Talk:White House press corps: Difference between revisions

White House Press Corps

I sought but did not find an article on the white house press corps. Mathiastck 18:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I am quite surprised that this article is so useless. I hope someone comes up with something, but I don't know anything about them. --Sven Erixon 06:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

External Link

The link provided should be removed. It is a blog that states "This site is not associated with the White House Correspondents' Association or its members in any way. We are an independent media watchdog source providing information and commentary on the relationship between the press and the White House. We welcome your input and discussion." It might be a fine blog which covers the White House but is unrelated to the white house press corps, the subject of this article. --AD 12:56 Jan 28 2008 (CST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.84.199.13 (talk)

Done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.84.199.84 (talk) 18:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Move this page

Any objection to moving this page from "White House Press Corps" to "White House press corps"? - Walkiped ^{(T | C)} 03:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

possible COI

It was a simple edit but was reverted for lack of references. The editor identified himself on my talk page as being one of the CNN reporters mentioned in the edit. Probably innocent enough of an edit (assuming there are references available) but I offered to assit with the edit anyway since the editor in question mentioned being new to it all. Just an FYI.--RadioFan (talk) 16:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

June 2013: Article lacks information

This article is lacks information about who determines the composition of the press corps, or then number of members in it. Who makes this decision, and how has the size and composition of the press corps changed over time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.92.9.130 (talk) 23:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Change of Subtitle "Correspondents"

Per suggestion GabeIglesia expanded the opening paragraph to reflect the fact that the term "White House press corps" is generally understood to include, not just correspondents and reporters, but all media assigned to or covering the White House, such as producers and photographers.

In line with that, subtitle "Correspondents" should be broadened to reflect same -- perhaps "Members" ?

Also suggest that revised opening paragraph be further revised to say "group of journalists, correspondents, and other [delete or] members of the media . . ."

Azzurroribbon (talk) 01:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Sourcing for current members

Azzurroribbon, where are you getting your information from? I ask because I'm working on Jack Posobiec. Posobiec left Rebel Media last month, so does that mean his access to White House press briefings has been revoked? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman, Jack Posobiec may still have access to White House press briefings via a day pass issued by the White House, if the WH chooses to give him a pass. He did not previously have a hard pass, as far as I know. His name was added to the correspondents list, and later removed, but neither the addition nor removal was made by me. If he obtains a pass or passes in the future, and his "beat," so to speak, is covering WH press briefings, then he would most likely qualify as a correspondent for purposes of this page. My sources are varied: announcements by the various media, posted articles and verified Twitter accounts of correspondents, websites detailing media moves, and the briefings themselves. Azzurroribbon (talk) 02:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Michael Moates

Moates is not a journalist, but rather a blogger for his own "news" site which just recycles current events with bombastic and regularly false headlines.

He does not have a hard pass, but rather just gets daily passes on occasion.

He keeps adding himself as a member of the press corps on the page despite not being an actual regular member. If we take his standard for being added to the page, then we could likely add hundreds of others who get in via daily passes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.103.201.192 (talk) 19:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Where is proof of what you say above? Please do not revert Moates info again without a proper reason and some proof. WP:BRD. Lacypaperclip (talk) 06:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Neither Moates nor "Nation One News Foundation" are notable. Individuals or businesses that are listed in a list article, or a list subsection of a article, need to meet a basic level of notability as defined by the Wikipedia. Take for example our articles on universities that have a "Notable Alumni" section; to be included, an entrant has to have some demonstrable notability, some reliable source that shows that they are important. Same with something like List of Irish musical groups, one cannot include every Irishman/woman who picks up a hurdy-gurdy, there has to be a citation to prove it. ValarianB (talk) 13:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

@Lacypaperclip, look at the contribution history for that user. He's created two pages: Michael Moates and a page for the blog he runs. Apart from that his only other edits have been reverting removal of Moates on this page. One would would have to be either naive or willfully blind to not see that the account is Moates himself, especially considering the amount of personal information that's been added to the draft Michael Moates article. -=Eduardo=- (talk) 15:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

The unsigned comment above is actually libel due to the fact that it is inaccurate. Mr. Moates does not produce false headlines. Just because you may disagree does not make them false. He is not adding himself I am adding him. I am new to Wikipedia and this was my first article. I am still learning. Moates does not only write for this non-profit news foundation. He contributes to Washington Examiner, Red Alert Politics, Independent Journal Review, and formerly TheBlaze. Eduardo, I am not Moates all the information I have gotten is public record online. Please don't make assumptions. -=James=- (talk) 18:15, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

It is not libel to state an opinion of a blogger's veracity in reporting. I have restored the comment and you are cautioned against tampering with another user's comments. As several editors have objected to the listing of this non-notable figure, you will not restore it unless consensus can be reached to do so. ValarianB (talk) 12:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

When the deletion discussions for both Moates and the organization are concluded as a likely, borderline slamdunk delete, I will initiate a discussion about the removal. If we have to do a formal request for comment to cement this, then all the better. ValarianB (talk) 12:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

@ValarianB: Both articles have been deleted. Billhpike (talk) 14:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I have restored the comments that were erroneously removed. Jamesharrison, stop removing others' comments. By taking personal offense and claiming these are WP:NPA, you are proving either one of two things: You do not understand the "personal attacks" policy. Personal attacks refers to "derogatory comments about other editors," and it explicitly says: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Not once did the IP criticize you, only the subject within the article. The other thing this could prove: The only way you can claim that these are personal attacks on you is if you are actually Moates himself. Then you absolutely can take offense over the IP calling Moates/you a "clown," among other things. Yet you have repeatedly insisted already that you are not Moates himself; so, taking your word for it, I'll just assume that you don't understand the policy. Hence why I've reverted the comments again. Once more, do not remove them anymore. 104.52.53.152 (talk) 16:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

jamesharrison2014 (talk · contribs) removed the comments again. Billhpike (talk) 14:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

jamesharrison2014 (talk · contribs) has removed comments from his talk page that asked him to clarify why he claimed to be the original author of pictures first posted on Moate’s Facebook page. See [1] Billhpike (talk) 01:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Correction- The images were retrieved from an open source I never claimed ownership. All WH videos are open source. Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 01:48, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jamesharrison2014:Per your request, we can let Arbcom resolve this matter.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Billhpike (talk • contribs)

One of the IP’s that kept adding Moates is now subject to a checkuser block. See [2] Billhpike (talk) 13:14, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

List of correspondents

It's a real shame that I can't edit this now because of the insistence of having Michael Moates in the article. To weigh in on that, I can't find any reliable source that he is a permanent member. He may just have ad day pass as per this article: [3]. Once we can edit again, I propose: 1. Only correspondents with "hard passes" be listed here 2. All correspondents who are currently listed should be removed unless a reliable source can be found showing that they have a "hard pass" I think if we adopt this standard we can avoid problems like this is the future.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:50, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Once the protection expires, and once the articles of both non-notable person and blog are deleted, I think we'll be on better footing to see it removed for good from the article. Might have to hold an wider request for comment to get more users involved. ValarianB (talk) 16:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Of course I'd like to get some more input on this. I think the problem is bigger than Michael Moates. Probably about half of that list should be deleted from the article.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion needs to be had. According to the talk page if you look above this was changed from correspondents to the entire press corps and according to the talk pages entry "Per suggestion GabeIglesia expanded the opening paragraph to reflect the fact that the term "White House press corps" is generally understood to include, not just correspondents and reporters, but all media assigned to or covering the White House, such as producers and photographers." So are you wanting to change it back, Rusf10 (talk · contribs)? Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

We don't have to change that. All I'm saying is the list can be changed to something like correspondents with hard passes. And then limit who we include, rather than having a list of an infinite amount of people including those who just showed up for a day.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

The issue is that by definition the White House press corps (name of the page) is a group of journalists that cover the president. If you want the article to just be correspondents that would change the name of the page. There are members of the press corps around the world known as in town travel pool members, out of town travel pool members, international pool members. If you change the context of the article you change what the page means. By definition the page refers to all members of the White House press corps my arguement would be that if you remove people to just correspondents the pages name should be White House Correspondents not White House Press Corps. 74.11.178.130 (talk) 00:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The main article can remain the same as long as we make it clear we are not listing every single person who has ever walked into the White House as a member of the press.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I would think that there should be a degree of notability to be included in an article such as this, otherwise it becomes an exhaustive errata of day passers, bloggers, and fringe media. My suggestion is that either the person or the organization be required to pass WP:Notability, that is either person or organization has an article. So we would retain, for example, "Alan Fisher – Al Jazeera English", "Victor Montoro – C-SPAN", and "Ksenija Pavlovic – The Pavlovic Today". But not "John Fredericks – The John Fredericks Show" or the esteemed Mr. Moates. ValarianB (talk) 15:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I could go for that, but I also want a source for each person that proves he/she is actually a member.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with ValarianB (talk · contribs). Any member without a full time pass should be required to pass WP:GNG. See also WP:WTAF. Billhpike (talk) 21:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Please show me evidence of who has such passes. There is no such list.Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 14:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jamesharrison2014: Hard passes are registered through organizations with permanent seats. [4]. A list of such organizations has been published by reliable sources, for example [5]. Per WP:LISTCRUFT, it is inappropriate to list everyone who once sat in a room. Billhpike (talk) 13:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I think this clears things up. The people who have seats on the chart in the Politco article get listed. The people who usually stand (or take someone else's seat) do not.--Rusf10 (talk) 13:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

The information you just provided is false. Organizations hold the seats not the journalists. There are many fox news, NY Times, etc white house journalists different people sit in those seats. So my question stands please tell me every single person that has a hard pass. There is no way for you to know this information. Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 15:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

The information is not false. I have no reason to believe that it isn't an accurate list of organizations (not people) who hold hard passes. From there we could research each of those organization's White House correspondent.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jamesharrison2014: With respect to your claim that the information I provided is false, please provide a citation. I agree with your statement that organizations, as opposed to individual journalists, hold the seats. With respect to your assertion reguarding a list of journalists with hard passes, there have been reports in WP:RS that individual journalists hold hard passes [6] .

I propose the following reformulation of inclusion criteria originally proposed by ValarianB:

• Journalists with hard passes, as reported by WP:RS, or
• Journalists who have attended on behalf of organizations with permanent seats, or
• Other journalists who otherwise satisfy WP:GNG and whose attendance has been reported by WP:RS.

Billhpike (talk) 15:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

RFC on Correspondent Section=

Should the "correspondent" section include only correspondents of organizations with "hard passes"?--Rusf10 (talk) 15:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Support only including correspondents from organizations with "hard passes" which can be sourced. Individuals who obtained "day passes" are not notable.Rusf10 (talk) 15:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, "White House press corps" is generally understood to include, not just correspondents and reporters, but all media assigned to or covering the White House, such as producers and photographers." Therefore all members should be included. Rusf10 (talk) 15:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)