Talk:2008 Republican National Convention

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is within the scope of the United States presidential elections WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States presidential elections-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
WikiProject Minnesota This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, which aims to improve all articles related to Minnesota.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of Low-importance within Minnesota articles.

This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents

[edit] June 2005 VfD

For a June 2005 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/2008 Republican National Convention

[edit] Tampa 2008

For all of you who are from Tampa, you can now add yourself to this list:Category:Wikipedians for Tampa 2008.--Chili14(Talk|Contribs) 03:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amendment assumption

"Assuming there are no constitutional amendments changing the eligibility to serve as President"
The above can more or less be removed at this point right? As of late August 2006, there doesn't appear to be any major movement to do such a thing, and given the rarity and difficulty of a constitutional amendment, is it even worth mentioning the very remote possibility?


It is worthy of mentioning that during a time of crisis the term could be "temporarily" extended to give the president a lengthier stay in office. This would only happen if there is a serious disaster (such as another 9-11 or the even likelier possibility of a nuclear war with Iran). George W. Bush may not be done so soon after all. This possibility for extending a republican white house was discussed both in the Wolfowitz Doctrine as well as has been purported to have been mentioned by Karl Rove. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.178.62.11 (talk) 14:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible copyvio?

I've removed sections of the article due to possible copyright violation from an AP article [1] discussing the selection of St. Paul as the convention site. The following is the removed text:

By choosing the Twin Cities for 2008, the GOP will ensure plenty of news converge in media markets in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Iowa—all battleground states in the 2004 election and ones expected to be competitive in the next presidential race. Minnesota had been seen by some as an unlikely host, with just 10 electoral votes and the nation's longest streak of voting for Democratic presidential candidates.
In 2004, Democrat John Kerry won the state 51 percent to 48 percent. The last Republican to win a presidential race in the state was Richard Nixon in 1972 and the last national convention backed President Benjamin Harrison in an unsuccessful re-election bid in 1892. Minnesota's national image as a traditional Democratic bastion has become outdated in recent years and the state was a hard-fought battleground in both the 2000 and 2004 national elections. Republicans hope to court voters in a region Republican and Democratic strategists alike say will play a critical role in winning the White House in 2008.

— wheresmysocks 02:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Xcel Center?

As of September 29 2006, has the Xcel Center indeed been chosen? I thought three major locations were proposed and details have not yet been decided. (SEWilco 06:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC))

Technically, the site selection committee will recommend the Xcel Energy Center to whomever signs the checks, but that approval is being treated as a foregone conclusion. — wheresmysocks 02:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I thought the proposal from the Twin Cities suggested several venues. When was a single facility proposed? (SEWilco 15:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC))
Several news reports have indicated the convention would be at the Xcel Center. I assume the RNC chodse the venue as their best choice. (The Democrats earlier had announced they were also focusing on the Xcel Center). Simon12 14:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Curious?

It can't be "curious" that Minnesota has not elected a republican president since 1976, it is just a fact. 209.162.8.244 08:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Protests Removed

Come on, if that's not a violation of viewpoint neutral, I don't know what is. This page isn't a portal to protests. It's factual information concerning the RNC. A section discussing previous protests and some planned protests in a historical, factual context might be more reasonable, but not any such implication that one should participate in those protests. (Because that violates the viewpoint neutral.)

I have put the links in the external links section. please do not delete them. you may add more positive links if such exist. — goethean ॐ 01:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
You've got to be kidding! The links aren't on topic, for starters - they belong on a RNC Protest page, not an page talking about the RNC itself. If that's your point, follow the former suggestion. If you somehow think that they don't violate NPOV, please state how! "All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source." WP:NPOV This is a page about the convention itself, not the opinions of the attendees. The protests are not relevant! ~ Shawn 17:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
The links in question:
Please see WP:EL. — goethean ॐ 17:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I asked Administrator NCurse his opinion, he responded on my talk page citing more reasons why they should be omitted. Also see WP:EL Undue Weight. Furthormore, seems to me that as NPOV is one of the three grounding principles of Wikipedia it supercedes WP:EL.
The admin gave reasons that were completely different from yours. His were convincing; yours are not. His reasons do not dictate the automatic removal of more suitable protest links should they arise. — goethean ॐ 20:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
How many other editors have to remove them then? I wasn't the first or the last. ~ Shawn 20:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what that comment means. What you need to do is to give valid reasons for the removal of the links. So far it has been claimed that the links are a "violation of viewpoint neutral" (false as well as ungrammatical), are "not on topic" (false), that they violate NPOV (false), that they give undue weight (false), etc. User:NCurse, on ther other hand, pointed out that one was a social networking site (true) and that the others contained no information (true). I have deleted the links on that basis. His claims are vaild; yours are not. If suitable protest links exist which are not at social networking sites and which do contain information, they may be added until such time when good arguments are put forth that the links run afoul of Wikipedia poilcy. — goethean ॐ 21:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
It means that you're the minority opinion of edittors watching this page. Here it is, gramatically incorrect: Several edittors feel that the links you provide are a biased point of view and that this bias violates the Wikipedia Policy on Viewpoint Neutrality, herein known as WP:NPOV. WP:EL is a guideline, part of the Manual of Style whereas WP:NPOV is a superceding policy. Therefore, any arguements here claiming WP:EL are rendered null by arguements concerning the NPOV violation. Furthermore, the article *does not address RNC Protests* which means RNC Protest links aren't even related to the topic.
NPOV Violations:
  • Bias: "NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. ... Political bias, including bias in favor of or against a particular political party, policy or candidate." The links themselves are biased against the RNC, that's a fact, which means they violate NPOV.
  • Undue weight: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." The RNC Protests represent a minority opinion and are not guarenteed a place in the article itself.

I would note that protests are part of all recent convention articles, and are relevant to the article. Also, the AP[2] just did an article on protests and preparations for protests, and a brief summary/note of the facts could/should go in on the page now, and would be NPOV. Therefore the argument above about the links not being related to the topic goes away. I would also claim that links to protests, by themselves, can not be assumed to violate NPOV, just because they're about protests. Each link must be evaluated on it's merit. And links which support one side or another can also not automatically be assumed to violate NPOV - if that were the case, than all political links would be banned as external links. Importantly, please note that both 2004 Democratic National Convention and 2004 Republican National Convention have links to protest web sites, and therefore there is clear precedence that links to protest sites meet Wikipedia guidelines. But given all that, these specific links violate WP:EL because they are not "informative" at this time. If and when the links have useful information, these or other protest sites should be eligble to be included in the article. Simon12 00:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I have added a link to a recent article published by the Star Tribune newspaper (one of the two daily newspapers in Mpls/St. Paul) about the plans for protests at the convention. I hope all can agree that this article is NPOV as it is from the mass media and has both background about protests at previous conventions as well as info on some developing plans for protests against the RNC 2008 in St. Paul - facts such as that permits have been applied for, the organization that applied for protest permits, etc. Takealeft 05:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is the protest secondary subject still up, when there is no protest secondary subject up on the Democrat National Convention page? 207.114.206.48 (talk) 04:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Convention Location

Something is not right here, According to this article and the 2008 Democratic National Convention are both parties are holding their conventions in St. Paul, Minnesota. I seriously doubt that both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are both holding their conventions in same town. Can someone give clarification and edit each article appropriately. 151.198.152.109 01:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The Democratic article does not say convention will be in St. Paul. It says it will be in Denver or New York, which is correct. No changes needed. Simon12 01:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

Why are there two trivia sections? There isn't even supposed to be one, so.....Happyme22 00:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

and then there were none. Simon12 00:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Where are all the delegates going to stay? Is there enough hotel accomodaton? Are there enough private homes in the suburbs close to St. Paul that can be rented or bought?

[edit] Delegate Votes?

Can someone please find some verified information on the number of delagates attending the convention, and how many are tied to the states and how many are not? This page reports approx. 4000 (which sounds right), but the page on the Primary polls was reporting only 1900.

I was the one who put the approx 4000 becuase I could only find a vague source, it was my fault no citation was given. Upon further research, it turns out that this includes alternatives as well, which number almost as many as regular delegates. Check out this page, http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/ , I believe it would be helpful but it has confused me thoroughly so I am reluctant to use it myself. ~goodleh

RNC gave an estimate of the number of delegates and alternates. (SEWilco 03:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC))

[edit] 1928?

I'm pretty sure the last time neither party ran a President or Vice President was 1952. Neither Truman nor Alban Barkley ran.

204.181.205.165 21:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Barkley sought the Democratic nomination in 1952 but didn't get it. Simon12 00:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Logo

there has been alot of talk about the logo in the media, specifically regarding its strange allusions to senator larry craig with its "wide stance" and the fact that it seems to be wearing prison stripes and mounting the numbers 2008 in a sexual manner. Notations regarding this keep being removed by "somebody" yet this is obviously noteworthy as there have been many discussions in the media regarding this strange choice of logos. It has been mentioned on "The Daily Show", "Late Nite with David Letterman", "Good Morning America" and even "The View". Yet, there is an obvious attempt by republicans (especially on wikipedia) to bury this story despite the fact that many people are discussing it all around the internet and the main stream media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.113.135.110 (talk) 13:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

If there's been a lot of talk in the media then you'll have no trouble finding a major media source. (SEWilco 15:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Number of convention delegates

The above mentioned site regarding details of the up-coming election is actually quite useful. (The page on the Green Papers site: http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/ ) All one has to do is to click on the USPS abbreviation of the state's name.

The page gives dates of primaries and caucuses, the number of delegates sent by the states in question and the method for apportioning delegates. Dogru144

[edit] Convention dates

See Talk:2008 Democratic National Convention for why I reverted the note about the convention dates. Simon12 (talk) 13:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] John McCain

Okay, The convention is going to be about John McCain, whether you like it or not. He's got well over half the delegates he needs, and unless He loses everything between now and June, he's going to be the prohibitive front-runner, if not the nominee already. Ericl (talk) 23:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not about to accuse you of POV pushing, but it's turning into it. Furthermore your edit provided no additional substance to the article, there is no reason for it to be there. Please leave it alone. Wikidan829 (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
there's plenty of reason for it to be there. He's got close to 700 delegates with only somthing like 1100 neccessary for nomination. Unless he loses EVERYTHING, under the rules, he's a shoe-in. Face it, John McCain is going to be the focus of the convention. I could see an objection prior to yesterday, but not now.Ericl (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
You need to stop reverting. Another editor completely separate from me appeared to agree while I was away. WP:CRYSTAL is actually another good thing to read. Wikidan829 (talk) 12:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
My my, Romney dropped out. His 293 delegates have to go somewhere. See what kind of influences are still in here? We can't know who's going to win, and especially can't add this information to WP. Wikidan829 (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
This article is about the convention, not the campaigns. There are other articles about the campaigns. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- SEWilco (talk) 01:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Right, and Romney withdrew, making it physically impossible for anyone else to get the nomination. 66.108.111.67 (talk) 19:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
It is not physically impossible for someone else to get the nomination, but that's an issue for the campaign articles and not the Convention article. Unless someone is already installing gates at the site for blocking people from reaching the floor to nominate McCain, in which case it would be a matter for this article. -- SEWilco (talk) 20:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Unless McCain gets very sick or, heaven forbid, dies, he's got it. He goes over the top a week from today. So when is it germaine to call the great John McCain pep rally what it is?

Ericl (talk) 14:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's look at it this way. The convention is in September, and today it's May. While it is highly improbable that another is chosen at the convention, it's not entirely impossible. He is old and may die. He may get in a plane wreck or car accident that kills him. He may be struck by a meteor or asteroid. All not terribly likely (except the old death part), but still possible. Let's take his name off and quit acting like Wikipedia is a crystal ball for the future. Hell, it's not even a Magic 8-ball. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.173.87.109 (talk) 05:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TV scheduling conflicts

Correct me if I'm wrong, but won't John McCain's acceptance speech coincide with the NFL's Kickoff 2008 game on NBC? Does anyone know how this will be handled? Obviously, the GOP wouldn't want anything major being scheduled against the convention. 71.202.242.152 (talk) 08:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The NFL hasn't officially announced its schedule yet (maybe the season will open the following week), but the potential for a conflict is there. Simon12 (talk) 05:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

Someone needs to re-write this paragraph:

"Both Minnesota and Wisconsin have trended to swing for the Democrats, but with the victories of Gov. Tim Pawlenty and Sen. Norm Coleman, activists are giving it a second thought. Both states have come to the centrist position, making it a must visit and requiring candidates to pay significant attention. With this theory, many in the Republican field believe that this provides them a chance to peel off the states from the Democrats, who have had a traditional hold on them."

Here's what I've gleaned from that paragraph:

  • Minnesota and Wisconsin are traditionally blue states, but recent Republican victories in Minnesota mean that they're both moving right
  • 'Both states have come to the centrist position'
  • Victories in Minnesota somehow mean that Republicans are now more competitive than before in Wisconsin

What, exactly, is the 'centrist position'? A pretty sizeable majority of elected officials in Wisconsin (including their governor and two Senators) are Democrats, and none except for possibly Ron Kind are really 'centrists'. Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold definitely aren't centrists, and while the margins were close both times, John Kerry improved on Al Gore's margin of victory in Wisconsin. I believe Kerry improved on Gore's in Minnesota as well, but I could be wrong about that.

However, that's all a matter of opinion, and so is the paragraph I just copied over here. Any thoughts? One (talk) 13:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)