Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User:Higuys

2012-05-25T03:35:06Z

Higuys: Adding userboxes

Hello I'm Higuys. I prefer Wikipedia and think Conservapedia is more bias than they claim Wikipedia is.
{{userboxtop|Higuys, Time Lord}}
{{User Evo}}
{{User noBush}}
{{User gay rights}}
{{User guncontrol}}
{{User Political Compass|-2|-2.82}}
{{User Liberal}}
{{User atheist}}
{{User noforcedreligon}}
{{User Bible just book}}
{{userboxbottom}}

Conservapedia talk:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia

2012-05-25T03:16:11Z

Higuys: /* 13 */ new section

{{protect|Aschlafly}}

== Additions ==

Great additions, Ed! --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 22:46, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

==British English==

'''NO LONGER BANNED'''

We non US English speakers now have freedom to speak
:Freedom! Freedom! --[[User:Faizaguo|Faizaguo]] 12:35, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

==General questions==
I think you meant authoritative support, but I won't correct it, it's your doc. So are you still going to say your site is neutral?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:29, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: Good point. Thanks. I corrected it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:37, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Authoritative Source==
I would really like to know more about this "authoritative" source. What counts as "journalist opinion" vs. "reporting of facts" this is particularly important in regards to issues being raised at on this [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_Talk#Quality_of_References talk page]. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: A big flaw in Wikipedia's system is that it treats journalist's opinions as authorities. They aren't. In a court of law, such attempts would be laughable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:37, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Does this mean that Creationwiki is not considered authoritative? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:38, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:: So if an article written by a journalist is quoted and its merely reporting events "such and such happened" "this was said by this person" then the source is fine? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:39, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Sure, that's fine. But Wikipedia improperly converts a journalist's biased opinion into a factual assertion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:06, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Its not so much that "''Wikipedia''" ''improperly converts a journalist's biased opinion into a factual assertion'' but that a particular ''editor'' did. That could happen here too. Such edits remain until another ''editor'' changes them. The more popular the article the quicker questionable edits are likely to be changed.
::::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 04:14, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

==Original research==
Point 5 should be clarified so that it doesn't clash with "always cite sources" and "must be true and verifiable". Original Research can get out of hand very quickly, I think. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:46, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Correct, in the hands of a responsible editor original research can add synthesis of ideas that would otherwise be impossible to include, and can be valuable. The reason it is shunned on Wikipedia though is that you wind up getting every crank out there with a new "unified theory of everything" or a high school algebraic solution to Fermat's Last Theorm that is being repressed by the establishment claiming a right to publish it here. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:48, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::My issue exactly. I'm not THAT much of a fan of the OR rule myself, but I can understand why it's there and thus support it in general. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:50, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Original work can be labeled as such. There is no reason for Wikipedia to censor it, except to enforce its liberal view of the world.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::So if I come up with my own theory of how the universe was created, I could post it here as OR without the need to cite any sources? And the admins won't be allowed to delete it, although it shows a complete lack of backing by anybody? ...thank you. :D --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:19, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: I don't know Mr. Schlafly, as I said I can see the value of original works to a certain extent, but as more and more of the [[George Hammond]]'s of the world find this site you may be innudated with original research that is nothing but a detractor and a nuisance. There are many, many individuals on the internet with all kinds of crazy ideas and all of them would love a place to post them where they will get views. The questions becomes do you want your site to be a repository for all the crazy theories of the internet? If not there needs to be some sort of qualification, restriction or clarification. However, that being said we are not at the moment being innudated with such entries. This policy may work for now, its just something to keep in mind. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:20, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: If properly labeled, then I don't see a problem. We'll see. Wikipedia allows hundreds of thousands of entries of pure junk, such as terms invented for rap songs. Wikipedia's complete ban on original work seems a bit contrived and limiting to me. We shouldn't be stuck in the past and act like nothing new is good.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:32, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

While I agree that some original work should be allowed, letting any and all OR into Conservapedia articles would create a terrible mess. Somebody could come and claim "Moses and Jesus fought a boxing match in heaven", and nobody would be able to argue. Perhaps we should merely allow inflections and commentary, based off of what can be gathered in a source? Wikipedia doesn't allow this. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:35, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: The presentation of new ideas is perfectly acceptable, but a freely editable encyclopedia is not the correct venue for this. Protecting your ownership of these original ideas is very difficult when both the statement of the idea and developer of it can be changed by anyone with a free account. Additionally, users shouldn't be given the perception that new ideas are widely accepted, when in most cases they are not accepted until they are no longer considered 'new'. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:37, 21 March 2007 (CST)

:Such commentary might border on opinions and unencyclopedic language, though. (Funny thing is that Conservapedia doesn't even ''have'' a rule about encyclopedic tone...) Or will we allow "49.9% of the population" to be changed to "less than half the population" and "50.1%" to "the majority"? It's certainly not wrong, but it's also not what an encyclopedic article would write (Disclaimer: I'm not 100% familiar with Wiki rules, but I think I recall a rule about using exact terms and numbers if possible.). I think Conservapedia has enough issues with being taken seriously already. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:47, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::The very existence of Conservapedia is a joke. People who disband from a freely editable encyclopedia because they believe it is biased simply don't wish to have their statements checked by people with opposing viewpoints. You're right that people aren't taking it seriously, but I doubt minor changes to the rules will make people overlook that constant, unfounded criticism of Wikipedia that runs rampant in so many articles here. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 18:01, 21 March 2007 (CST)
:::(chuckles) I agree with you, but I still think that it may have a chance of becoming a bit... more accepted (as more than a source of endless entertainment at least =P). Thus, I support "minor" changes to the rules when they have the potential of making a difference in the way people apply them.
:::Broadly allowing all forms of OR can lead to chaos, and a change of the rules later on is tied to much clean-up work. If the rule stays, then there should at least be some clarification, for example in the form Hojimachong suggested. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Gossip==

Point 1 is baseless criticism of Wikipedia. The statement "We do not allow gossip, just as a real encyclopedia avoids it" implies that Wikipedia allows gossip, which it does not. I propose that this difference be removed from the list. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:01, 21 March 2007 (CST)

: You can't be serious. Are you? Numerous entries in Wikipedia have gossip that would never appear in a real encyclopedia. We have several examples in [[Bias in Wikipedia]] but that is only the tip of the iceberg.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I'm not here to dispute the fact that gossip exists on Wikipedia. The differences page implies that it is allowed or encouraged, which it is not. A careful reading of the rules for editing on Wikipedia clearly excludes gossip from the set of valid information sources. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:12, 21 March 2007 (CST)

::: Which Wikipedia rule forbids gossip??? Show me and let's enforce it against what, about 100,000 entries there?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:18, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Wikipedia refers to it as NPOV (Neutral Point of View). The full explanation of where and when opinions (including gossip/second-hand opinions) may be used is located here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial] --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:24, 21 March 2007 (CST)

::::: OK, I went to your link and searched on the word "gossip". It doesn't appear. '''Wikipedia has no rule against gossip'''. Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:26, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::You have to dig a little bit further into the policies to see it [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources stated] - "Not all widely read newspapers and magazines are equally reliable. There are some magazines and newspapers that print gossip much of which is false. While such information may be titillating, that does not mean it has a place here." --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:29, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::: A simple text search for the word gossip returns no hits, however gossip fits into the larger category of opinion. The citation of opinions on Wikipedia is permitted, but under specific guidelines. Show just one of these 100,000 entries that use gossip and cite it as fact, and I'll find five pages that enforced this regulation. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:29, 21 March 2007 (CST)

:::: Gossip is different from "opinion". Come on, let's not pretend that we don't know what gossip is. The "fact" that John Tower's ex-wife refused to accept flowers from him as she was dying in the hospital is gossip. Wikipedia allows it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: That statement doesn't appear on Wikipedia. Not all opinions are gossip, but gossip is wholly contained in the realm of opinion. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:40, 21 March 2007 (CST)

:::: Really, has Wikipedia deleted it? If so, then it was only after criticism here. Check out the entry on Bertrand Russell on Wikipedia and more gossip greets the reader. It's pervasive. By the way, facts often qualify as gossip, so your definition is not correct.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:46, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: Don't you think you're giving yourself a little bit too much credit there? You make it sound as if all of Wikipedia scans your massively important list for things to correct. The probability of somebody reading your list and then editing it is quite small, compared to people getting to the page through other ways and editing it in the normal Wiki process. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:50, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Criticizing a 1.5 million-page wiki based on a few of its worst pages isn't fair, especially when they clearly go against the wiki's policy. (much like Wikipedia's article on Conservapedia isn't really fair for picking out a few of the worst articles here, articles that are likely to be improved up within a few weeks or months) --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 20:44, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Andy, you've given examples of gossip, but if we could come up with an actual definition to follow, that would be helpful. Gossip is in the eye of the beholder.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 18:27, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

My suggestion is this: '''Personal websites may not be used as an article's reference.''' If we put that into force we will save ourselves enormous amounts of difficulty. Gossip is always personal opinion. Personal websites abound in gossip. And, it is often presented as part of a larger page that has some attention getting element. An example is in the [[Scientology]] article where Andreas Heldal-Lund's personal site, xenu.net is cited [http://www.xenu.net/archive/audit/latey.html] for his hand typed representation of a court document. But also appearing on the page are his evaluations and criticisms and bias about the court document and surrounding issues. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 18:44, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:For further exposition on "personal websites" interested editors should review this [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_Talk#Quality_of_References discussion]. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 19:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Aschlafly, your definition of gossip seems to be information that sheds negative light on a person or idea that you support. Please correct me with an explicit definition? --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:50, 21 March 2007 (CST)

::Isn't saying that wikipedia deleted something because of your criticism a form of gossip? What proof do you have that it was your criticism that caused the edit? Wikipedia is under constant ''internal'' scrutiny from a large population of editors. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:56, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I think the only instance when a Wiki edit was actually (quasi-)proven to originate here was the issue of "elementary proof" or whatever the name was. And that was a case of "...well, you could've created the entry yourself in the time you spent writing the criticism". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:00, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Not to mention Wikipedia actively discourages anything like [[debate topics]], let alone links to it from the sidebar. Gossip indeed. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 20:44, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Folks, I'm not going to debate the pervasive gossip in Wikipedia with you further. At the rate you're going, you might also claim the National Enquirer doesn't have gossip! Actually, I suppose its employees might claim that. If you think Wikipedia is free of gossip, then so be it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:50, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Gossip is a very vague word, what is one (wo)man's gossip is another's hard facts! So before the term "gossip" gets thrown about too much we ought to have a concrete definition of it. [[User:Mathmo|Mathmo]] 01:09, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I asked above for a definition of gossip so that the rules can be followed clearly. I have no interest in debating Wikipedia...it's irrelevant. But, I would like a definition of gossip if it is going to stay a commandment. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:30, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

==Bias==

''7. We do not allow liberal censorship of conservative facts...'' - Do you allow conservative censorship of liberal facts? This isn't clear. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 18:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: No, we don't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:05, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks, I think that should be explicitly stated then. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 18:14, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Conservative facts? What is that supposed to mean? Sounds like some kind of hippy, commie relativism to me! Facts are facts. --[[User:Zerba|Zerba]] 12:32, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

: Yes JamesK. Conservative censorship is allowed, as evidenced by this page: [[Alger Hiss]]. The fact that the accuracy of the released Soviet documents is disputed, and that a key FBI witness committed perjury while testifying that a typewriter cannot be used for forgery is completely ignored in this account. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:09, 21 March 2007 (CST)
:: this is all sour grapes from a disgruntled former editor of wikipedia. it is not to be taken seriously. Ashlafly is simply a member of the radical right disguising himself, albeit poorly, as a conservative. Do not take him seriously. He is baised against anythnig that doesn't support his ideosyncratic agenda. 20:24, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

"Conservative facts? What is that supposed to mean?" I agree, what does it mean? How can a fact be of different political alignments? You can check it the [[Wiktionary:fact|definition]]. --[[User:Trekie9001|trekie9001]] 16:06, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
: They're ''special'' facts. Y'know, the ones that are so obviously true, they don't even need citations. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

::You mean the ones that exhibit ''truthiness''? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 16:40, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

== Neutral? Censorship? ==

''"3. We do not allow obscenity, while Wikipedia has many entries unsuitable for children. "''

This point conflicts with point one... A real encyclopedia doesn't avoid issues that may be considered "unsuitable". One example is [[Intercourse|Sex]]. One of the oldest and most respected encyclopaedias out there, Encyclopædia Britannica, has a page on [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9067000/sexual-intercourse|Sexual Intercourse]. What's wrong with a scientific article on something completely natural, something which is very much involved with Christianity? I really cannot understand.

I shall return. [[User:O2mcgovem|O2mcgovem]] 19:39, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:That is a very good point. The fact that the sex article has been censored on this site is a bit odd. There is no need to get into the depth that Wikipedia goes into about human sexualit, sex positions, etc. But some acknowledgment or treatment of the way that nearly all multi-cellular organisms come to be seems to be something that shoudl be included in anything claiming to be "encyclopedic".--[[User:Zerba|Zerba]] 12:36, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== items 1,4 and 7 seem to be mutally exclusive ==

and are not applied to actual pages. if we're going to state these rules they should ve consistent and supportable. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 20:19, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
* I assume 7 is referring to Andrew's lectures ([[Economics Lectures]], [[World History Lectures]])? If so, perhaps Conservapedia may eventually have something like Wikinews' [http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Original_reporting original reporting] policy, which allows original work, as long as it's labeled as being authored by an identifiable person. (and Wikinews' policy would make point 7 invalid as well) --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 21:13, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:: it would lend much needed credibility to this project if editorials and opinion were labeled as such. As it is it smacks of intellectual dishonesty. not that it seems to matter here, as intellectual seems to be a bad word. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 23:54, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Name Change==
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to call it "Differences from wikipedia" or "How Conservapedia is different from Wikipedia"? "Differences with wikipedia" sounds awkward. If you want to take a good idea from wikipedia, you might make a "What conservapedia is not" page.[[User:IMFromKathlene|IMFromKathlene]] 01:43, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Neutral to the facts? ==

What facts are these that justify a daily bible comment on the front page?

Honestly, I have no problem with the Bible quote. It has nothing to do with any controversy about facts. It is simply a quotation that the founders of this site wish to share.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 18:35, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:Surely what or what isn't a ''[[Terrorism|terrorist group]]'' group depends on the definintion used and the perspective of the definer.
::''If a group is a terrorist group, then the label "terrorist" is used here but not on Wikipedia.''
:What definition is being used here - and wouldn't that be an opinion likely to controvene no. 2?
:Admittedly that only states that the ''opinions of journalists'' are unacceptable. Are other opinions acceptable? Though I can only assume they are also subject to ''authoritative support''. Who is the authority on what or what isn't a ''terrorist group''? It there also an authority on [[fact]]s?
:A real encyclopedia would [[Conservapedia:Attribution|attribute]] claims that a particular group is terrorist to those doing the claiming?
:[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 10:51, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

== Restrictions ==

5. We have less restrictions on the reuse of our material than Wikipedia does.

In what way? how? This means nothing on it's own. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 11:27, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Users here have been unable to grasp wikipedia's copyright, so they've determined it is 'cumbersome' whereas conservapedia's apparent founder has said something like "anybody can copy our stuff until we object" . . . it's pretty clear, given the dishonest and unacademic tone of the rest of this site, how that should be parsed. More evidence that this site is a platform for radicals and zealots, dishonest ones at that, rather than actual conservatives or, heaven help us, Christians. I more than half suspect this site is some sort of joke intended to make average good hearted Christian-Americans look like fascists and nut-cases. But perhaps thats just because it is apparently run by misguided high school students.[[User:Godman|Godman]] 18:01, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Copyright differences ==

The page currently reads "By entering information on Wikipedia you are actually losing rights to your own material, and cannot copy your own material elsewhere without complying with Wikipedia's burdensome copyright restrictions." That's incorrect... Wikipedia contributors are required to license their contributions under the GFDL, but under the law, the contributor still owns the copyright to the work* and may license the contribution under other additional licenses. Wikipedia even encourages this sometimes. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Granting_work_into_the_public_domain#Advice_for_users_of_our_content]

GFDL is just a normal license that is used outside of Wikipedia, and it has no clauses akin to "transfer the copyright ownership to the site I post it on". I can write a poem by myself, license it under the GFDL, and post it on Geocities, but I'm still the copyright holder. Same goes with Wikipedia --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 12:49, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

: I've clarified point one, and responded on [[Conservapedia talk:Copyright]]. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Thank you very much, the factual bits are correct now at least. And there are a number of people who criticize copyleft licenses for being [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft#Is_copyleft_.22viral.22.3F "viral"], so that sentiment isn't too far out of the mainstream (though I think personally think there are good reasons for some of the restrictions... it ensures that the community, rather than Jimbo or the Wikimedia Foundation, will forever own and control the content... there have been [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDDB#History unfortunate incidents] in the past where a community contributes under the belief that their work will always be freely available, but it's later closed off and used only for commercial gain). --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 19:18, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== stubs ==

''12. We do not encourage the insertion of distracting "stubs" in entries. Wikipedia has numerous distracting stubs on entries.''

In Wikipedia, a "stub" is a short article, like a [[Conservapedia:Very Short Article]]. In fact Conservapedia has a template called <nowiki>{{stub}}</nowiki> that puts a large box at the top of the article noting that it is a Very Short Article and placing it in [[:Category:Articles needing major improvement]]. This category is still manageable here with less than 1000 articles in it. As Wikipedia is so much larger, the stub categories are further divided so that editors can find stub articles they have the interest or knowledge to expand. Wikipedia stub tags are a line or two of italic text at the bottom of an article (often with a small image next to them), less visually intrusive than the large blue box at the top of articles here.

This point should be either deleted or clarified to explain what difference is actually highlighted. Perhaps "Short Wikipedia articles are called "stubs" and are marked at the bottom of the article, short Conservapedia articles are called "VSAs" and are marked by a blue box at the top. Both markings invite readers to extend the article." --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 00:39, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*As you might have been noticing, there is more of a push on here to discourage their placement, in favor of short, factual and concise entries, over verbose and lenghty ones. Templates are most certainly not encouraged here, and when found on questionable articles, removed. I actually see the ability to place templates on articles restricted here, to Sysop's and above soon. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:43, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia places stubs on almost anything that is short. But concise entries are ''better'' than the wordy, overly verbose entries that dominate Wikipedia. it seems that a high percentage of entries on Wikipedia have "stubs" placed on them. Who wants to be distracted by that? It's silly and, as TK says, we don't want them here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:03, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Stub articles can serve a legitimate purpose if there are very few of them, to alert us of the real problems (i.e. when Germany was one paragraph long). I suspect that was the original intent. Obviously, this isn't happening. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

: I take the stub notices out whenever I see them now, unless truly deserved. Also, let's warn and, if necessary, block editors who are inserting lots of stub notices. Thanks and a good Easter to you, MountainDew!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:22, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::How about this? "12. Short Wikipedia articles are called "stubs" and are marked at the bottom of the article, very short Conservapedia articles are called "VSAs" and are marked by a blue box at the top, but these markings are discouraged. Both markings invite readers to extend the article, however a typical "complete" Conservapedia article is generally much shorter than a "complete" Wikipedia article." --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 01:58, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*I'm not that long out of College to remember what a pain it was, those overly long, verbose entries, when trying to fact-check, and research! Scott, I agree, we could site the two examples, and play-up our penchant for ''concise'' over wordy articles, for the sake of wordiness. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 02:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

**Neither website (nor a paper encyclopaedia) is an appropriate source for tertiary-level research. Most of Wikipedia's Good and Featured articles have extensive reference lists which might be useful, but you're still relying on someone else's literature search with no idea if it's complete. Wikipedia tends to cite online and free (as in beer) articles rather than paper or paid sources as they are more accessible to the majority of editors. That is also a bias problem for serious research, and I haven't noticed a significant difference in that area at Conservapedia, which in general has a lot less references. World Book Encyclopaedia's short/concise articles give a quick and simple overview. Encyclopaedia Britannica has longer articles that give a fair amount of detail, like Wikipedia. True research means go and find your own sources. (Disclaimer: I graduated before the Internet existed). Should we have a guideline here that articles are aimed for the attention span and reading level of a 12-year old (i.e. like World Book)? --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 02:28, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*That is kind of snobbish, no? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 03:10, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

**My last sentence? Possibly, but Aschlafly can move the number up or down, a guideline like that would help to clarify vague terms like "concise", "family-friendly" etc. The problem with Conservapedia is that it is trying to be too many things - an alternative to Wikipedia that presents items from a conservative POV instead of a Neutral POV should aim to carry informative and deep articles on the main items where conservatives differ from both liberals and moderates. However many of these articles are censored or hijacked due to the second goal of being a family-friendly and safe resource for home-schooled children. This goal is hard because family-friendly for an eight-year-old is different to family-friendly for a sixteen-year old. Articles on subjects like sex and families need to present different stuff, or at least one group will be looking elsewhere for information. The latest idea is that Conservapedia might be a [[think tank]]. Yet another goal, with yet another set of competing criteria to do it well. If these three or four goals were in separate websites or separate namespaces each linked from the front page, editors and readers could choose which they want to be involved in, and perhaps some of the complaints about sysop control would be addressed by people recognising different rules in different spaces. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 05:41, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

I think "distracting stubs" meant that placing the {{tl|stub}} template was presenting a distraction. Both Mr. Schafly and [[User:Conservative]] IIRC have criticized its application. No one is objecting to well-written articles that simply happen to be short.
*A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but that every word tell. [William Strunk, Jr.] http://web.clas.ufl.edu/users/rhatch/pages/02-TeachingResources/readingwriting/05c-essy.htm

Wikipedia suffers from stylistic strictures. It has a prejudice against concise writing and favors "blather" over cohesion. All articles must be created by a process of accretion, as if 100 monkeys at a typewriter could eventually produce the works of Shakespeare. (MUST I point out this use of [[hyperbole]]? That link being a red one, I guess I must. ;-)

At some future date, I may write an article on [[military communications]] which will expose the weaknesses of traditional [[command and control]] ideas, based on the insights of retired Marine Corps General [[Paul van Riper]]. Here's a taste:
*"We would not get caught up in any of these mechanistic processes. We would use the wisdom, the experience, and the good judgment of the people we had." (Page 118 of [[Malcolm Gladwell]]'s ''[[blink]]''.)

Van Riper's Red Team beat the Pentagon's best and brightest in a military exercise called the [[Millennium Challenge]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:11, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::Ed, I suspect you are right what is ''intended'' by point 12. It is not what it ''says''. I have made two attempts in this talk page section to propose rephrased sentences that I think say what is meant. I'm not allowed to edit the actual page, so can only discuss proposed changes here, leading to interesting tangents if no sysop actually picks up the changes quickly. The "wiki way" (not just Wikipedia) is that I would make a change, and others would improve it in the page itself and eventually we would reach an improved consensus. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 07:27, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::#I didn't write item #12.
::#You can ask the protecting sysop to unprotect the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Scott, I don't think the site owners care about the "wiki way" very much, neither do I, for a Conservapedia, that gives full credit to Conservative values, and Christian thinking. Consensus reached with those who don't think too highly of non-PC thoughts, and Conservative values isn't consensus, but watering down, IMO. How could it be otherwise? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 07:34, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::This is verging away from stubs and into a discussion of the relative merits of [[conservatism]] and [[liberalism]]. Continuing on this tangent, I will agree with Terry and run the ball a bit further.

::Conservatives want to preserve what is good, i.e., what we already have. This doesn't mean their minds are closed to new ideas which are also good. We're not sending letters by pony express here but using a [[wiki]] on the [[Internet]]. Just because Al Gore invented it, doesn't mean it's evil <wink>.

::I just think that C's are less close-minded than L's. Read ''[[Closing of the American Mind]]'' for a lengthy essay which argues that liberal "open-mindedness" actually leads to mental impoverishment and destruction. Do Liberals consciously desire poverty and chaos? Hardly. But the problem remains unsolved. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:27, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::[[User:Aschlafly|The protecting sysop]] has responded in this thread, but did not change the article, or unprotect it. This appears to be the usual Conservapedia attitude to "...preserve what is good, i.e., what we already have." At least I haven't been reverted for deleting information about Tanzania from [[Tonga]] or Laos from [[Fiji]]. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 09:44, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Tonga? Laos? *head is spinning --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 12:19, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
**A couple of editors a month ago appear to have had a ''very'' spotty understanding of world geography, and got several countries mixed up. I removed material from articles it was not about. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 18:51, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

: Scott, I'm not sure what you want me to respond to. We discourage defacing concise articles here with ugly "stub" banners. Here we encourage conciseness. At Wikipedia, the culture seems to think more words are better. Not so.

: Also, we favor concise rules. We're not going to have thousands and thousands of words about rules here. God covered all of life with Ten Commandments, and many of them were just a few words long. We're going to have fewer here. If you like bureaucracy, then you might prefer Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:26, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::Ed has now corrected the most obvious problem with the point - thanks. The issue appeared to be a misunderstanding of Wikipedia. The new version is close enough I wouldn't have commented. I have no problem with conciseness, but short-and-wrong is not as good as long-enough-and-right. I continue to contribute to Wikipedia as well, and do not come here with the chip on my shoulder that everything about Wikipedia is wrong, unlike some people here. If we are to criticise Wikipedia, the criticism should be fair and true. Both stubs and VSAs allow a project to extend its breadth quickly, and hopefully others will come behind to increase the depth of coverage. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 18:51, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== User names? ==

Yep, names like "Conservative", "CoulterMan", etc., aren't ''at all'' like those mentioned. Are you guys aware that "Nearly Headless Nick" is the name of a character from a book? --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 14:00, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:I'd shy away from bashing user names, if you want a lot of creative people coming in to edit you're bound to get creative user names. Also, the fact that we have a user who goes by the name of [[User:MountainDew| MountainDew]], (which, at best, is a euphemism of illicit neutral grain spirit and at worst a trademark violation) who is not an ordinary registered user but a sysop, would be like shooting a gun with a "U" shaped barrel. MOO [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 14:26, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
No offense, but your name is a racial slur. I don't think you have any room to complain about my name. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:03, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:Ahem? Is it now too offensive to enjoy saltine crackers, or similary culinary treats? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:05, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Well, he's accusing my name of being a reference to moonshine, so that's just as logical. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:06, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:Mountain Dew is right; this has been just one more of an army of provocateurs. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:08, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Hacker, please refrain, as you know I will do something about it, starting with those whose name is the very epitome of vandalism, eh? I am so glad we could all reason together. Aren't you? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:17, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Hacker, as I clearly stated, my objection to "Nearly Headless Nick" (and "The Ostrich") is that they are anti-intellectual. I notices how you omitted the fact that it is a character from a CHILDREN'S book.

Wikipedia is an anti-intellectual movement. The anti-intellectual names add to this fundamental defect. Wikipedia is the internet version of the Cultural Revolution, causing a generation of students to throw out real encyclopedias and look for quick, easy and heavily biased answers by anti-intellectual editors.

As TK points out, Hacker, your pen name is hardly commendable either for an online project.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:19, 15 April 2007 (EDT) 

:I find it irrelevant that it's a children's book. However, I apologize for the PAs.

:Now, as to my username: please read the explanation I have placed on my userpage, in anticipation of such an issue. Then please proceed to read [[hacker]], Hacking for Christ[http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/gerv/][http://www.gerv.net/hacking/why-hacking-for-christ.html], the Wikipedia article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker hacker], [http://www.userfriendly.org/ User Friendly], the Jargon File entry on [http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/H/hacker.html hacker], [http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/hacker-howto.html How To Become A Hacker], etc. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 18:20, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

TO:[[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] point taken...as this is only my sig name I will amend the signature to me real name, thusly: [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 16:40, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::Hacker, my point was, it was a pot calling the kettle black kind of comment. Yours. Since you surely don't expect all users should be required to read your user page, do you? I repeat, why the bother in making such comments, when most of your work is superior? Is everyone that bored? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 18:30, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== Move ==

I'll be moving this to the Conservapedia: namespace, as it is not encyclopedic, and violates commandment 3. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 00:23, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

*Really? --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 09:16, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

==#11==
I have issues with this one. A user's talk page is a place for discussion and debate. This rule/difference makes it very easy for a sysop to decide he doesn't like being told he's wrong and block any offending users instead of confronting the argument. The user page is what should be controlled as that is their personal space. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 12:54, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

: You can tell the Sysop once, and you can tell other Sysops. You cannot pester or attempt to bully someone on his own talk page. Conservatives respect a man's home as his castle. Ditto for one's own talk page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:11, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

::PF Fox, don't post any more to my User talk page. See #11 in Differences with Wikipedia. Thank you.--Aschlafly 16:43, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:::LOL! --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 19:21, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

==#16 - "anti-intellectual"?==

What makes names like "The Ostrich" anti-intellectual, exactly? I know it's sooper-dooper fun to sit around being preoccupied with stuff like this, because it provides Christians/conservatives with some "cause" to partake in that doesn't involve "inconveniences" like sending money to Africa or helping out at soup kitchens, but honestly---God is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being beyond all impeachment. Do you honestly think he cares whether rinky-dink little humans are squabbling about the biography of William Donald Schaefer? That's doubtful. I mean, seriously. The universe that he has created for us is a lot more interesting than bickering about axioms and abstract concepts like 'Conservative' and 'Liberal', right? I can't imagine anything more 'conservative' than conserving all the energy, time, manpower, and effort we've wasted on this endless debate. As for the "Liberals"? Let God sort them out on the other side of the curtain, eh? {{unsigned|Refugee621}}

: I couldn't follow your entire message, other than to observe that an ostrich hides his head in the sand. That has anti-intellectual connotations. Try applying for a graduate program by saying how much you'd like to be like an ostrich, and then let us know much that impresses the professors.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:39, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::Should it be clearly expressed in the Commandments, Guidelines or Manual of Style? Or is there already a requirement? [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 07:43, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:: Um, usernames are just that- usernames. They aren't generally meant to have deep symbolism or referrences to cliches of what some animals represent. Claiming that Wikipedians' usernames are somehow anti-intellectual frankly makes Conservapedia look silly. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 10:56, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

::: JoshuaZ, if you agree that comments can be anti-intellectual, then surely usernames can be anti-intellectual also. Usernames can convey a message or POV, and if anti-intellectualism exists, then a username can convey that POV. As Wikipedia so perfectly describes in one of its finest entries, "duh"! :-) --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:04, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: It might be possible for some extreme examples of usernames to be anti-intellectual (such as maybe [[User:BooksRfun2Burn]]) but the notion that having a username of a certain animal is anti-intellectual simply because there exists a certain cliche about that animal is laughable. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 16:19, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::Wikipedia editor "The Ostrich" has made a total of ten edits since the end of July 2004.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/The_Ostrich] Not really an example of a typical Wikipedia editor these days. [[User:WhatIsG0ing0n]] and [[User:Wikinterpreter]] for example at Conservapedia have far more edits than that, with just as silly user names. There are three people with the surname "Ostric" in the White Pages in New South Wales - "The Ostrich" would meet the Conservapedia requirement for being derived from a person's name for these people. The silly names comparison should go. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 08:59, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

== Bad English ==

Surely the title of the article should be '''Differences from Wikipedia'''. [[User:Catherine|Catherine]] 08:22, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

: Thanks for your contribution. But I think differences "with" is correct when comparing characteristics or views of members in of the same group. For example, "President Bush has had some differences with (not from) Vice President Cheney recently."

: But I'm open-minded about this. Can you explain your position more fully? Welcome, and Lord bless you for your efforts here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:29, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

:: I don't think "differences from" is correct either, but neither do I think "differences with" is any better. I think I'd go for "differences to", but I'm not certain that's correct either, plus there might be a difference between what's "correct" in Australian English vs. American English. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:33, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

: "Differences with" retrieves 1.59 million Google links, suggesting that it is common usage, Philip. But I'm open to improvements.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:41, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

::I probably have my Google settings differently (e.g. only English pages returned). I get 1.25 million hits for "differences with", 1.24 million hits for "differences from", and 1.21 million hits for "differences to". At this level, this indicates that all are roughly equally used. The next step would be to try and determine if they are being used in the same context. For example, I think "differences with" might tend to be used for something that has changed, so you are talking about "difference with" the product compared to the older version, for example. But I'm not sure on this. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:59, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

::I don't think that counting the number of Google hits is a valid way of determining correct usage. It just shows that there are a lot of ill-educated people publishing on the internet. However, I appreciate the distinction between ''differences with'' (as applied to arguments) and ''differences from'' (comparison). ''Different to'' is always wrong (according to my old English grammar teacher). In the context of the article I would have thought that the comparison term was the correct application. [[User:Catherine|Catherine]] 13:13, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

: Catherine, you may be right and I greatly appreciate the feedback. However, I find it very awkward to say, "I have differences from Jim." It just sounds wrong to me. It sounds much better to me to say, "I have differences with Jim." Ditto for Conservapedia and Wikipedia, each of which is really a collection of editors and a respective approach. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:00, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

::Catherine may well be right about "to", but thinking more about this, I wonder if "differences with Wikipedia" is really saying how ''Wikipedia'' is different from something else (earlier version of Wikipedia, normal encyclopedias, Conservapedia, or whatever), whereas what this article is trying to say is how ''Conservapedia'' is different from Wikipedia.
::Maybe the solution is to change the title to, for example, "Differences between Conservapadia and Wikipedia".
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:24, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

:::That sounds better, or maybe "How Conservapedia differs from Wikipedia". [[User:Catherine|Catherine]] 05:43, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

::::Differences between Conservapadia and Wikipedia sounds good, or Catherine's suggestion. I have called this thread to Andy's attention as it's his baby. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:54, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

:::"Difference to" is everyday language form, "difference from" or "difference between" are commonly used good English. Talking about personal difference should have different preposition but this not that kind of case. (Let's google also "different xxx" - not only "difference xxx") --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 11:30, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

: Done. Thanks much, Catherine!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:41, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

== #4? ==

"4. We encourage conciseness here, like a true encyclopedia. Wikipedia implicitly encourages (through its use of stubs) long-winded, verbose entries, making it difficult to recognize the essential facts."

If this is, in fact, the case, then why is there an '<nowiki>{{expand}}</nowiki>' keyword not only available, but used by editors here? Does this not implicitly encourage long-winded, verbose entries? To avoid slipping into hypocrisy, I would advise that Conservapedia either stops making such an allegation against Wikipedia or cease all used of this practice be it called <nowiki>{{stub}}</nowiki> or "cleverly" disguised as <nowiki>{{expand}}</nowiki>. --[[User:TokenModerate|TokenModerate]] 14:10, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

== Journalistic sources? ==

Difference #6 states:
<blockquote>We do not allow opinions of journalists to be repeated here as though they are facts. Instead, we require authoritative support. Wikipedia presents as facts numerous assertions that are based merely on journalists' (biased) opinion.</blockquote>

I am not doubting the research done in [[Homosexual Public Indecency Tolerated in San Francisco]] and [[Hamilton Square Baptist Church riot]] (I believe there is a strong bias only showing one side of the story - but that is another matter and a battle I know is a losing one) but I am curious as to how an articles that are purely drawn from journalist accounts meshes with this difference.

Personally, I believe that journalistic sources are good and necessary to have as they are often primary sources of information rather than an abstraction later. This keeps Conservapedia a secondary source of information rather than a third or fourth level source. But if difference #6 is to be maintained, then a critical look at those two articles and future articles that depend upon journalistic sources needs to be made. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 13:44, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

== "Anti-intellectual names"? ==

What the heck? [[User:The Ostrich|The Ostrich]] 19:51, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

*Indeed. Do you attend school or go to your place of employment and insist on being called "The Ostrich"? No, because you would never be taken seriously.....--[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:09, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

**Online, pseudonymity is key for many people. What can they do otherwise for a unique identifier? Are you suggesting that a substantial privacy risk should be taken? I don't mind using my name, people think I'm joking, but what should people seeking a unique, memorable, and private identity name themselves online? your two-letter combination can't serve the Internet's millions - we'd run out after 262. [[User:INTregued|INTregued]] 00:06, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:::: Would you give someone your resume if it was printed in unreadable non-standard font that also substituted letters from non-english alphabets for the the standard ones? How is that different, .....--? Oh, you think it's cute so IT IS different. [[User:Mandrew|Mandrew]] 07:58, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
::: Do you think no one takes R.USirius (our however it is spelled) seriously? [[User:Mandrew|Mandrew]] 08:01, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

I would like to point out that Nearly Headless Nick is actually from the ''Harry Potter'' novels written by author J.K. Rowling. I think that is actually a very clever pseudonym and is intellectually worthy.

:Do you think that Pokemon is also "intellectually worthy"???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:37, 20 June 2009 (EDT)

::Yes it is "intellectually worthy". I would not see it as something that an adult should reference when creating a username though. I think that a username should have some meaning that most people could easily identify.

== Drive to improve this page - your help is desired ==

I am reviewing this section both for edits, clarification, and for possible new entries to the list. Improvements, suggestions, or constructive criticism are welcome. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:37, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

== numbers 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, ==

#Number 1 is either obviously wrong or critically misleading: the GDFL is specifically designed to allow users to retain ownership of their contributions while allowing free redistribution. You do not lose any rights whatsoever to what you contribute when you contribute under a GDFL license, since you still own the original version. Your only restriction is once another person edits an article - then, ''the article'' is no longer yours, but your original content still belongs to you. Further, it allows you to prevent mirrors from claiming that they are the creators of your content - you can file a DMCA takedown notice based on your copyright, whereas public domain content is, well, public domain.
#While I remain puzzled as to what is meant by "entries and discussions which are anti-intellectual in nature" (I see no "nerds, you suck" pages on Wikipedia, and the assertion itself seems unfounded (examples, please?)), Wikipedia has merely chosen to separate its lectures, guides, et cetera into separate projects (Wikiversity, Wikisource, Wikibooks) to concentrate on a core goal of creating an encyclopedia. Number 2 thus seems grossly misleading - it is not that Wikipedia is lacking, it is that Conservapedia's content is jumbled together (which may or may not be a good thing :) ).
#While Jimbo Wales did co-found Wikia, it is noted repeatedly as being otherwise unaffiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation. Further, what search engine is associated with Wikipedia?!? Number 3 seems almost ridiculously unhinged.
#
#Gossip isn't exactly allowed on Wikipedia either. I hear they have a really strict [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biography_of_living_persons policy about unreferenced material on living people]. Perhaps number 5 could use a fact-checking tune-up?
#
#
#Neutral to the facts? Conservapedia freely admits being highly pro-Christian, pro-Conservative, and pro-US. The last time I heard that called neutral... there wasn't a last time. Further, what's wrong with using the word "militant"? They mean virtually the same thing, and "militant" isn't politically charged, as "terrorist" is. Number 8 seems to be missing the point: what's wrong with trying to be neutral? Besides, organizations widely recognized as being terrorist in nature are usually labelled as such regardless.
#It's a wiki: anyone can change anything. If your content is supported by consensus, backed up by references, and bolstered by not presenting a lopsided view of the situation in question, it's unlikely that any user, even a sysop, could get away with censoring content. just as I assume is the case on Conservapedia. Got a case in point? I'd like to hear about it. Number 9. Turn me on, dead man.
#Excluding original research makes any reference more reliable. While Conservapedia may think that this "promotes a more intellectual atmosphere", any trained scientist will know that a single experiment, original research, is in and of itself unreliable. Until results are confirmed by multiple parties, which is unlikely to happen, the information obtained should not be trusted. Number 10 marks double digits of shame.
#Do you have a case in point? I recall seeing [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines Wikipedia's talk page guidelines], and it seems to me that users have a pretty wide latitude on their own user pages, as long as they aren't disrupting everyone else (in which case, as a misbehaving child might, it is obvious for them to lose some privileges).
#
#Perhaps Wikipedia has exacting rules, but it has been my experience that users are blocked because they make an edit which annoys a sysop on Conservapedia, for example [[User:NeutralParty]] who was blocked for asking about a series of indefinite IP range blocks. Wikipedia's rules would seem preferable to the apparant mob here. I was once blocked for an inappropriate username, with the summary "choose a different username" while having my IP blocked from creating accounts. If I am blocked for posting this, you merely prove my point - Conservapedia needs better blocking rules. Oh well.
#But you have no system for recognizing which people are experts, so your policy is just as bad - you simply treat all new users as... new users - which doesn't seem to be any different from Wikipedia. Unless, again, you can think of a case in point?
#Case in point? Someone being blocked for blog posts obviously was causing a real problem to be blocked. Your statement lacks both context and clarity for the instance.
#And what is your alternative to pseudonymity? Users who have inappropriate usernames are immediately and indefinitely blocked with invitation to choose a better name immediately. Further, I fail to see how usernames are inherently "anti-intellectual" - it's the contributions that matter, not the name.

::I have a bit of a problem with these "differences", and I have outlined my problems with them above. I don't mean to be an annoyance, but were someone to point out the holes in these differences, it might look like you were arbitrarily smearing Wikipedia. Which you aren't, right? I'd like to see some improvement here. [[User:INTregued|INTregued]] 23:53, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

::: I read as far as your implication that Wikipedia does not have gossip. Surely you're joking. Wikipedia is the National Enquirer of the internet. Or perhaps you don't think the National Enquirer has gossip either????--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:32, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::::I'm not joking. My problem is that I don't see the evidence to support that claim which you make. While anonymous users add stuff all the time, the metaphorical chaff is quickly separated from the similarly metaphorical wheat, with most unproductive or nonsensical edits being reverted. Further, while Wikipedia may contain some gossip (I certainly imagine that it is quite difficult to police nearly 2m pages simultaneously with only volunteers), it isn't exactly ''allowed'', as the statement implied. Either point me to something on Wikipedia saying that gossip is allowed, or if there is gossip, point it out and some loyal Wikipedian will notice and remove the offending text within a few hours. Simply saying "Wikipedia is the National Enquirer of the internet" is a meaningless smear if one cannot provide a valid justification for the comparison. It's not so much what is right - it is the respectability of being able to back up an otherwise questionable claim. I assume Conservapedia wishes to be respectable. [[User:INTregued|INTregued]] 08:02, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::Please remove #3 immediately, it is just plain ridiculous. Who ever wrote that was probably reading news articles with headlines such as "Wikipedia to launch search engine", many of those news articles were so inaccurate that they were not even revised, but taken off the web. I understand that you are referring to Wikia Search when you say search engine, but as one of three Wikia Search sysops I know that the biggest myth about it is that it is in some way connected with Wikipedia. We are constantly fighting this myth. Please make your site more credible by removing this factual inaccuracy off of it. Thanks! [[User:Mschel|Mschel]] 10:07, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::::: INTregued, your comments are an example of how a [[liberal]] can make an absurd argument with a straight face. Countless articles on Wikipedia are filled with gossip and it's obvious that the gossip attracts visitors, just as the National Enquirer does. This is not vandalism. Do you think the National Enquirer is vandalized before publication??? To take just one example, check out Bertrand Russell's entry on Wikipedia. I'll let you find the gossip. There are thousands of examples like that, and it is not vandalism. Conservapedia has a rule against gossip. Wikipedia does not. More examples are at [[Bias in Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:30, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::::: Mschel, learn how to spell "ridiculous" for starters. Then figure out how Wikipedia leaders were able to raise millions for their search engine project. It was due to the actual and expected preferences in directing Wikipedia traffic to the search engine. It's remarkable how many Wikipedia volunteers are fooled by this. Perhaps you're one of them. How about volunteering to work for Microsoft next?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:30, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::You are still making the same mistake as these guys from the press who have no idea what they are talking about. As one of the three admins on Wikia Search, if something like that was going on I think I would know about it. As for working for Microsoft, I object, I do not have one single piece of Microsoft software on my computer, and I have been using Linux for years. :D [[User:Mschel|Mschel]] 10:42, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::: I'm glad you fixed your spelling of "ridiculous". Now perhaps you can tell us how many millions the for-profit Wikia search engine has raised from investors, which Wikipedia admins control and benefit from that for-profit endeavor, and how Wikipedia is and will be being manipulated to give it an advantage. You tell us the details if you know so much. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:10, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::::O my! Someone has been reading too much CNN. [[User:Mschel|Mschel]] 11:18, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:Aschafly, Wikipedia ''does'' have rules against gossip. Perhaps one of the sentences from one of the core policies (Verifiability) will make this clear: "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." Further, you attempt to discount my argument as absurd by calling me a liberal. This would only be an effective retort were I a liberal. I'm afraid that I only skimmed through the article on Bertrand Russell, but I don't see the gossip right away. Could you point me to a specific section or sections? Or has any gossip been appropriately removed? Further, I'm afraid it is not obvious that Wikipedia's "gossip" is the primary attraction to visitors. Also, would you mind reading some of the other complaints? Specifically, number 1 is, IMHO, the worst problem of the lot.
:And regarding Wikipedia admins, they aren't paid. The only connections that Wikia has to Wikipedia are Jimbo Wales and the occasional donation from Wikia, which help keep Wikipedia running - if Wikipedia itself were for-profit, it might have better servers rather than the lag-prone arrays currently responding to the flood of traffic. Further, I'm pretty sure that the great majority of Wikipedia end-users are not even aware of the Wikia Search page, or of any but the most popular Wikia-based sites. Even further than that, I mean no offense, but your last comment sounds somewhat like something from your Enquirer. [[User:INTregued|INTregued]] 12:28, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

: INTregued, you're clueless. Look up gossip in the dictionary and read a copy of the National Enquirer so that you can learn what "gossip" is. Then reread Bertrand Russell's entry on Wikipedia and see the gossip. Read [[Bias in Wikipedia]] for other examples. Wikipedia is filled with gossip, perhaps even more than the National Enquirer is. I'm not going to spend my afternoon teaching you what everyone else knows: the meaning of the term "gossip". I'm not going to respond to you further about this until you admit the obvious, and admit that Wikipedia does not prohibit or even discourage gossip. It welcomes it.

: Your second point also misses the obvious, and I'm not going to dwell on that with you either. Wikipedia generates traffic on the backs of volunteers, and a privileged few have raised millions in a for-profit venture to exploit that traffic. In the terminology of another silly Wikipedia entry, duh.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:59, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:: In the various talk pages about atheism there is a question about who the burden of proof is upon for making a claim. In this case, I believe the burden is upon you. You have stated that there is gossip in the Bertrand Russell page on Wikipedia and yet you leave the evidence as left up to the reader who doesn't necessarily agree with you? Could you please point to specific items to show to others where that gossip is to prove your point? Making vague claims and then leaving it up to the other side to prove or disprove your claims will not win any points in a debate team. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 13:39, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Is the point of this site to be a better alternative to Wikipedia, or to bash it? When I joined I I was under the former impression, I am now leaning towards the latter. For example, if you go to the article about Wikipedia, you don't learn that it is a wiki, all you see is that it's an online encyclopedia, and section after section of mud-slinging. Would someone please explain this to me? [[User:Mschel|Mschel]] 13:17, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

*Mschel, you are yet another common troll. You cannot even post here with openly and with integrity without using proxies to disguise yourself. More Liberal [[deceit]]. Bye. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 13:59, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, Rutm's comment was what I planned to say - have you any good argument besides "it's obvious" that Wikipedia contains and, more ridiculously, encourages gossip? I don't plan on continually pushing against an ''ad hoc'' "it's obvious" argument, or vague references to long articles which might contain only a small percentage of "gossip" left over because the article is not policed strongly enough. Further, Wikimedia routinely publishes third-party audits publicly [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/28/Wikimedia_2006_fs.pdf], which doesn't quite seem in line with the dark for-profit agenda you allege they follow. I'm not counting on you responding, and less on acting (fixing the mistakes quoted), but you might do well if you can recognize that smears without context, references, and/or proof merely damage your credibility. How is this "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" if it cannot write about ideas, for example, Wikipedia's use of the GDFL, without misdirection? I'd like to see this fixed. [[User:INTregued|INTregued]] 23:08, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== Monitor blogs ==

I know that, I wrote a blog about 3 days after they banned me about getting people together to get Wikipedia Shut Down and within 2 hours it was cross posted on Wikipedia and now every one on Wikipedia except a few editors have a negative view on me.--  † [[User:FellowChristian16|Fellow]][[User talk:FellowChristian16|Christian]][[Special:Contributions/FellowChristian16|16]]  19:01, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

:How would you react if a group of people were getting together to shut Conservapedia down? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 13:22, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

::I don't know about FC16, but I wouldn't give a rat's behind for two reasons: (1) it wouldn't be the least bit surprising and (2) it wouldn't have a chance of succeeding. Wikipedia and many of its users are hyper-sensitive to criticism and certain editors make sure any off-WP criticism is quickly and permanently attached to the editors who criticize. This is done to try to smear and discredit said editors. I do not see that happening here (mainly because the critics discredit themselves with their edits). CP does not monitor off-site comments that I've seen. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:42, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
:::It wasn't criticism, it was an outright attack. [[User:EBrown|EBrown]] 21:20, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==Wikipedia million dollar investments==
What's the source of the idea that Wikipedia attracts million dollar investments? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 13:20, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
: none -- a lot of the stuff on this encyclopedia are unsourced claims made to attack wikipedia

:: Not investments in the traditional sense, because Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) is a not-for-profit. The Foundation receives donations and grants. The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sloan_Foundation Sloan Foundation] in March 2008 granted $1 million to WMF for the current financial year and pledged a further $2m over the following two years.

:: But the text on this page reads:
::: ''Wikipedia, while relying on volunteers, uses its traffic to attract million-dollar investments in money-making projects, such as building a search engine.''

:: This is confusing the Wikimedia Foundation, set up by Jimmy Wales,with Wikia, a for-profit set up by Jimmy Wales and Angela Beesley and incorporated in Delaware. It's a wiki-farm, mainly funded by advertising but I understand that it has also received capital from other companies for some of its project. --[[User:TonySidaway|TonySidaway]] 15:00, 11 February 2009 (EST)

==Original research==
Does Conservapedia really allow original research? That's very dangerous. Suppose I was to write (taking an untrue and entirely made up example) "I met Ann Coulter in a restaurant, she was blind drunk and told me she was addicted to cocaine but had managed to keep it from the media". Am I allowed to add that to the article about her? It's based on personal experience, so by the rules of Conservapedia is should be allowed. Is it? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 16:22, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
:Well technically a no originally research rule excludes your own videotapes. So you could interview Ann Coulter, videotape it yourself, and then there is proof and it is also original research. [[User:RobertBobkins|RobertBobkins]] 16:25, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
:Let me be less controversial. There is a persistent editor on Wikipedia who has been asserting that the true name of [[Canada]] is ''Dominion of Canada''. He claims to have discovered this by examining the founding document of the country. Is he allowed to write about his discoveries on Conservapedia? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 16:38, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==Opinion==
"Wikipedia presents as facts numerous assertions that are based merely on journalists' (biased) opinion". Any actual examples of this? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 16:24, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
:Several, many of which are listed on the [[Bias in Wikipedia]] page. One recent example which I exposed after it had been presented as fact for 3 years on WP was a phony quote attributed to Phillip Johnson. The quote was actually one person's biased paraphrase (i.e. his opinion) of what Johnson said. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 18:14, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
:One case in an entire encyclopedia? I bet there are more errors in Conservapedia. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 21:11, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==American==
I was just talking to another editor who says that Conservapedia is explicitly written from an American point of view (meaning United States). Is that the case? If so then I think it would be good to say so on this page. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 16:45, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
:It is in some cases. Many of the political articles about liberalism, conservatism and libertarianism are often overly American-focused, but I wouldn't say there's a large American POV present in Wikipedia as a whole mainly because the British, Canadian, Australian, etc. editors try to fix it. If only they were able to apply such fair-mindedness to the rest of their site... --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 18:21, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
:It might be good to point out the silliness and confusion that can be and is caused by WP trying to be world-minded. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 18:44, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
:Thanks for those comments. However I'm still not clear whether Conservapedia is ''intended'' to be American biased. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 21:53, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
::Have a look at Conservapedia's logo for a second. Then you will see whether Conservapedia is written from an American perspective or not.

== gossip ==

I must point out that in the gossip section, the word 'real' used in that context could be interpreted as meaning that Conservapedia is not an encyclopedia. Also, I believe the protection template on the beginning of this talk page is inaccurate, as I was just able to post this message.

==Item 1==
Item one currently reads as follows:
: ''We allow broader reuse of our material than Wikipedia does. By entering information on Wikipedia you are actually losing rights to your own material to the extent anyone else edits it, as you cannot then copy your entry for use elsewhere without complying with Wikipedia's burdensome copyright restrictions.''

This is confusing rights to one's own material with rights to the material of others.

You still retain complete rights to use your own material as you see fit. If someone edits it they can grant you whatever rights to their material they want.

What Wikipedia does, however, is ensure that ''anyone'' can use the combined work without further negotiation, subject to the GFDL which simply ensures that your contribution is acknowledged (the burden consists, in total, of a requirement to display that acknowledgement alongside the copied or derived material). If they don't want to be "burdened" by the GFDL they can contact you and the other authors and ask for whatever permissions they want. --[[User:TonySidaway|TonySidaway]] 14:24, 11 February 2009 (EST)

==Wikipedia's Money Making Schemes==
We should investigate this and try to overturn the Section 501(c)(3) Tax-Exempt Charitable Organization classification Wikipedia has falsely secured. [[User:MattL|MattL]] 14:44, 11 February 2009 (EST)
:What money making schemes? Accepting grants and donations? Numerous, if not most, respected non-profits do this. I honestly don't see how they are doing anything that could violate their non-profit classification. ----[[User:Mschel|Mark]] [[User_talk:Mschel|(Mschel)]] 19:05, 21 August 2009 (EDT)

== #15 – »blog monitoring« ==

:''»We do not ban users based on their comments elsewhere, such as on their own blog. Wikipedia will monitor users' blogs and ban them for their exercise of free speech on their own blogs«''
Can someone point me to any evidence on this? I cannot quite believe that this is true, but it would be very shocking! --[[User:PhilN|PhilN]] 10:55, 26 October 2009 (EDT)

I'm quite curious to read about this too, does anyone know the source? [[User:RaymondP|RaymondP]] 21:26, 15 May 2010 (EDT)

:About half the time I try to correct something biased with neutral prose, they'll turn around and say, "You're not at Conservapedia." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:11, 15 April 2011 (EDT)
::CP may need to clarify its blocking policy in relation to membership in a website promoting vandalism. That website, or blog, recently has posted a position statement that it does not advocate vandalizing other websites, and has since enacted internal reforms and enforcement mechanisms governing user conduct. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:18, 9 July 2011 (EDT)

== Official names ==

I'm guessing that Conservapedia is a stickler for official names to be used as article names and references rather than any slang or alternetive names. Best example I can think of is that Conservapedia rightly uses the correct name [[Londonderry]] for the city in [[Northern Ireland]] unlike Wikipedia who caved into Irish liberals and now use the incorrect slang term "derry". Shouldn't this be included in the commandments as using correct names for things rather than alternetives. [[User:King1|King1]] 16:14, 14 June 2010 (EDT)

== 13 ==

Wikipedia uses them to encourage new users to edit and help improve articles. Also distracting stub templates? I hardly consider:
This article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. On the bottom the page distracting.

== 13 ==

Wikipedia uses them to encourage new users to edit and help improve articles. Also distracting stub templates? I hardly consider:
This article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. On the bottom the page distracting.

Conservapedia talk:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia

2012-05-25T03:16:04Z

Higuys: /* 13 */ new section

User:Higuys

2012-04-23T01:26:58Z

Higuys: Creating user page

Hello I'm Higuys. I prefer Wikipedia and think Conservapedia is more bias than they claim Wikipedia is.

Talk:Gay

2012-04-23T01:26:05Z

Higuys: /* Happy */ new section

Unlock this so we can edit it. [[User:Televangelist|Televangelist]] 13:33, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

This page should probably redirect to [[homosexual]] rather than being locked as a blank page.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 18:10, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Shouldn't it redirect to [[Happiness]]? [[User:IMFromKathlene|IMFromKathlene]] 05:42, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:Gay people are full of or show high-spirited merriment, or are given to social pleasures often including dissipation: "led a gay Bohemian life"; "a gay old rogue with an eye for the ladies"
:*"when hearts were young and gay""- Wordsworth
:* "a poet could not but be gay, in such a jocund company"- Wordsworth

:Things that are brightly colored and showy may be described as gay: "a dress a bit too gay for her years"; "birds with gay plumage".

:I can't for the love of God figure why this page is redirected to an article about depraved perversity.
:[[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 07:04, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

LOL. You people....

"gay" does not signify promiscuity..? {{unsigned|Mjac1103}}

There is no single "gay lifestyle". There are gays who practice a promiscuous lifestyle, but there are substantially more who form healthy, committed, monogamous relationships. There are many, many heterosexuals who have affairs and lead immoral, promiscuous lives, but somehow this goes unnoticed. The belief that homosexuality is associated with a promiscuous lifestyle is no more than a stigma conferred upon them by a majority of straight people, who, refusing to admit that they are not entirely innocent, project their feelings of guilt and worthlessness on homosexuals. - awrootbeer1

== basic dictionary meaning? ==

Surely this article should say that the original basic dictionary meaning (and indeed the common meaning until reltively recently) was simply '''merry''' ("happily excited, keenly alive and exuberant, having or inducing high spirits," according to my little Merriam-Webster) - and that the word has only recently become synonymous with homosexual (having begun, if I read it right, to gather connotations of licentiousness sometime around the late 19th or early 20th century). Seems to me there is a danger of misleading readers of the article if this is not clearly explained. Any young person reading Shakespeare or 19th-century literature is likely to misunderstand the word "gay", and putting that possible misreading right would surely be a service that this encyclopedia should perform. And what's this stuff about "a crush". Not in my dictionary as a meaning of "gay", nor in my vocabulary! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 13:11, 17 February 2008 (EST)

"Immoral" is a subjective term , it would be better to say "though immoral by some "

==Info==
I wish to add information about gays in Korea, so please to unlock. Thank you.--[[User:Pakhyongshin|Pakhyongshin]] 23:23, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

== Unlock? ==

Why is this locked? I need to add the {{tl|homosexualityb}} template. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:58, 13 November 2008 (EST)

== Open for cleanup? ==

This article is in very poor shape, there is some serious weasel words going on and some info that is flat out factually wrong. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 14:58, 27 June 2011 (EDT)

== Happy ==

This article makes no mention on how gay can also mean happy, or good (as in the Flintstones theme song, "We'll have a '''Gay''' old time".--[[User:Higuys|Higuys]] 21:26, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Wikipedia

2012-04-04T16:01:10Z

Higuys: New section:Bias

[[Talk:Wikipedia/archive1|Archive 1]]

=Page archived=
[[User:JonM|JonM]] 15:15, 21 December 2011 (EST)
==Bias==
Why is it repeatly pointed out that the founders on athesit and agonist? What difference does it make? Not all the user who edit Wikipedia are actually them. If anything this wiki has a bias not only against Wikipeida, but against other things, such as homosexuality, athesim, and the democrat party. On the [[Democratic Party]] article you call them pro-abortion with pro-choice in quotation marks, which indicates that democratics want to kill every unborn baby. While the "sweet" republican party is pro-life, making it seem as if republicans are angels. You then talk about democrats being in support of slavery in the 19 century, not only were democratics like republican and vise versa, but only a small group of democrats supported slavery. Guess where they were? The South! Later they decided to agree with anti-slavery. Obama says oil rigs don't usually cause oil spills, which is true. They don't. In conclusion, you are bias and only Wikipedia articles with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:NPOV_disputes this category] are. Thanks--[[User:Higuys|Higuys]] 12:01, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

Democratic Party

2012-04-04T12:50:03Z

Higuys: /* Gay Rights */ Citation needed

{{AmericanPoliticalParty
| party_name=Democratic Party
| party_articletitle = Democratic Party (United States)
| party_logo = [[Image:democraticpartyusalogo.png|200px]]
| website = [http://www.democrats.org www.democrats.org]
| headquarters = 430 South Capitol Street SE [[Washington, D.C.]] 20003
| chairman = [[Tim Kaine]]
| houseleader = [[Nancy Pelosi]]
| senateleader = [[Harry Reid]]
| foundation = 1832
| ideology = range from extreme [[leftist]] to [[moderate]]
| fiscalpolicy = [[Socialist]]/[[Liberal]]
| socialpolicy = center-liberal/[[Hollywood values]]
| colors = Blue (unofficial)
| footnotes =
}}
The '''Democratic Party''', more properly known as the [[Democrat Party|Democrat Party]], is one of the two major political [[parties]] in the [[United States of America]]. In general it is [[pro-abortion]] ("pro-choice") and supports higher taxes, anti-gun policies, and a larger government, while the [[Republican Party]] is generally [[pro-life]] and supports lower taxes and small government. President [[Barack Obama]] and other Democrats are [[liberal]] / [[Progressive]] leftists.

Members of the Democratic Party are known as Democrats. In the 19th century -- when it supported [[slavery]] -- the party was sometimes called "The Democracy." There are Democrats who claim to be more [[conservative]] than typical liberals, called the "[[Blue Dogs]]" in [[Congress]], but they often behave like "lapdogs" for the [[liberal]] party leadership when there is a controversial vote.

In the doldrums after 2000, the party roared back with major gains in 2006, which it expanded in 2008 to sweep control of the national government, and leave the GOP in a state of confusion and decline. The GOP bounced back in 2009, with near-unanimous opposition to contentions Democratic policies, especially as stimulus spending and health care reform. Polls show Obama's popularity began to sink in the summer of 2009.

The Democrats currently control the White House and hold a slim majority in the Senate, but in the 2010 midterm elections, the Republican party won decisive control of the House of Representatives; suburbs and rural areas are still more likely to be in Republican hands.<ref>[http://www.multistate.com/Site.nsf/Elections2006PostMaps?OpenPage Multistate.com] Post-Election 2006 Maps</ref> Polls show 50% of voters identify themselves with the Democratic Party as opposed to 35% for the Republican Party.<ref>[http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=312 Trends in Political Values and Core Attitudes: 1987-2007] Pew Research Center, 22 March 2007</ref> The Democratic-majority Congress currently has a 55% negative approval rating, with only 31% expressing approval.<ref> [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html]</ref>

==Policies and criticism==
The views of individual Democrats sometimes diverge from the party's official stance as expressed in its national platform, however unlike the Republican party, the Democratic National Committee has not allowed dissenting opinions to share the podium on matters such as abortion at National Conventions. <ref>[http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_03/005787.php] , http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_03/005787.php, March 6, 2005</ref>

===Economic policy===
[[Image:Unemployment.jpg|thumb|241px|right|''Source: Bureau of Labor Statisitcs'' [http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2009/07/anti-stimulus-in-pictures-any-questions.html]]]
In the field of economic policy, Democrats tend to favor high progressive taxes, more regulation, and higher government spending.

The Democratic Party has historically had ties to [[labor union|organized labor]].<ref> http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/913wopoz.asp Paying Dues - The Democrats settle up with their union bosses, [[Weekly Standard]], July 25, 2007 </ref>

The [[National Education Association]],<ref>[http://www.nea.org/index.html National Education Association homepage]</ref> the largest union of public school teachers, is a backbone of the party, supplying the largest number of delegates to its national conventions.

Democrats typically state that they want to help low-income Americans, however they usually seek to accomplish this by increasing the tax burden on the wealthiest Americans.

Since passage of the Economic Recovery Act of 2009, [[unemployment]] has increased from below 7% to slightly under 10%.

===Foreign and military policy===
According to its platform, the Democratic Party has the objective of strengthening America. Democratic national leadership has been accused of being ambivalent about terrorism<ref>[http://www.news10.net/display_story.aspx?storyid=22045 "Democrats, ACLU Outraged Over Traveler Terrorism Screening Program"] C. Johnson, Associated Press</ref> and insufficiently patriotic.<ref>[http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0112/01/smn.19.html CNN Saturday Morning News]Transcript: December 1, 2001 </ref> A poll conducted by [[Fox News]] released in October 2007 found that 1 in 5 Democrats – nearly 10 million voters – think the world will be better off if the [[United States]] were to lose the [[War in Iraq]].<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299374,00.html Nearly 1 in 5 Democrats Say World Will Be Better Off if U.S. Loses War], FOX News Poll, October 04, 2007.</ref> The poll found this sentiment 3 to 4 times higher among Democrats than among moderate, centrist, and Republican voters.

===Education===
An organization affiliated with the [[Democratic Leadership Council]] called the [[Progressive Policy Institute]] claims a long-standing opposition to school vouchers.<ref>21st Century Schools Project Bulletin: Special Edition [http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=110&subsecID=900001&contentID=250630 ''Putting Vouchers in Perspective''], PPI E-newsletter 2 July 2002</ref> Jonathan Alter of ''Newsweek'' warned that opposition to vouchers might alienate some traditional Democratic voting blocs:
:"Can wealthy white liberals - many of whom send their kids to private school - really say to poor parents: 'We can have choices, but you must not?'...This is a glaring hypocrisy sitting at the heart of the liberal opposition to targeted vouchers… Right now, Democrats are in a highly compromised position on education."<ref>[http://www.edreform.com/index.cfm?fuseAction=newsLetter&sectionID=29&NLissueID=4&articleID=11&altCol=2 Center For Education Reform, Monthly Letter to Friends No. 75], Back to School 2002.</ref>

===Environment vs Labor===
Two other important coalition groups also find themselves in direct conflict with each other within the Democratic party coalition--[[Environmentalist]]s and Labor Unions. While environmentalists support efforts like clean air and alternative fuels, for example, this creates tension with the workers of American automobile manufactures whose jobs are threatened by environmental policies such as increasing regulations and high costs. Such policies can lead to cutbacks and layoffs. Balancing these issues is difficult because some sacrifices of interests must be made by both sides.

===Healthcare===
Democratic leaders have endorsed various [[Democratic Health Care Plans]]; the question in 2009 was whether a new trillion dollar plan could pass in a time of economic crisis. On March 21, 2010, [[ObamaCare]] was passed by Congress into federal law.

Many argue that there may be some advantages to a universal health care system. Democrats generally regard [[universal health care]] to be a priority because of the appeal to poorer voters without any kind of [[health insurance]].

===Gay Rights===
White Democratic leaders --but not blacks or Latinos--consistently favor measures such as the establishment of [[same-sex civil union]]s.{{citation needed}}

===Other Policies===
Democrats frequently support the minimum wage, workplace protections, the right of women to choose to have an [[abortion]], [[gun control]], gay marriage, and the separation of church and state.

==Religion==
In the United States, there is some correlation between religious and political affiliation, though people of all faiths and denominations can be found among the supporters of each of the main parties.

Historically [[Roman Catholic Church|Catholic]] voters have had a tendency to identify with the Democratic Party; in recent decades there has been little difference. However Catholic politicians are mostly Democrats, including Speaker of the House [[Nancy Pelosi]]. However, several general ideals of the Democratic Party's platform - most notably, the party's overall support for the legality of [[abortion]] - are contrary to the position of the [[Catholic Church]].

With regard to Protestants, members of [[Evangelical]] churches in recent years have voted about 70-80% Republican. However, the large majority of Democratic Party members are Protestants. One unusual feature of the Democratic Party, however, is that it draws substantial support both from committed African-American Protestants (most of whom are Baptists) and from secular and atheist voters. The strong opposition to [[homosexuality]] found among many Black Protestants contrasts strikingly with the support frequently shown by other Democrats for the [[homosexual agenda]]. One reason for this contrast could be the Democrats' strong support for minority rights.

Democrats also generally believe that religion should be separate from public life, and as such are typically supported by the ACLU. For example, in 1999 the Congress took up a bill to protect the display of the [[Ten Commandments]]. In the House of Representatives, over 3/4ths of the Democratic party members voted to remove the display.<ref>http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/06/18/gun.rollcall/ten.commandments.html</ref>. The measure did not pass the Legislature, and as a result when Justice [[Roy Moore]] posted a [[Ten Commandments]] display in his courthouse, the ACLU was able to have the display removed.

==History==
[[File:Dem-leaders.jpg|thumb|300px|Clockwise from far left: presidents Carter, Kennedy, Clinton, Wilson, Johnson, Truman, Jackson, Roosevelt]]
===First Party System===
Democrats claim the [[Thomas Jefferson]] founded their party in 1793 at the start of the [[First Party System]]. The [[Democratic-Republican Party]] was a political party established during the 1790's under the leadership of Thomas Jefferson and [[James Madison]]. It was generally called the Republican Party, but it had no relation to today's Republican Party, founded in 1854. By about 1816, the Federalist Party had broken up as a national organization. With its decline, the Democratic-Republican Party split into several groups. [[Andrew Jackson]] emerged as the candidate of one of these groups and was elected President in 1828.

===Origins===
Most historians regard Jackson's 1832 campaign organization as the beginning of today's Democratic Party. The Democratic Party itself traces its origin to Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party.<ref>[[World Book]]</ref> A few Democratic-Republicans, such as [[John Quincy Adams]] and [[Henry Clay]], created the [[National Republican Party]]. Adams supporters called themselves National Republicans, antecedents of the Whig and later the Republican parties.<ref>William DeGregorio, ''The Complete Book of U.S. Presidents'', Gramercy 1997</ref>

The modern Democratic party was formed during 1828-34, under the national leadership of Jackson and Van Buren, with organizations in all the states comprised of local political leaders. This became the era of [[Jacksonian Democracy]]. The Jacksonians resembled the [[Jeffersonian Democracy|Jeffersonians]] especially in terms of anti-elite rhetoric of opposition to "aristocracy" (that is, wealthy old families), distrust of banks (and paper money), and faith in "the people." By his extensive use of federal [[Spoils system|patronage]], President Jackson removed old office-holders to make way for party loyalists. With the emergence of the Whig Party, the nation now had a new party system, the [[Second Party System]], which lasted until 1854.

The party held its first national convention in 1832 to choose a new running mate for Jackson; it nominated Martin Van Buren for vice president and endorsed the reelection of Jackson. Jackson easily defeated Clay in 1832. In the political realignment of 1828-32, some of Jackson's supporters from the election of 1828, especially businessmen and bankers, switched to the opposition Whig Party as Jackson crusaded against the [[Second Bank of the United States]]. The name "Democratic Party" became common by the mid-1830s.

== Jacksonian Democracy: 1832-1854 ==
[[image:donk1837.jpg|thumb|300px|1837 cartoon shows Democratic Party as donkey ]]
The new party dominated the [[Second Party System]] (as political scientists call it; historians call it "Jacksonian Democracy", 1832-54. After 1832, the Democratic Party drew support from a cross section of the country; every group was represented. However the vast majority of rich merchants, bankers and plantation owners were Whigs, as were most evangelical Protestants. The party was strongest among traditionalistic farmers, frontiersmen, unskilled workers, Irish Catholics, and local or state political leaders. It was weakest in [[New England]], where industrialization turned most factory workers and white collar workers into Whigs, but was dominant in all other regions. The key issues it promoted were opposition to elites and aristocrats, popular democracy (in terms of voting rights and access to government patronage jobs) and opposition to the [[Bank of the United States]] (Jackson vetoed its charter renewal in 1832). The policies were known as [[Jacksonian Democracy]]. [[Image:Jackson1832.jpg|thumb|300px|left]]

Banking and tariffs were the central domestic policy issues from 1828 to 1852. The Democrats favored the [[Mexican-American War]]; Whigs opposed it. Democrats attracted Catholic Irish and German immigrants and denounced anti-immigrant nativism. Both the Democrats and Whigs were divided on the issue of slavery.

In the 1830s the [[Loco-Focos]] in New York City were radically democratic, anti-monopoly, and proponents of [[laissez-faire]]. Their chief spokesman was writer [[William Leggett]]. At this time labor unions were few; some were loosely affiliated with the party.

The economy went sour in the late 1830s with Van Buren getting the blame; he lost reelection as president in 1840 to the Whig [[William Henry Harrison]]. The Democrats gained the White House back in 1844 with [[James K. Polk]]. He had a successful term, then retired. The Democratic National Committee was created in 1848 at the convention that nominated General [[Lewis Cass]], who lost to General [[Zachary Taylor]] of the Whigs. In state after state the Democrats gained small but permanent advantages over the Whigs, until by 1852 the Whig Party was fatally weakened by divisions regarding the issue of slavery and they soon vanished.

The Democratic party dominated the North from the 1840s to 1854. Northern Democrats opposed banks, criticized corporate practices, and preached the ideals of a free society. They called for rapid territorial expansion of the United States, saying that in territorial expansion lay a means for thwarting the pretensions of the [[Slave Power]].

[[Franklin Pierce]] of New Hampshire was elected president in 1852, followed by [[James Buchanan]] of Pennsylvania in 1856. They proved poor presidents who lost control of the slavery issue, and the party, as the nation broke apart and fought the [[American Civil War]].

==Third Party System: Civil War, Gilded Age: 1854-1896==
During the [[Third Party System]] (1854-1896) the Democrats became the minority in the face of the newly formed Republican Party, which controlled nearly all northern states by 1860, bringing a solid majority in the Electoral College. A powerful Republican issue was the allegation that northern Democrats, including "Doughfaces" like Pierce and Buchanan, and advocates of popular sovereignty like [[Stephen A. Douglas]] and [[Lewis Cass]], were accomplices to the [[Slave Power]]. The Republicans meant by Slave Power the conspiracy of slaveholders to seize control of the federal government and block the progress of liberty.

[[Image:DEM1860.JPG|200px|thumb|left|To vote for Douglas in Virginia, a man had to deposit the ticket in the official ballot box.]]
In 1860 the Democrats were unable to stop the election of Republican [[Abraham Lincoln]], even as they feared his election would lead to civil war. The party split in two. The northern wing nominated Douglas, and the southern wing nominated Vice President [[John C. Breckinridge]]. Douglas campaigned across the country and came in second in the popular vote, but carried only Missouri. Breckinridge carried 11 slave states.

The Republican Party was beginning a 50-year era of dominance (1858-1910). During the war, Northern Democrats divided into two factions, [[War Democrats]], who supported the military policies of President Lincoln, and [[Copperheads]], who strongly opposed them. Historian Kenneth Stampp has captured the Copperhead spirit in his depiction of Democratic Congressman [[Daniel W. Voorhees]] of Indiana:
<blockquote>There was an earthy quality in Voorhees, "the tall sycamore of the Wabash." On the stump his hot temper, passionate partisanship, and stirring eloquence made an irresistible appeal to the western Democracy. His bitter cries against protective tariffs and national banks, his intense race prejudice, his suspicion of the eastern Yankee, his devotion to personal liberty, his defense of the Constitution and state rights faithfully reflected the views of his constituents. Like other Jacksonian agrarians he resented the political and economic revolution then in progress. Voorhees idealized a way of life which he thought was being destroyed by the current rulers of his country. His bold protests against these dangerous trends made him the idol of the Democracy of the Wabash Valley.<ref>Stampp, 211.</ref></blockquote>

The Democrats lost consecutive presidential elections from 1860 through 1880 (but 1876 was in dispute); 1884 was their next victory. The Democrats were weakened by their record of opposition to the Civil War but nevertheless benefited from white Southerners' resentment of Reconstruction and consequent hostility to the Republican Party. The [[Redeemers]] gave the Democrats control of every Southern state; the disenfranchisement of black voters in most of the South took place 1890-1900. From 1880 to 1960 the "[[Solid South]]" voted Democratic in all presidential elections (except 1928). After 1900 the key election in southern states was the Democratic primary; victory in the that primary was "tantamount to election" because the GOP was so weak.

Though Republicans continued to control the White House until 1912 (except 1884 and 1892), the Democrats remained competitive in the states, especially in the mid-Atlantic and lower Midwest, and controlled the House of Representatives for most of that period. In the election of 1884, [[Grover Cleveland]], the conservative Democratic Governor of New York, won the presidency, a feat he repeated in 1892, having lost in the election of 1888.

[[Image:1893cleveland-typewriter.jpg|thumb|350px|Typewriters were new in 1893 and this Gillam cartoon from ''Puck'' shows that Cleveland can't get the Democratic "machine" to work as the keys (key politicians) won't respond to his efforts.]]

Cleveland was the leader of the [[Bourbon Democrats]], the conservative wing of the party. They represented business interests, supported banking and railroad goals, promoted capitalism, opposed imperialism and U.S. verseas expansion, opposed the annexation of [[Hawaii]], fought for the [[gold standard]], and opposed [[Bimetallism]]. They strongly supported reform movements such as [[Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act|Civil Service Reform]] and opposed corruption of city bosses, leading the fight against the [[Tweed Ring]]. The leading Bourbons included [[Samuel J. Tilden]], [[David Bennett Hill]] and [[William C. Whitney]] of New York, [[Arthur Pue Gorman]] of Maryland, [[Thomas F. Bayard]] of Delaware, [[William L. Wilson]] of West Virginia, [[John Griffin Carlisle]] of Kentucky, [[William F. Vilas]] of Wisconsin, [[J. Sterling Morton]] of Nebraska, [[John M. Palmer]] of Illinois, [[Horace Boies]] of Iowa, [[L.Q.C. Lamar]] of Mississippi, and railroad builder [[James J. Hill]] of Minnesota. A prominent intellectual was [[Woodrow Wilson]]. The Bourbons were in power when the [[Panic of 1893]] hit; it was a deep depression and they took the blame. A fierce struggle inside the party ensued, with catastrophic losses for both the Bourbon and agrarian factions in 1894, leading to the showdown in 1896.
[[Image:Dead-dem1880.jpg|thumb|550px|In 1880 when General Hancock (right) became the presidential nominee of the Democrats, Republican cartoonists showed the Democratic party history as a horror chamber featuring atrocities in the Civil War era; the donkey" shows the party as a coalition of the rear end of the South joned to the rear end of the North]]

===Ethnocultural voting: pietistic Republicans versus liturgical Democrats===
Religious lines were sharply drawn.<ref>Kleppner (1979).</ref> Methodists, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Scandinavian Lutherans and other pietists and evangelicals in the North were tightly linked to the Republican Party. In sharp contrast, liturgical groups, especially the Catholics, Episcopalians, and German Lutherans, looked to the Democratic Party for protection from pietistic moralism, especially prohibition. Both parties cut across the class structure, with the Democrats more bottom-heavy.

Cultural issues, especially prohibition and foreign language schools became important because of the sharp religious divisions in the electorate. In the North, about 50% of the voters were pietistic or evangelical Protestants who believed the government should be used to reduce social sins, such as drinking. Liturgical churches (Roman Catholics, German Lutherans, Episcopalians) comprised over a quarter of the vote and wanted the government to stay out of the morality business. Prohibition debates and referenda heated up politics in most states over a period of decade, as national prohibition was finally passed in 1918 (and repealed in 1933), serving as a major issue in the North between the wet Democracy and the dry GOP.<ref>In the South the Democrats were mostly on the dry side. Kleppner (1979).</ref>

==The Bryan Movement==
[[Image:Mark Hanna 1896 election.jpg|thumb|290px|right|Democratic attack ad in 1896 against GOP National Chairman [[Mark Hanna]]; cartoon by Davenport depicts Hanna as a slave driver; from Hearst's ''New York Journal'']]
[[Grover Cleveland]] led the conservative, pro-business [[Bourbon Democrat]]s but as the [[Panic of 1893|depression of 1893]] deepened his enemies multiplied. The Panic of 1893 started in February 1893, a full month before Cleveland became president. Convinced that the [[Sherman Silver Purchase Act]], passed under the administration of [[Benjamin Harrison]], was largely responsible for the alarming drain on federal gold, President Cleveland called Congress into special session to urge its repeal. Congress consented, but only after bitter debate that divided the Democratic party into two hostile camps-the eastern "goldbugs" and the silver wing of the West and South that was to propel young [[William Jennings Bryan]] to the fore in 1896.<ref>William DeGregorio, ''The Complete Book of U.S. Presidents'', Gramercy 1997</ref> At the 1896 convention the silverite-agrarian faction repudiated the president, and nominated the crusading orator [[William Jennings Bryan]] on a platform of inflation through "free" silver. The idea was that minting huge numbers of silver dollars would flood the economy with cash and end the depression. Eastern Democrats, unable to accept the party's free-silver platform and unwilling to support McKinley for his tariff views, nominated their own candidate, John M. Palmer of Illinois and called themselves the National, or Gold, Democrats.<ref>William DeGregorio, ''The Complete Book of U.S. Presidents'', Gramercy 1997</ref> The [[Gold Democrats]] attracted politicians and intellectuals (including [[Woodrow Wilson]] and [[Frederick Jackson Turner]]) who refused to vote Republican.

Bryan, an overnight sensation because of his phenomenal "Cross of Gold" speech, crusaded against the gold standard. Crisscrossing the Midwest and East by special train, he gave over 500 speeches to audiences in the millions. In St. Louis he gave 36 speeches to workingmen's audiences all over the city, all in one day. Most Democratic newspapers were hostile (except [[William Randolph Hearst]]'s ''New York Journal'') but Bryan seized control of the media by making the news every day, as he hurled thunderbolts against Eastern monied interests. The rural folk in South and Midwest were ecstatic, showing an enthusiasm never before seen. Ethnic Democrats, especially Germans, however, were alarmed and frightened by Bryan. The middle classes, businessmen, newspaper editors, factory workers, railroad workers, and prosperous farmers generally rejected Bryan's crusade. Bryan was overwhelmed by [[William McKinley]] in the most exciting race in national history.<ref> Refuting Bryan's charges, historians have discovered there was little coercion of workers.</ref> McKinley promised a return to prosperity based on the gold standard, support for industry, railroads and banks, and pluralism that would enable every group to move ahead. Bryan did however, win the hearts and minds of a majority of Democrats. The election of 1896 was a political realignment. The victory of the Republican Party marked the start of the "Progressive Era," from 1896 to 1932, in which the GOP usually was dominant.

==Fourth Party System: Bryan, Wilson, Progressivism: 1896-1932 ==
The [[Fourth Party System]] began with the 1896 election, a realignment during which the GOP controlled the presidency for 28 of 36 years. The GOP dominated most of the Northeast and Midwest, and half the West. Bryan, with a base in the South and Plains states, was strong enough to get the nomination in 1900 (losing to McKinley) and 1908 (losing to Taft). [[Theodore Roosevelt]] dominated the first decade of the century—and to the annoyance of Democrats "stole" the trust issue by crusading against trusts.

[[Image:Steal~trust.JPG|thumb|250px|[[Theodore Roosevelt]] steals the anti-trust issue from the Democrats, 1904]]

Anti-Bryan conservatives controlled the convention in 1904, but they faced a [[Theodore Roosevelt]] landslide. Bryan dropped his free silver and anti-imperialism rhetoric and supported mainstream progressive issues, such as the income tax, anti-trust, and direct election of Senators. He backed [[Woodrow Wilson]] in 1912, was rewarded with the State Department, then resigned in protest against Wilson's non-pacifistic policies in 1916. Northern Democrats were progressive on most issues, but generally opposed prohibition, were lukewarm regarding woman's suffrage, and were reluctant to undercut the "boss system" in the big cities.

Taking advantage of a deep split in the GOP, the Democrats took control of the House in 1910, and elected the intellectual reformer [[Woodrow Wilson]] in 1912 and 1916. Wilson successfully led Congress to a series of Progressive laws, including a reduced tariff, stronger antitrust laws, the [[Federal Reserve System]], hours-and-pay benefits for railroad workers, and outlawing of child labor (which was reversed by the Supreme Court). Furthermore, constitutional amendments for prohibition and woman suffrage were passed in his second term. In effect, Wilson laid to rest the issues of tariffs, money and antitrust that had dominated politics for 40 years. Wilson led the U.S. to victory in the World War, and turned his attention to foreign affairs. He wrote parts of the [[Versailles Treaty]], especially the new [[League of Nations]]. But in 1919 Wilson's political skills faltered, and suddenly everything turned sour. The Senate rejected Versailles and the League, a nationwide wave of strikes and violence caused unrest, and Wilson's health collapsed. The GOP came roaring back in a landslide in 1920, as [[Warren G. Harding]] defeated a Democratic ticket memorable for having [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] as the vice presidential nominee.

[[Image:D-Edge-Congress.JPG|thumb|300px|Before 1932 Republicans usually controlled Congress; after 1932 the Democrats usually were in control]]

At the 1924 Democratic National Convention, the big fight was over a resolution denouncing by name the [[Ku Klux Klan]]; it was pushed by New York governor [[Al Smith]] and Alabama Senator [[Oscar W. Underwood]] in order to embarrass the front-runner, [[William McAdoo]] of California. After furious debate, the resolution failed by just a single vote. The KKK faded away soon after, but the deep split in the party over cultural issues, especially Prohibition, facilitated Republican landslides in 1920, 1924 and 1928. However [[Al Smith]] did build a strong Catholic base in the big cities in 1928, and [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]]'s election as Governor of New York that year brought a new leader to center stage.

== Fifth Party System: The New Deal ==
[[Image:509px-FDR in 1933.jpg|thumb|left|180px|President [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]] (1933-1945)]]
The [[Wall Street Crash 1929|stock market crash of 1929]] and the ensuing [[Great Depression]] set the stage for a more progressive government and [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] won a [[landslide victory]] in the [[U.S. presidential election, 1932|election of 1932]], campaigning on a platform of "Relief, Recovery, and Reform." This came to be termed "[[New Deal|The New Deal]]" after a phrase in his acceptance speech. The Democrats also swept to large majorities in both houses of Congress, and among state Governors. Roosevelt altered the nature of the Party, away from laissez-faire capitalism, and towards an ideology of economic regulation and insurance against hardship. Conservative Democrats were outraged; led by [[Al Smith]] they formed the [[American Liberty League]] in 1934 and counterattacked. They failed and either retired from politics or joined the GOP. A few of them, such as [[Dean Acheson]] found their way back to the Democratic Party.

After making gains in Congress in 1934 Roosevelt moved left and embarked on an ambitious legislative program called "The Second New Deal." It was characterized by building up labor unions, nationalizing welfare by the [[WPA]] (which 2 million employed unemployed men), setting up [[Social Security]] and raising taxes on business profits.<ref> In general the New Deal, 1933-40, did not raise taxes, except for the Social Security tax that went into effect in 1937.</ref>

Roosevelt's [[New Deal]] programs focused on job creation through public works projects as well as Social Security. In the name of "reform" it imposed strong regulations on the banking and financial system, transportation, communications, stock markets and labor-management relations.

Roosevelt successfully built up the "[[New Deal Coalition]]", a powerful coalition of voters and interest groups that supported liberalism. Key components included big city machines and labor unions. Key voter groups included traditional Democrats, white Southerners, Catholics, Jews, and liberals, as well as many blacks. This united voter base allowed Democrats to be elected to Congress and the presidency for much of the next 30 years.

After a sweeping landslide reelection in 1936--losing only Maine and Vermont--Roosevelt stunned the nation, and his party, by calling for legislation to enlarge the Supreme Court by five new members. A firestorm of opposition erupted, led by his own vice president [[John Nance Garner]]. Roosevelt was defeated by an alliance of Republicans and conservative Democrats, who formed a [[Conservative coalition]] that managed to block nearly all liberal legislation. (Only a minimum wage law got through.) Angry with the conservative wing of his own party, Roosevelt tried to destroy it. In 1938, he actively campaigned against five incumbent conservative Democratic senators; all five senators won re-election.

Under FDR, the Democratic Party became identified closely with modern liberalism, which included the promotion of social welfare, unions and regulation of the economy. Civil rights were not on the party agenda at this time.

==Truman to Kennedy: 1945-1963==
Harry Truman took over unexpectedly in 1945, and the rifts inside the party that Roosevelt had papered over began to emerge. Former Vice President [[Henry A. Wallace]] denounced Truman as a war-monger for his anti-Soviet programs, the [[Truman Doctrine]], [[Marshall Plan]], and [[NATO]]. By cooperating with internationalist Republicans, Truman succeeded in defeating isolationists on the right and pro-Soviets on the left to establish a [[Cold War]] program that lasted until the fall of Communism in 1991. Wallace supporters and fellow travelers of the far left were pushed out of the party and the CIO in 1946-48 by young anti-Communists like [[Hubert Humphrey]], [[Walter Reuther]], and [[Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.]]. [[Hollywood]] emerged in the 1940s as an importance new base in the party, led by movie-star politicians such as [[Ronald Reagan]], who at this point in time strongly supported Roosevelt and Truman.<ref> Reagan became a conservative around 1960, saying the Democratic party had left him.</ref>

On the right the Republicans blasted Truman’s domestic policies. "Had Enough?" was the winning slogan as Republicans recaptured Congress in 1946. Many party leaders were ready to dump Truman, but they lacked an alternative. Truman counterattacked, pushing [[J. Strom Thurmond]] and his [[Dixiecrats]] out, and taking advantage of the splits inside the GOP. He was reelected in a stunning surprise. However all of Truman’s Fair Deal proposals, such as universal health care were defeated by the [[Conservative Coalition]] in Congress. His seizure of the steel industry was reversed by the Supreme Court.
In foreign policy, Europe was safe but troubles mounted in Asia. China fell to the Communists in 1949. Truman entered the [[Korean War]] without formal Congressional approval—the last time a president would ever do so. When the war turned to a stalemate in 1951 he fired General [[Douglas MacArthur]], a hero to conservatives. Republicans blasted Truman's failure to stop Communist gains in Asia. A series of petty scandals among friends and buddies of Truman further tarnished his image, allowing [[Dwight Eisenhower]] and the Republicans in 1952 to crusade against "Korea, Communism and Corruption." Truman dropped out of the presidential race early in 1952, leaving no obvious successor. The convention nominated [[Adlai Stevenson]] in 1952 and 1956, only to see him overwhelmed by two Eisenhower landslides.

[[Image:1952-32.jpg|thumb|480px|right|Stevenson and labor unions warn against a return of the Republican policies of Herbert Hoover in 1952 campaign poster]]

In Congress the powerful duo of House Speaker [[Sam Rayburn]] and Senate Majority leader [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] held the party together, often by compromising with Eisenhower. In 1958 the party made dramatic gains in the midterms and seemed to have a permanent lock on Congress. Indeed, Democrats had majorities in the House every election from 1930 to 1992 (except 1946 and 1952). Most southern Congressmen were conservative Democrats, however, and they usually worked with conservative Republicans. The result was a [[Conservative Coalition]] that blocked practically all liberal domestic legislation from 1937 to the 1970s, except for a brief spell 1964-65, when Johnson neutralized its power.

The nomination of [[John F. Kennedy]] in 1960 energized the Catholic population, which jammed motorcades and turned out in heavy numbers (over 80% voted for Kennedy), while also causing a backlash among white Protestants (over 70% of whom voted for Republican candidate [[Richard Nixon]]. Reaching beyond the traditional Irish, German, Italian and Polish Catholic ethnics, Viva Kennedy set out to mobilize the previously passive Latino vote, and it perhaps provided the margin of victory for Kennedy in Texas and New Mexico. Kennedy's victory reinvigorated the party. His youth, vigor and intelligence caught the popular imagination. In foreign policy he was strongly anti-Communist, and promptly launched an invasion of casto's Cuba; it failed badly. A few new programs like the Peace Corps harnessed idealism. In terms of legislation, Kennedy was stalemated by the [[Conservative Coalition]], and anyway his proposals were all cautious and incremental. In three years he was unable to pass any significant new legislation.

Kennedy's election did mark the coming of age of the Catholic component of the New Deal Coalition. After 1964 middle class Catholics started voting Republicans in the same proportion as their Protestant neighbors. Except for the Chicago of [[Richard J. Daley]], the last of the Democratic machines faded away. His involvement in Vietnam proved momentous, for his successor Lyndon Johnson decided to stay, and double the investment, and double the bet again and again until over 500,000 American soldiers were fighting in that small country.

==Civil Rights, Riots, War and collapse of the New Deal Coalition==
[[Image:LBJ-64.jpg|280px|left|thumb|President Lyndon Johnson ran for reelection in the shadow of Kennedy]]

The New Deal Coalition began to fracture as union and religious leaders demanded support for [[civil rights]], upsetting the party's traditional base of conservative Southern Democrats. After Harry Truman's platform showed support for civil rights and anti-segregation policies during the 1948 Democratic National Convention, many Southern Democratic delegates decided to split from the Party and formed the "[[Dixiecrats]]," led by [[South Carolina]] governor [[Strom Thurmond]] (who, as a Senator, would later join the Republican Party). Over the next few years, many conservative Democrats in the "[[Solid South]]" drifted away from the party. By 1940 most northern Blacks had shifted to the Democratic Party due to its New Deal relief programs and support for civil rights.

The party's dramatic reversal on civil rights issues culminated when Democratic President [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] signed into law the [[Civil Rights Act of 1964]]. The new laws ended segregation and also ended the main argument Democrats had used to block Republican gains in the South (that is, only the Democrats could protect segregation). The South became competitive in presidential politics in the 1970s and 1980s, giving strong support to Republican Ronald Reagan and rejecting the liberal northern candidates. The Democrats responded by nominating Southerners (Carter in 1976 and 1980, Clinton in 1992 and 1996, Gore in 2000). Few southern states were won by Democratic presidential candidates from the North (Humphrey in 1968, McGovern in 1972, Mondale in 1984, Dukakis in 1988, Kerry in 2004). At the state and local level the Republicans made slow, steady gains, especially among upscale middle class whites and migrants from the North. By the 1990s the GOP was competitive at the state and local level throughout the South. The Democrats made gains in the west, converting California to a Democratic stronghold and gaining in fast-growing Arizona and Nevada. The Northeast became more and more a Democratic enclave, especially after 2006 when numerous Republican moderates were defeated for reelection. the Midwest remained a battleground. The Democrats made strong gains in Illinois, but slipped a little in Minnesota.
[[Image:Demfight1968.jpg|thumb|290px|By 1968 Democrats were bitterly fighting over Vietnam and the failures of the Great Society]]

==1968 to 1999==
The Democratic party split five ways in 1968 and became the minority party in presidential elections for decades; after 1964 they won a majority of the presidential vote only in 2008.

[[Image:Carter.jpg|thumb|right|180px|Jimmy Carter was elected in 1976 and defeated in 1980.]]
In 1972, the Democrats nominated Sen. [[George McGovern]] (SD) as the presidential candidate on a platform which advocated, among other things, U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam and a guaranteed minimum income for all Americans. McGovern's forces at the national convention ousted Mayor [[Richard J. Daley]] and the entire Chicago delegation, replacing them with insurgents led by [[Jesse Jackson]]. After it became know that McGovern's running mate, [[Thomas Eagleton]], had received electric shock therapy, McGovern said he supported Eagleton "1000%" but he was soon forced to drop him and find a new running mate. With his campaign stalled for several weeks McGovern finally selected [[Sargent Shriver]], a Kennedy-in-law who was close to Mayor Daley. On July 14, 1972, McGovern appointed his campaign manager, Jean Westwood as the first woman chair of the Democratic National Committee. McGovern was defeated in a landslide by incumbent [[Richard Nixon]], winning only Massachusetts and Washington, D.C. The [[Watergate affair]] of 1973-74 made corruption a central issue, especially after [[Gerald Ford]] pardoned Nixon in September 1974. The Democrats made major gains in the 1974 off-year elections.

In 1976, mistrust of the administration, complicated by a combination of economic recession and inflation, sometimes called ''[[stagflation]]'', led to Ford's narrow defeat in 1976 by [[Jimmy Carter]], a former governor of Georgia.

Carter represented the total outsider, who promised honesty in government. He had served as a naval officer, a farmer, a state senator, and a one-term governor. His only experience with federal politics was when he chaired the Democratic National Committee's congressional and gubernatorial elections in 1974. Some of Carter's major accomplishments consisted of the creation of a national energy policy and the consolidation of governmental agencies, resulting in two new cabinet departments, the [[United States Department of Energy]] and the [[United States Department of Education]]. Carter also successfully deregulated the trucking, airline, rail, finance, communications, and oil industries, bolstered the [[social security]] system, and appointed record numbers of women and minorities to significant government and judicial posts. He also enacted strong legislation on environmental protection, through the expansion of the [[National Park Service]] in [[Alaska]], creating 103 million new acres of land. In foreign affairs, Carter's accomplishments consisted of the [[Camp David Accords]], the [[Panama Canal Treaties]], the creation of full diplomatic relations with the [[People's Republic of China]], and the negotiation of the [[SALT II]] Treaty. In addition, he championed human rights throughout the world and used human rights as the center of his administration's foreign policy.

Even with all of these successes, Carter failed to implement a national health plan or to reform the tax system, as he had promised in his campaign. Inflation was also on the rise. Abroad, the Iranians held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days, and Carter's diplomatic and military rescue attempts failed. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan later that year weakened the perception Americans had of Carter. Even though he had already been defeated for re-election, Carter fortunately was able to negotiate the release of every American hostage. They were lifted out of Iran minutes after Reagan was inaugurated and Carter served as Reagan's emissary to greet them when they arrived in Germany. In 1980, Carter defeated liberal champion [[Edward Kennedy]] to gain renomination, but lost to conservative [[Ronald Reagan]] by a landslide. The Democrats lost 12 Senate seats, and for the first time since 1954, the Republicans controlled the Senate. The House, however, remained in Democratic hands.

===1980s: Battling Reaganism===
Instrumental in the election of Republican [[Ronald Reagan]] in 1980, were Democrats who supported many conservative policies. Among legislators, one of the most prominent of these consevative Democrats was Georgia congressman and second chairman of the [[John Birch Society]], [[Larry McDonald]], who was a passenger on [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] shot down by the Soviets near [[Moneron Island]] on Sept. 1, 1983. The "Reagan Democrats" were Democrats before the Reagan years, and afterward, but they voted for [[Ronald Reagan]] in 1980 and 1984 (and for [[George H. W. Bush]] in 1988), producing their landslide victories. They were mostly white ethnics in the Northeast who were attracted to Reagan's social conservatism on issues such as abortion, and to his strong foreign policy. They did not continue to vote Republican in 1992 or 1996, so the term fell into disuse except as a reference to the 1980s. The term is not used to describe southern whites who became permanent Republicans in presidential elections. Stanley Greenberg, a Democratic pollster analyzed white ethnic voters, largely unionized auto workers, in suburban Macomb County, Michigan, just north of Detroit. The county voted 63 percent for Kennedy in 1960 and 66 percent for Reagan in 1984. He concluded that Reagan Democrats no longer saw Democrats as champions of their middle class aspirations, but instead saw it as being a party working primarily for the benefit of others, especially African Americans and the very poor. Bill Clinton targeted the Reagan Democrats with considerable success in 1992 and 1996.

[[Image:Liberal1984.jpg|thumb|350px]] The failure to hold the Reagan Democrats and the white South led to the final collapse of the [[New Deal coalition]]. Reagan carried 49 states against former Vice President and Minnesota Senator [[Walter Mondale]], a New Deal stalwart, in 1984. Massachusetts Governor [[Michael Dukakis]], running not as a New Dealer but as an efficiency expert in public administration, lost by a landslide in 1988 to Vice President [[George H. W. Bush]].

In response to these landslide defeats, the [[Democratic Leadership Council]] was created. It worked to move the Party rightwards to the ideological center in order to recover some of the fundraising that had been lost to the Republicans due to corporate donors supporting Reagan. With the Party retaining left-of-center supporters as well as supporters holding moderate or conservative views on some issues, the Democrats became generally a "big tent" or "catch all party" with widespread appeal to most opponents of the Republicans.

===The South Becomes Republican===
In the century after the end of [[Reconstruction]] in 1877, the white South identified with Democratic Party. The Democrats' lock on power was so strong, the region was called the [[Solid South]]. The Republicans only controlled parts of the Appalachian mountains, but they sometimes did compete for statewide office in the border states. Before 1964, the southern Democrats saw their party as the defender of the southern way of life, which included a respect for states' rights and an appreciation for traditional southern values. They repeatedly warned against the aggressive designs of Northern liberals and Republicans, as well as civil rights activists whom they denounced as "outside agitators."

However, between 1964 and 2004, the Democratic Party's lock on the South was broken. The long-term cause had to do with the South becoming more like the rest of the nation. It could not long stand apart in terms of racial segregation. Modernization had brought factories, national businesses, and larger, more cosmopolitan cities to the South, as well as millions of migrants from the North and more opportunities for higher education. Meanwhile, the cotton and tobacco economy of the traditional rural South faded away, as former farmers commuted to factory jobs.

Integration and the civil rights movement caused enormous controversy in the white South, with many attacking it as a violation of states' rights. When segregation was outlawed by court order and by the Civil Rights acts of 1964 and 1965, a die-hard element resisted integration, led by Democratic governors [[Orval Faubus]] of Arkansas, [[Lester Maddox]] of Georgia, and, especially [[George Wallace]] of Alabama. These populist governors appealed to a less-educated, blue-collar electorate that on economic grounds favored the Democratic Party, but opposed desegregation. After 1965 most Southerners accepted integration (with the exception of public schools). Believing themselves betrayed by the Democratic Party, traditional white southerners joined the new middle-class and the Northern transplants in moving toward the Republican Party. Meanwhile, newly enfranchised Black voters began supporting Democratic candidates at the 80-90-percent levels, producing Democratic leaders such as [[Julian Bond]] and [[John Lewis]] of Georgia, and [[Barbara Jordan]] of Texas. Just as Martin Luther King had promised, integration had brought about a new day in Southern politics, freeing both blacks and whites from old hatreds and fears.

Using issues of cultural conservatism, especially opposition to abortion and homosexuality and support for school prayer, Republicans attracted strong majorities among evangelical Christians. They were nationwide, but strongest in the South; before to the 1980s they were largely apolitical. Exit polls in 2004 showed that Bush led Kerry by 70-30% among Southern whites, who comprised 71% of the voters. Kerry had a 90-9 lead among the 18% of Southern voters who were black. One third of the Southern voters said they were white evangelicals; they voted for Bush by 80-20.<ref> See the exit polls at [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.3.html |date=[[2004-11-02]]|accessdate=2006-11-18]</ref>

===1990s===

In the 1990s the Democratic Party revived itself, in part by moving to the right on economic and social policy. President [[Bill Clinton]], who defeated the incumbent [[George H. W. Bush]] in 1992, implemented a balanced federal budget and [[welfare reform]] (cutting benefits and requiring many recipients to take jobs), traditionally conservative causes. Labor unions, which had been steadily losing membership since the 1960s, found they had also lost political clout inside the Democratic Party: Clinton enacted the [[NAFTA]] free trade agreement with Canada and Mexico over the strong objection of these labor unions, much to the disappointment of those on the left of the party. The [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican Party]] took control of both the House of Representatives and the United States Senate after the 1994 election. Clinton was impeached in 1998 and subsequently acquitted in 1999.

When the [[DLC]] attempted to move the Democratic agenda in favor of more centrist positions, prominent Democrats from both the centrist and conservative factions assumed leadership of the party and its direction. Some liberals and progressives felt alienated by the Democratic Party, which they felt had become unconcerned with the interests of the common people and left-wing issues in general. Some Democrats challenged the validity of such critiques, citing the Democratic role in pushing for progressive reforms.

==21st century==
===Election of 2000===
During the presidential election of 2000, the Democrats chose Vice President [[Al Gore]] to be the party's candidate for the presidency. Gore and [[George W. Bush]], the Republican candidate and son of former President George H.W. Bush, disagreed on a number of issues, including abortion, gun control, environmentalism, gay rights, tax cuts, foreign policy, public education, global warming, judicial appointments, and affirmative action. Nevertheless, Gore's affiliation with Clinton and the DLC caused critics—Green Party presidential candidate [[Ralph Nader]] in particular—to assert that Bush and Gore were too similar, especially on free trade, reductions in social welfare, and the death penalty. "We want to punish the Democrats, we want to hurt them, wound them," Nader's closest advisor said.<ref>Harry G. Levinem "Ralph Nader, Suicide Bomber." ''The Village Voice'' May 3, 2004 at [http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0418,levine,53179,1.html] </ref>

Gore won a popular plurality of over 500,000 votes over Bush, but lost in the electoral vote by four votes. In a close election anything can be decisive, but many angry Democrats blamed Nader's third-party spoiler role for Gore's defeat. Controversy plagued the election, and Gore largely dropped from politics for years; by 2005 however he was making speeches critical of Bush's foreign and environmental policies.

Despite Gore's close defeat, the Democrats gained five seats in the Senate (including the election of [[Hillary Clinton]] in New York), to turn a 55-45 Republican edge into a 50-50 split (with a Republican Vice President breaking a tie). However, when Republican Senator [[Jim Jeffords]] of Vermont decided in 2001 to become an independent and caucus with the Democrats, the majority status shifted along with the seat, including control of the floor (by the Majority Leader) and control of all committee chairmanships. However, the Republicans regained their Senate majority with gains in 2002 and 2004, leaving the Democrats with only 44 seats, the fewest since the 1920s.

===2001-2003===
In the aftermath of the [[9-11 Attacks]], the nation's focus was changed to issues of national security. All but one Democrat<ref> Representative [[Barbara Lee]] of Texas</ref> joined the Republicans to authorize President Bush to invade invasion of Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban. House leader [[Richard Gephardt]] and Senate leader [[Thomas Daschle]] pushed Democrats to vote for the [[USA PATRIOT Act]] and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The Democrats were split over entering Iraq in 2003 and increasingly expressed concerns about both the justification and progress of the [[War on Terrorism]], as well as the domestic effects, including supposed threats to civil rights and civil liberties from the PATRIOT Act. Senator [[Russ Feingold]] was the only Senator to vote against the act; it received more resistance when it came up for renewal, but was renewed in 2006.

In the wake of the financial fraud scandal of the [[Enron Corporation]] and other corporations, Congressional Democrats pushed for a legal overhaul of business accounting with the intention of preventing further accounting fraud. This led to the bipartisan [[Sarbanes-Oxley Act]] in 2002. Economic issues did not work well in 2002, as the Democrats lost a few seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. They lost three seats in the Senate. While Democrats gained governorships in New Mexico (where [[Bill Richardson]] was elected), Arizona ([[Janet Napolitano]]) and Wyoming ([[Dave Freudenthal]]), other Democrats lost governorships in South Carolina ([[Jim Hodges]]), Alabama ([[Don Siegelman]]) and, for the first time in more than a century, Georgia ([[Roy Barnes]]). The election led to another round of soul searching about the party's narrowing base. The party's miseries mounted in 2003, when a voter recall unseated their unpopular governor of California, [[Gray Davis]], and replaced him which a charismatic liberal Republican [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]]. By the end of 2003 the four largest states had Republican governors: California, Texas, New York and Florida.

===Election of 2004===
The 2004 campaign began in late 2002, when Gore said he would not run again. [[Howard Dean]], former Governor of Vermont, an opponent of the war and a critic of the Democratic establishment, was the front-runner leading into the Democratic primaries. Dean had immense grassroots support, especially from the left wing of the party. Massachusetts Senator [[John Kerry]], a more centrist figure with heavy support from the [[Democratic Leadership Council]], was nominated because he was seen as more "electable" than Dean. Democrats moved to populist anti-business positions that denounced free trade and the [[NAFTA]] agreement. The party rhetoric attacked the Bush administration rather than propose alternative programs.

In the end, Kerry lost both the popular vote (by 3 million out of over 120 million votes cast) and the [[Electoral College]]. Republicans also gained four seats in the Senate and three seats in the House of Representatives, and for the first time since 1952, the Democratic leader of the Senate lost re-election. In the end, there were 3,660 Democratic state legislators across the nation to the Republicans' 3,557. Democrats gained governorships in Louisiana, New Hampshire and Montana. However, they lost the governorship of Missouri and a legislative majority in Georgia, which had long been a Democratic stronghold.

There were many reasons for the defeat. After the election most analysts concluded that Kerry was a poor campaigner.<ref>Evan Thomas and Staff of Newsweek,''Election 2004: How Bush Won and What You Can Expect in the Future''(2005)</ref> A group of Vietnam veterans opposed to Kerry called the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" undercut Kerry's use of his military past as a campaign strategy. Kerry was unable to reconcile his initial support of the [[Iraq War]] with his opposition to the war in 2004, or manage the deep split in the Democratic Party between those who favored and opposed the war. Republicans ran thousands of television commercials to argue that Kerry had flip-flopped on Iraq. When Kerry's home state of Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage, the issue split liberal and conservative Democrats and independents (Kerry publicly stated throughout his campaign that he opposed same sex marriage, but favored civil unions). Republicans exploited the same-sex marriage issue by promoting ballot initiatives in 11 states that brought conservatives to the polls in large numbers; all 11 initiatives passed. Some Democrats argued that flaws in vote-counting systems may also have played a role in Kerry's defeat in Ohio. Other factors include a healthy job market, a rising stock market, strong home sales, and low unemployment.

After the 2004 election, prominent Democrats began to rethink the party's direction, and a variety of strategies for moving forward were voiced. Some Democrats proposed moving towards the right; others demanded that the party move more to the left and become a stronger opposition party. . Rethinking the party's position on gun control became a matter of discussion, brought up by [[Howard Dean]], [[Bill Richardson]], [[Brian Schweitzer]] and other Democrats who had won governorships in states where Second Amendment rights were important to many voters.

===2005 - 2007===
These debates were reflected in the 2005 campaign for Chairman of the [[Democratic National Committee]], which [[Howard Dean]] won. He sought to move the Democratic strategy away from the establishment, and bolster support for the party's state organizations, even in Red states.

When the 109th Congress convened in 2005, [[Harry Reid]], the new Senate Minority Leader, tried to convince the Democratic Senators to vote more as a bloc on important issues; he forced the Republicans to abandon their push for privatization of Social Security. In 2005, the Democrats retained their governorships in Virginia and New Jersey, electing [[Tim Kaine]] and [[Jon Corzine]], respectively. However, the party lost the mayoral race in New York City, a Democratic stronghold, for the fourth straight time.

In 2006, with scandals involving Republican lobbyist [[Jack Abramoff]], as well as GOP House leader [[Tom DeLay]], Ohio GOP governor [[Bob Taft]] and others, the Democrats used the slogan "Culture of corruption." Negative public opinion on the war in Iraq, along with widespread dissatisfaction among conservatives over government spending, dragged President Bush's job approval ratings down to the lowest levels of his presidency. To win control the Democrats had to add 15 seats in the House (they added 30), and 6 in the Senate (they added 6).

The Democratic Party's electoral success has been attributed to running relatively conservative Democrats in close seats, such as the Senate races in Virginia, Pennsylvania and Montana. <ref> Dewan Shaila and Anne E. Kornblut, "In Key House Races, Democrats Run to the Right," ''New York Times,'' 2006-10-30; but compare Rick Perlstein, "Who deserves credit for the Democratic comeback?" ''The New Republic'' 2006-11-08]] at [https://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=w061106&s=perlstein110806] </ref> Exit polling suggested that corruption was a key issue for many voters.<ref>CNN, "Corruption named as key issue by voters in exit polls," 2006-11-08 at [http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/07/election.exitpolls/] </ref>

In 2006 Democrats gained a majority of governorships and made gains in many state legislatures. No Democratic incumbent was defeated in any major race.
===2007-2010===
[[File:Obama_approval_index_december_22_2009.jpg‎|thumb|250px]]
House Democrats chose Rep. [[Nancy Pelosi]] of California for Speaker, the first woman ever, but rejected her choice for House Majority Leader, electing Steny Hoyer instead of John Murtha. Senate Democrats promoted Harry Reid to Majority Leader. Neither have been very effective.

The presidential campaign of 2008 featured a remarkable duel between Obama--the first major black candidate, and [[Hillary Clinton]], the first major woman contender. Obama won with his charismatic oratory and his highly efficient fund-raising and strong organization in the caucus states, while Clinton went downscale to pick up big majorities among poor whites and Hispanics. The contest between Obama and GOP nominee [[John McCain]] showed Obama being the clear favourite, with the vast majority of polls (with the exception of early September) depicting Obama as the clear favourite.

The [[Obama Administration]] got off to a fast start in 2009, especially in vigorous efforts to combat the [[Recession of 2008]] with heavy new stimulus spending, massive loans to banks, increased regulation, and deep intervention in the automobile industry. All those policies were begun by Bush, and had failed to reverse the decline of the economy in late 2008. Whether they will now succeed remains an open question, with the GOP now voting solidly against them and some conservatives like [[Rush Limbaugh]] hoping that the Democrats will fail badly and that the people will again turn to the Republican party. The Democratic Party is feeling the sting from the opposition and many Democrats are beginning to question their own leadership. Liberals are disenchanted with Obama's hawkish position on the [[Afghanistan War]]. The health care reform that consumed most of 2009 remains unsettled, as public opinion has turned against it. Environmentalists now seem resigned to the failure of a [[cap and trade]] program to reduce CO2 emissions. Most of all the recession drags on. The stimulus bill was passed quickly in Feb. 2009 over almost unanimous GOP opposition, but despite promises of "shovel ready" projects, most of the money has not been spent a year later and the economy remains in the doldrums.

The elections in Nov. 2009 in New Jersey and Virginia went badly for the Democrats, as the GOP gained both governorships and many local races, not to mention the Democrats' fifth straight loss for the mayoralty of New York City.

see [[2010 Midterm Elections]]

==Symbols==
The most common symbol for the party is the donkey, although the party itself never officially adopted this symbol.<ref>[http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/06/history_of_the.php History of the Democratic Donkey]. </ref> Some historians suggest the jackass was born 1828 when Jackson was sometimes called a jackass by his opponents as a play on his name. A political cartoon depicting Jackson riding and directing a donkey (representing the Democratic Party) was published in 1837. A political cartoon by [[Thomas Nast]] in an 1870 revived the donkey as a symbol for the Democratic Party. Cartoonists ever since have followed Nast and used the donkey to represent the Democrats, and the elephant to represent the Republicans.

In the early 20th century, the traditional symbol of the Democratic Party in many states was the rooster, as opposed to the Republican eagle.

There is no official color, but since election night 2000 blue has become the identification color of the Democratic Party for maps, while the red has become the color of the Republicans. Increasingly blue is used by Democrats for promotions (e.g BuyBlue, BlueFund) and by the party itself, which in 2006 unveiled the "Red to Blue Program" to support Democratic candidates running against Republican incumbents in the 2006 midterm election.

[[Jefferson-Jackson Day]] annual fundraising celebrations are held by local chapters of the Democratic Party.

The song "[[Happy Days Are Here Again]]" is the unofficial song of the Democratic Party. It was used prominently when Roosevelt was nominated for president at the 1932 Democratic National Convention and remains a sentimental favorite for Democrats today. During the [[Bill Clinton|Clinton]] era, the [[Fleetwood Mac]] song "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow" became a popular song at Democratic events, reflecting the growing prominence of Baby Boomers in the party.

==Democratic Presidents==
* [[Andrew Jackson]] (1829-1837)
* [[Martin Van Buren]] (1837-1841)
* [[James K. Polk]] (1845-1849)
* [[Franklin Pierce]] (1853-1857)
* [[James Buchanan]] (1857-1861)
* [[Grover Cleveland]] (1885-1889) (1893-1897)
* [[Woodrow Wilson]] (1913-1921)
* [[Franklin Roosevelt]] (1933-1945)
* [[Harry S Truman]] (1945-1953)
* [[John F. Kennedy]] (1961-1963)
* [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] (1963-1969)
* [[Jimmy Carter]] (1977-1981)
* [[Bill Clinton]] (1993-2001)
* [[Barack Obama]] (2009 - Present)

==See also==
*[[Previous Breaking News/Democrats|Articles about '''Democrats''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
*[[Obamacare]]

==Bibliography==
===Current===
*Barone, Michael, and Grant Ujifusa, ''The Almanac of American Politics 2008: The Senators, the Representatives and the Governors: Their Records and Election Results, Their States and Districts'' (2007) covers all the live politicians with amazing detail. New edition every two years since 1975.
* Brownstein, Ronald. ''The Second Civil War: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America''(2007)
* Crane, Michael. ''The Political Junkie Handbook: The Definitive Reference Books on Politics'' (2004) covers all the major issues explaining the parties' positions
*Sabato, Larry J. ''Divided States of America: The Slash and Burn Politics of the 2004 Presidential Election'' (2005).
*Sabato, Larry J. ed. ''The Sixth Year Itch: The Rise and Fall of the George W. Bush Presidency'' (1907), in-depth essays by scholars on key states in 2006
* Sabato, Larry J., and Howard R. Ernst eds. ''Political Parties and Elections'' (2007), 540pp; an encyclopedia with 450 entries by scholars; focus is 1945 to present
* Sabato, Larry J. and Bruce Larson. ''The Party's Just Begun: Shaping Political Parties for America's Future'' (2001) textbook.
* Shafer, Byron E. and Anthony J. Badger, eds. ''Contesting Democracy: Substance and Structure in American Political History, 1775-2000'' (2001), long essays by specialists on each time period
* Shafer, Byron and Richard Johnston. ''The End of Southern Exceptionalism'' (2006), uses statistical election data & polls to argue GOP growth was primarily a response to economic change
===Historical===
* ''American National Biography'' (20 volumes, 1999) covers all politicians no longer alive; online and paper copies at many academic libraries.
* Jensen, Richard. ''Grass Roots Politics: Parties, Issues, and Voters, 1854-1983'' (1983) [http://www.questia.com/library/book/grass-roots-politics-parties-issues-and-voters-1854-1983-by-christopher-c-gibbs-richard-j-jensen-steven-l-piott.jsp online edition]; survey by conservative scholar, with primary sources
* Kennedy, David M. ''Freedom from Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1929-1945'' (2001), synthesis by leading scholar; Pulitzer prize [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=52284041 online edition]
* Kleppner, Paul et al. ''The Evolution of American Electoral Systems'' (1983), essays by scholars (some of them conservatives), 1790s to 1980s.
* Kleppner, Paul. ''The Third Electoral System 1853-1892: Parties, Voters, and Political Cultures'' (1979), analysis of voting behavior, with emphasis on region, ethnicity, religion and class. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24451028 online edition]
* Ling, Peter J. ''The Democratic Party: A Photographic History'' (2003).
* Patterson, James T. ''Grand Expectations: The United States, 1945-1974'' (1997) synthesis by leading scholar. [http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Expectations-United-1945-1974-History/dp/0195117972/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211911625&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* Patterson, James T. ''Restless Giant: The United States from Watergate to Bush vs. Gore'' (2005) synthesis by leading scholar. [http://www.amazon.com/Restless-Giant-United-Watergate-History/dp/0195305221/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211911625&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Ritchie, Donald A. ''Electing FDR: The New Deal Campaign of 1932'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Electing-FDR-Campaign-Presidential-Elections/dp/0700615504/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195784762&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]
* Rutland, Robert Allen. ''The Democrats: From Jefferson to Clinton'' (1995).
* Shafer, Byron E. and Anthony J. Badger, eds. ''Contesting Democracy: Substance and Structure in American Political History, 1775-2000'' (2001), most recent collection of new essays by specialists on each time period:
**includes: "State Development in the Early Republic: 1775–1840" by Ronald P. Formisano; "The Nationalization and Racialization of American Politics: 1790–1840" by David Waldstreicher; "'To One or Another of These Parties Every Man Belongs;": 1820–1865 by Joel H. Silbey; "Change and Continuity in the Party Period: 1835–1885" by Michael F. Holt; "The Transformation of American Politics: 1865–1910" by Peter H. Argersinger; "Democracy, Republicanism, and Efficiency: 1885–1930" by Richard Jensen; "The Limits of Federal Power and Social Policy: 1910–1955" by Anthony J. Badger; "The Rise of Rights and Rights Consciousness: 1930–1980" by James T. Patterson, Brown University; and "Economic Growth, Issue Evolution, and Divided Government: 1955–2000" by Byron E. Shafer
* Schlisinger, Galbraith. ''Of the People: The 200 Year History of the Democratic Party'' (1992)
* Sundquist, James L. ''Dynamics of the Party System: Alignment and Realignment of Political Parties in the United States'', (1983) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=29223022 online edition
* Wilentz, Sean. ''The Rise of American Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln'' (2005), detailed synthesis by a leading liberal scholar. [http://www.amazon.com/Rise-American-Democracy-Jefferson-Lincoln/dp/0393058204/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195784940&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Witcover, Jules. ''Party of the People: A History of the Democrats'' (2003)
* Schlesinger, Arthur Meier, Jr. ed. ''History of American Presidential Elections, 1789-2000'' (various multivolume editions, latest is 2001). For each election includes a short history by a leading scholar and a selection of primary documents.

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://www.democrats.org/ Democratic Party Official Site]
*[http://www.demconvention.com/assets/downloads/2008-Democratic-Platform-final.pdf 2008 Democratic Platform (pdf download)]

[[Category:United States Political Organizations]]
[[Category:United States Political Parties]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]
[[Category:Progressive Era]]
[[Category:Gilded Age]]
[[Category:New Deal]]
[[Category:Reagan Era]]
[[Category:1960s]]
[[Category:Obama Presidency]]
[[Category:Liberals]]
[[category:Jacksonian Democracy]]
[[Category:111th United States Congress]]