![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
For a June 2005 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/2008 Republican National Convention
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)
"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)
No, because it isn't true Ericl ( talk)
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:
— wheresmysocks 02:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
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))
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)
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 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)
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)
Why are there two trivia sections? There isn't even supposed to be one, so..... Happyme22 00:03, 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?
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
I'm pretty sure the last time neither party ran a President or vice President was 1952. Neither Truman nor Alvan Barkley ran.
204.181.205.165 21:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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
See Talk:2008 Democratic National Convention for why I reverted the note about the convention dates. Simon12 ( talk) 13:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
You must realize that most of his delegates are UNBOUND, meaning they can vote for anyone, and Mitt Romney and Ron Paul ended their campaigns but NOT bid for the nomination, like Huckabee and Guiliani have. Also, many of McCain's counts include Romney's, Guiliani's, and Huckabee's delegates, claiming that they have endorsed McCain, which while true, does not mean that the delegates are going to vote for their candidate's endorsement. Note also that McCain is in trouble for violating the very election laws that he wrote (for example, in Ohio at least, he did NOT go through the proper process of getting signatures to get on the ballot, which would be legal had he taken matching funds, however he did not, therefore was not legally on the ballot), and as soon as the FEC gets its act together and gets enough members for a quorum, he will be put on trial, and the FEC has until September to do so. Therefore, McCain's loss of the race is not as unlikely as many posters are saying (claiming he must get hit by a car etc.) and should not be presumed as the republican candidate, as Romney and Paul are still in the race. Therefore I will delete the presumption in the infobox, and create a section about the controversy of his eligibility, and wish for it NOT to be reverted unless sufficient reason is given. Mobus ( talk) 19:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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:
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)
The tone of this article is not encyclopedic, please re-write several sections. This is not Wikinews. .:davumaya:. 16:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I tagged the photo of Palin presumably taken in the congressman's office, because nothing on the source website says who took the picture (at least not that I could find). It is only PD if it were taken by a govt. employee in the course of his duties. I'll delete it from this article if that's not proven in the next day or so.-- Appraiser ( talk) 02:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Because some editors wish to be difficult and follow the letter of this tag and not the spirit, this is my comment on the talk page to insist that all material in this section be sourced to reliable, academic, third party sources. Anything that isn't constitutes original research and will be removed. Cumulus Clouds ( talk) 23:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering about that. Someone put the "original reserch?" tag on a thing I wrote about Palin's expected nomination. Do Newspaper clippings and YouTube count for anything? If there are several articles on the use of voice votes to nominate Dan Quayle in 1988, and brief mentions about how Quayle and Cheney were nominated the same way in subsequent conventions and one says "it's expected that they're going to do it this way again" how is that "original research? Ericl ( talk)
shouldn't this article mention that, day one is has 2 speakers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srinivas666 ( talk • contribs) 17:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Apparently Bush and Cheney have canceled their appearances at the 2008 convention due to the hurricane. I assume someone can dig up a factoid on this. When was the last time a sitting President did not attend his own party's convention? Same question for sitting Vice President. SkyDot ( talk) 19:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Lyndon B. Johnson didn't attend the 1968 Democratic Convention, and as a former president, he was disinvited four years later. Ericl ( talk) 00:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I suppose this means it's not long enough ago to be noteworthy enough to include in the article. SkyDot ( talk) 00:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I'll throw it out there for someone else to note in the article. SkyDot ( talk) 21:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}} This article currently says that protesters were "found guilty" of fire code violations. This line has a citation to a CNN article which only says that they have been "accused" of such violations. If I could change the Wikipedia article to match the CNN article, I would make the edit myself. But the system isn't letting me. Would someone else please make the correction? Thank you. RealityBase10 ( talk) 03:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
The article notes that Labor Day, when the convention ends, is also the last day of the "popular Minnesota State Fair". While certainly true, does that belong in the second sentence of the article?-- Lkjhgfdsa ( talk) 01:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Since I can't edit the page, I intend suggest an addition to the section on the protests. I've heard reports that protesters at one point threw bags of concrete off an overpass at the buses transporting the delegates, smashing the windows in at least one. There has been other allegations of violence that are worth noting.
I found a source on the subject online. Here's the proposed source: http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/09/02/032634.php http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/09/02/0326342.php
One thing I find interesting is the seizure of "bomb-making devices."
Sheepdogj15 ( talk) 17:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Footnote 15 of the article links to a Guardian story outlining the violence perpetrated by a minority of the protest participants. However, the entry citing footnote #15 makes no note whatsoever of any violence, only that protestors were "largely peaceful." The entire section sounds heavily biased, since it discusses exclusively the peaceful protest, then immediately transitions to a discussion about specific police response, without mention of specific unlawful behavior and violent acts that provoked the police response. The absence of such context, of course, insinuates that the police response was unprovoked. There is mention in passing of violent acts that triggered specific police responses but the information and section as a whole are disorganized. 71.253.241.95 ( talk) 04:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
This article mentions nothing about the RNC 8. In something reminiscent of the Chicago 8, ie Abbie Hoffman et al., 8 members of the RNC Welcoming Committee, an organization formed in order to provide shelter and supplies for any and all protesters, were charged with "Conspiracy to Riot in Furtherance of Terrorism" I don't know what qualifies as a encyclopedic reference, but
http://tc.indymedia.org/2008/sep/breaking-rnc-8-charged-conspiracy-riot-furtherance-terrorism or Googling "conspiracy to riot in furtherance of terrorism" will generate some relevant result, some of which I'm sure will qualify as a good reference. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
71.80.127.45 (
talk)
21:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes everyone hates it when I beat the gong but this page is seriously in a netherworld of present and future tense. Barring slapping those ugly "UPDATE THIS NOW" tags, I will invite all of you to polish off this page so that it is no longer "current." And then with typical Wiki-faire we can ignore this page since CNN no longer covers it. .:davumaya:. 07:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
In regards to this edit, I removed it because the source says that most of the protests were violent; quote: "The violent protests in St. Paul contrasted with a relatively peaceful Democratic convention in Denver, where only 152 people were arrested during the four-day event and the preceding weekend." Best, Happyme22 ( talk) 23:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) I'm not following your 1000 number. Are you distinguishing between protesters and marchers?-- Appraiser ( talk) 16:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Norm Coleman is listed as speaking on the 2nd and on the 3rd. Is this right? It seems odd that he would give two separate speeches. Could someone who knows more about this look into it? MAC475 ( talk) 04:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Mr. Steele lead the chants and introduced "Drill, baby, drill!", but is not listed as a speaker nor anywhere else on the page. This seems rather incongruous. Certainly, the [[ says he was a speaker]. 68.33.221.122 ( talk) 20:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I guess someone thought it was clever to replace the real convention logo with this and then delete the real logo since it was abandoned. — Steven Andrew Miller ( talk) 22:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
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!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 14:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on 2008 Republican 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}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:56, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on 2008 Republican 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:11, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
For a June 2005 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/2008 Republican National Convention
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)
"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)
No, because it isn't true Ericl ( talk)
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:
— wheresmysocks 02:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
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))
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)
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 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)
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)
Why are there two trivia sections? There isn't even supposed to be one, so..... Happyme22 00:03, 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?
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
I'm pretty sure the last time neither party ran a President or vice President was 1952. Neither Truman nor Alvan Barkley ran.
204.181.205.165 21:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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
See Talk:2008 Democratic National Convention for why I reverted the note about the convention dates. Simon12 ( talk) 13:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
You must realize that most of his delegates are UNBOUND, meaning they can vote for anyone, and Mitt Romney and Ron Paul ended their campaigns but NOT bid for the nomination, like Huckabee and Guiliani have. Also, many of McCain's counts include Romney's, Guiliani's, and Huckabee's delegates, claiming that they have endorsed McCain, which while true, does not mean that the delegates are going to vote for their candidate's endorsement. Note also that McCain is in trouble for violating the very election laws that he wrote (for example, in Ohio at least, he did NOT go through the proper process of getting signatures to get on the ballot, which would be legal had he taken matching funds, however he did not, therefore was not legally on the ballot), and as soon as the FEC gets its act together and gets enough members for a quorum, he will be put on trial, and the FEC has until September to do so. Therefore, McCain's loss of the race is not as unlikely as many posters are saying (claiming he must get hit by a car etc.) and should not be presumed as the republican candidate, as Romney and Paul are still in the race. Therefore I will delete the presumption in the infobox, and create a section about the controversy of his eligibility, and wish for it NOT to be reverted unless sufficient reason is given. Mobus ( talk) 19:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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:
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)
The tone of this article is not encyclopedic, please re-write several sections. This is not Wikinews. .:davumaya:. 16:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I tagged the photo of Palin presumably taken in the congressman's office, because nothing on the source website says who took the picture (at least not that I could find). It is only PD if it were taken by a govt. employee in the course of his duties. I'll delete it from this article if that's not proven in the next day or so.-- Appraiser ( talk) 02:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Because some editors wish to be difficult and follow the letter of this tag and not the spirit, this is my comment on the talk page to insist that all material in this section be sourced to reliable, academic, third party sources. Anything that isn't constitutes original research and will be removed. Cumulus Clouds ( talk) 23:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering about that. Someone put the "original reserch?" tag on a thing I wrote about Palin's expected nomination. Do Newspaper clippings and YouTube count for anything? If there are several articles on the use of voice votes to nominate Dan Quayle in 1988, and brief mentions about how Quayle and Cheney were nominated the same way in subsequent conventions and one says "it's expected that they're going to do it this way again" how is that "original research? Ericl ( talk)
shouldn't this article mention that, day one is has 2 speakers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srinivas666 ( talk • contribs) 17:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Apparently Bush and Cheney have canceled their appearances at the 2008 convention due to the hurricane. I assume someone can dig up a factoid on this. When was the last time a sitting President did not attend his own party's convention? Same question for sitting Vice President. SkyDot ( talk) 19:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Lyndon B. Johnson didn't attend the 1968 Democratic Convention, and as a former president, he was disinvited four years later. Ericl ( talk) 00:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I suppose this means it's not long enough ago to be noteworthy enough to include in the article. SkyDot ( talk) 00:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I'll throw it out there for someone else to note in the article. SkyDot ( talk) 21:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}} This article currently says that protesters were "found guilty" of fire code violations. This line has a citation to a CNN article which only says that they have been "accused" of such violations. If I could change the Wikipedia article to match the CNN article, I would make the edit myself. But the system isn't letting me. Would someone else please make the correction? Thank you. RealityBase10 ( talk) 03:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
The article notes that Labor Day, when the convention ends, is also the last day of the "popular Minnesota State Fair". While certainly true, does that belong in the second sentence of the article?-- Lkjhgfdsa ( talk) 01:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Since I can't edit the page, I intend suggest an addition to the section on the protests. I've heard reports that protesters at one point threw bags of concrete off an overpass at the buses transporting the delegates, smashing the windows in at least one. There has been other allegations of violence that are worth noting.
I found a source on the subject online. Here's the proposed source: http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/09/02/032634.php http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/09/02/0326342.php
One thing I find interesting is the seizure of "bomb-making devices."
Sheepdogj15 ( talk) 17:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Footnote 15 of the article links to a Guardian story outlining the violence perpetrated by a minority of the protest participants. However, the entry citing footnote #15 makes no note whatsoever of any violence, only that protestors were "largely peaceful." The entire section sounds heavily biased, since it discusses exclusively the peaceful protest, then immediately transitions to a discussion about specific police response, without mention of specific unlawful behavior and violent acts that provoked the police response. The absence of such context, of course, insinuates that the police response was unprovoked. There is mention in passing of violent acts that triggered specific police responses but the information and section as a whole are disorganized. 71.253.241.95 ( talk) 04:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
This article mentions nothing about the RNC 8. In something reminiscent of the Chicago 8, ie Abbie Hoffman et al., 8 members of the RNC Welcoming Committee, an organization formed in order to provide shelter and supplies for any and all protesters, were charged with "Conspiracy to Riot in Furtherance of Terrorism" I don't know what qualifies as a encyclopedic reference, but
http://tc.indymedia.org/2008/sep/breaking-rnc-8-charged-conspiracy-riot-furtherance-terrorism or Googling "conspiracy to riot in furtherance of terrorism" will generate some relevant result, some of which I'm sure will qualify as a good reference. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
71.80.127.45 (
talk)
21:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes everyone hates it when I beat the gong but this page is seriously in a netherworld of present and future tense. Barring slapping those ugly "UPDATE THIS NOW" tags, I will invite all of you to polish off this page so that it is no longer "current." And then with typical Wiki-faire we can ignore this page since CNN no longer covers it. .:davumaya:. 07:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
In regards to this edit, I removed it because the source says that most of the protests were violent; quote: "The violent protests in St. Paul contrasted with a relatively peaceful Democratic convention in Denver, where only 152 people were arrested during the four-day event and the preceding weekend." Best, Happyme22 ( talk) 23:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) I'm not following your 1000 number. Are you distinguishing between protesters and marchers?-- Appraiser ( talk) 16:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Norm Coleman is listed as speaking on the 2nd and on the 3rd. Is this right? It seems odd that he would give two separate speeches. Could someone who knows more about this look into it? MAC475 ( talk) 04:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Mr. Steele lead the chants and introduced "Drill, baby, drill!", but is not listed as a speaker nor anywhere else on the page. This seems rather incongruous. Certainly, the [[ says he was a speaker]. 68.33.221.122 ( talk) 20:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I guess someone thought it was clever to replace the real convention logo with this and then delete the real logo since it was abandoned. — Steven Andrew Miller ( talk) 22:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
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!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 14:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on 2008 Republican 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}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:56, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on 2008 Republican 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:11, 18 June 2017 (UTC)