Talk:White House Communications Director

Merge

 * Strong Agree in support of the merge Qmax 22:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Also strong agree with the merge, I created the original Assistant page and the only real difference/distinction is title which can be reflected in the new page Carter kalchik 13:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

History
Where is the history? Right now this article is barely more than a stub. Who have been the major holders of this position, and how are they remembered? At the very list, the article should link to some list somewhere. -96.237.1.100 (talk) 23:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Pay attention
Would people please stop repeatedly replacing Spicer's name with Huckabee's? He's in the role still until August and she's still Deputy until that time. Her own page gets this correct. Tomalak Geret&#39;kal (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that's absolutely wrong - and that's why it's been replaced. Spicer resigned as PS and was replaced by Huckabee in that role on the same day. But he had planned to remain in the WH, in some unspecified capacity, until August. That's what all the sources say, so that's what all the relevant articles now reflect. X4n6 (talk) 22:53, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Mooch: 10 days?
Wasn't Mooch's term supposed to officially start on the 15th of next month?

So wouldn't that be 0 days? Or even -15 days? Or maybe it should say (acting)?TricksterWolf (talk) 22:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, it can be, and has been, argued that Mr. Scaramucci began his position the day he was named — even if he unofficially took the reins of the Press Office on the 25th — and, thus, his tenure as the WHCD ended on the 31st. Javert2113 (talk) 00:01, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Just saw a -16 days figure here. This is actually a pretty serious issue -- has anyone been paying attention to which definition is used for all the older office holders? If they are consistent, then we have to do Scaramucci the same way, even if it means taking him out of the table entirely. If they are not consistent, then that's a problem, and it might even be time to give up the huge table format entirely. Wnt (talk) 11:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I think 10 days is the right figure; here's a brief set of sources supporting the 10 day figure -
 * The Guardian
 * NY Magazine
 * Business Insider
 * Rolling Stone
 * Fortune
 * NPR
 * There does seem to be some disagreement among the sources. Here's a couple that say 11 days;
 * Washington Post
 * Politico
 * Let's keep it at 10 days unless a discussion takes us elsewhere. NickCT (talk) 12:33, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * PS - It seems everyone agrees on the start and end dates. It's just that some sources are counting inclusively while others are counting exclusively. Given the Wikipedia Template:Age in years and days counts exclusively, I guess we should just do that? Though actually, I'm a little surprised the template does count exclusively. Time is usually inclusive. Maybe that's a discussion for the template page..... NickCT (talk) 19:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That template is based on peoples ages isn't it where it it is more common to count exclusively, but in others situations isn't it more common to count inclusively? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

The durations should just be removed. Most lists of officeholders don't include durations, and their presence here and at White House Press Secretary seems to serve no purpose other than to highlight the high rate of turnover in the Trump White House. Toohool (talk) 05:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * My experience has been that most officeholder lists do include date ranges. They've been included in this article since individual directors' names were added to it in November 2009. —ADavidB 10:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to the "term duration" column, not the dates. It was added two weeks ago. Toohool (talk) 17:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit request: Term durations in table.
Jennifer Palmieri's term, having begun in January 2013, and ended in April 2015, was in office for a period greater than two years, and not one year, 355 days, as the table claims. Could someone fix this? 2606:A000:1219:4037:EC26:5B45:F229:C16F (talk) 03:50, 1 August 2017 (UTC)


 * This has been corrected. Thanks.  —ADavidB 04:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Merge with "Strategic Communications"
This article should absorb White House Director of Strategic Communications -- This is a completely fictional job with no real responsibilities. The title was created solely as a resume-builder for Hope Hicks, when she leaves the role it will cease to exist. At best this role should be referenced on the merged page as a stupid curiosity about different ways this corrupt administration wasted government funds on completely unqualified sycophants and built the most dysfunctional Comms operation in the history of the Presidency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.132.212.103 (talk) 01:22, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Bill Shine
The White House today announced the following: "President Donald J. Trump announced today that Bill Shine will join the White House staff. Mr. Shine will serve as Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff for Communications. He brings over two decades of television programming, communications, and management experience to the role. Previously, Mr. Shine served as Co-President of Fox News Channel and Fox Business Network."

- The White House

Though some may see the title of "Assistant to the President [...] for Communications" as being the de jure White House Communications Director, I would beg to differ.

The Wall Street Journal, in its article about the appointment, notes that "[Shine] will oversee the White House communications office, but won’t take the title of communications director, a job that has been vacant since March." The Washington Post concurs in its article, stating that Shine joins as "deputy chief of staff for communications"; knowing the Post, if Shine was Communications Director, the folks there would say so explicitly. As of 18:53 UTC, on July 5, The New York Times has not released an article, but in its earlier coverage, it notes that Shine is "is expected to be offered the job of White House communications director", but the Associated Press and its sources noted that "Shine will be joining the Trump administration as deputy chief of staff for communications".

Absent definitive word from either the White House or the NYT/AP/WaPo/WSJ that Shine is joining, explicitly, as "White House Communications Director", I would like to argue that his name should not be included in the interim. (Because he's obviously going to be the de facto Director.) &mdash;Javert2113 (Siarad.&#124;&#164;) 18:56, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Update: from the NYT article: "Mr. Shine’s title is also assistant to the president, though his other duties remain unclear." As such, he is (most likely) the de facto Director, but not the de jure one. &mdash;Javert2113 (Siarad.&#124;&#164;) 22:24, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Striking all of the above, in light of other sources, including the BBC noting that Shine is, in effect, WHCD. &mdash;Javert2113 (Siarad.&#124;&#164;) 22:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC)