Talk:2016 Democratic National Convention: Difference between revisions

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Elections and Referendums Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Philadelphia Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philadelphia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Philadelphia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhiladelphiaWikipedia:WikiProject PhiladelphiaTemplate:WikiProject PhiladelphiaPhiladelphia articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Presidential elections Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections.

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances) Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information Enforcement procedures: Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion. Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance. Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established. The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

Let's keep it clear for people who are confused. "Pledged Delegates" and "Including June survey of superdelegates" would be most accurate. Superdelegates are confusing to folks. They haven't voted, but the media believes they have a good idea how they're likely to vote (based on an informal survey conducted in June). By using accurate language, you can help dispell confusion.

In the "Background" section, is it worth mentioning that the 2016 Republican National Convention will be held a week prior (July 18-21)?Kerdooskis (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and added the information. I'm sure this article will be greatly expanded upon as the convention nears, but I would like to see a bit more information added now. It was just announced that the committee selected an Emmy-winning crew to oversee the production o the event. If nobody objects, I will add a new section about the production.Kerdooskis (talk) 20:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This says the Convention will cost a total of $84 million. I know the host city ends up paying a large amount of the total cost. Is this noteworthy enough for this article?Kerdooskis (talk) 19:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The party just announced a new, revamped official website for the Convention: DemConvention.com. I tried to add it to the infobox, but can't seem to figure out how to add a new field. The other option I see is to add it as an external link. Any objections?Kerdooskis (talk) 17:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that the DNC chairwoman & many news organizations, will be declaring Clinton the presumptive presidential nominee, after tomorrow. I suggest we add her name to the infobox as such, when those declarations are made. If Sanders can convince enough super-delegates to vote for him at the Convention in July? we can always change things. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest leaving this blank until the convention has concluded, since to do otherwise would be a violation of NPOV. Neither candidate has the requisite majority in pledged delegates alone, and the remaining delegates ("superdelegates") do not vote until the convention (July 25-28). Unfortunately, "presumptive nominee" is not in official use within the Democratic Party, and infoboxes are not used for information that may be subject to dispute. In particular, due to the contentious nature of the 2016 nominating contest, I suggest including this information in the body of the article, if you wish. After the convention occurs, this field of the infobox can be filled in.

Doing so prior to the official result would be un-encyclopedic. WP does not serve any particular political view, and this would clearly contradict that principle. As an information source, we do not need to be in any rush to finish this article, since its subject has yet to even occur.

I urge all editors to put their political leanings aside when viewing this page. We are an information source, and presentation is information. We should not seek to establish something as fact if it is notably contentious and if we, personally, have strong feelings about that contention.

I will remove this piece of information from the infobox for the moment, and suggest that this page be protected. It would be better to leave this field blank, for the moment, since this is least likely to attract a politically-motivated edit war, and since (unfortunately) this information will not actually be available until late July. νημινυλι (talk) 18:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hillary Clinton, United States presidential election, 2016 & now this article. I need some some sedatives. GoodDay (talk) 18:29, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

don't want you addicted to sedatives....anyone know a good bar?....i'm buying....Pvmoutside (talk) 18:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See this version of the article on the 2012 convention. That's the version just before the convention started, and it's got the presumptive candidate. Yes, there are some aspects of WP:CRYSTAL to including a presumptive candidate, BUT CRYSTAL is about unverifiable speculation. "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included" Calling Clinton the presumptive candidate is clearly stated by multiple, highly reliable sources. Not including it is ignoring WP:NPOV by ignoring what the overwhelming majority of major sources are saying. Wikipedia reflects what the sources say, and it's pretty clear what they are saying about this. I suspect the results from today's primaries will further reinforce those statements. Ravensfire (talk) 18:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She's the presumptive nominee because the major news networks are reporting that she has enough delegates who will support her (either as pledged or superdelegates), and that's that. It'd be WP:CRYSTAL to assume any of them will de-commit from Hillary, the candidate who won the most states, the most votes, and the most pledged delegates. This is akin to how Obama won eight years ago, only that time the superdelegates moved from Hillary to Obama at the end. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton endorsed Obama in early June 2008, and thenceforth Obama was the presumptive nominee. (Note the diff you link is from September 2012). He was not yet the nominee, strictly speaking, but the contest was over, and the title was not contentious in a literal sense. At the present time, neither candidate in the Democratic primary appears prepared to endorse the other prior to the 2016 convention. νημινυλι (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

so if you read our criteria for a presumptive nominee, it states it can happen 2 ways whichever comes first.....the first way you are correct in that one candidate has not endorsed the other. The other way is to amass enough delegates to attain the party nomination, which all major media outlets are stating has happened....Pvmoutside (talk) 20:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the reasoning I gave above is sufficient. It has nothing to do with what "all major media outlets are stating," which is (to begin with) an inaccurate and broad statement. It's easy to find statements of both sides (presumptive, not presumptive) from each outlet. If we're playing that game, I can provide such statements from the same sources; but more importantly, it appears the DNC has not yet labeled Clinton the presumptive nominee, either. νημινυλι (talk) 15:43, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Νημινυλι: False. NY Times says Obama became the presumptive nominee on June 4, 2008, and notes "Mrs. Clinton paid tribute to Mr. Obama, but she did not leave the race. In a speech more defiant than conciliatory, she again presented her case that she was the stronger candidate and argued that she had won the popular vote, a notion disputed by the Obama campaign." Same exact thing that's happening today (except Bernie didn't win the popular vote). – Muboshgu (talk) 20:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As there's only been 'one' objector, I've restored Clinton to the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After fewer than 24 hours? Why are you rushing to include this information, anyway? What is your motive? νημινυλι (talk) 15:43, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's no motive. Many sources over the last few days, have been describing her as the Democratic Party's presumptive presidential nominee. Media have been pointing out her historic achievement as the first woman who will be nominated for US President by a major party. GoodDay (talk) 14:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, is such an achievement strictly relevant to this article, which is intended to be encyclopedic? Such an achievement, were it to be attained, would surely belong in the article about the candidate herself; if it belongs in this article (which I believe it does), it belongs in the body. The infobox, as I mentioned, is not the place for information subject to notable contention. Presenting such information summarily as fact, before any nomination has actually taken place, is absolutely against the mission of Wikipedia. If your motive is simply to update the article, then this information should be filled in when it is available. Dissent and ongoing contention (which has also been pointed out by many sources over the last two weeks) are especially notable in this case and if you intend to keep this article encyclopedic, you should revise as I suggested above. Otherwise this is a clear violation of NPOV; at best, it is OR by SYNTH. To be very clear, I'm not advocating for any candidate. Each U.S. election cycle, this pattern of edits is observed, and it suggests we are incapable of keeping Wikipedia from being politicized. Your lack of foresight--in particular, your hastiness to include information in an infobox that is subject to notable uncertainty--undermines the informational integrity of Wikipedia, and will extend to your future edits. νημινυλι (talk) 17:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This hasn't been a problem before in any US election, stop pretending like it's always been this way. ansh666 18:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there a square root sign (√) used to indicate the presumed winner instead of a check mark like ✓? Lekkere Kwal (talk) 09:35, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. ansh666 18:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not fixed... superdelegates don't vote until july 25. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Democratic_Party_superdelegates,_2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.143.27.27 (talk) 01:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, technically, neither do the pledged delegates... ansh666 01:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to include info announced today that CBS News is partnering with Twitter to live stream both conventions on the social media platform [1]. Is that too promotional? I would include an identical edit on the 2016 Republican National Convention page for the purpose of neutrality. Thoughts?Kerdooskis (talk) 19:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The 2016 Republican National Convention page has a list of notable speakers in the infobox, as well as more info on the subject in the body of the article. Any reason why there isn't similar info here? Do we know at least some of the speakers slated to talk at the Democratic event? Seems like a relevant entry.Kerdooskis (talk) 20:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The RNC is earlier than the DNC, hence the RNC list of speakers is out before the DNC list. We'll add when we know beyond who we already know (it's not at all shocking that Bill, Chelsea, Barack, Michelle, and Elizabeth will speak). – Muboshgu (talk) 17:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The list of Republican speakers is also changing daily. They release a list, people on the list say, "Not me." 69.62.243.64 (talk) 04:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox says that Elizabeth Warren is the convention's keynote speaker. But the link used to substantiate that only says that she is going to be "a" speaker, not the keynote speaker. 69.62.243.64 (talk) 20:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And the source says it's not even clear if Warren has accepted the invitation to speak, so I think listing her as the keynote speaker at this point is premature. Until a source confirms she is indeed the keynote speaker, I will remove the entry from the infobox.Kerdooskis (talk) 17:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that just because some logistical meeting will take place in the Pennsylvania Convention Center (as reported) -- we should include it as the convention's venue in the photo. Every convention only has one arena. Archway (talk) 08:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree. Neutrality^talk 18:50, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

assumpsit
--Jerzy•t 03:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't it be mentioned that the name of the presumptive nominee was booed repeatedly during the first night of the convention. Early in the convention the crowd booed almost every time Hillary's name was mentioned. This is unprecedented. A section needs to be devoted to the massive discord taking place during the convention. See [2] [3] [4]

JoeM (talk) 04:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the final delegate count chart, it only has spots for states and territories. Is there a way we are going to count Democrats Abroad delegates and the superdelegates? Forgive me if there already is, it was just something missing that I noticed. Tech12 (talk) 05:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]