Talk:2008 Republican National Convention

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tampa 2008 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Amendment assumption 

message: I've removed sections of the article due to possible copyright violation from an AP article  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 Minnesota's national image as a traditional Democratic bastion has become outdated in recent years and the state was a hard-fought battleground in both the 2000 and 2004 national elections.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)
thread_title:  Possible copyvio? 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Curious? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Convention Location 

message: Why are there two trivia sections? There isn't even supposed to be one, so.....Happyme22 00:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: and then there were none. Simon12 00:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: 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)
thread_title: Delegate Votes?

message: 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)
replies: text: Nope. Barkley sought the Democratic nomination in 1952 but didn't get it. Simon12 00:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1928? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Logo

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
thread_title: John McCain

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: TV scheduling conflicts

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: You'll have to expect somewhat slower response at the start of a national holiday weekend.  -- SEWilco (talk) 02:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  And Wikipedia editors who might have answers may not be reading this during the weekend.  -- SEWilco (talk) 13:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Photo of Palin

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: *I put that tag there. If you want it removed, you can cite a source. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 02:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

text: *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)

text: ** 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)
thread_title: Original reseach in political significance section

message: 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)
thread_title:  Possible Postponement? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Ah yes, LBJ. He didn't attend for security reasons (i.e. Vietnam War protesters). GoodDay (talk) 01:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

text: It's noteworthy because it's unusual. --Elliskev 00:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sitting President does not attend own party's convention 

message: 
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)
replies: text: Somebody else has done this. Cheers.--chaser - t 07:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correction Requested Re: Fire Code Claims 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: State Fair?

message: 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)
replies: text: I was in Saint Paul on Monday and read the link. I have a couple of reactions:
#I don't think blogcritics.org is a reliable source
#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.
#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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Suggested addition to Protest section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Needs updating 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Norm Coleman 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Michael Steele? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Fake Logo 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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 ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:56, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:11, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified