 | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
The article has been redirected per the outcome of the AfD discussion. The material that was previously there is still in the history and can be retrieved. Recreation of the article without consensus to do so should not be done. + + Lar: t/ c 03:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Someone suggests merging into "Democratic party" which is too long already. it links here. Rjensen 16:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
This is not a topic for an article. The question of the party's nomenclature is minor. A few sentences in the "Democratic Party" article will suffice. The present article is written simply an extended argument for the premise that there is serious legitimate debate or doubt about what the name of the Democratic Party is. The fact that some past or recent sources can be found to document "Democrat Party" or that some similarly named parties in other countries have used the term Democrat party has little to do with the decision of modern Republican politicians to adopt this moniker for their opponents. The facts are that it is officially the Democratic Party of the United States (as noted in the article), that its governing body is the Democratic National Committee, and that every state-level party entity uses the phrase "Democratic Party" in its name. There is no controversy, no doubt, and only a deliberate in the firstpolitical campaign to push the alternative "Democrat Party" label. I propose deletion of the article and incorporation of brief mention of the name "controversy" in the main article on the Democratic Party. RickDC 03:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- the article makes the point that the term "Democrat party" does annoy Democrats and it shows how scholars have handled the issue. It is POV to try to "protect the Democratic party by removing information some partisans find annoying. Fact is (if you read the blogs) the Democrats actually do talk about how the Republicans use the term. What's puzzling is why the Dems dislike it so much--it's a term with a long history of use by Democrats before 1910, and it's used in other English speaking countries (and was used by the Mississippi group sentein the 1960s--including M L King). Now this is a minor debate and does not deserve full scale treatement in the Dem party main article which is already long enough. It is a topic that has been discussed by language experts for over 40 years--exactly the sort of topic Wiki handles so well. Rjensen 03:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- The article notes that Democrats "tend to dislike the term" (without explaining why), then proceeds to devote the rest of its efforts to a justification for the term's use--hardly neutral POV. It does not "show how scholars have handled the issue;" it only provides a variety of citations in support of your thesis that the name of the Democratic Party is a matter doubt, or personal preference, or the vagaries of historical usage. (As we all know, we can always find citations to support our point of view!) The fact, almost totally unaddressed in the article, is that, over and above the historical noise of use and misuse over time, "Democrat Party" is a misrepresentation of the party's name adopted for political purposes by modern Republican politicians. (Your puzzlement as to why anyone would be annoyed to be called by the wrong name is a bit mystifying) You note that "this is a minor debate and does not deserve full scale treatment in the Dem party main article." I agree; as I said previously, this does not deserve full-scale treatment as an article--it should be a minor few sentences in the Democratic Party article. Finally, I want to reassure you that I am not trying to "protect the Democratic party by removing information some partisans find annoying." My annoyanmce is at seeing an article in Wikipedia that has such a partisan purpose and slant as this one. RickDC 03:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- It is simply false to assert the article cherry picks the evidence. Critics are challenged to find other evidence ( I just added several manual of style that discuss this issue in depth). Some Democrats have indeed in recent years claimed that it is a "misrepresentation" of the party's name-- "doesn't it sound like partisan POV when one party disagrees so sharply with the dictionaries and the style manuals? Just what is the "partisan purpose" of the article???? The critic has not explained just what that partican purtpose may be. All the users of the term are identified according to their partisanship and POV--no hidden agenda here, everything is in the open. If someone thinks that there is a political slant, let's hear them out rather than erase the article that is based on Washington Monthly (March 2006), Safire, Copperud, Merriam Webster, etc. Back to a key historical point: names change over time, and Wiki takes history into account. As to the puzzlement over why Dems are annoyed: one reason may be that Newt Gingrich used the term a lot (as the article states) and Democrats reacted strongly against him. Rjensen 04:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- "It is simply false to assert the article cherry picks the evidence." I do find the evidence picked is one-sided in its presentation and emphasis. Most objective sources (news media, dictionaries, encyclopedias, etc.) do not use "democrat" as an adjective in any context, nor do they use "Democrat Party" as the name of the Democratic Party in the US. You must surely recognize this to be the case, but the article as written doesn't. I'm sure you can find exceptions, but that's what they are. Since the article doesn't acknowledge this exceptionality, it wobbles way off balance from both a linguistic and political point of view. Instead, it dwells on the justifications and documentation for the eccentric use of "democrat" as an adjective and almost totally ignores the political impetus behind much of its use in current US political discourse. "Doesn't it sound like partisan POV when one party disagrees so sharply with the dictionaries and the style manuals?" As noted above, "Democratic Party" is the standard, generally accepted name of the party, and is the form used overwhelmingly in reference sources and news media. You seemingly believe otherwise and have it backwards. "All the users of the term are identified according to their partisanship and POV--no hidden agenda here, everything is in the open." But the quoted sources are almost all in one direction, intending to give "democrat" a pedigree as an adjective. No matter how openly identified the sources, this isn't neutral POV. Especially since there is no context given to put these terms in their place as non-standard usages. It's a cop-out to suggest that others have the responsibility for balancing the article. One could try to balance what's currently there by suffocating the article with vastly more citations to document standard usage in proper proportion (but the linguistic-political issue here simply doesn't justify that kind of overkill in what should be a short encyclopedia article at most). Alternatively, the article needs (1) some pruning of the current text, (2) much clearer context regarding generally accepted usage of the party's name, and (3) a discussion of the political context for the "Democrat Party" label in current US politics. Finally, on specific sources you refer to, I've read the Wash Monthly piece and find it quite at odds with the thrust of this article; and I don't have at hand the 1994 Merriam-Webster you cite, but the online M-W cites "democrat" only as a noun referring, among other things, to a member of the Democratic Party. RickDC 05:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- I added a simple statement hat the usage is "nonstandard" in 2006, which I guess is what is being requested. The article clearly says that The Dem party prefers "democratic" and that GOP occasionally uses term to heckle Dems. The standard manuals of style say that "Democrat party" is standard usage in the sense that it is linguistically correct. It is politically incorrect (and nonstandard) only because Dems object to it. It's important enought for several standard sources to have articles on the matter (as cited), and it's current enought to have the recent Washington Monthly article with many responses that all seem to indicate to me that Dems are really annoyed by the term. I happen to have a very strong and long-standing interest in political language ever since I read Mencken in college --and this is a rather fascinating case. Rjensen 06:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I can tell you have an interest in political language. Aside from my reservations about whether this should be an article at all, perhaps we can agree on a few stipulations: (1) The Democratic Party calls itself the Democratic Party (just as you call yourself Rjenson); (2) Standard usage in major reference works follows the same convention; (3) Historical citations of the form Democrat Party can be found; it is a much less common variant, but it is not brand-new; (4) Republican politicians, especially in recent decades, have purposefully adopted that variant as their term of choice for the opposing party. Can we agree on these as propositions that ought to be emphasized in the text? Analyzing the current text of the article, I'd say that point (1) is too weakly presented as a matter simply of party preference. Point (2) isn't well presented either and is dwarfed by extensive references in support of point (3). Point (4) is only briefly acknowledged. What's interesting to me is that point (4) is really the buried lead, the heart of the politico-linguistic issue, the reason there is anything interesting to discuss here at all. I'd like to work on reframing the text to give more emphasis to points (1) and (2) and to expand on point (4) I want to "be bold," but I also want to work with you, and anyone else interested, in collaborating to make this a better article that we can all feel comfortable with.
- I'm in general agreement with points 1-4 above. HOWEVER implicit in #1 is the false assumption that a party controls its own name and can stop other names. History is full of contrary examples (from religion: Methodist, Quaker, Shaker, Mormon). The very name "Democratic party" was an insult hurled by the Federalists in the 1790s and the people we call Dems did not agree on that name until the 1830s. #2 As the linguists point out, using "Democrat" as an adjective follows the rules of proper English and is in no way unusual--the reason the Dems fight it has nothing to do with grammar--it has to do probably with point #4. Point #4 is where the article started and is full of citations and quotations from people like Hoover, Landon, Taft etc. That does not make it buried. As for point #2, that is still contested --listen to talk radio! it will take another few years before the term becomes standard or not--but if millions of people use it then it will be standard English whether or not the Dem National Chairman dislikes it. So we are watching a change in the language (maybe) taking place and Wiki therefore becomes a good source on the matter. Rjensen 23:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I can tell you have an interest in political language. Aside from my reservations about whether this should be an article at all, perhaps we can agree on a few stipulations: (1) The Democratic Party calls itself the Democratic Party (just as you call yourself Rjenson); (2) Standard usage in major reference works follows the same convention; (3) Historical citations of the form Democrat Party can be found; it is a much less common variant, but it is not brand-new; (4) Republican politicians, especially in recent decades, have purposefully adopted that variant as their term of choice for the opposing party. Can we agree on these as propositions that ought to be emphasized in the text? Analyzing the current text of the article, I'd say that point (1) is too weakly presented as a matter simply of party preference. Point (2) isn't well presented either and is dwarfed by extensive references in support of point (3). Point (4) is only briefly acknowledged. What's interesting to me is that point (4) is really the buried lead, the heart of the politico-linguistic issue, the reason there is anything interesting to discuss here at all. I'd like to work on reframing the text to give more emphasis to points (1) and (2) and to expand on point (4) I want to "be bold," but I also want to work with you, and anyone else interested, in collaborating to make this a better article that we can all feel comfortable with.
- To take one of your examples: The name of the religious institution founded by Joseph Smith is " Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". That's not a matter of political correctness; that's the actual name of the church. Our article on " Mormon" begins by identifying the term as a colloquialism. So, yes, institutions do get to choose their own names -- which is different from stopping "other" names, including colloquialisms and political attacks. For example, I often refer to Murdoch's smear machine as "Faux News", and I'm not the only one. Murdoch and his hireling Falafel Boy can't stop us from doing so. Nevertheless, it won't matter how many people adopt that neologism. We can't, simply by dint of numbers, change the name of Fox News. An alternative term that sees enough usage may merit mention in Wikipedia, or even an article of its own, but should be identified as a colloquialism or a political attack or whatever else distinguishes it from the correct name. JamesMLane t c 00:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- public institutions get named by the people as a whole--whther their PR departments agree or not. The correct name of the Dem party is "the Democratic party of the United States of America"--it is rarely used (a mere 136 google hits). The term "Democratic party" is not official in any sense, it is an informal shortening. ("Democratic party" gets 31 million hits; "Democrat party" gets 1.6 million hits.) I note than 700+ a number of county Dem party organization have "Democrat party" in their website--such as Nassau Co NY [1] for a list see [2] Rjensen 02:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Regarding #1, there's no false assumption of control or ownership. It is simply a principle that if we write an article about the name of Rjenson, or the Mormons, we pay attention to what Rjenson, or the Mormons, call themselves. That's all. Unreasonable?? Regarding #2, I would be interested in seeing your citations to standard reference sources that have adopted "Democrat Party" as their denomination for the Democratic Party. You suggest this is widespread. Any review of standard sources shows the opposite. Please demonstrate otherwise. Simply citing "some" sources doesn't cut the cake. What is your take on the standard repertoire of reference sources? Regarding #4, your citations to Hoover, et al., aren't really relevant to the issue of modern Republican manipulation of language for political purposes. I don't suspect Hoover or Landon of this; it's a more modern phenomenon, which needs to be addressed in the article. I appreciate your mentioning radio talk shows as a source for the usage "Democrat Party." I think this is a good example, that must be incorporated in the article, of how politics is driving linguistics in this case. RickDC 04:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- 1. the article on the "Democratic party" which I spent a lot of effort on, is the main article and calls it the Democratic party. THIS article is on complex usage issues. 2) standard reference sources do not mention the question one way or the other I think (except for those cited like Copperud and Merriam-Webster). Usage by local Dem parties--Google turns up several hundred examples of local Dem parties on their web pages calling themselves "Democrat party." [Google on "county Democrat party" or "district Democrat party"] That is the term is spreading at the grass roots inside the Dem party (note that all the web sites were created since the 1990s]. I suggest that Hoover-Landon-Taft deliberately used the term to say the D party was not very democratic (as their quotes indicate). GIngrich (a PhD in history) revived their language circa 1994. As for talk radio--well I have heard it there myself but I have not run across a suitable citation as proof. Rjensen
I'm in favor of deleting this article. "Democrat Party" is simply a term used by some who disrespect that party to declare their disrespect. "Democrat Party" is not worthy of an article for that reason. It's as if somebody wrote an article titled "Crackers" and then proceeded to explain the culture of the American south. Griot 05:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- (Sigh) A long posting just disappeared. Will try to reconstuct. Here's an attempt to structure an article that can reflect various points of view. Probably not to anyone's satisfaction, but ...
The Democratic Party is one of the two major political parties in the United States. A variant name, Democrat Party, has sometimes been used, both in the past and at present. In recent years, the Republican Party has particularly chosen the name Democrat Party as their preferred way of referring to their opponents.
The party founded by Thomas Jefferson took the name Democratic-Republican Party in 1798. In 1848, the name was changed to the Democratic Party by the party's national convention. Today, the official name of the party is "The Democratic Party of the United States of America," commonly known by the shortened name Democratic Party.
In the (1990s) the Republican Party began to use the name Democrat Party as their preferred nomenclature for their opponents. Newt Gingrich etc., (much fleshing out needed)
The Democratic Party itself uses the name Democratic Party, and its organizational units, like the Democratic National Committe, reflect this usage. State party organizations uniformly use "Democratic Party" in their names.
Standard reference works refer to the party as the Democratic Party, although there are exceptions. (Much fleshing out needed)
Prior to modern Republican usage, there is an historical basis for the variant name Democrat Party. Some Republicans have used this form in the past, and it has also been used by others. (More fleshing out, incorporating text from the present article)
- please note the Jeffesronian never adopted the name "Democratic-Republican party" (that is based on an error). It was the Federalists who called them "Democrats" as a sign of disrespect and ridicule. Rjensen 23:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Va. Liberals Urged to Use the Rules And Seize Democrat Party Control By George M. KelleySpecial to The Washington Post. The Washington Post, Mar 24, 1972 -- Sen. Taylor Agrees to Run With Wallace; 'Crooning Cowboy's' Bolt From Democrat Party Long Expected Taylor to Run With Wallace The Washington Post Feb 24, 1948. p. 1 (2 pages) -- Miss Anne Snure Opens Her Lawn; She'll Be Hostess to Young Democrats' Party on Saturday. The Washington Post Aug 24, 1938. p. 15 -- Woman's Club Will Honor Sze; Chinese Ambassador and Wife Will Receive at Democrats' Party. The Washington Post (Dec 17, 1936. p. X18 -- Democrat Party Passes Sold for $1 By the Associated Press.. The Washington Post Jun 27, 1936. p. 5
You've made a blanket statement: "From the 1930s to 1970s the Washington Post headline writers used the terms "Democrat Party" and "Democrats' Party." Then you've cited ifve headlines 1972, 1948, 1938, 1936, and 1936. This is poor scholarship. Do all other articles from this time period use the term "Democrat Party"? It could be that an editor or typesetter slipped up five times. Please conduct a search for "Democratic Party" at the Washington Post archives for the years 1930-1972. I think you will find that "Democratic Party" was used far more often. I can't imagine editors slipping up this way. Your blanket statement suggests that the term "Democrat Party" was on the Post's style sheet, when that can't have been the case. I'm removing until you can show that the Post had a policy of referring to "Democrat Party," not "Democratic Party," in its articles from the years 1930 to 1972. Griot 22:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Now you've retreated to: "Before the 1970s the Washington Post occasionally used the term in such headlines as..." and you list the headlines. But these five articles don't even merit an occasionally. Five articles in 42 years? That merits a "very rarely," and because instances of the Post using "Democrat Party" is so rare, it doesn't deserve mentioning here. Moreover, have you considered the idea that these articles were titled with "Democrat Party" because the subjects of the article used the term? Have you read these articles? Again, five times in 42 years is so rare, I have to strike this from the wiki article, not matter how carefully you cite these articles. Griot 01:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
A Google search of "Democrat Party"+Green does not constitute a scholarly investigation. On what authority can you say, "In recent years Green Party activists have started using the term"? Your only authority is a Google search. Is the term used regularly at Green Party meetings? In Green Party publications? I can easily search Google and find thousands of instances where Green Party members use the term "Democratic Party." For example, I don't once recall David Cobb or Ralph Nader, the Green Party presidential candidates, using "Democrat Party." Jumping to a conclusion on the basis of a Google search -- saying "have started using" on the basis of this seach -- is just plain bad scholarship. I'm cutting this out. Griot 01:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- This is the same Griot who strenuously insisted on using a citation from an unsigned short item in the Ency Britannica as evidence in contrast to dozens of scholarly books? Every fact is scrupulously documented here. To say that people say X, with evidence, is not the same as saying people ALWAYS say X. But when people say X, that proves that "X" is in usage. As for scholarship, griot never adds any--he only blanks information he does not want people to know about.
Rjensen 01:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- All I strenuously insist upon is accuracy. The "fact" of Green Party members using this term was disproved by me. Keep it out of this awful article. Griot 23:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- This is the same Griot who strenuously insisted on using a citation from an unsigned short item in the Ency Britannica as evidence in contrast to dozens of scholarly books? Every fact is scrupulously documented here. To say that people say X, with evidence, is not the same as saying people ALWAYS say X. But when people say X, that proves that "X" is in usage. As for scholarship, griot never adds any--he only blanks information he does not want people to know about.
Rjensen 01:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
The article at present states, "The Republican national platforms of 1948, 1952, 1956, 1968, 1972, 1976, 1988, 1992, 1996, and 2000 all repeatedly used 'Democrat Party.'" However, I found the 2000 Republican Party platform online, and not only does it not use "Democrat Party," it doesn't mention the oppositon party "repeatedly." The platform mentions the "Democratic Party," and it does so only once. You can check it at REPUBLICAN PLATFORM 2000. I'm removing 2000 and I'll soon investigate the other Republican Party platforms for their use of the term "Democrat Party." Griot 01:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- This is comic. The original statement was: "The Republican national platforms of 1948, 1952, 1956, 1968, 1972, 1976, 1988, 1992, 1996, and 2000 all repeatedly used 'Democrat Party." Turns out only the platforms of 1956, 1976, 1988, 1992, and 1996 used it. Should we drop Porter as a source. This guy is totally unrealiable. Griot 05:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
This is not an encyclopedia article but instead a tendentious essay, which seems determined to prove the point, against all odds, that the term "Democrat Party" is both a widely used and legitimate form of name for the Democratic Party. The inumerable citations (and this text bristles with far too many) amount to spilling much ink over little matter. The examples put forth could be dwarfed by the evidence that "Democrat Party" is no more than an occasional, entirely non-standard usage. (This would, however, swamp the article even further in documentation and example) The minor issue of nomenclature could easily be covered by a non-argumentative paragraph in the main Democratic Party article. The editing history and discussion suggest to me that the entirely unbalanced premise of the article is not susceptible to change--that the argument for the legitimacy of "Democrat Party" is considered to be the core value of the article. I move the article be incorporated in the main article on the party, which is where it logically belongs; in much, much briefer form, which is what the topic justifies; and in a non-argumentative style. What is the best mediation route or other way to get a decision on this?
- people protest too much--that is, people who seem to dislike the Republicans. Fact is the usage is standard among Republicans, and appears daily in official documents and major speeches--and has for well over 60 years. The topic has been the subject of articles in scholarly journals and usage manuals for 50 years, and the discussion is current (see 2005 and 2006 discussions cited in bibliography). What is happening is a usage shift in English as people use nouns as adjectives: for example we now refer to the "Iraq war" instead of the "Iraqi war." Will this become standard usage for "Democrat"?? who knows--Wiki is not in the prediction business--but it is standard usage among Republicans. The problem is that partisan polemicists refuse to allow the word to be used. They evidently have not read any of the scholarly literature cited in the references and instead want to use Wikipedia as a weapon to defend their own personal political party. Rjensen 23:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- I could not agree with you more. Articles like this -- filled with faulty scholarship -- are a disgrace to the Wikipedia. I have found and documented numerous errors in this article. I'm sure I could find many more if I took the time. This article is atrocious. REMOVE THIS ARTICLE.
Griot 23:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)Griot
- GRIOT is a vehement Democrat. (see his edits to the main article on the Democratic party). He discovered "errors" by using an Australian source that had faulty copies. [It changes the term "Democrat party" to "Democratic party". See my comments below and need to use a standard nonpartisan source. Rjensen 00:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- It was the best source I could find at the time. At least I try to track down information at its source instead of relying on ad-hoc Google searches and the Google books service. I disproved your blanket statement "The Republican national platforms of 1948, 1952, 1956, 1968, 1972, 1976, 1988, 1992, 1996, and 2000 all repeatedly used 'Democrat Party." I disproved your blanket statement about Green Party members now using the term "Democrat Party." Frankly, I'm tired of cleaning up after your messes. Griot 00:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- I could not agree with you more. Articles like this -- filled with faulty scholarship -- are a disgrace to the Wikipedia. I have found and documented numerous errors in this article. I'm sure I could find many more if I took the time. This article is atrocious. REMOVE THIS ARTICLE.
Griot 23:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)Griot
- Griot used bad sources when good sources supported my argument. In fact he has never added any information -- he only deletes information he dislikes. We all have to accept the NPOV philosophy of Wiki that means no editor can delete accurate, sourced informaation that he does not want readers to know about. Rjensen 02:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- I double-check my sources. And I don't "just delete" information. I have written many articles for this online encyclopedia. You are a poor scholar who seems to think that a search on Google without any attempt to substantiate information or judge its merit in toto is unnecessary. Now I see you've found Nader using the term "Democrat Party" in two articles, which to your undiscriminating mind now constitutes "occasional" use of the term by third-party candidates. Any third-party candidates besides Nader use the term? Has Nader been known to use the term consistently or even "ocassionally." You are not a scholar. You are a diletante. I'm erasing Nader until you can show that he uses the term "ocasionally," not "very rarely." Griot 18:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- rjenson, your response speaks volumes about your attitude. I am not a "partisan polemicist," thank you, out to "use" Wikipedia to "defend [my] personal political party." I do clearly sense that you are not someone who can be worked with collaboratively and respectfully. I repeat: What avenue of mediation regarding the existence or form of this article do you recommend? If you have no response, I'll proceed. RickDC 23:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- This is a language usage article that requires what sort of mediation? Rjensen 23:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes. Have you read nothing above, including the 3 recommendations that the article be dropped? RickDC 23:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- To repeat: this is a topic that many scholars and linguists have worked on for over 50 years. Is it current" yes, this week Senate GOP #1 leader Frist used the term in a policy statement, as did the #3 GOP leader in the Senate. Many GOP state parties likewise use the term regularly. So it's standard language among Republicans. Rjensen 02:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- The above article is important for students and for current listeners who now frequently hear the term on talk radio. Jozil 02:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- The proposal is not to delete mention of the term but to incorporate it briefly in the main Democratric Party article. In addition, a referral or disambiguation can help those who are looking for the exact term "Democrat Party." RickDC 02:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Don't lose all this interesting information. Wiki is the perfect place to learn about the language of politics. Hawaii2006 04:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Griot is relying on an Austrialian website for American documents--odd choice--they change words. I recommend the much more authoritative: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showplatforms.php?platindex=R1992 at U Califronia Santa Barbara Rjensen 00:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
A mediation request has been posted at Mediation Cabal. RickDC 19:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
==
- Bad research: Griot has consistently misread the GOP platforms, and the HarperCollins Dictionary. The GOP platforms of 1952 said (Porter-Johnson p .496) "under successive Democrat Administrations" and ibid p.757 1968: "During seven and a half years of Democrat Administrations and Democrat Congresses the farmer has been the forgotten man in our nation's economy." He complained above that there were no cites from Nader, which are now provided. Likewise official Reform and Green party cites. Fact is the White House uses "Democrat" as standard usage.
- Go to http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/platforms.php as I did and read the platforms. Your original statement was entirely wrong. You relied on Porter-Johnson without looking into this yourself. Bad scholarship all the way around. Griot 05:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Bad research: Griot has consistently misread the GOP platforms, and the HarperCollins Dictionary. The GOP platforms of 1952 said (Porter-Johnson p .496) "under successive Democrat Administrations" and ibid p.757 1968: "During seven and a half years of Democrat Administrations and Democrat Congresses the farmer has been the forgotten man in our nation's economy." He complained above that there were no cites from Nader, which are now provided. Likewise official Reform and Green party cites. Fact is the White House uses "Democrat" as standard usage.
- for the convenience of the users I have added actual quoates from most of the platforms. The goal here is to capture the rhetorical flavor of American politics, as well as show actual usage: The Republicans used "Democrat" as an adjective in their national platforms of 1948 ("errors of the Democrat Administration"); 1952 ("successive Democrat Administrations"), 1956 ("unwise financial management during 20 years of Democrat Administrations"), 1968 ("The principles of the Monroe Doctrine...have been discarded by Democrat Administrations"), 1976 ("price tag of ...Democrat Platform promises could add as much as $100 billion"), 1984 ("Despite Democrat opposition we succeeded in reducing the tax rates of all taxpayers"),1988 ("The bosses of the Democrat Party have thrown in the towel and abandoned the American worker and producer."), 1992 ("The Democrat Party has forgotten its origins as a party of work, thrift, and self-reliance"), and 1996 ("Those who lead the Democrat party call America to smaller tasks and downsized dreams. "). Often it was to suggest suggest corruption or the absence of internal democracy in the Democratic party. [Porter and Johnson, p. 226]. Thus the 1976 Platform said, "Control of the United States Congress by the Democrat Party for 40 of the past 44 years has resulted in a system dominated by powerful individuals and riddled with corruption. Recent events have demonstrated an unwillingness and inability by the Democrat Party to cleanse itself." [Porter and Johnson 1982].
Rjensen 05:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- I need remind you that this article is about the term "Democrat Party," not the use of "Democrat" as an adjective. For the purposes of this article, you may only cite the use of "Democrat Party," not the myriad other uses of "Democrat" as an adjective associated with the Democratic Party. That usage is explained in one paragraph in the article. Griot 05:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- for the convenience of the users I have added actual quoates from most of the platforms. The goal here is to capture the rhetorical flavor of American politics, as well as show actual usage: The Republicans used "Democrat" as an adjective in their national platforms of 1948 ("errors of the Democrat Administration"); 1952 ("successive Democrat Administrations"), 1956 ("unwise financial management during 20 years of Democrat Administrations"), 1968 ("The principles of the Monroe Doctrine...have been discarded by Democrat Administrations"), 1976 ("price tag of ...Democrat Platform promises could add as much as $100 billion"), 1984 ("Despite Democrat opposition we succeeded in reducing the tax rates of all taxpayers"),1988 ("The bosses of the Democrat Party have thrown in the towel and abandoned the American worker and producer."), 1992 ("The Democrat Party has forgotten its origins as a party of work, thrift, and self-reliance"), and 1996 ("Those who lead the Democrat party call America to smaller tasks and downsized dreams. "). Often it was to suggest suggest corruption or the absence of internal democracy in the Democratic party. [Porter and Johnson, p. 226]. Thus the 1976 Platform said, "Control of the United States Congress by the Democrat Party for 40 of the past 44 years has resulted in a system dominated by powerful individuals and riddled with corruption. Recent events have demonstrated an unwillingness and inability by the Democrat Party to cleanse itself." [Porter and Johnson 1982].
Rjensen 05:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- I have to agree I see some uses above listed that don't fit into the criteria you originally put forward. Looks like 76, 88, 92, 96 use democrat party. I also have to say its obviously a political slur and should be recognized as much. I am surprised someone is here arguing that since the republicans use it often it shouldnt been seen as an attack. The "N" word also has an original meaning, however I am sure you dont use that word often in the company of African Americans, then state you simply meant it in the context fo the word ignorant. There are also millions of terms that are being changed every day thanks to rap and hiphop and slang, however we do not document all of them here on Wikipedia. Just because people have written books about something, doesn't make it encyclopedic. -- Zer0faults 12:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- politics is full of slurs and attack words. As Truman said, "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." As for millions of changing words--this one has been steady for over 75 years and is used by major government sources, like White House press releases, every day. It is becoming even more common (listen to talk radio.) Rjensen 19:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
The Democrat Party is not the only party which calls itself by a name other than its true name. The other major US party's true name is in fact the " Republic Party". The leading third parties also call themselves by other names: the Form Party calls itself the " Reform Party," the Libertary Party calls itself the " Libertarian Party," and the Grey Party calls itself the " Green Party." Even the tiny Social Work Party lies about its name by calling itself the "Socialist Workers Party." Timothy Horrigan Timothy Horrigan 16:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yawn. What does it matter? Why should anyone care? I have a hard time understanding what all the upset is over. None of this garbage is notable. Kasreyn 17:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
There is now a new article on Democrat Party (phrase) that people should be redirected to. Rjensen 00:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- There's a discussion about this on RFD:
here. Please don't unilaterally change it yourself without the discussion coming to a consensus.
Gdo01 02:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well now Democrat Party (phrase) redirects to Democrat Party (epithet), which is hardly "not entirely derogatory, see Epithet#Alternative contemporary usage." – Wbm1058 ( talk) 17:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- To avoid the need for a hatnote on Democratic Party (United States) to the epithet article (see old version here), I think it best that the result of the redirect for discussion (see template at the top of this talk page) is accepted. Thanks Loonymonkey for pointing that out, I may have overlooked it last October. I don't feel that "Democrat Party" is always meant to be an epithet, but often may perhaps be a case of bad use of English: "I am a Democrat, that is a member of the Democrat Party. Don't call me a Democratic. Don't call my friend a member of the Republic Party either. He is a Republican, that is, a member of the Republican Party." Fortunately there are no links to Democrat Party (United States) in article namespace, and that's good, because that title is ambiguous as to whether it's an epithet or not. – Wbm1058 ( talk) 12:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- I have added the most recent redirect for discussion to the template at the top of this page. Democrat Party (United States) is still ambiguous and thus the most recent consensus is for a {{ R from incomplete disambiguation}}. While personally I feel that Democratic Party (United States) should be the primary topic, I can also see that it can both be considered unfair not to leave a hatnote to the Democrat Party (epithet) article on that page and undue to put such a hatnote there. Thus, the issue of a hatnote to Democrat Party (epithet) on Democratic Party (United States) is avoided by redirecting this to the disambiguation page. This also means that internal links to Democrat Party (United States) will need disambiguation. – Wbm1058 ( talk) 16:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
|
| This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
|
| This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
The article has been redirected per the outcome of the AfD discussion. The material that was previously there is still in the history and can be retrieved. Recreation of the article without consensus to do so should not be done. + + Lar: t/ c 03:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Someone suggests merging into "Democratic party" which is too long already. it links here. Rjensen 16:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
This is not a topic for an article. The question of the party's nomenclature is minor. A few sentences in the "Democratic Party" article will suffice. The present article is written simply an extended argument for the premise that there is serious legitimate debate or doubt about what the name of the Democratic Party is. The fact that some past or recent sources can be found to document "Democrat Party" or that some similarly named parties in other countries have used the term Democrat party has little to do with the decision of modern Republican politicians to adopt this moniker for their opponents. The facts are that it is officially the Democratic Party of the United States (as noted in the article), that its governing body is the Democratic National Committee, and that every state-level party entity uses the phrase "Democratic Party" in its name. There is no controversy, no doubt, and only a deliberate in the firstpolitical campaign to push the alternative "Democrat Party" label. I propose deletion of the article and incorporation of brief mention of the name "controversy" in the main article on the Democratic Party. RickDC 03:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- the article makes the point that the term "Democrat party" does annoy Democrats and it shows how scholars have handled the issue. It is POV to try to "protect the Democratic party by removing information some partisans find annoying. Fact is (if you read the blogs) the Democrats actually do talk about how the Republicans use the term. What's puzzling is why the Dems dislike it so much--it's a term with a long history of use by Democrats before 1910, and it's used in other English speaking countries (and was used by the Mississippi group sentein the 1960s--including M L King). Now this is a minor debate and does not deserve full scale treatement in the Dem party main article which is already long enough. It is a topic that has been discussed by language experts for over 40 years--exactly the sort of topic Wiki handles so well. Rjensen 03:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- The article notes that Democrats "tend to dislike the term" (without explaining why), then proceeds to devote the rest of its efforts to a justification for the term's use--hardly neutral POV. It does not "show how scholars have handled the issue;" it only provides a variety of citations in support of your thesis that the name of the Democratic Party is a matter doubt, or personal preference, or the vagaries of historical usage. (As we all know, we can always find citations to support our point of view!) The fact, almost totally unaddressed in the article, is that, over and above the historical noise of use and misuse over time, "Democrat Party" is a misrepresentation of the party's name adopted for political purposes by modern Republican politicians. (Your puzzlement as to why anyone would be annoyed to be called by the wrong name is a bit mystifying) You note that "this is a minor debate and does not deserve full scale treatment in the Dem party main article." I agree; as I said previously, this does not deserve full-scale treatment as an article--it should be a minor few sentences in the Democratic Party article. Finally, I want to reassure you that I am not trying to "protect the Democratic party by removing information some partisans find annoying." My annoyanmce is at seeing an article in Wikipedia that has such a partisan purpose and slant as this one. RickDC 03:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- It is simply false to assert the article cherry picks the evidence. Critics are challenged to find other evidence ( I just added several manual of style that discuss this issue in depth). Some Democrats have indeed in recent years claimed that it is a "misrepresentation" of the party's name-- "doesn't it sound like partisan POV when one party disagrees so sharply with the dictionaries and the style manuals? Just what is the "partisan purpose" of the article???? The critic has not explained just what that partican purtpose may be. All the users of the term are identified according to their partisanship and POV--no hidden agenda here, everything is in the open. If someone thinks that there is a political slant, let's hear them out rather than erase the article that is based on Washington Monthly (March 2006), Safire, Copperud, Merriam Webster, etc. Back to a key historical point: names change over time, and Wiki takes history into account. As to the puzzlement over why Dems are annoyed: one reason may be that Newt Gingrich used the term a lot (as the article states) and Democrats reacted strongly against him. Rjensen 04:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- "It is simply false to assert the article cherry picks the evidence." I do find the evidence picked is one-sided in its presentation and emphasis. Most objective sources (news media, dictionaries, encyclopedias, etc.) do not use "democrat" as an adjective in any context, nor do they use "Democrat Party" as the name of the Democratic Party in the US. You must surely recognize this to be the case, but the article as written doesn't. I'm sure you can find exceptions, but that's what they are. Since the article doesn't acknowledge this exceptionality, it wobbles way off balance from both a linguistic and political point of view. Instead, it dwells on the justifications and documentation for the eccentric use of "democrat" as an adjective and almost totally ignores the political impetus behind much of its use in current US political discourse. "Doesn't it sound like partisan POV when one party disagrees so sharply with the dictionaries and the style manuals?" As noted above, "Democratic Party" is the standard, generally accepted name of the party, and is the form used overwhelmingly in reference sources and news media. You seemingly believe otherwise and have it backwards. "All the users of the term are identified according to their partisanship and POV--no hidden agenda here, everything is in the open." But the quoted sources are almost all in one direction, intending to give "democrat" a pedigree as an adjective. No matter how openly identified the sources, this isn't neutral POV. Especially since there is no context given to put these terms in their place as non-standard usages. It's a cop-out to suggest that others have the responsibility for balancing the article. One could try to balance what's currently there by suffocating the article with vastly more citations to document standard usage in proper proportion (but the linguistic-political issue here simply doesn't justify that kind of overkill in what should be a short encyclopedia article at most). Alternatively, the article needs (1) some pruning of the current text, (2) much clearer context regarding generally accepted usage of the party's name, and (3) a discussion of the political context for the "Democrat Party" label in current US politics. Finally, on specific sources you refer to, I've read the Wash Monthly piece and find it quite at odds with the thrust of this article; and I don't have at hand the 1994 Merriam-Webster you cite, but the online M-W cites "democrat" only as a noun referring, among other things, to a member of the Democratic Party. RickDC 05:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- I added a simple statement hat the usage is "nonstandard" in 2006, which I guess is what is being requested. The article clearly says that The Dem party prefers "democratic" and that GOP occasionally uses term to heckle Dems. The standard manuals of style say that "Democrat party" is standard usage in the sense that it is linguistically correct. It is politically incorrect (and nonstandard) only because Dems object to it. It's important enought for several standard sources to have articles on the matter (as cited), and it's current enought to have the recent Washington Monthly article with many responses that all seem to indicate to me that Dems are really annoyed by the term. I happen to have a very strong and long-standing interest in political language ever since I read Mencken in college --and this is a rather fascinating case. Rjensen 06:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I can tell you have an interest in political language. Aside from my reservations about whether this should be an article at all, perhaps we can agree on a few stipulations: (1) The Democratic Party calls itself the Democratic Party (just as you call yourself Rjenson); (2) Standard usage in major reference works follows the same convention; (3) Historical citations of the form Democrat Party can be found; it is a much less common variant, but it is not brand-new; (4) Republican politicians, especially in recent decades, have purposefully adopted that variant as their term of choice for the opposing party. Can we agree on these as propositions that ought to be emphasized in the text? Analyzing the current text of the article, I'd say that point (1) is too weakly presented as a matter simply of party preference. Point (2) isn't well presented either and is dwarfed by extensive references in support of point (3). Point (4) is only briefly acknowledged. What's interesting to me is that point (4) is really the buried lead, the heart of the politico-linguistic issue, the reason there is anything interesting to discuss here at all. I'd like to work on reframing the text to give more emphasis to points (1) and (2) and to expand on point (4) I want to "be bold," but I also want to work with you, and anyone else interested, in collaborating to make this a better article that we can all feel comfortable with.
- I'm in general agreement with points 1-4 above. HOWEVER implicit in #1 is the false assumption that a party controls its own name and can stop other names. History is full of contrary examples (from religion: Methodist, Quaker, Shaker, Mormon). The very name "Democratic party" was an insult hurled by the Federalists in the 1790s and the people we call Dems did not agree on that name until the 1830s. #2 As the linguists point out, using "Democrat" as an adjective follows the rules of proper English and is in no way unusual--the reason the Dems fight it has nothing to do with grammar--it has to do probably with point #4. Point #4 is where the article started and is full of citations and quotations from people like Hoover, Landon, Taft etc. That does not make it buried. As for point #2, that is still contested --listen to talk radio! it will take another few years before the term becomes standard or not--but if millions of people use it then it will be standard English whether or not the Dem National Chairman dislikes it. So we are watching a change in the language (maybe) taking place and Wiki therefore becomes a good source on the matter. Rjensen 23:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I can tell you have an interest in political language. Aside from my reservations about whether this should be an article at all, perhaps we can agree on a few stipulations: (1) The Democratic Party calls itself the Democratic Party (just as you call yourself Rjenson); (2) Standard usage in major reference works follows the same convention; (3) Historical citations of the form Democrat Party can be found; it is a much less common variant, but it is not brand-new; (4) Republican politicians, especially in recent decades, have purposefully adopted that variant as their term of choice for the opposing party. Can we agree on these as propositions that ought to be emphasized in the text? Analyzing the current text of the article, I'd say that point (1) is too weakly presented as a matter simply of party preference. Point (2) isn't well presented either and is dwarfed by extensive references in support of point (3). Point (4) is only briefly acknowledged. What's interesting to me is that point (4) is really the buried lead, the heart of the politico-linguistic issue, the reason there is anything interesting to discuss here at all. I'd like to work on reframing the text to give more emphasis to points (1) and (2) and to expand on point (4) I want to "be bold," but I also want to work with you, and anyone else interested, in collaborating to make this a better article that we can all feel comfortable with.
- To take one of your examples: The name of the religious institution founded by Joseph Smith is " Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". That's not a matter of political correctness; that's the actual name of the church. Our article on " Mormon" begins by identifying the term as a colloquialism. So, yes, institutions do get to choose their own names -- which is different from stopping "other" names, including colloquialisms and political attacks. For example, I often refer to Murdoch's smear machine as "Faux News", and I'm not the only one. Murdoch and his hireling Falafel Boy can't stop us from doing so. Nevertheless, it won't matter how many people adopt that neologism. We can't, simply by dint of numbers, change the name of Fox News. An alternative term that sees enough usage may merit mention in Wikipedia, or even an article of its own, but should be identified as a colloquialism or a political attack or whatever else distinguishes it from the correct name. JamesMLane t c 00:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- public institutions get named by the people as a whole--whther their PR departments agree or not. The correct name of the Dem party is "the Democratic party of the United States of America"--it is rarely used (a mere 136 google hits). The term "Democratic party" is not official in any sense, it is an informal shortening. ("Democratic party" gets 31 million hits; "Democrat party" gets 1.6 million hits.) I note than 700+ a number of county Dem party organization have "Democrat party" in their website--such as Nassau Co NY [1] for a list see [2] Rjensen 02:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Regarding #1, there's no false assumption of control or ownership. It is simply a principle that if we write an article about the name of Rjenson, or the Mormons, we pay attention to what Rjenson, or the Mormons, call themselves. That's all. Unreasonable?? Regarding #2, I would be interested in seeing your citations to standard reference sources that have adopted "Democrat Party" as their denomination for the Democratic Party. You suggest this is widespread. Any review of standard sources shows the opposite. Please demonstrate otherwise. Simply citing "some" sources doesn't cut the cake. What is your take on the standard repertoire of reference sources? Regarding #4, your citations to Hoover, et al., aren't really relevant to the issue of modern Republican manipulation of language for political purposes. I don't suspect Hoover or Landon of this; it's a more modern phenomenon, which needs to be addressed in the article. I appreciate your mentioning radio talk shows as a source for the usage "Democrat Party." I think this is a good example, that must be incorporated in the article, of how politics is driving linguistics in this case. RickDC 04:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- 1. the article on the "Democratic party" which I spent a lot of effort on, is the main article and calls it the Democratic party. THIS article is on complex usage issues. 2) standard reference sources do not mention the question one way or the other I think (except for those cited like Copperud and Merriam-Webster). Usage by local Dem parties--Google turns up several hundred examples of local Dem parties on their web pages calling themselves "Democrat party." [Google on "county Democrat party" or "district Democrat party"] That is the term is spreading at the grass roots inside the Dem party (note that all the web sites were created since the 1990s]. I suggest that Hoover-Landon-Taft deliberately used the term to say the D party was not very democratic (as their quotes indicate). GIngrich (a PhD in history) revived their language circa 1994. As for talk radio--well I have heard it there myself but I have not run across a suitable citation as proof. Rjensen
I'm in favor of deleting this article. "Democrat Party" is simply a term used by some who disrespect that party to declare their disrespect. "Democrat Party" is not worthy of an article for that reason. It's as if somebody wrote an article titled "Crackers" and then proceeded to explain the culture of the American south. Griot 05:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- (Sigh) A long posting just disappeared. Will try to reconstuct. Here's an attempt to structure an article that can reflect various points of view. Probably not to anyone's satisfaction, but ...
The Democratic Party is one of the two major political parties in the United States. A variant name, Democrat Party, has sometimes been used, both in the past and at present. In recent years, the Republican Party has particularly chosen the name Democrat Party as their preferred way of referring to their opponents.
The party founded by Thomas Jefferson took the name Democratic-Republican Party in 1798. In 1848, the name was changed to the Democratic Party by the party's national convention. Today, the official name of the party is "The Democratic Party of the United States of America," commonly known by the shortened name Democratic Party.
In the (1990s) the Republican Party began to use the name Democrat Party as their preferred nomenclature for their opponents. Newt Gingrich etc., (much fleshing out needed)
The Democratic Party itself uses the name Democratic Party, and its organizational units, like the Democratic National Committe, reflect this usage. State party organizations uniformly use "Democratic Party" in their names.
Standard reference works refer to the party as the Democratic Party, although there are exceptions. (Much fleshing out needed)
Prior to modern Republican usage, there is an historical basis for the variant name Democrat Party. Some Republicans have used this form in the past, and it has also been used by others. (More fleshing out, incorporating text from the present article)
- please note the Jeffesronian never adopted the name "Democratic-Republican party" (that is based on an error). It was the Federalists who called them "Democrats" as a sign of disrespect and ridicule. Rjensen 23:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Va. Liberals Urged to Use the Rules And Seize Democrat Party Control By George M. KelleySpecial to The Washington Post. The Washington Post, Mar 24, 1972 -- Sen. Taylor Agrees to Run With Wallace; 'Crooning Cowboy's' Bolt From Democrat Party Long Expected Taylor to Run With Wallace The Washington Post Feb 24, 1948. p. 1 (2 pages) -- Miss Anne Snure Opens Her Lawn; She'll Be Hostess to Young Democrats' Party on Saturday. The Washington Post Aug 24, 1938. p. 15 -- Woman's Club Will Honor Sze; Chinese Ambassador and Wife Will Receive at Democrats' Party. The Washington Post (Dec 17, 1936. p. X18 -- Democrat Party Passes Sold for $1 By the Associated Press.. The Washington Post Jun 27, 1936. p. 5
You've made a blanket statement: "From the 1930s to 1970s the Washington Post headline writers used the terms "Democrat Party" and "Democrats' Party." Then you've cited ifve headlines 1972, 1948, 1938, 1936, and 1936. This is poor scholarship. Do all other articles from this time period use the term "Democrat Party"? It could be that an editor or typesetter slipped up five times. Please conduct a search for "Democratic Party" at the Washington Post archives for the years 1930-1972. I think you will find that "Democratic Party" was used far more often. I can't imagine editors slipping up this way. Your blanket statement suggests that the term "Democrat Party" was on the Post's style sheet, when that can't have been the case. I'm removing until you can show that the Post had a policy of referring to "Democrat Party," not "Democratic Party," in its articles from the years 1930 to 1972. Griot 22:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Now you've retreated to: "Before the 1970s the Washington Post occasionally used the term in such headlines as..." and you list the headlines. But these five articles don't even merit an occasionally. Five articles in 42 years? That merits a "very rarely," and because instances of the Post using "Democrat Party" is so rare, it doesn't deserve mentioning here. Moreover, have you considered the idea that these articles were titled with "Democrat Party" because the subjects of the article used the term? Have you read these articles? Again, five times in 42 years is so rare, I have to strike this from the wiki article, not matter how carefully you cite these articles. Griot 01:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
A Google search of "Democrat Party"+Green does not constitute a scholarly investigation. On what authority can you say, "In recent years Green Party activists have started using the term"? Your only authority is a Google search. Is the term used regularly at Green Party meetings? In Green Party publications? I can easily search Google and find thousands of instances where Green Party members use the term "Democratic Party." For example, I don't once recall David Cobb or Ralph Nader, the Green Party presidential candidates, using "Democrat Party." Jumping to a conclusion on the basis of a Google search -- saying "have started using" on the basis of this seach -- is just plain bad scholarship. I'm cutting this out. Griot 01:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- This is the same Griot who strenuously insisted on using a citation from an unsigned short item in the Ency Britannica as evidence in contrast to dozens of scholarly books? Every fact is scrupulously documented here. To say that people say X, with evidence, is not the same as saying people ALWAYS say X. But when people say X, that proves that "X" is in usage. As for scholarship, griot never adds any--he only blanks information he does not want people to know about.
Rjensen 01:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- All I strenuously insist upon is accuracy. The "fact" of Green Party members using this term was disproved by me. Keep it out of this awful article. Griot 23:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- This is the same Griot who strenuously insisted on using a citation from an unsigned short item in the Ency Britannica as evidence in contrast to dozens of scholarly books? Every fact is scrupulously documented here. To say that people say X, with evidence, is not the same as saying people ALWAYS say X. But when people say X, that proves that "X" is in usage. As for scholarship, griot never adds any--he only blanks information he does not want people to know about.
Rjensen 01:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
The article at present states, "The Republican national platforms of 1948, 1952, 1956, 1968, 1972, 1976, 1988, 1992, 1996, and 2000 all repeatedly used 'Democrat Party.'" However, I found the 2000 Republican Party platform online, and not only does it not use "Democrat Party," it doesn't mention the oppositon party "repeatedly." The platform mentions the "Democratic Party," and it does so only once. You can check it at REPUBLICAN PLATFORM 2000. I'm removing 2000 and I'll soon investigate the other Republican Party platforms for their use of the term "Democrat Party." Griot 01:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- This is comic. The original statement was: "The Republican national platforms of 1948, 1952, 1956, 1968, 1972, 1976, 1988, 1992, 1996, and 2000 all repeatedly used 'Democrat Party." Turns out only the platforms of 1956, 1976, 1988, 1992, and 1996 used it. Should we drop Porter as a source. This guy is totally unrealiable. Griot 05:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
This is not an encyclopedia article but instead a tendentious essay, which seems determined to prove the point, against all odds, that the term "Democrat Party" is both a widely used and legitimate form of name for the Democratic Party. The inumerable citations (and this text bristles with far too many) amount to spilling much ink over little matter. The examples put forth could be dwarfed by the evidence that "Democrat Party" is no more than an occasional, entirely non-standard usage. (This would, however, swamp the article even further in documentation and example) The minor issue of nomenclature could easily be covered by a non-argumentative paragraph in the main Democratic Party article. The editing history and discussion suggest to me that the entirely unbalanced premise of the article is not susceptible to change--that the argument for the legitimacy of "Democrat Party" is considered to be the core value of the article. I move the article be incorporated in the main article on the party, which is where it logically belongs; in much, much briefer form, which is what the topic justifies; and in a non-argumentative style. What is the best mediation route or other way to get a decision on this?
- people protest too much--that is, people who seem to dislike the Republicans. Fact is the usage is standard among Republicans, and appears daily in official documents and major speeches--and has for well over 60 years. The topic has been the subject of articles in scholarly journals and usage manuals for 50 years, and the discussion is current (see 2005 and 2006 discussions cited in bibliography). What is happening is a usage shift in English as people use nouns as adjectives: for example we now refer to the "Iraq war" instead of the "Iraqi war." Will this become standard usage for "Democrat"?? who knows--Wiki is not in the prediction business--but it is standard usage among Republicans. The problem is that partisan polemicists refuse to allow the word to be used. They evidently have not read any of the scholarly literature cited in the references and instead want to use Wikipedia as a weapon to defend their own personal political party. Rjensen 23:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- I could not agree with you more. Articles like this -- filled with faulty scholarship -- are a disgrace to the Wikipedia. I have found and documented numerous errors in this article. I'm sure I could find many more if I took the time. This article is atrocious. REMOVE THIS ARTICLE.
Griot 23:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)Griot
- GRIOT is a vehement Democrat. (see his edits to the main article on the Democratic party). He discovered "errors" by using an Australian source that had faulty copies. [It changes the term "Democrat party" to "Democratic party". See my comments below and need to use a standard nonpartisan source. Rjensen 00:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- It was the best source I could find at the time. At least I try to track down information at its source instead of relying on ad-hoc Google searches and the Google books service. I disproved your blanket statement "The Republican national platforms of 1948, 1952, 1956, 1968, 1972, 1976, 1988, 1992, 1996, and 2000 all repeatedly used 'Democrat Party." I disproved your blanket statement about Green Party members now using the term "Democrat Party." Frankly, I'm tired of cleaning up after your messes. Griot 00:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- I could not agree with you more. Articles like this -- filled with faulty scholarship -- are a disgrace to the Wikipedia. I have found and documented numerous errors in this article. I'm sure I could find many more if I took the time. This article is atrocious. REMOVE THIS ARTICLE.
Griot 23:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)Griot
- Griot used bad sources when good sources supported my argument. In fact he has never added any information -- he only deletes information he dislikes. We all have to accept the NPOV philosophy of Wiki that means no editor can delete accurate, sourced informaation that he does not want readers to know about. Rjensen 02:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- I double-check my sources. And I don't "just delete" information. I have written many articles for this online encyclopedia. You are a poor scholar who seems to think that a search on Google without any attempt to substantiate information or judge its merit in toto is unnecessary. Now I see you've found Nader using the term "Democrat Party" in two articles, which to your undiscriminating mind now constitutes "occasional" use of the term by third-party candidates. Any third-party candidates besides Nader use the term? Has Nader been known to use the term consistently or even "ocassionally." You are not a scholar. You are a diletante. I'm erasing Nader until you can show that he uses the term "ocasionally," not "very rarely." Griot 18:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- rjenson, your response speaks volumes about your attitude. I am not a "partisan polemicist," thank you, out to "use" Wikipedia to "defend [my] personal political party." I do clearly sense that you are not someone who can be worked with collaboratively and respectfully. I repeat: What avenue of mediation regarding the existence or form of this article do you recommend? If you have no response, I'll proceed. RickDC 23:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- This is a language usage article that requires what sort of mediation? Rjensen 23:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes. Have you read nothing above, including the 3 recommendations that the article be dropped? RickDC 23:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- To repeat: this is a topic that many scholars and linguists have worked on for over 50 years. Is it current" yes, this week Senate GOP #1 leader Frist used the term in a policy statement, as did the #3 GOP leader in the Senate. Many GOP state parties likewise use the term regularly. So it's standard language among Republicans. Rjensen 02:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- The above article is important for students and for current listeners who now frequently hear the term on talk radio. Jozil 02:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- The proposal is not to delete mention of the term but to incorporate it briefly in the main Democratric Party article. In addition, a referral or disambiguation can help those who are looking for the exact term "Democrat Party." RickDC 02:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Don't lose all this interesting information. Wiki is the perfect place to learn about the language of politics. Hawaii2006 04:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Griot is relying on an Austrialian website for American documents--odd choice--they change words. I recommend the much more authoritative: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showplatforms.php?platindex=R1992 at U Califronia Santa Barbara Rjensen 00:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
A mediation request has been posted at Mediation Cabal. RickDC 19:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
==
- Bad research: Griot has consistently misread the GOP platforms, and the HarperCollins Dictionary. The GOP platforms of 1952 said (Porter-Johnson p .496) "under successive Democrat Administrations" and ibid p.757 1968: "During seven and a half years of Democrat Administrations and Democrat Congresses the farmer has been the forgotten man in our nation's economy." He complained above that there were no cites from Nader, which are now provided. Likewise official Reform and Green party cites. Fact is the White House uses "Democrat" as standard usage.
- Go to http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/platforms.php as I did and read the platforms. Your original statement was entirely wrong. You relied on Porter-Johnson without looking into this yourself. Bad scholarship all the way around. Griot 05:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Bad research: Griot has consistently misread the GOP platforms, and the HarperCollins Dictionary. The GOP platforms of 1952 said (Porter-Johnson p .496) "under successive Democrat Administrations" and ibid p.757 1968: "During seven and a half years of Democrat Administrations and Democrat Congresses the farmer has been the forgotten man in our nation's economy." He complained above that there were no cites from Nader, which are now provided. Likewise official Reform and Green party cites. Fact is the White House uses "Democrat" as standard usage.
- for the convenience of the users I have added actual quoates from most of the platforms. The goal here is to capture the rhetorical flavor of American politics, as well as show actual usage: The Republicans used "Democrat" as an adjective in their national platforms of 1948 ("errors of the Democrat Administration"); 1952 ("successive Democrat Administrations"), 1956 ("unwise financial management during 20 years of Democrat Administrations"), 1968 ("The principles of the Monroe Doctrine...have been discarded by Democrat Administrations"), 1976 ("price tag of ...Democrat Platform promises could add as much as $100 billion"), 1984 ("Despite Democrat opposition we succeeded in reducing the tax rates of all taxpayers"),1988 ("The bosses of the Democrat Party have thrown in the towel and abandoned the American worker and producer."), 1992 ("The Democrat Party has forgotten its origins as a party of work, thrift, and self-reliance"), and 1996 ("Those who lead the Democrat party call America to smaller tasks and downsized dreams. "). Often it was to suggest suggest corruption or the absence of internal democracy in the Democratic party. [Porter and Johnson, p. 226]. Thus the 1976 Platform said, "Control of the United States Congress by the Democrat Party for 40 of the past 44 years has resulted in a system dominated by powerful individuals and riddled with corruption. Recent events have demonstrated an unwillingness and inability by the Democrat Party to cleanse itself." [Porter and Johnson 1982].
Rjensen 05:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- I need remind you that this article is about the term "Democrat Party," not the use of "Democrat" as an adjective. For the purposes of this article, you may only cite the use of "Democrat Party," not the myriad other uses of "Democrat" as an adjective associated with the Democratic Party. That usage is explained in one paragraph in the article. Griot 05:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- for the convenience of the users I have added actual quoates from most of the platforms. The goal here is to capture the rhetorical flavor of American politics, as well as show actual usage: The Republicans used "Democrat" as an adjective in their national platforms of 1948 ("errors of the Democrat Administration"); 1952 ("successive Democrat Administrations"), 1956 ("unwise financial management during 20 years of Democrat Administrations"), 1968 ("The principles of the Monroe Doctrine...have been discarded by Democrat Administrations"), 1976 ("price tag of ...Democrat Platform promises could add as much as $100 billion"), 1984 ("Despite Democrat opposition we succeeded in reducing the tax rates of all taxpayers"),1988 ("The bosses of the Democrat Party have thrown in the towel and abandoned the American worker and producer."), 1992 ("The Democrat Party has forgotten its origins as a party of work, thrift, and self-reliance"), and 1996 ("Those who lead the Democrat party call America to smaller tasks and downsized dreams. "). Often it was to suggest suggest corruption or the absence of internal democracy in the Democratic party. [Porter and Johnson, p. 226]. Thus the 1976 Platform said, "Control of the United States Congress by the Democrat Party for 40 of the past 44 years has resulted in a system dominated by powerful individuals and riddled with corruption. Recent events have demonstrated an unwillingness and inability by the Democrat Party to cleanse itself." [Porter and Johnson 1982].
Rjensen 05:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- I have to agree I see some uses above listed that don't fit into the criteria you originally put forward. Looks like 76, 88, 92, 96 use democrat party. I also have to say its obviously a political slur and should be recognized as much. I am surprised someone is here arguing that since the republicans use it often it shouldnt been seen as an attack. The "N" word also has an original meaning, however I am sure you dont use that word often in the company of African Americans, then state you simply meant it in the context fo the word ignorant. There are also millions of terms that are being changed every day thanks to rap and hiphop and slang, however we do not document all of them here on Wikipedia. Just because people have written books about something, doesn't make it encyclopedic. -- Zer0faults 12:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- politics is full of slurs and attack words. As Truman said, "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." As for millions of changing words--this one has been steady for over 75 years and is used by major government sources, like White House press releases, every day. It is becoming even more common (listen to talk radio.) Rjensen 19:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
The Democrat Party is not the only party which calls itself by a name other than its true name. The other major US party's true name is in fact the " Republic Party". The leading third parties also call themselves by other names: the Form Party calls itself the " Reform Party," the Libertary Party calls itself the " Libertarian Party," and the Grey Party calls itself the " Green Party." Even the tiny Social Work Party lies about its name by calling itself the "Socialist Workers Party." Timothy Horrigan Timothy Horrigan 16:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yawn. What does it matter? Why should anyone care? I have a hard time understanding what all the upset is over. None of this garbage is notable. Kasreyn 17:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
There is now a new article on Democrat Party (phrase) that people should be redirected to. Rjensen 00:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- There's a discussion about this on RFD:
here. Please don't unilaterally change it yourself without the discussion coming to a consensus.
Gdo01 02:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well now Democrat Party (phrase) redirects to Democrat Party (epithet), which is hardly "not entirely derogatory, see Epithet#Alternative contemporary usage." – Wbm1058 ( talk) 17:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- To avoid the need for a hatnote on Democratic Party (United States) to the epithet article (see old version here), I think it best that the result of the redirect for discussion (see template at the top of this talk page) is accepted. Thanks Loonymonkey for pointing that out, I may have overlooked it last October. I don't feel that "Democrat Party" is always meant to be an epithet, but often may perhaps be a case of bad use of English: "I am a Democrat, that is a member of the Democrat Party. Don't call me a Democratic. Don't call my friend a member of the Republic Party either. He is a Republican, that is, a member of the Republican Party." Fortunately there are no links to Democrat Party (United States) in article namespace, and that's good, because that title is ambiguous as to whether it's an epithet or not. – Wbm1058 ( talk) 12:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- I have added the most recent redirect for discussion to the template at the top of this page. Democrat Party (United States) is still ambiguous and thus the most recent consensus is for a {{ R from incomplete disambiguation}}. While personally I feel that Democratic Party (United States) should be the primary topic, I can also see that it can both be considered unfair not to leave a hatnote to the Democrat Party (epithet) article on that page and undue to put such a hatnote there. Thus, the issue of a hatnote to Democrat Party (epithet) on Democratic Party (United States) is avoided by redirecting this to the disambiguation page. This also means that internal links to Democrat Party (United States) will need disambiguation. – Wbm1058 ( talk) 16:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)