Talk:Presidential transition of Barack Obama

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

Initial comment[edit]

'Barack' is spelled wrong. I'd fix it, but I don't know that this article even needs to exist. Kutera Genesis (talk) 06:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger of parallel articles[edit]

Merge to Presumptive presidency of Barack Obama as a Transition section? Grsz11 →Review! 20:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done. Merged into this title, Presidential transition of Barack Obama. The period between election and inauguration is called the "transition", or "presidential transition" and managed by a "transition team". The "presumptive" article is now a redirect.
    -- Yellowdesk (talk) 23:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"2009-present"?[edit]

Um, does anyone else see anything wrong with the phrase "2009-present"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.125.103 (talk) 01:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not if he uses his Delorean....-- Gaius Octavius | Talk 14:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lame duck?[edit]

The fourth focus group is known as Lame-duck? Not according to the cited article. Deleted for being the stupidest thing I've ever heard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.172.9 (talk) 17:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...oops, reverted, after reading the rest of the article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.172.9 (talk) 17:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus for move.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

I think this page should be moved to Barack Obama's first term as President of the United States. And the info on this page be added as the begining section.--CPacker talk to me 05:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... at first sight it seems a nonsensical proposal to me. This is a good topic and a reasonably good article. But now I see you've been having a little edit war over the sub-stub you created at Barack Obama's first term as President of the United States. This is no way to resolve it, sorry. Andrewa (talk) 08:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, I am not trying to resolve an edit war. This was a serious request so I added it to the talk page. Just like every other consensus discussion in Wikipedia, all I did was ask to see if anyone else felt that the page should be moved. If no one else feels this way than it is fine with me. Just because Allientraviler and I did not agree does not mean we were in an edit war. So please don't start saying that my reason for requesting this move is because of an edit war that never happened.--CPacker talk to me 18:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article seems to me like a fine place to preserve an archive of transition activities without cluttering up the main Barack Obama article with unneeded detail. Unless something really dramatic happens in the next couple of months, the transition will be forgotten by most people in a year, but this info will someday be of value to history buffs and so on. Cmichael (talk) 14:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let us wait at least until the 21st of January next before writing Barack Obama's first term as President of the United States. We are not a crystal ball. Aboutt that time we can also see whether this article can usefully be merged anywhere; if it contains, as it may, large quantities of detail which would be intrusive in an article with a larger scope, we should summarize it instead. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This page should eventually be renamed Presidency of Barack Obama and if necessary, split into "first term" article IF he gets re-elected. Of course, the 2012 election is far away and we should make sure he gets through one term first. But to generalize, it should just be "Presidency of..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.175.146 (talk) 19:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This can be a fine article all by itself - the 70+ days - are going to be written about extensively. as are the inauguration, the inaugural events and many other aspects of this president. By the way I recently heard that his team will be appointing 2600-some positions in the new administration. I certainly hope we are intent on listing them all complete with speculation and denials, etc. -- Banjeboi 21:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the proposed change. Obama is at this moment a president-designate. He is elected constitutionally by the Electoral College (United States), and this recent "election" was an election of electors. Read the U.S. constitution for the details, folks. This is a 51-election process, involving 51 electoral groups. The presidential election occurs on December 15, 2008 when the Electoral College casts its votes. The Obama election vote by the Electoral College is reviewed and accepted by Congress in January, 2009. The present period is a transition, and recognized as such by a number of federal laws, which notably authorize the financing of transition activities: there is emphatically no Obama administration at this time, as he is not in office, and is not in power, and has no administration, no confirmed cabinet members, nor authority to require the U.S. government to respond to his actions, except as a designated future president, and until he takes the oath of office. There at this time is a Bush Administration.
    -- Yellowdesk (talk) 23:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The transition is a well-defined period with a beginning, an end, and significant activities during it, and merits its own article. And the article should remain as it is once the Obama presidency begins. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Bad redirects[edit]

There are some really bad redirects coming into this article. Presidency of Barack Obama? No. Obama Cabinet? No. Barack Obama's first term as president? No. These articles are irrelevant to the presidential transition, and should be redirected to Presidency of Barack Obama or deleted. Grsz11 →Review! 01:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Until those articles are created this is an acceptable target. -- Banjeboi 02:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops, didn't see this conversation. There have been two attempts at starting articles on P-E Obama's cabinet so far; since there is little but speculation about the cabinet, any thoughts on better targets for the redirects? (The section "Cabinet" in this article seems to be the most complete, hence the redirects.) --Ckatzchatspy 02:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Barack Obama Cabinet article has been started and has the relevant information. As this will be the longer-lasting of the articles, it seems to be where the information should be posted.
Disagree: There is no cabinet until January 20. Right now there is only speculation about one. Shortly, there will be prospective cabinet members. But, it's all still in transition. The Cabinet article should be developed in January. For now, the information belongs in the transition article. Cmichael (talk) 03:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note, the titles of these articles should probably be changed:
Timneu22 (talk) 03:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Cabinet article should ulitmately redirect to a Presidency article, right now it's nothing more than what is here, so I am okay with a redirect here for now. Grsz11 →Review! 03:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly a Cabinet article will be necessary to document the makeup and activities of that body once it actually exists. But, the process of presidential transition is a fascinating one in its own right, and this seems to be the proper place to document that process. Not all of the people that Obama nominates now will likely make it into the actual cabinet. Some will probably not survive the press' vetting process, others may not be confirmed by the Senate. The process of creating the administration that will ultimately take office is what we should be documenting here. Yes, this article will become more static once it is no longer a current event. But, it should never be "replaced" by other articles. What I am arguing against is gutting information from this transition article and putting it into a Cabinet article where is is apt to get lost, as the final composition of the Cabinet becomes clear. Cmichael (talk) 03:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this article should ever be a list of who was appointed, but more about the speculation and reports. We also need to concentrate on the activities Obama is doing in this period, such as the world economic summit, the UN environment summit, CIA briefings, etc. Grsz11 →Review! 05:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This article is about the transition, or the process of creating the Obama administration. There will be plenty of other articles, later, about the administration itself. Cmichael (talk) 21:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fine... care to discuss this issue?
Thanks Timneu22 (talk) 13:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECTs created. Case closed. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 23:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. I'm saying the article should be named George W. Bush cabinet, with a lowercase "c", per WP:NAME#Lowercase. Timneu22 (talk) 15:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You really haven't been paying attention. I'm talking about that article AND the potential Barack Obama cabinet. Do we want the lowercase "c" or uppercase? Lowercase seems correct. If people agree, I'll change the existing GWB article ASAP. Timneu22 (talk) 19:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image[edit]

I thought the page looked boring without a picture, so I went out to commons and grabbed this one. If somebody has access to a more appropriate one, it wouldn't hurt my feelings to use it <grin>. Cmichael (talk) 21:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any image used should be taken during the actual transition period, I would think. There will surely be some that are available to us ... Wasted Time R (talk) 21:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I switched out for a more stars and stripes version. I suggest simply adding more images that illustrate the transitioning when they become available. Photos of those confirmed to be on teh transition team or in the Cabinet might also help. -- Banjeboi 02:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added a few images to the article, feel free to remove/update them if any better ones become available. -- GateKeeperX (talk) 21:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like the images, especially the one of Obama and Bush in the Oval. It is very attractive, and nicely symbolizes the notion of an orderly transfer of power. Cmichael (talk) 21:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, much better, conveys the article's subject quite well. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I really liked the large picture of Obama and Bush at the top of the article. It's new placement loses it in the clutter. What would be the will of the majority on putting it back up top? Cmichael (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it belongs back at the top, as it symbolically and graphically conveys the whole purpose of the article's subject. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one who moved it. While I like the image a lot, it interferes with the infobox that needs to appear that this is part of a series of biographical articles on Obama. I experimented with numerous configurations putting the infobox under it, but it didn't work well. Lestatdelc (talk) 06:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your intent but, quite frankly, a picture is worth a thousand little blue boxes. That particular image illustrates the gist of this article perfectly. How can we fix this to everyone's satisfaction? Cmichael (talk) 03:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to go ahead and put the image back, per WP:BOLD. I'll be the first to admit, though, that I'm not great at formatting, but I really do believe that I left it looking better than I found it. Cheers. Cmichael (talk) 21:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe use an image of the PIC, similar to: http://pic2009.inauguralcollectibles.com/products/Inaugural_Flag_Logo_Button.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.18.53.43 (talk) 16:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citations required[edit]

This is a period rife with rumor about potential office-holders, offers, declined offers, interest, lack of interest in positions, policy agendas or lack of agendas, and so on. If a name or statement appears without citations to reliable sources supporting statements about the individual, the names and statements are subject to removal for lack of verifiable support in the article.
It's the wikipedia standard, as described at Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree. If wannabes haven't ginned up enough attention in their position mongering to get a WP:RS to mention them, then neither should we. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The rollback of "80% male" is kinda creepy. This is AP's list not Obama's and it is cited. I don't care much what is in the article (this section is speculation and rather newpaperlike) but a note here or an "Undo" edit summary would have been appreciated. I'll send a note to the person who made that edit. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The AP list will presumably be outdated in a few months anyway; I'm not going to weep over the original synthesis that it's 80% male, if it is; especially when one reason for this is that Chuck Hagel is mentioned for damn near everything, although he will presumably be nominated to at most one thing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You saved a lot of trouble. Thank you for that synthesis link. Slipped my mind. I can benefit from that correction in another article, too. Kathleen Sebelius is there twice as well, by the way. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Susan, sorry about the summary (or lack thereof); it was supposed to say "ratio not needed; it may read as a criticism. Should be sourced as a third-party observation if included." Looking over the list, the ratio appeared to be a Wiki analysis, as the article doesn't comment on it. Hope this eases your concerns. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 20:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the follow up and the correction! Cheers. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reportedly[edit]

Isn't reportedly a word to avoid? It's used several times and jars the flow a bit. Can someone rewrite these instead? -- Banjeboi 01:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More speculation[edit]

While I'm not certain that this flow chart adheres to Wikipedia guidelines, I thought I would post it here to see what other editors think. http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washington-whispers/2008/11/11/al-gore-colin-powell-caroline-kennedy-in-obamas-administration.html -Classicfilms (talk) 01:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I especially note this quotation in the article:
"Now the above transition flowchart. It is making the rounds in Washington tonight, though our source would not reveal the actual source of the document."
So, the list amounts to unsourced speculation.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 04:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This list of lists from Susan Albright today might have some sources. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Administration possibilities deleted[edit]

Someone decided it would be best to eliminate the entire prospective administration. I suggest it is readded. Also the following link's subject is really being considered for the job mentioned in the article. This definetly should be added. [1]

May I remind everyone that during the primaries we had 2 articles speculating on running-mates?

Moderate2008 (talk) 00:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking only as that someone, as I mentioned above I don't care what is in the article. It read like an ad for certain people, just for example, John Kerry, who for example some people would like to work with and some wouldn't. You're welcome to edit this of course, like any article, from my point of view. I prefer the simple sentence that is there now. Its source has bipartisan ideas and even mentions John McCain. I suppose someone could also start another articles of rumored candidates if that would help. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a fact that a number of people have been widely discussed as potential holders of offices. This kind of fact, as far as it goes is significant. And no more significant than that. As a description of the several choices that are under consideration, or, "were" under consideration, these give context to the transition process. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the section. It's overwhelmingly important in order for this article to be comprehensive. It's well-sourced, though some judgement needed: we can't/shouldn't add everybody that's mentioned, but it is important to have a background. Grsz11 →Review! 04:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The new section headings look good, nice improvement. Thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 07:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citizenship lawsuits[edit]

This may be the most appropriate Obama article for the following "See also":Citizenship lawsuits. Anyone think another Obama article would be more appropriate?

This "See Also" has been removed from the 2008 campaign article on the grounds that it occurred after the election.[2]Ferrylodge (talk) 22:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it belongs here until and unless the transition somehow deals with the suit by making a public statement, publishing the certificate, or whatever. Anybody can file a lawsuit on anything...there is nothing notable about the fact that the suit has been filed in the absence of a response from the transition team. Cmichael (talk) 01:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, if Hillary Clinton or John McCain sues Obama about this, then I'll be back to see if you still take that position.  :-) Incidentally, the transition team has called these lawsuits "garbage."Ferrylodge (talk) 02:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When Hillary or John buy into this, it'll truly be news. Until then, the transition team is right. It is "garbage." Cmichael (talk) 05:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not that you're adopting a POV, of course.  :)Ferrylodge (talk) 14:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't belong here. See:
http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate
-Classicfilms (talk) 15:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, the whole point of those lawsuits is to get the original birth certificate, rather than the laser-printed summary to which you link. Anyway, the lawsuits very probably won't come to anything, so there's no urgent need right now to include anything about them in this article. Even if Keyes is successful in obtaining a copy of the original long-form birth certificate, it will very probably just confirm what's on the laser-printed summary. Which is why it's kind of perplexing that Obama has not released the original long-form.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FactCheck discussed the topic pretty extensively.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
Here are a few quotes:
"The document is a 'certification of birth,' also known as a short-form birth certificate. The long form is drawn up by the hospital and includes additional information such as birth weight and parents' hometowns. The short form is printed by the state and draws from a database with fewer details. The Hawaii Department of Health's birth record request form does not give the option to request a photocopy of your long-form birth certificate, but their short form has enough information to be acceptable to the State Department."
" FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as "supporting documents" to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said."
Just because a lawsuit is filed does not make it a legitimate subject for this article, particularly since it is not related to its overall topic.-Classicfilms (talk) 16:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, I put some info about this matter into the Keyes article, and it seems like at least one of the Obama articles should wikilink over to the Keyes article. But like I said, we can just wait and see what happens with the case. Incidentally, the short form says it is "prima facie" evidence of citizenship, which is different from conclusive evidence; prima facie evidence can by definition be overcome by counter-evidence (not that that's likely in this case). Also, note that the long-form for McCain is online, indicating the hospital and attending physician, whereas Obama's long-form remains locked up in Honolulu for reasons that I do not understand.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FactCheck makes the reason pretty clear - it is a policy of the state of Hawaii to only provide a copy of the short form. Arizona (where McCain was born) is a different state and it may very well be that it has a different set of policies. So it is pointless to compare McCain and Obama in this light. And it is out of bonds for the Wikipedia to do so - to speculate or propose our own theories which would be a violation of WP:OR. Thus, keeping WP:INDISCRIMINATE in mind, just because someone filed this lawsuit does not mean that it a topic worthy of inclusion in an article. Furthermore, this is an article that is directly related to choices being made by the new Obama administration. We should stay on topic with our edits. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my mistake - McCain represents Arizona, he wasn't born there but rather in Panama. But the point is still clear that different places have different sets of rules. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. You're right that Hawaii and Panama have different policies. However, you're mistaken about the Hawaii policy; Hawaii will gladly provide a copy of the long-form with the consent of the subject. Anyway, we'll keep this stuff quarantined in the Keyes article for now, I guess.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am quoting FactCheck which is a reliable source and that is what the Wikipedia requires of us - to stay within the realm of verifiable information from reliable sources. And yes, as this is an article about the transition of the Obama administration, it is best to limit the sources that we add to the central topic of the article. -Classicfilms (talk) 18:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Factcheck is indeed a reliable source, as are all the sources cited here. I agree 100% that this article should stay within the realm of verifiable information from reliable sources.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great! -Classicfilms (talk) 18:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

another lawsuit but this one will be different http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a407.htm On December 5, 2008, only ten days before the electoral college votes, the nine Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court will meet in private to discuss this case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.105.146 (talk) 04:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you see, but nowhere on that page does it say Barack Obama. Grsz11 →Review! 04:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's here. And a new theory! Born in Hawaii or not doesn't matter, Indonesia doesn't matter. It's that his father was under British citizenship (via Kenya, not yet independent), and the Constitution forbids this, because we're still fighting the War of Independence from Britain. Or something like that, read for yourself. You gotta admit, Americans have a greater ability to think up daft legal actions than any other creatures on Earth ... Wasted Time R (talk) 04:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's still crap, Obama's mother was a natural born U.S. citizen and he was born in Hawaii. He is therefore a natural born citizen. This is the same wing-nut case already denied cert. once by the SCOTUS. Lestatdelc (talk) 05:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. It would be truly hilarious (in a gallows humor sort of way) to imagine that SCOTUS would complete the chain/square the circle by invalidating the recent election of a democrat after the 2000 decision vindicating the then-popular choice (the legal basis of which has been met by scathing criticism). Daft arguments are made, and seldom prevail (let alone some sort of WP:Crystalball/something...) Steveozone (talk) 04:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly an entertaining and amusing subject.  :-) And Senator Hillary Clinton seems to have an eligibility issue too! By the way, I started a thread about the Obama citizenship lawsuits at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard. It's not related to this Wikipedia article, however.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation?[edit]

Why does the table of "Appointees/nominees (confirmed)" include any of the cabinet posts? None of them are as yet named by the Obama transition team itself. These are all still rumored and 'named' by 'unnamed sources'. So why are we including them in a table of "confirmed" nominees? Lestatdelc (talk) 01:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, many of them are sourced do reliable sources. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. If CNN said his Sec of Defense was Willie Nelson, we could put that here. Grsz11 →Review! 01:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominee Table[edit]

Is there a way to fix the nominee table so the article text doesn't butt up against it? Lestatdelc (talk) 04:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Info-box title links & Suggestion of copying from Sandbox[edit]

Lestatdelc- You deleted the info-box title link I made to the Wiki's own page on the Cabinet, because it was "improper". OK, FMI (For _MY_ Information) where are these "improper" rules listed?

BTW, the main reason why I was trying to establish the link was I wanted to see what other cabinet positions remained to be selected. I _HIGHLY_ suggest that you copy and paste in the table that you have already created in your own "Sandbox". —Preceding unsigned comment added by LP-mn (talk • contribs) 02:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emerging Agenda[edit]

This is an area that is fraught with poorly-sourced speculation and POV. Cites don't mean much if they refer to someone's overwrought speculation:

"He is likely, in any case, to issue a series of executive orders within days of his inauguration, including a reversal of Bush-era executive orders restricting funding to family planning (including abortion) services and stem-cell research.[52]";

none of which is actually supported, by the article cited, as to any specific action to which the Obama transition team has yet expressed any intentions. This whole section is problematic, isn't it? Steveozone (talk) 05:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vetting and Questionnaire[edit]

I've run into quite a few stories on security clearances, vetting and "the questionnaire" but this topic but not here. This search shows up a bunch of interesting WP:RS articles. Might do a section unless someone else beats me too it. Carol Moore 00:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Go for it! I have one of those questionnaires, and they are truly mind-boggling! I do wonder if he'll run off very good people because of it. Cmichael (talk) 04:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appointees/nominees table[edit]

There have been several edits in this table that are not valid.

1. Rahm Emanuel as White House Chief of Staff was announced, not reported. Moved (back?)to announced section.
2. James Jones, Susan Rice, Dennis Blair and Tom Donilon have not yet been announced. There is no section for reported White House/Executive Office of the President staff. Removed entries.

I also question the location of some entries. Should the following positions be considered Cabinet & Cabinet-level agency positions?
1. Deputy Director of the OMB
2. Deputy Secretary of State
3. Deputy White House Chiefs of Staff
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Latir (talk • contribs) 03:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The White House Chief of Staff was supposed to be moved up to that announced section, I'll do taht now. Apologies for the Jones, Rice, Blair and Donilon entries. I'll remove them as well. I included the deputies in their current sections because the note clearly stipulates them to be; I'd be fine if they got moved back to the next section, so I'll do that and remove the note (it really doesn't make any sense for them to be there anyway). Therequiembellishere (talk) 03:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting[edit]

  1. On what attribute is the cabinet-level list sorted? If none, might I suggest sorting based on chronology starting with the first cabinet offices? An example is here: [[3]]
  2. Suggestion: That all cabinet positions be listed, including ones that don't yet have a nominee. Commerce, for instance.

Zmurray (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Blair[edit]

Will be the Obama intelligence director. This was reported by both the New York Times and The Times of London. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.120.177.129 (talk) 04:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chief of Staff[edit]

Isn't the Chief of Staff a cabinet level position? Should we put it their? If not, why not? - plau (talk) 12:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the White House Chief of Staff is a member of the Executive Office of the President of the United States, not the United States Cabinet. -- A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I never said the Chief of Staff is a member of the US Cabinet, but the position is Cabinet level. So why not move it to the cabinet level part of the table. - plau (talk) 10:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CoS is considered Cabinet level and is listed as such in almost every modern administration, including the current one. Lestatdelc (talk) 11:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First Lady[edit]

If there is a subsection in the infobox describing the office of the Vice President, shouldn't there be one for the Office of the First Lady. I just spoke with an Obama Iowa staffer whose boss, Jackie Norris, was named Michelle Obama's Chief of Staff. Should we fill in a First Lady section as well as a VP section?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The First Lady article implies that it's not a formal position. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gordon is correct, and that would be overkill. The First and Second ladies have no "office" until inauguration. rootology (C)(T) 14:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appointments[edit]

The text section needs broken into prose rather than a list that is identical to the template on the right. I haven't read up enough to do it but it should be easy enough for the same person who made the list, whoever that is. Grsz11 23:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UN Ambassador to be restored to Cabinet level[edit]

According to NPR's article U.N. Envoy Nominee Rice Known As Smart, Tough:

"The head of the United Nations Foundation, a Washington-based advocacy group, released a statement praising Rice as well as Obama's decision to make the post of U.N. ambassador a Cabinet-level position once again — as it was during the Clinton years."

The position should most definitely be added back into the infobox template. LestatdelcLestatdelc (talk) 23:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will remove article's mention of Gates being registered as an independent[edit]

The Associated Press: "During his tenure at the CIA, he said, he thought he should be apolitical so he did not register with a political party. But, he added, 'I consider myself a Republican.'" Just tips me hat but then 〜on thoght bows deeply 00:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Adviser" vs. "Advisor"[edit]

Which is it? There are instances of each on the page. We should pick one and stick with it. Is there a standing policy on this spelling rule? Trojanpony (talk) 13:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Webster allows both spellings. But -er is listed first, eg "adviser also advisor." WP:SPELL says that, in dictionaries, the preferred version is listed first. I'd suggest standardizing on the -er verson. Cmichael (talk) 04:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting of appointments table while using "Modern" skin[edit]

I just want to note that I am using the skin called "Modern" and the table of appointments does not look right. The columns appear as staggered tiers below one another. They aren't all flush next to each other in a nice box.c (talk) 09:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it has nothing to do with the skin. I just viewed the page using the default skin and the same thing is happening. Somebody messed it up. Steve! (talk) 09:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it still like that for you (staggered, not flush, columns)? Just tips me hat but then 〜on thought bows deeply 14:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re "since 2006" after Rob't Gates in Administration appointments table[edit]

Anybody know whether Dr. Gates needn't re-nomination, rather simply stays on under Barack's/his discretion -- no Senate reconfirmation? Just tips me hat but then 〜on thought bows deeply … 07:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, Gates does not need to be re-confirmed by the Senate because he is already sitting Defense Secretary. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Defense Agenda[edit]

Someone just deleted the "Defense Agenda" section with the comment "does not compute." I don't understand. I rolled it back. The section is sourced, and clearly reflects the source. The defense agenda is clearly an important part of the transition efforts. If you'd like to delete it again, I'd appreciate a discussion here first. Thanks. Cmichael (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first problem I see is that is that this article is about Barack Obama's transition and not Robert Gates. Second, while Gates was retained as the Secretary of Defense, Obama is the one that will be setting the agenda, so it is unclear which, if any, of Gates's ideas will be adopted by the new administration. Additionally, as the addition is currently written it is selling speculation by the author of the article as being ideas of Gates that are likely to be adopted. The entire 2009 budget section is not a list detailing expectation of Gates's budget, but is rather the author's recommendations on what Gates should do for the 2009 budget based upon Gates's comments in the Foreign Affairs (editted to unbold) article and previous actions by Gates. These are clearly the ideas of the author and not Gates... --Bobblehead (rants) 23:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Three quick points:
  • True, this section cites an article about Gates. But, Gates is Obama's pick for Secretary of Defense and, as such, his top defense policy advisor. While I agree that there is no evidence that Obama has signed off on Gate's ideas, the section does not assert that, and it is clear that Gates will heavily influence the emerging policy. We talk elsewhere in the article about Podesta's, Daschle's, and Biden's plans. Why not Gates'? They are all Obama surrogates...faces of the transition.
  • The citation is from Slate, not Salon. I read it as the author's description of Gates' ideas as expressed in the Foreign Affairs article and previous speeches, not an editorial by the author. But, perhaps I'm reading it wrong...
  • I'm busy today, but when I get a chance I'll try to access the Foreign Affairs article directly, and reference it instead of or in addition to Slate's piece.
  • The major point is that the the section gives some guidance about the possible direction of the Department of Defense under the Obama administration. We are not claiming that Gates' ideas are "hard wired" into Obama's head, nor should we. The article is about a transition, so change and evolution is expected. We should update this section as more specific information becomes available.
Just my two cents. Cmichael (talk) 14:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, didn't mean to bold Foreign Affairs, meant to italicize it. Sorry about that. But yes, I would suggest re-reading the Slate article, particularly the second page where most of the bullet points in the defense section are pulled from. The wording from that page is written more as an opinion piece rather than an analysis of the Foreign Affairs article and should be treated as the opinion of the author rather than Gates's. The first page of the article is more suitable as an analysis of the Foreign Affairs' article.
I believe the difference between why Daschle's, Podesta's, and Biden's plans are included is because their statements have been made as part of their duties on the transition team and/or after they were officially announced so it can be assumed that they are speaking on behalf of the Obama administration. In Gates's case, the Foreign Affairs article was written prior to the official announcement and from the perspective of the Defense Secretary of the Bush Administration rather than the perspective of the Defense Secretary of the Obama Administration. While the two perspectives will have some shared commonality because of Gates's presence in both, the man at the top (Obama vs Bush) has a huge impact on how Gates's vision will be carried out. I'm still wading through the Foreign Affairs article, but so far I haven't seen mention of any of the bullet points in the ND section as clear as they are mentioned here. As an example, the Foreign Affairs article only mentions the promotion system within the military in passing and doesn't mention at all increasing the rate of promotion, just that there is a tendency to maintain a peacetime footing and struggle with how to reward the advising, training and equipping of foreign troops. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to inform the discussion a bit, you might want to also look at AP's take on the Foreign Affairs article here. Their interpretation of the article differs somewhat from Slate's, but they do support the notion that Obama and Gates are in accord on most defense matters. Cmichael (talk) 19:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this article in Aviation Week further describes Gates' ideas about the future of DoD, referencing an interview he gave on December 1, rather than the Foreign Affairs article. Just food for thought. Cmichael (talk) 19:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)There are certainly similarities between Gates's viewpoint and Obama's viewpoint. I didn't see anything major in Gates's Foreign Affairs article that was at odds with Obama's positions, but having said that, the place where the use of the Slate' article here falls down is the bulleted expectations for the 2009 budget. As I noted earlier, those are just recommendations by the article's author rather than the proverbial "insider leaks". I've removed the 2009 budget expectations from the article. Nice find on the AP article by the way. It has a lot of good information that could be incorporated into the article. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to sit down tonight and wade through the Foreign Affairs article, as well as reading the Aviation Week piece more carefully. Then I'll take a crack at rewriting the budget section, taking those sources into account. I do think that changes at DoD are an important part of the transition, and should be included here. Cmichael (talk) 20:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citizenship paragraph[edit]

Why was the citizenship conspiracy part deleted? NYyankees51 (talk) 15:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one who deleted it, so I'll jump in and answer. It was deleted for several reasons:
  • It was outdated. The paragraph asserted that the lawsuit had been submitted to the Supreme Court for a second time, which is true. However, it did not include the fact that the Court subsequently declined to hear it for the second time. So, the lower court ruling applies. It is going nowhere.
  • I question its notability. Anybody can file a lawsuit on just about anything at any time. People like Obama will constantly draw a steady stream of baseless lawsuits. This one was particularly baseless, first because the claim that he wasn't really born in Hawaii has been thoroughly debunked by factcheck.org, and second because the nationality of his father's citizenship is irrelevant. His mother was a US citizen, he was born on US soil, so he is clearly a natural born US citizen, which is what the constitution requires.
  • Even if there is some feeling that the lawsuit is notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia, this article is not the right place to put it. This article is about the process of transitioning from one president to another, not about some baseless claim that Obama was never really eligible to hold the office in the first place.
  • I could stand on the streetcorner and shout that Obama is a Nazi sympathizer, but that would not be eligible for inclusion here, even if the New York Times wrote an article about me standing there and shouting it. There is a pretty good article on this here. Cmichael (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the same reason we don't cover the McCain citizenship conspiracy. Grsz11 17:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is where this information does belong. Cmichael (talk) 17:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Up-date: user:Ferrylodge linked the conspiracy article in a reasonable way here: [4] and IMO it should stay there rather than the way it was linked before. FYI, there was or is still a discussion going on here [5] . Would be nice if there is no further "warring" over this now.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Salazar - Saxbe[edit]

Can anyone find a good reference regarding the need for another Saxbe fix to appoint Ken Salazar? This article, his article and Saxbe fix could all use one.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been looking, but so far nobody but you seems to have noticed that Salazar would need a Saxbe fix as well in order to be eligible to serve in the Cabinet. I assumed that the Volokh Conspiracy would have something on this but so far nada. I hope a reliable source writes or talks about it, since right now it is technically WP:OR, though fully accurate and sound conclusion on your part. Lestatdelc (talk) 02:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, the nation's interest level in Emoluments was completely exhausted by the Hillary case, with nothing left over for poor Salazar. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that congress at least remembers so that he can pass. As I understand it this guy will have to give up four years of cost of living adjustments instead of two like Hillary because of when he was last elected. I wish I had salary information for his office.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Sen. Ken Salazar is poised to see a bump in salary as the country's next Interior secretary, but he won't be making as much money as his predecessor, Dirk Kempthorne. The same holds true for Rep. Hilda Solis, Barack Obama's choice for Labor secretary.... But Congress is going to have slice the Interior and Labor secretaries' pay in order to comply with the obscure emoluments clause of the Constitution, which prohibits sitting lawmakers from being appointed to positions that saw a pay increase during their terms." -- Congress to cut Cabinet salaries -- again, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/19/politics/politico/thecrypt/main4676697.shtml TJRC (talk) 22:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just happened to stumble upon Salazar's Saxbe fix; it's S. J. Res. 3: [6]. Passed in the Senate January 6; and in the House January 7. [7] TJRC (talk) 00:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama 2009 presidential inauguration[edit]

I made a separate article for the Barack Obama 2009 presidential inauguration. Feel free to come help out. Also, if you know any places that this should be linked to add the link.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Location of Transition Headquarters[edit]

We've been having a little discussion about the location of the transition headquarters within the edit notes. I think we should move that discussion here. I have argued that transition headquarters is the facility created by the GSA is Washington, DC for that purpose. We say that in the article, in the second paragraph of Section 1. Others have argued that the transition headquarters is in Chicago, because that is where Obama spends most of his time. Chaser provided the first citation referring to the headquarters as being in Chicago. A Google search turns up articles naming both places as "transition headquarters," with the Sun Times predominately referring to the Chicago location, and others tending toward the office in DC. I would argue that the official headquarters is in DC, while recognizing that Obama uses the federal courthouse in Chicago as an unofficial headquarters. Any thoughts on how best to handle this? Cmichael (talk) 22:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, that's true. Despite my edit-summary, I was choosing on the Y by googling "chicago obama headquarters", but it turns out the press is saying DC, too. Bizarre considering he's never there, but we're going by verifiability, not truth, right? I switched the listed headquarters to both. Is that satisfactory?--chaser - t 01:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shall we add Honolulu now? <wink> Cmichael (talk) 17:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Organization[edit]

Okay. I get the idea of breaking up nominees into economic, domestic, etc. But the table makes no sense. It should go in order of establishment of the position (State, Treasury, AG.....DHS). Parler Vous (edits) 07:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obama Senate transition[edit]

Is a see also link to the Blagojevich's cases article be appropriate here? –Howard the Duck 11:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think so; I added it to the section. Good idea. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template questions[edit]

The list of appointees in the templates is a big part of the this article, yet the templates themselves are subject to error. They're not referenced in any way. The "Executive Office of the President" template has been vandalized multiple times with fake names being put in. How do these templates mesh with Wiki's idea of verifiability, since none of the information in them is backed up with references.Simon12 (talk) 02:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They all come straight from change.gov Therequiembellishere (talk) 10:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. I've removed two names already that were vandalism, and appear nowhere on change.gov. How do we know any of the other information is accurate without references? Simon12 (talk) 04:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And the template has been vandalized again. Kevin Cariato is a hoax. See here. The reference provided in the comments is a hoax also. Again, can someone explain to me how templates get to bypass all of Wikipedia's rules on references and verifiability? Simon12 (talk) 05:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vice President-elect Biden announces more key staff for the Vice President’s Office 1/8/09[edit]

Thursday, January 8, 2009 02:40pm EST

Vice President-elect Biden announces more key staff for the Vice President’s Office

WASHINGTON – Vice President-elect Joe Biden today announced the following staff for the Office of the Vice President: Elisabeth Hire, Director of Scheduling; Pete Selfridge, Director of Advance; Anthony Bernal, Director of Scheduling for Dr. Jill Biden; and Sam Myers Sr., Trip Director for the Vice President.

jwalling (talk) 07:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

President-elect Obama announces key Department of Defense posts 1/8/09[edit]

Thursday, January 8, 2009

President-elect Obama announces key Department of Defense posts

WASHINGTON – Today, President-elect Barack Obama announced that he intends to nominate the following individuals for key posts at the United States Department of Defense (DoD): William J. Lynn III, Deputy Secretary of Defense; Robert F. Hale, Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller); Michèle Flournoy, Under Secretary of Defense (Policy); and Jeh Charles Johnson, General Counsel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwalling (talk • contribs) 08:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing on Obama's comments on Israeli attacks on Gaza?[edit]

Ie that there were questions about/calls for him to do so and he didn't til Israel killed 42 people sheltering in a UN school. I've got a photo of protest at his transition office 12/29 to accompany any such text. Protesters daily at his hotel. Thousands to be outside his hotel on Jan 10th. Also I heard cable news pundits saying he's going to address the issue on Jan 20th, but that would be part of his presidential article. ;-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion is that there is no consensus to merge Barack Obama 2009 presidential inauguration into Presidential transition of Barack Obama -- Yellowdesk (talk) 01:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading through this article, which is full of good information, and asked myself "I don't remember seeing anything like this on any other presidents of the United States." So I checked -- nothing. All the inaugurations are covered in the biographies of the presidents or their presidential articles. In other words, there aren't any articles on Wikipedia for any other inaugurations in the history of this country -- not for Washington, Lincoln, T. Roosevelt, Wilson, F. Roosevelt, Kennedy, Reagan, Bush, just to name a few. So what's the point of this article when all the information can be covered in the Obama presidential transition article and then probably moved after Jan 20 to an Obama presidency article? Why is this event somehow special as to warrant its own article? Everything important -- first black president, use of Hussein, etc. -- can be included in the transition article (Washington, our first president, includes his in his body article). Needless to say, I Support a merge to Presidential transition of Barack Obama. Happyme22 (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC) [In case it isn't clear, Happy is proposing to merge Barack Obama 2009 presidential inauguration into here, and his "this article" refers to that article. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)][reply]

Yes, I'm very sorry. I should have been more clear. Happyme22 (talk) 20:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An apples-and-oranges type allusion to Other stuff exists -- or, rather, the difference between Wikipedia's being a few days old with its umbilical cord still attached to Nupedia at Bush's initial inauguration versus its length of beard being -- um, to the tune of a dozen million articles now. ↜Just me, here, now … 08:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I understand Happy's point, but there probably are few if any other "Presidential transition of XXX" articles either. Like it or not, political events that occur during the Wikipedia era will get a lot more attention than those that came before. Category:United States presidential election, 2008 has at least 100 more articles under it than Category:United States presidential election, 1960, even though both were quite dramatic and historic. The inauguration of Obama is also difficult to merge coherently, since some of it occurs before he becomes president and some after. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have started another discussion on the matter Talk: Barack Obama 2009 presidential inauguration, and I strongly believe Barack Obama 2009 presidential inauguration should be a separate article to Presidential transition of Barack Obama. ABC101090 (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • N · O · T · E : .....Per Wikipedia:Forum shopping (and, I think, elsewhere), I'm importing the discussion (see below) from "there" to here, for a consolidated forum. Thx.

Why merge? ABC101090 (talk) 15:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
    OPPOSE That does not make sense to me.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
        I oppose it also, that is why I am asking why it should be merged. ABC101090 (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
    Also oppose, it's a large scale event and deserves its own article. sean (talk) 20:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Please see the discussion at Talk:Presidential_transition_of_Barack_Obama#Merger_proposal. --Happyme22 (talk) 20:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

↜Just me, here, now … 20:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge There are far too many trivial articles being created just because the media talks about something a lot. Lots of coverage in a world with lots of news outlets needing to fill space does not make something notable & encyclopedic in and of itself. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how the presidential inauguration is just a "trivial" event. It is predicted to attract a record-setting crowd of 4 million, it's going to be watched on television by a larger audience, and on top of that, it only happens once in every four years. BlueAg09 (Talk) 18:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article meets WP:GNG. BlueAg09 (Talk) 18:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Merge. These are distinct and barely-overlapping topics. Presidential transition of Barack Obama is about the process of transition from outgoing President Bush to incoming President Obama. Barack Obama 2009 presidential inauguration is about the inauguration ceremony. TJRC (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Oppose Merge This article should exist separately given current wikipedia standards.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Merge There is a genuine history to inaugurations, and their associated inauguration speeches. Singificant examples: Jefferson's first; both Lincoln's first and second inauguration and speeches, Roosevelt's first, Kennedy's, Reagan's first. It's proper to start with this president and article on inauguration. No harm in waiting a week or two before merging it with the presidency article, if a merger is still desired. After all, the inauguration is the start of the presidency. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 05:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Richardson investigation[edit]

Changed the sentence about Richardson's withdrawl. Richardson's administration is the subject of the investigation, not Richardson himself (i.e., he has not yet been implicated). http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/19/us/politics/19richardson.html?_r=2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.2.1 (talk) 23:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Partial merge to Presidency of Barack Obama[edit]

Much of the information in this article no longer pertains specifically to the transition. Administration appointments occured during this period, but they relate to his presidency. His emerging agenda is yet to come, so it would be better suited in the presidency article. Reywas92Talk 20:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disagree. This article does document the transition. Clearly, a major purpose of the transition was to develop a program which would flow smoothly into the presidency. So, the end point of the transition is the start point of the presidency. While it does make sense to duplicate some of this information in the presidency article, I think it is important to maintain the status of the transition here as an historical record. Obama's agenda, appointments, and the general shape of his presidency will evolve over time, but the transition itself is done. Only history will tell how well it served its purpose, and preserving this record of it will some day assist in that determination. Cmichael (talk) 17:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The presidential article can in a paragraph or two summarize the significant transition activities and link to this article. The presidential article will have plenty of content in due time. Obama merely designated various individuals, who were actually formally nominated upon taking the oath of office--which is why there were no full Senate votes until after the inauguration. Likewise, white house staff were also designees, actually appointed upon becoming president...albeit, after participating in the transition organization. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 05:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article[edit]

Someone should nominate this at WP:GAC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 09:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All positions requiring Senate approval[edit]

Is this page accurate regarding the jobs needing Senate approval?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • No. By its own admission, lacks U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Marshals, and missing other minor officers. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 06:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Office of the President Elect[edit]

Has anyone noticed the image at the top of the article says "Office of the President Elect". Is there really such an office in the US goverment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.219.153.75 (talk) 20:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is an unofficial proclamation on behalf of the Obama team. Gage (talk) 13:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nidal Hasan, was apparently an Obama transition task force member[edit]

Thinking Anew—Security Priorities for the Next Administration: PROCEEDINGS REPORT OF THE HSPI PRESIDENTIAL TRANSITION TASK FORCE, April 2008-January 2009, APPENDIX C: Task Force Event Participants

The Executive Summary of that document says that Presidential Transition Task Force members included representatives from past Administrations, State government, Fortune 500 companies, academia, research institutions and non-governmental organizations with global reach. Appendix C is a list of task force members.

Page 29 in the PDF page numbering is page 21 by the document page numbers, which is the beginnning of APPENDIX C: Task Force Event Participants (Participant titles as of the event date).

Page 32 in the PDF page numbering is page 29 by the document page numbers. That page lists the following individual as a Task Force Event Participant: 

Nidal Hasan
Uniformed Services University School of
Medicine

(Participant titles as of the event date)

I'll leave it to regular editors of this article to decide whether or not this information belongs in the article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's nothing notable. He wasn't selected for it (as far as I know and if he was, it was by the USHS). I think it was something like a discussion panel that would have been the same no matter who the incoming president was. I'm not sure the exact details that I heard before, but not relevant. Grsz11 02:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Presidential transition of Barack Obama. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Presidential transition of Barack Obama. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Presidential transition of Barack Obama. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Presidential transition of Barack Obama. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

change.gov[edit]

This website is down since the election. Any suggestions? -- A Certain White Cat chi? 15:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Presidential_transition_of_Barack_Obama&oldid=1209863981"