Talk:First inauguration of Barack Obama
|↓||Skip to table of contents||↓|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the First inauguration of Barack Obama article.|
|This article has been placed on article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation for full information and to review the decision..
Administrators: when sanctioning an editor for disruption to an article under probation, please be sure to record the action in the appropriate log. The log is linked here, under "decision and log" on the sanction's row in the table.
|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.|
|This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 20, 2013.|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on January 20, 2011.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
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
Deleted info from article about condition of Mall grounds
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)
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...."
- Video: C-SPAN (2009-01-20), President Obama 2009 Inaugural Ceremony, http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/283479-1
- Transcript: ABC News (2009-01-20), The inaugural oath: Chief Justice slip up, http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2009/01/the-inuagural-o/
- Transcript: United Press International (2009-01-20), The oath of office taken by Pres. Obama, http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/01/20/The-oath-of-office-taken-by-Pres-Obama/UPI-40181232472806/
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)
- Why was the 'move' mechanizism removed from this article? GoodDay (talk) 03:50, 8 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)
- 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)
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. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 12:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
"No Bible was present during the retake of the inauguration."
- 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)
- Have you noted that Oath of office of the President of the United States has a special section devoted to "Oath of office of the President of the United States#Use of Bibles". Use of Bibles is considered encyclopedic for this topic.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
The Wikisource text of Mr Obama's First Inaugural Address spells the word as "forbearers." This follows the transcription released to the press before the address, and the transcription originally published by The New York Times (but not The Washington Post) but later corrected to "forebears." It has never been clear who was responsible for the variant spelling; Mr Obama has been reported to have written the speech on his Blackberry without spell correction. The etymology of the word "forebears" has the prefix "fore" to indicate "coming before" and the usual expression of Lincoln and other eloquent rhetoric is "forefathers" but Mr Obama apparently wished to avoid sexism and so chose another word. However, the usual meaning of "forbear" is to abstain not precede. According to Google corpus, "forbearer" has been used in place of "forebear" a few times, but greatly outnumbered in that meaning by "forebear." Since when you listen to the audio of the speech, Mr Obama does not enunciate the last syllable of "forbearers," should the historical text use the spelling "forebears" or "forbearers"? http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_First_Inaugural_Address — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 20:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)