I have no intention of climbing the Reichstag over this and despite your unnecessarily hostile and partisan tone Ill civilly state my objections and then walk away  I am a generally liberalleaning person so this is not a politicallymotivated attack in spite of your implications  Youre right that Wikipedia should report on notable opinions and based on that it is fair that this information exists as a section on the Democratic Party page or perhaps even as a separate article  But this article reports it as a fact not an opinion  The lede explicitly its an epithet generally taken to mean a pejorative term used by Republicansconservatives  This is not true there was previously a list of examples of usage by members of the Democratic Party on this talk page but it seems to have been excised  Youll notice I didnt propose to do any tabulation and I agree that would be original research  But much of this article is tabulation of examples linked by opinions and is therefore original research  The Hertzberg article is an opinion piece while the Stassen quote which incidentally comes indirectly from the Hertzberg article is a  year old quote that doesnt really support the main thesis of the article  Im not sure how one would cite a negative assertion such as even when its used by conservatives theres no basis for the speculation that its intended to be insultingpejorativedemeaning  The burden of proof falls on person making the extraordinary claim not the person expressing skepticism  Have there been any empirical studies that show the claim is true  Has any unbiased researcher tracked usage of this term and reported the results  Has any internal memo been released instruction Republican party members to use the term  Yes I see that there was a clumsy and obviously partisan attempt to delete the article but the fact that it failed does not ipso facto make the article valid  This article violates all three of the core content policies  Its original research in the sense that sense that its a synthesis of facts and opinions that may or may not be related  It lacks a neutral point of view in that it speculates motives that may or may not be present thus assuming malice on the part of users of the term  And failing in the previous  policies shows it lacks verifiability as examples or opinion pieces are not in and of themselves adequate  If I may express the opinion of subjecting the claim to a simple logic test it seems to fail  Given that Democrat is a proper term does it make sense that saying Democrat Party is clearly and unambiguously intended to be insulting as the last syllable is rat  And given the last syllable of Democratic Party is tick ie a bloodsucking arachnoid why would that not be considered insulting by the same standard  And without empirical studies of the type I suggested above can we honestly state that this is an intentional usage not a mere error especially in light of the numerous examples of usage by nonRepublicanconservatives  Im not saying its not now or never been used intentionally but stating that it is always and unquestionably used in this as an epithet is not a factual claim by encyclopedic standards