Talk:White House Correspondents' Association

message: 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)
thread_title:  What are the normal 'rules' for the dinner roast? 

message: :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 Wikipedia: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)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for File:WCAlogo.jpg 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Infobox Image 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  WP:Recent? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Who is Aldo Beckman ? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  White House Communications Agency - WHCA 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  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 IITalk to my owner:Online 14:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  2017 as "that year"?? 

message: 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)
replies: text: then rewrite it so content matches the given source. -- dsprc [talk] 00:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link does not say that. 

message: 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. — Lawrence King (talk) 04:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  New York Times "prediction" needs updating 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Why does this need a RfC? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:14, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC:Purpose New Section With Current White House Correspondents  

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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.---Coffeeandcrumbs 02:15, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[White House press corps]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Washington D.C. press corps" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Washington D.C. press corps" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]