Jump to content

Talk:Chad Wolf/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Protestors July 2020

Acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolf details the unhinged violence unfolding in Portland.

"They're coming armed with rocks, bottles, baseball bats, power tools, commercial-grade fireworks...targeting their violence on federal court house and federal law enforcement officers."

Section? Wikipietime (talk) 04:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Fox News Laura Ingram interviews. Would a portion of transcript of his stating that continued presence in Portland to control criminals be acceptable? Wikipietime (talk) 02:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Separating families

Wolf devised a policy. He had to, Obama and Biden did it without a policy. Exercising common sense, Obama Biden didn’t want criminals released into the country and didn’t want children housed with adult criminals. Separation was necessary.

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/democratic-debate-september-2019/h_ca819e341152d783479eb2dc6240c08c F. L. (talk) 01:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Locked?

Locked in your bunker because you are cowards who beat unarmed Navy vets? Why don't you and Chad come outside and take a walk without any boogaloo goons and see what the people think? Locked to protect new information from being added?

Such as Speaker Pelosi calling the use of unidentifiable officers as stormtroopers?

Such as a U.S. Attorney general calling for an investigation?

Such as the state suing in federal court to remove these officers?

Lock it down if you want but at least have the courage to keep it up to date SMSLWren (talk) 05:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Waiting on you cowards to actually do something SMSLWren (talk) 06:55, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@SMSLWren: Due to persistent vandalism, the article space was semi-protected so that only autoconfirmed users could edit it, with protection set to expire at 19:29, 19 July 2020. You created this talk page section at 05:37, 19 July 2020—less than 14 hours before the article would be automatically unlocked. What's the hurry? Less than five hours after I post this comment, you or any other unconfirmed user will be free to edit the article as you see fit, provided of course that you comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I look forward to your courageous contributions here. NedFausa (talk) 14:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Antifa trolls like you are why the pages gets locked. Go to twitter for your childish rants. F. L. (talk) 12:42, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Lobbyist clients?

“ From 2005 to 2016, Wolf was a lobbyist, helping clients secure contracts from the Transportation Security Administration, his previous employer.”

Insufficient Wikipietime (talk) 02:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

It’s an issue in our system. The revolving door in and out of govt with stops in lobbying and think tanks. 

F. L.  (talk) 14:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

"Acting" vs. Senior Official Performing the Duties Of

The current version of the page incorrectly refers to Wolf as the "Acting Secretary." But this is not accurate. "Acting" official is a specific title that has legal ramifications under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act. "Acting" officials may perform any function that is in the sole authority of the main official (DHS Secretary) and that cannot be delegated to any other government official. Officials can only serve in an Acting role for 210 days after the date of the vacancy, after which they become the "Senior Official Performing the Duties Of" the job. [1].

While Wolf was indeed appointed as Acting Secretary, because 210 days have passed, he is no longer able to claim that title. Therefore, it is incorrect to refer to him as the Acting Secretary as that is a title he does not hold. According to the law, he is the Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Secretary of DHS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:a601:a9a2:5000:cec:16d2:c183:3000 (talk) 03:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I have been trying to figure out the difference between "acting" and "senior official performing the duties of" for some time, but I haven't found any sources at all that explicitly define the difference between them (including the source you linked to). It may be an informal distinction of some kind. You appear to be right about the lapse in legal authority, but it doesn't appear that this triggers a change in title. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 05:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
The reference linked says that there is debate about the legal authority and about the title. There is legal debate about what he can and cannot due once 210 days pass. That is reflected by his title. That debate should be reflected, both in terms of his legal authority and his title. I posit that Ken Kuccinelli falls under the same category. And for the record, Ken signs his emails "Senior Official performing the duties of..." 2605:A601:A9A2:5000:95E2:75B2:D6A:5978 (talk) 02:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
The reference cited constitutes WP:OR and is therefore unacceptable. Until a better source can be found, we must rely on the Official website of the Department of Homeland Security, which shows "Secretary (acting)" as the title of Chad F. Wolf. Note to IP 2605:A601:A9A2:5000:95E2:75B2:D6A:5978: I have undone your edit. Please await consensus before restoring. NedFausa (talk) 03:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
The cited Congressional Research Service report is a reliable source, it just doesn't support what the IP user is saying. Additionally, the DHS succession isn't controlled by the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, it's controlled by separate language in the Homeland Security Act, so I'm not sure if the 210-day limit even applies. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 19:34, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
This is call kind of moot, now that it the GAO has found that Wolf never legitimately became Acting Sec in the first place, so the 210 day concern doesn't apply, he never had day 1. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "The Vacancies Act: A Legal Overview" (PDF). Congressional Research Service. 28 May 2020. Retrieved 7 July 2020.

background ?

Ethnic & religious background ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:2AA0:3200:1C8F:2638:A675:53E1 (talk) 05:46, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Disputed in headings

Per RSEs, Wolf's role is disputed; WP:NPOV requires that Wikipedia reflect that fact. Feoffer (talk) 21:50, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

No, what is disputed is if he is in that role legally. Please read WP:ONUS, and do not re-insert material that has no consensus, thanks. Trying to reconnect (talk) 21:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

About Chad Wolf’s Nomination

Why is Chad Wolf not the United States Secretary of Homeland Security anymore? Suchi Sobel (talk) 15:46, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

He never has been. He was named "acting Secretary", which means he didn't have the official Secretary title but was filling the duties until a proper nomination and appointment could be made... but a judge found that naming him "acting Secretary" had not been done appropriately. He is currently nominated for the full Secretary role, but has not yet been approved by Congress. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
According to a federal court, the successor of some positions are defined by law. Who takes over if the President is sick? The vice president. Similarly, under the law, the person who was supposed to take over Homeland Security is not Wolf, it turns out. Feoffer (talk) 02:29, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

A difficult article... please discuss

I only came across this page today, but as you all doubtless know, this isn't as an easy one to write. I thought I would open this so we can discuss how we should refer to this man rather than continue with the decentralized correcting and correcting back.

Some points:

  • He was Acting Secretary, although this was declared to be unlawful. I don't think this one is controversial, but we definitely shouldn't refer to him as "never being Secretary" or the like.
  • Including that he is an "accused war criminal" is defamatory and wrong. Might I remind you all this is a BLP.... The only source I saw cited for this was post-2013 Newsweek, which is in Wikipedia:Perennial Sources as unreliable. Even then, he has not been formally indicted with anything, and even if he had, I'm not sure this should be included--innocent until proven guilty.
  • Not sure whether to say he still is Acting Secretary. I think we should hold off on this until it is resolved by the Trump admin.

mossypiglet (talk) quote or something 00:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a tricky one. Firstly, war criminal was obviously inappropriate, good call on removal. We certainly cannot say he WAS or IS the Acting Sec, but nor can we ignore the fact that he went around doing the job of an acting secretary for many months. The current revision says "was unlawfully named Acting Sec", which seems like a good summation. Feoffer (talk) 02:20, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm not so sure I can agree with Feoffer wholly. First, yes, we can't ignore the fact that Wolf is/was the de facto acting Secretary (the Senior Official wording controversy aside): but we also can't ignore the fact that (a) as of right now, Mr. Wolf is still listed on the DHS website as "Acting Secretary of Homeland Security" (which, I hope, settles the above question); and that (b) that Judge Nicholas Garaufis's decision might not be the last word on this matter, given possible appeals. Moreover, those issues aside, it's still unclear if Mr. Wolf remains the acting secretary: NPR intimates that Mr. Wolf "has been serving" in the role; The Washington Post says that Mr. Wolf's position is rather unclear, and that Mr. Pete Gaynor is in control of DHS for the time being (maybe); and The New York Times continues to state, even as of today's update, that "Chad Wolf [is] the secretary of homeland security [sic]". All this to say that maybe we shouldn't necessarily claim that Mr. Wolf was appointed unlawfully—at least, quite yet. That's a thorny legal matter that we shouldn't opine on, at least in our encyclopedic Wikipedia voice. That's how I see it, at least. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 01:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
(a) The DHS website dates to months before the ruling, so that's neither here nor there.
(b) Another court might change things at some point in the future, we just have to cover things as they stand now.
That said, There may be room for improvement in attributing "unlawful" to courts rather than wikipediavoice. Something like "Wolf is an American government official who, in a move later ruled unlawful, was named acting United States Secretary of Homeland Security in November 2019.". It's important to mention it in the same breath as the Nov 2019 because obviously it has retroactive implications, not just affecting things going forward. Feoffer (talk) 02:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I think there's room for improvement of the wording, yes, even if I think we should wait until the legal process is complete before updating the article. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 15:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps describing Mr. Wolf as the de facto acting Secretary might work? — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 16:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
"De Facto" might be flirting with WP:OR, but it might work so long as we mention the legality in the same breath. Feoffer (talk) 22:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

The lede's first sentence has undergone quite a bit of alteration in the past while. It currently reads:

Chad Fredrick Wolf (born 1976) is an American government official serving as the acting United States Secretary of Homeland Security since November 2019. His appointment as Acting Secretary was ruled unlawful in November 2020. Wolf has also been Under Secretary of Homeland Security for Strategy, Policy, and Plans since 2019.

Is this accurate? I kind of like the "was ruled unlawful" bit because it doesn't state conclusively that the appointment was unlawful, which is not entirely clear given the possibility of appeals mentioned above. Somewhat worried about the "also" bit, given that he can't hold two offices at DHS at once—if it is Acting Secretary, he's not Under Secretary; if he's not Acting Secretary, he might be Under Secretary. It would be nice to settle on exact language that we can have consensus on and flag with comments in the article, instead of constantly changing it. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

"Unlawful"

Hello,

I could be wrong on this, but I feel that putting "Unlawful" not only in the infobox for Mr. Wolf, but also in the first sentence portrays some editorializing. I feel like the article should give facts about Wolf and his position before delving into the discussion as to whether it's lawful or not. Am I right on this? Or is the IP user who's been undoing all of my edits right? --Rockin 13:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

RockinJack18, We clearly need some consensus on this (as I suggested immediately above).
I don't think it's editorializing, because it reports a court ruling which actually happened. However, it could be WP:UNDUE, since that ruling is likely to be appealed and is, in any event, a trial judge's view (which could be overturned on appeal). (GAO agrees, FWIW.)
My own view is this. Language in the infobox and lede should be as close to parallel as possible, regardless of what we choose to say. I personally like the paragraph in green immediately above, which is what the lede looked like about a week ago. It avoids weird English like "is unlawfully serving" but gets the critical info right in the second sentence. I am wary of the "de facto" solution, since I don't know if that term is legally accurate or is used in reliable sources. I think the infobox looks OK as it is as of the time I'm writing this, but again I think the lede and infobox should be as close to identical as possible.
Which is all to say: we desperately need a consensus on this, and I hope we can get one. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 14:43, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
AleatoryPonderings Just for reference, here is the way it looked before I changed it. I feel like the "(disputed)" already shows that him being the Secretary of Homeland Security is controversial, and it feels more objective than going all out with the "unlawful." Also, I do believe that the fact the a judge views it as unlawful should be in the lead, although not the first sentence. Rockin 17:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
"Disputed" is factually incorrect as far as the sources we have go. The appointment has been determined to be "unlawful" by a judge in a court of law. See, for example, [1][2][3] and there's a lot more. Since this is an actual verdict, any attempted watering down of this back to "disputed" is against the WP:NPOV policy. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
In that case, should the disputed be removed? Rockin 19:56, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Until and unless there's a contrary ruling by a higher court, the current state of affairs is that Chad Wolf's appointment is unlawful. The conclusion of a federal court is dispositive, whether or not we agree with the ruling. The mere fact that the ruling could hypothetically be overturned on appeal is irrelevant. If and when it is overturned, then we change the article again. (Came here via BLPN request.) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Per NorthBySouth, whatever the future holds, the current status of things is that if Wolf ordered it, the order is invalid, because he was named unlawfully and had no legal authority. We cannot mention his role without mentioning in the same breath that it was ruled unlawful. Feoffer (talk) 20:05, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree with NorthBySouthBaranof and Feoffer and have made some changes to the way his status is described in the infobox, making it clear that he is both de facto still serving in the position and that his appointment was unlawful. I agree that "disputed" is inaccurate. ― Tartan357 Talk 04:17, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

COURIER

Is COURIER reliable? One of their articles is being used as a source in the section about summer 2020 protests at the moment. Here is their about page for convenience. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:07, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

AleatoryPonderings, you might get a better response at WP:RSN. ― Tartan357 Talk 09:35, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Tartan357, See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#COURIER. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
There is a consensus for the first two sentences of the lead to read as follows:
Chad Fredrick Wolf (born 1976) is an American government official who was named the acting United States secretary of homeland security in November 2019. His appointment was ruled unlawful in November 2020.
In my opinion, it seems to be the non-explicit intent of the commenters in this AfC that this consensus apply only so long as Wolf occupies, or claims to occupy, the office of Acting Secretary. Sorry --- there was a copy/paste error in the original close, which indicated the wrong text above; it is corrected as of the revised timestamp Chetsford (talk) 02:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC); edited 07:53, 23 December 2020 (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.

Given that Wolf's appointment as acting United States secretary of homeland security has been subject to at least one successful legal challenge, what should the first two sentences of the lead be? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Please select options for both the first and second sentences, if applicable. (If you select option D for the first sentence, a second sentence may not be necessary.) For example, a !vote for option A1 would be for the following:

Chad Fredrick Wolf (born 1976) is the acting United States secretary of homeland security. His appointment was ruled unlawful in November 2020.

First sentence:

Second sentence:

Thanks, all, for your input! AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Survey

  • Option C1. I prefer this option because it seems most neutral to me. As far as I know, only one judge at the trial level has ruled Wolf's appointment unlawful, so it seems a little premature to declare in wikivoice that it is unlawful. But it also seems not right to say, without qualification, that he is the acting secretary. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Option C1: I'm going to push back a little bit on AleatoryPonderings' assessment that the district court ruling is not enough to call the appointment unlawful. The judge has the ability to make that call, and it does stand as such until it is overturned by a higher court, which may or may not happen. However, I think that option D is problematic because it implies (in my opinion) that it was obvious from the start that the appointment was unlawful, which doesn't sufficiently convey that the legality of his appointment was either accepted or merely disputed for most of his tenure. Option C1 is best because it neutrally states both facts—that he was named acting secretary, and that the appointment was later ruled unlawful—while also making clear the timeline of events. ― Tartan357 Talk 04:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Option D best reflects the legal situation -- at no point was Wolf exercising legal authority and orders he issued are invalid and without force. The 2019 naming, widely criticized as unlawful at the time, was in fact unlawful. Feoffer (talk) 05:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Option C1: It strikes a proper balance in both describing the appointment as unlawful while accurately describing that he is an American government official and that he was named secretary. Gbear605 (talk) 05:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Option C2: I'm going to take a different tack from the others: I think C2 is most neutral, as it allows for him to be described as the (admittedly, de facto) acting secretary while noting that only a trial judge has declared his appointment unlawful—that also allows for additional information for appeals (if any happen later) to be added. In short, "1" is just ever-so slightly too final for this encyclopedia: if it's been ruled unlawful, well, why is he still in office and all, etc.? So I think C2, while conveying the information fully, still allows us to add more information later, information that might otherwise conflict with such a bold declaration if we choose "1". — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 22:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
    Javert2113, I think he's still in office because Trump is choosing to ignore the ruling. I haven't seen any evidence of a stay or injunction that would allow Wolf to remain pending an appeal. That's not to say that the rest of your point is invalid, but I think that the "why is he still in office" argument is a weak one. ― Tartan357 Talk 22:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
    I'm afraid you've erred, my friend Tartan357—I meant that to be the response of a random reader to reading C1 and seeing the infobox. That's all. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 22:53, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
    Javert2113, oh, okay. That is a good point, then. It's possibly a WP:SURPRISE consideration. ― Tartan357 Talk 22:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
    Indeed, and just one of general readability (gotta get our wikilinks in, somehow, right?). — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 22:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Either C1 or D: It's important to describe both that there was an attempt to appoint him acting secretary of Homeland Security, and that this attempt was unlawful. I don't think it matters if this attempt is described in the first sentence or in a second, separate, sentence. Loki (talk) 01:18, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
It's quite important to mention the court's ruling "in the same breath" as we mention the naming, it's not as if no one noticed the naming was unlawful at the time. This makes D a better option. But if we ultimately choose C, we should end the C clause with a semicolon, not a period. Feoffer (talk) 11:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Feoffer, I disagree about the semicolon. Option C is long enough as it is (when I wrote it, I tried to shorten it, with limited success). I think a long, somewhat unusual-sounding sentence like "is an American government official who …" adverts sufficiently to the oddness of Wolf's legal status that a semicolon is unnecessary from a content point of view (not to mention a grammatical oddity). AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Option B2: Option C is redundant; the sentence already says he's U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security, so it's not necessary to also say he's an American government official. I prefer option 2 since it gives important context to explain why it can be said his appointment is unlawful. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 04:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
The rules must be different for secretary-level positions. I've never seen any publication or Wikipedia article use the lowercase under any circumstances. I think it's because "Department of Homeland Security" is always capitalized as a proper noun, so "Secretary of Homeland Security" inherits that capitalization. (If it's not a specific named position, then it would be lowercase; you'd say that "X was a deputy secretary", and that "X was the Deputy Secretary of State for Management".) In any case, the usage on Wikipedia indicates that there's a strong consensus to always use the uppercase, just like every other publication I've seen does, and the MOS should reflect this. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 19:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Antony-22, If you wish to alter the Manual of Style, please establish a consensus at WT:MOS. For a counterexample to your view about secretary-level positions, see Mike Pompeo. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Option C1 or C2 I think this best summarizes the situation. He was named acting secretary. This was later ruled unlawful. Saying he was "unlawfully named" acting secretary, though accurate, elides the important aspect that the ruling came many months after his appointment. "An American government official" is probably the best we can do in describing his current job, since that at least is true and anything more specific is under dispute. I view 1 and 2 as equally acceptable: 1 is more concise, 2 is more detailed, both are true. In any case, the wording doesn't need to be perfect, since the article will soon need to be updated to reflect new information and a changing situation. Unlawful or not, he probably won't be acting secretary for much longer. Plus, there will likely be a number of additional court rulings that could change or clarify the situation. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 09:40, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Option C1. It seems to adequately summarize the verifiable information and offers a neutral emphasis. I prefer it to D because D overemphasizes the unlawfulness of Wolf's tenure. What's most important is what he's been doing, not whether he was doing it legally. I prefer C1 to B because "de facto" is jargon-y and not widely understood. I prefer C1 to C2 because C2 is too much detail for an opening paragraph. R2 (bleep) 18:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
  • C1 or D. C1 is more neutral, but I feel it takes two sentences to say what it needs to say and it "buries" the information about the appointment being unlawful in a second sentence. I know that C is technically different from a sentence such as A, but only in context. To a casual reader C by itself would not appear to say anything more than the fact that Chad Wolf is the current secretary. D is more blunt and offers little in the way of context to how this happened (until the last lines of the lede). How about a version where C1 is reformulated to consist of a single sentence while still presenting the same information? PraiseVivec (talk) 13:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  • C2. Simply saying "his appointment is unlawful" in the lead makes it soundly like it's a settled, widely-agreed upon fact that his appointment was unlawful, when in fact this is a single district judge saying the appointment was unlawful. On the other hand, merely saying his appointment is "disputed" doesn't go far enough in indicating the legal issues his appointment has given rise to. And I don't think that these two sentences are too much for an introductory paragraph. Orser67 (talk) 15:20, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  • C1. Although option D can be considered to be an appropriate option too, but I presume that option-C1 might be a better option for it. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 09:53, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

  • At this point, Wolf is almost certainly going to be leaving his position not long after the RfC is closed. With that in mind, we will also need to consider how it should be phrased in the past tense. Gbear605 (talk) 15:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
    Gbear605, Yeah, I was thinking that too. Options C1, C2, and D, which seem to be the most popular, are already in the past tense, so I don't think any modification would be needed there. Re-tensing any version of option B seems harder. Maybe … is a former American government official who was the de facto acting secretary of homeland security from 2019 to 2020?
@Gbear605 and AleatoryPonderings: See the way I handled this at Kevin McAleenan before this RfC started. ― Tartan357 Talk 11:27, 13 December 2020 (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.

Chad Wolf

I am extremely sorry for messing around with Chad Wolf. Suchi Sobel (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Describing resignation

Special:Diff/999795692 is my best attempt at describing Wolf's resignation today without using language that suggests he legally was acting secretary. I was thinking of saying "purported to resign", because it's not clear that one can resign from an office one does not hold, but "purported" (even if accurate) reads as POV to me. Any improvements welcome. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

"former government official"

I just made this edit to the lead [5] as the minimum edit necessary to reflect the subject's changed status. I haven't found a source directly referencing his resignation from government, but he's no longer listed on the DHS's website as under secretary of strategy, policy, and plans [6], and I'm fairly certain we can no longer correctly describe him as a current government official. I think this edit will be uncontroversial, but it is a technical violation of the RFC result from a few weeks ago. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 22:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Red Rock Canyon, Thanks for doing that. It seems quite a fair assumption that he is not a part of the Biden administration. I wouldn't think that news orgs would be covering his (firing? resignation? departure?) between the administrations anyway, as that sort of thing is generally assumed for political appointees. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chad_Wolf/Archive_1&oldid=1257398079"