Talk:Political appointments by Donald Trump/Archive 2

3429:

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. -

2588:

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?

1339:. 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. 3662:. 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. -- 31: 3478:

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? –

480:

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?

2682:, 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. -- 710:

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?

4037:

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

2530:, 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?) 4047:

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 Knowledge (XXG)'s credibility.

4157:

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

2725:

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

2561:

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

2294:

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

1672:

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

1311:

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

766:

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

744:

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

709:

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

479:

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

4486:

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

3889:

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

2477:

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

1177:

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

4627:

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

4455:

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

4188:

I am not talking about the Washington Post staff I am talking about everyone on Knowledge (XXG) 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

4132:

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

3866:

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

3477:

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

3428:

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

2086:

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

1227:

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

962:

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

781:

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

4474:

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

4137:

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

2767:

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

2587:

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

2213:

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

1801:

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

1390:

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

1119:

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

566:

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

524:

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

4430:

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

1914:

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

1810:

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

630:

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

303:

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

4495:

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

4479:

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

4036:

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

724:

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

2253:

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

4041:

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

729:

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

2789:

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

2164:

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

4046:

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

3549:

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

172:. 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. 4431:

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! -

2104:. 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. 2656:

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

119:

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.

3989: 3460:

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.

861:

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.

159:

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

3597:– 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. 2697:

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?

3503:

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.

1356:

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

1248:

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.

1193:

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.

981:

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.

1653:- 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. 805:

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?

4283: 2525:

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,

2545:

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

2133:- 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 539:

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?

3380:(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? -- 2726:

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?

3470: 581:

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.

1312:

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.

2691: 4098: 4337:

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.

2919:

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.

1208:-- 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 3893:

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?

4936:

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.

4284:

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/

2987:

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.

1101:

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.

3064:

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?

2865:

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.

1900: 1165:

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. -

2072: 2627:(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 4480:

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.

506:

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?

3852:. 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... 4650: 132:

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. --

2038: 2005: 2799: 2670: 1268: 836: 4573:{{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}} 3402:

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

4099:

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/

3993: 928:

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

4500:

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.

888:, 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 341:, 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 4182: 2790:

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? --

2199: 1361:

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.

313: 3903: 3789:

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. --

4261: 4250: 5496: 4093: 4088: 141: 110: 2501: 1237: 1054: 59: 3190: 1228:

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. --

3186: 2562:

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

168:

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

959: 4288: 4243: 4108: 4103: 4083: 503: 467:

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

4113:

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.

2087:

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. --

1736:

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). –

2138: 954:

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,

3194: 1729: 1725: 3201: 155:

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

4327: 657:

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

2989: 3389: 422:

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.

2096: 1924: 1686: 3671: 3522: 2166: 1764:

Can we collapse the lists for each Department with something like {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}? The article is becoming a chore to navigate. –

338: 47: 17: 2361:

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

5458: 5440: 2187: 1866: 1830: 1400: 901: 271: 730:

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.

3173: 255:- 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 1869:) for presidential appointments to independent federal agencies. Should we accept this change or delete the article and merge it back into this one. 5489: 4847: 3916: 3534: 3489: 3417: 2826: 2812: 2707: 1784:

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.

1096: 1041:

I agree -- the articles linked in this article should not be piped (unless it's a disambiguated link), and those articles need COMMONNAME titles.

919: 845: 4582: 4262:

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

4256: 4251:

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

4094:

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

4089:

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

3908:

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.

967:, 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. 661:

so readers know when they actually assumed the office they hold, and then put the confirmation in parenthesis with the vote number. An example:

304:

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. --

5069: 5051: 5021: 4946: 3773: 3572: 3556: 3484: 3412: 1770: 1742: 4475:

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

3738:

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?

2976: 2916:

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.

5386: 5009: 4643: 4013:

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!

1564:– 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. 1083:

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

3339:

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

4853: 2232:

on the page Anthony Scaramucci in the Director of the Office of Public Liaison and Intergovernmental Affair and it was not passed over.

5362: 4985: 4312:

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,

2846: 2458: 2368: 4289:

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

4244:

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

4173:

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. --

4109:

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

4104:

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

4084:

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

1075:. 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 ( 4043: 3953: 3818: 2417: 1710:

Should nominees withdrawn for Federal Judges (i.e. Matter and Talley) be listed on the withdrawn nominees or the Federal Judges page?

5450: 5432: 5338: 5061: 5043: 5013: 4961: 4938: 4600: 4501: 4461: 4442: 4408: 4294: 4268: 4190: 4159: 4139: 4114: 3969: 3682: 3358: 3321: 3153: 3135: 3131: 3117: 3084: 3066: 3051: 3033: 2993: 2898: 2643:. 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. 2610: 2547: 2486: 2342: 2239: 2169: 1945: 1635: 1519: 1446: 1179: 1147: 1143: 1121: 322: 286: 214: 5368: 4991: 4208:

I note that the tables on this page use color coding as the sole method of communicating information. Please note that this is not

1146:

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. Thanks

5344: 5332: 4967: 4955: 3012: 475:(which is obviously what "Term Start" implies it should be telling us). I think we need to correct the dates throughout to actual 3613:

This is an encyclopedic entry of political appointments by Donald Trump, not a list of people who are currently present in it. --

3014:, which is not released in the Public Domain. Just because it is on a government website does not make it a public domain image. 285:

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.

278: 5356: 4979: 5350: 4973: 3453: 2268:

Delete article as all appointees eventually resign and there is no corresponding page for other presidents so its a bit biased

1139:

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

4548:

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

2990:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/president-donald-j-trump-announces-fourth-wave-united-states-marshal-nominees/

2307: 1973: 1084: 5469: 4026: 3618: 3630:

I have no prejudice against inclusion of them, although I do not think their entrees should focus on their resignation. --

2927: 2254:

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. (

205: