Talk:Democratic Party (United States)/Archive 3

message: what should we do with the "list of notable democrats"? I really don't have a problem with it, but it's taking up a lot of space. --Revolución (talk) 22:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest moving it to another page or making a new page for it. Tom harrison 22:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have moved it to List of notable Democrats and included a link in "see also" to the page. --Revolución (talk) 00:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: List

message: I'd like to get this ready for featured article candidacy in the near-future, so any help is appreciated. --Revolución (talk) 22:43, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Preparations for FAC

message: I got tired of typing in the full name of this page for internal links, so I made a redirect page: USDP, which will save us wikifiers a lot of time, I think. Matt Yeager 17:23, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks. --Revolución (talk) 17:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Easy Redirect 

message: should we condense the history section and create a new article called History of the United States Democratic Party? --Revolución (talk) 17:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  history 

message: Shouldn't this section at least mention Bush v. Gore?  I realize there is a main article on this subject, but it seems odd that the article talks about the September 11 attacks, which occurred ten months after the election, without mentioning the fact that the outcome of the election was disputed for a month.  Elliotreed 20:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Election of 2000 

message: I've just removed the following paragraph from the lead:
:It started out as a conservative party in the middle 19th century, later moving to the left throughout the 20th century. The Republican Party had experienced a similar transition, from a progressive party to conservative party. Thus, the parties are said to have "switched sides" with each other on the political spectrum.
While encapsulating some truth, this a huge oversimplification of the American party system. Modern American conservatism and American liberalism would be entirely foreign to Americans of 150 years ago. The defining and divisive issues of that day -- from slavery to foreign tariffs -- have been long settled, and the defining and divisive issues of today -- from abortion to foreign terrorism -- simply were not issues those politicians would have any conception of.
Moreover, there's many ways of looking at the historical evolution which run rather contrary to this notion. Since Jackson, and arguably since Jefferson, Democrats have seen themselves as champions of the ordinary man. Meanwhile, Republicans have, at least since the end of the Civil War, identified with the forces of national commerce and large-scale industry.
Incidentally, to the best of my knowledge, there is precisely one issue on which Democrats and the GOP can be said to have "switched sides" wholesale. That's civil rights, and it can be dated rather specifically to the 1960s, not to some gradual century-long ideological shift.
RadicalSubversiv E 04:40, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Republicans only began moving to the right at the very beginning of the 20th century, before that they were a very progressive party (for their time). Democrats were very conservative, but became divided by conservative and liberal factions during the early 20th century under FDR and such, but didn't make the full move to the left until the late 60s I would say. It was a gradual century-long ideological shift, so to speak. The paragraph deserves inclusion because it explains the political transition that the party has taken over time. --Revolución (talk) 18:14, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I could debate that.  President McKinley, (sp) was not a progressive president, nor were several of his predecessors. (Ok, I'm not using spell-check, sue me.)  The Progressive movement of the last quarter century between 1875 and 1900 identified more with the Republican Party than the Democratic Party because they were the party in power more often than not, and the changes that the Farmer's Alliance, Populist and original Progressive movement people wanted done had to go through the hands of the people that were in power.  But the power held by the hands of the Republicans in the later part of the 19th century mostly came from the Railroad barrons, whom the Progressive movement, including farmers & labor, was fighting against.  In many ways, the Democratic Party was very far left on a lot of issues, especially in the heartland but most certainly not in the South.  Just take a look at the Cross of Gold speech by William Jennings Bryan in 1896.  T. Roosevelt was a Republican because he believed in the party of Lincoln, and over the course of his years in office from 1901 to 1908, he moved steadily in a progressive direction, then came back in 1912 as a very strong progressive because the conservative business controlled House and Senate leaders in the Republican Party had corrupted the presidency of Taft.  That's why TR accepted the breakaway of the Progressive Party from the Republican Party at their 1912 convention.  Issues of the day in the 1920's and 1930's erased many of the old lines and drew new ones, and the same thing happened in the 1960's during the civil rights movement, the 1970's with the anti-war movement, the 1980's with the anti-Reaganomics, the 1990's with the rise to power of the Republicans under Gingrich, and the 2000's with the new anti-war/pro-america factions.  It's the continuation of the long ideological shifts that historians in the 2100's will study with vigor.  Let's give them something to talk about.  Chadlupkes 21:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Conservative party" 

message: I was removing text mostly from the History section because some have commented in both the peer review and FAC nomination that the History section was too long and needed to be split into a separate article, so I created the separate article for History of the United States Democratic Party and then I was working on getting the History section to a reasonable size. If I removed something during this you think should definitely be included then please tell me. Unfortunately due to a misunderstanding my edits were reverted, but I'll make sure to explain my edits next time to prevent such a misunderstanding. --Revolución (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation

message: The section on the 19th century is full of errors and POV problems.  For example it is POV to claim that the Dem party was founded by Jefferson.  (This is the claim made by Dem party activist Claude Bowers 70 years ago and picked up by FDR who pushed the idea.)  Jefferson's party completely vanished by the late 1820s and the totally new structure created around 1830 by Van Buren did not name itself "Democrats" till later.  Both the Democrats and the Republicans were indeed inspired by Jefferson, as was everyone else.  But both were also greatly inspired by George Washington too. Rjensen 05:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a history book right in front of me that explains how the Democratic Party evolved from Jefferson's Republican Party to the present party. I believe this is an historical fact. Griot 05:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Rjensen does have a point, though, in that this is disputed.  Rjensen, if you can rewrite your edits to reflect both the view points that the Democratic Party is and is not a continuation of the Democratic-Republican Party, I am all for it, because I do believe that it is arguable both ways.  --Nlu 06:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK I did that.  The point is disputed: Democratic party officials, led by FDR, made a big push in 1930s that Jefferson was their founder. Historians are split but most of them say that the Jeffersonian party totally vanished about 1820. The minority says there was continuity "in spirit".  It took 10 years for Van Buren & boys to build a quite new party, and to downplay that achievement would be to contradict most of the scholarship in the last 30 years. Rjensen 23:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: POV problems

message: These two assertions seem to be contradictory:
:[U]nlike the Republican elephant, the donkey has never been officially adopted as the Party's logo. The DNC's official logo, pictured above, depicts a stylized kicking donkey.
I'm removing the first claim, because I'm pretty sure the logo at the top of the pag is the current Democratic logo. Jpers36 01:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Donkey Logo? 

message: Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the name of the party is Democrat Party, not Democratic Party.  If this is incorrect, any idea where this widespread idea comes from?  Tomertalk 06:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, excuse me for saying this, but "blahblahblahblahblah".  Nothing you've said is demonstrative of intellectual thought.  I'm not interested in engaging in politically motivated polemics.  "Democratic" is, as it happens, an adjective, and so any insistence that it's a natural descriptor is a nonsequitor, since such a claim does nothing to reduce the legitimacy of the position that the name of the DNC's party is "Democrat", not "Democratic".  That said, statements such as "I ... am a member of the Democratic wing of the Democratic party" ring like "tinkling brass".  If you have something substantive to add to the discussion, by all means, please do so.  If all you have to show for yourself is that you went to band camp, please keep that to yourself.  Tomertalk 09:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the party's own website, prominently headlined "The Democratic Party".  I agree with 8bitJake that such usages as "Democrat Party" and "Democrat ideas" are incorrect.  These solecisms are popular, however, within the Republican Party (including its media arm, FOX News).  Perhaps it arises because "Republican" is both the noun and the adjective, making it harder for Republicans to recognize that references to their opponents don't follow that pattern. JamesMLane 10:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your argument is undermined, as a legitimate response to by inquiry, by the fact that the official name of the Republican party is actually the Grand Old Party.  I don't care about your personal political opinions, I'm talking about the official names by which the parties are registered!  I don't understand why this has to become an issue of party loyalty.  That's certainly not how I intended my initial inquiry to be interpreted!  Tomertalk 11:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You said to "feel free to correct me", so we are.  The party calls itself the Democratic Party on its website.  I have downloaded several pdf files of sample ballots from red and blue states, and on each ballot the party is called "Democratic Party".  I've never in my life ever seen a Democrat or heard of a Democrat (and I grew up around plenty) refer to the party entity as anything except the "Democratic Party".  I've checked the Federal Election Commission website but I cannot find a page detailing precisely the registered official name of the party.  I find it very unlikely, however, that it would differ from the name on the sample ballots I downloaded.  -Kasreyn 09:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with you that the party loyalties of individual editors aren't relevant to this inquiry.  I gave evidence that the answer to your initial inquiry is that the correct name is "Democratic Party".  If you have any basis for thinking otherwise, please feel free to present it.  My suggestion as to why so many Republicans get it wrong is obviously just speculation, but it's not countered by your comment, unless you can support your assertion that "Grand Old Party" is an official name by which the party is registered.  In New York State, at least, parties are listed on the ballot in the order of their respective candidates' finish in the most recent gubernatorial election.  George Pataki must have told the Board of Elections that he was a member of the Republican Party, not the Grand Old Party, because column A has been labeled "Republican" on our ballots. JamesMLane 11:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Whoa, whoa, whoa... WP:NPA. What happened to assuming good faith? Perhaps that is what he actually thought. It might be possible for someone not to be a troll on a political page. --LV (Dark Mark) 18:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

text: fine. --Revolución (talk) 18:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, Tomer... please try and refrain from personal attacks as well. Everyone should read WP:CIVIL. Let's try and be nice on these contentious pages. Thanks. --LV (Dark Mark) 18:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

text: "DEMOCRAT PARTY" was introduced by Republicans about 1952 to needle Democrats.  Democrats really hate the term so the GOP uses it every chance it can. Independents and scholars never use it. Rjensen 00:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

text: "DEMOCRAT PARTY" was introduced by Republicans about 1952 to needle Democrats.  Democrats really hate the term so the GOP uses it every chance it can. Independents and scholars never use it and Wikipedia should probably say what the controversy is all about. Rjensen 00:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name choice 

message: Can someone explain to me the difference between the "progressive" faction and the "liberal" faction? They seem synonymous. --12.217.121.245 22:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Progressive/Liberal 

message: Although there is a separate article on history, it really is necessary to say something about Bryan, Wilson and Smith, so I did so. Rjensen 07:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding more history

message: In the 21st century section can we get a picture of DNC Chairman Howard Dean? That would be boss. I have some that I took and own the copyright for.
*Go for it! The section is pretty heavy on pictures so how about replacing the image of John Kerry with the one for Howard Dean. Kerry has less notability than Gore. --Revolución (talk) 06:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I suggest a picture of Edward Kennedy rather than Kerry. Failed presidential candidate, Senior Senator, still probably better known to the average American despite Kerry's presidential bid, etc. I just don't get the point of having Kerry here. --LV (Dark Mark) 14:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry, I didn't quite explain myself well enough. I'd say the average American, someone who does not follow politics too much, knows the name Ted Kennedy. Either in a good sense (Senator, Pres. hopeful, being a Kennedy, etc.) or in a not so good sense (The parodies in American culture, being a Kennedy, etc.). I don't necessarily think of John Kerry as a lightweight, he won the nomination for goodness sakes, I just don't think people 20 years down the road, when asked to name prominent Democrats, will respond first with "John Kerry". Looking at the "big picture", though, John Kerry is a lightweight and doesn't deserve a picture in this article. Throughout history, there have been many more well-known Democrats that John Kerry. Just like the article on the Republicans shouldn't feature a picture of Bill Frist or, more analogously, Bob Dole, this article shouldn't feature Kerry. We need to stop this whole, "recent and current events should trump history" mentality. Look at this article 20, 50, or 100 years down the road... See you around, my friend. --LV (Dark Mark) 15:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Howard Dean Photo 

message: I just added a bit under "Issues" stating that some Democrats do not support abortion rights -- especially in areas like the South. I'd appreciate someone checking to make sure it's NPOV as I'm a n00b and prone to make mistakes :) --Elizabeth of North Carolina 22:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ah, right, I forgot. I've only heard it used in passing, not actively as a vocab change yet -- those things take a little time to trickle down to NC :)--Elizabeth of North Carolina 11:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I understand the importance of the phrasing here better now, thanks for articulating it so clearly. Like a vast majority of democrats, I am anti-abortion and pro-choice, and the phrasing surrounding this particular issue has changed several times to avoid negative stigma. However, even though I've been pretty heavily involved in the NCDP, living in NC, I can tell you that I've heard the phrase reproductive freedoms about twice in my life. If you're going to say reproductive freedoms, the article should contain a bit more about them.--Elizabeth of North Carolina 19:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: a little thing

message: The Wiki User "Freemarket" has added lots of anti-Democratic Party POV commentary and these need to be taken out.
--8bitJake 18:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freemarket edits are POV and must go 

message: Wiki must be completely neutral between the parties especially on a hot topic like this one.  Campaign rhetoric can be described but it cannot be the basis of articles. To say that Republicans had lots of commercials attacking Kerry on Iraq is important to say: it was probably the #1 attack the GOP used and readers need to know that.  The article should NOT say whether the GOP or Dem ads & rhetoric were true or false. But it should tell the readers what happened in 2004. For example the gay marriage issue came out of Massachusetts (state supreme court), it was not concocted by the GOP national committee and to say the GOP invented the issue is not true at all. Politically the issue hurt the Democrats and we should say why. Rjensen 03:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since when is a statement of truth POV? If claims were made that were shown later to be untrue, that's simply fact. Anyone defending a position that the facts are biased against them isn't defending a logical position. Wisco 03:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The way truth works in Wiki, if other editors object then it's a POV issue. Party handouts are generally considered partisan, and Wiki has to be nonpartisan. Out job is to tell people what the partisans said and did. Attributing actions to the Republican Party is OK in the case of paid ads, and when the GOP officially claims credit, but generally it's dubious otherwise. Rjensen 04:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please define 'party handouts'. I don't know what you mean. Wisco 04:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Goodd question. The original statement strongly suggested that the Swift Boat vets were a GOP party operation (that was the defense handed out by the Kerry campaign), but it does not seem to be true (see the Wiki article). Likewise article suggsted that gay rights issue was set up by the Republican party. Actually it was set up by Massachusetts liberals on one side and Christian conservative relkigious activists on the other.  Rjensen 04:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still stuck on how a truthful statement can be biased. Wisco 05:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It's false to say that Karl Rove gave any money to the Swift Boat. What the article shows is that he was a friend of a fellow named Perry who did give money. Rove has hundreds of friends. Another Swift advisor had been an advisor to the GOP a year before. Do you agree that the GOP is not resonsible for the 2004 actions of someone it paid a fee to in 2003...and that Rove's friends are capable of acting without his control? Rjensen 05:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can a truthful statement be biased? Sure, if it deliberately misleads the reader into believing something else.  Suppose XXX is an old friend of Karl Rove, and XXX does YYY.  A misleading POV statment would be "Close associates of Republican leader Karl Rove did YYY."  People read that as Karl Rove approved or initiated the action. So the reader gets a false idea. Rjensen 05:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: If it looks and quacks like a duck Wiki still has to run a DNA test.  This has to be a nonpartisan encyclopedia acceptable to both Kerry and Bush supporters. Rjensen 06:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  party handouts and NPOV 

message: Jefferson, Madsion and other leaders 95 times out of 100 always called theirs the "Republican Party" in 1790s-1820 era.  The term "Democratic Republican" was occasionally used.  There is an excellent current (Jan 2006) discussion of this issue by scholars in the online H-Net list called "H-SHEAR" (Society for Historians of the Early Republic)... if you are interested look at the discussion --it's open to all at http://www.h-net.org/~shear/    Rjensen 10:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: although the name has changed, i don't think the values have changed since jefferson. what is currently called the republican party, on the other hand, is a different story. Kevin Baastalk 02:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jefferson called it "Republican Party" 

message: There was a recent revert on the grounds of "vandalism."  I looked at the change and noted that somebody had gone through and changed "progressive" and "progressivism" to "liberal" and "liberalism" throughout the article; the revert changed it back.  I'm not sure if it warrants a discussion, but I am uncomfortable with the idea that referring to Democratic ideology as being "liberal" in nature is a form of vandalism.  Liberal may have been twisted into a dirty word but are we prepared to call it "vandalism" if somebody claims that the Democratic party traffics in it?  I'm not. Bjsiders 15:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was actually kind of surprised it was labeled as "vandalism" as well. American liberalism has a proud history, and assuming good faith, it might not have been vandalism. I don't really care if it was reverted (if progressivism and liberalism are the same thing and accurately describe the Party's politics), I just take a little issue in calling it "vandalism". --LV (Dark Mark) 16:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, you are right I shouldn't have called it vandalism, I just didn't think it was appropriate to refer to every motive for the party's actions as liberal, the democrats are conservative on many issues. I stand by the revert but concede the point that it is not vandalism. Bartimaeus 02:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberal Vandalism 

message: *Agreed. That page doesn't have any value on its own. -Jcbarr 04:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge from [[Democratic presidents]]

message: Right now the article claims that the 1870 cartoon by Nast in Harper's "for the first time symbolized the Democratic Party as a donkey." Anyone got a source on that? I ask, because this 1846 cartoon seems to be doing the same thing. Or maybe it's part of the evolution of the symbol, like this one from 1844 election, which uses a donkey to symbolize the Loco-Foco Democrats. Either way, I think a source is called for. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 03:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see in the archives that others have brought this up before, even providing references to the symbol originating in the 1830s, but this apparently has not been addressed in the article. If you archive topics that have not been resolved, the terrorists win. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 09:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you use the phrase "the terrorists win", the Republicans win. ;-) --LV (Dark Mark) 15:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of the Donkey symbol 

message: The sentence is a bit short and seems to imply he never had a chance, but actually in the early stages of the race McGovern was looking like a potential winner.  Most conspicuously, there is no mention of the Eagleton fiasco which may have been the turning point in his fortunes.  It's overly simplistic to just say "America did not listen to his rhetoric".  Does anyone object to a rewrite that would briefly mention the Eagleton scandal?  -Kasreyn 07:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made an edit that makes brief mention of Eagleton, while removing a POV and uninformative statement about McGovern's "rhetoric".  I hope this will be acceptable.  -Kasreyn 08:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  McGovern run 

message: Shouldn't the section feature more on Congressional Democrats, where the party seemed to make its biggest mark, instead of spending a whole paragraph explaining the term "Reagan Democrat"?Habsfannova 04:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  good point, but the Congressional Dems were usually outmaneuvered by Reagan BECAUSE he had all those Reagan Dems behind him. Rjensen 04:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1980s 

message: Don't you think it's time we had another serious discussion about removing that bit of propaganda from the article?--I-2-d2 13:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An interesting point of view.  Can you provide any sort of evidence that the centrism claim is no NPOV?  Because the onus is upon you to prove your changes will be more NPOV.  I'm not so sure the claim can be easily disputed.  After all, the Democratic Party may be socially liberal but they're essentially conservative when it comes to economics (protectionism, etc).  Just as the Republicans are economically liberal and socially conservative.  I've often found it bizarre that everyone thinks they're right and left wing parties, when there's actually no major party to choose if you happen to be thoroughly liberal in America.  Just my $USD 0.02.  -Kasreyn 17:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Explain why they've just allied themselves with the European Democratic Party, which is centrist. --Revolución hablar ver 20:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Centrism term is not in common usage in US by policians, commentators or scholars. So it seriously confuses readers when given as main characteristic of Dem party. Confusion is what Wiki prevents, we cannot encourage it. Wait 10 years and see if usage becomes common. In Europe it comes from Center partries which US lacks.  Rjensen 22:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Try again. Centrism is term used for a middle party in a multiparty system. It is never used in US to describe a major party. Rjensen 22:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, centrism is used as an ideology which incorporates issues of both left and right political ideologies. It has nothing to do with parties, it's an ideology. --Revolución hablar ver 22:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: well you're  inventing that application to Dem party. (That is forbiden original research in Wiki) Americans don't use the term. Encyclopedias have to report what terms actually are in use. Rjensen 22:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Exactly, you cannot say centrism. Also, many could argue that Democrats are the economically liberal by the use of their programs. I'd advize not to say that. Caf3623 19:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Centrism?

message: Speculative information, like Barack Obama being a presidential candidate should stay out of the article.  Also, Tip O'Neil's picture should go. --Shaunnol 04:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Obama can stay--Wiki did not invent that point but is reporting a widespread thought. And certainly keep O'Neill's picture, otherwise it's all White House history. Rjensen 06:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speculative Information 

message: Since my move of this page was apparently reversed, I'd like to propose it be moved to United States Democratic Party (and to that similar format, the Republican Party article as well). While I know it's a redirect page, I think it makes more sense to have the article there instead. Not only does the name sound better (imo), United States Democratic Party has more links to (not including redirects, of course). I made my reasoning pretty clear when I moved it, though the reasons for reversal were really not. Political Lefty 04:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The proposed move to United States Democratic Party makes sense to me. Rjensen 04:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, everything else is Common name (disambiguation), so I'm torn. It might be common, but I don't know if the Party's name is "United States Democratic Party" or simply the "Democratic Party". The website doesn't seem to say much. Any idea where we can find a verifiable source on the actual name? --LV (Dark Mark) 05:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the official name is the "Democratic National Committee".  Rjensen 05:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the official name of the party?? --LV (Dark Mark) 05:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the website says, "The Democratic National Committee plans the Party's quadrennial presidential nominating convention..." so obviously it's a different entity. --LV (Dark Mark) 05:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: There is no national "party" apart from the Democratic National Committee, which is in charge of everything. It's been that way since 1832. Rjensen 05:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Democratic Party is managed by the DNC. I would support the move, using "Democratic Party" as a redirect or disambiguation. Nmpenguin 05:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to United States Democratic Party?

message: Can anyone explain why there are two first level subheadings with nearly identical titles, "Factions" and "Factions within the party"?  Also, how about explaining why there is a "factions" section in this article while the same section in the Republican article, while essentially just as long, is split out into its own article and merely summarized briefly in the main article? - Jersyko·talk 15:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably because two different sets of editors have worked on each article and each group organized the information differently. Bjsiders 18:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factions 

message: We need to merge Bob Hagan and Robert Hagan.
Note that there is some disageement between these two articles on some facts. -- Writtenonsand 19:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Need to merge [[Bob Hagan]] and [[Robert Hagan]]

message: I kinda took the liberty to alphebetize the Basic Values section. Since everyone can disagree with what are the most important issues, I think this is the best, clearest way to list them. I don't think they're well put nor do I think they represent the party's stated priorities.
The Democratic Party lists its priorities like this on its national website ():
Keeping America Safe at Home/Strength Overseas/Honoring Our Troops, Veterans, and Their Families/A Strong Economy/Education/Retirement Security/Affordable Health Care/Honest Government/Election Reform/Protecting Our Environment/Civil Rights
I think this might be a good method for stating the party's principles. It could be stated like this:
Civil Rights
Economy
Education
Environment
Foreign Policy
Health Care
National Security
I'd ditch some of the issues du jour and stick with the party's main tenets.
By the way, this is a place to clearly state the party's positions, not a place to debate them.
Njsamizdat 17:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basic Values 

message: I'll not readd the removed |third way from the political ideology section, but I certainly think several concerns militate in favor of its inclusion, notwithstanding the perception of the term in Britain (as observed in an edit summary reverting the original addition) as applying exclusively to Tony Blair, whom, the editor noted, is largely seen as linked with the Republican G.W. Bush, inasmuch as the article is about American politics.  First, many notable Democrats would surely ascribe the appellative "third way" to themselves (see, e.g., those enumerated in the Democratic Leadership Council article, where the "third way" trope is employed passim).  Second and similarly, President Clinton, even as he may be out of office and, given the apolitical nature of much of his work, no longer considered a "notable Democrat", surely still is the face for many of the Democratic Party, and it cannot be incorrect to say that his influence has been sufficient to leave so-called "third way" policies as an important part of extant conversation and work within the Democratic Party.  If other editors are in accord with this thinking, I will welcome their readding third way to the political ideology section; if not, I'll infer from their failure so to do that mine is not the prevailing view and will let it drop straightaway.  Joe 23:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The proper war to proceed is someone should add a whole section under "factions" and explain who these folks are besides Bill Clinton--and what they believe.  Don't slip into the summary a highly dubious conclusion based on British politics 10 years old. Rjensen 00:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Third way

message: I was looking at the different "varities" of liberalism, and in my opinion, the Democratic Party of the United States can also be classified as a social liberal party. Sure, the ideology is usually seen as a center-right ideology, but from a world view, aren't both major US parties officially (ideologically) center-right? (With the Republican Party just being slightly more to the right?) I'm looking for a consensus on whether to add or not add this as a possible additional political ideology listed on the article. Chef Ketone 03:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Social liberalism]], anyone?

message: Should there be a separate page for factions like the Republican Party page on party factions. I personally say yes as it is a vital part of the party to show the diversity of opinion within the party today. --Blue387 12:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  The Democratic Party, not being in power, doesn't get as much focus on its different factions as the Republican coalition does, but this shouldn't lead to a false impression that the Democratic Party has a completely unified viewpoint.  There are indeed factions within the coalition which often have to be persuaded or coerced into working together by party leaders, just like any other political organization.  -Kasreyn 02:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm of the belief that if something is one of a set (American political parties for instance) and contains similar enough content, the pages should function the same. So I think that would be a good idea purely in that sense. -- Fearfulsymmetry 04:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate "factions" page? 

message: "Flaws in vote-counting systems may also have played a role in Kerry's defeat" really needs to be cited and shown verifiable.  While it may be true, it has a certain POV tone to it. Olin 21:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2004 vote-counting 

message: I have filed an Rfc for this question.  There seem to be three options here:
#The Democratic party is the oldest political party in the world
#The Democratic party is one of the oldest, if not the oldest, political party in the world
#The Democratic party is one of the oldest political parties in the world
#The Democratic party is the oldest political party in the United States.
I hope we can reach consensus on this issue.  Per my comments below, I like number 3. Actually, number 4 seems to be the least controversial and most accurate, given The Minister of War's comments below. - Jersyko·talk 23:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Contributors to this article have gone around and around this topic many times. This article used to say that the Demo Party was the second oldest party in the world after the British Tories. However, some English historians believe that the Tory Party ceased being the Tory Party after it became the Conservative Party, and that the two parties are not the same. The question of whether the Demo Party is the oldest seems to hinge on whether you believe the English Tory and Conservative Party are one and the same. I personally don't know much about this. I do know that an argument about whether the Demo Party is the oldest doesn't belong in the first paragraph of this article. Please note changes. Griot 17:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But saying "along with the Tory Party, it is the oldest" doesn't make logical sense, one must be older unless they were created at the exact moment.  It's not argumentative to say that it is one of the oldest political parties in the world--this holds true even if it is the oldest.  I'm not saying that the Tory claim is correct, I'm merely saying that (1) we cannot say that the Dems are the oldest because there's a legitimate argument that the Tory Party is older and (2) the current wording is illogical.  Also, can you please provide a link to where this has been discussed previously? - Jersyko·talk 19:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps we could reword it to say "The Democratic Party is one of the oldest, if not the oldest, policital parties in the world" or something similar? - Jersyko·talk 19:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But saying "along with the Tory Party, it is the oldest" doesn't make logical sense, one must be older unless they were created at the exact moment. This is a false dilemma.  It is impossible to determine which is older because it depends on how one defines a political party.  I don't think there's anything wrong with the current phrasing.  Just to add something - I don't think 1783 makes any real sense as a birthdate for the Conservatives.  Pitt didn't even call himself a Tory, that name being only really taken up by his followers after his death (Fox and his Whigs compatriots did, of course, refer to Pitt's followers as Tories).  The modern Conservative Party probably dates to Peel's Tamworth Manifesto in 1835.  The modern Democratic Party dates to almost the same time - probably to the 1832 presidential election.  (BTW, what about the Liberal Democrats?  While, as such, they came into existence in 1988, the Liberal part of it dates back at least to 1859, and is the descendant of an organized Whig Party going back to, well, 1783 or so.  I don't see why the Conservatives and the Democrats get to claim vaguely affiliated predecessor parties as their own, but the Lib Dems do not get to do the same.) john k 19:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In re false dilemma: true, I suppose, but the amorphous nature of the definition of "party" also helps my point, I think.  Regardless, I'm satisfied with the version Griot has implemented. - Jersyko·talk 19:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I like that wording, and have added it in the past, only to have it removed.  It's much less clunky and still gets the point across.  I think it's the better choice. - Jersyko·talk 22:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Assuming arguendo, as I think we are right to do, that one, as John K. and Jerysko suggest, cannot assess exactly at what moment a party has been created, or, in any case, which parties follow others such that the followers should be understood as components of the predecessors, I cannot imagine what objections one might essay to the "one of the oldest political parties in the world" language.  It is surely as accurate as any pronouncement may be and reads much better than other locutions previoulsy used.  Toward the proposition that the creation and evolution of a party are relatively nebulous, I adduce the case of the Republican Party; on the occasion of the (roughly) 150th anniversary of the creation of the party, officials and historians from the two towns in which its birthplace is most often said to be, Ripon, Wisconsin and Jackson, Michigan, argued in the press rather stridently over which historical version is correct, producing, in the end, no real result.  Joe 23:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with "is one of the oldest political parties in the world" is that it gives the idea that the Demo Party is one of a handful of old parties." Actually, the party is either the oldest or the second oldest, depending on where you date the beginning of the English Tory/Conservative Party (as explained above). Even if you date the Demo Party beginnings to 1823, it is still older than the English Conservative Party. I say leave the wording as is, because it accurately states where the Demo Party stands in age in relation to other parties. Griot 00:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you trace the Liberal Dems back to the Whigs, then they are also older than the Democrats.  But there's really very few political parties dating even back to the 19th century - the two main American parties, the Tories in Britain, arguably the Liberal Democrats (I think it's fair to trace them at least back to the formation of the Liberal party in 1859), the Canadian Liberals...the German Social Democrats...probably some of the other continental socialist parties...and that's really about the extent of it, and most date to the 1850s or later... john k 08:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree. If a mountain is the tallest in the world, that gets mentioned in the first paragraph. If a city is the most populous, that gets mentioned. Similarly, that the Demo Party is the oldest deserves mention in the first paragraphs. Griot 03:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Personally, I would prefer option 4 (sadly not listed above) "The oldest party in the United States". The Minister of War (Peace) 15:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Oldest Party In The World"

message: I don't feel strongly about which wording appears.  FWIW, I've seen the occasional reference to the Democrats as "the world's oldest continuing political party" (as in Mo Udall's speech to the 1976 Democratic Convention).  Does adding the word "continuing" exclude any claim by the Tories?
What seems clear to me, though, is that the issue isn't important enough to be in the lead section.  If the age of the party is mentioned at all, it should be as the oldest political party in the United States, which is clearly true.  Any elaboration about its claims to longevity vis-a-vis parties in other countries should be in the body of the article, not the lead section.  JamesMLane t c 02:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. If a mountain is the tallest in the world, that gets mentioned in the first paragraph. If a city is the most populous, that gets mentioned. Similarly, that the Demo Party is the oldest deserves mention in the first paragraphs. Griot 03:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Placement of this reference

message: Hey people,
Just came in through WP:RFC, and was puzzled by this entire discussion. Perhaps people should take a look at History of democracy. The competition for "Oldest political party" is pretty stiff; I'd personally expect one of the parties of the Roman Republic to take away the cake, but I cant be sure there werent elligible candidates from earlier in history. 
Hence the correct phrasing would seem to be the "oldest surviving political party" (which already loses a lot of charm). But personally, I'd hate to go on record with even this claim. Are we sure about more recent possibilities? Democracy in Switzerland is pretty consolidated, dating from the 12th century. Has anybody checked whether there may be links there? For that matter, is anybody sure that some modern political parties in Iceland do not have their roots in the Icelandic Commonwealth (sporting, if memory serves, the oldest parliament)?
Concluding, be very VERY careful about putting such claims in the article, and be prepared to do a lot of explaining if you dont want them to be reverted by random passers-by who think they know differently.
Cheers, The Minister of War (Peace) 14:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I would prefer option 4 (sadly not listed above) "The oldest party in the United States". The Minister of War (Peace) 15:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical perspective

message: Substituted at 20:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment