Talk:Democrat Party (epithet)

Satire

I recall one conservative writer (I think it was in National Review) who effectively spat upon the whole concept by suggesting that there was a group known as PTUI-FAD: "People Together to Unstick the 'Ic' From After Democratic." Perhaps someone can locate that piece! WHPratt (talk) 16:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Trump

It's verifiable that Donald Trump tweeted, "it is not the Democratic Debate, rather the Democrat (s) D!", per Politico. However, not every WP:FART has encyclopedic value. Unlike with George W. Bush's use of the term, there is no secondary-source analysis to show that this tweet is noteworthy or important, so I suggest removing it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

it's verifiable and non-controversial that the current president uses the term--that is encyclopedic. it meets the standard for using a primary source. As for a reliable source it's covered as a news event by journalist Mark Joyella on Oct. 13, 2015 at Adweek = http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/jeff-zucker-on-democratic-debate-our-approach-will-be-different/274420 Rjensen (talk) 13:07, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that it's verifiable; however, verifiability alone does not guarantee inclusion. Whether it's encyclopedic or not depends on whether there is existing secondary-source evaluation and analysis to draw from; Wikipedia is not a collection of random trivia. The trade publication Adweek seems like a strange source for political news; in any event, its article just copies the tweet with no comment or explanation at all. Once again, unless there is more substantial coverage, I suggest removing this content. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

The trade magazine on advertising is an expert on slogans = the RS that singles out the behavior as notable for its audience of advertising experts. Surely we all agree that when the president uses a slogan he takes it to the highest levels of visibility. -- is there anyone more visible than Trump? Rjensen (talk) 21:07, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump was not the president in October 2015, when he wrote that tweet. In any event, "visibility" is not the relevant standard – that would be coverage in reliable, secondary sources. Wikipedia is not written for an "audience of advertising experts", but rather for a general audience. Thus we gauge the noteworthiness of facts by their prominence in mainstream sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I've started an RfC on the topic below. —21:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

RS that singles out the behavior as notable for its audience – that's just another way of saying that it is published and verifiable. By that logic, anything ever published on any news website anywhere would be "notable" enough for an encyclopedia article. But Wikipedia is explicitly not the news, and verifiability alone is insufficient, as I've already stated. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Another user has added a further use of the phrase Democrat Party in another tweet by Trump. Like the above example, I've seen no commentary by secondary sources explaining how this tweet is relevant, so it too is given undue weight here. For one thing, the phrase appears irrelevant to the feud with Wilson. And none of the sources used so far suggest any "partisan nature" to Trump's use of the phrase itself, so that part is evidently original research. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:02, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Request for comment: Trump Democratic debate tweet

The consensus is to exclude the information about the tweet per WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS.

Cunard (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In October 2015, Donald Trump tweeted, "Someone should inform @CNN that, despite spending millions of $'s on graphics, it is not the Democratic Debate, rather the Democrat[s] D!" Should this be in the article? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC) (updated 04:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC))

• Exclude. It's disproportionate to the overall topic. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of the president's former tweets. Unlike with George W. Bush's use of the term Democrat Party, I've seen no explanation in secondary sources of how this tweet is noteworthy or important. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:10, 15 October 2017 (UTC) (updated 21:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC))
• Including the tweet gives undue weight to the specific tweet. Not encyclopedic. Democrat Party (epithet) should not mention Donald Trump's October 2015 tweet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay2net (talk • contribs) 00:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
• FRS Exclude. Agree that including the tweet would give undue weight. agtx 14:05, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude. I think it's definitely noteworthy and deserving of weight, as it's the opinion of the most important person in the most important opposition party to the Democratic Party, but assuming as suggested above that there aren't any sources saying the tweet is important, it has no place in a Wikipedia article. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
• Include we do have a reliable source that singled it out for mention--ie the trade magazine on advertising is an expert reliable secondary source for issues like campaign slogans and it decided it was notable for its audience of advertising experts: a presidential candidate during the heated campaign --with many hundreds of millions of $$$ spent on advertising--deliberately emphasizes the slogan (it was not a passing remark) Rjensen (talk) 03:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

  ...a reliable source that singled it out for mention [...] decided it was notable for its audience of advertising experts – as I stated above, that's just another way of saying that it was published and therefore verifiable. By that logic, anything ever published on any news website anywhere would be "notable" enough for an encyclopedia article. Verifiability alone is a bare minimum standard, not proof of encyclopedic merit.

  The entirety of the coverage in Adweek consists of the tweet itself preceded by the line, "And then there’s this from the GOP front-runner". How is this not "a passing remark"? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• Exclude - not WP:NOTABLE for him saying it as Google is only showing me 7 hits. Besides, the tweet seems about CNN signage missing the word "Party" in saying "Democratic Debate" so seems not really an epithet usage. Markbassett (talk) 02:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

  For the record, "notability" applies to the topic of an article, not content within an article. For that you want Neutral point of view. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

  Oops, yes, proper term within an article No significant coverage is WP:WEIGHT failure. Googling only 7 hits is trivial, not deserving of mention. Markbassett (talk) 01:07, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

  the question is whether Trump used the term in partisan fashion or avoids it. The quote answers that question. Trump's role in US politics makes his usage important--a state official in any state could never carry the weight. Rjensen (talk) 22:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

  Are there any reliable sources to support such an interpretation? Weight is decided primarily by coverage in secondary sources, not contributors' own analyses of primary sources such as tweets. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:58, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

  Sangdeboeuf is asking for a citation to demonstrate that Trump is important or noteworthy in American politics. He needs to read wp:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue Rjensen (talk) 02:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

  That's not the point. Due weight is not about what you, or I, or anyone happens to think about Donald Trump's role. It's about significant, published viewpoints. There are innumerable published sources confirming that the sky is blue. What sources are there confirming this tweet's importance? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

  The Due Weight rule has zip to do with this. the rule is " Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. " there are no "minority views" that are exaggerated. Rjensen (talk) 13:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

  It's "minority views or aspects", as you so helpfully quoted. Trump's use of Democrat here appears to be an exceedingly minor aspect of the linguistic debate over the phrase Democrat Party. Feel free to suggest sources that demonstrate otherwise. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

  "linguisdtic debate" is not the issue here. The proposition (from Safire et al) ia that Republicans at the highest level have used the term as a negative epithet. The Trump example adds another 8 years to the chain of verified presidential evidence supporting this proposition.Rjensen (talk) 21:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

  That appears to be your own editorial synthesis. What reliable, published sources make any connection with Safire et al.? Also, Donald Trump was not president in 2015. Whether the tweet is "presidential" is therefore just one user's opinion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

  False--Trum was a leader in the GOP presidential campaign in 1975. Rjensen (talk) 05:03, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

  Uh – what? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Exclude as trivial ephemera unless and until multiple reliable sources treat this as noteworthy specifically in the context of "Democrat(s)" as [somehow] a pejorative. I.e., RS must prove the relevance. Some of the above comments are misusing "notable", which on WP has the specific meaning "worthy of its own article"; this is a WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:UNDUE, and WP:RECENTISM matter, not a WP:Notability issue.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  05:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude – I agree with the others. Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 23:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude, insufficient coverage. Additionally, given the context and the source, it's not clear that he intended to use it as an epithet; it's entirely possible he isn't aware of the party's proper name. --Aquillion (talk) 00:39, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The Washington Times a prominent Republican paper, selects the "Democrat" theme as its banner headline re Wilson episode Trump continues feud with Fla. congresswoman: Frederica Wilson ‘killing the Democrat Party’ Washington Times Oct 21 2017 that shows a major paper emphasizes the importance of the quote and not just the feud. Rjensen (talk) 05:07, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Mic political reporter Eric Lutz in October 2017 reports several publicized episodes where President Trump uses the epithet and concludes "His use of the term seems to be purposeful." Rjensen (talk) 09:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
      • If so, we should cite that coverage and have a sentence saying that Trump has repeatedly used it, not just one cite to the quote. A decent source or two saying that he's used it repeatedly and concluding that it's purposeful is much more noteworthy and inclusion-worthy than one tweet. --Aquillion (talk) 21:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Possibly - I don't think we need to quote an individual tweet, but if multiple secondary sources are available saying that this is a persistent and deliberate overarching pattern, and examining it in depth beyond just a quote, then it may be appropriate to include some content on that overarching pattern. GMG^talk 10:16, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude as UNDUE. There hasn't been enough RS coverage of this one tweet to give it weight for this article. Ca2james (talk) 20:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude As everyone else is saying, not enough RS coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LakesideMiners (talk • contribs) 19:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
• Include (Condensed from what I posted on 2017-11-10) Drawn here by an RfC and my professional interests both in usage trends and in rhetoric, I found it weird that the controversy was framed in terms of undue weight. That traditionally refers to giving too much play to a minority viewpoint but no viewpoint is involved here. Nor does it seem to be some other sort of NPOV problem. Instead, it looks like the main risk discussed is WP:OR, though we'd certainly get into WP:NOT if we were to attempt to list every single time Trump used the epithet. Nevertheless, documenting this usage is the purpose of the article. -- Distorting the Democratic Party's actual name is a tradition going back more than a century. The press and linguists have achieved consensus about this and it no longer makes news, so simply quoting a president who addresses the public directly ought not require comment in WP:RS. President Bush made it very clear what was going on, in a clever self-deprecating way, when he embraced his own, earlier use of the epithet. Suppressing the reference to Trump would seem to imply our current Republican president had given up on this precedent. -- The fact that the statements were made in tweets rather than traditional media does not take away from the importance of a president's usage as a model for how Americans talk. -- The particular tweet in question is important for three reasons. It represents the earliest citation. It came in a highly partisan context that Trump showed awareness of. The tweet itself contains metadiscourse referring to the misnomer. The pithy quotation from candidate Trump is an example of his rhetorical effectiveness. Noting his use of the epithet, if done with simplicity and without editorializing, need not create any problem in terms of balance. What harm could leaving the quotation in do? - phi (talk) 18:58, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

  @Ph7five: would you care to condense that a bit, and perhaps explain your reasoning in relation to established Wiki practice, such as reflected in Due weight and What Wikipedia is not? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:00, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay, @Sangdeboeuf:, I have tried, above (with an overwrite, which is I hope what you intended) and hope it seems clearer. Thank you. - phi (talk) 18:58, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I see several misconceptions there:

• The issue of undue weight is about over-representing minority views or aspects, as discussed earlier. See WP:PROPORTION.
• The purpose of an encyclopedia is not to simply document what people say and do. That is the purpose of a newspaper, which Wikipedia is not.
• It's not a question of "doing harm", but of avoiding indiscriminate trivia.

The idea that The press and linguists have achieved consensus about this is certainly new to me, and does not free us from the need for a neutral presentation based on reliable sources. If secondary sources have not commented on Trump's usage, then it probably doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.