Talk:Democrat Party

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Democrat Party (epithet) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Should this disambiguation page include an entry to Democratic Party (United States)?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus to include a link to Democratic Party (United States) on this page. While there seems to be no disagreement that the term is used as an epithet, there is consensus that DAB policy suggests its inclusion as a navigational aide to readers. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:36, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should this disambiguation page include an entry that links to Democratic Party (United States)? feminist (talk) 12:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Disambiguation pages list topics that are commonly referred to using a term. The term "Democrat Party" is commonly used to refer to the Democratic Party of the United States. In fact, the (mostly pejorative) usage of the term to refer to the American political party is so common that entire journal and news articles are dedicated to this topic, making it notable enough for a substantial Wikipedia article. MOS:DABNOENTRY states that entries should be included if the subject is commonly referred to simply by Title. Considering the common usage of "Democrat Party" in referring to the American political party, including an entry to Democratic Party (United States) is not only appropriate, it aids navigation for readers. feminist (talk) 12:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Looking at the edit history, it looks like Sangdebouef's rationale against the inclusion was "link is more likely to give the mistaken impression that the party is generally known by this name". I find that argument pretty weak. There's plenty of precedent for including dab links for relatively obscure alternate names. We link to Pinniped from Seadog, and Badminton from Baddie, without worrying that readers will mistakenly believe that those things are usually referred to by those names. In those cases we give some context about the term (i.e. that it's slang, or informal), and we can do the same thing here (the dab page already describes "Democrat Party" as a "pejorative term"). As for how it should appear, I think having a sub-bullet nested under Democrat Party (epithet) is fine. But I honestly also don't think it would be crazy to WP:IAR and link to it from the same bullet (despite the normal rule of one blue link per entry). It arguably accomplishes the same goal but less awkwardly. Colin M (talk) 20:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - at least for now. In trying to relate to our readers who don't understand US politics, why is Democrat considered a pejorative term when used with "Party", and by whom? What message does that send? Is the Democratic Party not the Party of Democrats? We don't refer to individuals of that party as a Democratic or a Democratican; they are simply Democrats. We have the Republican Party for those who identify as Republicans, and the Libertarian Party for those who identify as Libertarian. What harm is having a dab page for our readers who are not aware of the politics? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would support linking to it within the definition of Democrat Party (epithet). That way, the distinction between the epithet and the official name becomes clear. I agree that it would be fine to IAR the one-per-bullet rule. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes The concern seems unfounded and oversensitive. The English Wikipedia is used by a very diverse readerbase with varying English skills, and a link to the actual party would likely be helpful. --Pudeo (talk) 19:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No. The subtext of MOS:DAB is that we should include terms that are commonly used by reliable sources to refer to a topic. Democrat Party is a slur used to irritate Democrats, not a legitimate alternative name used by reliable sources. The fact that the term is notable enough for an encyclopedia article has no bearing on whether we direct readers to different, related article. For instance, Honky is an article about a pejorative term, but I hope no one is suggesting that we should include a link to White people at Honky (disambiguation).
The historical, non-derogatory use of Democrat Party is in fact already covered at Democrat Party (epithet), while the only mention of the term at Democratic Party (United States) is a single, brief line without any references. The purpose of disambiguation is helping readers find encyclopedic information, not explaining usage of terms – Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Therefore, adding a link to the party doesn't actually serve the purpose of a DAB page. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- This is an interesting comparison, but I think there are two differences between these cases that weaken the analogy: 1) Someone who searches for "Honky" will be taken to the primary topic Honky, which has a link to white people in its first sentence. Someone whose intended target was white people will easily get to where they want to go by clicking that link, rather than clicking the hatnote link to Honky (disambiguation) and then clicking another link from there. OTOH Democrat Party goes to a dab page, rather than Democrat Party (epithet) being a primary topic. 2) Someone seeking information about Democratic Party (United States) might easily search "Democrat Party" as an honest mistake, thinking that's the correct name. There is no analogous situation for honky vs. white people. Colin M (talk) 22:26, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes – People know the term honky is a slur. Democrat Party is used by commentators and politicians on Fox and CNN on a daily basis. It is used by the current POTUS. Use of the pejorative form is so common that most folk probably think it’s the actual name of the party. Adding this entry adds useful info. O3000 (talk) 14:19, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Commentators and politicians, including the current POTUS, are not usually reliable sources. A DAB page is not a usage guide for terms – unfamiliar, slang, or otherwise. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:34, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need to be a dictionary to disambiguate between two terms in article titles that are often confused by readers. O3000 (talk) 14:36, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Any confusion would be minor, and in any case the desired article would only be a click away. I think it's more important that we avoid appearing to endorse a deliberate, politically driven misnomer – WP:NOTPROPAGANDA. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Clearly an aid to navigation which is the purpose of a DAB page. MB 14:46, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Useful navigation is the point. The only mention of Democrat Party at the target article is a single, unreferenced line, arguably WP:UNDUE, and in any case not conveying anything different than what's already covered at Democrat Party (epithet). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No. The commentators here persuaded me that the DAB page should direct readers to a page which actually discusses this term at length. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 15:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. DAB pages are supposed to be helpful. Not including is not being helpful. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 16:21, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously yes, since that's the primary referent, and only people intimately familiar with recent US politics (i.e., typical Americans) are going to know that "Democrat Party" in reference to the US Democratic Party is slurrish. — AReaderOutThataway ^t/_c 08:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.