This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Could someone remove the name Naomi from that list? That was the name of his baby daughter who died in the car crash that killed his wife. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.154.249.10 ( talk) 02:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Can someone make a parade route map using the Washington Post detail? I usually use the TIGER service, but for this district the map has too much going on for me to use it.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 22:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
And don't forget to note that Pres. Obama got out of the car TWICE to walk the parade route instead of staying in the car the whole way. [Special:Contributions/4.249.3.223|4.249.3.223]] ( talk) 21:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, the Rick Warren thing could be called controversial (and possible moved to a section solely on Rick Warren, with better elaboration). As could the curfew stuff. But his middle name? I don't think controversial means catching people off guard. Maybe the fact he will use his full name should be mentioned, but I see no evidence that its controversial. Parler Vous (edits) 05:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Does the fact that official souvineirs are hideously expensive (the bronze inaugural medal is SIXTY bucks!!!!) count as a controversy? Ericl ( talk) 17:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
This is crystal ball type judgement on my part but one I feel fairly confident about. My reading of the tealeaves follows.
Unlike Biden's use of Jr., Obama -- whose father he barely knew and who is now dead -- never has used any designation of his being a "jr." (or else even a II(nd)) on any document I am aware of with the exception of his birth certificate. Thus it would be my educated guess that Obama will not use it along with the rest of his full name at his inauguration.
Is this unusual? Cf. List of United States Presidential names, where seven US pres.'s are listed as possessing the designation Jr.: from James Earl Carter, Jr., of course -- and also Gerald R. Ford, Jr. -- to earlier in the Republic's history with James Buchanan, Jr., and James Madison, Jr.
Which of these men ever used Jr. as part of their formal names? I myself don't know.....but I could note that this list could have even included Andrew Jackson, Jr., whose father died when he was an infant; and this designation for Jackson would have been included in this article's listing too, making the number of "Jr.'s" eight, save for the fact that the nephew that Jackson adopted as his son was named: Andrew Jackson, Jr. -- which, it could be argued, makes the omission of President Jackson as a "Jr." in the listing defensible.
In sum, many have been in fact "jr.s" but never or only sometimes used the designation, resulting in Jr. not having being part of their formal names in habitual usage. (BTW if Biden uses something other than the crystal-balled Joseph R. Biden, Jr. now in the infobox, we might well edit it to reflect this fact as well.) Just tips me hat but then 〜on thought bows deeply … 18:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Why merge? ABC101090 ( talk) 15:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Please see the discussion at Talk:Presidential_transition_of_Barack_Obama#Merger_proposal. -- Happyme22 ( talk) 20:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand....Why does Obama's inauguration have it's own Wikipedia page? I don't see a single one from past Presidents'. So why is he an exception? He's just going to be inaugurated, no need for a Wikipedia page. Gouryella ( talk) 12:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the fixbatching template doesn't work. It creates a large space between the text and the infobox. Is there any way to fix that? - plau ( talk) 00:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Do you think we should add a list of singers performing such as Josh Groban? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.162.208.27 ( talk) 03:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
The article notes the players of the piece that was put together by John William, but neglects to mention its source material by Copeland, his source material, or even the traditional names of the piece. And in true Wiki form, even the length of the piece would be nice if you wanna get real geeky. SeattleSeamus ( talk) 05:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |curly=
ignored (
help)The section on #Fundraising currently cites the --according to MMFA-- wrongly calculated $150 million and attributes the figure to shoddy journalism based on no hard sources of information. Just dropping this note and the preformatted source here for everyone's consideration, maybe I'll edit it myself later today. 78.34.168.97 ( talk) 16:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |curly=
ignored (
help){{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |curly=
ignored (
help)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.94.214.25 ( talk) 08:24, 20 January 2009
|authorlink=
parameters you included in the sources. It's normally supposed to go to a Wikipedia article, not to an external link. Hope you don't mind.
78.34.151.9 (
talk) 14:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)The claim that the Georgia 300 car was a part of Abraham Lincoln's train to Washington is not supported by the claimed source and is in conflict with the statement in the Wikipedia article on the Georgia 300 claiming that it was made in 1930. I hope someoone will correct this, as I am prevented from editing this article at present. MattTweedell ( talk) 01:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
The inauguration schedule is:
Can someone fix the article? 207.241.239.70 ( talk) 06:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
In Toronto, Ontario, Canada, the University of Toronto Schools had a huge celebration which included many other schools in their auditorium at the same time. There were many people in the auditorium and very meaningful speeches were made showing that not only did the US care a lot about the inauguration but so did Canada. They even stood up for the national anthem and were all greatly moved by Obama's speech. After the inauguration when classes resumed, everybody was yelling "Obama! Obama!" so much that even the people in the streets outside could hear it. Truly this was an important event that should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.227.110 ( talk) 07:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
We might as well call that a luau, given that it's half Hawaiian anyway. — Rickyrab | Talk 15:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
It occurred at 17:06 UTC, for anyone who wants to add it to the article. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 17:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
His speech just finished now at 12.26 (17.26) 78.145.211.57 ( talk) 17:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Vincent ( talk) 07:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Chief Justice Roberts mixed up the placement of the word "faithfully" in the oath of office,while Obama paused to give him a chance to correct himself. Although I'm sure this event will surely give rise to a new cottage industry of conspiracy theories (!), I imagine it should probably be mentioned even if (as I assume) there is no real doubt that Obama is in fact the 44th President. Comments? Richwales ( talk) 17:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Discussion has been merged with Talk:Oath_of_office_of_the_President_of_the_United_States#Misplacement_of_word_.22faithfully.22_in_Obama.27s_oath. 71.37.55.209 ( talk) 20:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC) "So help you, God?" Is correct and not a mistake by Roberts and should be removed from the article. "you" is always said by the person administering the oath since otherwise they too would have taken the oath! ( Maxkon ( talk) 08:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC))
Obama just took the oath again. See Drudgereport.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.83.164.138 ( talk) 01:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Please remove the false claim that Obama has said that using his middle name in the ceremony is part of an effort to "reboot America's image around the world, Obama says explicitly in the source quoted: "I'm not trying to make a statement one way or another. I'll do what everybody else does."-- 80.216.227.49 ( talk) 17:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
156.101.1.5 ( talk) 17:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Should there be any particular inaugurations listed here? In my opinion listing specific presidential inaugrations could be viewed as an attempt to compare President Obama to those particular Presidents, making the specific links somewhat biased. Perhaps either list the article for the inaugural process in general, or a list of all US Presidential Inaugurations. After all, there are only 43 others... 156.101.1.5 ( talk) 17:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Eisenhower's stands out as notable. Dwight David Eisenhower took the oath of office on Tuesday, January 20, 1953. It was the most elaborate inaugural pageant ever held. About 22,000 service men and women and 5,000 civilians were in the parade, which included 50 state and organization floats costing $100,000. There were also 65 musical units, 350 horses, 3 elephants, an Alaskan dog team, and the 280-millimeter atomic cannon.
In my opinion there should be a article for each inauguration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.255.5.228 ( talk) 12:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps we should mention the infrastructure improvements (such as the facilities brought in for the crowd of 2 million) in Washington D.C.? The NY Times has published articles about the strain on the communications network. And, we should definitely add the note about how the wireless carriers are asking people to text instead of sending data. Webmaster961 ( talk) 18:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I was a trifle disappointed to see someone completely delete my discussion of her gown, which I thought was perfectly placed after the discussion of Barack's tux, and replace it with a discussion of the dress she wore this afternoon - not the right spot! I did hear on the news that Maria Pinto was the designer she had chosen for her gown - how would I cite this to make sure it stays in the article? FlaviaR ( talk) 19:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
To what extent should the apparent illness of Senator Ted Kennedy be covered in this article? PinkWorld ( talk) 19:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Pink
It reeks of recentism. The only inauguration which has its own article is the 1829 one, and I really doubt this one will be special; the article is full of mediocrity and really isn't important. I don't see why it exists other than recentism. 207.55.124.60 ( talk) 20:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
It is known and quickly becoming very popular part that President Obama told Al Roker that "It's Warm" During the walk. Why was this removed? It may be a small peice, but it's something that people will be talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fireicefalcon ( talk • contribs) 22:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone know what song Aretha Franklin sung at the inauguration? My ears must be playing tricks on me because the tune sounded like the British national Anthem, God Save Our Queen ???? Bleaney ( talk) 22:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
CNN is reporting 19 balls that the Obamas are expected to attend. CFLeon ( talk) 01:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Because the ceremony ran longer than normal, Obama legally became President at 12:00PM EST, before being sworn in, per the Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution.[15]
Is Obama the first president in US history (as far as it's known) to have mixed up the words in his inaugural oath? I so, it should be mentioned in the article.-- jeanne ( talk) 05:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The article currently states under Preliminaries "Obama began by holding a town hall meeting in Philadelphia's 30th Street Station at 10 a.m. on January 17. At 11:30 a.m." Is it accurate to call the meeting held in Philadelphia a town hall meeting? It was not a meeting of people from a local region, nor was it public. It was an invite-only meeting of 250 campaign volunteers (and possibly others) from all over. Centerone ( talk) 08:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Who is the man with the blue scarf in the lead photo? He is also shown using a small camera during the oath. His photo would be a valuable record here! - Peter Ellis - Talk 08:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
One report that I was just reading estimates the crowd at 800,000 from satellite images. Which is the correct figure? Professor estimates crowds with satellite image -- jmb ( talk) 11:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Has anyone actually looked at the reference for the 1.8 million in attendance? The cited article does not make that claim. Additionally, the 1.8 million is total ridership for the day, which includes going to and coming from the ceremony. Also it includes people who took it to work. So this is at least a two fold over estimate. Also, the Post had a great bit about the actual capacity of the crowd the day before. it could only come close to 2 million if people were packed (to the point of not being able to move) back to the lincoln memorial. And this was not the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.141.29 ( talk) 01:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I think we need to revert to the 1.8million figure the satellite photo was taken over an hour before the inauguration happened and the official estimate which is not being contested by the National Park Service is 1.8 million National Park Service 74.62.162.165 ( talk) 16:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
There were far, far more than four thousand ticket holders excluded. The four thousand estimate came from someone who originally said there were no ticket holders who did not gain entry. Take a look at some of the videos on youtube, or the pictures on flicker, and then multiply it by the three gates effected. I was at the Blue Gate with at least ten thousand other people, from nine to noon. -- 71.168.124.11 ( talk) 15:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I noted the section. You might want to add several things (I would not add it because I am not sure how the article is organised, and prefer to leave it to someone who knows better): [2] [3]
This event involves Obama's sister Maya Soetoro-Ng making a direct call to Jakarta on the eve of inauguration, the message from President of Indonesia and the ambassador of United States to Indonesia. This is in Indonesian, so you might want to translate it via google, then search for English source. w_tanoto ( talk) 14:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I suggest include the full text of the Inauguration Address in Wikisource. -- Nopetro ( talk) 14:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Why, when President Bush was introduced by the MC as 'George Walker Bush' did he then introduce President Obama as 'Barack H. Obama', Why one earth didn't he say Hussein instead of 'H.'? It's the man's name, after all, and it is very odd not to have consistency of style. Who would have made the decision? 86.133.244.80 ( talk) 16:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
No mention of the speech at all? Is there a concious reason for this, or am I missing something?-- Jojhutton ( talk) 17:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
This CBC article threw out the completely unsourced figure of "an estimated worldwide television audience of more than 2 billion people". Has anyone seen anything similar? Joshdboz ( talk) 17:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The "Inaugural luncheon" section states, "There was seating at the Statuary Hall luncheon for 232 people: 23 tables of 10 people, plus 12 seats at Obama's head table." The breakout of the tables indicates 242 seats to me. Or, perhaps the number of tables is wrong. However, the same math error appears in the cited reference for this statement. How to handle this? I'm tempted just to delete that statement, as I'm not sure the number of seats (not even the number of actual attendees) is noteworthy. Chuck ( talk) 19:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't the lede specifically state that Obama was the first African-American President to be inagurated? 68.46.43.198 ( talk) 22:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was Move to Inauguration of Barack Obama. Parsecboy ( talk) 00:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article be named simply United States Presidential Inauguration, 2009? It would seem more consistent with other politics/elections related articles, like United States presidential election, 2008. As an above poster stated, there are no other articles about inaugurations, but I think instead of removing this one, that those should be created. — Godheval T C W 17:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
... article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity...
Is there an article about any other inauguration? I can't find any. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 23:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I've added requested move templates and listed them at WP:RM for all the oher articles we have so far and directing the discussion to here so we can decide whether to keep them all in the current format or move to the proposed one. I've never actually made a move request before, let alone a batch one so I apologise now in advance if I've ran roughshod over policy without realising it. - Chrism would like to hear from you 16:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I think it's strange to have this discussion here rather than on individual articles. One thing I'm absolutely certain of is that it's perfectly fine to have separate articles for inauguration speeches, certainly for famous ones like Lincoln's, FDR's, or Kennedy's. In fact though it would be very easy to have an article on every inaugural speech ever made since all have been discussed in secondary sources. I don't really care how we title the articles on the overall inauguration, but I strongly object to simply rolling all articles on inaugural speeches into overall inauguration articles. -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
While WP:NAME does specify that decisions on what the name of each article should be relies on the specific circumstances on that article, there is no reason not to have a centralized discussion to decide on a common convention for a number of similar articles. Just because a centralized discussion is taking place does not mean that the same outcome will happen for all the affected articles, as one discussion can certainly take into account the exceptions taking place on each article. (I have closed Afd discussions where three articles were nominated for discussion, with three different outcomes, one for each article, because each article had different factors affecting it.) There is no reason why the precedent established here couldn't apply to the majority of other inauguration articles. In the minority of cases where individual factors come into play, I have nothing against taking those factors into account in deciding on a different naming format. But the main point is that there has been one presidential inauguration at least every four years since 1789, which means we're somewhere above 55, since there were several inaugurations that occurred mid-term. Which means we'd have to have essentially the same discussion over 50 times. There is no reason to have the same discussion over 50 times for what is essentially same decision on the same issues. There are probably only going to be a handful of cases where the convention decided here wouldn't apply, if any, since articles about the inaugural addresses (which seems to be the main concern above) would not be covered by a convention about what to name articles about the inaugurations themselves.
The tl;dr summary: a centralized discussion for multiple moves is ok, as long as it allows for exceptions for individual articles.-- Aervanath ( talk) 05:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
After stepping back, perusing WP:NAME, and thinking about this, the article should be named Inauguration of Barack Obama (my first choice) or Barack Obama's inauguration (my second choice). I think the name should be as descriptive as possible, while being as simple as possible and at the same time avoiding ambiguity. I think this suggestion accomplishes both. For muliple-term presidents, use First inauguration of Barack Obama and Second inauguration of Barack Obama or Barack Obama's first inauguration and Barack Obama's second inauguration. I think the year is quite unnecessary in the title, specifying "presidential" inauguration is unnecessary and only adding cruft to the title. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 18:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Exactly! Context means everything. In the context of Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, we have are taking about the 2009 United States Presidential Inauguration, an event that would have take place regardless of who was being inaugurated (see my super bowl or State of the Union example, above). What people may use in other contexts or in conversation (casual or otherwise) means nothing. -- Crunch ( talk) 19:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Change:
The inauguration of Barack Obama as the forty-fourth President of the United States took place on January 20, 2009. The inauguration, with a record attendance for any event held in Washington, D.C., marked the commencement of the four-year term of Barack Obama as President and Joseph Biden
To:
The inauguration of Barack Obama as the forty-fourth President of the United States took place on January 20, 2009. The inauguration, with a record attendance for any event held in Washington, D.C., marked the commencement of the four-year term of Barack Obama as President and Joseph Biden
or something similar. 199.125.109.126 ( talk) 17:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
This proposal seems to have pretty unanimous support (with the possible remaining issue being the inclusion of the year 2009 inauguration of Barack Obama or not). I know there were questions about moving all the other inauguration articles based on a discussion on this page, but if there isn't really any controversy, I don't see why the respective authors wouldn't move their pages. Shall this page be changed? Joshdboz ( talk) 12:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I have been searching the internet for a official recording by the government but I have not found one yet. When some one finds one uploaded quickly. Z gin der 2009-01-20T19:26Z ( UTC)
I have just uploaded a USNPS video detailing event preparations. Does anyone know if Federal video exists of the inauguration itself? — C M B J 00:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The wording is a bit clumsy. The BBC describes it more clearly: As Chief Justice Roberts read out the oath for Mr Obama to repeat, he moved the word "faithfully" to the end of the phrase. Mr Obama, apparently noticing the error, hesitated. Chief Justice Roberts repeated the phrase incorrectly, and Mr Obama followed suit. Without being a blatant copivio, this more clearly explains the sequence of events. It is also worth noting that this is rare but not unique. Calvin Coolidge and Chester Arthur were advised to repeat the oath for similar reasons. 203.7.140.3 ( talk) 03:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd also like to add that the section says that Roberts interrupted Obama. Did Obama not interrupt Roberts? (I.E. He started repeating the phrase before he should have?). Also possibly worth noting that Roberts addressed Obama as Senator when at the time he was legally already president even without being sworn in (it was past noon). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.174.211 ( talk) 05:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Why was the comment about how his presidency was valid although he did not recite the oath word for word deleted? The constitution states that the new person becomes president at noon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.63.234 ( talk) 03:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should purplegate be merged with this article? LinguistAtLarge • Msg 07:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Support. I believe that "Purplegate" should be merged into this article. Anyway, when I first saw the article, my first thought was that someone will come along and slap a speedy delete on it, absent merging the content with this article. The only thing that will come out of the ticket problem will be a lessons learned opportunity for the inaugural committee for the next inauguration, since Obama's inauguration has already passed and no more can be done to make people whole for the missed opportunity. → Lwalt ♦ talk 08:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Support. "Purplegate" is a small element of the events of the 2009 presidential inauguration, not warranting its own article. -- Crunch ( talk) 13:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Support, this article should have never been created and a good example of WP:UNDUE. It is largely media hype and needlessly implies a conspiracy. A single sentence in the inaugural article should be sufficient.-- Rtphokie ( talk) 14:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Support I support the merging of all well-cited information.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 15:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Merge and Delete Hardly significant enough to stand on its own; merits about one sentence and three good citations. -- Yellowdesk ( talk) 15:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Support-- Rockybiggs ( talk) 15:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Support - not nearly notable enough to have its own article; brief mention somewhere with a citation or two and its done. - Chrism would like to hear from you 15:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Support - not notable enough for its own article and only worthy of a mention in this article in relation to the large crowd size. Rillian ( talk) 16:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Support per Rtphokie and all fellow support votes above. - 66.25.69.231 ( talk) 17:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Support merging and giving it only the one or two sentences it needs. Mikemill ( talk) 18:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
What is purplegate? I followed a link to get here, only to find no mention of it anywhere in this article. If it's been merged, why is the word not even used once in the article?
The Martin Luther King, Jr. Day that President Obama used as a Day of Service was sort of part of the inauguration week activities. Does it belong in the article?-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 08:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Do people think that this image that shows the Obamas on the JumboTron should have been removed from the page? -- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 00:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Given the significant cultural impact that this inauguration has had in Kenya, and taking into consideration the digital divide, we should be extra vigilant in ensuring that the subject receives appropriate coverage in the article. — C M B J 00:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
The opening statement for the section on "International Attention" claims that the inaugaration "had as much international viewing as the opening ceremony of the 2008 Summer Olympics", yet the credited footnote does not give this statistic (and cannot do so as it was written on January 19th). Is there a cited source that can verify the statement? Darknote ( talk) 17:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone have a clearer shot of this performance? If so, I think the current picture should be replaced with a higher quality version that's not blurry. If there's not one available, my picture of the crowds watching the ceremony would seem more appropriate in the "Inauguration ceremony" section. For some reason, it was moved to the "Inaugural balls" section even though the picture doesn't have anything to do with those events. Just in case anyone is wondering, it doesn't matter to me if my image is used or not (I'm sure there's higher quality photos available), but the current placement seems odd. Cheers. APK is like a firecracker. He makes it hot. 18:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
"Obama decided to follow tradition and use his full name, including his middle name Hussein,[23] regardless of its past and present use by detractors, mainly because of the name's association with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.[11]". It is interesting that Wikipedia claims that Obama used his middle name because of its association with Saddam Hussien. I would have never know that if I hadn't read the article. Perhaps editors were tried to say something else and failed, but that is how it reads.Someone might want to check it out as I haven't checkerd the source to see if that is indeed what it says. Die4Dixie ( talk) 20:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
How about, "Even though detractors used his middle name, Hussein, pejoratively because of its association with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, Obama chose to follow tradition and use it (for the purposes of taking the oath)." something like that? LedRush ( talk) 21:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Obama , according to this source, did not use a Bible for being sworn in: [ [7]]. Any ideas for wording to incorporate this into that section? Die4Dixie ( talk) 22:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I see nothing notable about this in the least. It is completely false that having a reliable source "meets the standard that Wikipedia lays out for sourcing and notability". Reliable sourcing and notablity are separate issues. Fulfilling the criteria for one does not automatically mean the other is fulfilled. Just because a reliable source mentions something does not mean that it is notable. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper or magazine. To make an issue out if it in the article could imply something that is not the case (e.g., things about Obama's religious beliefs). He used the Bible in the swearing in that was supposed to be the only one, so it does not belong in any mention of this technicality. If he had not used a Bible in the first swearing in, that might be notable. But not in the context of the second one. If the Chief Justice had not accidentally flubbed the words this would not be an issue, so it doesn't need to be made an issue because of something completely unintentional. A number of Presidents have not used Bibles, so to lump Obama into that category would be very misleading because he did use a Bible. Ward3001 ( talk) 23:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Obama didn't have to use a Bible in the first place. Pointing out that he didn't, only fits to serve some WP:POV. Grsz 11 22:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
There can be a thousand third-party sources that mention it, but that does not make it notable. Please read WP:N. On Wikipedia something can be well-sourced and not notable, or notable but poorly sourced. If I find a source that says there is life on Mars, that would be notable but very likely poorly sourced. If I find a half-dozen obscure but peer-reviewed statistical journals that provide sterling evidence that people who live west of the Mississippi River on average are 1/1000 inch taller than people who live east of the Mississippi, that would be well sourced but completely non-notable (except maybe for an article on bizarre facts). The argument that lots of sources say something in no way by itself implies notability. If the Associated Press says something, that can end up in thousands of newspaper, all of which are notable. But WP:V and WP:N are distinct policies. Both are important, but they are not interchangeable. " Keep in mind that an encyclopedia article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject, not a complete exposition of all possible details". Ward3001 ( talk) 23:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
In the article it mentions a few parade participants. One major exclusion from that section is The Best Damn Band In The Land, The Ohio State University Marching Band. This was the bands 3rd straight appearance in the presidential Inaugural parade. They were one of the most exciting bands/groups at the parade. For more information on The OSUMB you can visit their Wikipedia page. The Ohio State University Marching Band Idotter09 ( talk) 23:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Lincoln began his tour in Springfield, Illinois on February 11, 1861 before arriving in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on February 21, 1961. Someone please fix this ^^ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.145.102.24 ( talk) 08:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
OK DUDE I DID —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
FlaMeZeD (
talk •
contribs) 21:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
Still not corrected. See the "Train ride" section.
199.125.109.102 (
talk) 01:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I think that this article deserves a rating reassessment. Should be above start-class ASAP. Thanks. Aaron charles ( talk) 02:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
What is the wisdom of devoting so much space to talking about the analyses of the satellite image to determine crowd size? Yes, it would be useful if the satellite image provided good information. However the image was taken at 11:19 am while many people were still in holding areas, underground in walking tunnels or subways or outside the viewing area, or in buildings. It does not seem to be useful, especially since the crowd ranges given by each of the analysts is so great. At the very least we can shorten this section considerably. The point of the section should be "how many people attended the inauguration." If one person's count is not precise or has been superceded by a more precise count, why include it? -- Crunch ( talk) 12:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
There is no such policy that forbids the speech information. This is the article that it belongs in. As a historian, I am appalled by the president's apparant lack of knowledge on U.S. History. I have no idea why. Perhaps it comes from his many years going to school abroad, but he has a serious lapse in that department. There is no other article or section to place this information. It is best suited there. Regardless of party or support, the sentence was cited properly and has been placed in its proper section. Any removal means that those removing it are not interested in improving wikipedia, but are only here to protect Obama's image.-- Jojhutton ( talk) 18:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Jojhutton, I'm not sure which "speech gaffe" you are referring to (the flubbed oath or Obama stating that 44 people have taken the oath). The flubbed oath was completely by accident. As for his saying that 44 people took the oath, I think that is a common statement that has been spoken by knowledgeable people (including well-respected journalists). To be "appalled by the president's apparant lack of knowledge on U.S. History" based on one phrase that is quite common among people who know better is ... let's say ... a tiny bit of an overreaction. Do you have any other substantive, documented information that would point to the 44th President's (and that is correct because it refers to administrations, not the person) profound ignorance of U.S. History. Englighten us with a few well-sourced examples. Thank you. Ward3001 ( talk) 18:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I still want to see the other evidence that he is so ignorant of U.S. History. Without that, this episode is a "blip" in the grand total of errors that many people make. To me it's not important by itself, but only in the context of evidence that he lacks knowledge of history. But I realize whether to include it is a matter of consensus. If the consensus is to include it (which I am not conceding at this point), then it needs to be only a very, very brief mention. Thanks. Ward3001 ( talk) 20:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Here is the sentence as it was written:
Two seperate citations, one was from the Associated Press, the other a paper in Chicago.-- Jojhutton ( talk) 20:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I recommend editing the line about the Salute to Heroes Inaugural Ball. I would recommend replacing it with-
Then add reference [142] for online article at http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=87049
I make this recommendation because of the perceived odds between President Obama and members of the military. This is firstly due to the fact that President Obama has never served in uniform. Secondly, President Obama's political stance on homosexuals in the military is at odds with most of its members. (See http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2008/12/122908_military_poll_DADT/) According to the World Net Daily article (proposed reference 142) many veterans claimed that President Obama snubbed veterans and the military by skipping the ball. At the same time, some of the President's supporters claimed the story was a hoax to smear the President. They claimed the ball never occurred. As historic as this inauguration is claimed to be, it should be recognized that this was the first inauguration since 1953 not attended by the elected President. Moesbob ( talk) 02:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
If anyone can find a final total fundraising amount that would be helpful. Thank you. Aaron charles ( talk) 16:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Propose delete section. Is this section really necessary? Looking back from the future, will anyone care that the bars stayed open later? Aaron charles ( talk) 16:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Can we use this under fair use? If not is there a similar one produced by the Federal Government?-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 09:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
We need some parade images. This guy is among the best I have seen with freely licend photos. Does anyone have the whole reviewing stand?-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 09:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey Tony. As I discussed with you before, I'm going to review this one; this is my first ever GAN review, so let me know if I miss anything. So far, it seems to fit the Good article criteria, although I still have to read from "Retaking the oath" on. However, I have some suggestions that I can pass along now. For the most part, the article looks really good to me; I actually haven't found ANY grammatical problems yet at all. Most of my stuff below is citation stuff, which should be easy to fix, although I do start with some content related stuff... -- Hunter Kahn ( talk) 08:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Now, on to the easy stuff...
From the intro
From "Train ride: Commemorating Lincoln"
From "Concert at the Lincoln Memorial: We Are One"
From "Kids' inaugural: 'We Are the Future'"
From "Unofficial pre-inaugural events"
From "Inauguration events: Summary
From "Inaugural ceremony: 'A New Birth of Freedom'"
I'll finish up the rest of this ASAP.
-- Hunter Kahn ( talk) 08:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Here's the rest...
From Inaugural luncheon
From Inaugural parade
From Post-inaugural events: Inaugural balls
From Unofficial balls
From Attendance: Guests
From Crowd estimates
From Security
From Internet traffic
From International attention: Europe"'
From See also
-- Hunter Kahn ( talk) 03:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Passed. Very nice!
Why did this page get moved, while none of the other Inauguraions did?-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 03:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I tried replacing one of the photos, but the image sizes being used (73px & 130px) are confusing me. Anyway, if someone can swap the Obamas dancing photo with this one, I'd appreciate it. Gracias. APK has a crush on Brandon Stoughton 09:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
The article is a bit long at 110 kb. I would suggest doing an International reaction to the Inauguration of Barack Obama similar how there is one to his electoral victory. The reason is as the first black president it is a historical moment.
Another possibility is the balls as they are somewhat in the aftermath of the inagural and there is no policy-making and/or state speeches at them.-- Levineps ( talk) 20:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok guys - we're working at cross-purposes here. My reading of Template: Cite news is that we should use the "work" parameter for the name of a publication, like The New York Times, which automatically italicizes without adding the ital code, and that for instances where the name of the parent company is essentially the same as the publication - like The Times - we don't use the "publisher" field. The fact that there's a wiki article for the parent company is not relevant here - what matters is that the reader can identify the publication. It's the same logic as using the "location" field to identify a publication - we do not add location=New York for The New York Times because it's obvious; we do add it for Daily Nation because it is less likely that readers will know where it is published. The most important thing, especially if we're trying to get this elevated to a FA, is to be consistent within the refs, so let's discuss and agree on something and then try to follow it, along with guidelines set up for templates, etc. I see that Lwalt has reverted some of the changes I just made, so let's decide. Tvoz/ talk 21:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd rather link the newspaper/magazine/broadcaster/whatever, then the reader can find out a variety of things about them, not just who owns the company. Also, note that ownership frequently changes hands; The Boston Globe hasn't always been owned by The New York Times Company, the New York Post hasn't always been owned by Rupert Murdoch, CNN used to be owned by Ted Turner then wasn't, etc. I've cited the Arizona Republic a lot in writing about McCain; am I supposed to know exactly when in 2000 ownership changed hands of it? Did that change effect editorial content right away, later, or never? Should we also include when newspapers had large-scale layoffs and their fact-checking became sloppier? Should we indicate when CNN was independent, when it was under Turner at Time Warner, and when it was just Time Warner with Turner gone? I don't think adding the ownership, by itself, tells us much. I'd rather just link the news provider and let readers follow it down and draw their own conclusions. Wasted Time R ( talk) 22:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
The only time I use both publisher and work is for citations written by journalists working for the Associated Press. AP stories are often published in many newspapers, so it's not accurate to cite only the newspaper in which I found it. - Krakatoa Katie 20:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Because of the dual meaning of the word "address", I think it is better to title that section "Inaugural address" - I believe that clarifies that we're not talking about where it took place, but rather what was said. I see no harm in having one "inaugural" in the subheads, while appreciating, and agreeing with, why the rest were removed. Tvoz/ talk 18:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
What should we consider for the two new articles that replicate text from this article? They are not being updated with the same consistency. Perhaps they should either be deleted, or the text revised/abbreviated in this "Inauguration of Barack Obama" article and point to them for details:
(1) International reaction to the Inauguration of Barack Obama (2) We Are One: The Obama Inaugural Celebration at the Lincoln Memorial
Thanks. Aaron charles ( talk) 00:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
The admin deleted International reaction to the Inauguration of Barack Obama, but the consensus and admin close indicated redirection to this article was acceptable, so I redirected. Gotyear ( talk) 06:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I propose to merge the Oath of Office section from First 100 days of Barack Obama's presidency into Inauguration of Barack Obama. It makes sense for the main content to be maintained in one place. The First 100 days article will likely grow longer. Aaron charles ( talk) 16:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Joint Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies (JCCIC)- Congressional committee, comprised of members from both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, responsible for planning, coordinating and executing all official inaugural activities related to the swearing-in ceremonies and luncheon for the U.S. President and Vice President at the U.S. Capitol
Presidential Inaugural Committee (PIC) - A committee appointed by the President-elect that is responsible for planning, coordinating and executing all official inaugural events other than events held at the U.S. Capitol.
In other words, the JCCIC has responsibility for inaugural activities occurring at the U.S. Capitol building or on the Capitol grounds (i.e., its own domain), while PIC has responsibility for inaugural activities held anywhere except the U.S. Capitol (i.e., outside of the U.S. Capitol building and its grounds).
FYI - Another committee that's seldom mentioned - the Armed Forces Inaugural Committee, which is responsible for planning, coordinating and executing all activities related to the support and participation of the military in the inaugural ceremonies.
Source: History of the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies, United States Senate, http://inaugural.senate.gov/cmte/committeehistory.cfm
By the way, if the distinctions of the JCCIC and PIC are noted in the article, we need to keep this really brief to keep from veering off-topic too much. → Lwalt ♦ talk 02:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Your edit summary justifies delinking Barack Obama and his titles, but why does it improve the article or help the reader to remove the following links from Captions: Georgia 300, We Are One, Oath of Office, Chief Justice, John G. Roberts, White House, National Guard?-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 15:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
The international reaction section is becoming rather long, taking up what appears to be about a third of the article. The key points in this section could be summarized to reduce the weight on the article.
The title that I had in mind, "International reaction to Obama inauguration," redirects to this article. However, I believe that the international reaction section should become a new article with a link in this article to it, much in the same way as the one for unofficial balls was used for linking that article to this one. What do you think of this approach for handling the international reaction section? → Lwalt ♦ talk 11:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
P.S. Why is the Ricardo Alarcón material unsourced?-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 14:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I think there should be a section for television broadcasters, since we do have an online broadcast section. I'm guessing the major American commercial television networks and news channels will broadcast it. NorthernThunder ( talk) 04:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Can someone explain to me why we don't want a map showing where most things happened.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 05:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Do we take this back to WP:PR or do we have enough things to work on to improve the article?-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 14:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
This article is wonderfully written. That being said, don't you think it is insulting to the memories of other U.S. presidents, who don't have as much information on their inaguration articles. Some of these articles need to be extended and more informative, much like this one is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Austin Tsar444 ( talk • contribs) 22:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Could someone remove the name Naomi from that list? That was the name of his baby daughter who died in the car crash that killed his wife. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.154.249.10 ( talk) 02:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Can someone make a parade route map using the Washington Post detail? I usually use the TIGER service, but for this district the map has too much going on for me to use it.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 22:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
And don't forget to note that Pres. Obama got out of the car TWICE to walk the parade route instead of staying in the car the whole way. [Special:Contributions/4.249.3.223|4.249.3.223]] ( talk) 21:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, the Rick Warren thing could be called controversial (and possible moved to a section solely on Rick Warren, with better elaboration). As could the curfew stuff. But his middle name? I don't think controversial means catching people off guard. Maybe the fact he will use his full name should be mentioned, but I see no evidence that its controversial. Parler Vous (edits) 05:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Does the fact that official souvineirs are hideously expensive (the bronze inaugural medal is SIXTY bucks!!!!) count as a controversy? Ericl ( talk) 17:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
This is crystal ball type judgement on my part but one I feel fairly confident about. My reading of the tealeaves follows.
Unlike Biden's use of Jr., Obama -- whose father he barely knew and who is now dead -- never has used any designation of his being a "jr." (or else even a II(nd)) on any document I am aware of with the exception of his birth certificate. Thus it would be my educated guess that Obama will not use it along with the rest of his full name at his inauguration.
Is this unusual? Cf. List of United States Presidential names, where seven US pres.'s are listed as possessing the designation Jr.: from James Earl Carter, Jr., of course -- and also Gerald R. Ford, Jr. -- to earlier in the Republic's history with James Buchanan, Jr., and James Madison, Jr.
Which of these men ever used Jr. as part of their formal names? I myself don't know.....but I could note that this list could have even included Andrew Jackson, Jr., whose father died when he was an infant; and this designation for Jackson would have been included in this article's listing too, making the number of "Jr.'s" eight, save for the fact that the nephew that Jackson adopted as his son was named: Andrew Jackson, Jr. -- which, it could be argued, makes the omission of President Jackson as a "Jr." in the listing defensible.
In sum, many have been in fact "jr.s" but never or only sometimes used the designation, resulting in Jr. not having being part of their formal names in habitual usage. (BTW if Biden uses something other than the crystal-balled Joseph R. Biden, Jr. now in the infobox, we might well edit it to reflect this fact as well.) Just tips me hat but then 〜on thought bows deeply … 18:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Why merge? ABC101090 ( talk) 15:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Please see the discussion at Talk:Presidential_transition_of_Barack_Obama#Merger_proposal. -- Happyme22 ( talk) 20:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand....Why does Obama's inauguration have it's own Wikipedia page? I don't see a single one from past Presidents'. So why is he an exception? He's just going to be inaugurated, no need for a Wikipedia page. Gouryella ( talk) 12:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the fixbatching template doesn't work. It creates a large space between the text and the infobox. Is there any way to fix that? - plau ( talk) 00:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Do you think we should add a list of singers performing such as Josh Groban? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.162.208.27 ( talk) 03:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
The article notes the players of the piece that was put together by John William, but neglects to mention its source material by Copeland, his source material, or even the traditional names of the piece. And in true Wiki form, even the length of the piece would be nice if you wanna get real geeky. SeattleSeamus ( talk) 05:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |curly=
ignored (
help)The section on #Fundraising currently cites the --according to MMFA-- wrongly calculated $150 million and attributes the figure to shoddy journalism based on no hard sources of information. Just dropping this note and the preformatted source here for everyone's consideration, maybe I'll edit it myself later today. 78.34.168.97 ( talk) 16:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |curly=
ignored (
help){{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |curly=
ignored (
help)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.94.214.25 ( talk) 08:24, 20 January 2009
|authorlink=
parameters you included in the sources. It's normally supposed to go to a Wikipedia article, not to an external link. Hope you don't mind.
78.34.151.9 (
talk) 14:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)The claim that the Georgia 300 car was a part of Abraham Lincoln's train to Washington is not supported by the claimed source and is in conflict with the statement in the Wikipedia article on the Georgia 300 claiming that it was made in 1930. I hope someoone will correct this, as I am prevented from editing this article at present. MattTweedell ( talk) 01:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
The inauguration schedule is:
Can someone fix the article? 207.241.239.70 ( talk) 06:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
In Toronto, Ontario, Canada, the University of Toronto Schools had a huge celebration which included many other schools in their auditorium at the same time. There were many people in the auditorium and very meaningful speeches were made showing that not only did the US care a lot about the inauguration but so did Canada. They even stood up for the national anthem and were all greatly moved by Obama's speech. After the inauguration when classes resumed, everybody was yelling "Obama! Obama!" so much that even the people in the streets outside could hear it. Truly this was an important event that should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.227.110 ( talk) 07:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
We might as well call that a luau, given that it's half Hawaiian anyway. — Rickyrab | Talk 15:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
It occurred at 17:06 UTC, for anyone who wants to add it to the article. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 17:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
His speech just finished now at 12.26 (17.26) 78.145.211.57 ( talk) 17:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Vincent ( talk) 07:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Chief Justice Roberts mixed up the placement of the word "faithfully" in the oath of office,while Obama paused to give him a chance to correct himself. Although I'm sure this event will surely give rise to a new cottage industry of conspiracy theories (!), I imagine it should probably be mentioned even if (as I assume) there is no real doubt that Obama is in fact the 44th President. Comments? Richwales ( talk) 17:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Discussion has been merged with Talk:Oath_of_office_of_the_President_of_the_United_States#Misplacement_of_word_.22faithfully.22_in_Obama.27s_oath. 71.37.55.209 ( talk) 20:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC) "So help you, God?" Is correct and not a mistake by Roberts and should be removed from the article. "you" is always said by the person administering the oath since otherwise they too would have taken the oath! ( Maxkon ( talk) 08:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC))
Obama just took the oath again. See Drudgereport.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.83.164.138 ( talk) 01:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Please remove the false claim that Obama has said that using his middle name in the ceremony is part of an effort to "reboot America's image around the world, Obama says explicitly in the source quoted: "I'm not trying to make a statement one way or another. I'll do what everybody else does."-- 80.216.227.49 ( talk) 17:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
156.101.1.5 ( talk) 17:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Should there be any particular inaugurations listed here? In my opinion listing specific presidential inaugrations could be viewed as an attempt to compare President Obama to those particular Presidents, making the specific links somewhat biased. Perhaps either list the article for the inaugural process in general, or a list of all US Presidential Inaugurations. After all, there are only 43 others... 156.101.1.5 ( talk) 17:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Eisenhower's stands out as notable. Dwight David Eisenhower took the oath of office on Tuesday, January 20, 1953. It was the most elaborate inaugural pageant ever held. About 22,000 service men and women and 5,000 civilians were in the parade, which included 50 state and organization floats costing $100,000. There were also 65 musical units, 350 horses, 3 elephants, an Alaskan dog team, and the 280-millimeter atomic cannon.
In my opinion there should be a article for each inauguration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.255.5.228 ( talk) 12:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps we should mention the infrastructure improvements (such as the facilities brought in for the crowd of 2 million) in Washington D.C.? The NY Times has published articles about the strain on the communications network. And, we should definitely add the note about how the wireless carriers are asking people to text instead of sending data. Webmaster961 ( talk) 18:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I was a trifle disappointed to see someone completely delete my discussion of her gown, which I thought was perfectly placed after the discussion of Barack's tux, and replace it with a discussion of the dress she wore this afternoon - not the right spot! I did hear on the news that Maria Pinto was the designer she had chosen for her gown - how would I cite this to make sure it stays in the article? FlaviaR ( talk) 19:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
To what extent should the apparent illness of Senator Ted Kennedy be covered in this article? PinkWorld ( talk) 19:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Pink
It reeks of recentism. The only inauguration which has its own article is the 1829 one, and I really doubt this one will be special; the article is full of mediocrity and really isn't important. I don't see why it exists other than recentism. 207.55.124.60 ( talk) 20:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
It is known and quickly becoming very popular part that President Obama told Al Roker that "It's Warm" During the walk. Why was this removed? It may be a small peice, but it's something that people will be talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fireicefalcon ( talk • contribs) 22:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone know what song Aretha Franklin sung at the inauguration? My ears must be playing tricks on me because the tune sounded like the British national Anthem, God Save Our Queen ???? Bleaney ( talk) 22:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
CNN is reporting 19 balls that the Obamas are expected to attend. CFLeon ( talk) 01:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Because the ceremony ran longer than normal, Obama legally became President at 12:00PM EST, before being sworn in, per the Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution.[15]
Is Obama the first president in US history (as far as it's known) to have mixed up the words in his inaugural oath? I so, it should be mentioned in the article.-- jeanne ( talk) 05:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The article currently states under Preliminaries "Obama began by holding a town hall meeting in Philadelphia's 30th Street Station at 10 a.m. on January 17. At 11:30 a.m." Is it accurate to call the meeting held in Philadelphia a town hall meeting? It was not a meeting of people from a local region, nor was it public. It was an invite-only meeting of 250 campaign volunteers (and possibly others) from all over. Centerone ( talk) 08:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Who is the man with the blue scarf in the lead photo? He is also shown using a small camera during the oath. His photo would be a valuable record here! - Peter Ellis - Talk 08:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
One report that I was just reading estimates the crowd at 800,000 from satellite images. Which is the correct figure? Professor estimates crowds with satellite image -- jmb ( talk) 11:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Has anyone actually looked at the reference for the 1.8 million in attendance? The cited article does not make that claim. Additionally, the 1.8 million is total ridership for the day, which includes going to and coming from the ceremony. Also it includes people who took it to work. So this is at least a two fold over estimate. Also, the Post had a great bit about the actual capacity of the crowd the day before. it could only come close to 2 million if people were packed (to the point of not being able to move) back to the lincoln memorial. And this was not the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.141.29 ( talk) 01:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I think we need to revert to the 1.8million figure the satellite photo was taken over an hour before the inauguration happened and the official estimate which is not being contested by the National Park Service is 1.8 million National Park Service 74.62.162.165 ( talk) 16:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
There were far, far more than four thousand ticket holders excluded. The four thousand estimate came from someone who originally said there were no ticket holders who did not gain entry. Take a look at some of the videos on youtube, or the pictures on flicker, and then multiply it by the three gates effected. I was at the Blue Gate with at least ten thousand other people, from nine to noon. -- 71.168.124.11 ( talk) 15:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I noted the section. You might want to add several things (I would not add it because I am not sure how the article is organised, and prefer to leave it to someone who knows better): [2] [3]
This event involves Obama's sister Maya Soetoro-Ng making a direct call to Jakarta on the eve of inauguration, the message from President of Indonesia and the ambassador of United States to Indonesia. This is in Indonesian, so you might want to translate it via google, then search for English source. w_tanoto ( talk) 14:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I suggest include the full text of the Inauguration Address in Wikisource. -- Nopetro ( talk) 14:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Why, when President Bush was introduced by the MC as 'George Walker Bush' did he then introduce President Obama as 'Barack H. Obama', Why one earth didn't he say Hussein instead of 'H.'? It's the man's name, after all, and it is very odd not to have consistency of style. Who would have made the decision? 86.133.244.80 ( talk) 16:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
No mention of the speech at all? Is there a concious reason for this, or am I missing something?-- Jojhutton ( talk) 17:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
This CBC article threw out the completely unsourced figure of "an estimated worldwide television audience of more than 2 billion people". Has anyone seen anything similar? Joshdboz ( talk) 17:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The "Inaugural luncheon" section states, "There was seating at the Statuary Hall luncheon for 232 people: 23 tables of 10 people, plus 12 seats at Obama's head table." The breakout of the tables indicates 242 seats to me. Or, perhaps the number of tables is wrong. However, the same math error appears in the cited reference for this statement. How to handle this? I'm tempted just to delete that statement, as I'm not sure the number of seats (not even the number of actual attendees) is noteworthy. Chuck ( talk) 19:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't the lede specifically state that Obama was the first African-American President to be inagurated? 68.46.43.198 ( talk) 22:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was Move to Inauguration of Barack Obama. Parsecboy ( talk) 00:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article be named simply United States Presidential Inauguration, 2009? It would seem more consistent with other politics/elections related articles, like United States presidential election, 2008. As an above poster stated, there are no other articles about inaugurations, but I think instead of removing this one, that those should be created. — Godheval T C W 17:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
... article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity...
Is there an article about any other inauguration? I can't find any. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 23:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I've added requested move templates and listed them at WP:RM for all the oher articles we have so far and directing the discussion to here so we can decide whether to keep them all in the current format or move to the proposed one. I've never actually made a move request before, let alone a batch one so I apologise now in advance if I've ran roughshod over policy without realising it. - Chrism would like to hear from you 16:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I think it's strange to have this discussion here rather than on individual articles. One thing I'm absolutely certain of is that it's perfectly fine to have separate articles for inauguration speeches, certainly for famous ones like Lincoln's, FDR's, or Kennedy's. In fact though it would be very easy to have an article on every inaugural speech ever made since all have been discussed in secondary sources. I don't really care how we title the articles on the overall inauguration, but I strongly object to simply rolling all articles on inaugural speeches into overall inauguration articles. -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
While WP:NAME does specify that decisions on what the name of each article should be relies on the specific circumstances on that article, there is no reason not to have a centralized discussion to decide on a common convention for a number of similar articles. Just because a centralized discussion is taking place does not mean that the same outcome will happen for all the affected articles, as one discussion can certainly take into account the exceptions taking place on each article. (I have closed Afd discussions where three articles were nominated for discussion, with three different outcomes, one for each article, because each article had different factors affecting it.) There is no reason why the precedent established here couldn't apply to the majority of other inauguration articles. In the minority of cases where individual factors come into play, I have nothing against taking those factors into account in deciding on a different naming format. But the main point is that there has been one presidential inauguration at least every four years since 1789, which means we're somewhere above 55, since there were several inaugurations that occurred mid-term. Which means we'd have to have essentially the same discussion over 50 times. There is no reason to have the same discussion over 50 times for what is essentially same decision on the same issues. There are probably only going to be a handful of cases where the convention decided here wouldn't apply, if any, since articles about the inaugural addresses (which seems to be the main concern above) would not be covered by a convention about what to name articles about the inaugurations themselves.
The tl;dr summary: a centralized discussion for multiple moves is ok, as long as it allows for exceptions for individual articles.-- Aervanath ( talk) 05:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
After stepping back, perusing WP:NAME, and thinking about this, the article should be named Inauguration of Barack Obama (my first choice) or Barack Obama's inauguration (my second choice). I think the name should be as descriptive as possible, while being as simple as possible and at the same time avoiding ambiguity. I think this suggestion accomplishes both. For muliple-term presidents, use First inauguration of Barack Obama and Second inauguration of Barack Obama or Barack Obama's first inauguration and Barack Obama's second inauguration. I think the year is quite unnecessary in the title, specifying "presidential" inauguration is unnecessary and only adding cruft to the title. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 18:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Exactly! Context means everything. In the context of Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, we have are taking about the 2009 United States Presidential Inauguration, an event that would have take place regardless of who was being inaugurated (see my super bowl or State of the Union example, above). What people may use in other contexts or in conversation (casual or otherwise) means nothing. -- Crunch ( talk) 19:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Change:
The inauguration of Barack Obama as the forty-fourth President of the United States took place on January 20, 2009. The inauguration, with a record attendance for any event held in Washington, D.C., marked the commencement of the four-year term of Barack Obama as President and Joseph Biden
To:
The inauguration of Barack Obama as the forty-fourth President of the United States took place on January 20, 2009. The inauguration, with a record attendance for any event held in Washington, D.C., marked the commencement of the four-year term of Barack Obama as President and Joseph Biden
or something similar. 199.125.109.126 ( talk) 17:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
This proposal seems to have pretty unanimous support (with the possible remaining issue being the inclusion of the year 2009 inauguration of Barack Obama or not). I know there were questions about moving all the other inauguration articles based on a discussion on this page, but if there isn't really any controversy, I don't see why the respective authors wouldn't move their pages. Shall this page be changed? Joshdboz ( talk) 12:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I have been searching the internet for a official recording by the government but I have not found one yet. When some one finds one uploaded quickly. Z gin der 2009-01-20T19:26Z ( UTC)
I have just uploaded a USNPS video detailing event preparations. Does anyone know if Federal video exists of the inauguration itself? — C M B J 00:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The wording is a bit clumsy. The BBC describes it more clearly: As Chief Justice Roberts read out the oath for Mr Obama to repeat, he moved the word "faithfully" to the end of the phrase. Mr Obama, apparently noticing the error, hesitated. Chief Justice Roberts repeated the phrase incorrectly, and Mr Obama followed suit. Without being a blatant copivio, this more clearly explains the sequence of events. It is also worth noting that this is rare but not unique. Calvin Coolidge and Chester Arthur were advised to repeat the oath for similar reasons. 203.7.140.3 ( talk) 03:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd also like to add that the section says that Roberts interrupted Obama. Did Obama not interrupt Roberts? (I.E. He started repeating the phrase before he should have?). Also possibly worth noting that Roberts addressed Obama as Senator when at the time he was legally already president even without being sworn in (it was past noon). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.174.211 ( talk) 05:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Why was the comment about how his presidency was valid although he did not recite the oath word for word deleted? The constitution states that the new person becomes president at noon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.63.234 ( talk) 03:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should purplegate be merged with this article? LinguistAtLarge • Msg 07:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Support. I believe that "Purplegate" should be merged into this article. Anyway, when I first saw the article, my first thought was that someone will come along and slap a speedy delete on it, absent merging the content with this article. The only thing that will come out of the ticket problem will be a lessons learned opportunity for the inaugural committee for the next inauguration, since Obama's inauguration has already passed and no more can be done to make people whole for the missed opportunity. → Lwalt ♦ talk 08:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Support. "Purplegate" is a small element of the events of the 2009 presidential inauguration, not warranting its own article. -- Crunch ( talk) 13:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Support, this article should have never been created and a good example of WP:UNDUE. It is largely media hype and needlessly implies a conspiracy. A single sentence in the inaugural article should be sufficient.-- Rtphokie ( talk) 14:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Support I support the merging of all well-cited information.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 15:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Merge and Delete Hardly significant enough to stand on its own; merits about one sentence and three good citations. -- Yellowdesk ( talk) 15:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Support-- Rockybiggs ( talk) 15:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Support - not nearly notable enough to have its own article; brief mention somewhere with a citation or two and its done. - Chrism would like to hear from you 15:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Support - not notable enough for its own article and only worthy of a mention in this article in relation to the large crowd size. Rillian ( talk) 16:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Support per Rtphokie and all fellow support votes above. - 66.25.69.231 ( talk) 17:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Support merging and giving it only the one or two sentences it needs. Mikemill ( talk) 18:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
What is purplegate? I followed a link to get here, only to find no mention of it anywhere in this article. If it's been merged, why is the word not even used once in the article?
The Martin Luther King, Jr. Day that President Obama used as a Day of Service was sort of part of the inauguration week activities. Does it belong in the article?-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 08:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Do people think that this image that shows the Obamas on the JumboTron should have been removed from the page? -- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 00:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Given the significant cultural impact that this inauguration has had in Kenya, and taking into consideration the digital divide, we should be extra vigilant in ensuring that the subject receives appropriate coverage in the article. — C M B J 00:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
The opening statement for the section on "International Attention" claims that the inaugaration "had as much international viewing as the opening ceremony of the 2008 Summer Olympics", yet the credited footnote does not give this statistic (and cannot do so as it was written on January 19th). Is there a cited source that can verify the statement? Darknote ( talk) 17:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone have a clearer shot of this performance? If so, I think the current picture should be replaced with a higher quality version that's not blurry. If there's not one available, my picture of the crowds watching the ceremony would seem more appropriate in the "Inauguration ceremony" section. For some reason, it was moved to the "Inaugural balls" section even though the picture doesn't have anything to do with those events. Just in case anyone is wondering, it doesn't matter to me if my image is used or not (I'm sure there's higher quality photos available), but the current placement seems odd. Cheers. APK is like a firecracker. He makes it hot. 18:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
"Obama decided to follow tradition and use his full name, including his middle name Hussein,[23] regardless of its past and present use by detractors, mainly because of the name's association with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.[11]". It is interesting that Wikipedia claims that Obama used his middle name because of its association with Saddam Hussien. I would have never know that if I hadn't read the article. Perhaps editors were tried to say something else and failed, but that is how it reads.Someone might want to check it out as I haven't checkerd the source to see if that is indeed what it says. Die4Dixie ( talk) 20:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
How about, "Even though detractors used his middle name, Hussein, pejoratively because of its association with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, Obama chose to follow tradition and use it (for the purposes of taking the oath)." something like that? LedRush ( talk) 21:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Obama , according to this source, did not use a Bible for being sworn in: [ [7]]. Any ideas for wording to incorporate this into that section? Die4Dixie ( talk) 22:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I see nothing notable about this in the least. It is completely false that having a reliable source "meets the standard that Wikipedia lays out for sourcing and notability". Reliable sourcing and notablity are separate issues. Fulfilling the criteria for one does not automatically mean the other is fulfilled. Just because a reliable source mentions something does not mean that it is notable. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper or magazine. To make an issue out if it in the article could imply something that is not the case (e.g., things about Obama's religious beliefs). He used the Bible in the swearing in that was supposed to be the only one, so it does not belong in any mention of this technicality. If he had not used a Bible in the first swearing in, that might be notable. But not in the context of the second one. If the Chief Justice had not accidentally flubbed the words this would not be an issue, so it doesn't need to be made an issue because of something completely unintentional. A number of Presidents have not used Bibles, so to lump Obama into that category would be very misleading because he did use a Bible. Ward3001 ( talk) 23:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Obama didn't have to use a Bible in the first place. Pointing out that he didn't, only fits to serve some WP:POV. Grsz 11 22:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
There can be a thousand third-party sources that mention it, but that does not make it notable. Please read WP:N. On Wikipedia something can be well-sourced and not notable, or notable but poorly sourced. If I find a source that says there is life on Mars, that would be notable but very likely poorly sourced. If I find a half-dozen obscure but peer-reviewed statistical journals that provide sterling evidence that people who live west of the Mississippi River on average are 1/1000 inch taller than people who live east of the Mississippi, that would be well sourced but completely non-notable (except maybe for an article on bizarre facts). The argument that lots of sources say something in no way by itself implies notability. If the Associated Press says something, that can end up in thousands of newspaper, all of which are notable. But WP:V and WP:N are distinct policies. Both are important, but they are not interchangeable. " Keep in mind that an encyclopedia article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject, not a complete exposition of all possible details". Ward3001 ( talk) 23:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
In the article it mentions a few parade participants. One major exclusion from that section is The Best Damn Band In The Land, The Ohio State University Marching Band. This was the bands 3rd straight appearance in the presidential Inaugural parade. They were one of the most exciting bands/groups at the parade. For more information on The OSUMB you can visit their Wikipedia page. The Ohio State University Marching Band Idotter09 ( talk) 23:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Lincoln began his tour in Springfield, Illinois on February 11, 1861 before arriving in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on February 21, 1961. Someone please fix this ^^ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.145.102.24 ( talk) 08:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
OK DUDE I DID —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
FlaMeZeD (
talk •
contribs) 21:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
Still not corrected. See the "Train ride" section.
199.125.109.102 (
talk) 01:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I think that this article deserves a rating reassessment. Should be above start-class ASAP. Thanks. Aaron charles ( talk) 02:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
What is the wisdom of devoting so much space to talking about the analyses of the satellite image to determine crowd size? Yes, it would be useful if the satellite image provided good information. However the image was taken at 11:19 am while many people were still in holding areas, underground in walking tunnels or subways or outside the viewing area, or in buildings. It does not seem to be useful, especially since the crowd ranges given by each of the analysts is so great. At the very least we can shorten this section considerably. The point of the section should be "how many people attended the inauguration." If one person's count is not precise or has been superceded by a more precise count, why include it? -- Crunch ( talk) 12:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
There is no such policy that forbids the speech information. This is the article that it belongs in. As a historian, I am appalled by the president's apparant lack of knowledge on U.S. History. I have no idea why. Perhaps it comes from his many years going to school abroad, but he has a serious lapse in that department. There is no other article or section to place this information. It is best suited there. Regardless of party or support, the sentence was cited properly and has been placed in its proper section. Any removal means that those removing it are not interested in improving wikipedia, but are only here to protect Obama's image.-- Jojhutton ( talk) 18:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Jojhutton, I'm not sure which "speech gaffe" you are referring to (the flubbed oath or Obama stating that 44 people have taken the oath). The flubbed oath was completely by accident. As for his saying that 44 people took the oath, I think that is a common statement that has been spoken by knowledgeable people (including well-respected journalists). To be "appalled by the president's apparant lack of knowledge on U.S. History" based on one phrase that is quite common among people who know better is ... let's say ... a tiny bit of an overreaction. Do you have any other substantive, documented information that would point to the 44th President's (and that is correct because it refers to administrations, not the person) profound ignorance of U.S. History. Englighten us with a few well-sourced examples. Thank you. Ward3001 ( talk) 18:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I still want to see the other evidence that he is so ignorant of U.S. History. Without that, this episode is a "blip" in the grand total of errors that many people make. To me it's not important by itself, but only in the context of evidence that he lacks knowledge of history. But I realize whether to include it is a matter of consensus. If the consensus is to include it (which I am not conceding at this point), then it needs to be only a very, very brief mention. Thanks. Ward3001 ( talk) 20:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Here is the sentence as it was written:
Two seperate citations, one was from the Associated Press, the other a paper in Chicago.-- Jojhutton ( talk) 20:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I recommend editing the line about the Salute to Heroes Inaugural Ball. I would recommend replacing it with-
Then add reference [142] for online article at http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=87049
I make this recommendation because of the perceived odds between President Obama and members of the military. This is firstly due to the fact that President Obama has never served in uniform. Secondly, President Obama's political stance on homosexuals in the military is at odds with most of its members. (See http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2008/12/122908_military_poll_DADT/) According to the World Net Daily article (proposed reference 142) many veterans claimed that President Obama snubbed veterans and the military by skipping the ball. At the same time, some of the President's supporters claimed the story was a hoax to smear the President. They claimed the ball never occurred. As historic as this inauguration is claimed to be, it should be recognized that this was the first inauguration since 1953 not attended by the elected President. Moesbob ( talk) 02:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
If anyone can find a final total fundraising amount that would be helpful. Thank you. Aaron charles ( talk) 16:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Propose delete section. Is this section really necessary? Looking back from the future, will anyone care that the bars stayed open later? Aaron charles ( talk) 16:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Can we use this under fair use? If not is there a similar one produced by the Federal Government?-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 09:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
We need some parade images. This guy is among the best I have seen with freely licend photos. Does anyone have the whole reviewing stand?-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 09:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey Tony. As I discussed with you before, I'm going to review this one; this is my first ever GAN review, so let me know if I miss anything. So far, it seems to fit the Good article criteria, although I still have to read from "Retaking the oath" on. However, I have some suggestions that I can pass along now. For the most part, the article looks really good to me; I actually haven't found ANY grammatical problems yet at all. Most of my stuff below is citation stuff, which should be easy to fix, although I do start with some content related stuff... -- Hunter Kahn ( talk) 08:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Now, on to the easy stuff...
From the intro
From "Train ride: Commemorating Lincoln"
From "Concert at the Lincoln Memorial: We Are One"
From "Kids' inaugural: 'We Are the Future'"
From "Unofficial pre-inaugural events"
From "Inauguration events: Summary
From "Inaugural ceremony: 'A New Birth of Freedom'"
I'll finish up the rest of this ASAP.
-- Hunter Kahn ( talk) 08:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Here's the rest...
From Inaugural luncheon
From Inaugural parade
From Post-inaugural events: Inaugural balls
From Unofficial balls
From Attendance: Guests
From Crowd estimates
From Security
From Internet traffic
From International attention: Europe"'
From See also
-- Hunter Kahn ( talk) 03:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Passed. Very nice!
Why did this page get moved, while none of the other Inauguraions did?-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 03:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I tried replacing one of the photos, but the image sizes being used (73px & 130px) are confusing me. Anyway, if someone can swap the Obamas dancing photo with this one, I'd appreciate it. Gracias. APK has a crush on Brandon Stoughton 09:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
The article is a bit long at 110 kb. I would suggest doing an International reaction to the Inauguration of Barack Obama similar how there is one to his electoral victory. The reason is as the first black president it is a historical moment.
Another possibility is the balls as they are somewhat in the aftermath of the inagural and there is no policy-making and/or state speeches at them.-- Levineps ( talk) 20:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok guys - we're working at cross-purposes here. My reading of Template: Cite news is that we should use the "work" parameter for the name of a publication, like The New York Times, which automatically italicizes without adding the ital code, and that for instances where the name of the parent company is essentially the same as the publication - like The Times - we don't use the "publisher" field. The fact that there's a wiki article for the parent company is not relevant here - what matters is that the reader can identify the publication. It's the same logic as using the "location" field to identify a publication - we do not add location=New York for The New York Times because it's obvious; we do add it for Daily Nation because it is less likely that readers will know where it is published. The most important thing, especially if we're trying to get this elevated to a FA, is to be consistent within the refs, so let's discuss and agree on something and then try to follow it, along with guidelines set up for templates, etc. I see that Lwalt has reverted some of the changes I just made, so let's decide. Tvoz/ talk 21:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd rather link the newspaper/magazine/broadcaster/whatever, then the reader can find out a variety of things about them, not just who owns the company. Also, note that ownership frequently changes hands; The Boston Globe hasn't always been owned by The New York Times Company, the New York Post hasn't always been owned by Rupert Murdoch, CNN used to be owned by Ted Turner then wasn't, etc. I've cited the Arizona Republic a lot in writing about McCain; am I supposed to know exactly when in 2000 ownership changed hands of it? Did that change effect editorial content right away, later, or never? Should we also include when newspapers had large-scale layoffs and their fact-checking became sloppier? Should we indicate when CNN was independent, when it was under Turner at Time Warner, and when it was just Time Warner with Turner gone? I don't think adding the ownership, by itself, tells us much. I'd rather just link the news provider and let readers follow it down and draw their own conclusions. Wasted Time R ( talk) 22:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
The only time I use both publisher and work is for citations written by journalists working for the Associated Press. AP stories are often published in many newspapers, so it's not accurate to cite only the newspaper in which I found it. - Krakatoa Katie 20:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Because of the dual meaning of the word "address", I think it is better to title that section "Inaugural address" - I believe that clarifies that we're not talking about where it took place, but rather what was said. I see no harm in having one "inaugural" in the subheads, while appreciating, and agreeing with, why the rest were removed. Tvoz/ talk 18:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
What should we consider for the two new articles that replicate text from this article? They are not being updated with the same consistency. Perhaps they should either be deleted, or the text revised/abbreviated in this "Inauguration of Barack Obama" article and point to them for details:
(1) International reaction to the Inauguration of Barack Obama (2) We Are One: The Obama Inaugural Celebration at the Lincoln Memorial
Thanks. Aaron charles ( talk) 00:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
The admin deleted International reaction to the Inauguration of Barack Obama, but the consensus and admin close indicated redirection to this article was acceptable, so I redirected. Gotyear ( talk) 06:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I propose to merge the Oath of Office section from First 100 days of Barack Obama's presidency into Inauguration of Barack Obama. It makes sense for the main content to be maintained in one place. The First 100 days article will likely grow longer. Aaron charles ( talk) 16:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Joint Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies (JCCIC)- Congressional committee, comprised of members from both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, responsible for planning, coordinating and executing all official inaugural activities related to the swearing-in ceremonies and luncheon for the U.S. President and Vice President at the U.S. Capitol
Presidential Inaugural Committee (PIC) - A committee appointed by the President-elect that is responsible for planning, coordinating and executing all official inaugural events other than events held at the U.S. Capitol.
In other words, the JCCIC has responsibility for inaugural activities occurring at the U.S. Capitol building or on the Capitol grounds (i.e., its own domain), while PIC has responsibility for inaugural activities held anywhere except the U.S. Capitol (i.e., outside of the U.S. Capitol building and its grounds).
FYI - Another committee that's seldom mentioned - the Armed Forces Inaugural Committee, which is responsible for planning, coordinating and executing all activities related to the support and participation of the military in the inaugural ceremonies.
Source: History of the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies, United States Senate, http://inaugural.senate.gov/cmte/committeehistory.cfm
By the way, if the distinctions of the JCCIC and PIC are noted in the article, we need to keep this really brief to keep from veering off-topic too much. → Lwalt ♦ talk 02:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Your edit summary justifies delinking Barack Obama and his titles, but why does it improve the article or help the reader to remove the following links from Captions: Georgia 300, We Are One, Oath of Office, Chief Justice, John G. Roberts, White House, National Guard?-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 15:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
The international reaction section is becoming rather long, taking up what appears to be about a third of the article. The key points in this section could be summarized to reduce the weight on the article.
The title that I had in mind, "International reaction to Obama inauguration," redirects to this article. However, I believe that the international reaction section should become a new article with a link in this article to it, much in the same way as the one for unofficial balls was used for linking that article to this one. What do you think of this approach for handling the international reaction section? → Lwalt ♦ talk 11:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
P.S. Why is the Ricardo Alarcón material unsourced?-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 14:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I think there should be a section for television broadcasters, since we do have an online broadcast section. I'm guessing the major American commercial television networks and news channels will broadcast it. NorthernThunder ( talk) 04:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Can someone explain to me why we don't want a map showing where most things happened.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 05:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Do we take this back to WP:PR or do we have enough things to work on to improve the article?-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 14:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
This article is wonderfully written. That being said, don't you think it is insulting to the memories of other U.S. presidents, who don't have as much information on their inaguration articles. Some of these articles need to be extended and more informative, much like this one is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Austin Tsar444 ( talk • contribs) 22:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)