Jump to content

Talk:Office of the President-Elect: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 81: Line 81:
*'''Question To Ponder''' - Might [[United States presidential transition]] be a better merge target for this page? Everything on this page is thoroughly presented there. [[User:Drdpw|Drdpw]] ([[User talk:Drdpw|talk]]) 17:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
*'''Question To Ponder''' - Might [[United States presidential transition]] be a better merge target for this page? Everything on this page is thoroughly presented there. [[User:Drdpw|Drdpw]] ([[User talk:Drdpw|talk]]) 17:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' - basically the same thing.—[[User:Fundude99|Fundude99]]<sup>[[User talk:Fundude99|talk to me]]</sup> 07:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' - basically the same thing.—[[User:Fundude99|Fundude99]]<sup>[[User talk:Fundude99|talk to me]]</sup> 07:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' Nothing is gained from having separate pages [[Special:Contributions/77.97.61.86|77.97.61.86]] ([[User talk:77.97.61.86|talk]]) 16:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:43, 24 February 2017

Untitled

Office is in reference to current events, and the 1963 presidential transition act. and is not in reference to any specific persons.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Warion7 (talk • contribs)

Placecard has nothing to do with notability. Also, the office legal basis is noted, as is the controversy, in the current form, it passes NPOV barely which is why I added expand. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no, the views stated were in reference to other commentators expressions of the current usage of the term by the soon to be President Elect, not personal belief statements. --Warion7 (talk) 05:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the citation you had stated otherwise if you had read all of it. (basically, forgetting to read all of it closely made you seem like attacking at the beginning, I hope you don't make the same mistake again next time you start a stub)ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Controversy Section

I feel like its minor, since I can only get a few google hits. Of course, if there was previous controversy, ex. on the passage of the bill, then the section can be expanded.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs a name change

Shouldn't the article reflect the actual name of the organization Office of the President-Elect of the United States rather than the United States Office of the President-Elect. The current title implies that this is just the US branch of the office. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 23:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We can also lose the controversy section. There is no controversy here, this office has been used for decades by incoming administrations and the only sources of the "controversy" seem to be two blogs written by people that didn't bother to do a little basic research before pressing the partisan propaganda key on their keyboards. 24.185.105.199 (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there is a controversy, and the controversy has been reported in the mainstream media [1]. While the Presidential Transition Act grants the president-elect an "office," he is not an officeholder. The term "office" used in the PTA refers to nothing more than a physical workplace for the president-elect and is not an "office" in the sense of being a post, position, department, etc, like the "Office of the President." The term "Office of the President-Elect" appears nowhere in the Presidential Transition Act.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 00:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential Transition Act of 1963

I'm having some trouble finding where in the act the "Office of the President-Elect" is formed. The act apparently details the provision of resources to the president-elect; I don't see any office created in the act. The act provides "Suitable office space appropriately equipped with furniture, furnishings, office machines and equipment, and office supplies", but I don't see where it creates an official office. Help me out with a direct quote, please.138.67.143.174 (talk) 07:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely correct. The term "Office of the President-Elect" appears nowhere in the PTA. The PTA provides the president-elect with support staff and an "office," but "office" refers simply to a physical workplace and is not an "office" in the sense of being a post, position, or department. The president-elect is NOT an officeholder. This article misleadingly gives the appearance that he is.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 00:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I don't think anyone (and certainly not this article) is claiming any power or authority derives from the office. The only "controversy" here are a couple of right-wing blogs and one right-wing news organ conflating and misunderstanding the two uses of the term office. There is no controversy here, just people who have a poor understanding of grammatical usage posting their ignorance on their blogs. Every president since Lyndon Johnson has had an Office of the President-Elect. Do we really need a section explaining that the word office has more than one usage? I thought that was what Wiktionary was for. L0b0t (talk) 02:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's pretty simple: when the name of the article is "Office of the President-Elect" (as opposed to, say, "presidential transition" or a redirect to the article on the PTA), it implies an authority that doesn't in fact exist, whether it's explicitly claimed or not. Most people upon seeing the words "Office of the..." would construe that to be referencing an office in the "official" sense, not a physical, tangible office. When the phrase "Office of the President / Comptroller / Whatever" is employed, it refers to the powers and responsibilities of the position, not the individual's workplace. That misleading impression is only magnified by the fact that the article previously claimed that the PTA created this "Office of the President-Elect," when in fact that phrase/title appears nowhere in the statutory language. Hence, the crux of the controversy over appearing behind a podium emblazoned with a placard proclaiming "Office of the President-Elect" (with the word "President" substantially larger than the others). As for the "Controversy" section, it's unimportant whether we agree with the critics or not; what's only important is that the criticism is verifiable and notable. Michelle Malkin is a notable commentator, whatever the accuracy of her views, and Fox News, as the most watched news channel in the country, is definitionally a mainstream media outlet and therefore a "reliable source" according to Wikipedia guidelines.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 08:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An all too common misunderstanding of linguistics. Text can never imply anything, rather, the reader infers meaning based upon their own lifetime of experiences, education, and prejudices. The title of this article can in no way imply that the President-Elect of the United States has or lacks any form of power or authority. You, the reader are inferring one particular usage of the word office. This is why different individuals can read the same thing and come to differing conclusions. The point is, every POTUS since Johnson has had an office available to them to handle the transition, whether or not a particular POTUS has printed letterhead that says Office of the President-Elect (Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Obama) or he poses in front of a sign on a lectern (Obama) or he works out of his own office-space (Ford, Bush 41, Bush 43) is irrelevant. The fact remains that the GSA supplies and funds the transition team and provides an Office of the President-Elect. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 20:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Passion of the Damon: There was a AfD for the article for the reason that it was based on a single use office with no previous "authoritative" use. It passed the AfD, so I don't see what you're so obsessed with. Fox News is not the most watched channel in the nation, therefore you are failing WP:NPOV. Also, L0b0t, if you can add citations/content on Nixon, Carter, Reagan, etc. under history, it will help the article greatly.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Budget

Where's this budget figure coming from in the infobox?The freddinator (talk) 04:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Supposedly one of the cites I guess, I do remember reading somewhere about Obama still doing fundraiser because transition or something only provided X amount of money and needed Y amount, so it might have came from there. Good question though. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Office of the President-Elect. 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, 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 11:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why use the Obama-Biden logo of 2008 and not the newly created Trump-Pence logo of 2016? --Bruzaholm (talk) 13:38, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree --Hosgeorges! 14:13, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree with you Hosgeorges and Bruzaholm. I am going to change the logo right now, so that it corresponds with the current president elect, Donald Trump.--FeralOink (talk) 07:47, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with President-elect of the United States

Both articles essentially describe the same thing, almost WP:DUPLICATEs. --Nevé–selbert 23:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Office_of_the_President-Elect&oldid=767222696"