Talk:Democratic-Republican Party

message: 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)
thread_title:  National Republicans 

message: Move Parsecboy (talk) 00:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: 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)
replies: text:  Did Jackson ever name his party? the 1832 source given here does not give an official party name, nor an unofficial party name.  it does refer to "Republicans", but avoids the term Republican Party except once, on page 23, where it is talking about the past not the present.  This goes to show the folly of depending on primary sources, which are very hard to interpret, and neglecting the many high quality secondary sources, prepared by scholars.  Rjensen (talk) 14:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "Republican" is on the title page. "Republican party" is used six times. On page 13, the "republican party" is contrasted with "national republicans." Historians call Jackson's party the "Democratic Party," not D-R.  In any case, it wasn't the D-R party as defined in this article, so this stuff should be removed from the lede. Kauffner (talk) 14:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Party name and lede 

message: :::::Aren't these discussions supposed to be closed after 7 days? It's been almost 2 weeks and it's clear that there is no consensus for the move. BillMasen (talk) 23:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a huge backlog at WP:Requested moves.... --Orlady (talk) 03:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: When someone gets around to it, they should keep in mind that, according to the closing instructions, "the quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority." The Wikipedians who favor a move have, on this and previous occasions, cited many reliable sources to support their argument, and many more could be listed. Aside from Orlady, those who favor the current title have not really attempted to make a case or cite any reliable sources. Since an opinion is not the same thing as an argument, I think it's pretty clear that there's a consensus of informed opinion to rename the article. —Kevin Myers 04:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't be part of the disagreement and simultaneouly judge the 'quality' of the other side's arguments. The point is, D-R is used in the sources, and it's just naive to expect sources to give a definitive answer to every question of this kind. So we have to use our own judgment. BillMasen (talk) 12:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course I can comment on the quality of the other side's arguments. If the other side does not engage with the reliable sources when making its argument, an essential part of my argument is to point this out. I'm a big believer basing Wikipedia decisions upon a survey of the reliable sources, even when it means that I must change my initial opinion, as has happened here. I'm always a bit surprised when I encounter Wikipedians who don't share this philosophy. —Kevin Myers 13:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As has been demonstrated, D-R is used by reliable sources, among other names including Republican. My point is that they do not give a clear answer as to what title should be used. So why not use the only one which is neither misleading nor ambiguous? Given that the sources are capable of supporting either title, we have to choose somehow. BillMasen (talk) 14:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conclusion of discussion? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Indeed. I reverted the edit and sent a message to the user who added that statement. --Orlady (talk) 20:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Problem 

message: 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)
replies: text: I think that is the correct approach. (The "D-R" title probably won't last in the long run as we attract more editors who are familiar with the reliable sources.) How do you feel about occasional alternatives within the text, for the sake of stylistic variety, such as "Jeffersonians" and "Jefferson's party"? —Kevin Myers 13:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Kauffner & Kevin Myers on this.Rjensen (talk) 07:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should call them D-R all the way through. But as long as the page has the right title, it doesn't matter that much. Moreover, apparently it will make you all very happy to do it your way, and I'm sick of arguing :) BillMasen (talk) 11:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that User:Kauffner, a primary advocate of renaming the "D-R" party the "Republicans", has subsequently been banned for sockpuppetry.  I suggest that this entire argument needs to reopened in light of that. 70.131.148.238 (talk) 08:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Party name in article 

message: Make it semi-protected! There has been some IP vandals now. SomeDudeWithAUserName (talk) 22:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  IP Vandals 

message: Why is the font so small (compared to other wiki pages) when I print this? (Mozilla Firefox)  Dave C.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.174.144.156 (talk) 20:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small font when printing 

message: 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)
replies: text: Konchevnik81 is relying on his OR into primary sources--that's great but the Wikipedia rules say we have to follow the Reliable Secondary Sources (RS). Basically the problem is that today most historians use "Republican Party" and while the political scientists use the D-R version. I favor the R version since this article relies mostly on historians.  Rjensen (talk) 20:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  But how is using primary documents available free online OR? Literally, the Library of Congress has letters written by Thomas Jefferson himself and scanned online that are addressed to the "Democratic Republican" party. That's pretty backward if primary sources are somehow not considered as reliable as secondary sources (which for some reason do not include the official White House historian, or the Monticello Foundation, or Encyclopedia Britannica, all of which refer to the "Democratic Republican Party"). Also, I would say that "most historians" sounds suspiciously like weasel words. I'm not arguing that the "Democratic Republican" label should predominate, but I think it definitely deserves a stronger mention in the lede as a term used contemporaneously, and by current histories.Konchevnik81 (talk) 21:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I consulted the Wikipedia: No Original Research page. That's not what I'm doing. I'm not basing the entire argument on primary sources: I've cited two (admittedly short) secondary sources from organizations that are pretty reputable when discussing Jefferson (I can provide a Britannica link too, although I understand that Britannica is not looked upon very highly in these parts). The primary sources are backup for the claim that the term has wider use than solely among modern political scientists - the claim of which currently has a request for a citation in the article. The primary sources are being used with care, and with minimal interpretation: the letters literally are addressed to or from Democratic Republicans, usually on the first line (it's also used in the name that the Library of Congress uses to sum up the letters' contents). As I wrote, I just think that the term "Democratic Republican" deserves an equal footing as a term used for this party, and should not be dismissed without a citation as a term invented in later periods by political scientists, and that is one no longer used by historians.Konchevnik81 (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: the problem is that old primary documents are very easy to misinterpret, as Konchevnik81 has done here. For example TJ never called his party the D-R party--though he did address a couple letters to groups that used D-R in their title.  The vast majority of local Republican groups never used D-R, although a few did. The compromise worked out over time was to use D-R in the title and R in the text of this article. As for historians' usage, look at the titles in the bibliography for solid evidence. Rjensen (talk) 22:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: But that's a greater interpretation of the primary sources than I'm doing. How can Jefferson never call his party the "Democratic Republican party" and at the same time write letters to "Democratic Republicans". That doesn't even make sense. He's using the term, as are people considering themselves members of the party, even if other terms like strictly "Republicans" are simultaneously being used. "Democratic Republican" was a term in use during the first decade of the 19th century. And the White House blurb is from Michael Beschloss. That's not "solid evidence" that a well-known and respected historian of presidents uses the term to discuss the party?Konchevnik81 (talk) 22:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "The vast majority of local Republican groups never used D-R, although a few did" Then why not write this (in a more neutral way) in the lede, instead of an uncited claim that "Democratic-Republican" is a term invented by political scientists?Konchevnik81 (talk) 22:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I did that. Rjensen (talk) 00:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: So, Primary sources can be used to demonstrate that Jefferson used "Republican" (as is currently the case (see note 1), but it's naughty OR to use them to demonstrate that Jefferson used "Democratic Republican"?  that's blatant POV pushing. 70.131.148.238 (talk) 07:56, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: "D-R Party", stress here on the word 'party', I think was first used in the 1830 period to designate the party we now call the Democratic Party. Jefferson, the other party leaders & newspapers did not call it the D-R Party, although there were a few D-R local clubs. I have not seen any group that called itself the "D-R Party". I don't think Jefferson ever used "D-R Party". However in modern scholarship political scientists use the "D-R Party" because it keeps their comparative tables easier to read.  Historians usually use "R Party" because that was its name when it was active. Jefferson when writing to club members of course used the club's official name but notice that neither the club nor Jefferson used the term "D-R Party." Rjensen (talk) 08:57, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Party Name 

message: Several sources in this article are cited in common shorthand, like so:
: Chambers, 80.
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:
: Adams, 207–208.
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 (talk) 01:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambiguous source citations 

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the move request was: no consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 13:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Democratic-Republican Party →  – This U.S. political party, active from 1792 to 1825, was rarely if ever called “Democratic Republican” when it existed, but rather "Republican." You can search either the 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, “We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists” -- nothing about Democratic-Republicans. The classic treatment of this party is 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 –- 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 crème de la crème (talk) 11:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

text: *There seems to be a psychological block of some kind regarding this issue. The ngram and gscholar results show pretty conclusively that D-R is not the most common form of the party's name. Both the White House site and Britannica use "Republican" more than they do D-R. Yet editors are somehow able to look at both of these pages and see only "D-R." Dictionary of American History, the standard reference work in this field, uses "Jeffersonian Republicans." Recent histories that use "Jeffersonian Republican" or "Republican" include works by David McCullough, Stephen Ambrose, Sean Wilentz, Joseph Ellis, and Gordon Wood. Wood's Empire of Liberty (2009), probably the most highly regarded work on this period, has a chapter entitled, "The Emergence of the Jeffersonian Republican Party." La crème de la crème (talk) 03:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: *You don't really need to reply to each and every comment you disagree with. Calidum Talk To Me 12:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: *You know what would be nice? If people read the nomination before voting. It includes an ngram comparing the commonness of the the current name and the proposed name -- which you obviously didn't notice. I have now developed a more sophisticate ngam. It shows that the two names are about equally common overall. As I showed in the my previous post, the authorities in this field, the people who know what they are talking about, don't use D-R. La crème de la crème (talk) 00:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

text: *Moving the article to Republican Party (United States, 1791-1825), would be acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 10:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
*Oppose - I think it reads fine as it is, and I think the comparison with "Byzantine Empire" is apt. Jeffersonian Republicans is alright, although someone correct me if I'm wrong but I'm not sure that was actually a more common contemporary name (if people were really going to invoke Jefferson, they'd say "a Jefferson man" or something similar). Definitely NOT "Republican Party" with the arbitrary dates, because that implies that the article (erroneously) covering a particular period in the current Republican Party's history. I'd also say that it's too vague, considering that there were groups like the Old Republicans during most of that time, and the National Republicans towards the end of that period. But I think that the article is clear that D-R is mostly an anachronistic term used for clarification in certain writings, but that had some usage during the time period concerned. Konchevnik81 (talk) 14:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move September 2014 

message: 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)
replies: text: lots of mistakes here starting with "Democrat Party." needs a reliable source. Rjensen (talk) 16:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Democrat Party 

message: 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 • Work 22:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: yes good idea.  the basic problem is that historians use one term (D) & political scientists another (DR)-- Rjensen (talk) 23:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I"m sure it's all complicated and in total, likely over my head, but even a basic coverage of when anyone notable started to call it the Democratic-Republican Party would suffice as far as I'm concerned. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  The term "Democratic-Republican Party" was coined by the Jacksonians for the 1832 election. That's after the Jeffersonian party was disbanded, at least as it is defined in this article. The Jeffersonian party was "Republican" in Virginia and "Democrat" in New York. When Rip Van Winkle woke up in 1819, they asked him if he was a Democrat or a Federal -- not if he was a Democratic Republican. The term "Democratic-Republican" caught on with later writers as a way of disambiguating the Jeffersonian party from the modern Republican Party, which was founded in 1854. But this was not an issue when the party was active.I just noticed the posts above concerning earlier usage for the name D-R. The examples given almost always refer to a faction or a local branch rather a national party. In the 1790s, the party was supported by French-financed "Democratic-Republican societies." In the 1820s, the party had "Nationalist" and "Democratic" factions. So the term "Democratic Republican" could refer to a member of the Democratic faction of the Republican party. The party didn't follow modern branding principles, so a local branch might use a naming variant of its very own. Great scott (talk) 10:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  When the party started to be referred to as the Democratic-Republican Party 

message: 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. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: the lede introduces the topics covered in the article.  That's were people go to answer 5-w's  Rjensen (talk) 10:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section rewrite 

message: Should we add classical liberalism to ideology? The first stone (talk) 07:26, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  classical liberalism  

message: 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 • Work 20:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  When the party was founded 

message: 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. — Lawrence King (talk) 22:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most recent edits 

message: 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.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Democratic Party, est. 1792 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm bothered by the continuing efforts to use the terms left-wing or center-left. I realize that the terms originated in the French Revolution, which was around the same time. But, these were brand new terms at that time and have different current meanings. Placing such terms in the infobox without detailed explanation is highly misleading.  O3000 (talk) 01:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Jefferson literally refers to his party as cote gauche, which translates from French to "left-wing". Historians such as Edward J. Larson back this up. The Democratic Party, est. 1792 (talk) 08:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

text:  I'm not sure what they would mean in this context.  Jefferson sympathized with the more radical French Revolutionaries, but he seems to have had an idealized view of them; he certainly did not want to implement their program in America.  Here in the USA, he was a strict constitutionalist and for a very small federal government -- and those views were essentially non-existent in France in this era, so they aren't represented by the European "left", "center", or "right" of that era.  Strict constitutionalism and small federal government were called "right-wing" ideas in the United States from 1964 to 1980, but Jefferson didn't live then.  — Lawrence King (talk) 04:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Those views are seen as "right-wing" because the size of government relative to business interests (Federalists to GOP) or to economic populism (Democrats) evolved with the rise of industrialization, financialization, and urbanization. Democrats upheld small government until they accepted that a larger government could rein in the excesses of corporate capitalism, which Jefferson and Jackson had warned would challenge the government if left unchecked. The Democratic Party, est. 1792 (talk) 08:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

text: The Modern Democratic Party does claim the Jeffersonian Republicans were their ancestors, so I made that point explicit.  That claim is fading--the modern party is renaming the Jefferson-Jackson dinners since both of these have come under a cloud esp re racial issues.Rjensen (talk) 06:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  But you delete a citation that explicitly show historians support the claim? That's not suspicious at all... And the claim is not "fading". The Democrats are still referred (and not just by themselves) to as the "Party of Jefferson" (not the "Party of Jackson") and still celebrate Jefferson annually. As I noted above, the Jefferson Obama Dinner is a thing, celebrated this year even. Democrats have been honoring Jefferson since the beginning; hell, it was a Democrat who had the Jefferson Memorial built in Washington for crying out loud. And unless Jackson and Van Buren were idiots who didn't realize they had founded a "new" party when they called themselves Republicans and Democratic Republicans, as late as 1840, it would be appreciated that you undo your oversimplified erasures and take away citations simply because it disagrees with you or you understanding of the history of the subject matter. Thanks. The Democratic Party, est. 1792 (talk) 08:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The term “cote gauche” (left side) originated with where you physically sat in the Estates General. Marx wasn't even born at this time. There is a tenuous connection to the present. 200 years have passed and politics is not stable. I believe it is misleading to use the terms here as readers will assign modern definitions to the words. I’m also concerned with efforts to draw direct connections between the words Democratic and Republican between centuries.  O3000 (talk) 11:10, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  And the term was used by major liberal figures such as Jefferson to describe his party in contradistinction to the Federalists, which was seen as right-wing (and still is by modern historians such as Edward J. Larson). Left and right, as you mentioned, predate Marx, who is irrelevant to early American politics, but do not predate Jefferson or Paine, who I wouldn't exactly describe as politically illiterate or irrelevant as to the use of these terms. And if editors believe the readers would be confused about their modern usage, then it seems that those pages need better content to clarify what left and right meant on both sides of the Atlantic in the period when those terms were introduced into their politics. Like you said, politics are not stable, but acting like these terms have no use in describing politics over a period of 230 years, despite the fact that they've been used for that very purpose, is disingenuous. Again, if readers can't distinguish between the left and right in 1798 and in 2018, then those pages need to be updated, not pages such as this one held back by suppressing their use and erasing citations that uphold that usage. In terms of the connections between the party (or parties) that went by the name of "Republican," "Democratic Republican," and "Democratic" early in its first half century of existence and finally settled on the last, we can't pretend like politics and political terms were neat (or as if it is now or ever was). A liberal Democrat then espoused Jeffersonian democracy; a liberal Democrat now espouses social democracy, yet they were/are called liberals and Democrats (and Democrats called the "Party of Jefferson") all the same. I can't change the fact that Jefferson and Madison called members of their party "Republicans" and "Democrats," but we can make that historical record more available and present readers with facts and sources. If we want to treat DRs and Dems as two distinct parties, go ahead, but ignoring the fact that primary sources from the 1790s to the 1840s use the three aforementioned terms near interchangeably, whether it came from its leaders (Jefferson, Madison, Jackson), its opponents (Washington, Federalists), and contemporary documentation (letters, convention records, campaign posters), seems more unhelpful than being as thorough as possible. I'm not saying I buy into all that 1798 name change business from Britannica, but ignoring the historical record seems contrary to this site's purpose. At the very least acknowledging the reality on the ground at the time would be what we should all consider a step in the right direction. The Democratic Party, est. 1792 (talk) 07:13, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Then describe the terms in the text. But, don’t put them in the infobox. O3000 (talk) 11:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's omission that requires description and explanation. Inclusion is given citation. If you think the terms "left" and "right" in the contemporary context need explanation, you should look into updating those pages, not purposely omitting information in this one because we might underestimate people's ability to distinguish self-described "left-wing," "liberal" "Democrats" who supported Vice President Thomas Jefferson for President in 1800 and self-described "left-wing," "liberal" "Democrats" who might support someone like Senator Elizabeth Warren for President in 2020. Politics evolve, philosophies evolve, parties evolve; it's no one's fault terms have stuck. These pages and their infoboxes should reflect the reality of the historical record, not the discomfort some editors might have with that reality. The Democratic Party, est. 1792 (talk) 21:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: My “discomfort” has to do with the fact it is unnecessarily misleading, not because of some personal opinions on the matter; and I have no idea what Senator Warren has to do with this. O3000 (talk) 21:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looking back, taking issue with using Sen. Warren as an example of a present-day Democrat doesn't come off as very "objective," and only adds to my concerns that personal politics has a role in this discussion. The Democratic Party, est. 1792 (talk) 16:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I did no such thing. Now you are throwing up another strawman and simply being uncivil. O3000 (talk) 16:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  You did take issue with my mentioning of Sen. Warren, it's literally right there with your signature. And now who's engaging in strawmen? I'm not being uncivil or trying to be. Not sure why you take it as if that's that case. Simply trying to make a case, based in verified citations, for the inclusion of a short string of words. The Democratic Party, est. 1792 (talk) 17:08, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

text:  One, it's only "misleading" if those pages are severely lacking in relevant content. Two, it's an example of a modern Democrat, lol. The whole "some like... in 2020" should've tipped you off. The Democratic Party, est. 1792 (talk) 06:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

text:  Also, I note that you've added these left/center/right terms to several other early parties, including the National Republican Party, the Know Nothing party, the Whig Party (United States), although some of these have been reverted.  I agree with O3000 that these terms were very rarely used in America at this time, and you have to use them in a very elastic sense to apply them to American political debates. What makes you think the Know Nothings were "right wing"?  Is it because they disliked immigrants and Catholics?  In 2018, some associate such views with the right. Ask someone on the street if racism is "right wing" and some will say yes.  But in that case, the Democratic-Republicans and pre-1865 Democrats are far right, since they defended the enslavement of African-Americans!  The Whigs wanted government spending on infrastructure, like FDR would do a century later -- so how can they be "right wing"?  These terms simply aren't useful.  In your last comment you referred to "self-described 'left-wing,' 'liberal' 'Democrats' who supported Vice President Thomas Jefferson for President in 1800".  I don't believe you can find a single case of someone in 1800 who supported Jefferson and described themseves as a "left-wing Democrat" or a "liberal Democrat," but even if you could, that would  be one outlier using terminology that was rare.  If I found an actual diary from someone in 1796 who said "Because I'm a right-wing crypto-monarchist I am voting for John Adams" it would not allow me to describe Adams or his party as "right-wing crypto-monarchists". — Lawrence King (talk) 02:11, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Rarely used" isn't the same as not used at all. As I've mentioned over and over again, Jefferson used these terms to describe the two parties. (In describing his party, he used the terms "liberal," "cote gauche" [left-wing], and "Democrat"— not to mention "radical" and "Jacobin," the latter of which our fellow Wikipedians describe as "distinguished for its left-wing, revolutionary politics." Considering he is the party's founder and longtime leader, I consider his characterization very authoritative as he would have understood his own political terms and context as well as, if not better than, any other major political figures of the era. Speaking of which, Paine endorsed such characterization in his supporting Jefferson's party and vehemently condemning the Federalists.) And there's nothing elastic about it. The terms aren't eternally fixed. In a hundred or so years, American socialism may very well be right-wing and some other theory the focus of a new left. Why? Because contexts change, ideologies evolve, and interests shift. No where have I ever made the case that racism is a left-right issue, either in 1798, in 1858, or 2018. Now, some of us are overlooking a major theme that can be traced from the Federalist Party through to the Republican Party, and, likewise, a major theme that can be traced from Jeffersonian Democrats through to present-day Democrats. The former has generally been characterized as being the party of the upper classes, business interests, and more cultural-nationalist interests, that is the social and economic "in-groups" of the era. The latter, on the other hand, has generally been the party of the lower classes, economic egalitarianism, and more liberal-pluralist. Lipset's Political Man, listed in References, goes into this in a bit more detail. Now, are these terms entirely consistent? Of course not! As we've made clear, politics isn't neat, but history shows us that while it may not repeat itself, it certainly rhymes. It's not a coincidence that Jefferson, Jackson, Bryan, Wilson, FDR, Truman, and many modern Democrats have in some way or another been consistent in railing against economically and politically powerful corporate interests, whether they called/call them the "aristocracy of our monied corporations," "economic royalists," or the "one percent." It's also not coincidental, that one party has had a historical trend of opposing new immigration, while the other has been more receptive. Perfect? No, because no group has been anti-all immigration or pro-all immigration, but one is more restrictive and the other more receptive. I don't think I need to clarify which side is which. One side has also generally been more receptive toward democratizing governmental institutions and expanding the franchise, while the other less so. Again, not perfect since sectionalism made the former Democratic fortress of the South a hub for voter suppression, while early Republicans fought for suffrage rights for black men, and were major contributors to the women's suffrage movement. But the general trend has more or less been one party supports the political regime of the haves, the other, the rights of the have-nots. One side favors democratization, the other suggests that that would needlessly result in mob rule and anarchy. Same goes for religion. Established, and typically dominant, religious groups have sided with one party while typically minority religious groups and the unaffiliated have sided with the other. Again, the implication should be clear as to which party is which. One party has been the home of the wealthy, the other of the lower classes. One party has favored the interests of business first, while the other the interests of labor first. Some may argue that such distinctions don't matter since their stances on the role/size of the federal government are, in effect, reversed, but for this, I invoke Paine, who asked, "Are those men federalized to support the liberties of their country or to overturn them?" That is for what ends have they embraced these means (of advocating bigger/smaller government)? To make society and government freer, fairer, and more democratic for the masses? Or to make society and government more hierarchical, more convenient for business interests, and more oligarchic for those who already possess wealth, status, and power? While not perfectly, history shows that these two currents, while at some point swapping their views on government, have been generally (though with periodic interludes and sectional infighting) consistent on that. Again, there's reason why Jefferson and Paine have been regarded with high esteem in the Democratic Party and on the left, while Hamilton and Burke have been regarded with high esteem in the Republican Party and on the right. This is no secret, as this site has entries saying as much. While particular policies and issues have changed over the course of the last 230 years, the general divide between left and right has been present (and consistently observed as such) from the start. To pretend that Jefferson and his party did not epitomize the nascent political left of their time would be more than disingenuous, it would be deceitfully revisionist. I know that no one here has that intent, but we shouldn't give anyone reason to suspect that that may be the case. The Democratic Party, est. 1792 (talk) 06:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: We can add positions in the text. We do not need tp make such simplistic, nuance-free categorizations in the info box suggesting modern positions. Information which is controversial should not be added to info boxes.  O3000 (talk) 10:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  The infobox text doesn't suggest "modern" positions. That's like saying James Monroe is a "modern" leader. (That said, Wikipedia describes "modern" as occurring since about 1500. U.S. politics falls safely within that time period.) If it "suggests" anything, it's that in the period between 1792 and 1825, the party was in what was then considered the political center-left/left of that period. (Again, if you take issue with potential confusion, then update the pages on left and right-wing politics, but if your issue is with how left and right were defined 220 years ago, and consequently how this party's founder saw himself and his party within that dichotomy, then I can't help you because the historical record confirms it. And this information isn't controversial. If it's deemed "controversial," it's either because sources are nonexistent (which, as we have seen, isn't the case) or because editors and readers who hold certain political views are uncomfortable with the historical record. If it were controversial, it wouldn't be simply suppressed, but would instead remain visible, citations intact, AND have its own section in the article, just like the issue of the name of the party does. Or are you telling me that the use of the name "Democratic-Republican Party" for this party has not been controversial? This talk page proves quite the contrary. The Democratic Party, est. 1792 (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, now you're just posting strawmen. These walls of text aren't convincing anyone. O3000 (talk) 16:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, I'm simply heeding your own advice: "WP must be honest in its presentation of any subject. Otherwise, it’s useless, and no one wins." Unless you've suddenly reversed yourself on this position, the issue at hand remains: the terms of left and right have been used since (and were used by) Jefferson, and he used it to describe his party. Historians such as Larson confirm this. Hiding behind the veil of supposedly posted "strawmen," doesn't dismiss or refute that. Suppressing that historical characterization doesn't make it untrue either. That said, that you took issue with the last part of my response as opposed to the first 3/4ths of it doesn't exactly convince anyone that that last part doesn't hold some truth to it. I'm not saying it does, but saying that something would be "confusing," "misleading," or "controversial", but then not working to improve the pages on left and right-wing politics to help readers, since "helping readers" seems to be your claimed goal, makes that entire argument come off as a little less sincere. The Democratic Party, est. 1792 (talk) 16:37, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:OTHERCONTENT. And, your WP:TEXTWALLs still aren't convincing anyone. O3000 (talk) 16:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Supposed appeals to rules doesn't make anyone objective, just dismissive and suppressive of the article content being discussed. And anything I've contributed to this talk page I did with the intent of being thorough and by providing as much information in the least amount of space as possible. It's not my fault I have to repeat myself, but I think article pages should be as thorough and useful as possible and if we can't argue an article's content with similar considerations, why are we here? (That's a rhetorical question. Please feel free not to respond since you clearly don't care to constructively contribute to the talk page or to the article in question.) The Democratic Party, est. 1792 (talk) 17:03, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:AGF WP:CIV Personal attacks are boring and will never lead to consensus. O3000 (talk) 17:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  No personal attacks have been made on my part. I literally just asked for constructive discussion. If that's a "personal attack," then not sure why talk pages exist. The Democratic Party, est. 1792 (talk) 17:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

text: "Strict constitutionalism" and "small government" were not inherent features of right-wing ideology in America from the '60s and '80s, they were careful dog-whistles that only applied as a reaction against the civil-rights movement and left-wing economic policy that threatened wealthy donors...  But, every right-wing President during that time oversaw a continually increasing budget, a continual addition of new government programs, and larger budget deficits.  The right-wing of politics demonstrably did not actually produce smaller government, they instead selectively used the talking points to only fight select things they disagreed with for other reasons.  They said they don't want the federal government legislating civil rights, but they did want that power to be used by a federal government for all sorts of things like fighting flag burning and promoting religious doctrines.  It's not an actual, honest argument, and it is not at all informative as to how we can classify the politics of the Democratic Republicans and Federalists.SecASB (talk) 07:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to these edits 

message: , 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)
thread_title:  Infobox edits on political position 

message: 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...."  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)
thread_title:  Webster said the party's name was "republican"  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Noah Webster is not a reliable secondary source 

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks for starting the talk page discussion. I think that you're probably right that the party should not edit its own page (please check WP:COI for further information). As I said in the edit summary, the reformed party would certainly need its own page (if it merits one), since these two are clearly separate parties. However, I doubt that the party is currently notable enough to have its own article, since a (quick) Internet search does not turn up any results about the refounded party. Before adding information or creating a new article for this, please make sure everything follows Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Thanks, Ezhao02 (talk) 22:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Democratic-Republican Party Reformation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  This article should be added to Category:Defunct political parties in the United States 

message: 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)
thread_title:  This was not a left wing party. 

message: 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)
replies: text: IIRC the comment was added this year, and the guy who added it was dragged to ANI over it. Regardless, the sourcing is marginal (one source is a consultant and professor of "instructional leadership"), and it's misleading to have in the infobox, since we know that 60% of mobile readers read no more than the infobox and lead, and won't see this information contextualized. Readers will wrongly interpret this in the context of the modern politics they're familiar with. It promotes assimilation over accommodation (Piaget), which an encyclopedia should avoid. DFlhb (talk) 01:34, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political spectrum 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Infobox title