Talk:First inauguration of Barack Obama

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article First inauguration of Barack Obama is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 20, 2013.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject United States / District of Columbia / Government / Presidents (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (marked as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Presidents (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject Barack Obama (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Barack Obama, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Barack Obama on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Politics (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Assassination Attempt[edit]

Didn't someone try to shoot him at his inauguration? Someone told me that when Obama was walking on the street someone popped up with a gun but got tackled by security. Emperor001 (talk) 22:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

False alarm terror attack[edit]

Does this description of a false alarm deserve reporting? Reuters had something on it too, I believe, at the time of the inauguration. Bsimmons666 (talk) 02:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I added a sentence.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Deleted info from article about condition of Mall grounds[edit]

I removed the info from the article regarding the condition of the Mall grounds, since the paragraph where this info was inserted focuses mostly on crowd counts, with a lesser mention about the mishandling of crowd control related to the widely-reported "Purple Ticket" incident. With the number of people who were on the Mall grounds to witness the inauguration, it goes without saying that the vegetation on the grounds would have been damaged. To reinsert the removed content, it needs to made relevant to crowd control theme of the paragraph, rather than placing undue weight on something not more directly related to the inauguration itself. As an example of of the viewpoint expressed here, I gather that the removed content could equally apply to the yearly Independence Day event that takes place on the Mall, but the condition of the Mall grounds is not the focus (or germane) to that event, either. Lwalt ♦ talk 17:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Merger Proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Following this discussion, small amount of information was merged. Cnilep (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It was suggested in January, 2009 that the standalone article Purple Tunnel of Doom be merged into this one. I think that would be appropriate to the topic's importance, when seen in retrospect. betsythedevine (talk) 19:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Support - either merge the page to this one or delete it. The nickname appears to have only existed temporarily in discussions of the inauguration. Cnilep (talk) 19:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - merge as proposed. Freikorp (talk) 06:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment I would only support a merge of the Purple Tunnel of Doom article into this one only if the content is handled the same as the issue we had a while back about the condition of the Mall (see my comments above about Mall condition issue). The Purple Tunnel of Doom incident was merely incidential to the inaugural event. When this inauguration article was edited to get it to Featured Article status, we had to cut out a lot of excess informtation about the Purple Tunnel of Doom to what's in the article now. From what I can determine, the Purple Tunnel of Doom article is a fork of this article, since a lot what you see there used to be in this article. That expose added a lot of weight in the discussion of the inauguration with multiple paragraphs, and the mention of the incident was edited to what's now in the article. The expose of the Purple Tunnel incident would not be in context and germane with a discussion of a presidential inauguration, just like the damaged condition of the Mall.
So...if the proposal is to move all contents of Purple Tunnel of Doom article to this article, I will only support a Delete of the Purple Tunnel article, since that article is really a fork of this inauguration article. The current mention and revision about the Purple Tunnel incident in the BHO inauguration article should be sufficient since it's within the context of the inaugural event. Lwalt ♦ talk 13:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Presidential Oath[edit]

The section regarding the oath flub as revised by another editor could mislead a reader to think that someone was talking over someone and was rude to the person. Since I couldn't recall precisely what I had actually heard when I attended the inaugural ceremony at The Mall, I decided to find a recording of the event. I revisited this event by watching the C-SPAN video and listened to the recording for this exchange.

Here's what I found by listening to the C-SPAN recording:

  • 35:04 Roberts started citing the oath to Obama, saying "I, Barrack Hussein Obama...."
  • 35:05 Obama stumbled over his own name. He inserted the word "swear" after "Barrack," and then backtracked and stated "I, Barrack Hussein Obama do solemnly swear...."
  • 35:10 Roberts then cited "that I will execute the Office of President to the United States faithfully...."
  • Obama then said "and I'll execute...." (35:15) before pausing and waiting for Roberts to correct the phrase about executing the Office of President of the United States.
  • While Roberts tried to correct his mistake in citing the oath, Obama jumped right in (35:21), saying "the Office of President of the United States faithfully...." right after Roberts said "Office...."

Sources:

I listened to the video first, and then cross-referenced that by looking for transcripts from news organizations (interestingly, though, one transcript stated that Obama said "I will execute," but I heard "I'll execute" on the C-SPAN recording). From what I've found on the C-SPAN video, Obama did not talk over Roberts. So, to state in a general sense that Obama "spoke over him" (referring to Roberts) is not accurate, as this implied that Obama and Roberts were speaking at the same time. As revised, this seemed to be the opinion of the writer, which could looked upon as one point of view.

This section will be revised to reflect a summary of what occurred during this event because, as edited, readers could be mislead to believe that people were speaking over one another. Besides, I thought that this issue was resolved long ago when the editors came to a consensus for putting together this section, since the focus was supposed to be the oath flubbing by Roberts. Lwalt ♦ talk 22:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Move request[edit]

Per Obama's re-election, move page and associated talk page to First inauguration of Barack Obama. Tktru (talk) 09:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Why was the 'move' mechanizism removed from this article? GoodDay (talk) 03:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Support, although, it's not until January 20, 2013. GoodDay (talk) 20:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Strongly support, as the second-inauguration article will be actively edited well before January 20; the present title should become a disambig page between the two inauguration articles (like Inauguration of George W. Bush). I'm not 100% sure why the "move" mechanism is missing, but I suspect it's due to the general article probation on all Obama-related articles (see top of this talk page). --RBBrittain (talk) 23:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
I have added the move request to WP:RM/TR so admins can look into it. If that doesn't work, I'll try it another way. --RBBrittain (talk) 00:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Although this move has already been completed, it did not follow the guideline at WP:FIXDABLINKS --
A code of honor for creating disambiguation pages is to fix all resulting mis-directed links.
Before moving an article to a qualified name (in order to create a disambiguation page at the base name, to move an existing disambiguation page to that name, or to redirect that name to a disambiguation page), click on What links here to find all of the incoming links. Repair all of those incoming links to use the new article name.
It would be appreciated if users interested in this topic would go back and fix all the pages that contain links to "Inauguration of Barack Obama" so that they take the reader to the correct article. Thank you. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. TJRC (talk) 01:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Weather conditions[edit]

I could not find in the article what was the weather like that day. In my opinion, such comprehensive article should contain this sort of information, for one thing, because of the character of the event (i.e. open-air event, assembly of a large number of people). Thank you for adding this information. 94.113.5.35 (talk) 12:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

"No Bible was present during the retake of the inauguration."[edit]

  • Removed by myself, summary So what? No one would be interested in this if not for the fringe theories about Obama, and, since we ignore fringe theories here, the sentence doesn't serve any valid encyclopedic purpose
  • Reverted by TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs), summary rv content removal. As a tertiary resource, we summarize 2ndary sources

Okay, cool, let's do that consensus thingy. I think it's overly broad to simply say "we summarize secondary sources". We also decide which pieces of information presented in secondary sources. I'm not saying we should be white-washing history or anything. But clearly we don't report every single thing every secondary source says; instead, we consider various criteria as to the encyclopedic relevance of a point. I don't find the lack of a Bible encyclopedically relevant. We wouldn't be discussing it if it were George Bush or Bill Clinton, and while certainly fringe theories can be discussed on Wikipedia—in this case at Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories—material shouldn't be included in related articles if it only means anything to purveyors of fringe theories. The encyclopedic weight of the sentence "No Bible was present during the retake of the inauguration" is far lower than the ideological weight, which, in my opinion, makes it unsuitable for inclusion in an article. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 11:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)