Jump to content

Talk:2012 Republican National Convention/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

50%+1 of 2286 is not 1145

I know both of the above numbers listed in the right-hand box came from different sources, but one of them has to be wrong, seeing as 50%+1 of 2286 is 1144 (1143+1).

If I have time over the coming days, I'll try to find an official source and update whichever of those numbers is wrong.

Joe dawg 9 (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I see the source for the second number has updated to 1144, which seems correct, so I updated the article. Simon12 (talk) 03:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done: Yes, the Table looks good now and includes the formula: 50%+1 of 2,286 is 1,144 (1,143+1). Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Protests

The section protests was added to document city planning, and events leading up to the protests of 2012. Pbmaise (talk) 01:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Removal Of "Protests" Section

The protests have only been referenced in one or two newspapers, and it is not worth keeping in the article, it should be moved to the movements that plan on protesting — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Mentlegen (talk • contribs) 02:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Mentlegen: check out this search? Also it seems the whole "policing" section is indicative of protests to come. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Groupuscule (talk • contribs) 18:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I suspect there will be small fringe groups with banners, but hardly a 'protest'. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

the section "policing " has questionable or not true information. The sources if respectable cant be respected since contrary to quick web query. As stated :"Tampa police are still deciding how to cordon off areas of the city to maintain tourism while keeping protests limited. Police Chief Jane Castor has stated that although Harbour Island will not be off-limits to non-residents, "there will be some checkpoints."[18] The city has announced an estimated force of between 3000 and 4000 officers on each day of the convention.[1]"

The "still deciding" fphrase is misleading since the tactical police decision are never ending process. So to speak it is disinformation . In fact the decision how to set pro democracy fences, providing for regulations on banners, clean zone demonstrations prohibition on public urination and defecation; were already (5/12/2012) taken; is here: File No: E2012-8 CH 16, 20.5, 22, 27[1] 99.90.197.87 (talk) 06:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

What is this "Candidates that did not vote" table that was added?

If you are absolutely intent of having that third field for abstaining delegates, then at least fix the grammar. It should be "Delegates who did not vote". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.62.98 (talk) 03:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Delegate Count Edit Warring

If editors involved with this article are going to engage in an edit war.... stop it!

There seems to be an editorial dispute over who qualifies to cast their ballots on the first round of voting at the convention. If you disagree.... spell out your arguments here on the talk page. Otherwise this is only a protracted version violating the spirit if not the letter of the three revert rule. --Robert Horning (talk) 19:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

As the article clearly shows plurality in 5 states are needed to be on the ballot. For now only Romney and Santorum have reached that. (I dont know if Santorum wish to be on the ballot but at least he has meet the requirements). Paul have at this date only plurality in two states: Maine and Minnesota. Pauls delegate majority in Massachusetts, Nevada and Rhode Island are all bound to vote for Romney and can not be used when it comes to showing plurality in connection with access to the first ballot in the nomination process. On June 2 Paul will most properly get a plurality in Washington and Louisiana, but these states can not be counted at this date because no delegates have been elected in Washington and only 15 in Louisiana, so these states can not show a plurality to anyone. The same is true for Missouri where Paul might or might not get a plurality. On June 16 Paul will most properly get a plurality in Iowa, where no delegates are elected or allocated at this date. So what will most properly happen is that Paul will get his fifth state plurality at June 16 and will then have reached the requirements to be on the ballot. It is unlikely that this would not happen, but it is not certain that it will happen. So let us please wait until things have actually happened and not be using a crystalball. Jack Bornholm (talk) 23:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Note that I'm not trying to shoot down anybody here on this, but shouldn't the whole thing be pulled off the article due to a lack of reliable sources? The whole exercise at the moment smacks of original research and an interpretation of the official rules. If there were some sort of reliable secondary source talking about this, such as some political news site or other well known pundit who is bringing this issue up and talking about who qualifies for the ballot, that can be cited. It doesn't matter if your interpretation of the rules is correct or not, unless somebody else outside of Wikipedia is talking about this stuff it shouldn't even be here.
At the very least, an appeal to sources is the best way to settle this issue and to even invoke some administrative action if necessary (such as semi-protecting the article for a little while and issuing warning/bans on participants who revert without sources backing up their assertions). BTW, I agree with the crystal ball assertion applying here as well, but that also gets back to original research issues. Find a source talking about this stuff, then make your edits. If the Ron Paul supporters want to get their delegate votes counted, they need to take that up with the Republican National Committee, not the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee. This article is the wrong forum for settling this issue. --Robert Horning (talk) 23:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
I think it is a little of an overkill to talk about editwar, semiprotecting and original research. In the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 article, witch this article could be said to almost a subarticle too, it is wellsourced what states have demonstrated plurality to what candidate. The main source is the GP and USA Today (see the primary schedule in the article). The matter of the Paul delegates bound to vote for Romney have also been discussed and wellreferenced on the articles talkpage. Many editors helping with this article are also doing work on the "main" article and some confusion and disagreement have spilled over to this article. Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Okay folks, here's the deal: In 1972, Pete McCloskey won a single delegate in the Republican primaries, the Nixon campaign didn't want anyone putting his name in nomination, and the previous con had six favorite sons names put into nomination with long winded speeches which screwed up Nixon's schedule (he barely had enough votes to be nominated anyway that year). So there was the five state rule. This rule only applies to nominating SPEECHES, not voting. Any uncommitted delegate can vote for whomever they wish (look at the vote totals for the last few conventions). Gingrich, with only TWO states cannot have a SPEECH placing his name in nomination, but his delegates can vote for him, and a few most certainly will. Paul's people may try to change the rule because they want the speech. They'll probably all vote for him at the roll call.Ericl (talk) 13:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I dont know why rule 40 have been made, maybe to prevent favorit sons and backroom deals giving the electorate of the primaries more pover. But whatever happened in the past it is important to remember that rule 40 is a new rule and this is the first cycle where it is invoked. It leaves a lot of questions open about how it will be invoked practically and I agree that we should make OR on that. But the fact as it is referenced is that without five states showing plurality to you no one will be able to put you up for nomination. And with Romneys majority in bound delegates there will only be one ballot or roll call. How it will play out we dont know, but that fact we do know and that is not OR. Jack Bornholm (talk) 12:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Merging all U.S. states presidential primary and election articles

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012#Merging all U.S. states presidential primary and election articles into one article for each state. The proposal is to merge all articles on different state primaries (both democratic and republican) and the articles on the presidential election (where such exist) in to one single article for each state. See United States presidential election in New Hampshire, 2008 It is possible to see how the 2008 and 2012 articles will look like if this large merges was completed. This issue have been discussed for a month on this talkpage without a clear consensus and the merge proposal is so massive that it would be good to get a wide range of editors to comment on it. Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Recent edit warring

User:78.152.197.199 seems especially determined to put into the article's lead and infobox that Ron Paul could still win the nomination, even though Romney is obviously the presumptive nominee and nobody else has the slightest chance at this point. What should we do about this? Specs112 t c 19:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Get the article protected so that IP's can't edit it without approval. I don't know how to do that, but I've seen it on other articles. Ratemonth (talk) 19:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I already reported it at WP:RPP a while ago. Just waiting for an admin to wander over there. 72Dino (talk) 19:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
sigh Backlogs... Specs112 t c 19:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

How does one report a violation of the three-revert-rule? That ought to put an end to this. Specs112 t c 19:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

3RR violations can be reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, but this person changes IP addresses so after blocking the current one he will just use another IP address. Page protection is the best approach in this situation. 72Dino (talk) 19:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
What is interesting about the reader editing-waring is that Santorum has more delegates than Paul; and so saying Romney "or Ron Paul" is not even encyclopedically correct. From the table at Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2012#Primary_schedule current count is: Romney(1,399); Santorum(248); Paul(164); Gingrich(142) and unassigned(213). — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 19:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, my request for a block on his IP went through. I fully expect him to find a new one soon given that this is his third IP he's used. But this should make our lives a little easier while the admins forget to check WP:RPP. Specs112 t c 20:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The block lasted four minutes before posting under another IP address. 72Dino (talk) 20:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

And... semiprotected! Huzzah! Specs112 t c 20:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Paul in balloting box

Exactly why is Paul's name being thrown out of the balloting box? He has over a hundred delegates, and they're almost all gonna vote for him. This is not the same for Gingrich or Santorum, who will bow and scrape for a prime time speaking slot in exchange for their delegate votes. Paul will not do this. If you look at last time, I don't think McCain got a nominating speech. Leave Paul's name alone in the box, it'll make things easier next month. Ericl (talk) 22:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

A new rule says that a candidate have to show plurality in five states before he can even be on the ballot. It is true that Paul have considerable support but that will not help if he cant show plurality in five states because then no one will be able to vote for him. I know that it has not been that way in the past, this is a new rule and this convention is the first one to apply it. If Paul should be able to show a plurality at the Nebraska state convention in July then the messy Louisana situation might be in the game. Montana have elected their unbound delegates and there is no plurality for Paul. With 70% of all Nebraska caucusgoers voting for Romney in an unbinding strawpoll it seems to be a very unlike situation that Paul would be able to make it to the ballot at the National Convention Jack Bornholm (talk) 13:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

There is NO ballot. How it works is that the state chairs announce the vote at the roll call.Ericl (talk) 16:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

But there is vote prior to the roll call, right? Is there a ballot for that or is it all done by voice vote?--NextUSprez (talk) 17:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
How the proverbial ballot will be or rather how the nomination will go forth I dont know. But I know what rule 40 says and that is stated in this article. There will be no presentation and chance to vote for any candidate that do not show plurality in five states. That is the rules, and as they are qouted in the article they dont talk about the talks. Maybe it would be possible to see reliable references to that interpertation, that would be quit new. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
No. There will be no presentation, BUT, those uninstructed delegates can vote for whomever they wish, and bound delegates must vote for the candidate they are bound to. In other words, if Ron Paul's delegates want to vote for Barry Goldwater's ghost, they cannot. Only for Paul. Even if he's not been nominated.Ericl (talk) 22:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Do you have a source (other than Paul supports blog) saying that? Because I havent been able to find one, as it looks at the few sources I have tried to find (not easy to find anything) this will be the first time where "write-inn" votes will not be accepted. (I know it is a verbal roll call, but hope you get the idea) Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Presumptive Nominee

This article is about the convention itself, and not about the primaries.

It shouldn't say that Romney is the nominee, "presumptive" or otherwise, in an article about a nominating convention that hasn't taken place, yet. FreakyDaGeeky14 (talk) 23:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

You can't talk about the convention without talking about what happens at it. And what happens is that Romney gets nominated. That isn't even a debatable fact, no matter how much you like Ron Paul. Specs112 t c 02:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
FreakDaGeeky didn't mention Ron Paul, and we shouldn't make unfounded assumptions about his/her motives (see WP:AGF). I agree with Specs112, though, that Romney should remain listed as the presumptive nominee. He has the minimum number of delegates needed and is referred to in all prominent reliable sources (and by the RNC) as the presumptive nominee (or something to that effect). To make it seem as though the race is undecided when it's obvious that the convention is a mere formality and Romney has the nomination sewn up would be insulting to our readers' intelligence and make Wikipedia out of step with the reliable sources (which it is supposed to be reflective of).--NextUSprez (talk) 04:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I would disagree, but if you make such statements it should achieve widespread consensus that the information is correct and from reliable sources... insisting that those sources are included in any edit which would be so bold to make such a statement. It happens that Mitt Romney has been declared the presumptive nominee in numerous mainstream news sources which I think would more than qualify as reliable sources.
The fact is that Mitt Romney's campaign is pretty much going to be running the convention at this point, with the RNC giving deference to Romney's campaign at just about every chance they get. That other candidates and their delegates may make some motions and do stuff is going to add color to the process, but the outcome of the convention is pretty certain unless something happens to Romney like what happened to Bobby Kennedy in 1968 with the Democratic Convention in that year (getting assassinated or something else equally horrible or scandalous). Stick to facts, but I highly doubt you are going to find much in terms of reliable sources which are going to say something contrary to proclaiming Romney as the presumptive nominee. --Robert Horning (talk) 04:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Very good points. Please see this as a reminder that Wikipedia's policy is to rely on reliable sources for its content. To not acknowledge that Romney is the presumptive nominee at this point would not only be ludicrous, but contrary to policy.--NextUSprez (talk) 04:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Mitt Romney is the Republican presumptive-nominee. Everyone knows two things, actually three: (1) Leadership of RNC knighted him as the Presumptive Nominee and wants everyone to get behind him, even though Ron Paul keeps it exciting; (2) everyone knows it is not formally over until the Fat Lady sings at convention; (3) Even Obama says Romney is his worth opponent; (4) general public also sees Romney as the nominee; (5) Even Ron Paul see Mitt Romney as the Republican Nominee. (Paul says he now seeks to form the GOP and make his Conservative points). Thanks for your thoughts. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I went ahead and simply copied the reference from the presumptive nominee article used in reference to Mitt Romney, in part because it was also appropriate here (and I verified that the content was germane to the article here as well). I'm sure other sources could be found, but the Los Angeles Times seems like as sound of a source as you can get for something like this and still keep it a secondary source. Actual delegate counts are much more subject to individual delegate whims and I think are much more unreliable until the convention itself. --Robert Horning (talk) 06:02, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not disputing whether or not Romney is the presumptive Republican nominee for President. Reading over some your the comments here, I can see why he is being including in this article, but language like "where Mitt Romney will be nominated" seems to be inappropriate due to WP:CRYSTAL. FreakyDaGeeky14 (talk) 03:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL does not apply here because we, as editors, aren't predicting the future here. What is being done is disclosing what reliable sources have been saying about the topic. I would dare say that you are disputing the presumptive nomination of Romney. Again, find a reliable (hopefully recent) source which backs up a contrary claim if you don't agree. Unverified and raw speculation certainly shouldn't be happening, but reliable sources (not us as editors here on Wikipedia) are those who are claiming Romney is the presumptive nominee. Please re-read that policy again, as I don't think it means what you think it means. If somebody else who is considered an expert or a reliable source that will say some future event is going to happen (like a solar eclipse in Orlando, Florida), it is not only reasonable to put that information in Wikipedia, but it is important to article development to include that information as long as it is relevant. I think that is very much the case with this particular piece of information. --Robert Horning (talk) 04:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
"I would dare say that you are disputing the presumptive nomination of Romney" That got a chuckle out me. Priceless. I completely agree btw. Naapple (talk) 05:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Let the Delegates choose

We shouldn't list anybody in the nominees section of the infobox. Though Romney has a pledge of a 'majority' of delegates, we should wait until the delegates 'actually' vote. GoodDay (talk) 04:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Presumptive nominee still means the same thing it always meant. Ratemonth (talk) 04:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not questioning that Romney is the presumptive presidential nominee. The section is suppose to be for the presidential & vice presidential nominees (i.e. when the delegates vote). GoodDay (talk) 04:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Presumptive nominees are not addressed at Template:Infobox national political convention, but perhaps should be one way or the other to clarify the what should be in the infobox. There also may have been some confusion because the template page included Mitt Romney as the presumptive nominee in the infobox, but that edit was either erroneous or partisan so I removed that content. 72Dino (talk) 05:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Romney should be removed from this infobox, just like Obama & Biden should be removed from the 2012 Democratic National Convention infobox. GoodDay (talk) 05:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, well that's just like your opinion, man. Specs112 t c 13:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
An opinon, based on accuracy & common-sense. GoodDay (talk) 14:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Again, they are the presumptive nominees. If it listed their names without that word, it'd be inaccurate. But it is perfectly accurate right now. Ratemonth (talk) 14:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
The section is for the nominees, not the presumptive nominees. GoodDay (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Not really. Ratemonth (talk) 16:35, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Whatever, I'm tired of trying to nail jello to the wall. GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Note that the delegates will have a chance to cast their votes. The point should be made that there is a reliable source which can back up the claim of presumptive nominee, including official recognition by the chair of the Republican National Committee as noted in the source cited beside the name. If you have a dispute to this title and use, come up with an alternative reliable source which shows it may be in question. See also WP:BRD for how articles are edited, but simply removing it because it doesn't fit your particular POV is a horrible way to contribute to article. I realize that appealing to authority is also a fallacy but it is one way to diffuse an argument where bringing in outside sources to back up your claims for content in a Wikipedia article has a long standing tradition. --Robert Horning (talk) 02:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
let us remember that more than half of all the delegates are BOUND to vote for Romney. In other words a majority have to vote for Romney, like it or not, at the convention, that makes him the presumptive nominee, presumptive not because it is most likely he will get nominated but simply presumptive because he has not official nominated yet. Jack Bornholm (talk) 12:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Also note that this is not a brokered convention. It is being held with the assumption and expectation, based on pledged delegates won during the primaries/caucuses, that Romney will be the official nominee. To list "TBA" or anything other than "presumptive nominee" in the nominee section of the infobox would be misleading, as it would give the impression that that this is an open, or brokered, convention which it clearly is not.--JayJasper (talk) 17:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Regardless of how obvious it may seem to folks right now, we still should find a reliable source for anything put into this article, particularly because politics by its very nature is very controversial and it is necessary for us who are editing this article to still maintain the standard pillars including maintaining a neutral point of view. You or another editor may claim that Romney has a majority bound to him, but that would still be original research and needs to be avoided. At this point however there are a plethora of credible sources which have declared Romney to be the presumptive nominee, so it really doesn't matter. Find some of those sources and use them, please. Also avoid primary sources unless absolutely necessary, including your own interpretations of the RNC bylaws, the call for convention, or any other rules which will govern this convention. --Robert Horning (talk) 01:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Not to put in the article, but to ease our own minds, we remember BHObama saying Romney was the Republican [presumptive] Nominee. — :-) — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Ratemonth, you've made 5 reverts within 24hrs, including 4 rvts with an hour. Please cancel your last rvt or I'll be forced to report you to WP:3RR. -- GoodDay (talk) 21:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to count how many reverts you've made, but it's also been plenty, and your edits were against the previously established consensus. Report me for whatever you want. But I will avoid editing the convention pages. Ratemonth (talk) 22:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Why did you go over 3 rvts within 24hrs? GoodDay (talk) 22:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
3RR does not cover blatant vandalism, see the discussion below. Ratemonth is not in the wrong here. --Robert Horning (talk) 23:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Is the presumptive nominee Mitt Romney ?

While looking[2] the presumptive nominee wiki-def there is- cite- "be usurped". Please elaborate since the logic in the 'presumptive nominum' seem to be in words "unlikely that the candidate will .. be usurped"" contrary to what is here in leade. (As fact: lede is slredy flaged by {citition nedded}) 99.90.197.87 (talk) 06:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

RNC acknowledges him as presumtive nominee. Mr. Anon515 04:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I propose that we stick something to the effect of Mitt Romney is the presumptive nominee, and that's all there is to say on the matter on the top of the talk page to cut down on the pointless "debate" in here. Specs112 t c 12:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Raising the issue here on the talk page is one thing to do, and it is better to talk it out and prattle off in what may seem like pointless debate than to engage in an edit war that adds and removes content from the article. There apparently are some people who are disputing the "presumptive nominee" aspect of Mitt Romney, which is just fine in terms of article development on Wikipedia. The problem is that those who wish to challenge that statement are not backing their actions up with references or based upon facts that can be used in the development of the article. Raw emotion and saying "that's all there is to say on the matter" doesn't help, but neither does insisting that only when the delegates actually vote can a nominee be determined.
Sadly, the edit war has been happening even to the point that this article has been semi-protected against anonymous editor contributions (and new user contributions too). That isn't a good thing either, and the raw emotion and political opinion is not how to write a Wikipedia article. Maintaining a NPOV is best done by appealing to 3rd party sources of information, which isn't being done here. --Robert Horning (talk) 06:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Be prepared for the onslaught of Ron Paulians

This page has been targeted on dailypaul to be spammed with pro-Ron Paul delusions. Hence the ridiculous questions above. They will cpontinue to question whether Romney will win the nomination well after he already has. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.106.1 (talk) 22:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The page is protected, correct? Anyways, as long as the RNC and Obama acknowledge Romney as the presumptive nominee, he will remain the presumptive nominee (not to mention that our article for delegate count shows Romney with a majority). Mr. Anon515 23:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
You shouldn't look upon page protection as a good thing. Generally it should be a temporary action to stop would-be vandals, usually because of off-wiki canvassing or some other similar aspect and it is sad to see it happening on this page. I think it is unfortunately necessary at the moment because there is off-wiki canvassing going on and some well meaning but people new to Wikipedia (at least new to editing Wikipedia) that don't understand the editorial policies here. --Robert Horning (talk) 22:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Right now this article is not protected and everything seems fine for now. Jack Bornholm (talk) 19:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Explaining revert and marking for original research

User:Mr. Anon515 just reverted some of my changes and added a citation that I removed, and I am commenting here on the talk page to go into depth for why I made the edits that I have, in the interest of trying to explain myself and to hope this makes for a better article.

First of all, the citation needed on the lead paragraph isn't about the fact that Mitt Romney is the presumptive nominee, as that is already covered with the very reference used and is in the info box (in fact I added it there). I am insisting upon a reliable source that notes Mitt Romney is going to give the acceptance speech, where that speech is going to be delivered, and that he is even going to give the speech. That is a non-obvious fact that can be presumed perhaps due to the fact he will be the nominee, but at least find a source which states that information. The source provided by Mr. Anon515 does not provide those details and only references the fact that Mitt Romney is the presumptive nominee alone.

As for the original research mark-up, it is original research that is being used to create the table, the map, and all of the information in the section about the delegates. It is synthesis of a primary source, precisely what the WP:OR guidelines suggest should not be happening on Wikipedia. If you can find a secondary source of information that is reliable which is performing this kind of synthesis (not a blog and certainly not something you wrote yourself just to get around this original research restriction), by all means mention the source and put in the appropriate references. Also provide a more legitimate citation with preferably a web link to the primary source as well if it is being used as well, but in this particular section I think it goes well beyond just factual information and definitely drifts into synthesis. This is one of the reasons why it has been the subject of edit wars, precisely because one person's opinion on the topic is as good as somebody else's opinion and none of it is based upon any outside source or sources.

Yes, you or anybody else can read the RNC by-laws and interpret those rules, but that is the very definition of original research. Please verify the claims and find reliable sources which back up the claims. I'm not removing the section (although I think that would be a good thing to do all thing considered) but I am insisting that it doesn't meet Wikipedia standards and deserves a markup note because of that. --Robert Horning (talk) 22:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

No OR has been used, but the many references used are in the primary article, the map and most of the section is kind of a steal from that article. I have added the two most important references. But I see no reasons to add 20 or so references from the whole article. Jack Bornholm (talk) 06:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for finding references to this section and cleaning it up. I do think the ballot totals in terms of delegate votes cast should ultimately be moved to another section or cleaned up, noting that Ron Paul and others will be receiving some votes when the delegates actually do the formal ballots, as was the case in 2008. The candidate's name does not need to be formally introduced in order for delegates to place votes for that candidate. --Robert Horning (talk) 01:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
That is the big question this season, will the delegates be able to vote for anyone (write-inn) or will it only be possible to vote for the ones on the ticket? Since it is the first time rule 40 is invoked no one really know 100 procent. Most sources I have seen say no to write-inn votes. Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
If you have a reliable source which says that Ron Paul's name can't be cast upon on the floor of the convention by delegates, that would be interesting to add to the article. I would be interested in ever reading that source too. --Robert Horning (talk) 23:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I did read that somewhere, but alas I didnt make a note - Well maybe it was in my sleep . I will try to find it again if I can. Jack Bornholm (talk) 10:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I added others (with a link to write-in) to show that even though only two names will be put officially on the ballot it will be possible to vote for others from the floor. That must be the default setting (as common pracis) until I find my ellusive source, if ever. Jack Bornholm (talk) 13:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Raymond James Stadium

I have removed the content regarding Raymond James Stadium until I see a reliable source. There is a Chattanooga Mocs-South Florida Bulls game scheduled that weekend, and it may take more than two days to reconfigure the stadium -- just like how there were no Carolina Panthers home games scheduled at Bank of America Stadium on the weekend following the Democratic convention to avoid any possible conflict.[3] Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 15:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Should there be anything other than "TBD" in the "nominee" slot until there is a nominee?

And no, restoring TBD, once, is not vandalism. Perhaps a consensus here, and a note in the spot that says "consnesus reached on xx/xxx".User talk:Unfriend12 19:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

TBD should be used in this article's infobox & at 2012 Democratic National Convention's infobox. GoodDay (talk) 20:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
GoodDay, there is a formal citation that fixes as a reference for who the nominee is going to be, with numerous other reliable sources that state the position. Your insistence upon posting "TBD" in the infobox is contrary to already achieved consensus listed in above discussions and contrary to reliable sources. If you can find an opposing viewpoint from a reliable source which states clearly that the outcome of the convention is going to be somebody other than Mitt Romney, or even that outcome is still in doubt, I will back you up in the assertion that "TBD" needs to be put in there. The thing is, I don't think you can find that reliable source at all. As such, if you keep editing the article insisting those letters be put in and you keep removing sources from this article, I will have to consider that to be blatant vandalism and certainly doesn't fit the definition of edit warring or the 3RR rule. Ditto for the Democratic Convention article as well. You can try to overcome a reliable source by pointing out contrary viewpoints and show that the source is a minority opinion under WP:UNDUE, but I don't think you can make that stick here. --Robert Horning (talk) 23:07, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually, the nominee will be whomever the delegates select, and no, we don't know who that will be, no one does wp:NOT a crystal ball.User talk:Unfriend12 23:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Romney is the presumptive nominee. This isn't up for debate. As to whether he should be displayed: BHO is displayed on the DNC convention page. This isn't a brokered convention, and not listing him as the presumptive nominee implies something that isn't.
Personal feelings and opinions should be left out. How do you report someone anyway?Naapple (talk) 23:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
If you want a neutral 3rd party to come in an arbitrate this decision, I'm welcome to the idea (although I think it is stupid to do that). Yes, I know full well about WP:NOT, but crystal ball doesn't apply here because reliable sources are being used for this assertion. What you did, along with GoodDay, is to remove that reliable source and act contrary to consensus achieve already on this talk page. That is by definition vandalism. If you can find other reliable sources (or even any sort of source that we can debate if it is reliable) that suggest the outcome of the convention will be anything different, find the source and then we can debate which source should be used. At the moment you are providing original research or even just raw assumptions that the outcome is still in question when reliable sources claim otherwise, sources already used in the article I should note.
If you want to report wrongdoing, you can go to the Administrator's notice board asking for some outside help in dealing with vandals. --Robert Horning (talk) 23:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I haven't been arguing that the Republicans won't nominate Romney for President. I've been arguing that they haven't nominated yet. The fact I'm pointing out, is that the infobox is for the presidential nominee, not the presumptive presidential nominee. We've only about 6 weeks before the delegatse nominate their candidate & the candidate accepts the nomination, therefore what's the big rush. PS: I've the same argument at the 2012 Democratic National Convention, concerning Obama & Biden. GoodDay (talk) 01:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
You're certainly entitled to your opinion. However, the consensus on both pages it would seem is that "presumptive nominee" is appropriate. Naapple (talk) 01:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Why is there a consensus for such an error? Neither major party has nominated anyone for President or Vice President. Again, why the rush to place these names into the infoboxes? GoodDay (talk) 01:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

If you look at this very talk page, you'll see that the RNC has acknowledged Romney as the presumptive nominee. As has Barack Obama. And Ron Paul. Not to mention countless secondary sources that call Romney the presumptive nominee. Mr. Anon515 01:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not questioning that he's going to be nominated by the Republican Party, however. I'm pointing out that the infobox says Nominee, not Presumptive nominee. GoodDay (talk) 01:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean. The infobox has the space "nominee" for format consistency, but where it says "Mitt Romney" it has the word "presumptive" in parenthesis next to it, making it clear that Romney is the presumptive nominee, and not officially the nominee at the moment (for example he could drop out for personal reasons, such as death or scandal). Mr. Anon515 02:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Why have him placed there at all? Why not wait until he's nominated? GoodDay (talk) 02:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Do you not see the "Voting" section right below it with "Results" listed TBD? That accomplishes whatever hidden agenda you have here. The candidates lists just that: the candidates, which is just Mitt Romney, the presumptive nominee, to be later voted on and recorded under "Results".
Are you just trolling? I don't get it. Naapple (talk) 03:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
"Hidden agenda"? GoodDay (talk) 03:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Because it is inevitable, but furthermore there are reliable sources that clearly state he is the presumptive nominee and a good location to put that information is in the spot where it is mentioned, in the info box. You are making a mountain out of a molehill here, and furthermore being disruptive to Wikipedia by trying to force your viewpoint here. There is no law stating what should or should not go into the infobox or into that particular space. It is clear that Romney is going to be the Republican nomineee, as Barack Obama is going to be the Democratic Party nominee too. It seems reasonable and prudent to put them into the info boxes as the presumptive nominees, as long as they are labeled as such (they are labeled as the presumptive nominees BTW) and as long as reliable sources can back up that claim. There is even a citation which backs up that assertion. Unless you can find a reliable source to refute that assertion, your dispute is completely without merit in this situation.
Looking at it from the viewpoint of those who are reading the article, I also consider it to be patently absurd to pretend that the nomination is still up in the air and that the convention itself is anything more than a formality in terms of who is going to decide the party nominee, particularly when there are reliable sources to back up that claim. By putting up the details in the infobox about Romney, a reader can see that the information on this page is fresh and up to date, thus other information on this page is likely to be accurate as well (within constraints of Wikipedia of course). At the very least they can read this talk page if they disagree.
Regardless, don't get into an edit war over this detail, and certainly don't go removing sources simply because they are inconvenient for your political POV. The smart thing would have been to raise the issue on this talk page in the first place after the first time your edit was reverted, but the issue has been talked to death anyway. If you aren't bringing anything new to the conversation, some sort of new source or something that contradicts what is being said about this spot or for that matter anything new to dispute any other part of this article, then what you are doing really is vandalism and needs to stop. Removing Romney from the infobox just because it looks ugly or simply "because you don't like it personally" isn't enough. I certainly haven't seen a persuasive argument even being presented, much less buying the excuse for why you repeatedly tried to remove this information. --Robert Horning (talk) 03:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Again - I'M NOT DENYING THAT ROMNEY WILL BE NOMINATED, he will be. I'm questioning the timing of having him in the infobox. Why is it so difficult for all of you to WAIT, WAIT, WAIT, WAIT - until the former Massachusettes Governor is nominated. GoodDay (talk) 03:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The only reason I can see it being removed right now is because you don't want it there. That isn't good enough. Give a reason why it shouldn't be there which goes beyond a personal opinion. That is why I insist upon reliable sources being used to dispute the fact that Romeny (and Obama for the Democratic Convention) is the presumptive nominee. Since you already accept that Romney is the presumptive nominee, I fail to see why you are even fighting this at all. When you performed the earlier edit, you were removing citations and sources from this article, which is generally a bad faith edit. Only if you can come up with a contrary source to replace that source would I consider such an edit to be reasonable, and I think other outside parties would agree with me not to mention clear consensus on this page is to keep Romney listed as the nominee on this page. --Robert Horning (talk) 03:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm tired of nailing Jello to this wall. GoodDay (talk) 04:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The reason it is Jello is because you aren't providing a reasonable argument for your actions apart from "'cause it needs to be this way" on your own authority. --Robert Horning (talk) 04:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Once again, secondary sources show that Romney is the presumptive nominee. Does that not mean anything to you? Mr. Anon515 05:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The basics of the argument is wrong. GoodDay are saying in the beginning of this dicussion:

  • "The fact I'm pointing out, is that the infobox is for the presidential nominee, not the presumptive presidential nominee."

Who have decided that it is a fact? There has been very long seriouse dicussions on the talkpage of the United States presidential election, 2012 article on this subject and a consensus was reached in that article stating that the infobox is for presumptive presidential nominees. When a candidate had made it to being presumptive was also discussed at lenght (in connection with both Stein and Romney) and a consensus was made that they where so when they had a clear rock-solid majority of the delegates at their National Convention bound to vote for them. This is the fact and consensus that I am aware of. When was the other decided as a consensus on this talkpage? Jack Bornholm (talk) 12:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Predictions of Ron Paul and supporters at the Republican National Convention

The last paragraph of a good article: "According to ABC News, Paul’s campaign said it plans to bring about 500 supportive delegates to Tampa, guaranteeing his presence will still be felt. He is also planning to hold his own rally around Tampa, and his supporters have organized Paul Festival 2012, an independent event that will feature live music." [4] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The 500 delegates thing comes from an email Paul himself sent to his supporters, so I wouldn't take it as a reliable claim. The counter-conventions in Tampa have been well known for some time. Still, they could be mentioned in the article if they aren't already (along with Sarah Palin's counter-convention). Mr. Anon515 03:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
If you go by sites like the Green Papers and use their delegate count (something I would use as a reliable source), Ron Paul should have at least 150 delegates based strictly on his performance in the primaries and precinct caucuses. It has also been a well known tactic, commented upon by several reliable sources, that Ron Paul's supporters have been able to get into delegate positions that are nominally pledged to Mitt Romney and the other candidates on the first round but still will vote for planks in the platform that Ron Paul wants to get passed at the convention. If that total adds up to 500, it seems like an optimistic number but largely reasonable given that background. The actual delegate count in terms of those who are going to show up to Ron Paul rallies but still are credentialed delegates to the convention may be in dispute even once the convention gets underway, although may still show some numbers from reliable sources as well. --Robert Horning (talk) 05:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Add?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

from Talk:Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 99.181.135.134 (talk) 18:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the whole thing needs to go in there. Perhaps a list of notable speakers/attenders would be good, and then alternatively a list of notable persons who aren't speaking or non attenders (including Palin and both Bushes). Personally, I'd rather leave out a list of people not going and only have one of people who are and are speaking. The article you cited could go into Sarah Palin's wiki page. Naapple (talk) 19:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually, there are many prominent Republicans who have said they don't intend to attend, such as Jon Huntsman. While I don't think we need a whole list, the fact that these prominent Republicans are refusing to attend seems notable enough for a mention. Mr. Anon515 23:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
The title is not "invite" not "refusing". 99.109.125.100 (talk) 08:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
With 'egg on his face', Jon Huntsman is no longer 'prominent'. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Huntsman is prominent because he was a fellow presidential candidate, and recognized by some as the voice of the "moderate" GOP. Mr. Anon515 23:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
He will be remembered as Obama's ambassador to China; and not being Conservative enough to win anything; another John McCain candidate. Plus, in my opinion, he does not want to attend having lost to Romney, Santorum, Paul, and Gingrich (in that order). Does he even want to have an influence at convention like Ron Paul does? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Mainly, I think his decline to attend the convention is notable because he has expressed sentiments that the GOP has gone in a direction unsatisfactory to him. Bush senior has made similar sentiments, and that's why I think they should be mentioned. Mr. Anon515 03:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-Protected

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've requested semi-protection which it was granted and the semi-protection will expire until after the convention is concluded. IP editors who want to edit this article to re-insert the idea that Ron Paul is on the ballot will not be able to do so. Unless editors like myself and others see that there is a reliable source that Ron Paul will be on the ballot, Ron Paul will remain off the list. Youtube, Ron Paul fansites & forums, Real 2012 Delegate Count, etc are not reliable sources, see: WP:SOURCES, WP:IRS, WP:RSEX. Follow those guides and there won't have a problem. Until then, this article will be on my watch list which it always has been and I will revert those who violate those guides. ViriiK (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Accommodating Ron Paul & his supporters, even though he will not be on the ballot

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Only Mitt Romney will be on the ballot and there will only be one voice vote.

Interesting insights from [5] 2012 Election Central: "Following the primary battle and now leading up to the convention in Tampa, it appears the GOP is working hard to avoid alienating Ron Paul and his supporters any further from the party. A new report out in the last couple days explains how the GOP is working to make sure Paul, and his supporters, are fully included and represented in August." — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Technically, Rick Santorum will be on the ballot, but he is unlikely to get very many delegates. However, that is certainly interesting. As I noted, it would be helpful to Romney if he reached a hand to Paul and his supporters. Part of my prediction appears to be coming true; Romney may allow Paul some speech time at the convention.
I'd like to note that Ron Paul has not ruled out endorsing Romney. People may point out that Romney's foreign policy positions are not consistent with Paul's, but as it turns out, Paul allows quite a bit more leeway than one might think when it comes to getting his endorsement. Mr. Anon515 23:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
You are absolutely right about Rick Santorum—I forgot—for the first and only vote. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Of course, you are correct for Ron Paul. No doubt his supporters will try to alter this page, though, given that Daily Paul has explicitly targeted this article for "improvement". I suggest placing a note at the top of this talk page that says "Ron Paul will not be on the ballot for the first vote, and the article will reflect that.". Mr. Anon515 03:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
As I said before, there is NO ballot. The votes are announced by the head of the delegation by voice.Ericl (talk) 16:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ceasefire!

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What many editors appear to have lost sight of is that conventional wisdom is not necessarily truth. I would like to explain how we may have an example of that when it comes to RNC Rule 40(b).

I have made similar points regarding this rule over at the talk page for the GOP primaries, but there are some editors here who don't visit there so I thought I'd partially repeat myself here. I apologize to those of have already read & acknowledged my views. For everyone else, I encourage you to peruse the archives there to better understand how I arrived where I have:

No one can dispute that Rule 40(b) is a new rule never before enforced. Therefore, seeing as there is no precedent, it is crucial for us to have reliable sources that cite, or at least claim to cite, the opinion of a person or persons who are responsible for interpreting that rule.

What's there to interpret? No one questions the five-state threshold itself. The controversial bit is what constitutes "support" from a plurality of delegates? Read by itself, nothing suggests that "support" = "bound to vote for." That would be like saying people "support" paying their speeding tickets. No they don't- but they're bound to, under threat of further fines or losing their license. It's a warping of the definition of the word. No one questions that most of the delegation of, say, Nevada would "support" placing Paul's name into nomination, but may not support such an action for Romney.

"But the delegates are bound!", you say. The state party has said that all but 8 of those NV delegates are "Romney delegates", whether they'd like to be or not! That is true- they are, ostensibly, bound to vote for Romney for the first ballot- of the roll call. As in, the roll call where the delegates actually cast ballots for the nominee. The national party has nothing to do with state bindings. The state parties make those rules, and it is up to them to enforce them (unless the national convention passes rules explicitly upholding or rejecting them). That being the case, how does the national party simultaneously whittle down a ballot to a finite list of candidates and carry out the vote in one action? It's logically impossible. One action has to precede the other. State bindings cover the roll call, and nothing more. Not parliamentary motions, platform planks, or any other petition. Those who wish to claim that the roll call and the submission of candidates for nomination are functionally inseparable need to provide evidence in the binding rules (within state party bylaws) that that is the case. As far as I know, they will not find anything of the sort there.

If state party rules provide no clarification for this national rule, who can? We need to establish who would be responsible for interpreting this rule. Ultimately, the Republican National Convention has the final say on this and other matters, and can motion to adopt, change, remove, or suspend any rule it likes, if enough delegates agree to do so. However, prior to the opening of the convention, the standing rules (those passed in 2008) are in effect, including Rule 40 in its current form. Before implementing any standing rule, the Convention will take the lead from the parliamentarian, who will in turn take the lead from the Rules Committee. That's it- no one else has a say. Not Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, the National Committee, John Roberts, or the Man on the Moon. Just the Rules Committee, the national convention, a parliamentarian serving as a liaison between those groups, or a spokesperson thereof, has the authority or credibility to offer up an interpretation of this rule. The convention has yet to open, no parliamentarian has spoken out, and we have just one reporter (Ben Swann) claiming to have talked to anonymous members of the Rules Committee about this, who are of the opinion that "support" does not equal "bound to vote for on the first ballot of the roll call." In other words, we have no idea. I agree that this report of his is not a reliable source, and wouldn't be unless and until those sources come out of the closet and make a public statement. Until a media source citing one of these people comes out with the official interpretation of "support" and how exactly it will be asked to be shown, everything here (or on the shows of talking heads like Rachel Maddow or Bret Baier) is wild speculation, and should not be in the article. For all we know, staffers for those news shows are running to Wikipedia for their information and reporting that back to their bosses as credible information- I wouldn't be surprised given the direction the news media in this country has been going.

So, where does this dearth of information leave us? It means we have no justification for pretty much everything in the entire "Nominations" subsection. We can't have a table listing the top two candidates, top three, four or even everyone who ran in the primaries because we don't know everybody the delegates will want to see voted on. We don't even know if delegations are permitted to "support" multiple candidates. Since it's well formatted, I would propose hiding this section and then adding it back into the article when we have more information from sources who know what they're talking about, and not just engaging in speculation- that goes for the Paul camp, the Romney camp, or any other casual observer. As an added bonus, it is my hope that if this proposal is adopted, it may allow us to remove the page's semi-protection status, as it seems that most of the consternation revolves around the "Nominations" section. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 11:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you summarize this? ViriiK (talk) 11:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Sure. It is a bit long, I admit. It is not easy to overturn conventional wisdom in a couple of sentences :-) Basically, I am proposing that we remove/hide the "Nominations" section from this article until it has been established via credible sources citing the RNC Rules Committee or a parliamentarian close to them that the interpretation of Rule 40(b) (aka the "five state rule") that everyone here is using is the accurate one. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 11:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately that won't be possible. Unless you show me with Reliable Sources that any other person other than Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum will be on the ballot, it will not be removed entirely or modified. It's not up to myself or you on interpreting the rules of the convention because that would mean Original Research. These men listed are based on well-founded media articles. ViriiK (talk) 11:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Precisely. Limiting the list to just Romney & Santorum is Original Research. It assumes a specific interpretation of Rule 40(b) that may or may not be true. That is why the entire table should be removed. Simply adding Ron Paul as a third name would similarly be Original Research. Can you list media sources that state the roll call will be limited to those two men? 68.58.63.22 (talk) 11:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry but no it isn't "Original Research". They are listed because there are Reliable Sources that puts them there and excludes Ron Paul. There is also precedence of who gets listed on the ballot in the first round of voting. ViriiK (talk) 12:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
The article's current source for the statement that none of the other candidates have met "this requirement" is the GP's delegate count, and the RNC's rulebook itself. What does that have to do with interpreting that requirement, or saying who has or has not met it? The Green Papers doesn't say anything about Rule 40. Can you name one source that does (citing anybody from the Republican Party, rather than just stating it as fact)? I'm not sure what you mean by there being precedence for who gets listed? If you meant precedent, then no, there is not. This is a brand new rule, I'm afraid. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 12:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not talking about Rule #40. I'm talking about there is precedent of candidates that have been voted on in the conventions. As for the rest of your question, the world is at your fingertips and you can find them yourself as long you stick to the policy defined by WP:RS ViriiK (talk) 12:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you mean then by "precedent of candidates that have been voted on." Every convention has different candidates... As for your other point about searching for a source, trust me, I have looked. As far as I've seen, no member of the RNC, no parliamentarian, nor any spokesperson for them has said anything about how Rule 40 is to be interpreted. We can say Romney will be on the ballot because, as the presumptive nominee, it's a rather safe assumption. Beyond that, how do we have any idea how large or small the roll call ballot will be? Two answers: Rule 40(b), or time. Therefore it is relevant how the rule is interpreted, and I have not seen one authoritative source explaining how it will be read. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 12:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
We have hard facts based on the fact that A) Both Romney and Santorum have cleared the minimum of at least 5 states which qualifies them for the first round ballot. That's based on the rules itself. B) Recently, Ron Paul failed to win Nebraska which based on Reliable Sources, they confirmed that Ron Paul will not be listed on the ballot in the first round. I cannot endorse any changes to this article until after the convention is concluded which is why I requested the semi-protection in the first place. To prevent vandalism from Ron Paul fans because they are quite content to list Ron Paul without following the rules of WP:RS. I cannot make changes based on your Original Research arguments. ViriiK (talk) 12:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
"That's based on the rules itself." Right, meaning Rule 40(b). You are reading the rule in a particular way, and using your interpretation to say that Romney & Santorum have met the threshold. That is Original Research. My reading of that rule says that only the delegates decide when they convene who makes the ballot. Neither one of us works for the Rules Committee and is therefore qualified to present such statements as fact. I am perfectly aware of why you requested semi-protection for this page. It should be clear by now that I am not asking simply for Paul's name to be added. I am asking for either 1.) A definitive source from the Republican Party explaining how this rule will be implemented, if such a source exists, or 2.) For the removal of the table until that is made available. Besides, you are speculating that Santorum will be on the ballot (mind you, I'm not saying he won't be). Even if your interpretation of the rule is correct, he may lose his 5 states if MS's 3 unbound RNC delegates side with Romney, and the ND delegates break their pledge to follow the non-binding caucus and side with Romney or someone else. Again, not saying that will happen, but we can't be presenting it like it's a certainty. You are correct in saying that Paul did not win NE's delegation. All of the media that I've read that said that was his proverbial 'nail in the coffin' have provided zero citations to the RNC rules or statements from them explaining precisely why that would be the case.
Finally, your statement "I cannot endorse any changes to this article until after the convention is concluded" concerns me. I understand you have been burnt by vandalism here recently, but to oppose any changes to this article for another month seems rather draconian to me. If you are really going to be that uniformly opposed to any change that I really think we ought to wait for another opinion. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 12:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Inaccurate. How many states have Romney and Santorum won based on Reliable Sources? 42 & 6 respectively. That question is easily answered. How many states have Ron Paul won based on Reliable Sources? 3. Now apply that to the rule of the minimum requirement of the convention which is again based on Reliable Sources. Now you're using the WP:CRYSTAL which is invalid in this case because you are not sure if these delegates will change their minds. Right now, we have to assume that these delegates based on Reliable Sources will be bounded to their respective candidates. As for the "Nail in the Coffin", you are basing your assumption on Original Research which I cannot abide by. They say Ron Paul will not be on the ballot and we have to assume that automatically under the policy of Reliable Sources unless new Reliable Sources contradicts older Reliable Sources. I've exhausted the discussion. Thank you. ViriiK (talk) 13:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I guess I'm just not getting through to you here. "Now apply that to the rule of the minimum requirement of the convention which is again based on Reliable Sources." What Reliable Sources?! You haven't named one. A reliable source in this context is one that contains a statement from a Rules Committee member or parliamentarian, or at the very least, some member of the RNC that says that Rule 40's requirement is ascertained before the convention even begins, rather than during the convention. If it is the latter, than it is irrelevant how many primaries each candidate won- what matters is the opinion of the delegates when they arrive in Tampa. No one that I've seen has gone on the record and settled this publicly. Until then, this is all based on Original Research, period. Albeit OR that you have come to accept as fact. And if you had read my Santorum scenario carefully, you would have seen that I wasn't challenging state bindings. I said if the unbound delegates from MS, and the unbound delegates from ND change their votes to Romney, then Santorum no longer has 5 pluralities. You are using WP:CRYSTAL by listing him as if that can't and therefore won't happen. You are dancing around the issue. Until you can provide evidence that anyone from the Republican Party, much less those who actually have control over the matter, have spoken about Rule 40, then this discussion is most certainly not exhausted. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 13:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Let's see. Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 is a good start. Have fun. ViriiK (talk) 13:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I have read that article. As I mentioned at the top of my first comment, I have written extensively on that article's talk page, and contributed to its content. I am not questioning here state bindings, popular vote winners, or the validity of counting the pledges of unbound delegates. You are still stuck in the mindset that the roll call=submission of names for nomination, and that the binding towards one applies to the other. There is NO reliable source that I have found that says that is the case (or that it is not)- it has been assumed. Besides, another Wiki article does not count as a Reliable Source. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 13:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I understand the whole policy regarding WP:CIRCULAR but the citations are there demonstrating the states that the candidates have won and their sources. However WP:CIRCULAR only applies when I'm using citations in the main article to other sources within Wikipedia which therein lies the difference. It is generally agreed by other editors and myself who have reverted Ron Paul fan changes adding Ron Paul to the ballot list that is the correct form. It will be subjected to change after the convention if that won't be the case especially if there is indeed a hypothetical Round 2 that the Ron Paul fan base hopes for. ViriiK (talk) 13:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
One more try: "States that the candidate won" does not necessarily equal "states whose delegations may offer up someone's name for inclusion in the roll call ballot." I know that Romney has 40-some delegations pledged and/or bound to him for the roll call, and Santorum 6, and Paul either 3 or 4 (depending on how LA shakes out). I'm saying that being bound to Candidate A does not preclude someone from saying "hey, I'm bound to vote for Candidate A and I promise to do so, but I'd sure like to see Candidate B get a chance to have the opportunity to get a few votes too!" Therefore, our example delegate decides to support a motion, brought by a state delegation that is free to vote for B, to have that candidate's name included for the roll call. Meanwhile, his friend that also got elected as a delegate hates Candidate A with a passion, but also is bound by his state party to vote for him in the roll call. So for every other vote, he has vowed to oppose him, and will even abstain from a motion to place A's name in for nomination. If the delegates-for-A and all the delegates like them stick to their pledges, does that mean B has any chance for the nomination? Probably not. Does that mean the exercise is entirely pointless? Maybe not- it still allows Candidate B to get his guaranteed 15-minute speech, plenty of airtime for his ideas and supporters, and a proper sendoff that delegates may feel B deserves. Do you understand the difference yet? Again, I'm not saying delegates can do this, but no one from the GOP has said that Rule 40 means they can't. This article, as currently written, presents the rule with the unequivocal and unsourced message that they can't. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 14:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
And that is WP:CRYSTAL talk which doesn't apply as a reason to modify the main article. You're right, this exercise is indeed getting pointless. ViriiK (talk) 14:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Give this a break

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've given this a long and hard review of available sources that I've been able to dig up, but this feud over trying to add or remove Ron Paul from the formal list of candidates at the convention is pointless. For myself, I'd like to simply get rid of the table altogether at least until the convention itself starts, because it is causing far too much grief and none of it is based upon reliable sources. As for the rest of the article, those items which are questionable and don't have sources to back them up have largely been eliminated. I've questioned several assertions, including this whole business of putting up this fancy table that is for now largely a place holder.

I know that some off-wiki canvassing is going on in terms of people who aren't really familiar with Wikipedia policies are trying to make changes to this article in an organized fashion. That is by definition vandalism and won't be tolerated, no matter how else you may be right. This is not the forum to discuss the hair splitting of who is going to get the nomination, and unless you can find a good secondary reliable source that discusses this kind of information, I would say that it should be simply left out. Certainly don't push to have Ron Paul's name added to that list simply because you think it sounds logical. --Robert Horning (talk) 14:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I am not pushing for Paul's inclusion. I am pushing for an explanation for how everyone made the assumption that state bindings for the roll call also apply to Rule 40(b). Until we have that, I propose that the table be removed. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 20:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Regardless of who disagrees, you both can propose that the table will be removed but there is already one guaranteed person on the ballot which is Mitt Romney. The table will be subjected to be changed AFTER the convention as I've maintained. The only people that stand to gain from this is Ron Paul either removing the table entirely or including him in the table. But as it stands right now, WP:CRYSTAL applies and we cannot make assumptions other than the media telling us what is going to happen. Such as the link to the CNN article today tells me that Ron Paul isn't on the ballot so they're trying to contest as many convention delegations as possible in order to meet the minimum requirement of Rule 40. So here's a proposal. Remove Rick Santorum from the ballot since he's dropped out and there isn't exactly any late supporting Reliable Sources that says Rick Santorum will be considered for the ballot at the convention. If he has been after the convention, he can simply be re-added just like Ron Paul can be added in later which there is precedence of him earning delegates ie: 2008 Republican National Convention ViriiK (talk) 21:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
So what's the point of a table with one name? 68.58.63.22 (talk) 22:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Plenty. Such as confirming that Mitt Romney will be voted on in the first round of the convention. Omission of this does not give any impression that Mitt Romney to outside readers he will not be voted on in the first round. The whole point is to clarify that this will be the case. Otherwise we can eliminate the table and modify it into a paragraph explicitly stating that only Mitt Romney meets the minimum requirement since Rick Santorum dropped out but that does not mean that delegates cannot vote for Rick Santorum in the first round. Now additions can be made before the convention if there is Reliable Sources that confirms this. Otherwise we can just have Mitt Romney and Others in its current format which can later be clarified after the convention. ViriiK (talk) 22:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't think readers need this table to know that Romney will receive votes during the roll call at the convention. We cannot say, via a paragraph or table, that only Romney meets that requirement because we don't know what that requirement is, because we don't have Reliable Sources (that is, citations from the Republican Party) that explain what is required to meet that requirement. That is to say, how is "support" from 5 delegation pluralities demonstrated? While it is a very safe assumption, saying that Romney (or anyone else) will get this support violates WP:Crystal. Until we get confirmation that state bindings apply to submission of names for nomination and not just the roll call, a list with any name is speculation, not fact. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 22:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
And you know this how? There are plenty of articles talking about Ron Paul trying to acquire a speech at the convention but that decision is up to Mitt Romney apparently. There is a reliable source here [6] lost that chance at a speaking role which in turn is only allowed based off the rules of the convention if he makes the plurality list thanks to the same Rule #40 that you like to throw around. Rick Santorum can speak at the convention because he is allowed to since he did meet the plurality of states again by Rule #40. [7] can somewhat supports this claim. The table stays. I understand, it's frustrating. ViriiK (talk) 22:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Santorum "is allowed to since he did meet the plurality of states again by Rule #40." What is the basis of that statement? To arrive there, an assumption had to have been made that binding for the roll call=binding for support of motions for submission for nomination. The second article doesn't cover this topic at all- it mentions Santorum but once in passing. It discusses who has and hasn't been invited to speak at the convention, which is a largely pointless topic because no one has been invited to speak yet. Besides, the issue is not who is invited to speak, it is who is entitled to speak by virtue of receiving a 15-minute nominating speech, which as far as I can tell is only decided at the convention by the delegates. The only pertinent sentence in the first article is this one: "Paul’s loss in Nebraska means he will not be guaranteed a speaking role at the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Fla." Ms. Tysver is basing this on what, exactly? Instead of simply echoing this statement, something, somewhere along the line needs to have been tied back to a statement or action by the RNC's Rules Committee, the RNC parliamentarian, general counsel, or a spokesperson thereof. Otherwise, it is not credible. I haven't been the one claiming to "know" that my opinion is correct- you have. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you. And please stop acting as if you unilaterally get to decide what stays or goes. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 01:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Who knows what she's basing that on. It's a Reliable Source and that's all Wikipedia editors can say on that subject. ViriiK (talk) 02:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Fine. You'd like to use some random reporter from Omaha who doesn't back up her statements with sources? I'll counter with another random reporter from Cincinnati who claims to have spoken to the Rules Committee which holds the opposing view- see here. Now which is the reliable source? Trick question- neither. Besides, since she doesn't care to reference Rule 40, then we can't infer for her that she is, meaning that it doesn't have much to do with the issue of whether his name will be on the roll call ballot. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 02:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately your link violates WP:RS rules so I cannot let it influence my editting decision regardless if it was a trick question. Now you're at the point that you've convinced me that you are advocating for Ron Paul. ViriiK (talk) 02:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I didn't link to Paul radio b/c I wanted you to hear a biased report- I linked to it because it is the only full explanation that I found that was given directly by this reporter for what his sources have told him (apart from the posts on his official FB page tied to the local news affiliate he works for). It is not my fault that he is the only reporter bothering to try to dig into the technicalities of this matter (rather than just making assumptions) or that he chose that venue to speak. I expect he will put together a more formal report soon. However, again, that investigative journalism was done in an attempt to prove my interpretation of what constitutes "support." Can you name a single RS for your claim (that "support" = "bound to") that claims to have spoken to the RNC, even anonymously?
I am not advocating for Ron Paul. I am advocating for a proper interpretation of the rules (or rather, the exclusion of an unsourced interpretation of a rule). Whatever my political beliefs, I would think that a just and proper goal.
It's OK to accept any secondary media report of something that is a uncontroversial. For example, we can use some random local paper's report that says "Mitt Romney won the MI primary" w/o numbers or other facts and sources because no one disputes that (although it wouldn't be the best source). However, when something is as controversial as this is, we ought to more vigorously investigate the matter, and make sure that the sources we use are deriving their information from the relevant authoritative source. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 03:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
But based on WP:RS, I cannot let that link influence my editing here so I have to omit anything based on that. The Omaha link qualifies under the WP:PRIMARY. As for the rest of your "advocating for a proper interpretation of the rules", that's Original Research and that cannot be considered here on Wikipedia without Reliable Sources. We can go play on the Merry-Go-Round until we've reached the point of ad-nauseum but I'm not going to do that. Now, since you have time writing up long essays and rebukes to my every answer, I suggest you start reading up the policies here at Wikipedia starting with WP:RS or even WP:OR. I'm done on this topic and good luck to you. ViriiK (talk) 03:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, one last time

AS the person who put the table there in the first place, I put the names of the people who had pledged delegates. Those were Romney, Gingrich, Santorum and Paul. The delegates are required to vote for them, the precedent being the vote for Pete McCloskey in 1972. A unpledged delegate can vote for whomever they want, as the person who voted for Eliot Richardson for President in 1976. If you look at the last Convention, Mitt Romney got some votes, even though he he had withdrawn and endorsed McCain. The Democrats are different. Bradley delegates were FORBIDDEN to vote for him at the 2000 convention, and over half the Kucinich delegates were forbidden to vote for him in 2004 (I know, I was actually ON the floor at the time). This may have confused some of the people here. The rules for the Democrats and Republicans are different. The Demorcrats have a ballot, it was used in '08 and placed in ballot boxes.

Some, if not all, of Paul's delegates will vote for him on the sole ballot. Therefore his name should be on the chart, and will be when it's all over. Whether Santorum or Gingrich will be is another matter.

Just to repeat for the umteenth time: There is NO ballot. The 5-state rule, is for the speeches ONLY. The speeches ONLY.Ericl (talk) 16:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, precedent does not apply here, since rule #40 is a new, unprecedented rule, and as the IP pointed out, we don't know how it will be enforced. Mr. Anon515 16:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Right. What's confusing is that the right to a 15-minute speech is one of the things automatically conferred upon any candidate who gets support from at least 5 delegations. But the primary purpose of the rule is limit who delegates may vote for at the roll call. One possible reason that this was implemented was to make sure eligible candidates have a sufficiently broad base of support, which most favorite son candidates did not. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 20:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
No, the original "5 state rule" was all about denying Pete McCloskey, who had ONE delegate in 1972, a nominating speech. It was all about the speeches. The new rule with the plurality instead of majority was the fear that no one might qualify for a speech this time out. The rules still lets un-nominated candidates get votes.Ericl (talk) 13:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't know how I missed this, but you're absolutely right, Ericl. A version of Rule 40 that is worded almost exactly the same as it is now was used in the last convention, and it did not prevent delegates from voting for other people. Practically speaking, it would appear that the only tangible benefit of being nominated by 5 delegations is the right to claim an 'earned' 15-minute speech, rather than one gifted to you by someone else, which would give one some valuable time to air their views, along with other more abstract benefits. Anyways, congrats for being on top of this. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 09:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hold on here

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What the IP is proposing is interesting, but it is original research unless he or she can provide a source. The fact that Ron Paul requires a lawsuit to obtain Louisiana's delegates indicates that the RNC currently sees the state as not Paul's state in terms of plurality. Mr. Anon515 16:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree my opinion is OR. What I also said is that the status quo opinion here is also OR. Paul did not file a lawsuit over LA, he has filed a contests challenge. The RNC has not yet made any decision. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 20:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Also in response to the IP, the CNN article lists Ron Paul's states as Iowa, Minnesota, and Maine, with him currently fighting over Louisiana, Oregon, and Massachusetts. Strangely, Nevada is not mentioned in that article, even though Paul could obtain a plurality there if he unbinds the Massachusetts delegates. Mr. Anon515 16:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I talked about this a little more on the talk page for the primaries, but the argument they're making in that blog post is a logically inconsistent one. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 20:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
While the idea of mutual self destruction AFTER you've lost may sound good to someone with nothing to lose, every reputable journalist has Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney listed on the ballot. All this rule 40 stuff is original research. In my opinion, the table stays until something changes (not future speculated change). I don't mind putting up with the constant IP changes for 4 more weeks. Naapple (talk) 04:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I argued that it was original research, and I've been critical of that table (as can be seen in previous discussions as well as this one). Regardless, it will all be over in a matter of a few weeks, so I think it is best to simply give this whole discussion a rest and just let things happen as they may. In this case, I think there will be plenty of reliable sources which will tell the tale of who was on the ballot after the ballot is cast. In future elections, I may simply argue to get rid of such a table in the first place if a similar situation pops up again... explicitly because of this fiasco. It seems more WP:POINT right now to remove the table. --Robert Horning (talk) 05:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Removing credible and sourced information to appease a vocal minority is not the objective of WP:POINT. I don' think the editors here are trying to keep the table to stick it to the Paul crowd, it really does belong there. I see the point you're trying to make, I just disagree.
This latest gambit is just to remove the table now because their candidate isn't in it. No one was arguing this before when they thought Ron Paul had 5 states. Nothing has changed since then. Again, I see how you may think this sounds a lot like WP:POINT, but I'd argue just the opposite. Now that the Paul crowd is angry, they're trying to justify removing the entire table. This behavior is the essence of what WP:POINT is stating to avoid doing. The table belonged then and it still belongs now. Anyone else feel different? Naapple (talk) 07:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
The other issue is that they simply cannot wait until the convention has concluded to get the official result so the table must go. I think it has to do with the fact (and it's public) that they're trying to get all the delegates they can to come over to the Ron Paul category despite the fact that Romney (at least his campaign did) chose those delegates himself that are his own. I've always seen Nevada and several states thrown out there that supposedly are "Ron Paul states" but those state delegates are bounded to the primary/caucus election result in the first round so they are by extension "Romney Delegates" giving the plurality to Romney, not Paul. As I keep saying, the table should stay and be left to be modified until 'after the convention. People just don't have patience. ViriiK (talk) 07:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
First of all, stop lumping me together with your stereotype of generic Paul supporters. I, and I alone, have been diligent enough to be making these points regarding Rule 40, nomination motions, and what constitutes "support", and I have been doing so for some time now. If you must know, I suffer no delusions that anyone but Mitt Romney is likely to win the nomination next month. Secondly, you say that I have no patience to wait until after the convention to propose changes to that section. One can argue that you similarly lack patience to wait to see who all the delegates can and will vote for. Third, it has very recently come to my attention that we have all been mistaken (with the exception of Ericl) regarding when Rule 40 was first enacted. It turns out that it is not entirely a new rule, but was in place at least as far back as the 2008 convention (which operated under rules adopted in 2004). The only difference was the replacement of the word "majority" with "plurality." There is more discussion of this, including a link to that set of rules, over at the talk page for the 2012 GOP primaries. Since Paul & Romney both received some votes in 2008 (lack of support from 5 delegations notwithstanding), I believe this proves once and for all that this table, as currently portrayed, violates WP:CRYSTAL. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 08:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
It does not violate WP:CRYSTAL since the people listed are Romney and Santorum both of which are and did gain plurality in the minimum states so that part is true. It makes no assumption of how many delegates that have voted for them in the first round since it currently stands at nothing for either or Other categories. ViriiK (talk) 08:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
If this article was the 2008 article, and Ron Paul and Mitt Romney didn't have plurality of 5 states, they would be lumped in the "other" category. The link of rules is more original research. Find an article. Naapple (talk) 09:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Viriik, the only reason that section & table are there is because of Rule 40, which is why it's written out right above it. Since we now know that Rule 40 places no limit or arbitrary threshold of support required to be met to receive votes from delegates, the table can no longer imply only those two candidates will get votes. If you want to say that Mitt Romney will almost certainly get votes & therefore belongs in the table, then you need to at least add Bachmann, Huntsman, Gingrich, and Paul to the list since none of them have released their delegates. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 09:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Naapple, I'm sorry, but what are you talking about? The link to the 2004 rules isn't "original research"- it's a primary source with the rule clearly stated in black & white. That changes things because it now means that there is meaningful precedent to use to say how Rule 40 will be applied this year. It will not control who can get votes from the delegates, period. Paul's name not only was not formally placed into nomination, the votes that were cast for him were ignored and not tallied until a proper review of the count took place after the roll call ended. Romney's name was not nominated either, but his votes are correctly labeled next to his name in the 2008 table. I don't see why 2012 should be any different. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 09:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I took a look at some of the other pages of past years. Since we don't know who will definitely get votes, it makes sense to either add everyone who could potentially get them (everyone in the race from Iowa, and onward), or to include those who are guaranteed to get votes, which is only Romney.
I don't see the point in removing the table as in 4 weeks it'll be there anyway with the final results with only those persons who received at least one delegate. Naapple (talk) 00:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ron Paul is on the RNC ballot

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

From May 4th, 2012 as Foxnews already admitted that Ron Paul has already qualified to have his name on the ballot. The mainstream media hoax of "needing" Nebraska to win has been exposed.

http://digitaljournal.com/article/324280

Ron Paul wins 5 state plurality (May 5, 2012) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQ24-Exqt-Q&feature=youtu.be

Ron Paul wins 7 states (May 8, 2012) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WJ52iU60zA&feature=youtu.be

Ron Paul wins 11 states (May 10, 2012) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6b57gthBCuw&feature=youtu.be — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.78.48.12 (talk) 05:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

That's irrelevant. Ron Paul did not secure at least 5 states based on delegates. [8] which he only has won 3 states out of the 5 that he needed to get votes in the first round. If you make the changes that Ron Paul will be considered in the first round of voting, I or others will remove it. ViriiK (talk) 06:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Rule #40(b)
(b) Each candidate for nomination for President of the United States and Vice President of the United States shall demonstrate the support of a plurality of the delegates from each of five (5) or more states, severally, prior to the presentation of the name of that candidate for nomination.
Do you happen to count Nevada, Arizona, and a couple other states as one of those equations? Unfortunately due to those state party rules, they are "Romney's delegates" despite the fact the convention elected a majority of "Ron Paul's delegates" AND they are bounded to the primary or caucus results in the first round. ViriiK (talk) 06:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Federal law states that all elections that appoints people for federal position must follow federal law, which of course supersedes all state laws. And the federal law of interest here states that all delegates for such an election or nomination MUST BE FREE AGENTS, meaning that they are in fact UNBOUND, and that it is illegal to prevent them from voting according to their own coincidence.Drakoniam (talk) 23:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

It is clear for all, except devoted Paul supporters that he do not have plurality in five states even though libertarian delegates have a plurality in more state delegations, They are simply not bound to Paul but to others (mostly Romney). Getting this aside the subject of libertarian paul supporters getting elected at caucuses in states where other candidates and "wings" of the party won the primary elections are interesting and should included in the article about the primaries in an NPOV way. It doesnt really matter if we think it is disfranchising the majority of the republican registered voters or it is an example of vivid and true party democracy. It happened and it is notable. Could anyone suggest some good reliable allround references to use? Beside the states Paul have won (Maine, Minnesota, Iowa and maybe Louisiana) what states are we talking about. I have read newsreports from Massachusetts and Nevada. But nothing from any other. It seems that the different Paul support blogs are throwing numbers around (like 11 states) but no reliable about what states we are talking about. In Oklohoma it seems that Paul support felt the ought to win and got mad when that didnt happen, but that doesnt mean you win. What states are we talking about (with reliable sources) ??? Jack Bornholm (talk) 12:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

So let's recap:
States where majority of delegates are bound to Paul: Iowa, Maine, Minnesota
Disputed states that media sources have listed as, at different times, both Paul and Romney: Louisiana
States where Paul does not have a plurality, but potentially could if enough Santorum delegates side with him: Alaska, Colorado
States where Romney has a plurality of bound delegates, but a plurality of delegates personally support Paul: Nevada, Massachusetts
That puts Paul at 8 potential states, two of which he can't access on the first ballot, one of which is disputed, and another two require Santorum delegates to be counted as Paul. Mr. Anon515 19:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Additional states claimed are Washington and Rhode Island. Washington I know for a fact (and I live there) is not Paul's. Paul tried to win there, did well in the caucus, but lost the convention. I have yet to see a source validate the Rhode Island claim. Mr. Anon515 19:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
But is the Santorum delegates from Colorado and Alaske not bound to vote for Santorum on the first ballot? (In Colorado there is 16 delegates that was elected as unbound, 14 that was elected as delegates bound to Romney and 6 was elected as delegates bound to Santorum. 2 of the 16 unbound delegates have since pledge to Paul) Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
That's great and all for theories on what makes Ron Paul qualified but do you have any credible sources other than Ron Paul fansites and an outdated Fox News article that actually says Ron Paul will be on the ballot? All of the news organizations says Ron Paul will not be on the ballot and that's the general consensus of the latest information. ViriiK (talk) 21:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I think the Santorum delegates are really unbound, but count towards him for ballot purposes. Mr. Anon515 22:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I have a close personal friend (unfortunately not a legitimate reliable source we can use) who voted for Mitt Romney in 2008 as a delegate at that convention and sort of made news as a result. I'm also trying to contact some parliamentarians from within the local Republican Party where I live to see if they may have some sources that can be used for this article... but I'm not making any promises other than I'm trying to find some sources. As a personal opinion on the matter, I find it hard to believe that Ron Paul's name won't be on the actual physical ballot, it just seems unlikely that Ron Paul will be allowed to necessarily give a prime time speech officially at the convention. It would be nice if Mitt Romney would let Rick Santorum give such a speech. In other words, I think the whole thing is much ado about nothing, but I also have no sources to back up my assertions at the moment either. It also depends on how much freedom those delegates who are pledged to Rick Santorum may have, given RNC rules and what Santorum may grant as well. --Robert Horning (talk) 22:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
If Santorum gives a speech, it will be for Romney, who he has explicitly endorsed. Mr. Anon515 02:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
If the convention organisers wants Paul to speak it shouldnt be a problem, he could simply speak at another time, maybe even another day. But the nomination speeches have to be according to the rules, in what way they will be interpenetrated, and so will the name that will be officially on the ballot. It will not be possible simply to put a person on the first ballot simply because he is such a nice guy. Jack Bornholm (talk) 08:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I'd also like to note that even if Paul had won Nebraska, he probably wouldn't have gotten the chance to speak, since according to the RNC, Romney won Louisiana. Mr. Anon515 16:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Could you source this, Mr. Anon? I was gonna update the map but leave Louisiana grey. I can't sort out what's what through a quick google search. It's only casually mentioned that Louisiana is still being debated in this [[9]] article as of 2 days ago. Thanks, Naapple (talk) 16:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
The insistence by some Paul supporters (that vandalize the page) that he somehow won 11 states or he's ahead of Santorum makes them all look bad. I know they must not all think that, but denial's not just a river in Egypt. J390 (talk) 01:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Paul is not yet on the convention ballot

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Consider two tallies: Louisiana_Republican_caucuses,_2012 and Green Papers for Louisiana[10]: Santorum(10); Romney(5); RonPaul(0); and (26) ‘available’. I.e., unless a new delegation is upheld, Paul gets zero delegate-votes from Louisiana at Convention, (so far). Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2012 has zero for Paul and 28 available. Remaining in gray are Montana and Louisiana. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 19:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Good, looks like the delegate map on this page is accurate then. Naapple (talk) 20:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
It is the same map that are used in the infobox in the primary article. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removing the Table

Unlike the claims that User:Naapple has made, I did suggest back in May that this table needed to be removed. I've been consistent on that issue the whole time, and it wasn't due to any kind of bias for any candidate, but rather because I was tired of the edit warring that has taken place.

On the positive side, the edit warring is taking place on the talk page in what appears to be a civil discussion rather than fights over particular edits, but it still seems to be a problem. Still, I think this table and interpretation of the rules is very much original research that needs to be pulled out, unless you can find some reliable sources talking about the issue. About the only place I've seen the issue even discussed is here on Wikipedia, and on a Facebook page I posted trying to solicit some feedback in terms of assistance trying to dig up some reliable sources of information. The more I dug in to those sources, the more I saw that the status quo was supported rather than refuted BTW, but that still is largely original research and interpretation.

At this point, I think the burden of proof lay with those who want to change the article to be something different, including removing this table. It seems very reasonable that in a month or so there will be plenty of reliable sources to flesh out the table with real information, including a definitive statement from somebody that Ron Paul's name was or was not submitted before the convention, how many votes he got, or what kind of reaction may or may not happen if his name was or was not on the ballot. It can be reliably asserted that some vote is going to happen and furthermore seems very likely that Mitt Romney is even going to get the nomination in one round of voting, with such an assertion backed up by reliable sources.

What I want to understand is why it must be removed in the next four weeks or so when it will just be added right back again. We can fight about who shows up on that table when the time comes, for the moment I'm content to just let dead dogs lie where they are sleeping and be done with the whole thing. Less than a month to worry about this is a relatively short period of time even for wiki editing. --Robert Horning (talk) 02:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

While technically speaking it is impossible to know the full list of everyone who will receive votes at the convention before it actually happens, I would be willing to, as you suggest, let dead dogs lie if we include everyone that we can expect to receive votes due to the binding rules currently in place. That is, everyone who won at least one delegate after Iowa- Bachmann, Huntsman, Gingrich, Paul, Romney, and Santorum. Have those six names, plus a line for "Others" (to leave a space for votes cast for any as-yet-unknown people by unbound delegates), and call it a day until we have the actual numbers. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 03:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree with this. Naapple (talk) 04:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
There seems to be a bit of a consensus so I added in the names by delegate count. If this is still an issue I won't be offended if the table is reverted; so long as it's discussed here. Naapple (talk) 04:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
What will be the criteria to included candidates in the table right now? A unbound delegate can vote for anyone they like so every person any editor think would be voted in a sort of write-in way could be added. Only candidates with 5 states plurality or more will have a nomination speech and in that way be on the "ballot", who else will be voted for at the roll call is everybodies guess. Only delegates that are bound to a candidate that have nomination speech have to vote for the person, the other will be unbound, but can as I understand it vote for their candidate. I have not been able to see that in any source but concluded it on the basic of the 2004 convention. So that would be OR and are not to be included.
Either we should remove the table for a few weeks or we should keep it with the persons that will have nomination speeches and others to show that delegates may vote for other than the two that have made the criteria. Jack Bornholm (talk) 10:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I'll have to kindly disagree. If we want to leave all the text surrounding the table intact, with Rule 40 and all, then the table should include everybody we know will get some votes (those with delegates bound to them) + others for, well, others. Either that or remove the table & section altogether. Alternatively, if you'd like to see a table with just those two names, then it should be rewritten to say those are the candidates who will be giving nomination speeches, not just getting votes (to the exclusion of others). Although I must admit, I'd be surprised if Santorum ended up using his speech. I still maintain nomination motions have nothing to do with bindings, which our count of pluralities is based off of. However, no one here seems to believe that, so do what you will. In a few short weeks we will know who is right :P 68.58.63.22 (talk) 13:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Jack makes a good point. These guys could vote for Mickey Mouse if they wanted to. Naapple (talk) 19:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
As I wrote above, "While technically speaking it is impossible to know the full list of everyone who will receive votes at the convention before it actually happens"... Yes, unbound delegates could hypothetically vote for Mickey Mouse. That's why I'd prefer the table not be included at all. However, since there seems to be a consensus to have a table, then the names should be everyone we reasonably expect to receive votes- the 6 candidates who have bound delegates. "Others" is for Mickey & his sort. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 20:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Jack, if I understand you correctly, you are saying the criteria for choosing which names are listed (rather than lumped into "other") should only be those guaranteed nominating speeches, because along with that comes a guarantee the delegates bound to them will stay that way. You believe delegates bound to other candidates will become unbound if their candidate fails to be "supported" by 5 delegations. Do you have a source for that? If not, I think we can only assume every bound delegate will stay bound, unless the lawsuit changes that, or those delegates are released by their respective candidates. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 22:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
When the different delegation will be bound to vote for a candidate or when they will not differs from state to state. The delegates are often, but not always, released when a candidate withdraws. It seems a little fuzzy when that is. I think we should either remove the table or included all the ones with five state plurality or bound delegates, since they will be in the final table. Any of the options are good with me.
The best place to find the every different state rule is The Green Papers. I haven't checked all states but to me it seems to come down to Texas. Gingrich won South Carolina, that seems not to unbound delegates, check yourself: [11]. Santorum and Romney also have bound delegates in five states or more. The rest of the candidates, including Paul, only have bound delegates in Texas. That would included Paul since he is in every definition still running (at least until he endorse Romney), but does it included the other delegates that have stop running long before these delegates was assigned to them? Here is the GP link: [12]. As I see it these Texas delegates became unbound in the moment they was bound to such a candidate. But that depends on what withdrawal means in Texas. Jack Bornholm (talk) 08:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't think Bachmann, Huntsman, Gingrich or Santorum ever formally withdrew. I don't know if they quietly did recently, but initial reports had them all "suspending" their campaigns, which is not a term found in or recognized by the rules of the RNC or any state. Paul we know never suspended his campaign, much less formally withdraw. Speaking of Paul, he has bound delegates in many states other than Texas, including NH, where Huntsman also has a couple. Texas only saw Bachmann join the club with her single delegate. If Santorum or any of the others withdrew & released their delegates, I would imagine that someone would have reported it by now. I think it has become typical for "withdrawn" candidates to wait until the convention actually begins to release their delegates, because there are no downsides to waiting, and a huge upside for them if something happens that incapacitates or otherwise makes the presumptive nominee withdraw before then. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 09:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Suspending instead of withdrewing is mostly an economic thing, the way to settle campaign debt and maybe even collect for the next campaign is very different in these two cases. in Illinois the state party consider a suspension to be a withdrawl, so these terms are a bit fuzzy. New Hampshire consider Huntsmans delegates to be unbound, any you are right Paul has bound delegates in several states. South Carolina does not seem to recognize any withdrawl (as I read the Green Papers). So if we are to follow these criterias it is Romney, Santorum, Paul and Gingrich and then we have to find out what they mean by withdrawn in Texas fir the rest. Or we could just remove the table :) :) Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
That's true about campaign debt being a factor- I remember Santorum putting up a special donation page after he left the race. Where did you find that the NH state party regards Huntsman's delegates as unbound? Everything I read (admittedly all secondary sources, whose reliability of late is very debatable) said that they were still technically his unless he released them. I'm not sure about TX, but I think the burden of proof should be on those proving delegates are unbound, not the reverse. But since we are both sure that the major 4 all have bound delegates (barring the lawsuit being heard tomorrow), we should go ahead and add them to the table, no? Or yes, we could remove the table (which I would support), but there seems to be a couple people here who feel rather strongly it should stay, so there is 'proof' Romney will get votes... 68.58.63.22 (talk) 06:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
The Green Papers:
"If a presidential candidate has received a share of the delegates as a result of the presidential primary but withdraws as a presidential candidate at any time prior to the convention, his pledged delegates shall be released by the candidate and each delegate is free to support any candidate of his political party who may be his choice as a candidate for president. [RSA 659:93 VI]"
Since Huntsman have withdrawn (suspended but at the same time endorsed Romney) he have to release his candidates (see the pledge on GP), so even though may not have don yet according to the qoute he will have to. Jack Bornholm (talk) 19:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
If a candidate formally withdraws then yes, delegates are automatically released. By suspending their campaigns, candidates are effectively withdrawing, no doubt, but if it's not done officially, then those delegates would still be considered bound. Endorsing another candidate does not automatically convert a supension to a withdrawal. In any case, do you still think Gingrich & Paul should be left off the table? 68.58.63.22 (talk) 01:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
True but in NH the state party rules are so weirdly made that the party dont simply unbind the inactive candidates delegates but say that the candidate have to do so if he dont want to break party laws. Pretty much give the same result though. Jack Bornholm (talk) 13:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Santorum, Bush, Paul

Santorum, Jeb Bush and Rand Paul are all confirmed to be speaking at the Convention, should they be added to the list? --86.135.96.199 (talk) 22:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't including Santorum in the list be redundant, since the Nominations table indicates that he is "guaranteed" a speech due to his 6 state wins? (For anyone that hasn't followed the above thread, I'm being sarcastic) 68.58.63.22 (talk) 01:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
No one is forced to speak at the convention. They're either asked to or given a spot but they can decline ie George W. Bush declining to go to the convention and he would have been given a spot should he choose to do so like GHWB was given a spot at the 1996 convention. If a candidate won a plurality of 5 states, they can choose to speak at the convention but are not forced to. Unlike your candidate, Ron Paul, trying to get a plurality of 5 states so he can speak at the convention. ViriiK (talk) 01:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Should it be noted that Jeb Bush will be speaking, but his brother and father will not? Mr. Anon515 00:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Ron Paul has the most delegates in 5 States

An independent delegate count, on http://thereal2012delegatecount.com which shows Romney and Ron Paul as the only candidates who got enough delegates in at least 5 states: Iowa, Lousiana, Maine, Minnesota, and Nevada. The map of states needs correction.
For example Ron Paul received the most delegates (27 out of 46) in Louisiana yet the map shows the state as grey. Main Stream Media Source: US News & World Reports. http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/Ken-Walshs-Washington/2012/06/04/ron-paul-snatches-half-of-louisianas-delegates
Ron Paul got 22 of 25 delegates in Nevada. The map falsely shows Nevada as Red (Romney), when Ron Paul received the most delegates by far. Therefore Ron has won 5 states. This page has entires easily shown to be false by anyone with Google, and thereby discredits Wikipedia as a source of accurate and neutral information. Main Stream Media Source: http://www.WashingtonPost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/ron-paul-wins-majority-of-nevada-delegates/2012/05/06/gIQA1An15T_blog.html University Internet Cafe Booth 6 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

From the cited source: "Nevada delegates are bound by the state’s results on the first convention ballot, so Romney will still get their support." --Weazie (talk) 01:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
What he said. Also, you have a very interesting user page. Naapple (Talk) 01:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
All the information we have on LA is summarized here. A more recent discussion indicates nothing has changed since then, which is why it remains grey on the map. However, I agree that there is no evidence that being bound for the roll call prevents delegations from supporting a motion for the body to consider another candidate for nomination. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 06:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The source thereal2012delegatecount.com has long not been counted as a reliable source and I only think its info are getting worse. Jack Bornholm (talk) 13:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Jack is right about this. Early in the primary season, that site had their own criteria to keep Romney under 1144. Then, as soon as he was getting close, they suddenly changed their criteria to bring him down again. And then, when that NEW criteria showed Romney with more than 1144, they changed it AGAIN, just to keep the RonPaulians coming back and spamming all sites with his URL, and donating to his site. The owner of that site is nothing but a Ron Paul supporter with no expertise whatsoever in the primary process.74.67.106.1 (talk) 00:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Reading that page is a mess anyways. The author of the site is obviously trying to milk Ron Paul fans for money since they are clueless idiots hoping for the best. I've been over to the Ron Paul fan and it's amazing at the sheer ignorance that they display especially when they parrot this website. Yes, no candidate are bounded to vote for a certain candidate however the first round ballot has a restricted list of candidates (Romney & Santorum) which most of those delegates will vote for Romney since their states did vote for him. Once the 1,144 threshold is broken and it will be, that's it, there will not be a second round. ViriiK (talk) 01:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Agreed that that site's layout is a mess. Many of its numbers don't align with mine, and I have much more trust in my sources than those of some random website trolling for hits. I would like to once again point out that unbound delegates are not limited to voting for one of the people on the list of candidates that appear on the "ballot." As Ericl first mentioned here, that 'ballot' is essentially just a nicety which only has a direct effect on who is entitled to give a speech (or have one given on their behalf). They really ought to find a better word for it. There is no ballot in the traditional sense there- any name can be shouted out at the roll call. Regarding bound delegates, there is unfortunately no simple or definitive answer on whether they are truly bound. While on the floor, delegations hold plenty of autonomy, and it would be up to a delegation chair (elected by a majority of those delegates) to allow, ignore, or replace delegates violating their pledges or bindings. Rather, it would be up to the respective state parties to decide if they want to punish delegates who break those bindings when they return home, unless the convention votes to instruct state parties to disregard those bylaws, in which case national party rules trump state rules. The RNC's current rules only refer to bound delegates in two places- Rule 15 & Rule 38 (the unit rule). Rule 15 speaks of it in passing, within the context of establishing general guidelines for any method states use to allocate or elect delegates. In a couple of states, bindings are also written into statute by legislatures, so who knows what would be allowed to take precedence there. Therefore, the only practical ways to completely guarantee a bound delegate votes as expected would be make sure a hardline delegation chairman is elected, or have their votes automatically cast for them. In other words, don't let them individually cast a vote at all. After spending thousands to get there, I doubt many delegates would be enthused by such a proposal. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 06:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I would presume that much of the rules over bound delegates are based on individual state party rules. Anyone know what the party rules of Massachusetts, Louisiana, Nevada, etc are, and how they may help figure out this mess?
Also, I propose adding a note at the top that states something like Wikipedia relies on reliable secondary sources for information regarding the convention, and as such sources like therealdelegatecount.com are not valid sources for the article. Mr. Anon515 00:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Furthermore, I think we might also need a note that says something like Do not add Ron Paul to the speaking list unless there is a confirmation directly from the RNC that he will have a speech slot. Mr. Anon515 00:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Some sources for at least the Nevada rules for delegates can be found here:

While the official by-laws don't seem to mention delegate binding, there appears to have been some rules established either in an organizing convention or by the state central committee (I haven't found minutes which show when those were approved... but I haven't really dug in hard to find out either) but these appear to be how the Nevada delegates are regulated in terms of the state party. These also seem to be reliable sources, but they are also primary sources as well subject to limitations in WP:PRIMARY. Reliable secondary sources which interpret these rules in a reasonable fashion seems hard to come by. I'm sure other similar by-laws and rules can be found for the other states if needed. --Robert Horning (talk) 15:48, 14 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: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. 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)

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

Add economic effect for Tampa area?

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)

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)

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 [13] 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 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)

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. [14] 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: [15], 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

good call groupuscule (talk) 23:22, 30 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)
There does need to be a section on the rule changes, because one of the main work products of the convention is the new operating rules of the Republican National Committee and those rules were changed substantially in ways which are controversial and they will remain in effect until the next convention. (DN)
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)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:2012_Republican_National_Convention/Archive_1&oldid=1248805674"