Jump to content

Talk:Democrat Party (epithet)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Old Discussion

There was quite a discussion a few months back and the Wiki decision was to not have the article by this title. Perhaps Democrat Party (Phrase) would be ok. Rjensen 09:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you please cite the discussion? --Asbl 05:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
How disingenuous -- and typical -- of you. A debate was held in June 2006 about this topic, and it was agree do redirect this to the Democratic Party article. Two months later, rjensen tries again, beating his hobby horse as usual. Please see the discussion about this article from June here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Democrat_Party_%28United_States%29. And please note how rjensen circumvented the Wiki users decision for his own ends, as per usual. 05:46, 27 November 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.41.216 (talk • contribs)
He did the right thing. This is a valid topic for an article. A great deal has been written about this in the media; it's a well-known phenomenon and it should not be ignored simply because it is a political tactic subtley employed by Republicans. It's obvious Republicans liked it better when it was subliminal. 66.188.6.131 20:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
The decision to close the AfD as a redirect was admitted by the closing editor to be a very close thing, hardly a consensus, and even then, WP:CCC. More to the point, the article as it is now is absolutely without doubt worthy of being a separate article, as opposed to not being in wikipedia at all, or part of another article: it's interesting, of reasonable length, very well sourced, and likely to expand over time as things change and people find more sources and information. It's time to stop discussing whether the article is worthy of existing and focus exclusively on what it says. John Broughton | Talk 23:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: to avoid two conversations on the same topic, those wanting to comment on this should post at #Redirect Needed?, below. John Broughton | Talk 15:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Official name?

DemocRAT

Obviously, the point of calling it the Democrat Party is to emphasize the last three letters -- rat. Let's not pussyfoot around this and include it in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.0.12 (talk • contribs) 17:31, November 14, 2006

Please read WP:V - you may be right that emphasizing "rat" is the purpose of saying "Democrat Party," but right or not, you need a citation to support it. Kane5187 22:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not a big fan of random Google searches being used as sources, but it's easily verified that some modern opposition partisans use "rat party" to describe the Democratic Party. It's debatable whether or not it was part of the original partisan intent from 60 years ago or whatever. Settler 00:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
On a related note, there is this article: Bush says 'RATS' ad not meant as subliminal message Settler 00:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Good points, and I found a few citations supporting the claim anyway - I've incorporated them into the article. Kane5187 00:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I've been told that Republicans used "Democrat Party" because they were self-concious that the term "Democratic Party" negatively implies that the GOP is somehow less democratic. This is the explanation I've always believed, but it's noticably absent.Mingusboodle 21:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I would be sympathetic to that view were it not for two things. One, I don't see how "Democrat" is any better than "Democratic" where that implication is concerned. And two, the Dems are in exactly the same boat. They're republicans too (except perhaps a silent few who want to bring kings back). They haven't tried to find another name for their opponents, although they have succeeded in making "Republican" a near-expletive among liberals in a way that "Democrat" isn't among conservatives. ~ CZeke 22:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
It isn't? The word "Democrat" doesn't bring to mind among conservatives "tax-and-spend," "weak-on-terror," "flip-flopping," "baby-killing," "sodomy-supporting," "anti-gun," and "anti-Christian" to the point of derogation? --PsyphicsΨΦ 23:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Nope. "Liberal" can get that sort of visceral reaction in some crowds, but usually not "Democrat." It's just the name of the party. ~ CZeke 06:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it's a member of the party, not the name of the party itself, as the article states. I think you're wrong about the different reactions, but since neither of us are experts or backing these allegations up, it's really moot. PsyphicsΨΦ 00:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
The point of calling it the Democrat party, is that's what it says on the registrar ballot. When your congressman is on TV it either says "Democrat" or "Republican". It doesn't say "Democratic" or "Republic". They've started ambiguously are calling themselves democratic as a ploy to fool their constituents by implying that Republicans oppose democratic (voted upon) ideas rather than Democrat (party) ideas. Ryratt 03:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Alvan E. Bovay recalled that the choice of the name "Republican" for their new party in the 1850s was to be "suggestive of equality; that you are as good as I, and not like the Democratic doctrine that I am as good as you" and "It should be flexible, that is, capable of being used as either noun or adjective, and of ready use in its application to a party or to an individual. This name fulfills these conditions as no other name does or can". The use of "Democratic Party" predates the GOP organization, so it's hard to make the argument that it came along after the GOP to specifically denigrate them...though the argument could be made for earlier parties. But alas, this talk doesn't move article improvement along much. Settler 07:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I noticed a DNC bumper sticker today "Vote Democratic". If it's a matter of grammar to the Democrats, then that should also read "Vote Democratically". At that point, it makes no sense since there is no other way to vote other than democratically. I suppose I went too far in guessing the motivation for it, but I still assert that "Democrat Party" is used because members are known as Democrats. Same reason why "Communist Party" and "Socialist Party" are used and "Communistic Party" and "Socialistic Party" aren't. Ryratt 18:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Reversion

I have modified some of the edits by 71.139.0.12 for the following reasons:

  1. Saying "it has been suggested" is not a weasel word because it has been suggested, and there are two citations at the end of that statement to support it. That is only a weasel phrase without citations. We can't state as fact that the purpose of the term is to emphasize "rat," because not all our sources agree that it is.
  2. If it was first used in 1890, than it cannot "first have come into use" in the 1930s, as pointed out by Nat Krause. I rephrased this to make it more clear, and avoided using "popularity."
  3. The edits to the grammaticality section are POV, because there are conflicting opinions over whether or not it is grammatical; the whole point of that section is to emphasize that sometimes nouns can be used as adjectives, which means that the issue of whether "Democrat Party" is grammatical is totally open. Besides, we can't say for sure that it is grammatical or is not, as we have people who argue both ways. I reworded to try to reflect the intent of 71.139.0.12. Kane5187 14:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding local use of "Democrat Party" names

The existence of "County Democrat" parties is currently mentioned at the end of the Grammaticality section. I don't think it should be mentioned in the lead for a few reasons:

  • First of all, this article is about the epithet; coincidental use of the same term in a different sense (i.e. the County Democrat parties obviously aren't using it disparagingly) is interesting but not really relevant.
  • It's irrelevant because it's the official name of those parties, whereas it is not the official name of the national Democratic Party. The "incorrectness" of this term comes from that fact that officially it's the Democratic Party, not the Democrat Party. For the local parties, it is the official name. However, just because local parties use it doesn't make it correct for the national party.

Just wanted to lay that out as an explanation for edits I make to this effect. Kane5187 21:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

    • The official name of the party is the "Democratic Party of the United Stats of America." thatt name is rarely used. If the article says some Dems dislike the term it should also add that some Dems use the term on their website (as Christiuan Science Monitor reported). Rjensen 22:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
      • You're missing the point: this article is about a term for the Democratic Party of the United States of America. What separate parties call themselves is irrelevant, even if they are associated with the national party. Nassau County Democrat Party, for example, doesn't call the national party "Democrat," just their own party -- which is totally off the table here. We're not talking about the real name for the Nassau County party, we're talking about a nickname for the national Democratic Party. I agree, it's interesting that local parties use it. But you're conflating two ideas: that some Dems are upset that people call the national party "Democrat," but that some Dems call their local parties Democrat. Do you see the disparity there? Kane5187 22:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I've removed Some local Democratic Party organizations use the term "Democrat Party" in their names. Though indeed, the cited sites contain the words "Democrat Party", both of them are to http://www.lipolitics.com, and the links on that site point to official pages that do not use the "democrat" form, but rather the canonical "democratic". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding editing conflict

Let me go through point by point the changes I made here:

  • Typo fix ("unemocratic" to "undemocratic")
  • Removed uncited "but hundreds of local Democratic party organizations use it routinely" - it's uncited that "HUNDREDS" use it (only two are shown), and see above for why this shouldn't be in the lead -- it's the use of the same term in a totally unrelated context
  • Removed uncited "The adjective form appears in most Republican party national platforms since 1948." Add a citation or it should not be included.
  • Ditto on "It is the standard term in WHite House speeches and presidential announcements since 2001." No citation yet supports this claim.
  • Removed "'Georgia peach' and 'Washington's farewell letter'" as examples just because this was getting clunky with four examples. People get the point. I'm not sure why Rjensen reverted this.
  • Removed claim of "hundreds" and replaced with "some," as above: uncited.

All this changes are justified per WP:V, with the arguable exception of the local party thing, which is being addressed above. Kane5187 22:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, the point that Democrat is the noun is irrelevant, too -- we're talking about the phrase "Democrat Party" specifically, not every instance of the word "Democrat." It's just distracting. Kane5187 22:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Some evidence for challenged points:
  1. "but hundreds of local Democratic party organizations use it routinely" Google gives about 1000 hits for "county Democratic Party. [1]
  2. in " most Republican party national platforms since 1948." Porter and Johnson book is cited
  3. "It is the standard term in WHite House speeches and presidential announcements since 2001." several authors point to Bush's usage as does the White House Web site
  4. *Removed "'Georgia peach' and 'Washington's farewell letter'" I agree  :)
  5. Democrat is the noun is irrelevant, too. No -- the standard usage of Democrat as a noun proves that it's not a nasty word that uses "rat" as one blogger seems to believe. The point is to tell users there is no dispute whatever about the NOUN "Democrat" only about its use as an adjective. Rjensen 06:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Redirect Needed?

Should this article be redirected to "Democratic Party (United States)? The wiki editors came to this consensus in June of 2006. Two months later, one of those editors, in defiance of the consensus reached in June, tried again, and created this "Democrat Party" wiki entry against the decision of the other editors. You can read about it here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democrat Party (United States). I really think we should honor editors' decisions on the Wikipedia and not go off the reservation because we disagree with a consensus or we so earnestly want to push our own wee little political agenda.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.38.76 (talk • contribs)

Based on my recollection of the earlier article, this is fundamentally the same as the earlier one, and therefore should not be revived without a Deletion Review. Fan-1967 06:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Should we then redirect it until such time as it has received a Deletion Review? I believe that is the correct procedure. Until permission is given for the article to be revived, it should be redirected, as per the concensus reached in the June discussion?
No the previous review recommended the title be changed to emphasize this is a phrase, rather than a party name as used in previous version. Rjensen 06:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Provided this article refers to the "Democrat Party" as a slur used by conservatives, I see no reason why this should be deleted. In fact, re-directing it only serves to reinforce its use as an insult, since few people would know that "Democrat Party" is not just another term for the Democratic Party. That said, it is important to abide by decisions that have bee made. --Tjss(Talk) 17:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The ruling before was as follows:

The result of the debate was Redirect to Democratic Party (United States). OK, this was a tough one. There is a lot to read here and consensus is not clear cut. A careful review of the material in the article itself suggests that there might be SOME value in some of it. By leaving it as a redirect, that material is accessible to people that want to move it to the target article. I have half an expectation that this will go to DRV, which is fine, I may be reading the sense wrong, but that's what it feels like to me. I welcome review by others. --++Lar: t/c 03:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

If the people who revived this topic want to take it to a Deletion Review, that is fine, but as for now, they are obliged, I think, to stand by the official Wiki ruling. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democrat Party (United States). )

The old issue was whether "Democrat Party (United States)" was legit. That issue is resolved. As several people suggested, "Democrat Party (phrase)" would be a solutiona and that is what we are doing., The problem is that some peopel do NOT want this information available to Wiki users because of their own POV. Rjensen 20:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
No, the problem is simple. Some people don't want to abide by a ruling....—Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.150.10.200 (talk • contribs)
Wikipedia:Consensus can change. Gamaliel 21:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is unnecessary and its inclusion on Wikipedia has been settled for the time being in the negative. Bjsiders 07:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The decision to close the AfD as a redirect was admitted by the closing editor to be a very close thing, hardly a consensus, and even then, WP:CCC, as Gamaliel says. More to the point, the article as it is now is absolutely without doubt worthy of being a separate article, as opposed to not being in wikipedia at all, or part of another article: it's interesting, of reasonable length, very well sourced, and likely to expand over time as things change and people find more sources and information.
It's time to stop discussing whether the old AfD can properly be used to try to kill this article, since the article as is is worthy of existing. Instead, let's focus on improving what the article says. John Broughton | Talk 15:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
The article isn't worthy simply because you say so. Bjsiders 05:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
The article should go. That was decided before. It's puffery. Half-arsed scholarship. Griot 09:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Griot seems to disagree with the many scholars and linguists over the last 50 years who have given the term serious attention (see the bibliography for starters). Rjensen 09:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Use of the phrase by Democrats?

The article says Senator Joe Lieberman,[12] a prominent Democrat who won reelection in 2006 as an independent, has used the term as well. The source for this is a blog, which says Joe's campaign just sent out a fundraising solicitation using the term 'the Democrat Party', which is a traditionally dismissive term and a code word to Republicans that Joe is with them.

I note the following problems:

  • A blog (WP:RS problem) as the source
  • Lieberman didn't "USE" the term - it appear in (one piece of?) campaign literature
  • Lieberman, at the time, was running as an independent, and high-level Republican Party folks were working to support Lieberman (running against the Democrat who beat him in the primary). That makes this a rather unusual case, not exactly a good example.

In short, I don't think this should be in the article.

Moreover, the article says at the top: ... while other [Democrats] use [the phrase] on their web pages. That statement is unsupported by any sources - what is the basis for that sentence? John Broughton | Talk 19:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The source is the Lieberman ad (as reported by the Blog--the bloggers opinion is not much good the the report there is such an ad seems usable). A candidate is fully responsible for the contents of ads. (In TV commercials they actually have to appear in person and say that.) Lieberman is fascinating--as a Dem candidate he did not use the phrase but as an independnet he did (presumably to appeal to GOP voters). A google.com search on "County Deomcrat Party" gives thousands of hits with Nassau County and Suffolk County Dems parties listed and many others (this was pointed out in the Christian Science Monitor story that is cited). Rjensen 19:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Examples of use by local Dem parties? try these:
  1. Watauga County Democrat Party P O Box 3124 Boone, N.C. 28607. [2]
  2. Mission statement of the Democrats of the 17th and 6th Districts [3]
  3. Indiana 3rd District Democrat Party [4]
  4. "This week I've joined the local Navajo County Democrat Party in Arizona, met the County Chair and he has put me to work making up web pages and searching..." [communityviews.blogspot.com/2006_09_03_communityviews_archive.html]
  5. Oct 12, 2006 Henry County Democrat Party Rally [www.kydemocrat.com/ht/display/Events/archive/Y/pid/324164] Rjensen 20:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
So, to summarize, if I may: no Democratic Senator (50 or so) or Democratic House member (200+) is known to have ever used the phrase, with one exception: Lieberman, while running as an independent, in one campaign piece (NOT television ad). There are certainly some local Democratic organizations (and one person writing in a blog - item 4, above) who do or have used the phrase. On the other side, a long list of notable Republicans, starting with G.W. Bush and going down, has used the phrase, on many different occasions. (Is that a fair summary?) John Broughton | Talk 23:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Also, for what it's worth, I ran a google search on "State Democrat Party". Interestingly, while Idaho and Utah Democratic party websites are at the top of the results, the pages don't actually seem to contain the phrase. (As you may be aware, getting a site to rank high on google with a given search term, even though it doesn't actually contain the term, can be accomplished with a google bomb.) All of the remaining top 20 results are either (a) GOP sites or (b) right-wing websites or (c) blogs. So I conclude that it's rare to never that a Democratic state website uses the phrase. (Corrections welcomed.) John Broughton | Talk 23:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
What's rare? If you look for "county Democrat party" you get 9000+ websites, many of them from local (county) Dem parties and local newspapers. What we have is that Washington Dems rarely or never use the term but people out in the states are more comfortable with it. Mostly though it's used by Republicans--in an noinjudgmental way these days, I think. Rjensen 23:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep looking more closely at those links. For example, the Henry County link is not to the Henry County Democratic Party, but rather to an event listing that mentions them; the actual website of the Henry County (KY) party calls it the Democratic Party. Likewise, [5] isn't anything official, and both "democrat party" listings in it actually link to sites that call it Democratic Party. Same thing with the "mission statement"; and the Watauga County one is consistantly Democratic Party except that one mention (which could very well be one web designers typo, who knows?). Have you found any actual official usage of the term Democrat Party? If you want to say "occasionally Democrats use the term unofficially", that's OK, but it might be giving undue weight to say more than a sentence. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
#2 is actually a disident group, not the official party. So, to recap, of the five examples, one is from a dissident group, one is a typo, one is a blog, and one is an unofficial event listing. In short, the only clearly valid example is #3, a very local (and amateurish) website, where "Democrat" is consisently used as a noun. John Broughton | Talk 02:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

22 examples

OOps--it's true I pulled those [prior section - JB] at random without looking at them. Try these, which I think are real and which show lots of casual usage of the adjective in official names & announcements of local party organizations: Rjensen 04:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

  1. [6] Kansas --lists meeting of "Democrat Party Central Committee"
  2. [7] Indiana "Copyright © 2003 Owen County Democrat Central Committee"
  3. [8] So Carolina "2004 at our Georgetown County Democrat Party general and executive committee meeting, I was elected to serve as interim chairperson for our party."
  4. [9] "Haskell County Democrat Party Fundraising Event " Oklahoma
  5. [10] "Jefferson County Democrat Party " Colorado (I live in this country myself)
  6. [11] "Illinois Democrat County Chairmen's Annual Governor's Day at the Fair"
  7. [12] "welcome to the Monroe County Democrat Party website" Ohio
  8. [13] "final 2006 meeting of the Decatur Township Democrat Club" Indiana
  9. [14] "Vermilion County Democrat party " Illinois
  10. [15] "Vermillion County Indiana Democrat Central Committee Officers"
  11. [16] "Indiana 8th U.S. Congressional District Democrat County Parties & Organizations"
  12. [17] Indiana "Please Join The Democrat Club"
  13. [18] "Mercer County Democrat Party Picnic" "vote straight democrat" West Virginia
  14. [19] "Cecil County Democrat Club is open to all registered Democrats " Maryland
  15. [20] "view the current list of Democrat candidates" Indiana
  16. [21] "Call Cheryl at The Vanderburgh Democrat Party Headquarters" Indiana
  17. [22] "speeches from Yolo County Democrat electeds." California
  18. [23] Indiana county
  19. [24] New York county from LIPolitics
  20. [25] Tennessee county
  21. [26] New York county
  22. [27] here's a press release from a national organization (Dem Leadership Council) in which Vilsak & Sen Clinton are leaders: "New Democrat Electeds to Participate in DLC New Economy Forum ". Note also some 269,000 google hits for for "Democrat candidate", compared to about 1,070,000 for "Democratic candidate" Rjensen 04:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, now, which of these are actual official uses of the phrase? Nobody is contesting that it is used casually -- and lord knows incorrect usage of language isn't confined to Republicanists. I notice, for example, you're again using lipolitics.com as a source -- in fact, this new list contains several that we've already seen and discounted. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I believe all the 22 new numered sites I annotated are official; I did look at each one. The 269,00 hits for "Democrat candidate" include a vast range of sources, obviously. The point is that there is now a 4:1 ratio between "Democratic candidate" and "Democrat candidate:, sugesting the adjective is making major headway. only one is from LIpolitics.com Rjensen 04:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Wait, "official" means "some typist typed it"? Are there any Democratic Party bodies that officially (as opposed to casually and/or in passing) use the phrase? "Democrat candidate" is pretty much irrelevant; the article is about "Democrat party". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
re: Official websites--I think the local party is responsible for it, just as they are responsible for pamphlets typeset at the local print shop. The article is actually about the noun "Democrat" used an an adjective to refer to the Democratic party. So all the cites seem relevant. Rjensen 05:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, yeah, you're a good editor and wouldn't have brought them in if they didn't seem that way. What I'm really looking for is an example of an official usage -- a Democratic Party organization at any level with the official name of "Democrat Party". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I live in Jefferson County (Colorado) and "Democrat party" is how the Democrats talk here. No one seems to think it embarassing. They write like this: "Members of the Jefferson County Democrat State Senate District 21 Vacancy Committee have been notified in an "Official Call" to meet... to select a replacement for Senate Deanna Hanna." [28]
    • But for "official usage" I have found hard evidence. In Indiana all organizations that legally incorporate have their information online and you can search the names for free (they charge to look at the incorporation papers). In Indiana there are 34 incorporated groups with "Democrat" as part of their legal name) versus 226 that use "Democratic"). These seem to be active local clubs. (Brown County is the official county organization). Alphabetically the first few are as follows: 17TH DISTRICT DEMOCRAT CLUB, INC.; INDIANAPOLIS, IN 17TH WARD DEMOCRAT CLUB INC; ANDREW JACKSON DEMOCRAT CLUB OF TIPPECANOE COUNTY IN; BLOOMFIELD DEMOCRAT INCORP; BROWN COUNTY DEMOCRAT CENTRAL COMMITTEE CORPORATION; CITY OF PORTAGE DEMOCRAT CLUB; CLARK COUNTY DEMOCRAT MEN'S CLUB, INC.; and CLINTON COUNTY DEMOCRAT CLUB INC. source: [29]. Rjensen 08:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Correct JPGordon. None of the references cited mentions "Democrat Party", which would be germaine to the article. Also many examples being cited may refer to the correct use of the noun form "Democrat" as opposed to misusing the noun as an adjective, which is a point of the article as well. Strawman arguments and examples should not be used.open_mind 18:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Rjensen - thanks for all the work to come up with the list of 22 usages at local party levels. My evaluation (best examples of your point are italicized):

  1. - "Democratic Party" in heading of page, used twice elsewhere; "Democrat Party Central Committee" and other similar uses on page, where "party" is NOT final noun (Kansas)
  2. - two uses of "Democratic Party", none of "Democrat Party"
  3. - five uses of "Democratic Party", including heading; two uses (same paragraph) of "Democrat Party"
  4. - Google calendar entry.
  5. - Chair's newsletter, used repeatedly (Missouri)
  6. - Used repeatedly (Illinois)
  7. - one each "Democratic party" and "Democrat Party"
  8. - ic outnumbers non-ic, 5 to 2
  9. - very mixed, lots of examples of both (Illinios)
  10. - "Democrat" only (Indiana)
  11. - same website as #10
  12. - mixed (2 each); cheesy local website
  13. - local is "Democrat"; links to state and national parties use "Democratic" (W.Va)
  14. - five cases of "Democratic party"; only use of "Democrat" is in "Democrat Club" (a club for Democrats; borderline)
  15. - minimal case - one use of Democrat, none of Democratic (Indiana)
  16. - four "Democratic party", one "Democrat Party"
  17. - 7 to 5, Democratic versus Democrat
  18. - 9 to 5, Democrat preferred (Indiana)
  19. - lipolitics.com, not a Democratic Party website, as mentioned above
  20. - 2 to 2 (Tennessee)
  21. - 5 to 1, "Democratic Party" used
  22. - National press release where "Democrat" is used twice as a noun in a stacked noun list ("New Democrat Electeds") (as in "New Television Show Successes") and "House New Democrat Coalition Congressmen", and NOT as "Democrat Party". (I admit that "Democrat" could easily be "Democratic", but this is still a grey area, NOT clearcut evidence of use by the Democrats at the national level of this phrase.)


In summary, what the pattern seems to be is (a) "Democrat Party" is often used with a noun following it: so "Democrat Party Central Committee" is common, but not "the County Democrat Party did X"; (b) Rarely does "Democrat Party" appear without "Democratic Party" also being used on the same page (this is somewhat of a corollary to (a); and (c) primary/preferred use of "Democrat Party" is ONLY a middle-of-the-county thing: Kansas, Missouri, Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, West Virginia,

Or, to repeat my summary from above, which wasn't objected to (here's another chance!), with a few tweaks:

No Democratic Senator (50 or so) or Democratic House member (200+) is known to have ever used the phrase, with one exception: Lieberman, while running as an independent, in one campaign piece (NOT television ad). No Democratic national or state organization is known to have used the phrase. There are a lot of county organizations in Midwest states that DO use say "Democrat Party", though rarely is this exclusive; more typical is a mix of "Democratic Party" and "Democrat Party". By contrast, a long list of notable Republicans, starting with G.W. Bush and going down, has used the phrase, on many different occasions, in official documents and speeches. John Broughton | Talk 19:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Google searches on "Democrat candidate" (and so on) may not be useful

I recently ran a google search to find every incident of "Democrat Party" in wikipedia articles. What I found was that there are parties in many other countries (Thailand, UK, New Zealand, Sweden, etc.) with names like "Christian Democrat Party", "Social Democrat Party", Liberal Democrat Party, and so on; those produce a large number of "false positives". From which I conclude that comparing "Democrat candidate" to "Democratic candidate" via google seaching is absolutely NOT valid for determining anything about usage patterns - unless countries outside the U.S. are excluded. John Broughton | Talk 18:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Broughtn raises an interesting point: in other English language countries like UK and New Zealand, "Democrat party" is considered standard English. It seems to be used in common usage by all parties and journalists. Only in the US do some people get angry at the term. The answer seems pretty clear to me: Democrats get angry because they think Republicans are insulting them. Rjensen 09:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Non-judgmental?

Mostly though it's used by Republicans--in an noinjudgmental way these days, I think. Rjensen 23:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

How exactly would you measure that ("mostly")? Plus there are several articles that say that Republicans use the term pejoratively - are there any articles, in contrast, that specifically say that Republicans do use it in a nonjudgmental way, these days? John Broughton | Talk 18:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Nassau County Democrat Party

Why is LIpolitics.com being used as a source (from the CS Monitor article)? The actual website of the Nassau County Democratic Committee doesn't seem to use the term "Democrat Party," but uses "Democratic Party." The voter registration form linked to on their website uses "Democratic Party." Settler 07:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I am removing it. Only official satellite groups of the Democratic Party should be cited. Settler 08:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Real life in Colorado

Well I live in Colorado in Jefferson County, a large suburb to the west of Denver that is highly competitive. The Democrats routinely use the noun-as-adjective probably a third-to-half of the time. For example look at the official Democratic newsletter from March 2006 at [30]. Notice the routine announcements like:
  1. "Election of Precinct Committeepeople (Democrat Party leaders in a precinct"
  2. "presentation of resolutions for Jefferson County Democrat Party Platform.
  3. "selecting delegates who will nominate the Democrat candidates"
  4. "Members of the Jefferson County Democrat State Senate District 21 Vacancy Committee have been notified"
  5. "Members of the Jefferson County Democrat State House District 26 Vacancy Committee"
  6. "great networking of the for-profit and non-profit businesspeople in Jeffco for candidates and elected officials and Democrat businesspeople."

I submit that in Colorado the noun-as-adjective is part of everyone's vocabulary. The Dems here by the way did well last month, picking up a Congressional seat that had been held by the GOP. Rjensen 08:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

While the Jefferson County Democratic Party website makes use of both "Democratic Party" and "Democrat Party" (more specifically the chair's newsletter), "Democratic Party" is used more frequently as well as is featured as its prominent appellation on their main page. Settler 08:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I certainly believe that "Democratic" is used far more often than "Democrat" as an adjective by Democrats. That's not the issue. The question is whether most Democrats or large % strongly dislike the term, or is it acceptable usage to most Democrats? It's inconveivable that the county chairman near Denver would routinely use the term if there was vocal objection. In terms of actual formal usage the Indiana data seems most useful. When a Democratic party organization gets a lawyer and takes out formal incorporation papers with the state government (and pays $ and an annual renewal fee), 20% use "Democrat" and 80% use Democratic. Rjensen 09:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

From American Speech

This item from American Speech describes it as a new term, with a "heavy and concentrated barrage" of use in 1956, while noting prior history to 1946. It does confirm that the term was resented and opposed by Democrats, despite occasional use. I don't have time to put all of this in. Septentrionalis 00:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but the link is limited - I get We're sorry. You do not have access to JSTOR from your current location. when I try to access it. It's okay to cite a source that's offline, of course; perhaps you could mention the details of the American Speech article here (date, author, title) so that others with different types of access might be able to look it up elsewise? John Broughton | Talk 02:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I got it through the web, so I assumed it was unlimited: "Democrat Party" by Ignace Feuerlicht; American Speech, Vol. 32, No. 3. (Oct., 1957), pp. 228-231. at http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-1283%28195710%2932%3A3%3C228%3ADP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-0

Democratics or Democraticans

If it is to be called the Democratic Party, then why aren't its members called Democratics? Members of the Republican Party are called Republicans, after all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.17.226.254 (talk) 02:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

For much of the same reason Jewish people are called "Jews."
I bring that example up particularly because they face a similar situation to the Democrats when their critics use Jew as an adjective instead of a noun in order to denigrate them. Settler 06:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that is an apt comparison. "Democratics" would be a noun similar to "Republicans." While the word Jewish is an adjective, the word Democratic in this context would not be an adjective because it would be used as a name; therefore it is a noun. If they want to be called Democrats, the party should be the Democrat Party. Personally, I don't see anything hateful in using that phrase just like I don't see anything hateful about the word Jew. Any word can be twisted to sound hateful. Since this is Christmastime, we should all be happy and gay - or should we eliminate the word gay from everyday conversation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.17.226.254 (talk • contribs)

It is a similar comparison. *1* The noun is party; the adjective is Democratic. Typically "party" was not capitalized (and many times neither was "democratic") unless it was in a title of a book or an address or something along those lines at the beginning of its usage. Contrary to what you may believe, proper nouns can be derived from combining an adjective and a noun.
Anyway, autocratic people are called autocrats. Despotic people are despots. Theocratic people are called theocrats. Democratic people are called democrats. Jewish people are called Jews. Political is an adjective; politics is a noun. Bureaucratic institutions are staffed by bureaucrats. In the early 19th century, "democratic" was used to modify "republican," thus creating a democratic republican. Their rival was the "Federal party" (which is called at the present the "Federalist Party"...all a topic for another discussion) of the which the newspaper the "Federal Republican" was published in Baltimore--federal being an adjective. National is an adjective. Nation is a noun. National was used to modify "republican" in the early 19th century, thus creating the "National Republican" name.
I suggest you read documents from the late 18th and from the 19th century as the Democratic Party name (and others) came about. Settler 23:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Gads, what a bunch of cry babies the "Democratics" are. If you don't like it so much, then call the Republican Party the Republic Party. Of course that would be stupid, cuz the Republican Party is full of Republicans, not Republics. But as we all know, the Democratic Party is full of ... Democratics. Hmmm... just doesn't work does it? Maybe that's why Democrat Party works better. --Mactographer 07:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Did you even read the message you just responded to. "autocratic people are called autocrats. Despotic people are despots. Theocratic people are called theocrats. Democratic people are called democrats. Jewish people are called Jews." Your argument doesn't work. I guess we should say despotics, theocratics, Jewishes. Anyway this about improving the article not stating your opinions. Gdo01 07:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
So by your argument, Republican people are called Republics? Don't wash dude. And by the way, democratic people are also Republicans and liberals and Jews and what have you. Being democratic means you believe in democratic principles. Being a democrat means you are a democrat and believe in the principles of the Democrat Party. Why be ashamed of that? And if this isn’t a place to express an opinion, why’d you give me yours? --Mactographer 09:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
What argument did I have? I was just saying that the "rules" that work for certain words cannot be applied to all of them. Strawman arguments about how things should be called is what you are doing, not what I am doing. Gdo01 18:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
No. A democrat is one that believes in democratic principles. A Democrat is a member of the Democratic Party. (Capitalization matters! A dolphin is an aquatic mammal; a Dolphin is a football player. Note also that "hooters" are owls, while "Hooters" is a restaurant.)--HughGRex

11:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Democraticans "The Republican Party's members call themselves Republicans while the Democratic Party members calls themselves Democrats. This is what most likely caused the confusion.

If a group of Republicans are called a Republican Party by the same logic a group of Democratic Party members would be called Democraticans rather than Democrats. This does not work out because Democrats are named after a party, while Republicans are named after a style of government. The English language tends to steer away from longer words making Democratican overly long. Also, certain precedents like Theocrat, and Aristocrat existed before the coining of the word.

Res publica is a Latin phrase, made of res + publica, literally meaning "public thing" or "public matter". It is the origin of the word 'Republic', though translations vary widely according to the context.], and Democratic is derived from Democracy. The word democracy derives from the ancient Greek demokratia (δημοκρατία) (literally, rule by the people) formed from the roots demos (δημος), "people,"[5] "the mob, the many"[6] and kratos (κρατος) "rule" or "power"."

I keep putting it up and it keeps getting changed. I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican and I don't intend to change the article for political reasons. I put my entry up because it illustrates the issues of confusion. Democrat Party is used to be Pejorative, but to some extent there it is caused by simple confusion. I put references up. I went towards the root word, and it keeps getting changed. The fact is Democratic and Republican are both Latin/Greek words imported into English. The problem with English is its a combination of several languages making the use of various inflection prefixes correct in use. I said Democratican would make more sense, but on the other hand Democration would make even more since.

lemme illustrate

Demos Kratos Greek Demo Cratica Latin Democratic English Democrat(English in French style)Democratican(English in Latin style) Democration in linguistics the "tica" becomes sh noise. Like Deutsch(German) formerly Tudesico(Teutoniscus)(Teutonic) also, Politic-not Politican Politician

Res Publica Latin/Greek Republic English through French Republican jokingly Republic jokingly Republician

So, you can keep changing it. The ones that remove it are politicially motivated :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.135.161.88 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous

Can't believe this is a separate, independent article. Vidor 15:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Democratics would be an uncorrect term to use. Think about it, it sounds much better as Democrats rather than democratics.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.204.138.253 (talk) 03:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Needs to be separate article

This article refers to a misuse of the English language or even an idiom... more akin to a derogatory statement. If it's merged, it justifies a misuse of the "Democratic Party" just as "Republikan" now used to describe neo-conservatives or the Republican Party. That too would be an error. Noles1984 17:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Redirect for discussion

I've started an RFD for Democrat Party (United States). As many who have read this page know, the phrase is not accurate and is mostly used by conservatives in a semi-slur and completely incorrect way. I see no reason why Democrat Party (United States) should link the Democratic Party (United States) given what I have read on this page. Any opinions can be expressed on the RFD page. Gdo01 18:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Erroneous and misleading edits

Made and reverted. This article is about the phrase the Democrat Party, not just the general use of Democrat as an adjective. Google is not, in any universe or by any standard, a collection of non-partisan links. "Democrat" used by opponents was not used as a slur adjective 200+ years ago, and that use that the opponents did use it in has nothing to do with "Issues of grammar," anyway. Settler 21:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC) ""This article is about a phrase and most of the sources listed point up the adjective-noun business, which should therefore be included. Alas, the Federalists did indeed use "Democrat" as a slur word in 1790s. Proof: During this period, the word "Democrat" was used by the Federalists as a term of extreme condemnation,: from Albert Beveridge Life of John Marshall (1919) Page 515 Rjensen 21:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The Federalists used it as a noun, referring to individuals, or collectively, "The Democrats" or "the Democratic Party." It doesn't have anything to do with issues of grammar but look at what sentence proceeds that sentence that was edited on to. It describes whether their party should be called what they call it or what their opponents choose to call it. Hence the "Democrat" party implication that should be removed, or rewritten. Settler 21:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I readded the first two sentences with some modifications. I also added some responses from Democrats or others commenting about the adjectival use of Democrat, or omission of "ic" from the end of the party name, because I didn't think that there were enough to warrant the inclusion of those two sentences in the intro without more information detailed in the article. Settler 22:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Protected

This is one really stupid edit war. I've protected the article. Work it out here. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The sentence of controversy (poorly written, but that's another story) is: The general issue is the use of the proper noun "Democrat" as an adjective, in place of the established adjective for the party, "Democratic." Thus "Kerry is a Democratic Senator" or "Senator Kerry is a Democrat," is standard American usage, while "Kerry is a Democrat Senator" is controversial.

The sentence is inaccurate on several fronts in my view. 1)The general issue is not whether this proper noun or any proper noun can be used as an adjective. By definition, a proper noun can't be used this way. 2)The "thus" is misplaced because it doesn't follow from the previous sentence. 3)On a general note, the issue is what is the correct name of -- the correct proper noun describing -- the United States Democratic Party. Readers will come here either because they are confused by some refering to the party as the "Democrat Party" and will want to know what's what; other readers, who know the party's real name, will come wanting a history or background as to why some don't pronounce the party's name properly. Neither of these readers is served by the two sentences in question, which suggest that the issue is a linguistic one. The linguistic issue is minor and is discussed later in the article. This early in the article, it is important to make clear what the party's real name is and why some have chosen not to call it by its real name. Including the controversial two sentences this early in the article only confuses readers. MiFeinberg 19:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Do you agree that "Democrat Senator" should be included in this article?
  • What language would you accept to describe the linguistic common elements?
No, I don't think "Democrat Senator" is worth discussing here, especially not early in the article. As for linguistics, this minor issue is already discussed in the article under "Issues of Grammar": "The use of "Democrat Party" could be part of a broader linguistic trend.... MiFeinberg 20:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I find "Democrat Senator" just as offensive as "Democrat Party" myself; so I have no problem including both. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, what do you guys think of this:
"Key issues include whteher the Democratic Party of the United States of America has the authority to decide what it can and cannot be called, and from a purely linguistic point of view, whether the use of the term "Democrat" as an adjective instead of "Democratic" is appropriate."
It summarizes all major points, and gets rid of the example (for brevity. we can always include it later in the article). --YbborTalkSurvey! 23:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
"Key issues include..."? I think you're off on the wrong foot enitrely. The key issue is that some are mispronouncing the party's name, deliberately or otherwise. That's it. The article should have a history of usage, which it does. I think the article is fine as it is now without this "key issue" business. Hashaw 23:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I must agree; this is what the sources say. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Do you guys have a suggestion for compromise you think would be acceptable to both sides? --YbborTalkSurvey! 22:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I think the article is fine as is. Astruc 02:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Rest of quotation

When this is unprotected, which I trust will be soon, the rest of the quotation which the OED cites is "a little farmer from South Carolina named Tillman...Party or not - yet it is this, and not output, on which the proximate value of silver depends." I find this sufficiently interesting to include in the footnote. 03:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Other slurs formed by using nouns as adjectives

Perhaps a link should be added to the note about "Jew lawyer," which appears under the article "Jew." Profrif 07:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. --YbborTalk 13:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
"Jew lawyer"? First, that strays pertty far from the content of this article, and second, the link goes to an obscure footnote in another article. Enough of this nonsense. Griot 21:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Information about search engines

I haven't had time to read all of the comments made on this talk page. Please forgive me if the situation has already been resolved. The situation I refer to is about search results for the term "county democrat party". The number of "hits" should not be used to determine validity. Search engines commonly use a special dictionary to parse a query down to the "root" of a word. Since the word "democrat" is the root of the word "democratic", hits would be returned for both forms of the word. Unless the search engine offers an "Advanced Search" function where an "Exact Match" option can be selected, the search engine will most likely perform a "root" word search. Just my two cents worth. Your hard work and diligence on the topic is commendable! Kudos to all.--Gpmiller432 01:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think this information is invalid and I'm going to remove it from the article. "Hits" is not an objective criteria for determing how often the term "Democrat Party" is used. Griot 01:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-disparaging uses

Recently, User:Griot removed two passages I think should be included under the edit summary, "edits for "hits"". The first deals with non-disparaging uses of the term by the Democratic party themselves:

Some state and local Democratic organizations use the noun-as-adjective on their web pages (often but not always mixed with "Democratic Party") in Colorado, Illinois, Kansas, Missouri and Indiana.<ref>[http://www.jeffcodems.org/web/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=117&Itemid=2 ''Chair's Newsletter--March 31-April 11, 2006'']. Jefferson County Democratic Party. Retrieved [[2007-01-26]]. [http://www.il-democrats.org/DeWitt/calendar.html ''DeWitt County Democrat Party'']. Retrieved [[2007-01-25]]. Indiana. [http://democrat.whitleynet.org/ ''Whitley County Democrat Party'']. Retrieved [[2007-01-25]]. [http://www.ksdp.org/node/3044] regarding "The Kansas House Democrat Caucus" and "The Democrat Leadership Team" in 2007. On Missouri see [http://missouridems.org/calendar/] for "February 15, 2007: Saline County Democrat Club" and "March 2, 2007: Missouri Democrat Days."</ref>

and the other about historical conflicts over party-names:

In American history many parties were named by their opponents (Federalists, Know Nothings, Populists), including the Democrats themselves, as the Federalists in the 1790s used "Democratic Party" as a term of ridicule.<ref> Nunberg (2006); Safire, (1993), 176, 391-2, 595-6; Sperber and Trittschuh. 118-9, 150, 231-2. </ref>


All of this information is cited, and I feel relevant. I don't want to act unilaterally and spark another edit war on these already hostile page, so is there consensus for this information's replacement? --YbborTalk 01:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see "Information about search engines" above. It explains why this stuff was removed. Griot 01:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't follow. Yes, you did remove one instance where a Google search was used as evidence, but the above passages have nothing to do with that. I have no objections to the other parts of that edit, only the above content. --YbborTalk 01:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Did you bother to check the links listed above. Three of the four now use the term "Democratic Party," not "Democrat Party," and the fourth has no mention of the word "party" at all. Moreover, even if the editor finds a bare handful of other instances of the use of "Democrat Party" at club Web sites maintained by the Democratic Party, it would not be enough to warrant stating that "some state and local Democratic organizations use the noun-as-adjective on their web pages." The fact is, hardly any use it, especially in light of the recent controversies surrounding the mis-use of the name. Griot 02:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this actually intentionally used as an epithet?

Or is it just an error that's become an ingrained bad habit, like "nucular"? Considering that members of the Democratic Party are known as Democrats, thus making it a party of Democrats, it's easy to see how this phrase could arise. Because of this, I think the "Republic Party" epithet isn't a good comparison, since members of the Republican Party are known as Republicans, not "Republics". Perhaps it's actually by analogy to the Republican Party that "Democrat Party" has seen such widespread usage. --Zantolak 08:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you think it's a coincidence that the term is used primarily by partisan Republicans?
Of course it's used intentionally as an epithet—and it has been, going back at least to the days of Joseph McCarthy.--HughGRex 10:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Is it used primarily by partisan Republicans? Sure, there are examples given in the article, but there are plenty of examples of Democrats and non-Republicans using it (see above). Unless someone can cite a study showing Republicans use it more often and that usage is statistically significant, Occam's Razor compels us to view it as a simple misstatement with no negative intention. In the absense of such a study, this article is nonsense and doesn't belong on wikipedia. (For the record, I am not a Republican) Kenhullett (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
You know, a lot of folks on here are coming across as bitterly partisan democrats, who actually believe that republicans never use this term, Democrat Party, in a non epithet way. But of course they do. Consider their point of view: The Republican Party is a democratic party... they seek votes. The Libertarian Party is a democratic party. Democratic does not describe just the Democrat's party. I think the fact that 'democratic' has a hallowed meaning in our language (in a way 'republican' doesn't) is why many republicans prefer to call the Democrat's Party the Democrat Party. Also, I think it's a very useful tool insofar as it seems to draw pettiness and ugliness from the more ridiculous partisans of that party. This entire article is absurdly POV. But, I think it's informative to those who can read between the lines and see pettiness for what it is. Not good for wikipedia, which has a rep for bias and cronyism, but probably this article is a vivid depiction of deep sourness over an epithet that is ironic and playful. I'm not complaining at all. But if anyone came here with an axe to grind, you may consider the reality that this is usually an innocent depiction, has a great explanation, and when it's used as a joke it's pretty funny and met with some unwarranted scorn. I further believe that Democrats use this term a bit less frequently because they are more familiar with their party's adherents who are sensitive to this term. Republicans aren't as exposed to them and thus just use the more natural and proper term. 70.112.220.223 (talk) 16:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Right. Do you not think that capitalization matters? A "dolphin" is a marine mammal. A "Dolphin" is a football player.
Yes, many Republicans are democratic (though, it could be argued, some only claim to be). But of course many Democrats are republican, as they fully participate in our republican form of government.
The partisan Republicans use the term, "Democrat Party," because they can't bring themselves to allow for the possibility that Democrats could ever govern in a democratic manner. It's petulant and silly and it makes them appear small, but they apparently don't mind.--HughGRex (talk) 01:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
70.112.220.223 neglects an issue that really undermines his point. In the same way that "democratic" has a meaning broader than "of the Democratic Party," the word "democrat" in exactly the same way has a broader meaning. Members of the Republican Party are not Democrats, but they are democrats (one would hope). Substituting "Democrat Party" for "Democratic Party" thus saves you nothing.Acsenray (talk) 19:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

In addition to the modern-day concerted effort by some opposition partisans to re-brand the Democratic Party as Democrat Party, there's also a longlived, non-partisan, and definitely non-standard tradition for the name Democrat Party. However, the most prominent use of the term today is of a partisan stripe (or swipe). RickDC (talk) 03:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Doonesburydemocratparty.gif

Image:Doonesburydemocratparty.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 06:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Communistic, socialistic examples deleted

You'e right that "communistc" and "socialistic" are adjectives--but so are "communist" and "socialist." They are not simply nouns pressed into use as adjectives, as "democrat" is.RickDC (talk) 03:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that was unfair. After all, Republicans who use 'Democrat Party' often claim it's just the more natural way to describe the group, and that democratic implies too much. Democrat is equally an adjective to Communist, so Rick has only proven that the comparison was very apt. I have no idea what line of reasoning he's relying on, except that it's an argument contrary to the clear and consistent POV of the democrats who happen to be sensitive to this term and have an axe to grind. This article follows a POV pattern: "Democrat Party" is exclusively used an eptithet. That's not true. Arguments that show legitimate attempts to use this term without being epithetic are largely deleted or editorialized away. Lame. FAct is, many parties use usage paralleling "Democrat Party." The POV of this article seems to be that republicans think it's funny that democrat rhymes with rat. That's absurd in light of the real arguments that are being deleted. Why let such a soft and uncited assertion stand but delete the real arguments? Because you're extremely sensitive to this issue. You probably should focus on articles you can be more reasonable in editing. Democrat Party is an accepted, non epithetic term. 70.112.220.223 (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this a bit silly?

Maybe it's because I'm not from the US, but this whole thing strikes me as a rather silly complaint by the Democrats played on by the Republicans.

Here in the UK we have a party that calls itself "Liberal Democrats", and everyone, including members of the party itself, uses phrases like "Nick Clegg is the Liberal Democrat leader" (at least until their next leadership election), and I'm not even sure if "Liberal Democratic" is in any way official, though one of the predecessor parties was very much the "Social Democratic Party" and "Social Democrat" was a widely used adjective.

Why are Democrats so pedantic about this point? Timrollpickering (talk) 13:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed silly, most Democrats don't care--or even know about it. Most of the article is probably original research. Given that a member of the party is indeed called a "Democrat", it is an obvious mistake--just about every other political party has the same name for the party and member--Republicans/Republican Party (funny note, this is not the official name of this party either, hmm..), Libertarians/Libertarian Party, Communists/Communist Party, Nazis/Nazi Party, etc. I'd bet most people would be hard-pressed to pick the correct name given the two choices. 71.128.205.128 (talk) 07:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Timroll, like any issue regarding offensive language, a word is simply an arbitrary combination of sounds and is not in itself the point, but rather it is the accumulated intent of the speakers of the word that gives it meaning. "Democrat Party" has historically been used by people in conjunction with offensive intent towards the Democratic Party and has thus become offensive. Yes, there is little objective difference between "Democrat Party" and "Democratic Party" in the same way that there is little objective difference between "nigger" and "negro." (Not to say that the former is as offensive as the latter, but it illustrates a similar contrast.) It is the history of use and other social and cultural baggage that give it its loaded meaning. Acsenray (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Bizarre, saying of an article with 26 footnotes and a dozen references that "Most of the article is probably original research". As for the "obvious mistake", it's noteworthy that in the vast majority of cases, it's the Republicans who have used the term prominently, and repeatedly. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 12:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
This is quite interesting to me, actually. I was noticing today that liberals say they "vote Democratic", and conservatives often say that liberals "vote Democrat". I've heard this from Republicans as young as 10, and while in his case it might just have been a mistake (I used to use "Republicrat" since I heard it once), I later noticed his parents doing it too. So I came to Wikipedia wondering if I would be able to get away with inserting a sentence about my anecdotal observation into an article somewhere, and was surprised to find that there is already not just a sentence, but a whole article on the same phenomenon. Though I will admit I rarely hear "Democrat Party". Soap Talk/Contributions 01:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
"vote Democrat" from a Democrat: ---> http://www.latinopundit.com/2008/09/bigoted-republicans-the-gift-t.html#comment-15869 Also, "I usuallyt vote Democrat" beats "I usually vote Democratic" on Google. So I think that my own observation is not really that true after all. Soap Talk/Contributions 21:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
A single person who's part of the party is always called a Democrat, that's a different thing from what the party is properly called. -- AvatarMN (talk) 09:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
If it's me you're replying to, the point I was making was that you often hear "vote Democrat" instead of "vote Democratic" ... it's not a noun but an adverb; it's analogous to "drive safe" instead of "drive safely". But further observation has led me to conclude that that particular phrasing isn't particularly associated with Republicans, unlike the phrase "Democrat Party" which this article is really about. Soap Talk/Contributions 11:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
There is a clear wider trend in linguistics and it's been ongoing for some time - why do Americans talk of the "Vietnam War" not the "Vietnamese War"? There may be partisan motivations behind some usages, but "vote [party name]" or "vote [name of a member of a party]" is a fairly common turn of phrase throughout the English speaking world regardless of what words are used in the party names or the strict rules of grammar. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
By that rationale, wouldn't it be "Vote Democratically" anyway? Maybe Democrats and Republicans are being offensive to Democrats :P 66.215.216.61 (talk) 04:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
This is definitely not a "slur," but I admit it is annoying. 128.210.12.150 (talk) 15:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

A Democratic

To answer this last point, we have the Governor of Florida (R), going out of his way to be nice to Senator Nelson (D-FL), and saying he "happens to be a Democratic" NYT, March 7, 2008 Staking out Positions on a Revote in Florida and Michigan. Implies he thinks Sen. Nelson cares. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

"on the right", "on the left"

if the Republicans are going to remove two letters "from the right" of the word "The Democratic Party" and make it "The Democrat Party". Why don't Democrats remove two letter "from the left" of "The Republican Party" and use the phrase "The Publican Party". This would me a more artful phrase change and would connect the make them publicans. It would also stand out, and when asked, Democrats can joke, "they way are going to attack us from the right, we are going to attack them from the left", and perhaps it would seem so ridicules to the people of the USA, that Republicans would simply stop to attempted verbal slur and go back to using proper English.

Cheeers Webulite 21:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Reminder: Discussion pages are to be used to discuss the article, not its subject. This is not a forum. Macarion (talk) 15:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

This entire page is...

bullcrap. Macarion (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It is boggling that anyone even contends that this isn't a slur. As others have noted, all the most partisan Republicans use the term, and almost no ever Democrats do. Further, the proper name of the Democratic party is a simple matter of record, so there really is no debate to be had. Either disingenuous or totally obtuse. You mean Tom Delay would refer to his opposition in a manner that irks them on purpose? I am shocked to see that there is gambling going on in this casino etc.--99.227.102.200 (talk) 14:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
That's because liberals like to use "Democratic" because it just inherently has a positive connotation. "Democrat" does not have a negative connotation. It has nothing to do with "-rat" at the end. Hardly anyone who says "Democrat Party" emphasizes the "-rat." This is definitely not a slur. Calling people by their name is not a slur. Macarion (talk) 20:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
As is made clear in the article, "Democrat Party" is not their name. It's called the Democratic Party. The difference is, in fact, the whole point of why members of the Democratic Party object to this persistent Republican misstatement of the name. JamesMLane t c 19:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Should we have an article about "Qikipedia," then? That's basically all this is. A tiny, harmless mistake, which definitely isn't used as a "slur" by 99% of the people who say it. Macarion (talk) 21:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome to create a rebuttal section in the article in which you can provide evidence for your belief that the phrase is mostly non-pejorative. Soap Talk/Contributions 03:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Further discrimination against Democrats via naming

To quote the article: "Aesthetic judgments are subjective, of course, but 'Democrat Party' is jarring verging on ugly. It fairly screams 'rat'."[2]"

I would also like to add to the article that the last four letters of 'Republican" are "I Can". This is a fairly obvious snub to the Democrat party by further stereotyping them as the "welfare-state" party as they are always branded. ie: Democrats, being "rats", steal from producers while Republicans, the party of "I can", are supposedly self-starters. Perhaps we should even create a separate article titled "Republ-I-Can"? I feel this will further illustrate the injustice purveyed by Republicans against a party who's never painted their opponents in such an ugly light. And just for the record, before you start accusing me of a bias, I am not a member of either party, so I have no special interest in this to help Democrats... I'm Libertarian. We've also been slandered in ads that would show the word "Libertarian", then fade out the letters "Libert" so that it left "Arian"[sic] on the screen. This was an obvious attempt to associate us with Timothy McVeigh types, and it cost us a majority of elections ever since. 66.215.216.61 (talk) 04:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I assume the foregoing is a feeble attempt at satire. If by chance you're serious, find a reliable source expressing this opinion. JamesMLane t c 07:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

democraticallly democratican democratty party of the democratocracy for democratying in democraville

the issue as i see it is: how do people of one political party refer to themselves, individually or collectively, either in an official manner (organization documents) or unofficially? and how do their opponents, and/or the general public, refer to them? and how does the news media report on this? there is no logic to political party names, just like names of music groups. but this article is referring to a very real and documented phenomenon, where one party is altering the way they refer to another, where its not reciprocal and appears to have a political motive. that alone is enough to make it an article on its own. the debate about "why shouldnt the democrats be called the democrat party?" is a political ploy; if you can define your opponent on your terms, not theirs, you weaken their position. whether you approve or not, thats what this appears to be, and its sourced adequately. just my 2 Lincoln cents on it Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Removing "-ic" is not "defining your opponent." Macarion (talk) 01:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

NPOV issue

This article looks pretty good on the whole, but there's a significant issue with maintaining a neutral point of view. I think the problem is mostly with the lead section, but there's probably a need for a bit more in the article's body, too.

Basically, there are uses of the term that are intended to be derogatory, and uses of the term that are innocent mistakes, and uses of the term that are official names of local organizations. This article notes that mainstream media occasionally uses the term; in addition, the Citizendium article on the same topic notes that local party chapters and local usage in various places in the U.S. legitimize the name.

The lead section should express all of these elements, in order to be appropriately neutral. And we should probably add the local usage stuff into the article body, too.

(As a side note, doesn't Frank Luntz have something to do with the modern, strategic use of the term? If so, should he be mentioned in the article? Anybody know, or know of a good source?) -Pete (talk) 14:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The Citizendium stuff is mostly the same invalid links that have been removed from this article in the past (see prior discussion above this section).--Orange Mike | Talk 22:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
This is a little bit general. What specific language are you proposing for the lead section? Also, the NPOV tag is a bit premature since there isn't any dispute in place, just your comment (and immediate tagging). --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

In the absence of any specific dispute, please don't continue to incorrectly place the NPOV tag. See WP:DRIVEBY for futher details, but in particular note the lead which states:

Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort.

You have not tied this to any specific policy violation, have not even proposed any specific changes, and rather than as a last resort, your first action (well, only action really) was to place the tag. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Just reading this discussion page there seems to be considerable dispute, much of which has simply been ignored and unanswered. The existence of this article represents a lack of a neutral point of view. Whether or not that's NPOV in wikipedia terms I wouldn't know. But simply ignoring disputes and aggressively removing NPOV tags doesn't seem like a constructive strategy. Someidiot (talk) 23:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

"Democrat" by itself

A quote from Obama was added where he used "Democrat and Republican," omitting the use of the word "party." I'm not sure that's relevant to the article, given that the phrase "Democrat Party" is what the article is about? Шизомби (talk) 23:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

about half the article deals with the use of "Democrat" as an adjective. Looks like Obama has started using the word that way--it's in several speeches. Rjensen (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
We should correct that where it appears. This article is only about the epithet "Democrat Party" not the noun or the adjective form of the word. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
the word "Democrat" is not in the least bit controversial EXCEPT when it is used as an adjective. That is the main point of the article. Rjensen (talk) 01:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

the use is overwhelmingly by Republicans

It's probably hopeless to have any sort of rational discussion as it's too politically charged of an issue, but given the documentation above of use by Democrats, the flat insistence that "the use is overwhelmingly by Republicans" is demonstrably false. I made some edits to clarify this and they got reverted with no real justification. Partially this is indicative of the editorial style that's become endemic on Wikipedia of late - just revert any edit you don't like, no reason needed, no discussion, just blunt insistence that the article can't change from its current state. For the record, I'm not a Republican, but this page seems a bit silly and I'd prefer to see it deleted, but failing that, it should at least attempt to be factual and present a neutral point of view. The term "Democrat Party" is often used by Democrats, and even when it's used by conservatives there's no basis for the speculation that it's intended to be insulting/pejorative/demeaning (not sure what the right adjective is here). Someidiot (talk) 23:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Another revert without discussion or reasonable explanation. "Democrat Party" does not fit the definition given epithet in the linked article. It's just more speculation. Someidiot (talk) 00:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
And in response to the claim that this is "Well-sourced" - all the references are opinion pieces and examples of use by republicans/conservatives. Neither constitutes a valid reference. Someidiot (talk) 00:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't be surprised if some right-wing spinmeisters have tried to claim that this is a perfectly neutral usage, employed by Democrats and Republicans equally. Per WP:NPOV, we report facts about notable opinions, even opinions that are obviously biased, so if you dig up such comments, we can add them, with citations. As far as I know, the third-party sources that have addressed the issue have described the epithet as a tendency of Republicans, but I'm less familiar with right-wing sources so there might be a verifiable opinion to the contrary out there. Any tabulation that a Wikipedian makes, for purposes of supporting a particular view, would be unencyclopedic; see WP:NOR. That's why you would have to find a prominent spokesperson expressing such an opinion.
You assert, without benefit of citation, that "even when it's used by conservatives there's no basis for the speculation that it's intended to be insulting/pejorative/demeaning...." The article contains the quotation from Stassen, showing that the usage is deliberate, and reports an attributed opinion from a prominent spokesperson (Hertzberg) that it is indeed intended that way. Neither of these statements is original research, and both are supported by citations (see WP:CITE).
As for your personal preference for deleting the article, that proposal has been made and was overwhelmingly rejected. Your disagreement with the consensus to keep the article is no basis for stripping it of well-supported information. JamesMLane t c 01:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I have no intention of climbing the Reichstag over this, and despite your unnecessarily hostile and partisan tone, I'll civilly state my objections and then walk away. I am a generally liberal-leaning person, so this is not a politically-motivated attack, in spite of your implications.
You're right that Wikipedia should report on notable opinions, and based on that it is fair that this information exists as a section on the Democratic Party page or perhaps even as a separate article. But this article reports it as a fact, not an opinion. The lede explicitly it's an epithet (generally taken to mean a pejorative term) used by Republicans/conservatives. This is not true: there was previously a list of examples of usage by members of the Democratic Party on this talk page, but it seems to have been excised.
You'll notice I didn't propose to do any tabulation, and I agree that would be original research. But much of this article is tabulation of examples linked by opinions, and is therefore original research. The Hertzberg article is an opinion piece, while the Stassen quote (which incidentally, comes indirectly from the Hertzberg article) is a 70 year old quote that doesn't really support the main thesis of the article.
I'm not sure how one would cite a negative assertion such as "even when it's used by conservatives there's no basis for the speculation that it's intended to be insulting/pejorative/demeaning...." The burden of proof falls on person making the extraordinary claim, not the person expressing skepticism. Have there been any empirical studies that show the claim is true? Has any unbiased researcher tracked usage of this term and reported the results? Has any internal memo been released instruction Republican party members to use the term?
Yes, I see that there was a clumsy and obviously partisan attempt to delete the article, but the fact that it failed does not ipso facto make the article valid. This article violates all three of the core content policies. It's original research in the sense that sense that it's a synthesis of facts and opinions that may or may not be related. It lacks a neutral point of view in that it speculates motives that may or may not be present, thus assuming malice on the part of users of the term. And failing in the previous 2 policies shows it lacks verifiability, as examples or opinion pieces are not in and of themselves adequate.
If I may express the "opinion" of subjecting the claim to a simple logic test, it seems to fail. Given that "Democrat" is a proper term, does it make sense that saying "Democrat Party" is clearly and unambiguously intended to be insulting, as the last syllable is "rat?" And given the last syllable of "Democratic Party" is tick, i.e., a blood-sucking arachnoid, why would that not be considered insulting by the same standard? And without empirical studies of the type I suggested above, can we honestly state that this is an intentional usage, not a mere error, especially in light of the numerous examples of usage by non-Republican/conservatives? I'm not saying it's not now or never been used intentionally, but stating that it is always and unquestionably used in this as an epithet is not a factual claim by encyclopedic standards. Someidiot (talk) 20:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I’m sorry that you found my tone “hostile and partisan”. I did not attack you personally, but instead referred you to the Wikipedia policies that I thought were applicable. I also made a constructive suggestion as to how you could pursue the point you had raised while remaining within those policies – namely, by finding a prominent spokesperson whose opinion could be reported. I pointed out that, by contrast, your personal opinions about the subject are not a basis for altering the text. It was not my intention to say or imply that your personal opinions were politically motivated. For all I know, you came to your opinions after thoughtful and objective consideration of the subject, but that doesn’t make any difference under the cited policies. JamesMLane t c 08:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Republic Party

  • It is not "original research", rather it is a fact to say that the linguistic equivalent to "Democratic Party" is "Republic Party". It is also noteworthy in the context of discussing whether language is moving in this direction. Kgwo1972 19:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
    • It is original research because (1) it is not supported by a citation stating that that equivalent has not been used, and (2) it's your assessment that "Republic Party" would be the equivalent; other permutations might exist / could exist. "Facts" aren't the threshold for inclusion here; verifiability is. Feel free to add a citation; otherwise, I will remove it again per WP:V. Kane5187 20:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
      • The phrase preciding mine -- "The use of 'Democrat' as an adjective could be part of a linguistic trend" -- is obviously speculation and falls within your definition of original research. (As is, frankly, much of this page.) If you want to remove that entire section, fine with me. In the meantime I will look for a cite to verify that "Republic Party" is not used, although proving a negative can be difficult. Kgwo1972 20:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
        • It would be WP:OR (not according to me, but to the official policy), but it is actually a paraphrasing of the following-mentioned CSM article, which deals entirely with exactly that kind of inflection loss. So it is cited, even though the citation does not appear right after that statement (it appears after all the material included in the article). By all means, please do remove other uncited material. Kane5187 20:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • After doing research I see I was wrong in saying that "Republic Party" has not been used. I have therefore changed my note about this term. Kgwo1972 20:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Democracy Party

The linguistic equivalent of "Democrat party" is not "Republic Party", that would be the linguistic analog of "Democracy Party". A Democrat party would be a party comprising or promoting Democrats. The Republican Party, on the other hand, is a party comprising Republicans, not Republics. That is why it is called the Republican Party, because it is a party of Republicans. Mazzula (talk) 01:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

"The key issue is the use of the noun..." Inclusion

Okay, for the past week the phrase "The key issue is the use of the noun "Democrat" as an adjective instead of the use of "Democratic." Thus "Kerry is a Democratic Senator" or "Senator Kerry is a Democrat," is standard, while "Kerry is a Democrat Senator" is controversial." has been taken out and put back in too many times to count (although if one were to count in would be 18 times, and be the reason for every single edit this week.) We need to come to some consensus about this. I haven't participated in this revert war, but it seems to me like the sentence is perfectly acceptable. In any case, as an attempt at compromise, would someone like to keep the sentence in but have it forever labeled with something like [citation needed] or [who?]? It's not really what the templates are there for, and it would be far better to have an agreed upon version, but we can't just keep reverting each others edits. Would those taking it out like to summarize what they think to be the key issue if not using the noun as an adjective? --YbborTalkSurvey! 21:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe the sentence is not acceptable. This isn't about nouns and adjectives, but about whether the Democratic Party -- an proper noun, not a noun or an adjective -- is being called by the name it wishes to be called. To obfuscate the argument with talk of nouns and adjectives, especially in the first paragraph, is misleading. There is a discussion of this matter later on. The discussion suffices there. MiFeinberg 22:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
The Key Issue is that the Republicans use it as an Insult, poor grammar is secondary. TJ aka Teej 23:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
We have a grammar article here, and many language experts are cited, who explain the grammar issues. There is in fact no official statement from the Democratic party about what terms it can or cannot be called, and as the notes indicate the Dem party in various places does routinely use the "Democrat" form, as do a million web sites. (The official name of the party is very rarely used by anyone--it is "The Democratic Party of the United States of America") The fact is that history shows that parties often get named by their opponents -- the use of the term "Democratic Party" was introduced by its enemies the Federalists in the 1790s! (Likwise Loco Focos, Populists, and Know Nothings.) (Likewise religious terms like Mormon, Methodist, Quaker, Shaker wereimposed from outside.) As for the "insult" idea, it's POV and in the article both sides are given their turn. Wiki's job is to report usage not to pronounce good or evil on actual usage. Rjensen 23:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Of course it's about adjectives vs. (proper) nouns. The anti-Democrats use the term "Democrat Party," in a petulant desire to avoid describing the party as "Democratic," because they don't want to credit the party as behaving in a democratic way. It's similar to those who call the Civil War the "War Between The States," complaining that there was "nothing civil about it." Those people are willfully not recognizing that capitalization does matter. "Democratic" does not mean exactly the same thing as "democratic." Similarly, a "dolphin" is a marine mammal; a "Dolphin," on the OTOH, is a Miami football player.--HughGRex 00:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
As an attempt at compromise, how about if we change "The key issue" to "A key issue?" If that's still to focused on nouns and not proper nouns, we could change "use of the noun "Democrat" as an adjective," to "use of the term "Democrat" as an adjective." Again, in my opinion the line should stay in as-is, but we need to find some permanent middle ground. --YbborTalkSurvey! 01:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Or perhaps, as an effort to include both sides: "Key issues include whether the use of the noun "Democrat" as an adjective instead of the use of "Democratic" is appropriate. Thus "Kerry is a Democratic Senator" or "Senator Kerry is a Democrat," is standard, while "Kerry is a Democrat Senator" is controversial. Another key issue is whether the Democratic Party of the United States of America has the authority to decide what it can and cannot be called"? It represents both sides, yes?
I would also like to take this time to quote from Wikipedia:Negotiation: "Compromising or "splitting the difference" is generally inappropriate if it means departure from generally recognized points of view, both of which need to be included to achieve Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. However, this should not stop participants from finding compromises that provide a balanced presentation." --YbborTalkSurvey! 17:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I object to this sentence because of the term "key issue." The issue here is misuse, deliberate or otherwise, of the Democratic Party's name. It's clear that this misuse comes from two sources: 1)Opponents of the Democratic Party who want to criticize the party by deliberately misusing its real name, and 2)a general trend in linguistics (as the article notes) in which people sometimes substitute nouns for adjectives. I believe that the first use -- that of the party's opponents mispronouncing its name -- is the primary cause for the use of the term "Democrat Party." Claiming that the "key issue" is a grammatical one is incorrect. The grammar issue is discussed in this article. That aspect of the question -- a small one -- does not belong in the first paragraph. Hashaw 20:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

In the second compromise proposal (right above you) it is proposed that both grammar and who gets to decide the term are key issues. Is that appropriate? --YbborTalkSurvey! 21:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Let's remember that this is about a political party's name, not about the correct adjective for describing members of the party. I guess one problem we're having here is that the sentence "'Kerry is a Democrat Senator' is controversial" isn't a very good one as far as giving an example is concerned. We need to find another example. The question of which adjective to use to describe party members is secondary to the main thesis of this article. Hashaw 21:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
The linguists who have written on the subject for 50 years emphasize the question of grammar--the use of "Democrat" as an adjective, and that is what this encyclopedia has to consider. Rjensen 02:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
It is just proposterous to talk about what linguists for the past 50 years have said about this matter. Linguists have not weighed in at all. By including this sentence, you steer this article in the wrong direction. Enough of this. Astruc 04:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
What is "preposterous" is your saying that "Linguists have not weighed in at all." Check the references to this article. I see:
Neither Feuerlicht nor Nunberg support the assertion that this is the key issue here; both of them discuss the usage (as a phenomenon of language); but describe it, as indeed it is, as a political taunt. Rjensen's sentence is, again, unsupported by those sources; I doubt it is supported by the others. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


It is not the "key" issue, and no source says so; but the use of "Democrat Senator" is in the same category - and just as much an insult - as the use of "Democrat Party". Can we agree on language that says as much? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 19:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is in exactly the same category. And should be no more nor less offensive. It may be intended to somehow tarnish the word. After all, it is a political strategy to try to create positive or negative associations with the words politicians use to describe themselves, but the puzzle is how it accomplishes this. After all, it wouldn't be an insult to refer to Sen. Olympia Snowe as a "woman Senator" rather than as a "feminine Senator". So it isn't using a noun attributively that creates the insult, it must be something else. The interesting thing to me, documented in the article as with the Chris Matthews rant, is that not only are Democrats insulted by the word "Democrat", but they will insist that the word is an insult and can only be interpreted as an insult. Republicans don't have to tarnish the word, because Democrats themselves will insist so stridently that it is insulting with no other provocation than that the noun is used attributively. And Chris Matthews is (no offense) a Democrat. Mazzula (talk) 01:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Democrat_Party_(epithet)/Archive_1&oldid=1084066499"