Talk:Democrat Party (epithet)/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

(Redacted)

:Thread retitled from "What's your problem?".

@Rjensen:, @Sangdeboeuf: -- Sangdeboeuf, I really have a tough time understanding what your problem is. It's like you think that you and only you are the only editor allowed to make contributions to this article. You complain about too many references and too few references. You complain about "original research" or "interpretation" when the context of the words or statements in question is blatantly obvious to everyone -- except you, apparently.

What's your fixation? Do you not agree that Republicans intend "Democrat Party" as an insult? If that's the case, why don't you make THAT argument, instead of making a hash of everyone else's good faith efforts?

Billmckern (talk) 20:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

what is Original Research in Wikipedia?

Students who take a history course in college learn about "original research" & can easily get it confused with the Wikipedia rule against original research OR. That is a mistake – Wikipedia has a specialized narrow definition of OR as follows from WP:OR: The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. Note the definition says "reliable" and does not specify "secondary" sources. A reliable primary source will do. All of the facts and ideas that have been challenged by some critics on this page in fact meet the WP:OR test.--they can be sourced. Better yet, they actually are sourced. This another misunderstanding here to the effect that primary sources are not allowed. They are allowed according to the rule at WP:Primary. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, a newspaper account that states that so-and-so said XYZ passes the test for a Wikipedia statement such as. "so-and-so in 1889 said XYZ." Any educated person can verify that as a simple historical fact to which no interpretation has been added by a Wikipedia editor. We have an example of that in the History section at footnote 14 where Addressing a gathering of Michigan Republicans in 1889, New Hampshire Republican Congressman Jacob H. Gallinger said: [XYZ] with a footnote gives a not link directly to his XYZ quotation. That is a simple statement of fact, using a primary source, with no added interpretation. The added tag to the effect that "[non-primary source needed] has no Wikipedia rule to support that claim. It is slanderous to suggest that the statement was plagiarized from a secret unknown secondary source--- it is very nasty to allege plagiarism--In the real world people get fired for plagiarism, and in academe is considered a very serious offense. The insinuation violates the Wiki rule that we editors assume good faith on the part of other editors. It is preposterous when the troll has no evidence whatever that such a secret source actually exists. There is no secret secondary source. These historical quotes are found by the same method students use to do their research, a simple Google search does the job. It identifies the exact quotation from a past source, and it actually gives the past source in a useful citation, often with a link to the whole text that any educated person can verify. Rjensen (talk) 04:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Please try to present ideas more concisely and stick to the topic of improving this article. It's not clear what action is being suggested. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Lyman

About the Lyman source from American Speech used to support the claim for the statement about the "author" John Lyman writing that Democrat Party was used neutrally by Democratic Party members: this is not a scholarly work; it is merely a reader's letter published in an issue of that journal under "Miscellany". I believe that in the interests of due weight this source should definitely not be used as the sole support for any statements in this article, and the material based on it should be removed (or at least moved to a footnote with explanation of its origin in a reader's letter) until more reliable sources are found. The full text of the source is below.

Full text

Democrat Party Professor Feuerlicht's comprehensive discussion of Democrat as an attributive in American Speech for October, 1957, credits the late Senator McCarthy of Wisconsin with the invention of this form in 1954. I would like to put on record the fact that in Maryland the usage has been common for years among some members of the Democrat party itself, with no derogation intended. I well remember an organization meeting for the local precinct in 1948, two years after I moved to Maryland, where one speaker, a former Secretary of State of Maryland (a Democrat), repeatedly referred to the 'Democrat party of Prince George County' (officially, this county is Prince Georges or George's). Senator McCarthy stumped Maryland in 1952, campaigning for the Republican opponent of the incumbent Democrat senator, and it may be that he picked up the locution then. John Lyman District Heights, Md.

—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:34, 19 April 2017 (UTC) (updated 19:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC))

Y Since no one has objected in two days, I've removed the statement based on this source, which is after all another of the primary sources that the article already relies on too much, and merely recounts the writer's personal recollections. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

American Speech is the major scholarly academic Journal dealing with daily speech in American culture. it is a quarterly academic journal officially sponsored by the American Dialect Society, established in 1925 and published by Duke University Press. see https://www.dukeupress.edu/american-speech/?viewby=journal google scholar reports over 10,000 citations to "American Speech" in other scholarly journals. Everything published in it, such as Lyman's report, is approved by the editor, supported by an editorial board of scholars. The implication that the Lyman piece lacks RS status is based on no rule or guidance in wikipedia. It is purely an imaginary pseudo-rule made up by one editor who provides zero RS for his personal decision. Rjensen (talk) 01:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that the journal editors would go to the trouble of fact-checking this little personal story before publishing it. If this were a truly noteworthy piece of information, then other reliable sources would probably have reported on it as well. So where are they? Lyman doesn't cite any sources. All we have is the recollection of one person with nothing to show that they are any kind of notable historian, linguist, political scientist etc. See WP:REDFLAG. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

We go by Wiki rules not speculation based on ignorance --we have the credibility of a major scholarly journal in the field sponsored by the leading scholarly society and edited by teams of experts for 90+ years. The journal fits Wiki rules on RS. What we know is that an expert on English language daily usage reported to the leading journal on this particular usage in a particular area he knew well. The term was in the news in those days for its usage by national politicians. The editor of the leading journal accepted his report and made the decision it was reliable enough for the journal's standards--a decision one wiki editor now challenges. It was published according to the journal's long-standing policies in order to inform the community of language experts. That's what RS look like. No one has ever challenged it until now and that challenge seems to be based mostly on ignorance of how scholarly journals actually operate and serve the scholarly community. [to challenge it all we have is speculation: "I seriously doubt" is based on how much knowledge of scholarly journals???? zero perhaps? ] Rjensen (talk) 02:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Who exactly is the "expert on English language daily usage" in question? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:58, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The expert is the editor of American speech whose job is to evaluate the quality of material submitted to the Journal, and publish that which meets his criteria. from NY Times obituary: Allan F. Hubbell, professor of English at New York University and a specialist in the dialects of New York, died Tuesday....He contributed to scholarly publications and was the author of “The Pronunciation of English in New York City” (1950) and “A Survey of Russian‐English Scientific and Technical Dictionaries” (1960). A life member of the Modern Language Association, Professor Hubbell was the editor of American speech, a Columbia University publication, from 1952 to 1962. In 1963 he was president of the American Dialect Society. [June 25, 1976, Page 20] the point is that scholarly journals evaluate submissions based on the quality of the content, not the credentials of the author. The credentials of the editor and the editorial board is what makes for scholarly credibility. Rjensen (talk) 05:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

This is silly. There's no evidence whatsoever that Hubbell personally verified anything in Lyman's letter. To say otherwise is pure conjecture. Lyman is the credited author, not Hubbell. And none of the foregoing negates the fact that we have only one brief primary source to support the claim in the article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

the wiki rule is that our job is to report what the RS say, and this journal is a RS. As for demanding "personal verification" you seem to be telling scholars how to study American speech and eminent editors how to edit a scholarly journal. There is zero evidence you know anything about scholarly journals yet you are claiming the abolity to evaluate their methods. do you claim some expertise??. Rjensen (talk) 09:58, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Reliability of a source depends on context – there is no official stamp saying that a given publication is "reliable" for everything. The author's identity/credentials and the number of people checking facts are both relevant here, and so far there's no proof that either has scholarly bona fides.

* I have alerted WP:WikiProject Linguistics and WP:WikiProject History to this discussion in the hope of getting some fresh opinions. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The cite is reliable on language usage -- the editor was a top expert in the field and you have produced no RS that suggest there was any error in what he published. as for WP:CONTEXT it states A corollary is that journals not included in a citation index, especially in fields well covered by such indexes, should be used with caution, though whether it is appropriate to use will depend on the context. OK -- the journal in question American Speech is indexed/abstracted in the following 35 resources: Academic Search Alumni Edition, Academic Search Complete, Academic Search Elite, Academic Search Premier, America: History and Life, Arts and Humanities Citation Index, Communication and Mass Media Complete, Current Contents—Arts and Humanities, Current Contents—Social and Behavioral Sciences, Education Research Complete, Education Source, ERIH PLUS, Historical Abstracts, Humanities Abstracts, Humanities and Social Sciences Index Retrospective: 1907–1985, Humanities Full Text, Humanities Index Retrospective: 1907–1985, Humanities International Complete, Humanities International Index, Humanities Source, Linguistic Bibliography, Linguistics Abstracts Online, Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts, Literature Online, Magazines for Libraries, MLA International Bibliography, OmniFile Full Text Mega, Professional Development Collection, ProQuest Central, ProQuest Discovery, ProQuest Research Library, Scopus, Social Sciences Citation Index, Social Sciences Index Retrospective: 1907–1984, SocINDEX. source: https://www.dukeupress.edu/american-speech/?viewby=journal Rjensen (talk) 11:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

None of which is too relevant as to whether this particular citation is reliable here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

the criteria you set wp:context is met--as are all Wiki criteria. What RS do you have to challenge this with?? Rjensen (talk) 11:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

This is not a question of one source versus another. And no, the criteria are not necessarily met. But rather than repeat myself, I will wait for editors from the related WikiProjects to weigh in. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

you have been unable to a) provide RS with alternative views or b) state your objections clearly. I hold this is a RS that deals explicitly and without ambiguity with the topic of the article in reporting how the phrase was used by local Democrats in the 1940s-1950s. Rjensen (talk) 04:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Not finding other sources with an alternative viewpoint does not guarantee inclusion for this source. Verifiability alone is not a reason for inclusion. This is a question of due weight, as I said at the very beginning. It deals with whether Lyman's published letter is reliable enough, or Lyman notable enough, to be used as the sole source for any material. I'm not seeing convincing evidence of either. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Lyman is not "good enough" for an anonymous person who is unfamiliar with scholarly journals. but Lyman is good enough for the long-time editor of the leading journal and president of the scholarly association. Scholarly journals do NOT require any credentials from authors--the acceptance process is blind: the reviewers are not given the name or any information about the author. Only content counts and Lyman's article passes all the scholarly and Wikipedia tests. Rjensen (talk) 06:09, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how any of this is relevant. Decisions on Wikipedia are made by consensus, not "tests". It's up to those seeking to include disputed content to show that it is appropriate for the article. So far that has not been done, in my opinion. Also, there's nothing to show that any of the foregoing comments about the scholarly acceptance process apply in this case – so far, it's all speculation and proof by assertion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

You're the one who introduced tests like WEIGHT, PLAGIARISM, and RSCONTEXT-- but in none of these have you attempted to argue the point. the topic fits the article and American Speech is a very well established scholarly journal--and you have not made it clear what your objection is. Rjensen (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I explained my objections in my first three comments in this section [since updated]. There's no reason to repeat myself. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC) (updated 19:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC))

It is a reliable source by WP:RS -- a leading scholarly journal in the field of American speech, edited by a top scholar. the editor selected the material as qualified for a RS. "not a scholarly work" is not a Wiki criterion. Rjensen (talk) 08:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

you started by objecting: based on this source, which is after all another of the primary sources -- that is false. Lyman tells how other people used the term, he did not use it himself. Rjensen (talk) 08:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The editor selected the material as qualified for a RS – as I said, this is conjecture; we have no proof that this is what happened. "Qualified for a RS" is not a concept that appears in any policy or guideline of Wikipedia that I know of. And I think that "not a scholarly work" is relevant to evaluating this source's reliability in context.

Lyman tells how other people used the term, he did not use it himself – that's not the issue. Per WP:PRIMARY,

Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Primary sources may or may not be independent or third-party sources.

Lyman is describing a period of history from his own experience, including a meeting at which he was apparently present. His letter is therefore a primary source for these details.

As for Lyman's statement that the phrase was "common for years among some members of the Democrat party itself, with no derogation intended", I would again ask why this is the only source making this claim. Per WP:REDFLAG, extra caution is warranted by "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources" and "challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources".

If instead, the use of Democrat Party by "some members of the Democrat party itself" in the state of Maryland is simply a minor point not requiring coverage in multiple sources, then WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:UNDUE apply. In short, until additional high-quality sources are found to support the relevance of this bit of information, I think there are several reasons to treat this source with caution. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Satire

I recall one conservative writer (I think it was in National Review) who effectively spat upon the whole concept by suggesting that there was a group known as PTUI-FAD: "People Together to Unstick the 'Ic' From After Democratic." Perhaps someone can locate that piece! WHPratt (talk) 16:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Trump

It's verifiable that Donald Trump tweeted, "it is not the Democratic Debate, rather the Democrat (s) D!", per Politico. However, not every WP:FART has encyclopedic value. Unlike with George W. Bush's use of the term, there is no secondary-source analysis to show that this tweet is noteworthy or important, so I suggest removing it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

it's verifiable and non-controversial that the current president uses the term--that is encyclopedic. it meets the standard for using a primary source. As for a reliable source it's covered as a news event by journalist Mark Joyella on Oct. 13, 2015 at Adweek = http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/jeff-zucker-on-democratic-debate-our-approach-will-be-different/274420 Rjensen (talk) 13:07, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that it's verifiable; however, verifiability alone does not guarantee inclusion. Whether it's encyclopedic or not depends on whether there is existing secondary-source evaluation and analysis to draw from; Wikipedia is not a collection of random trivia. The trade publication Adweek seems like a strange source for political news; in any event, its article just copies the tweet with no comment or explanation at all. Once again, unless there is more substantial coverage, I suggest removing this content. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

The trade magazine on advertising is an expert on slogans = the RS that singles out the behavior as notable for its audience of advertising experts. Surely we all agree that when the president uses a slogan he takes it to the highest levels of visibility. -- is there anyone more visible than Trump? Rjensen (talk) 21:07, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump was not the president in October 2015, when he wrote that tweet. In any event, "visibility" is not the relevant standard – that would be coverage in reliable, secondary sources. Wikipedia is not written for an "audience of advertising experts", but rather for a general audience. Thus we gauge the noteworthiness of facts by their prominence in mainstream sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I've started an RfC on the topic below. —21:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

RS that singles out the behavior as notable for its audience – that's just another way of saying that it is published and verifiable. By that logic, anything ever published on any news website anywhere would be "notable" enough for an encyclopedia article. But Wikipedia is explicitly not the news, and verifiability alone is insufficient, as I've already stated. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Another user has added a further use of the phrase Democrat Party in another tweet by Trump. Like the above example, I've seen no commentary by secondary sources explaining how this tweet is relevant, so it too is given undue weight here. For one thing, the phrase appears irrelevant to the feud with Wilson. And none of the sources used so far suggest any "partisan nature" to Trump's use of the phrase itself, so that part is evidently original research. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:02, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Request for comment: Trump Democratic debate tweet

The consensus is to exclude the information about the tweet per WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS.

Cunard (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In October 2015, Donald Trump tweeted, "Someone should inform @CNN that, despite spending millions of $'s on graphics, it is not the Democratic Debate, rather the Democrat[s] D!" Should this be in the article? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC) (updated 04:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC))

• Exclude. It's disproportionate to the overall topic. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of the president's former tweets. Unlike with George W. Bush's use of the term Democrat Party, I've seen no explanation in secondary sources of how this tweet is noteworthy or important. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:10, 15 October 2017 (UTC) (updated 21:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC))
• Including the tweet gives undue weight to the specific tweet. Not encyclopedic. Democrat Party (epithet) should not mention Donald Trump's October 2015 tweet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay2net (talk • contribs) 00:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
• FRS Exclude. Agree that including the tweet would give undue weight. agtx 14:05, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude. I think it's definitely noteworthy and deserving of weight, as it's the opinion of the most important person in the most important opposition party to the Democratic Party, but assuming as suggested above that there aren't any sources saying the tweet is important, it has no place in a Wikipedia article. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
• Include we do have a reliable source that singled it out for mention--ie the trade magazine on advertising is an expert reliable secondary source for issues like campaign slogans and it decided it was notable for its audience of advertising experts: a presidential candidate during the heated campaign --with many hundreds of millions of $$$ spent on advertising--deliberately emphasizes the slogan (it was not a passing remark) Rjensen (talk) 03:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

  ...a reliable source that singled it out for mention [...] decided it was notable for its audience of advertising experts – as I stated above, that's just another way of saying that it was published and therefore verifiable. By that logic, anything ever published on any news website anywhere would be "notable" enough for an encyclopedia article. Verifiability alone is a bare minimum standard, not proof of encyclopedic merit.

  The entirety of the coverage in Adweek consists of the tweet itself preceded by the line, "And then there’s this from the GOP front-runner". How is this not "a passing remark"? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• Exclude - not WP:NOTABLE for him saying it as Google is only showing me 7 hits. Besides, the tweet seems about CNN signage missing the word "Party" in saying "Democratic Debate" so seems not really an epithet usage. Markbassett (talk) 02:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

  For the record, "notability" applies to the topic of an article, not content within an article. For that you want Neutral point of view. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

  Oops, yes, proper term within an article No significant coverage is WP:WEIGHT failure. Googling only 7 hits is trivial, not deserving of mention. Markbassett (talk) 01:07, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

  the question is whether Trump used the term in partisan fashion or avoids it. The quote answers that question. Trump's role in US politics makes his usage important--a state official in any state could never carry the weight. Rjensen (talk) 22:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

  Are there any reliable sources to support such an interpretation? Weight is decided primarily by coverage in secondary sources, not contributors' own analyses of primary sources such as tweets. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:58, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

  Sangdeboeuf is asking for a citation to demonstrate that Trump is important or noteworthy in American politics. He needs to read wp:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue Rjensen (talk) 02:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

  That's not the point. Due weight is not about what you, or I, or anyone happens to think about Donald Trump's role. It's about significant, published viewpoints. There are innumerable published sources confirming that the sky is blue. What sources are there confirming this tweet's importance? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

  The Due Weight rule has zip to do with this. the rule is " Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. " there are no "minority views" that are exaggerated. Rjensen (talk) 13:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

  It's "minority views or aspects", as you so helpfully quoted. Trump's use of Democrat here appears to be an exceedingly minor aspect of the linguistic debate over the phrase Democrat Party. Feel free to suggest sources that demonstrate otherwise. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

  "linguisdtic debate" is not the issue here. The proposition (from Safire et al) ia that Republicans at the highest level have used the term as a negative epithet. The Trump example adds another 8 years to the chain of verified presidential evidence supporting this proposition.Rjensen (talk) 21:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

  That appears to be your own editorial synthesis. What reliable, published sources make any connection with Safire et al.? Also, Donald Trump was not president in 2015. Whether the tweet is "presidential" is therefore just one user's opinion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

  False--Trum was a leader in the GOP presidential campaign in 1975. Rjensen (talk) 05:03, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

  Uh – what? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Exclude as trivial ephemera unless and until multiple reliable sources treat this as noteworthy specifically in the context of "Democrat(s)" as [somehow] a pejorative. I.e., RS must prove the relevance. Some of the above comments are misusing "notable", which on WP has the specific meaning "worthy of its own article"; this is a WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:UNDUE, and WP:RECENTISM matter, not a WP:Notability issue.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  05:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude – I agree with the others. Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 23:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude, insufficient coverage. Additionally, given the context and the source, it's not clear that he intended to use it as an epithet; it's entirely possible he isn't aware of the party's proper name. --Aquillion (talk) 00:39, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The Washington Times a prominent Republican paper, selects the "Democrat" theme as its banner headline re Wilson episode Trump continues feud with Fla. congresswoman: Frederica Wilson ‘killing the Democrat Party’ Washington Times Oct 21 2017 that shows a major paper emphasizes the importance of the quote and not just the feud. Rjensen (talk) 05:07, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Mic political reporter Eric Lutz in October 2017 reports several publicized episodes where President Trump uses the epithet and concludes "His use of the term seems to be purposeful." Rjensen (talk) 09:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
      • If so, we should cite that coverage and have a sentence saying that Trump has repeatedly used it, not just one cite to the quote. A decent source or two saying that he's used it repeatedly and concluding that it's purposeful is much more noteworthy and inclusion-worthy than one tweet. --Aquillion (talk) 21:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Possibly - I don't think we need to quote an individual tweet, but if multiple secondary sources are available saying that this is a persistent and deliberate overarching pattern, and examining it in depth beyond just a quote, then it may be appropriate to include some content on that overarching pattern. GMG^talk 10:16, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude as UNDUE. There hasn't been enough RS coverage of this one tweet to give it weight for this article. Ca2james (talk) 20:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude As everyone else is saying, not enough RS coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LakesideMiners (talk • contribs) 19:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
• Include (Condensed from what I posted on 2017-11-10) Drawn here by an RfC and my professional interests both in usage trends and in rhetoric, I found it weird that the controversy was framed in terms of undue weight. That traditionally refers to giving too much play to a minority viewpoint but no viewpoint is involved here. Nor does it seem to be some other sort of NPOV problem. Instead, it looks like the main risk discussed is WP:OR, though we'd certainly get into WP:NOT if we were to attempt to list every single time Trump used the epithet. Nevertheless, documenting this usage is the purpose of the article. -- Distorting the Democratic Party's actual name is a tradition going back more than a century. The press and linguists have achieved consensus about this and it no longer makes news, so simply quoting a president who addresses the public directly ought not require comment in WP:RS. President Bush made it very clear what was going on, in a clever self-deprecating way, when he embraced his own, earlier use of the epithet. Suppressing the reference to Trump would seem to imply our current Republican president had given up on this precedent. -- The fact that the statements were made in tweets rather than traditional media does not take away from the importance of a president's usage as a model for how Americans talk. -- The particular tweet in question is important for three reasons. It represents the earliest citation. It came in a highly partisan context that Trump showed awareness of. The tweet itself contains metadiscourse referring to the misnomer. The pithy quotation from candidate Trump is an example of his rhetorical effectiveness. Noting his use of the epithet, if done with simplicity and without editorializing, need not create any problem in terms of balance. What harm could leaving the quotation in do? - phi (talk) 18:58, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

  @Ph7five: would you care to condense that a bit, and perhaps explain your reasoning in relation to established Wiki practice, such as reflected in Due weight and What Wikipedia is not? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:00, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay, @Sangdeboeuf:, I have tried, above (with an overwrite, which is I hope what you intended) and hope it seems clearer. Thank you. - phi (talk) 18:58, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I see several misconceptions there:

• The issue of undue weight is about over-representing minority views or aspects, as discussed earlier. See WP:PROPORTION.
• The purpose of an encyclopedia is not to simply document what people say and do. That is the purpose of a newspaper, which Wikipedia is not.
• It's not a question of "doing harm", but of avoiding indiscriminate trivia.

The idea that The press and linguists have achieved consensus about this is certainly new to me, and does not free us from the need for a neutral presentation based on reliable sources. If secondary sources have not commented on Trump's usage, then it probably doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Marcus

I've removed both statements from the article that columnist Ruth Marcus called the dispute over the term "trivial" (diff).

In the same column, Marcus calls Republicans' use of the term "derisive", " needling", "sneering", " ugly", "rude", "grating", and "coarse-sounding", and quotes Buckley and Hertzberg in calling the term "offensive" and a "slur" respectively. To focus on the "trivial, sticks-and-stones quality" here gives that aspect undue weight. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC) (edited 10:20, 1 February 2018 (UTC))

References

Move reverted

(cur | prev) 19:26, 8 May 2018‎ Sangdeboeuf (talk | contribs)‎ . . (62 bytes) (+62)‎ . . (Sangdeboeuf moved page Democrat Party to Democrat Party (disambiguation) over redirect) (thank) (Tag: New redirect)

Undone In ictu oculi (talk) 12:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 8 May 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: WP:SNOW not moved. This RM is clearly not going to pass, and the disambiguation page has already been moved back to the base title. (closed by page mover) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:54, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

---

Democrat Party (epithet) → Democrat Party – Most likely WP:PTOPIC for English speakers. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:09, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Sangdeboeuf: Better discuss this move. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, and put Democrat Party (disambiguation) back at Democrat Party. There is little to no evidence to suggest the epithet article is the primary topic: it only gets 36.6% of pageviews for all topics titled "Democrat Party", and there's no way it has more long-term significance than Democrat Party (Thailand) or Democrat Party (Turkey, current). Nohomersryan (talk) 02:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@Nohomersryan: I've reverted that. The dab page is back where it was yesterday. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose move. Even from an American perspective, having the epithet at "Democrat Party" is confusing because the primary topic in America would still probably be the Democratic Party, not the epithet. ONR (talk) 07:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. As ONR says, having the epithet at "Democrat Party" is confusing because the primary topic in America would still probably be the Democratic Party, not the epithet. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Plenty of them around and it's not even the American party's proper name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 19 August 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 19:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

---

Democrat Party (epithet) → Democrat Party (slur) – This is not an epithet, it is a slur or jibe. I suggest renaming the page Democrat Party (slur) Lobsterthermidor (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• Move to Democrat Party (pejorative). In contemporary usage, "pejorative" is more general. "Slur" has come to have a connotation of being more of a racial pejorative. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:43, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Pejorative seems less than ideal since it can be either a noun or an adjective. The noun usage strikes me as too informal for encylopedia writing. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:55, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
    • I don't think it's informal at all. And yes "pejorative" can be used as an adjective or a noun, but I see that as much less problematic than "epithet" which has more than one meaning, and can therefore be ambiguous. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose move: epithet in common usage means a term of abuse. Multiple published sources describe Democrat Party as an "epithet". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:47, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Sources

• Oppose move per Sangdeboeuf's rationale. Definitely create a redirect from Democrat Party (slur). cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 17:22, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Related RfC

There is an ongoing request for comment at Talk:Democrat Party that concerns this page. Please comment there. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:54, 17 October 2019 (UTC)