Talk:NAACP/Archive 1
NAACP
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.
see Naming_conventions#Prefer_spelled-out_phrases_to_acronyms
I support LegCircus' request to rename this article "NAACP".
As LegCircus points out, the NAACP is indeed almost exclusively referred to using its acronym.
The NAACP and other African-American organizations dropped the use of the term "colored" many years ago, except for historical references. (See for example the NAACP mission statement: "The primary focus of the NAACP continues to be the protection and enhancement of the civil rights of African Americans and other minorities.")
The use of the word "colored" in the association's title is now an anachronism that is kept only to retain the identity of the association.
Therefore, I respectfully request that the 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)
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)
To do
- Go to 'What links here' and edit redirected pages so that they link directly.