Talk:Political appointments by Donald Trump/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Political appointments by Donald Trump. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Ordering the political positions

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

@Blakebs: I see that you have been reordering the placement of the various political positions in the various departments ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]). Please explain why this reorganization is necessary/desirable? --1990'sguy (talk) 22:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Reordered according to the organizational chart at the Department of State article; officials who report DIRECTLY to the Secretary go below, legal counsel and everything besides the Under Secretaries or the Assistant Secretaries go right below them. Its self explanatory, every other section of the article does this, not sure why you have to ask. --Blakebs (talk) 06:36 PM CST, October 12, 2017

I was just curious, because you did not give any explanations in your edit summaries. However, I was asking for all the departments in which you did this for, not just the State Department. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Should we add the Emblem of the United Nations logo

Latest comment: 7 years ago8 comments7 people in discussion

It's been less than two weeks since this RfC was opened, but because of the plain non-viability of the IP proposal, I'm going to take the step to close it under a WP:SNOW rationale--not so much because the !votes are completely one-sided, and certain to continue to be, but because the proposal itself was made with zero policy rationale and would clearly lead to the addition of misleading information. We could easily cite to WP:V or WP:NPOV on this, and they would apply, but the truth of the matter is that the proposed changes would be such plain misrepresentations, they go to an even plainer standard of naked WP:OR. Nevertheless, because of the procedural irregularity of closing a discussion so early, anyone (though ideally an uninvolved party) should feel free to reverse the closure if they they have a policy-consistent rationale to put forth that defeats the SNOW presumption I am working from.Snow ^{let's rap} 21:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question: Should we add the Emblem of the United Nations logo to the United Nations jobs that are apart of the State Department?96.36.68.29 (talk) 21:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Options:

Support adding the Emblem of the United Nations logo
Oppose adding the Emblem of the United Nations logo

Comments

Support inclusion - I think we should put the Emblem of the United Nations to the United Nations staff that are part of the State Department here are the following jobs

Jay Patrick Murray - Alternate Representative to the United Nations Carlos Trujillo - Representative to the United Nations General Assembly Kelley Eckels Currie - Representative to the United Nations Economic and Social Council Nikki Haley - Ambassador to the United Nations Becuse this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Emblem_of_the_United_Nations.svg is the simble of the United Nations I know they are State Department Jobs if any one want to support me on this or not go a head.96.36.68.29 (talk) 21:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion: Per the reason I stated in the discussion above. These nominees are State Department employees in State Department positions. They don't work for the UN, and these are not UN positions. This is the U.S. government sending its own representatives to the UN. Placing the UN logo here rather than the State Department logo would be analogous to placing the EU logo next to Brexit Secretary Davis's name because he represents the UK at the EU. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose – The government officials listed above work for the United States Department of State, not the United Nations. Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 20:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose, and As clearly explained. These folks work for the United States Mission to the United Nations, not for the UN itself. The US Mission doesn't have its own seal, so we use the State Department's. Straightforward stuff. It would be nonsensical to use the UN flag. I would support snow closure of this RfC. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose per above. Neutrality^talk 02:08, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose per everyone else, these are not UN employees. Support snow closure of this RfC. Pincrete (talk) 22:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Elaine Duke link bolded

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Why is Elaine Duke bolded? I can't figure out where the three ''' are or a coding error where it would bold her name... Can anyone else figure this out? She shouldn't be bolded. Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 03:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

It had to do with how her entry was coded. It began with "!" rather than "|" and that causes bolding. I've fixed it. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 22:30, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, LacrimosaDiesIlla, appreciate it. I couldn't figure it out save the life of me! Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 01:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Term Start

Latest comment: 7 years ago17 comments4 people in discussion

I think the column labeled "Term Start" has a pretty serious problem, which is that for Senate-confirmed appointees it lists (at least in many cases) the date they were confirmed which is not necessarily the date when they took office (which is obviously what "Term Start" implies it should be telling us). I think we need to correct the dates throughout to actual "term start" dates (which would make the Senate-confirmed appointees consistent with the non-Senate confirmed ones). With regard to the confirmation dates, I think we have three options: (1) just drop them, (2) add them to the parenthetical that gives the confirmation vote, or (3) create a new column in the table called "Confirmation" that would go before the "Term Start" column which would include confirmation date and vote for Senate-confirmed appointees, and would say something like "No Senate Confirmation Needed" for the non-confirmed positions or "Served in an Acting Capacity without Senate Confirmation" for those in an acting capacity, etc. Personally, I prefer the third option, and I like the second option the least. Thoughts? LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

@Marquardtika: I raised a similar issue to the one you are concerned about on the United States Attorneys appointed by Donald Trump page over here back in August (at which point in time, US Attorneys were still included on this page), and as you can see no one wanted to talk about it. Is it time to have a broader discussion? LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 21:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for pinging me. I hadn't noticed this earlier discussion. Yes, I think a broader discussion would be helpful. I agree we should change the date in the "Term start" column to the date the term actually started (so not the confirmation date). I think option #1 or #2 would work for listing confirmation dates--either dropping them all together or putting them in parenthetically with the confirmation vote. Marquardtika (talk) 21:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

So are you opposed to adding a new column for information about the confirmation process which could include progress of a nomination (a favorite pastime of those who run this page), the final Senate vote, and the date of confirmation? LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 22:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not totally opposed, but it seems overly complicated compared to the other options that you outlined in your original post. I think attempting to track the progress of nominations on this page is, in general, not a good idea. More columns means more updating needing, which in all reality means more things that will be inaccurate and out-of-date on this page. Marquardtika (talk) 22:12, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Do you think there's any chance of actually getting editors to drop tracking progress of nominations on this page? I would very much like to see that as a result, but I'm afraid there's just not going to be any stopping them. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 22:37, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd also like to see that, but I agree it could be difficult to enforce. If I had the energy I'd start an RFC...Marquardtika (talk) 03:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. Would that enable to us create community consensus for a policy which would then be enforceable? It could also be applied to other pages (like the US Attorneys page). Does it need to be here or somewhere else as part of one of the larger projects that this article is tied up to? How do we go about it? LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 12:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I too didn't see the discussion on the other page, but I favor option 2, but also lean towards option 1. I definitely oppose option 3 as I don't believe we need another column. I think too much information will start to be confusing. I would personally like to see the column changed to Assumed office so readers know when they actually assumed the office they hold, and then put the confirmation in parenthesis with the vote number. An example:

October 2, 2017

(Confirmed 9/25/2017, 51–49 Voice vote)

Hope that makes sense. Either way, we're going to have to go through and do a lot of editing on the page. Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 18:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Corky, and think the "Assumed office" column would make a lot of sense. As for your previous question, LacrimosaDiesIlla, I've never created an RFC before, but I think we would need to create one for this page. Once we got consensus here, we could apply the same logic to other pages with similar issues. I'm thinking this page has many more eyes on it than the other pages that this change would be applicable to, so it makes sense to centralize the discussion here. Alternatively, we could just boldly make the changes now. The three people here seem to broadly agree...do we know who, if anyone, has contested such a change in the past? Marquardtika (talk) 18:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

If we change "Term start" to "Assumed office" then I think we have to change "Term end" to "Left office" (or similar). I am fine with option 1 or option 2, and I don't think we need to build any more consensus to be bold on that point. The thing I think we would need to run an RfC for so that we could have an enforceable policy would be stopping the practice of tracking the nominations, which we're honestly just not equipped properly to do here and it's not really encyclopedic anyway to just include a (possibly inaccurate or outdated) snapshot of the progress of nominations. This article should add people once they're nominated by the President (or maybe when they're announced) and then update when they've been confirmed and when they take office at most. Anything beyond that is what the WaPo tracker is for. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 01:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I am good with the "left office", too, and don't think we need a consensus for it (since only a handful of us actually edit the page). I do agree that we need an RFC so that we stop the nonsense. It is just too much work and let's be honest... who is actually going to come to this page to see where a nominee is at for confirmation? Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 01:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I've never created an RFC before, but I'm going to (attempt) to do so now. Will ping you both for feedback before it goes live. In the mean time, I agree that we can boldly make the other changes discussed above, if one or both of you wants to get started on that (or maybe it doesn't make sense to do that yet until we have the results of the RFC...) Marquardtika (talk) 16:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I think the two things are fairly separate. One is just changing the labels in columns to be clearer and then working on cleaning up the information in them in a way which should already have happened anyway. This is not directly connected to the issue that we've discussed raising in an RfC and I'm pretty sure RfC's are supposed to be limited to sort of one clear issue anyway. Good luck! LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 16:26, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

What do you guys thing about removing "(Acting)" from the tables as well? Those persons are already have a gold background which is labeled at the top of the article as "acting", so it is kind of redundant to say a person is "acting". Thoughts? Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 21:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan: I oppose removing because when the appointee ends his or her term, they are shaded gray, like every other appointee (Stephen Vaughn, for example). The "acting" designation is necessary then. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Good point, I didn't think about that! Let's forget I even asked the question lol Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 15:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Analysis - Schedule

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The discussion of the schedule stops in February. A look at the Senate schedule [6] indicates that there are nominations going back to June that have not been voted on. It would be interesting to readers to see some analysis of whether the delays are the result of Senate inaction or administration preference. I count 101 on the list as of today. Rhadow (talk) 16:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Piping

Latest comment: 7 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

User:Corkythehornetfan and User:Zbase4, I see that you both disagree on whether to pipe the links to various nominees. Zbase4, please explain why they should be piped, since I don't see why it's necessary and I didn't get your edit summary explanation. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The only piping that should be done (at least in my opinion) is if an article is a disambiguation (i.e. Ryan McCarthy (U.S. Army)). Other than that, no nicknames should be used as in Zbase's change for Patrick M. Shanahan (changed to Pat Shanahan). Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 22:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I was wondering about this too. I don't see the value of piping unless, as in the Ryan McCarthy example above, it is needed for disambiguation. Our article titles presumably conform to WP:COMMONNAME, so I don't see why we shouldn't do the same when listing these people here. Marquardtika (talk) 23:39, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I like to use piping when there is a middle initial so that a name is more concise and more in line with the name that media outlets use in news reports. For example, The Seattle Times refers to him as Pat Shanahan rather than Patrick M. Shananan in this article announcing his nomination in March. Patrick M. Shanahan is the full name, however the common name used by media outlets is largely Pat Shanahan or Patrick Shanahan rather than Patrick M. Shanahan, which includes his full name and middle initial. I believe that piping and removing the middle initial is according to WP:COMMONNAME, as in one of the examples mentioned there it states to use the more concise Bill Clinton rather than the full name William Jefferson Clinton. Zbase4 (talk) 00:46, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Then the articles need moved (by RMs) if they have a different common name than what they currently are. If they're not moved, we should be using the current article names. I'm still not in favor of piping the names unless they need disambiguated. Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 01:27, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I would be in favor of moving the articles then, I don't think there would be much opposition to doing so. Zbase4 (talk) 02:29, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree -- the articles linked in this article should not be piped (unless it's a disambiguated link), and those articles need COMMONNAME titles. Patrick M. Shanahan is one that should probably be moved. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:46, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

It sounds like the solution is to move page names in instances where they aren't reflective of WP:COMMONNAME. Sounds like that will solve the need for most piping on this page. As for Patrick Shanahan, there is already a page with that title (Patrick Shanahan) so that's probably why Patrick M. Shanahan got the middle initial upon page creation. Looks like he's sometimes referred to as Pat, and sometimes as Patrick. His official DOD bio uses Patrick. Anyway, probably a conversation for that page's talk page. Marquardtika (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

If we are moving them, please make sure they have enough sources to prove the new article name is the common name. Otherwise y'all will have a huge mess on your hands and will make it more work for you guys. Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 20:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

New Pages

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi everyone There have been talks about alot of New Pages for Acting officials, US Marshals, Ambassadors, and Military. Like we did for the United States Attorneys and the federal judges. If any one would like you try to Start work on Some of these's pages that will be great. We can't keep adding every office in the Goverment to this Page So if anyone wants to comment on this go a head. 96.36.68.29 (talk) 02:16, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Washington Post

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi everyone as some of you know the Washington Post Does not have some of the People Confirmed by Senate yet and Some do like https://www.congress.gov/nomination/115th-congress/831 https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-administration-appointee-tracker/database/ I think we should Use both Washington Post and the Congress one and if some one can add the congress one that will be great. Thanks96.36.68.29 (talk) 18:24, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

People who have either resigned or been fired in the Trump admin

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Since these people are listed BELOW as having resigned anyway, should they continue to be listed on the main department tables? We could clear up a LOT of space in the Executive Office of the President. - Blakebs (talk) 10:33PM November 12, 2017 (CST)

That what I was talking about when I made new section called New pages. Like the People listed below and all of the Acting People from January 20th tile today. And A page for the US Marshals, Ambassadors, and Military. Like we did for the United States Attorneys and the federal judges. If you would like to start makeing some that will be great.96.36.68.29 (talk) 17:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think secretaries need to be removed whether they've been fired or not. It makes it look like they were never the secretary and could be misleading. I do favor that the Exec. Office of the President be removed and any withdrawn nominations. Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 19:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello Blakebs -- I respectfully disagree. The Executive of the President is all appointed posts. The top spots are, arguably, as powerful as Cabinet posts. There is a risk of NPOV problems, but the list might be trimmed of the Sub Assistant Deputy of Paperclips. I don't see that as a problem today. Leave it the way it is. Rhadow (talk) 19:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

So, what will we do after President Trump's tenure as president ends? If we have a separate article for former appointments that have since resigned, we would logically move every appointee here to there after 2021 or 2025 (or delete the other article), assuming all these appointees resign. Because of this, it makes more sense to eep everybody in this article, regardless of whether they are currently serving or not. Eventually, nobody Trump appointed will be serving. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:44, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Separate pages

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I think we are getting a little carried away with separate pages. It's hard enough to update this one let alone ten other appointment pages. Let's stop making separate pages, discuss the sections that should/should not be moved, and then move them. Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 03:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree. The user who created these pages should at least consult with us first. It's not just his wiki. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Request for comment on tracking progress of nominations

Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

The consensus is against the proposal.
Cunard (talk) 00:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should this page actively track the status of presidential nominations currently pending before the U.S. Senate in between the time that the nominees are announced and the time that nominees are confirmed? Currently, the "Term start" column often includes parenthetical remarks about the status of the nomination (for example, "Awaiting Senate action," "Reported out favorably," "Referred to committee") along with the date on which the last reported action occurred for nominees who have not yet been confirmed by the Senate. Marquardtika (talk) 18:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Survey

Oppose: Per WP:NOTNEWS. We should not be attempting to document, on a day-by-day basis, rapidly changing and evolving status updates on hundreds of nominations. It's not encyclopedic, and moreover, it's really hard to get right, meaning the article as currently conceived of often has numerous inaccuracies in it. Documenting the date of nomination and the date of confirmation is enough. There's no compelling reason to attempt to track the interim progress of nominations, and the interim status updates become moot anyway once a nominee is confirmed. Marquardtika (talk) 19:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose: Agree with Marquardtika above. Tracking the stages of each nomination is not encyclopedic, and it's not something we're equipped to do accurately and keep up to date, especially with as many nominations as there are. It also leads us into a trap of recentism in a bad way. People interested in the detailed progress of pending nominations can consult the Senate's websites or professional tracking like that done by WaPo, which we reference. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose per above. Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 20:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Weak oppose: While it is nice to know the progress of each nominee -- how many hurdles they've gotten past -- it is a lot of work keeping up with it, especially considering how many nominees are pending in the Senate. If we can't update the progress of the nominations (besides the actual confirmation vote), we should not include the progress. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:43, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose -- Marquardtika is right. It's too much work. We're not a newspaper. Rhadow (talk) 15:16, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose -- Marquardtika is right And Why is it under Term start some of the Ambassadors did not start that day like Kay Bailey Hutchison She started on August 28, 2017 not August 3, 2017 And All the White House Staff Started on the 21st not the 20th. And John F. Kelly Did not Start on the 20th also He Started on like the 25th or 26th And here is the video of the staff https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TS98E_2JOc Thank you.96.36.68.29 (talk) 19:27, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: Acting officials

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

The consensus is against creating a new page for acting officials.
Cunard (talk) 00:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question: Should we make a new page for the Acting officials Under Trump?96.36.68.29 (talk) 03:47, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

This RfC will be open for One Month

Options:

Support Makeing a page for Acting officials
Oppose Makeing a page for Acting officials

Comments

Oppose – no good reason to move them to another page. It's hard enough to update this page, we don't a thousand more pages for different officials. Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 03:59, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Support – I Support becuse there's Ron Jarmin,Richard Baum,Stephen Vaughn,Sean Spicer,Robert S. Karem,Anthony Kurta,Eric Hargan,Elaine Duke,Ron Vitiello,Thomas Homan,Carla Provost,David Kautter,Sally Yates,Dana Boente and even more. So that's why I Support this.96.36.68.29 (talk) 04:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Oppose - Acting appointees are largely holdovers from previous administrations and weren't appointed by Trump as well as they are only in their position for a limited time and are not confirmed by the Senate, unlike more permanent political appointees. Zbase4 (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose: Most acting appointees are not political appointments. They hold the acting position they hold just because their superior resigned for whatever reason and they happened the next person in the chain of command. The acting appointees that are political should definitely be kept in this article because they are political. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:45, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Withdrawn judicial nominees

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Should nominees withdrawn for Federal Judges (i.e. Matter and Talley) be listed on the withdrawn nominees or the Federal Judges page? Theoallen1 (talk) 22:37, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Neither. Either put them on Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies (with the style of Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies) or the nominees' pages. This page is for political appointments and the federal judges page only covers successfully confirmed nominees (nominees who aren't confirmed by the time Trump leaves office will be removed). – JocularJellyfish ^Talk _Contribs 23:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

A few suggestions

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I don't currently have the time to undertake these endeavors by myself, so I'm putting a couple ideas forward.

What's the status quo on separate pages for U.S. Marshals and Ambassadors? The U.S. Attorneys page looks just fine.
Can we collapse the lists for each Department with something like {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}? The article is becoming a chore to navigate. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk _Contribs 13:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I've collapsed the tables. As for the separate pages... either you'll have to create them yourself or discuss it and find someone to create them. Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 06:22, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Political appointments by Donald Trump layout and how to improve it

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

If you'll notice, the Executive Office requires quite the bit of scrolling to reach a certain section. I'd suggest sub-dividing these numerous sub-offices into separate tables, with a hide and edit button, for convenience. The ability to immediately jump to and edit one of these sub-offices when a new Trump nomination is announced would be much appreciated. I essentially want to simplify edits here Blakebs 11:24PM (CST) 12/17/2017

Personally, I don't see the need to break every. single. section. It just makes the article too complex. By keeping each department one section, it makes sure they all stay together. Plus, the layout of every single section collapsed looks ugly. We can make the subheaders into section headings as longs as they're small and don't make the tables any larger. Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 22:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Separate article for independent agency appointments?

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

The consensus is to oppose keeping a separate article. The consensus is to merge Trump nominations for independent agencies into this article.
Cunard (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Blakebs created a separate article (Trump nominations for independent agencies) for presidential appointments to independent federal agencies. Should we accept this change or delete the article and merge it back into this one.

Options

Support keeping the separate article, rather than merging
Oppose keeping the separate article -- support for merging the independent agency appointments in this article

--1990'sguy (talk) 13:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments

Strong oppose: Not only did the creating editor make this plage without any discussion to get a consensus, whether on this talk page or anywhere else, but it is a big pain to have to go to a separate article to see political appointments as important as any of the rest in this article. Not only this, but having independent agency appointments in a separate article is completely arbitrary. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose per 1990's guy. Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 18:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Same 96.36.68.29 (talk) 04:56, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Weak oppose since the "political" word really does matter. But it isn't worth the hassle. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 04:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: holdovers who have resigned from the administration

Latest comment: 6 years ago11 comments8 people in discussion

The consensus is to oppose keeping a separate article. The consensus is to merge Appointees who have resigned from the Trump administration into this article.
Cunard (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should we keep this article (Appointees who have resigned from the Trump administration; name self-explanatory) separate or merge it again in this article?

Options

Support keeping separate
Oppose keeping separate -- support for merging

--1990'sguy (talk) 13:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments

Strong oppose: The person who created this article apparently didn't realize that eventually, every appointee on this article will resign and be placed in the "Appointees who have resigned from the Trump administration" article. What we're effectively going to see is this article eventually disappear (because all appointees will eventually resign and become former nominees) and the other article becoming the main article. It's more sustainable to keep this all in one article. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose. Should be merged. Indeed all appointments will end at some point (though death or termination is possible in addition to resignation). It is possible to sort the appointment list by termination date which really does the same thing as keeping a separate article for resignations.Icewhiz (talk) 15:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose per above. Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 18:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Neither - Why ??? I just don't see much reason to having either very-long article, it's not the prior practice and seems burden to keep up and not likely a read. I don't see much value added, since the major players and any tumult is covered at Presidency of Donald Trump. Though I also cannot see the point of the List of federal judges appointed by Barack Obama article. Markbassett (talk) 05:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Support and *Oppose I support haveing a page for the holdovers. but I oppose the Appointees who have resigned from the Trump administration. Becuse Anthony Scaramucci had the Director of the Office of Public Liaison and Intergovernmental Affairs first and then he resinged on Febuary 1st and on like March 6th the President appointed George Sifakis and the User Thinks he started on January 23rd here is the Press Releace https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/president-donald-j-trump-announces-white-house-staff-appointments 96.36.68.29 (talk) 05:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, this RfC has nothing to do with Obama holdovers or the Holdovers from previous administrations in the Trump administration page. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:31, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

The following comments have nothing to do with this RFC.

96.36.68.29 has absolutely no CLUE as to what he's talking about. Anthony Scaramucci was NEVER in the Director of the Office of Public Liaison and Intergovernmental Affair, he was PASSED over, a fact he would have known about if he bothered to read his page. Also, I've been hearing complaints that the article is getting too large, I try to fix this, and its unwelcome. Blakebs (talk) 04:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Blakebs You need to read the link were it say 35 on the page Anthony Scaramucci in the Director of the Office of Public Liaison and Intergovernmental Affair and it was not passed over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.36.68.29 (talk) 04:53, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

96.36.68.29 You're wrong. If you actually bothered to do any research whatsoever and not assert you're right, your work here would be appreciated. Trump nominated Scaramucci to the office, it was withdrawn by administration officials due to Scaramucci's connection to Skybridge Capitol. This was reported by the NY Times months ago. Why do I have to do your research for you? I don't think you know what you're doing. (User talk:Blakebs) November 25, 2017; 1:08PM (CST)

Delete article as all appointees eventually resign and there is no corresponding page for other presidents so its a bit biased AmYisroelChai (talk) 14:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Oppose per AmYisroelChai. Everyone is presumed to resign after the inauguration of the newly elected president (whether that is in 2021 or 2025), and at that point there can be a new article created for those officials who choose to stay in office to serve the new administration. Furthermore, it is biased to have a Trump admin resignation article without having similar articles on past Presidents. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 12:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Appointees who have resigned

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

i think we need to add omarosa and dina powell any opinions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.55.45.111 (talk) 12:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Steve Wynn has resigned

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

i think we should add him on the list he was apointed by trump on the gop position but point out that it was a party position and not goverment position — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.176.86.231 (talk) 14:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

There is no proof that Trump appointed him. This GOP press release makes it sound as if the Chairwoman appoints the positions. Corky 21:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Brenda Fitzgerald has resigned

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Brenda Fitzgerald resigned can we add it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.205.0.10 (talk) 11:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

No, because she wasn't politically appointed by Trump. She appointed by then-HHS Secretary Tom Price. Corky 15:51, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Speechwriter David Sorensen steps down after domestic abuse allegations

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

should we add him on the list — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.176.71.219 (talk) 17:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Enlighten me as to what the criteria for ambassadorships for inclusion is?

Latest comment: 6 years ago16 comments4 people in discussion

It seems so arbitrary to not include ALL individuals nominated by Trump for ambassadorships, career members of the State department and otherwise. If you're concerned about article length, just create a separate page for ambassadorships. As it stands, this section is incomplete and shouldn't have to remain as such. - User talk:Blakebs February 14, 2018 4:53 (CST)

I agree. and Blakebs if you can please take a look at your talk page that would be great.96.36.68.29 (talk) 03:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Please see this RFC from October 2017. Corky 18:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

This has been asked and answered repeatedly and discussed ad nauseam. And Blakebs clearly understands the criterion because he describes it (we include the political appointments and not the career-FSO ones). I am still in favor of that consensus. However, I will register here once again my support for the creation of a separate page for ambassadorships (with removal of all such from this page). Moreover, if we had such a page, I would support the inclusion of career-FSO appointees with the addition of an appropriate column that allowed an indication to be made as to whether or not the appointee was career FSO. (I'm imagining something like a column titled "Career FSO?" with "Yes" and "No" entries. Alternatively, maybe some kind of shading could be adopted?) LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree with Blakebs on this one I do think we need a page called Ambassadors appointed by Donald J Trump Now sence we are under new Management By Blakebs, You, and me. Sence 1990'sguy and LacrimosaDiesIlla are not doing the page anymore.96.36.68.29 (talk) 18:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Be careful whose name you call! The page is not under "new management". Editors can pop in and out, and the old consensus remains a consensus, whether you like it or not. Pretty sure all of you were around back then anyway. That said, I support the idea of creating a separate page for ambassadors, as mentioned above, and if we had one, I would support including career FSO appointments on it. A separate article for ambassadors would be parallel to the separate article we already have for US Attorneys appointed by Donald Trump. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 18:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I like that idea. But what color shading should be utilized? (User talk:Blakebs) 6:23, 15 February 2018 (CST)

I don't know. In general, we should probably try to follow the color scheme being used in this article, which means we would need to have a different color scheme to make this distinction, which will be further complicated by the fact, that as of right now, we're using shading to indicate a lot of other pieces of information. On the whole, I think that shading is probably not the right way to make this distinction at this time. (Although it might be the most sensible option once Trump and his ambassadors are all out of office and we no longer have a need to distinguish who's been nominated, who's still serving, who's resigned, etc.) But I'm not opposed in principle to making the distinction with shading. Perhaps we could shade certain columns to indicate the FSO/political appointment distinction and keep the current shading system on the name and position columns? LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 14:17, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Well you were gone for a really long time. sence October 26th 2017 and this is how the page looked before https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_appointments_by_Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=807117697 Thanks.96.36.68.29 (talk) 04:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

For crying out loud Corky. When even the likes of Georgette Mosbacher (a business person who was essentially in the same orbit as Trump) doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion, then we have a problem. The only people that should be excluded are the career members of the state department, not the career positions in said department. (User talk:Blakebs) 10:45, 15 February 2018 (CST)

I'm just doing what consensus says. Not sure if you read the outcome of the RFC, but it says no career diplomats. So anyone who is nominated to a position that is a career diplomat/member does not get added. Not sure what's so hard about that. Corky 05:13, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm open to a page for ambassador appointments, but if we create such an article, we should clearly differentiate between career diplomats and political appointees. So long as we show ambassador nominees on this page, we should continue to follow the consensus and show only political appointments. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:12, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Specifically about Georgette Mosbacher, I don't see how she's not a political appointee -- she's both a businesswoman who's heavily involved in politics. She's involved herself in the Republican Party and many campaigns of GOP candidates, among other activities. She seems like a political appointee, and if she served in any career State Department role, she would be similar to Jon Huntsman Jr., who we decided to list in this article. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can tell Mosbacher is clearly not career FSO (actually, she doesn't seem to have ever been FSO). She is obviously a political appointee and should be included in this article, even under the existing consensus. What is the argument against her? LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 14:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm currently working on that in my sandbox. I'm open to input. Blakebs (talk) 8:27, 17 February 2018 (CST)

I just looked at your sandbox. It's looking good. I think the color scheme you've chosen is workable. I would not divide the article into alphabetical sections though because it makes sorting by columns basically worthless. If I want to sort by start date, then I don't just want to sort by start date for Ambassadors to countries that happen to start with A, you know what I mean? There doesn't seem to be any real opposition to creating a separate article at this point, or am I wrong? Are you planning on launching a new page soon? LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 14:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking about it. Blakebs (talk) 4:13, 20 February 2018 (CST)

@1990'sguy: I think we need to have clarification on something: is it the person or position we're talking about here? I thought the RFC was specifically talking about the positions, not the person, meaning we won't add the FSO positions to the page here. You're comment "FSO nominations are not political appointments, and most of them are for ambassadorships" is what I am referring to. If that's not the case, maybe we need to revisit the RFC and/or add clarity to it... Corky 03:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan: The way I always viewed the RfC outcome was that if the nominee was nominated as a career diplomat they should not be added, but if they were nominated as a political appointee, they should be included along with all the other political appointees. Thus, even if a political appointee (such as Mosbacher or Huntsman) happened to have served as an FSO in the past, they could be included if they were being nominated as a political appointee. Does what I'm saying make sense? --1990'sguy (talk) 03:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Makes sense now, thanks for clarifying for me! Corky 18:10, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

This is my understanding as well. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 14:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Rachel Brand and Hope Hicks

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Rachel Brand and Hope Hicks has resigned we should add them to the list — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.255.35.21 (talk) 23:33, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Red link Pages with the Pictures

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi every one I was thinking we should make pages for some of the Red link Pages with the Pictures like for these's people sence the info is on the Departments Websites and the White House Website already.

Douglas Webster: https://www2.ed.gov/news/staff/bios/webster.html

Johnny Collett: https://www2.ed.gov/news/staff/bios/collett.html

John Zangardi: https://www.dhs.gov/person/dr-john-zangardi

Patricia G. Greene: https://www.dol.gov/wb/info_about_wb/Patricia.htm

Just to name a few.96.36.68.29 (talk) 15:26, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

All the New Pics

Latest comment: 6 years ago10 comments2 people in discussion

Hi everyone here are all the Pics. We need to add I will find all the Pictures I know some of them are small and don't have the best qualty.

It's the most resent Pics we have of all of them and I Know some of them were not taken by the Goverment. I will be emailing Linda Capuano today and asking her if she can take her Goverment Picture sometime this week.

Here is the list and it is growing Fast.

Bill Wehrum https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/about-assistant-administrator-epas-office-air-and-radiation

Eddie Joe Williams http://www.sseb.org/members/board-members/ (Just go down when you see Federal Representative)

Linda Capuano: https://www.eia.gov/about/linda_capuano.php

Kenneth Allen: Jeff W. Smith: James “Skip” Thompson: https://www.tva.gov/About-TVA/Our-Leadership/Board-of-Directors

Dave Ross: https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/about-assistant-administrator-epas-office-water

BROCK BIERMAN: https://www.usaid.gov/who-we-are/organization/brock-bierman

Jeffrey Y. Grappone https://www.dol.gov/agencies/opa/bio-asst-sec

Lance Leggitt's picture. https://54.227.174.36/about/leadership/lance-leggitt/index.html

Susan Bodine: https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/about-assistant-administrator-epas-office-enforcement-and-compliance-assurance

Jon Rychalski: https://www.va.gov/opa/bios/bio_rychalski.asp

And if I missed any one elce please add them to the list and I don't know if any one added President Trump's Fourth Wave of United States Marshal Nominees to the Marshal page so here is the link to that one. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/president-donald-j-trump-announces-fourth-wave-united-states-marshal-nominees/ Thanks:96.36.68.29 (talk) 17:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Just a note to everyone else: I've said this many of times to the I.P. – Eddie Joe Williams' picture cannot be uploaded because it his picture as an Arkansas legislator [7], which is not released in the Public Domain. Just because it is on a government website does not make it a public domain image. Corky 05:48, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Peter Davidson: https://www.commerce.gov/directory/peterdavidson Thanks:96.36.68.29 (talk) 02:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Here is Neil Romano Picture https://ncd.gov/council_and_staff/ncd_council_members Thanks:96.36.68.29 (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Blakebs if you are there can you please add some of these's pictures? I seen you add pictures before? And please respond to this comment if you can that would be great. and the others on your talk page? Thanks.96.36.68.29 (talk) 17:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Here's Dr.Bertha Madras Picture. http://www.mcleanhospital.org/biography/bertha-madras Thanks.96.36.68.29 (talk) 17:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Bertha's is not a government photo, therefore not in the Public Domain and can't be used. Corky 18:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Here is Dr. John Zangardi Picture https://www.dhs.gov/person/dr-john-zangardi Thanks:96.36.68.29 (talk) 15:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I found a lot of US Attorneys Pictures so here is the link to that page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_Attorneys_appointed_by_Donald_Trump#Pic's_to_be_added Thanks:96.36.68.29 (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Here's Ronald Batory Pic https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P1009 Thanks:96.36.68.29 (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

File nominated for deletion on commons

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The file c:File:Inter-american Development Bank logo.svg has been nominated for deletion on Commons 
Reason: Logos above c:COM:TOO. For Discovery Channel cf. c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:DiscoveryChannel logo.png, c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Discovery-Channel-logo.png, c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Casi discovery hd.JPG and so on. 
Deletion request: link

Message automatically deposited by a robot - -Harideepan (talk) 07:28, 3 March 2018 (UTC).

Fake or Offical

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Fake: Reports, News Storys, Fox, ABC, MSNBC, NBC, CNBC, CNN, CBS, ext...

Offical: https://www.whitehouse.gov/

https://www.usda.gov/

https://www.commerce.gov/

https://www.defense.gov/

https://www.army.mil/

http://www.secnav.navy.mil/default.aspx

http://www.af.mil/

https://www.ed.gov/

https://www.energy.gov/

https://www.eia.gov/

https://nnsa.energy.gov/

https://www.ferc.gov/

https://www.usps.com/

https://www.usaid.gov/

https://www.ssa.gov/

https://www.tva.gov/

https://ncd.gov/

https://www.ushmm.org/

Or There offical Twitter, Facebook or other or the leaders T. F. or O. It must be true.96.36.68.29 (talk) 21:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Secretary appointments

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think for Secretary appointments we won't enclude them on this page but if we do come to this soon for the Secretary appointments like

Peter O'Rourke : Chief of Staff of Veterans Affairs

or

Margaret Peterlin: Chief of Staff to the United States Secretary of State

Heather Nauert: Spokesperson for the United States Department of State

As New pages

Thanks.96.36.68.29 (talk) 22:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Jason Kearns

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This article shows Jason Kearns (who the Senate confirmed today) as Trump's nominee as the chairman of the USITC. However, the U.S. Senate shows him as being confirmed as another commissioner of the agency. Would someone please explain this possible discrepancy? --1990'sguy (talk) 00:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@1990'sguy: I'm confused about this, too. The chairman is not a Senate-confirmed position and in fact they are presidential appointees and the party affiliation must rotate every term, much like the Federal Election Commission. The current chairman's term ends in June, so I think that addition is an error. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk _Contribs 18:56, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

You may want to consider renaming this article or create a separate page for generals appointed by Trump

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Let me see if I understand this: I'm not allowed to add generals Trump appoints? I believe its time we started considering renaming the article as 'political' appointments by Donald Trump has become difficult to define not to mention very constraining. I'm tired of adding people Trump appoints then having it removed just because 'political' happens to be in the title of this article. This is extremely frustrating. We couldn't add career members of the state department and that was remedied with a separate article for ambassadorships. Once again this article feels incomplete. We're gonna have to do something about this eventually. I'd expect nothing less than a complete listing of Trump's appointments political or otherwise. Should we give consideration to a 'military appointments by trump' article?' I'm open to suggestions here. I can't work under these constraining conditions. We either include all appointments whether that's here or a separate article or I think I'm done contributing to this page. - Blakebs (User talk) March 6, 2018 8:47PM (CST)

@Corkythehornetfan: I strongly disagree with your edit restoring this appointment. This was Trump's appointment to the Air Force Global Strike Command, which is not a political position. We kept out Trump's appointments to the Joint Chiefs of Staff for the same reason -- these are military positions, not political positions (though I guess they can have policy consequences). I strongly recommend that we leave this out. If it's best to create a new article for military appointments, then I would support that. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I think that this whole discussion about including military appointments is absurd. Trump and his administration are the ones who pick every single political appointment that is on the civilian side of the government. The military is apolitical and the generals he promotes have been in the military far longer than he's been president. They went through the pipeline, and here they are today being nominated to these positions. Trump/his administration did not have a major part in choosing them, as there are only a handful officers qualified to fit the position. If you want to create a list of general officers he nominated for promotion, why not include the thousands of field-grade and company-grade officers he nominated as well? – JocularJellyfish ^Talk _Contribs 01:40, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@JocularJellyfish: I had a specific criteria in mind. Of course I don't want to include field-grade and company-grade officers. More in line with the upper-echelon leadership positions of MAJOR components of the Defense department, e.i. Air Force Global Strike Command. Blakebs (user talk) 9:47, 7 March 2018 (CST)

This article is of Political appointments in the United States, a specific kind of appointment. Markbassett (talk) 03:37, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Dates broken?

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It looks like someone accidentally used some kind of date script that broke all of the dates on the page. Nominations that previously had a confirmation date of 08/03/2017 now have March 8, 2017, which is not only a cosmetic change but a significant typographical error. I don't know how many nominations are affected by this, but what can we do to fix it? – JocularJellyfish ^Talk _Contribs 23:46, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

RFC: Should we keep those who have resigned?

Latest comment: 6 years ago11 comments8 people in discussion

Should we include the current list of those who have resigned in this article or completely remove them from the article? Corky 18:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Survey

No – all appointees will eventually resign whether it's now or at the end of the Administration. I do, however, think we should include the notable cases such as Anthony Scaramucci and Sean Spicer (the more notable ones)... but I'm open to discussion on that. Corky 18:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes This is an encyclopedic entry of political appointments by Donald Trump, not a list of people who are currently present in it. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes I have no prejudice against inclusion of them, although I do not think their entrees should focus on their resignation. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:35, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Include: I think only including current appointees violates WP:RECENT and WP:NOTNEWS. Presidential administrations see multiple appointees on various levels of leadership come and go even during a single term. As an encyclopedia article and not a "personnel tracker" (like the WaPo article cited), we should include past appointees as well as current ones. However, we should differentiate between past and present appointees (at least while Trump still holds office) by shading past appointees gray, like what we did for a time. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes And I think Blakebs made a page for them before and Corky you told Blakebs to put them back to this page.96.36.68.29 (talk) 04:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

No - WP:OFFTOPIC the article line 1 clearly says “of current office holders”. Markbassett (talk) 03:22, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes and obviously change the first line. Prince of Thieves (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Extended discussion

I don't understand the question. It looks like there's already a "left office" column. Are you proposing a separate list in addition to that? (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: Users have been removing them from the tables above to avoid clutter and have instead started listing them in its own section. Should I re-word the question to avoid confusion for future commenters? Corky 22:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, however you word the RfC, you need to make it explicit, e.g. present multiple options such as (a) "left office" column, (b) separate list of resigned appointees, (c) neither. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Appointees who have resigned

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Gary Cohn and Hope Hicks have resigned we should add them to the list — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.205.0.10 (talk) 06:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Appointees who have resigned edit warring

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

@1990'sguy and JimmyJoe87: Please discuss this problem. JimmyJoe has already violated 1RR by reverting 3 times w/in 24 hours and will taken to an administrator. I don't agree with the removal as they've resigned from their posts to take another... Corky 12:32, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

That section is clearly for those who have resigned from the white house (e.g Omarosa, Cohn etc) and no longer work there or for the Trump administration or it is for those who have been fired from the white house (Tillerson etc). It is not for those who moved from one position to another and still work in the white house. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 13:09, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I strongly oppose removing these appointees. Yes they still serve in the Trump Administration, but as Corkythehornetfan noted, they resigned from their previous positions to take up their current positions. When we note appointees who "resigned", we're referring to appointees who resigned from the positions they were appointed to serve on, not resigning from the Trump Administration in general.

If we follow JimmyJoe87's preferred way, would we note every Trump Administration position these appointees served on, or only the last one? And what if an appointee resigns but is re-hired several years later? --1990'sguy (talk) 19:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I completely agree, as I've said before... they've resigned from their positions to take another and therefore they should stay in the article. Corky 20:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

And I don't think we need to add "(became ...)", either. Corky 14:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Trump Appointee Todd Johnson Resigns

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

we should add Todd Johnson to the list — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.55.151.255 (talk) 11:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC) also H. R. McMaster has left — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.55.23.143 (talk) 11:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

New article up for deletion

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Folks, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Trump administration dismissals and resignations. List of Trump administration dismissals and resignations was created on April 2, 2018, going against the outcome of the RFC that took place. Corky 16:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

CAN WE PLEASE MAKE UP OUR MINDS?! I just spent the better part of an hour adding to that article now its been merged BACK into this article! User talk:Blakebs 1:00 AM (CST) April 11, 2018

It was kept. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

May I inquire as to why Magnolia677 is accusing me of 'disruptive' editing and threatening me? I introduced no such factual errors to the new article. I assumed we had previously agreed upon parameters? That individuals still working in the admin who have resigned from a previous office would be included? They are included in the resignations and termination section of the main article. Ronald Vitiello resigned as Chief of the Border Patrol. I don't know if this is a misunderstanding or if Magnolia has no idea what he's talking about. I don't take kindly to threats over something I didn't do. - Blakebs, 3:08 PM (CST) April 11, 2018

The entire title of that article, "List of Trump administration dismissals and resignations", has a negative tone. It lumps those individuals who were fired (a negative thing) along with those individuals who resigned (an event which gives the impression of being a negative thing because it's combined with those who were fired). If we took the List of murdered hip hop musicians and combined it into "List of murdered or incarcerated hip hop musicians" it would probably work. But if were mixed in those hip hop musicians who go to church every Sunday...well, you see my point. Adding Ronald Vitiello to the list of "Trump administration dismissals and resignations" is misleading. I mean, sure he resigned (fired, resigned, who cares, just get me away from Trump!)...that's a fact...but he did it in order to take a freaking promotion within the same administration! That article needs to be renamed or somehow fixed, because these sorts of shenanigans undermine Wikipedia's credibility. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:45, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Not my problem. Rename the page. Either that or take your own census and quit arguing with me. Blakebs (talk) 05:35 PM, 12 April 2018 (CST)

NOMINATIONS & APPOINTMENTS

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Here is a big list of people who are not on any list yet.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/president-donald-j-trump-announces-intent-appoint-personnel-key-administration-posts-4/

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/president-donald-j-trump-announces-intent-nominate-designate-personnel-key-administration-posts/

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/president-donald-j-trump-announces-intent-nominate-appoint-personnel-key-administration-posts-5/

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/president-donald-j-trump-announces-twelfth-wave-judicial-nominees-twelfth-wave-united-states-attorneys-sixth-wave-united-states-marshals/

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/president-donald-j-trump-announces-intent-appoint-personnel-key-administration-posts-5/

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/president-donald-j-trump-announces-intent-nominate-personnel-key-administration-post-2/

I been gone for a week and there is a big list of names that was pervided by the white house and none of the names are on the pages. These pages were made for a reason.96.36.68.29 (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Message to Blakebs

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

With all due respect Look I been following President Trump on day on June 16th 2015 and I saw the right afther He won I followed the Great Again Website He put out a Press Releace about Anthony Scaramucci being part of the administration prior to becoming Communications Director, he was. for like 9 days. Plus I voted for President Trump I will try to find the press releace here's the website I am looking on https://web.archive.org/web/20160101000000*/greatagain.gov I have a lot of Presidental stuff at home. I watch c-span all day and every day. and I see every video the white house put out. All the White House staff started the 21st. That's when they are sworn in and afther they are sworn in that when they start. I have one question for you if you can ancer it. Does a President Start at like 12:00am on January 20th or High Noon at 12:00pm?96.36.68.29 (talk) 02:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

The Washington Post vote count

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I don't know If anyone is keeping up on the The Washington Post vote count. I know Kenneth L. Marcus was the last person to get Conformed by the Senate. on June 7th so if someone can try to keep up on the vote count that would be great. If not I think we should get rid of it of no one wants to update it.96.36.68.29 (talk) 00:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

We could move it to the "external links" section, or we could wait a little longer and see if they're still planning on updating it. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:26, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I am not talking about the Washington Post staff I am talking about everyone on Wikipedia nobody wants to update the vote count the last time someone updated it was June 1st and that someone was me. If no one wants to update it I think we should get rid of it. I don't want it gone. But no one wants to update it.96.36.68.29 (talk) 16:41, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Usage of color in tables

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I note that the tables on this page use color coding as the sole method of communicating information. Please note that this is not accessible to people with color blindness and especially to people who are completely blind. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:04, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

NOMINATIONS & APPOINTMENTS July 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Here is what I found for July

July 10th: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/president-donald-j-trump-announces-intent-appoint-personnel-key-administration-posts-7/

July 11th: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/president-donald-j-trump-announces-intent-nominate-appoint-personnel-key-administration-posts-13/

July 12th: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/president-donald-j-trump-announces-senior-staff-appointment-2/

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/president-donald-j-trump-announces-intent-nominate-appoint-personnel-key-administration-posts-14/

Thanks:96.36.68.29 (talk) 21:38, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Here's more July 13th: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/president-donald-j-trump-announces-sixteenth-wave-judicial-nominees-sixteenth-wave-united-states-attorney-nominees-eleventh-wave-united-states-marshal-nominees/

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/president-donald-j-trump-announces-intent-nominate-personnel-key-administration-post-8/

Thanks:96.36.68.29 (talk) 14:31, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Richard Clarida

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Should we add Richard Clarida twice? It appears the Senate confirmed him twice, first in a roll call vote to be the Fed's vice chairman,[8] and the second time by voice vote to be a member of the board.[9] --1990'sguy (talk) 21:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

The Washington Post

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think The Washington Post part of this page should go. Becuse Nobody here is going to pay $1 a month to see the updates. And If any one can please see if the following if voted out of Committee that would be great.

Diana Furchtgott-Roth - Assistant Secretary of Transportation (Research and Technology)

Joel Szabat - Assistant Secretary of Transportation (Aviation and International Affairs)

Thelma Drake - Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration

Heidi King - Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Lynn Westmoreland - Member of the Amtrak Board of Directors

Joseph Ryan Gruters - Member of the Amtrak Board of Directors

Rick Dearborn - Member of the Amtrak Board of Directors

Ann Begeman - Chair of the Surface Transportation Board

Patrick J. Fuchs - Member of the Surface Transportation Board

Michelle A. Schultz - Member of the Surface Transportation Board

Martin J. Oberman - Member of the Surface Transportation Board

Thanks:96.36.68.29 (talk) 04:11, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

96.36.68.29

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

There are multiple things wrong with you. Your sources are unreliable, you swore up and down Anthony Scaramucci served prior to becoming Com Director, he did not. His appointment was stalled and did not go through. You don't know how to spell or comprehend English. You screwed up the dates on the article, every other article having to do with Cabinet members list January 20 as a start date. You tell others what to do. You keep bothering me with pictures to post. Most of said pictures are not fair use and not permitted to use here. You obviously know nothing of the rules here. Don't you ever tell me to crop anything when yourself don't even know what the rules are! Stop messaging me! - User:Blakebs

You don't know about the rules If you think we should not chop lets not chop at all. And I know Anthony Scaramucci served prior to becoming Com Director, he did!96.36.68.29 (talk) 22:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

And Plus your wong on stuff also January 20 Is not the White House Staff's start day it Way Mattis, Kelly, Pence, and Trump. They released a video on January 22nd of all white House Staff getting sorn in even C-SPAN has it. Tell me How would the staff start on the Inuarguration Day. How? And I Will email the white House tomrrow to ask them. Here is the Website were he pick him. https://web.archive.org/web/20161201000000*/greatagain.gov .96.36.68.29 (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Look pal, the fact is you're illiterate. You do not know the rules, you've directed me to upload pictures of certain individuals that are not fair use. You got me in trouble for uploading images that are prohibited. Don't stand there and lecture me about rules. And I'm gonna say this once, I don't care about your little video. I don't care what your little video shows. That ceremony was merely a formality. That and the fact this website https://projects.propublica.org/trump-townamong others contradicts your claims. You've screwed up ALL of the dates on this article. Even Corky has told you the site I copied from appears legit. What are you, his keeper? Take your little video and shove it. You're getting on my last nerve. Steve Bannon and Kellyanne Conway both started January 20th, PERIOD. You've been bothering me with your nonsense for MONTHS and it's gonna stop. I refuse to take some anonymous IP address seriously. Or allow it to give me orders. Now leave me alone. Blakebs

You got me on my last last nerve. January 20 Is not the White House Staff's start day it Way Mattis, Kelly, Pence, and Trump. They released a video on January 22nd of all white House Staff getting sorn in even C-SPAN has it. Tell me How would the staff start on the Inuarguration Day. How? And I Will email the white House tomrrow to ask them. Here is the Website were he pick him. https://web.archive.org/web/20161201000000*/greatagain.gov Here is the video. https://www.c-span.org/video/?422460-1/white-house-staff-sworn-vice-president-pence Did they do that on the 20th no they did it on the 22nd. Look I watched this President and the 2015/2016 race the whole thing. And I watch the Senate on C-SPAN 2 every time the Senate is in. And Even Corky yelled at you when you did crazy stuff also and others. And here is the 43rd's White House Staff Swearing-In Ceremony from JANUARY 22, 2001 https://www.c-span.org/video/?162078-1/white-house-staff-swearing-ceremony so you PERIOD! I will email the white house right now. to get the full list or half list. And If you want I will provide my email address to you. And I will email you anything I have.96.36.68.29 (talk) 02:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Gregory Fairchild.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Any way to simplify this page by creating some sort of template?

The table is very simple to break, the slightest off detail and the whole page screws up. Is also rather cumbersome to edit.

EXAMPLE: Can something like this be done?

Specify what Department, in this case Department of Agriculture

Specify color, green | Position, Secretary of Agriculture | Name, Sonny Perdue | Term start | Term end

For acting secretaries, rowspan would have to be incorporated into any template.

(Blakebs talk) 08:47, 6 May 2017 (CST)

{{Temple:Department of Agriculture|number of appointments (you can specify any number)}} {{Specify color, green|Position, Secretary of Agriculture|Name, Sonny Perdue|Term start|Term end}}

Joe Lieberman

Hello, I found that Lieberman is out of running for FBI director (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/05/joe-lieberman-reportedly-out-of-the-running-for-fbi-director.html). CBS reported it as well. Can you please edit? I don't have time. Thanks

Acting apointments

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

should we add the acting secrataries beacause on some position we have the acting person and then the apointmed one — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.55.87.158 (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2017‎ (UTC)

Appointees who have resigned

Omarosa Manigault will resign we should add her too

I think this page needs to change.

Hello, I was just wanting to put this to everyone attention, that the page is hard to read and edit. We need to somehow fix the page so that the table is much more easier to edit. I think it would be good to make it so that when you edit the table is not collapsed instead. I think for readers, this page might seem a bit long. --Skim

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

John L. Ryder official photo.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Pic's to be added to this page

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion

Herschel Walker: https://www.hhs.gov/fitness/meet-the-council/herschel-walker/index.html

Bill Belichick: https://www.hhs.gov/fitness/meet-the-council/bill-belichick/index.html

Johnny Damon: https://www.hhs.gov/fitness/meet-the-council/johnny-damon/index.html

Dr. Nan Hayworth: https://www.hhs.gov/fitness/meet-the-council/dr-nan-hayworth/index.html

Dr. Mehmet Oz: https://www.hhs.gov/fitness/meet-the-council/dr-mehmet-oz/index.html

Douglas W. Domenech's new picture https://www.doi.gov/oia/who-we-are/dwd-bio

Neil Romano: https://ncd.gov/council_and_staff/ncd_council_members

John Bragg: https://www.rrb.gov/OurAgency/LaborMember/JohnBragg

Erhard R. Chorlé: https://www.rrb.gov/OurAgency/Chairman/ErhardRChorle

Natalie Gulbis: https://www.hhs.gov/fitness/meet-the-council/natalie-gulbis/index.html

Shauna Rohbock: https://www.hhs.gov/fitness/meet-the-council/shauna-rohbock/index.html

Bruce M. Ramer: https://www.cpb.org/content/bruce-m-ramer-vice-chair-cpb-board-directors

Thomas R. Jayne: https://www.rrb.gov/OurAgency/ManagementMember/ThomasRJayne

Chad McIntosh: https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/current-epa-leadership

JUSTIN SHUBOW: https://www.cfa.gov/about-cfa/who-we-are/justin-shubow

William W. Beach: https://www.bls.gov/bls/senior_staff/beach.htm

Lawrence Keefe: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndfl/meet-us-attorney

Donald W. Washington: https://www.usmarshals.gov/contacts/leadership.html

Michael S. Yeager: https://www.usmarshals.gov/district/ga-n/general/marshal.htm

Ted G. Kamatchus: https://www.usmarshals.gov/district/ia-s/general/marshal.htm

Douglas J. Strike: https://www.usmarshals.gov/district/ia-n/general/marshal.htm

Jesse Seroyer, Jr.: https://www.usmarshals.gov/district/ms-s/general/marshal.htm

Dallas L. Carlson: https://www.usmarshals.gov/district/nd/general/marshal.htm

Denny W. King: https://www.usmarshals.gov/district/tn-m/general/marshal.htm

John M. Garrison: https://www.usmarshals.gov/district/tx-e/general/marshal.htm

Bradley J. LaRose: https://www.usmarshals.gov/district/vt/general/marshal.htm

Kim V. Gaffney: https://www.usmarshals.gov/district/wi-w/general/marshal.htm

John Zangardi: https://www.dhs.gov/person/dr-john-zangardi

Jason E. Kearns: https://www.usitc.gov/press_room/bios/kearns.htm

Major General Richard G. Kaiser: https://www.mvd.usace.army.mil/About/Leadership/Bio-Article-View/Article/1301798/major-general-richard-g-kaiser/

Brig. Gen. Paul E. Owen: https://www.swd.usace.army.mil/About/Leadership/Bio-Article-View/Article/1233490/brig-gen-paul-e-owen/

Harold B. Parker: http://www.nbrc.gov/content/about

Gary L. Bauer: https://www.uscirf.gov/gary-l-bauer-commissioner

Nadine Maenza: https://www.uscirf.gov/about-uscirf/nadine-maenza-commissioner

Johnnie Moore: https://www.uscirf.gov/about-uscirf/johnnie-moore-commissioner

Eddie Joe Williams: https://www.sseb.org/members/board-members/

Harold D’Souza: https://www.state.gov/j/tip/263099.htm

Bukola Love Oriola: https://www.state.gov/j/tip/263099.htm

Ronny Marty: https://www.state.gov/j/tip/263099.htm

Robert Lung: https://www.state.gov/j/tip/263099.htm

Sheila White: https://www.state.gov/j/tip/263099.htm

Tanya Street: https://www.state.gov/j/tip/263099.htm

Tina Frundt: https://www.state.gov/j/tip/263099.htm

Flor Molina: https://www.state.gov/j/tip/263099.htm

Corkythehornetfan told me that he is not going to do pics anymore to this page. Now we have to I will continue finding pictures so if anyone is kind enough to upload all there's pictures that would be great. Thanks:96.36.68.29 (talk) 02:42, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Here is a lot more

Clinton B. Gwin: https://www.cdfifund.gov/about/staff-and-board/Pages/StaffBio.aspx?FullName=Clinton%20B.%20Gwin

Cara Dingus Brook: https://www.cdfifund.gov/about/staff-and-board/Pages/StaffBio.aspx?FullName=Cara%20Dingus%20Brook

Gregory Fairchild: https://www.cdfifund.gov/about/staff-and-board/Pages/StaffBio.aspx?FullName=Gregory%20Fairchild

Faith Bautista: https://www.cdfifund.gov/about/staff-and-board/Pages/StaffBio.aspx?FullName=Faith%20Bautista

Judy J. Chapa: https://www.cdfifund.gov/about/staff-and-board/Pages/StaffBio.aspx?FullName=Judy%20J.%20Chapa

Robert R. Jones III: https://www.cdfifund.gov/about/staff-and-board/Pages/StaffBio.aspx?FullName=Robert%20R.%20Jones%20III

Todd O. McDonald: https://www.cdfifund.gov/about/staff-and-board/Pages/StaffBio.aspx?FullName=Todd%20O.%20McDonald

Paul Packer: http://www.heritageabroad.gov/Members/Paul-Packer

Heshie Billet: http://www.heritageabroad.gov/Members/Heshie-Billet

Alex Herrgott: https://www.permits.performance.gov/about/federal-permitting-improvement-steering-council-fpisc-leadership There might be more Thanks: 96.36.68.29 (talk) 00:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Here are some more Judith DelZoppo Pryor: https://www.exim.gov/about/leadership/officers/pryor-judith

Kimberly A. Reed: https://www.exim.gov/about/leadership/officers/reed-kimberly

Cheryl Stanton: https://www.dol.gov/whd/about/org/cheryl-stanton.htm Thats all I found for 5-18-19.96.36.68.29 (talk) 03:32, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Found one more Kip Tom https://usunrome.usmission.gov/our-relationship/our-ambassador/ Thanks:96.36.68.29 (talk) 00:58, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Pic's to be added to this page June 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Here is a updated list Herschel Walker: https://www.hhs.gov/fitness/meet-the-council/herschel-walker/index.html

Bill Belichick: https://www.hhs.gov/fitness/meet-the-council/bill-belichick/index.html

Johnny Damon: https://www.hhs.gov/fitness/meet-the-council/johnny-damon/index.html

Dr. Nan Hayworth: https://www.hhs.gov/fitness/meet-the-council/dr-nan-hayworth/index.html

Dr. Mehmet Oz: https://www.hhs.gov/fitness/meet-the-council/dr-mehmet-oz/index.html

Douglas W. Domenech's new picture https://www.doi.gov/oia/who-we-are/dwd-bio

Neil Romano: https://ncd.gov/council_and_staff/ncd_council_members

John Bragg: https://www.rrb.gov/OurAgency/LaborMember/JohnBragg

Erhard R. Chorlé: https://www.rrb.gov/OurAgency/Chairman/ErhardRChorle

Natalie Gulbis: https://www.hhs.gov/fitness/meet-the-council/natalie-gulbis/index.html

Shauna Rohbock: https://www.hhs.gov/fitness/meet-the-council/shauna-rohbock/index.html

Bruce M. Ramer: https://www.cpb.org/content/bruce-m-ramer-vice-chair-cpb-board-directors

Thomas R. Jayne: https://www.rrb.gov/OurAgency/ManagementMember/ThomasRJayne

Chad McIntosh: https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/current-epa-leadership

JUSTIN SHUBOW: https://www.cfa.gov/about-cfa/who-we-are/justin-shubow

William W. Beach: https://www.bls.gov/bls/senior_staff/beach.htm

Lawrence Keefe: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndfl/meet-us-attorney

Donald W. Washington: https://www.usmarshals.gov/contacts/leadership.html

Michael S. Yeager: https://www.usmarshals.gov/district/ga-n/general/marshal.htm

Ted G. Kamatchus: https://www.usmarshals.gov/district/ia-s/general/marshal.htm

Douglas J. Strike: https://www.usmarshals.gov/district/ia-n/general/marshal.htm

Jesse Seroyer, Jr.: https://www.usmarshals.gov/district/ms-s/general/marshal.htm

Dallas L. Carlson: https://www.usmarshals.gov/district/nd/general/marshal.htm

Denny W. King: https://www.usmarshals.gov/district/tn-m/general/marshal.htm

John M. Garrison: https://www.usmarshals.gov/district/tx-e/general/marshal.htm

Bradley J. LaRose: https://www.usmarshals.gov/district/vt/general/marshal.htm

Kim V. Gaffney: https://www.usmarshals.gov/district/wi-w/general/marshal.htm

John Zangardi: https://www.dhs.gov/person/dr-john-zangardi

Jason E. Kearns: https://www.usitc.gov/press_room/bios/kearns.htm

Harold B. Parker: http://www.nbrc.gov/content/about

Gary L. Bauer: https://www.uscirf.gov/gary-l-bauer-commissioner

Nadine Maenza: https://www.uscirf.gov/about-uscirf/nadine-maenza-commissioner

Johnnie Moore: https://www.uscirf.gov/about-uscirf/johnnie-moore-commissioner

Eddie Joe Williams: https://www.sseb.org/members/board-members/

Harold D’Souza: https://www.state.gov/j/tip/263099.htm

Bukola Love Oriola: https://www.state.gov/j/tip/263099.htm

Ronny Marty: https://www.state.gov/j/tip/263099.htm

Robert Lung: https://www.state.gov/j/tip/263099.htm

Sheila White: https://www.state.gov/j/tip/263099.htm

Tanya Street: https://www.state.gov/j/tip/263099.htm

Tina Frundt: https://www.state.gov/j/tip/263099.htm

Flor Molina: https://www.state.gov/j/tip/263099.htm

Clinton B. Gwin: https://www.cdfifund.gov/about/staff-and-board/Pages/StaffBio.aspx?FullName=Clinton%20B.%20Gwin

Cara Dingus Brook: https://www.cdfifund.gov/about/staff-and-board/Pages/StaffBio.aspx?FullName=Cara%20Dingus%20Brook

Gregory Fairchild: https://www.cdfifund.gov/about/staff-and-board/Pages/StaffBio.aspx?FullName=Gregory%20Fairchild

Faith Bautista: https://www.cdfifund.gov/about/staff-and-board/Pages/StaffBio.aspx?FullName=Faith%20Bautista

Judy J. Chapa: https://www.cdfifund.gov/about/staff-and-board/Pages/StaffBio.aspx?FullName=Judy%20J.%20Chapa

Robert R. Jones III: https://www.cdfifund.gov/about/staff-and-board/Pages/StaffBio.aspx?FullName=Robert%20R.%20Jones%20III

Todd O. McDonald: https://www.cdfifund.gov/about/staff-and-board/Pages/StaffBio.aspx?FullName=Todd%20O.%20McDonald

Paul Packer: http://www.heritageabroad.gov/Members/Paul-Packer

Heshie Billet: http://www.heritageabroad.gov/Members/Heshie-Billet

Alex Herrgott: https://www.permits.performance.gov/about/federal-permitting-improvement-steering-council-fpisc-leadership

Kimberly A. Reed: https://www.exim.gov/about/leadership/officers/reed-kimberly

Marco M. Rajkovich, Jr.: https://www.fmshrc.gov/bios/commissioner/marco-m-rajkovich-jr

William I. Althen: https://www.fmshrc.gov/bios/commissioner/william-i-althen

Arthur R. Traynor, III: https://www.fmshrc.gov/bios/commissioner/arthur-r-traynor-iii

Adam I. Klein: https://www.pclob.gov/board/adam-i-klein.html

Jane E. Nitze: https://www.pclob.gov/board/jane-e-nitze.html

Edward W. Felten: https://www.pclob.gov/board/edward-w-felten.html That's all the pictures I found that has not been added yet.96.36.68.29 (talk) 17:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Here's Bill Cooper https://www.energy.gov/gc/contributors/bill-cooper Thanks:96.36.68.29 (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

We do not upload pictures in most cases, but use them from Wikimedia Commons. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:40, 22 June 2019 (UTC). Can someone please upload all these pictures to commons?

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

RMD-Official-Headshot (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:07, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

USIDFC

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Senate confirmed Adam Seth Boehler as the Chief Executive Officer of the United States International Development Finance Corporation: [10] This nomination hasn't been added to the article, and I'm not sure where in the article to add it. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Ruby Calvert official photo (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:51, 17 December 2019 (UTC)