Talk:Democratic Party (United States)/Archive 1

message: IIRC correctly,
: However there are two states that  have slightly different names, for example the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party or the North Dakota Democratic-NPL Party.
is out of date, DFL having finally dropped the FL in the last 10 years, probably last 5. I'll confirm this eventually & fix, if no one w/ a more active interest in MN does so. The history could still be reflected in this article, IMO, and has national significance, tho not yet reflected in the MN DFL article; i've addressed this on that talk. (DNPL should perhaps also be checked.) --Jerzy(t) 20:23, 2004 May 12 (UTC)
:Nope. Follow the "official site" links from both articles -- FL and NPL are still there. RadicalSubversiv E 21:59, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: DFL and NPL

message: I can understand using the anachronistic "Democratic-Republican" for the sake of convenience (even when "Republican" is technically the correct term) for the party founded by Jefferson. However, in an article that describes the history of the party, I believe it's essential to make the actual evolution of the terminology absolutely clear. In actual history, there was no "Democratic-Republican Party" until Jackson, and in an article giving the history of the development of the party founded by Jackson, I think we ought to be precise regarding the terminology. Acsenray 14:16, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: "Democratic-Republican" vs. "Republican"

message: I might cross-post this to the Rep article, since it applies there as well. I'm fairly well-versed in American history, but I have to admit that some of the historically notables here had me stumped. Obviously, if we have no criteria for this, the list is wide open and we could conceivably fill pages with unknown Democratic mayors and state represenatives and governors. I'm just happy that Lyndon LaRouche hasn't been thrown in yet. - Anonymous
I suggest the following criteria for "other currently notable" Democrats:
1. They should have been nationally prominent at some point. This standard should be interpreted narrowly, to make inclusion on the list fairly exclusive.
2. They should still be active in politics - if not they should go to the historicaly notable list.
3. They should not be duplicated on any of the three other lists. The word "other" implies that this is a catchall for persons who don't belong on the other lists.
Comments?
Schmeitgeist 14:53, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
Question... I just edited the Clinton P. Anderson Article, and I am about to fix the wiki link here on this page. However, does Anderson really belong in the former notable Democrats section? I'll let you guys decide this, because I am not a Democrat and I have no business deciding who Democrats think is notable in their history, but I am glad a New Mexican is on there. :) Thank you!
YourNickname 02:54, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: How notable is notable?

message: This statement is inaccurate, as it was the Republican Party which championed the balanced federal budget in the 1990s.  This was part of the 1994 Contract With America.
:No, it's not. Clinton ran on a balanced budget in '92 and began pursuing it early in his administration. That the Republicans did the same in '94 is irrelevant. RadicalSubversiv E 19:16, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Led by Bill Clinton, the Democrats championed a balanced federal budget 

message: Should we really include a link to a site which hasn't been updated in so long that it continues to claim that Rodney Alexander is a Democrat? john k 21:44, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Democrats for Bush 

message: Regarding the reverts by Radical Subversive -- I'm not going to revert here, but I do want to point out that the naming convention applies to article titles. In this case, the proper links to "commonly known" names were all there. All I did was add more complete names for display purposes, e.g., "Thomas P. "Tip" O'Neill," instead of just "Tip O'Neill." I don't think this detracts from understanding (especially since the link is still to "Tip O'Neill") and may, in fact, be slightly more informative. If the general preference is to keep the article with the names they way they are, then I accept that, but I argue that it's not a matter of violating the Wiki naming convention. Acsenray 14:43, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the example cited above could in fact detract from understanding at first glance; in other cases, your changes absolutely made the matter less clear (e.g., changing Dick Gephardt to Richard Gephardt). Either way, I think Wikipedia:Proper names makes the matter fairly clear, but even if you disagree, I think you'll see that widespread practice is to use the most common name as a link. This might be a good matter for an RFC to clear up. (Oh, and your point on Adlai Stevenson is well-taken.) RadicalSubversiv E 17:13, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Why couldn't one say it? It's perfectly true and it's not self-contradicting. Unless you're arguing that it's redundant. In that case, I'd say it's just more clear the way it is. Acsenray 20:03, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming Style 

message: *Oversimplified history pinning the entirety of American racism on the Democratic Party does not belong in the lead of this article, which already accurately discusses the Democrats' Civil War-era position.
*This is part utter nonsense and part sheer POV: "Led by President Bill Clinton, the Democrats implemented Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich's proposals for a balanced federal budget, welfare-to-work reforms and job growth." Clinton started pushing for a balanced budget almost as soon as he was elected. The welfare reform bill he signed was a consensus version (and it should not be referred to as "welfare to work" without placing the term in quotes). And everyone in politics believes their proposals will lead to job growth; the only NPOV thing to be said on the matter is that many jobs were created during the Clinton years, which Clinton takes credit for and Republicans object.
*Characterizing Nader voters as "extremists" is POV.
RadicalSubversiv E 09:02, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Objections to changes by Libertas and Old Right

message: I suspect the new factions section may be an example of disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point about the factions section in the GOP article, but it probably ought to exist. However, much of the initial content was wildly inaccurate. Two of the "factions" name are not, in fact, factions in any meaningful sense. "New England liberals" do not have an agenda or a leadership that is distinct from other elements of the party, and most of the people mentioned would not even cop to the term. "Moveon.org" is not even officially a Democratic; it is a unique kind of player in American politics, but it is just one organization, without any kind of presence in Congress or in party organizations, so I can't fathom calling it a faction. "Neo-conservatives" is controversial even when applied to Republicans, but it's downright inaccurate when applied to most Democrats (many neo-conservatives were originally Democrats allied with Scoop Jackson, but that's another story). You might be able to get away with calling Joe Lieberman a foreign policy neocon, but he's not on domestic policy, and I can't think of a single other example. RadicalSubversiv E 23:48, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I very much agree with you about the current state of the section, but I don't think the link you're providing helps much, as it's not so much about factions within the leadership of the party as it is about different demographic groups in the Democratic electoral coalition. As for Chad's comment, virtually everyone in the Democratic Party describes themselves as "progressive" -- I think more specificity is needed. RadicalSubversiv E 14:11, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Factions

message: Here, I'll make it easy for you. You click this link: . Then you scroll down to where it says, "Click here to read Strong At Home, Respected in the World -- The Democratic Platform for America." Click on it. You will see the Democratic Party's complete platform. Every issue I list is discussed in the platform in nauseating detail. There's my source.
I downloaded the platform. I read it. There is no such list in the platform. Cite a specific source to each issue and I'll accept it. Otherwise, I won't. You are required to cite sources not point to documents in a very general way and assert that supports your claims. You need to cite specifically where it lists the "signature issues" you refer to. It doesn't so I think you'll find this difficult.
You made it up most probably, which is "original research" of the kind JK Rowling produces.
Ollieplatt 23:12, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  To OlliePlatt 

message: Signature issues is a cliche. The list that follows it is partisan POV. The anonymous user is repeatedly reinserting with no source. He points to the DNC platform which mentions no such thing.  Where in the platform does the list appear?
Ollieplatt 00:05, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: He's given a source, the platform page. Just because he has summarized it does not mean it is not a source or a legitimate list. OlliePlatt, why don't you give us your summary of the platform issues according to their page and we can see if we can get somewhere? What part of his list do you dispute? What parts do you think are in difference from the platform page? At the moment, you are looking like a stubborn vandal. --Fastfission 04:01, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto. Summarizing a lengthy document is not original research. I do continue to have the concern, relating to the articles about both parties, that simply summarizing their platforms is not an accurate way to represent the party's political positions. Both platforms make no mention, or delicately dance around, a variety of subjects that the parties have a clear and consistent position on, but which they don't want to talk about. RadicalSubversiv E 04:22, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Signature Issues?

message: Is the Democratic party any more Liberal (in the international sense) than the Republican party?  Or is it important to mention this anyway, even if both could be reasonably described as liberal according to that definition?--Pharos 03:41, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely. It would be best described as generally liberal, since the vast majority of the grassroots members fall into that group. There are some conservatives left, but most have left for the Republican party, which is definitely conservative.
Really, this whole business of adding ideological labels to the major American political parties is highly dubious. The parties are closer to big-tent coalitions than most of their international peers. While the Republican Party has become more uniformly conservative in recent decades (though even there we see distinctions between neocons, paleocons, libertarians, as well as various regional distinctions), the Democratic Party has become even more the party of "everyone who's not a Republican". By European standards, the party includes people who would generally be described as social democrats, Greens, liberals, democratic socialists, among other things. The only reasonably accurate and NPOV way I can think to describe that it is to provide an ideological range of left-wing to centrist. (Note that such a label would not be an accurate description of the Republican Party, in which true centrists are essentially anomalies.) RadicalSubversiv E 18:48, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ideology 

message: (Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages; besides, it's just a talk page]])
I will withhold my own commentary for now and see what happens. See also Talk:Republican Party (United States)#Fascism project.
:Please read WP:POINT. Meelar (talk) 03:40, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
:WTF? If you're looking for an answer, it's NO. --Revolución (talk) 22:46, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we have permission to remove this crap as it's spam? --Revolución (talk) 22:50, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If the answer's a flat no, then so be it. The origin of the question comes from discussion on Talk:Kuomintang and Neo-Fascism#From_the_Right. Stlemur 23:10, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The answer's a no. --Revolución (talk) 23:14, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fascism project 

message: I'm reverting Old Right's inclusion of "tempering capitalism with state socialism" and just "tempering capitalism with" because it's unnecessarily pov. By any stretch of the imagination, neither the Republicans nor the Democrats support a totally capitalist society. Things would be very different if they did. However, saying that the Dems feel the need to temper capitalism with something, especially socialism, is needlessly pov - we say exactly what they support directly after. I don't think we need to slap labels on it, especially if those labels don't really fit. No offense, Old Right. TIMBO (T A L K) 04:10, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "tempering [[capitalism]]"