Talk:United States presidential inauguration/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Article title

"…swearing-ins" or "…swearings-in"? —Mark Adler (markles) 02:22, 9 Jshitanuary 2006 (UTC)

The correct term would be inauguration. The oath taking, even hastily arranged after the death of a President, is an inaugural ceremony. NoSeptember talk 17:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Further, three presidents did not "swear" their oath, but rather "affirmed" it. So the article content is not currently in congruence with the article title. NoSeptember talk 17:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

April 2007 Merge discussion

Seems like the list in this article and the content of Inaugural Addresses of the Presidents of the United States should all end up in one spot. Creating this section tag for a common discussion area. — MrDolomite • Talk 15:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Herbert Hoover

Whether or not Hoover swore or affirmed is the subject of contradictory testimony. The source listed, however, gives a bible verse, so I have put that in the list. Mangoe (talk) 20:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Calvin Coolidge

I believe, Coolidge was administered the Presidential oath a 2nd time in August 1923; due to suggestion his father wasn't qualified. GoodDay (talk) 22:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Clinton

In researching this, I've not found a reason given for why Clinton gave his first address on Wednesday, January 21st, 1993. If Tuesday was the 20th, why was it not given then,this is the only seeming discrepancy for which I can't seem to find an explanation for. Anyone?--Hraefen 23:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

January 20, 1993 was a Wednesday, not a Tuesday (Jan. 21 was a Thursday). Clinton was sworn in on Wednesday, Jan. 20, 1993. If you read Wednesday, Jan. 21, 1993 anywhere, it was an obvious typo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.64.197 (talk) 04:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

There seems to be no reason that I can see why this and Inauguration Day should be separate articles, especially considering how much of the latter article is about the ceremony itself. Propaniac (talk) 14:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Merge 'em. Mangoe (talk) 14:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Couldn't agree more. Do we need to put this kind of thing to a vote? If so, mine is for merge baby merge. danis1911 (talk) 20:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Agree as well. ~ Wadester16 (talk) 21:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
The merge has been done. Mangoe (talk) 16:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

World War II

One line reads, "World War II forced two swearing-ins to be held at other locations in Washington, D.C." Both locations are the White House and the phrase is unsourced. I'm not quite clear of the difference between using the White House versus the Capitol during World War II. I would have thought that a more rational reasoning was FDR's health, since it was only his 1945 inauguration that was held at the White House. Any other thoughts? --Daysleeper47 (talk) 16:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that line is problematic. This source [1] from the White House Historical Association indicates that the White House hosted the inaugural in order to curtail expenses, and that it was later learned that FDR's health played into the decision as well. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

convocation speech

Could something be added about the convocation speech--how long has it been a tradition, who has given them, and so forth? 67.122.210.149 (talk) 01:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean invocations and benedictions and other prayers? I've added a bit.--Erp (talk) 05:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC):)

Scripture

The web pages:

list the following as sources:

1. Bowen, Clarence W. The History of the Centennial Celebration of the Inauguration of George Washington, N.Y. 1892, p. 72, Illustration.
2. Listed in the files of Legislative Reference Service, Library of Congress, source not given.
3. Wright, John. Historic Bibles in America, N.Y. 1905, p. 46.
4. List compiled by Clerk of the Supreme Court, 1939.
5. One source (The Chicago Daily Tribune, Sept. 23, 1881, p. 5) says that
Garfield and Arthur used the same passage, but does not indicate which one.
6. Hutchins, Stilson. The National Capitol, Washington, 1885, p. 276.
7. Harper's Magazine, August 1897.
8. Senate Document 116, 65th Congress, 1st Session, 1917.
9. New York Times, Apr. 13, 1945, p. 1, col. 7.
10. Facts on File, Jan. 16-22, 1949, p. 21.
11. New York Times, Jan. 21, 1953, p. 19.
12. New York Times, Jan. 22, 1957, p. 16.
13. New York Times, Jan. 21, 1961, p. 8, col. 1.
14. Mooney, Booth. The Lyndon Johnson Story, p. 1.
15. Office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court via phone July 1968.
16. Washington Post, Jan. 20, 1969, p. A1.
17. New York Times, Aug. 10, 1974, p. A1.
18. Washington Post, Jan. 21, 1977, p. A17.
19. White House Curator's Office.
20. Washington Post, Jan. 21, 1997, p. A14.
21. Inauguration staff. George W. Bush had hoped to use the Masonic Bible that had been used both by George Washington in 1789, and by the President's father, George H. W. Bush, in 1989. This historic Bible had been transported, under guard, from New York to Washington for the inauguration but, due to inclement weather, a family Bible was substituted instead.

Surely the inclusion of this information is only of peripheral value? Its not material to the inauguration itself or the things historically associated with it, such as judges, oaths, inauguration parades... Of course a bible has been used since the beginning. But to include the details is exactly the same as including a list of songs played at inaugurations, etc. The only reason why people bother to compile this data at all is because the compilers feel that the intersection of their own personal activities and the activities of society/government somehow justifies the expression of such personal interests. 118.90.121.65 (talk) 03:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree, the column can go. 118.90.104.151 (talk) 23:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there a crowd estimate for inaugurations?

I mean, I know this year's, but I can't find anywhere whether or to what extent it's exceptional? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.113.248.20 (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Inaugural Ball article

There seems scant information about the origin and purpose of inaugural balls. Should material like the the senate page appear in a separate article? Also an article (or maybe a list) on the specifics of artists that performed at each ball could be produced. Alex Sims (talk) 11:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Question concerning conditions of inauguration

What conditions must be met for the President-elect to be officially sworn-in? Let's be as thorough as possible-- when exactly does the transition occur? The article doesn't mention this directly, but maybe it's implied by the article and I'm just being obtuse. TennysonXII (talk) 06:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The law (the 20th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution) says at noon on January 20th during an election year. That is the precise time the elected president and vice president takes office. They may take the oath before or afterwards, but that doesn't change the exact time they assume the duties of their office, per federal law.
As for qualifications, see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States#Qualification.2C_disqualification_and_common_practice and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_President_of_the_United_States#Eligibility 64.209.16.204 (talk) 07:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
This is incorrect. The Constitution does not provide that they "take office" at noon. It provides that the "term" begins at noon. The president-elect must take the constitutional oath before entering into the execution of his office. If he doesn't do so, he hasn't "qualified" as president and the vice president–elect would then "act" as president, per the 20th Amendment, until the president-elect "qualifies." There's a well-established principle of constitutional law that provisions of the Constitution are to be read together and construed such that all of them are valid unless this is impossible. In this case, that can easily be done: The TERM begins at noon on January 20, but the president-elect may not assume the presidency until he takes the oath or affirmation. (That means that technically Biden was Acting President for about five minutes on Tuesday, or, if indeed the botched oath mattered, he was Acting President until Obama was re-sworn.) Further proof that the "term" and the "execution of his office" are two different matters comes from what we do when a president dies or resigns: The vice president serves out the remainder of that term and does not serve a full four years. The 22d Amendment further states that "no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once." There's clearly a distinction here between the four-year term and the actual execution of "the office of President." It's become popular in the media to argue otherwise, but we all know that media members tend not to be well-versed in constitutional law. As a practical matter none of this has ever made a difference, of course. 1995hoo (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Ahem, don't you mean following an election year? — Rickyrab | Talk 16:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Noon as determined by whose clocks? — Rickyrab | Talk 16:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for clearing that up. And I was actually referring to conditions surrounding the ceremony itself; I should have stated that previously. TennysonXII (talk) 01:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I guess some US gov't scientific institution has the official time. All the atomic clocks around the world are calibrated to be within fractions of a second of each other (since it has to be for physics experiments I guess) so I don't think mentioning "whose clocks" is that important. Just "noon" is enough, people can "fill in the blanks" :D 118.90.104.151 (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Reference section being wrongly used for footnotes

"References" 22-24 (currently) are being used as footnotes wrongly and unnecessarily.

  1. ^ Affirmed instead of swearing the oath.
  2. ^ Did not kiss Bible.
  3. ^ Opened at random.

In my opinion, these should be removed from the reference section and placed in the table they are referenced by directly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathcloud33 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Per the discussion directly above, the entire column was deleted as trivia. All the references cited here were related to that column, so this problem is resolved. --Lquilter (talk) 22:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Recentism

Whilst the text seems to be fairly thorough, the images and soundbites are exclusively from Bush or Obama - the article is about ALL the inaugurations, not just the recent ones (see WP:RECENTISM). Obviously these are more accessible, but photographs of Clinton, Bush Snr, and Reagon must be pretty easy to include as well? 84.9.58.71 (talk) 16:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I did a Google search, and found clearly public domain images of FDR (File:FDR Inauguration 1933.jpg), Harry Truman (File:Truman and Barkley during inaugural parade.jpg), and Bill Clinton (File:Clinton Inaugural Parade.jpg) during their inaugurations and added them to Commons. I also found one of Ronald Reagan during his inaugural parade, but wasn't 100% certain that it was public domain, so I skipped it. For the Reagan photo: the photo itself and the description page. Regarding the Reagan photo, I am pretty sure it's a work of the US Government and therefore acceptable, but I couldn't determine 100%. If someone more knowledgeable on such matters wants to be so bold as to upload it to Commons, knock yourself out. But there you go. Plus there is a slew of other photos at Commons:Category:United States presidential inaugurations. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Gerald Ford

President Ford's inauguration had everything but the parade. Nixon's impending resignation made planning for the event possible, and yes he did indeed make an inaugural address. It was covered on national TV and everything.Ericl (talk) 14:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, he said it wasn't an inaugural address, as I have cited. Mangoe (talk) 16:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It was quoted as such on the wall of his presidential libraryEricl (talk) 21:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Who are you going to believe: the library, or himself? Mangoe (talk) 22:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
The library would be a documented, verifiable source. So I'd go with the library. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Um, the quotation from Ford is from the library's website. I have to say I'm not seeing the point here. Mangoe (talk) 03:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Who Cares about him? hes dead —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.169.178.7 (talk) 15:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Link to ceremony

Now that we have at least stubs for all presidential inaugurations (see Template:US inaugurations), should we not now pipe the name of the presidents in the list to their inauguration articlea rather than bios? Joshdboz (talk) 07:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Good suggestion. I think a reader clicking in the list of inaugurations should be sent to the article about that specific ceremony. Rillian (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

scriptural verse

I'm not clear why there needs to be a "scriptural verse" column in the table of inaugurations. More than half the inaugurations have no information in this column, and frankly, I think it's not that important. The role or placement of scriptural verses is not even discussed in the article. It would be far more useful to have a notes column with, for example, links to historic inaugural addresses, poets laureate inaugural poems, etc. -- whatever was of significance for that particular inauguration. For those inaugurations where the scriptural verse was particularly important, by all means, that could be included; but right now a column dedicated solely to scriptural verses is wasted space. I propose eliminating it. I would support creation of an article on the role of religion in US Presidential inaugurations that could include this information. But here, it stands out as irrelevant, relative to the rest of the article. (--Lquilter (talk) 18:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the scripture column is out of place, but that is my own personal opinion. In today's address, President Obama made reference to Corinthians 13:11 (for completeness, if it is to remain), although it was only a partial quote (and I only recognized it because it was in the movie Hackers) Quinn (talk) 18:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Why this section? It's not as if every prez is required to quote from the Bible. Can we nix it? Douglemeister (talk) 22:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • 2 days, nobody suggests yet that we keep it. I'll give it a few more days for discussion, then cut it if no objections. --Lquilter (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Also, I just saw that I had missed the earlier discussion about this section -- Nov. 2008; two other commentators also thought it should go, with no objections. Given that, I'm going to go ahead and cut it. --Lquilter (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
substance from above copied for completeness:
Surely the inclusion of this information is only of peripheral value? Its not material to the inauguration itself or the things historically associated with it, such as judges, oaths, inauguration parades... Of course a bible has been used since the beginning. But to include the details is exactly the same as including a list of songs played at inaugurations, etc. The only reason why people bother to compile this data at all is because the compilers feel that the intersection of their own personal activities and the activities of society/government somehow justifies the expression of such personal interests. 118.90.121.65 (talk) 03:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree, the column can go. 118.90.104.151 (talk) 23:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I guess I'm the only dissenting voice here, but I saw this column in this article some time ago and just came back specifically looking for the information in it, and I was disappointed to see it had been removed. TSN (talk) 02:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I would like the concur with the latest comment, I was also disappointed to see it removed. Why shouldn't it be up there, very interesting I thought, and so will others. Maybe not a majority but information is always up for those who do want to read it. Put it back I suggest and make the article as complete as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.119.252.76 (talk • contribs)
  • I just saw that the scripture section was deleted. I think that the column is appropriate. I'm adding it back in for now. I know for a fact that people have done research on this subject. It is interesting that some of the Presidents made a statement by having the book open. We lose nothing by including it. There was a lot of talk about the fact that Obama used the "Lincoln Bible," others have used the Washington Bible, or family books. Perhaps including the book used in the column? That being said, perhaps we should move it to the last column. Philly jawn (talk) 16:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Placings of people

At some point, the Inaugurals changed from having the outgoing & incoming Presidents sitting together, the outgoing & incoming Vice Presidents sitting together to the outgoing President & Vice President sitting together, incoming President & Vice President sitting together. Also, has the President (and Vice President since 1933) always (since 1801) faced North, when being sworn in? Remember before 1981, the new Prez stood on the other side of the podium, as the ceremony was on the East-side of the US Capitol. MY point is - can we add any of this to the article (with proper citations)? GoodDay (talk) 02:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

If we can verify it, sure. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Obama's second swearing-in should be listed

I believe that President Obama's second swearing-in on January 21, 2009 should be listed. It was listed this morning and was later removed. Since the article is protected, I ask that the change be made by an administrator. Please note that all the past cases of a President taking the oath twice in the same for the same term are listed (with complete references of who administered the oath, etc., for both the private and public ceremonies), except for Obama's private swearing in (e.g Ronald Reagan's double swearing in on January 20th and January 21st, 1985). So, I believe that the list needs to include the January 21st, 2009 oath. --189.4.192.181 (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Change made. --Antonio Basto (talk) 01:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It should be in there, especially considering other presidents took the oath twice for the same term. Those presidents are shown in this table as well and should be. Jjmillerhistorian (talk) 01:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree - the second swearing-in should be listed, because its occurrence is directly related to the first swearing-in, where a mistake was made on the part of the chief justice. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually they both messed it up, but that's besides the point. I hope this doesn't turn into an argument over whether it should or shouldn't be in there. The title of the chart could be changed to avoid any confusion. Maybe it could be more specific about the second oaths of each president who had two for one term. Jjmillerhistorian (talk) 02:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think anyone's disagreed on it yet in this discussion, so I believe we can safely say that consensus is to leave it in. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I think we need a more detailed discussion about the purpose of this article. Is about the inauguration of the president (per the title) which could imply a focus on the inauguration ceremonies or is about any time a new president is sworn in (per the lead sentence before I edited it to match the title)? I certainly see merit in having an article about Inauguration Ceremonies - the history, the process, the traditions, the locations, etc. Content about swearing-ins (or is that swearings-in?) could be covered in the Oath Of Office article. Rillian (talk) 17:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
True it appears there is a similar chart for the oaths in Oath of office of the President of the United States. If the chart in this article is specifically for the inauguration, then it could be modified that way as there are oaths in the chart which were not part of an inauguration ceremony. Then possibly a link for all the oath of office below the chart. Jjmillerhistorian (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Done. This list is now just of inaugural ceremonies and includes a link to the full list of oath takings. Rillian (talk) 17:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Johnson post-JFK assassination inauguration

Why no reference? If there is a distinction between LBJ's swearing in on Air Force One in 1963 (or other Presidents like Truman or Ford who succeeded Presidents who prematurely left office), and what a presidential inauguration, perhaps there should be an explanatory note for ignoramuses like myself. Kransky (talk) 09:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The article describes inauguration ceremonies and directs readers to the Oath of Office article for a list of times a president has been sworn in (which includes Johnson and Truman's first swearing in and Ford's). What else would you like the article to do? Rillian (talk) 13:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

One Thing That's Missing...

I wish to raise one issue that is missing from all these articles about how a one becomes a new head of state. Presidential Inaugurations, enthronements, coronations, etc. My issue is that one becomes the new head of state or is in charge of an epistle see, with or without ceremony, as described by law. What would happen if someone declined the oath of office during the ceremony, that's totally another question, since no one ever has ever done that except, maybe, the late Duke of Windsor, who abdicated well before matters got that far.

For instance, the president elect becomes President at 12:00 Noon on January 20, even if the "swearing in" part of the Inauguration hasn't happenned, yet. Same for the Vice President if the President dies, he becomes the United States President by law, with or witout a ceremony. Admittedly, Vice Presidents tend to get a "quicky" swearing in by a local judge as soon as possible, but that's politically driven, because they need to ascert their legitimacy immediately. It has nothing to do with the law and whether they are President at that moment.

The United States tradition came about because of its roots in British Law. As an example, when Elizabeth's father died on February 6, 1952, she was in Kenya, a place far removed from London, her seat of power. But that didn't mean she wasn't legally Queen until her coronation. She bacame Queen immediately upon her father's death. After all, she was ceremoniously, and shockingly, told of her father's dead by the words, "the King is dead, long live the Queen." I cannot imagine a more horrible way to learn of one's father's death, but legally, that's what must be said.

The papacy works in much the same way. Once a papal conclave elects the new Pope, and he accepts, he is Pope. There is a private cermony afterwards, such as adorning him in white, papal vestments and a a public ceremony, maybe a week later, celebrated at a Mass. But legally, once elected and as soon as one accepts, that person is Pope. With or without ceremony.

Again, my issue is the overriding thought in these articles that the person is not President/Queen/Pope until the ceremonies are done when, in fact, they obtain the office as prescribed by law, irrespective of whether the ceremony happened, yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Squonk64 (talk • contribs) 03:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

What is an inauguration?

Wikepedia appears to have a conflict regarding the term inauguration. In this article there is a distinction between an inauguration and a taking of the oath of office, but in other article (such as First Inauguration of Calvin Coolidge) there is no distinction. What is the meaning? and let us then stay consistent. Rodchen (talk) 21:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

"The only inauguration element mandated by the United States Constitution is that the President make an oath or affirmation before that person can "enter on the Execution" of the office of the presidency. However, over the years, various traditions have arisen that have expanded the inauguration from a simple oath-taking ceremony to a day-long event, including parades, speeches, and balls."

Where is that not clear to you? It may need updated. 151.213.95.167 (talk) 09:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Rodchen, what I'm taking out of this is that you're thinking along the lines of drawing a distinction between the formal inauguration ceremony that occurs in Washington, vs. all of a sudden needing to swear-in the veep because of the death or resignation of the president, correct? I agree - a distinction should be drawn, since the Coolidge-like variety is more just a swearing-in, not a full inauguration, even though the end result is the same. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

However both are inaugurations even if one is a curtailed ceremony. The inauguration article may be the one to be expanded.--Erp (talk) 16:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I second this, the oath is all that is necessary for the inauguration, the rest is pomp and circumstance. That said, pomp and circumstance are very important in such events. 151.213.95.167 (talk) 23:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
And things have been added and then dropped or modified over the years. For instance the 'open house' at the White House (best known from Andrew Jackson's first inauguration when things got a bit out of hand). Or inaugural balls. --Erp (talk) 03:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

redundancy -- please clarify what it means

I have found this:

"When Inauguration Day has fallen on a Sunday, the chief justice has administered the oath to the president on either Inauguration Day itself,[clarification needed] or on the Sunday privately and then again following Monday publicly."

There is a redundancy issue with use of "on either Inauguration Day itself". Does that mean the chief justice administered the oath ONLY on Sunday? I don't wish to edit the above without clarification of meaning which I am requesting here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 16:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

How did Lincoln use three different verses?

According to the List of inaugural ceremonies, at Lincoln's second inaugrual the "Bible [was] open to Matthew 7:1, Matthew 18:7, Revelation 16:7". How can that be? I guess I can see how the two Matthew verses might have been used in the same ceremony, but how could they use Revelation, too? Did they stop the oath midway thorough so they could flip to the end of the New Testament before finishing? Or are these simply three passages that have been claimed as the one used? The reference should clarify this. - dcljr (talk) 23:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Dunno. Good instance where we need to get our hands on a copy of the book. Based on the age, it's public domain now, so hopefully an archival service has found it... SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Google has the book mentioned. It doesn't mention what verses Lincoln put his hand on in 1865. It just lists a description of the Bible itself. The book is [2]. I suspect that most of the references given by the Library of Congress are faulty. When checking up the ref for LBJ's 1963 oath, the ref provided didn't back up what they are saying. - Thanks, Hoshie 06:05, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Sunday inaugurations

In 1821, 1849, 1877, and 1917, March 4 fell on a Sunday. In 1957, 1985, and 2013, January 20 fell on a Sunday. The next inauguration on a Sunday will be in 2041. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

It seems to be every 28 years. The 40-year gap between 1877 and 1917 is due to 1900 not being a leap year, while the 40-year gap between 1917 and 1957 is due to the date having been changed from March 4 to January 20. Inauguration Day will also be on a Sunday in 2069 and 2097. After 2097, the next one is 2109 as the year 2100 would not be a leap year. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

traffic primary reason for holiday?

 The primary reason for the holiday is to relieve traffic congestion that occurs during this major event

This just seems unsupportable. jhawkinson (talk) 18:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

minus Removed. jhawkinson (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Split section between "Attendees" and "Notable Absences"

I split the section about Attendees from those Notable Absences. Added references to Pierce's wife not attending, and also current issue of Rep. Lewis and other democrats vis-a-vis PEOTUS Trump. --Petercorless (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

"Fifty-four addresses have been given by thirty-seven presidents."

When was this sentence written ? Which was the last address that is included in these two figures ? Source(s) ? --Neun-x (talk) 01:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Neun-x, it appears that Obama's 2nd was the last address included (as the statement was added in 2013). However, the stated numbers did't add up, a flaw sometimes found in original research. This afternoon I added text to that particular subsection, and in doing so removed the statement from the article. Drdpw (talk) 22:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_presidential_inauguration/Archive_1&oldid=1194348714"