Talk:1974

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Years Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Timeline of the far future#Spacecraft and space exploration|27,000]] The anchor (#Spacecraft and space exploration) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Page layout years

For most of the last three hundred years there is inconsistency and duplication between the year in topic paragraph, the "see also" box and what is on the year by topic pages. Prior to 1950 I am pretty convinced we can painlessly (except for sore fingers) delete all of the year in topic paragraphs and ensure that the material goes into a "see also" box, creating such a box where none exists. Post 1950, particularly from the "year in US television" link a lot of material has been added to this paragraph as highlights (sometimes making up most of the page content pointed at).

Personally I think we should still delete the paragraph, keep the box linking to the topic sites and move any particularly important parts of the year in topic paragraph to the main chronological list. This does involve undoing quite a bit of work which someone has done.

Therefore, unlike for prior to 1950 (where I've said no objection= I do it) for post 1950 I won't touch these pages unless a significant number of people agree with the change. (I am also unlikely to get the pre 1950 stuff done before summer unless the service speed improves dramatically). talk--BozMo 14:00, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

August 9, 1974

Did Ford become President when he took the oath of office? or did he become President, when Nixon's resignation took effect? GoodDay 01:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 25th Amendment sections 3 & 4, deals with Presidential incapacity - the VP assumes only the presidential powers & duties as Acting President (doesn't take the oath). GoodDay 01:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ford became "Acting President" until he took the oath. --DavidShankBone 01:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's incapacity. For a person to assume the "Office of President" Article 2 clearly states they must take the office. For a person to be "President of the United States", regardless of the circumstances, they must take the oath. --DavidShankBone 01:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think much of your confusion regarding succession and incapacity might be answered here: Line_of_succession_to_the_US_presidency. --DavidShankBone 01:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That article includes this historical bit: On March 4, 1849, James Polk's presidency ended on a Sunday. President-elect Zachary Taylor declined to be sworn in on a Sunday, citing religious beliefs. Some believe that Senate President pro-tempore David Rice Atchison was President for the day. However, most historians and constitutional scholars state that the Presidency is not dependent on the swearing-in

Better still, Atchinson's tenure as Sente president-pro-tempre ended when President Polk's term ended. Also at this point, there's no Speaker as well. Under the 1792 succession Act (then in effect), nobody assumed the presidential duties. That don't seem correct. GoodDay 02:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm; the oath makes the President (as Article II spells out), causes potential disasters - concering a comatose President-elect, who dosen't recover by Inauguration date. GoodDay 02:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Regardless of what happens before, whoever eventually assumes the title of President (vs. President-elect or Acting President) must take the oath. That much is clear. Your questions relate to succession issues. That said, the uncited remark in the WP article states most scholars and historians agree with your viewpoint; however, WP isn't a place for theoretical banter. The Constitution says what it says. But kudos to you for seeing a fly in the Constitutional ointment that has never been tested. Still, the oath is required per Article II. --DavidShankBone 02:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're still left with the situation concerning Nixon/Ford. During the roughly 15 to 30 minutes (not sure of exact lapse of time, between Nixon's resignation & Ford's repeating the Presidential oath of office) was the Presidency vacant? And if it was, then the Presidency was vacant numerous times (for few minutes), throughout it's history. PS- here's another monkey wrench, the incoming VP is always sworn in before the incoming President. GoodDay 02:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the Presidency wasn't vacant, the VP is acting President until he takes the oath. He is the one making the decisions until he officially takes the oath of office, accepting full responsibility under the Constitution. It's that simple. There actually is a limbo, of sorts, with the U.S. Presidency. But, for our purposes here, the oath makes a person the official President. I think if you have any further question as to this, you should raise on the succession page, et. al., which have been referenced here. 1974 isn't the proper place to debate this minutia, although as a law student I find it as interesting as you apparently do. --DavidShankBone 02:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to Article II (as you've pointed out, earlier), A person doesn't become President until he/she takes the oath. That means the Presidency was vacant, from Nixon resignation (Noon -Aug 9), 'til Vice President Ford took the presidential oath (Minutes later). There's no way around it. As for Acting President? That would need an invocation of the 25th Amendment. GoodDay 02:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand your issue at this point. Are we talking official capacity, or are we talking realistic decision-making capacity. Regardless, the VP doesn't become the P until he takes the oath, which was the original question. Period. And that was, in fact, the question at hand, right? --DavidShankBone 03:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My contention continues to be, at Noon EST (when Nixon resignation took effect) Ford became President, then minutes later took his oath. Your view is (correct me if I'm wrong) the moment Nixon's resignation took effect VP Ford figuratively assumed the presidential powers & duties not the Presidency itself? PS- I've added a compromise edit to this page. How do you like it?GoodDay 03:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've also brought this topic to talk: President of the United States oath of office. I'm hoping others will join in this topic discussion. GoodDay 03:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Bundy

Is the Ted Bundy stuff world news? If so someone needs to put in the "Cruyff turn" at the 74'world cup.

File:Gerald R. Ford - portrait.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Gerald R. Ford - portrait.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Gerald R. Ford - portrait.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

US-centered

Hi! I think the image set in this article is US-centered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.37.199.248 (talk) 07:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Superbowl

Should the Superbowl be included for this year? Centralized discussion at WT:YEARS#Superbowls — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Jack Benny - 1964.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A shorter 1974?

This page appears to have significantly less material than some of the surrounding years. It looks like some of the material was removed about 26-27 January 2010, although much has been done since then. What's the consensus on whether some of this material should be restored? And who gets notified when someone comments on a talk page, anyway?Ryan Reeder (talk) 19:19, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete 1974

Yea I've been reading through this page, along with other years, and I notice that there is a lot missing between different languages in each year. For example the English page doesn't mention the movement for gay rights that emerged in Portugal on the 13th of May of 1974, which was then brutally supressed. I think people from each language should try to fill these gaps of knowledge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8A0:FCE2:1A01:757A:CFB1:887D:2E86 (talk) 12:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Events sections of main year articles are only for important international events. Jim Michael (talk) 12:03, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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:

LaurenFaustSPFF.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1974 photomontage

Somebody needs to replace the picture of Lucy (Australopithecus) with Hurricane Fifi-Orlene. DementiaGaming (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support adding Hurricane Fifi-Orlene, but I am more inclined to replace the Guillaume affair, because there is already a 1974 West Germany World Cup in the collage, one German event in the collage is enough. Nagae Iku (talk) 08:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t understand why people do this. Just because two extremely popular events took place in the same country, doesn’t mean they shouldn’t both be on there. DementiaGaming (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, do as you please. The reason I personally hope Lucy is retained is that I am a paleontology enthusiast. I'm going to work on a 16-grid version now. Nagae Iku (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are marvelous, Nagae Iku. DementiaGaming (talk) 21:19, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've just edited it. Anything else you would like me to do? Setarip (talk) 11:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should post this on WP:YEARS so we're not the only ones who get a say on this matter. DementiaGaming (talk) 18:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]