Talk:National Democratic Party (United States)

	Libertarianism portal National Democratic Party (United States) is within the scope of WikiProject Libertarianism, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Libertarianism and related subjects in the Wikipedia. Template Usage • Change Patrol • Articles Requested • Become a Member • Project Talk LibertarianismWikipedia:WikiProject LibertarianismTemplate:WikiProject LibertarianismLibertarianism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: Political parties Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[History of the United States Democratic Party#Civil War, Reconstruction, and the Gilded Age: 1861–1896|Democratic Party]] The anchor (#Civil War, Reconstruction, and the Gilded Age: 1861–1896) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Type-o? edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

In the third sentence from the end that begins "The Democratis Party..." should it be "Democratic" instead? The quotation is not referenced either, so I can't check it.BSMet94 (talk) 14:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I guess it comes from the "primary source" so I could check it.BSMet94 (talk) 14:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Wow, that quotation was totally messed up and/or mis-paraphrased, within quotes no less. I would fix it, but I'm not up on the protocol for quoting and referencing this type of literature. Can someone please help? The original quote is the first section (4 paragraphs) on page six of the primary source, which is a digitized book on Google books. Thanks.12.196.201.131 (talk) 14:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Add topic