Talk:List of U.S. executive branch czars

"List of executive branch czars" sorting order

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

in the czar count

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

Kenneth Feinberg

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

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

• Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124416737421887739.html
• Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/08/AR2009080802532.html
• Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/05/obama-set-appoint-pay-czar/

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)

Criteria for inclusion

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

Reasoning for citation(s) in every cell

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

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

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	United States Chief Performance Officer and deputy director for management at the Office of Management and Budget	Nancy Killefer	2009 - 2009	Senate Confirmed	Barack Obama
		Jeffrey Zients	2009 - 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)

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	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	Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services, Advisor to the President for Public Health Emergency Preparedness	Stewart Simonson	2004-2006	Senate confirmed	George W. Bush

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)

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)

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)

References

Multiple Cites Per Cell

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

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

Photo for this page

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

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)

Update on cleanup

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

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

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

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)

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

• http://byrd.senate.gov/mediacenter/view_article.cfm?ID=331
• http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/02/25/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4828759.shtml
• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/25/dem-senator-byrd-obama-in_n_169822.html
• http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/19303.html

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)

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

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)

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

Temporary column added for cite checking

I will be checking the articles and placing and removing 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)

Czar count editing

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

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

War Czar

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

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

Article renaming

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

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)

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)

How is this "red-baiting"? Czars aren't even associated with communism. --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Content split-out

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

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)

New positions - getting the counts

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

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

Who declares them Czars?

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

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)

Woodrow Wilson was first to appoint a czar, not Roosevelt

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

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)

Style of the Article

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

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)

Factcheck.org's list

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

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:

The habit of using "czar" to refer to an administration official dates back at least to President Franklin D. Roosevelt. (Purported but erroneous citation)

GWB 31 Czar titles in detail vs 35 in summary

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

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

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

Calculation of Obama Administration Czars

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

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

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

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

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

That is not true.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

Summary vs Detail as of 26 Jan 2011

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

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

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

Counting of so-called 'Czars'

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

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)

Let's make this an A+ article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

Utahj

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

Elizabeth Warren

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

Assassination czar?

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

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

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

External links modified

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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/03/pakistan_must_be_obamas_leadin.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE54S5U120090529?pageNumber=2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090315064305/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3942/is_200109/ai_n8961511 to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3942/is_200109/ai_n8961511/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2009/05/ed_montgomery_auto_recovery_cz.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/30/news/economy/recovery_director/index.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-kall/meet-the-700-billion-bail_b_132221.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20081110/REG/811109991
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14751.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://compuserve.businessweek.com/magazine/content/01_21/b3733101.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071121022837/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3715/is_200605/ai_n17174322 to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3715/is_200605/ai_n17174322/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17964.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/12/obama-climate-czar-has-socialist-ties
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100708224930/http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=86&subid=191&contentid=3420 to http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=86&subid=191&contentid=3420
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2003/01/57454
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/03/breaking-cyber/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120322121257/http://www.protectthetruth.org/josephcalifano.htm to http://www.protectthetruth.org/josephcalifano.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.usnews.com/blogs/erbe/2009/06/29/obamas-endless-czar-list-now-includes-a-domestic-violence-aide.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721035950/http://www.energy.gov/about/timeline1971-1980.htm to http://www.energy.gov/about/timeline1971-1980.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.au.org/media/church-and-state/archives/2005/05/faith-czar-towey.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=wish_upon_a_czar
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=%2Fchronicle%2Farchive%2F2003%2F07%2F03%2FMN258787.DTL
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2009299793_apusobamagreatlakes.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.laweekly.com/2005-01-13/news/dirty-little-secrets
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/15/hot-button-18545829/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE54S5U120090529?pageNumber=2
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.businessnewhaven.com:443/businessnewhaven/text_retreival/FMPro?-db=howto.fp3
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nps.gov/archive/mimi/history/srs/history.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/16/obamas-army-czars-raises-concerns-executive-power/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761554330/Chester_Bowles.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/mar/22/iraq.usa
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/mar/22/iraq.usa
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1025212795656067840.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100411015354/http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/President-Obama-Selects-Health-Policy-Expert-to-Head-Office-of-National-AIDS-Polic/ to http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/President-Obama-Selects-Health-Policy-Expert-to-Head-Office-of-National-AIDS-Polic/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090715071107/http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/tg178.htm to http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/tg178.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090610213259/http://www.treasury.gov/press/releases/tg165.htm to http://www.treasury.gov/press/releases/tg165.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090906110704/http://www.isreligion.org/about/hein.php to http://www.isreligion.org/about/hein.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090727105905/http://www.thestate.com/166/story/785375.html to http://www.thestate.com/166/story/785375.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090514194806/http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Executive-Order-Establishing-The-White-House-Office-Of-Health-Reform/ to http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Executive-Order-Establishing-The-White-House-Office-Of-Health-Reform/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111001215528/http://ecommons.library.cornell.edu/bitstream/1813/5350/3/014_35.pdf to http://ecommons.library.cornell.edu/bitstream/1813/5350/3/014_35.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130510173322/http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/cwg/who/oustr to http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/cwg/who/oustr

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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