Talk:Democrat Party (epithet)

This article was nominated for deletion on 5 March 2009. The result of the discussion was keep.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Democrat Party (epithet) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics: American / Political parties Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force. This article is supported by Political parties task force. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Conservatism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Linguistics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Citizendium Porting (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Citizendium Porting, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Citizendium PortingWikipedia:WikiProject Citizendium PortingTemplate:WikiProject Citizendium PortingCitizendium Porting articles

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

My impression when I first heard this expression a few years ago was that it was an ungrammatical term that had roots in homespun rural speech that Republican politicians picked up on as part of their preferred "low caste" style of casting themselves as common working folk in contrast to the elitist blue blooded liberal Brahmins that run the Democratic Party, even if they themselves are in actuality highly educated Ivy League graduates. Thus they will intentionally use gramatically incorrect expressions and seek to adopt a homespun style in an effort to mimic an Appalachian style dialect as part of their public persona. In one of his books William Faulkner refers to local lawyers, including one trained at Harvard, speaking to local Southern townspeople in such a manner in the same way cultured masters would shift from their usual cultured patrician manner into speaking in a different pidgin style when addressing their slaves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:ED07:6300:543E:7183:C337:74CD (talk) 15:19, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

try to find a reliable source for your speculations. Until the last few years the GOP appealed to upscale voters. Rjensen (talk) 15:34, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know us Wikipedians generally and Wiki admins in particular lean hard left, but it's WP:POVy and WP:BIASed to the point of parody to have a #Grammar section in this article that lists by name 4 partisan sources that "state" it "is" ungrammatical; a fifth source that places it "within a broader trend" of English growing dumber; and a final source that declares it "discourteous"... and at no point in the #Grammar section bothers to note the rest of the Economist article. Descriptive use of nouns is of course completely grammatically correct and bog standard in English and is only "wrong" because it's not the actual party's preferred usage.

It's ok to admit to that point within this article, given that it has a #Grammar section and is, y'know, the truth. More to the point, that's what's actually going on. It's grammatically unobjectionable and only is/feels that way because the other side is using the optional form in order (a) to be obnoxious and 'own' the 'libs' and (b) to try not to let the Dems wrack up points from the subconscious conflation of them being the [general concept] democratic party versus the oligarchic republican one. The article shouldn't be so butthurt that it can't own up to that and hides that its own sources disagree with the way they're being misused here. It's extremely counterproductive and, y'know, wrong and against our own policies. — LlywelynII 00:24, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...is only "wrong" because it's not the actual party's preferred usage. It is not "preferred usage". It is the name. A political party (or any other organization) gets to create its own official name. When a rival party, or like-minded correspondents, nearly all use a different name, that is indeed "wrong". Is there a single person on Fox that uses the correct name for the Democratic Party? How many Democrats call the Republicans Repugnants? As for your statement: I know us (sic) Wikipedians generally and Wiki admins in particular lean hard left...., the characterization of most admins as "far left" is absurd and indicates bias on your part. (Assuming there is such a term as "lean hard") O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:48, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article is well-sourced with regard to "Democrat" being an epithet when used in conjunction with "Party". But I think it would be good for the article to also address the use of "Democrat" when used with other nouns, like "Democrat voters". I do not see any good sources (in this article or otherwise) who say that this usage is an epithet. I think it would be good for this article to also address this "non-Party" usage of Democrat as an adjective. --Westwind273 (talk) 01:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found what I consider to be a reliable source that discusses Mark Levin's new book, The Democrat Party Hates America. Levin has frequently used "Democrat Party" (2008, 2018 2022, for example), but having "Democrat Party" as part of a book title does seem to me to be escalation. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I live in Louisiana, and on a couple of occasions I've personally heard rank-and-file Republicans use "Democrat" as a code word for "Black person." I don't know of any published source on this usage, and I don't know how widespread the usage is, but it suggests that in addition to its other connotations, "Democrat Party" may be a dog whistle of sorts. 75.173.17.90 (talk) 00:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We can't include something like that without a reliable secondary source. WP:RS O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Racial Slur Database says that "Democrats" is a slur for "Blacks." http://www.rsdb.org/race/blacks 75.173.17.90 (talk) 21:09, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Has no bearing on "Democrat Party" (which this article is about) being a specific anti-Black slur. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 21:28, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]