Talk:NAACP/Archive 1

Template:Past cotw

Headquarters

Happened on this page; I believe the headquarters are in Baltimore. See http://www.naacp.org/about/contacts/contacts.html kdogg36 03:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The NAACP no longer refers to itself as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, but simply as the NAACP. National Association for the Advancement of Colored People should redirect to NAACP, not vice-versa, as is now the case.

The NAACP is almost exclusively known only by its acronym and is widely known and used in that form.

This is very formal information that can help young people around the world to know and understand the racist times of the sixties. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.194.70.13 (talk • contribs) 23 April 2006.

see Naming_conventions#Prefer_spelled-out_phrases_to_acronyms

Admins move the contents of this article onto the "NAACP" page, and then redirect the page, "National Association for the Advancement of Colored People" to the "NAACP" page.

I have cc'd these remarks (revised for context and formatting) onto the request for Collaboration of the Week.

DV 04:06, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

NAACP is now 'empty'. A move can be done now by any registered user. Please go ahead. -- PFHLai 05:11, 2004 Aug 30 (UTC)

Thank you PFHLai. --DV 05:19, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's my pleasure to help. :-) Please don't forget to fix those double re-directs and make them direct to the new page. Cheers ! -- PFHLai 05:25, 2004 Aug 30 (UTC)

Um, I searched on the term "double-redirect" and came up empty. Could you please explain what that is and how to fix them? Please provide a link or here on my talk page if something is already written up on "double-redirect". Thanks. --DV 05:27, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please see your talk page. -- PFHLai 05:34, 2004 Aug 30 (UTC)

President Bush declines to address NAACP

"The President had a scheduling conflict with the NAACP convention's July 10-15 meeting dates, according to the White House."

This is does not "put Bush missing into context." This offers a rather flimsy excuse for the President's disrespect to the NAACP. I suggest this be removed from the article. The fact is that he choose not to address the NAACP. We should not present the White House spin as encyclopedic fact.

--LegCircus 18:20, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

• I have since learned additional information which I have incorporated into the article. --H2O 19:10, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think this mitigates my objection some, and makes the section more substantial. In order to make the page less about Bush and thereby more focused on the NAACP, I have removed "Bush had previously spoken to the group while running for President in 2000."

--LegCircus 19:55, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

After all the misunderstandings, mistrust, and hard feelings I have witnessed in my lifetime between Jewish and African-American leaders in the United States, I was especially surprised to learn that Jewish Americans were among the founders of this association.

Given the multi-racial makeup of the founders of the NAACP, I hope it's OK for non-African-Americans to help out with this particular article, although I would understand if anyone feels otherwise. My sense is that the state of race relations in America is such that any race-related topic must be approached with great care, so I hope I can do so without giving offense.

I was startled to find that a depressing story about President Bush was the sole highlighted section in this article. This is such a shame because there are so many important accomplishments that the NAACP has made over the years, that would better demonstrate the role that this association has played in shaping American society.

At the time of this writing, on the NAACP's own homepage, there is no mention of President Bush, or even the office of the President, anywhere on their own front page. I find it troubling that the politics of the day makes a controversy concerning the current President of the United States more important than highlighting the association itself and its rich history.

The unfortunate side effect of this article's current focus on the controversy concerning President Bush, is that any attempt to add more important content will now be viewed by partisans as a cynical attempt to bury an unflattering story about President Bush.

On a more positive note, this article inspired me to learn more about the NAACP and Martin Luther King.

After some research, I was able to contribute a small item, but I was careful to add a reference for my change. (I also proofread the article and made some minor corrections for spelling and punctuation.)

Hopefully this article will not jump off the rails given the impending election here in America.

--DV 13:31, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The reference to President Bush should not be a part of this article when there are so many more non-partisan things to say about the NAACP. This is a demonstration of clear bias by the authors. TimHar

Like it or now, one thing that put the NAACP into the news in a large way recently was Bush's refusal. See Google or Google News for NAACP, with and without Bush. If you think there are more important things that should be in the article, you're welcome to add them or even just point us in the right direction. Maurreen 11:41, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think the term 'versus' implies either a legal action or a public political battle of sorts. I would consider revising this term. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.172.187.131 (talk • contribs) 14 August 2006.

Point well taken, but any suggestions? - Jmabel | Talk 06:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the section should even be in there. The page is for the History of the NAACP, not Bush's attitude towards them. (69.143.64.180 18:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC))

I think it's relevant because I remember reading, a long time ago, that Bush was the first president since so-and-so not to meet with the NAACP. This article sets the record straight; he didn't in his first term, and then did in his second term. I think it clears up a percieved animosity on the part of Bush and the NAACP, one that really isn't there. Whatever misgivings they may have about each others' policies, they've met, certainly, in a diplomatic fashion, and I don't think Bush's reason of "scheduling conflict" is White House spin when it's plausible enough when you're as busy as the President.

I'm no fan of Bush, but the relationship between him and the NAACP is important, so I think it should stay. 72.244.206.120 07:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed reference to Holocaust denial group

Unfortunately, it turns out the external reference to a source for some of the history of the NAACP was actually a link to Institute for Historical Review, a highly controversial organization with a history of Holocaust denial, that has little to do with the NAACP. I am conducting some research to find more objective sources for the early history of the NAACP (in addition to the historical record provided on the NAACP's own web site).

--DV 03:11, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oh dear god. When I was looking at your changes, I saw the ihr link. Very embarrassing. Thanks very much for excising that. -- orthogonal 10:56, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Good article from the Library of Congress - public domain?

There's a good article "A Century of Racial Segregation, 1849-1950" [1] at the Library of Congress. About half of it involves the NAACP's history. Is stuff at the LOC in the public domain? —Stormie 22:37, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

Gun control

The article now says the Supreme Court's position is "that the 2nd amendment is about the right of a State to maintain a militia, not unrestricted individual rights to bear arms."

If that is true, a reference needs to be cited. In the meantime, I'm going to delete the Supreme Court reference. Maurreen 12:24, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Indeed that is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts, and is on its face absurd and untrue. User:Abraxas

Book citation

The reference section includes:

St. James, Warren D. NAACP: Triumphs of a Pressure Group, Nineteen Hundred and Nine Thru Nineteen Hundred and Eighty. Exposition Press, 1980

It seems like it should be "1900 - 1980." I Googled the author's name and found it both ways. Maurreen 13:14, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

To do

• The following tasks may already have been completed, but are stated because they may be a useful general tasks for the 'to do' lists of future collaborations.

• • Check links in the article and eliminate redirects.
  • Go to 'What links here' and eliminate redirects.
  • Ensure that 'links to non-existent articles' are minimum.
  • Ensure that 'multiple links to the same article' are minimum.
  • Review the general balance of links on the basis of relevancy. The article should connect most to highly relevant articles (increase these) and least to less relevant articles (decrease these).
  • Run the text through a spolling checker. (Is this a joke?)
  • Review article for special characters and things that can be made more generic.

• "The Pink Franklin case in 1910." I deleted this incomplete sentence, but with some information, but maybe it could be put back in. Maurreen 11:58, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• A couple details in the references look dubious. Maurreen 11:58, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC) Let me know if you disagree with my change above. Maurreen 13:39, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• New section: "Purpose" or "Platform" with NAACP's current positions on issues such as affirmative action, welfare, racial profiling, etc. and reasoning behind these stances Sayeth 20:46, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

• New section: "Organisation" - how are leaders elected, are there local chapters or is it purely national, what other groups are directly supported by the NAACP. Sayeth 20:46, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

"As of" redirect

My understanding is that "as of" puts items on a list to be checked and updated in the future. Maurreen 14:02, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Aha. Thanks. Perhaps it should be put back.Bobblewik  (talk) 20:21, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Roots

I have some doubt about the following paragraph:

"Roots in abolitonism and Reconstruction

Many of the leaders and traditions that formed the basis of early NAACP philosophies started with American abolitionism and the Reconstruction after the Civil War."

I had changed "Reformation" to "Reconstruction," because the former refers to a historical religious movement in Europe.

But the I doubt any NAACP leaders were active in abolitonism and the Reconstruction. I have an encyclopedia that says the Reconstruction ended in 1877; the NAACP was founded more than 40 years later. Maurreen 22:12, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

1970s leaders

Do we need this paragraph:

"After Kivie Kaplan died in 1975, Benjamin Hooks (http://www.africanamericans.com/BenjaminHooks.htm), a lawyer and clergyman, was elected the NAACP's executive director in 1977."

Why single out those two?

Maurreen 23:07, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Timeline

Timelines often report each event in the present tense. In NAACP#Timeline, most items are in the past tense but some are present tense; compare 1913 and 1915. Is there any reason not to follow the most common format, which I think would be to put everything in the present tense? JamesMLane 22:37, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My initial reaction was that a timeline is somewhat misplaced in a encyclopedia article. Also, it duplicates some information from the rest of the text. I think it would be a huge improvement to simply work the most relevant events of the timeline into the general history text, possibly cutting some of the less relevant in the process. Alarm 23:45, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Recent history: More sources needed

Although the text on the NAACP history has certainly improved during the last few days, it still seems to draw heavily from the organisation's own webpage. The timeline is equal to the one available there. More disturbingly, there was an apparent lack of information on the problems facing the NAACP in the 1990s. Being no expert on the matter, I've nevertheless tried my best to contribute what I could here, my additions based on a web search on the subject. I would appreciate if anyone with more knowledge in the field could have a look at the new paragraph I've added, and possibly further expand the organisation's recent history. Alarm 23:46, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Cleanup needed

The newly added section on the 1990s needs some cleanup. In particular, the following paragraph borders on incomprehensible:

In 1993, Reverend Benjamin Chavis narrowly defeated Reverend Jesse Jackson in the election for the Executive Secretary position. A controversial figure, Chavis was ousted by the board that hired him eighteen months earlier, accused of using NAACP funds for an out of court settlement in a sexual harassment lawsuit.

This says that Chavis was elected but was hired (and fired) by a Board. Does this mean that the election was an election by the Board? If so we should make that clear. Also "was ousted [no date given] by the board that hired him eighteen months earlier" is really confusing. I think it means "was ousted eighteen months later by the same board that hired him" (which fits my memory of what occurred), but I could be misunderstanding. Anyway, will someone please do some cleanup on this section? -- Jmabel 00:54, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I've changed the the wording to "was ousted eighteen months later by the same board that hired him", which is indeed what I was trying to say. Regarding his "hiring" I must admit I remain a bit confused about how the NAACP actually handles these matters. It seems to me that the executive secretary, serving as chairman of the board, is in fact chosen by the board. I'm not sure about the appropriate English term here. Should something along the lines of "board vote" be used instead of "election"? If so, please feel free to adjust the wording.

The fact it was the board that ousted Chavis seems to be clear, though. This article in New York Amsterdam News, October 08, 1994, says that the board of directors "voted 53 out of 58 to remove Chavis" on August 20, 1994. Should these facts go into the section, or is that too much detail?

However, if someone wants to help expanding this section, it might be relevant to mention that several other board members was asked to leave the board in 1997 due to improprieties. For mentions of this, see [2] and [3] Alarm 08:43, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll follow up, at least on that paragraph. -- Jmabel 17:26, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

I fail to see the relevance of the origins of the founders of the NCAA. Is it relevant to this article whether someones family owned slaves at one point in space and time? Most of the names have a "race" behind them, and Henry has a "religion". Oswald has a birthcountry AND a "race". IMHO this is the moment for an more experienced member to help us out.

If this is about race (as if that is important...) you might wanna replace (white) with (Caucasian). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.223.108.141 (talk) 08:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not the Place for Jewish Conspiracy Theories

I have recently removed this bologna about the NAACP being "jewish". I'm sure it was put there to feed the endless Zionist Conspiracy Theories of nutcase far-right extremeists. Put trash like that on Stormfront not on a source of information used by millions of people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.140.7.213 (talk • contribs)

What the above anon called material "put there to feed the endless Zionist Conspiracy Theories..." was the following:

One often overlooked aspect of the NAACP's history is that the Jewish community contributed hugely to the NAACP's founding and continued financing. The Jewish historian Howard Sachar writes in his book A History of Jews in America of how

In 1914, Professor Emeritus Joel Spingarn of Columbia University be­came chairman of the NAACP and recruited for its board such Jewish leaders as Jacob Schiff, Jacob Billikopf, and Rabbi Stephen Wise. ... And, in the climactic civil rights drives of the 1950s and 1960s, Jewish participation was all but overwhelming. [4]

One early supporter was Julius ROSENWALD (not Rosenthal as in your article. For some reason it is difficult to correct this the way the edit page is organized. oldcitycat (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

---

While I don't like the phrase "often overlooked" (rather POV), I think this should otherwise be restored. It is entirely factual, the citation comes from the eminently phili-Semitic myjewishlearning.com, and it points, accurately, to the historic support of Jewish Americans for the rights of African Americans. As a Jewish American, I for one am proud of that part of my heritage. Let the fascists make of it what they will: if they want to hate us Jews for supporting Blacks (rather than their usual approach of just hating us for being Jews), well, it comes with the territory. I would hate to suppress the existence of links among historically oppressed minorities on the basis that the far right will view the oppressed as mutually "conspiring" to counter their oppression. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:57, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

---

Jews, generally, were extremely supportive of the Civil Rights Movement, and many actively participated in the Freedom Rides, marches, etc. And, yes, in the bad, old days when white boards (or at least nonblack leadership) meant more money coming in and more credibility, and when many whites still doubted blacks' innate ability to spearhead such endeavors, the NAACP -- just as were HBCU's -- was presided over by nonblacks, often Jews. Information about Jewish involvement in and support for the Movement absolutely should be presented -- and in such a context. Lots of white Christians also supported the struggle. IMO, however, the quotation is a rotten one: "... all but overwhelming"? What the hell does that mean? I don't know how such language got past the editors. deeceevoice 07:26, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

Yeah, I could do without the "all but overwhelming", too. But can we please restore:

One often overlooked aspect of the NAACP's history is that the Jewish community contributed hugely to the NAACP's founding and continued financing. The Jewish historian Howard Sachar writes in his book A History of Jews in America of how "In 1914, Professor Emeritus Joel Spingarn of Columbia University be­came chairman of the NAACP and recruited for its board such Jewish leaders as Jacob Schiff, Jacob Billikopf, and Rabbi Stephen Wise." [5]

Because the "contributor" who initiated this exchange was anonymous, I can't find the edit. If you'll point me to the context in which this quotation appeared, I can aswer your question regarding what I think about retoring the text. I must say, though, that if it is to be restored, I would start the quote at: "...the Jewish community...." deeceevoice 08:33, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

No problem with cutting it as you say, I really wasn't thinking too precisely about it. I didn't write it, I just think something about it should be restored.

This is the edit that removed it. [6] It was at the end of the "history" section; certainly that section is the correct place. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:55, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

---

I rewrote one sentence: A year later, two whites, journalist William E. Walling and Mary White Ovington, joined the group, as well as did Jewish social worker Henry Moscowitz. This suggests that Jews are outside the category of whites. Unintentional, no doubt. --Italo Svevo 08:29, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

No real problem with that, although at that time "whites" would not probably have included Jews. Just like "Anglos" now usually does not include English-speaking African Americans (except in New Mexico, where it usually does). "White" is a social construction, and has meant different things at different times. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:13, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

---

Actually, I still don't consider Jews white. I wrote it that way intentionally, but without much thought. I don't have a real problem with those who wish to categorize Jews as "white," but I did tweak the wording a bit. "Three" is hardly "several." deeceevoice 18:44, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I was watching CNN over the weeked. Walter Mosley, who, of course, is of black and Jewish parentage, made it a point to say that he is not "half white"; he is half Jewish, that there's a difference. He said not only does he know that Jews aren't white, his Jewish mother knows Jews aren't white.  :) deeceevoice 11:27, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

There's got to be a limit to how much space within the NAACP be article can be dedicated to the "heavily Jewish" influence on the NAACP. No one denies that some Jewish people have made significant contributions throughout the NAACP's history. However, I do not beleive that this support merits that amount of attention that some anonymous folks want to give it in this article. LegCircus 18:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Seems to me it's basically one paragraph related to the founding. That doesn't seem particularly disproportionate. On the other hand, there should be more of a listing of the Blacks involved in the founding. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

---

I'm curious, and I didn't see what you deleted, but saying "There is/was Jewish involvement in the NAACP" is offensive to whom and how? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Absolute Relativity (talk • contribs) 02:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

There isn't nearly enough cooperation between the Jewish and Black communities' today, and more discussion about historical cooperation can do nothing but good for both sides. We need more discussion of such cooperation, and I don't think the phrase "often overlooked" is necessarily out of place. It is all to often overlooked.

I'm starting to believe this "Jewish conspiracy against Blacks" crap is actually a KKK conspiracy against both sides.

--Absolute Relativity 02:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Contact details

Does anyone strongly object to removing the contact details, wikipedia is after all, not a phonebook--nixie 02:35, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

History and an update

I rewrote in great part the section dealing with the history of the organization. It simply was not factual. What became the NAACP started out as an all-black organization (see photo of some of the members of the Niagara Movement on the wiki page of the same name; perhaps this photo should appear alongside the "History" section), and became integrated largely as a result of the group wanting to make itself more viable and more effective. They needed money and powerful contacts in order to be effective, and, in the early 1900s, that meant white folks. In fact, the organization did not have its first black president until 1920, when author/statesman James Weldon Johnson took over the reins of leadership. I believe this version of the group's history is more accurate. deeceevoice 14:42, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I read through a couple of sections, and updated the info on the organization's leadership. Mfume announced his resignation late last year, which took effect January 1 (I think). deeceevoice

I updated the update with a reference to the IRS investigation. Also added more on Phillips County and Moore v, Dempsey and on political alliances and rivalries in the 1930s. Also took out the reference to the railroad litigation in the 1940s (which I had added a few months ago); as I understand it that was a freelance project of Houston's, not the organization's. Added some more Supreme Court cases and linked all to the text of the decision. Still haven't found a place to insert DuBois' departure in 1934; for that you have to go to his page. -- Italo Svevo 08:29, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good additions. I was going to do the IRS investigation when I had time. I'm also thinking of mentioning the controversy/uproar over the 2004 "Image Awards," when R. Kelly (disgusting pervert) was nominated for one. Comments? deeceevoice 08:48, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Timeline Source

Many of the entries in the timeline are copied directly from the official NAACP site. [7]. Is this a copyright violation?-LtNOWIS 00:56, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I contacted them at the time I did this. I couldn't get formal approval (they are too much of a bureaucracy) but they said they view it pretty much like a press release, they welcome people re-publishing. We've made a few corrections on some dates they got wrong(!); I've emailed back to them on this, but I don't think they fixed their own site accordingly. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:59, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not in the mood to put this politely...

These two recent edits by User:67.65.155.219 constitute uncited / weasel-cited POV and (in the claim that any taking of race into account is "racism") rampant ignorance. I reverted these once, 67.65.155.219 restored them. I'm not going to fight it out. I'm tired, it's late here, and I'm about to take a five-day break from Wikipedia. Will someone else please look into this? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

"History" section

I would like to delete portions of the "History" section (specifically, everything written prior to section "Fighting Jim Crow". It doesn't correspond to any research that I've read on the origins of the NAACP. This version of the NAACP history was deleted in March 2005 from the Wikipedia NAACP article:

The NAACP was founded as the National Negro Committee on 12 February 1909, by a multi-racial group of political activists including W.E.B. DuBois, Ida B. Wells, Henry Moscowitz, Mary White Ovington, Oswald Garrison Villiard, and William English Walling. DuBois edited the association's magazine, The Crisis, which reached more than 30,000 people.

It comes closer to the truth. However, I'm currently writing an article on the National Negro Committee and once completd, I will add portions of it to this article.

--This section has been cut and pasted from the NAACP website (http://www.naacp.org/programs/field/naacp_origins/) without any citation at all. Please change this; otherwise, this would be considered plagarism.

The following sources were used to make this decision:

NAACP: in the beginning. (excerpts from 'Highlights of NAACP History')(National Association for the Advancement of Colored People)." The Crisis 101.n1 (Jan 1994): 28(4). InfoTrac OneFile. Thomson Gale.

Mary White Ovington, How the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Began. 8 Crisis 184 (1914) -- Mitchumch 11:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

If there are things you think are wrong, please do remove them; I suggest strongly that, because this is bound to be controversial, that you move the cut material to the talk page and indicate explicitly what you believe is wrong with it. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Bias

Why does the "Criticism" segment fail to mention the part about the NAACP being racist? Not only does the article fail at that point, but it fails by introducing a cliche segment bashing Bush. I can't blame someone for not wanting to speak at an obviously racist venue. Haizum 6 Feb 2006

Racist? And precisely who is oppressed by the NAACP?

In the unlikely event that you have something citable on this, provide citation. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)== History ==

White males.65.5.165.19 (talk) 15:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"and through its protests and the support of the Supreme Court, it prevented President Ronald Reagan from giving a tax break to the racially segregated Bob Jones University."

Removed -- this was pure fluff. The issue at hand was whether BJU's tax-exempt status was to be continued, and the organization's position had nothing to do with the Supreme Court's decision.

"1989: the NAACP held a silent march of more than 100,000 people to protest U.S. Supreme Court decisions that have reversed many of the gains made against discrimination."

What decisions, and what gains?

"2000: January 17, in Columbia, South Carolina, more than 50,000 people attended a march to protest the flying of the Confederate battle flag. It was the largest civil rights demonstration ever held in the South to date."

How is the protestation of the flying of a flag a "Civil rights demonstration"?

Spock 23:43, 2006 Mar 26 (UTC)

The NAACP was not started by a multiracial group. It was started by Mary White Ovington and the other White persons mentioned, in response to the antisemitic wave going through the south. The Niagra Movement of W.E.B. DUBOIS was invited to join at the first convention the following year. The organization was initially a Jewish organized organization. They wanted to prevent the lynching of Jews by organizing to have laws passed against Black lynching etc, which the Jewish community could also benefit from. It remained a white controlled organization until the 1970's when the first Black Board Chairman was elected.

GA Failing

Please source all your statements with references. For further information, please see WP:CITE. Cheeers, Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 15:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

criticism

Why was the criticism section removed? There is no way this article is NPOV the way it stands.

I did not remove it but I agree that it was original research (not allowed). Wiki can however summarize official NAACP statements, if a source is given. Rjensen 05:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

ACT-SO

Why isn't there anything on the NAACP's anual youth scholorship contest, ACT-SO (i.e. The Academic Cultural Technological and Scientific Olympics)? CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFO --71.118.168.253 01:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC) File:Actso.jpg

Bush

Two things:

1. We should probably mention Bruce S. Gordon's new role as NAACP president as part of why Bush spoke to them (but we need a citation).
2. We say that in 2004 Bush became the first president since Hoover not to address the NAACP, but shouldn't be in 2001, his first year as president?

Jmabel | Talk 06:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Although I think this entire article needs to be completely reworked, I took the first step and edited the section on Bush and the NAACP to make more sense and clean up a few errors. Previously, the section referred to the Bush as "United States of America President George W. Bush" even though the first clause of the sentence states that the ad took place during the presidential election. Therefore, I changed his position to match the time. Also, there was a stray sentence that said that Bush met with NAACP leaders in 2005 about various issues. Without a further explanation or update, this sentence appears unnecessary and out of place. Plus, the fact that he went to speek in 2006 implies that relations had improved. Also, some of the things that were linked in the section were inconsistent and did not contribute to understanding the topic so I removed them. Hecman111 17:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

2002, NCAA, NASCAR

Much material has been added about the South Carolina sports boycott. It needs citation, in general.

Beyond the general need for citation:

• What, if anything, did the NAACP have to do with the Ferko lawsuit? Nothing in our article on the suit mentions the NAACP or anything racial?
• Who is "The Cochran firm"? Again, unmentioned in Ferko lawsuit.

- Jmabel | Talk 22:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Executive Director / President

I made corrections because there seems to have been a confusion between the titles executive director and president of the NAACP.

The Presidents of the NAACP were: Moorfield Story (1910-1915) Joel Springarn (1915-1940) Arthur Springarn (1940-1966) Kivie Kaplan (1966-1975) W. Montague Cobb (1976-1982) Enolia McMillan (1984-1990)

"The Leader" of the NAACP was first called 'Executive Secretary', then the title was changed to 'Executive Director' in 1964. Then it was changed to 'president' when Kwesi Mfume was elected. They included: James Weldon Johnson (Executive Sectretary) 1920-1930, Walter White(Executive Secretary) 1931-1955, Roy Wilkins (Executive Secretary/Director) 1955-1977, Benjamin Hooks (Executive Director) 1977-1993, Benjamin Chavis (Muhammad)(Executive Director) 1993-1994, Kwesi Mfume (President), Bruce Gordon (President).

Semi-protected

I have semi-protected this article again anon editing. Sick to death of the history being entirely composed of racist vandalism and reversions of racist vandalism. --Stormie 00:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

copyvio

from official site[8].--Sig0 18:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see #Timeline Source. Not a copyvio, although our standards for permission have gotten so high that it may violate our own rules.- Jmabel | Talk 01:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I support restoring the page contents as they were, it doesn't seem to be a copyvio. --70.51.230.6 21:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the timeline. Many sentences were reworded compared to the source, but it was still a copyright violation. Please rewrite it from scratch (if the timeline is necessary at all). Conscious 12:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, it is possible that this violates Wikipedia's relatively new, very narrow rules on using copyrighted materials (that we only use material that others may freely copy from us, and that permissions must be broad enough to allow this), but it is not a copyright violation. It would only be a copyright violation if the copyright holder had not given us permission to use it. - Jmabel | Talk 02:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

NAACP finances

Please include information about the source of NAACP funds, such as private donations, government grants, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.247.193.158 (talk • contribs) 27 December 2006.

NAACP's finances have been something of a mess. This might not be an easy topic to research. Still, as a 501(c)(3), I'm pretty sure that there has to be some sort of publicly available annual filing. Does someone know more about this? - Jmabel | Talk 22:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

NAACP and Tax Evasion

The header in the article in incorrect. The NAACP was never accussed of tax evasion. Instead, the IRS was determining if the organization should lose its tax exempt status based on comments about the president. (Non-profts have to be non-partisan.) Could someone with edit capability please correct the header. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Haroldkerr (talk • contribs) 18:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

The article is incomplete and expresses a POV in favor of the NAACP. If the President of the NAACP is going to take a public position on the qualifications of a politician, then the IRS is entitled to investigate, and has a duty to do so, to make sure that the law is being administered fairly. This is not "harrassment," and the only way that it could be, is if the NAACP thinks it is above the law that is applicable to the rest of us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.13.1.111 (talk) 17:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The Section About Bush

I think it should be taken out. It doesn't provide much about the NAACP, just about how Bush treated them. Also the section seems to have a little bit of a biased spin on it.

(69.143.64.180 18:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC))

I agree with the part about the bias.Bill Heller (talk) 12:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Bruce Gordon

He is no longer the president of the NAACP. He resigned March 4.

NAACP Jewish Founders

I've taken out a rather long and out-of-place history of the Jewish-African American relations. It belongs in a general history of the civil right movement. Not here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.186.213 (talk) 16:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Working with Jews and Asians

I disagree with this line "to work on behalf of the rights of minorities including Native Americans, Asian Americans, African Americans, as well as Jews." The NAACP does not assist Native American, Asians, and Jews; they only assist African Americans. In fact, many prominent members of the NAACP have been very vocal (and quite racist) against Asian and Jews in Black neighborhoods. Some of the remarks made by these NAACP leaders borderline (if not actually) on inciting violence against these two minority groups.

---

Do you have any evidence to support this accusation? Or are you pulling this out of your a**?

I take such an accusation very seriously if it can be backed up, however saying something like this baselessly can only make the situation worse.

--Absolute Relativity 02:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Umm how about the fact that the NAACP remained silent during the internment of the japanese during WWII see Eric Foner's Give Me Liberty Book pg 823 regarding the internment policies of the FDR administration ˜˜˜˜

Please cite an independent reliable source that the NAACP "remained silent". - SummerPhD (talk) 13:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Racism

There was some talk about whether or not this is a racist group. Well I ask you if it were National Association for the Advancement of White People or Italian or Irish would it not fall under the White supremacy blanket. So as this site needs to refrain from bias shouldn't the fact that this organizations purpose is to advance Colored people and no one else. Meaning they feel superior. What does everyone else think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Murph422 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

To support your claim, see National Association for the Advancement of White People. Notice the what kind of group it is listed as at the bottom of the article Falcanary 20:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I would agree to this, although David Duke has very little difference in Jesse Jackson, the term racist is given to Duke, while Reverend is given to Jackson. If I read the mission statement of the NAAWP, affirmative action is the closest to removing a minority priviledge, which by definition is a set aside based purely on race which is racism. The decision to call NAAWP a racist organization because of its inferred intentions should be no different than the inferred intentions of the NAACP. The fact is that the NAACP has held on to the legacy of advancement of colored people. Organizations and business have always changed and change is good (sometimes). If NAACP wants to evolve, it should reconsider changing their name and mission statement to suit. Until they do that, when I see an organization titled Advancement of Colored People and provide scholorships to colored people not whites, they are in fact racist. If NAAWP did EXACTLY the same thing as NAACP but for whites instead of blacks, there would be riots and screaming and racism labels all over the place. --173.11.163.197 (talk) 16:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

By taking a non-biased outside POV, surely those that support NAACP can understand WHY most people criticize the NAACP for being a racist organization. I agree on the point that the NAACP's goal is to advance the goals of Black people and no one else, no Hispanics, Jews, or Asians. Their goals seem to fall into advancing Blacks at the expense of other minority groups. Googleplex1001 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

To call the NAACP racist is to trivialize racism. (If this were true anthropoligists and sociologists would be racist in the same way as the KKK or the Nazis). To say that the NAACP intentionally expends non-African minorities and their advancement is to misunderstand advocacy and is an invalid form of reasoning called by logicians the Fallacy of Affirming the consequent, which can be stated - If A then B; B; therefore A.

(A) The NAACP expends the goals of other minorities if (B) they support the advancement of colored people.

(B) NAACP supports the advancement of colored people;

therefore (A) they expend with the goals of minorities.

--Teetotaler

I would disagree with your conclusion. The NAACP wants set asides and special priviliges in an attemp to level the playing field. Level is level, and all laws that have ANY mention of race as a criteria is by definition racist. Those of us that have either let go and/or are not decendents of slavery in America take great offense to being treated and catagorized with the barbarics of slavery with the ONLY tie to that being the color of my white skin. I have attended a local NAACP, and I was not welcome, there were looks, whispering, and suspicious behavior all around. I did not feel welcome by any means. The fact that most people will categorize NAACP as a black organization for blacks proves the point that if they want to be a civil rights organization, then they need to learn to evolve. Change the name, change the mission statement, and change the demographics of your meetings, and images on your website. Blacks make up 10% of the nation, if the NAACP was TRULY a civil rights organization, then 1/10 people in the photos, leadership, and beneficiaries would be black! Just the depiction and publications of NAACP show that they are a black organization to support blacks no matter how many posts someone puts on Wikipedia that they support the advocacy of all races! --173.11.163.197 (talk) 16:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The NAACP was made back when black people were still fighting for their civil rights.Look at the name.Black people arent even called colored people anymore.This was made back when black people couldnt even drink out the same water fountain.

Well, now they can. The word in the name is "advancement". If blacks are guaranteed equal rights now, then what would be the result of "advancement"?68.119.217.212 (talk) 18:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

They aren't guaranteed equal now. They are only treated so in writing. There is still immense racism in the US. For a bunch of examples, check this out (http://www.redroom.com/blog/tim-wise/black-powers-gonna-get-you-sucka-right-wing-paranoia-and-rhetoric-modern-racism). Just one example, simply for having a black-sounding name, resumes are more than 50% likely to be thrown out, even with the same qualifications as one with a white-sounding name. Racism didn't end when LBJ signed the bill, and as such organizations are still necessary to help advance the people who are victimized by it every day. The conservative right in particular likes to pretend that racism isn't happening anymore, and that anyone who brings it up is just a whiner or 'pulling the race card'. Either they are simply ignorant of the poor conditions blacks still suffer today, think that blacks *deserve it* for reasons of 'their culture' (extremely racist) or even worse, think that they have been collectively duped as a race by the democrats into living off the government (also extremely racist), or think that they don't owe them anything because they didn't personally enslave anyone (Although they still live in a luxurious economy built on the backs of slaves). When blacks are truly treated IN PRACTICE as well as whites, your complaints about the NAACP might be warranted, but they simple are not, and you come off as just another ignorant conservative who's never left his gated community and so has no idea that racism is still alive and well and it's still the blacks who are being screwed by it. Please read that redroom article and check its sources carefully, you desperately need to educate yourself if you think blacks are 'guaranteed equal rights' now. 98.236.191.219 (talk) 00:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Advocating something does not amount to hindering something. For example, someone that wants the US to end the war with Iraq isn't against supporting US troops. Teetotaler

Many people seem to get race and ethnicity mixed up or think that the two terms are interchangeable. First of all Black People are a race and African American is an ethnicity. Second of all Hisapnic are not a race and neither are Jews. Hispanic are people Spanish descent can be of any race or origin. Please see Jews are people who follow the religion Judaism and Jews can be of any race. If you do not believe me see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Jews_and_Judaism_by_region. Thirdly my African American History professor told me that the organization was not gear just to African Americans but also other oppressed groups. Of course I myself did not know that at first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.11.130 (talk) 20:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Water cooler picture?

I fail to see how the picture with the man drinking from the water cooler contributes to this article. It would be appropriate in an article detailing racial segregation, but it does not directly relate to the NAACP. 72.241.20.239 03:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The section of the article which that picture illustrates is entitled "Fighting Jim Crow", and discusses the NAACP's efforts against Jim Crow laws. That article mentions "(requiring) black and white people to use separate water fountains" as an example of such a law. Seems a pretty clear illustration to me - why do you think it's appropriate in an article detailing racial segregation, but not in a section of an article detailing opposition to racial segregation? --Stormie 03:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Consistency in Introduction

For the purpose of being consistent in the level of political correctness (it's not very PC to be inconsistenly PC) in the introduction, I propose to change part of the introduction to either of the following.

(...) a diverse group composed of W.E.B. Du Bois (Black), Ida Wells-Barnett (Black), Henry Moskowitz (White), Mary White Ovington (White), Oswald Garrison Villard (White), and William White Walling (White), to work on behalf of the rights of Blacks. Its name, (...)

I understand that some parts of the former might be considered offensive, so, trying to avoid that, I propose as an alternative:

(...) a diverse group composed of W.E.B. Du Bois (African American), Ida Wells-Barnett (African American), Henry Moskowitz (Asian [assuming Israel as the location of Jewish roots] American), Mary Caucasian Ovington (European American), Oswald Garrison Villard (European American), and William English Walling (European American), to work on behalf of the rights of African Americans. Its name, (...)

I am sure someone with the proper editing rights can quickly repair these inconsistencies.

Please add this infobox

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People

Abbreviation	NAACP
Formation	February 12, 1909
Type	Non-profit organization
Purpose	"Ensure the political, educational, social, and economic equality of rights of all persons and to eliminate racial hatred and racial discrimination"
Headquarters	Baltimore, Maryland
Membership	300,000
President/CEO	Benjamin Jealous
Website	http://www.naacp.org/

{{editprotected}} Please add the infobox at right to the article. Thanks. 66.167.253.71 (talk) 22:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC).

I added it. In the future, it will be easier if you simply register a username, as this page is only semiprotected. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Issue with the box: It says that membership is 300,000 but the article states that membership is over 400,000 (which is it?) 98.233.154.58 (talk) 19:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

300,000 paid-up members (according to the cite in the infobox), and "425,000 paying and non-paying members" according to the article. Looks OK to me, though the infobox could probably make clear that the number refers only to paid-up members. TFOWR^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 19:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

cites don't agree

Cites 14 and 15 don't agree on who the last president to not speak to the naacp. Since they can't both be right one is wrong and there fore unreliable and should be removed. I feel that the Washington Post would be more reliable but i wanted to see if anyone disagreed or could find a reliable third party source to cast the deciding vote. Washington post says it was Harding and gazette says Hoover. Sean0987 (talk) 05:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)Sean0987

Article improvement

The centennial of the NAACP's founding will be February 2009. This is a good time to bring the article up to its full potential. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

History section

I reverted changes which removed a large portion of the history section. The removed text appeared to be accurate, and I don't see a valid reason for its removal. –Megaboz (talk) 00:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

NAACP and Affirmative Action

Does anyone know the stace of the NAACP on Affirmative Action? Overthinkingly 18:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The NAACP has never objected to so-called affirmative action. Thus, it is responsible for the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 14:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Affirmative action has been going on in America since 1963 or 1964, with more recent imitations in Britain. Thus, the NAACP has had plenty of time to object to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The article passes over affirmative action in studious silence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 14:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

So, basically, you don't know of NAACP having an opinion on Affirmative Action. You do, however, seem to have a very strong opinion based on your not knowing. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I have just read the NAACP web-site minutely and it passes over affirmative action in complete silence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

So, basically, you don't know of NAACP having an opinion on Affirmative Action. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

If you google site:naacp.org "affirmative action", the answer is on the first page: [9]. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

NAACP - TALKING POINTS:

The NAACP firmly supports the use of affirmative action policies and practices by states to ensure equal opportunities for minorities and women —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.217.54 (talk) 20:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

NRA and NAACP

An editor has twice tried to add a comparison of the NRA and NAACP as civil rights organizations. The comparison does not appear to be valid, but in any event it lacks valid sourcing. The NRA proclaiming itself as a civil rights group may serve as self-description for its own article, but does not serve as a reliable source for any other article.

I invite the editor to discuss the issue here before attempting to add the material back for a third time. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It's pure original research and barrow-pushing. User:Vincekoers, If you've got a press release or some such from the NRA criticizing the NAACP's claim, then add it as a reference. --Stormie (talk) 09:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Even a quick Google search shows reliable sources like CBS, The Economist, NPR, Salon, Pittsburg Post-Gazette, Minneapolis Star Tribune, Washington Post, Baltimore Sun, NY Times, etc who refer to the NAACP as the nation's oldest civil rights organization. NRA claims to the title don't have much traction and seem to be a fringe belief limited to the NRA itself and its supporters. I can only assume that most folks simply don't equate a single issue political movement with traditional civil rights organizations. However since this article itself does not make that claim (although it certainly could) there doesn't seem to be any valid reason to introduce any mention of the NRA in this article. At best (from the NRA standpoint) we would need to introduce the majority opinion on the NAACP as the oldest and largest and then introduce the NRA version (assuming there is a reliable source unrelated to the NRA that makes the claim) as a minority view.

I also note the following info on the NRA from an NRA sympathetic organization at [10]:

Through the association's magazine, The American Rifleman, members were kept abreast of new firearms bills, although the lag time in publishing often prevented the necessary information from going out quickly. In response to repeated attacks on the Second Amendment rights, NRA formed the Legislative Affairs Division in 1934. While NRA did not lobby directly at this time, it did mail out legislative facts and analyses to members, whereby they could take action on their own. In 1975, recognizing the critical need for political defense of the Second Amendment, NRA formed the Institute for Legislative Action, or ILA.

It seems clear that the NRA didn't start concerning itself with the 2nd Amendment until several decades after the founding of the NAACP. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

By Editor VinceKoers: My apologies, gentlemen North Shoreman and Stormie, for we are not the experienced editor as the likes of the two of you, nor are we acquainted with all of the edit and discussion functions that are part and parcel to Wikipedia, and thus we are again guilty of getting our cart before your horse and editing yet again. So we are tardy in finding and joining the discussion portion of the process...

If we understand you correctly, you would like us to present documentation that NRA functioned before 1909 as a 'civil rights organization,' probably within today's connotation of the term? We will go to work on that. No one mentioned grass-roots. Is there anyone here questioning that NRA is indeed a grass-roots organization, if not THE grass-roots organization in the U.S? No one mentioned 'largest' either. Can we take for granted that you will agree the NRA is roughly 10 times the membership of the NAACP? You cite 'reliable sources' that echo the NAACP's claim to be the oldest / largest, but you surely realize that simply because some news agency takes a group at their word, who 'says' that they are the oldest / largest doesn't make it so... And for that matter, it is unclear at what time the NAACP itself began to really function as a 'civil rights group' within the meaning of today's term. Was it in 1909, or was it in 1954? In your comments, you dismiss the NRA as a single-issue organization, which you must see as guns / no guns, or as only the 2nd Amendment issue. Clearly, their work is much, much broader, but more on that later. But part of what we are sensing here is purely quibbling over the meaning of what exactly is a civil rights organization. Are you folks like President Clinton, trying to give a new meaning to the word 'is?' What part of civil-rights don't you understand? So what if NRA didn't 'become' a civil rights organization until, say 1948, so what? In the here and now - Today - they are truly the defender of our civil rights - mine, yours, and everybody else's, regardless of race, or creed. They protect your hunting rights, and your self-defense rights. They protect your rights, and ability to buy and possess many different kinds of weapons not necessarily covered by the 2nd Amendment. Is the NRA 'civil-rights in exactly the same way as the NAACP? Of course not. Would the NAACP see the NRA as a 'civil rights' organization? Likely not. But what is Wikipedia about? The truth, or how the NAACP sees their own version of the truth?

We suggest you folks take a step back and look at this as Wikipedia users see it, and not bring your bias to the table. Meanwhile, we will seek some of the verification you have mentioned. VK —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincekoers (talk • contribs) 06:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Addendum by Koers: Reference http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55148, Article by Sandy Froman, former NRA past president… More to follow…

The issue is reliable sources. Simply presenting more NRA claims about itself does not meet the standard -- see WP:SELFPUB. What you need to establish is, first, that reliable, third party sources support your claims about the NRA. It is of no interest what your opinion is of when the NRA first acted to protect a civil right or when the NAACP did -- it is what the reliable sources say. Second, if you do find such sources, then that doesn't make you right -- it simply shows that reliable sources disagree and both sides should be used based on the extent that either source is commonly circulated. Third, and perhaps most important, you need to show that this is somehow of significance to this article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

From Editor VinceKoers: Would the real objector to the honest clarification of this issue please step forward? The discussion began with the assertion that the comparison of the two organizations "does not appear to be valid." Next, we were asked to present a press release or some such item from the NRA, and when we did that, we were then told that "presenting more NRA claims about itself does not meet the standard" for reliable sources. In discussing reliable sources, the objector(s) note that "any number of reliable sources claim the NAACP is the largest civil rights group," and they use Google searches, including the Washington Post, among their "reliable sources."

Interestingly enough, when one does a Google search for "largest civil rights group," one finds that very same Washington Post reference, right next to the item from Tim Graham, of the Media Research Center, who specializes in erroneous or misrepresented stories. Graham said "The Washington Post’s front-page Obama story on Friday (July 17, 2009) includes a glaring error. Reporters Krissah Thompson and Cheryl Thompson began with a reference to Barack Obama’s first speech before the 'nation’s oldest civil rights organization.' This is a standard claim in stories on the NAACP, but it’s untrue – the NAACP just turned 100, but the National Rifle Association was founded in 1871." This NAACP claim is only true if 'civil rights group' can only be used as an honorific synonym for 'black interest group.'

Further,WIKI.Answer.com (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_oldest_civil_rights_organization_in_the_US), another disinterested reliable source, provides the following question and answer: Q - "What is the oldest civil rights organization in the US?" A - "The National Rifle Association (NRA) was founded and granted a charter on November 17, 1871. The mission of the NRA is to protect and encourage safe responsible firearm ownership. Firearm ownership is a civil right, specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights in the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. Widely recognized today as a major political force and as America's foremost defender of Second Amendment rights, the NRA has, since its inception, been the premier firearms education organization in the world. They remain committed to training, education, marksmanship and safety. A common (NAACP) claim is that the NAACP is the oldest civil rights organization. It was founded as the National Negro Committee on Abraham Lincoln's birthday, February 12, 1909."

These are only two of many such apparently neutral sources that address the issue. In the same search, NOT ONE independent source examined the question and decided in favor of the NAACP claim. Several, of course, simply parrot the claims made by the NAACP in press releases, and on their web site.

As a final grasp at straws, our objector(s) say that all of the above is basically immaterial, as "even if you do find such sources," "both sides should be used based on the extent that either source is commonly circulated." Whatever that means - but one meaning might be that a 4,000,000 member organization should be able to out-shout a 400,000 member group. And we can!

While our objector(s) insist that it is incumbent upon us to demonstrate that "our sources are reliable," yet they seem ready to assume that the status quo does not have to be defended as suspect, even when the entire article is largely borrowed right from the NAACP web site and other literature, and when this all comes from an organization that is unwilling or unable to even acknowledge the roots of their organization, whom founded them, and when.

Our objector(s) continue that "most important, you need to show that this is somehow of significance to this article." We have assumed that Wikipedia operates from a basis of equity and fair play, and is devoted to ensuring the historical accuracy of information input into its system. We also assumed that the overseers of that information, who work endless hours to ensure and maintain the accuracy of the information that has been input, have an interest in insuring the correctness of that information.

Clearly, we see this information as being "somehow significant," and we would guess that you, the objector, do not, as you keep putting up additional stumbling blocks to the reasoned argument that the NAACP claim is spurious, and needs to be addressed. We are concerned with the ramifications Graham points out, the NAACP's capturing of "civil rights' as synomous with 'black interest,' and that in itself is "somehow significant." WIKI.Answer thinks it is significant; Tim Graham thinks it is significant; Sandy Froman thinks it is significant; The NRA thinks it is significant; Even the NAACP must think it is significant; They are the ones that have it wrong on their own web site. Do we need to have every one of the four million NRA members come here and tell you it is significent? We might be able to arrange that... We have come here at your invitation to present our position, and feel it is time for you to clearly identify whom we are dealing with, and to prove your case.Vince (talk) 00:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The article currently reads, “The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, usually abbreviated as NAACP and pronounced N-double-A-C-P, is one of the oldest and most influential civil rights organizations in the United States.” Even if there is an older and more influential civil rights organization (which this sentence certainly leaves room for), the sentence is still true -- and it is properly sourced. Why don’t you explain EXACTLY what inaccuracy you are attempting to correct by adding material regarding the NRA. If there is something inaccurate on the NAACP website (and I’m not saying there is), it really isn’t the purpose of this article to correct it unless the information has been incorporated into this article.

You also need to become familiar with Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Media Research Center certainly IS NOT a mainstream news organization -- it freely admits its conservative bias and is not an “apparently neutral source.” See also Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable sources which speaks of sources such as Media Research Center which “rely heavily on ... personal opinions. Wiki.answers serving as a reliable source is downright silly -- it has no scholarly standing and absolutely no record of fact checking.

It is clear what your agenda is when you write, “Do we need to have every one of the four million NRA members come here and tell you it is significent? We might be able to arrange that.” It will be a clear violation of the purpose and intent of wikipedia to allow a power play by the National Rifle Association to determine the content of its encyclopedia. It will be very interesting, however, if you do attempt such a tactic. Are you participating in this discussion as an individual or as a representative of the NRA? I can't help but notice you always refer to yourself in the plural.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Stormie, North Shoreman & company: Your solution - eliminating the wording about "one of the largest" is an acceptable solution to our dilemma. We shall not go into the reasons that egotists like the 'I' word. We write mostly as the editorial we, and we assure there are not four million of us at the keyboard. But they are on call...Vince (talk) 03:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

And exactly why should this accurate phrase be removed? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The NAACP's website states that "the NAACP is the nation's oldest, largest and most widely recognized grassroots–based civil rights organization".[11] The then-president of the NRA disputes that claim - that piece by Sandy Froman, by the way, is exactly the sort of thing I was hoping to see when I said "If you've got a press release or some such from the NRA criticizing the NAACP's claim, then add it as a reference," thank you very much for tracking it down. I think it could well be a worthwhile addition to the article to state the claim and the dispute, with references to the NAACP website and to Sandy Froman's article. This to me is Wikipedia's NPOV policy in action - "where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic, each must be presented fairly".

But it also true, as North Shoreman pointed out, that at present this article does not say that the NAACP is the oldest or the largest civil rights organization in the USA, merely that it is one of the oldest and most influential. A statement which, I have to say, appears to be entirely correct. --Stormie (talk) 13:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding NPOV, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view states, "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Are you arguing that a press release from the NRA is a reliable source regarding what is or is not a civil rights organization? As I've said, the mainstream media routinely acknowledges that the NAACP is the "oldest and largest." It does not seem like there is an actual notable disagreement until some neutral, reliable source starts referring to the NRA as a civil rights organization.

If we do as you suggest, then it would not be simply the NAACP versus the NRA websites, but would involve numerous references on the NAACP side from reliable sources such as the ones I've mentioned earlier. Also, in order to be consistent you should note that the lede on National Rifle Association contains the following, "Its political activity is based on the principle that gun ownership is a civil liberty protected by the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights, and it claims to be the oldest continuously operating civil rights organization in the United States." There is nothing in that article referencing either the NAACP claim or the claims from the mainstream press. Anything that is applicable regarding the NRA on this article is even more relevant regarding the NAACP on the NRA article.

The bottom line seems to be that, based on WP:SELFPUB, the NRA website is a proper source for what it says about itself on its own article and the NAACP website is a proper source for what it says about itself in its own article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The following are all examples of mainstream media that use NAACP and oldest and largest civil rights organization as virtually synonyms for each other:

CBS News [12] “Largest and Oldest Civil Rights Organization”

New York Daily News [13] “America's oldest civil rights organization”

NPR [14] “the nation's oldest and largest civil rights organization”

Salon [15] “The nation's oldest civil rights organization”

Chicago Tribune [16] “the nation's oldest and largest civil rights organization”

NY Times [17] the nation’s oldest and largest civil rights group.

Reuters [18] “the NAACP is the nation's oldest and largest civil rights organization.”

The Economist [19] “America’s oldest civil-rights outfit”

The Washington Post [20] “the country's oldest and largest civil rights organization.”

Seattle Times [21] “the nation's oldest civil-rights organization”

Associated Press [22] “the nation's oldest civil rights organization”

The National Review [23] “Indeed, the NAACP is the oldest civil-rights organization in America.”

The Boston Globe [24] “the nation’s oldest civil rights organization”

San Francisco Chronicle [25] “The nation's oldest civil rights organization”

Wall Street Journal [26] “the nation's oldest, largest and once-fierce champion of civil rights”

Fox News [27] “the nation's oldest civil rights organization”

I await some similar list from the NRA advocates. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Am I arguing that a press release from the NRA is a reliable source regarding what is or is not a civil rights organization? No, I was arguing that a press release from the NRA is a reliable source regarding the fact that the NRA disputes the NAACP's claim that it is the oldest and largest civil rights organization. A dispute which I don't think is worth more than a passing sentence in this article, but which I think might well justify that one sentence. --Stormie (talk) 09:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Under what wikipedia policy is it appropriate to include even a passing sentence about a claim that is unsupported by any reliable source? This whole issue is pure and simply self-promotion by the NRA. Why exactly should we assist them in this self promotion? WP:FRINGE seems to apply. From this policy:

The discussion of a fringe theory, positively or negatively, by groups or individuals is not a criterion for notability, even if the latter group or individual is itself notable enough for a Wikipedia article. If a fringe theory meets notability requirements, secondary reliable sources would have commented on it, disparaged it, or discussed it. Otherwise it is not notable enough for Wikipedia. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Stormie & Tom Earlier, when we said that your solution - deleting the wording - was acceptable, we were looking at what we thought was an upgraded version of the current site, and it appeared to us that someone ( we thought one of you) had modified the verbiage somewhat, and removed the "one of the largest claim." Apparently we were in error to think that you had made that move. But in the day or two after that, I - yes I, was impressed! We mulled our extensive arguments over, without a resolution, and then there - out of the blue - was the solution! Too bad it was only an illusion...

On to Stormie's point... Both of you have pointed out, in different words, that Wikipedia should be neutral, and the NAACP entry is anything but. Stormie notes further, where there is a controversy, you should present both sides. While we concede the literal truth of the statement..."one of the largest,"..., the fact is that the entire NAACP entry is very closely modeled after the information on the NAACP home site, and someone has simply tweaked the wording from "the Largest" to "One of the largest," still parroting the NAACP home site, while tacitly admitting the error of the basic NAACP claim. We suggest that the statement is entirely unnecessary to the proper description of the NAACP, and could be deleted without hurting one iota the purpose of the Wiki entry. If that were done, that would eliminate any need for any reference to the NRA at this site.

But Tom will disagree, arguing for the status quo, and claiming the NRA is somehow making "fringe" claims - Somehow, in his mind, the NAACP "owns" this claim, and the NRA - Older by decades, and involved from their very start in defending people's rights, including actions against local government (1892) - is a "fringe" group?

And the list of 16 media outlets citing NAACP's words as the oldest/largest? Tom, if your logic held any water at all, why haven't you changed the "one of the largest" back to "the largest," the way it is on the NAACP web site. After all, you just listed 16 organizations telling you it is the largest... Surely they are all reliable, aren't they?

Which of these organizations are simply repeating NAACP's obviously incorrect claim, and which of them have examined the details we are discussing, and still support the NAACP? Any of them? None to your knowledge?

Yes Tom, I can give you a list, but none of them would meet your "exacting standards," as an reliable source, because your mind is made up!

And why, pray tell, Tom, is the statement about who is the "oldest, largest," self-promotion when uttered by the NRA, but not when cited by the NAACP? Does the fact that the NAACP has misled people for many years with this claim have any bearing on the veracity of the issue?

Stormie, we propose that either the phrase "is one of the oldest and most influential civil-rights organizations" be replaced, so as to read like "is one of the most influential civli-rights organizations in the United States." Or, reinsert the one sentence recognizing the alternate NRA claim.Vince (talk) 06:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The "exacting standards" on reliable sources is not my creation but the result of years of consensus by wikipedia editors. The existing language is supported by its own reliable sources (and has been that way for some time) and at present there is not a consensus to change it -- perhaps that will change if other editors start to participate. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

"Radical"

On July 24, a user with the IP 207.192.193.97 added the word "radical" to the opening sentence: "The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People... is one of the oldest and most influential [radical] civil rights organizations in the United States." While I don't think there's anything bad about being a radical civil rights organization (in fact, it's right up my ally), it doesn't apply to the NAACP, at least not in a modern context (when it was founded, just being an organization for the advancement of colored people was radical, but that was a long time ago). Anyway, it's gone now. --MQDuck 03:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

This section is specious. The cited source simply mentions information about how the NAACP's assets are allocated, it does not mention a criticism; to infer that the NAACP has this or that number of stars because of certain allocation is just that, inference that is not otherwise suggested in the cited source. I suggest that this section be deleted unless far more substantive information and citations can be put there. The extrapolation of graphs and charts from one online source that does not even explain its rating system does not a credible criticism section make. Kemet 02:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

NAACP Youth Council article, help needed to edit title

The title of the page NAACP youth council should be changed to capitalize 'Youth Council'. The reason that articles won't link to it is that when a link is attempted it won't take. Can someone who knows how to change the titles of articles consider doing this? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Now moved and changed, thank you. The disussion page still needs to be moved. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone add more to the article? The Youth Council has a prominent role in Civil Rights history on its own, and the page just needs to be fleshed out a bit more. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Charity Navigator Edit Revert

I'm a new-ish user and have been making some edits to the articles of charities, typically adding information about their finances. In the case of this article, I added the following comment...

" The NAACP is rated 0 out of 4 stars from the charity evaluation organization Charity Navigator[6]. According to Charity Navigator, Dennis Hayes, the Interim Executive Director & CEO, received compensation of $240,000 in 2007. "

The note [6] pointed to http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=4158

My edit was removed by someone. I see from reading this talk page that there has been a lot of vandalism on this article and a lot of hurtful comments. That certainly wasn't my intention. I thought my addition was appropriate, correctly sourced [Charity Navigator is the largest and probably most respected charity evaluation organization] and fairly worded. But like I said, I'm somewhat new, so I'm not sure about the protocol.

I don't know what to do now. I think it's relevant and important information for people to be aware of, especially as they plan their charitable giving. But I don't want to add it in again unless someone out there agrees.

I know that some people may think that adding unflattering information about a charity which otherwise does good work is wrong. But I feel that if this information is aired, it will put pressure on the charity to reform its finances. This will make the charity better and stronger, thereby making more effective use of the resources contributed by donors.

I'd be open to any suggestions on how to word this more effectively or structure it differently.

I would then also change the comments on other charities (such as the United Spinal Association ) on which I've put similar information. I also have a list of other charities' articles which I was planning to edit, but am waiting until this is resolved. I've been choosing these charities based on the statistics listed on CN, starting with the largest very poorly rated charities. I did not choose them based on some political agenda.

Any advice would be appreciated. Ericwag (talk) 03:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Nobody has commented about this in the last week. I am considering re-inserting the section if I don't hear something soon. Any comments would be appreciated.

Thanks Ericwag (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem with your edit is that it has absolutely no context. You provided a numerical rating with absolutely no explanation as to what the number means or how it was determined. Your stated intention (But I feel that if this information is aired, it will put pressure on the charity to reform its finances) is totally out of place for wikipedia -- this is an encyclopedia, not a forum for crusaders. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Tom, for your comments. I will consider them very carefully and consider a way to write a section which provides greater explanation about meaning and methods of the charity navigator's rating system. I'm not sure I completely agree with your comment about me using Wikipedia as a forum for crusading. However, I understand the impulse, so I will try to ensure that connotation is no way negatively biased and that point-of-view is neutral. As I said, I'm new to Wikipedia editing and this is all useful criticism. Thank you again. Ericwag (talk) 06:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Racism

Why isn't the controversy of racism against white people mentioned in this article. Of course, it can be mentioned in the tea party article about how some people allege that they are racist...but it's not mentioned about the NAACP. http://wcbstv.com/topstories/tea.party.naacp.2.1812710.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by JahnTeller07 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The source you cite does not discuss charges of racism in the NAACP from a significant source. It discusses one blogger's claim of "evidence of racism from the NAACP." The evidence was a recording of a speech at an NAACP event by USDA Rural Development Georgia State Director. Said director resigned over the speech. The NAACP, for their part, issued a statement concurring with the firing, "According to her remarks, she mistreated a white farmer in need of assistance because of his race. We are appalled by her actions,...Her actions were shameful."

If you have a source citing a charge of racism by a significant organization, you'd have something to add. The comparison you make is the NAACP charging racism against some memebers of the Tea Party to a blogger charging racism against the NAACP. It simply is not comparable. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

...And there's doubt the speach was at an NAACP event. The farmer in question agrees that her statements were taken out of context, "...the wife of the white farmer referenced in the clip told CNN she credits Sherrod with helping her family save their farm. Eloise Spooner remembered Sherrod as "getting in there and doing all she could do to help us.""[28] - SummerPhD (talk) 20:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The NAACP's Race-Card Playing Against George W. Bush

The NAACP cut an ad insinuating that George W. Bush condoned hate crimes against blacks. Someone here deleted it because it was damaging to the NAACP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.205.230 (talk) 20:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Someone here deleted it because one editor's opinion of the nature of an ad is not encyclopedic and there is a steady stream of such edits by various editors, socks of banned editors and unregistered IPs. If you have independent reliable sources to support this claim, bring it up here. Otherwise, you're wasting your time. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

This article needs to be made neutral

An obscure Bush reference and no mention of criticism or racism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.102.239 (talk) 14:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 66.74.134.103, 31 August 2011

So, is there a reason there isn't a "criticism and controversy" section on this page? Is it deemed "racist" to oppose some of the things this group has done? There are many, many African-Americans who do not support the NAACP and disagree with some (not all) of its policies and actions. I guess wiki is trying too hard to be "PC" now though..

66.74.134.103 (talk) 23:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

What, specifically, do you think needs to be added? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 23:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I removed the edit request template, since you are not requesting an edit. Please note that the template is not intended to be used to draw attention to discussions on the talk page, but to make very specific changes that already have supporting consensus. Thanks, — Bility (talk) 23:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Membership

The link in the infobox to the page allegedly showing membership is dead. 66.234.204.13 (talk) 05:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)