Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"List of executive branch czars" sorting order

When sorting by Appointing Administration, some of the presidents are sorted by first name, others by last.

in the czar count

Bush had 47 czars in at least 30 positions: http://www.democrats.org/a/2009/09/the_bush_czars.php

And the continued vandalism of Wikipedia by right-wingers makes this site completely unreliable.

bush did not have more czars than obama. someone put it at 36. according to GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, bush 43 had 12 czars http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,531363,00.html

A review of the List on the page shows that Bush 43 during his entire administration had 28 seperate titles for Czars but they were not all active by the dates shown at the same time. So the number 36 is totally erroronous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.213.132.67 ( talk) 12:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC) reply

but historians say that obama has the most czars. quote from politico

But with so many more czars than previous administrations, the Obama White House faces greater potential for controversy. And the Van Jones case has clearly hit a nerve.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/26781.html#ixzz0QDBHtWVB

politico is a non partisan site, whoever is messing with bush's number and putting some obscene amount, please stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.118.90 ( talk) 06:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC) reply

someone keeps changing bush 43 back to 36 grrrr. man you libs, want to bash bush, bash katrina, bash iraq, but OBAMA has more czars, everyone knows this, everyone is reporting this, i gave 2 references already, bush did not have 36. wikipedia is such a joke >:( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.118.90 ( talk) 06:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC) reply

How accurate is the list? What vandalism has occurred? Has anyone looked at the list at http://frontpage.americandaughter.com/?p=2385 created by Nancy Matthis to update the list on Wikipedia? - Thanks Timman321 ( talk) 06:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Timman321 reply

I am checking all the sources on the list and will discuss this soon. I am finding that nearly all the entries are documented. The prior vandalism was corrected. W E Hill ( talk) 06:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC) reply
I have checked all but one of the George W. Bush czars (Reading), and they are accurate. Removed one because the person never took office. Also removed an Obama czar for the same reason. Will finish checking later today.

W E Hill ( talk) 13:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC) reply

The numbers are correct per the criteria for inclusion described below. Although edits are constantly in process and numbers may be off one or two. By the way, I think that the czar(s) that were offically named but didn't make it through the Senate confirmation process should still be on the list. Having them on the list and noting the fact that they were named and rejected or resigned prior to or during the vetting process would add value and go further to meet the stated purpose of the list as described below. Jnkish ( talk) 01:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Count has since been confirmed by The Washington Post [1]-- 76.94.16.33 ( talk) 04:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC) reply

How can you have 36 Czars when there were only 31 Czar titles in your backup graph with only one person in each category at a time. This part of the Czar frame does not make sense. It seems someone needs to clean up their math. The top frame does not match up to the bottom list of Czars. The list contains 31 Czar titles. Until another Czar title is found for Bush should not the two lists match with Bush having 31?

I am responding to the unsigned comment directly above which appears to have been added one day after multiple edits were made reducing the 'czar count' for Bush to 30, and immediately after doing this again. I have written you on your talk page with a list of the czars, numbered 1-34. I will be reverting the count again to 34 since I have provided documentation. Please discuss the count here if you wish to dispute this again. I will discuss your specific concerns, however, for now I have given you a numbered list. Regards W E Hill ( talk) 17:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Kenneth Feinberg

I have an objection to the inclusion of Feinberg in the list. The only media reference given that uses the term czar specifically says "Don't call him 'pay czar'". Since the article specifically rejects the czar label, is it really evidence that he's been labeled a czar? ( talk) 12:43 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Response to question from user USColonial- A Google search on "Pay Czar" will turn up the following articles and more:

It concerns me when users raise questions like this. The main reason that I am concerned is that the current citation format (one reference point per row) is difficult for readers to quickly navigate with a specific question- Such as: "What publications have referred to Feinberg as Pay Czar"? Many time the reader or editor has to navigate and read through all of the grouped citations to answer a simple sourcing question. I strongly prefer the multiple citations per cell method for this and many other reasons- most of which I explain below: See the #Reasoning for citation(s) in every cell section for more. I revived this from the discussion archive because of this particular question regarding Feinberg. Jnkish ( talk) 17:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Criteria for inclusion

The criteria for inclusion section should be on the main page, not the discussion page- see this Wikipedia page for a guide: Used this page as a guide: List_of_sovereign_states#Criteria_for_inclusion Jnkish ( talk) 10:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC) reply

The scope and purpose of this list is to enumerate and understand each czar position as specifically created by the Executive Branch of the United States Government. Compiling a list such as this can be a difficult and controversial process, as the status of many entries may be disputed and/or politically charged.

Criteria:

  • A member or members of the media have identified and/or "coined" the czar position in a citable publication (citable per Wikipedia policies).
  • The czar position holder (the individual i.e. John or Jane Doe) is appointed specifically by the U.S. President and/or other high level executive branch office holders (i.e. Treasury Secretary, Homeland Security Secretary, etc.) to champion the particular cause related to the representative czar position.

Typically, if both of the conditions above are met, then a new executive branch czar is born and should be included on the list. Jnkish ( talk) 10:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC) reply

I agree. The criteria section definitely needs to be moved back to the article. Who is considered to be a "czar" and why needs to be defined on the article page. Burying definitions or criteria for inclusion on the discussion page is no help to readers or editors.

W E Hill ( talk) 12:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC) reply

I moved the criteria section to immediately above the first table. That way, readers and editors can see that all that is required for inclusion is that the term has been used just once in a reliable publication.
I notice that the purpose of this list was to "enumerate and understand each czar position". If so, then we should add a column with a short description of the purpose of each job listed. That would be very easy to do, especially if some very common abbreviations are made regarding appointment method.

W E Hill ( talk) 09:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC) reply

I've been thinking about this... Instead of adding another column to the list, it may be more appropriate to create a separate Wikipedia page for each czar and link it back to the list. Then each czar position can be explained in detail on the specific page as well as listed on the executive branch czar list for quick reference.

Jnkish ( talk) 13:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Most of the people already have their own pages already, but we could do short bios on the names that are still in red.
Since this page is a list of the "czars", I think it would be helpful to have a short description of their job duties here. I am thinking about a way to add this. Perhaps the best way is not a column, but I will be trying it out after I am done with the clean up later today.
If what you are proposing is to create new pages called, for example "afpak czar" or "pay czar", then we would need further discussion as why and how you think this would meet Wikipedia standards for an encyclopedic type entry. --Regards,

-- W E Hill ( talk) 12:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply

(outdent) I suggest that any position that is confirmed by the Senate, as per Article II, Section 2, of the US Constitution -- is not a Czar position. The Czar positions would be at a minimum Executive branch positions not subject to "the Advice and Consent of the Senate". Any position that is subject to "the Advice and Consent of the Senate" is a standard Executive branch appointment covered by the US Constitution. I recommend that a clear criterion to be added to the criteria for Czar inclusion must be: Not approved by the US Senate. Adding this criteria will simplify the inclusion list.

Therefore I suggest the criteria be: (a) Appointed by the President; (b) not approved by the Senate as per Article 2, Section 2; and (c) referred to by the media as a "czar". Anyone to make the page must meet all 3 criteria. SunSw0rd ( talk) 12:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC) reply

SunSw0rd- What is wrong with the current criteria for inclusion? It accurately describes the way the mainstream (wikipedia citable - reliable source) media has been referring to United States Czars since at least the 1940's. The office holders have both an "official title" and one or more "czar titles" and related causes. Please be reminded that the stated purpose of this list is to "enumerate and understand each czar position". If we were to exclude the czars that have already been named by citable media sources as "czars" then it would undermine the purpose of the list. The "Type of Appointment" column is useful to distinguish the "Advice and Consent" czars from the other named czars. Personally, I think that the list would be even more useful if we were to list all of the czars- by creating a list below the main list that includes and names of the fringe media czars and explaining in notes why they are not included on the main list. Then we could explain topics such as the "Swine Flu Czar" and the removal of 2 "czars" that were chosen for czar positions by the executive branch but never took office (i.e. performance czar - Killifer and faith czar Willett). However, I don't think we can do this on Wikipedia because it would violate the reliable source standards. Jnkish ( talk) 00:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC) reply

The problem with current criteria for inclusion is that media criticism is now assumed to be truth merely by assertion. Some of the positions called "czars" by Obama critics have been around for decades and never been called "czars" before. There's no objectivity in the term, and basing it off media characterizations means Wikipedia is endorsing political attacks on past, present, and future Presidents. For example, special envoys for diplomacy date back to John Jay in the George Washington administration, but are now for the first time ever classified as czars solely by critics of the current President. In short, this is a topic inherently POV that Wikipedia should not address. Wikipedia should merely list executive appointments, dates, and confirmations (if any) without trying to determine who is or is not a czar. 11:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

That criteria is far too broad and untenable, first off, ALL executive officers meet criteria (2), and i would argue (3) as well. Therefore we are really only counting who has been called a czar which is a meaningless endeavor. The tradition definition of a czar is an executive officer operating out of the executive office of the president who exists outside the tradition department hierarchy, but has legal authority to direct government activities across departments based on subject matter. A great number of positions currently listed as czars do not meet this definition.

I think it also should be noted that there appears to be a concerted effort to define traditional executive positions as czar positions in order to discredit that office holder and the president, this has led to positions being called "czar" which are entirely normal positions "assistant deputy secretary of........" Czars are positions which generally concentrate broad inter-departmental power in a single official, any other definition completely destroys any meaning in the term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.112.247 ( talk) 06:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC) reply

I agree. A good example is Kevin Jennings, who one media outlet started calling "the safe schools czar". In fact, he's just an Assistant Deputy Secretary in the Department of Education, responsible for a certain part of what the Department of Education does. Nothing "czar"-like at all. Wasted Time R ( talk) 10:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Reasoning for citation(s) in every cell

  • Each cell is its own entity- each requiring its own verifiable research.
  • Each cell in each row needs to be tied together through cited research in order to complete each row.
  • A citation for each cell in each row quickly indicates that the research for the specific row is complete.
  • A complete row indicates that the research for a specific czar is complete with each piece of information (each cell) quickly verifiable by future readers/researchers through citations.

I will add some example rows below in order to further illustrate the logic: Jnkish ( talk) 07:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Here is an example of two "completed and verified rows": At a glance, a reader can tell that the research for these two rows is complete and can quickly observe and navigate to the origin of each specific piece of information through the citations.

"Czar" title Official title Office holder Tenure Nature of position Appointing Administration
Performance Czar [1] United States Chief Performance Officer and deputy director for management at the Office of Management and Budget [1] [2] Nancy Killefer [1] 2009 [1] - 2009 [3] Senate Confirmed [2] Barack Obama [1] [2]
Jeffrey Zients [2] 2009 [2] - present

Yes, in reference to the two rows above, you could write the following:

In 2009, President Barack Obama appointed Nancy Killefer as his Performance Czar, more formally known as United States Chief Performance Officer and deputy director for management at the Office of Management and Budget and then after her withdrawl, he appointed Jeffrey Zients to this position.[1][2][3].

However, to me, it is more valueable to look at and break down each specific cell individually as follows:

  • Czar Title: The term Performance Czar was used by source [1] and not by source [2] or [3].
  • Official Title: United States Chief Performance Officer and deputy director for management at the Office of Management and Budget is linked to the Czar Title "Performance Czar" by source [1]. This official title is linked to Nancy Killefer by source [1], Jeffrey Zients through source [2] and Barack Obama through both sources [1] and [2].
  • Office Holder: Nancy Killefer is linked to the Czar Title, Official Title and Barack Obama through source [1]. Jeffrey Zients is linked to the Official Title and Barack Obama through source [2]. Jeffrey Zients is not linked directly to the "Performance Czar" title by any of the cited sources. Currently he is only linked to the Official Title and Barack Obama- Has any citable source referred to Jeffrey Zients as the "Performance Czar"?- More research could be of value here.
  • Tenure: The beginning of Nancy Killefer's term is attributable to source [1], the end of her term is attributable to and explained by source [3].
  • Nature of Position: Senate Confirmed through source [2]. Don't try to look at source [1] or [3] for this information- it is not there.
  • Appointing Administration: Barack Obama is linked to the previous cells through source [1] and [2].

The example above should explain the informational value of adding sources to each specific cell. In doing so, much more information is conveyed to the reader in an efficient manner. Jnkish ( talk) 09:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Now, using the individual cell approach, let's look at the following row:

"Czar" title Official title Office holder Tenure Nature of position Appointing Administration
Bird flu Czar Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services, Advisor to the President for Public Health Emergency Preparedness Stewart Simonson 2004-2006 [4] [5] Senate confirmed George W. Bush

The reader can not tell at a glance which of the cells are complete and which cells need more research. Now, change the row to this:

"Czar" title Official title Office holder Tenure Nature of position Appointing Administration
Bird flu Czar [4] Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services, Advisor to the President for Public Health Emergency Preparedness [4] Stewart Simonson [4] 2004 [4]-2006 citation needed Senate confirmed citation needed George W. Bush [4]

Using the individual cell approach, both the completed cells and the cells needing additional research are clearly identified.

Yes, it takes more work to do it this way. However, the work- as illustrated above, clearly adds value. Jnkish ( talk) 09:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Now, compare our well cited Wikipedia list to some of the other uncited internet czar lists (based primarily on politics) and you will quickly see the difference.

Glen Beck's list: http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/29391/ He has a lot of czars on there... But where are his sources? For example, who has called Lynn Rosenthal a "Domestic Violence Czar" in the media, besides Beck? It is hard to find a verifiable source (per wikipedia policy- see: Wikipedia:Reliable sources) for the Domestic Violence Czar position on the internet.

Thoughts? Jnkish ( talk) 09:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Jnkish ( talk) 17:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Further more: I think that citations in every cell would move this list up the Wiki Quality Scale. Do you agree or disagree? Why? Jnkish ( talk) 22:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ a b c d e Newell, Elizabeth (2009-01-07). "Obama performance czar to wear dual hats". Government Executive.com. Archived from the original on 2009-08-15. Retrieved 2009-08-15.
  2. ^ a b c d e Cite error: The named reference Fox 2009-07-16 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Muskal, Michael (February 4, 2009). "Nancy Killefer withdraws as Obama's choice for performance officer". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2009-06-19.
  4. ^ a b c d e f "Czar (n): An insult; a problem-solver", Politico, October 21, 2008.
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference benen was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Multiple Cites Per Cell

In addition to the reasoning above, I would not object to (and it would be within wikipedia guidelines) to add more than one cite to the same piece of information within each cell. Why? I have noticed that within the last 3 weeks at least 2 of our cited sources have disappeared from the internet. One was an NPR article and one was a posting by the Government on one of their web sites. I guess it is best practice to use an archive site such as www.webcite.com in order to prevent "dead links". Another method would be to use multiple (redundant) citations.

Which is better? Thoughts? Jnkish ( talk) 10:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Photo for this page

I think this page looks a little plain without a photo or logo. I would like to put something in the top right corner. What do you think would be appropriate? Seal of the executive branch? Photo of the first executive branch czar (one of Roosevelt's czars)? Jnkish ( talk) 10:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC) reply

I would like to suggest a political cartoon from December 21st 1895. I'm not sure which political figure it is in the cartoon, it looks like President Grover Cleveland. The caption under the cartoon reads "OUR AMERICAN CZAR AND HIS DO NOTHING POLICY". The cartoon is illustrated by /info/en/?search=William_Allen_Rogers
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015023105938&view=1up&seq=1183 199d9ukasd9 ( talk) 03:18, 16 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Update on cleanup

The basic clean up I discussed above, and all references were are preserved. Later today, I will fine tune with a couple of notes, will begin verifying that citations support the facts, and will place "citation needed tags" where necessary. -- W E Hill ( talk) 12:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Since there's no actual article about the czars as a group.....

This opinion column at cnsnews.com argues that the czars are unconstitutional, because they do not have the approval of the legislative branch of the U.S. government, as the constitution requires. Since there is no wikipedia article about the czars per se, but I did think this criticism was worth noting somewhere at wikipedia, I thought I'd cite it here on this talk page. Grundle2600 ( talk) 17:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply

That is an interesting point, and I think it should be discussed. There probably are enough articles on both sides (constitutional, unconstitutional) so that it could be discussed. W E Hill ( talk) 08:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I agree - Here are some additional links on the topic of constitutionality.

When a U.S. Senator writes a letter of concern to the President regarding the particular page topic, I think it is worth noting. Jnkish ( talk) 10:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you for those links. Grundle2600 ( talk) 20:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I come to this page looking for some information about the debate on czar constitutionality, and found nothing. If someone has been following that debate, please consider adding to this article. I'll go ahead and make a stub, saying that there is a debate. Wadsworth ( talk) 19:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Update – Czar (political term) is the article people were looking for. Wasted Time R ( talk) 10:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Temporary column added for cite checking

I will be checking the articles and placing and removing citation needed tags as necessary. I will be working from the bottom of the list up. When I am done, I will remove the column. After that, it will be a very simple matter for anyone to check because only new czar entries or changes, will need to be checked to see whether any citation tags are needed. W E Hill ( talk) 08:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Czar count editing

Why did someone (IP 208.95.138.132) change GW Bush's czar count from 34 to 3? Vandalism? Jnkish ( talk) 02:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC) reply

maybe 34 is a mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.118.90 ( talk) 06:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC) reply

War Czar

President Obama kept some of the Czars from the Bush Administration. Lt. General Lute was a holder, yet he is only shown as being in the Bush Administration? How do we fix this? 15:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MPA ( talk • contribs)

I added it a few days ago. Thanks for pointing it out. 69.217.193.66 ( talk) 19:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Article renaming

I would like to point out that usage of the term "czar" is derogatory and a form of red-baiting. It implies communism and imperialism. No member of the US government has ever held a title "czar" and it does all of them a disservice. Therefore I propose the article be renamed. To what, I don't know. You may keep in some reference to the colloquialist term "czar", but endlessly repeating it throughout the article is in fact a form of demagoguery and needs to be changed in order to preserve the neutrality of wikipedia. This article has some good info but otherwise should be tagged for deletion if the czar analogy is not reduced to a minor footnote. // Mark Renier ( talk) 09:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I think your concern is more than a little overwrought. Czars predate Communism and are not associated with it. The term has been in popular use here since the Nixon administration and has been freely used for presidencies of both parties. The use of the term may be somewhat stupid, since the role of these officials in administrations hardly resembles that of the historical czar, but nevertheless it has been heavily used in mainstream media sources and WP needs to reflect that. Wasted Time R ( talk) 11:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Just because the popular media makes use of the word "czar" to entertain it's 6th grade reading level audiences does not make it appropriate to the neutral Wikipedia. Many people actually think that czar is an official title when in fact there has never been any member of the US government that has had nor ever held the title "Czar". This article's repetitious use of the word perpetuates this belief. It is fine to mention something like, "colloquial media terminology refers to these various positions of advisor, administrator, director, etc. as 'Czar'" but it is not permissible to infer that their work is comparable to the Russian, Bulgarian or Serbian monarchs of failed pre-World War I European states. Wikipedia presents factsæ it is not a sounding board for red-baiting conservative (or other) popular media and this must stop. This article must use the correct titles for these advisory positions. // Mark Renier ( talk) 13:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC) reply
How is this "red-baiting"? Czars aren't even associated with communism. -- William S. Saturn ( talk) 20:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Yes, Nicholas II of Russia would be quite surprised to find that being called a czar is supposedly equivalent to being called a communist! I could go for changing the article name to put "czars" in quotes, but other than that there's nothing wrong with it. The first sentence of the article makes clear that "... the title 'czar' is an informal term ...". Wasted Time R ( talk) 23:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC) reply


The habit of using "czar" to refer to an administration official dates back at least to President Franklin D. Roosevelt FOOD: The Tenth Czar -- Kimmy ( talk) 07:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Content split-out

User:Mark Renier was correct to move the descriptive content out of this article (this is a list), but instead of putting it in the Tsar article (as we have all pointed this, the U.S. "czar" has nothing to do with the historical Tsar), I have created a new Czar (U.S. political term) article for it. In that article we can develop the history of the term, examples of the term and positions for it growing, controversy over its wisdom and constitutionality, etc. Wasted Time R ( talk) 12:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Now at Czar (political term), since (the article says) the term is also used in the U.K. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC) reply

New positions - getting the counts

The first table in the article has a column for the number of new positions, which is excellent, but it's blank.

It would be helpful, I think, if the second table, listing actual appointments, also had a column, "New Position?" (perhaps to the right of "Type of Appointment"), which could be filled in with "yes" or "no". Then it would be easy (after the column is filled in) not only to get the count for the first table, but also for readers to see where the count came from. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Who declares them Czars?

It seems to me that "Czar" is getting slapped on just about anyone, especially for political "gotcha". Why is Rove considered a Czar? Did anyone in authority ever refer to him that way, or was it just some magazine somewhere? We show definitive numbers of Czars in every President's column, but the number seems to be a moving target based on who is doing the counting, and their political perspective. It seems like the President (or his mouthpiece in the form of the Press Secretary) would make that decision, rather than some newspaper with an agenda. 68.36.51.89 ( talk) 16:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply

For the purposes of creating an "independent and unbaised" list - as required per wikipedia standards - members of the (wikipedia citable) media and/or governmental leaders "declare" a person a czar. See the #criteria for inclusion section above for further details. Jnkish ( talk) 02:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Woodrow Wilson was first to appoint a czar, not Roosevelt

Would everyone accept this uncontroversial edit? According to Time magazine: "During World War I, Woodrow Wilson appointed financier Bernard Baruch to head the War Industries Board — a position dubbed industry czar (this just one year after the final Russian czar, Nicholas II, was overthrown in the Russian Revolution)." From: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1925564,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.231.249.138 ( talk) 23:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I've added this to the Czar (political term) article, where the history of the term is delved into. Wasted Time R ( talk) 01:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Style of the Article

Perhaps more thought should be given to this entry's introduction. The article begins with an explanation of what a czar is NOT. The result is an entry that seems defensive. Perhaps an explanation of "what a czar is," and a brief history of them would make the article more readable. Lacarids ( talk) 03:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Czar (political term) has the full discussion of the term and its history. This article is just the list of them. Wasted Time R ( talk) 10:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Factcheck.org's list

Factcheck.org seems to have compiled a very good list of czars under G.W. Bush and Obama. They compiled a list based on news media and found 35 under Bush and 32 under Obama. See here for the introductory article and a PDF listing them here. It seems like this would be an appropriate source. Sχeptomaniac χαιρετε 21:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Agreed. Currently, the intro says the term "czar" was "little used" in the Bush administration (without citation), and the table says there were 35 positions and 47 appointees, pointing to the factcheck.org page as a citation. This is inconsistent. I am removing the statement in the introduction as it is without a citation and independent citations like factcheck.org have good research on this question with comprehensive lists. Incidentally, I will also remove the following line from the introduction since it repeats a statement from earlier in the introduction, has an erroneous citation, and in fact is copied verbatim from another source. Kaplanmyrth ( talk) 19:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC). The line I am removing for being repetitive is: reply
The habit of using "czar" to refer to an administration official dates back at least to President Franklin D. Roosevelt. ( Purported but erroneous citation)


GWB 31 Czar titles in detail vs 35 in summary

Re: 31 vs 35 Czars for GWB. Note that of the 35 people listed at Fact Check, there are 4 pairs who share a title (Aids, Counterterroism, Homeland Security, Domestic Policy). Thus there are, per this list 31 Czar titles held by 35 distinct individuals. Through additional research, cited in the detailed table, there are an additional 12 individuals who have also used one of the 31 established titles.

Similarly there are 32 distinct titles used for Obama administration Czars with several cases of two people to the same title.

The detailed table and summary should match 100% in numbers. Whoever alters one must get it to match the other. Factcheck's information, while a good start, is obviously incomplete if it has left off 12 individuals mentioned (and cited) as GWB czars in the detailed table, and several Obama administration ones. Sebben76 ( talk) 14:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC) reply


Calculation of Obama Administration Czars

Again I am using Factcheck as a reliable starting point...the often cited document has 32 indiviudals under 31 title (there are two Technology Czars). However the Factcheck document is not up to date.

As of June 29th, there are cited in the detail below the following additional changes to the tally: - 4 titles not mentioned by Factcheck (cyber-security, faith-based, performance, war) - 7 individuals not mentioned by Factcheck (the four originals for above: Melissa Hathway, Justin Dubois, Jeffery Zients, and Douglas Lute respectively plus auto czar Ron Bloom, climate czar Carol Browner, cyber-security czar Howard Schmidt(

The appropriate numbers, as of today, for Mr. Obama are 35 distinct titles, 39 distinct individuals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebben76 ( talk • contribs) 15:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC) reply

To bring this to the attention of the Wiki volunteers: this article violates Wiki's neutrality stipulation

This wikipedia reference was obviously written by an Obama apologist, who wanted to make Obama's power grab in appointing 32 Czars look like it was done by every other president.

That is not true.

What the wikipedia author did was to take legitimate offices, such as "Assistant to the Secretary" of some Department, and merely SAY that that person was "Bush's Czar" of something or other.

The wikipedia author's assertion does not make it true.

Those Bush appointees had legitimate titles in legitimate government offices. They answered to higher-ups within those Departments.

But Obama's unprecedented appointees answer directly to him and to no one else. Obama even calls his appointees CZARS, unlike any other president, (though Bush did call his appointee to deal with the War on Drugs a "Drug Czar".)

Please do not repeat the lie that "the number of Bush's czars was 31."

An intelligent perusal of the wikipedia page shows that to be a complete fabrication.

Unfortunately, I had this Wikipedia page copied to me on a forum to "prove" that Bush also created 31 Czars.

The untruthfulness of this page violates Wikipedia's neutrality principle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.112.108 ( talk) 02:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC) reply

You've been watching too much Glen Beck. There are no 'Czars', that is a media driven shortening of titles given to people the President appoints to handle certain aspects of Government. If you follow the source/reference links, it proves that you are incorrect on the number of 'Czars' and your understanding of what they are. Dave Dial ( talk) 04:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC) reply


Yes it is indeed a lie that "the number of Bush's czars was 31." It was 47 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.191.181.153 ( talk) 04:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Summary vs Detail as of 26 Jan 2011

Have done an audit of the detail. There are 143 appointees, one of which has two presidents, so the summary's appointees column should equal 144 which it now does. I have doublechecked the other columns as well and made minor tweaks to G.W. Bush and B. Obama's totals to accurately reflect what is in the detail. Prior presidents I found no change.

I have removed the oft-cited reference to factcheck.org for several reasons. First and foremost, the list calculated by factcheck.org is both incomplete and out-of-date. It misses 14 GWB czars and 9 BHO czars.

Second, recent editors have been assuming that each line item on factcheck is a seperate czar title and have been changing this figure rather than the number of appointees. Please note that while 35 individuals are listed as GWB several have the same title. Sebben76 ( talk) 20:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)sebben76 reply

Counting of so-called 'Czars'

The counting of so-called 'Czars' for this article seems as if it relies on editors to scan the internet for instances of media members referring to administration officials as 'Czars'. The only reliable source I have found that puts together a list is from Factcheck.org, and they have not updated the list in a fairly long time. Also, much of the article seems sporadic and the 'list' had an odd sourcing from the Washington Examiner blog(which I just removed). Is there another source that has a list similar to the factcheck list? This article can be improved with some kind of cleanup of the list and other sources that refer to the counting of this political term. Otherwise, it seems as if there is a lot of synthesis from editors that rely on original research in order to update the article with new numbers. Dave Dial ( talk) 15:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC) reply


It appears that the list was cleaned up on January 26 and the summary matches. By constantly reverting to the Factcheck data, which you admit has not been updated in a long time, you're creating a confusing article where you have 35 people cited and detail given for 49 or whatever the number.

Also by reverting to the factcheck numbers you are ignoring the table's column headers. As seeben76 said, the first column is for unique titles. Your reverting puts forth a number that doesn't even tie back to the article you cite.

The purpose of the article, as I see it, based on the narrative is to list off instances where the media coin czars. There is even a disclaimer in the narrative about this. I appreciate that fact-check.org has a comprehensive list, but it is out of date...it shortchanges greatly how many czars Bush has and to a lesser example Obama. And, as I said, and as previous posters have said, the numbers in the article you site do not match the article version you are referencing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.191.122.110 ( talk) 01:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC) reply


Let's make this an A+ article

I'm going to agree with parts of both DD2K and with 99.191.

I've always read the article as being a summary a top a detail. The accountant in me (ok ok so I'm a financial analyst, not a CPA) wants those totals to match, hence my occasional audit. DD2K is right IMO that the blog put in today (and any others that may be on the list) should be removed. I will do that momentarily and revert it back to my post-audit version. I maintain that the detail should match the summary. And 99.191 is correct that the narrative that has been here (and I believe has been here for quite some time) has indicated there should be a match. The Key question is indeed the title of this section...the counting. What counts what does not? A sub-question is how does factcheck.org fit in?

If we can agree there I think we can have a set criteria going forward. In my opinion factcheck's article should be a supplement to the criteria and not the criteria itself. If we make it the end-all-be-all then how do we account for both what happened before (it doesn't even mention Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan etc) and what has happened since?

Over the next few days I'll go through the 143 or so persons listed as the detail. I will remove any blog-only references and update the summary. I will make sure that all of the factcheck names are listed in there, using it as a source alongside the established references. It is my hope that none of the established references are blogs as that will grey-up factcheck's source.

After that we need to determine the final criteria. My initial suggestion is either by the president himself or by two independant non-blog/op-ed sources.

Any thoughts? Sebben76 ( talk) 02:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I have made the reversion with the following note: revert to post-audited article to remove blog ref and bad citation

The first part refers to my belief that Immelt is not a czar based on the source provided (a blog)

The second part refers not to that factcheck.org is outdated but the numbers cited are not present in the article. The wiki-article version citing factcheck states that GWB had 47 unique individuals (second column) with 35 czar titles (first column) and 27 of the 47 were not confirmed by the Senate. The numbers for BHO was listed as 44 unique individuals having 32 titles and 33 of the 44 were not confirmed by the Senate.

The article at http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/Czars.pdf has the following however: GWB: 35 unique individuals with 30 czar titles (AIDS, Counterterrorism, Cybersecurity, Domestic Policy and Homeland Security are each shared by 2 people) BHO: 32 unique individuals with 31 czar titles (Technology is shared by 2) There is no information given on who was and wasn't confirmed by the Senate

    • IF** and I do not at this time suggest this is the right answer...we make factcheck's article our key source, those are the numbers that should be in the summary. And again, what do we do with other presidents?

I also scanned the links provided in factcheck's summary and some of these references may not meet the best criteria as well...some sources like Time, CNN, Washington Post etc are no-brainers. Some like Huffington Post, blogs.abcnews.com, and even an .edu site may not stand up to criteria. I think this discovery should be greater impetus to create a multi-source criteria.

Again I'm very open to thoughts! Sebben76 ( talk) 02:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Utahj

I believe there is also a polygamy czar in the Utah state government. 76.117.247.55 ( talk) 21:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Elizabeth Warren

Elizabeth warren is not the head of the consumer financial protection bureau. She was denied that position even though she created it. She did oversee the tarp money. She is now running for senate in Massachusetts because she did not get that position. Someone please change this. Briwivell ( talk) 00:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Assassination czar?

Hi. Does anyone have thoughts about redirects from Assassination czar and Assassination Czar to this article? It's difficult to tell how official of a title it is, but it's apparently a moniker for John O. Brennan. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 21:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC) reply

C-H-R-O-N-O-L-O-G-I-C-A-L L-I-S-T?

Many people coming here will want to know something about the history and development of the "czar" concept. They'd want to know who the "czars" of each president were. Jumbling up all the czars in some mock "alphabetical" list is not worth much to many -- perhaps most == of the people who come here. If you want to have other pages and entries for the czars of each president, fine, only don't pretend like you've finished the job with this entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.104.9 ( talk) 17:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 34 external links on List of U.S. executive branch czars. 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.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on List of U.S. executive branch czars. 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.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC) reply


Should Kamala Harris be listed as a "border czar"

I removed her from the list, given the updated reporting which makes clear that the White House did not assign her the "Border czar" role. See, e.g., https://www.axios.com/2024/07/24/kamala-harris-border-czar-immigratin. A close examination of the primary source, the event on March 24, 2021, shows that President Biden assigned her to a diplomatic role, leading up his administration's new "root causes of migration" strategy. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/03/24/remarks-by-president-biden-and-vice-president-harris-in-a-meeting-on-immigration/.

All the previous "border czars" listed on the chart had more official titles and clear assignments from the White House. None rejected the title or argued that they had not been given the responsibility. Therefore, it does not make sense to have a person listed as a "czar" on Wikipedia if they reject the title. Razzmatazzle ( talk) 22:12, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply

This is literal propaganda and revisionism. 74.103.183.51 ( talk) 22:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia's editors once again showing utter contempt of history itself and an embrace of Orwellianism. Axios and numerous other main stream media outlets reported Harris was designated the Border Czar. Biden himself said it. This is utterly ridiculous revisionist nonsense designed to play into the political left's whitewashing of Harris record. 167.248.152.253 ( talk) 22:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Agreed! Zonedar ( talk) 23:09, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Do you have a source for Biden referring to Harris as the "border czar"? Dyrnych ( talk) 23:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The House of Representatives did in 2023 and 2024. 24.57.55.50 ( talk) 21:23, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The House has no such power. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 00:04, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Agreed! 24.57.55.50 ( talk) 01:16, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
And they corrected their error. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 20:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Every mainstream media called Harris border czar, thousands of times, for the last 3 years. 24.57.55.50 ( talk) 21:23, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
What is the point of saying something so ridiculous? This is WP:Disruptive. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 00:06, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The very definition of a Executive Branch "czar" in the main article is:
In the United States, the informal term "czar" (or, less often, "tsar") is employed in media and popular usage to refer to high-level executive-branch officials who oversee a particular policy field.
Widespread use of the term "Border Czar" by the media isn't in error or ridiculous. In fact, according to the definition, widespread media use of VP Harris as "Border Czar" is evidence that VP Harris is in fact a "Border Czar". 2600:1700:4BE0:9E90:D438:E55B:950D:37E2 ( talk) 00:28, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply
"Should Kamala Harris be listed as a "border czar"
Its seems as if you weren't really asking a question. You were just summarily appointing yourself sole arbiter of a highly political issue with very little to back it up. 24.144.63.253 ( talk) 23:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
She was the border czar:
https://www.kpvi.com/news/national_news/fact-check-harris-was-biden-s-second-border-czar-despite-recent-media-claims/article_9b163905-db50-5cbb-b37b-7ae12700f542.html
Here is the same axios author Stef W Kight claiming she was czar, and them claiming she wasn't.
Was: https://www.axios.com/2021/03/24/biden-harris-border-crisis
Wasn't: https://www.axios.com/2024/07/24/kamala-harris-border-czar-immigratin US395 ( talk) 23:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I mean, here's a fact checker contesting that Harris was the border czar: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2024/jul/24/republican-national-committee-republican/border-czar-kamala-harris-assigned-to-tackle-immig/. It seems a bit odd to cherry pick a conservative POV fact checker to make that factual claim when it's pretty clearly contested. Dyrnych ( talk) 23:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
This really is remarkable. You people leap into action whenever the party needs a new propaganda line, happily revising the historical record to say whatever's most convenient at any given moment. 207.32.162.180 ( talk) 23:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The criteria of the list is whether the media referred to the person as a czar. Multiple sources clearly did. So there is no basis for removing Harris' entry besides propaganda purposes JSwift49 00:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I remember the god ol' days when Wikipedia was credible and I used to donate generously.
Now it's devolved into this propagandist fodder for the radical left.
Quit being based and do the right thing or your credibility will continue to go down the drain. Hvm8h57v ( talk) 00:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Yes, these media sources backpedaling on the description don't mean we should remove her. Killuminator ( talk) 00:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
They didn't "backpedal". They corrected their initial error. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 01:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
No, they are gaslighting. They are memory holing the record immediately upon Harris becoming the Democratic nominee and Wikipedia seems to be playing along. WBcoleman ( talk) 03:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Assume good faith. WP:AGF Garnet Moss ( talk) 04:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Garnet Moss In this case that requires using Hanlon's Razor, which is patronizing given the evidence of czar-ship. 192.74.128.156 ( talk) 12:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I don't think a lot of people here are acting in good faith, and clearly the users who slapped extended protections on this article to chill any discussion agree with me.
This happens every time something ends up in the news now; the article is "temporarily" locked, the lock is extended indefinitely, and the resultant complaining in the talk page is smugly dismissed with "assume good faith". If everyone was acting in good faith, there would not be these massive extended protections on every article remotely newsworthy. Either the edits are in bad faith, the lock is in bad faith, or both are in bad faith. But something, as usual, smells.
For what it's worth, I don't think anyone on either side is going to be citing a WP list article in their arguments re: "border czar" except to complain about purported bias, but I absolutely empathize with users on this talk page assuming bad faith. 74.64.100.109 ( talk) 13:04, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Yes - This page presents an interesting dilemma, because it's concerned with an intrinsically amorphous and subjective term. As the copy says above the list, "Note that what is measured is the popularity of the word czar, rather than an objective measure of authority." It's clear both in the context of this article and in common usage, "czar" is a title which is acclaimed, not bestowed, and therefore the operative qualifiers we should be looking at are not whether or not an official role closely resembles a hypothetical ideal, but rather how the official is treated and referred to by peers, press, and public. While in an official sense, (as is the case with most VP jobs,) Harris' scope of authority was relatively modest, the impression of the second-in-command of the executive branch taking a personal interest and lead on the causes of undocumented immigration is clear from the sources provided. Fact-checking articles now are seeking to clarify the precise role which Harris played, which while important, is not necessarily determinitative over whether or not an article concerning the history of executive "czars" should include her.
(I will say, though, that since this is a hot topic in the press, prepare for an onslaught of less-than-thoughtful partisan comments.) Garnet Moss ( talk) 01:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I have a question for Razzmatazzle, why did you wait all this time to dispute this claim?
You could've done this 6 months or a year ago, even longer but yet you are bringing up this subject right after Harris became the presumptive democratic nominee.
Even if it was appropriate to edit Kamala out of this Wikipedia page (Which it isn't), the timing of this conversation points to a revisionist mindset behind your question.
I am glad that at lot of people in this discussion thread are seeing thru this. Kamala Harris has to own up to her assignment as a border czar. 142.147.56.71 ( talk) 03:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
@ 142.147.56.71 Harris wasn't in the article at all until today. Dyrnych ( talk) 04:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Dyrnych
Okay, if that is the case then I take back what I said about waiting to dispute the claim. 142.147.56.71 ( talk) 17:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
You can be a pedant all you want about the usage of the word "czar". Call Harris the overseer for the border if you like instead. Call her the pointperson or deputy or leader of border affairs. Call her the very model of a modern major general for all I care.
It is not disputed by any honest person that Harris was put in charge of border affairs. This was acknowledged even by left of center publications at the time, and not because Republicans hypnotized them. You and the media are trying to re-write history now, because you know that Harris (and Biden) did absolutely nothing to address the border crisis.
How much is ActBlue paying you to propagandize, "Razmatazzle"? 2600:1700:601:30:E109:AACC:4C43:6800 ( talk) 13:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
@ 2600:1700:601:30:E109:AACC:4C43:6800 Personal attacks are inappropriate, and this is not a forum for you to discuss immigration issues. Dyrnych ( talk) 21:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Chiming in with an informed third opinion. Here's what I see in terms of evidence:

  • We have a Congressional resolution issued today: "Whereas, on March 24, 2021, President Biden tasked Vice President Kamala Harris with working to address illegal immigration into the United States, including “root causes”, and came to be known colloquially as the Biden administration’s “border czar”."
  • The term, as noted before, is unofficial. Four years of White House press briefings turn up only one use of "border czar", by a reporter asking about the Congressional resolution.
  • There's mainstream media coverage referring to her position as "border czar", linked by KPIX.
  • The official description of Harris' role by the White House is as follows: "Since March, Vice President Kamala Harris has been leading the Administration’s diplomatic efforts to address the root causes of migration from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. She has worked with bilateral, multilateral, and private sector partners, as well as civil society leaders, to help people from the region find hope at home."
  • The fact-checking rebuttals by Time, Axios, and the USA Today also credibly describe what is conventionally understood by the public as the "border czar"'s role, precisely the things that Harris is blamed by the resolution for not doing. Time: "In fact, Harris was never put in charge of the border or immigration policy. Nor was she involved in overseeing law-enforcement efforts or guiding the federal response to the crisis. "

On balance, the sentence quoted from Congressional resolution text ("known colloquially as") and Time magazine ("never put in charge of") both seem accurate. Whether or not Harris's role is that of this informal moniker is not verifiable, but the difference from prior border czars is real.

On this page, I think we can best inform readers by listing Harris's more official role under the title column, something like "head of diplomatic efforts for the Root Causes Strategy on migration," along with a brief footnote. This is not the place for further extended text, which should be added at Kamala Harris#Immigration.-- Carwil ( talk) 01:37, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I agree that a footnote in this case would be wise, including her as a "border czar" (as claimed by peers, press, and public,) but noting that her actual delegated duties were more modest than past officials so similarly called. Certainly she should not be removed outright, as this would be profoundly misleading. Garnet Moss ( talk) 01:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
There seems to be a perception in this thread that the article previously referenced Harris and that removing her violates some longstanding consensus. In fact, she was added today in this diff. I'm not sure we can consider it "profoundly misleading" to fail to include her when she hasn't been included in the three-ish years since the publication of the articles we're relying on for the term. Dyrnych ( talk) 01:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I meant more in the sense that to omit her entirely, given the recent coverage, would be misleading. More information is preferable to less. Anyway, I very quickly (few minutes' work) mocked up what I think we're talking about in terms of the footnote, what would you say? Certainly the text would need to be revised, as I said this is just a proof of concept to clarify the conversation. Garnet Moss ( talk) 02:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Most likely because of this viral tweet. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ ɸinimi → ‎ fiɲimi 04:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Conservative commentators have been watching this page all day, waiting for some fool to march in and remove her name, given the new official narrative that VP Harris had nothing at all to do with the border and that "Harris as Border Czar is obvious propaganda, nevermind the three years we spent calling her that". It needs to be reverted, it was uncontested for over a year. I know Wiki editors know see themselves as Winston Smith, loyally serving the Ministry of Truth, but come on. Greenwoodjw ( talk) 01:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Greenwoodjw If "we" spent three years calling her that, why was she only added to the page today? Dyrnych ( talk) 01:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
So true, it should have been added 3.5 years ago. 2600:1700:601:30:E109:AACC:4C43:6800 ( talk) 13:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Assume good faith. WP:AFG I agree (somewhat) with your conclusion but this isn't how it's done. Garnet Moss ( talk) 01:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I have yet to see a single person claim she had nothing to do with the border, but conventionally-speaking, she doesn’t fit the widely-understood definition of a border czar, even if she was referred to as such colloquially. That’s why there’s an issue. There no being any contest on a very obscure Wikipedia article for a length of time does not mean it was correct all that time, either — and, upon reviewing, she was not even listed in 2023, so what you’re claiming isn’t even true. 2600:8804:168D:5600:996E:5EC8:D2AA:13A0 ( talk) 02:24, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I agree with the thrust of your comment, (and certainly not with Greenwoodjw,) but I'd like to note that I really do not think there is a "widely-understood definition" of czar in the sense people use it in the United States. As I commented above, as an informal title, it can't be evaluated prescriptively - only descriptively. "Has the subject been called a 'czar'?" is a very relevant question, in the way it isn't for an official title. Whether or not she is one has now become a political football, but I think it would be a derogation of purpose to not feature the Vice President here in some form. Exactly -how- is the question. Garnet Moss ( talk) 02:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
This is quite close to how I look at the matter. The (very belated!) reversals by certain news organizations in the last few days are relevant and our article addresses the matter in one of its only two narrative notes. However, at and around the time she was very publicly given the assignment, we have more evidence—I believe, *way* more evidence—than with anyone else who appears on this list that she was indeed identified as a "czar" by WP:RELIABLE sources. 24.90.253.80 ( talk) 04:39, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I understand the arguments from both sides.

For removal: (1) She was never officially given that title, (2) she never said she had that role and later rejected it, (3) she only had diplomatic responsibility, she never was in charge of border administration or border security (strongest argument imho!). (4) Parts of the media say labelling her as border czar was incorrect and shouldn't be done, so there is no widespread agreement on that term and it is explicitly rejected by some outlets.

Against removal: The media (even those who later rejected that title) widely assigned that role to her and this wasn't immediately opposed by her or the administration or the media/commentators. The rejections only came after her campaign started.

Both sides have good arguments for their position. It would be wrong to leave her out completely, because media reporting that used that title was widespread across the political media spectrum. On the other hand, just including her in the table would be just as wrong, because she had a very different role than the other "border czars" (diplomatic only) and whether she should be named "border czar" is highly controversial in the media today (also unlike all the others who are listed in the table).

So I think a compromise solution is needed. Here are are two suggestions what we can do:

1. Listing her with a grey shading and a note in the table after her name "(diplomatic role only, no actual responsibility for border administration or security)"

2. Having a separate category "border czar (diplomatic role only)" and listing her as the sole entry in that category with footnotes explaining it.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

Chaptagai ( talk) 05:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Very thoughtful. I disagree, but let's first address a clear irrelevancy in the "For removal" paragraph: "She was never officially given that title." Please keep in mind: No one on the list was officially given the title of "czar." That's simply not a reason for removal.
As for the compromise suggestions revolving around the notion that she had a purely diplomatic role, setting her apart from other so-called czars:
(1) While her role was primarily diplomatic, it also went significantly beyond that. From a July 2021 White House "fact sheet" listing her accomplishments on the issue to that point:

Working with the private sector. On May 27, Vice President Harris launched a Call to Action for the private sector to make new commitments in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras to expand economic opportunities. The initial group of 12 companies and organizations committed to helping over 13 million people, offered to provide $750 million in resources, and established a non-profit organization to support economic development efforts in the region – The Partnership for Central America. These initial commitments will provide financial services to small business owners, internet access and digital banking to rural communities, housing for low-income families, and reduced barriers to higher education. Since the launch, over 150 companies and organizations have expressed interest in joining the Call to Action.

(2) Even if her role had been exclusively diplomatic, that still wouldn't make her unique on this list. "Middle East czar" George J. Mitchell, for instance, had purely diplomatic responsibilities.
(3) None of the contemporaneous sources identifying her as "border czar" added anything like "diplomatic role only" as a caveat. No doubt the scope of the specific roles of the others on our list varied widely. The list doesn't exist to detail the scope of each one—the caveats would be endless. It exists simply to identify those who were labeled "czars" at the time and the generally recognized subject of their "czardom".
(4) The current controversy over the label in Harris's case certainly deserves coverage in the article devoted to her, just as it currently is touched on here, but it in no way affects the historical fact that she was widely referred to as "border czar" when she received the assignment. The controversy obviously stems not from years-long questions about the suitability of the term in her case, but from the fact that it became a political hot button due to her becoming the presumptive presidential nominee of one of the two major US political parties. That sort of highly circumstantial "controversy" does not warrant a "compromise solution" to the well-sourced list. 24.90.253.80 ( talk) 06:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Hey, IP. Thanks for your detailed response, highly appreciate it. My main concern with your argument that nothing sets her apart from others on the list would be the following: She herself, the administration and lots of relevant media organizations reject the label "border czar" for her. I am not aware that that's the case for anyone else on the list, so that's something that does set her apart from the others and it's definitely relevant and important. In my opinion, this has to be indicated in the list itself, not just in a foot note. It's a widely disputed title for her, while for others on the list that is not the case. Chaptagai ( talk) 11:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Everything you've said merits the very special narrative footnote we've given the issue. Some might feel it doesn't even merit that: she was called a "czar," many times, so she's on the list, period. But I'm on your side—we must address it.
However, neither Harris nor the Biden administration nor "lots of relevant media organizations" nor anyone else rejected the "border czar" label when it was appplied to her, over and over and over and over and over again in 2021 (and, I believe, in 2022). All of those parties who weighed in cheered the label. It was NEVER disputed until a few days ago, and—obviously—not due to longstanding questions about accuracy, but to entirely immediate concerns about political inconvenience. That's a tendentious issue to be given special treatment in other, narrative articles, not in this list. 24.90.253.80 ( talk) 13:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Oh, almost forgot: Chaptagai, you've now claimed twice that Harris has "rejected" the label of "border czar." I don't believe that's true. Can you cite a single source for that? 24.90.253.80 ( talk) 13:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I would have to look for the sources which I currently don't have enough time to do, but even if she herself didn't explicitly reject the label (she certainly hasn't embraced it): I think what's not in dispute is that in the case of Harris, the "border czar" label is very controversial today, in the midst of a presidential campaign. Even if there was no controversy in the past, the present controversy with a very strong media presence, distinguishes Harris from the others on the list. It is therefore warranted to put her in a different category or at least add "(disputed)" after her name or something to that effect. Chaptagai ( talk) 14:35, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
(1) "I would have to look for the sources which I currently don't have enough time to do." You had the time to make it up, the time to repeat what you made up, but not the time to source it—understood.
(2) We've done "something to that effect"—we added a very special narrative note. No more is "warranted". 24.90.253.80 ( talk) 16:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
We just can't treat a person where the title is so controversial the same as all the others where the title has not been subject to a nationwide controversy on all channels. A foot note is simply not enough, no one looks at the footnotes. I would suggest three ways forward as a compromise: (1) Put her in a separate category "Diplomatic border czar" plus footnotes (2) Add "(diplomatic role only)" after her name plus footnote, (3) add "(disputed)" after her name plus footnoes. Each of those sounds like a fair compromise to me. Chaptagai ( talk) 20:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
User M boli kindly provided a reference below: . "Republicans try to crown Harris the 'border czar.' She rejects the title". Chaptagai ( talk) 21:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply

For what it is worth, the Republican efforts to use the word "czar" and administration people rejecting the term go back to 2021, from when Biden charged Harris with looking into the causes of migration. Efforts to tar Harris with border enforcement failures go back just as far. Here are two WaPo articles published within a few weeks of the original appointment. [1] [2] One article describes Republicans bleating that word "czar" which the administration kept rejecting. They also explain that Republicans will try to pin border enforcement failures on Harris regardless of that wasn't her charge. -- M.boli ( talk) 19:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Harris was never called a "border czar" by the administration, nor was she given protracted tasks associated with the border. This is just a case of contemporary politics being played with WP content, as "the border" is the #1, 2, and 3 issue of the Trumpists. Get the banhammer ready. Carrite ( talk) 21:26, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Harris should be listed with a parenthetical "disputed" that links to the discussion on her page. Wikipedia can not, and should not, make a decision on who is right in a developing political discussion. That is: Harris, Kamala ( disputed) (code :[[Kamala Harris|Harris, Kamala]] ([[Kamala Harris#immigration|disputed]])) NE Ent 21:39, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    We are not making a decision. There is no official designation of her as a border czar or of being charged with any tasks on protecting the border, the duty of Homeland Security. It is simply a lie. We cannot include her in a list of executive branch czars if there is zero evidence that she was an executive branch czar. After all this argument, no one has found the source that is needed. Her official appointment. What next, will we allow the Congress to appoint a Secretary of State? O3000, Ret. ( talk) 00:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    The Czar page itself makes mention of "Official Designation" and states that
    "The list of those identified as "czars" is based on inescapably subjective judgments, as individuals or offices may be referred to with the nickname by some publications or public figures, while not by others. A more limited (though no less subjective) definition of the term would encompass only those officials appointed without Senate confirmation."
    So you have two pathways of being listed as a Czar, While correct in that Kamala doesnt meet the limited definition of a Czar, Due to the media, public figures and others naming her and refering to her as a Czar, It is a direct fact that she should be included in the list of Czars. 203.219.196.146 ( talk) 02:48, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    Various media and public figures have declared that the Democratic Party is a pedophile ring. Should we include that in Wikipedia? O3000, Ret. ( talk) 10:23, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    Hello O3000, as far as I understand the U.S. government never officially appoints a "czar" so your suggestion would mean the entire list has to be deleted. The title is assigned by the media and in the public discourse about certain roles of certain people. Kamala Harris has widely been referred to as a "border czar" in the media, so I think we have to add her to the list, but unlike all the others on this list, in her case that label has been vehemently disputed and therefore that must be pointed out, e.g., as NE Ent suggests by adding (disputed) after her name. Chaptagai ( talk) 05:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    The president announces such. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 10:21, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    I support this solution. Harris, Kamala ( disputed) Chaptagai ( talk) 05:03, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ Sullivan, Sean; Wootson Jr., Cleve R. (2021-04-03). "With new immigration role, Harris gets a politically perilous assignment". Washington Post. ISSN  0190-8286. Retrieved 2024-07-26.
  2. ^ Wootson Jr., Cleve R. (2021-04-27). "Republicans try to crown Harris the 'border czar.' She rejects the title". Washington Post. ISSN  0190-8286. Retrieved 2024-07-26.


Article fully protected for a day

The situation was descending into edit war between established editors. Favonian ( talk) 19:21, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply

The revision by @ GordonGlottal is in direct contradiction to the facts and given the media spotlight on this wikipedia page already being circulatied during the edit war, Removing and locking this page sans KH will only drive people further to distrust WP as a source of information.
Given that above user also has the burden to demonstrate verifiability as this not only lies with the editor who adds but with the editor who restores material. the page should be reverted to the edited version and locked for discussion around WHY it should be removed
Given the prior sources that meet WP:RS for the addition of the edit, I have yet to see any logical reason why "previous status quo has to remain while you discuss" nor can see this cited in any WP Rules.
Several reliable sources provide refrence to KH being refered to as the Border Czar
Between 1 Jan 2020 – 1 Jan 2022 there 75+ articles from various news outlets and organisations stating and refering to her as the Border Czar
These two alone should meet the criteria for WP:RS
[2] https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/09/kamala-harris-was-set-up-to-fail-as-bidens-border-czar/
[3] https://www.axios.com/2021/04/14/harris-immigration-visit-mexico-guatemala
"The number of unaccompanied minors crossing the border has reached crisis levels. Harris, appointed by Biden as border czar, said she would be looking at the "root causes" that drive migration."
Given that the US Czar wiki states
"The list of those identified as "czars" is based on inescapably subjective judgments, as individuals or offices may be referred to with the nickname by some publications or public figures, while not by others"
It is therefore perfectly acceptiable that when only media and publications, along with various public figures refered to her as the Border Czar that she and others be included in this list. 203.219.196.146 ( talk) 02:44, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply
How about we freeze the page in the version of one of the proposed compromise solutions (e.g., Harris, Kamala ( disputed)), as proposed above? Then a discussion over the final version can take place while the version that's meanwhile displayed isn't one-sided. Chaptagai ( talk) 05:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Agree, removing the edit and locking when WP:BURDEN has been met by the author who added Kamala in and there are several WP:RS that refer to her as Czar was wrong.
WP:BURDEN should fall to those who argue for the removal, page should either be reverted to the version with a note about the disputed status to allow further discussion. 193.115.85.154 ( talk) 13:44, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply

The primary list of this list article should be the first list in the article

On August 28, 2009, about 520 edits after the creation of the article, the derivative "By administration" list was moved up ahead of the primary list for which the article is named ( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars&diff=310534604&oldid=310529533). The edit was accompanied by a clear descriptive comment, but that comment offered no rationale for the shift and there was never any discussion of the resequencing here on the Talk page.

Fifteen years later, I'm here to say that resequencing was a mistake. The "By administration" list is relevant, informative, and deserves a place in the article. But it is a derivative, secondary list. After the brief narrative introduction, readers should see the list the article promises: "List of executive branch czars". Agreed? 24.90.253.80 ( talk) 10:24, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Protected edit request on 26 July 2024

Kamala Harris was appointed the border czar by Biden in 2021. Her name should appear in the border czar line of the list. 140.141.162.88 ( talk) 21:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{ Edit protected}} template. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 21:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Why did the version which was protected until we "establish a consensus" end up being the version which is most sympathetic to the Democratic Party?
Actually, no need to ask, we all know why. 2601:600:817F:16F0:151A:2649:7B9A:3D97 ( talk) 00:36, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The version without Harris was the status quo version, but believe whatever you want to believe. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 00:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Protected edit request on 27 July 2024

Kamala Harris was removed despite that https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-resolution/253/text

Exists demonstrating it to be an official position of record. 2603:7081:4DF0:82B0:6C11:A0C9:39FC:567E ( talk) 00:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{ Edit protected}} template. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 00:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply

It's demonstrable

Hres 253 118th Congress gives her the title officially 2603:7081:4DF0:82B0:6C11:A0C9:39FC:567E ( talk) 00:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply

That's not how this works. House Republicans passing a nonbinding resolution that won't be taken up by the Senate is just as meaningless a gesture as it sounds. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 00:49, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Asking for consensus: Freeze in compromise version until discussion is resolved

Hi everyone, one side of this discussion wants Harris not to appear at all, the other side wants her to appear with no comment or disclaimer or just a footnote. Bot sides have good arguments, but the article is now frozen without mentioning Harris at all. I understand why that was done, but that's one-sided.

Until our discussion here has concluded or reached a result, I propose that we freeze the article in a compromise version that isn't one-sided for either side such as the one NE Ent suggested above: Harris, Kamala ( disputed)).

That would be fair to both sides. Hope we can establish a consensus for that.

Kind regards Chaptagai ( talk) 10:56, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Why is it one-sided to not include something that is incorrect? It's like one side saying all Democrats are pedophiles and the other saying no they aren't; so let's compromise by saying half are pedophiles. Cutting the baby in half is not a compromise. Incidentally, there has been a discussion on the Flat Earth article with some saying we should neutrally document both sides of the argument and let the reader decide if the Earth is flat. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 11:08, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The fact that people believe, incorrectly, in a Flat Earth is verifiable, which is why the article exists. Removing all mention of Harris here would be the functional equivalent of deleting the Flat Earth article. NE Ent 11:46, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply
By that logic, we should include all the QAnon nutso beliefs in the various articles to which they apply. For example, the article on Pizza should include that Pizza places are pedophile rings, with a disputed tag. The Flat Earth article exists because the belief goes back before written history with numerous famous minds discussing the concept over millennia. The Republican false claim that Kamala Harris was charged with protecting the border has no such history. It's just another political lie, something both sides engage in. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 12:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Not surprisingly, I agree with me. List of U.S. executive branch czars#List_of_executive_branch_czars is "executive branch officials who have been described by the media as a czar of some kind." If we look at version [4] there are references to Axios, BBC news, NBC, and CNN. The Wall Street Journal has also discussed the issue. The long standing Wikipedia criteria for inclusion is [[WP::Verifiability]], not "correctness." See also MSNBC, Fox NE Ent 11:40, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply
And those cites were retracted. Media is in an increasingly tough competition to release scoops, resulting in errors. We are not in a competition and have WP:NODEADLINE. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 12:05, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The article is, among other things, about people who were described in the media as being czars. Just because the media regrets doing it now, as that is inconvenient for the Democratic Party, doesn't mean they didn't do it. That cannot be undone by frantic, politically driven retractions. 2601:600:817F:16F0:2552:E436:587F:D492 ( talk) 15:20, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Actually "they didn't do it" is correct re: Harris as border czar. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 15:23, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply
No to depending on outdated stories from outlets that have since acknowledged they were wrong. WP:V is inherently "described by the media". Yes, WP:NOTTRUTH, but our policies also require us to try to get it right by choosing the best sources, not including things which have since been corrected, prioritizing more recent sources, etc. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:30, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply
While I think the article is probably better without this, and that the story is already clear in the Harris article, here's a potential compromise version (perhaps shaded a darker gray):
Border czar None. Harris was mistakenly called "border czar" by media outlets and Republicans in 2021, after she received a diplomatic assignment to address root causes of migration from Mexico and South America. Critics of Harris continued to use the term after the media corrected its usage.[cites] Harris, Kamala N/A N/A Joe Biden N/A

— Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:59, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Maybe my intention has been misunderstood. I did not suggest a final result of the discussion. I suggested that we freeze the article in a reasonable middle ground version until we have concluded the discussion and hopefully arrived at a compromise or solution. So my proposal was to have this as a temporary version as long as we are discussing the final version. Chaptagai ( talk) 14:22, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Females: Czarina

Hi everyone,

I think the introduction of the article should briefly mention that the term "czar" is falsely used here for females as the correct term for a female would actually be Czarina. I do not want to change the list. The false term is being used all over the media and by commentators and on social media, and I have never seen it being used correctly for a female. I only think the introduction should briefly mention it. Chaptagai ( talk) 15:40, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars&oldid=1236994732"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"List of executive branch czars" sorting order

When sorting by Appointing Administration, some of the presidents are sorted by first name, others by last.

in the czar count

Bush had 47 czars in at least 30 positions: http://www.democrats.org/a/2009/09/the_bush_czars.php

And the continued vandalism of Wikipedia by right-wingers makes this site completely unreliable.

bush did not have more czars than obama. someone put it at 36. according to GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, bush 43 had 12 czars http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,531363,00.html

A review of the List on the page shows that Bush 43 during his entire administration had 28 seperate titles for Czars but they were not all active by the dates shown at the same time. So the number 36 is totally erroronous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.213.132.67 ( talk) 12:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC) reply

but historians say that obama has the most czars. quote from politico

But with so many more czars than previous administrations, the Obama White House faces greater potential for controversy. And the Van Jones case has clearly hit a nerve.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/26781.html#ixzz0QDBHtWVB

politico is a non partisan site, whoever is messing with bush's number and putting some obscene amount, please stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.118.90 ( talk) 06:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC) reply

someone keeps changing bush 43 back to 36 grrrr. man you libs, want to bash bush, bash katrina, bash iraq, but OBAMA has more czars, everyone knows this, everyone is reporting this, i gave 2 references already, bush did not have 36. wikipedia is such a joke >:( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.118.90 ( talk) 06:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC) reply

How accurate is the list? What vandalism has occurred? Has anyone looked at the list at http://frontpage.americandaughter.com/?p=2385 created by Nancy Matthis to update the list on Wikipedia? - Thanks Timman321 ( talk) 06:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Timman321 reply

I am checking all the sources on the list and will discuss this soon. I am finding that nearly all the entries are documented. The prior vandalism was corrected. W E Hill ( talk) 06:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC) reply
I have checked all but one of the George W. Bush czars (Reading), and they are accurate. Removed one because the person never took office. Also removed an Obama czar for the same reason. Will finish checking later today.

W E Hill ( talk) 13:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC) reply

The numbers are correct per the criteria for inclusion described below. Although edits are constantly in process and numbers may be off one or two. By the way, I think that the czar(s) that were offically named but didn't make it through the Senate confirmation process should still be on the list. Having them on the list and noting the fact that they were named and rejected or resigned prior to or during the vetting process would add value and go further to meet the stated purpose of the list as described below. Jnkish ( talk) 01:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Count has since been confirmed by The Washington Post [1]-- 76.94.16.33 ( talk) 04:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC) reply

How can you have 36 Czars when there were only 31 Czar titles in your backup graph with only one person in each category at a time. This part of the Czar frame does not make sense. It seems someone needs to clean up their math. The top frame does not match up to the bottom list of Czars. The list contains 31 Czar titles. Until another Czar title is found for Bush should not the two lists match with Bush having 31?

I am responding to the unsigned comment directly above which appears to have been added one day after multiple edits were made reducing the 'czar count' for Bush to 30, and immediately after doing this again. I have written you on your talk page with a list of the czars, numbered 1-34. I will be reverting the count again to 34 since I have provided documentation. Please discuss the count here if you wish to dispute this again. I will discuss your specific concerns, however, for now I have given you a numbered list. Regards W E Hill ( talk) 17:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Kenneth Feinberg

I have an objection to the inclusion of Feinberg in the list. The only media reference given that uses the term czar specifically says "Don't call him 'pay czar'". Since the article specifically rejects the czar label, is it really evidence that he's been labeled a czar? ( talk) 12:43 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Response to question from user USColonial- A Google search on "Pay Czar" will turn up the following articles and more:

It concerns me when users raise questions like this. The main reason that I am concerned is that the current citation format (one reference point per row) is difficult for readers to quickly navigate with a specific question- Such as: "What publications have referred to Feinberg as Pay Czar"? Many time the reader or editor has to navigate and read through all of the grouped citations to answer a simple sourcing question. I strongly prefer the multiple citations per cell method for this and many other reasons- most of which I explain below: See the #Reasoning for citation(s) in every cell section for more. I revived this from the discussion archive because of this particular question regarding Feinberg. Jnkish ( talk) 17:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Criteria for inclusion

The criteria for inclusion section should be on the main page, not the discussion page- see this Wikipedia page for a guide: Used this page as a guide: List_of_sovereign_states#Criteria_for_inclusion Jnkish ( talk) 10:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC) reply

The scope and purpose of this list is to enumerate and understand each czar position as specifically created by the Executive Branch of the United States Government. Compiling a list such as this can be a difficult and controversial process, as the status of many entries may be disputed and/or politically charged.

Criteria:

  • A member or members of the media have identified and/or "coined" the czar position in a citable publication (citable per Wikipedia policies).
  • The czar position holder (the individual i.e. John or Jane Doe) is appointed specifically by the U.S. President and/or other high level executive branch office holders (i.e. Treasury Secretary, Homeland Security Secretary, etc.) to champion the particular cause related to the representative czar position.

Typically, if both of the conditions above are met, then a new executive branch czar is born and should be included on the list. Jnkish ( talk) 10:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC) reply

I agree. The criteria section definitely needs to be moved back to the article. Who is considered to be a "czar" and why needs to be defined on the article page. Burying definitions or criteria for inclusion on the discussion page is no help to readers or editors.

W E Hill ( talk) 12:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC) reply

I moved the criteria section to immediately above the first table. That way, readers and editors can see that all that is required for inclusion is that the term has been used just once in a reliable publication.
I notice that the purpose of this list was to "enumerate and understand each czar position". If so, then we should add a column with a short description of the purpose of each job listed. That would be very easy to do, especially if some very common abbreviations are made regarding appointment method.

W E Hill ( talk) 09:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC) reply

I've been thinking about this... Instead of adding another column to the list, it may be more appropriate to create a separate Wikipedia page for each czar and link it back to the list. Then each czar position can be explained in detail on the specific page as well as listed on the executive branch czar list for quick reference.

Jnkish ( talk) 13:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Most of the people already have their own pages already, but we could do short bios on the names that are still in red.
Since this page is a list of the "czars", I think it would be helpful to have a short description of their job duties here. I am thinking about a way to add this. Perhaps the best way is not a column, but I will be trying it out after I am done with the clean up later today.
If what you are proposing is to create new pages called, for example "afpak czar" or "pay czar", then we would need further discussion as why and how you think this would meet Wikipedia standards for an encyclopedic type entry. --Regards,

-- W E Hill ( talk) 12:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply

(outdent) I suggest that any position that is confirmed by the Senate, as per Article II, Section 2, of the US Constitution -- is not a Czar position. The Czar positions would be at a minimum Executive branch positions not subject to "the Advice and Consent of the Senate". Any position that is subject to "the Advice and Consent of the Senate" is a standard Executive branch appointment covered by the US Constitution. I recommend that a clear criterion to be added to the criteria for Czar inclusion must be: Not approved by the US Senate. Adding this criteria will simplify the inclusion list.

Therefore I suggest the criteria be: (a) Appointed by the President; (b) not approved by the Senate as per Article 2, Section 2; and (c) referred to by the media as a "czar". Anyone to make the page must meet all 3 criteria. SunSw0rd ( talk) 12:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC) reply

SunSw0rd- What is wrong with the current criteria for inclusion? It accurately describes the way the mainstream (wikipedia citable - reliable source) media has been referring to United States Czars since at least the 1940's. The office holders have both an "official title" and one or more "czar titles" and related causes. Please be reminded that the stated purpose of this list is to "enumerate and understand each czar position". If we were to exclude the czars that have already been named by citable media sources as "czars" then it would undermine the purpose of the list. The "Type of Appointment" column is useful to distinguish the "Advice and Consent" czars from the other named czars. Personally, I think that the list would be even more useful if we were to list all of the czars- by creating a list below the main list that includes and names of the fringe media czars and explaining in notes why they are not included on the main list. Then we could explain topics such as the "Swine Flu Czar" and the removal of 2 "czars" that were chosen for czar positions by the executive branch but never took office (i.e. performance czar - Killifer and faith czar Willett). However, I don't think we can do this on Wikipedia because it would violate the reliable source standards. Jnkish ( talk) 00:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC) reply

The problem with current criteria for inclusion is that media criticism is now assumed to be truth merely by assertion. Some of the positions called "czars" by Obama critics have been around for decades and never been called "czars" before. There's no objectivity in the term, and basing it off media characterizations means Wikipedia is endorsing political attacks on past, present, and future Presidents. For example, special envoys for diplomacy date back to John Jay in the George Washington administration, but are now for the first time ever classified as czars solely by critics of the current President. In short, this is a topic inherently POV that Wikipedia should not address. Wikipedia should merely list executive appointments, dates, and confirmations (if any) without trying to determine who is or is not a czar. 11:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

That criteria is far too broad and untenable, first off, ALL executive officers meet criteria (2), and i would argue (3) as well. Therefore we are really only counting who has been called a czar which is a meaningless endeavor. The tradition definition of a czar is an executive officer operating out of the executive office of the president who exists outside the tradition department hierarchy, but has legal authority to direct government activities across departments based on subject matter. A great number of positions currently listed as czars do not meet this definition.

I think it also should be noted that there appears to be a concerted effort to define traditional executive positions as czar positions in order to discredit that office holder and the president, this has led to positions being called "czar" which are entirely normal positions "assistant deputy secretary of........" Czars are positions which generally concentrate broad inter-departmental power in a single official, any other definition completely destroys any meaning in the term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.112.247 ( talk) 06:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC) reply

I agree. A good example is Kevin Jennings, who one media outlet started calling "the safe schools czar". In fact, he's just an Assistant Deputy Secretary in the Department of Education, responsible for a certain part of what the Department of Education does. Nothing "czar"-like at all. Wasted Time R ( talk) 10:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Reasoning for citation(s) in every cell

  • Each cell is its own entity- each requiring its own verifiable research.
  • Each cell in each row needs to be tied together through cited research in order to complete each row.
  • A citation for each cell in each row quickly indicates that the research for the specific row is complete.
  • A complete row indicates that the research for a specific czar is complete with each piece of information (each cell) quickly verifiable by future readers/researchers through citations.

I will add some example rows below in order to further illustrate the logic: Jnkish ( talk) 07:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Here is an example of two "completed and verified rows": At a glance, a reader can tell that the research for these two rows is complete and can quickly observe and navigate to the origin of each specific piece of information through the citations.

"Czar" title Official title Office holder Tenure Nature of position Appointing Administration
Performance Czar [1] United States Chief Performance Officer and deputy director for management at the Office of Management and Budget [1] [2] Nancy Killefer [1] 2009 [1] - 2009 [3] Senate Confirmed [2] Barack Obama [1] [2]
Jeffrey Zients [2] 2009 [2] - present

Yes, in reference to the two rows above, you could write the following:

In 2009, President Barack Obama appointed Nancy Killefer as his Performance Czar, more formally known as United States Chief Performance Officer and deputy director for management at the Office of Management and Budget and then after her withdrawl, he appointed Jeffrey Zients to this position.[1][2][3].

However, to me, it is more valueable to look at and break down each specific cell individually as follows:

  • Czar Title: The term Performance Czar was used by source [1] and not by source [2] or [3].
  • Official Title: United States Chief Performance Officer and deputy director for management at the Office of Management and Budget is linked to the Czar Title "Performance Czar" by source [1]. This official title is linked to Nancy Killefer by source [1], Jeffrey Zients through source [2] and Barack Obama through both sources [1] and [2].
  • Office Holder: Nancy Killefer is linked to the Czar Title, Official Title and Barack Obama through source [1]. Jeffrey Zients is linked to the Official Title and Barack Obama through source [2]. Jeffrey Zients is not linked directly to the "Performance Czar" title by any of the cited sources. Currently he is only linked to the Official Title and Barack Obama- Has any citable source referred to Jeffrey Zients as the "Performance Czar"?- More research could be of value here.
  • Tenure: The beginning of Nancy Killefer's term is attributable to source [1], the end of her term is attributable to and explained by source [3].
  • Nature of Position: Senate Confirmed through source [2]. Don't try to look at source [1] or [3] for this information- it is not there.
  • Appointing Administration: Barack Obama is linked to the previous cells through source [1] and [2].

The example above should explain the informational value of adding sources to each specific cell. In doing so, much more information is conveyed to the reader in an efficient manner. Jnkish ( talk) 09:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Now, using the individual cell approach, let's look at the following row:

"Czar" title Official title Office holder Tenure Nature of position Appointing Administration
Bird flu Czar Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services, Advisor to the President for Public Health Emergency Preparedness Stewart Simonson 2004-2006 [4] [5] Senate confirmed George W. Bush

The reader can not tell at a glance which of the cells are complete and which cells need more research. Now, change the row to this:

"Czar" title Official title Office holder Tenure Nature of position Appointing Administration
Bird flu Czar [4] Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services, Advisor to the President for Public Health Emergency Preparedness [4] Stewart Simonson [4] 2004 [4]-2006 citation needed Senate confirmed citation needed George W. Bush [4]

Using the individual cell approach, both the completed cells and the cells needing additional research are clearly identified.

Yes, it takes more work to do it this way. However, the work- as illustrated above, clearly adds value. Jnkish ( talk) 09:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Now, compare our well cited Wikipedia list to some of the other uncited internet czar lists (based primarily on politics) and you will quickly see the difference.

Glen Beck's list: http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/29391/ He has a lot of czars on there... But where are his sources? For example, who has called Lynn Rosenthal a "Domestic Violence Czar" in the media, besides Beck? It is hard to find a verifiable source (per wikipedia policy- see: Wikipedia:Reliable sources) for the Domestic Violence Czar position on the internet.

Thoughts? Jnkish ( talk) 09:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Jnkish ( talk) 17:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Further more: I think that citations in every cell would move this list up the Wiki Quality Scale. Do you agree or disagree? Why? Jnkish ( talk) 22:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ a b c d e Newell, Elizabeth (2009-01-07). "Obama performance czar to wear dual hats". Government Executive.com. Archived from the original on 2009-08-15. Retrieved 2009-08-15.
  2. ^ a b c d e Cite error: The named reference Fox 2009-07-16 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Muskal, Michael (February 4, 2009). "Nancy Killefer withdraws as Obama's choice for performance officer". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2009-06-19.
  4. ^ a b c d e f "Czar (n): An insult; a problem-solver", Politico, October 21, 2008.
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference benen was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Multiple Cites Per Cell

In addition to the reasoning above, I would not object to (and it would be within wikipedia guidelines) to add more than one cite to the same piece of information within each cell. Why? I have noticed that within the last 3 weeks at least 2 of our cited sources have disappeared from the internet. One was an NPR article and one was a posting by the Government on one of their web sites. I guess it is best practice to use an archive site such as www.webcite.com in order to prevent "dead links". Another method would be to use multiple (redundant) citations.

Which is better? Thoughts? Jnkish ( talk) 10:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Photo for this page

I think this page looks a little plain without a photo or logo. I would like to put something in the top right corner. What do you think would be appropriate? Seal of the executive branch? Photo of the first executive branch czar (one of Roosevelt's czars)? Jnkish ( talk) 10:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC) reply

I would like to suggest a political cartoon from December 21st 1895. I'm not sure which political figure it is in the cartoon, it looks like President Grover Cleveland. The caption under the cartoon reads "OUR AMERICAN CZAR AND HIS DO NOTHING POLICY". The cartoon is illustrated by /info/en/?search=William_Allen_Rogers
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015023105938&view=1up&seq=1183 199d9ukasd9 ( talk) 03:18, 16 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Update on cleanup

The basic clean up I discussed above, and all references were are preserved. Later today, I will fine tune with a couple of notes, will begin verifying that citations support the facts, and will place "citation needed tags" where necessary. -- W E Hill ( talk) 12:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Since there's no actual article about the czars as a group.....

This opinion column at cnsnews.com argues that the czars are unconstitutional, because they do not have the approval of the legislative branch of the U.S. government, as the constitution requires. Since there is no wikipedia article about the czars per se, but I did think this criticism was worth noting somewhere at wikipedia, I thought I'd cite it here on this talk page. Grundle2600 ( talk) 17:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply

That is an interesting point, and I think it should be discussed. There probably are enough articles on both sides (constitutional, unconstitutional) so that it could be discussed. W E Hill ( talk) 08:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I agree - Here are some additional links on the topic of constitutionality.

When a U.S. Senator writes a letter of concern to the President regarding the particular page topic, I think it is worth noting. Jnkish ( talk) 10:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you for those links. Grundle2600 ( talk) 20:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I come to this page looking for some information about the debate on czar constitutionality, and found nothing. If someone has been following that debate, please consider adding to this article. I'll go ahead and make a stub, saying that there is a debate. Wadsworth ( talk) 19:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Update – Czar (political term) is the article people were looking for. Wasted Time R ( talk) 10:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Temporary column added for cite checking

I will be checking the articles and placing and removing citation needed tags as necessary. I will be working from the bottom of the list up. When I am done, I will remove the column. After that, it will be a very simple matter for anyone to check because only new czar entries or changes, will need to be checked to see whether any citation tags are needed. W E Hill ( talk) 08:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Czar count editing

Why did someone (IP 208.95.138.132) change GW Bush's czar count from 34 to 3? Vandalism? Jnkish ( talk) 02:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC) reply

maybe 34 is a mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.118.90 ( talk) 06:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC) reply

War Czar

President Obama kept some of the Czars from the Bush Administration. Lt. General Lute was a holder, yet he is only shown as being in the Bush Administration? How do we fix this? 15:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MPA ( talk • contribs)

I added it a few days ago. Thanks for pointing it out. 69.217.193.66 ( talk) 19:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Article renaming

I would like to point out that usage of the term "czar" is derogatory and a form of red-baiting. It implies communism and imperialism. No member of the US government has ever held a title "czar" and it does all of them a disservice. Therefore I propose the article be renamed. To what, I don't know. You may keep in some reference to the colloquialist term "czar", but endlessly repeating it throughout the article is in fact a form of demagoguery and needs to be changed in order to preserve the neutrality of wikipedia. This article has some good info but otherwise should be tagged for deletion if the czar analogy is not reduced to a minor footnote. // Mark Renier ( talk) 09:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I think your concern is more than a little overwrought. Czars predate Communism and are not associated with it. The term has been in popular use here since the Nixon administration and has been freely used for presidencies of both parties. The use of the term may be somewhat stupid, since the role of these officials in administrations hardly resembles that of the historical czar, but nevertheless it has been heavily used in mainstream media sources and WP needs to reflect that. Wasted Time R ( talk) 11:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Just because the popular media makes use of the word "czar" to entertain it's 6th grade reading level audiences does not make it appropriate to the neutral Wikipedia. Many people actually think that czar is an official title when in fact there has never been any member of the US government that has had nor ever held the title "Czar". This article's repetitious use of the word perpetuates this belief. It is fine to mention something like, "colloquial media terminology refers to these various positions of advisor, administrator, director, etc. as 'Czar'" but it is not permissible to infer that their work is comparable to the Russian, Bulgarian or Serbian monarchs of failed pre-World War I European states. Wikipedia presents factsæ it is not a sounding board for red-baiting conservative (or other) popular media and this must stop. This article must use the correct titles for these advisory positions. // Mark Renier ( talk) 13:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC) reply
How is this "red-baiting"? Czars aren't even associated with communism. -- William S. Saturn ( talk) 20:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Yes, Nicholas II of Russia would be quite surprised to find that being called a czar is supposedly equivalent to being called a communist! I could go for changing the article name to put "czars" in quotes, but other than that there's nothing wrong with it. The first sentence of the article makes clear that "... the title 'czar' is an informal term ...". Wasted Time R ( talk) 23:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC) reply


The habit of using "czar" to refer to an administration official dates back at least to President Franklin D. Roosevelt FOOD: The Tenth Czar -- Kimmy ( talk) 07:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Content split-out

User:Mark Renier was correct to move the descriptive content out of this article (this is a list), but instead of putting it in the Tsar article (as we have all pointed this, the U.S. "czar" has nothing to do with the historical Tsar), I have created a new Czar (U.S. political term) article for it. In that article we can develop the history of the term, examples of the term and positions for it growing, controversy over its wisdom and constitutionality, etc. Wasted Time R ( talk) 12:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Now at Czar (political term), since (the article says) the term is also used in the U.K. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC) reply

New positions - getting the counts

The first table in the article has a column for the number of new positions, which is excellent, but it's blank.

It would be helpful, I think, if the second table, listing actual appointments, also had a column, "New Position?" (perhaps to the right of "Type of Appointment"), which could be filled in with "yes" or "no". Then it would be easy (after the column is filled in) not only to get the count for the first table, but also for readers to see where the count came from. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Who declares them Czars?

It seems to me that "Czar" is getting slapped on just about anyone, especially for political "gotcha". Why is Rove considered a Czar? Did anyone in authority ever refer to him that way, or was it just some magazine somewhere? We show definitive numbers of Czars in every President's column, but the number seems to be a moving target based on who is doing the counting, and their political perspective. It seems like the President (or his mouthpiece in the form of the Press Secretary) would make that decision, rather than some newspaper with an agenda. 68.36.51.89 ( talk) 16:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply

For the purposes of creating an "independent and unbaised" list - as required per wikipedia standards - members of the (wikipedia citable) media and/or governmental leaders "declare" a person a czar. See the #criteria for inclusion section above for further details. Jnkish ( talk) 02:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Woodrow Wilson was first to appoint a czar, not Roosevelt

Would everyone accept this uncontroversial edit? According to Time magazine: "During World War I, Woodrow Wilson appointed financier Bernard Baruch to head the War Industries Board — a position dubbed industry czar (this just one year after the final Russian czar, Nicholas II, was overthrown in the Russian Revolution)." From: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1925564,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.231.249.138 ( talk) 23:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I've added this to the Czar (political term) article, where the history of the term is delved into. Wasted Time R ( talk) 01:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Style of the Article

Perhaps more thought should be given to this entry's introduction. The article begins with an explanation of what a czar is NOT. The result is an entry that seems defensive. Perhaps an explanation of "what a czar is," and a brief history of them would make the article more readable. Lacarids ( talk) 03:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Czar (political term) has the full discussion of the term and its history. This article is just the list of them. Wasted Time R ( talk) 10:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Factcheck.org's list

Factcheck.org seems to have compiled a very good list of czars under G.W. Bush and Obama. They compiled a list based on news media and found 35 under Bush and 32 under Obama. See here for the introductory article and a PDF listing them here. It seems like this would be an appropriate source. Sχeptomaniac χαιρετε 21:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Agreed. Currently, the intro says the term "czar" was "little used" in the Bush administration (without citation), and the table says there were 35 positions and 47 appointees, pointing to the factcheck.org page as a citation. This is inconsistent. I am removing the statement in the introduction as it is without a citation and independent citations like factcheck.org have good research on this question with comprehensive lists. Incidentally, I will also remove the following line from the introduction since it repeats a statement from earlier in the introduction, has an erroneous citation, and in fact is copied verbatim from another source. Kaplanmyrth ( talk) 19:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC). The line I am removing for being repetitive is: reply
The habit of using "czar" to refer to an administration official dates back at least to President Franklin D. Roosevelt. ( Purported but erroneous citation)


GWB 31 Czar titles in detail vs 35 in summary

Re: 31 vs 35 Czars for GWB. Note that of the 35 people listed at Fact Check, there are 4 pairs who share a title (Aids, Counterterroism, Homeland Security, Domestic Policy). Thus there are, per this list 31 Czar titles held by 35 distinct individuals. Through additional research, cited in the detailed table, there are an additional 12 individuals who have also used one of the 31 established titles.

Similarly there are 32 distinct titles used for Obama administration Czars with several cases of two people to the same title.

The detailed table and summary should match 100% in numbers. Whoever alters one must get it to match the other. Factcheck's information, while a good start, is obviously incomplete if it has left off 12 individuals mentioned (and cited) as GWB czars in the detailed table, and several Obama administration ones. Sebben76 ( talk) 14:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC) reply


Calculation of Obama Administration Czars

Again I am using Factcheck as a reliable starting point...the often cited document has 32 indiviudals under 31 title (there are two Technology Czars). However the Factcheck document is not up to date.

As of June 29th, there are cited in the detail below the following additional changes to the tally: - 4 titles not mentioned by Factcheck (cyber-security, faith-based, performance, war) - 7 individuals not mentioned by Factcheck (the four originals for above: Melissa Hathway, Justin Dubois, Jeffery Zients, and Douglas Lute respectively plus auto czar Ron Bloom, climate czar Carol Browner, cyber-security czar Howard Schmidt(

The appropriate numbers, as of today, for Mr. Obama are 35 distinct titles, 39 distinct individuals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebben76 ( talk • contribs) 15:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC) reply

To bring this to the attention of the Wiki volunteers: this article violates Wiki's neutrality stipulation

This wikipedia reference was obviously written by an Obama apologist, who wanted to make Obama's power grab in appointing 32 Czars look like it was done by every other president.

That is not true.

What the wikipedia author did was to take legitimate offices, such as "Assistant to the Secretary" of some Department, and merely SAY that that person was "Bush's Czar" of something or other.

The wikipedia author's assertion does not make it true.

Those Bush appointees had legitimate titles in legitimate government offices. They answered to higher-ups within those Departments.

But Obama's unprecedented appointees answer directly to him and to no one else. Obama even calls his appointees CZARS, unlike any other president, (though Bush did call his appointee to deal with the War on Drugs a "Drug Czar".)

Please do not repeat the lie that "the number of Bush's czars was 31."

An intelligent perusal of the wikipedia page shows that to be a complete fabrication.

Unfortunately, I had this Wikipedia page copied to me on a forum to "prove" that Bush also created 31 Czars.

The untruthfulness of this page violates Wikipedia's neutrality principle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.112.108 ( talk) 02:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC) reply

You've been watching too much Glen Beck. There are no 'Czars', that is a media driven shortening of titles given to people the President appoints to handle certain aspects of Government. If you follow the source/reference links, it proves that you are incorrect on the number of 'Czars' and your understanding of what they are. Dave Dial ( talk) 04:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC) reply


Yes it is indeed a lie that "the number of Bush's czars was 31." It was 47 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.191.181.153 ( talk) 04:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Summary vs Detail as of 26 Jan 2011

Have done an audit of the detail. There are 143 appointees, one of which has two presidents, so the summary's appointees column should equal 144 which it now does. I have doublechecked the other columns as well and made minor tweaks to G.W. Bush and B. Obama's totals to accurately reflect what is in the detail. Prior presidents I found no change.

I have removed the oft-cited reference to factcheck.org for several reasons. First and foremost, the list calculated by factcheck.org is both incomplete and out-of-date. It misses 14 GWB czars and 9 BHO czars.

Second, recent editors have been assuming that each line item on factcheck is a seperate czar title and have been changing this figure rather than the number of appointees. Please note that while 35 individuals are listed as GWB several have the same title. Sebben76 ( talk) 20:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)sebben76 reply

Counting of so-called 'Czars'

The counting of so-called 'Czars' for this article seems as if it relies on editors to scan the internet for instances of media members referring to administration officials as 'Czars'. The only reliable source I have found that puts together a list is from Factcheck.org, and they have not updated the list in a fairly long time. Also, much of the article seems sporadic and the 'list' had an odd sourcing from the Washington Examiner blog(which I just removed). Is there another source that has a list similar to the factcheck list? This article can be improved with some kind of cleanup of the list and other sources that refer to the counting of this political term. Otherwise, it seems as if there is a lot of synthesis from editors that rely on original research in order to update the article with new numbers. Dave Dial ( talk) 15:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC) reply


It appears that the list was cleaned up on January 26 and the summary matches. By constantly reverting to the Factcheck data, which you admit has not been updated in a long time, you're creating a confusing article where you have 35 people cited and detail given for 49 or whatever the number.

Also by reverting to the factcheck numbers you are ignoring the table's column headers. As seeben76 said, the first column is for unique titles. Your reverting puts forth a number that doesn't even tie back to the article you cite.

The purpose of the article, as I see it, based on the narrative is to list off instances where the media coin czars. There is even a disclaimer in the narrative about this. I appreciate that fact-check.org has a comprehensive list, but it is out of date...it shortchanges greatly how many czars Bush has and to a lesser example Obama. And, as I said, and as previous posters have said, the numbers in the article you site do not match the article version you are referencing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.191.122.110 ( talk) 01:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC) reply


Let's make this an A+ article

I'm going to agree with parts of both DD2K and with 99.191.

I've always read the article as being a summary a top a detail. The accountant in me (ok ok so I'm a financial analyst, not a CPA) wants those totals to match, hence my occasional audit. DD2K is right IMO that the blog put in today (and any others that may be on the list) should be removed. I will do that momentarily and revert it back to my post-audit version. I maintain that the detail should match the summary. And 99.191 is correct that the narrative that has been here (and I believe has been here for quite some time) has indicated there should be a match. The Key question is indeed the title of this section...the counting. What counts what does not? A sub-question is how does factcheck.org fit in?

If we can agree there I think we can have a set criteria going forward. In my opinion factcheck's article should be a supplement to the criteria and not the criteria itself. If we make it the end-all-be-all then how do we account for both what happened before (it doesn't even mention Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan etc) and what has happened since?

Over the next few days I'll go through the 143 or so persons listed as the detail. I will remove any blog-only references and update the summary. I will make sure that all of the factcheck names are listed in there, using it as a source alongside the established references. It is my hope that none of the established references are blogs as that will grey-up factcheck's source.

After that we need to determine the final criteria. My initial suggestion is either by the president himself or by two independant non-blog/op-ed sources.

Any thoughts? Sebben76 ( talk) 02:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I have made the reversion with the following note: revert to post-audited article to remove blog ref and bad citation

The first part refers to my belief that Immelt is not a czar based on the source provided (a blog)

The second part refers not to that factcheck.org is outdated but the numbers cited are not present in the article. The wiki-article version citing factcheck states that GWB had 47 unique individuals (second column) with 35 czar titles (first column) and 27 of the 47 were not confirmed by the Senate. The numbers for BHO was listed as 44 unique individuals having 32 titles and 33 of the 44 were not confirmed by the Senate.

The article at http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/Czars.pdf has the following however: GWB: 35 unique individuals with 30 czar titles (AIDS, Counterterrorism, Cybersecurity, Domestic Policy and Homeland Security are each shared by 2 people) BHO: 32 unique individuals with 31 czar titles (Technology is shared by 2) There is no information given on who was and wasn't confirmed by the Senate

    • IF** and I do not at this time suggest this is the right answer...we make factcheck's article our key source, those are the numbers that should be in the summary. And again, what do we do with other presidents?

I also scanned the links provided in factcheck's summary and some of these references may not meet the best criteria as well...some sources like Time, CNN, Washington Post etc are no-brainers. Some like Huffington Post, blogs.abcnews.com, and even an .edu site may not stand up to criteria. I think this discovery should be greater impetus to create a multi-source criteria.

Again I'm very open to thoughts! Sebben76 ( talk) 02:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Utahj

I believe there is also a polygamy czar in the Utah state government. 76.117.247.55 ( talk) 21:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Elizabeth Warren

Elizabeth warren is not the head of the consumer financial protection bureau. She was denied that position even though she created it. She did oversee the tarp money. She is now running for senate in Massachusetts because she did not get that position. Someone please change this. Briwivell ( talk) 00:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Assassination czar?

Hi. Does anyone have thoughts about redirects from Assassination czar and Assassination Czar to this article? It's difficult to tell how official of a title it is, but it's apparently a moniker for John O. Brennan. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 21:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC) reply

C-H-R-O-N-O-L-O-G-I-C-A-L L-I-S-T?

Many people coming here will want to know something about the history and development of the "czar" concept. They'd want to know who the "czars" of each president were. Jumbling up all the czars in some mock "alphabetical" list is not worth much to many -- perhaps most == of the people who come here. If you want to have other pages and entries for the czars of each president, fine, only don't pretend like you've finished the job with this entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.104.9 ( talk) 17:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 34 external links on List of U.S. executive branch czars. 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.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on List of U.S. executive branch czars. 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.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC) reply


Should Kamala Harris be listed as a "border czar"

I removed her from the list, given the updated reporting which makes clear that the White House did not assign her the "Border czar" role. See, e.g., https://www.axios.com/2024/07/24/kamala-harris-border-czar-immigratin. A close examination of the primary source, the event on March 24, 2021, shows that President Biden assigned her to a diplomatic role, leading up his administration's new "root causes of migration" strategy. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/03/24/remarks-by-president-biden-and-vice-president-harris-in-a-meeting-on-immigration/.

All the previous "border czars" listed on the chart had more official titles and clear assignments from the White House. None rejected the title or argued that they had not been given the responsibility. Therefore, it does not make sense to have a person listed as a "czar" on Wikipedia if they reject the title. Razzmatazzle ( talk) 22:12, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply

This is literal propaganda and revisionism. 74.103.183.51 ( talk) 22:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia's editors once again showing utter contempt of history itself and an embrace of Orwellianism. Axios and numerous other main stream media outlets reported Harris was designated the Border Czar. Biden himself said it. This is utterly ridiculous revisionist nonsense designed to play into the political left's whitewashing of Harris record. 167.248.152.253 ( talk) 22:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Agreed! Zonedar ( talk) 23:09, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Do you have a source for Biden referring to Harris as the "border czar"? Dyrnych ( talk) 23:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The House of Representatives did in 2023 and 2024. 24.57.55.50 ( talk) 21:23, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The House has no such power. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 00:04, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Agreed! 24.57.55.50 ( talk) 01:16, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
And they corrected their error. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 20:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Every mainstream media called Harris border czar, thousands of times, for the last 3 years. 24.57.55.50 ( talk) 21:23, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
What is the point of saying something so ridiculous? This is WP:Disruptive. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 00:06, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The very definition of a Executive Branch "czar" in the main article is:
In the United States, the informal term "czar" (or, less often, "tsar") is employed in media and popular usage to refer to high-level executive-branch officials who oversee a particular policy field.
Widespread use of the term "Border Czar" by the media isn't in error or ridiculous. In fact, according to the definition, widespread media use of VP Harris as "Border Czar" is evidence that VP Harris is in fact a "Border Czar". 2600:1700:4BE0:9E90:D438:E55B:950D:37E2 ( talk) 00:28, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply
"Should Kamala Harris be listed as a "border czar"
Its seems as if you weren't really asking a question. You were just summarily appointing yourself sole arbiter of a highly political issue with very little to back it up. 24.144.63.253 ( talk) 23:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
She was the border czar:
https://www.kpvi.com/news/national_news/fact-check-harris-was-biden-s-second-border-czar-despite-recent-media-claims/article_9b163905-db50-5cbb-b37b-7ae12700f542.html
Here is the same axios author Stef W Kight claiming she was czar, and them claiming she wasn't.
Was: https://www.axios.com/2021/03/24/biden-harris-border-crisis
Wasn't: https://www.axios.com/2024/07/24/kamala-harris-border-czar-immigratin US395 ( talk) 23:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I mean, here's a fact checker contesting that Harris was the border czar: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2024/jul/24/republican-national-committee-republican/border-czar-kamala-harris-assigned-to-tackle-immig/. It seems a bit odd to cherry pick a conservative POV fact checker to make that factual claim when it's pretty clearly contested. Dyrnych ( talk) 23:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
This really is remarkable. You people leap into action whenever the party needs a new propaganda line, happily revising the historical record to say whatever's most convenient at any given moment. 207.32.162.180 ( talk) 23:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The criteria of the list is whether the media referred to the person as a czar. Multiple sources clearly did. So there is no basis for removing Harris' entry besides propaganda purposes JSwift49 00:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I remember the god ol' days when Wikipedia was credible and I used to donate generously.
Now it's devolved into this propagandist fodder for the radical left.
Quit being based and do the right thing or your credibility will continue to go down the drain. Hvm8h57v ( talk) 00:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Yes, these media sources backpedaling on the description don't mean we should remove her. Killuminator ( talk) 00:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
They didn't "backpedal". They corrected their initial error. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 01:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
No, they are gaslighting. They are memory holing the record immediately upon Harris becoming the Democratic nominee and Wikipedia seems to be playing along. WBcoleman ( talk) 03:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Assume good faith. WP:AGF Garnet Moss ( talk) 04:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Garnet Moss In this case that requires using Hanlon's Razor, which is patronizing given the evidence of czar-ship. 192.74.128.156 ( talk) 12:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I don't think a lot of people here are acting in good faith, and clearly the users who slapped extended protections on this article to chill any discussion agree with me.
This happens every time something ends up in the news now; the article is "temporarily" locked, the lock is extended indefinitely, and the resultant complaining in the talk page is smugly dismissed with "assume good faith". If everyone was acting in good faith, there would not be these massive extended protections on every article remotely newsworthy. Either the edits are in bad faith, the lock is in bad faith, or both are in bad faith. But something, as usual, smells.
For what it's worth, I don't think anyone on either side is going to be citing a WP list article in their arguments re: "border czar" except to complain about purported bias, but I absolutely empathize with users on this talk page assuming bad faith. 74.64.100.109 ( talk) 13:04, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Yes - This page presents an interesting dilemma, because it's concerned with an intrinsically amorphous and subjective term. As the copy says above the list, "Note that what is measured is the popularity of the word czar, rather than an objective measure of authority." It's clear both in the context of this article and in common usage, "czar" is a title which is acclaimed, not bestowed, and therefore the operative qualifiers we should be looking at are not whether or not an official role closely resembles a hypothetical ideal, but rather how the official is treated and referred to by peers, press, and public. While in an official sense, (as is the case with most VP jobs,) Harris' scope of authority was relatively modest, the impression of the second-in-command of the executive branch taking a personal interest and lead on the causes of undocumented immigration is clear from the sources provided. Fact-checking articles now are seeking to clarify the precise role which Harris played, which while important, is not necessarily determinitative over whether or not an article concerning the history of executive "czars" should include her.
(I will say, though, that since this is a hot topic in the press, prepare for an onslaught of less-than-thoughtful partisan comments.) Garnet Moss ( talk) 01:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I have a question for Razzmatazzle, why did you wait all this time to dispute this claim?
You could've done this 6 months or a year ago, even longer but yet you are bringing up this subject right after Harris became the presumptive democratic nominee.
Even if it was appropriate to edit Kamala out of this Wikipedia page (Which it isn't), the timing of this conversation points to a revisionist mindset behind your question.
I am glad that at lot of people in this discussion thread are seeing thru this. Kamala Harris has to own up to her assignment as a border czar. 142.147.56.71 ( talk) 03:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
@ 142.147.56.71 Harris wasn't in the article at all until today. Dyrnych ( talk) 04:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Dyrnych
Okay, if that is the case then I take back what I said about waiting to dispute the claim. 142.147.56.71 ( talk) 17:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
You can be a pedant all you want about the usage of the word "czar". Call Harris the overseer for the border if you like instead. Call her the pointperson or deputy or leader of border affairs. Call her the very model of a modern major general for all I care.
It is not disputed by any honest person that Harris was put in charge of border affairs. This was acknowledged even by left of center publications at the time, and not because Republicans hypnotized them. You and the media are trying to re-write history now, because you know that Harris (and Biden) did absolutely nothing to address the border crisis.
How much is ActBlue paying you to propagandize, "Razmatazzle"? 2600:1700:601:30:E109:AACC:4C43:6800 ( talk) 13:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
@ 2600:1700:601:30:E109:AACC:4C43:6800 Personal attacks are inappropriate, and this is not a forum for you to discuss immigration issues. Dyrnych ( talk) 21:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Chiming in with an informed third opinion. Here's what I see in terms of evidence:

  • We have a Congressional resolution issued today: "Whereas, on March 24, 2021, President Biden tasked Vice President Kamala Harris with working to address illegal immigration into the United States, including “root causes”, and came to be known colloquially as the Biden administration’s “border czar”."
  • The term, as noted before, is unofficial. Four years of White House press briefings turn up only one use of "border czar", by a reporter asking about the Congressional resolution.
  • There's mainstream media coverage referring to her position as "border czar", linked by KPIX.
  • The official description of Harris' role by the White House is as follows: "Since March, Vice President Kamala Harris has been leading the Administration’s diplomatic efforts to address the root causes of migration from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. She has worked with bilateral, multilateral, and private sector partners, as well as civil society leaders, to help people from the region find hope at home."
  • The fact-checking rebuttals by Time, Axios, and the USA Today also credibly describe what is conventionally understood by the public as the "border czar"'s role, precisely the things that Harris is blamed by the resolution for not doing. Time: "In fact, Harris was never put in charge of the border or immigration policy. Nor was she involved in overseeing law-enforcement efforts or guiding the federal response to the crisis. "

On balance, the sentence quoted from Congressional resolution text ("known colloquially as") and Time magazine ("never put in charge of") both seem accurate. Whether or not Harris's role is that of this informal moniker is not verifiable, but the difference from prior border czars is real.

On this page, I think we can best inform readers by listing Harris's more official role under the title column, something like "head of diplomatic efforts for the Root Causes Strategy on migration," along with a brief footnote. This is not the place for further extended text, which should be added at Kamala Harris#Immigration.-- Carwil ( talk) 01:37, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I agree that a footnote in this case would be wise, including her as a "border czar" (as claimed by peers, press, and public,) but noting that her actual delegated duties were more modest than past officials so similarly called. Certainly she should not be removed outright, as this would be profoundly misleading. Garnet Moss ( talk) 01:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
There seems to be a perception in this thread that the article previously referenced Harris and that removing her violates some longstanding consensus. In fact, she was added today in this diff. I'm not sure we can consider it "profoundly misleading" to fail to include her when she hasn't been included in the three-ish years since the publication of the articles we're relying on for the term. Dyrnych ( talk) 01:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I meant more in the sense that to omit her entirely, given the recent coverage, would be misleading. More information is preferable to less. Anyway, I very quickly (few minutes' work) mocked up what I think we're talking about in terms of the footnote, what would you say? Certainly the text would need to be revised, as I said this is just a proof of concept to clarify the conversation. Garnet Moss ( talk) 02:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Most likely because of this viral tweet. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ ɸinimi → ‎ fiɲimi 04:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Conservative commentators have been watching this page all day, waiting for some fool to march in and remove her name, given the new official narrative that VP Harris had nothing at all to do with the border and that "Harris as Border Czar is obvious propaganda, nevermind the three years we spent calling her that". It needs to be reverted, it was uncontested for over a year. I know Wiki editors know see themselves as Winston Smith, loyally serving the Ministry of Truth, but come on. Greenwoodjw ( talk) 01:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Greenwoodjw If "we" spent three years calling her that, why was she only added to the page today? Dyrnych ( talk) 01:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
So true, it should have been added 3.5 years ago. 2600:1700:601:30:E109:AACC:4C43:6800 ( talk) 13:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Assume good faith. WP:AFG I agree (somewhat) with your conclusion but this isn't how it's done. Garnet Moss ( talk) 01:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I have yet to see a single person claim she had nothing to do with the border, but conventionally-speaking, she doesn’t fit the widely-understood definition of a border czar, even if she was referred to as such colloquially. That’s why there’s an issue. There no being any contest on a very obscure Wikipedia article for a length of time does not mean it was correct all that time, either — and, upon reviewing, she was not even listed in 2023, so what you’re claiming isn’t even true. 2600:8804:168D:5600:996E:5EC8:D2AA:13A0 ( talk) 02:24, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I agree with the thrust of your comment, (and certainly not with Greenwoodjw,) but I'd like to note that I really do not think there is a "widely-understood definition" of czar in the sense people use it in the United States. As I commented above, as an informal title, it can't be evaluated prescriptively - only descriptively. "Has the subject been called a 'czar'?" is a very relevant question, in the way it isn't for an official title. Whether or not she is one has now become a political football, but I think it would be a derogation of purpose to not feature the Vice President here in some form. Exactly -how- is the question. Garnet Moss ( talk) 02:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
This is quite close to how I look at the matter. The (very belated!) reversals by certain news organizations in the last few days are relevant and our article addresses the matter in one of its only two narrative notes. However, at and around the time she was very publicly given the assignment, we have more evidence—I believe, *way* more evidence—than with anyone else who appears on this list that she was indeed identified as a "czar" by WP:RELIABLE sources. 24.90.253.80 ( talk) 04:39, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I understand the arguments from both sides.

For removal: (1) She was never officially given that title, (2) she never said she had that role and later rejected it, (3) she only had diplomatic responsibility, she never was in charge of border administration or border security (strongest argument imho!). (4) Parts of the media say labelling her as border czar was incorrect and shouldn't be done, so there is no widespread agreement on that term and it is explicitly rejected by some outlets.

Against removal: The media (even those who later rejected that title) widely assigned that role to her and this wasn't immediately opposed by her or the administration or the media/commentators. The rejections only came after her campaign started.

Both sides have good arguments for their position. It would be wrong to leave her out completely, because media reporting that used that title was widespread across the political media spectrum. On the other hand, just including her in the table would be just as wrong, because she had a very different role than the other "border czars" (diplomatic only) and whether she should be named "border czar" is highly controversial in the media today (also unlike all the others who are listed in the table).

So I think a compromise solution is needed. Here are are two suggestions what we can do:

1. Listing her with a grey shading and a note in the table after her name "(diplomatic role only, no actual responsibility for border administration or security)"

2. Having a separate category "border czar (diplomatic role only)" and listing her as the sole entry in that category with footnotes explaining it.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

Chaptagai ( talk) 05:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Very thoughtful. I disagree, but let's first address a clear irrelevancy in the "For removal" paragraph: "She was never officially given that title." Please keep in mind: No one on the list was officially given the title of "czar." That's simply not a reason for removal.
As for the compromise suggestions revolving around the notion that she had a purely diplomatic role, setting her apart from other so-called czars:
(1) While her role was primarily diplomatic, it also went significantly beyond that. From a July 2021 White House "fact sheet" listing her accomplishments on the issue to that point:

Working with the private sector. On May 27, Vice President Harris launched a Call to Action for the private sector to make new commitments in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras to expand economic opportunities. The initial group of 12 companies and organizations committed to helping over 13 million people, offered to provide $750 million in resources, and established a non-profit organization to support economic development efforts in the region – The Partnership for Central America. These initial commitments will provide financial services to small business owners, internet access and digital banking to rural communities, housing for low-income families, and reduced barriers to higher education. Since the launch, over 150 companies and organizations have expressed interest in joining the Call to Action.

(2) Even if her role had been exclusively diplomatic, that still wouldn't make her unique on this list. "Middle East czar" George J. Mitchell, for instance, had purely diplomatic responsibilities.
(3) None of the contemporaneous sources identifying her as "border czar" added anything like "diplomatic role only" as a caveat. No doubt the scope of the specific roles of the others on our list varied widely. The list doesn't exist to detail the scope of each one—the caveats would be endless. It exists simply to identify those who were labeled "czars" at the time and the generally recognized subject of their "czardom".
(4) The current controversy over the label in Harris's case certainly deserves coverage in the article devoted to her, just as it currently is touched on here, but it in no way affects the historical fact that she was widely referred to as "border czar" when she received the assignment. The controversy obviously stems not from years-long questions about the suitability of the term in her case, but from the fact that it became a political hot button due to her becoming the presumptive presidential nominee of one of the two major US political parties. That sort of highly circumstantial "controversy" does not warrant a "compromise solution" to the well-sourced list. 24.90.253.80 ( talk) 06:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Hey, IP. Thanks for your detailed response, highly appreciate it. My main concern with your argument that nothing sets her apart from others on the list would be the following: She herself, the administration and lots of relevant media organizations reject the label "border czar" for her. I am not aware that that's the case for anyone else on the list, so that's something that does set her apart from the others and it's definitely relevant and important. In my opinion, this has to be indicated in the list itself, not just in a foot note. It's a widely disputed title for her, while for others on the list that is not the case. Chaptagai ( talk) 11:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Everything you've said merits the very special narrative footnote we've given the issue. Some might feel it doesn't even merit that: she was called a "czar," many times, so she's on the list, period. But I'm on your side—we must address it.
However, neither Harris nor the Biden administration nor "lots of relevant media organizations" nor anyone else rejected the "border czar" label when it was appplied to her, over and over and over and over and over again in 2021 (and, I believe, in 2022). All of those parties who weighed in cheered the label. It was NEVER disputed until a few days ago, and—obviously—not due to longstanding questions about accuracy, but to entirely immediate concerns about political inconvenience. That's a tendentious issue to be given special treatment in other, narrative articles, not in this list. 24.90.253.80 ( talk) 13:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Oh, almost forgot: Chaptagai, you've now claimed twice that Harris has "rejected" the label of "border czar." I don't believe that's true. Can you cite a single source for that? 24.90.253.80 ( talk) 13:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I would have to look for the sources which I currently don't have enough time to do, but even if she herself didn't explicitly reject the label (she certainly hasn't embraced it): I think what's not in dispute is that in the case of Harris, the "border czar" label is very controversial today, in the midst of a presidential campaign. Even if there was no controversy in the past, the present controversy with a very strong media presence, distinguishes Harris from the others on the list. It is therefore warranted to put her in a different category or at least add "(disputed)" after her name or something to that effect. Chaptagai ( talk) 14:35, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
(1) "I would have to look for the sources which I currently don't have enough time to do." You had the time to make it up, the time to repeat what you made up, but not the time to source it—understood.
(2) We've done "something to that effect"—we added a very special narrative note. No more is "warranted". 24.90.253.80 ( talk) 16:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
We just can't treat a person where the title is so controversial the same as all the others where the title has not been subject to a nationwide controversy on all channels. A foot note is simply not enough, no one looks at the footnotes. I would suggest three ways forward as a compromise: (1) Put her in a separate category "Diplomatic border czar" plus footnotes (2) Add "(diplomatic role only)" after her name plus footnote, (3) add "(disputed)" after her name plus footnoes. Each of those sounds like a fair compromise to me. Chaptagai ( talk) 20:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
User M boli kindly provided a reference below: . "Republicans try to crown Harris the 'border czar.' She rejects the title". Chaptagai ( talk) 21:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply

For what it is worth, the Republican efforts to use the word "czar" and administration people rejecting the term go back to 2021, from when Biden charged Harris with looking into the causes of migration. Efforts to tar Harris with border enforcement failures go back just as far. Here are two WaPo articles published within a few weeks of the original appointment. [1] [2] One article describes Republicans bleating that word "czar" which the administration kept rejecting. They also explain that Republicans will try to pin border enforcement failures on Harris regardless of that wasn't her charge. -- M.boli ( talk) 19:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Harris was never called a "border czar" by the administration, nor was she given protracted tasks associated with the border. This is just a case of contemporary politics being played with WP content, as "the border" is the #1, 2, and 3 issue of the Trumpists. Get the banhammer ready. Carrite ( talk) 21:26, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Harris should be listed with a parenthetical "disputed" that links to the discussion on her page. Wikipedia can not, and should not, make a decision on who is right in a developing political discussion. That is: Harris, Kamala ( disputed) (code :[[Kamala Harris|Harris, Kamala]] ([[Kamala Harris#immigration|disputed]])) NE Ent 21:39, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    We are not making a decision. There is no official designation of her as a border czar or of being charged with any tasks on protecting the border, the duty of Homeland Security. It is simply a lie. We cannot include her in a list of executive branch czars if there is zero evidence that she was an executive branch czar. After all this argument, no one has found the source that is needed. Her official appointment. What next, will we allow the Congress to appoint a Secretary of State? O3000, Ret. ( talk) 00:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    The Czar page itself makes mention of "Official Designation" and states that
    "The list of those identified as "czars" is based on inescapably subjective judgments, as individuals or offices may be referred to with the nickname by some publications or public figures, while not by others. A more limited (though no less subjective) definition of the term would encompass only those officials appointed without Senate confirmation."
    So you have two pathways of being listed as a Czar, While correct in that Kamala doesnt meet the limited definition of a Czar, Due to the media, public figures and others naming her and refering to her as a Czar, It is a direct fact that she should be included in the list of Czars. 203.219.196.146 ( talk) 02:48, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    Various media and public figures have declared that the Democratic Party is a pedophile ring. Should we include that in Wikipedia? O3000, Ret. ( talk) 10:23, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    Hello O3000, as far as I understand the U.S. government never officially appoints a "czar" so your suggestion would mean the entire list has to be deleted. The title is assigned by the media and in the public discourse about certain roles of certain people. Kamala Harris has widely been referred to as a "border czar" in the media, so I think we have to add her to the list, but unlike all the others on this list, in her case that label has been vehemently disputed and therefore that must be pointed out, e.g., as NE Ent suggests by adding (disputed) after her name. Chaptagai ( talk) 05:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    The president announces such. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 10:21, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    I support this solution. Harris, Kamala ( disputed) Chaptagai ( talk) 05:03, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ Sullivan, Sean; Wootson Jr., Cleve R. (2021-04-03). "With new immigration role, Harris gets a politically perilous assignment". Washington Post. ISSN  0190-8286. Retrieved 2024-07-26.
  2. ^ Wootson Jr., Cleve R. (2021-04-27). "Republicans try to crown Harris the 'border czar.' She rejects the title". Washington Post. ISSN  0190-8286. Retrieved 2024-07-26.


Article fully protected for a day

The situation was descending into edit war between established editors. Favonian ( talk) 19:21, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply

The revision by @ GordonGlottal is in direct contradiction to the facts and given the media spotlight on this wikipedia page already being circulatied during the edit war, Removing and locking this page sans KH will only drive people further to distrust WP as a source of information.
Given that above user also has the burden to demonstrate verifiability as this not only lies with the editor who adds but with the editor who restores material. the page should be reverted to the edited version and locked for discussion around WHY it should be removed
Given the prior sources that meet WP:RS for the addition of the edit, I have yet to see any logical reason why "previous status quo has to remain while you discuss" nor can see this cited in any WP Rules.
Several reliable sources provide refrence to KH being refered to as the Border Czar
Between 1 Jan 2020 – 1 Jan 2022 there 75+ articles from various news outlets and organisations stating and refering to her as the Border Czar
These two alone should meet the criteria for WP:RS
[2] https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/09/kamala-harris-was-set-up-to-fail-as-bidens-border-czar/
[3] https://www.axios.com/2021/04/14/harris-immigration-visit-mexico-guatemala
"The number of unaccompanied minors crossing the border has reached crisis levels. Harris, appointed by Biden as border czar, said she would be looking at the "root causes" that drive migration."
Given that the US Czar wiki states
"The list of those identified as "czars" is based on inescapably subjective judgments, as individuals or offices may be referred to with the nickname by some publications or public figures, while not by others"
It is therefore perfectly acceptiable that when only media and publications, along with various public figures refered to her as the Border Czar that she and others be included in this list. 203.219.196.146 ( talk) 02:44, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply
How about we freeze the page in the version of one of the proposed compromise solutions (e.g., Harris, Kamala ( disputed)), as proposed above? Then a discussion over the final version can take place while the version that's meanwhile displayed isn't one-sided. Chaptagai ( talk) 05:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Agree, removing the edit and locking when WP:BURDEN has been met by the author who added Kamala in and there are several WP:RS that refer to her as Czar was wrong.
WP:BURDEN should fall to those who argue for the removal, page should either be reverted to the version with a note about the disputed status to allow further discussion. 193.115.85.154 ( talk) 13:44, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply

The primary list of this list article should be the first list in the article

On August 28, 2009, about 520 edits after the creation of the article, the derivative "By administration" list was moved up ahead of the primary list for which the article is named ( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars&diff=310534604&oldid=310529533). The edit was accompanied by a clear descriptive comment, but that comment offered no rationale for the shift and there was never any discussion of the resequencing here on the Talk page.

Fifteen years later, I'm here to say that resequencing was a mistake. The "By administration" list is relevant, informative, and deserves a place in the article. But it is a derivative, secondary list. After the brief narrative introduction, readers should see the list the article promises: "List of executive branch czars". Agreed? 24.90.253.80 ( talk) 10:24, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Protected edit request on 26 July 2024

Kamala Harris was appointed the border czar by Biden in 2021. Her name should appear in the border czar line of the list. 140.141.162.88 ( talk) 21:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{ Edit protected}} template. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 21:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Why did the version which was protected until we "establish a consensus" end up being the version which is most sympathetic to the Democratic Party?
Actually, no need to ask, we all know why. 2601:600:817F:16F0:151A:2649:7B9A:3D97 ( talk) 00:36, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The version without Harris was the status quo version, but believe whatever you want to believe. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 00:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Protected edit request on 27 July 2024

Kamala Harris was removed despite that https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-resolution/253/text

Exists demonstrating it to be an official position of record. 2603:7081:4DF0:82B0:6C11:A0C9:39FC:567E ( talk) 00:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{ Edit protected}} template. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 00:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply

It's demonstrable

Hres 253 118th Congress gives her the title officially 2603:7081:4DF0:82B0:6C11:A0C9:39FC:567E ( talk) 00:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply

That's not how this works. House Republicans passing a nonbinding resolution that won't be taken up by the Senate is just as meaningless a gesture as it sounds. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 00:49, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Asking for consensus: Freeze in compromise version until discussion is resolved

Hi everyone, one side of this discussion wants Harris not to appear at all, the other side wants her to appear with no comment or disclaimer or just a footnote. Bot sides have good arguments, but the article is now frozen without mentioning Harris at all. I understand why that was done, but that's one-sided.

Until our discussion here has concluded or reached a result, I propose that we freeze the article in a compromise version that isn't one-sided for either side such as the one NE Ent suggested above: Harris, Kamala ( disputed)).

That would be fair to both sides. Hope we can establish a consensus for that.

Kind regards Chaptagai ( talk) 10:56, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Why is it one-sided to not include something that is incorrect? It's like one side saying all Democrats are pedophiles and the other saying no they aren't; so let's compromise by saying half are pedophiles. Cutting the baby in half is not a compromise. Incidentally, there has been a discussion on the Flat Earth article with some saying we should neutrally document both sides of the argument and let the reader decide if the Earth is flat. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 11:08, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The fact that people believe, incorrectly, in a Flat Earth is verifiable, which is why the article exists. Removing all mention of Harris here would be the functional equivalent of deleting the Flat Earth article. NE Ent 11:46, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply
By that logic, we should include all the QAnon nutso beliefs in the various articles to which they apply. For example, the article on Pizza should include that Pizza places are pedophile rings, with a disputed tag. The Flat Earth article exists because the belief goes back before written history with numerous famous minds discussing the concept over millennia. The Republican false claim that Kamala Harris was charged with protecting the border has no such history. It's just another political lie, something both sides engage in. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 12:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Not surprisingly, I agree with me. List of U.S. executive branch czars#List_of_executive_branch_czars is "executive branch officials who have been described by the media as a czar of some kind." If we look at version [4] there are references to Axios, BBC news, NBC, and CNN. The Wall Street Journal has also discussed the issue. The long standing Wikipedia criteria for inclusion is [[WP::Verifiability]], not "correctness." See also MSNBC, Fox NE Ent 11:40, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply
And those cites were retracted. Media is in an increasingly tough competition to release scoops, resulting in errors. We are not in a competition and have WP:NODEADLINE. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 12:05, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The article is, among other things, about people who were described in the media as being czars. Just because the media regrets doing it now, as that is inconvenient for the Democratic Party, doesn't mean they didn't do it. That cannot be undone by frantic, politically driven retractions. 2601:600:817F:16F0:2552:E436:587F:D492 ( talk) 15:20, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Actually "they didn't do it" is correct re: Harris as border czar. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 15:23, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply
No to depending on outdated stories from outlets that have since acknowledged they were wrong. WP:V is inherently "described by the media". Yes, WP:NOTTRUTH, but our policies also require us to try to get it right by choosing the best sources, not including things which have since been corrected, prioritizing more recent sources, etc. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:30, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply
While I think the article is probably better without this, and that the story is already clear in the Harris article, here's a potential compromise version (perhaps shaded a darker gray):
Border czar None. Harris was mistakenly called "border czar" by media outlets and Republicans in 2021, after she received a diplomatic assignment to address root causes of migration from Mexico and South America. Critics of Harris continued to use the term after the media corrected its usage.[cites] Harris, Kamala N/A N/A Joe Biden N/A

— Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:59, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Maybe my intention has been misunderstood. I did not suggest a final result of the discussion. I suggested that we freeze the article in a reasonable middle ground version until we have concluded the discussion and hopefully arrived at a compromise or solution. So my proposal was to have this as a temporary version as long as we are discussing the final version. Chaptagai ( talk) 14:22, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Females: Czarina

Hi everyone,

I think the introduction of the article should briefly mention that the term "czar" is falsely used here for females as the correct term for a female would actually be Czarina. I do not want to change the list. The false term is being used all over the media and by commentators and on social media, and I have never seen it being used correctly for a female. I only think the introduction should briefly mention it. Chaptagai ( talk) 15:40, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars&oldid=1236994732"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE