Born2cycle (talk | contribs) →Discussion: found one |
Moonraker0022 (talk | contribs) m →Official Balls: ID and WY left off the list |
||
Line 222:
::: Obama's "Official Balls"? -- That sounds like something [[Amber Lee Ettinger|Obama Girl]] would be more interested in than Wikipedia. [[Special:Contributions/76.233.78.160|76.233.78.160]] ([[User talk:76.233.78.160|talk]]) 03:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
:::Also... only 49 states are listed as partaking in Balls... Idaho and Wyoming are not included in the "Western Ball" Should they be? They are, after all, western states.[[User:Moonraker0022|Moonraker0022]] ([[User talk:Moonraker0022|talk]]) 23:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
==When did Obama legally become president?==
|
Revision as of 23:08, 21 January 2009
This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}.
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |
Template:USGOV Template:WikiProject DC |
Template:Community article probation
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)
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)
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)
- Probably not. CFLeon (talk) 01:49, 21 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 Wikipedia: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 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)
- 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)
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)
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 Wikipedia 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 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)
- Done; thanks for pointing it out. PhGustaf (talk) 02:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
inauguration schedule
The inauguration schedule is:
- Biden is sworn in at 11:46 AM and Obama at 11:56 AM.[1]
- Transition of office is at noon exactly (20th Amendment)
- 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)
Celebrations at UTS
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)
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 [ 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)
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)
- Oops, I'm the 2nd commenter here, that wasn't logged in. Coolidge's father was himself a notary public, which I think is just a person authorized to give oaths, make affidavits official, etc. I'm not sure, however, if the President needs anyone to give him the oath, or if being recorded/witnessed saying the oath (correctly) is enough to make it good. This can, technically, get hairy because the first thing Obama did as President, after sending off GWB, was to sign the cabinet nomination papers. If he didn't take the oath correctly before that, the case could be made that it didn't count. It's all academic though; I seriously doubt any court would hold that he couldn't "enter on the execution of his office" because he transposed a couple words in the oath. It would take pretty big stones to do that, frankly (even if it's the technically correct ruling). Does anyone know of precedent where a President did not precisely say the oath the first time around?Vbdrummer0 (talk) 21:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
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))
- Claiming that Obama "interrupted" Roberts is a biased statement. There is no standard way of breaking up the Oath for repetition, in 2005 it was broken up as Obama expected (I, GWB -- repeat -- do solemnly swear -- repeat[1]), while others were recited in a single block as Roberts wanted to do it ("I, xxx, do solemnly swear" -- repeat [2]). Wiki shouldn't put blame on either party, just state the facts. This was actually a minor glitch as they correctly finished this part, it seems to me that this "interruption" is used as an excuse to explain what confused Roberts and mitigate his "faithfully" glitch.
- The oath is either administered in second person (You, BHO, do solemnly ... ) or in first person for literal recital. So help you God is certainly possible, BUT it seems inconsistent as Roberts started in first person, "I, BHO, ..." See historical footages: [3]Gligeti (talk) 18:55, 21 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)
Request for Move
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. —GodhevalT C W 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)
The move template has been added to this page, and the request has been made over at WP:RM. —GodhevalT C W 21:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Disagree - Our other inauguration article, Andrew Jackson 1829 presidential inauguration, does not use this naming convention. Scapler (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- I was going to propose that article be renamed and moved, pending the outcome of this suggestion. It would be prudent to bring all such articles in line with the same formatting. —GodhevalT C W 22:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- My vote would be for 2009 United States presidential inauguration. It makes the most sense. There is no need to include the president's name in the title, as it will be apparent in the article. (Use for example the 2008 Summer Olympics page as an example, which is NOT located at Beijing 2008 Summer Olympics.) Jared (t) 02:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, Nyttend said the same thing, and that's how I named the WP:RM request. —GodhevalT C W 14:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- My vote would be for 2009 United States presidential inauguration. It makes the most sense. There is no need to include the president's name in the title, as it will be apparent in the article. (Use for example the 2008 Summer Olympics page as an example, which is NOT located at Beijing 2008 Summer Olympics.) Jared (t) 02:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
So we have 5 votes in favor of the move and 1 vote against. Does anyone else wish to weigh in on this? If not, then I am going to call it a consensus and move it, followed by making a request that the Andrew Jackson inauguration be renamed as well for consistency. —GodhevalT C W 18:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Agree. It'd be nice to scrounge up information on other inaugurations as well too. Farkeld (talk) 19:54, 21 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)
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)
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)
- 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
- The transcript is already on Wikisource. We need a free recording (one by the government) not one that is by a news organization. [unsigned]
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)
- Please add that it was speculated that senator Byrd was distraught over Kennedys health on the luncheon at the time of the collapse. Earlier reports said that it was Byrd with the health problems but it was revealed in fact to be Teddy. Remember the first time when Ted Kennedy had these seizures some months ago? Senator Byrd was extremely distraught and sobbing on the senate floor then quite dramatically. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCwwCCQozPM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkpi80 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 21 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)
- It won't. This event is too notable. Reaching a delete consensus in an AFD would, at least in my opnion, be highly unlikely. Also, problems with tone are not a reason for deletion. If you see a problems with the tone, be bold and fix them. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- The fact that there aren't articles on the other inaugurations indicates that people need to do the research and create those articles, not that this one needs to be deleted. The peaceful transition of power is highly significant, particularly to Americans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbroderick271 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- This article abundantly satisfies Wikipedia's notability requirements. — C M B J 22:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Presidential Statement During the Parade
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)
Aretha Franklin's song
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)
- Actually, "God Save the Queen" and "My Country Tis of Thee" have the same tune, more or less. She sang "My Country Tis of Thee". -MADELEINE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.166.26.192 (talk) 22:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Public domain video
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)
- According to whitehouse.gov [2], "Later today, we’ll put up the video and the full text of President Obama’s Inaugural Address. There will also be slideshows of the Inaugural events, the Obamas’ move into the White House, and President Obama’s first days in office." So keep checking that site I guess. 163.1.146.3 (talk) 01:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Official Balls
CNN is reporting 19 balls that the Obamas are expected to attend. CFLeon (talk) 01:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, they've reported 10 official balls. - Ageekgal (talk) 02:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Obama's "Official Balls"? -- That sounds like something Obama Girl would be more interested in than Wikipedia. 76.233.78.160 (talk) 03:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Also... only 49 states are listed as partaking in Balls... Idaho and Wyoming are not included in the "Western Ball" Should they be? They are, after all, western states.Moonraker0022 (talk) 23:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
When did Obama legally become president?
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]
- Um, if you read the text of the Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution, it does not say that the President-elect legally becomes President at noon on January 20. It says that the term of the previous President officially ends at that time. Theoretically, therefore, this seems to mean that for just a few minutes after noon on January 20, no one was actually President. --Susurrus (talk) 03:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, you're wrong. The text of the 20th Amendment actually states: "The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January ... and the terms of their successors shall then begin." Therefore Bush left office at exactly noon and Obama took office at exactly noon. OptimumPx (talk) 04:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- The above poster is correct. This issue also relates to the conspiracy theorists who will try to claim that he is not the President because he did not recite the required oath of office ver batim. Per the 20th Amendment, as stated above, he officially became the President at exactly 12:00 noon EST. However, he technically could not perform any duties of that office until he was properly sworn in (which merely has to be witnessed, not televised, and was most likely completed correctly within the hour). 156.101.1.5 (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- I was going to repost today to say that I have since discovered my mistake, but yes, I see where it says "...and the terms of their successors shall then begin.". --Susurrus (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Obama first president to mix up oath?
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)
- Nope. And Obama didn't mix up the words, the CJ did as he read them to Obama. NJMauthor (talk) 15:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- That is correct. Chief Justice Roberts incorrectly recited the words to Obama, which made Obama misspeak, although Obama did interupt Roberts just before that. The mistake was Roberts and it could of just been nerves. It was Roberts first swearing in of a president. Its nothing to worry about. The 20th amendment doesn't even mention the oath, so the oath is only a traditional holdover, and not needed in the current interpretation of the constitution. At least thats how I see it--Jojhutton (talk) 17:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Actually it is a requirement. Article II Section I Clause 8 states "Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." He became the President at 12:00pm EST, but he cannot execute any of his duties as the chief executive until the oath is taken. Either way, he is still the President, and I am sure that the oath was taken again in the correct way within the hour just to avoid any issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.101.1.5 (talk) 20:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Obama didn't interrupt Roberts. Rorberts paused long enough to imply that Obama should repeat after him and as Obama started to repeat (i.e., his name), Roberts started to continue, forcing Obama to repeat the entire thing.--RossF18 (talk) 20:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- That is correct. Chief Justice Roberts incorrectly recited the words to Obama, which made Obama misspeak, although Obama did interupt Roberts just before that. The mistake was Roberts and it could of just been nerves. It was Roberts first swearing in of a president. Its nothing to worry about. The 20th amendment doesn't even mention the oath, so the oath is only a traditional holdover, and not needed in the current interpretation of the constitution. At least thats how I see it--Jojhutton (talk) 17:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Preliminaries
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)
Man with blue scarf in lead photo
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)
Number attending
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)
International Attention (Jakarta, Indonesia)
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): [3] [4]
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)
Wikisource
I suggest include the full text of the Inauguration Address in Wikisource. --Nopetro (talk) 14:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Hussein
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)
- I don't suppose anyone can speak for anyone else, so we may never know. Anyway, please keep discussions on topic to the article, not the subject of the article. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- The MC probably read the introduction as written on the telepromter or whatever. If Bush 41 was in attendance (or expected to be when the intro was written), it might have been done to distinquish the two. The two Bushes have sometimes been confused when people weren't careful to clarify which one was meant. CFLeon (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Why not a section on the inauguration speech??
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)
- Talk:Barack_Obama#Failure_to_take_the_correct_oath_of_office –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- What does that have to do with what I am proposing here????--Jojhutton (talk) 18:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
# of Viewers
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)
- NBC provided an (admittedly) unsourced number of 5 billion viewers, presumably including the number of people that will see it during the coming days. — C M B J 19:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- I have no doubt that many more people will see it in the coming days, but we should only include the actual numbers who saw it live. That number may be difficult to gauge.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
23*10+12=232?
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)
- Not noteworthy, I agree.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- I noticed this too. It is obviously false information so I'm deleting it. 209.242.154.132 (talk) 20:26, 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)
Move to United States presidential inauguration, 2009?
- Barack Obama 2009 presidential inauguration → United States presidential inauguration, 2009? – in keeping with WP politics/elections formatting, e.g. United States presidential election, 2008 —GodhevalT C W 21:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Discussion
Is there an article about any other inauguration? I can't find any. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- I found one: Andrew Jackson 1829 presidential inauguration. Any others? --Born2cycle (talk) 23:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)