Talk:Democratic Party (United States)/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Factual Accuracy of the Academia section

I'm pretty liberal but the following statement, despite its source, is I think, an assertion that requires more than one source to prove: The more educated a person is, the most likely he or she is to be liberal. I would like to agree but I have many friends from the US who are Republicans and they are well educated. I think this is P.O.V. I looked at the source used and have to argue that his assertions are based on a certain intepretation of the results of the Gore-Bush survey.

For instance he states that Of those with a college diploma, 25 percent self-locate left of center... whilst only 3 percent of college grads [see themselves as conservative]. What about the other 72% of the population of college graduates!? Surely they are not all centrist - but rather chose not to align themselves with a political spectrum. What the source really states is that statistically, more college graduates identify themselves as liberal, than they do conservative - it does not state that the more educated they are, the more that are likely to be liberal - as the 72% (the majority not including the conservatives) dont identify themselves as liberal!

Is there an actual source that cites the number of people with degree qualification (a good measure of education) and their respective camps, either liberal or conservative? I think in the meantime the phrase should be removed. LordHarris 10:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a trifle, not warranting an tag on the whole article. Furthermore, the assertion (I will check the sources) seems plausible to me; while some conservatives have been to the best American universities, many of them have done so resisting the education they have received; there are even organizations dedicated to keeping budding conservatives in the faith they learned in high school.

I would expect any such survey to have a majority who self-identified as centrist, and a substantial minority of non-respondents; but the non-respondents are (or see themselves, which is the point here) as genuinely non-political. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Most to the point; this is an argument with the methodology of our source, which is not really our business; if other sources can be found interpreting such surveys differently, then the interpretations should each have due weight. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

This argument seems to only be focusing on the higher end of education. When you break things down into how much high school, and how much college, as people get more educated, they're more likely to vote GOP, until you get past undergrads, when the trend reverses. See 2006 exit polls for actual numbers. --Ybbor^Talk 17:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The percentage of persons identifying as liberal increases the higher their education. The statement does not say that liberals outnumber conservatives (though they do at higher levels), nor does it state liberals to be majority. It simply says the more education, the higher the percentage of people identifying as liberal - something that is true. High school grads are more likely to idenitfy as liberal than non-grads. Someone w/ a BA is more likely to be liberal than someone with just some college education. True, liberals are a minority at every level of the strata (as are all ideological groups - though liberals are plurality among college grads.), but this minority grows progressively at each level of educational attainment. Thus, we say the more educated, the more likely a person is to identify as liberal (becuase the percentage of liberals increases).

As for the CNN polls (a bad measure of ideology - as both parties appeal to a number of typological bases): Only about 20% of the elctorate is liberal; thus, both trends hold true: 1) rising income and education level (up to the BA) make a person more likely to vote GOP; 2) higher education and higher income make a person more likely to be liberal. How can both be true? Because outside of academia, liberals are a minority, but a minority which increases in size as we progress up the educational ladder (therefore also the income ladder). I hope this clarifies the statement - which is based on referenced fact. If you can craft a better statement to reflect the percentage increase in liberals as we progress up the education ladder, I'm all ears. Regards, Signature^brendel 18:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Your statement "a bad measure of ideology - as both parties appeal to a number of typological bases" would seem to indicate you think the article is about liberals. It's not, it's about Democrats, and the statistics show that until you reach the BA level, more education makes you less likely to vote democratic (identifying as a liberal is a seperate matter). --Ybbor^Talk 19:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The statement in question does refer to liberals only. Liberals are important part of the Democratic base, they make up more than a third of it. They have shifted the party's focus away from its traditional organized labor base (though that base remains vital as well). 92% of liberals vote Democrat. Thus, the role of liberals is mentioned in the article. You cannot discuss the Democratic base w/o mentioning liberals; thus this statement is found in this article. Nowhere did I state Democrats overall to be more educated or higher earnering that GOPs - the statement in question is only in reference to the ca. 20% of the electorate that is liberal. Thank you, Signature^brendel 19:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if the "dubious" tag should be removed just yet, there's still a dispute about the accuracy. (As an aside, bolding or underlining every other sentence both defeats the point and makes the page hard to read.) Yes, as written, the current sentence refers to liberals. My suggestion would change that. I know Wikipedia was never designed for change, but let me pitch my radical idea here: in the article about democrats, we change the content to talk about democrats. If you want to talk about liberals, you could put it in Modern liberalism in the United States (specifically Modern liberalism in the United States#Demographics of Liberals) Regardless of what's in there now, I think the reader would be best served by learning about the demographics of people who identify with the Democratic party — the subject of the article. Although I freely acknowledge that one can't talk about democrats without talking about [self-identifying] liberals, there is currently no discussion in the article of how education relates to the democratic Party as a whole, only how it relates to liberals, when the statistics are freely available to paint a broader picture.Ybbor^Talk

Democrats are not one coherent group! The section where the statement is made discusses liberal's role in the democratic base! In reply to in the article about democrats, we change the content to talk about democrats, I say liberals are Democrats. 92% of liberals identify as Democrat and they constitute the largest single typogological demographic of any in the Democratic base. In order to inform our reader of the Democratic base, we need to mention liberals & academia. We cannot provide a "borad picture" of who votes democrat w/o discussing liberals; thus, there is a section in the article that discusses liberals. This section will inevitably feature statements about... get ready... liberals! We cannot discuss how "education relates to the democratic Party as a whole" becuase this relationship depends on which part of the Democratic base your focusing. The Democratic base is quite diverse - it includes the highly educated and the non-educated alike. Saying that Democrats are well-educated is misleading, saying that Democrats are not well educated is misleading as well! The only thing you can say about democrats as whole is that they are a diverse group; not exactely the detailed info a reader is looking for. It would completely defeat the purpose of having a section that aims to inform readers on the Democratic base. So what did we do? Create sub-sections that actually explain the composition of Democratic base. We mention liberals and organized labor. All parts of the base are properly described in needed detail. The section intro is indicative of the detailed and balance picture the article gives on the Democratic base:

Since the 1890s, the Democratic Party has favored "liberal" positions (the term "liberal" in this sense describes social liberalism, not classical liberalism). In recent exit polls, the Democratic Party has had broad appeal across all socio-ethno-economic demographics.[5][6][7] The Democratic base currently consists of a large number of well-educated and relatively affluent liberals as well as those in the more socially conservative working class

There is abosultely no reason to exclude an informative statement about liberals in the article's subsection on liberals and academia.

As for the tag, how is the statement dubious? It is very clear: the percentage of self-identify liberals increases w/ education. That's fact. What's doubious about it? Regards, Signature^brendel 02:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

PS. The bold face and underlines are in preparation for an RfC - this way the RfC members won't have to read my entire posts. Signature^brendel 03:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

An RfC? This is a small dispute about one line of a single article. We're all responsible people here, what makes you think we're not going to be able to work this out on our own? And If there was an RfC, shouldn't they be reading the entire back and forth anyway?

I think the statement is dubious for a couple reasons. First, you're right that the percentage of self-identifying liberals increases with education (well actually the cited source states that the level of liberals falls around post-grads), but the word self-identifying is important, and it's not it in the article. How many high-school dropouts are not going to even have the proper vocabularly to describe their political leanings, yet still show up at the polls? Because democrats are so heavily associated with liberals, talking about one specific group seems misleading to me when the trend is the opposite for the group as a whole.

You state that the only thing I can say about democrats is that they are a diverse group. But I can say lots of things about Democrats. They generally favor abortion rights. They generally want a higher minimum wage. And, I can say they get more female voters than male voters. I can say African-Americans are generally more likely to vote Democrat.[1] Are Democrats diverse? Definitly. You'd be hard pressed to find a group of 72 million people that's not diverse. At the same time, so are liberals. They're composed of every race, every level of education, every level of salary, every industry, just like democrats in general are. You can't make any statement that's true for all liberals, just like you can't make any statement that's true for all Democrats (It's hard to make a statement for a room full of 20 people). I don't claim to be doing that. Just as the evidence shows a general trend that the more educated you are (up to the post-grad level), the more likely you are to self-identify as liberal, eveidence also shows a general trend that the more educated you are (up to the post-grad level), the more likely you are to vote democrat.

Alos, I'm going on vacation this week, so we'll have to continue this later (remember, There is no deadline). In summary: The data is available for the subject of the article as a whole, and it makes sense to present that information.--Ybbor^Talk 12:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) We do talk about Dems in general as much as possible already in most other sections where it is reasonably possible do so (see the section about values, the intro and the intro to the Voter base section). But in order to provide a better picture, in order to provide a detailed account of who votes Democrat, we need to disect the Democratic base. You can say that Americans are generally Chirstian, but I would expect to find a mention of agnostics in the Demography of the United States article! Just like I would expect to find a sub-section on well-educated liberals in the Democratic Party article. That is why we have a section devoted to disecting the Democratic base and a sub-section on liberal academia. The fact that liberals contradict the overall socio-economic partisan trend is an even more pressing reason to include their demographic information. It is important to note the differences between the various demographic groups that constitute the Democratic base, especially if the difference are so vast (working class social conservatives & professional class liberals). The the statement in question is located in a section that talks about one particular demographic that is vital to understanding the Democratic base: Liberal academicians. If the statement was in the intro I could see your point. But it isn't. Rembemer that this is a statement about liberals, in a sub-section about liberal academicians, in a section that aims to disect the Democratic base. There is absolutely no good reason to remove this factual statement - it is placed in context and informs the reader about one of the most important demographics of the Democratic base.

• Is there something wrong with disecting the Democratic base in the "Voter base" section? Abosultely Not. (You've agreed w/ this)
• Should we talk a little about every group that plays important part in the base? Definitely. (You've agreed w/ this)
• Should we mention that liberals are an important component of the base? Definitely. (You've agreed w/ this)
• Should we mention important demographical features of Liberals in the corresponding sub-section? Definitely.
  • If those key demographic trends contradict those of Democrats overall, should we include the contradiction? Most Definitely.

Fruthermore, the statement serves a very clear purpose: help explain why professors are liberal and why academia is Democratic stronghold. We have established that the Democratic base should be disected and demographic data ought to be added for each group that compromises the base. Thus, this statement -which helps to explain why academia is so liberal and Democratic- is to be included.
BTW: so long as you are conviced that we can work things out w/o and RfC I won't start one. Note, however, that I vehemently oppose the removal of an informative statement that is placed in context. Enjoy your vacation, Signature^brendel 18:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay then, what do you think of this revision? --Ybbor^Talk 14:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. Problem solved - though I have tweak the wording a bit-splitting the one long sentence into two shorter ones. You're right, there was problem less disagreement here, than we both thought. Regards, Signature^brendel 19:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

What an interesting discussion, thanks for replying. I just think much of what has been said here could be expanded in the article itself. LordHarris 19:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I will try to tweak the wording so the statement is bit clearer - apperantely the statement as is, is a bit prone to being misinterpreted - I'll try and fix that. Though this discussing did inspire my newest blog entry ;-) Best Regards, Signature^brendel 19:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

as for the statement that a person with higher education is more likely to vote for the GOP, the link actually contradicts this.

130.126.76.87 07:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The academic faculty bar graph

Also in the "Academia" section, the bar graph about liberal vs. conservative faculty members is confusing. This article is explicitly about Democrats, some of whom are conservative (as mentioned in the article). Furthermore, it's not clear what the graph is comparing (see Image talk:Academia politics.jpg for more). I propose that the image be removed from this article until it improves. --75.15.152.46 00:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph talks about Academia's role within the Liberal base of the demographic party. Thus, its inclusion is justified. As for the question posed on the graph's talk page: the term "Elite" refers to professors at Ivy League colleges. Regards, Signature^brendel 05:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Reword ambiguous sentence

Under the section "Current structure and composition" the second sentence is ambiguous:

"While the DNC is responsible for overseeing the process of writing the Democratic Platform, the DNC is more focused on campaign and organizational strategy than public policy."

Can someone who understands the DNC edit this line? --Vchao 15:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

While I am not the author of the sentence in question, I think the following would make it clearer "Even though the DNC is responsible for overseeing the process of writing the Democratic Platform, its main focus is on campaign and organizational strategy rather than public policy"

Does this re-wording help? Regards, Signature^brendel 05:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Centrist economic policies?

I think their policies are more centre-left than centrist. Many Democrats oppose trade agreements such as NAFTA and CAFTA. The party supports ending tax cuts for the wealthy. There is another policy of raising taxes on the oil companies. So with all this, is it really correct to call the economic policy centrist? The social policy is labelled as centre-left, yet the vast majority of Democrats do not support legalizing gay marriage. My point is, yes the Democrats may have some centrist positions in both social and economic policies, but overall, in both categories, they are centre-left. --Tocino 04:44, 18 August 2007, (UTC)

Few Dems oppose NAFTA, CAFTA and the WTO. Besdies, favoring or opposing NAFTA, isn't left or right. Liberals and conservatives are split over organizations such as NAFTA. The current economic policy of the Dem party is centrists. It was afterall the Democratic party that championed the Third Way in the U.S. Bill Clinton's economic policy which has become syonoymous with centrism has since become the party's fiscal platform.

As for social issues. The party's official stance is to support civil-union but oppose gay marriage. True, with 46% liberals who favor same-sex marriage form an ideological plurality among Democrats. The party's overall stance, however, is a compromise between its social liberal and social conservative wings; thus it's center-left.Signature^brendel 05:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Few Dems oppose CAFTA? 187 House Dems voted against it while only 15 voted for it. 156 House Dems also voted against President Clinton's NAFTA back in 1993. Protectionism is associated around the world and in the US with the left wing. Historically the Democrats have been more protectionist than the Republicans (House GOP voted 10 to 1 in favor of CAFTA). It is a left-right issue. I noticed you ignored my other points about taxes. Bill Clinton does not dictate Democratic policy. He's been out of office for almost seven years and even when he was on isses such as free trade the majority of rank and file Dems disagreed with him. --Tocino 06:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Bush's tax cuts, which are opposed by Dems, are right-wing. Opposition to right-wing policy doesn't make one center-left. As for Clinton, he set the direction of Democratic eoconomic policy for this day and age, which is distinctly centrist. As for protectionism, conservatives are commonly the ones who advocate closing our borders. Among liberals, there is a divide. There are cosmpolitan liberals, who want to open borders, and those who are protectionist and want to close them. Cosmopolitanism is commonly a liberal, not a conservative ideology (w/ the exception of liberatarians). Signature^brendel 06:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

"Bush's tax cuts, which are opposed by Dems, are right-wing." - Your POV is showing here. One could say raising taxes on the wealthy and oil companies is left wing. Protectionism is widely associated with opposing free trade, and of course the Dems are overwhemingly against free trade agreements such as CAFTA. Illegal immigration is mostly considered a seperate issue from the fiscal policy debate. -- Tocino 06:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Well your POV is showing too - this also goes w/ seening protectionism as left-wing (again, liberals are divided over the issue - see the research studies I have used in the text). Protectionism is associated with both right and left wing. As protectionism relates to nationalism it may also be seen as a conservative policy. I am too tired to do research right now (it's almost mid-night here in CA), but there are 198,000 Goolge returns on "right-wing" + protectionism and 109,000 returns for "left-wing" + protectionism. But this is all irrlevant OR.

As you are the one who is attempting to change the status-quo, I think the burden of proof is on you. Now, you need to provide sufficient evidence to change the "centrist" entry to "center-left." Please aviod OR, and provide non-biased source that directly describe the Dem's as center-left on economics. Unless, you want to leave it at the "citation needed" tag - which is fine, since a citation can always be requested and should be provided on WP. Signature^brendel 06:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is about Democrats, not liberals. And you've already been proven wrong with this statement from earlier, "Few Dems oppose NAFTA, CAFTA and the WTO." You haven't provided any documentation supporting your claim that the Democrats are economic centrists. Meanwhile I've given you the House vote for CAFTA and NAFTA. I've also pointed to the policies of ending tax cuts for the wealthy and raising taxes on the oil companies. You, meanwhile, have responded with confusing the issue of free trade with the illegal immigration debate. The tax cuts are "right wing" but the Dems, who oppose continuing the tax cuts, are economic "centrists"... do you not see the problem here? I think you're letting your support for the Dems cloud your judgement. Wikipedia is more important than trying to score petty political points. Please keep it neutral. This is coming from a left wing Democrat. --Tocino 07:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not left-wing. I was wrong about Dems backing NAFTA in '93 but am not wrong in stating that protectionism is often seen as right-wing. Until now you have provided nothing but OR. You will need to provide a source that explicitely states Dems to be center-left rather than center. Signature^brendel 07:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Referring to the third way as centrist suggests that capitalism is as right-wing as socialism is left wing, which is clearly POV. The Democratic Party is proudly center-left on economical issues, as you can plainly see by reading their own platform. They even refer to their fiscal policy as "progressive". [2] Full disclosure, I am a Republican-leaning independent.Sadistik 07:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, any definition of right-wing, left-wing or centrism is going to be POV. There are no objective guidelines. There are those who call the third way centrist and those who call it center-left. There are those who call the Brookings Institute centrist, while Bill O'Reiley thinks its left-wing. Progressivism can include centrist economic policies. That said, if our only reputable source says it's center-left, we need to adopt that statement. Signature^brendel 00:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Tocino, Democrats did not overwhelmingly reject NAFTA. It is true that 156 house Democrats voted against NAFTA back in 1993, the other 102 house Democrats voted for NAFTA. In the Senate the Democrats were evenly split, with 27 voting for NAFTA and 27 voting against NAFTA. Mrsmith93309 02:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

And of course I never said that Dems overwhelmingly rejected NAFTA. I said they overwhemingly rejected CAFTA. Get your free trade agreements right. --Tocino 01:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Introduction: Oldest Political Party

This issue has a long history that can be reviewed in the Archives; this is a summary of the recent developments.

For a considerable time the opening paragraph of this article has contained a reference, in varying forms, to the purported position of the Party as both the oldest in the United States and the oldest in the world. That the Democratic Party proper was founded before the Republican Party, making it the elder of the two, is not, as far as I am aware, subject to much debate. However, the Democratic Party's position as the oldest in the world has been regularly disputed here.

My first contribution to the debate, following additions to the talk page, was an edit in June 2007 which slightly altered the wording of the relevant sentence to make the claim less absolute (on account of the competing positions) whilst citing the Party's historical credentials. After a short time this was edited to a different version by other users, and eventually, without my involvement, the dispute returned to the article with editors repeatedly altering the sentence to reflect the various positions on the issue and their many permutations. Over a short period the Democratic Party moved from being an old party, to the oldest, to the oldest in the united states, to the oldest in the world, to everywhere in between and back again. Therefore, a month after my original edit, I decided to make a second edit, this time removing the offending sentence altogether in the hope that readers would be able to draw a more informed conclusion from the history section of the article, or the separate article on the Party's history. This seemed to resolve the problem, and for nearly a month there were no further edits. Recently however, one of the original and most robustly worded sentences was reinstated, and I think if a consensus is not reached then this damaging process is set to start again.

I have no view on the issue other than that it is impossible to state definitively without either misleading the reader to believe that there is no debate, or by adding so many caveats and clarifications that what is supposed to be a short introductory paragraph becomes distracting and unreadable. Such clarification can, however, take place either in the main body of the article or the separate piece on the Party's history without interfering with the flow of the text, and it is for that reason that I think it best for the issues to be explained there. I think that at most, the Introduction should contain a reference to when the Party was officially founded, or that it is the older of the two major US parties (a far less controversial claim). Any further detail, or claims which require exposition in order to be accurate and informative, is not appropriate for the Introduction unless the article is to be restructured.

There are various ways of wording the sentence which are impartial and more respectful of the issues (I had hoped my original edit, placing the Democratic Party as "among the oldest surviving political parties in the world" was one of them), but experience has shown that even these are regularly contested, and I think it is preferable that an important article like this does not become a battleground so early in the text.

I think it is crucial that the Party's place in world history be explored, but time has proven that, on this particular issue, a single line in the Introduction is doomed to a cycle of dispute and unending revision. Beneficientor 07:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

How many times do we have to go around this topic. Please read the archived disucssion. A concensus was arrived at some time ago. You can start by reading here

• [3]
• Oldest politcal party in the world
• And here]

Basically, the argument boils down to whether the English Conservative and Tory Parties were the same. If they were the same, then the English Conservative Party is the oldest. However, the consensus among editors was that the Tories and Conservatives are different parties, making the U.S. Democratic Party the oldest in the world. Griot 20:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it need be necessary to go over the historical details in this case - my reason for making this edit is more about whether the statement is appropriate both without a more extensive explanation and, critically, in its current position. It's clear from the discussions that the topic isn't simple, not least because it inspires so much debate. I therefore think that it demands a more detailed treatment, and that the best location for that is in the history section, or the separate article on the Party's history. Beneficientor 07:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Just as a starter, this is one of many points about the Democrats that gets listed on WP:LAME...

Now first off I don't think just referencing a page in paper book is going to resolve thi sas it's not clear if the author has just made a sweeping statement as a description or is explicitly addressing the issues - and is that the "it's older than the Conservatives because..." or just "Jackson's party is Jefferson's party because..."? An actual quote in the footnote would help that one.

As to the Conservative claims, I have one of the recent single volume histories of the Conservaives - John Ramsden's An Appetite for Power - A history of the Conservative Party since 1830 (1998) - which does skirt through the ancestry issues. Some quotes from chapter 2 "Origins: Tories into Conservatives":

Since the British Conservative Party, like the country itself, has to date had no written constitutition, [1] the question of how it first came into being is not easily answered. For the Labour Partya founding conference in 1900 set up a specific organization with rules, while the adoption of the name 'the Labour Party' in 1906 and the reformed constitution of 1918 provides easy answers to the equivalent question about starting points. For the Liberals, a meeting held in Willis's Rooms prior to the formation of the Palmerston government of 1859 has traditionally been accepted as the date at which the recognizable Victorian Liberal Party coalesced; if historians now question the importance of that 1859 meeting, and highlight earlier developments and the widespread use of the name 'Liberal' long before the 1850s, it nevertheless provides both an agreeable fiction on which most Liberal Party history could be based and an event which is still acknowledged to have been at the least a key moment in the evolution of the party.

For Conservative and their historians, there have been no such certainties: it is not clear how far Tories of earlier centuries were true ancestors of Victorian Conservatives, as Sir Keith Feiling assumed in his studies of the earliest Tories, The History of the Tory Party 1640-1714 (1924) and The Second Tory Party, 1714-1832 (1938); it remains even more unclear how far Toryism as a concept was the basis on which the later official Conservatism rested, and whether even the party that Peel led under the name 'Conservative' between 1834 and 1846 deserved to be called a 'party' anyway. The issue has been further complicated by the fact that even when most politicians on the political right called themselves 'Conservatives' after 1830, they were nevertheless still labelled 'Tory' by their opponents, and sometimes themselves accepted that label as a badge both of honour and tradition. [2] The assumption that 'Tory' and 'Conservative' were synonymous was frequently an unthinking and untested one, but for some politicians - Lord Randolph Churchill in the 1880s or Iain Macleod and Enoch Powell in the 1950s and 1960s, for example - 'Tory' has continued to mean something different from their 'Conservative' Party's official name.

[1] It does now - TRP.

[2] A bit like the Democrats claiming the mantle of Jefferson - TRP.

For various reasons most Conservative party histories tend to start from the 1830s, primarily because it's a more natural starting point in British history (and also avoids having to decide if Boligbroke's party is Pitt's party, though deciding that Pitt's party is Liverpool's party which is Peel's party is easier). But there are historians who do see a continuity from before 1830 - amongst the big names is John Barnes, whose comments are online on this very issue at http://conservativehistory.blogspot.com/2006/06/so-which-is-oldest-party.html#c114975679172309617 :

Certainly Mr Pitt's young men form a coherent grouping and the terms Tory far from being a badge of dishonour becomes a party label by the end of the Napoleonic war, if not earlier.

I find it difficult to think of any breach of continuity since then, hence the clear right to be thought the oldest democratic party. The party of Liverpool is clearly the party of Peel and while he split the party in 1846, his own grouping like the later Austen Chamberlainites, were "a slice off the top". The bulk of the party remained intact to become the party of Derby and Disraeli.

British historical writing generally doesn't go in for such absolutes as "so and so is the 49th holder of this office" or "this party was founded on this date" which, along with comparitively few historians writing across several centuries, is one of the reasons why fewer Conservative party histories make such explicit statements. But the basis for the case is still there.

It's not clear cut one way or the other and there are even active Conservative politicians emphasising pre 1830s politicians as being "Conservatives" - this year in particular many are celebrating William Wilberforce. Making an objective statement on a controversial issue because the majority of Wikipedia editors tend to lean one way on one of the questions involved is rather POV. Timrollpickering 21:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Quite right. No modern U.K. conservative wants anything to do with the oppressive Tory name. The Democratic Party traces its origins to 1793, to the Democratic-Republican Party. The Democratic Party under its current name began in the early 1830s, making it several years older than the U.K. Conservative Party. I don't know why this should be such a big issue -- it seems clear-cut to me. I'm reverting. Is this some point of pride with U.K. Conservatives? I notice that both you guys live in Gredaaaat Britain. Griot 21:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think throwing around accusations of UK bias helps (especially when made by someone in the US). The Democrats may claim the mantle of Jefferson but then Republican Sinn Féin claims to be the legitimate continuity of a party founded in 1905, not a splinter group from a 1986 controversy. We haven't gone with that position, even though one or two editors have tried to push that particular Judean People's Front POV onto articles.

And the Conservatives do trace their history from the Tories - see the History section on the party website, written by one of the most prominent Conservative historians, http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=party.history.page

The origins of the Conservative Party can be traced to the 'Tory' faction which emerged in the later seventeenth century.

What is that if not claiming roots back not just to Pitt but all the way to Danby? The issue about the name "Tory" is a different matter from the party's history - and it doesn't have "oppressive" connotations in this country, it's just used negatively by other parties. (The US equivalent term is "Democrat Party".) Timrollpickering 21:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

For the record Griot, I am not a U.K. Conservative - it's probably worth noting that this debate also encompasses the British liberal tradition as well as the political history and organisations of many other countries. Beneficientor 07:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You Brits needs to look into who Jules Witcover is. His book is the source for the quote. He's a fine historian. Enough of this B.S. Hashaw 15:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

And counter sources from fine professional historians like Stuart Ball and John Barnes have been provided, with the actual sources available to see, as well as from John Ramsden on the uncertainties on the matter. By contrast this citation of Witcover says nothing as to whether he even addresses the issues or is just making a sweeping statement. I could fish out Feiling the next time I'm down the library and then change the intro to a messy "it claims to be the oldest party in the world but is not as old..." and then stick in a footnote referencing Feiling's work, but would that really solve the matter?

If this claim must go in the intro (whch is not the place to get into controversies) then surely the way to source it is to reference something actually addressing the point head on, preferably with quotes or a link. Timrollpickering 15:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Owing to the continuing spate of edits and reversions, I am issuing a request for comment on the article from a third party. As per the guidelines outlined on the Dispute Resolution page, I suggest there is a truce for the time being. Beneficientor 05:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

(This is a summary of my reasoning for the purposes of the RFC.)

This issue has a long history of causing debate and controversy. It is difficult to source the claims or counter-claims effectively in a way that all parties will agree to, and I've therefore proposed that if it is not acceptable for the opening paragraph to note the controversy alongside the claim (as is suggested in the The Perfect Article Guidelines, and is the case of the current version of the UK Conservative Party article, where a similar claim is made), then the sentence should be removed from the introduction, and the issue should be discussed in the history section of the article and/or in the separate article on the Party's history, where there is room for a thorough analysis. Beneficientor 06:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't really care what the intro says at this point, but if the edit warring continues, I'm going to begin blocking the participants. Discuss, don't edit, please, until a clear consensus is reached. · jersyko talk 12:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I am more than satisfied with Primalchaos' new edit, with its impeccable reference. My reason for removing the sentence altogether was to avoid the constant re-edits of its wording, and although the current version is similar to others (including my own) which have previously been subject to alterations, I think it will be much more difficult to adequately justify changing this now that it quotes directly from such a good source (in fact I wonder if the first is still necessary).

Perhaps Griot, Timrollpickering and Hashaw can join me in agreeing to make this the new consensus? Beneficientor 07:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The reference is "impeccable" because it's from the Enyclopedia Brittanica? A British source? Whatever. I like Primalchaos's edit too. Let's leave it. I'm hoping now we don't have to revisit this topic every three months. Griot 15:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The reference is impeccable because it comes from an established, globally renowned source with a reputation for accuracy and impartiality to uphold - frankly the "Britannic" element never occurred to me, and the only suggestion of a UK vs US undertone to this debate has come from your good self.

If it still bothers you though, perhaps the fact that Britannica has actually been based in the US for over a century can serve as some comfort. I'm glad we at least both like the new edit! Beneficientor 18:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty good. Only thing I'd be wary of is a copyvio. How close is too close?

Democrats suck donkey dick —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.23 (talk) 21:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:"is the oldest political party in the United States and among the oldest parties in the world."

EB:"is the oldest political party in the United States and among the oldest political parties in the world."

Is this okay? --Ali'i 18:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe two similar assertions of the same fact are copyright violations, if it is limited to a fragment of a single sentence. Any chemist can right down, "Hydrogen has one electron, one proton and one neutron," because this a factual statement, even though it has been written down a thousand times before.--Primal Chaos 18:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes - it's a terse statement with limited ways to say it. And the intro is a good way to cover this matter. Timrollpickering 19:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Good. Just thought I'd ask and be on the safe side. Mahalo. --Ali'i 19:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's do what editors did at the Conservative Party (UK) article. They wrote, "It is arguably the oldest organised political party in the world..." Arguably, the Democratic Party is the oldest as well. Griot 15:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's safer to leave it as it is now. I agree with Primalchaos that Britannica doesn't have a monopoly on that sentence, and the fact that it's the same wording as the Britannica entry makes it hard to argue with. Beneficientor 02:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I prefer "arguably the oldest" for two reasons: 1)this is the term used at the UK Conservative Party article; 2) "among the oldest" implies that several parties may be the oldest; however, only two parties can be the oldest, the Democratic Party and the UK Conservative Party. Hashaw 16:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Similar debates have been had repeatedly in the past over this issue, and there has been no lasting resolution. I don't have a problem with the word "arguably" in this context on technical grounds, but the fact that it is not the same wording used by the source is likely to make it unnecessarily vulnerable to criticism. Taking that into account, I think the current wording should be kept unless either Britannica is persuaded to change its phraseology, or an alternative source of equal or greater merit can be found, in which case there will be cause for a legitimate argument over which to rely on.

To answer the points you made:

1) Although that is the term used by the UK Conservative Party article, it too has been subject to change, the implication of the wording is almost identical, and in the case of the wording in this article there is a direct quote to reference unambiguously.

2) A case for being the oldest party (or at least, identical in age to the Conservatives) has also occasionally been made for the British Liberals, and although I can't say so with certainty, I would imagine there are political organisations in many other countries that could make good claims. Ancient Venice had a suitably sophisticated political system (this would lead on, again, to the controversy of the oldest "surviving" or "extant" or "active" party (all versions which have been tried at one time or another)), and even the Vatican, though the governing centre of a religious organisation, demonstrates many of the requisite qualities; a common cause and inherited tradition, significant political influence (which continues to this day, but particularly in the past, when it held sway over many of the temporal authorities of Europe), factions, a hierarchy, an inner circle, an elected leader etc.

I had hoped, with Timrollpickering's, and Griot's earlier responses, that a consensus had been formed around Primalchaos' version. Although I'm gradually coming back round to the merits of my original idea of ending the controversy by removing the sentence altogether and relegating the discussion to a more suitable forum, I still think Primalchaos' edit is the best available, and think we should stick to it if possible. In the meantime, I'll re-open the RFC. Beneficientor 17:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I stepped out of this controversy when I made a mere comment earlier and got an interesting response. I hadn't realized I walked into what seems to be a major edit war. While I am not going to edit the page, I would suggest removing the sentence altogether. It doesn't affect the actual idea of the article to leave this one point out of it until this edit war is settled. Some debate helps but this edit war with two or three words isn't making progress. Mark @ DailyNetworks talk 18:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Please stop the edit warring. The next time anyone edits the sentence regarding the party's age, a consensus should have been found. I know the version up until consensus is found is always the wrong one, unless your on the other side of the argument. But please, let's be professional and stop this tug of war. Thank you, Signature^brendel 06:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I have removed the sentence until consensus is found. If the edit war continues I will protect the page until consensus if found. Please note that I am completely impartial on the issue. Regards, Signature^brendel 06:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

This was the solution I originally tried, which has itself proved controversial. Protecting the article might be a good idea and would end the edit war, but those who have argued against the removal of the sentence may consider this an injustice. I think either this version, or the version which includes the Britannica reference remain the best options. Although I think the proposed compromise wording is less safe, I have no fundamental argument with it. Beneficientor 12:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

"Aruguably" leaves plenty of wiggle room. A consensus was reached earlier. HOw many times do we have to ride this British merry-go-round? Some British editors have made it their crusade to put the UK Conservative party at the head of the line. I say, "No taxation without representation!" "Freedom for Ireland!" Enough of this nonsense already.

We might consider taking a cue from the UK Conservative Party article, which says right in the first paragraph, "It is arguably the oldest organised political party in the world in that it can trace its evolution from early Tory parliamentary groupings of the eighteenth century, and possibly before that to the King's party, the informal group of parliamentarians who sided with the Government in the seventeenth and sixteenth centuries; its only rival for seniority among the world's political parties is the Democratic Party of the United States, which traces its direct roots to the 18th century." Hashaw 14:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not think making suggestions of national rivalry is helpful. I replied to the points you raise earlier. Beneficientor 14:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I realize that I likely expressed an opinion on this sentence in the past. However, I have no idea what I said and currently I have no opinion on whether to include the sentence or not. That said, I believe I am uninvolved and impartial, and have thus fully protected the article from further editing in light of the most recent reversion (protection does not indicate endorsement of the version protected). The edit warring over this sentence is, to be perfectly frank, ridiculously out of hand. · jersyko talk 15:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I just want to say that I endorse the full protection of this article. The revert warring was getting out of hand and was a long-term problem. Any further discussion on this matter should be settled on this talk page and not by revert warring on the article.--Jersey Devil 15:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

If I don't speak up, my opinion doesn't matter, so I just want to say that I agree with the "arguably the oldest" language. It's succinct, and purveys the fact that there is an scholarly argument. It's basically the same as "among the oldest", but gives the reader more information (i.e. that it might be the oldest). And while protection is abhorrent (we're all mature enough to discuss without resorting to edit warring), it isn't wholly unwarranted in this instance. Hopefully all parties can resume discussion. Mahalo nui loa. --Ali'i 16:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I recognise that protecting the article with a particular version in place during an editorial dispute is not a reflection of your personal view jersyko, but it is, inevitably, a de facto endorsement of whichever version is protected as a result. Since the argument is now over wording I would agree with Brendel that the article should be protected with the sentence temporarily removed, but that too could be a problem since removing the sentence was itself controversial. Obviously it is up to administrators to decide which is the most neutral option for now. Beneficientor 14:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I think "arguably the oldest" is satisfactory in that it is an accurate reflection of reality (it is clear from these discussion pages that the claim is "arguable"), but so have been the many other variations that have been tried over time, all of which have caused enough argument to be altered.

I prefer the quote from the Britannica source since it is the only reference whose wording can be justified by pointing to an academic authority. Over time, another editor may arrive with a preferred phraseology that is just as acceptable as "arguably", and another edit war might commence. At least if Primalchaos' wording were preserved, the editor defending that version could claim to have antoher encyclopedia on their side, whilst others would be arguing from a personal standpoint unless they could find another, equally authoritative source.

Thinking of the future, I think the question that should be asked is, if this issue were to go to Arbitration, what would most likely be the decision reached? A) Remove the sentence B) Opt for one of the many endlessly disputed revisions C) Opt for the one version whose wording is supported by a high quality source. Beneficientor 14:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

If some sources claim the Dems are the oldest party and others say the Tories are older then how about something like "arguably the oldest party in the world"? Reginald Perrin 19:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You taking the mick, mate? --Ali'i 13:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I like "arguably" the oldest.Griot 20:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment:Introduction to "Democratic Party (United States)"

An ongoing dispute, resulting in extensive debate in both current and archived Talk Pages.

Thank you for the clear summary of the contested material and the pros and cons. There are reputable references to groups identified by historians as political parties in England going back long before the anti-Federalism of the 1790's. For example: "After the Glorious Revolution in 1688, the Whig party adhered, at least in theory, to the following principles..." (http://dialspace.dial.pipex.com/town/terrace/adw03/peel/politics/whig.htm), written by history Ph.D. Marjie Bloy. Here is an even earlier citation to the British Whig party: "It was applied (c.1679) to the English opponents of the succession of the Roman Catholic duke of York (later James II)..." (http://www.questia.com/library/politics-and-government/whig-party.jsp#) with the Columbia University Press Encyclopedia cited as the authority.

If this kind of reference is accurate in referring to groups a century before the earliest proto-Democrats as a party, then it would be quite inaccurate to claim that the Democrats are the oldest political party. I have no personal interest in the outcome of whether or not Bloy's claim is historically accurate, but if it is accurate, then "arguably the oldest" would be inappropriate to refer the Democratic Party. "Among the oldest" might, however, still be accurate, as might "oldest political party in the USA," or "oldest political party still an active force in national politics." VisitorTalk 23:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

This debate is such a waste of time and should probably be listed at WP:LAME. Let's just leave it as "arguably the oldest..." and actually spend time improving articles instead of continuing to waste our time on trifles like this. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 03:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's nonsense to refer to this party as "the oldest in the world". However, there might be wriggle room, because different countries have different kinds of parties. eg in the UK the party itself puts forwards candidates standing in that parties name, and only puts forward as many candidates as there are seats. I understand that in the US, people put themselves forwards and the party (at least in theory) then decides whether or not to support them. So maybe this party is the oldest in any US-style democracy - even if there is only one of the latter! PalestineRemembered 12:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it regrettable that this has resulted in protection. The underlying distinction here is whether a parliamentary faction, like the Whigs who fit into a hansom cab, can be called a party. This is purely verbal; it may even be another Anglo-American difference, and so to be left alone. This is why weasel-words exist; say arguably, which is plainly true (it has been argued, in reliable sources), and put the arguments on both sides in a footnote. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Wait a second here. The whig party doesn't even exist anymore. So why is there any need to include the word arguably? The Evil Spartan 20:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Because the Conservative Party is arguably older. That's what the whole dispute is about. The Whigs were just a red herring. Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Tories were never quite that few; but the present Liberal Democrats have at least as good a claim to represent the Whigs as the Conservatives do to represent the Tories. The Tory connexion requires ignoring three or four episodes of coalition and breakup; to make it as old as Jefferson, probably a fifth. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Some would, and have, argued differently. Hence "arguably" and cites. Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I support "arguably". Do we have a working proposal here? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I think most people (one of the better consensuses (sp?) I've seen), in this section and the one above it, approve of "It is the oldest political party in the United States and arugably the oldest party in the world." along with the cites showing the disagreement. --Ali'i 18:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki Link

{{editprotected}} Kindly Add [[ml:ഡെമോക്രാറ്റിക് പാര്‍ട്ടി (അമേരിക്കന്‍ ഐക്യനാടുകള്‍)]] --Jacob.jose 14:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)  Done. Maxim_(talk) 15:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

{{edit protected}}

a small typo:

While professionals, those who have a college education and whose work revolves around the conceptualization of ideas, have supported the Democratic Party since by a slight majority since 2000.

72.83.204.78 18:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 18:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Bias Exposed

The conclusion sentence of the opening paragraph states: "Since the 1990s the party has pursued centrist economic policies[citation needed] combined with a liberal social agenda." --- This is sheer opinion without citation and should be removed. The overwhelming majority of business leaders in the United States, including myself, would find fault with any claim of "centrism" in any part of the DNC agenda. The DNC agenda is controlled by MoveOn.org, DailyKOS, Planned Parenthood, NOW, ATLA, and other fringe left elements of the SECULAR LEFT. But no mention of "Secular Left" in the opening paragraph...... why not?

While this paragraph does it's best to demonstrate that the DNC is "centrist" and "populist", the same opening paragraph on the GOP page sums up the GOP as being "increasingly" driven by the Religious Right --- does it's best to put the GOP on the fringes of the political spectrum. Why is the DNC opening paragraph not summed up the same way?

Wikipedia is renown for it's level of leftist bias. And these 2 contrasting articles make that QUITE clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.41.34.50 (talk) 00:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

If you have a suggestion to make, please do so. If not, please read the comment at the top of the page. This isn't the place for ranting. Either make a viable suggestion, or don't say anything at all. The Evil Spartan 00:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Questions? Ask them through Wikinews

Hello,

I'm Nick Moreau, an accredited reporter for Wikinews. I'm co-ordinating our 2008 US Presidential election interviews. We will be interviewing as many candidates as possible, from the Democrats, Republicans, and other parties/independents.

I'll be sending out requests for interviews to the major candidates very soon, but I want your input, as people interested in American politics: what should I ask them?

Please go to any of these three pages, and add a question.

• n:Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008/Democratic Party
• n:Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008/Republican Party
• n:Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008/Third Party or Independent

Questions? Don't ask them here, I'll never see them. Either ask them on the talk page of any of these three pages, or e-mail me.

Thanks, Nick -- Zanimum 19:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

User: Settler Contributions

The information put forth by User:Settler is interesting and valuable to the article. It expounds on the history of the Dems and balances POV. Why is this content being reverted? IttyBittyGrittyindaShteCiti (talk) 06:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Inaccuracy in Lead

One sentence in the lead states that the Democratic Party includes "42.6% of the electorate." I checked the article that this statement cites and it looks like this statement is misleading. Does this statement mean that 42.6% of registered voters are Democrats, or that 42.6% of U.S. citizens eligible to vote are Democrats. The article clearly indicates that it means registered voters, so I'm going to change the lead to reflect that fact. Huntthetroll (talk) 20:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Good catch, as far as I am aware the stat refers to the percentage of those registered voters. Signature^brendel 08:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Another sentence in the lead states that the Democratic Party is the "the oldest political party in the United States and arguably the oldest party in the world." This is not necessarily true, as the Federalist Party was established simultaneously. I believe the lead should read "It is the oldest political party currently active in the United States and arguably the oldest continually active party in the world." I don't have an account or I would attempt to change it myself. --170.63.96.108 (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed the sentence in question as it is untrue... via the U.S. Senate linked below, the Republican Party has a seat in Congress before the Democrats... to say the democrats are the the oldest in the world is quite untrue... there is no affiliation between the democratic party and any foriegn parties, that predate the United States, unless one points to democracy in genreal which is not the sole domain of democrats. http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/partydiv.htm

further more the house of representatives did not exist until after March 4, 1789. via the Great Comprimise

Krisidious (talk) 08:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

"Republican Party" is the old name of the Democratic Party; it was generally overtaken by the present name in the 1830s. The claim that is made is that it is the oldest (not defunct) political party or among the oldest world parties if not the oldest, not the first party to have ever existed. Settler (talk) 19:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Current event polls

The Sentence, "Senator Clinton has a lead in recent national opinion polls for the 2008 Democratic nomination. Many recent polls have put Senator Obama, and former Senator Edwards behind Clinton", is currently inaccurate. As these events are currently changing at a rapid pace, they should be removed from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.129.155.253 (talk) 01:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I moved your sentences out of the midst of the preceding section and gave it a header. Feel free to rename it if you want. Anyway, I'll tweak that sentence you brought up. Settler (talk) 02:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Oldest in the world?

The British Conservative Party is older, using just about any standard you like. The earliest ancestor of the modern Democratic Party first formed in 1792, while the earliest ancestor of the modern Conservatives was around in 1678. The more direct ancestor of the modern Conservatives, the Pittites, formed before 1783. The name "Democratic Party" emerged in the United States over the course of the 1830s, and the Democratic National Committee was only formed in 1848 while the name "Conservative Party" was first suggested in the 1820s and codified with the Tamworth Manifesto in 1834. I don't understand how the Democrats are even arguably the oldest in the world. -- The_socialist ^talk? 20:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The sentence says, "it is arguably the oldest party in the world." Two references are provided; do you have a reference that says that there is not arguemnt of whether or not it is the oldest party? (That would be needed in order amend that sentence). I personally couldn't care less; seems like trivia indeed ;-) Signature^brendel 05:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

'Arguably'? Weasel words - I'm correcting and here's potted history of the UK Tory party (also see comment above), and it is still known as the Tory party today. Your ref states: "The Democratic Party is the oldest political party in the United States and among the oldest political parties in the world." - it doesn't say it's the oldest so your citation doesn't back up what is stated. I've removed unsubstantiated claim. Mimi ^(yack) 10:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually the American constitution isn't the oldest in the world either, see here and then there's one older in India I think, there's certainly one older than 400 years, and the Declaration of the Rights of Man is 1776 I think, anyway that doesn't matter. You can't even say the American constitution is the oldest unchanged in the world so whether it's the oldest in use is a moot point. Mimi ^(yack) 22:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

There's plenty of books that state it is the oldest constitution. But in the case of conflicting reliable sources, Wiki NPOV means that the statement or article must be neutrally maintained: "When reputable sources contradict one another, the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: describe the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources, and give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner," (emphasis mine). You removed Micklethwait, John; Wooldridge, Adrian (2004). The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America, 15. "The country possesses the world's oldest written constitution (1787); the Democratic Party has a good claim to being the world's oldest political party." I could probably add some books with the claim but I'll await other people's thoughts first before bothering to do more work. Settler (talk) 00:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Your citation stated "among the oldest political parties in the world." - it doesn't say it's the oldest so your citation doesn't back up what is stated. My citation is factual and contradicts that the american party is the oldest. Before you knock both of us out arguing this further can you ask yourself how much this really matters; whether it is the oldest or not, does it make it any better? Mimi ^(yack) 21:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

A consensus was reached (not involving me) to leave "arguably the oldest political party in the world". It is not I that have chosen to disregard it. On the talk page, some obscure, anonymously written web page that is not reliable by itself. Settler (talk) 02:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Upon further digging, the web page may or may not be written by one John Simkin.Settler (talk) 02:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm always intrigued by the notion that factual truth can be decided by consensus; it can't, the only fact decided by the consensus was whether to display the truth, or not. The truth is that no American political party is the oldest in the world. Mimi ^(yack) 10:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It is intriguing. It's also one of the five cornerstones of modern scientific pursuit - Hypothesis, Experiment, Reproduction, Debate, Consensus. Also, it is the point of encyclopedia to produce the best referenced and reputable material available, not pursue its own research.--Primal Chaos (talk) 14:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Surely the question of the oldest written constitution has to do with it being the oldest written constitution currently in operation, not the oldest ever written. But even that's not true, since the Massachusetts state constitution is several years older. john k (talk) 21:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I think while we have a disagreement about the age of the party we can say that as a political idea it is the oldest. A Monarchy or Tyranny are or were not considered as politics, just Rule. The Greeks are the first successful in instituting democracy and the Romans later with the Republic. So it would be the worlds oldest political philosophy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.215.149.112 (talk) 14:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay. That was weird. I just read that the Democratic Party might not be the oldest Political Party in the World. On Wikipedia. Are you kidding me? For those of you who care THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS IN THE OLDEST PARTY IN THE WORLD. Anyone who tries to say different is trying to sell you something. Why does this great site to continue publishing that? Someone who supports me better stand next to me. Now. The Republicans have changed the definition of the Democratic Party and published it on Wikipedia. Call the media. Hello? We need to take this issue a little further up the Wikipedia corporate ladder. Let's call Jimbo. HEY, Jimbo, come in here on this. You bees needs to know about this edit. To all those reading, I guarantee you this TAX-EXEMPT site will NOT continue to publish that politically motivated message. Do any of you Admins care to help out here? We got some problems. Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 06:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Add section: super-delegate criticism

Should a super-delegate criticism section go up for the Democratic party's use of 'super-delegates' to select their presidential candidate? The criticism is this process is in itself - undemocratic, as the delegates collected via popular vote by registered democrat voters can be somewhat nullified by the super-delegates, which are selected party insiders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.187.220.93 (talk • contribs)

That sort of material, criticism by WP:RS would belong in an article about the nominating process of their party (such as Superdelegate). The section here is just a meager summary of other Wikipedia articles pertaining to the 2008 presidential contest. Settler (talk) 12:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I have tried, but anything that is possibly critical is blocked by zealous admins. 70.223.149.24 (talk) 01:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Under the heading presidential ticket

It seems that the subscript entry for President Kennedy is incorrect, he was assassinated, currently it states that he "Died in Office." Although that is a correct statement it would be more in keeping with the standard ( as done the republican party ) that he was assassinated.

Kind Regard, Daniel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.123.134.20 (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

For constituional purposes there is no difference as to how a President dies in office. --8bitJake (talk) 03:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's history is contradictory

From Democrat party "Wikipedia" History (Incorrect)

"Main article: History of the United States Democratic Party

The Democratic Party evolved from Anti-federalist factions that opposed the fiscal policies of Alexander Hamilton in the early 1790s. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison organized these factions into the Democratic-Republican Party.

From Republican party "Wikipedia" history (correct)

Main article: History of the United States Republican Party

The Republican Party was created in 1854 in opposition to the Kansas-Nebraska Act that would have allowed the expansion of slavery into Kansas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.203.92 (talk) 12:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I see no contradiction there. Am I missing something? · jersyko talk 12:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Neither do I. Perhaps the anonymous user is confused by the fact that the Democratic-Republican Party is not the current Republican Party? --Ali'i 12:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the OP may be trolling (or something). He/she refers to the Democratic party as the "Democrat party". This deliberate mispronunciation has become popular among people who criticize the party. Alternatively, the OP may have just overlooked this while editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bowmanjj (talk • contribs) 18:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Democratic economists?

"American economists strongly support the Democratic Party, with their views on policy being largely in accordance with the Democratic platform."

This is the biggest load of crap I have heard in my life. When it comes to economic policy, economists almost always identify with Republicans. Examples? Higher taxes create a deadweight loss. This is economically inefficient. Price floors (e.g. the minimum wage) also restrict market efficiency, and should thus be eliminated (Democrats tend to prefer a higher minimum wage). Republicans (like economists) generally dislike welfare. Trade is also favored in economics; by a large majority, Republicans voted to pass the NAFTA and Democrats voted against it. I wonder what an economist would say about socialized health care!

I suggest the entire section about economists be removed, as it is misinforming and contains no information valuable to this article.SweetNightmares (talk) 02:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesing opinion you have there, but empirical studies unambigously suggest that economists tend to be a) modern liberals and b) democrats. Studies suggest that most economists oppose laissez-faire policy (less than 10% if AEA members were libertarians in a recent studies), over 80% support govt. redistribution and over 70% beleive that inequality has become too high; the Bush tax cuts are strongly opposed (Economists' Statement Opposing the Bush Tax Cuts was singed by 450 economists, including 10 Nobel Prize Laureates) and universal health care finds widespread support (in welfare economics, it is widely recognized that health care is something the market cannot efficiently provide w/o heavy intervention; I suggest reading Economics of the welfare state (OUP, 2004) by LSE's Nicholas Barr). In any case, the section will not be removed since it is based on empirical, reputable studies. Signature^brendel 05:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"empirical studies unambigously suggest that economists tend to be a) modern liberals and b) democrats. " We need sources on that. The examples you cited (Bush tax cuts, universal health care...) as evidence that economists support democratic party principles is flawed as there were also economists who took the opposing position. In order for this section to stay in, we should have conclusive, and numerous, studies that support it. Otherwise, any evidence to the contrary could refute it. Say, for example, Thomas Sowell or Walter Williams, both are economists who lean heavily conservative, to say nothing of multiple Nobel Laureates like Milton Friedman or Von Mises. If there is even a single counter example, the assertion that "American economists strongly support the Democratic Party" is a generalization and should be nixed. A better, more NPOV would be to say that the Democratic party enjoys the support of some notable economists, and then list them. Then, noting some notable economists who disagree. That is a solution that doesn't rely on apeals to broad nebulous assertions that it is based on "empirical reputable studies" while citing only one book... 141.214.17.17 (talk) 05:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.214.17.17 (talk) 05:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If a significant portion of economists support the Democratic Party (which I highly doubt), it is due to social, rather than economic, policy. The section currently suggests that there is wide support among economists for left-wing economic policies. That is obviously inaccurate. Also, just because some economists "beleive that inequality has become too high" or oppose the Bush tax cuts does not mean they support the Democrats. Likely quite the opposite.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.181.246.23 (talk) 20:09, 20 April, 2008

Is there a consensus on this? I'd like to have an expert's opinion, if we could, so we can resolve this. Thanks. SweetNightmares (talk) 01:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Studies do unambigously suggest that economists lean left on fiscal policy issues and are heavily Democrat. The voting ratio is estimated by about 2.5 to 3 Democrats for each Republican. I cite multiple studies which explicitly state that most economists are Democrats. I am not basing the statement that most economists are liberal Democrats based on my interpretation of these studies; once again the studies explicitly state so. Here are two good online sources, included in the article:

• http://www.sofi.su.se/wp/WP06-7.pdf
• http://www.mises.org/story/2318

This is really simple: sutides have been made on the partisan affliations and political attitudes of economists; these study show economists as idenitfying as modern liberals, being supportive of redistribution and voting Democrat. This is a factual issue: either reputable studies show most economists as liberal Democrats or they don't. As of now, they do and that's what will be featured in the article. Of course there are "there were also economists who took the opposing position" - did I say all economists are democrats? No. Most, by a considerable margin, are. So long as reputable academic surveys find most economists to be Democrats it will be included in this article. If you beleive these studies to be inaccurate, conduct your own study, get it published and then come back here. For now, this article will feature the conclusions reached by published studies on the subject. Regards, Signature^brendel 05:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The study cited in the article was a survey of economists at ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS, which have a tendency to be more democratic than republican anyways. When private sector economists such as those who work for banks or corporations are included, they tend to be more republican. For instance, see http://positiveeconomist.blogspot.com/2008/02/economists-outside-academia.html Also, the link above from Mises.org is specifically about academic economists. This distinction needs to be made when using a blanket statement that implies every economist in the world supports the Democratic party's ideas. I think this section is incomplete until someone can add in a source showing the political preferences of a majority of economists, both in training and in practice. Until then, the best solution is to note that "the Democratic party enjoys the support of some notable economists."—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.73.54.91 (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2008

The studies mentioned refer to economists at academic institutions. The study also mentioned that the majority of economists that favor free markets seek professions in those very markets whereas the ones that oppose the markets find themselves situated at colleges therefore the statement in the article is misleading. Most economists from academic institutions may very well be democrats and generally oppose markets but these economists also don't know markets very well just because they dont have the experience in the real world. Perhaps there is another study that that surveys economists of the professional world where the ideas actually come into practice but right now I think the article is misleading and should definitely be changed.--65.191.24.85 (talk) 00:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Even in academic institutions, they seem to be conservative! I attend a relatively liberal public university, and I've had discussions with many of my professors about politics. I am an economics major and know the department faculty well. I don't know how any of them vote (as it's frankly none of my business), but there appears to be only one professor who is, in fact, liberal. I'm curious, Brendel, where did/do you go to a post secondary institution, if that even took place? What did you study?SweetNightmares (talk) 01:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Lincoln-Douglas debate

• Why does this article skip all past the Lincoln-Douglas debate and the history of the Democratic Party before, during and after the Civil War? Telecine Guy 09:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

That information can be found here. Since that topic has its own article, I would actually recommend that the history section in this article be abbreviated further.SweetNightmares (talk) 20:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

And why dose this article skip: Historian Eric Foner observed:

In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic party, the planter class, and all those who desired restoration of white supremacy. Its purposes were political, but political in the broadest sense, for it sought to affect power relations, both public and private, throughout Southern society. It aimed to reverse the interlocking changes sweeping over the South during Reconstruction: to destroy the Republican party's infrastructure, undermine the Reconstruction state, reestablish control of the black labor force, and restore racial subordination in every aspect of Southern life.[16]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.36.227.206 (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Questioning statistic sources and intent of "Working Class" section

I'm not a big face around here but I thought I'd call to question these sources pertaining to the "working class" democrats: 6 ^ a b c d CNN. (2000). Exit Poll.. Retrieved on 2007-07-11.

If you do the math (SUM(%all * %GORE)) for the pertinent tables (votes by income and class) you'll find that Bush won the popular vote in 2000 by 0.09% and 0.42%, respectively. When, you know, he actually lost. So, can I call shenanigans? Not to say that CNN or the original poster had any mal-intent, only that exit polls suck.

Furthermore the line: "...which show the Democratic Party garner the majority of votes from those with low incomes and little education" might make people believe that the majority of the democratic vote come from that subset, which is not the case. While it's still a bit inflammatory, this would be better: "...which show that the majority of those with low incomes and little education vote democrat."

Lastly, what the hell does 9 ^ a b c d e Pew Research Center. (10 May, 2005). Beyond Red vs. Blue.. Retrieved on 2007-07-12. really talk about? I tried to find the pertinent information that backs: "Together socially conservative and the financially disadvantaged comprised roughly 54% of the Democratic base" but I didn't have much luck. From what I read I don't think combining those two subsets serves any purpose, and I'm not sure that is even a valid combination. I'm really not taking my time on this one though, so feel free to blow me out of the water. 64.238.49.65 (talk) 21:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to edit, be "Bold" they say. As for the part about ""...which show the Democratic Party garner the majority of votes from those with low incomes and little education" - That's obviously NPOV -IF- you read it incorrectly, as I just did. I think what the sentence is trying to say is that the Democrats gained most of the low-income and lower educated individuals than the GOP (Republicans) did. i don't think it is trying to say that most Democrats are that. It could be worded a bit better, but, I don't think it is too bad of an issue. Your edit is much better, so, I'll go ahead and edit that in. ¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 02:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Wealthy voters

Do wealthy voters tend to vote for Democrats or Republicans? Our articles seem to contradict each other, both claiming that the wealthy support their party, and both are lacking citations about a general trend. The Republican article says The differences in voting among income groups are small, though poorer voters tend favor the Democratic Party while wealthier voters tend to support the Republican Party. This article states Once dominated by unionized labor and the working class, the Democratic base now consists of social liberals who tend to be well-educated with above-average incomes as well as the socially more conservative working class. Which of these is true? The Republican article follows its assertion with CNN exit poll statistics that seem to support its claim: Bush won 41% of the poorest 20% of voters in 2004, 55% of the richest twenty percent, and 53% of those in between. In the 2006 House races, the voters with incomes over $50,000 were 49% Republican, while those under were 38%. So which of these articles is correct? I elected to ask here, since this article seems to be more well-developed. seresin ( ¡? ) 02:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

They vote for both, depending on region and education. In past there wasn't any correlation whatsoever, today there is: The rich are slightly more likely to vote GOP. But the issue isn't clear cut, rather it is a subject littered with ambiguities and paradoxes. If offer a simple, unconfusing description of who votes how, your probably on the wrong track :) Signature^brendel 04:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The changing party

From the party's inception in 1828 to about 1896, the Democrats were the more conservative party on most social and economic matters, except immigration policies, which they have been liberal on since the Democratic-Republicans of the 1790s. The economic policies of Andrew Jackson seem surprisingly like modern-day fiscal conservatism. They didn't really become the liberal party they are today until Woodrow Wilson, a progressive, was elected in 1912, which only started their transformation that was completed in the 1930s with FDR's New Deal policies, and the start of the Civil Right's Movement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.182.244.199 (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Adding Presidential Nominees in Infobox?

I'm posting a similar suggestion in the Republican version of this discussion thread, but instead of unilaterally editing the party infobox, I wanted to know what people would think about putting the most recent presidential nominee in the party infobox? For example if we were to add that category, John Kerry would be placed in there, at least until after the convention, when Barack Obama's name would be there instead. Tell me your suggestions. --Shaunnol (talk) 14:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Ideology and voter base - Academia

I just posted an edit to this (old) section (my first on Wikipedia!), and would appreciate any advice. I believe that this section was, and remains, flawed. The section basically makes 3 points (but not in a very logical order): 1. academia leans to the left, 2. the liberal orientation of professors does not affect student political orientation, and 3. the educated population, in general, leans to the left. Frankly, I am not sure that issue 2 even belongs in this piece; however, if it does, it seems appropriate to acknowledge that many conservatives/Republicans claim to be offended and even intimidated by liberal colleges.

In addition, item 3 (regarding the educated population leaning to the left) is flatly contradicted by many findings from Gallup, GSS, and NES, and I would like to make another edit to present those findings. Also, it is very illogical to simply point out that "Among those with graduate degrees, the majority voted Democratic..." We would expect a majority to vote Democratic simply because there are usually far more Dems than Reps. Following that same logic, it is likely that a majority of felons voted Democratic also. Should be put that in here somewhere?

As a newbie to Wikipedia, I can't seem to upload charts and graphs. Is there anyway I can get permission to do so? I have access to some good copyrighted graphics, and can probably get publisher permission to use them.

Any feedback is greatly appreciated.

Nicholas007 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

In order to upload images, you must be auto confirmed; your accout must be 4 days old and have made ten edits. seresin ( ¡? ) 21:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. --Nicholas007 (talk) 00:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, now I finally uploaded an image (the graph of union membership) from Commons. NOTE: I uploaded that image to Commons a few days ago, and sent a copy of the email permission (from the author) to the Open Source Ticket Request system (OTRS) at [email protected]. So far I have not heard back, and I am not sure if I need to do more, or just wait. If anyone can provide guidance, it would be appreciated.

Thanks. Nicholas007 (talk) 23:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Educated voting left isn't wrong. Look at the polls again, at the question not of who is registered with a party, but who they actually voted for. College graduates overall were tied in 2004, Democratic in 2006. Those with graduate degrees have voted Democratic for more than the past 20% years. Those with just some college, on the other hand, are less still more likely to vote at GOP. Don't confuse Party registration w/ actual voting patterns, it's the latter that counts and there're an awful lot of independent liberals. As for the graduate degree holder/felon argument, think it about it again: following our logic of using Party registration as predictor of voting, the Dems would be winning every election, since they have about 20+ million more members. Yet, the public, among which Dems outnumder GOPs in terms of registration, voted GOP in 5 of 7 pres. elections. Clearly when a demographic consistently votes Democratic, even when the public does not - whether Dems outnumber GOP in terms of registration - that demographic deserves a mention in our base section. Signature^brendel 04:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Brendel, I think you jumped to an illogical conclusion. The graphs I put in (and just put back in again) refer to self-identified Dems and Reps - not registered Dems and Reps. In a given presidential election, some Dems will vote Rep and vice versa. Eg, in this election between Mccain and Obama there may be many crossovers - based on perceived experience and/or character flaws - not necessarily ideology. It would be wrong to assume that the people who cross over change their partisan identities and beliefs. You are putting far too much weight on a handful of presidential elections. What about congress, and the senate, and local races? And, even if you included a broader array of political contests, voting should not be the only measure presented. The expressed self-identification of surveyed people, and their level of education, should be revealed. This gives balance and perspective to the article. By the way, among self identified males, Republicans are still far more likely to have post grad degrees, while Democrats are more likely to have post grad degrees among females. (See graphs on pages 76 and 77 of Democrats and Republicans - Rhetoric and Reality.) Nicholas007 (talk) 17:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Liberalism

I want to change "Liberalism" to "Cultural liberalism" in the infobox. I read through the archives, and it appears the main issue underlying the discussion of ideological labels has been how to deal with the difference in perspective and terminology between Americans and the most of the rest of the world. I am not sure whether "Liberalism" as used in the infobox is meant to refer to the American sense or the European one. If the former, I think it is confusing (or confused). The list in the infobox is meant to be accessible to an international audience, and the link is to the broad, international sense. If it is meant to be the latter, the combination of "American liberalism", "Social liberalism", and "Cultural liberalism" cover the extent to which "liberalism" applies to the Democratic Party. Could be falsely inferred to mean the party holds beliefs that are actually held by the Republican Party. I hope this will be non-controversial, but I rather think it will not be. -Rrius (talk) 09:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It would be controversial. Please look at the article Modern liberalism in the United States; it is clearly not an ideology limited to cultural issues, nor is it anti-freedom on economics. It simply defined liberty differently, in such a manner that it warrants a more interventionist economic policy, but like the classic liberalism of the GOP, also beleives in liberty - i.e. it is not any less liberal. Signature^brendel 04:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)