Talk:List of U.S. executive branch czars/Archive 2

Please do not remove citations
See Citing sources

Wikipedia is by its very nature a work by people with widely different knowledge and skills. The reader needs to be assured that the material within it is reliable. The purpose of citing sources is:

Since per each fact presented by an article must be concretely verifiable, at the editor's discretion it is possible and appropriate to include as many proper and correct citations as desired to affirm the statements made. However citation is only required as specified in the following list of circumstances. And whether a citation is added in a required context or at an editor's discretion it must be accurate and should comply with the rules set forth in this guideline.
 * To ensure that the content of articles can be checked by any reader or editor.
 * To show that your edit is not original research and to reduce editorial disputes.
 * To avoid claims of plagiarism and copying.
 * To help users find additional information on the topic.
 * To ensure that material about living persons complies with biography policy.
 * To improve the credibility of Wikipedia.

When adding material that is challenged or likely to be challenged WP:CITE Main article: Verifiability Wikipedia:Verifiability says: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation."

The need for citations is especially important when writing about opinions held on a particular issue. Avoid weasel words where possible, such as, "Some people say ..." Instead, make your writing verifiable: find a specific person or group who holds that opinion and give a citation to a reputable publication in which they express that opinion. Remember that Wikipedia is not a place for expressing your own opinions or for original research. Opinions, data and statistics, and statements based on someone's scientific work should be cited and attributed to their authors in the text.

JNKISH: If you remove citations:  It is simply setting up each verified entry for future deletion. At a minimum, each czar should have a citation per the criteria for inclusion. There are numerous "lists of czars" floating around on the internet. It is our citing of sources that puts our Wikipedia content on a level above a common politically-motivated internet list. Jnkish (talk) 18:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Response re: Citations
I agree there are some unreliable sources on the czar issue, and that citations are needed. But I wonder how many are needed for one set of facts? Let's look at the entry for Green Jobs czar, as it reads now. If you were to turn it into a sentence, would you write:

In March 2009 [47], President Barack Obama [47]  appointed [47] Van Jones [47] as his green jobs czar [47], more formally known as special adviser for green jobs, enterprise and innovation [47].

Or would you write:

In March 2009, President Barack Obama appointed Van Jones as his green jobs czar, more formally known as special adviser for green jobs, enterprise and innovation [47].

Giving one citation instead of six to the same source in the same sentence is not "removing the citation" -- it is just cleaning up, removing redundancies. At least, that is my view of it. However, since you have expressed a strong opinion on this, I won't do any more clean up of repetitive citations.

I think you might want to consider, however, whether 20 citations to a 420 word article  are really necessary? Please see what is now reference 16.^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t FOXNews.com "Questions Raised Over Influence of Obama 'Czars'"

Again, I know what you are saying about challenges to unsourced material, etc, and I know you have worked a lot on this article. I mean no offense by my remarks. I will leave your cites as is, and I will consider other ways to contribute to this article.

Regards W E Hill (talk) 00:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Reasoning for citation(s) in every cell

 * Each cell is its own entity- each requiring its own verifiable research.
 * Each cell in each row needs to be tied together through cited research in order to complete each row.
 * A citation for each cell in each row quickly indicates that the research for the specific row is complete.
 * A complete row indicates that the research for a specific czar is complete with each piece of information (each cell) quickly verifiable by future readers/researchers through citations.

I will add some example rows below in order to further illustrate the logic: Jnkish (talk) 07:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is an example of two "completed and verified rows": At a glance, a reader can tell that the research for these two rows is complete and can quickly observe and navigate to the origin of each specific piece of information through the citations.

Yes, in reference to the two rows above, you could write the following:

In 2009, President Barack Obama appointed Nancy Killefer as his Performance Czar, more formally known as United States Chief Performance Officer and deputy director for management at the Office of Management and Budget and then after her withdrawl, he appointed Jeffrey Zients to this position.[1][2][3].

However, to me, it is more valueable to look at and break down each specific cell individually as follows:
 * Czar Title: The term Performance Czar was used by source [1] and not by source [2] or [3].
 * Official Title: United States Chief Performance Officer and deputy director for management at the Office of Management and Budget is linked to the Czar Title "Performance Czar" by source [1]. This official title is linked to Nancy Killefer by source [1], Jeffrey Zients through source [2] and Barack Obama through both sources [1] and [2].
 * Office Holder: Nancy Killefer is linked to the Czar Title, Official Title and Barack Obama through source [1].  Jeffrey Zients is linked to the Official Title and Barack Obama through source [2].  Jeffrey Zients is not linked directly to the "Performance Czar" title by any of the cited sources.  Currently he is only linked to the Official Title and Barack Obama-  Has any citable source referred to Jeffrey Zients as the "Performance Czar"?- More research could be of value here.
 * Tenure: The beginning of Nancy Killefer's term is attributable to source [1], the end of her term is attributable to and explained by source [3].
 * Nature of Position: Senate Confirmed through source [2].  Don't try to look at source [1] or [3] for this information- it is not there.
 * Appointing Administration: Barack Obama is linked to the previous cells through source [1] and [2].

The example above should explain the informational value of adding sources to each specific cell. In doing so, much more information is conveyed to the reader in an efficient manner. Jnkish (talk) 09:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Now, using the individual cell approach, let's look at the following row:

The reader can not tell at a glance which of the cells are complete and which cells need more research. Now, change the row to this:

Using the individual cell approach, both the completed cells and the cells needing additional research are clearly identified.

Yes, it takes more work to do it this way. However, the work- as illustrated above, clearly adds value. Jnkish (talk) 09:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Now, compare our well cited Wikipedia list to some of the other uncited internet czar lists (based primarily on politics) and you will quickly see the difference.

Glen Beck's list: http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/29391/ He has a lot of czars on there... But where are his sources? For example, who has called Lynn Rosenthal a "Domestic Violence Czar" in the media, besides Beck? It is hard to find a verifiable source (per wikipedia policy- see: Reliable sources) for the Domestic Violence Czar position on the internet.

Thoughts? Jnkish (talk) 09:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Multiple Cites Per Cell
In addition to the reasoning above, I would not object to (and it would be within wikipedia guidelines) to add more than one cite to the same piece of information within each cell. Why? I have noticed that within the last 3 weeks at least 2 of our cited sources have disappeared from the internet. One was an NPR article and one was a posting by the Government on one of their web sites. I guess it is best practice to use an archive site such as www.webcite.com in order to prevent "dead links". Another method would be to use multiple (redundant) citations.

Which is better? Thoughts? Jnkish (talk) 10:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Alex Jones infowars is not a reliable source
So I deleted the entry for "swine flu czar." Before I did that though, I read the article www.prisonplanet.com/governments-swine-flu-czar-to-become-abc-medical-reporter.html] --it also alleges a conspiracy between the Obama administration and ABC News based on several "facts" in the article about Dr. that aren't exactly true.

Here is a quote from a companion piece posted on Jones' site.


 * Swine Flu Fearmongering a Mass Psy-op? . . .They are certainly preparing for something big, considering the internment camps, the government-sponsored propaganda and general fearmongering. . .Nazis really did infiltrate all levels of American society following World War II and their eugenics programs are still being implemented today. That is what we apparently are witnessing with this wicked cocktail being injected into America’s children, among others.

WP:RS: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative"

If you do have a reliable source, please post it here at least one day before adding it back to the table. -- W E Hill (talk) 19:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Swine Czar
fair enough on the deletion... I looked for quite a while and couldn't find any more sources, it looks like infowars / prison planet was the only publication to use the term Swine Flu Czar.

Jnkish (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Cleaning up
Clean up is needed because the table is cluttered with as many as 6 citations per czar to the exact same source.

In this instance, I am talking about repeated citations to the same source in the same table row. Redundant citations to the same source for the same set of facts provide no benefit; they have nothing to do with verifiability. The first reference is the verification, the repeated references in the same row to the same source are clutter. The clutter has the table difficult to read, difficult to check, difficult to edit, and slow to load. WP:TUT. Repeating a citation numerous times also gives it undue weight, WP:UNDUE in violation of WP:NPOV.

I will be grouping the cites next to the office holder's name. This will give internal consistency to the table, WP:MOS, as the cites are presently scattered inconsistently over each row, and it will simplify reference checking. Further, after my revision each source will be weighted appropriately by being used only once per "czar". All references will be preserved in this clean up.

Here is an example of before and after:

BEFORE Cleanup

AFTER Cleanup

Multiple citation sources under the same reference number
W E Hill: I haven't seen citations done like this before. Wikipedia is set up to handle cites automatically with the name function and the auto generated letters (abcde...). Why did you choose to change the cites into this format? Can you show me other pages that do it this way? Are you breaking new ground? It seems like this format makes the reference list longer and redundant Jnkish (talk) 23:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you asked these questions - it makes it easier for me to clarify the changes I made to the citation form.


 * The references are now grouped together footnote style. Footnoting is one of several accepted ways to present citations to reliable sources. WP:FOOTNOTE


 * The footnoting style has reduced the number of notes from approx 180 to approx 130. It is easy to edit - editors can simply look for the official's name - then all they have to do is add or delete a cite between the ref tags next to the official's name.


 * More importantly, the footnote style makes the table and the references easier to read. There is just one reciprocal hyperlink per czar. Clicking on the number next to an official's name takes the reader to the note which contains all the citations for that particular czarship. Readers don't have to go through the tedious procedure of hitting the back arrow on their browser to return to the list in order find the next reference - the sources for each czar are all there in one place.


 * I agree, some references are included on the list several times. That is because the letter subscripts cannot be generated when the footnoting system is used. However, the disadvantage of  repeating some citations more than once is outweighed by the advantages of reducing the total number of notes from 180 to 130 and the fact that it is now much simplier to access all the citations for any particular czar.--Regards W E Hill (talk) 09:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There is at least one more advantage to repeating the citations rather than using the ref name=xxx tags with the slash on the end to generate multiple references. Although that method reduces the initial work of entering the references, it can make future editing more problematic. If a future editor removes the first, complete reference, then the rest of the references are empty. As you may know, it can be a real headache to find and restore them. Please see Cite.php

--W E Hill (talk) 09:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that the proper style for footnotes is (1 footnote points to 1 source). I read the footnote page WP:FOOTNOTE and did not see any explanation or examples of using footnotes in the (1 footnote pointing to multiple sources) fashion. Please point me to the specific section of WP:FOOTNOTE and/or another wikipedia page that explains or approves (1 footnote pointing to multiple sources). Then I will then be educated and drop the issue. There are pro's and con's to both approaches. Personally, I think that it would be cleaner simply to use the standard footnote style- with the "name" function and place all of the footnotes in a separate column on the right. Right in front of the "cites checked" column. Plain and simple, I want this page to be the best on Wikipedia and don't want to get tripped up by a citation style issue. Jnkish (talk) 10:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems there were questions from your note of Sep 3 that you feel I did not answer to your satisfaction. The first was, was I "breaking new ground" and the second was, could I show you "other pages that do it this way?" The answers are: no, I am not breaking new ground, and yes, there are other pages. Please see the  reference section of the Jane Austen article which is given as an example of good style in WP:FOOTNOTE. The Austen article has 132 numbered references with most containing more than one citation.  Here are some examples:


 * 4^ Litz, 3-14; Grundy, "Jane Austen and Literary Traditions", The Cambridge Companion to Jane Austen, 192-93; Waldron, "Critical Responses, Early", Jane Austen in Context, p. 83, 89-90; Duffy, "Criticism, 1814-1870", The Jane Austen Companion, 93-94.


 * 27.^ Le Faye, "Chronology", 2-3; Grundy, "Jane Austen and Literary Traditions", 190-91; Tomalin, 28-29, 33-43, 66-67; Honan, 31-34; Lascelles, 7-8. Irene Collins believes that Austen "used some of the same school books as the boys" her father tutored. Collins, 42.


 * 95 ^ Southam, "Scott in the Quarterly Review", Vol. 1, 58; Waldron, "Critical Responses, Early", Jane Austen in Context, 86; Duffy, "Criticism, 1814-1870", The Jane Austen Companion, 94-96.


 * 130 Tomalin, Appendix I, 283-84; see also Upfal A (2005). http://mh.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/31/1/3 "Jane Austen’s lifelong health problems and final illness: New evidence points to a fatal Hodgkin’s disease and excludes the widely accepted Addison's". J Med Ethics Med Humanities 31: 3–11. doi:10.1136/jmh.2004.000193. http://mh.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/31/1/3.


 * The Barack Obama article is another example of an article which has footnotes which contain multiple citations.


 * Finally multiple cites can be given in individual footnotes per manuals of style and it is frequenly done in academic articles. Not only is this an established, accepted practice, but this method seem to works well with the wikicode -- simple for the editor, easier for the reader.


 * I will re-read your note later today, and respond more fully if necessary. But for now, I wish to make it clear that I strongly disagree with your proposal for reformatting.

Best regards W E Hill (talk) 11:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the education, your patience and your contributions. As promised- issue dropped. Jnkish (talk) 20:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)