Talk:First inauguration of George Washington

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

Wrong Scripture[edit]

The text says that the Bible was flipped to Deuteronomy 28, when the source says Genesis 49:13. I'm going to change it. Codster925 (talk) 23:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 2 external links on First inauguration of George Washington. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

To anyone concerned:   It is proposed that this article and the Second inauguration of George Washington articles be merged into Presidency of George Washington. The two articles to be merged are very short, one of them a stub, while their subjects are already well covered in the George Washington and the Presidency of George Washington articles. The two articles in question meet all requirements for merging. There has been no significant additions made to these articles for well over a year. If interested please see the discussion on the Presidency of George Washington Talk page, making any related comments on that Talk page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:53, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the merger: there are specific pages describing the inaugurations of every other US president. Also, this page contains relevant historical data on the inauguration of the first president and on the events preceeding the inauguration and related to the beginning of the operations of the new US government under the Constitution. Antonio Basto (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Antonio Basto: This was was already discussed and the discussion was closed. There was a wide consensus to merge this article with the Presidency of George Washington article. There is also the main George Washington article and the 1788–89 United States presidential election article where the inauguration is well covered. We simply do not need four articles to cover the inauguration. If there are items that are not covered in the other articles it's best simply to include them. This article met all the criteria for merging, given the other three articles, etc. Also, not all presidents articles have inauguration articles, and almost all of them that do are stubs, neglected by editors and rarely viewed. Other stuff exists was already addressed in the discussion to merge and is not much of a reason to have yet another article on the inauguration. If there were items missing in the main GW presidency article you simply should have moved/added them there. We should revert back, as you are going against a clear consensus. You really should have looked into this matter further and discussed this before reverting back. If need be we can call everyone back (@Rjensen, Orser67, Drdpw, Shearonink, The Man in Question, and TheVirginiaHistorian:) and have the same discussion all over again. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Antonio Basto et al - So far as I can tell (and per WP:MR), this discussion should have taken place (per W:MR) 1)At the closer's talk page and, then, 2)if the discussion fails there then the issue should have been posted/continued further at Wikipedia:Move review - however, I do think the previous merge proposal & subsequent move was not incorrect. Shearonink (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]