Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia will not remove content because of internal bylaws that forbid information about an organization to be displayed online. Any rules that forbid members of an organization to reveal privileged information do not apply to Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a member of that organization.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article was nominated for deletion on July 31, 2016. The result of the discussion was Speedy keep.
A fact from Presidential transition of Donald Trump appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 26 June 2016 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Donald Trump, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Donald Trump 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.Donald TrumpWikipedia:WikiProject Donald TrumpTemplate:WikiProject Donald TrumpDonald Trump articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Presidential transition of Donald Trump is within the scope of WikiProject Joe Biden, a project dedicated to creating and improving content related to Joe Biden. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Joe BidenWikipedia:WikiProject Joe BidenTemplate:WikiProject Joe BidenJoe Biden articles
The rough consensus is to keep street address until a verified request of removal is received. The discussion has established that, with minority dissent on the usefulness of such information, that we usually provide location information to headquarters of organisations where such information is publicly available, unless there is a verified request from the organisation to remove it. Since the authenticity of the IP editor claiming to represent the Trump transition office is in doubt, we should default to the retention of such information until the request is verified. Deryck C.13:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The infobox template has a "location" field. We have typically used this to put the street address of an organization (see Museum of Modern Art, Blair House, Brookings Institution,) etc. The street address of the transition committee, 1717 Pennsylvania Avenue (which is in the same building as the Clinton transition committee), has been published by Politico and the Washington Post, among others. Should we include it here or should we make an exception to custom to remove it or make it generic to refer only to a general area? An IP editor representing themselves to be a proxy of the transition committee has requested it be removed due to "security concerns." LavaBaron (talk) 21:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Street Address as per convention. If certain articles are granted exceptions to our SOP it becomes difficult to track. There can't be legitimate security concerns with posting the address to Wikipedia as long as the address is still listed on the websites of the Washington Post, Politico, etc. Besides, this is located on what is probably one of the most heavily defended and fortified intersections in the world. Any attack on the transition office would have to come from a national armed force, and I'm sure the PLA's 15th Airborne Corps don't use WP for recce or intel. LavaBaron (talk) 21:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Street Address - I agree entirely with LavaBaron. Besides, the street address is already a matter of public record - Wikipedia does not publish new information; it republishes knowledge already in the public eye. If someone was truly serious about posing a threat to the transition offices, there are plenty of other places where they could find the address. As a matter of policy, I think WP:OWNERSHIP is quite clear when it says "a person or an organization that is the subject of an article does not own the article, and has no right to dictate what the article may say". Specto73 (talk) 21:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Remove street address. Wikipedia practice has always been to remove the street address at the request of the organization, should they for whatever reason want to discourage visitors, the most notorious example being the Wikimedia Foundation article itself. ‑ Iridescent21:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Just one note of clarification - the IP editor in question is not a proved representative of the Trump transition committee. Their IP address geolocates to Iowa. If there is an unambiguous request, and there is precedent, I have no objection. However, there should be a formal request that unambiguously originates with the organization itself, is filed via OTRS ticket for verifiability, and posted here as an administrator ruling. Otherwise we're dealing with things happening in the shadows and smoke-filled backrooms which is antithetical to WP. LavaBaron (talk) 21:33, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you were "suspending" your activity on Wikipedia because you didn't like the WMF messing with the U.S. constitution or something? [1] Does this mean you're lifting your embargo? LavaBaron (talk) 22:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless there is an OTRS verified request We have previously removed the location for other organisations but this has happened only after verifying the request. In this case, the address has been published by Washington Post. If the IP can send a request to OTRS and the authenticity of the request can be verified, I would not be opposed to removing it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless there is an ORTS verified request An unverified request from an anon is meaningless. Besides, it's not exactly an undisclosed location; it's half a block from the White House complex. There is also the possibility that it's not really there. The address is a virtual office space.[2] There are short-stay office spaces and cubicles starting at $35 a day. John Nagle (talk) 05:43, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's an important part of the historical record. Given the importance of the U.S. presidency, everything associated with it is important. The place where Clinton and/or Trump developed the apparatus that ultimately ruled the U.S. for 4-8 years is an historic location and a record of it should be preserved. (Also, the GPS coordinates are in this article already and reveal the exact location anyway.) LavaBaron (talk) 19:29, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think you could find a reference that actually verifies the content you have added, as it stands now, I'd have to change my !vote to failed verification, because the WaPo ref says: If they accept, Clinton and Trump staffs will ride the same elevators to their offices...and goes on to say...In keeping with his unorthodox campaign, Trump may steer clear of Washington for transition planning. “You wouldn’t believe the amount of office space in New York,” Lewandowski said. He said it’s “highly likely” the transition will use GSA space, but may seek it instead in New York, where the campaign is headquartered now, - (note that Lewandowski is no longer the campaign manager), The other source says: Once the Government Services Administration turns on the lights for the transition offices. So it doesn't sound like it's definitive to me that the Trump campaign has actually moved into those offices, hell, it doesn't even sound like the lights are on yet.--Isaidnoway(talk)20:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's nice. But we can debate what the address is later. This RfC asks if a street address should be provided, not what the street address is. LavaBaron (talk) 22:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More info: this is just short term leased space until Election Day. Then the winner gets office space in a GSA government office building at 1800 F Street NW, where the real work of transitioning takes place. [3]John Nagle (talk) 22:43, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then why did you put 1717 Pennsylvania Avenue in the infobox with those sources that don't support the content, if the debate will take later on what the specific address is? And also, why did you cite that specific street address (1717 Pennsylvania Avenue) and ask up above: Should we include it here or should we make an exception to custom to remove it or make it generic to refer only to a general area? - if the debate is going to be later on what the specific address is.--Isaidnoway(talk)04:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We wouldn't want incompetent terrorists to go to the wrong address. However, remove if formal request received from affected transition team. After all: "1-7-15 The two masked men brandishing automatic weapons had the wrong door. They were looking for the offices of Charlie Hebdo, a satirical weekly. After learning from a pair of maintenance workers that their target was two doors over, the gunmen killed one of the unfortunate duo." Terrorists are not the only ones who make "honest" mistakes: 4-28-13 Police in Fort Worth, Texas, are blaming “poor lighting” after two officers went to the wrong home in search of a possible burglar and ended up shooting a 72-year-old man dead in his garage. The officers, were responding to a burglary alarm on May 28 when the tragic mistake occurred. 4-25-13 Lebanon, TN: A 61-year-old man was shot to death by police while his wife was handcuffed in another room during a drug raid on the wrong house. Police admitted their mistake, saying faulty information from a drug informant contributed to the death of John Adams Wednesday night. They intended to raid the home next door. 6-9-16 Stockbridge, GA: David Powell, 63, was shot late Tuesday or early Wednesday when police arrived outside his home and he went outside, with a gun, to see what the commotion was about. Police said Powell refused their instructions to put down his weapon. Henry County police were responding to a call to 911 reporting gunshots and a woman crying for help. A preliminary review of the 911 call indicates “the officers were at the wrong location,” said the GBI, which is investigating the shooting. Activist (talk) 14:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per Iridescent and WP:COMMONSENSE. There is no encyclopedic value and that isn't a permanent location like a museum. Just because a location is known does not mean it should be on Wikipedia. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not Censored superseded all other considerations except a BLP violation, or a real threat. If there is a real threat, it should go through LEGAL or OFFICE, who can deal properly with such matters in a way that prevents inappropriate discussion. Individual OTRS agents do not have authority to decide policy, just to facilitate interactions between WP and the outside world. DGG ( talk ) 19:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Much as I admire them, I'm not remotely as able as Lewis Carroll or Dean Swift, but I would hope satire and sarcasm are allowed (and hopefully recognized as such) here. Activist (talk) 07:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
operating out of the 1717 Pennsylvania Avenue address. The geolocation is just showing a proxy server. Which of course makes it possible, even likely that it is someone from the transitional team. Doug Wellertalk14:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone considered just asking them if they're happy having the address listed? I can think of plenty of perfectly legitimate reasons why they wouldn't want it listed; if it's just an administrative office rather than a public-facing campaign facility, presumably they don't want supporters turning up out of the blue to offer their support, or opponents turning up to heckle. The Ten Downing Street comparison above isn't really relevant, as that's a public building (presumably should Trump win, we'd decline any request to conceal the fact that he lives in the White House as unreasonable). A closer British equivalent would be the Labour Party (UK) article which lists the address as their public contact address in Newcastle rather than their actual address of 105 Victoria Street, London, as the latter is an administrative office and not set up to handle visitors or large amounts of incoming mail. ‑ Iridescent15:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be happy to ask. Since we don't have an email or phone for the transition office I guess I'll have to send them a letter if I can find their street address. I wonder where I can find that at? Oh I know, I'll check their Wikipedia article! LavaBaron (talk) 17:07, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's where to send a resume if you want a job with the incoming administration. Each new administration has to fill about 4,000 high level jobs in a hurry. They have to have a public point of contact for such HR functions. John Nagle (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, it is none of their business what we post about them in WP, provided we don't disclose actually private information or engage in libel or misrepresentation. Just like everyone else. I also point out we have learned to be very skeptical about edits coming from official government ip addresses. Altogether too many of them have been from out-of-control staffers. DGG ( talk ) 19:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why are these well sourced claims about notable information being disappaeared wholesale, without any effort to at least include some of the material? There is no way you can tell me none of this is relevant to this article. I am being persecuted unjustly. 63.143.192.228 (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are completely wrong. This is the most notable aspect of his transition thus far: that thousands of protests have been organized against it. There are over 10,000 references I could add here. Looks like this is indeed a case of "I don't like it, make it go away!" Deleting my material won't make the protests end, friend. 63.143.192.228 (talk) 23:07, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is notable and noteworthy but 63.143.192.228 (talk·contribs) should instead post a draft version here to the talk page and we can all discuss it and tweak it. The prior methodology of instead repeatedly adding it in, after all the objections, is not the best way to go here. Maybe you could try collaboration and see if it works to get a compromise version. 69.50.70.9 (talk) 00:51, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered=or|ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Chris Christie joined the as head of the transition planning team of Donald Trump, after he endorsed the presidential candidate when Christie dropped out of the race in the primary.[1][2][3][4] Christie brought along two of his close associates — Richard Bagger and Bill Palatucci.[1] After calls for Christie's impeachment as Governor and felony convictions in U.S. federal court for high-ranking members of his staff in the Bridgegate scandal, Christie was dropped by Trump as leader of the transition team, in favor of Mike Pence.[2][3] On the same day, Bill Palatucci and Richard Bagger were also both removed by Trump from the transition team; they each then returned to working in the private sector.[1]
Please also remove the two close associates of Chris Christie from the infobox (Bill Palatucci and Richard Bagger) as they are no longer associated with the transition team at all and both returned to the private sector.
^Jeremy Diamond, Jake Tapper, Phil Mattingly and Stephen Collinson, CNN (February 26, 2016). "Chris Christie endorses Donald Trump". CNN. Retrieved February 27, 2016. {{cite web}}: |author= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered=or|ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please add:
Content at the Greatagain.gov website was made available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.[1] The website explained: "Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Content includes all materials posted by the Trump Presidential transition. Visitors to this website agree to grant a non-exclusive, irrevocable, royalty-free license to the rest of the world for their submissions to this website under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License."[1]
It's important to know so that we can use media files posted to the site for upload to the Commons, but is it vital to include in the article itself? LavaBaron (talk) 04:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, the noteworthiness of mentioning the website has a CC v 4.0 license can't be in the eye-of-the-beholder. If there are secondary sources discussing it, that would be one thing, but us observing it through a primary source (the website itself) and then declaring it noteworthy, is problematic. LavaBaron (talk) 21:35, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
^ abTrump Presidential transition (12 November 2016), "Copyright Information - Copyright Notice", Greatagain.gov, retrieved 12 November 2016, Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Content includes all materials posted by the Trump Presidential transition. Visitors to this website agree to grant a non-exclusive, irrevocable, royalty-free license to the rest of the world for their submissions to this website under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
CBS News reported that the Trump Transition team asked the Obama Administration White House for top security clearances for his children — however regulations discouraging nepotism within the government prevent the President of the United States from hiring family members to work in the executive branch.[1][2]
The issue I have with this is the sources say that there is no exclusion to family members receiving security clearances, only working in the government. As established in this article (or maybe it should be), the transition group is a private corporation. Your suggested wording strongly implies (without technically saying so) that a law has currently been broken, which the sources don't support LavaBaron (talk) 00:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CBS News reported that the Trump Transition team asked the Obama Administration White House for top security clearances for his children during the transition period.[3] Regulations discouraging nepotism within the government prevent the President of the United States from hiring family members to work in the executive branch.[4][3]
New article: Donald Trump Requests Security Clearance for Son-in-Law Jared Kushner, NBC News -- "While it's unclear when Kushner would receive security clearance, the legality of such a move is murky as well, as it raises questions about whether Trump is contravening the anti-nepotism law that bars presidents from appointing family members to cabinet positions or formal government jobs." -- Getting more and more relevant and covered by thousands of sources now. 69.50.70.9 (talk) 03:27, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
IP editor - OK, OK, I get it. I'll get to this as soon as possible. I'm not the Trump Transition Wikipedia Curator. LavaBaron (talk)
"Mr. Rogers, a Republican who represented Michigan until last year, held a central role overseeing the national-security transition process for Mr. Trump’s team since before last week’s election. But he is considered a close ally of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, and multiple people close to Mr. Christie were removed from the transition team in recent days amid a major shake-up."
Former Congressman Mike Rogers, a national security expert on the Trump transition team, was additionally another close associate of Chris Christie who was also removed a few days after Christie's departure.[5][6][7]
The infobox makes it appear that this article is about one or more nonprofit organizations. However a reader would reasonably expect this title to refer to the transition process, funded by the U.S. government. Which is it? - Brianhe (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is both, simultaneously. There is an official 'social welfare org' 501(c)(4) designation, per the official website.[4] There is also federal in-kind 'funding' but it is very new, per CNN: "Before the 2012 cycle, all pre-election transition activity was privately funded... This year, Congress appropriated $13.7 million for pre-election transition efforts... [but not] any actual cash."[5] See also [6][7][8][9] about the pre-election fundraising, this FOIA-specific description about how the transition is quasi-governmental and thus both non-transparent AND heavily bureaucratic,[10] this bit about the post-election continuation of private funds for unspecified costs not covered by federal budget allocations.[11]47.222.203.135 (talk) 17:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This article that I created: Conflicts of interest of President-elect Donald Trump looks like it will be deleted as an attack page. While I disagree, I respect any decision made and wanted to ask what people think about adding the specific potential conflicts of interest to this page about the presidential transition?
Map shows the number of companies owned by Donald Trump[1] that are operating in each country:
Deutsche Bank is owed $365 million for a hotel in Washington DC, a hotel in Chicago, and a golf course in Florida. There is a $14 billion fine being negotiated with Deutsche Bank and the Department of Justice for matters unrelated to Trump, that he as President would have power to influence.[5]
The Internal Revenue Service receives a new appointed head by the President of the United States every five years, the next head due November 13, 2017. Trump is currently under audit by the Internal Revenue Service.[2]
The Trump organization's foreign investments around the world will be affected by policy decisions while Trump is president.[2] The organization has business holdings in at least 20 countries.[6]
In my opinion, the fact that this has been a concern SHOULD be mentioned in the article, with sources documenting that experts have expressed concern and a few of the most important examples. However a list of everything that someone has been mentioned anywhere is a little too much. Remember that until he takes office these are only POTENTIAL conflicts.Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion is that we create Presidency of Donald Trump#Personal Connections with Foreign Countries which can point out the positive connections, as well as the potential-conflict-of-interest-connections (in some cases they will be the same connection but most of the time they will be different things -- Trump has a golf course in Scotland and is also part-Scottish ancestry on the maternal side of his family). We can also summarize the history of the Foreign Emoluments Clause in a sentence or two (Title of Nobility Clause#Foreign_emoluments), which covers the Constitutional basis and the broader history of financial entanglements with foreign governments. Because it was a campaign issue (first raised by Bernie Sanders and then later continued by various Republican contenders if memory serves), I also believe we need to link to Clinton_Foundation–State_Department_controversy#Transparency_and_foreign_donations or a similar summary. There have often been potus-elect (and potus-proper) people with international connections, and some criticism; Mitt Romney visited Poland to meet Lech Walesa (and was accused of soliciting foreign funds thereby), Barack Obama received the Nobel Prize (and the million bucks in prize money), GHWB/GWB had extensive ties in the middle east from their work in the oil industry (and the associated controversy which accompanied their potus-actions in the region), and so on. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are a couple 'conflicts' that I believe should NOT be covered in that new subsection, including nepotism (e.g. children playing a role in the administration) and patronage (e.g. major donors or supporters being given administration roles) which should probably be covered instead at the appropriate chronological timepoint in List of Donald Trump political appointments and in Presidential transition of Donald Trump. We might give a summary here, with a sentence about each of them, under the transition-team portion for nepotism and under the cabinet-level appointments section for patronage. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion of specifics: I have changed from a bullet-point list to a numbered list (in the content-listing above), for ease of talking about the factoids. I think #7 is something that can be mentioned more with respect to Harold Hamm, one of Trump's advisors and a key figure in the pipeline project; Trump's stock is a potential conflict, but only if he retains it once potus, in broad strokes. Trump's acceptance of policy-help and campaign donations from Hamm, is a larger topic that will get plenty of scrutiny (cf Bush family and their connections to the oil industry). Rumour has it that Hamm will not be a formal member of the administration, but he was a formal member of the campaign, and has been under serious consideration by the transition team, so I would merge that pipeline factoid into those articles. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think #6 and the BoC connection is worth mentioning under the section called Presidency of Donald Trump#International Relations with China, along with the call to Taiwan, the tweets about the South China Sea, the campaign rhetoric about currency manipulation, and a brief pointer to Trump's political activism going all the way back to the 1980s with respect to getting better trade-deals with Asian industrial giants. BoC renting office-space on 5th Avenue is really more of a footnote, rather than a full-sentence-worthy factoid, in my book, but time will tell. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can cover #1/#2/#5 in detail over in the Trump Organization article, or maybe in the Donald Trump#Business article, and then mention them here in this article about foreign connections ("as head of the Trump Organization potus-elect has properties and investments in dozens of countries, and as real estate is a capital-intensive business has outstanding loans with foreign banks as of late 2016") but my suspicion is that those direct ties are going to be blind-trustified in fairly short order. We should still note them, here in the presidency-article, but unless they blow up into scandals, they are more potential-conflicts-that-were-avoided-during-the-preliminary-transition-phase, rather than stuff which had a material impact on Presidency-of-Donald-Trump (aka the topic of this article). In other words, it is a bigger deal for the Trump Organization, that they had to lose Trump as their titular head, than it is for the Trump Presidency that he was temporarily in a potential conflict of interest PRIOR to taking office. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Quickly glancing at it, the IRS thing in #3 is a non-sequiter; every potus pays taxes, and lots of repub potus candidates promise tax cuts. That is not corruption, that is not a conflict of interest, that is an ideology that the NYT dislikes. ;-) There were 72 repubs in the House that voted to impeach the commissioner of the IRS -- the vote came after Trump was potus-elect, but it was not for his benefit -- the vast majority of them endorsed somebody else for president, besides Trump. See also the NRLB thing, below. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There might be more meat to the #4 point about the NRLB, but if so that belongs under the Secretary of Labor discussion (and Deputy Secretary and NRLB member-appointees) rather than as a purported "conflict" -- unless the sentence can be neutrally rewritten, I don't think we should say in wikipedia's voice that "sometimes" (vague & weasel-wordy) in the unspecified past there have been some unspecified sort of "disputes" (again with the vague & weasel-wordy) between Trump and/or Trump's company and the NRLB. As with taxes, every business that hires employees is subject to the NRLB; unless Trump has been involved with a bunch of *unusual* NRLB actions, this is not something I could support as being encyclopedic (it implies wrongdoing and/or corruption when no such thing is being shown). NYT mentions a specific NRLB ruling, which went "against" some hotel that Trump partially owns, but gives no indication of wrongdoing, no indication of corruption, and most importantly in my mind, no indication of how often this happens relative to other major hotels owned by other people (union disputes are not unique to Trump Hotel Vegas I'm sure!). Where's the beef, would be my question here. If we don't have anything but this, at most we can say "the NYT criticized Trump for being potus because his businesses have to follow NRLB regulations" but we cannot call THAT a conflict of interest in wikipedia's voice. Credit Mobilier was corruption and a conflict of interest; appointing pro-business repubs to the NRLB would be partisan (just like Obama appointed mostly pro-regulatory dems), but not corrupt, and wikipedia must not imply something that isn't there. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All told, I don't like the infographic-heavy approach that NYT and CNN are taking with respect to this inherently non-neutral topic; wikipedia can do better, by covering the topic with an eye to the history of presidential candidates and office-holders with foreign connections, in a neutral fashion that compares apples to apples. And although I have written a lot of advice here, on how we ought to revamp the content to "do better" than the media, I have not taken an actual stab at doing so... this is a tricky area, and it will be hard to strike the proper balance of neutrality and proper weighting. I invite the bravest wikipedian to step forward and give it a shot :-) 47.222.203.135 (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you can help me to write it, I'd be happy to post it. Everything you've drafted above sounds entirely reasonable to me. I'd say we should start with one well-reasoned part at a time? Victor Grigas (talk) 20:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Poblete is a member of the "landing team" which is to say that they are a staffer assigned to help the transition team that is dealing with national security issues. (The position of National Security Advisor very high level, Michael T. Flynn is the expected appointee.) Currently we only list the vice-chairs and the executive-committee of the transition team, not the individual landing team staff members. Yleem Poblete is currently a redlink, so maybe it is better to keep the landing team out, but by contrast Mark Neuman is a bluelink (another landing-team person who had a name I recognized). Might be worth mentioning some of these in the Presidential transition of Donald Trump#Leadership subsection, in a prose paragraph at the bottom? 47.222.203.135 (talk) 11:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The main article for this material is at Cabinet of Donald Trump, which is where those sources could be best put to use. However, there is a discussion about whether or not Rodgers is really going to be the pick for Interior, see page above, plus Template_talk:Cabinet of Donald Trump for the Zinke-vs-Rodgers problem. The media is reporting what anonymous leaks from the transition team say, with titles crafted to confuse the general public into clicking. Thanks for the links to those news pieces, however, they are helpful. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 12:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Does this pic belong here in the transition-article? File:Donald Trump Presidential portrait.jpg It is black-n-white, and has a scowl similar to his book-cover Crippled America, so it is not likely to be used in the biography-page Donald Trump (see talkpage there for rough consensus).
But it seems appropriate for this article, about the transition-process. Currently we have File:TrumpTransitionMontage.jpg at the top in the infobox, which is a wide-shot of a meeting with Obama, on top of two smaller photos which illustrate the first-lady-meeting and the construction-of-the-inauguration-platform. Can somebody with the graphics art skills, possibly create File:TrumpTransitionMontage2.jpg, with the official interim PEOTUS-portrait in the top-righthand-corner of the four pictures, and the current wide-shot of the trump-with-obama meeting cropped down so it will fit into the top-lefthand-corner of the new montage?
You have it right on this page but on President Trump's main page you forgot to mention that Sonny Perdue was picked as President Trump's nominee for Secretary of Agriculture Coxc4673 (talk) 05:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article says that the transition ended with the inauguration of Mr. Trump. This is in line with United States presidential transition. But (as usual with such transitions) many office holders are subject to approval by the Senate, so in the meantime there was (and in some cases still is) an 'acting' office-holder, appointed by the previous president. It seems to me that it would be logical to see this as part of the transition process, which could also mean that the transition period finally ends when the Senate will have approved all office-holders. Bever (talk) 22:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified one external link on Presidential transition of Donald Trump. 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: 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.
I have just modified one external link on Presidential transition of Donald Trump. 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: 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.
What is the criteria for crossing people out? Should this be updated, or should we remove the cross outs? It seems outdated as other people e.g. Scaramucci have also moved on and are no longer associated with the Trump administration. -KaJunl (talk) 03:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done IP editor - I made this change with a slight textual modification. Let me know if this form is okay. LavaBaron (talk) 03:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. JTP (talk • contribs) 17:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not done This page is no longer protected - you can edit it directly. — xaosflux Talk 04:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect GreatAgain and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 10#GreatAgain until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. QueenofBithynia (talk) 20:31, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
