"

No, Charles Edward, you're a troll. You're a troll because rjensen says so. This is wikipedia, and the first person to make a personal accusation wins WP:NAMECALLING. He calls me a troll. I've called him a troll, and he's called me a troll, so we're all trolls. And actually, invoking a status as a 'well-respected, featured content writer and reviewer' is beside the point. I could demonstrate a long posting history under different names and/or a personal career that would knock the socks off most any posters, but that is quite in the wikipedian ideal. Here the logic of your opinions is supposed to be the only thing that matters; this is wikipedia, where anyone can edit. All that being said....
I actually am the only poster in months who has actually proffered a way out of this problem, (note also: I have been vehemently accused of being unconstructive but I'm the one offering suggestions). ""If it said, ""Use of the phrase 'Democrat Party' is an entirely normal vernacular usage in America, although it is a technically incorrect adjective formation. However, some insider commentators in Washington consider the use of the term ""Democrat Party"" as prejorative, since it removes a direct association to the adjective 'democratic'. This theory has no support in reality since the phrase has been in common usage since before the Civil War."" -And that would be the sum total of the article, and you could add the cites to that. ... 129.133.127.244 (talk) "" -You may disagree with this particular formation, but the correct wikipedia solution is to simply state the ambiguous nature of the claim, (if at all) and leave it at that. That is how it should be solved. 
As it stands, this is a violation of NPOV, WP:PRIMARY, and WP:SYNTH among others.129.133.127.244  "