Talk:White House Correspondents' Association

What are the normal 'rules' for the dinner roast?
Hey, can anyone add anything to the article about what the traditional "rules" are about how much roasting vs. respect one should show the president? Like what are the customs about what is in-bounds vs. out-of-bounds, to put Stephen Colbert's roast in perspective? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.126.156 (talk) 19:27, 10 May 2006‎ (UTC)


 * It's very simple: If the President is a Republican then anything and I mean anything is ok.  As a matter of fact, its not even wrong, it's "Speaking truth to power".


 * If the President is a Democrat on the other hand, then you can't criticize him at all, you make fun of the Republicans who are there, a la Donald Trump.


 * I hope this clears things up for you.97.97.32.95 (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Jon Stewart entertained in '97?
could someone confirm that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.199.137.240 (talk) 05:39, 17 April 2007‎ (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:WCAlogo.jpg
File:WCAlogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 04:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

World Net Daily Sues WHCA
The following edit was deleted citing WP:UNDUE...


 * On April 13, 2010, WorldNetDaily reported that a "...lawsuit has been filed in Washington accusing the White House Correspondents' Association..." of allegedly failing to designate appropriate 2010 dinner seating accomodations as per an alleged prior arrangement with WorldNetDaily [ http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=139657 ].

Notability for the above is sufficiently demonstrated by the following cites: The Washington Post, Politico, The Hill, and The Drudge Report. Comments please. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I have restored this previously stable content first mis-represented by this edit (the issue was NOT absolute exclusion but a dispute over accommodations) and then recently deleted in toto here. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this notable? You cite a WND press release, and Washington Post and Politico blogs, to say that WND is suing the WHCA. I understand that lawsuits in the world are not uncommon. What was the outcome of said lawsuit, by the way? And weren't you arguing that this article is suffering from WP:RECENT? All in all, I don't see why this trivially small detail is important to be included in this article, and I agree with you that it needs some rewriting. Mike Restivo (talk) 23:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I also agree with you that I mischaracterized it when I said: "Other journalistic organizations have been excluded from the event altogether." Indeed, WND was at the event, they are only asserting that they were unfairly allocated space. You are absolutely right that I misrepresented the situation by my edit, and I thank you for correcting that. But can you justify why this one detail is significant enough to warrant inclusion in the article at all? Mike Restivo (talk) 23:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see why this trivially small detail is important to be included in this article,...
 * Actually I agree that it is a "small detail", but in an article where the remarks of post-annual dinner entertainers are afforded so much space, perhaps a "small detail" related to, perhaps, something of more consequence might better serve the reader. Perhaps this cite from the Politico article best addresses the "why" of notability...
 * "World Net Daily announced on its website Tuesday night that was suing the association, contending that it was denied tables because the conservative site – which is a prominent outlet of the birther movement – has “carried commentary critical of the president.”"
 * What was the outcome of said lawsuit, by the way?
 * I have no idea as there doesn't appear to have been any follow-up reportage. However, were some legal recourse still being pursued, it could take years before resolution.
 * One way or the other, it doesn't alter the fact that a lawsuit was, apparently, initiated against the WHCA purportedly reflective of an alleged political bias. I believe that a prospective reader might find that to be of interest. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point about this indicating a potential issue with political bias. I will think more carefully about how we might rewrite this section to emphasize these important aspects and try to take the focus off the entertainment elements of the dinner. By the way, is it conceivable that this whole section about the dinner should receive its own article? Seems worthy to me and definitely has enough material. That would also allow us to expand the section on criticism - which I'm sure if we look hard enough, we would find more than just the one WND lawsuit controversy that you cite. Thoughts? Mike Restivo (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Who pays for the dinner ?
Does the WHCA cover all costs? Are any taxpayers' dollars used to cover the costs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.156.156 (talk) 02:57, 1 May 2011‎ (UTC)

Infobox Image
Can anyone come up with a better picture to use in the infobox? The one that is currently there looks bad stretched out like that. --Flyguy33 (talk) 02:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:Recent?
This article appears to be suffering from WP:RECENT and attendant loss of focus as the content of "celebrity" appearances continues to expand. While the temptation may be great for some to revel in the recent roasting of Donald Trump, it really has no place in this article as more than an appearance footnote. The content of more recent "entertainment" interludes is no more significant than those of a decade (or more) ago and strongly exhibits evidence of WP:RECENT. Comments? JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I would like to know what was said at dinners a decade ago, too. Perhaps the table can include separate columns for performers and topics in abbreviated form? Mike Restivo (talk) 18:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Who is Aldo Beckman ?
The WHCA thought he was important enough to name their award after. Cannot Wikipedia create an article about the Chicago Tribune's long-time Washington Bureau chief?50.0.36.183 (talk) 04:19, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

White House Communications Agency - WHCA
WHCA refers to The White House Communications Agency, not White House Correspondents' Association — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.160.154.6 (talk) 09:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

1997/norm macdonald
did Norm MacDonald actually perform at the 1997 white house correspondents dinner?

there's a youtube video of him at the 1997 Radio and Television Correspondents' Association dinner.. which confusingly is actually a different event.

≈Sensorsweep (talk) 07:33, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * here here! i've long wondered why IMUS isn't listed, when his year (1996) was supposedly the most (in)famous performance of all time. (or up until colbert, at least)


 * thanks to your 3 year old comment, NOW I KNOW!


 * i suspect some of the others (norm mcdonald...jon stewart mentioned above) were actually RTCD as well. someone rly needs to clean this up.


 * "confusingly" indeed! 209.172.23.101 (talk) 04:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on White House Correspondents' Association. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120918172851/http://video.google.com:80/videoplay?docid=-4973617448770513925 to https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4973617448770513925

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Controversy
i think some note should be made under wilmore about using "nigga", and about getting the finger from don lemon. and a couple other things which went south.

i don't propose detailed critiques on EVERY emcee, but wilmore, in particular, drew so much criticism that a lot of pundits are now calling for these dinners to end.

frankly, tho, i'm more surprised at the lack of similar reaction *last* year to cecily strong's ASSASSINATION joke! if anything should have stirred up opponents....

would add myself, but i'll wait to see what others think. just a quick note or two under strong and wilmore. 209.172.23.101 (talk) 04:59, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

2017 as "that year"??
Whoever wrote this sentence in the article:

"In February 2017, President Donald Trump declined to attend that year's dinner."

Was the choice of the word 'that' deliberate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.247.243.1 (talk) 18:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Link does not say that.
First link, describing how the WHCD started, does not actually say what it says it says. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdul Muhib (talk • contribs) 08:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * then rewrite it so content matches the given source. -- dsprc   [talk]  00:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

New York Times "prediction" needs updating
This article states:


 * After the 2007 dinner, New York Times columnist Frank Rich implied that the Times will no longer participate in the dinners.

This sentence has a footnote from Rich's 2007 article. However, this is ten years out of date. The phrase "will no longer participate" should be changed to "would no longer participate". More importantly, we should indicate whether indeed the Times stopped participating after 2007 (and if so, for how long).

Wikipedia should document what has happened, not merely what someone in 2007 predicted would happen. &mdash; Lawrence King ( talk ) 04:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Not outta date as succeeding sentence demonstrates and puts into context -- though that context could be buffed. Incident noted did happen. Tweak language yourself. -- dsprc   [talk]  00:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

You are clearly a much better reader than I am. I have reread the "succeeding sentence" multiple times, and in fact have read the entire article, and yet I still don't know whether the New York Times stopped participating in these dinners after 2007, as Frank Rich predicted. Can you tell me whether they did? If you can, I will tweak the language myself. But right now I can't tweak it because I can't extract this information from the article. &mdash; Lawrence King ( talk ) 06:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on White House Correspondents' Association. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121026101602/http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060501/1whwatch.htm to http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060501/1whwatch.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:55, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

RFC at White House Press Corps
There is an open RFC at Talk:White House Press Corps regarding inclusion criteria. Billhpike (talk) 22:32, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

RfC:Purpose New Section With Current White House Correspondents
The headline says it all. I am purposing adding a section with current White House correspondents. This would be backed by more than one secondary source and would include regular press corps members. Dr. James Harrison, Ph.D. (talk) 01:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Why does this need a RfC? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 11:14, 5 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose - the article topic is the association, so organization and activities and history should be the focus. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 04:22, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

The requester has been blocked on suspicions of sock puppetry. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

2018 awards announced
Here are the new awards to add to the article. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge with White House press corps
The two articles were previously merged and I believe there was a consensus to do so (see discussion above). The two articles are basically about the same group and the WHPC article has just become a dumping ground for a list of every person who's even been to a press briefing. To be clear, I am proposing a selective merge since the extensive list of non-notable "journalists" is not appropriate. Rusf10 (talk) 20:51, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Michelle Wolf is a perfect example that the two subjects are not the same thing. White House press corps is an abstract and ever-changing concept. White House Correspondents' Association is a finite and exclusive association of journalists.--- Coffee and crumbs  02:15, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

"Washington D.C. press corps" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Washington D.C. press corps and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:30, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

"Washington D.C. press corps" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Washington D.C. press corps and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)