Talk:Sean Spicer

Proposed merge of Alternative facts into Sean Spicer

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was not merged. There is consensus that the phrase "alternative facts" is independent from Sean Spicer and that it is notable in its own right. Surachit (talk) 07:12, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

---

Should this be standalone article. It is simply information from Spicer's term as Press Secretary. Michael-Moates (talk) 05:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Comment. Michael-Moates, a merger discussion can take place without launching an RfC. I suggest you close this RfC since I see no indication that it is necessary at this stage. The ordinary WP:MERGEPROP procedure is sufficient to discuss this merge. JBchrch talk 11:08, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. Alternative facts have been subject to broad coverage, independently from Sean Spicer himself. See also WP:PAGEDECIDE, whose criteria are not favoring a merge. JBchrch talk 14:47, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per JBchrch. ~ HAL333 18:23, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
• Please see WP:RFCNOT and follow the directions at WP:MERGE. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:53, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose merge (Summoned by bot.) I support the opinions above, per WP:PAGEDECIDE, WP:RFCNOT, WP:MERGE. Lindenfall (talk) 21:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose merge. "Alternative facts" has taken on a life of its own, and it wasn't even Spicer who coined the phrase; it was Kellyanne Conway. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose merge. Summoned by bot. Per MelanieN, it wasn't originated by Spicer and it likely is notable on its own. Chris vLS (talk) 18:43, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose merge. Per opinions above: subject is notable on its own and has been subject to broad independent coverage. RickMorais (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Chronology of Spicer's Life Needs Rearranging

Throughout the article, there are many instances--too many to cite--in which milestones from Spicer's life are mentioned out of chronological order. This problem makes it very difficult even for a reader with above-average comprehension ability to develop a consistent chronological narrative. It would be very helpful if your editor(s) would review the entire page and make edits to improve the article's chronology. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.85.24 (talk) 21:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Unexplained reversion

@Billmckern recently undid an edit of mine with the comment "there you go...". That's not an appropriate edit comment and somewhat condescending/dismissive to me. I stand by the reasoning I provided. To be clear, I think the claim being made that I deleted is possibly true (i.e. the news companies all rejected him for that reason), but I don't think the sourcing has adequate support or wording per WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 04:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Also if there's an assumption that the claim offends me because I like Spicer, that couldn't be further from the truth. I'm pretty strongly left leaning and dislike Spicer. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 04:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I used "there you go" to indicate that I added more references for the relevant passage. Spicer wasn't offered the opportunity to become a paid contributor on any of the major networks because he lacks credibility. Several sources verify this. It's comparable to the Ronna McDaniel situation, except that first an outlet did want to hire her, but then had to backtrack. I added citations about Spicer's credibility as additional references to support the claim. That's all. Billmckern (talk) 11:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that you had added those sources in that edit; I misinterpreted the situation. I'm still skeptical of having anonymous tipoffs be suitable for a WP:BLP, but as long as that's clarified inline I think it's fine. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 12:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)