Talk:First inauguration of Donald Trump
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the First inauguration of Donald Trump article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 28 days |
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Template:WikiProject Donald Trump
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Infobox
Removed Kagan from the infobox, as we don't know who Pence wishes to swear him in. GoodDay (talk) 03:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Discussion of inauguration-related protests
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)
- ok, but eventually this will be stand alone article. Brock-brac (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- http://www.france24.com/en/20161209-usa-trump-inauguration-protests-civil-rights-group-condemn-womens-march-washington
- http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/12/women-marching-on-d-c-cant-access-lincoln-memorial.html
- http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-inauguration-idUSKBN13W2HQ
- https://thinkprogress.org/trump-gets-to-decide-where-in-dc-groups-can-protest-his-inauguration-if-at-all-13d9546edde0#.2248i4uix
- http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/groups-call-blocking-inaugural-protests-unconstitutional-44029039
- http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-inauguration-protesters-were-being-muzzled/
- http://time.com/4595399/women-march-washington-barred-lincoln-memorial/?xid=tcoshare
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/none-of-the-inauguration-protests-have-their-proper-permits-yet-heres-why/2016/12/08/82ba757e-bbc6-11e6-91ee-1adddfe36cbe_story.html?utm_term=.f2e34f72a79c
- https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/17/trump-inauguration-protest-pennsylvania-avenue — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brock-brac (talk • contribs) 21:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Never in history we have ever seen protest at any President Inauguration Spucknic (talk) 17:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Useful link
This should be useful as that article is updated. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
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.
- http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/38491238/rebecca-ferguson-asked-to-perform-at-donald-trumps-inauguration-ceremony
- https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/02/rebecca-ferguson-says-she-will-play-trump-inauguration-if-she-can-sing-strange-fruit
--The Vintage Feminist (talk) 03:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
@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)
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)
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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Agreed with a wikilink to Protests against Donald Trump, perhaps. Justin15w (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
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?
- https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/02/rebecca-ferguson-says-she-will-play-trump-inauguration-if-she-can-sing-strange-fruit
- http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/38566522/rebecca-ferguson-wont-be-singing-at-donald-trumps-inauguration-next-week
--The Vintage Feminist (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2017
This edit request to Inauguration of Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
- Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Sam Sailor 05:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
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)
- As above, you'll need reliable sources to support that statement. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 02:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2017
This edit request to Inauguration of Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
please change "Earl Blumenauer of Orego" to "Earl Blumenauer of Oregon"
Oregon is misspelled Evilcheerio (talk) 20:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Done. Good catch. Bradv 20:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2017
This edit request to Inauguration of Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
- 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)
"Lawmakers boycotting" sourcing
All of the names listed here need an inline citation / source, yes? ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
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)
Flags on the Capitol
Anything about the five large flags on the Capitol ? Hektor (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
- 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)
- We could include it, if rewritten, and with other opinions. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
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)
- "Poor turnout" is POV. 77.249.47.76 (talk) 10:59, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- All unassessed articles
- Start-Class politics articles
- Low-importance politics articles
- Start-Class American politics articles
- Mid-importance American politics articles
- American politics task force articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- Start-Class United States articles
- Mid-importance United States articles
- Start-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
- Start-Class District of Columbia articles
- Mid-importance District of Columbia articles
- WikiProject District of Columbia articles
- Start-Class United States Presidents articles
- Mid-importance United States Presidents articles
- WikiProject United States Presidents articles
- Start-Class United States Government articles
- Low-importance United States Government articles
- WikiProject United States Government articles
- WikiProject United States articles