Jump to content

Talk:2020 Democratic National Convention/Archive 1

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

Okay, let's start

Prior to the official start of the thing, there's a few things I'd like to get straight with y'all:

First: The things I've said about Superdelegates are true. They have indeed endorsed the predesignated front-runner in ALL elections starting in 1996, that's 22 years ago. There is currently a commission trying to change the status of superdelegates.

Second: Since 1996, votes for minor candidates have been mostly dissallowed. The Bradley delegates had been forced to register abstentions and a similar situation occured with Denis Kucinich in 2004. The lone delegate pledged to John Edwards in '08 was forced to abstain as well. Therefore mentioning this, plus the added fact that Lawrence Lessig was forbidden to participate in the first debate in 2015 despite the fact that he fully qualified, leads to clear evidence of rigging.

The article should be simple and explanatory. We should show what a generic convention would look like, to be replaced by specifics when they are available. The '18 elections are in only a bit over three months. Then it should be clearer. Feel free to disagree here before just throwing my stuff out. Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

'Ordered a new election' California Democrats

I know nothing about this process, but I noticed that there was a decision to have a new election after irregularities in the initial election. What part of Wikipedia would this go on? https://www.cadem.org/our-party/adem/ad51-new-election Geographyinitiative (talk) 07:56, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Super-delegates barred from first ballot.

I'm not certain, but I think the party has actually banned super-delegates from voting on the first ballot for the presidential nomination. Thus requiring an update on this article. GoodDay (talk) 17:49, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Isn't it already mentioned here?

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/2020_Democratic_National_Convention#Format David O. Johnson (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

That section says they're planning on making the changes, but hadn't yet. It needs updating. GoodDay (talk) 19:57, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

This article is lagging events, needs to be updated - we're in the campaign now!

A few sections like this seem to imply that the rules are still being discussed or argued over, but presumably there are rules in place, as the contest is underway. But that is not what the article leads the reader to believe.

It looks like this really needs to be updated.

ZeroXero (talk) 18:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Designated front-runner - clarification needed

Under the section 'Selection of pledged delegates,' I find this line:
"The rules stipulate that delegates from candidates who have withdrawn from the race will lose their right to attend and be replaced by delegates pledged to the designated front-runner."
But nowhere in the article is it mentioned how the designated front-runner is selected? I would appreciate if the article included a clarification about that. --Ezelmannen (talk) 11:22, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

covid-19 and the possible cancellation of the convention

A week or so ago, I put in a section as to discussions of the cancellation of the convention. This was, as always, reverted. I am now putting it back with a slew of references proving that those discussions are indeed taking place. The logistics of changing the rules in the middle of the game are daunting and controversial as hell, but they are taking place. I know I've been chewed out for WP:Crystal in this cycle, but it's important to mention it now. Arglebargle79 (talk) 11:32, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Presumptive nominee

See this discussion on the main 2020 Democratic primary page regarding the "presumptive" label. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 20:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Biden's image, in the top infobox

Per consistency, we need an update image of Biden, as the Democratic (presumptive) presidential nominee is suppose to have a 'light blue' background. The Democratic (presumptive) vice presidential nominee gets the 'dark blue' background. GoodDay (talk) 13:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, one needs to be created. And while we are at it, a dark blue photograph-less oval might be helpful to fill the space where the VP pick will occupy once announced. Also, as I stated over at he 2020 RNC article, we should create new oval Republican portraits with newer photographs of Trump and Pence. SecretName101 (talk) 23:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. GoodDay (talk) 00:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
The new Biden one should utilize a newer portrait than the one currently being utilized as well (which uses a 2009 portrait). Perhaps, this 2013 official portrait, or some other (more recent) image, such as this 2020 image by Gage Skidmore. SecretName101 (talk) 21:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
In the interim, while we wait for a proper oval image to be created with a light blue background, should we perhaps utilize this oval image without a blue background?? SecretName101 (talk) 21:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
That would be a good fill-in, until somebody figures out how to fix the background coloring :) GoodDay (talk) 22:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
I vote to oval-ize this one because it is recent. Nojus R (talk) 02:44, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I did it myself Nojus R (talk) 04:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I recommend the Biden portrait should be his 2013 official portrait File:Joe Biden official portrait 2013 (cropped).jpg because it is the same portrait that was accepted on the election page, and for consistency across the pages User:Aricmfergie (talk)
The current one is consistent with this page which I feel is more related to this page. Nojus R (talk) 19:29, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Looks great, thanks for the update & creation :) GoodDay (talk) 03:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
While @Nojus R:'s images are an improvement, ideally the oval images would be an identical oval shape to those used for previous conventions. But those Nojus R created will work very well as placeholders until we have that, and are much appreciated. SecretName101 (talk) 22:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
@Nojus R:, if nobody creates a better oval image of Biden and his runningmate, can we count on you to create an oval of his running mate of similar shape to the one you've created for Biden once he announces his running mate? SecretName101 (talk) 22:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, you can. Also, I recreated the oval using the same color and proportions as 2016. Nojus R (talk) 02:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
@Nojus R: changed the beautiful picture to the awful one that was agreed to by no one, practically destroying his/her excellent work. I got in trouble for doing this earlier elsewhere, but I really truly object to that picture and find it offensive. It makes the former Vice President look like a zombie. There will undoubtedly be a formal picture taken in the upcoming month and a half, and we should use that when it gets there. In the meantime. LEAVE the picture as it is, as the other one was never agreed to in the first place. PLEASE?!?!?!?!?!Arglebargle79 (talk)
@Arglebargle79: the photo @Nojus R: utilized was one effectively two images that had been discussed here as possibilities for the ovalized image on this article. It is the same image that had been agreed upon for use on the article 2020 Democratic presidential primaries. Your assertion that it was "one that was agreed to by no one" is patently false. The virtues of this image is that it is a professionally taken photo (taken by Gage Skidmore) that is recent (taken earlier this year). The downside is that it was not a posed-for formal portrait (however, the last such public-domain images would appear to be from early into his second term as VP, so years old). I also want to thank Nojus R for reshaping the oval to make it more consistent with those for past cycles. SecretName101 (talk) 20:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
@SecretName101: There is no upside to this incredibly ugly photo. Nowhere in any talk page has this gross picture been agreed to. In all the conversations I have had about about this I have never seen anyone agree to it on its merits. The only evidence given to me was the discussion on This is one on Tulsi Gabbard. Thus,unless I can see where the it was agreed to voluntarily. I will not believe it. The only discussions I've ever been able to find are ones saying that there needs to be a discussion and when there was none and I changed it. It was then declared by someone that I was disruptive, which I am not. I created the article.and want it to look as good as possible. Arglebargle79 (talk) 00:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
@Arglebargle79: You are becoming possessive of an article. You need to step back for a minute. See WP:OWN. Also, I just gave the upside to the image. It is recent, whereas his last official portrait appears to have been taken more than seven years ago. Also, I believe you are truly overreacting right now. SecretName101 (talk) 01:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Other images we might consider, none of them perfect

Other images we might consider using could be one of these:
  • This 2017 image
    This 2017 image
  • This 2016 image, kinda too low res though
    This 2016 image, kinda too low res though
  • Taken by Gage Skidmore the same day as the one currently used. Biggest downside is that he is not smiling
    Taken by Gage Skidmore the same day as the one currently used. Biggest downside is that he is not smiling
  • Also taken by Gage Skidmore the same day as the one currently used
    Also taken by Gage Skidmore the same day as the one currently used
  • This 2019 image
    This 2019 image
  • This 2019 photo. Biggest downside is his shirt (unbuttoned and without a jacket) looks kinda sloppy
    This 2019 photo. Biggest downside is his shirt (unbuttoned and without a jacket) looks kinda sloppy
  • This 2019 image
    This 2019 image

SecretName101 (talk) 01:43, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

The Skidmore one on the top right. It's dignified and makes him look like a leader. It's the kind of thing you would see on campaign literature or a logo. Putting it in an oval and adding some contrast would make it look perfect for our purposes. Arglebargle79 (talk) 09:50, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

The changes that need to be made.

The announcement of "Convention Across America" is going to be a challenge. What was basically a TV show, to begin with, is now going to be even more so. We should have a list of satellite venues, places where speeches are being held, remote locations, et al. Where and when the Platform committee is meeting, if in person or via ZOOM or something. Will there be any caucus meetings in person or virtually, and if they will be covered by anyone or not. This is important stuff to be included when the time comes. I "attended" the virtual Libertarian convention and it was boring as hell, resembling a 1980s chat room. The only way Trump could win is if the Democratic convention is like that.

There are resources we can use, like the one here [1] to help rebuild the page and get it ready for when the big show starts. As you know, I've been to a number of these things in the past, which brings us to the problem of "original research." The question is, are official press releases available on the internet considered original research? the reason is that these things are excellent resources, from which we can get exact quotes and lists of speakers and the like. So let's agree to use them.

The thing about Superdelegates should be gotten rid of, or at least the chart should be. Biden has already won, and the controversy is over...oh and one more thing about original research. The highlight of the 1996 Convention in Chicago was chocolate covered cheesecake on a stick. It's sad that we are unable to mention it. Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm breaking the part about satellite locations down in a new subsection of this topic SecretName101 (talk) 21:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Satellite locations

How to deal with satellite locations? My view is that we should list satellite locations the best we can with sourcing. Some locations used in the convention will be announced ahead of times, but others might not be known until they are utilized for the live broadcast. Additionally, when possible, in listing notable speakers at the convention, perhaps we should also include notations as to where they spoke from. For instance, an fictional example of what this might look like would be
Day 1
•Former First Lady of the United States Michelle Obama (from private residence in Washington D.C.)
•House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (from Rayburn Reception Room at United States Capitol in Washington, D.C.)
•U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (from Faneuil Hall in Boston, Massachusetts)
•U.S. Representative Bennie Thompson (at Wisconsin Center)
Any thoughts on the idea of formatting like this? We might not be able to verify the location of all speakers is my only concern, but where we can, I feel we might be wise to. SecretName101 (talk) 21:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, our list of "satellite locations" won't need to include all locations spoken from (which I suspect is bound to include some politicians' private residences), but rather those used for larger assembly or delegates or multiple speakers. The individual locations spoken from can be listed with key speakers, as I just suggested above.SecretName101 (talk) 21:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
From what I can tell from my sources, is that there's going to be two types of satellite locations, One, where there's just a pretty backdrop, and two, where there's a "mini-convention" where the delegates are actually going to meet. These should be differentiated. Arglebargle79 (talk) 09:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
I am sure, though that some will speak from their residences or private offices. If she speaks (as she has at at least the last two of these), I cannot imagine them dragging 83 year old Madeleine Albright out of her home amid a pandemic. Same with 96 year old Jimmy Carter, who briefly spoke via satellite at the 2016 convention. Those shouldn'r need to be listed as satellite locations
SecretName101 (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Biden's photo

I created an oval image of Joe Biden in the top infobox, which was the same image used in 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries with the background removed in front of a blue background. However, SecretName101 dislikes the image. So, let's get consensus, should we keep or replace the current photo? Nojus R (talk) 02:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC) - Correction: Arglebargle79 dislikes it.Nojus R (talk) 03:33, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I actually wasn't at all objecting to the image. Arglebargle79 is the one who objects to it. SecretName101 (talk) 03:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I copy-pasted the wrong nameNojus R (talk) 03:33, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
There is an alternate pic by Skidmore (see above, upper top right) that would be perfect for our purposes. Arglebargle79 (talk) 09:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
All of those images are in a line for me. So there is no "top right". Are you referring to the Gage Skidmore image in the gallery with the brown background or black background? Nojus R (talk) 19:46, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Black background. It's by far the best of the bunch.Looks heroic. For these things, we need flattering. Even for Trump. Arglebargle79 (talk)
Alright, I changed it to that one. Also, check here to discuss changing to photo on 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries Nojus R (talk) 00:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
No doubt the photo will be updated, after the Convention is held. So no worries. GoodDay (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Why? Why would it need to be updated after the Convention? Nojus R (talk) 23:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
After the Convention, there'll be official photos of both nominees. GoodDay (talk) 00:57, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Few, if any, of the previous ovals have used images from the convention. 2016 used a photo taken by Gage Skidmore. 2012 the official presidential portraits from four years prior, 2008 the Senate portraits, etc. Nojus R (talk) 01:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Cool. GoodDay (talk) 01:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Because there's traditionally a formal photograph of the nominees, both separately and together that's public domain. Professionally done, it's always best. Arglebargle79 (talk) 23:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
What formal photograph do you think we should use then? Nojus R (talk) 23:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Leave as is until the photos are published either the end of July or August.Arglebargle79 (talk) 00:20, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't think that's true. Not public domain images, at least, by the major party candidates, as far as I can recall. SecretName101 (talk) 00:39, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

there are links. Should we put them up?Arglebargle79 (talk)

Duplicate section

Arglebargle79, you reverted my deletion of a section titled "convention chair and other officera" (sic), claiming that is is not a duplicate. It is. See the section titled "Convention leadership" which already lists all of these individuals. I can't revert it now due to the 1RR limits, so would someone else kindly remove the new section. Thanks. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 13:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Spiffy sperry, Convention leadership isn't there. I didn't see it. I will look again, but I doubt it. Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:09, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Seriously? Here is a link. And thank you for removing the other section. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 15:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Location citations

@HijoDelCid: @PCN02WPS: please provide citations for sources that indicate the speech locations you are adding. SecretName101 (talk) 02:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

No Platform Yeas & Nays

"To show unity, the vote total for the platform ratification may not be made public. This is because over 700 delegates, largely from Bernie Sanders' camp, have signed a statement vowing to vote against the platform if it doesn't include a plank supporting universal, single-payer Medicare for All."

The citations provided do not support this text. Does anyone have a source showing that the Democratic Party plans to bury the platform vote totals in this way? Or any remarks about when the yeas & nays might be made public? -- AndySimpson talk? 06:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

the DNC has not released the numbers either as a press release or in last night's broadcast.Arglebargle79 (talk) 10:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
One thing there should be is a link to the PDF of the platform, which is available in a number places. With the end of wall-to-wall coverage, and the virtual nature of this year's convention, floor fights are impossible, and making the vote total public would show division, which isn't what the party leadership wants. The problem was that AFAIK, the televised committee reports were not shown anywhere besides CSPAN (the show began at 9 sharp and CSPAN showed the committee report at 8:45—I know, original research, I had it on while getting some food from the fridge when I heard it). While the absence of evidence is not always evidence of absence, It is in this case.Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:25, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

This is becoming a mess

Whose idea was it to have all the speakers in a chart? it looks horrible. Has anyone even LOOKED at the previous convention articles? We're going to have to remove all the charts with the speakers and replace them with lists.

There are only three speeches that count, the Keynote, and the two acceptance speeches. There will be some others that will be memorable (Ronald Reagan's 1976 'farewell' and Ted Kennedy's in '80 come to mind) but most won't be so why give them a box and a picture? Also, they take up too much room.

We should only have three or four charts. The info-box, the election index, the pre-convention delegate count, and the full presidential results. That's it.

The article should be a narrative. and the story of the convention, if it is that anymore, should be the tale of its contraction. The last two times, the site selection became a separate article. Perhaps we can do that again, then there's COVID 19. Biden wanted it to be mostly virtual since April. Parts of it started being filmed in May, we should mention that. There are going to be dozens of non-notable speakers who have submitted short "TickTock" style videos. It's a TV show, not a convention, and we should make that clear.

Which brings us to the mess we're currently in. The business end of the event should look like the business ends of previous articles. There should be a PDF of the platform and a place for the vote totals. Then we should look at some articles about TV series and model the rest after that.

...or not. But the current situation is unacceptable. What do y'all think? Arglebargle79 (talk) 10:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

  • The reason to have speakers on a chart is because this year speakers will be speaking from all over the country, and it is important to be able to list where they spoke from. Other-wards, we'd be leaving a huge piece of information out of the picture. And listing that in just syntax would be messy and difficult to read SecretName101 (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Heck, people remember, Barack Obama's "Don't boo, vote", Michelle Obama's "when they go low, we go high", Silverman's "You're being ridiculous", Khizar Khan's "Have you even read the United States Constitution? I will, I will gladly lend you my copy ... You have sacrificed nothing -- and no one" far more than ANY line in any of those three speeches in 2016. SecretName101 (talk) 20:21, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • All the speakers listed currently are the BIG NAMES that will be speaking. And when were the site selections of the past conventions separate articles? That's not the case now. SecretName101 (talk) 20:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Apparently, they were deleted sometime in the past year or so. They were there in 2018.Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
AS to the speeches, you seem to have watched the whole thing on TV, which is fine. But the way you're doing the article for this time, there wouldn't be room for that. Look at the previous articles from the Wikipedia era, that is when this existed and the articles were created in real-time. The notable speeches were mentioned, alright, but the list of speakers is just an unadorned list and the notable ones are listed separately. The Convention has been collecting short video statements on its web page for a number of weeks now, and "the best of" are going to take up a good portion of the TV show. The majority of the big names are going to be like AOC's a minute or so for a pre-recorded statement. The actual first day of the convention is tomorrow, when the votes are counted for the various committee reports and the presidential ballot. That's not going to be even streamed i don't think. Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Again. Those listed now are the big-name speakers, similar to those that were listed in past years. That's why their names were released early, they are among the more prominent speakers. The list doesn't include those without notability (some of whom have already been announced). The 2012 Democratic National Convention lists Scarlett Johansson as a notable speaker, but her speech lasted under four minutes. So, even though AOC will have a short speech, does not mean her speech is unnotable. The fact that she was one of the names they releaed to hype the convention seems to indicate otherwise. SecretName101 (talk) 18:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

No reason to remove the speakers and tables just because previous articles didnt have them. The tables have information, a plain list wouldnt. Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 21:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Kristin Urquiza's speech

Should we include Kristin Urquiza as a "selected speaker" and include her speech as a "notable speech"? It seems that her remarks generated heavy media attention. A google news search of her name now generates 27,500 results. I'd argue she might merit this treatment, which was given to the remarks of Khizr Khan in the 2016 Democratic National Convention article. SecretName101 (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

SecretName101, "notable speeches" should be deemed so based on coverage in WP:RS. In Urquiza's case, I'd say it applies. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Bill Clinton

Former President of the United States

or :

42nd President of the United States

?
Discuss:...
0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 18:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
the reason that I put the number, is out of respect. while he's alive, he's styled, former President Clinton. But who he is now and forever is the 42nd President of the United States. It puts him in a separate category than everyone else, except the other presidents. Saying, former, that's doesn't mean much. He is notable for being the 42nd president, not being a former president. Kerry was a Senator. Senators are a dime a dozen, and congresscritters are mostly worthless. But PRESIDENTS! You get the idea. Arglebargle79 (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
The numbering doesn't add anything. Shall we also put 47th Vice President for Biden? Shall we number the former cabinet officials & former governors? I should think not. GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
I think, that for president, 42nd is more informative if it implies "former". For any other office the sequence is too large.
—§—0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 19:28, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Former is best, as that's what he currently is. GoodDay (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
you'd say:Secretary of schmaltz under arthur.Arglebargle79 (talk) 22:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
"Former" is best because it is more informative of information people would more want to know. People would be more likely to wonder (if they didn't know) whether Obama or Clinton were the incumbent president at the time of the convention than they would to wonder which number they wrre in the order of presidents. Using "former", nobody (unfamiliar with the answer) that was skimming the article would need to click on the link to their article to figure out whether they were incumbent or former. Wikipedia's primary purpose is to be encyclopedic and informative. It's best to go the more informative route than with what may seem more formal or respectful. SecretName101 (talk) 21:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

The official Harris nomination

The method of nominating Harris was novel. This new innovation that was probably caused by some Sanders delegates trying to have their own person placed into nomination back in '16. (its a funny story, but that's a different article) She is the first VP nominee to be formally APPOINTED by the presidential nominee. Others were chosen by convention in a similar way as the president. (FDR in 1936, and LBJ in '64 were nominated for president by voice vote). Arglebargle79 (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

My understanding of the procedural language used last night by Benny Thompson was that she was effectively nominated by default. That if only one nomination is received for veep, the party is permitted to forgo a vote and nominate them by default. The only time, I think, that you can argue a major party nominee "appointed" a veep candidate may be when in the 1972 United States presidential election, Thomas Eagleton was dropped from the ticket and replaced by Sargent Shriver, and even then, that MAY have been subject to a vote by party leadership, so it may still have been a form of nomination. SecretName101 (talk) 21:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
That was to some extent the case. But in previous conventions going back to the very beginning, the VP nomination had nothing to do with the President's personal preferences, although his/her choice was taken into account, and usually respected it (but not always). This is the first time that the RULES state that the Presidential nominee appoints (sort of like a supreme court justice), a VP.

As to Sargent Shriver, the National committee had an emergency session, gave each state the equivalent of the number of delegates at the previous month's convention, and voted. Missouri's delegation gave its votes to Eagleton in protest. Someone else got a few votes, too. I don't remember who. Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:05, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit Request

Can someone fix Section 5.2.2 of the Table of Contents? 45.251.33.15 (talk) 04:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Done, I think, since I fiddled with the quotation of the Rules of Procedure, and although you didn't specify what you wanted fixed (or to what). — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 08:05, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Movement for a People's Party in See also

An editor keeps adding a link to the See also section of several convention pages (including this one), which seems to me to be of minimal relevance. In this edit they added 2020 People's Convention, although:

  • The page is about a movement, something that, in a week, maybe, may result in the formation of a new party;
  • Even if the party already existed and was an actual, notable thing, we shouldn't link it here under SA, as there are lots of parties, but this article is about one party's convention in one year. We don't (and shouldn't) list a bunch of random political parties here;
  • The linked article is misnamed per MOS:CURLY (this one's the least of my concerns :-P)

Any convincing arguments to keep this link in the article's "See also" section? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 08:05, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Jacquelyn Brittany

Hi. I understand that the table of speakers in principle needs to contain only notable people i.e. people with blue links, but it is very, very strange to have the person nominating Bernie Sanders, the person seconding Bernie Sanders, and the two people seconding Joe Biden, but not the person nominating Joe Biden! In fact, Jacquelyn Brittany's name does not appear anywhere in the article. There is certainly no lack of reliable sources for the fact that she nominated him. She should be added to the table. 2001:BB6:4713:4858:1DBF:86C5:4637:41D2 (talk) 11:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

That was something notable. go for it. Arglebargle79 (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Done. Feel free to edit it further. 2001:BB6:4713:4858:1DBF:86C5:4637:41D2 (talk) 15:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
It would be more a problem if the list were entitled "notable individuals who spoke", but it is instead labeled "Select speakers", which grants flexibility to include her. And even if the section were entitled something like "notable speakers", she arguably was a notable speaker in the context of the convention. SecretName101 (talk) 20:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
@Arglebargle79 and SecretName101: Do you think there's a case for adding a brief paragraph to the "Notable speeches" section as well? This was something that's never been done before, and may never be done again. I only offer this as a suggestion. I wouldn't be the right person to add it. 2001:BB6:4713:4858:CC8:CFA8:811D:6055 (talk) 15:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@2001:BB6:4713:4858:CC8:CFA8:811D:6055: what was never done before? SecretName101 (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

As far as I know, a presidential candidate from one of the two major parties had never before been nominated by an ordinary worker whom nobody had heard of until a few months before. I could be wrong. 2001:BB6:4713:4858:28AA:A0E6:2874:5EA4 (talk) 10:23, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
the most notable speech.was that 9 year old kid with a stutter. Why is he not mentioned?Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Delaware in the roll call twice

SecretName101, I get that Delaware passed on its turn to go last. This is typical theatrics that happens all the time. Remember in 2016 when Vermont passed to give Bernie his moment? From our perspective, it makes no sense to put Delaware in the table twice. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:16, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

If we are including states by the order in which they went, then we kind of have to include them twice. Or at least make a notation that Delaware passed at its original slot in the roll call in order to go lastSecretName101 (talk) 21:01, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

SecretName101, the "roll call table" doesn't show anything about the delegates assigned, it only serves to show who spoke on behalf of which state. Based on that, there's no sense in including Delaware twice. If you want to add a note that they passed so they can go last, that'd be fine with me, as long as it includes taking out the duplicate rows. Or, we could just take out the "in order of appearance" note to make clear that it's just showing each state or territory "delegation". – Muboshgu (talk) 21:55, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
No response for days.... I think this edit is an improvement as there is no need to list Delaware twice. Movies that do the credits "in order of appearance" only list each castmember once. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Location of convention

@75.86.178.166: please stop editing the article to say it was held in Delaware. The convention was officially held at the Wisconsin Center in Milwaukee. It was not moved to Delaware, rather, key parts of it were held remotely there. SecretName101 (talk) 22:18, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Why there is a 'This section relies largely or entirely on a single source' on Hillary Clinton speech?

Even if there is only one source, the source is a transcript of the speech. No other source is needed to make a highlight of the speech. In addition, speeches from several other speakers (e.g. Michael Bloomberg, Bill Clinton, Colin Powell) are also quoted from single source and they are not tagged. Is the extra scrutiny applied because it is Hillary Clinton, specifically? Jusfiq (talk) 18:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

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

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to call this section, maybe controversy or something

This technically has nothing to do with the DNC outside of reactions to Trump supporters being harassed by two women at the Wilmington Riverfront on August 20, near where Biden gave his acceptance speech. The two women were filmed damaging MAGA signs and taking someones MAGA hat, before apparently assaulting a man and throwing the hat into the parking lot. They have been indicted by a grand jury for felony charges of robbery, conspiracy and hate crimes and a misdemeanor of endangering the welfare of a child by the Delaware DA.[1][2]

I don't know if this would fit with protests, or if it should have its own article or not so I figured just post it on the talk page and go from there. Any insight would be helpful! Leaky.Solar (talk) 03:46, 10 September 2020 (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:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

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

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:10, 4 July 2021 (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:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:52, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

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

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  1. ^ https://nypost.com/2020/09/09/women-face-hate-crime-charges-after-attacking-trump-backers/
  2. ^ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/sep/9/camryn-amy-olivia-winslow-face-assault-charges-15-/
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020_Democratic_National_Convention/Archive_1&oldid=1151311249"