Talk:Kayleigh McEnany/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Oxford education specifics?

Any clarifications on Kayleigh's claim to have spent a year abroad at Oxford? I studied at St. Edmunds Hall during my junior year through a private program, and there are no academic prerequisites for obtaining these positions. I do not include this on my CV for this reason. Teddy Hall is a minor college, often chosen for exchange students for this reason. I am concerned that this information is misleading and conflates Ms. McEnany's educational credentials. Alanrobts (talk) 01:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Please engage in no WP:OR. Here is the title of the British source: Kayleigh McEnany, the Oxford alumna who is Trump’s new media warrior. XavierItzm (talk) 12:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Age?

If she runs for president we are all doomed because she is a complete jerk that is only interested in her own bs and status. Have yet to see her show any empathy at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.53.48 (talk) 21:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to know what her birthdate was, to get an idea of how old she is (and whether she can run for office yet). Thanks.2602:306:CD9B:E9A0:84A3:167A:69E:7E7E (talk) 12:54, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I have her listed at 18 April 1988. Rothorpe (talk) 13:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Wow, I've seen other Wikipedia articles where that sourcing was not accepted. For example, she could have tweeted that on a day other than when it took place. I think better sourcing is needed. In any event, that source is "good" (if it is) for day, but what about year? XavierItzm (talk) 12:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

To address this, I've added a source for the DOB: The NYT. XavierItzm (talk) 13:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Moving "Publications" to "Career" section

Would it be more feasible to add 'Publications' as part of the 'Career' section of the article, since it is perhaps too short at the moment for its own section? Also, I've added McEnany's Twitter account in External Links as the social networking site has become a megaphone during this presidential administration and she seems to be most active there. HSE001 (talk) 21:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I think its seems feasible to move "publications" to the career section, I don't see why organizing it better is a bad thing, as long as they are notable publications.MaximusEditor (talk) 17:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Is this entry biased?

Entry seems tilted in favor of the Trump narrative, such as McEnany "correctly" noting that Trump was taken out of context on his comments about disinfectant and the Coronavirus. I do not think this is true and flagged that section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:13A0:F7D0:B469:AE08:242E:2067 (talk) 01:09, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Really? You're going to say this article is biased FOR Trump? At least as of the current version I'm seeing on May 2 after literally dozens of edits earlier today, this entry leans anti-Trump. Sad, really. Asc85 (talk)

One of the most anti-Trump articles out there and he says it is tilted to support Trump. Wikipedia is leftist propaganda. StargazerAW (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately Trump tells lies, and McEnany repeats them. If this article reports those lies, that does not make the article anti-Trump. It means the article is an accurate and objective description of what these liars are saying. Pinklydo (talk) 23:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The democrats are the worst of all liars. They have been lying to us about Trump for years and they have been caught red handed many times but the media goes silent after that and so does Wikipedia. This platform has become bs. StargazerAW (talk) 07:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

This particular sentence seems biased: "When Trump was criticized by experts for suggesting at a press conference that the coronavirus could be treated with disinfectant injections, McEnany said that the president's remarks were simply taken out of context."

His remarks were taken out of context. It was a discussion about possible future research and he was referring to another guy who just spoke, not a suggestion that people should be injected with disinfectants. I watched it myself. I can't post the YouTube link, but that speaker starts at 21:47 in the PBS NewsHour video of the April 23 press conference, and Trump's follow-up comments are at roughly 28 minutes. Wredlich (talk) 20:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I donate regularly to Wikipedia and I'm appalled at the partisan nature of this article. Basically it is a litany of anti-Trump talking points used to discredit Ms McEnany. Really, was it a conversation suggesting she further her career that caused her to support Trump? That's all? Very doubtful and even if she was influenced by the suggestion, putting it in as the SOLE reason why she came to support his candidacy is highly misleading. She graduated in the top 1% at Harvard Law. I think it's pretty likely she had a lot of reasons for supporting his candidacy, and in fact she seems to have been a member of the Republican Party for a long time. Trump's conservative credentials were indistinct early in the primary but were firmly established as time went on. Maybe that had something to do with it. The rest of the article is similarly biased, which is to say very biased. 216.162.97.174 (talk) 19:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Wow, this is SO anti-Trump, it is revolting, but not unexpected. 31.168.105.68 (talk) 18:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2020

You cannot use the fraudcaster CNN as a source for data. She did not lie. If you make such a claim, you need to give an example. 82.11.25.162 (talk) 11:16, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, see WP:RSP. CNN is generally reliable. Second, I don't know what the version you saw says, but the current version does give an example 'She said Robert Mueller's investigation led to a "complete and total exoneration" of the President, something Mueller explicitly said he was not doing' Nil Einne (talk) 12:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

She lies all the time. She said: "We will not see diseases like the coronavirus come here...” That proved to be total BS. Pinklydo (talk) 07:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Added a ref list template because the section contains a reference. Don't think the reference should be here, it meanders into an off-topic area, but if we have a reference, we need a ref list. If an editor wants to remove the ref list, please remove the reference as well. Thank you. EdJF (talk) 01:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

References

CNN is not reliable, but a propaganda outlet. Is it not obvious that whatever the current president does, CNN will bad-mouth it? Since USA has become extremely polarized politically, it has become very difficult to find any objective reliable news outlet. To have a degree of reliability would mean that news outlets on both sides of the cultural war say the same thing. (PeacePeace (talk) 05:54, 16 May 2020 (UTC))

Neutrality dispution

Still reads biased, perhaps the article needs to be reviewed again. --2001:8003:7403:9B01:71AC:D979:EF32:69C1 (talk) 09:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

This article was re-structured completely over the last few days. Now the introductory section of the article reads with bias. Please add a mixed balance of reliable sources from left, moderate, and right-leaning outlets and re-write the top section with an encyclopedic tone and not like an op-ed. 03:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Can't we just use reliable sources without caring which way they lean? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:01, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is one of the most visited sites and these types of articles get millions of traffic visits a month, even from journalists and bloggers. We want readers to view the information in the encyclopedia as credible and neutral because not everyone will interpret what they read similarly. In the case of this article, all the wrongful edits were based only on speculation from one-side. While the sources may be reliable, when relevant, you must take into account what is being said, including if the statements are politically-charged. HSE001 (talk) 20:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Statements of fact are not politically charged - if they are charged with anything, they are charged with the truth. It is a fact that In 2019, she said on CNN that she doesn't believe Trump tells lies.

There are no "statements of fact" in the edits made, they are assumptions made primarily by reports of left-leaning news outlets. There is a past history of false assumptions made in all of the mass media and in government. And because of that, as an encyclopedia, we must add information that levers on both sides to promote a neutral tone. Since the subject is of a very high authority capacity, perhaps of a more significant capacity than the authors of the sources, we must keep the information in the encyclopedia as balanced as possible. I don't see any flow of reliable sources aside from left-leaning outlets who have reported on this, so the past edits made are not appropriate at this moment in time. HSE001 (talk) 01:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

::::: It is not an assumption that she said she believes Trump doesn't lie. It is a documented fact. Watch the clip for yourself. Pinklydo (talk) 03:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)(banned sock puppet - [1] EdJF (talk) 20:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

The role of White House Press Secretary is to rack up information from the entire executive branch of the United States government administration, not just from the President of the United States. What you are referring to is directed toward another subject and not of this article. On Wikipedia, notability, and vice versa, is not inheritable. If anything, these assumptions are welcome to be added in the article space of the actual subject, which is the 45th President of the United States, if credible. Also, the HuffPost is a left-leaning outlet with the majority of their published work on politics considered politically-charged content. HSE001 (talk) 14:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I removed the references because without a "ref list" template, the references interfere with the next section (RfC). If we add references on the talk page then we need a ref list - if we're not going to have a ref list, then let's not have the references. But please keep in mind, removing the "ref list" template doesn't remove the references, they're just left dangling EdJF (talk)

Thank you for removing the biased edits. HSE001 (talk) 02:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I think there is one more biased edit, right after the “I promise to never tell a lie” part. It goes on to immediately say she lied when it came to the “Mueller report resulting in an total exoneration”. While yes, the report itself was not an exoneration in Bob Mueller’s conclusion, she did say ‘resulted’ which is true when Bill Barr made the final decision. I’m not trying to argue here, I just don’t think it’s unbiased to quote her saying she won’t lie, and then immediately prove her wrong (when it’s not so clear). On Wikipedia. I want to hear some thoughts before I make any changes. FT3 David USN (talk) 12:44, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Proper characterization of McEnany's career

The article has used multiple headers to describe McEnany's career after graduating from law school and prior to becoming White House Press Secretary. McEnany's current section header reads "Republican political strategist"

Survey of comments: Should the header title remain "Republican political strategist"? Please respond with "Keep"; "Revert"; or "Other" (with recommendation for header) EdJF (talk) 10:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• Keep the current header as "Republican political strategist" The previous header was "Role as Trump surrogate". While some members of the media may have described her in this manner, the title of "surrogate" is not an encyclopedic entry as it fails WP:NPOV. People in similar roles have not been described as "surrogates". Example: George Stephanopoulos who worked on Democratic party campaigns, and later became White House de facto press secretaruy for President Clinton after working on his campaign. His bio uses neutral, non-POV terms such as "1988 U.S. presidential election" and "Clinton administration". Another example is Donna Brazile who has worked on multiple democratic party campaigns, served as DNC chair, and has been employed as a media analyst. Her bio list most of these under the header "Political strategist" which is the current header for McEnany. EdJF (talk) 10:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

:: Revert: There is a big difference between a strategist and a surrogate. A strategist comes up with stuff - they strategize. McEnany doesn't come up with anything. She simply repeats whatever Trumps says. An online definition of surrogate is: "A substitute, especially a person deputizing for another in a specific role or office. The Cambridge online defines it as "Replacing someone else". That's what McEnany is - a substitute, or replacement Trump when speaking to the media. Pinklydo (talk) 05:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)(banned sock puppet - [2]) EdJF (talk) 20:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• Keep the current header as "Republican political strategist", per WP:NPOV, people. XavierItzm (talk) 13:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Revert: Surrogate is an accurate description. Those editors proposing 'keep' have not explained why they think the term 'surrogate' is not neutral. There is no comparison with someone like Donna Brazile who actually was a campaign manager and strategist. McEnany has never performed such roles. Notagainst (talk) 08:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. Pinkylydo and Notagainst have disappeared upon notification of the sockpuppet investigation concerning them. It looks like one is a puppet and the other, the master account, will probably be banned, so unless there are other !votes to Revert... 73.149.246.232 (talk) 04:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

"In the weeks following her remarks, as the virus continued to spread, and thousands of Americans died, McEnany was criticized for these comments."

This is a BLP violation, attempting to create a link between McEnany and the death toll from COVID-19 is a violation of WP:NPOV, specifically the phrase, "and thousands of Americans died". I've reworded it to the best of my ability to maintain a neutral tone. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 13:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Exactly which aspect of WP:BLP do you think it violates...? The statement that thousands of Americans have died is a fact (79,341 as at 11 May). Facts are facts and politically neutral. There is no breach either of NPOV or BLP. Pinklydo (talk) 22:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

No matter your personal opinion do not reverse the revert like you just have, you do not have consensus. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 16:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Neither do you. Pinklydo (talk) 19:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand, I'm not looking to include anything in the article. I don't need consensus to take objection with content you are including in the article, however, and since you have no consensus for that content, I am allowed to revert it and take objection to the content's inclusion. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand. Whether you want to include something or remove something - if contested - still requires consensus. You have already been warned for disruptive editing by two other editors here so please pull your head in. Pinklydo (talk) 05:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

You seem to be a new user so I'll assume this was unintentional, but conduct like that is known as a personal attack, and looking into the user's talk page to dig for a case to build is unconstructive to the point you're trying to make and possibly even harms it as a result. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 19:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Linking McEnany's comments to COVID-19 deaths in the same sentence is editorializing and a BLP violation. It is also inconsistent with other articles, example Bill de Blasio who, as late as 11 March 2020 was downplaying the dangers of COVID-19 and telling New Yorkers to go about their lives. Note that the de Blasio article doesn't say "In the weeks following his remarks, as thousands of New Yorkers died, de Blasio was criticized for his comments." That would be a BLP violation by suggesting that their deaths were due to de Blasio's comments. As a point of reference, de Blasio's comments downplaying COVID-19 (11 March) were made three weeks after McEnany's comments (25 February); point being that many public figures made comments that proved to be unfortunate. We should characterize their comments in a neutral, unbiased manner. EdJF (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

They have very specific rules sets for BLP, for reasons exactly like this, Wikipedia has a myriad of reasons why this is not accepted. Trying to link Kayleigh McEnany to any covid related deaths is a violation and should be fixed immediately.MaximusEditor (talk) 17:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

The lede

The lede needs to contain key information about her. The fact that she is willing to repeat Trump's lies is the essence of who she is and why Trump appointed her. That's why her willingness to lie, as documented by numerous sources, belongs in the lede. These are documented facts and facts are neutral. They don't have a POV. Pinklydo (talk) 05:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

See WP:OWN. This is a BLP, not your personal attack blog. Editorials and speculations on "the essence of who she is" and "why Trump appointed her" are obviously off-topic as is egregious slanting of the lede, section headings and article information.

You have very recently made in excess of 100 edits to this article and its talk page, following a similar spree on Jared Kushner. The edits and especially the explanations read like deliberate trolling (my favorite is this one but these are also good [3] [4] ). Whether troll or anti-Trump SPA, you have taken over and are disrupting the article. There are obvious remedies for this but the simplest is that you stop vandalizing the article and let people more inclined toward NPOV return it to a more balanced state. Please do not also take over the talk page to dispute this. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 08:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I rather thought the purpose of the Talk page was to resolve disputes. Did I get that wrong as well? Pinklydo (talk) 20:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

"Please do not also take over the talk page to dispute this." 73.149.246.232 (talk) 21:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Now you are operating as if you WP:OWN the page. If all you can do is repeat yourself and you are unable to engage in constructive dialogue, consensus building is not possible. Pinklydo (talk) 05:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Pinklydo POV mass edits should be reverted en masse, not argued one by one.

Over 100 edits, all from severe POV, in a period of about 10 days, effectively taking over and slanting the article and leading to ongoing talk page conflicts and edit wars. Now the same user appears to be sockpuppeting to take over the talk page.

It wastes time and misses the point to argue these extremist edits one by one, going as far as an RfC above. One should not be able to take over a page through a massive number of tendentious edits, have 20 percent eventually questioned on talk or in edit wars, the disruptive editor demanding consensus and detailed justification for each attempt to restore the prior level of NPOV, with the end result that the other 80 percent of the hostile takeover stays in place.

I suggest that all the recent edits be undone and we go to SPI. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 14:12, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I took the liberty of deleting some BLP violations, tarring McEnany, as suggesting she is a liar.

Saying that "some have said" John Doe is a liar, is an oblique way of tarring somebody's reputation as a liar. (PeacePeace (talk) 05:48, 16 May 2020 (UTC))

The material you removed are not violations of BLP. McEnany repeats Trump's well documented lies (on wikipedia) and is therefore responsible for her own reputation. This article describes her background and her achievements but cannot ignore the fact that she has had to repeat Trump's lies to get where she is. Notagainst (talk) 06:36, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

This looks like deliberate high-grade trolling. Sockpuppets don't generally try to make it obvious by rewriting each other's talk page comments and article edits. Some of the edit explanations are small masterpieces (see list in "the lede" section above; the one about McEnany not being a Christian is priceless). I salute your sense of online humor, but this is disruptive editing and your 100+ edits need to be reverted after your topic (or SP) ban goes into effect. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 08:58, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Seems to be a sock puppet issue vice trolling, but maybe some of both … and on both sides. EdJF (talk) 20:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

very fine people

If you read the source article[5], it focuses on the part of the quote that raises eyebrows: "you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides."

It is this source that chose to use just the end of the quote, not the bland beginning. Choosing to include what our source excluded is... hard to justify, don't you think? Please offer your justification so that we can agree on what to keep. FollowTheSources (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

In terms of length and scope, the current quote seems about right: "…some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides." We can add a sentence to the effect “Trump was criticized by some in the media for creating a moral equivalence between the two sides of the event.” Or words to that effect. McEnany’s comment should remain since the article is about her. EdJF (talk) 20:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. Our sources chose to focus only on the controversial part, and so should we. FollowTheSources (talk) 20:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

The politifact link was provided to show that the original quote, no matter what the news source, was intentionally shortened and thus slanted. The way the segment is written now has removed all links thus making it opinion and is effectively saying everyone there was either a "white supremacist" or a "counter protester". This implicitly implies one side was entirely virtuous and the other was entirely vile. There were protesters there who didn't like the statues being removed but did not have a white supremacist agenda, and there were those on the "counter protester" side who were far left wing groups like Antifa that served as agents provocateurs. Trump's point was that to paint all the people there with a broad brush was hasty. Albeit, it was not stated elegantly.

To accurately judge her assessment of the president's statement, the original quote, in it's entirety should be restored. Otherwise, this violates all journalistic ethics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:401:4380:230:D8CC:9264:49C5:36F1 (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I concur with this statement. Regardless of your personal beliefs, Wikipedia is about the facts. Not omitting them. Opinion is up to the reader themselves but as editors we have a duty to be unbiased. FT3 David USN (talk) 12:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2020

The following should be removed or seriously reworked: "Without hesitation, McEnany replied: 'I will never lie to you. You have my word on that.' McEnany then proceeded to make a number of false claims in the same briefing. On the subject of Trump's responses to the coronavirus pandemic, she stated: 'This president has always sided on the side of data'. In response to allegations of Trump's sexual misconduct, McEnany said: 'He has always told the truth'."

There are several problems here. By definition, a lie is the intentional misrepresentation of facts. Even the CNN article cited as a source for the argument that McEnany made "false claims" refuses to say McEnany lied and posits that what it says are her false statements could have been "inadvertent." Beyond that, it is highly debatable whether any of her statements were even false. It is the job of a press secretary to argue the administration's interpretation of events. Saying that what McEnany said was "false" basically comes down to arguing, "McEnany's interpretation of events differs from the opinion of some guy at CNN, so McEnany is a liar."

This entry on Kayleigh McEnany is currently extremely biased and politicized. Please change it so that it is fair. 216.186.217.118 (talk) 14:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

The current text reflects the reliable sources, so, no, we're not going to change it. Neutrality^talk 15:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2020

In Section titled Republican political strategist, change "Despite Trump's well-documented history of false and misleading statements" to "Despite allegations of President Trump's false and misleading statements" This change is more neutral, especially since the linked page itself is under question by Wiki for neutrality. Tavennerfb (talk) 20:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

In section titled White House press secretary, request change "McEnany then proceeded to make a number of false claims in the same briefing" to "McEnany then proceeded to make statements that CNN said were "laden with inaccuracies" and The Guardian characterized as "dodgy information" in the same briefing." The requested change is more accurate in that both referenced sources' text used the quoted language rather than the more salient "false" language merely posed as questions in their headlines. Tavennerfb (talk) 20:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

No, the cited sources here directly supports the content. We also don't give in-text attribution for straightforward facts. Neutrality^talk 21:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Where are the straightforward facts? The lack of people on here calling Neutrality out on this is prima facie proof that facts are foreign to the people who write anything having to do with the prez. Facts are to them what MSM says they are. Prove with real evidence and not an opinion: "Trump's well-documented history of false and misleading statements." Prove with real evidence and not an opinion: "McEnany then proceeded to make a number of false claims in the same briefing." Prove it or make the changes. Orpheus592 (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Can we count? "currently serving as the 31st White House press secretary"

Suppose that I change this to 36th WH PS. Who is going to challenge my edit? I'll gladly list the prior 35. Someone needs to correct the miscounts going a long way back. 161.38.130.16 (talk) 21:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2020

I have to. only ask. why biased sounding sentences like "Despite Trump's well-documented history of false and misleading statements,....." are needed? Wiki had seemingly fought the use of partisan negative comments and opines. This article could very well have had the same said of Obama's recent comments. 2607:FCC8:B644:1100:F110:366D:833E:DF32 (talk) 20:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Bias

This article is, as most of comments on Wikipedia related to Trump administration, biased against the current WH press secretary. She is pretty new on the job and yet she has all the mainstream media smearing her. We are living in a strange era in which the truth and honesty in media reporting are completely dead notions. And wikipedia is just used by some people to mimick the media. Thiermub (talk) 17:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I see Wikipedia being biased here Wpow (talk) 02:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

It always is. I haven't seen a balanced Wikipedia page on anyone involved in politics for as long as I can remember. 63.144.61.178 (talk) 17:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

The bias against this WH press secretary is clear. It cites sources that are opinion pieces. This needs to stop.Orpheus592 (talk) 20:56, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Lede

WP: MOS/Lead Section says the Lede "should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." McEnany's initial criticism of Trump followed by her endorsement of him reflects a certain lack of integrity. As press secretary, she continues to repeat Trump's lies, many of which tend to be controversial. As such, her suspect connection to the truth is contentious and needs to be in the lede. Pinklydo (talk) 07:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)(banned sock puppet - [6]) EdJF (talk) 20:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Include RS text about false statements McEnany made in her first press conference?

After constant edit-warring by IP numbers and vandals, one of the regular editors, "FloridaArmy", has decided to whitewash RS content which notes that McEnany proceeded to tell falsehoods at her first press conference as Press Secretary after she pledged to never tell a lie. It's not only notable that a Press Secretary lies, but that she'd choose to do so at their very first press conference and immediately after pledging not to do so. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Agree that there's no reason whatsoever to exclude this content. It's well-sourced, encyclopedic, and proper weight. Neutrality^talk 23:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm restoring this material given the lack of any objection on this talk page to doing so. Neutrality^talk 14:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

There is no support that the Press Secretary has lied. There is no evidence except that gleaned from the leftist combative infantile acting MSM. They are not there for answers. They ask gotcha questions or editorialize like they have been doing since Trump won the election. Real stories are ignored if they are against the leftist narrative. This why Wikipedia, once a somewhat respected data source is now viewed as a Democrat haven. Orpheus592 (talk) 20:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

McEnany's comments on the St Johns photo-op belong in the article

Both her comments defending Trump's photo op, as well as her criticism of Gen. Mattis for his condemnation of the stunt. Both are covered in RS, and the incident is clearly notable. The editor EdJF removed any and all mention of the text because he disagreed that the peaceful protestors were "attacked" and because he personally knows better than RS as to whether tear gas was used.[7] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I support restoring this. To avoid any quibbling, I'm fine with changing the phrase "to attack peaceful protestors with tear gas" to "to forcibly remove peaceful protestors using a chemical agent." I assume EdJF will not argue with that since the new phrasing would be even more closely aligned to the source. Neutrality^talk 16:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

::: I have restored it citing the statement that smoke canisters, pepper balls, riot shields, batons and officers on horseback and rubber bullets were used - per the RS. Pinklydo (talk) 22:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)(banned sock puppet - [8]) EdJF (talk) 20:33, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

MO[A

moap[aMamata Banerjee — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.8.108 (talk) 01:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2020

Please remove the bit about her not being able to tell the truth. Its simply conjecture and has no place in a wikipedia article. 115.188.160.148 (talk) 06:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Reworked. The bit was unsourced, non-neutral, and breaks WP:WEASEL. I believe the my reworded sentence is more neutral and informative. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2020

Why does her bio have to state that she promised not lie. What's that hot to do with the facts. If she has lied put it on. But I don't see people putting other politicians wikipedia pages about there credibility as every politician is completely reliable. 115.188.160.148 (talk) 10:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2020

Please change references to "Trump" to either "President Donald Trump" or to "President Trump" or remove "President Barak" from the reference to President Obama 2600:1700:C6C0:A1C0:4DCD:2FF2:4F48:99B7 (talk) 04:03, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: I don't think it would be necessary or improve wording (in some cases these references to Trump before he was POTUS), in any case there is no ambiguity about who is being referred to. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:09, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2020

Wikipedia is garbage.

Completed sock puppet investigation

The sock puppet investigation on Notagainst is completed and the sock account pinklydo has been blocked indefinitely [9]. Other sock accounts used by Notagainst also banned, but pinklydo was the only sock posting here on this page. Any comment that looks like a vote by pinklydo has been lined out accordingly.EdJF (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

This part sounds like opinion rather than factual

Despite Trump's well-documented history of false and misleading statements, in August 2019, McEnany told CNN's Chris Cuomo: "I don't believe the president has lied." Wpow (talk) 02:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2020

Kayleigh is a Roman Catholic 203.206.16.192 (talk) 11:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC) https://www.ncronline.org/file/mcenany-ccjpg 203.206.16.192 (talk) 11:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC) 203.206.16.192 (talk) 11:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Nowere does it say that she is Catholic, or anything else. It's just a file.  Darth Flappy ^«Talk» 12:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

The first sentence is misleading by grammatical misconstruction

The opening sentence, "serving as the 31st and current White House Press Secretary since April 2020." should be modified to read "serving since April 2020 as the 31st and current White House Press Secretary."

(There have not been 31 press secretaries since April 2020!)

AEscirian (talk) 09:19, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

she was critical of then-candidate Trump

"she was critical of then-candidate Trump, calling his remarks about Mexican immigrants "racist" and suggesting it was "inauthentic" to call him a Republican."

Interesting how this sort of thing is considered acceptable to be included in the opening summary, instead of appearing well below where it belongs.

If the intention was to display just how determined the overtly biased left-leaning "media" truly is (this includes the cozy relationship with Google and Wiki)... well done! Mission accomplished.

In a way, I'm glad and even encourage this. Fair is fair. Let the people know just much of a stronghold the left enjoys their monopoly on our thoughts. I'm even half-way convinced this article was a troll-ish attempt from a rightist to make this situation even more crystal clear than ever.

Don't believe me? Compare Kayleigh's sweaty disgrace of a main photo to Hillary's photo.. eerily reminiscent of something out of Mao's playbook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.152.62 (talk) 16:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

You lost me a couple times here (especially with the Mao reference). I gathered that as far as concrete issues go, you disagree with the last paragraph of the lead and the image. With my attention drawn to them, with these particulars, I have to agree. The last paragraph in the lead seemed didn't seem NPOV to me, and would fail the 10 year test anyway. As for the image, appears like that was a unilateral change a few weeks ago, I happen to agree that the colours and the light are way off, so I've restored it to the previous one.

As for the rest of your comments, if you have an issue with the content on Wikipedia the good part is that you can change it yourself! If there's a problem, make an account (due to the semi-protection) and WP:FIXIT. More editors are always needed! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:18, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2020

Remove:

Despite Trump's well-documented history of false and misleading statements, in August 2019, McEnany told CNN's Chris Cuomo: "I don't believe the president has lied."[23] Journalist Elizabeth Williamson opined "her defence of her boss – and her castigations of the press – appear to be unperturbed by (Trump's) shifting narratives, (his) breaks from logic and (his) flights of fantasy."[1]

Because:

The above appears as a somewhat inflammatory statement and has little to do with the role of the Press Secretary, her history or her job, and more likely to result in a shown bias of wikipedia, rather than a neutral presentation. It is not factually supported (regardless of citation), and is only supported by biased sites based on opinion of the data, Ergo: Many politicians lie, on both sides of the aisle, and their employees usually will not publicly oppose their boss. In this case this article citation only seeks to proffer an opinion about her boss, not the subject or her work. Deltaecho5 (talk) 20:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

 Partly done. @Deltaecho5: I've removed the quote from Williamson because she is not notable and that the quote is from rather recently, instead of from the event. The quote might also have a problem with WP:NPOV, specifically WP:UNDUE. I'm keeping the first bit where McEnany says Trump does not lie. That is a fact and is documented by a reliable source, so there's no reason to exclude it. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 14:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

No "see also" section?

I just want to say it's really helpful of Wikipedia to put a little padlock on every article that can be taken with a grain of salt. It's informing readers that what is written is neither here nor there and that up is down and left is right etc.

Which makes me wonder why there is no see also, a section that's purpose is to (and I quote): "Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number. A "See also" section is not mandatory—some high-quality and comprehensive articles do not have one."

So why isn't McEnany among these illustrious official government mouthpieces?

• Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf
• Hanoi Hannah
• Seoul City Sue
• Tokyo Rose
• Lord Haw Haw
• Joseph Goebbels
• Sean Spicer

Etc etc this list can go on and on....

Or am I to presume everything this delightful lady says is totally and unequivocally beyond reproach and delivers factually accurate updates from the Trump Administration? Again weird that the articles about Robert Gibbs, Jay Carney, or Josh Earnest don't have the little BS padlock icons? Funny that, maybe they don't need to be in the same see also list, I suggest? 81.132.7.38 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:17, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2020

In second paragraph under heading "Republican political strategist," change "she responded to claims it was hypocritical of Trump to visit his golf course while president by mistakenly claiming that" to "she responded to claims it was hypocritical of Trump to visit his golf course while president by incorrectly claiming that". The word "mistake" implies that it's possible for us to know that it was a misconception on her part, but we cannot substantiate what she factually knew or did not know -- whether she believed what she said or not. The word "incorrect" is more accurate in this case, as this does not presume knowledge of her understanding or beliefs at the time the statement was claimed. "Mistake" connotes POV; "incorrect" is factual/NPOV.NotThatKindOfDr (talk) 00:40, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:SYN and note on recent edits

FYI, I have shortened and simplified some recently added material on McEnany's false statement regarding Trump's response to the coronavirus. Specifically, I removed pieces cited to Rev.com (the Woodward transcripts), Business Insider, and Snopes, since none of these citations actually named McEnany at all (WP:SYN). I replaced this with a sentence cited to a PolitiFact piece that directly addresses McEnany's claim in detail (and explains why it was very wrong). Neutrality^talk 23:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Date of Woodward recording

There seems to be disagreement in the media about whether the "Always wanted to downplay it" recording was made in February or March. Some are reporting it was February, some March. Anybody know for sure which it is? Jason Quinn (talk) 06:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

On September 15 Woodward was interviewed by Colbert, during which Woodward says that Trump knew how dangerous the virus was on January 28. During his recording taken that day, Woodward says that, in the oval office, Trump’s “national security advisor tells him that the virus is going to be the biggest national security threat to your presidency.” (watch from 9mins on: https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2020/09/stephen-colbert-bob-woodward-trump-tape) Then from CNN: “But in early February, Trump told Woodward he knew how deadly the virus was, and in March, admitted he kept that knowledge hidden from the public.‘I wanted to always play it down,’ Trump told Woodward on March 19” (https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/09/politics/bob-woodward-rage-book-trump-coronavirus/index.html). I'm not sure if this helps -- probably a copy of Rage would settle it. NotThatKindOfDr (talk) 05:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2020

Stating "the welll documented" history that the President has lied is a subjective, partisan biased statement. It is presented as objective not subjective, which is obviously incorrect. If Wikipedia is to be used, standards of objective fact must be maintained, not subjective partisan statements. 97.113.73.178 (talk) 07:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Failing to wear a mask even though she had been exposed to others with COVID-19

The editor "Mott Black Coffee" has removed RS text about how McEnany refused to wear a mask while interacting with reporters despite the fact that she had been exposed to individuals who were found to have COVID-19. The editor has removed the text with bizarre WP:OR explainers, including (1) McEnany didn't contract COVID-19 from the reporters (who said she did?) and (2) McEnany was not infectious before she tested positive. As for #2, it's unclear when she became infectious. What is clear is that she had been exposed to COVID-19 positive individuals and that she did not bother to take the minimum precautions to protect others in case she was infectious. The text should be restored ASAP. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Accuracy of her remarks

Apparently this person often says things when interviewed that ... cannot be verified. Isn't this an important fact that ought to be in the article?2600:1700:E1C0:F340:3CB7:101A:FA49:A063 (talk) 23:56, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree, but even worse, sometimes she makes statement that can be verified as patently false. This needs to be mentioned in the article - just as Donald Trumps lies are highlighted on wiki in a page called Veracity of statements by Donald Trump. Pinklydo (talk) 03:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Are you guys getting paid for posting all these bs? StargazerAW (talk) 22:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Supposed to keep it civil - Wikipedia:Covfefeing - can you do that? - 50.80.242.31 (talk) 03:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

For a Wikipedia article, this one is almost ideologically neutral. Sure, Wikipedia is a pro-Left source, but despite this obvious saturation in leftist ideology, this is almost a fair article and doesn't engage in the usual Orange Man Bad nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.216.213 (talk) 01:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Anyone else agree that this article is heavily biased and should therefore require a label advising users before reading? Also, the sources rely heavily on certain news outlets, perhaps include at least one source from FOX or discuss alternative view points at the end of each argument? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:7403:9B01:71AC:D979:EF32:69C1 (talk) 09:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2020

CHANGE McEnany married Sean Gilmartin, a pitcher for the Tampa Bay Rays baseball team, in November 2017 TO McEnany married Sean Gilmartin, a former MLB pitcher most recently for the Tampa Bay Rays baseball team, in November 2017 Zlax45 (talk) 19:42, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Gilmartin isn't retired. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

He is not on a roster at the end of the season thus is a former player — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zlax45 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2020

It should be fully protected because she is a controversial political figure — Preceding unsigned comment added by PersianCats2 (talk • contribs)

 Not done: requests for increases to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. However, I will note that full protection is very rarely placed on Wikipedia articles, and is typically only done in the event of ongoing content disputes or edit warring. See the WP:Protection policy for more information. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:49, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Claims of media bias

The editor Tobby is edit-warring content into the article where McEnany is claiming that the media is biased against Republicans because the media did not give sufficient coverage of a faux controversy regarding Eric Swallwell. The text in question is not written in NPOV and sourced to "Indy100" and Fox News, two non-RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

This information has been reverted, with the following edit summary: "poorly sourced and non-npov".

Beginning with his time as a Dublin, California city councilor, Eric Swalwell was targeted by a Chinese woman believed to be a clandestine officer of China's Ministry of State Security. Swalwell's general relationship with a suspected Chinese agent, Christine Fang, has been characterized as problematic, particularly given the high-profile role that he occupied – a member of the House Intelligence Committee – within the intelligence community. McEnany accused media that they are biased against the Republican Party, saying: "When the Swalwell story broke, guess how many minutes of coverage it got on ABC, NBC, MSNBC and CBS? Zero. CNN devoted three minutes and 16 seconds to it."

References

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources: "The Independent (Indy100), a British newspaper, is considered a reliable source for non-specialist information." "There is consensus that Fox News is generally reliable for news coverage on topics other than politics and science. There is no consensus on the reliability of Fox News's coverage of politics and science. Use Fox News with caution to verify contentious claims." -- Tobby72 (talk) 12:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion of this material would be undue weight. The sourcing is mediocre, the comment does not seem particularly significant, and - most importantly - there are BLP concerns in that this appears to repeat innuendo regarding Rep. Swalwell, merely because he is the unwitting victim of an attempted crime. Neutrality^talk 21:10, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Fox News is not an unreliable source (believe it or not), unless perhaps it’s coming from the opinion section. Compared to a blatantly unreliable option like One America News Network. Trillfendi (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to change the wikibox picture

Thoughts on this picture for the wikibox? My sister took it at the Grand Hyatt Washington hotel and gave me permission to publish it in the public domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipedianempire (talk • contribs) 18:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Need a RS to prove this is actually McEnany. In the interim, deleted image, per WP:BLP which applies to both articles as well as talk pages. EdJF (talk) 18:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2021

Change the image to something respectful, that is disrespectful image. 130.156.110.188 (talk) 18:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Not sure what is disrespectful about the image in the infobox. If you wish the image to be changed however, please link the image that should be added. Terasail^[✉] 18:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

New Infobox Photo?

The current infobox photo is from 2018 and a bit outdated at this point. It has been in use on and off since then, and I think we should look towards something that represents her a little better.

This picture could work as the new infobox photo. Thoughts? It's a bit lower quality and she appears slightly different than her usual presentation, but I believe it does a fairly decent job. I will change the image for the time being, but feel free to object or propose a different image.

Need a RS to prove this is actually McEnany. In the interim, deleted image, per WP:BLP which applies to both articles as well as talk pages.EdJF (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

This article is wayy biased

Did a democrat write this article on Kayleigh?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnrees1234 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2021

Change "33rd" to "4th":

who served as the 33rd White House press secretary for the Trump administration -becomes- who served as the 4th White House press secretary for the Trump administration

She had 3 predecessors, Sean Spicer, Sarah Sanders, and Stephanie Grisham. Sources:

https://www.thoughtco.com/donald-trumps-press-secretaries-4125913 https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/07/politics/kayleigh-mcenany-new-white-house-press-secretary/index.html https://www.npr.org/2020/05/01/849019976/trumps-new-press-secretary-revives-white-house-briefing 2600:1700:B4E0:1660:CFB:AA2D:186:AB61 (talk) 20:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Numbering is based on all previous holders of the role, not just ones under Trump. Melmann 20:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

If the number applies to all previous holders of the role, then "for the Trump administration" should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:B4E0:1660:4C54:7431:75A3:A2FB (talk) 21:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Lead should cover her deception

This text[10] to the lead should be restored. Her promotion of falsehoods and conspiracy theories as WH press secretary is covered extensively int he body and should be summarized in the lead. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I think the lede is pretty good as is. It covers all the basic facts, and he statements as press secretary are covered below in that section. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2021

UNAMIGUOUSLY my suggested change is that Wikipedia remove most of this article and rewrite it so it is not so flagrantly biased. All that is in this article is anti-Trump, anti-McEnany opinions. Wikipedia is supposed to be fact based but I guess the communist left wing has gotten to you too. Guess you can be crossed off the list of reliable, fact based information. Seriously, read it through an unbiased lens and you can see how all this article is trashing Trump and McEnany. It's ok, though, when students in school are told not to use Wikipedia because it is unverifiable and can be edited by anyone saying anything, I guess I'm not too concerned if you change it. People already know what is on Wikipedia isn't credible. 216.21.169.177 (talk) 18:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

That's not a requested edit. I suggest you start with one section at a time and try and hash out a consensus for the prose, explaining your arguments with sources, and convince people to change. Alternatively you can suggest single changes by providing the prose you'd like to replace and what you'd like to replace it with, again with sources. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Dems have gotten to Wikipedia too. If there was nothing to hide, dems wouldn't have to manipulate the media.

UNAMIGUOUSLY my suggested change is that Wikipedia remove most of this article and rewrite it so it is not so flagrantly biased. All that is in this article is anti-Trump, anti-McEnany opinions. Wikipedia is supposed to be fact based but I guess the communist left wing has gotten to you too. Guess you can be crossed off the list of reliable, fact based information. Seriously, read it through an unbiased lens and you can see how all this article is trashing Trump and McEnany. It's ok, though, when students in school are told not to use Wikipedia because it is unverifiable and can be edited by anyone saying anything, I guess I'm not too concerned if you change it. People already know what is on Wikipedia isn't credible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.21.169.177 (talk) 18:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

You're talking to a bunch of volunteers, so there is no monolithic Wikipedia to remove most of the article, or rewrite it. That's why I asked you to provide what you'd rewrite. I already pulled one sentence that I thought belittled her in her early life section and I'm perusing a bit more now. If there was something specific you can point to that you think is a problem that would help, otherwise you're asking other people to do that work for you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry. I did not know that. I just remember when a time when Wikipedia was not so polarizing. Thanks, ScottishFinnishRadish, for clearing it up on how Wikipedia works. I am due for a holiday in a few months. I will start a couple of investigations and I will be back not only to tell the truth about the former press sec, but why after Trump decided to run for office, he was instantly a pariah. I know there is more to it than empty claims of racism and sexism. The record is replete with so many dems and even the current prez doing far worse. I want to have sold facs for anything that I write.Orpheus592 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:01, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2021

Please kindly consider changing

Kayleigh McEnany (/ˈkeɪli ˈmækənɛni/;[1] born April 18, 1988)[2] is an American conservative political commentator and author who served as the 33rd White House press secretary for the Trump administration from April 2020 to January 2021.

to

Kayleigh McEnany (/ˈkeɪli ˈmækənɛni/;[1] born April 18, 1988)[2] is an American conservative political commentator and author who served under the Trump administration from April 2020 to January 2021 as the 33rd White House press secretary.

My reason for requesting the edit is that when I initially read it, it seemed to be saying that President Trump had 33 White House press secretaries rather than that she was the 33rd of the total amount of press secretaries there had been at that time. I went to Wikipedia page “White House Press Secretary” to clear up my confusion.

Thank you in advance for considering my edit! 162.40.198.187 (talk) 17:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree. All set. Thanks! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2021

“Fox News” is an ENTERTAINMENT Network, not an actual NEWS Network. Please change xNEWs to y Entertainment. 2601:640:C680:3060:94DE:4FFD:2095:F51C (talk) 03:54, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: While you followed the "X to Y" format, your request is not specific enough. Please state specifically in the article where you'd like changes to be made. Sweeping change suggestions like this are not likely to be accepted. Living Concrete (talk) 03:59, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for not changing it. Unlike CNN, Fox News is an actual news channel. They have separate and clear delineations between what is factual reporting of news and what is talking head opinion. The previous requestor is yet another example of left wing crazies seeking to alienate more and more people with their dystopian Ministry of Truth-like propaganda.Orpheus592 (talk)

Does Wikipedia ever retract anything?

Even after DOJ released report that President Trump did not Stage a photo op in Front of St. Johns church- crickets. No integrity. Jillnage (talk) 07:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Remove the Grant Stern Section

Grand Stern is the Executive Editor of known fake news outlet Occupy Democrats (see opening of its Wikipedia page). He is notorious for spreading misinformation and disinformation, as well as misleading information. I would recommend either replacing the section that mentions him with more reliable sources or removing that paragraph altogether. Hayden 4747 (talk) 21:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Kayleigh's father Michael "Mike" McEnany was one of the most productive walk-on football players in Mississippi State University history. He came from Miam (Fla.) Killian HS as an invited freshman in autumn 1979 and helped the Bulldogs play in a pair of bowl games after the 1980s and '81 seasons. He still is among MSU's Top 10 career leaders in sacks and was one of the most popular football student-athletes on campus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.184.5.152 (talk) 21:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:McEnany (surname) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)