Talk:NAACP/Archive 1

message: The "History" section needs rewriting to make more sense. Try adding more citations, expanding on ideas and moving things around to make sense. The parts that need the most help are the first two.
Ianc55 (talk) 04:21, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: History section 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: History section 2

message: 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  and  Alarm 08:43, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Cleanup needed

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Point well taken, but any suggestions? - Jmabel | Talk 06:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  President Bush declines to address NAACP 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removed reference to Holocaust denial group 

message: 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)
thread_title: Gun control

message: 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)
thread_title: Book citation

message: * 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)
thread_title:  To do 

message: 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)
replies: text: Aha. Thanks. Perhaps it should be put back.Bobblewik  (talk) 20:21, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: "As of" redirect

message: 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)
thread_title: Roots

message: :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)
thread_title: 1970s leaders

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Timeline

message: 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)
thread_title:  Recent history: More sources needed 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: History and an update

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  I'm not in the mood to put this politely... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bias 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  criticism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  ACT-SO 

message: Two things: 
#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). 
#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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Bush 

message: 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)
thread_title:  2002, NCAA, NASCAR 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected 

message: from official site.--Sig0 18:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  copyvio 

message: 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).
: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)
thread_title: NAACP finances

message: 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)
thread_title: NAACP and Tax Evasion

message: 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)
thread_title: The Section About Bush

message: 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)
thread_title:  NAACP Jewish Founders 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Water cooler picture? 

message: Please add the infobox at right to the article.  Thanks.  66.167.253.71 (talk) 22:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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. TFOWRidle vapourings of a mind diseased 19:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please add this infobox 

message: 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)
thread_title:  cites don't agree 

message: 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)
thread_title: Article improvement

message: 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)
thread_title:  History section 

message: 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)
thread_title: "Radical"

message: 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)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: 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)
replies: text: Now moved and changed, thank you. The disussion page still needs to be moved. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: NAACP Youth Council article, help needed to edit title

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Charity Navigator Edit Revert 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The NAACP's Race-Card Playing Against George W. Bush 

message: 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)
thread_title:  This article needs to be made neutral 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Edit request from 66.74.134.103, 31 August 2011 

message: The link in the infobox to the page allegedly showing membership is dead. 66.234.204.13 (talk) 05:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've replaced the source. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Membership 

message: NAACP Brings U.S. Election Law Before United Nations - 15 March 2012
Prompted by an NAACP complaint, the United Nations Human Rights Council is investigating the impact of U.S. election laws on minorities in the United States.
SOURCE:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/14/un-delves-into-us-voter-id-laws/
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/11197-naacp-brings-us-election-law-before-united-nations  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitacore (talk • contribs) 02:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Events 

message: Why is there no criticism section of the NAACP?  I'm not only talking about conservative criticism but also, for example, the debate in the 90's over scrapping its long-time commitment to school integration, which led to various leaders being dismissed from local chapters.  This New York Times Article article from back then discusses the controversy.  There has been contrversy over associating with Louis Farrakhan, Khalid Muhammad, Al Sharpton, and other black activists whose hateful message were seen as being strongly at odds with the NAACP's history and charter.
Recent events also warrant inclusion in any prospective "criticism" section.  Just recently, the Assistant National Director of the NAACP under Roy Wilkins called the NAACP A "hate group".   The Justice Department just slapped a $175 million fine on Wells Fargo for unfair lending practices against 4000 blacks and hispanics.  The NAACP had initiated a fair-lending lawsuit against Wells Fargo in 2007 but then dropped the suit  as Wells Fargo was one of their principle donors.  Wells Fargo was the lead sponsor of this year's NAACP.  And what about the recent Mitt Romney convention speech controversy?
I, unfortunately do not have enough privileges to correct this glaring omission, will someone familiar with the history please change this?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masks98 (talk • contribs) 02:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  NO "criticism" section in an article on the NAACP? 

message: An RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC 

message: The appropriateness of the non-admin closure of the above RM has been questioned at this AN/I:
* Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Non-admin_closures_of_controversial_RM_discussions_-_appropriate.3F.
--B2C 03:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-admin closure of above RM

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The clowns reenacted what in real life would be an assassination attempt. Rjensen (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  NAACP wants someone arrested for wearing an Obama mask 

message: 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)
thread_title:  update! 

message: New president announced today: Cornell William Brooks
Source: NAACP site
https://donate.naacp.org/page/contribute/president-brooks-rt
Nanders5 (talk) 16:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  President Change 

message: Add the external link
* "NAACP," One Person, One Vote
because it is a resourceful website that is relevant to the NAACP.
Mlf34 (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: eh? No its not. -- haminoon (talk) 10:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2015 

message: 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)
thread_title:  No controversy section? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2015 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080611053922/http://www.naacp.org:80/about/mission/ to http://www.naacp.org/about/mission/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091109213340/http://www.naacp.org:80/about/contact/form/ to http://www.naacp.org/about/contact/form/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Springarn honorees 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Membership discrepancy  

message: 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)
replies: text: Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:01, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2016 

message: 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)
replies: text: I have added  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! Talk • Work 16:40, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

text: Thanks for bringing up this concern although I don't think it is particularly problematic in its current location.  I will defer to more regular editors of this article on this matter. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 15:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: ProQuest

message: "Possibly significant in the NAACP's vote was its concern with the HIV/AIDS crisis in the black community; while AIDS support organizations recommend that people live a monogamous lifestyle, the government did not recognize same-sex relationships.[45]"
Not being able to marry does not cause a relationship to lack monogamy.Also the government now recognizes Same-ex marriage so this should be updated if you were to keep it in Ijacobson (talk) 15:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I see you are a student editor.  Don't be scarred to edit article page.  If your edit appears egregious to another editor and is reverted, then discuss it on talk page.  This response also applies to the section "Membership" you added.  Mitchumch (talk) 16:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not relevant to the section 

message: In the section about the Niagara Movement, I noticed the text "two whites and one Jew" referring to Walling, Ovington and Moskowitz. In an article as sensitive as this one, I'm not sure that that language is appropriate, since it implies that Jewish people are not 'white', and moreover it implies that "Jewish" is a race rather than a religion. So I changed that text to "three non-African-Americans," and restructured the sentence so it reads "Moskowitz, who was Jewish..." ("Christian" for Walling and Ovington is not substantiated by their articles, so I avoided that.) Roches (talk) 19:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change in Niagara Movement section 

message: I see there's some question over whether this page needs to begin with the note "Not to be confused with National Association for the Advancement of White People."  I don't see any chance at all that the two groups could be confused. Innisfree987 (talk) 06:15, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hatnote 

message: Eoliver naacp (talk) 17:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER  ★ 17:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2017 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on NAACP. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140808054436/http://www.naacp.org/press/entry/naacp-passes-resolution-supporting-strong-clean-air-act to http://www.naacp.org/press/entry/naacp-passes-resolution-supporting-strong-clean-air-act
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100617133445/http://www.naacp.org/about/history/timeline/ to http://www.naacp.org/about/history/timeline/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140104220140/http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAwalling.htm to http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAwalling.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130524175716/http://myloc.gov/Exhibitions/naacp/earlyyears/ExhibitObjects/CharlesEdwardRussell.aspx to http://myloc.gov/Exhibitions/naacp/earlyyears/ExhibitObjects/CharlesEdwardRussell.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090122230015/http://naacp.org/about/history/howbegan/index.htm to http://www.naacp.org/about/history/howbegan/index.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090301185659/http://www.myjewishlearning.com/history_community/Modern/Overview_The_Story_19481980/America/PWPolitics/CivilRights.htm to http://www.myjewishlearning.com/history_community/Modern/Overview_The_Story_19481980/America/PWPolitics/CivilRights.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110305221157/http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=154712,00.html to https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=154712,00.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090204222812/http://www.naacp.org/news/press/2008-08-13/index.htm to http://www.naacp.org/news/press/2008-08-13/index.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:01, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: "The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)[a] is a civil rights organization [...] to advance justice for African Americans by a group, including, W. E. B. Du Bois, Mary White Ovington and Moorfield Storey."
So those Du Bois and the other guys where unjust to some African American, and people founded the NAACP to deal with it?
This sentence should be dragged out the back and shot.  91.10.8.60 (talk) 01:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede 

message: "In May 2012 right-wing journalist Andrew Breitbart publicized an edited video of a speech at a NAACP-sponsored Georgia event by USDA worker Shirley Sherrod."
I'm pretty sure that this is the result of a typo, but the Sherrod case took place in 2010, not 2012. As Andrew Breitbart died in March of 2012, clearly he couldn't have publicized the video. In addition, Sherrod was fired in July of 2010.
104.241.44.198 (talk) 23:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sherrod Firing 

message: The NAACP is headquartered in Baltimore, with additional regional offices in New York, Michigan, Georgia, Maryland, Texas, Colorado, California, and Ohio.[7] Adamantleflow (talk) 23:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: NiciVampireHeart 07:45, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2019 

message: In the first paragraph, change "b-racial" to 'multiracial' 75.168.237.212 (talk) 22:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: . I'm changing it to "interracial" as that's the word the source uses and doesn't imply just two races. I'm heisitant to use "multiracial" since in my knowledge the NAACP was founded primarily to advocate for African Americans. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 04:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2020 

message: The passage quoted from the original NAACP charter needs a specific source citation. 75.168.237.212 (talk) 22:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: . ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 04:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2020 

message: Neither the Emerald Cities Collaborative nor The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are listed as partner organizations on the NAACP website. It's possible (but there's no citation to confirm) that they're affiliated with a NAACP member organization but not with the parent organization described in this page. Recommend to remove the section.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8080:2104:141D:9FE:6D0:2780:5898   (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove Partner Organizations Section 

message: National Citizens Rights Association is a red link in a Featured Article Candidate, The Thankful Poor. In another article I read that this association was a precursor to the NAACP, so red link could be resolved by redirecting hereif this article had a section about it. But the fact that there isn't already a section makes me wonder if the claim is valid? See also Albion W. Tourgée. 
I don't know anything about the topic so will leave the decision to resolve or ignore to the watchers of this article. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Citizens Rights Association 

message: Believe there are a lot of citations. I added many. How many are needed to remove the banner? Anastacio21 (talk) 16:25, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Great work! There's no set number needed to remove the banner, but I'm happy in this case for the tag to be lifted and  tags to be placed in the specific places where they're necessary. Bellowhead678 (talk) 17:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: In a book I'm reading (Command and Control, Eric Schlosser) and on the Wikipedia page on Harold Holt, he is cited as a founder of the NAACP. But on this page, I could find no mention of him. Does anyone know why the discrepancy? 161.38.218.9 (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harold Holt a founder?