Talk:Whig Party (United States)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Whig Party (United States) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Politics: American / Political parties Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

United States: History Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history (assessed as Low-importance).

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Requested move: → Whig Party

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. DrKiernan (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whig Party (United States) → Whig Party – The British faction is properly referred to as "the Whigs," which allows this subject to be primary for "Whig Party." "If the article is about the primary topic...then that name can be its title without modification," per WP:NATURAL. The Whig/Whig Pary distinction is made by Britannica (here and here), Columbia (here and here), and Encarta. The Dictionary of American History gives "Whig Party," while the The Oxford Companion to British History gives "Whigs." The standard history of the American party is Holt's The Rise and Fall of the American Whig Party (1999). If you google "Whig Party" -wikipedia, 18 of the top 20 results refer to this subject, while the other two refer to the Modern Whig Party. Kauffner (talk) 04:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Oppose per the same reasoning being used at Talk:Whig (British political party), neither British nor American parties should get the prime locations, since it would be biased against the other -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 05:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Both subjects can be primary, or at least this RM has no effect on whether or not the British faction can be primary for Whig/Whigs. Kauffner (talk) 05:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Since the British Whigs are often frequently referred to as the Whig Party and are just as, if not more, well-known. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that it matters, but the U.S. party is of course more notable. It got 347,947 page views in the last 90 days, the British party got 67,542. Kauffner (talk) 11:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but that is not a viable establishment of notability and your claim that the American party is more notable is frankly laughable and could only be made by someone with a highly US-centric view of the world. The Whigs were one of the two major parties in British politics for 200 years. The American party only operated for about twenty years. All these statistics establish is that there are more Americans in the world! Well, we knew that. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Not at all helpful to readers anywhere, in any way. A highly confusable title. Give them a break! Pageviews are not the whole story. Noetica^Tea? 00:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It makes the title look more concise and professional, more like a reference work entry title. There is no downside in terms of navigation since nearly 100 percent of the readers who type in the search term "Whig Party" are looking for information on this party.[1] Kauffner (talk) 08:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - To be honest, you sound like you just don't really like disambiguation, which we use in thousands of articles and which is perfectly acceptable under our guidelines. Not sure why this particular article should be an exception. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Are you familiar with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? Using the actual name of the subject is first choice, per WP:NATURAL. "Natural disambiguation" is second, and parenthetical disambiguation should be used only, "If natural disambiguation is not possible." Britannica, AllMusic, and other reference sites happily have multiple articles with the same title, and therefore no disambiguation. In general, our software doesn't allow this. But in the case of this title, there is no issue of it clashing with some other title. So there is no technical reason why we cannot use the concise name "Whig Party", the form of the name used by the various reference works I give in the nomination. Kauffner (talk) 16:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, thank you, I am fully familiar with it. However, disambiguation is necessary in the case of two subjects with the same name, as in this instance. It is true that the British party is more commonly known simply as "the Whigs", but it is certainly known as the "Whig Party" too. In this instance, clarity requires us to disambiguate. To do otherwise would be a disservice to our users. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        If it is such a great idea, how come Columbia, Britannica, and Encarta all give the name of this party without a parenthetical? The title should be the name, "as you would find it...[in] other encyclopedias and reference works", per WP:EN. We must use a parenthetical when some other article requires the plain title. But Whig Party is currently just a redirect to a DAB. Kauffner (talk) 00:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - mainly for BDD's non-!vote comment below. Also note that http://www.britannica.com/search?query=Whig brings the following: Whig Party (historical American political party), Conscience Whig (United States history), Junto Whigs (political party, England), Patriot Whigs (political party, Great Britain), Cotton Whigs (American political party), Bedford Whigs (British political history). So whatever the schema of article break-up, evidently Britannica considers explanatory parentheses are helpful across this generic name. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the closer doesn't consider anti-Americanism a valid reason to add cruft to the names of American parties. I think I can boast a track record of voting for French topics such as Hall_of_Mirrors_(Palace_of_Versailles) to be primary when they should be. As for Britannica, those are not article titles, but come from their equivalent to a DAB page. Kauffner (talk) 22:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Kauffner, use of the term "cruft" is cheap and prejudicial. The closer of the RM is unlikely to be impressed by such rhetoric. Nor does anyone here suggest that anti-US or pro-US sentiment ought to decide the matter. And then there is this: "As for Britannica, those are not article titles, but come from their equivalent to a DAB page." Sorry to be personal for a moment; but you have continually misrepresented the Britannica system. I have had to point this out to you several times, but you persist. No, those full and precise titles are not like DAB pages on WP. They are the titles everyone finds on Britannica, whether searching at their site or on Google. Look on the Britannica site for ho chi minh city, and you get this title listed as the top result: "Ho Chi Minh City (Vietnam)". That does not disambiguate, because there is only one meaning on Britannica for "Ho Chi Minh City". It is not a DAB page; it's a helpfully precise title as used in all Britannica indexing. The title is shown sparsely at the page itself, harmlessly. Compare this unformatted Google search on Ho Chi Minh City Britannica. Please do not make misleading statements in RM discussions; they require significant work to correct. Noetica^Tea? 23:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I think I see the problem now. The online version of Britannica has a paywall, so you are not experiencing its full features. I have the full version installed on my PC. ('Nam is sadly deficient in the area of copyright protection.) When I type in a search term, the "primary topic" comes up in the main window, while the titles with parentheticals appear in small type in a column on the left. So if the primary is what the reader is looking for, he never has to bother with the parenthicals. Kauffner (talk) 00:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What problem? What are you talking about? How is the "full version" on your PC relevant in this comparison of online encyclopedias? (I have a Britannica installed on my computer also.) How does what you say count against the points I make about searches at the Britannica site, or on Google? I have full access to the Britannica site, and I have also checked the limited paywall-restricted view of it. What I write above stands. What is your exact point in response, with regard to DAB pages and precision in article titles? Noetica^Tea? 01:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EN does not specify "online encyclopedias". The DVD version of Britannica effectively gives you a primary topic for every search term. Article titles are the actual names of the subjects, given without disambiguation. The limited free version is a hamstrung implementation, not a model. Kauffner (talk) 02:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, it does not specify online encyclopedias. But that is the most direct comparison to make, for up-to-the-minute practice and widest usage. Do you think more people encounter Britannica online, or on DVD (very likely out of date; what date is yours?)? You still have not addressed what I say. As I told you, I checked both the full and the "hamstrung" version and I find no relevant difference. So again, what are you talking about? How does anything that you say counter my points? From the very start those were about searches at the Britannica site (under any kind of access!) and Google searches that include the term "Britannica". Noetica^Tea? 03:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I doubt this RM could be successful because of the precedent it would create. There are primary topics for Democratic Party and Republican Party as well, but good luck making that argument. --BDD (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also Talk:Whig_(British_political_party)#Requested move -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 03:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See also Talk:Tory#Requested move -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 03:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Absurd claims (considering the historical context)

"Gregory Bowen notes that the two parties were polar opposite and highly ideological: "At the heart of Democratic ideology was a militant egalitarianism which contrasted sharply with the Whigs' support for equality of opportunity to produce a meritocratic society." Democrats glorified individualism while Whigs said it was a dangerous impulse that must be subordinated to the greater good of an organic society; they called for individuals to restrain themselves and focus on doing their duty."

The Democratic Party at the time support slavery (or tolerate it)... it's absurd to talk about "militant egalitarianism"!

"During the 1840s and ’50s, however, the Democratic Party, as it officially named itself in 1844, suffered serious internal strains over the issue of extending slavery to the Western territories. Southern Democrats, led by Jefferson Davis, wanted to allow slavery in all the territories, while Northern Democrats, led by Stephen A. Douglas, proposed that each territory should decide the question for itself through referendum."

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Democratic-Party 93.45.229.98 (talk) 15:09, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Historians agree on the equalitarianism (for whites only of course), and it aggressively opposed stratified white society as favored by Whigs. Rjensen (talk) 19:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With only one source to support it, we certainly cannot say that "historians agree" on the use of "militant egalitarianism". This is an exaggeration for both past and modern times, since abolitionists (as well as true "militant" egalitarian activists: utopian socialists, etc.) already existed. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 11:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The claims have to do with American citizens (blacks were not citizens until the late 1860s). Historians stress egalitarianism especially of Jackson and his new party: (A) "expressed through the Democratic party founded by Jefferson and expanded by Jackson....early nineteenth century to the populistic egalitarian democracy of the mid-nineteenth century" [Atkins, Jonathan. "The Jacksonian Era, 1825–1844." A Companion to 19th‐Century America (2001): 19-32.]; (B) "egalitarianism appeared in the policies and pronouncements of the Jacksonian Democratic Party" [Sean Wilentz, "America's lost egalitarian tradition." Daedalus 131.1 (2002): 66-80.]; (C) Whigs " found the new Democratic party too egalitarian for their liking." [Brown, David. "Jeffersonian ideology and the second party system." The Historian 62.1 (1999): 17-30.] (D) James Huston says, Stephen Douglas (1813-1861) "came of age during the democratization of American politics, the time when egalitarianism became a national creed." [Huston, James L. Stephen A. Douglas and the Dilemmas of Democratic Equality. Rowman & Littlefield, 2007. page viii online here] (E) Arthur Schlesinger Jr has emphasized class- in the 1970s he wrote: "As Jacksonian policies evolved, I contended, they were increasingly shaped not by the needs and demands of the frontier but by the needs and demands of workingmen, small farmers, and intellectuals in the East. Class conflict, for example, was hardly a feature of the far frontier, yet it was a favorite Jacksonian theme. Frontiers breed equality and individualism. Class resentments arise in a developed and stratified economic order. It was the East, not the frontier, that had the bitter experience of shrinking opportunity, growing inequality, and hardening class lines. [My book] The Age of Jackson (1945) further contended that Jacksonian democracy constituted the second phase, Jeffersonianism having been the first, of the perennial struggle between the business community and the rest of society for control of the state, a struggle I saw as the basic meaning of American liberalism and as the guarantee of freedom in a capitalist democracy. Schlesinger emphasized Jackson who tried hard, "to persuade my countrymen, so far as I may, that it is not in a splendid government supported by powerful monopolies and aristocratical establishments that they will find happiness, but in a plain system, void of pomp, protecting all and granting favors to none." Schlesinger, "The Ages of Jackson' 1970s--online here. Rjensen (talk) 15:04, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then I suggest a footnote to clarify the issue of race (i.e., slavery, "blacks were not citizens until the late 1860s" and "for whites only of course").

I still remain dubious about the term "militant". 93.45.229.98 (talk) 11:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added "[for white men]" which should clarify the issue. Rjensen (talk) 19:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should Whigs really be counted as the predecessor to the Republicans?

I believe this part: "During the Lincoln Administration, ex-Whigs dominated the Republican Party and enacted much of their American System. Presidents Abraham Lincoln, Rutherford B. Hayes, Chester A. Arthur, and Benjamin Harrison were Whigs before switching to the Republican Party, from which they were elected to office.^[1] It is considered the primary predecessor party of the modern-day Republicans." in the fourth paragraph is too reductionist in saying that the Whigs were the true predecessors to Republicans. Abraham Lincoln's first VP, Hannibal Hamlin was a Democrat; Fremont was a Democrat; the New York Republican Party was very much relying on the votes of former Democrats and it was primarily Democrats who fought for Free Soil in 1848 and would then go on to form the Republicans. See https://www.jstor.org/stable/23169428 Codename Jenny V (talk) 03:49, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

^ Cite error: The named reference :1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[:1-1] Cite error: The named reference :1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]