Talk:Democratic-Republican Party

Political position

Why do you define the Democratic-Republican Party as center-left? there isn’t any source for it. דולב חולב (talk) 23:43, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

They supported the French Revolution. The terms left and right originated in the French Revolution, supporters of the Revolution were left-wing, opponents of it were right-wing. Therefore they were by definition a left-wing party. Also, see above, this has been discussed to death. --2601:18A:817D:9320:7876:6587:EA32:76BF (talk) 01:18, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Larson, Edward J. (2007). A Magnificent Catastrophe: The Tumultuous Election of 1800, America's First Presidential Campaign. Simon and Schuster. p. 21. ISBN 9780743293174. "The divisions between Adams and Jefferson were exasperated by the more extreme views expressed by some of their partisans, particularly the High Federalists led by Hamilton on what was becoming known as the political right, and the democratic wing of the Republican Party on the left, associated with New York Governor George Clinton and Pennsylvania legislator Albert Gallatin, among others." - There's a source that used to be on the page before people just removed it for no apparent reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18A:817D:9320:7876:6587:EA32:76BF (talk) 01:42, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

GlowStoneUnknown

At what point does repeatedly and unilaterally removing cited information for no apparent reason consitute vandalism?

@GlowstoneUnknown 2601:18A:817D:9320:A453:F62D:3C72:136D (talk) 10:03, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

There is a reason, as stated in the edit summaries, that label is original research. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 10:04, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

The cited source doesn't describe the party as "centre-left to left-wing", the only mention of the political left in the source is the phrase "the democratic wing of the republican party on the left[...]", which doesn't directly support the inclusion of either "center-left" or "left-wing" as a position for the party. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 10:09, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

1) That is an extremely bad faith reading of what is being said. By painting the Federalists as having right wing factions and the Democratic Republicans as having left wing factions the suggestion is explicitly that the Democratic Republicans were a left wing party.

2) This party supported the French Revolution. They were by definition left wing and suggestions otherwise are anachronistic.

3) You repeatedly removed the information, source or not, without responding or engaging with the talk page. I can also see in the history you removed a different source because it "only said Jefferson was left wing". Ok, so now we have published historians saying both the party founder/leader and factions within the party were left wing as well as basic historic knowledge...against your "nah dude trust me some chunk of them were somehow not left wing so that invalidates everything else and i'm going to repeatedly remove it without once engaging on the talk page." 2601:18A:817D:9320:A453:F62D:3C72:136D (talk) 10:16, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I saw that the label was added without consensus and, at the very least, the talk page questioned part of the label (the inclusion of "center-left"), so I removed it. It's completely irrelevant what the party's stance on the FR was, since WP:SYNTH applies in that case. And painting a party as having factions of a certain political alignment is *not* the same as explicitly describing the party as a position. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 10:22, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Do you actually intend to engage with the points being made or are you just going to nitpick technicalities to avoid the bigger point? 2601:18A:817D:9320:A453:F62D:3C72:136D (talk) 10:24, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I've addressed each of your points so far, and this will be my last reply in this discussion. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 10:26, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

No you haven't. You've just used technicalities to avoid the point I'm making. Essentially the higher intellect version of correcting someone's grammar. 2601:18A:817D:9320:A453:F62D:3C72:136D (talk) 10:29, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

With claims as nuanced as this one and all the work that scholars put into not using labels in a misleading way, it borders on an act of negligence or disrespect to go ahead and put those words in their mouths anyway. Here if one can't find a source making the specific characterization they want the article to make, they are imposing their own inferences concerning the topic onto readers, not representing sources like site policy requires us to. (This is meant for others who have posted here about this questioning whether we need a source explicitly applying the label, not the IP who already knows they're right and clearly couldn't care less about justifying it to others.) Remsense 🌈 论 22:39, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Given that it's basically common sense within political science that a party that supports the French Revolution is by definition a left-wing party, I've no doubt I could find plenty of other sources that back this claim.

I'm just also dead convinced that Glowstone is acting in bad faith and just wants the info removed, and will thus find some nebulous excuse to reject ANY source provided. I've brought this concern up before, and it was just ignored, which didn't do much to assuage my concern here. 2601:18A:817D:9320:C11:8485:902A:DFA3 (talk) 23:41, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

If it's so natural and common-sensical a connection to make, it should certainly appear in some reliable sources about this very well-covered topic, and we shouldn't be required instead to take an internet stranger's word for it! No one cares a whit about what you or I think is common sense, they come to learn what actual experts have to say. Do you get that at all, that assuming everyone has the same intuitions and makes the same equivocations you do is truly unhelpful if you give a damn at all about others being able to verify what you write on an encyclopedia intended for everyone on Earth? Something tells me you don't care about that at all, since you yourself have decided on this characterization and want to impose it on the article, and anyone who doesn't agree your logic is automatic must just be illiterate. I have absolutely no more time for editors like that, and this will thus be my final reply to you. Remsense 🌈 论 23:44, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

I literally just said I'm dead certain I could find multiple sources for it, and your takeaway is that I expect you to take my word for it? What's wrong with you? 2601:18A:817D:9320:C11:8485:902A:DFA3 (talk) 23:59, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

A hell of a lot of good that does for literally any reader of this article. You don't care about our readers or the scholars whose statements you're lying about, you only care about planting your own flag where it doesn't belong. Hopefully the admin opts to put the padlock on for a year+ so others who do care about verifiability can discuss the matter in peace. Remsense 🌈 论 00:01, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I see. You're going mask off, aren't you? You don't care what the sources say, you think calling this party left-wing is inaccurate so you therefore want it removed. Very nice and unbiased of you, I must say. Given the "planting the flag" comment, I'm guessing you are a lefty who doesn't want your side of the spectrum sullied by implications lefties 300 years ago MAYBE don't live up to modern standards, hm?

It's flat anachronistic to say that a left-wing party isn't left-wing because it doesn't fit modern standards of left-wing. Socially speaking, Vladimir Lenin himself wasn't left-wing by modern standards, so I guess he wasn't left wing? This logic is absurd.

And last time this article was locked, the admins rejected removing the political position, so. 2601:18A:817D:9320:C11:8485:902A:DFA3 (talk) 00:09, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

It's funny, if I did think it was inaccurate (it doesn't matter, but I don't think this), you know what would help change my mind? a scholarly source that actually fucking says that it is! Remsense 🌈 论 00:20, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Protected Edit Request

−

position = [[Centre-left politics|Center-left]] to [[Left-wing politics|left-wing]]<ref name="Larson 2007">{{cite book |last=Larson |first=Edward J. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=MXcCdlmwwecC |title=A Magnificent Catastrophe: The Tumultuous Election of 1800, America's First Presidential Campaign |year=2007 |isbn=9780743293174 |page=21 |publisher=Simon and Schuster |quote=The divisions between Adams and Jefferson were exasperated by the more extreme views expressed by some of their partisans, particularly the High Federalists led by Hamilton on what was becoming known as the political right, and the democratic wing of the Republican Party on the left, associated with New York Governor George Clinton and Pennsylvania legislator Albert Gallatin, among others. |author-link=Edward J. Larson}}</ref>

+

position =

Uncontroversial removal (, , ) of disputed content that is a result of original research and was most recently reinstated by an IP editor whose edit was in violation of the three-revert rule (). – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 06:04, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

To call removing it uncontroversial when it is the topic discussed most on this page - and current consensus is seemingly in favor of keeping it, with two users even citing @GlowstoneUnknown as the sole opponent to keeping it, is blatant dishonesty.

So too is calling it "original research" when it's cited. 2601:18A:817D:9320:1409:3753:96A9:49ED (talk) 14:25, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

The citation doesn't directly support the conclusion drawn, hence original research. And it's uncontroversial because 3 separate editors have all reverted it and another editor has disputed it on this talk page without making any edits. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 14:27, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

The citation absolutely supports the conclusion, and to say it's uncontroversial when it's the most discussed point on this page is absurd. Multiple people have supported keeping it, and it's cited even if you want to dismiss that fact.

It frankly seems to me YOU don't want this on the page, and since you can't argue with the merits of the claim, you would rather find technicalities in the rules and play slight-of-hand tricks to get it removed. 2601:18A:817D:9320:1409:3753:96A9:49ED (talk) 14:32, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

The fact that it's discussed has no bearing on whether it's controversial or not, and the presence of people favouring its inclusion doesn't matter without good arguments that are in line with Wikipedia's policies WP:NOTADEMOCRACY. And I've already pointed out that since the only source backing it up doesn't directly support the label "center-left to left-wing" which isn't a "technicality", it's the definition of original research. I'd also like to bring up the fact that Edward J Larson has no background in politics, as his field of study is "history of science", which doesn't lend him any credibility on the topic of political parties nor the positions of said parties. I won't continue to reply to comments that accuse me of bad faith or not engaging in proper discussion. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 14:44, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

As stated before, the suggestion is very clearly that the Democratic-Republicans were the left-wing organization and that the Federalists were the right-wing one. Frankly, I feel as if I could find a source that explicitly states "The Democratic-Republicans were left wing" clear as day and your response would still be to try to nitpick it and remove it anyway.

This page, as well as most Wikipedia articles, is absolutely chocked full of "original research". The article is two paragraphs in before a single citation to anything it says is given. Yet you're here targeting a cited claim. And not only are you targeting said claim, you're couching your arguments entirely in technicalities of the rules.

You've refused to engage in any sort of discussion as to why you actually disagree with the label in the first place - which suggests to me 1) you don't actually have any coherent argument as to why you're against it, and 2) the reason you're using rule technicalities is because that's easier to defend.

It's not even an accusation of bad faith, it's just a plain face analysis of your arguments. 2601:18A:817D:9320:1409:3753:96A9:49ED (talk) 15:01, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

That first sentence is a very blatant violation of WP:AGF by suggesting a made-up scenario and implying that I'd behave poorly in such scenario.

The second sentence is blatantly false, the lead section of an article isn't required to have citations if the body already cites such information (which it does), and talking about other articles is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

I have actively engaged in discussion as to why I disagree with the label, and explained that it shouldn't be included because sources don't describe the party as such, hence the label's inclusion being a case of original research.

It's getting tiring to have to keep repeating myself. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 15:12, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

1) I told you the impression you are giving me, and I 100% believe what I said. When you have nothing to support your view except "well technically" and refuse to engage in the actual points, it makes it look like you're unreasonable. I do assume good faith - I think you genuinely think the left-wing label for this party is incorrect and therefore want it removed.

I also think that you think it's incorrect based on likely faulty logic that you can't defend, so you're hiding behind rule technicality.

2) There is countless uncited information all throughout this article, as is true of most Wikipedia articles. You are selectively targetting this information. It's selective rule enforcement, plainly.

3) You haven't explained at all why you disagree with the label. You have said you don't like the source provided and that you think it shouldn't be included without a source.

But as you're in zero rush to find your own source for the claim, the subtle implication is you just don't want the information included, period.

If you agreed with the claim and just didn't like the source, you could find another one. I'd do it myself - I doubt it would be too hard - but return to #1 and you'll see why I'm pushing that onto you.

Previously it's been pointed out that the terms left-wing and right-wing originated with supporters and opponents of the French Revolution respectively. This is a French Revolution era party that supported the French Revolution, ergo it was a left-wing party by definition. To suggest it's not based on modern standards of left or right wing is anachronistic.

You've yet to engage with any of these claims. 2601:18A:817D:9320:1409:3753:96A9:49ED (talk) 15:22, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I refuse to repeat myself again beyond the following: WP:OR. The only potentially new argument there can be explained with WP:SKYBLUE. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 15:25, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Once again refusing to engage with the actual points and hiding behind rule technicalities.

Yeah, you don't need to cite the sky is blue, and you also shouldn't need to cite that a party that supported the French Revolution was a left-wing party when the term left-wing in the time period refers to a party that supported the French Revolution.

But since you don't like the citation, how about YOU find one that you're happy with? Unless you just don't think this party was left-wing, a point you've refused to discuss. 2601:18A:817D:9320:1409:3753:96A9:49ED (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

WP:ONUS – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 15:44, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, exactly. Where are my assurances I'm not being sent on a wild goose chase by a guy who will always find an excuse to dismiss ANY source?

None, right. 2601:18A:817D:9320:1409:3753:96A9:49ED (talk) 15:46, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

On the left-right debate I added fresh material with new cites to the main text and kept "center-left" in the Info box. This is a history article and we can assume that its readers really are interested in that era. People in the 1790s used terms Left and Right and likewise historians ever since. In fact American political institutions were created in late 18th century and exactly how they used terms is a big deal in Supreme Court decisions in 2025 re "originalism". Rjensen (talk) 02:23, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Here's Jefferson according to Gordon S. Wood: " Late in his life [1823] Jefferson, likewise, thought that all people, by nature, could be divided into just two parties. They existed in all countries, he said, whether called tories and whigs, aristocrats and democrats, right and left, ultras and radicals, or serviles and liberals." -- Gordon S Wood. The Radicalism of the American Revolution . 1992 page 97. See the original letter online here at US National Archives Rjensen (talk) 06:17, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Correction: | Add: doi, pages, issue, volume, date, journal, title, authors 1-1. | Use this tool. Report bugs. | #UCB_Gadget

In 'Works Cited' could you replace

• Brown, David (1999). "Jeffersonian Ideology and the Second Party System". Wiley. 62 (1): 17–30. JSTOR 24450533.

with

• Brown, David (1999). "Jeffersonian Ideology and the Second Party System". The Historian. 62 (1): 17–30. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6563.1999.tb01431.x. JSTOR 24450533.

Thanks. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:22, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 12:02, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Far-left? Really?

I don’t recall the Dem-Reps being far-left. Left-wing, sure, but far-left? Any reason why that was added? ~2026-18933-14 (talk) 14:15, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Where does the green color come from?

The infobox states that the colors of the party were red, white, and blue. But I don't see any mention of them using a green color. What is going on? This also applies to the Federalist Party and their salmon color. HistoricalRonan (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2026 (UTC)