Talk:Congressional Black Caucus

message: This article is one sided, all it does is praise the CBC, it does nothing to address any critism
Untrue, it quotes J C Watts. Adam 03:26, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: He's a member of the Congressional Black Caucus.  Yes, he identifies himself as a black man, but all I have to say is... just look at the man.  See the article GK_Butterfield for his picture.  Should he be listed as a white member in this article?  --69.112.150.177 (talk) 06:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: He grew up in a black family. He identifies as a black man. I don't think this article should say otherwise just because he doesn't look how you expect a "black" man to look. 159.153.129.39 (talk) 23:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: White membership - G.K. Butterfield

message: Under the "are whites allowed section" this article states that the CBC has many Jewish members. To my knowledge, all the Jewish members are indeed white. This is redundant and confusing. So the text should be changed to reflect either religion or race, not both.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.83.92.57 (talk) 23:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Judaism

message: Quoth the article:
:The Caucus is officially non-partisan, but in practice it has been almost exclusively composed of Democrats, and tends to function as a lobbying group with the wider Congressional Democratic Party. Only three black Republicans have been elected to Congress since the Caucus was founded: Senator Edward W. Brooke of Massachusetts and Representatives Gary Franks of Connecticut and J.C. Watts, Jr. of Oklahoma, who refused to join.
This is a little confusing.  The first sentence includes the prevarication "...almost exclusively."  The next sentence notes that there have been only three black Congressional Republicans in the lifetime of the CBC  and then ends ambiguously: the final clause, "who refused to join", could be referring to all three of them, or just to J.C. Watts (who is the only one who is specifically noted in the article as not having joined in the CBC).
The question then is, were Brooke and Franks CBC members?  The paragraph sows confusion on this point. It should be revised in one of two ways, depending on the facts:
"The Caucus is officially non-partisan, but in practice it has been almost exclusively composed of Democrats, and tends to function as a lobbying group with the wider Congressional Democratic Party. Only three black Republicans have been elected to Congress since the Caucus was founded: Senator Edward W. Brooke of Massachusetts and Representatives Gary Franks of Connecticut and J.C. Watts, Jr. of Oklahoma -- and Watts refused to join the CBC."
or
"The Caucus is officially non-partisan, but in practice it has been exclusively composed of Democrats, and tends to function as a lobbying group with the wider Congressional Democratic Party. Only three black Republicans have been elected to Congress since the Caucus was founded: Senator Edward W. Brooke of Massachusetts and Representatives Gary Franks of Connecticut and J.C. Watts, Jr. of Oklahoma -- and all three refused to join the CBC."
Anyone who knows the details should chime in.  --Jfruh 21:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "On May 6, 2006, Moore and eight fellow members of the Congressional Black Caucus were arrested and ticketed for unlawful assembly and disorderly conduct after they stepped onto the grounds of the Embassy of the Republic of Sudan to call attention to the ongoing Darfur conflict in Sudan.  Moore said that the group expected ex ante to be arrested but that they were pleased to participate in a "peaceful act of civil disobedience"."
--Gloriamarie 22:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Republicans in the CBC? 

message: There is a black representative from Wisconsin, a woman, named Gwen Moore.  Is she not a member?
Moore is now listed; I found this in her article and added it here:
:"On May 6, 2006, Moore and eight fellow members of the Congressional Black Caucus were arrested and ticketed for unlawful assembly and disorderly conduct after they stepped onto the grounds of the Embassy of the Republic of Sudan to call attention to the ongoing Darfur conflict in Sudan.  Moore said that the group expected ex ante to be arrested but that they were pleased to participate in a "peaceful act of civil disobedience"."
--Gloriamarie 22:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is one representative missing from the list? 

message: Congressional Black Caucus article:
Oklahoma Congressman J.C. Watts made national headlines when he refused to join the Caucus, calling the group a bunch of "race-hustling poverty pimps."
J.C. Watts article:
Watts was elected to the United States Congress in 1994. He was the first black Republican elected in a Southern state to a federal office in 120 years. He garnered attention soon after his election by declining to join the Congressional Black Caucus, saying it is "infested" with "Democratic liberals who betray black people in America." [...] He was selected in 1997 to deliver the Republican response to President Bill Clinton's State of the Union Address. Later that year, Watts stirred up controversy when he branded some unnamed black Democrats and civil rights leaders "race-hustling poverty pimps."
The J.C. Watts article seems to imply that the "race-hustling poverty pimps" line was uttered not in 1994 in reaction to the Caucus, but in 1997 in an unrelated matter. Can this be clarified? --Liberlogos 01:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  J.C. Watts's quote 

message: The following section of the article is clearly biased.
Rep. Clay issued an official statement from his office:
"Quite simply, Rep. Cohen will have to accept what the rest of the country will have to accept - there has been an unofficial Congressional White Caucus for over 200 years, and now it's our turn to say who can join 'the club.' He does not, and cannot, meet the membership criteria, unless he can change his skin color. Primarily, we are concerned with the needs and concerns of the black population, and we will not allow white America to infringe on those objectives."
On January 25, 2007, Representative Tom Tancredo, R-Co., spoke out against the continued existence of the CBC as well as the Democratic Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and the Republican Congressional Hispanic Conference saying, "It is utterly hypocritical for Congress to extol the virtues of a color-blind society while officially sanctioning caucuses that are based solely on race. If we are serious about achieving the goal of a colorblind society, Congress should lead by example and end these divisive, race-based caucuses."[7]
This statement ignored the long history of non-Black members of the Black Caucus.
The statement from Representative Clay should be qualified with a comment on its racist viewpoint and illogic. If there had been “an unofficial Congressional White Caucus for over 200 years,” (which I do not endorse or deny the existence of) does that make it correct to continue to promote legally sanctioned racial division and separate treatment? Two wrongs don’t make a right. Furthermore, I believe he has made the red herring fallacy here. Unable to properly support his argument for discrimination, he switches tactics to promote racial antagonism and pit whites against blacks and consequently, the converse.
The last sentence has no supporting evidence and is only tenuously relevant to Representative Tancredo’s comment. Regardless of the existence of honorary membership, it still stands that the caucuses have racial bases. The fact that a prospective member’s status in the caucus, as a full or honorary member, hinges on that person’s race is evidence of inexcusable conduct.
Greta Hoostal (talk) 16:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: *It is in line with the NPOV policy to report on the rampant bribery and corruption that has taken place in the CBC. Of the 10 most corrupt Congressmen of 2010, 8 were CBC members. Yet the Congressional Black Caucus would rather condone corruption than deal with it, which is also a trademark of African oligarchies. 69.143.180.147 (talk) 23:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corruption 

message: I removed an unsourced section on an ethics investigation that had no obvious relationship to. There's only article I could find on the investigation itself -- http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/25/cbsnews_investigates/main5114378.shtml -- and there's no mention of the subject of this Wikipedia article in the article. Ditto for the .gov link and even for the National Legal and Policy Center press release. The stringent guidelines of WP:BLP apply to any content related to living people; do not add or readd information until it can be sourced to mainstream WP:RS. Flowanda | Talk 03:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caribbean jaunt investigation section removed -- September 2009 

message: A.C. Cordoza Republican denied membership 76.176.7.139 (talk) 14:56, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A.C. Cordoza Republican denied membership 

message: Democrats Refuse Republican Membership 76.176.7.139 (talk) 15:05, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Democrats Refuse Republican Membership 

message: President Nixon did not agree to meet with the Democratic Select Committee in 1970. The group was not named the Congressional Black Caucus until 1971. Yes, it was the CBC that boycotted the 1971 State of the Union address, but, again, it was the DSC that was denied a meeting with Nixon.
It's a small point, but the article should reflect this difference. 
And as we know, Nixon met with the CBC later in 1971.2605:A000:BFC0:21:94E6:7356:1FEF:7D78 (talk) 21:15, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Democratic Select Committee timing