Jump to content

Talk:First inauguration of Donald Trump: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 316: Line 316:
In the third paragraph of the current version [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Inauguration_of_Donald_Trump&oldid=761451794#Crowd_size], the 2nd and 3rd sentences are a violation of [[WP:NOR]] and should be removed. --[[User:Bob K31416|Bob K31416]] ([[User talk:Bob K31416|talk]]) 02:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
In the third paragraph of the current version [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Inauguration_of_Donald_Trump&oldid=761451794#Crowd_size], the 2nd and 3rd sentences are a violation of [[WP:NOR]] and should be removed. --[[User:Bob K31416|Bob K31416]] ([[User talk:Bob K31416|talk]]) 02:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
:Agreed, I removed the original research. [[User:Calibrador|Calibrador]] ([[User talk:Calibrador|talk]]) 02:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
:Agreed, I removed the original research. [[User:Calibrador|Calibrador]] ([[User talk:Calibrador|talk]]) 02:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2017 ==

{{edit semi-protected|Inauguration of Donald Drumpf|answered=no}}
The article states that President Trump was sworn in by Chief Justice Roberts, with the oath for Vice-President Pence immediately following. This is incorrect- Pence's oath occurred first. The article should correct this error. [[Special:Contributions/67.170.202.248|67.170.202.248]] ([[User talk:67.170.202.248|talk]]) 04:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:22, 23 January 2017

Template:WPUS50

I would recommend as a non-partisan editor that we use the existing article Protests against Donald Trump to catalogue any inauguration-related protests, and provide a link in this article to the appropriate subsection of that article. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 20:34, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ok, but eventually this will be stand alone article. Brock-brac (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Never in history we have ever seen protest at any President Inauguration Spucknic (talk) 17:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This should be useful as that article is updated. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Artists declining requests to perform

Should there be a section for artists who declined requests to perform e.g. Elton John? Also artists who have agreed to perform but who have imposed conditions such as Rebecca Ferguson, who said that she would perform but only if she was allowed to sing Strange Fruit.

--The Vintage Feminist (talk) 03:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additions by Debauched Libertine on January 10th

Does anyone feel that these additions are unnecessary and evoke a negative response? Tell me now before I revert. This user's account was created recently with the sole intent of adding information like this to Trump's wiki pages. Justin15w (talk) 19:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tell us, Justin, do you read minds? How do you what my intentions are? I intend to edit many sorts of articles, once I finish removing the outrageous, fawning, sycophantic worship from Trump's pages. I haven't seen such slavish adoration for a national leader since I was a young boy in 1930's Germany. We are not here to engage in hero-worship. Tell us what exactly I wrote that was untrue and not backed by reliable, neutral sources. You should be thanking me for improving this embarrassment of an article, rather than posting vague innuendo about my "intentions." My info was well-sourced, reliable, informative, vital, neutral, artfully written and entirely relevant. What more can one ask? Debauched Libertine (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you have a chip on your shoulder. I am looking for consensus from other editors. Justin15w (talk) 19:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like you merely want to personally attack me rather than engage in a debate on the merits, which you know you'd lose. Debauched Libertine (talk) 19:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Debauched Libertine: I have reverted your changes to the lead again. Since several editors have reverted this change, you must get consensus before restoring it. You quote policy stating that "All significant controversies related to an article must be stated in the lead." I can't find wording to that effect anywhere within Wikipedia guidelines, so can you please link to which policy you are referring? WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that Debauched Libertine is adding these changes just to add pointless and opinionated changes to this page. His user talk page contains similar complaints. His changes have been reverted by 3 different users at this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.127.146.6 (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is posted on his talk page: "I think you made a mistake. Please do not mistake Wikipedia for a platform for your hateful, alt-right views. America is a place for men and women of all colours, nations, and creeds, friend. We will not tolerate your intolerance, here." Which leads me to believe he's not here to provide a neutral point of view. That being said, his information is well sourced; however, this page is about the Inauguration - it's not about the protests. And by placing that info into the lede, he is hijacking the intended content of the article. Lastly, perhaps a better page for this information is in Protests against Donald Trump. I'll bow out of this conversation at this point. Justin15w (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to Dan's inquiry about the operative rules:

The policy comes from WP: LEAD, of course. The principle I paraphrased above that "all significant controversies MUST be in the lead" is stated there. This is not an optional requirement. Learn the rules.Debauched Libertine (talk)

For the "Pointless and Opinionated" IP:

"Pointless" and "Opinionated"?? My changes, unlike yours, buddy, are backed by sources, newspapers, intelligence reports, certified vote counts, statements of inauguration security, and other cold, hard objective facts. What, pray tell, are your cheerleading edits backed by, other than press releases from the Trump campaign? It is sickening that a place where people like you destroy information because WP:IDONTLIKEIT are allowed to edit here, or that this is even considered an encyloedia anymore, when destruction of content based on "feelings" and show of hands is allowed..

Be very, very specific, my friends: what exactly did I state that was false, or that was not backed by reliable sources? Quite obviously, none of you have any answer. Everything I wrote is impecabally sourced, and obviously true. You people don't even allow it to be said that Trump lost the vote by 2.1 percent! Please show some intellectual integrity here.

I will be restoring my edits until you cna point out one thing which I wrote which is false, or not backed by a reliable source. Encyloedias are based on what can be documented. Unfortunately for you, I can document what I state; your flimsy canard that my edits are "opinions" is objectively false, and an absolute howler.


For Justin:

Justin, it is relevant because these protests are...wait for it... going on DURING THE INAUGURATION AND ARE PROTESTS OF THE INAUGURATION!! How someone could fail to comprehend how they are relevant to this article (including the reasons for protesting the inauguration) is beyond me. This is elementary. Debauched Libertine (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware of WP:3RR. As someone with a neutral point of view, I can see you aren't here seeking consensus from other editors. Good luck! Justin15w (talk) 19:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am primarily seeking to improve the article, which is almost entirely bereft of relevant content. Whether or not others agree with me isn't the goal; improving articles is. I cited facts, reliable sources, and policies; others cited their "feelings." Who shoudl win?Debauched Libertine (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus wins, and you have not got the consensus needed to keep the content. This is regardless of any reliable sources you may have, or how you believe the content improves the article. I suggest you get the consensus instead of simply re-adding the content without discussion. JudgeRM (talk to me) 20:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are, this is generally factual information. My concern is generally your placement of the information, the overall tone, and point of view. Do I think he's a bigot or a misogynist? Nope. That's all point of view. Do I think he provided "illicit aid in the election by the cyberwarfare and espionage of Russia?" Nope. Those reports were hooey. I also think that by placing that huge paragraph in the lede detracts from the actual content of the article. Either way, don't get upset. This is how we resolve disputes in Wikipedia. I'm not your enemy. Justin15w (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The edits just aren't relevant to the topic of Donald Trump's inauguration and the opinionated writing style just seems odd -66.127.146.6 (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a procedural note, I should mention that Debauched Libertine has been blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. Discussion on whether or not the content should be added can continue, however. JudgeRM (talk to me) 20:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given their obvious belligerence, that was the only way this would end. I suspect it will quickly become a longer block. Ravensfire (talk) 20:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That said, I think a brief mention in the lead about the planned protests may be relevant. Without the detail and the massive POV-laden prose from DL, but simple "Multiple protests and demonstrations are planned for the event." given the fairly extensive coverage. Ravensfire (talk) 20:17, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Another procedural note: Debauched Libertine has been confirmed a sock of Kingshowman. So there's that. JudgeRM (talk to me) 20:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I also agree that at least a mention of the protests may be relevant, but keyword "may". JudgeRM (talk to me) 20:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with a wikilink to Protests against Donald Trump, perhaps. Justin15w (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a "See also" hatnote at the top of the "Planned demonstrations" section, as that seems the most relevant place for describing reliably-sourced demonstrations and other such oppositions. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Artists declining requests to perform / attend (again)

I am posting this again as it got lost in the long thread above.

Should there be a section for artists who declined requests to perform / attend e.g. Elton John, Rebecca Ferguson, Charlotte Church, Gene Simmons and Garth Brooks?

--The Vintage Feminist (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A section like that can be problematic as editors may be tempted to add artists who have announced they wouldn't perform despite the fact that they weren't asked - such information may be appropriate at Protests against Donald Trump, but not here. As of this writing Adam Lambert, The Dixie Chicks, Garth Brooks, Idina Menzel, and John Legend are listed, but the sources make no claim that they were actually asked. Other sources seem weak with only the artist claiming they were asked or rumors that they were asked. They're obviously having difficulty securing performers as there are probably hundreds who have said they'd never do it – listing individuals doesn't seem so notable. I think a sourced statement that they've generally had trouble scheduling acts (perhaps with a strong example) would be OK. Hoof Hearted (talk) 16:54, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would certainly agree that this page would be best focusing on those who had been approached and declined. I'm not so sure about saying whether the event has had trouble scheduling acts, as I don't know how often shows like the inauguration get turned down due to things like diary clashes with fixed commitments, et cetera. I would simply describe that a number of artists had been approached by the event but declined (potentially with names and possibly short explanations from the acts, if any can be reliably sourced). — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2017

Move Jennifer Holliday from the list of confirmed reporters and add her to the list of refused performers. Ain515 (talk) 05:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Sam Sailor 05:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Holliday

My understanding is that Jennifer Holliday has removed herself from the list of performers involved in the Inauguration — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.87.71 (talk) 17:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As above, you'll need reliable sources to support that statement. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 02:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2017

please change "Earl Blumenauer of Orego" to "Earl Blumenauer of Oregon"

Oregon is misspelled Evilcheerio (talk) 20:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Good catch. Bradv 20:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2017

Add Jamie Raskin, from Maryland to list of lawmakers boycotting inauguration. https://twitter.com/RepRaskin/status/821477174104432640. Please add anybody else as well. The list is already outdated.Ain515 (talk) 23:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Finally have enough edits to just do it myself.

International Policy & Federal International dependencies.

There are some questions popping up concerning International Policy & Federal International Dependencies, including Federal Forest & Wild Life Preserves, in relation to his guest inauguration list. (Casino holders).

WHAT exactly are his instances of International Policy in relation to the FEDERAL republics external dependencies, none wanting a repeat of the Cuban Mafia Hideouts, nor debacles about free casino licenses and Vegas, Atlantic City, Miami, or New York Free money laundromats, including use of Federal Lands & Resources that do not belong to each individual nation state of the union.

This includes disbandment of the Union to preempt for each nation state of the Union obtaining exclusive internal use of these federal lands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.88.240.2 (talk) 14:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Expand rest of article

Rather than everyone piling on to the protests and demonstrations section, could we please focus on expanding the rest of the article, and bringing it up to snuff with past inaugural articles? Calibrador (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think people are adding to the protests and demonstrations section under the impression that the other sections will be added to after the event. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 13:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Lawmakers boycotting" sourcing

All of the names listed here need an inline citation / source, yes? ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Preferably yes, but the placement of the citation would depend on how many different sources there are. As it's all coming from one source, I'd say having one placed at the colon immediately before the list should be sufficient (to save from having a reference that has multiple lines just linking up to various lines on the list), so I've done that. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trump claims he wrote his own speech, while this article currently states that it was written by Steven Miller

Suggested edit to append ", despite claims by President-elect Donald Trump [1] and news reports of Trump officials stating that Donald Trump himself wrote his Inauguration Speech [2]." to the current line in this article: "Donald Trump's inaugural address was written by Stephen Miller, who was the speechwriter of most of his campaign speeches."

[1] = https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/821772494864580614 [2] = http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/17/politics/donald-trump-inaugural-address/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.62.153 (talk) 16:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you have UPI reporting in 2016 one thing, and then CNN reporting twice (2016 AND 2017 on inauguration dat) the exact opposite. Clearly UPI was speculative and dumb. Should be deleted, with prejudice. XavierItzm (talk) 00:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flags on the Capitol

Anything about the five large flags on the Capitol ? Hektor (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trump's military parades?

Should this article add that Donald Trump's team wanted to have Soviet style military parades after the inauguration, with tanks and missiles paraded down Penn. Ave? Maybe mention it? Again, I don't know if that was true or not. But maybe have someone mention that Trump wanted a parade in a style similar to other democratic and nondemocratic states like France, Russia, etc.

http://www.salon.com/2017/01/20/donald-trump-wanted-a-military-parade-down-pennsylvania-avenue-but-settled-for-a-20-plane-flyover/ http://nypost.com/2017/01/20/military-refused-trumps-bid-to-parade-missile-launchers-at-inauguration/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.103.229.255 (talk) 18:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

removed - note the Talk Pages guidelines, review WP:SOAP and WP:FORUM and Original Research. 104.169.17.29 (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

POV

The paragraph on the inaugural address is almost entirely a rewording of an opinion article and little on the actual contents of the address, hence I added the tag. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it. It is not appropriate for inclusion in this article, at least in the state that it was. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We could include it, if rewritten, and with other opinions. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Attendance?

Given all the news coverage about the poor turnout shouldn't there be some mention of this in the article? McArthur Parkette (talk) 05:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There absolutely should be more of a discussion about this, especially given how important the administration seems to think the matter is, and the wide availability of photographic evidence.73.177.101.66 (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Poor turnout" is POV. 77.249.47.76 (talk) 10:59, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that the turnout was about jhalf of the turnout for Obama's first inauguration is factual. McArthur Parkette (talk)
Obama's two inaugurations (especially the first one) set records for crowd attendance. Prior inaugurations did not even come close to Obama's attendance levels, so there's nothing really unusual about Trump's levels being lower than Obama's. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's also factual to note it given the widespread media (side by side shots of 2009 and 2017) concerning the turnout. McArthur Parkette (talk)
I just added this video:
White House Spokesman Spicer Holds News Conference

but it was removed (there was an issue with recentism?) I thought it would illustrate the White House response to the attendance issue. Victor Grigas (talk) 05:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It also seems to be newsworthy: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/21/us/politics/trump-white-house-briefing-inauguration-crowd-size.html Victor Grigas (talk) 06:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And QUESTION - is this National Park Service EarthCam Public Domain? http://www.vox.com/identities/2017/1/21/14336068/photos-womens-march-vs-trump-inauguration Victor Grigas (talk) 06:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your original comment, the removal was based on my comments at the bottom of this talk page. Calibrador (talk) 06:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]


  • An estimate for Trump attendance was 250,000–600,000.[1]
Here are estimates for previous inaugurations.[2]

Barack Obama, 2013: 1 million
Barack Obama, 2009: 1.8 million (generally considered a record for people on the National Mall)

George W. Bush, 2005: 400,000
George W. Bush, 2001: 300,000

Bill Clinton, 1997: 250,000
Bill Clinton, 1993: 800,000

George H.W. Bush, 1989: 300,000

Ronald Reagan, 1985: 140,000 tickets sold, but record cold moved the swearing-in ceremony indoors
Ronald Reagan, 1981: 10,000, according to the New York Times. This was the first year the ceremony was performed on the west side of the Capitol.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 22:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Uniquely American" needs attribution

In the lede, the commentary of what the theme "Uniquely American" highlights needs to be attributed and not presented as a fact in Wikipedia's voice. The "source" making the claim is the organizer and not a third party analyst . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.220.7.154 (talk) 14:25, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing POV about how it is presented. The theme of the inauguration was "Uniquely American," just as the theme for Obama's first inauguration was "A New Birth of Freedom." Whether or not the inauguration or the person being inaugurated lives up to either theme is besides the question. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That the official theme is the phrase "Uniquely American" is not POV- but that the theme somehow highlights X is POV. "Uniquely American" in this situation clearly highlights that "only in America could someone who is so uniquely unqualified to lead a country and who lost an election by 3 million votes become president" is an equally valid highlight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.220.7.154 (talk) 15:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you then referring to "a uniquely American expression of our Constitutional system"? This is not in Wikipedia's voice, but the inauguration committee's official explanation of the theme title. It is not POV to include this, and Wikipedia is not endorsing Trump by including this. Including the "equally valid highlight," however, would be POV and should not be included. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Undue emphasis

As of now, there is undue weight on the protests, rather than all the ceremony that preceded and followed the inauguration, as well as the inauguration itself. Please help to expand the article as it pertains to the inauguration and the surrounding ceremonies, as the First inauguration of Barack Obama article does effectively. Calibrador (talk) 02:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want more photos and information on the protests, then the rest of the article needs to be expanded, otherwise {{Undue weight}} will need to be added until it is fixed. Calibrador (talk) 03:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I was reverted, and then flouted by the user adding another media that provides further undue weight among the images in the article, I've added the Recentism section header in an attempt to put the article into historical perspective, rather than focusing on specific controversies surrounding recent events or ideas. Calibrador (talk) 04:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the Spicer video for similar reasons, as the main focus of the article needs to be in historical contexts, not the day to day controversies covered by breaking news media. Calibrador (talk) 06:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there may be undue weight on the protests, but you're putting the tags in in the Crowd Size section, which I think is perfectly legitimate.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

COPYVIOs and close paraphrasing

While doing some clean up work I've noticed that a lot of sentences and phrases have been more or less copy-pasted from sources. Really quickly, here's two examples:

Article: "...the Trumps walked the Obamas to their waiting helicopter and exchanged final words before the former first family boarded. The Trumps returned to the steps of the Capitol Building, where they stood and waved as the Obamas' helicopter took off"'

Source: "The president then walked the Obamas to their waiting helicopter and exchanged final words before the former first family boarded. The Trumps returned to the steps of the Capitol, where they stood and waved as the Obamas’ helicopter took off."

Article: "Trump, Pence, and their wives then joined congressional leaders and other dignitaries for one of Inauguration Day’s more intimate moments, the inaugural luncheon at National Statuary Hall"

Source: "President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence joined congressional leaders and other dignitaries for one of Inauguration Day’s more intimate moments... the traditional luncheon in Statuary Hall"

These appear to have been added recently by User:Calibrador and the flowery, non-encyclopedic language through out other parts of this article suggests there may very well be a good bit more of copy-paste COPYVIOS.

Not sure if I should revert this to an older version or spend time cleaning it up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Check the article history, you will find that I did not add any of these statements. Calibrador (talk) 08:51, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I tried to begin this conversation civilly, but you are being extremely uncivil in your statements in both edit summaries and talk pages. I'd suggest, as I did on your talk page to avoid telling someone to stop editing an article. Anyone can edit Wikipedia. Calibrador (talk) 08:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For now I struck the claim that you added these - let me go through it and fix it. You did however restore some of it [3]. And I would really appreciate it if you stopped reverting me while I'm trying to fix these COPYVIOs (regardless of who put them in). And no, I have not been incivil. Yes, anyone can edit Wikipedia, provided they do so in a way which follows Wikipedia policies.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More.

Article: "With the exception of Richard Nixon, every president since Franklin D. Roosevelt has attended spiritual services on Inauguration Day, many at St. John's."

Source: [4] "With the exception of Richard Nixon in 1973, every president since Franklin Roosevelt has attended spiritual services on Inauguration Day, many at St. John's. "

If I find a few more I'm temple ting this page with the nasty copyvio tag.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article: "Roy Blunt kicked off the inauguration ceremony with welcoming remarks about the nation's "commonplace and miraculous" tradition of a peaceful transition of power"

Source: [5] "Roy Blunt (...) kicked off the inauguration ceremony with remarks about the nation’s “commonplace and miraculous” tradition of a peaceful transition of power."

Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think that's the worst of it, but another read-through would be useful. The fact that the inline citations include several sources makes checking this bit of a pain in the ass.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant sections

The section "Schedule of events" is basically the same as the section "Timeline of Inauguration Day". These need to be combined into one.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I transposed material not present elsewhere, and removed the duplicate information. Calibrador (talk) 15:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 21st Church attendance

On Saturday January 21st, Trump and his family attended the Inaugural Prayer Service at the Washington National Cathedral. I don't know if this is part of the inauguration itself but if it is it should be mentioned in this article. If it is mentioned after consensus, I would like to point out that Marlana VanHoose performed during the service and it would be a good idea to mention her since her performance led to a standing ovation. Also linking the article Marlana VanHoose would allow for the removal of the orphan status currently in place. Ralphw (talk) 01:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ralphw: This should be mentioned. Unfortunately it seems to be a very lonely effort to add actual information about the inauguration and inaugural ceremonies, as everyone seems to prefer to pile on about recent controversy and back and forths about crowd estimates. Calibrador (talk) 01:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Starting with removal of average inauguration attendance....

About 8 cites were just deleted, with the simple claim that "Wikipedia is not Facebook". For starters, why was the average inauguration attendance based on Politifact hisotical figures "like Facebook? Scott P. (talk) 01:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recentism

Since some people refuse to either view WP:Recentism, or simply believe that the Attendance section is not the very definition of recentism, or aren't aware of it at all and just like piling on as many sources and statements as possible, here is the guideline for the benefit of everyone:

Recentism is a phenomenon on Wikipedia where an article has an inflated or imbalanced focus on recent events. It is writing without an aim toward a long-term, historical view, and can result in:

  • Articles overburdened with documenting controversy as it happens.
  • Articles created on flimsy, transient merits.
  • The muddling or diffusion of the timeless facets of a subject, previously recognized by Wikipedia consensus.
  • Impassioned discussions on talk pages that debate not just the notability of the recent event ("Is this topic of lasting importance?") but also where (if anywhere) it should receive coverage on Wikipedia.

I don't disagree that it should be mentioned, but as of now it takes up an extremely large portion of the article, and the Facebook-y photo of the crowd screams POV violation. Calibrador (talk) 01:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hope people will also realize that the crowd size section is actually longer than the ceremony section. Calibrador (talk) 01:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that in the face of overwhelming photographic evidence clearly showing smaller numbers in attendance, the press secretary still claims that more attended than ever before in history, and that the press is "vicious" to reprint such photographic evidence, seems to me to be hisorically relevent here. Don't these things seem to be of any historical value to you? This administration's difficulty in dealing with difficult facts seems important and historically notable to me, and I think perhaps to many others. Why does this aparent belief in the "irrelevance of facts," and a tendency to agressively attack anyone who dares to prove such facts, on the part of this administration, seem not to be "noteworthy" or of any historical value to you? Scott P. (talk) 01:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I left many of those things you mentioned in place. I stated that I don't disagree that it should be mentioned, but a lot needs to be removed, otherwise it's verging on NPOV violation. The very fact that I mentioned that the actual inaugural ceremony section is smaller than a section discussing controversy about the size of the crowd is extremely backwards. Until this morning, there was hardly any pre-inaugural ceremony information in the article whatsoever, I had to add that entire section this morning. I don't support the person being discussed in the article, and even I can see there's way too much focus on negative and controversy rather than the positive. Calibrador (talk) 01:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Calibrador:It is worth noting that the section on crowd size in the article for the First inauguration of Barack Obama, which is a featured article, is near the size of the one on this page, and the controversy related to Spicer on this page makes up for the extra length. Just because the subject of crowd size for this inauguration is more negative in nature than for Obama's first inauguration doesn't diminish its notability. We should work towards developing the rest of the article with hopes of it becoming featured eventually, though taking out well written, well-informed, and well-cited sections only puts us farther away from that goal. Thanks. WClarke (talk) 02:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Obama is a saint come to earth and Trump is the devil is what I've gathered from comparing the two articles. Calibrador (talk) 02:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on "Crowd size" section: preventing a potential edit war

Pinging User:Calibrador, User:Volunteer Marek, and User:Scottperry

Obviously some of us have disagreements about what content should be included (or not included) in the section on crowd size, though going back and forth with adding and deleting content is not a good way to go about editing. I originally expanded/created the section on crowd size yesterday following Sean Spicer's news conference, and the statements made about crowd size. Initially crowd size wouldn't have been an important part of the article, though following the news conference there was a significant amount of media attention about crowd size and controversy around Spicer's remarks. I believe I added content of lasting importance in an impartial way, and going forward do not want an ongoing battle over this section. Spicer's remarks are undoubtedly notable enough to add to the article, and 1-2 paragraphs about the subject, in addition to the 1-2 paragraphs about crowd size at the inauguration in general, is by no means overkill. The section for the most part is well written, and I agree that the rest of the article too should have more content added, though that doesn't diminish the notability of the crowd size controversy. Can we agree that this section should be stay, that other portions of the article be further developed, and end this conflict? Thanks. WClarke (talk) 01:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything in the section should stay. Some of it is redundant in stating the same thing a different way. It needs to be cut down, and the rest of the article needs to be expanded. Unfortunately, everyone seems to like to pile on about controversies as it is more exciting, and probably fits with their political beliefs as well. This morning I contributed a very large amount of well sourced information about the pre-inaugural ceremonies, so I have done my part to expand the rest of the article. I look forward to you and others expanding the rest of the article as well, but I won't hold my breath. And no I'm not attacking anyone, just trying to get my point across in a blunt way. Calibrador (talk) 01:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, how many people were at the entrance when the protesters were blocking it. Would those (And the protesters) be included in the crowd size?208.114.38.189 (talk) 02:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares? Calibrador (talk) 02:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the third paragraph of the current version [6], the 2nd and 3rd sentences are a violation of WP:NOR and should be removed. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I removed the original research. Calibrador (talk) 02:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2017

The article states that President Trump was sworn in by Chief Justice Roberts, with the oath for Vice-President Pence immediately following. This is incorrect- Pence's oath occurred first. The article should correct this error. 67.170.202.248 (talk) 04:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:First_inauguration_of_Donald_Trump&oldid=761472510"