Talk:2004 Republican National Convention

Untitled
As a hundred thousand protesters clogged city streets and assembled informally in Central Park, Vice-President Cheney was safely helicoptered onto Ellis Island in New York Harbor to shake hands with some carefully-screened well-wishers.

Any substantation of claims "carefully-screened" ... violates NPOV?

205.188.116.137's comments
Noticeably absent from the slate of speakers is one of the most respected Republican elders and wife of the late President Ronald Reagan, Nancy Reagan. In early August 2004, the New York Daily News confirmed reports that Reagan vehemently declined several invitations to speak at the convention and voiced her opposition to the use of quotes and images of her late husband, who died earlier in the year, for any bid to reelect the incumbent. She was reportedly disgusted by revelations that the Republican National Committee had produced, during the week of the presidential funeral, advertisements implying President Reagan endorsed Bush for a second term. The Bush campaign and party leaders defended themselves, claiming that they did not seek to exploit President Reagan's memory.

This seems a bit suspicious can someone cite some sourcing for this or at least the actual article in Daily news. I find it hard to believe that any party would attempt to implying that a man with Alzhemir could endorese anyone. I suppose what is really meant is that if Reagan was alive and able to comprehead stuff he would support Bush.



While Boston police officers wielded batons and body shields for the Democratic convention, Hercules teams will be equipped with machine guns for the Republicans.

I think it is funny that we need to point out that for Dems they didn't need machine guns but only batons and shields, actually those this might be misleading because the "Hercules" team has machines guns whoever they are .I am sure Boston has a SWAT team that would have machine guns in case of problems or attacks but of course if they only had  batons and terriorts had struck we could have blamed evil Bush for not giving them guns in Boston


 * I wasn't able to find any concrete information either backing or denying the the rumors in that article. However, I DID find a cluster of reports (all copied from the AP) on August 3rd about how Nancy Reagan does support Bush's re-election. I think the section has enough disclaimers and whatnot to be safely included, especially since I added the part directly below it about Nancy Reagan's continuing support for Bush. Oh, and please sign any future posts, as disappearing sections of article + on-face anonymous posts on talk page makes it easy for someone to misconstrue your actions and overreact. Thanks. --Gregb 02:44, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Edited from "machine guns" to "submachine guns and rifles" since I doubt they're lugging M60s or M249 SAWs around.

I removed the comparison with the Boston cops, it was irrelevant. Threat levels are far higher for the RNC than they were at the DNC, and as one of the above posters said, there's no doubt Boston had an armed SWAT team on notice. It's not as if the Hercules teams are going to be performing riot duty... So it's comparing apples and oranges and had no place in an encyclopedic article. Impi 19:41, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Speakers list
I just added some more unaffiliated speakers to the bottom of the speakers list. Once we get a more concrete schedule, we can move those as "featured" speakers onto each of the dates, just like the DNC speakers list is set up.

As far as the structure is concerned, I think that we should do like the Democratic National Convention article and keep everything together until a while after the convention when we prep it for Featured Article nomination. It's just easier to move things around, rearrange quotes, and all that. Then after the article has been fully fleshed out we can move the speakers list and assorted quotes to a seperate article like before. I just want to get this article into FA shape as fast as possible so we can try and front-page them back-to-back. Sound good? Gregb 20:15, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Choice of New York
How can we say that the Republicans chose New York City in order to capitalize on Ground Zero and 9/11, while still sounding NPOV? RickK 23:36, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

How about "Some groups/people/parties/&amp;c. believe that the RNC chose NYC..."?

Do not use the word "capitalize," that's the pejorative part. Hum how about: "New York was seen as the best place for the convention, as it demonstrated that the Republican party had the strength to organize the convention in a democratic stronghold, and underlined the President's handling of the September 11 crisis." Or something like that... Oh, and saying that they rely on the attacks in biased, saying that they rely on their handling of the attacks is not.


 * We could say that "the Republican party chose New York City, a heavily liberal city, to evoke the themes of homeland security that have proved prominent throughout George W. Bush's 2004 presidential campaign" or something to that effect. Would that be agreeable? (obviously I'd prefer to avoid as many edit wars as possible :P) Gregb 22:58, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, to hear my .02 cents as a liberal myself, and the best route is: "The Republicans chose New York City as a spot for their convention. Though the city itself is very liberal (5 Democrats to 1 Republican) the Republicans hope to spotlight President Bush's agenda for homeland security and his approach over the September 11th attacks. Sean 00:46, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Is there any intent to add a mention to this article that a Republican activist was handing out "Purple Ribbon bandages" on the convention floor Tuesday? -- llywrch 18:15, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Arnold caption
The phrase "oratory excellence" seems a bit florid. Did someone actually say that, so that we can put it in quotes? Otherwise it should be removed. --Tothebarricades.tk 07:04, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

NY Times Article on 4/12/05
Today's NY Times reveals that of the 1806 people arrested during the RNC, 1670 have "run their course." Of those 1670, 91% ended in not guilty verdicts or the charges being dismissed. Only 162 defendants were convicted (or plead guilty). Seeing as how the number of arrests is mentioned more than once in our article, this kind of information should be included as well. --Feitclub 12:31, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Dropped links
Dropped this link:

http://www.gopconvention.com Official Website of the 2004 Republican National Convention

The official site has been taken down, that address redirects to the official Party site at gop.com. Ellsworth 23:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Dropped this link:

http://www.2004nycgop.org/ Official Website of the 2004 Convention Committee

Same reason. Ellsworth 16:32, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Comparison to 2004 Democratic National Convention
In the Wikipedia article about the Democrats, it says, even in the table of contents box, no less, that the convention caused several negative consequences to the venue (Boston):


 * 1) 3 Boston venue

* 3.1 Site Selection * 3.2 Security * 3.3 Free speech zone * 3.4 Police strike * 3.5 Loss of business

Was there nothing at all comparable to this in New York? Indeed, the article cites Bloomberg hailing it as an economic boon. Is the implication "Democrats bad for business, Republicans good"? Shanoman 21:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Weekly%20Tracking%20Updates.htm
 * In 2004 Republican National Convention on 2011-05-25 07:47:49, 404 Not Found
 * In 2004 Republican National Convention on 2011-06-11 12:00:55, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 12:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)