Talk:Tories (British political party)

Party vs. faction

There seems to be no good reason to be squeamish about using the term "party" to refer to either of the two political organizations that operated under that name in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. The term "Tory Party" was frequently used in the contemporary political discourse, and referred to a group of people sharing common political principles, as well as a smaller group of politicians operating under a common leader, debating and (generally) voting together in the Parliament. This is close enough to the modern definition of "party" as not to require further comment.

The term "faction" was also used of the Tories in contemporary literature, but the words "faction" and "party" were not used in distinctive or contrasting ways at the time. At the present, however, "faction" may imply a splinter or dissident group of a larger party, and it seems inappropriate to use it with reference to the historical Tories. RandomCritic (talk) 10:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Will the article on the Whig party be moved to "British Whig party"?--Britannicus (talk) 15:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I actually think we should just have one centralised article called "Toryism", the title before was quite messy and as it is now it isn't too much better IMO. - Yorkshirian (talk) 15:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's better to separate the ideology from the party. I think the pages on both parties should be moved to "Tory (British political party)" and "Whig (British political party)".--Britannicus (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

How about having two articles named "Toryism" (ideology in general), "Tories" (for this). - Yorkshirian (talk) 21:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I changed it to "grouping" to meet the objection of ambiguity of faction (splinter-group). The sense in which "party" is used today makes it misleading to call them a party. BillMasen (talk) 20:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Why misleading? Unless you are talking about confusion with "birthday parties" or "pyjama parties", which is unlikely! Jubilee♫clipman 03:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I was bold and moved the page to "party". The article uses the word and I cannot see any real conflict with other modern uses of the word. Jubilee♫clipman 03:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Naming of articles

BTW, for the sake of consistency a change to the name of this article should be mirrored in a change to the name of the article Whig (British political faction) (which still uses the silly faction thing). What is wrong with "party"? (See comment immediately above.)Jubilee♫clipman 03:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realise you'd moved this one to party, so I moved the tory one to grouping for the sake of consistency.

What is a modern political party? It is a permanent organisation with paying members, structure, a single manifesto, and a single leadership. The whigs and tories had none of these things, and people unfamiliar with this political history might assume that they did if we call them parties.

It is true that they called themselves parties, but they also used several other names for themselves which are not at all ambiguous. Why not use one of their non-ambiguous names? BillMasen (talk) 11:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Under this definition, most American political parties (including the Democrats and Republicans) are not "parties":

• Members of the Democratic and Republican parties do not pay dues or membership fees; they are identified as members by voting (free of charge) in party elections
• The structure is very loose, to the extent that the national parties are little more than umbrella organizations for the fifty state parties
• The only time that the parties produce a "single manifesto" is in their quadrennial party platforms, which are promptly ignored by everyone in the party, including the Presidential candidate;
• Except when a party controls the White House, there is no identifiable single party leader.

I'm curious: should we move, for instance, Democratic Party (United States) to Democrats (United States political grouping)? RandomCritic (talk) 14:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Moved again

Explanation: I moved Whig back to "party" and previously moved Tory to the same for the following reasons:
1. The word "grouping" is rarely used in either of the actual articles to describe either the Tories or the Whigs, and even then only as part of the formation history.
2. The word "party", on the other hand, is used consistently throughout both articles to describe both groups of politicians. eg A few decades later, a new Tory party would rise..., The first Tory party could trace its principles and politics..., The Whigs are often described as one of the two original political parties (the other being the Tories), etc etc.
3. The actual distinction between the modern word "Party" and older uses is not addressed in either article.
4. Most modern readers will not understand the meaning of the word "grouping" and will misunderstand "faction".
5. Modern readers will understand "Party" in the wide context of "a group of politicians sharing common policies and working together in opposition to other such groups".
6. The word "Party" was used by both groups to label themselves long before subscriptions came into force.

Therefore, I have moved Whig back to "party". The Tory article is also under "party".

Note: Perhaps further changes should be proposed via Wikipedia:Requested moves? This will avoid edit warring!

Jubilee♫clipman 14:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I have been at wikipedia long enough to recognise the tactic of reverting to your version, and then recommending the drawn-out formal process. I would move it again if I thought it was right to do so. However, I'm clearly in the minority, so I won't bother to argue, even though I find all of your reasons to be specious. BillMasen (talk) 15:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the move. Faction makes either sound like a small group within a larger body but the Whigs and Tories were parties of their own standing. Granted, they were not parties like today's but they had a fierce rivalry and were political parties in that they coalesced around distinctive principles.--Britannicus (talk) 17:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Status of James, Duke of York

In the section on the exclusion crisis, James is referred to as "heir apparent". This is incorrect as he was only ever heir presumptive. The key point is that Charles II could- in theory at least- have produced a legitimate male heir who would have overtaken James in the line of succession. I don't think this needs any discussion so I'm going to be bold and just change it. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 10:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)