Talk:Cabinet of Joe Biden

Can we just not?

God I hate this stupid WP:SPECULATION. Just because some talking head likes to make stuff up doesn't mean we are mandated to put it in the encyclopedia. There will be sources about who Biden is legitimately talking to and such, but we shouldn't be immortalizing what agenda anonymous insiders are pushing or what people paid per click think is a possible hypothetical. People can read Politico themselves if they want, and we can link to it, but we shouldn't be making tables with people like its gospel. Reywas92^Talk 22:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

It is also ridiculous to put all these current Senators and Representatives, some that just won their seat, with the narrow majority in the house and it being so close in the senate, the Democrats need to retain all the seats they can without risking them in special elections. Adding them to these lists, with only speculation, lacks strategic and critical thinking. Just saying. Persistent Corvid (talk) 05:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I've proposed deletion.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:56, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I think we are entitled a comprehensive list of potential cabinet picks for a new administration. I stress the word "potential" because as always, it is speculation. That is why I propose renaming the article "Formation of Joe Biden's Cabinet." That way we can have a page dedicated to potential Cabinet candidates (even if speculated) and the final picks that will go through Senate advice and consent. Snapper74 (talk) 17:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I think it's totally acceptable and adequate. This article will eventually evolve into the solid list of cabinet picks like the Cabinet of Donald Trump. (And the use of speculation is just disturbing given the circumstance around claimed "election fraud.") Missvain (talk) 17:47, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

There's no reason to keep this speculation in perpetuity once people are nominated (especially not in this format). Cabinet of Donald Trump and this article should list a few of the top contenders (Biden's legitimate finalists who are likely to be sourced/those with multiple in-depth coverage rather than mere suggestions and possibilities) in prose in the relevant sections, rather than having huge tables with photos and current positions making for an unnecessarily long page of the media's drivel. Reywas92^Talk 20:35, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

There's no reason to keep any WP:SPECULATION. That's a policy. While this is a possible future article, currently it should be no more than a stub. It should be deleted now, and re-created in the future when there are actual nominations.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:20, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Maybe instead, we could put the information that used to be here under "Formation of Joe Biden's cabinet" which is already redirected here. That's how we did it for Trump's then-future cabinet when he was president-elect. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:20, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Except the current Formation of Donald Trump's Cabinet is nothing but this speculative blather (the top couple sections duplicate the other article), and moving it to another page does not absolve the lack of need or encyclopedicness for this. Before someone is nominated, I'm happy to compromise with listing the top several potential candidates, but afterward there is no reason to keep a picture and description for every one of them in a big table. After the nomination, a few runners-up may be listed in prose, but maintaining that format and breadth of speculation (e.g. 15+ people for each position) is unnecessary. Reywas92^Talk 06:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@Reywas92: I think instead of listing people in which the media is speculating, instead the formation article would be a list of individuals who have publicly expressed interest in being a member of the administration. Example, Sen. Bernie Sanders has expressed interest himself in being Sec. of Labor -> Bernie Sanders says he would accept Labor secretary job if Joe Biden asks --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 11:05, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

If Biden releases a shortlist of candidates, those individuals can certainly be included. With Cabinet of Donald Trump, a list of contenders was created six days after Trump won the 2016 election. Granted, the inclusion of this information did spark some light contention, as indicated by the article's archived talk page. 2020 Democratic Party vice presidential candidate selection also remains an article, demonstrating that a degree of speculation for these types of articles are tolerated to a certain extent. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 18:50, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Draft

FYI, there's a draft article on this topic, Draft:Formation of Joe Biden's Cabinet -- 65.92.244.236 (talk) 06:49, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

"United States Ambassadors appointed by Joe Biden" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect United States Ambassadors appointed by Joe Biden. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 17#United States Ambassadors appointed by Joe Biden until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Sandstein 08:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I would like some help with Jake Sullivan

Apparently, I'm not able to properly format him the Cabinet level officials section.InsulinRS (talk) 19:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to those who helped format it better.InsulinRS (talk) 20:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders

This November 11 article by the New York Times states that Biden's team and Bernie's camp are actively engaged in talks for a post for Bernie in the cabinet: [1] In the past, a number of runner-ups in the primaries have become cabinet members, including John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and, in fact, Joe Biden himself, so it's far from unlikely to happen. Bernie's own article even says he's been "named a candidate for Secretary of Labor".

So, why can't we mention that Bernie is in talks with Biden's team for a potential cabinet post? It's not just speculation complained about on this talkpage before, where people only said they wanted a post but there was no confirmation of actual talks with Biden's team. I remember Bernie was named as a potential candidate in this article before, but it seems he's since been written out for some reason. --2003:DA:CF17:EF00:9103:95A4:7C8A:1BEC (talk) 18:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Especially now that official cabinet selections are being announced, this is not the place to list WP:SPECULATION. KidAd talk 19:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Again, it's not "speculation" to list talks on a specific post that have been confirmed by both sides. I'm not saying we should write, "Maybe Sanders will become Secretary of Labor", but "Biden's team and Bernie Sanders's camp have confirmed talks about a potential post as Secretary of Labor for Sanders." My point here are the confirmed talks. In the past, what has been removed in large numbers from the article were actual speculations where there were no confirmed talks between both sides. --2003:DA:CF2D:2700:1C3C:ED1E:F45C:C19D (talk) 19:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

"Named a candidate for Secretary of Labor"? By who? The media? They don't know who Biden is considering unless Biden tells them. I took that out of Bernie's page as WP:UNDUE speculation, and undue speculation is inappropriate here as well, as said by KidAd, since we have actual announced nominees. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Biden has said it is unlikely he would pick any sitting senators, basically ruling out the idea that Sanders or Liz Warren could get a cabinet job [2]. -- Calidum 19:49, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, but when did Biden and Warren's respective teams openly confirm post-election talks on a cabinet post for her? That's all I'm talking about: That talks have been confirmed by both sides. I even intended understating it in comparison to Bernie's own article by only mentioning "confirmed talks for a post". I never intended for us to write, "Sanders has been confirmed on any post."

As for "named a candidate by whom", you may wanna look up the original NYT article that you've removed. Also note that a candidate for a post is not the same thing as the one who will eventually get the job. Trump has been a Presidential candidate in this election and he didn't get the job, but he has been part of the process in being a confirmed candidate on the menu. The fact that he didn't get the job isn't the same thing as calling it "speculation" that he was a candidate. Once he was confirmed on the ballot, it meant that he was being considered by the American people (even if he lost in the end). Mutually confirmed post-election talks between Biden and Bernie's teams on a cabinet post means the same thing, he's being considered, only not by the people at large, but by Biden's team.

Granted, the statement in Bernie's article was a bit of a synthesis between the two sourced facts of "Biden's team confirms post-election talks with Bernie's team for a cabinet post" and "Bernie's team confirms post-election talks with Biden's team and Bernie demands to become Secretary of Labor", but still, we're talking about mutually confirmed post-election talks for a post. No such thing for Warren or any other of the actual speculations that have been removed from this article in the past. --2003:DA:CF2D:2700:1C3C:ED1E:F45C:C19D (talk) 07:17, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

And just seeing this now in Bernie's article as well, in mid-April 2020, when publically adressing Bernie after Bernie had endorsed him, Biden said, "I'm going to need you—not just to win the campaign, but to govern." --79.254.108.206 (talk) 08:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

A progressive Democrat in Biden's incoming cabinet? That'll be the day. He ain't gonna annoy the party's corporate donors. GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Improve readability of table?

Usually tables have one row per entry, but our has two. Could anyone make that more obvious visually somehow? Feoffer (talk) 19:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the tables should have one row. I'd do it, but I'm not too good at editing tables. David O. Johnson (talk) 23:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I think it looks better and uses space much more efficiently to have two people per row. It's sort of like 92nd_Academy_Awards#Awards. Reywas92^Talk 00:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

92nd_Academy_Awards#Awards looks good because it's 1 cell per category with clear borders. We have 2 cells per person with 4 cells in a row without a clear border between cell 2 and 3 Feoffer (talk) 08:40, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Why do you need a thick border between them? It is really too difficult to connect a photo to the office next to it? Are you reading this as if Harris is Secretary of State because cells 2 and 3 are next to each other? I'm baffled what exactly the issue here is. Reywas92^Talk 18:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

It looks too dense. On the mobile Wikipedia app, you have to scroll over to see the rest of the info in the rightmost column. David O. Johnson (talk) 18:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Feoffer and David O. Johnson that the table should have one entry per row. It would be much more intuitive to read that way. Even though two entries per row is more space-efficient, I don't see why we should prioritize information density over easy readability. Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER, we really don't have to worry about the amount of space we are using to convey information, within reason. To Reywas92's point, the table isn't unreadable per se, but it is counterintuitive. I assume pretty much all of the editors of this page will understand that Harris is VP, Blinken is SoS, and so forth, but if I didn't already know that information before reading this page, I would probably be thrown off by the chart. One entry per column would be ideal, in my opinion, but if we really want to prioritize information density, we should definitely use clear borders between entries. Jacoby531 (talk) 19:12, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Feoffer. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:49, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but I completely disagree with the change. The table is now much more difficult to read with one entry per row with the heavy amount of scrolling required to navigate. I propose a revert. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 01:32, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Uh, this is all a big no from me. One entry per row makes it incredibly difficult to read with a copious amount of scrolling. The two entries per row is what was done for the Trump cabinet, and it makes the most sense to me. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 12:52, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Add Cecilia Rouse as CEA Chair

The Biden campaign has announced that (1) the CEA chair will be in the cabinet and (2) the nominee for CEA chair is Cecilia Rouse. It seems like Rouse should be added to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meiselface (talk • contribs) 21:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Political appointments by Joe Biden

Now that Biden has named a few sub-Cabinet appointees (NSA, surgeon general, many White House staffers, etc.), I've recreated Political appointments by Joe Biden, which could use some help filling in beyond those I've gotten so far. Political appointments by Donald Trump and Executive appointments by Donald Trump can be used as models, though for as much of a stickler I am for consistency, it need not be formatted exactly the same. (Namely I'd prefer to avoid the overuse of WP:COLOR – once confirmed a white background is better than drenching the page in fluorescent green.) {main} links to the departments are currently <!-hidden-> so put everyone in the main article first, then move minor offices there when this gets big. Reywas92^Talk 08:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

New Categorization for Cabinet Members

Ok, so I think we should have a new type of category for positions that haven't been announced yet, but have been reported, such as Fudge at HUD and Vilsack at USDA. Thoughts? BazingaFountain42 (talk) 23:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

No I think we just need reliable sources next to their names and a TBA for announcement date — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aricmfergie (talk • contribs) 23:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Name for General Austin

I have seen a few differ variations. We need to figure out which one works the best and is professional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aricmfergie (talk • contribs) 22:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Is there any reason for it not to simply be "Lloyd Austin"? His rank can be given as part of his prior position with CENTCOM. Jacoby531 (talk) 22:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I personally don't see the point of keeping his CENTCOM information in the main box. In Template:Cabinet of Donald Trump, Gens. Mattis and Kelly just had General (USMC) above their names. Mattis himself was a CENTCOM commander, but it didn't need to be written out in the main table. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:28, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree, on the United States Secretary of Defense page every general that has served. General is his experience not his name.