Talk:Sarah Huckabee Sanders/Archive 1

Archive 1

Not related to Bernie Sanders?

Is it really necessary to say this???--Jack Upland (talk) 08:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

No, and she is not related to Colonel Sanders either. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:42, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 July 2017

Change "Her standing in for Spicer occurred during the dismissal of James Comey and the controversy following it" in the section Trump Administration to "She stood in for Spicer during the dismissal of James Comey and the controversy following it." 173.79.156.207 (talk) 21:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 03:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Photo

Someone always change the photo from the original photo with the pink shirt where Huckabee Sanders looks fine, to the one with the red shirt where she doesn't looks good. Like someone do it intentionally to make her look bad. The photo with pink shirt appear in all foreign Wikipedia versions. And it should appear in Huckabee Sanders article and in White House Press Secretary article. Instead of removing the edits that replaced the photo to the red shirt photo, User:X4n6 removed my edits. I want to know what is your opinion so I will be able to bring back the original photo. --Ronen7668 (talk) 08:49, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

• @Ronen7668: Several other editors have also replaced the photo that you keep trying to reinsert. Frankly, the one you prefer is just a bad screenshot and looks much worse. Makes her look dumb, dumpy, frumpy and unprofessional. Likely why most ppl keep replacing it. At least in this one, as with the photos of past press secretaries, she is seen doing her job and calling on someone for a question. Not just standing there cluelessly. But this is all temporary anyway. When she or the White House releases an official photo, we'll likely just use that anyway. X4n6 (talk) 09:00, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

+1 The photo of Ronen7668 is awkward and bad. "dumb, dumpy, frumpy and unprofessional" is a perfect discription. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 04:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

You mean if they release one. If they haven't released one for the President and Vice President will they really release one for Sarah Huckabee Sanders. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 09:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the laugh. You must have seen this. But ours is not to reason why...

However, I will note that we don't seem to have the same options that we had with Spicer. I took his Twitter photo early on, replacing a personal headshot, without a issue. But none of her three(?) verified accounts: 1, 2, 3, provide us with a worthy infobox option. X4n6 (talk) 10:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Sad about the fact she has three accounts and has failed to provide a worthy option. The only thing I can think of is if someone closely looks at the public domain footage and takes a screenshot. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

What about this one, from the PressSec twitter account? Looks ok to me and it should be public domain as the work of a federal employee. --Cerebellum (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Emir of Wikipedia, X4n6, Ronen7668: thoughts? --Cerebellum (talk) 14:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

The one from the Twitter account seems alright to me. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:52, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Done. --Cerebellum (talk) 01:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, all of the official White House videos on YouTube are presumably in the Public Domain, as filmed by an employee of the U. S. Government, despite the "Standard YouTube License" some may be displayed under (see e.g. File:5-5-17- White House Press Briefing.webm), and I think it would be worthwhile if someone wanted to peruse the Press Briefings to find a high quality screen shot with a formal composition and pleasant expression. I'm sure one even better than the current one can be found. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 12 December 2017

Closer's note:

Because the "actual period" of this RM debate was a little less than six days, there is no prejudice toward a new RM fairly soon in order to garner consensus for the highest and best title for this article.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  00:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. After 24 days, (actually much less than that total open time) the consensus has grown to leave this article at its present title. Happy New Year to All! (closed by page mover)  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  01:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

---

Sarah Huckabee Sanders → Sarah Sanders – Per WP:COMMONNAME. Both her official and personal Twitter accounts refer to her as Sarah Sanders, as well as the official White House website. In addition, a variety of media sites CNNFoxWashington ExaminerThe Boston Globe, among others, refer to her as simply Sarah Sanders and not as Sarah Huckabee Sanders. Look at the recent Hillary Clinton request move as an example of why Sarah Huckabee Sanders should be moved to Sarah Sanders. CookieMonster755 𝚨-𝛀 03:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Google News: 746,000 hits for Huckabee Sanders, 346,000 hits for Sanders. Ribbet32 (talk) 05:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Just a suggestion when you are talking about the American press secretary you might use Google.com insteatd of Google.ca for Canada. The facts you have stated are innaccurate according to Google News in the US. Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Never heard her referred to as anything else. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose for Pete's sake. Slightlymad 14:55, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME; the evidence provided by Ribbet32 shows that Sarah Sanders (87,300 hits) is actually more common that Sarah Huckerbee Sanders (45,200 hits)! Number 57 20:25, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME; the evidence provided by Ribbet32 shows that Sarah Sanders (87,300 hits) is actually more common that Sarah Huckerbee Sanders (45,200 hits)! Also, Google News in the United States shows Sarah Sanders to be more popular. Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 20:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
• Billhpike, Chetsford, Markbassett, and Azzurroribbon (talk · contribs) Would like your input. Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 23:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
• No Opinion I think both the Oppose and Support sides have valid and reasonable points. She self-refers as "Sarah Sanders" and this appears to produce more Google hits as well. On the other hand, a search on Google News, specifically, for "Sarah Sanders" (no quotes) seems to show a slight preference among media for including "Huckabee" on the first reference. Chetsford (talk) 00:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support The media only used her maiden name to provide segue to mention her relationship with her father. Now that she is more prominent than her father, the media has stopped highlighting her family background, and with it, stopped using her maiden name. Billhpike (talk) 01:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
• Neutral: No strong opinion from me. (Though when there's no consensus, or a consensus that neither really outweighs the other, the status quo should be the default.) Google tries to second-guess what you mean anymore, which leads to illogical results, like this from U.S. Google in an incognito mode browser window:
  1. All "Sarah Huckabee Sanders" (with quotes): About 2,130,000 results (0.43 seconds), which should only include that exact phrase
  2. All Sarah Huckabee Sanders (without quotes): About 596,000 results (0.43 seconds), even though it ought to include everything result #1 has and more, like things with "Sarah Sanders" and then her dad's name "Huckabee" elsewhere on the page
  3. All "Sarah Sanders" (with quotes): About 677,000 results (0.50 seconds), which should only include that exact phrase without "Huckabee" in the middle
  4. All Sarah Sanders (without quotes): About 40,700,000 results (0.50 seconds), which in theory includes both pages with and without "Huckabee" in the middle
  5. All "Sarah Huckabee Sanders" "Sarah Sanders": About 295,000 results (0.48 seconds), in theory where both versions of the name appear in the same page
  6. News "Sarah Huckabee Sanders": About 129,000 results (0.39 seconds)
  7. News Sarah Huckabee Sanders: About 168,000 results (0.48 seconds)
  8. News "Sarah Sanders": About 189,000 results (0.23 seconds)
  9. News Sarah Sanders: About 698,000 results (0.43 seconds)
  10. News "Sarah Huckabee Sanders" "Sarah Sanders": About 6,650 results (0.28 seconds)
  11. All "Sarah Huckabee Sanders" site:whitehouse.gov: 10 results (0.34 seconds)
  12. All "Sarah Sanders" site:whitehouse.gov: About 108 results (0.36 seconds)

Even more reason why plain search-page WP:GOOGLEHITS isn't that good of a test. For what it's worth, Google Trends for 3 versions of the name shows a comparison for number of search attempts (not number of results), and it appears that for web searches on the phrases, more people search (regardless of quote marks) for "Sarah Huckabee" in North America and "Sarah Sanders" elsewhere; strangely, for news searches on the phrases, more people search for "Sarah Sanders" in North America and Australia, but "Sarah Huckabee" in the UK and bunch of other countries, and in Iran and Sweden they tie. --Closeapple (talk) 08:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 22:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. The network I watch always uses her middle/maiden name.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 01:36, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Sara Sanders is more common per Google trends [1] Billhpike (talk) 08:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

  Once you add quotation marks, you get the opposite result: [2]. "Sarah Huckabee Sanders" is a more common search term than "Sarah Sanders". —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Support "Sarah Huckabee Sanders". About Ghits etc, they will always prefer the shorter versions as the longer version is only used in introduction, shorter versions thereafter. News sources are also not useful, because as someone in continuously in the news cycle, she is rarely re-introduced. So I looked to what looked from the current article to be the main quality introductory sources. These were refs 3, 5, 7, and 26. These strongly support SHS over SS, and more so if noting that SS is used after first mentioning her father explicitly as "Mike Huckabee", which largely removes the need to repeat her maiden name. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Seems most every news article one clicks on says "Sarah Huckabee Sanders" under a photo caption, then the fill name again in the body of the text. It is the common name that many news sources use. ValarianB (talk) 15:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. I've always heard her called "Sarah Huckabee Sanders", never "Sarah Sanders". The Google hit counts are probably affected by mentions of other people with similar names; after all, "Sarah" and "Sanders" are both very common names. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support: Her verified Twitter account and the official Whitehouse website use the name "Sarah Sanders". jamacfarlane (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Sarah Huckabee Sanders" is most recognized. Bus stop (talk) 20:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. While the White House press briefing cite and, especially, the use of "Sarah Sanders" as Twitter handle are strong arguments in favor of the shorter name, the longer name does appear to be predominant. However, if on the basis of the president's twitter handle, we obtain consensus to move the main title header of his article to Donald J. Trump, I would support the move of Sarah Huckabee Sanders to Sarah Sanders. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 22:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

References

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Principal Deputy Press Secretary

The position was established but nowhere online does it refer to Lindsay Walters as Principal Deputy Press Secretary. She is a deputy just like Hogan Gidley and Raj Shah. See https://twitter.com/lwalters45?lang=en, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindsay_Walters, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/press-gaggle-deputy-press-secretary-lindsay-walters-en-route-fort-myers-fl/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesharrison2014 (talk • contribs) 07:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Salary

The link (to whitehouse.gov) lists her salary as $165,000. Why does the article say $179,000? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emblemparade (talk • contribs) 04:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The source is from June when Sarah Sanders was Deputy Press Secretary. When Spicer left she was promoted and assumed his duties and salary. Dr. James Harrison, Ph.D. (talk) 01:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Continueously lies and dodging questions

It is pretty obvious that Huckabee Sanders have continously lies and dodges questions whenever she goes up on the podium. There are sentences that say people like Sean Spicer and Stephen Miller have said multiple false statements. 2605:E000:C7CB:1000:7C49:B3B7:58A5:D335 (talk) 23:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

If you need evidence here is an example. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2018/06/05/sanders-lies-because-that-is-what-this-white-house-does/?utm_term=.eeac97f7589a 2605:E000:C7CB:1000:84E0:43DF:FCC0:53EB (talk) 03:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Feel of a Tabloid

This Encyclopedia chapter reads more like a tabloid. Suggest it be taken down while it is discussed / reviewed, properly edited, and then published. Wikipedia should be of a higher standard than mass media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.246.117 (talk) 04:51, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Consider a cleanup. I think the article has become too much political argumentation rather than an article about Sanders or her professional acts per se. It seems a lot of text could be deleted. I would not include content about her saying something simply because she said it in the course of her job. However, if a reference provides content about Sanders herself—her statements or acts distinguished from Trump's—then that content would be proper here. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:58, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I concur. This page is high-traffic and has issues. Tagged. -Dmezh (talk) 15:39, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

See Also Section

A user and an admin have made edits and rollbacks to keep a link to "enemy of the people" in a See Also section on this page. I think that the argument for keeping it there is incredibly weak:

• SHS was asked a media question involving this phrase
• POTUS tweets this a lot

The argument against this is obvious:

• The See Also section is supposed to be moderated by common sense and editorial discretion; "enemy of the people" is mentioned once elsewhere in the article and does not have a reasonable relationship to SHS
• It can be seen as libelous to associate the phrase "enemy of the people" with SHS
• The "enemy of the people" page does not provide any valuable information to the reader that reasonably stems off of the subject article (SHS). What is the point of including it (if ignoring everything else blatantly wrong with this link)?

-Dmezh (talk) 15:40, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

While the term is definitely tangentially related to SHS because of her refusal to disavow it (and thus qualifies for See also), I have now wikilinked the term in the body, so maybe we can dispense with the See also link. Let's get responses from User:Drmies and User:X1\. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:39, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I think this is a reasonable solution. On a side note, I conducted the rollback under the advice of admins at IRC (BLP caution), and started the talk section to request input from users that were pro-See Also. -Dmezh (talk) 17:07, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: I just edited before I saw your mention of me. I've been in a bit of a rush. X1\ (talk) 23:54, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

X1\, yes, I see now that you edited without seeing the decision below not to wikilink, so I have undone your edit. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:40, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

In the future, use this talk page to deal with this type of matter. If a truly serious BLP violation (such as gross defamation, revealing of hidden personal details about SHS, etc.) had occurred, it would be different. This is simply a matter of editorial judgment, and other editors at the article should be consulted, rather than going "over their heads". I hope we get some responses soon to my two pings. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:47, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

My mistake for my fumbling edit. My apologies for inadvertently temporarily trampling a Talk discussion. I thought I was clarifying a comment that was on my User Talk page. Oops. X1\ (talk) 20:41, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Can happen to anyone. —PaleoNeonate – 00:06, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the above: other editors will miss any consensus forming attempts that don't occur on this page. About the link, I also think that having it in the body is a good compromise: it also permits to provide more context. —PaleoNeonate – 21:40, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• You know, I really see no good reason to link it anywhere in the first place. In the See also section it is undue, in the quote it's against the MOS and a kind of original research. (Dmezh, I may have reverted you because it seemed like you didn't know what you were doing.) Drmies (talk) 21:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
• BullRangifer, tangentially, yes--but the term isn't really related to her; it's the other way around. But if we start wikilinking idioms we're Wiktionaring ourselves, and whatever content is in the article "enemy of the people" is then made to apply to her (even if indirectly, by way of her denial to denounce the word), which is original research. I mean, we're sort of suggesting that she is referencing the content of our article, rather then the content of the president's words. (Also, I find it hard to believe we're having to talk about this.) Drmies (talk) 21:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies: I agree with you completely. I agreed to the compromise given that there was a lack of consensus, but it would be much preferable to remove it entirely - I don't see the value in wikilinking it in the first place. -Dmezh (talk) 00:55, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

How about we just unlink it and remove it from the See also section? That seems a good solution. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:58, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

At the very least, remove the Eotp link from "See also" section (linked article not genuinely illuminating re SHSanders), and preferably also remove link in text as not being relevant to what the phrase means in the current political context (linked article is more of a general definition, which is not needed here). —RCraig09 (talk) 15:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

No objection. —PaleoNeonate – 22:08, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Even better. -Dmezh (talk) 00:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Tendentious editing

The article is currently tagged. The tag states (accurately) that the article "may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: reads like a tabloid - clean for relevance."

In response to the tag, I made some edits to the article over the past 24 hours in an attempt to clean it up and restore an encyclopedic tone. Another editor reverted all of my edits and falsely accused me of whitewashing and having no reason for the edits. I restored the edits. I am open to feedback on my edits (I certainly edited boldly, but the article needed it). I am not open to tendentious editing, however.

How can we edit the article to make it more like an encyclopedia article? Thoughts? SunCrow (talk) 17:46, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Probably a good place to start would be to slow down a little bit and do individual edits, so we can discuss individual issues if need be, rather than removing almost a third of the article in a single edit. A better place to start would have been if User:Dmezh had started a thread here detailing their specific issues rather than just adding a cleanup tag. GMG^talk 17:57, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree that cleanup is a good idea. I suggest that you SunCrow delete one sentence/item at a time, and leave a specific edit comment, to explain the 'why' behind each deletion. I would delete content about her saying something simply because she said it in the course of her job. However, if a reference focuses on content about Sanders herself—her statements or acts distinguished from Trump's—then that content should stay. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the input.

Here is the stuff I attempted to delete:

She stood in for Spicer during the dismissal of James Comey and the controversy following it. Her defense of the Trump administration's actions led to some speculation that President Trump was considering promoting her to replace Spicer. This was refuted at the time by her father, Mike Huckabee. However, on May 26, The Wall Street Journal again suggested that Sanders was being considered as a possible replacement for Spicer, in the context of wider staff changes and the investigation into alleged communications with Russia. She continued to fill in for Spicer occasionally.

After Trump sought to discredit Comey and the FBI, Sanders was questioned on a tweet she had sent during the 2016 presidential election that "when you're attacking FBI agents because you're under criminal investigation, you're losing".

On June 27, 2017, during a press briefing, Sanders criticized the media, accusing them of spreading "fake news" against Trump. Sanders cited a video created by James O'Keefe. Although she was unsure of the video's accuracy, she said, "I would encourage everyone in this room and, frankly, everybody across the country to take a look at it." The video features CNN's health and medical producer, John Bonifield, saying that CNN's coverage of the Trump campaign's alleged links to Russia are "mostly bullshit" and driven by ratings.

Christian leaders such as Daniel DiNardo and Franklin Graham strongly disagreed with the policy, calling it "immoral" or "disgraceful", while Bible scholar and professor Matthew Schlimm said that the Bible was being misused just as slave traders and Nazis had done historically.

In July 2018, Sanders said the Trump White House would discuss allowing Russian agents to interrogate former US Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul. The Russian government had harassed and intimidated McFaul for years, without specifying what criminal allegations they would interrogate him in connection to. US State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said that she could not answer on behalf of the White House, but that the State Department considered the Russian allegations against McFaul "absolutely absurd." Several current and former diplomats condemned the White House's willingness to entertain Russian interrogation of a former U.S. Ambassador.

In an August 2018 press conference, Sanders was asked multiple times to say that the media was not the "enemy of the people", and Sanders opted not to do so.

That same month, The Washington Post reported that Sanders and her deputy Bill Shine strategized optimum times to release announcements that the security clearances of various Trump critics and officials involved in the probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election had been revoked. The announcements were intended to be released to distract from news cycles that were unfavorable to the White House.

SunCrow (talk) 03:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

References

New Yorker profile

Excellent profle in The New Yorker. Williams, Paige (September 2018). "Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Trump's Battering Ram". The New Yorker. Archived from the original on September 17, 2018. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) - PvOberstein (talk) 14:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 21 February 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 13:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

---

Sarah Huckabee Sanders → Sarah Sanders – Taking another stab at requesting a move from "Huckabee Sanders" to "Sanders" per WP:COMMONNAME. From a Google search, page one yielded these results: 11 sources for "Sarah Sanders" (CNN, MSNBC, The Guardian, TIME, Politico, The Hill, Bloomberg, WaPo, The Verge, The Independent, Fortune), three for "Huckabee Sanders" (Variety, news.com.au, Vanity Fair). Slightlymad (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support, clearly the common name for the subject at this point. bd2412 T 18:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support, I was surprised in a quick Google search to find that Sarah Sanders is clearly the more common name. --В²C ☎ 23:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: The referenced Google search is a search explicitly for "Sarah Sanders", so we shouldn't be too surprised if it finds mostly "Sarah Sanders" instead of something else. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:12, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@BarrelProof: Well to be fair, the G hits on "Sanders" yielded 1,110,000 results and "Huckabee Sanders" 253,000 results, compared to the 346,000 hits and 746,000 hits from the previous merger proposal back in 2017. Slightlymad (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Note that ghits are not reliable. They are estimates. They are notoriously bad at double counting duplicate pages, and do not address repeated use versus introductions. Granted, they are interesting, but the real measure is "what do quality sources do"? What do the current best sources currently supporting the current content do? My cursory review of the references see "Huckabee" is very prominent. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:37, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. This is like HRC, which was a mistake. A very large number of reliable sources continue to name the subject in introduction as Sarah Huckabee Sanders. Now that she has become well known, many are dropping "Huckabee". Wikipedia, as an historiographical document, should strive to be timeless, avoiding recentism despite trying to being accurate up to the minute. Pages should not be move subject to points in time. Does she continue to use "Huckabee"? That is unclear. I can't find any of her recently authored books or articles, how does she sign? I am not comfortable with Wikipedia giving Twitter.com any weight. I can't find an official webpage. Does the current administration not do senior staff pages? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:03, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. There's probably a reason why we're all surprised that 'Sarah Sanders' is apparently now the common name. We need to give this more time. Lepricavark (talk) 05:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support as it’s her common name now. Corky 05:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  • "Sarah Huckabee Sanders" is her common name too. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. I agree SmokeyJoe's comments re avoiding recentism. However, I note that whitehouse.gov website seems to omit the H-word: https://www.whitehouse.gov/search/?s=sanders ... Separately, I get mixed results when Google-Newsing "press briefing sanders": most titles seem to omit the H-word, but often include the H-word when referring to her in the body of the article. —RCraig09 (talk) 07:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support - This is a self-published name change and sources after the name change should be weighed much higher than those before. -- Netoholic @ 22:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Can you cite that to a reliable source? Does twitter count as a reliable source? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
    • As a self-published source, it satisfies SPNC. Her display name is "Sarah Sanders" and she signs using that name (see this recent memo). --Netoholic @ 03:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
      • Maybe, but that is very weak. Your recent memo, if you scroll down, is more of an embarrassment than a reliable source. Twitter is associated with shorthand. Is there any sighting of how she signs her name on a real document? Does she have a letterhead? Searching for "how does sarah sanders sign her name" (no huckabee), I see basically every returned biography uses SHS. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Wikipedia should be following quality sources, not Twitter. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
        • Just gotta ask, are you really contradicting how she self-identifies? -- Netoholic @ 05:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
          • I am expressing doubt that a twitter handle or name or signature constitutes a formal self identification. Actually, I fear that it does, but I am hoping something better will turn up. On Twitter, many use nicknames. DT identifies as "Donald J. Trump", which is not the title of his article. Her typed signature in the tweet is definitely something, making it a viable option, but I am asking, is there any other source for her style of self identification? I suppose https://www.facebook.com/PressSec/ adds weight for "Sarah Sanders" --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
            • Every source controlled by her directly or representing her (such as whitehouse.gov) uses "Sarah Sanders". We do not require our subjects to be published authors or to have public signed memos or other autographs. Sources are clear she was married in 2010, that she exclusively now uses her married name "Sarah Sanders", and that sources with close ties to her likewise use that exclusively. Few other people would warrant the level of doubt you are expressing in order to have their simple, straightforward marriage name change recognized. -- Netoholic @ 06:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
              • I don't agree with your last unnecessary sentence, but otherwise you appear to be correct. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:34, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title but it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used in reliable independent sources including CNN, The Guardian, The Independent etc. When this occurs, we give extra weight to reliable sources. Xain36 {talk} 04:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

should article mention "Sarah Huckabee Sanders" as an aka?

I read this discussion about why the article was renamed from Sarah Huckabee Sanders to Sarah Sanders, and I don't disagree with the decision.

However, as someone who came to know her as "Sarah Huckabee Sanders", I came to the article surprised to see that that alias was nowhere mentioned in the article and had to dig in to the talk page to find any reference to it.

I'm not a regular contributor, so I don't know what the conventions are around this sort of thing, but as a lay person it seems that at least a passing phrase like "sometimes/formerly referred to in media as Sarah Huckabee Sanders" would be worthwhile — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.27.188.240 (talk) 08:01, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Plenty of sources call her SHS, they are already in the article. Wrote that into the lede. starship.paint ~ KO 10:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I think that leads to another question - do we actually have a source that "Sarah Elizabeth Sanders" is her current name? Or did she shift her maiden name into the middle name spot as many women do? If so, the introduction should be "Sarah Huckabee Sanders (born Sarah Elizabeth Huckabee)". --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:19, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

US News says that Sarah Elizabeth Huckabee Sanders is her name, so I've adjusted the introduction to reflect that. With that, we don't need the separate SHS name. --Nat Gertler (talk) 12:13, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Legacy as Press Secretary

“Sander's main legacy as press secretary will be the death of the daily press briefing. On her watch, we saw the end of a custom that had provided a level of government transparency and accountability for decades.”

I came here looking for more information along these lines and was surprised it’s not there. Gleeanon409 (talk) 10:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Please take your Soapboxing and attempt at violating WP:FORUM someplace else.50.111.6.237 (talk) 20:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Improving articles by talking about them is encouraged, if you have nothing constructive to offer then move on and let others discuss. Gleeanon409 (talk) 20:39, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

That's predictive; the next press secretary could restart daily briefings immediately, and thus that would not be a legacy. --Nat Gertler (talk) 11:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Reporting the facts of what happened would remain true though, that under her term the daily press briefings disappeared. If someone else reinstates them then add that as well. Gleeanon409 (talk) 12:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with NatGertler that legacy is (improperly) predictive. Also, the decrease in frequency of press briefings (they have not "disappeared") is already covered in the paragraph beginning "On June 13, 2019..." as sourced to Hutzler, Alexandra(Newsweek) and Gilmour, Jared(The Miami Herald). The point is made. —RCraig09 (talk) 15:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Isn’t this also historically unprecedented? Has this ever even happened before? Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Balanced

Considerable content is focused on documenting perceived or actual misstatements. I believe this is the case with all press secretaries to one extent or another. To provide context, I believe it would be meaningful to provide some relative comparison to the volume/count of similar situations/actions taken by other recent press secretaries. Andrewnardo (talk) 14:39, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that provides that as a comparison? --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:05, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Deputy Press Secretary rem from info box

I think it is inappropriate to include the Deputy Press Secretary position in the Infobox. That box is for summary type info and should only include the current position or the one that created enough notability for an article. Slipandslide (talk) 18:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

But the article was created when she became Deputy Press Secretary which gave her the notability for Wikipedia article standards. WikiVirusC^(talk) 18:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Biodata

Can we not get biodata (birthdate, etc.) and a better, more current photo? MaynardClark (talk) 15:38, 5 March 2017 (UTC) Picture updated. Little info available until she gives a personal interview. David Crayford (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Stated she was born in Little Rock, Arkansa and grew up in Texarcana. Hope, Arkasas is not correct. From Spicer & Company, September 10, 2020. Sh33na 22:34, 10 September 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sh33na (talk • contribs)

Sh33na, we need a verifiable published reliable source, cited in the article. I've no idea what you mean by "From Spicer & Company". Schazjmd (talk) 22:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Is her book reliable? Sh33na 01:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sh33na (talk • contribs)

Sh33na, per WP:ABOUTSELF, for claims about herself, yes. Schazjmd (talk) 13:14, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2020

I suggest that the line "she frequently spread misinformation and falsehoods" be removed because it is a statement of opinion and not of fact as befitting an encyclopedic source. Alternatively, "opposition alleges that" should be added immediately preceding the line to appropriately mark its subjective nature. Thank you. Addieoftheknife (talk) 02:05, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Reliable sources provided agree that she did spread misinformation, so Wikipedia reflects that. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 02:51, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Also known as "Sara Huckabee Sanders"

She has sometimes, even professionally, gone by "Sara Huckebee Sanders". Even if it is not her legal name, shouldn't we make mention that she is "also known as" Sarah Huckabee Sanders. I mean, it's even how she currently identifies her name on Twitter. SecretName101 (talk) 05:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Someone made this change since I commented. I will again say, it is a good change to make. She does go by this name. SecretName101 (talk) 16:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Expand Sections?

Not quite sure who's in charge of editing this Arkansas-esque political arena; however, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Sanders#Candidacy_for_governor_of_Arkansas should link to the 2022 governor of Arkansas official wikipage — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sucker for All (talk • contribs) 23:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Opinion pieces

This article has countless citations to OPINION PIECES, this is a disgrace and the entire article is NOT consistent with Wikipedia's published rules regarding living biographies. Tcasey58 (talk) 13:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Repeated deletions (of the same material) without discussion

Here are (the "Revision history" entries, for) two deletions -- (of the same material ... including the same "ref" tag, both times) ... both apparently done without first having some ("consensus" seeking) discussion, ["such as"] here on this "Talk:" page:

1. 18:43, 16 February 2021 ‎ 2601:380:c000:87a0:d9dc:d3:1096:fdf3 (talk) ‎ 55,399 bytes (−594) ‎ Sanders is NOT the clear early favorite mainly due to the fact no poll exists at this time. The statement is just an unfounded opinion. (undo) (Tags: references removed Reverted)
2. 08:56, 22 February 2021 ‎ 170.94.15.253 (talk) ‎ 55,409 bytes (−594) ‎ Sanders is not the clear early favorite....as has been stated before. (undo) (Tag: references removed)

Comment: I went ahead and took a brief look at what it actually says, at that URL https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/01/25/sarah-sanders-arkansas-governor/ (which btw is not a "dead link", "yet" ... and I am not worried about it ['ever'] becoming one) which is pointed to by the "ref" tag inside the ("twice deleted") material that some editors ... "may" not have even taken the time to read.

The ONLY sentence in that news story from "The Washington Post" that contains the phrase "early favorite", is a sentence that says:

Sanders, who endeared herself to Trump’s base while combatively — and sometimes misleadingly — sparring with the press, is seen by many as an early favorite in the race to lead a heavily GOP state where Trump’s role in the U.S. Capitol riot may not hurt her appeal.

(BTW, I also searched for the phrase "clear early favorite" ... and that phrase does not seem to appear at all in that "Washington Post" news story.)

"TMI" Department: (You can SKIP this part):

Maybe it would have been too much to ask, for ... the second deleter to have discussed it first, here; (and "perhaps", to have read the sentence -- the one <"block"quoted> above -- before "RE-" deleting the "ref" tag along with the remark about^H^H^H the remark containing the phrase "clear early favorite"). Never mind! Those recent edits are ... in the past. Let's look forward to the future.

Now that I have read that sentence ... it seems to me that ONE idea for changing this article to ... umm, make it better, would be to

1. retain the footnote, with a link to that news story from "The Washington Post" at the URL https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/01/25/sarah-sanders-arkansas-governor/ and
2. modify the text of the sentence (the one that used to say << "Sanders is a clear early favorite in the race" >>) to include the part about << "Sanders [...] is seen by many as [...]" >>, and ... probably to get rid of (that is, to remove) the word "clear" -- which (together) would go a long way towards ... addressing the main issues behind ... that part of an "edit comment" -- the first "edit comment" shown above -- that said: << "The statement is just an unfounded opinion" >>.

Maybe we could (for example) do THIS:

1. include the above <"block"quoted> sentence, perhaps even as a "quote" field [value] -- (as part of the "{{cite web}}" template [instance]) -- and
2. change the wording from [something containing] [OLD]: "[...] Sanders is a clear early favorite in the race [...]" to [something more like] [NEW]: "Sanders [...] is seen by many as an early favorite in the race". (maybe even as a quote? with "quotation marks" around it? Would that be appropriate? besides showing it as a "quote" field [value] inside a template [instance].)

I know that's not the only option. But it might be a good place to "start" (the "Talk:" page part of) the discussion about this (... "if" appropriate). Any comments? --Mike Schwartz (talk) 05:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

First sentence of the lead

The lead sentence has been changed several times in the last day or two. It used to read

...who served as the 31st White House press secretary for President Donald Trump from 2017 to 2019, the third woman to serve in that position.

User:Isaac Rabinovitch changed it to say

...who served as the 31st White House press secretary under President Donald Trump from 2017 to 2019, the third woman to serve in that position. Their edit summary was She wasn't Trumps 31st Press Sec, it just seemed like it.

I thought it still sounded like she was his 31st press secretary, so I changed it to

She was the 31st White House press secretary, serving President Donald Trump from 2017 to 2019. She was the third woman to serve in that position. My edit summary was it still sounds like she was his 31st. How about this wording?

Now User:Bigeyedbeansfromvenus changed it to

She served as the 31st White House press secretary under President Donald Trump from 2017 to 2019, becoming the third woman to serve in that position. Their edit summary was Rephrased several sentences in the lead to improve clarity and grammar.

This brings us pretty much back to the longstanding wording. How do people feel about this? Is the longstanding wording, now restored, clear enough, so that people understand that she was the 31st person to serve as White House press secretary, rather than the 31st one to serve under Trump?

I really don't like any of these wordings much, including my own; can anyone come up with a better way to phrase it? Here are some examples from former press secretaries:

Jen Psaki "is an American political advisor serving as the 34th and current White House press secretary." Sean Spicer "served as the 30th White House Press Secretary and as White House Communications Director under President Donald Trump in 2017". Kayleigh McEnany "served as the 33rd White House press secretary for the Trump administration." Stephanie Grisham "served as the 32nd White House press secretary and as White House communications director from July 2019 to April 2020." Jay Carney "is a former White House press secretary to President Barack Obama. He served as the 28th press secretary from February 2011 through June 2014." I think all of these, except McEnany's, are better than what we have. Thoughts? -- MelanieN (talk) 22:48, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I would go with the wording as you put it, with perhaps the slight change from "serving" to "serving under", as she is technically supposed to be serving the American people, I reckon. I have a lot of preference for saying people were their position, rather than that they served as. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

OK, now I feel like I should have just left it alone. —Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 01:07, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Don't be sorry. It's important to have this kind of discussion when something is unclear, and you were the one that called our attention to the problem. I am going to implement NatGertler's suggestion: She was the 31st White House press secretary, serving under President Donald Trump from 2017 to 2019. She was the third woman to serve in that position. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I was going to go back and break it into two sentences (a strategy we need to apply a lot more often!), but your wording is Good Enough, so I'll let it be.—Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 05:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Consensus on photo

The following discussion 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.

---

Should we use photo 1 or 2?DoctorTexan (talk) 19:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC) user: Trillfendi - I disagree with your assessment and I think that we should get a community consensus.

Photo 1

Photo 2

My arguments: The first photo is the better photo for multiple reasons. 1) The lighting is better without shadows. 2) She is facing the camera. 3. She is smiling.

I would ask the community to vote on a consensus below: DoctorTexan (talk) 02:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Close the RfC, please, because it is improperly presented. And start a new one per WP:RFC. -The Gnome (talk) 18:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Struck off proposal to close down the RfC since the originator has edited it into a proper format, with a set of clear choices. -The Gnome (talk) 08:45, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

• Different Photo She has plenty of official photos to choose from Tepkunset (talk) 21:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
• Different photo. I agree with Tepkunset. Out of all the available photos, why did you choose these? Viriditas (talk) 22:17, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Tepkunset: @Viriditas: I am open to other photos and I would to see what you guys like. I just don't love photo 2. First the lighting is off second she is not looking at the camera. DoctorTexan (talk) 05:26, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

  It's not your fault. I took a look at the photos on commons and they are all poor. There's one of her smiling (from 2017 or before) that looks good, however. But it might be too old to use. Viriditas (talk) 11:46, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

• Between these two, I prefer photo 2, but I agree that we should be able to find a better option. Maybe a still from this video. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 08:12, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
• Photo 1 if no better available photo can be found. The other one's lighting and angle shape an unnecessarily dark context. The photo should not convey any kind of political viewpoint; not even indirectly. -The Gnome (talk) 08:45, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

  @The Gnome: @Viriditas: @Tepkunset: - Let's vote (get a consensus)

  

  SarahHuckabeeSanders

  

  Sarah Huckabee Sanders 11 May 2017 0.27

  

  Sara senders

  DoctorTexan (talk) 16:02, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

• Different Photo more options should be given than the above photos. Sea Ane (talk) 11:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Sea Ane: - These are the options we have. We can only use images that meet the copyright requirements and these are the only photos I could find on commons. DoctorTexan (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• Photo 1 if these are the only options available.BristolTreeHouse (talk) 07:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• (Summoned by bot) I assume that this is about infobox image?
  Not so great options, but photo 1 seems the best option as far as nothing better emerges. Photo 2 has weird shadows and it's from weird angle. Option 5 (Sara senders.jpg) is the second best, maybe if cropped better, but the subject has weird expression. Option 3 (SarahHuckabeeSanders.jpg) could be the best if it could be cropped properly, but unfortunately it's a low-resolution photo that can't, and extra stuff like the podium would take too much real estate. Politrukki (talk) 14:23, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
• I simply think it looks ridiculous to have someone in mid-sentence as the lead photo which should be of neutral expression. If File:SarahHuckabeeSanders.jpg were of higher quality I’d be a fan of using that. Otherwise, the second photo is the only reasonable option left. I would expect that more and better images will become available during the gubernatorial campaign. Trillfendi (talk) 14:45, 31 May 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.

Picture

Is there a reason why the picture used for her is so bad? I feel like there are many better options. --74.102.46.205 (talk) 19:17, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I tried to reason with them about this but they disagreed and closed the discussion. Trillfendi (talk) 23:53, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree, it seems like the page is deliberately trying to make her look ridiculous.

I agree, I think that the image should be changed (204.126.3.182 (talk) 05:56, 28 August 2021 (UTC))

Requested move 16 June 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) >>> Extorc.talk 07:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

---

Sarah Sanders → Sarah Huckabee Sanders – Per WP:COMMONNAME, the subject currently overwhelmingly uses Sarah Huckabee Sanders. When this page was last moved in 2019, the subject used only Sarah Sanders for her official Twitter, but this has since been changed to Huckabee Sanders, and campaign website also uses this name. The Associated Press [3] also uses this name. --Shivertimbers433 (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. Even when one types "Sarah Sanders" into search engines of The New York Times and other American newspapers, the results still overwhelmingly display the full name "Sarah Huckabee Sanders". —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 04:15, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Support Anyone familiar with this topic would recognise Sarah Huckabee Sanders, wheras I did not recognise 'Sarah Sanders'. Adding the middle name also allows natural disambiguation. Poketama (talk) 05:35, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Showiecz (talk) 10:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support as the subject herself uses here. Though it is not official policy (nor am I arguing it should be), we do give some weight and consideration to what the subject calls themselves i.e., Hillary Rodham Clinton → Hillary Clinton (she preferred simply Hillary Clinton as of 2015), Chelsea Manning and Caitlyn Jenner. Though the last two examples are covered under MOS:NB, I would argue that MOS:NB could be established as an unenumerated guideline to support consideration of the subject's wishes. I really liked what bd2412 said here about name changes and the subjects consideration. Bd2412 states that Jimbo Wales It has very long been practice to weigh the wishes of article subjects as one factor when it comes to article titles. Anyway, I am getting off topic. I support the move as this is what the subject uses (on her Twitter profile and even on her campaign website here) and WP:COMMONNAME per sources that use it like CNN, NPR, Britannica, etc. cookie monster 755 03:20, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom/WP:COMMONNAME. WikiVirusC^(talk) 12:27, 22 June 2022 (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.

Matriculated?

Matriculated means showed up for the first day. Don't we need to know whether she graduated and when? 64.184.158.144 (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

It can also mean "Pass the final school-leaving examination". 2.31.162.42 (talk) 20:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Is there a photo commons is missing?

Did the White House really never release a government portrait photograph of her? Are we really stuck with candid shots as our best public domain option? SecretName101 (talk) 03:45, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Seems like that is the case. Trillfendi (talk) 04:02, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

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

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

• GovSHSOfficialHeadshot.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:37, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Maxine Waters/link 108

what does link 108 have to do with Sarah Sanders? the article doesn't even mention Sanders, nor refer to get obliquely. it seems like its designed to make Sanders look good in comparison, but it's unrelated to her. 131.191.66.207 (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism on Feb. 7, 2023

Fix the introduction

The word is offensive. Inappropriate. 2600:1014:B001:490F:5068:847D:5D62:54B2 (talk) 04:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done Vandalism removed. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:30, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Sarah Huckabee Sanders

The entrance to the listing regarding Ms. Sanders has an unacceptable, vile curse attached to her nam. This must be corrected by Wikipedia 173.77.168.36 (talk) 04:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done Vandalism removed. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:30, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

uh...unacceptable, vile curse? take it easy. words only have the power you give them. 2601:182:C80:3E10:6F10:B3FA:123B:CD78 (talk) 21:28, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Audio clip choice

The clip we currently have in the infobox of her talking about the Tree of Life shooting is from her period serving the Trump administration. As such, the rousing talk she is giving is not one intended to represent her own views (although it may sound like that out of context), but to represent Trump and the administration. If we are going to use a cilp that is political in nature, it would probably be more appropriate to have one in which she is speaking for herself. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

#PodiumGate

This seems to need at least summary coverage here. It's all across major news sites [4].  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

More information:

• A detailed summary of events, though the source doesn't meet WP:RS, so only can be used as a possible guide for looking for reliable materials:https://www.bluehogreport.com/2023/09/25/podium-pandemonium-its-a-lectern/ (And, of course, this is way too detailed for Wikipedia.)

Possible sources:

• Inaugural funds used to reimburse governor's office for purchase of $19,000 podium, records indicate

• Live, laugh, lectern: Why Gov. Sanders might not worry much about that $19K podium

• Arkansas Sen. Jim Hickey requests audit of Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders’ podium purchase

• Whistleblower says governor’s office illegally altered, withheld records related to podium purchase

At this point, worth a couple of sentences, I think, but not much more. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:27, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Further developments: https://www.thedailybeast.com/sarah-huckabee-sanders-office-oversaw-purchase-of-dollar19000-lectern -- John Broughton (♫♫) 04:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)