Talk:Chad Wolf

Chad Wolf's current position as it applies to opening statement.
Since recent events have changed his positions: The opening statement needs to reflect his current position; not previous first while burying current. I suggest the following to discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:AD80:40:472:8966:8379:FF2F:85D5 (talk) 08:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Chad Fredrick Wolf (born 1976) is an American government official who is the Under Secretary of Homeland Security for Strategy, Policy, and Plans since 2019. He was named the acting United States secretary of homeland security in November 2019 but, the appointment was ruled unlawful in November 2020, he later submitted his resignation as acting secretary, but not as under secretary, on January 11, 2021.[4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:AD80:40:472:8966:8379:FF2F:85D5 (talk) 08:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I prefer the current version since DHS secretary is the more important of the two positions, by far. The lead doesn't need to be unduly focused on his current position. Regardless, the currently-used text has been established by the above RfC, and a new one would therefore be needed to change it. ― Tartan357  Talk 11:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The close on the RfC specifically says "this consensus apply only so long as Wolf occupies, or claims to occupy, the office of Acting Secretary", so it no longer has any effect. That being said, the opening sentence is worded so that it's still accurate after stepping down: it's still true that he "was named the acting United States secretary of homeland security in November 2019" and "His appointment was ruled unlawful in November 2020."  Given that he'll no longer be Under Secreatary in about a week, I don't think the wording of the lead sentence needs to be changed.  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 21:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Surely it still has persuasive effect, even if it's not "binding"? It's consensus language on how to describe a perplexing fact. While these needn't be the first two sentences anymore, necessarily, they should still stay as consensus language. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , that close says: In my opinion, it seems to be the non-explicit intent of the commenters in this AfC that this consensus apply only so long as Wolf occupies, or claims to occupy, the office of Acting Secretary. You're omitting some pretty important context there. I agree with that it is still consensus text even if we decide it no longer needs to be the first two sentences. ―  Tartan357  Talk 01:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

You can honestly say that the current first sentence can be used in a school paper? an opening statement that needs 5 more sentences and a nest of commas to explain? We have a jumbled piece of garbage first paragraph, that is unintuitively confusing as to what his job title is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.179.168.81 (talk) 09:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That's because his legal situation is very complex. You can't ignore that reality just to end up with better flow. This is an encyclopedia entry, not an essay. ― Tartan357  Talk 18:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a website dedicated to providing current and concise clarity. The "current" beginning paragraph might be well written in 50 years as a biography. But, Currently, anyone who supports it, supports putting confusing history first while burying the top changes of today. I agree with the above that, "We have a jumbled piece of garbage first paragraph, that is unintuitively confusing as to what his job title is." Current first; unless you like sentence spaghetti that causes muddy information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:AD80:40:472:8966:8379:FF2F:85D5 (talk) 18:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No, this is an encyclopedia. If you have a better, encyclopedic way to phrase the lead sentence, please propose it. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Read the first post in this section... I DID. Similar to Michael Jordan's page ... In an encyclopedic order. Current information first... and history in the history. Do you support clarity or soup sandwich sentences built on ego-over-information? I am new here and don't know what or how to create a formal Request for Comment, though you will create a biased one as I probably would - being against garbage..., will you or admin Tartan357 create one please. You both have, know how, and see that a new purple box RfC whatever that is, is being asked for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:AD80:40:472:8966:8379:FF2F:85D5 (talk) 19:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I see no reason for a new RfC, and I prefer the current text. I think the most notable or important position should go first, and that's clearly the fact that he purported to be acting secretary for about a year. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

AleatoryPonderings you agree to change it to "was purported to be acting"? ... illegal acting... unlawfully acting... you agree with our own words that how it stands is not accurate and changes needs to be made. I ask again for Tartan357 who knows how to make an RfC, knowing that a member of this community is asking for one, to make one cause I don't know what or how and don't want to mess it up causing issues that happened with the last one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:AD80:40:472:8966:8379:FF2F:85D5 (talk) 20:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm opposed to anything that says "was porported to to be acting" "illegally acting" or "unlawfully acting". We settled on the current wording after an RFC, and that consensus still stands. The closer's additional comments about their opinion are not binding and carry no more weight than anyone else's opinion on the matter. I think the comments in the RFC about having the change the wording were more about changing the tense to reflect when he leaves office, and also (in the case of my own comments), changing the wording in the long term if additional rulings are made about the lawfulness of his position. Presumably there are or will be other challenges to his policies on the grounds that they were made by an illegally-appointed Secretary, or the next administration will issue additional some legal guidance on the issue. Also, though you certainly can open a new RFC, we just had one less than a month ago. Rehashing this same issue so soon would be a complete waste of time. In any case, the situation where Chad Wolf is serving as Under Secretary but not as Acting Secretary will last just a couple weeks. A few months from now, this brief period after he resigned as Acting Secretary but before he resigned from the department entirely will be a brief blip in his career. At that point, the highest position he served in, unlawfully appointed or not, should again take precedence as the most notable thing about his political career. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC) EDIT: after reading the complaints in more detail, I think I understand better. Everything in the lead is true, but its arrangement is not ideal under the current circumstances (it'd be best for his current position to come first rather than his previous position, even if that position was higher). Like I said above, this isn't a huge problem since the current situation will last for only a couple weeks, but I'd support just rearranging the sentences along the lines of the edit the IP has been making for the time being. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Red Rock Canyon I can agree to all of that. Even though AleatoryPonderings knowing it is fact the first statement should include "purported to be acting secretary" and several courts agree... we should wait for something else maybe. I still vote for putting the third sentence (undersecretary) first to create clarity without diminishing previous positions, and not adding anything to previous positions until Further proof is shown that it is needed. To put the anonymous above in my own words, "We need 5 more sentences and a nest of commas just to figure out what the first sentence is saying." and to me that is a failure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:AD80:40:472:8966:8379:FF2F:85D5 (talk) 23:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Revised proposal
Hopefully this can be handled by local consensus. Here is a proposed new first graf of the lede. It keeps the consensus language from the RfC, with some necessary modifications in context. I don't think it's that much better than the existing text, but am not opposed to including this text instead. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * That looks perfect. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I also like that line up. Much easier to understand who he is now and who he has been without deciphering. I would add in who named him after the second "2019". Similar to the other official U.S. Cabinet members. With that added it is Beautiful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:ad80:40:472:8966:8379:ff2f:85d5 (talk) 23:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. ― Tartan357  Talk 00:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ^^what does this mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:AD80:40:472:8966:8379:FF2F:85D5 (talk) 00:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It means that I support this action based on the reasoning put forth by the nominator. Please indent and sign your talk page comments. See WP:THREAD for help. ― Tartan357  Talk 00:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Wolf's appointment as Under Secretary is of little consequence, as he was concurrently de facto Acting Secretary for all but the last week or so of that appointment. It should not be listed before the Acting Secretary position.  This is a different situation than, say Pete Gaynor, who has been serving as FEMA Administator for nearly two years and is Acting Secretary for about a week; in that case it is appropriate for the Acting Secretary position to be mentioned second.  In addition, the current version is worded so that it will remain accurate even after Wolf's Under Secretary term ends, without needing to be changed.  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 00:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per . ― Tartan357  Talk 00:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support This change adds clarity to current information while also creating a mention to the persons history if addition of who nominated him is added. In the future when, and If, he has no more political positions conversation can begin again on what the world knows him for most.Golgaltha (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * He'll have no political position on Jan. 20, which is a week from now. I don't think it's wise to have to restart this discussion on that time frame.  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 03:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * avoiding future discussion is not a reason to decide if there is merit in this one. Golgaltha (talk) 03:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 *  Support I think his family separation policy that led to genocide investigations is most important and should be the first sentence... but I'll settle for this change167.179.168.81 (talk) 05:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 *  Support I would like to amend my support to include his part in genocide investigations as most important and deserving to be first sentence, with any positions held having secondary import to genocidal influence.Golgaltha (talk) 01:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

It appears that has entered three !votes in this discussion (one logged out, two with their own signature), which I would like to point out is not acceptable. ― Tartan357  Talk 22:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I think this proposal is now moot, since the situation it was designed to address no longer exists. Also, putting references to genocide in the first sentence would be violate WP:BLP in general, and specifically go against MOS:OPENPARABIO, which describes what should be in the first paragraph of biographic articles. His role in the family separation policy is mentioned in the third paragraph of the lead with other notable aspects of his time in government. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 18:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , agreed, this discussion is now moot. These bizarre "genocide" comments are trending in a WP:FORUM direction, and I think this discussion should be closed. ― Tartan357  Talk 23:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * this system and random set of :~< rules is not user friendly. please just use common sense that the last support of mine is probly the one to count. This talk has been open over two times longer than the last one.. when does it close?2605:AD80:40:472:993E:3AAE:A0BB:969A (talk) 23:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Heritage
What is Wolf's ethnic heritage? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 20:16, 21 August 2022 (UTC)