text:
United States presidential nominating convention

A United States presidential nominating convention is a political convention held every four years in the United States by most of the political parties who will be fielding nominees in the upcoming U.S. presidential election. The formal purpose of such a convention is to select the party's nominee for popular election as President, as well as to adopt a statement of party principles and goals known as the party platform and adopt the rules for the party's activities, including the presidential nominating process for the next election cycle.

Since 1972, most of the delegates have been selected in presidential primaries state by state. Other delegates to these conventions include political party members who are seated automatically, and are called "unpledged delegates" because they can choose for themselves for which candidate they vote. The pledged delegates determined by the primaries generally allow the nominees to be decided before the convention opens, but if no single candidate has secured a majority of both pledged and unpledged delegates then a "brokered convention" results. All pledged delegates in a brokered convention are then "released" and can switch their allegiance to a different candidate so a re-vote would result in a clear majority.

Generally, use of "presidential campaign nominating convention" refers to the two major parties' quadrennial events: the Democratic and Republican National Conventions. Some minor parties also select their nominees by convention, including the Green Party, the Socialist Party USA, the Libertarian Party, the Constitution Party, and the Reform Party USA. The 2020 COVID-19 pandemic forced both the major and third parties to cancel their usual conventions that year and instead schedule virtual affairs with minimal participation, as large energetic crowds risked spreading the virus.

History
There is no provision for the role of political parties in the United States Constitution, since the Founding Fathers did not originally intend for American politics to be partisan. In Federalist Papers No. 9 and No. 10, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, respectively, wrote specifically about the dangers of domestic political factions. Thus in the first two presidential elections, the Electoral College handled the nominations and elections in 1789 and 1792 that selected George Washington. The beginnings of the American two-party system then emerged from Washington's immediate circle of advisors. Hamilton and Madison, who wrote the aforementioned Federalist Papers against political factions, ended up being the core leaders in this partisanship: Hamilton became the leader of the Federalist Party while Madison co-helmed the Democratic-Republican Party with Thomas Jefferson.

Starting with the 1796 election, congressional party or a state legislature party caucus selected the party's presidential candidates. That system collapsed in 1824, and since 1832 the preferred mechanism for nomination has been a national convention. Delegates to the national convention were usually selected at state conventions whose own delegates were chosen by district conventions. Sometimes they were dominated by intrigue between political bosses who controlled delegates; the national convention was far from democratic or transparent.

Progressive Era reformers then looked to the primary election as a way to measure popular opinion of candidates, as opposed to the opinion of the bosses. Florida enacted the first presidential primary in 1901. The Wisconsin direct open primary of 1905 was the first to eliminate the caucus and mandate direct selection of national convention delegates. In 1910, Oregon became the first state to establish a presidential preference primary, which requires delegates to the National Convention to support the winner of the primary at the convention. The impetus for national adoption of the binding primary election was the 1968 Democratic National Convention. Vice President Hubert Humphrey secured the presidential nomination despite not winning a single primary under his own name. After this, a Democratic National Committee-commissioned panel led by Senator George McGovern – the McGovern–Fraser Commission – recommended that states adopt new rules to assure wider participation. A large number of states, faced with the need to conform to more detailed rules for the selection of national delegates in 1972, chose a presidential primary as an easier way to come into compliance with the new national Democratic Party rules. The result was that many more future delegates would be selected by a state presidential primary. The Republicans also adopted many more state presidential primaries.

Calendars
The convention cycle begins with the Call to Convention. Usually issued about 18 months in advance, the Call is an invitation from the national party to the state and territory parties to convene to select a presidential nominee. It also sets out the number of delegates to be awarded to each, as well as the rules for the nomination process. The conventions are usually scheduled for four days of business, with the exception of the 1972 Republican and 2012 Democratic conventions, which were scheduled for three days each. (The 2008 and 2012 Republican conventions were also three days each, but in each case was shortened from the scheduled four days due to weather issues.)

There is no statute dictating the order of the conventions, but since 1936 the party to which the incumbent president belongs has held its convention second. Between 1864 and 1952, the Democrats went second every year (except for 1888). In 1956, when Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower was the incumbent, the Democrats went first for the first time since 1888. So from 1936 to 1952, during administrations led by Democratic presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman, the Democrats had their convention after the Republicans, but it is unclear whether they went second because they held the White House or because they had almost always gone second. 1956 became the first year it was clear a party went second because they were the party of the incumbent, and that "rule" has been followed ever since.

Major party conventions from the start through 1948 were mostly held in May and June, with a few exceptions. This might have been due to the lack of air conditioning – the last conventions held without air conditioning were in 1948. Since 1952, all major party conventions have been held in the months of July, August or (for the first time in 2004), finishing in early September. Between the middle of the 20th century and 2004, the two major party conventions were primarily scheduled about one month apart, often with the Summer Olympics in between so they did not have to compete for viewers. In 1996, both were held in August to accommodate the Atlanta Olympics in July, the last Summer Olympics to date to be hosted in the U.S. In 2000, both conventions preceded the Sydney Olympics in late September.

In 2008 and 2012, the Democratic and Republican conventions were scheduled for back-to-back weeks following the conclusion of the Beijing and London Olympics, respectively, resulting in the conventions starting in September for the first time (Democrats in 2008, Republicans in 2012). One reason for these late conventions had to do with campaign finance laws, which allow the candidates to spend an unlimited amount of money before the convention, but forbid fundraising after the convention, for the parties to receive federal campaign funds. But moving the conventions into early September led to conflicts with the National Football League's season kickoff game, which is usually held on the first Thursday after Labor Day in September. (The NFL accommodated the conventions and moved its game to an earlier start time in 2008, and to a rare Wednesday in 2012. Convention dates in 2004, 2016 and 2020 did not conflict with the NFL schedule, and the planned dates for 2024 do not conflict either). Additionally, election laws in some states would likely prevent conventions from moving later into mid-September. Ohio election laws have actually forced the Democrats to schedule a virtual nomination of Joe Biden prior to the scheduled 2024 convention, to get around an August 7 ballot deadline. (Such deadlines have been waived in one way or another in previous election cycles).

However, Barack Obama's choice not to receive federal campaign funds for the 2008 general election started a trend, and so the campaign finance reason for the late scheduling of conventions has no longer been valid.

Finally, within the above general constraints, and the variable scheduling of the Olympics, political reasons can also drive the schedules. For example, the Democratic Party held its 2008 convention after the Beijing Olympics to "maximize momentum for our Democratic ticket in the final months of the Presidential election". In 2016, both the Republican and Democratic conventions moved to July, before the Rio de Janeiro Olympics in August. One reason why the Republican Party wanted a July convention was to help avoid a drawn-out primary battle similar to what happened in 2012 that left the party fractured heading into the general election. The Democrats then followed suit so they could provide a quicker response to the Republicans, rather than wait for a month until after the Olympics were over.

The 2020 Democratic National Convention was originally scheduled to take place July 13–16, but was postponed to August 17–20, 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The 2020 Republican National Convention took place as scheduled from August 24–27. The Tokyo Olympics, originally scheduled to open on July 24, 2020, were also postponed, because of the pandemic, to July 2021. This was the first time that nominating conventions did not coincide with the Olympics since 1944, when the games were cancelled due to World War II.

The schedule for 2024 returns to the standard for most of the late 20th century, with the conventions bracketing the 2024 Summer Olympics. The 2028 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles start a little earlier, in mid-July, and this could therefore have an effect on the schedule for the two 2028 conventions.

Participation
Each party sets its own rules for the participation and format of the convention. Broadly speaking, each U.S. state and territory party is apportioned a select number of voting representatives, individually known as delegates and collectively as the delegation. Each party uses its own formula for determining the size of each delegation, factoring in such considerations as population, proportion of that state's Congressional representatives or state government officials who are members of the party, and the state's voting patterns in previous presidential elections. The selection of individual delegates and their alternates, too, is governed by the bylaws of each state party, or in some cases by state law.

The 2004 Democratic National Convention counted 4,353 delegates and 611 alternates. The 2004 Republican National Convention had 2,509 delegates and 2,344 alternates. However, other attendees who do not participate in the formal business of the convention dwarf these individuals numerically. These include non-delegate party officials and activists, invited guests and companions, and international observers, not to mention numerous members of the news media, volunteers, protesters, and local business proprietors and promoters hoping to capitalize on the quadrennial event.

Locations
The convention is typically held in a major city selected by the national party organization 18–24 months before the election is to be held, although the Republican National Committee voted in 2022 to allow the party to select its presidential convention sites six years in advance. As the two major conventions have grown into large, publicized affairs with significant economic impact, cities today compete vigorously to be awarded host responsibilities, citing their meeting venues, lodging facilities, and entertainment as well as offering economic incentives.

The location of early conventions was dictated by the difficulty of transporting delegates from far-flung parts of the country; early Democratic and Whig Conventions were frequently held in the central Eastern Seaboard port of Baltimore, Maryland. As the U.S. expanded westward and railroads connected cities, Midwestern locations such as Chicago, Illinois—which since 1860 has held 25 Republican and Democratic Conventions combined, more than any other city—became the favored hosts. In present times, political symbolism affects the selection of the host city as much as economic or logistical considerations do. A particular city might be selected to enhance the standing of a favorite son, or in an effort to curry favor with residents of that state. For example, in 2011, Obama campaign manager Jim Messina noted: "We put the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina in part because we believe so deeply in" a "New South map." Likewise, New York City was selected as the host of the 2004 Republican National Convention to evoke memories of George W. Bush's leadership during the September 11 attacks. Milwaukee, in the politically competitive state of Wisconsin, was chosen as the site of the 2020 Democratic National Convention (although due to COVID-19 it was essentially not held there), and has been selected to be the host of the subsequent 2024 Republican National Convention.

Having been the site of 25 major party conventions, Chicago, Illinois has been the most frequent host city of major party conventions, hosting more than a quarter of all of them. Chicago has been both the most frequent host of Democratic conventions (hosting 11) and Republican conventions (hosting 14). Chicago was last the site of a major party convention in 1996, when it was the host of that year's Democratic convention. Nine of the conventions held in Chicago took place in the 19th century, and sixteen of them took place in the 20th century. Chicago's frequency as a host significantly dropped-off after the 1968 Democratic National Convention, which saw infamous protest activity and police response, with Chicago only hosting Democratic conventions in 1996 and the upcoming convention in 2024.

In the 19th century, the most frequent host city of major party conventions was Baltimore, Maryland (the site of the first presidential nominating convention ). Between 1832 and 1872, Baltimore saw twelve major party conventions. However, the city has only since played host city to a single other major party convention (the 1912 DNC). At the time that it was a frequent host of major party conventions, the city was seen as an appealing location for these events due to its accessibility by various means of transit (railroads, steamships, and turnpikes), the presence of several meeting spaces in the city considered spacious by the era's standards, quality hotels in the city, and quality dining in the city. Baltimore is currently considered to lack an appropriate venue by the standards and requirements of modern conventions in terms of seating capacity, space and logistics. When the city made a longshot bid for the 2004 Democratic National Convention, the city proposed hosting the convention underneath a temporary canopy that would be erected at Oriole Park at Camden Yards (which would have likely necessitated its baseball team tenant to vacate the venue for a roughly two-month period of their season). Potential lack of sufficient hotels has also been cited as an obstacle to Baltimore playing host to another major party convention any time soon.

The conventions historically have been held inside convention centers, but in recent decades the two major parties have favored sports arenas and stadiums to accommodate the increasing capacity, the former because indoor arenas are usually off-season outside of WNBA sites, allowing plenty of time for preparation (the major political parties have avoided baseball stadiums ever since the 1992 Republican National Convention at the Houston Astrodome forced the Houston Astros to play 26 consecutive road games). Bids for the 2008 Republican National Convention, for example, were required to have a facility with a seating capacity of at least 20,500 people, including a convention floor of about 5,500 delegates and alternates; the Xcel Energy Center in Saint Paul, Minnesota was eventually selected. Meanwhile, approximately 84,000 people attended the last day of the 2008 Democratic National Convention at Denver's Invesco Field at Mile High. The last day of the 2012 Democratic Convention originally also was scheduled for an outdoor football stadium, but was moved indoors due to weather concerns. Excepting the pandemic-affected 2020 conventions, the last non-sporting venue to host the Democratic National Convention was San Francisco's Moscone Center in 1984. In 1996, the San Diego Convention Center in San Diego became the last non-sporting venue to host the Republican National Convention.

Table of cities (metro areas) by number of major party conventions hosted
Of the 95 major-party conventions held through the 2020 election cycle, 27 different metro areas have hosted conventions. On two occasions, parties had more than one official "host city" for their conventions, these being the 1860 Democratic National Conventions, and the 2020 Republican National Convention.

More than half of all major party conventions have been held in just three cities: Chicago, Baltimore, and Philadelphia.

On six occasions, both the Democratic and Republican parties held their conventions in the same city. However, this has not occurred since 1972. Chicago played double-duty as a host city four times, in 1884, 1932, 1944, and 1952. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania was host of both major-party conventions in 1948, and Miami Beach, Florida was host to both in 1972.

Two metro areas have seen more than one of their municipalities be the site of major party conventions. Minneapolis–Saint Paul is home to Minneapolis (site of the 1892 RNC) and St. Paul (site of the 2008 RNC). The San Francisco Bay Area is home to Daly City (site of the 1956 RNC and 1964 RNC) and San Francisco (site of the 1920 DNC and 1984 DNC).

** Years with multiple convention host cities

Table of states/federal districts by number of major party conventions hosted
As of the 2020 election cycle, nineteen states and the District of Columbia have hosted major party presidential nominating conventions. Thirty-one states have never hosted one (Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming).

On the two aforementioned occasions in which more than one city was the host of a major party's convention(s) (the 1860 Democratic conventions and 2020 Republican convention), the different cities were also located in different states/districts.

Of the 95 major party conventions held up through the 2020 election cycle, more than a quarter have taken place in Illinois. Combined, the states of Illinois, Maryland, and Pennsylvania have been the sites of more than half of all major party conventions. Combined, the seven states that have each held six or more major party conventions (California, Illinois, Maryland, Missouri, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania) have been the locations of more than three-quarters of all major party conventions. Six states have seen more than one of their metro-areas host a convention: California (Los Angeles, San Diego, and the San Francisco Bay area), Florida (Miami Beach and Tampa), Missouri (Kansas City and St. Louis), Ohio (Cincinnati and Cleveland), Pennsylvania (Harrisburg and Philadelphia), Texas (Dallas and Houston).

Up through the 2020 election cycle, states located in the midwestern United States (Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Wisconsin) have been the locations of a combined 43 major party conventions. States and districts located in the northeastern United States (the District of Columbia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania) have hosted a combined 33 major party conventions. States located in the southern United States (Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas) have hosted a combined 12 major party conventions. States located in the western United States (California and Colorado) have hosted a combined nine major party conventions. The region that has gone the longest since hosting a major party convention is the western United States, which has not been the site of a major party convention since the 2008 DNC was held in Denver, Colorado.

** Years with multiple convention host states

Delegate selection process
Every year of a presidential election, the United States' political parties have national conventions that result in presidential candidates. However, selected delegates from each state choose candidates rather than members of the public.

Including delegates in the nomination process began after the Presidential election year of 1968, when there was widespread dissatisfaction with the presidential nominating process. Minor-party movements also threatened the chances of Democratic and Republican candidates to win majorities of the electoral votes, which resulted in the reformation of the presidential election process.

Democratic selection process
Each party and state has its own process to selecting delegates.

Generally speaking, delegates of both major parties usually pledge their votes to a specific candidate, and those who are associated with the Democratic Party and are unpledged are considered super delegates. These super delegates may include governors who identify with the party, members of the U.S. Congress, as well as members of the Democratic National Committee. Super Delegates aren't pledged to a particular candidate, and can vote for who they please. Any registered Democrat may run to be a delegate, and wins are based on congressional votes. Once Democrats choose their delegates, they distribute delegates to each candidate evenly, according to the number of congressional district votes they get (must be at least 15%).

Republican selection process
Rule 14 of the Republican Party's national rules determines the size of delegates for each state, territory, or political subdivision. Delegate selection for the Republican Party must take between March 1 and the second Saturday in June in the year that the convention is held (except for Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada, which are exempt from the rule and may hold earlier selection processes). The Republican Party uses a "Proportional Allocation" rule, which states that delegates should be based on the statewide votes or the number of congressional district votes in proportion to the number of votes received by each candidate. Also, each state must advocate to have an equal number of men and women in its delegation.

Delegates and alternate delegates for the Republican National Convention may be selected or bound by only one of the following:

 * Primary election
 * Republican State Committee
 * State and Congressional district conventions
 * Any method that stays consistent with the rules by which they were selected

Favorite son
A powerful state politician, typically the governor or senator, can set up as a "favorite son". The state delegates are pledged to vote for him at least for the first round. Today the role is honorific, but before 1972 control of a delegation gave bargaining power regarding the platform or the nomination. The technique was widely used in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Since nationwide campaigns by candidates and binding primary elections have replaced brokered conventions, the technique has fallen out of use, as party rule changes in the early 1970s required candidates to have nominations from more than one state.

In 1860, Senator Robert M. T. Hunter was Virginia's favorite at the Democratic Party convention. He offered a proslavery voice of moderation amidst the strident rhetoric of secession. In 1952, California Governor Earl Warren was the favorite son at the Republican convention, but he was challenged by Senator Richard Nixon. Nixon leveraged his way into becoming Eisenhower's choice for the vice presidential nomination.

Dark horse
The term "dark horse candidate" was used at the 1844 Democratic National Convention, at which little-known Tennessee politician James K. Polk emerged as the candidate after the failure of the leading candidates to secure the necessary two-thirds majority. Other successful dark horse candidates include:
 * Franklin Pierce, the Democratic nominee, elected in 1852.
 * Rutherford B. Hayes, elected in 1876.
 * James A. Garfield, elected in 1880.
 * Warren G. Harding, elected president in 1920 after his surprise Republican nomination.
 * Wendell Willkie, a businessman who came out of nowhere to win the Republican nomination in 1940. He lost to President Franklin Roosevelt.

Bolter
Delegates to the convention are expected to support whichever candidate wins the nomination. A delegate who refuses to do that walks out or bolts, sometimes in public fashion, can be referred to as a bolter. A group of bolters may form an alternate convention that can be called a bolting convention; the remnants of the party or convention they leave behind can be called a rump convention.

At the intensely fought 1896 Republican convention, the decisive battle was on support for gold or silver. When gold forces won by tally of 812 to 110, 25 of the 110 bolted while the others supported the party nominee, William McKinley. The next day the bolters formed a new political party, dubbed the Silver Republican Party. It had a strong base of support in the silver-mining Mountain states. The Democratic nominee, William Jennings Bryan, appealed to the bolters by accepting the Silver Republican nomination; he also accepted the People's party nomination, so he ran on three tickets.

Conservative Democrats from the South bolted from the 1948 Democratic Convention to form the States' Rights Party under the banner of Strom Thurmond when Minneapolis Mayor Hubert Humphrey successfully added a civil rights plank to the Democratic platform.

The most notorious instance of bolting was in 1912 when, having lost a credentials fight, the supporters of former President Theodore Roosevelt formed the so-called Bull Moose Party, splitting the GOP down the middle, holding a bolting convention to nominate Roosevelt who came in second in the election, something that would never happen again.

Proceedings
During the day, party activists hold meetings and rallies, and work on the platform. Voting and important convention-wide addresses usually take place in the evening hours.

In recent conventions, routine business such as examining the credentials of delegations, ratifying rules and procedures, election of convention officers, and adoption of the platform usually take up the business of the first two days of the convention. Balloting was usually held on the third day, with the nomination and acceptance made on the last day, but even some of these traditions have fallen away in 21st-century conventions. The only constant is that the convention ends with the nominee's acceptance speech.

Platform
Each convention produces a statement of principles known as its platform, containing goals and proposals known as planks. Relatively little of a party platform is even proposed as public policy. Much of the language is generic, while other sections are narrowly written to appeal to factions or interest groups within the party. Unlike electoral manifestos in many European countries, the platform is not binding on either the party or the candidate.

Because it is ideological rather than pragmatic, however, the platform is sometimes itself politicized. For example, defenders of abortion rights lobbied heavily to remove the Human Life Amendment plank from the 1996 Republican National Convention platform, a move fiercely resisted by conservatives despite the fact that no such amendment had ever come up for debate.

Voting
Since the 1970s, voting has for the most part been perfunctory; the selection of the major parties' nominees have rarely been in doubt, so a single ballot has always been sufficient. Each delegation announces its vote tallies, usually accompanied with some boosterism of their state or territory. The delegation may pass, nominally to retally their delegates' preferences, but often to allow a different delegation to give the leading candidate the honor of casting the majority-making vote.

Before the presidential nomination season actually begins, there is often speculation about whether a single front runner would emerge. If there is no single candidate receiving a majority of delegates at the end of the primary season, a scenario called a brokered convention would result, where a candidate would be selected either at or near the convention, through political horse-trading and lesser candidates compelling their delegates to vote for one of the front runners. The best example was the 1924 Democratic Convention, which took 103 ballots. The situation is more likely to occur in the Democratic Party, because of its proportional representation system, but such a scenario has been the subject of speculation with regard to most contested nominations of both parties without actually coming to pass in recent years. It is a common scenario in fiction, most recently in an episode of The West Wing. The closest to a brokered convention in recent years was at the 1976 Republican National Convention, when neither Gerald Ford nor Ronald Reagan received enough votes in the primary to lock up the nomination. Since then, candidates have received enough momentum to reach a majority through pledged and bound delegates before the date of the convention.

More recently, a customary practice has been for the losing candidates in the primary season to release their delegates and exhort them to vote for the winning nominee as a sign of party unity. Thus, the vote tallied on the floor is unanimous or nearly so. Some delegates may nevertheless choose to vote for their candidate. And in 2008 both happened: Hillary Clinton received over 1,000 votes before she herself moved to nominate Barack Obama by acclamation, officially making it a unanimous vote.

The voting method at the conventions is a "roll call of the states", which include territories such as Washington D.C., American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and a catch-all "delegates abroad" category. The states are called in alphabetical order (beginning with Alabama and ending with Wyoming). The state's spokesperson (who generally begins with glowing comments about the state's history, geography, and notable party elected officials) can either choose to announce its delegate count or pass. Once all states have either declared or passed, those states which passed are called upon again to announce their delegate count. (Generally, a decision is made beforehand that some states will pass in the first round, to allow a particular state—generally either the presidential or vice-presidential nominee's home state—to be the one whose delegate count pushes the candidate "over the top", thus securing the nomination.)

Vice-presidential voting has been problematic since the beginning: at the 1972 Democratic National Convention, the vote was scattered between 50 candidates and at the 1976 Republican National Convention, the vote was also scattered widely. In 1988, both parties decided to have their designated candidates nominated by suspending the rules and declaring them nominated by acclamation; the most recent vice-presidential roll call vote was at the 1984 Republican National Convention.

If, after the first round of voting, there is no candidate with a majority of votes, subsequent roll calls are held. In between, candidates can make backroom deals, swapping delegates in exchange for positions in the administration or other favors, or candidates can release their delegates to vote for whoever they personally prefer. Roll calls continue until one candidate has a majority: the 1924 Democratic National Convention holds the record as the longest ever, as divisions within the party concerning Prohibition led to 102 ballots between Alfred E. Smith and William G. McAdoo, before the relatively unknown John W. Davis was chosen as a compromise candidate on the 103rd ballot.

Speeches

Minor figures in the party are given the opportunity to address the floor of the convention during the daytime, when only the small audiences of C-SPAN and other cable television outlets are watching. The evening's speeches—designed for broadcast to a large national audience—are reserved for major speeches by notable, respected public figures; the speakers at the 2004 Democratic Convention included Ted Kennedy, a forty-two-year veteran of the United States Senate, and Jimmy Carter, a former Democratic President, while speakers at the Republican Convention included Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and Governor George Pataki of New York, two of the largest states in the nation.

The organizers of the convention may designate one of these speeches as the keynote address, one which above all others is stated to underscore the convention's themes or political goals. For instance, the 1992 Democratic National Convention keynote address was delivered by Georgia Governor Zell Miller, whose stories of an impoverished childhood echoed the economic themes of the nominee, Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton. The 1996 Republican National Convention was keynoted by U.S. Representative Susan Molinari of New York, intended to reassure political moderates about the centrism of the nominee, former Senator Bob Dole. And the 2004 Democratic National Convention featured Senator Barack Obama, whose speech brought the future President national recognition for the first time.

Uniquely, Miller, by then a Senator, would also be the keynote speaker at the 2004 Republican Convention, despite still maintaining his Democratic registration.

The final day of the convention usually features the formal acceptance speeches from the nominees for president and vice president. Despite recent controversy maintaining that recent conventions were scripted from beginning to end, and that very little news (if any) comes out of the convention, the acceptance speech has always been televised by the networks, because it receives the highest ratings of the convention. In addition, the halls of the convention are packed at this time, with many party loyalists sneaking in. Afterwards, balloons are usually dropped and the delegates celebrate the nomination.

First conventions
The Federalist Party invented the first national conventions in 1808 and 1812 when they held secret national meetings to pick their candidates. The Democratic-Republican Party never used conventions. Instead its members of Congress met in party caucuses to select the nominee. Regional conflicts erupted in the hotly contested 1824 election, in which factions of the Democratic-Republican Party outright rejected taking part in the caucus because of its little, heavily dwindling participation and in their view undemocratic character, rejected the eventual caucus nominee, William H. Crawford of Georgia, and backed three regional candidates, nominated by state legislatures, John Quincy Adams of Massachusetts, Henry Clay of Kentucky, and Andrew Jackson of Tennessee (all of whom carried more states than Crawford in the election) instead.

Second Party System
In 1831 the Anti-Masonic Party convened in Baltimore, Maryland to select a single presidential candidate agreeable to the whole party leadership in the 1832 presidential election. The National Republican and Democratic parties soon followed suit.

1860 conventions
In Chicago, Abraham Lincoln was nominated by the Republicans. The Democratic Party convention nominated Stephen A. Douglas: however, after Southern delegates walked out of or boycotted the convention, they held their own convention and nominated John C. Breckinridge.

Third Party System
Chicago with its central location was the favorite convention city. In addition St. Louis, Missouri, hosted Democratic national nominating conventions in 1876, 1888, 1904, and 1916, as well as the national Republican convention of 1896 and a national Populist convention in the same year. The city had easy railroad access, numerous elegant hotels and expansive meeting facilities. Democrats wanted to meet close to their base in the "Solid South."

1872 Democrats
The Democrats held a very short 1872 Democratic National Convention which endorsed the nominee of the 1872 Liberal Republican convention. The Liberal Republicans were bitterly opposed to incumbent Republican Ulysses S. Grant, and bolted to form their own party. They nominated Horace Greeley, who lost to Grant in a landslide, and the new party soon collapsed.

1884 Republican
In the run-up to the 1884 GOP convention, reformers called "Mugwumps" organized their forces in the swing states, especially New York and Massachusetts. They failed to block James G. Blaine, and many bolted to the Democrats, who had nominated reformer Grover Cleveland. Young Theodore Roosevelt and Henry Cabot Lodge, leading reformers, refused to bolt—an action that preserved their leadership role in the GOP.

Fourth Party System
Conventions were often heated affairs, playing a vital role in deciding each party's nominee. The process remained far from democratic or transparent, however. The party convention was a scene of intrigue among political bosses, who largely appointed and otherwise controlled for the most part nearly all of the delegates.

1912 Republicans
Entering the convention, the forces of President Taft and ex-president Roosevelt seemed evenly matched. Taft had better planning, better organizers, and more top convention officials. The camps engaged in a fight for the delegations, with Taft emerging victorious, and Roosevelt claiming that several delegations were fraudulently seated because of the machinations of conservative party leaders including William Barnes Jr. and Boies Penrose. Following the seating of the anti-Roosevelt delegations, California Governor Hiram Johnson proclaimed that progressives would form a new party to nominate Roosevelt. Though many of Roosevelt's delegates remained at the convention, most refused to take part in the presidential ballot in protest of the contested delegates. Roosevelt ultimately ran a third party campaign as part of the Progressive Party (nicknamed the "Bull Moose Party"). Taft and Roosevelt both lost the 1912 election to the Democratic nominee, Woodrow Wilson.

1924 Democrats
The party was deeply factionalized along regional and cultural lines, with two powerful factions, led by William McAdoo leaving the rural/Protestant/Southern faction, and New York Governor Al Smith representing the urban/Catholic/machine element. The second Ku Klux Klan was flourishing nationwide, although no nationally prominent Democrat acknowledged membership, and the factions battled over a resolution to condemn the KKK. No compromises seemed possible as the convention dragged on for 17 days, with the balloting for presidential candidate being deadlocked for 103 ballots until dark horse John W. Davis, a neutral figure, was nominated.

Naming the younger brother of William Jennings Bryan as running mate was a sop to the rural faction. Oklahoma was a representative border state, with the delegation deeply divided on the KKK issue.

Fifth Party System
Until the late 1960s, during the Fifth Party System and before, most delegates in presidential nominating conventions were appointed by political bosses or "kingmakers", "party regulars...who had the most say in picking a candidate."

1968 Democrats
The Vietnam War energized a large number of supporters of anti-war Senator Eugene McCarthy of Minnesota, but they had no say in the matter. Vice President Hubert Humphrey—associated with the increasingly unpopular administration of Lyndon B. Johnson—did not compete in a single primary, yet controlled enough delegates to secure the Democratic nomination. This proved one of several factors behind rioting which broke out at the Democratic convention in Chicago.

Switch to primary system
A few, mostly western, states adopted primary elections in the late 19th century and during the Progressive Era, but the catalyst for their widespread adoption came during the election of 1968. Media images of the event—angry mobs facing down police—damaged the image of the Democratic Party, which appointed a commission headed by South Dakota Senator George McGovern to select a new, less controversial method of choosing nominees. The McGovern–Fraser Commission settled on the primary election, adopted by the Democratic National Committee in 1968. The Republicans adopted the primary as their preferred method in 1972. Henceforth, candidates would be given convention delegates based on their performance in primaries, and these delegates were bound to vote for their candidate. As a result, the major party presidential nominating convention has lost almost all of its old drama. The last attempt to release delegates from their candidates came at the 1980 Democratic National Convention, when Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts sought votes of delegates held by incumbent President Jimmy Carter. The last major party convention whose outcome was in doubt was the 1976 Republican National Convention, when former California Governor Ronald Reagan nearly won the nomination away from the incumbent president, Gerald Ford.

Television coverage
While rank and file members had no input in early nominations, they were still drawn by the aura of mystery surrounding the convention, and networks began to broadcast speeches and debates to the general public. NBC affiliate W2XBS in New York City made the first telecast of a national party convention, of the 1940 Republican National Convention in Philadelphia, and the other two of the Big Three television networks soon followed. NBC News anchorman John Chancellor said just before the start of the 1972 Democratic National Convention, "Convention coverage is the most important thing we do. The conventions are not just political theater, but really serious stuff, and that's why all the networks have an obligation to give gavel-to-gavel coverage. It's a time when we all ought to be doing our duty."

The presence of journalists at presidential nominating conventions have increased with the television networks. In 1976, the Democratic Convention consisted of 3,381 delegates and 11,500 reporters, broadcasters, editors and camera operators. This is on par with the increase in the number of televisions in American homes. In 1960, 87 percent of people had a television; by 1976, 98 percent did. By the 1992 conventions, network coverage increased from three networks (NBC, ABC and CBS) to five networks (NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox and PBS). At the 1996 Republican National Convention there were approximately seven journalists per one delegate, or about 15,000 journalists.

The increase of the media at these conventions originally led to a growth in the public's interest in elections. Voter turnout in the primaries increased from fewer than five million voters in 1948 to around thirteen million in 1952. By broadcasting the conventions on the television, people were more connected to the suspense and the decisions being made, therefore making them more politically aware, and more educated voters. When scholars studied the 1976 conventions they determined that by watching nomination conventions, even viewers that were not previously very politically active developed a much stronger interest in the election process and the candidate.

Decrease in importance
With the rise of the direct primary, and in particular with states moving earlier and earlier in the primary calendar since the 1988 election, the nominee has often secured a commanding majority of delegates far in advance of the convention. As such, any actual business conducted at the major parties' conventions (such as the roll call of delegates) have largely become a formality, and the main focus is on promoting the nominee and party platform to a wider audience. For instance, speeches by noted and popular party figures are scheduled for the coveted primetime hours, when most people would be watching.

During the 1996 Republican National Convention (where the RNC had purchased time-brokered blocks of party-produced coverage on the cable network The Family Channel in response to decreasing network coverage), ABC News Nightline host Ted Koppel abruptly ended his coverage of the 1996 conventions, arguing that the events had effectively become an "infomercial" for the party's nominee rather than a bona fide news event. In 2020, political historian Michael Barone argued in an op-ed that the advents of direct distance dialing and television had made the original purposes of the conventions—being "the only place and time where party politicians could communicate frankly and bargain personally", and "discover which candidates had genuine support and which just gave lip service"–increasingly redundant, and that the events had become largely "choreographed" celebrations of the party nominee.

The changing nature of the conventions, as well as overall changes in television viewing habits, have changed how broadcasters cover the conventions. Coverage of the conventions is now typically relegated to news channels, C-SPAN, and streaming outlets; by 2012, the major networks usually only provided an hour of coverage per-night, focusing on the headlining speakers. PBS continues to provide full primetime coverage of the conventions, although it breaks away from minor speakers and mundane business for analysis and discussion.

COVID-19 affected 2020 conventions
The COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 forced both major and third parties to modify the format of their conventions to comply with social distancing and restrictions on public gatherings. The Democratic convention was conducted as a virtual event with all speakers appearing from remote locations, and no in-person gatherings of delegates. To fulfill the host city contract with Milwaukee, the event's production was conducted from the Wisconsin Center. The acceptance speeches of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris were held at the Chase Center on the Riverfront in Biden's hometown of Wilmington, Delaware.

Donald Trump repeatedly pushed for the Republican convention to be held in-person as normal. The event was originally scheduled for Spectrum Center in Charlotte; after North Carolina's Democratic governor Roy Cooper refused to allow it to be held at full scale or without mandatory masking or social distancing, the RNC announced plans to move most of the in-person events to Jacksonville, Florida, but still conduct the official business from Charlotte. However, after Jacksonville enacted similar restrictions, and amid nationwide increases in cases, Trump announced in July 2020 that the events in Jacksonville had been called off.

As with the Democratic convention, the Republican convention was conducted in a downsized form. To fulfill the host city contract with Charlotte, a program of official business was conducted in-person on August 24 with a smaller contingent of 336 delegates, including the roll call. The remainder of the event consisted of primetime programs of pre-recorded speeches, filmed mainly at the Andrew W. Mellon Auditorium in Washington, D.C. The speeches by Vice President Pence (from Fort McHenry in Baltimore), and by First Lady Melania Trump and President Trump (from the White House Rose Garden), were conducted live and in-person with audiences of supporters; CDC-recommended mitigations were largely ignored.

2024 conventions
The 2024 Republican National Convention was held in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, July 15 to 18. The 2024 Democratic National Convention will be held in Chicago, Illinois, August 19 to 22.


text:
Talk:Zoetrope

Untitled
Text removed from the article by Andrewa 00:02, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC) as more appropriate to a talk page:

There were several such pre-cinematography animation devices. Might be an idea to have a page on them. I can't think of a good page name -- Tarquin

Rough list to be moved:
 * the flick book
 * that sort of spinning disc with string...
 * there's one similar to the zoetrope, but it's a disc with slots that's held vertically in front of a mirror and spun. One looks through the slots to the reflection beyond.

...What
'The zoetrope was invented in 1834 by William Horner, who called it a "daedalum" or "daedatelum". Horner based his device on the Phenakistiscope built in 1836 by Joseph Plateau.'

...I'm sorry, how do you base something off something that hasn't even been invented yet? Jachra 22:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

 * You steal the concept drawings. --Davémon 14:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

"He called it the 'Daedalum' ('the wheel of the devil)." Wouldn't that be derived from Daedalus rather than diablos? --65.4.65.103 (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

 * "The wheel of the devil"? My god, Daedalos was the greek ancient engineer of the Minotaurus and Icarus miths. Devil in greek is "daimon" (δαίμον). That name is the William Horner's tribute to Daedalos engineer. Please, you only must to consult a diccionary...

similar device
This too works by seeing still images through slits :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5W5JJXtqhw&NR=1

88.193.18.41 04:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)tsand

Sony marketing
I cut some details out of the paragraph on the BRAVIA-drome. It's interesting and all, but we don't need to keep repeating the word BRAVIA over and over; nor do we need the Motionflow trademark in here, since it isn't well supported by the cited references (is it Motionflow 200Hz, or 240Hz Motionflow? If I'm learning about zoetropes, and not buying a Sony TV, do I care?) Last, the statistic about the thing going 50km/h is just senseless, regardless of what the reference says. Perhaps the outer shell passes the viewer at 50km/h when it's rotating at just over 2 revolutions per second? The whatever-drome itself stays put unless it's being transported in its two 40ft trucks, in which case I'll bet it goes a lot faster than 50km/h. Keno (talk) 22:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Image of linear zoetrope
technologyProf. Squirrel (talk) 23:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (Changed, and moved to the top by Josve05a.) - (t)  Josve05a  (c)  23:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Etymology
'ζωή'' (zoe), doesn't means "life", means "alive" ("active"), it's an adjective that combines with tropé (a complete turn).Please, you only must to consult a greek diccionary...

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.43.204.236 (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

 * 83.43.204.236 inserted a false etymology. This has already been discussed elsewhere. --Omnipaedista (talk) 06:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've always known it as a zoötrope, and that's what dictionaries seem to call it. --Hugh7 (talk) 01:49, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Ding Huan invention claims
Whatever Ding Huan's device was, it was clearly not a zoetrope, which the second paragraph of the article quite correctly and in keeping with countless standard reference books describes as:

 * "...a cylinder with slits cut vertically in the sides. On the inner surface of the cylinder is a band with images from a set of sequenced pictures. As the cylinder spins, the user looks through the slits at the pictures across. The scanning of the slits keeps the pictures from simply blurring together, and the user sees a rapid succession of images, producing the illusion of motion." (Later variants are distinguished as "linear" and "3D" zoetropes.)

Where, for example, are the viewing slits in Ding Huan's device? Even if his invention had some other feature, such as flickering illumination, which could produce even a crude true animation effect, in which each image in the sequence appears to replace the one preceding it -- and the extremely vague ancient description makes that very far from clear -- it would still not be a zoetrope, any more than a phenakistoscope or a praxinoscope or a flip book is a zoetrope. An ox cart is not a horse-drawn carriage, and neither one is an automobile, even though all three have features in common.

It appears that user has been altering a number of animation and film-related articles by inserting or amplifying claims that Ding Huan was the inventor of the zoetrope. Responsible editors refrain from ignoring or attempting to redefine the long-established meanings of words in order to promote a certain point of view. 66.81.223.67 (talk) 16:25, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That paragraph was in the article before I started editing. The sources call Ding Huan's device a zoetrope. "Ding Huan also invented the zoetrope lamp, which had a thin canopy bearing veins at the top." Do you have a source challenging that claim?--Pixarlampjr (talk) 20:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

 * Hello, I was referring to your related edits to other articles, especially to History of film technology, which had been blissfully free of even a short one-sentence version of the claim until you inserted a substantial paragraph. No offense meant -- you are clearly an intelligent good-faith editor who writes well and Wikipedia needs more of those, but please keep in mind that these articles get mirrored and "borrowed from" all around the internet and chunks of them now even turn up between hard covers. For good or ill, the information or misinformation we put into them has a way of rapidly becoming the received truth. Probably at least half of my editing time is spent cleaning up recklessly deposited misinformation within my fields of special interest, to prevent it from propagating any further, so naturally I start tearing my hair when I see a new load being spread around.

 * The statement that something long accepted as a 19th century invention was actually invented 2000 years earlier -- believe me, I would be delighted to learn that it is true -- is one of those "extraordinary claims that demand extraordinary proof". Fragments extracted from a couple of paragraphs by writers who have no evident credentials as experts on pre-cinema devices do not meet that demand.

 * My source is your sources' source and the ultimate source of all such claims, as far as I can determine: Volume 4, Part 1, pages 123-124 of Joseph Needham's Science and Civilisation in China (1962). Unfortunately, it seems to be accessible online only in the form of a 40 MB PDF download -- presumably unauthorized, so no link can be provided here, but very little searching was needed to discover it. What may at first seem to be a Google Books-accessible copy is actually Volume 4, Part 2. An abridged version of the relevant subsection is in Volume 2 of The Shorter Science and Civilisation in China (pages 361-362), which is accessible via Google Books, but due to trimming Ding Huan is not even mentioned and several forms of the alleged proto-zoetrope are omitted.

 * A careful reading of what Needham actually wrote serves as a vivid reminder of the importance of checking up on any trail of cited sources if the object is to get at the truth rather than just to snag a good quote. It never fails to amaze me how scrambled something can become in only one generation of retelling.

 * Nothing in Needham even remotely justifies a statement like "Ding Huan invented the zoetrope", or even "...zoetrope lamp", the red-flag wording in one of your sources. Ding Huan is named as the inventor of only one of the several devices described, and it is not the one commonly attributed to him by derivative sources. Beyond that, it is clear enough to me that Needham's definition of "a variety of zoetrope" is essentially "something that has a series of images on it and rotates", which completely ignores the crucial feature of zoetropes and related devices. In Volume 4, Part 2 of the series Needham even uses the word as a name for the means of propulsion used by his first-described example, listing zoetropes between helicopter blades and watermills and calling a meat-roasting spit rotated by a rising current of hot air a "zoetrope-spit". 66.249.174.159 (talk) 05:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

 * P.S. Pardon me for editing anonymously in this instance. I have a Wikipedia handle of four years' standing, but anything to do with cartoons seems to attract more than its fair share of obsessive and unbalanced people (as you may soon discover) so I am increasingly inclined not to make that handle readily available when occasionally editing on a closely related topic. 66.249.174.159 (talk) 05:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Online gold mine
I have taken the liberty of adding Stephen Herbert's outstanding online essay From Daedaleum to Zoetrope (Part 1 and Part 2) to the "External Links" section and putting it right at the top. Well-illustrated, profusely referenced and a concise mother lode of information for editors looking to refine or expand this article.

Among other things, it demonstrates that while the linear zoetrope may well be something new under the sun (although I consider the application of the name "zoetrope" to a form so substantially different very debatable -- is a phenakistoscope disc a "flat zoetrope"?), the 3D zoetrope, with sculptural models instead of flat graphics (and using an actual traditional zoetrope, unlike the modern strobe-light-based creations), is certainly not. As to 3D of the stereoscopic kind, note the claim that Eadweard Muybridge was using a stereo-zoetrope to view the first photographic real-time 3D movie circa 1879, an antecedent overlooked in histories of that subject.

Herbert's site has valuable material about other pre-cinema animation devices as well. 66.249.172.16 (talk) 04:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Spam alert
Does the subsection about "Forza/Filmspeed" that was added last October -- seven months ago -- not strike anyone else as blatantly promotional? The three references are a YouTube video, an online puff piece that focuses on Jeff Zwart, who appears to be none other than the contributing user Gs44b (see the summary for ), and a link to an article at autoweek.com which did not bring up any such article when I tried it. Even if a live and truly independent source can be supplied, the long press release now in place needs severe trimming or replacement by a freshly written brief summary. 66.249.172.16 (talk) 04:31, 26 May 2014 (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) 08:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Toy Story Zoetrope, Disney California Adventure 2.jpg

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Zoetrope


text:
Talk:Microscopy

Sub-diffraction limit techniques
Currently the sub-diffraction limit section is a mess, it is badly written, quickly changing and far more complex than most of the rest of this article; would it make sense to split it to a separate article? - Zephyris Talk 10:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

STED, SIM, PALM, STORM, FPALM
Hi,

the section on super-resolution fluorescence microscopy (i.e. techniques like STED, SIM, PALM, STORM, FPALM,...) is really outdated. That field has developed rapidly over the last two years. Maybe someone could provide an update. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.76.215.201 (talk) 22:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

A polite request...
I am doing a major overhaul of this page over the course of the next week or two, and its not finished yet! so please don't revert all of my changes because it seems a bit unstructured, it will get better :D Zephyris 21:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

+++ Question +++ Are Particle Colliders and Atom Smashers not some sort of microscopes? If so, could you include some appropriate links to relevant articles on that? William vroman
 * yes, in some respects. my feeling is that microscopy refers to any mechanism which 'directly' images a target, which does apply to some particle collider experiments. I think that some experiments, such as electron(?) scattering to reveal neutron/proton quark structures, would be appropriate here, and a short mention in the introduction and a short section (as for scanning probe microscopes) would be suitable. - Zephyris Talk 01:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC). Sorry if this doesnt make much sense - wine at work!
 * I'd draw the line at what you can find in good sources. If you find a book that refers to these things as microscopy, go for it. Dicklyon 06:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Action
I have read through the talk here and at microscope to try and get something done about the future of these articles. It seems that people agree on what should be done, it just needs doing!

Here is an outline of what I believe a sensible solution is for the microscopy, microscope and all other related pages:
 * Microscope and microscopy should become portal style pages, with summary articles and links to pages on the individual types of microscopy (optical, electron, etc.) and pages on the physical principles of basic microscopes (ie. optics, resolution, electron optics, etc.)
 * Microscope should be written from a physical viewpoint, ie. the physics and history of microscopes, as microscopes are the actual instrument. Microscopy should be written from a more practical viewpoint, ie. the usage and reasons for usage of the different techniques.
 * Optical microscope needs its own page, similar to electron microscope. Relevant information on individual optical microscopy instruments and techniques need to be moved to this page.
 * Each individual microscopy technique and microscope type (eg. phase contrast, scanning electron, etc.) needs its own page, no matter how short - it is better to have a stub for expansion than a long and confusing parent article.

Finally and most importantly:
 * microscope and microscopy should be kept short and simple. They are introductory pages to what is a very wide and in depth region of science. Detail should be confined to more focussed articles.

You have a week to make your comments, and, unless there are any major complaints, im going to get started! Zephyris 20:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: nothing you propose seems crazy. Why wait? I cannot imagine that anyone will revert you if you make these reasonable changes. Be bold in updating pages. --JWSchmidt 22:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the confidence boost :D, and i have now let myself loose on the articles, bwahahaha! Zephyris 21:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at microscope and consider the relationship between these two articles. adam
 * I think that has been done - Marshman 03:51, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This article needs urgent revision. Porcher 23:14, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * and it still needs urgent revision. Karol 22:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed that this needs substantial improvement, but I would oppose any merge with Microscope. A microscope is the instrument or the tool with which work is done. Microscopy describes the techniques in which a microscope is used. It would be like merging Automobile and Driving Velela 16:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The inventor of DIC seems to be called Georges Nomarski. Gogowitsch 09:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

--- Do you consider deconvolution as another kind of microscopy? I guess that deconvolution should be explained in post-acquisition or image restoration techniques, as a complement for e.g. fluorescence microscopy.... Default007 14:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Link suggestion
Is this link relevant for this webpage (page-owner, self-promotion?)? Pvosta 11:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Biomedical imaging - information about/for microscopy http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pvosta/pcrimg.htm

Is this link relevant for this webpage (page-owner, self-promotion?)? Pvosta 11:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Nyquist Sampling in Digital Microscopy - sampling theorem: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pvosta/pcrnyq.htm

Polarised light microscopy and Multiphoton microscopy??
Shouldn't these be included? Rotational 05:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Specular microscopy
Is there a page on specular microscopy already, or it is needed to be created? --CopperKettle (talk) 21:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Intravital microscopy
This is a new article if anyone wants to have a look. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Image suggestion
I think this might be of use for illustrating the differences between light and electron microscopy. It's currently used on several butterfly-related articles so if you need to make significant changes that might negatively affect the placement in those articles, I recommend creating a fork:

Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The set is interesting, but the individual images have quality issues, making the resultant set of less-than-encyclopedic quality for illustrating a microscopy article.

The light micrographs do not have scale markers on them, and the last one is out of focus in all planes. The 1000X electron micrograph is also out of focus everywhere in the image. Insect images taken on the SEM should have remarkable depth of field, showing many object planes in focus in a single micrograph, and thus illustrating one of the characteristics of the instrument. All of the scanning electron micrographs also have a lot of charging.

While the image set may work well for illustrating biological concepts, as micrographs they can only be used individually to illustrate improper focus, poor depth of field, or improper grounding or non-coating interfering with the scanning image formation. --KMLP (talk) 00:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Lead section
This would ultimately make a great featured article, but still needs a lot of work, as with any article this large in scope of topic. I am removing part of the lead, not because the information does not belong in the article or even in the lead, but to focus initially on the overall readability and usability of the article for the general reader of an encyclopedia. This sentence can be incorporated elsewhere for now, or back to the lead as editors develop it:

 * "along with many others including materials science and forensic engineering where microstructure and surface details such as trace evidence are important for understanding properties or the causes of accidents."

While microscopy is fundamental for materials science, it does not necessarily trump its importance in the biological or physical sciences in general. An additional paragraph discussing the importance of microscopy as a technique in the biological and physical sciences plus materials science in particular could appropriately develop the lead section with this sentence. I did leave "revolutionized biology," in because microscopy did that, while it contributed greatly to the revolution of other areas of science. --KMLP (talk) 17:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Atomic de Broglie - does it exists?
As far as I know there is no Atomic de Broglie microscope anywhere on Earth. I strongly believe this entry should be deleted. There is a separate article on the subject, and it is sufficient. Mentioning Atomic de Broglie "microscope" among working techniques is misleading at least.

Limitations
What happened in this sentence: "Staining may also introduce artifacts, apparent structural details that are caused by the processing of the specimen ame extent by specific microscopy techniques that can non-invasively increase the contrast of the image."? I don't know enough about microscopy to correct this sentence, but it really should be revised. 129.206.24.62 (talk) 13:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Request some metrics for comparing microscopy techniques, and a table comparing them
I'd like to start by thanking those who know something about microscopes for writing into this page for those of us who know little!

I looked this up this page after getting an ad for "affordable atomic force microscopes" because I had no clue about them. Sadly, after reading the article, I still don't know how on what bases I would choose a microscope if I had the need. Part of this is needing metrics. Here is my beginning of a list of the metrics, based on what I (as a non-expert) would anticipate being important:

 * finest demonstrated resolution of the microscopy technique in each dimension. Are width and length equal for all techniques?  I doubt it.  Which techniques can measure depth?
 * dimensions and units of measurement - optical microscopy, of course, allows many dimensions aligning with color (subject to diffraction limits etc); is electron microscopy a bunch of bits, or perhaps 8-bit values?
 * how much damage the measuring technique does to the sample - atomic-force microscopes seem to scrape the surface; dyes change the chemistry...
 * ability of a technique to resolve multiple layers in a sample
 * capture pattern, e.g. scanning
 * ability to image live specimens
 * scanning speed in area/time - square-mm per second I suppose
 * restrictions on size or other characteristics of the sample

With that done, I would propose setting up a table listing microscopy techniques and these dimensions, obviously to allow the reader to sort by one (or more?) dimensions of interest.

Schemaczar (talk) 19:23, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Reflected-light microscopy
I can't find any useful discussion of reflected-light optical microscopy. While little used in biology for very small targets, it seems very important in other sciences (industry, geology, etc.) and even for botanics and entomolog.--Jorge Stolfi (talk) 19:13, 12 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: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:17, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * HumanRBCsPAM.png

title: Talk:Microscopy


text:
Sunday league football

Sunday league football, is a term used in Britain, Ireland and Australia to describe the amateur association football competitions which take place on Sunday rather than the more usual Saturday. The term pub league may also be used, owing to the number of public houses that enter teams. Sunday league football is stereotypically seen as being of far lower quality than Saturday football and involving players who are often unfit or hungover. As a result, the term "Sunday league" can be used to describe a performance at any level of football which is seen as inept or amateurish. Despite this perception some leagues include players who also play at a high level of semi-professional football on Saturdays.

Sunday leagues are sanctioned by the local County Football Association. Sunday leagues do not form part of the hierarchical English football league system, but Sunday teams can opt to switch to Saturday play and potentially rise up the levels of the league system. The FA Sunday Cup is a national knock-out competition for English Sunday league football teams administered by the FA, which has been staged since 1964.

The most prominent single location for Sunday league football is Hackney Marshes in east London, which has been called the "spiritual home" of Sunday league. The oldest Sunday League in England is the Edmonton & District Sunday Football League, based in North London, which was formed in 1925.

In March 2012, Wheel Power F.C. won 58–0 against Nova 2010 F.C. in the Torbay Sunday League to record what was believed to be the largest victory ever achieved in British football.

Television coverage
In 1991, Danny Baker hosted The Game, a TV series focusing on East London Sunday League matches at Hackney Marshes, on Friday nights on LWT. The title of the show was a spoof of The Match, formerly The Big Match, the banner under which major league matches were televised on ITV at the time. The series ran for six episodes, culminating in the final of the Dick Coppock Cup (for Division Four of the league).

title: Sunday league football


text:
Dassault Étendard

French aircraft manufacturer Dassault used the name Étendard ("Standard", in the sense of a flag or banner) for a family of related aircraft projects beginning in the late 1950s. Versions that at least reached prototype stage were:

 * Dassault Étendard II, a prototype for the French Air Force
 * Dassault Étendard IV, a strike fighter produced for the French Navy
 * Dassault Étendard VI, an unsuccessful competitor in the NBMR-1 NATO fighter competition
 * Dassault Super Étendard, a derivative of the Étendard IV that served with Argentine Naval Aviation, French Naval Aviation and the Iraqi Air Force.

title: Dassault Étendard


text: User talk:64.12.96.204

title: User talk:64.12.96.204


text:
User:Wikibob/calendar horizontal better

A hopefully better three month calendar with fewer problems for text browsers such as lynx.

Click here to jump to End of calendar

title: User:Wikibob/calendar horizontal better


text:
Joey Kramer

Joseph Michael Kramer (born June 21, 1950) is an American musician best known as the drummer of the hard rock band Aerosmith, which was inducted to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 2001.

Life and career
Kramer was born in the Bronx, New York City, the son of Doris and Mickey Kramer, a businessman. He is Jewish and received a bar mitzvah.

In the early 1970s, Kramer was a member of The Institution, a seminal New Jersey garage band founded by Philip Rubin, J. Howard Duff, Richie Lester, and Marv Coopersmith. On November 25, 1970, the early Bruce Springsteen band, Steel Mill, opened for The Institution at Newark State College.

Aerosmith
Kramer is credited with originating the name Aerosmith. In his memoir, Kramer revealed that he idly conceived the name Aerosmith while listening to Harry Nilsson's album Aerial Ballet in 1968, two years before the band was formed. Kramer insists that there is no connection between the name "Aerosmith" and Sinclair Lewis' novel Arrowsmith. Shortly before joining Aerosmith, Kramer moved to Boston and was attending Berklee College of Music and worked with Chubby & the Turnpikes (later to be known as Tavares) alongside Bernie Worrell.

Kramer's memoir, Hit Hard: A Story of Hitting Rock Bottom at the Top, was released on June 30, 2009.

Kramer made a guest appearance in the 22nd season (2010–11) of The Simpsons, in the episode "The Ned-Liest Catch", as a former partner of Bart's teacher Mrs. Krabappel, as told in the third-season episode "Flaming Moe's. In 2015, NECA released a "Simpsons-ized" action figure of Kramer, as well as the other members of Aerosmith, as part of the fourth series in the company's Simpsons 25th Anniversary collectible figure line.

Personal life
In 2013, Kramer announced a partnership with Comfort Foods, Inc. to roast, package and distribute his whole bean, organic coffee line: Rockin’ & Roastin’ Coffee. In 2015, he announced a business partnership with Les Otten, the former vice chairman of the Boston Red Sox, to open two Joey Kramer's Rockin’ & Roastin’ Café and Restaurant locations in Newry, Maine, at the foot of the Sunday River Ski Resort; and North Attleborough, Massachusetts. The Newry location closed in 2016. The North Attleborough location closed in 2017.

Kramer's second wife, Linda, died on June 22, 2022, at age 55.

Aerosmith songs written
The following Aerosmith songs have a writing credit given to Kramer:
 * 1) "Pandora's Box" from Get Your Wings
 * 2) "Kings and Queens" from Draw the Line
 * 3) "The Hand That Feeds" from Draw the Line
 * 4) "The Hop" from Done With Mirrors
 * 5) "The Movie" from Permanent Vacation
 * 6) "Krawhitham" from Pandora's Box
 * 7) "Beautiful" from Music from Another Dimension!
 * 8) "Lover Alot" from Music from Another Dimension!
 * 9) "Can't Stop Lovin' You" from Music from Another Dimension!
 * 10) "Closer" from Music from Another Dimension!

Equipment
Kramer currently endorses Pearl drums, Zildjian cymbals and sticks (including his own signature model), plus Remo heads. He has also used many other brands of drums including Ludwig with whom he was closely associated with for much of his career up until switching to Pearl. In the past he has also used sets by Fibes, Tama and DW.

Drums Pearl Crystal Beat series drums:
 * 24"x18" bass drum
 * 13"x10" mounted tom
 * 16"x16" floor tom
 * 18"x16" floor tom
 * 14"x6.5" UltraCast snare

Cymbals: Avedis Zildjian:
 * 15" A Custom rezo hi-hats
 * 19" A Custom projection crash
 * 20" A crash/ride
 * 21" A mega bell bell ride
 * 14" A Custom mastersound hi-hats
 * 19" K Custom hybrid china

Sticks: Zildjian Joey Kramer signature sticks in green dip

title: Joey Kramer


text:
Kunststiftung NRW

Kunststiftung NRW (Art Foundation NRW) is a foundation created by the government of the German state North Rhine-Westphalia. It was established on September 12, 1989, and started operations in the spring of 1990. It is based in Düsseldorf, Germany.

The functions of the foundation are:
 * Promotion and cooperation in extraordinary projects of presentation and documentation of art and culture in North Rhine-Westphalia;
 * Promotion and acquisition of art objects of extraordinary significance for North Rhine-Westphalia;
 * Encouragement of talented young artists; and
 * Promotion of international cultural exchange.

title: Kunststiftung NRW


text:
Talk:Volhynia

untitled
Are Halych-Volodymyr(volodymir volynski) and Halych-Volynia the same? Mikkalai 00:11, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

same name
Yes, I think so--the first combines the name of two capital cities, the second a capital city with a province.

Shouldn't these various names be cleaned up and re-directed to one well-done page?

And what name should be standard?

Genyo 05:08, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Volyn
Why is the name of the subject of this article Latinized, instead of using a transliteration of its Ukrainian name, "Volyn'"? logologist 07:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Not exactly sure, but see also the discussion at Talk:Halych-Volhynia. I think it may be that history books use the Latinized version more often.  —Michael Z. 2005-12-11 16:43 Z

Naming
Sorry for interferring but what is the issue with naming? Alphabetical or modern and historical relevance. In that case it would clearely be either Polish Russian Ukrainian orUkrainian Russian Polish respectively. --Kuban Cossack 22:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The issue with naming is the following. First goes the most commonly used English name, (that duplicates the article's title) bolded. Then goes the native name. Than go other names under which the location (person) can be found in English language literature in alphabetical order of the languages. Some nation's ruling the place in its history, often results in this nation's name finding its way into English usage (Lviv/Lemberg/Lwow) but not always (Kaliningrad/Krolewec). That as far as the first line is concerned, pretty simple and basic.

 * In text, more flexibility is possible. If the historic texts devoted to a certain historic period more commonly use a name different from the article's name, this usage is allowed up to the contributing editor (Tarnopol, Lemberg, Kijow of Chernigov). Just stick to common sense and don't forget to do something useful for the article when you come to it to do a thing or two with names. --Irpen 01:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

 * What does Volynia Volýn′ mean at the beginning of the names and etymology section? The following versions make sense - name of language, name in that language, transliteration. Richardson mcphillips (talk) 23:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Merge proposal
Should the Volhynia article perhaps be merged with the article currently at Volhynian Voivodship? --Elonka 17:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No, just like Mazovia should be left out of Masovian Voivodship, London should be kept separately from the article on Greater London, Minsk should be kept separate from the article on Minsk Voblast and so on. Historical and traditional regions are different from political and administrative entities.  // Halibutt 16:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I just don't understand this signature:

"Lyuboml'(Liuboml', Luboml) near Kovel', Russian Volhynia, around 1900. We can see the German and Yiddish letter "Volks Küche/folks-kikh"."

First of all it is better to use Volyn, not Volhynia. Then, not "Russian Volhynia" but just Volyn (there is no such things as Russian Volyn). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ostap.radkovskyy (talk • contribs) 09:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone link me to map locating Volhynia?
Can anyone link me to map locating Volhynia? I opened the one in the article, altho I can actually read the Ukrainian, it was too small to make out all the regions. Of course, borders of the map would be helpful.

ASIDE, this happens to me very often, I wish there were some way to enable bigger maps. Occassionaly the maps are fuzzy, but I imagine that is just the way it is.

Thanks much, I have the sign works, I am PADRAEG padraeg@hotmail.com

Padraeg (talk) 22:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Map in article?
Can we use this map from wiki commons for the article? Or is it outdated? Would like to see a map in the article myself! Mariah-Yulia (talk) 12:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Title move
Bandurist moved the article from Volhynia to Volyn, "as per Brittanica [sic]". However, the online versions of Britannica and Columbia use Volhynia, as does Paul Robert Magocsi's Historical Atlas of Central Europe (2002). Olessi (talk) 05:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

ethnic tensions before the war
the whole article is missing an important part. there is no mention of the treatment local population received from the polish authority. and also there is no mention of ethnic cleansing commited by ukrainian UPA partisans. we can't build friendships if we ommit these topics. ukrainians were discriminated agains by the polish minority and poles were being murdered by ukrainian freedom fighters. Polishranger (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Your right, unfortunately I do not know enough about it (now). — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 19:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Massacres of Poles in Volhynia you can find everything you need. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polishranger (talk • contribs) 14:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

װאָהלין
This seems to be an old form of the name; Yiddish won't have a ה between ל and אָ because it won't be pronounced. This does truly seem like the old orthography, based off of some other Slavic or German name. In today's orthography, it would most likely be װאָלין, maybe even װאָלהין, and I'd like to see a source. But, for now, I'm making the Yiddish name װאָלין until further notice. Shikku27316 (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

First ethnic deportation in Soviet history
This statement is unclear though "Soviet" does seem to provide some connotation. There was an earlier ethnic deportation in which Germans were removed from Volhynia during WW I and shipped off in cattle cars to Siberia. I don't know if that would qualify as "Soviet" era but certainly qualifies as Russian. Some of those Germans were allowed to return after the War. - Jerry Frank (assistant webmaster at SGGEE.org ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.13.168 (talk) 14:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

POV
The article doesn't inform about the Holocaust and extermination of Poles. The History section doesn't quote any source.Xx236 (talk) 06:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

981 - allegedly unsourced
All Ukrainian sites quote 981 року «йде Володимир на Ляхи и взя грады их Перемишль, Червен и иныа грады, иже есть под Русью» Xx236 (talk) 07:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Volhynia. 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/20120529031705/http://www.polona.pl/dlibra/docmetadata?id=oai%3Awww.polona.pl%3A12127 to http://www.polona.pl/dlibra/docmetadata?id=oai%3Awww.polona.pl%3A12127&from=http%3A%2F%2Ffbc.pionier.net.pl
 * Added tag to http://www.swissmennonite.org/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Pronunciation - IPA
Who can add an IPA transcription for the Ukraine and Polish pronunciations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.177.1.129 (talk) 16:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Volhynia


text:
In Search of... (TV series)

In Search of... is an American television series that was broadcast weekly from 1977 to 1982, devoted to mysterious phenomena. It was created after the success of three one-hour documentaries produced by creator Alan Landsburg: In Search of Ancient Astronauts in 1973 (based on the 1968 book/ 1970 film Chariots of the Gods? by Erich von Däniken), In Search of Ancient Mysteries (1974), and The Outer Space Connection in 1975 (later adapted into popular paperbacks written by Landsburg), all of which featured narration by Rod Serling, who was the initial choice to host the spin-off show. Serling died before production started, and Leonard Nimoy was then selected to be the host. The series was revived with host Mitch Pileggi in 2002 and again in 2018 with Zachary Quinto for the History channel.

The original series was shown in Australia in the 1980s under the title Great Mysteries of the World, with each episode having an introduction and conclusion presented by television presenter Scott Lambert.

Format
Each episode of the program explored a general or specific topic in one of several general categories as given in the opening titles: Extraterrestrials, Magic & Witchcraft, Missing Persons, Myths & Monsters, Lost Civilizations, and Special Phenomena (changed to Strange Phenomena from season 3 onward). The program conducted investigations into the controversial and paranormal (e.g., UFOs, Bigfoot, and the Loch Ness Monster). Additionally, it featured episodes about mysterious historical events and personalities such as Anna Anderson/Grand Duchess Anastasia, the Lincoln Assassination, the Jack the Ripper murders, infamous cults (e.g., Jim Jones), and missing persons, cities, and ships (e.g., Amelia Earhart, Jimmy Hoffa, D. B. Cooper, the Mary Celeste, the Titanic, the lost Roanoke Colony). Each episode's opening credits included a verbal disclaimer about the conjectural nature of the evidence and theories to be presented:

This series presents information based in part on theory and conjecture. The producer's purpose is to suggest some possible explanations, but not necessarily the only ones, to the mysteries we will examine.

The program included interviews, reenactments, and host segments including Nimoy on location or in studio, and each episode featured voiceovers by Nimoy. The music was composed by Laurin M. Rinder and W. Michael Lewis. A soundtrack album was released on AVI (American Variety International) Records in 1977.

Nimoy wrote an episode about the turbulent life of artist Vincent van Gogh, having earlier played the artist's brother Theo in a one-man show. As part of his research, Nimoy found records in the archives of the hospital where Van Gogh was treated that suggested that he suffered from epilepsy rather than insanity.

The show also spawned at least six spin-off books, all written by Landsburg with forewords by Nimoy: In Search of Lost Civilizations, In Search of Extraterrestrials, In Search of Magic and Witchcraft, In Search of Strange Phenomena, In Search of Missing Persons, and In Search of Myths and Monsters, with an additional book that collected the best segments from these existing volumes.

In 1978, Landsburg produced a Bigfoot documentary using portions of two In Search of... episodes ("The Monster Hunters" and "The Yeti") called ''Manbeast! Myth or Monster, based on his book In Search of Myths and Monsters.'' Though Nimoy had written the foreword to Landsburg's book, he did not narrate this documentary.

Reruns of the In Search of... series aired during the early 1990s on the A&E Network. In the later 1990s, the show aired on another of the A&E Television Networks' properties, the History Channel. The licensing agreement expired in the early 2000s, ending the show's run. When the show aired on A&E, a re-recording of the original theme music was used plus a new alternate theme. The original opening titles were also modernized. In this incarnation virtually all of Nimoy's on-camera appearances in the series were replaced with reused footage, so viewers could hear Nimoy but not see him.

A short-lived revival of the show, featuring Mitch Pileggi, aired on the Sci-Fi Channel in 2002.

In January 2018, it was announced that Zachary Quinto, who, like Nimoy, stars as Spock in the rebooted Star Trek films, would host the revived version of the show on History Channel. On March 27, 2019, History Channel announced the series was renewed for a second season.

Original Series
The original series ran for six seasons, hosted by Leonard Nimoy.

Sci-Fi Channel revival (2002)
A revival of the series aired on The Sci-Fi Channel for one season, hosted by Mitch Pileggi.

History Channel revival (2018–2019)
A second revival of the series aired on The History Channel for two seasons, hosted by Zachary Quinto.

Home media releases
In February 2012, it was announced that Visual Entertainment, under license from Universal Studios, had acquired the home video rights to the original series for the United States and Canada. In Search of: The Complete Collection was released in Canada and the U.S. on December 11, 2012, from VEI's website.

The 21-DVD set includes all 144 installments hosted by Leonard Nimoy. Also included are two Rod Serling specials: In Search of Ancient Astronauts and In Search of Ancient Mysteries which aired prior to the start of the regular Nimoy series. Three Landsburg specials The Outer Space Connection (1975), Secrets of the Bermuda Triangle (1978), and ''Manbeast! Myth or Monster'' (1978), are not included. VEI also included all eight episodes of the short-lived 2002 series hosted by Mitch Pileggi.

Homages
The style of the original In Search of... has been paid homage to and parodied by many productions. Examples include Mysteries in History, a show-within-a-show that plays a part in the plotline to Men in Black II (the faux series is hosted by Peter Graves in the film; coincidentally, Graves once co-starred with Nimoy in Mission: Impossible). Two other examples are Truth from Legend and Fact from Myth, two nearly identical series existing in alternate universes for which "mini-episodes" were created for YouTube as part of the viral marketing campaign for the two-part video game BioShock Infinite: Burial at Sea.

title: In Search of... (TV series)