Talk:Sean Spicer/Archive 1

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)

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)
 * Yes check.svg Done. This has since been completed by another editor. —ADavidB 03:35, 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)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Calling a BLP a liar in the header? No. Stikkyy (talk) 06:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Vagueness Regarding Inauguration Audience Size, BLP Issues
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 . 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)

White floor coverings
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 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)

Photo removed
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)

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

❌ already included in article. Black Kite (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

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)

Better source for footnote 9
1999 Congressional Directory: CDIR-1999-06-15-FL-H-17.pdf Jtshea05 (talk) 04:22, 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)

Roger Mellie
No mention appears to have been made as to Mr Spicer's extraordinary 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. 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)

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)

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)

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)


 * 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)

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.

❌ 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)

Inaccuracy as to assumption of WH positions
After helping clean up this passage in something of a drive-by mode, I realized that it's inaccurate. He didn't assume either position until January 20. I would expend the brain calories to try to fix it in a way that doesn't mangle the language, but I don't care that much about this article. Maybe somebody else does. ― Mandruss  &#9742;  17:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for calling this to our attention. --MelanieN (talk) 18:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Endeavor Global Strategies
This edit changed the information about Spicer's time at Endeavor Global Strategies to read, again, "For four months, from March to July 2009, Spicer was a partner at Endeavor Global Strategies, a public relations firm." The source for that statement was Spicer's LinkedIn profile. As should be obvious, that fails WP:RS. It's fine for undisputed facts, but since the ending date of Spicer's time at GES is disputed, it's unacceptable to use LinkedIn as a source.

Admittedly there is a puzzle as to why Spicer's profile says he left the firm in July 2009, since that creates a 19-month gap, from August 2009 to February 2011 (he went to work for the RNC in February 2011). During that time, the only thing mentioned in his profile is his master's degree ("2009 - 2012"). The puzzle is that the the degree requires only 30 semester hours - that's one year, full-time, and is designed to be done part-time. Spicer didn't finish it until sometime in 2012, so well after he joined the RNC.

Here is evidence is that the Spicer did continue on at the firm past July 2009, at least in a part-time capacity:


 * Many news articles - here's one from the Daily Mail mentioning that he was at EGS in April 2010.


 * The February 2011 article in ''The Washington Post" that says "Spicer is currently a partner at Endeavor Global Strategies"


 * An archived page from the EGS website, as of March 2011 that shows him as one of three members of "the team".


 * A Fox News video, dated May 7, 2011, describing him as "Sean Spicer of Endeavor Global Strategies"

I haven't been able to find any reliable information about when the firm closed its doors, but looking at the list of archived pages at archive.org, the last successful page archive appears to be from August 2011.

Bottom line: There is no reason to accept the July 2009 date listed in Spicer's LinkedIn profile as being the end date for his partnership at EGS. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:04, 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)
 * Breitbart is not a reliable source. If you have any reliable sources which say that Spicer was not telling falsehoods, then add them to the discussion here. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

What is your definition of a reliable source then? You allow fake news like NYT, CNN and MSNBC so your standards must be pretty low. NBC called Trump's speech "Hitlerian" which is truly absurd. Some random person's blog has more credibility than this poor excuse for an article. It's obvious whoever wrote this is trying to push an anti-Trump agenda, which is actually pretty humorous because all the plans to do that so far have failed miserably. It's also obvious that all these silly little Wikipedia rules are designed to keep the truth from getting out.

Spicer's press conference was a breath of fresh air because he called out the media for their unethical behavior, he actually answered every single question unlike other question-dodging press secretaries, yet when you read this article it comes across like he's the worst person on the planet. It goes off on several irrelevant tangents including a biased rant from Chuck Todd who completely misinterpreted Conway's quote and the article doesn't mention a single question that was answered or mention Spicer's attack on the press's lies and immature behavior which was the core theme of the conference. At the very least you should quote his monologue about how the media constantly tries to delegitimize Trump, which was by far the most significant part of this conference, not some quote from that uninformed fossil Chuck Todd.

I'm really not sure what you guys are trying to accomplish on Wikipedia by spreading lies like this. Do you really think that peddling lies on a Wikipedia page will somehow stop the truth from getting out? We live in an era where the middleman is no longer necessary, and people aren't falling for this anymore. Wikipedia used to have some integrity, but after seeing how low some people will go to spread propaganda and push their agenda I've lost a lot of respect. I would love to see an accurate representation of Trump's cabinet for once, but after seeing how badly you guys butchered Trump's article and reading the bloodbath on the talk page I've lost all hope.70.91.215.53 (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If you want to find out what we're trying to accomplish, read WP:NPOV. --Nbauman (talk) 18:37, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Also WP:RS.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I was tempted to hat this per WP:NOTAFORUM, and I will if it continues. But I decided to respond to some of the IP's factual claims (although the claim that the NYT and CNN are "fake news" pretty much invalidates the entire comment). 1) The section currently does contain Reince Priebus's charge that the press is trying to delegitimize Trump's presidency. 2) The so-called "biased rant" from Chuck Todd is actually two very short sentences. 3) The "alternative facts" quote from Kellyanne Conway is the most notable thing about this entire incident and has become a widespread press and internet meme. 4) "He actually answered every single question" - not at the first press briefing, which is the incident that caused so much coverage and reaction. --MelanieN (talk) 18:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Absolutely agree with original post. I would get into editing, but I have too many exams to spend time writing paragraphs and citing. The problem is biased editors will not admit certain news organizations are reliable news sources. I think everyone would profit from reading Reliable news sources, List of fake and ambiguous news organizations, and applying Common Sense. Anyway, the entire briefing on friday should simply be described as controversial in the article, if anything. One simple sentence could replace this entire charade/farse. Citing separate descriptions, opinions, and topics is just pure idiocy and damages the article. 193.170.18.85 (talk) 18:55, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm unclear as to why you're objecting to this article yet at the same time recommending people read Reliable news sources, List of fake and ambiguous news organizations. Both these links support excluding garbage from this article. Not sure what point you're trying to make.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well said. Wikipedia has always tilted left, but the fury of the Democrats in response to the president's campaign (and his resulting win) has sparked a four-alarm fire of liberalism, igniting tendentious editors and administrators to take out their frustrations and anger on these pages. They wanted Hillary, and they wanted her BADLY. I suspect many of these people do not have jobs, and are thus able to sit at home all day and all night defacing these pages under the direction and encouragement of the administrators who are supposed to be maintaining balance. The pages of Obama's press secretaries are completely blank, despite numerous controversies that erupted during their terms. Spicer's biography of his LIFE is chock full of details from two of his press conferences, and it's only going to get worse. Left-wing and fake sources such as CNN, New York Times, Mother Jones, Salon, and Huffington Post are held up as "high-quality, reliable sources" while moderate/balanced and conservative sources such as Fox News, Breitbart, The Daily Caller, and the Washington Times are reviled and immediately reverted by the aforementioned left-wing editors. This is with the full endorsement and approval of the administrators. It's actually a very organized and well-thought out system of propaganda, and I applaud the moderators for this strategy. It is very sad, however. 216.205.224.11 (talk) 21:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTAFORUM.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:54, 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)
 * The editing on these pages is almost exclusively done by left-wing, formerly Hillary-supporting sworn enemies of the president. Unfortunately, the oversight is done by moderators /administrators who are also left-wing, formerly Hillary-supporting sworn enemies of the president. So you see the problem. Of course, they will vehemently deny this description and repeatedly claim that they are "only trying to hold [Trump/Spicer/Conway/Priebus, etc.] accountable" and "maintain neutrality." Hopefully that answers your question... 216.205.224.11 (talk) 20:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * There are no "Moderators" just to be clear, and a blanket statement of all editors editing this page is "crap" and since you have made that statement I ask you to please provide a reliable cite or retract it. Thank you, -  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 20:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I have stricken the term "moderators" from my comment. In regards to the painfully obvious (and in this article's case, outrageously egregious attacks by left-wing editors, sanctioned by left-wing administrators) liberal bias across this website, this is a nicely written and fascinating article discussing the phenomenon: How the Left Conquered Wikipedia, Part I 216.205.224.11 (talk) 21:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Spicer's unscrupulous orange + apple dodge
In the conference, Spicer also claimed that the inauguration was "the most watched ever", but subsequently clarified that he was referring not only to live attendees at the ceremony or those watching on TV, but also viewers who watched the inauguration online.

Consider the articles on implicature and pragmatics.

The frame of this discussion was a public demonstration of support for the new administration (mall attendance). People sitting at home watching this on TV certainly included a large number of people who hate Trump's guts. &mdash; MaxEnt 23:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What do you suggest we change the text to? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 23:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * MaxEnt: Every possible word from Spicer from the last 3 days that could be construed to be negative by any left-leaning media outlet has been crammed into the "article," which was supposed to be a biography of his life. What else could you possibly want? Spicer is likely correct when saying that more people saw the inauguration than any other president's. Whether or not people who "hate Trump's guts" also saw the ceremony is immaterial and has no place in what was a biography until 1/21/2017. 216.205.224.11 (talk) 01:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's doubtful that Spicer is notable enough to survive an AfD if the article were written before his recent association with the President. SPECIFICO  talk  01:47, 25 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), the use of magnetometers delaying "hundreds of thousands of people from reaching the field" (there were no magnetometers and no significant delays), 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)
 * 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," 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, 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". --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:
 * 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. 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)


 * 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.  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: . 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. Octoberwoodland (talk) 08:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I did a bold move to remove a paragraph of quotes but was reverted (I was not surprised, so I'm taking the change here). While I do not dispute that the paragraph is well-sourced from RSs, I do feel that the entire section violates WP:PROPORTION. I'm assuming not all press conferences are going to have this kind of summary or the next four years will make this article huge. Just looking for a way to cut down the size and summarize. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 16:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the last sentence in that paragraph can probably be removed without losing much from the article. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree and will remove that sentence. User:Bahooka, I was about to do almost the same thing. I agree there is way too much detail in that section and I had drafted a major trim, including removing all the quotes of criticism - not the references, just the quotes. User:Volunteer Marek, please discuss here; there seems to be a feeling on the part of several of us that the article contains way too much detail about the initial press briefing. I would like to replace the paragraph about critical reaction with a single sentence: "The reaction from commentators and the press was strongly negative, with many characterizing his incorrect statements as lies.[7][8][9]" Since that paragraph has become contentious I feel I should discuss it here before making the change. Meanwhile I will prune the details of his misstatements to make that paragraph more concise. --MelanieN (talk) 18:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I made several changes to other parts of that section, making things more concise, and adding a report that he gave that first briefing on Trump's direct orders. I also removed the controversy about it from the lede, as inappropriate for the lede; IMO it is something to be covered in the text only. I would still like to replace the entire "critical reactions" paragraph with the single sentence I suggested above, if consensus permits. --MelanieN (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I support the proposed change by MelanieN. Bahooka (talk) 19:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

We are waiting for you to discuss/explain your restoration of the material deleted by Bahooka - and to solicit your opinion on the proposal to replace that paragraph with a single sentence. --MelanieN (talk) 22:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not clear on what I'm supposed to explain. It's well sourced and relevant text about the most significant aspect of Spicer's career, so it would seem that it's up to Bahooka to sufficiently explain their removal as well as obtain consensus for it. Although Absolutelypuremilk is right that the "jaw hit floor" (or whatever) can definitely be removed. Regardless, WP:PROPORTION applies to, quote, "minor aspects of its subject". This is anything but that (as the AfD for "Alternative Facts" attests, as well as the unprecedented scope of coverage in reliable sources). If this was about some run of the mill conference then yeah sure. But again, it wasn't that.
 * I oppose "summarizing it with one sentence".
 * And while I'm here I also want to object to the constant attempts to WP:WEASEL the wording regarding this phenomenon - sources DO NOT talk about "inaccuracies" "misstatement" "wrong information". They're pretty explicit about calling this "falsehoods" and "lies". I don't see why we should try to "tone down" what sources actually say. This reminds me of those old arguments from early days of Wikipedia were some people insisted that having an article with the word "massacre" in the title was "POV" even though for a subject such as, say, Massacre of Kalavryta, all the sources used the term. The people who tried to argue that were wrong and lost that argument. Same thing here. We follow the sources, so if these refer to "falsehoods" and "lies" we do too, not "inaccuracies" or "misstatements".Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for coming here to discuss. Bahooka thinks that paragraph - quotes from five or six source sources, all saying variations of the same thing, "he said things that were false" - is out of proportion. I think it's TMI to use so many repetitious quotes; I favor removing the two that are sourced to Twitter, and summarizing the other three in a sentence. Let's see what consensus says. --MelanieN (talk) 23:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I entirely agree with Volunteer Marek. One sentence is clearly not sufficient when discussing the issue for which he is most widely known, and sources overwhelmingly describe the claims as "lies." It's pretty rare for sources like The New York Times and other high-quality sources to overwhelmingly describe statements in such terms, and we cannot misrepresentant how sources view these claims by using watered down and misleading terms like "misstatement." --Tataral (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the "jaw hit the floor" quote and replaced the twitter source for the Kristol quote with a secondary source. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Spicer's habit of chewing gum
Someone added that Spicer chews up to 35 pieces of gum everyday (sourced). I removed this as trivia but it has been re-added. Do other editors think this is worthy of inclusion or is it trivia? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 23:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * BLP violation. Remove at will. SPECIFICO  talk  23:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I dunno about BLP violation, but I doubt it approaches WP:DUE. But that's about one piece every waking half-hour, so he might consider switching brands. I recommend Trident Original, Sean. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  11:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality
As a staunch Trump opponent, I don't think I can be accused of bias when I say that the article currently has serious WP:NPOV problems. The policy's nutshell states "Articles must not take sides", but this article repeatedly does exactly that. The facts of this accuracy thing are not nearly as black-and-white as the article currently makes them out to be.

The bias can be further seen in this example: "Later, Spicer defended his previous statements by saying 'sometimes we can disagree with the facts'." Clearly, we want those words to be read a certain way, and it's obviously an absurd statement when taken literally. Facts are facts, and only dishonest people disagree with them. But, watching Spicer talk, it's very clear that he is not a very precise speaker, often having difficulty even forming a coherent sentence. (That makes him a dubious choice for press secretary, but that's beside the point.) It's extremely likely he meant to say "sometimes we can disagree on the facts", which is an entirely different statement and far more reasonable. Neutral editing means recognizing things like this and not exploiting sloppy speech for political purposes. And it would be disingenuous to say, "Well we only report his words, the readers can judge for themselves."

I have fixed a little of this, but it's not my style to lead a fight in this area (i.e., I'm a coward). I do suggest that other Trump-opponent editors make a concerted attempt to put Wikipedia policy above their own perspective of Truth and, if unable, remove themselves from this article. ― Mandruss  &#9742;  12:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Your edits misrepresented the sources. The sources don't say "the accuracy of Spicer's statement was challanged". The sources say "Spicer made false claims" or even "Spicer lied". Hence your edits violate WP:NPOV and WP:WEASEL. Following sources is "putting Wikipedia policy first" ... so why are you doing the opposite? Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * My edits misrepresented your sources. Your language is not an accurate representation of the totality of reliable sources, and much of what you call sources is opinion pieces. To source the statement "But as many sources immediately pointed out, that claim was false", why must we resort to a section of WaPo called "The Fix" instead of limiting ourselves to the news proper? The statement at the end of the piece says, "Chris Cillizza writes 'The Fix,' a politics blog for The Washington Post...". A politics blog? Really? I see plenty of non-opinion sources that don't make things so black-and-white. Any source that says he "lied" can be dismissed as opinion whether it is presented as such or not, since nobody can possibly know he lied. Lying requires a deliberate intent to deceive; lacking mind-reading ability, knowing that he lied is simply not humanly possible. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There's no such thing as "my sources". And if you're going to claim that "totality of reliable sources" do it differently, the burden of proof is on you, since the proof for the fact that they don't has already been provided.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, that proof has not been provided. It seems the Trump camp are not the only ones with a loose relationship to the facts. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Where? Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you have any reliable sources which say that he was telling the truth? (or at least thought that he was, e.g. if he had been given incorrect information) Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 15:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm stumped. Mainstream newspapers and electronic media state that Spicer has lied repeatedly. There's no doubt about that.  The question as to whether this article gives undue weight to the fact he repeatedly has lied to the press vs. some other life details, that's a different matter.  SPECIFICO  talk  15:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. If there were some reliable sources which explicitly say "he didn't lie" then we could include them but so far I haven't seen any. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 15:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you have any reliable sources which say that he was telling the truth? No, I do not, and I have never proposed to say that he was telling the truth. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Mainstream newspapers and electronic media state that Spicer has lied repeatedly. - I'll make it easy on you. Show me four non-opinion reliable sources that say Spicer has "lied repeatedly". You certainly aren't citing any such sources. Give me the highest quality sources you can find for that, and let's see how high that is. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  15:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 *  SPECIFICO  talk  15:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you actually read some of those hits. Give me links to sources please. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's start with "falsehoods". Not an opinion piece. Not an opinion piece. Not an opinion piece. Not an opinion piece. Not an opinion piece. Etc. Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Time (2), The New Yorker, The Independent, and Politico. I assume that's the cream of the crop as I requested. Conspicuously absent: The New York Times, The Washington Post, The LA Times, The Chicago Tribune, The Boston Globe, NPR, BBC, need I go on? Thus, your black-and-white wiki voice statement is not representative of the totality of reliable sources. You are cherry-picking, and I rest my case. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You said: " Show me four non-opinion reliable sources ". You got them. Now you're making stuff up and trying to quickly move the goalposts before anyone notices.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Not following. WAPO: "easily disproved claims" verifies the other sources "lies" and so do dozens of other top mainstream press publications. Daily Beast explains, <>  SPECIFICO  talk  16:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

(ec) OK, hold on. There is no question that many neutral, reliable sources characterized what he said as "lies". Are you now claiming that we can't say "lies" because not every source in the world used the word lies? That is not a reasonable position.

You said, "The facts of this accuracy thing are not nearly as black-and-white as the article currently makes them out to be." Well, actually, they are. One can argue that the actual attendance at the inauguration is in dispute, but in the facts he offered in support, he was just unquestionably WRONG, his information was false: the ground coverings, the ridership on the Metro, and the magnetometers. It's not up to us to decide if those were "lies" or "errors"; we report what Neutral Reliable Sources said. And they said Trump Spokesman's Lecture on Media Accuracy is Peppered with Lies (Vanity Fair), [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-lies-crowd-size_us_5884104ae4b0e3a735699697 Trump And His Press Secretary Flagrantly Lied On Their First Full Day In Office. That Matters.] (Huffington Post), Spicer earns Four Pinocchios for false claims on inauguration crowd size (Washington Post).

To your overall point, I do think there is a problem with neutrality in this article - not with the information offered, which is pretty well established, but with the balance or weight. I have tried, above, to eliminate that whole repetitive paragraph of critical quotes and replace it with a single sentence (it's here: "WP:UNDUE Regarding Inauguration Attendence"), but that proposal is not gaining consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 16:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Are you now claiming that we can't say "lies" because not every source in the world used the word lies? - Not at all. I'm saying that there are far too many of the blue-chip sources missing for us to use unqualified wiki voice here. I also objected to our exploitation of sloppy language. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ...for us to use unqualified wiki voice here. I find only one place in the article where we used the unqualified wiki voice: "Spicer falsely accused the press of altering images of the event to minimize the size of the crowds." Everyplace else we attribute "false" to a source. We don't say "lie" anywhere, except in quotations. If we fix that one sentence (it has been edit warred some already), then there will be no problem? --MelanieN (talk) 17:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "But as many sources immediately pointed out, that claim was false." - To say they "pointed it out" is to present it as fact, and that's unqualified wiki voice. This is not remotely the same as saying "according to many sources," or even "many sources challenged the accuracy of the statement". I also objected to our exploitation of sloppy language. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * MelanieN: I almost spit out my coffee when I saw you refer to the fashion magazine "Vanity Fair" and Arianna Huffington's blog as "neutral reliable sources"! Was this meant to be a joke or are you honestly claiming that these are not liberal publications? Forgive me if you were just making a funny - it's difficult to tell through a text-only medium. But if you were in fact making this statement in total seriousness, would you mind providing 3 or 4 articles from both news outlets that speak favorably of the president and/or his policies? Just so we can verify that this is the case. Thank you. 216.205.224.11 (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually Vanity Fair is quite reliable, especially when it comes to news. Not sure why you'd think otherwise.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Primarily because not only is Vanity Fair not a news magazine, but also because their pieces during the campaign were almost exclusively devoted to attacking the president while making excuses for Clinton's indiscretions. I have other reasons for this, but that's the primary evidence. Besides, are we really going to use niche magazines as sources for political articles? Are Men's Health and Seventeen reliable sources, now? 216.205.224.11 (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * VolunteerMarek: While I believe your heart is in the right place by providing the sources for the term "falsehoods," I believe we need to take a closer look at these links. Two of them are from TIME magazine, which recently was caught propagating fake news and offered a lazy excuse for doing so . Obviously, we need to be very careful about using TIME magazine as a source for information related to Sean Spicer and the Trump administration in general. POLITICO's blog is problematic for a similar reason: it was uncovered during the presidential campaign that their people were giving articles to Secretary's Clinton's campaign team for pre-approval and opportunities to edit them as the team saw fit, during the campaign. Using a blog loyal to Clinton's campaign is problematic for a number of reasons. He also referred to himself as becoming a "hack" journalist by making this decision. I think we can do a bit better when looking for sources. 216.205.224.11 (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Freakin' a, soon we'll have to distinguish between "real fake news" and "fake fake news". Time magazine DID NOT "propagate fake news" - that's utter nonsense. Politico is fine too, and calling them "loyal to Clinton's campaign" is downright ridiculous if you've been following their editorial line. And no they did not give articles for... oh never mind, it gets tiring having to debunk this bullshit over and over again. Now, DailyCaller - that's not a reliable source right there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's necessary to make that distinction. False reports are false reports. Fake is fake. Your personal attack is completely uncalled for. We can disagree without resorting to referring to the views of others as "utter nonsense." I have been following what Politico's been doing. Two of their editors were caught during the 2016 election giving articles in advance of publication for the Clinton campaign's rubber stamp: Ken Vogel and Glenn Thrush. The latter knew what he was doing was wrong, too. His plea to John Podesta: "Because I have become a hack I will send u the whole section that pertains to u...Please don’t share or tell anyone I did this Tell me if I f****d up anything.” And this is an organization that you believe is "reliable"? I am having great difficulty seeing your perspective on this one. However, if you have any information that Thrush and I are unaware of that debunks his "bullshit," please share. 216.205.224.11 (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, why is Daily Caller unreliable but Time magazine is? Daily Caller is openly conservative and TIME is openly liberal. This seems like we're using a double standard, here. 216.205.224.11 (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There's no personal attacks in what I wrote. And actually I have my own problems with POLITICO though for different reasons than you.
 * Whether an outlet is "conservative" or "liberal" (and no, TIME is NOT "openly liberal") has nothing to do with reliability. Simply put, TIME magazine has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy (one more time, no, they did not "propagate fake news"), Daily Caller has... a reputation for the opposite. See WP:RS.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:41, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well said. Lies are lies and people need to reassess what is reliable news sources anymore.  Time isn't one of them, if the Daily Caller and Brietbart aren't reliable.  Actually they are all garbage.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:788B:DF50:8CDD:5461:389A:631B (talk) 21:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Not how it works. One sign of a serious source (or a person for that matter) is that when they make an error, and everyone makes errors sometimes, they admit it and correct it. DC and Breitbart don't do that. Especially the latter will just double down on whatever bullshit they're peddling at the moment. Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:41, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, again, I just don't see it that way. You may not like the point of views of those blogs or conservative media in general, but you can't just say whatever you feel like and throw around accusations without any sources or diffs to back it up. Claiming that "DC and Breitbart don't [correct errors]" is an extremely serious accusation to level against a journalist, as is calling their writings "bullshit." If you don't have anything to support your claims, it's probably best if you strike the majority of your edit. I'm also not here to argue whether or not Time admits their liberal slant or not OR what does or does not constitute "fake news." My main point is that it's dangerous to use sources that have a history of hurriedly tweeting out false reports or violating journalistic ethics in order to help Democrats (or Republicans), as you did for Mandruss.. As WP:RS states, "Sources are allowed to be biased or non-neutral. Only Wikipedia articles are required to be neutral." Therefore Time Magazine and Breitbart are both valid sources, despite their political leanings. Currently, only the perspective of the left is represented on this article, therefore the moderate and conservative media's response to this controversy should also be adequately represented. 216.205.224.11 (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Descent
He seems to identify with being Irish, although his mother clearly has a German maiden name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.193.95.127 (talk) 11:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Should the first press conference be in the lead?
Spicer's first press conference was removed from the lead - I disagree with this change. The press conference is what Spicer is known for - about half the references are for this alone. Whether or not you think he was lying, the fact that most of the national media thinks that the spokesman for the President was making up facts is extremely notable and should definitely be in the lead. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It was covered in the press and parodied on most TV networks as the most noteworthy such debut in recent memory. SPECIFICO  talk  19:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

any thoughts? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's the most significant aspect of his career. Thus far. Maybe in the future it won't be and then we can remove it from the lede, but that would be WP:CRYSTALBALL.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I was the one who removed it. I don't think a single incident like this belongs in the lede of a biography - especially when it is too recent to know whether it will be a defining incident in his life, or a blip. Others may disagree, and if there is consensus to restore it, I will. --MelanieN (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

There (currently) seems to be a consensus to restore it - I will restore it (feel free to revert if consensus swings back the other way). Any suggestions for trimming it down a bit? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 22:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * MelanieN was right to remove this POV commentary from the lead. A single press conference from a man who is a Naval Commander and has over a decade of professional communications/PR experience has no business being in the first paragraph of a biography of a man's life. Horrifyingly undue. 216.205.224.11 (talk) 19:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

This issue is already dead, just a week later. The burden of establishing relevance is on those that want to include it, and this particular issue seems to not be standing the test of time enough to include in the lead (maybe not even in the whole article). The space already devoted to it in the main section is plenty. -- Netoholic @ 21:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BRD I suggest that you restore the previous version of the lead. To address your point here - (whether you believe them or not) the media reporting that the White House Press Secretary was making false statements is very notable, and indeed the thing that Spicer is most known for. This is why a large number (about a third by my reckoning) of the sources for the whole article are about this event. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * IF it is so very notable, why have there been no questions about it an any recent press briefings, nor further reports about it? Its a political grand-standing issue on both sides which seems to have died in less than a week.  As this is a BLP article, the burden is on those that want to include it to prove it is so notable that the article is worse without its inclusion.  The material in the main body is adequate, for now, but it is unwarranted in the lead. -- Netoholic @  22:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)   Added: I have pared the mention down to bare bones. This topic is too fresh to cover in an NPOV way in the lead.  I highly endorse its removal from the lead and much more work towards NPOV in the main body section covering this.  "number of sources" does not equate to NPOV nor long-term noteworthiness. -- Netoholic @  22:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources say, not whether it is mentioned at press conferences. You should note that this article is subject to WP:1RR, so I again recommend that you self-revert. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 23:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Just because some item has sources (even several sources) does not automatically mean it warrants inclusion on a Wikipedia article. Our role is to inform, and in the case of living persons, to be very careful to avoid libel or the appearance of bias. Sean Spicer has had a long public life, and one particular press conference does not define him enough to dominate a lead section. -- Netoholic @ 00:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok, look, the lede summarizes the article. So IF the conference is discussed in body then it should be mentioned in lede. This is WP:LEDE. This isn't complicated.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:35, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

And BLP ain't got crap to do with this. If the material is fine in the article body - which it is because it's all very well sourced - then it's fine for the lede, obviously.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

(And btw, no, this has not "gone away" ) Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, the edit summary with this revert is ridiculous. Apparently the info "requires more space than is possible there". Huh??? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

NPOV problems
In its current form, the mention of the first press statment in the lead reads: Spicer's first official statement as press secretary was criticized for making false claims regarding the inauguration's attendance numbers.[5] In his statement, he also claimed that the inauguration was "the most watched ever", but subsequently clarified that he was referring not only to live attendees at the ceremony or those watching on TV, but also viewers who watched the inauguration online.[6]

As is, this is inherently POV. The choice of words ("criticized for making false claims", "he also claimed") gives an impression of intentional deception on Spicer's part - a stance which is not universally accepted. This is a complex matter, with a wide variety of opinions and analysis available. There is not enough room in the lead to present all sides of this event fairly, so a short, neutral mention should be used in its place. -- Netoholic @ 05:13, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It need not be universally accepted. It is, however, the dominant mainstream view. SPECIFICO  talk  05:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The discussion about what is or is not "mainstream" is what is at hand. Certainly, some editors may exist within certain news bubbles which skew their view of what is "mainstream". Or job is to play it safe until history and good sense prevail enough to provide us a more objective view of the situation, rather than punditry. -- Netoholic @  06:01, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

That's not how it works on Wikipedia. We report what reliable sources say, and they overwhelmingly say that Spicer made false claims. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:13, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe this is a problem of English language usage. "Making false claims" is semantically similar to saying he deliberately lied. That is not a mainstream  viewpoint (only one of the cited refs says anything like "false claims").  What is mainstream is that he gave inaccurate details - which he has acknowledged in later press briefings. This is why the current wording in the lead is POV - it gives the false impression of malice, when it reality it was just error. -- Netoholic @  10:40, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * He accused the press of stating falsehoods, then he made assertions that were easily proved as false, and then he ran from the press room so he wouldn't have to take questions.
 * Spicer's false statements are significant relative to his career, based on the extensive coverage in reliable sources. As such, WP:NPOV requires that we apply WP:DUEWEIGHT, including summarizing the material in the lead.- MrX 13:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * By saying "then he ran from the press room so he wouldn't have to take questions", I think you're exposing a personal bias which will interfere with your ability to look into this issue objectively. You may find a half-dozen or even more sources which use some form of the words "false claim", but what goes unseen here are the vast majority of sources which do not use those words. Essentially, I believe you're cherry-picking to find reports which use specific phrasing which you want to see used in this article. I don't blame you, its damn hard to avoid that and there are so many sources out there its hard to even read them all. This is why we need to strive to be very NPOV, both because this is a BLP, but also because it is such a fresh event that we don't have a strong level of expert analysis of it all. The list of news sources you used is full of agenda-driven punditry.  We need to make preferential use of analysis like USA Today's Jan 24th fact check as they become available - which are more dispassionate and have the benefit of more information.  Articles from Jan 20-22 should be suspect. -- Netoholic @  06:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Spicer's false statements are significant relative to his career, based on the extensive coverage in reliable sources. As such, WP:NPOV requires that we apply WP:DUEWEIGHT, including summarizing the material in the lead.- MrX 13:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * By saying "then he ran from the press room so he wouldn't have to take questions", I think you're exposing a personal bias which will interfere with your ability to look into this issue objectively. You may find a half-dozen or even more sources which use some form of the words "false claim", but what goes unseen here are the vast majority of sources which do not use those words. Essentially, I believe you're cherry-picking to find reports which use specific phrasing which you want to see used in this article. I don't blame you, its damn hard to avoid that and there are so many sources out there its hard to even read them all. This is why we need to strive to be very NPOV, both because this is a BLP, but also because it is such a fresh event that we don't have a strong level of expert analysis of it all. The list of news sources you used is full of agenda-driven punditry.  We need to make preferential use of analysis like USA Today's Jan 24th fact check as they become available - which are more dispassionate and have the benefit of more information.  Articles from Jan 20-22 should be suspect. -- Netoholic @  06:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Spicer's false statements are significant relative to his career, based on the extensive coverage in reliable sources. As such, WP:NPOV requires that we apply WP:DUEWEIGHT, including summarizing the material in the lead.- MrX 13:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * By saying "then he ran from the press room so he wouldn't have to take questions", I think you're exposing a personal bias which will interfere with your ability to look into this issue objectively. You may find a half-dozen or even more sources which use some form of the words "false claim", but what goes unseen here are the vast majority of sources which do not use those words. Essentially, I believe you're cherry-picking to find reports which use specific phrasing which you want to see used in this article. I don't blame you, its damn hard to avoid that and there are so many sources out there its hard to even read them all. This is why we need to strive to be very NPOV, both because this is a BLP, but also because it is such a fresh event that we don't have a strong level of expert analysis of it all. The list of news sources you used is full of agenda-driven punditry.  We need to make preferential use of analysis like USA Today's Jan 24th fact check as they become available - which are more dispassionate and have the benefit of more information.  Articles from Jan 20-22 should be suspect. -- Netoholic @  06:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Spicer's false statements are significant relative to his career, based on the extensive coverage in reliable sources. As such, WP:NPOV requires that we apply WP:DUEWEIGHT, including summarizing the material in the lead.- MrX 13:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * By saying "then he ran from the press room so he wouldn't have to take questions", I think you're exposing a personal bias which will interfere with your ability to look into this issue objectively. You may find a half-dozen or even more sources which use some form of the words "false claim", but what goes unseen here are the vast majority of sources which do not use those words. Essentially, I believe you're cherry-picking to find reports which use specific phrasing which you want to see used in this article. I don't blame you, its damn hard to avoid that and there are so many sources out there its hard to even read them all. This is why we need to strive to be very NPOV, both because this is a BLP, but also because it is such a fresh event that we don't have a strong level of expert analysis of it all. The list of news sources you used is full of agenda-driven punditry.  We need to make preferential use of analysis like USA Today's Jan 24th fact check as they become available - which are more dispassionate and have the benefit of more information.  Articles from Jan 20-22 should be suspect. -- Netoholic @  06:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * By saying "then he ran from the press room so he wouldn't have to take questions", I think you're exposing a personal bias which will interfere with your ability to look into this issue objectively. You may find a half-dozen or even more sources which use some form of the words "false claim", but what goes unseen here are the vast majority of sources which do not use those words. Essentially, I believe you're cherry-picking to find reports which use specific phrasing which you want to see used in this article. I don't blame you, its damn hard to avoid that and there are so many sources out there its hard to even read them all. This is why we need to strive to be very NPOV, both because this is a BLP, but also because it is such a fresh event that we don't have a strong level of expert analysis of it all. The list of news sources you used is full of agenda-driven punditry.  We need to make preferential use of analysis like USA Today's Jan 24th fact check as they become available - which are more dispassionate and have the benefit of more information.  Articles from Jan 20-22 should be suspect. -- Netoholic @  06:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Most -- overwhelming majority -- of RS state that Spicer lied. Some also call him a liar, but that personal characterization is arguably UNDUE, at least at the present time. SPECIFICO talk  14:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * USA Today is pretty low on the totem pole of US mainstream journalism. There is no BLP issue with citing the mainstream reporting that Spicer lied, and current WP consensus suports the most recent edit by . It should not be changed unless a future talk thread demonstrates a change in consensus. I see no need for further discussion of this matter.  SPECIFICO  talk  19:08, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Consensus is not so clear-cut. I see 5 recent editors (,, , , and myself) that have edited to remove of the mention from the lead. I see 5 recent editors defending the current POV version (SPECIFICO, , , , and ). A fair consensus compromise to me seems leaving in a mention, but diffusing it into a non-judgemental version which can be neutral. Keep in mind the topic is how or if this deserves mention in the lead, NOT whether it should be removed from the article in total. -- Netoholic @  21:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC) (corrected)
 * Thanks for the ping. To make my position clear, I do not find any POV problem with our article. I agree with others here that "made false statements" is fully justified and reflects the overwhelming consensus of Reliable Sources. I did say, and still think, that this should not be in the lede - not even in a watered-down version which seems to be what Netoholic means by "non-judgmental". The press conference belongs in the text, where it is already covered in detail. --MelanieN (talk) 21:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

false vs alternative fact
The definition of false is Based on factually incorrect premises, but this is not the case. It is merely that Spicer was using an unorthodox meaning, which was misinterpreted that he later clarified. This is proven by the reliable sources as shown. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 09:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * My uncle is a crocodile. I'm using an unorthodox definition, he's actually an accountant.  SPECIFICO  talk  02:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That is not an unorthodox definition, but a completely irrelevant one. If you wanted to combine marine life forms and the finance industry you could have said "My uncle is a shark. I'm using an unorthodox definition, he's actually an money lender." In this statement the fact that he is a shark is not false, but it does not specify that he is not of the marine lifeform known as a shark but instead he is a loan shark. Same here Spicer was living in the 21st Century and trying to brag about Trump instead of making historical comparisons. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Two people attempt to answer the question "What was the weather yesterday?" Person A answers "At noon the temperature was 65 F and humidity was at 95%." Person B answers "At noon the wind was blowing at 45MPH and it was raining at 1"/hour." These are two distinct sets of true information - aka "alternative facts". One might draw different conclusions when you listen to only person A or person B, and ignoring one set of facts or the other does a disservice to the question at hand. -- Netoholic @  04:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Try to stay on topic next time. SPECIFICO  talk  05:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Talking about your uncle is on topic? -- Netoholic @ 06:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand this, but it does not mean that the fact was false. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I reverted the change in the sentence about attendance numbers. The dispute about numbers watching the ceremony, which Spicer later clarified, is in the next sentence, not the one I reverted. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Note A somewhat related discussion is taking place at Talk:Alternative facts. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Birth date
Surprisingly, it's hard to find a reliable source to confirm his exact birth date. Wikipedia disallows wikia like IMDb, user-generated sites like blogs, non-RS tabloids, and places which, like Metro, just copied down what the previous, uncited Wikipedia claim gave. Per the policy for biographies of living persons, we need a highly RS journalistic / reference citation. I know a date pops up at the top of a Google search, but that date is completely unattributed and who knows where it came from. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you knew when the birth date was added? I only added this to my watchlist recently so I am not sure, but if someone has this information we could use a Google search with only results before the addition of the uncited claim. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * That's a great idea — I didn't know it was possible to Google by cut-off dates. How is it done?


 * An anon IP added the uncited birth date on Dec. 22, 2016, here.


 * Thanks, Emir! --Tenebrae (talk) 23:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * There's an article by The Sun that lists his DOB as September 23, 1971 in Barrington, Rhode Island, USA. Thoughts on using this as a source? --Kbabej (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I did see that, but The Sun is a notorious tabloid and not a reliable source. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * here is the search with the cutoff date. I have not been able to find a reliable source though. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Wow, that is great! I didn't know you could do that. Thanks! --Tenebrae (talk) 20:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

SNL
There is certainly no lack of sources (good ones) on this, but my personal opinion is that since he´s only "been" on SNL once so far, it´s not necessary to have it in this article (yet), it fits better in Saturday Night Live parodies of Donald Trump. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:04, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok, that´s twice. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Birth date
An edit-warring redlink editor, User:Howiebraunstein, has been restoring an uncited, unverified, unfootnoted claim of birth date in violation of WP:BLP. Moreover, he is deliberately placing the uncited claim within a cited passage to make it seem as if it were cited. I have warned him about edit-warring and encourage other editors to watch the page to prevent further such violations. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Alternative facts
Hi,. I didn't want to change anything without conferring with you first, since I know you're a very conscientious editor. "Alternative facts" has a Wiki article, so I think linking to it would be valid, first of all, but that's a technical and I think non-controversial issue. More significantly, since the Alternative facts article defines the term as "false statements" or "falsehoods," I'm unclear about this edit. I'm just wondering if you could clarify. Thanks as always for being a good and collegial colleague. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If you had seen the talkpage and archives of the article for article facts you have seen that I have been discussing that they are not in fact false statements or falsehoods but deceptive and misinterpreted. I am still trying to get the consensus to understand, but I do understand the confusion. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Okey-doke. I'll leave the text itself to you and other editors, though restoring the Wikilink seems uncontroversial. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Birthplace?
A correction at the end of this New York Times story indicates that Spicer was not born in Rhode Island, though he was raised there. Are we accepting Heavy.com as a reliable source? Cullen328  Let's discuss it  00:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * There's actually a bunch of different media sources saying he was born in Barrington (the Sun, the Metro), and the Providence Journal called him a "Barrington native," though perhaps they were speaking loosely. I think it has to go, given Spicer's apparent claim to the contrary. john k (talk) 01:12, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I posted the information from his birth announcement in the Newport Daily News yesterday. It reads in full:
 * SPICER - Sept. 23, 1971, at North Shore Hospital in Manhasset, Long Island, a son to Mr. and mrs. Michael Spicer (Kathryn Grossman) of 8 Third Ave., Port Washington, Long Island, N.Y., and grandson to Mr. and Mrs. Henry Spicer of 12 Killburn Court, Newport.
 * Because the media fascination is with Spicer's birthplace, the article should refer to Port Washington, and probably his delivery in Manhasset as well, to preempt any accusations of inaccuracy.Trumpetrep (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

"When asked by the press to provide information about his birthplace, he has declined to do so." Wouldn't it be better to say: "Spicer has not told the media, when asked, where he was born."? "Information about his birthplace" makes it sound like the media want to know how many people live there, or what the main industries are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.2.34.156 (talk) 14:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I've removed that sentence since it's WP:INDISCRIMINATE trivia. We have his contemporaneous birth announcement — end of story. Entertainment celebrities often are cagy about their birth dates, and we don't have similar sentences in their article.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

"Alternative facts"
Hi all! I just wanted to make it clear here that the "scare quotes" in the lede around "alternative facts" are not that, but actually what I just did there, which is normal quotes, which go around a word that is being treated as a word and not an object. I just wanted to make that absolutely clear here since I see that this is a contentious topic and that this might look like scare quotes. Far from it, in fact, I merely want to denote the fact that what is important is the labeling. Kakurokuna (talk) 08:22, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Can someone add in a section on Sean Spicer's outburst in Apple Store in New York....March 2017
Can someone add in a section on Sean Spicer's racist outburst in Apple Store in New York....March 2017

In his defense he was called a facist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.224.32.138 (talk) 17:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Could you add in some links to articles from reliable sources and we can decide whether the incident was notable enough. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 17:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Not even close to being notable enough for a WP:BLP. Here is a link. Bahooka (talk) 18:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


 * It's not notable enough unless the situation develops further.  Laurel Wreath of Victors ‖ Speak 💬 ‖  16:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

No. "Racist outburst" is a wild exaggeration. From the LA Times video, it is clear that he did a remarkable job of staying cool and smiling while an aggressive questioner accused him of being a criminal and having committed treason. --MelanieN (talk) 14:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2017
This is all citing liberal media news sources. Spicer accused press of timing images and not altering images. This should be non-partisan and not liberal:

On January 21, 2017, the day after the inauguration and two days before his first official press conference, Spicer made a statement to the press in which he was highly critical of the media, saying they had underestimated the size of the crowds for President Trump's inaugural ceremony. He claimed that the ceremony had drawn the "largest audience to ever to witness an inauguration, period – both in person and around the globe." But as many sources immediately pointed out, that claim was false.[36][37] Spicer falsely accused the press of altering images of the event to minimize the size of the crowds.[7] He said floor coverings over the grass were to blame for a visual effect that made the audience look smaller, and stated they had never been used before despite the fact that they had been used in 2013 for the preceding second inauguration of Barack Obama.[38][39] He also used incorrect figures to claim that Metro ridership was higher during Trump's inauguration than during Obama's, when in fact it was lower than either of Obama's inaugurations.[40] Spicer took no questions after his statement.[36] Later, Spicer defended his previous statements by saying "sometimes we can disagree with the facts".[41] It was subsequently reported that Spicer had made the statement on direct orders from Trump, who was furious at what he considered unfair press coverage of his inauguration.[42] 73.153.213.104 (talk) 16:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Your request that this project not use "liberal media news sources" because we should use "non-partisan and not liberal" sources is itself a partisan request. See reliable sources. ❌ X4n6 (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

Survey

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


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


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


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


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


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


 * Edit down from lead. A single controversial press conference deserves one sentence, not 1/2 of the entire lead. Stikkyy</b> (talk) (contributions) 05:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - this isn't recentism, it's what he's most known for and it's not a "single controversial news conference" - they all have pretty much been controversial and this is the one that set the tone.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:43, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Marek - wrong.  Read it -- this is about his first news conference, then what Kellyanne said about it, then presenting a POV analysis of its being wrong.  What's not given is a reason why the one news conference is select over four or five other such flaps, or how most of it has much to do re his life.  Just saying that it runs on about the Alternative facts story beyond his involvement.  Markbassett (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep but re-write This is Mr. Spicer's main claim to fame, but I think this wording is over-long and veers off-topic a bit. I would simply state, "In his first appearance as press secretary he insistently presented false claims about the size of the crowd at President Trump's inauguration. These subsequently led to widespread disparagement and ridicule of him."  The details needn't go in the lede, Kellyanne, Melissa McCarthy, and SS' wardrobe.  Those belong in the body of the article, but 10 years from now, the initial performance and reception could well be the only thing anyone remembers or cares about Mr. Spicer.  SPECIFICO  talk  14:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Edit down drastically This is similar to Vice President Dan Quayle and his potato(e) challenge: an exciting, notable, flash of a moment that, when considered in the context of a career, will loose much of its significance.Horst59 (talk) 16:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This is quite dissimilar to Quayle. Quayle's job was to preside over the Senate, which doesn't require good spelling.  Spicer is Minister of Information and he promoted misinformation. These don't seem commensurate to me.   SPECIFICO  talk  19:42, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, but I think he's right that time will show how notable that incident really is in the broader context of history. If it snowballs any further I would suggest that we expand the lede section about the way he does his job and the flack he's taken for it, but for now I don't think it's warranted. Kakurokuna (talk) 20:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Define "If it snowballs any further?" Objectively, it already has. That's exactly why the sentences are justified. Because the tone set by the provably false statements that began his tenure, persists today. So the relevance is because this illustrates the ongoing pattern of unproven and/or already disproved statements, not just that lone incidence. If that was all there was, my vote would be different. But under the circumstances, that's what swayed my "Keep" vote - and almost moved it to "Strong Keep." X4n6 (talk) 04:44, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Cut down to a mere phrase or at most, sentence. That level of detail is entirely inappropriate for a lead - he will soon have plenty of press conferences for the press to bitch about, and focusing on just one in such detail in the lead is silly. Paraphrase the situation not by individual event, but by overall impact. Yvarta (talk) 18:28, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Edit but cut down I'm with SPECIFICO and Yvarta. It's very notable, but the level of detail is inappropriate for a lead and veers off-topic at times. However, if the issues continue to mount (as they likely will), I'd support an entire (but small) bit in the lede on his misinformation and criticism. Kakurokuna (talk) 20:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is what has been Spicer notable in his two months in the position, and this gets extensive coverage in the main body of the article. I could also agree to a trimmed version, such as the one provided by SPECIFICO. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep It could be shortened/tightened, but until Spicer's life unfolds a bit more and his body of work expands with other noteworthy events, this, for the time being, is what he is most known for. Kerdooskis (talk) 16:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Very notable information. Might need rewriting to include the bare facts with no interpretation. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, although a broader summary of Spicer's credibility problems would be more appropriate. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 16:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Exclude Per markbassett. Lead is quite fine as is. L3X1 (distant write)  14:47, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep In case my opinion as a non-American is of any interest, this so far has been the defining aspect of Spicer's career that I've noticed in non-American media. --NoGhost (talk)
 * Keep but trim. Relevant and DUE, however, a little wordy. BlueSalix (talk) 03:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion
As I said previously, the conference is the thing Spicer is most known for, and indeed most of the references on this page refer to it. If that changes then maybe it should removed, but for the minute I think it should stay. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Angelina Jolie is arguably "most known for" adopting children and marrying Brad Pitt, not her movies, but yet her lead only mentions the children briefly - because even if one aspect of a person's life 'seems' most important at the time, if that is not all they are known for and there is press of other aspects, then all those factors should be paraphrased briefly in the lead. Yvarta (talk) 18:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that's not a very good example, but I get your point. But the point still stands: a good portion of the sources explicitly refer to the incident and the level of controversy he's garnered is highly unusual for the position. You're right though, the controversies ought to be mentioned, but only briefly in the lede and expanded upon in a "controversy" section or something of the sort. Kakurokuna (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2017
This is all citing liberal media news sources. Spicer accused press of timing images and not altering images. This should be non-partisan and not liberal:

On January 21, 2017, the day after the inauguration and two days before his first official press conference, Spicer made a statement to the press in which he was highly critical of the media, saying they had underestimated the size of the crowds for President Trump's inaugural ceremony. He claimed that the ceremony had drawn the "largest audience to ever to witness an inauguration, period – both in person and around the globe." But as many sources immediately pointed out, that claim was false.[36][37] Spicer falsely accused the press of altering images of the event to minimize the size of the crowds.[7] He said floor coverings over the grass were to blame for a visual effect that made the audience look smaller, and stated they had never been used before despite the fact that they had been used in 2013 for the preceding second inauguration of Barack Obama.[38][39] He also used incorrect figures to claim that Metro ridership was higher during Trump's inauguration than during Obama's, when in fact it was lower than either of Obama's inaugurations.[40] Spicer took no questions after his statement.[36] Later, Spicer defended his previous statements by saying "sometimes we can disagree with the facts".[41] It was subsequently reported that Spicer had made the statement on direct orders from Trump, who was furious at what he considered unfair press coverage of his inauguration.[42] 73.153.213.104 (talk) 16:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Your request that this project not use "liberal media news sources" because we should use "non-partisan and not liberal" sources is itself a partisan request. See reliable sources. ❌ X4n6 (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:OR and WP:UNDUE
I removed the following, its clearly original research and also very POV. '' House press secretary Sean Spicer said that Donald Trump's inauguration was the most viewed in history, but that claim is unsubstantiated. '' Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You actually did not remove that, but rather the following sentence: "However, no conclusive figures are available for online viewers, and so such a claim cannot be substantiated." It is not original research if the sources state that, and there were indeed reliable sources cited for the sentence. Concerning POV against Spicer, removing information on how the claim is unsubstantiated, I would argue, is itself POV in favor of Spicer. AndrewOne (talk) 03:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This bio reads like an attack article. It starts off by calling Spicer a liar when he is just the messenger from Trump.  I am amazed that folks treat this bio as different from others where such content is not allowed. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:44, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Couldn't disagree more. The article accurately reflects reliably sourced content in a neutral manner. That is what it is supposed to do. Please review WP:BLPSTYLE. Also the article is about the subject - not his boss. But if you still feel strongly that it is just an attack page, per WP:ATTACK, you may nominate it for speedy deletion. But given the high profile subject and the ever-growing volume of material, I wouldn't expect that effort to garner very much support. X4n6 (talk) 22:38, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see the RfC above and participate there to share your concerns. SPECIFICO  talk  22:50, 2 April 2017 (UTC)


 * +1 for @AndrewOne . Photo comparisons like this one are unambiguous. --Neun-x (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)