Talk:Democrat Party (epithet)/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Historically, most party names have used a noun attributively, as is usually more correct.

With nouns like "Republican" or "Socialist" it isn't so clear that the party name uses a noun attributively, but this becomes very clear with names like "Whig Party", "Free Soil Party", "Black Panther Party", or "Greenback Party". There are very few parties that are named with something that is unambiguously an adjective, and even then it tends to become an adjectival noun (perhaps the Green Party is an example of this). Usually a party is named after its faction or after its goals, but these things are normally nouns. Using an adjective to describe the party normally makes the adjective descriptive of the internal characteristics of the party, rather than of its faction or goals.

So maybe a part of the problem is that the official name of the Democratic Party is ungrammatical, unless it is meant to portray the party as being internally governed by democratic principles rather than as having democrats as members or as having democracy as a national goal. It would be like referring to a herd of animals as an elephantine herd when what is meant is that it is an elephant herd. An elephantine herd has attributes of an elephant, but need not have elephants as members. An elephantine gun would have the attributes of an elephant, but an elephant gun is used to hunt elephants. Similarly, if they had meant "the party of democrats" it would have been more correct to call it the "Democrat Party" and if they had meant "the party that espouses democracy" it would have been more correct to call it the "Democracy Party". "Democratic" is neither a faction nor a goal.

I understand that the party name has a more complex etymology that excuses the choice, and that English grammar has lots of special cases, but it does violate the normal rules of grammar. Mazzula (talk) 01:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

"Democrat" is a noun, not an adjective. To use the word as an adjective is grammatically incorrect. --Loonymonkey (talk) 07:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

That is simply not true, and there are many counterexamples. Do you think that there is no such thing as "English Grammar" (in that phrase, "English" is a noun used as an adjective), and no such thing as a "native speaker"? See, for example, UsingEnglish.com, or Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary. I realize that there are some learned people who make that claim in this context, but only in this context. No reliable reference holds, in any other context, that it is never grammatical to use a noun as an adjective. It is a common construction. Mazzula (talk) 17:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

In the phrase "English grammar," "English" is most definitely an adjective. In fact, among all the various nationalities, "English" is conspicuously not used as a noun -- e.g., *Many Englishes live in that part of town (in contrast to, say, "German," "Mexican," "Russian," etc.).

Also, there's a definite pejorative connotation to using nouns instead of related adjectives in certain phrases. "Female drivers" refers to a demographic segment, but "woman drivers" -- you just know they're putting on their makeup in the rear-view mirror. It's derogatory and contemptuous, and this is absolutely the manner in which "Democrat Party" is used. --Geenius at Wrok (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

When the phrase is spoken, as is normally the case, it is hard to know whether it would be spelled as "Democrat Party" or "Democrat party". The former seems to be a corruption of the official name whereas the latter simply refers to the party by a grammatically correct description. It is also the case that when it is written, there is seldom an ambiguity between "Democratic" and "democratic" so that oft-cited excuse no longer holds. Mazzula (talk) 01:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe I've ever seen a reliable source refer to it incorrectly as the "Democrat Party" or use the lower case "d" as you claim. It's a proper noun (thus capitalized) and it is called the "Democratic Party." The fact that some politicians on the far right like to intentionally mispronounce this does not make it grammatically correct. --Loonymonkey (talk) 07:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

If you check the Hertzberg article and other sources, you'll see written uses, such as in Bush's email ("The Democrat Party has a clear record when it comes to taxes"). Those uses are "Democrat Party" with a capital P, so I think we should leave it that way in our article. JamesMLane t c 08:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the Bush email was an example of misuse. The capital "P" is inconsistent with the lack of "-ic". The Hertzberg article, on the other hand, is factually incorrect as it claims that the recent resurgence in its use originated with a Gingrich memo, but in the memo he cited Gingrich referred to the "Democratic Party" and never once dropped the "-ic". I think that Hertzberg would counter that he was only using Gingrich as a source for the idea that language is important in politics, but I don't think anybody needs Newt Gingrich as an authority in order to come to that conclusion. It was, to be charitable, a mistake. Of the three examples Hertzberg draws from the Bush memo, only one is incorrect. Mazzula (talk) 17:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

True, the misuse of the term is well documented (which is the subject of this article) and it is almost always spelled with an upper case "P," to imply that is the actual name of the party. I was just refuting the notion above that it is actually not a misuse and is grammatically correct. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

But you didn't refute it, you merely gainsaid it. I have provided reputable citations and numerous counterexamples to your position. No authority holds your view that nouns cannot be used as adjectives, except when people with a political agenda write on this topic. Hertzberg himself uses nouns as adjectives in the referenced article, e.g. when he refers to "health-care" or the "budget deficit" or "College Dictionary". He knows it is grammatical, but saying so didn't suit his political purposes. Oddly, his position seems to be that the insult is in the word "Democrat" itself, his argument that it is an insult seems to be unrelated to its use as an adjective rather than purely as a noun. He says the word sounds harsh, and (as noted above) that it contains the word "rat". But these attributes of the word don't go away when the word is used as a noun. I don't see any argument that "Democrat" is insulting when the noun is used as an adjective that doesn't also apply when it is being used as a noun. Mazzula (talk) 17:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I now find that I was wrong that the capital "P" is necessarily inconsistent with "-ic". Some sources claim that the "p" in "party" should always be capitalized when it refers to a political party, even when not referring to it by name. An example at this guide to capitalization from the University of Richmond is, "... he joined the Party". I disagree (obviously), but the resource is there. So the Bush memo does not necessarily imply that the name of the party is "Democrat Party" and thus it is not unambiguously incorrect. So the Hertzberg article was wrong about all three of the examples it drew from the Bush memo. It is no more incorrect to speak of a "Democrat Senator" than of a "woman Senator". Would he really insist that Nancy Pelosi be called the first feminine Speaker of the House? That would convey an entirely different meaning than using the noun "woman" as the adjective. Mazzula (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

That style guide is referring to situations where there is only one "Party" (such as the CP in the USSR or the NSDAP during the Hitler era); I don't consider it a very useful guide to normative use. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

No, they made it clear they were referring to political parties in general. In the example they gave the "Party" in question was the Republican Party. It is subtle, because they do not capitalize it when the word is used to refer to the party philosophy. I don't think a lot of other authorities agree, certainly a lot of people do not capitalize "party" even when it refers to a political party. Nevertheless, it is a scholarly reference supporting its capitalization even when the word is not used in a name. Mazzula (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I've jsut read this article twice.. its seems the key point of it is missing. It tells us that "Democrat" as an ajective is intended to be an epithet, and provides various examples of misuse of the term, and people objecting to it. However, nowhere does the article state the intended meaning of the ephithet. Not a single source listed draws the conclusions of this article, making this whole topic a blatant violation of WP:Synth, and the closest thing to actually discussing this article's topic is a page on a blog and the other the completely partisan mediamatters.. Out of every source in this article, those only snippet is from the Washington Post saying

"Bush does this a lot, and while it's hard to say if the omission was intentional in this instance, it is a semantic tactic that's been part of Republican warfare for decades. It's a little thing, a means of needling the opposition by purposefully mispronouncing its name, and of suggesting that the party on the left is not truly small-"d" democratic. The president's pronunciation was all the more striking because it was apparently not what Bush was supposed to say. The prepared speech that the White House distributed beforehand retained that precious "-ic." "

But that whole article completely conceeds the point that they are speculating on the entire topic! How is this in any way a notable topic? A search of the article title yields this article, and nothing else but blogs or partisan websites in the top fifty results... I am slo concerned the premise of the article in unverifiable. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

. "Democrat party" = "Democratic party"--is that meaning unclear? linguists and scholars have written about the topic for over 50 years, as the footnotes and bibliography demonstrate, making it notable and verifiable for Wikipedia. Take a look at Safire, for example--he was the leading wexpert on political language usage. Rjensen (talk) 18:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry let me be more clear. This article says "Democrat party" does equal "Democratic party". It says "Democrat party" = epithet. It attempts to portray the use of the phrase "Democrat Party" as some sort of conspiracy to de-legitimize the Democratic Party without showing a shred of evidence that such a conspiracy exists, or that the supposed epithet has any meaning other than people's ignorance of proper grammar.. The whole concept, as presented in this article, is based on a couple blog entries, and two newspaper editorials. None of which go so far as this article does in terming the phrase "Democrat Party" and epithet. This phrase is far more common than this article hints, even among neutral commentators and people who have no idea this "conspiracy" is even alleged to exist. :) I am just saying the article needs some work, blog sources removed, content sourced to blogs removed, and a little balance added. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Better work through the bibliography. The topic has been discusses by RS for over 50 years--including numerous books and articles by experts.Rjensen (talk) 00:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Including solid reliable sources where Republicans admit that they do it to de-legitimize the Dems. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Is not the inclusion of Rush Limbaugh the hate merchant who wants Obama to fail proof enough of the intent to marginalize. Sorry I didn't log in. pabobfin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.165.163.65 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh uses "Democrat Party" all the time, and it is mentioned to refer people to the word republan which I am attempting to add to Wikipedia with difficulty. The use of Limbaugh as another one who uses noun as adjective is just as valid as Ralph Nader and I believe the edit should be allowed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.165.163.65 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't care what "seven scholars" say, this whole article is a lie. Feuerlicht (1957), Lyman (1958), Safire (1993), Sperber and Trittschuh (1962), Numberg (2005) and Hertzberg (2006), are, all of them, wrong.

All you have to do is go to Google Books, search for, as I did, the phrase 'democrat party' in any English book prior to 1900, and you get 457 hits. That is, 457 times when people used the phrase decades before any conspiracy theory to smear the name of the Democrat Party. It's casual usage, that's all it is; and the seven scholars are seven fools.

And the authors here are just perpetuating a myth.129.133.127.244 (talk) 02:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. Now go read WP:RS and WP:V, for starters. -Phoenixrod (talk) 18:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

There is an element of truth to what the anon is saying.. At one time it may have been a slur, but its hardly that anymore. Its just poor English in common use in modern time - IMO. OR aside, despite what the sources in the article say, there is ample evidence that the term dates back to at least the early nineteenth century, if not before. And most of the referencing in this article is a little less than reliable, blogs etc. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure that the term has been used for a long time on occasion, although 457 hits is not very many. But the IP user is essentially saying that we should throw out the sources we have (even if they could be better, as you point out) because he doesn't believe them. -Phoenixrod (talk) 21:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand, Phoenixrod, I'm not advocating changing the article at all. I'm at least as aware of WP:RS as you are. The article should remain. This is just another example of why wikipedia as a system does not work. "Referenced" garbage prevails over common sense, rationality and the truth. You say that I am "essentially saying that we should throw out the sources we have ... because he doesn't believe them." Don't put words in my mouth. I think you should have to live with the sources you have saying the wrong thing. If I thought I had the references to replace the ones used, and could change the article, I would already have done so. I put this note here instead of that.

And it's not because I do not believe them, I have disproven them. 457 hits is actually quite a lot when considering the body of 19th century literature scanned by google. "Democrat Party" as a phrase is dialect, not standard English. Considering the stricter standards of the time, it was far more difficult for dialect forms to make it into print at all. And the 457 hits is not for occurances, it's texts. One of the first I found had multiple instances. It certainly disproves any claim that the usage was made up in the 1930's. The mediamatters website accuses Newt Gingrich and Frank Luntz for spreading the term in the 1990's. What this looks like, is it's an urban legend. It's a persecution myth, believed in by Democrats, (sorry, Democratics).

But since it is an urban legend with references, it lives on in wikipedia. And the joke's on you. : ) 129.133.127.244 (talk) 23:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

No, our anonymous critic did not refute the article . The text clearly states the phrase was in use by 1890, citing the Oxford English Dictionary. Most of the Google hits before 1890 are in fact typographical errors, where the word "Democratic" was accidentally shortened to "Democrat." In any case the article deals primarily with the late 20th century, where the term was deliberately used by Republicans to ridicule the Democratic Party. Numerous scholars have provided highly detailed evidence, published in leading dictionaries and scholarly journals. Rjensen (talk) 23:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't really disagree with either of you. I think that it is, on occasion, used to purposefully poke the party members by their opposition. That is born out by sources. However, in common usage, due to dialect of certain regions and the prevalence of the term, "Democrat Party" "Democrat Senator" "Democrat Governor" is considered a more proper form of English that "Democratic Party" "Democratic Senator" or "Democratic Governor". The speaker has no negative intention at all in such instances. To wit, the term is even used among Demcrats themselves at times. All this is anecdotal of course. I'm just tossing my two cents in. I am unaware of any paper published to that effect, but it is certainly the truth. (yes I know about the WP:TRUTH) The article seems leave out this aspect. 23:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, everything before 1890 was a typographical error. An error that just happens to match later dialect usage? That's worse than laughable. And your last comment is correct if you replace "Numerous scholars" with "several casual left wing writers."

Charles Edward, in the second section above this when he wrote "It attempts to portray the use of the phrase "Democrat Party" as some sort of conspiracy to de-legitimize the Democratic Party without showing a shred of evidence that such a conspiracy exists, or that the supposed epithet has any meaning other than people's ignorance of proper grammar." Rjensen, you have an epithet which a) doesn't mean anything, and b) people use casually anyway. So how is that possibly any sort of epithet? It would be the same as claiming that use of the word "tv" instead of "television" was a secret attack on transvestites.129.133.127.244 (talk) 23:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

the occasional, probably rare, usage before 1890 is not at issue, and pretending that it somehow delegitimized as the article is based on a misreading of the article. Re the usage, better read the first page or so of Feuerlicht (1957). Safire has written extensively on the matter, he was a leading Republican, a prominent conservative, and a Nixon speechwriter. on the question of dialect usage of Democrat party -- it is commonly used in some places, such as Indiana and Maryland. As has been demonstrated by the citations. However it is not dialect on the part of the Republican national committee, the Bush White House, or the Republicans in Congress, etc. They used standard language for national audiences.Rjensen (talk) 00:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Rjensen. I apologize if my tone was gruff initially, but given Wikipedia policies, the IP's objection seems somewhat pointless. Remember that talk pages are for improving articles; all the meta-talk about anecdotal evidence doesn't seem useful for improving the article. -Phoenixrod (talk) 01:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The IP's objection seems to be based on a cursory reading of the article. Our article notes that the term is sometimes used casually, is sometimes even used by Democrats. It also notes that a prominent Republican politician, Harold Stassen, articulated a rationale for its deliberate derogatory use (and that's sourced to The New Yorker, not a left-wing blog). That the usage is more than just an occasional solecism or bit of dialect is further evidenced by the comments of other politicians from both major parties.

To the IP, I would say that, if some prominent spokesperson expresses the opinion that this entire subject is a ridiculous conspiracy theory dreamt up by Democrats who are either paranoid or cynically seeking political advantage, then, by all means, provide the citation for that opinion and we can consider whether to include a report of it. JamesMLane t c 22:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

My point, JamesMLane, is the failing of wikipedia. Clearly wrong articles with citations prevail over basic common sense, and the best wisdom wikipedia can rise to is "there is divided opinion" I have not been to the wikipedia page on the curvature of the earth, but unless it states "there is a minority opinion that the planet is flat", then that was only achieved by violating wikipedia policy.129.133.127.244 (talk) 02:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The New Yorker is not left wing? Try telling them that.129.133.127.244 (talk) 02:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Phoenixrod, my objection is pointless? This article is about a non-existant entity. If you wanted an article on the urban legend believed by "Democratics" that Republicans are secretly making fun of them in a way too subliminal for anyone to pick up, then such an article at least would have a valid, real-world subject.129.133.127.244 (talk) 02:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Rjensen, you're clearly too emotionally invested in this article to be a valid judge.129.133.127.244 (talk) 02:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Now you're just being silly and demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia. The core policy on verifiability begins, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." In the abstract, sure: it may be a little bit silly that there is a debate about whether to call the party "Democrat" or "Democratic", but the fact remains that the debate does exist and has received significant coverage, as the verified sources demonstrate. So your objection that "This article is about a non-existant [sic] entity" is on the face of it absurd. Your comments about the flat earth are dealt with at WP:UNDUE, coincidentally; I'd recommend reading that short section. If you have a problem with Wikipedia at large, perhaps you should try the talk page of one of the policies (Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability, perhaps?). But as I was trying to say earlier, per WP:TALK, the discussion here is solely about improving this article, not bemoaning a perceived problem with the entire project. And that leads me into what I also said earlier: your objection is pointless here if it's not about improving this article. -Phoenixrod (talk) 05:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Concur. This is hardly the forum to discuss the failings of wikipedia. On improving the article, I think making a reference to the casual use of the term in the lead would be fitting; the lead currently indicates all usage of the term is derogatory and intended as a slur. I admit when I first came across this article I too thought it was completely ludicrous given the common use of this term in my region of the nation. However, there is clear documented proof that some Republicans use the term purposefully to "tweak" Democrats which I subsequently read. I think the "Grammar" section fairly states the points that have already been raised about the influence of dialect on the term. That said, it is just very unfair and untrue to insinuate that most people who use this term have negative intentions. This is however, a topic on which very little quality work has been authored, which I can find. So we are pretty well stuck with what we have. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Phoenixrod, I have not said I suggest changing the article. I argue it should remain as it is, as a testament to the failings of the wikipedia plan. For you to argue that the policy supports the article as it is, bolsters my position. I am not arguing anything. I posted my position, supported it with ample evidence, and left it at that, an entirely appropriate thing to do. if this threatenes your sense of the integrity of wikipedia, that's your issue, not mine.129.133.127.244 (talk) 01:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Charles Edward, this is certainly a place to argue the failings of an article. As you appear unable to recognize, the subject of this article is the urban myth held by some political observers and entirely unsupported by reality. Nor is it a matter of the influence of dialect on the term. Dialect usage was ALL there was, (for probably a century), until someone idle writer made up a persecution myth on behalf of the Democrat[ic]s. "So we are pretty well stuck with what we have." Exactly. A garbage article that reinforces a pathetic urban myth.129.133.127.244 (talk) 01:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Now that you've admitted you aren't here to improve the article, I think this conversation is now over. You are welcome to think what you like, but your opinion will remain just that. -Phoenixrod (talk) 06:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, you really 'outed' me that time Phoenixrod. "You misunderstand, Phoenixrod, I'm not advocating changing the article at all. I'm at least as aware of WP:RS as you are. The article should remain." That was my first response to you. It just has taken it this long for this to sink in. My opinions on the validity of this article are just as valid as yours, and clearly many other posters here have claimed the same as I have. ---But more than that, I have posted strong proof of my opinion, which no one on your end can do. ---I'm satisfied with that.129.133.127.244 (talk) 01:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I missed something, but where did you post a link or citation to a source? Lol! I would love to find a source that states your opinion, and I have looked long and hard. I agree with your opinion on this, and you are in fact mostly correct. But without a source, there's not much that can be done. This topic is obscure and lacks much published thought on it, and unfortunately what is published is not in agreement with our opinion. Wikipedia does work, and works well. But wikipedia is not here to tell the truth, as a goal :( Its here to tell what can be verified in reliable sources. If you have a problem with that policy, the place to discuss it is on the policy page. That is what I meant by this is not the forum to discuss the failings of wikipedia and its policies. That said there are some issues with this article that can be resolved and pointed out. I have some spare time so I will give this article a review today and outline the issues on this talk page.—Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

"But without a source, there's not much that can be done." ---Charles Edward, 20 september 2010. "If I thought I had the references to replace the ones used, and could change the article, I would already have done so." ---Me, 13 September 2010. (A week later and it's only just sinking in.... )129.133.127.244 (talk) 01:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

"Wikipedia does work, and works well." It most certainly does not. I could show you a long article associated with a major American university, and almost the whole thing is a fraud. I once carefully went through it, too out the whole inposture, and carefully built in reference citations for the whole thing. Six months later, the original fraudster had restored his old article. I see the article as now being a testament to the inability of the 'algorithm' of wikipedia, and I haven't done a thing to unmask the fraud. There are huge problems with articles throughout. On the history of universities generally, their development are now attributed to madrassas, based on one (highly political)cite in one academic article, overturning a library of literature on the development of universities. Now, this is not the place for such a discussion, but if you're going to make claims here, I should be able to respond.129.133.127.244 (talk) 01:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest WP:DFTT? I agree that the article may have problems, but our IP friend doesn't have any interest in solving them, preferring personal attacks and incivility instead. -Phoenixrod (talk) 02:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The only incivility I've noted here is your desire to make this discussion about me rather than about the article.129.133.127.244 (talk) 01:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• After reviewing all the sources listed by this article, not a single one uses the term "epiphet" to refer to the phrase "Democrat Party". "Slur" is used. This would make the lead sentence of this article, and its repeated usage throughout unsourced.
• The main source used to backup alot of the content of this article is [1]. This is originally a blog entry from the New Yorker that has since been moved to the archives, taking the obvious "bloginess" away from it. The New Yorker is notably and openly partisan, so in that vein it must be taken with a grain of salt. The magazine itself is a "sophisticated humor magazine". Not exactly excellent source material for a topic of this nature..
  • Furthermore, This source also states "...there are plenty of others who say “Democrat Party” just to needle the other side while signalling solidarity with their own...". which indicates its content was used selectively.
  • The source also states "The history of “Democrat Party” is hard to pin down with any precision", which would indicate that this term's origin and original purpose is unknown, also a fact that is omitted from this article.
  • Other than the author's own opinion, this source presents no information to clearly show that the intention of this term is negative, other than point out different people who have used the term, insinuating they had negative intentions, while not actually state so.
  • This statement from our article is referenced by this source "The explicit goal is to dissociate the name of the rival party from the concept of democracy." - however this is not at all supported by the source, The word "democracy" does not appear it, neither does the word "goal".
  • The failure to show both sides of this source, and the tendany to favor the opinion that the term is a slur is a violation of WP:NPOV
• [2], this source is a primary source in the context its being used, and is therefore in violation of WP:PRIMARY, and constitutes a violation of WP:OR
• This source states [3], "while it's hard to say if the omission [of ic] was intentional" - indicating the writer cannot be certain if the term was used for a negative intent, or was just the dialect of the speaker.
  • This article again, goes back to citing blogs - not reliable sources.
  • It also says "It's hard to disentangle whether that's an intentional slight at the opposition, or traditional problems with the ... vocabulary"
  • It also says "Republicans "have been doing it so long that they probably don't even realize they're doing it." - which would reinforce the opinions raised on this page that the term is not intended as a slur, it has just became a part of dialect
• "Robert Taft, The Papers of Robert A. Taft, edited by Clarence E. Wunderlin, Jr., (2003), 3:313" is used as a primary source, it violated WP:OR
• "Feuerlicht (1957)" seems to say that term is is widespread and common, and the intention of its use is unknown... Again in contradiction to what it is being used to cite. He states a number of suggestions of to the purpose of the term including "other reasons" unrelated to a negative slur.
  • He also states the term is "natural", meaning it sounds better, thus going back to the dialect issues raised.
• Ref #12 is a primary source in this context. A violation of WP:OR
• Ref #13 is dead
• [4] is a blog, totally unacceptable as a source.
• This whole paragraph - "Likewise, it is in common use by former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay,[15] House Minority Leader John Boehner,[16] Senator Charles Grassley,[17] Congressman Steve Buyer,[18] and other Republicans." is not properly referenced. It is picking individual articles where the speaker used the term once, then saying it is common usage. This is a violation of WP:SYNTH. Unless the article says they use the term commonly, then you cannot say here they use the term commonly.
• [5] this article goes on to refer to Republican use, and says its a slur, etc. But again, provides no evidence what-so-ever that it is the case. Pure opinion - but it is stated as such within the article. And even within the article it calls the concern over use of the term "trivial", a side which the article does not represent. This article is misused in manner that violates WP:NPOV.
• [6] is not pointing to an article, not a valid source
• "the "Republic Party", began to circulate in liberal parts of the blogosphere; the previous Republican waves of usage had inspired the "Publican Party", but this failed to catch on." - the book citing this was published in 1951.... I didn't know there was a blogosphere back then?
• What makes any of these reliable source? [7], [8], [9] [10] - nothing.
• [11] - the Huffington Post, these can be narrowly reliable. In any event, this is a blog post and can't be used.

• Having reviewed all the sources, there is not a single one that actually makes the case that this term is used solely, or even predominatly as a epiphet. In fact several contradict that point. There is no source, as would be typical for an article of this type, which connects the dots saying, during X years, Y people pressed for the phrase to be used to mean Z. Epiphet and slur have a meaning, and indicate the speaker has a certain intention when speaking the term. Nothing in these sources established that as fact - in the few sources that are reliable each one makes the statement along the lines that, they can't say for sure if it is an slur or negative. It is always made clear its their opinion. This article presents the use of this term as a slur as fact, without providing a source to prove it.

This article by no means deserves a B quality rating, start or weak C would be more appropriate. The numerous violation of policy makes this the fair target of several policy violation tags.

My challenge to the editors of this article would be as follows:

Find a comprehensive, scholarly source, that traces the use of this term to its roots, identifies where it originated, why it originated, and its purpose- if there was one. Let it further prove that the widespread use of the term is intended to slur Democrats, as opposed to regional dialect. Until such a source is available, cull out everything sourced to blogs, unreliable sources, and primary source, and violations of synth (75% of the article). —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I think I will give you a bit of time to respond, or I may do so myself. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I very strongly suggest that any major revisions to this article be proposed here first. This article has been the subject of extensive discussion over the years, and many specific issues have been addressed. It won't really be helpful to go through the B and R stages of BRD as if there'd been no prior discussion. JamesMLane t c 00:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to make this list, Charles Edward. I only have a few minutes to start in on it right now, and I've begun to look at what you say about the source from The New Yorker. I have to say, though, that I don't see what you claim. Here are some specific responses:

• • • What evidence do you have that this was originally a blog post? It looks to me like an archived article from the "Comment" section of the magazine, which is a regular feature. I don't see the "obvious 'bloginess'" you claim.
      • Upon closer examination I see you are correct, he titles his column "Comments". That mislead me. :) —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
    • As to "The New Yorker is notably and openly partisan", I agree it's left-leaning, but "notably and openly partisan"? That I don't see, and the article The New Yorker doesn't back up this claim either. In fact, that article says, "It is well known in its commentaries on popular culture and eccentric Americana; its attention to modern fiction by the inclusion of short stories and literary reviews; its rigorous fact checking and copyediting; its journalism on world politics and social issues; and its single-panel cartoons sprinkled throughout each issue." So implying that Hertzberg is unreliable based on the publication information doesn't make sense to me.
      • I am not of the opinion that Hertzberg is unreliable. It is my opinion that he is not authoritative on a subject such as this, and his article offers no hint as to where any of his information came from. So on the face of it, as this is the only source in the article thats talks about this subject in a halfway comprehensive way, it seems to be out on a limb. I am not saying we should discount this source, I am just pointing out that this is the only significant source for this article, and it is very wanting and begs alot of questions. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Re:"The magazine itself is a "sophisticated humor magazine", that's a misrepresentation. It's about culture; yes, it has some humor and some frequently unfunny cartoons, but it's not a humor magazine.
      • I don't believe that is a misrepresentation, as that is a direct quote from the founder of the magazine as to its contents. But again, I am not saying we should not use this source, I am saying "is this the best source we can find?" —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm afraid I don't understand the logic in your saying Hertzberg uses examples selectively. The quote you cite doesn't undermine the use of the term as an epithet—or slur, if you prefer.
      • I am not saying Hertzberg selectively uses information in his article, I am saying we are selectively quoting Hertzeberg in our article. We omit his statements where he says he can't be sure if he is right, and that the term might often have no negative meaning at all. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
    • You say, The source also states "The history of “Democrat Party” is hard to pin down with any precision", which would indicate that this term's origin and original purpose is unknown, also a fact that is omitted from this article. I'm a little confused. You are quoting the topic sentence of a paragraph that goes on to try to pin down some of that history, at least back to Harding. As a source for the term's origins and original purpose, sure, Hertzberg isn't saying much, but for its 20th century use, he seems to have a lot of value.
      • He does go into detail saying who "used" the term. But he does not go into any detail saying that they invented the term for a negative purpose, that is the point of his initial comment, which is to say that the whole subject is subjective. Nobody knows for sure. It is more my point that we are omitting this point of view from our article. From that article he says "it got a boost in 1940 from Harold Stassen, the Republican Convention keynoter that year, who used it to signify disapproval of such less than fully democratic Democratic machine bosses as Frank Hague of Jersey City and Tom Pendergast of Kansas City" - aside from that being hard to understand, where is this info coming from? What I am getting at here, throughout the article the fact that it is an insult is taken for granted - the fact is never established. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Nothing apart from the author's opinion that it's pejorative? Did you read the whole article, such as the part that quotes "William F. Buckley, Jr., the Miss Manners cum Dr. Johnson of modern conservatism, [who] dealt with the question in a 2000 column in National Review"? (Now there is a source worth tracking down. The online version isn't available right now, but maybe someone can find the print edition.)
      • I did read what Buckley wrote, and to be clear, he is not acknowledging it is an epiphet, he is acknowledging Democrats dislike the term and it should be avoided to keep peace. Again, where is the evidence it is spoken with the intention of it being a slur? The article also states "Luntz, who road-tested the adjectival use of “Democrat” with a focus group in 2001, has concluded that the only people who really dislike it are highly partisan adherents of the—how you say?—Democratic Party." Again, my point is that we are selectively using this source to push a certain position. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
    • You say, This statement from our article is referenced by this source "The explicit goal is to dissociate the name of the rival party from the concept of democracy." - however this is not at all supported by the source, The word "democracy" does not appear it, neither does the word "goal". I am confused by this. Sure, those words are not used explicitly, but it's not a stretch to find them in "At a slightly higher level of sophistication, it’s an attempt to deny the enemy the positive connotations of its chosen appellation. During the Cold War, many people bridled at obvious misnomers like “German Democratic Republic,” and perhaps there are some members of the Republican Party (which, come to think of it, has been drifting toward monarchism of late) who genuinely regard the Democratic Party as undemocratic." If I paraphrase that, I see Hertzberg saying that the use of "Democrat Party" is an attempt by Republicans to move the Democratic Party away from the "postive connotations" of the name (i.e., democracy, as in the German Democratic Republic example that follows). So in short, I see that while the Wikipedia article doesn't say "goal" (and we might remove the word "explicit" unless it's sourced by a different source, like Buckley, perhaps), the spirit of Hertzberg is maintained in that citation.
      • I have to disagree here a bit. Wikipedia policy allows to rephrasing and paraphrasing and summarizing sources. It does not allow us to say what the source does not say. We are turning this statement "it’s an attempt to deny the enemy the positive connotations of its chosen appellation", into "the explicit goal is to dissociate the name of the rival party from the concept of democracy.". That is too much a leap. Why not just rephrase what he is saying? "The term is an attempt to remove the positive aspect of the party's name from the dialog", or something like that. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
    • You cite The failure to show both sides of this source, and the tendany to favor the opinion that the term is a slur is a violation of WP:NPOV. Can you explain what you mean here? Hertzberg is not tied to NPOV. If instead you mean that we should cite what Hertzberg says about use of the term that isn't a slur, then I'd be interested to know what from his article you would like to include in ours. I'm open to suggestions on that front.
      • I am not saying that Hertzberg is nuetral, he is not. Thats not our problem though. Our problem is that we only present one side of his articles; we do not present the side where he shows that it not always a slur, and that most people may not think its a slur. Here are some examples of statements in the New Yorker article that would add balance if used here:
        • What he meant [when he said Democrat Party] is anybody’s guess... - thats right, its just a guess that the use was negatively intended
        • among those of the Republican persuasion “Democrat Party” is now nearly universal
        • Luntz, who road-tested the adjectival use of “Democrat” with a focus group in 2001, has concluded that the only people who really dislike it are highly partisan adherents
        • The article quoting Buckley there are difficulties, as when one desires to describe a “democratic” politician, and is jolted by possible ambiguity. I wish I could find this whole Buckley article because I almost positive he is selectively quoted. I believe he would go on to say something like, "All the politicians in the United States are democratic". That is the point Buckley was getting at, it is ambiguous to use "Democratic", it is not always clear or obvious whether you are talking about the ideal or the party in some instances.
        • [Democrat Party is] a minor irritation, a wee gnat - not a slur or epithet
        • there are plenty ... who say “Democrat Party” just to needle the other side while signaling solidarity with their own - the partisan equivalent of flashing a gang sign - meaning they are not saying it as a slur, but as partisan political jargon.
        • “Democrat Party” is standard jargon on right-wing talk radio and common on winger Web sites like NewsMax.com - here it is refereed to as jargon - which has much different meaning than slur or epiphet. IMO, the article concedes the fact that common use of the term is not an intentional slur.

—Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay. That took longer than I thought. I'll look at your other points later, but for now I just wanted to say that I think The New Yorker looks to me like a great source for our article, and it doesn't seem to have been used improperly. I'm not sure how my tone is coming across, as I'm rushing a little, but please take this in the vein it's intended: improving the article, not picking on your argument. There's probably a lot of useful stuff to think about in the rest. -Phoenixrod (talk) 02:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses, your tone is fine :) Please don't take mine incorrectly either. I've work on alot of political articles, I find the truest way to avoid issues is to stick as closely as possible to what the sources are saying. Let me state I agree that New Yorker is a marginally reliable source and can be used here. But, we are using it as the core source for defining this topic. There has to be something better out there - by better I mean scholarly, comprehensive, footnoted, etc. I do feel like the article is saying alot that is not supported by the source, but the most egregious problem is that it is only selectively presenting the content of the sources. The New Yorker article is more balanced than this article, for example. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

in response to the statement in the first line of this section that After reviewing all the sources listed by this article, not a single one uses the term "epiphet" to refer to the phrase "Democrat Party". I added two very explicit statements by RS (In 1952, "Eisenhower referred to his opposition as “the Democrat Party,” a GOP epithet," says Robert Schlesinger, White House Ghosts: Presidents and Their Speechwriters (2008) p. 96; and In 1968, Congressional Quarterly reported that at its national convention "the GOP did revert to the epithet of 'Democrat' party. The phrase had been used in 1952 and 1956 but not in 1960.", see notes 1 and 12) Rjensen (talk) 13:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand all this concern about "epithet". Here's the definition from Wiktionary:

epithet (plural epithets)

1. A term used to characterize a person or thing.

2. A term used as a descriptive substitute for the name or title of a person.

3. An abusive or contemptuous word or phrase.

4. (biology) A word in the scientific name of a taxon following the name of the genus or species. This applies only to formal names of plants, fungi and bacteria. In formal names of animals the corresponding term is the specific name.

Charles Edward, are you assuming that sense #3 is the only meaning of the word? I think "slur" is a good synonym for sense #3 but, in the context in which "epithet" is used in our article, sense #2 is the one that comes most readily to my mind. The citations provided by Rjensen also confirm that there's no problem with using that word in the article. JamesMLane t c 16:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. :) I have assumed we are using #3, because we also employ the term "slur" within the article, and the term "slur" is also employed in some of the sources being used, which would be synonymous with the third definition - indicating there is negative intent on the part of the speaker. I much prefer the term "jargon" or "political jargon", which is also employed by some sources, to refer to the term. I don't disagree with using the term epiphet, I was merely pointing out the previously unreferenced nature of the statement. I agree that the term can be used in a negative way, and that it indeed is used in a negative way. However, I believe the term is also used, much more commonly, in a non-negative way (more fitting with the second definition), and I believe the sources used in the article establish that as a fact. But that position is left out of the article. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Why is this even an article? What is the subject of this article? An accusation by Democrat[ic]s? A usage by Republicans? The urban legend that this is happening? What actually is the subject of the article? Do rumors get encyclopedia articles? If there is a story that Ashton Kutcher is cheating on Demi Moore, does that story get an article? A rumor about something should have independent existence as an article?129.133.127.244 (talk) 01:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

the article is about a phrase that is used in controversial fashion in American politics, and which has been widely discussed by lexicographers, linguists and political commentators for over 50 years. Rjensen (talk) 02:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Except you can't prove any one aspect you've just claimed.129.133.127.244 (talk) 06:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Even if you accept the theory of the phrase 'Democrat Party' advocated by some posters here, the opening paragraph is simply untrue:

""Democrat Party" is a political epithet used in the United States instead of "Democratic Party" when talking about the Democratic Party.[1] The term has been principally used by conservative commentators and members of the Republican Party in party platforms, partisan speeches and press releases since the 1930s. The explicit goal is to dissociate the name of the rival party from the concept of democracy.[2]"

If it said, "Use of the phrase 'Democrat Party' is an entirely normal vernacular usage in America, although it is a technically incorrect adjective formation. However, some insider commentators in Washington consider the use of the term "Democrat Party" as prejorative, since it removes a direct association to the adjective 'democratic'. This theory has no support in reality since the phrase has been in common usage since before the Civil War." ---And that would be the sum total of the article, and you could add the cites to that.

"since the 1930s" is untrue. "explicit goal" is untrue since you have to be a long reader in inside the beltway garbage to even have heard of it. "principally used by conservative commentators and members of the Republican Party in party platforms" since the new Democrat logo says "Democrats". "political epithet" is untrue if nobody knows it. I can't insult you by calling you a name you don't know about.

And, in so doing, the article should be deleted for not being worth a wikipedia entry.129.133.127.244 (talk) 06:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

our anonymous IP poster makes his own blunders, such as "it is a technically incorrect adjective formation." [he needs to ponder "bus stop"]. "since the 1930s" is correct--citations to Herbert Hoover. "explicit goal" is stated by Stassen, who was the GOP campaign manager in 1940. "principally used..." is correct. "epithet" (in negative sense) really does riles Democrats. Our IP person is perhaps in some distant IP Island which puts him out of touch with American political rhetoric. He seems to say that he has NEVER heard the term used in negative fashion; --well, nearly every one of Bush's White House statements used it over 2001-09. All in all his multiple posts prove that lots of folks out there positively don't believe in scholarship, dictionaries, footnotes, or academic journals or all that stuff. They get along just fine, I suppose, but they are wasting everyone's time by telling Wiki editors how to write.Rjensen (talk) 08:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I love how you prove me right, Rjensen. - ""since the 1930s" is correct" no, it is not, we know it was used extensively for a century prior. - ""principally used..." is correct." a) that's not an argument, and b) the original statement is still a lie. - ""epithet" (in negative sense) really does riles Democrats." No, it does not. Tens of millions of democrats hear it every day without thinking twice about it. Almost nobody preceives it as an epithet, or as derogatory, or anything else. The Democrats themselves have rebranded themselves with a new logo where they call themselves 'The Democrats'. Further, rjensen, you claim that Bush did it all the time, **and yet no one complained**. certainly if it WAS a derogatory term, and Bush was using it, then why did Stephanopolous, Matthews, Schaeffer, etc., etc., ad nauseum let him get away with it? Why were there no howls of censure? Why was it a non-issue? And don't post some link to an obscure NPR report: it never was an issue for eight years. - But the best claim of rjensen's above is ""explicit goal" is stated by Stassen, who was the GOP campaign manager in 1940."

That's looney land. Here's why. In order for it to be an admitted or explicit goal of the Republicans rjensen has to have some Republican admitting to it. So he's got one. A seventy year old reference to an obscure Republican. Why is this Stassen reference so crucial? It only makes sense if rjensen thinks that that was the one time the Republicans let down their guard and admitted it, --that it has been an ongoing secret plot, and Stassen let it slip. Rjensen is essentially arguing a secret conspiracy to embarass the Democrats, a conspiracy that has lasted generations with seamless performance, with this one 1940 exception. In other words, this is tin-foil hat conspiracy stuff. This is the same as proving the Illuminati control the federal government because the owl Moloch is hidden in the one dollar bill. For rjensen, Stassen is the owl Moloch, the one slip that proves the conspiracy. ---The much more likely story that Stassen heard the rumor, too, the same way Safire, and decided to gloat about it as if it was real.

This is a lame conspiracy theory masquerading as truth, you would have to accept the premise offered by rjensen, that one 70 year old "admission" proves a seventy year conspiracy that's been otherwise hidden from public view, to accept that this story is at all legitimate. You have to accept conspiracy theory reasoning to believe in this.

So, what we have is a wikipedia article that reports an urban legend as fact, and none of you can figure out how to get rid of it. Hah!

Rjensen, your defense fails. It's an urban legend.129.133.127.244 (talk) 23:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

the epithet usage dates from the 1930s and was heavily used in 1940 when Stassen was the campaign manager for the GOP presidential nominee. Bush used it all the time and the Democrats complained a great deal, as the article demonstrates. Anon has not found a single RS that supports his claim that this is an urban legend--not one. He is relying on his own anonymous memory of things he never heard. Rjensen (talk) 00:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Anon IP, you write: "This is a lame conspiracy theory masquerading as truth...." My opinion differs from yours. I've been editing Wikipedia much longer than you have and I've made many more contributions to many more articles. So which of our opinions counts more? The answer is that both have exactly the same weight, namely zero. If some prominent spokesperson (not an anonymous Wikipedia editor, like you, or even one who uses his real name, like me) has expressed the opinion that this is an urban legend, fine, provide the citation and we can consider the quotation for inclusion. Until then, frankly, you're wasting your time. JamesMLane t c 04:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

"My opinion differs from yours. I've been editing Wikipedia much longer than you have and I've made many more contributions to many more articles." If that is ever a criteria for accuracy, you'll be set. Lane, you're late to this party, there's already substantial commentary on your point above. Feel free to read it. If you're such an established wikipedia presence, I'm sure you'll agree that's the way to go before adding to a conversation you haven't read.129.133.127.244 (talk) 05:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Again you're making things up, Rjensen. "the epithet usage dates from the 1930s" So you're claiming that a common shorthand term for generations suddenly became an epithet in the 1930's? By what magical process? "and was heavily used in 1940 when Stassen was the campaign manager for the GOP presidential nominee." That's not what your own cite says, rjensen. You're making it up. : ) "Bush used it all the time and the Democrats complained a great deal, as the article demonstrates." The article says no such thing. You aren't even playing straight with what the article says. Why? Why do you have to make up support, Rjensen? Why do you have to lie about a page that is just a click away? Is it because your position is so clearly defensible??

You had one shot to defend yourself, and you just dug yourself in deeper, and now have had a second shot, and have passed to making things up. Keep on going rjensen.129.133.127.244 (talk) 05:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

anon has no reliable source whatever and is bfraking Wiki rules of behavior (Why do you have to lie about a page) that will get him banned. Rjensen (talk) 07:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

In other words, you have no legitimate argument left. I'm fine with that.129.133.127.244 (talk) 02:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Once again, everyone, WP:DFTT. Look on the IP's talk page to see other examples of this editor's love for running around in circles and shouting WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. -Phoenixrod (talk) 05:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, we are better off discussing this topic within the confines of policy and avoid personal attacks. IP, your opinions are welcome here, but please be constructive. Our goal is to provide a high quality, well referenced, neutral, and well wrote article. The best thing you could do is locate sources that back up your assertions. The assertions of the article are currently referenced, meaning the most that can be done is to add an opposing view if it can be documented. If you can find even one source, then we can get somewhere towards adding your view to the article. Otherwise the circles continue and continuing this discussion is pointless. (And btw, I have looked for sources about differing opinions, and I don't believe any exists, at least online.)

That said, I think I've made a pretty good case that this article is in violation of WP:NPOV due to the selective use of the sources (meaning that we fail to use the parts of the sources that would add a balanced opinion) and the obvious violations of WP:SYNTH and WP:PRIMARY. I won't tag it, as I don't like to be a troublemaker. :) But I believe the regular editors here are being constructive, and I hope you see my point and will address it in the future. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Charles Edward, I posted my objection to the article, and when challenged, I defended it. I later put most objections into a new section and into the form of questions that a dispassionate reader might find helpful. In all this, as can be read by anyone above, rjensen and phoenixrod, left without rhetorical ground, attack me personally. I am not complaining about that, because I really could not care less for their opinions, but I just note for the record that they're the ones slugging it out on that level.

This article also does not meet criteria for notability. It is also original research. Somewhere above I explained that this article presumes a conspiracy by the Republican Party to somehow attack Democrats with this phrase. This article only makes sense in those terms. It purports to prove such a conspiracy, (and thereby is original research), and does not even succeed in doing so.

If there was a Republican Party Style Manual adopted at a convention that stated this, "always call the Democratic Party the Democrat Party". Then that would be the basis of an article, (or more appropriately, a footnote to another article). Not only is this short of that, all that this article is based on is some reporting of a rumor, a rumor that cannot, given reality, have a real basis in fact.129.133.127.244 (talk) 23:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

And phoenixrod, if you want to call me a troll, you've responded to every single post I posted with a post of your own. So I call you a troll. There. We're even.129.133.127.244 (talk) 23:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you please provide a weblink or a book and page number where we could verify that your objections have been published? —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

""But without a source, there's not much that can be done." ---Charles Edward, 20 september 2010. "If I thought I had the references to replace the ones used, and could change the article, I would already have done so." ---Me, 13 September 2010. (A week later and it's only just sinking in.... )129.133.127.244 (talk) 01:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)" (Third time.)129.133.127.244 (talk) 01:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Isn't this usage simply an example of analogy:

a libertarian belongs to the libertarian party

a republican belongs to the republican party

a socialist belongs to the socialist party

a communist belongs to the communist party

a democrat belongs to the ??? party

Further, consider the two sentences

New Hampshire is the most democratic state (large legislature, most government at the town meeting level, etc)

Massachusetts is the most democrat state (100% of congressional delegation, governor, votes for president, etc)

Virginia-American (talk) 18:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

This is very true and precisely my original argument countering the blanket opening statements of the article. However, as we have discussed in length, there is no source that makes these same statements. The closest thing I've found online is a partial quote from William Buckley, which does not follow through to his conclusion, but eludes to it. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I think there may be something to your first argument by analogy, Virginia-American. But as to the second, I think it's a matter of capitalization: democratic state (for the form of government) vs. Democratic state (for the party). And as Charles Edward says, it comes down to what the sources say. -Phoenixrod (talk) 18:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thats works for writing. But taking it a step further and incoproating Buckley's comment, when you are speaking you cannot capitalize. It is ambiguous to say democratic\Democratic, leading to the use of Democrat as an adjective to avoid the ambiguity. here's an interesting article, pointing out that the use of the term by Bush as a slur was explicit denied by Bush and his press secretary. [12] —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I am proud to boast that I am a republican, but never a Republican (in the American sense); that's just how English works. I'm sorry that somebody seems to have trouble understanding that the use of democrat and Democrat alike is bad grammar. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe someone should tell the other English speaking countries that, or perhaps this is a global conspiracy? The term is used in Canada, Britain, Australia, India, South Africa.. All the refer to "Democratic Parties". Again - we need sources. This is horribly obscure, and both sides are offering almost nothing but original research. Can anybody please provide a quality scholarly reference for this topic? i went through each source in this article an outlined so above - and one is tertiary. There is only two source of quality in the whole thing, most the article is violation of OR, Synth, and Primary. Clearly a violation of NPOV. No one can provide good sources, and the circle continues. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia allows primary sources. see WP:OR The rule states "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." Therefore to state that Taft used the term "Democrat Party" in a speech, and to cite a primary source that has the text of the speech, is a straight-forward description of his usage that anyone with a high school education can verify. Likewise to state that Starke County Democrats use the term --with a cite to their webpage that uses it--is also allowed. The OR rule is designed for an entirely different purpose--that is to prevent statements like "In my unpublished research I concluded XYZ but the results were never published." Rjensen (talk) 07:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes we can make a straight forward use of a primary source, but we are not doing so in this article. We are taking isolated instances of individuals using the word, and putting them together in a manner that violates WP:SYNTH, and coming to a conclusion not stated in the sources being used. WP:PRIMARY also states

Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source. Do not base articles entirely on primary sources.

The majority of our article is based on primary sources. (As I have stated before there are only two reliable sources related to this topic in this entire article, the rest is primary or blogs)

To use your example above as an illustration of my point, our article could say "starke county democrats use the term" - which would presumably be supported by the source (which is a dead link now) and would be an acceptable use of the source as you point out. However, our article uses that source to cite this statement: ""Democrat" is occasionally used as an adjective by local Democratic Party organizations." How can we make that assessment based on the source given which documents a single use of the term by a single person in a single local party? That is blatant original research. What we are doing in parts of this article is conducting our own survey of usage of the term and making broad statements like "the term has been used (in isolated instances) by ...", when all we have to back it up is links to articles where the term appears. Another example is that we say '"The term has also been used on occasion by other opponents of the Democratic Party, such as Ralph Nader.", but the source is transcript of a conversation with Nader, which shows he did say the term once, but from that we are drawing the conclusion that "used on occasion by other opponents" - which is not supported by the source. The only way we can make a statement about the frequency of the terms usage is if we have a source that says what its frequency of usage is.

In regards to Taft using the term- ok so he used it, so what? And how does that have to do with this article? Is there a third party source that ties his usage of the term to the topic of this article? (No) We are implying he employed the term for partisan political reasons (because the lead of the article claims that is the only possible use of the term), without a source to show that is true. The facts and history presented in the article need to be tied together by a reliable third party source, not pieced together by wikipedia editors to establish a point. We are pulling statements from here and there, and implying a conclusion that NONE of those sources make. The fact that this article is obviously skirting policy and other editors are refusing to acknowledge the fact is disturbing. And so I will ask this again: Aside from the New Yorker article, can anyone please provide a comprehensive, scholarly, footnoted source that discusses this topic? Can please try to dwell in the realm of reliable published sources that deal with this subject as a topic. It has been said above by other editors that this topic is well wrote upon and documents by scholarly sources, so can one of those sources please be provided so this article can truly be improved. I am being honest and sincere here, I have been looking pretty hard for such a source and have not been able to even find an indication that one exists. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Charles Edward warns, " Do not base articles entirely on primary sources." indeed, but the article is based on multiple RS -- secondary sources by linguists and experts on political language--there are eleven such articles or books cited and actually used. Start with Feuerlicht, (1957) who first raised the whole issue over 50 years ago in a leading scholarly journal, with many citations. The idea that "DP" is also used routinely by many local Democrats was not a new synthesis here, it is explictly the thrust of the scholarly article by Lyman (1958)--again over 50 years ago.Rjensen (talk) 15:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I have access to Feuerlicht, and this article does not reflect what he says. It is available on google books to review if you don't believe me. And he is one of the two sources which I say are reliable, the New Yorker being the other. But those two sources do not support 75% of this article. Much of this article focuses on the present, that too needs a source, and a book from 1958 will not do that. Are you reading the same article as me. Here is what his reference is used for:

Members of the Republican Party, from political commentators to George Bush and John McCain themselves, made especially extensive use of the term "Democrat Party" during the run-up to the 2006 midterm elections. In response to the growing use of the epithet in late 2006, a corresponding epithet for the Republican Party, the "Republic Party", began to circulate in liberal parts of the blogosphere; the previous Republican waves of usage had inspired the "Publican Party", but this failed to catch on.'

So how is it possible that a book wrote in 1958 can be used as a reference for events in 2006? Again, I find it odd the only scholarly source that can be pointed to is that one, the one already in the article and of limited value, and referencing things which the source does not support. Will you at least concede the fact that this article is in very poor shape reference wise? —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

It's in excellent shape with many more references to RS that most such articles. The point is that GOP leaders have been deliberately using the term since 1940 or earlier to embarrass/provoke/annoy/ridicule Democrats. And they still are doing it. There are many recent citations-- like Libby Copeland, "President's Sin of Omission? (Dropped Syllable in Speech Riles Democrats)". Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/24/AR2007012402469.html which says it all: "[Bush said]: 'I congratulate the Democrat majority,'... dropping the last two letters from 'Democratic.' Bush does this a lot, and...it is a semantic tactic that's been part of Republican warfare for decades. It's a little thing, a means of needling the opposition by purposefully mispronouncing its name, and of suggesting that the party on the left is not truly small-"d" democratic." Rjensen (talk) 18:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not denying that this happens.. I am denying that this article is well establishes these facts with references. The majority of statements in this article are NOT REFERENCED. You ignore everything I point to you and go to another item. Perhaps we should just go one item at a time? So I will repeat what I raised above. How can a book from 1958 be legitimately used as a reference for events that occurred in 2006? This article DOES violate policy throughout. I have taken it and pared out everything that is not referenced, referenced to blogs, synth, etc, and put it in my sandbox here: User:Charles Edward/sandbox. Please don't mistake my tone for hostility, but I feel like this is plainly obvious, and that I am talking to a brick wall who is refusing to see reason or follow policy. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Charles Edwards has a very hostile tone indeed. For example, he objects to passages that support his own argument! (Starke County example shows that DP is used locally by some Democrats). The 2007 Copeland citation supports many of the arguments he says are "unreferenced." The 1958 item is a scholarly article (not a book as he calls it) & proves that the GOP had a policy in the 1952 era. That supports the Copeland statement that DP is "part of Republican warfare for decades". Rjensen (talk) 19:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I am not taking a hostile tone, you are ignoring what I am saying to you. The 1958 book is being used to reference passage that having nothing to do with the 1950s. I have that book right in front of me, and what it is referencing in the part I mentioned is NOT in the source. It is original research to take a single instance of a democratic party using the term, could you please provide a quote from either of those sources that supports what they are citing in this article? Please? If the copeland article supports the statements, then citations to copeland need to follow the statements.. they do not currently do so, therefore they ARE unreferenced. Is it so hard to grasp that we cannot say what the sources do not say? Seeing how any honest person should be able to understand what I am saying, but none here are, I propose that we seek mediation from Wikipedia:Mediation to have this dispute resolved. Would you be willing to accept such a process to resolve the issues in this article? —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Charles Edward did indeed find a line where a cite from the 1950s is misconnected to a later event, so I removed it an d put in a good cite. Problem solved. Charles Edward now says that an additional cite to the Copeland article is needed somewhere--which may be true, and he can add it more easily than anyone else since only he knows where it should go. Charles Edward originally started out saying the whole article is worthless, then he complained there were too many references, then that there are too few references, but now he seems to have a new position. Just what that new position perhaps he can summarize for us. Rjensen (talk) 13:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe I have given my position very clearly and you are misrepresenting it. I did initially believe the article was bull because of the way it presents the topic, and I still believe it presents it improperly. My review of the sources proved that, and proved the many policy violations. Every assertion in this article must be referenced to a reliable source. Most are not. The sources that are reliable and are being used are used in a selective way that violates NPOV. I gave a link to my sandbox of what I think this article should look like. We are at am impasse since you refuse to accept my position, and I refuse to accept your position that the article is fine as it is. Will you agree to mediation? —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

[outdent]. OK, let's start with the most important (in your opinion) sentence that needs a reference. What is it? Rjensen (talk) 13:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, how about this one from the lead."The explicit goal is to dissociate the name of the rival party from the concept of democracy." The closest thing to this in our source is: "At a slightly higher level of sophistication, it’s an attempt to deny the enemy the positive connotations of its chosen appellation." - what we have done has left the realm of paraphrasing and entered the realm of twisting. I think, using that source to instead say "The purpose of the term is to deny the party the "positive connotations of their chosen appellation". is a more inline with what he actually says. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

OK problem #1 solved with this: [ref]Republicans "feared that 'Democratic' suggested Democrats have a monopoly on or are somehow the anointed custodians of the concept of democracy." Roy H. Copperud, American Usage and Style: The Consensus (Van Nostrand 1980)p 101-2 [/ref] Copperud, (1915-1991) was a journalism professor & author of hundreds of articles and several books on English style. Next? Rjensen (talk) 14:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok.. But, Republicans "feared that 'Democratic' suggested Democrats have a monopoly on or are somehow the anointed custodians of the concept of democracy." does not equal "The explicit goal is to dissociate the name of the rival party from the concept of democracy." Those are two different statements with significantly different meanings. "Explicit goal" infers a widespread united and single conspiratorial reasoning, which is not backed up in the sources. We could say, "Republicans use the term dissociate the Democratic Party with the concept of Democracy" instead, but the current statement is still not support by the referenced quote. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I have to go for awhile, but I will give you a second one. The lead says In similar two-word phrases, using "Democrat" as an adjective may also become controversial when used as a substitute for "Democratic" (as in "Democrat idea" or GOP Vice Presidential candidate Bob Dole's reference in his 1976 debate with Walter Mondale to "Democrat wars"[4]). The only reference for this is a transcript of a discussion about the debate where Dole used the term. He laments having accused Democrats of being warmongers, but there is no mention of the adjectival use of "Democrat" at all. The analysis is unreferenced and thus a suposition, making original research on a primary source. We need a reference that supports In similar two-word phrases, using "Democrat" as an adjective may also become controversial when used as a substitute for "Democratic". —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

sure enough: [ref]Ron Elving, the senior Washington editor of National Public Radio says the "Democrat" should not be used as an adjective. "We should not refer to Democrat ideas or Democrat votes. Any deviation from that by NPR reporters on air or on line should be corrected." Ombudsman, "Since When Did It Become the Democrat Party?," NPR March 26, 2010, online [/ref] Rjensen (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, first that source is a blog entry, which brings it into question as a reliable. I would prefer not to use this as a source at all, but assuming the author is well respected, the opinion at minimum must be attributed to her according to WP:NEWSBLOG. Second, an NPR writer saying NPR should not use the term does not equal: "In similar two-word phrases, using "Democrat" as an adjective may also become controversial when used as a substitute for "Democratic" Unless she is specifically saying this, we are in violation of WP:SYNTH, arriving at a conclusion not expressly supported by the reference. From this source we could say "NPR host Alicia Shepard opposes the use of the term on NPR because "NPR's policy is to call parties what they call themselves" and that Democrats may consider the term a "slight"." —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Pettifoggery about blogs is not helpful. NPR says "NO!" and that proves it's a controversial use. Focus please on the statement by senior NPR policy maker Ron Elving. His words appear on the formal NPR website & are what a RS looks like. He states that the adjective form is not allowed to NPR reporters, and that makes it controversial for one of them to use it. Rjensen (talk) 15:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I have to strongly disagree, and yes it is a blog and yes that does matter. The fact that you want to skip over very important things like that is troubling. No, NPR saying the term cannot be used does not make it controversial. What you have is a source saying NPR correspondents may not use the term because Democrats consider it a slight. That allows us to enter a statement in the article to that same effect. Not to read into it an make an analytic statement which says, because NPR does not permit the term to be used, it is therefore controversial. That violates WP:SYNTH. Why is it so hard to just write what the source says? We should not change it to say what we want to say. We need a source that says, with no interpretation needed, "other adjectival, besides in "Democrat Party" use of the word Democrat is controversial." Without a source saying something to that same effect, our article cannot say that. Its very straightforward. For the sake of Wikipedia, the only that that proves it controversial is a source plainly saying so.

The source, as you quote says: NPR's policy is to call parties what they call themselves, said Ron Elving, NPR's senior Washington editor. The proper name is the Democratic Party. Democrat is a noun and Democratic is the adjective to describe the party. When using democratic or Democratic as an adjective, it should be the adjectival form with 'ic' on the end," said Elving. "We should not refer to Democrat ideas or Democrat votes. Any deviation from that by NPR reporters on air or on line should be corrected." That statement does not support In similar two-word phrases, using "Democrat" as an adjective may also become controversial when used as a substitute for "Democratic" We have a single reference to a single instance of a single group who corrects the term. In that same light, our statement in the article must reflect that. We cannot turn that into a blanket statement like we are, not without a source saying its the case! —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Well Charles Edward is turning difficult again. What's this nonsense about not using NPR's official blog to gets its official policy? NPR's official NO policy makes using the term controversial, which is what the text says. Does Charles Edward really believe the term is not controversial? he pretends so but it's hard to believe him. He has yet to find ONE RS that supports his troll position, not one. Rjensen (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, first off, I am a well respected, featured content writer and reviewer who has been here for years. I have an excellent grasp on our policy, which I believe you don't after this exchange. I am no troll. Yes I believe the term is not always controversial, and yes I did point out sources to support that above. The new yorker article we cite in this article also calls it, "trivial" "a wee gnat". The same article cites a survey indicating the majority of Americans do not find the term offensive. Those are positions not espoused in this article - hence it violates NPOV. All I am asking is for this article to properly reference its content, and you call me a troll? I do believe the term is controversial at times, as our very conversation demonstrates. However, my opinion does not an article make. You are taking too much liberty in your interpretation of the NPR blog entry. (Only limited use of news blogs, when the blog is also part of their printed paper is permitted on Wikipedia, read the policy) Since we are getting nowhere, I again politely ask, are yo willing to submit to mediation? (I believe the reason you will not is because you know this article is in significant violation of policy) And as side note, I am not even an American, I have no dog in this fight. And in fact you and I have edited article together in the past and never had conflict. Why do you have to resort to personal attacks, just stick to the facts and policy and we could work this out. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)}

whats sentence 3 that needs a reference? [the troll is a reference to complaining about blogs that are RS--it was a red herring that soured the discussion and attempted to suppress good information] Rjensen (talk) 18:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

No, Charles Edward, you're a troll. You're a troll because rjensen says so. This is wikipedia, and the first person to make a personal accusation wins WP:NAMECALLING. He calls me a troll. I've called him a troll, and he's called me a troll, so we're all trolls. And actually, invoking a status as a 'well-respected, featured content writer and reviewer' is beside the point. I could demonstrate a long posting history under different names and/or a personal career that would knock the socks off most any posters, but that is quite in the wikipedian ideal. Here the logic of your opinions is supposed to be the only thing that matters; this is wikipedia, where anyone can edit. All that being said....

I actually am the only poster in months who has actually proffered a way out of this problem, (note also: I have been vehemently accused of being unconstructive but I'm the one offering suggestions). "If it said, "Use of the phrase 'Democrat Party' is an entirely normal vernacular usage in America, although it is a technically incorrect adjective formation. However, some insider commentators in Washington consider the use of the term "Democrat Party" as prejorative, since it removes a direct association to the adjective 'democratic'. This theory has no support in reality since the phrase has been in common usage since before the Civil War." ---And that would be the sum total of the article, and you could add the cites to that. ... 129.133.127.244 (talk) 06:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)" ---You may disagree with this particular formation, but the correct wikipedia solution is to simply state the ambiguous nature of the claim, (if at all) and leave it at that. That is how it should be solved.

As it stands, this is a violation of NPOV, WP:PRIMARY, and WP:SYNTH among others.129.133.127.244 (talk) 02:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

129.133.127.244 has not found a single RS that supports his position. Rjensen (talk) 09:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm just going to take this page off my watchlist.. LOL! I hate getting into situations like this. These situations, sadly, are the primary failing of Wikipedia. When two sides dreach an impasse, it almost always ends in a "fight to the death". And going up the chain through mediation and arbcom just generally make editors quit the project, which is worse than leaving rarely read policy violating content as it is, IMO. So toodles for now :) This article is outside the scope of what I normally edit on, so I am washing my hands and moving on. I am a good humored person, I find this whole thing fairly funny. No hard feelings, happy editing! —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry you're leaving, especially since you're correct. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course he's correct. But the real failing of wikipedia is one (or a few) correct people is no match for one determined prat.129.133.127.244 (talk) 01:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The term "Democrat Party" is in common use with no negative connotations by Democrats in some localities, as Lyman (1958) demonstrates. -- Using a source from over 50 years ago to characterize current conditions isn't at all valid. It's like saying, "De jure racial segregation in the United States exists, as Bond (1935) demonstrates." --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Lyman made the point and it's still true as footnote #30 shows. Do people think we should have some more examples? Rjensen (talk) 15:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

For the point to be made about today, we need a modern source characterizing the situation as "common use with no negative connotations" today; that one party organization in one tiny county uses it casually does not support the characterization. We don't get to put together data, anecdotal or otherwise, and present our own conclusions or characterizations. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps all we need here is evidence that it DP was commonly used in SOME places in 1950s (Lyman proves that) and today (The Starke site proves that--their monthly meetings are so labeled). In addition we have a RS to the effect that "Democrat" is common in American speech: Frederic Gomes Cassidy and Joan Houston Hall. eds, Dictionary of American Regional English: Volume 2 (1991) pp 37-38, 1036 gives numerous examples of "Democrat" being used as an adjective in everyday speech, especially in the Northeast. Rjensen (talk) 16:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but we need to limit it to the subject of this article -- the phrase "Democrat Party". That's where the OR and SYNTH issues kick in. The Starke cite is a pretty weak example -- it's a tiny county -- something like 5000 registered Democrats. We have to avoid the "All Indians walk single file; at least the one I saw did" problem. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Good point--I now see the Indiana state goverment lists 35 "Democrat" clubs that are officially incorporated by the state government, so that's now in the article & makes pretty solid evidence for common usage in Indiana. Rjensen (talk) 17:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Are they "Democrat Party" clubs? The term in question is not the adjectival use of "Democrat"; it is the use of "Democrat Party". --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

take a look--many of the RS say explicitly that a key issue here is the use of the word "Democrat" as an adjective. Rjensen (talk) 18:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps; but what we need to document current usage by Democrats of the phrase "Democrat Party" is use of the specific term "Democrat Party"; democrat-as-adjective does not suffice. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

[outdent]oh that's easy--Google search today gives hundreds of websites with ""democrat party meeting" and also "democrat party caucus", "democrat party picnic" etc.

1. Tennessee
2. Kansas
3. Oklahoma
4. New Mexico
5. North Carolina etc etc Rjensen (talk) 19:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I can find plentiful examples of all sorts of uses of language. The question is that of the characterization; we don't get to look at these and say anything other than there is "some" usage of the term. We can't say it's common, we can't say it's uncommon -- all we can say is that the usage exists. We don't get to characterize it any other way without reliable sources. But at least some of your examples have the exact same problems as when we were discussing this back in Archive 1 of this talk page. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

-"all we can say is that the usage exists" No, you can't. All you can say is there is accusations of usage. You haven't even gotten as far as finding a subject for this article yet.129.133.127.244 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC).

By the way, the exchange between Rjensen is Jpgordon is a sock puppet conversation. Pathetic, really. 129.133.127.244 (talk) 02:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

What a funny idea! --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I'm back. I have taken my hiatus from commenting here to completely dissect this article. You can find my full analysis, clearly and exhaustively laid out here: User talk:Charles Edward/sandbox. You can find an example of what I propose changing this article to here: User:Charles Edward/sandbox. Given the fact that the editors I have conversed with here have refused to acknowledge the egregious policy violating nature of this article, and further refused to accept my offers to seek mediation, I am prepared to seek administrative support in bringing this article into compliance with policy. I am not prepared to further argue about the validity of my complaints in this forum, as I believe they are founded solidly on policy and fact, and I will thus not respond to such comments but take it a sign of unwillingness to to be reasonable. I am interested only in moving this article into compliance with policies it is most egregiously violating. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Charles_Edward wants to erase all the well-sourced discussions and analyses, for no especially good reason. No RS agrees with his position. Rjensen (talk) 19:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I really hate to get personal here, but you continually insisting this article is "excellent" and "well-sourced" really demonstrates your understanding of WP:RS. I am shocked that someone with your tenure here can straightfacedly say what you are saying. You have this 100% turned around - the sum total of this articles is not supported by reliable sources as it is wrote and is grossly pushing a POV. My suggested article is totally supported by reliable sources and is balanced accurately reflecting the diverse body of thought on this topic. Multiple reliable sources, which I have quoted in length do indeed agree with my proposes changes and directly disagree with the article as it is now written. Additionally, is there a reason you do not want to address me directly? I appeal to the others watching this conversion to please comment. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Charles, has it not occurred to you that the reason you find yourself (by your perception) beleagured, is that you're wrong? --Orange Mike | Talk 12:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes it has, which is why I offered to accept mediation. But I am pretty I am right, which I why I believe those offers were not accepted. :) Have you read my dissection of the article? This article is saying things its sources do not say. It is pushing a POV that is not in the majority of its sources, and nowhere in the authoritative ones. It blatantly and clearly includes original research. These issues must be resolved, and my proposed changes do not take away the core elements of this article, but only presents them in a balanced and well referenced way. Something this article currently fails to do. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I am seriously concerned by Charles_Edward's changes to this article. It appears that he believes The New Yorker lacks a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. In fact, the New Yorker's reputation for fact checking and accuracy are legendary. I am closely reviewing Charles_Edward's changes now, and will comment shortly. Hipocrite (talk) 18:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Nope not at all. The New Yorker is completly reliable. But his own article cites Safire as his source. So I am using it too. And Safire does not say what Hertzberg says. So Hertzberg must be balanced. I have actually adde more of what Hertzberg says into this article that was here previously. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what you're getting at. Hertzberg only sources one thing to Safire. Hipocrite (talk) 18:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Right, he sources the origin of the term to Safire. That is the only Hertzberg ref I removed. We have a citation to Safire, why also put one to Hertzberg when Hertzberg is only quoting Safire? WP:Tertiary sources says cite the source directly when it is availale, and it is. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

That's fine with me. Hipocrite (talk) 18:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Having reviewed the changes, my first impressions were off-base. I don't have a substantive problem with the bulk of what CE has done. Thank you for your work. Hipocrite (talk) 18:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that comment, I appreciate it. :) I am trying remove the unsourced parts of the article, and balance it with additional opinions about the term. I don't want to remove anything reliably referenced, only balance it with an opposing opinion if one exists in another source. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe it's appropriate to provide specific attribution to the claim that "Similar two-word phrases...have been deemed controversial" to NPR - they have been deemed controversial by multiple parties - including, but not limited to, Mark Liberman, Trustee Professor of Phonetics, Department of Linguistics, Upenn, and others, that I'll find, if you make me. Hipocrite (talk) 13:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that, but the source we currently use is specific to NPR. Perhaps we could find another source? Or maybe Liberman has a work we could cite? I am looking to see what I can find. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

[13]. Hipocrite (talk) 14:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks thats a great reference. I notice the article is making a case the "Democrat Party" is grammatically correct - or not grammatically incorrect at least. Perhaps we could add that into the grammar section? —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

We have a anonymous person making some bad changes. No one has called the term an abbreviation. It's a hostile epithet as several cited RS point out. The writers mentioned in opening are not Democrats. The changes made were not mere rearranging of paragraphs (150 words of text were deleted). Rjensen (talk)

Yeah, they're edit-warring against consensus. I left a 3RR warning for them, but there was a bit of a break before they started again. I have a feeling they'll be blocked soon.--Loonymonkey (talk) 01:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The changes are totally unsourced, just reusing sources already in the article which don't support the text. The anon present the source of their information if they want it included. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I removed the following from the lede:

"Theologian William Dinges, however, argues:

Names and labels count in public discourse. They have social and political consequences. They carry residual imaginative meaning and shape how we remember and perceive something. The power to name is the power to define. The power to define is the power to socially locate and designate and (in some cases) to condemn what is labeled deviant or non-normative. (Dinges, William (2004). "On Naming Religious Extremists: The 'Fundamentalist' Factor". In David W. Odell-Scott (ed.). Democracy and Religion: Free Exercise and Diverse Visions. p. 244.)"

A fair point overall, but a clear case of WP:SYNTHESIS because Dinges was not referring to the "Democrat Party" epithet; rather, the context was the naming of al Qaeda, especially in terms of fundamentalist vs. terrorist. Presenting it here is synthesis. --BDD (talk) 22:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Called the Republican party the, "Republic Party" a handful of times in a speech once to mock their insistence of using the phrase "Democrat party". Thought it should be mentioned in here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.238.193.190 (talk) 08:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

To call it "Democrat Party" could just be a short use for it, not an insult. -- Billybob2002 (talk) 02:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

not when the GOP has used it for 60+ years as an insult. Rjensen (talk) 03:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The Democrats are then looking for an excuse to be offended, because a term doesn't remain an insult for that long. Terms such as "Tory" and "queer" didn't remain insults but were accepted by the so named. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:DA8:D800:107:E5FF:857D:FD7:8D67 (talk) 16:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

As a Quaker, I can assure thee that this does not always happen. The "word" ain't has been used for centuries, but is still not considered acceptable in formal discourse. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)