Talk:Democratic Party (United States)/Archive 6

message: I have been seeing this in many, many infoboxes in many biographical articles. It seems to me the party should read "Democratic"...unless Democrat is considered an adjective describing the candidate rather than the party, maybe this should be changed? Hazydan 08:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  infobox party = "Democrat"? 

message: I motion that the pictures of John Kerry, Barack Obama, Deval Patrick, and Hillary Clinton be removed.  Kerry did not win the 2004 race and should be removed, if we leave his picture up there, we should put pictures of Samuel Tilden, William Jennings Bryan and Adlai Stevenson on this article as well.  Obama has been in the Senate for less than two years, and the talk of him being President is mere guesswork, from looking simply at the interviews and speeched he has given.  Deval Patrick has not even served one day as Governor of Massachusetts, so I have no clue why he is on here.  Hillary's main claim to fame is that she was first lady, and her reason her picture is on the article is like Obama's picture's reason for being on the article.  I motion that we have a new rule, where former Democratic Presidents and House Speakers should only have their pictures on the article, to preserve the historical continuity of the article (This allows Pelosi to stay in the article, since she is all but certain to be House Speaker next January). Shaunnol 11:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We do indeed have pictures/posters of Tilden, Bryan and Stevenson on this or the History of Dem party website.  It seems unwise to remove the people who are most talked about. Rjensen 11:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we should include a picture of Thomas Jefferson because the Democrats are referred to as "the Party of Jefferson" and ideologically this would give people an idea of the Democratic Parties' roots.  Zubdog 2:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shaunnol, what criteria would you use for pictures? John Kerry did lose the last presidential election but he's still a Senator from Massachusetts and a major player in the Party. If he's yesterday's news, then what exactly is your argument against Deval Patrick? He's tomorrow's news? I think those people are excellent representatives of the Party today. Showing former Demo Presidents and Speakers wouldn't reflect the Party very well in my mind. That might be historically accurate but less relevant for today. Middlenamefrank 21:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures of Kerry, Obama, Patrick, and Clinton Should be Removed 

message: While I like the Recent issue stances section, I think it needs to be organized by category. However, I am at a loss as to what categories to create. the ones I have come with are:
* Economic issues (for Minimum Wage, Energy Independence, etc.)
* Social issues (or Cultural issues) (for Health care, reproductive rights, same-sex marriage, etc.)
* Legal issues (for USA PATRIOT act, torture, etc.)
These don't seem quite adequate. Any feedback? --Primalchaos 23:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about foreign policy issues -- UN, war, treaties, trade agreements, nuclear proliferation, etc. Jpers36 05:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe controversy and popularity -- How the United States veiws the Democratic Party and how many members it has. Mr.Weirdo 00:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll add a subsection on how national Democrats voted on authorizing force against Afghanistan ("those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States") and Iraq under Foreign policy issues. Also, trade issues are absent from economic issues.  I may get around to dealing with that later but I wouldn't mind if someone stepped in and did it instead. It could also go under "Foreign policy issues."Settler 05:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If anyone is confused by this edit, just know that it means that Dems are slightly more apt to rely on and use international institutions in regard to foreign policy than Republicans, who tend to emphasize realism) a bit more than Dems (a la Henry Kissinger et al, though the Dems also have a strong realist vein).  The Wikipedia articles on the various international relations theories are pretty poor overall, so I figured it warranted an explanation here. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent issues section organization 

message: This is a complex issue so it's no surprise that it's taking a while to get right, but the early history is still incredibly unclear in the article.  In fact reading the appropriate sections of this talk page is more enlightening.  The fundamental problem is that what exactly happened in the transition from Jefferson's party to Jackson's party is complex.  This article in parts speaks of them as separate parties, in parts as the same party, and in other parts as some nebulous in-between thing (the latter is more or less the case).  In my opinion a lot of the history is being thrown off by edit-warring over the specific date of founding (1792? 1822? 1824? 1828?), which seems to result in the rest of the article being papered over in one direction or another.  Our reader ought to be able to read the history part of this article and come away with at least some very basic understanding of the situation, i.e. Jefferson founded a party, there was chaos within the party in the 1820s, Jackson either founded a new party out of the remnants or significantly reorganized it, and since Jackson's time it's been more or less stable. --Delirium 13:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some earlier discussion is here. Settler 01:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  the early history is still a jumble 

message: More vandals again, notably on one of the sections on Hilary Clinton. I'd like to clean it up and then lock it to prevent this stuff from happening.
:I just semi-protected the page from editing from anons and new users (less than 4 days). Nishkid64 22:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandals

message: Ive been watching the 2008 presidential election as it unfolds and I think this combo would be good:
Barack Obama (for President)
Phil Bredesen (for Vice President)
Obama Bredesen 08
They would both appeal to the South and Midwest, where the Democrats need the votes the most.
What other combos would be good?
Monbro 18:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just wanted to let you know that talk pages are not usually designated for casual conversations, but more for the actual development of the article. So, in the future, please discuss something related to the article. Thanks! By the way, Barack for '08! Bredesen would be a good choice to get the Southern and Midwest vote, but I was thinking of a Southerner with more political experience. Nishkid64 18:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't use talk pages for political discussions. Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how the different points of view obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral and objective (From Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines)--Jersey Devil 22:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 2008

message: I am merging the current 21 century history into the History of the United States Democratic Party article, as outlined in the To-Do list at the top of this talk page:
:As the new History of the United States Democratic Party article has been created, bring the history section (especially the subsection "21st century" down to a reasonable size, while still keeping it detailed and informative.
The history from 2005 to the present will be left alone, while the two subsections of the Presidential elections of 2000 and 2004 will be edited down in this article to the important parts. Settler 23:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Plans

message: The statement that Republicans' opposition to embryo derived stem cells is religiously motivated is false. Morals and religion, although closely related, are not the same. One can have the belief that the destruction of an embryo is morally wrong without having any religious convictions whatsoever.
Thank you for your consideration.
Wayne Kahler (registered independent)
fenderacoustic@mail.com
: I thought I caught and removed most of the extra text about the Republican Party's positions in that section; thanks for pointing that out. That section is supposed to be for describing the Democrats' positions, not Republicans' positions, so I removed it.  The Republican Party (United States) should be consulted for such matters relating to their political positions. Settler 04:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FYI: Small change regarding Stem Cells 

message: I put it a paragraph on free trade, (it got reverted saying it should probably be discussed on talk page a bit, so here I am!)  My new version...
The Democratic party has a mixed record on free trade that reflects a diversity of viewpoints in the party: more conservative and moderate Democrats are for free trade while those further to the left as well as union forces are against free trade.  In the 90s, the Clinton administration and a number of prominent Democrats were for free trade and pushed through a number of agreements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).  In fact Al Gore's strong performance against Ross Perot in a famous debate on NAFTA on the show Larry King Live helped secure passage of the bill.  Since then, many Democrats have moved away from the free trade ideas that were so prominent during the Clinton years and opposed free trade agreements.   Often this opposition to free trade is described as support for fair trade.
This is an important issue, but it's kind of hard to tackle because different democrats believe different things and the leadership position has been evolving.  (It's hard not to oversimiplify a bit when you want to keep it ultra short-1 paragraph short).  And I don't think describing Al Gore's performance as strong is POV... This debate helped secure passage of the NAFTA bill, established Al Gore's reputation as a strong debater and made Ross Perot the butt of numerous jokes (I believe this is the source of the famous, "Can I finish" Ross Perot qoute).  Comments?  Good to go in? Mgunn 23:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I won't comment further on the Gore/Perot debate characterization, but would like to hear what others think.  My main remaining quibble with the paragraph, however, is that it casts the debate entirely in terms of support for or opposition to free trade agreements.  For instance, it merely says that some Democrats are opposed to free trade currently without explaining why (i.e. job outsourcing, among other reasons).  I generally support free trade, so I'm not pushing my POV here, but I think the more populist position on trade needs to be explained a little better (obviously, it's just a blurb, so not too much can and should be said, I just think a bit more explanation is necessary).  For what it's worth, I strongly agree with you that the party's position on trade needs to be discussed in the article.  Thanks for the contribution. · j e r s y k o talk · 23:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free Trade Issue 

message: Should the use of the term "Democrat Party" by opponents of the Democratic Party be discussed somewhere in this article? See the discussion at this article: Democrat Party (phrase). Wiki, believe it or not, actually has an article called "Democrat Party"! Griot 09:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: with 1 million google hits on "Democrat Party" it's notable , especially since Bush and many leading Republicans and talk radio types favor the term.Rjensen 09:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But you don't know what those hits are. To blogs? To "Democrat Parties" in Liberia. Please, let's not substitute finger-wiggling 
over they keyboard for scholarly investigation. Griot 18:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: we do know that in Indiana, one state that requires political organizations to legally incorporate with the Secretary of State, there are 34 local groups with "Democrat" as part of their legal name) versus 226 that use "Democratic"). These seem to be active local clubs. (Brown County is the official county organization). Alphabetically the first few are as follows: 17TH DISTRICT DEMOCRAT CLUB, INC.;  INDIANAPOLIS, IN 17TH WARD DEMOCRAT CLUB INC; ANDREW JACKSON DEMOCRAT CLUB OF TIPPECANOE COUNTY IN; BLOOMFIELD DEMOCRAT INCORP; BROWN COUNTY DEMOCRAT CENTRAL COMMITTEE CORPORATION; CITY OF PORTAGE DEMOCRAT CLUB; CLARK COUNTY DEMOCRAT MEN'S CLUB, INC.; and CLINTON COUNTY DEMOCRAT CLUB INC. source: .  The point: when you get a lawyer and file with the state government, 10-15% of the local clubs use the term "Democrat" . This shows the terminology is reasonably widespread in and out of the Democratic party.Rjensen 18:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In other words, more than  85-90% of the clubs are against it, for BLOOMFIELD DEMOCRAT and similar cases use the noun, not the adjective; there is consensus against it within the Democratic Party of (red) Indiana.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that "Democratic" is favored by 80-90% of Democrats; and perhaps half the prominent Republicans and conservatives. But the fact that so many Dems officially use the "Democrat-adjective" version suggests there is no deep hostility to its use at the Dem party grass roots. Rjensen 19:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Amd much of that 90% is deeply hostile, as the sources at Democrat Party (phrase) say; both as a partisan offense and on grammatical grounds. It is a very rare proposal indeed that can't get 10% adherents. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't agree with the various political epithets being made into separate articles, and made my views clear in the past about that particular one, but if the alternative is to merge that whole article into this one, I would be against that. At the moment there's a whole sentence or two about it now in this article. I suppose one more could be added. Don't anyone mark me down as being tenacious about doing that either... Settler 09:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: No. Not because I see any offensiveness in it, I am not a Democrat I do not care, but it is no different than people saying "Republics" in reference to Republicans. Most of the time it is just a misspelling or mispronunciation. --Revolución hablar ver 15:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Most of the time it is just a misspelling or mispronunciation."  I mean absolutely no offense, Revolución, but I think a healthier dose of political cynicism is in order. For example, allow me to introduce you to Frank Luntz . . . ;) · j e r s y k o talk · 15:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Democrat Party"

message: This is probably a debate that will last for months, so we might as well start it now--that is, the depiction of the Democratic Party as a party of the political center.
I personally do think that the term "centrist" does describe the party--especially in recent years with the rise of the DLC and the centrist candidates in the 2006 elections. However, this should be coupled with "populist" in the ideology tag of the party infobox for the reason that those candidates have shown economically interventionist policies and other causes that are considered "populist" to their constituents.
Finally, the terms "liberal" is something that should be kept, because there are liberals and progressives in the party. KruusCosko 19:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The wikilink to liberalism points to Modern liberalism in the United States. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 03:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: We've already covered this elsewhere, but the use of "left wing" would not represent a worldwide view. The US leans pretty far to the right in general, so the Democratic Party actually lies somewhere near the middle, probably even a little to the right, in the global scheme of politics. There aren't even any major "left wing" parties in the United States; the Socialist Party USA and CPUSA are relatively minor. Even the Green Party is only center-left when compared with parties in other countries. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 05:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Democratic Party Ideology: Centrist or Center-Left? 

message: * (1) An editor has suggested that this article is too long and is in need of work in reducing its length.
* (2) Another editor has expressed the opinion that there are too many images.
* (3) Finding a reputable citation for "Andrew Jackass" that's not just some other article using this Wikipedia article as its original source.
<BR>As for (1), I started cutting down the size of the 21st century history until part of it was unfortunately readded by another editor. Obviously whatever edits I or anyone else makes may not be satisfactory to everyone.
<BR> (2), I've removed various photos in the past, and added some; what looks good at resolutions of 800x600 or 1024x768 does not look so great at higher resolutions or on widescreen displays. I'll probably remove a portrait or photo or two shortly and move another around but I suppose it's worth having the discussion.
<BR> (3) is rather self-explanatory. Settler 03:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed a portrait of Speaker "Champ" Clark, moved Wilson's and O'Neill's, and removed Obama's because he is neither a president, speaker, nominee, nor leader of the Democratic Party.  His photo could replace Clinton's in the future should something change in regards to this party's future presidential nomination. Settler 04:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the pictures, but I won't argue if others think there are too many :(.  Summary style might be useful, though. · j e r s y k o talk · 04:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I revised the paragraph "According to one theory, in its original form, the jackass was born in the intense mudslinging that occurred during the presidential race of 1828 as a play on the name of Andrew Jackson, the Democratic candidate. Jackson had been called "Andrew Jackass," and the defiant Jackson adopted the nickname," until a reliable source or scholar can be found for the claim, particularly one that doesn't appear to be so modern as to be using Wikipedia itself. Settler 09:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: With respect, I disagree.  If "normal standards" are European Democratic Socialist parties, yes, the Democratic Party *might* be termed a "conservative" party. Even that label is arguable, however, as I would argue that it is more accurately centrist by European standards (think social issues, for example).  However, it is certainly not conservative by Latin American standards (nor is it leftist by those standards), African standards, or Asian standards.  And it is not conservative in terms of American political norms.  Yes, some members of the Party are further to the right than others.  However, the sheer numbers of Democratic Party members in the House that support things like these pieces of legislation demonstrate that the Party is not a conservative party.  As a more concrete example, let's look at the label neo-liberalism as applied to the Party: a strong neo-liberal would eschew talk of raising the minimum wage (and would most likely argue that it should be eliminated completely), while the Democratic Party in the House voted with no intra-party dissent to raise it.  While the Democratic Party perhaps has a neo-liberal streak, I believe it's wrong to use it as one of the main descriptors of the Party.  Thanks. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Conservative how?  Socially, or economically?  The fact is that America doesn't have any choices available for true conservatives or true liberals, just two irritatingly hypocritical centrist parties, one economically liberal and socially conservative, the other economically conservative and socially liberal.  From the viewpoint of a person who is liberal on both topics, neither party is very appealing at all.  Politics is not so one-dimensional; a single word can't describe a political party.  Kasreyn 22:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  The Demoratic party is ABSOLUTELY center-left. Left wing would be the  Socialist Party or the  Communist party. Saying "center left" does not imply that the party is a "centrist" party, it just means that they are not the extreme left wing. DanielZimmerman 21:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: No discussion was removed.  Perhaps it's in the archive of this talk page.  What, exactly, are you calling the "center"?  The European center?  In American terms, the Democratic Party is centrist, center-left, and liberal (generally accepted to be the "left" in American terms).  You seem to agree that it's both liberal and centrist, but don't like the center-left descriptor.  Again, in American terms, it's somewhat illogical to refer to the party as centrist and liberal but not something between the two.  For what it's worth, I agree with you that, in an international sense, the Democratic Party is more centrist than, say, most democratic socialist parties.  Perhaps all of this could be resolved if the link to the center left article were merely removed, leaving only the descriptor. · j e r s y k o talk · 03:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I moved your post to the bottom of the page, because that is where it is supposed to be. That is where new topics belong. See the talkheader. Settler 17:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This user is trying to push a WP:POV. I personally believe that both center and center-left should been in the infobox.--Jersey Devil 00:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed issues to resolve

message: If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.
In other words, views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all. (a)
A user has been promoting the inclusion of a conspiratorial article created yesterday, mostly revolving around a person without a biography here, (Mr. Hassan Nemazee). Fringe views about Iran illegally funding and controlling/influencing the Democratic Party do not belong in this article. That is not to claim their future guilt or innocence in this supposed matter. Settler 05:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The entire article seems to be wild speculation and original research.  I suspect it would not survive Afd. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fringe POVs 

message: Someone recently deleted the entire article and replaced it with some incomprehensible garbage. Please restore the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.107.214.143 (talk) 07:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks fine to me.  What specific edit(s) are people suspicious of? Settler 19:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well I just caught someone sneakily vandalizing this talk page by editing this article. Annoying. Settler 19:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I checked the templates used in this article, too, and none of them appear to have been vandalized recently.  Odd that one incident of vandalism resulted in so many comments here. · j e r s y k o talk · 21:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Log out, and completely clear your browser cache, and then check the article. The vandalism is stuck on the page. That's a problem. Settler 21:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: On further experimentation, it seems to not affect other browsers that I've tested besides Internet Explorer. Settler 21:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting.  I never use IE, but I got the vandalized version when I checked the page without logging in.  When I checked it a second time (after closing IE and reopening), however, it was fine.  I wonder if this warrants mention at WP:ANI, or if it's just a bug that will work itself out soon. · j e r s y k o talk · 22:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: The New Democrats, Centrists and the DLC was singled out for criticism under the Factions section so I removed it; I do that as well as under the justification of helping to reduce this article's length. The briefest of overviews probably doesn't need it anyway as it is more appropriately dealt with under the linked articles in that section. Settler 02:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: Reliable source(s) are needed for "Not all pro-life Democrats are conservative Democrats, however. Many are quite liberal, in fact." because a similar phrase was asked for a citation a while back by another editor and none ever came. And "in fact" is a form of a weasel word when constructing an article, particularly without attribution. Once reliably sourced, it could be reintegrated with better writing. Settler 07:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would guess the intended referent is the late Robert P. Casey of Pennsylvania, or his son, Bob Casey, Jr.. Pro-life issues aside, neither is  a conservative Democrat, strictly speaking; and the son is fairly liberal on several issues. I'm sure there are other instances, and that this, with some effort, can be sourced. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberal anti-abortion/pro-lifers 

message: this is the longest article i have seen on wikipedia. it desperately needs to be split upMissy1234 01:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some articles have this one (it currently ranks as the 383rd longest article) beat, but there's room for improvement. Settler 02:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, some topics should be moved to relevant subpages. This page should still exist though. I am removing the  template. --Apoc2400 12:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The long article 

message: I reverted an addition of the following passage after a seperate poster pointed out it is a better fit in other articles:
:According to exit polls, corruption was a key issue for many voters.  
I have to agree that it doesn't belong in the article as it is written. Maybe it is placement? It seems out of context. In my view, the article is discussing the make-up of the current democratic party, then this passage pops up out of nowhere, discussing exit polls for the mid-term elections? Why? I think I understand the point you are trying to make but it seems to be a point better made in the page for the 2006 Midterm Elections. Anyway, have a nice night. CraigMonroe 04:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree with the above comment. The page is long enough as it is.--Jersey Devil 04:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Room for improvement, sure. The Microsoft article, a featured article, is now longer (maybe not in pure prose), and they have only been around since the 1970s.  It's sort of unfair in a way to hold organizations much older to the same length standard.  Since the "toolong" header was added to the article, approximately 13KB has been shaved from the article, mostly through my efforts, with a spin-off article and condensing multiple paragraphs down to a few sentences here and there among other things. Settler 05:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It's already on the 2006 midterm election page, as I wrote in the edit summary.  Corruption was cited by voters as the key (or most resonate) issue for why they voted the way they did and journalists noted those that named it were more likely voted for the Democrats. I'd sooner get rid of "Negative public opinion on the war in Iraq, along with widespread dissatisfaction among conservatives over government spending, dragged President Bush's job approval ratings down to the lowest levels of his presidency" than get rid of what voters told the exit polls and the analysis: "Three-fourths of voters said corruption and scandal were important to their votes, and they were more likely to vote for Democratic candidates for the House. Iraq was important for just two-thirds, and they also leaned toward supporting Democrats. Voters who said terrorism was an important issue split their support between the two parties."  There used to be plenty of polling cited in this article (mostly pre-2006 election polls and the like until they became outdated) and the 2008 outlook section incorporates polling. The Republican Party article incorporates a lot of interesting exit polling. The 21st century section is supposed to be for recent history, not the makeup of the "current democratic party" I've been tempted to move the whole geography paragraph somewhere else but it might require renaming another section or creating a new one. Settler 04:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I think both Settler and those contra have a point (I won't jump into the discussion fully), I do want to say that I'm not really sure how one short sentence is contributing that much to the article's length.  Cheers. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Corruption

message: I honestly don't think that this article is very nuetral. It seems as if in some areas they talk about how the demecrats were better off in then republicans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prep111 (talk • contribs) 
::This bias appears in the Ideology & Voter Base area.  To say that Democrats are pro-civil rights masks the fact that they commonly oppose some civil rights: gun ownership, economic freedom, freedom from non-merit based discrimination, military draft avoidance, etc.  I haven't figured out a good way to edit this yet.Twslandlord 14:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Civil rights, according to my handy Webster's, is "the rights to full legal, social, and economic equality, especially regarding minorities", and especially meaning the rights guaranteed the 13th and 14th amendment. So, most of your citations about gun ownership, etc., really don't match up. Now, while you might want to debate economic freedoms (as oppose to equality) and various other rights (like gun ownership), these don't fall under "civil rights" as a category.--Primal Chaos 19:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nuetral?

message: I'm Swedish and maybe I don't get the all the words and nuances correct, so please don't hesitate to correct me on this. This article states that when Clinton was elected in 1992, that was the first time in 12 years that a democrat was elected. I corrected this a while ago to 16 years. A democrat was elected in 1976 (Carter) and in the following three elections republicans were elected (1980+1984: Reagan, 1988 Bush). So, in 1992 there had been 16 years since a democrat was last elected. Therefore, I once again change to 16 from 12. But please, as this maybe is a very specific English construction, do inform me on this and do correct my upcoming edit of the article. --Astor Piazzolla 15:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right.  I think, perhaps, that editors are mistaking "for the first time in 16 years, the United States elected a Democrat to the White House" for "for the first time in 16 years, a Democrat was serving in the White House".  Don't sell your English short ;) · j e r s y k o talk · 15:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks mate. (Is that proper English?). Won't sell it short. There's no taker at a reasonable level! --Astor Piazzolla 09:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1992 - 1976 = 16 

message: I removed this sentence, as massive oversimplification:
:The Vietnam War in the 1960s opened a split on foreign military intervention that persists into the 21st century.
The Vietnam War was escalated by Democrats; and opposed by several Republicans. The Kosovo intervention was conducted by a Democrat,  largely supported by his party,  and largely opposed by the Republicans. 
This is a conclusion, from a history still in progress; Wikipedia should not be drawing such conclusions, and certainly not in an intro; they're not consensus among the secondary sources, much less here. 
I've done other rewriting; I would appreciate it if does who disagree with parts of the edit would edit further, not massively revert. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how that statement is anything but correct. The Vietnam War was escalated and begun by the Democrats but it also caused a large split in the Democratic Party between the Johnson-Humphrey establishment types and the RFK-McCarty-McGovern types. That is why Johnson didn't even run for a second term, because people within his own party were running against him because of the war.--Jersey Devil 20:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence did not read like it intended a split within the Democratic Party, which I agree Vietnam did cause; but I find very dubious that that split still continues; or lasted past Scoop Jackson's death. Something should be said about Vietnam, but this? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vietnam

message: An editor wished to know about the donkey symbol in relation to the DNC's website and has since commented it out of the article.  The donkey icon used to be the favicon of the Democratic National Committee.  Their blog is entitled, "Kicking Ass," as in a kicking donkey IIRC.  The donkey symbol can be found presently used in their RSS feeds. Their "Democratic Donkey" history page claims they never officially adopted the symbol, but have made use of it. Settler 15:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it looks as though from the wording of the DNC and the dearth of the donkey as a symbol on thier official site that they are moving away from that. Knowing the history of the association of the donkey with the democratic party (Andrew Jackson jujitsuing an insult) one would think that wouldn't be the case.  16:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the donkey symbol 

message: Though it took me forever to find the offical information, the U.S. Democratic Party is a member of the Alliance of American and European Democrats.  
Rblue 23:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for looking that up. I've added it to the infobox. ObeliskBJMtalk 14:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: International membership

message: I'm contemplating moving the entire history in this article over to the History of the United States Democratic Party article, leaving a skeletal article summary behind--as has been brought up in prior discussions about the article being too long. Before I embark upon the arduous task of doing all that, I thought I'd give at least 72 hours of prior warning.  There's few things more annoying here than to do all that and have someone revert it.  So, if you have a problem with it, out with it now. Ok. Settler 07:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems like a good idea to me. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 08:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm in agreement with the move as well. ObeliskBJMtalk 14:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Leave a tiny, bare-bones summary, but move the rest per WP:SUMMARY. Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done, but it needs editing. Since the largest bulk of the history was about the 20th and 21st century, it's the most difficult to do justice to its contents. I think it needs the most editing without adding too much bloat or disproportionate emphasis. Settler 23:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging entire history into main history article

message: Under the Unilateralism heading it says that "and Unilateralism has been blamed for the failures in Iraq." This is slightly biased against the war. I suggest changing the phrase to read "and Unilateralism has been blamed for the perceived failures in Iraq." It is a small change, but as the page is protected...Sorry for being nitpicky. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Myrdin Emries (talk • contribs) 20:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had it unprotected, so edit away! (Although Settler already tweaked that section per your request.) Mahalo. --Ali'i 21:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Minor One Word Issue 

message: Why declare that the Demo Pary is the "oldest active party." Why the word active? If I said, "Mrs. So and So is the oldest active person in the world," would that make sense to you? The word "active" is unnecessary in the context of the Democratic Party being the world's oldest political party, just as it is unnecessary in the context of declaring who the oldest person in the world is. A party is either the oldest or it's not the oldest. The word "active" is unneccessary and confusing. If you want to have discussion about which is the first political party ever formed, put it in a footnote. Putting the word "active" in this sentence is pedantic. Griot 16:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if I understand the objection.  The British Whig Party undoubtedly pre-dates the Democratic Party.  Right?  The British Whigs are no longer an active party, though the party is older than the Democratic Party.  The Democratic Party is a party that is active in politics today.  Here's another example: Yone Minagawa states that she is the "oldest living person", not merely that she is the "oldest person", as other people have lived longer lifespans than she has.  The qualifiers "living" and, in this case, "active" are helpful to the reader for the same reasons.  A minor point, and I don't plan to make any further argument or otherwise stir the pot.  I'll happily accept consensus on this point if one develops. · jersyko talk 16:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my book, it is only necessary for Yone Mingawa to say she is the "oldest person." There is no such thing as the "oldest dead person," which makes stating that she is the "oldest living person" unnecessary. Agreed: this is a minor point. I bring it up, however, because putting the confusing "oldest active party" in the second sentence of this article is jarring and starts this article off on a bad foot. The primary goal of writing is to help the reader understand without getting bogged down in semantics and especially in pedantry. Wiki ought to have an enshrined anti-pedantry policy -- but that's too much to ask. Griot 17:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Although it's true that the Whig party is no longer active in name, it is possible (as with the old Tory and modern Conservative party) to trace the history of the modern Liberal Democrat party back to the Whigs. The Whigs became the Liberals, and eventually, after various splits and regroupings over time, what remained of the Liberals joined forces with the much younger Social Democratic Party (SDP) in 1988. The Liberal Democrats can certainly trace their roots back to the old Liberal Party even if there are some smaller branches of the family tree on the way down, and the Liberals, in turn, are directly descended from the Whigs. Even if this were not the case, political groupings are as much about a continuity of association among those of a given political leaning as they are about strict organisational identity, and the Liberal Democrats can credibly claim to be the inheritors of Whig thought in the current British political landscape as well as the Conservatives can the Tories'. Beneficientor 16:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Democrats do have an organizational identity stretching back to Jefferson; the continuity of Whig organization back to Fox (as it must be to contest this) is far more tenuous. Also, the Democrats were a mass political party in 1800; when the Whigs fit in a single cab, they were still a legislative faction. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the Democrats were founded in the Jackson era then there is a clear debate over whether they or the Conservatives as founded by Peel are the oldest party. But the Democrats are claiming to have been founded by Jefferson then on the looser definition their claim to be the oldest party goes out the window as the Conservatives have an equally strong claim of continuity to Pitt in the 1780s. Trying to define a party gets into the realm of trying to find a definition to get the answer wanted. Timrollpickering 10:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I guess this is why WP:LAME was invoked. Not interested in a (further) edit war. --Ali'i 16:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The book from which I added the footnote uses "existing" instead of "active." Just an FYI. Settler 01:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Oldest "Active" Party

message: Why have all of the pictures been removed, was this vandalism or was there some reason for it.129.133.181.63 07:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The history section (that had works of art and photos) was merged into the History of the United States Democratic Party article, including many of the pictures and their captions where there was room. Settler 01:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures

message: PAYGO is a tool used by Democrats to implement higher taxes and spending under the guise of fiscal responsibility. PAYGO will likely result in higher taxes in the near term by making renewal of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts much more difficult. At the same time, PAYGO does not limit the automatic spending increases each year of entitlement programs, emergency spending on issues such as the Iraq war, or even discretionary spending increases on items such as education and agriculture as long as those spending levels fall within the budget. PAYGO only limits the creation of new entitlements and spending that exceeds the budget. However, Congress can increase the budget by any arbitrary amount each year regardless of revenue levels. Hence, PAYGO provides no real restraint on spending.68.190.218.154 08:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's wonderful, but all content in Wikipedia needs to be verifiable and adhere to our neutral point of view policy. Perhaps this information would go better in an article about PAYGO (assuming that it still meets our verifiability and neutral point of view policies). -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 09:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: PAYGO  removed

message: I noticed the "weasel words" tag while researching other information.  So I decided to go to the source and see what it says about the age of the GOP and Democratic parties, their websites: GOP History and Democrats History.  According to these sites the Democrats trace their roots to Thomas Jefferson and the year 1792 and the Republicans trace their roots to the early 1850's with their first official meeting on July 6, 1854 in Jackson, Michigan.  I would assume we agree the Democratic Party is the oldest in the United States.  Is it the oldest in the world?  Neither site mentions that information.  What constitutes a political party?  According to Wikipedia at Political Party, "A political party is a political organization that seeks to attain political power within a government, usually by participating in electoral campaigns."  I think it might be difficult under this definintion to state it is the "oldest party" in the world without deep research that might be found in multiple sources.  Every party pulls ideas and members from predecessors.  Age of the individual party does not really add or take away from the value of a party's ideas or platform.  I suggest removing the statement until a detailed reference helps us sort out the details. Mark @ DailyNetworks talk 16:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have to rush out I'll come back to it, but to pull an example at random this Amazon listing  is for "How Tory Governments Die: Tory Party in Power, 1783-1997". I can leaf through them but I've certainly seen other books that use the description for the Conservatives and I'm not sure trading books that casually do so without mentioning other commonly cited contenders is going to bring peace. Are there any books or journal articles that actually tackle this point and the relevant issues head on? Timrollpickering 06:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well the Tory party apparently is historically older. This wording is in order, then: The Democratic Party is the oldest party in the US and the oldest extant party in the world. MessedRocker (talk) 07:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Err, the Pittite/Tory Party is the Conservative Party, through a pretty direct lineage.  Far more direct than that between the Jacksonian Democrats and the Jeffersonian Republican party.  Claiming that the Democrats are the oldest extant party is exactly the thing we're arguing against. john k 21:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The Liberal Democrats, through the Liberal Party, the Whigs of Lord John Russell, Lord Melbourne, Earl Grey, and Charles James Fox, and the Rockingham Whigs, the semi-direct successors of the Pelhamite old school Whigs of the mid 18th century, who themselves can claim semi-direct descent from the Whigs of the 1670s.  This is all silly.  Obviously, even if we count the Democrats as being founded in 1832, when their first National Convention  was held, are, along with the British Conservative Party, among the oldest still-existing political parties in the world.  Going beyond that is simply counterproductive. john k 21:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It is clearly one of the oldest extant political parties in the world, and it seems appropriate to say so. john k 23:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Age Controversy

message: Snipped 'progressive' in favor of, for example, non-flat. Come on, what normal person knows what a 'progressive tax' is anyhow? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.19.14.35 (talk • contribs).
:Then take a look at the progressive tax article.  It's an extremely widely used term. · jersyko talk 03:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Everyone uses progressive tax.--Jersey Devil 00:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The term is very common and even for those who don't know what it is, there's a wikilink. Signaturebrendel 04:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also agreed. Wikipedia is an educational tool, that's what wikilinks are for.--Primal Chaos 13:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Progressive tax