Talk:2016 Democratic National Convention

Deletages Data Table

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.

Background: Date of GOP Event

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)

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)

Cost

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)

Website

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)

Presumptive presidential nominee

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Square root sign instead of check mark

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)

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

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)

Well, technically, neither do the pledged delegates... ansh666 01:21, 17 June 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 [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)

Speakers?

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)

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)

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)

Keynote speaker?

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)

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)

Pennsylvania Convention Center

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)

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

DNC word of the day

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

Boo Hillary

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)

I agree. We'll see how the PC crowd buries handles that. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• Don't know about a section, but maybe you two should get a room and clamor about powitical cowwectness to your heart's delight. Drmies (talk) 14:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

As a paid-up member of the PC brigade I support the retention of the demonstration section. I have added a few things to it while making a few fixes to the references, and no one has made an attempt to bury it as of yet. Do go ahead and expand the section should you find anything of note and support it with reliable sources. --Dvl007-TheRaven (talk) 17:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

The Delegate Count

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)

notable speeches

Cory Booker needs to be added.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Seconded. I do so hope that this is done. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 06:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2016

2604:6000:E501:600:4079:6DF0:AA34:EF69 (talk) 21:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC) I want to update the roll call

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Request removal of Semi-Protection

It might be a good idea to unprotect this page during the roll call so the votes get updated. The 2016 RNC article did just fine unprotected. I don't see anyone updating the roll call vote info. Just a suggestion. 166.70.213.246 (talk) 22:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Potential separate page for protest activity?

At this point, there is so much protest activity taking place, both inside and outside the convention, at nearly unprecedented levels. From Wasserman Schultz being booed at the Florida delegation, to Sanders himself being booed by the California delegation, to boos from the floor at every mention of Hillary's name on Day 1, to the expulsion of Nina Turner with her credentials being stripped, to the massive delegate walkout after Hillary's nomination, and all of the activity outside (scaling of the fence, burnings of flags and fliers, over 100 "detainments" and "civil citations" already). Either that, or the "Demonstrations" section is going to be a large portion of this overall page. I honestly do think, with this much activity after only the second day, that a separate page - like with the 1968 Democratic convention - isn't too radical of an idea. 104.52.53.152 (talk) 05:16, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• Hell no. "Unprecedented"--as if there was never discontent before. What! Someone burned a flag! No, all this hullabaloo isn't nearly as Important For The Ages as some people think. Drmies (talk) 14:44, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

While significant signs of discontent do exist, we haven't really heard them being described as "unprecendented" as of yet, so I suppose we'll just wait and see. In the meantime you may want to take it upon yourself and expand the demonstration section (which I'd say should be a larger one though not necessarily large), provided that you support it with reliable sources.--Dvl007-TheRaven (talk) 15:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

The booing of Hillary on Day 1 - the delegates booing every single time the nominee's name is mentioned - is fairly significant. And among other things we've seen, even just today protesters broke through the fence and clashed with police. It's well on its way to 1968 status, and I think, if not a separate page, at the very least a MUCH longer "Demonstrations" section is required - covering both inside AND outside the convention. And you need to chill out, Drmies - once again, you're still being as rude as ever when polite disagreement would be more than enough. 104.52.53.152 (talk) 04:28, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I see you're unregistered and even if you register now it'll still take a while before you become autoconfirmed and make the edit. The section should certainly be expanded and what we have at this moment might not have sufficiently reflected what has really happened out there. I'm willing to help, but still you may want to provide a few reliable sources here that mention those activities, or better yet propose a draft - and in particular you may want to look out for anything that says it is "unprecedented" and "on its way to 1968". --Dvl007-TheRaven (talk) 06:09, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Gladly. Here's my rough draft, complete with sources and assimilation of what's already in the section.

"On the convention’s opening day, fresh off the reveal of the 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak, many delegates protested the perceived bias and corruption of the DNC. Debbie Wasserman Schultz was repeatedly heckled as she spoke to the Florida delegation, with delegates interrupting her speech with boos, jeers, and cries of the word “shame,” while some held up signs that simply read “E-Mails.” When Bernie Sanders spoke to his roughly 1,900 delegates and encouraged them to vote for Hillary Clinton, some in the audience booed. Early on in the opening proceedings, numerous delegates on the convention floor booed every time Clinton’s name was mentioned by a speaker. The disruptions continued until Sanders himself sent a widespread text message asking his delegates to stop protesting. Nevertheless, protesting delegates continued to heckle speakers throughout the convention night, while chants of "No TPP" could be heard across the rally.

On the second day of the convention, shortly after Clinton was officially nominated, hundreds of Sanders delegates and supporters walked out of the convention in protest. They subsequently staged a sit-in the media tent before being forced out by police. Sanders supporters rallied around former Ohio state senator and Sanders delegate Nina Turner, who was denied a previously-scheduled speaking slot and ejected from the DNC, with Turner herself claiming it was because she protested corruption at the DNC. Green Party presumptive presidential nominee Jill Stein held impromptu rallies outside the convention, trying to persuade disappointed Sanders voters to support her bid for the presidency. Meanwhile, outside the convention, four protesters climbed over the fence surrounding the convention site despite police warnings, and were subsequently arrested. There were also reports of American flags, pro-Sanders fliers, and one Israeli flag all being set on fire by protesters. Demonstrations supporting Sanders and the Black Lives Matter movement marched through Philadelphia, attracting at least 1,000 people by nightfall.

On the third day, protesters eventually broke through the security fencing around the convention site and clashed with police before the police managed to re-secure the fencing. Seven were arrested as a result. There were reports of several protesters accidentally catching on fire while attempting to burn flags.

I've added parts of the content in with some rephrasing here and there. Some were left out as I'm unsure whether they'd fully satisfy RS and notability standards. The Nina Turner story does not appear to be sufficiently notable at this point, and if it does it probably belongs to a Controversies section. Jill Stein's rallies might not have that much to do with protest activities in general. Security breaches and subsequent arrests are always known to happen in events such as this, though I've left them in place for the moment. Editors are welcome to review and determine what should be left out and what should be added. --Dvl007-TheRaven (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. And I've a feeling that, if some of the initial reports are true, then the true epicenter of protest activity will be tonight during Hillary's speech - hundreds of Sanders delegates vow to protest from the convention floor in some capacity (walking out, standing up and turning their backs, chanting, tape over their mouths, etc., etc.). If that creates the level of chaos I think it will, then perhaps a separate page will make more sense, even to someone as pessimistic as Drmies. 104.52.53.152 (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Not by acclamation?

Currently we have "After all states had voted, Sanders moved to make Clinton's nomination unanimous by acclamation."

But that wasn't Sanders' motion; his motion was that the votes be *recorded*.

"Madam chair, I move that the convention suspend the procedural rules. I move that all votes, all votes cast by delegates, be reflected in the official record, and I move that Hillary Clinton be selected as the nominee of the Democratic Party for president of the United States." [5]

He didn't move for acclamation, though Fudge said he did ("Senator Sanders has moved in the spirit of unity to suspend the rules - to suspend the rules and nominate Hillary Clinton by acclamation as the presidential candidate of the Democratic Party.")

Rachel Maddow's segment on the distinction. —67.217.12.18 (talk) 05:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Replaced it with the exact quote. q (talk) 22:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

"original research" question

If I scanned my credential for the convention, put it up on Wikimedia commons, and then placed it in this article, would that count as original research?Arglebargle79 (talk) 00:41, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

You mean as an image? Like the credential (non-DNC) on Robby Mook? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:45, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

"Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments." Wikipedia:No_original_research#Original_images. So this would be OK, although I would recommend obscuring/redacting your name for privacy reasons. Neutrality^talk 00:52, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

more original research

A few bits of "original research" I can't put on the main page, but are interesting and fun: The official media reception was in Phillies stadium, which was named after a bank. There was tons and tons of gourmet food, as well as hot dogs and cheese steaks.

• Some concessionairs at the WF center were selling bottled water at five bucks a pop.
• Most events at the Pennsylvania Convention Center were open to the public.
• The Rules Committee took a lunch break and served free pizza and sandwiches. I had two slices.
• The Bernie-or-Bust Delegates tried to occupy the press tent twice. The first time they looted the place and the second time the cops were there in force.
• i had a blastArglebargle79 (talk) 22:28, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Viewership

Viewership is not included in the 2012, and 2008 convention articles. I don't really see how/why it should be included. It also is viewership for particular time periods, on particular media channels. It just doesn't really seem relevant to the convention as a whole. Any other opinions on the matter? q (talk) 07:24, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I don't think it's terribly relevant either. I tried to at least condense it so that it's just one table and the section only uses one heading, but I don't feel like getting into an editing war over it. Orser67 (talk) 14:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

One table or horizontally arranged tables would be a good idea. I think the total numbers could be worthwhile, but the 25-54 demo is irrelevant - we're not comparing this to regular TV shows for advertisers seeking a target demographic. Reywas92^Talk 21:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I think viewership is relevant, as I've seen news stories comparing them. It could be added for past conventions. But I do agree that it would be preferable to have all the ratings in one table, rather than several, junk the 25-54 demographic (they're trying to win votes, not sell a product), and preferably make them into a line graph so we can directly compare RNC vs. DNC. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Muboshgu in all respects here. Neutrality^talk 21:54, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I condensed it into one table. How complete is this? There's no C-Span (I watched the Span). – Muboshgu (talk) 17:26, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I added a few more numbers + cites from PBS and a few livestreams. C-SPAN is, unfortunately, not included in the Nielsen data. Neutrality^talk 18:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I still don't love it's inclusion, but I do agree it's far better. Thanks Neutrality for improving it. q (talk) 23:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Miss Universe

Why does the DNC not hire a good Lawyer to represent the young lady and have her sue Trump for slander and deformation of character. Then Hillary can use it our and over to exhibit Trump's bullying of people and his disrespect for females. Bob Ruddy [email protected] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.16.245 (talk) 17:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Hacking into the Democratic Convention.

You should add hacking into the democratic convention, 20+ rush ians expelled by Barrack Obama.

---

The democratic convention is usually subsidianism, wall street skim, and 5 cents sugar solled for 5 bucks in the united states but I´m certain the above single statement would be enough for any savy united states educated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.91.63.146 (talk) 00:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

You should put alleged and also note that some experts on hacking disagree with the term hacked, as that eliminates the possibility of a probable leak from inside the DNC. Further, Julian Assange strongly declared it was a leak and not a hack. Drrichardpaul (talk) 23:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2016 Democratic 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/20160725135441/https://www.demconvention.com/ to https://www.demconvention.com/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 17:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

When they go low

In summarizing Michelle Obama's speech, we may have overstepped in our efforts to achieve brevity. The summary currently provided noticeably omits one of the most oft-quoted and memorable lines from the speech, "When they go low, we go high". I would argue that this should be remedied. I first would like to inquire if their was an earlier discussion in which it was decided to omit this phrase, or is it just omitted by happenstance?SecretName101 (talk) 03:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

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

• Hillary Clinton acceptance speech Cof-54tUkAEEro5 (05).jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:51, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Olympics?

in the section where the date is the topic, the Olympics are mentioned saying the convention was held before the Olympics. What do the Olympics have to do with this ? 12.38.10.225 (talk) 22:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Good question 71.227.91.40 (talk) 22:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)