Talk:White House Chief of Staff

message: Is 'White House Chief of Staff' the official title? 'White House' tends to be used more in a figurative sense and seems inappropriate for an official title. I would imagine Executive Chief of Staff or Presidential Chief of Staff to be more official-sounding. Kent Wang 22:58, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: WhiteHouse.gov uses President's Chief of Staff in the only direct reference to the title that I found, so take that for what it's worth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddye (talk • contribs) 22:31, 28 January 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Official Title

message: Is it true that if (for example) the President should die and the VP refuses to take office the Chief of Staff would become President? Ive heard this often, but never had any real confirmation. If true, it should probably be added to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.226.182.193 (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not true at all. The Chief of Staff could never become president. If the VP for some reason refused to become president (which would be very odd since that's what he's there for) then it would fall to the Speaker of the House (see United States presidential line of succession). Ddye 20:00, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: thanx:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.226.182.193 (talk) 11:46, 16 February 2005 (UTC)

text: Haig was not the Chief of Staff at the time, and had not been for over six years. Haig was the United States Secretary of State at the time, who is in the presidential line of succession, but preceded by the VP, the Speaker of the House, and the president pro tempore of the Senate. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Presidential succession

message: I'm changing the sentence "Presidents Kennedy and Johnson never did [have a C of S]" because Marvin Watson was Johnson's chief of staff. As evidence, I'd point to the book "Chief of Staff" by Marvin Watson. (The JFK Library Web site explicitly states JFK did not have one.) Nadirsofar 17:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no issue with doing so. Of course, if any of the columns are re-sorted, joined adjacent cells will be separate again (until the whole article is reloaded). —ADavidB 22:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Chiefs list

message: I think that under standard rules of grammar the phrase chief of staff shouldn't be capitalized in most of its occurrences in this article. Wiki style may be different. Does anyone know the Wiki rule? For sure, the plural phrase "chiefs of staff" should NEVER be capitalized.
Under Turabian, Merriam-Webster, and most newspaper style guides, an office holder's title would generally be capitalized only if it precedes her name, as in Chief of Staff C.J. Cregg.
The US GPO style manual seems to advocate capitalizing it all the time (except plural), but grammar is beyond its Constitutional powers and it's certainly not binding on Wikipedia.
Any thoughts? Nadirsofar 18:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This problem is grossly endemic to Wikipedia. Americans tend to capitalize anything that sounds important, particular job titles. As a professional writer and business consultant, I struggle against this at the level of "Customer Service Representative," so I for one am not about to challenge the vast Wikiocracy that has decided in favor of "Vice President" and "Chief of Staff." As a side note, even animal species are capitalized here. --Tysto 03:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Capitalization

message: According to the table, Watson served for Johnson’s entire administration. That doesn’t agree with the W. Marvin Watson article, though, which says he became the chief of staff in 1965. Johnson took office in 1963. The Watson article also says he became the postmaster general in 1968, but Johnson’s term didn’t end until 1969. Would it be appropriate to add “vacant” spots above and below Watson’s entry in this table?
I’ve removed any reference to Johnson from the third history paragraph since it doesn’t really seem relevant. Johnson’s administration was called “short” even though it was longer than Carter’s and George Bush’s, and since Watson apparently didn’t serve the entire time Johnson was president, he didn’t really need to be explicitly excluded from the factoid. --Rob Kennedy 23:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facts don’t agree 

message: A note -- I deleted all references to Emanuel as Obama's CoS, since he hasn't yet accepted the job (ref here, which as of this writing contains a disclaimer of no acceptance from Emanuel's spokesman).  Undo to revision 249902493 if/when he accepts to undo all three changes I made. --70.90.171.153 (talk) 20:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no compelling reason this article should do more than briefly mention Emanuel might be the next CoS for now.  The article is about the position, not its future occupants.  Until Emanuel ACCEPTS, much less actually performs the duties of the position, I think it's a poor choice for the article to undertake the job better served by news articles in discussing recent developments on the assembling of an upcoming administration. Ventifact (talk) 23:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I AGREE. IM JOHN MCCAIN AND I APPROVE THIS MESSAGE  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.180.75.171 (talk) 18:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow.  You're really funny.  Factual accuracy (not recording Emmanuel as CoS until he accepts) is not a political agenda.  Emmanuel has now actually accepted the position and is back in the article.  Ventifact (talk) 19:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emmanuel as Obama's CoS 

message: Since we're adding designate to all of Obama's other cabinet positions, i've put Rahm Emanuel in. This way, if something does change, it'll only say designate.Saberwolf116 (talk) 00:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted it, there is no need to list it, read WP:Crystal CTJF83Talk 01:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, but if we have posted Secretary of Health and somesuch, why not chief of staff? If we refer to them as designate, it doesn't neccesarily mean it's a prediction, does it?Saberwolf116 (talk) 02:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wasn't aware of any Sec of Health mentioned, I'll remove that too It was removed by another user. Yes, it is a prediction. How do you know Emanuel won't die before then, or be involved in some scandal, and Obama picks someone else? Do you know that Bolton will be alive until Jan 20? The answer to all three, is obviously a no. Therefore we shouldn't list a date for either. CTJF83Talk 07:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's true, then why do we list this one and this one? Joe Biden or Barack Obama could die or resign. So why don't we designate chief of staff?Saberwolf116 (talk) 13:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Who knows, I'm tired of reverting everyone all the time. They are a little different also. The country can't change their mind on Obama and Biden. But Obama can changes his on Emanuel. CTJF83Talk 21:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, OK, I give up, You win. But you're still gonna get eaten by a gure>:)Saberwolf116 (talk) 00:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  LOL, what is a gure? CTJF83Talk 04:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  What is it? What is it? HOW DARE YOU!*sends grue on you* — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saberwolf116 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Designate 

message: The infobox at the side says that George Edward Akerson was the first chief of staff, but per his article, he died before 1946, and it also lists him as the first White House Press Secretary.  Methinks that User:Aricci526 used the Press Secretary as a template while adding it but didn't change that information.  The article lists Steelman as the first Chief of Staff, but since it also lists a 1946 formation with the "Assistant to the President" role the first holder of that job could go in the infobox.   I don't know enough about the subject to correct, but I do know that Akerson is wrong.  Can this be changed?  --Canuckguy (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in infobox 

message: What is the sense in posting this article if the very basic of the office is not listed?  It should be listed somewhere in here that the positions is Confirmed by the Senate or not, and under what authority. MPA 21:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The post is a White House senior staff which does not require Senate confirmation. --TommyBoy (talk) 00:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confirmed by the Senate? 

message: The first section, History, states that the title "Chief of STaff" was adopted in 1951 under Eisenhower.
Eisenhower wasn't inaugurated until January of 1953!  Truman was still the president in 1951.  Either the date is wrong, or the name of the president in office at the time is wrong. GBC (talk) 08:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in date or president name 

message: Does the President's Chief of Staff get sworn in or take any kind of oath? Tom12ga (talk) 16:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Sworn in?

message: This page is located at White House Chief of Staff, but all references to the position in the prose say White House chief of staff.  Should the page be moved?  —  fourthords | =Λ= |  21:50, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  capitalization 

message: This sentence
John R. Steelman, under Harry S. Truman, was the last chief of staff to serve for an entire presidential administration.
Is just flat out wrong. Steelman became COS in Dec of 1946. Truman became President in April of 1945. That's 20 months of Steelman not being COS. 82.203.24.1 (talk) 13:35, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reworded the sentence so it's more clearly correct.  (Steelman was the last chief of staff to be a president's only chief of staff, not counting Kenneth O'Donnell's 'appointments secretary' role during Kennedy's 22 months.) —ADavidB 23:52, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factually incorrect 

message: The second paragraph states "The position is considered to be a stepping stone." This should be clarified, I'm not sure what it means. Does anyone have a suggestion? A citation would be great, too. — ʀoyoтϵ 02:03, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The editor who added it probably intended to state that those who have this role tend to move on to other positions with more responsibility.  As you noted, there is no supporting source citation.  As the issue is not covered elsewhere in the article, I've removed the "stepping stone" sentence.  Anyone with a supporting source is welcome to re-add and clarify the statement. —ADavidB 15:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification of "stepping stone" Suggestion 

message: No one is listed between O'Donnell and Watson, but there isn't a vacancy listed on the chart. The period between them was from Nov. 1963 to Feb. 1965, a significant vacancy. Does anyone know if there was a Chief of Staff? If so, who? Closeclouds (talk) 21:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather than an actual "chief of staff", Johnson had an "appointments secretary" who was the de facto holder of the role, as noted with the two identified during his administration.  Johnson's article mentions Walter Jenkins as the first equivalent. I don't know why he isn't identified as such here. Perhaps his employment was never formal enough to be identified as more than a "top aide".  Jenkins' career ended in scandal, but that shouldn't result in his being hidden. —ADavidB 11:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vacancy between O'Donnell and Watson 

message: I don’t think Ron Klain should be placed on the list as he is not currently the White House Chief of Staff. -69 days in office just looks wrong. DanJWilde (talk) 10:48, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I've commented out the entry.  It can easily be un-commented when Klain holds the office. —ADavidB 12:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you. DanJWilde (talk) 14:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of Ron Klain on the list 

message: The formatting of the Acting Chiefs of Staff (to date, Rouse and Mulvaney) makes sense in the context of this page, but leads to inconsistencies elsewhere that may be best addressed by a change to the numbering of the list here. For example, Pete Rouse's page shows that he was preceded as COS by Rahm Emanuel, and succeeded by Bill Daley. However, Rahm Emanuel's page shows that he was succeeded by Bill Daley; Daley's page shows that he was preceeded by Rahm Emanuel. Likewise, a user who observes that John F. Kelly was succeeded by Mark Meadows may be confused about Mick Mulvaney's tenure as COS.
While the "Acting" designation is an accurate and necessary inclusion, I am not aware of any legal distinction in terms of the powers and/or duties of the role vis-a-vis a non-Acting COS; it seems to be a temporal designation rather than one of responsibility. I suggest a change to the numbering of the list or some other adjustment in order to improve clarity on related pages. Constantsusan (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acting COS