Template talk:Obama cabinet

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: Government This template is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles This template is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government. Barack Obama (inactive) This template is within the scope of WikiProject Barack Obama, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Barack ObamaWikipedia:WikiProject Barack ObamaTemplate:WikiProject Barack ObamaBarack Obama articles

What is the source for Obama`s Chief of staff? ABC101090 (talk) 23:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I started this template after MSNBC said Emanuel had accepted the position. Shortly thereafter, they retracted it. So, no source that he has accepted yet. My apologies for jumping the gun. Maybe tomorrow.↔NMajdan•talk 01:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the source: Yahoo! News —Noetic Sage 02:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you reference that on the template? 88.112.126.235 (talk) 05:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reportedly the position of senior adviser has also been filled. Shouldn`t this be on the template? ABC101090. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.157.127.65 (talk) 20:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The two messages above are mine. ¨ABC101090 —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

The cabinet members section is wrong, these are not his cabinet members. He doesn't have any yet. They are potential nominations. They first have to be nominated by him and then confirmed by the Senate. You can't assume they'll be confirmed months ahead of the confirmation hearings, or that he'll even decide to actually nominate them after he becomes president. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.60.107 (talk) 23:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please wait to post information here until it has been officially announced by the Obama camp. Sweet Pea 1981 (talk) 03:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its been confirmed by several different news sources that Hillary Clinton has accepted the offering of Secretary of State by the Obama transition team. They will make their formal announcement after Thanksgiving, but several different news agencies have confirmed that she will be the next Secretary of State [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by RiseRobotRise (talk • contribs) 21:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of those sources are confirmation - they are speculation from inside sources that Obama will extend the offer to Clinton. She has yet to accept (see Today's CNN article) and even further she hasn't been confirmed by the Senate.—Noetic Sage 22:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Due to what seems to be now edit warring, we should not be adding Hillary Clinton until there is consensus that she is confirmed. Please post here before you make changes to the template.—Noetic Sage 01:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's confirmed. They were saying it on NPR just a while ago that she had accepted his offer. Graestan (talk) 03:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And my first edit to the template was made after I'd heard it was confirmed, too. You might want to pay closer attention to the news if you're going to patrol this template so vigilantly. Graestan^(Talk) 03:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad Graestan switched it back to Hillary Clinton listed as secretary of state. The CNN link had been posted before the articles I've given links to. They were absolute confirmations, the New York Times article clearly states this in the headline "Clinton Is Said to Accept Offer of Secretary of State Position", in the first paragraph alone it states "Hillary Rodham Clinton has decided to give up her Senate seat to become secretary of state in the Obama administration". The times of London article I linked to says it in its headline "Hillary Clinton agrees to be Secretary of State under Barack Obama". I may have provided the wrong link to the NPR article, but when I went to the NPR page, right there on the front it stated that Hillary Clinton accepts the Secretary of State. The Story broke out about 42 minutes after I made changes to the template, I made sure to back it up with a heavy amount of sources. RiseRobotRise (talk) 04:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These aren't "absolute confirmations." They are reputable sources reporting speculation, and the fact that the speculation has been confirmed doesn't make the story itself confirmed. What would make it confirmed is if a member of Clinton's staff or Obama's transition team made an actual announcement. That hasn't happened. Until then, confirmed speculation is still just speculation, and I think this whole exercise is very un-encylopedic. Anson2995 (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why remove the columns I'd put in? I thought they looked nice and nicely compacted the box.—Markles 23:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They did, but on IE they looked terrible. The rows are display just fine on IE and Mozilla and it isn't that much different from the columns. – Zntrip 00:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Bummer. —Markles 01:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was a good innovation. It is unfortunate the MSIE can't handle it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that this template, for the time being, be renamed to "prospective Obama Cabinet" or something similar. ABC101090 (talk) 23:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be pointless because we'd just have to work our way through a redirect to put it back to the current title in less than two months. Therequiembellishere (talk) 00:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. However, for the time being, I believe my suggestion would bring clarity to the template with there being some fighting over the question of whether names should be included. I believe doing a redirect isn`t that hard. ABC101090 (talk) 10:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a template, not an article. There's no cause to retitle it b/c it's not something people see unless they edit it.--chaser - t 00:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the division into Cabinet and Cabinet-level, but is there any reason those two are set to autocollapse inside the already autocollapsed template? I find it annoying to have to expand the both of them. I suppose someone might not see the Cabinet-level officials, but perhaps we could remove them like in the templates for Cabinets before W. Bush's and have just one expansion step for this template. Thoughts?--chaser - t 17:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did that just because it was quite a large template that people might not want to see. I'm very against deleting the Cabinet-rank members because it's misleading and I've been working on adding them others to the previous templates but I need to find out exactly what was a cabinet-rank office and from when to when. If anyone could help me identify these, it would be much appreciated. Therequiembellishere (talk) 17:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added the NSA position to the template albeit the syntax needed some help) so that the positions listed this template would include the ones in the cabinet infobox template used in all the U.S. Presidency articles. Lestatdelc (talk) 18:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then it should be removed from the cabinet infobox templates, not falsely added to this one. Therequiembellishere (talk) 19:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree: Technically the Chief of Staff to the President is not a confirmable position "cabinet" position yet is almost always listed as cabinet-rank. Witness Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency which is accorded cabinet rank but is not a Secretary head. What is or is not cabinet rank is not technically determined by whether it is confirmable by Senate (Chief of Staff, Director of OMB) or whether it is a Secretary head (EPA). Lestatdelc (talk) 19:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cabinet-rank it not defined by a Senate confirmation but by whether they have been accorded the rank or not. If they sit on the Cabinet but are not one of the fifteen heads of the executive departments, then they are of Cabinet-rank. There are six of these and they are in the template, as such. Whitehouse.gov lists them all, so if any changes are made, they will be seen here upon his inauguration. However, it is POV and OR to assume what will and will not and what is and is not of rank without a definite source saying so. It is to my understanding that that right to sit on Cabinet must be given by the Senate, as the recent bill being pushed to add another Cabinet-rank position is currently being put underway. Therefore, I strongly believe that if President-elect Obama intended to remove or add a Cabinet-rank position, it must be done with the Senates approval. As he has stated no such manoeuvre, it can be assumed that the six will remain Cabinet-rank position and are to remain on the template. Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

REVISION: I just found an article about Obama's plan to create a Cabinet-rank Chief Technology Officer, however it doesn't state how it would be done or when. Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in the article on the cabinet:

"Though the Cabinet is still an important organ of bureaucratic management, in recent years, the Cabinet has generally declined in relevance as a policy making body. Starting with President Franklin Roosevelt, the trend has been for Presidents to act through the Executive Office of the President or the National Security Council rather than through the Cabinet. This has created a situation in which non-Cabinet officials such as the White House Chief of Staff, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the National Security Advisor are now as powerful as or more powerful than some Cabinet officials."

and

The Cabinet in federal law

There is no explicit definition of the term "Cabinet" in either the United States Code or the Code of Federal Regulations. However, there are occasional references to "cabinet-level officers" or "secretaries", which when viewed in context appear to refer to the heads of the "executive departments" as listed in 5 U.S.C. § 101.

Under 5 U.S.C. § 3110 federal officials are prohibited from appointing family members to certain governmental posts, including seats in the Cabinet. Passed in 1967, the law is apparently a response to John F. Kennedy's appointment of Robert F. Kennedy to the post of Attorney General of the United States of America.

In short, there is not exact definition and throughout wikipedia and in many circles, Director of OMB, EPA, NSA, Chief of Staff are considered and listed as "cabinet-rank" though they are not specifcialy in the cabinet. Lestatdelc (talk) 20:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a reputable source and this would argue otherwise. Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the mention of recent post, such as NSA having more POWER than the Cabinet has nothing to do with their placement upon it. Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not placing them "in it" I am placing NSA in the Cabinet-rank category (which is used throughout wikipedia) which, like CoS, OMB, EPA, etc. are not "in the Cabinet" but denoted as being the top levels of the "Independent establishments", agency and staff within the executive branch. This is used throughout wikipedia as a navigational guide to relevant articles. Lestatdelc (talk) 01:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, it is still POV to say that NSA is even considered a Cabinet-rank to the degree the other offices you mentioned because NOWHERE does it say that it is. Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. It is almost always noted that Chief of Staff is ranked as Cabinet-level even though it, like National Security Advisor is neither Department Secretaries or Agency Heads. Again, there is no explicit definition of the term "Cabinet" in either the United States Code or the Code of Federal Regulations. If an administration styles CoS as Cabinet-rank it can do so. Just as Ford did when he unilateral made the United States Trade Representative "Cabinet level". That said (again) this is a navigational box, and throughout the articles on all the Presidencies here on wikipedia it includes the NSA, like OMB, etc. into "Cabinet-level" sub-categories within the Cabinet infobox. Lestatdelc (talk) 01:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We learned about the Cabinet during my public administration class in undergrad. In brief, the 15 leaders of "executive departments" (that's what's mentioned in the Constitution) make up the Cabinet, plus (by tradition) the VP, heads of the EPA and OMB, drug czar, and trade rep. Presidents ask other officials to sit in on their weekly Cabinet meetings, which is how those officials get "Cabinet-rank". The Senate has nothing to do with it (though the Senate may confirm the officials for the jobs they have, this doesn't directly effect whether or not they become Cabinet-rank, which remains Presidential prerogative). Though this article is aimed at high school students, it helpfully lays out these points [6]. Additionally, my understanding is that the modern all-powerful chief of staff is always at Cabinet meetings. Bush's chiefs were less powerful, but were still apparently Cabinet-level.

As to whether the NSA is a Cabinet-level official, only Obama can make that decision. Bush's Cabinet did not include the NSA. I have no idea what Clinton did. I'd say that it would probably be best to wait and see what Obama does before adding anything that's not part of the Cabinet tradition and that the current President hasn't done.--chaser - t 02:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted above, there is no explicit definition of the term "Cabinet" in either the United States Code or the Code of Federal Regulations. And Presidents define what they term as Cabinet-level. As many acknowledge, the Chief of Staff to the President is not the head of any Agency or Department and in modern times has been considered Cabinet-level. Presidents have unilaterally elevated positions within the Executive to be considered Cabinet level. Ford for example made the made the United States Trade Representative "Cabinet level" though not "in" the Cabinet itself. Under President George W. Bush, Cabinet-level rank also has been accorded to the Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency; Director, Office of Management and Budget; and the Director of National Drug Control Policy. But a clear example of an Administration considering the National Security Advisor as "Cabinet-Level" is from the archives of the Carter Presidency offical statement:

Personal Statements of Cabinet and Cabinet-Level Officers Announcement of Release of the Documents.

February 25, 1977

The White House today released, in an unprecedented action, personal statements from 15 Cabinet and Cabinet-level officers disclosing their financial situations, detailing steps they are taking to avoid conflicts of interest, and expressing their commitment to avoid certain activities following their Federal service.

The release of the documents fulfilled a campaign promise by President Carter and represented the first time a President had required public disclosure of such information from his top officials.
The statements came from:

SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE BOB S. BERGLAND
SECRETARY OF COMMERCE JUANITA M. KREPS
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE HAROLD BROWN
SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE JOSEPH A. CALIFANO, JR.
SECRETARY OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT PATRICIA ROBERTS HARRIS
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR CECIL D. ANDRUS
ATTORNEY GENERAL GRIFFIN B. BELL
SECRETARY OF LABOR F. RAY MARSHALL
SECRETARY OF STATE CYRUS R. VANCE
SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION BROCK ADAMS
SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY W. MICHAEL M. BLUMENTHAL
CHAIRMAN OF THE COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS CHARLES L. SCHULTZE
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI
DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET THOMAS B. LANCE

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE TO THE UNITED NATIONS ANDREW YOUNG

Each statement consists of five parts. These are: a summary of action taken to avoid possible conflicts of interest, a statement of net worth, a statement of 1976 income, a statement of personal affiliations, and a letter of commitment to the President.

(emphasis mine)

With that showing that at least one modern Administration made public statements that the NSA is a "Cabinet-level" position within that administration, I would also point out that the Template:Infobox U.S. Cabinet itself is set up already to include the NSA, as well as Postmaster General, Veterans Affairs, Secretary of the Navy, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs as well as heads of the CIA and FBI. While that in and of itself can be argued that it is not a valid source, I posit this point of this infobox is a navigation tool for the use of readers to find the top positions within an administration which includes those explicitly named as being in the Cabinet itself, as well as those while not named as being 'in the Cabinet, are "Cabinet-Level" as matter of import, scope and/or power within an administration. So while I have cited a direct example of an Administration issuing statements that the NSA "Cabinet-Level", I would argue that we keep and use the infobox parameters which include the NSA as well as other "Cabinet-Level" positions as it already has set up. Lestatdelc (talk) 05:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just wait for whitehouse.gov to say who's in his cabinet and who isn't. Therequiembellishere (talk) 05:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The reason the default template has many of these things is that Cabinets from long past contained those members. The Navy Secretary still exists, but hasn't been in the Cabinet since 1947 (when the Defense Department was created). The last President to include the Postmaster General was LBJ. Cabinet-level doesn't mean important as established by some Wikipedian's opinion (even MrPrada). It means those that attend the weekly meetings and get their photos put on http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/cabinet.html Anything else is too arbitrary to meaningfully choose when we already have such a clear way of determining it.--chaser - t 05:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying not to sound snide (as I am not being snide) but doesn't the fact the the Carter Administration issuing public statements that National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski was considered "Cabinet-Level" count? Lestatdelc (talk) 05:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it did. But for the Carter administration. I sent an email a few months back pertaining to cabinet-rank offices (which ones and for how long each time) but my response were unhelpful quick-links. If you know how we can find which other office were considered cabinet-rank by which administrations I be very grateful. Therequiembellishere (talk) 05:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This conflict seems to be over. I've also found a way to put the Cabinet level officials side by side with the Cabinet officials. I tested it in Firefox, IE and Chrome, but please let me know if there are any glitches.--chaser - t 02:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checked in latest Firefox, Explorer, Chrome and Safari browsers. The columns work fine on all. Therequiembellishere (talk) 03:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should change the templete accordingly.[7] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spongesquid (talk • contribs) 23:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. According to the current standard, which allows Hillary Clinton to be listed even though Obama has not officially nominated her, Gates should be listed as well.--Mr Beale (talk) 01:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, since he is already Secretary of Defense, he wouldn't need to be renominated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spongesquid (talk • contribs) 01:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should we have his starting date as 2006? He's won't have started the Obama administration until 2009. Therequiembellishere (talk) 03:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the 2009 date should stay. Most books and sites I've seen in the past that list the cabinet have the member listed under the President that appointed them and under the President that retained them.

For example, Bush 41 kept Reagan's Treasury, AG, and Education secretaries. The latest copy of the World Almanac lists each with the date Reagan appointed them and then again under Bush 41 with year as 1989. Other books do something like this. The 2001 edition of William DeGregorio's The Complete Book of U.S. Presidents ends each profile in the Reagan chapter with "He stayed on in the Bush Administration". In the Bush 41 chapter, DeGregorio begins each profile with "A holdover from the Reagan Administration..." and goes on their story.

The website Infoplease does the same thing as the World Almanac: Under Reagan it lists each guy and year they were appointed [8] and under Bush 41 the page lists them again and uses "(Cont.)" for the term [9]. The IPL's website POTUS does the same thing but uses '1989' for the start of the term; see Reagan and Bush 41. Encarta does the same as the World Almanac and POTUS on this topic; see Reagan and Bush 41.

For those wondering if this has happened before, it has. Besides Bush 41, Presidents John Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Van Buren, Tyler, Andrew Johnson, Arthur, Theodore Roosevelt, Coolidge, Hoover, Truman, Lyndon Johnson, and Ford kept all or part of their predecessors' cabinet. The books and websites do the same thing for the other Presidents as well. - Thanks, Hoshie 06:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to 2009 some time ago.--chaser - t 07:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to NPR's article U.N. Envoy Nominee Rice Known As Smart, Tough:

"The head of the United Nations Foundation, a Washington-based advocacy group, released a statement praising Rice as well as Obama's decision to make the post of U.N. ambassador a Cabinet-level position once again — as it was during the Clinton years."

The position should most definitely be added back into the template. Lestatdelc (talk) 23:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rep. Becerra Offered Trade Representative Post

WaPo, AP, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, and FNC have all anounced that Gen. Eric Shinseki will be chosen as the Veterans Secretary. Should he be added? 75.180.235.209 (talk) 23:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've entered him hidden until he is announced. Some sources believe he will be announced tomorrow and it is my guess that with change.gov's recent focue on health care that Daschle will be announced as well, possibly alongside an entire Health Policy Team. 23:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I can´t see the post of Sec. of veterans affairs on my computer. It jumps from se. of energy to sec of homeland security. However, in the edit page-view vteran affair sec. can be seen. I use IE.ABC101090 (talk) 01:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solved. I added TBD in that section. Now it can be seen.ABC101090 (talk) 01:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep shinseki hidden until OFFICIAL announcement.ABC101090 (talk) 16:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pres.-elect Obama announced him today as new Sec. of HUD. Shouldn't it be in the template? Cassandro (talk) 12:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Prresident-Elect chose Arne Duncan as Education Sec. --Briaboru (talk) 18:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Various folks have been removing cabinet picks that the press has reported on but that the campaign has not yet officially announced [10] [11]. I think this is improper. The standard for inclusion of information is verifiability, as for everything else on Wikipedia. If we were going by "official" nominations, then this template should be empty despite the announcements. Obama can't submit any names to the Senate until he takes office (not that that will stop them from holding hearings so as to get the cabinet confirmed quickly). As to Lahood, there is plenty of verification that he is Obama's Transportation nominee [12] [13] [14].--chaser - t 23:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The best source, in my opinion, is Obama`s web page. Although it is clear Obama can not at present nominate anyone, it is clear that he intends to nominate them once he is president. Therefore the template can include also those that are not "official", but on the condition that the are announced by Obama. This is my opinion. ABC101090 (talk) 17:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is that the policy clashes with that. WP:V says that material that doesn't cite a reliable source can be challenged and removed. The logical corollary (which isn't explicitly stated) is that material that does cite a reliable source can stay, provided it's notable, etc. In other words, whatever is good enough for the major press is good enough for us. In this case, we don't use citations in templates, so the only question is whether reliable sources report that Lahood is Obama's nominee. Here, Democratic and Republican officials have confirmed to multiple news sources that LaHood is Obama's pick and will be announced "in the coming days" [15]. According to our guideline on sources, the press is a reliable source for this information, even if in this specific case it is not the best source.--chaser - t 17:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that those names are to be considered speculation, because nobody in the Obama team has said it will be so. I think WP:V and WP:RS should changed to mean only the most important news agencies and newspapers, because they have a better chance, I believe, of getting it right. The only news agencies I tend to trust are those that are internationally recognised as "good". ABC101090 (talk) 17:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Associated Press and CNN have already reported on this. In any case, if you think we should change a policy or guideline, then they each have discussion pages for that purpose. But until they're changed, we follow them as written.--chaser - t 18:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from pointing out which positions are cabinet-level vs. actually being in the cabinet (which can easily be amended), doesn't this template duplicate Template:Obama Administration personnel or at least the child template Template:Obama personnel, Cabinet-level child-template? ~ Paul^T+/_C 20:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This template follows the scheme set forth by its predecessors': Category:United States Executive Cabinet by President navigational boxes. I think Template:Obama personnel, Cabinet-level child-template should be deleted while the other is a more in depth listing suitable for articles specifically about the Obama administration.↔NMajdan•talk 21:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The child template is used in the administration personnel template. As it stands right now, since noone has been replaced and there is one entry per position, this template looks awkward. Seriously, which one looks better?

I think {{Obama cabinet}} will become more useful and look a lot better in a year or two, but for now I can't see any reason not to use {{Obama personnel, Cabinet-level child-template}} instead. It uses space much more efficiently and is much easier to read. ~ Paul^T+/_C 21:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way we can put that article into this template or some similar template? Spinach Monster (talk) 02:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gates tenure in Obama's cabinet, as Secy of Defense, begins in 2009. We've done this with other cabinet officials who've served from one cabinet to the next 'no stop'. For example: see William Seward or Dean Rusk. GoodDay (talk) 23:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this change. For example, Bush 41 kept Reagan's AG, Treasury, and Education secretaries. They are listed in the Bush 41 template with the date their service began under the new President began and not the date they were appointed by the previous Pres. See Template:GHW Bush cabinet. If the other templates such as the one for Ford and LBJ do it, then this one should too. - Thanks, Hoshie 22:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the White House website, the Vice President is part of the cabinet (not just cabinet level): "The Cabinet includes the Vice President and the heads of 15 executive departments" [16]. This should be fixed in the template. 96.25.248.210 (talk) 01:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change the link to cabinet members from "cabinet of the United Kingdom" to "Cabinet of the United States"

Reasoning should be obvious

71.92.50.160 (talk) 03:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed Error by user during recent change. Dru of Id (talk) 05:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do we keep acting Secretaries listed once the office is filled after the nominee is confirmed? Or will those persons than be removed. On the one hand it's strange to list people who in the turnover from first term to second term were acting Secretaries for less than a month (for instance Poneman in the timespan between the time Chu's resignation became effective and Moniz's confirmation by the Senate), on the other hand Rebecca Blank has been acting Secretary for nearly a year already... I propose to delete SHORT TERM acting Secretaries once the office they were acting for has been filled by a confimed Secterary but to have the acting Secretay listed as long as they are acting in such function. I would also make an exception to acting secretaries who are long term acting like Blank or Zients. -- fdewaele, 17 May 2013, 9:03 CET.

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "since 2009" to "2009-2017", per Trump's inauguration. Also update each of the cabinet members entries year brackets, with them ending in 2017. All Obama cabinet members are out of office, with either Trump's nominees or a stand-in in their places. AmaryllisGardener ^talk 01:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article links that need changing: Thomas Perez → Tom Perez; John King, Jr. → John King Jr. APM (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)AmorPatiturMoras[reply]

 Done Sorry for the long delay. See Wikipedia:Edit requests for information on getting more visibility for requests. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 00:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would recommend moving the "Vice President" row to the top of the "Cabinet" section rather than have it listed under the "Cabinet-level" section. 2600:1700:2390:D50:8037:A261:859:B418 (talk) 01:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please remove the following note as it is not used.:

* Acting 67.173.23.66 (talk) 00:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Bestagon ⬡ 02:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]