1?ie= Philadelphia Aurora] or the Nils Weekly Register, both major newspapers affiliated with the party, to verify this for yourself. In his first inaugural, Jefferson said, “We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists” -- nothing about Democratic-Republicans. The classic treatment of this party is [ http://www.amazon.com/The-Jeffersonian-Republicans-Organization-Williamsburg/dp/0807807303/ref=sr_1_1?ie= The Jeffersonian Republicans: The Formation of Party Organization, 1789-1801] (1958) by Noble Cunningham. The proposed title let's the reader know that the literal name of party is "Republican" while disambiguating Jefferson's party from the modern party of the same name. The current name suggests that Democrats and Republicans were once part of some larger party that then split apart –- This is, of course, nonsense. The proposed title is also very widely used, as you can see from this ngram. On Gscholar, "Jeffersonian Republicans" -Korea" gives you 1,310 post-2000 hits, "Democratic-Republican Party" -Korea gives you 1,270. OK, let's cut to the pinging: Rjensen, Konchevnik81, BillMasen, Kevin Myers, Orlady cymru.lass, Powers, john k. La crème de la crème (talk) 11:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Democratic-Republican is more commonly used. The White House, for example, uses the term. As does Britannica.  Calidum Talk To Me 12:00, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * On the page you link to, the party is mentioned three times. They use "Republican" twice, "Democratic-Republican" once. "Republican" is clearly the correct name, what Jefferson always called it. That should count for something. Update. I noticed that the White House site describes Madison and Monroe as "Republican" only.
 * Note that it's the current name for the party, not the historical one, that's important here. Regardless, this very article points out that "Democratic-Republican" is not without contemporary evidence.  Anecdotally, the current title is the one used by my textbooks in school, but I can't argue that the proposed title isn't equally valid.  Powers T 17:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't have anything against anachronistic names. The problem with D-R is that most of the people who use this name don't realize it is anachronistic. They assume this was a name the party called itself, which leads to a lot of confusion. It really wasn't, as you can see here. La crème de la crème (talk) 03:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Republican is far more commonly used by scholars and historians who know all about the period and actually write about it (see the book titles in "Further Reading"). Political scientists (and interns at the White House) who specialize in today's politics like the D-R variation because they go for tables that compare different parties and don't want two "Republican" parties to mix up the students. The J-R version solves their problem. Rjensen (talk) 18:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep the Democratic-Republican name as the title, but make sure that the other name gets prominent billing as an alternative. Democratic-Republican is the name I learned in school, it's what Wikipedia has used in the past, and I find it to be more common as the primary name in online sources. In addition to Britannica, there's Social Studies for Kids, Princeton University, the Gilder   Lehman Institute of American History, |CX3048900171&u=oak30216&zid=9c00b8eb644b4e46de39f8a9335adc67 U.S. History in Context, Ohio History Central, and jrank free legal encyclopedia. Yes, there are other credible websites that use "Jeffersonian Republicans", but they seem to be less numerous, and I find that some of them use the word primarily to refer to Jefferson's contemporary supporters, and only secondarily on the political party (for example: ). --Orlady (talk) 03:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Jefferson's party was "the Republicans," as any history of the period will tell you. I added "Jeffersonian" to avoid confusion between this subject and the modern party. The RM is not based on the idea that "Jeffersonian Republican" is the common name! La crème de la crème (talk) 04:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Outside the American perspective, what about Canadians, Aussies, Kiwis, and Brits? They have lived under the Queen for years and know what a "republican" is, but they may not be totally familiar with "Thomas Jefferson" or "Jeffersonian" etymology. The title change may confuse overseas readers, so the simple current title and the party's premise should help them acknowledge one of political parties of the United States (besides Democratic Party and Republican Party), which has been a role model (good and/or bad) for world politics. --George Ho (talk) 04:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Jefferson is far more notable than this party. In fact, the party's main claim to fame is that Jefferson was a member. La crème de la crème (talk) 14:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * In where besides the United States? --George Ho (talk) 20:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose despite the nom. Google search, history books more often use the current title. Editor La crème de la crème's point about They assume this was a name the party called itself, which leads to a lot of confusion. That is what the article itself should dispel. "Jeffersonian Republicans" has its own anachronistic flavor and its own likely uninformed reader assumptions, and is no better in that regard. --Bejnar (talk) 15:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a psychological block of some kind regarding this issue. The ngram and gscholar results show pretty conclusively that D-R is not the most common form of the party's name. Both the White House site and Britannica use "Republican" more than they do D-R. Yet editors are somehow able to look at both of these pages and see only "D-R." Dictionary of American History, the standard reference work in this field, uses "Jeffersonian Republicans." Recent histories that use "Jeffersonian Republican" or "Republican" include works by David McCullough, Stephen Ambrose, Sean Wilentz, Joseph Ellis, and Gordon Wood. Wood's [ http://www.amazon.com/Empire-Liberty-History-Republic-1789-1815/dp/0199832463/ref=sr_1_2? Empire of Liberty] (2009), probably the most highly regarded work on this period, has a chapter entitled, "The Emergence of the Jeffersonian Republican Party." La crème de la crème (talk) 03:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You don't really need to reply to each and every comment you disagree with.  Calidum Talk To Me 12:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You know what would be nice? If people read the nomination before voting. It includes an ngram comparing the commonness of the the current name and the proposed name -- which you obviously didn't notice. I have now developed a more sophisticate ngam. It shows that the two names are about equally common overall. As I showed in the my previous post, the authorities in this field, the people who know what they are talking about, don't use D-R. La crème de la crème (talk) 00:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. "Jeffersonian Republican" is a description, not a proper name. The party is either called the Republican Party (which would require significant disambiguation) or Democratic-Republican, which, while anachronistic and arguably misleading, is also both a name and completely unambiguous. The article should explain that "Democratic-Republican" is a post hoc name of convenience, like Byzantine Empire, and it should generally use "Republican" in the text, but I still think it is, all things considered, the best title to use. john k (talk) 12:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - majority of reliable sources use Democratic Republican Party. GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I did another post-2000 Gbook analysis. I'd estimate that the party is called D-R about 30 percent of the time. (Compare here and here.) According to the ngram given above, the usage of "Jeffersonian Republican" is about about equal to D-R, so another 30 percent. The remaining 40 percent of the time the party is presumably referred to as "Republican" without a qualifier. La crème de la crème (talk) 08:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Moving the article to Republican Party (United States, 1791-1825), would be acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 10:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Oppose - I think it reads fine as it is, and I think the comparison with "Byzantine Empire" is apt. Jeffersonian Republicans is alright, although someone correct me if I'm wrong but I'm not sure that was actually a more common contemporary name (if people were really going to invoke Jefferson, they'd say "a Jefferson man" or something similar). Definitely NOT "Republican Party" with the arbitrary dates, because that implies that the article (erroneously) covering a particular period in the current Republican Party's history. I'd also say that it's too vague, considering that there were groups like the Old Republicans during most of that time, and the National Republicans towards the end of that period. But I think that the article is clear that D-R is mostly an anachronistic term used for clarification in certain writings, but that had some usage during the time period concerned. Konchevnik81 (talk) 14:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Democrat Party
There are many historical revisions going on here when we try to refer to the Democrat Party as someone or something else. The Democrat-Republicans are the same party as the Democratic Party or "Democrats". They dropped the name "Republicans" well prior to the new party that was created before the civil war. This article shouold be moved under the History section of that page, or at least references to it being the precursor to the current Democratic Party should be restored. Let's not revise history, but show the ugly truths for what they are. - Topher 129.29.211.115 (talk) 12:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * lots of mistakes here starting with "Democrat Party." needs a reliable source. Rjensen (talk) 16:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

When the party started to be referred to as the Democratic-Republican Party
Thanks Rjensen for this edit. I reviewed the book you referenced and it verifies your statement. Might this aspect be covered in the article, as it doesn't appear to already? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 22:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * yes good idea. the basic problem is that historians use one term (D) & political scientists another (DR)-- Rjensen (talk) 23:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I"m sure it's all complicated and in total, likely over my head, but even a basic coverage of when anyone notable started to call it the Democratic-Republican Party would suffice as far as I'm concerned. Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 16:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The term "Democratic-Republican Party" was coined by the Jacksonians for the 1832 election. That's after the Jeffersonian party was disbanded, at least as it is defined in this article. The Jeffersonian party was "Republican" in Virginia and "Democrat" in New York. When Rip Van Winkle woke up in 1819, they asked him if he was a Democrat or a Federal -- not if he was a Democratic Republican. The term "Democratic-Republican" caught on with later writers as a way of disambiguating the Jeffersonian party from the modern Republican Party, which was founded in 1854. But this was not an issue when the party was active. I just noticed the posts above concerning earlier usage for the name D-R. The examples given almost always refer to a faction or a local branch rather a national party. In the 1790s, the party was supported by French-financed "Democratic-Republican societies." In the 1820s, the party had "Nationalist" and "Democratic" factions. So the term "Democratic Republican" could refer to a member of the Democratic faction of the Republican party. The party didn't follow modern branding principles, so a local branch might use a naming variant of its very own. Great scott (talk) 10:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Lead section rewrite
Some material in the lead section introduces concepts without fully explaining how they are relevant or connected to the subject of the article, or uses confusing language; for instance: the part about "one faction in Congress", the name "Democratic-Republican" vs. "Republican", and the whole paragraph about an "'Anti-Administration' secret meeting", which needs to be better substantiated. I think it's important to "state the obvious" with details such as these, and include the basic Five Ws: Who, Where, What, Why, When. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * the lede introduces the topics covered in the article. That's were people go to answer 5-w's  Rjensen (talk) 10:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

classical liberalism
Should we add classical liberalism to ideology? The first stone (talk) 07:26, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

When the party was founded
There seems to be some back-and-forth editing on when the party was founded, and I cop to being confused at times about what it should be. In the final analysis (for me), it seems that the infobox should reflect the content, and that seems to be showing 1791 as the founding year (or when the faction formed). I'm not sure exactly how that got changed to a specific date in 1799, perhaps corresponding to a date on a letter from Thomas Jefferson. If the year should be something different, please anyone reply with your thoughts. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 20:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Hyphen or Dash?
Should the name be hyphenated or nDashed: Democratic-Republican or Democratic–Republican? In 2008 and 2009 it was discussed with a consensus for the hyphen, but it's worth reopening the discussion again. Manual of Style refers to compounded pairs as using a dash, not a hyphen. Or is "Democratic" just a modifier of "Republican" the way "Anti" is a modifier of "Jacksonian"?—GoldRingChip 11:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This is what gets me on about going either way about it: Democratic-Republican itself can be viewed as a singular entity as per usage of the one-word single-party term, or as a compound in view of the two succession parties henceforth established in the wake of its demise resulting in the Democratic Party (Jacksonians) and the National Republican Party (Anti-Jacksonians), synonymous to a reversed merge or de-merge. Best, --Discographer (talk) 11:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If it uses any punctuation and it's a compound, then I think it should have a dash, not a hyphen. Right?—GoldRingChip 12:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It should be a hyphen. There is no cross-party agreement involved, therefore we should not be treating it as if there is one. An en rule would only be used if it was talking about the Democratic group meeting with the Republican (note the caps). It is describing republicans who democratic, hence there is a modification occurring; ignoring all other knowledge, 'Republican' could not be taken out of this and keep its meaning, as it is not describing a group of republicans. – Sb2001  talk page 13:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's a good point.—GoldRingChip 15:23, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Think of this as a form of disambiguation. I'm not expert on the history of American political parties, as I learned some things just by skimming this article. At the time this party was active, it seems they mostly just called themselves the Republican Party (United States), which causes a problem for modern historians. Note the earlier discussion above about moving this to Jeffersonian Republicans. You could also move the other party to Lincolnian Republicans. Or using Wikipedia's parenthetical disambiguation, Republican Party (Jeffersonian) and Republican Party (Lincolnian). We don't use (Lincolnian) because the modern party is the WP:primary topic in the United States, albeit not the world. Historians had to invent a new name after the emergence of the new party just prior to the Civil War. It seems they settled on "Democratic-Republican" because this "Republican" party is actually an ancestor of modern Democrats.


 * Now imagine a "political revolution" in which Bernie Sanders runs as the candidate of a new "Democratic-Socialist Party" and wins the presidency in 2020 by a landslide, taking an unheard of 70 percent of the vote, with the Democratic Party taking 5 percent and the Republican Party taking 25 percent. Out of this electoral calamity for the former "mainstream" parties, they decide to merge and become the Democratic–Republican Party (modern) so as to have a more viable chance of unseating this new Democratic-Socialist juggernaut. In this scenario a dash could be appropriate. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I get what you're saying, that it's not a compound after all. —GoldRingChip 15:23, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Hyphen. This is a compound adjective (meaning "Republicans who are democratic"), not a relationship between two entities.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  22:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Resolved as Hyphen: Democratic-Republican.—GoldRingChip 18:04, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Recent edit disputes regarding connection between Democratic-Republican Party and the Democratic Party
Recently there have been several edits by User:174.134.115.13 (contribs) a.k.a. User:The Democratic Party, est. 1792 (contribs) on this page. I've reverted several of them and kept others, but to avoid an edit war, I want to list the main points under dispute.

1. Claim:   The Democratic-Republican Party is, in some sense, the same party as the modern Democratic Party.

My response: I think everyone recognizes some continuities and some discontinuities here. The vast majority of modern historians treat these as separate parties. The "first party system" (DRs versus Federalists) collapsed before 1820, and thus in the 1820 Monroe was unopposed, and in 1824 every candidate called himself a "Republican". The second party system arose from the dispute between J.Q.Adams and Jackson; the DRs loyal to JQA became the "National Republicans" (later, "Whigs") and the DRs loyal to Jackson became the "Democrats".

It's also true that the modern Democratic Party claims Jefferson as its founder. But this is self-serving (they'd rather point to the author of the Declaration of Independence than to the person responsible for ethnic cleansing of Native Americans). The fact that they claim this is encyclopedic, but our main sources need to be historians -- who largely recognize the modern Democratic party as distinct.

Moreover, even 174.134.115.13 admits this distinction. He listed Martin Van Buren as one of the leaders of the DRP, but if it's the same as the modern party, then Barack Obama is also a leader of the DRP.

2. Claim:  The DRP's leaders include Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren.

My response: This is false, unless we identify the DRP with the modern DP. In that case, why stop with Van Buren? Barack Obama is a leader of the DRP too.

3. Claim:   When the DRP split into the Democrats and the National Republicans/Whigs, the former was the "majority" and the latter was the "minority".

My response: This requires a reliable source. Both the Democrats and the Whigs won several elections between 1828 and 1852, and I am not aware of any historian who categorially calls the former the "majority" party.

4. Claim:  Jackson's party "still went by the Republican name under Jackson and his chief political ally and successor Martin Van Buren, but adopted the name 'Democratic Party' in 1844".

My response: Again, reliable sources are needed. There are already many sources in the current article pointing out that the DRP used a variety of names inconsistently -- most frequently being called "Republicans" outside of New York. Moreover, the DRP never had an "official" name, nor did Jackson's party. So even if it can be established that the name "Democratic Party" became official in 1844, that doesn't mean it lacked that name beforehand. Reliable sources show that Jackson and Van Buren used the term "Democrat" often, even before 1844.

Moreover, this relates to a controversy that has been frequently litigated on this page: What is the name of the party of Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe? Following the practice of some historians, Wikipedia calls it the "Democratic-Republican Party" -- even though that name was virtually never used in this period. We can't change that without rejecting the results of previous RfCs.

So I think we need to stick to the consensus of historians: the party from 1792 to 1824 should be distinguished from the party of 1828 to today, and for convenience the former is called "Democratic-Republican" and the latter is called "Democratic" to distinguish them, even though each of them used various names at various times. To change that would change hundreds of Wikipedia pages and would require a major RfC.

Finally, the edits of User:174.134.115.13 a.k.a. User:The Democratic Party, est. 1792 have removed perfectly good information from this page, such as the statement that John Quincy Adams "was elected in 1824, in an election where every candidate was associated with the Democratic-Republican Party, but the party selected no nominee that year." I don't know if this was accidental, or if it's part of his attempt to argue that the Democrats are the same as the D-Rs (which obviously puts John Quincy Adams in an awkward position, as he is therefore expelled from his own party). &mdash; Lawrence King ( talk ) 08:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The following comments by User:174.134.115.13 a.k.a. User:The Democratic Party, est. 1792 have been moved to this location, as they apply to this discussion:


 * The Democratic-Republicans are often referred to as Jeffersonian Democrats and, simply, Democrats, especially when historians, political scientists, and pundits consider them essentially the same party.


 * This has been a common practice for centuries.


 * Thomas Jefferson uses the term "Democrat" interchangeably with that that of "Republican" (as well as "Liberal," "Jacobin," "Radical," "Whig," and "Cote Gauche" [left-wing]. He writes:


 * "in every country these two parties exist, and in every one where they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves. call them therefore liberals and serviles, Jacobins and Ultras, whigs and tories, republicans and federalists, aristocrats and democrats or by whatever name you please; they are the same parties still and pursue the same object. the last appellation of artistocrats and democrats is the true one expressing the essence of all."


 * Note that while he uses "Republican" as the formal name of his party, "Democrat" "is the true one expressing the essence of all."


 * Democrats themselves claim continuous function since Jefferson and claim him as the party's founder and first President. I recommend reading through the Democratic Party's platforms on this issue: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/platforms.php


 * The House Democratic Caucus, citing Political Science Professor Ross K. Baker, also traces its institution to the 1790s:.


 * In A Magnificent Catastrophe, Edward J. Larson writes (in the first chapter):


 * "Having seen what he perceived as the benefits of strong monarchies in Europe, Adams thought that only an effective central government led by a powerful president could forge a stable, secure nation from a multitude of weak, wrangling states. He supported the new Constitution as a means toward that end and thereby gained prominence among those proponents of ratification and a strong national government who called themselves Federalists. Jefferson, in contrast, saw representative democracy and states' rights as the bulwarks of liberty, as against the potential corruption and tyranny of a powerful executive, and he stressed those aspects of the new constitutional union. Although Jefferson did not oppose ratification, he became a leading voice within the faction that included both Anti-Federalists, who had opposed ratification, and more moderate critics of a strong national government. Collectively, its members became known as Republicans or, later, Democrats."


 * He also writes in that same chapter:


 * "The divisions between Adams and Jefferson were exasperated by the more extreme views expressed by some of their partisans, particularly the High Federalists led by Hamilton on what was becoming known as the political right, and the so-called democratic wing of the Republican Party on the left, associated with New York Governor George Clinton and Pennsylvania legislator Albert Gallatin, among others."


 * And, more clearly:


 * "By 1792, Madison, who always acted on Jefferson's behalf in such matters, was calling for a "Republican" party to oppose Hamilton and the Federalists. For his part, Adams never thought Jefferson did enough to restrain the extreme democrats among his supporters. On both sides, the outlines of party organizations emerged in the rise of partisan newspapers, the coordination of voting by members of Congress, and party endorsements for political candidates. Washington and Adams were not the primary targets of the Republicans, but they came under fire to the extent that they supported Hamilton's projects. The Republicans embraced policies that favored popular sovereignty, individual freedoms, low taxes, farms over factories, and a limited national government. During the next three decades, the party's name would evolve from Republican into Democratic, leaving the former label for a later, indirect descendant of the Federalist faction [i.e. today's G.O.P.]."


 * These are just a few written examples from Jefferson to the Democratic Party itself to political scientists and historians today, but the Democratic-Republican Party was and is still considered the Democratic Party in continuity, so much so that in 1992, legislation was drafted in the U.S. Senate to potentially commemorate the 200th anniversary of the Democratic Party's founding in 1992.


 * So it's not exactly inaccurate to acknowledge references to the Democratic Party and the Democratic-Republican Party as essentially continuous institutions, if not the same political institution.


 * Feel free to share to the Talk:Democratic-Republican Party page. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Democratic Party, est. 1792 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Lawrence King has a much better case. Larson wrote a book on the 1800 election, which is not at issue here. He wrote one sentence on the post 1820 situation (During the next three decades, the party's name would evolve from Republican into Democratic p 22) with no footnotes or further comment--he never mentions Henry Clay or Andrew Jackson or Martin Van Buren. That is too ambiguous and ill-sourced to count as a decisive reliable source in the face of dozens of scholars who have written full-length books on the post 1820 party confusion. Rjensen (talk) 00:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Most recent edits
Explanation of my most recent edits:

1. I restored the deleted "dissolution" date. There are only two possibilities: the DR party had a dissolution date, or the DR party still exists. If it still exists, we should list Barack Obama as its most recent leader -- which is absurd. If it still exists, then how can it have any "successors"?

2. I restored the information about John Quincy Adams. He was a member of this party when he was elected, and there is no evidence to the contrary. The sentence before the table makes it crystal clear what happened in this election:  "John Quincy Adams was elected in 1824, in an election where every candidate was associated with the Democratic-Republican Party, but the party selected no nominee that year." I added a citation

3. I removed Andrew Jackson as a party "leader". The DR party ended in 1825, and Jackson was not the leader of any party until 1828.

4. I restored the language at the end of the first paragraph. Every historian agrees that this party splintered in the late 1820s, leading to the Jacksonian and anti-Jacksonian factions. So to say that the DR party "coalesced" into the Jacksonians is false: one faction coalesced into the Jacksonians.

I also added some citations.

I left the other new edits by User:The Democratic Party, est. 1792 untouched. &mdash; Lawrence King ( talk ) 22:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Response to these edits
1. From a political standpoint, the latter seems most true, and I would instead argue, based on the citations given and on primary sources that the what is now called "Democratic-Republican" is merely just another term for the early Democratic Party, which is very often called the Party of Jefferson and has been celebrating Jefferson as the party's founder since Jackson. There's a reason why Fairfax County, VA Democrats hold the Jefferson Obama Dinner. From that, I would take your lead and clarify further that Democratic-Republicans have no successors, but rather that they merely changed their name, as historians and political scientists have attested.

2. A member of a party (the "democratic members of Congress") which did not nominate him and which he dissociated with to form the National Republican Party, which he represented in the 1828 election. Jackson still ran as a Democratic-Republican and was nominated by a "convention of Republican delegates" in 1832. So, by 1824, many DRs were calling themselves Democratic AND Jackson was calling himself a Republican, the party of which he was the unrivaled leader. Hell, Van Buren was running as a Democratic Republican in 1840! So there's no dissolution, merely gradual shift in name, with the terms being interchangeable into the 1840s.

3. Refer to part 2.

4. Similar has been said in part 2, but considering that National Republicans bolted from the party to oppose Jackson, while Democratic Republicans remained and renamed themselves Democrats.

All this said, I'm fine with the page remaining as you recently left it as a compromise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Democratic Party, est. 1792 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm bothered by the continuing efforts to use the terms left-wing or center-left. I realize that the terms originated in the French Revolution, which was around the same time. But, these were brand new terms at that time and have different current meanings. Placing such terms in the infobox without detailed explanation is highly misleading. O3000 (talk) 01:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Jefferson literally refers to his party as cote gauche, which translates from French to "left-wing". Historians such as Edward J. Larson back this up. The Democratic Party, est. 1792 (talk) 08:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what they would mean in this context. Jefferson sympathized with the more radical French Revolutionaries, but he seems to have had an idealized view of them; he certainly did not want to implement their program in America.  Here in the USA, he was a strict constitutionalist and for a very small federal government -- and those views were essentially non-existent in France in this era, so they aren't represented by the European "left", "center", or "right" of that era.  Strict constitutionalism and small federal government were called "right-wing" ideas in the United States from 1964 to 1980, but Jefferson didn't live then.  &mdash; Lawrence King ( talk ) 04:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Those views are seen as "right-wing" because the size of government relative to business interests (Federalists to GOP) or to economic populism (Democrats) evolved with the rise of industrialization, financialization, and urbanization. Democrats upheld small government until they accepted that a larger government could rein in the excesses of corporate capitalism, which Jefferson and Jackson had warned would challenge the government if left unchecked. The Democratic Party, est. 1792 (talk) 08:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The Modern Democratic Party does claim the Jeffersonian Republicans were their ancestors, so I made that point explicit. That claim is fading--the modern party is renaming the Jefferson-Jackson dinners since both of these have come under a cloud esp re racial issues.Rjensen (talk) 06:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * But you delete a citation that explicitly show historians support the claim? That's not suspicious at all... And the claim is not "fading". The Democrats are still referred (and not just by themselves) to as the "Party of Jefferson" (not the "Party of Jackson") and still celebrate Jefferson annually. As I noted above, the Jefferson Obama Dinner is a thing, celebrated this year even. Democrats have been honoring Jefferson since the beginning; hell, it was a Democrat who had the Jefferson Memorial built in Washington for crying out loud. And unless Jackson and Van Buren were idiots who didn't realize they had founded a "new" party when they called themselves Republicans and Democratic Republicans, as late as 1840, it would be appreciated that you undo your oversimplified erasures and take away citations simply because it disagrees with you or you understanding of the history of the subject matter. Thanks. The Democratic Party, est. 1792 (talk) 08:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The term “cote gauche” (left side) originated with where you physically sat in the Estates General. Marx wasn't even born at this time. There is a tenuous connection to the present. 200 years have passed and politics is not stable. I believe it is misleading to use the terms here as readers will assign modern definitions to the words. I’m also concerned with efforts to draw direct connections between the words Democratic and Republican between centuries. O3000 (talk) 11:10, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * And the term was used by major liberal figures such as Jefferson to describe his party in contradistinction to the Federalists, which was seen as right-wing (and still is by modern historians such as Edward J. Larson). Left and right, as you mentioned, predate Marx, who is irrelevant to early American politics, but do not predate Jefferson or Paine, who I wouldn't exactly describe as politically illiterate or irrelevant as to the use of these terms. And if editors believe the readers would be confused about their modern usage, then it seems that those pages need better content to clarify what left and right meant on both sides of the Atlantic in the period when those terms were introduced into their politics. Like you said, politics are not stable, but acting like these terms have no use in describing politics over a period of 230 years, despite the fact that they've been used for that very purpose, is disingenuous. Again, if readers can't distinguish between the left and right in 1798 and in 2018, then those pages need to be updated, not pages such as this one held back by suppressing their use and erasing citations that uphold that usage. In terms of the connections between the party (or parties) that went by the name of "Republican," "Democratic Republican," and "Democratic" early in its first half century of existence and finally settled on the last, we can't pretend like politics and political terms were neat (or as if it is now or ever was). A liberal Democrat then espoused Jeffersonian democracy; a liberal Democrat now espouses social democracy, yet they were/are called liberals and Democrats (and Democrats called the "Party of Jefferson") all the same. I can't change the fact that Jefferson and Madison called members of their party "Republicans" and "Democrats," but we can make that historical record more available and present readers with facts and sources. If we want to treat DRs and Dems as two distinct parties, go ahead, but ignoring the fact that primary sources from the 1790s to the 1840s use the three aforementioned terms near interchangeably, whether it came from its leaders (Jefferson, Madison, Jackson), its opponents (Washington, Federalists), and contemporary documentation (letters, convention records, campaign posters), seems more unhelpful than being as thorough as possible. I'm not saying I buy into all that 1798 name change business from Britannica, but ignoring the historical record seems contrary to this site's purpose. At the very least acknowledging the reality on the ground at the time would be what we should all consider a step in the right direction. The Democratic Party, est. 1792 (talk) 07:13, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Then describe the terms in the text. But, don’t put them in the infobox. O3000 (talk) 11:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It's omission that requires description and explanation. Inclusion is given citation. If you think the terms "left" and "right" in the contemporary context need explanation, you should look into updating those pages, not purposely omitting information in this one because we might underestimate people's ability to distinguish self-described "left-wing," "liberal" "Democrats" who supported Vice President Thomas Jefferson for President in 1800 and self-described "left-wing," "liberal" "Democrats" who might support someone like Senator Elizabeth Warren for President in 2020. Politics evolve, philosophies evolve, parties evolve; it's no one's fault terms have stuck. These pages and their infoboxes should reflect the reality of the historical record, not the discomfort some editors might have with that reality. The Democratic Party, est. 1792 (talk) 21:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * My “discomfort” has to do with the fact it is unnecessarily misleading, not because of some personal opinions on the matter; and I have no idea what Senator Warren has to do with this. O3000 (talk) 21:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Looking back, taking issue with using Sen. Warren as an example of a present-day Democrat doesn't come off as very "objective," and only adds to my concerns that personal politics has a role in this discussion. The Democratic Party, est. 1792 (talk) 16:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I did no such thing. Now you are throwing up another strawman and simply being uncivil. O3000 (talk) 16:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You did take issue with my mentioning of Sen. Warren, it's literally right there with your signature. And now who's engaging in strawmen? I'm not being uncivil or trying to be. Not sure why you take it as if that's that case. Simply trying to make a case, based in verified citations, for the inclusion of a short string of words. The Democratic Party, est. 1792 (talk) 17:08, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * One, it's only "misleading" if those pages are severely lacking in relevant content. Two, it's an example of a modern Democrat, lol. The whole "some like... in 2020" should've tipped you off. The Democratic Party, est. 1792 (talk) 06:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, I note that you've added these left/center/right terms to several other early parties, including the National Republican Party, the Know Nothing party, the Whig Party (United States), although some of these have been reverted. I agree with O3000 that these terms were very rarely used in America at this time, and you have to use them in a very elastic sense to apply them to American political debates. What makes you think the Know Nothings were "right wing"?  Is it because they disliked immigrants and Catholics?  In 2018, some associate such views with the right. Ask someone on the street if racism is "right wing" and some will say yes.  But in that case, the Democratic-Republicans and pre-1865 Democrats are far right, since they defended the enslavement of African-Americans!  The Whigs wanted government spending on infrastructure, like FDR would do a century later -- so how can they be "right wing"?  These terms simply aren't useful.  In your last comment you referred to "self-described 'left-wing,' 'liberal' 'Democrats' who supported Vice President Thomas Jefferson for President in 1800".  I don't believe you can find a single case of someone in 1800 who supported Jefferson and described themseves as a "left-wing Democrat" or a "liberal Democrat," but even if you could, that would  be one outlier using terminology that was rare.  If I found an actual diary from someone in 1796 who said "Because I'm a right-wing crypto-monarchist I am voting for John Adams" it would not allow me to describe Adams or his party as "right-wing crypto-monarchists". &mdash; Lawrence King ( talk ) 02:11, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "Rarely used" isn't the same as not used at all. As I've mentioned over and over again, Jefferson used these terms to describe the two parties. (In describing his party, he used the terms "liberal," "cote gauche" [left-wing], and "Democrat"— not to mention "radical" and "Jacobin," the latter of which our fellow Wikipedians describe as "distinguished for its left-wing, revolutionary politics." Considering he is the party's founder and longtime leader, I consider his characterization very authoritative as he would have understood his own political terms and context as well as, if not better than, any other major political figures of the era. Speaking of which, Paine endorsed such characterization in his supporting Jefferson's party and vehemently condemning the Federalists.) And there's nothing elastic about it. The terms aren't eternally fixed. In a hundred or so years, American socialism may very well be right-wing and some other theory the focus of a new left. Why? Because contexts change, ideologies evolve, and interests shift. No where have I ever made the case that racism is a left-right issue, either in 1798, in 1858, or 2018. Now, some of us are overlooking a major theme that can be traced from the Federalist Party through to the Republican Party, and, likewise, a major theme that can be traced from Jeffersonian Democrats through to present-day Democrats. The former has generally been characterized as being the party of the upper classes, business interests, and more cultural-nationalist interests, that is the social and economic "in-groups" of the era. The latter, on the other hand, has generally been the party of the lower classes, economic egalitarianism, and more liberal-pluralist. Lipset's Political Man, listed in References, goes into this in a bit more detail. Now, are these terms entirely consistent? Of course not! As we've made clear, politics isn't neat, but history shows us that while it may not repeat itself, it certainly rhymes. It's not a coincidence that Jefferson, Jackson, Bryan, Wilson, FDR, Truman, and many modern Democrats have in some way or another been consistent in railing against economically and politically powerful corporate interests, whether they called/call them the "aristocracy of our monied corporations," "economic royalists," or the "one percent." It's also not coincidental, that one party has had a historical trend of opposing new immigration, while the other has been more receptive. Perfect? No, because no group has been anti-all immigration or pro-all immigration, but one is more restrictive and the other more receptive. I don't think I need to clarify which side is which. One side has also generally been more receptive toward democratizing governmental institutions and expanding the franchise, while the other less so. Again, not perfect since sectionalism made the former Democratic fortress of the South a hub for voter suppression, while early Republicans fought for suffrage rights for black men, and were major contributors to the women's suffrage movement. But the general trend has more or less been one party supports the political regime of the haves, the other, the rights of the have-nots. One side favors democratization, the other suggests that that would needlessly result in mob rule and anarchy. Same goes for religion. Established, and typically dominant, religious groups have sided with one party while typically minority religious groups and the unaffiliated have sided with the other. Again, the implication should be clear as to which party is which. One party has been the home of the wealthy, the other of the lower classes. One party has favored the interests of business first, while the other the interests of labor first. Some may argue that such distinctions don't matter since their stances on the role/size of the federal government are, in effect, reversed, but for this, I invoke Paine, who asked, "Are those men federalized to support the liberties of their country or to overturn them?" That is for what ends have they embraced these means (of advocating bigger/smaller government)? To make society and government freer, fairer, and more democratic for the masses? Or to make society and government more hierarchical, more convenient for business interests, and more oligarchic for those who already possess wealth, status, and power? While not perfectly, history shows that these two currents, while at some point swapping their views on government, have been generally (though with periodic interludes and sectional infighting) consistent on that. Again, there's reason why Jefferson and Paine have been regarded with high esteem in the Democratic Party and on the left, while Hamilton and Burke have been regarded with high esteem in the Republican Party and on the right. This is no secret, as this site has entries saying as much. While particular policies and issues have changed over the course of the last 230 years, the general divide between left and right has been present (and consistently observed as such) from the start. To pretend that Jefferson and his party did not epitomize the nascent political left of their time would be more than disingenuous, it would be deceitfully revisionist. I know that no one here has that intent, but we shouldn't give anyone reason to suspect that that may be the case. The Democratic Party, est. 1792 (talk) 06:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * We can add positions in the text. We do not need tp make such simplistic, nuance-free categorizations in the info box suggesting modern positions. Information which is controversial should not be added to info boxes. O3000 (talk) 10:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The infobox text doesn't suggest "modern" positions. That's like saying James Monroe is a "modern" leader. (That said, Wikipedia describes "modern" as occurring since about 1500. U.S. politics falls safely within that time period.) If it "suggests" anything, it's that in the period between 1792 and 1825, the party was in what was then considered the political center-left/left of that period. (Again, if you take issue with potential confusion, then update the pages on left and right-wing politics, but if your issue is with how left and right were defined 220 years ago, and consequently how this party's founder saw himself and his party within that dichotomy, then I can't help you because the historical record confirms it. And this information isn't controversial. If it's deemed "controversial," it's either because sources are nonexistent (which, as we have seen, isn't the case) or because editors and readers who hold certain political views are uncomfortable with the historical record. If it were controversial, it wouldn't be simply suppressed, but would instead remain visible, citations intact, AND have its own section in the article, just like the issue of the name of the party does. Or are you telling me that the use of the name "Democratic-Republican Party" for this party has not been controversial? This talk page proves quite the contrary. The Democratic Party, est. 1792 (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, now you're just posting strawmen. These walls of text aren't convincing anyone. O3000 (talk) 16:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I'm simply heeding your own advice: "WP must be honest in its presentation of any subject. Otherwise, it’s useless, and no one wins." Unless you've suddenly reversed yourself on this position, the issue at hand remains: the terms of left and right have been used since (and were used by) Jefferson, and he used it to describe his party. Historians such as Larson confirm this. Hiding behind the veil of supposedly posted "strawmen," doesn't dismiss or refute that. Suppressing that historical characterization doesn't make it untrue either. That said, that you took issue with the last part of my response as opposed to the first 3/4ths of it doesn't exactly convince anyone that that last part doesn't hold some truth to it. I'm not saying it does, but saying that something would be "confusing," "misleading," or "controversial", but then not working to improve the pages on left and right-wing politics to help readers, since "helping readers" seems to be your claimed goal, makes that entire argument come off as a little less sincere. The Democratic Party, est. 1792 (talk) 16:37, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERCONTENT. And, your WP:TEXTWALLs still aren't convincing anyone. O3000 (talk) 16:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Supposed appeals to rules doesn't make anyone objective, just dismissive and suppressive of the article content being discussed. And anything I've contributed to this talk page I did with the intent of being thorough and by providing as much information in the least amount of space as possible. It's not my fault I have to repeat myself, but I think article pages should be as thorough and useful as possible and if we can't argue an article's content with similar considerations, why are we here? (That's a rhetorical question. Please feel free not to respond since you clearly don't care to constructively contribute to the talk page or to the article in question.) The Democratic Party, est. 1792 (talk) 17:03, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF WP:CIV Personal attacks are boring and will never lead to consensus. O3000 (talk) 17:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No personal attacks have been made on my part. I literally just asked for constructive discussion. If that's a "personal attack," then not sure why talk pages exist. The Democratic Party, est. 1792 (talk) 17:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "Strict constitutionalism" and "small government" were not inherent features of right-wing ideology in America from the '60s and '80s, they were careful dog-whistles that only applied as a reaction against the civil-rights movement and left-wing economic policy that threatened wealthy donors... But, every right-wing President during that time oversaw a continually increasing budget, a continual addition of new government programs, and larger budget deficits.  The right-wing of politics demonstrably did not actually produce smaller government, they instead selectively used the talking points to only fight select things they disagreed with for other reasons.  They said they don't want the federal government legislating civil rights, but they did want that power to be used by a federal government for all sorts of things like fighting flag burning and promoting religious doctrines.  It's not an actual, honest argument, and it is not at all informative as to how we can classify the politics of the Democratic Republicans and Federalists.SecASB (talk) 07:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Infobox edits on political position
, with a name suggesting an WP:SPA, has made repeated efforts to add to the infobox WP:SYNTH from a primary source. One hopes that the editor will come to the Talk Page once their 24 hout block expires. O3000 (talk) 17:00, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

== If the party, considering the terms in their historical context and with documented citations, looks like a liberal, left-wing, democratic party, acts like a liberal, left-wing, democratic party, and calls itself a liberal, left-wing, democratic party, isn't it (again, in its context) a liberal, left-wing democratic party? ==

THOMAS JEFFERSON, FOUNDER AND LEADER OF THE SO-CALLED "DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLICAN PARTY," ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION DESCRIBED MEMBERS OF HIS PARTY AS "LIBERALS," "COTE GAUCHE" [LEFT WING], "RADICALS," "JACOBINS," AND "DEMOCRATS."

Historians and political scientists who have studied the American two-party system have come to similar conclusion about this. The pages for the Democratic-Republican Party and the Federalist Party describes them as adhering to "classical liberalism" and "classical conservatism," respectively. These terms are deeply tied to the notion of left and right in the era in which these parties existed.

In the trans-Atlantic revolutionary world, "the left generally opposed the monarchy and supported the revolution, including the creation of a republic and secularization," while the right "was formed as a reaction against the 'Left' and comprised those politicians supporting hierarchy, tradition and clericalism."

Federalists, as the conservative party, "strongly opposed the French Revolution, defended traditional Christian morality and supported a new 'natural aristocracy' based on 'property, education, family status, and sense of ethical responsibility," and were "critical of both Jeffersonian classical liberalism and the radical ideas coming out of the French Revolution."

Jefferson and his partisans, on the other hand, as the liberal party, strongly supported the French Revolution, defended separation of church and state, and supported more democratic and egalitarian systems of government and economics that favored the rights of small farmers, the urban working class, and new immigrants, while highly critical of the conservative policies coming from Hamilton and Adams and their Federalist Party, especially when advocating policies deemed too aristocratic or similar to the British monarchy.

So if we're looking for consensus, look no further than in the site's own pages. They basically describe these parties as left and right, but for some reason it's anathema to make that clear to readers and providing them citations.

The Democratic Party, est. 1792 (talk) 21:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * well no that is not the consensus of historians--our job is to report on what historians agree on. see Jeffersonian democracy for the main Wikipedia article on this topic. The Jeffersonians STOPPED endorsing France by 1800--and Jefferson saw it an an enemy. They stopped attacks on the private banks. they allowed the 1st national bank to expire and realized their mistake quickly and set up a replacement.  Rjensen (talk) 21:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * You didn't read anything I wrote, did you? Primary sources literally use those terms. No editorializing can dispute that. And the claim was that the Democrats supported the French Revolution and the ideals it birthed, not just France, particularly Bonapartist France.
 * And Jefferson railed against the economically and politically privileged classes to his death. In his last letter, regarding the then-upcoming fiftieth anniversary of Independence, he wrote:
 * "May it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all,) the Signal of arousing men to burst the chains, under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings & security of self-government. That form which we have substituted, restores the free right to the unbounded exercise of reason and freedom of opinion. All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. the general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of god. These are grounds of hope for others; for ourselves, let the annual return of this day forever refresh our recollections of these rights, and an undiminished devotion to them."
 * And Madison, who was always more moderate than Jefferson, renewed the Bank because of the wartime needs the nation faced during and after the War of 1812. So, did the party evolve? Yes, but remember that the Federalist Party has ceased to exist as a viable national institution leaving an effectively one-party regime in Washington that lasted until remaining Federalists joined with Anti-Masons, neo-Hamiltonian supporters of Adams and Clay, and anti-Jacksonians formed the circus tent that was the Whig Party. Democrats of the Jeffersonian tradition effectively rallied around Jackson and embraced the Democratic label fully either as a qualifier (Democratic Republican) or on its own (Democrats).


 * The Democratic Party, est. 1792 (talk) 22:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The last part of your comment simply isn't true, and shows a strong POV. You claim that "remaining Federalists joined with Anti-Masons, neo-Hamiltonian supporters of Adams and Clay, and anti-Jacksonians formed the circus tent that was the Whig Party" -- suggesting that the Whigs were primarly heirs of the Federalists.  But that's simply false.  By the time of Madison and Monroe, the DRs had already been splitting into two factions, and during the JQAdams administration these two factions became even more separate.  One faction became the "National Republicans", and later (after absorbing the Anti-Masons) become the Whigs.  These folks were not the successors of John Adams -- rather, they were the successors of Madison and Monroe, who had moved away from the limited-government views of Jefferson.  Indeed, when the new party system began, "The few remaining Federalists generally joined the Adams party in New England, the Jackson party in the South, and divided between them in the middle states."  (Howe, 275-276) &mdash; Lawrence King ( talk ) 23:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Sure, I accept that. I definitely should've added the qualifier "most" there, so I definitely clarify that to be more accurate. That said, I don't accept the notion that the Whigs weren't the primary heirs of the Federalists since much of the Federalist base of support shifted into the Whig column (which itself eventually shifted into the GOP column). It's not as direct a "genealogy" as that of the Democratic Party, but the "succession" has been documented and analyzed, by political scientists such as Lipset. There are also history texts, such as American Pageant that explicitly (and, I'd agree, simplistically, but not inaccurately) trace political party lineage from the Federalists to the National Republicans to the Whigs to the GOP.


 * That said, I wouldn't exactly call the Whig Party heirs to Madison or Monroe, as they continued several aspects of the Jeffersonian program as did the party in general, albeit accommodating the political realities of the postwar "Era of Good Feelings", which meant coopting some aspects of the former Federalist program. The Whigs might not have been direct successors of John Adams, but they were definitely disciples of John Quincy Adams, and through Henry Clay, successors of Alexander Hamilton via his pro-business economic program. Unlike the Federalists, they were much more careful to appeal to the lower classes; however, that made them much less ideologically coherent— and ultimately unsuccessful when faced with the sectional divide over slavery.


 * Now, I will accept that Whigs inherited aspects of the Jeffersonian program, as the Whig Party article attests, but other dominating aspects, such as their economics, their religious constituency, their stance on immigration, and their bases of support (Whigs like Federalists, garnered support from pro-business capitalists in the North and from the many of the wealthier landowners in the South, and were generally deemed opposed to Jackson's economic egalitarianism, and Jefferson's before him.) Believe me, I agree that politics is messy, I've said as much at least a few times already, and I can't account to the ways Democrats influenced the GOP or Whigs influenced Democrats because they did. That said, If we consider the party leadership from Hamilton and Adams to Clay and Webster to Lincoln, etc., that history is inextricably, albeit indirectly, linked.


 * (On a side note, I've found it interesting to look into John Quincy Adams' place in the historiography of the Democratic Party, which I have often been dismissive about, as you have had to correct me about before, and it's exceptionally interesting to see him included in the pantheon of Democratic presidents—as well as John Tyler!—in the banners of the 1944 Democratic National Convention.)


 * The Democratic Party, est. 1792 (talk) 06:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Person certainly says a lot of interesting things – saddles on the back quote for example which may apply to European aristocrats, or to American slave owners like they had in Virginia. But I think Jefferson was an isolated figure in the party after the crash of his foreign policy in 1808. By the 1820s, Jackson was the emerging top leader faction that became the Democratic Party, and he had very close relationships with local bankers-- those local bankers did not like the 2nd national bank, which Jackson worked hard to destroy.  Historians call them "Jackson men with feet of Clay" (Charles Sellers American Historical Review 42 (April 1957).  I also recommend The Rise of American Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln By Sean Wilentz.  Rjensen (talk) 07:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say Jefferson was an isolated figure after his presidency since he was a close advisor to Madison and Monroe, and his opinion of candidates in the 1824 and 1828 elections (pre- and post-death) were highly esteemed. Democrats would begin to celebrate Jefferson Day during Jackson's presidency (and have done so ever since). That aside, I'm not surprised opportunistic bankers would ally with Jackson for that reason. Good info and good recommendations. Wilentz is pretty interesting since he is a firm promoter of the Schlesingerian "Jefferson founded the Democratic Party" political-historiographical tradition.
 * The Democratic Party, est. 1792 (talk) 07:51, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I would say that leftism back than had nothing to do with today's leftism, so I'd rather suggest changing the party's political position from Left-wing to Centre-Left. Alexispapp (talk) 20:36, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Webster said the party's name was "republican"
footnote #1--Noah Webster repeatedly emphasized that the name "republican" was a powerful weapon used by the Jeffersonian against the Federalists (Webster was a leading Federalist editor). ["anti-federal party assumed the more popular appellation of republican, which was soon after the arrival of the French minister in 1793, that epithet became a powerful instrument in the process of making proselytes to the party."] Webster never says the party was NAMED "Democratic" nor does any historian. Webster does sling around the term "democratic" which for Federalists like Webster was a term of abuse & ridicule in the 1790s. [Some proof of that: in Kentucky the "Democratic society" was attacked as "that horrible sink of treason, that hateful synagogue of anarchy, that odious conclave of tumult, that hellish school of rebellion...." Thus Footnote #1 is a prime example of violating the Wikipedia rule about primary sources: they are easy to misinterpret. "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." WP:PSTS Rjensen (talk) 10:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Noah Webster is not a reliable secondary source
Webster is a primary source as a leading Federalist editor in 1790s who published hundreds of pages denouncing Jefferson's party as evil and democratic. The secondary sources do NOT call it the "Democratic Party" and Wiki depends on reliable secondary sources. 02:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Left–right political spectrum
I removed the political position in this edit (and on the Federalist Party page in this edit) but was reverted by. Following the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, I think we should discuss this. My argument is that the left–right political spectrum is an anachronism, since it only arose after the French Revolution and was probably not as widespread back then as it is now. Thomediter makes a good point that even an anachronism can be helpful for understanding the positions for these parties. To respond, I'd argue that the description of left-wing (right-wing for the Federalist Party) is imperfect—while the Democratic-Republican Party is clearly more liberal, the Federalist Party could be argued to be more left-wing than the Democratic-Republican Party in some respects, since it advocated a greater role for the national government. Additionally, I believe the ideologies listed in the infobox are sufficient for comparing the two parties.

Just as important to this discussion is the sourcing. The sources used are clearly reliable, but they do not support the claims of "left-wing" and "right-wing" well. The first source on the Federalist Party page seems to only describe it as "conservative", which would count as synthesis. However, I don't have access to this book, so there may be another part that describes the Federalists as "right-wing". Can someone check this? The first source on this page is describing the ideas of federalists and anti-federalists (likely in the debate over the Constitution) as on the political right and left, respectively. Yes, these groups went on to form the two parties, but this isn't very good sourcing for describing the parties themselves. The second source on this page is describing factions within the two parties ("the more extreme views expressed by some of their partisans"), not the parties themselves, which also isn't good sourcing.

Thus, I am proposing that the political position be removed from the infoboxes of both the Democratic-Republican Party and the Federalist Party.

P.S. Please ping any editors who may be interested in this discussion. I have already pinged some editors who have edited the political position or been involved in previous discussions, but involving more editors is probably better. Ezhao02 (talk) 21:56, 15 August 2020 (UTC)


 * "...while the Democratic-Republican Party is clearly more liberal, the Federalist Party could be argued to be more left-wing than the Democratic-Republican Party in some respects, since it advocated a greater role for the national government."
 * I think that political positions can be simplified to the point of inferring the opposite of what they mean, and that is the case here—along with a misreading of what constitutes left-wing. As to the latter, surely you wouldn't argue that anarcho-communists are not left-wing because they don't favor consolidation of centralized power in a national government.  That fact alone would seem to nullify the jist of your argument, because support for centralization of power is not necessarily a defining feature of being left-wing.  In fact, it is easier to argue the contrary point that in many regards left-wing policy prescriptions are generally founded on the principle of limiting hierarchy socially, politically, and economically—and that the role of an ideal government from the view of the political left-wing is to empower the greatest number of people to use democratic means to do so.  Generally, the idea is that the more hierarchical a society is, the more likely it is to only provide optimal outcomes for those with the most power, and so you must oppose things like monarchy, aristocracy, oligarchy, and so on by distributing power...with the goal being a political and/or economic system where such democratization of power ensures that problems and inefficiencies that may not harm or even may benefit a powerful few are more likely to be eliminated legally in favor of what benefits more people.  The fact that you can use the legal powers of a national government to empower the already powerful even further or to disempower traditional elites while instead empowering the masses makes your gauge in this regard faulty.  Left-wing schools of thought differ about how governmental powers should be used, or if such powers can ever be used responsibly without eventually becoming self-defeating as to the actual ends of its use.
 * With regards to the former, I've already partly explained my case above. The Democratic Republicans opposed using governmental power in ways that mostly benefited wealthy (usually Federalist) elites because they opposed creating or enhancing a new hierarchy of near-aristocrats that mimicked what they considered to be negative elements of British society / politics they had rebelled against.  They believed Federalists like Hamilton were promoting economic policies that directly helped wealthy businessmen and bankers at the expense of the broad citizenry's tax dollars, and without broad public benefit.  That point of view would still be correctly called left-wing today, and the left still makes that exact same argument about various modern policies if you just change the names to fit current events.  Other Federalists like Adams they saw as promoting political policies that were xenophobic and violated civil liberties, such as with the Alien and Sedition Acts and anti-immigrant policies.  Antagonism towards such policies would also be considered a left-wing position today, and today's headlines have the modern understanding of the two political wings representing the same sentiments in these debates as the Federalists and Democratic Republicans did. SecASB (talk) 06:41, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi :) I get the point, but I hope we can find a compromise, as I think the infobox talking about a party's position in general, is very important. I would find it sad if it would need to be left out completely. Adding a side note, talking about "Big Tent" could also be an idea. thomeditor (talk) 00:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * the terms came into use by 1791 and the American use resembled French use. Historians use the terms without controversy. Right = opposition to French Revolution = Federalist position & Left = support for it = Jeffersonian position. Rjensen (talk) 00:47, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with Rjensen. It is true that modern readers might misinterpret it (because the meaning has expanded and evolved since then), but left and right are used extensively in sources discussing them, and given the timing of the French Revolution, the parties became defined by those positions shortly after they came into existence. --Aquillion (talk) 06:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with Aquillion and Rjensen. By the way, the size of the government is not a good indicator on the political spectrum and it comes from W. Cleon Skousen, who argued that the left-wing included anything from communism to fascism to liberalism to socialism (tyranny) and that the far-right was anarchy. What is important is why a smaller or bigger government is favoured. The Federalists favoured centralisation for right-wing ends. Davide King (talk) 10:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you all for your points. Can we at least get better sources for the political position here? Thanks, Ezhao02 (talk) 21:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Democratic-Republican Party Reformation
Contributors,

We have begun to reestablish this party as a national, state and local political party and intend on running a national Presidential candidate, a slate of candidates for Congress, and a slate for State legislatures.

We are trademark registered with the USPTO and EIN registered with the IRS. We are in full communication with the Electoral Commission and I was stopped in my editing journey by the suggestion that a reformed party would need its own page. Given the historical nature of this party, that may be true.

I am not a wiki savvy editor/contributor yet and I welcome discussion, comment, criticism and contribution.

We had intended on tasking a wiki savvy editor in the next 30 days or less to the insertion into this page the rebirth of The Democratic-Republican Party. But that leads me to a concern that per Wiki ethics, it may not be for us to edit. Is that also true?

I look forward to hearing from the community.

-fiat lux!

FreshObs Freshobs (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for starting the talk page discussion. I think that you're probably right that the party should not edit its own page (please check WP:COI for further information). As I said in the edit summary, the reformed party would certainly need its own page (if it merits one), since these two are clearly separate parties. However, I doubt that the party is currently notable enough to have its own article, since a (quick) Internet search does not turn up any results about the refounded party. Before adding information or creating a new article for this, please make sure everything follows Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Thanks, Ezhao02 (talk) 22:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

This article should be added to Category:Defunct political parties in the United States
Surely this article should be added to Category:Defunct political parties in the United States? Could someone please do that? I'm not sure how to do so. Krakatoa (talk) 17:04, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

This was not a left wing party.
Why is the democratic republican party left wing? They are nothing like modern democrats. For one, they supported slavery, which is something dems don't. They also did not support big government. To me the Jefferson party was closer to modern libertarianism than progressivism. 76.137.118.7 (talk) 19:10, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

The terms "left wing" and "right wing" originated from the French Revolution. Supporters of the Revolution sat on the left. Opponents sat on the right. The Democratic-Republicans supported the French Revolution. By the most literal of definitions, they were left-wing. The rest of your statements are dubious, but this is really the only thing that bares saying on the topic. --2601:19C:4480:DF90:95DD:C1CA:6929:CE37 (talk) 15:13, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Political spectrum
The hidden comment at the very top of the page says to not add a political spectrum. However, there is a "center-left to left-wing" spectrum in the infobox. One of these should be removed, but I don't know which one. C LYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 23:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


 * IIRC the comment was added this year, and the guy who added it was dragged to ANI over it. Regardless, the sourcing is marginal (one source is a consultant and professor of "instructional leadership"), and it's misleading to have in the infobox, since we know that 60% of mobile readers read no more than the infobox and lead, and won't see this information contextualized. Readers will wrongly interpret this in the context of the modern politics they're familiar with. It promotes assimilation over accommodation (Piaget), which an encyclopedia should avoid. DFlhb (talk) 01:34, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Infobox title
The title at the top of infoboxes usually contain the official name of whatever organization the infobox is about [ex: Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea), Tribunal of the Holy Office of the Inquisition (Spanish Inquisition)], so I think at the top of the infobox it should say Republican Party, as that was the name the party actually used. MattiasLikesOxygen (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)