Talk:Democratic Party (United States)/Archive 7

1049:

this was edited to a different version by other users, and eventually, without my involvement, the dispute returned to the article with editors repeatedly altering the sentence to reflect the various positions on the issue and their many permutations. Over a short period the Democratic Party moved from being an old party, to the oldest, to the oldest in the united states, to the oldest in the world, to everywhere in between and back again. Therefore, a month after my original edit, I decided to make a second edit, this time removing the offending sentence altogether in the hope that readers would be able to draw a more informed conclusion from the history section of the article, or the separate article on the Party's history. This seemed to resolve the problem, and for nearly a month there were no further edits. Recently however, one of the original and most robustly worded sentences was reinstated, and I think if a consensus is not reached then this damaging process is set to start again.

1187:(1938); it remains even more unclear how far Toryism as a concept was the basis on which the later official Conservatism rested, and whether even the party that Peel led under the name 'Conservative' between 1834 and 1846 deserved to be called a 'party' anyway. The issue has been further complicated by the fact that even when most politicians on the political right called themselves 'Conservatives' after 1830, they were nevertheless still labelled 'Tory' by their opponents, and sometimes themselves accepted that label as a badge both of honour and tradition. The assumption that 'Tory' and 'Conservative' were synonymous was frequently an unthinking and untested one, but for some politicians - Lord Randolph Churchill in the 1880s or Iain Macleod and Enoch Powell in the 1950s and 1960s, for example - 'Tory' has continued to mean something different from their 'Conservative' Party's official name. 3828:

with just some college, on the other hand, are less still more likely to vote at GOP. Don't confuse Party registration w/ actual voting patterns, it's the latter that counts and there're an awful lot of independent liberals. As for the graduate degree holder/felon argument, think it about it again: following our logic of using Party registration as predictor of voting, the Dems would be winning every election, since they have about 20+ million more members. Yet, the public, among which Dems outnumder GOPs in terms of registration, voted GOP in 5 of 7 pres. elections. Clearly when a demographic consistently votes Democratic, even when the public does not - whether Dems outnumber GOP in terms of registration - that demographic deserves a mention in our base section.

1173:'the Labour Party' in 1906 and the reformed constitution of 1918 provides easy answers to the equivalent question about starting points. For the Liberals, a meeting held in Willis's Rooms prior to the formation of the Palmerston government of 1859 has traditionally been accepted as the date at which the recognizable Victorian Liberal Party coalesced; if historians now question the importance of that 1859 meeting, and highlight earlier developments and the widespread use of the name 'Liberal' long before the 1850s, it nevertheless provides both an agreeable fiction on which most Liberal Party history could be based and an event which is still acknowledged to have been at the least a key moment in the evolution of the party. 3878:

world. I am not sure whether "Liberalism" as used in the infobox is meant to refer to the American sense or the European one. If the former, I think it is confusing (or confused). The list in the infobox is meant to be accessible to an international audience, and the link is to the broad, international sense. If it is meant to be the latter, the combination of "American liberalism", "Social liberalism", and "Cultural liberalism" cover the extent to which "liberalism" applies to the Democratic Party. Could be falsely inferred to mean the party holds beliefs that are actually held by the Republican Party. I hope this will be non-controversial, but I rather think it will not be. -

3854:

cross over change their partisan identities and beliefs. You are putting far too much weight on a handful of presidential elections. What about congress, and the senate, and local races? And, even if you included a broader array of political contests, voting should not be the only measure presented. The expressed self-identification of surveyed people, and their level of education, should be revealed. This gives balance and perspective to the article. By the way, among self identified males, Republicans are still far more likely to have post grad degrees, while Democrats are more likely to have post grad degrees among females. (See graphs on pages 76 and 77 of

1053:

Such clarification can, however, take place either in the main body of the article or the separate piece on the Party's history without interfering with the flow of the text, and it is for that reason that I think it best for the issues to be explained there. I think that at most, the Introduction should contain a reference to when the Party was officially founded, or that it is the older of the two major US parties (a far less controversial claim). Any further detail, or claims which require exposition in order to be accurate and informative, is not appropriate for the Introduction unless the article is to be restructured.

3304:, both are economists who lean heavily conservative, to say nothing of multiple Nobel Laureates like Milton Friedman or Von Mises. If there is even a single counter example, the assertion that "American economists strongly support the Democratic Party" is a generalization and should be nixed. A better, more NPOV would be to say that the Democratic party enjoys the support of some notable economists, and then list them. Then, noting some notable economists who disagree. That is a solution that doesn't rely on apeals to broad nebulous assertions that it is based on "empirical reputable studies" while citing only one book... 1838:

Ancient Venice had a suitably sophisticated political system (this would lead on, again, to the controversy of the oldest "surviving" or "extant" or "active" party (all versions which have been tried at one time or another)), and even the Vatican, though the governing centre of a religious organisation, demonstrates many of the requisite qualities; a common cause and inherited tradition, significant political influence (which continues to this day, but particularly in the past, when it held sway over many of the temporal authorities of Europe), factions, a hierarchy, an inner circle, an elected leader etc.

3418:

economists as liberal Democrats or they don't. As of now, they do and that's what will be featured in the article. Of course there are "there were also economists who took the opposing position" - did I say all economists are democrats? No. Most, by a considerable margin, are. So long as reputable academic surveys find most economists to be Democrats it will be included in this article. If you beleive these studies to be inaccurate, conduct your own study, get it published and then come back here. For now, this article will feature the conclusions reached by published studies on the subject. Regards,

880:

vote for CAFTA and NAFTA. I've also pointed to the policies of ending tax cuts for the wealthy and raising taxes on the oil companies. You, meanwhile, have responded with confusing the issue of free trade with the illegal immigration debate. The tax cuts are "right wing" but the Dems, who oppose continuing the tax cuts, are economic "centrists"... do you not see the problem here? I think you're letting your support for the Dems cloud your judgement. Knowledge (XXG) is more important than trying to score petty political points. Please keep it neutral. This is coming from a left wing Democrat. --

3296:"empirical studies unambigously suggest that economists tend to be a) modern liberals and b) democrats. " We need sources on that. The examples you cited (Bush tax cuts, universal health care...) as evidence that economists support democratic party principles is flawed as there were also economists who took the opposing position. In order for this section to stay in, we should have conclusive, and numerous, studies that support it. Otherwise, any evidence to the contrary could refute it. Say, for example, 330:) Regardless of what's in there now, I think the reader would be best served by learning about the demographics of people who identify with the Democratic party — the subject of the article. Although I freely acknowledge that one can't talk about democrats without talking about liberals, there is currently no discussion in the article of how education relates to the democratic Party as a whole, only how it relates to liberals, when the statistics are freely available to paint a broader picture. 380:; not exactely the detailed info a reader is looking for. It would completely defeat the purpose of having a section that aims to inform readers on the Democratic base. So what did we do? Create sub-sections that actually explain the composition of Democratic base. We mention liberals and organized labor. All parts of the base are properly described in needed detail. The section intro is indicative of the detailed and balance picture the article gives on the Democratic base: 493:

is an even more pressing reason to include their demographic information. It is important to note the differences between the various demographic groups that constitute the Democratic base, especially if the difference are so vast (working class social conservatives & professional class liberals). The the statement in question is located in a section that talks about one particular demographic that is vital to understanding the Democratic base: Liberal academicians.

3464:

article is misleading. Most economists from academic institutions may very well be democrats and generally oppose markets but these economists also don't know markets very well just because they dont have the experience in the real world. Perhaps there is another study that that surveys economists of the professional world where the ideas actually come into practice but right now I think the article is misleading and should definitely be changed.--

31: 3262:

redistribution and over 70% beleive that inequality has become too high; the Bush tax cuts are strongly opposed (Economists' Statement Opposing the Bush Tax Cuts was singed by 450 economists, including 10 Nobel Prize Laureates) and universal health care finds widespread support (in welfare economics, it is widely recognized that health care is something the market cannot efficiently provide w/o heavy intervention; I suggest reading

814:"Bush's tax cuts, which are opposed by Dems, are right-wing." - Your POV is showing here. One could say raising taxes on the wealthy and oil companies is left wing. Protectionism is widely associated with opposing free trade, and of course the Dems are overwhemingly against free trade agreements such as CAFTA. Illegal immigration is mostly considered a seperate issue from the fiscal policy debate. -- 2332: 1939:"Aruguably" leaves plenty of wiggle room. A consensus was reached earlier. HOw many times do we have to ride this British merry-go-round? Some British editors have made it their crusade to put the UK Conservative party at the head of the line. I say, "No taxation without representation!" "Freedom for Ireland!" Enough of this nonsense already. 2981:

something. Why does this great site to continue publishing that? Someone who supports me better stand next to me. Now. The Republicans have changed the definition of the Democratic Party and published it on Knowledge (XXG). Call the media. Hello? We need to take this issue a little further up the Knowledge (XXG) corporate ladder. Let's call

2786:(2004). The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America, 15. "The country possesses the world's oldest written constitution (1787); the Democratic Party has a good claim to being the world's oldest political party." I could probably add some books with the claim but I'll await other people's thoughts first before bothering to do more work. 3733:

professors does not affect student political orientation, and 3. the educated population, in general, leans to the left. Frankly, I am not sure that issue 2 even belongs in this piece; however, if it does, it seems appropriate to acknowledge that many conservatives/Republicans claim to be offended and even intimidated by liberal colleges.

2395: 431:

in the article. How many high-school dropouts are not going to even have the proper vocabularly to describe their political leanings, yet still show up at the polls? Because democrats are so heavily associated with liberals, talking about one specific group seems misleading to me when the trend is the opposite for the group as a whole.

765:

Republicans (House GOP voted 10 to 1 in favor of CAFTA). It is a left-right issue. I noticed you ignored my other points about taxes. Bill Clinton does not dictate Democratic policy. He's been out of office for almost seven years and even when he was on isses such as free trade the majority of rank and file Dems disagreed with him. --

3243:

should thus be eliminated (Democrats tend to prefer a higher minimum wage). Republicans (like economists) generally dislike welfare. Trade is also favored in economics; by a large majority, Republicans voted to pass the NAFTA and Democrats voted against it. I wonder what an economist would say about socialized health care!

3532:

throughout Southern society. It aimed to reverse the interlocking changes sweeping over the South during Reconstruction: to destroy the Republican party's infrastructure, undermine the Reconstruction state, reestablish control of the black labor force, and restore racial subordination in every aspect of Southern life.

3897:; it is clearly not an ideology limited to cultural issues, nor is it anti-freedom on economics. It simply defined liberty differently, in such a manner that it warrants a more interventionist economic policy, but like the classic liberalism of the GOP, also beleives in liberty - i.e. it is not any less liberal. 1472:

issues or is just making a sweeping statement. I could fish out Feiling the next time I'm down the library and then change the intro to a messy "it claims to be the oldest party in the world but is not as old..." and then stick in a footnote referencing Feiling's work, but would that really solve the matter?

374:" becuase this relationship depends on which part of the Democratic base your focusing. The Democratic base is quite diverse - it includes the highly educated and the non-educated alike. Saying that Democrats are well-educated is misleading, saying that Democrats are not well educated is misleading as well! 3589:

Democrats gained most of the low-income and lower educated individuals than the GOP (Republicans) did. i don't think it is trying to say that most Democrats are that. It could be worded a bit better, but, I don't think it is too bad of an issue. Your edit is much better, so, I'll go ahead and edit that in.

1821:

vulnerable to criticism. Taking that into account, I think the current wording should be kept unless either Britannica is persuaded to change its phraseology, or an alternative source of equal or greater merit can be found, in which case there will be cause for a legitimate argument over which to rely on.

2417:

including myself, would find fault with any claim of "centrism" in any part of the DNC agenda. The DNC agenda is controlled by MoveOn.org, DailyKOS, Planned Parenthood, NOW, ATLA, and other fringe left elements of the SECULAR LEFT. But no mention of "Secular Left" in the opening paragraph...... why not?

288:. Liberals are important part of the Democratic base, they make up more than a third of it. They have shifted the party's focus away from its traditional organized labor base (though that base remains vital as well). 92% of liberals vote Democrat. Thus, the role of liberals is mentioned in the article. 3827:

Educated voting left isn't wrong. Look at the polls again, at the question not of who is registered with a party, but who they actually voted for. College graduates overall were tied in 2004, Democratic in 2006. Those with graduate degrees have voted Democratic for more than the past 20% years. Those

3564:

If you do the math (SUM(%all * %GORE)) for the pertinent tables (votes by income and class) you'll find that Bush won the popular vote in 2000 by 0.09% and 0.42%, respectively. When, you know, he actually lost. So, can I call shenanigans? Not to say that CNN or the original poster had any mal-intent,

3478:

Even in academic institutions, they seem to be conservative! I attend a relatively liberal public university, and I've had discussions with many of my professors about politics. I am an economics major and know the department faculty well. I don't know how any of them vote (as it's frankly none of my

3441:

Also, the link above from Mises.org is specifically about academic economists. This distinction needs to be made when using a blanket statement that implies every economist in the world supports the Democratic party's ideas. I think this section is incomplete until someone can add in a source showing

3008:

Should a super-delegate criticism section go up for the Democratic party's use of 'super-delegates' to select their presidential candidate? The criticism is this process is in itself - undemocratic, as the delegates collected via popular vote by registered democrat voters can be somewhat nullified by

2077:

Thinking of the future, I think the question that should be asked is, if this issue were to go to Arbitration, what would most likely be the decision reached? A) Remove the sentence B) Opt for one of the many endlessly disputed revisions C) Opt for the one version whose wording is supported by a high

1943:

that to the King's party, the informal group of parliamentarians who sided with the Government in the seventeenth and sixteenth centuries; its only rival for seniority among the world's political parties is the Democratic Party of the United States, which traces its direct roots to the 18th century."

1857:

I stepped out of this controversy when I made a mere comment earlier and got an interesting response. I hadn't realized I walked into what seems to be a major edit war. While I am not going to edit the page, I would suggest removing the sentence altogether. It doesn't affect the actual idea of the

1729:

I don't believe two similar assertions of the same fact are copyright violations, if it is limited to a fragment of a single sentence. Any chemist can right down, "Hydrogen has one electron, one proton and one neutron," because this a factual statement, even though it has been written down a thousand

1246:

British historical writing generally doesn't go in for such absolutes as "so and so is the 49th holder of this office" or "this party was founded on this date" which, along with comparitively few historians writing across several centuries, is one of the reasons why fewer Conservative party histories

1233:

I find it difficult to think of any breach of continuity since then, hence the clear right to be thought the oldest democratic party. The party of Liverpool is clearly the party of Peel and while he split the party in 1846, his own grouping like the later Austen Chamberlainites, were "a slice off the

1092:

Basically, the argument boils down to whether the English Conservative and Tory Parties were the same. If they were the same, then the English Conservative Party is the oldest. However, the consensus among editors was that the Tories and Conservatives are different parties, making the U.S. Democratic

3736:

In addition, item 3 (regarding the educated population leaning to the left) is flatly contradicted by many findings from Gallup, GSS, and NES, and I would like to make another edit to present those findings. Also, it is very illogical to simply point out that "Among those with graduate degrees, the

3704:

I'm posting a similar suggestion in the Republican version of this discussion thread, but instead of unilaterally editing the party infobox, I wanted to know what people would think about putting the most recent presidential nominee in the party infobox? For example if we were to add that category,

3588:

Feel free to edit, be "Bold" they say. As for the part about ""...which show the Democratic Party garner the majority of votes from those with low incomes and little education" - That's obviously NPOV -IF- you read it incorrectly, as I just did. I think what the sentence is trying to say is that the

3568:

Furthermore the line: "...which show the Democratic Party garner the majority of votes from those with low incomes and little education" might make people believe that the majority of the democratic vote come from that subset, which is not the case. While it's still a bit inflammatory, this would be

3242:

This is the biggest load of crap I have heard in my life. When it comes to economic policy, economists almost always identify with Republicans. Examples? Higher taxes create a deadweight loss. This is economically inefficient. Price floors (e.g. the minimum wage) also restrict market efficiency, and

2777:

contradict one another, the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: describe the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources, and give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts

2749:

and then there's one older in India I think, there's certainly one older than 400 years, and the Declaration of the Rights of Man is 1776 I think, anyway that doesn't matter. You can't even say the American constitution is the oldest unchanged in the world so whether it's the oldest in use is a moot

2630:

The Sentence, "Senator Clinton has a lead in recent national opinion polls for the 2008 Democratic nomination. Many recent polls have put Senator Obama, and former Senator Edwards behind Clinton", is currently inaccurate. As these events are currently changing at a rapid pace, they should be removed

2169:

I think it's nonsense to refer to this party as "the oldest in the world". However, there might be wriggle room, because different countries have different kinds of parties. eg in the UK the party itself puts forwards candidates standing in that parties name, and only puts forward as many candidates

2133:

Thank you for the clear summary of the contested material and the pros and cons. There are reputable references to groups identified by historians as political parties in England going back long before the anti-Federalism of the 1790's. For example: "After the Glorious Revolution in 1688, the Whig

1843:

I had hoped, with Timrollpickering's, and Griot's earlier responses, that a consensus had been formed around Primalchaos' version. Although I'm gradually coming back round to the merits of my original idea of ending the controversy by removing the sentence altogether and relegating the discussion to

1471:

And counter sources from fine professional historians like Stuart Ball and John Barnes have been provided, with the actual sources available to see, as well as from John Ramsden on the uncertainties on the matter. By contrast this citation of Witcover says nothing as to whether he even addresses the

1048:

My first contribution to the debate, following additions to the talk page, was an edit in June 2007 which slightly altered the wording of the relevant sentence to make the claim less absolute (on account of the competing positions) whilst citing the Party's historical credentials. After a short time

879:

This article is about Democrats, not liberals. And you've already been proven wrong with this statement from earlier, "Few Dems oppose NAFTA, CAFTA and the WTO." You haven't provided any documentation supporting your claim that the Democrats are economic centrists. Meanwhile I've given you the House

764:

Few Dems oppose CAFTA? 187 House Dems voted against it while only 15 voted for it. 156 House Dems also voted against President Clinton's NAFTA back in 1993. Protectionism is associated around the world and in the US with the left wing. Historically the Democrats have been more protectionist than the

492:

article! Just like I would expect to find a sub-section on well-educated liberals in the Democratic Party article. That is why we have a section devoted to disecting the Democratic base and a sub-section on liberal academia. The fact that liberals contradict the overall socio-economic partisan trend

430:

I think the statement is dubious for a couple reasons. First, you're right that the percentage of self-identifying liberals increases with education (well actually the cited source states that the level of liberals falls around post-grads), but the word self-identifying is important, and it's not it

272:

Your statement "a bad measure of ideology - as both parties appeal to a number of typological bases" would seem to indicate you think the article is about liberals. It's not, it's about Democrats, and the statistics show that until you reach the BA level, more education makes you less likely to vote

3877:

I want to change "Liberalism" to "Cultural liberalism" in the infobox. I read through the archives, and it appears the main issue underlying the discussion of ideological labels has been how to deal with the difference in perspective and terminology between Americans and the most of the rest of the

3341:

If a significant portion of economists support the Democratic Party (which I highly doubt), it is due to social, rather than economic, policy. The section currently suggests that there is wide support among economists for left-wing economic policies. That is obviously inaccurate. Also, just because

3261:

Interesing opinion you have there, but empirical studies unambigously suggest that economists tend to be a) modern liberals and b) democrats. Studies suggest that most economists oppose laissez-faire policy (less than 10% if AEA members were libertarians in a recent studies), over 80% support govt.

2571:

Another sentence in the lead states that the Democratic Party is the "the oldest political party in the United States and arguably the oldest party in the world." This is not necessarily true, as the Federalist Party was established simultaneously. I believe the lead should read "It is the oldest

2181:

I think it regrettable that this has resulted in protection. The underlying distinction here is whether a parliamentary faction, like the Whigs who fit into a hansom cab, can be called a party. This is purely verbal; it may even be another Anglo-American difference, and so to be left alone. This is

2146:

historically accurate, but if it is accurate, then "arguably the oldest" would be inappropriate to refer the Democratic Party. "Among the oldest" might, however, still be accurate, as might "oldest political party in the USA," or "oldest political party still an active force in national politics."

2063:

I prefer the quote from the Britannica source since it is the only reference whose wording can be justified by pointing to an academic authority. Over time, another editor may arrive with a preferred phraseology that is just as acceptable as "arguably", and another edit war might commence. At least

2031:

I recognise that protecting the article with a particular version in place during an editorial dispute is not a reflection of your personal view jersyko, but it is, inevitably, a de facto endorsement of whichever version is protected as a result. Since the argument is now over wording I would agree

1942:

We might consider taking a cue from the UK Conservative Party article, which says right in the first paragraph, "It is arguably the oldest organised political party in the world in that it can trace its evolution from early Tory parliamentary groupings of the eighteenth century, and possibly before

1883:

Please stop the edit warring. The next time anyone edits the sentence regarding the party's age, a consensus should have been found. I know the version up until consensus is found is always the wrong one, unless your on the other side of the argument. But please, let's be professional and stop this

1543:

This issue has a long history of causing debate and controversy. It is difficult to source the claims or counter-claims effectively in a way that all parties will agree to, and I've therefore proposed that if it is not acceptable for the opening paragraph to note the controversy alongside the claim

1211:

For various reasons most Conservative party histories tend to start from the 1830s, primarily because it's a more natural starting point in British history (and also avoids having to decide if Boligbroke's party is Pitt's party, though deciding that Pitt's party is Liverpool's party which is Peel's

1172:

Since the British Conservative Party, like the country itself, has to date had no written constitutition, the question of how it first came into being is not easily answered. For the Labour Partya founding conference in 1900 set up a specific organization with rules, while the adoption of the name

839:

Well your POV is showing too - this also goes w/ seening protectionism as left-wing (again, liberals are divided over the issue - see the research studies I have used in the text). Protectionism is associated with both right and left wing. As protectionism relates to nationalism it may also be seen

782:

Bush's tax cuts, which are opposed by Dems, are right-wing. Opposition to right-wing policy doesn't make one center-left. As for Clinton, he set the direction of Democratic eoconomic policy for this day and age, which is distinctly centrist. As for protectionism, conservatives are commonly the ones

386:

Since the 1890s, the Democratic Party has favored "liberal" positions (the term "liberal" in this sense describes social liberalism, not classical liberalism). In recent exit polls, the Democratic Party has had broad appeal across all socio-ethno-economic demographics. The Democratic base currently

2816:

the oldest political parties in the world." - it doesn't say it's the oldest so your citation doesn't back up what is stated. My citation is factual and contradicts that the american party is the oldest. Before you knock both of us out arguing this further can you ask yourself how much this really

2420:

While this paragraph does it's best to demonstrate that the DNC is "centrist" and "populist", the same opening paragraph on the GOP page sums up the GOP as being "increasingly" driven by the Religious Right --- does it's best to put the GOP on the fringes of the political spectrum. Why is the DNC

1052:

I have no view on the issue other than that it is impossible to state definitively without either misleading the reader to believe that there is no debate, or by adding so many caveats and clarifications that what is supposed to be a short introductory paragraph becomes distracting and unreadable.

1044:

For a considerable time the opening paragraph of this article has contained a reference, in varying forms, to the purported position of the Party as both the oldest in the United States and the oldest in the world. That the Democratic Party proper was founded before the Republican Party, making it

313:

I don't know if the "dubious" tag should be removed just yet, there's still a dispute about the accuracy. (As an aside, bolding or underlining every other sentence both defeats the point and makes the page hard to read.) Yes, as written, the current sentence refers to liberals. My suggestion would

3853:

Dems and Reps. In a given presidential election, some Dems will vote Rep and vice versa. Eg, in this election between Mccain and Obama there may be many crossovers - based on perceived experience and/or character flaws - not necessarily ideology. It would be wrong to assume that the people who

3732:

I just posted an edit to this (old) section (my first on Knowledge (XXG)!), and would appreciate any advice. I believe that this section was, and remains, flawed. The section basically makes 3 points (but not in a very logical order): 1. academia leans to the left, 2. the liberal orientation of

3436:

The study cited in the article was a survey of economists at ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS, which have a tendency to be more democratic than republican anyways. When private sector economists such as those who work for banks or corporations are included, they tend to be more republican. For instance, see

2958:

I think while we have a disagreement about the age of the party we can say that as a political idea it is the oldest. A Monarchy or Tyranny are or were not considered as politics, just Rule. The Greeks are the first successful in instituting democracy and the Romans later with the Republic. So it

2677:

is older, using just about any standard you like. The earliest ancestor of the modern Democratic Party first formed in 1792, while the earliest ancestor of the modern Conservatives was around in 1678. The more direct ancestor of the modern Conservatives, the Pittites, formed before 1783. The name

2416:

The conclusion sentence of the opening paragraph states: "Since the 1990s the party has pursued centrist economic policies combined with a liberal social agenda." --- This is sheer opinion without citation and should be removed. The overwhelming majority of business leaders in the United States,

2236:

Well, the Tories were never quite that few; but the present Liberal Democrats have at least as good a claim to represent the Whigs as the Conservatives do to represent the Tories. The Tory connexion requires ignoring three or four episodes of coalition and breakup; to make it as old as Jefferson,

1390:

What is that if not claiming roots back not just to Pitt but all the way to Danby? The issue about the name "Tory" is a different matter from the party's history - and it doesn't have "oppressive" connotations in this country, it's just used negatively by other parties. (The US equivalent term is

1142:

Now first off I don't think just referencing a page in paper book is going to resolve thi sas it's not clear if the author has just made a sweeping statement as a description or is explicitly addressing the issues - and is that the "it's older than the Conservatives because..." or just "Jackson's

727:

I think their policies are more centre-left than centrist. Many Democrats oppose trade agreements such as NAFTA and CAFTA. The party supports ending tax cuts for the wealthy. There is another policy of raising taxes on the oil companies. So with all this, is it really correct to call the economic

3531:

In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic party, the planter class, and all those who desired restoration of white supremacy. Its purposes were political, but political in the broadest sense, for it sought to affect power relations, both public and private,

3463:

The studies mentioned refer to economists at academic institutions. The study also mentioned that the majority of economists that favor free markets seek professions in those very markets whereas the ones that oppose the markets find themselves situated at colleges therefore the statement in the

2586:

I removed the sentence in question as it is untrue... via the U.S. Senate linked below, the Republican Party has a seat in Congress before the Democrats... to say the democrats are the the oldest in the world is quite untrue... there is no affiliation between the democratic party and any foriegn

1919:

This was the solution I originally tried, which has itself proved controversial. Protecting the article might be a good idea and would end the edit war, but those who have argued against the removal of the sentence may consider this an injustice. I think either this version, or the version which

1820:

Similar debates have been had repeatedly in the past over this issue, and there has been no lasting resolution. I don't have a problem with the word "arguably" in this context on technical grounds, but the fact that it is not the same wording used by the source is likely to make it unnecessarily

1107:

I don't think it need be necessary to go over the historical details in this case - my reason for making this edit is more about whether the statement is appropriate both without a more extensive explanation and, critically, in its current position. It's clear from the discussions that the topic

1056:

There are various ways of wording the sentence which are impartial and more respectful of the issues (I had hoped my original edit, placing the Democratic Party as "among the oldest surviving political parties in the world" was one of them), but experience has shown that even these are regularly

980:

Well, any definition of right-wing, left-wing or centrism is going to be POV. There are no objective guidelines. There are those who call the third way centrist and those who call it center-left. There are those who call the Brookings Institute centrist, while Bill O'Reiley thinks its left-wing.

728:

policy centrist? The social policy is labelled as centre-left, yet the vast majority of Democrats do not support legalizing gay marriage. My point is, yes the Democrats may have some centrist positions in both social and economic policies, but overall, in both categories, they are centre-left. --

2610:"Republican Party" is the old name of the Democratic Party; it was generally overtaken by the present name in the 1830s. The claim that is made is that it is the oldest (not defunct) political party or among the oldest world parties if not the oldest, not the first party to have ever existed. 1970:

I realize that I likely expressed an opinion on this sentence in the past. However, I have no idea what I said and currently I have no opinion on whether to include the sentence or not. That said, I believe I am uninvolved and impartial, and have thus fully protected the article from further

1837:

2) A case for being the oldest party (or at least, identical in age to the Conservatives) has also occasionally been made for the British Liberals, and although I can't say so with certainty, I would imagine there are political organisations in many other countries that could make good claims.

536:

Fruthermore, the statement serves a very clear purpose: help explain why professors are liberal and why academia is Democratic stronghold. We have established that the Democratic base should be disected and demographic data ought to be added for each group that compromises the base. Thus, this

442:

diverse. At the same time, so are liberals. They're composed of every race, every level of education, every level of salary, every industry, just like democrats in general are. You can't make any statement that's true for all liberals, just like you can't make any statement that's true for all

3572:

Lastly, what the hell does 9 ^ a b c d e Pew Research Center. (10 May, 2005). Beyond Red vs. Blue.. Retrieved on 2007-07-12. really talk about? I tried to find the pertinent information that backs: "Together socially conservative and the financially disadvantaged comprised roughly 54% of the

2980:

Okay. That was weird. I just read that the Democratic Party might not be the oldest Political Party in the World. On Knowledge (XXG). Are you kidding me? For those of you who care THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS IN THE OLDEST PARTY IN THE WORLD. Anyone who tries to say different is trying to sell you

843:

As you are the one who is attempting to change the status-quo, I think the burden of proof is on you. Now, you need to provide sufficient evidence to change the "centrist" entry to "center-left." Please aviod OR, and provide non-biased source that directly describe the Dem's as center-left on

137:

This is a trifle, not warranting an tag on the whole article. Furthermore, the assertion (I will check the sources) seems plausible to me; while some conservatives have been to the best American universities, many of them have done so resisting the education they have received; there are even

3647:

They vote for both, depending on region and education. In past there wasn't any correlation whatsoever, today there is: The rich are slightly more likely to vote GOP. But the issue isn't clear cut, rather it is a subject littered with ambiguities and paradoxes. If offer a simple, unconfusing

1588:

I am more than satisfied with Primalchaos' new edit, with its impeccable reference. My reason for removing the sentence altogether was to avoid the constant re-edits of its wording, and although the current version is similar to others (including my own) which have previously been subject to

3417:

This is really simple: sutides have been made on the partisan affliations and political attitudes of economists; these study show economists as idenitfying as modern liberals, being supportive of redistribution and voting Democrat. This is a factual issue: either reputable studies show most

1613:

The reference is impeccable because it comes from an established, globally renowned source with a reputation for accuracy and impartiality to uphold - frankly the "Britannic" element never occurred to me, and the only suggestion of a UK vs US undertone to this debate has come from your good

1279:

Quite right. No modern U.K. conservative wants anything to do with the oppressive Tory name. The Democratic Party traces its origins to 1793, to the Democratic-Republican Party. The Democratic Party under its current name began in the early 1830s, making it several years older than the U.K.

931:

Referring to the third way as centrist suggests that capitalism is as right-wing as socialism is left wing, which is clearly POV. The Democratic Party is proudly center-left on economical issues, as you can plainly see by reading their own platform. They even refer to their fiscal policy as

2145:

If this kind of reference is accurate in referring to groups a century before the earliest proto-Democrats as a party, then it would be quite inaccurate to claim that the Democrats are the oldest political party. I have no personal interest in the outcome of whether or not Bloy's claim is

744:

As for social issues. The party's official stance is to support civil-union but oppose gay marriage. True, with 46% liberals who favor same-sex marriage form an ideological plurality among Democrats. The party's overall stance, however, is a compromise between its social liberal and social

225:

It simply says the more education, the higher the percentage of people identifying as liberal - something that is true. High school grads are more likely to idenitfy as liberal than non-grads. Someone w/ a BA is more likely to be liberal than someone with just some college education. True,

119:

What about the other 72% of the population of college graduates!? Surely they are not all centrist - but rather chose not to align themselves with a political spectrum. What the source really states is that statistically, more college graduates identify themselves as liberal, than they do

2049:

I think "arguably the oldest" is satisfactory in that it is an accurate reflection of reality (it is clear from these discussion pages that the claim is "arguable"), but so have been the many other variations that have been tried over time, all of which have caused enough argument to be

434:

You state that the only thing I can say about democrats is that they are a diverse group. But I can say lots of things about Democrats. They generally favor abortion rights. They generally want a higher minimum wage. And, I can say they get more female voters than male voters. I can say

736:

Few Dems oppose NAFTA, CAFTA and the WTO. Besdies, favoring or opposing NAFTA, isn't left or right. Liberals and conservatives are split over organizations such as NAFTA. The current economic policy of the Dem party is centrists. It was afterall the Democratic party that championed the

915:

I am not left-wing. I was wrong about Dems backing NAFTA in '93 but am not wrong in stating that protectionism is often seen as right-wing. Until now you have provided nothing but OR. You will need to provide a source that explicitely states Dems to be center-left rather than center.

3078:

It seems that the subscript entry for President Kennedy is incorrect, he was assassinated, currently it states that he "Died in Office." Although that is a correct statement it would be more in keeping with the standard ( as done the republican party ) that he was assassinated.

2700:

the oldest party in the world." Two references are provided; do you have a reference that says that there is not arguemnt of whether or not it is the oldest party? (That would be needed in order amend that sentence). I personally couldn't care less; seems like trivia indeed ;-)

1809:

I prefer "arguably the oldest" for two reasons: 1)this is the term used at the UK Conservative Party article; 2) "among the oldest" implies that several parties may be the oldest; however, only two parties can be the oldest, the Democratic Party and the UK Conservative Party.

1015:

Tocino, Democrats did not overwhelmingly reject NAFTA. It is true that 156 house Democrats voted against NAFTA back in 1993, the other 102 house Democrats voted for NAFTA. In the Senate the Democrats were evenly split, with 27 voting for NAFTA and 27 voting against NAFTA.

646:

Also in the "Academia" section, the bar graph about liberal vs. conservative faculty members is confusing. This article is explicitly about Democrats, some of whom are conservative (as mentioned in the article). Furthermore, it's not clear what the graph is comparing (see

1552:

article, where a similar claim is made), then the sentence should be removed from the introduction, and the issue should be discussed in the history section of the article and/or in the separate article on the Party's history, where there is room for a thorough analysis.

111:

I would like to agree but I have many friends from the US who are Republicans and they are well educated. I think this is P.O.V. I looked at the source used and have to argue that his assertions are based on a certain intepretation of the results of the Gore-Bush survey.

3205:

I think the OP may be trolling (or something). He/she refers to the Democratic party as the "Democrat party". This deliberate mispronunciation has become popular among people who criticize the party. Alternatively, the OP may have just overlooked this while editing.

3573:

Democratic base" but I didn't have much luck. From what I read I don't think combining those two subsets serves any purpose, and I'm not sure that is even a valid combination. I'm really not taking my time on this one though, so feel free to blow me out of the water.

3678:. They didn't really become the liberal party they are today until Woodrow Wilson, a progressive, was elected in 1912, which only started their transformation that was completed in the 1930s with FDR's New Deal policies, and the start of the Civil Right's Movement. 3669:

From the party's inception in 1828 to about 1896, the Democrats were the more conservative party on most social and economic matters, except immigration policies, which they have been liberal on since the Democratic-Republicans of the 1790s. The economic policies of

2919:

It is intriguing. It's also one of the five cornerstones of modern scientific pursuit - Hypothesis, Experiment, Reproduction, Debate, Consensus. Also, it is the point of encyclopedia to produce the best referenced and reputable material available, not pursue its own

3737:

majority voted Democratic..." We would expect a majority to vote Democratic simply because there are usually far more Dems than Reps. Following that same logic, it is likely that a majority of felons voted Democratic also. Should be put that in here somewhere?

2032:

with Brendel that the article should be protected with the sentence temporarily removed, but that too could be a problem since removing the sentence was itself controversial. Obviously it is up to administrators to decide which is the most neutral option for now.

2170:

as there are seats. I understand that in the US, people put themselves forwards and the party (at least in theory) then decides whether or not to support them. So maybe this party is the oldest in any US-style democracy - even if there is only one of the latter!

2943:

Surely the question of the oldest written constitution has to do with it being the oldest written constitution currently in operation, not the oldest ever written. But even that's not true, since the Massachusetts state constitution is several years older.

426:

An RfC? This is a small dispute about one line of a single article. We're all responsible people here, what makes you think we're not going to be able to work this out on our own? And If there was an RfC, shouldn't they be reading the entire back and forth

257:(therefore also the income ladder). I hope this clarifies the statement - which is based on referenced fact. If you can craft a better statement to reflect the percentage increase in liberals as we progress up the education ladder, I'm all ears. Regards, 2989:, come in here on this. You bees needs to know about this edit. To all those reading, I guarantee you this TAX-EXEMPT site will NOT continue to publish that politically motivated message. Do any of you Admins care to help out here? We got some problems. 840:

as a conservative policy. I am too tired to do research right now (it's almost mid-night here in CA), but there are 198,000 Goolge returns on "right-wing" + protectionism and 109,000 returns for "left-wing" + protectionism. But this is all irrlevant OR.

1993:

I just want to say that I endorse the full protection of this article. The revert warring was getting out of hand and was a long-term problem. Any further discussion on this matter should be settled on this talk page and not by revert warring on the

2064:

if Primalchaos' wording were preserved, the editor defending that version could claim to have antoher encyclopedia on their side, whilst others would be arguing from a personal standpoint unless they could find another, equally authoritative source.

661:

The paragraph talks about Academia's role within the Liberal base of the demographic party. Thus, its inclusion is justified. As for the question posed on the graph's talk page: the term "Elite" refers to professors at Ivy League colleges. Regards,

3805:

Ok, now I finally uploaded an image (the graph of union membership) from Commons. NOTE: I uploaded that image to Commons a few days ago, and sent a copy of the email permission (from the author) to the Open Source Ticket Request system (OTRS) at

2891:

I'm always intrigued by the notion that factual truth can be decided by consensus; it can't, the only fact decided by the consensus was whether to display the truth, or not. The truth is that no American political party is the oldest in the world.

1178:

For Conservative and their historians, there have been no such certainties: it is not clear how far Tories of earlier centuries were true ancestors of Victorian Conservatives, as Sir Keith Feiling assumed in his studies of the earliest Tories,

1831:

1) Although that is the term used by the UK Conservative Party article, it too has been subject to change, the implication of the wording is almost identical, and in the case of the wording in this article there is a direct quote to reference

3615:

Do wealthy voters tend to vote for Democrats or Republicans? Our articles seem to contradict each other, both claiming that the wealthy support their party, and both are lacking citations about a general trend. The Republican article says

2464:

I'm Nick Moreau, an accredited reporter for Wikinews. I'm co-ordinating our 2008 US Presidential election interviews. We will be interviewing as many candidates as possible, from the Democrats, Republicans, and other parties/independents.

3128:

The Democratic Party evolved from Anti-federalist factions that opposed the fiscal policies of Alexander Hamilton in the early 1790s. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison organized these factions into the Democratic-Republican Party.

1108:

isn't simple, not least because it inspires so much debate. I therefore think that it demands a more detailed treatment, and that the best location for that is in the history section, or the separate article on the Party's history.

162:

Most to the point; this is an argument with the methodology of our source, which is not really our business; if other sources can be found interpreting such surveys differently, then the interpretations should each have due weight.

2678:"Democratic Party" emerged in the United States over the course of the 1830s, and the Democratic National Committee was only formed in 1848 while the name "Conservative Party" was first suggested in the 1820s and codified with the 2531:

One sentence in the lead states that the Democratic Party includes "42.6% of the electorate." I checked the article that this statement cites and it looks like this statement is misleading. Does this statement mean that 42.6% of

143:

I would expect any such survey to have a majority who self-identified as centrist, and a substantial minority of non-respondents; but the non-respondents are (or see themselves, which is the point here) as genuinely non-political.

3740:

As a newbie to Knowledge (XXG), I can't seem to upload charts and graphs. Is there anyway I can get permission to do so? I have access to some good copyrighted graphics, and can probably get publisher permission to use them.

2138:), written by history Ph.D. Marjie Bloy. Here is an even earlier citation to the British Whig party: "It was applied (c.1679) to the English opponents of the succession of the Roman Catholic duke of York (later James II)..." ( 476:(reset indent) We do talk about Dems in general as much as possible already in most other sections where it is reasonably possible do so (see the section about values, the intro and the intro to the Voter base section). But 253:: 1) rising income and education level (up to the BA) make a person more likely to vote GOP; 2) higher education and higher income make a person more likely to be liberal. How can both be true? Because outside of academia, 3627:

Bush won 41% of the poorest 20% of voters in 2004, 55% of the richest twenty percent, and 53% of those in between. In the 2006 House races, the voters with incomes over $ 50,000 were 49% Republican, while those under were

2015:

oldest). And while protection is abhorrent (we're all mature enough to discuss without resorting to edit warring), it isn't wholly unwarranted in this instance. Hopefully all parties can resume discussion. Mahalo nui loa.

1603:

The reference is "impeccable" because it's from the Enyclopedia Brittanica? A British source? Whatever. I like Primalchaos's edit too. Let's leave it. I'm hoping now we don't have to revisit this topic every three months.

1798:

I think it's safer to leave it as it is now. I agree with Primalchaos that Britannica doesn't have a monopoly on that sentence, and the fact that it's the same wording as the Britannica entry makes it hard to argue with.

1280:

Conservative Party. I don't know why this should be such a big issue -- it seems clear-cut to me. I'm reverting. Is this some point of pride with U.K. Conservatives? I notice that both you guys live in Gredaaaat Britain.

1416:

For the record Griot, I am not a U.K. Conservative - it's probably worth noting that this debate also encompasses the British liberal tradition as well as the political history and organisations of many other countries.

539:

BTW: so long as you are conviced that we can work things out w/o and RfC I won't start one. Note, however, that I vehemently oppose the removal of an informative statement that is placed in context. Enjoy your vacation,

3393:

Studies do unambigously suggest that economists lean left on fiscal policy issues and are heavily Democrat. The voting ratio is estimated by about 2.5 to 3 Democrats for each Republican. I cite multiple studies which

1497:

If this claim must go in the intro (whch is not the place to get into controversies) then surely the way to source it is to reference something actually addressing the point head on, preferably with quotes or a link.

370:" of who votes democrat w/o discussing liberals; thus, there is a section in the article that discusses liberals. This section will inevitably feature statements about... get ready... liberals! We cannot discuss how " 1060:

I think it is crucial that the Party's place in world history be explored, but time has proven that, on this particular issue, a single line in the Introduction is doomed to a cycle of dispute and unending revision.

3622:

Once dominated by unionized labor and the working class, the Democratic base now consists of social liberals who tend to be well-educated with above-average incomes as well as the socially more conservative working

1309:

claims to be the legitimate continuity of a party founded in 1905, not a splinter group from a 1986 controversy. We haven't gone with that position, even though one or two editors have tried to push that particular

185:

This argument seems to only be focusing on the higher end of education. When you break things down into how much high school, and how much college, as people get more educated, they're more likely to vote GOP,

573:

Looks good. Problem solved - though I have tweak the wording a bit-splitting the one long sentence into two shorter ones. You're right, there was problem less disagreement here, than we both thought. Regards,

1971:

editing in light of the most recent reversion (protection does not indicate endorsement of the version protected). The edit warring over this sentence is, to be perfectly frank, ridiculously out of hand.

3442:

the political preferences of a majority of economists, both in training and in practice. Until then, the best solution is to note that "the Democratic party enjoys the support of some notable economists."

120:

conservative - it does not state that the more educated they are, the more that are likely to be liberal - as the 72% (the majority not including the conservatives) dont identify themselves as liberal!

1565:

I don't really care what the intro says at this point, but if the edit warring continues, I'm going to begin blocking the participants. Discuss, don't edit, please, until a clear consensus is reached.

2446:

If you have a suggestion to make, please do so. If not, please read the comment at the top of the page. This isn't the place for ranting. Either make a viable suggestion, or don't say anything at all.

1900:

Ok, I have removed the sentence until consensus is found. If the edit war continues I will protect the page until consensus if found. Please note that I am completely impartial on the issue. Regards,

3479:

business), but there appears to be only one professor who is, in fact, liberal. I'm curious, Brendel, where did/do you go to a post secondary institution, if that even took place? What did you study?

608:

I will try to tweak the wording so the statement is bit clearer - apperantely the statement as is, is a bit prone to being misinterpreted - I'll try and fix that. Though this discussing did inspire

1256:

It's not clear cut one way or the other and there are even active Conservative politicians emphasising pre 1830s politicians as being "Conservatives" - this year in particular many are celebrating

1589:

alterations, I think it will be much more difficult to adequately justify changing this now that it quotes directly from such a good source (in fact I wonder if the first is still necessary).

3561:

I'm not a big face around here but I thought I'd call to question these sources pertaining to the "working class" democrats: 6 ^ a b c d CNN. (2000). Exit Poll.. Retrieved on 2007-07-11.

505:

There is absolutely no good reason to remove this factual statement - it is placed in context and informs the reader about one of the most important demographics of the Democratic base.

2572:

political party currently active in the United States and arguably the oldest continually active party in the world." I don't have an account or I would attempt to change it myself. --

3398:

state that most economists are Democrats. I am not basing the statement that most economists are liberal Democrats based on my interpretation of these studies; once again the studies

783:

who advocate closing our borders. Among liberals, there is a divide. There are cosmpolitan liberals, who want to open borders, and those who are protectionist and want to close them.

1228:

Certainly Mr Pitt's young men form a coherent grouping and the terms Tory far from being a badge of dishonour becomes a party label by the end of the Napoleonic war, if not earlier.

701:

Even though the DNC is responsible for overseeing the process of writing the Democratic Platform, its main focus is on campaign and organizational strategy rather than public policy

2512:

The information put forth by User:Settler is interesting and valuable to the article. It expounds on the history of the Dems and balances POV. Why is this content being reverted?

1045:

the elder of the two, is not, as far as I am aware, subject to much debate. However, the Democratic Party's position as the oldest in the world has been regularly disputed here.

686:"While the DNC is responsible for overseeing the process of writing the Democratic Platform, the DNC is more focused on campaign and organizational strategy than public policy." 2485: 2231: 1768: 396:

As for the tag, how is the statement dubious? It is very clear: the percentage of self-identify liberals increases w/ education. That's fact. What's doubious about it? Regards,

2110: 1260:. Making an objective statement on a controversial issue because the majority of Knowledge (XXG) editors tend to lean one way on one of the questions involved is rather POV. 2020: 2653:

I moved your sentences out of the midst of the preceding section and gave it a header. Feel free to rename it if you want. Anyway, I'll tweak that sentence you brought up.

1712: 1212:

party is easier). But there are historians who do see a continuity from before 1830 - amongst the big names is John Barnes, whose comments are online on this very issue at

2290: 2259: 2007:

If I don't speak up, my opinion doesn't matter, so I just want to say that I agree with the "arguably the oldest" language. It's succinct, and purveys the fact that there

3618:

The differences in voting among income groups are small, though poorer voters tend favor the Democratic Party while wealthier voters tend to support the Republican Party.

2468:

I'll be sending out requests for interviews to the major candidates very soon, but I want your input, as people interested in American politics: what should I ask them?

3194: 2724:(also see comment above), and it is still known as the Tory party today. Your ref states: "The Democratic Party is the oldest political party in the United States and 94: 360:, I say liberals are Democrats. 92% of liberals identify as Democrat and they constitute the largest single typogological demographic of any in the Democratic base. 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 1518:

Owing to the continuing spate of edits and reversions, I am issuing a request for comment on the article from a third party. As per the guidelines outlined on the

2728:

the oldest political parties in the world." - it doesn't say it's the oldest so your citation doesn't back up what is stated. I've removed unsubstantiated claim.

1920:

includes the Britannica reference remain the best options. Although I think the proposed compromise wording is less safe, I have no fundamental argument with it.

1844:

a more suitable forum, I still think Primalchaos' edit is the best available, and think we should stick to it if possible. In the meantime, I'll re-open the RFC.

1305:

I don't think throwing around accusations of UK bias helps (especially when made by someone in the US). The Democrats may claim the mantle of Jefferson but then

3509: 2092:

If some sources claim the Dems are the oldest party and others say the Tories are older then how about something like "arguably the oldest party in the world"?

1858:

article to leave this one point out of it until this edit war is settled. Some debate helps but this edit war with two or three words isn't making progress.

1071:

How many times do we have to go around this topic. Please read the archived disucssion. A concensus was arrived at some time ago. You can start by reading here

3342:

some economists "beleive that inequality has become too high" or oppose the Bush tax cuts does not mean they support the Democrats. Likely quite the opposite.

2160:. Let's just leave it as "arguably the oldest..." and actually spend time improving articles instead of continuing to waste our time on trifles like this. -- 249:

As for the CNN polls (a bad measure of ideology - as both parties appeal to a number of typological bases): Only about 20% of the elctorate is liberal; thus,

2480: 2475: 844:

economics. Unless, you want to leave it at the "citation needed" tag - which is fine, since a citation can always be requested and should be provided on WP.

2377:

While professionals, those who have a college education and whose work revolves around the conceptualization of ideas, have supported the Democratic Party

1026:

And of course I never said that Dems overwhelmingly rejected NAFTA. I said they overwhemingly rejected CAFTA. Get your free trade agreements right. --

981:

Progressivism can include centrist economic policies. That said, if our only reputable source says it's center-left, we need to adopt that statement.

3239:"American economists strongly support the Democratic Party, with their views on policy being largely in accordance with the Democratic platform." 1339:

trace their history from the Tories - see the History section on the party website, written by one of the most prominent Conservative historians,

3809:. So far I have not heard back, and I am not sure if I need to do more, or just wait. If anyone can provide guidance, it would be appreciated. 3139:

The Republican Party was created in 1854 in opposition to the Kansas-Nebraska Act that would have allowed the expansion of slavery into Kansas.

1788:

article. They wrote, "It is arguably the oldest organised political party in the world..." Arguably, the Democratic Party is the oldest as well.

3894: 327: 323: 123:

Is there an actual source that cites the number of people with degree qualification (a good measure of education) and their respective camps,

2638: 387:

consists of a large number of well-educated and relatively affluent liberals as well as those in the more socially conservative working class

47: 17: 3685: 3089: 2966: 595:

What an interesting discussion, thanks for replying. I just think much of what has been said here could be expanded in the article itself.

356:

Democrats are not one coherent group! The section where the statement is made discusses liberal's role in the democratic base! In reply to

292:; thus this statement is found in this article. Nowhere did I state Democrats overall to be more educated or higher earnering that GOPs - 107:

I'm pretty liberal but the following statement, despite its source, is I think, an assertion that requires more than one source to prove:

3542: 3349: 3319: 3305: 3146: 3059: 3025: 2573: 1670: 447:

that the more educated you are (up to the post-grad level), the more likely you are to self-identify as liberal, eveidence also shows a

3154: 2277: 2246: 1734: 3574: 3465: 2994: 2431: 393:

There is abosultely no reason to exclude an informative statement about liberals in the article's subsection on liberals and academia.

318:

that. I know Knowledge (XXG) was never designed for change, but let me pitch my radical idea here: in the article about democrats, we

3246:

I suggest the entire section about economists be removed, as it is misinforming and contains no information valuable to this article.

2540:

are Democrats. The article clearly indicates that it means registered voters, so I'm going to change the lead to reflect that fact.

1442:

You Brits needs to look into who Jules Witcover is. His book is the source for the quote. He's a fine historian. Enough of this B.S.

1213: 443:

Democrats (It's hard to make a statement for a room full of 20 people). I don't claim to be doing that. Just as the evidence shows a

3449: 3625:

Which of these is true? The Republican article follows its assertion with CNN exit poll statistics that seem to support its claim:

3512:. Since that topic has its own article, I would actually recommend that the history section in this article be abbreviated further. 2011:

an scholarly argument. It's basically the same as "among the oldest", but gives the reader more information (i.e. that it might be

455: 741:

in the U.S. Bill Clinton's economic policy which has become syonoymous with centrism has since become the party's fiscal platform.

1057:

contested, and I think it is preferable that an important article like this does not become a battleground so early in the text.

630:

as for the statement that a person with higher education is more likely to vote for the GOP, the link actually contradicts this.

458:). In summary: The data is available for the subject of the article as a whole, and it makes sense to present that information.-- 1545: 489: 2587:

parties, that predate the United States, unless one points to democracy in genreal which is not the sole domain of democrats.

1519: 502:

a statement about liberals, in a sub-section about liberal academicians, in a section that aims to disect the Democratic base.

411:

PS. The bold face and underlines are in preparation for an RfC - this way the RfC members won't have to read my entire posts.

3221: 1631:

has actually been based in the US for over a century can serve as some comfort. I'm glad we at least both like the new edit!

3042:). The section here is just a meager summary of other Knowledge (XXG) articles pertaining to the 2008 presidential contest. 530:

If those key demographic trends contradict those of Democrats overall, should we include the contradiction? Most Definitely.

2517: 2990: 1366:

The origins of the Conservative Party can be traced to the 'Tory' faction which emerged in the later seventeenth century.

2769:

There's plenty of books that state it is the oldest constitution. But in the case of conflicting reliable sources, Wiki

2282:

I think most people (one of the better consensuses (sp?) I've seen), in this section and the one above it, approve of "

1160:(1998) - which does skirt through the ancestry issues. Some quotes from chapter 2 "Origins: Tories into Conservatives": 223:

say that liberals outnumber conservatives (though they do at higher levels), nor does it state liberals to be majority.

3187: 2513: 2491:

Questions? Don't ask them here, I'll never see them. Either ask them on the talk page of any of these three pages, or

2342: 2186:, which is plainly true (it has been argued, in reliable sources), and put the arguments on both sides in a footnote. 648: 3503:

and the history of the Democratic Party before, during and after the Civil War? Telecine Guy 09:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

3845:

Brendel, I think you jumped to an illogical conclusion. The graphs I put in (and just put back in again) refer to

3271: 2424:

Knowledge (XXG) is renown for it's level of leftist bias. And these 2 contrasting articles make that QUITE clear.

38: 3630:

So which of these articles is correct? I elected to ask here, since this article seems to be more well-developed.

3438: 2840: 1080: 1041:

This issue has a long history that can be reviewed in the Archives; this is a summary of the recent developments.

117:

Of those with a college diploma, 25 percent self-locate left of center... whilst only 3 percent of college grads .

3517: 3484: 3377: 3372:

Is there a consensus on this? I'd like to have an expert's opinion, if we could, so we can resolve this. Thanks.

3251: 2642: 1076: 3689: 3093: 2171: 488:. You can say that Americans are generally Chirstian, but I would expect to find a mention of agnostics in the 3769: 2970: 436: 191: 3546: 3150: 3021: 2843:(not involving me) to leave "arguably the oldest political party in the world". It is not I that have chosen 2588: 1952:

I do not think making suggestions of national rivalry is helpful. I replied to the points you raise earlier.

527:

Should we mention important demographical features of Liberals in the corresponding sub-section? Definitely.

3907: 3887: 3867: 3838: 3821: 3799: 3783: 3761: 3722: 3693: 3658: 3641: 3604: 3582: 3550: 3521: 3488: 3473: 3469: 3428: 3381: 3353: 3327: 3323: 3309: 3287: 3255: 3225: 3177: 3112: 3097: 3067: 3063: 3051: 2998: 2974: 2953: 2929: 2898: 2874: 2856: 2823: 2795: 2756: 2734: 2711: 2690: 2674: 2662: 2646: 2619: 2604: 2593:

further more the house of representatives did not exist until after March 4, 1789. via the Great Comprimise

2581: 2577: 2565: 2549: 2521: 2502: 2450: 2439: 2435: 2405: 2387: 2366: 2358: 2216: 2210: 2202:

Wait a second here. The whig party doesn't even exist anymore. So why is there any need to include the word

2195: 2174: 2164: 2150: 2135: 2120: 2096: 2082: 2036: 1998: 1987: 1956: 1947: 1924: 1910: 1894: 1875: 1870: 1848: 1814: 1803: 1792: 1785: 1759: 1755:

Yes - it's a terse statement with limited ways to say it. And the intro is a good way to cover this matter.

1678: 1674: 1635: 1628: 1608: 1598: 1582: 1557: 1526: 1502: 1446: 1421: 1395: 1306: 1284: 1264: 1112: 1097: 1065: 1030: 1020: 991: 939: 926: 884: 854: 818: 797: 769: 755: 716: 693: 672: 655: 636: 622: 599: 584: 568: 550: 464: 421: 406: 308: 279: 267: 200: 172: 153: 131: 3757: 3681: 3538: 3453: 3445: 3345: 3315: 3209: 3142: 3085: 3013: 2962: 2634: 2427: 1666: 3578: 3500: 2600: 2545: 2318: 1311: 2139: 509:

Is there something wrong with disecting the Democratic base in the "Voter base" section? Abosultely Not.

3904: 3899: 3863: 3835: 3830: 3817: 3795: 3751: 3655: 3650: 3569:

better: "...which show that the majority of those with low incomes and little education vote democrat."

3425: 3420: 3284: 3279: 3017: 2949: 2925: 2708: 2703: 2562: 2557: 2447: 2207: 2079: 2033: 1953: 1921: 1907: 1902: 1891: 1886: 1845: 1800: 1756: 1632: 1595: 1554: 1549: 1523: 1499: 1418: 1392: 1261: 1109: 1062: 988: 983: 923: 918: 851: 846: 794: 789: 752: 747: 713: 708: 669: 664: 633: 619: 614: 581: 576: 547: 542: 418: 413: 403: 398: 305: 300: 264: 259: 255:

liberals are a minority, but a minority which increases in size as we progress up the educational ladder

2384: 1698:

is the oldest political party in the United States and among the oldest political parties in the world.

1017: 652: 1152:

As to the Conservative claims, I have one of the recent single volume histories of the Conservaives -

3513: 3480: 3373: 3247: 2986: 2982: 2687: 2596: 2273: 2242: 2191: 2093: 451:

that the more educated you are (up to the post-grad level), the more likely you are to vote democrat.

168: 149: 2893: 2818: 2751: 2729: 699:

While I am not the author of the sentence in question, I think the following would make it clearer "

438:

Are Democrats diverse? Definitly. You'd be hard pressed to find a group of 72 million people that's

235:

of the strata (as are all ideological groups - though liberals are plurality among college grads.),

3675: 3277:). In any case, the section will not be removed since it is based on empirical, reputable studies. 1594:

Perhaps Griot, Timrollpickering and Hashaw can join me in agreeing to make this the new consensus?

1257: 138:

organizations dedicated to keeping budding conservatives in the faith they learned in high school.

3718: 3599: 3217: 3108: 2679: 2284:

It is the oldest political party in the United States and arugably the oldest party in the world.

1860: 1214:

http://conservativehistory.blogspot.com/2006/06/so-which-is-oldest-party.html#c114975679172309617

2117: 1789: 1605: 1281: 1094: 363:

In order to inform our reader of the Democratic base, we need to mention liberals & academia

2847:. On the talk page, some obscure, anonymously written web page that is not reliable by itself. 2555:

Good catch, as far as I am aware the stat refers to the percentage of those registered voters.

2492: 537:

statement -which helps to explain why academia is so liberal and Democratic- is to be included.

295:

the statement in question is only in reference to the ca. 20% of the electorate that is liberal

3778: 3636: 3171: 3047: 2870: 2852: 2791: 2783: 2779: 2658: 2615: 2541: 2103: 1995: 1981: 1576: 1340: 2770: 2157: 1691:

is the oldest political party in the United States and among the oldest parties in the world.

1130: 515:

Should we talk a little about every group that plays important part in the base? Definitely.

322:

the content to talk about democrats. If you want to talk about liberals, you could put it in

3859: 3813: 3791: 3747: 2945: 2921: 2161: 2147: 1731: 1143:

party is Jefferson's party because..."? An actual quote in the footnote would help that one.

2130:

An ongoing dispute, resulting in extensive debate in both current and archived Talk Pages.

3883: 3301: 3103:

For constituional purposes there is no difference as to how a President dies in office. --

2349: 2325: 2269: 2238: 2187: 784: 596: 566: 462: 334: 277: 198: 164: 145: 128: 3035: 933: 787:

is commonly a liberal, not a conservative ideology (w/ the exception of liberatarians).

683:

Under the section "Current structure and composition" the second sentence is ambiguous:

651:

for more). I propose that the image be removed from this article until it improves. --

3671: 2402: 454:

Alos, I'm going on vacation this week, so we'll have to continue this later (remember,

217:

The percentage of persons identifying as liberal increases the higher their education.

1234:

top". The bulk of the party remained intact to become the party of Derby and Disraeli.

3714: 3592: 3297: 3274: 3213: 3104: 3039: 936: 521:

Should we mention that liberals are an important component of the base? Definitely.

377:

The only thing you can say about democrats as whole is that they are a diverse group

3774: 3710: 3632: 3164: 3058:

I have tried, but anything that is possibly critical is blocked by zealous admins.

3043: 2866: 2848: 2787: 2721: 2654: 2611: 2499: 1974: 1569: 1153: 3191: 2287: 2256: 2228: 2107: 2017: 1765: 1709: 1650:

It's pretty good. Only thing I'd be wary of is a copyvio. How close is too close?

3807: 3038:

would belong in an article about the nominating process of their party (such as

2862: 2224: 1944: 1811: 1443: 1027: 881: 815: 766: 729: 127:

liberal or conservative? I think in the meantime the phrase should be removed.

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

3879: 3706: 3439:

http://positiveeconomist.blogspot.com/2008/02/economists-outside-academia.html

2720:'Arguably'? Weasel words - I'm correcting and here's potted history of the UK 690: 563: 459: 331: 274: 195: 2745:

Actually the American constitution isn't the oldest in the world either, see

358:

in the article about democrats, we change the content to talk about democrats

238:

but this minority grows progressively at each level of educational attainment

738: 2746: 3186:

Neither do I. Perhaps the anonymous user is confused by the fact that the

2589:

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/partydiv.htm

2142:) with the Columbia University Press Encyclopedia cited as the authority. 109:

The more educated a person is, the most likely he or she is to be liberal.

2861:

P.S. Upon further digging, the web page may or may not be written by one

2136:

http://dialspace.dial.pipex.com/town/terrace/adw03/peel/politics/whig.htm

1247:

make such explicit statements. But the basis for the case is still there.

2773:

means that the statement or article must be neutrally maintained: "When

3406: 2817:

matters; whether it is the oldest or not, does it make it any better?

2394: 2140:

http://www.questia.com/library/politics-and-government/whig-party.jsp#

2126:

Request for Comment:Introduction to "Democratic Party (United States)"

1158:

An Appetite for Power - A history of the Conservative Party since 1830

496:

If the statement was in the intro I could see your point. But it isn't

3402:

state so. Here are two good online sources, included in the article:

2156:

This debate is such a waste of time and should probably be listed at

244:

the more educated, the more likely a person is to identify as liberal

3709:

would be placed in there, at least until after the convention, when

2134:

party adhered, at least in theory, to the following principles..." (

3557:

Questioning statistic sources and intent of "Working Class" section

3648:

description of who votes how, your probably on the wrong track :)

3411: 609: 1534:(This is a summary of my reasoning for the purposes of the RFC.) 1202:

A bit like the Democrats claiming the mantle of Jefferson - TRP.

482:, in order to provide a detailed account of who votes Democrat, 3527:

And why dose this article skip: Historian Eric Foner observed:

2486:

n:Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008/Third Party or Independent

328:

Modern liberalism in the United States#Demographics of Liberals

3713:'s name would be there instead. Tell me your suggestions. -- 3267: 1764:

Good. Just thought I'd ask and be on the safe side. Mahalo. --

290:

You cannot discuss the Democratic base w/o mentioning liberals

273:

democratic (identifying as a liberal is a seperate matter). --

25: 3125:"Main article: History of the United States Democratic Party 2778:

in an equally balanced manner," (emphasis mine). You removed

435:

African-Americans are generally more likely to vote Democrat.

3136:

Main article: History of the United States Republican Party

3133:

From Republican party "Knowledge (XXG)" history (correct)

3122:

From Democrat party "Knowledge (XXG)" History (Incorrect)

2471:

Please go to any of these three pages, and add a question.

1341:

http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=party.history.page

3772:; your accout must be 4 days old and have made ten edits. 3009:

the super-delegates, which are selected party insiders.

3161:

I see no contradiction there. Am I missing something?

2844: 2682:

in 1834. I don't understand how the Democrats are even

1085: 935:

Full disclosure, I am a Republican-leaning independent.

559: 3893:

It would be controversial. Please look at the article

1627:

If it still bothers you though, perhaps the fact that

689:

Can someone who understands the DNC edit this line? --

190:

you get past undergrads, when the trend reverses. See

2481:

n:Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008/Republican Party

2476:

n:Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008/Democratic Party

1522:

page, I suggest there is a truce for the time being.

372:

education relates to the democratic Party as a whole

2286:" along with the cites showing the disagreement. -- 2255:

differently. Hence "arguably" and cites. Mahalo. --

2959:would be the worlds oldest political philosophy. 286:statement in question does refer to liberals only 3856:Democrats and Republicans - Rhetoric and Reality 2268:"arguably". Do we have a working proposal here? 1548:, and is the case of the current version of the 2421:opening paragraph not summed up the same way? 2223:older. That's what the whole dispute is about. 1129:points about the Democrats that gets listed on 246:(becuase the percentage of liberals increases). 8: 3118:Knowledge (XXG)'s history is contradictory 745:conservative wings; thus it's center-left. 3700:Adding Presidential Nominees in Infobox? 3499:Why does this article skip all past the 3117: 103:Factual Accuracy of the Academia section 3768:In order to upload images, you must be 3190:is not the current Republican Party? -- 1181:The History of the Tory Party 1640-1714 3895:Modern liberalism in the United States 324:Modern liberalism in the United States 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 3744:Any feedback is greatly appreciated. 3074:Under the heading presidential ticket 3004:Add section: super-delegate criticism 485:we need to disect the Democratic base 18:Talk:Democratic Party (United States) 7: 3034:That sort of material, criticism by 2457:Questions? Ask them through Wikinews 1037:Introduction: Oldest Political Party 706:Does this re-wording help? Regards, 479:in order to provide a better picture 3407:http://www.sofi.su.se/wp/WP06-7.pdf 3728:Ideology and voter base - Academia 3674:seem surprisingly like modern-day 1125:Just as a starter, this is one of 1081:Oldest politcal party in the world 24: 2381:by a slight majority since 2000. 2225:The Whigs were just a red herring 1784:Let's do what editors did at the 2536:are Democrats, or that 42.6% of 2393: 2330: 1185:The Second Tory Party, 1714-1832 649:Image talk:Academia politics.jpg 558:Okay then, what do you think of 29: 3412:http://www.mises.org/story/2318 2328:14:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 1093:Party the oldest in the world. 490:Demography of the United States 3508:That information can be found 3264:Economics of the welfare state 2538:U.S. citizens eligible to vote 2451:00:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC) 2440:00:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC) 2406:18:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 2388:18:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 2359:15:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 2291:18:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC) 2278:17:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC) 2260:13:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC) 2247:02:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC) 2232:20:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC) 2211:20:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC) 2196:19:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 2175:12:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC) 1826:To answer the points you made: 1546:The Perfect Article Guidelines 1031:01:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 1021:02:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC) 732:04:44, 18 August 2007, (UTC) 642:The academic faculty bar graph 637:07:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 1: 3312:) 05:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC) 2999:06:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC) 2899:10:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC) 2875:02:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC) 2857:02:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC) 2824:21:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC) 2796:00:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC) 2757:22:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC) 2735:10:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC) 2522:06:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC) 2165:03:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC) 2151:23:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC) 2116:I like "arguably" the oldest. 992:00:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC) 3551:23:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC) 3098:20:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC) 3052:12:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC) 2712:05:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC) 2691:20:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC) 2686:the oldest in the world. -- 2582:20:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC) 2182:why weasel-words exist; say 1663:Democrats suck donkey dick 115:For instance he states that 3790:Thanks for the feedback. -- 3565:only that exit polls suck. 3489:01:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC) 3474:00:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC) 3188:Democratic-Republican Party 2975:14:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC) 2663:02:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC) 2647:01:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC) 2566:08:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC) 2550:20:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC) 2514:IttyBittyGrittyindaShteCiti 2508:User: Settler Contributions 2121:20:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC) 2111:13:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC) 2097:19:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC) 2083:14:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC) 2037:14:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC) 2021:16:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC) 1999:15:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC) 1988:15:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC) 1957:14:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC) 1948:14:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC) 1925:12:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC) 1911:06:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC) 1895:06:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC) 1876:18:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC) 1849:17:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC) 1815:16:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC) 1804:02:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC) 1793:15:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC) 1769:19:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC) 1760:19:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC) 1735:18:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC) 1713:18:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC) 1679:21:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC) 1636:18:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC) 1609:15:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC) 1599:07:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC) 1583:12:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC) 1558:06:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC) 1527:05:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC) 1503:15:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC) 1447:15:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC) 1422:07:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC) 1396:21:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC) 1285:21:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC) 1265:21:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC) 1113:07:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC) 1098:20:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC) 1066:07:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC) 940:07:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC) 927:07:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC) 885:07:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC) 855:06:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC) 819:06:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC) 798:06:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC) 770:06:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC) 756:05:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC) 723:Centrist economic policies? 717:05:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC) 673:05:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC) 3924: 3908:04:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC) 3868:17:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC) 3839:04:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC) 3659:04:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC) 3328:05:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC) 3195:12:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC) 3178:12:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC) 3155:12:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC) 3113:03:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC) 3068:01:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC) 2696:The sentence says, "it is 2675:British Conservative Party 694:15:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC) 656:00:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC) 3888:09:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC) 3822:23:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC) 3800:00:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC) 3784:21:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC) 3762:17:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC) 3723:14:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC) 3605:02:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 3288:05:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC) 3256:02:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC) 3226:18:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC) 2954:21:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC) 2930:14:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC) 2620:19:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC) 2503:19:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC) 679:Reword ambiguous sentence 623:19:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC) 600:19:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC) 585:19:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC) 569:14:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC) 551:18:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC) 465:12:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC) 422:03:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC) 407:02:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC) 309:19:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC) 280:19:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC) 268:18:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC) 201:17:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC) 173:14:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC) 154:14:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC) 132:10:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC) 3694:17:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC) 3642:02:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC) 3583:21:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 3429:05:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC) 3382:01:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC) 2991:Jeffrey Pierce Henderson 2605:08:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC) 1544:(as is suggested in the 499:. Rembemer that this is 3522:20:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC) 3356:) 20:09, 20 April, 2008 2841:A consensus was reached 1884:tug of war. Thank you, 1786:Conservative Party (UK) 523:(You've agreed w/ this) 517:(You've agreed w/ this) 511:(You've agreed w/ this) 366:. We cannot provide a " 229:liberals are a minority 3534: 3501:Lincoln-Douglas debate 3494:Lincoln-Douglas debate 3235:Democratic economists? 2812:Your citation stated " 2251:Some would, and have, 1335:And the Conservatives 390: 194:for actual numbers. -- 3760:comment was added at 3529: 3082:Kind Regard, Daniel 1550:UK Conservative Party 1312:Judean People's Front 383: 251:both trends hold true 42:of past discussions. 3849:Dems and Reps - not 3620:This article states 3456:) 14:17, 2 July 2008 2669:Oldest in the world? 1307:Republican Sinn Féin 610:my newest blog entry 456:There is no deadline 3676:fiscal conservatism 2631:from the article. 2626:Current event polls 2172:PalestineRemembered 1391:"Democrat Party".) 1258:William Wilberforce 219:The statement does 3665:The changing party 2784:Wooldridge, Adrian 2780:Micklethwait, John 2680:Tamworth Manifesto 2527:Inaccuracy in Lead 2498:Thanks, Nick -- 2237:probably a fifth. 2217:Conservative Party 1520:Dispute Resolution 1314:POV onto articles. 1199:It does now - TRP. 612:;-) Best Regards, 3764: 3696: 3684:comment added by 3603: 3541:comment added by 3457: 3448:comment added by 3357: 3348:comment added by 3330: 3318:comment added by 3228: 3212:comment added by 3157: 3145:comment added by 3100: 3088:comment added by 3030: 3016:comment added by 2965:comment added by 2775:reputable sources 2649: 2637:comment added by 2534:registered voters 2442: 2430:comment added by 2354: 2276: 2245: 2194: 1873: 1681: 1669:comment added by 171: 152: 100: 99: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 3915: 3902: 3833: 3755: 3679: 3653: 3597: 3596: 3553: 3443: 3423: 3343: 3313: 3282: 3207: 3174: 3167: 3140: 3083: 3029: 3010: 2977: 2706: 2632: 2560: 2448:The Evil Spartan 2425: 2397: 2370: 2356: 2352: 2348: 2345: 2338: 2334: 2333: 2323: 2317: 2272: 2241: 2208:The Evil Spartan 2190: 2078:quality source. 1984: 1977: 1905: 1889: 1871: 1867: 1863: 1757:Timrollpickering 1708:Is this okay? -- 1664: 1579: 1572: 1500:Timrollpickering 1393:Timrollpickering 1262:Timrollpickering 986: 921: 849: 792: 750: 711: 667: 617: 579: 545: 416: 401: 303: 262: 167: 148: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 3923: 3922: 3918: 3917: 3916: 3914: 3913: 3912: 3900: 3875: 3847:self-identified 3831: 3730: 3702: 3667: 3651: 3613: 3590: 3559: 3536: 3514:SweetNightmares 3496: 3481:SweetNightmares 3421: 3374:SweetNightmares 3302:Walter Williams 3280: 3248:SweetNightmares 3237: 3172: 3165: 3120: 3076: 3011: 3006: 2960: 2845:to disregard it 2704: 2671: 2639:209.129.155.253 2628: 2558: 2529: 2510: 2459: 2414: 2372: 2364: 2355: 2350: 2343: 2341: 2331: 2329: 2324:Kindly Add ] -- 2321: 2315: 2313: 2270:Septentrionalis 2239:Septentrionalis 2188:Septentrionalis 2128: 2104:taking the mick 2094:Reginald Perrin 1982: 1975: 1903: 1887: 1865: 1861: 1730:times before.-- 1577: 1570: 1039: 984: 932:"progressive". 919: 847: 790: 785:Cosmopolitanism 748: 725: 709: 681: 665: 644: 615: 577: 543: 414: 399: 301: 260: 192:2006 exit polls 165:Septentrionalis 146:Septentrionalis 105: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3921: 3919: 3911: 3910: 3874: 3871: 3844: 3842: 3841: 3804: 3789: 3787: 3786: 3770:auto confirmed 3729: 3726: 3701: 3698: 3686:65.182.244.199 3672:Andrew Jackson 3666: 3663: 3662: 3661: 3612: 3611:Wealthy voters 3609: 3608: 3607: 3558: 3555: 3525: 3524: 3505: 3504: 3495: 3492: 3461: 3460: 3459: 3458: 3415: 3414: 3409: 3391: 3390: 3389: 3388: 3387: 3386: 3385: 3384: 3363: 3362: 3361: 3360: 3359: 3358: 3334: 3333: 3332: 3331: 3291: 3290: 3236: 3233: 3232: 3231: 3230: 3229: 3200: 3199: 3198: 3197: 3181: 3180: 3132: 3119: 3116: 3090:146.123.134.20 3075: 3072: 3071: 3070: 3055: 3054: 3005: 3002: 2967:69.215.149.112 2941: 2940: 2939: 2938: 2937: 2936: 2935: 2934: 2933: 2932: 2908: 2907: 2906: 2905: 2904: 2903: 2902: 2901: 2882: 2881: 2880: 2879: 2878: 2877: 2859: 2833: 2832: 2831: 2830: 2829: 2828: 2827: 2826: 2803: 2802: 2801: 2800: 2799: 2798: 2762: 2761: 2760: 2759: 2740: 2739: 2738: 2737: 2715: 2714: 2670: 2667: 2666: 2665: 2627: 2624: 2623: 2622: 2569: 2568: 2528: 2525: 2509: 2506: 2489: 2488: 2483: 2478: 2458: 2455: 2454: 2453: 2413: 2410: 2409: 2408: 2374:a small typo: 2371: 2367:edit protected 2362: 2347: 2312: 2311:Interwiki Link 2309: 2308: 2307: 2306: 2305: 2304: 2303: 2302: 2301: 2300: 2299: 2298: 2297: 2296: 2295: 2294: 2293: 2179: 2178: 2177: 2127: 2124: 2114: 2113: 2090: 2089: 2088: 2087: 2086: 2085: 2070: 2069: 2068: 2067: 2066: 2065: 2056: 2055: 2054: 2053: 2052: 2051: 2042: 2041: 2040: 2039: 2026: 2025: 2024: 2023: 2002: 2001: 1968: 1967: 1966: 1965: 1964: 1963: 1962: 1961: 1960: 1959: 1940: 1930: 1929: 1928: 1927: 1914: 1913: 1881: 1880: 1879: 1878: 1852: 1851: 1840: 1839: 1834: 1833: 1832:unambiguously. 1828: 1827: 1823: 1822: 1807: 1806: 1782: 1781: 1780: 1779: 1778: 1777: 1776: 1775: 1774: 1773: 1772: 1771: 1744: 1743: 1742: 1741: 1740: 1739: 1738: 1737: 1720: 1719: 1718: 1717: 1716: 1715: 1687: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1683: 1682: 1656: 1655: 1654: 1653: 1652: 1651: 1643: 1642: 1641: 1640: 1639: 1638: 1620: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1591: 1590: 1563: 1562: 1561: 1560: 1538: 1537: 1536: 1535: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1484: 1483: 1482: 1481: 1480: 1479: 1478: 1477: 1476: 1475: 1474: 1473: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1455: 1454: 1453: 1452: 1451: 1450: 1449: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1428: 1427: 1426: 1425: 1424: 1407: 1406: 1405: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1401: 1400: 1399: 1398: 1379: 1378: 1377: 1376: 1375: 1374: 1373: 1372: 1371: 1370: 1369: 1368: 1352: 1351: 1350: 1349: 1348: 1347: 1346: 1345: 1344: 1343: 1324: 1323: 1322: 1321: 1320: 1319: 1318: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1294: 1293: 1292: 1291: 1290: 1289: 1288: 1287: 1270: 1269: 1268: 1267: 1251: 1250: 1249: 1248: 1241: 1240: 1239: 1238: 1237: 1236: 1230: 1220: 1219: 1218: 1217: 1206: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1200: 1194: 1193: 1192: 1191: 1190: 1189: 1175: 1164: 1163: 1162: 1161: 1147: 1146: 1145: 1144: 1137: 1136: 1135: 1134: 1120: 1119: 1118: 1117: 1116: 1115: 1090: 1089: 1083: 1078: 1073: 1072: 1038: 1035: 1034: 1033: 1013: 1012: 1011: 1010: 1009: 1008: 1007: 1006: 1005: 1004: 1003: 1002: 1001: 1000: 999: 998: 997: 996: 995: 994: 959: 958: 957: 956: 955: 954: 953: 952: 951: 950: 949: 948: 947: 946: 945: 944: 943: 942: 898: 897: 896: 895: 894: 893: 892: 891: 890: 889: 888: 887: 866: 865: 864: 863: 862: 861: 860: 859: 858: 857: 841: 828: 827: 826: 825: 824: 823: 822: 821: 805: 804: 803: 802: 801: 800: 775: 774: 773: 772: 759: 758: 742: 724: 721: 720: 719: 704: 680: 677: 676: 675: 643: 640: 628: 627: 626: 625: 603: 602: 592: 591: 590: 589: 588: 587: 538: 534: 533: 532: 531: 525: 519: 513: 474: 473: 472: 471: 470: 469: 468: 467: 452: 432: 428: 409: 394: 391: 381: 349: 348: 347: 346: 345: 344: 343: 342: 341: 340: 339: 338: 337: 336: 326:(specifically 247: 233:at every level 208: 207: 206: 205: 204: 203: 178: 177: 176: 175: 157: 156: 140: 139: 104: 101: 98: 97: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3920: 3909: 3906: 3905: 3903: 3896: 3892: 3891: 3890: 3889: 3885: 3881: 3872: 3870: 3869: 3865: 3861: 3857: 3852: 3848: 3840: 3837: 3836: 3834: 3826: 3825: 3824: 3823: 3819: 3815: 3810: 3808: 3802: 3801: 3797: 3793: 3785: 3782: 3780: 3776: 3771: 3767: 3766: 3765: 3763: 3759: 3753: 3749: 3745: 3742: 3738: 3734: 3727: 3725: 3724: 3720: 3716: 3712: 3708: 3699: 3697: 3695: 3691: 3687: 3683: 3677: 3673: 3664: 3660: 3657: 3656: 3654: 3646: 3645: 3644: 3643: 3640: 3638: 3634: 3629: 3624: 3619: 3610: 3606: 3601: 3594: 3587: 3586: 3585: 3584: 3580: 3576: 3570: 3566: 3562: 3556: 3554: 3552: 3548: 3544: 3543:71.36.227.206 3540: 3533: 3528: 3523: 3519: 3515: 3511: 3507: 3506: 3502: 3498: 3497: 3493: 3491: 3490: 3486: 3482: 3476: 3475: 3471: 3467: 3455: 3451: 3447: 3440: 3435: 3434: 3433: 3432: 3431: 3430: 3427: 3426: 3424: 3413: 3410: 3408: 3405: 3404: 3403: 3401: 3397: 3383: 3379: 3375: 3371: 3370: 3369: 3368: 3367: 3366: 3365: 3364: 3355: 3351: 3350:68.181.246.23 3347: 3340: 3339: 3338: 3337: 3336: 3335: 3329: 3325: 3321: 3320:141.214.17.17 3317: 3311: 3307: 3306:141.214.17.17 3303: 3299: 3298:Thomas Sowell 3295: 3294: 3293: 3292: 3289: 3286: 3285: 3283: 3276: 3275:Nicholas Barr 3273: 3269: 3265: 3260: 3259: 3258: 3257: 3253: 3249: 3244: 3240: 3234: 3227: 3223: 3219: 3215: 3211: 3204: 3203: 3202: 3201: 3196: 3193: 3189: 3185: 3184: 3183: 3182: 3179: 3176: 3175: 3169: 3168: 3160: 3159: 3158: 3156: 3152: 3148: 3147:69.151.203.92 3144: 3137: 3134: 3130: 3126: 3123: 3115: 3114: 3110: 3106: 3101: 3099: 3095: 3091: 3087: 3080: 3073: 3069: 3065: 3061: 3060:70.223.149.24 3057: 3056: 3053: 3049: 3045: 3041: 3040:Superdelegate 3037: 3033: 3032: 3031: 3027: 3023: 3019: 3018:76.187.220.93 3015: 3003: 3001: 3000: 2996: 2992: 2988: 2984: 2978: 2976: 2972: 2968: 2964: 2956: 2955: 2951: 2947: 2931: 2927: 2923: 2918: 2917: 2916: 2915: 2914: 2913: 2912: 2911: 2910: 2909: 2900: 2897: 2896: 2890: 2889: 2888: 2887: 2886: 2885: 2884: 2883: 2876: 2872: 2868: 2864: 2860: 2858: 2854: 2850: 2846: 2842: 2839: 2838: 2837: 2836: 2835: 2834: 2825: 2822: 2821: 2815: 2811: 2810: 2809: 2808: 2807: 2806: 2805: 2804: 2797: 2793: 2789: 2785: 2781: 2776: 2772: 2768: 2767: 2766: 2765: 2764: 2763: 2758: 2755: 2754: 2748: 2744: 2743: 2742: 2741: 2736: 2733: 2732: 2727: 2723: 2719: 2718: 2717: 2716: 2713: 2710: 2709: 2707: 2699: 2695: 2694: 2693: 2692: 2689: 2688:The_socialist 2685: 2681: 2676: 2668: 2664: 2660: 2656: 2652: 2651: 2650: 2648: 2644: 2640: 2636: 2625: 2621: 2617: 2613: 2609: 2608: 2607: 2606: 2602: 2598: 2594: 2591: 2590: 2584: 2583: 2579: 2575: 2574:170.63.96.108 2567: 2564: 2563: 2561: 2554: 2553: 2552: 2551: 2547: 2543: 2539: 2535: 2526: 2524: 2523: 2519: 2515: 2507: 2505: 2504: 2501: 2496: 2494: 2487: 2484: 2482: 2479: 2477: 2474: 2473: 2472: 2469: 2466: 2462: 2456: 2452: 2449: 2445: 2444: 2443: 2441: 2437: 2433: 2429: 2422: 2418: 2411: 2407: 2404: 2400: 2396: 2392: 2391: 2390: 2389: 2386: 2382: 2380: 2375: 2368: 2363: 2361: 2360: 2357: 2353: 2346: 2337: 2327: 2320: 2319:editprotected 2310: 2292: 2289: 2285: 2281: 2280: 2279: 2275: 2271: 2267: 2263: 2262: 2261: 2258: 2254: 2250: 2249: 2248: 2244: 2240: 2235: 2234: 2233: 2230: 2226: 2222: 2218: 2214: 2213: 2212: 2209: 2205: 2201: 2200: 2199: 2198: 2197: 2193: 2189: 2185: 2180: 2176: 2173: 2168: 2167: 2166: 2163: 2159: 2155: 2154: 2153: 2152: 2149: 2143: 2141: 2137: 2131: 2125: 2123: 2122: 2119: 2112: 2109: 2105: 2101: 2100: 2099: 2098: 2095: 2084: 2081: 2080:Beneficientor 2076: 2075: 2074: 2073: 2072: 2071: 2062: 2061: 2060: 2059: 2058: 2057: 2048: 2047: 2046: 2045: 2044: 2043: 2038: 2035: 2034:Beneficientor 2030: 2029: 2028: 2027: 2022: 2019: 2014: 2010: 2006: 2005: 2004: 2003: 2000: 1997: 1992: 1991: 1990: 1989: 1986: 1985: 1979: 1978: 1958: 1955: 1954:Beneficientor 1951: 1950: 1949: 1946: 1941: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1935: 1934: 1933: 1932: 1931: 1926: 1923: 1922:Beneficientor 1918: 1917: 1916: 1915: 1912: 1909: 1908: 1906: 1899: 1898: 1897: 1896: 1893: 1892: 1890: 1877: 1874: 1869: 1868: 1866:DailyNetworks 1856: 1855: 1854: 1853: 1850: 1847: 1846:Beneficientor 1842: 1841: 1836: 1835: 1830: 1829: 1825: 1824: 1819: 1818: 1817: 1816: 1813: 1805: 1802: 1801:Beneficientor 1797: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1791: 1787: 1770: 1767: 1763: 1762: 1761: 1758: 1754: 1753: 1752: 1751: 1750: 1749: 1748: 1747: 1746: 1745: 1736: 1733: 1728: 1727: 1726: 1725: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1721: 1714: 1711: 1707: 1706: 1705: 1704: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1699: 1694: 1692: 1680: 1676: 1672: 1671:207.69.137.23 1668: 1662: 1661: 1660: 1659: 1658: 1657: 1649: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1637: 1634: 1633:Beneficientor 1630: 1626: 1625: 1624: 1623: 1622: 1621: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1607: 1602: 1601: 1600: 1597: 1596:Beneficientor 1593: 1592: 1587: 1586: 1585: 1584: 1581: 1580: 1574: 1573: 1559: 1556: 1555:Beneficientor 1551: 1547: 1542: 1541: 1540: 1539: 1533: 1532: 1531: 1530: 1529: 1528: 1525: 1524:Beneficientor 1521: 1504: 1501: 1496: 1495: 1494: 1493: 1492: 1491: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1487: 1486: 1485: 1470: 1469: 1468: 1467: 1466: 1465: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1460: 1459: 1448: 1445: 1441: 1440: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1436: 1435: 1434: 1433: 1432: 1423: 1420: 1419:Beneficientor 1415: 1414: 1413: 1412: 1411: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1397: 1394: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1386: 1385: 1384: 1383: 1382: 1381: 1380: 1367: 1364: 1363: 1362: 1361: 1360: 1359: 1358: 1357: 1356: 1355: 1354: 1353: 1342: 1338: 1334: 1333: 1332: 1331: 1330: 1329: 1328: 1327: 1326: 1325: 1313: 1308: 1304: 1303: 1302: 1301: 1300: 1299: 1298: 1297: 1296: 1295: 1286: 1283: 1278: 1277: 1276: 1275: 1274: 1273: 1272: 1271: 1266: 1263: 1259: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1252: 1245: 1244: 1243: 1242: 1235: 1231: 1229: 1226: 1225: 1224: 1223: 1222: 1221: 1215: 1210: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1201: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1188: 1184: 1180: 1176: 1174: 1170: 1169: 1168: 1167: 1166: 1165: 1159: 1155: 1151: 1150: 1149: 1148: 1141: 1140: 1139: 1138: 1132: 1128: 1124: 1123: 1122: 1121: 1114: 1111: 1110:Beneficientor 1106: 1105: 1104: 1103: 1102: 1101: 1100: 1099: 1096: 1087: 1084: 1082: 1079: 1077: 1075: 1074: 1070: 1069: 1068: 1067: 1064: 1063:Beneficientor 1058: 1054: 1050: 1046: 1042: 1036: 1032: 1029: 1025: 1024: 1023: 1022: 1019: 993: 990: 989: 987: 979: 978: 977: 976: 975: 974: 973: 972: 971: 970: 969: 968: 967: 966: 965: 964: 963: 962: 961: 960: 941: 938: 934: 930: 929: 928: 925: 924: 922: 914: 913: 912: 911: 910: 909: 908: 907: 906: 905: 904: 903: 902: 901: 900: 899: 886: 883: 878: 877: 876: 875: 874: 873: 872: 871: 870: 869: 868: 867: 856: 853: 852: 850: 842: 838: 837: 836: 835: 834: 833: 832: 831: 830: 829: 820: 817: 813: 812: 811: 810: 809: 808: 807: 806: 799: 796: 795: 793: 786: 781: 780: 779: 778: 777: 776: 771: 768: 763: 762: 761: 760: 757: 754: 753: 751: 743: 740: 735: 734: 733: 731: 722: 718: 715: 714: 712: 705: 702: 698: 697: 696: 695: 692: 687: 684: 678: 674: 671: 670: 668: 660: 659: 658: 657: 654: 650: 641: 639: 638: 635: 634:130.126.76.87 631: 624: 621: 620: 618: 611: 607: 606: 605: 604: 601: 598: 594: 593: 586: 583: 582: 580: 572: 571: 570: 567: 565: 561: 560:this revision 557: 556: 555: 554: 553: 552: 549: 548: 546: 529: 528: 526: 524: 520: 518: 514: 512: 508: 507: 506: 504: 503: 498: 497: 491: 487: 486: 481: 480: 466: 463: 461: 457: 453: 450: 449:general trend 446: 445:general trend 441: 437: 433: 429: 425: 424: 423: 420: 419: 417: 410: 408: 405: 404: 402: 395: 392: 389: 388: 382: 379: 378: 373: 369: 368:borad picture 365: 364: 359: 355: 354: 353: 352: 351: 350: 335: 333: 329: 325: 321: 317: 312: 311: 310: 307: 306: 304: 298:. Thank you, 297: 296: 291: 287: 283: 282: 281: 278: 276: 271: 270: 269: 266: 265: 263: 256: 252: 248: 245: 242:Thus, we say 241: 239: 234: 231: 230: 224: 222: 216: 215: 214: 213: 212: 211: 210: 209: 202: 199: 197: 193: 189: 184: 183: 182: 181: 180: 179: 174: 170: 166: 161: 160: 159: 158: 155: 151: 147: 142: 141: 136: 135: 134: 133: 130: 126: 121: 118: 113: 110: 102: 96: 93: 91: 88: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 3898: 3876: 3855: 3850: 3846: 3843: 3829: 3811: 3803: 3788: 3773: 3746: 3743: 3739: 3735: 3731: 3711:Barack Obama 3703: 3668: 3649: 3631: 3626: 3621: 3617: 3614: 3575:64.238.49.65 3571: 3567: 3563: 3560: 3535: 3530: 3526: 3477: 3466:65.191.24.85 3462: 3419: 3416: 3399: 3395: 3392: 3278: 3263: 3245: 3241: 3238: 3170: 3162: 3138: 3135: 3131: 3127: 3124: 3121: 3102: 3081: 3077: 3007: 2979: 2957: 2942: 2922:Primal Chaos 2894: 2819: 2813: 2774: 2752: 2730: 2725: 2702: 2697: 2683: 2672: 2629: 2595: 2592: 2585: 2570: 2556: 2542:Huntthetroll 2537: 2533: 2530: 2511: 2497: 2490: 2470: 2467: 2463: 2460: 2432:207.41.34.50 2423: 2419: 2415: 2412:Bias Exposed 2401:. Cheers. -- 2398: 2385:72.83.204.78 2383: 2378: 2376: 2373: 2340: 2335: 2314: 2283: 2265: 2252: 2227:. Mahalo. -- 2220: 2215:Because the 2203: 2183: 2144: 2132: 2129: 2115: 2091: 2012: 2008: 1996:Jersey Devil 1980: 1972: 1969: 1901: 1885: 1882: 1859: 1808: 1783: 1732:Primal Chaos 1697: 1695: 1690: 1688: 1575: 1567: 1564: 1517: 1365: 1336: 1232: 1227: 1186: 1182: 1177: 1171: 1157: 1154:John Ramsden 1126: 1091: 1059: 1055: 1051: 1047: 1043: 1040: 1018:Mrsmith93309 1014: 982: 917: 845: 788: 746: 726: 707: 700: 688: 685: 682: 663: 653:75.15.152.46 645: 632: 629: 613: 575: 541: 535: 522: 516: 510: 501: 500: 495: 494: 484: 483: 478: 477: 475: 448: 444: 439: 412: 397: 385: 384: 376: 375: 371: 367: 362: 361: 357: 319: 315: 299: 294: 293: 289: 285: 258: 254: 250: 243: 237: 236: 232: 228: 227: 220: 218: 187: 124: 122: 116: 114: 108: 106: 78: 43: 37: 3860:Nicholas007 3814:Nicholas007 3792:Nicholas007 3756:—Preceding 3748:Nicholas007 3680:—Preceding 3600:Speak to Me 3537:—Preceding 3450:68.73.54.91 3444:—Preceding 3344:—Preceding 3314:—Preceding 3270:, 2004) by 3208:—Preceding 3141:—Preceding 3084:—Preceding 3012:—Preceding 2961:—Preceding 2920:research.-- 2863:John Simkin 2633:—Preceding 2426:—Preceding 2162:Cielomobile 2148:VisitorTalk 1665:—Preceding 1183:(1924) and 36:This is an 3873:Liberalism 3851:registered 3707:John Kerry 3400:explicitly 3396:explicitly 2722:Tory party 2597:Krisidious 2326:Jacob.jose 2274:PMAnderson 2243:PMAnderson 2192:PMAnderson 2106:, mate? -- 1994:article.-- 1629:Britannica 597:LordHarris 169:PMAnderson 150:PMAnderson 129:LordHarris 95:Archive 10 3901:Signature 3832:Signature 3652:Signature 3422:Signature 3281:Signature 2705:Signature 2559:Signature 2493:e-mail me 2403:MZMcBride 1904:Signature 1888:Signature 985:Signature 920:Signature 848:Signature 791:Signature 749:Signature 739:Third Way 710:Signature 666:Signature 616:Signature 578:Signature 544:Signature 415:Signature 400:Signature 302:Signature 261:Signature 90:Archive 9 85:Archive 8 79:Archive 7 73:Archive 6 68:Archive 5 60:Archive 1 3812:Thanks. 3715:Shaunnol 3682:unsigned 3593:IrønCrøw 3539:unsigned 3446:unsigned 3346:unsigned 3316:unsigned 3222:contribs 3214:Bowmanjj 3210:unsigned 3143:unsigned 3105:8bitJake 3086:unsigned 3026:contribs 3014:unsigned 2963:unsigned 2698:arguably 2684:arguably 2635:unsigned 2428:unsigned 2221:arguably 2204:arguably 2184:arguably 2050:altered. 1667:unsigned 1086:And here 937:Sadistik 3775:seresin 3758:undated 3633:seresin 3166:jersyko 3044:Settler 2985:. HEY, 2867:Settler 2849:Settler 2788:Settler 2750:point. 2655:Settler 2612:Settler 2500:Zanimum 2461:Hello, 2266:support 2158:WP:LAME 1976:jersyko 1571:jersyko 1131:WP:LAME 427:anyway? 39:archive 3623:class. 2946:john k 2351:(talk) 2253:argued 1945:Hashaw 1812:Hashaw 1444:Hashaw 1028:Tocino 882:Tocino 816:Tocino 767:Tocino 730:Tocino 320:change 316:change 125:either 3880:Rrius 3858:.) 3272:LSE's 3192:Ali'i 3036:WP:RS 2987:Jimbo 2983:Jimbo 2814:among 2726:among 2379:since 2344:Maxim 2288:Ali'i 2257:Ali'i 2229:Ali'i 2118:Griot 2108:Ali'i 2018:Ali'i 1790:Griot 1766:Ali'i 1710:Ali'i 1614:self. 1606:Griot 1282:Griot 1095:Griot 691:Vchao 564:Ybbor 460:Ybbor 332:Ybbor 275:Ybbor 196:Ybbor 188:until 16:< 3884:talk 3864:talk 3818:talk 3796:talk 3752:talk 3719:talk 3690:talk 3628:38%. 3579:talk 3547:talk 3518:talk 3510:here 3485:talk 3470:talk 3454:talk 3378:talk 3354:talk 3324:talk 3310:talk 3252:talk 3218:talk 3173:talk 3151:talk 3109:talk 3094:talk 3064:talk 3048:talk 3022:talk 2995:talk 2971:talk 2950:talk 2926:talk 2895:Mimi 2871:talk 2853:talk 2820:Mimi 2792:talk 2771:NPOV 2753:Mimi 2747:here 2731:Mimi 2673:The 2659:talk 2643:talk 2616:talk 2601:talk 2578:talk 2546:talk 2518:talk 2436:talk 2399:Done 2336:Done 2102:You 1983:talk 1872:talk 1862:Mark 1696:EB:" 1689:WP:" 1675:talk 1578:talk 1127:many 562:? -- 284:The 3754:) 3300:or 3268:OUP 2219:is 2013:the 1156:'s 1133:... 440:not 221:not 3886:) 3866:) 3820:) 3798:) 3779:¡? 3777:( 3721:) 3692:) 3637:¡? 3635:( 3581:) 3549:) 3520:) 3487:) 3472:) 3380:) 3326:) 3254:) 3224:) 3220:• 3163:· 3153:) 3111:) 3096:) 3066:) 3050:) 3028:) 3024:• 2997:) 2973:) 2952:) 2928:) 2873:) 2855:) 2794:) 2782:; 2661:) 2645:) 2618:) 2603:) 2580:) 2548:) 2520:) 2495:. 2438:) 2369:}} 2365:{{ 2339:. 2322:}} 2316:{{ 2264:I 2206:? 2016:-- 2009:is 1973:· 1864:@ 1700:" 1693:" 1677:) 1568:· 1337:do 64:← 3882:( 3862:( 3816:( 3794:( 3781:) 3750:( 3717:( 3688:( 3639:) 3602:) 3598:( 3595:¤ 3591:¤ 3577:( 3545:( 3516:( 3483:( 3468:( 3452:( 3376:( 3352:( 3322:( 3308:( 3266:( 3250:( 3216:( 3149:( 3107:( 3092:( 3062:( 3046:( 3020:( 2993:( 2969:( 2948:( 2924:( 2869:( 2865:. 2851:( 2790:( 2657:( 2641:( 2614:( 2599:( 2576:( 2544:( 2516:( 2434:( 1673:( 1216:: 1088:] 703:" 240:. 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index