Talk:Congressional Black Caucus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)

Yes, but thats only one line and it gives no reason why for the Watts quote. I think it needs a critism section.

So go find some. Anonymous critics who do no research themselves generally get ignored, and rightly so. Adam 03:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] NPOV

I personally feel that the last two paragraphs of prose are not quite NPOV and should not be included in the article. As you know and as you can plainly see by the comments already left on this talk page, the CBC is a source of controversy, and quotes that blindly praise it's existence and work should be left out, as they serve no purpose but to promote the CBC as a body. The paragraphs in question are:

Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas said in 2001: "The Congressional Black Caucus is one of the world's most esteemed bodies, with a history of positive activism unparalleled in our nation's history. Whether the issue is popular or unpopular, simple or complex, the CBC has fought for thirty years to protect the fundamentals of democracy. Its impact is recognized throughout the world.

-and-

"The Congressional Black Caucus is probably the closest group of legislators on the Hill. We work together almost incessantly, we are friends and, more importantly, a family of freedom fighters. Our diversity makes us stronger, and the expertise of all of our members has helped us be effective beyond our numbers."

These are further unnecessary because the paragraph above is a "praising" statment by one of the CBC members, and I think that this is more then enough, especially since there is only one mention of critism. I have removed these quotes for the time being. --Gpyoung talk 03:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

And I have restored them. As I said above, you are free to add negative quotes if you can find some. Adam 04:58, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

This is not about balencing positive with negitive, this is about removing blind praise and obvious promotion. It contributes nothing positive to the article, nor would adding in "negitiive" quotes. The article is supposed to explain the topic, not be a collection of quotes for or against it. I also do not appreciate your seemingly arrogant attitude towards this critisim. I have tried to present you with my reasoning and my rational the change I made, but instead of reesponding in kind, the best you can say is "And I have restored them". I find that offensive as someone who is not insulting you or your work, but trying to improve it for the better, as is the spirit of Wikipedia.

GPY, that is simply incorrect. NPOV is not achieved by removing material, unless no-one believes the assertions made or they cannot be attributed. That is not the case here. Mr. Jones 19:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV is in referal to information provided as fact by Wikipedia. Items directly labled as the opinions or quotes of notable people are NPOV. To quote directly, "Wikipedia policy is that all articles should be written from a neutral point of view: without bias, representing all majority- and significant-minority views fairly." Reporting a quote from someone is representing a majority or minority view. You may add quoteations or detail information on views held by others if you wish. --Barberio 20:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I think it can be agreed that quotes can be used in a way that obviously supports a particular POV, especially when they are not balanced opposing quotes. As I said before, I firmly believe that a string of quotes that blindly praise something/someone certainly can promote a POV. I believe that NPOV can be extended to say that articles must be neutral in voice, making excessive positive quotations unnecessary. The question here is are the above quotes excessive, and I believe that they are. However, for the sake of maintaining civility, I will not press that point of deletion further, instead I intend the reqrite portions of this article and make a distinct "Praise" section and an equally in-depth "Critisim" section.
--Gpyoung talk 02:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
A single quote can not be considered a series of 'excessive positive quotations', your objection is baseless. Feel free to create a praise and critisim section, which is what you should have done in the first place if you felt it was unbalenced. If you feel that the Wikipedia NPOV guidelines as quoted are incorect, I sugest you start finding consensus support to alter them. --Barberio 10:36, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

It would follow from this that if no-one has ever said anything negative about a subject, then no-one can be quoted saying anything positive about it, since there is then no "balance." Adam 11:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

That is not what I am trying to say, please do not take my comments in an over-literal way. If a subject is controversial, as the CBC is, there are always going to be vocal views from both sides of the issue. In an article, it is important to give credence to both of them and not over-quote one standpoint. As I said before, I do not wish to resurrect this conflict, rather I am going to try and imporve the article while leaving the quotes in place. --Gpyoung talk 17:06, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
I see little evidence that the CBC is in any way contraversial an encyclopedic subject, as there is no diference of opinion in the facts at hand. Recent edits altered to remove the inserted implication that the counterproductive view is a majority view. 'CBC is Racist' view deleted, as I see no cite to support it being held by a significant number of people, or any note worthy public figure. --John R. Barberio talk, contribs 19:59, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Republicans in the CBC?

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)

[edit] Is one representative missing from the list?

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".[1]"

--Gloriamarie 22:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] J.C. Watts's quote

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)

I can't find any source besides his Wikipedia article that says he was specifically referring to the CBC; many sources say he was referring to Jesse Jackson and Marion Berry in particular, and black Democrats in general.--Gloriamarie 16:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

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)