Jump to content

Talk:Democrat Party (epithet)/Archive 3

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

Grammar

Of the four given examples of compound nouns (described in the article as the use of a noun as a modifier of another noun) I have removed the last (Senate election), as

  1. It is made redundant by the similarity of a nearby example (Ukraine election) which--by virtue of being encapsulated in a quotation--resists modification; and
  2. It ignores the existence of alternative phrasing (Senatorial election) which employs the adjective and is in common usage.

I had originally replaced the example with another--i.e., drugs problem--but have since removed it as it potentially opens an entirely new can of worms. In standard American English, the phrasing would differ--i.e., drug problem--which suggests a developing syntactical convention for indicating the use of a noun as a modifier of another noun.

-- Patronanejo (talk) 21:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Epithet or Pejorative?

From the dictionary definitions:
Epithet:

  1. any word or phrase applied to a person or thing to describe an actual or attributed quality: as in

“Richard the Lion-Hearted” is an epithet of Richard I.

  1. a characterizing word or phrase firmly associated with a person or thing and often used in place of an actual name, title, or the like, as “man's best friend” for “dog.”.
  2. a word, phrase, or expression used invectively as a term of abuse or contempt, to express hostility, etc.

Pejorative:

  1. having a disparaging, derogatory, or belittling effect or force:

To me it sounds like pejorative is a more accurate description. Victor Victoria (talk) 21:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

to an outsider the term is quite neutral. the pejorative part is implied only because it is (usually) used by opponents. Rjensen (talk) 23:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

"Democratic" and "Republican" are not grammatically equivalent

There is a good argument to be made that the correct name should be "Democrat" and not "Democratic" party. "Democrat" and "Republican" are grammatically equivalent. "Democratic" and "Republican" are not. The "ic" suffix, derived from "icus" in Latin, means "similar to or having the qualities of." A parallel term derived from "Republican" would be "Republicanic" or "Republicanesque," but any such term would be awkward, which is probably why none exists. If the two terms are to be considered grammatically parallel, then "Democrat Party" is correct.

An example: Say I am a Fundamentalist and I form a political party. Should it be called the Fundamentalist Party, or the Fundamentalistic Party?

Neither the fact that "Democrat" is used as a negative epithet or that "Democratic" is by far the majority usage should have any bearing on the grammatical correctness of the term.

88.120.130.106 (talk) 12:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Please see etymological fallacy. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
My point has nothing to do with etymology. I understand the point that usage is as much a determinant as etymology, but you could argue that there is a "usage fallacy" too - that usage alone should not determine sense any more than etymology (or in this case, grammar) should. If you defend that point of view, you have to defend the idea that "I could care less" means exactly the same thing as "I couldn't care less" because a majority of people use it that way. If the end result of a usage is to diminish the capacity of the language to make distinctions and express nuances, it should be opposed. But all I'm saying here is that there is nothing inherently negative in "Democrat Party" and that it is in fact grammatically correct. 88.120.130.106 (talk) 10:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
C'mon, only hicks, or those seeking to manipulate them, employ this usage. But then again, there are those who see it in their interest to promote this churlish mentality that is at the heart of right wing populism. I mean, no one ever led a lynch mob speaking Oxford English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.198.30.48 (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
By your logic it should by the Fundamental Party. The term is a homespun, illiterate usage that conservative politicians have coopted. They pander to this mentality, use bad grammar as a dialect as this is consistent with their keeping the masses in an ignorant credulous state. Thus their support for creation science and other idiocies. It is of a similar piece of how slaveowners, many very cultured persons indeed, spoke pidgin English in communicating with their slaves, who were kept in a forced state of illiteracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.198.30.48 (talk) 18:36, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Of course it has grammatical bearing, even when viewed as a sterile academic issue, as a person's name is what he or she says it is. The same goes for an organization. The U.S. Party is known as-and officially organized as-the Democratic Party; that it could have been named something different without running afoul of some linguistic rule is of no consequence. So using the term Democrat Party is incorrect, there is no such party (there is in The Philippines), using that term is designed to show disrespect, like intentionally mispronouncing someone's name. Sure the Republican Party could be referred to as the Republic Party, but that's not its name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.198.30.48 (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Democrat Party (epithet). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

As used by Sarah Palin and others

Alaska governor and Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin used the term during the 2008 United States presidential campaign.[1][2]

Likewise, it has been used by former Texas Representative and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay,[3] Speaker of the House of Representatives John Boehner of Ohio,[4] Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa,[5] Representative Steve Buyer of Indiana,[6] and other Republicans.

  1. ^ Matthew E. Berger (November 3, 2008). "Palin Talk Taxes, Slows Pace; Governor Stays Honed On Tax Attack In Final Stretch". National Journal.
  2. ^ John M. Broder and Julie Bosman (November 2, 2008). "In States Once Reliably Red, Palin and Biden Tighten Their Stump Speeches". New York Times.
  3. ^ "DeLay: Democratic Party Unfit to Lead", Fox News, July 26, 2003.
  4. ^ "Pelosi's Big Day", Slate, January 4, 2007.
  5. ^ "Alito: No Person Is Above the Law", Fox News, January 9, 2006.
  6. ^ "Transcript: House debates articles of impeachment", CNN, December 18, 1998.

While doubtless true, these statements don't meaningfully add to an understanding of the topic, in my opinion. The article Democrat Party (epithet) is about how the term is/was used, perceived, came to be, etc. It isn't just a random collection of times when people have said it. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Why should anyone care whether Sarah Palin, Tom DeLay, John Boehner, et al. call it the "Democrat Party"? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Note: this is related to the material discussed under § Primary sources above – especially since Wikipedia is not a newspaper. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

how leading Republicans actually use the term in context is shown by the quotes, which is what readers will be looking for. Rjensen (talk) 23:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
it is a straightforward, descriptive statements of facts. "DESCRIPTIVE" is the key word. Editors are allowed to DESCRIBE facts in primary sources. say the rules. (and it it straight-forwared, not circular or complex in any way. Rjensen (talk) 09:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm assuming that the preceding comment was intended for the section § Primary sources, above.
I certainly don't have a crystal ball that tells me what readers will be looking for, and until I see proof, I doubt that anyone else has this kind of clairvoyance either. As to what is shown by the quotes: which quotes would those be? I haven't mentioned any specific quotes. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

is WEIGHT a problem?

I don't see how WP:WEIGHT is a problem the rule there is that Neutrality requires that each article...fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Which MINORITY views are over-emphasized?? Rjensen (talk) 07:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, for starters, the bald statements "Marcus stated that disagreements over use of the term are 'trivial'",[1] "Hertzberg calls use of the term 'a minor irritation'",[2] and "Political analyst Charlie Cook attributed modern use of the term to force of habit rather than a deliberate epithet by Republicans"[3] don't fairly or proportionally represent the authors' main points. Also, undue space (including original analysis/interpretation of primary sources) is given to material relating to supposedly non-derogatory uses of the term, when the main reason for sources to examine the term seems to be its derogatory usage. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Marcus, Ruth (November 22, 2006). "One Syllable of Civility". The Washington Post. pp. A21.
  2. ^ Hertzberg, Hendrik (August 7, 2006). "The 'Ic' Factor". The New Yorker.
  3. ^ Copleand, Libby (January 25, 2007). "President's Sin of Omission? (Dropped Syllable in Speech Riles Democrats)". The Washington Post.

Primary sources

I removed a statement about similar two-word phrases being "deemed controversial", since it appeared to simply be a novel interpretation of the quotation by Ron Elving given in the citation. The article seems full of similar interpretive claims not explicitly supported by any source, for instance:

The history of the term has been a subject of interest to scholars.[1][2][3][4]

the term was in use much earlier in the 19th century[5]

Although the term 'Democrat Party' prior to the mid-nineteenth century was usually simply a value-neutral synonym for the more common 'Democratic Party', after the Civil War and the rise of the modern Republican Party the term 'Democrat Party' began to be used occasionally in a derogatory fashion. For example [...][6]

  1. ^ Safire (1993), pp. 163–164
  2. ^ Lyman (1958)
  3. ^ Feuerlicht (1957)
  4. ^ Sperber and Trittschuh (1962)
  5. ^ Google Books Ngram Viewer – search of American English, 1800–2008, for Democrat party,Democrat Party (run November 16, 2012).
  6. ^ Detroit, Michigan Club (1880). Annual Report of the Secretary. p. 48.

As well as the interpretation given of a quote from an 1834 story of politics in a small Vermont town as seen through the eyes of a young girl [...][1] as supporting material from another source.

The core of Wikipedia:No original research is that "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves". Unfortunately, I think this article needs a major rewrite, especially with regard to such primary sources as cited above. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Hopefully some of my other recent edits to the page (Special:Diff/751644197, Special:Diff/751659440, Special:Diff/751825738) have begun to address the problem. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC) (updated 03:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC))

Update:I removed the part about "interest to scholars". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia allows the use of primary sources in non-controversial fashion, and I don't see any controversies here. Is there anything that is suspected of being a false statement or not supported by the source? "OR" in Wiki-talk means "unsourced' and every statement is well-sourced and supports the statement. Rjensen (talk) 03:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
You may wish to have a look at WP:V: "Base articles largely on reliable secondary sources. While primary sources are appropriate in some cases, relying on them can be problematic" and WP:OR: "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
well let's start with this issue: Is there any statement here that you think is false or incorrect? Rjensen (talk) 04:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
That's not the issue. Merely being true and correct does not guarantee that something should be included. Avoiding original research is necessary to maintain a a neutral point of view, which is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. These principles are clear in stating that editors' personal interpretations do not belong.
In particular, the part about the phrase being used in a derogatory fashion after the Civil War is original research with respect to the source cited,[2] which does not explicitly make this claim. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh I think it's deeply involved. If you think point ABC is false that is much more serious than saying it needs a better footnote. Is anything wrong here? No? I take it you would speak up if you found something incorrect. Rjensen (talk) 05:05, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not going to get drawn into a debate about which parts of the text are correct and which are not. I'm interested in maintaining the encyclopedia's neutral point of view, by making sure that original interpretations of primary source material are not being used to give undue weight to any given statement. For example,

Although the term "Democrat Party" prior to the mid-nineteenth century was usually simply a value-neutral synonym for the more common "Democratic Party", after the Civil War and the rise of the modern Republican Party the term "Democrat Party" began to be used occasionally in a derogatory fashion

is the kind of statement that needs a citation to a source that explicitly supports the material. Readers must be able to check that any of the information within articles is not just made up by some Wikipedian. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Well you misread the rule. It clearly states WHEN primary sources can be used: . A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Here's a passage that fits the criterion: The Dictionary of American Regional English gives numerous examples of "Democrat" being used as an adjective in everyday speech, especially in the Northeast.[9] Any educated person can read the book and see 6 examples on pp. 37–38 & 1036. Rjensen (talk) 06:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I disagree. In that example, the words numerous, everyday, and especially venture beyond "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts" into interpretive territory. The statement as worded is not about the phrase Democrat party, but rather about The Dictionary of American Regional English. As such, it needs a citation to a secondary source that explicitly comments on the "numerous examples" given by the primary source. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Numerous = six? well we can be more specific. This is a dictionary of what its editors call "commonly spoken" usage (I called it "everyday usage"). 4 of the 6 come from the Northeast. Note we are treating the dictionary as a primary source and I think any educated person will buy the paraphrase of it after looking at the pages cited. Rjensen (talk) 06:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
As for "neutrality" surely you don't mean that. The article follows the NPOV rules closely: a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Rjensen (talk) 06:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
The issue is not whether any educated person will agree with that interpretation. As an interpretation of primary source material, it needs a citation to a reliable secondary source. Unless the dictionary authors directly refer to the examples given as being "commonly spoken", then using that or a similar term is not paraphrasing, but rather editorial synthesis, a form of original research. Ditto for citing two widely separated sets of pages as proof of "numerous examples". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
A motivated person could probably find many more examples of the phrase by combing through enough primary sources. The problem is that primary sources give no indication of the relative weight that should be given to that material. That is why secondary sources are needed. Once again, merely being true or correct does not guarantee that something should be included. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Update: since no reliable, secondary sources have been proposed to support the material about the "derogatory" usage mentioned above, I've removed some apparently original interpretation on that topic, and added the {{primary sources}} template to the article – the part about the 1889 gathering of Michigan Republicans and the use of the term by Donald Trump are two examples of content that needs to be supported by reliable, secondary sources to put these usages in context and prevent the article from simply becoming an indiscriminate collection of quotations. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
News reports in this case are essentially primary sources in that they are close to the event, offer "an insider's view", and generally lack "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis" of the facts involved. Such sources should be used judiciously, because Wikipedia is not a newspaper. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
use of primary sources is allowed for because an educated reader would agree that it is a "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts" to state that it was derogatory to claim the Dem party "left our treasury bankrupt, and gave as a legacy to the Republican party, a gigantic rebellion and a treasury without a single dollar of money in it." (A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source) Rjensen (talk) 23:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, I am also an educated reader and I do not agree that the statement

The Oxford English Dictionary cite shows the term used as a synonym for the more common "Democratic Party". However there also were derogatory usages, as exemplified in 1889 by New Hampshire Republican Congressman Jacob H. Gallinger [...]

is a straightforward description of facts – what it is is editorializing. Where does a reliable, published source directly compare the Oxford English Dictionary's example to the term Democratic Party or state that Gallinger's speech was an example of derogatory usage?
The statement "'Interpretation' allowed by rules because an educated reader would agree" is a serious misreading of Wikipedia policy. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Five pillars: "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is on living persons. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong." —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
The Oxford OED says "Democrat" is a synonym for "Democratic" and then gives the quote used. And yes anyone reading the 1889 quote can agree it's derogatory: we do NOT need a secondary source to say that, according to the quoted rule about educated readers. Are you saying the quote is NOT derogatory???? the source is a primary source but it's authenticity is not in question. Rjensen (talk) 06:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I've requested a third opinion (request added here) to help settle this dispute. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that none of my concerns about due weight have been acknowledged or addressed. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
The allowance for using primary sources "to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person" does not outweigh the core of Wikipedia:No original research: "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
It's not necessarily true that "anyone reading the 1889 quote can agree it's derogatory". But that doesn't matter; calling the quote "derogatory" is an analysis or interpretation that needs a reliable secondary source to support it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request :
We rely on reliable, third-party sources for information, particularly information that is controversial or contentious. Primary sources can be relied on for information and quotes, but we should not be making conclusions or analysis of that information ourselves. So, rather than relying on books that mention the "Democrat party" in a derogatory way, we need to find sources that talk about that those books, and then we can summarize their conclusions and analysis rather than making our own. The policy WP:SYNTH is particularly relevant here. Bradv 02:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I removed that particular analysis of the source in question. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Sedgwick, Catharine Maria. "A Reminiscence of Federalism" in Goodrich, S.O., ed. The Token and Atlantic Souvenir: A Christmas and New Year's Present. Charles Bowen: Boston. 1834.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference auto was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Russell Baker criticism

As was discussed above under § Primary sources, Wikipedia's policies state that "All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source". In this case, the statement "columnist Russell Baker authored a column ... which criticized delegates and candidates" is an analysis or interpretation of Baker's writing, which would need another source specifically commenting on the column itself to support it. It might be simpler to avoid such interpretive statements altogether, and simply write, "Columnist Russell Baker wrote that Republicans ..." or whatever. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf: Here are some of the headlines under which the Russell Baker column appeared:
  • "Democrat Party? -- Suggestion for GOP: Drop the Illiterate Phrase".
  • "Dumbness Idea".
  • "What Wrong with Democratic, Fellas? The GOP and War on Adjective".
  • "Death to the Democrat Party". "Time for GOP to Quit Idiocy".
  • "'Democrat Party' Gag Limps On".
I don't have to have someone else "interpret" or "analyze" what Baker meant. Baker's "criticism" is self-evident. You don't need to have a second party tell read into it. You can see it for yourself.
15:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Calling it a "criticism" is itself an analytical/interpretive statement based on the contents of the source. This was discussed at length above regarding an instance of so-called "derogatory" usage. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
@Sangdeboeuf: This argument is ridiculous. The "criticism" in Baker's column is blatantly obvious -- unless you can't read.
I changed the "offending" word in the article. Or do I have to find a second hand source to state that "criticism" is an "offending" word?
Billmckern (talk) 20:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Billmckern here. The Wiki rule is ". A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." wp:PRIMARY Stating that the Baker essay is derogatory is in my opinion a straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person. Does someone here disagree with that description?? If we editors don't trust fellow editors to describe a source like Baker then no readers will trust Wikipedia. Rjensen (talk) 07:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
You are misinterpreting the policy on original research. The content in question is not a straightforward description of facts, but rather an analysis or interpretation of the source. We have been over all this before. Please have a look at the response to the above request for a third opinion by User:Bradv. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I think it's a straightforward description of fact to say Baker was derogatory. Rjensen (talk) 08:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
User:Billmckern: The current phrasing, "columnist Russell Baker authored a piece [...] which suggested that delegates and candidates at the 1976 Republican National Convention should not have repeatedly used 'Democrat Party'" is still worded as an analysis of the source rather than a summary of its contents. Is Baker really suggesting here – is he not in fact declaring, proclaiming, or insisting? Or perhaps he is hazarding, implying, or guessing. All are interpretations of Baker's words and intent, any of which would need a secondary source supporting them. It would be simpler to write something like "According to columnist Russell Baker..." or whatever. All the info about the source itself – date, publisher, etc. – is best left to the references and not repeated in the text, per WP:INTEXT. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
:::::@Sangdeboeuf: Seriously -- WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM? You're being unreasonable. You're ignoring things that are self-evident. You're nitpicking over a single word. I've been more than accommodating to you and yet you insist on continuing to argue. Is there some reason why you're fixated on this article? Do you believe that "Democrat Party" is not intended as an epithet by those who use it, and so you argue with anyone who provides information to the contrary?
Seriously -- I'm done trying to be reasonable with you about this. I'm not making any more changes to try to satisfy you. And if I have new information that enhances the article, I'll contribute it, regardless of your opinion.
Billmckern (talk) 13:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Article title (& lead sentence)

Alerted by the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Words as words I would like to propose Democrat Party (idiom) as article title. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Which reliable, published sources discuss the term as an idiom as opposed to an epithet? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Once again, this would require citing reliable, published sources that directly make this comparison. Please have a look at the policy on synthesis of published material. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
? – is anything wrong with the sources I cited, or with the way I summarized them? I'm well aware of WP:SYNTH, so please be more precise if you think something is dodgy in that respect. Note that not all of the sources used in the article use the qualifier "epithet" in connection to the topic of this article. In fact, I didn't see a single one that uses that qualifier. Could you point to the principal sources that use that qualifier in connection to the topic of this article? --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
use of "epithet": In 1968, Congressional Quarterly reported that at its national convention “the GOP did revert to the epithet of ‘Democrat’ party. The phrase had been used in 1952 and 1956 but not in 1960.”. Rjensen (talk) 19:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
This source seems to call 'Democrat' an epithet, not Democrat Party (doesn't even capitalise party). If that's the only source for Democrat Party as an epithet, then I think the sources (as listed above) for describing the topic of this article as the "usage" of Democratic Party are much more numerous & convincing. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
None of the sources cited above refer to any "Democrat Party" in other countries that I can see,[1][2][3][4][5] let alone directly contrast it with the United States use of the term, as in "Several countries have a Democrat Party [...] but in the context of US politics the use", etc. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
  1. I don't think it would be too difficult to find reliable sources for Democrat Parties in other countries (including the one in Thailand).
  2. On the other hand, if you want to limit the content of the article to US usage of the term exclusively, the article title should be Democrat Party (United States) or Democrat Party (US usage), or with some other disambiguator that sets its topic apart from Democrat Parties in other countries. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
I think "epithet" does the job best. "connotations" is all wrong. "jargon" means a technical term not widely known. All the RS say it's derogatory--including the Republicans themselves who say they are undermining Dem claims to be democratic. Note that "Democrat" is a not an epithet when used as a noun. ("Obama is a Democrat" is standard. But "Democrat platform" "Democrat Party" "Democrat leaders" = epithets.) Rjensen (talk) 07:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Suggesting Democrat (adjectival use) with an opening sentence in this vein:

The adjectival use of Democrat, i.e. the use of this noun as modifier or epithet in constructions like Democrat party, Democrat Convention or Democrat wars, is, in the context of US politics, most often almost without exception intended and perceived as a slur against the Democratic Party and its adherents.

? (sources covering all of this can be found above, and should of course be used in the body of the article where that is not yet the case). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC); updated 08:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC); updated 08:40, 3 March 2017 (UTC); further tweaks 08:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC); further fine-tuning 09:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
when the RS have a consensus we report it in Wiki's voice: let's avoid weasel words like "perceived as" -- the RS, the Dems and the GOP all "perceive" it the same way as a deliberate derogatory usage. Rjensen (talk) 08:02, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Updated proposal in this sense. Nonetheless, not "all" sources agree, e.g. Hertzberg 2006 mentions Luntz 2001 saying that the adjectival use of Democrat only offends "partisans". --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Also, the current body of the article has a few counter-examples of the adjectival use of Democrat not being perceived as a slur. So I updated my lead sentence proposal above again. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:40, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
the article makes clear that the non-derogatory usages are local and few and all done by local democrats. The GOP usages are all derogatory. Rjensen (talk) 08:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Whatever the nature of the exceptions, wiki-voice implying "always" is inappropriate. Tried to make the "almost always" a bit clearer in a new rephrasing (the details of the very few exceptions are of course not really something for a lead section summary). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
According to Hertzberg, "There’s no great mystery about the motives behind this deliberate misnaming. 'Democrat Party' is a slur, or intended to be—a handy way to express contempt" and "Senator Joseph McCarthy made it a regular part of his arsenal of insults".[6] See also the Oxford Dictionaries article "What are the most common American political insults?" (paragraph beginning with "The type of adjective favored in insulting phrases varied by partisan affiliation as well"). Slur, insult, epithet; whatever it is, it's not just a simple and innocent "modifier". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
? the (modifier) disambiguator proposal is under a previous bullet. I moved on to the (adjectival use) disambiguator proposal, which is the topic of the bullet under which the above comment is added. As for the lead sentence proposal which goes with that last article title proposal, I'd include "adjectival use" (per Hertzberg 2006), "modifier" (per the 2015 New York Times Manual of Style and Usage, p. 150) and "epithet" (per the 1968 Congressional Quarterly, p. 9). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

"political epithet"

The "political epithet" qualifier for Democrat Party, as currently in the lead sentence, does not seem to be covered by any reliable source currently used in the article. I'll add a {{cn}} tag to that effect the lead section. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Issues with "epithet"

Above, I referred to an earlier discussion elsewhere for my objections against the use of the "epithet" qualifier. That objection is repeated in #1 below; #2 is an objection raised in the discussion above; I add in #3 an objection that relates to Wikipedia's "words to watch" guidance:

  1. (linguistics) – an epithet is "added" to a name (like "Phoibos" is added to "Apollo" in the expression "Phoibos Apollo"). Sometimes the epithets are used stand-alone to indicate the person or concept to which they are usually added (thus Phoibos becomes a synonym to Apollo). In the construction "Democrat Party", "Democrat" is an epithet to "Party". In this case the epithet is not used stand-alone to refer to the party. Maybe in English linguistics the usage of "epithet" is somewhat blurred, and an appellation that can not be used in a construction where it is "added" to a name can still be called an epithet, but then the usage is somewhat vaguish (see third issue below).
  2. (reliable source?) – thus far no reliable source seems to have turned up that calls the entire phrase Democrat Party (with that capitalisation, and without separating the 'Democrat' epithet typographically) an epithet. This suffices to reject both the (epithet) disambiguator (added to the entire Democrat Party phrase) and a lead sentence that qualifies the Democrat Party phrase in its entirety as an epithet. So my invitation to come up with a source that covers this is essential if we want to keep this the way it is.
  3. (words to watch logic) – a recent edit summary reads, in part: "epithet" is a synonym for "slur" or "insult" – both used by sources; that is incorrect: epithets are usually highlighting the qualities of the person or entity to which they are added. When they indicate less favourable qualities, the use is described as "euphemistic", an euphemistic use that should be avoided according to some authors (see epithet article, last reference of intro section), and is certainly dodgy in Wikipedia context according to WP:EUPHEMISM. If it is not clear whether "epithet" is used as an euphemism or not, the reason to watch out for it is WP:VAGUE (which links to the same guideline on words to watch). Such qualifiers can only be used when the attribution to a reliable source is very clear – certainly not acceptable as a disambiguator in an article title, and in a lead sentence not without indicating variant qualifiers that are as prominent (or more prominent) in reliable sources.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 13:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Speaking of euphemisms, I think you mean problems, not issues. The latter is simply a euphemism for the former. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Incorrect, I used it in meaning 6/2 of wikt:issue#Noun (figuratively, not euphemistically). Further, the "words to watch" guidance applies to mainspace, not to modes of expression in talk space: although it is usually good practice not to express oneself with too many euphemisms in talk page discussions I suppose, the "words to watch" guidance says nothing on the point, nor does Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines say anything about usage of euphemisms on talk pages. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:04, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
But, returning to the heart of the matter, if these issues are generally experienced as problematic (to which I agree too), let's work toward solutions. So I repeat my proposal to move the page to Democrat (adjectival use), with the lead sentence as proposed above (& appropriate references), as the best way forward on addressing the issues/problems with "epithet". --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
No. After all his multiple attacks from every direction it appears User:Francis Schonken has not been trying to "improve" the article at all. Low credibility is his problem here. Rjensen (talk) 11:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
? – there is a multiple issues tag heading the page for some months now. Trying to address issues implied by that tag (neutrality issues; primary source issues) is not an attack. I'm a bit out of my main fields of expertise as far as American politics and English linguistics are concerned, but as far as my expertise in article titles goes (which is somewhat broader), it is plain and clear to me that the "(epithet)" disambiguator is unacceptable, and works against a stable solution to the multiple issues indicated by the main tag heading the page. So please desist from such frivolous comments on fellow-editors on this talk page, and think about working towards solutions for the apparent and tagged issues. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
time to look at a dictionary: Merriam Webster online says: Definition of epithet: a: a characterizing word or phrase accompanying or occurring in place of the name of a person or thing b: a disparaging or abusive word or phrase. Nowadays, "epithet" is usually used negatively, with the meaning "a derogatory word or phrase," [from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/epithet] Point b fits perfectly. Rjensen (talk) 11:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Re. Nowadays, "epithet" is usually used negatively, with the meaning "a derogatory word or phrase," (Dictionary) – The only apparent reliable source for using "epithet" in this context dates from nearly half a century ago, which is not, not by any stretch, "nowadays". It is not clear from that source whether it employs meaning a. or b., which disqualifies the use of "epithet" for disambiguation purposes per WP:VAGUE, if not per WP:NPOV/WP:OR if the intention of that disambiguator is, per its dominant use nowadays, to be understood as an unsourced POV on the 1968 source. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Here's a 2008 source: 'Campaigning in California in October, Eisenhower referred to his opposition as "the Democrat Party," a GOP epithet [White House Ghosts: Presidents and Their Speechwriters - Page 96] 2) 2016 usage: '"DEMOCRAT PARTY” Republicans' long-standing epithet for the Democratic Party and source of tremendous irritation among Democrats' [Nelson The Beltway Bible] 3) yes the 1950s usage was negative: "Platform analysts noted that, while the 1968 version was not as highly critical of the Administration as the 1964 model, the GOP did revert to the epithet of "Democrat" party." [The Presidential Nominating Conventions, 1968 - Page 9] Rjensen (talk) 13:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I'd like to see that more clearly reflected in the article, i.e.: use 1) and 2) as sources (if reliable), to support the "epithet" qualifier in modern usage. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
OK I added it in lede. Rjensen (talk) 13:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks again. However, The Beltway Bible fails WP:TONE (" the English language should be used in a businesslike manner", etc.). See introduction of the book (intentionally written to be read on the toilet); see footnote on p. 99 ("... Dickturd Fuck Shitters... ") etc. Don't get me wrong, I've nothing against this type of literature that popularizes abstract political concepts, but that is not the tone Wikipedia wants to be associated with. It is certainly not usable for direct quotation in Wikipedia. At most usable as pile on ref for showing modern use of "epithet" in this context, or listed in a "further reading" section. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
More aggressive attacks. You are not being cooperative. The rule is wp:TONE Formal tone means that the article should not be written using argot, slang, colloquialisms, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon that is unintelligible to an average reader; it means that the English language should be used in a businesslike manner. The tone rule applies to the article = the text used by Wiki editors including quotations they use. The book is question has a detailed, sober serious discussion of "Democrat Party" -- it's published by a major NY publisher and has good reviews at https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/28220881-the-beltway-bible -- I just read the first ten pages of entries--they are excellent and serious and exactly right for Wikipedia. His publisher Macmillan says "ELIOT NELSON is a political reporter and editor at The Huffington Post's Washington, D.C. bureau where he covers campaigns, Congress and the intersection of culture and politics." Excellent credentials. So the quotation is just fine. You in fact originally suggested I use it. and PLEASE cut the Wikipedia:Crap Rjensen (talk) 06:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I said "... (if reliable) ..." – "... Dickturd Fuck Shitters ..." (etc.) does not pass guidance against "... slang, colloquialisms, doublespeak ...". Re. "...aggressive attacks" (etc.) – again, "please desist from such frivolous comments on fellow-editors on this talk page". Next time I'll call on DS. I think it a good book too (as I said above), but its tone is not compatible with Wikipedia afaics. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
the TONE rule explicitly applies to the text of Wiki articles There is no problem with the quotation--which you First recommended. Rjensen (talk) 08:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Re. "First recommended" – I said "use 1) and 2) as sources (if reliable), to support the "epithet" qualifier in modern usage." (emphasis added); Didn't imply anything about copying WP:TONE-failing (& WP:PEACOCK-failing) expressions like "tremendous" into mainspace. Doesn't look good in the intro (if an intro needs direct quotes I think we're a step further from solving the issues signalled in the "primary sources" & "neutrality" tag on top of the page). Also, now the only two sources supporting "(epithet)" in the article title are a piece from half a century ago (which BTW still only supports it for 'Democrat', not for the entire Democrat Party expression), and a source that writes in a jocular style about serious topics. However commendable writing about serious topics in a jocular style ("hilarious" according to the subtitle of the book) is, it doesn't blend in with Wikipedia's business-like tone. So, I continue to oppose the way this was introduced into mainspace, based on a clear misunderstanding of my intentions in a previous comment (what should have been clear from that comment is that I hadn't seriously looked at the source yet, otherwise I wouldn't have added "if reliable"). Also whatever I recommend for mainspace, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, meaning: the way it was cooked & served in mainspace it doesn't agree with me, and I continue to reject it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Copperud, Roy H. (1980). American usage and style, the consensus. Van Nostrand Reinhold. p. 102. ISBN 9780442216306.
  2. ^ Brians, Paul (2003). Common Errors in English Usage. Franklin, Beedle & Associates, Inc. p. 56. ISBN 9781887902892.
  3. ^ Solomon, Norman (1992). The power of babble: the politician's dictionary of buzzwords & doubletalk for every occasion. Laurel. p. 67. ISBN 9780440212416.
  4. ^ Garner, Bryan (2016). Garner's Modern English Usage. Oxford University Press. p. 1022. ISBN 9780190491505.
  5. ^ Siegal, Allan M.; Connolly, William (2015). The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage, 5th Edition. Crown/Archetype. p. 150. ISBN 9781101903223.
  6. ^ Hertzberg, Hendrik (7 August 2006). "The 'Ic' Factor". The New Yorker.

On primary versus secondary sources

While I have left the tag, because secondary sources do not appear in all cases, the article is well on its way to adequately sourcing its content. I would place it in the top 10% of all WIkipedia articles vis-a-vis sourcing quality and thoroughness (and this is something I study).

However, two points: (1) Ideally we do want no interpretation by editors, simply summary of the preponderance of secondary source content, with illustrations from primary sources, and we are not there yet. (2) If we can agree that on various issues such as the R Baker matter, that secondary sources have indeed covered the primary source, then there is no reason not to place 1-2 good secondary source citations ahead of the primary source, consistent with the preceding point (apart from editor pride or hubris). (Note, in the preceding sentence I chose "editor" over "editorial", for specific reasons of meaning/connotation ; )

Cheers, no side-taking other than the side of productive work and a good final article. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 13:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC) In re: the History section, please note, as addressed in an in-text note (<!-- … --> construction), it appears one of two things has happened. Either earlier editors drew extensively from the collected historical observations of published authors, restating their observed uses of the title term over the 19th and 20th centuries, e.g., without stating, "As Lyman noted in his analysis in Americn Speech,…", thereby claiming the research work of Lyman and others to be there own (which is WP:PLAGIARISM), or, the array of historical observations appearing were collected by WP editors, without their having appeared in a secondary or tertiary source (which violates WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH). Either way, the tag regarding primary sources is the mildest way to address this, and must remain. The secondary sources need to be acknowledged, or the WP:OR needs to be removed. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 15:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Edits of this date—structural problems with the article

Prior to work today—and issues are not fully resolved, mind you—the article covered two topics sporadically, and inconsistently, inside and outside of formally named sections. The two topics are usage/lingusitic content, and historical content.

For instance, prior to my edits today, there was a separate "Bush" and "Trump" section, separate from the history section, where all preceding examples from history were placed. Hence, I moved this section to be a subsection of the historical section.

Likewise, despite having a section on usage/lingusitic content, this sort of content was actually scattered throughout the article, a state of affairs which to some extent is not yet rectified. I have begun to address this with moving that section up, and gathering such content on usage and linguistics, to the one section.

While it may prove impossible to separate academic perspectives on the formal propriety of dropping "ic" from Democratic, from the history of people doing this, this separation was decided long before I arrived, and so I have honored it. Cheers, here's to an improving article, and less fighting. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 13:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@Rjensen: THERE IS A REASON TO CREATE MAJOR TALK PAGE ENTRIES ON MAJOR EDITS. Despite edit summary claims to the contrary, the edits to the lede, the changing in tags, and the continuing changes, are not minor. Please address discussion here, before major revisions returning the article to the contentious state that it was before this neutral, disinterested editor arrived. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 17:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
no major edits. The lede had some inconsequential matter that is irrelevant to epithet usage (there were a very few rare uses by local Democrats talking about their local party). Rjensen (talk) 17:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Returning the quote after its removal—and explanation of its removal—is a major edit, as the quote can be construed as being on one side of the NPOV debate. (Quote not needed in the lede! Add to article. For now, the quoted material appears in the source/citation, so was not lost.) Otherwise, the lede has to summarise the article. It did before you began editing. Please ensure it remains (i) a summary, and (ii) balanced, as you begin again to edit.
Also, please do not argue the primary sources issue via editing. I have explained at length above what I am doing, and why. If it is primary sources only, how were they gathered? They are either another published author's research (and so plagiarism), or they are WP:OR. I have not taken any material out, but the WP:PLAGIARISM vs. WP:OR matter has to be resolved. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 17:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
you have not clearly explained what you are doing. For example charges of plagiarism are false--as are allegations of OR and NPOV. The NPOV rule states that all major interpretations have to be included and I believe they are. Actually the RS have only one debating point (is it grammatically correct--the word is grammar not "linguistic") and both sides are covered. There is no one who says GOP uses the term in a neutral or friendly fashion. Rjensen (talk) 17:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
@Rjensen:Regarding NPOV: There has been no such allegation. As I have stated elsewhere, clearly, I agree with you about NPOV, and indeed, I removed the earlier-appearing tag. However I did so (i) after removing some amplifications in the body of the text that led to a sense of indulgence/imbalance (e.g., a list of terms unrelated to the article title, of the various words Newt Gingrich had used to describe Democrats), and (ii) only after trying to make certain that the lede summarised the scope of material appearing in the article, per WP:LEAD. The issue lies, as far as I can tell, solely in WP:OR (unless, somehow, the examples in History were derived from another's analysis that has not been cited). Le Prof 165.20.114.246 (talk) 23:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
@Rjensen:A stray technical point. I am not a linguist, but my understanding is that grammar is a practical area of specialisation within linguistics. So in creating the section headings and general summaries, I chose to use the broader more encompassing term, which you take upon yourself to correct. Indeed, my word choice may be less precise that what is possible in the lede, but in both the article that is being summarised and in the section that is being "headed", issues are referenced that (it seems to me) are broader than just the term "grammar". Hence the choice. Le Prof 165.20.114.246 (talk) 23:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
I do not have a side in this. The article presents and cites content that indicates that historically, and even in the present, its use is not purely pejorative. As long as the article says what it says, it must be contained in the summary. As for definitions of plagiarism, I am honing to standard published academic works (e.g., Lipson, Doing Honest Academic Work…) as well as Wikipedia policies. If an idea is developed, that was already developed by another, and that other is not credited with the idea, it is clearly plagiarism (which is not just, as many wikipedians seem to believe, just failure to attribute quote material to their sources). Moreover, if the examples used by the published source to support their idea/argument are re-used here without attribution, the case for plagiarism is all the stronger. So I ask again, the primary sources that are arrayed, who gathered them, and from where? From a source, without attribution—plagiarism. From the primary literature, interpreting as proceeding—WP:OR. Leprof 7272 (talk) 17:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
PS. In addressing these matters, I intend no disrespect for you, your abilities, or expertise. I am simply trying to resolve the earlier tensions that arose here, in accord with WP policies. Were I reading one of your history articles, and it presented a series of primary sources in support of a point or conclusion, I would have no problem. That is the role of the primary and secondary research literatures. However, here, most contributors are not History or other Profs. They are untrained amateurs, and the patterns established at articles are followed by all who follow on. Hence, if an editor goes to the primary literature to build an argument, we say "No," per WP:OR. (If you want me to get more specific vis-a-vis policy, I can.) The arguments appearing must be made from secondary sources, and supported (illustrated) by primary sources. Arguments are not to be those of editors (even an illustrious historian who edits), they are to be those of published authors, appearing elsewhere first. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 17:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
The quote from Nelson was in the lede for months. In your version a day ago it was in the lede in a footnote and I made the minor change of including the exact same words in the main text leaving the footnote to cite the source. Rjensen (talk) 17:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
alleging plagiarism is nasty business when there is no evidence. You need to show the source that was secretly used. Rjensen (talk) 17:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
A quote is a single opinion or perspective, and rarely does a quote constitute the best way to summarise the perspectives of an article. I argue, on principle, and with regard to this specific, that this quote does not summarise the article as well as a crafted sentence from you might. The quote belongs in the main body, to be summarised (along with all other quotes and perspectives) in the lede. As for the plagiarism, address the overall argument—from whence came the list of primary sources? I am suggesting either plagiarism or OR. I conclude neither, and to offer both stands (and is not nasty), even if a third alternative is offered. What alternative do you offer? Where does this array of primary sources come from? Leprof 7272 (talk) 17:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
And no, vis-a-vis plagiarism, given WP's policy, it is clear—if I am gathering quotes from Shakespeare to make the argument he supported, let's say, polygamy, either those quotes appeared elsewhere, and I am cribbing, or they do not, and I am doing original research. The latter is fine in a student paper, or faculty publication, but not here. I ask again (and again, and again), from whence came the scholarship—cases of historical use— that appear here? Leprof 7272 (talk) 17:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
I addressed the claim and counterclaim of carelessness at your Talk page. Do you have a horse in this race? Are you attempting to establish your opinion? I only ask, because you seem to miss the clear neutral intentions I had in editing the lede earlier. The continuing neutral uses in the media, and the early non-pejorative origins, appear clear. (As do the current use of the term as pejorative. Both are sides of the story.) Biasing the article in the direction of the current political environment is not encyclopedic perspective, not is it in keeping with WP principles. Leprof 7272 (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Status of edits and disagreements—primary source collection and interpretation

The edits and reversions have been discussed at length. The issue that remains appears to be mostly with the History section, and its collection of primary sources, in largest part. (E.g., no one has objected to my removing the excessive Newt Gingrich content.) The foremost issue is whether it is allowable to collect primary source material, and interpret that material for the first time here, absent a comparable appearing collection and analysis in one or more secondary sources. This, in my understanding, violates the letter and spirit of WP:OR.

In the case I misperceive what has taken place—if a published secondary or other source has indeed already collected these historical examples, and that scholarly or popular effort is not cited—then I propose that this excluded attribution constitutes plagiarism, because the collection of examples in support of a point constitutes an idea, and an intellectual argument, and if an idea/argument derive from another person, it violates academic honesty not to attribute the idea/argument to the person first making it.

There is some chance that a part of the issue is that another editor does not perceive the article to accurately reflect the best available historical scholarship, and thus, instead of having the lede to summarise the article, wishes the lede to accurately reflect the "truth" (available historical data), even if the article as a whole does not yet do so. I have argued that this is cart before horse—that WP:LEAD requires we summarise the article, and that if there is a mis-emphasis in scope or content in the article, that this needs to be rectified. (That is, by the cited policy/guideline, we cannot make substantially different conceptual cases, in the article and in the lede. For instance, we cannot omit the historical or contemporaneous cases of non-pejorative uses of the title term, just to make the unequivocal case for the pejorative.) If the secondary sources that eventually appear support an argument in the main body of the article, that the non-pejorative cases are, historically, 1 in 50,000, then we can take up the matter of reflecting that "vast majority" in the lede. But for now, my effort has been to make the lede reflect what is in the article.

However, at this point, the issue seems more likely to me, that this History section is someone's original synthesis of the literature, and so somewhat cherished work, and so a matter of clarifying how WP:OR applies. I look for discussion on this matter here. That is all from me. Le Prof 165.20.114.246 (talk) 23:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

try quoting the OR rule exactly -- there is no "original synthesis" by wiki editors only statements of plain facts that are verified by exact footnotes. The synthesis comes from secondary RS such as Safire, Nelson and numerous others, all cited. try quoting one statement that is problematic. Rjensen (talk) 01:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Section started to present sources on contentious issues

Sources only here, please, no discussion. Make your argument through the sources you place. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 13:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Added 4 sources. –Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

On use of "epithet"

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Democrat_Party_(epithet)/Archive_3&oldid=1136657429"