Talk:Democratic Party (United States)/Archive 4

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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Lieberman

Lieberman is considered conservative on foreign policy--hence his challenger in the primary this year. He's liberal on social and economic issues, as rated by most of the different rating panels -- for example 75-100% ratings by AFSCME (union), ADA, ACLU, LCV (conservation) etc, and 14% by NTU (taxpayers), 0% by Am Conserv Union, 0% by christian coalition. (see Almanac of American Politics for all the ratings.) Rjensen 20:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

While I disagree somewhat that Lieberman is a conservative on foreign policy, I think you're generally correct in pointing out that he certainly doesn't warrant mention as a conservative, without qualification, in the article. - Jersyko·talk 20:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I think Lieberman could be considered conservative, depending on one's own POV. If there's a significant bloc of fellow Democrats who consider Lieberman a conservative, and have articulated that point, it should be sourced and included, perhaps with a caveat that "some" view Lieberman as conservative, although he is clearly liberal on a number of issues. On a personal behavioral level, I object to this practice of changing the article and demanding that others "prove" that the change is wrong, it's becoming widespread on a number of high-traffic pages. Bjsiders 20:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that's he's not a "conservative". It appears he has received a lifetime rating of 17 (out of 100) from ACU, a good a source as any that I can tell of conservatism. Further thoughts? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

This is the same senator Joe Lieberman of CT right? The pro-Iraq war, neo-con that George Bush gave a kiss to after the state of the union? The guy that thinks that playing videogames lead to smoking crack? The guy that loves to go on Fox news and spread right wing lies against the Democratic party. That guy? --8bitJake 20:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

No no, not that one you hear about on Daily Kos--the one we're talking about was the Democratic VP nominee in 2000 and is the current leader (by far) among Connecticut Democrats.[1] Rjensen 21:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Hillary Clinton was a co-sponsor of the videogame-related bill. Is she also therefore a conservative, by your terms? Howard Dean has been on Fox News. Same for him? - Jersyko·talk 21:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Howard Dean does not quote Republican talking points on Fox News. Lieberman does it over and over again. I don't consider Senator Clinton a progressive at all. Both her and Lieberman are DLC pro-corporate anti-labor types. Republican Lite.--8bitJake 21:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Let's list Clinton and Lieberman as conservatives in this article. I'm heading off to the George W. Bush article to switch him over to the "liberal" side since he favors federalized public funding for prescription drugs and had the largest education budget in the history of the nation. And I'm going to go through every Republican senator who voted for the budget and call them liberals too, since they were clearly all favor of bloating the government. Your "evidence" so far of Lieberman's conservatism is that he's going on Fox and supporting the war? Sorry, I don't buy it. Not to the point where it's encyclopedic. Where is your proof, not your insinuations? Bjsiders 21:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

You want evidence that Joe Lieberman is conservative? Damn that is like asking for proof that water is wet. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] --8bitJake 21:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Not to be rude, but take a look at the "sources" you provided. All are left or far-left sites. Of course, they would say almost everybody is too conservative. Being hardline on one or two issues does not a conservative or a liberal make. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Well since we are talking about the Democratic Party to even use the term far-left is a POV statement. not to be rude.--8bitJake 21:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to the websites you provided, not the Democratic Party in general. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The use of the term "Far-Left" is a Luntz. right wing framing term. --8bitJake 21:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Remember, when you argue that Lieberman is a conservative, you're arguing not only with the other editors that have chimed in on this discussion (some of whom I'm sure are somewhat progressive themselves, myself included), but also with this: "75-100% ratings by AFSCME (union), ADA, ACLU, LCV (conservation) etc, and 14% by NTU (taxpayers), 0% by Am Conserv Union, 0% by christian coalition." - Jersyko·talk 21:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The far rightwing think tanks position on Lieberman is moot since we are talking about his questionable position in the Democratic Party and his possibility of leaving the party.--8bitJake 21:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

So your argument is that a bunch of leftist publications think he's conservative, therefor he is. But calling them leftist is POV, so we can't use that tactic. Well, then calling Lieberman "conversative" is clearly POV also, so we can't use THAT either. Further, you just called the ACLU a "far rightwing think tank" three breaths after you said labeling something as "far left" was POV and thus semantically dismissable. Sorry, you've lost all credibility as an honest participant in this discussion. Bjsiders 23:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Jesus it was so obvious that I was referring to your quoting the NTU, American Conservative Union, and the Christian Coalition. Your “When did you stop hitting your Girlfriend” trapping is pretty tiring. What we are debating is if Joe Lieberman is to the right of the base of the Democratic Party? Not is he just as far right as a Republican radical. The evidence right there in his decades in the Senate. --8bitJake 15:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

all the liberal groups say he's a liberal; all the conservative groups say he's a liberal. They have been listed. Now let's see if there is one recognized group anywhere that officially declares him a conservative. apparently not. The google links turn up only bloggers who speak for themselves. Rjensen 15:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't quote any of those organizations. If you are trapped, it's by your own doing. You are setting up rules for this debate that apply only to those who disagree with you. Just because any given person is "to the right" of the Democratic base does not make them a conservative. By that measure, all but maybe 3 Democrats in the Senate are "conservative" especially if you are to be considered a yardstick by which we measure the political disposition of the "base." If we start this little song and dance we'll be calling all the Democrats "conservatives" and all the Republicans "liberals" because of their position relative to their bases. Republicans are "conservative" because they're to the right of the typical voter. Democrats are liberal because they're to the left of that same hypothetical voter. Show me some evidence that Lieberman is, on balance, to the right of the typical voter, and I'll agree to your edit. Bjsiders 16:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Not so fast, Bjsiders. "Show me some evidence that Lieberman is, on balance, to the right of the typical voter, and I'll agree to your edit." Well, we already have evidence that Lieberman is not a conservative. If 8bitJake now proffers evidence that he is conservative, we will then have conflicting sources. Thus, it would be POV to label him a conservative if 8bitJake does proffer such evidence, as doing so would require that we choose one source over others. Given these facts, any further argument on this point is moot for the purposes of this article and the edit in question. - Jersyko·talk 16:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The reasons that Lieberman is disliked by the Democratic base has little to do with any kind of actual conservatism on the issues (save perhaps his unrepentant hawkishness on foreign policy). It has a lot more to do with his rhetorical style. This isn't unimportant, but I don't think the rhetorical lameness of one individual Democrat is something which really warrants mention in an article on the party as a whole. john k 17:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

No, 8bitJake, removing all references to Lieberman as anything but a conservative while not explicitly stating that he is a conservative is not any better. Seriously, please read Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. You might also want to take a look at Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If you want a forum to express your personal views, please try blogging, websites, or other media; Wikipedia is simply not the place for pushing a point of view. Thanks. - Jersyko·talk 19:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I see you persist, but haven't made any more comments on this talk page to explain yourself. I would appreciate it if someone else will help me out if this continues, as I'm quickly using up my revert quotient for the day. Wouldn't it be better to discuss changes here first so we don't have to revert war??? - Jersyko·talk 19:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Look if we are going to even have a Conservatives section in this article then you need to allow contributors to make their case why people should be included there. As a person that follows politics closely the very notion of considering Joe Lieberman anything but a conservative Democrats is absurd. --8bitJake 19:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I, too, follow politics very closely, and I think the idea of considering Lieberman as a conservative is absurd. But our condradictory conclusions don't solve anything, do they? But you're also a Democratic activist, I see. Consider for one second that your perspective might be somewhat influenced by your activism. Perhaps my perspective is also skewed. So, what we're left with, instead of our perspectives on the issue, are (1) consensus on this talk page, which right now appears to be pretty solidly against including Lieberman as a conservative, and (2) the scores Rjensen posted in the first comment above. I don't see how your rewording of the section merely to avoid use of the word "conservative" but to paint a picture of Lieberman as nothing but a conservative is copasetic with the developing consensus here.
Oh, and as far as not allowing you to make a case why people should be included in the section, that's what this page is for!!! - Jersyko·talk 19:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

A conservative Democrat. Not a conservative Republican but a CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRAT. Don’t you understand that? Jesus. If I called up his campaign office and asked for permission to refer to him as a conservative Democrat would that be enough for you? I don’t see why I am personally active in local politics would have any impact on my ability to contribute to Wikipedia. --8bitJake 20:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Please be civil, comments like "don't you understand that, Jesus" do not help to form a consensus.--Jersey Devil 04:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand your argument. However, the article does not say "conservative for a Democrat", but rather "conservatives." You seem to be saying that, in the factions section, we are not describing views of Democrats in relation to the broader political spectrum, but rather in relation to other Democrats. That's not what we're doing at all, as that would require the article to take a viewpoint that is left of center and describe people that are generally considered to be moderate as conservative, thus ignoring the plain meanings of the terms. - Jersyko·talk 13:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Lieberman was the LEAST conservative senator on Social issues in 2004 (he was tied with others); he scored zero as a conservative on social issues; no Democrat was more liberal, according to Almanac of Am Politics 2006 p 352. Rjensen 14:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The article says Conservative in an article about the Democractic party so the header is about Conservative Democrats. I am sorry but that is just factually incorrect. There is no way that Joe Lieberman and all his “Social Values” “Hollywood and Videogames” whining is more liberal on social issue that Washington own congressman Jim McDurmott or Ohio Rep. Kucinich. I would like to see the rational that they book uses contrasted with the voting record and legislation supported. Why do I get the feeling that I am making another "The Sky is Blue" argument? --8bitJake 18:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

You're not making a "sky is blue" argument. You're arguing that the sky is green. We're saying it's not. You're saying, "well, relative to lava, it's green." Bjsiders 18:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

So now you're making edits to the article to help prove your points, I see. Bad form. Regardless, it doesn't affect the plain meanings of the terms. - Jersyko·talk 18:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. The sky is still blue. --8bitJake 18:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, your argument that Lieberman is conservative because he's to the right of Kucinich is spurious. Just because you can identify somebody who is "more extreme" to the left doesn't mean Lieberman is to the right of center. Again, I'm open to the possibility that Lieberman could be classified as a conservative, but none of your argumentation has been remoately convincing. You're talking down to us, and your proof of your argument is basically your argument. "Lieberman is conservative because he is. I've observed his record and I think he's conservative, therefor he is." I'm sorry, but that isn't sufficient. Bjsiders 18:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you want a list of votes and statements where he joined the Republicans [9]? You can argue as much as you want but I still say the sky is blue and Joe Lieberman is a sad excuse for a Democrat. --8bitJake 18:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is this argument still taking place? Lieberman obviously sides with conservatives sometimes. I don't think anyone is denying that. However, there is plenty of evidence that he has also voted the liberal position (actually far more often than the conservative) on numerous issues. Thus, we have evidence for both positions. Chosing to describe him as conservative (whether the word is used or not), without qualification and without pointing out that he, more often than not, also supports the liberal position, would be POV as it would be favoring one set of evidence and sources over another. As I said a few comments up, this issue is now moot. - Jersyko·talk 19:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It's taking place because, despite consensus to the contrary, 8BiteJake won't abandon it. Lieberman can be a "sad excuse for a Democrat" and still NOT be conservative. And he can vote 100% in-line with the Republican party and STILL not be a conservative, particularily THIS class of Congress. You've given me no evidence that Lieberman is a conservative or generally considered to be a conservative by the Democratic party. Zell Miller is a conservative Democrat. Lieberman is not. Your assertions that he is prove nothing. Your argument has also morphed from "he's conservative" to "he's conservative compared to other Democrats," you keep changing the target so that the article can be made to say what you want it to say about Lieberman. Sorry, you are completely obsessed with your POV on this, and your "evidence" consists of blanket statements, ad hominem attacks, more POV, lists of left-leaning web sites that agree with your POV, and a list of votes that don't amount to any evidence of anything. Also, it's difficult to be receptive to your argumentation on this when your mannerisms and communication skills are abrasive and, to be charitable, unrefined. Peppering pejoratives about Lieberman all over your assertions doesn't help demonstrate that you're not being POV. Bjsiders 21:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

You can argue as much as you want about moving "Joementum" out of the Conservative Democrat section but so far I am happy that he is still there. You are so right that I should have never posted a link from a political organization in an article about a political party when talking about a politician. I still say the sky is still blue I can't vouch about what color you see but my evidence and experience is the stick with blue. --8bitJake 23:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Again. The sky is blue. You're claiming it's green. It's greener than lava, anyway, so it's fair to say it's green. Bjsiders 01:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

"Neoliberal"

I removed this from the section referring to DLC Democrats. "Neoliberal" is defined as someone who believes in privatization, economic globalization, etc... Most Democrats, including many "liberal non-DLC Democrats" could also be considered "neoliberal". So for that reason I removed it.--Jersey Devil 18:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, please stop adding "Republican lite" to that section. It violates NPOV.--Jersey Devil 18:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

DNC Chairman Howard Dean has no problem using the phrase "Republican lite" to refer to the DLC. --8bitJake 19:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Howard Dean doesn't have to adhere to NPOV. Seriously, take a look at it. - Jersyko·talk 19:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

What Howard Dean thinks is irrelevant to this article. We have to adhere to NPOV.--Jersey Devil 19:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Right. What would the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee know about the Democratic Party? --8bitJake 20:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

You've convinced me. Now let's go over to the Republican article and reproduce whatever crap Ken Mehlman has said in that article, too. - Jersyko·talk 20:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, you are quite correct, the rhetoric of the head of the DNC is irrelevant to this article. Much like the rhetoric of certain Republican leaders about say McCain being a RINO is irrelevant to the John McCain article (to put down as factual) or Bush's rhetoric use of the terms "Climate change", "Death tax", and "Terrorist Surveillance Program" does not make us change the titles of the Global Warming, Estate tax, and NSA warrantless surveillance controversy articles. If you can not see past your own POV, well that is your problem and your POV edits will be reverted. If you still want a place to put down your POV and use personal attacks, as you have in the article and this talk page, I would suggest you leave Wikipedia and start a blog. Last but not least, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, so get your politics out of this project.--Jersey Devil 20:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Why thank you for that condescending personal attack. It really brightened my day. --8bitJake 21:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

There was no personal attack. He's, rather accurately in my opinion, assessed your contributions as being motivated primarily by your personal political POV. The term from Dean is already in there, it's properly attributed, and there's no justification for including Howard Dean's opinion in the section heading. Bjsiders 21:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

"If you can not see past your own POV, well that is your problem and your POV edits will be reverted. If you still want a place to put down your POV and use personal attacks, as you have in the article and this talk page, I would suggest you leave Wikipedia and start a blog. Last but not least, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, so get your politics out of this project." Oh Burn. That stings. --8bitJake 21:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

As it seems that no one has any more constructive comments to make regarding material in this encyclopedia article, may I suggest that we drop this conversation completely? - Jersyko·talk 21:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. About time to archive, too.

Comments from thewolfstar

These comments were originally posted on the failed FAC page for this article. I moved them here for the editor who made them. - Jersyko·talk 19:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I am suggesting why this article did not get Featured Article status, and I am disputing the neutrality of this article because: 1.It makes subtle suggestions through the use of language. (see 2. and 3.)

2.It's implications contradict fact. (Thomas Jefferson's writings will show clearly that his ideas and what he fought for in this country are not represented well in either of the two major political parties of this country, though they both make claims, in one way or another, that their philosophies are concurrent with Jefferson's.)

Whether Jefferson's ideas are "represented well" in either party is a POV question. Jefferson's siding with the poor against the mighty, his belief in the separaton of church and state, and his belief in equal rights all jibe with the ideals of the present-day Democratic Party; his believe in states' rights and an independent judiciary are more in line with modern Republican Party thought. Whatever Jefferson would think of the modern political parties, his Democratic-Republican party is a precursor of the modern-day Democratic Party in that the party's heritage can be traced throught Andrew Jackson directly to Jefferson. Griot 20:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Then, do so. thewolfstar

Jefferson believed in as little government involvement in people's lives as possible. He champiomed freedom and especially the freedon of the poor. However, he would never have instituted a welfare state as a solution to poverty or an unemployment crisis. He predicted a disaster as a result of our money being put into the hands of banks. F.D.R. literally sold our, then, National Reserve to 7 banks, 5 of whom were foreign banks. An act that would be considered one of high treason by any patriotic American. He certainly did beleive in the separaion of church and state. He also detested Christianity. And he also, along with Thomas Paine, who inspired him, said that God is our ruler or king. Our only one. Ideals are one thing. Solutions are another. This is supposed to be a Democratic Republic. Not a Socialist state. (No more a fascist regime, either.) thewolfstar

You're speculating about what Jefferson would think of FDR's policies. FDR detested Christianity? Huh? This is all POV and, frankly, nonsense. Griot 22:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

thewolfstar I'm not speculating anything. I'm making an educated guess based on Jefferson's writings. I suggest you read them yourself. Jefferson did not respect Christianity. That's nice that FDR also detested Chrisianity, if that's what you meant. Is this the only likeness you can come with? I guarantee that Jefferson would not have wanted a welfare state, nor any form of Socialistic Government. He was a patriot and like any patriot would have been disgusted at our money and legislation being bought by foreign banks. The American people were not consulted, btw concerning this presidential and congressional sell-out of their money and their interests. He wanted a separaion of church and state, making it impossible for a religious affiliation to make governmental decisions. The democrats seem to interpret this as - we should leave the word God out of everything. Jefferson believed, also, in All civil liberties. This includes the second amendment. Democrats think we should be unarmed. Are you one of the scholars that contributed to the Dem. Party aticle? I would check my scholar status. Thewolfstar 00:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

3. It contradicts itself. While it first states that "The party traces its beginnings to Thomas Jefferson in the early 1790s" which can be interpreted as neutral, in the same sentence, it then blatantly claims as fact that the Democratic Party "is one of the oldest, if not the oldest, political parties in the world." Whether the Democratic Party can trace its roots to Thomas Jefferson's party is disputable and noted in the article itself: "The Democratic Party traces its origins to the Democratic-Republican Party founded by Thomas Jefferson in 1792, although some scholars date the party's beginnings to the late 1820s, when Democratic-Republicans Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren built a new party along with ex-Federalists." Furthermore, this is the first statement made under the heading: Beginnings, Jacksonian Democracy, and Manifest Destiny: 1792-1854, an historical section of the article. Indeed, it is the first attempt to trace the roots of the Democratic Party, of any kind, actually done in the article, at all.

No, it doesn't contradict itself, it allows for differing views. The Democratic Party began officially under the name "Democratic Party" in the 1820s, but the party itself began in the 1790s, but under a different name. You can think of it like branches of a tree. The modern-day Democratic Party is a branch of Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans; it's a different party, but they share the same trunk and root. Griot 20:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The Republicans can and do claim the same thing. thewolfstar

The modern-day Republican Party cannot claim a direct historical link to Jefferson Democratic-Republican Party. The Republican Party was founded in 1854. Griot 22:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The article says "the party traces its beginnings" to Jefferson in the intro (an accurate statement, as that is what the Party does, even if some people disagree), then later says "The Democratic Party traces its origins to the Democratic-Republican Party founded by Thomas Jefferson in 1792, although some scholars date the party's beginnings to the late 1820s. . . ." Since the Party does trace it's beginnings to Jefferson, whether you agree with the Party or not, the statement is accurate. The article also states that the Party's assertion is disputed by some scholars. The article is accurate in this regard. - Jersyko·talk 03:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Since you seem to want a source so badly, how about this one as a source for the Party tracing its roots to Jefferson. Pretty definitive source that this is exactly what the party is attempting to do. - Jersyko·talk 03:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

4.) The article, in the very least, makes one wonder how much, if any, historical investigation actually went into the writing of this thing. ~ thewolfstar

Plenty of thought went into this from many different scholars. You've arrived late. I suggest you take a deep breath, reflect for a moment, and remove the "Disputed" tag from this article before you jump to conclusions. Griot 20:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Griot, I suggest you don't insult me by telling me take a deep breath and actually read what I wrote. If you would like to debate my dispute, than do so in a rational manner. Also, don't try and intimidate me by telling me I am late. This is getting better and better. thewolfstar

All I'm saying is you've barged in here and erased the work of many people who came before you. Why don't you familiarize yourself with their work before you completely negate it. Griot 22:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I am familiar with their work. It is one of the two strong factions that have demolished our country, that is the extreme left and right wings that are now known as the Democrats and the Republicans. Thewolfstar 00:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

If you believe that something has "demolished our country", and then you edit the article on said thing, it might be difficult for other editors to believe that you can do so and still adhere to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. I hope you see how other editors might think that you cannot possibly be neutral about an isssue if you have such incredibly strong beliefs about it. Your claims on your talk page about me "harrassing" you and me being a "tyrant" for discussing some edits on this talk page isn't helping you either, I'm afraid. I'm not trying to stop you from editing here at Wikipedia, quite the opposite. I'm merely suggesting that you tone down the rhetoric, accusations, and realize that Wikipedia isn't meant to be a forum to express personal views about political parties or anything else. I truly believe that thinking about these things will help you (and the rest of us, for that matter) become a productive Wikipedian. - Jersyko·talk 01:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I do have strong beliefs and so clearly do those of you that wrote the Dem. Party article. Despite this it is important to me that Wikipedia articles be factual and not full of opinion and propaganda. In this case propaganda from the Democrats, themselves. So...

My dispute needs a legitimate debate by you people. You have 2 days to come up with historical fact from a reputable source that shows exactly how the Dems can be traced to Thomas Jefferson's party. If you would like to leave my dispute on the talk page for now, that is the correct way to do things. However, if no one can come up with an argument that sensibly negates my dispute, I have the right to dispute the Democratic Party article, on the article page itself. I can, alternatively, edit the article, and enter facts, backed by reputable sources. Thewolfstar 02:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

perhaps Wolfstar will tell us what "reputable sources" he plans to use. Rjensen 02:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Now there's 3 of you. Good. It's thewolfstar. And the wolfstar is not a 'he'. I would suggest that you back up your facts. It's your article that is questioned.

Don't lawyer me, Jersyko, or jerk me around or talk down to me, again. This goes for you, too Griot. Jersyko, you moved something I wrote, insulted me personally and insulted my intelligence. Griot, you are evidently not capable of reason and do not read well. You can not dominate an article this way even if you were two of the original editors. The reality is that you are keeping an article untouchable and cannot back up your assertions with fact. Do it now or have your article altered. thewolfstar

try again: what sources is Wolfstar planning to rely upon? Rjensen 03:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Its THEwolfstar, Rehenson, I mean Rehensible, uh, Rjensen. I'm working on it now. And I would suggest you do, too. And also suggested.

You try again. It's your article that is in dispute.

duh Thewolfstar 03:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, if I may throw in my two cents, here's how I'll start. I'm not entirely certain about this, but I will be using other articles in Wikipedia as my source, which I think we can all hope is a reliable source. Griot said, and I quote,

"The modern-day Republican Party cannot claim a direct historical link to Jefferson Democratic-Republican Party."

This is simply incorrect. To quote another article on Wikipedia, it namely being History of the United States Republican Party, it said,

"Thus the leaders drew upon the tradition of the National Republican Party of John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay, as well as Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party."

My beef with this article isn't that it can trace its routes to Thomas Jefferon, but that the way it is worded implies that it was the only party that had roots to Thomas Jefferson. The grammar is a bit off on this sentence as well, so I would like to fix this. Here is how it is worded:

"The party traces its beginnings to Thomas Jefferson in the early 1790s, and is one of the oldest, if not the oldest, political parties in the world."

I have come to what I believe to be a compromise that will make this article more neutral, while not removing the fact that the Democratic Party does indeed have roots in Thomas Jefferson. Here is how I would like to word it:

"Like many parties, the Democratic Party traces its beginnings to Thomas Jefferson, and is considered one of the oldest political parties in the United States of America."

So there's what I think. Opinions and comments welcome.

Macai

"Like many parties" doesn't make a whole lot of sense, given that there only two current possible choices. What the Republicans do or don't do in regard to their lineage is of little consequence to what the Democrats do in regard to their lineage. However, as The Minister of War pointed out in a section above, I think changing the latter part of that sentence to "the oldest surviving political party in the United States" is a good idea. Even if dated to the 1820s, it still predates the Republican Party by a good 30 years. - Jersyko·talk 12:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

_________

Here are the results of some research I did last night. I could continue researching but feel it is really unnecessary.

The Anti-Federalists ~

(developed into) The Democratic-Republicans or Jeffersonians

Thomas Jefferson

Sharp political conflict developed, and two separate parties, the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans, began to form. Jefferson gradually assumed leadership of the Republicans, who sympathized with the revolutionary cause in France. Attacking Federalist policies, he opposed a strong centralized Government and championed the rights of states. Jefferson slashed Army and Navy expenditures, cut the budget, eliminated the tax on whiskey so unpopular in the West, yet reduced the national debt by a third. He also sent a naval squadron to fight the Barbary pirates, who were harassing American commerce in the Mediterranean. Further, although the Constitution made no provision for the acquisition of new land, Jefferson suppressed his qualms over constitutionality when he had the opportunity to acquire the Louisiana Territory from Napoleon in 1803.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/tj3.html

The Federalists ~

Origins and Members

In the later years of the Articles of Confederation there was much agitation for a stronger federal union, which was crowned with success when the Constitutional Convention drew up the Constitution of the United States. The men who favored the strong union and who fought for the adoption of the Constitution by the various states were called Federalists, a term made famous in that meaning by the Federalist Papers (see Federalist, The) of Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. http://www.bartleby.com/65/fe/FedistP.html

James Madison

Madison made a major contribution to the ratification of the Constitution by writing, with Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, the Federalist essays. http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/jm4.html

A Federalist or an Anti-Federalist? ~

James Monroe

As a youthful politician, he joined the anti-Federalists in the Virginia Convention which ratified the Constitution, and in 1790, an advocate of Jeffersonian policies, was elected United States Senator. As Minister to France in 1794-1796, he displayed strong sympathies for the French cause; later, with Robert R. Livingston, he helped negotiate the Louisiana Purchase. His ambition and energy, together with the backing of President Madison, made him the Republican choice for the Presidency in 1816. With little Federalist opposition, he easily won re-election in 1820. Early in his administration, Monroe undertook a goodwill tour. At Boston, his visit was hailed as the beginning of an "Era of Good Feelings." Unfortunately these "good feelings" did not endure, although Monroe, his popularity undiminished, followed nationalist policies.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/jm5.html

John Quincy Adams

In the political tradition of the early 19th century, Adams as Secretary of State was considered the political heir to the Presidency. But the old ways of choosing a President were giving way in 1824 before the clamor for a popular choice. Within the one and only party--the Republican--sectionalism and factionalism were developing, and each section put up its own candidate for the Presidency. Adams, the candidate of the North, fell behind Gen. Andrew Jackson in both popular and electoral votes, but received more than William H. Crawford and Henry Clay. Since no candidate had a majority of electoral votes, the election was decided among the top three by the House of Representatives. Clay, who favored a program similar to that of Adams, threw his crucial support in the House to the New Englander. Upon becoming President, Adams appointed Clay as Secretary of State. Jackson and his angry followers charged that a "corrupt bargain" had taken place and immediately began their campaign to wrest the Presidency from Adams in 1828. The campaign of 1828, in which his Jacksonian opponents charged him with corruption and public plunder, was an ordeal Adams did not easily bear. After his defeat he returned to Massachusetts, expecting to spend the remainder of his life enjoying his farm and his books. Unexpectedly, in 1830, the Plymouth district elected him to the House of Representatives, and there for the remainder of his life he served as a powerful leader. Above all, he fought against circumscription of civil liberties.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/ja6.html

Andrew Jackson

More nearly than any of his predecessors, Andrew Jackson was elected by popular vote; as President he sought to act as the direct representative of the common man. Born in a backwoods settlement in the Carolinas in 1767, he received sporadic education. But in his late teens he read law for about two years, and he became an outstanding young lawyer in Tennessee. Fiercely jealous of his honor, he engaged in brawls, and in a duel killed a man who cast an unjustified slur on his wife Rachel. Jackson prospered sufficiently to buy slaves and to build a mansion, the Hermitage, near Nashville. He was the first man elected from Tennessee to the House of Representatives, and he served briefly in the Senate. A major general in the War of 1812, Jackson became a national hero when he defeated the British at New Orleans. In his first Annual Message to Congress, Jackson recommended eliminating the Electoral College. He also tried to democratize Federal officeholding. Already state machines were being built on patronage, and a New York Senator openly proclaimed "that to the victors belong the spoils. . . . " In his first Annual Message to Congress, Jackson recommended eliminating the Electoral College. He also tried to democratize Federal officeholding. Already state machines were being built on patronage, and a New York Senator openly proclaimed "that to the victors belong the spoils. . . . " Jackson took a milder view. Decrying officeholders who seemed to enjoy life tenure, he believed Government duties could be "so plain and simple" that offices should rotate among deserving applicants.

As national politics polarized around Jackson and his opposition, two parties grew out of the old Republican Party--the Democratic Republicans, or Democrats, adhering to Jackson; and the National Republicans, or Whigs, opposing him.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/aj7.html

Martin Van Buren

By 1827 he had emerged as the principal northern leader for Andrew Jackson. President Jackson rewarded Van Buren by appointing him Secretary of State. As the Cabinet Members appointed at John C. Calhoun's recommendation began to demonstrate only secondary loyalty to Jackson, Van Buren emerged as the President's most trusted adviser. Jackson referred to him as, "a true man with no guile." The "Little Magician" was elected Vice President on the Jacksonian ticket in 1832, and won the Presidency in 1836. Van Buren devoted his Inaugural Address to a discourse upon the American experiment as an example to the rest of the world. The country was prosperous, but less than three months later the panic of 1837 punctured the prosperity. (an opinionated comment: from this source) Basically the trouble was the 19th-century cyclical economy of "boom and bust," which was following its regular pattern, but Jackson's financial measures contributed to the crash. His destruction of the Second Bank of the United States had removed restrictions upon the inflationary practices of some state banks; wild speculation in lands, based on easy bank credit, had swept the West. To end this speculation, Jackson in 1836 had issued a Specie Circular requiring that lands be purchased with hard money--gold or silver.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/mb8.html

Conclusions ~

There were originally two main political factions in American history. One was the Federalists led by men like Alexander Hamilton and James Madison. The other Anti-federalist or Democratic-Republican, led by Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry among others. The Federalists eventually died out. The only ramaining party was the Republican or Democratic-Republican. Conflict grew in this one party and out of it two new factions emerged. These were the Whigs and the Democrats. The Republicans and the Democrats can both claim historic roots in the Federalists or the Anti-Federalists. They can both claim philosophic roots in both factions, relevant or not. But as the article is slanted toward the Democratic Party, I believe it is relevant.

ADNAUSEUM

Macai said ::I have come to what I believe to be a compromise that will make this article more neutral, while not removing the fact that the Democratic Party does indeed have roots in Thomas Jefferson. Here is how I would like to word it:

"Like many parties, the Democratic Party traces its beginnings to Thomas Jefferson, and is considered one of the oldest political parties in the United States of America."

Not bad.

Jersyko said "Like many parties" doesn't make a whole lot of sense, given that there only two current possible choices.

~ The choices is not the issue but your bizarre attitude, Jesryko, along wth the others that wrote this article, is exactly why the article, in the aforementioned places, is biased and downright propagandizing.

Many parties have emerged in the US over the years all starting with the opposition happening between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. This is a fact. And there are many more besides those that are referred to here. The Labor Party, The Green Party, The Natural Law Party, the Jeffersonian Party, the Independent Party, etc. Another fact is they can all claim, if they would like, roots in the Federalist Party. None of them bear much resemblance to the early Jeffersonians, or at least, only superficially.

The Communist and the Socialist parties did not orignate here in the US but, ironically seem to be the strongest influence on the politics of the Democratic Party. Sort of like the way fascism has gained approval with many member of the Republican party.

~ Maybe you could say, the Democratic Party traces its roots to Thomas Jefferson, but many scholars agree that its roots also lie in the early Federalists, along with the Socialist and Communist Parties of Europe and Russia.

~ Another point all of you keep ignoring, and which is an important point in my dispute, is this ~

While it first states that "The party traces its beginnings to Thomas Jefferson in the early 1790s" which can be interpreted as neutral, in the same sentence, it then blatantly claims as fact that the Democratic Party "is one of the oldest, if not the oldest, political parties in the world." Whether the Democratic Party can trace its roots to Thomas Jefferson's party is disputable and noted in the article itself: "The Democratic Party traces its origins to the Democratic-Republican Party founded by Thomas Jefferson in 1792, although some scholars date the party's beginnings to the late 1820s, when Democratic-Republicans Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren built a new party along with ex-Federalists." Furthermore, this is the first statement made under the heading: Beginnings, Jacksonian Democracy, and Manifest Destiny: 1792-1854, an historical section of the article. Indeed, it is the first attempt to trace the roots of the Democratic Party, of any kind, actually done in the article, at all.

"The party traces its beginnings to Thomas Jefferson in the early 1790s" this was stated twice. Then "another view" was thrown in as Griot replied. And this all was interjected in the first president mentioned in Democratic Party history.

~ Clean it up or it is disputed. It is not only not neutral, but can be described as Original Content.

~ These elements of the article simply do not make sense. If you do not come up with a sensible argument to support the strange way that both of thesse article sections are written, it is disputed.

~ There are other sections in your article that are biased, as well. Much of the president section only touts preisdential accomplishments. It is an incomplete and therefore an Un-Neutal run-down of the Democratic Party's presidents.

As a matter of fact, the article as a whole sounds like a giant advertisement for the Democratic Party.

Thewolfstar 16:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC) _______

Thanks Rjenson for saying this on an earlier comment. (I just found it now)

Just to note, the Federalist/Anti-Federalist divide (which mostly existed in 1787-1789) was not the same as the Federalist/Republican divide, which developed in the 1790s during the Washington administration. Madison was, indeed, a Federalist in the first period, but became a Republican in the second period, joining with Jefferson to lead the new party. In the first period, Jefferson was in France and not actively involved in the political debate over the new Constitution. Our own article on Jefferson states what had been my understanding of his thoughts on the issue, which was that he basically supported the Constitution, but thought it needed a Bill of Rights. When it was adopted, he immediately became Secretary of State in the new government, and it's not until late in his time in the Cabinet that he can really be seen as the leader of an opposing political movement. So you're just wrong about much of this.

In terms of the age of the Democratic Party, a couple of points. Firstly, whether or not we consider the Democratic Party to have formed ~1792 or ~1830, it is, either way, one of the oldest political parties in the world. Only the British Conservatives (and perhaps arguably the Liberal Democrats, as heirs to the Liberals and before them the Whigs) can claim a direct pedigree going back that far - very few countries even had political parties in 1830, and in those that did, like France, the 1830 parties are very definitively extinct. But, basically, the issue is not whether or not the modern Democratic Party is a direct successor to the Jeffersonian Republicans. I would say that it is only tenuously so, at best - both the Democrats and the National Republicans were formed mostly by former Republicans, but both also contained former Federalists. But, nevertheless, the Democratic Party traces its origins to the Jeffersonian Republicans, and this origin is widely repeated. This ought to be noted in the article. john k 15:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Jefferson called it "Republican Party"

Jefferson, Madsion and other leaders 95 times out of 100 always called theirs the "Republican Party" in 1790s-1820 era. The term "Democratic Republican" was occasionally used. There is an excellent current (Jan 2006) discussion of this issue by scholars in the online H-Net list called "H-SHEAR" (Society for Historians of the Early Republic)... if you are interested look at the discussion --it's open to all at http://www.h-net.org/~shear/ Rjensen 10:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Back then, those DEMs were REPUBs. Nowadays, DEMs are Socialists/Statists. 67.15.76.188 07:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting edit Rjensen to change your signature from Rjensen to 67.15.76.188
Thewolfstar 20:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

____

Only, to set the record straight, Jefferson and Madison were not on the same side of the big debates of that time. Jefferson was Anti-Federalist and Republican and Madison was Federalist. Jefferson was not happy with Madison's phrasing of the Bill of Rights. Thewolfstar 17:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Please see Democratic-Republican Party, where this issue is hashed out and decided. Griot 17:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, though you seem to think we still disagree, based on what you've said in regard to Jefferson, it seems you agree with with me that the intro should read "The party traces its beginnings to Thomas Jefferson and is the oldest political party in the United States." Are you suggesting that the article do a complete historical rundown of the party's beginnings in the intro? You keep saying, "it is the first attempt to trace the roots of the Democratic Party, of any kind, actually done in the article." Well, yeah, it is; it would be strange to do so in the introduction to the article. And please, I'd love to see a work by a reputable scholar pointing out that the Democratic Party, which formed in the 1820s at the latest, as being somehow rooted in Socialism and Communism, both twentieth century phenomenona. If you're merely arguing that the current party's ideology has its roots in those ideologies, that's quite a different subject. Finally, you can argue that the party shouldn't claim to descend from Jefferson (frankly, I'm not sold on the idea that is, if you care to know, I think that they just would rather not be associated with beginning with Jackson if possible, and I don't blame them if that's the case), but that's not changing the fact that the party claims to descend from Jefferson, which is all the intro is saying. - Jersyko·talk 17:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's try this again. This paragraph from your comment above seems to summarize your dispute with at least a portion of the article, if I'm not mistaken:

Thewolfstar wrote: While it first states that "The party traces its beginnings to Thomas Jefferson in the early 1790s" which can be interpreted as neutral, in the same sentence, it then blatantly claims as fact that the Democratic Party "is one of the oldest, if not the oldest, political parties in the world." Whether the Democratic Party can trace its roots to Thomas Jefferson's party is disputable and noted in the article itself: "The Democratic Party traces its origins to the Democratic-Republican Party founded by Thomas Jefferson in 1792, although some scholars date the party's beginnings to the late 1820s, when Democratic-Republicans Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren built a new party along with ex-Federalists." Furthermore, this is the first statement made under the heading: Beginnings, Jacksonian Democracy, and Manifest Destiny: 1792-1854, an historical section of the article. Indeed, it is the first attempt to trace the roots of the Democratic Party, of any kind, actually done in the article, at all.

I think I've addressed each of your concerns in my last comment (right above this one). I'm suggesting a change to the article that comports with what you claim "can be interpreted as neutral" and also doesn't require the reader to assume that the Party dates to 1792 (and thus Jefferson) in the intro. Yet again, whether you see a connection between Jefferson and the Democrats of today is irrelevant to whether the Party attempts to trace it's lineage to Jefferson. You've already said that the fact that the Party traces its beginnings to Jefferson can be interpreted as neutral. Please explain exactly what is wrong with the rewritten sentence I have proposed with your alteration to the sentence as well. I'm trying to foster agreement here, please stop writing off my comments before addressing them. For instance, stating that you disagree that Jefferson should be connected in any way isn't really an argument against anything I've written in these comments. - Jersyko·talk 05:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, though you seem to think we still disagree, based on what you've said in regard to Jefferson, it seems you agree with with me that the intro should read "The party traces its beginnings to Thomas Jefferson and is the oldest political party in the United States." ____

No. I don't agree with you on this or much of anything you've said so far. All I can tell you is read what I have written so far. I personally can see little connection between Thomas Jefferson's writings or practices while in office (good or bad) and the democratic party of the 20th century, which through time has become more and more for a strong centralized power in both state and Federal government, more and more in favor of Socialistic solutions, and will only support the civil rights that it thinks are the "RIGHT" civil rights. It would throw our second right amendment to bear arms out the window, thereby leaving us defensless against, for instance, military police in a fascist regime. If you can't see the connection between what I just said, The Bush Adminstration fascist dictatorship, that we are in now, and the danger of gun control, than Jersyko, feel sorry for you. And I feel frightened for all of us for obvious reasons.

Most importantly I am saying that the dem party article is written slantedly. Read what I have written from the beginning. Read it with deliberation.

No one is claiming the dem party has it's roots in Socialism. It was just a comment aobut the practices and philosphies of the current Democatic Party. Like Rjensen said: Back then, those DEMs were REPUBs. Nowadays, DEMs are Socialists/Statists. 67.15.76.188 07:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

~~ I just read the section you pointed me to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic-Republican_Party

~~ and if you add this complete unadulterated, uninformed, historically blasephemous bullcrap to your article, it will mean the war just escalated up to huge proportions. ~~

Now you have gravely insulted Thomas Jefferson, Wikipedia even more, and the intelligence of anyone who may be listening. Thewolfstar 22:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

____

The history of the Democratic Party in the 18th. century really should be added to WP:LAME --8bitJake 22:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

____

This is as simply as I can put it, ~ The Democratic Party (United States) article is a giant advertisement for the Democratic Party of the (United States). Clean it up. Get rid of false insinuations and original content or it will be edited or the appropriate code inserted into the top of the page. {{OriginalResearch}} OR {{npov}} You have until tomorrow night to fix it. Thewolfstar 23:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

If theWolfstar keeps threatening editorrs he will get banned from Wiki. If he is serious he should do some reading into history. He can start with [10] Rjensen 02:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

You rjensen do not have the power to ban me from Wiki. Nor do any of you. You are the ones that obviously need to do some history reading. And you are the ones that are acting like dictators over this article you wrote. I am not tolerating your behavior which is, frankly, reprehensible.

1. You break Wilki's neutrality rules.

2. You break Wiki's original content rules.

3. You stop me from editing and attempt to inimidate me when I do

4. You break Wiki's harassment rules until you are called on them.

5. You break Wiki's rules on civility

I have done things the proper way, when I was told to do them.

You have until tomorrow night, which is fair, to get the biased propaganda off the dem party article. This includes the presidential section and all of it.

And this is not a threat. It is just a statement of fact. I am going to either edit your work thereby correcting it, or insert the proper Wiki codes into the top of your page.

Thewolfstar 02:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Thewolfstar seems to have learned all his political history in the last 36 hours, and now poses as an expert on what is true and false, biased and straight. And he gives the other editors a 24 hour ultimatum, OR ELSE. That is just enough time for him to race to the local library and read a book--so far he says he has has never read a book on the Democratic party, and his only source is the George W. Bush Whitehouse website!! He wants us to rewrite the article to match what Bush's PR staff says -- and he calls that unbiased. Rjensen 02:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I object to this comment: '"Thewolfstar seems to have learned all his political history in the last 36 hours", by Rjensen. I feel that it's a unacceptable ad hominem attack. Merecat 06:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I challenged Thewolfstar to tell us his sources a couple days ago and he at that time said he did not have any. Since then he said he has read the White House website, which is his main source. I am not ridiculing his ignorance, I am emphasizing what he himself said about his knowledge of sources and bias in history. Everyone who challenges an article in a major way has to explain what sources they are using and be judged thereby. To use the Bush White House as website the main source of information on the Democratic party is not, in my opinion, an indicator of credibility. Rjensen 12:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that Wolfstar is notably ignorant, it isn't fair to refer to his source as "the Bush White House website" - he used the various presidential biographies, which, while kind of weak in that way that using other encyclopedia articles as a source is weak, should not be terribly controversial, and are not particularly political. Would using the Congressional Biographical Directory be characterized as the "Frist/Hastert Congressional Website"? john k 15:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

This is getting rich. Give me a break. I am posting below, what you sent me on my discussion page. And, btw, it is a total of 2 days I gave you. Look back and read.

nasty threats from thewolfstar

If thewolfstar doesn't stop making vulgar threats to editors he will get banned from Wiki. Rjensen 02:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

What threats? And isn't your comment above a threat? Merecat 05:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

no, actually general nastiness and abuse from all of you

If Rjensen, Griot and Jersyko don't stop harassing me there will be trouble. I am not threatening you. I am assuring you. I am preseving Wiki's integrity. You three are working on wrecking Wikipedia in the ways I have already mentioned. End of this pointless discussion. Thewolfstar 02:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

~~ just to set the record straight, concerning how much I 'adore' the Bush Administraiton, so you guys won't have to actually read any of what I wrote on this page, which apparantly you don't do anyway, here's a link to my site. http://earthhopenetwork.net/ Thewolfstar 03:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Major vs. Larger

All political parties have equal standing under the law. There is no such thing as a "minor" party. Consequently, there is no such thing as a "major" party. The term larger or largest must be used instead as its clear with that word the comment is about size, not validity. UTC)

Bernie Sanders "[i]s one of very few self-described democratic socialists elected to federal office in the United States in recent times."

The Conservative Party "has been significant in influencing the descisions of the New York Republican Party."

Merecat 16:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Sanders has no official party affiliation - he is an independent and caucuses with the Democrats. Pundits and scholars are essentially in unanimous agreement that the United States has two major parties, thus the extremely commonly used term "two-party system." - Jersyko·talk 16:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Also see Green Party (United States) which says "has been active as a third party since the 1980s.". Ralph Nader ran as a Green in 2000 and tipped the Florida election, his impact there was indeed "major". Also, "in 2002, John Eder's election to the Maine State House of Representatives marked the first Green Party state legislator in the United States elected in a regular election." Merecat 16:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Also see Libertarian Party (United States) which states "The Libertarian Party is a United States political party created in 1971. It is the largest third party in the United States, with over 200,000 registered voters and over 600 people in office, including mayors, county executives, county council members, school boards and other local offices."

I contend that by any reasonable defintion, the Libertarians and Greens are major and the use of "major" in the intro as currently used, is a (false) POV statement.

Merecat 17:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Please see this article: List of political parties in the United States, which hashes out this issue in the article text. You seem to think that there are only two options: "major" and "minor," where, in fact, a third category ("third parties" in the list article) can exist. - Jersyko·talk 17:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

That article which you directed me to supports the use of the word "largest" in that it has, as its very 1st sentence, this: "The United States has a multi-party system, with the two largest political parties holding most of the elected offices." Merecat 17:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The articles lists only two political parties under the "major parties" section. Additionally, a two party system is a multi party system. If the United States isn't one of the best examples of a two party system, then no two party systems exist in the world. - Jersyko·talk 17:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The article you point to says this: "For the purposes of this article, the political parties are grouped into four sections. The first section is “Current major parties”, as the term is defined above. It's interesting that your argument rests on that assertion, because I see no citation to a reliable source to back up that definition. Therefore, as you know, the use of the term "Major Party" in that instance is a WP:OR violation. Also, I contend that because you are drawing on an OR violation to make your case, you have confirmed for me that it's only a POV that says Greens and Libby's are not major. There are no offical laws or rules which have found Greens/Libbys to be "minor" and assesments of their impact are sheer speculation. "Major" has as its reciprocal "minor" an minor implies inconsequential. I strongly oppose assertions that only the Dems and Pubbys are consequential. The use of the word major is POV and must not be allowed. Merecat 17:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

If you want evidence that there are only two major parties in the United States, I recommend going to the library and reading essentially any history book on the subject. The New York Times uses the term "major party" in referring to either the Repubs or the Dems with regularity. In fact, most of the third parties acknowledge that there are two major parties--that is often actually part of their argument for getting votes. Finally, it's not POV to say that the Dems are a major party, as that does not necessarily imply that every other party is in fact "minor," but perhaps merely not "major." You've crafted a false dilemma. - Jersyko·talk 17:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Proof It's not POV it's standard among politicians, journalists, reference books and scholars. Look for example at a standard academic study: Third Parties in America: Citizen Response to Major Party Failure. (Second Edition, by Steven J. Rosenstone, Roy L. Behr, Edward H. Lazarus 1984). One leading scholar explains "The gap between the second major party and the greatest minor party is enormous and insurmountable" (Party Government: American Government in Action by E. E. Schattschneider 2003). Furthermore it is the usual term by 3rd party candidates themselves. For example Ralph Nader denounces "fluff and bluff surrounding the major-party candidates." in his autobiography Crashing the Party: Taking on the Corporate Government in an Age of Surrender (2002)He also said: "The convergence of our country's two major parties is a widely noted phenomenon"; "When there are major parties with numerous contenders in state primaries, the media pays even less attention to third-party candidates." Finally one 3rd party DID break through---Jesse's Ventura's Reform Party in Minnesota elected him governor. As a political scientist explained, " In 1998, even the state's media felt compelled to honor the Reform Party's legal major-party status with some attention." (Electing Jesse Ventura: A Third-Party Success Story by Jacob Lentz, 2001) Rjensen 17:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Another source--James L. Sundquist, Dynamics of the Party System, Brookings, 1983.[11] - Jersyko·talk 17:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I have not created a "dilemma"; what I have done is point out a genuine dichotomy which exists with words that travel in pairs. The word "major" is virtually never used in any application where the word "minor" could not also apply (depending on assesment). Major and minor are not measurments in the strict sense, but are value judgements. They are assesments based on subjective criteria. I suggest that "larger" is more NPOV than "major" because larger is used to refer to actual math. Ten is larger than one, three is larger than zero, etc. Politics is all about ideas and the two hottest ideas in this country right now are protecting the environment (Green's issue) and personal freedom (Libertarians). The Dems and the Pubbys are protectors of the status quo. Calling them "major" is kicking sand in the face of the smaller parties. The Dems and Pubbys are larger, but not more important. I would even grant that they are more "influential", but I have real issues with calling them the only two "major" parties. Also, any party that can launch a notable Presidential candidate is "major". Nader (Greens) and Anderson (Libbys) both did that. Merecat 17:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I changed "major" to "dominant." Does anyone think this wording is POV? - Jersyko·talk 17:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Merecat is incorrect. Anderson was not a Libertarian, he ran as an independent.

More important, Merecat is incorrect about the definition of "major party." Jerseyko's extensive research demonstrates conclusively that "major" is the correct description. It's more important that Wikipedia correctly describe the world than that we accommodate the wishful thinking of someone who wants to claim a party that can't put a single member in Congress is "major." Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. -- FRCP11 17:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm ok with dominant. Merecat 18:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

There can only be one "dominant" party. "major" is the word. Rjensen 18:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Just like there's only one "dominant" team in the NFL? Merecat 18:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I still don't have any problem at all with "major." - Jersyko·talk 18:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

If there is a dominant party in the US today, it is not the Democratic party! Dictionary: "dominant= commanding, controlling, or having supremacy or ascendancy over all others by reason of superior strength or power" Rjensen 19:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I hereby drop my objection to "major". Though I still think "larger" is better, I'd prefer to not debate this further. I declare that consensus has been reached via compromise. Thanks everyone, for your feedback. Merecat 19:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Larger is Accurate Major Suggests Importance AND ...

thanks for your input Merecat, it is refreshing to hear another point of view besides that of the status quo.

Rjensen quoted this
"The convergence of our country's two major parties is a widely noted phenomenon";

How about that. Well how about that. And concerning major and or larger as an additional point. How about the fact that Nader was not let into the debates, excluded by, well slap mah knee...the Democrats AND the Republicans. Well. How about that.
http://earthhopenetwork.net/ Thewolfstar 20:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

We need to explain the party's ideology a bit more

I noticed that this article really never explains what the Democratic Party believes or it's ideologies. It does have the basic values section, but that really doesn't sum it up good enough. The 1st paragraph of Basic Values is actually the closest to what sums the party's values up, but we need a whole section on that and extend it so we could make sure people understand what the party is for. The Republican party page sums it up a bit more. Which is what we have to do.- 4/15/06

___
If you read the article on the Republican Party (United States) you may all get some tips on how to write an unbiased article on a political party on Wikipedia. I read most of the article and couldn't find anything objectionable in it.

Also here's a suggestion for a slight change on the Wilson section of the dem article.

The Eighteenth Amendment establishing Prohibition was passed in his second term as a result of those who campaigned for it. The Nineteenth Amendment establishing Women's suffrage was also passed in his second term, but it was won more through the women activists' tireless efforts and bravery against the men who brutally oppressed these efforts than the work of either party.
http://earthhopenetwork.net/ Thewolfstar 01:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

____
I copied this from the Thewolfstar talkpage. The way WP works is through compromise. If there was no compromise, WP would fall apart. We would all just be revert warring and nothing would ever get done. I know it can be irritating trying to work with those we disagree with (especially on political issues). But try we must.

As to your other point, is the only real issue you have with the page the whole "does it trace from Jefferson" thing? Are there other specific problems you have with it? Thanks, Thewolfstar. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I am interested in compromise only as long as fact is not compromised. That includes any fact: history, mathematics, etc. I will not tolerate lies on a Wikipedia page. Nor is propaganda or original content allowed on Wikipedia.

I have issues with the insertion of the 'Jefferson roots' thing being quoted twice. Especially when it is inserted into the History section. The birth of the Dem Party is said on the right column of the page to be 1792, an outright falsity.

I have a problem with the entire president section as it lists 'accomplishments' which are debatable to begin with, and does not tell the whole story. I.E., many of these men did outrageous, traitorous things. Yes, I can back certain things with fact.

I have a problem with many parts of the page that make subtle implications that are based on a Democratic Party POV rather than a neutral one.
http://earthhopenetwork.net/ Thewolfstar 21:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Thewolfstar 03:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
___

Added Progressivism template

I added the progressivism template, as it explains the modern Democratic Party that has existed from the New Deal forward and as it is becoming more so today, in many ways the Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt GOP and old Whig Party progressive causes. --Northmeister 05:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Ideological Base

The newly put "Ideological Base" section really looks like a mess. In particular it seems to put down modern positions that the Democrats generally take but this is not a page about the "modern Democratic Party" but rather a page about the Democratic Party past and present. Take the "Affirmative Action" part, certainly the modern Democratic Party takes a favorable view towards AA but the Democratic Party of the mid 19th to early 20th century which was controlled by a Southern white base certainly didn't take any kind of "pro-minority view". I really think that, that section needs to be entirely deleted and is just taking up space, in particular because it was just recently added. I would have removed it by myself but I know that this page is heavily editted so I thought I'd get the opinions of people here first.--Jersey Devil 05:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

This page should contain a history of the Democratic Party and it has that. Beyond that, it is about the present Democratic Party and what they believe. You make no sense above? What is your complaint? --Northmeister 06:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

an edit I made tonight

I entered this edit in to the dem party article about 45 minutes ago. Of course one of our 'neutral' democrat buddies removed it immediately because it's against Democrat Law to edit this page. They did leave a couple of other edits in, though. Wow. Anyhow here is the edit that mysteriously disappeard at the speed of light.

~ The Democratic Party claims to base its values and ideologies on modern liberalism. The party claims to support civil liberties, social freedoms, equality ,and a free enterprise system with government intervention. The Party does not claim to defend a person's right to bear arms and form a militia, defined in the Second Amendment of the Constitution. The Party says it believes that government should play a role in alleviating poverty and social injustice, even if that means higher taxes and a larger role for government. Ironically, a larger role in government means more government control, which precludes individual rights or civil liberties. More government control and claiming responsibility for the people is a characteristic of Socialism or a Socialist state. ~

Can someone tell me what, exactly is wrong with this edit? Thewolfstar 08:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

It's POV, please read NPOV Wikipedia policy.--Jersey Devil 09:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Also take a look at Wikipedia is not a publisher of opinions on current affairs. - Jersyko·talk 14:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, it was you who removed your own edit not a "neutral Democrat buddy" as you say in your above statement. And after this, you added an NPOV tag. Since it seems that you removed your own edit and then claimed "NPOV" I am taking off the tag. [12] P.S. I am still waiting for other comments with regards to the "Ideological Base" section.--Jersey Devil 09:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

MY edits

I've been cleaning up ideas section. I welcome any other input to make this tighter and cleaner and NPOV. Also, I removed the Clinton picture, mainly because it is to large and since Senator Clinton (my Senator with Schumer) is not the present nominee and has not entered the Presidential race, I feel it is inappropriae to add her image to this page. Rjensen, I am open to a reason why however, why do you insist in putting her image in? --Northmeister 14:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

better keep the Clinton picture. She is the frontrunner and the article already has pictures of several of her rivals (Kerry, Gore, Obama). It is not POV to say that the media, polls, pundits and fundraisers have her as #1 in a race that has already started. Rjensen 14:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind the picture, but the caption itself is speculative regardless of the fact that most polls do show her as a frontrunner. I also removed the history link at the top of the page, it is already below the section on History.--Jersey Devil 14:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not speculative to report what the polls, editorial writers, journalists etc in April 2006 actually say about the situation as of now. The 2008 campaign is underwayand Wiki needs to report it. When the situation changes it's easy enough for Wiki to change. Rjensen 14:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

True. --Northmeister 14:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I wish you would rewrite this: "The Democratic Party bases its values on the ideas of the long tradition of progressivism in the United States, which is often called especially by those in opposition modern liberalism." It's a clunky sentence and hard to understand. I don't know what you mean by it. Griot 16:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I see your point. How about the below statement instead:

The Democratic Party's political views today have roots in the progresive tradition of the United States. It's form of progressivism is often called modern liberalism to dinstinguish it from classical liberalism.

--Northmeister 17:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

And just what are the progressive roots? Many or most progressives were isolationists and segregationists, for example. The roots are so complex that one sentence will not do the job. Rjensen 17:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

What is your point of removing material based on parsing history? The point of the template is to show the roots of progressivism. I completely oppose your view that progressives were isolationists. In fact Wilson and the Roosevelt's were the first to advocate for greater participation. What facts are you using? The roots are not complex in the manner you keep stating. Give me the evidence of this. Do not removed legitimate templates and then add comments that are simple untrue please. And most progressives were not segregationists, that is ridiculous, just like trying to parse the meaning by referring to prohibition in another article. Please AGF and discuss here before you revert. --Northmeister 17:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

more on thewolfstar edits from last night

Regarding the POV comment, you are right, a section of it was POV and also it wandered off into something else. However, POV is exactly why I made this edit:

~ The Democratic Party claims to base its values and ideologies on modern liberalism. The party claims to support civil liberties, social freedoms, equality ,and a free enterprise system with government intervention. The Party does not claim to defend a person's right to bear arms and form a militia, defined in the Second Amendment of the Constitution. The Party says it believes that government should play a role in alleviating poverty and social injustice, even if that means higher taxes and a larger role for government.

This is non-biased and just plain factual. The former was not a statement of fact but an ad for the dems. Thewolfstar 17:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, what are you talking about? I removed an edit on the talk page, which comments I made, 3/4 of an hour AFTER the edits I made on the article and which have nothing to do with edits I made on the article, (all made in succession)

Comcerning POV you guys have got to be kidding. I believe you and the dem party article would greatly benefit from reading Wiki's policy on POV. That is exactly what this whole edit war is about. Duh. Thewolfstar 17:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Look what is there now is NPOV and expresses what the Democratic party believes, then it goes into it's history, and current 2006 presidential run. --Northmeister 17:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

____

Will someome tell me what is wrong with THIS edit?:

~ The Democratic Party claims to base its values and ideologies on modern liberalism. The party claims to support civil liberties, social freedoms, equality ,and a free enterprise system with government intervention. The Party does not claim to defend a person's right to bear arms and form a militia, defined in the Second Amendment of the Constitution. The Party says it believes that government should play a role in alleviating poverty and social injustice, even if that means higher taxes and a larger role for government.

Also your reasons for deleting the npov code are based on lies and so are therefore invalid Thewolfstar 17:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The Party supports civil liberties, social freedoms, equal rights, equal opportunity, and a free enterprise system with government intervention known by economists and historians as Mixed economy.

This could be rewritten.

The Party claims to support civil liberties, social freedoms, equal rights, equal opportunity, and a free enterprise system with government intervention known by economists and historians as Mixed economy. OR

The Party supports some civil liberties, social freedoms, equal rights, equal opportunity, and a free enterprise system with government intervention known by economists and historians as Mixed economy.

Then again, by the Affirmative Action legislation. equal rights is debatable. So it might read like this:

The Party supports some civil liberties, social freedoms, rights that are tipped in favor of some minority groups, equal opportunity, and a free enterprise system with government intervention known by economists and historians as Mixed economy.

I don't agree with what you want to do. It doesn't have a point to it, as all this is already expressed and what you want to add has a fringe of POV to it. --Northmeister 18:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that an unequivocal "supports" is POV. Merecat 21:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The party supports civil liberties, etc. in principle, and in official statements of party policy like the quadrennial platform, even if one can argue that certain specific policies supported by the party conflict with those principles. Perhaps something like "The party professes its support for", or some such. "Claims to support" implies that they don't support it, which is just as POV as implying that they do. john k 21:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to disagree. In my view, the DEMS sometimes say one thing but do another. However, if we said "The Democrat national platform typically includes support for...", then I'd be ok with that. Merecat 21:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we both agree that it is a matter for reasonable people to disagree on whether or not the Democrats in practice support these policies. But the paragraph is trying to lay out the ideological principles that the party holds, as distinct from particular policy positions. john k 00:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

_______

~ no actually the POV is written into the article. This is what this debate is about. ~ This was said to Northmeister not to Merecat Thewolfstar 22:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

More disputes and to illustrate more than one point

The article reads:
Pollsters and pundits all put Senator Hillary Clinton in the lead for the 2008 nomination, but other possible candidates have been active. They include former national nominees John Edwards, Al Gore, and John Kerry, as well as former Virginia Governor Mark Warner, retired General Wesley Clark, Indiana Senator Evan Bayh, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson (who could become the first Hispanic on a major party ticket), Illinois Senator Barack Obama (who could be the first African-American on a major party ticket), and from the progressive wing of the party, Wisconsin Senator Russell Feingold (who could be the first Jewish-American to win the Democratic presidential nomination.) In addition, former Senator Mike Gravel of Alaska declared his candidacy in April of 2006.

Why is a candidates's sex, race or ethnic background so important to the Domocratic Party? Isn't whether one can do a job, the important thing?

Also, this can be seen on the upper column of the article page:

Political ideology - Liberalism, Progressivism

This is clearly debatable and POV and if this is so why is Hillary Clinton being touted as the top candidate. Hillary Clinton is a not a supporter of labor rights, for example and is not considered a progressive. Is this a possible indicator that she is being backed beacause she is a she? And not that she might help save us from the impending Facscist State we are now in? And then to make matters worse we are told that we should not carry guns, or owning guns will be harder and harder to obtain becuse of gun control legislation installed by guess who? yes. the Democrats.

International affiliation - Alliance of American and European Democrats Just as a point of interest, Thomas Jefferson said we should not have alliances with other nations. This is a little strange considering the Democrats claim they can trace their roots to Jefferson.

I personally believe the Dem Party's affilation - Alliance of American and European Democrats to be traitorous and treasonous.

Another point, ignored by the gang of Democrats that control this page. is that Thomas Jefferson was a strong defender of all 10 of the Bill of Rights. Especially, in fact, the right to form a militia and the right to bear arms.

Our United States 2nd amendment is NOT qualified, although it has been reapeatedly qualified in the last 100 years or so, with gun contorl laws. Examples of gun control lovers were Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler.

_____________________

I need to start getting some serious responses to my disputes. More edit changes are coming and legitamately so. And don't take npov code off the top of your page, or any other code for any lying, phony reason again.

Thewolfstar 22:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

______________________

Here is another strange section of the article: ~ * Patriot Act

Democrats are largely against, with a few exceptions, the Patriot Act because of concerns over the "invasion of privacy" and other civil liberty restrictions of the act. The Democratic Party has been successful in changing portions of the Patriot Act that threatened individual rights, including the library provisions, which were dropped ~

Here is a suggested way of reprasing this:
Democrats are largely against, with a few exceptions, the Patriot Act because of concerns over the "invasion of privacy" and other civil liberty restrictions of the act. Despite this, Democrat members of congress originally voted the Patriot Act into legislation, which helped make it a reality in the lives of the every day American. Since that time, the Democratic Party has been successful in changing portions of the Patriot Act that threatened individual rights, including the library provisions, which were dropped in 2006.

OR to tone it down - a compromise -

Here is a suggested way of reprasing this:
Democrats are largely against, with a few exceptions, the Patriot Act because of concerns over the "invasion of privacy" and other civil liberty restrictions of the act. Despite this, Democrat members of congress originally voted the Patriot Act into legislation. Since that time, the Democratic Party has been successful in changing portions of the Patriot Act that threatened individual rights, including the library provisions, which were dropped in 2006.

OR

A majority of Democrat members of congress originally voted the Patriot Act into legislation, although Democrats are largely against, with a few exceptions, the Patriot Act because of concerns over the "invasion of privacy" and other civil liberty restrictions of the act. Since that time, the Democratic Party has been successful in changing portions of the Patriot Act that threatened individual rights, including the library provisions, which were dropped in 2006.
Thewolfstar 23:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

This was said (a ways back)

Finally, you can argue that the party shouldn't claim to descend from Jefferson (frankly, I'm not sold on the idea that is, if you care to know, I think that they just would rather not be associated with beginning with Jackson if possible, and I don't blame them if that's the case), but that's not changing the fact that the party claims to descend from Jefferson, which is all the intro is saying. - Jersyko·talk 17:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

In response to this bigoted shame concerning their roots in Andrew Jackson on the Democratic Party's part, and the fact that you editors have supported this unabashedly hypocritical view, by originally asserting that the Party's start was 1792 and not 1824 with Andrew Jackson, who actually was a lot more representative of Jefferson's philosophies than, by far, most of our presidents, if not the closest representative of Jefferson...

I am hereby stating that this whole article needs serious cleanup or it will be pronounced Original Content AND NPOV and possibly will need to be rewritten altigether, for reasons already stated. Thewolfstar 00:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Jesus, can we do anything to get rid of this loon? As long as he's posting long rants all over the talk page, we won't accomplish anything productive. john k 00:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

(And yes, I'm sure I've violated Wikipedia:Avoid personal attacks.) john k 00:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Jackson

from 'http://statelibrary.dcr.state.nc.us/nc/bio/public/jackson.htm#Public'
Jacksonians often referred to the 1824 election as the "Stolen Election" because while Jackson swept the popular vote hands down, he did not have enough electoral votes to automatically win the presidency. Therefore the election had to be decided by the House of Representatives.

Jackson's opponents were Henry Clay of Kentucky, John Quincy Adams of Massachusetts, and William H. Crawford of Georgia who were respectively speaker of the house, secretary of state, and secretary of the treasury. Adams was horrified at the thought of Jackson becoming president. The patrician New Englander thought this parvenu from the west was a badly educated bumpkin with little preparation for high office. Because Clay's opinion of Jackson was similar, the Kentuckian threw his support to Adams on the first ballot and Adams was elected. Jackson never forgave either one of them, especially after Adams named Clay his secretary of state in what seemed to be a payoff for Clay's votes.

In the years leading up to the 1828 election Jackson and his followers continually criticized the Adams administration. Jackson took the position he was the people's candidate and never lost an opportunity to point out that the people's choice in 1824 had been disregarded by the elite. This tactic proved successful and Jackson defeated Adams in the 1828 election and four years later defeated Clay in the election of 1832.

'The Presidency'

Andrew Jackson may have been our seventh president, but he was first in many ways. He was the first populist president who did not come from the aristocracy, he was the first to have his vice-president resign ( John C. Calhoun), he was the first to marry a divorcee, he was the first to be nominated at a national convention (his second term), the first to use an informal "Kitchen Cabinet"of advisers, and the first president to use the "pocket veto" to kill a congressional bill (legislation fails to become law if Congress adjourns and the president has not signed the bill in question).

Jackson believed in a strong presidency and he vetoed a dozen pieces of legislation, more than the first six presidents put together. Jackson also believed in a strong Union and this belief brought him into open opposition with Southern legislators, especially those from South Carolina. South Carolina thought the 1832 tariff signed by President Jackson was much too high. In retaliation, the South Carolina legislature passed an Ordinance of Nullification, which rejected the tariff and declared the tariff invalid in South Carolina. Jackson was as far from being a States' Righter as it was possible to be and issued a presidential proclamation against South Carolina. On the whole Congress supported Jackson's position on the issue and a compromise tariff was passed in 1833. The immediate crisis passed, but the incident was a precursor of the positions that would lead almost thirty years later to the War Between the States.

Another major issue during Jackson's presidency was his refusal to sanction the recharter of the Bank of the United States. Jackson thought Congress had not had the authority to create the Bank in the first place, but he also viewed the Bank as operating for the primary benefit of the upper classes at the expense of working people. Jackson used one of his dozen vetoes, and the Bank's congressional supporters did not have enough votes to override him. The Bank ceased to exist when its charter expired in 1836, but even before that date the president had weakened it considerably by withdrawing millions of dollars of federal funds.

I agree that this is a point against Jackson from most standpoints. However Jefferson did a really bad thing concerning the Louisiana Purchase, with the Louisiana Bill. And we are tracing roots to Jefferson. However, Andrew Jackson 'was' the first Democrat. Jackson's record regarding Native Americans was not good. He led troops against them in both the Creek War and the First Seminole War and during his first administration the Indian Removal Act was passed in 1830. The act offered the Indians land west of the Mississippi in return for evacuation of their tribal homes in the east. About 100 million acres of traditional Indian lands were cleared under this law.

Two years later Jackson did nothing to make Georgia abide by the Supreme Court's ruling in Worcester vs. Georgia in which the Court found that the State of Georgia did not have any jurisdiction over the Cherokees. Georgia ignored the Court's decision and so did Andrew Jackson. In 1838-1839 Georgia evicted the Cherokees and forced them to march west. About twenty-five percent of the Indians were dead before they reached their new lands in Oklahoma. The Indians refer to this march as the "Trail of Tears" and even though it took place after Jackson's presidency, the roots of the march can be found in Jackson's failure to uphold the legal rights of Native Americans during his administration.

During Jackson's presidential years two states were admitted to the Union (Arkansas in 1836 and Michigan in 1837) and the rulings of Roger Taney, one of his Supreme Court appointments, had an impact on American life long after Jackson's retirement. In 1836 Taney succeeded John Marshall as chief justice. One of Taney's early rulings gave permission for states to restrict immigration, while another destroyed a transportation monopoly in Massachusetts, establishing for the first time the principle in U.S. law that the public good is superior to private rights. But Taney is best known for his pro-slavery position in the Dred Scott case in 1857. Chief Justice Taney authored the majority opinion which refused to recognize that Congress had the authority to ban slavery in territory areas. In addition he said Blacks were "inferior" beings who had "no rights which the white man was bound to respect."

_____
'Unfortunately, the attitude toward almost anyone who was not a wealthy white male from the east was prevalent in those days, and I believe, to quite a degree, still is. Jefferson was only accepted probably because he had wealth, social status, at least to begin with, and they used his brilliance for their own greedy self-serving interests. (Like with asking him to write the Declaration of Independence) Thewolfstar 04:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
_____

from http://www.ipl.org/div/potus/ajackson.html Points of Interest:

Jackson was the only president who served in both the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812.
Jackson was the only president to have been a prisoner of war. He was thirteen when he joined the South Carolina militia to fight in the Revolutionary War. After his capture, he was ordered to clean the boots of a British officer. Jackson refused. The officer then drew his sword and slashed Jackson across the forehead, leaving a scar.
Jackson was the first president born in a log cabin.
Jackson was involved in many duels. A duel on May 30, 1806 against Charles Dickinson was over some unflattering remarks made about Jackson's wife. In this duel Jackson was wounded. After he was hit, he took aim and fired at Dickinson. Jackson's gun misfired. As Dickinson was forced to stand his ground, Jackson took aim once again and killed Dickinson. The bullet that wounded Jackson was lodged near his heart and could not be safely removed. He carried that bullet in his chest for the rest of his days.

from http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/aj7.html

' In his first Annual Message to Congress, Jackson recommended eliminating the Electoral College. He also tried to democratize Federal officeholding. Already state machines were being built on patronage, and a New York Senator openly proclaimed "that to the victors belong the spoils. . . . "

Jackson took a milder view. Decrying officeholders who seemed to enjoy life tenure, he believed Government duties could be "so plain and simple" that offices should rotate among deserving applicants.

As national politics polarized around Jackson and his opposition, two parties grew out of the old Republican Party--the Democratic Republicans, or Democrats, adhering to Jackson; and the National Republicans, or Whigs, opposing him.

Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, and other Whig leaders proclaimed themselves defenders of popular liberties against the usurpation of Jackson. Hostile cartoonists portrayed him as King Andrew I.

Behind their accusations lay the fact that Jackson, unlike previous Presidents, did not defer to Congress in policy-making but used his power of the veto and his party leadership to assume command.

The greatest party battle centered around the Second Bank of the United States, a private corporation but virtually a Government-sponsored monopoly. When Jackson appeared hostile toward it, the Bank threw its power against him.

Clay and Webster, who had acted as attorneys for the Bank, led the fight for its recharter in Congress. "The bank," Jackson told Martin Van Buren, "is trying to kill me, but I will kill it!" Jackson, in vetoing the recharter bill, charged the Bank with undue economic privilege.

His views won approval from the American electorate; in 1832 he polled more than 56 percent of the popular vote and almost five times as many electoral votes as Clay.
Thewolfstar 04:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
_____

That's a lot of information. But there's a lot more: 6,000,000 google hits for "Andrew Jackson. Not to mention hardbound books on Jackson et al. I have no idea what you're proposing to do with the information you've posted here or what changes to the article you're proposing. Actually, you can apply this comment to several of the extremely long comments you've made on this page. - Jersyko·talk 04:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

My dear Jersyko, How many times does a person need to keep repeating herself.

Everything I say to you guys needs constant repeating. This is the last time I am gonna say this:

YOU JERSYKO wrote:

Finally, you can argue that the party shouldn't claim to descend from Jefferson (frankly, I'm not sold on the idea that is, if you care to know, I think that they just would rather not be associated with beginning with Jackson if possible, and I don't blame them if that's the case), but that's not changing the fact that the party claims to descend from Jefferson, which is all the intro is saying. - Jersyko·talk 17:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

THEN I, THE WOLFSTAR SAID THIS:

In response to this bigoted shame concerning their roots in Andrew Jackson on the Democratic Party's part, and the fact that you editors have supported this unabashedly hypocritical view, by originally asserting that the Party's start was 1792 and not 1828 with Andrew Jackson, who actually was a lot more representative of Jefferson's philosophies than, by far, most of our presidents, if not the closest representative of Jefferson...

I am hereby stating that this whole article needs serious cleanup or it will be pronounced Original Content AND NPOV and possibly will need to be rewritten altigether, for reasons already stated. Thewolfstar 00:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

DID YOU GET IT THAT TIME?
and again I'll say don't play with me anymore. If you have trouble understanding what I mean by that, then ponder it.

I formerly said the party started in 1824, in error. It started with Jackson's election in 1828. Thewolfstar 05:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Please gentlemen. Enough of this. It's plain to me that Wolfstar has an axe to grind against the Democratic Party. That doesn't give him the right to continuously vandalize this page. Griot 14:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

How's this for an edit?

The Party supports some civil liberties, is divided on certain social freedoms, rights that are tipped in favor of some minority groups in an attempt to offset former imbalances, an imbalanced system of opportunity, and asserts that it supports a free enterprise system with government intervention known by economists and historians as Mixed economy. Thewolfstar 05:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

That's completely unacceptable. john k 08:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Why's that? Thewolfstar 08:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. - Jersyko·talk 12:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's just plain POV. And it reads "The Party supports . . . an imbalanced system of opportunity." It also reads "The Party supports . . . asserts that it supports a free enterprise system". So not only is it POV, it's poorly written. - Jersyko·talk 13:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

_________

And, also check this out from the Republican Party article right at the start of the article:

The Republican Party was established in 1854 by a coalition of former Whigs, Northern Democrats, and Free-Soilers who opposed the expansion of slavery and held a Hamiltonian vision for modernizing the United States.

Well, it looks like the Republicans can trace their ancestral roots to Thomas Jefferson's original party. How about that. And you know, it sounds like an honest, unbiased statement. Neutrality and straightforwardness might just kinda pay, huh? Thewolfstar 08:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, the origins of the Republican Party and what that Party does in regard to tracing its roots is of no consequence to what the Democratic Party as an organization does in regard to tracing its own roots. - Jersyko·talk 13:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Oldest party discussion continued

Does anyone have a plausible counterargument to what The Minister of War wrote here? If not, I suggest we change the wording in the intro to ". . . the oldest party in the United States." - Jersyko·talk 13:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I do. What's the significance of "the oldest surviving political party in the United States"? Surviving party? First, it's makes political parties sound like a dog fight, and second, isn't being the oldest or perhaps the oldest political party in the world significant enough to merit mention at the start of an article? Mt. Everest is the tallest mountain in the world. That's an important fact about it. Seeing as the Demo Party is that old, it bears mentioning early. Griot 14:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

But the article as it stands doesn't make any distinction between surviving parties and dead parties. It merely states that the party is one of the oldest political parties, if not the oldest. The "Historical perspective" section in the talk archive provides a convincing counterargument to this claim. Stating that the Democratic Party is the oldest or even one of the oldest political parties in the world, without qualification, is false in view of history. - Jersyko·talk 14:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

No one seems to have named the parties, alive or dead that are older. That's because there are no such parties except British Tory party. Rjensen 14:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Part of the problem with claims like this is that too many subjective qualifiers must be explained. What qualifies a party as "dead"? That it has no elected officials? No national committee? No "major" involvement? No candidates for office? Further, establishing when a party really "started" can be difficult. Finally, what do we do with organizations that predate the notion of a "political party" but in modern understanding are defined as such? Or organizations that resurrect the beliefs of a "dead party" under that same name? I think the fairest way to handle this is to put some of these qualifiers in the description along with the facts. Say how old it is, and mention that, in the modern understanding of an organized political party, it's one of the oldest active parties in the world. Even I, a nitpicky skeptic, have trouble quibbling with that. It is, at its essence, an honest statement. Bjsiders 15:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

""let's try it this way: "the Dem party was, along with the British Tory party, one of the first two political parties founded in the modern world." Rjensen 15:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't put it that way because that is just an outright falsity. The Democratic Republican party was the original party, not the Dem Party. If any of you would just do a quick history check, it is clear that the Democratic Party of the U.S. began with Andrew Jackson.

I really believe that removing the whole sentence is the best solution. It is first, not true. It is leading and sounds suggestive of propaganda.

Thewolfstar 17:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

to Griot
In response to the 'reason' for removing the original content code that I inserted into the top of the dem party page this morning, you said
"Unless you can set up a section on the Talk page for discussing so-called "inaccuracies," please don't post notice"
I have set up many, many discussions on this talk page. They have been ridiculed, misenterpreted, ignored altogether, the discussion, or I personally, called disparaging names. If you will do some real discussion with me, if you will listen to what I am saying with some care, this edit war would not be happening. And btw, there was no reasonable excuse for removing my other edits, either. Thewolfstar 17:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

No, you've posted a lot of information that goes to prove that the Democrats should not claim to date from Jefferson, but you've provided no information that they do not, in fact make that claim. The article says (1) the Democrats claim to date from Jefferson in the intro, (2) repeats this information in the first "history" related section of the article, then (3) tells the reader that the dating of the party's beginnings to Jefferson is criticized by scholars. You've offered absolutely no information on this talk page to refute any one of these three claims. Once again, you're arguing a normative, where the article merely states (1) what the party claims and (2) that this claim is debated. If you're going to respond to me, let's cut the rhetoric and the "you're lawyering me". Address my arguments. - Jersyko·talk 18:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

First, the lawering comment was not in response to your debates. It was in response to the way you were trying to intimidate at that time, with crap that was intended to confuse a newbie on Wikipedia.

Propoganda? Say rather that it might be wishful thinking. I don't like the claim either, Thewolfstar, nor do I understand its importance. However, most of the rest of the artive editors of this article clearly do like it and believe in its necessity, and I find no compelling reason why it ought not be included, so long as its meaning is explained sufficiently and in context. There appears to be a good-faith effort to do so. So what's the problem? Bjsiders 18:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Wishful thinking on an encyclopedia article is propaganda Thewolfstar 20:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I was merely saying that the fact that this claim, though it is just a claim made by the Dems, which in itself is a legitimate statement, was AGAIN inserted into the history section with the first real Democrat president. This is easy to check. If Andrew Jackson was not the first Democrat President, then why is he the first president to be listed in this section?
Thewolfstar 18:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The wolfstar does not get the simple point: Dem party is one of two oldest regardless of 1792 or 1824 date. ... the world did not have parties in those years. Rjensen 18:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Then don't call it a party, by saying it was one of "the oldest parties, etc." Thewolfstar 20:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

If the claim was not repeated in the history section, how would it be possible to set up a "the Dems claim X, but others debate X and say Y" explanation in the first "history" related section? Leaving out the Dems' claim would be POV. Leaving out the thoughts of others would be POV. On Wikipedia, debates are described, not engaged in. Leaving out the Dems' claim in the "history" related section would constitute engagement in debate. - Jersyko·talk 18:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

If the claim was not repeated in the history section, how would it be possible to set up a "the Dems claim X, but others debate X and say Y" explanation in the first "history" related section? Leaving out the Dems' claim would be POV. Leaving out the thoughts of others would be POV. On Wikipedia, debates are described, not engaged in. Leaving out the Dems' claim in the "history" related section would constitute engagement in debate. - Jersyko·talk 18:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

1. - If the claim was not repeated in the history section, how would it be possible to set up a "the Dems claim X, but others debate X and say Y" explanation in the first "history" related section?

""Exactly...The editors do not NEED to 'set up a "the Dems claim ' """ and SHOULD NOT 'continue a debate about it.

The statement of fact that the "Dems claim to trace their roots to, etc. has been said. It is NOT the job of the editors of this artilce to try to substantiiate this claim or further a ridiculous debate aobut it.

This is an encyclopedia article about the Democratic Party, not an article presented to back up Democratic Party claims.

It is easy to check history. There are all kinds of sources in all kinds of places. The first president to call himself a Democrat, and the roots of the """Democrat Party""" is in 1828, when Andrew Jackson was elected to office. The operative phrase here is """Democrat Party""" NOT the Democratic Republican""" that was also referred to as the """Republican Party"""

2. You then said 'Leaving out the Dems' claim would be POV'

To the contrary, inserting the claim in the history section, and attempting to substantiate the claim is POV.

3. You said 'Leaving out the thoughts of others would be POV'. That's an interesting statement.

This is an encyclopedia article about the Democratic Party so. inserting the thoughts of Democratic Party members, in convenient places, is leading and therefore not only unnecesssary, it is downright propagandizing. A neutral article concerning a political party should be written by a person who is not biased about in any way.

No. I do not mean me. I am biased about it as are the original editors of this article. I would suggest importing a neutral group of people to either clean this article up, or have them rewrite altogether. The latter would be the better choice, because there are so many sections that need to be nuetralized.

4. You finally said 'Leaving out the Dems' claim in the "history" related section would constitute engagement in debate'.

Actually adding it again would and does constitute engagement in debate.

Either, then, if this is what you really believe, get rid of it altogether, or enter another president, before Andrew Jackson as the first DEMOCRATIC PARTY president of the United States.

Suggested: Do some research, rather than continue meaningless claims. It will improve your article. I would, honestly like to see an improved, unbiased aricle about the Democratic Party (of the United States)
Thewolfstar 20:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess I don't understand the source of your quarrel here. The party can trace its roots to a trollop in ancient Rome if it wants. The fact is that the party traces its roots to Jefferson. Do you have some evidence that this is NOT where they trace their roots? And regardless of whether the party was "founded" in 1750, 1800 or 1825 or whatever, it's pretty old as political parties go, and can accurately be described as "one of the oldest active political parties in the world." Bjsiders 20:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Here, I dug up some facts. http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/06/landmark_dates.php The Democratic Party seems to very clearly trace its origins to Jefferson, this timeline is from the official website. You seem to be arguing that they shouldn't trace themselves to Jefferson. Well, fine, they shouldn't, but they do. Maybe George Bush shouldn't call himself a Christian. He does. That's a fact. Whether or not he should is an opinion. Aren't you arguing for facts to triumph over opinions? The article contains both the fact that the Democrats trace their roots to Jefferson, and the opinion that they shouldn't. Why exactly do you have a problem with this? Bjsiders 20:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, Bjsiders. I think thewolfstar is arguing that the "history" section of the article shouldn't contain any mention at all of what the Democratic party says because what the party says does not comport with the facts as thewolfstar sees them. It seems that the real point of contention is that thewolfstar thinks that presenting both sides of the issue, i.e., both the Dems' claim and the counterargument to the Dems' claim, is violative of WP:NPOV. Of course what thewolfstar is proposing is itself violative of NPOV: "The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted." "Readers are left to form their own opinions." "Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in." - Jersyko·talk 21:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)