Talk:White House Press Secretary

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Boss ?[edit]

To whom does the press secretary report to ? Director of communications ? Chief of staff ?

Stephanopoulos[edit]

Is this list complete? accurate? for instance, was George Stephanopoulos White House Press Secretary, as some sources mention? he is not in the list of this article. olivier 02:55, May 11, 2004 (UTC)

From what I've read it appears that Stephanopoulos wasn't actually the official WH Press Secretary. I guess there could be some unofficial nod towards the fact that he did the job for more than half a year, but he was never appointed to the position. To me it seems like he is more of a footnote in WHPS History. CRobey 23:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, at no point was Mr. Stephanopoulos the WHPS but essentially usurped the duties of WHPS while remaining officially the WH Communications Director. Carter kalchik 03:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect?[edit]

Why does the generic term "Press Secretary" redirect to the specific position of White House Press Secretary? Isn't this a job title that occurs in more than one organisation?--Victim Of Fate 11:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's very true. I don't think there are many press secretary positions in the US Govt (DHS is the only one that comes to mind) as most Departments head position is secretary and that would lead to some confusion. I guess it's just a matter of someone wanting to create the general Press Secretary article. While the current redirect is kind of USGovt-centric, I don't know that removing it is a great idea unless there was another page put in its place. CRobey 23:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Snow Selection[edit]

At this point, my concerns are likely of little impact, however I think it is important to bring up. While numerous media sources have cited President Bush has picked Tony Snow, there has yet to be an official announcement and he has not assumed the role of Press Secretary. I only wonder if he was prematurely listed as Press Secretary. As I said this is likely to be moot as an announcement is expected today, but I just thought it was important to note.

Article on white house press corps[edit]

I sought but did not find an article on the white house press corps. Mathiastck 18:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salary info?[edit]

Should we list the salary for this post? We do so for President of the United States and Chief Justice of the United States, for example. We have a 2004 source for Mr Fleischer's salary from the Washington Post here; as the President's salary hasn't changed since then I guess the whole scale is stuck at those levels too. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Flak jacket?[edit]

Should a section be included ("Trivia" ?) to mention the ceremonial flak jacket that is passed from one Press Secretary to their successor, with little notes in the pockets with words of advice? Google has lots of info, and it's verified at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/ask/20070103.html Yo 11:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


injuries[edit]

this probably isn't worth adding, but i thought it was interesting when read that dana perino got a black eye when bush got the shoes thrown at him...the article said 'who thought be press secretary was this dangerous?' and i thought james brady anyone? anyways...later homiez Dc2011 (talk) 18:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

infobox[edit]

{{Infobox US Cabinet | post = White House Press Secretary | insignia =US-WhiteHouse-Logo.svg | insigniasize =175px | insigniacaption = | department = Office of the Press Secretary | image = Gibby.jpg | incumbent = Robert L. Gibbs | incumbentsince = 20 January 2009 | first before the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room underwent renovation: Joe Lockhart, Dee Dee Myers, Marlin Fitzwater, Tony Snow, Ron Nessen, and James Brady with his wife Sarah Brady.]]

This is not linking correctly. I've removed it until someone can get it working.

J. Leonard Reinsch[edit]

J. Leonard Reinsch was never Truman's press secretary. Truman Library - J. Leonard Reinsch interview (Sections 47-53). If there are no objections, I will begin removing references of his placement as Press secretary in a few days.Ljmajer (talk) 21:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apostrophes in info box[edit]

For some reason there are some random apostrophes found in the press secretary info box. One can be found below the press secretary logo and the "Office of the Press Secretary" quote. The second can be found right after the name. Looking through the code I can't find where the apostrophes are coming from. In the info box the apostrophes are used for bold or italic text or bold text but that's not the cause. Can anyone identify the cause?

--Triesault (talk) 04:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Press Secretary's role[edit]

Hey, I'm curious about this sentence: "The White House Press Secretary is a senior White House official whose primary responsibility is to act as spokesperson for the government administration." Do they have the authority to speak on behalf of the legislative and judicial branches, or is it just the executive branch? 75.72.27.74 (talk) 09:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Ventrell[edit]

How can it be that he isn't mentioned anywhere here? He gives today's press briefings and is the "official" spokesperson of the cabinet.. Looks like it's a bit outdated. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 20:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Short - start of term?[edit]

Shouldn't Joseph Short's start of term be September 18 instead of September 5? Stephen Early was acting Press Secretary from 9/5 to 9/18. Speakes and Fitzwater are the only other "acting" secretaries, both functionally fulfilling the role although it was still officially held by the injured James Brady. I haven't seen any evidence that Short's tenure officially started 9/5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.166.89.215 (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 July 2017[edit]

Sean Spicer quit today and the new press secretary is Sarah Huckabee Sanders. Please update the page. 74.96.190.246 (talk) 01:45, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: WP:TOOSOON jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 02:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spicer/Sanders[edit]

@X4n6: I see literally nothing in either of those sources that states the resignation was effective immediately. You have nothing to say that he is serving in any other capacity than in the roles he held. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Therequiembellishere: Why are you not only edit-warring, but being obtuse in the process? Trying reading Spicer's own article. X4n6 (talk) X4n6 (talk) 01:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@X4n6: What does Spicer own article have to do with anything? It's not only not a RS in and of itself, but supports me nonetheless. He is still serving as Press Secretary and Communications Director, as is specifically state in the direct quote I've referenced. You not providing a contrasting direct quote to dispute the facts I've brought is being obtuse. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:17, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Therequiembellishere: So you're either don't know that Spicer has held more than one position in the WH communications department - which you would know if you had read his article - or you don't know and just don't care. Just as you seem incapable of understanding either of the 2 separate sources I provided - one being the New York Times, the other being Newsweek. The first heading says "Sean Spicer Resigns as White House Press Secretary." The other says: "Meet Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Trump's New Press Secretary..." One article was just released TODAY! So do I also need to explain the meaning of obtuse to you, or do you get it now? Seriously, you're being disruptive and for no good reason. As a veteran here, you know better. X4n6 (talk) 01:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, following your own argument, Spicer's tweet only says he's staying on at the WH until August. It does not saying he's staying on in the capacity of press secretary. Because he is not. X4n6 (talk) 01:32, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@X4n6: Neither of those indicate in any way that Sanders has assumed the role. Honestly, someone who's appointed to a role being referred to as "new" means almost nothing. Spicer has said, "I will continue my service through August." and you're splitting hairs to interpret that to mean only for Comms and not Press without any evidence. You said your sources "clearly state dates of tenure". They don't. To argue "Oh, he's staying on but not as the roles he's been in" is genuinely ludicrous extrapolation. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Spicer is also still at the official Press Secretary Twitter while Sanders is still described on her official Twitter as "Principal Deputy Press Secretary". Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Therequiembellishere: Your argument flies in the face of the most recent reliable sources and the only "genuinely ludicrous extrapolation" here is yours. But I'll make this "easy." Kindly find RS(s) that specifically say Spicer is staying on as press secretary until August. Then post them here to discuss. For good measure, also please find and provide current RS(s) that say Huckabee is not the current press secretary. Because without those - there is no substance to support your arguments.
By the way, sorry, but the fact that members of that admin have not updated their Twitter handles - in the 2 whole weekend days since this change broke - is hardly the rock-solid proof in support of your position, that you seem to think it is. I'm guessing, even for them, Twitter handles weren't the most important things to immediately address. No doubt they'll get to it soon enough. You just may want to check again later this week. X4n6 (talk) 01:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@X4n6: If you're going to be a total asshole, here's this. Kindly find me RS(s) that specifically say Spicer is not staying on as press secretary until August. For good measure, also please find and provide current RS(s) that say Huckabee is the current press secretary. Because without those - there is no substance to support your arguments. :) Therequiembellishere (talk) 02:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Therequiembellishere: Ahh, so in other words, because you know you can't prove up your bullshit, you childishly result to all you have left: another pathetic ad hominem attack? Ok, got it. Yeah, we're so done here. Go be a disruptive troll someplace else. I'm no longer feeding you.
But good luck with your RfC. I'll look forward to editors reviewing your "arguments" and behavior here. X4n6 (talk) 02:19, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@X4n6: You made little if any effort to provide solid evidence or not be a dick. So thanks for your input. Therequiembellishere (talk) 02:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're also the only one using the word "argument" so good cherry-picking your quotes, there. [1] Therequiembellishere (talk) 02:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Therequiembellishere: Do not ping me again, troll. Grow up. X4n6 (talk) 02:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@X4n6: Provide a better source than two articles saying the word "new". Therequiembellishere (talk) 02:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC[edit]

Has Spicer's resignation as Press Secretary taken effect with Sanders succeeding him from July 21? Therequiembellishere (talk) 02:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused, is this a request for knowledge on the sources, or a discussion about a content dispute about sources already known, that needs additional editorial input? RfCs are generally meant for situations more akin to the latter than the former; other resources exist for requesting assistance with sources. But since I'm here, and in case it is the former you need assistance with, the story covering Spicer's resignation that I read on the BBC's new site yesterday quoted him as saying that he would "serve" (presumably in the same role) through August. But I think it also quoted Anthony Scaramucci as saying that something to the effect that the deputy press sectary replacing Spicer was being promoted to Press Secretary immediately.
So I guess they are not being too hung up on the title and one can only speculate as to the break up of duties during the transition. You'll want to double check that source (and others) yourself, but that is the situation as I understand it. As to how to represent that in the article (I see there is a table, for example) I think it shouldn't be too hard (or out of place) to note the above details; footnotes can always be added to the table, if felt necessary, but this is obviously not the first sudden departure of a white house press secretary in the history of the position, and I presume that the habit of editors on this page has been to use the "official" date, whatever criteria seems to best fit that description. Snow let's rap 06:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Having read the entire discussion of the thread above now, it's clear you're looking for third community opinions. But you really should flesh out your RfC inquiries a little more in the future; I give you points for neutrality in how you presented the question here, but it's helpful to respondents to have a little more context on the sources, content and arguments in question. Or at least a less ambiguous question. All of that said, as to how to proceed and who has the right end of the stick between you two, I direct you again to the second paragraph of my first post. In short, soem common sense and consensus on what the official date of transfer of duties was, and if you can't iron that out between you, consider using additional statements and/or footnotes to add in the nuance explicitly for the reader. Snow let's rap 06:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, also, can the two of you please turn down the heat a little in the discussion of this iiiincredibly minor difference in content? "Assholes" and "bullshit" (aside from making less than charming rhetorical companions) aren't going to bridge the gap in opinion here, nor resolve the issue in any other way. And are, in any event, rather WP:Disruptive. I hope with the RfC running and consensus likely to arise, you two can keep commentary restricted to the content, sources, and policies and away from eachother's character and quality?
One last point: the woman's last name is Huckabee Sanders, not Sanders. Snow let's rap 06:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Rise, surely you understand that "Bullshit" was a content-related response. "Asshole" was a personal attack. Beyond that, I think the content discussion speaks for itself. There's nothing more I need to say here.
Also, Huckabee is her maiden name. Sanders is her married name. Just like Hillary Rodham Clinton. But her surname is not necessarily Huckabee Sanders. Just as some sources referenced either Rodham Clinton or Clinton. X4n6 (talk) 07:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Snow Rise: Yes, my intention was to seek a third opinion, although I'm always confused between WP:3O and WP:RfC, and so wasn't sure where to post this. My previous experience with 3Os has been some extremely inexperienced editors who are eager to participate but perhaps don't quite understand the dispute, and thought the RfC watch community might be of a more experienced level. Regarding any potential breakthrough between the two of us, that seemed unlikely even before this was launched, so intervening perspectives will probably be the best way forward. Therequiembellishere (talk) 07:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite sure how best to rephrase the RfC statement. Thoughts? Therequiembellishere (talk) 07:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Knowing the background better now, I think RfC is fine; the difference between RfC and 3O is really just a matter of scale, really, and RfC is better when the distance in the two original perspectives is significant. As to how to clarify/augment the opening inquiry, I'd point out again that what you did most right was to keep the question neutral and straightforward; preserve that approach, and simply add a little more detail (a few sentences total will suffice) on the arguments of X4n6 and yourself, doing your best to present their outlook accurately and not downplay it. A couple of links to the sources which provide the crux of the difference of opinion between you (with regard to how to represent them) would also be especially helpful to respondents.
As to Huckabee Sanders' surname, I see no indication in any source that she has ever chosen to use "Sanders" as her professional name. She was Huckabee up until her marriage and seems to have consistently WP:IDENTIFIED as Huckabee Sanders since, with the sources respectfully following suit. (Correction: there is a source used for her BLP that uses "Sanders", vs. 25 that use "Huckabeen Sanders"). Snow let's rap 08:07, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a variant of the piece I mentioned before, in case it is any use to you two in ironing this out: [2]. Snow let's rap 08:30, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Snow Rise: The only place I found "Huckabee Sanders" as her surname was in the UK Daily Mail:

So perhaps you're referencing a British naming convention, where compound, non-hyphenated surnames are commonplace. But she is an American political operative, so American form applies. Here's a list of the major American sources that I found that just used "Sanders." That appears to be the consensus.

Incidentally, they all refer to her as the new press secretary. Not one refers to Spicer as still having the title. Or them sharing the title as "co-press secretaries." I repeat, not one. Because there is only one current press secretary - and by every reliable source and common sense metric - it ain't Spicer.

Washington Post

Newsweek

USA Today

Fox News

New York Times

CNN

The Hill

Washington Post

Politico

This should be more than sufficient. It's highly doubtful that anyone will be able to provide an equal, or equally reliable, number of current sources which say anything different. X4n6 (talk) 10:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As to the side issue of Sarah Huckabee Sanders' last name, almost every source I can find for her demonstrates the name we are using in her BLP and elsewhere on the project; it's not an issue of WP:LANGVAR in any significant sense; it's just a matter of how she chooses to WP:IDENTIFY and (even more importantly) what the sources seem to use in the vast majority of cases. Confusingly, even in the majority of the articles you just listed above (with the claim that they support "Sanders") actually use "Huckabee Sanders" (you can even see it in a number of the URLS themselves...). Meanwhile, as I pointed out above for Therequiembellishere, of the 26 sources used in her BLP, 25 refer to her as "Huckabee Sanders". She has further been referenced by the White House in all official statements that I have seen reported as "Huckabee Sanders". I think you need to scrutinize the sourcing more closely, because it's pretty clear that she has adopted Huckabee Sanders as her public name, not defaulted to Sanders merely because she was married, and has been referenced in professional circles and in the overwhelming majority of media by that name. British or American, women are not obligated to assume their husbands' last names, and we shouldn't assume that they must have--especially when even the most basic review of the WP:WEIGHT of the sources show that she clearly has not. And this isn't even a borderline WP:COMMONNAME case; it's about as WP:SNOW as these determinations get.
But back to the nominal matter of the RfC. If you'll pardon my saying so, I really think you two have let the tension of your unfortunate exchange prevent you both from seeing a large range of possible middle ground solutions here. Having looked through the sources you provided (and a few others besides), I would say that neither position can be WP:Verified with certainty at this time. Unfortunately, this is just another example of an instance where internal jockeying, power politics, and general chaos inside the Trump administration have made an administrative detail inscrutible to the outside world, even those who are closely (or even professionally) following the story. What is usually done in cases such as this is that we do not draw assumptions one way or the other, but rather report on what we can verify/source, and then do our best to also explain what the sources leave as undetermined, without taking up too much space. The reader can then come to their own conclusion, if they are so inclined.
I suggest you two flesh out wording that WP:attributes the actual statements made by sources: Spicer is departing, but is staying on to assist with the transition; Huckabee Sanders has been "appointed" as the next press secretary. As I see it, neither one of you can make it 100% towards proving your basic supposition here without some degree of conjecture, and each of you is taking aim at the other's speculation while given a bit of a free pass to your own. So, avoid doing that (which is always advisable, even when there is no content dispute). Say exactly what the sources say, attributing heavily (indeed quote the sources directly as much as you can without making the prose become tortured). Until a more on-point source becomes available, the most useful and honest thing we can do for our readers is make clear where the gaps in knowledge are amongst the sources (careful not to dip into WP:SYNTHESIS in doing this though). For the time being there doesn't seem to be a source saying either A) Sean Spicer is no longer press secretary in any official sense, nor that B) Sean Spicer may still be press secretary, despite the announcement regarding Huckabee Sanders. So don't say either of those things. Snow let's rap 12:17, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input, Snow. You've obviously put some thought and work into this. So have I. So I feel comfortable in saying two things and then being done with it: 1) While some have called her Huckabee Sanders, her name is not hyphenated and most current RS just say Sanders. I used the Rodham Clinton example earlier. Everyone eventually settled on Clinton. I expect everyone will eventually settle on Sanders. 2) No where is anyone still calling Spicer the press sec. But everywhere, everyone is calling her the press sec. Certainly, no one anywhere is calling either of them "co-press secs." Hence: The End. All the remaining Sturm und Drang to the contrary has no basis in fact. X4n6 (talk) 22:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
X4n6, you keep saying that most sources call her "Sanders", but it's beginning to feel a little like you are making this assertion repeatedly without really looking at the sources you are calling reference to. You just listed nine sources above with the claim that they proved she is going by "Sanders" but even the majority of these sources (that you hand-picked yourself) actually call her "Huckabee Sanders"! (You can just look at the URLs for four of those sources if you're not going to take the time to open them before presenting them as evidence here..) 25 out of 26 of the sources cited in her BLP refer to her as "Huckabee Sanders". Every reference I could find that was made by one of her administration colleagues has her referenced as "Huckabee Sanders", which is clearly how she WP:IDENTIFIES.
You evidently have an impression that she is being called Sanders, and I'm beginning to feel it is based on a general assumption. But whether that is true or not, on this project we go with the WP:WEIGHT of the available WP:RELIABLE SOURCES. You can say you have perceived that "most" sources call her Sanders, but any content decisions made on this page and the related BLP will be based on the reliable sources that have actually been employed in our articles (or otherwise presented directly for scrutiny by our editors), not those which are said to exist, in vague assertions. And more than 97% of the sources we are currently using say "Huckabee Sanders". And I'm not sure why you think it is relevant to keep bringing up Hillary Clinton; we're talking about a completely different woman and how sources describe her. This is a simple matter of WP:COMMONNAME and the sources for Huckabee Sanders, as an encyclopedic topic, not Clinton, nor anyone else.
As to the issue of how to present Spicer, I've already given you my suggestion on how you two can get past that deadlock, and that approach will work fine with regard to the concerns you raise in your latest post. Just don't say anything that you can't source to an affirmative (that is non-WP:SYNTH) statement in a reliable source. You both sort of want to do that (or at least, you are presenting arguments here which definitely constitute synthesis). So if you just both avoid that, you will find a happy middle ground. If it helps you guys to hear it in the form of an !vote:
  • I support you mentioning that Huckabee Sanders is now press secretary and Therequiembellishere including mention that Spicer still works for the administration, because both of those things can be easily sourced with the references we have at this time.
  • I oppose either of you making the statement in Wikipedia's voice to the effect that "Sean Spicer's official position in the administration is/is not X." Where X is anything. Because we do not have sources (since the shake-up) making any statements that support any variation of that statement. Both of you have made detailed arguments for why you think the sources, taken together, "prove" that Spicer is or is not the Press Secretary still, but all of that is WP:synthesis, which is not allowed to influence content on this project. Hammer out a compromise version that avoids any assertion which can not be directly attributed to a source, without speculation, and then wait for more sources.
I hope that helps, because I really can't be much clearer on what I think are the very limited options that policy leaves you with here, in both cases. Snow let's rap 05:55, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Snow Rise: It appears that you haven't actually read any of the articles I provided. Because all you keep talking about is URLs. Please read the articles, as I did, before commenting again. Not one of them calls her Huckabee Sanders within the article. As for your other comments, I'm beginning to think you're actually muddying the waters, more than helping. My position has always been very simple: Sanders is the lone, new press secretary, as of last Friday; and at the moment, Spicer remains in the administration, in some capacity, until August. Those are well-documented, multiple-sourced facts. Kindly refrain from appearing to attribute any other positions, beyond those, to me. X4n6 (talk) 06:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Uhhhhhh. Wow. no. Patent falsehood. I opened each and every one of those sources. Here's the first line from each:
[3]: "Anthony Scaramucci had nothing but glowing praise for new White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders when he made the rounds on morning shows on Sunday."
[4]: "On Friday afternoon, newly appointed White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders walked to the lectern in the West Wing’s briefing room and calmly began to talk about “Made in America” Week."
[5]: "The mainstream media displayed what some see as a double standard on criticizing women after Sarah Huckabee Sanders was promoted to White House Press Secretary last week."
[6]: "The new White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders was nine years old when she worked her first political campaign: her father’s bid for a U.S. Senate seat in Arkansas."
[7]: "Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, resigned Friday after telling President Trump he vehemently disagreed with his appointment of Anthony Scaramucci, a New York financier, as his new communications director. Mr. Spicer’s top deputy, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, will serve as press secretary instead."
[8]: "A day after congressional negotiators announced an agreement on a Russian sanctions bill, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said the administration was also on board."
[9]: "New White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Sunday the administration supports congressional sanctions against Russia."
[10]: "Trump’s top communication aides set out to try to present a united front two days after the president added New York financier Anthony Scaramucci as communications director and promoted Sarah Huckabee Sanders to press secretary after Sean Spicer resigned unexpectedly."
[11]: "The White House reeled on Tuesday from the sudden collapse of the Senate’s push to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, and President Donald Trump acknowledged he was "very disappointed" with the latest blow to his stalled legislative agenda. Principal deputy press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders addressed reporters off camera Tuesday afternoon at the White House as Republicans on Capitol Hill scrambled to map the path forward."
Every one of your sources uses "Huckabee Sanders", as it turns out. I really try hard to stretch myself and always WP:AGF on this project, but viewing your repeated claims above, it's a matter of simple deductive reality that only one of two things can be going on here: A) you are making claims about what sources supposedly say without truly scrutinizing them, and then sticking by those claims when caught, even going so far as to accuse other parties of being the ones who didn't read them, or B) You are intentionally misrepresenting the sources. Both, by the way, are considered WP:Disruptive behaviours. Do you want to walk back your claims a bit here, given any editor can just follow any one of those links to judge for themselves whether you are representing them truthfully?
As to the claim you want to push against Therequiembellishere that "Sanders is the lone, new press secretary, as of last Friday", please supply me with a reliable source that makes that exact claim (i.e. without the need for WP:synthesis or any kind of WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH) and I will happily support it going into the article immediately. Otherwise, you have to wait until you do have a source, if you want that exact claim included. But I think you continue to be so preoccupied with winning this argument with Requiem that you are not even focusing on ways to present the content which address most of your concerns without dipping into synthesis, which is not allowed. Snow let's rap 07:00, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's become clearer with each of your posts that you're either seriously missing the point, or simply pretending. Because if you don't understand the difference between the surname "Huckabee Sanders" and the full name "Sarah Huckabee Sanders," then there's really no point in trying to explain it to you. Likewise, if you can find any current and reliable source that still calls Spicer the WH press sec, then post it here. Otherwise, accept that sources call Sanders the press sec, as of last Friday. That ain't synthesis or disruption. That's just fact. But since you're hurling accusations now, we're done. X4n6 (talk) 07:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting repetitive. I don't need a source because I'm not one of the parties trying to add one of two mutually exclusive claims to the article. I'm neither for your unsourced assertion, nor Requiem's unsourced assertion. I'm an uninvolved third party trying to tell you that you can't add a disputed claim unless you can directly source that exact claim to a single source, without formulating arguments based on conclusions you drew from studying the sources collectively (which is the very definition of what WP:synthesis means on this project). In all of the sources that have been presented here so far, there is not a single one that I have seen which says what Sean Spicer's official position is now. So neither of you should be speculating. Or speculate all you want, but don't expect it to go into an article in Wikipedia's voice. Just say that Huckabee Sanders is the Press Secretary and then add (in prose or a footnote, as context suggests) that Spicer is still working for the administration in an unspecified capacity during a period that has been described by the administration as a "transition". Completely avoid the issue of whether Spicer is in fact press secretary. It's irrelevant to the content at this point, as neither of you has the right source to assert whether he is or isn't, without recourse to synthesis. And if you two give it a few days, that may change, one way or another. Snow let's rap 09:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And for what it's worth, if the Trump administration ever does make a statement to clarify the matter, I doubt it will be to say that Spicer is still a co-Press Secretary, through August. That would surprise me very much. But that's not the point. We can't put words in the mouths of our sources, secondary or primary, no matter the confidence we have in our deductions. Snow let's rap 10:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summoned by bot to this malformed, ridiculous RfC. The purpose of an RfC is to resolve disputes not to ask the community for help in researching a factual issue. Please close out this RfC. Coretheapple (talk) 13:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, this article should be in line with the Sean Spicer and Sarah Huckabee Sanders articles. GoodDay (talk) 01:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1) Agree with X4n6 that the sources definitely do not indicate two White House Press Secretaries at once, and that Huckabee Sanders has the title now.
    2) Agree with Snow Rise that 'the statement in Wikipedia's voice to the effect that "Sean Spicer's official position in the administration is/is not X."' would be original research, at this exact point of sourcing, though this could probably be resolved with more digging. The obvious workaround in the interim is to state that Spicer had this title as of [date] and that Huckabee Sanders has this title as of [later date].
    3) Agree with Snow Rise that sources commonly use "Huckabee Sanders" as her surname (and no, that is not a Briticism, it's common American practice for married women who had careers before marriage). There is no issue at all with WP referring to her by that name, and it's clearer than just "Sanders", which in the context of recent US presidential politics usually refers to someone else entirely.
    4) Agree with everyone that this was a malformed RfC. Please read WP:RFC before using this process again. It wastes a lot of other editors' time to have to wade through bad RfCs to try to figure out what is actually being asked of the community.
     — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:36, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC approach[edit]

@Coretheapple:, I actually made the same assumption when arriving at this thread (also summoned by bot), because of how Therequiembellishere framed the RfC question, but it seems that the request he was making was not for sources, but rather for third opinions on the sources that have been found so far. He and another editor are in fact having a content dispute about what the sources say (you can see the details in the thread immediately above this one).
Now, I don't know what spurned this disagreement, because the subject (Sean Spicer and Sarah Huckabee Sanders and whether both of them can be regarded as Press Secretary during the transition) is presently only relevant to a couple of lines in a table on this particular article. But they both feel very passionately about it; so much so that X4n6 took Therequiembellishere to ANI, where they were promptly told this was a content dispute and to settle this via standard DR processes, hence the RfC. My opinion as the only respondent other than yourself so far, is that they were actually both trying to WP:SYNTH their (diametrically opposed) assumptions into the article and should wait for more sources before trying to assert that "Sean Spicer may still be Press Secretary/Sean Spicer definitely is not Press Secretary.", neither of which statement is sourceable without synthesis at this time.
Arguably, you are still correct, and the RfC should be closed. If one of the parties wishes to re-open it with a proper inquiry consistent with WP:RfC, they could then do so, but it seems that the two have backed off the disagreement for now, and I think closing the RfC and waiting for new sourcing is probably the best way to go, especially considering how minor a difference it really makes to this article's content. Snow let's rap 21:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note[edit]

X4n6, as of this edit, you have violated WP:3RR with your revert of an edit that is 100% allowed under WP:TPO (which you don't seem to be bothering to read before continuing to edit war). I could (and probably should) take this to an admin to be addressed, but I just don't have it in me today to waste a mop's time with something so trivial, not when you just got bounced from ANI. Nor will I revert further (your reversion is out of line and a violation of policy, wheras my edit is supported by policy and completely legitimate, but I won't enable the disruption further).

I am, however, leaving this note as to the WP:disruptive behaviour, for benefit of anyone else who, like me, is summoned to this RfC by bot and is trying to make heads or tails about what is going on between you and the Therequiembellishere. When I arrived here as an uninvolved party, and saw the heated exchange between you and Requiem above, I thought the WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour was a two way street; I am no longer so certain that the issues are equally owned between you. WP:SYNTH, WP:Talk page guidelines and WP:EDITWAR are all important policies that you need to fully digest if you are going to participate here. I've informed Core of the issue at hand, so stop implying that I am changing the meaning of his comment by making a routine format change that is explictly allowed and encouraged under TPO. Snow let's rap 23:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Snow Rise:Are you serious? Why don't you actually try reading the entire guideline YOU cite? Because WP:TPO very clearly says:

"Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page... Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection."

Now don't you look foolish. But also, since you're busy hurling around WP:3RR accusations - I seriously advise that you actually read it. Because the edit log clearly shows your four edits. You've been nothing but a misinformed pedant and persistent disruption here. Your nitpicking over this nonsense is just the latest proof of that. And to make matters worse, you're wrong on the very policies you're quoting. So first, you need to apologize. Then you need to stop your nonsense immediately. Finally, if you can't collaboratively and reasonably work with other editors here, perhaps you need to absent yourself from further discussions - before you find yourself reported. X4n6 (talk) 00:25, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No... I reverted TWICE (the other two edits were me adding a qualifier to my topic header[12] in an effort to try to address your concerns. and then removing it[13] when you continued to edit war over the matter anyway. Completely unrelated edits that did not WP:revert any change you made and thus are completely irrelevant to the reversion issue--but nice try). And apparently you have not read all of WP:TPO (editing the comments of other editors), the section of WP:TPG that I have directed you to three times, because it clearly allows for the creation of new sections in precisely this context. Nothing I did changed the meaning of Core's comments in the slightest, via context or otherwise. Which is why I was happy to let him know that I made the change. As I noted in the edit summaries, I have known Core for years and never would refactor his comments in a way that changes their meaning (as indeed, I would not do to any editor). You, on the other hand, have continued to edit war, suggesting you are doing it for his benefit, but never actually checking with him to see what his perspective is, as I did. Which to my mind, suggests you should reconsider what your actual motives are here.
So no, I don't think I look especially foolish, but I'm happy to see what other community members think when they too arrive at this thread and see what has been going on here. Snow let's rap 00:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh... There's no real point in wasting more time arguing your nonsense. It's just giving you more attention, which you appear to crave. Just as you seem to lack the ability to acknowledge that you're wrong, both in behavior and on policy. This is just textbook WP:IDHT and WP:TE. So I'm done with you. I too will leave it to others to go down the rabbit hole of engaging you on your behavior. But, as I'm sure you will, feel free to have the LASTWORD. X4n6 (talk) 01:09, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First off, that rhetorical trick of saying "I bet you're going to insist on the last word, but I don't care, because I'm a bigger person" is itself the most obvious way in the world to get the de facto "last word", and that ploy has convinced exactly zero people in the history of human interaction.
But I digress. As to the substantive issue of your claim that I have been "disruptive" or "tendentious", you might consider that I am only here as the result of an RfC that resulted from your dispute with another editor. I'm not the party who has gotten in two separate personal disputes with as many editors, over as many days, on one talk page. That's you. I'm not the editor who has edit warred on both the article and the talk page to get their way (including on the article while a consensus discussion is taking place, which is not allowed). That's you. I'm not the editor with a history of community blocks over recent years for exactly the behaviour of edit warring. That again, is you. Just some things you might consider before you throw WP:TE at the next editor who arrives here and dares to disagree with you; you might give some thought as to the common denominator of these disputes. Snow let's rap 02:51, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who does the Press Secretary report to?[edit]

On White_House_Communications_Director it says the Communications Director reports to the Chief of Staff. Who does the Press Secretary report to? and shouldn't this information be included in the infobox? Davidwbarratt (talk) 16:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The normal protocol would be the press secretary, despite constant contact with the president, technically reports to the director of communications; who technically reports to the chief of staff; who reports to the president. That order is fluid and can vary by administration and personnel. Anything on this administration would have to be reliably sourced and most likely need to be updated regularly. X4n6 (talk) 05:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on White House Press Secretary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong way driver’s[edit]

Put spikes on off ramps for wrong way drivers. I just hope someone listens. Thank you for your appreciation and your service. 2600:8805:D591:B800:6599:EE35:6B7F:571 (talk) 07:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:White_House_Press_Secretary&oldid=1204510505"