Talk:Patrick M. Shanahan

Deputy Defense Secretary Nominee Confirmation Hearing
Patrick Shanahan testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on his nomination to be deputy defense secretary. Committee Chair Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)

Ukraine arming with lethal weapos of particular note and a section should be considered.--Wikipietime (talk) 12:45, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

https://www.c-span.org/video/?430212-1/senator-mccain-criticizes-deputy-defense-secretary-nominee-confirmation-hearing

Age
This article says he's 46, not 56. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/patrick-shanahan-trump-new-defense-secretary-pick Terrorist96 (talk) 22:50, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Brother Ray was born in 1966, and Patrick is supposed to be the oldest of them. Gah4 (talk) 01:30, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Birthplace
The GeekWire source cited to say that Shanahan was born in Aberdeen, Wash. has walked back that detail as the author admitted he used Wikipedia as his source. Here's what source now says: "Also, we originally wrote that Shanahan was born in Aberdeen, Wash. — but that detail has been called into question, so we’re stepping back from that level of specificity until we can verify Shanahan’s birthplace with the Department of Defense."

Many other articles are now appearing on the Internet, but they all appear to be taking their information from the Wikipedia article or from the GeekWire article. In light of this development, unless and until a reliable source for his birth place can be determined, I believe the birth place should be removed from this article. &mdash; Archer1234 (talk) 18:15, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, there's a Patrick M. Shanahan who is listed in genealogical and birth records as being born in Santa Clara County, Calif., on the listed birthdate for our Patrick M. Shanahan. Mother's maiden name is listed as "David," which could be Jo-Ann (David) Shanahan, our Patrick's mother. The evidence may not be iron-clad enough to merit a change, but just wanted to let folks know that there may be a question about Patrick Shanahan's status as a Washington state native. If you have access to Ancestry.com, here's the source: Ancestry.com California birth index --Alaboyle (talk) 20:43, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Acting
There is no reason to phase out Acting, if anything it should be the other way around and we phase out putting Acting at the beginning of Secretary of etc. Over the past few days I have made edits that include Acting. I will continue to make edits to existing articles and future articles with this format. I will not adhere to your arbitrary and frankly asinine census. We don't refer to Shanahan as acting sec of defense at Political appointments by Donald Trump, we have a color to indicate that. As such it's not necessary for these type of articles. Stay consistent. You either change the color palette for infobox officeholder to gold for acting appointments and eliminate Acting all together, or you do it the way I suggest. Blakebs (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * We don't do small in infoboxes. Drmies (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * According to who? Blakebs (talk) 17:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Us. Consensus. I can go look for that consensus but I have better things to do right now, sorry. Drmies (talk) 18:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * We’ve been using MOS:ACCESS as the guideline. “Avoid using smaller font sizes in elements that already use a smaller font size, such as infoboxes, navboxes, and reference sections. In no case should the resulting font size drop below 85%...” The text in the infoboxes are already at 85%, we don’t need it any smaller for the visually impaired.
 * As for the “acting” piece, media sources (aka secondary and tertiary sources) use the word before the job title, I’ll be glad to provide sources if needed. Since we operate on common usage (common name), Acting goes before then. The coloring at political appointments is just for that page. Corky  18:36, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Pic
There is no need for more than one profile pic, the infobox is adequate and does not need to be repeated in the page. Bangabandhu (talk) 18:44, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Current role
In a section heading, it identifies him as Deputy Secretary of Defense to the current time, as well as acting Secretary. The infobox says he ceased being deputy on Jan 2, 2019. Does he hold both roles or not? --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:20, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not sure. Shanahan may have has ceased being DEPSECDEF when he became Acting SECDEF.  The Pentagon says this about Shanahan:
 * "Patrick M. Shanahan became the Acting Secretary of Defense on January 1, 2019. Prior to this assignment, he served as the 33rd Deputy Secretary of Defense, appointed on July 19, 2017."


 * This implies he is no longer DEPSECDEF. However, note that David Norquist is not identified by the Pentagon as "Acting" DEPSECDEF, nor has the President or the White House made any communication to indicate that he is Acting DEPSECDEF. Norquist is, instead, listed by the Pentagon as "Performing the Duties of" DEPSECDEF and still remains the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and Chief Financial Officer.  It may be that the DEPSECDEF position is, officially and formally, vacant (which could by why Norquist is not "acting" but only "performing the duties of" DEPSECDEF).  I don't know how to resolve this or properly reflect it on the articles for Shanahan, Nordquist, or DEPSECDEF.
 * &mdash; Archer1234 (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's the same thing. He is in an acting position. At least three military media sites are using "Acting..." –  . And they use it repeatedly too . I've reverted back until a consensus can be gained.  Corky  23:34, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Successor as SecDef
Shanahan resigned as acting SecDef and was succeeded by Mark Esper as acting SecDef on June 24, 2019. By law, Esper could not be acting SecDef when his name was formally submitted to the Senate to be the permanent SecDef on July 15, 2019, so Richard V. Spencer became acting SecDef. When Esper was confirmed by the Senate on July 23, 2019 and was sworn in, he became the 27th SecDef. So the succession went from Mattis (26th) -> Shanahan (acting) -> Esper (acting) -> Spencer (acting) -> Esper (27th). One editor seems bound and determined to remove the "acting" part from Esper as the successor to Shanahan as SecDef. This is laid out also at United States Secretary of Defense. I invite other editors to offer their views on whether "(acting)" should follow Esper's name as Shanahan's successor as SecDef. – Archer1234 (talk) 02:05, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Shanhan (acting) SecDef was succeeded by Mark Esper as SecDef, as laid out above succession went from Mattis (26th) -> Shanahan (acting) -> Esper (acting) -> Spencer (acting) -> Esper (27th). Thus Shanhan (acting) was succeeded by Spencer (acting) and by Esper at SecDef because Esper was never acting SecDef. Boul22435 —Preceding undated comment added 04:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)