Talk:2008 Republican National Convention

Minnesota B‑class Low‑importance

	Minnesota portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Minnesota 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.MinnesotaWikipedia:WikiProject MinnesotaTemplate:WikiProject MinnesotaMinnesota articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

June 2005 VfD

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

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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

I thought the proposal from the Twin Cities suggested several venues. When was a single facility proposed? (SEWilco 15:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The links in question:

Please see WP:EL. — goethean ॐ 17:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

How many other editors have to remove them then? I wasn't the first or the last. ~ Shawn 20:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Trivia

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

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

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?

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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