Talk:Democratic-Republican Party

Election box metadata

This article contains some sub-pages that hold metadata about this subject. This metadata is used by the Election box templates to display the color of the party and its name in Election candidate and results tables.

These links provide easy access to this meta data:

• Template:Democratic-Republican Party/meta/color Content:    
• Template:Democratic-Republican Party/meta/shortname Content: Democratic-Republican

Article Title

I'm willing to forgo the use of 'Party' or 'party' in the mrs. backenstoes has a big buttitle if we change the name of the article to reflect the same. Skyemoor 14:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The box below misrepresents the discussion. Skyemoor changed his !vote here, as he is entitled to do; but he appears not to realize that it is Wikipedia custom to mark changes of one's own comments after they have been responded to. Septentrionalis 20:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Pmanderson|Septentrionalis distains the use of WP guidelines, but then wants to hold me to some vague interpretation of his perception of a 'custom'. If he can provide a policy or guideline that supports his position, I will consider it. In the meantime, I would ask that he cease his practice of altering my discussion on these various talk pages. Skyemoor 02:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no move. -- tariqabjotu 06:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested move to Democratic Republicans

Democratic-Republican Party (United States) → Democratic Republicans —(Discuss)— There is no consensus on the perfect name for this article; but there appears to be agreement this would be an improvement: It avoids the impression that they were a fusion, like the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party; and it evades the question of whether they were a "party", a "Party", or neither. —Septentrionalis 16:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support as nom. See also discussion. Septentrionalis 16:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Skyemoor 00:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Wiki would be making matters worse. The name seems to be about MEMBERS of the party, but the article is actually about the PARTY itself, like all Wiki articles. Rjensen 05:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Was there a party, as opposed to its members, before, say, 1803? Septentrionalis 20:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

There is no consensus on any further move; as the discussion above will show at length. This is a proposal for a tweak only, I would strongly oppose any further move. Septentrionalis 16:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The term 'party' should be able to be referred to in the body of the article in the context of its usage in that timeframe (primarily the way it is discussed in portions of the article now), as initially loose coalitions that grew into more formal factions, eventually leading to convention-based parties. We would also need to highlight the difference in timeframe between "Republicans" and "Democratic-Republican", and remain disambiguated from DR Societies.

Didn't this party run candidates for office? Weren't several presidents of the Democratic-Republican Party? Will the new name fit in all the places where the existng name is used? 67.166.152.250 05:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

And the Federalist Party (United States), Anti-Administration Party (United States), and Pro-Administration Party (United States)? Settler 05:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Administration Party (and its opposite) are anachronisms, if not figments. But I don't feel inclined to move them. If you want a parallel, would anyone support Anti-Federalist Party (United States), instead of Anti-Federalism, where they are, or Anti-Federalists? Septentrionalis 16:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

And then what would we do about the First Party System? I'm afraid we've both been a bit too zealous here; these are parties by the definition that historians are using for the era, so I'll retract my encouragement (and indeed will now oppose) to remove "party" from the article. Skyemoor 00:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

My naive but observant $.02 --Contemporary capitalization was haphazard; why the insistence on "republican" when (I suspect) "Republican" was more common? --"Democratic-Republican" (with or without hyphen) is a retcon to distinguish the party that evolved (a) from the Anti-Federalists and (b) into the Democratic Party from the Republican Party of 1854 to present. --A member of the contemporaneous Party would have defined himself [sic] as a Republican. Others sometimes referred to the party as composed of Democrats, due to the affiliation of the Jeffersonians and Anti-Federalists with the Democrat Clubs (pro-Jacobin social and political organizations) of the 1790s. My suggestion: rename this article Republican Party (Jeffersonian). --jperrylsu

Party name vs. Member labels

The first sentence refers to party names, though one person has been putting in member labels. I'll park the reference here so that others can discuss it. I'll also note that the use of 'Democrat' as referenced is so infrequent as to preclude mention on the same level elsewhere as "republican", "Republican", or "Jeffersonian Republican".Skyemoor 19:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Democrats, Jeffersonians, or combinations of these (like Jeffersonian republicans);

I regret to see that Skyemoor's persistent and single-handed edit war has resulted in the misplacement of the use of "Democratic Members of Congress" as the authors and members of the Party's last nominating caucus. This should of course be restored. Septentrionalis 20:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

regret to see that Pmanderson|Septentrionalis's persistent and single-handed edit war has resulted in the misplacement of the use of "Democratic Members of Congress" as the party had split by this time period. This should of course be discussed further down in the article.

Septentrionalis needs to read his own sources more closely. His own source notes that in calling for the caucus, the "Democratic Members" are seceding from the "republican party." It cannot be more clear-- the party name was "republican." Why anyone would hold this up as evidence of the contrary is mystifying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reedmore (talk • contribs) 03:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It would also be nice if Skyemoor would take the time to observe that his edit summary is wrong on two points; The first line does say "Democratic Republican Party" (although it should have a hyphen);

And alt names must also refer to parties, though you are trying to bend the definition to member labels. Skyemoor 21:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

and, more importantly, WP:MOS is a guideline, not policy. Septentrionalis 20:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

"Wikipedia articles should heed these guidelines." Present your justification for an exception and we will discuss it. Skyemoor 21:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Heed, yes; obey as the Ten Commandments, no. Bolding all the names given to the DR's results in a lengthy and garish stretch of bold test, which makes the paragraph diffiuclt to read.

Pmanderson|Septentrionalis's POV must be obeyed? No. The WP:MOS clearly states otherwise, even providing an example with much more bolding than we have. I'll provide the example again. Skyemoor 00:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

"Use boldface in the first sentence for synonyms of the article title (including acronyms); for example, Río de la Plata: "

The Río de la Plata (from Spanish: “River of Silver”), also known by the English name River Plate, as in the Battle of the River Plate, or sometimes (La) Plata River.

Skyemoor's effort to "solve" this problem by reducing the list to the anachronism Republican Party is tendentious and misleading.

If Pmanderson|Septentrionalis wants to call the historians that pen the majority of history textbooks 'tendentious and misleading', he may, though he shouldn't expect any of us to give it a second thought. Skyemoor 00:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

(I have said this before; if this time Skyemoor has an acrual answer, we can indeed discuss it.) Septentrionalis 23:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Pmanderson|Septentrionalis has been shown the answer many times, but prefers to cling to outdated POV. And he should quit changing the text in my responses, regardless if his case is too weak otherwise. Skyemoor 00:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The ongoing edit-war about typograhy and similar details is the very essence of WP:LAMEness. I've had to block one party for 3RR, but I seriously recommend to all involved to give it a break. Thanks, Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I consider this edit by Skyemoor a definite improvement, although not perfect. Septentrionalis 19:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Archived discussions over the past 9 months

It was well past due; this talk page was simply enormous. Settler 22:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

1890s change to 1930s

Changed the date 1890's as the Republican Party per their platform planks and the administration's of Harrison, McKinley, and Theodore Roosevelt still adhered to the progressive ideals of the original Republican Party and Lincoln. The switch in orientation began with during Taft's administration and throughout the Wilson and Roaring Twenties era finally culminating in the New Deal administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt of 1930s when a clear switch to a "free-market" orientation began for the Republican's made more complete by Goldwater and then later by Reagan (thus being in sinc with the party of Jefferson). Whereas the ideals of the party under F.D.R. for the Democrat's changed the orientation (began with rallies of Bryan and administration of Wilson to some degree) to 'liberal' and 'populist' forming into in ideals anyway the party of Lincoln (liberty and eqaulity plus economic populism rooted in the ideals of Clay and Adams, and the economic and strong government beliefs of Hamilton). Again, with the 1960's the transformation for the Democratic Party continued as Southern Democrats (Blue Dogs) left the party and joined the Republican Party (Bill Bennett is an example) affecting a transformation that today is almost complete. A very Northern-Western Democratic Party (old Lincoln-GOP coalition) oriented towards liberty and equality together with a Lincolnesque populism in economic affairs and a increasingly Southern dominated Republican Party (as the old Democratic coalition was from Jefferson and Jackson's time) oriented toward social conservatism (active government in personal affairs) and free-marketism in economic affairs (with free trade - inactive government in economic affairs) thus the new party of Jefferson. The dividing can be seen in the 2006 election (with the likes of Webb and Brown being not only opposed to the Iraq war - but economically more in sinc with Lincoln than Jefferson). --Northmeister 15:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Bryan's anti-bank populism (1890s) was toned done and evolved into progressivism by Wilson's time. Liberal is just another name for progressive and both names are still in use today. FDR may have popularized the word "liberalism," but I hardly think he created the movement. Mainstream pre-Bryan U.S. politicans would all be conservative by modern standards. The 19th century Democratic vs. Republican split was about slavery and the status of blacks -- neither side questioned free market economics. Kauffner 04:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Party's name as it is used in history books

My main concern is the assertion in the article that the "Democratic-Republican Party" turned into the modern day Democratic Party which is incorrect. Since the party's actual name was the Republican Party it leads people to assume they dropped the Republican from the name Democratic-Republican Party which was not the case. There was a hiatus between their collapse in the early 1820s and the emergence of the Democratic Party in the 1830s. Brianbonner (talk) 23:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Previous editors of this article reached a concensus that the Demo-Repub Party's name is generally used in history books the way it is used in the title of this article -- Democratic-Republican Party. From the archive: Party's name as it is used in American history books. Please consider the archive discussion before revisiting this topic. Griot 22:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

There was no census achieved in your reference. There are hundreds of references we could bring forth to help mediate this 'dispute'; I've used one rough order of magnitude approach used in the past (focused searches in Google Scholar). The choices as I see it are;

• Republican or republican: Used by Jefferson, Madison, and many other in that timeframe. Used by more historians on JSTOR, and in more historical textbooks. An excellent choice that can be disambiguated with only a few words. The use of a lowercase 'r' (or the interesting use of an asterisk) sets it apart from the current Republican party, and the link takes one to the appropriate article. Google Scholar hits for Madison "Republican party" Federalist -"Democratic Republican": 2220

Of course it was used that way by Jefferson, Madison, in that period. Your statement "used by more historians on JSTOR" is quite bold, given the number of history books on JSTOR. I commend you for reading them all. The use of a lowercase R is still confusing, and if you can find any instance in an encylopedia where a term is repeatedly asterisked, show me. Griot 04:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• Democratic Republican: Obviously falling out of favor with historians. Worst choice. Madison Federalist "Democratic Republican Party": 162

I have edited many history textbooks. Narrow books focusing on the post-Colonial field use the word "Republican"; the vast majority of others use "Democratic-Republican," as this article does, to prevent confusion between this party and the current Republican Party. I have seen publishers' style sheets calling for this party to be called "Democratic-Republican." That is the common usage. Griot 04:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• Democratic Party: No historical basis for this, beyond extended lineage. Not a real candidate.

Basis for what? I don't understand this one. Griot 04:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• Jeffersonian Republican: Not used by them, but in frequent use by historians to disambiguate the term "Republican". I seen no confusion vis a viz Reagan Republican usage by 99.9% of the readership. Madison Federalist "Jeffersonian Republican"; 173

Frequent use? Where? Griot 04:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I see Jeffersonian Republican as really being a subset of Republican, but both of those are clearly more in use than Democratic Republican; hence, either of those options would be the ones to pick from for party affiliation.

And the WP:MOS states;

"Use boldface in the first sentence for synonyms of the article title (including acronyms); for example, Río de la Plata: "

The Río de la Plata (from Spanish: “River of Silver”), also known by the English name River Plate, as in the Battle of the River Plate, or sometimes (La) Plata River. --Skyemoor 03:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

You may well ask yourself why the name "Democratic-Republican Party" appears at the top of this article. It appears there because that is the generally accepted name by historians. We should be consistent and stick with that name. Griot 14:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

You've provided no references or analytical proof; WP cannot be a source for itself. There was a large war over the name here and the current wording with Republican bolded was the consensus. --Skyemoor 21:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Christ man, did you look at the archived arguments. It is necessary to over this all over again because you arrived late? Let's stick with the party's name as it is known at the top of this article rather than open up this can of worms. Historians chose D-R for a very good reason -- to distinguish this party from the modern-day Repbulican Party. An encyclopedia isn't supposed to confuse people. Griot 23:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as the confusion issue goes, "Democratic Republican" is also confusing because it leads readers to believe that Democrats and Republicans were rival factions within a supposed "Democratic-Republican Party" and that these factions split and evolved into the modern parties. In fact, various political factions saw no conflict in proclaiming themselves both Democratic and Republican long after the breakup of the Jeffersonian party.Kauffner 05:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

You still haven't provided anything of substance to support your changes (to material which had stood as the consensus after a long, tiresome debate for over 8 months), so WP policy and guidelines will be followed. --Skyemoor 02:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how much more substance I can provide. Very bureacratic of you to interpret WP policy for me... Griot 04:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes indeed, they will be followed; and they include ways to settle disputes with a single-handed special-purpose account. Republican is neither common ussage nor clear; neither sophistry nor vandalism can change this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Still nothing of substance to support violation of WP policies and guidelines. I'd be happy to take this up the chain and see you two try to defend this. --Skyemoor 01:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I learned of this party in college as the Republican Party, though it had no lineage with the present day party of the same name in the US. It seems there is a lot of angst about this by some; is this because of current political leanings of some of the editors? Let's be unbiased here, this is an encyclopedia, not a political party info release. Think of the different uses of "Progressive Party". ComplexEndeavors 17:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I just went through the seven U.S. history books in my library. These are general-purpose books that don't focus on one particular era. Seven use "Democratic-Republican" and one uses "Republican." Keep in mind when you search the JSTROR that the word "republican" often refers to people who supported republican principles, no the party, so JSTOR searches aren't really valid. 15:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Upon review of the JSTOR search in question, I found it used "Republican party" as a quoted search string, which would not simply pick up hits on just "republican" or "Republican". Hence, the JSTOR search is a valid one (and an innovative one, I might add). ComplexEndeavors 17:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought the discussion in the archives was quite clear that there was significantly more historical support for the use of Republican Party. Certainly, as a reference to the party the term is essentially non-existent during Jefferson's life. A Musing 15:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean Jefferson's term? The OED cites it, from the party newspaper, from 1811, and there are older uses. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I mean his life - I'm aware of uses of it for local party groups, or in the older Democratic-Republican committees that existed before the party, but not for the national party as a whole - and I have looked, so I'm interested in any contrary examples. What is the newspaper cited in the OED? I'm not aware of any official national "party" newspaper (and, indeed, you'd have trouble finding much of an "official national party" at times), but there were papers that essentially served as mouthpieces of key party figures. A Musing 23:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hezekiah Niles' Weekly Register. A Baltimore and Washington paper, which received the Federal Government advertising and served as national paper. Of course it was not official; what American paper has ever been an official party paper? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It was actually a paper that declared its intention in its first issue to be above party and is generally used as a relatively neutral source; Niles was a fairly Whiggish sort overall. I don't have on-line access to a full set, but the phrase Democratic-Republican was certainly attached to the local Baltimore party at that time (there had even earlier been a newspaper in Baltimore called the "Democratic-Republican"). I'll try to find copies and see what it's use is. A Musing

Hmm. I wonder where I picked up that description then. But you will find a much longer discussion of lots of evidence in the archives of this page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, my eyes are swimming. However, there seems to be about equal evidence for both names. To be unbiased, we need to reflect both names, which the alt name bold mentioned above does. Also, since there doesn't seem to be agreement about which names historians prefer (yet), it would be best to remove the last sentence in the first paragraph completely. ComplexEndeavors 19:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer not to say that Jefferson called it the "Republican Party". This will be understood to mean that he framed that proper name in 1792, which is not, I think, true; he used "republican party" in 1792, but as a common noun with adjective. I have rephrased the last sentence to what our survey seems to indicate. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the problem here. "Democratic-Republican Party" is generally a historiographic term, just like "Byzantine Empire". As long as we explain that to the readers, we're doing our jobs fine.--Pharos 03:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand that Jefferson likely did not use caps, but current historians and history books do, hence it should be capped in the first sentence. Later on where Jefferson is quoted, if that needs such a specific attribution, then it can be in lower case. The contorted sentence over what historians called the party is both unnecessary and confusing, and not unlikely unsupportable. 198.151.13.10 23:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The quotation marks in the first sentence are a quotation; furthermore Jefferson's letter of May 23, 1792, divides Congress into the "corrupt squadron", the "republican party", and the "anti-federalists". These are not proper names; and Jefferson capitalizes none of them; these are descriptions. And do remember to sign in; sockpuppetry is deprecated. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence should have the well-supported alternative name bolded, not quoted in lower case. Further down, Jefferson is quoted, which would be appropriate the way it is now. ComplexEndeavors 20:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

One of my efforts has been to add historical US rep rosters to various Rep districts (now focusing in New England). I have been reading with interest the discussion here, not knowing what party to affiliate some of the early reps with, or what to call some of them (in the spirit of accuracy). For what it is worth the Clerk of the US House of Reps (gov official website) identifies Jeffersonian Republicans, Crawford Republicans, Adams-Clay Republicans, and Jackson Republicans as parties of record. The Congressional Biography web site identifies the Jeffersonian Republicans as Republicans, and notes the other affiiations (Adams-Clay, Crawford and Jackson), so there is no concensus there either. For my money,though,for me, enough historical references and arguments have been provided above for me to continue with the use of Democratic-Republican as an identifier - we need to call them something, and many of the reps have already been identified as such, the change would be a nightmare this late in the game.....Maybe I've been too hasty creating the rosters?Pmeleski 22:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Adams-Clay Republican

One thing I haven't worked out in my mind is if Adams-Clay Republicans should be grouped with Democratic-Republicans or National Republicans........Most of the rosters here show Adams-Clay as National Republicans, but outside sources show the election of 1824 shows the Democratic-Republican group (of which Adams-Clay was around then)as the only viable party at this time? Any thoughts?Pmeleski 22:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• The National Republicans were originally one faction within the party which had supported Monroe; they became an independent party after 1824, as the former DR's ceased to work with each other, having no motive to do so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

This contains only disputable claims:

• that the "ideology" (a word Jefferson was to bring into English as the party was beginning to dissolve) was:
  • Republicanism in the United States
  • Classical Liberalism
  • Anti-Federalism
  • Libertarianism
  • Individualism
  • Free Trade

  All these are disputable; none are true of all leaders of the party; it would be difficult to make the case that any are equally true of the arguments of Jefferson in 1798 and the governance of Monroe in 1823 - or Madison in 1814.

• That it succeeded, and is therefore distinct from, the Anti-Administration Party, which was the same men as the party that campaigned for Jefferson in 1796.
• That it preceeded, and is therefore distinct from, the still existing Democratic Party (United States), a doubtful and partisan claim.
• A fairly arbitrary choice of exact dates for these transitions.

Let's remove it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Done

Correction to 1824 Election results

Hello. I am new to Wikipedia, but it seems that the following sentence (third paragraph) in this entry is incorrect:

" in 1824.... John Quincy Adams finished first in the Electoral College"

According to the National Atlas election maps, Jackson had 99 electoral votes to Adams' 84.

http://nationalatlas.gov/printable/elections.html#list

If someone could make this correction, it would be appreciated.

Thanks,

````DavidG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.188.126 (talk) 01:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Foreign Interventionism

I propose that foreign interventionism be added to the party's ideology. Seeing as how they supported the French Revolution, the War of 1812, the Barbary Wars and supported France in the Napoleonic Wars, I don't see that it would be inaccurate. -- LightSpectra (talk) 08:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No matter how many times they intervened abroad, that is not the same as having an ideology of interventionism. Wouldn't interventionism imply support for a strong military? Jefferson was well-known for his opposition to a standing army or navy. If the Republicans made pro-French interventions, the Federalists made pro-British ones. Kauffner (talk) 02:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The Democratic-Republicans wanted America to be a world power to influence republicanism abroad. Although this isn't true for every single one, I think it's consistent enough to say that this should be listed as one of their ideologies. Also: Jefferson opposed a standing army, seeing it as a threat to our freedom; but (as far as I know) he had little quarrel with the navy that Adams built. -- LightSpectra (talk) 20:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, it seems Jefferson was actually something of a naval enthusiast.[1] But his navy consisted of very small warships called "gunboats." These were supposedly for coastal defense, but not terribly useful even in that role. They were mostly a way of building an impressive number of ships without spending much money. There was no issue of using gunboats to protect U.S. shipping or to project power abroad as, say, Adams had done. Jefferson couldn't have defeated the Barbary pirates with the navy as he restructured it. Kauffner (talk) 02:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. He was a gunboat enthusiast, in part because gunboats were cheap; but also because gunboats could not be used for foreign adventures. He wanted to lay the deep sea fleet up in Norfolk Harbor. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how that's relevant. Jefferson still authorized engagement in such the war. In the six wars that came about during the lifespan of the Democratic-Republican Party: the French Revolution, the War of 1812, Barbary Wars and the Napoleonic Wars, the D-Rs supported intervention in all of them. However, I will leave "non-interventionism" out of the box until we've come to a conclusion on this debate. -- LightSpectra (talk) 21:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

What held the D-Rs together was the conviction the Federalists would sell the country out to Britain. On pretty much everything else, the Jefferson (libertarian) and Madison (nationalist) wings of the party disagreed. So we can hardly describe the party as having an ideology at all. Kauffner (talk) 18:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Both sides here are a tad exaggerated. Madison was Jefferson's friend, ally, and Secretary of State; the differences between them are hardly as great as Kauffner suggests. On the other hand, the DRs opposed intervention in the French Revolution; they did not support (and Jefferson notoriously excoriated) Napoleon. Beyond that, LightSpectra asserts that the DR's supported the wars which occurred when they were in power; there are very few parties of which this is not true. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Successor Parties

Many parties claim to be the successor to the D-R. To list a modern party as the single successor to the D-Rs strikes me as a partisan interpretation. If we talk about someone's successor as president or whatever, we mean the next guy who held the office. So the successors parties should be groups that contested elections in the years immediately after the D-R dissolved, i.e. in 1824 and 1828. This would be the Jacksonians, who later became the Democrats, and the National Republicans, who later became the Whigs. Kauffner (talk) 13:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly enough my AP History teacher says the current D party has almost no direct connection to the D-R/R party. There is already a section on claims of heritage though. I don't know what should be done with the infobox, is it already discussed?ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 03:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

As a University Academic, I would say that your AP teacher is completely wrong. The Democratic Party most certainly has connections with Jefferson's Republican Party. I would argue that the Democratic Party is a continuation of Jefferson's party. Some may say that is an offspring. But the Dems are certainly connected to the Dem-Rep.

Any asserted ideological connections between the D-Rs and the modern Dems are tenuous at best. To the extent that Jefferson could be afforded a modern political label, he would best be described as a Libertarian, which places him on the right side of the spectrum. This is a man, after all, who was extremely distrustful of the central government, was a champion of states' rights, held expansive views of civil liberties and property rights, and was of southern sensibilities. He would be absolutely appalled at Democrat initiatives like 40%+ income tax rates, affirmative action, "Fairness" Doctrine, busing, judicial activism, nationalized health care, etc. Of course, he'd also be opposed to the Republicans' pro-business policies, the existence of a large standing army, and the PATRIOT ACT, amongst other things. In a strict historical sense, the modern Democrat Party may be able to trace its lineage back to Jefferson's party, but from a political or ideological standpoint, they're on opposite sides of the spectrum and they bear no resemblance to each other. Noian's AP teacher is correct in that regard.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 00:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

PassionoftheDamon, I think the "historical sense" is the way the issue of successor parties should be looked at. If we were to instead look at it from the political and ideological sense, the modern Democratic Party has rather little in common even to earlier incarnations of itself, such as in the times of Samuel J. Tilden or Grover Cleveland—yet no one would deny that the party of FDR and Obama is a continuation of the party of Tilden and Cleveland. No matter the ideological differences, the Democratic Party is a descendant of the Democratic-Republican Party. --darolew (talk) 17:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Democratic Republican Party

I don't know if I'm right, but I feel that the intro should at least mention that the party started off as the republican party only. This is cause the current textbook I'm learning it from only calls it the republican party (Brinkly, American History, A Survey, Twelfth Edition) and most (if not all) of the first few sources on this page call it the republican party (at least in the summary of the source) ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 03:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You are not right. I would hope your teacher is in fact taking a more measured view; the current fad to call them Republicans is a recent and minority view, which distorts the contemporary evidence.

This is incorrect. First off, historian David McCullough and Joseph Ellis both refer to Jefferson's party as Republican in their Pulitzer Prize winning works. I also have a history book published in 1922 that refers to Jefferson's party as Republican and describes how Jackson formed the Democratic-Republican party. The opposite of what you claim is true. It was only recently that people have tried to attache the label "Democrat-Republican" to Jefferson's party. This effort appears to date back to the '90's and be a political attempt to whitewash the Democratic Party's true history and back-peddle from the fact that the party's early history included the Trail of Tears and a defense of slavery.

When the DR's were an informal group in Congress, Jefferson called them "republican federalists" (small r). This distinguished them from, on one side, the opponents of the existence of the Federal Government, like George Clinton and Patrick Henry (both of whom were to give up their insistance on this later), who were anti-federalists; on the other side, from those Jefferson called "monarchist federalists", who became the Federalist Party; they supported the Federal Government, and wished to make it stronger. (How unfair Jefferson was in calling them monarchists is disputed, then and now.)

They became a national party as an alliance between a Virginia group, centered around Jefferson, who often called themselves Republicans, and northern groups (chiefly in Pennsylvania and New York) who often called themselves Democrats. The Federalists called them all Democrats or Jacobins, as terms of abuse.

By Madison's second term, Democratic was becoming the normal term, North and South alike. In Monroe's presidency, the Federalist Party broke up, and had ceased to act in national politics; almost all of the national politicians belonged to Monroe's party. So divisions on policy and candidates became factions within the party, and they broke up into four divisions, each claiming the mantle of Jefferson: the National Republicans, the Democratic Republicans, and so on. Of these, the Democratic Republicans, who supported Jackson, were the largest, and eventually prevailed; they have a direct institutional affiliation with the present Democratic Party.

The DR's, properly so called, had virtually no national party institutions at all: only a Congressional caucus, frequently defied. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The word "Democrat" was popularized by the French revolutionaries, especially "Citizen Genêt," French ambassador to the U.S. in 1793-94. To say that the D-R party was founded in 1792, as the article does, is an anachronism since no one called themselves a Democrat at that time.

The party existed, as a group within Congress, before 1792, and did not give themselves any proper noun. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the assertion that Jackson's supporters were Democratic Republicans? At least in this example, from the 1832 convention, they called themselves Republicans. Kauffner (talk) 17:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

They called themselves many things, especially before Jackson's re-election; the Democratic Republican usage was particularly common before the breakup, while the four factions were competing ideologies struggling for Monroe's favor and the nomination to succeed him. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Despite such variations, at the beginning 1824 the party was generally known as "Republican."<:ref>Gammon, 155-156. In example: "Anti-Caucus/Caucus". Washington Republican. February 6, 1824. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=rbpe&fileName=rbpe19/rbpe192/1920070a/rbpe1920070a.db&recNum=0&itemLink=r?ammem/rbpe:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28rbpe1920070a%29%29%231920070a001&linkText=1. </ref>

This shortening has changed Gammon's meaning. What he means is that, at the beginning of 1824, there was one party: that often called Republican. (invariably is demonstrably false; the Caucus proclamation linked to in the footnote says Democratic Members of Congress.) At that time there were factions within the party, several of them with names. By the end of 1824, they were separate parties. Gammon is not discussing the name of the united party at this point. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Read the document in that footnote more carefully. It states that the "Democratic members of congress" are seceding from, and I quote, "The republican party." The party name was Republican. It is disconcerting that some keep pointing to that one document (that doesn't even show what they claim it shows) as a supposed counter-weight to an avalanche of examples that demonstrate the party name was republican.

This topic has come up several times. The term 'republican' or 'Republican' saw the most usage during the 1790 up into the 1800s. However, the term "Democratic-Republican" has been used by some historians to help disambiguate the name from the current Republican party, perhaps because most stances on issues could be interpreted as be quite divergent. The term "democrats" as referring to the party had infrequent usage by significant party members, at least up until Madison's second term, so let's not give that excessive weight. Skyemoor (talk) 18:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

National Republicans

A conservative wing of the DR party, under John Quincy Adams, called themselves, and were called National Republicans; in general, they backed Clay and his program in 1824. Much the same group were later to organize themselves as the National Republican Party, before merging with the Whigs. This is not a bug, it's a feature. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move Parsecboy (talk) 00:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This page was moved in September from the hyphenated version to a dash version without discussion and with a summary reference to "WP:DASH". "Democratic-Republican" should be hyphenated,[2][3][4][5][6] and nothing at WP:MOS contradicts that. -Rrius (talk) 05:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Wikipedia is a bureaucracy. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 08:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support per nom, should be hyphen. TJ Spyke 17:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support Always ignore MOS, but in this case, it should be hyphenated, as a compound. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support Grammatically correct. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Republican Party Roots

The Republican Party is often said to come out of the Federalist Party with the Democratic Party coming out of the Democrat-Republican Party of the 1790s. Can anyone clarify this for me because this seems just the opposite of what the parties have stood for for the past 50 years. The Federalist Party was the party of big government while the Democrat-Republican party was always the state's rights party. Republican Party currently is big about being anti big government while the Democrats are all for increasing government involvement in daily life. So, the comparison between modern parties and the original parties seems to be reverse, at least for the past 50 years. --RossF18 (talk) 19:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Long standing political parties in a lot of countries have gone through significant shifts in their ideologies - look for instance at the history of both the British and Canadian Conservatives on issues like free trade or respective continental relationships where the position has shifted at several times and one generation finds itself implicitly repudiating the basic philosophy that defined the party at a crucial moment beforehand. Outside of single issue fringes and vanity vehicles, most political parties are broad tents that bring together a lot of personalities and interest groups who aren't 100% in agreement. The party as a whole follows a broad course that reflects the needs and demands of the interest groups as well as the national & world situation of the day. Over time the national & world situation changes, in turn changing the needs and demands of the interest groups backing the party. At the same time mini realignments can occur as one or more interest groups move from one broad party to another, shifting the balance within the party. Electoral effects also play a role as parties will seek to drop unpopular elements, even what might once have been seen as fundamental to the party in earlier times.

A few examples of the British Conservatives - they were protectionist until the 1850s (even deposing their Corn Laws repealing Prime Minister in 1846), then accepted free trade until the 1900s, then gradually adopted protectionism in spirit if not actual policy until finally implementing it in the 1930s, but then slowly embracing free trade, free markets and a firm opposition to state intervention across the post war years, culminating in the Thatcher era. They were also very enthusiastic about British membership of (what is now) the European Union from the early 1960s to the mid 1980s, but have since become decidedly more sceptical as the EU is now a very different beast.

US parties were traditionally quite loose beasts because different states had different issues, whilst the election system & dynamics place much greater emphasis on individual candidates and make it relatively easy for mavericks to win nominations and slowly push the party their way. Over time this just adds to the shift effect. Timrollpickering (talk) 06:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

3 things. First, as noted, party ancestry does not always coincide with party ideology, particularly in the USA where the two biggest political parties are 1)firmly, legally entrenched and unassailable; and 2)vulnerable to entryism 3)not obliged to offer a single national program. In America it has always been more cost-effective for an ideological group to take over an existing party (Dem/Rep) than it has been to uproot them and establish an entirely new party.

Secondly, I don't think it is true to say that the Democrats' ideology owes nothing to the Jeffersonians, unless you conside the "size" of the government to be the only political issue that matters. Both parties share the characteristics pro-immigrant, pro-civil liberty, pro-farmer and anti-finance. Both Republicans and Federalists share a concern for national security, law and order, and the interests of business. Of course there are any number of issues (government size, protectionism, black suffrage, treatment of Amerindians, slavery, expansion) where Democrats and Republicans have taken different sides in different generations, or have taken one position in one part of the USA and the opposing position in another part.

Thirdly, while it is basically true to say that the Democrats are descended from the Jeffersonians, it is a gross oversimplification to say that the Republicans are the descendent of the Federalists. The Federalists expired as a party in the 1820s, essentially because the Jeffersonians had moved closer to their way of thinking, and the ex-Feds became a powerful "wing" of the Jeffs.

The ex- (or neo-)feds later formed the national republican party, which got nowhere. After that party folded, they formed the Whigs, who had modestly more success. Then they folded too. The Republicans were formed as a coalition between northern industry and finance interests (historically Federalist supporters) and the anti-slavery movement. Once abolition had been achieved, the antislavery aspect of their ideology receded, and they became the party of business in the 1870s-1890s.

So, that is the link between the modern Republicans and the federalists. As you can see, there is a gap of 100 years between the formation of the Federalists and the Republican party as we know it today. That said, it is hardly surprising that the two parties, though linked, faced different issues and reached different conclusions about them. BillMasen (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The modern party system, with a conservative pro-business Republican Party and a pro-labor Democratic Party, dates from the 1896 election. In the 19th century, mainstream politicians were generally conservative, whatever party they belonged to. The 1800 election pitted liberal Jefferson against conservative Adams, but most early elections did not have a left/right division of this kind. You mustn’t extend Jefferson’s philosophy to the D-R party since the party had both a liberal "Old Republican" wing and a conservative "National Republican" wing. Nineteenth century presidential nominees were often chosen on the basis of their status as war heroes, their political views unknown or concealed until after the election. Historians have tried to categorize Jackson ideologically based on his various policies, but to the voters he was guy who defeated the Brits at New Orleans, which made him either a can-do war hero or an untrustworthy and brutal would be Napoleon. Whig ideology was to support the supremacy of the legislature over the executive, but on most other issues they could be found on both sides. For a pre-1896 liberal tradition, you have to look to the Workingman's Party, Locofocos, abolitionists, populists and similar groups on the outside looking in. Under Cleveland and the "Bourbon Democrats", it was the Democratic Party that was pro-business and conservative. Kauffner (talk) 04:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits in lede

(1) The unsourced claim the name "Democratic-Republican" originated post-1824 has been repeatedly reinserted into the lede. The Party name section cites numerous earlier examples.

(2) Disputes about the name belong in the "Party name" section, not the lede. "Once such a (name) section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line," according to WP:Lede. The title of this article was chosen by a formal vote and consensus. The lede is "a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article," not the place to dispute this decision. As far as which name is more common goes, "Jeffersonian Republican Party" gets 267 hits on Google Scholar while "Democratic-Republican Party" gets 1,800. Kauffner (talk) 02:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking about the current version of the lede? If so, most of your comments are no longer relevant; the current version is accurate (unlike some previous versions) and reasonably succinct, though it could be tightened. "Jeffersonian Republican Party" absolutely belongs in the lede, since that's the label (along with simply "Republican") favored by scholars over the last 25 years or so. Witness Gordon Wood's recent entry in the Oxford History of the United States series, Empire of Liberty (2009), in which the chapter on this topic is called "The Emergence of the Jeffersonian Republican Party". It's fairly uncommon to find scholars in the 21st century who uses the label "Democratic-Republican" for Jefferson's party; I could find no examples in my own library. In the archives of this talk page, a user did a nice survey of current college textbooks, and found that "Jeffersonian" and "Republican" was preferred to "Democratic-Republican" by 7 to 1. He was casting his pearls before swine, however, since he was unable to get his arguments past a now-banned abusive sockpuppet. As always, Wikipedia suffers when knowledgeable people get shouted down by naifs.

Your citation from WP:Lede is for when there are more than two alternate names, so it does not apply here. Also, your Google Scholar count is off, since it includes hundreds of entries for the Korean Democratic-Republican Party, among other false positives, and does not account for the name most commonly used by scholars, which is simply "Republican".

Your comments also conflate two issues: the wording of the lede, and the title of the article. I don't care what the article is called; Britannica's article is entitled "Democratic-Republican Party", so that's good enough for me, but note their second sentence: "Organized in 1792 as the Republican Party...." —Kevin Myers 04:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

There are many more than two alternative names for this party, so the citation from WP:Lede certainly applies. "Jeffersonian" and "Republican" are two other alternative names for the party, neither of which should be conflated with the name "Jeffersonian Republican."

Perhaps there are one or two contemporary citations for "Jeffersonian Republican Party", but this is almost entirely a historian's term. To say that the Madison or Monroe were Jeffersonian Republican presidents is confusing the poor reader for no good reason. If we say someone is a Reagan Republican, it doesn't imply that non-Reagan Republicans are in a different party. Even if J-R really was a better name than D-R, the lede is not the place to compare the two.

I can do a more sophisticated searches, but the bottom line is that "Democratic Republican" still ends up with a substantial edge. "Jeffersonian Republicans" | "Jefferson Republican Party" gets 1,980 hits, while "Democratic Republicans" | "Democratic Republican Party" -Korea" gets 3,050. Restricted to 1985-2010, its 1,470-2,140. Kauffner (talk) 15:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, I don't really see the relevance of your comments. I guess your argument is not really with me, but with the many historians who use a term that you think might be confusing to readers. You'll have to take that up with them; in the meantime, we'll have to be guided by WP:RS, and mention in the lede the label that leading scholars like Gordon S. Wood use. For my part, I think it's essential for readers to understand that Madison and Monroe were Jeffersonians; they were, after all, his most famous protégés. But my opinion about the labels, like yours about confusing the readers, is irrelevant here; it's what the reliable sources think that matters, as always. —Kevin Myers 13:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you read what I write before replying? The stuff about alternative names belongs in the "Party name" section, not the lede. That is what the guidelines say and it is only common sense when there are so many alternatives, as in this case. Kauffner (talk) 08:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The Party name and lede

The lede is again filled with various unsourced pet theories about the party's name. No, Jackson didn't call his party "Democratic Republican". It was "Republican", as you can see here. It you don't like "Democratic Republican Party" as the title, propose a vote to change the name. The text of the article, and especially the lede, is not a place to filibuster. Kauffner (talk) 13:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Did Jackson ever name his party? the 1832 source given here does not give an official party name, nor an unofficial party name. it does refer to "Republicans", but avoids the term Republican Party except once, on page 23, where it is talking about the past not the present. This goes to show the folly of depending on primary sources, which are very hard to interpret, and neglecting the many high quality secondary sources, prepared by scholars. Rjensen (talk) 14:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

"Republican" is on the title page. "Republican party" is used six times. On page 13, the "republican party" is contrasted with "national republicans." Historians call Jackson's party the "Democratic Party," not D-R. In any case, it wasn't the D-R party as defined in this article, so this stuff should be removed from the lede. Kauffner (talk) 14:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Four names in the lede??

The party is called four different names in the first paragraph -- Democratic-Republican, Republican, Jeffersonian, and Jeffersonian Republican. I quote WP:lede: "if there are more than two alternative names, these names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section." Kauffner (talk) 15:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

What the PARTY is named and what the MEMBERS are called are different issues. The party itself gets two names in the lede (D-R and JR). The members of the party are called republicans or Jeffersonians. so we fit the guidelines. Rjensen (talk) 15:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

You are claiming that "republican" refers only to the members and not to the party? What about the next section? Madison started the party among Congressmen in Philadelphia (the national capital) as the Republican party; Kauffner (talk) 15:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

1) it's not in the lede; 2) it's paraphrasing a quote (in the note)Rjensen (talk) 15:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

You put the alternatives in the lede when there ARE only two alternatives. There are many alternatives names in this case. It's not, "Pick the two that you like." Is there some reason for putting so many names in the lede? Those unfamiliar with the topic might think that more than one group is being referred to. "Democratic Party" isn't mentioned even though it is probably the most common way to refer to this party nowadays -- think of all the references to Jefferson as the founder of the Democratic Party. Kauffner (talk) 16:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

We should call the entire thing Democratic-Republicans, and mention J-R as only an alternative name. Not everybody in the D-R party followed Jefferson's ideals (he didn't follow his own ideals particularly well; he carried on the policies of the Federalists).

We can't be guided solely by what they called themselves. Their use of party names was not only inconsistent, but disingenuous. All parties at the time wanted to maintain the fiction (current in US politics today) that their prescriptions were just common sense, and didn't spring from any ideological source. This was, and remains, untrue.

Sometimes the D-Rs even called themselves Federalists, and vice versa. After all both names were chosen because of their positive associations, not their descriptive power. BillMasen (talk) 17:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

the rule at Wikipedia is to follow what the reliable sources are doing. In the last two decades, historians have strongly preferred Republican party, and Republicans; while political scientists prefer Democratic-Republican. Rjensen (talk) 17:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Right. And the reliable sources use more than two names, such as Old Republican and Democratic. Therefore we pick one and put the rest in another section. BillMasen (talk) 20:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The "Old Republicans" (or "Quids") were a distinctive faction. Few if any RS use "Democratic" alone--I cannot think of any.Rjensen (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep, and the list of reliable sources that use "Republican" or "Jeffersonian Republican" without ever mentioning the somewhat obsolete term "Democratic-Republican" is quite long: Wood, Wilentz, Elkins & McKitrick, all the way back to Henry Adams. As far as I can tell, these guys, in their standard, prize-winning works, never use the term "Democratic-Republican" to describe Jefferson's party, and never even mention the term as an alternative. Even the Library of Congress Subject Heading, not exactly on the leading edge of current terminology, gives you this response if you search for the term: "Democratic Republican Party is not used in this library's catalog; Republican Party (U.S. : 1792-1828) is used instead." The argument that "Democratic-Republican Party" need be the only name mentioned in the lede is not rooted in a knowledge of the reliable sources. —Kevin Myers 21:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

to repeat: historians strongly prefer "R" and political scientists strongly prefer "D-R". So we include both in the lede. Rjensen (talk) 21:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the lede must include the terms preferred by reliable sources, or our lede gives the reader an insufficient introduction to the topic. —Kevin Myers 21:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested move: → Republican Party (1792–1824)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move. The argument that the shorter form may confuse the modern republican party with the jeffersonian party is persuasive. We should aim for clarity over confusion. I also note that, while there is a little more support for Jeffersonian Republican Party, there doesn't appear to be consensus for that name either (that surprised me but I am just the argument evaluator!). --RegentsPark (talk) 22:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Democratic-Republican Party → Republican Party (1792–1824) — Jefferson, the leader of this party, called it "Republican." D-R is a minority form among modern historians, in modern popular usage, and in the usage of contemporary newspapers. Kauffner (talk) 00:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

After reading through the lengthy debate on this issue, I give the following summary:

1) "Republican" is the usage favored in the recent major historical works on the party, including The Age of Federalism (1995) by Stanley M. Elkins and Eric McKitrick; The Rise of American Democracy (2005) by Sean Wilentz; Joseph J. Ellis (several books); and Undaunted Courage (2003) by Stephen Ambrose. When there is a need to disambiguate between this party and the modern Republican Party, the pros use "Jeffersonian Republican", not D-R, e.g. Gordon Wood's Empire of Liberty (2009). On Google scholar, Jefferson Federalist "Republican party" -"Democratic Republican" gets 7,350 hits, while Jefferson Federalist "Democratic Republican Party" gets 923 hits. This comparison counts scholars who use both terms as D-R users, but still shows an overwhelming advantage for "Republican Party."

2) As far as popular usage goes, there are 569,000 Google hits for Jefferson Federalist "Republican party" -"Democratic Republican" vs. 23,900 for Jefferson Federalist "Democratic Republican Party". Again, this comparison counts those who use both terms as D-R users, but still shows an overwhelming advantage for "Republican Party."

3) Using Niles Weekly Register as a guide to contemporary usage, "Republican" was two to three times more common than "Democratic". "Democratic-Republican" was used only occasionally. The caucus that renominated Jefferson in 1804 was the "regular republican caucus" (Niles, Vol 25, p. 258), the closest I could find to an official statement of the party's name.

4) Names may be used by historians' that were unknown to contemporaries, e.g. "Byzantine Empire." But writers who use D-R often give incorrect or confusing explanations for it. Some claim that the name evolved from Republican to Democratic-Republican, e.g. Britannica. Others think that the Democrats and Republicans were factions within a Democratic-Republican Party. So the D-R usage both reflects and perpetuates misunderstanding of the party. (For the record, party members used "Republican" and "Democratic" interchangably. The compound form reflects the need of later authors to disambiguate from the two modern parties.)

5) The No. 1 reason people are interested in this party is because Jefferson belonged to it. To Jefferson, the party was "republican." There is a 14 MB archive of Jefferson's writing online.[7] In his first inaugural he said, "We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists."

6) For those who favor "Jeffersonian Republican Party", I note that this form gets only 274 hits on Google Scholar. Kauffner (talk) 09:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose This name change could not fail to give the impression that this party is the direct ancestor of the modern republican party, which it wasn't. Weren't you in favour of Democratic Republican before? BillMasen (talk) 11:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment I don't know what I wrote that gave people this impression, but, yes, I have noticed a whole series of messages blaming me for the D-R title, both here and on my talk page. The modern Republican Party was intentionally named after Jefferson's party. Kauffner (talk) 14:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment Yeah, I know. But just because the modern Republican party wants to confuse people into believing it was the descendant of Jefferson, that doesn't mean we should help them out.

It's clear that we have to make a choice between several terms used by the academic community. Why not choose the one which isn't ambiguous? As you've demonstrated before, the name D-R was used at the time and has been used by scholars both, and moreover it can't be understood to mean anything other than what it does, in fact, mean. Someone stumbling across the article Republican Party (1792—1824) could well think it was about the history of the modern party, which it isn't. BillMasen (talk) 16:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Weak Oppose I think article text should use "Republican Party" most of the time but that the title, which needs to distinguish this party from the later one, should stick with its current title, especially since the beginning and end dates are debatable - Kevin Myers notes above that the Library of Congress gives 1828 as the end date. "Democratic-Republican Party" is, at this point, perhaps less used than "Republican Party." But we're not deciding between Democratic-Republican Party and Republican Party. We're deciding between Democratic-Republican Party and Republican Party (1792-1824), and the latter is not used by anyone that I'm aware of. john k (talk) 14:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment No one else uses "Republican Party (United States)" either. It is standard Wiki practice to use a "disambiguating tag in parentheses" in order to create a unique article title, which is required for technical reasons. See WP:PRECISION. Kauffner (talk) 14:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

This is true, but a commonly used form without parentheses is better. I'll note that my opposition is weak, though. I'd not especially mind the move. john k (talk) 23:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Support. The very nice summary by Kauffner of current and past usage shows that a name change is needed to bring this article title in line with modern and historic labels for the party. I previously wrote that D-R was adequate, but Kauffner has changed my mind. Additionally, during a recent rewrite of Whiskey Rebellion I became convinced that the title of this article was misleading other editors. Browse the "history" of the Whiskey Rebellion article and you'll find a number of editors confidently informing us that no, Jefferson's party was not called "Republican", which of course is erroneous. A formulation of Republican Party (some sort of disambiguation) would be more clear, accurate, and in line with Wikipedia naming conventions: whether that's Republican Party (1792—1824), Republican Party (1792—1828), Republican Party (Jeffersonian), etc., is open to question. —Kevin Myers 16:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

P.S. These should be en (rather than em) dashes, i.e. – Republican Party (1792–1824), Republican Party (1792–1828). —Kevin Myers 16:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I dislike the ugly "Republican Party (1792—1824)" (with arbitrary dates that come from no RS) -- and please note that political scientists are the ones who use the D-R form and they use it in all their college and high school AP textbooks. I recommend "Jeffersonian Republican"--it avoids the arbitrary dates and makes the link to Jefferson and his era explicit. Rjensen (talk) 23:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I certainly support "Jeffersonian Republican" too. Any of these options are better than D-R. —Kevin Myers 02:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment, oppose move to Republican Party (1792—1824), support move to something like Jeffersonian Republican Party: Republican Party (1792—1824) would be misleading because, although the modern Republican party is named after the Democratic-Republican Party, it is not the same political party. Personally, I've always heard it referred to as the Demoratic Republican Party (no hyphen), but Jeffersonian Republican Party would be an appropriate name. --- cymru lass <sup>(hit me up)</sup>⁄<sub>(background check)</sub> 16:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Um, I think this belongs under the "Contested" section of the Requested moves page. --- cymru lass <sup>(hit me up)</sup>⁄<sub>(background check)</sub> 16:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose move. The current title is the most readily recognizable of the options and is frequently enough used to not be OR. Powers <sup>T</sup> 23:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Your claim that it is "the most readily recognizable" is unsourced, and, as far as I can tell, not rooted in a knowledge of the reliable sources. Unsourced speculation doesn't do us much good here, and should be disregarded without prejudice. —Kevin Myers 04:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - Recent scholarship does not trump a couple centuries of usage. --Orlady (talk) 14:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC) I suppose I'm showing my age, but when (as a U.S. kid) studied U.S. history (not U.S. political science, but history) in school and in college, this party was universally identified as the "Democrat-Republican" (or minor variants "Democratic Republican") Party. I find that this is the usage that appears in the historical Congressional biographies (see Henry Clay), the "Social Studies for Kids" website[8], the ushistory.org list of signers of the Declaration of Independence[9], and the U.S. government's america.gov website[10]. My paper reference book entitled "Dictionary of American History," published in 1978, has an entry for "Democratic-Republican Party" that indicates that this group was commonly called "Republicans" and states "Jeffersonian Republicans" is an alternate name; it has an entry for "Jeffersonian Republicans" that points the reader to the "Democratic-Republican" entry; and there is no mention of this entity under "Republican". I am prepared to believe that many modern historians would prefer "Jeffersonian Republican," but because long and widespread usage has favored "Democratic-Republican", that should continue to be the primary term in this encyclopedia. --Orlady (talk) 19:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

You could use that line of reasoning to argue that "African American" should be renamed "Negro". After all, when I was a kid, my text books called black people "Negroes", and recent scholarship does not trump a couple centuries of usage. But of course, that argument would be silly, unless you want to write an encyclopedia that is deliberately outdated. Perhaps you do, but I don't.

Moreover, I question your undocumented assertion that "long and widespread usage has favored 'Democratic-Republican'". Perhaps this is true, but the reliable sources seem to suggest otherwise. Jefferson called himself a Republican. The standard scholarly source a century ago was the work of Henry Adams; he always called Jefferson's party the Republican Party. The standard scholarly source 50 years ago was the work of Noble Cunningham; he called Jefferson's party the Jeffersonian Republican Party. The current standard scholarly sources, as people here have pointed out over and over again, don't use the term you remember from your childhood text books. Yes, we can find some older tertiary sources that use the term, and some web sources like "Social Studies for Kids", but those aren't the best sources to base our decisions upon. —Kevin Myers 04:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

By the way, when they revised the Dictionary of American History in 2003 (the 3rd edition), they renamed the "Democratic-Republican Party" entry to "Jeffersonian Republicans" (or "Jeffersonian Republican Party", I forget which). I realize that this will probably have no effect on the curious argument that modern scholarship is not particularly important, but I mention it just in case. —Kevin Myers 13:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Alternate proposal: Move to Jeffersonian Republican Party

Several editors have expressed support for renaming the article Jeffersonian Republican Party, the name many scholars use to disambiguate Jefferson's Republican Party from Lincoln's Republican Party. It has the advantage of being less cumbersome than the disambiguation proposed above, and more historically accurate than the current title. On the minus side, it's not as well known as the named preferred by scholars, which is simply the "Republican Party". This subsection is meant to gage support or opposition for renaming the article Jeffersonian Republican Party. —Kevin Myers 04:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Support. I believe that either option gives us a title more in line with our reliable sources. —Kevin Myers 04:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Support I think it solves the problems and is very close to standard usage in the RS. Historians often use "Jeffersonian Republicans"; they drop the "Jeffersonian" when they are dealing entirely with the Jeffersonian era so that the J term is implicit. Rjensen (talk) 05:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose per my comments above. Powers <sup>T</sup> 12:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Support "Jeffersonian Republican Party" -Korea gets about the same number of hits as "Democratic Republican Party" -Korea. J-R is straightforwardly a historian's name, so perhaps less confusing than the ambiguous D-R. Even if the reader has never heard the name before, he can figure out that it is Jefferson's party. Inside the article, I'd like to see the name changed to "Republican" used. Kauffner (talk) 16:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Support I still think D-R is better, but at least this avoids confusion with the modern party. BillMasen (talk) 16:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose; I'd much prefer the first suggested move to this one. john k (talk) 16:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

note that the D-R form is the common usage by political scientists, and historians rarely use the D-R form . Rjensen (talk) 17:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Support--see my comments above —Preceding unsigned comment added by cymru.lass (talk • contribs)

Oppose. As described above in the section on the "Republican Party (1792–1824)" proposal, I believe that "Democratic-Republican" is favored by long-standing and widespread usage. However, if a different term is adopted, "Jeffersonian Republican Party" would be a far better choice than "Republican Party (1792–1824)". --Orlady (talk) 19:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me try to shed light on the usage differential by political scientists and historians. Since the late 19th century, political scientists have preferred the D-R form; they usually include a short statement about the party in their textbooks and civics guides; they rarely do extended research as long as an article or book. On the other hand historians strongly preferred the R or JR formation, and they do write the scholarly books and articles -- the basic RS on which this article is built. Given the widespread usage in political science and government books, it is essential to keep a cross reference, and that is not at issue. At issue is whether this is primarily a history article based on the extensive in-depth historical scholarship, or a stub that reflects the brief coverage in government textbooks.Rjensen (talk) 19:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion of discussion?

Aren't these discussions supposed to be closed after 7 days? It's been almost 2 weeks and it's clear that there is no consensus for the move. BillMasen (talk) 23:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

There's a huge backlog at WP:Requested moves.... --Orlady (talk) 03:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

When someone gets around to it, they should keep in mind that, according to the closing instructions, "the quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority." The Wikipedians who favor a move have, on this and previous occasions, cited many reliable sources to support their argument, and many more could be listed. Aside from Orlady, those who favor the current title have not really attempted to make a case or cite any reliable sources. Since an opinion is not the same thing as an argument, I think it's pretty clear that there's a consensus of informed opinion to rename the article. —Kevin Myers 04:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You can't be part of the disagreement and simultaneouly judge the 'quality' of the other side's arguments. The point is, D-R is used in the sources, and it's just naive to expect sources to give a definitive answer to every question of this kind. So we have to use our own judgment. BillMasen (talk) 12:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course I can comment on the quality of the other side's arguments. If the other side does not engage with the reliable sources when making its argument, an essential part of my argument is to point this out. I'm a big believer basing Wikipedia decisions upon a survey of the reliable sources, even when it means that I must change my initial opinion, as has happened here. I'm always a bit surprised when I encounter Wikipedians who don't share this philosophy. —Kevin Myers 13:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

As has been demonstrated, D-R is used by reliable sources, among other names including Republican. My point is that they do not give a clear answer as to what title should be used. So why not use the only one which is neither misleading nor ambiguous? Given that the sources are capable of supporting either title, we have to choose somehow. BillMasen (talk) 14:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

POV Problem

The article contains the following text: "The Republican party of 2010 bears little resemblance to the original, as it is now a promoter of big business, corporation, millionaires/billionaires and have little sympathy for the "common" people."

Just delete, no? This is partisan propaganda and would seem to have no place in an encyclopedia article . . . Nomenclaturist (talk) 20:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I reverted the edit and sent a message to the user who added that statement. --Orlady (talk) 20:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Party name in article

I suggest that the name "Republican Party" or "the party" be use internal to the article, esp. on the tables. Aside from the reasons given above (it was contemporary usage, it is the usage of modern historians, etc.), it is a standard practice to use a shorter form after the first reference. If "D-R" is required in the title to disambiguate Jefferson's party from that of Lincoln and Reagan, that is certainly not true inside the article. Kauffner (talk) 08:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that is the correct approach. (The "D-R" title probably won't last in the long run as we attract more editors who are familiar with the reliable sources.) How do you feel about occasional alternatives within the text, for the sake of stylistic variety, such as "Jeffersonians" and "Jefferson's party"? —Kevin Myers 13:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Kauffner & Kevin Myers on this.Rjensen (talk) 07:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we should call them D-R all the way through. But as long as the page has the right title, it doesn't matter that much. Moreover, apparently it will make you all very happy to do it your way, and I'm sick of arguing :) BillMasen (talk) 11:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

IP Vandals

Make it semi-protected! There has been some IP vandals now. SomeDudeWithAUserName (talk) 22:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)