Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:59, 20 January 2009

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}.

First inauguration of Barack Obama is currently a Politics and government good article nominee. Nominated by an unspecified nominator at 20:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC) An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page.

	This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Template:USGOV Template:USP-Article Template:WikiProject DC

Template:Community article probation

A fact from First inauguration of Barack Obama appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 23 December 2008 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know "... that the Barack Obama 2009 presidential inauguration is scheduled for four days of celebration, with Washington, D.C. bars authorized to stay open until 5:00 a.m.?" A record of the entry may be seen at Misplaced Pages:Recent additions/2008/December.

Parade route

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)

Controversies

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)

A contributor moved this info to its own section, "Use of 'Hussein'." Just tips me hat but then 〜on thought bows deeply … 16:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Yea it was me. Parler Vous (edits) 18:37, 24 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)

Use of Roman numeral 'II' in Obama's name in event infobox

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)

Merging

• N · O · T · E : .....Per Misplaced Pages:Forum shopping (and, I think, elsewhere), I'm tranferring the discussion below to Talk:Presidential_transition_of_Barack_Obama#Merger_proposal. ↜Just me, here, now … 20:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Why merge? ABC101090 (talk) 15:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

OPPOSE That does not make sense to me.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I oppose it also, that is why I am asking why it should be merged. ABC101090 (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Also oppose, it's a large scale event and deserves its own article. sean (talk) 20:25, 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)

Why does this have it's own Wiki Page?

I don't understand....Why does Obama's inauguration have it's own Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages page. Gouryella (talk) 12:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Go create those articles if you can find enough sources and judge the general notability criteria to be fulfilled. The question of whether or not this article belongs is imho defied by the 100.000 views the article has had in January so far. 78.34.168.97 (talk) 16:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Just because Obama is black does not mean he deserves his Inauguration deserves its own page.Gouryella (talk) 23:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

fixbatching Template

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)

I believe that Template:fixBunching is used, generally, in order to keep edit buttons from wandering off to where they don't belong on the page (ie their being all, well, bunched up!) Plau, in any case, regarding spacing it renders between infobox and nav template, this isn't particularly noticeable on my browser ie is identical to the distance between two written paragraphs. What does it look like on yours? ↜Just me, here, now … 13:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Performers?

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)

Television Broadcasters

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)

Make that major television networks around the world, both commercial and non profit. This is not just America's event, you know. 121.72.172.186 (talk) 07:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Would that qualify as notable? Should we not cover this under each broadcaster's page (or perhaps create an appropriate subpage) if it is indeed notable? Webmaster961 (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Costs

• Boehlert, Eric (January 17, 2009). "The media myth about the cost of Obama's inauguration". Media Matters for America. Retrieved January 18, 2009. {{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)

Just to back up what's already been said, I've linked two articles below: the first one shows that the $40 million dollar figure for the 2005 Inauguration does not include the costs of security and is located about about four paragraphs in, the second one shows that including the cost of security adds $115 million dollars to the tab of the 2005 Inauguration ceremony and is about two thirds of the way through the article. I think the article cited above does a fairly good job of pointing out that the 2008 price tag is in flux.

• Dwyer, Timothy (January 20, 2005). "Snow and Crowds Descend on Capital". Washington Post. Retrieved January 20, 2009. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |curly= ignored (help)
• Seelye, Katharine (January 5, 2009). "Obama's Inauguration Fund-Raising Tops $24 Million". New York Times. Retrieved January 20, 2009. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |curly= ignored (help)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.94.214.25 (talk) 08:24, 20 January 2009

I've removed the external |authorlink= parameters you included in the sources. It's normally supposed to go to a Misplaced Pages article, not to an external link. Hope you don't mind. 78.34.151.9 (talk) 14:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Error

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Done; thanks for pointing it out. PhGustaf (talk) 02:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

inauguration schedule

The inauguration schedule is:

1. Biden is sworn in at 11:46 AM and Obama at 11:56 AM.
2. Transition of office is at noon exactly (20th Amendment)
3. Inaugural address starts at 12:01 (see link above).

Can someone fix the article? 207.241.239.70 (talk) 06:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

iPhone streaming update

The article states that "select" iPhone users will be able to stream the inauguration. That was when the Ustream Viewer Application was still in beta testing. As of now, it is available on the app store for free. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.227.110 (talk) 07:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed it anyway, this was just advertising. JiMternet (talk) 14:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Obama Home States Ball

We might as well call that a luau, given that it's half Hawaiian anyway. — Rickyrab | Talk 15:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Inauguration of president

It occurred at 17:06 UTC, for anyone who wants to add it to the article. Stwalkerster 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)

Text of presidential oath

Obama and Chief Justice Roberts mixed up the placement of the word "faithfully" in the oath of office. 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)

My understanding of the Constitution is that, simply by being alive at noon DC time, Obama is the President. Now, he can't do anything with that power until he takes the oath specified in the Constitution, which I don't think he did precisely. However, there's nothing keeping President Obama from taking the correct oath anytime. It doesn't have to be the Chief Justice doing it, nor does it have to be televised. I imagine they'll round up a notary and do it correctly within the hour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.22.52.19 (talk) 17:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Lyndon B. Johnson was sworn in by a "normal" Federal judge on Air Force One; as for "requiring" TV coverage...well, when was TV invented again...? I'd imagine it just has to be witnessed, so if there's a problem it can and will be fixed very soon. Marks87 (talk)

He needs to use the exact wording (and being alive at noon isn't sufficient), but surely someone in the administration would notice this and take care of the problem as you note above. And if a federal judge can do it, Calvin Coolidge was sworn in by his father, some sort of minor local official. Nyttend (talk) 19:44, 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)

Middle name

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)

Agreed, this statement needs to be removed 156.101.1.5 (talk) 17:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

According to the CBS announcers (Katie Couric and colleagues), Richard Nixon only used his middle initial. So I'm not sure that it would have broken with tradition for Obama to do the same. Xargque (talk) 20:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Naming

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 17:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree.--Friedrich von Königsberg (talk) 17:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree156.101.1.5 (talk) 18:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree, it should probably be "presidential inauguration", rather than "Presidential Inauguration". Nyttend (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Related articles

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)

It seems like the related articles currently listed have just been randomly placed there without any relevance to the current article. Btornado (talk) 18:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Infrastructure improvements

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)

Finding a free high quality recording and/or video

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. Zginder 2009-01-20T19:26Z (UTC)

Video Here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/28738177#28738177

Transcript Here: http://www.bild.de/BILD/news/bild-english/world-news/2009/01/20/barack-obama-speech/first-black-president-historic-inaugural-address.html

I don't have access to edit the page, so if someone else can put it up... Hohlram

Michelle's Gown

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)

Senator Ted Kennedy's Illness

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

I think it should be mentionned, but Wikinews is in a much better position to cover events so current -M.Nelson (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Probably worthy a small message (for Byrd and Kennedy). Of course if it turns out more serious we'd have to revise. Joshdboz (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

How long before this article gets deleted?

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)

• Good article nominees
• Good article nominees on review
• All unassessed articles
• Misplaced Pages Did you know articles