Talk:Democratic Party (United States)/Archive 5

Request for page protection
Sour grapes. This page has now become a target for vandalism (I've cleaned up quite a few), I respectfully request that this page be protected so that only members may edit it. Some examples:

"Defeatocrats" "Hippies" "Terrorists want the Democrats to win" "Osama bin laden is a Democrat" 141.217.221.212 05:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Archived
I've archived again. Any more incomprehensible rants by wolfstar will be immediately archived. john k 21:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * While sympathetic to what you're saying, I disagree that thewolfstar's rants should be immediately archived. Let's not discourage discussion, but rather encourage everyone to post more coherently and less acerbicly. -  Jersyko &middot;talk 21:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright, I won't immediately archive. But I am convinced that thewolfstar will not make any substantive additions to this conversation.  It'd be best to ignore him, and prompt archiving is usually the best way to achieve this. john k 01:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

This "Any more incomprehensible rants by wolfstar will be immediately archived" and this "I am convinced that thewolfstar will not make any substantive additions to this conversation." are both inappropriate comments. You editors who said these things should know better - you are more experienced. Please focus on making peace with Wolfstar, like this:

Wolfstar, please list for me here, the three things you feel are the most objectionable things with this article at this time. I'll see what I can do about helping you talk about positive change.


 * 1) item
 * 2) item
 * 3) item

Merecat 14:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC) Thanks.

Alright, we can do it your way for the moment. I am not optimistic that anything productive will result. john k 14:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Please, let's not be Glum. There's no benefit in presuming that "we're doomed, we'll never make it". Merecat 14:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not presuming, I'm just pessimistic. But if thewolfstar settles down and contributes productively, I'll be as glad as anyone. john k 18:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

= debate continued party start, etc. from thewolfstar =


 * I am only going to list one item at a time in order to try and keep this debate simple, if that's possible.

Item 1. Original Content? Neutrality?


 * It is confusing. It presents two opposing views as if they were both fact:

The party traces its beginnings to Thomas Jefferson in 1792. It then boldly asserts that this is true by placing that date in the infobox concerning Dem facts, as the date the party began in top right column. It repeats this claim in the first sentence of the history section "The Democratic Party traces its origins to the Democratic-Republican Party founded by Thomas Jefferson in 1792," and then:
 * view a. It places a claim made by the Dem party in 2nd sentence of article

In the history section Andrew Jackson is the first Dem Party president they have listed.
 * view b. it says, "some scholars date the party's beginnings to the late 1820s, when Democratic-Republicans Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren built a new party..."


 * If the editors believe, as fact, that the original date of the Dem Party is 1792,, (infobox date) AND If the editors of this article believe, themselves, that Jackson is the first Dem Party president....????


 * If the editors themselves do NOT believe that Jackson is the first Dem Party president, then all I ask them to do is please LIST the first Dem Party presidents, the ones that came before Andrew Jackson. Please list them in the article history section, not in another page somewhere.


 * If the editors do believe Jackson to be the first Dem Party president than please correct the date in the infobox to the time of Jackson's election.

NOTE: The main contributors of this article tend to confuse, and confuse the reader with: the Democrat(ic) Party (starting with Andrew Jackson or not) with the Democratic-Republican Party. The Democratic-Republican Party was the only 'game in town' for many years after the Federalists died out. It is just not the same as the Democratic Party of the early 1800s, which survives today.

Additionally, I believe these strange, contradictory 'facts' are deliberately placed in this article for a reason, one that makes me, personally, feel ill, and which also makes one wonder about the neutrality of the entire article. Following - a quote from Jersyko:

Finally, you can argue that the party shouldn't claim to descend from Jefferson (frankly, I'm not sold on the idea that is, if you care to know, I think that they just would rather not be associated with beginning with Jackson if possible, and I don't blame them if that's the case)- Jersyko·talk 17:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Just as a footnote, it's sort of ironic that the person, (Jackson) that probably represented Jefferson's ideas best, out of all the president's thus far, (and yes, I can easily show that to be true), is the one that the Dems do not want to be associated with, while claiming to descend from Jefferson.

But let's not digress. Please just address the concerns, stated above, concerning the first Dem president and the date of the Dem Party's beginning. thewolfstar 20:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * As for Wolfstar's point, as I see it, he is concerned that there are two differing "start" dates in the article for the party. If the later date is correct, then the earlier date should be referred to along these lines "The Democratic party traces it roots continuously back to YEAR". Merecat 20:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with your points about some of the internal inconsistancy in the article. The Democratic party considers itself to be one and the same with the Democratic-Republican Party.  I feel that it is accurate and fair to cite Jefferson as the first "Democratic" president, being elected in 1800.  Given that, the party's "foundation date" is most properly ascribed to the year 1792.  Madison would be the second president in 1808, Monroe in 1816, and so on.  I recommend that the article be edited to be consistant with what the Democratic party believes.  Dissenting opinions should be articulated clearly in a specific section similar to what we have now, with appropriate links to whatever evidence those dissenters use as the basis for their opinions. Bjsiders 20:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Bjsiders said: I feel that it is accurate and fair to cite Jefferson as the first "Democratic" president, being elected in 1800.


 * I don't feel this fair or factual - however, if this is asserted as true, I am saying place Jefferson as the first president in the history section on the article page. thewolfstar 21:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Bjsiders also said: I feel that it is accurate and fair to cite Jefferson as the first "Democratic" president, being elected in 1800. Then I, thewolfstar say the foundation date should be 1800 I don't feel that it is accurate and fair to cite Jefferson as the first "Democratic" president because, historically, it's just not so. Any unbiased history of the Democrat Party will attest to this. Jefferson was the first Democratic-Republican president. Not the first Democrat president. Check it out on Google for instance. Andrew Jsckson was the first Democrat elected to office. Plesase see: http://akak.essortment.com/listpresidents_rhgd.htm

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/history/us/pres/list.shtml http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States http://www.answers.com/topic/president-of-the-united-states-1 Just to name a few unbiased sites that say that Andrew Jackdon was the first Democrat president of the U.S.

To use the Democrat Party, or a site that has articles that mirror their view as a source of information is 'iffy' at best. Democrat's tend to be biased in favor of, well... the Democrat Party I am looking for fact not bias When I searched for a list Democrat Party on google just now I amazingly came up with first result:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Democratic_Party with this blurb Andrew Jackson, the first Democratic President of the United States (1829-1837) ... See List of political parties in the United States for a complete list. ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States


 * These articles (above) link to each other, check it out.

Thank you Merecat and BJsiders for your input thewolfstar 21:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Wolf, I really wish you'd find a way to consistantly indent your material, it's very hard to read and respond to your input.
 * If Jefferson is the first "Democratic" president elected on the Democratic-Republican ticket, then 1792 is the foundation date, because that's when the Democratic-Republican party was founded.
 * Based on those sources, I will amend my position on this and suggest the following changes/non-changes:
 * First, I think the preamble is fair and accurate, that the party traces its roots to Jefferson. It most clearly can.
 * Second, I think the foundation date should be changed to 1820.
 * Third, Jackson is and should remain properly listed as the first Democratic president.
 * Fourth and perhaps most importantly, the "Beginnings" section needs expansion and clarification, it completely glosses over the dissolution of the Democratic-Republican party and the rise of the "Democratic Party" as we know it.
 * That's my opinion. Bjsiders 23:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

1st Democrat President
I agree with Wolfstar, Andrew Jackson was the 1st Democrat president. Merecat 22:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I asked google:.

I also did google searches for: In both comparisons, jefferson's lead over jackson was insignificant. However, in surveying a few of the web pages, i found that the comparisons were so close because the searches found mostly the same websites. Every site i looked over in the andrew jackson searches (starting at the top) said thomas jefferson founded the democratic party, and was the first democratic president. Kevin Baastalk 22:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * "founded the democratic party" "andrew jackson"
 * "founded the democratic party" "thomas jefferson"
 * "first democratic president" "andrew jackson"
 * "founded the democratic party" "thomas jefferson"


 * The official Democratic party web page, however, asserts that Jefferson was the 1st Democratic president and that the party was organized by him in 1792. I fully understand that the party was not CALLED the "Democratic" party, but barring some proof that the current Democratic party is not directly descended from Jefferson's Democratic-Republican party, I see no compelling reason to allow this nitpicking technicality to rule. Bjsiders 23:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Kevin Baas is:

I wonder if that may have something to do with his strange search phrases and conclusions. See a history of the presidents of the U.S. and cut the political nonsence.

I just want fact presented in the article. That's all. I see nothing wrong with the Republican Party article.

I am adding the url to my website to prove this http://earthhopenetwork.net/ If anyone doubts this is my website, request a change on it and I will do it. thewolfstar 23:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Merecat says
Here's my attempt at it:

The modern Democratic Party traces it's roots back to Thomas Jefferson, a Democratic-Republican. The Democratic-Republicans eventually became known as the Democrats. Andrew Jackson was the 1st president elected under the Democrat banner. Over time, the Democrats organized their party under the name of the Democratic National Committee, which is the current name. The modern Democratic party had two major presidential initiatives in the 20th century which helped define the principles for which it's become known; the New Deal under Franklin D. Roosevelt and the War on Poverty under Lyndon B. Johnson. It was also Johnson who championed and signed the 1965 voting rights bill, which directly advanced with voting rights in a profound way.

Merecat 23:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Fix the page. Make it neutral and factual. Take the obvious slant out of it.

I am serious.

thewolfstar 01:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

also. This conversation on the article' talk page has been going on for nearly 10 hours and none of the editors / article main contributors or previous dicussers have made any response to anything or anyone.

Griot? Jersyko? Rjensen? John K? thewolfstar 01:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The modern Democratic Party was founded by Jackson. It traces its roots to the Republican Party of Jefferson. How complicated does this have to be? I don't think it's right to say that the "Democratic-Republicans ultimately became the Democrats." The relationship is more complicated and problematic. john k 01:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, thewolfstar, your writing style makes it nearly impossible to figure out what the hell you're saying. And not all of us are at your beck and call to comment on wikipedia articles within a few minutes of you posting. I sometimes wait weeks before I get responses to talk page posts. john k 01:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * As long as we don't say that Jefferson was a Democrat. He was not one. Merecat 01:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Rjensen, your suggestion of "can we all please just ignore thewolfstar" is highly inappropriate and I dear say, actionable under various Wiki codes of behavior. Please stop making comments aimed at stirring the pot. I've already warned you once under WP:NPA on your talk page (which you deleted, then achived). Don't make me do it again. Merecat 01:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Merecat. It might be helpful to Rjensen, John K., etc, to read this page: WP:NPA Also Rjensen, Griot, John K., and Jersyko, please don't call me a 'he' again. This is the third time I'm telling you this. I am not a man or a boy. I'm a woman. Please use the proper pronouns. thewolfstar 04:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Note to Thewolfstar: Please, from this point on, try to focus only on the article itself. Do not criticize the other editors and do not comment about them personally. It's best to avoid conflict by making less personal comments.

What other ideas do yu have for this article right now?

Merecat 04:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

to merecat: If I start to throw in more ideas it will only confuse matters even more. God only knows. You have no idea how many times I have said the same thing and you seem to be the only one who understands what I am saying.

OK, you're right about personal comments. I shoudn't even react to the personal comments that are aimed at me. I really don't want to be called 'he' any more, though either.

---


 * to the editors:

I'll try to keep this real simple, as I appear to be confusing you, the editors.

1. Please correct the dates. eg the party founding date is incorrect. It should be 1828 or 1829.

2. If you believe the correct date to be 1792, then please don't have Jackson as the first president in the history section. Whoever the first 'Democrat president was in 1792, please put him in, and then put each Democrat president in order since 1792.

I don't know how to phrase this in any simpler way. This can't possibly be confusing to anyone. thewolfstar 04:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

-

Since you insist that I comment: I'm about to be in the midst of law school exams, which will be followed by my wedding. Thus, I will have to take my leave from this debate until late May. I stand by my comments which are now in the archives. I sincerely hope that this debate will be resolved by then to the satisfaction of everyone involved without further attacks by any participant before I return. - Jersyko &middot;talk 04:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

To Jersyko, Good Luck on your exams. thewolfstar 04:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't archive this again
''This entire section is a debate that Jersyko had with thewolfstar. A few minutes afterward this entire argument from thewolfstar disappeared into the archive section''

---
 * If the claim was not repeated in the history section, how would it be possible to set up a "the Dems claim X, but others debate X and say Y" explanation in the first "history" related section? Leaving out the Dems' claim would be POV. Leaving out the thoughts of others would be POV. On Wikipedia, debates are described, not engaged in. Leaving out the Dems' claim in the "history" related section would constitute engagement in debate. - Jersyko &middot;talk 18:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

If the claim was not repeated in the history section, how would it be possible to set up a "the Dems claim X, but others debate X and say Y" explanation in the first "history" related section? Leaving out the Dems' claim would be POV. Leaving out the thoughts of others would be POV. On Wikipedia, debates are described, not engaged in. Leaving out the Dems' claim in the "history" related section would constitute engagement in debate. - Jersyko·talk 18:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. - If the claim was not repeated in the history section, how would it be possible to set up a "the Dems claim X, but others debate X and say Y" explanation in the first "history" related section?


 * ""Exactly...The editors do not NEED to 'set up a "the Dems claim ' """ and SHOULD NOT 'continue a debate about it.
 * The statement of fact that the "Dems claim to trace their roots to, etc. has been said. It is NOT the job of the editors of this artilce to try to substantiiate this claim or further a ridiculous debate aobut it.
 * This is an encyclopedia article about the Democratic Party, not an article presented to back up Democratic Party claims.
 * It is easy to check history. There are all kinds of sources in all kinds of places. The first president to call himself a Democrat, and the roots of the """Democrat Party""" is in 1828, when Andrew Jackson was elected to office. The operative phrase here is """Democrat Party""" NOT the '''Democratic Republican""" that was also referred to as the """Republican Party"""


 * 2. You then said 'Leaving out the Dems' claim would be POV'
 * To the contrary, inserting the claim in the history section, and attempting to substantiate the claim is POV.


 * 3. You said 'Leaving out the thoughts of others would be POV'. That's an interesting statement.
 * This is an encyclopedia article about the Democratic Party so. inserting the thoughts of Democratic Party members, in convenient places, is leading and therefore not only unnecesssary, it is downright propagandizing. A neutral article concerning a political party should be written by a person who is not biased about in any way.
 * No. I do not mean me. I am biased about it as are the original editors of this article. I would suggest importing a neutral group of people to either clean this article up, or have them rewrite altogether. The latter would be the better choice, because there are so many sections that need to be nuetralized.


 * 4. You finally said 'Leaving out the Dems' claim in the "history" related section would constitute engagement in debate'.
 * Actually adding it again would and does constitute engagement in debate.


 * Either, then, if this is what you really believe, get rid of it altogether, or enter another president, before Andrew Jackson as the first DEMOCRATIC PARTY president of the United States.


 * Suggested: Do some research, rather than continue meaningless claims. It will improve your article. I would, honestly like to see an improved, unbiased aricle about the Democratic Party (of the United States) Thewolfstar 20:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

---

I just put this back on this page where it belongs. Do not archive it again. And please cut all the intimidation tactics. Where are all you guys? It's almost bizarre the way you've vanished into thin air.

thewolfstar 07:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Caution: "bizarre" and "intimidation" are harsh words. Speak gently. Merecat 07:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll try to speak gently. But facts are facts. I know what these guys are doing. It's real obvious, even if their sudden disappearance is not another tactic. I find this real hard to believe, though. Harsh is a legitimate word when applied to that which is harsh. Look back on the archive page 4 and tell me that they haven't acted harshly..with insults, condescending remarks, scare manuevers, and lies said to try and fool a newcomer on Wikipedia. I am not afraid to say this because it is the truth. thewolfstar 09:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Facts for some people are opinions to others. And we're not going to be able to change that.  Even official sources argue these points, so it's not just because wikipedia is a community effort.  Don't forget, we're not professionals.  We don't get paid to get things 'right'.  There is a historical record, and there is debate about what that historical record means, what the context was, what people actually said vs. what we think they said.  If we want nothing but facts, then we'll have to read the entire history of the political system on the North American continent from the original source materials.  Arguing about it does nothing more than make the situation worse.  The D-R party is different from the D party.  The D's evolved from the D-R's, just like the R's did.  Isn't there an easy way to say this without pissing someone off?  Maybe we should find the original bylaws for all three organizations and post them on wikisource.  Would that help?  Chadlupkes 15:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think thewolfstar is right on this, honestly. The foundation date for the Democratic Party should be 1820, not 1792.  It is, however, fair to say that the party "traces its roots" to Thomas Jefferson.  I think part of the problem is that thewolfstar is very abrasive, caustic, and disorganized in his presentation, which makes it very hard to get past his writing and examine the facts, which are, I believe, on his side.  I think the only changes the article needs are that the foundation date be changed to 1820, and that the "Jacksonian" period section clarify the party's derivation from the Democratic-Republican Party of Jefferson. Bjsiders 16:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, thewolfstar, will you PLEASE stop accusing everybody else of being biased Democrats trying to propogandize the article. It doesn't matter if the past discussion has caused you to "lose faith" in their objectivity.  If the facts are on your side, you don't need to focus the debate on persona aspects of anybody else.  I think you'd find the editors far more receptive to your recommendations if you were less bombastic and more organized in your presentation.  This discussion is too much about personalities and not enough about the facts.  It seems fairly obvious to me that the "Democratic Party" was founded in 1820 with Jackson as its first president, which is what the article says, but the "Foundation Date" is 1792.  Clearly, that's not correct.  Either the date is wrong or the first president is wrong.  I submit that it's the foundation date, and recommend that this be clarified in prose in the "Jacksonian Origins" section.  Barring any reasonable and logical objection, I will make this change in a few days.  thewolfstar, I would strongly advise that you do NOT go in and make this change, you have proven to be a bit of a polarizing figure, and I'd like to remove the personalities from this debate if we can. Bjsiders 16:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I think Bjsiders' position is quite reasonable. While it is not the change that thewolfstar was proposing thus far, nor does it comport completely with this article's editors who do not want to date the party to the 1820s, it's a compromise that is accurate and fair to both the Demoractic Party's tracing of its roots and the Jacksonian foundation of the party.  I think this change should be made.  Ok, I really have to stop paying attention here for reasons I already stated . . . -  Jersyko &middot;talk 18:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Jersyko, This is what you said above '  While it is not the change that thewolfstar was proposing thus far  '


 * Incorrect. It is (one) of the changes I have suggested many times. Maybe, as I've said before, if you would actually bother to read what I say before commenting on it or ignoring it you wouldn't have made this statement. See, Jersyko the XY debate we had above. (The one that suddenly and conviently got thrown into an archive page.) thewolfstar 19:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You've been adamant about not mentioning the fact that the Dems claim descent from Jefferson in the History section at all, relegating the Dems' claim to the intro only. Bjsiders' plan, as I understand it, is to (1) change the foundation date in the infobox, which I've never openly agreed with (until now) or disagreed with and (2) expand and clarify the history section, including the ideas of both of the Jeffersonian descent and the Jacksonian founding.  This is NOT what you have suggested thus far, and it is something I wholeheartedly support.  I'm extremely tired of your petty insinuations about other editors here, much less your overt comparison of myself and others to Mao, Hitler, Stalin, and W as well as various other personal attacks.  I sincerely hope you learn to contribute here without the anger you have demonstrated thus far, but if you don't I wouldn't be surprised to see a sysop blocking you in the near future.  I don't plan to comment on this again. -  Jersyko &middot;talk 19:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

--- Bjsiders, Thanks for you input. It is very good. You're right, we should let the past go and focus on the task at hand rather than the peronalities or anything that happened in the past.

Thank You, editors for finally seeing my point and leaving my edits in, the Jacksononian/first dem president part of the article.

I appreciate your respect and thank all of you.

And to Merecat..Many thanks to you for being a great mediator, and who, from the start has been an unbiased support and help to all of us. thewolfstar 17:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I hope you mean "unbiased". Also, I agree with the "Started in 1820 and traces its roots to..." Merecat 18:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

-- Merecat, I sure did mean unbiased. I just edited the statement I wrote to read  'unbiased' . thewolfstar 18:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Oldest political party in the world
To once again rehash the question of whether the Demo Party is the world's oldest, and to reiterate what was discussed at length in now-archived Discussion pages, the question of whether the Demo Party is the oldest in the world hinges on whether you believe that the Tory Party of England is related to the present-day Conservative Party of England. The Tory Party was founded in 1680. Around 1850, the party changed names and became the Conservative Party. Some scholars believe that the parties are one and the same; some think they're different parties. For the purposes of this article, the Democratic Party is the second oldest political party in the world if you believe that the present-day English Conservative Party and Tory Party are one and the same; the Demo Party is the oldest party in the world if you date the English Conservative Party's beginnings to the 1850s. In now-archived Discussion pages, the consensus was that a discussion of whether the Demo Party is the oldest or second-oldest political party in the world doesn't belong in the first paragraph of this article, so it was decided that the sentence should read "the Democratic Party is one of the oldest, if not the oldest, political party in the world." I people who come to this article now will respect the thought and contributions of previous editors. Griot 15:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Griot, thanks for your thoughtful input.


 * I never had a problem with the fact that the Dem's claim proclamation is in the start of the article as much as I had a problem with some' of it's wording and how it appeared again in the history section. That is gone now. Thank you.


 * This is important, please hear what I am saying. Here is the statement:

''The Democratic Party is one of the two major political parties in the United States, the other one being the Republican Party. The party traces its beginnings to Thomas Jefferson in 1792 and is one of the oldest political parties, if not the oldest political party, in the world.''


 * I have an objection to the word is.

This is just a suggestion and perhaps someone can come up with a better solution.

I would suggest replacing is with says it is.


 * The statement would now be factual.


 * The statement would now be improved grammatically.

Thanks thewolfstar 18:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I object to the change on both grounds you have cited. For one, there's no evidence that the claim is untrue, and adding a bunch of "claims" and "says" qualifiers will not improve prose grammatically.  What is the basis of your suggestion that the Democratic party is NOT one of the oldest active political parties?  Oh wait, it doesn't say active.  Ok, yeah I agree with you.  I suggest changing it to "and is one of the oldest active political parties in the world."  If anybody is dedicated to the "if not the..." I don't object but I think it's poorly written as-is. Bjsiders 20:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There's no such thing as the oldest "unactive" political party in the world. Either a party is alive and still going, or it's dead. I don't see the point of putting the word "active" in. Griot 21:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Bjsiders, just saying "one of the oldest active political parties" seems sensible and acceptable. There is no really denying the factual truth of it, either. In terms of "active," I don't think it's essential, but I think it clarifies the point. Political parties which now defunct, but which arose earlier than the Dems, would be in a questionable status, no?

Although it's not terribly relevant, I wanted to clarify the Tory issue, which is actually much more complicated. The Tories (and their counterparts, the Whigs) emerged out of the Exclusion Crisis around 1680. The two groups competed with one another until the Hanoverian Succession in 1714, when the Tories were basically permanently ousted from government in favor of the Whigs. By the end of the reign of George II, being a "Tory" was more a vague political sympathy than any kind of organized party. When George III came to the throne, he determined to end the domination of government by the great Whig families, and turned to ministers (first Lord Bute, and later Lord North) who would be personally loyal to him, rather than to Whiggery. Although North, at least, had served in the old Newcastle Whig governments and had no particular connection to Toryism, these ministries were attacked as "Tory" ministries by the Rockingham Whig opposition, which represented the old Whig families (mostly). When North fell in 1782 as a result of the defeat in America, the two opposition factions - the Rockingham Whigs and the former supporters of Pitt the Elder (now led by Lord Shelburne) formed a government, but fell out with each other after Rockingham's death, with Fox, Rockingham's successor, withdrawing from the government. Shortly thereafter, the Fox Whigs made a coalition with North's supporters to kick out Shelburne. This government was destroyed by the King's opposition, and the King picked a new ministry under Pitt the Younger. Although the Pitts had always been Whigs, and Fox had just made an alliance with the North group he had been busy calling Tories only a little while before, the opposition Whigs once again took to calling the Pittite government "Tories." Pitt himself never accepted this label, and considered himself an "independent Whig" and a non-party man. After Pitt's death in 1806, however, his political heirs, notably George Canning, began to proudly take up the Tory label. This new Tory party (which traced its roots to Pitt the Younger) began, under Peel's leadership in the 1830s, to also refer to itself as the Conservative Party (notably from the time of the Tamworth Manifesto of 1835). There was a split in the Tory/Conservative Party in 1846 over free trade, with the free trading Peelite minority opposed to the Protectionist Conservative majority led by Lord Stanley (and Benjamin Disraeli). Gradually, the latter became accepted as the real Conservative Party. As such, one could theoretically date the modern Conservative Party to 1846, to 1835, to 1783...hard really to say that it has any real connection to the Tory Party of the 17th century, though. john k 21:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

= Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars =

I added a section on WP:LAME about this article. It reads:


 * Democratic Party (United States) : This article has seen a number of frequent and repeating lame edit wars. These include:
 * Was the party founded by President Thomas Jefferson in 1792 or President Andrew Jackson in 1828 and does this make it the oldest political party in the world?
 * Should the party be referred to the “Democratic Party” or the “Democrat Party”?
 * Who is a “conservative Democrat” and what do you call them?
 * Who should be considered a 2008 presidential front-runner?

= Holy Cow =

Thanks 8bitJake for reverting this back into a war

I guess you want to escalate this war instead of being civilized, Griot. I would rather be civilized, and have been actually enjoying the civility myself. The person that nominated this edit war or discussion for Lame Edit Wars, since he didn't sign his name...

or for anyone that thinks I am being acerbic or making claims or being paranoid or whatever,...

please go to history:


 * (cur) (last) 18:30, 19 April 2006 8bitJake m (→Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars)

and then going to 8bitJake's talk page, if it remains there and is not conveniently archived:

---

a comment from Griot to 8bitJake

Jake, thanks for holding the fort against that Wolf character in the Democratic Party article. Guys like him, who want to use Wikipedia to pontificate their opinions, are a real danger to the whole enterprise. I'm glad you're standing up to him. Griot 00:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Bah. This article has been attracting lame edit wars for years. --8bitJake 20:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

WOW

thewolfstar 19:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Could you just imagine the edit wars on the George W Bush page if it was not locked? --8bitJake 21:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Major Changes
Hello all, instead of fruitlessly insulting thewolfstar, I decided to be bold and make some changes to the article. I changed the intro around to indicate that while the Democrats claim descent from the 1790s Republican Party, the modern party originated with Jackson in the 1820s. I also added considerably to the history section, most notably by adding a section on the Jeffersonian Party, and then on its collapse and the formation of the coalition that would become the Democrats. I also clarified and added some stuff in the history of the party up to 1861. Let me know what you think. john k 22:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

--- John K, Thank you. I really appreciate your jesture of friendliness and your honesty.. and especially for finally taking me seriously. And thanks for the changes you made. They are great.

--- and thanks to everyone for leaving the edit I made this morning in the Jackson history section. thewolfstar 22:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you're satisfied with the changes. It would seem that my changes leave the article at some points more detailed than the History of the United States Democratic Party article, which is a bit problematic. john k 23:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, we can copy from this to that to improve that. Merecat 23:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

changing from 1820's to 1828
It's the exact date. ok? thewolfstar 08:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * According to the article on the Democratic-Republican party, the big schism happened in 1820, and the Democratic Party that we know today was born in that year. I think 1820 is the specific date, not 1828.  1828 is when Jackson was elected. Bjsiders 16:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

1820 doesn't really make any sense. The Republican Party was united behind Monroe then. The party began to split up somewhere before the 1824 elections - I'd say 1822 or so, which is when various groups started nominating different people for President. But the coalescence of these groups into the form of the "Democratic Republicans" (or Democrats) and National Republicans didn't occur until after 1824. It was probably already accomplished by 1828, but it's hard to set a specific date. I'd say we should try and figure out when the Jackson/Van Buren alliance came about, as that's probably the key event. Probably around 1826 or so. Until we can figure out for sure, we should leave it imprecise. john k 16:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * We seem to have arrived at a general consensus on this. I think a range of dates is probably more accurate.  It's certainly not 1792, in any case, if we're going to maintain that Jackson was the first Democratic president.  8bitjake reverted the 1828 edit to 1792.  I submit (again) that the 1792 date is, at the least, inconsistant with the rest of the article.  Since we appear to have arrived at something of a consensus here, I would request that any more changes to the "founding" date be discussed here before being added to the article. Bjsiders 19:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Democratic-Republicans (how to call them)
There's a discussion of this at Talk:Democratic-Republican Party (United States), but Griot's edit summary here, "Jefferson's party is known in 90 percent of history books as the Democratic-Republican Party," was sufficiently full of shit that I feel compelled to respond. Griot keeps on saying variations of this. He's said it here. He's said it at the Democratic-Republican talk page. He's said it on my talk page. It's quite possible he's said it other places, too.

He has yet to present any evidence of the truth of this claim, besides a few citations of other encyclopedias, which are not "history books". Rjensen and I have presented a fair amount of evidence to show the contrary - that "Republican Party" is more frequently used. At the very least, it is pretty clear that both "Republican Party" and "Democratic-Republican Party" are in common use. In contexts where there is no reason for confusion, I see no reason not to use the more historically accurate "Republican Party" (the name "Democratic-Republican" was not in general usage at the time, as far as every historical source I've ever read states). Republican is simpler, it's the name in use at the time, it's used by many historians, and there's no reason for confusion so long as we explain clearly (which we obviously should in this article which is supposed to discuss the development from Jefferson's Republicans to Jackson's Democrats.) At the very least, "Republican" is a perfectly acceptable term, and there's no reason to go through another editor's contributions simply to replace it with a term that one prefers. john k 20:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Pah. Enough of this. I just looked into four textbooks at my local library. Every one of them refers to the party as the Democratic-Republican Party. It's not a question of historical accuracy. It's a question of common usage. Why belabor this ponit when textbooks call it the Democratic-Republican Party. Griot 21:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I support Griot on this one. Merecat 21:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * challenge on this one: Date those textbooks please. Students dod NOT use old pre 2000 textbooks, though libraries keep them. Rjensen 23:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Griot - cite your sources. Seriously.  Rjensen has cited numerous sources on the Dem-Rep page, and I've cited a few more.  You've just asserted and made vague statements.  Repeatedly.  Beyond this, the two terms are synonymous, both are acceptable, and there's absolutely no reason to insist on one being used exclusively.  If one is to be used exclusively, it should be the party's correct name, not an anachronistic post hoc construction.  We are all republicans -- we are all federalists - Thomas Jefferson, 1801.  Note, not "We are all democratic-republicans." john k 23:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Another point: in this article in particular it is much more misleading to use "Democratic-Republican" than it is to use "Republican," especially if, as Griot insists, we are to pretend that the party was actually called the "Democratic-Republican Party," as well as calling it that ourselves. This is because the faction that supported Jackson in the 1828 election, one of the two successor groups to the old party, referred to itself as "Democratic Republicans." If we follow Griot, there's no possible way to say this (the current article, to be fair, doesn't get into this issue). It's easy enough to note that the old Republican Party is not the same as the current Republican Party. It's very awkward to note that the party which we are, supposedly for the sake of convenience, referring to as the "Democratic-Republican Party," broke up into two factions, one of which was called the Democratic Republican Party, which became the Democratic Party. john k 23:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If the term "Democratic-Republicans" is omiited from this article, that is misleading. It must be fit in, in an understandable way. Merecat 23:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * See my most recent edits. I am perfectly happy to mention the term "Democratic-Republicans."  I'd prefer to primarily use "Republican" to refer to that party, but "Democratic-Republican" is an alternative name which ought to be mentioned.  It is Griot who insists that only Democratic-Republican can be mentioned. john k 23:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * In insist on no such thing. Before this got turned into a cause celebre, this article mentioned Republican Party as the original name of the party, and that's alright. What I object to is this continuous use of "Republican Party" throught with a wiki-link to "Democratic-Republican Party." Calm down everybody. Griot 00:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay. I see that.  But you are also insisting on claiming that "Today the party is called the Democratic-Republican Party," that's complete bullshit.  It's sometimes called that, and it's sometimes called the Republican Party, as I've shown in repeated links.  You also explicitly ignored the fact that only my last edit did what you claim you dislike and changed all references to Democratic-Republican to Republican, and just reverted all of my edits, and then immediately put a bunch of new edits up so I couldn't revert (again!).  Did you even read my edit summaries and looked at the individual diffs?  john k 01:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced?
But Jefferson was a huge admirer of the French Republic.


 * No, he was a huge admirer of the early stages of the French Revolution. He was much more ambivalent about the Republic. The party was named after the American Republic, not the French one, which, even if Jefferson had admired it, would not have won many votes. john k 01:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you find a source which says that the Republican Party's name had anything to do with the French Republic? john k 01:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert anymore for the moment, but this is getting completely ridiculous. john k 01:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You don't have to revert. Take ten deep breaths and look up the source. I added it to the text. Griot 01:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The source is a lame one, and does not say what you say it does. john k 03:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The source is "lame." Under what grounds? Griot 03:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It's from a website about Ohio history. We should be citing scholarly works, not random webpages of unknown provenance.  And, at any rate, it didn't say what you said it did. john k 03:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Origin date
I see a lot of back and forth on the date. I don't see how 1792 is defensible. If we had an infobox at the National Republican Party (United States) article, would we say that it was founded in 1792? If not, how can we do the same for the Democrats, who had pretty much exactly the same origins as the National Republicans? john k 03:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

hey
Thank you all for your unending lunacy. The Democrat Party sure was not started in 1792.

How about let's look at some of the real problems in the article. Like it doesn't tell the truth. The ideological base is a blooming mess. It tells half truths. Which essentially means it lies.

This sentence specifically: The Party supports civil liberties, social freedoms, equal rights, equal opportunity, and a free enterprise system tempered by government intervention -- a system known to economists and historians as the mixed economy. Maggiethewolfstar 03:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, at least you see that we're not a cabl out to get you. Why don't you propose an alternative text that doesn't just add "allegedly" before each item and turn some of them inside out, and we can comment. john k 03:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

"Old Republicans" and Jackson in 1824
Hey Rjensen, thanks for the clarifications on the historical stuff that I wrote. I was wondering, though, about the characterization that "Old Republicans" supported Crawford and Jackson in 1824. While I think it can be said that Jackson's supporters in 1824 tended to be less supportive of a strong central government than supporters of Adams and Clay, I had thought that the principled "Old Republican" types were pretty strongly centered around Crawford, and that Jackson's support was largely regional and based on his status as a war hero, without much reference to the issues. john k 03:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree--the Olds were strong for Crawford and feared AJ as a militarist --HOWEVER, with Crawford out of the picture they swung to AJ in 1826 or so. Risjord says "Macon and most of the other Old Republicans had concluded that Jackson was their man, if only "because he cannot do worse for us." The connection between Jackson and the Old Republicans, if never very close, was at least an old one." [Old Rep. p 262]. Let me suggest this kind of fine detail should be in the History of the United States Democratic party article rather than this one. Rjensen 03:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That's probably true - but my version before said that the "Old Republicans" (although I'd forgotten the specific term) supported Crawford in '24, that Jackson was a mostly non-ideological candidate, and that Jackson allied with the Old Republicans after the "Corrupt Bargain" - were any of those details wrong? john k 03:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you had it right. But Jackson himself (as Remini shows) was pretty much Old Republican in his beliefs. :) Rjensen 05:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but that wasn't clear in 1824. Some slight changes in the wording would probably be sufficient. john k 14:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I heard that Jackson was the only president to pay off the federal debt. Is this true? Viihde 13:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

how long will this one take
The Party supports civil liberties, social freedoms, equal rights, equal opportunity, and a free enterprise system with government intervention known by economists and historians as Mixed economy.

This could be rewritten.

The Party claims to support civil liberties, social freedoms, equal rights, equal opportunity, and a free enterprise system with government intervention known by economists and historians as Mixed economy. OR The Party supports some civil liberties, social freedoms, equal rights, equal opportunity, and a free enterprise system with government intervention known by economists and historians as Mixed economy.

Then again, by the Affirmative Action legislation. equal rights is debatable. So it might read like this:

The Party supports some civil liberties, social freedoms, rights that are tipped in favor of some minority groups, equal opportunity, and a free enterprise system with government intervention known by economists and historians as Mixed economy.

OR The Party supports some civil liberties, is divided on certain social freedoms, rights that are tipped in favor of some minority groups in an attempt to offset former imbalances, an imbalanced system of opportunity, and asserts that it supports a free enterprise system with government intervention known by economists and historians as Mixed economy. thewolfstar 04:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I would prefer "claims to support" them. It may be true (imo) that they only support "some" civil rights, but that's not really something we can say at Wikipedia because it's very hard to back up.  We certainly can't say they support all civil rights, because they refused to take any particular stance on gay rights in their 2004 presidential platform (as far as I could tell).  "Supports most civil liberties" would also be POV and unacceptable.  So, I favor "claims to support", unless we want to go point-by-point and source, not just claims, but what actual support has been demonstrated.  That would be a nightmare to source, and also not really something we have to do.  All we really have to do to satisfy NPOV is to report on what the party claims to support.  Any further investigation into what they've actually supported is gravy.  Kasreyn 05:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input Kasreyn. I agree with you.claims to support is just a straightforward unbiased comment. Also, they most definitely don't support the 2nd amendment and that is stated real clearly in the article. see gun control thewolfstar 07:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The later versions can't be used - they are at least as POV as the current version, and probably more so. The "claims to support" version is better, but still problematic. I'd suggest that we try to find a phrasing that is somewhere in between "support" and "claims to support". How about


 * The Party has stated its commitment to the principles of civil liberties, social freedoms, equal rights, equal opportunity, and a free enterprise system with government intervention known by economists and historians as Mixed economy.

? john k 16:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Not bad, actually. The idea of "claims to" is too POV. And while not supporting ALL civil liberties, this statement is fairly well written. -- LV (Dark Mark)  16:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "Claim" means to assert in the face of a contradiction. The problem with "claims to" is that it implies that the party is contradicting truth, and whether it is doing that is POV. I don't like "supports" either. This neutral word should be reserved for brassieres and jockstraps. How about "advocates," which means "to plead the cause of." Isn't that what political parties do? Griot 17:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Advocates would be okay with me as well. I'd add that in my version, "the principles of" should probably be removed. So just "The party has stated its commitment to civil liberties..." I'm not sure that there is a "principle of civil liberties," or if that makes sense. john k 19:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I see that thewolfstar instead changed it to the version that nobody else said was okay. Very productive! john k 07:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

To Griot re: Extant
I have to disagree with you this once. I think it's important not to make erroneous claims, or claims that are highly prone to misinterpretation, on Wikipedia. The distinction that the Democratic Party is among the oldest extant or surviving parties is a very important distinction. Defunct political parties are still political parties, just as defunct species are still called species. If there had never been any kinds of birds in the world but Dodo birds and Robins, we would not be justified in calling the Robin the oldest species of bird. It would merely be the oldest surviving species of bird. Respectfully, Kasreyn 05:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If I told you that Bob Jones is the oldest man in the world, would you think twice whether he was "extant"? Would it be necessary to write, "Bob Jones is the oldest extant (or surviving) man in the world"? Strunk and White admonish us to remove extraneous words. "Extant" in this case is very extraneous. I'm removing it. Griot 14:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You're comparing apples and oranges. Bob Jones stops getting "older" when he dies.  A political party could be revived after "dying" if people return to it.  It's a useless comparison.  The sentence is confusing and could possibly be misread as fraudulent partisan boasting, since the Democratic Party was certainly not the first political party founded.  Kasreyn 11:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No, yours is a useless comparison. Name me on political party that "revivied after dying." Griot 15:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There is confusion between "oldest" and "longest continuous operation". The Dems are probably close to the top on both. However, certain Dems modern policies of high taxes, gay advocacy, pro-abortion, anti-gun, anti-Americanism, pro-Statism, pro-world government etc., are relatively new. Some editors object to implications that these current Dem platform planks have long been party of the party, when in fact they have not. In fact, the idea of national platforms is a modern phenomenom. Also new, is the enormous $$ power of the parties. Merecat 11:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what would be an older non-extant party. The Federalist Party?  That doesn't really make much sense.  The Federalist Party lasted for only about 30 years.  It was one of the earliest organized political parties in the world, but it is not one of the oldest.  In terms of the Democratic platform, I don't see how stating that the Democratic Party is old implies that the positions it currently favors are long-standing. john k 14:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Progressivism template
The Progressive template dominates the article and is highly misleading since people will assume the ideas mentioned are all supported by the Dem party. The template is not needed here and should be removed. Rjensen 16:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

more edits
I've brought these points up several times. I haven't gotten any response to it.

The following are statements of fact. The statements they replace are not.


 * Democrats are largely against, with a few exceptions, the Patriot Act because of concerns over the "invasion of privacy" and other civil liberty restrictions of the act. Despite this, Democrat members of congress voted for the original Patriot Act legislation, which helped make it a reality in the lives of the every day American. Since that time, the Democratic Party has been successful in changing portions of the Patriot Act that threatened individual rights, including the library provisions, which were dropped in 2006.


 * This seems perfectly fair to me. john k 07:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. thewolfstar 08:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The Party supports some civil liberties, is divided on certain social freedoms, supports rights that are tipped in favor of some minority groups in an attempt to offset former imbalances, supports an imbalanced system of opportunity, and asserts that it supports a free enterprise system with government intervention known by economists and historians as Mixed economy.


 * No. No. No. No. This is the most insanely POV thing we could possibly say. john k 07:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No, this is fact. The other was stating as fact, the claims that the Democrats make. What the Democrats claim to do and what they actually do, is just not the same. These are factual statements, the others are myths, stated as if they were facts. I'm not saying that this is the only way that this can be written. All I ask is that it be factual thewolfstar 08:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Also


 * The bit on Nader is disgusting and doesn' t belong in this article. If Nader wanted to wound the Democratic Party it's for good reasons, guaranteed. I'm removing it.


 * Disgusting? How so? The article wasn't implying that it was for bad reasons. Also, on what basis can you claim that it is a fact that he was trying to do it for "good reasons"? john k 07:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been accused of not presenting things simply enough. This is as simply as I can put it. I'm editing tonight.

Now I just went to the article and found this line that I had happily forgotten about. the Democratic Party believes in using Hamiltonian means (a strong central government and government intervention to promote the economy) to achieve traditional Jeffersonian ends (democracy, equal rights, and equal opportunity)

Sorry. No way is this possible.

It's sort of like saying "My mother is blind 'cause she can see and that's why she wears glasses on her ass."

You can't achieve freedom (a Jeffeson kinda thing) with a powerful controlling governement. Democracy isn't gonna happen that way either through centralized power. Man, this article needs some serious work. Maggiethewolfstar 05:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It really doesn't matter if you don't think it's true. That said, it shouldn't be stated as fact that this is what the Democratic Party does - it should be attributed.  It was a famous statement by Herbert Croly, a leading Progressive and the founder of The New Republic, in 1909.  It has since frequently been applied to the ideals of the Democratic Party, at least since the New Deal period. I've modified. john k 07:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey John, you're right. Maggiethewolfstar 15:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I would venture that in this article, with several specific instances, the use of the word "progressive" is used not to describe an internal democratic movement, but in a sense that leads a reader to indicate that the opposition of anything progressive is wrong and backwards. Take for instance, this quote, "The Party believes that government should play a role in alleviating poverty and social injustice, even if that means a larger role for government and progressive taxation to pay for social services" The implication being that progress is ensured through the implementation of liberal taxation. Beyond the very use of the word "progressive" I would also argue that that whole quoted line is biased and political to its core. "The party believes in alleviating poverty," well they say they do. This has an implication that modern Democrats are doing what they can in office to relieve the suffering of the impoverished. However, this is not the case. This line needs to be altered to reflect the juxtapostion between what Democrats claim to believe, and what Democrats do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)

2nd Amendment
The Democratic Party does not oppose the 2nd Amendment. It has, in the past at least, interpreted the 2nd Amendment to mean that it is a guarantee of the right to form a militia (that is, the National Guard), and not as a right for individuals to have guns. This interpretation has generally been accepted by the Supreme Court. At any rate, at present, the Democrats, as a national party, at least, have pretty much dropped any further gun control from the agenda, so it seems odd to highlight this. john k 16:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Johnk, you are simply wrong. Please read up at www.guncite.com Merecat 23:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Are we supposed to take that site seriously? --Dragon695 04:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow! I suggest you and the Democratic Party in general should read
 * The 2nd amendment
 * Some history on Shay's Rebellion
 * Shay's militia's influence on the writing of the Bill of Rights...a BIG one.
 * If the gun control issue is dropped then why is it listed in the article under Democratic Party stances: ??? thewolfstar 23:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * What's your point? He said "further gun control", which mean beyond the status quo. I've yet to see any legislative proposals which put further restrictions then what has already existed in US history. Not to get off on a tangent, but you are aware that there is a point at which your rights end and the rest of the publics' rights begin. For the safety of all the rest of us, the Democratic Party believes in common sense regulations on who can have a gun. Just like the 1st amendment does not entitle you to falsely shout "fire" in a crowded theatre or incite a riot, the 2nd amendment does not entitle you to a gun irregardless of your criminal past. The 2nd amendment clearly states "well regulated", which implies that while you are entitle to a gun, some restrictions might apply. Influence or no influence, the historical context you claim as being the inspiration for the Bill of Rights is quite irelevant. It's the actual text of the constitution that matters. If they had meant that everyone could have a gun, then why mention anything about regulation. If you've proven to be a menace with a gun, in the interest of protecting the rights of the public as a whole, you can be denied a gun. This is just common sense. Would you allow a known child molester to be a baby-sitter? Would you entrust a known theif with your money? This doesn't take a genius, this is just common sense. The founders had a great affinity for common sense, I see no reason why it can't be used when interpreting the constitution. Being for common sense regulation of guns is not mutually exclusive with supporting the 2nd amendment. Jeeze. --Dragon695 05:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Being for common sense regulation of guns is not mutually exclusive with supporting the 2nd amendment.
 * I would agree, with the proviso that not everyone's idea of common sense is the same. ;)  Kasreyn 09:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It doesn't take a genius to see that people can take care of themselves and don't need all this government intervention, in most cases. It doesn't take a genius to see that there are an inordinant number of black men in the federal penitentiary and that this in itself points to two questions.


 * 1) Who are the criminals?
 * 2) Does the Democratic Party advocate protection of black men? thewolfstar 21:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I would like to suggest some changes in emphasis to the "Democratic Party Stances." The issues listed are important, but they don't get to the heart of Democratic ideology, which is (to quote from the article), "The Party believes that government should play a role in alleviating poverty and social injustice, even if that means progressive taxation and a larger role for government to pay for social services."

The basic point is that Democrats believe that, working together (as a government) we can make the country a better place; Republicans believe that everyone should fend for himself. This is something that ought to be made clear. (Although I suppose Republicans shouldn't be mentioned in an article on the Democratic Party.) One might also say that Democrats believe that the government should act as a counterweight to big business, not as a faithful promoter and enabler. I think that as many of the "stances" as possible should be grouped, taking a page from FDR, under "freedom from want" (economic issues) and "freedom from fear" (civil rights issues). Otherwise the stances just look like a hodgepodge. (It's weird that the 2nd and 3rd items on the list should be issues that have arisen only in the last few years; it seems completely unbalanced; an encyclopedia shouldn't be such a slave to fashion.) I also think work-related issues — such as worker safety, family leave — should at least be mentioned. Along with gun control, food safety might be mentioned. These are questions that crystallize the ideology of the party.
 * The thing is, we can't do that. Don't get me wrong, I think your analysis is pretty much correct, but it would be original research, which is not appropriate on an encyclopedia.  All information included in the article needs to be reliable, verifiable, and presented from a neutral point of view.  If you can find a direct quote from a noteworthy commentator on the nature of the Party, then we can quote that commentator and provide a citation sourcing the quote to them.  Sadly, no matter what ideas we may cook up here on the talk page, we can't include our own research on Wikipedia.  But please, feel free to help us find some sourced quotes and other info that we can use!  Kasreyn 09:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

2nd paragraph on ideological base
Griot, I really don't think we should just state outright that the Democrats use Hamiltonian means to achieve Jeffersonian ends. I believe that's a fair statement, but it's obviously POV to present it as fact. We should note that this is a common form that American liberalism has used to describe its mission, or something like that, or cite Croly, or whatever. But we can't just say "In historical terms."

In terms of "advocates" or whatever, I don't have a serious problem with advocates, but other people apparently don't like it, and I think that my version is better and will engender less opposition. Also, please don't use misleading edit summaries like "editing for clarity" when you are making edits that are obviously controversial. john k 01:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * As far as I'm concerned, we should drop this whole Jefferson ends/Hamiltonian means business, but rjensen put it in, and we should respect that. I introduced the "in historical terms" so people can get a sense of what it's about. As for "advocates," I put that in becuase, honestly, what was there before was stilted and difficult to read ("The Party has stated its commitment to such principles as "). Kind of weasly, I think. Finally, I'm not misleading anyone. I made many edits. I had to describe them somehow. I'm not evil incarnate -- really. Griot 03:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * the formula "the Democrats use Hamiltonian means to achieve Jeffersonian ends" has been pretty common for 60 years (but I'm not the one who added it to the article.) I think it can stay without much problem. George Will used it recently: "By George F. Will Newsweek Feb. 14 issue - A century ago, American progressives said they aspired to use Hamiltonian means to achieve Jeffersonian ends. They meant they would wield a strong federal government to promote equality." (the term comes from Herbert Croly, who was a TR supporter.) It was often used for FDR. It has also been used for Reagan: "Yet both Nixon's and Carter's foreign policies were ultimately rejected by Americans who saw Nixon as excessively expedient and thus inconsistent with American principles and saw Carter as excessively moralistic and thus unable to defend the national interest. Reagan bridged this gap by combining Jeffersonian ends with Hamiltonian means." Gary Hart actually has a whole book on ths matter. He rejects the formula: "It is rather that one might better use Jeffersonian means to achieve Hamiltonian ends. The strength of American political purpose in the current age is arguably to be achieved through the reengagement of ordinary citizens in public life and the common purpose rather than through continued reliance on a remote elite to manage national affairs for a society increasingly detached from national life and national purpose." [Restoration of the Republic: The Jeffersonian Ideal in 21st-Century America 2002 p 56]. Perhaps it merely refers to strong use of presidential power.  Rjensen 03:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I attributed it to Croly, and said it was a formula which has commonly been used to describe the style of liberalism associated with the Democratic Party since the New Deal (if not earlier). I think it would be better to be more detailed about it than simply to throw it out there as though it's a widely accepted truth. In terms of "advocated" versus my version, I agree mine is a bit awkward, but, to be honest, I'd prefer just plain "supports" to "advocates," as I look at it.  "Advocates" seems nearly as stilted as my version, and I'm not sure how it's less POV than "supports". I think we should perhaps go back to the drawing board on that one. john k 04:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, Griot, I don't think you're evil. But "edits for clarity" is not a good description for edits which might be controversial.  I'd say "various changes in wording" would be a better way to say it. john k 04:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

We really should drop the Jeffersonian ends/Hamiltonian means stuff. We're introducing as-yet undefined historical concepts in the "Idealogy" part of the article. This will confuse 99 percent of readers, who don't know what these terms imply. I'm going to take it out. It's really out of place, especially this early in the article. Griot 20:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a useful quote, and bears discussion somewhere in the article, but not necessarily at the beginning. It also might be more appropriate in the American liberalism article, or something like that. Do we have an article, by the way, on the concept of a Jeffersonian/Hamiltonian dualism in American politics? This is a pretty common motif, and ought to be discussed somewhere. john k 20:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly..hello?
Just as a note not to be considered a request for any particular change..

"A century ago, American progressives said they aspired to use Hamiltonian means to achieve Jeffersonian ends. They meant they would wield a strong federal government to promote equality." This is known as socialism.

I'm a patriotic citizen, myself. I don't care much for left or right wing regimes. (The dictators, F.D.R. or George Dubya Bush)

If Jefferson or Tom Paine could see the insanity that goes on their names, by both the left and right wings of this country, they would be rolling in their graves. I read Thomas Jefferson's own writings and I read the writings of Thomas Paine. Can any of you say this?

Thomas Paine Collected Writings ISBN I-883011-03-5

Thomas Jefferson Writings ISBN 0-940450-16-X (a 1548 page book). both from the Library of America Maggiethewolfstar 05:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

And as an addition King Dubya's regime is a fascist one. His take over can be easily compared to Hitler's takeover of the German republic. They are amazingly similar in many ways. thewolfstar 05:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Get off your soapbox and talk about things that are relevant to this article.--RWR8189 05:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This is not a forum for your political beliefs, this is for discussion relevent to the direction of this article. And yes, I have read the works of both men. And the fact that you've read them as well doesn't make you any less of a fool. - Fearfulsymmetry 12:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Section About Lost Republican Votes in Florida

 * So are you trying to say that your thoughts and beliefs are suspended once you start typing here? I would like to believe that but human nature tells me different. Three paragraphs about the 2000 election sure does seem inappropriate. I notice that many of the editors say it has nothing to do with a description of the democratic party and then go on to say the facts are nonsense. I am sure the editors have no intention of making any changes that are based in fact or history.

I voted for Mr. Nader in 2000. He has never made the comment that they were trying to hurt the democratic party. Every party tries to hurt other political parties, thats not something that needs to be said, because some democrats make the comment.

--Chuck 19:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, please add your comments to the end of the section, it makes the conversation easier to follow. Nobody is making any claims about the suspension of thought or belief when adding content to Wikipedia.  Why are three paragraphs about the 2000 election inappropriate?  If you think that these paragraphs should be pared down, please point out the content that you'd like to see removed.  Your edits do indeed have no bearing on the topic of this article.  They may have a place in the Republican article, or the 2000 US election article, or the 2000 election controversy article.  Whether or not your edits are factual or historically accurate is not relevent.  Just because something is true doesn't mean it belongs in the article.  I have no opinion on the Nader quote. Bjsiders 19:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I have read BJ Siders Blog. it is obvious that he is interested in partisan politics and not historical fact. There are 3 paragraphs on the Florida election in the section about the democratic party. The comments from a so called top advisor of Mr Nader in the Village voice is not fact and hardly history. Mr. Nader was a legitimate candiadate and on the Florida ballot. Mr. Gore and his supporters needs to accept that.


 * The contents of my blog aren't relevent to my edits. There's an "assume good faith" rule here.  I am not contesting the historical accuracy of what you're claiming, so whether or not I am "interested" in historical fact isn't relevent either.  I am contest the appropriateness of your proposed addition.  I am not sure of the grounds on which you are supporting your addition here.  You appear to be engaging two different issues.  The first is your proposed addition, and now you're suggesting that the Nader advisor quotes should be removed.  I'm also unsure of what Nadar's legitimacy as a candidate has to do with your proposed addition.  I also note that you have made your change again without reaching a consensus here and despite repeated requests that you cease until we can hash it out here.  This is considered by many members of the community to be bad form, and may not be met with much patience by other editors.  I am not going to revert your change anymore, as it's been switched too many times already today.  I'd like to invite the other editors to participate in this discussion, and for TruthAndJustice to provide more backing for his change.  Also, please sign your comments with four tildes and add them to the add of the section. Bjsiders 16:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

An editor has twice added an extensive paragraph explaining that the Republican vote was suppressed in 2000 by an early call of the state of Florida for Gore by the networks. While interesting, it provides an entire paragraph about this one phenomenon following a paragraph that sums up the entire Florida 2000 situation succinctly. I removed the paragraph about Republicans but it was rewritten (rather nicely, in fact, kudos to the editor), and added back in. I have removed it again, and would like to invite the editors to discuss this paragraph before putting it back into the article. I strongly feel that it is an unnecessary and inappropriate addition to an article about the Democratic party. It adds exposition that is not relevent to the discussion or article, and I suggest that it more correctly belongs in the article about that election and the controversies surrounding it. Bjsiders 18:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry but any discussion about Florida election that uses facts such as Green party votes, specific vote counts and uses words like "tantalizing" in reference to Mr. Gores loss should be open to any mention of voter irregularities. If this is left out it gives the Idea of stolen election. Which I believe is the real agenda. Please lets come to a compromise with at least a sentence mention of the panhandle or lets remove the entire reference to Florida election as a topic for the Democratic Party.


 * First, please sign your comments with four tildes. Second, please do not add this change back into the article again until it has been discussed a concensus has been reached.  You have 4 editors here who all agree that the change does not belong, so please don't put it back until and unless we come to an agreement on it here.  As to the substance of your points.  The article and thus the section are about the Democratic party and the information about Nader's votes is included because the Democrats were concerned about it and commented on it.  There is absolutely no mention of anything suggesting the election was invalid or stolen in the article, only that the Green party may have cost Gore the presidency.  That's a fair observation, made by Democrats, concerning the performance of their party.  It's also relevent to an article chronicling the history of the party, and this section admirably avoids a descension into speculation and finger-pointing about stolen elections.  Your proposed addition deals not at all with the Democratic party, it's about something else entirely, and is not appropriate for this article.  Your addition is only about Republicans and Republican voters, and is neither necessary for balance nor for fairness.  I disagree that there is any need to mention voter irregularities.  There are none mentioned now, and if you want to add this one bit about Republican voting in the panhandle, it opens a huge can of worms, and half of the content in the Florida 2000 controversy article will end up being duplicated here by the time everybody has their say.  This is not the place to chronicle the various problems with Florida 2000, and the article wisely avoids doing so as it stands.  I suggest that we not start doing so now. Bjsiders 16:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Completely agree. It is unncecssary and far too detailed for a general-interest article about the Democratic Party. Griot 18:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. This material is an inappropriate level of detail for the article on the Democratic Party as a whole. john k 19:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * agreed. the story is also nonsense. It is not true that people who have decided to vote suddenly change their mind if they happen to hear one report on TV. Rjensen 19:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I imagine a handful of people might have left line, but since Bush carried FL anyway, it didn't really matter. Even if I heard that the presidential race was decided for my state while I was standing in line to vote, I'd stay.  There's governers, senators, house reps, and civil propositions to vote for, too.  The merits of the statement aren't really important, though, this is the wrong place for the theory. Bjsiders 20:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Bjsiders is exactly right. Reporters have rarely found anyone who decided not to vote on the basis of a 10-second news story. Rjensen 21:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The change was made again. I have reverted and left the user a comment asking that (s)he discuss it here before making further changes along those lines. Bjsiders 14:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

We seem to have a new editor who is very convinced of the merits of his proposed contribution, to the point of declining to participate in a constructive discussion of it. I've left two notes on his talk page requesting that he cease with the reverts and focus on the discussion here, to no avail so far. I'm at a loss for what to do next, I've never run into anybody quite so determined here. Bjsiders 18:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The false poll-closing time broadcast in 2000 was very relevant. It must be mentioned if any aspects bearing on the 2000 closeness are mentioned. Merecat 23:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This is ridiculous. Other aspects of the 2000 closeness have received much more attention from mainstream sources than this "polls closing in the Panhandle" thing, which, at any rate, doesn't directly concern the Democratic Party in any way. john k 00:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

= from the wolf star = Concerning this paragraph under Ideological base: ''The Party advocates civil liberties, social freedoms, equal rights, equal opportunity, and a free enterprise system tempered by government intervention. The Party believes that government should play a role in alleviating poverty and social injustice, even if that means progressive taxation and a larger role for government.''

I have pointed out the lack of fact in this statement lots of times. I have changed it on the article page and documented why I changed it. I have asked for comments from others concerning it and have gotten maybe one response to it, long ago.

Prove it, please. Or at least show how it is fact. Show how, The Party advocates civil liberties... Just do it. thewolfstar 17:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The official policy platform of the DNC tends to favor civil liberties in most cases. Time and time and time again, the Democratic party has sided with civil liberties in favor of almost any other interest.  I'd suggestion that the onus is on you to demonstrate that it's not true, on balance.  It may also help to define what you think of as a civil liberty.  If that definition is seriously at odds with the liberties implied in the article, some clarification may be in order. Bjsiders 17:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Bjsiders for your reply. Okay, here is what I define as civil liberties..the same thing that the Bill of Rights defines as civil liberties. Here are two of those liberties not defended by the Democrats.


 * freedom of speech
 * not defended by Democrats. Democrats tend to jump on people who say offensive things, (offensive how, or to whom) is guess what.. the Democrats! They tend to jump on people who do not use what they consider to be the current politically correct lingo. People have lost their jobs because of this sort of thing. freedom of speech is a right. A God given right enforced in our Constitution.
 * the right to bear arms.
 * Obviously, the right to bear arms torn down by their own admission. Please see article page crime and gun control under Democrat Party Stances' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29

The right to from a militia and the right to bear arms Shall not be infringed This seems pretty clear and simple to me. The right to defend ourselves against tyranny. Another God given and therfore inalienable right. I hope I haven't offended too many Democrats by using the word God in public. Thanks for actually reading this and applying thought to it. Maggiethewolfstar 19:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

While there are those on the left who have advocated things like speech codes on college campuses and the like, what evidence do you have that the Democratic Party does so? In terms of the Second Amendment, here's the Democratic Party's official position, as enunciated in the 2004 platform: "We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President bush proposed and failed to do." I suppose one can take the NRA position and say that any restriction on firearms ownership is a violation of the 2nd Amendment, but this interpretation has found no support in the courts, which have ruled pretty much every gun control law constitutional. Furthermore, while Democrats do, based on this, support some gun control laws, they also support "Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms." The idea that Americans have a second amendment right to own firearms is already a fairly substantial concession to the individual rights view of the second amendment, as opposed to the idea that it has only to do with forming a militia, which has tended to be the judicial interpretation of the thing. It is deeply POV to claim that the Democratic Party opposes the Second Amendment as though this is an established fact. john k 19:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I concur with john k in his logic. Individual Democrats may support and not support all kinds of things. I know Democrats who are strongly against gay marriage for very Christian reasons. That doesn't mean the Democratic Party endorses that view. I agree with you, in that one can somewhat fairly say that it tends to be Democrats (or rather, American leftists) who jump the quickest on "offensive" speech and work to censor or quiet it, but it depends on who it offends, it's not a universal trend. The legal implications of the freedom of speech are myriad and complex, and not so simple as hushing up offensive language. You may not yell "fire" in a theatre or "bomb" on an airplane. This is not a violation of the First Amendment. Whether or not the SCOTUS will ultimately decide that "not offending people" is another exception to the 1st Amendment remains to be seen. Second, I have not seen very many Democrats campaigning to eliminate guns entirely. In fact, many Democrats go out of their way to demonstrate their friendliness to hunters. Senator Kerry and Vice President Gore both went on record as avid hunters. The argument that guns cause crime has been largely debunked. Even Michael Moore came around when he looked into it seriously, and you'll find few Democrats who seriously advocate banning guns entirely. Regulating and controlling how one can get guns is another matter and is not a 2nd Amendment violation. None of the rights spelled out in the Bill of Rights are "God-given" or "inalienable". Neither phrase appears anywhere in the Constitution. The Declaration of the Indepence is a powerful and critical document in the evolution of liberalism (in the classic sense), but is not a legal document to which American law is bound. Indeed, a whole different government came to power following the Declaration of Independence before the current Constitution was enacted. We no more use the Declaration of Independence to decide matters of Constitutional law than we consider John Hanson the first president. The right to bear arms and organize a militia is not infringed by regulating which arms you may bear. Further, even rights may be stripped from a man. This is a key tenant of classic liberalism and natural law - that all people have specific rights by virtue of being human beings, and no government or individual may remove those rights except by fair trial by one's peers. That's how we justify locking people up, taking their property, and even executing them. So we may tell specific people they cannot have a gun. You won't offend me by saying God in public. I'm not a Democrat, for the record, although that has nothing to do with me not being offended by the word "God." Words simply do not offend me. Bjsiders 19:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Also regarding free speech, it is Republicans, for the most part, that have pushed for flag burning laws, while most of the resistance to the laws has been from Democrats. Additionally, there's a large difference between saying "we should be more politically correct and inclusive with the language we use" and saying "the government commands that its citizens be more politically correct and inclusive with their language."  The former is a normative statement that I believe a substantial number of Democrats would agree with.  The latter is a statutory command that I believe a substantial number of Democrats would disagree with. -  Jersyko &middot;talk 19:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Quite true, but the discussion is about Democrats, so your point about Republicans isn't really relevent. The conservative candy man on the Supreme Court famously struck down flag burning laws under protected free speech.  I don't think thewolfstar is referring to "inclusive" language so much as some of the draconian speech codes that have begun to pop up on college campuses, some of which are not only speech codes but behavioral codes that mandate that students conduct their lives according to a specific set of social beliefs.  Students who do not comply can face disciplinary action including dismissal/expulsion from their school.  It's not quite the government locking you up for thought crime, but I also don't think it's that far from it.  You see mostly conservative and libertarian think tanks opposing this practice, and I think mainstream Democrats have turned a corner on it as well.  The phenomenon seems isolated to college administrations who have the good fortune to live and operate in a nearly consequence-free bubble when it comes to this stuff.  And on that count, I think thewolfstar makes an excellent point.  On balance, however, I do not see Democratic leadership standing up and proclaiming that they support these kinds of policies, they crop up in small ways at individual institutions and form a large body of governmentally-sanctioned speech restrictions. Bjsiders 20:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

thewolfstar's response
thanks for your last comment BJsiders. Well thought indeed.

Amendment One Political Correctness or newspeak http://www.ourcivilisation.com/pc.htm a summation of Democrat Party policies from http://nospeedbumps.com/?p=797 ''Any hint of discrimination in new policies meant that racism or sexism was at work - and these policies were rejected and denounced. The fight against perceived discrimination, whether it was due to institutional racism or racism of individuals, trumped other concerns when taking positions on social policy issues. In fact, this became so pronounced that a new phrase was coined: Political Correctness. Every Democratic politician wanted to be seen as being politically correct, even if they didn‘t use this term to describe themselves.'' and.. an opinion backed by fact http://www.buzzflash.com/theangryliberal/03/11/tal03001.html Amendment two


 * John K. said We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime,..., and closing the gun show loophole
 * I say.. who defines who is a criminal and who is a terrorist? Read Patriot Act legislation and read the news. reminder: The Democrats voted for the Patriot Act. It'll be harder and harder to get rid of it now. oops.
 * John K. said reauthorizing the assault weapons ban.
 * I say.. assault weapons are just another kind of weapon. The 2nd amendment does not put any qualification on kind of weapon. Therefore it is unconstitutional. (also check the news..we are the enemy combatant and we have assault weapons aimed at us.)
 * John K. said I suppose one can take the NRA position and say that any restriction on firearms ownership is a violation of the 2nd Amendment, but this interpretation has found no support in the courts
 * I say.. I personally don't give a rat's ass if this interpretation has found no support in the courts. The courts recently ruled that personal property can be taken away for no good reason more than a desire to do so by a public town official. Please don't tell me about what courts rule. I could go on a real rant about that but, fortunately for you, I won't.
 * John K. said It is deeply POV to claim that the Democratic Party opposes the Second Amendment as though this is an established fact
 * I say.. How would I ever come to that conclusion? Maybe because if it weren't for democrats like FDR, there would be no gun control laws. This is an established fact. The article itself even asserts it. I don't see where the article says the things that you are talking about, maybe I'm wrong. Even if it does say this and this is what the Democrats are now saying..it doesn't impress me a bit. I still will be unarmed when they come knocking down my door with fully automatic weapons. And the way things are progressing..they will.
 * I say.. A lot of comments have been left since I put this together. Let's stick to the Democrats. I know how the Republicans take away freedom of speech. Many laws have been passed concerning both the 1st and 2nd amendments. They are, at leat most of them, unconstitutional themselves since they break the constitution.
 * and I say.. I don't give a damn whether the constitution declares, specifically, whether these rights are inalienable or not. They ARE inalienable. Maybe you who say things like this would like to bring back slavery with that logic. thewolfstar 21:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * thewolfstar: I agree with you that "political correctness" and particularly speech codes are a destructive force against Free Speech. However, I will maintain that, on balance, the Democrats will favor civil liberties over other concerns.  In fact, much of their basis for "political correctness" was based on that.  People shouldn't be hassled or made to feel bad about their race or gender, and thus we enact policies to protect their civil liberties from such discrimination.  You basically have two conflicted sets of civil liberties.  The right to say what you want and the right not to be discriminated against.  We can argue that saying politically incorrect things is not a form of discrimination, but some people believe that it is.


 * You asked, who defines who is a criminal and who is a terrorist? Well, criminals are those who have been convicted in a court of law of commiting a crime.  That one's easy.  A terrorist is clearly somebody who uses terrorism to carry out an agenda.  A less well-defined group, a but servicable description.  Limiting an individual's access to guns is not tantamount to failure to support the Second Amendment.


 * You said, assault weapons are just another kind of weapon. The 2nd amendment does not put any qualification on kind of weapon. Therefore it is unconstitutional. As you said, it does not specify that any type of weapon must be made available.  You're using a sticky argument.  You're saying, The Constitution doesn't put a qualification on weapons, so you can't ban any.  It's just as reasonable to say, The Constitution doesn't put a qualification on weapons, so you can ban some.


 * You said, I personally don't give a rat's ass if this interpretation has found no support in the courts. Well, I do, and so do lawmakers.  Your assertion is that the Democratic party does not support gun ownership rights.  Your proof is that, under the laws governing this nation, restrictions on firewarms have been sanctioned by a runaway court whose decisions you disapprove of.  Maybe the Democrats are not as friendly to gun ownership as you like, but there's few voices advocating a complete repeal of gun ownership rights in the party, and the legislation has met Constitutional muster.  That's hardly a strong ground from which to lodge the charge that you've made.


 * You said, I still will be unarmed when they come knocking down my door with fully automatic weapons. Where did they get them from?  They've been banned.  And why will you be unarmed?  They still sold guns powerful enough to take down a 1200 pound animal at the store the last time I was there.


 * You said, I don't give a damn whether the constitution declares, specifically, whether these rights are inalienable or not. They ARE inalienable. Maybe you who say things like this would like to bring back slavery with that logic. We're talking about your reasons for wanting to allege that the Democratic party does not support civil rights.  Your reasoning is that they violate the 1st and 2nd amendment.  Your evidence is that we have rights that are not enumerated in the Constitution that the Democrats aren't supporting.  In other words, we've peeled off most of your arguments and you're left standing there stating things as facts that cannot ever be shown to be true (or unrue).  Gun rights ARE inalienable because you said so, and no other context matters, not the Constitution, not anything else, and anybody who disagrees may as well be trying to justify slavery.  Well, there's no way to argue with somebody who makes an invisible man claim.  "There's an invisible man standing next to me.  Prove that there's not.  If you can't, then there is, and I'm right, and you're wrong, and we're putting it in the damn article."  I'm sorry but that's unacceptable as a method of logical reasoning. Bjsiders 21:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

say what
You just twisted every single thing I said, Bjsiders. I was responding to what John K said. Civil rights as defined in the Constitution are just that civil rights. Simple right? It should be. Let's try and keep it simple. The constitution is the highest form of government. Right? Yes it is. It is therefore higher than the Supreme Court, the federal government, congress or any other branch of government. It is.

This is simple and yet it has become so damned complicated. Double think, newspeak, Democrats, Republicans.... Think about this, there never was much argument concerning the 2nd amendment until the turn of the 20th century. Try and keep it simple, and the facts separated in your heads.

We have the 2nd amendment so we can protect ourselves against those that try to take our 1st amendment away. It's simple. Democrat politicians don't protect freedoms any better than do Republican politicians. thewolfstar 22:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The name of the politcal party in question is the Democratic party. The correct term to use is "Democratic politicians". if you continue to use Frank Luntz double speak frames you are not going to get anywhere in a discussion with actual progressive members of the Democratic Party. --8bitJake 22:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

-

An addition, this keeps coming back to me. It haunts me. "None of the rights spelled out in the Bill of Rights are "God-given" or "inalienable".

Man that is scary that someone would even say that. You can speak for yourself. They are my God-given and therefore inalienable rights. thewolfstar 22:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, a terrorist is defined re: 9/11? Who is the terrorist? Maybe http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before_9/11=warnings


 * You said, You just twisted every single thing I said, Bjsiders. I don't think I did, but if you provide any examples I'll attemp to clarify.


 * I'm not responding to most of the rest of your post because little of it is support for your proposed change and reasons, it's mostly discussion of the organization of American government. You've got some of your facts wrong in there, if you'd like to discuss those, hit my talk page, I'll engage the discussion with you. :)


 * The only thing you said that really pertains to this discussion is Democrat politicians don't protect freedoms any better than do Republican politicians. This may or may not be true, but I don't find it to be any further compelling support for your argument that the Democrats do not support civil rights.


 * Bjsiders 23:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

1792 Date is Back
Somebody changed the foundation date to 1792 again, and now the page is locked. When it's unlocked, it needs to be changed back, and we can revisit the debate on the matter here if there's new disagreement. Bjsiders 18:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

=fromthewolfstar= There is a history run-down sort of thing that is not verified and frankly is full of false and ludicrous claims. Please verify the claims. Thanks thewolfstar 07:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)]


 * Which ones are false or wrong? I'd suggest that you debunk the ones that you disagree with.  If they're false and ludicrous, this should be a trivial exercise. Bjsiders 12:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

=as per 2nd amendment conversation above=
 * It doesn't take a genius to see that people can take care of themselves and don't need all this government intervention, in most cases. It doesn't take a genius to see that there are an inordinant number of black men in the federal penitentiary and that this in itself points to two questions.


 * 1) Who are the criminals?
 * 2) Does the Democratic Party advocate protection of black men? thewolfstar 21:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Blacks are disproportioantely represented amongst America's poor. The poor are disproportionately represented in our prison populations. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that poverty often leads to crime, and since there's a large ratio of poor blacks, we'd expect a large ratio of black criminals. I'm not 100% of this next one, but I'd wager a guess that blacks are also overrepresented in the drug trade, due most likely to poverty also, and thus I'm not surprised to see more in prison. All that being said, what proposed changes to the article are you discussing? Bjsiders 12:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay. You don't have to tell me about the imbalance of representation for groups of people. I've suggested it enough times as a replacement for that one statement that I have been trying to change for weeks no. It's called Affirmative Action, that exists thanks to the Dems and is discriminating in itself. Thank you for apparantly finally starting to see one of my points. My point is that whatever the Democratic Party is doing to protect people against social injustice does not seem to be working. thewolfstar 22:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, I'd argue that blacks have far more access to fair representation in the legal system today than they had 50 years ago, or even 20. Our society is pretty advanced in that way, we are the melting pot nation after all.  Affirmative Action was never meant to protect anybody from social injustice or discrimination.  Quite to the contrary, it is a policy that, at its most elementary level, legally requires discrimination in favor of diversity in the absence of any other reasonable criteria.  America responded with hiring and recruitment quotas, which is not what the policy intended.  Taken simply and at face value, AA would never, in practice, be used.  You have a tendancy to argue that since the goals of a policy were not realized, and perhaps even the opposite of those goals were realized, that the people advocating the policy must not really want what they claim to want.  If I say, "I want some chicken soup," and so I go find a chicken and throw water on it and fail to get chicken soup, it doesn't change the fact that I really do want chicken soup.  And if I fail to puzzle out why this didn't work and try instead to throw milk on the chicken, it also doesn't necessarily mean that I do not really want chicken soup.  At worst, it means I'm stubbornly foolish.  At the most charitable, it means I'm a little shortsighted and perhaps confused.  I don't think it's fair to say, "The Democratic party doesn't really want X because their policy has given us the opposite of X."  Assuming I understand it correctly, I don't agree with the logical methodology you're using to arrive at your conclusions on what information in this article is a "lie" or otherwise flatulent. Bjsiders 02:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Further explanation for my removal of certain wording.
It's bugged me for a long time and I've done nothing, but use of propagandistic spin words and inherent POV terminology put out by political parties is unacceptable on Wikipedia. It fails to live up to the NPOV policy's standards. Terms like "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are at best inaccurate metaphors and, technically speaking, propaganda. (No, Virginia, propaganda isn't just something the other guys do!) A much more literal and neutral wording is pro- or anti-abortion, which focuses on the actual procedure under discussion, and this is what I have altered some instances to.

This is honest language: it says what the politician is really for or against. Life and choice, of course, are universal goods, and to call oneself "pro" either of them means you have tacitly called your opponent "anti" that thing, which is ridiculous. Everyone is in favor of life, and choice, to some degree. Wikipedia should not be used as a vehicle for such manipulative language. I will wait for comment from my fellow editors before embarking upon the rest of the article. Kasreyn 10:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I object strongly to the use of both "anti-choice" and "pro/anti-abortion." It's possible to be anti-abortion and pro-choice.  "Anti-choice" isn't "common usage" outside of Democratic Party campaign speeches and talking points.  Let's stick with "pro-life" and "pro-choice" to describe the two sides.  If you start calling it "anti-choice" here, I'd expect the other side to call the pro-choice position "anti-life" elsewhere.  And that's hardly accurate.  People generally understand what is meant by "pro-life" (favor rights of the fetus over rights of the mother, generally on grounds that the fetus is a full human being with rights and abortion is thus murder) and "pro-choice" (the fetus has no rights yet and assigning it rights robs a woman of the right to manage her own body and health care decisions.  "Anti-choice," however accurate you may think it is, reeks of POV-pushing. Bjsiders 13:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You misunderstood me, or misread. I specifically do not want to use the word "choice" at all, or the word "life".  Whether you say pro- or anti-, you are making implicit claims that insert a fundamental bias to the discussion.  The only terms I propose using are pro-abortion and anti-abortion, which are factual and neutral.  I have not to my knowledge ever used the term "anti-choice" except in explaining its complete inappropriateness, just as you have.  I don't know where you got the impression that I wanted to use "anti-choice".


 * As for what people "understand" about what pro-life means: I can't disagree more.  People "understand" pro-life to mean whatever the spin-doctors pushing it want it to mean, just as they "understand" pro-choice to mean what the other side's spin-doctors want it to mean.  Both terms impart very little information while biasing the discussion.  Both terms include a biased insinuation, that the opponents must be anti- those things.  To call oneself "pro-life" is to silently imply that anyone who disagrees with you is pro-death.  Bias.  To call oneself "pro-choice" is to silently imply that anyone who disagrees with you is against all choice or freedom.  Bias.


 * Pro-abortion and anti-abortion, by comparison, do not imply anything about the opposition. They are simple and factual statements of positions which do not bias the debate.  They meet the test of Wikipedia's NPOV standard.  "Pro-life" and "Pro-choice" do not.  Kasreyn 20:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think most people who support women having the legal right to an abortion would object to being referred to as "pro-abortion." Many such people indicate their personal dislike of abortion, but their feeling that it should, nevertheless, be legal.  "Pro-abortion" should not be used as a general term for those who support the legality of abortion. john k 22:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I've considered that (it being my own personal belief), but "pro-legality-of-abortion" is a bit cumbersome to say! "Pro-abortion" could be used to signify this, and will still be far more informative, factual, and neutral than "pro-choice".  I understand that you're saying self-described "pro-choice" people want to be described as such.  Well, terrorists from Hamas and Al-Qaeda want to be described as martyrs and freedom fighters against the evil United States.  Should we give them their wish, too?  Yes, it's an extreme comparison.  But when a group picks a self-description that frames and fundamentally biases discussion, Wikipedia does not owe it to that group to use their preferred description.  NPOV comes first.  Kasreyn 00:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between the name for a movement and the way a movement wishes to be described. john k 00:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * True. I only addressed "the way a movement wishes to be described" because you raised it as an objection.  Essentially, if I understood you correctly, your point was that Wikipedia should use the labels "pro-choice" and "pro-life" because those who self-identify as such would be offended to be called anything else.  And normally, I'd agree, if there wasn't an NPOV issue involved.  However, my understanding of Wikipedia is that ensuring NPOV takes higher precedence than either using common terminology or avoiding offense.  Kasreyn 00:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I feel the need to interject here. Kasreyn, while "pro-legallity of abortion" may be more cumbersome to say it is a more accurate description (as compared to pro-abortion) for many people who are pro-choice. You are correct that NPOV must come first. However, changing "pro-choice" to "pro-abortion" is a NPOV violation. I agree that "pro-choice" and "pro life" are also matters of somoene POV. However, they are also the words that are used most often to describe the main "camps" that rally around this issue. Now, we could try and come up with new descriptions that are easy to say and accurately describe both sides adequately. Unfortunately, if we used our own terms to represent something on wikipedia that would violate WP:NOR . So, what we need to do is use the terms that each camp describes itself with (pro-choice, pro-life), avoid using the inflamatory terms that each side uses to describe the other side (anti-choice, pro abortion) unless the section is about how the one side refers to the other, and leave the creation of new catchphrases to those actually fighting these ideological battles. If new terms catch on, they will be verifiable and then we can consider changing the terms on Wikipedia. DanielZimmerman 07:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Framing
This comment is directed to Bjsiders and Rjensen. You know, for two editors who've shown such attention to NPOV and encyclopedic quality in the past as you have, I'm surprised that you think it's encyclopedic to include terminology that you know are frame-words, ie propaganda, in this article. Just including the spin from both sides doesn't somehow make it better, you know. As for wording in use: Wikipedia is supposed to use common terminology, but the NPOV policy has a higher priority. Can anyone provide a good reason for continuing to use political propaganda in this article? Kasreyn 20:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Please don't tell me what I think is or is not encyclopedic. I think the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are well enough understood by a typical reader to be fair terms to use, even if they are loaded guns.  I dislike terms like "anti-choice", "anti-life", and "pro/anti-abortion."  The first two are obvious political posturing, and the third is inaccurate.  Pro-life is what the pro-lifers call themselves.  Pro-choice is what the pro-choicers call themselves.  If the terms are ambiguous or unclear, we could link them, or preface the section with a very brief description of what each stands for (on balance).  If you want to frame the issue around what each side REALLY believes, those terms are acceptable.  The pro-choice crowd believes that the woman's reproductive freedom trumps any rights the unborn may have.  Thus, the woman's choice is more important than the unborn's life.  The pro-life crowd believes that the life of the unborn trumps the woman's reproductive freedom.  Thus the life is more important than the choice.  I think "pro-choice" very clearly articulates that priority, as does "pro-life."  The terms are a bit black and white (e.g., your average pro-lifer may have allowances for unusual circumstances; your average pro-choicer may not agree with specific abortion techniques), but I think they're fair and largely accurate.  I can't think of any non-clumsy terms that are much better. Bjsiders 01:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Kasreyn what terms would you prefer? Mathiastck 18:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Reproductive freedom and reproductive rights framing
I support the use of the term reproductive freedom and reproductive rights since the issue is much larger than just abortion. The right to privacy, medical coverage, right to contraception, family planning and protection from discrimination and harassment are covered under the term reproductive freedoms. I think it is better than the tired pro-choice/anti-life and Anti-choice/pro-life terms.--8bitJake 20:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Right! But, the trouble with blanket terms is, not everyone's position is black or white.  For instance, some people are against all abortions, some are okay with first trimester but not with later abortions, and some are okay with abortion at any time.  And then it gets even more complicated.  Some are for spousal/parental notification requirements, and some are against them.  Those who argue for notification requirements aren't always necessarily against choice; some of them feel that the spouse or parent also deserves a choice.  This is why the use of blanket terms in these debates bugs me.  Real people are never as one-dimensional as popular terminology makes them out to be.  It's better to take the time to describe a person's real position than to use a seemingly-convenient term that ignores a lot of possible positions.


 * So, yes, reproductive freedom / rights is also a good term to use, but only as long as we realize that there are varying degrees of support for it. It's not appropriate to simply throw around black or white statements like "x is pro-reproductive freedom and y is anti-reproductive freedom", just because x is against parental notification and y isn't.  We need to either take the time to do justice to the people we're reporting on, or else we shouldn't be saying anything.  Kasreyn 21:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree, Jake. You'll find people who are pro-choice but don't believe in public contraception programs.  You'll find people who are pro-life but DO believe in government contraceptive programs.  I think your term is too broad for this specific usage.  Let's not kid ourselves, the right to an abortion is the real cornerstone to this debate in America, specifically the manner in which that right has been guaranteed.  I'm also well aware of the case law leading up to Roe and that it did indeed involve contraception.  I agree that pro-choice and pro-life are a bit narrow but I think "pro-reproductive freedom" and "anti-reproductive freedom" is, frankly, part POV framing and part just plain inaccurate.  I can't pretend, however, to have any better ideas.  It's a difficult and complicated issue, and no two or three syllable term is going to really cover it.  The most thorough and accurate usage would be, in my opinion, to continue with "pro-life" and "pro-choice" and if necessary, articulate briefly the basic principle underlying each stance on the issue.  Bjsiders 01:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It would definitely be necessary, if we continue to use these terms, to give our readers the information they need to make a fair and impartial consideration. Above all, it needs to be clear that people are self-described in these ways, and that Wikipedia is not applying them as labels (original research).  Kasreyn 03:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. As for stances, I believe stances are in favor of actual practises.  If one were to say "I'm in favor of allowing first trimester abortions without parental or spousal notifications, and abortions at any stage of pregnancy in case of rape or danger to the mother's life" - that's a stance.  "Pro-choice", by comparison, has very little information content.  I think the reason these terms have caught on so well is that they are useful shorthands for the political right and left of an imaginary central dividing line.  Unfortunately, the abortion debate is far more three-dimensional.  I still feel these terms are misleading.  Kasreyn 03:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * "Pro-choice" has little meaning only if you are deriving its etymological roots. In context, everyone knows that "pro-choice" means "in favor of abortion being legal" and that "pro-life" means "in favor of abortion being illegal."  There's no POV issue, because these terms have essentially become untethered to their literal meanings due to their close association with a more specific meaning. john k 16:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, pro-life really means anti-euthanasia, anti-capital punishment, etc. The anti-abortion issue is just part of the larger "pro-life" movement. -- LV (Dark Mark)  17:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * In theory, yes. In practise, how many people from "pro-life" groups turned out to protest over the Terri Schiavo case, and how many people from "pro-life" groups turn out to protest executions?  There is a great difference between the theory and the practise, which to me is sufficient proof that "pro-life" is a self-serving label, not a meaningful description. Kasreyn 22:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, quite a few actually. But I understand that's not really the point here. True "pro-lifers" are against all of that. Those that are against abortion, but for capital punishment are not truly "pro-life", but the label is used for simplification. Oh well. -- LV (Dark Mark)  17:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Not everyone "knows", because the terms have been left deliberately vague.  Everyone "knows" only what they read into the terms, which is exactly what is intended by such terms.  As I pointed out to BJSiders below, there are many side issues which fall under the overall mantle of being on the spectrum "between" "pro-choice" and "pro-life", but there is no definite consensus where they fall.  The issue is far more complex than a one-dimensional line extending from left ("pro-choice") to the right ("pro-life").  So, perhaps the terms do have some meaning, but they are a drastic oversimplification of the issue.  Wikipedia should report in more detail than this.  Kasreyn 22:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I mostly agree with john k. It's absurd to think that the "pro-life" lobby cares about anything other than stopping the legal sanction of any medical practice that they believe constitutes the destruction of a human being. The pro-life movement is full of people who find abortion morally reprehensible, to a degree that they don't want anybody to be able to do it, but have no problem with contraception or other forms of reproductive freedom.  Thus labels like "anti-choice" encompass a collection of views that cannot broadly or fairly be used to describe this viewpoint.  Reproductive freedom encompasses a massive range of issues that another editor has enumerated very well (8bitjake, I think), but the "pro-life" and "pro-choice" movement is not really about all of those issues. The pro-life movement in particular is not especially married to any other issue beyond abortion and to a lesser extent, euthenasia.  There isn't even unified anti-capital punishment support.  It'd be fairer to say "pro-life/anti-abortion".  It's the only issue that can be broadly and accurately ascribed to the bulk of the pro-life lobby.  Pro-choice could be more fairly expanded to include choice in other reproductive liberty concerns, but in the context of this particular usage, I think john k has it down. "Pro-choice" means in favor of abortions being safe, private, and legal. "Pro-life" means in favor of abortion being illegal. More specifically, pro-life means in favor of abortions not being done at all, whether legally or illegally. I don't think there's enough real ambiguity or genuine confusion over what these groups stand for to justify new terminology. When I say, "the American civil rights movement," most people think of Martin Luther King and desegregation. Few people leap immediately to gun ownership.  We're talking abortion rights here. Bjsiders 18:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but there are differing degrees of support or opposition to the procedure. For instance, how would you describe the difference between two people who agree that first trimester abortions, and abortions in the case of rape or hazard to the mother, should be legal, but disagree with each other on parental or spousal notifications?  Some people who believe in notifications would claim that they consider themselves "pro-choice".  Some others would claim that they are "pro-life".  And this is only one side issue among many.  These terms don't have a direct, literal, and honest meaning.  Their purpose is to trick people into thinking the issue is more black and white than it is.  Wikipedia really shouldn't be assisting in their attempt to oversimplify the discussion.  Kasreyn 22:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * They're both pro-choice. A pro-lifer wouldn't agree with first trimester abortions at all.  And these hypothetical people are not the point, we're trying to come up with a description for the Democrats referred to specifically in this article. Bjsiders 13:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Avoidance of primary controversies
If you are going to mention Kerry and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth how about mentioning the IMPEACHMENT of Clinton, one of only 2 presidents impeached in the entire history of the United States? 206.208.110.32 22:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You mean about how his popularity soared during and after the impeachment farce? It is well documented on other pages. Man. Remember those days when the only thing a president would lie about was sex? --8bitJake 23:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The Clinton Impeachment should definitely be mentioned. It may have been a "farce" to some, but it is an important topic in American political history. Doesn't have to be much detail... just a sentence or two with a link to the main article on the topic. If I had time, I'd do it myself. Maybe later. -- LV (Dark Mark)  23:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, the parties stance on gays, lesbians, abortion, gun control, illegal immigration, vociferous defense of the 1st and 4th amenement, &etc are all critical to understanding the issues of the age, but are neither summed up in contrast to the primary opposition nor mentioned at length. One would think from reading these articles that the democratic party was nothing more than a rotary club, with no differences worth mentioning as compared to the opposing major party. There are about as many lines talking about the green party as there are the republican party. Which group when opposing the Democrats has been more influential?206.208.110.32 22:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

This is not an article about the Green or Republican parties. --8bitJake 23:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The Swift Boat vets was an issue isolated to one guy who happened to be a Senator and presidential candidate. I'd mention them in the John Kerry article but not this one. Clinton's impeachment is worth mentioning, as is his full acquittal in the Senate trial. Any more detail than that ought to be confined to the article about Clinton and his various scandals. Bjsiders 15:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep it: the Swift Boat issue dominated the Democratic presidential campaign for several critical weeks. It did not happen to some obscure senator--it perhaps ruined the best chance the party had of winning the White House. Rjensen 16:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Nah, the Swift Boaters probably don't deserve mention here. They really were not against the Democratic Party as a whole, but rather against Kerry. In the history of the DP, the SBVFT barely register. But yes, the Clinton Impeachment and Acquittal deserve a sentence or two. -- LV <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  18:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Just my 2 cents, but I'd say that failed candidates and "potential" candidates deserve less space in the article than Democrats who actually successfully became president. Just as a matter of notability, failed candidates just don't seem as important as real presidents who actually changed the world.  Kasreyn 22:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The most recent failed candidate of the losing party is also the last person to put forward the party platform and actually reach an audience. Until another Democrat grabs national attention and puts forward a party platform Kerry will be the most important voice describing the current state of the democratic party, and it's stances. Mathiastck 18:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * On the most part, maybe. But I'd posit Barry Goldwater changed the state of American politics (thus the world, really) than Chester A. Arthur (who became President). But oh well. -- LV <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  00:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, now, don't knock my man Chester! After all, where would we be without the Bureau of Labor Statistics?  ;)  Kasreyn 01:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Purge of communists by Truman and successors
This was ignored entirely and was a critical element of the victories that Kennedy and Johnson had in leading the fight against communism during the cold war, and in the strategy pursued while opposing the Soviet Union. You ignore it completely.206.208.110.32 22:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Well the article links to both Presidents Kennedy and Johnson and their articles have much more detail about their administrations. This is an article not a book. --8bitJake 23:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

To Rjensen re: "Democrat Party" source
Hey, thanks for jumping right on that citation tag I added. The Google Books do indeed show that the party has been called such by some people for quite some time. I'm still concerned, though. The line in the article is very clear that the Democratic Party, or its members, have self-identified as "Democrat Party". The books you include from Google do show that some people have used the term, but there's no way to verify that those people are members of the party (unless Google has a way to verify the party affiliation of an author). Therefore whether "Democrat Party" is a self-identification isn't adequately shown by the citation (unless I'm missing something).

Can you find a better source that shows Democrats self-identifying their party as the "Democrat Party"? Or, perhaps, we could change the article to say the party has been "referred to" as such, without claiming that those who referred to it as such were themselves Democrats. Cheers, Kasreyn 22:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, on closer reading, a lot of those instances of "Democrat Party" usage brought up by Google are clearly not being used by Democrats. For example, from Arkansas Politics And Government by Diane D Blair, Jay Barth, the hit for "Democrat Party" found by Google is in fact a quote from a Republican attack ad:
 * "Each year the abortion mills decimate our human capital by another 400,000 souls. The Democrat Party supports these liberal abortion laws that are decimating our people."
 * So far, in my opinion, the Google Books link has only incontrovertably proved that Democrats' enemies use the term, not that it is a self-identifier. Kasreyn 22:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that Democrats no longer use the term. However they did use it circa 1900. Note the "Freedom Democrat party" in Mississippi was important in Civil rights days in 1960s. Terms go out of fashion--for example "the democracy" was a popular term for the party 80 years ago and is not in use today. Rjensen 22:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

If you want to write a history of the party's name, go ahead. But don't do it here. Griot 22:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This has always been a section on the history of the party's name and symbols. Rjensen 23:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you're replying to Rjensen or to me. I'm not advocating the inclusion of anything in this talk section, only adequate sourcing.  Kasreyn 00:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Re citation supporting "Democrat" usage "The ICPSR at the University of Michigan--the main depository for election data--used "Democrat" party in its codebooks. [13]" The referenced Web page doesn't support, so far as I can see. On the contrary, the ICPSR's thesaurus of subject terms lists only "Democratic Party (USA)." cf. http://webapp.icpsr.umich.edu/cocoon/ICPSR-THESAURUS/subject/index_d.xml The sentence should be deleted; it doesn't reflect ICPSR's usage. RickDC 16:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Note: discussion on this topic continues below.

Tom DeLay peer review
Editors of this page may be interested in checking out the peer review of Tom DeLay. Please leave your comments, criticism, and suggestions at Peer review/Tom DeLay/archive1. Thanks, NatusRoma | Talk 23:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Notes backlinks broken
The up-arrows next to the comments in the Notes section don't appear to work - in fact the anchors they refer to are missing.

Ethnicity
I'd like to note here my dislike of using "ethnic" as an adjective to describe a group of people of unspecified ethnicity. It's simply a politically-correct and obfuscated way of saying "minority" or "non-white", nothing more. If a specific ethnicity is being referred to, then that ethnicity should be specifically identified. Since the line in question is "ethnic 'wets'", I suspect the intent of the statement is a slur against Hispanics. Kasreyn 04:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Today's terms of "white" and "non-white" don't work in the historical context of its use in the article. Italians, Irish and many Eastern European are good examples (See ethnic).  And the use of "wets" and "dries" is in the context of a sentence on prohibition. --64.222.114.245 14:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, then the required specificity isn't "non-white". I can certainly accept that, and thanks for explaining about the "wet" vs. "dry" thing.  I'm embarassed that I forgot about the political importance of prohibition back then.


 * However, that still doesn't explain why more precise and specific language is not being used. People keep linking me to the article Ethnic group, but there's nothing there of importance except "Collectivities of related ethnic groups are typically denoted as 'ethnic'."  This is not helpful, because we still don't know which "collectivity of related ethnic groups" is under discussion.  The term is unneccessarily vague and confusing to the reader.  I continue to feel suspicious that it's just an excuse for poor writing and an attempt to sidestep the often embarassing racial history of U.S. politics.  Kasreyn 17:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I continue to eagerly await an answer to my question, specifically from Hmains. Kasreyn 22:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no interest in getting into an edit war, but terse summaries like "correct as written" explain nothing. Mind explaining what it means? I'm curious to know. Kasreyn 06:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't speak for it, but it sounds like a revert. --64.222.114.245 14:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure that the meaning implied is white non-WASPs (in the ethnic sense rather than the class sense). Collectively, this group would be refered to as "white ethnics".--Pharos 00:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Is it "ethnic x's" or "x ethnics"? I've seen both usages.  This would seem to lend credence to my suspicion that the entire set of terminology has been cooked up rather recently.  I'm not sure how notable it would be to mention "white ethnics" when there is no article here on what a "white ethnic" is.  Kasreyn 02:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, noone said Wikipedia was complete :) (but the WASP article covers the same concept from the other side.)  The specific terminiology of "white ethnic" rather than "ethnic" is probably pretty recent, and I think words like "Non-American" were probably more common in the time period.--Pharos 02:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I see. Mostly, I'm concerned about readability (ie., use of commonly accepted English over neologisms) and accuracy.  The history of politics in America is sadly full of examples of every major party playing the race card to win votes.  If the Democratic Party once used racism, then we should be plain about it rather than using euphemisms.  The exception would be if the neologism served to define a specific subcategorization that could not be properly described with a more widespread term.  Is there any simpler way to say what is meant?  Cheers, Kasreyn 02:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The specific issue actually is not about racism at all. It's just that different parts of the Democratic base (Southern WASPs vs. Northern immigrants and their descendants) had different takes on prohibition.  This may have lead to some tension, but that's indirect.--Pharos 03:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I see, thanks for the explanation. :)  Do you think we could use "Northern immigrants and their descendants" instead?  Would that still retain accuracy?  Kasreyn 15:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I suppose so, but let's just not obscure ethnicity entirely. The building of a base among non-WASP immigrants is a really important part of the history of the Democratic Party.--Pharos 04:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

changed the order of "Democratic Party stances"
I was simply alphabetizing the order of the issues, in order to get them out of the (wrong) hot-button-issue order they were in. cecilgol 14:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

2008 outlook
I re-wrote the section a little. I removed the sentence predicting that 2008 may be the most crowded Dem field in history, as that's purely speculative and doesn't belong in Wikipedia. I added a little at the front explaining that people are already running for 2008, so that the whole section doesn't look speculative.

Lastly, I took out the bit about Feingold possibly being the first "Jewish-American" major party candidate, because it's not true. "Jewish-American" implies ethnicity, not religion, and Barry Goldwater was the first "Jewish-American" major-party presidential candidate. It's possibly true that if Feingold is nominated for President that he'd be the first Jewish presidential candidate, because Goldwater was raised Episcopalian by his father, who converted. I really should take out the bit about Obama being the first black candidate, too, as both those statements are more purely speculative than belongs in an encyclopedia. Argyriou 19:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Kerry poor campaigner?
Does anyone else consider this statement "Kerry was a poor campaigner who thought his heroic war record in the Vietnam War would make him more attractive to voters, but a group of Vietnam veterans opposed to Kerry called the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth undercut this campaign strategy." to be POV, and somewhat anti-Kerry? Being a poor campaigner or not is widely a matter of personal opinion. I know there's a lot of anti-Kerry bias in the Democratic Party right now, and since Kerry is likely to run again, I don't think it's a good idea to have any statements favoring or against a candidate. --Folksong 04:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd agree re: the "poor campaigner" line (unless we could source it). I think what undercut him was not the Swifties but his bizarre refusal to get on TV and combat their falsehoods.  His silence under attack, his refusal to sink to their level, didn't make him look noble and mistreated, if that was his plan.  It just made him look like a wimp.


 * It's also original research for us to claim we know what Kerry "thought" his war record would do. Can we source that his war record was intentionally used as part of the campaign?  (Yes, of course I know it was, but I'm not a reliable source and, no offense, neither are you.)  Kasreyn 07:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree regarding the "poor campaigner" line being POV, but would also point out that the blurb also makes it appear that the Swift Boaters' strategy was effective without evidence. Maybe it was, but we shouldn't presume that it was. -  Jersyko &middot;<i style="color:#465945; font-size:x-small;">talk</i> 12:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, the sentence should be significantly altered. It reads as very POV. -Fearfulsymmetry 14:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Holy cow. I just went to go read the quote in context... yikes. Just about everything in that section is POV or OR (at best unverifiable). The whole section after Gore losing reads like political blogs from both sides. Let's start tackling this area. I'll try and start shortly. -- LV <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  15:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll see what I can do this afternoon, too if LV doesn't make any headway. Bjsiders 15:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No headway was made... there are just so many unsourced statements and POV phrases from both sides, in my opinion. It's hard to write when you don't know for sure what the facts are. Weasel words all over the place. I tagged a few of the more egregious (again, in my opinion) unsourced statements. I imagine many of these sources should be relatively easy to find if someone has time. Perhaps I will have a go at trimming more later. -- LV <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  15:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with all of the above; that area of the article is quite POV. And I sympathize with the one who shall not be named, because it looks like a lot of work to fix it. Could I also suggest that a lot of the material in this area should probably be in other articles? Certainly, a lot of it is here because it is topical, but there seems to be some really tangential stuff here. In any case, if anyone has any suggestions (or, even better, a full-fledged plan) on how to proceed to fix this article, I'd be willing to put some time in on it. I'd also be in for discussing some sort of plan of how to proceed as well. --Deville (Talk) 03:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * My bold proposal... remove most, if not all, of this section. We should not even be discussing why he lost. Really, there is only one reason he lost, he received less votes than Bush (understanding the possible controversies around the voting). Any other "reasons" he lost is original research and unencyclopedic. It is not really our place to explain why he lost. We can just say that he did, show the election results, and move on. That would cut out all of this "bad campaigner", Swift Boat stuff, and stick to the cold hard facts. Thoughts? -- LV <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  21:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. This part and the Republican one both focus entirely too much on modern American politics and prognostications about the future. Bjsiders 21:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed as well. Although I think that one could put an appropriate (NPOV and non-OR) of why Kerry lost on Wikipedia, I think it definitely shouldn't be in this article. --Deville (Talk) 00:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, some people keep removing the citation needed tags from all over the article. No reason given why. Things need to be sourced, people! Please take a minute or two to read Citing sources. We cannot have unverifiable stuff in our articles. If sources are not provided, removal of the unsourced content is perfectly valid. Thanks. -- LV <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  18:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd make the caveat that one should only add a "citation needed" tag if you have reason to suspect that a statement might not be true. There is a difference between "as yet unverified," and "unverifiable for the reason that it is false." john k 20:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not necessarily true. I can believe something is true, but perhaps unverifiable. If it's not verifiable, it doesn't belong. Otherwise it is just our opinion and perhaps original research. Either way, a citation needed tag would be valid. If I think something is false, I should tag it. If a claim is being made that others might believe to be false, I should probably tag it as well. We can't just state things that we are pretty sure are true, or are pretty sure is common knowledge, and expect them to fly. Unsourced material can be challenged at anytime. Verifiability is a must. -- LV <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  20:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I see your point. What I mean is, what if there's an unsourced statement that "John Kerry is a United States Senator from Massachusetts?"  It would be totally ridiculous to add a "citation needed" tag simply because there was no citation.  One should have some reason to think the material doesn't belong in wikipedia besides the fact that no source is given.  Even if I believed it was true that, say, the 2004 election was stolen (I do not particularly believe this, but as an example...), I would want any statement on that subject to be sourced, because I know it's dubious and controversial.  But one shouldn't add "citation needed" notes to basic facts that are clearly verifiable, unless one suspects they're not true.  Otherwise just about every sentence in wikipedia could have a "citation needed" note, which is obnoxious. Any unsourced statement should be assumed to need a citation.  The note should only be added to indicate "this material is dubious."  And, again, "unverified as yet" is not the same thing as "unverifiable." john k 20:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd say you're right. But the things I replaced the tags on say things like "they felt had..." or "much to the disappointment of..." or "outraged [them]... as it saw..." or "undercut Kerry's use of..." or "unable to manage deep split..." or "Kerry stated..." or "many voiced concern..." or "others suggested...". Too many weasel words and unattributed statements. Thus the citation needed tags. But yes, we shouldn't tag everything... just the things that need citations. ;-) -- LV <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  21:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, articles like this are bound to be full of shit that needs to have citation tags (although some such statements should simply be removed, as they are essentially unverifiable - no citation could prove that something "undercut Kerry's use of" something, because it's basically an opinion), and certainly statements that "many believed" something, and so forth, needed to be cited. But I also notice, in such contexts, a lot of people saying things like "every statement should be cited or else it can be removed," and so forth, and I feel there's a danger of stating this case too strongly.  We should only remove things we actually think are dubious. Otherwise we're just pointing out our own supposed unreliability for no reason.  I particularly hate the "articles needing citation" category/header.  There is absolutely no reason to have a specific header and a specific article page category to indicate that an article needs citations.  If we think there is inaccurate, POV, or OR material, we should put such a notice up.  If the only problem is no citations, that's something that should go on the talk page, not on the main page.  Tons of "citation needed" tags make article reading an incredibly unpleasant experience, and what they basically say is "some user thought this statement wasn't true or was weaselly."  For statements that are not weaselly or probably untrue, we should just work to source them, rather than putting noticed out on the article page. john k 15:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Social Democratic?
 In an international context, the views of the Democratic party are often considered social democratic

Imho, this is very incorrect. A quick look at Democratic policies and an understanding of what the social democratic position is will quickly show that this statement isn't true. Check out the discussion over at the social democracy article and you'll see there that they decided to not include the US Democratic party on their list of social democratic parties. Delta Macht 03:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think I'm with Delta Macht on this one. Compared to most social democratic parties in Europe, for instance, the Dems are centrist at best, possibly even center-right.  Obviously, some widely held Dem policy goals are in line with the social democrat ideology, and if one of the US parties must be social democrats, well, this is the right one.  However, the center of political debate is, frankly, too right of center for one of our two major parties to be accurately characterized as socially democratic. &middot;  j&middot;e&middot;r&middot;s&middot;y&middot;k&middot;o  <i style="color:#465945; font-size:x-small;">talk</i> &middot; 03:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

False Statement about the 2000 Election
Recently an addition was made to this article stating that had Vice President Gore won either New Hampshire or Florida in 2000, he would have won the Presidency, since he was short by only 4 electoral votes. As I understand it, New Hampshire had only 4 votes, which would have most likely resulted in a tie when the electoral votes were counted. In this case, the House must then elect the President under some special rules. Given that the house had a Republican majority, it seems less than clearly certain to me that winning New Hampshire would have given Vice President Gore the Presidency. Bjsiders 17:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, the article on the election claims Bush got 271 to Gore's 266, which puts Bush five ahead... so NH couldn't have made any difference.  Note however that one Democratic Party elector was faithless and abstained, otherwise Gore would have had 267 without FL.  Kasreyn 22:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You have to both add the 4 to Gore's total and subtract it from Bush's if NH switches columns. So, 266+4=270 and 271-4=267, and Gore wins. Sam 22:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * GLA!! I can't believe I missed that.  Someone shoot me.  -_-;  Kasreyn 22:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've reverted my changes to the article to last by Griot. I'm curious whether it would be notable to mention the faithless elector that had been expected to vote for Gore, or whether that's a bit too much info?  It's in the main article.  Kasreyn 22:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh that wacky election college system what would we do without it? --8bitJake 23:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It is called the "Democratic Party" not the "Democrat Party"
Please keep "Democrat Party" from redirecting here. I don't know how to do it myself. Furthermore, stop calling it the Democrat Party in the talk page
 * Its the talk page, lets call it what we feel. Also, please sign your name with 4~'s.  Danke. Squiggyfm 01:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I would tend to agree with the anon. Is it so hard to add "-ic" in the interest of civility?  I don't think it's an unreasonable request.  The purpose of the use of "Democrat Party" is to insult and offend Democrats.  Why should we see it any different as calling fellow editors "LIE-berals" or any other term of hostility and contempt?  Kasreyn 07:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * My point is, is that is the talk page. No need to order us around like we're children.  The purpose of the talk page is to discuss possible changes, not to educate the masses, thats the article's job.  And if someone who hears the term "Democrat Party" somewhere, and they want to do some research on it, they come here, type it in...and where do they go?  No redirect?  Oh...look, you've just lost a potential voter.  Or at the very least, one less enlightened individual.  Squiggyfm 17:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm... you have a point about the redirect.  But I thought you were arguing against the redirect, above.  Now you're arguing for it?  I'm confused; maybe I haven't understood you correctly.  Kasreyn 18:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I probably wasn't clear. I'm for the redirect.  My original statement was to clarify that the talk page doesn't need to be as "offical" as the article, ergo the "lets call it what we feel" [in the talk page] statement. I wasn't initially talking about the Democrat redirect. Squiggyfm 19:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

This section prompted me to write a section talking about this usage/naming of the party. I think the usage is common enough to warrant encyclopedic comment, and I really did try to keep it NPOV - I do think it is legit to assert the correct usage is "Democratic" and other usages are either mistakes, poor grammar or an intentional slight. It's referenced too. I would love it if there was some formal statement on the issue by the DNC or some other formal party apparatus, if anyone knows of one I think it should be referenced there. --FNV 03:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Factus--We've been around this issue about a million times. I deleted your contribution. Sorry. You might look at this page to see why: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Democrat_Party_%28United_States%29 Griot 04:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That debate is only tangetical to this one. I actually agree the term doesn't warrant a seperate page, but considering this page already had a section (called "Symbols and Name"!) referencing historical ways the party was insulted, and other issues relating to the name, it directly fits.  Someone needs to provide some substantial WP policy that indicates this should not be included.--FNV 13:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There is already a write-up on this in the History of the United States Republican Party, where it probably belongs, if it belongs anywhere at all. Settler 12:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm...I see no prima facie reason why a small write up cannot exist here, with a link to that section. Imagine if you were interested in the term and searching Wikipedia, which page are you more likely to view first:  The page about the Democratic party, or the Republicans?  Would you expect a reader interested in the history of the term "nigger" to look first at pages about caucasians or europeans?  My problem is that "Democrat Party" redirects here, with no reference to explain to the reader that the term is incorrect or a hint of its origins. Oh, and I'm happy to debate the point that it definitely belongs somewhere - it's a social phenomenon, and part of the history of US politics.  I'm not asking for pages on "lieberal" or "Democrap" or just any political pejorative, but this one is in such common usage that it warrants inclusion. --FNV 13:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * See "The 'IC' Factor" in the current edition of the New Yorker for a comprehesive discussion of how (and why) the term "Democrat Paty" is a intended, by Republicans, as an insult, and has been since its beginnings in the first half of the 20th Century. No one appears to have traced its origins to any time prior to that, nor shown that it was or is used by any major Democratic politician.


 * I have added a "See Also" link to the page where this term was listed, and have added the New Yorker link to the appropriate section of that page. John Broughton 18:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess it also works in the List of Political Epithets (the existence of which I wasn't aware of until your edit), like the History of the Republican Party, if it's going to be noted anywhere.Settler 22:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've changed the wikilink I added, in the "See also" section, to point to the section in the History of the United States Republican Party article, since that is far more detailed than what I originally linked to. I will also put a wikilink in the epithets article, to point to the same.  With the wikilink in this article, someone doing a search on the page (for "Democrat Party") will find the link.  I suggest that should suffice, but will defer to others who have working on this article much longer than I have (i.e., more than part of a day).  John Broughton 20:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the whole topic is a farce. It's discussed under "Dealing with the Democrats" in the History of the US Republican Party article, and that portion of the article has nothing to do with the Republican's dealing with the Democratic Party. What you have here is Mr. Jensen riding his hobbyhorse again (hope he doesn't fall off). As you'll note if you look at the number of edits in this History of Republicans article, nobody reads that thing. It's so badly written. Griot 22:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Not the mostly aptly named section, certainly within that article on Republican history. Though I believe the continual use of the term "Democrat Party" has been an object of their party and partisans, so the history of their term is appropriately noted there if it is to be noted anywhere at all.  I do say I wouldn't be upset to see the matter disappear entirely.Settler 22:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've changed the name of the section over at History of the United States Republican Party, and changed the link here (in the See also section only) to match. I'm a Republican, but using "Democrat Party" as a pejorative belongs on the campaign trail, not on Wikipedia. Argyriou 00:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright now I'm annoyed. Almost every Democratic President and politician has been changed here on Wikipedia to "Democrat" in the party section of the biography table on the right side of screen when it should read "Democratic." Apparently, we are locked out of editing this. After I went to the trouble of correcting these mistakes a while back. Sigh. Settler 23:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Age... again.
But this time slightly different, so that's good. ;-) Ledzeppelin321295 has changed the article from the DP being "one of the two oldest" to "the oldest" on the claims that the Conservative Party is actually younger. According to History of the Conservative Party though, it states the Tories have their roots in the late 1600s, but not officially becoming the "Conservatives" until the 1830s. Thoughts? Comments? -- LV <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  21:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see the discussion for the Conservative Party article - it explains the issue of the age of the *name* of the party, and should highlight the area from which confusion has arisen.

Also, please refer to this website: http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=party.history.page

Ledzeppelin321295 here. in response to the above statement. While this may be true the Democrats have existed since 1792 but we are going from when the party was founded not what time the party draws its roots to.

Fictional political party members
For anyone with some spare time, I just created two new categories: Category:Fictional Republicans and Category:Fictional Democrats. I just made them over the last four hours, and I was only able to find around 30-35 for each. They're for fictional members of the two main political parties, so if any of you can contribute some more, it would be appreciated. Thanks! Michael 06:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Jeffersonian Party
I really like the changes calling this the Jeffersonian Party; the more I've read, and the more I've looked at some of the original documentation, the more I think a solution like this works best. One very important point that naming it in this way makes is that this was a more informal and flexible party than we are accustomed to, one which did not have all the established mechanisms of a modern party. Good job! Sam 14:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Indiana Democrat Party:   The Democratic National Committee (DNC    2006

Democrat Party as term
thanks to John Broughton for pointing out the New Yorker story. Actually President Hoover used the term in 1932, and Stassen in 1940, Taft in 1947, etc. Hertzberg does not seem to have added anything new to the literature on the topic. The term became common in GOP circles in the 1940s and has been used regularly in the GOP National platform. Since 2001 "Democrat" is by far the White House adjective of choice referring to the opposition. (The White House uses "democratic" only in foreign policy matters. Rjensen 18:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Note: see discussion on this topic above below.

Horace Greeley: Officially nominated or not
There are some contradictions among Wikipedia entries. Currently this article states that:

<I>In 1872 the Democrats did not nominate a candidate but supported the Liberal Republican ticket of Horace Greeley; it did poorly.</I>

And it also states that:

<I>The Greeley/Brown ticket was nominated by the Liberal Republican Party and endorsed by the Democrats.</i>

However, the entry on the Election of 1872 currently says that:

<I>Democratic Party nomination</I>

<I>As the Liberal Republicans did, the Democratic Party chose the Greeley/Brown ticket. Greeley received 686 of the 724 delegate votes cast, while Brown received 713. Accepting the Liberal platform meant the Democrats had accepted the New Departure, rejecting the anti-Reconstruction platform of 1868. They realized to win they had to look forward, and not try to refight the Civil War.</I>

This may be backed by a purported historical document:

<I>Horace Greeley, ALS, July 24, 1872, Letter dated July 24, 1872, on New-York Tribune letterhead., marked private. This letter was written right after Greeley was nominated as the Democratic candidate for President to run against Grant for his second term.. , "I hope you like my acceptance of the democratic nomination".</I>

An additional source in regards to this is John Adams Dix's letter on July 22, 1872, to Philip Clayton:

<I>It is a remarkable fact that in this State, so far as I have been able to examine, there has not appeared a single editorial in any Democratic paper recommending Mr. Greeley upon his merits to the high office to which they have nominated him.</I>

<I>If they turn to the past record of his life, it is made up of vindictive abuse of the Southern people and their institutions, and if they look to his promises for the future they find nothing but his assurance, in accepting the nomination, that "he was as much a Republican as he ever was."</I>

<I>The Democratic Convention at Baltimore indorsed and commended him to the support of their party--not as the exponent of any principles they have professed or any measures they have advocated, but as a known and bitter opponent of both--the man who, perhaps, of all others, has been the most malignant assailant of the Democracy, impeaching its integrity, traducing its motives, and vilifying its character.</I>

Anyone have evidence to the contrary? We should make these entries consistent as well as accurate. Settler 13:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

My understanding was that Greeley was explicitly nominated by the Democrats at their 1872 convention. john k 14:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll let my challenge of sorts stand for at least the rest of the day before I make any edits. Thanks for your input. Settler 17:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I will later by editing in that Greeley was officially nominated. I've found what passes for enough to justify the new edit. Official Proceedings of the National Democratic Convention, Held at Baltimore, July 9, 1872. I will be adding a citation to settle this matter. Settler 19:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Opposition viewpoint
I think it would be very relevant for an inclusion of what opponents have to say about the party (namely the Republican party). It would have to be somewhat limited, otherwise the section could grow to excessive lengths. I am adding a similar section to the Republican Party discussion. --68.176.139.189 04:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Liberal
"Liberalism generally has a different meaning outside the United States from its meaning in the U.S., but in an international context, the views of the Democratic party are often considered liberal, as well."

Well this is totally misleading.

From an economic POV in many countries the Republican Party is considered as more liberal than the Democratic Party in many countries. From a social/moral POV the Democratic Party is is more progressive while the Republican party is conservative.

Ericd 01:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The economic views of the Democratic Party could fit comfortably with those of many liberal parties in other parts of the world, and certainly with the Liberal Democrats in Britain, the Liberals in Canada, who are much more similar to the Democrats than they are to the Republicans in their economic views. I'm not even all that sure that the comparison stands with the continental tradition of liberalism.  A liberal party on the continent, such as the Free Democrats, is working from a very different baseline, in that there's a much more well-developed welfare state in Germany, meaning that wanting to roll back the welfare state in Germany is quite different from wanting to do the same in the United States.  Beyond that, if the Democratic Party is not Liberal in an international context, what on earth is it?  You could hardly call it Social Democratic.  There have always been two strands of liberalism in the European tradition - business-oriented classical liberalism, and a more leftish reform liberalism, which has always been the dominant strain of liberalism in the Anglosphere.  This latter strain finds expression in the British and Canadian parties that have Liberal in their name, and also in the US Democratic party.  Social democratic parties throughout the developed world have also been coming closer and closer to the typical reform liberalism ideology, as seen by the moves to the right of, for instance, Blair's Labour and Schröder's SPD, making the distinction between social democracy and reform liberalism increasingly difficult to distinguish (leaving us in the awkward position that in some ways, the Liberal Democrats are now to the left of Labour).  But the Democratic Party certainly conforms to the fairly standard characteristics of a reform liberal party, and largely has as a national entity since the time of William Jennings Bryan or thereabouts.  The Republican Party is distinctly a conservative party in an international sense, and is seen as the analogue of conservative parties like the Tories in Britain and Canada, the CDU in Germany (although obviously there there are serious differences in terms of economic policy), the not terribly aptly named Liberal Democrats in Japan, Berlusconi's coalition in Italy, and the UMP in France (with, again, some significant differences).  All countries are different, and the precise political spectrum in different countries is different, but the Democrats most certainly fall without very much difficulty into the broad tradition of international liberalism.  What is odd about the Democrats is that the more typically "liberal" elements of the party tend to call themselves "moderates," while the moderately social democratic elements call themselves "liberal" (the real lefties call themselves "progressives" or just "leftists" and generally don't consider themselves Democrats).  john k 20:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Clayton Anti-Trust Law = Clayton Antitrust Act
The link to the "Clayton Anti-Trust Law" doesn't point to anything. The Wikipedia entry is the "Clayton Antitrust Act," so I've once again corrected it. If anyone opposes this, please state your reasons. Settler 00:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Political ideology
Can we have some more infomation on the Political ideology of the democrat party? For example, on which side of the Political spectrum it is on? What kind of of people is the democrats views close to? Like, for Communism we have Karl Marx. Can anyone put that type of infomation into this article? dposse 00:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You could read the infobox and find the links to liberalism and Progressivism, and read those articles.
 * More broadly, if you read the Political spectrum article, you'll find that there are multiple spectra. On the World's Smallest Political Quiz, there are significant numbers of Democrats in all the categories except conservative, just as there are significant numbers of Republicans in all the categories except liberal.
 * Argyriou 01:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I could, but i'm talking about this article. I just thought it would be a good idea to add to this article the people that are close to the political ideology of the democratic party. It was just a idea... dposse 01:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of Stonewall Democrats anywhere? boddhiguy

Nader in 2000
The section on the 2000 presidential election (note that it is duplicative of material at United States presidential election, 2000) uses a selected quote from a Nader aid, "We want to punish the Democrats, we want to hurt them, wound them." The quote is contested by the source. The source says the quote was, "The Democrats should not be allowed to take progressive voters for granted anymore, Democratic politicians should pay for their betrayals in votes."

I'm not sure what is POV about this quote. Well, any quote is by-nature POV, but correcting it can't make the article any more POV then it was before with the original quote included.

I deleted, "Winning either Florida or New Hampshire would have given Gore enough electoral votes to win the presidency," since it duplicates, "Gore won a popular plurality of over 500,000 votes over Bush, but lost in the Electoral College by four votes. Many Democrats blamed Nader's third-party spoiler role for Gore's defeat. They pointed to the states of New Hampshire (4 electoral votes) and Florida (25 electoral votes)". I doubt avoiding that duplication is POV.

I'm not sure how to handle the issue of NPOV for the material on blaming Nader for Gore's loss. Obviously, this article by nature is of Democratic Party POV, but other parts of Wikipedia on the elections provide the Nader response to the Bush victory in 2000. I added at the end of the paragraph a response by Nader supporter's on Gore's loss, "Nader supporters raise Gore's failure to beat Bush by greater margins and in particular Gore's loss in his 'home state' of Tennessee." Apparently adding that one sentence was also considered POV.

Was there really a POV problem with this material? --71.161.218.210 03:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't Ralph Nader a member of the Green Party?-Mr.Weirdo 23:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Small problem with the introduction
I think the introduction as it stands is somewhat inaccurate. The sentence I'm having trouble with is "Since 1896 the Democrats have been the more liberal major party (in the modern American sense of the word)." This is true in some senses (certainly true with respect to unions, social security, and general "economic issues"). On the other hand, it is inaccurate vis-à-vis civil rights, under the assumption that the modern American sense of liberal is pro-civil-rights (as I think we'd all agree it is). The Democratic Party was the party of segregation in the Southern United States at least until WWII and somewhat beyond, and was certainly true for a long time after 1896. For example, the adminstration of Woodrow Wilson did immeasurable harm to the civil rights of African-Americans, and that this is true is an uncontroversial historical view.

In any case, I'm not calling for a big change here. I think simply adding "economically" before liberal in that sentence would fix the inaccuracy. Thoughts? -- Deville (Talk) 04:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The introduction reads, "The Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, championed by the party despite opposition at the time from its conservative Southern wing, has continued to inspire the party's ideas and principles...." I think "1960s" sets the time frame correctly. In the modern era, the Democrats have been the party of civil rights. Griot 05:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Right, completely agreed. The problem, though, is that the earlier statement explicitly uses the date of 1896.  Replacing "Since 1896" with "In the modern area" may also fix the problem, although I think this is less optimal since IMO precise dates are preferable to references to eras. -- Deville (Talk) 14:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

2.9 Transformation Years: 1969-1992
The Democratic Leadership Council was created in 1985; therefore, not in response to three landslides including '88. AlaButterfly 06:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

This statement
Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)#The_Civil_Rights_Movement:_1963-1968 It says African-Americans, who had traditionally given strong support to the Republican Party since the American Civil War, shifted to the Democratic Party in the 1930s, largely due to New Deal relief programs  Blacks were denied relief in the '30s so this is impossible -- doesn't make any sense. Damian Dangerfield 03:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Blacks were not denied relief--they received about 10% of the WPA jobs for example. See articles on WPA and CCC and esp the book by Harvard Sitkoff, "New Deal for Blacks: The Emergence of Civil Rights as a National Issue: The Depression Decade"; also Farewell to the Party of Lincoln (ISBN: 0691101515) by Nancy Joan Weiss. Sterner, The Negro's Share'' (1944) gives elaborate statistical detail.  Rjensen 03:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The story is a little more complex. Early in Roosevelt's administration, the recovery and relief programs disfavored blacks. However, black leaders decided they would support Roosevelt and the Democrats in exchange for a share of the relief and recovery programs. They delivered, and so did Roosevelt. Argyriou 04:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * some info: "the share of FERA and WPA benefits going to Negroes exceeded their proportion of the general population. The FERA's first relief census reported that more than two million Negroes were on relief in 1933, a percentage of the black population (17.8) that was nearly double the percentage of whites on relief (9.5). By 1935, the number of Negroes on relief had risen to 3,500,000, almost 30 percent of the black population, and an additional 200,000 blacks were working on WPA projects. 62 Altogether, then, almost 40 percent of the nation's black people were either on relief or were receiving support from the WPA. Of course, even this was an unsatisfactory measure of participation because Negro needs were so much greater." quote from  The New Deal: The National Level ed John Braeman et al, 1975. pp 188-89 Rjensen 05:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Cleveland or Wilson?
This has been bugging me for a little while now. The captions under the photos of Grover Cleveland and Woodrow Wilson (in the History section) state that each was the "only Democrat elected president" during the overlapping date ranges 1856-1912 and 1892-1932, respectively. Methinks this needs to be adjusted to clarify those captions. What does everyone else think? --Lukeonia1 07:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * good point. both statements are technically accurate but together they are simply confusing to readers. Please fix it.Rjensen 07:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Distrusted cities?
"They saw the independent ("yeoman") farmer as the ideal exemplar of virtue, and distrusted cities, banks, and factories." I don't see evidence that the former were "distrusted", just potential means by the wealthy to indenture the common citizen. Any cites for this? Skyemoor 17:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Many historians have commented on Jefferson's distrust of cities: William Peden (ed of Notes on Virginia): "Jefferson was to modify but never abandon his distrust of large cities and their inhabitants of diverse nationalities"; Robert A McCaughey: "his lifelong distrust and disparagement of cities"; Mark A. Reid: "Jefferson had articulated most forcefully this deep distrust of cities, which he claimed to be “sores upon the body politic.”"; Clement Eaton: "Jefferson, who had seen the evils of Paris, compared the mobs of large cities to sores on the body politic, unsuitable raw material to make good citizens in a republic." and so on. Rjensen 17:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

DNC Chair is Elected by the DNC
Please, let's get our basic facts right. Yes, one can expect the DNC to respect the desires of a Democratic President in the selection of a Chair, but it is an election and ballots are cast. I'm changing the language back to this, and I'll kick in a sentance noting the deference to the President, and if anyone wants to add some (hopefully cited) analysis of the party's role) that's great, but let's get the basic facts right. Sam


 * The election of chairmam has been controlled by the president for over 100 years (when there is a Dem president). Wiki has to report what really happens. The point is that the president controls the DNC--as the books cited demonstrate. To see how it really works look at  the 2000 "election" that was imposed by Clinton. Rjensen 23:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Be careful. Presidents on the way out have not been quite so successful at controlling DNC appointments - Carter, defeated after one term, was in niether a mood nor a position to play too great a role in Chuck Manatt's selection, for example. But, certainly, sitting Presidents generally dominate their political party organization.  But it's not hard to say this in one sentence while describing the actual electoral process in another sentence.  It is useful for wiki to give people the ability to follow an event like an election at a more factually precise level than they will get by reading a newspaper. Indeed, before the primaries start up, I'd like to see wiki have enough information so people can understand things like how delegates to conventions are selected, who makes the rules that select the delegates, and the like, since all of that will play out with the usual shallow coverage by the press.  Sam 23:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Article is now much better. The rules are a pretty small part of the game of politics as [] proves. Rjensen 23:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks - we can get both sets of perspectives in. But I don't know about the "rules are a small part" statement - Nevada seems pretty happy when the Rules and Bylaws Committee of the DNC proposed, and the DNC adopted, rules changes to allow the Nevada primary to be held before New Hampshire.  Nice thing about Wiki, is we could give the reader enough detail to answer either the question of "who the heck are the Rules and Bylaws Committee" or "what a DNC" if we keep drilling down.  Sam 00:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Wiki should not emphasize that the president is elected by 538 members of the electoral college. That is true, but not the real story. As for the NH primary--the DNC pulled its punches. The only penalty is for the national convention to give out, and the national convention is controlled by the winner of the primaries. If that person won NH he/she won't take away his own votes. If he lost NH he won't humiliate one of the losers. So the rule (probably) will not matter. :)  Rjensen 00:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Quite a few broken or orphan footnotes
I'm going to try to place them where they belong; I'll let someone else decide whether their existences are merited or not within the article. Settler 16:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, that was quite a bit of work. At least it looks somewhat presentable now, though I'll be working on it some more in the future. Settler 23:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Political ideology Liberalism1, Progressivism, Center-left
What the hell? That is POV. The Democratic Party was founded by Conservatives and beaten down by Liberals, whether Whig or Republican and so much that perhaps the demographics of the party have recieved a (Marxist) Reconstruction itself. Zell Miller, Robert Byrd and Jimmy Carter are reasonably traditional representatives of the Democratic Party. In much the same tone, Lincoln Chafee and Mitt Romney are reasonably traditional representatives of the Republican Party. Tell me the last "Southern" Republican President: Eisenhower, descendent of Pennsylvania Dutch Carpetbaggers! Before that, there was Lincoln (descendent of Massachusetts Puritans) and Fremont (son of a foreigner). The GOP is a Marxist revolution-exporting institution that is waging war on Islamic theocracy, just as it waged socialist wars in Latin America. Nobody thinks that the GOP was the Civil War's secular party either, just as the Whigs were before them. In fact, the religiosity of the Islamic nations is what defines an "evil" aspect of the public mood in those countries. I tell you, I come from a family of Copperheads, Doughfaces and regular Southron Dems. The GOP is not what you think it is at all. Refute the Hooverian German American refusal to fight the Nazis and their entry into America during '49! Evangelicals are NOT Southern, but Lutherans and other Northern Baggers who have infiltrated this country by culture warfare and proclaimed themselves "Middle America" and the "Grand Old Party". I switched parties to vote for "Dubya" in protest of Kerry, who is more a heir to both the Calvinist Whigs (Yankee Forbes of the Opium Wars) as well as the Central European (Austria-Hungary) geopolitical scene which was imported by the GOP in the first place. I realize that there is nothing in the world to have me stay with a party that caught me like a fish to a lure. I rescind that mistake and this is not meant to get any of you guys to join me. In all likelihood, you might find what I say to be offensive. Those who feel that way can kiss my ass, because I'm not being fooled again. This war of perception is a Cold War phenomenon, sort of like those infowars. Most Dems are afraid of losing the "tolerant vote" if they harken back to Jacksonian days and Jefferson Davis. I don't give a damn! The Bushes are Ohio-dynast Radical Republicans, of Puritan roots just like most traditional Liberals. Hasbro 12:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you have any suggestions for improving the article? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 14:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, what Jpgordon said. &middot;  j e r s y k o   talk  &middot; 15:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It appears that political party pages are polarized beyond reality. The presentation of the party is patently false. The GOP is not a traditionalist party at all--that's just voting canvass rhetoric. The Southern Strategy is well known, but not enough. The Dems tried it too, by getting the Great Society passed. Both parties have abandoned their constituents in favor of social engineering, a side-affect during the Cold War and partially deliberate intention of Reconstruction (including Gilded Age and Tammany Hall). There is nothing more insulting than being told that Hollywood's Reagan was Conservative, as opposed to Good Old Boy Carter. The Yankee Bushes aren't Conservative either. The Elder waged Marxist war through the CIA against the Catholic social order and the Younger with the War On Terror against Muslims. Please don't paint my party as Liberal--you only do the Republicans a service. Wikipedia misrepresents Jackon's party and kowtows to the PC game of POV perception. There is nothing more dangerous than taking politics at face value. Hasbro 17:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Please don't use talk pages for ranting. If you want to talk about political issues then join a discussion forum, this is an encyclopedia. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 17:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It is obvious that you came to this talk page to rant, instead of address the systemic bias I am complaining about. Hasbro 17:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What suggestions do you have for improving the article? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 18:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

"That is POV." Did you not see that, oh repetitive one? Hasbro 04:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, I can read. However, you still haven't made any recommendations for improvement; just complained about what you don't like. You'll need to find some verifiable reliable sources to support your position regarding the nomenclature; it might be interesting to have a paragraph in which reputable scholars or analysts describe the inappropriate terminology. Perhaps you could find some references to add to the article. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

You are heckling my edits (Santorini & here). I suggest you stop. Hasbro 20:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Center Left
Democrats are a right-wing party and are NOT progressive or whatever >< The center left starts with social democracy. And the Democrats aren't social-democrats. Arnsy 15:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you have a suggestion for improving the article? &middot;  j e r s y k o   talk  &middot; 15:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that the party should be said "centrist". Neither in the right-wing nor in the left-wing, because it's more objective. Arnsy 16:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you dispute that the Democratic Party's base is, for the most part, left of center? &middot;  j e r s y k o   talk  &middot; 17:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Which center? By American standards, yes, the party base is left of center. By the standards of pretty much the rest of the industrialized democracies, the Democrats are well to the right. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 17:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. And Wikipedia is a worldwide encyclopedy. So, to be less subjective, "center" is better than center-left. Arnsy 17:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't we describe the ideology as precisely as possible, though? "Centrist" is not as precise as possible from either an American or international perspective.  Perhaps the description should read something like American liberalism, Amierican center left, and economic liberalism?  After all, economic liberlism is, for the most part, what sets the Dems apart from the Democratic Socialists in Europe (though obviously the US Republicans are even further to the right on economic liberalism than the Dems, I believe it's still a fair description of the Dems). &middot;  j e r s y k o   talk  &middot; 17:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * In fact, in Europe, especially in the western Europe (France, Italy...), economical liberalism is associated with the right-wing, because the left has to be "protective". (Here) In France nobody in the left can describe himself as a liberal, if he doesn't want to be said right-winger. In the northern Europe, the left is liberal but not as in the US. In Germany, the SPD has many tendencies, liberal or not. In general, in Europe, the liberals are the center-right parties. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arnsy (talk • contribs).
 * Exactly, does my proposed change not accomodate for this fact? &middot;  j e r s y k o   talk  &middot; 18:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Jpgordon says, as many have said before him:


 * Which center? By American standards, yes, the party base is left of center. By the standards of pretty much the rest of the industrialized democracies, the Democrats are well to the right. 

this is frequently said, but it is silly. Industrialized democracies other than the United States all have more well-developed social welfare systems than the United States. That means that the context of political debate on those kinds of issues is different. But that doesn't really mean that the Democratic Party is actually in the center right. There are certainly some Democratic politicians who are, but the center of gravity of the party is most certainly on the center-left. Furthemore, if one compares to the actual center-left parties in other countries, it's hard to say that the Democrats are particularly to the right. Is Labour in Britain really significantly to the left of the Democrats? Are the post-Schroeder SPD, currently in a grand coalition with the CDU? The French Socialists talk big about still being on the left, and not being third way, but I'm unclear as to how that works out all that differently in practice. The left in Italy is similarly, er, centrist. The Democrats get a bad rap for supposedly being "on the right", but I fail to see how this can be seen to be particularly true, even in an international context. There are certainly marginal Democrats who would be members of more conservative parties in European countries - I can't imagine someone with the political views of Ben Nelson could be in the center-left party in any other major country in the world - but I don't think this is true of the vast majority of Democratic elected officials, to say nothing of party activists.

At any rate, any attempt to define an "absolute left" and an "absolute right" is patently ridiculous. The terms are relative ones, and in general it only makes sense to make comparisons cautiously, and with an eye towards an individual country's idiosyncrasies, of which the US has an enormous number (as tends to happen when your constitutional system was devised by landed gentry in the late 18th century, and has not allowed for very many significant changes in the 200 years since). The Democrats are on the center-left by US standards, most definitely, and they are arguably on the center-left by world standards, as well. The effort to change their label is based on leftist POV pushing that believes that the term "Left" has some kind of absolute meaning, probably closely associated with the views of Noam Chomsky. john k 00:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I just want to remind everyone that talk pages are not political forums. Please, if you want to discuss political issues find somewhere else to do so.--Jersey Devil 02:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Was that directed at me? I may have gone off on a tangent, but I think I had a point directly related to the article, which is that it's perfectly appropriate to refer to the party as being on the "center-left".  Sorry if that got lost.  I certainly made no effort to turn this into a forum to discuss political issues, and I don't think that anything in my comments had much to do with the merits of political issues - it was entirely devoted to the issue of labeling (If the comment was not directed at me, then never mind). john k 17:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Not at all John k. I just made a general comment to everyone as a reminder.--Jersey Devil 22:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Official vs. unofficial affiliation (External links section)
I am considering dividing the links into "official" and "unofficial" categories (or something along those lines), however I would like the input of others in deciding whether to do this or not and which links should go where. Some organizations listed under "official" in this article are currently defined as "unofficial" in another article. Settler 05:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. People keep on sneeking in unofficial organizations there. It has to stop.--Jersey Devil 12:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Contemporary party section: scared little bunny rabbits
I know I wade into contentious waters here. The section in the article regarding the party today cites polls suggesting several issues are breaking in favor of Democrats. This is true but what is missing in this part of the article is acknowledgment that this opportunity is being met by a complete absence of a national message designed to leverage it in favor of the Democrats. It's difficult to discuss strategy where there is none. A lifelong Democrat here, it seems leadership has become paralyzed, so afraid of the GOP as to not dare to speak with any authority or righteous conviction on any subject: the war, national security, foreign policy, national debt, immigration, greenhouse emissions, whether to install TP to roll over or under, etc. Perhaps their kick-ass donkey should be replaced with a scared little bunny rabbit wringing its paws. I sense an unarticulated strategy of hoping to win by default of just not being the president or his party. Ask Mike Dukakis or John Kerry how that worked out for them. The most recent official talking point message "culture of corruption" has next to zero traction with anyone outside the population they already depend upon. And it doesn't deserve to. It's as if someone has given Howard Dean the 1856 Whig Party play book. CApitol3 19:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC) Hi (again) jpgordon. Easy now please, I am a newbie, but I understand this is not a chat room and the subject is the Wiki article, not the Democratic party. The subject of my comment was the present/recent history portion of the article, and how it fails to mention the current lack of a cohesive message from the DNC. My firm promise: any suggestions I have for improving the Democratic party I will render unto the DNC. CApitol3 19:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What concrete suggestions do you have for improving the article (as opposed to improving the Democratic Party?) --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 19:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, we'd need of course reliable sources presenting the opinion (because of course it can't be treated as a fact) that there is (a) a lack of a cohesive message, and (b) that this is somehow a problem. I've got my own opinions about the value of "cohesive messages", related to my general opinion of demagoguery, but that's a different issue. By the way -- one way to get better traction with your arguments here is to cultivate a habit of brevity. (Well, with me, anyway. All politics is personal, as is all editing.) --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 20:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Socialist International
We currently note that "the National Democratic Institute, an organization with ties to the party, is registered as a cooperating organization with the Liberal International", but my statement that the NDI has a similar tie to the Socialist International was removed - presumably because people weren't sure whether it was true? If so, see http://www.socialistinternational.org/2Members/who.html#associated as well as Socialist_International. Btw it could also be noted that the Young Democrats of America are an observer at IFLRY (International Federation of Liberal and Radical Youth), the LI's youth section; see http://www.iflry.org/index.php?module=pnAddressBook&func=viewAll. -JdSf 14:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * While we're on the subject, where is the proof the Democratic National Committee organizes and pledges itself to <I>any</I> of these groups. This is something I've been meaning to bring to the attention of the community for a while now. I didn't mean to single you out but if we list every group or other that claims to have ties to another group that supposedly has a link to the Democratic Party, that section would be very large and possibly dubious. Settler 16:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "The National Democratic Institute, an organization with ties to the party, is registered as a cooperating organization with the Liberal International."
 * I'm editing to just leave the National Democratic Institute, for now; anything exceeding that is really superfluous unless the Democratic Party and DNC officially and directly works with such groups, rather than the whole "I know a guy who knows this guy whose uncle met Babe Ruth, therefore I met Babe Ruth." If we have evidence the DNC doesn't officially affiliate with NDI, I'll remove that too. Settler 08:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. I agree that either the NDI's foreign links should both be mentioned or that neither should be (as is now the case). -JdSf 18:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Political Views on Work Unions
As I read, Republicans are against Work Unions. I couldn't find anything on Democratic views of Work Unions. If anyone can tell me anything about this, that would be great. I am new at this, if you didn't notice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mr.Weirdo (talk • contribs).


 * Does this subsection of the article help at all? &middot;  j e r s y k o   talk  &middot; 03:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Jersyko for the help, politics and Wikipedia help. I was actually looking for somthing more than this paragraph, but thanks. Mr.Weirdo 12:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Minority Party No More
The article needs to be edited as the Democrats took over the House, and probably as the Senate if VA has no recount. Not to mention the number of Democratic govenors has increaed, to 27. Zidel333 04:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Democrats are a minority party in both the House and Senate until the new Congress convenes in January.--Jersey Devil 05:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The 109th Congress is not officially over yet. There may or may not be various issues addressed by the lame duck session before the Democrats (presumably) take over in January, 2007.  Settler 16:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Kay Granger
The article on Kay Granger is POV. Please fix it.