Talk:2016 Republican National Convention

Expanding the article

Obviously, this article will expand as we move through early voting, then Super Tuesday March 1st, next 'winner-take-all' voting that starts on March 15th, and through the the race to get a simple majority of Republican delegates. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

As I understand from external links, the convention will decide three things:

• The Repubican nominee for President of the United States;
• The Republican nominee for Vice President of the United States;
• The wordsmithing of the Republican 2016 platform.

This could be explained in the article herein. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

While the first two points are addressed in the lead, I do think your idea would improve the page. Perhaps a section with a heading that reads "Purpose/Goals/Objectives" or something along those lines?Kerdooskis (talk) 18:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

can we just add trump winning because he is 9 173.49.204.148 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. Not sure what you are trying to say there. And please sign your comments on Talk with four tildes, thanks.Kerdooskis (talk) 20:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Potential of a contested convention

This is so talked about, a section should probably be started for it.[1][2][3][4] This is just a sample from the previous 24 hours. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there definitely should be a section about that. That looming possibility (probability?) has been a dominant topic of political media coverage lately, and almost certainly will continue to be in the weeks ahead.--NextUSprez (talk) 22:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

"Definitely" is a strong word. We still don't know if there will be a contested convention in 2016 or not. Wikipedia is not the place for speculating whether something may or may not happen, nor is it a news outlet. Now, there is mention of a possible contested convention over on the Brokered convention page. While I really don't think it belongs there either, at least that page is about the topic of contested conventions. Since this page is about the facts surrounding this year's event, why don't we just wait and see?Kerdooskis (talk) 20:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

It's a fact that it is major, major in documented press and TV and radio discussion. But please distinguish between the two types of 'open convention': (1) brokered convention privately decided in 'smoked filled rooms' by RNC leaders, which is a thing of the ancient past; and (2) contested convention in which the DELEGATES vote until there is a winner by absolute majority, half plus one. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

That is why I referred to it as "contested" in the section header. The RNC isn't likely to "broker" anything, unless it hits a significant number of ballots, and who knows if it'll get there. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Infobox

May we please wait until the convention nominates Trump, before adding his name? GoodDay (talk) 01:55, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree.Kerdooskis (talk) 20:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

IP editor introducing website into infobox

A quick note for editors: an IP editor is continuously inserting an improper exhortation with a URL ("You can visit the Official GOP Convention website.") in the infobox.

I've removed it (as has @Fitnr:) because we already include the URL in the "external links" section and because Template:Infobox national political convention does not include a URL field. No similar page on any Republican National Convention or Democratic National Convention includes the URL in the infobox. Assistance in monitoring this page would be greatly appreciated. Neutrality^talk 20:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page for one week given the persistence of this URL spam. Neutrality^talk 20:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

CBS News/Twitter Live Stream

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 [5]. Is that too promotional? I would include an identical edit on the 2016 Democratic National Convention page for the purpose of neutrality. Thoughts?Kerdooskis (talk) 19:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Seems sufficiently relevant and not too promotional to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Cool. I'll add it. Thanks for the feedback.Kerdooskis (talk) 22:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

The thing is starting

the person who reverted my stuff didn't read the damn thing. Please put the committee stuff, which already took place BACK!!!!! Arglebargle79 (talk) 22:59, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the rant, but the committees have already met, and the "Stop Trump" movement is dead. We should use the 2012 and '08 conventions as models and get this thing in chronological order. Parts of this event have already started, and it has changed from a scheduled future event to a news event, and we should start treating it as such.Arglebargle79 (talk) 23:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I think you'll find all the material about the committee actions, and more, has been put in the article in a well organized format. --MelanieN (talk) 01:27, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I feel your frustration. Wiki transitions from future to present to past are always messy. Unfortunately, this article is going to look a little goofy for the next couple of days until the Convention is overwith.Kerdooskis (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Trump has not released his taxes

This has not happened for 45 years since Spiro Agnew plead guilty to tax fraud. Some sort of tax return is released always released prior to the convention. This is an important feature of this convention and should be noted. My edit was removed and I would like for it to be returned or a suggestion for a different notation. I placed it in the Nomination section since that was the only section specifically dealing with the candidates. Pmacdee (talk) 06:40, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

References

I do think this is relevant information for Wikipedia to have somewhere, but not this article - which is more about the convention. I'd like to put it in the article Donald Trump Presidential Campaign, 2016 but I'm not sure where, maybe controversies? I don't think it is in the article currently.--MelanieN (talk) 19:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. It belongs on the presidential campaign article, but has nothing specific to do with the ongoing convention. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I am drafting a paragraph on this subject to put in the Trump campaign article. I will have it soon. --MelanieN (talk) 21:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks — that's an excellent idea. I agree with Muboshgu and Melanie that the tax info doesn't really belong in the convention article (unless some unexpected new development occurs). Neutrality^talk 21:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done See Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016#Tax returns. --MelanieN (talk) 22:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that! Neutrality^talk 22:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Keynote speaker

I'm removing Melania Trump as keynote speaker in the infobox as unreferenced. I see some references calling it "a" keynote speech, but not "the" keynote, but I'm ready to be proven wrong with a reliable source. Brianga (talk) 14:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

You're right - I could not find any designation of anyone as the "keynote speaker".[6] Isn't that interesting! We might want to add "no keynote speaker designated" to the article List of Republican National Conventions#Keynote speakers. I added it. --MelanieN (talk) 14:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

The current page seems OK, but if anybody is tempted to strengthen the McIver claim, they should look at Naive Melania Plagiarism, Not McIver Error And Excuse Of course, no claim is made that this is RS, but it may be useful. It does a side-by-side highlighted comparison of Melania and Michelle ... and offers evidence that the McIver story looks very much like a cover-up invented over a day. IF the phone conversation happened at all, either Melania read Michelle's text, which twice says "Barack and I", hard to miss, or else she had already changed the text. One really has to look at the side-by-side, including a sentence that seems unlikely to have been written by a speechwriter. JohnMashey (talk) 05:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Sessions' nominating speech

Senator Jeff Sessions just gave the nominating speech. Should that also be added to the schedule for Tuesday (today), or is it now a moot point?Kerdooskis (talk) 22:05, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Seems to belong in 2016_Republican_National_Convention#Nominations, along with the seconding speeches by Collins and McMaster. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Section 5.2 Schedule

I strongly feel this should be trimmed back to a simple list of speakers, with neutral identifying information. While there is certainly room for documenting the contents of some speeches and the controversies around them, adding these as annotations to speakers list will surely result in an unreadable dog's breakfast.

In addition, some of the characterizations appear to be POV. For example:

• Michelle Van Etten[108] — Van Etten was "billed as a small business owner employing more than 100,000 people" in the convention's official schedule, but she is in fact an independent retailer through a multi-level marketing firm who does not employ anyone[117]

I don't doubt this is true, but phrased this way it's clearly argumentative in a way that violates NPOV. I suggest that it's enough to link to explanatory information in a reference.

159.18.221.196 (talk) 00:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I can't see how it's argumentative. It is indeed a fact, and a simple descriptor of who she is. She was described one way in the convention booklet, and all agree (including Van Etten herself) that the official description was dramatically off. Neutrality^talk 14:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Vendors section

I removed the section explaining that 22 venders would be selling their wares at the convention. It hardly seems notable for inclusion in an encyclopedic article. If anyone wants to justify re-introducing it, feel free. Brianga (talk) 14:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Melania Trump speech plagiarism controversy: merge discussion

I strongly disagree with the move to merge the Melania Trump speech plagiarism controversy article into this one. The incident has received a tremendous amount of coverage and the campaign's multiple and contradictory responses have been highly scrutinized. I believe a standalone article is justified, and increasingly so as it continues to expand. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

No, it didn't and it is directly related ONLY to this article. Small potatoes - should be merged. 68.19.2.236 (talk) 07:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

See Talk:Melania_Trump_speech_plagiarism_controversy results were merge. 166.70.213.246 (talk) 18:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

List of speakers

Is it proper to insert content about a speech in addition to identification of the speaker? Such content is almost entirely absent but someone has added "Refused to endorse Trump" after Ted Cruz. I submit this is undue weight and is intended to push a certain POV. In view of the restrictions on editing (though I have not edited the article), I place this note here for consideration and further action by an administrator or other knowledgeable editor. Donner60 (talk) 02:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Although Cruz "refused to endorse Trump", he also gave his case against Obama and Clinton's policies. The Newt Gingrich quote implies that he somehow urged listeners to vote for Hillary, so the speech is currently improperly presented. FallingGravity (talk) 22:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Ted Cruz's speech

Wow.[7][8] – Muboshgu (talk) 04:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a relevant improvement for the article based on Reliable Sources? Otherwise, this just looks like an attempt to violate WP:FORUM. 68.19.2.236 (talk) 07:45, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Video regarding Trump's speech

Trump released a video that claimed that his speech was 75 minutes long because 33% of that time was spent on the applause. This video received both criticism and parody. Should I include this information in this article? Yoshiman6464 (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

No, I don't think it has a place here. --MelanieN (talk) 22:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Removal of instant poll

I removed the CNN/ORC "instant poll" from this article, the DNC article and Trump's main article, but someone restored it on this article. The reason why I removed it is that so-called "instant polls" are unreliable and should not be used when there are normal comprehensive polls available (CNN/ORC published one such poll two days after + Gallup published one as well). The instant polls rarely show full results, breakdown and methodology, and aren't used for anything except immediate coverage until normal polls have been conducted. The NYT, for instance, calls them "wildly unreliable" in their polling standards: http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/pollingstandards.pdf. When news cover instant polls, they usually warn of their unreliability. Please restore my edit. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Since the IP editor hasn't responded, I've restored your edit, removing the CNN instant polls from the article as @Snooganssnoogans: you did. I agree with you that instant polls are not very reliable, see New York Times Polling Standards (June 2006): "Public opinion is often malleable and potentially instantly responsive to major events. In general, we try not to use polls done immediately after an event like a political convention or a debate. So-called-instant polls- are wildly unreliable and The Times rarely conducts them. Depending on the event, it is better to wait a few days,until the public has a chance to absorb the event and develop meaningful opinions."

I'll also added that the National Council on Public Polls also discourages reliance on instant polls, see here.: "[S]ince the poll must be completed very quickly, the sample of people interviewed may not be representative of all viewers - and certainly not of all voters. The results of such instant debate polls may be more misleading than enlightening. ... Keep in mind that the instant post-debate poll: (1) measures only top-of-head reaction to the debates, (2) does not measure the debate's effect on candidate preference, and (3) applies only to those viewers who were contacted and participated. Remember that who won the debate may have little or no influence on candidate preference.

So essentially instant polls (even if taken with a random sample, as CNN did) are (1) not very reliable and (2) in any case effectively superseded by later polling. For this reason, instant polls have been removed from both this article and the corresponding 2016 Democratic National Convention article. Neutrality^talk 02:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion about lead picture at Donald Trump

You are invited to participate in an ongoing talk-page discussion about the lead picture at Donald Trump. --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Inadequate and narrow explanation of the platform provisions

The platform provisions section addresses only a minority of the topics in the party platform and seems to only address the more controversial issues, namely LGBT issues, with small sections on abortion and foreign policy. This is a very limited explanation of the party platform and a disservice to someone hoping to read this to get a grasp of the platform without reading the entire 60+ page platform. I think this should be re-written similar to the 2016 Democratic National Convention#Platform_provisions which covers the gamut of platform provisions. I think it would be better to separate the debate and provisions into separate sub-sections. Ryskis (talk) 07:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

The platform alluded to gay conversion therapy

Reliable sources:

• NY Times: "nodded to “conversion therapy” for gays by saying that parents should be free to make medical decisions about their children without interference"[9]
• WaPo: "The draft platform included language alluding to “conversion therapy,” a controversial practice where therapists try to change a child’s sexual orientation. The platform said parents have the right to make medical decisions for their minor children."[10]
• TIME: "As GOP delegates gather in Cleveland to formulate the party’s principles document, social conservative priorities have dominated the discussion, with several provisions opposition same-sex marriage and endorsing controversial conversion therapy passing preliminary votes Monday."[11]
• CNN: "Perkins also won a bid to add the word "therapy" to the platform, making it read "we support the right of parents to determine the proper medical treatment or therapy for their minor children." That was read as a move to allow conversion therapy, a controversial practice that attempts to convert youths away from being gay, that has been banned by some state and local governments."It's what it says, it's whatever therapy that a parent wants to get for a minor child," Perkins said when asked about the change. "There's states that are trying to restrict what parents can do for loving their children. Parents have a better idea I think than legislators or government bureaucrats.""[http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/11/politics/gop-platform-republican-convention-conservative-bathroom-lgbt-abortion/}

The article should reflect that. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

The specific statement is "We support the right of parents to determine the proper medical treatment and therapy for their minor children." This statement is too broad to prevent "conversion therapy," but it does not specify that such a practice is safe or legal for LGBT children nor does it condone it. The GOP platform simply does not address this issue.

The 2016 Democratic Party Platform does not mention gay conversion therapy either. It vaguely addresses LGBT discrimination, and mentions school bullying and youth homelessness. Conversion therapy is currently legal in 45 states, but the Democratic platform does not explicitly mention any legal action against it. Password123 (talk) 18:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2016 Republican National Convention. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160713214803/https://www.yahoo.com/tech/why-hackers-targeting-gop-convention-000000310.html to https://www.yahoo.com/tech/why-hackers-targeting-gop-convention-000000310.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160716170734/https://s3.amazonaws.com/prod-static-ngop-pbl/docs/Rules_of_the_Republican%20Party_FINAL_S14090314.pdf to https://s3.amazonaws.com/prod-static-ngop-pbl/docs/Rules_of_the_Republican%2BParty_FINAL_S14090314.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:42, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Same-Sex Marriage Opponent Protests Before the Supreme Court Shortly Before its Decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, June 26, 2015.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Delegate wikilink

In the first sentence, the wikilink delegate appears to go to the wrong article that is about Congress delegates rather than convention delegates. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:05, 23 February 2023 (UTC)