Talk:Sean Spicer

First address

Are you serious? Using CNN and Buzzfeed obvious opinion pieces as sources (for the description of the first address)? Articles also lie about the attendance number, just look at the video of the inauguration and compare it to photos that CNN and Buzzfeed claim to be taken at the time of the inauguration. Also, why is there no mention of his talk about president Trump's visit to the CIA if specifics are to be written here? Obviously, the mention of the first address should not contain specifics and source should be a link to a comprehensive and objective article or just a video. I am sure this kind of writing violates some of Wikipedia's standars, such as Identifying reliable sources, Irrelevance, POV, and does not belong in this article. Rather, it should be placed in the inauguration article if anywhere.

On January 21, 2017, Spicer held his first press conference as White House Press Secretary. He was angry and quoted for saying "This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration, period".[12] This however contradicts all available data and he was criticized for lying.[13] Spicer also gave incorrect information about the use of white floor coverings during the inauguration. He stated that they were used for the first time for the Trump inauguration and were to blame for visual effect which made the audience look smaller but in fact the white floor coverings were first used in 2013 when Obama was sworn in for the second term. [14] 193.170.18.85 (talk) 01:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Name Misspelt

According to the 1993, 26 April edition of the Voice his name is actually 'Sean Sphincter' I feel the article should be corrected to reflect this. --118.148.84.213 (talk) 13:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2017

There is a typo in the following line: "Spicer previously served as cummunications director...". "cummunications" should be "communications" Phoropter (talk) 02:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Done. This has since been completed by another editor. —ADavidB 03:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Better source for footnote 9

1999 Congressional Directory:

    CDIR-1999-06-15-FL-H-17.pdf
Jtshea05 (talk) 04:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2017

Scott Spicer is a confirmed liar and spokesman for President Donald J. Trump. On January 21, 2017, he stood in front of the national press and lied about the accuracy of the crowd counts at the inauguration of Donald Trump and while at first saying that there are no figures available to confirm the count of people in the National Mall, followed that up with claims of more than 600,000 people in attendance. He also has no ability to pronounce the name of the President of Mexico. ADAMBRAYALI (talk) 05:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Calling a BLP a liar in the header? No. Stikkyy (talk) 06:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Details of individual press conferences?

I'm concerned about the "Trump administration" subsection. It seems aggressively WP:RECENT to include an entire paragraph outlining the details of a press secretary's first press conference, after having been on the job for less than 48 hours. In contrast, Josh Earnest and Jay Carney served at the pleasure of Barack Obama for about 3 years each, and there are no press conferences described in any detail whatsoever. In addition, I note that there is only mention of the ongoing dispute of the inauguration turnout. This seems odd, considering Spicer began his press conference scolding a member of the media for reporting fake news, writing and then retracting an article that alleged a bust of Martin Luther King had been whisked away from the Oval Office soon after the president moved in. However, there is only mention of his second topic. I propose either removing the section altogether (ideal), as editors cannot possibly jot down a summary of each press conference Spicer gives over the years. The other option (less ideal), would be to add Spicer's criticism of reporting fake news, and then launch a project to summarize each press conference given by every White House secretary with a Wikipedia article. Either way, the current version is WP:POV and frankly unsettling. 2602:306:3325:600:5C15:72C2:278A:D0E7 (talk) 08:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

It's WP:RECENT because this was his first press briefing as press secretary for the Trump administration. It would have been a story even without his tone and inaccuracies, which were widely reported and merit inclusion. Josh Earnest and Jay Carney observed protocol; there was nothing personally newsworthy about their press conferences. If this is Spicer's MO, then we may need to provide less detail moving forward, but we should absolutely include the inaccuracies. The guy is Trump's press secretary.

The fake news story you reference holds little weight; it's Spicer addressing one reporter, as opposed to the entire White House press pool addressing (reporting on) Spicer. However, I agree that this section could be more balanced. If there's a credible source that applauds Spicer's performance, we should include it.JSFarman (talk) 09:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

So if I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that the reason Carney and Earnest have zero individual press conferences summarized on their pages is because they never put anything out there that was inaccurate? The fake news story was the very first issue Spicer addressed and was also widely reported. The president also addressed the issue in a series of tweets. Yet, it gets no mention, despite being the primary reason for calling the press conference. 2602:306:3325:600:8810:47F1:BC72:55D2 (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

No. You don't understand it correctly. Yaris678 (talk) 16:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Remember, WP:RECENT is an essay, not a guideline. It's just the opinion of one or more WP editors. Other WP editors disagree. If there were consensus on it, it would be a guideline, not an essay. We are under no obligation to follow it.--Nbauman (talk) 19:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it is true that it is recentism. The section has now even been expanded unnecessarily. I suggest giving the article tag of recentism until the situation resolves.193.170.18.85 (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Are you sure, User:Yaris678? I was actually discussing the issue with another user. I believe I'll let that user speak for him/herself on that one. In any case, to not include the main purpose of calling the press conference (the MLK bust removal fake news) in the press conference summary is puzzling. I also note that the summary is now becoming a virtual transcript of the entire conference. Is this standard practice now? 2602:306:3325:600:89C8:9B7:E861:C371 (talk) 22:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Can you please provide links to reliable sources which will verify that Spicer called the press conference to discuss the fake news/removal of the MLK bust? It's worth mentioning, but I can't find a reliable source. Thanks. JSFarman (talk) 01:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I think I'll bow out of this one, actually. Mr. Spicer's article is already as long or longer than any prior-serving WH press secretary's, despite having served in the position less than a week. The tendentious feeding frenzy that is emerging to add any and all undue and recent news (even still in its infancy) is going to suffocate any balanced and WP:NPOV edits made. I've seen this trend several times before, and it's obvious that it's going to happen again here for the duration of Spicer's service. By the time he is replaced, the article will be more lengthy than History of the United States, bursting with soundbites and anecdotes copy-pasted from the New York Times, CNN, Mother Jones, Stephen Colbert, Huffington Post, and probably even The Guardian. 216.205.224.11 (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Why is "president" marked "disputed"?

Trump has been inaugurated, I think it's difficult to dispute that he is the president. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:AA16:5400:7700:A0FF:548E:8223:9B67 (talk) 10:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Using CNN and BUZZFeed as sources in a negative post on the Trump Administration is Sophomoric. There are many articles that support Sean Spicer's contention that the media was unfair in its coverage of the attendance of the Trump inaugural. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/01/was-trump-right-about-his-inaugurations-crowd-size.php If it is important to have the inaugural coverage on this page, then it should be important to have the fake news coverage of the MLK bust on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.137.217.188 (talk) 17:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

This is a good teaching moment about Wikipedia guidelines. The first thing you should do is read WP:RS. Powerlineblog doesn't seem to meet the criteria for a Wikipedia reliable source. --Nbauman (talk) 19:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Vagueness Regarding Inauguration Audience Size, BLP Issues

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.

---

The statements from the White House Press Secretary are somewhat vague about the number of observers of the inauguration ceremony, and if he is stating that all folks who watched the ceremony, including on social media, it was in fact quite large attendance. Spicer's comments appear to include social media too, and not just folks who attended in washington. I don't see it as him saying something false, he is right this was probably the largest in terms of folks viewing it. It looks like the press is putting words into his mouth and trying to claim he is a liar. I have removed the POV and BLP edits. Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

See materials at [2]. I am having a problem with this addition, which draws a conclusion and appears to violate WP:BLP since it basically says Spicer is a liar. Let's discuss it. I challenge it's inclusion because it calls the subject of the bio "a liar" on no uncertain terms as a conclusion. The source does not contain the statement. Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

The social media claim isn't relevant anyway, because (a) he didn't say that, and (b) even if he had, how could he have known how many people watched via social media in 2013 vs 2017? He couldn't. Black Kite (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, the article doesn't call him a liar, it says his statements were inaccurate, which they were. If he actually wrote the words, then perhaps. But it was a statement he was reading out. Black Kite (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

We don't know he meant. I have watched this segment on YouTube and it's vague as to what he was referring to. Almost like he was just parroting what someone else said, like maybe Trump. Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps he was parroting Trump, who knows?. The point is that we don't know, so all we can say is that those two statements were inaccurate. I doubt if there are many press secretaries from any country that haven't at some point read out inaccurate statements provided to them by their political masters, but we don't call them liars for it. Black Kite (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Again, what do reliable secondary sources say? Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, the RS are essentially saying his statements are false. See Trump's Press Secretary Falsely Claims: 'Largest Audience Ever to Witness an Inauguration, Period'. Problem here is that if Spicer was including social media his claims might be closer to the mark. If he is referring to live attendance, then the statements he is making are false. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

The problem is his word "witness". You witness something by being there or watching it on TV. I suppose some people might have accessed TV or video streams via the Internet (including social media), but there's no way of knowing, and of course the same would have been true in 2009 or 2013. Black Kite (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, Spicer is kindof asking for it on this one from the press because he did not take a single question from any of the reporters during his conference, leaving the press hanging without clarifying anything he said -- I am afraid that Trump and his cronies did it to themselves on this one. Spicer is totally out of line by not taking questions -- it's very un-presidential conduct. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

This should be treated according to WP:WEIGHT: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." [footnote: "The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered."] WP:WEIGHT is part of WP:NPOV, which is a "fundamental principle of Wikipedia." According to the headnote of WP:NPOV, "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus."

In other words, if multiple WP:RS describe something that Spicer said as "False," we should include that in the story. It would violate fundamental Wikipedia principles and guidelines to keep it out, even if a consensus of editors wanted to keep it out. However, I would put it in quotes and attribute it to the source. --Nbauman (talk)

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.

White floor coverings

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.

---

The article states that Spicer's comments about the "white floor coverings" being used for the first time in an inauguration is incorrect, as they had previously been used for Obama's inauguration in 2013. It cites a Buzzfeed article for this, which in turn cites an NBC story [3] that Buzzfeed claims states that the same "white floor coverings" which Spicer refers to were present in the Obama inauguration. However, the NBC article talks of "plastic sheets" called "terraplas", not "white floor coverings".

Spicer refers in his speech to "floor coverings", not "white floor coverings", therefore the Buzzfeed article is inaccurate and unreliable. In addition, it cannot be said from this source that the "floor coverings" referred to by Spicer as being used in the 2017 inauguration are the same item as "plastic sheets" called "terraplas" in the 2013 inauguration. Therefore the Buzzfeed story should not be used as a citation, and this statement should be removed.

Lord Haw Haw (talk) 23:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

We should just remove the entire section about the floor coverings until it gets sorted out. Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

One other point is that the NBC article cited talks of a PLAN to use terraplas plastic sheets. It doesn't describe the actual presence of the sheets on the day of the inauguration, as Buzzfeed falsely states. CNN states there were "coverings" used in 2013 but provides no source. Lord Haw Haw (talk) 23:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

How long would you be willing to wait "until it gets sorted out"? A week? A month? A year? --Nbauman (talk)

Or a few minutes, because there are lots of reliable sources out there, some with images of the 2013 ground coverings, so I've restored the section with two of them, from the San Diego Union Tribune and NBC. There are more here - HuffPo Forbes. Black Kite (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I did find one here as well, from NPR. The Huffpo article you cite isn't clear about it either. All of the other articles show that PARTS of the Mall were covered in 2013. Overhead photos printed in some of the articles show the presence of coverings up the mall to just before the Washington Monument in 2017. Perhaps Spicer should have said it was the first time "the WHOLE mall up to the Washington Monument" had been covered, though no doubt somebody would have still said he was incorrect, as there was grass showing.

Honestly, what a ridiculously petty point to be devoting column inches and Wikipedia space to. The media has become so obsessed with finding fault with anything that comes out of the mouths of anyone connected to the Trump administration that it's in danger of losing sight of holding them to account on the real issues that matter. Lord Haw Haw (talk) 00:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia WP:NPOV guidelines, particularly WP:WEIGHT, if many WP:RS, or "the media" as you call it, have been reporting on something, then it belongs in the article. According to WP:NPOV, "The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered." So you may not think that it is not a "real issue," but that is not relevant under Wikipedia guidelines. There is some merit to your argument, in that the media is often wrong, but that's the method we use on Wikipedia. It's a flawed method, but letting every editor decide according to their own opinion would be even more flawed. You may think the media is wrong, I may think they're wrong, and they may be wrong, but the way we do it on Wikipedia is to let the the weight of media coverage decide:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/22/us/politics/president-trump-inauguration-crowd-white-house.html

Mr. Spicer said that “this was the first time in our nation’s history that floor coverings have been used to protect the grass on the Mall. That had the effect of highlighting any areas where people were not standing, while in years past the grass eliminated this visual.”

In fact, similar coverings were used during the 2013 inauguration to protect the grass. The coverings did not hamper analyses of the crowd size.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2017/01/22/us/politics/ap-us-trump-fact-check.html

Spicer claimed that it was the first time white "floor coverings" were used to protect the grass on the National Mall and that it drew attention to any empty space. But the same tarp was used four years ago.

http://www.npr.org/2017/01/21/510994742/trump-administration-goes-to-war-with-the-media-over-inauguration-crowd-size

He blamed new floor coverings on mall areas that "had the effect of highlighting any areas where people were not standing, while in years past the grass eliminated this visual." And Spicer claimed that fences and magnetometers going further back than ever prevented "hundreds of thousands of people from being able to access the mall as quickly as they had in years past."

However, CNN reporter Ashley Killough tweeted out a photo showing that floor coverings had in fact been used at Obama's second inauguration.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/21/politics/sean-spicer-fact-check/

Claim: "This was the first time in our nation's history that floor coverings have been used to protect the grass on the Mall. That had the effect of highlighting any areas where people were not standing, while in years past, the grass eliminated this visual."

Fact: Photos from the 2013 inauguration clearly show white ground coverings being laid on the National Mall ahead of President Barack Obama's second swearing-in. Reporters who covered the event also recall the white plastic flooring that was laid along the National Mall to protect the grass.

I think we've discussed it long enough. In addition, we've given Kellyanne Conway's rebuttal, which satisfies WP:NPOV. It's in the article and this will document why it should stay. If you can find more substantive issues, I would welcome them. --Nbauman (talk) 01:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I've got no issue that what Sean Spicer said was inaccurate. My point in my last comment is the pettiness and pointlessness of making a to-do about this, both in the press and on Wikipedia. Spicer should have said that it was the first time coverings were used ALL THE WAY UP THE MALL (and that is perhaps what he meant and was thinking). That is all we're talking about here. It is, frankly, a ridiculous point to be making into an item in the news or on Wikipedia, in my opinion. Lord Haw Haw (talk) 02:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

For better or worse, that's the way Wikipedia works, and that's what WP guidleines and policies tell us to do. Under WP:WEIGHT, the proportion of coverage in WP articles must match the proportion of coverage in WP:RS. If WP:RSs believe the floor coverings issue is important, it goes in. The opinion of WP editors doesn't count.

(The reason news sources who cover presidential press conferences believe it's important is that (1) Spicer, speaking for Trump and the White House, was hostile to the media and blamed them for getting their facts wrong and (2) the floor coverings was one easily verifiable, disprovable fact, among many. When the first White House press conference is composed of a string of errors, that's not trivial. But that's just my explanation, for your benefit. WP determines coverage by WP:WEIGHT, not my opinion.) --Nbauman (talk) 15:26, 23 January 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.

Not knowing the most basic fact about Mexico

This individual is supposed to have earned a Master's Degree in National Security and Strategic Studies. Despite this, he told the world that Trump spoke with "Prime Minister Pinyay Nahto of Mexico." Mexico, one of our two closest neighbors and our number 3 trading partner, has no prime minister. The country's president is Enrique Peña Nieto. That the spokesperson for the Executive Branch of the United States government didn't know this is more than a trivial error and should be included in the description of the first press conference. Clamdigger7 (talk) 02:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

References

Disagree. A single instance of mispronouncing the name of a foreign leader does not warrant inclusion in a biography of a man's life. The section is already ludicrously lengthy and WP:UNDUE.216.205.224.11 (talk) 20:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, leave this out. It seemed to me that he tripped over his tongue, rather than not knowing this, but either way it's not enough to warrant putting on this page. (Actually, I thought he momentarily mixed Peña Nieto with Netanyahu and ended up saying both at once, but that's pure speculation on my part). Mortee (talk) 20:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I won't belabor the point, but this was more than a mispronunciation/tongue tripping. Try to imagine Theresa May's spokesperson telling the world she looked forward to her meeting with 'Premier Trump'. Mexico isn't some tiny island in the South Pacific. Any press secretary should know the proper title of the nation's leader, nerves or not.Clamdigger7 (talk) 03:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Photo removed

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.

---

Why was Sean Spicer's photo removed from the article? Also, the article is turning into a joke with the Trump administration section. It needs some level of protection. Could a responsible and objective editor stop people from venting their political frustrations on a Wikipedia article? 193.170.18.85 (talk) 05:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

The Photo was removed as it apparently comes from an off wikipedia site. Did you have a specific issue with text in the article? If so, then remove the text and post your issues in a talk section to allow other editors to determine whether it belongs. Octoberwoodland (talk) 05:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

And if you have a photo we can use, upload it to Wikimedia Commons. Octoberwoodland (talk) 05:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Photo has been added to article. Octoberwoodland (talk) 05:26, 23 January 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.

Roger Mellie

No mention appears to have been made as to Mr Spicer's uncanny resemblance to the English journalist, television presenter and raconteur Roger Mellie. They are so similar it is uncanny. Is there any evidence of a familial link in some way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.239.159.5 (talk) 13:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

If you have sources for this, otherwise its original research. See WP:OR. Octoberwoodland (talk) 19:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

It's definitely OR, because Roger Mellie is a fictional cartoon character, though I would look forward to Spicer starting a press conference with "Hello, good evening and bollocks". Black Kite (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Ambiguous Dates for First Press Conference

The media is reporting that January 23, 2017 was Sean Spicer's first press conference. This does not agree with his Press Briefing on January 21, 2017 which was apparently the first press conference. See [4]. Unless I am reading the situation incorrectly, these were the events backed by RS. Anyone have any comments about this or thoughts on it? Octoberwoodland (talk) 19:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• I think that edit is OK. A press briefing is someone talking to the press, and a press conference is where they take questions, is it not? Black Kite (talk) 20:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok. Then we need to explain that and the two dates were different types of press briefings as it will be confusing to most editors. Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2017

Please change "Spicer's first White House briefing as press secretary was widely criticized due to falsehoods and his "pugnacious" demeanor.[5]" to "Spicer's first official statement as press secretary was criticized for a false claim regarding the inauguration's attendance numbers." The statement in question on January 21st was not an official press briefing; his first official press briefing took place on January 23rd, 2017. Additionally, the word "falsehoods" implies multiple incorrect statements, while in reality Spicer made only one false statement. The language "'pugnacious' demeanor" is used in the article cited (5) but is by no means "widespread" and thus is not objective fact. Susannafaith (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit made. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)]

Hang on a sec. At least four of the things Spicer said on 21 Jan were provably false. Inauguration figures, floor coverings, Metro ridership and existence of magnetometers. Should we include all of those things? Black Kite (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict, I was going to make the same point): Actually he made many demonstrably false statements in support of his "largest crowd" overall theme: The tarps on the field (they had been used before), the DC Metro transit figures (not even close, he just made those up), [5] the use of magnetometers delaying "hundreds of thousands of people from reaching the field" (there were no magnetometers and no significant delays)[6], and more. We don't have to get into this much detail, but the falsehoods were plural. --MelanieN (talk) 00:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@Octoberwoodland: You changed the sentence to say "Spicer's first official statement as press secretary was criticized for a false claim regarding the inauguration's attendance numbers." I think this should be changed to "false claims regarding..." Would that be OK with everyone? --MelanieN (talk) 00:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

"was criticized for..." suggests that it's press opinions, as opposed to facts. They were demonstrably false. If we're going down that road, it should say "Spicer's first official statement as press secretary contained at least four falsehoods regarding the size of the inauguration ...." or something similar. Black Kite (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

"inaccurate claims regarding..." is less charged than using the word "false". Octoberwoodland (talk) 00:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I changed the word "false" to "inaccurate" which is a less charged way of saying it. Octoberwoodland (talk) 00:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Fine, whatever, but it still needs to say "claims" (plural), not "a claim" (singular). --MelanieN (talk) 00:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I changed it to "claims". When someone writes "false" in most peoples mind it evokes its opposite "!true" which another way of saying "lie". He was inaccurate, not that he was intentionally telling falsehoods. I do not believe he was intentionally lying at the time. Octoberwoodland (talk) 01:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Does AGF apply to politicians too? 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

AGF should apply to everyone and anyone we meet on this amazing journey we all take through life. Give the guy a break, he has to work for Trump as his Press Manager while Trump is constantly firing off tweets and fireworks all around these folks -- poor guy. Octoberwoodland (talk) 01:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, agreed, as mentioned above. However "contained four falsehoods" does, as above, not equate to calling him a liar. He was reading someone else's statement out. Black Kite (talk) 01:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

MelanieN, could you please address your reasoning for saying Spicer "made those up,"[7] in regards to the total inauguration audience, while using a non-RS for your diff? This is the talk page of a WP:BLP, and you just essentially called him a liar. In reality, Spicer was referring to the collective audience of the inauguration both in person and streaming online. This fact was missed by a segment of the press with a certain political leaning, and circulated widely within their circles for the consumption of that demographic. This false narrative has now unfortunately made its way to this article. There is no official in-person crowd count for the inauguration [8], and anyone who says otherwise is not offering factual information. 216.205.224.11 (talk) 01:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

My comment that "he just made those up" referred only to his figures for Metro ridership, which were completely wrong. I believe he later blamed the false figures on an unnamed "outside agency".[9] --MelanieN (talk) 01:37, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Spicer has not clarified that he meant live attendees and social media and TV viewers combined with his claims of inauguration attendees, and the press has pretty much not covered it from that angle. For some reason, everyone is fixated on the position that he was referring to just live event attendees. Counting social media, TV, and other online viewing of the inauguration, there is little doubt that his inauguration was probably the largest in the world to date if there were some way to measure these numbers or get them from a RS. There are currently ZERO WP:RS who have reported this is what Spicer was referring to. We need some sources for this position. I personally think he meant all viewers of the event, but I have no RS for that so I cannot write about it. Octoberwoodland (talk) 01:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Octoberwoodland: There is indeed a source for Spicer clarifying his remarks for the press, from The Washington Post: [10]

Beyond the number of people at the ceremony in Washington on Friday, Spicer clarified that his definition of a viewing audience does not just include those standing on the Mall or watching on television but also the “tens of millions” who watched online.

In light of this, the walls of text in the article about "false claims" of crowd size, Metro ridership, etc. should be removed immediately. Not only is it wildly undue, but we now know it to be a patently false narrative. In addition, as to MelanieN's comments, the same Post article also confirms that Spicer in fact did NOT "make those up" in reference to the Metro ridership numbers: "He said the numbers he used were not made up but were given to him by the Presidential Inaugural Committee, which received them from an “outside agency.”" Therefore, the remark is a violation of BLP guidelines and should not be on this page. 216.205.224.11 (talk) 01:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, we need to get Melania and a few other editors to arrive at concensus regarding that. I would agree that the comments may be WP:UNDUE, and there does seem to be a source for it. The other problem is that there are lots of sources calling Spicer's facts into question we must contend with. Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Haha you called MelanieN "Melania." Freudian slip? I note that we still haven't seen her after I pointed out that she's violating Wikipedia's BLP policy. Not sure why, it's not as if any left-wing attacks on a Republican will be punished on Wikipedia or anything like that. 2602:306:3325:600:3DDC:1203:F0C8:6B06 (talk) 05:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

If you want our continued help then you can learn some manners and be polite to MelanieN. No excuse for bad manners. Octoberwoodland (talk) 05:37, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE Regarding Inauguration Attendence

See remarks above and Washington Post Article [11]. Spicer has formally stated he was in fact including TV viewers and social media viewers in his claims the inauguration was the largest in US history in terms of audience. His statements seem to shoot down the many a varied stories in the press he provided false information about this. One problem I see is I have no way through any sources of verifying the actual numbers, but in terms of "he said, she said", etc. it would seem to contradict claims his information was inaccurate. Given that these edits are constantly being challenged, and being his first few days on the job, these issues may have been afforded UNDUE weight. Does anyone feel that we should remove some of the more contentious allegations from the article. Comments most welcome. Octoberwoodland (talk) 04:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

There are currently (and I stress currently, as this article balloons in size daily) FIVE full paragraphs devoted to summarizing the content of Spicer's press conferences. Jay Carney has zero, after 3 years of service. Josh Earnest has zero, after 3 years of service. Watching Wikipedians race to this article to add content, if Spicer so much as scratches his forehead, is comical. I'm genuinely laughing out loud watching this situation unfold, now. One of these individuals was so offended by another viewpoint, that he actually edited another comment to insert his/her point by point "rebuttals" within that edit itself. I'm contemplating bringing this phenomenon to the attention of the WH press office just to see if the team would like to address this situation. It's really fascinating to watch it happen, with very little resistance. 2602:306:3325:600:3DDC:1203:F0C8:6B06 (talk) 05:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, I have attempted to put some of it in perspective. We are trying here to keep it balanced. The problem we have is we are forced to use RS from the press. If the press is publishing fake news and spin doctoring it all the time, it makes it hard for us to locate neutral RS. Please be patient. I am trying to get the other editors to review these sources. Octoberwoodland (talk) 05:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

If you think that reliable sources are "fake news" then Wikipedia might not be the right place for you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Hatting squabble. Please move on. --MelanieN (talk) 15:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Yes, some of them are. Like the TIME article about MLK's bust which was total garbage. You were saying. Octoberwoodland (talk) 05:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC) Yes, I was saying. Can you link to this supposed "TIME article"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC) I mean, since you're calling it garbage, I'm assuming that at the very least you read this supposed TIME article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC) Link it please.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC) You just removed it from the article. [12] Octoberwoodland (talk) 06:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC) I removed a link to the TIME article? No, I didn't. Please strike your personal attack. False personal attack. (Edit: I asked Octoberwoodland to *strike* their personal attack not remove it, as he did here, since in that case it's unclear what I'm talking about. VM 1/24/16 6:11) Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC) And please provide a link to this TIME article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC) Linky-link? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:09, 24 January 2017 (UTC) You have the link, I provided it to you. If you are referring to the TIME article in question, it was removed from the internet but the controversy was not. You have your links from several sources about the fake news story published in TIME Magazine. Octoberwoodland (talk) 06:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC) Noooooo, you didn't provide shit. You said there was a TIME article. I asked you for a link to it. You did not provide it. Instead you linked to one of my edits, falsely claimed that *I* removed the TIME article in that edit and then, to top it all of, you called my edit dishonest. And your excuse that "it was removed from the internet" is nonsense. It. Never. Freaking. Existed. Which is why you are having such a hard time linking to it. Your claim that "You have your links from several sources about the fake news story published in TIME Magazine" is also utterly false. What are these sources? Or did you purposefully omit the word "reliable" in that sentence, since you know that no such *reliable* sources exist? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:20, 24 January 2017 (UTC) And let's get this straight, so you can't obfuscate - you are STILL claiming that there was a TIME article about MLK's bust being removed, that you yourself read it, and that in your opinion, after you have read this TIME article, it was, quote "garbage", but that later this "garbage" article, which you had at one point read, was removed from the internet. Yes? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC) I'm sorry but your use of profanity is not helpful. Please go off and think about posting profanity on talk page, and if you want me to respond to you, then use respectful language and stop trolling. Thanks. Octoberwoodland (talk) 06:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC) Don't try to use "profanity" as a way to weasel out of this. You claimed that there was a certain TIME article. And you implied, by calling it "garbage", that you have read it. You then accused *me* of removing this TIME article and of being "dishonest". When pressed you made some bullsh... some ridiculous claim about "it was removed from the Internet" (lol). You then claimed further that there were "several sources" about this supposed "fake news story". Now, depending on how you count it, that's either four or five outright lies. That last one, depends on what you meant by the phrase "several sources". If you meant "several reliable sources" then it's a lie. If you meant "several sources" of dubious provenance, then it's a purposeful attempt at misleading someone, although I guess literally true. You *can* always prove that I'm wrong by linking to this TIME article. Which you supposedly saw with your very own eyes, read it, and evaluated as "garbage". Or at the very very very least, how about links to these "several sources" which discuss this Yeti.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:37, 24 January 2017 (UTC) And if you are claiming the fake news story written about the MLK bust does not exist you are just flat wrong. Octoberwoodland (talk) 06:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC) Links, links, links, how many times do I need to ask? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:37, 24 January 2017 (UTC) Not my job to do your research for you. Octoberwoodland (talk) 06:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC) No, actually it is since you made the claim. Recap one more time: YOU claimed there was a TIME article. YOU claimed I removed it (sort of hard to remove a non-existent article). YOU claimed there were "several sources". YOUR job to support your claims with links.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC) And if you want me to respond to you, you can remove your profanity from this talk page, apologize for your conduct, then actually try to work together. Octoberwoodland (talk) 06:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC) You are making excuses because you were caught in a flat out lie, no? Links please.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC) If TIME magazine is a "reliable source," then why are their reporters tweeting out fake news? Zeke Miller, a reporter who works for TIME, tweeted out a report that the MLK bust was removed from the Oval Office. He then deleted that tweet, and apologized for the fake news story: [13]. Now I encourage you to apologize for your behavior here, and adopt a less combative attitude so that we can all work to improve this page and remove the fake news (such as the claims that Spicer was referring to the in-person crowd while discussing viewers of the inauguration). 2602:306:3325:600:25ED:A2AC:FD70:5C69 (talk) 06:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC) Sorry, a tweet, especially one corrected within a minute, is not a "news story". It's not even a "report" except in some pedantic sense.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC) Please remove the profanity you placed on this talk page and apologize for your conduct or this is the last time I respond to you. Thanks. Octoberwoodland (talk) 06:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC) Tell you what. I will remove that one, single, unitary, word, which you are using as an excuse to avoid discussion, when you strike through every false statement you have made in the above discussion. Like I said, it's four or five, depending on how you count. Alternatively, you can back up your claims with... links! Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC) Thank you. Octoberwoodland (talk) 06:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC) You're welcome I guess. Glad you appreciated this discussion and got something out of it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:55, 24 January 2017 (UTC) And I assume we won't see any more of this BLP violating Zeke Miller nonsense.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC) Well, that's your interpretation of the events. I personally don't rely on news sources whose reporters tweet out fake news. That doesn't fit my standard of "reliable." Perhaps that suits the needs of others, but not mine. By the way Octoberwoodland, if Volunteer Marek fails to apologize for his outbursts and expletive-laden tirade, you may want to fill out a report at the Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement board to ensure this user does not continue harassing other users and disrupting talk pages. Just a suggestion, though. I believe he should be given a final chance to make things right, here. 2602:306:3325:600:25ED:A2AC:FD70:5C69 (talk) 06:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC) Hey sock puppet, how about you also tell Octoberwoodland what tends to happen to people who file spurious WP:AE reports or when they go there with unclean hands (and making stuff up about non-existent articles definitely qualifies)? Perhaps you can speak from experience. You're not really doing them any favors with this advice.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC) Let's all just try to get along. This article is a mess right now. It needs to be stripped down and cleaned up. It reads worse than a tabloid newspaper. My God, on Sean's first day at work his world explodes. Let's give Sean Spicer a good quality balanced article. Poor Sean. Please. Pretty Please.  :-) Octoberwoodland (talk) 07:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC) For the record, I think we should keep the dipping dots out of it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing undue about the coverage of his false claims about the inauguration attendance, which are widely described as lies by high-quality reliable sources (such as the New York Times). This highly prominent and widely covered controversy is his main claim to fame; he wasn't widely known before that and coverage of him in reliable sources primarily discuss these claims. --Tataral (talk) 07:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

The fact that someone who thinks that 5 paragraphs covering one press briefing is "due" is very fitting of someone who also describes a "news"paper like The New York Times as "high-quality." I think this fact makes even addressing the fact that you just violated BLP policy a bit redundant and pointless. 2602:306:3325:600:25ED:A2AC:FD70:5C69 (talk) 07:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think a comment that calls the New York Times a "news"paper merits a response. And it's amusing that someone who started editing Wikipedia less than an hour ago throws around unfounded accusations that other editors "violated BLP policy." --Tataral (talk) 07:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

And instructs others to file WP:AE requests.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Here is one good source that seems to be viewing the situation as the dust settles and is somewhat more balanced. [14] Octoberwoodland (talk) 08:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2017

Yaboisteve (talk) 23:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

--Yaboisteve (talk) 23:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC) sean spicer fumed after a time reporter claimed that trump had taken down a statue of MLK

 Not done already included in article. Black Kite (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

CREW_vs._Trump

Any interested editors I could use a hand with the above article regarding Trump's COI from his businesses, and there's little doubt Sean Spicer will be involved in this. Thanks in advance for any assistance. I made it a separate article to begin with (which we can turn into a redirect if need be if we decide down the road merge it back into another article). Octoberwoodland (talk) 01:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2017

68.119.0.171 (talk) 07:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know how to code it, but Spicer clarified his comment about the most watched inauguration, in that his statment and use of the word "watched" was correct when referencing all the various media (internet, mobile, tv, live, etc.) Therefore this statement should be removed, as it serves no purpose towards the wikipedia purpose, which is to provide factual accurate information, and not someone's subjective interpretation.

 Not done That has been added already. If you are asking to remove that, it has RS to back it up. Octoberwoodland (talk) 07:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Really?

The entire Bio sounds like a CNN report. Who edits this crap? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.193.86.246 (talk) 14:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Extreme Bias

This article has an insane amount of obvious bias to it. It is very unprofessional and straight up laughable. It's pure partisan garbage that was obviously written by somebody who dislikes the Trump administration. There is no mention of the multitude of questions Spicer answered accurately. There is no mention of the countless sources who applauded Spicer for calling out the media's lies and setting the record straight. The only mention of a question in this article is written in such a way to make him look bad. The article tries to frame Spicer as a liar when it was in fact, the media who lied and tried to push a narrative to delegitimize Trump's presidency. The only quotes are from partisan hacks and liberal news sources (Chuck Todd, WaPo, NYT). I'm not asking for a complete conservative bias but you need balance it out with the nonsense that is there right now. If we're going to quote Chuck Todd, why not balance it out with a quote from Tucker Carlson? If you're quoting NYT why not include a quote from Brietbart? Someone needs to fix this before Wikipedia goes the direction of Buzzfeed for simply telling lies.70.91.215.53 (talk) 15:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)