Talk:List of Trump administration dismissals and resignations/Archive 1

Wrong title
Surely this title is incorrect? It's not a list of "Donald Trump dismissals and resignations", which would mean - what? Occasions when Donald Trump had been dismissed or resigned? Dismissals and resignations from his household, or his business? This is actually a list of "Trump administration dismissals and resignations" and that's how it should be titled. Can we get consensus here for a move? --MelanieN (talk) 16:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Pinging Comments about the name? --MelanieN (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support "Trump administration dismissals and resignations". -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 20:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * And of course I meant to say "List of..." --MelanieN (talk) 20:49, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support — As the new page reviewer who reviewed this page, I agree with 's suggestion. I would suggest something like '', no prejudice towards any other suggestion, though. Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 20:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - I went on the basis of the title of this article: List of short-tenure Donald Trump political appointments. Dcfc1988 (talk) 18:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Which should probably be merged into here, but that's another discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 23:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to move it to List of Trump administration dismissals and resignations. SshibumXZ, your suggestion would also work, but I think something beginning "List of Trump..." (there are several such articles already) is probably more likely to bring people to the article than "List of dismissals..." (no articles). We also need some good redirects. --MelanieN (talk) 23:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * no problem. Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 12:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Days in office
It looks as if we are going to have to do Original Research on this since most sources do not give the number of days unless it is unusually short. Of the current listees, Input? --MelanieN (talk) 23:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Tillerson: The article says 405 days. I get 396 (1 year + 1 31-day month).
 * McMaster: The article says x days. I get 404 (8 + 31 + 9 + 365).
 * Shulkin: The article says x days. I get 407 (14 + 365 + 28).
 * Since no-one has objected I have gone ahead and put these numbers in. --MelanieN (talk) 14:45, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Redirected to main page
I have redirected this page to the section for past administration officials at Political appointments by Donald Trump page. There was a RFC that took place from November 21st to December 30th, 2017 last year (see this link) that !voted to not have a separate page for this. Eventually everyone in the administration will resign making no point in having this article. Corky 16:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, you gave me no choice but to nominate it for deletion. Corky  16:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Incomplete list
if we keep the page we should add more people who have resigned or been fired  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.55.48.195 (talk) 17:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Josh Pitcock
I don't see Josh Pitcock on this list.

Josh Pitcock is an American political operative who served as chief of staff to Mike Pence, the Vice President of the United States, from January 2017 to July 2017. Pitcock has also been Assistant to the President. He was a member of Donald Trump's presidential transition team.

So if he was on the transition team, then shuffled to Pence's staff, it's not a departure from the Trump administration?


 * Pence to Replace His Chief of Staff

Mr. Pitcock's departure, scheduled for August, is voluntary. He has worked for Mr. Pence for 12 years, including running the Indiana governor’s Washington office. Mr. Pence had asked Mr. Pitcock to stay on through the transition and then for the first months in the White House, but he had not planned on staying beyond the summer, people close to Mr. Pitcock said.

Or do we just count this as a scheduled departure?

I think the article lead should make the criteria clear, otherwise the reader can't distinguish an editorial principle from an omission (nor can the next reader after that, etc., forever). &mdash; MaxEnt 23:56, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

'Error' when trying to edit
A clean edit and edit process was unsuccessful on this page; tried several times, leaving page & returning et c. To Taylor Weyeneth's entry, 'typo; post at HUD': title= Trumps Drug Policy Deputy Chief of Staff to Step Down |accessdate= April 25, 2018 |author=Robert O’Harrow or the Washington Post}} Hired by HUD, March 2018, in opioid policy; said in January he was "unfairly criticized". Swliv (talk) 17:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I just made the change. The error was that the URL you wanted to use is on a blacklist. I just swapped it out for the direct URL. Cheers, -- irn (talk) 17:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I forgot. Thanks. Swliv (talk) 18:34, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Bowman
Thomas bowman announced he would retire on 15th june, and now he seems to have retired, he needs to be added Norschweden (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Value of page
It's hard to keep track with this administration, which is the main value of this page, IMO. Mentally, I'm mapping this onto "List of Trump administration departures" (which would also include expired fixed-term appointments). There are many compilations on the Internet, but few are consistent or complete (or routinely updated). I prefer to obtain basic information here. But it only works if the page is fairly inclusive, so that I can pinpoint the tenure of any member of the disappeared.

Another ambiguity concerns people who are punted, then rehired. I feel that any departure with an unknown duration at the time belongs here, even if a person returns to active service (it's possible Trump would take Hope Hicks back, if she had a change of heart). &mdash; MaxEnt 00:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting a title tweak or broader scope? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This page is absolutely nothing but a partisan smear with zero value; there isn't a single other page like this for any other President. If this is such a valuable page any of you would have been working on pages for previous administrations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigeratm (talk • contribs) 17:22, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no page like this for any other American president because Trump's administration is record-setting in this regard; Trump has seen more dismissals and resignations than any other American administration in history. This article is very well-sourced, and the references sufficiently discuss and explain the notability of Trump's incredibly high staff turnover rate. I'd suggest you briefly look over them, if you have the time. GhostOfNoMeme (talk) 14:59, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Serious BLP violations
Employment termination is a negative and sometimes contentious issue and per WP:BLPSOURCES every person on this list must have a cite to a RS. And the redlinks should be deleted as not notable. Unless someone wants to cure the BLP violations I'll have to blank the page. – Lionel(talk) 06:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Rather than being "a negative and sometimes contentious issue", many would argue that having one's employment terminated by Trump is almost a badge of honour. Blanking the page would not be a sensible thing to do. HiLo48 (talk) 07:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I hope you're just being contrarian. In any event BLP policy is clear: it requires the removal of potentially contentious material and there are no exceptions and WP:3RR does not apply. And a reasonable person would consider a list of people who were fired as potentially contentious. Blanking is the most expedient way to comply with BLP. – Lionel(talk) 09:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I stand by my comment. Many of those sacked by Trump would be pleased to have it publicised. It really is hardly a negative. HiLo48 (talk) 10:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)


 * If you did want to, restoring this version would solve most of the problems; seems to have added most of the unsourced/redlinked entries Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:34, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Urgent Request page blanking
I request blanking of this page per WP:BLPSOURCES based on the following: --– Lionel(talk) 06:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Employment termination is viewed by the vast majority of people as a contentious or negative issue
 * 2) The list names several living persons who do not have citations
 * 3) The list names several living persons who do not have citations and no article on Wikipedia (redlink)


 * It is valid to remove unsourced material from articles, but not valid to remove it because you don't like it, which is how I read your first point. HiLo48 (talk) 08:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No DONTLIKE here. Point 1 is the foundation for 2 and 3, not a rationale in and of itself. – Lionel(talk) 08:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Not an admin issue but a content issue. Problematic content (lacking sources or similar) can be removed by anyone, either per WP:BOLD or, if there is disagreement, after discussion. Regards SoWhy 09:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not as easy as that. The entries that are clear BLP violations are nested inside of tables and in between entries that are compliant. To remove all of the numerous BLP vios is going to take a huge amount of work to avoid breaking the intricate wikitable code. Meanwhile the BLP vios remain. Better for an admin to blank the page. – Lionel(talk) 09:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Not a content issue. BLP violations, like COPYVIO, are policy issues and fall under purview of admins. – Lionel(talk) 09:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If an entry does not have a footnoted citation or if the linked article does not have sources verifying the dismissal or resignation, it should be removed. It's not that hard to remove table rows or, you know, add sources. You can't blank an entire article because some of the content is unsourced.- MrX 🖋 12:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * What MrX said. If you find the code to complicated, use the VisualEditor which allows easy removal of rows. But again, blanking a page is neither required nor allowed if there are easier ways to fix the problem. Still, it does not make it an administrative issue because administrative access is not required to do it. That was the whole point. The page is not protected against editing by non-admins, so any editor could do it. Regards SoWhy 14:37, 18 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support per OP request. -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 13:06, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - An article filled with misleading and unsourced entries. I have twice tried to remove Ronald Vitiello from the list, because Vitiello never "resigned"; he left one job in the Trump Administration to accept another job in the Trump Administration.  My edit was reverted by two editors who argued "well, he must have resigned from one of them!" This sort of sloppy reasoning does little to assist Wikipedia's readers. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:44, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose The solution is not to blank the page. It is to delete the entries that have no source. In effect you all are saying to delete the article because it contains some unsourced material. That is not one of our deletion criteria. --MelanieN (talk) 19:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC) Or better yet - simply add a source. In the case of blue-linked names, a source tends to be readily available. I have started adding sources; I encourage others to do the same. --MelanieN (talk) 19:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Why are the administrator and editors dutifully curating this page while doing nothing in regards to previous administrations firings? Nixon dismissed people investigating him, Bill Clinton dropped his FBI director right after getting in and Obama had heads of the DIA,CIA among many other high profile dismissals. Everyone knows this is just a partisan page of zero value with zero context because none of you bother to do provide it. This smear job needs to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigeratm (talk • contribs) 16:28, 5 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't think editors should remove material absolutely and invariably just because it has no specific citation. They should remove material 1) if it seems to them suspect, 2) and they have not been able to verify it after attempting to, 3) and they can reasonably suppose that removing it will be uncontroversial. If they sense it will be controversial, they should first try to achieve consensus on the talk page. If there are disproportionately few citations on the page in general, then the editor can place a banner on the page requesting and encouraging citations.
 * The idea that the page should be entirely blanked because not every single bit of information it contains includes a citation strikes me as patently absurd.
 * The reason there is not an analogous Wikipedia article for past administrations is that the rate of firings, resignations, and reassignments is unprecedentedly high in the Trump administration, which obviously is not to suggest no one ever left any previous administration. As for Nixon dismissing "people investigating him", this is well-covered in the Wikipedia "Saturday night massacre" article. This Wikipedia article is not in any way I can see biased; it is merely factual. Truth is not bias. TheScotch (talk) 12:51, 16 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose This article is well-sourced, and articles cannot and should not be blanked merely because certain content is unsourced; challenge and remove unsourced content if need be, but there is no need to blank the entire article. Particular comments on this page, especially those of Tigeratm are quite clearly DONTLIKE and thus should be ignored. GhostOfNoMeme (talk) 15:24, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Promotions listed as resignations
While technically a person resigns a post when being promoted, it seems a bit odd to list people that have moved from one position to a higher one on a page of dismissals and resignations. Notably Sarah Sanders and Kirstjen Nielsen and John H. Gibson. There may be a few others. The lede discusses the turnover in the Administration as being notable and I agree it is. Promoting from within isn't quite the same thing. I suggest that folks who are currently in the Administration in a position, particularly a higher one than the one they left to accept it, should not be included in this list. I think a reasonable person coming here to look at who has left the Administration would find it odd to see current Cabinet and Press Secretaries who have been promoted from other positions to those, listed. Phil (talk) 15:32, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. It should be dismissals and resignations from the Trump administration. If they're still within the administration, they don't belong in the list. -- irn (talk) 16:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * For now, including promotions gives a fuller picture of the volatility in an office (e.g. ICE Director) or a person's career (e.g. John Kelly). Some of them should be removed eventually. For example, if Gina Haspel remains CIA Director till the end of the Trump administration, there's no reason to document that she was promoted from Deputy Director. Jarnon (talk) 01:11, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Kelley Eckels Currie
There have been several revisions to the notes. The latest, by 96.36.68.29, says: "Left the UN's Economic and Social Council And was soon nominated to be the next Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women's Issues and Representative to the UN Commission on the Status of Women[177] on March 8, 2019." This is almost correct, but not quite, since the Commission on the Status of Women is actually a division of the Economic and Social Council. (Can you believe it?) I suggest: "Soon after leaving this post, she was nominated to be the next Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women's Issues and Representative to the UN Commission on the Status of Women[177]." Jarnon (talk) 01:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)