Talk:Inauguration of Joe Biden/Archive 1

"Inauguration of Joe Biden" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Inauguration of Joe Biden. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 9 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed,Rosguill talk 16:52, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 9 November 2020
Inauguration of Joe Biden → Presidential inauguration of Joe Biden – Biden had a Vice Presidential inauguration in 2009. Georgia guy (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose as the current title is consistent with the articles on other ex-VP presidential inaugurations. This is also surely the primary topic for simply "inauguration of Joe Biden". BegbertBiggs (talk) 18:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * This is incorrect. For example, the Inauguration of George H. W. Bush, a former vice president who became president. I support the current title of this page because it is correct stylistically. (Nirvanaoreilly) 7:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Support as the other Vice Presidents who became president should also have separate articles for their presidential and vice presidential inaugurations. They're misleading titles. RobotGoggles (talk) 20:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose per above. Not only is it the primary topic for the term "Inauguration of Joe Biden", it also should be consistent with the 14 other former Vice Presidents' presidential inauguration pages (which all follow the current format of "Inauguration of _____"). Paintspot Infez (talk) 20:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose The events of January 20, 2009 and 2013 were inauguarations of Barack Obama, principally. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:12, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose to maintain consistency with the other presidential inauguration pages. Simple Smiley (talk) 22:38, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose since we don’t do this for other Vice Presidents that later become presidents. Please see Inauguration of George H. W. Bush and First inauguration of Lyndon B. Johnson.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 22:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. He was also inaugurated as a senator numerous times, but it's overprecision to pretend that is a notable encyclopedic topic. Nohomersryan (talk) 00:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose per other opposers. I don't really have anything new to add.  Squeeps10 Talk to meMy edits 02:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose we don't use separate inauguration articles for the US president & vice president, because both attend the same ceremony. This is both Biden & Harris' joint inauguration. GoodDay (talk) 14:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Vice presidential inaugurations don't get separate articles. This is fine. DaveTheBrave (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2020
Until the electoral college vote on Dec 14, and the conclusion of litigation, the assertion that Joe Biden will be inaugurated on Jan 20th is premature. Remove Biden's name and simply say, the president. Thighearna (talk) 16:16, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:00, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2020 (2)
Change "Joe Biden" to "the president" since the electoral college vote is not until Dec 14, 2020 and litigation is not over. Thighearna (talk) 16:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:01, 29 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose as the current nomenclature is consistent with articles on other presidential inaugurations prior to those elections' official Electoral College certifications. There is no indication, anywhere, that this result will change, and past recounts and litigation challenging presidential election results have never altered them. Nirvanaoreilly (talk) 20:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Thighearna. MainePatriot (talk) 19:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , you believe that we should call Joe Biden "the president" even though he's not going to be inaugurated until January 20? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thighearna is saying that because the Electoral College didn't vote for Joe Biden yet, we should change the theme of this article from Biden to generic undetermined president. No, we are not doing that. Reliable sources state what voters delivered, and so will the Electoral College. 2600:1012:B003:78F8:0:53:ADB3:BB01 (talk) 20:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The Electoral College has voted for Joe Biden. cookie monster  (2020)  755  03:02, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You're responding to a comment from a week ago. 2603:8000:A501:9B00:4B:AF74:296E:879 (talk) 04:23, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2020
Please add (Use American English) and (Use mdy dates) to the article in order to secure that the article use US spelling and date formats per MOS:ENGVAR and MOS:TIES. 180.245.110.9 (talk) 10:04, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done SK2242 (talk) 11:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

What this article should be used for in the coming two months or so.
Usually, the post-election election stuff, that is between Electoral college voting and counting ceremonies, are pro forma. They have to be done, but they are foregone conclusions with a few tiny hiccups here and there. You have the ceremonial stuff most people find boring, which is covered by CSPAN and no one else, and that's about it. Inaugurations are different in that they are major celebratory events that if one cannot be there in person (lots of fun indeed), one can watch on Television without boredom. Who doesn't love a parade, right? (okay, some don't). But this time is different.

Trump has preemptively declared the election fraudulent in advance and has already filed a bunch of lawsuits. The arcane permutations that go largely unnoticed by all but us political junkies have moved from 99.8% irrelevant to 45% irrelevant. Not only that, but there's also the 20th Amendment, which cuts the transition substantially.

While, yes, it is indeed too early to have the articles 2020-21 Presidential Election Crisis or 2021 Presidential Contingency Election, that doesn't mean interest in the subject doesn't exist NOW and won't increase in the days ahead. That is NOT WP: CRYSTAL! Which brings me to this article:

The 20th Amendment states that there has to be an inauguration on January 20. The events that immediately lead up to the event are relevant to it. A contested electoral count and a contingent election are only two weeks prior to an inauguration that cannot be postponed.

What might happen is notable as hell and people are going to look up about what technically might. So this article, between now and November 4 should be that place where people go to find out. Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:02, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * We're being overly presumptuous that it's going to be Trump/Pence or Biden/Harris, as the Libertarians & Greens (and many other parties) are also running candidates. But ok, it most likely will be either of them & besides, it fits with the 'record' breaking event :) GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I have to agree the article is too crystal bally. It may be most likely that those 2 pairs will take office, but the chance of it being someone else is not so impossible that it should be ignored. I mean heck, the article already mentions they will be the oldest so one way it may not be is obvious. Nil Einne (talk) 20:49, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There is so much unsourced speculation I don't even feel a need to make a detailed argument as to why this is not appropriate content. Read WP:CRYSTAL -- It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses.. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 20:55, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There is WP:DUE coverage of this at 2020 United States presidential election. Making stuff up about how you think the inauguration will go is not appropriate. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 20:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

COVID measures/impact
Is there any reporting yet on the COVID measures/impact of COVID on the inauguration? If not, we should keep an eye out for such reporting. It is quite probable that the inauguration will be scaled-back to adhere to scientists advice regarding crowds and COVID, particularly since Biden's modus operandi would appear to be listening to such advice. SecretName101 (talk) 09:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Presumptive President-elect Joe Biden
The correct way to refer to Joe Biden is presumptive President-elect Joe Biden.

The title Inauguration of Joe Biden should be changed to the Presumptive Inauguration of Joe Biden. Joe Biden has to be elected by the electoral college and the votes confirmed in a joint session of congress. After the confirmation then and only then can the Inauguration of Joe Biden be the correct title. At this point, it would be just as accurate to create a page the Inauguration of Donald Trump. Tj1of1 (talk) 03:45, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed to death on Talk:2020 United States presidential election, Talk:Donald Trump, Talk:Joe Biden and Talk:President-elect of the United States and other talk pages and the consensus is to go with reliable sources which all call Biden the President-elect. Liz Read! Talk! 03:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

This point is correct. Legally and officially, nobody is President-elect until the Electoral College votes (December 14th).
 * Federal law provides for the General Services Administration to recognize the apparent winner as the "President-elect," so that a transition may begin well before the meeting of the electors. JTRH (talk) 17:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

So many people comment on this issue without understanding it in the slightest. Biden is the President-Elect, no matter what in-denial Trump cultists might claim.

Infobox fonts
Heads up. We've an editor going around changing the fontsize in the infoboxes of these inauguration articles. He's already just done the same thing at articles like 117th United States Congress. I'm aware of WP:SMALLFONT, but this is going too far with it, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 18:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Applying a guideline is "going too far with it"? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're steam rolling across several articles. What's after these? GoodDay (talk) 19:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Any other page I find that violates the guideline. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I strongly dislike the new format, but Muboshgu is indeed following the MOS:SMALLFONT. How do you, GoodDay, and Muboshgu think we could improve the style of the infoboxes pertaining to inaugural ceremonies? 06:36, 20 November 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirvanaoreilly (talk • contribs)
 * Since Muboshgu is determined to push this particular MOS, across Wikipedia. Perhaps colouring, is a solution. GoodDay (talk) 18:49, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What would that look like, GoodDay? Nirvanaoreilly (talk) 06:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We can colour "46th President of the United States", green. GoodDay (talk) 18:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I just looked into what this situation is all about, and Muboshgu is correct in following MOS guidelines pertaining to small font. The reason for the guideline is because if the font is too small, it becomes too hard for some users to read (in other words, an accessibility issue). ~EdGl   talk  04:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Add Harris to title?
It's about her ceremony, too. Unprecedented style, maybe. But so is the subject matter. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:42, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Based on the list of ceremonies, vice presidents-elect are not listed in the title. This is likely because vice presidents are inaugurated directly after the president. They just aren't the main-main event. KidAd   talk  00:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This one will be, and the sooner we accept this changing time, the smarter we'll look when it finally happens. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Although Harris's vice-presidency is notable for several firsts, I would not support changing the name of this article from "Inauguration of Joe Biden". KConWiki (talk) 01:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Because of precedent, because VPs are inaugurated first or because of something else? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:43, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Vice Presidents are actually inaugurated before the President, not after. At least, that's how it's been done during the Obama and Trump inaugurations. Edge3 (talk) 03:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Depends on what ya mean by inaugurated. If you mean taking the oath of office? the vice president is sworn in, before the president. If you mean assuming office (i.e. term begins)? both do so at the exact same time, 12:00 Noon EST, 20 January 2021 :) GoodDay (talk) 14:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I want to know whose tangible trunkjunk hits whose respective and figurative hotseat first, hombre, musical chairs style! But I reckon I'll wait, because this town ain't big enough for the crystalballin' we'd need to declare a basic sittin' order 'round here. For now, I aim to uncover a more known known, namely what the dad-blamed office, desk and cushioned throne the Vice Presidents of Yore traditionally keep warm have even historically been called. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:28, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems the VP has four offices, presumably all with furniture, but none with names Wikipedia dare utter. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh wait, one's the Vice President's Room. That's hardly catchy. No wonder everyone has been overlooking Pence. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2020
Cited page #44 Trump may refuse to leave office If biasedly plastering an opinion, try to include bipartisan opinions. Don't forget there are millions of people who believe this is fraudulent and excluding their statements and/or strait up ignoring the fact that there are real legal challenges to this inauguration is doing a disservice to your platform. You are literally plastering an opinion of CBS news as a fact, This entire article needs revision, or to be completely removed. Intelxeonmaster (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I may not agree with everything you've said, but this statement is indeed rather light on gravitas. "Trump may..." and "Reportedly Saying.." are gossipy at best. Trump may say and do lots of things not worth recording on this page about someone else's inauguration. When it comes to the day itself let's see what happens at the time. I have removed the sentence, hopefully for good, but at least until anyone can put it in a more appropriate reporting context. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I agree with your removal, though with nothing else the original poster said. Trump claimed he would veto the COVID package and he didn't. His threats to not leave the White House are likely empty as well and shouldn't be addressed per WP:CRYSTAL. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * How does a lame duck president refuse to leave the White House? His term ends at Noon EST, on January 20, 2021. GoodDay (talk) 21:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , at that appointed time, we may just find out. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Giuliani's melting hair, Powell's foolishness. I tell ya. GoodDay (talk) 21:55, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 03 January 2021
In the subsection on the ceremony, after the paragraph beginning "Biden and his inaugural committee", please add the following paragraph:


 * For the swearing-in, Biden will hold his left hand on a Bible that has been in his family since 1893. He used the same Bible when he was sworn in during his Senate career and for both of his inaugurations as vice president. The Biden family Bible drew some public attention during the 2013 inauguration due to its size; it is 5 inches (12.7 cm) thick, and has a Celtic cross on the front.

(Edit because I forgot to sign). Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.182.13.127 (talk) 19:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:17, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Nice, thank you!. - 188.182.13.127 (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Should Wikipedia do a "lockdown" on this article during the 19-21.
From my time as lead coordinator of Wikiproject of Current Events, I know that major political events, like this one, will have high vandalism. I am thinking about a requesting 500+ edit lock on this article starting on January 19. Anyone else agree. (Lead coordinator of Wikiproject of Current Events) Elijahandskip (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , we do not ever protect pages preemptively. I'm an admin and if I see excessive vandalism from different accounts or IP addresses, I'll protect it. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:30, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I fully support this edit threshold lock during those three days. The security of the United States is in immense peril due to domestic sedition and treason; this article will document the apex and represents a stark reality for the traitors. I’m on board with this, Elijahandskip. Nirvanaoreilly (talk) 01:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * , just wanting to state that you sound very biased right now. I honestly recommend you not edit this article during those 3 days. If you cannot keep your bias from this article. (PS, I am a conservative, so saying that statement is calling me a traitor to the US.  Very biased.)  Elijahandskip (talk) 02:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Elijahandskip, why are you identifying with traitors? Surely you should take this not as "bias", but as a wake-up call. If you feel that your own beliefs have become so inextricably linked with groups who want to prevent the peaceful transfer of power, then you should probably reevaluate why you hold these beliefs. Conservatism is not inherently an ideology of treason, and I have no reason to believe that you personally are a traitor, but doesn't it feel a little uncomfortable that someone said "traitor" and your first though was "oh, that means me"? If people want to put party above country by preventing the inauguration or spreading conspiracy theories about it, then that is treason. We should follow RS, but let's not mince words. If someone opposes the winner of a free and fair election being inaugurated, then they are by definition a traitor because they oppose everything the United States of America stands for.
 * American democracy is under greater stress than it has been at any point in recent history. Democracy is built on truth, and Wikipedia is one of the first places people look to for information that is verifiably true. We would open this article up to endless unverified claims if we don't lock this on the day of, and probably also for a few days to either side of that. Your lock request seems reasonable, Elijahandskip, and I support it. I also see Muboshgu's point that this is unprecedented, but so are these events. It is undeniable that the US is more political unstable now than it was 4 years ago, and with instability comes the fight for controlling the political narrative. The ability to manipulate Wikipedia can be a great tool, and we don't want to put it into the hands of people who will use it as a weapon. - 188.182.13.127 (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well that IP is sure not editing this article. The fact that your first sentence called me a traitor shows high biased.  Planning to add a temporary Current Event Protection during those 3 days.  It isn't an official protection, but it allows the WikiProject to closely monitor things in the article. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Did you even read what I said? I specifically said I don't believe you're a traitor. Good call with the CEP, that we agree on. - 188.182.13.127 (talk) 15:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , what exactly is "Current Event Protection"? I've never heard of that. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It is something the Current Events WikiProject began a about a week ago. So the “protection” isn’t official as it isn’t an administrator protection.  The Current event WikiProject is an extremely unique WikiProject, since articles are normally only “part of the WikiProject” for less than 10 days (Excluding COVID articles in that days count).  Wikipedia generally discourages speeding an article creation, however, the Current Event WikiProject is basically Wikipedia’s news control.  The purpose was to protect new articles from deletion for a few hours (1-3) until RS sources can create articles.  After the few hours of “protection”, if RS sources haven’t created articles on the topic, then it will probably be a speedy delete article.  This is also designed to help prevent multiple articles/drafts ont he same topic.  Helps keep editors (Normally admins) happier that the topic isn’t being “Spam created”.  For large articles that have notability (Like this article) it allows for an extra check to be done to make sure the facts are neutral and actually notable enough for the article.  Hopefully that clears up confusing.  It isn’t a real Wikipedia protection, just a WikiProject’s protection. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:15, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. I am confident that my personal views have yet to conflict with any of the edits I have made on Wikipedia. Nirvanaoreilly (talk) 21:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Who will swear in Harris?
When will it be announced who will swear in Harris? 101090ABC (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Usually two weeks before the inauguration, so I anticipate next week there will be an announcement. Nirvanaoreilly (talk) 07:53, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks. 101090ABC (talk) 12:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

♬They're rioting in Washing-ton ♬
As we know, many inaugural events take place in the days before the ceremony takes place. These include protests and marches. How early should we include these? Reports on Social media are saying that the far-right goon squad are bringing weapons and the city is boarding up in anticipation of a huge riot on the sixth. Last month, a protest on grounds agreed to by the National Park Service and the Inaugural Committee turned violent, when the Proud Boys went on a bit of a rampage, resulting in four guys who were attacking an innocent black guy got stabbed by him. I'm not sure whether or not this incident belongs on this page. however...

Should the protests on the 6th be included on this page? Especially if they turn violent?Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Random Wikipedia editors could predict the violence but apparently Capitol security couldn't ....  Nixinova   T   C   05:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

"--the first time an incumbent will do so since Andrew Johnson skipped the 1869 inauguration of Ulysses S. Grant--"
What about the inauguration of Gerald Ford? Nixon left Washington the morning of his resignation. 101090ABC (talk) 23:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It refers to the regularly-scheduled inauguration after an election. JTRH (talk) 00:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Then that referance should be made clearer. 101090ABC (talk) 09:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We can't do that because the source does not say that. Since the source is wrong and AFAIK only CNN thinks this is important I will remove it. TFD (talk) 13:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Past tense in "Oath of office"
(Please excuse me if I'm doing anything wrong, I'm sort of new here)

Hello. As Vice President Harris has taken the oath of office, I find it acceptable to change tense in the section "Oath of office" as I did. If anyone has any objections, please reply to this with your beliefs. TheCartoonEditor. talk to me? see what i've done 16:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I undid someone's edit to change case, not realizing the event had in fact happen. I thought it would be later in the day. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * No problem here. I was doing the exact same thing! And btw, WELCOME to Wikipedia! :-) Nightscream (talk) 17:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

ADD VIDEO : File:The Inauguration of the 46th President of the United States-q5iCPKDp4V4.webm


I ain't sure where to add this video. -- Eatcha 21:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Last Words, First Words
It might be worth adding the following information to this article:

The clock struck Noon in Washington DC during President Biden's Inauguration speech. This means that the last ever sentence he spoke as President-Elect was as follows:

"This is our historic moment of crisis and challenge, and unity is the path forward."

The first ever sentence he spoke as the actual President was as follows:

"And we must meet this moment as the United States of America." 188.29.99.132 (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2021
Change it so as to state that Trump was accused of inciting his supporters to storm the capital, as opposed to his attempts to overturn the election inciting the storming of the capital. I make this suggestion as it is still as matter of debate whether he did in fact incite the storming. This article by Al Jezeera explains that https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/1/11/whether-trump-incited-capitol-riot-is-in-eye-of-the-beholder 2001:569:FA6A:8C00:BCA0:DB67:DA60:ECD5 (talk) 21:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: The lead is a decent summary of the prose, and the general consensus in RS is that his actions incited the storming. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 22:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Trump falsely disputes?
Trump, who continued to falsely dispute the legitimacy of the election but committed to an "orderly transition" of power exactly two months after losing, said he would not attend the ceremony In keeping with the Wikipedia "Neutral Point of View" Policy, how about we remove the word 'falsely' from this sentence.

He disputed the legitimacy of the election, that is undeniable. Having 'falsely' in there just makes the statement more polarizing against those who have other beliefs. 136.207.64.206 (talk) 15:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Although I don't agree with the election fraud claims, after editing on Wikipedia for 3 years, I've come to accept the fact that Wikipedia is not "neutral" and is inherently left-leaning. I doubt it'll get changed anyway. –SmartyPants22 (talk) 14:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , "neutral" means reporting accurately from the sources, not the "both sides" stuff that people tend to think means "neutral". Trump falsely disputed the legitimacy of the election, that is not in doubt. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said, I agree that the election fraud claims are false; and I also agree with your definition of neutral. I'm just speaking from past experience. –SmartyPants22 (talk) 19:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. I also question why we juxtapose that he disputed the legitimacy but committed to an orderly transition. We wouldn't say that the state disagreed with an acquittal but decided to release the prisoner anyway. We expect all people, especially public officials to abide by court decisions whether or not they agree with them. It implies we would expect something different from Trump. TFD (talk) 14:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * TFD makes a good point, and while the disputes are tangentially related to the inauguration, they don't really have anything to do with the topic of this article. Perhaps a better version of the sentence would be: "President Trump did not attend the inauguration ceremony." 136.207.64.206 (talk) 15:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree that is not important to this sentence or article, and it could be omitted without disrupting the balance of Wikipedia's coverage. In general, flatly describing claims of widespread electoral fraud as  seems neutral, because these claims have been routinely described by reliable sources as "false", "baseless" , and "thoroughly debunked" . RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 15:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. Really "falsely dispute" seems to say he knows he lost, but continues to dispute it anyways. It is quite likely he believes he should have won. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I also think the scare quotes are not necessary. See WP:SCAREQUOTES. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 16:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and made those changes. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 17:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Usually we don't use the term "falsely" to describe the positions of losers in legal disputes. We don't say for example that that a defendant falsely pleaded not guilty before being convicted. If we want to say that they were unsuccessful, we could say "unsuccessfully" instead. TFD (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Usually, reliable sources don't use the term "falsely" to describe the positions of losers in legal disputes. In this instance, they have. That being said, I'm not sure the "falsely" adds much in this particular case. Filinovich (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Someone put it back in. I took it out again and left a note to not put it in without consensus. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 02:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The claims are false. The sources reflect that reality. We follow what the sources say here. Indeed, that is required by our policies, WP:NPOV ("Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice") and WP:FRINGE ("Claims that are uncontroversial and uncontested within reliable sources should be presented as simple statements of fact"). Neutralitytalk 03:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but to "falsely dispute" means he knows he lost and we really cannot prove he knows he lost. He believes he won, so he disputes it. Really it does not need to be there and just saying "continued to dispute the legitimacy of the election" does not imply his claims have merit. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 03:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It makes no such implication. "Falsely" is a statement about objective reality, not his subjective beliefs or disbeliefs. Neutralitytalk 03:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "falsely dispute" is about subjective beliefs or disbeliefs. Several people in this conversation agree it does not need to be there. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 03:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

#Ceremony clarification
"Biden was sworn in on a Bible, held by his wife, that has been in his family since 1893"

suggestion: "Biden was sworn in on a Bible, that has been in his family since 1893, held by his wife" 46.94.30.18 (talk) 01:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't think it's perfect but I've ✅ it anyway. Enjoyer of World — Talk 06:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Can we say something on why he was sweared in before noon? Didn't Trump's presidency lasted to noon?
--ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 12:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

can I have an old version of the article?
I'm currently needing the old one for research, it used future tense verbs instead of the current past verbs for the "final" edit. my son has an assignment in his history class about joe himself that's why --Salvador 626 (talk) 10:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , here's one revision just a few hours before inauguration: . Enjoyer of World — Talk 22:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Infobox image Suggestion
Hello, I think the current infobox image should be replaced. The new image is visually cleaner and much better in my opinion. Brad (talk) 05:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The only issue I had with the proposed image is that the two men's raised hands seems to merge. The current image seems better because the hands are far apart and it's photographed from longer distance. Enjoyer of World — Talk 00:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I made a cropped version Richard-of-Earth (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Article Split
This article is already quite large, and is only bound to get bigger. Perhaps the pre-inauguration events should be split off into a new article? –SmartyPants22 (talk) 13:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What do you think should be split?★Trekker (talk) 18:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd say the section titled Pre-inaugural events into something like Events leading up to the inauguration of Joe Biden or Build-up to the inauguration of Joe Biden or something along them lines. –SmartyPants22 (talk) 19:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , this article doesn't need to be split, it needs to be trimmed. Too much WP:RECENTISM leads to articles on current events including unnecessary minutiae. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I wholeheartedly agree.It's probably best to wait a couple of weeks, and then start a discussion regarding a comprehensive rewrite. –SmartyPants22 (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , agreed. Let the dust settle and revisit. As of now, article size of 47kb "readable prose size" does not necessitate a WP:SIZESPLIT. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mind it personally.★Trekker (talk) 19:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I propose forking the Celebrating America section out to Celebrating America. Right now this is a well-written overview of the program, but I imagine we could expand with a Reception section, ratings information, etc. Seems like a notable television program which could easily be summarized within this article (and help trim down this one). Anyone care to fork and slap an attribution template at Talk:Celebrating America? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 02:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thoughts? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems like a good idea to me.★Trekker (talk) 18:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit suggest on "International Reactions"
This section looks absolutely ridiculous at the moment. Names of multiple prime ministers and world leaders together with their countries are all crammed into a sentence or two. I suggest we make it a bulleted list, in order to make it more organized. SkyFlubbler (talk) 16:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Completely agree. It's a useless sea of blue links that says almost nothing about the inauguration. Might be best to even merge it into International reactions to the 2020 United States presidential election.-- Molandfreak  (talk,   contribs,  email) 04:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit suggestion re: recitation of the oaths of office
In the "Oaths of office" section, it states that "Harris recited the following: I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. [So help me God.]," while "Biden recited the following, as prescribed by the Constitution: I do solemnly swear 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. [So help me God.]"

However, this is not a direct "recitation" of what they said, as in actuality, a direct recitation of what Harris said would equate to "I, Kamala Devi Harris, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God," whereas a direct recitation of what Biden said would equate to "I, Joseph Robinette Biden Jr., do solemnly swear 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. So help me God."

As such, should the article be reflected to read what they actually said, as opposed to the default (nameless) versions of the oaths which they recited? Brucejoel99 (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 09:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I have made a minor correction: Both Biden and Harris recited their full names as part of the oath. Should we also include that Justice Sotomayor mispronounced Harris' first name, placing the accent on the second syllable?MisterCSharp (talk) 15:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m not sure that that is relevant enough. I’m an immigrant and cannot get people to pronounce my name correctly, but then again I’m not a Vicepresident! --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 11:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Celebrating America
I went ahead and forked out Celebrating America per Talk:Inauguration_of_Joe_Biden/Archive_1. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Grammar error, please fix.
The word speaker is missing in the Organizers section and under the Join Congressional Committee paragraph. I am not able to edit the page, so someone who can please fix the error. Thanks! PretendZebra75 (talk) 03:24, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Lady Gaga performs "The Star-Spangled Banner".webm