1269:
Republican Party politicians, officials and partisans (aka "talk radio"), who have fastened on promoting this as their preferred name for their opponents, and (3) that almost universally in major reference sources and news media the name "Democratic Party" is standard usage, as it is by the party itself. A non-tendentious article along these lines may be possible, but the present article isn't it. I see (surprisingly) it has been done elsewhere, e.g. "Queer" and "Faggot (epithet}."
1546:
is not widely accepted and when used is used a perjorative by the
Republican Party or more so right-wing Republican's on talk radio. The honest thing to do here is redirect to the Democratic Party page and be done with it. As far as "Democrat Clubs" that makes perfect sense because people in the Democratic Party are called Democrats; but the PARTY is called the DEMOCRATIC PARTY and has been OFFICIALLY since JACKSON. This article needs to be redirected to the PROPER PAGE. --
52:. OK, this was a tough one. There is a lot to read here and consensus is not clear cut. A careful review of the material in the article itself suggests that there might be SOME value in some of it. By leaving it as a redirect, that material is accessible to people that want to move it to the target article. I have half an expectation that this will go to DRV, which is fine, I may be reading the sense wrong, but that's what it feels like to me. I welcome review by others. --
702:
about the
Democratic Party in the United States and thus is a repeat of that topic. Since there is no Democrat Party and the term directly applies to the Democratic Party in the United States, it should be mentioned in that article and does not warrant an article of its own. Further, users of Knowledge (XXG), especially children may be directed to the wrong article as a result of this article and not typing in the correct spelling. At best there should be a redirect to
1449:, I only see one endnote providing sourcing for "jigaboo". In any case, I have no particular interest or opinion on the term. I only grabbed it for use in analogy. If it doesn't fit my case, I'd be happy to retract my usage of it. I will attempt to pick my analogies with more care in the future, but I don't feel my argument is in any way disproved. There are many examples available of details which lack notability beyond a narrow interest group. Cheers,
1177:, specifically that the Democratic Party is not necessarily democratic. Additionally there is the uh, pun debate (if you can call it a pun)--googling the term brings up a lot of talk of the "DemocRAT Party", a further matter of possible discussion, though I'm not sure that there's as much established material on that specific aspect (there does seem to be on the original point).
1517:. This is the standard term used by the White House for the last 5 years. It has been the subject of scholarly articles and discussions for over 50 years. Will people hear this term on talk radio--or when President Bush gives an address? Yes. If they turn to Wiki they might learn a good deal of history that goes back 75 years.
1575:
like a mistake. But it's used every time. It seems clear (and research indicates) that the purpose is to produce dissociation between "democratic" and "Democratic" in the listener. E.g. "And I think, frankly, that that's a view -- Senator Miller, for example, was -- noted yesterday that he warned his
1555:
The proper thing is that, when there's substantial evidence of a certain occurance such as this, that we have an article on it. A redirect will not do it justice, and, if you're concerned about an "honest" assessment of the
Democratic party, a redirect will only serve to "accept" the pejorative as a
1373:
The pointed use of, and controversy over, the term "Democrat Party" is not known outside a narrow interest group (devoted political partisans of either side), and has no particular importance or impact. It is about as notable as the term "jigaboo", which you will find redirects, quite appropriately,
1254:
and cleanup as a number of others have said. I oppose the idea of a merger with the
Democratic Party article, since this article is clearly talking about the use of Democrat Party as an oppositional term. The article is heavily referenced, and there is plenty of evidence gathered for the notability
1186:
I agree that this article is badly written, but I think the topic lends itself to bad writing. It strains to have anything to say about this term, as it must, because there isn't really that much to say. The term is used by a handful of
Republicans to complain about perceived faults in the Democratic
1382:
a discussion of the
Democratic Party itself (or possibly within a discussion of the Republican Party's actions regarding their opponents), and therefore the information should be found under the article on the Democratic Party. If it is appropriate to create an article for "Democrat Party", then it
1152:
I don't see that the article makes the case it's a significant term. Historically, it seems some have used it as a synonym, some have used it casually. George W Bush has used it, but let's face it, he's not exactly known for being a precise and careful speaker ;-). The
Republican party seems to like
1129:
Finally, we disagree. Let the games begin. I agree with your characterization that this section is or should be a report on the
Democratic Party rather than an attack itself, however my reasons for merge are because it would fit much better within the main Democratic Party article as a subsection,
970:
I'm not trying to be aggressive, but I think that you misunderstand the article. The article is citing examinations of "Democrat Party" as a pejorative term for the "Democratic Party". Calling it insufficiently notable would be understandable, but vandalism it is not. It does have an excessive focus
515:
with
Rjensen at some point. I feel that's a very biased way to advertise an AfD, though I don't know for sure it is vote stacking since he did suggest I "weigh in" and not "vote to delete". I wonder if he did a talk page search for Rjensen and contacted everyone who's argued with him? Sorry, I'm not
494:
If editors are vote stacking, that's bad. If they are informing a broad base of editors with varying POV, I don't see the conflict. I don't think 'votes for deletion' are the exclusive purview of folks who watch the page. The difference is intent - to slant the results or just to broaden the base of
336:
Because this is documented, verifiable, and includes references to scholarly material, I think it is hard to argue that this article is, in itself, POV, though some of the material included in it should be reviewed to ensure NPOV stance (it is difficult to maintain such a stance in an inherently POV
1545:
As you should know the term "Democrat" is used to describe someone in the
Democratic Party, which is the official name of that party and should be honored here at Knowledge (XXG). Further as you should know, any hits for "Democrat" must include description of members. But, the term "Democrat Party"
1395:
significant, in that 1,850,000 sites on the Internet were created by people who knew the term, as well as 999 people who specifically stated that it is "pejorative". That far surpasses the notability of a great deal of the material on Knowledge (XXG). I find it damn near impossible to claim this is
701:
already exists on Knowledge (XXG) and treats the subject in the NPOV manner that it should be treated. Mention of that perjorative "Democrat Party" is okay in a criticism section of the Democratic Party article but does not warrant an article itself. The way the article reads now, it is as if it is
525:
Hehe. We just edit conflicted on this very phrase. I had the same response to the message on your talk page from Griot that (while clearly indicating his desire to delete) says he 'hope(s) you will weigh in on the topic'. That seems less than an outright attempt to instruct you on how to vote. Just
356:
It can be as documented, verifiable, referenced, and scholarly as it wants, but if it's on a subject that isn't noteworthy, it shouldn't be included in this project. The material is already covered quite adequately on the real article on the party. Before material is even considered on grounds of
228:
Including this article in an encyclopedia dignifies a perjorative talk-radio term that is always used disparagingly. I appreciate the cleanup and NPOV sentiment, but the topic is too controversal to be cleaned up or NPOVed. I believe it should be deleted for the sake of Knowledge (XXG)'s integrity.
1390:
Okay, that's a joke--I'm not saying anyone that hasn't heard the term is an idiot, because that is pretty silly. But there is a whole lot of stuff on WP that you (and I) don't know yet. Might not have even heard of it. That doesn't make it worthless... in fact that's what makes it useful to begin
427:
I don't want to escalate any perception the commenter may have of 'vote stacking', but I'd be glad to refer the article to the editors I know of both right- and left-wing persuasion. This is the kind of thing that should be discussed openly with folks of all sorts of points-of-view (and hopefully
346:
I think part of the perceived problem with this article is that it's also very close in name to another article. This is only a problem of perception--if the concepts are distinct (which in this case they are), the articles should be distinct. Merging should not be a course of action, nor is it a
1421:
changed my mind in one way - this article is now so informative and well-sourced that I no longer feel it should be deleted outright without merging. The main article on the Party could do with some of this material being added. The effort that went into creating this article should not all be
1112:. I don't favor merger because this particular petty nastiness by the Republicans isn't important enough in the overall history of the Democratic Party to deserve this much detail in the Democratic Party article. A separate article preserves the information without cluttering the main article.
542:
The most important thing is whether this article has merits on its own. It is simply an attempt to create another "Democratic Party" article using the perjorative. I would not approve of a Republicrat Party article for the same reason. Neither term is more than dictionary definition that merits
1535:
the White House website gives over 2000 hits for "Democrat" (mostly to Democrat as adjective); it usually saves "democratic" for foreign visitors. Note the adjective is NOT pejorative to all Democreats. Google shows 56,500 hits for "Democrat Club" --the great majority sponsored by Democrats.
1268:
If kept, the article should be much shortened to eliminate redundant examples and should elaborate much more clearly the context of this variant name: (1) that it has a long history as an occasionally used name for the party, even by Democrats, (2) that its current usage is largely driven by
322:
While I understand the concerns about including pejorative terms, I don't think they're necessarily valid, if the article does not display an overt bias. There are dozens of examples of pejorative terms that probably should be kept in WP, for documentation and to enhance understanding (see:
989:
to Democratic Party. This term alone isn't notable enough for an entire entry, it can be explained succinctly in the Democratic Party article. Other parties that used the name "Independent Democrat Party" or whatever should get an article to that effect and not fall under this catch-all.
767:
as per numerous mentions above, deserve at most a mention in the Democratic Party article if even that, not an entire offshoot. Its used as a denigrating term also which is sad that some should feel the need to dedicate and maintain an entire article on a term republicans use to remove the
715:
That depends on the quantity of information available. I think it is a lacking article, but there is a great deal of information to be related, judging from the quantity of work that has apparently been done on the topic. I think the article should remove any similarity between itself and
720:
to focus on its distinction, however. Since your argument was not at all the rationale behind the nomination, I could not think it appropriate to vote "delete" on its basis, but it is your prerogative, of course. I agree that there should be a prominent redirect link, but not a redirect.
551:- See my other reasons below. I understand your objections to being recruited - but I wouldn't let that get in the way of looking out for Knowledge (XXG) and the project to provide the best information to the public at large we can. Misdirection articles like this one are not helpful. --
1378:. Knowledge (XXG) has no need to have a separate article for every nasty term and slur someone has ever thought to call someone else. Likewise, there is no need to detail every attack against the Democratic Party which has ever been made with its own article. They have no relevance
1458:
The point is just because you can point to example x, y, and z doesn't mean they should be that way, especially on Knowledge (XXG). Meanwhile, you haven't demonstrated how this is a narrow term, especially in the face of overwhelming historical significance and real-world evidence.
851:- the name is not significant (I am a lifelong member of the Democratic Party, and I have never seen or heard that name, except as a grammatical mistake) and I doubt that its use is widespread, even as an insult. Even if it was worthwhile, the page is way too long for a slogan. --
374:. That's not a small number at all, especially (as I said) considering the limiting factor of a term like "pejorative". I'd like to know from what objective basis you derived your claim that this does not pass the notability test. "Democrat party" with "offensive" pulls up
1324:. It is a concept in its own right, one that references the party but which should not be included in an overview article of the party's history, platform, etc. As such, while I do not think it should be deleted, I think it is far better that it be deleted than merged.
1162:
Also, as it stands, James, your Chickenhawk example says right up front that it's a perjorative term, whereas this page starts going over the history of the Democratic party. If you're voting keep, you're also voting for substantial changes within the text, I assume?
1143:, as it is not so directly related to the party itself that it should be "required reading" for anyone researching the party itself. It is significant as a term, and for the history and secondary analysis of its use, not for its direct relation to the party itself.
1407:
As I've said before, I have nothing against the information or its sourcing, or its being included in Knowledge (XXG). My vote for deletion is a matter of categorization of information, nothing more. This should be merged & redirected to Democratic Party.
1383:
is also appropriate to create articles for "spendocrat" and "tax-and-spend liberal" and other pejoratives for Democratic Party members. Since such articles clearly would not be appropriate, we can by analogy safely presume that "Democrat Party" is not either.
1431:"Jigaboo" very well possibly shouldn't reirect to the list. Considering the amount of sourcing available for this term specifically, it seems like it isn't a "narrow interest group" and has some significant impact. I'm not sure why you believe otherwise. --
216:, but cleanup as above. It looks to me like there are grounds for having an article about this phrase (as opposed to simply redirecting to Democratic Party (United States)), but this one needs a substantial amount of improvement to be brought up to standard.
627:. The perjorative nature of the phrase is not, however, appropriate as a basis for maintaining a separate article. A redirect and mention of the use of the phrase as a perjorative is a perfectly acceptable topic for the main article, 'Democratic Party'. --
1172:
I know I am, and I think most others are. This is a badly written article, and a good plan for an article, with substantial information or potential sources of information to include. As for Fan1967: I think there's a good argument that it does mean
1221:
I try not to read previous discussions. It tends to provide for interesting and heated future discussions. As long as this article blatantly states, as the Chickenhawk article does, that "Democrat Party" is a perjorative term, than I'm ok with
1570:
This is a very good point that I had not thought to investigate. Especially with Fleischer, it seems the White House used the term repeatedly. The point that should be noted is that it's not pejorative enough to draw attention to itself... it
1279:
All or most of us agree that the current material is deficient. A vote for deletion is an indication that the article, as a concept, has no possible salvation. When an article is simply poorly written or lacks focus/neutrality, we
478:
Sorry, I think it's significant. I was "recruited" to vote against this article on my talk page, which is how my attention was brought to it. I think the results of this vote will be less than representative of WP as a result. See
560:
I think that if it is notable enough for scholarly research to have been performed specifically on the subject, it is notable enough for WP. If I am mistaken in my understanding that it has, then I am perhaps mistaken on my vote.
1314:
related to the actual Republican Party article. Thus it makes sense that it's included. While I think this article is sufficiently significant to host on Knowledge (XXG) (despite my usual tendency towoard uh, deletionism), it is
1297:, since the justification for a separate article seems weak. As simply a variant name, it can be dealt with briefly in the main article for the Democratic Party, with a redirect, as has been done for the variant name "GOP."
86:
This is a polemic and not an encyclopedia article. One also notes that there are two links in the references, and the second of these links contradicts the thesis of this article. But that doesn't matter; this article
191:"Who started this and when? Acting on a tip, I wrote to the man who was campaign director of Wendell Willkie's race against Franklin Delano Roosevelt. "In the Willkie campaign of 1940," responded Harold Stassen, "
1319:
closely related to the topic of the party itself due to its use only as a pejorative euphamism. It is historically and politically significant as a reference, but not because it is a major issue relating to the
495:
the vote. I don't claim to know the political views of the folks who were contacted, so I can't say it's 'stacking'... but we definitely agree that stacking is certainly bad and not in the interests of WP. --
587:
Slight correction - it's a term of reference for a phrase used to describe both the Democratic Party and past iterations. Why make it brief if there's enough information to support a detailed article?
1611:. Based on arguments above, I think the phrase has (barely) enough historic context to have its own article. The article still needs some cleanup like organization and a reduction in the amount of
382:
the term in a pejorative or negative light (saying, coincidentally, that the "democrat party" is doing something offensive, racist, whatever). That's as strong of proof as references to the term.
383:
1576:
own party, the Democrat Party, to stay away from that type of argument because he thought it would not work and it would hurt the Democrats." (Ari Fleischer in randomly selected snippet)
654:
A commentary on a blog (the Washington Monthly, in this case, or a UPenn 'language log') does not diminish the words of William Safire, President Hoover, etc. to 'rantings'. --
1108:. The article isn't an attack on the Democratic Party; it's a report of an attack on the Democratic Party. We do have articles on other pejorative political terms, such as
811:
it ought to be renamed. There is no such thing as the "Democrat Party", so the title is highly deceptive. If kept, "Democrat Party (phrase)" would be better, per the recent
971:
on the party itself, though, which is not conducive to its usefulness (and seems to reinforce the mistaken notion that it is supposed to be about the party itself, like
167:
with a massive, massive cleanup and NPOVing. The use of the term "Democrat Party" as a possibly pejorative term has been advanced by such popular scholarly hacks like
1200:
Yes, kizzle, I agree with you that the article must report the attack as opposed to furthering it. The point you're making is that, as was so brilliantly stated on
428:
folks with an interest in history and civics). I won't do so without approval/discussion though, in order to avoid any additional heat being added to the issue. --
1204:, an alternative term like this one "should be identified as a colloquialism or a political attack or whatever else distinguishes it from the correct name."
1187:
Party. It's really a code word. It is very hard to write an objective article about a code word without using POV. A better place for "Democrat Party" is
621:
The use of this phrase as a perjorative is notable and historical fact. An enlightening and historically-based commentary on this topic can be found here
1139:
I think there's good evidence that there is such information. Additionally, this much information does not need to be placed under the header of the
1371:
A topic has notability if it is known outside a narrow interest group or constituency, or should be because of its particular importance or impact.
1201:
17:
950:. This article is just an act of vandalism against the article on the Democratic Party. Or maybe if we can't delete it, we can just
1321:
1212:
1140:
1120:
972:
943:
717:
703:
698:
571:
548:
544:
153:
132:
125:
49:
1657:
1637:
1624:
1595:
1565:
1550:
1540:
1530:
1521:
1491:
1477:
1468:
1453:
1440:
1426:
1412:
1400:
1364:
1355:
1346:
1328:
1301:
1288:
1273:
1259:
1226:
1216:
1195:
1181:
1167:
1157:
1147:
1134:
1124:
1100:
1088:
1076:
1064:
1040:
1026:
1017:
994:
979:
962:
932:
916:
904:
888:
876:
860:
842:
819:
799:
780:
759:
747:
725:
710:
689:
673:
661:
646:
634:
597:
582:
565:
555:
533:
520:
502:
486:
473:
459:
444:
435:
419:
407:
388:
361:
351:
312:
294:
279:
267:
253:
233:
220:
204:
182:
159:
144:
114:
74:
1130:
unless there is a large amount of significant and salient information that would justify a daughter article. Eat it, bitch. --
1054:; interesting as semantic history. And F and I haven't been seeing eye to eye so far, so this is not vote-stacking. <g: -->
575:
80:
466:
I don't understand your response. Shall we take the discussion to your talk page to avoid cluttering up the VfD? Thanks. --
1677:
570:
That's the problem. It is a term of reference for the Democratic Party - should be included in a brief synopsis on the
36:
370:
for "Democrat party" and "pejorative" (which in itself is a very limiting term, with many possible synonyms) pulls up
812:
1351:
Regardless of the cleanup, it is still insufficiently notable to merit its own article, or this level of detail.
71:
1188:
1676:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
140:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1591:
KEEP Keep this article which is highly informative about the rhetoric and flavor of actual political speech.
1561:
1487:
1464:
1436:
838:
788:
Do we really need a separate article on the mispronuciation of something that already has its own article? --
593:
308:
178:
171:
1013:- The reference is archaic, inappropriate and obfuscating in modern usage and serves no encyclopedic purpose.
1608:
929:
658:
631:
530:
499:
470:
432:
201:
740:
1109:
625:
1557:
1483:
1460:
1432:
1386:
Wait. Okay, this means that were the human population to suddenly become stupider and more ill-informed,
825:
589:
304:
174:
1255:
and importance (even if obscure) of the phrase and its use. It is badly in need of cleanup, though. ---
59:
54:
415:. This discussion may need a ballot-stuffing tag, judging by the recruiting going on for deletion. --
1653:
1620:
1446:
1375:
1306:
I'm going to make a counterintuitive argument now--GOP, being a semi-official name for the party, is
1256:
1209:
1117:
1073:
776:
756:
275:
I thought it was really called the Democrat party and Democratic was just an improper common useage.
669:
I don't know that just because information is gleaned from a blog it is automatically discounted. --
1097:
217:
136:
622:
926:
655:
628:
527:
511:
is up to his tricks again," or somesuch, presumedly because I had a drawn-out talk discussion on
496:
467:
429:
416:
404:
291:
198:
1192:
230:
642:
I don't know that rantings on a blog count as "enlightening and historically-based commentary"
197:
should not be called a 'Democratic Party.' It should be called the 'Democrat party.' . . ." --
152:- Per nom ... biased opinion piece. After deletion, it should be changed back to a redirect to
1547:
1014:
707:
579:
552:
480:
110:
100:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
508:
341:, even if it takes a negative POV toward the use of the word--edit, perhaps, but not remove).
1343:
1003:
873:
795:
735:
No need to merge. The material is already adequately covered at the article on the Democrat
512:
1649:
1616:
1251:
1205:
1113:
959:
816:
769:
456:
187:
As the article itself states, another 'hack' includes William Safire (in a 1984 column):
1526:
The White House uses a pejorative term for the opposition party? That's just stupid. --
526:
my observation, you're welcome to your opinion (whether theory or fact), Fearwig. :) --
885:
856:
246:
263:
or revert to redirect. Obvious POV fork. There should be one article about the party.
1154:
991:
922:
913:
378:. Note that a few of these links (especially the latter) also pull up sites that are
264:
168:
67:
1360:
Can you objectively justify that assessment somehow? With notability tests perhaps?
912:- This is pointless. If this stays I might as well start my Neocons are Nazis page--
357:
NPOV and Verifiability, it must first pass the test of notability. This does not.
1612:
1537:
1518:
1474:
1450:
1423:
1409:
1397:
1361:
1352:
1325:
1285:
1178:
1144:
1058:
1051:
1037:
1023:
976:
901:
897:
744:
722:
562:
517:
483:
441:
385:
358:
348:
106:
96:
452:
1634:
1527:
1298:
1270:
1223:
1164:
1131:
1085:
790:
686:
670:
1473:
How which is a narrow term? I want to make sure we're on the same page here.
1645:
1592:
643:
276:
250:
242:
156:
1293:
Good point about concept vs. execution. I'll change my fence-sitting then to
958:, since the article tackles the party's old name during the 1930s to 50s. --
853:
131:
whereas the current version acts as if it's about the Democratic Party and
921:
I (jokingly) propose a speedy, based on a clear and flagrant violation of
63:
1153:
it, but even they can't really say why, or what, if anything, it means.
807:
to Democratic party. The phrase isn't particularly notable. At the
338:
324:
124:
Note the history of this article, which started out as a redirect to
1670:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
328:
105:
I guess everyone read my comments as carefully as I did :-) --
1036:
Wouldn't that make it a political history article? Hmm...
925:. This isn't exactly Goebbels and goosesteppers, here. --
347:
good compromise, since the terms are definitely distinct.
1482:
For the purposes of this discussion, "Democrat Party." --
1388:
everything on Knowledge (XXG) would lose its notability!
743:. This material does not deserve an offshoot article.
129:
173:
around the idea of political "framing" of issues. --
455:, but hardly mass spamming like I've seen elsewere.
1391:with. I think the notability tests prove that this
768:
association of democratic from Democratic Party. --
440:Take a look at my talk page if you have any doubt.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1072:POV-fork; biased opinion piece. No need to merge.
697:. Knowledge (XXG) is not a Dictionary. An article
578:should be restored as it was there originally. --
492:I am completely lost. What are you talking about?
1680:). No further edits should be made to this page.
946:? Because the official name of the party is the
403:, but add disambiguation to top of article. --
1342:now that it has been cleaned up and expanded.
8:
303:But I don't want it merged or redirected. --
1266:Delete or substantially change and shorten
337:discussion, but we're not going to remove
128:which Rjenson turned into something else
1633:That's the best idea I've heard yet. --
824:I think that's reasonable, (phrase). --
948:Democratic Party of the United States
543:inclusion in the main article namely
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
1556:normal, unintentional rephrasing. --
942:- Isn't the party suppose to be the
399:Persuaded by Fearwig. Cleanup and
24:
290:per Badlydrawnjeff and Nertz. --
1322:Democratic Party (United States)
1284:it. This is a wiki, after all.
1141:Democratic Party (United States)
973:Democratic Party (United States)
718:Democratic Party (United States)
704:Democratic Party (United States)
699:Democratic Party (United States)
572:Democratic Party (United States)
549:Republican Party (United States)
545:Democratic Party (United States)
154:Democratic Party (United States)
133:Democratic Party (United States)
126:Democratic Party (United States)
50:Democratic Party (United States)
956:History of the Democratic Party
516:usually a conspiracy theorist.
1191:, where indeed it already is.
1002:. NPOV and rambling fork. --
576:Democrat Party (United States)
245:talk-radio term. I'd call it
81:Democrat Party (United States)
1:
44:The result of the debate was
1644:Thanks, but I stole it from
574:page - and a redirect from
507:I was told "Our old friend
193:I emphasized that the party
135:is for historical context.
103:) 22:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
1697:
1396:not notable, as a result.
1189:List of political epithets
813:Israeli apartheid (phrase)
241:I wouldn't even call it a
1658:23:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
1638:23:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
1625:23:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
1596:22:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
1566:12:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
1551:12:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
1541:06:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
1531:05:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
1522:05:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
1492:03:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
1478:03:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
1469:02:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
1454:02:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
1441:02:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
1427:02:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
1413:02:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
1401:02:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
1329:02:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
91:a thesis, and is thereby
75:03:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
1673:Please do not modify it.
1445:I don't understand. On
1365:15:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
1356:09:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
1347:05:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
1302:21:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
1289:15:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
1274:05:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
1260:04:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
1227:20:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
1217:20:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
1196:18:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
1182:05:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
1168:04:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
1158:02:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
1148:01:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
1135:00:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
1125:23:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
1101:22:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
1089:22:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
1077:21:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
1065:19:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
1041:20:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
1027:09:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
1018:15:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
995:13:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
980:20:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
963:08:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
933:03:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
917:03:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
905:03:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
889:03:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
877:03:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
861:02:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
843:02:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
820:01:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
800:01:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
781:01:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
760:01:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
748:00:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
726:01:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
711:00:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
690:00:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
674:00:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
662:00:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
647:00:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
635:00:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
598:13:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
583:01:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
566:01:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
556:01:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
534:01:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
521:01:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
503:01:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
487:01:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
474:01:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
460:05:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
445:00:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
436:00:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
420:00:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
408:00:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
389:05:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
362:04:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
352:00:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
313:00:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
295:00:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
280:23:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
268:23:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
254:23:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
234:23:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
221:23:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
205:01:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
183:22:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
160:22:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
145:22:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
115:01:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
1609:Democrat Party (phrase)
1202:the article's talk page
141:Cæsar is turn’d to hear
1110:Chickenhawk (politics)
1022:What he or she said!
226:Delete & Redirect.
1369:From WP:NOTABILITY:
805:Delete & Redirect
786:Delete & Redirect
765:Delete & Redirect
320:Keep and edit for POV
1605:Weak keep and rename
1447:List of ethnic slurs
1376:List of ethnic slurs
695:Merge & Redirect
683:Merge & Redirect
619:Merge & Redirect
288:Merge & Redirect
273:Merge & Redirect
1094:Delete and redirect
1082:Delete and redirect
1070:Delete and Redirect
753:Delete and Redirect
733:Delete and Redirect
927:User:RyanFreisling
755:as per Kasreyn. ~
656:User:RyanFreisling
629:User:RyanFreisling
528:User:RyanFreisling
497:User:RyanFreisling
481:User talk: Fearwig
468:User:RyanFreisling
430:User:RyanFreisling
199:User:RyanFreisling
1564:
1490:
1467:
1439:
1215:
1123:
841:
835:
829:
798:
739:Party. Refer to
596:
311:
181:
143:
117:
1688:
1675:
1560:
1486:
1463:
1435:
1310:significant and
1208:
1116:
1096:per Kasreyn. -
1063:
1057:
944:Democratic Party
884:as per above. --
837:
834:
828:
794:
774:
592:
513:American History
307:
177:
139:
104:
95:unencyclopedic.
57:
34:
1696:
1695:
1691:
1690:
1689:
1687:
1686:
1685:
1684:
1678:deletion review
1671:
1074:KillerChihuahua
1061:
1055:
1048:Keep & edit
770:
757:trialsanderrors
84:
55:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1694:
1692:
1683:
1682:
1665:
1663:
1662:
1661:
1660:
1641:
1640:
1628:
1627:
1601:
1600:
1599:
1598:
1586:
1585:
1584:
1583:
1582:
1581:
1580:
1579:
1578:
1577:
1558:badlydrawnjeff
1543:
1511:
1510:
1509:
1508:
1507:
1506:
1505:
1504:
1503:
1502:
1501:
1500:
1499:
1498:
1497:
1496:
1495:
1494:
1484:badlydrawnjeff
1461:badlydrawnjeff
1433:badlydrawnjeff
1429:
1422:thrown away.
1405:
1404:
1403:
1336:
1335:
1334:
1333:
1332:
1331:
1263:
1262:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1236:
1235:
1234:
1233:
1232:
1231:
1230:
1229:
1103:
1098:Maximusveritas
1091:
1079:
1067:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1030:
1029:
1007:
1006:
997:
984:
983:
982:
937:
936:
935:
907:
891:
879:
863:
833:
832:
831:
830:
826:badlydrawnjeff
802:
783:
762:
750:
730:
729:
728:
692:
680:
679:
678:
677:
676:
664:
616:
615:
614:
613:
612:
611:
610:
609:
608:
607:
606:
605:
604:
603:
602:
601:
600:
590:badlydrawnjeff
558:
540:
539:
538:
537:
536:
464:
463:
462:
396:
395:
394:
393:
392:
391:
380:actively using
343:
342:
333:
332:
317:
316:
315:
305:badlydrawnjeff
283:
282:
270:
258:
257:
256:
247:Southern Drawl
223:
211:
210:
209:
208:
207:
175:badlydrawnjeff
162:
147:
137:CanadianCaesar
83:
78:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1693:
1681:
1679:
1674:
1668:
1667:
1666:
1659:
1656:
1655:
1651:
1647:
1643:
1642:
1639:
1636:
1632:
1631:
1630:
1629:
1626:
1623:
1622:
1618:
1614:
1610:
1606:
1603:
1602:
1597:
1594:
1590:
1589:
1588:
1587:
1574:
1569:
1568:
1567:
1563:
1559:
1554:
1553:
1552:
1549:
1544:
1542:
1539:
1534:
1533:
1532:
1529:
1525:
1524:
1523:
1520:
1516:
1513:
1512:
1493:
1489:
1485:
1481:
1480:
1479:
1476:
1472:
1471:
1470:
1466:
1462:
1457:
1456:
1455:
1452:
1448:
1444:
1443:
1442:
1438:
1434:
1430:
1428:
1425:
1420:
1416:
1415:
1414:
1411:
1406:
1402:
1399:
1394:
1389:
1385:
1384:
1381:
1377:
1372:
1368:
1367:
1366:
1363:
1359:
1358:
1357:
1354:
1350:
1349:
1348:
1345:
1341:
1338:
1337:
1330:
1327:
1323:
1318:
1313:
1309:
1305:
1304:
1303:
1300:
1296:
1292:
1291:
1290:
1287:
1283:
1278:
1277:
1276:
1275:
1272:
1267:
1261:
1258:
1253:
1249:
1246:
1228:
1225:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1214:
1211:
1207:
1203:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1194:
1190:
1185:
1184:
1183:
1180:
1176:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1166:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1156:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1146:
1142:
1138:
1137:
1136:
1133:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1122:
1119:
1115:
1111:
1107:
1104:
1102:
1099:
1095:
1092:
1090:
1087:
1083:
1080:
1078:
1075:
1071:
1068:
1066:
1060:
1053:
1049:
1046:
1042:
1039:
1035:
1032:
1031:
1028:
1025:
1021:
1020:
1019:
1016:
1012:
1009:
1008:
1005:
1001:
998:
996:
993:
988:
985:
981:
978:
974:
969:
966:
965:
964:
961:
957:
953:
949:
945:
941:
938:
934:
931:
928:
924:
920:
919:
918:
915:
911:
908:
906:
903:
899:
895:
892:
890:
887:
883:
880:
878:
875:
871:
867:
864:
862:
859:
858:
855:
850:
847:
846:
845:
844:
840:
827:
823:
822:
821:
818:
814:
810:
806:
803:
801:
797:
793:
792:
787:
784:
782:
779:
778:
775:
773:
766:
763:
761:
758:
754:
751:
749:
746:
742:
741:WP:NOTABILITY
738:
734:
731:
727:
724:
719:
714:
713:
712:
709:
705:
700:
696:
693:
691:
688:
684:
681:
675:
672:
668:
665:
663:
660:
657:
653:
650:
649:
648:
645:
641:
638:
637:
636:
633:
630:
626:
623:
620:
617:
599:
595:
591:
586:
585:
584:
581:
577:
573:
569:
568:
567:
564:
559:
557:
554:
550:
546:
541:
535:
532:
529:
524:
523:
522:
519:
514:
510:
506:
505:
504:
501:
498:
493:
490:
489:
488:
485:
482:
477:
476:
475:
472:
469:
465:
461:
458:
454:
450:
449:
448:
447:
446:
443:
439:
438:
437:
434:
431:
426:
423:
422:
421:
418:
414:
411:
410:
409:
406:
402:
398:
397:
390:
387:
384:
381:
377:
376:187,000 links
373:
369:
365:
364:
363:
360:
355:
354:
353:
350:
345:
344:
340:
335:
334:
330:
326:
321:
318:
314:
310:
306:
302:
301:
300:
299:
298:
297:
296:
293:
289:
281:
278:
274:
271:
269:
266:
262:
259:
255:
252:
248:
244:
240:
237:
236:
235:
232:
227:
224:
222:
219:
215:
212:
206:
203:
200:
196:
192:
189:
188:
186:
185:
184:
180:
176:
172:
170:
169:George Lakoff
166:
163:
161:
158:
155:
151:
148:
146:
142:
138:
134:
130:
127:
123:
120:
119:
118:
116:
112:
108:
102:
98:
94:
90:
82:
79:
77:
76:
73:
69:
65:
62:
61:
58:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1672:
1669:
1664:
1652:
1619:
1613:weasel words
1604:
1572:
1548:Northmeister
1514:
1418:
1392:
1387:
1379:
1370:
1339:
1316:
1311:
1307:
1294:
1281:
1265:
1264:
1247:
1174:
1105:
1093:
1081:
1069:
1047:
1033:
1015:62.77.181.16
1010:
999:
986:
967:
955:
954:it with the
951:
947:
939:
923:Godwin's Law
909:
893:
881:
869:
865:
852:
848:
836:
808:
804:
789:
785:
777:
771:
764:
752:
736:
732:
708:Northmeister
694:
685:per Ryan. --
682:
666:
651:
639:
618:
580:Northmeister
553:Northmeister
491:
424:
412:
400:
379:
375:
371:
368:google check
367:
319:
287:
285:
284:
272:
260:
238:
225:
213:
194:
190:
164:
149:
121:
93:encyclopedic
92:
88:
85:
53:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1648:above. :) -
1615:, though. -
1344:Jonathunder
1059:Her Pegship
874:KleenupKrew
872:per above.
772:zero faults
366:Really? My
1646:User:Derex
1252:JamesMLane
1206:JamesMLane
1114:JamesMLane
960:Glenncando
809:very least
451:There's a
286:*Cleanup,
243:pejorative
1417:P.S. you
1175:something
886:InShaneee
372:999 links
1084:, fork.
1000:Redirect
992:Bjsiders
987:Redirect
914:8bitJake
882:Redirect
870:redirect
218:Terraxos
46:Redirect
1538:Rjensen
1519:Rjensen
1475:Kasreyn
1451:Kasreyn
1424:Kasreyn
1410:Kasreyn
1398:Fearwig
1362:Fearwig
1353:Kasreyn
1326:Fearwig
1286:Fearwig
1282:rewrite
1257:Charles
1222:that.--
1179:Fearwig
1155:Fan1967
1145:Fearwig
1052:Fearwig
1038:Fearwig
1034:Comment
1024:Kasreyn
977:Fearwig
968:Comment
902:RWR8189
898:Fearwig
745:Kasreyn
723:Fearwig
667:Comment
652:Comment
640:Comment
563:Fearwig
518:Fearwig
509:Rjensen
484:Fearwig
442:Fearwig
425:Comment
413:Comment
386:Fearwig
359:Kasreyn
349:Fearwig
265:Fan1967
239:Comment
122:Comment
107:Deville
97:Deville
1654:Smooth
1635:kizzle
1621:Smooth
1573:sounds
1528:kizzle
1380:beyond
1299:RickDC
1295:Delete
1271:RickDC
1224:kizzle
1165:kizzle
1132:kizzle
1086:BryanG
1011:Delete
940:Delete
910:Delete
866:Delete
857:(Talk)
849:Delete
796:(Talk)
791:JW1805
687:kizzle
671:kizzle
453:little
417:FRCP11
405:FRCP11
339:nigger
325:nigger
292:FRCP11
261:Delete
195:{...}
150:Delete
1593:Jozil
1193:Griot
952:merge
817:Derex
644:BigDT
457:Derex
277:Nertz
251:BigDT
231:Griot
157:BigDT
16:<
1562:talk
1515:Keep
1488:talk
1465:talk
1437:talk
1419:have
1340:Keep
1312:more
1308:more
1250:per
1248:Keep
1106:Keep
1050:per
896:per
894:Keep
868:and
854:Tjss
839:talk
594:talk
547:and
401:Keep
329:kike
309:talk
214:Keep
179:talk
165:Keep
111:Talk
101:Talk
1650:Big
1617:Big
1607:as
1374:to
1317:not
1004:GWO
89:has
64:Lar
48:to
1459:--
1393:is
1163:--
975:.
900:--
815:.
737:ic
706:--
624:,
588:--
331:).
327:,
249:.
113:)
66::
1213:c
1210:t
1121:c
1118:t
1062:♥
1056:♥
930:@
659:@
632:@
531:@
500:@
471:@
433:@
202:@
109:(
99:(
72:c
70:/
68:t
60:+
56:+
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.