Talk:2004 Democratic National Convention
|2004 Democratic National Convention is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.|
|WikiProject United States / Massachusetts||(Rated B-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Barack Obama||(Rated B-class, Mid-importance)|
- 1 "Barack Obama Keynote address"
- 2 Ronald Reagan Jr.
- 3 Free Speech Zone
- 4 Protest groups involved
- 5 Democratic Convention Poll
- 6 Bravo
- 7 Nader
- 8 Request for references
- 9 Convention website link broken
- 10 Some late revisions
- 11 Barack Obama Honolulu native?
- 12 Comparison to 2004 Republican National Convention
- 13 Missing dates needed
- 14 So, the 2004 Democratic National Convention helped at least one person to get elected POTUS for the Dems
- 15 Dead link
"Barack Obama Keynote address"
Ronald Reagan Jr.
Is Ronald Reagan Jr. still speaking? I don't see him listed on this page.
- Yes, he is planned to speak on Tuesday. I built the speakers list primarily off the abbreviated list on the Convention's web site, and he wasn't listed on the front page, thus his non-inclusion. I'll go ahead and add him. Thanks for the pointer, as he's one of the more politically significant speakers there. I can't imagine why he wasn't listed up front. They haven't posted the full schedule for tomorrow yet, so I don't know when he'll speak. Thanks again. UPDATE: Silly me for not checking the page first. Someone else beat me too it! Wikipedia strikes again. --Gregb 04:03, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Free Speech Zone
Should mention existence of so-called "Free Speech Zone" (under a section "Security"?) and controversy over it. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:17, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I removed these labels "— both anti-Bush and pro-Bush —" as I understand, there where groups with other agendas being represented there as well, some may have even been gasp, anti-Kerry protesters. I think it would be sufficient to say that there where "protesters" and leave it at that, unless a list of groups classified as protesters be made. I think that would detract from this article. --Buster 03:56, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)
Protest groups involved
- More detail should be put into the protests going on, like some mention of the Bl(A)ck Tea Society (blackteasociety.org) and you can probably get the most up to the minute coverage from boston.indymedia.org
- I added a detailed section about the protests and does in fact mention the Bl(A)ck Tea Society. --Gerald Farinas 21:50, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Democratic Convention Poll
- Hello, I was wondering where you got the info on the poll about Bill and Hillary being the most popular democrats in the US.ChrisDJackson
- I got it off a graphic they featured on the PBS coverage on Monday night (7/26/04) with Jim Lehrer. Bill Clinton was voted most popular, followed by John Kerry then Hillary Clinton. They even went on and on about how the poll indicated that if Kerry loses the election, Hillary Clinton "will be it for 2008." --Gerald Farinas 15:48, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I just have to say, this is one of the best articles I've read on Wikipedia. Full of relevant information, with very worthy photos and very good captions. And it's of an ongoing event, no less. To the collective editors of this work, I say congratulations on a magnificent article. (disclaimer: I am not a Democrat. :) --Golbez 01:36, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- It is my intent that this be the best article of any presidential nominating convention featured on Wikipedia. ;) --Gerald Farinas 21:49, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I agree. This article is fantastic. Good work. - MattTM 21:55, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Question.... Is it good enough to be nominated for Featured Article? --Gerald Farinas 18:43, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I think so; it's also a great example of how Wikipedia is different from paper and CD encyclopedias. Sure, they might have an entry on the Democratic Party that mentions the convention, but apart from a few notable ones like 1968, would they really have such an in depth article on something like this? This is what sets Wikipedia apart. It does not have to choose what little to mention in 2 pages dedicated to the Democratic Party. --Golbez 22:35, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I disagree. It's overly pro-Democrat. What I wrote about the bazaar was twice removed, as if someone's trying to hide the fact that yes, anarchists were having fun outside while a bunch of lying Democrats glorified themselves. Like the person below said, some of the photos - particularly the absurd "I'm reporting for duty" one are just propaganda. I mean, having such a large article on such useless spectacle is bound to have POV, since no one else cares...but whatever, it's still a detailed article, and for the most part a good one, but I felt the need to give a contrary opinion. I love you all. :P --Tothebarricades.tk 22:56, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Well in the name of NPOV I hope you all work just as hard next month for the GOP. But some of those captions under the pictures are a bit corny and might be slighty pov.
Nader can only get on the ballot in 26 states, representing 220 electoral votes; thus, it is mathematically impossible for him to win the presidency. As such, I'm removing the mention of him and Camejo. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 13:24, 2004 Aug 3 (UTC)
Request for references
Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message when a few references have been added to the article. - Taxman 18:00, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with the need for references. How on earth did this page get named a "feature article" without a single source or reference of any kind????? --Jayzel68 14:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
The Question of PERSONAL EXPERIENCE raises it's ugly head once again. I put up the thing about Kucinich's delegates trying to vote for him at the Convention because I was there and heard them griping, I saw one person arguing with the head of the delegation about it, and I"m sure that several others actually were at the events mentioned.
That's the problem with recent and current events on this thing.Ericl 14:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The link to the official convention comittee website, www.dems2004.org, is not working. Looks like the domain registration lapsed. Should the link be removed?
- I wouldn't myself. Someone could always pull it up through the Wayback Machine or somesuch. RGTraynor 09:11, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
- I dropped them - that page is now a googlebomb. Here are the links if anyone wants to use them for research etc.
http://www.dems2004.org Official Convention Committee Website http://www.dems2004.org/site/apps/nl/newsletter3.asp?c=luI2LaPYG&b=125919 Transcripts and Video of Speeches Listed by Speaker http://www.boston04.com/home.asp Boston 04 Ellsworth 22:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Some late revisions
I explained the presidential voting and Edwards' acceptence speech (or lack thereof). I was there, and in the case of the Kucinich votes, was thick in the middle of it. Ericl 20:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Barack Obama Honolulu native?
Although Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, he's not a Hawaiian native, according to his own article Barack Obama. His father is from Kenya, his mother from Kansas. Cheesus 09:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Comparison to 2004 Republican National Convention
In this article about the Democrats, it says, even in the table of contents box, no less, that the convention caused several negative consequences to the venue (Boston):
1. 3 Boston venue
* 3.1 Site Selection * 3.2 Security * 3.3 Free speech zone * 3.4 Police strike * 3.5 Loss of business
Now, let's take a look at the TOC (contents) box for the article on the Republican National Convention:
- 2 Venue
* 2.1 Security * 2.2 Timing
So maybe there wasn't a police strike in New York City at this time, but no loss of business from the disruption? Indeed, the article cites Bloomberg hailing it as an economic boon. I don't expect the articles to be exact mirror images of each other, but it does seem at least a little slanted towards the Republicans. Shanoman 22:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Missing dates needed
This article is missing vital information: dates. True, it mentions that the convention ran from July 26-29, but it doesn't give any information about on what days specific speeches and events happened. Which speakers spoke on what days? —Lowellian (reply) 23:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
There is information on speakers and dates at the article Speakers of 2004 Democratic National Convention, but there should still be more date information in this article then there currently is, and it should also be made clearer where to find that date information. —Lowellian (reply) 23:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
So, the 2004 Democratic National Convention helped at least one person to get elected POTUS for the Dems
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!