Talk:List of U.S. executive branch czars

Should Kamala Harris be listed as a "border czar"

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)

This is literal propaganda and revisionism. 74.103.183.51 (talk) 22:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

Agreed! Zonedar (talk) 23:09, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a source for Biden referring to Harris as the "border czar"? Dyrnych (talk) 23:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

The House of Representatives did in 2023 and 2024. 24.57.55.50 (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

The House has no such power. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:04, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed! 24.57.55.50 (talk) 01:16, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

And they corrected their error. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

What is the point of saying something so ridiculous? This is WP:Disruptive. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:06, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

Agreed 2603:9001:103:ABC:19B:55AB:E5F1:8E38 (talk) 01:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Yes, these media sources backpedaling on the description don't mean we should remove her. Killuminator (talk) 00:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

They didn't "backpedal". They corrected their initial error. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

Assume good faith. WP:AGF Garnet Moss (talk) 04:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

@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)

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)

• 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)

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)

@142.147.56.71 Harris wasn't in the article at all until today. Dyrnych (talk) 04:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

What "cause"? WP:AGF O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Are we giving primary sources higher priority than multiple secondary sources now? RussNelson (talk) 19:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Most likely because of this viral tweet. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 04:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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. 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)

• Why would we add that she was appointed "border czar" when she wasn't? O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:16, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you! Totally agree! That position as titled doesn't even exist in American government. Czar is a Russian term,adapted by Russia originating for them from Bulgaria. 2A01:B340:80:BE4:A8AE:A125:67B0:6991 (talk) 23:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  You are misinformed. Franklin Delano Roosevelt created the precedent for presidentially appointed “czars” in government. Additionally, Bill Clinton appointed the first border czar. 2601:204:0:7A20:1D97:A464:8C30:4872 (talk) 23:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  The president announces such. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:21, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

  I support this solution.Harris, Kamala (disputed) Chaptagai (talk) 05:03, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

  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)

References

Article fully protected for a day

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

RFC Proposal: Kamala Harris as "border czar" in the Biden administration

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.

---

While trying to formulate my opinion on the subject, I found that neither discussion above (Asking for consensus: Freeze in compromise version until discussion is resolved and Should Kamala Harris be listed as a "border czar") is very clear as to any proposed changes. So, I am making this section for !votes and discussion on specific versions. Here are the options (taken from the above discussions):

• Option 1: No mention. This is the state of the article at this moment.
• Option 2: Disputed mention. This new state would put "(disputed)" after Harris' name, with a footnote going into some depth concerning the history of Harris being called "border czar".
• Option 3: Normal mention. This was the original listing (note—by "original listing" is meant the original addition of the text to the page), with the only difference between Harris' and others' being a footnote stating that her presidential campaign has disavowed the title.

Option 2 was developed as a compromise between Option 1 and Option 3, given the unusual disagreement over the use of the title. Option 3 treated the media mentions of Harris as border czar as sufficient, followed by the chronologically later disavowal. The supporters of Option 1 have several justifications, mainly (so far as I can see) that the title has always been a source of controversy, ever since President Biden gave her the diplomatic responsibility, and that she has now formally disavowed the title. Wrapped up in this latter argument is the political connection, given that most people who want to bring up the "border czar" title are doing so to the detriment of her campaign. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

TE(æ)A,ea., you are incorrect about the original state of the article. That's a link to the diff of the last version before Joe dropped out and endorsed Kamala for president. She is not mentioned on the page. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:01, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

• Muboshgu: I said original state of the listing, not of the article. In other words, it is the listing as it was before the recent furore of media coverage and edit wars. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:33, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not sure what your definition of "listing" is. She was not listed in the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Muboshgu: I don't understand your confusion. I wasn't pointing to the original state of the article; I was pointing to the original way in which she was referred to as "border czar". TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:16, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

    Still confused. She wasn't mentioned as a "border czar" in any listing I am aware of. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

    I think TE(æ)A,ea means the very first edit that included her on the list on 25th July. I don't think there is any doubt that the list didn't include Kamala Harris at all before 25th July. Chaptagai (talk) 06:49, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  @TE(æ)A,ea. She was not mentioned in the article at all until about two days ago. Dyrnych (talk) 00:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Boldly modified the proposal to add option 4, since multiple people have mentioned it now. Also fixed the "original state" descriptor per the conversation immediately above. Courtesy ping to TE(æ)A,ea.. BTW this should have a {{rfc}} tag to recruit uninvolved participants. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Option 1 - Unless reliable WP:SIGCOV can be provided that existed prior to this current media frenzy. I think its telling Google trends and even edits to this article were nil prior to this week. But I'm happy to be convinced otherwise. – macaddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 21:50, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

• BBC in 2021: «President Joe Biden has put Vice-President Kamala Harris in charge of controlling migration at the southern border following a big influx of new arrivals. Mr Biden said he was giving her a "tough job" but that she was "the most qualified person to do it” […] Announcing Ms Harris's appointment as his immigration czar»
• NBC in 2021: «A senior administration official said Harris' role would focus on "two tracks": both curbing the current flow of migrants and».
• CNN in 2021 (Senior National Correspondent E. Lavandera): «this will be her first visit to the U.S./Mexico border region since she was appointed as the border czar by President Biden»
• Axios in 2021, by Axios political reporter Stef W. Knight: «Biden puts Harris in charge of border crisis»
• Same Axios 3 weeks later in 2021, by Axios reporter Shawna Chen: «Harris, appointed by Biden as border czar»
• Associated Press in 2021: «Joe Biden has tapped Vice President Kamala Harris to lead the White House effort to tackle the migration challenge at the U.S. southern border […] In delegating the matter to Harris, Biden […] When she speaks, she speaks for me,” Biden said, noting her past work as California’s attorney general makes her specially equipped to lead the administration’s response.»
• The Independent in 2021 uncritically cites an interviewee: «The vice president was named Border Czar over 90 days ago».

Some of these, such as Axios and CNN, have engaged in historic revisionism 3 years later, asking for a mulligan and arguing their reporting and editorial process in 2021 was erroneous. So, when are they WP:RS?. The year they publish, the following year, the next, or coincidentally the week after someone becomes a presumptive nominee? Historians have traditionally questioned mediate sources which conveniently rewrite facts long afterward, and for good reason.

XavierItzm (talk) 04:07, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Some of these, such as Axios and CNN, have engaged in historic revisionism 3 years later, Hmm, we used to say one of the marks of a reliable source is correcting errors. I guess we should revise that to say it's politically, motivated historic revisionism. Or would that be historic revisionism on our part? O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

This discussion is clearly running out of gas and Option 2 ("disputed") is the right choice, as there is a lengthy list of reliable media sources referring to Harris as the "border czar" and the article is explicitly a list of people who have been referred to in the media as a "czar." No one has produced any even slightly plausible argument against that. At what point do we close this discussion and update the article? 2601:600:817F:16F0:DDAC:53F8:F543:7659 (talk) 15:03, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Option 2 is the right choice. Even with the Wikipedia liberal bias, Option 2 should be approved. PerseusMeredith (talk) 20:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Thank you, I appreciate the sources; there are clearly media mentions of her being "border czar" after Biden's announcement back in 2021. Whether those three mentions (the Independent is quoting Gov. Abbott, and no one is debating she was tasked with immigration issues) are sufficient could be debated. Perhaps as AjaxSmack mentioned lower down, maybe there is a definitional issue with the article itself. I suppose Harris is an executive branch officials who have been described by the media as a czar of some kind – macaddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 10:41, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Whether it's enough? Wikipedia is a practicing far left politics and is a joke. 2603:800C:2500:3EA5:DFC7:69D0:F1C1:A031 (talk) 09:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:AGF Assume good faith, this isn’t the time or place for name-calling. Though I agree that it’s more than sufficient. Garnet Moss (talk) 20:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@Macaddct1984 I suppose Harris is an executive branch officials who have been described by the media as a czar of some kind - this is where I'm at, too. The "definition" of who can be called a czar is pretty vague, and by the standards in this article and this piece from TIME, Kamala certainly seems to fit within the definition. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Option 1 is the status quo of the article from prior to the change in presidential candidate. Nobody cared to call Harris the "border czar", until she became the presumptive nominee. Biden never referred to her as a "border czar", and her role did not include jurisdiction over the border, hence she was never the "border czar". – Muboshgu (talk) 22:03, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@Muboshgu Nobody cared to call Harris the "border czar", until she became the presumptive nominee This isn't true - see these stories from The Telegraph, NBC, and The Independent. All high-quality RS, all using the term (and without any specific attribution). PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

NBC News is a high-quality RS, but that looks like a blog post by pundit Chuck Todd that has "border czar" as a throwaway bit at the bottom of the article. The Telegraph picks up on an attack from Eric Adams and The Independent picks up on an attack from Lara Trump. So, fair point that "nobody" is inaccurate. Political idiots like Todd, Adams, and Trump called her a border czar. Better news sources didn't, or corrected themselves after the mistake was initially made. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:54, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

C'mon - Chuck Todd, NBC News' "chief political analyst"? That's an analysis that NBC published, not a blog.

The Independent used the term in their own voice ("The issue got picked up by the Fox News morning show, as the hosts also took the opportunity to lambast Ms Harris’s work as the southern border czar" - no quotation, no attribution). And The Telegram presents the term "border czar" as a general attribution in the lede line, but not in a direct quote from Adams anywhere in the article. Neither do they say "this label which Adams incorrectly used" or anything to that effect. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:09, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Option 1 Going back to the early days of 2021, it was reported that "czar" was a Republican rhetorical tactic to tar Harris with a range of border problems that weren't her actual remit. Utterly unclear why this article (or the Harris article) should adopt it. -- M.boli (talk) 00:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

• 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.

Option 1 Muboshgu and Macaddct1984 clearly state the reasons for non-inclusion. Biden never put her in control of the border. Indeed, he spelled out her role in working on root causes and she did increase foreign investment in the problem countries. Guarding the border was a different department and these are very different roles. She was given no authority to handle the border. Yes some in the media got it wrong and later corrected themselves. But we are not in the business of correcting past media errors or using old sources that have since been corrected. What is lacking is any evidence that she was ever assigned a role as "border czar" or referred to by in that manner by the executive branch. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Virtually every point you've made is irrelevant, if not ridiculous. For the umpteenth time: "czar" is a nickname, not an official title with a consistently defined set of powers. You can't seem to grasp that general point, so I guess I'll have to trudge through your more ridiculous specific "observations".

(1) "Biden never put her in control of the border." Irrelevant. Obama didn't put George Marshall "in control" of the Middle East. Nevertheless we list him as "Middle East czar" because he was so referred to in the media.

(2) "She was given no authority to handle the border." Both irrelevant and ridiculous. She was given a broad portfolio handing her the authority to seek diplomatic, foreign-aid, and private-sector solutions to the problem at the border.

(3) "Yes some in the media got it wrong and later corrected themselves." Simply ridiculous. A nickname may be unfair, absurd, or offensive, but it's not in the category of things that can be "wrong." Among the innumerable media outlets that referred to her as "border czar," the few that have retracted that description did so not because it was "incorrect" (again, nicknames are not things that can be "incorrect"), but because it had become, years after the fact...wait for it...politically incorrect.

(4) "What is lacking is any evidence that she was ever assigned a role as 'border czar' or referred to by in that manner by the executive branch." Beyond ridiculous. At this late date in the debate, that's just stupid. Embarrassing. "Czar" is not a term formally used within the executive branch. It's a nickname that appears in media coverage, whether applied by reporters, commentators, or public figures. 24.90.253.80 (talk) 06:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The responsibility for border security was given to Roberta S. Jacobson, as currently stated in the article. Let us not purposely make the article incorrect. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:33, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

whose term ended in April 2021. Things change, eh? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:36, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

And would you look at that, Jacobson wasn't even referred to as a "border czar" upon her appointment [3]. It was in the following 3 months that media began to pick up on and apply the term. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:44, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

If that's the direction in which you wish to push this article, perhaps it should be AfD'ed. If it remains, obviously it should be RM'ed to some variation of media nicknames instead of misleading readers into believing that people have been assigned responsibilities that have never been assigned to them. As it stands, the people in this article with that nickname actually had official positions like this:

• Special Assistant to the President and Coordinator for the Southern Border
• Assistant Secretary for International Affairs, Special Representative for Border Affairs, Dept of Homeland Security
• U.S. attorney and Special Representative for the Southwest Border, Department of Justice

O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe there's any misleading going on - these article are quite, exactingly clear that "czar" is a nickname, and purely subjective at that.

If you want this article RM'd or AFD'd based on Harris' inclusion, perhaps that should wait until after this RFC on her inclusion is closed. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Option 4 (first choice). Option 1 (second choice). Oppose Options 2 and 3 as failing WP:V and WP:NPOV. By "option 4" I mean something like I proposed above. No footnote; no "disputed". Just a description making it clear that people used this term inaccurately, and some continued to do so after the news corrected itself. When a news outlet issues a retraction or correction, the older version is not somehow still equal in WP:WEIGHT. Option 2 (and, of course, option 3) pretends retracted sources are equal in weight to the corrections, which isn't how WP:RS/WP:NPOV works. This is also a misleading proposal. The "original state" references an addition from two days ago which was promptly challenged, not any status quo version. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

As the proponent of Option 2, I want to point out that "disputed" doesn't mean that both sides of the disputes have equally weighted arguments. It just means there are relevant arguments on both sides. I do not think my proposal was misleading. It certainly wasn't intended to be. Chaptagai (talk) 06:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

We don't tag content in that manner. We write NPOV and VERIFIED text. SPECIFICO talk 15:13, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• Rhododendrites: I don't think your Option 4 is wise because it is too opinionated. Given how our definition includes people "described by the media as a czar" I don't see how anyone who is described as a czar by the media can be "mistakenly" described as such. Because of this inherent contradiction, I didn't include that option. In addition, in other parts of the list, where there is a gap in the appointment of any "czar"-like position, there is no statement that there was no czar for that President; there is merely no mention. So, it seems separately unusual to have a listing with "None" specifically for Harris' position. In addition, by saying that "the media corrected its usage" we are taking a very clear political stance as to the issue. Considering a hypothetical Option 2 as a compromise, the one I selected is superior because it states plainly that she has been so described, and that there is controversy as to that designation. Your compromise (Option 4) is unduly biased in Harris' favor, especially insofar as it prioritizes current descriptions over contemporaneous ones. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:35, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  as it prioritizes current descriptions over contemporaneous ones Newspapers publish corrections all the time. Why would we give any attention to something a source says but has retracted due to error? We don't prioritize current descriptions. We use them and ignore the past errors. by saying that "the media corrected its usage" we are taking a very clear political stance as to the issue. No, we are accepting the fact that media make errors and correct them. Indeed, that is one of the signs of reliability. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  I don't have a problem with changing the wording a bit to get rid of "mistakenly". That was an effort to assume good faith on the part of those who keep using the term. But it's not actually "disputed" within the range of sources we consider reliable. And yes, as O3000 says, we should prioritize current over contemporaneous sources when the current sources correct the record. My argument isn't necessarily for "option 4" to be set in stone, but to be the best of the available starting points. Here's a modified version: 'None. In 2021, Harris was given a diplomatic task to address the "root causes" of migration in Mexico and South America. It did not involve any power over the US-Mexico border or immigration policy. Some news media referred to her as "border czar", a title she rejected and never officially held. News organizations issued corrections in 2024, but the title was picked up by critics to cast blame on Harris for the border crisis.' Wordier, but all of it very well sourced in the main Harris article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:57, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  This is bizarre. *Nobody* "officially holds" a title of "czar" in the United States. By your argument, the entire page should be zeroed out. Phanatic (talk) 19:57, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  I've struck "official" above as it's not necessary and I don't want it to be confusing. You're right that czar usually isn't an official role. The point is, calling someone an "X czar" does have implications for a good amount of power/authority/control over X-related policy. The business with "official" or not and the various matter-of-fact statements one way or the other are really more about whether that was applicable in this case. The consensus among reliable sources, including those that previously used the term, seems to be that it was simply misapplied as she did not have such power or authority. That gap between the actual responsibilities and the power built into the term "czar" is exactly why that term became a talking point (because it pretends she had power over border policy). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:52, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

• I added Kamala Harris to the list a few days ago after hearing about the issue in the news. I checked the wording of this list article carefully and found "executive branch officials who have been described by the media as a czar of some kind" (my emphasis) before adding her. (I also added two other missing border czars.) If having her in the list runs counter to the political current at Wikipedia, that wording should probably be changed. —  AjaxSmack  01:47, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
  • That's fair. That wording makes me lean towards my "option 4". It matters that outlets which used the term at the time have clarified that they got it wrong. It means that according to reliable sourcing as it exists now, she was not the border czar but some people still call her that. It's not exactly "disputed" because according to the best sourcing it's inaccurate, but insofar as this page is about media descriptions that metastory maybe worth a qualified mention. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:59, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
    • That's why I added a footnote with "some publications which had used the description "border czar" disclaimed it after Harris began her 2024 presidential campaign" and a reference to the one source I could find that corrected this characterization. Since "czar" has never been an official title, I don't think Harris being called a czar by multiple Rsources (e.g. BBC) should be suppressed, but I'm not going to fight the passions that seem to reign here. —  AjaxSmack  02:18, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

      In my opinion, a footnote is not enough given the scale of the controversy. Few people read footnotes, so cursory readers might get the impression that she was the undisputed border czar. Chaptagai (talk) 06:58, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

      “(Disputed)” followed by a footnote certainly would be, though. Garnet Moss (talk) 22:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment Y'all got into the news. Bremps... 03:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Option 2 (1st choice) and «Option 4» as second choice, given the fact the media widely reported in 2021 she was the border czar: CNN, BBC, Axios, NBC, AP, etc. I mean, in 2021, even Saturday Night Live did a skit on Biden tasking Harris with being «put in charge of solving a little immigration problem down at the Mexican border». . Can the Wikipedia of 2024 deephole the 2021 zeitgeist? XavierItzm (talk) 05:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC) Struck-thru a removed option. XavierItzm (talk) 22:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Thanks, TE(æ)A,ea, for this very helpful recap. I would support either Option 2 or Option 4 with no preference between the two. I also think the article should be frozen in Option 2 so as to not endorse either of the sides while the debate is ongoing. Chaptagai (talk) 06:47, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Editors are not permitted to establish WP:LOCALCONSENSUS in contravention of site-wide policy, which requires us to leave disputed content off of mainspace during the dispute process. If you want to change how Wikipedia handles disputes, see our guidance at WP:PGCHANGE. GordonGlottal (talk) 14:32, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Option 1 The reason that RS have stopped using "border czar" is not that the title of "czar" was wrongly applied (as many here have said, it's always informal) but because "border" is inaccurate—Harris's role does not involve border policy. I think there's room for a line in the lede about the use of "czar" as a kampfbegriff in the 2024 presidential election, but Harris should not be on the list. GordonGlottal (talk) 14:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Option 2 There is, as mentioned, plenty of (archived) WP:RS before Biden dropping out stating that she was the "border czar". And as stated in all revisions of the article (on both sides of this dispute) "The following are executive branch officials who have been described by the media as a czar of some kind." [emphasis added]

Whether or not she claims the title or disavows it, or that her actual duties were or were not the border, (as opposed to immigration) or even that WP:RS have stopped using the term (and/or whether or not it's due to their own internal editorial biases) are all wholly irrelevant. She has been so described by multiple WP:RS. Bob the Cannibal (talk) 16:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the fact that RS have retracted rather changes things. GordonGlottal (talk) 23:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

OTOH, while some RS did, other RS didn't. But again, that's irrelevant. She was so described. Bob the Cannibal (talk) 06:01, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. If we're talking about "whether the media referred to the person as a czar," the fact that some of the journalists who referred to her in that way now regret it (as it was politically harmful to their favored candidate) doesn't change the fact that they did it. I'm sure Donald Trump regrets paying hush money to that porn star and would probably claim in retrospect that he didn't do it, but that doesn't make it so either. 2601:600:817F:16F0:28C4:A15D:188F:EC9 (talk) 06:01, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Option 2 - It’s clear from the sources provided that sigcov was made, and the very fact that we’re debating this means it’s in dispute. If congressional republicans and democrats disagree about the nature of how the Vice President’s role relates to an intrinsically subjective term, that’s how a tertiary, encyclopedic source should convey it. We’re not here to settle the argument, we’re here to communicate the aggregate of secondary sources, which in this case demands acknowledgement of the dispute. This is concert with my earlier comments on this (unfortunately very tricky) issue. Garnet Moss (talk) 22:01, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Option 2 - "Czar" is a nebulous title in the USA, and while it's certainly a relatively uncommon situation for the described "czar" themselves to turn down the title, it doesn't retroactively change the fact that they were described with that term in common parlance for some time in the past. If a noble title is lost, for example, the former holder's Wikipedia page isn't scrubbed of the title; past tense is simply added. Highlighting that there's an active historiographical dispute that's politically motivated is probably the most active current summation of whether the title applies. 74.64.100.109 (talk) 01:31, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Actually, she did not "turn it down" as it was never offered. She rejected the claim that she was ever given the title by the administration. And no one here has provided any reliable source that the administration made such an appointment. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:43, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that “czar” is not an official title, and this list has other examples of persons who were never officially described as such by the WH but were labeled as such by peers, press, and public. Consider the language of this article itself, “Note that what is measured is the popularity of the word czar, rather than an objective measure of authority.”

Based on her actual assignment, “immigration czar”, and specifically “Latin American immigration czar” would have been more accurate. But the title of “border czar” was applied to her broadly by peers, press, and public, even if today many people realize it was not perfectly apt. Garnet Moss (talk) 02:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I realize that there are some politicians and current media (mostly not RS) that refer to her in that manner. But many of them also use other terms, nicknames, derogatories, and false claims about leaders that they don't favor. We have an entire article on List of nicknames used by Donald Trump. They are not official titles either. I would hope that this article won't turn into another nickname page as that sounds like what this example would be since she has never had any responsibility for border security. Indeed, of what value does an encyclopedia provide by calling someone the border czar who had no responsibility for border security. It's misleading. Basically, it's being used as a slur to falsely attach her to the border problems not ever under her control. This is nothing like LBJ appointing Sargent Shriver anti-poverty czar with Senate confirmation. Do we have reliable sources that have not corrected themselves showing that this term is being used by RS or the public at large other than to push a political falsehood? O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

As the sources collected above demonstrate, there was a period of three years in which highly RS sources (BBC, NBC, AP, CNN, etc.) referred to the Vice President as “Border Czar,” and prevalence analysis supports the claim that this was a widely-heard and disseminated designation. Those non-RS sources’ usages, as well as instances like the Congressional Republicans’ resolution, did not exist in a vacuum as a rank smear, (even if the insistence of its accuracy today is.) The retractions of most of the RS sources means that their authority is not to be used to buttress the claim that the VP had czar-like powers over the border, and those sources are correct in acknowledging the weakness of the initial descriptor. Nevertheless, for a period of three years of President Biden’s four year term, Harris was understood by reliable, secondary sources to have played a role that earned the description of “border czar,” and this is highly relevant to the context of this article. As another commenter correctly points out, we should not be putting contentious claims as fact on mainspace, but the acknowledgement of the quasi-czardom is absolutely warranted.

The clearly correct course of action is, as Harris herself might say, to acknowledge context in which this dispute sits. We didn’t fall out of a coconut tree, here. Garnet Moss (talk) 03:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Per contemporaneous headlines, she "rejected the title".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/harris-gop-border/2021/04/16/c3a2f63e-9e24-11eb-8005-bffc3a39f6d3_story.html 74.64.100.109 (talk) 16:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Option 2 Seems to be the most reasonable, omitting it entirely is partisan hackery. Killuminator (talk) 14:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Are you saying all the editors !voting for option 1 are partisan hacks? O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

This accusation veers close to WP:PA; they're describing their own (somewhat emphatic) personal opinion of the option, not the users who support it. 74.64.100.109 (talk) 16:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

One, I made no accusation. Killuminator did. Two, omitting it entirely is one of the options. Killuminator called that partisan hackery. But you can take it to ANI if you think I somehow made a PA. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment The title of this page is List of U.S. executive branch czars. I just looked through the list and it looks like about 98% were appointed or nominated and Senate confirmed for that title by the executive branch, which makes sense considering the title. Perhaps we should drop this idea that you are an executive branch czar if other people have called you that. Particularly considering the amount of political name-calling going around the last several years.O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I can't find any source that a czar was ever nominated by Congress. One of the most famous czars on the list, Steven Rattner, was appointed to "czardom" by the Department of the Treasury and famously hated the term.

https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/03/steven-rattner-hated-being-called-czar

Perhaps there should be some sort of change to the lede of the article to emphasize that "czar" is more of an appellation than an official title? That seems to be what's motivating a lot of the current partisan rancor around whether Vice President Harris held the role or not. 74.64.100.109 (talk) 16:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Department of the Treasury is part of the Executive Branch. I didn't say Congress nominated any "czars". About 98% in this article were appointed or nominated by the Executive Branch and some are confirmed by the Senate. Up until VP Harris, I can't remember Congress declaring anyone a czar. (Well, maybe Czar Nicholas II) O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:50, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

These are important points that could all go in the footnotes of Option 2. Or otherwise in the note right in the table of Option 4 (I am indifferent between 2 and 4). Chaptagai (talk) 17:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

No, that’s a very sad misreading. Senate confirmations were for the actual legal position in the executive branch to which the person may (or may not) have been appointed. Obviously no-one has ever been Senate-confirmed nor voted down for a Czar title itself, because it is an informal title, bestowed by pundits or politicians and crowned by the media. XavierItzm (talk) 20:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Rather a misleading statement, as the instrumental term in question - “czar” - is an informal designation, not an official title of office. Garnet Moss (talk) 20:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Rather a misleading statement If what you are saying is true, this article is what will become misleading. The term "czar" is defined by the OED as "a person appointed by government to advise on and coordinate policy in a particular area". She was never a "border czar" as she had zero authority in border security. So, the title of the article is wrong. This was a list of actual executive branch czars -- that is people with authority. Now the proposal is to make it whatever media once said, even if incorrect and withdrawn, and used as a nickname for political purposes to slur opponents. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

This is a silly article, about a silly imprecise term with no real definition. Still, we must work with what we have... and in the continuing spirit of this article, it seems Harris should be mentioned in a manner like Option 2. For anyone still not 100% sure of what an "executive czar" is, go to the article linked in the lead, or alternatively read this piece from TIME.

With that "definition" of czar in mind, I find it hard to rationalize leaving Harris off this list. She was referred to as much by RS media outlets [4][5][6] and in popular parlance for the past 3 years (albeit mostly from the other side of the political aisle). Now, to address some of the most common oppositions:

• "It's not an official title": Irrelevant. The title of 'czar' rarely, if ever, is official.
• The White House and Harris herself disclaim the term: Irrelevant. Accepting the title is not a criteria of being listed here as one.
• Media outlets that previously used the term now disclaim it: The only actual example of this I've seen is Axios, who used the term in 2021 (article still live, not corrected or retracted), but have now said the label was "incorrect". Most all other RS not using the term now, only reported on it with attribution (mostly to the GOP) back then [7][8][9][10]

There's enough WP:SIGCOV on this from RS to show that this label was applied by more than just her political opponents - whether it was entirely appropriate or not. The current media firestorm and scrutiny on the label is why I think Option 2 is more appropriate than something like Option 3. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I suppose usage of terms change over time. For the purposes of this article, it is proposed that the current term, contrary to the OED definition, will include outright lies to slur opponents. Now you started by saying: This is a silly article.... OK, so we have three options (four options, we have four options - Monty Python lives) to change this:

1. Change it to only include those who were appointed as czars by the executive branch -- as the article title states and is true for 98% of the current text.

2. Also include political slurs designed to misinform the public. (Option #2)

3. Add a separate section on times the term has been misused.

4. AfD the article.

I think the first provides a source of interesting, valuable, historical content while the second sullies this effort. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

First of all, WP:AGF. I understand this is a contentious and political topic but most of the participants in this discussion clearly want what’s best for the site.

And secondly, there’s no question that she was tasked by President Biden to do something. As it happens, that ‘something’ was more of a diplomatic and investigative role focused on addressing the root causes of illegal immigration from South America, not border security per se, and it had a rather lightweight profile compared to other “czardoms” the executive branch has seen. Nevertheless, even if we know that this would’ve been more accurately termed a “root-causes-of-migrant-crisis czar”, that’s not how the task and role was described by media sources. We can’t make up our own terminology, we’re limited to the term of the contemporary consensus of secondary sources which was indisputably “border czar”. This was not a smear, indeed it was used even by favorable opinion, as already proved. Now that we’re looking back at this three-year period in which all reputable sources regarded her (limited) role as that of “border czar”, we have three options. One, we could just include her as ‘border czar’ without further clarification. You and I would both agree that would be patently misleading. Two, we could leave her off entirely. You favor this, but I find this mirror image to be similarly misleading, consigning to oblivion a major event in Harris’ Vice Presidency in the context of this article, confusing the (many) readers who would have remembered the press coverage of her as ‘border czar’, and setting up the article for long-term turmoil as innocent, well-intended editors seek to correct the omission for years down the line. Or three, we can include her with a clear, obvious note briefly relating the confused nature of her alleged ‘czarship’. This option has the strongest potential to be both neutral and informative, and would avert the possibility of it being an ongoing issue for the page. Option 2 is plainly the correct choice, the way I see it, according to Wikipedia’s principles. Garnet Moss (talk) 01:50, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

First, I don't know why you cited AGF. I always AGF. The point is that she was never a "border czar" and therefore does not belong in this article. And this label is being heavily used as a smear as the Republicans are saying that she failed at her task of securing the border, even passing a House resolution to that end. Read the whereases in the resolution.[11] Statement after statement like: "Resolved, That the House of Representatives — strongly condemns the Biden Administration and its Border Czar, Kamala Harris’s, failure to secure the United States border;" She never had any such duty. RS have retracted their incorrect statements. Non-RS have not. And we ay be among the non-RS. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, after reading every single one of your responses, I, along with others are fairly sure you are not acting in good faith.

Your continued assertion that the term czar is a “political slur designed to misinform the public” speaks volumes to your desire to not include KH on the list.

Regardless of the addition here, anyone with a working internet connection and google can easily see that;

1: Kamala Harris was tasked by Joe Biden to address in particular the issues at the southern Border

2: The media, and several RS referred to her using the informal term “czar” well before her nomination for as the Dem Candidate

3: Some media, only issued retractions or corrections when it became apparent that the term was going to be used in a negative way by KH’s opponents.

4: Attempts to hide and distance herself from this informal title has backfired resulting in more media than before being generated now about it.

Just because something is now inconvenient, doesn’t mean that you can re-write history and attempt to exclude it. 193.115.85.154 (talk) 13:47, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

"Kamala Harris was tasked by Joe Biden to address in particular the issues at the southern Border". I don't think what you are stating is correct. She was specifically tasked with a diplomatic outreach to the Northern Triangle states. She had no role in border patrol or border security. Chaptagai (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

A diplomatic outreach to address the root causes of illegal border crossings. I agree that “border czar” was a misleading term for the media to adopt, but it wasn’t irrational either. Garnet Moss (talk) 19:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

If it is misleading, it is irrational. Well unless you are that part of the media that is designed to be misleading. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

The strawberry is not acutally a berry, but looks like a berry, and so was named as such. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 01:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

RS have retracted their incorrect statements. Non-RS have not. I'm not sure where you're getting this. Neither The Telegraph, nor NBC, nor The Independent seem to have corrected or retracted their stories. These 3 sources have all released recent stories, which now attribute the term to Harris' "critics" [12] [13] [14], but I don't see official corrections or retractions issued from any of them.

Since the term was used, and by some high-quality RS in addition to her political opponents, I feel that meets the (very low) bar for inclusion on this list. Remember, "czar" is not an official title, and "specific instances of the term are often a media creation." It can mean very little to simply be called "czar" - what matters much more is what someone accomplishes in the position they're tapped for. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Option 3 193.115.85.154 (talk) 13:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• Since it's been mentioned by multiple people, I added option 4. The proposer removed it without explanation here when formally starting the RfC. We now have a bad rfc which presents a compromise that's not actually a compromise. The only options now are to directly contradict reliable sources or omit it altogether. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:10, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Rhododendrites: I removed it because I specifically chose not to add it, and I strongly resent your putting words in my mouth, especially as your comment to that effect was buried beneath a separate discussion. The "compromise" option (Option 2) is, in fact, a compromise; the fact that you disagree with it does not make it a bad compromise, nor does it make this discussion somehow procedurally deficient. In addition, your statement that Option 2 and Option 3 amount to "directly contradict[ing] reliable sources" is incorrect, but it more of a rhetorical point than a statement of fact, so I will not debate you as to such. 03:45, 1 August 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TE(æ)A,ea. (talk • contribs)
    • I removed it because I specifically chose not to add it Yes, and you do not own this discussion or talk page. Your RfC is not neutral and any challenge to its outcome would include that there were multiple people who supported an option that you went our of your way to omit. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Option 1 but open to option 2 (and Rhododendrites' proposal) or Option 4 as proposed by Rhododendrites. On a procedural note, the status-quo revision does not include Harris - probably because there was not significant coverage of Harris being labelled "border czar" at the time, which is surprising given the high-profile position Harris has held since 2021. Additionally, whilst significant coverage now exists, what tenure would we list? 2021-2024? is Harris still a czar because media is now referring to her as such? —MelbourneStar☆^talk 11:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Strike option 2, I believe option 4 proposed by Rhododendrites is an excellent compromise that gives appropriate context and weight given the lack of coverage prior and significant coverage today. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 01:15, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Good question about the tenure... it seems that as of February, she was still working in the role with a meeting with Guatemalan President Bernardo Arévalo scheduled in March. But, it seems more of her focus has been elsewhere for much of this year. Still, considering she was still working on it in February, 2021-2024 seems accurate. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Not to be nit-picky, but the February source you provided doesn't refer to Harris's "role" as a border czar. Instead, it appears to reflect the role Biden asked of her according to the second source, which was to "lead diplomatic efforts to reduce poverty, violence and corruption in Central America's Northern Triangle countries of Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador, as well as engage with Mexico on the issue". —MelbourneStar☆^talk 02:17, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

We've already determined that not all sources use the term, and that the term was not official. It's generally understood that the role you described is what she was actually doing. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

How are we supposed to determine whether sources, such as those you've provided, are discussing the role she was actually doing/asked to do by Biden versus the role of a border czsar, if sources don't explicitly say so? —MelbourneStar☆^talk 01:15, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Unless you think Kamala has had two different roles focusing on root causes of migration from Central America, we're entering WP:SKYBLUE territory. She had the role, and some media used the name to refer to said role. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:13, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

We're not even remotely near WP:SKYBLUE territory, for if we were, there wouldn't be a need to have an RfC discussion in the first place. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 10:22, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

How are we supposed to determine whether sources, such as those you've provided, are discussing the role she was actually doing/asked to do by Biden versus the role of a border czsar So, what role do you think the LA Times is referring to? A different one than we're discussing here? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:32, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

A different one than we're discussing here Evidently so, given they've not used the terminology we're discussing, "border czar", but rather LA Times have described the role the same way Biden intended according to the excerpt (my comment two above) from the second source. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 08:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

If you're honestly positing that her role assigned in 2021 to address the root causes of migration and her role assigned in 2021 to address the root causes of migration are not one and the same, I'm not sure what else there is to say here. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

LA Times source you provided doesn't designate Harris as a border czar, second source does, you're drawing that connection between the two -- I can't help you with that. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 01:50, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Considering how patently obvious it is that Harris was only appointed once, to one role, in 2021, and we have RS that say "some have used the term border czar to describe the role", arguing that sources can't be used to improve the article because they don't use the term is an incredibly thin use of WP:OR, and smacks of WP:WIKILAWYERING. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Harris wasn't appointed to an actual role though (except to the vice presidency in 2021), but rather asked to lead efforts on xyz (source 2). In this thread, we can see examples of sources which may have used the terminology at the time, and have since issued retracements; other sources didn't even mention the terminology to begin with (such as the LA Times source you provided). I asked a very specific question about what dates we would attribute to Harris - and the sources you provided did not answer my question. Feel free to continue WP:BLUDGEONING your point though, I've said my piece. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 08:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Option 2 for reasons listed previously Talk:List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars#Reminder or Option 4. The historical record is clear Harris was described as border czar by the media. The argument it doesn't count because because it wasn't official logically leads to [[WP::AFD]]. NE Ent 12:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 Zarring is not the American form of government. Should similar WP lists also include Queen Latifa, Prince, King Kong, Colonel Sanders, and Sir Darryl Farris? Anyway it fails verification and NPOV. SPECIFICO talk 15:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  Your argument that it fails verification is baffling, considering the numerous RS provided above...

  And I'm not sure how simple inclusion on this list is any sort of NPOV breach, when considering the criteria laid out for being termed a "czar." (the bar is low, and the term itself is not "wholly neutral" by very definition) PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  Not responding for SPECIFICO, but when a publication issues a correction/retraction/update/clarification, and the claim you want to include in the article is precisely the claim that required correcting/retracting/updating/clarifying, the claim fails verification. Hence there's no actual dispute here -- she was not border czar by any definition. The reason I think option 4 is preferable to option 1 is that the confusion over the term (and the rhetorical strategy some have used to insist upon the term despite being corrected) has itself received media attention. Hence there's weight to talk about it, but not to make it seem like it was ever accurate. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  I guess you haven't seen, then, the reports from The Telegraph, NBC, and The Independent which used the term (pre-2024) and have not been corrected nor retracted. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  I need some clarity. Is this article about people who have some sort of authority granted to them that results in an appellation of "U.S. executive branch czar", or is it about nicknames given by the press? O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:56, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  That should be rather apparent from reading this article (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) or the one on the term "czar" (Czar, sometimes spelled tsar, is an informal title used for certain high-level officials in the United States and United Kingdom, typically granted broad power to address a particular issue... specific instances of the term are often a media creation.) PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  Interesting, because that text in this article links to Czar (political term) which states: In the United States, czars are generally executive branch officials appointed by the head of the executive branch (such as the president for the federal government, or the governor of a state). Seems we are misquoting in this article. This article says it's an informal term employed by media but the article it links to says something very different. I think the statement in this article must be changed. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  generally. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  Yes I saw the modifier generally. In the refed article, it's generally an appointment by the president sometimes requiring Senate confirmation. In the lead of this article, it is a media invention suggesting that it is never an appointment. That's two entirely different definitions. The one used in this article refs an essay-like Time article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  And yet, the Time article counts as on RS on which we can rely. I said in my first comment here, this is a silly article about a silly and imprecise term. Yet, working within the (loose) bounds of the definition of a "czar" (found not only in our own articles but in RS as well), Kamala fits verifiably on this list.

  If you think we should change the bounds of the definition, perhaps that can be the next improvement discussion we can have. I'd certainly be interested to see how more RS define the term "czar" as used in US politics. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:22, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  The point, which you did not address, is that we have an article on executive branch czars, and a sub-article listing them; and yet they substantially disagree on the definition. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  I really don't see the disagreement as "substantial" at all. I found that in a plain reading of both leads, "czar" is a pretty nebulous term. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  Well it's certainly nebulous in this article -- and that should be clarified. Not so much in the article that defines it. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  We shouldn't have two articles that each try to define the term - keeping them harmonized over time would be more trouble than it's worth. This is recognized by the standard general practice of having a wikilink to our "main" article when a term is introduced. If people want to learn what a "czar" is, the article on the term is linked right in the first sentence here. This article is meant just as a list. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  I guess you haven't seen, then, the reports from - I have, and I have seen where the very same sources subsequently corrected the record. Here are later sources from The Independent: [15] (Despite Republican claims that Harris was put in charge of the border – the so-called “border czar” – the vice president was never tasked with that) [16] (Republicans — including and especially Trump — have described Harris as Biden's "border czar," but she never held any such title) [17] (She took on issues such as voting rights and the root causes of immigration from Central America, which Republicans have used to falsely brand her as the “border czar” in charge of the southern border). And here's NBC News: [18] (The terms “czar” and “border czar” did not appear in White House materials, but they caught on among critics.) [19] (Republicans labeled Harris the “border czar.” The White House rejected the title.) [20] (When Harris became Biden’s “border czar,” as critics called her,) etc. These were just the top results when doing a search. I don't have access to The Telegraph (and I don't know why we'd use it as a source for these claims anyway). In other words, it's abundantly clear that this is a term used briefly by the press, before they corrected themselves, and then just by critics/Republicans. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  None of those newer sources explicitly contradict prior uses of the term by those outlets, much less counting as official retractions. News stories of today seem intent on clarifying two main points:

  • Harris was not "in charge of" the border
  • "Border czar" was never an official term Harris held

  And yet, neither of these things are required to show that Harris was considered a "border czar" by the very standards enumerated in this article:

  1. Is Harris a high-level executive-branch official? Yes
  2. Was she tapped to oversee a particular policy field? Yes
  3. Was she referred to with the nickname by some publications or public figures, while not by others? Yes

  PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• Option 4 was removed by the RfC initiator. The rules, I think, are unclear about proper process for altering an RfC question when the proposer omits and then reverts an option that has already received support. So let's just put it down here, I guess? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:29, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not opposed to this sort of wordy aberration in the chart, (simple answers are not always the best ones,) but I'm deeply opposed to the tenor of the language as offered. Does not meet WP:NPOV at all, very unencyclopedic tone. If I were to offer an alternative text, I might try something along the lines of

  In 2021, Vice President Harris was charged with the diplomatic task of investigating and addressing the "root causes" of the surge in migrants from Latin America illegally crossing the US-Mexico border. News outlets at the time widely described this new role for Harris as that of "border czar", though no such term was ever utilized by her or by the Biden Administration. In 2024, many news organizations which had used the description retracted it as misleading, but critics of the administration's border policies (including Congressional Republicans) continued to cite Harris, now running for President, as Biden's "border czar."

  My 2c. I think the important thing is to get across that the term was widely used, that it was and is inaccurate, and that though it originated as a neutral description for her task, it became a smear by her critics. Garnet Moss (talk) 22:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, that's much more encyclopedic in tone. It does contain a superfluous phrase that misleads about the general nature of the list and what it means for anyone to be included on it.

  In 2021, Vice President Harris was charged with the diplomatic task of investigating and addressing the "root causes" of the surge in migrants from Latin America illegally crossing the US-Mexico border. News outlets at the time widely described this new role for Harris as that of "border czar", though no such term was ever utilized by her or by the Biden Administration. In 2024, many news organizations which had used the description retracted it as misleading, but critics of the administration's border policies (including Congressional Republicans) continued to cite Harris, now running for President, as Biden's "border czar."

  Once agin: the nickname is virtually never used by the official in question or other officials of the administration in which they serve.

  Cutting that phrase keeps the foucs where it should be: the fact that she was widely described by news outlets as "border czar" when she received the assignment and the fact that multiple news organizations retracted the description years later. 24.90.253.80 (talk) 10:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  That's a good change, thanks. Garnet Moss (talk) 14:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  Disagree with shifting the focus regarding the metanarrative. When publications issue corrections, we typically just report the facts -- the corrected information. For coverage of the metanarrative (that a source issued a correction), we need independent sourcing covering the fact of the retractions to the point that it would be considered WP:DUE. e.g. if newspapers report that John Doe was accused of murder, then issue a correction that no, John Doe was just a witness in the case, then we wouldn't say "John Doe was accused of murder, and then later newspapers issued corrections"; we'd say "John Doe was a witness". We'd only include "was accused of murder" (a) with some qualifier like "was incorrectly accused of murder" and (b) if there were a bunch of sources reporting on the retraction itself to constitute WP:WEIGHT. I'm not so sure that weight is established here. What we do know is that part of the messaging around the "border czar" usage right now is about a big liberal media conspiracy that "now they issued retractions". I disagree with making Wikipedia imply the same. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, it is true that "when publications issue corrections, we typically just report the facts -- the corrected information."

  Yes, it's true, but it's irrelevant. That argument relies on a category error that keeps being repeated:

  Whether John Doe is accused of murder or is, rather, a witness to murder is a question of objective fact—a fact that can be accurately reported or misreported (and thus later corrected).

  There is no definition of an executive-branch "czar" that an individual can be objectively said to meet or not. As a nickname, it can't be said to be accurate or inaccurate and thus can't be latter corrected. If someone subsequently wishes to, they may retract it on behalf of their institution, but such a development has an entirely different relationship to the historical record.

  A far more apt hypothetical comparison would be to a similarly subjective press judgment and subsequent retraction. In 2021, People and Esquire both listed Emma Watson as one of the most beautiful women in the world. If, in 2024, those magazines' editors (probably entirely new ones) declared, "We blew it three years ago! Emma is attractive but obviously not one of the most beautiful women in the world," that would hardly erase the subjective judgment of 2021.

  This list article, in other words, records historical judgments, not "facts"—beyond the fact that those judgments were verifiably made. The Sight and Sound Greatest Films of All Time 2022 article doesn't list the "factually" greatest films of all time, it list the judgments of a certain group at a certain point in time. Their judgments differ in significant ways from those recorded in The Sight & Sound Greatest Films of All Time 2012, but we don't disappear or even deprecate the earlier judgments. 24.90.253.80 (talk) 05:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  I generally like this wording. I would change "widely described" to just "described", since there's a significant portion of RS that never used the term. I also think "many news organizations which had used the description retracted it" is incorrect - above, I pointed out that Axios is really the only organization who did so. Unless someone can cite more RS that did so, I'd change "many" to "some". PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Option 4: add a row to the table like the one below, with precise wording and citations open for workshopping if put in place:

Border czar

None. In 2021, Harris was given a diplomatic task to address the "root causes" of migration in Mexico and South America. It did not involve any power over the US-Mexico border or immigration policy. Some news media at the time referred to her as "border czar", a title she rejected and never held. News organizations issued corrections in 2024, but the title was picked up by critics to cast blame on Harris for the border crisis.

Harris, Kamala

N/A

N/A

Joe Biden

N/A

Refs
References

• Option 2 or some other content that makes it clear Harris was described by the media as a border czar, but that it was disputed/she never accepted the title (like the new Option 4 above). I agree that since the article states "The following are executive branch officials who have been described by the media as a czar of some kind", it would be a stretch not to include her at all. However, she should clearly be distinguished from czars who are universally known by that title. JSwift49 02:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't that she didn't accept the title. She was never given the title or assignment by the executive branch. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

No one has EVER been "given the title or assignment" of "czar" "by the executive branch." This fact has been explained over and over again. Can you explain why you have been incapable of grasping this?

This article lists executive-branch officials who have been nicknamed "czar" of a specific field by media outlets. This fact has been explained over and over again. Can you explain why you have been incapable of grasping this? 24.90.253.80 (talk) 01:51, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with 24.90.253.80, this list is about media descriptions. Though I do think it's important to make a distinction between this and other cases which the subjects did not dispute the term/media outlets did not retract it. JSwift49 12:28, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Then why does the main article, Czar (political term), state: "In the United States, czars are generally executive branch officials appointed by the head of the executive branch (such as the president for the federal government, or the governor of a state)." Why would we add someone never appointed responsibility for the border as the "border czar"? The media does not make executive appointments. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

generally

And later down the lead, that article explicitly says "Specific instances of the term are often a media creation." PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:17, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Generally, as in most usually. And yes, media often make stuff up. Like the lie that Harris was given responsibility for border security pushed heavily in a current ad campaign. So why do some editors wish to state that Kamala Harris is the "border czar" when Roberta S. Jacobson was assigned that responsibility? O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:28, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Roberta Jacobson's term ended in 2021. Right around the time Biden tapped Harris to her role. Funny, that.

media often make stuff up Maybe - but this article is literally about a subjective term that often hinges exactly on media usage. So, as always, we go with what the RS say. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1, the sources provided aren't convincing. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  CNN, NBC, and the BBC aren't convincing? I hope you bring that attitude to other articles where they're cited. 2601:600:817F:16F0:D556:864C:27C0:E89E (talk) 20:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  I was listening to CNN a couple hours ago when a Republican guest said Harris was appointed border czar. The host quickly corrected him saying she was never appointed to that responsibility. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 - VPs and other elected officials have been assigned with various missions in the past. Not one example of this already appears to be on this list. I don't see that changing this during a partisan "election" makes sense. No prejudice on sitting down in a year or two and having a proper discussion. That said, this entire page is bordering on original research and nonsense, and I'd be quite happy to support deletion at AFD, for such a trivial and local subject. Nfitz (talk) 22:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  I would also support an AfD. I don't see how this article is informative as it is a mixture of concepts ranging form Senate confirmed positions to misleading nicknames. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:12, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

• Option 4 first choice, option 1 second choice. And AfD might work, as the criteria are so fuzzy, but probably not, because of the sourcing.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  And AfD might work, as the criteria are so fuzzy, but probably not, because of the sourcing. Very well and succinctly put. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:09, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Echoing some other editors above I think this article is a complete subjective original research mess, and should probably be deleted. Why do we have a list of times various media outlets described a person as a "czar"? AusLondonder (talk) 12:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  Perhaps because it's a term that's been in use for ~90 years, and we have lots of reliable sources reporting on it [21] [22] [23]. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  Used in differing manners. That's the problem as it has obviously led to misunderstandings and misinformation. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  We have an article on the term, Czar (political term). I'm questioning this subjective list of times the media called someone a czar. AusLondonder (talk) 15:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1: per macaddct1984, Muboshgu, M.boli, Objective3000, Specifico, etc. Wikipedia requires reliable sources stating the fact that she was appointed as such by the Biden administration, not in the minds of political operatives or a conclusion that requires synthesizing sources or a chain of reasoning, that is WP:OR. Gamaliel (talk) 16:42, 10 September 2024 (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.

Hello? Is this thing on?

It's been weeks. The consensus is clearly to include Harris with an asterisk that she was named this in the media. So, are we gonna put a bow on this thing and update the page, or what? 2601:600:817F:16F0:308D:CDB:957:9AC9 (talk) 23:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The Republicans are running an ad, even during the DNC, repeatedly claiming she was put in charge of one thing -- border security -- and failed. It is an outright lie as she never had that responsibility, task, or title. Media outlets do not make executive branch appointments or assignments. Why would an encyclopedia suggest that they do? O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

The article does not suggest that "media outlets ... make executive branch appointments or assignments." This has been explained over and over again. It lists executive-branch appointees who have been dubbed "czars" of one policy field or another by media outlets. This too has been explained over and over again. If you think that's not worthy of encyclopedic coverage, why have you not moved to delete the article? 24.90.253.80 (talk) 01:57, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Just because other crap exists in this article, is not an excuse to add more; likewise, just because Objective3000 doesn't believe the Harris addition is encyclopedic, does not mean they must nominate the article for deletion. FYI, there are multiple opinions on this talk page, not just your own or OP's. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 08:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Let's pretend your comment is not in utter bad faith: Please specify, you shining star, what current content in this article is "crap" as opposed to what is not. List it for us, you quasar, because everyone who wants to improve this article believes in removing the crap on which you lie. 24.90.253.80 (talk) 06:04, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

And let's also pretend you actually clicked the link I hyperlinked: you would know that I'm simply pointing out that the argument made was poor. Objective3000 doesn't have to "[move] to delete the article" because they disagree with the introduction of disputed content to an article which evidently has problems. The WP:ONUS to do anything lies on those that wish to change the status-quo, don't get that confused. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 10:49, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

(A) Your cute hyperlink is irrelevant. You told our fellow Wikipedians that "other crap exists in this article." That was a lie. (Redacted)

(B) You suggested that "just because Objective3000 doesn't believe the Harris addition is encyclopedic" that it was my position that "they must nominate the article for deletion." That's obvious bullshit. I simply and clearly asked Objective300 why they didn't nominate the article for deletion if they actually believed what they asserted to believe about the "czar" nickname. (Redacted) 24.90.253.80 (talk) 06:26, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

(Redacted) 24.90.253.80 (talk) 10:14, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Since this is an RFC, it should be formally closed before the article gets updated. The discussion has been going on long enough, and nothing new has been added in the past week, so it's probably ready for closure. You could make a request over at WP:CR to get someone uninvolved to come and close it. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I've done that. I can't help but note that there are requests on that page that have been open and unanswered for months, though, so...?

Incidentally, I recognize that casting aspersions isn't very popular, but it's hard not to notice that these pages always get protected within hours with a specific political bias in place and the process of unprotecting them and removing the bias ends up taking months. 2601:600:817F:16F0:815A:D0F2:7C13:ACE7 (talk) 23:38, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree it's time for a close. By my count we have 7 votes for Option 1, 6 votes for Option 2, and 1 vote for Option 4 (which we can reallocate to second-choice Option 1). This just to push back on above false claim of consensus for option 2, it's not a vote. We don't need to relitigate everything but as I said above, the problem isn't "czar" which is arbitrary blah blah blah, but "border" which is wrong. GordonGlottal (talk) 00:02, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

These are not "votes". O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the speed at which things get done around here, there is no deadline. We don't have to get things "right" with speed. (Hell, plenty of discussions end up with things not being "right" ever; it's just the way things go sometimes).

In the meantime, it's alright if something here is "wrong" - Wikipedia isn't a reliable source of information, anyway. Nobody should be taking what is or isn't written here as fact, unless it's got a reference backing it up. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

It's weird how there was a deadline when it came to removing it. Couldn't yoink it fast enough.

>In the meantime, it's alright if something here is "wrong" - Wikipedia isn't a reliable source of information, anyway.

Wait, then what the hell are we even doing here? 2601:600:817F:16F0:9DB3:A3E3:5972:3194 (talk) 04:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Trying our best to make things right? Personally, I mostly like correcting inaccuracies, or providing sources for unsourced information. But there's no rush to do any of that. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

That's rank bullshit. Obviously, there was a great rush to remove Vice President Harris's (very well sourced) inclusion in the article, and then to administratively block her (very well sourced) reinclusion. 24.90.253.80 (talk) 06:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

>Trying our best to make things right?

This lackadaisical, "we'll get to it someday, maybe, no rush, but in the meantime we'll spend hours fighting like demons to keep it from being fixed" attitude does not suggest you are trying your best. Or, rather, it suggests you're trying your best to do something besides actually write an accurate and neutral encyclopedia. 2601:600:817F:16F0:D556:864C:27C0:E89E (talk) 20:43, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

She was not appointed border czar. Why do you want to add that she was? O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:42, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

List of executive branch czars

The following are executive branch officials who have been described by the media as a czar of some kind.

Media is the Key word here in the Title where multiple media outlets have confirmed 24.31.28.161 (talk) 20:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Just because nobody's clarified yet: the default length for an RfC is a month. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

It's been exactly a month. XavierItzm (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, and there's a request for closure posted. Hopefully resolved soon. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:02, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

There is literally nothing constructive in this section. Would recommend just hatting it (I would, but I'm obviously involved). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:02, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2024

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)

 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)