"Democratic" and "Republican" are not grammatically equivalent

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

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

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

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

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

Grammar

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

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

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

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

Epithet or Pejorative?

From the dictionary definitions:
Epithet:

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

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

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

Pejorative:

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

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

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

Original research?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

is the kind of statement that needs a citation to a source that explicitly supports the material. Readers must be able to check that any of the information within articles is not just made up by some Wikipedian. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well you misread the rule. It clearly states WHEN primary sources can be used: . A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Here's a passage that fits the criterion: The Dictionary of American Regional English gives numerous examples of "Democrat" being used as an adjective in everyday speech, especially in the Northeast.[9] Any educated person can read the book and see 6 examples on pp. 37–38 & 1036. Rjensen (talk) 06:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. In that example, the words numerous, everyday, and especially venture beyond "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts" into interpretive territory. The statement as worded is not about the phrase Democrat party, but rather about The Dictionary of American Regional English. As such, it needs a citation to a secondary source that explicitly comments on the "numerous examples" given by the primary source. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Numerous = six? well we can be more specific. This is a dictionary of everyday usage. 4 of the 6 come from the Northeast. Note we are treating the dictionary as a primary source and I think any educated person will buy the paraphrase of it after looking at the pages cited. Rjensen (talk) 06:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Sedgwick, Catharine Maria. "A Reminiscence of Federalism" in Goodrich, S.O., ed. The Token and Atlantic Souvenir: A Christmas and New Year's Present. Charles Bowen: Boston. 1834.
  2. ^ Detroit, Michigan Club (1880). Annual Report of the Secretary. p. 48.

As used by Sarah Palin and others

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

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

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

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Categories