Talk:2012 Republican National Convention

Add economic effect for Tampa area?

• Strip Clubs in Tampa Are Ready to Cash In on G.O.P. Convention July 26, 2012, regarding strip clubs

99.181.143.157 (talk) 07:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it's irrelevant. WP:NOTNEWS ViriiK (talk) 08:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, add. Economic impact is an often-discussed aspect of conventions. groupuscule (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

No. Naapple (talk) 19:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Adding anything specific about strip clubs violates WP:UNDUE. The burden is to show how it is relevant to the article as a whole, which this is not. Something about the overall economic impact on the Tampa Bay area might be useful as it certainly will happen, just find several reliable sources about the issue. It should certainly be following NPOV guidelines and be generally tasteful. Please don't go for shock value on this, such as talking about whoring among the delegates or something equally stupid. --Robert Horning (talk) 02:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's your opinion. The NYT thought it was important enough for an article, as did dozens of other sources. WP:Notability (events) seems like the relevant policy page. Does this fall under "sensationalism"? I'm not sure it does... it's been part of the narrative of Republican and Democrat conventions for years, and actually emerging more and more as a significant component. I would caution against an inverse reaction, based on the idea that "whoring" is automatically unimportant, "personal," and tangential. love, groupuscule (talk) 19:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I am sure that the fact that different nightclubs are getting more bussiness (prostitution is illegal in Florida, so "whoring" will not have an impact on the legal economy and any text about that would be better in the police section) is not the only impact on the Tampa economy. I think that it would be interesting to read a section about the whole economic impact on Tampa, negatives (more money to police) and positives (full hotels and bussiness in the shops), but simply to focus on a few nightclub would not be relevant. Jack Bornholm (talk) 08:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Sex work isn't part of the economy like porn isn't part of the internet. And it's not the part of the convention that will be policed. That being said, I don't feel extremely strongly about its inclusion or exclusion. (Maybe if there were academic studies of sex work at political conventions?) Of course if we do include it on this page, we should do the same for the folks in Charlotte. shalom, groupuscule (talk) 01:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

"Demand for hotel rooms and rental cars is expected to be particularly high." It's a double standard to include this sentence but not mention that strip clubs are expecting four times as much business. What do all three industries have in common? They all have been mentioned by reliable sources, have an effect on the local economy, and all have nothing to do with the convention itself. Since it's a given that these sorts of businesses benefit every time there's any sort of event that brings a lot of people into town, it seems unnecessary to include it. It'd be like saying the roads are expected to wear at twice the normal rate that week. If anything is newsworthy about it, it's this tidbit: "...an informal survey of convention business in New York and Denver had determined that Republicans dropped more money at clubs, by far. “Hands down, it was Republicans,” she said. “The average was $150 for Republicans and $50 for Democrats.'" It's an interesting thing to discover about a party that goes out of its way to tout "family values." That said, I don't support including that, because it would stir up everybody's partisan passions & lead to an edit war. More broadly speaking, I oppose including any of this information (including the bit about hotels & rental cars), but as I said, it's wrong to include that but not something else that will have an economic impact and has been discussed by at least as many sources as those services. It makes it look like Wikipedia is ignoring it just because of a few persons sensitivities to anything related to sex. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 06:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

It really is undue influence and blowing the article out of proportion by concentrating on one minor thing. The same could be said if the majority of the article was talking about Ron Paul's supporters and their gatherings outside of the convention center or other similar gatherings during the convention. The article isn't about economic impacts of conventions, but about the 2012 Republican National Convention. The primary focus should be the nomination selection process, the platform that was adopted by the convention delegates, and any other direct business related to the convention and what happened directly with the delegates. While there is no hard and fast rule here, I would say that half of the article should not be talking about strippers and sex workers because that simply isn't what the article is about. If a well developed article includes all of the convention business in detail and includes other economic impacts related to the convention as a minor section in that much more developed article, mentioning the interesting quotes or speculation about delegates in relation to strip clubs that is sourced seems reasonable. Just don't turn the article into something about this very tangential detail and make it seem like the main emphasis of the article. In other words, add the rest of the stuff that really needs to be in this article first. --Robert Horning (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad we're keeping to the trolling to inside the talk page. Naapple (Talk) 03:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I have a hard time excluding sourced content that is directly related to an existing section, when we have included far less notable content (moving a trial, etc.) I know this information is a bit risque, but it does serve a valuable purpose...indicating that the impact to the economy goes beyond hotel rooms. I don't think a good amount of time should be spent on it, because that definitely falls into UNDUE, but a single mention is no less notable than some of the other content included. I fear we're making a biased decision to exclude...204.65.34.237 (talk) 14:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

If you want to write something about the economic impact of the convention on Tampa Bay, go ahead. You can then include perhaps a sentence about this topic in that paragraph. Just make sure you don't make it overwhelm the article or even just the section, again according to the WP:UNDUE policy that you mentioned. --Robert Horning (talk) 15:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Paul Ryan's future

As seen here, there is a large chance that Paul Ryan will run for President in future. At the convention, we will probably see remarks from several prominent Republicans on the Ryan's eligibility for president. Keep an eye out for statements like "I think Paul Ryan is presidential material" or even more definite statements alluding to a run in 2016 should Romney lose.

While this topic is only tangentially related to this article, I think this is an important subject to keep an eye out, and should any definite statements be made, they should be recorded here in the article. Obama had a prominent role at the 2004 convention, and that was what sparked pundits to speculate on him running in 2008. Mr. Anon515 01:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

A young vice president is always a likely contender—especially if the administration does well. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

If Romney wins, he will almost certainly run later, as Nate Silver notes. But even if he loses, we will probably see him in 2016. Mr. Anon515 18:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

While this is interesting discussion, I think it's somewhat unrelated to the purpose of this forum: recommending and discussing changes to the article. Is there a recommendation here, or just discussion off the topic? If the latter, there are better forums.204.65.34.237 (talk) 14:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Is this article just for details of conducting the convention or does it also discuss the reasons for having the convention? I plan to contribute less to this article and more to Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2012; however, I consider there is overlap. Ron Paul wants [1] to see change to the Republican Party at convention, and promoting the rising stars is also important as past history teaches. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

IMO the article should include reasons for having the convention. Well-sourced claims abut introducing Mr. Ryan to the spotlight seem like reasonable inclusions. However, discussion of the choice of Ryan as VP might be more useful and germane over at the 2012 Romney campaign page. groupuscule (talk) 04:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 August 2012

Ron Paul needs to be added to the candidates for the RNC!

24.68.45.54 (talk) 04:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. This seems to be covered by the article already. He did not have enough states to be a candidate for nomination. RudolfRed (talk) 05:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

@24.68, Hehe, no. Wait until the convention is over. ViriiK (talk) 06:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

You don't have long to wait (to find out) — convention starts a week from this Monday, August 27th. Stay tuned. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Ron Paul will not speak at the convention unless his lawsuits are settled in his favor by then. He holds a definite plurality in 3 (maybe 4) states. Note though that his son will be given a speech slot, so keep an eye out for that. Mr. Anon515 18:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Rand Paul is not his father so he holds his own opinions differently from his father. They share similar views but they don't parrot each other. ViriiK (talk) 19:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if Ron Paul will get a speaking role in the convention, and I don't think anybody else knows either other than the Romney campaign staff and the organizing committee in charge of setting up the convention. I would even dare say at this point in time even they aren't really sure. The lawsuits are mainly a way for the Ron Paul campaign to flex what little political muscle they have, but even if they lose the delegate challenges, it may be possible for Ron Paul to have a speaking role. Perhaps not as a speech as a formal candidate to the nomination, but I find it hard to see that he will be completely ignored. His son is going to speak, and it may be that a part of Rand Paul's speaking time might be handed over to his father as well in a type of civil disobedience if nothing else happens. The problem is "don't know" isn't verifiable and thus can't be added to the article, and that the convention is just a few days away where the actions of the delegates themselves in controlling the course of the convention is something that could be interesting too. I don't expect all of the delegates singing Kumbaya and heaping praise upon Mitt Romney in some show of unity that his campaign is expecting. --Robert Horning (talk) 19:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course, Ron Paul will be able to speak if Romney gives him a chance to; I've noted this before, as Paul is a close personal friend of Romney's and Romney needs the libertarian vote (with Gary Johnson polling up to 13% in some states, Arizona will be put into play if Romney doesn't do something to get the libertarians on his side). Mr. Anon515 04:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The current map

The current map does not explain the states colored gray: Louisiana and Montana. One editor questioned if this shows laziness on our part. If you look at the map at Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2012 it has two lines at the bottom (1) "The Montana delegation is currently uncommitted." and (2) "The Louisiana delegation is currently disputed." Note the title of the map is also different. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Both delegations have issues which Montana was supposed to be decided the day of the convention or something like that and Louisiana is still on appeal before the RNC I guess. Some Ron Paul fans sued to get recognized about their complaints in Louisiana but lost the case. ViriiK (talk) 18:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you show a source that shows that the Louisiana lawsuit has been settled? Many media sources, such as Rachael Maddow, counted Louisiana as a Paul state in terms of delegate pluralities. Mr. Anon515 04:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I doubt that. [2] is an example. Now the RNC already rejected the first appeal and now Ron Paul is just trying for a second appeal. ViriiK (talk) 02:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Breaking news actually! CNN has reported that Ron Paul has struck a deal with the RNC that includes Louisiana being counted towards his side. Furthermore, according to the blog the party is going to take a hard stance against the Federal Reserve. Can someone find a better source than the CNN blog to put into the article? And we may have finally resolved Louisiana. Mr. Anon515 23:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Washington post confirms this. Interestingly, the source shows Maine as a still disputed state, even though all our counts have a plurality bound to Paul. Mr. Anon515 03:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Wait, I re-read the source. It says that the rest of the delegates are going to Romney, as Santorum endorsed him. This puts Romney as the winner of Louisiana in terms of delegates. Mr. Anon515 03:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Lmao. The Rules Committee met today and when they realized Paul had 5 states, tried to change the rule to 15 states, and when that failed, they tried to back down to 10 (that vote failed too). The paranoia down here about what would happen if they let Paul get his name placed into nomination is reaching absurd levels.

Keep in mind that any deals won't be finalized until the Credentials Committee issues it's report. Discussions regarding MA, ME, OK, and OR are still ongoing and the situation is quite fluid. MN & NV are settled, with Paul getting all his delegates seated there for sure. While LA can still technically be appealed, my understanding is that the delegation has accepted that 'deal' with the full RNC (which was reviewing an appeal from its Contests Committee, which had sided against all the Paul delegates) where Paul gets the delegates from CD 1, 2, 5, and 6 (3 each) plus the 5 unpledged at-large, bringing his total to 17. Romney gets 3 each from CD 3 & 4, the 5 at-large bound to him from the primary, and presumably the 5 unpledged nominated by the LAGOP Executive Committee, bringing his total to 16 (but his official bound total remains 5). Santorum gets the last 10 at-large. Those 10 and the 3 supers are expected to vote for Romney, but Santorum has not yet released his delegates. Gingrich did release his today if anybody missed that news. Since our delegate map is counting pluralities from the primary season (and doesn't count supers), LA would be colored yellow for Paul under the terms of this settlement. I should also note here that the map now incorrectly shows MT & LA for Romney. Since the Paul slate already included the 5 bound Romney supporters, the concessions their leader Charlie Davis made appear to include giving six district seats (from CD 3 & 4) and the 5 exec. committee seats back to the state party, to of course be filled by Romney yes men. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 23:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Please cite a source for Nevada's delegates being "his". However, I do agree that Santorum's delegates should remain counted for him, as he has not officially unbinded his delegates. The source claims that Romney's delegates are expected to vote for him, likely an assumption on the article's part. Mr. Anon515 01:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Just a question: since you don't seem to cite secondary sources very much, do you work for the Paul campaign or the RNC (or heard directly from them)? Mr. Anon515 01:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

A reliable source for the fact that Ron Paul captured the majority of the Nevada delegates can be found here:

http://m.lvsun.com/news/2012/may/06/ron-paul-supporters-capture-majority-nevadas-natio/

Although a little letter from the RNC general counsel can be found here:

http://media.lasvegassun.com/media/pdfs/blogs/documents/2012/05/02/Letter_to_Nevada_Republican_Party_re_Allocation_of_Delegates.pdf

The question exists as to if this particular delegation can use their majority (thus "plurality" for rule in question) for the formal nomination process in terms of determining an official spot on the ballot. They are still bound to Mitt Romney in terms of who they are going to vote for on the first (and will be the only) round of balloting for the nomination, which is where the ambiguity comes in and trying to figure out who they actually belong to. So far, it doesn't even sound like the RNC has decided completely on this issue, and it certainly isn't unanimous in terms of the final decision on what will happen to the Nevada delegation or for that matter any of the others. What is clear though: Ron Paul is not going to get the Republican nomination in 2012. --Robert Horning (talk) 03:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Nevada, I just meant that those delegates which we know support Paul kept their seats without a challenge, unlike those from virtually every other delegation which is known publicly to hold majority support for him. We'll have to wait until Monday to see if NV's delegation chairman will try to enforce the purported 20-8 split, or if the delegates will find a way around that. The delegates from Maine & Oklahoma are not backing down, so it looks like at least those two states will be decided at Credentials, if not also Oregon (for the alternates).

(Reply to Mr. Anon) I am not a member of the Paul campaign. I am fortunate to count some in the Iowa delegation as close friends (who in turn know members in the campaigns), and I have spoken from time to time with a couple members of the RNC. Unfortunately, they are not on the Rules Committee, which may be the most secretive of all the committees. Those delegates that are in some of the meetings send me updates when they can. I planned to attend the convention as a guest, but not to really pump up Romney or Paul, just to have a good time :P Isaac may change those plans though.

The first major meeting of Credentials is being held today, with 3 appeals being heard- first ME, then OK, then finally OR. Members are not from the RNC, but are rather select delegates from other delegations not being contested. Interesting factoid: this is the most challenges the committee will have heard since 1952. ME delegates just lost their challenge at credentials, so the delegation will apparently be split between Romney & Paul supporters, unless the convention votes to overturn and seat all of the elected Paul delegates, as they will be asked to do come Monday.

(reply to Robert Horning) Exactly. Therein lies the dispute over the number of names in the table, etc. No doubt that there is a 99.99% chance Romney will get the nod, but there's about a 50-50 chance of Paul getting a speech and his ~15 minutes in the spotlight. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 16:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

They're not giving him a slot. As a compromise, they're giving him a tribute. That's it. ViriiK (talk) 18:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes, the Romney campaign won't give Paul much of anything- it's more a question of what they can get for themselves. There is indeed a tribute video tentatively scheduled for Tuesday.

Anyways, big update: Credentials overwhelmingly rejected any amendments to overturn the contest committee's decisions on ME, OK, and OR. Only 10 of the Paul delegates from ME hold on to their seats, with the rest to be filled by the RNC (which has apparently decided to ignore Rule 13, which says the state parties are responsible for filling such seats). In the past, the RNC has vacated seats after such controversies, but I think an outright replacement of elected delegates is unprecedented. The delegation will take their case to the floor, and plan to leave & boycott the convention (along with Gov. Paul LePage, one of those remaining 10) if the body accepts the credentials report as submitted (without amendment). Testy crowd overseeing the meeting, with cries of "shame" from the gallery. I'm also getting word from a VA delegate at the Rules Committee that a motion was carried to raise the 5-state threshold to 8, and that that has been placed into the temporary rules of this convention, not just the next. Romney's top legal counsel Ben Ginsburg, who was flown into the Maine convention at the last minute, is largely responsible for telling the RNC there were credentialing problems there (despite not a single complaint filed from any of the 2000+ state delegates) as well as orchestrating this power grab. Overall, tough day for the Paul folks. The Iowa delegation plans to give most of their guest passes to the Maine delegates & alternates who got their credentials stripped, so it appears I'll be staying home, storm or no storm :/ I don't think I want to jump down into the middle of that mess anyway. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 23:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Even bigger update, as this will drastically change how the primary pages are written up here in the future- the Rules Committee also passed measures to get rid of the possibility of "stealth delegates" by having campaigns pre-approve them, and binds all delegates to the results of a caucus or primary. Here's the exact wording: [3], and a Des Moines Register blog report. The Iowa delegation is not happy. This still has to be approved on the floor so expect plenty of discussion there come Monday. At this point, a new section in the article just to cover all of these unprecedented rule changes by Ginsburg (who got nearly everything passed) might be warranted. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 00:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I would say that Paul has gotten a substantial amount more in his favor than in Romney's favor. As I've noted before, the RNC has pretty much catered to his views on issues like abortion, the Fed, internet, taxes, etc. Mr. Anon515 02:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

There have been some concessions made on the platform, absolutely. But in the end, the platform doesn't really matter too much, as most politicians don't pay attention to it. Procedurally, the most important part of the convention is the roll call, and the Romney campaign does not want more than a couple states voting against him, perhaps because it would shatter the illusion of a "unified front." I can think of no other reason for alienating people, since I doubt they thought Romney's nomination was actually in danger. They have gone out of their way to argue the same rule in two different ways if it helps their case. For example, OK state party rules governing delegate election (which requires a roll call due to weighted voting) were proven to not be followed but it was argued that could be disregarded because "it wouldn't have changed the result", and the delegates elected under all those rules just outside the convention hall (at the same address) were illegitamate. However, delegates selected outside the convention miles away in Oregon at a closed-door party meeting, or not by the state at all in the case of Maine are legitimate? Romney's counsel told Contests they found evidence of problems with credentialing in ME, but failed to provide any evidence of that. Evidence (including video) was provided of credentialing problems in OK. Rather than referring to opposing counsel as such, the lawyers for the respective state parties often referred to those "Paul people", thereby reinforcing the Romney vs. Paul dynamic in the room. There are definitely some good things that got put in the platform- internet freedom for one I am glad to see. But when it came down to whose butts are in the seats come convention time, the 'catering' has definitely been in Romney's favor. I would also point out that the pro-life plank is a little more restrictive than Paul would have it- he believes in an exception for rape, at least for the first few days afterward.

Here's the wording that passed on the new threshold. Notice the change from 'plurality' back to 'majority'. I'm hearing that the VA (and maybe TX) delegation will be the one to move as a whole to strike these rule changes come Monday. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 04:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Convention theme

Can someone add that the convention's theme "A Better Future" has been announced? Source here: http://www.gopconvention2012.com/news-press/press-releases/a-better-future-to-be-republican-convention-theme/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Me2012dc (talk • contribs) 14:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)  Done

Rubio, Jindal, Portman, Mack IV, Gilchrist, McDonnell

All these people have been confirmed as speakers at the RNC. I am going to add them to the list now. If you have any objections, please cite them here. --86.173.56.193 (talk) 09:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The page is semi-protected so you'd need an account. I'll do it and format it. ViriiK (talk) 09:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 August 2012

Please change "Tim Pawlenty, Governor of Minnesota" to "Tim Pawlenty, former Governor of Minnesota" — Aron522 (talk) 01:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Aron522 (talk) 01:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done. — Naapple (Talk) 04:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Ron Paul and influence on Republican platform

In addition to this article being a source for a delegate deal, it reveals that Ron Paul has had a significant influence on the party platform through new policies on the federal reserve and the internet. I'd also like to note that Vice Presidential nominee Paul Ryan has similar anti-fed positions. Mr. Anon515 01:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, the RNC has approved more restrictive anti-abortion language as part of its platform, closer to Ron Paul's position on the issue than Romney's. Mr. Anon515 01:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

In addition, there is evidence that Romney will pay a video tribute to Paul: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/25/us/politics/gop-convention-to-pay-tribute-to-ron-paul.html . Mr. Anon515 19:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Hurricane Isaac

The sentences added to the article concerning the impact of tropical storm Isaac on Monday and Tuesday are very well written. They may be sufficient. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I created another post at the bottom about the tropical storm becoming a hurricane. It is related to this post – sorry I didn't see this post earlier :/ 76.10.241.86 (talk) 17:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Big news re: Ron Paul and convention speech

Apparently, Paul was offered a speech by Romney, but he turned it down because in exchange he had to endorse Romney and that his comments had to be reviewed by Romney's campaign beforehand. This represents a large blow to Romney's campaign, as Paul's 200+ supporters that will be there at the convention are not going to be prepared to support him. As I've pointed out before, Romney could really use that libertarian vote with Gary Johnson doing as well as 13% in some states. If Paul were to endorse Johnson, it would be crippling for Romney. Mr. Anon515 22:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

It represents a large blow because how? The poll numbers for Gary Johnson and libertarian have been traditionally overrated. It's a lot lower than you think it is because when it comes to the election, the reflected results is half or even more than they actually are. Now what does this have to do with this article? Nothing. ViriiK (talk) 22:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

IMO this fact is noteworthy even if the impact of the libertarian vote is overstated. It's clearly relevant to an article that devotes literally a foot of space to the RNC's speakers (and also contains a blurb about who will not attend). groupuscule (talk) 22:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Keep in mind that even 5% of the vote going to Gary Johnson in a swing state could change the outcome. And since Johnson's viewpoints are far more similar to Romney's than Obama's (regardless of what his supporters may claim), he takes more votes away from the former than the latter. Since a fair amount of his supporters are Ron Paul supporters voting for a similar candidate to him, Paul holds influence over a large amount of his base. Mr. Anon515 04:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

It is not nearly the blow that you make it out to be. Whether Ron Paul spoke or not, those 200 Ron Paul supporters that are delegates were not going to vote for Romney anyway and would have acted the same way. Believe it or not, there is still a disturbing high number of Ron Paul supporters (including delegates) who are going to be SHOCKED when Romney gets the nomination. And even when that happens, there will still be some who will fully expect some scandal to hit Romney that will somehow magically make Ron Paul the nominee anyway.74.67.106.1 (talk) 02:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you really saying if Ron Paul specifically told his supporters "vote for Romney", there wouldn't be a sizable portion who would vote Romney mainly because of that endorsement? Maybe you would have wrote in Ron Paul's name or something, but the reason so many of his supporters choose not to vote is because they see Obama and Romney as equally distant from Paul's views. If Paul clearly stated that he agrees with Romney more than Obama, a fair amount would vote for Romney as the lesser of two evils. Mr. Anon515 04:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

This is straying into discussion of the topic instead of discussion of specific changes. Please post RS to support a proposed addition, and let's please discuss an addition specifically, not conjecture.Jbower47 (talk) 18:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

"Akin Plank" and commentary on the convention

The "Akin Plank" section was removed. SHouldn't there be a place in the article for this and other commentary on the convention? Casprings (talk) 03:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

No. This is about the Convention. Not Akin. ViriiK (talk) 03:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The convention is the subject of media commentary. When that commentary is done by many sources, it becomes WP:N. Wikipedia does not censor content. Casprings (talk) 03:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Then take it to Akin's BLP. ViriiK (talk) 03:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

We are here to write an article that will stand the test of time. Not Obama campaign 2012 materials. – Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 03:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know that something "stood the test of time" by not representing all relevant aspects, including those of the opposing party. The article should include commentary concerning the convention. Casprings (talk) 03:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Well now you do know. Thank me. – Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 03:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Will anyone know who the hell Akin was 20 years from now and what the big deal was? Nope. 4 years from now should he lose? Unlikely. ViriiK (talk) 03:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it depends and that though experiment isn't one that is totally clear. One thing that we do know, is that there are many WP:RS that mention this. Wikipedia doesn't censor. Casprings (talk) 04:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Keeping out non-encyclopedic partisan B.S. isn't censorship. Belchfire-TALK 04:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

IMO the information about Akin is marginally relevant and does not warrant its own section. There is already a section on the abortion amendment under "Platform". The reference to Akin might be appropriate there as a parenthetical. However it does seem silly to label this platform item as the "Akin Amendment" when the GOP has endorsed it since the 80s. Pace, groupuscule (talk) 04:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Good PointCasprings (talk) 04:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not trying to censor the material. The problem is that it has absolutely zero bearing on the convention especially when G stated that it's been part of the platform for a while now. However the platform has yet to be adopted and also the convention does not label the platform the "Akin plank" either. ViriiK (talk) 04:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Casprings: repeatedly attempting to insert the Akin plank against consensus is extremely poor judgment.– Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 04:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I put in one sentence in a different spot. That isn't the same edit. Casprings (talk) 04:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Is it a bigger thing than you make it out to be regarding the party platform? Doubtful. The idea of the gold standard for example is a new addition that's being proposed to the party platform. ViriiK (talk) 04:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Please. It's the same edit in a different spot. It's not like none of us have ever seen your M.O. before. Belchfire-TALK 05:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Another thing, the party platform information will be released tomorrow in its entirety at least according to this website UCSB American Presidency Project. Anything else is just pure speculations of reporters reporting on what they hear even if it's from McDonnell's own mouth. I rather that people just wait and see until it is released in its entirety. ViriiK (talk) 05:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Numerous sources are referring to the anti-abortion platform as the "Akin Plank." This news search brings up 393 results. A neutral, brief mention is warranted. Gobōnobo ^{+ c} 05:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Did you really mean to post that? Your argument supports exclusion per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER.– Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 05:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

... coverage in a newspaper is certainly not an argument for exclusion ... groupuscule (talk) 06:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

So is this article about the convention or about Akins? ViriiK (talk) 05:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

If we were so inclined, we could have 393 secondary sources verifying that the plank has been dubbed the "Akin Plank". A brief, neutral mention of that fact does not violate WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and does not change this article's focus. Gobōnobo ^{+ c} 05:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Again still fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. This article is about the convention as a whole, not about Akin. ViriiK (talk) 05:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

And you would be wrong 393 times, because all you have there is a bunch of sources reporting what the Democrats are saying, not what anything is actually called. Good grief. Belchfire-TALK 06:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Hehe, hypothetically, if 393 articles reporting on Republicans calling the Democratic National Convention 2012 the "Obama National Convention 2012", would we need to rename the DNC 2012 article to that? ViriiK (talk) 06:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't follow that reasoning. This is not about renaming an article, it is about including a perspective. Are you saying that what Democrats say is irrelevant, because this is about the RNC? Excluding perspectives is censorship. What part of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER prevents us from including a sentence that says something like "The DNC began referring to the amendment as the "Akin Plank" following the media storm over Todd Akin's remarks concerning rape."? Gobōnobo ^{+ c} 06:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

While it seems that people are quoting WP:NOTNEWSPAPER for exclusion we must not forget WP:NEWSORG as a positive argument for inclusion wherever the WP:NOTNEWSPAPER crops up. And the 393 articles, from different news organizations as well as different wire services with fact checking proves that Todd Akins comments are reliable source WP:SOURCES. However, although reliable, this is an article about the 2012 Republican National Convention where the "Akin Plank" does not belong, at least until the official RNC Party Platform is presented and the "Planks" given their proper name by their originators, not their detractors.Yendor (talk) 09:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree... while I certainly don't think it should be portrayed as an official statement of the convention, the "Akin plank" is part of the discussion and context surrounding the convention. It's had a fairly significant impact on the attention of the public, etc. I think it needs to be handled with an exceedingly neutral hand, but it is definitely as much of a figurative storm surrounding the start of the convention as the literal hurricane is. Jbower47 (talk) 18:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Is is part of the discussion. A brief mention is well justified. Wikipedia:CENSOR.Casprings (talk) 22:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Todd Akin is a decade long member of the US House of Representatives trying to run for Senator in Missouri. He made a tragically ill advised (can I say "stupid") comment about, keyword, "Legitimate Rape". His comment is well documented in his BLP and for him, the statement will survive his test of time. It even has its own article, though currently up for deletion. I came to this RNC Convention page from an AP Article (directly referencing the article) very early this morning and have read other Convention newspaper "news" articles as well (AP, Reuters, others with track records of corrections). None of them, and I apologize for not being able to reference them offhand, made any mention of the "Akin Plank". In fact they were much more concerned about the literal storm (early Friday morning US East Coast) and there was nary a peep about the figurative storm (as referenced above). It is not censorship to argue against a simple non relevant event from being placed in another location. I think that the more relevant policy should be Wikipedia:WEIGHT. Yendor (talk) 02:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

So one sentence violates WP

Weight when there are hundreds of google news stories that reference the "Akin Plank"? Amazing. Casprings (talk) 02:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

As repeatedly mentioned by all the other users who disagree on this viewpoint, that one sentence is irrelevant to the RNC Convention. If anything, the imagery associated with it is exceedingly inflammatory. IMO when mentioning Akin and abortion today the other portion of his statement is drawn to the front - "Legitimate Rape". So yes, labeling an Anti-Abortion Plank that has been a long standing stanchion for the Republicans with "all" that Akin represents is over weighing the topic in this place at this time. So my concern is the inflammatory nature and the negative connotations that sentence bears in addition to its irrelevancy for this article. I think the others will be back tomorrow to help support me, or not, but I am for sleep for now. Thank you Casprings for being vigilant in your beliefs and open to other viewpoints. Yendor (talk) 03:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Would you agree thatAkin should be mentioned in the article somewhere. 1. He was asked not to come by the chairman one week before. He was also asked by Romney and Ryan to not come can drop out. 2. The event happened one week before the convention. 3. The Democrats are trying to link Akin to the Republican party by tools like the Akin plank. I can accept that this information should be somewhere else. I cannot accept that it should be nowhere. That is clear censorship. Casprings (talk) 03:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

HUNDREDS OF SOURCES! See. Guess who named them. The opposite party. If it was called the Akin Plank by the Republican Party, it would have been notable to mentioned. However, if the fact is that it's the same platform they've held for decades, then it is not attributed to Akin at all. ViriiK (talk) 04:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

At this time, at this point in the Article there is simply no relevancy with respect to the entirety of the Convention. This may very well change. If a Speaker were to mention it then you'd be spot on. We've got 3 more days plus the after event commentary and hindsight vision. Akin was more than asked to skip the convention, he was asked to skip membership in the Republican Party even though he currently has a 1% margin to win the Missouri Senate race (my interpretation which I hope is allowed in a discussion). Did you know that one of your references was a blog post (I think it was Washington Post). I have no doubt the reliable sources could be found and I won't argue that position. One scenario I can easily see is if the RNC votes to expel Akin. But putting Akin in this article now would be like someone putting a "We Built That" section into the DNC Convention because that is still a raging topic and I can find reliable sources for it. I can't quote chapter and verse WK Policies, so I'll simply stick with a vote of no, at least as it stands now. And though Wikipedia says to be bold WP:BOLD, we have already established discussion and consensus. Yendor (talk) 04:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see consensus here. I see some for, some against. That's not consensus. Even if consensus was achieved previously, the issue has been raised and several here felt it worthy to discuss again, evidenced by the contributions above. There is no consensus yet. We have a significantly large number of RS indicating it is notable, it is being commonly referred to as the Akin plank, and that this is an issue surrounding this convention. It is not up to us to decide if we think the RS are correct. We reflect, not opine.204.65.34.237 (talk) 20:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The consensus that I saw was to wait. Take it over to United_States_elections,_2012 — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps Akin plank should be a stand-alone article. I'm sure the Conservatism WikiProject will vociferously support such an approach, since Akin plank meets the same criteria as you didn't build that. MastCell ^Talk 21:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

good call groupuscule (talk) 23:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Ordering of sections

Doesn't appear to follow any logical organization. Anyone wanna suggest a section reorganization?– Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 03:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

This Featured Article could serve as a starting point 1880 Republican National Convention. – Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 03:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I realized it was a mess a while back but given time I'm sure the article will be reorganized. However the convention being tomorrow to Thursday, it's going to get even messier I bet. ViriiK (talk) 04:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

With all the hits it will be receiving we should do what we can.– Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 04:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Reorg looks great!!!! Thank me! – Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 05:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The reorganization does look much better, but you didn't build that! Naapple (Talk) 04:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

It was nice to see that my ideas, which were reverted were used anyway.Ericl (talk) 15:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Removed Rule change section

First off, it doesn't matter once the convention is concluded. Why? When a reader looks back to read the page, the rule change will not matter in the end. What will matter is the delegate count which is all the reader is going to care about. Meanwhile, it's basically Paul-POV pushing. ViriiK (talk) 04:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Just because the winners often write the history books doesn't mean we should adopt that model on Wikipedia. Cf. 1968 Democratic National Convention. Ron Paul & his supporters are a major part of the American political landscape, and are obviously relevant to this event. And they'll probably be more interesting to our 2050 audience than will the lists of speakers and Lynyrd Skynyrd concert. groupuscule (talk) 05:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Major? More like minor. The quote itself that is being used is complete garbage and is literally POV pushing. It is not neutral and is extremely UNDUE here. ViriiK (talk) 05:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Another thing here. The Al Jazeera information that is being cited is also extremely inaccurate. Paul may have won "majorities" of delegates in certain states but he did not win those respective states and those delegates that are "Paul Delegates" are bounded to Romney ie Nevada. Louisiana has only 17 out of 46 delegates tied to Ron Paul with the remaining for Romney. So Paul never was given a slot contrary to popular Paulista opinions. ViriiK (talk) 05:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

ViriiK, I am certainly in agreement that Wikipedia should not be a platform for party propaganda. I also do not agree with the policy of removing any information critical of the GOP establishment. They're throwing the party, but that doesn't make the event about them. Again, the 1968 DNC is a valuable historical reference. You might also check out the section on Funding at the 2012 DNC page. I think this section contains information that is noteworthy & relevant. Do you? Or would you support removing it?

As I said on my talk page, where you started a discussion, a more helpful way to respond to a quotation that you feel is biased would be to use a different quotation, not to delete the whole section.

I don't like edit warring and I will leave it to others to make the actual changes regarding this dispute. I hope that this decision does not result in censorship by default. groupuscule (talk) 05:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Has nothing to do with censorship and has more to do with irrelevant information. The quote was pure crap. This page has been constantly vandalized to the point that I had to request locking down the page until after the convention. What will we expect after the convention is concluded? The delegate count and any events that occurred during the convention. What will readers not care about? Anything that led up to the convention. It's about standing the test of time. All the readers will see is that the Paulistas were a bunch of crybabies and move on to another page. ViriiK (talk) 05:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The quote was not the source of the vandalism. What was a problem was the constant adding and removing the name of Ron Paul from a list of candidates over and over again... which is the very definition of an edit war (not really vandalism either). Certainly it isn't like... other forms of vandalism (invoking WP:BEAN to avoid suggesting real forms of vandalism). Calling this "pure crap" is not really providing a reasonable argument against including this information except to provide an ad hominem attack against those who added it to the article in the first place (see also WP:NPA). Discussing the rule, that it had an impact upon the convention, and relating how Ron Paul tried to use that rule to push his way into the convention agenda to give a speech is certainly relevant. That it should avoid original research (IMHO a problem of that section and a valid complaint) and that secondary sources discussing the information would be useful to show its relevancy as rationale for inclusion in the article are legitimate things to be suggesting as well. Taking it out because you don't like it is not a valid reason for its removal. --Robert Horning (talk) 15:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the Rules dispute does matter. It offended not only the Ron Paul supporters, but the Tea Party faction. From what I've heard Michelle Makin is up in arms about it. If there is no post-convention bump in the polls for Romney, then this power-grab is why. And why people who were expected to vote for Romney decided instead to vote the Virgil Goode the Constitution Party candidate & Johnson the Libertarian candidate, thus delivering several swing states & putting leaning Republican states into play. Conventions are expected to demonstrate party unity, not coalitions fragmenting. -- llywrch (talk) 17:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The link to Michelle Malkin's opinion on this is RNC power grab, the aftermath. JRSpriggs (talk) 17:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I concur that this is relevant. It is reflected as so in RS, and has been much more of an issue for this event than some of the minor trivia in the article. While I give good faith assumption to the OP, I think that taking it out gives the appearance of impropriety, even if none exists. Please keep it in.204.65.34.237 (talk) 20:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree that the Rules change should be in, but not a fan of the bias in the editing. It is clear that there were many Tea Party speakers in prominent positions, and that there is an undeniable focus on taxes, debt, limited government, etc., which are signature Ron Paul and Tea Party issues. Just as it has been widely reported that the Christie speech was voluntarily "toned down", it is also apparent that while some activists seem put out, this does not seem to be shared with Haley, Rand/Ron Paul, Ryan, Scott, etc., all of who mentioned policy not origin. The lack of mention of the Tea Party itself while adopting common policies seems a part of the orchestration of the Convention. The "outrage" or "controversy" seems a little WP:UNDUE--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 14:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Plagiarism

Directly copying the schedule without paraphrasing in your own words is a form of plagiarism. Also we do not need to have the exact copies because this is about the event, not a TV guide. Wikipedia has never been a TV guide. ViriiK (talk) 10:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Copying factual details such as the names of people speaking and perhaps even their order is not plagiarism. There isn't anything creative in such an act, and thus isn't even copyrightable and certainly isn't a problem having it here on Wikipedia either. BTW, this is like copying pages out of a phone book.... something also neither illegal nor for that matter something immoral nor anti-ethical. It is verifiable, and likely there can and should be some sort of summary (based upon reliable sources and other editorial aspects of Wikipedia) of at least some of the prominent speeches given when they happen.

Can you elaborate on your position for why such a schedule of speakers is unreasonable for this article, other than the fact you don't like it? --Robert Horning (talk) 14:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I might add that some of that information might be better served as something to be placed in Wikisource with appropriate links here, mainly in the interest of brevity and writing good prose rather than something taken out just because you don't like it. --Robert Horning (talk) 15:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that Wikipedia forbids directly copying all information from any website and request that users always assume that the information is copyrighted. The user however attacked me for supposedly having a political agenda in removing this information. However he is not aware that I was the one that started the speaker's list or at least in the beginning as well as the fact I did a lot of the work paraphrasing who is on the speaker list. Now, if you have any questions, see Wikipedia:Copy-paste, it's not policy but it does point out specifically to where the policies are. ViriiK (talk) 03:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Agendas are not copyrighted, or factual directory type information. Wikipedia doesn't forbid that kind of thing, but if you are largely copying information from a primary source it likely should be put somewhere else. That is why I'm suggesting that instead it ought to be put onto Wikisource instead of Wikipedia (which is why Wikisource was set up in the first place). In this case I'd argue that it may even be something like WP:UNDUE that would apply so you can even throw out the copyright argument altogether.

Regardless, you constant reversion and edit war was inappropriate, and frankly you did violate WP:3RR flat out with your attempts to cull this content. Make a reversion if you think it is inappropriate and then start a discussion on the talk page. This article in particular has plenty of people watching it so you are bound to have some sort of discussion on the topic, particularly if the content is contrary to Wikipedia standards as you are suggesting. Those reversions also took out content that was not controversial and you did not work with those trying to make good faith edits on this article. --Robert Horning (talk) 15:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Hurricane Isaac

Shouldn't Tropical Storm Isaac be changed to Hurricane Isaac? I know the hurricane was only a tropical storm when there was concern, but, at least, the wiki-link should be changed. Just a thought, –– 76.10.241.86 (talk) 17:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

At the time it was added to this article, it had never been a hurricane. In this case, a worthy suggestion and something where you should often just be bold and simply make the change. --Robert Horning (talk) 22:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

It was declared a category "cat=1" hurricane today, compared to Katrina cat-3. It hits land west of Florida Wednesday morning, I believe. Its threat may have been one reason for tiny protests. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that this article is "protected" – I cannot currently (without an account) make the change. –– 76.10.241.86 (talk) 02:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, at least I thought it was protected earlier. Maybe it was, I can't remember. Well, I guess I'll make the change! –– 76.10.241.86 (talk) 02:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Just curious: can anybody confirm this page was protected earlier? By the way, I noticed that Robert Horning made the change. Thanks! –– 76.10.241.86 (talk) 02:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about the article protection. There have been some trolls engaging in edit wars, and sadly anonymous users have been blocked from time to time as a way to calm down those edit wars. Generally I'm opposed to such protections, but there does need to be something like that from time to time. If the convention becomes controversial, it is likely to happen again, but I think the most contentious issues have been solved. --Robert Horning (talk) 03:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Interesting... thanks again! –– 76.10.241.86 (talk) 05:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Be an editor! There are perks and excitement .!. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Checking when the article was protected

To check when this article was protected, please see All public logs for this article. JRSpriggs (talk) 11:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The business of the convention

It is said that the business of the convention was concluded on Day One: (1) formalizing Romney-Ryan with a very interesting and moving Roll Call (I loved seeing and hearing each state and territory talk about their history and claim-to-fame, including hearing from the brother of Mitt Romney); and (2) formalizing the Republican Party 2012 platform. Can WP articles be colorful, or are they just colorless encyclopedic facts? — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

A few things to consider: 1) notability...in the total scope of the article, what is being shared must be notable enough to be included. What shoes Romney wore during the convention? Not notable. The fact that Chris Christie was a speaker? notable. A lot of the trivia/history/puff talk presented, as interesting as it may be on its own, is probably not notable in the scale of this article. 2) due weight- given that these items are not the focus of the convention, and not the focus of the sources reporting on it, they probably don't deserve a lot (if any space). For instance, one would not write a paragraph on the hurricane, and then a paragraph on the history of Texas as presented at the convention. 3) Sources - RS needed, not just first person quotes from the TV. 3) POV - one man's color can be another man's bias. Something to keep in mind. If wiki sometimes seems colorless, it's often because "color" is more likely to be a matter of opinion, and neutrality is better served by facts presented in the most unbiased way possible. Just my 2 cents. I don't think there would be anything wrong with, in the description of the first day, adding a sentence describing, without value judgement, the program, though too much detail is likely to be unwelcome.204.65.34.237 (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Governors speaking were great. Would you expect more 'business'? — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Platform on abortion

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

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

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

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

OT - Time warp?

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

Orlando Sentinel Editorial Board

August 31, 2012

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

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

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

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

Eastwood Speech....

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

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

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

Ryan speech section

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