Talk:Democratic Party (United States)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Cscr-former.svg Democratic Party (United States) is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Edit request on 30 October 2013[edit]

It should read democrats came originally from the federalists party. It was disbanded when they took the name democrat to pull the extension fore name; democratic(people) from the term people republican, also known as democratic republican. This effect of diverting the name democrat fooled the American populous into enlisting to join either party since they both sounded similarly beneficial. The federalist democrats stood for stronger government to control the people. The democratic republic also known as the republicans stood for embracing the needs of the people and helping them to grow and become responsible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Edward Shils Gab9953 (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. --Stfg (talk) 15:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Official Name[edit]

If one reads the Charter of the Democratic Party, the full name of the party, which that document uses, is actually the "Democratic Party of the United States of America." I'm bringing this up because, well...wouldn't it make more sense to simply use the full name of the party for disambiguation purposes as opposed to placing "United States" in parentheses next to it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MNTRT2009 (talkcontribs) 19:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, no; read this. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
But wouldn't this be more appropriate? The common name of the Democratic Party is the "Democratic Party." But since there are other political parties throughout the world which are also named the "Democratic Party," it requires more than just the common name for disambiguation. Wikipedia has used "Democratic Party (United States)" under the assumption that "Democratic Party" was the proper name of the party, but it is, as is evidenced by the Party's charter, not. We don't label the article for the SPD as "Social Democratic Party (Germany)," but rather the full name "Social Democratic Party of Germany" is used, because that is the proper name of the party and it requires no disambiguation. The naming conventions suggest that the name of the country in parenthesis is to be added where the names of parties are identical to the names of other parties, but we have here a case where, while the common name is ambiguous, the official name is not. Since the official name of the party is unambiguous, that removes the need to use the parenthesized country name because there is no other political party in the world named the "Democratic Party of the United States of America." --MNTRT2009 (talk) 15:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Even that article says, If two parties from different countries have identical names, then the name of the country could be put in parentheses. This is one of the most widely used party names in this encyclopedia. and a change would affect tens of thousands of articles for no net improvement. --Orange Mike | Talk 06:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
But what I'm saying is that the name is not identical. Since the full name of the Democratic Party is the Democratic Party of the United States of America, it is entirely unique. It's only identical if you ignore the full name of the party.
And as far as the issue of cross references goes, that problem could be solved with a simple redirect.--MNTRT2009 (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
This is a solution in need of a problem. WP:COMMONNAME offers clear guidance on this matter. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2014[edit]

The line immediately under the heading "Minimum wage": Please change "all American's have" to "all Americans have..." Plurals do not require apostrophes. (talk) 14:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Done{{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 14:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


The article currently states "In 2013, Democrats in the Senate passed S.744, which would reform immigration policy to allow citizenship for illegal immigrants in the US and improve the lives of all immigrants living in the United States"

I have several objections to the current phrasing:

  1. Perhaps the bill should be referred to by its full name and linked to. Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013
  2. "In 2013, Democrats in the Senate passed" -- Republicans also voted for the bill. Perhaps something along the lines of "Democrats overwhelmingly supported..."
  3. "improve the lives of all immigrants" - the bill aims to do many things. Whether it will improve the lives of "all immigrants" is a value judgement and thus not neutral POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonycat (talkcontribs) 00:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Left wing[edit]

Political parties are normally described as left or right wing. Why is the Democratic Party instead described variously as conservative and liberal? It is a broad party, and certainly some parts are more left wing than others, but isn't "left wing" or "centre left" a more accurate description? (talk) 05:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Only if you ignore the meanings of those terms. The Democratic Party has a microscopic leftish wing, but by the standards of political science, not of any significance; and the party itself is clearly not center-left, far less left wing. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
101.98 If you believe that the party is liberal or center-left the best thing to do is bring RS refs that indicates that specifically. Otherwise, no, "centre-left" is not a more accurate description. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:07, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Directory-style weblinks[edit]

The article has a list of (blue-linked) Democratic "state and territory parties", which is fine, but what's not so fine is that all those entries came with a "Site" URL to the party's official website. This, I submit, is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and WP:EL applies as well. First of all, there is really no rationale for linking to the party's website from this place; one assumes, since all the blue links are working, that the local party's article has that link in the EL section, and that's fair. So listing them here, in this general article, isn't just needless but also turns this into a directory.

Rjensen reverted my removal of those links here, saying "this is a full-fledged article and not a directory; links are normal Wiki role". Well, duh, of course this is a full-fledged article, with now restored a directory of parties--not a set of "See also" like links. The latter is appropriate, the former is not. In addition, "links are normal Wiki role" is a bit hard to parse, but no, such a collection of links is not normal, and if it is it shouldn't be. Anyway, I'm bringing this here for discussion. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 18:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Drmies simply misreads the rule at WP:NOTDIRECTORY -- it does not mention web pages and specifically recommends links to Wiki articles, which is what we have here. Editors put a lot of work in this and simply erasing annoys them and deprives users of useful information. No one benefits. With them included, "Wikipedia functions as an index or directory of its own content." which is the recommended guideline. As far as WP:EL the rule states: "Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any" This is an article on the Dem party and it links to its many websites exactly as recommended by the rules. Rjensen (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Rjensen, the links to the Wikipedia articles are there. The URLs turn this into a kind of phone book. Yes, this is an article for the Democratic party, and so a link to the Democratic party website is appropriate: it is NOT an article about all those local parties, and so all those links to the websites for all those local parties are simply not appropriate. And please, "a lot of work"--we're talking about a couple of URLs, not about writing beautiful content. Drmies (talk) 21:44, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
What i can't understand is why Drmies wants to undo the hard, useful work of other editors. Is he locked into his personal reading of the rules? It is useful information. The Democratic Party is actually a coalition of state political parties--you see that at the national convention and national committee, so the article certainly does cover them. Drmies repeatedly calls the state parties "local parties" (as in Chicago) but that is false-- these are the states that make up the Party. Rjensen (talk) 22:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Why is Rjensen talking about me as if I'm in the other room? And why do they ask loaded questions, like "why Drmies wants to undo the hard, useful work of other editors"? First of all, sticking in a couple of links is hardly hard work. Removing them may be more difficult. Second, maybe Drmies wants to remove that information because they feel it doesn't pertain, something they've tried to explain, and maybe Rjensen can assume a little frigging good faith. No, if this article covered them, it wouldn't be this article. The articles that actually cover them, those cover them. Seems pretty elementary to Drmies, I'm told. Now, I hope that some other editors will weigh in, and they are free to use the second person. Drmies (talk) 00:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Drmies (you) wants other people to assume his good faith but has totally changed his (your) position. He (you) started by insisting on the rules but now he claims he really removed links because they don't "pertain." But he misread the rules and now he (you) misunderstands how the Democratic party works. It's a coalition of state parties. "sticking in a couple of links is hardly hard work." that is poor arithmetic--it's over 50 links. Are they useful? yes. Do they belong according to the rules? yes. Are the state parties unimportant "local" bodies as he (you) says? No--they have always been central--and everyone can see that: the president is elected by the Electoral College = the states. Likewise the Senators and Congressmen. Likewise the Dem National Committee. Likewise the presidential primaries and the 2016 national convention. Rjensen (talk) 01:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Wow, Rjensen, you are not the person I thought you were.

OK, here's another go. The Democratic Party is, apparently, a coalition of state parties. Those state parties have articles. Those state parties' websites are linked in their respective articles. This article is on the coalition and does not need to link to the individual state parties' websites. Drmies (talk) 01:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── There is now a list at List of state parties of the Democratic Party (United States). I have put a link at See Also. I'd suggest getting rid of the list section here. It is important information but it clutters this page. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:18, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Excellent. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 01:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
The wiki-link to the list of state parties appears twice in the article. It is in the Democratic Party template at the bottom and in the see also section. The full blown list is not necessary, as discussed above. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
WSe do NOT have a consensus here to remove the list. I count 2-2: myself and Blondeguynative for KEEPING and Capitalismojo Drmies FOR DROPPING. Rjensen (talk) 03:46, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
WP:BRD The onus is on editors who want to add material to make positive reason for inclusion. Links to the directory list are in the article twice. Putting the full directory is inappropriate. No other party article handles it this way, for good reason. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Saying that other stuff exists is not going to help your argument. Creating a content fork of the list of state parties is unnecessary and pointy. There is no reason the list can't be maintained here, where it makes more sense. The list is not even remotely a violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY and should be kept as long as the editors here want it. gobonobo + c 18:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, perhaps someone could make the positive case for this directory listing within this already over-long article. I would suggest that its inclusion here is not optimal. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Not listing the state parties here is a major omission and a disservice to our readers. The state and territorial parties are a key part of how the Democratic Party is structured in the United States. Many states (like mine), don't have the intuitive [State name]-Democratic-Party formulation and readers will come to this article to find their state's article. While this article has become quite large, creating a content fork for a columned list of 50 or so state parties is not going to help. We'd be better off spinning out articles for, say, Policy positions of the United States Democratic Party and Voter base of the United States Democratic Party. gobonobo + c 15:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Not an unreasonable argument. I agree about splitting out the voter base and policy positions. I suggest that we add a section that discusses the importance of the state parties (and their role in the party) and put the link to the list at the top of the new section. The Directory is not needed given that there are already three ways to find the state parties on this page not counting the directory. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Every state party that has a non-standard name (including MN DFL) has a redirect that takes you to the right article when you search wikipedia.
  • Every article at wikipedia that includes the Democratic Party template includes this a full and complete list (with links) to every single state party.
  • This article has a See Also that takes you to list of state parties.
I suggest that an additional full list beyond the template's full list is overkill and duplication. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

health care reform[edit]

added some more information to the "health care reform" section. let me know if you have any concerns or questions. thank you. GoGatorMeds (talk) 19:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

International associations[edit]

here and here (talk) 22:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)