Jump to content

Talk:2012 Democratic National Convention/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Credentialing issues

This is going to be very interesting, as I remember attending the '04 Democratic convention and many Kucinich people were not permitted to vote for him, although quite a few did. This may be the case with the Wolfe, Terry and Rogers delegates. Just a heads up....Ericl (talk) 23:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Protest activity, and declaration of interest

I plan on editing and expanding info regarding the protest activity planned for the 2012 DNC, as well as the policing policies and ordinances being passed by the city of Charlotte. I feel like the article could benefit from this information, which is currently limited. Therefore, I would like to disclaim and and declare my interest (WP:CONFLICT) as a member of the Coalition to March on Wall St South, an activist organization planning a protest. Obviously, I will be extremely careful to maintain neutrality and balance in all of my edits, but for the sake of transparency and for the benefit of other editors, I would like to make my affiliation known. Thank you. Wall Screamer (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Let the delegates choose

Barack Obama & Joe Biden are the presumptive presidential & vice presidential nominess & therefore shouldn't be in the infobox. The section is for the nominees (i.e. the delegates choice). GoodDay (talk) 04:51, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

That why it says presumptive in parentheses- to let readers know they haven't been nominated yet, but will be. Ratemonth (talk) 13:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
My point is, they're not nominated & therefore should be excluded until they are. GoodDay (talk) 14:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Again, that's why it says presumptive. Ratemonth (talk) 14:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
All the more reason to exclude. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Not really. Ratemonth (talk) 16:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Whatever, I'm tired of trying to nail jello to the wall. GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Once more, we should remove Obama & Biden from the infobox, which is suppose to be for the nominees. Obama & Biden are only presumed (i.e. presumptive) to be the delegates choices. The choices, which the delegates won't be making until early September. GoodDay (talk) 01:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Give it a rest and don't try to fight the weather. If you can't find reliable sources to refute this "fact", don't go disrupting Wikipedia to prove the point. --Robert Horning (talk) 03:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Again, I'm tired of nailing Jello to this wall. GoodDay (talk) 03:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
This isn't nailing Jello, it is your personal opinion and you are being disruptive by reverting good faith edits done by others. You also seem to misunderstand the principles for building wiki pages. --Robert Horning (talk) 03:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Logo File Does Not Exist?

The logo for the convention won't show up, and when you click on the box that appears instead, it goes to a page saying that the file does not exist. Is this some kind of glitch, or does it need to be fixed? Alphius (talk) 16:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

No, nothing wrong really. File wasn't there because it has been deleted from commons twice already for no license/copyvio. I reverted the edit. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 16:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, only deleted once on commons, not twice. Just saw two notices, but only deleted once. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 17:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Modifications to disqualified delegates

I wanted to make clear some modifications that I recently made to the section titled 'Disqualified Candidates.' This section seemed somewhat biased in favor of these fringe candidates. First of all, it benefits the reader to know precisely what Randall Terry's background is as a pro-life advocate and former Republican candidate for state senate and congressional seats. As such, this information has been added.

Additionally, the comparison to the expulsion of Lyndon LaRouche's two delegates in 1996 is not warranted; LaRouche's delegates were blocked due to controversial anti-semitic and racist statements, whereas Terry's are blocked due to the disingenuous nature of his nomination bid. LaRouche was not a "wolf in sheep's clothing," as the saying goes. Hence, this analogy has been removed.

As always, discussion is encouraged. Pkbowen (talk) 04:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I find your reasoning to be sound and the changes you made to be beneficial in improving the article's neutrality. Thanks for your contributions.--JayJasper (talk) 04:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's all take a moment and reflect on how, in the midst of endless shrill bickering, information about 'disqualified delegates' at the 2012 Republican National Convention are repeatedly deleted by a gang of [self-censored for politeness]. groupuscule (talk) 23:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Article consistency on infobox speakers

There was consensus to have the speakers in the infobox on the Republican Convention article in chronological order, although only a couple of us discussed it and no one seemed to feel strongly on alphabetical versus chronological. I do think, though, that we should be consistent. Should the speakers in the infobox of this article and the corresponding Republican one be in alphabetical or chronological order? 72Dino (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Not hearing anything despite the amount of activity on this article, I will be changing the speakers in the infobox to chronological order for consistency with the Republican Convention article soon. 72Dino (talk) 17:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Giffords

Resolved

Is mentioning Gabrielle Giffords leading the pledge of allegiance notable? NYSMtalk page 02:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I would say yes, based on the press coverage: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5].--JayJasper (talk) 04:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
It's been added to the page.--JayJasper (talk) 19:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

'This Could Have Been Edward's Convention'

'This Could Have Been Edward's Convention' section is unsourced, unverified, and reads as blatantly partisan. It appears to exist solely to attack Barack Obama's electoral chances and the character of John Edwards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.239.111 (talk) 07:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

It is evidently vandalism, I have removed the section. In future, always try to provide an edit summary. Silvrous (talk) 07:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Hotel controversy

Is this really necessary? Christiefan1 (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

No, it isn't necessary or desirable. I'm sure there is some WP: covering it but I'm not familiar enough with the list to know. For a journalist to become the story is a big no-no. THAT is the controversy in the paragraph, and it thus does not belong in a DNC article, but rather in an article on the line between a journalist and not-journalist; probably requires an article for each country. The 'Hotel controversy' subsection is removed from DNC 2012 article. Neonorange (talk) 19:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Platform

Where would we include information on the platform (other than the stuff about floor votes for stuff that can be sorted by day)? Specifically, this year's platform is the first to include a plank on same-sex marriage. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe the platform is covered at Democratic Party (United States), but I made an edit there on the Jerusalem change back and forth to the platform that was removed as trivia. Hopefully you'll have better luck. 72Dino (talk) 17:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I've put it there. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Controversy Regarding the Approved Amendment to the Party Platform

I think that under the controversies section on the Article someone (I may not raise to the level of an actual conflict of interest or being involved but by the spirit of the rules I would claim so) should mention that the Democratic Convention Chairman, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa from Los Angeles clearly violated the requirements for a 2/3 vote to approve two amendments to the Party's Platform (recognizing that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and adding the word God to the document). If you watch the three minute video inside this Breitbart Article[1] or this YouTube Video[2] any reasonable person can clearly see that when he called for the 2/3 voice vote to approve the amendments he did not get a 2/3 voice vote approval. The first time he called for a vote he almost approved it anyways but stopped himself from saying "In the opinion of the chair...[2/3 have voted in the affirmative]". So he called for a second vote and got the same result. He momentarily looked lost until a woman on stage said to him, "You've got to rule and then let them do what they're going to do." So on the third call for a voice vote, where it was at best 50/50 for/against, the Honorable Mayor passed the amendment on his own by stating "In the opinion of the chair 2/3 have voted in the affirmative, the motion is adopted, and the platform has been amended as shown on the screen." He proceed to thank the Governor Strickland as Chair of the Platform Drafting Committee, Governor Strickland. I have provided the needed information with sources (RS can be found without the need of what appears to be my original research) and believe that this is noteworthy and significant but without undue weight. I also think that it is reasonable, although this is the only part of the convention that has so captivated me. I however wouldn't be able to write NPOV for this article. And also though I have dug up what appears to be factual and more importantly verifiable information, I am not aware of what the Article's Interested Persons have planned and cede to their greater knowledge of what the article is about and what the DNC Convention 2012 is about. Yendor (talk) 18:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Ginned up Breitbart controversies don't merit inclusion. It's a voice vote, which means it's up to the interpretation of the chair, and not a precise vote count. For all you know, the "no" voters simply yelled louder than the "aye" voters. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
This is definitely notable and there are numerous reliable sources that would warrant its inclusion in the controversies section. On another note, hello again Muboshgu! Fancy meeting you here and happy to see you don't just do baseball articles.  ;-) TempDog123 (talk) 01:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

That was an interesting moment. Villaraigosa held the voice vote at least 3 times trying to get the 2/3 for the change but at best each try was 50/50 for. It was obvious that he finally just thought "screw it" and ruled for the motion. Muboshgu, perhaps the opposition to the amendment did yell louder, but isn't that the purpose of a voice vote, i.e. the side that's the loudest wins, which didn't happen in this case. It was a case of changing the rules of the game to fix the outcome, which is what happens in corrupt elections that you have in rigged democracies like Iran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:DA8:D800:107:9C43:9DEC:6212:D872 (talk) 04:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Number of votes needed

The info box says that there were 5,556 delegates, and the "Absolute Majority" needed to win was 2,777. That looks at first glance to be wrong, since in a two-way race, if one candidate got 2777, the other would get 2779. Perhaps there's some subtle explanation I'm missing, but if not, one of those numbers should be fixed. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Good catch! Both seem to have been incorrect. I just edited the article to show 5,554 total delegates, with 2,778 delegates necessary to win the nomination. Too bad the bad numbers stayed up so long. I tracked down when an editor replaced 2,778 with 2,777, but the total number of delegates, well, that was never correct. Neonorange (talk) 00:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 2012 Democratic National Convention. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on 2012 Democratic National Convention. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, 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) 01:48, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2012 Democratic National Convention. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, 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) 07:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Rutgers University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q2 term. Further details are available on the course page.

Above message substituted from {{WAP assignment}} on 13:56, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/05/Democrats-change-platform-God-Israel
  2. ^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cncbOEoQbOg&feature=player_embedded
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2012_Democratic_National_Convention/Archive_1&oldid=1137942629"