Talk:2012 Republican National Convention/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Should Gov. Jindal be removed since his speech was cancelled?

On top of that, Santorum's speech was after Gov. Walker's even though it claims Santorum switched with an earlier speaker. J390 (talk) 06:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

OT - Time warp?

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/todaysbuzz/os-todays-buzz-gop-republican-convention-success-083112,0,7710879.story

Orlando Sentinel Editorial Board

August 31, 2012

The storm-shortened Republican National Convention concluded in Tampa on Thursday night with Mitt Romney accepting the party's presidential nomination. Romney spoke eloquently about his success as a leader in business and government, and the importance of his family and his faith. The crowd in the convention hall loved it. But will enough American voters be won over by this year's GOP convention? The timing of the event was awkward, as Tropical Storm Isaac brushed Tampa, then slammed into the Gulf Coast as a hurricane. Will the storm's distraction limit the boost from the convention for the party and its nominees? Or will the three carefully choreographed days, and memorable speeches from the nominees and other luminaries like Chris Christie and Marco Rubio, add to the party's support? Will counterattacks from the White House and its supporters, accusing the Republicans of lies, blunt the positive impact of the GOP convention? Do Americans really pay attention to conventions anymore? Talk about it!

Cwobeel (talk) 23:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what the newspaper's inability to read a calendar has to do with improving the article. 72Dino (talk) 00:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

See the heading "OT" (off topic). I just wasted to share something funny. Cwobeel (talk) 03:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Eastwood Speech....

While I am thinking we should wait for sources to come out to talk about it, but I imagine a major thing the convention will be remembered for is Eastwood's speech. We should discuss how to integrate it into the article. Casprings (talk)

I imagine a great deal of sources should be now available, (well, since I posted this the morning after...) -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 12:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Someone should also update his article Clint Eastwood with information about it; and Political life of Clint Eastwood -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 12:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I think at least a sentence about it in the "Speakers" column would be appropriate, given the press it's generated. --NextUSprez (talk) 19:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

On second thought, maybe the "Thursday, August 30" column, where it's already mentioned, is a better place.--NextUSprez (talk) 19:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Speakers in infobox

There is a list of speakers in the infobox, but it does not show up as a parameter at Template:Infobox national political convention. Should this be in the infobox or just in the body of the article? It seems pretty long for the infobox, and appears to be in no particular order. 72Dino (talk) 19:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

As long as it's only the "notable speakers" and not the whole list of speakers that's included there, I don't think it's a problem. Ditto with the 2012 Democratic National Convention infobox.--NextUSprez (talk) 19:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

There should be some kind of order to the list (alphabetical, chronological). Also, if the parameter is not in the infobox, why is the content showing? 72Dino (talk) 20:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree there should be some sort of order, either alphabetical or chronological. Chronological would be my choice, but either would be fine (and certainly better than random order). Can't answer the question about the content showing. Maybe someone who's knowledgeable about the technical stuff can address that...?--NextUSprez (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Images

Anyone know why the RNC banner is overlapping with the header in the next section? It makes more sense under "Host Committee". Thanks, groupuscule (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Ryan speech section

This one was a bit of a jumble of multiple pieces on the same items, and some less than encyclopedic language. I compiled all the references (save one from TheBlaze, which doesn't seem to be an RS as far as I can find? Seems a bit sensationalist, and probably redundant given other sources for same text.) and placed the GM discussion with the other contested assertions. Some more owkr can probably be done on the top. While I tried to tone down the last piece on the conservative response to more encyclopedic language, the top is probably leaning a bit the other way with the number of different adjectives/references it uses for saying the speech was misleading. I'm not sure where to start with that bit. Thought I'd get the low hanging fruit first. Sorry for the false start and revision of my own changes, my eyes aren't working well today, missed some changes to make, and it was easier just to go back to the previous version and start again.76.238.186.96 (talk) 17:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

and apparently I wasn't logged in either. Here I am. Also, the section I'm referencing is found under the Wednesday section in the proceedings.Jbower47 (talk) 17:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

What is with the Democratic responses to the Ryan speech? This is not the place to argue the merits of Ryan's speech or make back and forth claims regarding it, especially from Biden, who is little more than a Gaffe machine. Arzel (talk) 15:47, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly the place to discuss the speech. Please do not repeatedly revert without gaining consensus. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you going to discuss or just huff? Arzel (talk) 15:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Silly reversion. Of course this is where notable responses to the speech should go. We include all notable points of view, even on this page. We're not stenographers. --HectorMoffet (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Who says that Biden's response is notable? Arzel (talk) 16:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Evidently the secondary sources that covered it. Please try to come up with more convincing disguises for your WP:IDONTLIKEIT reverts. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Why must you and your fellow editors turn WP into a political battleground? Seriously, go fight your ideological wars somewhere else. Arzel (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you have anything to say about the article? If not, I think we're done here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Platform on abortion

I don't agree with stating in this article that the platform makes no exceptions for rape or incest. It doesn't say there should be exceptions, but it doesn't explicitly say there shouldn't be either. Thus you can only assume it is neutral on this issue. You may call newspapers "reliable sources" but most of them have their editorial slants or political biases. I kept the 2nd link as it's used elsewhere in the article but in both cases it's the newspaper's interpretation of what the platform means. Only something the platform itself says should be stated as fact. Hypertall (talk) 23:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The actual platform states “We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion or fund organizations which perform or advocate it and will not fund or subsidize health care which includes abortion coverage.”

The 2008 Republican platform has near identical language on the matter: "Faithful to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence, we assert the inherent dignity and sanctity of all human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. " I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree with the above post. There is nothing significantly different about the GOP platform this year than last election on the matter. Mr. Anon515 23:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. It is not up for us to apply our own perception or insights to determining what it says. We are only to reflect what RS say. That is how that plank is described, and beyond that, for the sake of mere discussion (which we shouldn't be getting into here anyway..), it's factually accurate to say it doesn't make exceptions. There is literally not text in that statement which indicates exceptions. Whether or not they would be open to them is a moot point. That's the realm of conjecture.76.238.186.96 (talk) 16:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to apply Ignore All Rules to this situation, if need be. The platform language is IDENTICAL from 2008 to 2012. The 2008 platform does not include exceptions for abortion either. Just to make things clear, I am a Democrat. We can say that there are no exceptions to abortion in the platform, but we can't say that the platform has changed. That would be false information. Mr. Anon515 01:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Hypertall and Mr. Anon515. The platform not containing language to allow for abortion in certain situations would be the subject of little—or at least far less—media attention and spin if it hadn't been for Todd Akin's comments. It may be "factually accurate" that no exceptions are named, but it's also factually accurate to say that the plank does not make exceptions for pregnancies that occur on Tuesdays, occur when using prostitutes, or occur on the surface of the moon. —Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 21:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

So although reliable sources cover this aspect of the platform extensively, we should ignore them and substitute our own emphases because... why again? MastCell ^Talk 00:15, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

My problem is not whether we say that the platform includes exceptions; my problem is the article implying and secondary sources stating that this is a new platform. No exceptions existed in the 2008 platform, and I would presume 2004. In fact, the platform's comments on abortion are identical to the 2008 platform. Stating that there are no exceptions is one thing, but it would be outright wrong to say that this is a platform change. Mr. Anon515 02:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Fortunately, I don't think anyone is saying that. MastCell ^Talk 02:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Hypertall et al. I'd like to add that other reliable sources (namely the head of factcheck.org) have challenged and critiqued the claim that the 2012 platform supports a total ban on abortion. I don't think it's unreasonable to conclude that the media is simply wrong on this detail. 2620:AE:0:2129:CC04:7B69:3EE4:74C6 (talk) 16:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmmmm. I actually hadn't seen the factcheck.org piece before. In light of their conclusion, I'm fine with your edit to the platform description. Thanks for bringing a good source to the table. MastCell ^Talk 17:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)