Talk:Czar (political term)

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States 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.

Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom 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.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Criticism

It seems like too much weight is being given to current events in the "criticism" section of this article. In just a few weeks, right-wing commentators, politicians and their supporters have created an "anti-Czar" movement that apparently ignores historical usage of the term. Coverage of this fact is given too much prominence in an article that should really be written from a generally historical perspective. 70.91.155.242 (talk) 15:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the political criticism of czars has come in recent times, as far as I can tell. If you have sources for political criticism of czars from previous eras, please add it. The "Effectiveness" section contains scholarly criticism of czars, and that is much more balanced across eras. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How many

The article begs the question "How many czars existed under each of the presidents who had czars?" To say that czars always existed, but then to only mention 2 for Nixon, for example, and then suggest 20 or so for Obama is unsettling to this reader because an increase in quantity often makes a qualitative change in usage. So, if someone could include some stats in this article it would be helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cliophile (talk • contribs) 03:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a separate article, List of U.S. executive branch czars, that has the stats. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a distinction might be made between the number of czars appointed during intense crises, such as during World War II, and czars appointed during a time of low-level crises, such as the late 1980s and 90s. I don't think today's economic woes equal World War II, but they are surely more troublesome than anything besetting the country or government during the 1980s and 1990s. It would be an era better compared to the 1970s, and a comparison of czar use during that economically challenged decade might make the article more analytical.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cliophile (talk • contribs) 03:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Czars aren't only for economic crises. When GHWB appointed William Bennett "drug czar" in the late 1980s, illegal drug usage was generally considered a worse crisis than it is now. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The list link is helpful. From the list it does seem that the use of czars not "approved" by the Senate skyrocketed with George W. Bush. I counted roughly 19 (subtracting out the repeats, or naming a new czar for an already established czar position) for his 8 years in office. President Obama does seem to be using czars as did President Bush (I roughly counted 25 not "approved" for these 9 months, although 2 may be "repeats," it was hard to tell from the list). Also, it may be that the Senate eventually recognizes some of Obama's czars. Since he hasn't been in office that long, it makes a comparison tricky. But I would say there appears to be a movement in the presidency, beginning with Bush (although Clinton upped the ante a little bit in doubling the number normally used), to administrate differently than before in this domain. On the surface of it, the czar usage does seem to increase the reach of the presidency, which, if correct, is significant in the age old competition between the three branches of government, and something along these lines might be included in the article.Cliophile (talk) 04:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the list article says about its stats, "Note that what is measured is the popularity of the word czar, rather than an objective measure of authority." An analysis of the growth of the power of the executive branch has to look at many staffers and many roles and many actions in each administration, not just whether the administration or the media called certain positions "czars". Wasted Time R (talk) 07:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poor definition/intro

I'm sorry if this is the wrong place to put this, but... i came to this article because i'm not a US resident and i wanted to learn what is, in fact, a US "czar". The intros nothing but weasel words resulting in a very poor definition. "Some" "may" "many" are all present in the span of about 3 sentences. There is some note of it being a media coined term, but i really think that should be the first sentence if that's the case. What are the objective criteria required for one to be labeled a "czar"? Is whether the Senate approves really important? The intro suggests not since "many" (but not all) don't have it. If it's not required, why is it mentioned at all? Is focus important? Czars "may" focus on a single area. What branch they work in? "Some" are even appointed outside the executive branch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.71.176 (talk) 16:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The intro tells it like it is. It's not a well-defined thing. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale

The paragraphs under the "Rationale" section have some confusing sentences. For example:

"Another is that Americans of the era adopted exotic Asian words to denote those with great, and perhaps unchecked, power, with 'mogul' and 'tycoon' being other instances."

Is that saying that these were similar terms used elsewhere? Or that the used of these terms prompted the use of an alternative, 'czar'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.194.203.42 (talk) 21:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The former. I've tried to clarify in the article. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CECA

This article starts out "Czar or CECA is an informal title for certain high-level officials…"; but "CECA" isn't expanded or defined anywhere within. What is the meaning of CECA? 71.90.72.104 (talk) 01:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nor does CECA even link to this page, or otherwise gloss it in a manner that would make any sense of this. Removed as spurious. 84.203.32.23 (talk) 03:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ebola Czar

Is it notable that the politicians calling for an Ebola Czar have denounced czars in the past and are currently holding up the confirmation of the surgeon general? Hcobb (talk) 13:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not here. Arzel (talk) 15:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No link to Tsar?

Shouldn't this page link to Tsar anywhere, and even have a "You might mean this other term" header? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salty-horse (talk • contribs) 07:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Czar (political term). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First use of Tsar

Re: the first paragraph of "Development of the term", there is a X century tombstone of a high-ranking official in the Bulgarian kingdom of the time, referring to Simeon I and his son Peter I of Bulgaria as Tsars (цр҃и=цар). Here is the Bulgarian Wiki entry: https://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/Плоча_на_Мостич The Serbian and Russian kingdoms emerge a few centuries later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bnulat (talk • contribs) 03:08, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Females: Czarina

Hi everyone,

I think the introduction of the article should briefly mention that the term "czar" is falsely used in the public discussion for females as the correct term for a female would actually be Czarina. The gender-neutral term is established and widely used, so I wouldn't want to change anything else in the article. I would just want to add one brief sentence explaining that the correct female form would be "Czarina". Chaptagai (talk) 04:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, as there were no objections I have included this in the introduction. I am not an English native speaker so everyone feel free to improve the wording. Kind regards. Chaptagai (talk) 05:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]