Talk:Sean Spicer

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)

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.

References

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)

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)

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)