Talk:List of U.S. executive branch czars/Archive 2

Please do not remove citations

See Wikipedia:Citing sources

Wikipedia is by its very nature a work by people with widely different knowledge and skills. The reader needs to be assured that the material within it is reliable. The purpose of citing sources is:

• To ensure that the content of articles can be checked by any reader or editor.
• To show that your edit is not original research and to reduce editorial disputes.
• To avoid claims of plagiarism and copying.
• To help users find additional information on the topic.
• To ensure that material about living persons complies with biography policy.
• To improve the credibility of Wikipedia.

Since per each fact presented by an article must be concretely verifiable, at the editor's discretion it is possible and appropriate to include as many proper and correct citations as desired to affirm the statements made. However citation is only required as specified in the following list of circumstances. And whether a citation is added in a required context or at an editor's discretion it must be accurate and should comply with the rules set forth in this guideline.

When adding material that is challenged or likely to be challenged WP:CITE#CHALLENGED Main article: Wikipedia:Verifiability Wikipedia:Verifiability says: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation."

The need for citations is especially important when writing about opinions held on a particular issue. Avoid weasel words where possible, such as, "Some people say ..." Instead, make your writing verifiable: find a specific person or group who holds that opinion and give a citation to a reputable publication in which they express that opinion. Remember that Wikipedia is not a place for expressing your own opinions or for original research. Opinions, data and statistics, and statements based on someone's scientific work should be cited and attributed to their authors in the text.

JNKISH: If you remove citations: It is simply setting up each verified entry for future deletion. At a minimum, each czar should have a citation per the criteria for inclusion. There are numerous "lists of czars" floating around on the internet. It is our citing of sources that puts our Wikipedia content on a level above a common politically-motivated internet list. Jnkish (talk) 18:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Response re: Citations

I agree there are some unreliable sources on the czar issue, and that citations are needed. But I wonder how many are needed for one set of facts? Let's look at the entry for Green Jobs czar, as it reads now. If you were to turn it into a sentence, would you write:

In March 2009 [47], President Barack Obama [47] appointed [47] Van Jones [47] as his green jobs czar [47], more formally known as special adviser for green jobs, enterprise and innovation [47].

Or would you write:

In March 2009, President Barack Obama appointed Van Jones as his green jobs czar, more formally known as special adviser for green jobs, enterprise and innovation [47].

Giving one citation instead of six to the same source in the same sentence is not "removing the citation" -- it is just cleaning up, removing redundancies. At least, that is my view of it. However, since you have expressed a strong opinion on this, I won't do any more clean up of repetitive citations.

I think you might want to consider, however, whether 20 citations to a 420 word article [1] are really necessary? Please see what is now reference 16.^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t FOXNews.com "Questions Raised Over Influence of Obama 'Czars'"

Again, I know what you are saying about challenges to unsourced material, etc, and I know you have worked a lot on this article. I mean no offense by my remarks. I will leave your cites as is, and I will consider other ways to contribute to this article.

Regards W E Hill (talk) 00:31, 17 August 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)

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)

Alex Jones infowars is not a reliable source

So I deleted the entry for "swine flu czar." Before I did that though, I read the article www.prisonplanet.com/governments-swine-flu-czar-to-become-abc-medical-reporter.html] --it also alleges a conspiracy between the Obama administration and ABC News based on several "facts" in the article about Dr. that aren't exactly true.

Here is a quote from a companion piece posted on Jones' site.

Swine Flu Fearmongering a Mass Psy-op? . . .They are certainly preparing for something big, considering the internment camps, the government-sponsored propaganda and general fearmongering. . .Nazis really did infiltrate all levels of American society following World War II and their eugenics programs are still being implemented today. That is what we apparently are witnessing with this wicked cocktail being injected into America’s children, among others.

WP:RS: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative"

If you do have a reliable source, please post it here at least one day before adding it back to the table. -- W E Hill (talk) 19:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Swine Czar

fair enough on the deletion... I looked for quite a while and couldn't find any more sources, it looks like infowars / prison planet was the only publication to use the term Swine Flu Czar.

Jnkish (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Cleaning up

Clean up is needed because the table is cluttered with as many as 6 citations per czar to the exact same source.

In this instance, I am talking about repeated citations to the same source in the same table row. Redundant citations to the same source for the same set of facts provide no benefit; they have nothing to do with verifiability. The first reference is the verification, the repeated references in the same row to the same source are clutter. The clutter has the table difficult to read, difficult to check, difficult to edit, and slow to load. WP:TUT. Repeating a citation numerous times also gives it undue weight, WP:UNDUE in violation of WP:NPOV.

I will be grouping the cites next to the office holder's name. This will give internal consistency to the table, WP:MOS, as the cites are presently scattered inconsistently over each row, and it will simplify reference checking. Further, after my revision each source will be weighted appropriately by being used only once per "czar". All references will be preserved in this clean up.

Here is an example of before and after:

BEFORE Cleanup

Czar title	Official title	Office holder	Tenure	Nature of position	Appointing Administration
AfPak Czar, Afghanistan Czar, Pakistan Czar	Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan — collectively dubbed AfPak	Holbrooke, Richard	2009 - present	Presidential appointment	Obama, Barack

AFTER Cleanup

Czar title	Official title	Office holder	Tenure	Nature of position	Appointing Administration
AfPak Czar, Afghanistan Czar, Pakistan Czar	Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan	Holbrooke, Richard	2009-present	Presidential appointment	Obama, Barack

Multiple citation sources under the same reference number

W E Hill: I haven't seen citations done like this before. Wikipedia is set up to handle cites automatically with the name function and the auto generated letters (abcde...). Why did you choose to change the cites into this format? Can you show me other pages that do it this way? Are you breaking new ground? It seems like this format makes the reference list longer and redundant Jnkish (talk) 23:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you asked these questions - it makes it easier for me to clarify the changes I made to the citation form.

The references are now grouped together footnote style. Footnoting is one of several accepted ways to present citations to reliable sources. WP:FOOTNOTE

The footnoting style has reduced the number of notes from approx 180 to approx 130. It is easy to edit - editors can simply look for the official's name - then all they have to do is add or delete a cite between the ref tags next to the official's name.

More importantly, the footnote style makes the table and the references easier to read. There is just one reciprocal hyperlink per czar. Clicking on the number next to an official's name takes the reader to the note which contains all the citations for that particular czarship. Readers don't have to go through the tedious procedure of hitting the back arrow on their browser to return to the list in order find the next reference - the sources for each czar are all there in one place.

I agree, some references are included on the list several times. That is because the letter subscripts cannot be generated when the footnoting system is used. However, the disadvantage of repeating some citations more than once is outweighed by the advantages of reducing the total number of notes from 180 to 130 and the fact that it is now much simplier to access all the citations for any particular czar.--Regards W E Hill (talk) 09:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

There is at least one more advantage to repeating the citations rather than using the ref name=xxx tags with the slash on the end to generate multiple references. Although that method reduces the initial work of entering the references, it can make future editing more problematic. If a future editor removes the first, complete reference, then the rest of the references are empty. As you may know, it can be a real headache to find and restore them. Please see Cite.php

--W E Hill (talk) 09:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that the proper style for footnotes is (1 footnote points to 1 source). I read the footnote page WP:FOOTNOTE and did not see any explanation or examples of using footnotes in the (1 footnote pointing to multiple sources) fashion. Please point me to the specific section of WP:FOOTNOTE and/or another wikipedia page that explains or approves (1 footnote pointing to multiple sources). Then I will then be educated and drop the issue. There are pro's and con's to both approaches. Personally, I think that it would be cleaner simply to use the standard footnote style- with the "name" function and place all of the footnotes in a separate column on the right. Right in front of the "cites checked" column. Plain and simple, I want this page to be the best on Wikipedia and don't want to get tripped up by a citation style issue. Jnkish (talk) 10:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems there were questions from your note of Sep 3 that you feel I did not answer to your satisfaction. The first was, was I "breaking new ground" and the second was, could I show you "other pages that do it this way?" The answers are: no, I am not breaking new ground, and yes, there are other pages. Please see the reference section of the Jane Austen article which is given as an example of good style in WP:FOOTNOTE. The Austen article has 132 numbered references with most containing more than one citation. Here are some examples:

4^ Litz, 3-14; Grundy, "Jane Austen and Literary Traditions", The Cambridge Companion to Jane Austen, 192-93; Waldron, "Critical Responses, Early", Jane Austen in Context, p. 83, 89-90; Duffy, "Criticism, 1814-1870", The Jane Austen Companion, 93-94.

27.^ Le Faye, "Chronology", 2-3; Grundy, "Jane Austen and Literary Traditions", 190-91; Tomalin, 28-29, 33-43, 66-67; Honan, 31-34; Lascelles, 7-8. Irene Collins believes that Austen "used some of the same school books as the boys" her father tutored. Collins, 42.

95 ^ Southam, "Scott in the Quarterly Review", Vol. 1, 58; Waldron, "Critical Responses, Early", Jane Austen in Context, 86; Duffy, "Criticism, 1814-1870", The Jane Austen Companion, 94-96.

130 Tomalin, Appendix I, 283-84; see also Upfal A (2005). http://mh.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/31/1/3 "Jane Austen’s lifelong health problems and final illness: New evidence points to a fatal Hodgkin’s disease and excludes the widely accepted Addison's". J Med Ethics Med Humanities 31: 3–11. doi:10.1136/jmh.2004.000193. http://mh.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/31/1/3.

The Barack Obama article is another example of an article which has footnotes which contain multiple citations.

Finally multiple cites can be given in individual footnotes per manuals of style and it is frequenly done in academic articles. Not only is this an established, accepted practice, but this method seem to works well with the wikicode -- simple for the editor, easier for the reader.

I will re-read your note later today, and respond more fully if necessary. But for now, I wish to make it clear that I strongly disagree with your proposal for reformatting.

Best regards W E Hill (talk) 11:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the education, your patience and your contributions. As promised- issue dropped. Jnkish (talk) 20:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [2]--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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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: 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)

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: 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)

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)

"List of executive branch czars" sorting order

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)

Protected edit request on 26 July 2024

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

 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)

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)

The version without Harris was the status quo version, but believe whatever you want to believe. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 27 July 2024

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

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

 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)

It's demonstrable

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

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)

Females: Czarina

Hi everyone,

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

On August 28, 2009, about 520 edits after the creation of the article, the derivative "By administration" list was moved up ahead of the primary list for which the article is named (https://en.wikipedia.org/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)

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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 [3] 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)

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)

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)

Actually "they didn't do it" is correct re: Harris as border czar. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:23, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Let's leave "Republicans" out since it was a bipartisan phenomena [4] NE Ent 20:08, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

It does not claim it was a bipartisan bill. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

Reminder

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)

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