Citizendium - a community developing a quality, comprehensive compendium of knowledge, online and free.
Click here to join and contribute
CZ thanks our previous donors. Donate here. Treasurer's Financial Report

Talk:Democrat Party (phrase)/Draft

From Citizendium
Jump to: navigation, search
This article has a Citable Version.
Main Article
Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
Debate Guide [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition A phrase used by Republicans in the United States to refer to the opposition Democratic Party, and assumed by many Democrats to be an insulting, disparaging or derogatory term. [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup categories Politics and Media [Categories OK]
 Talk Archive none  English language variant Not specified

I'm a liberal and don't reject the use of this term :-)

Though I'm not an American liberal, and from what I've read there is some differences in our American brethern. Denis Cavanagh 06:41, 7 January 2008 (CST)

Indeed; if you want to get in a mudfight in Washington just refer to the "Democrat party." The current 2008 GOP candidates are not using the term, I think.Richard Jensen 11:59, 7 January 2008 (CST)
Last time round the subtle attack line was 'John Kerry is a typical Massachussets Liberal' (Emphasised) Don't know what they'll corner Obama on if he gets nominated - attacking a 'Liberal' when he is embracing and encouraging bipartisanship will simply make you look mean. Denis Cavanagh 12:04, 7 January 2008 (CST)

Approval?

Whether any authors and editors at CZ approve or disapprove of this usage isn't really the point. The author(s) of this article appear to have been an excellent job summarizing the dynamics of the issue and as an editor in history and politics, I am ready to nominate it for approval. It would be good if someone from the media workgroup might choose to join me in recommending it. I want to take a look at the subpages, and then I'll give it a full week for approval to give everyone a chance to get in their objections and last edits. Roger Lohmann 22:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I am opposed to approving this article as it now stands. Prof. Jensen was a very profilic but also occasionally a sloppy writer. The present article needs to be *very* closely proof-read. I just glanced at it and I find *many* out-dated references such as "President Bush", without even a "George W." on the first one.
Where do I go to protest this proposal? Trying to find one's way around the Forums, where the same matters are brought up in different Forums, is impossible to navigate.
(Also, Prof. Jensen, who now spends his time at Conservapeida, had his own distinct views on many topics. Hayford Peirce 02:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Well we're all sloppy sometimes and all have our own distinct views thank Goodness :-)Gareth Leng 09:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
The Bush change sounds like a very specific, and sensible change. (The article was written while Bush was in office.) Do you want to make it or should someone else?
Why protest? Why not just edit? I too, find the forums impossibly complex. Let's discuss it here as Matt suggests.
Roger Lohmann 14:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I think I caught the major items where the article was dated and fixed them. If there are others, you should feel free to adjust them, Hayford (or anyone else). --Joe Quick 15:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm considering removing this article from the history group as their is no discussion of a single historical monograph, there isn't a single historian discussed or listed in the bibliography or reading list. All of the sources are linguistic or literary sources. Just because it happened in the past does not make it historical. Everything happened in the past, yet not every page in CZ is in the history workgroup. I oppose this approval as a history article. I also do not think it is maintainable. Russell D. Jones 20:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree that not everything "historical" should be in the history workgroup but I'm not sure i understand the maintainability issue. Could this article not be written in a way that does not require it to be continually updated? Or is the reason that there are just too many political put-downs? Chris Day 20:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
To me, there's a good case that this Politics and possibly Media article. I'm often conflicted if an article should be Military alone or Military and History. (of course, when the author is the only Military editor and hopes for approval....) Nevertheless, if one discusses political slurs, sooner or later, one is going to deal with historical matters of slogans ("Ma, Ma, where's my Pa? Gone to the White House ha ha ha) and terms that variously are slurs or badges of pride (Carpetbagger, Bull Moose, Dixiecrat, Yellow Dog, Blue Dog, etc.)
Nevertheless, I do think there is a maintainability issue, but the sort of maintainability issue that we will face with many current events. In Forum discussions (sorry, Roger), there's been mention of some kind of "expires by" labeling of current events. My concerns were over things such as extrajudicial detention, with active hearings in progress, yet had not been updated since 2006 (WP import) or 2007. How, in general, do we handle this, variously if it tends to go out of use, or if counter-slurs should be become more common? Repug and Republicon are a bit harsher than Democrat...
In this case, I would agree Politics is most pertinent. Do we have any active Media editors? Howard C. Berkowitz 20:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Concerns about approving this

I have one main concern about approving this, and that is that if this article is approved before U.S. Democratic Party is approved, that might well give many people the false idea that we are a nest of Republicans (gasp!). I don't wish to reveal my own political views, but regardless of what they are, I do think this is grounds for being concerned. I would hope we could whip U.S. Democratic Party into shape first.

Of course, I am not here to "veto" to proceedings or even to subtly issue orders. Editors may do as they wish in this case; I just want my feelings, which are not very strong feelings, known. --Larry Sanger 03:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Strangely, when i read this article I thought the republicans come off as petty. It might be a republican slur but that does not mean it sticks to the democrats. Chris Day 03:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Chris, don't see any issues with this. Made some minor copy edits (to be taken as suggestions of course) - there seems no need to use the word liberal, especially since it means very different things in different places. I thought this was an interesting article Gareth Leng 09:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, that supports my conclusion as well, Chris. My concern is that we "lead" with our first approved articles about contemporary partisan topics with something inflammatory as opposed to more strictly factual. --Larry Sanger 14:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The Point of the Article

I think also there needs to be some discussion about the point of the article. What does this article intend to show? Right now, it mostly shows that "ain't no Americans no talk real good" (including their elected representatives and media spokespeople [who ought to know better]), and we have the statistics and anecdotes to back it. The other, political, point of the article is to legitimate incivility. "See? You are a pinko-slimeball, and we have statistics and usage data to show that it is perfectly acceptable for us to call you this. Don't get upset. It's all very scientific. Go look it up in an encyclopedia."

I'll also point out (just to complicate things) that back in twentieth century the short version of referencing the Democratic Party was to call it the Democracy, not to confuse it with the democracy.

The debate guide also brings up other points that this article should probably address. I won't deny that this term has emerged into the political discourse (and that we are participating in that political discourse). But this term also seems to excite passions. I think it's because it violates the principal group self-determination (see Wilsonian national self-determination). This is a term that others are using to advance their political agenda against the named group. And what did Clausewitz say about politics? In response to one of those questions in the debate guide (Are groups under a moral obligation to call others by their self-determined name?), I'll respond with "yes, it's called 'respect.'" But, again, Clausewitz. This is politics. "Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion" wasn't respectful either, but it was political. Russell D. Jones 14:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I just checked, and WP does NOT have an article called "Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion" -- here's our chance to forge a new article.... Hayford Peirce 15:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Under family friendliness, can we even have an article about Churchill's description about the "traditions of the Royal Navy", a bit farther along than Hayford's exaple? John Wilkes' reply to the Earl of Sandwich?
Seriously, I thought we had a reasonable explanation of the "Know-Nothings", but I can't find it.
For that matter, Russell, if one wishes to address whether Americans talk good, one might only contrast the customary expression of William F. Buckley Jr. against his exchange with Gore Vidal (before the moderator physically separated them). Some rhetoric is more endearing, to say nothing of what "the vice president really said". It was rumored that Dan Quayle really wanted to refer to an excessive preoccupation with dieting and meant to say "a waist is a terrible thing to mind." Howard C. Berkowitz 16:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Approval

This is a single editor approval by Politics and History editor Roger Lohmann. I received an email approving changes through March 12, 2009. He will return in a couple weeks and look at other changes which he may incorporate at that point. Therefore, I will use the 12th as the last date and wait for further instructions.

from:Roger A. Lohmann <rlohmann@wvu.edu>
to:Matt Innis <dminnis@gmail.com>

date:Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 2:33 PM
subject:Fixes are good
mailed-by:wvu.edu

Mar 12 (4 days ago) Reply


Matt,

The fixes by Joe, Howard (and Hayford?) through today are all good and should be incorporated 
in the final, approved version of Democrat Party (phrase)...

...
I’ll be back in touch when we get back from Italy. 

Roger 

D. Matt Innis 00:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Approved Version 1.0

Congratulations on approval of version 1.0 of this article! I will be glad to revisit the additional edits once Roger returns. D. Matt Innis 00:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)