Talk:List of U.S. executive branch czars

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)

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.

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)