Jump to content

Talk:Democratic Party (United States)/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

Ideology

Need to add socialist fascism to the list — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.118.205.78 (talk) 00:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

No. You clearly don't know the meaning of "socialism" and "fascism", which have historically been at odds. Fascists claim to oppose the left and the right (hence the term Third Position). The Democrats are neither. Toa Nidhiki05 00:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Just ignore it, it looks like trolling, or a statement by a person who is very ignorant of the nature of fascism.--R-41 (talk) 00:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Head of State section in Infobox

I believe that on the French side they are contemplating putting a "Head of State" section in on the party info boxes like they do for the upper and lower houses. We have a section for governorship so would anyone object to this? I don't think either party would dispute that holding the presidency is very important to both of them. If there are no objections, does anyone know how to go about doing this? (Fshoutofdawater (talk) 19:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)).

Well it already lists Barack Obama as 'President of the United States', so does that not qualify since he is the Head of State and Head of Government? Toa Nidhiki05 20:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Well we could just put "President" and yes I know it mentions it in the article but it also mentions that they control the Senate. I mean the whole point of the infobox to me seems to show someone quickly the numbers. I especially appreciate this when I can't speak the language like articles in French and I know some people can't speak English obviously. I know that's not a great reason but my general point is that it provides info in a simplistic way that doesn't require reading the article.(Fshoutofdawater (talk) 09:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)).

Excuse me

I poured myself a cup of coffee and fired up my really really cool WP:RIGHT Watchlist, and what do my eyes behold? Democratic Party (United States) has been tagged for WPConservatism!!! I nearly shorted out my laptop when I spit out my coffee! Ok. So who's the joker that tagged this? C'mon. You know I'll eventually find out... – Lionel (talk) 08:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

there were many conservative Democrats, especially in the South, in the 20th century. See Conservative coalition for details. How the left the party and became Republicans 1980-2000 is an important part of the Conservative story. Consider: "For many years, factions within the Texas Democratic Party resembled a two-party system, and the election to select the ... Until the 1990s, conservative Democrats were much more successful than their liberal counterparts in these primaries" [Maxwell et al, Texas Politics Today: 2011-2012 Edition (2011) p 110]; " Consequently, many conservative Democrats backed local conservative Democrats while simultaneously supporting Republican presidents Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, and George" [Roger Chapman, Culture Wars: An Encyclopedia (2010) vol 1 Page 136]; "Given the substantial numbers of conservative Democrats remaining active in the southern Democratic Party organizations..." [Hadley, Party activists in southern politics (1998) p xxv]; "Obama Falls Short Among Conservative Democrats" [Gallup Poll: Public Opinion 2008 - Page 152]. Rjensen (talk) 09:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I think I might have tagged it, but only for historical reasons. There really isn't much about the national party that is conservative, but southern, conservative Democrats had a lot of power up until the Reagan revolution and they pretty much all had left by or during the Republican Revolution. Toa Nidhiki05 12:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Rjensen and Toa. There still are conservative Democrats, the blue dogs. TFD (talk) 12:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Let's not be recentist, either! In the 19th century and well into the 20th century, the Democrats were sometimes the more conservative party, depending on local factors. In fact, in the earlier part of the 20th century, the Democrats were the most conservative political party in Wisconsin's four-party system (Socialists, Progressives, stalwart Republicans and Democrats). --Orange Mike | Talk 18:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
(following what OrangeMike and Toa said) The Republicans used to be the less conservative party historically, especially with Teddy Roosevelt and trust-busting during the Progressive Era. It was only with the Civil Rights Era that the South finally began shifting away from the Democrats to the Republicans. This is mirrored in the Northeast which saw fewer Moderate Republicans, whose place was taken by more left-leaning Democrats (Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe are holdovers of this tradition). This partially explains how the parties slowly switched ideologies over the course of 50 years. It's justified that the Democrats can show up in the watchlist you were talking about (plus the fact that Blue Dogs are considered somewhat conservative in the American political spectrum). Gamer9832 (talk) 08:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I'd say the process started earlier, with the New Deal's success in stamping the Democrats as to the left of the Republicans and the contemporaneous near-elimination of any left-wing alternatives to the Big Two at the ballot box; but the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as Lyndon Johnson famously said at the time, made it official (in the long run).--Orange Mike | Talk 17:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Ok, ok. Just give me a heads up for this kind of stuff. You wouldn't want me to short out my computer---you guys would miss me too much.– Lionel (talk) 09:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Vote on whether to Delete or Change "Center-Left" infobox description

We should vote to see whether there is consensus over deleting or changing "Center-Left" in the Infobox

  • Change or Delete We should change or delete the description because multiple sources conflict over where the Democrats are in the American political spectrum. Gamer9832 (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Votes like this are meaningless on WP. Arzel (talk) 23:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

They're done all the time in AFD's and discussions over whether to merge articles. It's the only way to see if we can get consensus over an issue. Gamer9832 (talk) 03:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
If no one is going to vote, I'm going ahead with what seemed to be the consensus in the discussion and delete the political spectrum from the infobox. Gamer9832 (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
!Votes are meaningless and not a substitute for discussion. We go by consensus and the !vote is generally less important than the arguments made. In a heated debate with a large number or people a straw poll may be useful to see where people stand... But this is a small dispute with only a few people. !Voting is not really needed here. I do support removing it from the infobox but we need to reach that through consensus, not vote. Toa Nidhiki05 21:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
So if I understand you correctly, since no one has commented on your preferred version you take it to be that there is concensus for your personal opinion? Concensus does not work that way. Arzel (talk) 23:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
My preferred version was to characterize as "Center to Center left". Deleting the section entirely was a compromise suggested and agreed upon by a 3 of the 4 editors directly involved in the conflict. Gamer9832 (talk) 01:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete/Comment -- The concept of "left" and "right" insofar as politics is concerned is completely meaningless. Anyone arguing as if there is some substantial truth in calling someone or something "to the right" or "to the left" doesn't really understand politics at all. My opinion? The Democrats and Republicans are both right wing parties with the democrats being closer to the "center" than the Republicans. I'm sure I could find sources supporting that view too. So, it is probably more honest and encyclopedic to abandon this terminology altogether.Greg Bard (talk) 00:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Those that believe the Democrats are right-wing can be ignored at hand for having no concept of US politics. Arzel (talk) 17:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
This is an international encyclopedia and one would expect that all the parties labelled center-left would have similar ideologies, bases of support and policies. TFD (talk) 17:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Arzel, in a worldwide perspective(which is what Greg Bard was referring to), the Democrats would be considered right-wing (to put it more nicely, Center-right). Conservatives in Britain and Canada support universal healthcare, abortion, same-sex marriage, believe in and want to end global warming, and support relatively progressive tax brackets. The Democrats sometimes can't even get half their party to agree on these issues. Gamer9832 (talk) 04:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
The consensus was reached among 3 editors directly involved in the conflict (TFD, Toa Nidhiki, and me) and from another editor (Greg Bard) that the political spectrum should be deleted entirely. Arzel, you were the only dissenter who was directly involved in the conflict. 80% (or 4 out of 5 editors) should be considered a consensus. Gamer9832 (talk) 01:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete We can all agree that the Democrats are mostly to the left of the Republican Party but there is no agreement about where the center lies or whether it is a single point or a range. Info-boxes are for non-controversial information, e.g., when a party was founded, who its leader is, not for disputed info. TFD (talk) 04:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Change. preferably to: "Centre-right to centre-left". There are conservative Democrats. If there is the issue of the number of conservative Democrats being small in comparison to centrist to centre-left Democrats, then an alternative is "Centre to centre-left". There are centrist Democrats, see here [1]. I would like to see sources of the different perspectives on this matter before making a final decision. And a Request for Comment should be made to get a large view from the Wikipedia community on this.--R-41 (talk) 15:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  • delete terms like "centre left" apply to European parliaments not to the US parties. Rjensen (talk) 16:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
    • That is not accurate. That is based on the claim that the left-right spectrum doesn't apply to American politics. American politics regularly speaks of left-wing and right-wing. The Republican Party for instance is in the International Democrat Union, and the IDU describes itself as an organization of parties from the "centre to centre-right" [2]. And contrary to claims otherwise, there are centrist Republicans [3]. That solves the issue of the range on the spectrum that the Republicans by their inclusion in the IDU endorse; the issue of the Democrats' positio should be solved by users by similarly seeking out sources of where the Democratic Party is located on the left-right spectrum. It is true that the left-right spectrum is limited in describing politics, but saying that it has no bearing on American politics is hyperbole, the left-right spectrum is mentioned all the time in American politics. I fear that users here are resorting to deleting any mention of the left-right spectrum out of frustration with past discussions on the issue of the spectrum, rather than seeking to find its position or general range of position on the spectrum.--R-41 (talk) 23:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
The media doesn't usually refer to any specific party in terms of a political spectrum. Collectively, they refer to the "right", which is most closely associated with the Republicans-- but can also be used for Blue Dog Democrats (who are Conservative). The media also refers to the "left" which is most closely associated with the Democrats-- but the problem with that is that the Democrats don't identify as the left: there are Centrists, Conservatives, and Libertarians in addition to Liberals and Progressives. To say "Left" is to make a broad generalization of the Democrats. The Republicans are becoming more ideologically pure, but that doesn't include the number of Centrists still in their party (Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins are excellent examples, as is Jeb Bush). Both are big-tent parties that embrace multiple ideologies historically and aren't ideologically pure, like European parties are. They work with multiple viewpoints (on abortion, there are GOP members in favor, and Democrats who oppose, for example). There's a lot of justification behind just removing the field altogether, in addition to the fact that finding compromise is what we should all aim for as Wikipedia editors. Gamer9832 (talk) 04:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Susequently (sp.) is misspelled in the 1860 subsection of History on the main page.

Since the page is protected, noting it here for resolution. Jknight6 (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC) jknight6

 Fixed Peacock28 20:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request: section on LGBT discrimination

The section concerning LGBT discrimination is now out of date. Since May 9 2012 Barack Obama's stance is now in favour of same-sex marriage.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyle96 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

(He said his views had 'evolved').— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyle96 (talk • contribs)

File:Liberal opinions.png

File:Liberal opinions.png has one of my biggest pet peeves in politics. It lists as one of the topics "immigration" and gives liberal support at 58-36%. But that's an absurdity. Does it mean that 58% of liberals think we should have immigration and 36% want to completely close our borders to outsiders? The problem is with conflating "legal immigration" with other kinds of not-so-legal immigration (insert your preferred term here). The actual question polled, according to http://web.archive.org/web/20060214150029/http://people-press.org/reports/tables/242.pdf, was "Allowing immigrants to enter the U.S. legally and work here for a limited amount of time". Of course, that's a horribly worded question - but what I'm sure it was referring to was a guest worker program where we would allow day laborers to come under employment visas, as opposed to the current system, where our guest workforce is for specialists, artists, skilled professionals, etc. Rather than just unilaterally doing something to the image, I wanted to run it by here first. Option 1 is to change the caption from "Immigration" to "Guest Worker Program". Option 2 is to simply eliminate that line item all together since the question is out of date and doesn't really tell us anything meaningful today. --B (talk) 19:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

This whole file should be deleted, or at least not used in an article, since it has a deadlink as a "source" and is so poorly worded as to be meaningless. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, I don't think the dead link is itself a reason to remove it since we have a perfectly good copy of the source at archive.org. But I agree with removing it for another reason - it's very much out of date and really rather off topic. The poll is from 2005 and was a poll of liberals in general, not liberal Democrats. There are liberals who are not Democrats and having the poll in this article is not very useful. I'll remove it. --B (talk) 14:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Drugs?

Would it be appropriate for this page to have a section on Democratic opinions on drug decriminalization/legalization? I understand that even marijuana legalization is a controversial issue among Democrats (though I think most support it), but many more seem to support decriminalization or medical permits, and Democrats tend to be a lot more liberal on these issues than those of other parties. Tezero (talk) 01:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

This is one of those issues where the overlaps between the Dems and the Reps are so enormous as to make an effort like that a futile one. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

moderate

I'd say the politicas of the Democrat are somewhat moderate rather than as it is currently described "modern liberalism" especially when compard with other western nations. Pass a Method talk 20:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The party's moderate faction is covered in "internal factions". Multiple reliable sources (at least three including Oxford Press) confirm the Democratic Party as being a modern liberal and center-left party. Further, the party's largest wing by membership is the Congressional Progressive Caucus, a liberal/progressive group that advocates a very standard liberal/progressive platform. Comparison to other western nations is really not useful, since most political party articles (with the exception of communist/far-left parties and fascist/far-left parties) go by their own countries' systems, not some imaginary international scale. Toa Nidhiki05 21:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree. While the Democratic Party embraced some social liberal policies from the 1960s to the 1960s, there was no reformulation of basic liberal principles. TFD (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Since when are on-demand, taxpayer-funded abortion, gay marriage, gun control, and hate crimes laws not 'social liberal policy'? Regardless, reliable sources view the Democratic Party as a modern, American liberal organization. Toa Nidhiki05 22:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
You'd be hard put to get a majority for any given one of those proposals in a lot of Democratic caucuses, and in a lot of Democratic legislative caucuses in particular. At best, you'd get one-three out of the four; and which one(s) would vary all over the map. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
They didn't have a hard time getting those into the party platform, which is what I got those from. Toa Nidhiki05 22:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
You agree with me or Toa? Pass a Method talk 21:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree with you. TFD (talk) 21:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Conversely, conservatives in other countries support those policies and the American Right will as well in ten years time. But social liberalism usually refers to the ideology formulated by British liberals in the late 19th century and implimented after the Second World War, which did not include any of these things. TFD (talk) 22:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
A bit of a bold statement there - to pick one, support for abortion has been steadily decreasing in the US since 1995. Most Americans identify as pro-life and pro-choice identifiers are at a record low. Further, the vast majority of Americans oppose abortion after the first trimester. On other issues such as gay marriage support is gaining, but to say the same of gun control and hate crimes laws are a bit silly.
Now, in the American sense social liberalism essentially supports abortion, gay marriage, gun control, and hate crimes laws as well as affirmative action and welfare. This isn't Britain, so semantic differences are to be expected - we don't call a toilet a 'loo', we don't call oil 'petrol', and we don't call cookies 'biscuits' for instance. :)Toa Nidhiki05 22:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
abortion is interesting in this regard – its importance as a political issue has been steadily declining. Majorities of all groups, except a slim 54% of evangelical Christians, reject the idea that Row v Wade should be overturned. See the Pew poll results at http://www.pewforum.org/Abortion/roe-v-wade-at-40.aspx Rjensen (talk) 23:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
It is interesting, but that poll only gives the option to completely overturn or leave as-is. Since most people support abortion for the first trimester, women's health, rape, and incest, this makes sense. But the numbers also show only 13% think abortion is moral. Toa Nidhiki05 00:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
The word "social" in "social liberalism" refers to economic policies to help people not cultural issues. Compare with social democracy, which has nothing to do with same sex marriage. The American Right generally accepts liberal attitudes about a decade later. Notice that today they no longer support slavery, exclusion of Jews, oppose the Bill of Rights, etc. TFD (talk) 03:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Better define areas of History

The history section of this article needs to be better divided into eras. Currently, the only three sub-headings are "1860", "1900", and "Modern Era". This places unjustified significance on both the 1860 and 1900 elections, and utterly neglects the other portions of the party's history. It also suggests that the Democratic Party began in 1860, which is NOT the case. There needs to be an effort to better define the existing text (and make it more proportional to the actual history of the party. I would suggest dividing it into the following categories: Early history, 1824-1860, the Civil War, 1868-1932, 1932-1964, Modern Era, but I'm not an expert in this field. Suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.162.58.181 (talk) 22:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 September 2012

Title of this page is "Democratic" Party....there is NO Democratic Party in the United States. It is the DEMOCRAT Party. It should say Democrat Party. Feel free to see the Democrat page at http://www.democrats.org/about/our_party

@ Ohnoitsjamie... Just because some in this party don't understand the difference between Democrat and democratic, doesn't make it accurate! It's Democrat! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spyle2254 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC) Celine712 (talk) 21:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

 Not done That site uses the phrase "Democratic Party" in numerous instances (several of which are here. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Not done:. The edit request was properly closed as "not done" nearly a year ago. Innumerable reliable sources confirm the existence of the Democratic Party, and reopening the request with unsourced claims to the contrary is unconstructive. Rivertorch (talk) 06:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Change in party platform

I added this edit about the removal from the party platform of recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and the reinstating of the recognition the following day. It was covered on the front page of The Wall Street Journal and I included a reference from the Washington Post. My edit was reverted twice because editors considered it trivia. I thought I would bring the issue to the talk page to reach a consensus one way or the other. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 00:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

It is a big deal, since the party changed it and then changed it back over the objection of a large portion of the DNC delegates. Toa Nidhiki05 00:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
(ec)It was on the front page for one day (just like many other trivia) and then this silly trivial one day change disappeared at the platform and in the news so it doesn't seem to have had a major impact notable in a historical way. Reminder: We're not the news.TMCk (talk) 00:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't see how this is important. For instance, I don't see the platform recognising Beijing as the capital of China. Illegal Operation (talk) 08:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Beijing isn't disputed as the capital of China, i.e. no other groups of people lay claim to it. I don't know how important the issue, the capital of Israel, is to the party and US politics. It was some good comedy watching the "vote" that Viragosa held for changing it back. The "yays" and "nays" were at best 50/50. But a woman directed him to call it for the change, because they need the Jewish vote more than the Muslim vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:DA8:D800:107:D07C:2B8C:97BD:E617 (talk) 08:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
There are millions (if not billions) of things that are NOT written on the party's platform because they are implied. Illegal Operation (talk) 02:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

In general recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital does not exist unless explicitly stated. There are no major parties in any significant nation besides the United States (no offense intended to Palau) that recognize Jerusalem as capital of Israel and there are no significant nations besides the United States that recognize Jerusalem as capital of Israel. Both the fact that enough democrats have changed their minds about recognition of Israel's choice of capital to get the party platform changed, and enough haven't changed their minds about it is significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.56.186.182 (talk) 03:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

"and ethnic minorities"

While the democratic party did historically favor some ethnic minorities like the Irish the party was split over African American rights, as recently as FDR a Democratic president was against anti-lynching legislation.

It should be clear reading that for a period the democrats at some point were split with both the civil rights leadership and segregationists being in the same party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.56.186.182 (talk) 03:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikiproject conservatism?

Why is the Democratic Party part of Wikiproject Conservatism? Surely WikiProject Socialism, where liberal parties like Germany's Social Democrats or the UK's Labour are included would seem like a better option? 2.65.13.209 (talk) 10:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

the Conservative Project studies opponents of conservatism as well as advocates. Rjensen (talk) 13:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
That is incorrect. The reason is because of the party's historic association with conservative politics, especially in the South (read: Southern Democrat). Toa Nidhiki05 16:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia source is Encyclopedia Britannica?

"The party has the lengthiest record of continuous operation in the United States and is among the oldest political parties in the world."

This statement has a source link that refers to an Encyclopedia Britannica article. Something seems off about an encyclopedia citing another encyclopedia for accuracy. 2CrudeDudes (talk) 21:05, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

bad source: I fixed it from Charles S. MacK (2010). When Political Parties Die: A Cross-National Analysis of Disalignment and Realignment. ABC-CLIO. p. 27., which states: "he American Democratic Party dates to the 1830s, with the Republican Party about 20 years younger. Both are probably the oldest political parties in existence, depending on when one dates the formation of Great Britain's political parties." Rjensen (talk) 21:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Change Page's profile picture

Is it possible to change the heading picture from the D in the circle into the modern democrat symbol? The main reason why this irks me and others I know is because this is the picture that shows up when entered as your political views on Facebook. I find it would be more recognizable to see the donkey logo so it would be even with the Republican Party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barnguy98 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 August 2013

In the first paragraph, Springer is referred to as the democraPic mayor instead op democraTic mayor. Just a silly typo, but it springs out. 92.68.27.155 (talk) 10:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. I don't see anything like that in this article. You might mean a different one. What city is "Springer" the mayor of? RudolfRed (talk) 05:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
It was vandalism at another article, and it's already been fixed. Rivertorch (talk) 06:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

International Affiliation

On May 22 2013 many progressive parties worldwide founded the Progressive Alliance in Berlin, Democratic Party included. Probaly the international affiliation should be updated in the page and, as long as the Alliance of Democrats website has been offline for a few time, we should check if this alliance is still in place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matgal89 (talk • contribs) 07:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

You got a source for that assertion? --Orange Mike | Talk 12:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Progressive_Alliance_(political_international)
http://progressive-alliance.info/en/
A lone Democratic governor, Shumlin of Vermont, was there; that does not mean that the Democratic Party joined this effort. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The Democratic Party is a founding member of the Progressive Alliance according to the official Progressive Alliance website. Also, the Alliance of Democrats should be removed from the info box on the main Democratic Party page as only some members of Democratic organizations are part of that alliance, not the official party. Jpblancoii (talk) 22:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the only place I can find the name of the Democratic Party on that website is on a page with the name progressive-alliance.info/expected-guests/ and titled "Expected Participants". That is not evidence that the Democratic Party has ever been a member of that organization. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I suspect this recurring issue could be easily resolved if someone just e-mailed the Democratic Party and asked them if they are members of this group. I don't think this will really stop until a definitive 'no' is given. Toa Nidhiki05 02:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
The burden is always on the person making the claim. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Of course, but that's not stopping anyone here from insisting they are members. Toa Nidhiki05 13:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
And indeed, the bogus affiliation was inserted, again with no evidence except the appearance of a lone state governor as a guest at the conference; I've removed it once more. And Toa: we don't operate like that - extraordinary claims, in particular, require solid published references from reliable sources, not [:WP:OR|original research]]. The burden is always on the person making the claim. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Birthday

Although I may disagree with your politics, Mr. Beckle, I do applaud what you have done with your life and the efforts put forth to improve others with same problems in their lives. Happy Birthday, Bob!

Joan Lopus 108.22.91.184 (talk) 23:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

"Democratic" vs "Democrat"

There is a good argument to be made that the correct name should be "Democrat" and not "Democratic" party. An example: Say I am a Fundamentalist and I form a political party. Should it be called the Fundamentalist Party, or the Fundamentalistic Party?

See my comments on the "Democrat Party (epithet)" article. 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.120.130.106 (talk) 12:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

At Wikipedia, we don't use original research to determine "the correct name" of anything; we use verifiably correct names, as reflected in various reliable sources. The political party in question has exactly one name, no matter what anyone may choose to call it, and you cannot provide a single reliable source to prove otherwise. Rivertorch (talk) 17:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Also see my advice on that talk page, to study the article etymological fallacy. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

In the voter base or ideology section of this article "Social Democrats" should be included, as they form an important part of the party's voter base and ideology. In other words there is a strong belief in the Democratic Party of the Welfare State, and many of the party's members are in favor of industries becoming at least subsidized by the state. Examples of a social democratic ideology include but are not limited to an expansion and improvement of public education, a path towards free or subsidized higher education, subsidized or state-controlled health care, and state-subsidized farms. Social Democrats include Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Dennis Kucinich, and at one time Bernie Sanders. The Democratic Party contains people not just in the centre-left, but people from the center all the way to the left wing, and is a political party that seems more like an alliance of people with leftist beliefs. Therefore, "social democrats" should be included in the ideology as well as in the voter base of the party. Talk 15 December 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6011:54:402F:6D36:9F0A:3B79 (talk) 22:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

"social democrats" is a term used in Europe but very rarely in the USA. So there is no need for it in this article. Rjensen (talk) 22:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Official Name

If one reads the Charter of the Democratic Party, the full name of the party, which that document uses, is actually the "Democratic Party of the United States of America." I'm bringing this up because, well...wouldn't it make more sense to simply use the full name of the party for disambiguation purposes as opposed to placing "United States" in parentheses next to it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MNTRT2009 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, no; read this. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
But wouldn't this be more appropriate? The common name of the Democratic Party is the "Democratic Party." But since there are other political parties throughout the world which are also named the "Democratic Party," it requires more than just the common name for disambiguation. Wikipedia has used "Democratic Party (United States)" under the assumption that "Democratic Party" was the proper name of the party, but it is, as is evidenced by the Party's charter, not. We don't label the article for the SPD as "Social Democratic Party (Germany)," but rather the full name "Social Democratic Party of Germany" is used, because that is the proper name of the party and it requires no disambiguation. The naming conventions suggest that the name of the country in parenthesis is to be added where the names of parties are identical to the names of other parties, but we have here a case where, while the common name is ambiguous, the official name is not. Since the official name of the party is unambiguous, that removes the need to use the parenthesized country name because there is no other political party in the world named the "Democratic Party of the United States of America." --MNTRT2009 (talk) 15:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Even that article says, If two parties from different countries have identical names, then the name of the country could be put in parentheses. This is one of the most widely used party names in this encyclopedia. and a change would affect tens of thousands of articles for no net improvement. --Orange Mike | Talk 06:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
But what I'm saying is that the name is not identical. Since the full name of the Democratic Party is the Democratic Party of the United States of America, it is entirely unique. It's only identical if you ignore the full name of the party.
And as far as the issue of cross references goes, that problem could be solved with a simple redirect.--MNTRT2009 (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
This is a solution in need of a problem. WP:COMMONNAME offers clear guidance on this matter. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2014

The line immediately under the heading "Minimum wage": Please change "all American's have" to "all Americans have..." Plurals do not require apostrophes. 194.75.231.26 (talk) 14:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Done — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 14:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Immigration

The article currently states "In 2013, Democrats in the Senate passed S.744, which would reform immigration policy to allow citizenship for illegal immigrants in the US and improve the lives of all immigrants living in the United States"

I have several objections to the current phrasing:

  1. Perhaps the bill should be referred to by its full name and linked to. Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013
  2. "In 2013, Democrats in the Senate passed" -- Republicans also voted for the bill. Perhaps something along the lines of "Democrats overwhelmingly supported..."
  3. "improve the lives of all immigrants" - the bill aims to do many things. Whether it will improve the lives of "all immigrants" is a value judgement and thus not neutral POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonycat (talk • contribs) 00:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Left wing

Political parties are normally described as left or right wing. Why is the Democratic Party instead described variously as conservative and liberal? It is a broad party, and certainly some parts are more left wing than others, but isn't "left wing" or "centre left" a more accurate description?101.98.175.68 (talk) 05:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Only if you ignore the meanings of those terms. The Democratic Party has a microscopic leftish wing, but by the standards of political science, not of any significance; and the party itself is clearly not center-left, far less left wing. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
101.98 If you believe that the party is liberal or center-left the best thing to do is bring RS refs that indicates that specifically. Otherwise, no, "centre-left" is not a more accurate description. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:07, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The article has a list of (blue-linked) Democratic "state and territory parties", which is fine, but what's not so fine is that all those entries came with a "Site" URL to the party's official website. This, I submit, is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and WP:EL applies as well. First of all, there is really no rationale for linking to the party's website from this place; one assumes, since all the blue links are working, that the local party's article has that link in the EL section, and that's fair. So listing them here, in this general article, isn't just needless but also turns this into a directory.

Rjensen reverted my removal of those links here, saying "this is a full-fledged article and not a directory; links are normal Wiki role". Well, duh, of course this is a full-fledged article, with now restored a directory of parties--not a set of "See also" like links. The latter is appropriate, the former is not. In addition, "links are normal Wiki role" is a bit hard to parse, but no, such a collection of links is not normal, and if it is it shouldn't be. Anyway, I'm bringing this here for discussion. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 18:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Drmies simply misreads the rule at WP:NOTDIRECTORY -- it does not mention web pages and specifically recommends links to Wiki articles, which is what we have here. Editors put a lot of work in this and simply erasing annoys them and deprives users of useful information. No one benefits. With them included, "Wikipedia functions as an index or directory of its own content." which is the recommended guideline. As far as WP:EL the rule states: "Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any" This is an article on the Dem party and it links to its many websites exactly as recommended by the rules. Rjensen (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Rjensen, the links to the Wikipedia articles are there. The URLs turn this into a kind of phone book. Yes, this is an article for the Democratic party, and so a link to the Democratic party website is appropriate: it is NOT an article about all those local parties, and so all those links to the websites for all those local parties are simply not appropriate. And please, "a lot of work"--we're talking about a couple of URLs, not about writing beautiful content. Drmies (talk) 21:44, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
What i can't understand is why Drmies wants to undo the hard, useful work of other editors. Is he locked into his personal reading of the rules? It is useful information. The Democratic Party is actually a coalition of state political parties--you see that at the national convention and national committee, so the article certainly does cover them. Drmies repeatedly calls the state parties "local parties" (as in Chicago) but that is false-- these are the states that make up the Party. Rjensen (talk) 22:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Why is Rjensen talking about me as if I'm in the other room? And why do they ask loaded questions, like "why Drmies wants to undo the hard, useful work of other editors"? First of all, sticking in a couple of links is hardly hard work. Removing them may be more difficult. Second, maybe Drmies wants to remove that information because they feel it doesn't pertain, something they've tried to explain, and maybe Rjensen can assume a little frigging good faith. No, if this article covered them, it wouldn't be this article. The articles that actually cover them, those cover them. Seems pretty elementary to Drmies, I'm told. Now, I hope that some other editors will weigh in, and they are free to use the second person. Drmies (talk) 00:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Drmies (you) wants other people to assume his good faith but has totally changed his (your) position. He (you) started by insisting on the rules but now he claims he really removed links because they don't "pertain." But he misread the rules and now he (you) misunderstands how the Democratic party works. It's a coalition of state parties. "sticking in a couple of links is hardly hard work." that is poor arithmetic--it's over 50 links. Are they useful? yes. Do they belong according to the rules? yes. Are the state parties unimportant "local" bodies as he (you) says? No--they have always been central--and everyone can see that: the president is elected by the Electoral College = the states. Likewise the Senators and Congressmen. Likewise the Dem National Committee. Likewise the presidential primaries and the 2016 national convention. Rjensen (talk) 01:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Wow, Rjensen, you are not the person I thought you were.

OK, here's another go. The Democratic Party is, apparently, a coalition of state parties. Those state parties have articles. Those state parties' websites are linked in their respective articles. This article is on the coalition and does not need to link to the individual state parties' websites. Drmies (talk) 01:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

There is now a list at List of state parties of the Democratic Party (United States). I have put a link at See Also. I'd suggest getting rid of the list section here. It is important information but it clutters this page. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:18, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

The wiki-link to the list of state parties appears twice in the article. It is in the Democratic Party template at the bottom and in the see also section. The full blown list is not necessary, as discussed above. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
WSe do NOT have a consensus here to remove the list. I count 2-2: myself and Blondeguynative for KEEPING and Capitalismojo Drmies FOR DROPPING. Rjensen (talk) 03:46, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
WP:BRD The onus is on editors who want to add material to make positive reason for inclusion. Links to the directory list are in the article twice. Putting the full directory is inappropriate. No other party article handles it this way, for good reason. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Saying that other stuff exists is not going to help your argument. Creating a content fork of the list of state parties is unnecessary and pointy. There is no reason the list can't be maintained here, where it makes more sense. The list is not even remotely a violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY and should be kept as long as the editors here want it. gobonobo + c 18:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, perhaps someone could make the positive case for this directory listing within this already over-long article. I would suggest that its inclusion here is not optimal. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Not listing the state parties here is a major omission and a disservice to our readers. The state and territorial parties are a key part of how the Democratic Party is structured in the United States. Many states (like mine), don't have the intuitive [State name]-Democratic-Party formulation and readers will come to this article to find their state's article. While this article has become quite large, creating a content fork for a columned list of 50 or so state parties is not going to help. We'd be better off spinning out articles for, say, Policy positions of the United States Democratic Party and Voter base of the United States Democratic Party. gobonobo + c 15:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Not an unreasonable argument. I agree about splitting out the voter base and policy positions. I suggest that we add a section that discusses the importance of the state parties (and their role in the party) and put the link to the list at the top of the new section. The Directory is not needed given that there are already three ways to find the state parties on this page not counting the directory. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Every state party that has a non-standard name (including MN DFL) has a redirect that takes you to the right article when you search wikipedia.
  • Every article at wikipedia that includes the Democratic Party template includes this a full and complete list (with links) to every single state party.
  • This article has a See Also that takes you to list of state parties.
I suggest that an additional full list beyond the template's full list is overkill and duplication. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 October 2013

It should read democrats came originally from the federalists party. It was disbanded when they took the name democrat to pull the extension fore name; democratic(people) from the term people republican, also known as democratic republican. This effect of diverting the name democrat fooled the American populous into enlisting to join either party since they both sounded similarly beneficial. The federalist democrats stood for stronger government to control the people. The democratic republic also known as the republicans stood for embracing the needs of the people and helping them to grow and become responsible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.178.51.230 (talk) 06:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


Edward Shils Gab9953 (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. --Stfg (talk) 15:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

health care reform

added some more information to the "health care reform" section. let me know if you have any concerns or questions. thank you. GoGatorMeds (talk) 19:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

International associations

here and here 177.182.56.45 (talk) 22:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Typo "Democrats have supported increadomestic renewable energy development"

Noticed a typo "Democrats have supported increadomestic renewable energy development"" to be changed to "Democrats have supported increased domestic renewable energy development"

Declanjscott (talk) 05:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Political position: center to center-left

Wanting to add position as center to left of center, with references. There are multiple sources noting some clear centrist and moderate factions in the party, as well as left-leaning and center left factions. (1)(2)(3) Aside from the overtly centrist and Third Way factions, conservative democrats identify as centrists. While center left is identified in media with any liberal or progressive policies or politicians. The consensus before was that it was some sort of big tent party. Most left-wing, far left, and right-leaning descriptions of the party were hyperbole and shouldn't be taken into consideration when describing the parties ideological range. Talk to me if you are looking for more definitive citations of centrists, I was having a hard time finding a recent ideological paper for that faction. Blondeguynative (talk) 2:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

None of Blonedegunative's citations are sufficient to establish political position. The NYT article says nothing about the party's stance, the Huffington Post article is an opinion piece that says nothing about the party's stance, and the Princeton article does not explicitly define the Democratic Party as any position. More importantly, terms like 'centrist' and 'liberal' in popular media are dramatically inconsistent - those are relative to party, not the US political spectrum. Further, using three citations which each have a differing stance on the party to support a claim none of them make (that the party is center to center-left) is a violation of WP:SYNTH. Toa Nidhiki05 03:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Second Sentence of Second Paragraph: Grammatical Error

Second sentence of second paragraph: "The parties philosophy of contemporary American liberalism has its origins in left-of-center liberalism, which seeks to create a mixed economy by providing government intervention and regulation in the economy." It should read "the party's," not "parties," which is the plural form of the word, not the possessive.

- Nickdab (talk) 08:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

1900s

The article currently states "New Deal liberalism meant the promotion of social welfare, labor unions, civil rights, and regulation of business."

I have objections to this phrasing

  1. It should be noted that there were two "New Deals", The ideology started with some aspects of the economy but grew as the necessity of more programs was apparent
  2. It could say "New Deal philosophy originally was to provide relief to different essential industries and relief to individuals to an extent, but later it was expanded to include more relief programs for individuals, including financial aid and workers rights."
  3. The term "Civil Rights" within the context used assumes it did something to enhance the rights of African-Americans and other minorities, which it didn't. The New deal philosophy dealt solely with economic policy, not with the rights of minorities — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sporemolux (talk • contribs) 03:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

"Third Way" label no longer applies

In the summary box on the right of this article, I've noticed that the "Ideology" of the Democratic Party is labeled as Social liberalism, Third Way, and Progressivism. However, after reading the article for the "Third Way" ideology, it seems to me that this is a wildly inaccurate label for the modern Democratic Party, for several reasons:

  • Whereas the Third Way "reject[s] income redistribution as the means to achieve" egalitarianism, contemporary "Democrats support a more progressive tax structure to provide more services and reduce economic inequality by making sure that the wealthiest Americans pay the highest amount in taxes."[4]
  • Whereas the Third Way "emphasizes commitment to balanced budgets," contemporary Democrats systematically oppose budget-balancing measures related to just about anything except the military.[5]
  • Whereas the Third Way places "an emphasis on personal responsibility," many contemporary Democrats believe that equal opportunity is achieved through affirmative action.[6]
  • Whereas the Third Way advocates "decentralization of government power to the lowest level possible," the contemporary Democratic Party "seeks to create a mixed economy by providing government intervention and regulation in the economy...such as universal healthcare, social programs, equal opportunity, labor protections, environmental protection, and regulation on big business."[7](Intro, 2nd paragraph)

Though the Democratic Party may have flirted with this "Third Way" for a brief time in the 1990s, I think the contradictions with the Democratic Party as it is now, and as it was through most of the 20th century, suggest that the "Third Way" is not the defining economic policy of the Democratic Party. I would advocate removing the "Third Way" descriptor from the summary box, and replacing it with another descriptor that resolves these contradictions. I believe the content at the articles for Social Democracy or perhaps Democratic Socialism provide a better match for the policies listed in the Democratic Party article. However, I have been having difficulty finding reputable sources that directly acknowledge and label any change in the Democrats' ideology between the Bill Clinton era and today. Would others be able to help find a good source with an appropriate label for the economic ideology of the current Democratic Party? TBSchemer (talk) 13:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE: I've now found two sources- one from a Comparative Politics journal in 1978 describing at least a portion of the Democratic Party as "consistently aspiring" to make America more of a social democracy, and one from a policy analysis in 2014 describing how the Democratic Party is the vessel for a new wave of Social Democracy in the United States. I have introduced those sources with my edit.[8] TBSchemer (talk) 14:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
You cannot define a political party in that manner and claim "no longer true" based on your interpretation of a source based on a moment in history. Dave Dial (talk) 05:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. This analysis is little more than original research, and for the two sources cited, one is horribly outdated (1978) and speculative, and the other does not assert that the Democratic Party is socially democratic; it merely speculates that the future of the country is socially democratic and talks about Obamacare. And regardless, we should not remove mention of a label (Third Way) based on insinuation and speculation that another label might apply (social democrat). If you can show that reliable sources predominately refute the "Third Way" label, then by all means, bring that evidence here and we can change the article. Otherwise, the current sources and material remain valid. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
How would you resolve the contradictions I brought up between the definitions on the Third Way page, and on the Democratic Party (United States) page? Certainly we cannot allow a situation where one Wikipedia page says "Universally, X = 2" and another says "2 + X = 5." Why do you believe my sources are incorrect to suggest that the Democratic Party has social democracy in their platform? I would add that the second source you mention, doesn't just "talk about Obamacare." If you read further down, it actually discusses how the "social democratic future" of the country is dependent on Democratic Party electoral victories. TBSchemer (talk) 06:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
There are no 'contradictions', your post is entirely made up of inaccuracies and extreme POV interpretations. I won't comment further on such inaccurate portrayals of policies. Dave Dial (talk) 11:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Agree, The best course of action would be to find some recent reliable sources to back up the claim. Not sure how it even was put into the article in the first place. Third way was an option to Dem/Rep. Calling a WP:DUCK and removing it from the article. Arzel (talk) 14:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Furthermore, all of the sources to back up the claim are questionable or clearly not reliable sources. A couple of personal blogs are not sufficient to label a group in this manner, especially when it can be clearly shown that the label is ridiculous. And if anything the Democratic Party is even less in the center today. Arzel (talk) 14:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Democratic_Party_(United_States)/Archive_11&oldid=1142437687"