User talk:The Democratic Party, est. 1792

Welcome!

Hello, The Democratic Party, est. 1792, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! — Lawrence King ^(talk) 08:24, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic-Republican Party

I moved the discussion from my talk page to Talk:Democratic-Republican Party (scroll down to the last section on that page). Hopefully other editors will offer their views as well, so it won't just be the two of us. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 08:26, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

You have already been blocked once for edit warring, and you are again attempting to force some of the same text into the same article without consensus. Please attempt to gain consensus in a civil manner. [1]. O3000 (talk) 17:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring? You deleted the info in a retaliatory manner during our discussion, so who here is actually committing edit war? And consensus and facts aren't interchangeable terms. Consensus held that the Sun revolved around the Earth; the facts do not. Consensus can be completely incorrect, even if those in the consensus are deemed reliable. Facts are indisputable; ignorance of a fact does not make that fact non-fact. In the case we are arguing, the facts are clear: THOMAS JEFFERSON, FOUNDER AND LEADER OF THE SO-CALLED "DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLICAN PARTY," ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION DESCRIBED MEMBERS OF HIS PARTY AS "LIBERALS," "COTE GAUCHE" [LEFT WING], "RADICALS," "JACOBINS," AND "DEMOCRATS." Historians and political scientists who have studied the American two-party system have come to similar conclusion about this. Hell, the pages for the Democratic-Republican Party and the Federalist Party describes them as adhering to "classical liberalism" and "classical conservatism," respectively. These terms are deeply tied to the notion of left and right in the era in which these parties existed. In the trans-Atlantic revolutionary world, "the left generally opposed the monarchy and supported the revolution, including the creation of a republic and secularization," while the right "was formed as a reaction against the 'Left' and comprised those politicians supporting hierarchy, tradition and clericalism." Federalists, as the conservative party, "strongly opposed the French Revolution, defended traditional Christian morality and supported a new 'natural aristocracy' based on 'property, education, family status, and sense of ethical responsibility," and were "critical of both Jeffersonian classical liberalism and the radical ideas coming out of the French Revolution." Jefferson and his partisans, on the other hand, as the liberal party, strongly supported the French Revolution, defended separation of church and state, and supported more democratic and egalitarian systems of government and economics that favored the rights of small farmers, the urban working class, and new immigrants, while highly critical of the conservative policies coming from Hamilton and Adams and their the Federalist Party, especially when deemed too aristocratic or similar to the British monarchy. So if you're looking for consensus, look no further than in the site's own pages. They basically describe these parties as left and right, but for some reason it's anathema to make that clear to readers and providing them citations. I mean, if Jefferson founded his party a liberal, left-wing, democratic party, and the historical record shows that to be accurate for the context, as well as relative to the clearly-characterized conservative Federalists, then who else are you expecting to find consensus? Are you looking for something by Marx calling Jefferson a left-wing radical? Is Thomas Paine, the quintessential figure of the era's Anglo-American left, not authoritative enough? Or must we only expect left and right to mean what we say they mean in 2018 despite the fact that these two political factions were formed in the Jefferson's times and not ours. The issue is really a lot simpler if you actually employ documentary and historical evidence. If not, then you're just going to keep botching up the facts. If Jefferson, Paine, historians and political scientists aren't a consensus, then I can't expect that you'd ever be satisfied even if Jefferson rose from the dead and told you himself.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. O3000 (talk) 00:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will give you a very simple answer to your argument at the edit warring noticeboard: I don't care who is right. I don't care who thinks he is right the most. I don't care what your arguments are for being right. No admin would, and no admin will. There is a very short list of things that could excuse the appearance of edit warring, and "my version of the article is better" is not one of them. You are now blocked for one week. Your next block will probably be permanent. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:57, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wholeheartedly disagree, but how is that not a double standard toward user:Objective3000? Or is he blocked for a week too??? The Democratic Party, est. 1792 (talk) 08:18, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the last week, O3000 made four reverts while arguing with one person. In the same time you made nine reverts while arguing with four. Very different magnitudes here. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, just a double standard; prepare to see retaliatory reverts from others.

The Democratic Party, est. 1792 (talk) 17:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]