Talk:Democratic-Republican Party/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Name of article

Why change the title: because historians have changed in the last 5-10 years. The new monographs and tectbooks do not use the D-R terminology. Users who have a current textbook will be confused and that is a bad thing for Wiki. Our best asset is that we keep current-- unlike paper encyclopedias whose articles are often 10 or 20 years old. Rjensen 21:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Why do you keep returning to this subject? It was discussed last month and the agreement was to keep the name Democratic-Republican Party. Why go over this yet again? GriotGriot

It was agreed to change. Rjensen 23:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Were there any other Democratic-Republican Parties? If not, there's no need to add "United States" in front. --Jiang | Talk 12:21, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It is unnecessarily inaccurate to refer to this party as the "Democratic-Republican" party. It was called the Republican party from its formation under Thomas Jefferson until the split in the party during the time of Andrew Jackson (in the 1820s). Only then did there exist a party called the "Democratic-Republican" party (as opposed to the faction headed by John Quincy Adams, the National Republicans). And this name did not last long, quickly being shortened to the Democratic party.

It is much more accurate to call this party the "Republican" party and then set a footnote that says that this is not the same as the modern Republican party. --acsenray | Talk 17:30, 7 Feb 2004 (EST)

The page was removed to United States Democratic Republican Party. It doesn't seem right to me, since the party was not named USDRP, but DRP. I suggest to move the page to Democratic-Republican Party without any reference to the USA. --Gangulf 18:04, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have moved this page from United States Democratic-Republican Party to Democratic-Republican Party (United States), following the naming conventions of Democratic Party (United States), Republican Party (United States), etc. This also makes more sense because "United States" is not actually part of the official name of this party. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 20:45, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

"Democratic" is not in the name of this party either, although the Democrats are descended from them. Ashibaka (tock) 6 July 2005 16:39 (UTC)

See WP:NC -- two points are relevant here. (1) Precision: Don't disambiguate when it isn't necessary. (2) Use common names: most history books refer to this party as Democratic-Republican, so that's what most users are likely to be looking for, regardless of whether it is technically correct. Unfortunately, the edit history is such that only an admin can fix this now. --Russ Blau (talk) 21:51, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

History books used to call it the "Democratic-Republican" party, a name that was never used in its lifetime. Since 1995 a Google.books search suggests the term of choice among historians in monographs and articles has been "Republican." That's what they called themselves. In the 1790s-1820 They avoided the term Democratic, which became current in the 1830s. Elkins & McKitrick in their great book on the Age of Federalism (1995) never use "Democratic-Republican" for the party. (They use it once for the "Democratic-Republican" societies). On the other hand "Democratic-Republican" is still used in textbooks so we should probably keep it but warn people the term is obsolescent and will probably fade away. Rjensen 02:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:Thomas Jefferson for more discussion of the merits of Republican Party and Democratic-Republican Party. -Parallel or Together? 11:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have a suggestion for what this article should be called since the current name is incorrect? Kaldari 18:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• I dispute the notion that the term "Democratic-Republican" is obsolescent or incorrect. I don't think a Google book search should carry more weight than what is used in mainstream history books. Calling Jefferson's party "the Republican Party" is a recipe for confusion. --JW1805 (Talk) 04:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• I also dispute the notion that the current article is wrongly titled. I am frankly flabbergasted that anyone would suggest changing, not only because it will cause so much confusion, but because in every history book and text book I have read, it is called the "Democratic-Republican Party." It is called that to distinguish it from the modern-day Republican Party, as the wiki article rightfully says. Why inject this confusion? I also strongly opposed changing the name. GriotGriot

Griot perhaps reads old textbooks. Perhaps he can cite the TITLES and DATES of textbooks he uses. I examined 8 current ones (see below) and only one uses D-R. To see what Jefferson said look at [1] and discover he never used the term for his party. Rjensen 03:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is about the Democratic-Republican Party. Why do you persist in trying to change a name which is in common usuage and in my studies of American history has always been the name of the party started by Jefferson in the 1790s? Please point me to any scholarly article where historians discuss changing this name. GriotGriot

Naming this article "Republican Party" or something similar would be a violation of Wikipedia naming conventions. Most people know of the party as the "Democratic-Republican Party." Wikipedia's naming convention's page says, "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. Another way to summarize the overall principle of Wikipedia's naming conventions: Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists."[2] - JP

Times are changing and now only 1/8 history textbooks uses the "D-R" terminology. If students use Wiki they will be confused by a D-R term that is not in their textbooks. Rjensen 03:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you keep claiming that, but textbooks are written by specialists. You also seem to be a specialist. Haven't you noticed that you're the only one on this discussion page who is making this claim? Most laymen know it as the Democratic-Republican Party. My college textbook[3] said Democratic-Republican Party, and so do the two leading encyclopedias. I have no problem with using the name "Republican Party" within the article, as long as it is clear to readers that it was a different party than the one formed in 1854. The title, however, should reflect the most common term that readers search for. I think you are wrong in claiming that most readers will search for "Republican Party" when looking up the party of Jefferson and Madison. - JP

Students read current textbooks--the old ones sit on the shelf. The genius of Wiki is that it is so up to date. Events that happened last week are covered. However events that happened 200 years ago get a 1965 treatment because someone used an old textbook. Imagine if the article on "stars" had been written in 1965! I think there seems to be a consensus on using "Republican" INSIDE the article. No misunderstanding is likely. Rjensen 04:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

First, my textbook is not from 1965. It is from 1990. I think most people could do quite well by reading Cosmos, A Brief History of Time, or The First Three Minutes (all written prior to 1990). Second, history is not the same as science. With science, humanity starts out with no understanding of the subject and gradually gains knowledge over time. With history, there is a trade-off. Over time, historians get more opportunities to view events from differing points of view (e.g. imagine viewing the Crusades originally with a Eurocentric viewpoint, but eventually getting access to Arabic sources), but at the same time humanity moves further and further away from the original events and primary sources. With the study of history, over time you lose some information while you gain other information. So, your analogy is not a good one. Overall, I think (but can't prove) that the net effect is positive, but not in the same way as with science. On a different subject, I posted a comment for you at the bottom of the "Accuracy dispute and Britannica article" section of this page. - JP

There are about 500 or so professional historians (I would guess) working on the early national period and they actually work very hard at research. Lots of books and papers and articles every year. You can listen in to them on H-SHEAR, the H-Net list. Probably the two biggest changes since the 1980s are 1) new letterpress editions keep coming. Just last month the latest Jefferson volume came out: it covers part of 1801. Second we have online and cdrom sources. Thus all of the old edition of TJ is online free (14 million bytes) and you can do word searches. Likewise all of the old editons of Washington, John Adams, Madison, Ames, and various others are electronic and on www. And now even the newspapers are going on line. So we can handle research questions very easily now that would be impossible in 1990. Should Wiki be up to speed? I think that's the goal. If someone adds new material should it be reverted because it was not in a 16 year old textbook? NO! that surely violates the Wiki spirit. Rjensen 08:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Look, I think the problem is that your point of view is of a historian of early America. Now, when a historian writes an article or book about the 1790s and uses "Republican Party", everybody knows what he is talking about. It is clear from the context of the book or paper. But Wikipedia is not a scholarly journal of early America. It is a general-purpose encyclopedia for everybody. It contains articles about all topics, including modern times where there happens to be another party called "Republican". So, articles have to be written in such a way to avoid confusion. --JW1805 (Talk) 16:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I find it interesting that Rjensen won't allow anyone else to cite books written prior to 1995, yet the vast majority of the books he listed in the references section are from long before 1995. - JP

Not quite: I feel we should always cite the latest editon of a book, or textbook. The textbooks get revised every 3-5 years or so to keep up with the latest scholarship. What I oppose is citing poor sources when better ones are available. Rjensen 00:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Jefferson's inaugural address includes "...we are all Republicans...I don't think there's a better source on how Jefferson saw his politial affiliation than Jefferson himself. Jmorello

Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans

The page says that the Federalist party has no ties to any modern party, but this is not true. The Federalists and the Modern Repbublican party shared a handful of viewpoints: both favored tax cuts and other financial benefits for the upper class and small buisness, in the interest of stimulating the economy and creating jobs. The Federalists were more conservative in general, they believed that the government was to be supported regardless of your own personal preference.

I am not saying that the Federalists and the Republicans are the same party, or even that the Republican Party is a descendant of the Federalist party. I am saying that it is extreme to say that the Federalist party has no ties whatsoever to the modern Republican party. At the very least, they were both the conservative parties of their times. The page should be changed to say that there is a very loose resemblance between the Federalists and the Republicans. --BMS 02:50, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Federalists did not favor tax cuts. They raised taxes--leading to the Whiskey revolt, for example. The Republicans of 1798 were strong for states rights, and thus resemble the GOP today. Many in the GOP today dislike John Marshall for building a strong Supreme Court through judicial activism. Rjensen 08:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Deleted text

What happened to this text:

The name "Democratic-Republican" was actually used briefly in American politics to describe a contemporary political faction: in the time of Andrew Jackson, when the Republican Party was splintering into factions, "Democratic-Republican" was used to refer to Jackson's supporters within the Republican Party. These supporters would soon organize themselves into a new political party: the Democratic Party.

Why was it deleted from the opening section? --JW1805 (Talk) 04:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

That text was incorrect. The name was not used in 1820s. Jackson's people called themselves "Jackson Men". Rjensen 19:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

This Party IS today's Democratic Party

At the Democratic Party's Web site, the Party claims its beginning in 1792. [4] I believe this article as it stands now trifles with history. It should at least acknowledge that the Democratic Party believes it is the inheritor of the old Democratic-Republican. Most American historians agree. I think it's rather weasely to claim that both parties have an equal claim on a heritage from the Democratic-Republican Party. GriotGriot

The claim that the modern Democratic Party was founded in 1792 by Thomas Jefferson is ahistorical, to say the least. While the Democratic Party was founded from remnants of the Democratic-Republican Party, its opposition (the National Republicans, then the Whigs) was as well. Because the Democratic-Republican Party had achieved such dominance by 1820, any political party that appeared afterwards was a descendant of the Democratic-Republican Party unless it was created de novo.

"Ahistorical"? When pratically every American history book traces the beginning of today's Democratic Party in the Demo-Repub Party. I detect a political agenda behind this article. Griot 07:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)Griot

Just for fun, I decided to check the one American history textbook I have in my house, which my father used in college: John M., Blum (1963). The National Experience: A History of the United States. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) On page 212, it reads: "In the 1820's, after the death of the Federalists (see p. 188), the Republican party split to form two new parties: the Democrats and the National Republicans (renamed the Whigs in the 1830's)." Thus I have at least one counterexample to your claim that "pratically [sic] every American history book traces the beginning of today's Democratic Party in the Demo-Repub Party".

— DLJessup (talk) 13:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Well that is indeed how they talked 43 years ago, but times change & I think Wiki should reflect current textbooks. By the way, I was a student of authors Woodward, Morgan and Blum in the year 1963, and helped them revise the 2nd edition of that textbook. :) Rjensen 13:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I have removed your claim that "…most historians believe that today's Democratic Party is the inheritor of the original Democratic-Republican Party," until you can provide evidence to back it up.

— DLJessup (talk) 06:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I already backed it up. I gave you a citation to the official website of the Democratic Party. What more do you want? GriotGriot

Last I heard, the Democratic Party was not "most historians". — DLJessup (talk) 13:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

We are writing an encyclopedia here and not recycling press releases from party headquarters. People expect us to be nonpartisan. Rjensen 13:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Britannica says the Democratic-Republican Party "was the direct antecedent of the present Democratic Party." --JW1805 (Talk) 00:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's try to clear up some confusion here. First, a political party web site is a poor source for scholarly information, because all political parties have a vested interest in putting themselves in the best possible light. Second, it is incorrect to say that the Democratic-Republican Party (a.k.a. the original Republican Party) IS today's Democratic Party, because the old Republican Party split up. However, it is correct to say that the Democratic Party and the National Republican Party were directly descended from the old Republican Party. (E.g. I am directly descended from my parents. I have a sister. She is also directly descended from my parents. The fact that my sister is directly descended from my parents in no way diminishes the fact that I am as well.) However, the National Republican Party didn't survive. Only the Democratic Party survived. Therefore, the Democratic Party is the only party today that is directly descended from the old Republican Party. Instead of disproving this point, the quote above from The National Experience: A History of the United States actually reinforces it. - JP

I would suggest that today's Democratic Party, with its emphasis on big government to solve the world's problems (which Jefferson despised) really began in the 1930's under Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Yes the ideals of the Democratic-Republican party are contradictory to those of the modern democratic party. The modern democratic party puts a large amount of power into the government and redistributes wealth and property, these are measures contradictory to the ideals of a limited government. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, its founders, were of the primary writers of the constitution. The origional US constitution, sharing the exact ideals of the democratic-republican party(you may note our government is a democratic republic), values the right of property considerably more then the modern democratic party. The beginning of the democratic party was with Andrew Jackson, he even made the modern symbol. He was considered stubborn and someone called him a jackass in his campaign, he liked it so much he made it the party's symbol. -Uvirith

First, political parties change over time, so the question of whether the ideals of today's Democratic Party and the Democratic-Republican Party are the same is a moot point. The Republican Party started as a radical anti-slave party and is now quite conservative. Second, the Democratic-Republican Party of Thomas Jefferson was anti-elitist. This is very much in line with modern Democratic Party. Griot 14:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Political parties do not change overtime, the status of whether they are 'liberal' or 'conservative' changes based on what the status quo of the current government is, but their ideals remain the same. At the time slavery was a problem, the republicans were liberals because their ideals were against slavery and as it was an idea they wanted to change the government with, it was a liberal idea, but then once slavery was abolished, it was the status quo and was now a conservative ideal. In modern day politics the republicans are liberal in some things and conservative on others, they wish to make abortion illegal which is a conservative idea, but they also want to eliminate gun control, and make marijuana and prostitution legal which are all liberal ideas by the current status quo. A political party's ideals will always remain the same over time, the difference is how they are classified, by either as liberal or conservative, a conservative ideal being one in the status quo and a liberal idea being one they would like to instill in the government. Their ideals never changed. Anti-elitism is a belief about social structure, but has nothing to do with government, unless, like the democrats you try to eradicate elitism by redistributing wealth through the government. However, The Democratic-Republican party did not go about it in this way, and didn't violate property rights. Andrew Jackson having created a new party in a time where the party still existed, obviously would not have created a new party from an existing party if he had ideals consistent to those of the Democratic-Republican party.

It should also be noted that Thomas Jefferson hated Andrew Jackson, he is quoted speaking of how he would greatly fear seeing a man who so blatantly abuses the powers of the constitution in office, even in the archaic political Arena, Andrew Jackson's party was a competitor to Jefferson's ideals.

Actually anti-elitism is contradictory to the ideals of the democratic party. The economic model of the democratic party is that of socialism, in a socialist society there is no means for the rich to generate wealth for the poor, the rich live in the lap of luxury sacrificing only enough to support the poor's ability to live, and the poor eat shit on a lowly level of society, never gaining the opportunity to become anything but poor.

Er, so political parties don't change over time? Are you really saying that? And also, Andrew Jackson was able to attract most former members of Jefferson's party to support him, even though his part had ideals "inconsistent" with the Jeffersonian Republicans? Also, if "the economic model of the democratic party is that of socialism" and "political parties don't change over time," does that make Andrew Jackson a socialist? I'm astonished that you seem to know about obscure late Jefferson quotes, but to be entirely unfamiliar with the generally understood history of American political parties, or, really, of any political parties. john k 08:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Modern claims to Democratic-Republican heritage

I have never read anywhere of the Republican Party laying claim to a heritage spiritual or otherwise from the Democratic-Republican Party. Let's remember that the States Rights argument was made originally by Southern Democrats starting shortly before the Civil War, and that it was Southern Democrats who supported States Rights up until quite recently in the 1960s, when the Democratic Party abandoned States Rights and the Republican Party took up this mantle as part of is southern strategy.

I propose removing this section about both parties having an equal claim to the Demo-Republican Party until someone can demonstrate that the Republican Party makes this claim. I have never heard any Republicans make it. GriotGriot

You might ask why they took the name "Republican". Some of the GOP founders had been closely associated with Henry Clay, the Republican leader in Congress circa 1800-1820 who wanted to keep the name going. Gould in his standard history of the GOP (203): p 14 "Why did the name "Republican" gain such favor? [in 1854] Simply as a title it connected voters with the original political organization of Thomas Jefferson in the 1790s." Rjensen 08:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I phrased it so that people will know that popular history says one thing and scholarly history says another. Rjensen 10:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Suits me. Thanks for hearing my side of the debate. GriotGriot

• There's a statement in the article about "Remini's 1959 book" disputing the link with the modern-day Democratic party, but this book isn't cited in the References. Could someone please provide this reference? --JW1805 (Talk) 00:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe that it is accurate to assert "only the Democratic Party has a direct link to the original Democratic-Republican Party, and indeed the party says on its official website that it was founded in 1792 by Thomas Jefferson.[1] The Democratic Party is often called 'the party of Jefferson'; whereas the Republican Party, which was founded in 1854, is called 'the party of Lincoln.'" No proof is provided to validate the claim. Just because the Democratic Party is referred to as "the party of Jefferson" does not mean that it in any way reflects the attitudes of Thomas Jefferson and the early Republicans. Furthermore, do you really believe that a party website is a legitimate source of information?

I have removed all of the unsourced claims from the section. Feel free to add material back or add new material provided that it is sourced. The section is too contentious and vulnerable to POV to allow unsourced claims in it. Kaldari 00:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Remini book = Remini, Robert V. Martin Van Buren and the Making of the Democratic Party (1959) cited in DEM party history page. The Democrats in fact do claim Jefferson as a founder. Read Peterson on "Jefferson Image" for full details. Rjensen 00:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The new version is slightly improved, but still not sourced. Please add citations to the article for each assertion. Yes, I know the Democrats claim Jefferson as a founder. That statement is cited, that's why I didn't remove it. All the other statements will be probably get removed again unless they are given sources. This is wikipedia policy. Please see WP:V. Kaldari 01:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The best sources are Peterson, Merrill D. The Jefferson Image in the American Mind (ISBN: 0195006984) 1960 and also Wiltse, Charles Maurice. The Jeffersonian Tradition in American Democracy (1935). They will supply all the info you seek. Rjensen 01:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Obviously the most contentious claim in the section is: "only the Democratic Party has a direct link to the original Democratic-Republican Party". This sentence is going to be subject to endless edit wars until someone provides some sort of quotation or specific reference to back it up. I have no intention of reading two out-of-print books to verify the statement. Either provide an accessable and specific source, and link the statement to the citation or I will continue to delete it (not because I disagree with it, but because I'm sick of the endless edit wars over it's wording). If you believe it should exist in the article, provide a specific reference to show why it should be worded in whatever way you want to word it. Otherwise, these edit wars will continue ad nauseum. Kaldari 02:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

But Peterson goes over all this: The Dem party claims the PARTY heritage and the GOP never mentions it. Both claim a JEFFERSONIAN heritage. So I rewote to try to say that. Kaldari perhaps has a different text to propose?? Rjensen 02:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no text to propose. I propose citing some specific references in the section so we can leave it alone for good. If we have no citations, I prefer your wording to Griot's, not because I think it is more accurate, but because it is less strongly worded. Kaldari 02:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see where the "strong words" are. The fact is, the modern Democratic Party has a direct link to the Democratc-Republican Party by way of Van Buren and Andrew Jackson. The modern Demos are an offshoot of that original party. I really don't see where the controversy is. GriotGriot

The party split. One half became today's Democratic Party. The other half became the National Republican Party, which soon died off. The Democratic Party has a DIRECT link. Today's Republican Party has at best an INDIRECT link, i.e. it is several degrees of separation and roughly three decades away. - JP

The National Republicans did not "soon die off." They merged with dissident southern ex-Jacksonians to form the Whig Party. After the Whig party collapsed as a national party in 1854, the remaining northern Whig state parties, most notably that of New York under William H. Seward, went over wholesale to the Republicans. Furthermore, the name "Republican" was clearly chosen to show the party's purported lineage back to Jefferson. I would agree that the Democrats have a more direct link than the Republicans to the old Jeffersonian Party, but I also think that we should be careful about saying that "only the Democratic Party" has a connection to the Jeffersonian party. john k 16:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Do remember that many of the National Republicans were former Federalists, who joined the Democratic Party under Madison and JQAdams - when it had no effective opposition. Let us not encourage, even inadvertently, the modern partisan hooey. Septentrionalis 18:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

True, but many Democrats were also former Federalists. James Buchanan and Roger B. Taney, for instance. john k 19:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh no. Not again. This discussion has already been had twice, and at length. Twice. Let's leave as is. Griot 19:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh no. Not again. AGAIN. This subject has been rehashed many times. The Democratic Party has a genuine link to the old Democratic-Republican Party, and indeed the Demo Party believes strongly in this link. Why delete it from this article? Why go around and around this subject again? Griot 17:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

What do current textbooks say? ans = Republicans

I checked 8 current college US history textbooks that have online tables of contents 1 uses Dem-Rep (see #3) 6 use Republican 1 uses Jeffersonians (#6)

• 1 Tindall-Shi (W W Norton) “Republican Party” http://www.wwnorton.com/college/titles/history/usa6/TOC.pdf

Longman: http://www.ablongman.com/catalog/academic/discipline/0,,72158,00.html

• 2 Mark C. Carnes, and John A. Garraty,

ch 5 has section Federalists and Republicans: The Rise of Political Parties.

• 3 Jones: Created Equal

ch 9. Revolutionary Legacies, 1789—1803. Competing Political Visions in the New Nation. Federalism and Democratic-Republicanism in Action.

• 4 Gary Nash American People

ch 8 student guide Controversy between Federalist supporters of the national government and the emerging Jeffersonian Republican opposition first erupted over domestic policies designed to stabilize the nation's finances and promote its economic development. Those policies revealed deep-seated conflicts between economic interests and raised urgent questions of how the new constitution should be interpreted

• 5 Divine, Am Past & Present

ch 8 = Republican Ascendancy: The Jeffersonian Vision.

• 6 Martin, Concise History.. "Jeffersonians"

from Bedford St Martin http://www.bedfordstmartins.com/history/bcs/index.html

• 7 Henretta America’ History (Bedford) ch 7/

Jefferson's Agrarian Vision Hamilton's financial programs divided the Federalists into two irreconcilable political parties and led to the emergence of the Republicans, a group headed by Madison and Jefferson.

• 8 Roark American Promise (Bedford)

Republicans in Power 1800-1824 http://bcs.bedfordstmartins.com/roark/pages/bcs-main.asp?v=&s=09000&n=00010&i=09010.00&o= so the textbooks vote is 7-1 against D-R and 6-2 in favor of Republicans Rjensen 14:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I think most people here are receptive to the idea of changing the article name. The question is, what should it be changed to? Kaldari 15:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I dispute these results. Just looking at the table of contents in no way proves what you are claiming. No one denies that "Republican" is a adjective that is used to describe members of the "Democratic-Republican" party. Most of these examples use the word in an adjective form "Republican Ascendancy", or to denote the members of the parties "Federalists and Republicans". That does not prove anything. --JW1805 (Talk) 18:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Online encyclopedias Britannica and Encarta both use "Democratic-Republican" party. A Google search for this term yields about 43,300 hits. This is in no way the obsolete term that you seem to think it is. No one disputes that the party was called "Republican" in its day. However, the current usage, to avoid confusion with the modern day Republican Party, is to use "Democratic-Republican". --JW1805 (Talk) 03:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• Britannica says that the party was originaly called "Republican" (1792–98), but were called "Democratic-Republicans" by the Federalists, who were attempting to link them to the French Revolution, and the Republicans officially adopted "Democratic-Republican" in 1798. This seems to contradict information in this article, which claims the term was "never actually used". --JW1805 (Talk) 03:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with JW. Let's fix this. Somebody fix this error, please. GriotGriot
    • I suggest the textbook evidence is more useful than encyclopedias that are recycling articles written decades ago. For article name how about "Republican Party (Jeffersonian)" Will that satisfy everyone? Rjensen 18:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Wiki IS an encyclopedia, not a text book. Before I came here, I never heard it called otherwise than the Democratic-Republican Party.
        • That certainly has no bearing on what we are here to decide. Skyemoor 01:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
      • That is the name scholars have given it. Why screw around with this. Griot 22:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)Griot
        • "Scholars" have said that the earliest name of the party was The Republican Party. Why screw around with this? Skyemoor 01:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Agree with Griot. Strongly disagree with Rjensen. It should stay as Democratic-Republican. I also don't agree with Rjensen's going around other Wikipedia articles changing all instances of "Democratic-Republican" to "Republican". This is just confusing to readers, and will require a disamb statement in every article that it is used ("Note that this is different from the modern day Republican Party"). Is that really desirable? I think not. --JW1805 (Talk) 23:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Confusing to readers? If the reader uses a textbbook, he will be confused by 7 out of 8 because they do not use the old-fashioned term "D-R" anymore. Should Wiki keep old fashioned readers happy or should it be accurate? I say let's be accurate and up-to-date and explain to people the confusions that are involved. Griot says we should use the name scholars do, and I agree 100% I point out that scholars have shifted their usage over the last 50 years. We should go with the 80-90% of the scholarly and textbook community and not be stuck in 1960. Rjensen 22:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Please see my comments above. The evidence you have presented does not prove that textbooks no longer use "Democratic-Republican". --JW1805 (Talk) 23:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I actually LOOKED at 8 current textbooks, That's 8 more than anyone else here. One used D-R. Should Wiki be current or should it reflect the terminology used 20 and 30 years ago? Rjensen 00:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, above you said you looked at the table of contents, which doesn't really prove anything. Democratic-Republican Party is the commonly used name. I happened to notice today's History Channel Today in History even has it. The term has 78,000 Google hits. It's used in other encyclopedias. It's a convenient term to distinguish between the modern-day Republican Party. There is no reason to create confusion by renaming the article or changing the links to this page. You seem to be the only one who thinks that is a good idea. --JW1805 (Talk) 22:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

You are arguing convenience should be the best measure. That is certainly not the way to refine an encyclopedia. Skyemoor 01:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm late to the party, but I certainly agree with Rjensen. The term "Democratic-Republican" is mostly not used anymore, and is anachronistic. I'd also prefer Republican Party (Jeffersonian), or something similar. Even if we don't move the article, we certainly shouldn't use the term "Democratic-Republican" any more than is necessary for basic disambiguation. john k 17:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Support Republican Party (Jeffersonian). Skyemoor 01:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

What happened to the section about the Jacksonian Republicans?

If the Republican Party ceased to exist after 1816, why do so many sources say that various candidates from the 1820s and 1830s were Republicans or Democratic-Republicans? Are we sure the history of the party ends in 1816? Kaldari 19:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

when did the party die? That's an interesting question and Richard McCormick book looks at it state by state. 1816 was the last NATIONAL organized activity (the Republican Caucus picked Monroe.) In 1820 Monroe did not use the caucus. In 1824 Crawford tried to revive the caucus but most members refused to attend, and when his little caucus did nominate him, most states ignored it. That is they did not recognize the Caucus as binding anymore, which is why we can say the party was gone. Candidates in 1824 had in the past been active--Clay was the party leader in Congress for 10 years (between 1810 and 1824). The others Jackson, Adams, Crawford had been active in state party work.Rjensen 20:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

What should candidates who were aligned with Andrew Jackson in the 1820s and 1830s be called? Jacksonians? Democrats? Jacksonian Democrats? Republicans? Democratic-Republicans? Jacksonian Republicans? Right now we use all of the above. There is no consistancy in Wikipedia whatsoever. It's a total mess really. Kaldari 23:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point. They called themselves "Jackson Men" or "Friends of Jackson." I would call them Jacksonians and leave off party because they did not see themselves as acting through an organized party. We have this in local politics in USA--school board elections say. People avoid identifying themselves as GOP or Dem, and usually do not have formal names for their groups, and might call themselves "Friends of Smith" or "Supporters of Jones". Rjensen 07:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem here is the identity of the party exclusively with presidential politics. Sam 01:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy dispute and Britannica article

Wikipedia has a page for documenting Britannica errors here.

Some of this is discussed in the above sections, but I just wanted to summarize it separately here. I added a "Disputed" tag because some information in the article contradicted information given in the Encyclopedia Britannica. See the article here, which says that the party was originally called "Republican", but "... the Federalists soon branded Jefferson's followers “Democratic-Republicans,” attempting to link them with the excesses of the French Revolution, the Republicans officially adopted the derisive label in 1798." Now this is a very specific statement from a very reputable source. The article as written had said that "Democratic-Republican" was "never actually used" and further down in the article said it was "rarely" used. I then corrected this discrepancy. My edit was modified by a user saying that "official name 1798 not accepted by most sources". I am going to rvt back, since I consider Britannica to be a reputable source. If someone can provide a simmilarly-reputable source that contradicts this information, then we can discuss it here. --JW1805 (Talk) 17:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

No other reference book or history book has picked up the EB assertion. Probably because it's a misunderstanding--the statement is very vague about who did what. There was NO national D-R or R party meeting of any sort in 1798 so who adopted the official name? It's odd that some people are reverential toward a vague statement in an old book, in an unsifned article, but disputatious towward real live experts right here. Rjensen 19:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The statements in the article (that the term "Democratic-Republican" was "never actually used") were so completely contradicted by the Britannica article, that I really had no choice but the change them. Again, if you can provide a specific reference that makes this claim, let's discuss it. --JW1805 (Talk) 00:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Wiki says don't rely on other encyclopedias--especially a short staff-written piece that is unsigned and does not have many details or bibliography. EB is full of little mistakes that we should not copy! Wiki says use best reference sources. Jefferson's complete works are online. He never uses D-R to refer to his party, always Republican. Check it out at [5] Likewise Madison never used term in his collected writings. So who used it in 1790s? evidence please. Rjensen 02:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

You've made a claim that the term "Democratic-Republican" was "never" or "rarely" used. We need more than a listing of table of contents from textbooks to prove this. I also am not convinced by the text below from 1922. Do you have a source that specifically addresses this, or specifically refutes the 1798 date from EB? Also, the question isn't simply "What did Jefferson call the party in his writings?" We have to consider: What did other people call the party? Did grass-roots members ever call it "Democratic-Republican", did the Federalists ever call it that? I presume the bit in the article about the Democratic-Republican Societies being "entirely separate" from the Party was written by you. But was that really the case?--JW1805 (Talk) 00:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Ency Brit is full of little mistakes. No other reference bnooks picks up this absurd clain: no one for example told Jefferson or Madison about it, no history book mentions it, What does a mistake look like? The rule in making encyclopedias (and I have edited several) is do NOT rely on other enycyclopedias. Wiki rules list the good sources to use and they certainly do not include a brief, unsigned staff-written minor entry in an old encyclopedia. Wiki can do better. Read for example the following standard history that shows the D-R name was first used after 1820, and only in some states. Note the quality difference between solid scholarship and short encyclopedia entries. [User:Rjensen|Rjensen]] 00:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Is your claim that the entire quote above is false? Do you deny that the Federalists called them "Democratic-Republicans"? --JW1805 (Talk) 22:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I recently made an edit, and six minutes later Rjensen reverted to the previous version, because I had cited Encyclopedia Britannica and Encarta. His reasoning was "do not use encyclopedias-- use scholarly sources". My edit was in complete accordance with the Wikipedia guidelines.[6] If Rjensen believes that Wikipedia guidelines suggest otherwise, I ask him to please point me to the exact page, section, paragraph, and sentence. If he cannot do this, then I ask him to undo his reversion. If he disputes the facts, that's fine, but don't say not to use references that are acceptable sources according to Wikipedia guidelines. - JP

EB is full of mistakes and when we spot one we do not want to use it. The statement that "The party officially changed its name to the Democratic-Republican Party in 1798" is false--and really impossible since the party was in disarray in 1798 and did not have a convention that year. Does the Encarta say "Today's Democratic Party is a direct descendent of the Democratic-Republican Party [Encarta Encyclopedia, 1999]" -- well the word "direct" is hotly disputed and Encarta (a reworking of the old supermarket Funk and Wagnals encyclopedia) is not a strong basis for handling this sort of issue. Look at Remini (1959) who says "Van Buren's first concern was creating the Democratic party," [Martin Van Buren and the Making of the Democratic Party. p 232] To be better than EB and Encarta Wiki has the genius of daily corrections. Rjensen 08:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The EB by the way copied the naming infor from the Dem party website, which says: "Thomas Jefferson founded the Democratic Party in 1792 as a congressional caucus to fight for the Bill of Rights and against the elitist Federalist Party. In 1798, the "party of the common man" was officially named the Democratic-Republican Party and in 1800 elected Jefferson as the first Democratic President of the United States. Jefferson served two distinguished terms and was followed by James Madison in 1808. Madison strengthened America's armed forces — helping reaffirm American independence by defeating the British in the War of 1812." [Note that the Bill of Rights was a done deal before 1792, and that Madison's role is badly misstated. the phrase "party of the common man" comes from the 1830s] You can read the rest--it's low quality history Rjensen 10:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

So now you're saying that Britannica copied info from the Democratic Party website? You said at Talk:Thomas Jefferson that the name change info in Britannica was copied from "Lalor's encyclopedia of 1880" (see here for the Lalor article, which does say "Upon its absorption of the French or democratic faction, in 1793-6, it took the official title of the democratic-republican party". If anything, the Democratic Party website copied it from Britannica. Also, I think you are missreading the "Bill of Rights" bit. "to fight for the Bill of Rights" doesn't mean "to fight for the ratification of the Bill of Rights"! They are just saying that he was fighting for the principles in the Bill or Rights. Anyway, that's beside the point, the link between D-R party and D party isn't just from this website, it is found in many other sources as well (some of which are cited above).--JW1805 (Talk) 16:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

People today are still fighting for the Bill of Rights, because even though it exists doesn't mean that the government always abides by it. - JP

Yes, I know Encarta is based on the old Funk and Wagnals encyclopedia, but it still meets Wikipedia's reliable sources standard.[7] No, Encarta does not say "Today's Democratic Party is a direct descendent of the Democratic-Republican Party" because that would have been plagiarism on my part. It actually says, "Although the party was also known as the Republican Party and the Jeffersonian Republican Party, in fact it was the forerunner of today's Democratic Party." I think it is clear even from what you posted in the "Let's read some history" section of this page that both the Democratic Party and the National Republican Party were direct descendents. I think it is quite odd that this Wikipedia article makes no mention of the National Republicans. I can see in the history that it used to. Also, do you dispute the claim that today's Republican Party is named after this original Republican Party? I ask because you reverted that as well. - JP

Britannica seems to disagree with itself about when the name "Democratic-Republican Party" was used. Britannica's article on the National Republican Party states, "U.S. political party formed after what had been the Republican (or Jeffersonian Republican) party split in 1825. The Jeffersonian Republicans had been the only national political party following the demise of the Federalists during the War of 1812. During the contested election of 1824, followers of Henry Clay and John Quincy Adams began calling themselves National Republicans, while backers of Andrew Jackson emerged as Democratic Republicans. By the election of 1828, the Jacksonians were simply called Democrats." - JHP 08:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's read some history

Here is the best treatment I have seen of party names. NOTE it refers to 1820-40 period but sheds a lot of light on Jeffesron's party and what happened to it. RJ The Presidential Campaign of 1832. By Samuel Rhea Gammon Johns Hopkins Press. 1922. Page Number: 155-161 (footnotes omitted). APPENDIX I PARTY NOMENCLATURE To determine exactly when the terms "Democratic" and "Democratic Republican," on the one hand, and the term "National Republican," on the other, came to be applied to the followers of Jackson and to those of Adams and Clay respectively, is difficult. This cannot be categorically determined since usage varied in different States. Indeed the only sweeping statement applicable is that there never was any uniformity or consistency generally displayed by either party in its self-designation down to 1830; even as late as 1832 the Jacksonians referred to themselves officially as the "Republican party." 1 The chief causes for the slow development of distinctive party names were: first, the reluctance of the various factions into which the old Republican party was split by the campaign of 1824 to regard themselves, or even to seem to appear, as other than the true Republican party; second, the fact that the campaigns of 1824 and 1828 were so largely based upon the personalities of the candidates instead of upon their political principles. Thus during the campaign of 1824 the Adams, Clay, Calhoun, Crawford and Jackson factions respectively considered themselves as parts of the old Republican party as it had existed under Madison and Monroe. Party nomenclature began to take distinctive shape, locally at least, during the campaign of 1824. At the beginning of that contest the one party name in existence was "Repub lican." Indeed the party had been mostly so styled since ____________________ 1 See "Proceedings of a Convention of Republican Delegates . .. held at Baltimore, . . . May, 1832," History Pamphlets, vol. 293, Johns Hopkins University Library. p-155 1812, as is shown by Jefferson's letters and by Niles' Register. 2 As the Adams and Clay factions inclined more toward each other in their advocacy of a nationalistic policy as to internal improvements, and still considered themselves and were considered within the Republican party, the descriptive adjective "national" began to be applied to them to differentiate them from the rather more particularistic followers of Jackson and Crawford. As far as can be ascertained the term "National Republican" was first applied to the Adams-Clay followers in New York during the latter stages of the campaign of 1824 when they united in the state legislature in order to defeat the Regency's effort to choose Crawford electors. Van Buren speaks of it thus: "The 'high minded' [a little group of anti-Clintonian Federalists] espoused the cause of Mr. Adams zealously, and the, feelings produced, or rather revived, by that contest carried them back into the federal ranks -then called National Republicans -where the survivors are still [ 1854] serving as Whigs." 3 However this may have been, the term was not at all used in contemporary newspapers and letters. In New York politics the name "Democratic" was also revived just prior to the opening of the national campaign of 1824. In 1818 there had been a split in the Republican party in the State, Clinton leading one faction and Van Buren the other. 4 The latter was dubbed by its enemies the "Bucktails," and about the same time began to refer to itself as the "Democratic" party. 5 The term "Republican," however, was still used to indicate both "Bucktails" and Clintonians. 6 As the Albany Regency under Van Buren's direction grew in strength and its party in the State became dominant, the term "Democratic" came to mean the Regency's party. p-156 In Pennsylvania down to 1823 the general party term was "Republican" as distinguished from "Federalist." As the democracy of the State became more and more militant in its support of Jackson, the popular meetings of his followers all over the State used the term "Democrats" to describe themselves and their political principles and referred to the political body in which they claimed membership as the "democratic republican party." 7 The state convention which nominated Jackson for president was composed of delegates appointed by the "democratic republicans of this state." 8 At the same time however the convention referred to the congressional caucus as being made up of a "minority of the republican members of Congress" and its action as being therefore a departure from "republican party" established usage. 9 This indicates that the party at large in the country was still styled the "Republican" and that Jackson's Pennsylvania supporters considered themselves as part of it. So far as any generalization is possible from the above and other instances, it appears that both general groups -the followers of Crawford and Jackson on the one hand, and those of Adams and Clay on the other -into which the old Republican party was showing a tendency to divide by the end of 1823, still regarded themselves as Republicans and within the party thus designated. The terms "Democratic," "Democratic Republican" and "National Republican" had come into being as party names, but their use was confined to localities, States at most. The use of the first of these seems to have been confined to the Regency party in New York, that of the second to the Jacksonians in Pennsylvania, while the third was a designation for the Adams-Clay faction in New York plus the remnant of Federalists who joined them. Certainly there was no general use of any party name except "Republican." p. -157 Throughout the campaign of 1828 the same characteristics were manifested. The elimination of Crawford, the relegation of Calhoun and Clay to places of secondary importance, the election of Adams, and the union between his and Clay's followers operated to draw the line more sharply between the two opposing factions into which the shattered old Republican party had coalesced by the end of 1825. No other party name than "Republican," however, was generally used by either faction and each considered itself the true Republican party, the direct lineal descendant of that of Madison and Monroe. 10 There is no evidence that either faction regarded its opponent as other than a schismatic Republican group; indeed all the evidence points to this as the case. Clay stated this point of view exactly in a letter to Webster near the close of 1826 as follows: "We really have in this country no other than a Republican party. Names may be gotten up or kept up in particular states for local or personal purposes, but at this time there are but two parties in the Union, that of the administration and the opposition." 11 In local practice throughout the country the use of party nomenclature was still inconsistent and varied. The single definite fact and also the only definite distinction in the use of names, as is shown in contemporary newspapers, was the nation-wide use of "the administration party" and "the opposition party," 12 or "the friends, of General Jackson" and "the friends of the administration." 13 Conventions were spoken of as "Adams" and "Jackson" conventions; 14 a voter was an "Adams man" or a "Jackson man"; 15 and the tickets nominated for state and local offices were known as "the Adams ticket" and "the Jackson ticket," the individual p158 candidate being the "Adams candidate" or the " Jackson candidate." 16 Aside from these terms based on the persons rather than upon their principles, there was no consistency or uniformity as to party designation. The Jackson paper in New Hampshire still referred to the supporters of the two parties as "Republicans" and "Federalists." 17 The Albany Argus spoke of "devotion to the republican cause and the interests of the democratic party" in the same sentence and connection. 18 After Jackson and Calhoun had become the party candidates in 1828, the Argus and the United States Telegraph each headed a column daily with "Republican National Ticket" over the names of the two men. 19 The Richmond Enquirer used the term "Republican" to refer to the Jackson party where the reference was unmistakable, but where it was not clear, used the conventional "Adams" or "Jackson" to distinguish. 20 Only in Pennsylvania was there a definite drift toward the use of "Democratic" as a distinctive term. The term "democratic republican" had been used to describe the Jacksonians from the time the State began to stampede to him in 1823. 21 Hence "democratic republican" continued as the term mainly used in the campaign of 1828. Notwithstanding this there was a tendency to use "democratic" alone as the party designation. This tendency is illustrated by the references to the state convention at Harrisburg which was referred to by the party papers as the "Democratic Convention at Harrisburg." 22 It appears also in the convention's p-159 nomination of Jackson "as the democratic candidate of Pennsylvania" for president. 23 As to the Adams party, if Van Buren's memory was correct after twenty-five years, the name "National Republican" had been in existence since the campaign of 1824, 24 but there was certainly no general, and apparently no local, use of it during the campaign of 1828. As has been said the party was generally referred to among its friends as the "Republican" party if the reference was unmistakable, otherwise as the "friends of the administration" or "friends of Adams." During the campaign of 1832, the use of party names rested more on party principles, hence for the most part the names of Jackson and Clay were discarded as descriptive adjectives. As nearly as can be determined, the name "National Republican" became current during the year 1830, about the time that party launched Clay's campaign. 25 Niles begins using it and it begins to appear in letters about the end of 1830 and the beginning of 1831. 26 In the first two months of 1831 it became fixed party usage. During the process of effecting the party's organization in New York City it was used exclusively; 27 it was also used for the most part by the state conventions held in Connecticut and Maine at this time. 28 "National Republican" received what may be called the final stamp of approval as the party's official title by the National Intelligencer in its issue of February 22, 1831, thus: "National Republican is an excellent designation for a national party in our republican Union. Let it be adopted everywhere, by all who would uphold the Federal Constitution; secure the independence and continuance of the p160 Supreme Court; preserve a sound currency; possess a substantive and enlightened President of the United States; prevent offices from becoming the booty of mere partisans and parasites; and obtain a truly responsible and visible government." 29 Hence it is to be expected, and this was actually the case, that the proceedings of the party's two conventions, that at Baltimore in December, 1831, and that at Washington the following May, should be printed by order of those bodies under the respective titles of "Journal of the National Republican Convention" and "Proceedings of the National Republican Convention of Young Men." 30 During the campaign the use of "Democratic" as a designation for the party increased somewhat in favor with the Jacksonians but did not by any means displace "Republican" as the party's official title. "Democratic Republican" was, however, the most frequently used of the three names, no doubt in order to differentiate the party more sharply from the National Republican. Seward states that "The campaign for 1832 opened with the year 1830. The Republican party, now taking to itself the more radical name of 'the Democratic party,' announced . . . its determination to secure the reelection of Andrew Jackson." 31 Seward's memory here seems at fault since the New York Courier and Enquirer, then staunchly Jacksonian, in the same article referred to the Jackson party by all three names, as "republican party," "democratic party" and "democratic republicans." 32 In Pennsylvania "Democratic Republican" remained the most prevalent term, with "Democratic" used to some extent, 33 and this seems to have been the case p 161 in New Hampshire also. 34 A letter from Richards to McLean shows that the Jackson ticket in Philadelphia "is called simply the Democratic ticket." 35 For all these local variations, and the probable increased use of "Democratic Republican," 36, the official designation of the party remained "Republican." Thus The Globe, the Albany Argus, and the Richmond Enquirer usually referred to their party by the latter name, and Jackson, Kendall and other leaders so designated it in their letters. 37 This official title of the party conclusively appears in the caption of the proceedings of its convention in Baltimore, as "A Convention of Republican Delegates." 38 To generalize categorically concerning this usage, which was so varied and which crystallized so gradually, is venturesome. The following facts, however, seem to stand out with some degree of clearness. As to the designation of the followers of Adams and, later, of Clay, the term "National Republican" may have been coined as early as the campaign of 1824, according to Van Buren, 39 or in that of 1828, according to Seward, 40 but the name certainly did not attain general or official usage before 1830, after Clay's campaign was under way. As to the Jackson party, the designations "Democratic" and "Democratic Republican" were both used in the campaign of 1824," 41 but in a few localities only. The party, like that of Adams and Clay, still regarded itself as the Republican party, and this name continued as the official one to the close of the campaign of 1832, with "Democratic Republican" gaining but not supplanting "Republican" in current usage. [end of Appendix] Rjensen 22:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Wow, that's a lot of text! I am not familiar with this author, and have no idea if he is credible. It is also an "old book", as you said about the EB. Anyway, this seems to be about the later period when the party became the modern-day Democratic Party, and thus doesn't seem to specifically address the issues that I had with the earlier version of the article.--JW1805 (Talk) 00:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Judges & TJ

Jefferson was famous for his attacks on activist judges (esp John Marshall!) which modern day GOP echoes. As for the heritage bit, I think almost everyone refers to Jefferson's heritage with very little mention of Madison, Gallatin, Monroe etc. Peterson (1960) makes that clear as does Wiltse. Rjensen 05:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The term "activist judge" as it is understood today was never used in the 1800s. The concept simply hadn't been invented. You have a political agenda which you are ramming into this article. Please stop. You are already the subject of one Wikipedia alert: Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#January 30, 2006. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Griot (talk • contribs) 14:27, February 17, 2006.

Agreed. You can't just say "Jefferson opposed activist judges". That's a modern term. You need to attempt to be more precise, and present sources and specifics. I know Jefferson did have a problem with English judges incorporating Christianity into the Common law. That seems like something the modern-day Democrats would agree with, and not evidence of continuity with the modern-day Republican Party. --JW1805 (Talk) 22:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The Feds did occasionally attack the Republicans as "Democrats" and rarely "D-R". The reason is that Washington made an all out attack on the D-R societies that ruined them. But Fed leaders like Hamilton and Adams did not make that crude gesture. The R party never adopted those terms--no other reference book or scholarly book repeats the error of the anonymous EB staff writer. Rjensen 01:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Jefferson strongly attacked the federal judiciary because he thought it was impsoing its views in undemocratic fashion. What better term than "activist judges" would you recommend? Jefferson himself said, "They [the judges] are then in fact the corps of sappers and miners, steadily working to undermine the independent rights of the States, and to consolidate all power in the hands of that government in which they have so important a freehold estate" Sounds "activist" to me. Rjensen 08:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like he was attacking them as Federalists, rather than as "activist" (which is a modern political buzzword that didn't exist at the time). --JW1805 (Talk) 20:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

"activist" is the term used in 2006 to describe judges who overturn laws passed by Congress. That was Jefferson's complaint and he repeated it many times over the years. He did not call the judges "Federalists" he called them usurpers. Rjensen 23:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem with claiming that "Jefferson opposed activist judges" is that the statement assumes that there actually is such a thing as an "activist judge," which is a matter of debate. Also, even if TJ referred to Marshall as an "usurper", it does not mean that Marshall actually was an usurper. We need to distinquish the difference between accusation and fact, because otherwise we are essentially using the Complex Question fallacy. - JHP 130.76.96.17 01:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, the "activist judge" accusation means more than a judge who overturns laws passed by Congress. The term implies that judges make decisions based on their own wants, rather than based on the U.S. Constitution. - JHP 130.76.96.17 01:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

agreed and that seems to be Jefferson's point as well. By 1820 quote, over 90% of the federal judges were Republican appointees so he's complaining not about party but about the power that all judges grab when they get their robes. Rjensen 01:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but the claim that all (or any) judges grab power when they get their robes is an unsubstantiated claim. I would even say it's a false claim. See fallacy of many questions. - JHP 130.76.96.17 01:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Wiki should not make judgments about judges one way or the other. We should say exactly what Jefferson said and did on the matter (and TJ did take action like abolishing all new judgships, impeaching 2 judges, and appointing his own people.) One reason TJ is so important is that he represents an anti-court positition that has echoed in history (Lincoln on Dred Scott, TR in 1912, FDR in 1937, many conservatives today). Rjensen 01:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

But the problem is that you are making judgments about judges. That's my whole point. It is the way you phrased the statement that is the problem. You are implying that judges actually are activists. You are using a complex question logical fallacy in your statement. To say that "Jefferson opposed what he considered to be 'usurper' judges" is one thing, but your statement implies that judges actually are/were activists/usurpers. Furthermore, your unsubstantiated claim that all judges grab power when they get their robes seems to reveal an alternative motive on your part. - JHP 02:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

You're making broad generalizations about Jefferon's actions using modern terms and concepts. What did Jefferson do? He:

1. Attempted to remove Federalists judges. This was part of a general "purge" of Federalist office holders. He wasn't "anti-court", he just wanted his people in the courts.
2. Was against the concept of judicial review. That seems to be what his point was in the 1820 letter to Jarvis. He was against the Marbury decision. That doesn't correspond to the modern notion of anti "activist judges". You aren't seriously saying that the modern-day conservatives want to overturn Marbury are you? That's just absurd. The article should just say what Jefferson and the party did. Don't confuse the issue by using modern terms out of context. --JW1805 (Talk) 02:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

well first of all I personally disagree with Jefferson and I do NOT myself oppose what people today call judicial activism. I hope that answers the question of my bias. All Jeffeerson biographers agree he was intensely anti-judiciary. Read Garry Wills (2005) for thr latest example. Wiki's job is to reveal Jefferson. It was no secret. And yes indeed, modern conservatives are unhappy with Marbury for the same reason TJ was: it allows unelected judges to cancel the laws passed by elected officials. (and again, I support Marbury myself). The "activism" we are talking about is not marching in the streets, it's overruling the elected branches of govt and means the same in 2006 as 1806. Rjensen 02:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Name one Republican elected official, or one Republican-appointed judge that has publicly stated that Marbury v. Madison should be overturned. Not even Clarence Thomas thinks that! --JW1805 (Talk) 03:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

More TJ quotes:

1822: We already see the power, installed for life, responsible to no authority (for impeachment is not even a scare-crow), advancing with a noiseless and steady pace to the great object of consolidation. The foundations are already deeply laid by their decisions, for the annihilation of constitutional State rights, and the removal of every check, every counterpoise to the ingulphing power of which themselves are to make a sovereign part. [* * *] Let the future appointments of judges be for four or six years, and removable by the President and Senate. This will bring their conduct, at regular periods, under revision and probation, and may keep them in equipoise between the general and special governments. We have erred in this point, by copying England, where certainly it is a good thing to have the judges independent of the King. But we have omitted to copy their caution also, which makes a judge removable on the address of both legislative houses. That there should be public functionaries independent of the nation, whatever may be their demarit, is a solecism in a republic, of the first order of absurdity and inconsistency. — TITLE: To Wm. T. Barry. EDITION: Washington ed. vii, 256.

• Or this from 1823: At the establishment of our Constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the Constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is [Col 2] not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account. — TITLE: To A. Coray. EDITION: Washington ed. vii, 322.[8] Conclusion: TJ DEEPLY distrusted federal judges, Rjensen 02:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he was against life appointements. Again, this is not something that modern-day conservatives would agree with. Maybe some would, but there certainly isn't any broad support for changing this. There most certainly isn't any support for Jefferson's idea of letting judges be removed by the President! --JW1805 (Talk) 03:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

On conservatives who attack Marbury: [from Amazon.com] "Conservative talk radio host, lawyer, and frequent National Review contributor Mark R. Levin comes out firing against the United States Supreme Court in Men in Black, accusing the institution of corrupting the ideals of America's founding fathers. The court, in Levin's estimation, pursues an ideology-based activist agenda that oversteps its authority within the government. Levin examines several decisions in the court's history to illustrate his point, beginning with the landmark Marbury v. Madison case, wherein the court granted itself the power to declare acts of the other branches of government unconstitutional. ...To his talk-radio listeners, Levin's hard-charging style and dire warnings of the court's direction will strike a resonant tone of alarm, though the hyperbole may be a bit off-putting to the uninitiated. As an attack on the vagaries of decisions rendered by the Supreme Court and on some current justices, Men in Black scores points and will likely lead sympathetic juries to conviction. --John Moe " So, yes, Marbury is still in dispute--read the National review every week for more on this. As for TJ's plan to remove judges. Well TJ's supporters DID carry that out in many state constitutions (putting in elected judges for fixed terms), and of course FDR had a plan to add 6 more judges right away. Rjensen 03:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way Scalia in 2005 said flatly that "Marbury v. Madison is wrong" and illegitimate. [9] Rjensen 03:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

No, that's not what he said. He said that if you think the Constitution is about evolving standards of a civilized society, then Marbury v. Madison is wrong, because there's no reason that it should be up to 9 lawyers to determine the standards of a civilized society. If, on the other hand, like Scalia you believe that the Constitution is a binding legal document based on the original intentions of its drafters, then Marbury v. Madison is perfectly fine. john k 15:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

campaign techniques

The party invented many campaign techniques--there are numerous books and studies that demonstrate this in detail. That is a major contribution and needs to be explained, which I try to do in non-controversial fashion. A number of historians have pointed to Beckley as they key person so he gets appropriate attention. See books by Cunningham, Elkins-McKitrick, Paisley, Chambers, Lipset, Tinkom, and Risjord. Rjensen 01:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Long excerpts - copyright violations?

The long blockquotes recently added are a bit disruptive to the flow of the article. This isn't Wikisource. Some effort should be made to summarize this material, and link to the full text in the External links or References section. --JW1805 (Talk) 16:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

It would help tremendously if the editors here would start using footnotes like the rest of Wikipedia (instead of just compiling a list of books that may or may not have been used to create the article and then dumping huge quotations into the article as references). Kaldari 19:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. These long block quotes add nothing to the article, but are there strictly because they are interesting the person who included them in the article. Let's remember that brevity is not only the soul of wit, but also the soul of good reading. These long block quotes are suitable to a book -- and indeed, that's where they come from -- but not to an encyclopedia article. I suggest cutting them out. Furthermore, it is a violation of the copyright law to copy more than 250 words of someone else's work without getting permission. One of these quotes should go on copyright violation alone. Griot 04:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Good point so I fixed the problem with paraphrases. The only long quote is now the Jefferson letter [public domain] that laid out party principles and became the party platform for years. Rjensen 08:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

What are the copyright rules? [Chronicle 2/23/06: "A fact sheet on fair use published by the U.S. Copyright Office does not say that fair use is limited to a set number of words. It says fair use of a work is permitted for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research....And the guidelines say that 1,000 words or 10 percent of a work of prose, whichever is less, can be republished. But at least two publishers, Blackwell Publishing and Elsevier, advise authors and editors seeking to make fair use of a book to republish no more than 400 words." [10] Rjensen 10:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I work in the field (I'm an editor). At our publishing house, the rule is no more than 250 words unless you get copyright permission from the original publisher. Griot 15:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Article name

I wanted to bring this up again. Rjensen is totally right that in recent works, "Republican" is overwhelmingly more common than "Democratic-Republican," which is rapidly becoming an obsolete term. I would much prefer to move this article to something like Republican Party (Jeffersonian) or Republican Party (1792-1824), or something.

But if there's a consensus to leave it here, I don't have a serious issue with that. What I do have an issue with is Griot's claim that because the article is here, we have to refer to it as the "Democratic-Republican Party" in every other article on wikipedia. That is ridiculous, and not in line with any wiki policy that I am aware of. john k 03:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

John K is absolutely right. As I showed above the textbooks have made the switch already, so that students will be confused when they comne to Wiki for help. Rjensen 03:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

John K. is not right, and I direct everyone's attention to the debates found higher in this page. We went over this topic in depth two months ago. It's called "the Democratic-Republican Party" in the Britannica, in Encarta, and the World Book Enyclopedia. The Columbia Encyclopedia says the early party "called themselves Republicans or Democratic Republicans" [11]. Historians called it the "Democratic-Republican Party" for that reason and to distinguish it from the modern-day Republicans. It's called the Democratic-Republican Party in hight school and college textbooks. Please read "Name of Article" above before you weigh in here. There's no point in going over old ground if you don't have to. Griot 13:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I've read that. You, so far, have only cited other encyclopedias. Rjensen has cited from numerous textbooks. The latter is a better model for how we should title the article than the former. If you want to demonstrate that it was called the "Democratic-Republican Party" at the time, you'll have to cite something other than an encyclopedia - my understanding is that this term was only used after 1824 for supporters of Jackson. For instance, my copy of the Encyclopedia of American History by Richard B. Morris (a book dating back to 1976, but highly useful, and which refers to the party in question mostly as the Republicans, but occasionally as the Democratic-Republicans) has this to say: Over the winter of 1824-25, the Republican party divided into two groups. The Adams-Clay wing became known as the National Republicans, while the "Jackson men" emerged as the Democratic Republicans. To demonstrate that high school and college textbooks use Democratic-Republicans, you'll have to, you know, cite textbooks, instead of just asserting it. So far, Rjensen surveyed 8 textbooks, 6 of which used "Republicans" and only one of which used "Democratic-Republicans". JP additionally cited a textbook which uses "Democratic-Republican", and provided a scan of a page of it, but did not say what textbook it was, leaving it essentially useless as a citation (it may, for all we know, be the same one that Rjensen found which uses "Democratic-Republican"; or it may be an older edition of a textbook which has since switched to "Republican".) So, yeah, I've read the earlier discussion, and I find it completely unconvincing. You've been particularly unhelpful about citing any useful sources beyond encyclopedias. john k 15:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)\

"You, so far, have only cited other encyclopedias." I hate to be the one to remind you, but Wiki is an encyclopedia. Editors of encyclopedias have the problem of classifying articles under specific topics -- a problem that most scholars don't have. For consistency's sake, we have to select terms for use and stick to them. Why not take the lead of the Encyclopedia Britannica and leave it at that. I'm tired of this sophomoric carping. Griot 22:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You yourself have repeatedly said things like "history books use Democratic-Republican" and "textbooks use Democratic-Republican," and yet you have not cited any. I take it that this statement is an admission that, in fact, you have no interest in providing support for these statements, and that you're content to simply follow Britannica usage. If you want to do that, fine, but it's not an open and shut case, and I think there's plenty of good reasons (starting with the fact that use of "Democratic-Republicans" is anachronistic and misleading) not to use "Democratic-Republican" in any situation but ones where it's necessary to distinguish the party from the modern Republican Party (in lists of officeholders spanning the time period from the first party system to the third, for instance). It's not good enough to just point to Britannica and say it's a done deal - there are plenty of articles we give different titles to than other encyclopedias. The basic fact is that, whenever possible, an encyclopedia cannot base itself on another encyclopedia. It should base itself on more specialized sources. If we just parrot Britannica, we're completely useless. While for article titles, there is sometimes reason to defer to usage in other encyclopedias (for formatting issues like how to title articles on British peers, say), I don't think that applies in this case. And your dismissiveness does not make for a terribly constructive atmosphere. john k 23:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

In terms of usage in other articles, I think the standard should be that we use "Democratic-Republican" in contexts where there might otherwise be confusion with the modern Republican party (lists of officeholders, for instance), and "Republican" in contexts where there is no confusion. Obviously, both names should be mentioned on this page. john k 18:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

JSTOR Results

I've done a JSTOR search on the use of the term "Democratic-Republicans" in history journals after 1990 (JSTOR only goes up to about 1999, so this would exclude the most recent usage, but still should be fairly useful). There are 108 results for Democratic-Republican, but let's follow up...

1. "Republicanism in the Age of Democratic Revolution: The Democratic-Republican Societies of the 1790s," by Matthew Schoenbachler, Journal of the Early Republic, 1998. This article uses the term to refer to societies, rather than to the party. It notes in a footnote that the societies were given various names, including "Democratic," "Republican," "Democratic-Republican," "True Republican," "Constitutional," "United Freemen," "Patriotic," "Political," "Franklin," and "Madisonian," but that he will use "Democratic-Republican" to refer to them. However, he refers to the party as the "Republican Party."

NOT APPLICABLE. THIS IS FROM A FOOTNOTE.

What are you talking about? In the text of the review he uses "Republican" to refer to the party. john k 00:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

2. Review by Charles E. Clark of Richard N. Rosenfeld's American Aurora: A Democratic-Republican Returns. The Suppressed History of Our Nation's Beginnings and the Heroic Newspaper That Tried To Report It. in the Journal of American History, 2000. Whatever the book itself does (It is unclear from the title whether it would refer to the party as the Democratic-Republicans), the review author uses "Republican" to refer to the party.

Supports DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLICAN (the book is about Jefferson's followers; "...his history depicts a radical 1790s Democratic-Republican point of view..." [12]

The review refers to the party as the Republicans. john k 00:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

As does your H-Net review. john k 18:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

3. Review by Dean Albertson of Irwin and Debi Unger's Turning Point: 1968, American Historical Review, 1990. This usage is irrelevant to the discussion, referring to Democratic-Republican disputes in the 1960s.

NOT APPLICABLE

4. Review by William M. Fowler of Gene A. Smith's "For the Purpose of Defense": The Politics of the Jeffersonian Gunboat Program. in the Journal of the Early Republic, 1995. Uses "Democratic Republican" to refer to the party.

Supports DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLICAN.

5. Review by Harry Ammon of Robert Allen Rutland's The Prediency of James Madison, Journal of American History, 1991. Refers to the party as the "Democratic Republicans"

Supports DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLICAN.

6. Review by Cathy Matson of John E. Crowley's The Privileges of Independence: Neomercantilism and the American Revolution. Uses "Democratic-Republican" to refer to the party.

Supports DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLICAN.

7. Review by Marianne Persiaccante of Michael G. Kenny's The Perfect Law of Liberty: Elias Smith and the Providential History of America, uses "Democratic-Republican" to refer to the party.

Supports DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLICAN.

8. Review by Nicole Etcheson of Donald J. Ratcliffe's Party Spirit in a Frontier Republic: Democratic Politics in Ohio, 1793-1821, refers to the party as "Democratic Republicans"

Supports DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLICAN.

9. Review by Robert Allen Rutland of Stuart Leibiger's Founding Friendship: George Washington, James Madison, and the Creation of the American Republic, Journal of American History, 2000. Refers only to the "democratic-republican societies," not to the party. :NOT APPLICABLE -- party not named

10. Review by Conan Fischer of Robert Gellatley's The Gestapo and German Society: Enforcing Racial Policy, 1933-1945., English Historical Review, 1994. Obviously an irrelevant reference to the Nazis. :NOT APPLICABLE

11. "The First Party Competition and Southern New England's Public Christianity" by Jonathan D. Sassi, Journal fo the Early Republic, 2001. Uses Democratic-Republican for the Party.

Supports DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLICAN.

12. Review by Robert M.S. McDonald of The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Volume 28: January 1794 to February 1796, ed. John Catanzariti. Uses the term to refer to the Democratic-Republican Societies, not the party. :NOT APPLICABLE -- party not named

Of the first 12 results, only half use "Democratic-Republican" for the party. Taking that as representative of the results as a whole, we can assume only 54 uses of "Democratic-Republican" to refer to the party in JSTOR since 1990.

I don't understand your point here (or your math; much more than half use "Democratic-Republican"). Your research seems to show that the majority of historians use the term "Democratic-Republican Party." Further, your comments below about the difficulty of searching JSTOR seem to prove the value of keeping the name "Democratic-Republican Party." A search for "Republican Party" will find the GOP 99.9% of the time. Griot 17:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let's try to explain again. I wanted to compare usage of "Democratic-Republican" with usage of "Republican". This is difficult, because both terms, especially the latter, are used to refer to things other than the political party in question. In the first case, I just did a simply search on "Democratic-Republican" since 1990. This search turned up 108 results. I wanted to determine how many of these results were relevant. Based on analysis of the first twelve, about half are relevant, meaning about 54 relevant results for usage of "Democratic-Republican" in all historical journals sincec 1990. For Republican I couldn't do the same thing, as the vast majority of references to "Republican" are going to be to other things. What I did do was a much more limited search - for "Republican Party" in two journals devoted to early American history. That search turned up 73 results. By the time I did this one, I was too tired to do a full analysis, but, again, about half were irrelevant - references to the later Republican party. That means that, in two journals, there were 37 references to the term "Republican Party" (that is to say, not including references to "the Republicans" or "Republican politician so-and-so"). That is to say, 54 references to "Democratic-Republican" in all journals vs. 37 references to "Republican Party" in two journals. By extrapolation, I think one can say that there are more references in JSTOR to the party as "Republicans" than to the party as ";Democratic-Republicans", although it would take more work to demonstrate this conclusively. john k 00:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Most of the other half, however, is not talking about the Party at all. Septentrionalis 23:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, obviously. I was doing a search of "Democratic-Republican." My only point here was to demonstrate that of the 108 results, many were not referring to the political party. I wanted to compare that number with the number of references to "Republican", but that's very difficult - I made an attempt below to do a much narrower search, which turns up nearly as many results as the much broader search for "Democratic-Republican" in general. john k 00:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Because of the much greater frequency of references to the modern Republican Party, it is pretty hard to figure out how often the Jeffersonian party is being referred to as simply the "Republicans". However, a JSTOR search limited to usage of the term "Republican Party" (and excluding articles which use "Democratic-Republican") in two journals focusing on earlier American history - the Journal of the Early Republic and the William and Mary Quarterly - turns up 73 results. While perhaps half of these actually refer to the modern Republican party in the 19th century, we should remember that this is a much more limited search - it doesn't include references to "Republicans," it doesn't include references to the Republican Party in articles which might mention "Democratic-Republican" in other contexts (as several of the Democratic-Republican articles do), and it only refers to 2 journals, rather than the 38 history journals JSTOR has in total. Which is to say, there are about 54 references in all of JSTOR's history journals to the "Democratic-Republicans" since 1990. In the same time period, there are nearly as many uses of the restrictive phrase "Republican Party" in just two journals. Although it'd be hard to say conclusively, because of the extent to which we're going to be swamped with references to the modern Republicans, it seems to me that this is fairly clearly indicative that Republican is more common in specialist publications than Democratic-Republican. john k 16:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Two more textbooks, courtesy of my roommate, who studies 19th century US history.

• Hugh Brogan, Longman History of the United States of America, Longman, 1985. Uses "Republican." Two new factions began to form: the followers of Hamilton took to themselves the honoured name of Federalist; his opponents began to call themselves Republicans; The question dovetailed all too easily into the controversy between the Federalists and the Republicans; The Republicans were solidly entrenched in power; The triumph of the Republicans had been due as much to their ability to rouse their fellow-citizens, and to the Federalists' disdainful reluctance to compete, as to any intrinsic virtue in their cause;
• George Brown Tindal and David E. Shi. America: A Narrative History, 4th Edition, Norton, 1996. Uses "Republican." Madison and Jefferson became the leaders of those who took the name Republican and thereby implied that the Federalists really aimed for a monarchy; Jay entered the negotiations with his bargaining power compromised by both Federalists and Republicans; The rising strength of the Republicans, fueled by the smoldering resetnment towards Jay's treaty; and later Firmly grounded in Republican principles, monroe failed to keep up with the onrush of the new nationalism; Whatever his limitations, Monroe surrounded himself with some of the ablest young Republican leaders; The Republican party was dominant — for the moment. john k 16:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia, I need remind you, is an online encyclopedia. Let's look to other encylopedias for guidance about how to settle this issue. You've done a search of scholarly papers written by people well versed in American history. How about a little consideration for the lay reader -- one who would be easily confused by the term "Republican Party" being used to describe a circa. 1800 party. I've already demonstrated that encyclopedias and textbooks used the term "Democratic-Republican Party." Why change this convention? Griot 00:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Griot, certainly other encyclopedias are one source to use, but I dispute that they are the best source. I would suggest textbooks - either surveys of American history, or surveys of particular periods in American history - would be a better way to go about determining things like this. Encyclopedias should, if possible, not base themselves on other encyclopedias. We have our own naming conventions, and they do not say, "Use what other encyclopedias use." Beyond the scholarly papers, Rjensen cited 8 textbooks, of which only one used "Democratic-Republicans" and 6 used "Republicans". I cited two more textbooks/surveys of American history, both of which use "Republicans," as well as the Encyclopedia of American History (which is more of a handbook than an encyclopedia - it's arranged chronologically, like the Encyclopedia of World History at Bartleby's). It seems to me that, in most wikipedia article title disputes like this, we would look to textbooks and the like, rather than to other encyclopedias, to determine what we should call an article. I would add that you have yet to demonstrate that textbooks use the term "Democratic-Republican Party."

I suggest online encyclopedias as the first test and high school text books as the second. Remember: People come to Wikipedia by searching on the Internet, which makes the online encyclopedia our best guide in this matter. Readers are general interest readers, which makes high school textbooks a good secondary guide. Griot 17:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Beyond this, your idea of "misleadingness" is simply not true. In cases where confusion is possible, it's perfectly fine to use "Democratic-Republican" (or "Jeffersonian Republican") for disambiguation purposes. In this article, we can simply include a section explaining that this party was called the Republican Party, but that it is not to be confused with the modern Republican Party, which was founded in 1854. There are plenty of things that shares names without us having to make up artificial names to call them so that people "won't be confused."

Also, a direct question: do you, Griot, accept the fact that the party primarily called itself the "Republican Party?" john k 00:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

C'mon. Why would I object to that? Griot 01:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, you seem determined, in the Democratic Party (United States) article, that we not mention this, so I was making sure.

Some more sources:

• William W. Freehling, The Road to Disunion: Secessionists at Bay 1776-1854, 1990 - uses Republican
• Harry L. Watson Liberty and Power: The Politics of Jacksonian America, 1st edition, 1990 - uses Republican and Democratic-Republican interchangeably
• American Social History Project. Who Built America: Working People and the Nation's Economy, Politics, Culture, and Society, 2000 - uses Democratic-Republicans (but not focused at all on political history)
• Eric Foner. The Story of American Freedom, 1998 - uses Republicans
• Charles Sellers's The Market Revolution: Jacksonian America, 1815-1846, 1991 - uses Republicans
• Robert V. Remini The Life of Andrew Jackson, 1988 - uses Republicans
• Edward Pessen Jacksonian America: Society, Personality, and Politics, 1985 - uses Republicans
• Daniel Boorstin The Americans: The National Experience, 1965 - uses Republicans

All of these books are textbooks or books for a general audience. Most of them, except the one least concerned with political history, use "Republican". john k 01:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Do these books really use the term "Republican Party" throughout to describe Jefferson's party, or do they, like the wiki article, mention that the party was called "Republican" during its time, but then refer to the party as the "Democratic-Republican Party"? I ask because I'd be very surprised if this is the case. Are these narrow interest books? And did you find any in your search that use "Democratic-Republican"? Griot

Most of them use the term Republican Party throughout to describe Jefferson's party. The Social History Project book uses "Democratic-Republicans" throughout. Watson's book uses the two terms interchangeably, but tends to use "Democratic-Republican" more. Freehling, Watson, Sellers, and Pessen's books are the kind of books that are assigned in midlevel-undergraduate history classes, and that might be read by a general reader interested in history (well, maybe not Pessen's book, which seems more textbooky). Remini's book won the National Book Award and is intended for broad audiences. Boorstin's book is also a popular book intended for a general audience. The Social History Project is an undergraduate textbook. I cited two books earlier which were general surveys of American history, either for undergraduates or for the general reader. I may be able to provide contextual quotes from these books, if necessary, but my roommate has been packing his stuff, so it's possible these books have been packed and I don't have access to them anymore. But Freehling, Sellers, Pessen, Remini, and Boorstin definitely use "Republicans" or "Republican Party" exclusively to refer to the party. john k 01:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Er, hello, anybody out there? If the discussion has ceased, I'll post a WP:RM later today. john k 19:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Name of Article, Resuscitated

Why backtrack and go over old ground or rehash old discussions? Before you put up that notice, I would ask you to please respect the decision made by the people who contributed to this discussion back in February. They reached a concensus not to change the name. Read their words before you consider opening this can of worms. Griot 21:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Wiki should keep up to date and not reflect the textbooks of decades ago. Mistaken decisions are not frozen in place in Wiki--and new editors bring new perspectives that have to be respected. As for decisions, Griot made a unilateral decision to change the name of the party INSIDE the article to D-R, and inside OTHER articles to D-R, going so far as to alter quotations. That extreme policy was never accepted. Rjensen 21:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

That decision was not "unilateral." It's a question of being consistent. You can't call the same thing by different names and expect anyone to understand you. As for your textbook argument, I have at my disposal several high school and college level textbooks, all of which use the term "Democratic-Republican." And online encyclopedias -- which I believe should be our guide, since Wiki is an online encyclopedia -- all use the name "Democratic-Republican." Maybe the problem here is that some contributors to this article don't understand that Wiki is for the general reader, not the historian or even the sophmore college history student. We should do our best not to confuse general readers, which brings us around to why "Democratic-Republican" was used in the first place. Again, I ask everyone to respect the opinions and ideas of the people who contributed to this dicussion two months ago, just as, two months from now when other maverick editors come around, they respect our opinions. Griot 21:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I vote to keep the article at Democratic-Republican Party (United States), which I believe is the most logical name. See the previous discussion about this matter. --JW1805 (Talk) 21:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Griot refuses to gives the names and dates of the textbooks he relies on. That suggests he is using stuff that is outdated, which is what this argument is all about. What happened is that historians led by Bailyn, Wood, Pocock, Murrin, Banning, McDonald, Buel, Rakove, Ellis, Fischer, Ferling, Onuf, Appleby, Freeman, Morgan and others became focused on "republicanism" as the driving ideology. That explained the party name. The monographs and the textbooks followed suit. Wiki is about 25 years behind the times--which is my complaint about Griot's old textbooks. 90% of the students will be baffled by the strange D-R term which is NOT in their textbooks. So challenge: let's have the names and dates of the textbooks that Griot insists are so good. Rjensen 06:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

"Bailyn, Wood, Pocock, Murrin, Banning, McDonald, Buel, Rakove..." And to counter, I give you the Encyclopedia Britannica and all other online encyclopedias. Again, I remind you that the Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia for the general reader, not a Reader's Digest compendium of condensed historical monographs. Niney percent of students will not be baffled by the name. Ninety percent would be baffled if "Republican" were used, because they would believe that they were reading about the current Republican Party. BTW, here's an amusing page that illustrates very well why calling it the "Republican Party" can cause a lot of confusion: Democratic-Republican Party.Griot 14:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Griot refuses to accept the idea that Ency Brit could be wrong. That a staff written unsigned article written years ago could make a little mistake--NEVER. On the other hand he does believe that Bailyn, Wood, Pocock, Murrin, Banning, McDonald, Buel, Rakove etc are all wrong. That approach violates Wiki rules about using the best SECONDARY sources (Ency Brit is a tertiary source). The hang up for many people is that they do not want to lend any credibility to Bush's GOP today and they fear that calling Jefferson's party "Republican" might do that. That of course is a low level POV that is bad for Wiki. Rjensen 15:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Rjensen refuses to ackowledge that this subject was decided earlier, and he persists in revisiting it. I don't understand your tertiary source argument. Again, I remind you what this is -- an online encyclopedia. As to your Bush's GOP point, I could just as easily turn it on its head and claim that people who disagree with me are trying to underscore a relationship between the Democratic-Repub Party and today's Repub party. My point is simple, and it's one that we in the publishing world adhere to very stringently: We have to decide on our terms and stick to them, and our terms should be the easiest to understand. "Democratic-Republican" has been the designated name for this party for a century. Why change now? Imagine a high schooler or casual reader (in short, your average Wiki reader) trying to get information on this party. Would he or she find it if it were filed under "Republican Party"? Again, I have to remind you that people who read these pages aren't college sophmores or junior professors. Our task is to serve the general reader, and we can serve him/her best by naming this article "Democratic-Republican Party." Griot 16:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The subject was not decided earlier. There was no consensus earlier. As to the idea that high schoolers and general readers - I've already noted a bunch of books for general readers that use "Republican". Rjensen has noted a bunch of high school textbooks that use "Republican". There is absolutely no reason to assume that non-specialists will have come across the term "Democratic-Republican" and not "Republican." (and since when are college sophomores exemplars of knowledge?) john k 16:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I vote to keep this Democratic-Republican. Changing it to Republican would be needlessly confusing, as this party is different from the modern Republican party. The title should remain the same, if only to differentiate the two. -- Fearfulsymmetry 21:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

What's with all this voting? There's no official "Requested move" yet, as a) I hoped, vainly I think, to deal with this through discussion; and b) one of the main issues is not about the location of this page, but how to refer to the party in the text. Also - is it confusing when any two things have the same name? Should we not refer to the American Whig party as the "Whigs" out of the potential for confusion with the British Whigs who were completely different? john k 21:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I was merely stating my position so as to avoid an official "Requested Move". I believe Democratic-Republican is apropriate for the title of the article. As to whether it is shortened to "Republican" in the article I have no preference, as long as it is clarified that in the past this was the title of the party. For modern use, however, and to avoid a pointless disambiguation page, the title Democratic-Republican should remain, if only for the sake of the average user. I would have no objection to explaining the controversy in the article, however, if you feel thats appropriate. - Fearfulsymmetry 01:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Griot's Tactics

A couple points here on Griot's tactics, which seem to frequently revolve around being wildly misleading (whether on purpose or unintentionally I cannot say):

1. The discussion in February shows no clear consensus at all about what to do about the name of this article. Griot and JW1805 opposed a move, Rjensen supported a move, and nobody else commented. Various people who had commented on the page in the past, however, suggested a preference for "Republican." Three people is hardly a consensus which needs to be respected.
2. Griot has, as Rjensen notes, insisted on using "Democratic-Republican" in text. The claimed reason for this is a "need to be consistent." But there is no wikipedia policy which suggests such action is mandatory at all. Griot has basically won this argument by being more persistent about reverting than his opponents, not by making any rational arguments on behalf of this supposed need for "consistency."
3. Griot says that "90%" of people would be confused by references to the party as Republicans, because they would think the reference was to the modern Republican Party. This is absurd. (So is Rjensen's counter claim that people would be especially confused by Democratic-Republican, but I understand that this is a rhetorical claim which he may not be advancing sa literally true). The idea that two different things can have the same name is widely understood by people. So long as we explain the distinction, there is no particular reason to worry that people will be confused. Do we have to refer to London, Ontario as "London, Ontario" (or worse, some awkward construction like "Canadian-London") in every reference out of fear that people will otherwise confuse it with the London in England? This is silly. Only in contexts where confusion is possible should we refer to it as "London, Ontario." Within its own article it's perfectly acceptable to just use "London," as also in other articles on subjects where it's clear that the city in Ontario is being mentioned. The same should apply in this case - the fact that disambiguation may sometimes be needed is not sufficient to claim massive confusion
4. Griot has repeatedly made general statements that "textbooks" use "Democratic-Republican." When asked to back up this statement with quotations, he has entirely failed to do so, instead turning to other arguments. Rjensen has explained this by saying that Griot does not want to reveal how old the textbooks he is using are. A less generous interpretation would be that Griot has not looked at any textbooks at all. Either way, this has been a highly dishonest method of debating.
5. When worse comes to worse, Griot reverts to the argument that other encyclopedias use "Democratic-Republican." This, while true, is not sufficient. Wikipedia does not title articles based on the "other encyclopedia names" convention. it does it on the "common names" convention, and while I think it's arguable that specialist monographs should not be considered, I think textbooks and books written for a fairly wide readership are a much better guide to "common name" than what another encyclopedia says. I think my examples above have showed pretty well that books for a wide readership use "Republican" more often than not (some do use "Democratic-Republican," though, including major ones like Harry Watson's Liberty and Power). Rjensen's examples from February give a fairly good impression that high school textbooks have moved over to do the same. As far as I can tell, Griot's counter argument on this front is a) Textbooks really use "Democratic-Republican"; and b) All sources but encyclopedias don't matter anyway. This seems untenable to me.

Here's the basic issue: for me to take Griot seriously at all, he's going to have to provide some actual citations, beyond just other encyclopedias, that use Democratic-Republicans. So far, Rjensen and I have provided more citations of the use of "Democratic-Republican" than Griot has. This is absurd. If Griot chooses not to make any citations, and instead to just continue to spin his jaws in the style noted above, I'm going to propose both a page move and some kind of vote on how to refer to the party independently of where the page is located. (That is, whether we should refer to the party as the "Republicans" even though the article might still remain at "Democratic-Republican" out of lack of a good alternative.) john k 16:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

As to the idea that calling Jefferson's party "Republican" gives credence to the Bush administration in some way, this is absurd. Lincoln was indisputably a Republican, and the Democratic Party at the time of the Civil War was indisputably pretty awful. Does this association make Bush look any better? Does it make FDR look worse? These kind of concerns are insanely subjective, and there's no place for them in an encyclopedia. john k 16:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Good Lord man! You spend an inordinate amount of time following me around, nipping at my ankles, and quibbling with me. I'm hoping for your sake you have better things to do. Griot 16:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not following you around. I was discussing your conduct in this article, which has been, in my opinion, marked by use of dishonest debating tactics. I set out to catalogue this, and to make arguments against your points. I don't see how this is any less legitimate a use of my time than any other stupid wikipedia talk page activities. john k 16:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Admittedly, cataloging my many ills isn't quite as useless as debating with Wolfstar, but let's stick to the topic. The topic is -- for the third or fourth time around -- whether to rename this article. BTW, a little advice: Brevity isn't just the soul of wit. Griot 16:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, briefly, your main ills are a) repeatedly claiming a consensus that doesn't exist; and b) repeatedly claiming that textbooks support you but refusing to actually cite any when challenged. These are extraordinarily frustrating as debating techniques. I don't think that we're going to get anywhere by further discussion. What do you think is the best way to proceed? Should we do an RfC? an RM? I would add that the question of what the party should be called in article text is a separate one from where the article should be. If we do have a vote, I would like voting on these two issues to be separate. At any rate, I'm going to put in an RfC. john k 17:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

"The question of what the party should be called in article text is a separate one from where the article should be?" What do you mean? Griot 17:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It means that the term Republican should be used in the text of the article instead of D-R. Has Briot located those textbooks he has relied upon so heavily? we need title-author-date. Rjensen 18:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Have I "located" the books? I will make a list of them shortly. Griot 19:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

RfC comments

Would be very awkward to read if Democratic-Republican is used throughout - use the name 'as it was in use at the time' to provide appropriate context. Just make sure that the modern Re[publican party is identified as modern every time it is mentioned (which it appears to be now). Please note that this is the first time I've actually bothered to read about this aspect of American History (like I'm Canajun, eh?) and I don't find it the least bit confusing.Bridesmill 19:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I take it we mostly agree that whatever the title of the article, references inside the article should be to the "Republican party" or the "Jeffersonian party." Very few readers will get Madison mixed up with McKinley, I hope. Rjensen 22:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

We do not agree on that. Why this will to confuse people? Consider the example of Mark Twain. Twain was born Samuel Clemons but took up the name Mark Twain in his twenties. What if an article only referred to Samuel Clemons or referred to Clemons and Twain interchangeably. This would be confusing to readers. Similarly, in our article, we should mention that the party was called the Republican Party in its time, but that, by convention, it is now called the "Democratic-Republican Party." I don't understand this persistence in wanting to confuse people, especially in light of the fact that people who are new to or unversed in American history would be doubly confused by the notion that they are reading about the modern-day Republican Party. Griot 23:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

And this reader totally unversed in American Political History disagrees; the Twain analogy is a bit different - how about the analogy of Upper Canada - now known as Ontario - any legible article discussing these refers to it as Upper Canada pre 1867 and Ontario post. Same applies here - it helps maintain the context & any fan of Sapir-Whorf will recognize the importance of calling it as it was. Honest, us foreigners aren't 'that' easy to confuse.Bridesmill 23:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Upper Canada? That's like, the Yukon, right? I'm sorry. I'm very confused here. Griot

That would be as in Upper Canada {I will hold my tongue ;-)}Bridesmill 00:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Griot believes "but that, by convention, it is now called the "Democratic-Republican Party." That is false. It is called the Republican party by historians and textbooks. Rjensen 23:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Rjensen, speaking like a diety or oracle, proclaims, "It is called the Republican Party by historians and textbooks." You know very well that some historian and some textbooks call it that, but the majority of historians and textbooks call it the "Democratic-Republican Party." Griot 00:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

well actually I spent a few hours tracking down the websites of 8 major current 2006 textbooks: results = ONE D-R, one Jeffersonian Rep, and six Republicans. That's what proof looke like. I would say that 70-80% of historians since the year 2000 use the term "Republican party", and the others are split between DR and Jeffersonian Rep. Rjensen 00:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, you've gone from "it is called" to "70 to 80 percent of historians use the term," so we're moving in the right direction. May I have the URLs of these "eight major current 2006 textbooks"? I'd like to see for myself how the terms are used in these books, presuming you can open them online. In exchange, I'll provide you with 12 online encyclopediae were the preferred term is "Democratic-Republican Party." Griot 00:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you admitting, then, that you can't find any textbooks that use "Democratic-Republican"? And it's pretty rich for Griot to be complaining about somebody else "speaking like a diety [sic] or oracle," when he continues to claim that the majority of textbooks call it "Democratic-Republican" without having provided any evidence that this is true, and, so far as I can tell, without even pretending that he will ever do so. john k 00:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

John, this is getting ridiculous. The four textbooks I have at hand all use the term "Democratic-Republican Party." Even rjensen's argument is that the term is becoming outdated, and that post-2000 textbooks use the term "Republican Party," while textbooks prior to that use the other term. I'm going to test his theory with a trip to the library later this week. These hissy fits are getting tiresome. I seem to have touched a raw nerve with you somewhere, and for that I apologize. Griot 00:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

What is getting ridiculous is that you still have yet to cite these "four textbooks" of yours. In terms of older vs. newer textbooks, I fail to see any reason we should not look at usage in the newest editions of textbooks - schools tend to get new versions of textbooks when they are issued (or, at worst, they gradually move towards the newest editions), while undergraduates certainly buy the new versions. john k 01:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The four textbooks on my shelf were published after 2000, and they use "Democratic-Republican." In the scholarly community, I've heard of no movement to start calling it the "Republican Party," which is why I'm surprised by this brouhaha. I'm going to make a trip to the library, investigate as many books as I can, and post the results later this week. Griot 01:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, cite your damned textbooks. If they're on your shelf, you should be able to provide basic bibliographical information in response to our repeated requests. john k 01:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

add an elementary school 8th grade textbook: Houghton Mifflin (1999 edition, same in 1991 edition) Chapter 5, Lesson 2: Jefferson and the Republicans (pp. 146-151) [13] Rjensen 02:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

2006 textbooks

I checked 8 current college US history textbooks that have online tables of contents 1 uses Dem-Rep (see #3) 6 use Republican 1 uses Jeffersonians (#6)

• 1 Tindall-Shi (W W Norton) “Republican Party” [14]

Longman: [15]

• 2 Mark C. Carnes, and John A. Garraty,

ch 5 has section Federalists and Republicans: The Rise of Political Parties.

• 3 Jones: Created Equal

ch 9. Revolutionary Legacies, 1789—1803. Competing Political Visions in the New Nation. Federalism and Democratic-Republicanism in Action.

• 4 Gary Nash American People

ch 8 student guide Controversy between Federalist supporters of the national government and the emerging Jeffersonian Republican opposition first erupted over domestic policies designed to stabilize the nation's finances and promote its economic development. Those policies revealed deep-seated conflicts between economic interests and raised urgent questions of how the new constitution should be interpreted

• 5 Divine, Am Past & Present

ch 8 = Republican Ascendancy: The Jeffersonian Vision.

• 6 Martin, Concise History.. "Jeffersonians"

from Bedford St Martin [16]

• 7 Henretta America’ History (Bedford) ch 7/

Jefferson's Agrarian Vision Hamilton's financial programs divided the Federalists into two irreconcilable political parties and led to the emergence of the Republicans, a group headed by Madison and Jefferson.

• 8 Roark American Promise (Bedford) Republicans in Power 1800-1824

[17] so the textbooks vote is 7-1 against D-R and 6-2 in favor of Republicans

You wrote earlier, "I spent a few hours tracking down the websites of 8 major current 2006 textbooks: results = ONE D-R, one Jeffersonian Rep, and six Republicans promised me 8 URLs." Then you've posted this stuff. I asked for URLs. You've provided only four URLs in the list below:

The first, the Norton, doesn't open.

It opens just fine - you need to get adobe acrobat. It's not rjensen's fault you don't have a pdf reader. john k 01:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Got it. One chapter heading. What about the other seven URLs he promised? Griot 03:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The second, Allyn & Bacon, takes me to an online catalog with a bunch of links. Which link do I click? Which of these books includes our term?

":

The third, [Bedford/St. Martin's http://www.bedfordstmartins.com/history/bcs/index.html], takes me to an online catalog where I can find no mention of our term.

The fourth, [18] Roark], takes me to a "Recommended Study Plan" again, with no mention of the terms.

I asked for eight URLs, and that is what I expect, rjensen. You found the term "Republican Party" or "Democratic Party" on "the websites of 8 major current 2006 textbooks," so you said, which means you ought to be able to direct me to the right pages online. You ought to be able to provide the URLs so I can read them, too. I'm beginning to think you're leading me on a wild goose chase. Griot 01:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, tell us the name and dates of the textbooks you have mentioned so many times. Rjensen 01:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I want the seven other URLs. I've been hearing about the "eight textbooks" for some time and I'm beginning to think someone threw them down the Lost Dutchman mine. Griot 03:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

For the record: Here are four I scrounged from my shelves, each of which is a general-survey textbook that uses the term "Democratic-Republican Party," not "Republican Party," to describe the party Jefferson started in 1792: The American Pageant (Houghton Mifflin, 2002), America: Pathways to the Present (Prentice-Hall, 2002), The American Journey (McGraw-Hill, 1998), Creating America: A History of the United States (McDougal Littell, 2000). However, these books were written for students aged 15-20. I have other U.S. history books, but they are of a more narrow interest are not for the general reader. I'm going to the library to see what some other books say if I can find the time this week. I'm curious what survey trade U.S. history books say. Griot 03:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why we should restrict ourselves to basic textbooks. Books that are mass marketed for general readership, or that would commonly be read in undergraduate classes, ought to be acceptable for determining what the most commonly used name is. Thanks for (finally) giving the references - why on earth didn't you do it earlier? john k 03:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's why I think we should limit ourselves to general-interest and survey type books: Your average wiki visitor is the kind of person who reads those books. Why didn't I give the references earlier? Fella, if you saw the state of my office, you'd know why. Griot 03:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we should use books that aim at a wide audience, as I said, "books that are mass marketed for general readership, or that would commonly be read in undergraduate classes." I don't think that specialist monographs should be the primary consideration here. I don't see why we shouldn't expect wikipedia readers to have read books like, say, Remini's life of Jackson, which won the National Book Award. Or whatever. john k 04:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It would be unfair to say that the 2002 (12th) edition of The American Pageant uses "Democratic-Republicans". (I don't have the 11th edition handy at the moment, so I can't say if this is a relatively recent change). Until the section in chapter 10 titled "Fderalists Versus Democratic-Republicans," D-R only appears when called Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans and often just Jeffersonians. However, even at this point, I only count a couple uses of just D-R in the text (I'd say 4, but I skimmed several pages). After this, they are still called Jeffersonians, now frequently called Jeffersonian Republicans, and even just Republicans. It is certainly worth noting that the book does give some sort of support to the use of D-R: "Leading the anti-Federalists, who came eventually to be know as the Democratic-Republicans or sometimes simply Republicans…."

That being said, I'm not sure that there's a solid reason to change the name of this article yet, though I confess that's merely an opinion based on what I still perceive to be the common usage when I hear it come up. - user:rasd

yes other countries had D-R parties

Both South Korea and Croatia have "Democratic-Republican" parties, and maybe others.Rjensen 01:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

How other online encyclopedias name this topic

In the question of what to name this article, "Democratic-Republican Party" or "Democratic Party," I've been arguing in favor using other online encyclopedias as our model. As much as some people think Wikipedia is a playground or a chance to exercise finger muscles over a keyboard, most people use this place to look up information. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. All the online encyclopedias/references I found filed this topic under "Democratic-Republican Party." We should too. Here are the online encyclopedias/references with URLs to their "Democratic-Republican Party" articles: Encyclopedia Britannica; Reference.com; American Heritage Encyclopedia; U.S. Facts on File; Encarta Encyclopedia; World Encyclopedia; Studies for Kids; Ohio History Central Online Encyclopedia; Oxford University Press Encyclopedia; SparkNotes (very popular with American high schoolers; Your Definition.com; The Free Dictionary.com

Several of these sites are wikipedia mirrors - reference.com, U.S. Facts on File. The "World Encyclopedia" and the "Oxford University Press Encyclopedia" are the same site. The American Heritage source listed is a dictionary, not an encyclopedia - of course a dictionary should list that meaning. Note that the definition of "Republican Party" ([19]) includes Jefferson's party as one of its meanings. The freedictionary.com and yourdictionary.com are also dictionaries - Dictionaries are completely inconclusive in terms of what the usage is, since they'll have usage at both terms.

So that means that we're left with britannica, encarta, the "world encyclopedia," social studies for kids, ohio history central online, and sparknotes. john k 03:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, although some I described as "references," not encyclopedias. What do you think of how they handled the naming issue? Can you find an online encyclopedia or reference that calls it "Republican Party"? Griot 03:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Wiki clearly advisdes that encyclopedias are tertiary sources and that good articles should be based on scholarly secondary sources. We can do better. By the way: OED gives "Republican party" as does "Harvard Guide to American History" (1954) and Sperber & Trittschuh, Am Political terms: An Historical Dictionary" (1962). That is the motre sophisticated and specialized the source, the more they use "Republican". Rjensen 04:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying we should use online encyclopedias as sources. I'm saying we should use them as models for deciding how to present information here. Clearly, the majority of online encyclopedias use "Democratic-Republican Party." Griot 04:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

They can be one model, but I don't see any reason to rely on them exclusively. And, as Rjensen notes, the more specialized the source, the more likely it is to use "Republican" rather than "Democratic-Republican." john k 04:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict with Rjensen) Well, there's PBS. The Oxford Dictionary of (British) National Biography (available only to subscribers), which has bios of early American figures as well, uses "Republican" in its biographies of Adams, Jefferson, and Madison. The American National Biography (also possibly subscriber only) uses "Republican" as its term for the party in its article on Jefferson. As someone noted before, the official US Senate list of Senators uses "R" to represent the Jeffersonian Republican Party. The Encyclopedia of World History refers to the party as the "Republican Party". Are any of these good enough? john k 04:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The PBS reference is a stretch. I'm going to discount it for the same reason I discount, for example, the [BBC history] -- it's not an encyclopedic reference with topics arranged in alphabetical order (the BBC entry I just cited explains the whole topic under "Democratic Party"!). The Columbia entry you cite is a valid example of an online encyclopedia filing the article under "Republican Party." Can you give me a URL of the Oxford bio online. You merely wikified it. Griot 04:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't give you a url, because it's only available to subscribers. I get it through my school library. If you're associated with a university, you can probably access it, but you have to do it through your school, so no link I can give would be useful. john k 04:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Some standard reference sources online: 1) the US State department official history of the United States "the Republicans (also called Democratic-Republicans), led by Thomas Jefferson, were the first political parties in the Western world. "[20] 2) the official history of the US Senate, online: " In later years the Republicans would come to be called "Democrats," but in the 1790s, that term carried a negative connotation associated with mob rule."[21] Add the official state of North Carolina site at [22] The most popular website on biography is NNDB It calls Madison a Republican [23]

and Jefferson a Republican [24] as well as Gallatin [25] It calls no one a D-R....of course it's much newer than Ency Brit and Encarta (which is based on an old grocery-store encyclopedia called Funk and Wagnals) The commercial encyclopedias were written decades ago (EB article about 1986) and are updated by staff people who are not histoians. Wiki can do better. Rjensen 04:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Please. "Updated by staff people who are not historians"? Good God, man. Who updates Wikipedia? Let's not kid ourselves here. How many "historians" at Wikipedia have has much training as the Funk and Wagnals staff? Also, the topic here is "How other online encyclopedias name this topic." Please stick to onine encyclopedias. Griot 04:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The point is that wikipedia can base itself on the work of historians, rather than on the work of other encyclopedia-writers, not that wikipedia writers are ourselves historians. We should base our work on the best authorities in the field, not people whose credentials are probably less impressive than some of us here. john k 04:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

As I explained above, I have no quarrel with getting information and citing sources from anywhere. I am merely looking to online encyclopedias as models for presenting information in the Wikipedia, which is, after all, an online encyclopedia. For the purposes of this discussion, the question isn't how valuable online encyclopedias are as sources, but how other online encyclopedias can help guide us in the article naming question. Griot 05:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The topic is what Wiki should do. The Wiki rules warn against reliance on tertiary sources and we should follow that advice. How EB works is they have a staff in Chicago and send out batches of articles for revision to freelancers, who get paid per word. The articles are not sent to scholars for review. At one time decades ago they started with famous scholars (who signed the article with their initials), and staff or freelance updates were signed X. They have given that up. The in-house staff deals not with facts but with style and format and schedules. (I used to work at the Newberry Library near the EB headquarters and watch the freelancers do their research there.) So can Wiki be much better than EB. yes indeed, and trying to dumb down to Readers Digest standards, as Griot suggests, is defeatism. Rjensen 06:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

After all the times I copy edited you, cleaned up your messes, breathed meaning into your mush, this is the only thanks I get? A snide comment? Frankly, if most people's contributions around here rose to Reader's Digest levels, it would be a big improvement. Now where are the eight URLs you promised me -- the ones you've been refering to for eons. I promised you online encyclopedia URLs, and I delivered. It's your turn. Griot 06:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Another online encyclopedia is Columbia. They don't have an article on Jefferson's party, but in the article on Jefferson, it calls the party the Republicans. Note also that in Britannica's article on Jefferson, it uses "Republican" to refer to the party: But an embryonic version of the party structure was congealing, and Jefferson, assisted and advised by Madison, established the rudiments of the first opposition party in American politics under the Republican banner. john k 15:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The "Republican banner" the authors allude to may refer to the ideals and principles of republicanism, not a political party. Is there any mention of the word "Republican Party" on the pages you cite? All the online dictionaries I found used the term "Democratic-Republican Party." Griot 15:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Griot, this is deeply unfair. Use of "Republican" with a capital "R" means that some proper noun is being discussed. The political ideals of republicanism should be referred to with a small "r". Why is it so hard for you to accept that "Republican" is frequently used by historians and other sources as the adjective to describe Jefferson's political party? This is obviously and uncontroversially true. I pointed out several general histories of the US, reference works, and more specialized books on US history which use "Republican." Republican is obviously in very common use. That's not to say that some sources don't use "Democratic-Republican." Obviously, that term is in use too. But you seem to be committed to denying that "Republican" is ever used. This is absurd and ridiculous - "Republican" is obviously used, apparently even by sources that list the party under "Democratic-Republican Party". The only way you have to get out of this is this deeply dishonest business of trying to claim that any reference which doesn't clearly say "Republican Party" must be to "the ideals of republicanism." That's bullshit, and it's not going to fly - a reference to "Republicans" (capitalized) in the context of Jefferson and Madison coming to power is obviously a reference to the party, and not to the ideals. Also, note the comment "Jefferson established...the rudiments of the first opposition party in American politics under the Republican banner." That means to say, he established the rudiments of the first opposition party using the name Republican. "under the banner" means "using the name," essentially. The name Jefferson gave to his opposition party was "Republican." That is what Britannica is saying. They are not saying that Jefferson advocated republican ideals (although of course he did so). That wouldn't be a banner. Why must you continually spout completely specious arguments? It's a waste of everybody's time. john k 18:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

We're just going to have to look at some textbooks. Please leave behind the "deeply dishonest" line. It's melodramatic. Rjensen has only come up with table of contents entries, which are always initial-capped. Therefore the "Republicans" he cites will always start with a capital R. It's necessary to look at some real books, a couple dozen maybe, to see how the terms are being used. I'm going to visit the library soon. Please be patient. Griot 19:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The only times I have made the capitalization argument are with respect to usage in full sentences, not in chapter headings. Beyond that, I'm sorry you find "deeply dishonest" to be melodramatic, but I am becoming increasingly convinced that you are not engaging in an honest debate here. You are unwilling to accept any of the numerous examples we have given of use of "Republican" as valid, and are giving pretty consistently specious rationalizations for these rejections. You are unwilling to acknowledge the indisputable fact that lots and lots of historians use "Republican" and not "Democratic-Republican" as their name for this party. Our arguments about which term to use should begin with this realization, but yet you keep on arguing and arguing against this basic fact, which means that we never get anywhere, and we can never move on to the next step which is "well, what do we do, then?" When I do try to bring up the other question, you make bizarre and unsupportable objections, like your claim that we always have to refer to any subject of a wikipedia article by what their wikipedia article is titled. Your arguments are consistently opportunistic - you grab on to any argument you can find to support your position. You are highly careless about what sources you cite - you cited two wikipedia mirrors, three completely inconclusive dictionary references, and the same site twice in your attempt to demonstrate that all online references use "Democratic-Republican". This makes any kind of reasonable debate nearly impossible, and, to be honest, I have a hard time believing that you are fully acting in good faith - given your tortuous interpretations of evidence that Rjensen and I have supplied, I really don't feel like I have any reason to trust, for example, that you would report textbooks that use "Republican" if you found them, and I'm not sure I feel like I have any particular reason to trust your characterizations of the textbooks you have cited. I've tried really hard to be intellectually honest here, and to admit when sources do use "Democratic-Republican", and, in fact, to admit that both terms are in use. I feel like this is putting myself at a rhetorical disadvantage when you seem determined to twist and turn whatever evidence you find to suit your predetermined position. john k 20:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I think I told you already how much I value brevity. I'm not the only one. Griot 20:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so you have the right to ignore what I say because I'm not being brief? F*** you. (How's that for brevity?) john k 22:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

????? Griot 22:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the profanity, momentary onset of intense frustration. I struck through it because I thought it might be viewed as an attempt to cover it up if I just removed it. Feel free, anybody else, to delete the profanity, which was inappropriate. That said, I still find Griot's behavior here intensely frustrating. john k 22:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Maybe all of us should take the day off. It would be good for us. Griot 22:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

10 textbooks --all recently updated

Griot was the one who suggested Wiki should be of Readers Digest quality. And yes, Griot is very good at copyediting--certainly better than me. It's dumbing down to rely on a general encyclopedia instead of the best scholarship. -- let's use the Pulitzer prize winners (Rakove, Ellis, Bailyn, Fischer, Morgan--he won the Pulitzer this month).

If you can find anywhere on this Talk page or another where I used the words "Reader's Digest" except to refute you, please point it out to me. You will look in vain. Thanks for the copy editing compliment. Griot 15:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Here are 10 current textbooks that use "Republican", with URLs (you may have to click through to the appropriate chapter).

1. America Past and Present, Volume I (to 1877), Primary Source Edition, 7/E [26]; has chapter 8. Republican Ascendancy: The Jeffersonian Vision; Yes, it says the "Republican Ascendency," but this refers to republicanism, not the Republican Party. I see no mention of "Republican Party" or Democratic-Republican Party" here. - Griot

   From the context, the Republican Ascendancy is obviously referring to the political ascendancy of the Republican party, not "republicanism". john k 15:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

   Obviously referring? "Republican," I think, is being used here as an adjective to modify "ascendency," not to refer to a member of a political party. Did you visit the Web page? You will also find "Republican experiment" listed here. That doesn't refer to the political party. Griot

   It is an adjective which, in context is obviously referring to the ascendancy of the Republican party. That you are not willing to acknowledge this obvious fact shows that you are not engaging in debate honestly. john k 18:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

   Why don't you get off your self-righteous high horse and visit the Web page referred to? Did you visit it? Under the "Republican Experiment," the chapter are headings "Defining Republican Culture" and "The States: Experiments in Republicanism." The authors are treating republicanism as a political philosophy, explaining to the young students how American's new experiment in republicanism is playing out. What even makes you think that junior high students would be expected to follow the intricacies of a political party's growth? Griot 18:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

   Obviously the "Republican Experiment" is not referring to the party. "The Republican Ascendancy," however, obviously is referring to the party, as shown by the fact that the end of the chapter says "republican legacy." As an ideology, republicanism lasted well beyond the existence of the Republican Party of Jefferson. But yet, the book is summing up a "Republican Legacy" in 1816 or so. This is obviously a summation of the legacy of the Republican Party, not of republicanism, which went on strong long after the break-up of the party. john k 19:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

2. American "Nation, The: A History of the United States to 1877, Volume I, Primary Source Edition, 12/E; Mark C Carnes and John A Garraty ISBN: 0-321-42607-X; Publisher: Longman Copyright: 2007; ch 5 has section: Federalists and Republicans: The Rise of Political Parties. You have not provided a URL for me to confirm this, nor does this heading indicate whether the authors are discussing political parties or federalism v. republicanism. -Griot

   Oh, please. You've not provided any urls for your textbooks either. When the section is called "Federalists and Republicans: The Rise of Political Parties," it is obviously referring to the Republicans as a political party. john k 15:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

   "Oh, please" yourself. Maybe rjensens will provide a sentence or two from the text. Remember that the early political parties got their names from the political ideals they were advancing. This chapter could well be about how those ideals were fashioned into political parties. Anyhow, I'd love to know which term is used for the Democratic-Republican Party in the text. Griot

   The parties were called Federalists and Republicans. The obvious implication is that that is what is being talked about - the section is on the rise of political parties, for god's sakeWe have no reason to assume that is not what is meant. And the idea that somehow the ideals of "federalism" and "republicanism" inspired the development of political parties is absurd - as Jefferson said in his inaugural address, everyone was both a small-f federalist and a small-r republican. john k 18:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

3. America and Its Peoples: A Mosaic in the Making, Volume I (Chapters 1-16), 5/E by James Kirby Martin, etc ISBN: 0-321-16213-7, Publisher: Longman Copyright: 2004 Format: Paper; 544 pp, ch 8 The Jeffersonians in Power, 1800-1815 (uses "Jeffersonian Republicans" [27]. Yes, "Jeffersonian Republicans" is used to refer to the Democratic-Republican Party here. There is no mention of the "Republican Party." - Griot
4. Houghton Mifflin 8th grade textbook (1999 edition, same in 1991 edition), Chapter 5, Lesson 2: Jefferson and the Republicans (pp. 146-151), [28]. There is no mention of the "Republican Party" here. The text refers once to "Republican ideas." -Griot

   Again, come on. The "Republican ideas" in question are ones which Jefferson brings into government, and are contrasted to the "Federalist ideas," some of which he retained. The reference is obviously to the political party. john k 15:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

   Come on yourself. Did you visit the Web page? The sentence written for 8th graders is, "Under Jefferson's leadership, Republican ideas changed the government, while still retaining some Federalist policies." Do these refer to Republican Party ideas or to the principles of republicanism? I think the latter. Griot

   Yes, I visited the web page. I don't understand how "the principles of republicanism" are possibly relevant here - the federalists also believed in the principles of republicanism, and the use of capitalization for "Republican" and "Federalist" obviously implies that the proper nouns - the political parties, and not the general principles, which would not be capitalized, are meant. john k 18:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

5. Narrative History of the American Republic 3/e ch 8: Key Differences

between Republicans and Federalists, by Davidson, Gienapp, Heyrman, Lytle, and Stoff [29]. This table of contents doesn't mention the "Republican Party" anywhere. It mentions "Republican Experiments," "Republican Society," and "Differences between Republicans and Federalists." - Griot

1. Again, you are being purposefully dense. Any time "Republicans" are contrasted with "Federalists," the Republican Party is clearly intended. 15:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

   "Purposefully dense?" You'd don't really mean to say that the "experiment" and "society" here refer to a political party? Did you even visit the URL? The headings are taken from Chapter 7, "Crisis and Constitution," which describes the America of 1776-1790, before the Republican Party was even born. Griot

   I am saying that "Differences between Republicans and Federalists" obviously is referring to the Republican Party. The other two do not seem to be, as you say. john k 18:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

2. Unto a Good Land: A History of the American People 2005 by David Edwin Harrell Jr., [30] uses "Republican" (I have a paper copy). The URL you give me does not have the words "Republican Party." How is the Democratic-Republican Party described in the text of this book? What term is used? - Griot
3. Edward L. Ayers, Lewis L. Gould, David M. Oshinsky, Jean R. Soderlund, American Passages - A History of the United States, [31], 3rd Edition, © 2007 ISBN: 0495050156 "The rise of the Republicans under Jefferson and Madison was also the downfall of the Federalists. Explain the events that brought on the demise of the Federalists." The sentence you quote is not on the URL you proved. Further, does "Republicans" in this sentence refer to the Democratic-Republican Party or to adherents of republicanism? The "Republican Party" is not mentioned by name. - Griot

   Obviously it refers to the Republican Party. The Federalists were adherents of republicanism, too. Again, any time when "Republicans" are contrasted to "Federalists," it is safe to assume the political parties are being discussed. john k 15:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

   I want to see the URL and judge for myself. I'm not in the habit of assuming in scholarly matters. It's a bad habit. Griot

   You are already assuming that nobody is ever going to be referring to the party, even in cases where this is the obvious inference to be made. john k 18:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

4. Speaking of America - Readings in U.S. History, Vol. I: To 1877 2nd Edition by Laura A. Belmonte © 2007 [32] has A Republican Broadside (1796). The table of contents at this URL has the term "Republican broadside." A broadside is a full-on cannon attack by a ship at sea. This one obviously does not refer to a political party, but to an attack by people who believe in republicanism against their opponents. - Griot

   Are you serious? It could refer to an attack by members of the Republican Party against their opponents? john k 15:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

   Then why doesn't it say "Republican Party broadside"? I really wish rjensen had fulfilled the task assigned to him, to find actually references to "Republican Party" in the text. Griot 16:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

   Why on earth should it say "Republican Party broadside"? Why would we expect this at all? john k 18:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

5. brand new text: The Founding Principles of the United States, Volume 1 1st Edition by Steven Bullock 0495030015 2006, [33]. "Republican goverment" is mentioned three times on this book description page, but there is not mention of a "Republican Party." Again, this refers to republicanism, not to a party. - Griot
6. John M. Murrin etc Liberty, Equality, and Power - A History of the American People, Volume I: to 1877 (with CD-ROM), 4th Edition ©2005 ISBN: 0495091774 [34]. I cannot find the word "Republican" anywhere on this Web page. - Griot

Rjensen 07:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

See my comments in italics above. I remain unconvinced that "Republican Party" has now replaced "Democratic-Republican Party" as the preferred term for describing the political party that Jefferson started in 1792. We must be careful not to confuse "republicanism" with "Republican Party." I believe many of the references you cite above are to the political philosophy, not the political party. Anyhow, I'm intrigued by this question, and I'm going to take a couple hours this week to visit a library actually look into some history books to see how the term is being used (as if I don't already have a million things to do). I'll report here when my little fact-finding junket is over. Griot 15:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

NONE of these 9 college and 1 middle school textbooks ever use "Democratic-Republican party" Not one. zero. the term is near defunct (actually I did find one and only one current textbook that uses that term; it's by Jacqueline Jones and I listed it somewhere above.)

Re: "Unto a Good Land"--the website is not much help but I purchased a paper copy of the book. It uses "Republican party". Is it a serious danger that someone reading through the article will get confused between Madison in 1800, McKinley in 1900 and McCain in 2000. No, I think not. Rjensen 16:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I really think this is an instance where we can't rely on the Internet. You claim that "not one" of the nine textbooks uses the term "Democratic-Republican Party," yet you don't have any of these textbooks in hand, so how do you know? The fact is, you can't know unless you have the textbooks in hand. You claim that the term is "defunct," yet I have provided the names of four textbooks that I own, all publichsed in the last eight years, in which the term "Democratic-Republican Party" is used (The American Pageant (Houghton Mifflin, 2002), America: Pathways to the Present (Prentice-Hall, 2002), The American Journey (McGraw-Hill, 1998), Creating America: A History of the United States (McDougal Littell, 2000). Honestly, Rjensen, why do you make these bold claims when they are so hard to verify? It looks like a trip to the library is in order to see what the books are actually saying. Griot 16:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that, since we haven't looked at the textbooks, we don't know if they ever use the term Democratic-Republican Party. But it's fair to say that the term doesn't appear in the table of contents of any of those books. Does the term appear in the table of contents of your books, Griot? If it does not, that would be fair evidence that the books might use the term even if it doesn't show up in the TOC. john k 18:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Trying to move to the next step...

I'm going to say straight out that all this wrangling over sources is probably not going to convince anyone. I think that "Republican" is probably now used by a majority. A lot of old sources, and a few newer ones, use "Democratic-Republican." The question then becomes, "in such a situation, what should wikipedia do?"

I'm going to put the article name to one side for now, and address the question of what name we should primarily use in the text. I think it's fairly clear that we should use "Republican". Firstly, this was the name which was the most commonly used at the time. Secondly, this is the name which is used by the majority of historians. Thirdly, in certain contexts, especially that of the break-up of the Republican Party (because the faction that would become the Democratic Party actually did call itself the Democratic-Republicans), "Democratic-Republican" is a lot more confusing than "Republican," which really isn't confusing at all, as our Canadian contributor demonstrated. Fourthly, there is absolutely no rule which says that we must call something by the name we use in the article title about that thing. That's completely ridiculous, and I defy Griot to come up with any wikipedia policy anywhere that supports such a claim. As we all admit, both names (Democratic-Republican and Republican) are used by historians as names for the party. Some historians, like Harry Watson, use the names indiscriminately, alternating between them as the mood strikes them. Even if we decide that "Democratic-Republican" is a better name for the article because of disambiguation issues, that does not mean that "Democratic-Republican" is the better term to use in the text.

In terms of the article name, I genuinely don't feel as strongly - I might even say I don't feel strongly at all. The only reason I proposed a name change at all is Griot's insistence that the name of the article must match the name we use in text, which, as I say, I strongly disagree with. I don't especially like "Democratic-Republican Party (United States)" as a name, but I'm not sure what good alternatives there are. The obvious Republican Party (United States) is taken. We could move to Jeffersonian Republican Party. Or to Republican Party (Jeffersonian) or to Republican Party (1792-1824). None of these would be terrible - I'd suggest that none would be any worse than the current title. But none is terribly ideal. So I'm open to suggestions here. I'd be happy to just leave the article where it is if we can come to a consensus that "Republican Party" is the preferred term to use in article text, and that "Democratic-Republican" is just a necessary evil of an article title for disambiguation purposes. john k 15:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The question of what term we should primarily use in the text is a moot point. The term used primarily in the text should be the same as the term used in title of the article. For example, an article about Mark Twain mentions that he was born Samuel Clemmons, but then refers to him has Twain throughout. Switching back and forth between terms, or using "Clemmons," would be confusing to readers. Staying with one decided-upon term is a convention of all scholarship dating to Carolus Linnaeus in the 18th Century. Let's not turn back the clock, eh? Griot 16:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not a moot point. Your point is completely absurd. The Linnaeus comparison is ridiculous - Linnaeus was writing about taxonomy, not about, well, everything. As I said, the only reason I proposed a move was because of this ridiculous position of yours. But the positions remains utterly absurd. For instance, in articles about people whose names change throughout their lives, we use whatever name they were known by at the time. Benjamin Disraeli is "Disraeli" before he's made an Earl, and "Beaconsfield" afterwards. I'd also note that for writers with pen names, there is no clear single standard - the Twain article mostly calls him Twain. The article on Stendhal generally calls him "Beyle" for the period before he started writing, and "Stendhal" thereafter. The article on Lewis Carroll calls him Dodgson throughout. The article on George Eliot refers to her as Mary Ann Evans in discussion of her personal life, and George Eliot in discussion of her work. There's simply no rule doing what you claim. john k 18:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes

Does anyone know what these footnotes are supposed to be pointing to?

• Cunningham 1957 (p 167)
• Tinkcom (p 271)
• Tinkcom (p 271-72)

We should use the <ref></ref> syntax for footnotes. --JW1805 (Talk) 21:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

the referred to text that got lost (see next session). Harvard citation method is better because it does not leave orphans like this. Rjensen 22:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

organizational history

While we have been debating terminology, somehow large sections of the article got misplaced and I just now restored them. The party was one of the first mass parties in the world and it invented many new techniques, especially in how to win an election, and use of newspapers. That is an important development in political history (in American and world perspective) so it needs coverage. No it is not in any way POV. The Federalists were slow in adopting these methods and that (days David Hackett Fischer) was a fatal mistake for the Federalists. Rjensen 22:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed. Good section, it shouldn't have been deleted. --JW1805 (Talk) 22:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Other parties of same name

Grand National Party mentions that the GNP used to be known as the "Democratic Republican Party" as its inception as well. I don't know whether this is sufficiently notable, however, to include a disambiguation link here. I'll leave it up to you guys. Deco 10:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

National Caucuses of the party of this name

The following is stated in the article:

"That caucus was not used after 1816, and the party as a national institution ceased to exist. James Monroe ran under the party's banner in 1820 (without a caucus), and in 1824 there was no party nominee."

I hope that everyone will agree that these sentences should be re-worded slightly.

The national Caucus assembled in the U.S. Capitol Building on 4/5/1820. Forty members of Congress attended. In the days preceding the Caucus, members of Congress from NC and NY decided to boycott the Caucus because they felt it was organized to embarrass VP Tompkins. Only two Virginians attended. Richard M. Johnson presented a resolution stating that no nominations were necessary, as the incumbents were expected to run again. The motion carried, and James Monroe and Daniel Tompkins became the candidates. Ohio Elects the President p. 16.

The Caucus last assembled in the U.S. House chamber on 2/14/1824. Sixty-eight members of Congress attended, the bulk coming from four states (NY, VA, NC, and GA). Ten states were entirely unrepresented, and five states had only one representative. This last Caucus nominated William H. Crawford for President by a vote of 64 to 4 scattering and Albert Gallatin for VP by a vote of 57 to eight scattering. Ohio Elects the President p. 17.

In the presidential election of 1824 in North Carolina, two slates of presidential electors were offered: one called the People's Ticket which was unofficially pledged to Andrew Jackson, and the Caucus Ticket which was officially pledged to William H. Crawford. The People's Ticket was originally pledged to John C. Calhoun (mentioned in many newspapers; only clipping I copied was from the Raleigh Register of 1/15/1824). When Calhoun switched to the VP race, the People's Ticket became unofficially the Jackson ticket. The Raleigh Register endorsed the Caucus Ticket and ran the ballot every week in its columns. I copied the ballot printed on 9/10/1824, which was substantially the same which ran for many weeks. It begins with these words: "National Nomination. At a meeting of the Democratic Members of Congress, held in the Chamber of the House of Repressentatives, [2/14] 1824, of which Benjamin Ruggles of Ohio, was Chairman, and Ela Collins of New-York, Secretary..." that Crawford and Gallatin were nominated.

These are just a few bits of information that the Caucus continued to be held after 1816. I don't think that this is a controverial matter, and I hope that people will feel in agreement that some modification of the text is warranted. Chronicler3 02:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC) Chronicler3

The point is that caucus system has collapsed when only a minority attends. (It is binding on everyone who attends, hence the no-shows.) Crawford tried to revive it but only 4 states showed up and 10 boycotted--that's no longer the caucus of all or even most party members. Rjensen 03:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

My reply then would be to adjust the text to say something along these lines: "although the Caucus assembled in 1820 and 1824 to nominate candidates for president and vice president, low attendance indicates that the caucus system had collapsed" rather than suggesting that the party held no national caucus after 1816. The text as it stands is not historically accurate. Chronicler3 10:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)