`  ::::I have no intention of climbing the Reichstag over this, and despite your unnecessarily hostile and partisan tone, I'll civilly state my objections and then walk away.  I am a generally liberal-leaning person, so this is not a politically-motivated attack, in spite of your implications.  ::::You're right that Wikipedia should report on notable opinions, and based on that it is fair that this information exists as a section on the Democratic Party page or perhaps even as a separate article.  But this article reports it as a fact, not an opinion.  The lede explicitly it's an epithet (generally taken to mean a pejorative term) used by Republicans/conservatives.  This is not true: there was previously a list of examples of usage by members of the Democratic Party on this talk page, but it seems to have been excised.  ::::You'll notice I didn't propose to do any tabulation, and I agree that would be original research.  But much of this article is tabulation of examples linked by opinions, and is therefore original research.  The Hertzberg article is an opinion piece, while the Stassen quote (which incidentally, comes indirectly from the Hertzberg article) is a 70 year old quote that doesn't really support the main thesis of the article.  ::::I'm not sure how one would cite a negative assertion such as ``even when it's used by conservatives there's no basis for the speculation that it's intended to be insulting/pejorative/demeaning....``  The burden of proof falls on person making the extraordinary claim, not the person expressing skepticism.  Have there been any empirical studies that show the claim is true?  Has any unbiased researcher tracked usage of this term and reported the results?  Has any internal memo been released instruction Republican party members to use the term?  ::::Yes, I see that there was a clumsy and obviously partisan attempt to delete the article, but the fact that it failed does not ipso facto make the article valid.  This article violates all three of the core content policies.  It's original research in the sense that sense that it's a synthesis of facts and opinions that may or may not be related.  It lacks a neutral point of view in that it speculates motives that may or may not be present, thus assuming malice on the part of users of the term.  And failing in the previous 2 policies shows it lacks verifiability, as examples or opinion pieces are not in and of themselves adequate.  ::::If I may express the ``opinion`` of subjecting the claim to a simple logic test, it seems to fail.  Given that ``Democrat`` is a proper term, does it make sense that saying ``Democrat Party`` is clearly and unambiguously intended to be insulting, as the last syllable is ``rat?``  And given the last syllable of ``Democratic Party`` is tick, i.e., a blood-sucking arachnoid, why would that not be considered insulting by the same standard?  And without empirical studies of the type I suggested above, can we honestly state that this is an intentional usage, not a mere error, especially in light of the numerous examples of usage by non-Republican/conservatives?  I'm not saying it's not now or never been used intentionally, but stating that it is always and unquestionably used in this as an epithet is not a factual claim by encyclopedic standards.   `