Talk:Chief of Protocol of the United States

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

United States: Presidents / Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

International relations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

The list of Chiefs of Protocol list Shirley Temple Black as serving from July 1, 1976 to January 21, 1977 under Richard Nixon. Either the dates or the president is incorrect as Nixon resigned in 1974. If the dates are correct, then she served under Gerald Ford. 141.211.198.75 (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC) kg[reply]

The dates were correct. I fixed the link. Tb (talk) 22:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the newly established 6th Division of the Department of Protocol....It was recently outlined in a article published by the Washington Diplomat.

The article cited added as a reference very clearly outlines the new structure of the department to include the new Division of Outreach. Please read the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.91.252 (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is the quote from the Cheif of Protocol of the United States.

Also note that the State Dept website has many dead links and is not up-to-date as many positions listed are actually vacant having left the State Department many many months ago for other jobs outside the public sector. I think a direct quote to the media by Ambassador Brinker on the function of her department is a appropriate source. The DC media has widely reported on the expansion of the role of the dept with its Experience America program.

“So we extended our mission by creating an outreach division, giving ambassadors the opportunity to explore more of America and connect them with America’s foremost leaders — beyond anyone they’d meet in traditional diplomatic circles,” Brinker ex-plained at a recent Heritage Foundation event titled “Experiencing America: Public Diplomacy at Its Best.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.91.252 (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article refers to a "division of outreach", but it is not clear at all that this is one of the five senior official Divisions of the office. It could easily be a simple desk with responsibility for outreach, which the journalist labels "division", not knowing that this is a technical term. An official org site would be helpful. It is a shame if the US Department of State is so poor at outreach (irony!) that it can't adequately maintain its own website, but Wikipedia is about verifiable sources. Perhaps the article could say that there are press reports. Tb (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brinker is by far the most notable Chief of Protocol since Shirley Temple Black. Why is her changes to the department not as notable? I am unable to find any articles or references to to the work of any other Cheif of Protocol. I believe this makes Brinker's changes notable and have reverted back to the previous version. Feel free to edit but mention of Brinker's influence to the role is very relevant to this article. --207.179.232.33 (talk) 21:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brinker couldn't even get the state department to list her changes on its website. If the United States Secretary of State does not think it's worthy of mention on their website, it certainly doesn't seem relevant here. If you want to argue that her changes are more important than any other chief of protocol besides Black, please provide a reference that establishes her importance relative to other incumbents. Tb (talk) 00:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another way to make the same point: if Brinker were so notable, then she wouldn't need a big sentence detailing her accomplishments. The reason for the sentence is to try and make her notable. Notice that we don't explain Black's biography or importance here; it stands out all on its own. Black would have been a household word even if she had never been chief of protocol; Brinker is not a household word to very many people at all, and would be another businessperson/charity-founder among jillions if she had not ever held the post. Moreover, her chief notability these days is a rude insult to Barack Obama, which makes it particularly ironic to insist on her reputation! Tb (talk) 00:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now we have one of the anonymous IP editors blanking talk, and adding the text back. Is there anyone besides these anonymous IP editors--who seem to be the same person, though it's most unclear--who thinks the text should be there referring to a past chief of protocol and lauding her work as better and more important than everyone else's? Tb (talk) 03:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ir would be great if there was some sort of explanation anywhere in the article as to why it's usually women serving in this position. Any ideas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.224.223.202 (talk) 14:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization

"The chief of protocol of the United States" is correct (lowercase) because "chief of protocol" is modified by the definite article "the". See example "Richard Nixon was the president of the United States." at MOS:JOBTITLES. Eyer ^contact 14:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why the gap?

Looking at the list, the office was pretty much continuously occupied except for January to December 2017. The article does not give the reason why this post was unfilled - were its duties covered by someone else with another job, or is it a redundant position and not actually required? What were the drawbacks of not having an incumbent to carry out the duties? 2.31.162.81 (talk) 15:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]