This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
Rex Tillerson is part of the Scouting WikiProject, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Scouting and Guiding on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to boy and girl organizations, WAGGGS and WOSM organizations as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to Scouting. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ScoutingWikipedia:WikiProject ScoutingTemplate:WikiProject ScoutingScouting articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
I understand the sentence is cited four times, but is it really worthy of speculation being included? The man literally ended his tenure not even a month ago. It's very hard to gauge the performance of an executive office until time has passed to see what impact it has had. Sovietmessiah (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The people calling him that are not "speculating". They're pointing to concrete evidence of an absentee secretary who allowed the department's stature to be significantly diminished. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the assessment is premature, or at least mis-phrased; and doesn't track the text either. Indeed a bit of work turns up RSs that take a slightly less critical view of his tenure (whether or not one agrees with them):
Another - https://newrepublic.com/article/147447/youll-miss-hes-gone-tillerson-versus-pompeo . It acknowledges that he's been described as the worst, or one of the worst, S of S in a long time; but then makes the case that in some respects he wasn't that awful, and that Pompeo may be worse still. My point here is not that Tillerson was any good at all, really; but that he does have some defenders, or at least folks who felt a certain sympathy for the unwinnable challenges he faced even if he'd been equipped to meet them. For these reasons I think that a flat statement that is "considered to have been among the worst Secretaries of State" reflects a bit of cherry-picking (well, turd-picking maybe more accurately - opinion writers, with two cites to the same columnist) and shouldn't be in the lead. Maybe it'd be okay with an adjective other than "worst", which is in the end not very informative. "Weak", "ineffective", "incompetent" - those are all clearer, and might be better; indeed the first was used in one of the sources cited for "worst". Let's please talk about this. JohnInDC (talk) 14:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no metric for assessing whether someone was the worst anything except opinion. Including this line in the lead that is not covered at all in the body is POV. These four sources are at best cherry picking and discounting the thousands of sources that have written about Tillerson and chose not to talk about something so meaninglessly subjective as whether he was "the worst". Something something BLP. GMGtalk14:05, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the 'worst' assessment should be left out of the lede unless reliable news sources start to overwhelmingly cover him in that vein (e.g. "foreign policy experts generally consider him to be one of the worst secretaries of state") and unless scholarly assessments overwhelmingly point to strong agreement on the matter. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:18, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But the statement is "Tillerson is considered to have been among the worst Secretaries of State", not "Tillerson is among the worst Secretaries of State". One of them is fact (backed up by RS), the other one is opinion. Davey2116 (talk) 20:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They're both pretty much opinion. And the wording "is considered" implies a broad agreement, when what it should really say is Four people think he was the worst. When we represent the opinion of four sources, rather than the preponderance of sources, that's giving undue weight to a minority point of view. GMGtalk20:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it should be kept; it's a useful way to convey information that doesn't easily lend itself to interesting prose. In fact, I'd argue for the other cabinet officials' pages to have it, too. Davey2116 (talk) 02:19, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The last paragraph of the introduction mentions Lawrence Eagleburner as George W. Bush’s Secretary of State, but he actually served under George H.W. Bush. It’s also just a clunky paragraph. 207.62.170.223 (talk) 20:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He has also said he'd support a tax on carbon schemes.
