Jump to content

Talk:White House press corps/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

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)

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)

Hi all, FWIW, this is my input for inclusion/exclusion in the list: (1) The WH, per the convention that it is the “people’s house,” has been (especially with the rise of “new media”) more lenient in handing out passes than, say, the Congress vis-à-vis Congressional passes. Therefore, I tend more toward inclusion than exclusion. (2) Permanent vs. Temporary Passes: Major news organizations of course have permanent passes as they have reporters assigned exclusively to the WH, plus a permanent pass is required by the WHCA for pool duty. Smaller, though legitimate, news organizations often do not have sufficient personnel which will allow them to assign one person to cover the WH exclusively. Such organizations also may not have the personnel to assign to pool duty – or in fact have an interest in having one of their reporters do pool duty. For those reasons they also may not think it worthwhile to go through the rigamarole of obtaining a permanent pass. So there are smaller, but legitimate, news organizations that do not hold permanent passes. To limit the list to holders of permanent passes would, IMO, exclude news organizations worthy of being included. (3) Term “WH Press Corps” I believe would include photographers/videographers assigned to the WH. However, I don’t believe photographers fit within the term “Correspondents” and therefore did not include them in the Correspondents list. I did include WH producers, however, because producers are more closely aligned with “Correspondents.” (4) Limitation to “WH Correspondent”: As noted above reporters of smaller, but legitimate, news organizations can wear many hats in covering DC, and thus may not be an “official” WH correspondent. A standard I attempt to apply is whether or not the WH is part of their “beat,” so to speak. That would of course eliminate the one-offs and curiosity seekers who obtain temporary passes. It’s a judgment on my part, to be sure, and I may not always have gotten it right. That is not to say attendance at briefings is a requirement, as many legitimate organizations cover the WH without an appearance at briefings – certainly not a necessity, especially for smaller organizations, since the briefings are on YouTube. (5) WP Notability: Don’t think this is a solution. Brian Karem is at most briefings; ChiaChieh Tang is certainly a legitimate correspondent. And I believe no one in the briefing room would vote to exclude Martha Joynt Kumar who, BTW, holds a hard pass. (6) Michael Moates – after some initial research I thought that Moates did not appear to qualify as a WH correspondent and so deleted him from the list with a notation to that effect. His name was promptly re-added to the list, where I left it (unalphabetized) until I had an opportunity to do further research. Events intervened and time passed, and before I had made a determination ”ValerianB” (believe that was who it was) deleted him. Azzurroribbon (talk) 18:04, 26 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 Inclusion in the article requires the following: 1.Journalists with hard passes, as reported by WP:RS, or 2. Journalists who have attended on behalf of organizations with permanent seats, or 3.Other journalists who otherwise satisfy WP:GNG and whose attendance has been reported by WP:RS. 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)


Threaded discussion

  • Weak Support I can accept the criteria proposed by Rusf10, but I would prefer the slightly more inclusive criteria I proposed above. I oppose including non-notable journalists from non-notable organizations.Billhpike (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC); Updated to reflect new phrasing Billhpike (talk) 16:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
I can support your proposal , let's go with that, I've updated the survey.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - it seems common to have one and not serve, and sometimes,s not have one yet still be there. How about either ignoring the pass, or else have a separate section for non-pass folks? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
@Markbasset: How do you feel about including journalists who individual fail WP:GNG and work for organizations that also fail WP:GNG? Billhpike (talk) 16:39, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
I posted this on village pump, maybe we can get some more input that way.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
In my first round of notifications, I omitted Eduardo89 (talk · contribs). I tried to include everyone who edited with respect to Moates, regardless of their views. Billhpike (talk) 20:21, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
It is important to note this is now the second time this conversation is being had. This article was expanded specifically to include a broader group. Proposed Change of Subtitle "Correspondents" above. Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 22:14, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support This list, as it currently stands, is a little out-of-hand. Some form of hard criteria is needed and the suggestion "as reported by WP:RS" is simply underlining our current policies. Chetsford (talk) 23:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Otherwise it just becomes a list of errata, every person from a blog who passed through for a day. ValarianB (talk) 12:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge with White House Correspondents' Association. Let's face it, this article is not much more than this list. If you have these strict guidelines, then you need discuss if this article really stands alone in the first place. The definition you prescribed is very similar to the one on the WHCA's website/. Considering they are the group that "The WHCA™ represents the White House press corps in its dealings with the administration on coverage-related issues." There just might not be much of a point to this article being separate from that one in light of these facts. (By the way, I contacted them and they do not publish a list of their members, so that's helpful to know). ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 18:05, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
I’ve left notice at Talk:White House Correspondents' Association Billhpike (talk) 22:30, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Michael Moates

I undid revision from 200.76.83.77 that deleted Michael Moates of the Nation One News Foundation (Chief White House Correspondent)<ref>{{cite web|title=Michael Moates _ LinkedIn|url=https://www.linkedin.com/in/mmoates/|website=LinkedIn|publisher=LinkedIn Corporation|accessdate=26 December 2017}}</ref>. This is contingent on a pending consensus from this talk page.

Also, I believe this article would gain benefit from being reviewed by WikiProject Journalism. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 20:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Uncited material in need of citations

I am moving the following material here until it can be properly supported with reliable, secondary citations, per WP:V, WP:CS, WP:IRS, WP:PSTS], WP:BLP, WP:NOR, et al. This diff shows where it was in the article. Nightscream (talk) 20:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Notable former correspondents

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Notable Former Correspondents

I have taken down the RFC template because:

  1. It seems the main issue has been agreeably resolved:
    Someone who meets the criteria for notability of a person for activities carried out while they were working as a correspondent, but who is no longer a correspondent.
  2. It seems subsequent details are being agreeably resolved.
  3. The RFC is over two thousand words most of which are either OFFTOPIC/INAPPROPRIATE, or otherwise unhelpful for a new arrival trying to digest the RFC and respond.

I will not object if this edit is reverted, but if an RFC is still necessary then I strongly recommend a new clean and clear RFC be initiated. Alsee (talk) 06:06, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I would ask the community to define "notable former correspondents." It seems many individuals could have different definitions of this. DoctorTexan (talk) 13:44, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

For people, notability is defined at Wikipedia:Notability (people). (What other definitions are there?) Anyone in this article who has their own article is notable. Thus, anyone with their own article whom cited source establish once worked as a White House correspondent can go in that section. Nightscream (talk) 13:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Nightscream - I disagree and I would ask that you refrain from edit wars until a consensus is determined. Wikipedia notability is not the same as identifying notable correspondents. These are two different standards... what makes this correspondent more special than all the other correspondents? By your definition every journalist that has a wikipedia page that has been in that room could be considered a notable correspondent. I am going to open a RfC. My argument would be that in order to be notable you have to meet high requirements. For example, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein broke the Watergate Scandal. DoctorTexan (talk) 13:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
You disagree with what, exactly? The definition of notability that is explicitly given at WP:BLPNOTE? that is not my definition. It is Wikipedia's definition. Literally. That's simply a fact.
As I stated on my talk page in response to the message you left there, are already engaging in edit warring right now, by beginning a talk page discussion, and then reverting the passage yet again right after beginning that discussion. Reverting during an edit discussion is considered edit warring, by definition.
@Nil Einne: @Beeblebrox: this discussion may concern you. Nightscream (talk) 14:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
I am asking for consensus on notability as it relates to former notable correspondents. I don't think it is unreasonable to ask a question and seek a response from the community and get a consensus. Also, the article you cite WP:BLPNOTE does not address journalists.... only politicians. Removing someone from the list who is no longer a correspondent is appropriate because I can cite it in numerous sources. See:
https://variety.com/2021/tv/news/cnn-jim-acosta-weekend-anchor-trump-white-house-1234945713/
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/533608-cnn-shifts-acosta-away-from-white-house
https://www.foxnews.com/media/cnn-pulls-jim-acosta-biden-white-house
https://www.distractify.com/p/what-happened-to-jim-acosta-cnn
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/cnn-jim-acosta-leaves-white-151737208.html
https://www.showbiz411.com/2021/01/11/cnns-jim-acosta-fox-newss-john-roberts-promoted-to-anchors-rewarded-for-battle-duty-in-white-house-press-corps
https://www.newsmax.com/us/cnn-jim-acosta-white-house-anchor/2021/01/11/id/1005184/
The question becomes now... what the community defines as a former "notable" correspondent. Also, it is important to distinguish between a notable individual for a wikipedia article and a notable individual with regards to being a notable former correspondent. These to me are two different things although the community may disagree with me. It is important to get a consensus. I have added an Rfc and I am seeking input.
There is no need to try to bully me by using my past and trying to pull people into it when my edits are within policy. The community saw fit to allow me to resume editing and all I have done is ask for input. It is that simple. There is no need for all of the negativity. Let's just see what the community says. For the record if it said former correspondents and not former notable correspondents... I would not even be having this discussion. For the admins that Nightscream brought into the discussion, I would like to explain my actions. The first revert, was in accordance with Nightscream wishes that a source be cited and I cited it in the edit notes because the person referenced was no longer on the list. Then he reverted and insisted that I add the individual to the former notability list... I reverted in an effort to come to a consensus here... there is no malicious intent on my part... I just want to understand what the community thinks. I don't think brining a bunch of admins in is needed nor do I think the minor personal attacks about my past on the users talk page are appropriate. I do think that when two users disagree it is fair to request a consensus from the community. If I am wrong, please let me know. Nightscream - Per your request I have added Mr. Acosta to the list until the community can reach a consensus. I hope this satisfies your request. If not let me know and I will do whatever I can to make you happy.

It is my hope that this list doesn't get out of control due to unlimited amounts of names.

People that could be added:

Carl Bernstien Bob Woodward Mark Knoller Mark Knoller Bill Plante Jim Axelrod Ed Henry Elaine Quijano Suzanne Malveaux Bret Baier Julie Mason

... found these in two minutes... see more here https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/administration/whbriefing/correspondents.html

My concern is this list could get extensive.

cc: BillHPike, Bovlb DoctorTexan (talk) 14:15, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Not sure why I was pinged here. While I disagreed with the unblocking of DoctorTexan, it would be inappropriate for me to follow them around to look for instances of them messing up. If DoctorTexan's behaviour since being unblocked really rises to the level requiring administrative action and I don't see anything in the thread which does, open a thread at ANI. If DoctorTexan's behaviour doesn't rise to that level but is causing some concern, it may be wise if someone speaks to them before it goes, but that would be better coming from someone who supported the unblock. And I don't mean in a 'you made the mess, you deal with it' way, simply that people tend to be able to take on board advice better when it's coming from someone they see eye to eye with rather than someone they frequently disagree with. Nil Einne (talk) 15:55, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Responding to messages on my talk page and here:
"I am not going to argue about the past, I am moving forward."You asked for a source, I provided one." Citations do not go in edit summaries. They go in the article. That is policy and practice, per WP:V, WP:INCITE, WP:CS, et al.
Also, the article you cite WP:BLPNOTE does not address journalists.... only politicians." This is false. WP:BLPNOTE concerns people, from academics to creative professionls, to entertainers to political figures, sports personalities, and those involved in noted crimes. It does not address "only politicians", as anyone can see from looking through that article, or even just glancing at the table of contents.
"Also, it is important to distinguish between a notable individual for a wikipedia article and a notable individual with regards to being a notable former correspondent." There is no such distinction on Wikipedia. The word is used to refer to the test by which any topic qualifies for a Wikipedia article. It is not used to refer to specific sections within specific articles.
"There is no need to try to bully me by using my past and trying to pull people into it when my edits are within policy." Agreed. And you were not bullied. You were criticized for your behavior. That is not what "bullying" is. Jumping on the bandwagon of the anti-bullying movement by appropriating that word to refer to any form of criticism is deceitful, and attempting to paint yourself as a victim is irrelevant to this discussion. You have reverted the article at least three times, the most recent being during this talk page discussion, which is considered edit warring. That's not bullying. It's criticism of your behavior.
As for your referring to your block as "the past", the fact is, you were blocked for sockpuppetry on May 9, you attacked the checkuser who revealed this to the editing community, accusing him of "harassment", "stalking", "manipulation", and "blackmail", and these personal attacks were noted by other administrators as well. You were eventually unblocked yesterday. That is not the "past". that is a current and ongoing pattern of behavior, one that is continuing now with your conduct today. For this reason, noting your disregard for Wikipedia policy and other editors is reasonable. Nightscream (talk) 16:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
This continued public humiliation and degrading comments are not necessary, you got what you wanted.
I am done engaging with you. Also, your comment about 3 reverts is inaccurate. I made one edit and two reverts, one of which was at your request DoctorTexan (talk) 19:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Why do you keep playing the victim? Your conducts and your words were CRITICIZED. That is not what the words "humiliation" or "degredation" or "bullying" mean. Stop using manipulative language to dismiss criticism. It won't work. Nightscream (talk) 15:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
This discussion should concern itself with the content issue raised, not unrelated conduct issues. Please focus on the content issues and leave the ad hominem attacks out of it. It is not helpful to the project for this to become a venue for harassment or personal attacks. No matter what an editor has done in the past, it is unfair to bring it up continually in unrelated fora because they cannot reasonably defend themselves everywhere, again and again.
DoctorTexan seeks to draw a distinction between "former Whitehouse correspondents who are notable" and "notable former Whitehouse correspondents". It seems to me to be reasonable to draw such a distinction, where the latter requires that they be specifically notable for that role. Having said that, Wikipedia is not paper, and I don't see why we couldn't host a complete list of everyone granted a "permanent" seat. (How many are there?) It doesn't need to be in this article, and having a selection of notable former members still seems reasonable.
Nightscream is quite right that references normally belong in the article, but justifying removal of content is a perfectly fine exception to this principle where it is useful to put it in the edit summary. Bovlb (talk) 16:36, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Look up correspondent (sense 3) in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
  • Definition: – A notable former correspondent is someone who meets the criteria for notability of a person for activities carried out while they were working as a correspondent, but who is no longer a correspondent, either because they are retired, deceased, or because they work in some other occupation. This an attempt to give a direct response to your Rfc question, which, afaict, no one has. Mathglot (talk) 22:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC):
I support the definition being proposed by Mathglot as they are citing to relevant rules. The proposed definition uses a common sense approach by breaking down each term and providing a working definition. Jurisdicta (talk) 05:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
I think that's pretty much the definition I've been adhering to myself. Nightscream (talk) 14:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
I can live with that. I like the way they are organized by news organization so as to not create a long list. The important part of this definition for me is "notability of a person for activities carried out while they were working as a correspondent." DoctorTexan (talk) 17:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Two other issues I see:
1) What do we do about an individual who has worked for multiple organization... what if they were more notable at one than the other but the other is not the latest? For example Oliver Knox was a Yahoo News, Washington Post, and SirusXM correspondent.
2) Define hard pass... Do individuals who have a congressional hard pass (which can be used at the WH) who cover both qualify?
cc: Mathglot Nightscream Jurisdicta DoctorTexan (talk) 17:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
I think we should just reorganize it alphabetically by name, rather than by organization, just as similar section lists do in other articles. After all, the list centers upon people, so why go by organization? This would eliminate that problem.
@DoctorTexan: For future reference (just in case you're not already familiar with it) you can cause your talk page messages to automatically send an alert to other people by using the {{ping|USERNAME}} tag, as I did here. Hope that helps. Nightscream (talk) 19:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
@DoctorTexan: to answer your question: if Bill Smith worked at Reuters from 1980-2020 and won a Pulitzer and a Peabody award for his reporting, and then made a late-career job switch to writing up the highlights from the local police blotter at the Mom 'n' Pop Gazette in Nowhere, Montana for his golden years, then he's not "former" yet because he's still working in the same profession. Mathglot (talk) 21:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
I strongly second the suggestion by Nightscream that the article should be reorganized alphabetically by name rather than by organization. This makes logical sense and is generally how information is organized. I also see a second benefit that listing by name takes emphasis off organizations which in today's day and age seems to be politicized. Jurisdicta (talk) 03:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
@Nightscream: @Jurisdicta: - I agree with you both. DoctorTexan (talk) 05:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 Done DoctorTexan (talk) 12:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Excellent work. Thanks for doing that, Tex. :-) Nightscream (talk) 18:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
@DoctorTexan: Okay, sorry I jumped the gun a bit, but I just noticed that in reorganizing the list alphabetically, you removed the citations from at least nine of the correspondents listed -- or to put it another way, nine of the entries now have no citation, at least some of which I know were supported by those citations. Are you going to restore those, DoctorTexan? Nightscream (talk) 15:59, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
I can but it’s going to probably be this evening so in like 8 hours. My apologies… so I’m confused I didn’t mean to delete any citations… was a citation be used for more that one person? DoctorTexan (talk) 16:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
According to WP:PAIC, citations go at the end of the entire supported passage. With respect to this article, when the list was organized by publication, several correspondents were listed for each publication, and in some instances, one citation was listed after more than one correspondent, which in at least some cases that I checked, was because it supported all those reporters listed before the cite. If memory serves, at least one of these instances was Woodward and Bernstein, two reporters that you yourself added, which were both supported by the two sources you cited after Woodward. Another was the one for NBC News, which mentioned both Hallie Jackson and Peter Alexander.
Mind you, I didn't check all of them to see if this was the case, but I did notice that it was the case with more than one. If you plan to fix this within the next day or so, then that's fine. No rush. Keep up the great work. Nightscream (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
@Nightscream: If I have your blessing, rather than reciting the same sources for multiple authors, I am going to look for different sources... does that work for you? DoctorTexan (talk) 23:00, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
@DoctorTexan: Why not use the same sources? It's what we have the refname tag for. Mind you, I have no problem with using a different source for each correspondent, but there's no requirement for it. Ultimately, do whichever you want, if you insist. :-) Nightscream (talk) 03:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
@Nightscream: - Oh my gosh, you just taught me something new. Thanks will work on tomorrow. That is awesome!! DoctorTexan (talk) 04:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@DoctorTexan: No prob. Btw, if you need an example of what the ref name tags looks like when it's used in an article, the very first one in this one uses it. So you can see what the footnote looks like at the bottom of the saved article, and what the markup looks like in edit mode. Nightscream (talk) 14:16, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Nightscream: -  Done DoctorTexan (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Correspondent list proposal

@Nightscream: @Mathglot: @Jurisdicta: - Since there is one list, I propose designating the years a correspondent was active in the White House... thoughts?? Also, if you wouldn't mind take a look at my merge suggestion below. Michael-Moates (talk) 04:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Yes, to years active. I'd also like to see their affiliation as well. Finally, I'd prefer alphabetization by last name, but I'm open to by-first-name sort, and don't feel strongly about it. It might also be worth looking into a tabular format, which would allow sorting on different fields, so those who wanted to see correspondents by affiliation for example, could do that, too. Mathglot (talk) 05:10, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Mathglot, this seems to be a logical way to organize the list and of the suggestions, I can see a good argument for each one and really comes down to style. Jurisdicta (talk) 04:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
I agree with pretty much all of Mathglot's suggestions, as I was pretty much thinking the same things when I saw the list. But each piece of info would have to be supported by a cited source. Nightscream (talk) 04:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:White_House_press_corps/Archive_1&oldid=1100662496"