Talk:Cabinet of Joe Biden/Archive 1

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)

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. Reywas92Talk 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)

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


 * 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. Reywas92Talk 20:35, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:20, 12 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.


 * 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. Reywas92Talk 06:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)

"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 Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 17 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: 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 . -- 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. Reywas92Talk 00:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 92nd_Academy_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. Reywas92Talk 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. Reywas92Talk 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:82B0:8D0:9D8C:A58:2F59:201D (talk) 04:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Width of the Table
Why is the table so wide? What can be done to fix it? (Aricmfergie (talk) 05:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC))

Nominated?
I don't understand it. Here we're saying the individuals are nominated, even though Biden hasn't taken office yet. But, over at the Antony Blinken article's infobox, we've got Presumptive nominee. Which is it? GoodDay (talk) 21:13, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Secretary of Agriculture:
Why are there two entries in the details list for this position? Someone may probably have overlooked this fact and could they please rectify it. Thanks. Abul Bakhtiar (talk) 07:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing this out; the duplicate section has now been removed. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Diversity (Age)
How about a graph with the age diversity. (e.i. Silent Generation, Baby boomers, Generation X, Millennials, etc.) ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:4031:F900:6026:B9B7:BE9:EDA4 (talk) 08:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That sounds fine, but the problem is making distinctions between those generations. Sources seem to differ on when a generation begins and where there is overlap. A better way to implement it might be to classify the nominees/appointees into groups of decades of birth (so those born in the 1950s, 1960s, etc). Sdrqaz (talk) 13:12, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's explanation hereincludes specific birth years that are widely accepted for the relevant generations (Silent, Boomer, Gen X, Millennial). Per these definitions and the current announcements, the cabinet+cabinet level age makeup is 1 Silent Generation, 12 Boomer, 4 Gen X, 1 Millennial. We do have the absolute widest range of ages for Boomer from Janet Yellen at 74 to Kamala Harris at 56, but I still think generations is the right way to do this as, for example, most news sources are noting, for example, that Pete Buttigieg is a Millennial, not that he's in his thirties.  That said, Biden made no specific campaign promises about age diversity, and the current charts are about diversity in terms of specific campaign promises he made re: race, gender, and sexual orientation. It's not like there's a "Gen X caucus" that's asking for more representation the way there is for race/gender/sexual orientation TheSummoningDark (talk) 22:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Jennifer Granholm
Why is Granholm being added to the article, when Biden hasn't announced her as his Secy of Education pick, yet? GoodDay (talk) 12:45, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Granholm was added as Biden's choice for Secretary of Energy because that has been reported in reliable sources (The New York Times, The Washington Post, POLITICO, CNN etc). As one of the IP editors pointed out, it has been the practice of this page to add nominees with 'TBA' attached to them when they have been reliably reported as having been chosen. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:27, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a poor practice. GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , if you can form another consensus, I'll be happy to follow it. Since it's been widely reported in reliable sources, it's not exactly a case of WP:CRYSTAL. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Not overly concerned about it here, as I am at the infoboxes of the individuals who get picked for Biden's cabinet. GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

, with respect, my interpretation of WP:CRYSTAL is that it only applies to unverified/unverifiable speculation. This is not the case here. It has been widely reported by reliable sources that Biden has chosen Granholm as Secretary of Energy. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:04, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , it is verifiable that people say that Biden is going to choose Granholm, but it is not verifiable that Biden is going to choose Granholm. Does that make sense? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , while I understand the distinction you're making, I don't believe it applies here. For example, this POLITICO article has stated outright that President-elect Joe Biden will pick former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm to run the Energy Department. This is different to a member of Congress making a prediction that Granholm will be chosen, like here, where Rep. Clyburn predicted that Rep. Fudge would be nominated to the Cabinet. These are two different situations. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:15, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * We have to ask ourselves about the source, though. What makes those Politico authors so sure? It doesn't say. Usually, that sentence you quoted would be followed by a clause like according to sources close to the transition, but this doesn't have that. So we're left wondering what their sourcing is. Or at least I am. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm not sure it's our place to question their sourcing. The information is from a news article (not an opinion piece) produced by a reliable source (according to WP:RSPSOURCES). Sdrqaz (talk) 18:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * We should be waiting until Biden makes the announcement. GoodDay (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm in favor of the status quo: Have them as the nominee, put have TBA where the announcement date is, and then have a citation to where it is referenced. I strongly oppose getting rid of them until they are confirmed. However, I think that a good compromise might be to create a new distinction for Cabinet nominees that, while their nomination has been reported, hasn't been announcement by the Biden team. For the infobox on their pages, I'm in favor of keeping them as the nominee, and I strongly oppose not showing that in the infobox, although a good compromise would be to have them shown as the presumptive nominee where we would put nominee. BazingaFountain42 (talk) 18:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm not really sure I want to revive the issue about infoboxes in the nominees' own pages. There was a discussion that was since archived here on the issue, but I don't think it was properly resolved. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Although I have started a section below to address this, I want to take issue with one comment made. When a credible source such as Politico reports that x person will be nominated, it's because they are reporting it as fact. What you are advocating for here is still filling in their image and name in the infobox but for some reason leaving out the date of the report. That contradiction does not seem to make much sense. Cliffmore (talk) 20:39, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Announced vs Reported Nominees
Hello. I wanted to address this topic fully. On the page Presidential transition of Joe Biden, we have simply been putting "reported [X date]" when a credible source confirms the cabinet selection. That serves a placeholder until the official announcement is made. I would advocate for the same here. I would also ask users to refrain from engaging in revert wars. Cliffmore (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There's quite a bit of inconsistency around these articles, related to a Biden cabinet. IMHO, we should be waiting to make additions after Biden announces his picks. GoodDay (talk) 21:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I would tend to agree with you. However, it is clear people are not going to stop adding individuals here once they get reported by press outlets. So to avoid confusion, I believe we should stick with the "reported" method, something that serves as an in-between and something that has worked quite well on the transition page. Cliffmore (talk) 21:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah. GoodDay (talk) 21:50, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Cabinet_of_Joe_Biden
This section smacks of WP:OR to me. Do any WP:RS include pie charts or something analogous allocating nominees by race or sexual orientation? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:19, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I personally don't see any original research concerns here. The underlying information is easily attributable to reliable sources. I'd argue that these percentages (and the resulting graphical interpretations) are simply routine calculations. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Is the underlying information easily attributable to reliable sources? It seems to me that the race and sexuality pie charts, in particular, are based on editors' assumptions as to the race and sexuality of prospective Cabinet members. Do we really have consensus among RS to back up claims as to the race and sexuality of every prospective Cabinet member? I am also concerned about the claim that "a number of the Cabinet choices so far have been ethnically Jewish". I am aware of no consensus among scholars as to what being "ethnically Jewish" means, or if it is even a coherent notion. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I think it's the nature of heteronormative society to assume that a person is heterosexual unless otherwise stated: I'm unaware of any page on Wikipedia (though feel free to point it out to me) that states that a person is "openly straight". I suspect that such a sentence would not be considered notable by editors. There's been much coverage of Buttigieg's status as the first would-be openly-gay Cabinet member such as here (you can argue that Richard Grenell was the first, but he was an acting Cabinet-level appointee). As for race, it's kind of the same thing. I don't think it is really in question whether a nominee like Yellen (for example) is white or whether Austin is African-American. There are sources (such as here) that state the ethnicity of those who are not white, as that is outside of the historical norm of cabinets. Of course, you could also argue that ethnicity is a social construct and something that doesn't matter, but that's probably going down the rabbit hole. As for people of Jewish descent, there seems to be information on the Wikipedia pages of each of those mentioned. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Well, I suppose you're right. It just strikes me as rather unsavoury to be assembling race/ethnicity–based statistics like these when (AFAIK) news organizations aren't doing so. A bit like WP:OCEGRS in the category context: why repackage ethnicity-based information more than absolutely necessary? I guess the natural response would be: well, Biden has made it known that he wants a cabinet that "looks like America", etc, and so it's encyclopedic to see whether he's living up to that promise. But it's just not clear to me that color-coding living people by race and sexual orientation is the best way to do that. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * One of the weirdest things about the race chart is that it categorizes Kamala Harris as 0.5 people in the Black and Asian categories. A news source would never say "two and a half cabinet members (12.5%) are Asian" they would say three. Biden's cabinet is both 30% Black and 15% Asian but there's no way to display that in a pie chart. Deb Haaland's father is white but nobody put her as half of a Native American person because that's not how that works. TheSummoningDark (talk) 21:02, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , and this is where the graphs become an OR problem. How is anyone considering Kamala "half" a person in a category like that? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , there is at least one source that color codes the diversity. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:06, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Fair point. Still not thrilled with it—I can see us citing the graphs on FiveThirtyEight, but reproducing or modifying them on the basis of data in other sources seems a further step; and then employing (what, given the above, are apparently) our own racial/ethnic criteria to divide up the nominees is yet a further step. I really don't know what the best approach is here, to be honest. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)


 * It is absolutely WP:OR since it cites no references and it entirely made by a user.in particular, the choice of what to calculate and what/how to graph it is not a routine calculation. It should be removed.Eccekevin (talk) 20:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Diversity? They're all connected to Wall Street & other corporations. GoodDay (talk) 20:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Also, I think using the text alone is enough. The charts seem excessive and not particularly well-done.Eccekevin (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:37, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Micheal-regan(cropped).jpg

A fix for Education Secretary
I can't edit the page anymore, so if anyone who can sees this, I'd like to politely ask them to un-italicize "Speculated: TBA" under "Secretary of Education" in the "Cabinet Members" section under "Announced Nominees" and just change it to "TBA", which is how we usually do it for nominees that have reported, but not announced. In the "Secretary of Education" section under "Nominated candidates for Cabinet positions", please remove "Possible nominees" and put the information for Miguel Cardona. Thanks. BazingaFountain42 (talk) 16:57, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Miguel A Cardona.jpg

Diversity (Religion)
In the diversity section, there is a discussion of the amount of Jewish nominees without a comparison to other religious representation within the Biden administration. Biden claims his cabinet will be the most diverse in the nation's history. Diversity would include religious diversity, especially since the US has been predominately led by individuals of Christian faith. To promote the diversity of his Cabinet, we should also depict the diversity (or lack thereof) of his Cabinet. It would also be nice to be able to compare the cabinet's diversity to other branches of government (such as the fact that the Supreme Court has transitioned from being primarily Protestant to being primarily Catholic but has also seen an increase in the number of Jewish Justices).

Can we get a pie chart showing the various religious affiliations similar to what we have for gender, race, and orientation? 70.88.154.249 (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I like this idea but 1. I don't believe that we have sources on the religion of every nominee (examples, Neera Tanden, Katherine Tai, Jake Sullivan) and 2. we would have to figure out how to consistently apply 'religion' — do we mean practicing or background? For example, Bernie Sanders is Jewish by background and atheist in practice. If he were in the cabinet both his atheism and his Jewish identity would be notable. Similarly, Kamala Harris was raised both Hindu and Christian but is a practicing Christian. I think this is notable but am not sure how it would show up in a pie chart. TheSummoningDark (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * While I agree that we don't have sources on the religion of every nominee, we can just have those as 'unknown'. Presumably greater information will eventually come to light. I think religion should be practising: religious background shouldn't really have any bearing on this page. If they were raised a certain way but does not identify as that religion, then there's not much point as listing them as a follower of that religion. As an aside, regarding Sen. Sanders, I wouldn't exactly characterise him as being an atheist going off his page: his office has described his religion as Jewish and he seems to be vaguely spiritual and a theist, though not very religious. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

In the same section, the last sentence reads "Some have also made note that a number of the Cabinet choices so far have been ethnically Jewish: Blinken, Haines, Klain, Mayorkas and Yellen." By placing this sentence in a paragraph about a lack of sufficient diversity mentioned by some commentators, the implication is that this reflects a lack of diversity. This statement is original research and unsupported by the two linked sources. One of the sources is an article from 2003 about John Kerry and entirely irrelevant to this article. The other article mentions that these five individuals are Jewish, but doesn't suggest that this is a lack of diversity, nor does it support the statement that "some" (which implies more than one person) have "made note" of this fact. I would recommend deleting the sentence and the two linked sources. (I can’t do so because I don’t have enough edits.) --Toby (talk) 19:50, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 December 2020
Secretary of Education BazingaFountain42 (talk) 19:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:04, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I went through the source code and mentioned which parts I wanted changed and what I what I wanted them changed to, but it seems that it was just all changed to Secretary of Education. Essentially, see the section I wrote entitled "A fix for Education Secretary" in this talk page. That's what I want changed. BazingaFountain42 (talk) 22:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done (as I understand it, anyway) Sdrqaz (talk) 01:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Ambiguity in offices formerly held by designees in topmost table
In the topmost table, Linda Thomas-Greenfield and John Kerry have been explicitly mentioned as Former Asst. Secretary of State for African Affairs & Former Secretary of State respectively. However, Tom Vilsack is mentioned as just a Former Secretary whereas Antony Blinken & Alejandro Mayorkas are mentioned as just Former Deputy Secretary and not what Department they had served. I think that this may lead to the lack uniformity in the Article. I would suggest to completely scrap the department's name for all designees or add the same for the aforementioned three designees. Thank You. CX Zoom (talk) 17:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The lack of elaboration for Vilsack, Blinken, and Mayorkas (or "lack of uniformity") is because they're being nominated to the same departments as before: Agriculture, State, and Homeland Security respectively. For Thomas-Greenfield, although Permanent Representative is technically part of the State Department, it is not immediately obvious and that was why the department was specified. For Kerry, his new role doesn't fall under any of the Cabinet departments and so "Secretary of State" is specified. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:04, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * For Vilsack, Blinken, and Mayorkas I would like to point out that in the article Cabinet of Donald Trump, Bill Barr was explicitly mentioned as Former AG despite serving again in the same office. Also the current Secretaries of the Interior, HHS, and Energy are the ones who have already served the same office in the capacity of Deputy Secretary, and have been explicitly mentioned in the article. Thank you. CX Zoom (talk) 18:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The comparison to William Barr doesn't really hold up. The head of the Department of Justice is called the Attorney General, not the Secretary of Justice. You cannnot accurately call him "Secretary Barr" and so it cannot really be shortened. You do bring up an interesting point for Interior and the other departments, though. I'll make adjustments there. Sdrqaz (talk) 20:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Alright. Thanks for your time and cooperation. CX Zoom (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Titles in lower tables
, the problem with retaining the titles for former officeholders is that it simply isn't accurate. Putting titles (like "Gov. Jennifer Granholm") when they are quite a few years out of office doesn't make much sense. The comparison with Austin does not hold up either, because it is unequivocally clear from the title that he is retired. As an aside, I'd rather that we removed titles for all the officeholders (former or incumbent) in the lower tables except for Austin and Cardona. Individuals' previous offices have been made clear in the 'background' section of their table and it is not necessary to repeat that information again. For example, Haaland has "Rep." before her name and has "U.S. Representative" in 'background' too. This is contrasted with Austin and Cardona, who do not have that information in 'background'.

Sdrqaz (talk) 13:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: I am aware of 's edit removing titles from the lower tables and I find that perfectly acceptable. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:09, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes Gov. Granholm has been out of office for a few years but she still retains the right to use the title, no less than General Austin does. As do Secretary Vilsack and Mayor Buttigieg. If we were to agree to remove all titles I would be fine with that, but we shouldn't pick and choose.  Nevermore27  (talk) 21:18, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * As I said in my previous message, [t]he comparison with Austin does not hold up either, because it is unequivocally clear from the title that he is retired. Austin had 'retired general' before his name; Granholm had 'governor' (not former governor). There is a difference. Granholm does not retain a 'right' to be called 'governor', as she is out of office. It would just be a courtesy to call her 'governor', just as it is a courtesy to call Barack Obama 'President Obama'. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:26, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You can call it a "right" or "courtesy" or whatever, but former officeholders can and often are referred to by their former titles. For instance, Joe Biden in the presidential debates was almost always called "Mister Vice President" by the moderators. Anyway this is moot since all titles have been removed.  Nevermore27  (talk) 04:14, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Veep, not always elected.
I put in note that the vice presidency isn't always an elective office. Though, still the president can't fire the vice president. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The Vice-President's office is always an elected one unless it falls vacant, due to their succession to the Presidency or their death/ resignation/ impeachment. If it does fall vacant, the President nominates a person who has to be approved of by the Senate. So under every normal circumstance, it remains an elected one, so I think it's unnecessary to explain it much. I would also point out the fact that the note you added is broken, and gives the following error note at the bottom of the page:
 * "Cite error: There are  tags on this page, but the references will not show without a   template (see the help page)."
 * I am unable to make any changes to this as this article is 'extended-confirmed protected' and I currently do not meet the required criteria. Hope you make the required changes. Thank You. CX Zoom (talk) 15:15, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to fix the note. The individual who placed it, will need to repair it. GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done by . Sdrqaz (talk) 18:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Speculative choices
Editors have, a few times, added "speculative" candidates for AG. I've removed them a few times as we have no idea who is really being considered, and being considered and passed over is not encyclopedic content for this article. Does the consensus agree or disagree with me? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:44, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Completely agree. Should be reported when there is a definitive pick, and no earlier. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:49, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The Attorney General candidates seem to have been widely reported, but I agree. I don't really want this page to be turning into another Speculation about Donald Trump's Cabinet. To that end, I propose removing all the candidates for Secretary of Commerce and Secretary of Labor as well. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


 * We should wait until Biden actually announces his choice. GoodDay (talk) 18:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. See Special:Diff/996456852. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:09, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 January 2021
Garland was officially announced today, on the 7th, so please change that. Furthermore, get rid of the links in front of his name. Also, he is a resident of Bethesda, Maryland, not D.C., so that should be changed. BazingaFountain42 (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done. I assume what you meant by links in front of his name were the references following his name. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 January 2021 (2)
Walsh and Raimondo haven't been announced, so put "TBA" where their dates for announcement are. Furthermore, add sources after their names. BazingaFountain42 (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ✔️. Added organically following this request. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 January 2021 (3)
Adding Isabel Guzman as the Administrator of the Small Business Administration Justarandomnamejake (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ✔️. Added organically following this request. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 January 2021
Please add photo of Mr Michael J. Regan https://deq.nc.gov/about/leadership/michael-s-regan Mirage1980 (talk) 01:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌. We require freely licensed images, and there is no indication that that image (which was recently deleted from Wikimedia Commons—see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Micheal-regan(cropped).jpg) is freely licensed. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 January 2021 (2)
Remove the link next to Walash's date of announcement. Also, change "Reported" for SBA to "Announced". BazingaFountain42 (talk) 01:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean by the "link next to Walash's date of announcement". I have changed Guzman's nomination status to announced per the sources I recently added. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. Source citation removed. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 January 2021
Raimondo, Walsh, and Guzman were all announced on the 7th, not the 8th. Please fix that. BazingaFountain42 (talk) 17:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Let's be sure of this. Biden announced them, not the media's pre-announcement. GoodDay (talk) 18:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * See the transition website, . Sdrqaz (talk) 18:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That seals it. GoodDay (talk) 18:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 January 2021
Biden has nominated William Burns as the CIA director https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/11/politics/william-burns-cia-director-nomination/index.html Justarandomnamejake (talk) 12:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ see here.  Angry Harpy   talk 13:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 January 2021 (2)
Correct Eric Lander's birthday/age from "December 11, 1943 (age 77)" to "February 3, 1957 (age 63)" Vsiegel (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


 * ✅. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 January 2021
I thought Biden was the 46th president, not the 47th as stated in his block in the article about his cabinet 173.251.91.10 (talk) 11:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Biden is the 46th president, but the text in his table states that he is the 47th vice president, which he is too. Sdrqaz (talk) 12:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Lloyd Austin Senate Confirmation
The votes by each Senator has been released on https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=117&session=1&vote=00005 and the table on his confirmation can now be updated. Negrong502 (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Can someone also update the timeline chart to change his bar from gray to yellow as he is now confirmed? Thanks Negrong502 (talk) 16:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ — I have added each senator's vote and has updated the graph.  PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 17:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Janet Yellen
Could somebody with editing rights please correct the voting record re confirmation of J. Yellin? Kevin Cramer (R-ND) was the 15th vote in opposition to her nomination. At this time, he is listed as voting in favour of her appointment.--Mrodowicz (talk) 04:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


 * ✅, . In the future, you should be able to edit Template:Biden confirmations yourself. Sdrqaz (talk) 04:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks --Mrodowicz (talk) 04:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Why are states of origin listed below names in Cabinet_of_Joe_Biden?
I can't see that it's particularly relevant, and is also OR-adjacent (Neera Tanden, for instance, hasn't lived in MA for years). AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:39, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I think the rationale behind it (I wasn't the one who added the information) was that the Senate specifies the state from which a nominee has come when considering nominations, and the information is also present in Template:Cabinet of Donald Trump. Given that Tanden was born in Massachusetts, I think it's a fair assumption to make about her. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:10, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Hm, is there any legal relevance to the state the person is from, or does the Senate just mention it in formal appellations (as in, "The nomination of Ms. Tanden, of Massachusetts, for OMB director …")? Seems kind of archaic (not to mention uninformative) for us to include—a relic of bygone days when people rarely moved and states of origin were very important. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Legal relevance? Not really (to my knowledge). Blinken's 2014 nomination (and all other nominations bar military ones I think) basically follow the format you said. As an aside, it does matter for President and Vice President. Under the Twelfth's Habitation Clause, states are forbidden from voting for candidates that both belong to the same state as them. This led to Dick Cheney having to move back to Wyoming from Texas, as George W. Bush was Governor of Texas (not sure I explained it that well). Sdrqaz (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Any more takers on this one? Obviously not very important, but I think it's silly to have states in the table. Plus, what's the criterion? Where they were born? Where they've lived for most of their life? Where they currently live? Where they've held elected office? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:18, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that we would need uniform criteria for the states. Jennifer Granholm, for example, was born in Vancouver and lives in Oakland, CA (according to her Twitter account), but the table says "from Michigan" which is the state where she held elected office. Neera Tanden, on the other hand, was born in MA and according to her Twitter lives in DC. Yet here we use "from Massachusetts" in the table, and she has held no office there. If Senate hearings specify the nominee's state, I'd say it would be a better idea to leave out the states from the table until the hearings begin in late January. Otherwise this is just WP:OR. NO MORE HEROES    &#9880; TALK  19:38, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I would also like to add that home states have historically been very important when selecting a cabinet, as the president would typically make geographic diversity a priority within their cabinet, and so selecting cabinet members from a variety of states was sought out. Now I think the problem here though is that people are assuming what state an individual comes from based on speculation. Unless the information is obvious (ie., Marcia Fudge was born in Ohio, represents Ohio in Congress, and legally must have a residence in Ohio), we don't necessarily know what state is being reported to the Senate for each nominee. I definitely do not think states should be left out entirely, but there needs to be some sort of method we use to determine what state each individual is being reported as being from. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 20:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * IMHO, I would include states as reported by the Senate (and nothing until then) or if they are currently serving in an elected position (i.e. Haaland). TJMSmith (talk) 21:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If the states are to be removed, I would advocate keeping Delaware and California for Biden and Harris, as there is an actual constitutional consequence to that. If not, I think it's reasonable to keep the states for those who have held elected office (New Mexico for Haaland, Iowa for Vilsack etc) and leave the states blank for those who have not until Senate hearings begin. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:22, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended Edit & Contributions to the Page
Hi, I would love to contribute to this page but it's got an extended edit on it. I have a past of working on Wikia pages which are extremely similar to this. I was an Administrator for to Wikia TV shows until I had to resign due to medical problems. There are just small things here and there that I would like to contribute to and assist the Senior Editor or Administrator of this page. I would appreciate a more detailed response regarding why you are blocking people from editing, especially when it is very simple and easy for you - the Administrator - to undo edits/contributions.

Thank you so much. Cheers! Eric Spaich — Preceding unsigned comment added by EJSpaich (talk • contribs) 07:06, 31 December 2020 (UTC)


 * , Wikia and Wikipedia are very different. Experience there does not equate to experience here and there are no designated administrators or senior editors assigned to pages. If you want to make edits to this page, make an edit request.
 * To my knowledge, it isn't possible to create an exception to allow one editor to edit an extended-confirmed protected page if they don't already have that right. If you wish to request for the page's protection level to be reduced, you need to ask the administrators responsible for the changes (they can be found here). Failing that, go to WP:RFUP to make your request. To ask for the extended-confirmed right, go to WP:RFP/EC to make that request. However, it states there that "Unless you are requesting confirmation for a legitimate alternate account your request will almost certainly be denied."
 * For why pages are given extended-confirmed protection, please go to WP:BLUELOCK. Just because other editors can revert changes by disruptive editors does not mean that all pages should be unprotected. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

EngvarB ?
Hi, I have question. This article is written in American English, which is obiviously have a different spelling than British/Commonwealth counterparts (color instead colour, center instead centre, program instead programme, traveled instead travelled, etc). But in the article the page has tagged (EngvarB/date=November 2020), which give an impression that this article should be written according to Queen English conventions apart from of course ize which is also acceptable in the British Commonwealth thought it is rarely used than ise. Why not tagged it as "EngvarA" in the article, which have a similar matter as (Use American English) (ex. EngvarA/date=December 2020) ? 182.1.233.124 (talk) 08:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That appears to be a mistake (at least I cannot see why that would have been added). I have changed it to the American English template. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 January 2021
I would like to help out by adding information about what committees cabinet members and cabinet-level officials go before to receive senate confirmation; specifically the DNI (Avril Haines), the Trade Representative (Katherine Tai), the Director of the CIA (TBA), Administrator of the EPA (Michael S. Regan), Director of OMB (Neera Tanden), the US Ambassador to the UN (Linda Thomas-Greenfield) and the Chair of the CEA (Cecilia Rouse).

I would greatly appreciate your consideration into letting me assist you with this page. Cheers!

~ Eric J. Spaich EJSpaich (talk) 08:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you.
 * , did you read my previous response or other editors' responses at Talk:Kamala Harris? I think everything that has to be said has been adequately covered. Sdrqaz (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Official pictures?
I noticed that Miguel Cardona (Biden's pick for Secretary of Education) and Michael S. Regan (Biden's pick for Administrator of the EPA) do not have pictures in their panels. Is this because they do not have official government portraits? Masterofpresidents (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I believe that they do have official state government portraits, but those aren't freely available for Wikipedia use. Their photos were nominated for deletion due to copyright violation, I think. Presumably if they get confirmed, they'll have an official (federal) government portrait that we'll be allowed to use. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I nominated both of those for deletion on Commons. See commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Miguel A Cardona.jpg and commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Micheal-regan(cropped).jpg. The one of Regan has already been deleted. Basically: US federal government portraits, made by a government employee, are in the public domain, but state-level laws differ. Since both Cardona and Regan are currently state-level officials, in CT and NC respectively, their portraits are not clearly in the public domain. If/when Cardona and Regan are confirmed, an official portrait will be available then. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yup, what AP said! Sdrqaz (talk) 03:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, ! Masterofpresidents (talk) 14:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Criticism in 'Diversity' section
The criticism seems incongruous with the rest of the page: the page has avoided political analysis like the plague and should, in my opinion, continue to do so. In trying to address WP:NPOV concerns, it seems to have inadvertently made them worse. It is exclusively criticism and may be a violation of WP:UNDUE.

Sdrqaz (talk) 17:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I see that the pie charts have been removed since the last time I visited this page. I do think it has become a POV problem now. With the pie charts, at least we had some objective measures of diversity. Now, we merely have the Biden promise of the "most diverse cabinet ever" and the complaints on supposed lack of diversity, attributed to "some" people, which I agree is UNDUE. This is a problem that would probably be best fixed with WP:TNT (just the section) or complete removal. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm conflicted about this. On the one hand, the topic of diversity in the Biden cabinet is notable, but any amount of coverage about it in wikivoice runs into immediate problems. There were the graphs (now removed), which I objected to on WP:OR grounds, and now we have WP:NPOV concerns. I would also add that the sourcing in the diversity section is quite weak at present. In my view, probably the best solution is to rewrite completely, using only secondary news coverage (and not the opinion pieces currently cited), or else entirely cut. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:56, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd advocate either removing the section completely or just keeping Biden's promise. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Somewhat boldly removed. I think some discussion of diversity probably belongs in this article, but we quickly reached consensus that the section was best redone wholesale. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I will admit to being the person who initially created the diversity section that is being debated. As such, I do believe it warrants inclusion on this page. It may have been created imperfectly, but given the high-profile media attention that this topic has received as well as the promises for barrier-breaking individuals, it seems to merit encyclopedic inclusion. In my opinion, the pie charts provided an objective measurement, as noted above, though I acknowledge that their creation may have been imperfect. I appreciate all the efforts of the other editors here to continue to strive for excellence on this page and I would suggest that we reinstate the diversity section to some extent, with of course appropriate citing of news sources, reflecting the promises for diversity, as well as an objective measurement of that success. For anyone wondering, I have no personal opinion regarding whether or not Joe Biden's cabinet is diverse enough, but I think it important that this encyclopedia factually notes how this topic is being addressed in our current socio-political climate. I look forward to seeing whatever we are all collectively able to come up with.HITcards (talk) 05:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Some potential sources follow. Although, as I've looked through these, it's hard for me to figure what we'd say neutrally except: "Biden has said he wants to build a diverse cabinet. Some people think he hasn't done enough." I'm almost inclined just to let the list of nominees speak for itself and let people judge for themselves what they say about diversity/Biden's priorities. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 05:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I wholly agree that the facts and the nominees' diversity should speak for itself. That had been my intention with the pie charts, ill-implemented as that may have come out in the end.HITcards (talk) 06:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * To be honest,, I didn't take issue with the section: I had taken issue with this edit that purported to help with the NPOV issues but made them worse. , I'm in favour of just keeping the commitment made by Biden and nothing else. Placing criticism by others for a lack of diversity will just invite critiques that it isn't NPOV and there will be calls to put in information praising Biden's choices and I don't really want that to happen. However, I expect that following the announcement of all of Biden's choices, there will be coverage on the number of women, ethnic minorities etc that will allow for the reinstatement of the pie charts without it being WP:SYNTH. Sdrqaz (talk) 12:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Totally understand what you mean regarding the inevitable issue of further critiques and counterarguing. I agree that hopefully once all nominees are announced, factual independent coverage will provide all the information we need to avoid any speculation on our part. Thanks.HITcards (talk) 21:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I wholly agree that the facts and the nominees' diversity should speak for itself. That had been my intention with the pie charts, ill-implemented as that may have come out in the end.HITcards (talk) 06:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * To be honest,, I didn't take issue with the section: I had taken issue with this edit that purported to help with the NPOV issues but made them worse. , I'm in favour of just keeping the commitment made by Biden and nothing else. Placing criticism by others for a lack of diversity will just invite critiques that it isn't NPOV and there will be calls to put in information praising Biden's choices and I don't really want that to happen. However, I expect that following the announcement of all of Biden's choices, there will be coverage on the number of women, ethnic minorities etc that will allow for the reinstatement of the pie charts without it being WP:SYNTH. Sdrqaz (talk) 12:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Totally understand what you mean regarding the inevitable issue of further critiques and counterarguing. I agree that hopefully once all nominees are announced, factual independent coverage will provide all the information we need to avoid any speculation on our part. Thanks.HITcards (talk) 21:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * To be honest,, I didn't take issue with the section: I had taken issue with this edit that purported to help with the NPOV issues but made them worse. , I'm in favour of just keeping the commitment made by Biden and nothing else. Placing criticism by others for a lack of diversity will just invite critiques that it isn't NPOV and there will be calls to put in information praising Biden's choices and I don't really want that to happen. However, I expect that following the announcement of all of Biden's choices, there will be coverage on the number of women, ethnic minorities etc that will allow for the reinstatement of the pie charts without it being WP:SYNTH. Sdrqaz (talk) 12:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Totally understand what you mean regarding the inevitable issue of further critiques and counterarguing. I agree that hopefully once all nominees are announced, factual independent coverage will provide all the information we need to avoid any speculation on our part. Thanks.HITcards (talk) 21:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Biden has appointed ZERO muslim american in his administration and this is a discrimination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.173.140.48 (talk) 12:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Remove CIA Director from cabinet-level (?)
Joe Biden has announced that his cabinet is complete (https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1348351402624524288?s=20) which implies he's demoting CIA Director from a cabinet-level position. I haven't seen official sources make this connection though so I guess that's WP:OR but just a heads-up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSummoningDark (talk • contribs) 22:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * It's possible, but Biden may just have been referring to full Cabinet members (Secretary of State, Secretary of Agriculture et al) rather than Cabinet-rank individuals. We'll wait for the transition to make that clear. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 January 2021
For Eric Lander's Template on the Cabinet of Joe Biden, the table is blue but he doesnt need senate consent so it should be grey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phillypaboy123 (talk • contribs) 04:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * . The post requires senate confirmation. From Office of Science and Technology Policy: "Kelvin Droegemeier, an atmospheric scientist who previously served as the vice president of research at the University of Oklahoma, was nominated for the position on August 1, 2018[6] and confirmed by the Senate on January 2, 2019." 101090ABC (talk) 12:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

UN Ambassador
It's under the "newly advanced to cabinet level" when it shouldn't be. The UN Ambassador is cabinet level in under Trump. Sneakycrown (talk) 05:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)


 * While the Permanent Representative was Cabinet-level when Nikki Haley was in office, it was subsequently demoted upon her departure at the end of 2018. Sdrqaz (talk) 10:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

"Former" but incumbent officeholders
For the nominees that were holding office when their nominations were announced but had to resign due to assuming their "new" offices, should they be listed as being "former office" or just "office"? To give an example, Kamala Harris resigned from the Senate today and her title was subsequently amended to "former senator". Comparable cases would include Harris herself, Garland, Haaland, Raimondo, Walsh, Becerra, Fudge, Cardona et al. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Senate Votes that haven't happened yet
So far, the only Senate confirmation vote has been for Avril Haines (as of 22 January 2021). All other lists of how senators voted are correctly filled with "TBD" on the table. Yet on Walsh's votes for Sec. of Labor, Thom Tillis, Sheldon Whitehouse, Tim Scott, and Bill Hagerty already have results. Does anyone know why this is so? Even if those Senators have already announced previous support or object or otherwise, the vote hasn't been made (or even scheduled for that matter), so there shouldn't be anything other than "TBD" as nothing official has occurred for his confirmation.Negrong502 (talk) 14:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ — not sure why they were there, but I have removed them. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 17:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Dr-miguel-cardona.png (discussion)
 * Miguel Cardona (cropped).png (discussion)

Kerry
Where are we getting Kerry being in Cabinet? Nothing indicates that on the official annoucement, which makes an explicit point to say Linda Thomas-Greenfield is elevated to Cabinet; it only says he joins the NSC. We don't say Jake Sullivan is in Cabinet based off of this, so why did people get the sense Kerry is? Politico says today, "Former Sen. JOHN KERRY, Biden’s climate envoy, isn’t considered part of his Cabinet." Therequiembellishere (talk) 02:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The New York Times, CNN, the BBC, Roll Call, and New York magazine. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , he's not listed on the White House's Cabinet page. I think this was a result of publications getting info from Wikipedia tbqh. Therequiembellishere (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * With respect,, you can't be serious. The idea that four sources listed as "general reliable" at WP:RSPSOURCES get their information from Wikipedia... is questionable. What's more likely is something changed down the line or there was a miscommunication by the transition. Sdrqaz (talk) 19:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Nor is Bill Burns as CIA director, fyi. Therequiembellishere (talk) 19:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Burns was removed on 13 January and the issue is moot. Sdrqaz (talk) 19:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , yeah, with respect, it happens a lot. The point is that presently, Kerry is not listed on the now official White House page listing the members of the Cabinet. With that, I'm removing him. Therequiembellishere (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The Roll Call source states that they were told that by the transition. While it's not been tested formally at WP:RSPSOURCES, I think it's generally considered quite a good source on the minute details of federal government. I think it's far more likely that either those five sources misinterpreted what was said by the transition or something changed down the line, than that they got their information from Wikipedia. Those sources aren't some teenager's blog: they do their due diligence. Sdrqaz (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

If it has been agreed that it was mistakenly listed as a cabinet level position, then we should probably remove the climate envoys "cabinet level" label on its page. Negrong502 (talk) 14:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

CNN reports in their current tally of cabinet confirmations that Kerry will be included/that climate envoy will be a cabinet position. So it seems it is still up in the air Voncken1996 (talk) 13:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Upon confirmation or swearing in.
So... we aren't gonna wait until confirmed cabinet members are sworn in, before we declare them in position? GoodDay (talk) 23:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I removed the light blue background as that denotes that the nominee has yet to be confirmed by the Senate, which does not apply anymore to Yellen. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 23:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Just wondering, as there's usually a mini-dispute at the bios of these individuals, in between confirmation & swearing in. GoodDay (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , for what it's worth, I don't think the individuals should be listed as having taken office until they've been sworn in, but I don't want to start one of the above mentioned mini-disputes myself. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 00:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this is a major issue worth addressing. I wasn't aware of these edit wars so I had already updated now-Secretary Austin's template, but we ought to review this and discuss it further. Dlez (talk) 00:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * My understanding of the matter is that nominees have to be given their commissions by the president and have to be sworn in first before they can assume office. A (long) CRS report states [o]nce the appointee is given the commission and sworn in, he or she has full authority to carry out the responsibilities of the office. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, but how do we communicate this to everyone without more edit warring? Dlez (talk) 01:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's impossible, sorry. Even if all the pages were put under extended confirmed protection, there will be extended confirmed editors who won't (and refuse to) understand that. I'd say it's a futile endeavour. GoodDay and I tried to prevent people changing Kamala Harris's page on the day of her resignation but before it came into effect. It's just not worth the trouble! I try every time, but I come dangerously close to violating 3RR. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In agreement with Sdrqaz. Stopping the premature edits to those bios, would likely be like spitting water up the Niagara Falls. GoodDay (talk) 01:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Could we perhaps at least change the "assumed office" date to when she is sworn in? Or will that get reverted quickly as well? PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 01:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure. GoodDay (talk) 01:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

are there any confirmed cabinet members who have not yet assumed office?
Are there any confirmed cabinet members who have yet to assume office — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.164.37 (talk) 11:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Not to my knowledge. All of them so far have been sworn in. Sdrqaz (talk) 13:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Mishap in background color of Table
Hello, I wanted to let you know that in the table Cabinet_of_Joe_Biden the background color of Janet Yellen differs from the background color of other persons who have already assumed office (see: Cabinet members table for Blinken & Austin and Cabinet-level officials table for Haines who have the default table background color). Yellen has also assumed office but has the different background color. Someone please fix it. CX Zoom (talk) 14:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Doesn't that result in the same colour? Sdrqaz (talk) 15:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Actually No.
 * White is the colour.
 * The wikitables like the one used for Cabinet_of_Joe_Biden uses and  as default colors, as is mentioned here  (the link contains the required highlighted part of the Article Help:Table) CX Zoom (talk) 16:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * ✅, though I can barely tell the difference myself! Sdrqaz (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * ha ha, thanks. Cheers! CX Zoom (talk) 17:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Neera Tanden Cabinet (cropped).jpg

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 January 2021
Mayorkas is from California, not D.C. Please fix that. BazingaFountain42 (talk) 14:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)


 * , . He is listed as being from DC in his nomination. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Oh ok then nevermind. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BazingaFountain42 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

2 February 2021 Confirmations: Buttigieg
The Senate has voted to confirm Pete Puttigieg as the next Secretary of Transportation, 86-13. Below is how each Senator voted, as witnessed on the Senate roll call livestream on Senate.gov Baldwin - Aye Barrasso - Aye Bennet - Aye Blackburn - Nay Blumenthal - Aye Blunt - Aye Booker - Aye Boozman - Aye Braun - Aye Brown - Aye Burr - Aye Cantwell - Aye Capito - Aye Cardin - Aye Carper - Aye Casey - Aye Cassidy - Nay Collins - Aye Coons - Aye Cornyn - Aye Cortez Masto - Aye Cotton - Nay Cramer - Aye Crapo - Aye Cruz - Nay Daines - Aye Duckworth - Aye Durbin - Aye Ernst - Aye Feinstein - Aye Fischer - Aye Gillibrand - Aye Graham - Aye Grassley - Aye Hagerty - Nay Hassan - Aye Hawley - Nay Heinrich - Aye Hickenlooper - Aye Hirono - Aye Hoeven - Aye Hyde-Smith - Aye Inhofe - Aye Johnson - Aye Kaine - Aye Kelly - Aye Kennedy - Aye King - Aye Klobuchar - Aye Lankford - Nay Leahy - Aye Lee - Aye Lujan - Aye Lummis - Aye Manchin - Aye Markey - Aye Marshall - Nay McConnell - Aye Menendez - Aye Merkley - Aye Moran - Aye Murkowski - Aye Murphy - Aye Murray - Aye Ossoff - Aye Padilla - Aye Paul - Aye Peters - Aye Portman - Aye Reed - Aye Risch - Aye Romney - Aye Rosen - Aye Rounds - Aye Rubio - Nay Sanders - Aye Sasse - Aye Schatz - Aye Schumer - Aye Scott, Florida - Nay Scott, South Carolina - Nay Shaheen - Aye Shelby - Nay Sinema - Aye Smith - Aye Stabenow - Aye Sullivan - Aye Tester - Aye Thune - Aye Tillis - Aye Toomey - Not Voting Tuberville - Nay Van Hollen - Aye Warner - Aye Warnock - Aye Warren - Aye Whitehouse - Aye Wicker - Aye Wyden - Aye Young - Aye Negrong502 (talk) 18:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * ✅, . Sdrqaz (talk) 19:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

No vote vs Nay vote
In the Senate confirmation section it lists Yes, Nay, and No Vote by each Senator. While I know the difference between a “no vote” and a “nay,” could it be confusing to others? Should we change “No Vote” to “Did not vote” or is this a technical parliamentary procedure term? If we can’t change it, perhaps we could clarify it? Thoughts? -TenorTwelve (talk) 20:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm personally fine with the status quo due to use of italics, (colour may not be accessible to everyone). Given that a template is being used, it may be a good idea to ask at Template talk:Biden confirmations. Sdrqaz (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

edit request
I accidentally found this nifty article —> and I thought I should de-lurk because you don't have any "actings" listed and that's all Trump had.

Central Intelligence Agency, David Cohen Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Dave Uejio U.S. Department of Agriculture, Kevin Shea Department of Commerce, Wynn Coggins Department of Defense, David Norquist Department of Education, Phil Rosenfelt Department of Energy, David Huizenga Department of Health and Human Services, Norris Cochran Department of Homeland Security, David Pekoske Department of Housing and Urban Development, Matt Ammonn Department of Interior, Scott de la Vega Department of Justice, Monty Wilkinson Department of Labor, Al Stewart Department of State, Dan Smith Department of Transportation, Lana Hurdle Department of Treasury, Andy Baukol Department of Veterans Affairs, Dat Tran Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Lora Shiao Environmental Protection Agency, Jane Nishida General Services Administration, Katy Kale National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Steve Jurczyk National Endowment for the Arts, Ann Eilers National Endowment for the Humanities, Adam Wolfson Office of Management and Budget, Rob Fairweather Office of National Drug Control Policy, Regina LaBelle Office of Personnel Management, Kathy McGettigan Peace Corps, Carol Spahn Small Business Administration, Tami Perriello Social Security Administration, Andrew Saul U.S. Agency for Global Media, Kelu Chao U.S. Agency for International Development, Gloria Steele U.S. International Development Finance Corporation, Dev Jagadesan U.S. Mission to the United Nations, Rich Mills Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, Maria Pagan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:5400:C00:49E8:6D05:D198:161D (talk) 13:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * It's certainly an interesting idea, but I'm leaning against it because Trump did not seem intent on nominating permanent (or "full") replacements. This is different from Biden, who's nominated people for every Cabinet role. If anyone else disagrees feel free to add them in. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Mitch,some may remain until March. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.94.56.76 (talk) 19:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)