Talk:Democrat Party (United States)

message: The article has been redirected per the outcome of the AfD discussion. The material that was previously there is still in the history and can be retrieved. Recreation of the article without consensus to do so should not be done. ++Lar: t/c 03:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

message: Va. Liberals Urged to Use the Rules And Seize Democrat Party Control 
By George M. KelleySpecial to The Washington Post. The Washington Post, Mar 24, 1972 
--
Sen. Taylor Agrees to Run With Wallace; 'Crooning Cowboy's' Bolt From Democrat Party Long Expected Taylor to Run With Wallace  The Washington Post Feb 24, 1948. p. 1 (2 pages) 
--
Miss Anne Snure Opens Her Lawn; She'll Be Hostess to Young Democrats' Party on Saturday. 
The Washington Post Aug 24, 1938. p. 15 
--
Woman's Club Will Honor Sze; Chinese Ambassador and Wife Will Receive at Democrats' Party. 
The Washington Post (Dec 17, 1936. p. X18 
--
Democrat Party Passes Sold for $1
By the Associated Press.. The Washington Post Jun 27, 1936. p. 5
You've made a blanket statement: "From the 1930s to 1970s the Washington Post headline writers used the terms "Democrat Party" and "Democrats' Party." Then you've cited ifve headlines 1972, 1948, 1938, 1936, and 1936. This is poor scholarship. Do all other articles from this time period use the term "Democrat Party"? It could be that an editor or typesetter slipped up five times. Please conduct a search for "Democratic Party" at the Washington Post archives for the years 1930-1972. I think you will find that "Democratic Party" was used far more often. I can't imagine editors slipping up this way. Your blanket statement suggests that the term "Democrat Party" was on the Post's style sheet, when that can't have been the case. I'm removing until you can show that the Post had a policy of referring to "Democrat Party," not "Democratic Party," in its articles from the years 1930 to 1972. Griot 22:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Washington Post headlines 

message: A Google search of "Democrat Party"+Green does not constitute a scholarly investigation. On what authority can you say, "In recent years Green Party activists have started using the term"? Your only authority is a Google search. Is the term used regularly at Green Party meetings? In Green Party publications? I can easily search Google and find thousands of instances where Green Party members use the term "Democratic Party." For example, I don't once recall David Cobb or Ralph Nader, the Green Party presidential candidates, using "Democrat Party." Jumping to a conclusion on the basis of a Google search -- saying "have started using" on the basis of this seach -- is just plain bad scholarship. I'm cutting this out. Griot 01:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the same Griot who strenuously insisted on using a citation from an unsigned short item in the Ency Britannica as evidence in contrast to dozens of scholarly books? Every fact is scrupulously documented here.  To say that people say X, with evidence, is not the same as saying people ALWAYS say X. But when people say X, that proves that "X" is in usage.  As for scholarship, griot never adds any--he only blanks information he does not want people to know about.  Rjensen 01:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All I strenuously insist upon is accuracy. The "fact" of Green Party members using this term was disproved by me. Keep it out of this awful article. Griot 23:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Green Party activists using the term

message: The article at present states, "The Republican national platforms of 1948, 1952, 1956, 1968, 1972, 1976, 1988, 1992, 1996, and 2000 all repeatedly used 'Democrat Party.'" However, I found the 2000 Republican Party platform online, and not only does it not use "Democrat Party," it doesn't mention the oppositon party "repeatedly." The platform mentions the "Democratic Party," and it does so only once. You can check it at REPUBLICAN PLATFORM 2000. I'm removing 2000 and I'll soon investigate the other Republican Party platforms for their use of the term "Democrat Party." Griot 01:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is comic. The original statement was: "The Republican national platforms of 1948, 1952, 1956, 1968, 1972, 1976, 1988, 1992, 1996, and 2000 all repeatedly used 'Democrat Party." Turns out only the platforms of 1956, 1976, 1988, 1992, and 1996 used it. Should we drop Porter as a source. This guy is totally unrealiable. Griot 05:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of the term in Republican Party platforms

message: This is not an encyclopedia article but instead a tendentious essay, which seems determined to prove the point, against all odds, that the term "Democrat Party" is both a widely used and legitimate form of name for the Democratic Party. The inumerable citations (and this text bristles with far too many) amount to spilling much ink over little matter. The examples put forth could be dwarfed by the evidence that "Democrat Party" is no more than an occasional, entirely non-standard usage. (This would, however, swamp the article even further in documentation and example) The minor issue of nomenclature could easily be covered by a non-argumentative paragraph in the main Democratic Party article. The editing history and discussion suggest to me that the entirely unbalanced premise of the article is not susceptible to change--that the argument for the legitimacy of "Democrat Party" is considered to be the core value of the article. I move the article be incorporated in the main article on the party, which is where it logically belongs; in much, much briefer form, which is what the topic justifies; and in a non-argumentative style. What is the best mediation route or other way to get a decision on this?
:: people protest too much--that is, people who seem to dislike the Republicans. Fact is the usage is standard among Republicans, and appears daily in official documents and major speeches--and has for well over 60 years.  The topic has been the subject of articles in scholarly journals and usage manuals for 50 years, and the discussion is current (see 2005 and 2006 discussions cited in bibliography). What is happening is a usage shift in English as people use nouns as adjectives: for example we now refer to the "Iraq war" instead of the "Iraqi war." Will this become standard usage for "Democrat"?? who knows--Wiki is not in the prediction business--but it is standard usage among Republicans. The problem is that partisan polemicists refuse to allow the word to be used. They evidently have not read any of the scholarly literature cited in the references and instead want to use Wikipedia as a weapon to defend their own personal political party. Rjensen 23:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I could not agree with you more. Articles like this -- filled with faulty scholarship -- are a disgrace to the Wikipedia. I have found and documented numerous errors in this article. I'm sure I could find many more if I took the time. This article is atrocious. REMOVE THIS ARTICLE. Griot 23:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: GRIOT is a vehement Democrat. (see his edits to the main article on the Democratic party). He discovered "errors" by using an Australian source that had faulty copies. [It changes the term "Democrat party" to "Democratic party". See my comments below and need to use a standard nonpartisan source. Rjensen 00:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was the best source I could find at the time. At least I try to track down information at its source instead of relying on ad-hoc Google searches and the Google books service. I disproved your blanket statement "The Republican national platforms of 1948, 1952, 1956, 1968, 1972, 1976, 1988, 1992, 1996, and 2000 all repeatedly used 'Democrat Party." I disproved your blanket statement about Green Party members now using the term "Democrat Party." Frankly, I'm tired of cleaning up after your messes. Griot 00:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Griot used bad sources when good sources supported my argument. In fact he has never added any information -- he only deletes information he dislikes. We all have to accept the NPOV philosophy of Wiki that means no editor can delete accurate, sourced informaation that he does not want readers to know about. Rjensen 02:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I double-check my sources. And I don't "just delete" information. I have written many articles for this online encyclopedia. You are a poor scholar who seems to think that a search on Google without any attempt to substantiate information or judge its merit in toto is unnecessary. Now I see you've found Nader using the term "Democrat Party" in two articles, which to your undiscriminating mind now constitutes "occasional" use of the term by third-party candidates. Any third-party candidates besides Nader use the term? Has Nader been known to use the term consistently or even "ocassionally." You are not a scholar. You are a diletante. I'm erasing Nader until you can show that he uses the term "ocasionally," not "very rarely." Griot 18:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: rjenson, your response speaks volumes about your attitude. I am not a "partisan polemicist," thank you, out to "use" Wikipedia to "defend [my] personal political party." I do clearly sense that you are not someone who can be worked with collaboratively and respectfully. I repeat: What avenue of mediation regarding the existence or form of this article do you recommend? If you have no response, I'll proceed. RickDC 23:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a language usage article that requires what sort of mediation? Rjensen 23:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Have you read nothing above, including the 3 recommendations that the article be dropped? RickDC 23:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To repeat: this is a topic that many scholars and linguists have worked on for over 50 years. Is it current" yes, this week Senate GOP #1 leader Frist used the term in a policy statement, as did the #3 GOP leader in the Senate. Many GOP state parties likewise use the term regularly. So it's standard language among Republicans. Rjensen 02:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  The above article is important for students and for current listeners who now frequently hear the term on talk radio. Jozil 02:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The proposal is not to delete mention of the term but to incorporate it briefly in the main Democratric Party article. In addition, a referral or disambiguation can help those who are looking for the exact term "Democrat Party." RickDC 02:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Don't lose all this interesting information. Wiki is the perfect place to learn about the language of politics.Hawaii2006 04:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete article? 

message: Griot is relying on an Austrialian website for American documents--odd choice--they change words. I recommend the much more authoritative: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showplatforms.php?platindex=R1992
at U Califronia Santa Barbara  Rjensen 00:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GOP Platform -- use best source 

message: The Democrat Party is not the only party which calls itself by a name other than its true name.  The other major US party's true name is in fact the "Republic Party".  The leading third parties also call themselves by other names: the Form Party calls itself the "Reform Party," the Libertary Party calls itself the "Libertarian Party," and the Grey Party calls itself the "Green Party." Even the tiny Social Work Party lies about its name by calling itself the "Socialist Workers Party."  Timothy Horrigan Timothy Horrigan 16:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yawn.  What does it matter?  Why should anyone care?  I have a hard time understanding what all the upset is over.  None of this garbage is notable.  Kasreyn 17:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other Parties' False Names

message: There is now a new article on Democrat Party (phrase) that people should be redirected to. Rjensen 00:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a discussion about this on RFD: here. Please don't unilaterally change it yourself without the discussion coming to a consensus. Gdo01 02:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well now  redirects to Democrat Party (epithet), which is hardly "not entirely derogatory, see Epithet#Alternative contemporary usage." – Wbm1058 (talk) 17:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

text: To avoid the need for a hatnote on Democratic Party (United States) to the epithet article (see old version here), I think it best that the result of the redirect for discussion (see template at the top of this talk page) is accepted. Thanks Loonymonkey for pointing that out, I may have overlooked it last October. I don't feel that "Democrat Party" is always meant to be an epithet, but often may perhaps be a case of bad use of English: "I am a Democrat, that is a member of the Democrat Party. Don't call me a Democratic. Don't call my friend a member of the Republic Party either. He is a Republican, that is, a member of the Republican Party." Fortunately there are no links to Democrat Party (United States) in article namespace, and that's good, because that title is ambiguous as to whether it's an epithet or not. – Wbm1058 (talk) 12:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  redirect to Democrat Party (phrase)