Jump to content

Talk:NAACP

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 76.104.3.155 (talk) at 02:46, 13 October 2016 (ProQuest). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good article nomineeNAACP was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 9, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed

Template:Past cotw

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus which defaults to not moved. Concerns that the abbreviation may not be understood outside the United States were not addressed. Nathan Johnson (talk) 00:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]



National Association for the Advancement of Colored PeopleNAACP – This abbreviation is used everywhere, especially by sources. There could have been any other challenging "NAACP", but there is not another NAACP other than an organization of black people. PBS and NBC come in mind, but they are just networks. George Ho (talk) 22:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain a little more about why you want to make this move? "NAACP" is common, because the full name is long and probable for other reasons, but I don't think the abbreviation has supplanted the name (as in the case of scuba, for example). groupuscule (talk) 01:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...Well, typing the whole name of the organization is not very likely, unless you memorize it. And typing "NAACP" only to be redirected to the whole name... It's not like "VCR" or "videocassette recorder" (no, I did type the whole name of VCR). Also, we won't know what else NAACP means as long as we have only one NAACP; if there is more than one, then this organization is primary topic of all NAACPs. --George Ho (talk) 01:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi George, I was looking at www.guardian.co.uk hits on 5 December 2011, 6 December 2011, 17 July 2009. "The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)" in each in-text case. I just don't think this acronym is automatic to non-American users. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian must have copied-and-pasted the whole name in order to make the article reliable. How did those authors know the whole name? --George Ho (talk) 17:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No idea, I didn't look at in detail. You're saying the Guardian took a US wire story and spelled it out for non-Americans? Quite possible. Whatever their reason it suggests that NAACP wasn't enough for their readers to know what it means. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Any other non-U.S. source that uses only the acronym? --George Ho (talk) 18:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again no idea, wasn't aware of any non-US source that uses only the acronym in the first place. Times of India spells it out for Indian readers, and spells out American Civil Liberties Union too. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The full original name (current title) is outdated and rarely used in reliable sources. Even on their website, naacp.org, the only place it's spelled out is on their emblem, obscurely. The acronym is the most common way this topic is referenced in reliable sources. --B2C 06:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. the NAACP form is much better known. Rjensen (talk) 17:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support common name. Hot Stop 22:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; outside of the U.S., this abbreviation is not well known. Powers T 13:55, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. They're almost like ESPN--the original name still carries their mission but is not how they have chosen to brand themselves, nor is it how they are best known. Red Slash 16:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The abbreviation appears to not be used everywhere. The full name is informational to those who know the abbreviation but not the full title. The abbreviation is meaningless to those who don't. 58 characters is long for a title, but justified this time. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Agree with SmokeyJoe that we should err on the side of spelling out the abbreviation. Also compelled by the idea that we should keep a global audience in mind. I think the situation would be different if NAACP had made some sort of official statement on switcing to acronym. (A la KFC.) On the other hand, here's someone saying NAACP has "entered the lexion". I do hear "en double a cee pee" spoken much more often than the full name... but, same goes for FBI, CIA, et al. I don't think the stakes are very high, since a curious person will find the article either way. Cheers, groupuscule (talk) 11:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Non-admin closure of above RM

The appropriateness of the non-admin closure of the above RM has been questioned at this AN/I:

--B2C 03:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NAACP wants someone arrested for wearing an Obama mask

After a rodeo clown wore an Obama mask, Mary Ratliff, head of the Missouri chapter of the NAACP said:

"I think that a hate crime occurred. I think a hate crime occurs when you use a person’s race to depict who they are and to make degrading comments, gestures, et cetera, against them."

Source: http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/16/naacp-state-head-missouri-rodeo-clown-committed-hate-crime/

I think this should be added to the article.

CQ 126 (talk) 07:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One off-the-cuff remark by a state head is not a significant event in the 100 year history of a national organization. To prove otherwise, you would need to demonstrate that the statement had a significant, lasting impact on the organization by citing on-going coverage in independent reliable sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mask???? the clown suggested serious bodily harm or death to the president. That's a federal crime. Rjensen (talk) 16:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He did no such thing. He put a mask that's all. The president is not protected against satire.Tomsv 98 (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The clowns reenacted what in real life would be an assassination attempt. Rjensen (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is off topic. Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to articles, not for offering opinions tangentially related to the topic. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

update!

There are parts of this article that say Mr. Jealous is the current president of the NAACP. Maybe you want to update that info? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.68.180.101 (talk) 05:15, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

President Change

New president announced today: Cornell William Brooks Source: NAACP site [1] Nanders5 (talk) 16:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)Nanders5[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2015

Add the external link

because it is a resourceful website that is relevant to the NAACP. Mlf34 (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done as WP:ELMINOFFICIAL as it is just a sub-page of their official website, which is already linked to at least twice - Arjayay (talk) 10:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

eh? No its not. -- haminoon (talk) 10:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -- haminoon (talk) 10:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No controversy section?

I'm surprised there is no "controversy section". What about the Donald sterling scandal? Rachel Dolezal? This may help explain the changing role and identity of the organization over time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.236.18.51 (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2015

Please remove ' Africian-American from the first sentence.

Context - The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) is an African-American civil rights organization in the United States, formed in 1909 by Moorfield Storey, Mary White Ovington and W. E. B. Du Bois.[3]

The NAACP on their mission page http://www.naacp.org/pages/our-mission , which includes their mission statment, their vision statment, and their objectives never uses the term 'Africian-American'. It speaks of 'all persons', 'all citizens', and 'all individuals.'

The use of 'Africian-American,' creates segregation in a group that is based on the idea of inclusion. Peoples exhibit a (talk) 23:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: The use of "colored people" in their name already creates that segregation. More importantly, reliable sources like britannica describe it as such. Cannolis (talk) 15:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Springarn honorees

The lead says that Springarn Medals are given "for outstanding achievement of any kind, frequently political." My issue is with the term "frequently political." Beside the fact that it reads poorly, is it even needed if the award is really for "any" outstanding achievement? It's not cited with any source, so I would like to remove it if no one objects.Kerdooskis (talk) 20:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Membership discrepancy

The info box says NAACP membership totals 300,000, yet the body of the article says 425,000 (as of 2007). The organization's own site says it has more than 500,000 "members and supporters." I can't seem to find any source with an up-to-date total. Any help in finding the true number would be nice.Kerdooskis (talk) 18:12, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2016

Can somebody add the Start date and age template from the current "February 12, 1909" to {start date and age|1909|2|12} to the NAACP's official founding date?


71.163.81.242 (talk) 03:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done — JJMC89(T·C) 05:01, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ProQuest

Why is ProQuest on this page?

This looks like an ad placed by the company. It should not have such a prominent position on the page, and should probably be removed entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.3.155 (talk) 01:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have added {{Primary source inline}} tags to encourage the addition of citations from secondary sources. It seems a bit like advertising per the existing cites, but the prose appears to be good-faith contextual content. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 16:40, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It may be good faith content, but for the article as a whole, it is too prominent a position for what is really a minor minor detail.