Talk:2008 Republican National Convention

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)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.178.62.11 (talk) 14:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

No, because it isn't trueEricl (talk)

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 Minnesota's national image as a traditional Democratic bastion has become outdated in recent years and the state was a hard-fought battleground in both the 2000 and 2004 national elections.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)

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))

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)

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

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)

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)

Police crackdown on 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)

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)

The links in question:

• protest2008rnc.org
• Protest RNC 2008
• RNC 2008 Welcoming Committee

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Trivia

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

and then there were none. Simon12 00:42, 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?

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))

1928?

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)

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

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)

If there's been a lot of talk in the media then you'll have no trouble finding a major media source. (SEWilco 15:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC))

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

Convention dates

See Talk:2008 Democratic National Convention for why I reverted the note about the convention dates. Simon12 (talk) 13:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

John McCain

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)

I'm not about to accuse you of POV pushing, but it's turning into it. Furthermore your edit provided no additional substance to the article, there is no reason for it to be there. Please leave it alone. Wikidan829 (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

there's plenty of reason for it to be there. He's got close to 700 delegates with only somthing like 1100 neccessary for nomination. Unless he loses EVERYTHING, under the rules, he's a shoe-in. Face it, John McCain is going to be the focus of the convention. I could see an objection prior to yesterday, but not now.Ericl (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You need to stop reverting. Another editor completely separate from me appeared to agree while I was away. WP:CRYSTAL is actually another good thing to read. Wikidan829 (talk) 12:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

My my, Romney dropped out. His 293 delegates have to go somewhere. See what kind of influences are still in here? We can't know who's going to win, and especially can't add this information to WP. Wikidan829 (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is about the convention, not the campaigns. There are other articles about the campaigns. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- SEWilco (talk) 01:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Right, and Romney withdrew, making it physically impossible for anyone else to get the nomination. 66.108.111.67 (talk) 19:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not physically impossible for someone else to get the nomination, but that's an issue for the campaign articles and not the Convention article. Unless someone is already installing gates at the site for blocking people from reaching the floor to nominate McCain, in which case it would be a matter for this article. -- SEWilco (talk) 20:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Unless McCain gets very sick or, heaven forbid, dies, he's got it. He goes over the top a week from today. So when is it germaine to call the great John McCain pep rally what it is?

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)

TV scheduling conflicts

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)

The NFL hasn't officially announced its schedule yet (maybe the season will open the following week), but the potential for a conflict is there. Simon12 (talk) 05:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite

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:

• Minnesota and Wisconsin are traditionally blue states, but recent Republican victories in Minnesota mean that they're both moving right

• 'Both states have come to the centrist position'

• Victories in Minnesota somehow mean that Republicans are now more competitive than before in Wisconsin

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)

C Class

The tone of this article is not encyclopedic, please re-write several sections. This is not Wikinews. .:davumaya:. 16:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing B-Class criteria, I downgraded the article to C Class, which is MN Nice for I think this is a Start class article. Maybe review past Convention articles to find a suitable format, the current one is a mish-mash. .:davumaya:. 17:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Photo of Palin

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)

You'll have to expect somewhat slower response at the start of a national holiday weekend. -- SEWilco (talk) 02:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, either the credit is somewhere on that website or it's not. I couldn't find it.--Appraiser (talk) 02:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

And Wikipedia editors who might have answers may not be reading this during the weekend. -- SEWilco (talk) 13:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I got a message from the photographer, responding to email to Rep. Young's webmaster. He said Wikipedia can use the photo but other use must be approved. Thus it's not PD, so delete that photo as being mislabeled. The photographer did not state whether he works for Young as a contractor, state employee, or federal employee, so his status is unknown. -- SEWilco (talk) 14:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Where did you send the email request to? What email address sent the response? If you send the request to Young's official house email, chances are 99% that it was a staffer who responded--thus an employee of the US Congress. Therefore, it is public domain, in spite of any claims to the contrary. Same situation if the email responce came from a .gov email address. If this person was using a .gov email address and is not a congressional staffer, then that is a violation of the Hatch Act of 1939, which prevents mixing of political and governmental staff and monies. Seriously, the picture is from Young's official House website, it is PD. --TheZachMorrisExperience (talk) 03:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Original reseach in political significance section

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)

Academic? So only material which is peer-reviewed and published in a journal is acceptable for political conventions within a month of now? That's going to somewhat reduce the size of at least two articles. -- SEWilco (talk) 01:37, 31 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)

• I put that tag there. If you want it removed, you can cite a source. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 02:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oh, and it's original research because it isn't backed up by anything and is only your personal interpretation of events. Wikipedia isn't the place for that and if you don't find a source asap, I'll remove the statement. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 02:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
  • He means the statement isn't backed up by anything in the article. WP:V requires sources be given. Your having the newspaper articles is not sufficient, you have to describe the articles so we can find them. See WP:CITE for methods. -- SEWilco (talk) 04:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Possible Postponement?

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)

Sitting President does not attend own party's convention

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)

Vice President Curtis did not attend the 1932 Republican National Convention (where he was re-nominated with President Hoover - who also didn't attend). President F. Roosevelt did not attend the 1944 Democratic National Convention (where he was nominated for a 4th term). GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 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)

Ah yes, LBJ. He didn't attend for security reasons (i.e. Vietnam War protesters). GoodDay (talk) 01:26, 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)

It's noteworthy because it's unusual. --Elliskev 00:35, 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)

Correction Requested Re: Fire Code Claims

{{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)

Somebody else has done this. Cheers.--chaser - t 07:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

State Fair?

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)

For anyone whose reason for reading about these events is to forecast traffic jams in St. Paul that day it's important. But that's past now. 75.72.179.139 (talk) 16:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggested addition to Protest section

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)

I was in Saint Paul on Monday and read the link. I have a couple of reactions:

1. I don't think blogcritics.org is a reliable source
2. I think the text of the blog conveys a severe exageration of the violence that occurred. Yes, some bricks were thrown at police cars and buses. At least one person threw water at a delegate. The tires of a Fox News truck were slashed. A store window was broken. Most of the 284 were arrested for "trespassing" (protesting outside of the protest zone) and released.
3. I have never seen so many law enforcement agents. 100s of them were dressed in full riot gear provoking the protesters and chasing them through the streets with weapons drawn. At least one photographer was sprayed with pepper spray and his equipment was taken. (We wouldn't want the actual truth getting out would we?) To me the force seemed out of proportion to the threat.--Appraiser (talk) 20:06, 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)

I'm not sure what the confusion is. There are honest, weighted reports over at [Citypages.com City Pages] and [StarTribune.com Star Tribune] and even [wcco.com WCCO], just chose one of our local papers, why mess with these blogs and shoddy websites who don't even have correspondents in the city? And this is OR from my mouth (having been in two days of this fun-trip) but there isn't much ambiguity over who is doing what, both "sides" have the provocation and quirks that come with having hundreds of police in riot gear and 20-somethings running amuck. There is not much us versus them that would characterize this section. .:davumaya:. 08:07, 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)

Needs updating

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)

i think/hope my edits at "09:47, 18 September 2008 68.173.2.68 (Talk) (39,290 bytes) (stylistic only cleanup (major))" AND "18 September 2008 68.173.2.68 (Talk) (39,332 bytes) (further clean up (to the clean up) all minor)" should alleviate most of your concerns.--68.173.2.68 (talk) 14:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

"Peaceful protestors"

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)

The Guardian link is not working, so I don't know what it said, but the truth is that the vast majority of protesters were peaceful. I added two source articles that support that wording.--Appraiser (talk) 13:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, what? Largely-peaceful protests? The sources you provided only confirm that two-hundred to a few hundred (one in four) protesters, plus that many again who were swept along with the crowd, broke off from the second march, formed into various sub-groups and assaulted (?) the police line. My original objection stands. Also, the police response to the "anarchist, criminal contingent" is directly quoted in the second source as "violent" in comparison to the "larger, peaceful" protest, and I assume they had prepared to use softer measures (as in the first protest?). With that in mind, I don't think it adds anything to the article to describe the actual protests. If you can source it, perhaps mention they were open to radical politics and groups in the area, but all sanctioned parties were well-contained and made to sign a legal disclaimer prohibiting violence. That's it though; this is a highly charged issue in the national media. Ottre (talk) 14:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I was basing my wording on the fact that ~10,000 people protested and at most a couple of hundred were violent.--Appraiser (talk) 15:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. I meant to say "With that in mind, I don't think it adds anything to the article to describe the actual protests as largely anything."

I did misinterpret your objection. The news media have concentrated on the violence and I think the perception may be that violence pervaded the protests. But, quoting from one of the cites, "Harrington said of the 10,000 marchers in downtown, roughly 200 were involved in violence." Perhaps instead of saying, "largely-peaceful" we could convey the same information some other way. I think it's important that people know that the vast majority of protestors were non-violent.--Appraiser (talk) 15:33, 10 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)

Yes, 1000 protesters. There were another 1000 people who joined the march in support. I presume that's how it was split to attack the police line. Ottre (talk) 16:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Where is this 1000 number coming from? I'm not registering what your issue is with the source, it clearly states what is being said in the article. .:davumaya:. 18:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC) And please wait to add your nocitation tag until we've resolved this here. .:davumaya:. 18:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

In looking at your recent edit, your summary stated removed unsourced qualifier, discussion mooted. Discussion can't be mooted, I'm waiting for you to reply to my question. That's three editors now who have reverted you and I see on your talk page that you have been warned of 3RR. I invite you to discuss your issue here so we can figure out how it might be an erroneous "qualifier." .:davumaya:. 22:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion has been mooted. It appears you couldn't be bothered reading my objection before edit warring. Ottre 22:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Ottre, I don't understand why you deleted paragraphs of your position from this section - that action could cause later readers to misinterpret other contributors comments. Please explain why you believe the protests were not largely-peaceful.--Appraiser (talk) 03:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

They didn't make much sense to me, late night editing. I'll try to explain the first paragraph below. Ottre 01:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, my position is that if 200 people are violent and 10,000 people are protesting, the event was largely-peaceful. The violent participants represented 2% of the total people marching in protest on that day (Labor Day), which was the most violent of all the convention days in St. Paul. I am open to alternative wording, but I want to impress upon the reader that a small minority of the protesters were violent.--Appraiser (talk) 03:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The conclusion that the protests were "largely-peaceful" does not necessarily mean the protesters were anything less than peaceful. It's a vague term considering there are grounds for using the positive identifier "well-coordinated", and, if you analyse the numbers and scale of the police response, it may be applied incorrectly; as such, I don't think we need to describe the actual protests (by describing the conduct of protesters) as largely anything without some sort of diagram to accompany the text, and avoid any relative terminology. You have to bear in mind that local reports may be biased (regardless of how they represent the organisation of the protests in the week prior to the marches) by the coverage of violence in the national media. Does this sound so unreasonable? Ottre 01:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course its not unreasonable :) I am very appreciative you have finally explained why you have tagged the page. The sentence is perhaps phrased incorrectly. It is the protesters' intentions overall that are peaceful. The protests themselves while peaceful were also somewhat deterred by minor events as well as the police action you have cited. As such it is perhaps better to rephrase to indicate what the protesters meant to do versus the actual outcome -- which would satisfy your request for a "diagram" or "timeline." .:davumaya:. 07:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Update per your request below. I went through the local coverage of the marches, compared several devices to those used in national/conglomerate coverage of the organisation/burden of responsibility, and... no such luck. The "larger, peaceful" protest is nowhere described as very peaceful, or even comparatively well-coordinated. The police reponse to the second protest was reportedly weak, and there were five-times too many (grammar?!) officers involved, but, again, it's not enough to support my objection to how the qualifier is being used. A diagram would still improve the article, though. Ottre 17:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Ottre I am asking politely why you disagree with 10,000-200 not being largly peaceful. Consensus is not with you (as stated three editors have reverted you). I am open to suggestions as to how you feel it should be stated. That is the point of citation tags, to resolve the issue in discussion. .:davumaya:. 07:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I tagged the assertion that "10,000 anti-war protesters were largely-peaceful" as unverified. My position (obviously) changed when Happyme22 raised his objection to removal of the {{Failed verification}} tag. The discussion has to be focused on the fact that the content was later removed, that the qualifier largely-peaceful does not correspond to the source (singular) provided, before I engage on the level of cross-referencing reports to the timeline used. Quite frankly, the first revert by SusanLesch does not give you consensus for inclusion (as WP:V is more or less a trademark, quite apart from WP:RS), and I don't appreciate personal attacks. Ottre 01:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Haven't read all of this but I see my name here, asking for something, at least whatever reaction reading it prompts. Associated Press is okay with me. Would you like to see another source used? Sure another source probably does exist. A tag like "source needed" might lead to a suggestion. Do you have one you'd like to introduce? Why not add it? -SusanLesch (talk) 05:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps more sources to better shape how the protests unfolded. .:davumaya:. 07:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Norm Coleman

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)

Michael Steele?

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)

Fake Logo

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)

Dead link

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!

• http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2008/9/1/amy_goodman_and_two_democracy_now_producers_unlawfully_arrested_at_the_rnc
  • In Democracy Now! on 2011-03-17 06:29:27, 404 Not Found
  • In 2008 Republican National Convention on 2011-06-16 14:47:10, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 14:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080902173612/http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/loophole/archive/2008/09/democracy_now_host_amy_goodman.shtml to http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/loophole/archive/2008/09/democracy_now_host_amy_goodman.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://tc.indymedia.org/2009/mar/macalester-dorm-raided-february-hunt-rnc-evidence
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.brandondarby.com
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.startribune.com/

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).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:56, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080914092732/http://www.asianweek.com/2008/09/03/republican-national-convention-update/ to http://www.asianweek.com/2008/09/03/republican-national-convention-update/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.brandondarby.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090303174226/http://www.nornc.org/ to http://www.nornc.org/

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).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:11, 18 June 2017 (UTC)