Talk:2008 Democratic National Convention

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Motioned vs. Moved[edit]

"Motion" is not a verb, it's a noun, ergo one cannot "motion" and one especially cannot have "motioned." As such, the article should read "former rival Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York *MOVED* to suspend the rules of the roll call...." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.202.0 (talk) 10:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Half delegates?[edit]

I don't want to contradict sourced material, but unless the guy from "Saw" shows up at the convention surely there can't be 823.5 uncommitted delegates, even if they have that many votes. It would be worth saying "N delegates with M votes", provided any source puts it that way. Wnt (talk) 17:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be more correct to say 823.5 "delegate votes", so if you want to be that picky, you don't need to recast the whole sentence. -Rrius (talk) 23:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
That might be good enough for an article about the primary, but an article about the convention really should say how many actual people gather in the building. Wnt (talk) 15:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The Rules Committee caved, Florida will get it's full complement of delegates. BTW.Ericl (talk) 22:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

"Upcoming election" banner[edit]

The counterpart article about the Republican convention begins with a banner: "This article or section contains information about an upcoming or ongoing election in the United States. Content may change as the election approaches." There should be a similar banner here, but I don't know how to create it. Ishboyfay (talk) 21:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

i agree, there is need for such a banner (Slipoutside (talk) 23:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC))

I disagree. Obama has now been officially nominated, so the DNC "election" of a nominee is now decided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.207.161.94 (talk) 02:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Rage against the Machine is...=[edit]

...broken up. I tried to delete the section "Possible Protests" primarily because it does not cite a single source and the text itself acknowledges that it is hearsay. This is a friggen encyclopedia. In the event that the iconic band reunites to start another riot, it will deserve to appear in the press and enjoy a spot in the section where actual protests are discussed. --143.231.249.138 (talk) 16:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

i agree unless the quoted part about ratm playing a protest concert across the steet can be sorced it should be removed. however the band is haveing a tour in europe right now so they are not broken up as of right now.peace and thanks.(Slipoutside (talk) 23:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC))

Controversy section should be removed[edit]

The second as it now stands, "Controversy: Glenn Beck talked about the city of Denver finding out that the Democrats were taking gas from goverment gas pumps which cost less than regular city gas pumps. But they are also accusing the Republicans in Minneapolis." should be removed from this page immediately until someone comes up with the appropriate references. Right now it's just slander and shouldn't be posted as fact. 122.26.23.34 (talk) 04:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Urrmm, you need Consensus before changing. No removing "immediately."
"In essence, silence implies consent, if there is adequate exposure to the community." You could still get it removed without doing so "immediately." Lihaas (talk) 11:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
You can remove something immediately without "consensus", especially if it is uncited. However, it is best practice to add [citation needed] to the section in question and put the issue to the talk page.--12.201.72.84 (talk) 17:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks to me as though Wikipedia is becoming about as dumb as youtube judging by how people are communicating here. The controversy section here seems facist, not factual by the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.51.150 (talk) 01:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Archiving bot[edit]

I added User:MiszaBot I. It will archive all but five posts older than five days (in other words, the last five posts will always be left on the talk page). -Classicfilms (talk) 19:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Criticism[edit]

Just found the following link: http://cbs4denver.com/denver2008/denver.protesters.arrested.2.793930.html Does anyone care to incorporate it into the article or should I just create a criticism section. Lihaas (talk) 11:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Date of convention[edit]

Re this sentence: "However, CBS News reported in August that another reason for the late convention dates was so that Obama could spend as much money as possible from the matching gifts associated with the primaries. That money is no longer available once the general election starts." Surely the date of the convention was decided long before Obama was the prospective nominee? The date must have been known at the time the cities were asked to bid to host. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 01:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right, so it has been moved here from the introduction. Someone will have to review a transcript and figure out where the error is. -- SEWilco (talk) 03:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

(However, CBS News reported in August that another reason for the late convention dates was so that Obama could spend as much money as possible from the matching gifts associated with the primaries. That money is no longer available once the general election starts.)[1]

To a first degree the idea is correct - it just had nothing to do with Obama. If the quote was "another reason for the late convention dates was so that the Democratic candidate could spend as much money as possible from the matching gifts associated with the primaries", it would make sense.

But the reasoning is actually backwards. The late date was due to general election money, not primary money. When candidates took public funds for the general election, they had a set amount, no matter when the convention was. So Kerry was at a disadvantage in 2004. His money has to be spread over 3+ months - Bush only over 2 months. The Democrats wanted to avoid that, so they set a late date. But this won't be as big a problem in 2012 - assuming the candidates don't take any public money.

Here's a good link that discusses the whole convention date vs money issue [1] and some other links [2], [3]

(Note that Kerry even considered trying to delay the official acceptance of the nomination in 2004 so he could continue to spend unlimited primary money[4])

Lots of information here. I'll let others work it into the article as needed.

The data of the convention was announced on November 7, 2005.[5]Simon12 (talk) 05:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Comments by Jeff Greenfield made on CBS Evening News, August 14, 2008

Neutral Language[edit]

The language of the section "The First Night," especially that regarding the children of Senator Obama asking him questions, seems very empathetic to the Democratic cause. It should be changed to be neutral.

Big agree, I killed all of it but the first paragraph. It still needs work, shouldn't be its own section at all! 99.154.3.177 (talk) 23:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

100 protesters taken to temporary center[edit]

I'm no regular here, but I thought this should be included here. If it were best I didn't post this here, I apologize for my ignorance. If not, I apologize for leaving the article so horribly incomplete. Perhaps someone who knows what they're doing can help.Multitallented (talk) 04:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

May I ask why someone removed my section on the protests without giving a reason? If no reason is given, I will simply repost my material by this time tomorrow.Multitallented (talk) 06:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Is that the section I removed as being a word-for-word cut-and-paste copyvio? Some thing about riot police using tear gas? --Elliskev 12:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't word-for-word. There was barely any material in it, I know, but it wasn't word for word. There was like two sentences in it I wrote up that I based on this one part in order to try to keep it neutral (cause I'm not neutral on it at all)Multitallented (talk) 03:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I would argue that a section dedicated to protests should be included in the article, or there should at least be a separate article made about the protests. Afterall, there are sections and/or articles on other DNC and RNC convention pages on Wikipedia dedicated to protests. Thus, expansive protest content regarding this convention should be allowed; otherwise, expansive protest content regarding other conventions need to be removed. There shouldn't be different standards for different convention pages on Wikipedia. -- Luke4545 (talk) 04:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Makes sense, so why don't we keep something about that protest on here so long as it's neutral and not word-for-word?Multitallented (talk) 18:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

complete list of speakers[edit]

hi there, i´m searching for a complete list of speakers. a link anyone? thx --moneybrother 20:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

roll call[edit]

What was the tabulation of the roll call vote when it was suspended? Bubba73 (talk), 04:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I just put it up. There might be a complete total made public sometime in the future (the actual voting was done in the hotels) but this is doubtfulEricl (talk) 13:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, the article needed that. Bubba73 (talk), 15:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

third day summary[edit]

only part of it is past tense, while the first sentence(s?) still refer to them as future events. needs an update. 24.3.14.157 (talk) 12:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Nomination of Obama by acclamation[edit]

First, Hilary's motion only applied to Obama, not to Biden, so please don't add him. Second, using YouTube as a source is not discouraged by Wikipedia, see WP:YouTube. If you are suspicious about the copyright status of the video there, then by all means link to another one, but check you link to the correct video, not (as somebody did) to a video about a totally different story. Richard75 (talk) 12:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

We can't link to a copyvio. See WP:ELNEVER. --Elliskev 12:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Biden is now nominated, they voted him in by acclamation just before his speech. I cannot change the article, can someone else please update. - Nbpolitico (talk) 13:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Odd wording[edit]

In the "Site selection" section, these sentences appear:

Only three cities submitted proposals to host the convention: Denver, Minneapolis-St. Paul and New York. On July 12, New Orleans dropped out.

Why is New Orleans mentioned as dropping out after the deadline if they didn't even submit a proposal? Or did they submit a proposal, bringing the total number of cities who did so to four? Either way, this section needs to be updated. --ΨΦorg (talk) 14:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree it was a bit confusing. (And I wrote this text 2 years ago). It now says:
Only three cities submitted final proposals to host the convention: Denver, Minneapolis-St. Paul and New York. New Orleans had submitted an initial bid, but on July 12, the city dropped out.

Sources are [6] and [7] Simon12 (talk) 04:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Clean up of Controversies section[edit]

There was some nasty POV there, such as a false claim that the ABC news photographer was taking pictures of Obama donors and another false claim that the anti-abortion activists took down the sign and left the area cleaner then they found it. It needs to be closely monitored to prevent more political POV.--Shikata Ganai (talk) 08:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

ABC News seems to think one of their producers was arrested. The cleaning claim is only supported by a prediction that the area would be cleaned, but in a wildlife area one hopes the cleaning is of the appropriate type. -- SEWilco (talk) 12:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
The ABC News article only stated that their photographer was arrested after taking pictures of Democratic Senators meeting with VIP donors. They may or may not be donors to Obama but the way the sentence was written makes it look that Obama had a part in it which is not inferred by the article and that's my only concern. And my only gripe with the earlier citation regarding the sign is that it did not indicate whether they took it down or cleaned the site properly. Any updates to the site's condition and status would be definitely most welcome. --Shikata Ganai (talk) 06:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


Yikes, Shitaka--try some more NPOV yourself! You should have said "unverified claim", not "false claim".
I added the reference to the activists' promise to clean the area. I didn't say that they did clean it, I said that they had promised to do so. (But I did word the "leaving the area" clause badly--it was ambiguous enough that I can see how you misunderstood it.) The citation I added was an adequate documentation for what the sentence actually said. However, I agree that it's probably better to remove that sentence, for two reasons: (1) We don't have documentation whether they actually did leave it cleaner than it was before. (2) What I wrote was accurate (though badly-worded), and nothing about the wording itself violates NPOV--but there's no point in bringing it up. If the article were already discussing the cleanliness/litter issue, then their promise would be relevant. But coming out of the blue like that, it has no apparent purpose other than to make them look better.
Hmm... Actually, though, the "sensitive to wildlife" regulation sort of raises the concern... Maybe other people should weigh in. Is it relevant? Can it be included in a NPOV way?
One more thing. The 9News article isn't clear on this point, but in video attached to it, they say that the protesters took down the sign by noon. So that part is verified. We just don't know how well they cleaned the area. --Tirmie (talk) 19:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Introductory sentence[edit]

The beginning of the article states "The 2008 Democratic National Convention was a quadrennial presidential nominating convention of the Democratic Party ...". A Democratic National Convention happens quadrennially, but only one has happened in 2008. I was thinking we could change it to something along the lines of "...was a meeting of the quadrennial presidential nominating convention of the Democratic Party". Thanks. - 68.183.161.211 (talk) 04:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The timing is implied by the presidential election system. Is it necessary to mention how often it happens in the article for every convention? -- SEWilco (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Web Site criticism[edit]

The part about Gnash is misleading. For those wanting to use 100% free software (e.g., those running gNewSense with multiverse disabled), there are hurdles to overcome in order to view YouTube videos without downloading them first. Many people never do get them to play in their browser. I suspect the editor who wrote that part might not fully understand the meaning of free software. If you're using Ubuntu and Firefox, you're not viewing YouTube with free software. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.214.138 (talk) 04:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Roll Call[edit]

The DNCC has released the state-by-state official vote totals[8]. This information should be added to the article where appropriate. Simon12 (talk)

Colorado Convention Center[edit]

There were open caucus' held at the Colorado Convention Center during the daytime of each convention day as well as an interfaith service on the Sunday before and not a mention in the entire article Gang14 (talk) 08:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

homeless people[edit]

where's some criticism about the Denver police forcibly relocating homeless people from downtown denver to impress tourists? 65.102.200.78 (talk) 17:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide a source or two supporting this claim? Qqqqqq (talk) 17:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Denver didn't trick everyone when they hid their homeless people. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=denver+homeless+democratic+national+convention&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi= 65.102.246.173 (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Harriet Christian[edit]

I am deleting this section of the article, which reads "Harriet Christian became famous at the 2008 Democratic National Convention, with videos of her protests became popular on YouTube." Three references were provided, all of which make it clear that Harriet Christian received media attention and many YouTube hits following her protest at DNC Rules Committee that ruled on the Michigan/Florida delegate controversy. That meeting took place almost three months before the convention. Harriet Christian received no special attention at the convention in Denver. Jim Heaphy (talk) 15:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2008 Democratic National Convention. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on 2008 Democratic National Convention. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 2008 Democratic National Convention. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:38, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

I propose that Gitmo on the Platte be merged into 2008 Democratic National Convention. I think that the content in the Gitmo on the Platte article can easily be explained in the context of the 2008 Democratic National Convention, and the 2008 Democratic National Convention article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Gitmo on the Platte (a rather minuscule stub of an article) will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. SecretName101 (talk) 22:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)