Talk:Democratic Party (United States)/Archive 6

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

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

infobox party = "Democrat"?

I have been seeing this in many, many infoboxes in many biographical articles. It seems to me the party should read "Democratic"...unless Democrat is considered an adjective describing the candidate rather than the party, maybe this should be changed? Hazydan 08:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

So you would have to go back and change this in all of historic writings? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.7.186 (talk • contribs)

Pictures of Kerry, Obama, Patrick, and Clinton Should be Removed

I motion that the pictures of John Kerry, Barack Obama, Deval Patrick, and Hillary Clinton be removed. Kerry did not win the 2004 race and should be removed, if we leave his picture up there, we should put pictures of Samuel Tilden, William Jennings Bryan and Adlai Stevenson on this article as well. Obama has been in the Senate for less than two years, and the talk of him being President is mere guesswork, from looking simply at the interviews and speeched he has given. Deval Patrick has not even served one day as Governor of Massachusetts, so I have no clue why he is on here. Hillary's main claim to fame is that she was first lady, and her reason her picture is on the article is like Obama's picture's reason for being on the article. I motion that we have a new rule, where former Democratic Presidents and House Speakers should only have their pictures on the article, to preserve the historical continuity of the article (This allows Pelosi to stay in the article, since she is all but certain to be House Speaker next January). Shaunnol 11:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

We do indeed have pictures/posters of Tilden, Bryan and Stevenson on this or the History of Dem party website. It seems unwise to remove the people who are most talked about. Rjensen 11:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

They are the most talked about as of now-- I think that in the near future (2008) we should remove their pictures and replace them with the new current crop of democratic stars. That is the advantage of having an online encyclopedia--we will always be relevant!

Perhaps we should include a picture of Thomas Jefferson because the Democrats are referred to as "the Party of Jefferson" and ideologically this would give people an idea of the Democratic Parties' roots. Zubdog 2:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Shaunnol, what criteria would you use for pictures? John Kerry did lose the last presidential election but he's still a Senator from Massachusetts and a major player in the Party. If he's yesterday's news, then what exactly is your argument against Deval Patrick? He's tomorrow's news? I think those people are excellent representatives of the Party today. Showing former Demo Presidents and Speakers wouldn't reflect the Party very well in my mind. That might be historically accurate but less relevant for today. Middlenamefrank 21:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Recent issues section organization

While I like the Recent issue stances section, I think it needs to be organized by category. However, I am at a loss as to what categories to create. the ones I have come with are:

Economic issues (for Minimum Wage, Energy Independence, etc.)
Social issues (or Cultural issues) (for Health care, reproductive rights, same-sex marriage, etc.)
Legal issues (for USA PATRIOT act, torture, etc.)

These don't seem quite adequate. Any feedback? --Primalchaos 23:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

How about foreign policy issues -- UN, war, treaties, trade agreements, nuclear proliferation, etc. Jpers36 05:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe controversy and popularity -- How the United States veiws the Democratic Party and how many members it has. Mr.Weirdo 00:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, foreign policy should be added. As far as the controversy/popularity thing, the section is dedicated to the positions of the Democratic party, not other people's position on them. Also, adding that seems to be inviting an edit war.--Primalchaos 12:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I just want to be included, okay? I'm new at this. --Mr.Weirdo 00:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I implemented the changes. I tried adding a 'foreign policy' section, but none of the stances listed seemed to fit.--Primalchaos 05:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll add a subsection on how national Democrats voted on authorizing force against Afghanistan ("those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States") and Iraq under Foreign policy issues. Also, trade issues are absent from economic issues. I may get around to dealing with that later but I wouldn't mind if someone stepped in and did it instead. It could also go under "Foreign policy issues."Settler 05:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

If anyone is confused by this edit, just know that it means that Dems are slightly more apt to rely on and use international institutions in regard to foreign policy than Republicans, who tend to emphasize realism) a bit more than Dems (a la Henry Kissinger et al, though the Dems also have a strong realist vein). The Wikipedia articles on the various international relations theories are pretty poor overall, so I figured it warranted an explanation here. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

the early history is still a jumble

This is a complex issue so it's no surprise that it's taking a while to get right, but the early history is still incredibly unclear in the article. In fact reading the appropriate sections of this talk page is more enlightening. The fundamental problem is that what exactly happened in the transition from Jefferson's party to Jackson's party is complex. This article in parts speaks of them as separate parties, in parts as the same party, and in other parts as some nebulous in-between thing (the latter is more or less the case). In my opinion a lot of the history is being thrown off by edit-warring over the specific date of founding (1792? 1822? 1824? 1828?), which seems to result in the rest of the article being papered over in one direction or another. Our reader ought to be able to read the history part of this article and come away with at least some very basic understanding of the situation, i.e. Jefferson founded a party, there was chaos within the party in the 1820s, Jackson either founded a new party out of the remnants or significantly reorganized it, and since Jackson's time it's been more or less stable. --Delirium 13:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Some earlier discussion is here. Settler 01:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandals

More vandals again, notably on one of the sections on Hilary Clinton. I'd like to clean it up and then lock it to prevent this stuff from happening.

I just semi-protected the page from editing from anons and new users (less than 4 days). Nishkid 64 22:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The Democratic party Logo has been vandalised and needs edited. (It won't let me do it) Also ,some vandal completely changed the page, when i view it, it lists a long insult using the eff word a lot. Im a republican supporter but this is just wrong.

2008

Ive been watching the 2008 presidential election as it unfolds and I think this combo would be good:

Barack Obama (for President)
Phil Bredesen (for Vice President)

Obama Bredesen 08

They would both appeal to the South and Midwest, where the Democrats need the votes the most. What other combos would be good?

Monbro 18:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know that talk pages are not usually designated for casual conversations, but more for the actual development of the article. So, in the future, please discuss something related to the article. Thanks! By the way, Barack for '08! Bredesen would be a good choice to get the Southern and Midwest vote, but I was thinking of a Southerner with more political experience. Nishkid 64 18:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Please don't use talk pages for political discussions. Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how the different points of view obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral and objective (From Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines)--Jersey Devil 22:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Plans

I am merging the current 21 century history into the History of the United States Democratic Party article, as outlined in the To-Do list at the top of this talk page:

As the new History of the United States Democratic Party article has been created, bring the history section (especially the subsection "21st century" down to a reasonable size, while still keeping it detailed and informative.

The history from 2005 to the present will be left alone, while the two subsections of the Presidential elections of 2000 and 2004 will be edited down in this article to the important parts. Settler 23:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI: Small change regarding Stem Cells

The statement that Republicans' opposition to embryo derived stem cells is religiously motivated is false. Morals and religion, although closely related, are not the same. One can have the belief that the destruction of an embryo is morally wrong without having any religious convictions whatsoever.

Thank you for your consideration.

Wayne Kahler (registered independent) fenderacoustic@mail.com

I thought I caught and removed most of the extra text about the Republican Party's positions in that section; thanks for pointing that out. That section is supposed to be for describing the Democrats' positions, not Republicans' positions, so I removed it. The Republican Party (United States) should be consulted for such matters relating to their political positions. Settler 04:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Free Trade Issue

I put it a paragraph on free trade, (it got reverted saying it should probably be discussed on talk page a bit, so here I am!) My new version...

The Democratic party has a mixed record on free trade that reflects a diversity of viewpoints in the party: more conservative and moderate Democrats are for free trade while those further to the left as well as union forces are against free trade. In the 90s, the Clinton administration and a number of prominent Democrats were for free trade and pushed through a number of agreements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). In fact Al Gore's strong performance against Ross Perot in a famous debate on NAFTA on the show Larry King Live helped secure passage of the bill. Since then, many Democrats have moved away from the free trade ideas that were so prominent during the Clinton years and opposed free trade agreements. [1] Often this opposition to free trade is described as support for fair trade.

This is an important issue, but it's kind of hard to tackle because different democrats believe different things and the leadership position has been evolving. (It's hard not to oversimiplify a bit when you want to keep it ultra short-1 paragraph short). And I don't think describing Al Gore's performance as strong is POV... This debate helped secure passage of the NAFTA bill, established Al Gore's reputation as a strong debater and made Ross Perot the butt of numerous jokes (I believe this is the source of the famous, "Can I finish" Ross Perot qoute). Comments? Good to go in? Mgunn 23:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I won't comment further on the Gore/Perot debate characterization, but would like to hear what others think. My main remaining quibble with the paragraph, however, is that it casts the debate entirely in terms of support for or opposition to free trade agreements. For instance, it merely says that some Democrats are opposed to free trade currently without explaining why (i.e. job outsourcing, among other reasons). I generally support free trade, so I'm not pushing my POV here, but I think the more populist position on trade needs to be explained a little better (obviously, it's just a blurb, so not too much can and should be said, I just think a bit more explanation is necessary). For what it's worth, I strongly agree with you that the party's position on trade needs to be discussed in the article. Thanks for the contribution. · j e r s y k o talk · 23:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Democratic Party scandals

User:BryanFromPalatine recently added this subsection about specific scandals involving individuals who just so happen to be Democrats. While I strongly believe that articles about political parties should discuss major scandals intimately tied to those parties (Watergate should obviously be discussed in the Republican Party's article, for instance), the "scandals" added by BryanFromPalatine are not, in fact, "Democratic Party scandals," but rather scandals involving individuals who just so happen to be Democrats. Thus, the addition, in my view, easily violates WP:NPOV and are inappropriate to list in *this* article (but not in the individuals' articles) per WP:NPOV#Undue weight (on top of the fact that the list is unencyclopedic, or at least written as such). Finally, the list is essentially entirely unreferenced, causing WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, and WP:BLP problems. Though the lack of citations could be cured, the NPOV problem cannot. On top of all of the above is the fact that it's just a bad idea to set a precedent where editors go to political party articles and add subsections full of things like "Member of Parliament X, MAIL FRAUD". Two things that do need mentioning in the article text, however, are the impeachment trials of Clinton and Johnson. · j e r s y k o talk · 04:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Check the Free Republic talk page. That's where the inspiration to edit that way came from. Settler 04:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather stay away from all things freep, thank you very much :). Free Republic sure is inspiration for a lot of great ideas, isn't it? · j e r s y k o talk · 04:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Johnson was made VP by the temporary amalgamation of the National Union Party, opposed by the regular Democratic Party nominees. Though Republicans deserted him, it's not entirely the Democratic Party's fault he became President in the first place. Settler 04:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much a WP:POINT violation. Not to mention WP:NOT a soapbox.--Jersey Devil 04:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Um... huh? Discussing article changes out of bounds? Noting that Johnson was brought into office by the National Union Party, opposed by the Democrats, is a POV? Settler 05:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I was referring to the other user making edits on the page solely for the purpose of proving a point made in the Free Republic talk page.--Jersey Devil 05:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, ok. I got confused for a minute there. I'll get back to my usual editing then. Cheers. Settler 05:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

User:BryanFromPalatine promised to add negative info into 'left of center' org's articles, and said he would add serial killer John Wayne Gacy to this page. He's upset that Freeper and alleged Fake Anthrax letter terrorist Chad Castagana, who was arrested only weeks ago, is included in the Free Repubic article. - F.A.A.F.A. 06:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

For all practical purposes, no political organization (like Free Republic or the Democratic Party) can run background checks on the people who join -- or vote for it, in the case of a political party. The best that it can do is throw out people who are guilty of misconduct, once they become aware of that misconduct. Chad Castagana has been repeatedly banned from Free Republic, and yet there is a persistent effort on the part of certain editors here to include references to him, and to all other members of Free Republic who ever did anything naughty (such as the individual from Democratic Underground who opened an FR account in order to post personal information about the owner of Chuy's Restaurant). Until I came along, the only issues being discussed over there was not WHETHER, but HOW the information about them should be included.

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Turnabout is fair play. What goes around, comes around. If it is appropriate for Wikipedia to include information about Chad Castagana and the Chuy's personal information posts in the FR article, then it is appropriate to include information about every registered Democratic voter who was ever arrested for a crime in the Democratic Party article; it is appropriate to include information about every person who ever had an account at DU and was ever arrested for a crime in the DU article; etc., etc. Pick a policy and apply it equally across the board. I kind of like the policy proposed by Jerseyko: they "... are inappropriate to list in *this* article (but not in the individuals' articles) per WP:NPOV#Undue weight ..." If that policy is applied to such temporary members of Free Republic as Chad Castagana, and similar incidences in articles about conservative organizations, with the same promptness and vigor that Jerseyko has displayed here, you can watch carefully as I quietly fade away. BryanFromPalatine 12:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You say "turnabout is fair play," . . . . except that those of us editing this article aren't "playing" at Free Republic, so there's no "turnabout". Jersey Devil's right, you really need to read Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Finally, I wasn't "proposing" policy, I was interpreting the undue weight policy to make an editorial decision (good luck trying to interpret it to delete the one controversy from the Free Republic article). · j e r s y k o talk · 14:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with Jersyko here. This is a venue for academic interest, not political jingoism. Those individual controversies are based covered in individual politician's article, and already are.--Primal Chaos 20:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Most of the Castagana info was deleted from the article. It used to say:

"Free Republic founder Jim Robinson aknowledged that Castagana had been a poster at Free Republic, and had been the subject of bannings in the past. Robinson noted that Castagana's last username had been Marc Costanzo. The posts in question were determined to be Castagana's by examination of the IP logs, admitted Robinson."

"Castagana wrote about the letter-threat incidents on Free Republic, in one case noting Keith Olbermann's reported reaction to receiving one of the letters Castagana is alleged to have sent. Castagana, posting as Costanzo whose sig line read "Name your poison", wrote on Free Republic on 10-30-2006 regarding the Olbermann letter-threat "I do not believe he sent it to himself. But that is just guess work." and "I heard from a liberal blog that Olbermann was a prima donna at the hospital..."

That's notable info for the FR article, just like the Killian Docs, and Jerome Corsi. I can understand that you are upset that a fellow freeper is an anti-semetic domestic terrorist wannabe, but your actions are innappropriate. Take your concerns to the FR talk page, or an RfC. Thanks - F.A.A.F.A. 05:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

"Democrat Party"

Should the use of the term "Democrat Party" by opponents of the Democratic Party be discussed somewhere in this article? See the discussion at this article: Democrat Party (phrase). Wiki, believe it or not, actually has an article called "Democrat Party"! Griot 09:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

with 1 million google hits on "Democrat Party" it's notable , especially since Bush and many leading Republicans and talk radio types favor the term.Rjensen 09:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

But you don't know what those hits are. To blogs? To "Democrat Parties" in Liberia. Please, let's not substitute finger-wiggling

over they keyboard for scholarly investigation. Griot 18:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

we do know that in Indiana, one state that requires political organizations to legally incorporate with the Secretary of State, there are 34 local groups with "Democrat" as part of their legal name) versus 226 that use "Democratic"). These seem to be active local clubs. (Brown County is the official county organization). Alphabetically the first few are as follows: 17TH DISTRICT DEMOCRAT CLUB, INC.; INDIANAPOLIS, IN 17TH WARD DEMOCRAT CLUB INC; ANDREW JACKSON DEMOCRAT CLUB OF TIPPECANOE COUNTY IN; BLOOMFIELD DEMOCRAT INCORP; BROWN COUNTY DEMOCRAT CENTRAL COMMITTEE CORPORATION; CITY OF PORTAGE DEMOCRAT CLUB; CLARK COUNTY DEMOCRAT MEN'S CLUB, INC.; and CLINTON COUNTY DEMOCRAT CLUB INC. source: [2]. The point: when you get a lawyer and file with the state government, 10-15% of the local clubs use the term "Democrat" . This shows the terminology is reasonably widespread in and out of the Democratic party.Rjensen 18:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

In other words, more than 85-90% of the clubs are against it, for BLOOMFIELD DEMOCRAT and similar cases use the noun, not the adjective; there is consensus against it within the Democratic Party of (red) Indiana. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that "Democratic" is favored by 80-90% of Democrats; and perhaps half the prominent Republicans and conservatives. But the fact that so many Dems officially use the "Democrat-adjective" version suggests there is no deep hostility to its use at the Dem party grass roots. Rjensen 19:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Amd much of that 90% is deeply hostile, as the sources at Democrat Party (phrase) say; both as a partisan offense and on grammatical grounds. It is a very rare proposal indeed that can't get 10% adherents. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with the various political epithets being made into separate articles, and made my views clear in the past about that particular one, but if the alternative is to merge that whole article into this one, I would be against that. At the moment there's a whole sentence or two about it now in this article. I suppose one more could be added. Don't anyone mark me down as being tenacious about doing that either... Settler 09:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

No. Not because I see any offensiveness in it, I am not a Democrat I do not care, but it is no different than people saying "Republics" in reference to Republicans. Most of the time it is just a misspelling or mispronunciation. --Revolución hablar ver 15:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

"Most of the time it is just a misspelling or mispronunciation." I mean absolutely no offense, Revolución, but I think a healthier dose of political cynicism is in order. For example, allow me to introduce you to Frank Luntz . . . ;) · j e r s y k o talk · 15:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

It may interest one to know tho that in Spanish the name for the U.S. Democratic Party is Partido Demócrata which does literally mean "Democrat Party", instead of Partido Democrático, which of course means "Democratic Party". This Spanish version is on the official Democratic Party website. --Revolución hablar ver 15:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The Democratic Party Ideology: Centrist or Center-Left?

This is probably a debate that will last for months, so we might as well start it now--that is, the depiction of the Democratic Party as a party of the political center.

I personally do think that the term "centrist" does describe the party--especially in recent years with the rise of the DLC and the centrist candidates in the 2006 elections. However, this should be coupled with "populist" in the ideology tag of the party infobox for the reason that those candidates have shown economically interventionist policies and other causes that are considered "populist" to their constituents.

Finally, the terms "liberal" is something that should be kept, because there are liberals and progressives in the party. KruusCosko 19:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The term "liberal" should not be kept, or at least changed to "social liberalism" as is, perhaps, more accurate. The party's stance on economics may represent the american definition of liberalism, but not the global one. The democratic party is the closest thing the united states has to a functioning social democratic party in the vein of New Labour, not a liberal party like the FDP in germany, or the Venstre in Denmark.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.130.128.18 (talk • contribs).

Also, is there a purpose to having both "liberalism" and "social liberalism" in the same infobox? How about we just get rid of "liberalism", because "social liberalism" sort of speaks for itself. KruusCosko 03:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The wikilink to liberalism points to Modern liberalism in the United States. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 03:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to label The Republican Party "right wing" and "centre-right" you should definitely label the Democrats' "left wing" and "centre-left" especially considering the views of Hillary Clinton, Barrack Obama, and John Edwards, the leading candidates for the Democratic nomination for President, all favoring universal health care, Hillary saying "the free market has failed", and John Edwards' assertion that there is no real "War on Terror". In this poster's humble opinion, there is not "centre" in the American political spectrum right now as the bases of the party represent that party's core values and the Democratic Party defintely represents a more left-wing point of view. It's okay to hold this view, but just because you hold it does not make in the moderate view of the United States, esepcially considering the Republicans' being called "right wing" Mediaman2007 05:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)mediaman2007

We've already covered this elsewhere, but the use of "left wing" would not represent a worldwide view. The US leans pretty far to the right in general, so the Democratic Party actually lies somewhere near the middle, probably even a little to the right, in the global scheme of politics. There aren't even any major "left wing" parties in the United States; the Socialist Party USA and CPUSA are relatively minor. Even the Green Party is only center-left when compared with parties in other countries. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 05:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the Democratic party of the USA is definitely centre right, rather than left. The liberal party of Canada which is further to the left than the Democrats is generally considered centre. There is no real left wing party in the USA with any significant power.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.108.114.173 (talk • contribs).

Proposed issues to resolve

(1) An editor has suggested that this article is too long and is in need of work in reducing its length.
(2) Another editor has expressed the opinion that there are too many images.
(3) Finding a reputable citation for "Andrew Jackass" that's not just some other article using this Wikipedia article as its original source.

As for (1), I started cutting down the size of the 21st century history until part of it was unfortunately readded by another editor. Obviously whatever edits I or anyone else makes may not be satisfactory to everyone.
(2), I've removed various photos in the past, and added some; what looks good at resolutions of 800x600 or 1024x768 does not look so great at higher resolutions or on widescreen displays. I'll probably remove a portrait or photo or two shortly and move another around but I suppose it's worth having the discussion.
(3) is rather self-explanatory. Settler 03:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed a portrait of Speaker "Champ" Clark, moved Wilson's and O'Neill's, and removed Obama's because he is neither a president, speaker, nominee, nor leader of the Democratic Party. His photo could replace Clinton's in the future should something change in regards to this party's future presidential nomination. Settler 04:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I like the pictures, but I won't argue if others think there are too many :(. Summary style might be useful, though. · j e r s y k o talk · 04:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I revised the paragraph "According to one theory, in its original form, the jackass was born in the intense mudslinging that occurred during the presidential race of 1828 as a play on the name of Andrew Jackson, the Democratic candidate. Jackson had been called "Andrew Jackass," and the defiant Jackson adopted the nickname," until a reliable source or scholar can be found for the claim, particularly one that doesn't appear to be so modern as to be using Wikipedia itself. Settler 09:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, let me first say that the elected "progressive" wing of the party is just as numerous as the elected "conservative" wing of the party. Also, I object to the placement of the label "center-left" because by normal standards the Democratic Party is overall a right-wing party. Therefore, I propose the following sets of ideological identifiers:

Centrism
Liberalism
Neo-liberalism

or

Centrism
Liberalism
Progressivism
Neo-liberalism
Conservatism

Thoughts? --Revolución hablar ver 04:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

With respect, I disagree. If "normal standards" are European Democratic Socialist parties, yes, the Democratic Party *might* be termed a "conservative" party. Even that label is arguable, however, as I would argue that it is more accurately centrist by European standards (think social issues, for example). However, it is certainly not conservative by Latin American standards (nor is it leftist by those standards), African standards, or Asian standards. And it is not conservative in terms of American political norms. Yes, some members of the Party are further to the right than others. However, the sheer numbers of Democratic Party members in the House that support things like these pieces of legislation demonstrate that the Party is not a conservative party. As a more concrete example, let's look at the label neo-liberalism as applied to the Party: a strong neo-liberal would eschew talk of raising the minimum wage (and would most likely argue that it should be eliminated completely), while the Democratic Party in the House voted with no intra-party dissent to raise it. While the Democratic Party perhaps has a neo-liberal streak, I believe it's wrong to use it as one of the main descriptors of the Party. Thanks. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Conservative how? Socially, or economically? The fact is that America doesn't have any choices available for true conservatives or true liberals, just two irritatingly hypocritical centrist parties, one economically liberal and socially conservative, the other economically conservative and socially liberal. From the viewpoint of a person who is liberal on both topics, neither party is very appealing at all. Politics is not so one-dimensional; a single word can't describe a political party. Kasreyn 22:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Stop saying that it is center-left. Anything even slightly to the left in this country is considered communist and will not earn as much as a seat. I would even put that it is center-right but I don't want to get into pointless arguments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cff12345 (talk • contribs)

The Demoratic party is ABSOLUTELY center-left. Left wing would be the Socialist Party or the Communist party. Saying "center left" does not imply that the party is a "centrist" party, it just means that they are not the extreme left wing. DanielZimmerman 21:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Comparing the platforms of most center-left governments to that of the US Democratic Party, you'll find that the US tends to be more center and conservative than the traditional center-left parties. I wouldn't call it conservative (though arguably it is on some issues), but I do believe centrist is an accurate definition. It's definitely less socialist than traditional center-left parties, but that is due to the hostility shown by most Americans to that term. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Stop changing it back to center-left already! The Democratic Party is often very liberal and supports state funding and control of lots of programs but not so much as to make it left of center. And do not remove this discussion entry like you did last time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cff12345 (talk • contribs).

No discussion was removed. Perhaps it's in the archive of this talk page. What, exactly, are you calling the "center"? The European center? In American terms, the Democratic Party is centrist, center-left, and liberal (generally accepted to be the "left" in American terms). You seem to agree that it's both liberal and centrist, but don't like the center-left descriptor. Again, in American terms, it's somewhat illogical to refer to the party as centrist and liberal but not something between the two. For what it's worth, I agree with you that, in an international sense, the Democratic Party is more centrist than, say, most democratic socialist parties. Perhaps all of this could be resolved if the link to the center left article were merely removed, leaving only the descriptor. · j e r s y k o talk · 03:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I moved your post to the bottom of the page, because that is where it is supposed to be. That is where new topics belong. See the talkheader. Settler 17:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

This user is trying to push a WP:POV. I personally believe that both center and center-left should been in the infobox.--Jersey Devil 00:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

"Generally parties of the centre-right support liberal democracy, capitalism, and the market economy, private property rights and the existence of the welfare state in some form..." - you see, isn't it true that you could call the Democratic Party a center-right party as well? I believe this is the argument that Cff12345 is making - as CENTRISM is used to describe the location of international political parties in relation to one another in terms of economy and liberties. Thus, I think it's not a good argument to suggest that we use the term "centrism" relative to typical American ideology, as this article is really supposed to remove the reader from such a bias as relativism. Other users have noted that the Democrats promote intervention in the economy which is something in common with Center-left. However, the same argument could be made using the definition of Center-Right. Consequently, the Democratic Party has THE MOST in common with actual centrism itself and so should be given this label instead. I'm removing Center-left from the page, and if another user must add it again, I'd expect a better argument than the fact that the Democratic Party is center-left by American standards. Rob Shepard 18:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Bring back the better photo of the Democratic party donkey!!! The photo of the donkey mascot at the beginning this article is not as good as the older one. Sfrostee 5 May 2007

Fringe POVs

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. In other words, views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all. (a)

A user has been promoting the inclusion of a conspiratorial article created yesterday, mostly revolving around a person without a biography here, (Mr. Hassan Nemazee). Fringe views about Iran illegally funding and controlling/influencing the Democratic Party do not belong in this article. That is not to claim their future guilt or innocence in this supposed matter. Settler 05:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The entire article seems to be wild speculation and original research. I suspect it would not survive Afd. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Oldest political party?

This topic has been discussed many times before, and a concensus was reached that the Democratic Party is the oldest in the world. Before commenting below, please read the archived discussion of editors who came before you:

Thanks in advance... Griot 20:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The footnote states that "The British Parliamentary parties were not based on the voters until the mid 19th century." I don't see how this makes them other than political parties. Rich Farmbrough, 21:34 8 January 2007 (GMT).

Yeah it seems like quite a bold assumption that nobody in the world thought of an idea to make a political union with like minded people with rules and regulations for 6,000 years prior to the Democratic party to contest elections. Anyway the Whigs and the Tories were close enough to be considered political parties, they just wouldn't be under the current standards. The footnote is probably referring to the rebranding into the Liberal and Conservative parties. Although I would like to know what "Based on the voters" means. I'd rather it was changed, I'm not american so I don't know 18th century US politics, but being the first American political party is still a strong feit in itself, to claim its the first in the world as an absolute fact isn't really something that can be proved. Mikebloke 07:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The British "parties" were factions in Parliament. Voters did not count. The American parties started that way but by the late 1790s they were rooted in the electorate--a system Britain adopted years later. Historians have been pretty good in tracking political history of every country, so their results are reasonably sound. Two recent British scholars say: "the Democratic Party has a good claim to being the world's oldest political party" [ John Micklethwait & Adrian Wooldridge The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America (2004) - Page 315]; a leading historian says:

"The Democratic party still survives as an institution (it is the oldest political party in the world)" [from D W Howe, The Political Culture of the American Whigs (1984) - Page 12]; from political science: "the Democratic party in American politics—the oldest political party in the world." [Gary L. Rose, The American Presidency Under Siege - (1997) Page 151]. Rjensen 09:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The assertion that "voters did not count" in the old British Parliament is inaccurate. Although the franchise was only extended gradually, ever since 1265 the parliament contained representatives of the commons, who were elected by all freehold landowners with rent in excess of forty shillings. Beneficientor 16:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The oldest party in the world ? But it seems to be the scission of the "democrat-republican party" in 1915, and the "labour", in UK, has been created in 1906.

Can the information "oldest party in the world" be prooved ? If not, it seems that it have to be removed. Asr 11:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I would ask one question : is it such important ? What about a sentence like "The party has roots on oldest partys created by Jeffersen & co" ? Therefore, it may be possible to discuss about the color of the holy grail, but is it really necessary ? Asr 12:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no comment on most of your note, but I would note that the Democratic-Republican Party's split pre-dates 1915 by almost 100 years. · jersyko talk 13:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a common claim of their presidents as well. President Clinton described his party as "the oldest political party in all of democracy anywhere." [3] President Kennedy said "The Democratic Party is the oldest political party in the world" [4] [5] [6] [7], Carter said his party was the "the oldest continuing political party in the world" [8] [9], etc.
Perhaps it could be slightly rewritten to eliminate the trailing footnote. Settler 10:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It might be that both Clinton and Kennedy said that, but without any proof, that's only their opinion. --Sibenordy 22:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it should be asserted as clearly as that. Some Liberal Democrats talk of an existence since 1679. Though that's pushing it, and the Democrats had a greater organization that the Whigs/Liberals, I think 'oldest political organization' might be more accurate (unless another has a similar claim). William Quill 11:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Political organization seems to be a more convenient formulation. Asr 12:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to disagree with the above point. The British Conservative Party is an evolution of the Tory factions and as such can trace its history back to 1671 and the reign of King James II. The Democrats may be the oldest in terms of formal organisation, however, the 'Conservative' label is one that slowly developed over time...the modern day party is a continuation of the old, not a break with it, making it the world's oldest political party by quite some distance. This article should state the Democrats as being the oldest surviving liberal party and the second oldest party overall in the world.

This debate critically needs to come to a conclusion, because at the moment the Wikipedia entries on the American Democratic Party and the British Conservative Party both claim that they are the oldest political parties in the world. This is a discrepancy which must be resolved and clearly one or both are going to have to lose the title. I'd go for both, since there's the complication of the equally old Whig - Liberal - Liberal Democrat lineage as well. It seems to me that the best compromise, for the time being, would be to alter the wording in this article to go with the previously suggested "the oldest political party in the United States" and to include a note somewhere, perhaps in the history section, mentioning the possible claim to being the oldest in the world, and the various complicating factors. Beneficientor 16:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The way I heard it, there is some debate over whether the UK Conservative Party really evolved from the early Tory parliamentary groupings of the eighteenth century. In any case, the American Democratic Party existed in its current name in 1825, which isn't true of the UK Conservatives. Griot 19:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This is all a bit confused on both sides. From the Conservative end I'd refer everyone to two posts on the Conservative History blog one by myslef skirting through some of the issues and another looking further. See particularly the comments.

There are a lot of issues but in summary:

What exactly constitutes a political party?

Does a formal constitution matter? (The Conservatives didn't adopt one until 1998.)

When did Danby's Tory Party emerge - the 1640s? The 1670s?

Is there a continuity of this party throughout the 18th century? (One side seems to see a rump Tory party that never quite went away and which attached itself to the Pittites. Another sees the 1760s to the 1780s as a period when the old parties dissolved into personalised factions, with the 19th century Tories and Whigs being the emergent Pittite and Foxite factions.)

When exactly did the "followers of Mr. Pitt" become the "Tory Party"?

Is Peel's Conservative Party a new entity or Liverpool's Tory Party under a new name (after the turbulance of 1827-1834)?

Are "Tory" and "Conservative" synonomous? (Does the continued use of "Tory" by some supporters, detractors and newspaper editors short of headline space mean anything more than laziness?)

When the party split in 1846, did Derby (and later Disraeli) seize control of the party, did Peel, or did both the "Protectionists" and "Peelites" become separate parties, with the former later adopting the Conservative name?

Does the merger with the Liberal Unionist Party in 1912 and the adoption of the formal title "Conservative & Unionist Party" in any way "reset the clock"? (There's similar debate over the "Progressive Conservative Party" in Canada.)

What about the absorption of the National Liberals in 1947?

Much of this is far from clearcut, and many of the issues have their parrallels for the US Democrats. I don't think either party can be rigidly assessed to modern standards to produce one clearcut date over another. Timrollpickering 14:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Someone recently deleted the entire article and replaced it with some incomprehensible garbage. Please restore the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.107.214.143 (talk) 07:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

I second the above post - there's something wrong with this article that doesn't show up on the edit page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mchandl5 (talk • contribs)

It looks fine to me. What specific edit(s) are people suspicious of? Settler 19:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I just caught someone sneakily vandalizing this talk page by editing this article. Annoying. Settler 19:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Woah. I fired up Internet Explorer (which I usually avoid) while not logged in and the page was heavily vandalized. Now I see what you mean. But then I hit refresh and the vandalism disappeared. If I clear the browser cache, and refresh, the vandalism reappears. Specifically, it is this vandalism in question. Settler 21:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I checked the templates used in this article, too, and none of them appear to have been vandalized recently. Odd that one incident of vandalism resulted in so many comments here. · j e r s y k o talk · 21:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Log out, and completely clear your browser cache, and then check the article. The vandalism is stuck on the page. That's a problem. Settler 21:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

On further experimentation, it seems to not affect other browsers that I've tested besides Internet Explorer. Settler 21:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I never use IE, but I got the vandalized version when I checked the page without logging in. When I checked it a second time (after closing IE and reopening), however, it was fine. I wonder if this warrants mention at WP:ANI, or if it's just a bug that will work itself out soon. · j e r s y k o talk · 22:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

The New Democrats, Centrists and the DLC was singled out for criticism under the Factions section so I removed it; I do that as well as under the justification of helping to reduce this article's length. The briefest of overviews probably doesn't need it anyway as it is more appropriately dealt with under the linked articles in that section. Settler 02:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Liberal anti-abortion/pro-lifers

Reliable source(s) are needed for "Not all pro-life Democrats are conservative Democrats, however. Many are quite liberal, in fact." because a similar phrase was asked for a citation a while back by another editor and none ever came. And "in fact" is a form of a weasel word when constructing an article, particularly without attribution. Once reliably sourced, it could be reintegrated with better writing. Settler 07:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I would guess the intended referent is the late Robert P. Casey of Pennsylvania, or his son, Bob Casey, Jr.. Pro-life issues aside, neither is a conservative Democrat, strictly speaking; and the son is fairly liberal on several issues. I'm sure there are other instances, and that this, with some effort, can be sourced. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The long article

this is the longest article i have seen on wikipedia. it desperately needs to be split upMissy1234 01:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Some articles have this one (it currently ranks as the 383rd longest article) beat, but there's room for improvement. Settler 02:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

One of the reasons why this article is so long is that there is some good but lengthy information here about the DNC under the 'Organization' section. I'm thinking about moving it to the DNC article unless its already there. Oleanna1104 20:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, some topics should be moved to relevant subpages. This page should still exist though. I am removing the {{split}} template. --Apoc2400 12:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Corruption

I reverted an addition of the following passage after a seperate poster pointed out it is a better fit in other articles:

According to exit polls, corruption was a key issue for many voters.^[1]

I have to agree that it doesn't belong in the article as it is written. Maybe it is placement? It seems out of context. In my view, the article is discussing the make-up of the current democratic party, then this passage pops up out of nowhere, discussing exit polls for the mid-term elections? Why? I think I understand the point you are trying to make but it seems to be a point better made in the page for the 2006 Midterm Elections. Anyway, have a nice night. CraigMonroe 04:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with the above comment. The page is long enough as it is.--Jersey Devil 04:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Room for improvement, sure. The Microsoft article, a featured article, is now longer (maybe not in pure prose), and they have only been around since the 1970s. It's sort of unfair in a way to hold organizations much older to the same length standard. Since the "toolong" header was added to the article, approximately 13KB has been shaved from the article, mostly through my efforts, with a spin-off article and condensing multiple paragraphs down to a few sentences here and there among other things. Settler 05:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It's already on the 2006 midterm election page, as I wrote in the edit summary. Corruption was cited by voters as the key (or most resonate) issue for why they voted the way they did and journalists noted those that named it were more likely voted for the Democrats. I'd sooner get rid of "Negative public opinion on the war in Iraq, along with widespread dissatisfaction among conservatives over government spending, dragged President Bush's job approval ratings down to the lowest levels of his presidency" than get rid of what voters told the exit polls and the analysis: "Three-fourths of voters said corruption and scandal were important to their votes, and they were more likely to vote for Democratic candidates for the House. Iraq was important for just two-thirds, and they also leaned toward supporting Democrats. Voters who said terrorism was an important issue split their support between the two parties." [10] There used to be plenty of polling cited in this article (mostly pre-2006 election polls and the like until they became outdated) and the 2008 outlook section incorporates polling. The Republican Party article incorporates a lot of interesting exit polling. The 21st century section is supposed to be for recent history, not the makeup of the "current democratic party" I've been tempted to move the whole geography paragraph somewhere else but it might require renaming another section or creating a new one. Settler 04:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

While I think both Settler and those contra have a point (I won't jump into the discussion fully), I do want to say that I'm not really sure how one short sentence is contributing that much to the article's length. Cheers. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Membership

How many registered members does the Democratic Party have? —Preceding unsigned comment added by StudentSteve (talk • contribs)

Nuetral?

I honestly don't think that this article is very nuetral. It seems as if in some areas they talk about how the demecrats were better off in then republicans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prep111 (talk • contribs)

This bias appears in the Ideology & Voter Base area. To say that Democrats are pro-civil rights masks the fact that they commonly oppose some civil rights: gun ownership, economic freedom, freedom from non-merit based discrimination, military draft avoidance, etc. I haven't figured out a good way to edit this yet.Twslandlord 14:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Civil rights, according to my handy Webster's, is "the rights to full legal, social, and economic equality, especially regarding minorities", and especially meaning the rights guaranteed the 13th and 14th amendment. So, most of your citations about gun ownership, etc., really don't match up. Now, while you might want to debate economic freedoms (as oppose to equality) and various other rights (like gun ownership), these don't fall under "civil rights" as a category.--Primal Chaos 19:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

1992 - 1976 = 16

I'm Swedish and maybe I don't get the all the words and nuances correct, so please don't hesitate to correct me on this. This article states that when Clinton was elected in 1992, that was the first time in 12 years that a democrat was elected. I corrected this a while ago to 16 years. A democrat was elected in 1976 (Carter) and in the following three elections republicans were elected (1980+1984: Reagan, 1988 Bush). So, in 1992 there had been 16 years since a democrat was last elected. Therefore, I once again change to 16 from 12. But please, as this maybe is a very specific English construction, do inform me on this and do correct my upcoming edit of the article. --Astor Piazzolla 15:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I think, perhaps, that editors are mistaking "for the first time in 16 years, the United States elected a Democrat to the White House" for "for the first time in 16 years, a Democrat was serving in the White House". Don't sell your English short ;) · j e r s y k o talk · 15:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks mate. (Is that proper English?). Won't sell it short. There's no taker at a reasonable level! --Astor Piazzolla 09:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Vietnam

I removed this sentence, as massive oversimplification:

The Vietnam War in the 1960s opened a split on foreign military intervention that persists into the 21st century.

The Vietnam War was escalated by Democrats; and opposed by several Republicans. The Kosovo intervention was conducted by a Democrat, largely supported by his party, and largely opposed by the Republicans.

This is a conclusion, from a history still in progress; Wikipedia should not be drawing such conclusions, and certainly not in an intro; they're not consensus among the secondary sources, much less here.

I've done other rewriting; I would appreciate it if does who disagree with parts of the edit would edit further, not massively revert. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how that statement is anything but correct. The Vietnam War was escalated and begun by the Democrats but it also caused a large split in the Democratic Party between the Johnson-Humphrey establishment types and the RFK-McCarty-McGovern types. That is why Johnson didn't even run for a second term, because people within his own party were running against him because of the war.--Jersey Devil 20:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The sentence did not read like it intended a split within the Democratic Party, which I agree Vietnam did cause; but I find very dubious that that split still continues; or lasted past Scoop Jackson's death. Something should be said about Vietnam, but this? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Centre-left??

I saw in the political party box that the Democratic Party is "centre-left." That is quite untrue; the Democrats are, especially from a more international point of view, centre-right. Many of their tenets, including liberalism, are centre-right as well. -Anonymous —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.232.110.111 (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

I agree pretty much. I know America is a very right country (traditionally the capitalistic country), but centre-left isn't really a good classification from an international POV. The Democratic Party is further to the right than the 4-5 largest political parties in the Netherlands (where I live). What about centre-right, and then make the Republican Party right-conservative? I realise these terms are relative (inhabitants of the former USSR would probably classify the Democratic Party as extreme-right), but this is more internationally correct. Salaskan 18:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I've already made several arguments essentially concurring with yours. I've changed the article in the past so that it has read "Centrist," believing that this would be a fair compromise to biased editors from the right... Yet it was changed again to Center-Left as one editor "feels" that the Democratic Party is not centrist. In my most recent edit I left the "center-left" title but added "centrism" hoping that this would be some sort of reconciliation, though I entirely agree with you that the "center-left" label is categorically incorrect. Rob Shepard 22:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the people who reverted your neutrality edit do not reply on this talk page, so I guess we can put it back. Perhaps something like 'progressive right (international POV) / centre-left (American POV)? Salaskan 18:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I think "Centrist" would be a good compromise. If editors feel that that places them too far right, then they can express those sentiments here, rather than reverting without discussion. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 06:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Cielomobile, please look at the discussion above this section on the issue. There has been long discussion on this and you can not base a consensus for just "Centrism" based on this section. I think adding "Center-left" and "Centrism" would be the most logical solution to the current discussion.--Jersey Devil 11:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I have been involved in this discussion before. I maintain that the Democratic Party is controlled by the right-wing and centrists. However, most supporters are center-left. The article should reflect this. So I have put all three Liberalism, Centrism, and Conservatism in the political ideology, and Center-left, Centrism, and Center-right in the political position. Some may strongly object to my inclusion of conservatism but this is a fact, see Blue Dog Democrats. For those that object to Centrism, see New Democrats or Democratic Leadership Council. --Revolución hablar ver 12:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

And actually the DLC actually is more of a center-right organization, but they include many self-described "moderates" a.k.a. "centrists". --Revolución hablar ver 13:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, how about this... what if we just did away with these "ideology" and "position" categories for the infobox? Honestly, both major parties are big-tent parties with members on all far reaching "sides of the aisle". There are extremists, ideologues, moderates, centrists, liberals, conservatives, wing-nuts, crazy-as-a-horse motha's, normal, swing-voters, independents, etc. that would fall under both major parties. That's why labeling them is a nearly impossible task. And each person that comes along will disagree with one label or another, which leads to these long, drawn out edit and revert wars. Why have these at all? Wouldn't it save us all a lot of contention and work by just eliminating these two things? Maybe I am way off, but I think this would be a great start. Those parties that self-identify as having an ideology could still include these, but for the major parties that are big-tent parties, what ill could come from removing them? Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the categories do a lot for those from other countries genuinely interested in the ideology of the party. Perhaps a compromise of both "centre-left" and "centrist" would appease everyone? I strongly disagree with "conservatism" being listed in the infobox, however. There may be some conservative Democrats, but that is definitely not a central tenet of the party. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 18:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. If there are those who persist in considering the Democratic Party to be firmly "center-left" - I'm not one of them - then we can't really come to a better decision than to continue to include both "center-left" and "centrist". ObeliskBJM 20:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Another user decided to add in centre-right. It seems too me, however, that the only editors who follow this are socialists—Revolucion identifies himself as such on his userpage, and Salaskan is from the Netherlands and hence also probably socialist. Of course from the socialist viewpoint, the DP is centre-right, because they themselves are rather firmly left. We must realize that the international perspective includes everyone from communists to anarchists to monarchists. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 00:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Just for clarification, not everything to the left of the US (which is traditionally a capitalist and right-wing country, forgot the Cold War? Or the standpoints on liberal freedom rights and the influence of Christianity?), is "socialist". I am not a communist myself, if that bothers you. My opinion is that this page should reflect an international POV, too, and not just the American. If you'd take a random country and place the Democratic Party in the political spectrum, it is certainly quite right-wing. Perhaps not compared to the Republicans, but a governmental financial project even is something very unique, let alone things like reliable social security for everyone and such.

By the way, why is "probably a socialist" an argument for you to not take the opinion of "socialists" into account? Is it an inferior political ideology which is not viable or relevant? Your assumption of someone coming from the Netherlands always c.q. most often being a socialist seems like even more proof to me that America is relatively very right-wing. I really can't see why you object to my proposal of stating both an American POV and an international one; this seems like a good compromise to me. Salaskan 19:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not claiming that socialists have no credibility; I am only pointing out your possible bias, which is definitely relevant. As for its place internationally, the DP is definitely not in the right wing. Most states still have authoritarian, right-wing governments. Very few have socialist or even democratic socialist governments. Allow me to point out that capitalism is not automatically on the right side of the ideological spectrum; it extends pretty far to the left. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 02:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you have a 'possible bias' as well, as you also have a political opinion. By the way, capitalism definitely is right-wing, I don't know what your definition of left is... But naturally, it depends on how radically capitalist it is. If you compare, say, the social security in Germany and the U.S., you can say Germany is more left-wing despite both countries being capitalist. (I can say this as you claim that someone from the Netherlands is probably a socialist by definition:) You are American, and hence have a probable right-wing bias. Anyway, what is wrong with including BOTH an European (for your sake, and I can kinda comply with this as countries in Africa and the Middle-East are indeed often authoritative and right-wing) AND an American POV? Wouldn't that seem a nice compromise? Salaskan 00:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course there's a degree of relativism in this, but I personally still maintain that "centrist" is the most accurate description of the Democrats from an international perspective. Are Democrats like Nancy Pelosi or Ted Kennedy really that far to the right of Gerhard Schroeder or Romano Prodi - not to mention Tony Blair? I think that what is being confused in this situation are ideology and institutions: Schroeder's SPD, for instance, may appear quite leftist to certain Americans, but it's really not so much the party ideology that makes it appear so - rather, it's the fact that the SPD operates within an already existing social-democratic system. That's a matter of opinion, admittedly, but I think that there is some evidence to back it up. If you look at the German political party compass, for instance, and compare it to the US 2004 presidential election political compass, you'll find that the SPD and John Kerry occupy a very similar position. Anyway, that's just my take on the conflicting views of the Democrats from a US and an international perspective. I still believe that "centrist" best describes the Democrats but am willing to compromise, if necessary, to include "center-left" as well. ObeliskBJM^talk 02:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, I think that the inclusion of both is a fair compromise. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 05:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Obelisk-BJM writes: "Of course there's a degree of relativism in this, but I personally still maintain that "centrist" is the most accurate description of the Democrats from an international perspective." You correctly qualify your comment by stating that it's "from an internationalist perspective". Our problem here is that there's more than one relevant perspective. Internationally (at least among industrialized Western democracies), the Democractic Party is center-right. From the American perspective, "center-left" is an accurate description. Because of this inherent imprecision, I agree with Cielomobile that including both is the best alternative. JamesMLane t c 05:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Leaving centrist and center-left is fine... I guess. I do know labeling the Democratic Party as the most left of the American or international political spectrum is totally out of line. Settler 20:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The Congressional Progressive Caucus is the largest caucus in the House, and they're left-of-center. 1ne 21:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Conservative Democrats also form a significant portion of the Democratic Party, though, and they would even be considered center-right. We have already discussed this in detail above; please do not make anymore changes without discussing them first and reaching consensus. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 08:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

They're not the largest part of the Democratic Party, though. There's a lot of center-left Republicans, like Lincoln Chafee. Should center-left or centrism be listed as a part of the Republican Party? No. And another pointer, don't SHOUT at me when you're REVERTING me. It looks like you're being INCIVIL, Cielomobile. Another reminder...consensus isn't set in stone. 1ne 12:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry about the capitals; I just wanted to place emphasis on the word only, but it didn't come out the right way. Pretend it was italics. Anyway, I do not know enough about Chafee's economic policy to determine where he stands on the scale, so I would hesitate to call him center-left. Besides, he is a RINO; just look at his article. He appears to be considering a party switch and even said that the country was better off with a Democrat-controlled Congress.

The problem here is that you are not considering foreign policy and the economic position of the party in relation to socialism and communism, which are still powerful forces in the world. The United States is not at the "center" in terms of global politics; it is considerably to the right, especially when it comes to foreign policy. Even the Democrats in large voted for the the authorization of force in Iraq in 2003, while the rest of the world in large voted against the use of force in Iraq.

Allow me to provide a little scale of ideology as it relates to economic politics around the globe:

Left wing = Communism, socialism

Center-left = Democratic socialism, social democracy (either socialism with capitalist aspects or capitalism with socialist aspects)

Center = Capitalism, with a balance between a free market economy and some government regulation (e.g. the Third Way, as seen in the policies of Bill Clinton)

Center-right = Free market capitalism, with some government regulation of the economy

Right wing = Complete free market economy

Of course, there are other factors, like foreign policy, social policy, etc., but it becomes much more difficult to determine a specific place on the scale when taking these into account. If you look at the political compass on the 2004 US elections, you will see that John Kerry is actually center-right. You will also see that the Green Party is center-left, not left-wing, and the Green Party is considerably further left than the Democratic Party, at least in terms of US politics.

Anyway, I would actually prefer more than one area for political standing in the infobox: one for economic policy and one for social policy. The Nazi Party, for instance, is considered right-wing, but economically, they were pretty close to the center. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 17:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with that, the Democratic Party is in relative terms more left-wing on foreign/ideological policy and more right-wing on economical policy. We could perhaps add that? Salaskan 13:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I have written on the talk page of {{Infobox American Political Party}}; so if editors agree there, we'll change the infobox template itself. No one has responded yet, but I want to give it a couple of days. Anyway, I still think that the Democratic Party falls pretty squarely into the "centrist" area for economics. Bill Clinton is a perfect example of a centrist when it comes to economic policy. Many Democrats are even center-left; take Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Lee, or any number of other especially leftist Democrats. I believe an editor mentioned above that the largest caucus in the House is the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which is center-left on both economic and social policy. If you actually look at the way mainstream Democrats like Clinton, Gore, and Kerry are defined by political scientists, they are pretty clearly economic centrists, see Third_Way#United_States. Can we agree then to place both center-left and centrist under the economic subheading?

As for the social policy subheading, I would suggest simply center-left. There are a good deal of social centrists in the party, but also a fair amount of straight-up progressives, so I think that center-left would be a happy medium. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 16:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The Democratic Party is definitely centre-left. --Checco 10:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is. By American standards, what is centrist in NL (a country w strict gun control, gay marriage and leagal drugs) may be perceived as quite left-leaning in the U.S. The Democratic Party's counterpart in Sweden for example would be the Center Party - because social liberalism may be seen as centrist in Sweden or the Neatherlands. In the U.S., however, social liberalism is a left-of-center ideology (centrist on economics; left on social issues). Furthermore, the Democratic Party is quite large -unlike Sweden or the UK- there are only two parties in the U.S. Both feautre quite an assortment of ideologies (i.e. liberatrians and the Christian Right sharing the GOP). Some Democrats are socially conservative organized labor loyalists, others are social liberals (econ-center; social-left) and yet others are socalists. Social liberalism tends to dominate the party -especially on economics; hence the Clintonesque centrist stance- on social issues the more progressive on socially conservative types need to constantly compromise. Pelosi is most likely in favor of legalizing gay-marriage -as are most actual liberals- but many moderate Dems arn't (especially in the org. labor wing). The center-left stance on social issues is the result of progressives and socially conservative organized labor types compromising. The centrist economic stance is the result of social liberals dominating the party's fiscal policy. Regards, Signature ^brendel 04:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

About the donkey symbol

An editor wished to know about the donkey symbol in relation to the DNC's website and has since commented it out of the article. The donkey icon used to be the favicon of the Democratic National Committee. Their blog is entitled, "Kicking Ass," as in a kicking donkey IIRC. The donkey symbol can be found presently used in their RSS feeds. Their "Democratic Donkey" history page claims they never officially adopted the symbol, but have made use of it. Settler 15:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it looks as though from the wording of the DNC and the dearth of the donkey as a symbol on thier official site that they are moving away from that. Knowing the history of the association of the donkey with the democratic party (Andrew Jackson jujitsuing an insult) one would think that wouldn't be the case. (→Netscott) 16:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

International membership

Though it took me forever to find the offical information, the U.S. Democratic Party is a member of the Alliance of American and European Democrats. Rblue 23:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking that up. I've added it to the infobox. ObeliskBJM^talk 14:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

If the little snippet in the info box is too misleading, should a section be added to describe the party’s international affiliation(s). Rblue 17:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Merging entire history into main history article

I'm contemplating moving the entire history in this article over to the History of the United States Democratic Party article, leaving a skeletal article summary behind--as has been brought up in prior discussions about the article being too long. Before I embark upon the arduous task of doing all that, I thought I'd give at least 72 hours of prior warning. There's few things more annoying here than to do all that and have someone revert it. So, if you have a problem with it, out with it now. Ok. Settler 07:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea to me. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 08:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with the move as well. ObeliskBJM^talk 14:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Leave a tiny, bare-bones summary, but move the rest per WP:SUMMARY. Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Done, but it needs editing. Since the largest bulk of the history was about the 20th and 21st century, it's the most difficult to do justice to its contents. I think it needs the most editing without adding too much bloat or disproportionate emphasis. Settler 23:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Center-Left is insufficient as a social policy description

We have 'Center Left' as the social policy description in the template now. I think this should be changed, since the Center Left article itself refers primarily to economic theory and has little or no relation to social policy.

I would propose 'cultural liberalism' (or just Liberal, in the sense of favoring increased freedom for the individual) as the appropriate descriptor for the Dems, since they emphasize government non-interference with personal choices and have voiced stern opposition to the legislation of public morality.

I'd like other suggestions, but Center Left doesn't cut it.--Primal Chaos 18:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Cultural liberal or Liberal seems fine to me. john k 20:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Any single phrase is likely to be insufficient as a social-policy description. I'd agree with adding something to "center-left" but I don't think "center-left" should be dropped.

Also, "Liberal, in the sense of favoring increased freedom for the individual" is problematic. As between the two major U.S. parties, Democrats tend to give more support to individual rights in non-economic spheres than do Republicans; the latter are more willing to restrict abortion, prohibit same-sex marriage, infringe civil liberties, etc. Democrats, however, are more willing to restrict individual economic rights (for example, through minimum-wage laws). Even outside the economic sphere, Democrats are sometimes more in favor of government regulation than are Republicans (for example, handgun control). JamesMLane t c 21:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright, how about adding cultural liberalism to center-left for social policy? -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 01:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I've added cultural liberalism to the social policy, and I've also added social conservatism to the social policy of the Republican Party. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 01:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I've thought about this some more, and upon further reflection, cultural liberalism does not adequately describe their social policy, as environmentalism, gun control, and anti-militarism (or whatever term you would have) are also important components. Let's just keep ideological statements to the ideology section, and keep the position section simple. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 19:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Centre-left is ok. --Checco 10:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes center left may just be fine. I understand the concern voiced above, but please consider that the infobox places the "center-left" statement in ample context. The infobox states social liberalism and it's "sub-genre" American liberalism as the party's most prominent ideologies - all liberals are left-of-center on social issues (including classic liberals). In the Democratic party, however, liberals need to compromise with socially conservative "well-fare loyalists" - that is the organized labor working class vote. To be blunt, you have progressive intellectuals and facotry workers represented by the same party- the former is very socially progressive, the latter is conservative. In order to find common ground both wings compromise on a center-left social policy (liberals such as Pelosi, know they need to hide part of their agenda, such as gay-marriage, in order to retain a large share of the electorate). The term sums up perfectly the result of this internal compromise. Signature ^brendel 04:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

A Minor One Word Issue

Under the Unilateralism heading it says that "and Unilateralism has been blamed for the failures in Iraq." This is slightly biased against the war. I suggest changing the phrase to read "and Unilateralism has been blamed for the perceived failures in Iraq." It is a small change, but as the page is protected...Sorry for being nitpicky. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Myrdin Emries (talk • contribs) 20:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

I had it unprotected, so edit away! (Although Settler already tweaked that section per your request.) Mahalo. --Ali'i 21:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Oldest "Active" Party

Why declare that the Demo Pary is the "oldest active party." Why the word active? If I said, "Mrs. So and So is the oldest active person in the world," would that make sense to you? The word "active" is unnecessary in the context of the Democratic Party being the world's oldest political party, just as it is unnecessary in the context of declaring who the oldest person in the world is. A party is either the oldest or it's not the oldest. The word "active" is unneccessary and confusing. If you want to have discussion about which is the first political party ever formed, put it in a footnote. Putting the word "active" in this sentence is pedantic. Griot 16:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I understand the objection. The British Whig Party undoubtedly pre-dates the Democratic Party. Right? The British Whigs are no longer an active party, though the party is older than the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is a party that is active in politics today. Here's another example: Yone Minagawa states that she is the "oldest living person", not merely that she is the "oldest person", as other people have lived longer lifespans than she has. The qualifiers "living" and, in this case, "active" are helpful to the reader for the same reasons. A minor point, and I don't plan to make any further argument or otherwise stir the pot. I'll happily accept consensus on this point if one develops. · jersyko talk 16:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

In my book, it is only necessary for Yone Mingawa to say she is the "oldest person." There is no such thing as the "oldest dead person," which makes stating that she is the "oldest living person" unnecessary. Agreed: this is a minor point. I bring it up, however, because putting the confusing "oldest active party" in the second sentence of this article is jarring and starts this article off on a bad foot. The primary goal of writing is to help the reader understand without getting bogged down in semantics and especially in pedantry. Wiki ought to have an enshrined anti-pedantry policy -- but that's too much to ask. Griot 17:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Although it's true that the Whig party is no longer active in name, it is possible (as with the old Tory and modern Conservative party) to trace the history of the modern Liberal Democrat party back to the Whigs. The Whigs became the Liberals, and eventually, after various splits and regroupings over time, what remained of the Liberals joined forces with the much younger Social Democratic Party (SDP) in 1988. The Liberal Democrats can certainly trace their roots back to the old Liberal Party even if there are some smaller branches of the family tree on the way down, and the Liberals, in turn, are directly descended from the Whigs. Even if this were not the case, political groupings are as much about a continuity of association among those of a given political leaning as they are about strict organisational identity, and the Liberal Democrats can credibly claim to be the inheritors of Whig thought in the current British political landscape as well as the Conservatives can the Tories'. Beneficientor 16:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The Democrats do have an organizational identity stretching back to Jefferson; the continuity of Whig organization back to Fox (as it must be to contest this) is far more tenuous. Also, the Democrats were a mass political party in 1800; when the Whigs fit in a single cab, they were still a legislative faction. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

If the Democrats were founded in the Jackson era then there is a clear debate over whether they or the Conservatives as founded by Peel are the oldest party. But the Democrats are claiming to have been founded by Jefferson then on the looser definition their claim to be the oldest party goes out the window as the Conservatives have an equally strong claim of continuity to Pitt in the 1780s. Trying to define a party gets into the realm of trying to find a definition to get the answer wanted. Timrollpickering 10:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess this is why WP:LAME was invoked. Not interested in a (further) edit war. --Ali'i 16:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The book from which I added the footnote uses "existing" instead of "active." Just an FYI. Settler 01:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

In any case, I think "earlier" would be more grammatical than "older" to describe an extinct party.134.225.174.195 05:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

Why have all of the pictures been removed, was this vandalism or was there some reason for it.129.133.181.63 07:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The history section (that had works of art and photos) was merged into the History of the United States Democratic Party article, including many of the pictures and their captions where there was room. Settler 01:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

PAYGO removed

PAYGO is a tool used by Democrats to implement higher taxes and spending under the guise of fiscal responsibility. PAYGO will likely result in higher taxes in the near term by making renewal of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts much more difficult. At the same time, PAYGO does not limit the automatic spending increases each year of entitlement programs, emergency spending on issues such as the Iraq war, or even discretionary spending increases on items such as education and agriculture as long as those spending levels fall within the budget. PAYGO only limits the creation of new entitlements and spending that exceeds the budget. However, Congress can increase the budget by any arbitrary amount each year regardless of revenue levels. Hence, PAYGO provides no real restraint on spending.68.190.218.154 08:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

That's wonderful, but all content in Wikipedia needs to be verifiable and adhere to our neutral point of view policy. Perhaps this information would go better in an article about PAYGO (assuming that it still meets our verifiability and neutral point of view policies). -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 09:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Democratic Party vs. Conservative Party

The Democratic Party is supposedly the oldest because it's a continuation of the Democratic-Republican Party which was founded in 1792. Yet there are people saying it's arguably the oldest, which means that there may be something older than it. So I ask: what is older than a 215-year-old party which is still extant? MessedRocker (talk) 05:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Well if it is (and it is no by means a universal view) then by the same rule of thumb the Conservatives are a contiuation of (at least) the Pittite Tories who became a recognisable grouping in the 1780s (and some argue there's a continuous strand back to earlier years of party conflict) and could claim continuation from the same period.

Just because a party asserts a foundation date doesn't mean everyone accepts it. The current UK Liberal Party claims to have been founded in 1859 but pratically everyone else sees it as a new party founded in 1989 by Liberals who disagreed with the previous party's merger. Timrollpickering 10:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Find a scholarly source that doesn't accept that. There already is one that does list the Dems as the 'oldest party'. If you disagree, find a verifiable source that backs you up. That's how Wikipedia works.--Primal Chaos 16:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The only way the Conservative Party can be older is if they're the exact direct descendants of the Pittite Tories, just like how the only real difference between the Democratic-Republican Party and the modern Democratic Party is the name. Are they the exact direct descendants? MessedRocker (talk) 01:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Age Controversy

I noticed the "weasel words" tag while researching other information. So I decided to go to the source and see what it says about the age of the GOP and Democratic parties, their websites: GOP History and Democrats History. According to these sites the Democrats trace their roots to Thomas Jefferson and the year 1792 and the Republicans trace their roots to the early 1850's with their first official meeting on July 6, 1854 in Jackson, Michigan. I would assume we agree the Democratic Party is the oldest in the United States. Is it the oldest in the world? Neither site mentions that information. What constitutes a political party? According to Wikipedia at Political Party,

"A political party is a political organization that seeks to attain political power within a government, usually by participating in electoral campaigns."

I think it might be difficult under this definintion to state it is the "oldest party" in the world without deep research that might be found in multiple sources. Every party pulls ideas and members from predecessors. Age of the individual party does not really add or take away from the value of a party's ideas or platform. I suggest removing the statement until a detailed reference helps us sort out the details. Mark @ DailyNetworks talk 16:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again. Before continuing this debate, please read "Oldest political party" higher up on this page. This topic has been explored at least four times in the past year. Do the previous editors the honor of taking into account their opinions before you change this. I think "active" is redundant. Is the oldest man in a room called the "oldest active man" in the room. No, he's not. Griot 17:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I will politely bow out. I just thought when somebody adds a "weasel words" tag it should be discussed. I'll return to my history / less controversial subjects. Good luck. Mark @ DailyNetworks talk 19:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Behold, the book used to say that the US Democratic Party is the oldest in the world: [11]. The Amazon.com summary of the book says that the book calls it the oldest in the world. Now, if you can prove otherwise, you're more than welcome, but you must be able to back it up with a source. MessedRocker (talk) 05:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

As I have to rush out I'll come back to it, but to pull an example at random this Amazon listing [12] is for "How Tory Governments Die: Tory Party in Power, 1783-1997". I can leaf through them but I've certainly seen other books that use the description for the Conservatives and I'm not sure trading books that casually do so without mentioning other commonly cited contenders is going to bring peace. Are there any books or journal articles that actually tackle this point and the relevant issues head on? Timrollpickering 06:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Well the Tory party apparently is historically older. This wording is in order, then: The Democratic Party is the oldest party in the US and the oldest extant party in the world. MessedRocker (talk) 07:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Err, the Pittite/Tory Party is the Conservative Party, through a pretty direct lineage. Far more direct than that between the Jacksonian Democrats and the Jeffersonian Republican party. Claiming that the Democrats are the oldest extant party is exactly the thing we're arguing against. john k 21:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The Liberal Democrats, through the Liberal Party, the Whigs of Lord John Russell, Lord Melbourne, Earl Grey, and Charles James Fox, and the Rockingham Whigs, the semi-direct successors of the Pelhamite old school Whigs of the mid 18th century, who themselves can claim semi-direct descent from the Whigs of the 1670s. This is all silly. Obviously, even if we count the Democrats as being founded in 1832, when their first National Convention was held, are, along with the British Conservative Party, among the oldest still-existing political parties in the world. Going beyond that is simply counterproductive. john k 21:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Until we confirm once and for all what the oldest party in the world is, we remove mentioning of it (possibly) being the oldest in the world, as it's clearly controversial. MessedRocker (talk) 09:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It is clearly one of the oldest extant political parties in the world, and it seems appropriate to say so. john k 23:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Progressive tax

Snipped 'progressive' in favor of, for example, non-flat. Come on, what normal person knows what a 'progressive tax' is anyhow? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.19.14.35 (talk • contribs).

Then take a look at the progressive tax article. It's an extremely widely used term. · jersyko talk 03:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Everyone uses progressive tax.--Jersey Devil 00:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The term is very common and even for those who don't know what it is, there's a wikilink. Signature ^brendel 04:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Also agreed. Wikipedia is an educational tool, that's what wikilinks are for.--Primal Chaos 13:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

^ "Corruption named as key issue by voters in exit polls". CNN. 2006-11-08. Retrieved 2007-01-25. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) "Exit polls: Scandals hurt GOP more than war". Associated Press. 2006-11-07. Retrieved 2007-01-30. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[1] "Corruption named as key issue by voters in exit polls". CNN. 2006-11-08. Retrieved 2007-01-25. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) "Exit polls: Scandals hurt GOP more than war". Associated Press. 2006-11-07. Retrieved 2007-01-30. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[1]