Jump to content

Talk:List of U.S. executive branch czars

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

"List of executive branch czars" sorting order

[edit]

When sorting by Appointing Administration, some of the presidents are sorted by first name, others by last. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cernael (talk • contribs) 11:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

in the czar count

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]
  • 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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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

[edit]

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.....

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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?

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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'

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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?

[edit]

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?

[edit]

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]

[edit]

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]

[edit]

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"

[edit]

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

[edit]

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]
We have a consistent policy (WP:BURDEN, WP:ONUS) of preserving status quo versions of pages during discussion when an addition is challenged. We are generally even tighter about this when it comes to BLPs. Everyone needs to stop edit-warring. GordonGlottal (talk) 02:22, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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/w/index.php?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]

I know the focus on the fact that Kamala Harris was labeled the "border czar" hundreds of times by the mainstream media in 2021–22 and whether that fact should or somehow shouldn't be reflected in the article has dominated discussion in the past few days. I'm raising this formatting matter again to see if anyone wants to weigh in on it. Without objection, I'll perform the resequencing later today. 24.90.253.80 (talk) 05:38, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 26 July 2024

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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]

Leading with "mistakenly" seems to skate close to WP:NPOV issues. Suggesting instead:
None. Received diplomatic assignment to address root causes of migration from Mexico and South America in 2021, for which Republican members of Congress and media outlets deemed her "border czar". The term remains in use by critics despite retractions by the media.
It's a bit tighter and avoids potential flaming by drive-by editors. 74.64.100.109 (talk) 19:08, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's leave "Republicans" out since it was a bipartisan phenomena [5] NE Ent 20:08, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6 out 212 Democrats and all 220 Republicans is hardly bipartisan. It was a Republican bill with no chance of passing both houses to attack the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. And we don't use your source for politics. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Without wading into the topic and getting a warning for something again, here is another, non-Fox News source with the same information. Bremps... 03:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does not claim it was a bipartisan bill. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:30, 29 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]

Reminder

[edit]

This is the lead:

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. There have never been any U.S. government offices with the formal title "czar". The earliest known use of the term for a U.S. government official was in the administration of Franklin Roosevelt (1933–1945), during which eleven unique positions (or twelve if one were to count "economic czar" and "economic czar of World War II" as distinct) were so described.
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 ...

Not including Harris because "she wasn't officially appointed 'border czar' in inconsistent with the raison d'être of the article itself. NE Ent 20:18, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, all of the listed czars are agreed upon as named that. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Females: Czarina

[edit]

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]

There's probably an etymological debate over whether a loanword into English follows the gender conventions of the original language ("bachelor" vs. "bachelorette") or loses implied gender ("barista"), but most US media seems to treat "czar" as a gender-neutral term. (Roberta Jacobson, for example, was tapped as "border czar", according to the New York Times in 2021.) 74.64.100.109 (talk) 19:03, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "czar" is almost always used for females as well. That's why I am not advocating for changing any of the terms in the table itself but just to add one short sentence in the introduction that explains this. Chaptagai (talk) 19:50, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's necessary but it would be better placed in Czar (political term). NE Ent 20:22, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a great suggestion, it actually makes more sense to have it there and not in every article that refers to a "czar", otherwise one would have to have an explainer or footnote for in every article of a female that has been named "czar". I will propose it in the other article. Thanks, and as a far as I am concerned, this discussion is resolved here. Chaptagai (talk) 04:41, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Kamala Harris as "border czar" in the Biden administration

[edit]

While trying to formulate my opinion on the subject, I found that neither discussion above (Asking for consensus: Freeze in compromise version until discussion is resolved and Should Kamala Harris be listed as a "border czar") is very clear as to any proposed changes. So, I am making this section for !votes and discussion on specific versions. Here are the options (taken from the above discussions):

  • Option 1: No mention. This is the state of the article at this moment.
  • Option 2: Disputed mention. This new state would put "(disputed)" after Harris' name, with a footnote going into some depth concerning the history of Harris being called "border czar".
  • Option 3: Normal mention. This was the original listing (note—by "original listing" is meant the original addition of the text to the page), with the only difference between Harris' and others' being a footnote stating that her presidential campaign has disavowed the title.

Option 2 was developed as a compromise between Option 1 and Option 3, given the unusual disagreement over the use of the title. Option 3 treated the media mentions of Harris as border czar as sufficient, followed by the chronologically later disavowal. The supporters of Option 1 have several justifications, mainly (so far as I can see) that the title has always been a source of controversy, ever since President Biden gave her the diplomatic responsibility, and that she has now formally disavowed the title. Wrapped up in this latter argument is the political connection, given that most people who want to bring up the "border czar" title are doing so to the detriment of her campaign. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TE(æ)A,ea., you are incorrect about the original state of the article. That's a link to the diff of the last version before Joe dropped out and endorsed Kamala for president. She is not mentioned on the page. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:01, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Boldly modified the proposal to add option 4, since multiple people have mentioned it now. Also fixed the "original state" descriptor per the conversation immediately above. Courtesy ping to TE(æ)A,ea.. BTW this should have a {{rfc}} tag to recruit uninvolved participants. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 - Unless reliable WP:SIGCOV can be provided that existed prior to this current media frenzy. I think its telling Google trends and even edits to this article were nil prior to this week. But I'm happy to be convinced otherwise. – macaddct1984 (talk | contribs) 21:50, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • BBC in 2021: «President Joe Biden has put Vice-President Kamala Harris in charge of controlling migration at the southern border following a big influx of new arrivals. Mr Biden said he was giving her a "tough job" but that she was "the most qualified person to do it” […] Announcing Ms Harris's appointment as his immigration czar»[1]
  • NBC in 2021: «A senior administration official said Harris' role would focus on "two tracks": both curbing the current flow of migrants and».[2]
  • CNN in 2021 (Senior National Correspondent E. Lavandera): «this will be her first visit to the U.S./Mexico border region since she was appointed as the border czar by President Biden»[3]
  • Axios in 2021, by Axios political reporter Stef W. Knight: «Biden puts Harris in charge of border crisis»[4]
  • Same Axios 3 weeks later in 2021, by Axios reporter Shawna Chen: «Harris, appointed by Biden as border czar»[5]
  • Associated Press in 2021: «Joe Biden has tapped Vice President Kamala Harris to lead the White House effort to tackle the migration challenge at the U.S. southern border […] In delegating the matter to Harris, Biden […] When she speaks, she speaks for me,” Biden said, noting her past work as California’s attorney general makes her specially equipped to lead the administration’s response.»[6]
  • The Independent in 2021 uncritically cites an interviewee: «The vice president was named Border Czar over 90 days ago».[7]
Some of these, such as Axios and CNN, have engaged in historic revisionism 3 years later, asking for a mulligan and arguing their reporting and editorial process in 2021 was erroneous. So, when are they WP:RS?. The year they publish, the following year, the next, or coincidentally the week after someone becomes a presumptive nominee? Historians have traditionally questioned mediate sources which conveniently rewrite facts long afterward, and for good reason.
XavierItzm (talk) 04:07, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Biden tasks Harris with tackling migrant influx on US-Mexico border". BBC News. 2021-03-24. Retrieved 2024-07-25. US President Joe Biden has put Vice-President Kamala Harris in charge of controlling migration at the southern border following a big influx of new arrivals. Mr Biden said he was giving her a "tough job" but that she was "the most qualified person to do it" […] Announcing Ms Harris's appointment as his immigration czar
  2. ^ "Biden tasks Harris with 'stemming the migration' on southern border". NBC News. 2021-03-24. Retrieved 2024-07-25. A senior administration official said Harris' role would focus on "two tracks": both curbing the current flow of migrants and implementing a long-term strategy that addresses the root causes of migration.
  3. ^ http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/2106/25/nday.06.html
  4. ^ https://www.axios.com/2021/03/24/biden-harris-border-crisis
  5. ^ https://www.axios.com/2021/04/14/harris-immigration-visit-mexico-guatemala
  6. ^ https://apnews.com/general-news-3400f56255e000547d1ca3ce1aa6b8e9
  7. ^ https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/texas-border-greg-abbott-harris-b1872931.html
Thank you, I appreciate the sources; there are clearly media mentions of her being "border czar" after Biden's announcement back in 2021. Whether those three mentions (the Independent is quoting Gov. Abbott, and no one is debating she was tasked with immigration issues) are sufficient could be debated. Perhaps as AjaxSmack mentioned lower down, maybe there is a definitional issue with the article itself. I suppose Harris is an executive branch officials who have been described by the media as a czar of some kind – macaddct1984 (talk | contribs) 10:41, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it's enough? Wikipedia is a practicing far left politics and is a joke. 2603:800C:2500:3EA5:DFC7:69D0:F1C1:A031 (talk) 09:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF Assume good faith, this isn’t the time or place for name-calling. Though I agree that it’s more than sufficient. Garnet Moss (talk) 20:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Macaddct1984 I suppose Harris is an executive branch officials who have been described by the media as a czar of some kind - this is where I'm at, too. The "definition" of who can be called a czar is pretty vague, and by the standards in this article and this piece from TIME, Kamala certainly seems to fit within the definition. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 is the status quo of the article from prior to the change in presidential candidate. Nobody cared to call Harris the "border czar", until she became the presumptive nominee. Biden never referred to her as a "border czar", and her role did not include jurisdiction over the border, hence she was never the "border czar". – Muboshgu (talk) 22:03, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Muboshgu Nobody cared to call Harris the "border czar", until she became the presumptive nominee This isn't true - see these stories from The Telegraph, NBC, and The Independent. All high-quality RS, all using the term (and without any specific attribution). PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NBC News is a high-quality RS, but that looks like a blog post by pundit Chuck Todd that has "border czar" as a throwaway bit at the bottom of the article. The Telegraph picks up on an attack from Eric Adams and The Independent picks up on an attack from Lara Trump. So, fair point that "nobody" is inaccurate. Political idiots like Todd, Adams, and Trump called her a border czar. Better news sources didn't, or corrected themselves after the mistake was initially made. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:54, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
C'mon - Chuck Todd, NBC News' "chief political analyst"? That's an analysis that NBC published, not a blog.
The Independent used the term in their own voice ("The issue got picked up by the Fox News morning show, as the hosts also took the opportunity to lambast Ms Harris’s work as the southern border czar" - no quotation, no attribution). And The Telegram presents the term "border czar" as a general attribution in the lede line, but not in a direct quote from Adams anywhere in the article. Neither do they say "this label which Adams incorrectly used" or anything to that effect. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:09, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 Going back to the early days of 2021, it was reported that "czar" was a Republican rhetorical tactic to tar Harris with a range of border problems that weren't her actual remit. Utterly unclear why this article (or the Harris article) should adopt it. -- M.boli (talk) 00:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 Muboshgu and Macaddct1984 clearly state the reasons for non-inclusion. Biden never put her in control of the border. Indeed, he spelled out her role in working on root causes and she did increase foreign investment in the problem countries. Guarding the border was a different department and these are very different roles. She was given no authority to handle the border. Yes some in the media got it wrong and later corrected themselves. But we are not in the business of correcting past media errors or using old sources that have since been corrected. What is lacking is any evidence that she was ever assigned a role as "border czar" or referred to by in that manner by the executive branch. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Virtually every point you've made is irrelevant, if not ridiculous. For the umpteenth time: "czar" is a nickname, not an official title with a consistently defined set of powers. You can't seem to grasp that general point, so I guess I'll have to trudge through your more ridiculous specific "observations".
(1) "Biden never put her in control of the border." Irrelevant. Obama didn't put George Marshall "in control" of the Middle East. Nevertheless we list him as "Middle East czar" because he was so referred to in the media.
(2) "She was given no authority to handle the border." Both irrelevant and ridiculous. She was given a broad portfolio handing her the authority to seek diplomatic, foreign-aid, and private-sector solutions to the problem at the border.
(3) "Yes some in the media got it wrong and later corrected themselves." Simply ridiculous. A nickname may be unfair, absurd, or offensive, but it's not in the category of things that can be "wrong." Among the innumerable media outlets that referred to her as "border czar," the few that have retracted that description did so not because it was "incorrect" (again, nicknames are not things that can be "incorrect"), but because it had become, years after the fact...wait for it...politically incorrect.
(4) "What is lacking is any evidence that she was ever assigned a role as 'border czar' or referred to by in that manner by the executive branch." Beyond ridiculous. At this late date in the debate, that's just stupid. Embarrassing. "Czar" is not a term formally used within the executive branch. It's a nickname that appears in media coverage, whether applied by reporters, commentators, or public figures. 24.90.253.80 (talk) 06:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 4 (first choice). Option 1 (second choice). "Option 2" is inadequate. By "option 4" I mean something like I proposed above. No footnote; no "disputed". Just a description making it clear that people used this term inaccurately, and some continued to do so after the news corrected itself. When a news outlet issues a retraction or correction, the older version is not somehow still equal in WP:WEIGHT. Option 2 (and, of course, option 3) pretends retracted sources are equal in weight to the corrections, which isn't how WP:RS/WP:NPOV works. This is also a misleading proposal. The "original state" references an addition from two days ago which was promptly challenged, not any status quo version. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the proponent of Option 2, I want to point out that "disputed" doesn't mean that both sides of the disputes have equally weighted arguments. It just means there are relevant arguments on both sides. I do not think my proposal was misleading. It certainly wasn't intended to be. Chaptagai (talk) 06:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rhododendrites: I don't think your Option 4 is wise because it is too opinionated. Given how our definition includes people "described by the media as a czar" I don't see how anyone who is described as a czar by the media can be "mistakenly" described as such. Because of this inherent contradiction, I didn't include that option. In addition, in other parts of the list, where there is a gap in the appointment of any "czar"-like position, there is no statement that there was no czar for that President; there is merely no mention. So, it seems separately unusual to have a listing with "None" specifically for Harris' position. In addition, by saying that "the media corrected its usage" we are taking a very clear political stance as to the issue. Considering a hypothetical Option 2 as a compromise, the one I selected is superior because it states plainly that she has been so described, and that there is controversy as to that designation. Your compromise (Option 4) is unduly biased in Harris' favor, especially insofar as it prioritizes current descriptions over contemporaneous ones. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:35, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    as it prioritizes current descriptions over contemporaneous ones Newspapers publish corrections all the time. Why would we give any attention to something a source says but has retracted due to error? We don't prioritize current descriptions. We use them and ignore the past errors. by saying that "the media corrected its usage" we are taking a very clear political stance as to the issue. No, we are accepting the fact that media make errors and correct them. Indeed, that is one of the signs of reliability. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have a problem with changing the wording a bit to get rid of "mistakenly". That was an effort to assume good faith on the part of those who keep using the term. But it's not actually "disputed" within the range of sources we consider reliable. And yes, as O3000 says, we should prioritize current over contemporaneous sources when the current sources correct the record. My argument isn't necessarily for "option 4" to be set in stone, but to be the best of the available starting points. Here's a modified version: 'None. In 2021, Harris was given a diplomatic task to address the "root causes" of migration in Mexico and South America. It did not involve any power over the US-Mexico border or immigration policy. Some news media referred to her as "border czar", a title she rejected and never officially held. News organizations issued corrections in 2024, but the title was picked up by critics to cast blame on Harris for the border crisis.' Wordier, but all of it very well sourced in the main Harris article. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:57, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is bizarre. *Nobody* "officially holds" a title of "czar" in the United States. By your argument, the entire page should be zeroed out. Phanatic (talk) 19:57, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've struck "official" above as it's not necessary and I don't want it to be confusing. You're right that czar usually isn't an official role. The point is, calling someone an "X czar" does have implications for a good amount of power/authority/control over X-related policy. The business with "official" or not and the various matter-of-fact statements one way or the other are really more about whether that was applicable in this case. The consensus among reliable sources, including those that previously used the term, seems to be that it was simply misapplied as she did not have such power or authority. That gap between the actual responsibilities and the power built into the term "czar" is exactly why that term became a talking point (because it pretends she had power over border policy). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:52, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added Kamala Harris to the list a few days ago after hearing about the issue in the news. I checked the wording of this list article carefully and found "executive branch officials who have been described by the media as a czar of some kind" (my emphasis) before adding her. (I also added two other missing border czars.) If having her in the list runs counter to the political current at Wikipedia, that wording should probably be changed. —  AjaxSmack  01:47, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's fair. That wording makes me lean towards my "option 4". It matters that outlets which used the term at the time have clarified that they got it wrong. It means that according to reliable sourcing as it exists now, she was not the border czar but some people still call her that. It's not exactly "disputed" because according to the best sourcing it's inaccurate, but insofar as this page is about media descriptions that metastory maybe worth a qualified mention. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:59, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's why I added a footnote with "some publications which had used the description "border czar" disclaimed it after Harris began her 2024 presidential campaign" and a reference to the one source I could find that corrected this characterization. Since "czar" has never been an official title, I don't think Harris being called a czar by multiple Rsources (e.g. BBC) should be suppressed, but I'm not going to fight the passions that seem to reign here. —  AjaxSmack  02:18, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        In my opinion, a footnote is not enough given the scale of the controversy. Few people read footnotes, so cursory readers might get the impression that she was the undisputed border czar. Chaptagai (talk) 06:58, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        “(Disputed)” followed by a footnote certainly would be, though. Garnet Moss (talk) 22:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Y'all got into the news. Bremps... 03:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 (1st choice) and «Option 4» as second choice, given the fact the media widely reported in 2021 she was the border czar: CNN, BBC, Axios, NBC, AP, etc. I mean, in 2021, even Saturday Night Live did a skit on Biden tasking Harris with being «put in charge of solving a little immigration problem down at the Mexican border». [1]. Can the Wikipedia of 2024 deephole the 2021 zeitgeist? XavierItzm (talk) 05:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, TE(æ)A,ea, for this very helpful recap. I would support either Option 2 or Option 4 with no preference between the two. I also think the article should be frozen in Option 2 so as to not endorse either of the sides while the debate is ongoing. Chaptagai (talk) 06:47, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Editors are not permitted to establish WP:LOCALCONSENSUS in contravention of site-wide policy, which requires us to leave disputed content off of mainspace during the dispute process. If you want to change how Wikipedia handles disputes, see our guidance at WP:PGCHANGE. GordonGlottal (talk) 14:32, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 The reason that RS have stopped using "border czar" is not that the title of "czar" was wrongly applied (as many here have said, it's always informal) but because "border" is inaccurate—Harris's role does not involve border policy. I think there's room for a line in the lede about the use of "czar" as a kampfbegriff in the 2024 presidential election, but Harris should not be on the list. GordonGlottal (talk) 14:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 There is, as mentioned, plenty of (archived) WP:RS before Biden dropping out stating that she was the "border czar". And as stated in all revisions of the article (on both sides of this dispute) "The following are executive branch officials who have been described by the media as a czar of some kind." [emphasis added]
Whether or not she claims the title or disavows it, or that her actual duties were or were not the border, (as opposed to immigration) or even that WP:RS have stopped using the term (and/or whether or not it's due to their own internal editorial biases) are all wholly irrelevant. She has been so described by multiple WP:RS. Bob the Cannibal (talk) 16:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the fact that RS have retracted rather changes things. GordonGlottal (talk) 23:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OTOH, while some RS did, other RS didn't. But again, that's irrelevant. She was so described. Bob the Cannibal (talk) 06:01, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't. If we're talking about "whether the media referred to the person as a czar," the fact that some of the journalists who referred to her in that way now regret it (as it was politically harmful to their favored candidate) doesn't change the fact that they did it. I'm sure Donald Trump regrets paying hush money to that porn star and would probably claim in retrospect that he didn't do it, but that doesn't make it so either. 2601:600:817F:16F0:28C4:A15D:188F:EC9 (talk) 06:01, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 - It’s clear from the sources provided that sigcov was made, and the very fact that we’re debating this means it’s in dispute. If congressional republicans and democrats disagree about the nature of how the Vice President’s role relates to an intrinsically subjective term, that’s how a tertiary, encyclopedic source should convey it. We’re not here to settle the argument, we’re here to communicate the aggregate of secondary sources, which in this case demands acknowledgement of the dispute. This is concert with my earlier comments on this (unfortunately very tricky) issue. Garnet Moss (talk) 22:01, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 - "Czar" is a nebulous title in the USA, and while it's certainly a relatively uncommon situation for the described "czar" themselves to turn down the title, it doesn't retroactively change the fact that they were described with that term in common parlance for some time in the past. If a noble title is lost, for example, the former holder's Wikipedia page isn't scrubbed of the title; past tense is simply added. Highlighting that there's an active historiographical dispute that's politically motivated is probably the most active current summation of whether the title applies. 74.64.100.109 (talk) 01:31, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, she did not "turn it down" as it was never offered. She rejected the claim that she was ever given the title by the administration. And no one here has provided any reliable source that the administration made such an appointment. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:43, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that “czar” is not an official title, and this list has other examples of persons who were never officially described as such by the WH but were labeled as such by peers, press, and public. Consider the language of this article itself, “Note that what is measured is the popularity of the word czar, rather than an objective measure of authority.”
Based on her actual assignment, “immigration czar”, and specifically “Latin American immigration czar” would have been more accurate. But the title of “border czar” was applied to her broadly by peers, press, and public, even if today many people realize it was not perfectly apt. Garnet Moss (talk) 02:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that there are some politicians and current media (mostly not RS) that refer to her in that manner. But many of them also use other terms, nicknames, derogatories, and false claims about leaders that they don't favor. We have an entire article on List of nicknames used by Donald Trump. They are not official titles either. I would hope that this article won't turn into another nickname page as that sounds like what this example would be since she has never had any responsibility for border security. Indeed, of what value does an encyclopedia provide by calling someone the border czar who had no responsibility for border security. It's misleading. Basically, it's being used as a slur to falsely attach her to the border problems not ever under her control. This is nothing like LBJ appointing Sargent Shriver anti-poverty czar with Senate confirmation. Do we have reliable sources that have not corrected themselves showing that this term is being used by RS or the public at large other than to push a political falsehood? O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the sources collected above demonstrate, there was a period of three years in which highly RS sources (BBC, NBC, AP, CNN, etc.) referred to the Vice President as “Border Czar,” and prevalence analysis supports the claim that this was a widely-heard and disseminated designation. Those non-RS sources’ usages, as well as instances like the Congressional Republicans’ resolution, did not exist in a vacuum as a rank smear, (even if the insistence of its accuracy today is.) The retractions of most of the RS sources means that their authority is not to be used to buttress the claim that the VP had czar-like powers over the border, and those sources are correct in acknowledging the weakness of the initial descriptor. Nevertheless, for a period of three years of President Biden’s four year term, Harris was understood by reliable, secondary sources to have played a role that earned the description of “border czar,” and this is highly relevant to the context of this article. As another commenter correctly points out, we should not be putting contentious claims as fact on mainspace, but the acknowledgement of the quasi-czardom is absolutely warranted.
The clearly correct course of action is, as Harris herself might say, to acknowledge context in which this dispute sits. We didn’t fall out of a coconut tree, here. Garnet Moss (talk) 03:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per contemporaneous headlines, she "rejected the title".
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/harris-gop-border/2021/04/16/c3a2f63e-9e24-11eb-8005-bffc3a39f6d3_story.html 74.64.100.109 (talk) 16:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 Seems to be the most reasonable, omitting it entirely is partisan hackery. Killuminator (talk) 14:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying all the editors !voting for option 1 are partisan hacks? O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This accusation veers close to WP:PA; they're describing their own (somewhat emphatic) personal opinion of the option, not the users who support it. 74.64.100.109 (talk) 16:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One, I made no accusation. Killuminator did. Two, omitting it entirely is one of the options. Killuminator called that partisan hackery. But you can take it to ANI if you think I somehow made a PA. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The title of this page is List of U.S. executive branch czars. I just looked through the list and it looks like about 98% were appointed or nominated and Senate confirmed for that title by the executive branch, which makes sense considering the title. Perhaps we should drop this idea that you are an executive branch czar if other people have called you that. Particularly considering the amount of political name-calling going around the last several years.O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any source that a czar was ever nominated by Congress. One of the most famous czars on the list, Steven Rattner, was appointed to "czardom" by the Department of the Treasury and famously hated the term.
https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/03/steven-rattner-hated-being-called-czar
Perhaps there should be some sort of change to the lede of the article to emphasize that "czar" is more of an appellation than an official title? That seems to be what's motivating a lot of the current partisan rancor around whether Vice President Harris held the role or not. 74.64.100.109 (talk) 16:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Department of the Treasury is part of the Executive Branch. I didn't say Congress nominated any "czars". About 98% in this article were appointed or nominated by the Executive Branch and some are confirmed by the Senate. Up until VP Harris, I can't remember Congress declaring anyone a czar. (Well, maybe Czar Nicholas II) O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:50, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are important points that could all go in the footnotes of Option 2. Or otherwise in the note right in the table of Option 4 (I am indifferent between 2 and 4). Chaptagai (talk) 17:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, that’s a very sad misreading. Senate confirmations were for the actual legal position in the executive branch to which the person may (or may not) have been appointed. Obviously no-one has ever been Senate-confirmed nor voted down for a Czar title itself, because it is an informal title, bestowed by pundits or politicians and crowned by the media. XavierItzm (talk) 20:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rather a misleading statement, as the instrumental term in question - “czar” - is an informal designation, not an official title of office. Garnet Moss (talk) 20:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rather a misleading statement If what you are saying is true, this article is what will become misleading. The term "czar" is defined by the OED as "a person appointed by government to advise on and coordinate policy in a particular area". She was never a "border czar" as she had zero authority in border security. So, the title of the article is wrong. This was a list of actual executive branch czars -- that is people with authority. Now the proposal is to make it whatever media once said, even if incorrect and withdrawn, and used as a nickname for political purposes to slur opponents. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a silly article, about a silly imprecise term with no real definition. Still, we must work with what we have... and in the continuing spirit of this article, it seems Harris should be mentioned in a manner like Option 2. For anyone still not 100% sure of what an "executive czar" is, go to the article linked in the lead, or alternatively read this piece from TIME.
With that "definition" of czar in mind, I find it hard to rationalize leaving Harris off this list. She was referred to as much by RS media outlets [6][7][8] and in popular parlance for the past 3 years (albeit mostly from the other side of the political aisle). Now, to address some of the most common oppositions:
There's enough WP:SIGCOV on this from RS to show that this label was applied by more than just her political opponents - whether it was entirely appropriate or not. The current media firestorm and scrutiny on the label is why I think Option 2 is more appropriate than something like Option 3. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose usage of terms change over time. For the purposes of this article, it is proposed that the current term, contrary to the OED definition, will include outright lies to slur opponents. Now you started by saying: This is a silly article.... OK, so we have three options (four options, we have four options - Monty Python lives) to change this:
1. Change it to only include those who were appointed as czars by the executive branch -- as the article title states and is true for 98% of the current text.
2. Also include political slurs designed to misinform the public. (Option #2)
3. Add a separate section on times the term has been misused.
4. AfD the article.
I think the first provides a source of interesting, valuable, historical content while the second sullies this effort. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, WP:AGF. I understand this is a contentious and political topic but most of the participants in this discussion clearly want what’s best for the site.
And secondly, there’s no question that she was tasked by President Biden to do something. As it happens, that ‘something’ was more of a diplomatic and investigative role focused on addressing the root causes of illegal immigration from South America, not border security per se, and it had a rather lightweight profile compared to other “czardoms” the executive branch has seen. Nevertheless, even if we know that this would’ve been more accurately termed a “root-causes-of-migrant-crisis czar”, that’s not how the task and role was described by media sources. We can’t make up our own terminology, we’re limited to the term of the contemporary consensus of secondary sources which was indisputably “border czar”. This was not a smear, indeed it was used even by favorable opinion, as already proved. Now that we’re looking back at this three-year period in which all reputable sources regarded her (limited) role as that of “border czar”, we have three options. One, we could just include her as ‘border czar’ without further clarification. You and I would both agree that would be patently misleading. Two, we could leave her off entirely. You favor this, but I find this mirror image to be similarly misleading, consigning to oblivion a major event in Harris’ Vice Presidency in the context of this article, confusing the (many) readers who would have remembered the press coverage of her as ‘border czar’, and setting up the article for long-term turmoil as innocent, well-intended editors seek to correct the omission for years down the line. Or three, we can include her with a clear, obvious note briefly relating the confused nature of her alleged ‘czarship’. This option has the strongest potential to be both neutral and informative, and would avert the possibility of it being an ongoing issue for the page. Option 2 is plainly the correct choice, the way I see it, according to Wikipedia’s principles. Garnet Moss (talk) 01:50, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, I don't know why you cited AGF. I always AGF. The point is that she was never a "border czar" and therefore does not belong in this article. And this label is being heavily used as a smear as the Republicans are saying that she failed at her task of securing the border, even passing a House resolution to that end. Read the whereases in the resolution.[13] Statement after statement like: "Resolved, That the House of Representatives — strongly condemns the Biden Administration and its Border Czar, Kamala Harris’s, failure to secure the United States border;" She never had any such duty. RS have retracted their incorrect statements. Non-RS have not. And we ay be among the non-RS. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, after reading every single one of your responses, I, along with others are fairly sure you are not acting in good faith.
Your continued assertion that the term czar is a “political slur designed to misinform the public” speaks volumes to your desire to not include KH on the list.
Regardless of the addition here, anyone with a working internet connection and google can easily see that;
1: Kamala Harris was tasked by Joe Biden to address in particular the issues at the southern Border
2: The media, and several RS referred to her using the informal term “czar” well before her nomination for as the Dem Candidate
3: Some media, only issued retractions or corrections when it became apparent that the term was going to be used in a negative way by KH’s opponents.
4: Attempts to hide and distance herself from this informal title has backfired resulting in more media than before being generated now about it.
Just because something is now inconvenient, doesn’t mean that you can re-write history and attempt to exclude it. 193.115.85.154 (talk) 13:47, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Kamala Harris was tasked by Joe Biden to address in particular the issues at the southern Border". I don't think what you are stating is correct. She was specifically tasked with a diplomatic outreach to the Northern Triangle states. She had no role in border patrol or border security. Chaptagai (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A diplomatic outreach to address the root causes of illegal border crossings. I agree that “border czar” was a misleading term for the media to adopt, but it wasn’t irrational either. Garnet Moss (talk) 19:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it is misleading, it is irrational. Well unless you are that part of the media that is designed to be misleading. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RS have retracted their incorrect statements. Non-RS have not. I'm not sure where you're getting this. Neither The Telegraph, nor NBC, nor The Independent seem to have corrected or retracted their stories. These 3 sources have all released recent stories, which now attribute the term to Harris' "critics" [14] [15] [16], but I don't see official corrections or retractions issued from any of them.
Since the term was used, and by some high-quality RS in addition to her political opponents, I feel that meets the (very low) bar for inclusion on this list. Remember, "czar" is not an official title, and "specific instances of the term are often a media creation." It can mean very little to simply be called "czar" - what matters much more is what someone accomplishes in the position they're tapped for. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 193.115.85.154 (talk) 13:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since it's been mentioned by multiple people, I added option 4. The proposer removed it without explanation here when formally starting the RfC. We now have a bad rfc which presents a compromise that's not actually a compromise. The only options now are to directly contradict reliable sources or omit it altogether. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:10, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPgLU8IDNTI&t=305s
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars&oldid=1237678064"