Talk:Sean Spicer/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

RfC regarding lead material

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.

---

Looks like a long overdue RfC is needed here. Should the following paragraph be inserted into the lead?

Spicer's first official statement as press secretary was criticized for making what became called alternative facts regarding the inauguration's attendance numbers. In his statement, he also claimed that the inauguration was "the most watched ever", but subsequently stated that he was referring not only to live attendees at the ceremony or those watching on TV, but also viewers who watched the inauguration online. However, no conclusive figures are available for online viewers, and so such a claim cannot be substantiated.

Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Keep I think the paragraph should be kept in the lead. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
• Keep I also think it should be kept in the lead, but I am open minded to different wordings. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
• Keep this material in the lede. (I don't understand why the question asked is whether the proposed paragraph should be "inserted" into the lede; it is already there and has been for weeks.) --MelanieN (talk) 19:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
• Neutral (leaning oppose) on the main inquiry, but... If this statement is retained, that "alternative facts" clause has got to go, as unnecessarily polemical, unless there is substantial WP:WEIGHT in the sources for describing it as such (and, unsurprisingly, there doesn't seem to be, as the term entered the cultural zeitgeist a little after this statement). I have no objection to noting something along the lines of "Spicer's first official statement as press secretary was criticized for making statements regarding Trump's inauguration's attendance numbers which many observers have described as misleading." Certainly we have the sources to say that. But the shoe-horning of the buzzword "alternative facts" into the article, when it is not reflective of the sources, smacks of an attempt to WP:UNDUEly connect this comment of Spicer's to a specific term which, for many, represents the generally poor relationship of the administration's statements to the truth. We may, some of us, have opinions about the role Spicer plays in that culture, but as an editorial matter, we need WP:reliable sources, which WP:Verify the connection of that label to a particular person or a particular statement. Further, in cases like this where we have a lot of coverage of said comment, the connection needs to be born out by weight in the sources generally.

This leads into the main inquiry of the RfC. Personally, the content looks a little unweighted to me in general. This is the least of the comments Spicer has made which many observers have questioned the factual basing for. Preserving it in the lead, at least in its current form, seems to run counter to the principle that this section should summarize the man's notability. It seems to me that the proponents for keeping this claim may want to do so in order to preserve in the article/lead some sense of the fact that, as the administrations spokesperson, he capable of delivering some whoppers with no sound evidence to back it up. Ok, fair enough, that's something that many people would say, for pragmatic purposes, ought to be reflected in the article. Even the average editor might agree that the article or the lead is incomplete without some recognition that there is, we can say at the least, controversy in this area. But we still need references to which to source this general criticism of Spicer, especially if it is going to appear in the lead.

Since it is too early to have those kind of broad assessments appearing in reliable sources (and often sources don't explicitly make comments about the honesty of a press secretary anyway, since everyone at this point in history knows that this is a mouthpiece role and that their job is primarily spin, even if some put more...spin...on their statements than others). So in the immediate absence of these sources to support a more general statement about how far out on a limb Spicer is willing to go with statements of this sort without evidence, I think I am observing a desire to maintain this one incident in the lead as a representative token of his purported dishonesty. And while I understand the thinking there, that just does not make for good encyclopedic content/fidelity to our BLP policies. That's why I lean oppose on including this in the lead (though I consider it a WP:SNOW matter that it should be included somewhere in the article). Regardless, that "alternative facts" comment has to go; it's entirely polemical and non-neutral as an editorial matter, no matter how much we may personally feel the comment represents that concept. Snow ^{let's rap} 20:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I just reminded myself, through a review of the alternative facts article, that Conway's notorious comment was made in direct defense of Spicer's inauguration comments. That actually bring those topics much closer together (as I am sure is reflected in many sources, even though none of those currently used here demonstrate it). That being the case, I've struck the first part of my commentary above. However, the rest of the analysis still reflects my feeling on this core issue here. The fact that Conway went on to have a quasi-Orwellian gaff over Spicer's comments doesn't necessarily mean that the original (Spicer) comments are now such an overwhelming part of his notability as to necessarily justify the sentence in the lead. Don't get me wrong; I'm sure there will be enough secondary sources in the near term which criticize the veracity of Spicer's statements enough to justify inclusion of that general observation in the lead, but per WP:CRYSTAL, I think its early for that, and that, insofar as the inauguration comments currently seem to stand in as a placeholder for that sentiment, I am not sure they are appropriate. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• Exclude/cut way down. This content strikes me as grossly undue and a clear example of recentism. Spicer regularly appears in the news for a huge variety of statements he makes, some controversial and some not, and he will surely continue to appear in the news for similar statements for the next four years. Ten years from now, does anyone seriously think that this statement about the inauguration crowd size will be more than one prominent statement of many, many? Does it merit a full half of his lead section? The "alternative facts" quote seems worth including, but one short sentence should be enough. (I'm not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Keep Per comment below in Discussion, it is not only notable and appropriately sourced in the article - it is also what he is most known for. X4n6 (talk) 23:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Edit Down In the lede, it should say something much more concise, like "After his first official statement as press secretary, Spicer was criticized for advancing the administration's unverifiable claims of record-high viewership for Trump's inauguration." --DavidK93 (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
• Edit down drastically for reasons given by Dr. Fleischman, undue and recent. Pincrete (talk) 21:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• Exclude from lead, cut down in the body. This is supposed to be his BLP, and this isn't a major life event, just one of several flaps this month. Plus lead is going into too much back & forth and about online counting, not about Sean. Lower down could also use a trimming -- just point to the Alternative facts article, do not duplicate it in a biography article. Markbassett (talk) 05:14, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• Edit down from lead. A single controversial press conference deserves one sentence, not 1/2 of the entire lead. Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 05:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
• Keep - this isn't recentism, it's what he's most known for and it's not a "single controversial news conference" - they all have pretty much been controversial and this is the one that set the tone.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:43, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Marek - wrong. Read it -- this is about his first news conference, then what Kellyanne said about it, then presenting a POV analysis of its being wrong. What's not given is a reason why the one news conference is select over four or five other such flaps, or how most of it has much to do re his life. Just saying that it runs on about the Alternative facts story beyond his involvement. Markbassett (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Not clear on what your point is. Yes, this was his first conference. Which defined him as the WH spokesperson. The analysis is not "POV", it's based on reliable sources. This is certainly a "significant life event" for the man. So... no idea what point you're trying to make, it just sounds like some WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• Keep but re-write This is Mr. Spicer's main claim to fame, but I think this wording is over-long and veers off-topic a bit. I would simply state, "In his first appearance as press secretary he insistently presented false claims about the size of the crowd at President Trump's inauguration. These subsequently led to widespread disparagement and ridicule of him." The details needn't go in the lede, Kellyanne, Melissa McCarthy, and SS' wardrobe. Those belong in the body of the article, but 10 years from now, the initial performance and reception could well be the only thing anyone remembers or cares about Mr. Spicer. SPECIFICO talk 14:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
• Edit down drastically This is similar to Vice President Dan Quayle and his potato(e) challenge: an exciting, notable, flash of a moment that, when considered in the context of a career, will loose much of its significance.Horst59 (talk) 16:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

This is quite dissimilar to Quayle. Quayle's job was to preside over the Senate, which doesn't require good spelling. Spicer is Minister of Information and he promoted misinformation. These don't seem commensurate to me. SPECIFICO talk 19:42, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree, but I think he's right that time will show how notable that incident really is in the broader context of history. If it snowballs any further I would suggest that we expand the lede section about the way he does his job and the flack he's taken for it, but for now I don't think it's warranted. Kakurokuna (talk) 20:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Define "If it snowballs any further?" Objectively, it already has. That's exactly why the sentences are justified. Because the tone set by the provably false statements that began his tenure, persists today. So the relevance is because this illustrates the ongoing pattern of unproven and/or already disproved statements, not just that lone incidence. If that was all there was, my vote would be different. But under the circumstances, that's what swayed my "Keep" vote - and almost moved it to "Strong Keep." X4n6 (talk) 04:44, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

• Cut down to a mere phrase or at most, sentence. That level of detail is entirely inappropriate for a lead - he will soon have plenty of press conferences for the press to bitch about, and focusing on just one in such detail in the lead is silly. Paraphrase the situation not by individual event, but by overall impact. Yvarta (talk) 18:28, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
• Edit but cut down I'm with SPECIFICO and Yvarta. It's very notable, but the level of detail is inappropriate for a lead and veers off-topic at times. However, if the issues continue to mount (as they likely will), I'd support an entire (but small) bit in the lede on his misinformation and criticism. Kakurokuna (talk) 20:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
• Keep - This is what has been Spicer notable in his two months in the position, and this gets extensive coverage in the main body of the article. I could also agree to a trimmed version, such as the one provided by SPECIFICO. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
• Keep It could be shortened/tightened, but until Spicer's life unfolds a bit more and his body of work expands with other noteworthy events, this, for the time being, is what he is most known for. Kerdooskis (talk) 16:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
• Keep. Very notable information. Might need rewriting to include the bare facts with no interpretation. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
• Keep, although a broader summary of Spicer's credibility problems would be more appropriate. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude Per markbassett. Lead is quite fine as is. L3X1 (distant write) 14:47, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
• Keep In case my opinion as a non-American is of any interest, this so far has been the defining aspect of Spicer's career that I've noticed in non-American media. --NoGhost (talk)
• Keep but trim. Relevant and DUE, however, a little wordy. BlueSalix (talk) 03:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
• Rewrite. "Spicer's first official statement as press secretary was criticized for making what became called alternative facts regarding the inauguration's attendance numbers." I think that is not written well. Bus stop (talk) 14:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
• Trim to one short sentence. — JFG ^talk 12:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
• Keep, but Trim. Summoned by bot Spicer's statements being criticized for factual accuracy is a frequent enough occurrence that it has to be mentioned in the lead (a very quick and dirty search produced 85,000 news sources, and 40 scholarly results, associating Spicer with "alternative facts"; a more thorough search will likely find many more, because not everybody uses that phrase). I'm not so sure about going into such detail with respect to a specific incident; that, for the lead, is probably a little too much. Vanamonde (talk) 05:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
• Keep but trim significantly. It is definitely noteworthy as an episode in Spicer's Press Secretary tenure, but the level of detail given is unnecessary, and it does not need to comprise such a large percentage of the lead section. I also believe that it doesn't serve as a good conclusion. AndrewOne (talk) 18:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
• Rewrite and remove the POV materials that paint Spicer as some sort of liar when in fact he is just the messenger from Trump. The lead puts too much emphasis on his first few days in office and needs to conform to the rules for bios like any other as per WP:BLP. Octoberwoodland (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

As I said previously, the conference is the thing Spicer is most known for, and indeed most of the references on this page refer to it. If that changes then maybe it should removed, but for the minute I think it should stay. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Angelina Jolie is arguably "most known for" adopting children and marrying Brad Pitt, not her movies, but yet her lead only mentions the children briefly - because even if one aspect of a person's life 'seems' most important at the time, if that is not all they are known for and there is press of other aspects, then all those factors should be paraphrased briefly in the lead. Yvarta (talk) 18:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I think that's not a very good example, but I get your point. But the point still stands: a good portion of the sources explicitly refer to the incident and the level of controversy he's garnered is highly unusual for the position. You're right though, the controversies ought to be mentioned, but only briefly in the lede and expanded upon in a "controversy" section or something of the sort. Kakurokuna (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Revised version

This RfC has been going on for weeks, and discussion had slowed down to the point where it got archived by the bot. So I studied it with a view to closing. What I found was a virtual tie between "Keep" and "Exclude". But when I looked past the raw count to what people are actually saying, I found a lot of common ground: most of the "exclude" !voters and some of the "include" !voters want it included but trimmed. I agree that the current paragraph goes into way too much detail analyzing attendance at the inauguration - material that belongs in the article text, not the lede. With that in mind, I propose a shorter version:

Spicer came to national attention with a statement he made the day after the inauguration, accusing the media of underestimating the size of the crowds at the ceremony. His claim was rated as false by most commentators, and was later described as "alternative facts".

Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 15:50, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@EtienneDolet, Absolutelypuremilk, Emir of Wikipedia, Snow Rise, DrFleischman, X4n6, DavidK93, Pincrete, Markbassett, Stikkyy, Volunteer Marek, SPECIFICO, Horst59, Kakurokuna, Yvarta, Snooganssnoogans, Kerdooskis, Itsmejudith, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, L3X1, NoGhost, BlueSalix, and Bus stop: Pinging previous discussants. --MelanieN (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

This is a very reasonable version. Thanks for your work.Horst59 (talk) 21:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that's good.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• MelanieN - Exclude from lead, put in body. Just not worthy of lead. This is his BLP and this one item is only one of several flaps, not a major life event of significance such as getting him fired sense. This does avoid the WP:OFFTOPIC to & fro of they said-then she said -then he said that was entirely non-Spicer, or going into nits about online counting, but it's just not a major WP:BLP item, not a major part of the article, and just a trivial tiff. As a side-item, I'm also doubting it could be cited cleanly as many cites are opinionating or emoting rather than stating facts-of or summarizing a status objectively. Markbassett (talk) 00:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Of course it's "worthy of lead". Of course it's a "major life event". It defined Spicer. It's the reason why people started paying attention to him. Why SNL did a skit of him. I mean, I don't even have an idea who Obama's WH spokesperson was, but I sure do know Spicer. And it's all because of that first conference.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Survey regarding revised version

Include its a good version. Didn't know you could do a mass-ping. L3X1 (distant write) 16:45, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Responding to ping Huge improvement. As my involvement was limited to responding to the RfC and I'm not familiar with the whole story, I'll leave others to settle the niceties of the proposed text, but happy to endorse an Include. Pincrete (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I like that version, MelanieN. Bus stop (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Likewise. Sounds good to me! 17:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)Kakurokuna (talk)

• Like, so long as it's referenced inline. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion regarding revised version

Still seems a bit lengthy to me. What do you think about something like this? Spicer came to attention after his inauguration size statements was identified as false by most commentators, and were later described as "alternative facts". Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:03, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN:--When I unarchived it,I too was thinking on the same lines.And this suits me well.But I woyuld prefer--Spicer came to attention after his statements, alleging the media of under-estimating the size of the crowds at the ceremony was identified as false by most commentators, and were later described as "alternative facts".Winged Blades ^Godric 16:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia:--How do you think?Winged Blades ^Godric 16:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

To both of you: I understand your desire to keep this to a single sentence, but I think you have sacrificed some clarity in doing so. In other words, I think the two-sentence version is easier to understand. --MelanieN (talk) 16:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

• How about "Spicer rose to National attention on the day following President Trump's inauguration, when Spicer falsely and insistently claimed that the crowds at the ceremony were the largest ever at such an event and that the press had deliberately under-estimated the number of spectators." SPECIFICO talk 19:01, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Bus stop, the third one seems best to me, but with the grammar slightly changed to: Spicer came to attention after his statements, alleging the media had under-estimated the size of the crowds at the ceremony, were identified as false by most commentators, and were later described as "alternative facts". Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

The 5 versions under consideration are:

1. Spicer came to national attention with a statement he made the day after the inauguration, accusing the media of underestimating the size of the crowds at the ceremony. His claim was rated as false by most commentators, and was later described as "alternative facts".

2. Spicer came to attention after his inauguration size statements was identified as false by most commentators, and were later described as "alternative facts".

3. Spicer came to attention after his statements, alleging the media of under-estimating the size of the crowds at the ceremony was identified as false by most commentators, and were later described as "alternative facts".

4. Spicer rose to National attention on the day following President Trump's inauguration, when Spicer falsely and insistently claimed that the crowds at the ceremony were the largest ever at such an event and that the press had deliberately under-estimated the number of spectators.

5. Spicer came to attention after his statements, alleging the media had under-estimated the size of the crowds at the ceremony, were identified as false by most commentators, and were later described as "alternative facts".

Just thought I'd reiterate them for comparison purposes. Bus stop (talk) 19:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the effort to reduce the profile of the statement to some degree (at least as regards the lead), but I do have a concern that losing the onwership of the "alternative facts" label (that is, that it came from another Trump spokesperson attempting to defend the comments/frame them in a positive light, rather than from a critical source), rather dramatically reduces clarity on the issue. Maybe that's resolved by internally linking to the article on that event/phrase, but then, maybe not. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

But remember, this is just the lede we're discussing. Also I think we need to very briefly state two different noteworthy facts. First, that he insistently misrepresented the crowd size, and second that he attacked the vast majority of the press that did not accept his misstatements as fact. I think the "alternative facts" thingy is much more important for Kellyanne Conway's bio than for Spicer's, so I don't think that needs to go in the lede here. SPECIFICO talk 01:29, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, leaving out the alternative facts comment altogether is certainly one way to go. But leaving it in without qualifying it seems potentially problematic. Not a huge thing, but less than ideal for the sake of clarity/neutrality. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I really don't like any of these, for several reasons. First, because I think Spicer actually came to attention when Trump named him as part of his staff. I certainly heard about him in December, after not having known who he was before. And I have various, separate reasons for not liking the others; 2 and 3 have grammatical and syntactical problems, 1 and 5 include "alternative facts" and thus go further into analysis than the lede probably should, and 4 seems too strongly worded. I actually prefer what I suggested in the earlier discussion: "After his first official statement as press secretary, Spicer was criticized for advancing the administration's unverifiable claims of record-high viewership for Trump's inauguration." This would replace the entire third paragraph of the current lede, and could simply be appended to what is currently the second paragraph.--DavidK93 (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

"Criticized?" how about "excoriated in the worldwide press" ? I'm OK with "Following President Trump's inauguration, Spicer was excoriated in the worldwide media when he falsely and insistently claimed that the crowds at the ceremony were the largest ever at such an event and that the press had deliberately under-estimated the number of spectators." SPECIFICO talk 16:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

That strikes me as biased and inflammatory; it would result in Wikipedia's original text being strongly anti-Spicer, by my reading of it. Since issues surrounding Trump and his administration tend to be very contentious, I think it's better to assess the claims themselves ("unverifiable"), rather than Spicer or even his act of making the claims ("falsely and insistently"). The body of the article would make it clear, with reliable citations, that other inaugurations had higher attendance and viewership by all traditional metrics, while there is no way to verify the internet numbers Spicer later claimed he was talking about all along. --DavidK93 (talk) 18:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

But the claims only exist with respect to Mr. Spicer due to his having uttered and promoted them. "Unverifiable" sounds weasel to me. WP doesn't state that other false statements are "unverifiable". If it were unknown whether the statement were false, I could understand "unverifiable" but that doesn't seem to be what RS report. SPECIFICO talk 18:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

"Unverified" is different from "debunked". Spicer's comments were debunked. --MelanieN (talk) 19:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

This administration always moves the target, and that's what happened here. When it was shown that the in-person attendance and TV viewership were nowhere near records, Spicer claimed he was talking about all eyeballs, including the internet. I had read an article (like http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/01/23/sean_spicer_misleading_about_online_inaugural_viewership.html, although I think it was a different one) that stated that this couldn't reliably be determined. "Unverifiable" is not weasel; it's reporting that reliable sources indicated that the claim could not be proven true or false--it literally could not be verified. But, ultimately, I'd be fine with "disproven" instead of "unverifiable," since many other individual claims were widely demonstrated to be false. --DavidK93 (talk) 04:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

And, to be clear @MelanieN, "unverified" is different from "unverifiable." Unverified means that the truth value of a statement hasn't been determined, while unverifiable means that the truth value of a statement can't be determined. (An initially unverified report could later be verified, disproven, have an inconclusive investigation, or found to be inherently unverifiable.) As the lede currently states, "no conclusive figures are available for online viewers, and so such a claim cannot be substantiated," which is equivalent to stating that the claim is unverifiable. --DavidK93 (talk) 14:08, 29 March 2017 (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.

Holocaust / Hitler statement while WHPS

Given his comments on Passover effectively denying the Holocaust (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/sean-spicer-hitler-didn-chemical-weapons-article-1.3043835) and (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hitler-sink-chemical-weapons-spicer/story?id=46732616), the article should be updated to reflect that as the White House Press Secretary, he espoused Holocaust denial and anti-semitic views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BJMiller16 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Needs mention of his saying Hitler took Jews “into the Holocaust center”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:E016:A700:5958:C7B0:780F:6596 (talk) 21:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

According to Stanford University project on chemical weapons, "Germany did not use biological or chemical weapons on enemy combatants during World War II." No germs or chemicals were used in bombs or rockets as combat weapons by the Nazis in WWII; Assad has used chemical weapons in bombs or rockets against military targets with collateral damage among innocent civilians. Not even Hitler did that. Spicer said: "We didn't even use chemical weapons in World War II. You had a -- you know someone as despicable as Hitler who didn't even sink to using chemical weapons...." To try to twist that into Holocaust Denial is typical Twitterverse twaddle. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 21:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree, and I am removing some of this section as per WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. Can all the Trump haters fixate on another target other than Sean Spicer, who by the way, always seems to garner collateral damage from most of Trump's comments. Stating he has "anti-semitic views" is WP:OR and someones opinion, not a verifiable fact no matter what source makes these statements. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

No, "trump haters" will not "fixate" elsewhere on Wikipedia. If there is a NEWS or UNDUE issue, so be it, and opinion should not be added to the article Nevertheless, his comments about the Holocaust do seem to be significant to his biography and career at the moment. We can see if that is true long term, as well as any connection to the broader concerns about antisemitism regarding the Trump campaign and adminsitration. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I am not American, so I am neither a Trump supporter or hater. Clearly he was not trying to deny the holocaust and any suggestion that he was is ridiculous. However that's not to say that it wasn't one of the biggest screw-ups in press conference history and the article is missing a few things, as are some of the commenters here. When asked to clarify his statement - after appearing to deny the holocaust - he then said "I think when you come to sarin gas ... (Hitler) was not using the gas on his own people the same way that Assad is doing.” Once again he no doubt didn't mean to say that the people who the Nazis gassed - they were not all Jewish as there were others such as disabled people - were not actually Germans, as in "his own people," but that meaning was nonetheless a potential inference. He then finally realised his screw-up and tried to recover but once again dug himself even deeper by saying "(Hitler) brought them into the Holocaust center, I understand that. What I am saying in the way that Assad used them, where he went into towns, dropped them down to innocent, into the middle of towns, it was brought — so the use of it..." The potential inference this time being that the people the Nazis gassed weren't innocent, though once again I'm sure he didn't mean that. As I said, this has to be one of the biggest - if not the biggest - screw-ups in worldwide press conference history and I fail to see how it isn't news and is undue. If it isn't news then why on Earth is every news organisation in the entire universe - be they newspaper, Internet site, or television - reporting on it? As to it being undue, the best rule of thumb is the one concerning sexual harassment in the workplace; namely that intention of the culprit is irrelevant, the only thing that's relevant is the meaning taken by the victim. In other words, if the boss gives a female a shoulder rub, but his intention isn't sexual in any way. then that is irrelevant; the only thing that's relevant is the meaning taken by the female employee and the way she is made to feel. The point being that while Spicer may not have intended to imply the various things which some people inferred, that is irrelevant, and the only thing of importance is the meaning that many people took from his comments. We're talking about a senior member of the most powerful government in the world, whose job is speaking to the press for goodness sake. Are people here really trying to claim that it's OK for a person at that level to say things like that? PAHLEASE! It most certainly is news, and it is not undue. As to some of the claims being made here, the Nazis produced several tons of Sarin gas and built a number of artillery shells which contained it, as well as some other gases, but didn't use them for some unknown reason; probably because they feared that the Allies would use gas on the Germans in retaliation. So trying to claim that the Nazis were perfectly innocent and somehow 'better' than the Syrians is complete hogwash. The Nazis clearly showed that they had no problem with gassing people; including captured enemy soldiers it's worth mentioning... FillsHerTease (talk) 08:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

If we were to quote someone in this section, then I think the Holocaust historian Deborah Lipstadt may be appropriate:

• “Historically, it’s just wrong,” said Deborah Lipstadt, a leading historian of the Holocaust and a professor at Emory University in Atlanta. Mr. Spicer “should not be making comparisons,” Dr. Lipstadt said. “It’s, at the best, not thought out, and at the worst, shows a latent anti-Semitism.” (Source: "Sean Spicer Raises Outcry With Talk of Hitler, Assad and Poison Gas", NY Times

K.e.coffman (talk) 19:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2017

I request the inclusion of the following, which I think is very important change (or misleading reference to change) in US policy:

"...

On 10th April 2017, Spicer announced - perhaps unintentionally - a major change in US's long standing policy over Assad regime's use of barrel bombs on his own civilians. Spicer was asked, what actions by Assad could trigger an attack by US?; he replied that Assad's use of conventional weapons such as barrel bombs (in addition to use of poison gas) would constitute a trigger for future US intervention in Syria.

..."

Source: http://www.vox.com/world/2017/4/10/15247642/trump-syria-bomb-assad-spicer-barrel-bomb AbdulHakim (talk) 01:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Thanks for the suggestion, but this doesn't seem to have gotten enough coverage to include here. This is a biography article; there might be other, non-biography articles where it could be mentioned. --MelanieN (talk) 00:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Detail on first briefing too much for the lead?

It seems excessive to devote an entire paragraph in the lead to the details of Spicer's first briefing. It is already covered in the body of the article. I think it makes more sense to delete the detail and retain the first sentence of the paragraph, which speaks to Spicer's actions and reputation generally. --Fixed245 (talk) 05:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, I have trimmed that. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:16, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. It seem someone else has added even more detail afterward. I reiterate that I think the best approach is to keep the first sentence, and then cut the rest of the paragraph from the lead. It is already covered, extensively, in the body, and it is no more important to Spicer's reputation than the other events.--Fixed245 (talk) 00:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Irish ancestry

I've amended the "of Irish descent" entry to better reflect Spicer's reported claim: he represents it as derived from a great-grandparent, therefore it can only be one-eighth of his entire descent. The other seven-eighths include mostly English and German ancestry but the only source would, at this point, constitute original research. Twistlethrop (talk) 23:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Spicer's ancestry is seven eighths Irish and one eighth German. See here. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 05:28, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The Spicer and Hall side of Spicer's family are English not Irish -- It's like saying basketball player Steve Nash is African American because he was born in South Africa. So let's try and play it straight on this one. But you can't tell for sure from a name. Spicer's Grossman German ancestor might be Jewish for all we know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.182.11.81 (talk) 18:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

How do you know the Irish-born Spicer and Hall ancestors were not of Irish descent? Besides, that would still make Spicer of three quarters Irish ancestry. And no, his Grossman/Grossmann ancestors weren't Jewish. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 03:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Lead section

I added templates on POV, lead section etc because I believe the lead section is poorly organized, biased, and overemphasizes controversy while not covering his career adequately. I read through it: 4 sentences sum up his entire career and current Trump administration capacities, but 5 sentences are devoted to false/controversial statements. The article on Jay Carney, the former Press Secretary, also has a small lead section but it more adequately and appropriately covers his career history. See below:

James "Jay" Carney (born May 22, 1965) is an American journalist and served as a White House press secretary for President Barack Obama.

From 2014 to 2015, he worked as a senior political analyst at CNN. He served as White House press secretary, from 2011 to 2014, and his resignation was accepted by President Barack Obama, on May 30, 2014. [1] From 2008 to 2011, he was director of communications for Vice President Joe Biden. He worked as the Time Magazine Washington bureau chief, from 2005 to 2008 and was a regular contributor in the "roundtable" segment of This Week with George Stephanopoulos for ABC News.

Carney has been the senior vice president of worldwide corporate affairs at Amazon.com, Inc., since March 2, 2015.

Jgefd (talk) 02:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

You know, false equivalencies are always fun.

Sean Spicer's article and lead talks about false/controversial statements because (based on many many reliable sources, commentary, and even political satire) it's what he's known for and for which Jay Carney is not. Pretty much the same reason David Bowie's article mentions his acting career while Mick Jagger's doesn't. --Calton | Talk 02:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Check the archives, this has been discussed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

why is there no mention of him saying GCHQ spied on Trump?

as above — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.82.149 (talk) 22:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

This entry is certainly written from a neutral point of view, right?

Talk pages are for discussing changes to the article, not general discussion about a topic. See WP:NOTAFORUM. clpo13(talk) 23:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This entry is certainly written from a neutral point of view, right? There is no way anyone could possibly determine the political POV of the editors who wrote this article because it is so fair, balanced and evenhanded. It is a testament to Wikipedia's neutrality, objectivity and credibility. An editor of the article compares Sean Spicer to "Bagdad Bob" without noticing any irony in that observation. I don't know if this entree could be anymore one-sided, virulent, venomous, or biased. Anyone with an IQ over 80 can discern the POV of the editors who wrote this derisive, philippic diatribe. This is not an entry for an encyclopedia, this is the hysterical rantings of frantic people in a tizzy who have lost their minds. I understand there are people who don't like President Trump and his press secretary. But is this really the place to express your personal feelings? You have people who are so rabidly prejudiced that can't see their own total lack of objectivity. CNN, Vanity Fair and the Chicago Tribune compared President Trump to Saddam Hussein. That is perfectly neutral, right. Bagdad Bob was Saddam Hussein press secretary, and Sean Spicer is President Trumps press secretary. So, that is certainly a fair comparison. Who would have a problem with that? There is no way CNN, Vanity Fair or the Chicago Tribune could ever express a non-neutral POV. That simply could never happen. You want to believe this article has a neutral POV, be my guest. Far be it for me to disagree with an expert like you. You have my vote. I am sure there is no possibility that you are biased and viewing this article through the prism of your extreme prejudices. No, that couldn't be the case. I am sure you do not have an iron in the fire. You missed the whole point of my comment. You fixated on one trivial item I picked out. You start reading the entry from the very beginning to the very end, and it is blatantly obvious that every single sentence is written from a single POV. Every sentence tells only one side of the story. If that is your side, you believe that is the only side. The entry is such heavy-handed, amateurish propaganda that it will have the opposite effect. It reminds me of the propaganda the old Soviet Union used to engage in and the kind of propaganda state newspapers of dictators use today. This is why polls show newspapers today have less credibility than Trump. Because the same people who wrote this entry write newspaper articles. 2601:586:C801:EAB0:714A:B374:CC38:4A80 (talk) 20:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC) CNN, Vanity Fair and the Chicago Tribune all used that term. Three major outlets using a preexisting phrase. It's a pertinent observation presented neutrally in context. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC) This entire section is a clear violation of WP:SOAPBOX and as such should be removed, per WP:TALK#USE. Little more than a POV screed from someone complaining about alleged POV? People of every political stripe have reviewed this article and the only reason items last is because they are notable and reliably sourced. But WP:NOTFORUM also applies, as talk pages are not to be used for editorial commentary. X4n6 (talk) 10:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC) How well a high-profile professional does his job is hardly SOAPBOX, particularly when it's one of the most important positions in the world. It's not Wikipedia editors' personal commentary. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC) You've misunderstood. My comments were about the IP above you, not you. Actually, I agree with you. So I have indented your original response to the IP so that is clearer. Sorry for the confusion. X4n6 (talk) 23:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Is the Easter Bunny really a relevant picture / information?

The Easter bunny costume picture seems inappropriate for the 2nd picture on the chief white house press secretary.

It is not a notable event in his life and while cute, seems like an attempt to just make him seem silly? Someone else can argue each side better then me. I just stumbled into this page because I was curious about his background. Thought this seems like a picture you'd see of him in a comedy show.

However I believe the bunny picture should be deleted or moved much further down in the article.

I agree, I don't think it is needed. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

People will obviously see what they want to see in the photo. But I will note that its placement in the section does accurately correspond, chronologically, to his government work at the time. So it wouldn't necessarily be properly placed if it were "moved much further down the article." X4n6 (talk) 05:33, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Seems okay to me. Had quite a bit of media comment and it is the right place chronologically. What's wrong with a little gentle humour anyway? Edwardx (talk) 18:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I apologize for rv image w/o checking talkpage; I was too BOLD, I guess. Apologies. Look, "Spicer was communications director of the Republican National Committee from 2011 to 2017, and its chief strategist from 2015 to 2017." He is an accomplished individual, albeit overly and surprisingly (given his education) gaffe-prone, but it is evident that trying to be a spokesperson for our current POTUS is an impossible task. There is no reason for this demeaning image to be on Wikipedia. It is nothing but a snide partisan insertion, kicking a guy when he's down, IMO. Quis separabit? 18:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

If there were more images from his time as a serious political operative, which was his main job then it would be fine. As it stands now, it seems to be a violation of NPOV and gives undue weight. Calibrador (talk) 22:16, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm the guy who added the image --- didn't add it to mock Spicer. I previously added his old header image (which has since been replaced by a perhaps slightly better quality image of a similar nature) and wanted to improve the article, making it more comprehensive. Since the WH Easter Egg Roll had been mentioned, it didn't seem inappropriate to include the image in that section, since it's a high-profile (although light-hearted) event that receives mass media coverage. It also adds a little bit of diversity to the images of the article --- it's something other than the guy standing at a podium. If the image were in the header, I'd agree it would be ridiculous --- but to keep it down in the page seems to be fitting, especially if you look at, for example, Bill Clinton, where he's playing the sax in one picture. Just because somebody holds an important position doesn't mean they're not allowed to have had a light-hearted moment in their lives or articles. Editosaurus (talk) 04:25, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

What part of "It is nothing but a snide partisan insertion, kicking a guy when he's down, IMO." isn't itself a "snide partisan assertion?" Also please provide the WP policy or guideline which addresses "kicking a guy when he's down?" More importantly, what's "kicking a guy when he's down" about representing the POTUS? Seriously. You don't like the job? Quit. Sorry, but in my view, that entire comment was disappointing, textbook POV, from a long-time editor who really should know better. Look, any objective analysis would point to the fact that the event was widely reported by reliable sources. Nobody denies it's Spicer. Including Spicer. In fact, Spicer himself appears to have embraced that moment. So why can't Wikipedia? We've also discussed that it's placement in the article is chronologically accurate. It's also 1 photo out of the 4 in the article; and in 1 section out of the 10 sections and 3 subsections of the article. So where's the undue? Where's the POV? Folks really just need to leave partisanship out of WP editing. X4n6 (talk) 07:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Misidentified?

I don't think that photo is Spicer, I have explained this at c:File talk:Sean Spicer on March 24, 2008.jpg. January (talk) 19:50, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

That's really the question. If he chose to dress up as a rodent and hop around the lawn with kids, it's all for a good cause. But we'd better be certain that he actually did that. SPECIFICO talk 19:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't dispute that he was an Easter Bunny at that event, the issue is whether he is the one in that photo. January (talk) 19:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Commons has not produced any evidence that this photo is of Spicer. There were three Easter bunnies in different costumes at the 2008 Easter Egg Roll and the US National Park Service who are the source of the photo have not identified any of the people in the costumes. Comparing it to the head of the costume Spicer is seen having removed here (blue eyelids, white cheeks and no glasses) would suggest that he was not the one in the photo used here (purple eyelids, pink cheeks and glasses). The uploader proposed keeping it in the article with an amended caption but I do not think a photo that probably depicts someone else has any relevance to Spicer's biography and I propose to remove it. January (talk) 06:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the image as no objections have been raised. January (talk) 18:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Twitter links

Per WP:LINKSTOAVOID, links to Twitter are normally to be avoided. Twitter is mentioned specifically under "links normally to be avoided." User:X4n6 claims that Twitter links are nevertheless sometimes included, based on WP:ELOFFICIAL. WP:ELOFFICIAL does not mention Twitter or social networking websites at all, and merely discusses the use of a subject's official website. A Twitter account is not Spicer's official website. In this case User:X4n6 added not just one, but even two Twitter links, although WP:ELMINOFFICIAL states that "normally, only one official link is included." I propose that we (again) remove the two Twitter links. (Spicer used to have an actual official website (seanspicer.com)). --Tataral (talk) 17:50, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Those Twitter links seem violative. I gather that sometimes a social-media link may be allowable under ELs if there is no official site, but those Twitter links do not belong in the infobox at all. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:50, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

You seem to have external links policies exactly backwards, per WP:ELOFFICIAL. --Calton | Talk 07:02, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• It is no accident that the very first sentence of WP:LINKSTOAVOID is bolded. It says: "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject..." Also User:Tataral quoted the subheading: "Links normally to be avoided" while inexplicably, ignored the qualifier: "normally."

But the bolded section of WP:LINKSTOAVOID actually directs to WP:ELOFFICIAL, which couldn't be clearer:

"An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following criteria:

1. The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article.
2. The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable.

Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself. These links are normally exempt from the links normally to be avoided..."

So where is the problem? I would also note that the Infobox photo we're currently using is only available, because I took it from Spicer's official Twitter account, which is public domain. I assume Tataral doesn't question the photo lifted from the account, so how curious to challenge a link to the account.

However, to resolve this, and as Tenebrae and I agree, I've moved both Twitter links from the Infobox to External links. They belong there. Even a cursory review makes clear that Spicer's personal account is also used in an official capacity, so it also meets WP:ELOFFICIAL.

But even this ignores the elephant in the room: Spicer's boss uses his personal Twitter account in an official capacity too. Yet if we followed an interpretation of policy which ignores the exemptions those policies provide, we'd be unable to link to, or reference, any of that too. Um..."Sad." X4n6 (talk) 00:17, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood WP:ELOFFICIAL. A social media account that happens to be used by a government official is not an "official website" as Wikipedia defines that term for the purposes of external links. Twitter is a website where the subject is forced to express himself in 140 characters, where there is no place for the subject to include any background material, and where the subject has limited control over the content. The main reason we link to official websites is that they usually contain some sort of biography, where the subject can write about himself. Twitter doesn't include that. Twitter is specifically mentioned in Wikipedia:External links as a website normally to be avoided. While the word "normally" may be interpreted as meaning that this is not an absolute rule, I see no reason to make an exception in this case. After all, the majority of politicians (and other public figures) tend to have Twitter accounts these days, and what makes him different from them? Also, having links to two Twitter accounts borders on the absurd. --Tataral (talk) 04:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

The only misunderstanding appears to be in your interpretation of the word "official," as used in WP:ELOFFICIAL. I recommend you review it above. Then perhaps you can offer an explanation how, in your view - and based solely on the two elements provided above - these links do not qualify. Also, your definition of "normally" as "may be interpreted as meaning that this is not an absolute rule," is, as a practical matter, moot, because ELOFFICIAL, LINKSTOAVOID and even External links are all guidelines, not policies. So to treat any of them as "absolute rules" is inherently misguided. You also ignored the fact that I moved both links from the Infobox to External links. Just as you ignored my point that the Infobox photo was taken from Spicer's press secretary account. Just as you didn't respond to my question noting how odd it would be if we could use content on that site, yet not be able to link to that site. Just as you also seem unaware that Trump's page lists both a personal and "official" Twitter account in External links. Even though those have merged. Here, while they remain separate, both are used in an official capacity. While it may surprise you that the White House press secretary, like his boss, uses Twitter as an effective and "official" method of content delivery, judging by the millions who follow each, that fact is not lost on most people. So, ultimately, if your only objection is that neither Twitter account should be listed under External links, for all the reasons I've discussed, I believe you'll have an uphill battle gaining consensus. X4n6 (talk) 05:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

You are the one who needs to gain consensus to include this. You are the only one who wants to include it and the relevant guidelines recommend against it. So far you haven't provided a convincing reason for why we should include it in his article. The fact that he is a government official who also uses Twitter as a method to communicate is not a reason (most politicians and other public figures also do that) and does not make it his "official website" for the purposes of Wikipedia's external links. --Tataral (talk) 06:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Wrong again. I didn't put the Twitter links in the article. They were already there. And you're the only editor who wants them removed. That's why you made the proposal: "I propose that we (again) remove the two Twitter links" for which you need consensus. You've made your arguments and I've rebutted each one. You certainly can't say the same about my responses. You should also probably take another look at Spicer's press sec Twitter which says: "Tweets may be archived: http://wh.gov/privacy". If that doesn't sound official to you, perhaps this is simply a case of WP:IDHT. X4n6 (talk) 06:42, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

No, it's the editor who wants to include something who needs to reach consensus for inclusion, not the other way round. And you are the only editor who supports its inclusion on this talk page, and the relevant guidelines recommend against it. You have clearly misunderstood what an "official website" is for the purposes of external links on the Wikipedia project. --Tataral (talk) 14:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Enough. The edit log clearly shows the links have been in the article for months. You want them removed? Get consensus. Until then, stop playing games. Repeating the same failed arguments is disruptive, per WP:LISTEN. Now we're done here - unless/until an actual vote is called. Until then, feel free to have the LAST WORD. X4n6 (talk) 00:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

That's not how it works. Two editors think the links are not relevant, while you are the only one who supports their inclusion. You need to obtain consensus if you want to include them. --Tataral (talk) 04:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Do yourself a favor and review both WP:EDITCONSENSUS, as well as WP:CONSENSUS. Two editors agreed to move the links from the Infobox to External links. Or if you persist in being disruptive, I will self-revert and return them to the Infobox, which had months of consensus. If you revert again without first obtaining CONSENSUS, as you did here, you will be reported for edit warring. X4n6 (talk) 05:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I propose that you familiarise yourself with Wikipedia instead of continuing this disruptive and childish behaviour. It is the editor who wants to include something who needs to obtain consensus to include it, not the other way round. I also recommend that you stop your disruptive edit warring. I find it somewhat curious that a user with a long list of blocks for edit warring makes ridiculous and empty threats against me, who have never once been blocked in nearly a decade of editing. --Tataral (talk) 10:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• I just saw this. Seriously? Now you're resulting to personal attacks, because that's all you have left? As editors have already told you, my familiarity with WP isn't the problem. But it seems your inability to read, comprehend, listen, collaborate and/or contribute constructively are. But you have now officially entered TROLL territory and I will no longer feed you. However, if you find my edit-war warnings to be such "ridiculous and empty threats," you're certainly free to test them. Apparently, a block is long overdue. X4n6 (talk) 23:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Your rant is unworthy of a response, and I'm not going to waste more time on you. Apparently it's high time that you receive a new, long block – certainly not your first, for your behaviour. You are clearly not here to write an encyclopedia. --Tataral (talk) 02:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• Keep Twitter links. It's a no-brainer: both the Twitter accounts for the White House spokesperson's office and for Spicer himself are official, and -- per normal standards for articles -- belong. The arguments for removal are Wikilawyering at their worst, both in cherry-picking the bits used in justification, in ginning up a non-existent consensus, AND in treating guidelines -- not even rules -- like a club to attempt to thrash an opponent with. --Calton | Talk 07:00, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• • That's a flatly wrong claim. Twitter links do not belong in articles "per normal standards for articles" because it is explicitly recommended against by the relevant guideline, and furthermore the fact that a Twitter account is used by a government official does not make it an "official website" for the purposes of Wikipedia:External links. --Tataral (talk) 11:00, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• Is this the film Groundhog Day? Because I keep waking up to you regurgitating the same old defeated arguments and never adding anything new. Or answering anyone's rebuttals beyond claiming they're "flatly wrong." How many times will you repeat the same tired, provably false claims, only to have one more editor slap you down? I won't bother repeating any of my prior responses, because you can't/don't/won't LISTEN. You clearly have no answers for them anyway. Or you would have given them. One thing you definitely have no response for and cannot dispute? Consensus against your proposal is now clear, unmistakable and firm. X4n6 (talk) 21:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Two Points

1.) There's a grammar error in the 2nd to last sentence of the "Endeavor Global Strategies" section 2.) Intro completely violates 'neutral point of view' policy. Comparing Spicer to Hussein's Information Minister is ridiculous, and the section as a whole is littered with citations from left-wing publications and their liberal snowflake employees — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.235.22.102 (talk • contribs) Sentence struck per WP:BATTLEGROUND. X4n6 (talk) 08:38, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Re 1), I removed the stray word "the" from that sentence; thank you for pointing it out. --MelanieN (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2017

Existing: "As press secretary, Spicer has drawn criticism for making numerous false or controversial statements, as well as for displaying combative behavior with the press."

Suggestion: "As press secretary, Spicer has drawn criticism for making allegedly false or controversial statements, as well as for displaying combative behavior with the press."

An unverifiable statement is very different from a false one. Randall110114 (talk) 05:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done: The reliable sources in the lead called many of his statements false, not allegedly false. The lead reflects those sources. X4n6 (talk) 07:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for acknowledging my suggestion! It means a lot. This is the first time I've attempted to participate in Wikipedia as a reviewer so I appreciate the opportunity.

Would it be appropriate to comment here that the Sean Spicer article sounds like the person who wrote it doesn't care for Mr. Spicer much? It bothers me that the "falsehood" statements or allegations appear in the opening paragraphs. The reliable sources cited [CNN, Vanity Fair, etc.] indeed are mainstream and well-known. Yet, as you doubtless know, many conservatives find the content of those publications consistently biased against other conservatives.

Perhaps the controversies surrounding Sean Spicer could be organized into a "controversy" section as I have seen done in other Wikipedia articles? I don't want to belabor the point. If you'd rather not pursue this discussion any further, I'll understand. However, I would be happy to attempt to reorganize the article if you're interested. Thanks again!Randall110114 (talk) 04:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done for now: Per X4n6, deactivating this request until a consensus can be demonstrated. Izno (talk) 12:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

"Controversy" as section title should be avoided since it doesn't provide a very good assessment of the WP:WEIGHT of an issue with a particular article topic.

As for Would it be appropriate to comment here that the Sean Spicer article sounds like the person who wrote it doesn't care for Mr. Spicer much? and etc., yes, that's a fine assessment to make, but it's not actionable. Are there specific instances where you think the text should be changed to be less negative without departing from a description of Spicer as held in reliable sources? As for the sources cited, yes, they are unfair to conservatives as judged by conservatives, but we don't just sources as if we're conservatives--we judge them for their reliability. --Izno (talk) 12:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Great! Thank you! One idea I have for more balanced coverage would be to incorporate the fact that Sean Spicer's press briefings are wildly popular with the American public, compared to those of Josh Earnest. Mr. Spicer has sharper conflicts with the press than did Mr. Earnest, and sharp conflicts make for great television. I definitely could find reliable sources to back up those statements. I guess my next question is: would it be more appropriate to present my additional content here in the form of a paragraph? Or should I attempt to incorporate my new content into the existing article? Thanks again!Randall110114 (talk) 05:32, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

It appears that you are looking at this quite differently from the guidelines and policies which editors of Wikipedia are encouraged to follow. Your stated goal of "more balanced coverage" of this subject is inherently subjective. What does that mean to you? Also your claim that his press briefings "make for great television," may well be sourced, but isn't that also a subjective value judgment? And do you really believe that is relevant for the lead? In reading your comments, it does seem clear that, while you have called for "more balanced coverage" - that's really just a euphemism for - "more favorable coverage." But that isn't the job, nor the function here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It's not an opinion piece, editorial page, campaign tool, or partisan blog. As another editor noted, we don't include sources just to please conservatives. Or liberals. Or independents. Or others. We just include reliably sourced content, as judged reliable by consensus. Finally, regarding your concerns on this article, please review WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Hope this helps. X4n6 (talk) 09:39, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay. My specific thought "makes for great television" was meant as fodder for a light-hearted exchange between you and me, rather than direct content for an encyclopedia article. For the actual content, I had envisioned citing Neilsen ratings without any interpretation, other than to compare them with those of Josh Earnest. If you're happy with the article as it is, that is fine with me. Thanks so much and have a nice evening!Randall110114 (talk) 04:50, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Once again, the notion that Neilsen ratings are either a noteworthy or even relevant metric for judging a WH press secretary - or are even a legitimate basis for comparing WH press secretaries - is one that would likely face a steep uphill climb gaining consensus. X4n6 (talk) 10:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Randall, please stop flipping the |answered= parameter. The edit protected template is solely for changes which have consensus (as a necessary but insufficient criterion). --Izno (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Referring to Sean Spicer as Baghdad Bob

I advocate removing the following text:

"Some commentators have compared Spicer's role in the Trump administration to the role played for Saddam Hussein by Information Minister Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf, known in the United States as Baghdad Bob."

Referring to Sean Spicer as Baghdad Bob is a personal opinion of some liberals and not a fact. The content in Wikipedia must be factual and not personal or group opinions. Surely many people strongly reject this claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimSmith wiki (talk • contribs) 03:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't have strong views one way or another but I don't think it is appropriate for the lede. It seems rather informal and does not really seem to follow the style of lede for the majority of our articles about major political figures, especially BLPs, which de-emphasize sensationalist comments based only on the opinion statements of commentators—even if the language can be sourced, I don't think there is any source for the statement in the articles. It is basically just sensationalist gossip — we can write neutrally that multiple WP:RS have raised questions about his credibility without over-emphasizing the comparison to "Baghdad Bob" — picking out one sentence from an article that 'He has, in some ways, become Trump’s very own Baghdad Bob" is basically repeating the primary opinion of the journalist and leaving out the article context. It doesn't belong in the lede, and it's inclusion in the article at all is questionable. Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

It clearly belongs there and WP:IDONTLIKEIT is no reason to remove it. He has widely been compared to "Baghdad Bob" by reliable sources. Also, a press spokesman is hardly a "major political figure" in his own right. --Tataral (talk) 15:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I believe it should stay in. It is adequately cited in many sources. And at least one of the sources (I did not check all three) does not use the term as the journalist's opinion, but rather as a phrase used by multiple named others. --MelanieN (talk) 16:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

You might as well put "some have compared Jews to rats" in the article about the Jewish people, or "Some have said Barack Obama ranks among the worst Presidents in US history" and claim that's factual and "WP:IDONTLIKEIT is no reason to remove it". This is beneath Wikipedia, even if you think "reliable sources have said it", whatever that's supposed to mean (Trevor Noah I guess). Why the controversy about the crowd size at the inauguration is of primary importance to Sean Spicer I don't understand either, except for people who want anyone who does not have time to read the entire article to have as bad an impression of the man as possible. --212.35.8.114 (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:RS is a good first stop for what makes a source reliable in the context of Wikipedia. The lead material (about the inauguration, at least) was previously discussed, most extensively at Talk:Sean Spicer/Archive 2#RfC regarding lead material. clpo13_(talk) 17:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

For those of us who are new,WP:IDONTLIKE is an essay that is frequently quoted by editors when they have no policy-based reasons and they don't like something. Regarding MelanieN's comment, in the Vanity Fair article (I also did not check all three) it is a passing one line remark in the article. This should at least be removed as a source. It does not seem "adequately sourced" for WP:BLP. It also seems WP:UNDUE for the lede, which was my main point—even if it does stay in the article in general, placing a minor comment like this in the lede has a detrimental effect on the NPOV tone of the article. Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I would actually be OK with removing it from the lede. It should stay in the article, where it is in the "Popular culture" section. --MelanieN (talk) 17:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I would agree with that, the "Popular Culture" section is appropriate. (I actually haven't made a single edit to this article, so I consider myself uninvolved, btw) Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I've been going back-and-forth on its appropriateness for the lead, though it certainly belongs in the article. My leaning is to keep it in the lead since his actions have been unprecedented in the history of press representatives, with former presidential press representatives from both Democratic and Republican administrations having noted that his behavior and comments have deviated strongly from the norm. If a presidential spokesperson is knowingly giving the American people falsehoods, as opposed to giving no comment, being vague, and otherwise avoiding lying while avoiding answering a question, that's highly unusual and worthy of mention up top. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I remember Baghdad Bob saying "There are no Americans in Iraq" but as someone who has not been following the developments with Sean Spicer, I can say that the comparison itself does not give me any important information. I think the articles cited may discuss more specific instances that have called his credibility into question, and this could be suitable for the lede, but the fact that a comparison to Baghdad Bob was made I don't think is particularly illuminating or essential. Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree. While I accept your explanation that you "have not been following the developments with Sean Spicer," I'd also suggest that, given that, you should recuse yourself from taking any position on the lead - much less one that runs contrary to established consensus. Per WP:LEAD, the sentence is a reliably sourced distillation of Spicer's tenure as WH press secretary. Despite the clearly partisan and over-the-top comments of some IPs above, the statement simply compares one past, well-known government official's legendary capacity for political spin, with another, current one. Per LEAD, the section should: "stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." In that context, from a policy perspective, it's difficult to see an objection to the sentence. X4n6 (talk) 08:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Our articles are written for everyone, not just people who have been following an issue carefully. Our readers may not even know who Baghdad Bob is. It certainly falls far short of the guidance in the section of WP:LEAD that you quoted. Seraphim System ^(talk) 09:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

My guess is that section will be removed, or significantly trimmed eventually, as it is unlikely to remain one of the "most important points" over time. It seems more like a placeholder for a relatively new article with ongoing developments, then anything of long-term merit. As it is, enough time has passed, that the inauguration is already starting to look overemphasized. Seraphim System ^(talk) 09:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The primary purpose of hyperlinks is to provide additional information for those unfamiliar with the terms used. We also don't dumb down articles to include only the most generic or generally known content. How would that be encyclopedic? But as a basis, I also don't agree that readers won't know who Baghdad Bob is. A simple Google search confirms that term has had significant coverage. Also, as noted earlier, the section is wholly consistent with LEAD. If you disagree, you're welcome to explain your view. Finally, since the subject currently maintains such a high profile, it's quite likely the article will only undergo minor changes for the foreseeable future, as so many editors are monitoring it. And that is only likely to change when interest in the subject has subsided. X4n6 (talk) 09:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest reviewing WP:WBA The lead should establish significance, include mention of consequential or significant criticism or controversies, and be written in a way that makes readers want to know more ... this seems to be a common problem. I am not really interested in becoming more involved with this particular article. Seraphim System ^(talk) 09:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

As WP:WBA itself explains, it is simply an explanatory supplement, neither a policy nor guideline. Beyond that, no lead is perfect, or never subject to change. But currently, this lead is well within our policies and guidelines. X4n6 (talk) 10:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad we've honed in on what's important about WP:WBA. Seraphim System ^(talk) 10:11, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, my take is the lead conforms with WP policies, guidelines - and WP:WPA. Beyond general disagreement, I'm not sure what you've articulated to the contrary from that policy perspective. X4n6 (talk) 10:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Straw poll

It's not really clear from the discussion above who is in favor of what, or what consensus is, with regard to comparing him to Baghdad Bob. How about a simple survey to help us sort this out?

• Option A Status quo: leave it in the lede and in the "Popular culture" section.
• Option B Remove it from the lede but leave it in the "Popular culture" section".
• Option C Do not mention it in the article at all.

@TimSmith wiki, Seraphim System, Tataral, Clpo13, Tenebrae, and X4n6: Pinging previous commenters. --MelanieN (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

• B is my recommendation. --MelanieN (talk) 15:36, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
• B second Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:41, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
• A I'm not in favor of straw polls, since consensus isn't derived from votes but optimally from the quality of the arguments. Yet there's enough ambivalence in some of the discussion above, rightfully so, that this might help us focus our concerns. While normally this might not be right for the lead, Spicer's actions and statements are unprecedented in the history of press secretaries — as historians, not just pundits, have pointed out (and personally, I've watched press secretaries on TV since the Lyndon Johnson administration) — and I believe in this case the comparison is necessary. When historians are saying that Spicer's behavior is that of a propagandist more so than that of a true press secretary, I believe that needs to be made clear in the lead. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
• Option A is clear to me. Once again, unless/until someone can successfully articulate an objection based upon our policies or guidelines - beyond MelanieN's very gracious abundance of caution and courtesy - I'm not even clear on what has been provided as the basis for the question. If it's a question of sources, a Google search reveals a surprisingly substantial number of cases where the two terms are used in tandem. The reliable sources include CNN, the Washington Post, Vanity Fair, the UK Telegraph, Slate, MSNBC, Merry Jane, etc. There have even been references to the comparison on Breitbart, the Ron Paul forums, former Fox pundit Bernard Goldberg's website and the National Review among other conservative platforms. So even though we generally don't consider it for article content, the comparison even meets our notability guidelines. But I would actually have no objection to removing it, if someone could just provide a clear and compelling basis for removal. But no rationale has been presented, beyond that which some have presented as clearly partisan positions, suggesting that we should whitewash an unflattering comparison. However, that is not our job. In fact, regarding BLP's, per WP:WELLKNOWN, that is expressly not our job. The comparison is notable, reliably sourced from multiple and disparate sources, informative and relevant. Those are just some of the legitimate arguments in favor of keeping it in. But what/where are the legitimate, equally strong or superior arguments in opposition? X4n6 (talk) 20:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
• Option A, because the comparison has been widely made and says something significant about the (reception of the) activity he is known for. Indeed, he has become known worldwide more for "telling lies" than for holding his current position per se (Josh Earnest never achieved such notoriety in the same job). --Tataral (talk) 09:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
• B – not enough significance for the lede. —ADavidB 12:41, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment Just a comment that we don't have "notability" guidelines for including something in an article, I think the policy X4n6 is thinking of is WP:DUE. Also, reminding that under WP:V not everything that is sourced must be included, and certainly not in the lede. I would also urge against accusing other editors of being motivated by "clearly partisan positions" or "whitewashing." Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:02, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Response I wrote: "even though we generally don't consider it for article content, the comparison meets our notability guidelines." Seems clear. While WP:NNC obviously applies, the notability guidelines I meant were WP:NRV, WP:NEXIST and WP:SUSTAINED. Not WP:DUE, since we don't have policies for notability, only guidelines; and DUE is a policy. But Seraphim System mentioned DUE, so I'd be interested in which section the editor meant? Also per POV, both WP:BESTSOURCES and WP:IMPARTIAL point to the status quo; while WP:STRUCTURE deflates Option B. Re: Seraphim System's concern over my referencing "clearly partisan positions" and "whitewashing" from some, perhaps the editor was personalizing. But I was actually referring to this, this and this. So while the editor may "urge against accusing other editors of being motivated by "clearly partisan positions" or "whitewashing,"" if anything - all editors should reject comments like that whenever we see them. Finally, my view that the comparison is "notable, reliably sourced from multiple and disparate sources, informative and relevant" remains undisputed. A comment that it's "not significant enough for the lede" is personal opinion. But the sources, our policies and guidelines, all suggest otherwise. X4n6 (talk) 20:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

If WP:WALLOFTEXT were a policy...Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:30, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Really? In future, just let me know the limits to your comprehension and I'll try to adjust accordingly. But for now, if you don't have a more substantive contribution to make... There. Short enough? X4n6 (talk) 21:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

If there was as much eagerness to summarize the other three popular culture section paragraphs within the lede, as this lone sentence (which is oddly longer in the lede than the article body), I'd be more inclined to agree regarding its significance. —ADavidB 01:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Named as Defendant in Twitter Lawsuit

A section seems warranted dealing with;

New York Southern District Court

Case #: 1:17-cv-05205

Nature of Suit 440 Civil Rights - Other Civil Rights

Case Filed: Jul 11, 2017

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/21930382/Knight_First_Amendment_Institute_at_Columbia_University_et_al_v_Trump_et_al --Wikipietime (talk) 14:08, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Long lead

I think the lead may be a bit too long, going into too much detail. His first statement to the press (apparently there is a distinction between statements and official press conferences) is probably the thing Spicer is best known for. (He also reminded me of Saddam's spokesman, independently of commentators who came with the same association.) But the third paragraph is a bit overdone. Bever (talk) 19:49, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, it could definitely use a trim. Trying to cram summaries of press conferences for press secretaries into leads is undue and results in needlessly long leads, as you said. The "Baghdad Bob" opinions is also possibly BLP problematic, but I'd have to take a closer look at the sources. Hidden Tempo (talk) 22:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

What does this mean?

Trump had reportedly been dissatisfied with Spicer's performance as White House Press Secretary for some time, however it is not believed that this stance was not connected to Spicer's resignation. It's very unclear. Armyporlibe (talk) 16:49, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree. He did not resign because Trump was not thrilled with his work. Peter K Burian (talk) 17:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/21/us/politics/sean-spicer-resigns-as-white-house-press-secretary.html And other news media are also providing the same reason, although they may just be using the facts developed by the New York Times.

e.g. CNBC "White House press secretary Sean Spicer abruptly resigned Friday after opposing President Donald Trump's appointment of Anthony Scaramucci as communications director. The New York Times first reported the news. The president asked Spicer to stay in his role, but Spicer said appointing Scaramucci was a major mistake, the Times reported, citing a person with direct knowledge of the conversation." http://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/21/sean-spicer-resigns-as-white-house-press-secretary-after-objecting-to-scaramucci-hire-nyt.html

The Hill "The New York Times first broke the news of Spicer's resignation, reporting that he told the president that hiring Scaramucci was a mistake." http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/343148-priebus-after-spicer-resignation-says-all-good-here-at-white-house Peter K Burian (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 July 2017

Change "serves as White House Press Secretary" to "served as White House Press Secretary" 50.206.35.98 (talk) 19:06, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Declined. His resignation is not effective until next month. Neutrality^talk 19:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Change Position?

When will it be confirmed that Sean Spicer is no longer the Press Secretary, and instead be changed to Sarah Huckabee. CaptainGummyBearz (talk) 20:04, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

This is a kind of interesting period of limbo. All the sources say that "Spicer resigns," so indeed he has resigned. However, he's not leaving the White House until some time next month. As Scaramucci has announced, Spicer has been or is going to be replaced by Huckabee Sanders. I believe it's correct to say that Spicer is currently the WH Press Sec, but is no longer performing the duties of that position. We should probably leave the language in its current state, in my view. Hidden Tempo (talk) 20:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree. We need to wait for announcements. --MelanieN (talk) 20:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

False statements

Hidden Tempo:

• You twice removed (edit 1, edit 2) the text about the false statements. Given that this was stable text in the article, you should not have done that. See the large notice atop this page: " All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)." You made an edit, which was challenged. If you want to open a discussion, then we can do that, but in the meantime you should self-revert.

• You are simply incorrect that "this sentiment is not reflected in the source material" - Did you read the sources cited? They clearly support the statement made; the Washington Post directly refers to "a series of false and misleading claims":

As press secretary, Spicer drew criticism for making numerous false or controversial statements.

Sources

Also tagging MelanieN in case she wants to comment. --Neutrality^talk 17:51, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Hidden Tempo: Thank you for self-reverting. I do appreciate it. Neutrality^talk 18:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Neutrality. You're right, that's probably 1RR-problematic. Sorry about that, guess I got caught up in the edit frenzy that usually comes with these current event articles lol. I did indeed read those sources searching for material that supports the "criticized for making numerous false statements" content. There was none. The first source says the inauguration crowd size statement was false, which is already covered later in the article. The Politico article states that Spicer made a "misleading" claim about voter fraud and characterized a study he cited as a "falsehood", but says nothing about criticism or "numerous" falsehoods. The other WaPo article doesn't even use the word "false" anywhere. However, even if any of these sources said anything about "numerous false statements," none of them say anything about Spicer being "criticized" for making the false statements. I suppose it would be accurate to say that "It was reported that Spicer made false statements regarding the inauguration crowd size," but is that lead-worthy? The issue was undoubtedly highly controversial, but I think the phrase "numerous false statements" should be sourced much better if it's to go into the lead, which per MOS:BLPLEAD it probably shouldn't even if true. Hidden Tempo (talk) 18:18, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Hidden Tempo: Would you accept simply dropping the word "numerous"? As to 'drew criticism," this is supported by the first cite (Kessler/four Pinocchios), but if that is a concern we could reword to "During his tenure as White House presss secretary, Spicer..." Neutrality^talk 18:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I think that's definitely preferable to the existing material. Do you feel it's inappropriate/POV to make clear that media outlets are the ones making these allegations? From my perspective it seens somewhat misleading to allow WikiVoice to state that Spicer drew criticism without specifying where this criticism originated, given the sensitive nature of including material like that in the lead of a BLP? Just tossing ideas out there, feel free to correct me if I've got it wrong. The "During his tenure" sounds more neutral and accurate in my opinion, though. Hidden Tempo (talk) 18:48, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: "During his tenure as White House press secretary, Spicer made a number of public statements [OR "several public statements"] that were false or controversial." Better? Neutrality^talk 18:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Good with me! I would probably only say "controversial or false," since there was likely a much higher percentage of controversial statements than false, but maybe that's just a stylistic difference. Thanks for the discussion. Hidden Tempo (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I implemented the change. Thank you for your courtesy and the discussion. Neutrality^talk 20:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I concur. I felt that "criticized" was justified, but this agreement between the two of you (and thank you both for acting so collaboratively and courteously) is a perfectly acceptable alternative. --MelanieN (talk) 20:34, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 July 2017

He served as the WH press sec. He has since resigned! 74.108.122.93 (talk) 20:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: He will stay as press secretary until August. WikiVirusC^(talk) 20:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 July 2017

Change "serves as" (when talking about Secretary of press) to "served as" since he has resigned 96.20.62.125 (talk) 14:19, 22 July 2017 (UTC) 96.20.62.125 (talk) 14:19, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: per WP:CRYSTAL. Let's wait until he formally steps down from the role. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 15:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Melissa McCarthy

I think we have WAY too much detail about her impersonations in the Popular Culture section. I would propose dialing it back to a sentence or two, not describing each and every skit in detail. Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 18:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agree. One or two sentences, such as "Spicer's frequently combative press conferences were satirized on Saturday Night Live. Actress Melissa McCarthy played the role of Spicer." or something similar would be sufficient in my view. Hidden Tempo (talk) 19:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done --MelanieN (talk) 01:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Should the February 2022 semi-protection lock be removed?

Spicer will only be WH Press Secretary until August this year. I don't see the point of locking the article for the next 5 years now that Spicer's only got a month left.Mogomaniac (talk) 18:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Maybe not for the next five years, but certainly for the next month. Then we can see what the activity is and consider unprotecting it. --MelanieN (talk) 20:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually it was not protected for 5 years; don't know where you got that. It was protected for only a few days, and that protection expired yesterday. My mistake. It was protected for five years. An admin reduced that to three days, which expired yesterday. Immediately we got a vandalism edit. It that continues I will restore protection. (Not for 5 years though! 0;-D ) --MelanieN (talk) 22:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Probably another month or two until he's out of the news? Hidden Tempo (talk) 22:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking too. But in the meantime I have asked the other admin if he really meant to do that. What actually happened was that he INCREASED the protection level, from semi-protection to extended-confirmed protection, for three days while the article was getting all those wrong term-ending dates added - and when that expired, the underlying semi-protection didn't kick back in. Between us we will work out whether/how to protect the article while he is still in the public eye. --MelanieN (talk) 22:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Yes, I know there were several more vandalisms to the page, but they were all from the same new user and they have been blocked. Not to the protection stage yet by most admins' standards, but there are several admins keeping a close eye on the page. --MelanieN (talk) 23:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Aaannnnddd.... we're back to 5 years semi. We'll revisit this some time in the future. --MelanieN (talk) 10:57, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit request

Could someone please add, under Personal life:

• He is a devout Catholic.

Thankyou. Mawlidman (talk) 08:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Sources

 Not done While some sources have indeed chosen to add that kind of subjective commentary, within the context of something else, as that source did; I don't know that an encyclopedia should report that kind of opinion, as fact. Being Catholic is a fact. Being "devout" is an opinion. X4n6 (talk) 10:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@X4n6: I think you've made a mistake by rejecting my request. Several prominent sources -- not just The Economist -- describe him as devout, and i don't think they are just using that label arbitrarily. Mawlidman (talk) 22:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@Mawlidman: Thanks for responding. I have already noted that other publications have used that term. But aren't those opinion pieces? What's that based on? Do you know? Do they? As I said, that's a value judgment and, as such, is totally subjective. We're not other publications. We're an encyclopedia - not People magazine. Sorry, but I don't find anything "encyclopedic" in his devotion and I don't think WP should be in the business of injecting that kind of value judgment into our articles on living people. Please review our strict guidelines, per WP:BLP. Although I would include that he is Catholic, you appear to reject that, because you want the word "devout" included. Maybe another editor might do it, but for the reasons I've explained, I won't. I also think it would be misguided if someone else did and myself and/or other editors might object. X4n6 (talk) 23:19, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure how important this is to his biography. It looks like about the only time Reliable Sources mentioned it was when they were criticizing Trump for excluding Spicer, "a devout Catholic", from meeting the Pope. [1] If he doesn't make a big point of it in his public life, we might want to leave it out. --MelanieN (talk) 23:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed @MelanieN:. That's also the only time I've ever heard it referenced. Thanks for weighing in. X4n6 (talk) 23:53, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@X4n6: and @MelanieN: Thanks for replying. I respectfully disagree with some points raised: 1. Spicer does appear to make a big point of his Catholic devotion in his public life, as this article makes clear. Other sources also make mention of such public gestures as communicating his religiosity through social media. 2. My main opposition to your arguments against my request is that you are making assumptions about such reliable news sources as The Economist. You say that these news sources state his devotion without proof, but is specific proof demanded by Wiki policy? Couldn't they be stating his devotion because they have proof but for the sake of brevity and/or article's purpose simply do not desire to include specific proofs of his devotion. Shouldn't we assume that reliable news sources can be trusted for their info without proof for every statement they make? I think we shouldn't be overly inquisitorial. We should just add what reliable sources state. Mawlidman (talk) 08:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@Mawlidman: Earlier, I referred you to our policy on the articles of living people at WP:BLP. But nowhere in your latest response did you make any mention or reference to that policy. Did you read it? Also, do you understand the difference between this encyclopedia and other publications? And contrary to what you seem to believe, we don't simply parrot every tidbit, simply because it can be found in reliable sources. Nor do we give those sources carte blanche for inclusion here. Please see WP:NOT. Plus, as MelanieN correctly pointed out, how important is this to his biography? You haven't established any importance. What is it's relevance or importance to the reader? Also why is it so important to you that we say he is a "devout" Catholic - rather than just saying he is Catholic? Upon closer review, this sounds even closer to a POV vio and that concerns me. Your rebuttals have addressed none of these issues, nor have they addressed our actual policies. Just your views of how those policies should be interpreted to support your position. So, respectfully, my own view remains unchanged. But I'll also note that, with his resignation, interest in his article will also likely diminish; and with it, any widely-read benefit you may have sought in including this material. X4n6 (talk) 09:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@X4n6: Yes, i did read BLP and i see no way in which my edit would violate it. I simply desired to add something reported by multiple reliable sources, that just happens to be the sort of info that is quite often mentioned concerning American political figures, i.e. their religiosity. I don't think you should be suspecting me of anything you can't prove. I am just as happy to include his Catholicism alone, but i thought there would be no issue specifying his devotion -- to my misjudgement. Mawlidman (talk) 10:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

 Partly done @Mawlidman: I added your source stating that Spicer is Catholic. X4n6 (talk) 05:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@X4n6: Thankyou, once again. Mawlidman (talk) 07:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Glad it's resolved. X4n6 (talk) 07:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Communication Director dates

We are getting all kind of confusion over the dates of his term as Acting Director of Communications. The record seems to indicate that Scaramucci was named DC on July 21 and took office on July 25. [2] So we have three different versions being put into the article and reverted and replaced by other versions, on when Spicer's term as Acting Director of Communications ended:

• July 21, when Spicer announced his resignation, to take effect sometime in August (never clarified)
• July 25, when Scaramucci took over
• not at all, according to this edit by User:JocularJellyfish claiming that Scaramucci never officially held the position (I haven't seen any sourcing for that claim)

What should we put in the article, and what should we put in the infobox? No edit warring, please; remember the Discretionary Sanctions. --MelanieN (talk) 23:13, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

It looks like I'm mistaken. I believed that Spicer was leaving in August and is still holding the position of Press Secretary along with Comm. director. If you look at the front page of c-span right now, it says that Sarah Huckabee Sanders is still deputy press secretary. I believed that Scaramucci would take over afterwards but honestly I don't know. JocularJellyfish ^Talk_Contribs 23:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

• JocularJellyfish MelanieN. Per every reliable source I've seen or know, here's where we are: Spicer resigned as WH press secretary. He had also been (acting?) director of communications. However, he said he would remain on staff until August. Folks here have assumed that he meant as press sec, but that's not what he said, nor what all the evidence suggests is what happened. The confusion apparently stems from folks who appear to believe the only 2 jobs in the WH communication office are as director or press secretary. Nope. The communications office has a full staff. Clearly, he's staying on in some unnamed capacity there, likely advisory. However, Sanders is unquestionably the current WH press secretary. (Btw, the C-Span link said "deputy spokesman" not deputy press sec.) "The Mooch" was announced as the new - not acting - director of communications. But he was replaced today. Haven't found anything to the contrary, so it's a real headscratcher for me why there is such confusion. Perhaps some folks who are editing, aren't really news junkies, which you do admittedly kind of have to be to keep up with this daily soap opera. But this chronology is absolutely accurate from everything that's out there. X4n6 (talk) 23:39, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

• MelanieN, X4n6, In that case, I don't know what to tell you. I'll go with your opinion, but Spicer may get the Comm. director job again. Pardon the questionable source, but it supports X4n6's idea that Spicer left the Comm. director job immediately and Scaramucci took over. JocularJellyfish ^Talk_Contribs 23:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

• JocularJellyfish :*MelanieN Very interesting. Like you indicated, I'd be really nervous quoting Newsmax here without more RS backing, but let's wait and see. At this point, all we really know is that anything is possible. X4n6 (talk) 23:47, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

So what I think we've decided is:

• Spicer resigned as press secretary on the 21st, and Sanders took over that day
• Spicer was acting communications director until the 25th when Scaramucci took over.
• Did he become acting communications director again today? Is there a communications director? Only The Shadow knows.

Yeah, I saw that rumor too. I looked to see if any other source had it; none did; decided towait for something credible. But it's possible. Anything's possible. --MelanieN (talk) 00:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Just saw your latest edit. Works for me. The "acting" thing is just kinda funky lately, because it's as clear as mud. People resign then stick around; folks fire folks then get fired themselves before the ink is dry on the first firing; other folks get fired because of the new folks who got hired then fired... if this were a tennis match and I had seats near the net, I'd have whiplash. But I think we're got it right now. For now. Great job, Mel. I nod my neck brace to you... Though you did steal my tagline. And for that, there will be "consequences and repercussions." X4n6 (talk) 01:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

"although he intended to remain at the White House in an unspecified capacity, until August 2017"

(last sentence of the introduction) . Does someone know if he really remained ? Imho, this is a detail (also regarding that August is the classical 'annual vacation' month) not important enough for an introduction. --Neun-x (talk) 06:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• He did; and it is. X4n6 (talk) 10:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

NPOV .. siding with abuse?

"He attended Connecticut College from 1989 to 1993 and graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree in government.[25] In college he was a student senator. In April 1993, an article in the student paper, The College Voice, referred to Spicer as "Sean Sphincter"; Spicer submitted an angry complaint to the paper and followed up by pushing for college judicial action against the paper, for which he received further ribbing from the campus satirical publication Blats. The incident was later cited as a precursor of his contentious relationship with the media in later years.[26][27]" The references are fine and the issue worth reporting, but the detail is inappropriate and abusive, imho. I feel better wording might be "He attended Connecticut College from 1989 to 1993 and graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree in government.[25] In college he was a student senator. In April 1993, an article in the student paper, The College Voice, abused Spicer. Spicer complained to the paper and took judicial action against it. Another campus publication, the satirical Blats, added to the grievance. Spicer has suspected media bias ever since.[26][27]" DDB (talk) 06:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Category update requests and approvals

Respectfully request of the community that, regardless of any individual political motives, as Sean Spicer fits the definition of a "propagandist" so rightfully his Wikipedia page must be categorized as such, e.g. Category:Propagandists. This is not at all to slander nor cause any harm or threat of harm to Mr. Spicer, only to ensure appropriate categorization of him on Wikipedia. Argument can, and I suspect will, be made that many other US political figures since the early 1900s likely belong in that category as well and that is fair per the definition of the term here on Wikipedia and elsewhere. Seansquared (talk) 12:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Can you cite reliable sources calling him that? If not, we can't have that category. --MelanieN (talk) 18:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Repetition

Spicer's Emmy appearance is described twice, almost the same, (one a bit longer), under both == Post-White House activities and == Popular culture. An amusing appearance, but suggest deleting one mention. GeeBee60 (talk) 04:12, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Full Name

Does anyone have a reference that his full name is actually Sean Michael Spicer? I cannot find any citations for a naval officer named Sean M. Spicer in the Congressional Record. There are, however, citations for a Daniel S. Spicer with promotion authorizations to lieutenant commander in 2005 and to commander in 2010. – Maliepa (talk) 21:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Reference number 3 says Rebecca Claire Miller and Sean Michael Spicer were married. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2018

Make the line "Succeeded by Mike Dubke" a link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Dubke LebowskiT1000 (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: It is not needed as his name is linked just above. Thanks for the suggestion though. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:14, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Spicer is no longer the press secretary

Shawn Spicer is no longer the press secretary, please change that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:281:8200:EF08:14CA:24E7:553:1720 (talk) 01:48, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing to change, unless you can be more specific about anything missed. Date ranges are shown for when he was press secretary, along with past tense verbs. —ADavidB 03:46, 20 October 2017 (UTC)