Talk:January 20

Selected anniversaries for the "On this day" section of the Main Page

Please read the selected anniversaries guidelines before editing this box.

January 20: Martyrs' Day in Azerbaijan (1990); Army Day in Mali 1843 – Honório Hermeto Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná (pictured), became the de facto first prime minister of the Empire of Brazil. 1942 – The Holocaust: SS-Obergruppenführer Reinhard Heydrich and other senior Nazi officials met at the Wannsee Conference in the Berlin suburb of Wannsee to discuss implementation of the "Final Solution to the Jewish Question". 1969 – Bengali student activist Amanullah Asaduzzaman was shot and killed by East Pakistani police, one of the catalysts that led to the Bangladesh Liberation War. 1990 – The Soviet Red Army violently cracked down on Azeri pro-independence demonstrations in Baku, Azerbaijan SSR. 2007 – A three-man team, using only skis and kites, completed a 1,093-mile (1,759 km) trek to reach the southern pole of inaccessibility for the first time since 1958, and for the first time ever without mechanical assistance. More anniversaries: January 19 – January 20 – January 21 It is now March 9, 2012 (UTC) – Refresh this page

US Presidents

A US president was/is inaugurated (or reinaugurated) on Jan 20th every four years from 1937 on; do we really need to say it each time? It's not like a coronation, which generally happens more or less at the convenience of the honoree's predecessor. Maybe some of the big ones -- FDR's 3d and 4th, George W. Bush perhaps (given the controversy). But Ike? LBJ? --Charles A. L. 18:31, Dec 16, 2003 (UTC)

I agree. can we come up with a better solution? must we include all the instances of this regular event? Kingturtle 07:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes I can, the article should always mention the first and the latest inauguration on the 20th of January. So the 2001 Bush inauguration should remain at least untill the next inauguration on the 20th of January (wich will almost certain be in 2009). User:Allard Thursday 30 August 2007 16:29 CET

I think we should also remove JFK, if all other presidents beside the incumbent are to be removed. Reeeky2001 (talk) 16:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I was totally shocked yesterday to see that someone removed all of the Presidential inaugurations from January 20. Ever since 1937, January 20 has BEEN inauguration day. This is in the 20th amendment to the Constitution, and to dub this "unsupported" is disingenous. In response to the above comment, YES "we really need to say it each time". Unline a coronation, each inauguration is unique for its own reasons. Either it sets a precedent or something unusual, newsworthy and history making is uttered during the inaugural address. At a coronation the royalty sits there and says absolutely nothing. At an inauguration, the inauguree is always setting one precedent or the other by his utterances and/or his actions. I'm sorry but I find it appalling that inaugurations were actually deleted from this page. CHRISTMAS is a "regular event". THE FOURTH OF JULY is a "regular event". A CORNONATION is a "regular event". But a Presidential inauguration? No, each one is unique and each one is significant. I don't know what country you folks above are from but you are obviously not Americans. Nghtownclerk (talk) 22:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)nghtownclerkNghtownclerk (talk) 22:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

A couple of things: 1) typically a coronation will take place following the death of the predecessor, therefore hardly at his/her 'convenience'. 2) @Nightownclerk, many of us are indeed not American, but neither is Wikipedia. Your implication that kings and queens do not set the tone of time is rather defeated by the commonly accepted use of phrases like Elizabethan/Victorian/Georgian/Edwardian England. While I agree that these are historical shorthand to a large extent, they do indicate a general acceptance that the tone and values of a time change with the monarch and those associated with him/her. It is however, possible that your objection is based on a British/American English difference of usage of the word 'regular' The other contributors here have used it in the sense of an event happening at recurring and predictable intervals; I think you are interpreting it in the more American sense of 'normal'. Presidential inaugurations do take place on the same date every four years(as you point out) and are therefore demonstrably and intentionally 'regular': coronations take place following the death or abdication of the predecessor, cannot be predicted and are therefore not 'regular'. No-one was attacking or belittling the importance of each new president to the American people, your defensive position was therefore a little unjustified. 3)Both Clinton and George W Bush are listed as the 43rd President. As I don't have an account I would feel uncomfortable making the change: could someone else please do it?--85.72.36.254 (talk) 12:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

TV trivia

I removed "2006 - high school musical is shown in tv in USA." are you kidding me? Tony P 09:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't have even given it mention on the talk page. -- 97.113.116.173 (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama

Could someone explain how Barack Obama is the first 'African-American' president when he is just as Causasian as he is Black-therefore he is Biracial. Also, what does the term 'African -American' mean outside the United States? Obama's father was an African, not an African American. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.252.245.194 (talk) 14:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

His biographical article (at, not surprisingly, Barack Obama) declares him to be 'African-American'. If you'd like to try out your argument, click on Talk:Barack Obama and give it a shot. However, given that this particular argument has brought up there and shot down multiple times, I don't expect you to have much luck. Nonetheless, there and not here is where you want to make that argument. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 15:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

this is a funny discussion. Since I am 1/32nd native american, I guess I can say that I am a native american as well. Kudos to the guy who brought up the biracial bit. But alas, just because he states something he is not, does that mean we have to accommodate this? Or should we just put into the truth that he is in fact biracial? Or even the more archaic term Mulatto? Dasbrick (talk) 23:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

One of the many benefits to college education would be knowing that peoples can be ethnically identified both racially and culturally. No where is this more apt than with people of African descent in the United States. RoyBatty42 (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

More specifically, you'll want to go here first.

US Presidential Inagurations

There has been a fair amount of adding and removing of US presidential inaugurations to the Events section of this article. The section titled What is not notable or not considered an Event in the guidelines is explicit about this: Repetitive events – e.g. multiple sightings of comets, listing of Super Bowl winners, listing of every significant battle in a war, listings of every person to become president of a country, regardless of the impact of their presidency. Presidential inauguration, no matter how notable the president may be, should not be listed by default. Any notable events that happen during their tenure should be listed instead, and anything that can't be nailed down to a particular day is simply out of scope for these pages, regardless of notability.

I don't think this means that presidential inauguration can never represent notable events, just that they aren't notable in and of themselves, nor are they dependent on future events that may occur during the presidency. An inauguration may still represent a significant social first, and the Barak Obama inauguration may stand as an example of this. The breaking of the color barrier in Major League Baseball is explicitly listed as a significant social milestone, and it could be argued that the Obama inauguration is similar. There certainly are differences, and I'm not convinced that the inauguration is more significant than the election. Either way let's discuss it here instead of in back and forth edit summaries. Winston365 (talk) 05:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree and therefore Kennedy's should be included because he gave his "Ask not what your country can do for you..." speech, probably the most famous line in American political rhetoric. RoyBatty42 (talk) 19:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I noticed this after I removed these. Inaugurations are not of particular note as they are scheduled events that follow the regular election process. The election of Barack Obama was notable because it was a social milestone. His inauguration is just a formality and it isn't notable. I can think of no other inauguration that should be considered notable. This topic comes up every year at this time. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 23:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Listing the election instead of the inauguration makes sense, inaugurations are a bit of a formality. It was the election that had the real impact. As for the Kennedy inauguration, it doesn't strike me as belonging on this page precisely because it is nothing other than "American political rhetoric." It may be a good line, but that doesn't make the speech a notable event in the WP:DOY sense of the word. Winston365 (talk) 03:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps taking your own advice and reading that it would be more helpful to your understanding, especially the section dealing with what's not notable Wikipedia:DOY#What_is_not_notable_or_not_considered_an_Event. None of those criteria apply. So, honestly ponder this question: if you asked 10 people over the age of 18 to name a John F. Kennedy quote, how many would not name the line in his inauguration? Further more, on Thursday many news outlets noted the 50th anniversary of the speech. I think having the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and NPR note the speech's date pretty much renders this debate moot as to if it is noteworthy.

To call it "nothing other than 'American political rhetoric'" is to also reveal a pretty thin understanding of recent American history. That line challenged a very polically active generation to become involved socially on a scale that has not been equaled since. It signaled a pro-active approach to citizenship left dormant after WW II. RoyBatty42 (talk) 22:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

In the Kennedy case we're not really discussing the notability of an inauguration. We're talking about a speech. You can argue the notability of the speech but the fact that it took place at his inauguration is coincidental. His inauguration is not notable. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 22:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

It would seem then either way you will have to mention the inauguration in context to the speech. At this point, the debate seems pretty moot and I would be off getting the references to the anniversary from the previously mentioned sources but I have this feeling you're still going to try to delete it on some overly narrow grounds. Who wants to waste the time doing such? RoyBatty42 (talk) 04:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)