Talk:Democrat Party (epithet)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Politics (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United States  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Citizendium Porting (Last updated: Jan 23, 2010)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Citizendium Porting, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia articles by working in any useful content from their Citizendium counterparts. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
 
Current with its Citizendium counterpart article as of: Jan 23, 2010

Primary sources[edit]

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 The OR rule is designed for an entirely different purpose--that is to prevent statements like "In my unpublished research I concluded XYZ but the results were never published."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)

Illogical[edit]

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)

Time to resolve the issues[edit]

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)

NPR specific attribution[edit]

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)
[1]. 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)

Bad changes[edit]

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)

Removed synthesis[edit]

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. 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)

Anthony Weiner[edit]

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)

Short For....[edit]

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)

"Democratic" and "Republican" are not grammatically equivalent[edit]

There is a good argument to be made that the correct name should be "Democrat" and not "Democratic" party. "Democrat" and "Republican" are grammatically equivalent. "Democratic" and "Republican" are not. The "ic" suffix, derived from "icus" in Latin, means "similar to or having the qualities of." A parallel term derived from "Republican" would be "Republicanic" or "Republicanesque," but any such term would be awkward, which is probably why none exists. If the two terms are to be considered grammatically parallel, then "Democrat Party" is correct.

An example: Say I am a Fundamentalist and I form a political party. Should it be called the Fundamentalist Party, or the Fundamentalistic Party?

Neither the fact that "Democrat" is used as a negative epithet or that "Democratic" is by far the majority usage should have any bearing on the grammatical correctness of the term.

88.120.130.106 (talk) 12:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Please see etymological fallacy. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

My point has nothing to do with etymology. I understand the point that usage is as much a determinant as etymology, but you could argue that there is a "usage fallacy" too - that usage alone should not determine sense any more than etymology (or in this case, grammar) should. If you defend that point of view, you have to defend the idea that "I could care less" means exactly the same thing as "I couldn't care less" because a majority of people use it that way. If the end result of a usage is to diminish the capacity of the language to make distinctions and express nuances, it should be opposed. But all I'm saying here is that there is nothing inherently negative in "Democrat Party" and that it is in fact grammatically correct. 88.120.130.106 (talk) 10:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.120.130.106 (talk) 10:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Grammar[edit]

Of the four given examples of compound nouns (described in the article as the use of a noun as a modifier of another noun) I have removed the last (Senate election), as

  1. It is made redundant by the similarity of a nearby example (Ukraine election) which--by virtue of being encapsulated in a quotation--resists modification; and
  2. It ignores the existence of alternative phrasing (Senatorial election) which employs the adjective and is in common usage.

I had originally replaced the example with another--i.e., drugs problem--but have since removed it as it potentially opens an entirely new can of worms. In standard American English, the phrasing would differ--i.e., drug problem--which suggests a developing syntactical convention for indicating the use of a noun as a modifier of another noun.

-- Patronanejo (talk) 21:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)