Talk:Cabinet of Donald Trump/Archive 1

Archive 1

Lotsa names (links)

1. LINK (USA Today)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:13, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
2. BBC--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
3. Politico--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
4. New York (magazine)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:20, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Disputed

Maybe not so much disputed facts as much as it is just plain lack of facts. This article largely falls into WP:CRYSTAL territory and feels like it is just a bit too soon but maybe this is just me. Yes article will need to exist but it is largely speculative right now. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 03:07, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL states "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation...All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article". The sourcing is impeccable and the topic is indisputably of wide interest. The {{disputed}} tag does not belong. - Brianhe (talk) 05:20, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Narrowing List

There are WAY too many names listed on this page. The New York Times has a shortlist for most offices here: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/politics/donald-trump-administration.html

We should change the list to reflect that.Computermichael (talk) 19:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@Computermichael: Other than HousingWire.com and CityLab.com the sources cited all look impeccable to me. I don't know what criteria would be used to narrow the list right now, unless you just want to repeat solely what NYT says. - Brianhe (talk) 00:09, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Chris Christie

Aren't we pretty certain that Christie has no chance to be atty general? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.0.133 (talk) 04:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't matter what we think. We stick to the sources. - Brianhe (talk) 00:11, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Candidate status

I propose that the tables track the status of each candidate through the nomination process, specifically, that an individual not be deleted like this but rather shown as no longer under consideration, or finally was confirmed by congress. That way the article can remain as a record rather than just withering away. - Brianhe (talk) 14:57, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with this suggestion; if we were to just list the eventual confirmed people, it would appear as though they were the only ones considered for the position. — fourthords | =Λ= | 16:53, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

A bunch of stuff just got deleted to we kind of need to reach consensus on this. Input from anyone is welcome especially on how this would be implemented. I suggest that a new table column might be the most straightfoward. - Brianhe (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

For the sake of preventing the development of an article so long it's hard to go through, limiting the candidates to those mentioned by the Trump campaign repeatedly as viable should be listed. If we list all speculations by the media, the article becomes too long, too confusing and fails to inform the reader of who is likely to get the position. Just my two cents.Computermichael (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

If you want to list all candidates with any chance at all we need to switch to smaller info boxes without the 70px images.Computermichael (talk)

Attorney General

Just received news from the New York Times that Jeff Sessions has been selected for Attorney General. Should I add it in or just wait a little? Burklemore1 (talk) 13:28, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/19/us/politics/jeff-sessions-donald-trump-attorney-general.html?_r=0

Notability of candidates

Should we restrict included names to those with Wiki articles of their own? It seems like every possible name mentioned anywhere is getting included now. Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:53, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

That is not an effective restriction.Theoallen1 (talk) 12:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

It's a start, isn't it? Right now we're posting a slew of names of single-reference non-notables. Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Other high-level positions

Should we have a clear criterion for what should be listed in this section? One possibility would be officials on Level II of the Executive Schedule that are not deputies? Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 22:51, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Not sure about that, but the inclusion of RNC Chair, which is not a government position but that of the party, seems clearly out of scope. Brianhe (talk) 23:27, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Should a new thread be started re: the RNC Chairmanship election? No official election has been called, but with Reince as WH CoS, it seems inevitable.--Jay942942 (talk) 00:04, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Not here, please. A new article parallel to Republican National Committee chairmanship election, 2011 could be started. Perhaps Republican National Committee chairmanship election, 2017. You will probably have to battle WP:CRYSTAL if it's started too soon. - Brianhe (talk) 18:16, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Removal of non-cabinet level positions

Since this article is called Cabinet of Donald Trump and will presumably have the contents moved to the equivalent of Confirmations of Barack Obama's Cabinet and Cabinet of the United States after confirmations begin, then it seems like a good idea to prune some of the non-cabinet level positions that are currently in this list (Deputy Secretary, etc.) It seems like we should be consistent with how we define these positions between administrations; if a certain deputy secretary position wasn't notable enough to be in the existing Cabinet list before (because as far as I know, deputy positions are not Cabinet-level), then they shouldn't be listed here. I do not have a dog in this fight so to speak, but I noticed the large amount of non-Cabinet level positions while viewing recent changes and thought it something the people more interested in this article should discuss. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I had previously made the list contain only positions on Level II of the Executive Schedule or higher, that are not deputy/under/assistant positions. User:Marine678 recently added nearly 30 extra positions that are deputy secretaries or White House staff of middling importance. My suggestion that the Level-II-minus-deputies criterion should be adopted. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 06:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I assume undersecretaries would also be excluded? If so, this appears in keeping with what is in the existing article and sounds reasonable. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:40, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

It is also possible to split this into a Cabinet list and also create a list of Trump appointees for offices as a separate article.Theoallen1 (talk) 16:22, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. It may be worthwhile to have a separate article listing all presidential appointees, though there a lot of them, and it might be difficult to maintain as press coverage falls off. It might be easier if we limit the separate article to all Executive Schedule positions (which would be 717 positions) or those at level III or above (which would be more like 200).

Also, yes, for this article I'd also like to exclude under and assistant level positions, which are lower than deputy positions. I think it may be worthwhile to add positions that get press coverage upon being announced such as today's deputy national security adviser announcement, at least for now. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 22:26, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't care about Mr.Vernon ok!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marine678 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

The article should only include positions listed on the Cabinet of the United States page, which includes the Vice President, Departments Secretaries, and the seven top Cabinet-level officials as shown here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_of_the_United_States Computermichael (talk) 23:20, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that no consensus has been reached here yet; discussion is ongoing. So far, you are the only one who has supported having no non-Cabinet-level positions at all. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 23:57, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

The article should include the cabinet and the 7 cabinet ranked positions shown here Cabinet of the United States. Kjack1071 (talk) 00:05, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment – 3 people discussing as it is still being discussed is not enough for a consensus in this type of article. Maybe you should request for comment or ask for more from those at the Donald Trump article and/or the people at the WikiProject Politics... I'm reverting the edit until more people can comment and a consensus can be built by a variety of users. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 00:14, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

We could make this page contain all Level II and above positions in the existing table formats, and rename page Incoming Administration of Donald Trump, and when Cabinet is sworn in, move Cabinet-level positions to Cabinet of the United States? Ollie035 (talk) 03:56, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I feel like after Trump gets sworn in and Cabinet of the United States gets updated, this article will be reworked and moved to Confirmations of Donald Trump's Cabinet to mirror Confirmations of Barack Obama's Cabinet. The more I think about it, I think it would be best to have a separate article List of Donald Trump political appointments, where we can include as many as we want. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 05:44, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Good idea, I agree Ollie035 (talk) 06:20, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I have created a new page, List of Donald Trump political appointments, as suggested by Antony-22, where all appointments made by President-Elect Trump can be placed. Therefore, only cabinet positions need to be on this page. Ollie035 (talk) 06:34, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

The intent for this page (Cabinet of Donald Trump) is to keep an update on contenders for Cabinet positions ONLY, and will become Cabinet of the United States and Confirmations of Donald Trump's Cabinet once all Cabinet nominees have been confirmed by the Senate. List of Donald Trump political appointments role will be to keep updates on all high–level positions during Trump's presidency. Hopefully this will clear up this dispute and make clear the difference between Cabinet and other high–level positions during the transition. Ollie035 (talk) 08:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts. I will however restore the Cabinet-level positions to this article, as those are also mentioned in Cabinet of the United States. Not sure we should have a separate page for confirmation hearings; that could go in your new list. — JFG ^talk 14:49, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Template for cabinet table

As the table of Cabinet members and Cabinet-level appointees was repeated in several articles, I created a template {{Cabinet of Donald Trump}} from one of those pages. This will facilitate updates in a central location. Please feel free to add citations or new information there. — JFG ^talk 15:41, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Removals

What happened to Flynn and Pompeo? Interlaker (talk) 23:14, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

@Interlaker: They are now listed at List of Donald Trump political appointments. For more information, see this section. Thanks, Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 23:58, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump Jr.

Donald Trump Jr. is mentioned as a possible candidate for the Secretary of the Interior. Our article Cabinet of the United States states however that "Under 5 U.S.C. § 3110, federal officials are prohibited from appointing their immediate family members to certain governmental positions, including those in the Cabinet. Passed in 1967, this law was a congressional response in delayed dismay about John F. Kennedy's appointment of his brother Robert F. Kennedy to the office of the Attorney General." So Trump Jr. can't be appointed or have i missed something? Or is it so that if reliable sources report that he is one of the candidates then we have no alternative than to include him in this article as well?...Actually I read the source given (TPM article) which uses the phrase "reportedly has interest in the job" and then links to a Politico-article where it is said that Trump Jr. "is said to be interested in the job". Does a rumour about his possible interest make him a "candidate" when he actually can't be appointed anyway. I don't know. K347 (talk) 13:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

He can be appointed, theoretically, if the 1967 nepotism law is altered (either broadly altered or just with a one-sentence exception added e.g. "family of the POTUS can be appointed with the advice and consent of a supermajority of the Senate" or similar language). Gingrich talked about this necessity on teevee at one point. It is also possible for relatives to work closely with appointees, but on paper be employees of e.g. the RNC or a think tank or somesuch, without modification of the 1967 legislation -- this apparently happened in the GWB admin according to potus-historian Doug Wead. Now, since the repub party controls both the Senate and the House, in addition to the presidency, at present, it is conceivable that the 1967 law *could* very well be altered. That is the basis of the media speculation that TrumpJr (and to a lesser extent son-in-law Kushner) might be given executive-branch appointments. Suggest that we stick to what the sources say, and list the names of immediate family where applicable, but add a footnote noting that existing laws would need modification by the incoming Republican-party-controlled federal legislature for immediate family members to be legally able to get the hypothetical appointments. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 00:10, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Descriptions of individuals

Some of these descriptions are getting a little POV ... "climate change denalist" is iffy without serious sourcing. Here's another, Flynn is described as an RT analyst, but factcheck.org states plainly "Flynn is not “on the payroll of the Russia Times."[1] WP needs to remain high-quality and neutral in this matter. Recent refactoring of citations by an editor with a provocative name isn't helping. - Brianhe (talk) 17:10, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. We should just stick to the simple basic facts, so I have been WP:BOLD and trimmed most of the POV stuff. Our readers can click through to the individual articles to find out more. Edwardx (talk) 20:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Following up on a discussion with Activist at my talkpage. He and I agreed that we are in alignment in our goals for accuracy and neutrality here, and this is my apology for any possible misunderstanding over my comment above. This series of edits which he made moved citations from one column to another, and I thought it could have made it look as if some facts in the second column were supported by the citation in at least one case. I corrected the misplaced citation and have no beef with Activist. - Brianhe (talk) 19:54, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

The sources already listed at Myron Ebell for his description in the intro paragraphs use the following phrases:

* a climate contrarian. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/12/science/myron-ebell-trump-epa.html

* a person who is vehemently disagreed with [about climate] by scientists and environmental groups, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/11/president-trump-global-climate-change-denial-environment/

* a major climate change skeptic, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/09/26/trumps-transition-team-includes-a-major-skeptic-of-mainstream-climate-change-science/

* a top climate change skeptic, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trump-picks-top-climate-skeptic-to-lead-epa-transition/

* a climate change skeptic-slash-denier, http://www.newsweek.com/2016/10/14/donald-trump-epa-myron-ebell-climate-change-505546.html

* a climate change denier-slash-skeptic, http://www.cbsnews.com/news/leading-climate-change-denier-among-those-on-trumps-environmental-team/

Doing a quick bit of googling turns up several other sources:

* a person who has long questioned mainstream climate science, http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/11/23/503156456/trump-says-he-has-open-mind-on-climate-but-staff-pick-raises-questions

* a proud climate skeptic, http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/11/09/trump_s_pick_to_lead_epa_transition_team_is_a_proud_climate_skeptic.html

* a professional climate science denier, http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-epa-climate-science-myron-ebell-2016-11

* a notorious climate change denier, http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/11/trump-epa-pesticides

* a climate-change denier...and anti-science extremist, https://www.thenation.com/article/meet-the-anti-science-extremist-who-could-transform-the-epa/

My suggestion is that on this cabinet-page we use the phrase "major climate change skeptic" rather than "leading climate change denier" that is currently being used. The two sources that this article currently cites, are the CBS article from above (which calls Ebell a denier a few times and a skeptic once), plus Salon.com that differs from the ones listed above:

* climate change denier, http://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/in-donald-trumps-cabinet-from-hell-corporatism-and-cronyism-run-rampant-and-sarah-palin-may-be-there-too/

I think we have to say skeptic (and not say denier), since that word is what the bulk of the sources use, even when just counting noses and not accounting for any potential internal bias. I don't think we can say contrarian or any of the more mouthful-type phrases, because those are relatively uncommonly utilized by sources. Most of them use the climate-change-skeptic-shorthand, and although a few of them use climate-change-denier, most of the ones that do tend to also say "skeptic". I don't think anybody in the readership will be confused about the details, and several of the articles cited in the linked biography-page give detailed information about the specific beliefs that Ebell holds (believes that the climate is warming but that it is doing it so slowly that we have a century or two before it will potentially be a problem, believes that IPCC vastly overstates the human-caused percentage of the warming, and believes that wind&solar are good technologies for the future but is against government subsidies of those sub-industries or any other energy sub-industries in the present). That's from National Geographic mostly; we could put some of those details into the description here, if people think that will help explain the nominee's likely impact. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 17:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

WSJ on Trump's brain trust

The Wall Street Journal had a comment about the difficulty of making lists like these. An anon editor removed it twice [2][3] and possibly thought that discussing a brain trust was a problem. I don't want to edit war but I disagree and think this is a terrific inclusion. Am suggesting here that a third party evaluate it for re-inclusion. - Brianhe (talk) 17:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree this is an important factoid, for comparative/historical purposes. I have put the removed cite back in, here,[4] with some other explanatory details that I hope explain why it is an unusual situation. I changed the "policy brain trust" portion of the quote to be the less inflammatory "policy [group]", using square brackets to show the replacement. If that is not an acceptable way to avoid the accusation of biased language, we can probably just paraphrase rather than quoting. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 16:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

47.222 I like what you did in spirit and the additions are well sourced. We can't just change the words in the quote that others found objectionable, however: see principle of minimal change. I simply returned "brain trust" with your explanatory [policy group] after. - Brianhe (talk) 17:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not picky, works for me. I think the reason the other person complained, though, was because the title of the piece was biased (deplorables) and because the small-brain-trust phrase implies, however subtly, small-brain. Which is why I attempted the workaround. If we reach an impasse, I think we have enough sources that we can either drop the WSJ cite and say the same stuff using different backups, or paraphrase the WSJ cite without any direct quotations, but I'm happy to see if anybody complains first about the way you have it right now. If nobody complains further, then I'm happy with it too.  :-) 47.222.203.135 (talk) 17:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protection of page

Due to an anonymous user reversing substantial edits to this page in recent days, I propose that this page is semi-protected to protect the efforts of confirmed Wikipedia users in editing this page. Many changes to the tables and position on this page have been reverted, and now the new article List of Donald Trump political appointments has been undermined by the readdition of other high-level positions and potential candidates to this page. I know myself and others spent a lot of time on improving this page, and do not want other anonymous users to do the same. There is my vent, what do you think about semi-protecting this page??? Ollie035 (talk) 04:08, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I would support this.--Jay942942 (talk) 11:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

If there's a single problematic editor then reporting them at the appropriate venue is more targeted and preferred to locking the article to all anonymous editors. You could try the remedies listed at WP:1RR, up to and including WP:ANEW. It should get attention there. - Brianhe (talk) 17:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Duncan Hunter

Which Hunter is it?Theoallen1 (talk) 01:45, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by that comment. Sorry. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

The question is, which Duncan Hunter is under consideration, father or son or both of them. There are two people named Duncan Hunter, the first is Duncan Lee Hunter the father and the second is Duncan D. Hunter the son. Both of them are potential picks for defense-related positions in the Trump administration -- https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/11/09/what-the-trumps-cabinet-may-look-like/ -- but the wikipedia article only lists the son as being a possibility. This aligns with what most of the sources are saying, i.e. the Politico and Buzzfeed lists (compiled from anonymous leaks from what I can tell in both cases) are listing Duncan Hunter with a picture of the son, and in at least a few sources I found, specifically Duncan D Hunter is listed rather than the ambiguous Duncan Hunter sans middle initial. Original research might lead one to think that Buzzfeed and Politico goofed, and that the age 68 father that was a 2008 potus candidate and army ranger vet with a bronze star from Vietnam plus the top member of the House armed services committee from 2003 thru 2009, would be the more plausible secDef pick. But at the moment, the bulk of the sources are speculating that the age-39 son, who was an active-duty marine from 2001-2005 and then won his father's House seat in 2008 to become a member of the armed services committee, and was the first sitting member to endorse Trump for president (tied with Chris Collins R-NY from Trump's home state), might actually be the pick for SecDef, or a similarly high-level position in the administration. Time will tell. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 18:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

But until we know for sure, I suggest maybe we can put a footnote which says, not to be confused with his father the former usRep Duncan L. Hunter, and then in that footnote, link to the pjmedia piece which says that BOTH the father, and the son, have expressed willingness to serve in some role? 47.222.203.135 (talk) 18:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Is there a reason the section with Stephen Bannon and General Flynn was removed?

Any reason why? - Blakebs (talk) 06:02, 29 November 2016 (CST)

All other high-level positions that are not part of the Cabinet are listed at List of Donald Trump political appointments - Ollie035 (talk) 10:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Gary Cohn considered for OMB

Politico is reporting that Gary Cohn is being considered for Office of Management and the Budget. http://www.politico.com/blogs/donald-trump-administration/2016/11/trump-could-pick-goldman-sachs-president-231995 Benwitt (talk) 16:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)BenwittBenwitt (talk) 16:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Please Update Recent Cabinet Picks

Please see the announcement here -> [5] for Trumps picks today and update the article. President-elect Donald J. Trump today announced his intent to nominate Steven Mnuchin, Wilbur Ross & Todd Ricketts. Octoberwoodland (talk) 19:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Add Sarah Palin as a potential Secretary of Veterans Affairs (as of http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/sarah-palin-veterans-affairs-donald-trump-cabinet-a7448276.html) - Ollie035 (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@Octoberwoodland and Ollie035: please feel free to edit the article now; it is no longer protected. NW (Talk) 04:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 30 November 2016

Wilbur Ross should be added as commerce to this list: sources: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article117896743.html, http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/29/investing/wilbur-ross-donald-trump-commerce/index.html Benwitt (talk) 14:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC) http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-11-29/mnuchin-said-to-be-trump-s-pick-for-treasury-secretary

Also Steven Mnuchin: [6]. Both have been confirmed as picks. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:39, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Article format

As far as I can tell, the equivalent article for Barack Obama is Confirmations of Barack Obama's Cabinet (redirect from Cabinet of Barack Obama). Wondering if the article should follow the similar format, including the name of the article, to maintain a consistency between the two articles covering a similar topic. Calibrador (talk) 21:45, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Although it switches confusingly between present and past tense, the other article looks like an acceptable model. - Brianhe (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Oppose – Covering Obama's Cabinet as a redirect to a page which began as the Senate confirmations process has always looked weird to me. Our readers want to learn about Cabinet members first; their nomination and confirmation process is an accessory historical detail. Therefore I would favor keeping the current format for Trump's Cabinet and building a separate page for the confirmations process when that happens, and if that process itself is deemed notable enough to have its own article. It could very well be a section in the main Cabinet page or in the longer List of Donald Trump political appointments. Or we could have a separate page listing the full process, from speculation to nomination to confirmation to exit. But keep the Cabinet page lean and focused. — JFG ^talk 06:22, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit Request - political alignment of cabinet

Would someone add, either in the introduction or in a new section entitled something like "Political alignment":

"On November 30, Politico, noting the overall stark conservatism of Trump's chosen administration nominees as opposed to previous administrations, described Trump as "well on his way to building a conservative dream team that has Republicans cheering and liberals in despair."

Here is the source: Restuccia, Andrew; Cook, Nancy; Woellert, Lorraine (November 30, 2016). "Trump's Conservative Dream Team". Politico. Retrieved November 30, 2016. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Good idea but a bit too early to insert third-party opinions about this Cabinet which is barely being formed. This would only invite edit/opinion wars at this stage; let's stick to the facts. — JFG ^talk 06:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

James Mattis Origin

James Mattis is not from Washington DC, but rather from Washington State. He was born in Pullman, and is a current resident of Benton County. Source: http://www.tri-cityherald.com/news/local/article116590898.html -cashorczech — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cashorczech (talk • contribs) 03:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done MB298 (talk) 00:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Ben Carson's home state?

Why is Ben Carson listed as "from Florida"? Pretty sure he ran as a Marylander during the Primaries. Inspector Semenych (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Carson is from Michigan (Detroit), and lived and worked for decades in Maryland (Johns Hopkins U) as a professor & brain surgeon, but is now retired and lives in Florida. There are several nominees with multiple homes this year: Ross we list as from NJ even though he seems to spend most of his time in FL, for instance. Mattis is a legal resident of Washington state, though until this low-relevance factoid turned up we actually listed his residence as "from USMC"... and arguably that is more factual/useful than where he pays sales tax on groceries and serves his jury duty from time to time. (Romney in 2012 was listed as from Massachusetts, typically, mostly because that was where he was governor, although he was actually from Michigan, and likely spent almost as much time in Utah and his Nth home in New Hampshire, as he did within the borders of Massachusetts proper.) If you want to start adding 'explanatory' footnotes which explain the status of the various officials with fairly complex residency status, that might be helpful -- Carson is a good one to explain, as is Ross. Steve Bannon on the political appointments of Donald Trump page will need some explaining, since he is a quasi-resident of California + DC + Florida. This isn't a new problem -- Cheney was officially a resident of Wyoming, for electoral college purposes, but actually resided in Texas. Fiorina, if she gets any position, is a nightmare: TX/(NJ)/CA/VA or something like that. Might be good if we start figuring out some guidelines for how to briefly say "has loyalties and legal ties to multiple states" rather than oversimplifications like "from Florida" which is true but non-illuminative. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 11:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Steve Mnuchin Photograph

Mnuchin's photograph appears blank. Please fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.33.167.190 (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Wilbur Ross picture

What happened to the picture of Ross? Plzwork1122 (talk) 19:44, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Looks like it was uploaded without the proper permissions for Commons [7]. - Brianhe (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Rex Tillerson Secretary of State

Someone add this, it's out in the news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.33.51.16 (talk) 23:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

It has not yet been officially announced by the Trump transition team. Sources thus far (as of December 10, 8:00pm EST) report that he is "expected to be picked," but until this is confirmed, the pick is still quite literally TBA and the article shall continue to reflect this until the time comes. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 01:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Why is this page fully protected?

I don't see anything obvious in the article history that would merit the page being fully protected and only editable by admins. Given the fast-paced nature of breaking news regarding confirmed appointments, as well as the lower sections regarding candidates for each position, I believe it to be very detrimental to allow only admins to edit the page, as information could quickly become outdated. If there is an issue with a single IP user, or multiple IP users, then the page should be semi-protected, but this full-protection seems like someone stepped over their boundaries in protecting an article that shouldn't be protected. Calibrador (talk) 00:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I also see no reason why this article should be fully protected. We are in the middle of cabinet announcements and this page needs to be updated regularly to avoid becoming grossly out of date. The decision to fully protect this page needs to be reversed ASAP. Semi-protection is all that is needed here. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I have downgraded the protection level. NW (Talk) 04:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Can the page be unprotected now? There are still good-faith section-blankings from time to time, including one attempt yesterday,[8] by folks that don't yet understand that when an appointment is announced the correct thing to do is MOVE the contender-lists to the historical section (not just delete the losers and their cites), but these are relatively rare and the article structure seems fairly stable now. Criteria do not seem to apply -- Wikipedia:Pending_changes#Applying_pending_changes_protection. Currently set to expire March 1st,[9] which will be after the inauguration and after the bulk of the high-level nominees have gone through the Senate confirmation process, but prior to the (historical) date when most ambassadorships and such receive Senate confirmation. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 11:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

See also, Talk:Cabinet_of_Donald_Trump#I_would_like_to_propose. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 11:33, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Recentism

Isn't this article a breach of WP:RECENTISM? We don't have an article called Proposed cabinet of Barack Obama or Proposed cabinet of George W. Bush, etc. I'm guessing that this article & a few other Trump related articles will be eventually deleted, after the inauguration. At the very least, this article should be re-direct to Presidency of Donald Trump. -- GoodDay (talk) 18:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

The plan is that it will be moved to either "Cabinet of Donald Trump" or "Donald Trump's cabinet." I don't see why this page would need to be deleted. Dustin (talk) 18:28, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

The article will be probably moved at the appropriate time. Perhaps it's easier to start building it now rather than starting it from scratch in January. --Killuminator (talk) 03:18, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

removal of potential nominees

I agree that we should start building this article now, but shouldn't most of the information currently in it be in Presidential transition of Donald Trump instead? The potential candidates for the cabinet will be removed from here when we have actual cabinet members. But in the transition article, that would be perfectly good (historical) information long after it's no longer accurate here. More than half the article is currently transition information. Then here we could just post the actual nominees as they become known. Mdfst13 (talk) 01:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I have agreed with this perspective since the article was begun, but with this edit seem to be on the losing side of the argument of preserving the contents. - Brianhe (talk) 04:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I have restored the declined-or-withdrew info, for Keane/Dimon/Rudy, following the yellow-checkmark thing that is currently being used for Rodgers (with Zinke getting the green checkmark and the linen-background-coloration). I also believe that Rudy declined the DHS role, but I don't know if there is a source for that factoid... if anybody can provide that info, or other people that declined slots, that would be appreciated. There was a public decline of an unspecified cabinet role by the BET founder Johnson,[10] but I'm not sure if we can work that into the current article-structure (and it was not widely reported either). If there are no objections to the yellow checkmark tactic then I will add Hensarling for OMB and also Falwell for DoEDU. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

analysis section

This bit was removed by PalmerLake2 without an edit-summary, and the pending change accepted by Jdavi333, presumably on the basis of Citation Needed (since the prose has no cites and sounds pretty opinionated).

Due to Trump's lack of government or military experience and reportedly fluid political positions, much interest existed among the media over his cabinet nominations, as they are believed to show how Trump plans to govern.

Now that more than a dozen of the cabinet members have been selected, is it time to rework the response-to-the-cabinet portion of this article properly? The cited stuff currently there is from Nov 30th, Dec 9th, Dec 15th, Dec 15th, Dec 5th, Dec 8th, Dec 13th. Which is pretty recent. I would like to add some material about the large number of generals, the large number of non-politicians, the large number of millionaires/billionaires, and a few other things which I've found cites for, but I figured I would open this talkpage section about the removal, before I start adding in new stuff. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 20:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I would like to propose

that all articles that link to this one, that is to say the articles of the various possible nominees, be given some level of protection. Red editors are popping up all over the place, assuming both pro and anti stances and at the same time there are plenty of series wikipedia editors willing to take almost any possible position in the serious wikipedia editing tradition. I see that in this article a red linked editor has undone an edit from three different blue link editors. I have not looked to see what it is about, but, well, you get the idea. So what are the pros and cons of asking for protection? Carptrash (talk) 19:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Admins are usually loath to protect an any article and it is really never done proactively. If there's sufficient vandalism or editwarring, then you can ask for protection at WP:RPP. The fact that the editors are new, anonymous or redlinked is not a valid reason. Note that severe edit warring usually results in the page being locked such that nobody except admins, on consensus-based request, can make an edit. - Brianhe (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand, it is just a pain in the ass having all these POV pushers show up. It's not as if we, the established editors, don't have enough point of views of our own. Carptrash (talk) 21:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

May I suggest that seeing this as an us/them issue with new editors is unproductive. Better to think of ways to socialize the new editors and help them become productive part of the community. Who knows, maybe the Trump series will be a springboard for people who contribute positively to all sorts of things. WP:BITE has more information along these lines that may give you some ideas on how to deal with problematic contributors. - Brianhe (talk) 21:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I have no problem your being "good cop" to my . . . . . . .......... whatever. Carptrash (talk) 22:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, if I may be so bold as to suggest, it sounds like you are the "Carptrash-cop"?  ;-) The person you reverted was trying to fix a bug in wikipedia, by deleting incorrect information -- Trump transition leaked on the 9th that Rodgers was the pick for Interior, but then yesterday the 13th leaked that now Zinke has replaced Rodgers (but our article still listed Rodgers -- hence the deletion-attempt that you reverted).[11] This article *is* already under pending changes until March 2017, downgraded from full-admin-only-protection, and many of the other related article are currently semi-protected. Part of the trouble is that there is currently an ongoing argument, err, discussion about whether or not to list 'unofficial' names that the media has reported, and if so, how to list them. (See Template_talk:Cabinet of Donald Trump which is transcluded into the middle of this article. I do agree with Brianhe that the goal ought to be in trying to channel the passion of newcomers into productive canal-zones, rather than damming up the river. But it is not an easy task. Which of course, is why established editors get fifty times the salary that newcomers receive. Zero times fifty is still zero, but it's the thought that counts, maybe? 47.222.203.135 (talk) 11:30, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

47.222.203.135, I do apologize for undoing a productive edit, and yes, I sometimes do function not only as CarpCop but also CarpJudge and CarpJury. I look at your edit history, which likely is not your sum total wikipedia experience, and I see that you arrived a month ago and have edited largely election related articles. I had no intention of getting involved in the election but got pulled in through a series of events and find myself here and so proceed, and probably will continue to proceed in my usual manner, Cop, Judge, Jury and when needed, Executioner. However I never want to undo or revert or even complain about productive edits. it just happens sometimes and I have no problem with it being pointed out. Carptrash (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

No apologies needed Carptrash, your revert was 100% correct, they were not supposed to DELETE the section, they were supposed to move it (from the announced-positons section to the potential-candidates section or vice versa depending on the status of the role). The reverted edit was good-faith, but also simultaneously non-productive. So you did everything right, no worries, your CarpRadar is functioning five by five. Please do proceed in your usual fashion. To try and minimize the section-blanking here, we have even resorted to putting in yuge html-comments that say Please Do Not Delete This Just Move It, but of course those are sometimes ignored.  :-) And yes, I have a mostly-static IP that changes every couple of years, so I've been messing with the 'safer' USA-politics articles for some time now... I avoid the middle east, and the eastern european wikipedia-battles, but this cycle has been very bitter and there does not seem to be an end in sight yet, but time will tell whether things settle back down. You are welcome to stick around, tough articles always need more good carp sense.  :-) 47.222.203.135 (talk) 19:02, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Being on the road with a car that I believe has just gone belly-up two hours away will somewhat limit my ability to edit, but it also generally increases my desire to be a dick,so, we'll see. Carptrash (talk) 21:04, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Where is Cathy McMorris Rodgers?

Trump announced his intentions to nominate her for Secretary of the Interior and she was included on the chart, so where is she? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

It looks like the article and {{Cabinet of Donald Trump}} are out of sync. This article is a bit unusual in that so much of it comes from a template, so that the template can be re-used in another place. You can be bold and fix errors in the template. {{Trump transition}} also needs to be kept in sync. - Brianhe (talk) 04:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Latest news reports are saying that Zinke has replaced Rodgers as the expected pick for Interior. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 11:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Zinke is nominated now https://twitter.com/transition2017/status/809417386554261504. Please write him in. --2A02:908:1962:6E80:6460:CC4C:7903:D835 (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, I believe we have Zinke listed properly now, under Cabinet of Donald Trump#Secretary of the Interior. However, I don't think the twitter-username that you list as a source, is actually a "verified" twitter username. It is just somebody that registered for that name, who could be on the transition team, but could also be any random human on the planet. Mostly we try to use television or newspapers reports rather than twitter feeds, although in some cases such as the announcement of Mike Pence via twitter on July 15th which was 'officially' confirmed the following day at a news conference, there are exceptions. The known-to-be official website for the transition team is found at www.greatAgain.gov, and they have the formal announcements there... but often it seems to be fairly slow, with information leaking to the media long beforehand (Wilbur Ross leaked November 24th and made official November 30th, James Mattis leaked December 1st and made official December 5th, that sort of thing). Zinke is currently in that limbo-period as well, methinks, where 'unofficial' anonymous leaks from transition team people are being widely reported, but the formal announcment has yet to be made. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

That handle is verified on Twitter. Just click on the link and you can see the blue checkmark. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

You are correct, thanks. Not sure how I got confused. Transition team also has a similarly-themed fbook username, and a youtube channel. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 23:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Steve Bannon

Steve Bannon should be included for reasons of equalivency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoallen1 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

His exclusion makes no sense to me. Chief White House Strategist is a highlevel position, even if there isn't a logo for it. I would add it myself, but I'm bad with tables. Bangabandhu (talk) 03:40, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Nor me. His exclusion is based on pre-Trump news media paradigms. Bannon will be key to assisting in media-related tactics. Yes, with the biased news media, including wikibiasia, some effort will be required to counter the nearly uniform anti-trump narrative in the news services. They were a fifth column for Obama and HRC and will not communicate faithfully to the American public about what Trump is doing. So Bannon will ensure that goes properly. That is why they tried to label him a anti-semite etc etc etc. Bannon's new-era cabinet position is high status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:181:C380:B67:50E2:25ED:5892:1A20 (talk) 19:57, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Trump Taps Peter Navarro, Vocal Critic of China, for New Trade Post

Should this newly created cabinet post be listed in the article on Trump's Cabinet? Comments welcome. I don't see any mention of it. [12] Octoberwoodland (talk) 05:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Never mind. I located the article where these appointments are published. Political_appointments_of_Donald_Trump Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Yellow checkmark

No idea what this yellow checkmark in the list of potential picks section means, please indicate this in the article or remove the yellow checkmark. Calibrador (talk) 15:18, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

It seems to be for people who were offered the position and turned it down. Maybe?? Agree, this is confusing. - Brianhe (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

See up the page, at Talk:Cabinet_of_Donald_Trump#removal_of_potential_nominees. Yellow checkmark is a rough-n-ready visual compromise, that is supposed to be approximately equivalent to, "the media expected this person to get the position at one point but they did not get the job". So in the case of Rodgers, media reports said she was going to get the role, but three days later Zinke got the role. We don't know if Rodgers turned it down, or if Trump changed his mind and backed out, or if the original media reports were simply false (aka Rodgers never was the pick). So I gave her the yellow checkmark, but didn't try to explain the meaning. In the case of Keane, we have media reports quoting *him* saying he was offered a position, but no independent confirmation... so again, I gave him the yellow checkmark. Each yellow checkmark would need a custom explanation, probably, which we can provide in the associated row with a couple sentences methinks. Does that sound useful? Or better to just insert the backstory-sentences, and skip the yellow checkmark entirely? I also predict we might have some nominees withdraw their names, like Bill Richardson in 2008/2009, and was planning to use a red checkmark for that purpose, if and when needed. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 23:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

It's a terrible idea, and should be removed. It's lumping several things (declining offer, mistake by the media, etc.) together. The fact that it's not explained makes it even worse. StAnselm (talk) 02:18, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

So does anybody have suggestions what to do, with the cases where we have some WP:RS which reports person X was allegedly offered the job, but then later person Y actually got named in the official announcement? The cases that I'm aware of include:

• Jack Keane, says he turned down SecDef
• Jamie Dimon, reportedly turned down SecTreas
• Rudy Giuliani, multiple reports he turned down AttyG, and if memory serves also was offered DHS, wanted SecState instead of those roles
• Cathy McMorris Rodgers, many reports that she was the pick (see humongous footnote at Sec.Interior) but 3 days later Zinke was officially named ... unknown why the switcheroo happened, could be she turned it down, could be Trump changed his mind
• Bob Johnson, said he was offered an unspecified cabinet-role
• Jeb Hensarling, reportedly turned down the OMB job
• Jerry Falwell Jr., says he turned down the DoEDU

The explanations could be added, of course, but it seems pretty clear that the yellow-tick is getting the boot. Y Do we just leave the plaintext indicating that an offer was reportedly extended as of mm/dd/yyyy, but not otherwise highlight the candidate who almost got the role? Honest question, I figured the yellow checkmark was a good idea, so that shows what I know about visualization aides  :-) 47.222.203.135 (talk) 01:12, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

proposal to reorganize sections

Currently we have the following:

• 1.1 Cabinet members (veep plus fourteen nominees + one tbd in succession order by 27nd amendment)
• 1.2 Cabinet-level officials (six nominees + one tbd in some ordering I do not recognize)
• 2 Analysis (around three paragraphs)
• 3 History (around four paragraphs plus one table)
• 4 Possible candidates for open Cabinet positions (just one left: Agriculture)
• 5 Possible candidates for Cabinet-level officials (just one left: CEA)
• 6 Prior candidates for announced positions (twenty-one subsections in chronological order by announcement-date, each with a table-of-contenders)
• 7 Confirmation process timeline (large table of confirmation hearings in chronological order by scheduled-date)

I would like to change to the following... I've moved things around but did NOT renumber yet so that where I moved something from is slightly clearer:

• 1.1 Cabinet members (veep plus fourteen nominees + one tbd in succession order by 27nd amendment)
• 1.2 Cabinet-level officials (six nominees + one tbd in some ordering I do not recognize)
• 7 Confirmation process timeline (large table of confirmation hearings in chronological order by scheduled-date)
• 2 Analysis (around three paragraphs)
• 3 History (around four paragraphs plus one table)
• 6 Prior candidates for announced positions (twenty-three subsections including Agriculure && CEA in chronological order by announcement-date in succession order to match section#1, each with a table-of-historical-contenders)
• 4 Possible candidates for open Cabinet positions (just one left: Agriculture) (merge)
• 5 Possible candidates for Cabinet-level officials (just one left: CEA) (merge)

In short, I want to move the confirmation-hearings up to right below the main nominees-table, and merge the possible-candidates-sections into one big former-contenders section (which is ordered by succession rather than by nominee-announcement-date). Ping Zbase4, Classicwiki, Brianhe, Snickers2686, Marine678, Baghul3000, Champion, JFG, Jay942942, Tristan Surtel, Benwitt, who either I noticed in the history-tab for January making non-rvv edits or whom I remember (fondly :-) from last year on this article. Any objections, constructive criticism, etc? 47.222.203.135 (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support major trim – I agree with moving the confirmation process just after the lists of Cabinet members and Cabinet-level officials. For the rest, I would mercilessly delete the whole section on speculated candidates. Doesn't pass the 10-year test. — JFG ^talk 00:10, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Disagree, since I think the cabinet-selection process is of historical interest; we need not keep those historic footnotes in Cabinet of Donald Trump, if preferred we could move them to Confirmations of Donald Trump's Cabinet to mirror the Confirmations of Barack Obama's Cabinet. If we do so, we can also (eventually) move the confirmation-hearing material over there also, as well as the confirmation-rollcall-vote material, over to that WP:SPINOFF a few months from now when Trump's final cabinet is confirmed. Partly my desire to WP:PRESERVE the info about historical contenders and potential-contenders for the cabinet roles is because I sweated blood to build some of those tables, though, so I'll wait patiently to hear from other wikipedians  :-) 47.222.203.135 (talk) 02:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, I understand it might be painful to delete your labor of love… But honestly, who cares about this in the long run? This was news for a few weeks, now it's just dead weight. And any future historians who need to dig out such information can still find all the details in page history, which is likely to be preserved for all eternity. — JFG ^talk 14:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

At the risk of violating WP:NOTFORUM in your eyes, I will state flat out that I would give a body part (only a small one though) to know these details for past presidencies, especially the 1868-through-1928 elections. I guarantee there is pertinent relevant historically fascinating material, in which names the news media promotes, in exactly what phraseology, and which names they do NOT so promote, and when exactly. Per WP:NOTPAPER methinks wikipedia is the only reasonable place for this footnote-to-History material, and it passes WP:V in spades. People outside myself do find interest in confirmation hearings and name-floating and confirmation votes and the angle of the media thereon, see e.g. CBS coverage of Tillerson-versus-historical-parallel-Veep-Rockefeller in 1974. Wikipedia at the moment only says that "it took four months for Rockefeller to be confirmed" and gives nothing useful in the way of detailed footnotes that say why, how, and who. If I had the time and wherewithal, I would fill out potential-cabinet-contender-tables for everybody back through George Washington, and then get cracking on other countries and other centuries. Running for election to the presidency is where most of the hoopla gets concentrated (cf the dozen-and-a-half major candidates and very large number of WP:GNG-qualifying minor candidates just in 2016), but there is almost as much encyclopedic meat in the cabinet-appointment-nudge-nudge-wink-wink coverage, as in the general election horse-race coverage, for my money. Presidents are the figurehead, and congress passes the laws, but the cabinet runs the country in an operational sense. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• I am concerned that the contents of the confirmation process are not being recorded for future readers. I created the confirmation process timeline table as a compromise. I would prefer to see this page morph into a page like the Confirmations of Barack Obama's Cabinet (but better). I suggest the tables of candidates be moved into their own templates and note be made under each subheader that leads to the table. For example, See Also: The full list of candidates considered for [this position]. This way the tables are preserved but don't clog up the article. I was planning on doing this for the confirmation roll call votes. OR we can rename this article Canidates for the Cabinet of Donald Trump and another article can be dedicated to the Confirmations of Donald Trump's Cabinet. I agree we can merge the remaining possible candidates section. Classicwiki (talk) 17:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I like the idea of having a separate page with the confirmation-votes and with the possible-contender-tables for each cabinet role, but rather than using templates I would suggest we create History of Donald Trump's Cabinet which can then contain contender-tables and collapsed-roll-call-votes and so on. That will make the page possible WP:TOOBIG in terms of kilobytes, but I really dislike the current structure of e.g. Endorsements for the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016 which used to have all the names so comparison across candidates was possible, but now everything is split up into teensy templates and I have to open two-dozen browser tabs and 'manually' compare between the candidates. We also don't include the date when an endorsement was made but that is another gripe for another day  :-)     For this page of history-of-cabinet-stuff, I would suggest that a large page is exactly what people who click on History of Donald Trump's Cabinet will actually want and expect. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I have made a couple of the suggested changes: moved the confirmation-hearings up to just under the main splashpage section with the nominee-pictures, and merged the agriculture-and-CEA-contenders in with the others. However, all the contender-sections are still in chronological ordering, I did not yet attempt the change to succession-ordering. The article is still under pending changes, so I may get reverted prior to these bold changes going live. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for asking for my input. Sorry I've been away on other projects and am having trouble assimilating the ask here, but I trust that the people involved will make reasonable decisions. For what it's worth I agree with Classicwiki that preserving the process as it occurred is important. - Brianhe (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

History of Donald Trump's Cabinet seems like a good option 47.222.203.135. After all tables are moved to that page changing to succession-ordering is appropriate. I wish I had the time to add things about the hearings as they are ongoing. Classicwiki (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Support forking out historical details to History of Donald Trump's Cabinet, or perhaps better Formation of Donald Trump's Cabinet. Keep this page focused on the official Cabinet, and possibly later changes. — JFG ^talk 11:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@47.222.203.135: @JFG: I went ahead and created the Formation of Donald Trump's Cabinet. I am going to start making Cabinet of Donald Trump look a little more like Confirmations of Barack Obama's Cabinet. Formation of Donald Trump's Cabinet will focus on candidate tables and confirmation roll call tables.Classicwiki (talk) 06:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, I will try to help when I have some time. I too would like to see summaries of the confirmation-hearing-related WP:SOURCES. Since we are taking the WP:SPINOFF route, I would suggest that we use succession-ordering in Cabinet of Donald Trump with the 'current' cabinet at any time taking prominence (aka for readership wanting to know who-is-in-the-cabinet-right-now), and then for readers that want to know *why* that is the set of people, over in the Formation of Donald Trump's Cabinet we can give the historical contenders that had their names floated for each role in chronological aka historical order (by announced-pick-date), and we can give the confirmation-hearing-details and the Senate-vote-details over there as well. Usually during the course of a presidential term there will be half a dozen cabinet-members that are reshuffled or replaced, and as that material comes up, it can be summarized here in Cabinet of Donald Trump in succession-order, whilst the gory historical details are covered over in Formation of Donald Trump's Cabinet in chronological order. So there might be multiple Formation of Donald Trump's Cabinet sections talking about the Secretary of Defense: one for the contenders in December 2016, another for the Mattis hearings in January 2017, another for the CaptainAmerica (or whomever) hearings in October 2017 when Mattis hypothetically steps down, etc. But here in the Cabinet of Donald Trump article there will only be one SecDef section, with a short paragraph on Mattis and his cabinet-work, followed by another paragraph on CaptAmerica and his cabinet-work. Or that is what I suggest at least... and surely I'm not the only one who want Captain America as SecDef by year-end... though I agree consensus will have to be achieved first 47.222.203.135 (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

External links in body

The external links in the "testimony" column in the Confirmation process timeline section should either be moved to a reference, or removed altogether per WP:EL. I will not remove them and had I done that, I'm sure someone would have thrown a hissy fit. I'm writing here so someone can remove them. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 23:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Switched to WP:EXPLNOTEs using Template:notelist and Template:efn, assuming ECP-watchers approve my edits. This change forces the readership to hover-then-click, or on tablets tap-then-tap, but I guess better than potential edit-warring and predicted hissy fits.... 47.222.203.135 (talk) 14:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed Cabinet to Cabinet

Now that Trump & Pence have assumed office, perhaps the article & template should be updated. GoodDay (talk) 03:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I think the confirmation-votes which follow the confirmation-hearings are what marks the switchover. Trump is now potus, and Pence vpotus (and member of the nascent cabinet therefore), but only two of the other cabinet-nominees have been confirmed. So pedantically we could await confirmation of all the cabinet-members, or we could instead be pedantic in a different fashion, and say that as of noon eastern time on January 20th 2017 the Cabinet of Donald Trump began to officially exist, consisting of VP Pence immediately at the time, with others awaiting Senate confirmation? Whichever way we do it, I'd prefer to get consensus here so that we have a consistent grammar-tense, and avoid potential edit warring over whether there *is* a Trump Cabinet versus *will be* a Trump Cabinet once all fifteen nominees are formally confirmed. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 14:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Right now

we show Betsy DeVos as the Secretary of Veterans Affairs candidate. Seems unlikely. Carptrash (talk) 05:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done by KH-1 Classicwiki (talk) 14:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Color coding as nominees are confirmed

How about using another background color for the "Proposed Cabinet" listing as the individuals are confirmed?

user:mnw2000 14:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mnw2000: Are you talking about the "Proposed Cabinet" table? I would recommend you bring that topic up over at Template talk:Cabinet of Donald Trump or just make the changes and see what happens? Classicwiki (talk) 19:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I attempted to to this manually but am unable to undo my changes. Can someone revert this page to the last good version, 11:44, January 22, 2017‎ Benwitt? Sorry for any inconvenience.

user:mnw2000 20:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Swamp cabinet?

Why is this even being considered for inclusion? An offhand pejorative by a media outlet does not seem noteworthy in my opinion. It was only added earlier today by an ip6 user (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cabinet_of_Donald_Trump&diff=762037759&oldid=762025806), and now editors are calling it censorship to remove it. ValarianB (talk) 16:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Does the VP require full senate vote?

The VP, Mike Pence was highlighted in green, whose legend is "Individual officially confirmed by a full Senate vote (if required)" StandNThrow (talk) 23:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

No, the VP just needs to be voted at the College and inaugurated. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. StandNThrow (talk) 23:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I have deleted the highlight. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I reinstated the highlight since it represents a person that has been confirmed/sworn into office. In the legend, it says "Individual officially confirmed by a full Senate vote (if required)" Figfires (talk) 23:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Two-sentences "supported" by single Washington Post articles

Two consecutive sentences in different paragraphs in the "Analysis" section read, "The media also noted the fact that several of Trump's cabinet nominees politically opposed the federal departments they were selected to lead.[34] The Washington Post noted that Trump's cabinet is the wealthiest in modern American history in terms of total personal wealth.[35]" Both cites are to single Washington Post articles.

Article currently numbered [34] does not support the first sentence. It would support something like "The media has noted the fact that four of Trump's cabinet nominees politically opposed programs ran by the federal departments they were selected to lead." The sentence should be rewritten, better sourced, or deleted.

Sentence [35] supports the second sentence but is inaccurate. I believe that it is correct that Trump's cabinet is the wealthiest in modern American history in terms of total personal wealth. However, the article cited has specifically been derided by pretty much every other media outlet as untrue and biased (primarily based upon the including the wealth of Betsy DeVos' father-in-law in calculating the net worth of Betsy Devos). Thus, a new article should be used to support the sentence or the sentence should be deleted.Wilkyisdashiznit (talk) 18:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Cabinet members

Are the Cabinet-level positions we have listed here technically cabinet members now? Trump has announced his 24-cabinet member team... Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 17:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan: If you are asking when his cabinet currently convenes that these people are present in the room, I doubt it.The designated folks still require confirmation. This announcement is more of an announcement of structure. Therefore, I have removed the Chair of the CEA and added the DCIA & DNI in many pages accross Wikipedia. Classicwiki (talk) 18:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Classicwiki – I think I'm confusing myself. lol Is Pompeo (CIA Director) an official Cabinet member or still just a Cabinet-level member? The White House announced him as a Cabinet member, so this is why I'm wondering. I hope I've made it a little more clearer? Thanks, Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 19:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan:. Sorry I didn't understand your question earlier. DCIA & DNI were elevated to Cabinet-level and not Cabinet. I beleive that would take an act of Congress. The WH didn't make a distinction this time, but I think law does. You will notice a very specific way in the listing of positions/names in the announcement. I'm sure when the WH website is updated/improved that they will make distinctions. Hope that makes sense? Classicwiki (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

That makes sense! Sorry for not being clear. Like I said, I confused myself and didn't fully understand my question either. lol Thanks for the response! Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 19:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Confirmation process timeline table sorting

The "Full Senate vote date" column in this table is currently sorting incorrectly--it appears that the presence of citations for Steve Mnuchin, David Shulkin, and Linda McMahon's vote dates are to blame. Are these citations important enough that the sorting should be revamped to accommodate them, or should they be excised in order to fix the table? RocioNadat 01:26, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• No one seemed to care, so I just removed the references to fix the table. RocioNadat 14:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Anatomy of a Micro-scandal...was history faked?

The article states that Mike Pence was the first vice-President to break a tie on a confirmation vote. However, almost all the sources I have read state the Harry Truman broke a tie to confirm Henry Wallace as Secretary of Commerce in 1945. The wikipedia article was changed by a certain " 2602:30A:C0C7:48E0:B50F:32EE:E0E7:7ECF" on this account to comply with the "historic" nature of what Pence did (second is not has historic as first, don'cha know). What's going on? Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I have added a citation. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

This is incorrect - the Senate Historical Office, Truman biographies, and Wallace biographies all indicate that this is wrong. See Talk:Mike_Pence#Tie-breaking_vote. Neutrality^talk 00:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Order of Cabinet-Level Positions

The Cabinet Secretaries are consistently listed throughout the article in order based on when they were created, which matches their order of precedence and the presidential line of succession. The cabinet-level positions, however, are given in at least two different orders in the article, neither of which matches the order that was given in the White House's official announcement of who would be included in the President's cabinet. The White House ordering would seem to me to be the preferable one, but regardless there should be one consistent order adopted throughout the article. Thoughts? 107.145.77.108 (talk) 02:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

White House sounds good to me. I meant to fix a while back. Haven't gotten to it. Classicwiki (talk) 17:44, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done Classicwiki (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

The VP was elected, not confirmed

Why does the VP have a grey background, defined as "Individual officially confirmed with no Senate consent needed". Since he was elected and not confirmed by any body, senate or otherwise, should the background be left as white?

user:mnw2000 14:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Rick Perry Already Confirmed as Energy Sec?

According to NPR the Senate has already confirmed Perry as Energy Sec -> [13]

They corrected it: [14] --Coemgenus (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Question?

Since Priebus is here under White House Chief of Staff, should there be the inclusion of McMaster as National Security Advisor and maybe even Spicer as White House Press (to even things out) in the Cabinet-level officials section? Just curious. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

TDKR Chicago 101, This is the official cabinet of the Trump administration until further notice. NSA & Press Sec. are not listed.Classicwiki (talk) 21:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Archiving Talk Page

As this article has changed in size and scope since its inception, many of the sections of this talk page are no longer relevant. I propose we archive the first 35-40 sections of this talk page. Following Wikipedia:ARCHIVE, I will seek consensus first. Also please let me know if you prefer it to be done manually, by ClueBot III, or by lowercase sigmabot III. If there are no responses within a week, I will probably move ahead with archiving some of this talk page. This is just to ensure old conversations don't clog up this talk page. Classicwiki (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done Classicwiki (talk) 04:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Things to Improve Part 1

The following is a list of relevant items that I think can be included in the article that I think will help improve the quality and content of this page for future reference.

• Rex Tillerson and Russia. Concerns about Rex Tillerson's connection with Russia is not included in this article. This concern was shared by Sen. McCain, Graham, and Rubio. Each of these Senators later approved Tillerson's appointment. I think it will also be helpful to have a line about why the Trump administration thought Tillerson was qualified for the position. NYT article that might be a useful start.
• Steve Mnuchin failed to disclose $100 million in assets prior to the hearing. Steve Mnuchin is well written and can be used as a guiding point. Democrats did not appear to vote in an effort to delay/derail confirmation process as a reaction to Executive Order 13769, amongst other reasons.
• James Mattis stated greatest threat to national security is national debt and the principal threat is Russia. He said he wouldn't roll back "don't ask, don't tell" or women in combat roles. He distanced himself from Trump by supporting NATO and the Iran deal. Some of this information should be added to James Mattis too. Two ok sources for info: 1, 2.
• Jeff Sessions failure to be confirmed to the district court 30 years ago. Committee vote being split along party lines. Sessions confirmation being held off until DeVos' confirmation vote because of the possibility of a 50-50 vote split. Sessions disapproval of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. Stance on the prosecution of Hillary Clinton. Opposition to waterboarding under current law.
• Ryan Zinke stated that man has an influence on climate change. His views on Trump's infrastructure plan and the National Parks Service. Zinke's statement on drilling on public lands. Some of this information should be added to Ryan Zinke too. Some ok sources for info: 1, 2, 3.
• Andy Puzder's difficulty in separating from his business. Delays in ethics reviews.
• Wilbur Ross will be one of the richest people to ever hold public office. Ross used to be a Democrat. Ross divested from over 50 positions, but plans keeping investments in the shipping industry. Ross' views on regulation, trade, and tariffs. Some of this information should be added to Wilbur Ross too. Ok sources: 1, 2, 3.

The above list of topics are all issues that were directly addressed in each nominee's confirmation hearing(s) and therefore are in line with this page's goal of documenting "the confirmation process for any successful or unsuccessful cabinet nominees of Donald Trump's administration." I hope this list can serve as an effective task list for editors looking to improve this article. I tried gathering some starting sources in advance to make the process easier. Please comment if you have objections. I hope to put up an additional list depending if improvements are made. Classicwiki (talk) 07:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Mnuchin is complete.  Done Classicwiki (talk) 05:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Puzder is complete.  Done Classicwiki (talk) 20:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Mattis is complete.  Done Classicwiki (talk) 22:10, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Acting Secretaries Versus Nominees

I have been told that (obviously) a Secretary with one foot out the door trumps the nominee for the position in terms of the table embedded in the article. However, in the case of an Acting Secretary versus a Nominee (Matthew Whitaker vs William Barr) who do we include? During the Trump Transition period and his early presidency, it was nominees over acting officials, but now it seems the opposite. Which should we go by? Moonhawk736283 (talk) 01:56, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Table is messed up

It's currently as of mid-September 2020 out of alignment.

--100.4.146.152 (talk) 13:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Ambassador to the UN

Am I going insane or has the Ambassador to the UN position been completely removed from the cabinet section? Is there a reason for this? { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 22:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

It was downgraded from a cabinet position to a none cabinet position Marius1603 (talk) 14:12, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Elaine "Chow" on table

Last name is spelled Chao. The Raid on capitol hill can be linked to the existing page on the 2021 storming of capitol hill. Negrong502 (talk) 19:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)