Jump to content

Talk:List of U.S. executive branch czars

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Should Kamala Harris be listed as a "border czar"

[edit]

I removed her from the list, given the updated reporting which makes clear that the White House did not assign her the "Border czar" role. See, e.g., https://www.axios.com/2024/07/24/kamala-harris-border-czar-immigratin. A close examination of the primary source, the event on March 24, 2021, shows that President Biden assigned her to a diplomatic role, leading up his administration's new "root causes of migration" strategy. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/03/24/remarks-by-president-biden-and-vice-president-harris-in-a-meeting-on-immigration/.

All the previous "border czars" listed on the chart had more official titles and clear assignments from the White House. None rejected the title or argued that they had not been given the responsibility. Therefore, it does not make sense to have a person listed as a "czar" on Wikipedia if they reject the title. Razzmatazzle (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is literal propaganda and revisionism. 74.103.183.51 (talk) 22:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's editors once again showing utter contempt of history itself and an embrace of Orwellianism. Axios and numerous other main stream media outlets reported Harris was designated the Border Czar. Biden himself said it. This is utterly ridiculous revisionist nonsense designed to play into the political left's whitewashing of Harris record. 167.248.152.253 (talk) 22:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed! Zonedar (talk) 23:09, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source for Biden referring to Harris as the "border czar"? Dyrnych (talk) 23:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The House of Representatives did in 2023 and 2024. 24.57.55.50 (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The House has no such power. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:04, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed! 24.57.55.50 (talk) 01:16, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And they corrected their error. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every mainstream media called Harris border czar, thousands of times, for the last 3 years. 24.57.55.50 (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the point of saying something so ridiculous? This is WP:Disruptive. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:06, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The very definition of a Executive Branch "czar" in the main article is:
In the United States, the informal term "czar" (or, less often, "tsar") is employed in media and popular usage to refer to high-level executive-branch officials who oversee a particular policy field.
Widespread use of the term "Border Czar" by the media isn't in error or ridiculous. In fact, according to the definition, widespread media use of VP Harris as "Border Czar" is evidence that VP Harris is in fact a "Border Czar". 2600:1700:4BE0:9E90:D438:E55B:950D:37E2 (talk) 00:28, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed 2603:9001:103:ABC:19B:55AB:E5F1:8E38 (talk) 01:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Should Kamala Harris be listed as a "border czar"
Its seems as if you weren't really asking a question. You were just summarily appointing yourself sole arbiter of a highly political issue with very little to back it up. 24.144.63.253 (talk) 23:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She was the border czar:
https://www.kpvi.com/news/national_news/fact-check-harris-was-biden-s-second-border-czar-despite-recent-media-claims/article_9b163905-db50-5cbb-b37b-7ae12700f542.html
Here is the same axios author Stef W Kight claiming she was czar, and them claiming she wasn't.
Was: https://www.axios.com/2021/03/24/biden-harris-border-crisis
Wasn't: https://www.axios.com/2024/07/24/kamala-harris-border-czar-immigratin US395 (talk) 23:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, here's a fact checker contesting that Harris was the border czar: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2024/jul/24/republican-national-committee-republican/border-czar-kamala-harris-assigned-to-tackle-immig/. It seems a bit odd to cherry pick a conservative POV fact checker to make that factual claim when it's pretty clearly contested. Dyrnych (talk) 23:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This really is remarkable. You people leap into action whenever the party needs a new propaganda line, happily revising the historical record to say whatever's most convenient at any given moment. 207.32.162.180 (talk) 23:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria of the list is whether the media referred to the person as a czar. Multiple sources clearly did. So there is no basis for removing Harris' entry besides propaganda purposes JSwift49 00:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I remember the god ol' days when Wikipedia was credible and I used to donate generously.
Now it's devolved into this propagandist fodder for the radical left.
Quit being based and do the right thing or your credibility will continue to go down the drain. Hvm8h57v (talk) 00:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, these media sources backpedaling on the description don't mean we should remove her. Killuminator (talk) 00:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They didn't "backpedal". They corrected their initial error. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are gaslighting. They are memory holing the record immediately upon Harris becoming the Democratic nominee and Wikipedia seems to be playing along. WBcoleman (talk) 03:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Assume good faith. WP:AGF Garnet Moss (talk) 04:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Garnet Moss In this case that requires using Hanlon's Razor, which is patronizing given the evidence of czar-ship. 192.74.128.156 (talk) 12:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a lot of people here are acting in good faith, and clearly the users who slapped extended protections on this article to chill any discussion agree with me.
This happens every time something ends up in the news now; the article is "temporarily" locked, the lock is extended indefinitely, and the resultant complaining in the talk page is smugly dismissed with "assume good faith". If everyone was acting in good faith, there would not be these massive extended protections on every article remotely newsworthy. Either the edits are in bad faith, the lock is in bad faith, or both are in bad faith. But something, as usual, smells.
For what it's worth, I don't think anyone on either side is going to be citing a WP list article in their arguments re: "border czar" except to complain about purported bias, but I absolutely empathize with users on this talk page assuming bad faith. 74.64.100.109 (talk) 13:04, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - This page presents an interesting dilemma, because it's concerned with an intrinsically amorphous and subjective term. As the copy says above the list, "Note that what is measured is the popularity of the word czar, rather than an objective measure of authority." It's clear both in the context of this article and in common usage, "czar" is a title which is acclaimed, not bestowed, and therefore the operative qualifiers we should be looking at are not whether or not an official role closely resembles a hypothetical ideal, but rather how the official is treated and referred to by peers, press, and public. While in an official sense, (as is the case with most VP jobs,) Harris' scope of authority was relatively modest, the impression of the second-in-command of the executive branch taking a personal interest and lead on the causes of undocumented immigration is clear from the sources provided. Fact-checking articles now are seeking to clarify the precise role which Harris played, which while important, is not necessarily determinitative over whether or not an article concerning the history of executive "czars" should include her.
(I will say, though, that since this is a hot topic in the press, prepare for an onslaught of less-than-thoughtful partisan comments.) Garnet Moss (talk) 01:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question for Razzmatazzle, why did you wait all this time to dispute this claim?
You could've done this 6 months or a year ago, even longer but yet you are bringing up this subject right after Harris became the presumptive democratic nominee.
Even if it was appropriate to edit Kamala out of this Wikipedia page (Which it isn't), the timing of this conversation points to a revisionist mindset behind your question.
I am glad that at lot of people in this discussion thread are seeing thru this. Kamala Harris has to own up to her assignment as a border czar. 142.147.56.71 (talk) 03:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@142.147.56.71 Harris wasn't in the article at all until today. Dyrnych (talk) 04:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dyrnych
Okay, if that is the case then I take back what I said about waiting to dispute the claim. 142.147.56.71 (talk) 17:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can be a pedant all you want about the usage of the word "czar". Call Harris the overseer for the border if you like instead. Call her the pointperson or deputy or leader of border affairs. Call her the very model of a modern major general for all I care.
It is not disputed by any honest person that Harris was put in charge of border affairs. This was acknowledged even by left of center publications at the time, and not because Republicans hypnotized them. You and the media are trying to re-write history now, because you know that Harris (and Biden) did absolutely nothing to address the border crisis.
How much is ActBlue paying you to propagandize, "Razmatazzle"? 2600:1700:601:30:E109:AACC:4C43:6800 (talk) 13:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@2600:1700:601:30:E109:AACC:4C43:6800 Personal attacks are inappropriate, and this is not a forum for you to discuss immigration issues. Dyrnych (talk) 21:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doing this is way more harmful to your cause than not doing this. Ergo, you should not do this. Vince Vatter (talk) Vince Vatter (talk) 06:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What "cause"? WP:AGF O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are we giving primary sources higher priority than multiple secondary sources now? RussNelson (talk) 19:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Czar is a Russian term and not and American term used in American government. 2A01:B340:80:BE4:A8AE:A125:67B0:6991 (talk) 23:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chiming in with an informed third opinion. Here's what I see in terms of evidence:

  • We have a Congressional resolution issued today: "Whereas, on March 24, 2021, President Biden tasked Vice President Kamala Harris with working to address illegal immigration into the United States, including “root causes”, and came to be known colloquially as the Biden administration’s “border czar”."
  • The term, as noted before, is unofficial. Four years of White House press briefings turn up only one use of "border czar", by a reporter asking about the Congressional resolution.
  • There's mainstream media coverage referring to her position as "border czar", linked by KPIX.
  • The official description of Harris' role by the White House is as follows: "Since March, Vice President Kamala Harris has been leading the Administration’s diplomatic efforts to address the root causes of migration from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. She has worked with bilateral, multilateral, and private sector partners, as well as civil society leaders, to help people from the region find hope at home."
  • The fact-checking rebuttals by Time, Axios, and the USA Today also credibly describe what is conventionally understood by the public as the "border czar"'s role, precisely the things that Harris is blamed by the resolution for not doing. Time: "In fact, Harris was never put in charge of the border or immigration policy. Nor was she involved in overseeing law-enforcement efforts or guiding the federal response to the crisis. "

On balance, the sentence quoted from Congressional resolution text ("known colloquially as") and Time magazine ("never put in charge of") both seem accurate. Whether or not Harris's role is that of this informal moniker is not verifiable, but the difference from prior border czars is real.

On this page, I think we can best inform readers by listing Harris's more official role under the title column, something like "head of diplomatic efforts for the Root Causes Strategy on migration," along with a brief footnote. This is not the place for further extended text, which should be added at Kamala Harris#Immigration.--Carwil (talk) 01:37, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a footnote in this case would be wise, including her as a "border czar" (as claimed by peers, press, and public,) but noting that her actual delegated duties were more modest than past officials so similarly called. Certainly she should not be removed outright, as this would be profoundly misleading. Garnet Moss (talk) 01:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a perception in this thread that the article previously referenced Harris and that removing her violates some longstanding consensus. In fact, she was added today in this diff. I'm not sure we can consider it "profoundly misleading" to fail to include her when she hasn't been included in the three-ish years since the publication of the articles we're relying on for the term. Dyrnych (talk) 01:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I meant more in the sense that to omit her entirely, given the recent coverage, would be misleading. More information is preferable to less. Anyway, I very quickly (few minutes' work) mocked up what I think we're talking about in terms of the footnote, what would you say? Certainly the text would need to be revised, as I said this is just a proof of concept to clarify the conversation. Garnet Moss (talk) 02:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most likely because of this viral tweet. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 04:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. Czar is a Russian term, not an American term. 2A01:B340:80:BE4:A8AE:A125:67B0:6991 (talk) 23:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative commentators have been watching this page all day, waiting for some fool to march in and remove her name, given the new official narrative that VP Harris had nothing at all to do with the border and that "Harris as Border Czar is obvious propaganda, nevermind the three years we spent calling her that". It needs to be reverted, it was uncontested for over a year. I know Wiki editors know see themselves as Winston Smith, loyally serving the Ministry of Truth, but come on. Greenwoodjw (talk) 01:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Greenwoodjw If "we" spent three years calling her that, why was she only added to the page today? Dyrnych (talk) 01:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So true, it should have been added 3.5 years ago. 2600:1700:601:30:E109:AACC:4C43:6800 (talk) 13:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Assume good faith. WP:AFG I agree (somewhat) with your conclusion but this isn't how it's done. Garnet Moss (talk) 01:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have yet to see a single person claim she had nothing to do with the border, but conventionally-speaking, she doesn’t fit the widely-understood definition of a border czar, even if she was referred to as such colloquially. That’s why there’s an issue. There no being any contest on a very obscure Wikipedia article for a length of time does not mean it was correct all that time, either — and, upon reviewing, she was not even listed in 2023, so what you’re claiming isn’t even true. 2600:8804:168D:5600:996E:5EC8:D2AA:13A0 (talk) 02:24, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the thrust of your comment, (and certainly not with Greenwoodjw,) but I'd like to note that I really do not think there is a "widely-understood definition" of czar in the sense people use it in the United States. As I commented above, as an informal title, it can't be evaluated prescriptively - only descriptively. "Has the subject been called a 'czar'?" is a very relevant question, in the way it isn't for an official title. Whether or not she is one has now become a political football, but I think it would be a derogation of purpose to not feature the Vice President here in some form. Exactly -how- is the question. Garnet Moss (talk) 02:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is quite close to how I look at the matter. The (very belated!) reversals by certain news organizations in the last few days are relevant and our article addresses the matter in one of its only two narrative notes. However, at and around the time she was very publicly given the assignment, we have more evidence—I believe, *way* more evidence—than with anyone else who appears on this list that she was indeed identified as a "czar" by WP:RELIABLE sources. 24.90.253.80 (talk) 04:39, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That term "Border Czar" is a Russian term, not an American one. 2A01:B340:80:BE4:A8AE:A125:67B0:6991 (talk) 23:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the arguments from both sides.

For removal: (1) She was never officially given that title, (2) she never said she had that role and later rejected it, (3) she only had diplomatic responsibility, she never was in charge of border administration or border security (strongest argument imho!). (4) Parts of the media say labelling her as border czar was incorrect and shouldn't be done, so there is no widespread agreement on that term and it is explicitly rejected by some outlets.

Against removal: The media (even those who later rejected that title) widely assigned that role to her and this wasn't immediately opposed by her or the administration or the media/commentators. The rejections only came after her campaign started.

Both sides have good arguments for their position. It would be wrong to leave her out completely, because media reporting that used that title was widespread across the political media spectrum. On the other hand, just including her in the table would be just as wrong, because she had a very different role than the other "border czars" (diplomatic only) and whether she should be named "border czar" is highly controversial in the media today (also unlike all the others who are listed in the table).

So I think a compromise solution is needed. Here are are two suggestions what we can do:

1. Listing her with a grey shading and a note in the table after her name "(diplomatic role only, no actual responsibility for border administration or security)"

2. Having a separate category "border czar (diplomatic role only)" and listing her as the sole entry in that category with footnotes explaining it.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

Chaptagai (talk) 05:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very thoughtful. I disagree, but let's first address a clear irrelevancy in the "For removal" paragraph: "She was never officially given that title." Please keep in mind: No one on the list was officially given the title of "czar." That's simply not a reason for removal.
As for the compromise suggestions revolving around the notion that she had a purely diplomatic role, setting her apart from other so-called czars:
(1) While her role was primarily diplomatic, it also went significantly beyond that. From a July 2021 White House "fact sheet" listing her accomplishments on the issue to that point:

Working with the private sector. On May 27, Vice President Harris launched a Call to Action for the private sector to make new commitments in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras to expand economic opportunities. The initial group of 12 companies and organizations committed to helping over 13 million people, offered to provide $750 million in resources, and established a non-profit organization to support economic development efforts in the region – The Partnership for Central America. These initial commitments will provide financial services to small business owners, internet access and digital banking to rural communities, housing for low-income families, and reduced barriers to higher education. Since the launch, over 150 companies and organizations have expressed interest in joining the Call to Action.

(2) Even if her role had been exclusively diplomatic, that still wouldn't make her unique on this list. "Middle East czar" George J. Mitchell, for instance, had purely diplomatic responsibilities.
(3) None of the contemporaneous sources identifying her as "border czar" added anything like "diplomatic role only" as a caveat. No doubt the scope of the specific roles of the others on our list varied widely. The list doesn't exist to detail the scope of each one—the caveats would be endless. It exists simply to identify those who were labeled "czars" at the time and the generally recognized subject of their "czardom".
(4) The current controversy over the label in Harris's case certainly deserves coverage in the article devoted to her, just as it currently is touched on here, but it in no way affects the historical fact that she was widely referred to as "border czar" when she received the assignment. The controversy obviously stems not from years-long questions about the suitability of the term in her case, but from the fact that it became a political hot button due to her becoming the presumptive presidential nominee of one of the two major US political parties. That sort of highly circumstantial "controversy" does not warrant a "compromise solution" to the well-sourced list. 24.90.253.80 (talk) 06:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, IP. Thanks for your detailed response, highly appreciate it. My main concern with your argument that nothing sets her apart from others on the list would be the following: She herself, the administration and lots of relevant media organizations reject the label "border czar" for her. I am not aware that that's the case for anyone else on the list, so that's something that does set her apart from the others and it's definitely relevant and important. In my opinion, this has to be indicated in the list itself, not just in a foot note. It's a widely disputed title for her, while for others on the list that is not the case. Chaptagai (talk) 11:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Everything you've said merits the very special narrative footnote we've given the issue. Some might feel it doesn't even merit that: she was called a "czar," many times, so she's on the list, period. But I'm on your side—we must address it.
However, neither Harris nor the Biden administration nor "lots of relevant media organizations" nor anyone else rejected the "border czar" label when it was appplied to her, over and over and over and over and over again in 2021 (and, I believe, in 2022). All of those parties who weighed in cheered the label. It was NEVER disputed until a few days ago, and—obviously—not due to longstanding questions about accuracy, but to entirely immediate concerns about political inconvenience. That's a tendentious issue to be given special treatment in other, narrative articles, not in this list. 24.90.253.80 (talk) 13:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, almost forgot: Chaptagai, you've now claimed twice that Harris has "rejected" the label of "border czar." I don't believe that's true. Can you cite a single source for that? 24.90.253.80 (talk) 13:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to look for the sources which I currently don't have enough time to do, but even if she herself didn't explicitly reject the label (she certainly hasn't embraced it): I think what's not in dispute is that in the case of Harris, the "border czar" label is very controversial today, in the midst of a presidential campaign. Even if there was no controversy in the past, the present controversy with a very strong media presence, distinguishes Harris from the others on the list. It is therefore warranted to put her in a different category or at least add "(disputed)" after her name or something to that effect. Chaptagai (talk) 14:35, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(1) "I would have to look for the sources which I currently don't have enough time to do." You had the time to make it up, the time to repeat what you made up, but not the time to source it—understood.
(2) We've done "something to that effect"—we added a very special narrative note. No more is "warranted". 24.90.253.80 (talk) 16:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We just can't treat a person where the title is so controversial the same as all the others where the title has not been subject to a nationwide controversy on all channels. A foot note is simply not enough, no one looks at the footnotes. I would suggest three ways forward as a compromise: (1) Put her in a separate category "Diplomatic border czar" plus footnotes (2) Add "(diplomatic role only)" after her name plus footnote, (3) add "(disputed)" after her name plus footnoes. Each of those sounds like a fair compromise to me. Chaptagai (talk) 20:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User M boli kindly provided a reference below: . "Republicans try to crown Harris the 'border czar.' She rejects the title". Chaptagai (talk) 21:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both sides do not have a good argument since the term Czar is a Russian term, not an American one. Diplomacy is also a completely different role than a control role.
This is Russian propaganda. 2A01:B340:80:BE4:A8AE:A125:67B0:6991 (talk) 23:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth, the Republican efforts to use the word "czar" and administration people rejecting the term go back to 2021, from when Biden charged Harris with looking into the causes of migration. Efforts to tar Harris with border enforcement failures go back just as far. Here are two WaPo articles published within a few weeks of the original appointment.[1][2] One article describes Republicans bleating that word "czar" which the administration kept rejecting. They also explain that Republicans will try to pin border enforcement failures on Harris regardless of that wasn't her charge. -- M.boli (talk) 19:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Harris was never called a "border czar" by the administration, nor was she given protracted tasks associated with the border. This is just a case of contemporary politics being played with WP content, as "the border" is the #1, 2, and 3 issue of the Trumpists. Get the banhammer ready. Carrite (talk) 21:26, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Harris should be listed with a parenthetical "disputed" that links to the discussion on her page. Wikipedia can not, and should not, make a decision on who is right in a developing political discussion. That is: Harris, Kamala (disputed) (code :[[Kamala Harris|Harris, Kamala]] ([[Kamala Harris#immigration|disputed]])) NE Ent 21:39, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We are not making a decision. There is no official designation of her as a border czar or of being charged with any tasks on protecting the border, the duty of Homeland Security. It is simply a lie. We cannot include her in a list of executive branch czars if there is zero evidence that she was an executive branch czar. After all this argument, no one has found the source that is needed. Her official appointment. What next, will we allow the Congress to appoint a Secretary of State? O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Czar page itself makes mention of "Official Designation" and states that
    "The list of those identified as "czars" is based on inescapably subjective judgments, as individuals or offices may be referred to with the nickname by some publications or public figures, while not by others. A more limited (though no less subjective) definition of the term would encompass only those officials appointed without Senate confirmation."
    So you have two pathways of being listed as a Czar, While correct in that Kamala doesnt meet the limited definition of a Czar, Due to the media, public figures and others naming her and refering to her as a Czar, It is a direct fact that she should be included in the list of Czars. 203.219.196.146 (talk) 02:48, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Various media and public figures have declared that the Democratic Party is a pedophile ring. Should we include that in Wikipedia? O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:23, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello O3000, as far as I understand the U.S. government never officially appoints a "czar" so your suggestion would mean the entire list has to be deleted. The title is assigned by the media and in the public discourse about certain roles of certain people. Kamala Harris has widely been referred to as a "border czar" in the media, so I think we have to add her to the list, but unlike all the others on this list, in her case that label has been vehemently disputed and therefore that must be pointed out, e.g., as NE Ent suggests by adding (disputed) after her name. Chaptagai (talk) 05:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The president announces such. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:21, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I support this solution.Harris, Kamala (disputed) Chaptagai (talk) 05:03, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your argument lacks and here is why: A position of "border Czar" does not exist in American government. Facts are facts and Wikipedia can make this decision easily based on facts. There should be no "disputed" by Harris's name,as the Trump-Maga have literally made this position up in their minds. 2A01:B340:80:BE4:A8AE:A125:67B0:6991 (talk) 23:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Sullivan, Sean; Wootson Jr., Cleve R. (2021-04-03). "With new immigration role, Harris gets a politically perilous assignment". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2024-07-26.
  2. ^ Wootson Jr., Cleve R. (2021-04-27). "Republicans try to crown Harris the 'border czar.' She rejects the title". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2024-07-26.


Article fully protected for a day

[edit]

The situation was descending into edit war between established editors. Favonian (talk) 19:21, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The revision by @GordonGlottal is in direct contradiction to the facts and given the media spotlight on this wikipedia page already being circulatied during the edit war, Removing and locking this page sans KH will only drive people further to distrust WP as a source of information.
Given that above user also has the burden to demonstrate verifiability as this not only lies with the editor who adds but with the editor who restores material. the page should be reverted to the edited version and locked for discussion around WHY it should be removed
Given the prior sources that meet WP:RS for the addition of the edit, I have yet to see any logical reason why "previous status quo has to remain while you discuss" nor can see this cited in any WP Rules.
Several reliable sources provide refrence to KH being refered to as the Border Czar
Between 1 Jan 2020 – 1 Jan 2022 there 75+ articles from various news outlets and organisations stating and refering to her as the Border Czar
These two alone should meet the criteria for WP:RS
[1]https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/09/kamala-harris-was-set-up-to-fail-as-bidens-border-czar/
[2]https://www.axios.com/2021/04/14/harris-immigration-visit-mexico-guatemala
"The number of unaccompanied minors crossing the border has reached crisis levels. Harris, appointed by Biden as border czar, said she would be looking at the "root causes" that drive migration."
Given that the US Czar wiki states
"The list of those identified as "czars" is based on inescapably subjective judgments, as individuals or offices may be referred to with the nickname by some publications or public figures, while not by others"
It is therefore perfectly acceptiable that when only media and publications, along with various public figures refered to her as the Border Czar that she and others be included in this list. 203.219.196.146 (talk) 02:44, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about we freeze the page in the version of one of the proposed compromise solutions (e.g., Harris, Kamala (disputed)), as proposed above? Then a discussion over the final version can take place while the version that's meanwhile displayed isn't one-sided. Chaptagai (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, removing the edit and locking when WP:BURDEN has been met by the author who added Kamala in and there are several WP:RS that refer to her as Czar was wrong.
WP:BURDEN should fall to those who argue for the removal, page should either be reverted to the version with a note about the disputed status to allow further discussion. 193.115.85.154 (talk) 13:44, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have a consistent policy (WP:BURDEN, WP:ONUS) of preserving status quo versions of pages during discussion when an addition is challenged. We are generally even tighter about this when it comes to BLPs. Everyone needs to stop edit-warring. GordonGlottal (talk) 02:22, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2024

[edit]

The border Czar under the Biden Administration needs updated back to the way it was before someone changed it for political reasons. Roberta S Jacobson was replaced with Kamala Harris in 2021. The entire world knows this, and the proof is easy to find. Chuey316 (talk) 23:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 22:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars&oldid=1263978542"