This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Democratic-Republican Party article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources:聽 Google ( books聽路 news聽路 scholar聽路 free images聽路 WP聽refs)聽路 FENS聽路 JSTOR聽路 TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
![]() | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If聽 consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
Discussions:
|
I don't know if I'm right, but I feel that the intro should at least mention that the party started off as the republican party only. This is cause the current textbook I'm learning it from only calls it the republican party (Brinkly, American History, A Survey, Twelfth Edition) and most (if not all) of the first few sources on this page call it the republican party (at least in the summary of the source) 畏oian 鈥rever 畏ew 鈥ontiers 03:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)</ref>This shortening has changed Gammon's meaning. What he means is that, at the beginning of 1824, there was one party: that often called Republican. (invariably is demonstrably false; the Caucus proclamation linked to in the footnote says Democratic Members of Congress.) At that time there were factions within the party, several of them with names. By the end of 1824, they were separate parties. Gammon is not discussing the name of the united party at this point. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
A conservative wing of the DR party, under John Quincy Adams, called themselves, and were called National Republicans; in general, they backed Clay and his program in 1824. Much the same group were later to organize themselves as the National Republican Party, before merging with the Whigs. This is not a bug, it's a feature. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was Move Parsecboy ( talk) 00:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
This page was moved in September from the hyphenated version to a dash version without discussion and with a summary reference to " WP:DASH". "Democratic-Republican" should be hyphenated, [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] and nothing at WP:MOS contradicts that. - Rrius ( talk) 05:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
The Republican Party is often said to come out of the Federalist Party with the Democratic Party coming out of the Democrat-Republican Party of the 1790s. Can anyone clarify this for me because this seems just the opposite of what the parties have stood for for the past 50 years. The Federalist Party was the party of big government while the Democrat-Republican party was always the state's rights party. Republican Party currently is big about being anti big government while the Democrats are all for increasing government involvement in daily life. So, the comparison between modern parties and the original parties seems to be reverse, at least for the past 50 years. -- RossF18 ( talk) 19:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Are you talking about the current version of the lede? If so, most of your comments are no longer relevant; the current version is accurate (unlike some previous versions) and reasonably succinct, though it could be tightened. "Jeffersonian Republican Party" absolutely belongs in the lede, since that's the label (along with simply "Republican") favored by scholars over the last 25 years or so. Witness Gordon Wood's recent entry in the Oxford History of the United States series, Empire of Liberty (2009), in which the chapter on this topic is called "The Emergence of the Jeffersonian Republican Party". It's fairly uncommon to find scholars in the 21st century who uses the label "Democratic-Republican" for Jefferson's party; I could find no examples in my own library. In the archives of this talk page, a user did a nice survey of current college textbooks, and found that "Jeffersonian" and "Republican" was preferred to "Democratic-Republican" by 7 to 1. He was casting his pearls before swine, however, since he was unable to get his arguments past a now-banned abusive sockpuppet. As always, Wikipedia suffers when knowledgeable people get shouted down by naifs.
Your citation from WP:Lede is for when there are more than two alternate names, so it does not apply here. Also, your Google Scholar count is off, since it includes hundreds of entries for the Korean Democratic-Republican Party, among other false positives, and does not account for the name most commonly used by scholars, which is simply "Republican".
Your comments also conflate two issues: the wording of the lede, and the title of the article. I don't care what the article is called; Britannica's article is entitled "Democratic-Republican Party", so that's good enough for me, but note their second sentence: "Organized in 1792 as the Republican Party...." 鈥 Kevin Myers 04:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
The lede is again filled with various unsourced pet theories about the party's name. No, Jackson didn't call his party "Democratic Republican". It was "Republican", as you can see here. It you don't like "Democratic Republican Party" as the title, propose a vote to change the name. The text of the article, and especially the lede, is not a place to filibuster. Kauffner ( talk) 13:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
The party is called four different names in the first paragraph -- Democratic-Republican, Republican, Jeffersonian, and Jeffersonian Republican. I quote WP:lede: "if there are more than two alternative names, these names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section." Kauffner ( talk) 15:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was no consensus to move. The argument that the shorter form may confuse the modern republican party with the jeffersonian party is persuasive. We should aim for clarity over confusion. I also note that, while there is a little more support for Jeffersonian Republican Party, there doesn't appear to be consensus for that name either (that surprised me but I am just the argument evaluator!). -- RegentsPark ( talk) 22:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Democratic-Republican Party 鈫 Republican Party (1792鈥1824) 鈥 Jefferson, the leader of this party, called it "Republican." D-R is a minority form among modern historians, in modern popular usage, and in the usage of contemporary newspapers. Kauffner ( talk) 00:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
After reading through the lengthy debate on this issue, I give the following summary:
Several editors have expressed support for renaming the article Jeffersonian Republican Party, the name many scholars use to disambiguate Jefferson's Republican Party from Lincoln's Republican Party. It has the advantage of being less cumbersome than the disambiguation proposed above, and more historically accurate than the current title. On the minus side, it's not as well known as the named preferred by scholars, which is simply the "Republican Party". This subsection is meant to gage support or opposition for renaming the article Jeffersonian Republican Party. 鈥 Kevin Myers 04:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
The article contains the following text: "The Republican party of 2010 bears little resemblance to the original, as it is now a promoter of big business, corporation, millionaires/billionaires and have little sympathy for the "common" people."
Just delete, no? This is partisan propaganda and would seem to have no place in an encyclopedia article . . . Nomenclaturist ( talk) 20:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I suggest that the name "Republican Party" or "the party" be use internal to the article, esp. on the tables. Aside from the reasons given above (it was contemporary usage, it is the usage of modern historians, etc.), it is a standard practice to use a shorter form after the first reference. If "D-R" is required in the title to disambiguate Jefferson's party from that of Lincoln and Reagan, that is certainly not true inside the article. Kauffner ( talk) 08:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Make it semi-protected! There has been some IP vandals now. SomeDudeWithAUserName ( talk) 22:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Why is the font so small (compared to other wiki pages) when I print this? (Mozilla Firefox) Dave C. 鈥 Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.174.144.156 ( talk) 20:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I know this has been discussed to death, but I would like to make a case with links in favor of using the "Democratic Republican" term for Jefferson's party. The term is used by the | White House, by | Monticello, and most importantly by sources in the Library of Congress. A search of their Jefferson Papers for the term "Democratic Republican Party" will produce primary documents that use the term: party members use the term "Democratic Republicans" in their correspondence | here and | here, and Jefferson uses the term | here and | here. There are literally hundreds of primary documents at the Library of Congress Jefferson Papers | query that show the contemporary use of the term. The terms "Republicans" and "Democratic citizens" also seem to be used - as the party wasn't a modern, branded mass political party, names seem to have been used interchangeably - but the term "Democratic Republicans" should not be dismissed as some sort of archaic fringe term that is only used by a subset of political scientists. There is actual historical use behind that term. Konchevnik81 ( talk) 20:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Several sources in this article are cited in common shorthand, like so:
While this may be acceptable formatting for Wikipedia, it introduces responsibilities in the editors to ensure the citations make sense. I just repaired such a citation that failed to identify which of several listed sources it referred to:
which could have represented any of three cited works by someone named "Adams": two from Henry Adams (listed at the top of the lengthy References section), and one by John Quincy Adams (the correct one) at the very bottom. (And this assumes that no one deleted any other "Adams" works from the "References" section, which can happen due to simple error or vandalism.) It took some effort for me to find that the third is the correct one.
I resolved this problem by updating the reference to be a full citation. I did this for several reasons. First, it's not only unambiguous, it's also not likely to be made ambiguous by people adding other references by people with the same surname. Second, it avoids the problems of desynchronized "Notes" and "References" sections that frequently occur with the continuous, multi-party editing of Wikipedia. Third, there's no need in a digital work like Wikipedia to "save space" by abbreviating. It does reduce clutter, but this advantage, in a section that very few people read anyway, is more than offset by unanticipated editing problems often caused by crowd-sourcing. (The full citation also made it easy to add a Google Books link to the actual quote for easier verification.)
I'd ask other editors of this article to review all the abbreviated cited references to ensure there are no other ambiguities or outright mistakes, and consider using more detailed citations to avoid future problems like this. ~ Jeff Q聽 (talk) 01:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus. Jenks24 ( talk) 13:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Democratic-Republican Party 鈫 Jeffersonian Republicans 鈥 This U.S. political party, active from 1792 to 1825, was rarely if ever called 鈥淒emocratic Republican鈥 when it existed, but rather "Republican." You can search either the [http://www.amazon.com/American-Aurora-Supressed-Beginnings-Newspaper/dp/0312150520/ref=sr_1_1?ie= Philadelphia Aurora] or the Nils Weekly Register, both major newspapers affiliated with the party, to verify this for yourself. In his first inaugural, Jefferson said, 鈥淲e are all Republicans, we are all Federalists鈥 -- nothing about Democratic-Republicans. The classic treatment of this party is [http://www.amazon.com/The-Jeffersonian-Republicans-Organization-Williamsburg/dp/0807807303/ref=sr_1_1?ie= The Jeffersonian Republicans: The Formation of Party Organization, 1789-1801] (1958) by Noble Cunningham. The proposed title let's the reader know that the literal name of party is "Republican" while disambiguating Jefferson's party from the modern party of the same name. The current name suggests that Democrats and Republicans were once part of some larger party that then split apart 鈥- This is, of course, nonsense. The proposed title is also very widely used, as you can see from this ngram. On Gscholar, "Jeffersonian Republicans" -Korea" gives you 1,310 post-2000 hits, "Democratic-Republican Party" -Korea gives you 1,270. OK, let's cut to the pinging: Rjensen, Konchevnik81, BillMasen, Kevin Myers, Orlady cymru.lass, Powers, john k. La cr猫me de la cr猫me ( talk) 11:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
There are many historical revisions going on here when we try to refer to the Democrat Party as someone or something else. The Democrat-Republicans are the same party as the Democratic Party or "Democrats". They dropped the name "Republicans" well prior to the new party that was created before the civil war. This article shouold be moved under the History section of that page, or at least references to it being the precursor to the current Democratic Party should be restored. Let's not revise history, but show the ugly truths for what they are. - Topher 129.29.211.115 ( talk) 12:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Rjensen for this edit. I reviewed the book you referenced and it verifies your statement. Might this aspect be covered in the article, as it doesn't appear to already? Stevie is the man! Talk 鈥 Work 22:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Some material in the lead section introduces concepts without fully explaining how they are relevant or connected to the subject of the article, or uses confusing language; for instance: the part about "one faction in Congress", the name "Democratic-Republican" vs. "Republican", and the whole paragraph about an "'Anti-Administration' secret meeting", which needs to be better substantiated. I think it's important to "state the obvious" with details such as these, and include the basic Five Ws: Who, Where, What, Why, When. 鈥 Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 23:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Should we add classical liberalism to ideology? The first stone ( talk) 07:26, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
There seems to be some back-and-forth editing on when the party was founded, and I cop to being confused at times about what it should be. In the final analysis (for me), it seems that the infobox should reflect the content, and that seems to be showing 1791 as the founding year (or when the faction formed). I'm not sure exactly how that got changed to a specific date in 1799, perhaps corresponding to a date on a letter from Thomas Jefferson. If the year should be something different, please anyone reply with your thoughts. Stevie is the man! Talk 鈥 Work 20:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Should the name be hyphenated or nDashed: Democratic-Republican or Democratic鈥揜epublican? In 2008 and 2009 it was discussed with a consensus for the hyphen, but it's worth reopening the discussion again. Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Dashes refers to compounded pairs as using a dash, not a hyphen. Or is "Democratic" just a modifier of "Republican" the way "Anti" is a modifier of "Jacksonian"?鈥 GoldRingChip 11:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Resolved as Hyphen: Democratic-Republican.鈥 GoldRingChip 18:04, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Recently there have been several edits by User:174.134.115.13 ( contribs) a.k.a. User:The Democratic Party, est. 1792 ( contribs) on this page. I've reverted several of them and kept others, but to avoid an edit war, I want to list the main points under dispute.
1. Claim: The
Democratic-Republican Party is, in some sense, the same party as the modern
Democratic Party.
My response: I think everyone recognizes some continuities and some discontinuities here. The vast majority of modern historians treat these as separate parties. The "first party system" (DRs versus Federalists) collapsed before 1820, and thus in the 1820 Monroe was unopposed, and in 1824 every candidate called himself a "Republican". The second party system arose from the dispute between J.Q.Adams and Jackson; the DRs loyal to JQA became the "National Republicans" (later, "Whigs") and the DRs loyal to Jackson became the "Democrats".
It's also true that the modern Democratic Party claims Jefferson as its founder. But this is self-serving (they'd rather point to the author of the Declaration of Independence than to the person responsible for ethnic cleansing of Native Americans). The fact that they claim this is encyclopedic, but our main sources need to be historians -- who largely recognize the modern Democratic party as distinct.
Moreover, even 174.134.115.13 admits this distinction. He listed Martin Van Buren as one of the leaders of the DRP, but if it's the same as the modern party, then Barack Obama is also a leader of the DRP.
2. Claim: The DRP's leaders include Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren.
My response: This is false, unless we identify the DRP with the modern DP. In that case, why stop with Van Buren? Barack Obama is a leader of the DRP too.
3. Claim: When the DRP split into the Democrats and the National Republicans/Whigs, the former was the "majority" and the latter was the "minority".
My response: This requires a reliable source. Both the Democrats and the Whigs won several elections between 1828 and 1852, and I am not aware of any historian who categorially calls the former the "majority" party.
4. Claim: Jackson's party "still went by the Republican name under Jackson and his chief political ally and successor Martin Van Buren, but adopted the name ' Democratic Party' in 1844".
My response: Again, reliable sources are needed. There are already many sources in the current article pointing out that the DRP used a variety of names inconsistently -- most frequently being called "Republicans" outside of New York. Moreover, the DRP never had an "official" name, nor did Jackson's party. So even if it can be established that the name "Democratic Party" became official in 1844, that doesn't mean it lacked that name beforehand. Reliable sources show that Jackson and Van Buren used the term "Democrat" often, even before 1844.
Moreover, this relates to a controversy that has been frequently litigated on this page: What is the name of the party of Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe? Following the practice of some historians, Wikipedia calls it the "Democratic-Republican Party" -- even though that name was virtually never used in this period. We can't change that without rejecting the results of previous RfCs.
So I think we need to stick to the consensus of historians: the party from 1792 to 1824 should be distinguished from the party of 1828 to today, and for convenience the former is called "Democratic-Republican" and the latter is called "Democratic" to distinguish them, even though each of them used various names at various times. To change that would change hundreds of Wikipedia pages and would require a major RfC.
Finally, the edits of User:174.134.115.13 a.k.a. User:The Democratic Party, est. 1792 have removed perfectly good information from this page, such as the statement that John Quincy Adams "was elected in 1824, in an election where every candidate was associated with the Democratic-Republican Party, but the party selected no nominee that year." I don't know if this was accidental, or if it's part of his attempt to argue that the Democrats are the same as the D-Rs (which obviously puts John Quincy Adams in an awkward position, as he is therefore expelled from his own party). 鈥 Lawrence King ( talk) 08:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Explanation of my most recent edits:
1. I restored the deleted "dissolution" date. There are only two possibilities: the DR party had a dissolution date, or the DR party still exists. If it still exists, we should list Barack Obama as its most recent leader -- which is absurd. If it still exists, then how can it have any "successors"?
2. I restored the information about John Quincy Adams. He was a member of this party when he was elected, and there is no evidence to the contrary. The sentence before the table makes it crystal clear what happened in this election: "John Quincy Adams was elected in 1824, in an election where every candidate was associated with the Democratic-Republican Party, but the party selected no nominee that year." I added a citation
3. I removed Andrew Jackson as a party "leader". The DR party ended in 1825, and Jackson was not the leader of any party until 1828.
4. I restored the language at the end of the first paragraph. Every historian agrees that this party splintered in the late 1820s, leading to the Jacksonian and anti-Jacksonian factions. So to say that the DR party "coalesced" into the Jacksonians is false: one faction coalesced into the Jacksonians.
I also added some citations.
I left the other new edits by User:The Democratic Party, est. 1792 untouched. 鈥 Lawrence King ( talk) 22:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
1. From a political standpoint, the latter seems most true, and I would instead argue, based on the citations given and on primary sources that the what is now called "Democratic-Republican" is merely just another term for the early Democratic Party, which is very often called the Party of Jefferson and has been celebrating Jefferson as the party's founder since Jackson. There's a reason why Fairfax County, VA Democrats hold the Jefferson Obama Dinner. From that, I would take your lead and clarify further that Democratic-Republicans have no successors, but rather that they merely changed their name, as historians and political scientists have attested.
2. A member of a party (the "democratic members of Congress") which did not nominate him and which he dissociated with to form the National Republican Party, which he represented in the 1828 election. Jackson still ran as a Democratic-Republican and was nominated by a "convention of Republican delegates" in 1832. So, by 1824, many DRs were calling themselves Democratic AND Jackson was calling himself a Republican, the party of which he was the unrivaled leader. Hell, Van Buren was running as a Democratic Republican in 1840! So there's no dissolution, merely gradual shift in name, with the terms being interchangeable into the 1840s.
3. Refer to part 2.
4. Similar has been said in part 2, but considering that National Republicans bolted from the party to oppose Jackson, while Democratic Republicans remained and renamed themselves Democrats.
All this said, I'm fine with the page remaining as you recently left it as a compromise. 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by The Democratic Party, est. 1792 ( talk 鈥 contribs) 23:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
@ The Democratic Party, est. 1792:, with a name suggesting an WP:SPA, has made repeated efforts to add to the infobox WP:SYNTH from a primary source. One hopes that the editor will come to the Talk Page once their 24 hout block expires. O3000 ( talk) 17:00, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
THOMAS JEFFERSON, FOUNDER AND LEADER OF THE SO-CALLED "DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLICAN PARTY," ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION DESCRIBED MEMBERS OF HIS PARTY AS "LIBERALS," "COTE GAUCHE" [LEFT WING], "RADICALS," "JACOBINS," AND "DEMOCRATS."
Historians and political scientists who have studied the American two-party system have come to similar conclusion about this. The pages for the Democratic-Republican Party and the Federalist Party describes them as adhering to "classical liberalism" and "classical conservatism," respectively. These terms are deeply tied to the notion of left and right in the era in which these parties existed.
In the trans-Atlantic revolutionary world, "the left generally opposed the monarchy and supported the revolution, including the creation of a republic and secularization," while the right "was formed as a reaction against the 'Left' and comprised those politicians supporting hierarchy, tradition and clericalism."
Federalists, as the conservative party, "strongly opposed the French Revolution, defended traditional Christian morality and supported a new 'natural aristocracy' based on 'property, education, family status, and sense of ethical responsibility," and were "critical of both Jeffersonian classical liberalism and the radical ideas coming out of the French Revolution."
Jefferson and his partisans, on the other hand, as the liberal party, strongly supported the French Revolution, defended separation of church and state, and supported more democratic and egalitarian systems of government and economics that favored the rights of small farmers, the urban working class, and new immigrants, while highly critical of the conservative policies coming from Hamilton and Adams and their Federalist Party, especially when advocating policies deemed too aristocratic or similar to the British monarchy.
So if we're looking for consensus, look no further than in the site's own pages. They basically describe these parties as left and right, but for some reason it's anathema to make that clear to readers and providing them citations.
The Democratic Party, est. 1792 ( talk) 21:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I would say that leftism back than had nothing to do with today's leftism, so I'd rather suggest changing the party's political position from Left-wing to Centre-Left. Alexispapp ( talk) 20:36, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
footnote #1--Noah Webster repeatedly emphasized that the name "republican" was a powerful weapon used by the Jeffersonian against the Federalists (Webster was a leading Federalist editor). ["anti-federal party assumed the more popular appellation of republican, which was soon after the arrival of the French minister in 1793, that epithet became a powerful instrument in the process of making proselytes to the party."] Webster never says the party was NAMED "Democratic" nor does any historian. Webster does sling around the term "democratic" which for Federalists like Webster was a term of abuse & ridicule in the 1790s. [Some proof of that: in Kentucky the "Democratic society" was attacked as "that horrible sink of treason, that hateful synagogue of anarchy, that odious conclave of tumult, that hellish school of rebellion...."Leland D. Baldwin (2010). Whiskey Rebels: The Story of a Frontier Uprising. U of Pittsburgh Press. p.聽94. Thus Footnote #1 is a prime example of violating the Wikipedia rule about primary sources: they are easy to misinterpret. "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." WP:PSTS Rjensen ( talk) 10:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Webster is a primary source as a leading Federalist editor in 1790s who published hundreds of pages denouncing Jefferson's party as evil and democratic. The secondary sources do NOT call it the "Democratic Party" and Wiki depends on reliable secondary sources. 02:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
鈥 鈥 鈥 鈥 鈥 鈥 鈥I removed the political position in this edit (and on the Federalist Party page in this edit) but was reverted by Thomediter. Following the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, I think we should discuss this. My argument is that the left鈥搑ight political spectrum is an anachronism, since it only arose after the French Revolution and was probably not as widespread back then as it is now. Thomediter makes a good point that even an anachronism can be helpful for understanding the positions for these parties. To respond, I'd argue that the description of left-wing (right-wing for the Federalist Party) is imperfect鈥攚hile the Democratic-Republican Party is clearly more liberal, the Federalist Party could be argued to be more left-wing than the Democratic-Republican Party in some respects, since it advocated a greater role for the national government. Additionally, I believe the ideologies listed in the infobox are sufficient for comparing the two parties.
Just as important to this discussion is the sourcing. The sources used are clearly reliable, but they do not support the claims of "left-wing" and "right-wing" well. The first source on the Federalist Party page seems to only describe it as "conservative", which would count as synthesis. However, I don't have access to this book, so there may be another part that describes the Federalists as "right-wing". Can someone check this? The first source on this page ( [12]) is describing the ideas of federalists and anti-federalists (likely in the debate over the Constitution) as on the political right and left, respectively. Yes, these groups went on to form the two parties, but this isn't very good sourcing for describing the parties themselves. The second source on this page ( [13]) is describing factions within the two parties ("the more extreme views expressed by some of their partisans"), not the parties themselves, which also isn't good sourcing.
Thus, I am proposing that the political position be removed from the infoboxes of both the Democratic-Republican Party and the Federalist Party.
P.S. Please ping any editors who may be interested in this discussion. I have already pinged some editors who have edited the political position or been involved in previous discussions, but involving more editors is probably better. Ezhao02 ( talk) 21:56, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi聽:) I get the point, but I hope we can find a compromise, as I think the infobox talking about a party's position in general, is very important. I would find it sad if it would need to be left out completely. Adding a side note, talking about "Big Tent" could also be an idea. thomeditor ( talk) 00:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you all for your points. Can we at least get better sources for the political position here? Thanks, Ezhao02 ( talk) 21:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Contributors,
We have begun to reestablish this party as a national, state and local political party and intend on running a national Presidential candidate, a slate of candidates for Congress, and a slate for State legislatures.
We are trademark registered with the USPTO and EIN registered with the IRS. We are in full communication with the Electoral Commission and I was stopped in my editing journey by the suggestion that a reformed party would need its own page. Given the historical nature of this party, that may be true.
I am not a wiki savvy editor/contributor yet and I welcome discussion, comment, criticism and contribution.
We had intended on tasking a wiki savvy editor in the next 30 days or less to the insertion into this page the rebirth of The Democratic-Republican Party. But that leads me to a concern that per Wiki ethics, it may not be for us to edit. Is that also true?
I look forward to hearing from the community.
-fiat lux!
FreshObs
Freshobs (
talk)
21:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Surely this article should be added to Category:Defunct political parties in the United States? Could someone please do that? I'm not sure how to do so. Krakatoa ( talk) 17:04, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Why is the democratic republican party left wing? They are nothing like modern democrats. For one, they supported slavery, which is something dems don't. They also did not support big government. To me the Jefferson party was closer to modern libertarianism than progressivism. 76.137.118.7 ( talk) 19:10, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
The terms "left wing" and "right wing" originated from the French Revolution. Supporters of the Revolution sat on the left. Opponents sat on the right. The Democratic-Republicans supported the French Revolution. By the most literal of definitions, they were left-wing. The rest of your statements are dubious, but this is really the only thing that bares saying on the topic. -- 2601:19C:4480:DF90:95DD:C1CA:6929:CE37 ( talk) 15:13, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
The hidden comment at the very top of the page says to not add a political spectrum. However, there is a "center-left to left-wing" spectrum in the infobox. One of these should be removed, but I don't know which one. CLYDE TALK TO ME/ STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 23:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
The title at the top of infoboxes usually contain the official name of whatever organization the infobox is about [ex: Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea), Tribunal of the Holy Office of the Inquisition (Spanish Inquisition)], so I think at the top of the infobox it should say Republican Party, as that was the name the party actually used. MattiasLikesOxygen ( talk) 18:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Democratic-Republican Party article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources:聽 Google ( books聽路 news聽路 scholar聽路 free images聽路 WP聽refs)聽路 FENS聽路 JSTOR聽路 TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
![]() | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If聽 consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
Discussions:
|
I don't know if I'm right, but I feel that the intro should at least mention that the party started off as the republican party only. This is cause the current textbook I'm learning it from only calls it the republican party (Brinkly, American History, A Survey, Twelfth Edition) and most (if not all) of the first few sources on this page call it the republican party (at least in the summary of the source) 畏oian 鈥rever 畏ew 鈥ontiers 03:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)</ref>This shortening has changed Gammon's meaning. What he means is that, at the beginning of 1824, there was one party: that often called Republican. (invariably is demonstrably false; the Caucus proclamation linked to in the footnote says Democratic Members of Congress.) At that time there were factions within the party, several of them with names. By the end of 1824, they were separate parties. Gammon is not discussing the name of the united party at this point. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
A conservative wing of the DR party, under John Quincy Adams, called themselves, and were called National Republicans; in general, they backed Clay and his program in 1824. Much the same group were later to organize themselves as the National Republican Party, before merging with the Whigs. This is not a bug, it's a feature. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was Move Parsecboy ( talk) 00:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
This page was moved in September from the hyphenated version to a dash version without discussion and with a summary reference to " WP:DASH". "Democratic-Republican" should be hyphenated, [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] and nothing at WP:MOS contradicts that. - Rrius ( talk) 05:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
The Republican Party is often said to come out of the Federalist Party with the Democratic Party coming out of the Democrat-Republican Party of the 1790s. Can anyone clarify this for me because this seems just the opposite of what the parties have stood for for the past 50 years. The Federalist Party was the party of big government while the Democrat-Republican party was always the state's rights party. Republican Party currently is big about being anti big government while the Democrats are all for increasing government involvement in daily life. So, the comparison between modern parties and the original parties seems to be reverse, at least for the past 50 years. -- RossF18 ( talk) 19:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Are you talking about the current version of the lede? If so, most of your comments are no longer relevant; the current version is accurate (unlike some previous versions) and reasonably succinct, though it could be tightened. "Jeffersonian Republican Party" absolutely belongs in the lede, since that's the label (along with simply "Republican") favored by scholars over the last 25 years or so. Witness Gordon Wood's recent entry in the Oxford History of the United States series, Empire of Liberty (2009), in which the chapter on this topic is called "The Emergence of the Jeffersonian Republican Party". It's fairly uncommon to find scholars in the 21st century who uses the label "Democratic-Republican" for Jefferson's party; I could find no examples in my own library. In the archives of this talk page, a user did a nice survey of current college textbooks, and found that "Jeffersonian" and "Republican" was preferred to "Democratic-Republican" by 7 to 1. He was casting his pearls before swine, however, since he was unable to get his arguments past a now-banned abusive sockpuppet. As always, Wikipedia suffers when knowledgeable people get shouted down by naifs.
Your citation from WP:Lede is for when there are more than two alternate names, so it does not apply here. Also, your Google Scholar count is off, since it includes hundreds of entries for the Korean Democratic-Republican Party, among other false positives, and does not account for the name most commonly used by scholars, which is simply "Republican".
Your comments also conflate two issues: the wording of the lede, and the title of the article. I don't care what the article is called; Britannica's article is entitled "Democratic-Republican Party", so that's good enough for me, but note their second sentence: "Organized in 1792 as the Republican Party...." 鈥 Kevin Myers 04:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
The lede is again filled with various unsourced pet theories about the party's name. No, Jackson didn't call his party "Democratic Republican". It was "Republican", as you can see here. It you don't like "Democratic Republican Party" as the title, propose a vote to change the name. The text of the article, and especially the lede, is not a place to filibuster. Kauffner ( talk) 13:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
The party is called four different names in the first paragraph -- Democratic-Republican, Republican, Jeffersonian, and Jeffersonian Republican. I quote WP:lede: "if there are more than two alternative names, these names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section." Kauffner ( talk) 15:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was no consensus to move. The argument that the shorter form may confuse the modern republican party with the jeffersonian party is persuasive. We should aim for clarity over confusion. I also note that, while there is a little more support for Jeffersonian Republican Party, there doesn't appear to be consensus for that name either (that surprised me but I am just the argument evaluator!). -- RegentsPark ( talk) 22:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Democratic-Republican Party 鈫 Republican Party (1792鈥1824) 鈥 Jefferson, the leader of this party, called it "Republican." D-R is a minority form among modern historians, in modern popular usage, and in the usage of contemporary newspapers. Kauffner ( talk) 00:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
After reading through the lengthy debate on this issue, I give the following summary:
Several editors have expressed support for renaming the article Jeffersonian Republican Party, the name many scholars use to disambiguate Jefferson's Republican Party from Lincoln's Republican Party. It has the advantage of being less cumbersome than the disambiguation proposed above, and more historically accurate than the current title. On the minus side, it's not as well known as the named preferred by scholars, which is simply the "Republican Party". This subsection is meant to gage support or opposition for renaming the article Jeffersonian Republican Party. 鈥 Kevin Myers 04:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
The article contains the following text: "The Republican party of 2010 bears little resemblance to the original, as it is now a promoter of big business, corporation, millionaires/billionaires and have little sympathy for the "common" people."
Just delete, no? This is partisan propaganda and would seem to have no place in an encyclopedia article . . . Nomenclaturist ( talk) 20:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I suggest that the name "Republican Party" or "the party" be use internal to the article, esp. on the tables. Aside from the reasons given above (it was contemporary usage, it is the usage of modern historians, etc.), it is a standard practice to use a shorter form after the first reference. If "D-R" is required in the title to disambiguate Jefferson's party from that of Lincoln and Reagan, that is certainly not true inside the article. Kauffner ( talk) 08:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Make it semi-protected! There has been some IP vandals now. SomeDudeWithAUserName ( talk) 22:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Why is the font so small (compared to other wiki pages) when I print this? (Mozilla Firefox) Dave C. 鈥 Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.174.144.156 ( talk) 20:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I know this has been discussed to death, but I would like to make a case with links in favor of using the "Democratic Republican" term for Jefferson's party. The term is used by the | White House, by | Monticello, and most importantly by sources in the Library of Congress. A search of their Jefferson Papers for the term "Democratic Republican Party" will produce primary documents that use the term: party members use the term "Democratic Republicans" in their correspondence | here and | here, and Jefferson uses the term | here and | here. There are literally hundreds of primary documents at the Library of Congress Jefferson Papers | query that show the contemporary use of the term. The terms "Republicans" and "Democratic citizens" also seem to be used - as the party wasn't a modern, branded mass political party, names seem to have been used interchangeably - but the term "Democratic Republicans" should not be dismissed as some sort of archaic fringe term that is only used by a subset of political scientists. There is actual historical use behind that term. Konchevnik81 ( talk) 20:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Several sources in this article are cited in common shorthand, like so:
While this may be acceptable formatting for Wikipedia, it introduces responsibilities in the editors to ensure the citations make sense. I just repaired such a citation that failed to identify which of several listed sources it referred to:
which could have represented any of three cited works by someone named "Adams": two from Henry Adams (listed at the top of the lengthy References section), and one by John Quincy Adams (the correct one) at the very bottom. (And this assumes that no one deleted any other "Adams" works from the "References" section, which can happen due to simple error or vandalism.) It took some effort for me to find that the third is the correct one.
I resolved this problem by updating the reference to be a full citation. I did this for several reasons. First, it's not only unambiguous, it's also not likely to be made ambiguous by people adding other references by people with the same surname. Second, it avoids the problems of desynchronized "Notes" and "References" sections that frequently occur with the continuous, multi-party editing of Wikipedia. Third, there's no need in a digital work like Wikipedia to "save space" by abbreviating. It does reduce clutter, but this advantage, in a section that very few people read anyway, is more than offset by unanticipated editing problems often caused by crowd-sourcing. (The full citation also made it easy to add a Google Books link to the actual quote for easier verification.)
I'd ask other editors of this article to review all the abbreviated cited references to ensure there are no other ambiguities or outright mistakes, and consider using more detailed citations to avoid future problems like this. ~ Jeff Q聽 (talk) 01:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus. Jenks24 ( talk) 13:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Democratic-Republican Party 鈫 Jeffersonian Republicans 鈥 This U.S. political party, active from 1792 to 1825, was rarely if ever called 鈥淒emocratic Republican鈥 when it existed, but rather "Republican." You can search either the [http://www.amazon.com/American-Aurora-Supressed-Beginnings-Newspaper/dp/0312150520/ref=sr_1_1?ie= Philadelphia Aurora] or the Nils Weekly Register, both major newspapers affiliated with the party, to verify this for yourself. In his first inaugural, Jefferson said, 鈥淲e are all Republicans, we are all Federalists鈥 -- nothing about Democratic-Republicans. The classic treatment of this party is [http://www.amazon.com/The-Jeffersonian-Republicans-Organization-Williamsburg/dp/0807807303/ref=sr_1_1?ie= The Jeffersonian Republicans: The Formation of Party Organization, 1789-1801] (1958) by Noble Cunningham. The proposed title let's the reader know that the literal name of party is "Republican" while disambiguating Jefferson's party from the modern party of the same name. The current name suggests that Democrats and Republicans were once part of some larger party that then split apart 鈥- This is, of course, nonsense. The proposed title is also very widely used, as you can see from this ngram. On Gscholar, "Jeffersonian Republicans" -Korea" gives you 1,310 post-2000 hits, "Democratic-Republican Party" -Korea gives you 1,270. OK, let's cut to the pinging: Rjensen, Konchevnik81, BillMasen, Kevin Myers, Orlady cymru.lass, Powers, john k. La cr猫me de la cr猫me ( talk) 11:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
There are many historical revisions going on here when we try to refer to the Democrat Party as someone or something else. The Democrat-Republicans are the same party as the Democratic Party or "Democrats". They dropped the name "Republicans" well prior to the new party that was created before the civil war. This article shouold be moved under the History section of that page, or at least references to it being the precursor to the current Democratic Party should be restored. Let's not revise history, but show the ugly truths for what they are. - Topher 129.29.211.115 ( talk) 12:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Rjensen for this edit. I reviewed the book you referenced and it verifies your statement. Might this aspect be covered in the article, as it doesn't appear to already? Stevie is the man! Talk 鈥 Work 22:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Some material in the lead section introduces concepts without fully explaining how they are relevant or connected to the subject of the article, or uses confusing language; for instance: the part about "one faction in Congress", the name "Democratic-Republican" vs. "Republican", and the whole paragraph about an "'Anti-Administration' secret meeting", which needs to be better substantiated. I think it's important to "state the obvious" with details such as these, and include the basic Five Ws: Who, Where, What, Why, When. 鈥 Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 23:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Should we add classical liberalism to ideology? The first stone ( talk) 07:26, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
There seems to be some back-and-forth editing on when the party was founded, and I cop to being confused at times about what it should be. In the final analysis (for me), it seems that the infobox should reflect the content, and that seems to be showing 1791 as the founding year (or when the faction formed). I'm not sure exactly how that got changed to a specific date in 1799, perhaps corresponding to a date on a letter from Thomas Jefferson. If the year should be something different, please anyone reply with your thoughts. Stevie is the man! Talk 鈥 Work 20:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Should the name be hyphenated or nDashed: Democratic-Republican or Democratic鈥揜epublican? In 2008 and 2009 it was discussed with a consensus for the hyphen, but it's worth reopening the discussion again. Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Dashes refers to compounded pairs as using a dash, not a hyphen. Or is "Democratic" just a modifier of "Republican" the way "Anti" is a modifier of "Jacksonian"?鈥 GoldRingChip 11:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Resolved as Hyphen: Democratic-Republican.鈥 GoldRingChip 18:04, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Recently there have been several edits by User:174.134.115.13 ( contribs) a.k.a. User:The Democratic Party, est. 1792 ( contribs) on this page. I've reverted several of them and kept others, but to avoid an edit war, I want to list the main points under dispute.
1. Claim: The
Democratic-Republican Party is, in some sense, the same party as the modern
Democratic Party.
My response: I think everyone recognizes some continuities and some discontinuities here. The vast majority of modern historians treat these as separate parties. The "first party system" (DRs versus Federalists) collapsed before 1820, and thus in the 1820 Monroe was unopposed, and in 1824 every candidate called himself a "Republican". The second party system arose from the dispute between J.Q.Adams and Jackson; the DRs loyal to JQA became the "National Republicans" (later, "Whigs") and the DRs loyal to Jackson became the "Democrats".
It's also true that the modern Democratic Party claims Jefferson as its founder. But this is self-serving (they'd rather point to the author of the Declaration of Independence than to the person responsible for ethnic cleansing of Native Americans). The fact that they claim this is encyclopedic, but our main sources need to be historians -- who largely recognize the modern Democratic party as distinct.
Moreover, even 174.134.115.13 admits this distinction. He listed Martin Van Buren as one of the leaders of the DRP, but if it's the same as the modern party, then Barack Obama is also a leader of the DRP.
2. Claim: The DRP's leaders include Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren.
My response: This is false, unless we identify the DRP with the modern DP. In that case, why stop with Van Buren? Barack Obama is a leader of the DRP too.
3. Claim: When the DRP split into the Democrats and the National Republicans/Whigs, the former was the "majority" and the latter was the "minority".
My response: This requires a reliable source. Both the Democrats and the Whigs won several elections between 1828 and 1852, and I am not aware of any historian who categorially calls the former the "majority" party.
4. Claim: Jackson's party "still went by the Republican name under Jackson and his chief political ally and successor Martin Van Buren, but adopted the name ' Democratic Party' in 1844".
My response: Again, reliable sources are needed. There are already many sources in the current article pointing out that the DRP used a variety of names inconsistently -- most frequently being called "Republicans" outside of New York. Moreover, the DRP never had an "official" name, nor did Jackson's party. So even if it can be established that the name "Democratic Party" became official in 1844, that doesn't mean it lacked that name beforehand. Reliable sources show that Jackson and Van Buren used the term "Democrat" often, even before 1844.
Moreover, this relates to a controversy that has been frequently litigated on this page: What is the name of the party of Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe? Following the practice of some historians, Wikipedia calls it the "Democratic-Republican Party" -- even though that name was virtually never used in this period. We can't change that without rejecting the results of previous RfCs.
So I think we need to stick to the consensus of historians: the party from 1792 to 1824 should be distinguished from the party of 1828 to today, and for convenience the former is called "Democratic-Republican" and the latter is called "Democratic" to distinguish them, even though each of them used various names at various times. To change that would change hundreds of Wikipedia pages and would require a major RfC.
Finally, the edits of User:174.134.115.13 a.k.a. User:The Democratic Party, est. 1792 have removed perfectly good information from this page, such as the statement that John Quincy Adams "was elected in 1824, in an election where every candidate was associated with the Democratic-Republican Party, but the party selected no nominee that year." I don't know if this was accidental, or if it's part of his attempt to argue that the Democrats are the same as the D-Rs (which obviously puts John Quincy Adams in an awkward position, as he is therefore expelled from his own party). 鈥 Lawrence King ( talk) 08:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Explanation of my most recent edits:
1. I restored the deleted "dissolution" date. There are only two possibilities: the DR party had a dissolution date, or the DR party still exists. If it still exists, we should list Barack Obama as its most recent leader -- which is absurd. If it still exists, then how can it have any "successors"?
2. I restored the information about John Quincy Adams. He was a member of this party when he was elected, and there is no evidence to the contrary. The sentence before the table makes it crystal clear what happened in this election: "John Quincy Adams was elected in 1824, in an election where every candidate was associated with the Democratic-Republican Party, but the party selected no nominee that year." I added a citation
3. I removed Andrew Jackson as a party "leader". The DR party ended in 1825, and Jackson was not the leader of any party until 1828.
4. I restored the language at the end of the first paragraph. Every historian agrees that this party splintered in the late 1820s, leading to the Jacksonian and anti-Jacksonian factions. So to say that the DR party "coalesced" into the Jacksonians is false: one faction coalesced into the Jacksonians.
I also added some citations.
I left the other new edits by User:The Democratic Party, est. 1792 untouched. 鈥 Lawrence King ( talk) 22:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
1. From a political standpoint, the latter seems most true, and I would instead argue, based on the citations given and on primary sources that the what is now called "Democratic-Republican" is merely just another term for the early Democratic Party, which is very often called the Party of Jefferson and has been celebrating Jefferson as the party's founder since Jackson. There's a reason why Fairfax County, VA Democrats hold the Jefferson Obama Dinner. From that, I would take your lead and clarify further that Democratic-Republicans have no successors, but rather that they merely changed their name, as historians and political scientists have attested.
2. A member of a party (the "democratic members of Congress") which did not nominate him and which he dissociated with to form the National Republican Party, which he represented in the 1828 election. Jackson still ran as a Democratic-Republican and was nominated by a "convention of Republican delegates" in 1832. So, by 1824, many DRs were calling themselves Democratic AND Jackson was calling himself a Republican, the party of which he was the unrivaled leader. Hell, Van Buren was running as a Democratic Republican in 1840! So there's no dissolution, merely gradual shift in name, with the terms being interchangeable into the 1840s.
3. Refer to part 2.
4. Similar has been said in part 2, but considering that National Republicans bolted from the party to oppose Jackson, while Democratic Republicans remained and renamed themselves Democrats.
All this said, I'm fine with the page remaining as you recently left it as a compromise. 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by The Democratic Party, est. 1792 ( talk 鈥 contribs) 23:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
@ The Democratic Party, est. 1792:, with a name suggesting an WP:SPA, has made repeated efforts to add to the infobox WP:SYNTH from a primary source. One hopes that the editor will come to the Talk Page once their 24 hout block expires. O3000 ( talk) 17:00, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
THOMAS JEFFERSON, FOUNDER AND LEADER OF THE SO-CALLED "DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLICAN PARTY," ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION DESCRIBED MEMBERS OF HIS PARTY AS "LIBERALS," "COTE GAUCHE" [LEFT WING], "RADICALS," "JACOBINS," AND "DEMOCRATS."
Historians and political scientists who have studied the American two-party system have come to similar conclusion about this. The pages for the Democratic-Republican Party and the Federalist Party describes them as adhering to "classical liberalism" and "classical conservatism," respectively. These terms are deeply tied to the notion of left and right in the era in which these parties existed.
In the trans-Atlantic revolutionary world, "the left generally opposed the monarchy and supported the revolution, including the creation of a republic and secularization," while the right "was formed as a reaction against the 'Left' and comprised those politicians supporting hierarchy, tradition and clericalism."
Federalists, as the conservative party, "strongly opposed the French Revolution, defended traditional Christian morality and supported a new 'natural aristocracy' based on 'property, education, family status, and sense of ethical responsibility," and were "critical of both Jeffersonian classical liberalism and the radical ideas coming out of the French Revolution."
Jefferson and his partisans, on the other hand, as the liberal party, strongly supported the French Revolution, defended separation of church and state, and supported more democratic and egalitarian systems of government and economics that favored the rights of small farmers, the urban working class, and new immigrants, while highly critical of the conservative policies coming from Hamilton and Adams and their Federalist Party, especially when advocating policies deemed too aristocratic or similar to the British monarchy.
So if we're looking for consensus, look no further than in the site's own pages. They basically describe these parties as left and right, but for some reason it's anathema to make that clear to readers and providing them citations.
The Democratic Party, est. 1792 ( talk) 21:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I would say that leftism back than had nothing to do with today's leftism, so I'd rather suggest changing the party's political position from Left-wing to Centre-Left. Alexispapp ( talk) 20:36, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
footnote #1--Noah Webster repeatedly emphasized that the name "republican" was a powerful weapon used by the Jeffersonian against the Federalists (Webster was a leading Federalist editor). ["anti-federal party assumed the more popular appellation of republican, which was soon after the arrival of the French minister in 1793, that epithet became a powerful instrument in the process of making proselytes to the party."] Webster never says the party was NAMED "Democratic" nor does any historian. Webster does sling around the term "democratic" which for Federalists like Webster was a term of abuse & ridicule in the 1790s. [Some proof of that: in Kentucky the "Democratic society" was attacked as "that horrible sink of treason, that hateful synagogue of anarchy, that odious conclave of tumult, that hellish school of rebellion...."Leland D. Baldwin (2010). Whiskey Rebels: The Story of a Frontier Uprising. U of Pittsburgh Press. p.聽94. Thus Footnote #1 is a prime example of violating the Wikipedia rule about primary sources: they are easy to misinterpret. "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." WP:PSTS Rjensen ( talk) 10:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Webster is a primary source as a leading Federalist editor in 1790s who published hundreds of pages denouncing Jefferson's party as evil and democratic. The secondary sources do NOT call it the "Democratic Party" and Wiki depends on reliable secondary sources. 02:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
鈥 鈥 鈥 鈥 鈥 鈥 鈥I removed the political position in this edit (and on the Federalist Party page in this edit) but was reverted by Thomediter. Following the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, I think we should discuss this. My argument is that the left鈥搑ight political spectrum is an anachronism, since it only arose after the French Revolution and was probably not as widespread back then as it is now. Thomediter makes a good point that even an anachronism can be helpful for understanding the positions for these parties. To respond, I'd argue that the description of left-wing (right-wing for the Federalist Party) is imperfect鈥攚hile the Democratic-Republican Party is clearly more liberal, the Federalist Party could be argued to be more left-wing than the Democratic-Republican Party in some respects, since it advocated a greater role for the national government. Additionally, I believe the ideologies listed in the infobox are sufficient for comparing the two parties.
Just as important to this discussion is the sourcing. The sources used are clearly reliable, but they do not support the claims of "left-wing" and "right-wing" well. The first source on the Federalist Party page seems to only describe it as "conservative", which would count as synthesis. However, I don't have access to this book, so there may be another part that describes the Federalists as "right-wing". Can someone check this? The first source on this page ( [12]) is describing the ideas of federalists and anti-federalists (likely in the debate over the Constitution) as on the political right and left, respectively. Yes, these groups went on to form the two parties, but this isn't very good sourcing for describing the parties themselves. The second source on this page ( [13]) is describing factions within the two parties ("the more extreme views expressed by some of their partisans"), not the parties themselves, which also isn't good sourcing.
Thus, I am proposing that the political position be removed from the infoboxes of both the Democratic-Republican Party and the Federalist Party.
P.S. Please ping any editors who may be interested in this discussion. I have already pinged some editors who have edited the political position or been involved in previous discussions, but involving more editors is probably better. Ezhao02 ( talk) 21:56, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi聽:) I get the point, but I hope we can find a compromise, as I think the infobox talking about a party's position in general, is very important. I would find it sad if it would need to be left out completely. Adding a side note, talking about "Big Tent" could also be an idea. thomeditor ( talk) 00:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you all for your points. Can we at least get better sources for the political position here? Thanks, Ezhao02 ( talk) 21:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Contributors,
We have begun to reestablish this party as a national, state and local political party and intend on running a national Presidential candidate, a slate of candidates for Congress, and a slate for State legislatures.
We are trademark registered with the USPTO and EIN registered with the IRS. We are in full communication with the Electoral Commission and I was stopped in my editing journey by the suggestion that a reformed party would need its own page. Given the historical nature of this party, that may be true.
I am not a wiki savvy editor/contributor yet and I welcome discussion, comment, criticism and contribution.
We had intended on tasking a wiki savvy editor in the next 30 days or less to the insertion into this page the rebirth of The Democratic-Republican Party. But that leads me to a concern that per Wiki ethics, it may not be for us to edit. Is that also true?
I look forward to hearing from the community.
-fiat lux!
FreshObs
Freshobs (
talk)
21:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Surely this article should be added to Category:Defunct political parties in the United States? Could someone please do that? I'm not sure how to do so. Krakatoa ( talk) 17:04, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Why is the democratic republican party left wing? They are nothing like modern democrats. For one, they supported slavery, which is something dems don't. They also did not support big government. To me the Jefferson party was closer to modern libertarianism than progressivism. 76.137.118.7 ( talk) 19:10, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
The terms "left wing" and "right wing" originated from the French Revolution. Supporters of the Revolution sat on the left. Opponents sat on the right. The Democratic-Republicans supported the French Revolution. By the most literal of definitions, they were left-wing. The rest of your statements are dubious, but this is really the only thing that bares saying on the topic. -- 2601:19C:4480:DF90:95DD:C1CA:6929:CE37 ( talk) 15:13, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
The hidden comment at the very top of the page says to not add a political spectrum. However, there is a "center-left to left-wing" spectrum in the infobox. One of these should be removed, but I don't know which one. CLYDE TALK TO ME/ STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 23:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
The title at the top of infoboxes usually contain the official name of whatever organization the infobox is about [ex: Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea), Tribunal of the Holy Office of the Inquisition (Spanish Inquisition)], so I think at the top of the infobox it should say Republican Party, as that was the name the party actually used. MattiasLikesOxygen ( talk) 18:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)