text:
Negro National League (1933–1948)

The second Negro National League was one of the several Negro leagues that were established during the period in the United States when organized baseball was segregated. The league was founded in 1933 by businessman Gus Greenlee of Pittsburgh.

League history
The second Negro National League was established in 1933 by Gus Greenlee, an African-American businessman of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, two years after the first Negro National League had disbanded, after the start of the Great Depression. The second Negro National League lasted until 1948, the year after Major League Baseball integrated. After that, its surviving teams merged into the Negro American League.

To distinguish between the two Negro National Leagues, they are usually referred to as the first Negro National League (NNL I) and the second Negro National League (NNL II).

Negro National League franchises

 * ''Annual final standings: 1933, 1934, 1935, 1936, 1937, 1938, 1939, 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943, 1944, 1945, 1946, 1947, 1948

 * Baltimore Black Sox (I) (1933)
 * Brooklyn Royal Giants (1933)
 * Cole's American Giants (1933–1935)
 * Columbus Blue Birds / Akron Black Tyrites / Cleveland Giants (1933) – moved during season
 * Indianapolis ABC's (II) / Detroit Stars (II) (1933) – moved to Detroit in April
 * Nashville Elite Giants (1933–1934) / Columbus Elite Giants (1935) / Washington Elite Giants (1936–1937) / Baltimore Elite Giants (1938–1948)
 * Pittsburgh Crawfords (1933–1938)
 * Philadelphia Bacharach Giants (1934)
 * Cleveland Red Sox (1934)
 * Baltimore Black Sox (II) (1934)
 * (Washington) Homestead Grays (1934–1948)
 * †Newark Dodgers (1934–1935) / Newark Eagles (1936–1948)
 * Philadelphia Stars (1934–1948)
 * †Brooklyn Eagles (1935)
 * New York Cubans (1935–1936; 1939–1948)
 * New York Black Yankees (1936–1948)
 * Washington Black Senators (1938)

†The Brooklyn Eagles and Newark Dodgers merged to form the Newark Eagles in 1936.

Member timeline

 * 1933: Formation of the second Negro National League, consisting of 7 teams — Baltimore Black Sox, Cole's American Giants, Columbus Blue Birds, Indianapolis ABCs (II) (moved to Detroit in April), Homestead Grays, Nashville Elite Giants and Pittsburgh Crawfords; Homestead was expelled early in the season for raiding Detroit's roster, Columbus was replaced mid-season by the Akron Black Tyrites who were then replaced by the Cleveland Giants.
 * 1934: Dropped Cleveland Giants, Detroit Stars, Baltimore Black Sox (I); Added Philadelphia Bacharach Giants, Cleveland Red Sox, Philadelphia Stars and Baltimore Black Sox (II); Retained Homestead Grays as an associate team.
 * 1935: Dropped Philadelphia Bacharach Giants, Baltimore Black Sox (II) and Cleveland Red Sox; Added Brooklyn Eagles, Homestead Grays, New York Cubans and Newark Dodgers.
 * 1936: Dropped Cole's American Giants; Brooklyn and Newark merged.
 * 1937: Dropped New York Cubans; Added New York Black Yankees.
 * 1938: Added Washington Black Senators.
 * 1939: Dropped Pittsburgh Crawfords and Washington Black Senators; Re-added New York Cubans.
 * 1948: League disbanded after completion of season; All teams continued on with Baltimore, Philadelphia, Newark and New York Cubans joining the Negro American League for the 1949 season, while the Grays and Black Yankees playing independent of a league.

Pennant winners
From 1937 and 1938, 1940, and 1942 through 1946, the team in first place at the end of the season was declared the pennant winner (league champion). Due to the unorthodox nature of the schedule (and little incentive to enforce it), some teams frequently played many more games than others did in any given season. In 1933, Cole's Chicago American Giants claimed the first half title, but the Pittsburgh Crawfords won the second half and had an overall better record. The following year saw the Stars have a better winning percentage that saw them compete against the third place Chicago team despite the fact Pittsburgh played (and won) more games. This led to some disputed championships and two teams claiming the title. Generally, the team with the best winning percentage (with some minimum number of games played) was awarded the pennant, but other times it was the team with the most victories. The "games behind" method of recording standings was uncommon in most black leagues.

† – Pennant was decided via a split-season schedule with the winner of the first half of the season playing the winner of the second half of the season.

* – Pennant was decided via a 2-round play-off between the top four teams.

‡ – Pennant winner went on to play in the Negro World Series.

League play-offs
On five occasions, the League held a postseason series to determine the pennant champion.

1933 would have been the first to match the first and second half champions, but the Pittsburgh Crawfords were instead awarded the pennant over the first half champion Chicago American Giants. 1936 had an array of games that may or may not have been formal postseason games. For example, the Washington Elite Giants won the first half after beating the Philadelphia Stars 7–5 in a one-game match on September 17. Pittsburgh (who had a better record overall) faced the Newark Eagles from September 12–15 and won 3–1–1 in either a second-half playoff or a regular series-turned-playoff. Washington and Pittsburgh played three games from September 21–27, but no box scores exist for the games (which Washington won two of three) in a series that was evidently abandoned.

In one year (1939), the top four teams (Homestead Grays, Newark Eagles, Baltimore Elite Giants, Philadelphia Stars) were matched together in a best-of-five tournament. The Grays beat the Stars in five games while the Elite Giants beat the Eagles in four games to set up the Championship Series. The New York Cubans won the second half of the 1947 season but advanced to the Negro World Series over the Newark Eagles (first half champions). 1948 ended prematurely after a controversial finish to a disputed tie game in the third game.

Negro World Series
For the duration of the league, a Negro World Series took place seven times, from 1942 through 1948. The Negro National League's pennant winner met the champion of the rival Negro American League. Five out of the seven years, the Negro National League team (below in bold) prevailed.

 * 1942 – Kansas City Monarchs beat Washington Homestead Grays, 4 games to 0 games
 * 1943 – Washington Homestead Grays beat Birmingham Black Barons, 4 games to 3 games
 * 1944 – Washington Homestead Grays beat Birmingham Black Barons, 4 games to 1 game
 * 1945 – Cleveland Buckeyes beat Washington Homestead Grays, 4 games to 0 games
 * 1946 – Newark Eagles beat Kansas City Monarchs, 4 games to 3 games
 * 1947 – New York Cubans beat Cleveland Buckeyes, 4 games to 1 game
 * 1948 – Washington Homestead Grays beat Birmingham Black Barons, 4 games to 1 game

title: Negro National League (1933–1948)


text:
User talk:Tothebarricades.tk

 * User talk:Tothebarricades.tk/Archive 1
 * User talk:Tothebarricades.tk/Archive 2

DYK nomination of Saint Mary's College Gaels men's basketball
Hello! Your submission of Saint Mary's College Gaels men's basketball at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 23:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Saint Mary's College Gaels men's basketball
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 12:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Dan Potthast

The article Dan Potthast has been proposed for deletion  because of the following concern:
 * No evidence of notability. No sources cited, despite tagging for 2 years and 9 months. No significant independent coverage found on searching.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Anarchism in Spain Fascism Snake.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Anarchism in Spain Fascism Snake.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Chris Crass for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chris Crass is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Chris Crass & until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Asleep (The Smiths song)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Asleep (The Smiths song) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Inanygivenhole (talk) 20:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Men, Women & Children

A tag has been placed on Men, Women & Children requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Retartist (talk) 07:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I notice that this has been dropped; please refrain from frivolous speedy deletion nominations, it's a waste of everyone's time. I do not think that any band that has released music commercially is non-notable. WP:NOT paper.Tothebarricades (talk) 21:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the snappy tone, I mean no personal offense. I've just returned to serious editing of Wikipedia after a long absence and am just a bit annoyed by some of the changes I've noticed in the culture, an apparent rise in the influence of what used to be derided as "deletionism" being the peeve here. Tothebarricades (talk) 22:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eugenio Martín, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Spanish and José Gómez (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Confessions of an Opium Eater, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bootleg (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited National Front (UK), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Front (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

December 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=583983784 your edit] to Thomas FitzGerald, 10th Earl of Kildare may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 ""s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * his men misunderstood his order, given in Irish, to "take this fellow away" as an order to kill.) citationneeded  By this time his father had taken ill and died in London, and he had technically succeeded as

A page you started (Two Tactics of Social Democracy in the Social Revolution) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Two Tactics of Social Democracy in the Social Revolution, Tothebarricades.tk!

Wikipedia editor Wieno just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"I see in your creation summary you said you were cooking up a full article. Do you have anything in userspace you might want to add yet?"

To reply, leave a comment on Wieno's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

 * Sorry, I've been preoccupied with a lot of other stuff - I don't have anything drafted, no. Tothebarricades (talk) 23:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jessica Lurie, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mike Clark (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sanzhi UFO houses, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page German (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

(Shari'a) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect (Shari&. Since you had some involvement with the (Shari'a) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - TheChampionMan1234 23:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dark Journey (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dutch. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Perspectives on Anarchist Theory for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Perspectives on Anarchist Theory is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Perspectives on Anarchist Theory until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. The Dissident Aggressor 21:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Concerns regarding FA quality
I've just tidied up The Long and Winding Road a little, and removed some unsourced trivia. The article doesn't appear to me as either FA or GA quality in terms of coverage, prose, and MoS requirements - it was promoted in 2006, and reviewed again in 2008, and hasn't been well maintained. I will not have the time to tidy up the article or take my concerns further, however it seems appropriate to raise those concerns rather than merely pass on by, so, per the stage one process at Featured article review I have left a note on the article talkpage, and am notifying relevant Projects and those previously involved in promoting the article. It is unlikely I will be getting involved further.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  16:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Spectrum Group International

The article Spectrum Group International has been proposed for deletion  because of the following concern:
 * The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (companies) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back. Thank you,

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on |the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Cursive
A long time ago you started the stub on Cursive (band). After years of procrastinating, I finally got around to expanding it. I thought you might be interested in looking it over and editing as needed. Happy editing to you. Keegan (talk) 08:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't been a great fan of their last 3 records, so my judgments would be quite out of date. Looks good, though! Tothebarricades (talk) 10:24, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Recipes for disaster cover.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Recipes for disaster cover.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Jon Kolbert (talk) 15:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Anarchist People of Color for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Anarchist People of Color is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Anarchist People of Color until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:07, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Zegota (band) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Zegota (band) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Zegota (band) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. czar 15:19, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Asociación Internacional de los Trabajadores) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Asociación Internacional de los Trabajadores). Since you had some involvement with the Asociación Internacional de los Trabajadores) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Thryduulf (talk) 14:05, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Cntfaiflag.jpg

The file File:Cntfaiflag.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious encyclopedic use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Anarchists rescuing Jews
Did you find anything yet? — (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 15:43, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Memory trace listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Memory trace. Since you had some involvement with the Memory trace redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:27, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of All Lights Fucked on the Hairy Amp Drooling for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article All Lights Fucked on the Hairy Amp Drooling is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/All Lights Fucked on the Hairy Amp Drooling& until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. RF23 (talk) 20:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:All lights fucked on the hairy amp drooling.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:All lights fucked on the hairy amp drooling.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Emcee Lynx for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Emcee Lynx is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Emcee Lynx until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ə XPLICIT 07:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Spectrum Group International

Hello, Tothebarricades.tk. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Spectrum Group International".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Institute for Social Ecology for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Institute for Social Ecology is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Institute for Social Ecology until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Lithopsian (talk) 14:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

"Psychological addiction" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Psychological_addiction&redirect=no Psychological addiction] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Hildeoc (talk) 05:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:Tothebarricades.tk


text:
Talk:White House Press Secretary

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

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

 * From what I've read it appears that Stephanopoulos wasn't actually the official WH Press Secretary. I guess there could be some unofficial nod towards the fact that he did the job for more than half a year, but he was never appointed to the position.  To me it seems like he is more of a footnote in WHPS History. CRobey 23:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes, at no point was Mr. Stephanopoulos the WHPS but essentially usurped the duties of WHPS while remaining officially the WH Communications Director. Carter kalchik 03:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 July 2017
Sean Spicer quit today and the new press secretary is Sarah Huckabee Sanders. Please update the page. 74.96.190.246 (talk) 01:45, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: WP:TOOSOON jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 02:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Spicer/Sanders
I see literally nothing in either of those sources that states the resignation was effective immediately. You have nothing to say that he is serving in any other capacity than in the roles he held. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Why are you not only edit-warring, but being obtuse in the process? Trying reading Spicer's own article. X4n6 (talk) X4n6 (talk) 01:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

 * What does Spicer own article have to do with anything? It's not only not a RS in and of itself, but supports me nonetheless. He is still serving as Press Secretary and Communications Director, as is specifically state in the direct quote I've referenced. You not providing a contrasting direct quote to dispute the facts I've brought is being obtuse. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:17, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

 * So you're either don't know that Spicer has held more than one position in the WH communications department - which you would know if you had read his article - or you don't know and just don't care. Just as you seem incapable of understanding either of the 2 separate sources I provided - one being the New York Times, the other being Newsweek. The first heading says "Sean Spicer Resigns as White House Press Secretary." The other says: "Meet Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Trump's New Press Secretary..." One article was just released TODAY! So do I also need to explain the meaning of obtuse to you, or do you get it now? Seriously, you're being disruptive and for no good reason. As a veteran here, you know better. X4n6 (talk) 01:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, following your own argument, Spicer's tweet only says he's staying on at the WH until August. It does not saying he's staying on in the capacity of press secretary. Because he is not. X4n6 (talk) 01:32, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

 * Neither of those indicate in any way that Sanders has assumed the role. Honestly, someone who's appointed to a role being referred to as "new" means almost nothing. Spicer has said, "I will continue my service through August." and you're splitting hairs to interpret that to mean only for Comms and not Press without any evidence. You said your sources "clearly state dates of tenure". They don't. To argue "Oh, he's staying on but not as the roles he's been in" is genuinely ludicrous extrapolation. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

 * Spicer is also still at the official Press Secretary Twitter while Sanders is still described on her official Twitter as "Principal Deputy Press Secretary". Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

 * Your argument flies in the face of the most recent reliable sources and the only "genuinely ludicrous extrapolation" here is yours. But I'll make this "easy." Kindly find RS(s) that specifically say Spicer is staying on as press secretary until August. Then post them here to discuss. For good measure, also please find and provide current RS(s) that say Huckabee is not the current press secretary. Because without those - there is no substance to support your arguments.

 * By the way, sorry, but the fact that members of that admin have not updated their Twitter handles - in the 2 whole weekend days since this change broke - is hardly the rock-solid proof in support of your position, that you seem to think it is. I'm guessing, even for them, Twitter handles weren't the most important things to immediately address. No doubt they'll get to it soon enough. You just may want to check again later this week. X4n6 (talk) 01:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

 * If you're going to be a total asshole, here's this. Kindly find me RS(s) that specifically say Spicer is not staying on as press secretary until August. For good measure, also please find and provide current RS(s) that say Huckabee is the current press secretary. Because without those - there is no substance to support your arguments. :) Therequiembellishere (talk) 02:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

 * Ahh, so in other words, because you know you can't prove up your bullshit, you childishly result to all you have left: another pathetic ad hominem attack? Ok, got it. Yeah, we're so done here. Go be a disruptive troll someplace else. I'm no longer feeding you.

 * But good luck with your RfC. I'll look forward to editors reviewing your "arguments" and behavior here. X4n6 (talk) 02:19, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

 * You made little if any effort to provide solid evidence or not be a dick. So thanks for your input. Therequiembellishere (talk) 02:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

 * You're also the only one using the word "argument" so good cherry-picking your quotes, there. Therequiembellishere (talk) 02:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

 * Do not ping me again, troll. Grow up. X4n6 (talk) 02:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

 * Provide a better source than two articles saying the word "new". Therequiembellishere (talk) 02:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

RfC
Has Spicer's resignation as Press Secretary taken effect with Sanders succeeding him from July 21? Therequiembellishere (talk) 02:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm confused, is this a request for knowledge on the sources, or a discussion about a content dispute about sources already known, that needs additional editorial input? RfCs are generally meant for situations more akin to the latter than the former; other resources exist for requesting assistance with sources.  But since I'm here, and in case it is the former you need assistance with, the story covering Spicer's resignation that I read on the BBC's new site yesterday quoted him as saying that he would "serve" (presumably in the same role) through August.  But I think it also quoted Anthony Scaramucci as saying that something to the effect that the deputy press sectary replacing Spicer was being promoted to Press Secretary immediately.

 * So I guess they are not being too hung up on the title and one can only speculate as to the break up of duties during the transition. You'll want to double check that source (and others) yourself, but that is the situation as I understand it.  As to how to represent that in the article (I see there is a table, for example) I think it shouldn't be too hard (or out of place) to note the above details; footnotes can always be added to the table, if felt necessary, but this is obviously not the first sudden departure of a white house press secretary in the history of the position, and I presume that the habit of editors on this page has been to use the "official" date, whatever criteria seems to best fit that description.  S n o w  let's rap 06:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

 * Having read the entire discussion of the thread above now, it's clear you're looking for third community opinions. But you really should flesh out your RfC inquiries a little more in the future; I give you points for neutrality in how you presented the question here, but it's helpful to respondents to have a little more context on the sources, content and arguments in question.  Or at least a less ambiguous question.  All of that said, as to how to proceed and who has the right end of the stick between you two, I direct you again to the second paragraph of my first post. In short, soem common sense and consensus on what the official date of transfer of duties was, and if you can't iron that out between you, consider using additional statements and/or footnotes to add in the nuance explicitly for the reader.  S n o w  let's rap 06:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

 * Oh, also, can the two of you please turn down the heat a little in the discussion of this iiiincredibly minor difference in content? "Assholes" and "bullshit" (aside from making less than charming rhetorical companions) aren't going to bridge the gap in opinion here, nor resolve the issue in any other way. And are, in any event, rather WP:Disruptive.  I hope with the RfC running and consensus likely to arise, you two can keep commentary restricted to the content, sources, and policies and away from eachother's character and quality?

 * One last point: the woman's last name is Huckabee Sanders, not Sanders.  S n o w  let's rap 06:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Snow Rise, surely you understand that "Bullshit" was a content-related response. "Asshole" was a personal attack. Beyond that, I think the content discussion speaks for itself. There's nothing more I need to say here.

 * Also, Huckabee is her maiden name. Sanders is her married name. Just like Hillary Rodham Clinton. But her surname is not necessarily Huckabee Sanders. Just as some sources referenced either Rodham Clinton or Clinton. X4n6 (talk) 07:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

 * Yes, my intention was to seek a third opinion, although I'm always confused between WP:3O and WP:RfC, and so wasn't sure where to post this. My previous experience with 3Os has been some extremely inexperienced editors who are eager to participate but perhaps don't quite understand the dispute, and thought the RfC watch community might be of a more experienced level. Regarding any potential breakthrough between the two of us, that seemed unlikely even before this was launched, so intervening perspectives will probably be the best way forward. Therequiembellishere (talk) 07:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

 * Not quite sure how best to rephrase the RfC statement. Thoughts? Therequiembellishere (talk) 07:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

 * Knowing the background better now, I think RfC is fine; the difference between RfC and 3O is really just a matter of scale, really, and RfC is better when the distance in the two original perspectives is significant. As to how to clarify/augment the opening inquiry, I'd point out again that what you did most right was to keep the question neutral and straightforward; preserve that approach, and simply add a little more detail (a few sentences total will suffice) on the arguments of X4n6 and yourself, doing your best to present their outlook accurately and not downplay it.  A couple of links to the sources which provide the crux of the difference of opinion between you (with regard to how to represent them) would also be especially helpful to respondents.

 * As to Huckabee Sanders' surname, I see no indication in any source that she has ever chosen to use "Sanders" as her professional name. She was Huckabee up until her marriage and seems to have consistently WP:IDENTIFIED as Huckabee Sanders since, with the sources respectfully following suit. (Correction: there is a source used for her BLP that uses "Sanders", vs. 25 that use "Huckabeen Sanders").   S n o w  let's rap 08:07, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

 * Here's a variant of the piece I mentioned before, in case it is any use to you two in ironing this out: .  S n o w  let's rap 08:30, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

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

 * http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4722510/Huckabee-Sanders-Trump-sign-Russia-sanctions-bill.html

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

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

Washington Post
 * https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/07/23/anthony-scaramucci-said-he-wants-sarah-sanders-to-continue-to-use-the-hair-and-makeup-person/?utm_term=.f25bfaff7faf

Newsweek
 * http://www.newsweek.com/sarah-huckabee-sanders-profile-press-secretary-640738

USA Today
 * https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/07/22/sarah-huckabee-sanders-white-house-spotlight/502276001/

Fox News
 * http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/07/23/sarah-huckabee-sanders-mainstream-media-attacks-double-standard

New York Times
 * https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/21/us/politics/sean-spicer-resigns-as-white-house-press-secretary.html

CNN
 * http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/23/politics/russia-sanctions-donald-trump/index.html

The Hill
 * http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/343353-huckabee-sanders-white-house-backs-russia-sanctions-legislation

Washington Post
 * https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-new-team-offers-muddled-messages-on-sanctions-pardons/2017/07/23/fd5baae0-6fc2-11e7-8839-ec48ec4cae25_story.html?utm_term=.1b2882406beb

Politico
 * http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/18/white-house-press-briefing-off-camera-audio-only-highlights-240680

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

 * As to the side issue of Sarah Huckabee Sanders' last name, almost every source I can find for her demonstrates the name we are using in her BLP and elsewhere on the project; it's not an issue of WP:LANGVAR in any significant sense; it's just a matter of how she chooses to WP:IDENTIFY and (even more importantly) what the sources seem to use in the vast majority of cases. Confusingly, even in the majority of the articles you just listed above (with the claim that they support "Sanders") actually use "Huckabee Sanders" (you can even see it in a number of the URLS themselves...).  Meanwhile, as I pointed out above for Therequiembellishere, of the 26 sources used in her BLP, 25 refer to her as "Huckabee Sanders".  She has further been referenced by the White House in all official statements that I have seen reported as "Huckabee Sanders".  I think you need to scrutinize the sourcing more closely, because it's pretty clear that she has adopted Huckabee Sanders as her public name, not defaulted to Sanders merely because she was married, and has been referenced in professional circles and in the overwhelming majority of media by that name.  British or American, women are not obligated to assume their husbands' last names, and we shouldn't assume that they must have--especially when even the most basic review of the WP:WEIGHT of the sources show that she clearly has not.  And this isn't even a borderline WP:COMMONNAME case; it's about as WP:SNOW as these determinations get.

 * But back to the nominal matter of the RfC. If you'll pardon my saying so, I really think you two have let the tension of your unfortunate exchange prevent you both from seeing a large range of possible middle ground solutions here.  Having looked through the sources you provided (and a few others besides), I would say that neither position can be WP:Verified with certainty at this time.  Unfortunately, this is just another example of an instance where internal jockeying, power politics, and general chaos inside the Trump administration have made an administrative detail inscrutible to the outside world, even those who are closely (or even professionally) following the story.  What is usually done in cases such as this is that we do not draw assumptions one way or the other, but rather report on what we can verify/source, and then do our best to also explain what the sources leave as undetermined, without taking up too much space.  The reader can then come to their own conclusion, if they are so inclined.

 * I suggest you two flesh out wording that WP:attributes the actual statements made by sources: Spicer is departing, but is staying on to assist with the transition; Huckabee Sanders has been "appointed" as the next press secretary. As I see it, neither one of you can make it 100% towards proving your basic supposition here without some degree of conjecture, and each of you is taking aim at the other's speculation while given a bit of a free pass to your own.  So, avoid doing that (which is always advisable, even when there is no content dispute).  Say exactly what the sources say, attributing heavily (indeed quote the sources directly as much as you can without making the prose become tortured).  Until a more on-point source becomes available, the most useful and honest thing we can do for our readers is make clear where the gaps in knowledge are amongst the sources (careful not to dip into WP:SYNTHESIS in doing this though).  For the time being there doesn't seem to be a source saying either A) Sean Spicer is no longer press secretary in any official sense, nor that B) Sean Spicer may still be press secretary, despite the announcement regarding Huckabee Sanders. So don't say either of those things.  S n o w  let's rap 12:17, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input, Snow. You've obviously put some thought and work into this. So have I. So I feel comfortable in saying two things and then being done with it: 1) While some have called her Huckabee Sanders, her name is not hyphenated and most current RS just say Sanders. I used the Rodham Clinton example earlier. Everyone eventually settled on Clinton. I expect everyone will eventually settle on Sanders. 2) No where is anyone still calling Spicer the press sec. But everywhere, everyone is calling her the press sec. Certainly, no one anywhere is calling either of them "co-press secs." Hence: The End. All the remaining Sturm und Drang to the contrary has no basis in fact. X4n6 (talk) 22:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * X4n6, you keep saying that most sources call her "Sanders", but it's beginning to feel a little like you are making this assertion repeatedly without really looking at the sources you are calling reference to. You just listed nine sources above with the claim that they proved she is going by "Sanders" but even the majority of these sources (that you hand-picked yourself) actually call her "Huckabee Sanders" ! (You can just look at the URLs for four of those sources if you're not going to take the time to open them before presenting them as evidence here..) 25 out of 26 of the sources cited in her BLP refer to her as "Huckabee Sanders". Every reference I could find that was made by one of her administration colleagues has her referenced as "Huckabee Sanders", which is clearly how she WP:IDENTIFIES.

 * You evidently have an impression that she is being called Sanders, and I'm beginning to feel it is based on a general assumption. But whether that is true or not, on this project we go with the WP:WEIGHT of the available WP:RELIABLE SOURCES.  You can say you have perceived that "most" sources call her Sanders, but any content decisions made on this page and the related BLP will be based on the reliable sources that have actually been employed in our articles (or otherwise presented directly for scrutiny by our editors), not those which are said to exist, in vague assertions.  And more than 97% of the sources we are currently using say "Huckabee Sanders".   And I'm not sure why you think it is relevant to keep bringing up Hillary Clinton; we're talking about a completely different woman and how sources describe her.  This is a simple matter of WP:COMMONNAME and the sources for Huckabee Sanders, as an encyclopedic topic, not Clinton, nor anyone else.

 * As to the issue of how to present Spicer, I've already given you my suggestion on how you two can get past that deadlock, and that approach will work fine with regard to the concerns you raise in your latest post. Just don't say anything that you can't source to an affirmative (that is non-WP:SYNTH) statement in a reliable source.  You both sort of want to do that (or at least, you are presenting arguments here which definitely constitute synthesis).  So if you just both avoid that, you will find a happy middle ground.  If it helps you guys to hear it in the form of an !vote:

 * I support you mentioning that Huckabee Sanders is now press secretary and Therequiembellishere including mention that Spicer still works for the administration, because both of those things can be easily sourced with the references we have at this time.

 * I oppose either of you making the statement in Wikipedia's voice to the effect that "Sean Spicer's official position in the administration is/is not X." Where X is anything.  Because we do not have sources (since the shake-up) making any statements that support any variation of that statement.  Both of you have made detailed arguments for why you think the sources, taken together, "prove" that Spicer is or is not the Press Secretary still, but all of that is WP:synthesis, which is not allowed to influence content on this project.  Hammer out a compromise version that avoids any assertion which can not be directly attributed to a source, without speculation, and then wait for more sources.

 * I hope that helps, because I really can't be much clearer on what I think are the very limited options that policy leaves you with here, in both cases.  S n o w  let's rap 05:55, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

 * It appears that you haven't actually read any of the articles I provided. Because all you keep talking about is URLs. Please read the articles, as I did, before commenting again. Not one of them calls her Huckabee Sanders within the article. As for your other comments, I'm beginning to think you're actually muddying the waters, more than helping. My position has always been very simple: Sanders is the lone, new press secretary, as of last Friday; and at the moment, Spicer remains in the administration, in some capacity, until August. Those are well-documented, multiple-sourced facts. Kindly refrain from appearing to attribute any other positions, beyond those, to me. X4n6 (talk) 06:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

 * Uhhhhhh. Wow. no. Patent falsehood. I opened each and every one of those sources. Here's the first line from each:

 * : "Anthony Scaramucci had nothing but glowing praise for new White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders  when he made the rounds on morning shows on Sunday."

 * : "On Friday afternoon, newly appointed White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders  walked to the lectern in the West Wing’s briefing room and calmly began to talk about “Made in America” Week."

 * : "The mainstream media displayed what some see as a double standard on criticizing women after Sarah Huckabee Sanders  was promoted to White House Press Secretary last week."

 * : "The new White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders  was nine years old when she worked her first political campaign: her father’s bid for a U.S. Senate seat in Arkansas."

 * : "Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, resigned Friday after telling President Trump he vehemently disagreed with his appointment of Anthony Scaramucci, a New York financier, as his new communications director. Mr. Spicer’s top deputy, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, will serve as press secretary instead."

 * : "A day after congressional negotiators announced an agreement on a Russian sanctions bill, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders  said the administration was also on board."

 * : "New White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders  said Sunday the administration supports congressional sanctions against Russia."

 * : "Trump’s top communication aides set out to try to present a united front two days after the president added New York financier Anthony Scaramucci as communications director and promoted Sarah Huckabee Sanders  to press secretary after Sean Spicer resigned unexpectedly."

 * : "The White House reeled on Tuesday from the sudden collapse of the Senate’s push to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, and President Donald Trump acknowledged he was "very disappointed" with the latest blow to his stalled legislative agenda. Principal deputy press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders  addressed reporters off camera Tuesday afternoon at the White House as Republicans on Capitol Hill scrambled to map the path forward."

 * Every one of your sources uses "Huckabee Sanders", as it turns out. I really try hard to stretch myself and always WP:AGF on this project, but viewing your repeated claims above, it's a matter of simple deductive reality that only one of two things can be going on here: A) you are making claims about what sources supposedly say without truly scrutinizing them, and then sticking by those claims when caught, even going so far as to accuse other parties of being the ones who didn't read them, or B) You are intentionally misrepresenting the sources.  Both, by the way, are considered WP:Disruptive behaviours.  Do you want to walk back your claims a bit here, given any editor can just follow any one of those links to judge for themselves whether you are representing them truthfully?

 * As to the claim you want to push against Therequiembellishere that "Sanders is the lone, new press secretary, as of last Friday", please supply me with a reliable source that makes that exact claim (i.e. without the need for WP:synthesis or any kind of WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH) and I will happily support it going into the article immediately. Otherwise, you have to wait until you do have a source, if you want that exact claim included. But I think you continue to be so preoccupied with winning this argument with Requiem that you are not even focusing on ways to present the content which address most of your concerns without dipping into synthesis, which is not allowed.  S n o w  let's rap 07:00, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

 * It's become clearer with each of your posts that you're either seriously missing the point, or simply pretending. Because if you don't understand the difference between the surname "Huckabee Sanders" and the full name "Sarah Huckabee Sanders," then there's really no point in trying to explain it to you. Likewise, if you can find any current and reliable source that still calls Spicer the WH press sec, then post it here. Otherwise, accept that sources call Sanders the press sec, as of last Friday. That ain't synthesis or disruption. That's just fact. But since you're hurling accusations now, we're done. X4n6 (talk) 07:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

 * This is getting repetitive. I don't need a source because I'm not one of the parties trying to add one of two mutually exclusive claims to the article. I'm neither for your unsourced assertion, nor Requiem's unsourced assertion.  I'm an uninvolved third party trying to tell you that you can't add a disputed claim unless you can directly source that exact claim to a single source, without formulating arguments based on conclusions you drew from studying the sources collectively (which is the very definition of what WP:synthesis means on this project).  In all of the sources that have been presented here so far, there is not a single one that I have seen which says what Sean Spicer's official position is now.  So neither of you should be speculating.  Or speculate all you want, but don't expect it to go into an article in Wikipedia's voice.  Just say that Huckabee Sanders is the Press Secretary and then add (in prose or a footnote, as context suggests) that Spicer is still working for the administration in an unspecified capacity during a period that has been described by the administration as a "transition".  Completely avoid the issue of whether Spicer is in fact press secretary.  It's irrelevant to the content at this point, as neither of you has the right source to assert whether he is or isn't, without recourse to synthesis.  And if you two give it a few days, that may change, one way or another.   S n o w  let's rap 09:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

 * And for what it's worth, if the Trump administration ever does make a statement to clarify the matter, I doubt it will be to say that Spicer is still a co-Press Secretary, through August. That would surprise me very much.  But that's not the point.  We can't put words in the mouths of our sources, secondary or primary, no matter the confidence we have in our deductions.  S n o w  let's rap 10:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

 * Summoned by bot to this malformed, ridiculous RfC. The purpose of an RfC is to resolve disputes not to ask the community for help in researching a factual issue. Please close out this RfC. Coretheapple (talk) 13:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, this article should be in line with the Sean Spicer and Sarah Huckabee Sanders articles. GoodDay (talk) 01:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC) 2) Agree with Snow Rise that 'the statement in Wikipedia's voice to the effect that "Sean Spicer's official position in the administration is/is not X. would be original research, at this exact point of sourcing, though this could probably be resolved with more digging. The obvious workaround in the interim is to state that Spicer had this title as of [date] and that Huckabee Sanders has this title as of [later date]. 3) Agree with Snow Rise that sources commonly use "Huckabee Sanders" as her surname (and no, that is not a Briticism, it's common American practice for married women who had careers before marriage).  There is no issue at all with WP referring to her by that name, and it's clearer than just "Sanders", which in the context of recent US presidential politics usually refers to someone else entirely. 4) Agree with everyone that this was a malformed RfC.  Please read WP:RFC before using this process again. It wastes a lot of other editors' time to have to wade through bad RfCs to try to figure out what is actually being asked of the community. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:36, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Agree with X4n6 that the sources definitely do not indicate two White House Press Secretaries at once, and that Huckabee Sanders has the title now.

RfC approach

 * , I actually made the same assumption when arriving at this thread (also summoned by bot), because of how Therequiembellishere framed the RfC question, but it seems that the request he was making was not for sources, but rather for third opinions on the sources that have been found so far. He and another editor are in fact having a content dispute about what the sources say (you can see the details in the thread immediately above this one).

 * Now, I don't know what spurned this disagreement, because the subject (Sean Spicer and Sarah Huckabee Sanders and whether both of them can be regarded as Press Secretary during the transition) is presently only relevant to a couple of lines in a table on this particular article. But they both feel very passionately about it; so much so that X4n6 took Therequiembellishere to ANI, where they were promptly told this was a content dispute and to settle this via standard DR processes, hence the RfC.  My opinion as the only respondent other than yourself so far, is that they were actually both trying to WP:SYNTH their (diametrically opposed) assumptions into the article and should wait for more sources before trying to assert that "Sean Spicer may still be Press Secretary/Sean Spicer definitely is not Press Secretary.", neither of which statement is sourceable without synthesis at this time.

 * Arguably, you are still correct, and the RfC should be closed. If one of the parties wishes to re-open it with a proper inquiry consistent with WP:RfC, they could then do so, but it seems that the two have backed off the disagreement for now, and I think closing the RfC and waiting for new sourcing is probably the best way to go, especially considering how minor a difference it really makes to this article's content.  S n o w  let's rap 21:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

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

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

 * Are you serious? Why don't you actually try reading the entire guideline YOU cite? Because WP:TPO very clearly says: "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page... Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection."

 * Now don't you look foolish. But also, since you're busy hurling around WP:3RR accusations - I seriously advise that you actually read it. Because the edit log clearly shows your four edits. You've been nothing but a misinformed pedant and persistent disruption here. Your nitpicking over this nonsense is just the latest proof of that. And to make matters worse, you're wrong on the very policies you're quoting. So first, you need to apologize. Then you need to stop your nonsense immediately. Finally, if you can't collaboratively and reasonably work with other editors here, perhaps you need to absent yourself from further discussions - before you find yourself reported. X4n6 (talk) 00:25, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

 * No... I reverted TWICE (the other two edits were me adding a qualifier to my topic header in an effort to try to address your concerns. and then removing it when you continued to edit war over the matter anyway. Completely unrelated edits that did not WP:revert any change you made and thus are completely irrelevant to the reversion issue--but nice try). And apparently you have not read all of WP:TPO (editing the comments of other editors), the section of WP:TPG that I have directed you to three times, because it clearly allows for the creation of new sections in precisely this context.  Nothing I did changed the meaning of Core's comments in the slightest, via context or otherwise.  Which is why I was happy to let him know that I made the change.  As I noted in the edit summaries, I have known Core for years and never would refactor his comments in a way that changes their meaning (as indeed, I would not do to any editor). You, on the other hand, have continued to edit war, suggesting you are doing it for his benefit, but never actually checking with him to see what his perspective is, as I did.  Which to my mind, suggests you should reconsider what your actual motives are here.

 * So no, I don't think I look especially foolish, but I'm happy to see what other community members think when they too arrive at this thread and see what has been going on here.  S n o w  let's rap 00:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sigh... There's no real point in wasting more time arguing your nonsense. It's just giving you more attention, which you appear to crave. Just as you seem to lack the ability to acknowledge that you're wrong, both in behavior and on policy. This is just textbook WP:IDHT and WP:TE. So I'm done with you. I too will leave it to others to go down the rabbit hole of engaging you on your behavior. But, as I'm sure you will, feel free to have the LASTWORD. X4n6 (talk) 01:09, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

 * First off, that rhetorical trick of saying "I bet you're going to insist on the last word, but I don't care, because I'm a bigger person" is itself the most obvious way in the world to get the de facto "last word", and that ploy has convinced exactly zero people in the history of human interaction.

 * But I digress. As to the substantive issue of your claim that I have been "disruptive" or "tendentious", you might consider that I am only here as the result of an RfC that resulted from your dispute with another editor. I'm not the party who has gotten in two separate personal disputes with as many editors, over as many days, on one talk page.  That's you.  I'm not the editor who has edit warred on both the article and the talk page to get their way (including on the article while a consensus discussion is taking place, which is not allowed).  That's you.  I'm not the editor with a history of community blocks over recent years for exactly the behaviour of edit warring.  That again, is you.  Just some things you might consider before you throw WP:TE at the next editor who arrives here and dares to disagree with you; you might give some thought as to the common denominator of these disputes.  S n o w  let's rap 02:51, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

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

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

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on White House Press Secretary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090708144551/http://www.clintonpresidentialcenter.org/archives/ to http://www.clintonpresidentialcenter.org/archives/

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

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

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Stephaniegrisham.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Official Portrait of Jen Psaki.jpg

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

title: Talk:White House Press Secretary


text:
User talk:Djl1

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * If you haven't already, please add your name to the new user log to let others know a little about yourself.
 * Read the article describing how to edit a page and feel free to experiment in the Sandbox.
 * When editing pages, use the preview button before submitting and try to fill in the summary box for every edit.
 * Eventually, read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk or ask me on my talk page.
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck! Jrdioko

P.S. One last helpful hint. To sign your posts like I did above (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~ (4 tildes).

title: User talk:Djl1


text:
User talk:Viruzzo

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * If you haven't already, please add your name to the new user log to let others know a little about yourself.
 * Read the article describing how to edit a page and feel free to experiment in the Sandbox.
 * When editing pages, use the preview button before submitting and try to fill in the summary box for every edit.
 * Eventually, read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk or ask me on my talk page.
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck! Jrdioko

P.S. One last helpful hint. To sign your posts like I did above (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~ (4 tildes).

title: User talk:Viruzzo