Talk:National Civilian Community Corps/Archive 1

POV issues

So, saying that "Bush is scapegoated" is obviously POV in an of itself. Sure he based his decision on someone else's findings, but he (and his White House) is resonsible for ending the program. It seems that you just don't want Bush to look bad. I don't see anything wrong with the wording that's in the article now. Others, please chime in with your thoughts

No that looks about right to me. Shouldn't it say "was" instead of "is?" I mean the program does kind of exist still but it's more or less a shell of what it was and there's only one location. I was just there, I think it's Gulfport, MS? Dividebyzero

<blockquote;The program still exists, although two campuses have closed in the last year (Charleston and DC). Sacramento, Perry Point, and Denver still exist as of now. I plan to eventually write more in this article, but not until I graduate in November (I am a current Corps Member). Because NCCC received much of their FY2007 funding specifically for hurricane relief, most teams are doing projects along the Gulf Coast. The program still exists and I believe it should stay "is" until all campuses close. --Harsimrankaur 15:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Reworking

OK, someone made some spectacular additions, well researched and all spot-on. The problem is, almost all of it is in need of some serious re-writing and starts to make the article too long. See What wikipedia is not. I'm going to start on this- it's going to involve some deletions. Please don't take them personally, however, Wikipedia isn't meant to be a legal brief in defense of NCCC nor an advertisement in favor of it. I'm also going to transfer much of this to a new but separate article on "NCCC Accolades" that will be linked in the main article heading. --LoverOfArt 23:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Lover of Art

The additions you have moved off the National Civilian Community Corps page are/were mine. Thank you, I guess, for the compliment, but I ask you to carefully consider how to evaluate whether content is germane or extraneous. The "What Wikipedia is not" page you reference starts off: "Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia," which links to an internal definition: "a comprehensive written compendium." As I tried to indicate, NCCC is a complex organization. I am not (nor have I ever been) an NCCC employee or contractor, but I know that it works with a wide variety of organizations, has been involved in a wide variety of activities, is responsive to local, state, regional, national priorities, and assumes considerable responsibilities. Pulling together this information in an authoritative and verifiable manner takes space. To "streamline" too much would be like asking a blindfolded person to characterize the proverbial elephant based on a touch or two.

I left the Criticisms section alone. Others are free to expand on that if they choose. If more authoritative and documented positive feedback exists, so be it.

So, please consider the broader context of unilateral decision-making. Let the Wikipedia entry for NCCC be comprehensive. Seek advice regarding how best to tone down any material you genuinely feel is in need of that, or that you think is superfluous. And I hope you will be receptive to some give and take. I am not sure how much more of my time to donate to this, since it seems like a decent chance this becomes a house of cards, eventually falling no matter how carefully done. Which is, when you think about, sort of a shame.Coterminous 03:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Although the number of quotes listed is extensive, they are informative, authoritative, accurately referenced. They are in almost all cases (or in every case, given the vagueness of the definition of "fair use") excerpts that qualify under "fair use" in relation to the length of the originals. They are from reputable (at a minimum) sources, referenced so their authenticity can be verified. The content of the quotations provide useful information compatible with an Encyclopedia entry. The Heading "Accolades" could be deleted and subsections 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 (3.1 NCCC Disaster Mitigation, Emergency Preparedness, Disaster Relief and Recovery / 3.2 NCCC Fire Fighting and Fire Mitigation / 3.3 NCCC and Environmental Conservation / 3.4 NCCC and Education) could become Level 2 sections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coterminous (talk • contribs) 01:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

A few things here. You cannot really lambaste "unilateral decision making" on Wikipedia. It's the predicate for the entire model of the site. While users are free to agree or disagree, editing ultimately boils down to one persons decision. If it is inaccurate, it will be reverted. If you wish to seek mediation on this, I would definitely agree to that.

My main reason for citing What Wikipedia Is Not regarding your additions has to do with the "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" heading. It makes clear that Wikipedia is not intended to be used as propaganda, advocacy or recruitment purposes, nor self promotion or advertising. An endless stream of quotations, in addition to being non-encyclopedic, is terribly superfluous. Lets say I were to go to the article about Richard Nixon and add 500 random quotations from an unconnected series of people about his presidency. Do you think the Wikipedia community would let that stand? I'd wager a years pay they wouldn't. While no one knows the motivations for your addition (I assume good faith, so I will assume that they were right-minded), I think most objective parties would agree that the breadth was excessive. There's a difference between an article being factually comprehensive and an article being bloated with marginally relevant minutiae.

Maybe there is a way to rework your addition into something a bit more concentrated? I'm definitely on your side here, philosophically speaking, however, we have to make an effort to remain neutral and encyclopedic. If you can show me an encyclopedia that has 100 quotes from random people as an entry, I guess I'll reconsider my own concept of what constitutes encyclopedic. Until then, I just cannot see how your addition fits into this model without being dangerously close to violating almost every precept laid out in the "Wikipedia Is Not A Soapbox" criteria.

(and PS- I AM a NCCC alum) --LoverOfArt 17:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Yes, the quotes could be concentrated and worked into a more-encyclopedic narrative. They started out as a separate section, ""Accolades,"" meant to balance the Criticism section. A collegial effort to rework this would be fine. Instead, the positive material was removed and marked for deletion.

A number of comments have been made during this process to the effect that the quotes added are "fluff," or superfluous, etc.

Until this month, NCCC was characterized at Wikipedia - a guaranteed quick hit on Google - by quotes calling it "ineffective," a "boondoggle," a "waste and a fraud." Accomplishments, praise: nonexistent. This sort of incomplete and misleading information can have serious and destructive consequences.

There is a great deal of meat on the quotes newly posted, from a variety of senior officials and elected officials, which runs directly counter to the image portrayed by the pre-existing Wikipedia entry. A few quick examples:

The highly respected former director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, James Lee Witt, wrote that "members of AmeriCorps (part of the National Civilian Community Corps, or NCCC) have responded to every national disaster since its inception in 1994. As director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) from 1993 to 2001, I saw firsthand how the young men and women of the NCCC helped to rebuild communities and lives. What made the NCCC critical to our disaster response is that it provided us with disastertrained and certified volunteers who could be mobilized at a moment’s notice."

A 2006 letter to the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, signed by fifty-two U.S. Representatives, stated in part: ..."Americorps*NCCC members are 100% disaster trained and available for immediate deployment in the event of a natural disaster anywhere within the United States. Trained in CPR, first aid, disaster response, and firefighting, NCCC teams have responded to every national disaster since the program was established."[18]

In Sept. 2007, an editorial about NCCC by the Pulitzer Prize-winning newspaper, the Sun Herald, stated: "Among the many who wear the name "hero" in our book of golden deeds performed here, the Americorps volunteers will forever have a place of honor in our memory - idealistic young people, and seniors also, who came here and lived in Spartan conditions for month after month, in military tents, going out day after day to help the people of South Mississippi pull themselves out of the debris and rebuild."

"Habitat for Humanity has participated in the NCCC since 1994, and the members of the NCCC have been instrumental in working towards Habitat for Humanity’s goal of eliminating poverty housing across the United States. Over 5,100 NCCC members have participated in more than 500 individual Habitat for Humanity service projects, and they have served with 142 Habitat chapters in 43 states."

I welcome good-faith efforts to update the content and incorporate historically valid sources of information about topics like NCCC disaster relief work, etc. in search of a fair, comprehensive entry.Coterminous 17:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your position, while well intended, just doesn't coincide with the intent of this site. You've mentioned again and again that the article was lacking in a "accomplishments" section, as if to justify your extremely bloated addition of random quotations. First off, the article, in and of itself, clearly outlines the functional intent of the NCCC program. A modest criticisms section is absolutely fair given that there are people who think that programs like this shouldn't exist in the first place. Certain areas of waste and "marginal achievement" have been well documented in NCCC history, culminating in the most recent OMB report that cited the NCCC entire model as being 'ineffective'. Secondly, there now exists an "accomplishments" subheading in the article that outlines a number of the achievements and tangible accomplishments of corps members over the years. Does this mean that it can be 50,000 words long, populated with nothing more than opinion quotes? Absolutely not! Such an entry is completely unencyclopedic and motivated by Soapbox reasons. I think the existing "accomplishments" section speaks very accurately of the programs overall achievements thus far. Bloating it beyond comprehension with quotations only seeks to drown out otherwise legitimate criticisms that are completely fair and absolutely in the spirit of accomplishing a NPOV tenor to the article. I myself could write a 10,000 word entry on Americorps criticisms and dramatic failings- both philosophical and practical- that I witnessed first hand. I could also write a 10,000 word entry on Americorps virtues and accomplishments that I witnessed and/or participated in myself. Of course, I understand that Wikipedia is not the place for that, so I don't. You have to understand that my disagreement with you isn't about philosophy here (Well, maybe a little since you seem to want this article not to be neutral, but rather a NCCC proponents billboard). It's about keeping the NCCC entry within the purview of the rules that govern this site, in order to keep it as NPOV as possible. --LoverOfArt 05:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks But No Thanks

Posting quotes calling a publicly funded program a "fraud" (with no footnote, in one case, and with a footnote that does not lead to an article that contains that quote, in the other case), is no small or modest matter. (See below). Just because it is done in a few sentences does not mean that therefore a short response is all that is needed or fairly required.

While you may be satisfied with the Accomplishments section as it is, other Wikipedia editors have discounted it because its source is the Corporation for Community and National Service. So, leaving it as is without additional information from other authorities would simply ensure that critics can discount it. I have not suggested that every quote needs to be retained or retained verbatim. As I stated above, "Yes, the quotes could be concentrated and worked into a more-encyclopedic narrative." Nonetheless, an encyclopedia is by definition comprehensive.

The claim that the NCCC model is ineffective was answered by, among others, the generals who helped design the regionally-based campus model to ensure that training and deployment of nimble, cohesive disaster-response teams would succeed. Based on a great deal of evidence, (see content at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/NCCC_accomplishments) it looks like they were right, and thousands of Gulf Coast residents (and others) devastated by category 4 and 5 hurricanes who have been helped by NCCC would and do agree. That NCCC was able to just barely stay alive and continue to recruit, in the face of ill-informed critics who characterized it as a boondoggle or ineffective, happened no thanks to entries like the one until recently at Wikipedia. This entry could still use some significant work, not as a soapbox - as an accurate account, attested to by a wide variety of experts in a position to give first-hand testimony.Coterminous 18:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

POV

Maybe it would help to have a section titled something like NCCC Priorities

An Accolades or Praise section was a rational response to a Criticisms section. An Accomplishments section was a rational choice in the face of so much evidence of accomplishment. But to address POV issues, a more neutral heading could be used like NCCC Priorities. Wikipedia editors might bear in mind that these priorities are set by the administration and Congress, by states, by localities, by numerous project sponsors, etc., so NCCC does not get unilateral credit or blame for selecting them. An account of NCCC's work or activities in those area could be described fairly. Or is this outside the scope of the Wikipedia encyclopedia?Coterminous 20:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You still don't seem to understand how this site works (your recent editing of the criticisms section is a classic example of this- with your adding inappropriate abstract citations and mini-rebuttals that you fabricated yourself, in addition to adding weasel words like "James Bovard claims that Robert Sweet says...") Wikipedia is not about "feelings" or "opinion" or anecdotes. It never has been and hopefully, never will be. Wikipedia is about fact. LoverOfArt 21:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC) (added signature lost due to inserted interruption below) Dbiel ^(Talk) 01:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to Interrupt

But I did not make those edits. Check the history. And do you really think it shows respect for facts or good editing practice to have posted at the National Civilian Community Corps the sentence (as you posted it, until changing it today):

"Criticisms [The NCCC program has met with sharp criticisms] .... Robert Sweet, the former director of the National Institute of Education, labeled it 'a fraud'"

You left little doubt that Mr. Sweet was being quoted - this was not a paraphrase - and was calling NCCC a fraud.

In fact, Mr. Sweet was quoted by Mr. Bovard -- as you know! -- as below.

http://downloads.heartland.org/12051a.pdf

Alternatives in Philanthropy September 2000

"AmeriCorps: Six Years of Waste and Fraud" by James Bovard

"Robert Sweet, the former director of the National Institute of Education, the premier federal education research agency, observed, 'AmeriCorps is not working -- and Clinton’s program is still the fraud that it was in the beginning. The whole foundation of this approach towards teaching reading is faulty.' (fn.19)

19. Author interview with Robert Sweet, August I0, 1999.

General comments about AmeriCorps, if they are to be considered for inclusion in this encyclopedia, should be at the AmeriCorps page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AmeriCorps - not at the NCCC site, worded so as to give the impression that they are quotes about NCCC.71.166.147.45 22:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC) AKA Coterminous

End of interuption and continuing with original entry

For this reason, I cannot post my own anecdotes or fulminations about Americorps NCCCC. For this reason, your assertion that the best way to "clean up" the article is by adding opinions of biased parties is absolutely wrong. Such opinions might be appropriate for a courtroom or a congressional debate, but it is just not appropriate for a site that is intended to be unbiased and encyclopedic in nature. I believe that it is fair to say that there are critics of NCCC and it is fair to modestly cite their claims, so long as there is a section that denotes accomplishments (which there now is). If one were to make a criticisms section and make it nothing more than pages upon pages of criticisms and bloated pontifications of opinion, that wouldn't be appropriate. It is just as inappropriate to do that with "compliments" of the program. Your consternation seems to arise from the fact that there are people out there who dare criticize NCCC and your response to that is an attempt to 'shout them down' by posting a horrendously inappropriately amount of needless and extraneous opinion quotes. Again, I will remind you that, whether you personally like it or not, one of the central themes to wikipedia articles is NOPV. If you are going to be a successful wikipedia participant, you have to accept the fact that there are going to be opinions cited that you don't like and as long as they're being done in a colloquially appropriate context, you cannot try to 'drown them out' with factual fluff--

Also, Coterminous, in the name of full disclosure, I would ask what your affiliation is with the Americorps system? I have made my status as an alum clear. Your IP address resolves to the beltway; coincidently enough, precisely where NCCC headquarters are located. LoverOfArt 21:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

To correct some previous wrong statements it should be noted that User:LoverOfArt reference to edits done by User:Coterminous were actually done by User:Dbiel. My edits of the criticisms section was simply an attempt to remove the missing leading POV included in the text. The following: " (It should be noted that the previous reference is to Americorp which is the parent organization of NCCC and does not make any specific reference to NCCC.)" was added simply to make the point the the article does not refer to NCCC at all. It only contains references to the Parent Organization which may or maynot apply to NCCC.

I agree with your statement regarding "adding weasel words like "James Bovard claims that Robert Sweet says...") The problem was that was exactly what was being done by the limited statement (quote) "a fraud" that James Bovard atribuited to (states that) Robert Sweet said. It was not meant to remain in the article, but only to serve remove the much greater problem of taking two words totally out of context. To rephrase the original "James Bovard wrote that Robert Sweet said (wrote, claimed or whatever term you which to use as nothing is mentioned as to where it came from) "a fraud". That is what is totally unacceptable. The recent edit by User:loverOfArt resolved that problem.

And just to air POV, I had no knowledge of NCCC prior to reading (actually categorizing) this Wikipedia article and have limited my edits to what is actually presented in the articles and included references in an attempt to present a NPOV. Dbiel ^(Talk) 22:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Question about quoted statements

Quotes About AmeriCorps Belong at That Page (if they belong at all)

I would like to request that Wikipedia administrators / mediators have the critical quotes in general about AmeriCorps that are posted at the NCCC site considered as to their suitability (or not) for the Wikipedia AmeriCorps page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americorps) and removed from the NCCC page.

Say a reviewer expressed in writing criticism for a university overall -- and you were compiling an encyclopedia entry for one program at that university (the medical or business or law school, take your pick). A careful and intellectually honest editor wouldn't dream of transferring a negative quote about the university as a whole and attributing it directly to a particular program at the university. The medical or business or law school would be rated largely on its own merits.

Otherwise, you have a sort of "guilt-by-association" effect at work: Someone said AmeriCorps was terrible / NCCC is a part of AmeriCorps / NCCC must be terrible. This is poor logic and poor editing -- in fact, it is a classic technique of propaganda -- and unnecessary, since there is a separate AmeriCorps page.

And by the way, you can repeat a lie as often as you like, but that doesn't make it true. The experts I have quoted in regard to NCCC include a wide variety of informed American leaders (they are not all "biased parties" and their statements are not fluff)- from the National Lieutenant Governors Association to Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to Disaster Relief Directors in Louisiana, etc. We might be able to add some valuable content if I didn't suspect that it would be endlessly attacked no matter how credible it is.Coterminous 03:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I Reguest that Lover Of Art Be Frozen From Editing the NCCC Page

The quotation claiming to state that NCCC was a waste and a fraud: "conservative pundit and commentator James Bovard has been one of the most vocal Americorps NCCC opponents, calling it a "waste and fraud" [2], is, as I have already noted, a false quotation.

Nowhere in the article footnoted does the author refer at all to AmeriCorps NCCC, nor is he quoted as calling it a "waste and fraud."

Just for the record, that content was introduced by LoverOfArt on 13 June 2007. (at 23:26 the Criticisms section was absent. at 23:32, he added it.

He did the same thing with the quote from Mr. Sweet, formerly of the National Institute of Education, attributing a quote about AmeriCorps as if it were specifically about NCCC. (I have added a qualification clarifying that point at the site.)

Falsely quoting someone as stating that a nationwide program like NCCC is a "fraud" is an incredibly profound editing error, done once. Done again, in any reasonable editorial environment, that editor would no longer be on the case.

This is not a simple accident by an editor unfamiliar with the program. LoverofArt repeatedly states personal familiarity with the program -- states he could write a long paper about it -- and clearly knows the difference between AmeriCorps (an umbrella organization comprised of numerous parts) and AmeriCorps NCCC.Coterminous 12:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I request that LoverofArt be frozen from editing the NCCC page.

Here is the History:

"This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LoverOfArt (Talk | contribs) at 23:32, 13 June 2007. It may differ significantly from the current revision."

Criticisms The NCCC program has met with sharp criticisms from some fiscal conservatives who accused it of being a "boondoggle". [1] Most notably, conservative pundit and commentator James Bovard has been one of the most vocal Americorps NCCC opponents, calling it a "waste and fraud" [2], in addition to dedicating an entire chapter of criticisms of the program in his book "Feeling Your Pain: The Explosion and Abuse of Government Power in the Clinton-Gore Years"

No Criticisms section here:

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LoverOfArt (Talk | contribs) at 23:26, 13 June 2007. It may differ significantly from the current revision.Coterminous 04:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms Section Not Substantiated by the Footnotes Provided

The Criticisms Section reads:

Criticisms

The NCCC program has met with sharp criticisms from some fiscal conservatives who accused it of being a "boondoggle".[4] Most notably, Libertarian pundit and commentator James Bovard has been one of the most vocal Americorps NCCC opponents, calling it a "waste and fraud"[5], in addition to dedicating an entire chapter of criticisms of the program in his book "Feeling Your Pain: The Explosion and Abuse of Government Power in the Clinton-Gore Years." Robert Sweet, the former director of the National Institute of Education, labeled it "a fraud".

^ http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188385,00.html ^ http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1000americorps.htm

The article referenced by Footnote 5, the supposed source of comments that label NCCC a waste and fraud, nowhere mentions NCCC or the National Civilian Community Corps or AmeriCorps NCCC. The article is about AmeriCorps in general - not the same thing. NCCC consists of about 1200 corps members per year. AmeriCorps is a large umbrella covering the following: (See http://www.americorps.org/about/ac/index.asp )

"AmeriCorps is a network of local, state, and national service programs that connects more than 70,000 Americans each year in intensive service to meet our country’s critical needs in education, public safety, health, and the environment.

AmeriCorps is made up of three programs: AmeriCorps*State and National, AmeriCorps*VISTA, and AmeriCorps*NCCC (National Civilian Community Corps).

AmeriCorps*State and National: AmeriCorps*State and National supports a broad range of local service programs that engage thousands of Americans in intensive service to meet critical community needs. Learn more about AmeriCorps*State Learn more about AmeriCorps*National

AmeriCorps*VISTA: AmeriCorps*VISTA provides full-time members to community organizations and public agencies to create and expand programs that build capacity and ultimately bring low-income individuals and communities out of poverty. Learn more about AmeriCorps*VISTA.

AmeriCorps*NCCC: The AmeriCorps*National Civilian Community Corps is a full-time residential program for men and women, ages 18-24, that strengthens communities while developing leaders through direct, team-based national and community service. Learn more about AmeriCorps*NCCC."

In addition, the comment of NCCC that "Robert Sweet, the former director of the National Institute of Education, labeled it 'a fraud'." is unsupported by any footnote at all.

These are flimsy reeds to support this level of comment about the National Civilian Community Corps, a highly regarded organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coterminous (talk • contribs) 02:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

a two word quote, "a fraud", from an entire chapter that does not clearly identify who "it" is (Americorp or more specificly NCCC which is only a small part of Americorp) and providing no easy link to verify the information, nor even properly identifying the source; should probably be deleted or at least edited. Dbiel ^(Talk) 19:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

"The article referenced by Footnote 5, the supposed source of comments that label NCCC a waste and fraud, nowhere mentions NCCC or the National Civilian Community Corps or AmeriCorps NCCC. " While it's correct that he (Bovard) didn't mention NCCC by name, this is completely incorrect in sentiment. The beginning of the Bovard piece outlines various criteria that are applicable to ALL Americorps programs, including NCCC. In that same article, he cites projects as being fraudulent which were undertaken by NCCC, even though he doesn't mention NCCC by name, instead choosing to use the word "Americorps" as a synonym for all of the satellite programs. Also, that same article contains the quote by Robert Sweet, former NIH director who says -Robert Sweet, the former director of the National Institute of Education, the premier federal education research agency, observed, "AmeriCorps is not working—and Clinton's program is still the fraud that it was in the beginning. The whole foundation of this approach towards teaching reading is faulty.- Sorry folks. This one is pretty clear. --LoverOfArt 21:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what your point is as a reply to my reference to "a fraud" as you seem to be limiting your comments to the other reference. Each reference must stand on its own. Your recent edits did put things back into a context. Dbiel ^(Talk) 22:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Why Quoting Falsely is Unwise and Out of Bounds

Say a college had an open enrollment policy and someone criticized it writing "that university as having 'no standards at all.'"

However, say the graduate program at the university -- the medical school -- has a fine reputation.

Someone comes along and changes the quote to "that medical school has no standards at all," places it in quotes with a footnote, posts it at the web where it will likely be seen by potential applicants and funders, where it remains for months.

When questioned about such practices, the same person repeats the practice.

This is completely out of bounds. It places Wikpedia at some risk.

I request that LoverofArt be frozen from editing the NCCC page.Coterminous 10:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I do not think you will find anyone in Wikipedia to take your request seriously. Some of LoverofArt's edits may be controversial, but his method and cooperation are all within Wikipedia guidelines. This is just something that needs to be discussed and worked out between the editors using the talk pages. If that fails, and we have a long ways to go before reaching that point, then it can be moved up the ladder for intervention. From my POV it would appear that LoverofArt is working hard to present a NPOV working on both the positive and negative sides of the issue. It is actually hard to tell exactly what his personal POV is, which is exactly what Wikipedia is all about. One of the problems is that there have been very few editors willing to work on this article, which makes reaching a consensus that much more difficult. Dbiel ^(Talk) 01:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

LoverofArt: Be Careful Not to Plagiarize

1. LoverofArt placed the words of another author ("Robert Sweet, the former director of the National Institute of Education, the premier federal education research agency") in his Criticisms section of NCCC, minus quotation marks.

2. He may know these words are -- verbatim -- from the article he cites at http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1000americorps.htm

3. I asked LoverofArt not to falsely claim that Mr. Sweet had called NCCC a "fraud" when NCCC nowhere appears in the article.

4. As it happens, the National Institute for Education apparently no longer exists: it was the "precursor to the Office of Educational Research and Improvement" (See: http://depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/PDFs/edinvrev.pdf, p.41. fn13)), so referring to it in the present is a mistake.)Coterminous 10:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that was an error of mine. Thanks for catching it. I meant to add that to the Accomplishments section, as it pertained to ACSI ranking NCCC as one of the highest gov orgs. Obviously, the NIE isn't a "government research agency". --LoverOfArt 21:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Borderline Lunacy

I have never, ever in my history on Wikipedia, seen a more incohearant, jumbled, senseless, excessively long-winded, foaming-at-the-mouth sort of reply as I'm seeing here with this person (Coterminous). This individuals responses in the discussion section are nearly impossible to comprehend and so schizophrenic in their continuity that I seriously doubt anyone else is able to decipher their meaning as well. I think we have a classic example of someone who is only clearly understood within the confines of their own mind. I'll let the admins and the peanut gallery decide this one- simply examine the replies in this section made by Coterminous, and carefully consider whether or not this is the sort of person you want 'taking charge' of the NCCC article. If you think that 5,000 word encyclicals that completely ignore the facts and truth but instead choose to address marginally relevant minutiae are the best way to conduct a discussion, you not only have no place in this discussion, but you have no place on this site. There's an old law school maxim- "If you are unable to make your point in a few sentences, you're rationalizing the facts. A point absent succinctness is a point that always fails." I can't wait for your next reply- with it's incoherent punctuation, spacing and disorienting use of randomized bolding, quotations and italics. Given the metrics of your replies in this discussion, I can understand why those NCCC fluff quotes have such a profound impact on you... ALSO, COTERMINOUS, YOU HAVE YET TO ANSWER WHAT YOUR AFFILIATION IS WITH NCCC. YOUR IP ADDRESS RESOLVES TO PRECISELY THE SAME AREA AS NCCC CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS I absolutely HATE that I have to get personal with my reply here, but it seems that we've arrived at that level. Myself and others have worked very hard to keep the NCCC article neutral. Since there are few editors on this article, I think it's important that we not allow one individual to come along- either a proponent or a detractor- and drown out a relatively NPOV article that we've had going up to this point with partisan talking points. --LoverOfArt 04:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section

Reference used to substantiate the Robert Sweet mention:

---

Patriotism may be the last refuge of a scoundrel, but promising to teach children to read is the last refuge of a federal boondoggle. AmeriCorps is a flag bearer in Clinton's literacy crusade. Almost half of AmeriCorps' members are involved in literacy or mentoring. In an August 9, 1999 speech, Clinton congratulated AmeriCorps members while boasting, "You have . . . taught millions of children to read." [18]One AmeriCorps official recently ridiculed this claim and expressed doubt that AmeriCorps members had taught even a dozen children to read, a tremendous indictment given the number of AmeriCorps recruits in this area. Robert Sweet, the former director of the National Institute of Education, the premier federal education research agency, observed, "AmeriCorps is not working—and Clinton's program is still the fraud that it was in the beginning. The whole foundation of this approach towards teaching reading is faulty." [19]

• 18. "Remarks at the AmeriCorps National Civilian Community Corps Graduation Ceremony," Public Papers of the Presidents, August 9, 1999, p. 1597.
• 19. Author interview with Robert Sweet, August 10, 1999.

---

Clinton was certainly talking about the National Civilian Community Corps when he said "You have . . . taught millions of children to read." However it is less than clear whether Robert Sweet's remarks can be intepretted as referring to the NCCC. Addhoc 18:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to have to disagree that Sweets remarks aren't clearly directed at NCCC. They were in direct response to a comment regarding NCCC made by Bill Clinton spoken at a NCCC ceremony. I think the corollary is pretty clear.

If one were to say "All Granny Smith Apples taste like bananas" and someone replied by saying "anyone who says apples taste like bananas is crazy", does the absence of a specific "granny smith" reference somehow negate the intent and direction of the reply? Does it mean that the person might be suggesting that Granny Smith apples really do taste like bananas, since he didn't explicitly say "granny smith" in his reply? Of course not. Context is very, very important- sometimes, more important than the nomenclature itself.

I believe it's implicitly clear that the reply by Robert Sweet was addressing an NCCC issue, given that it was in direct response to a comment made about NCCC at a NCCC ceremony. --LoverOfArt 21:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the constant use of "analogous" situations is actually illuminating. This article is not talking about colleges or apples or anything else. What is at issue is the sentence, "AmeriCorps [...] is still the fraud it was at the beginning." To discuss other issues, however well-intentioned, is to obfuscate the issue.

Coterminous seems to be advancing the argument that identifying the part with the whole is essentially OR. LoverOfArt, as much as you don't like it, this is a reasonable argument. The question is, is the sentence "Sweet labeled [NCCC] a 'fraud'" acceptable per WP:OR and WP:WEASEL? I have to agree with AddHoc that this is unclear.

There may be an alternative, a third option. It may be arguable that criticism of AmeriCorps -- which Sweet's quotation clearly is -- belongs in the NCCC article -- which this clearly is. - Che Nuevara 14:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Dbiel, this is exactly what I was talking about. While the section is still open to debate, this is a start. - Che Nuevara 15:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Criticism Section (cont.)

I appreciate the opportunity to address this substantively with regard to editorial precision and fairness:

A.) I restored the missing citation' (which I provided in earlier versions) for "However, NCCC accomplishments in FY 2006 extend beyond disaster services in the Gulf Coast. NCCC engaged 1,127 members on 542 projects in 48 states and the District of Columbia. The retention rate was 89 percent and members completed 1.7 million service hours. [citation needed] ".... The retention rate was 89 percent and members completed 1.7 million service hours."[7]

The citation is to Corporation for National & Community Service Fiscal Year 2008, Congressional Budget Justification, February 5, 2007, p. 58. http://www.nationalservice.gov/pdf/2008_budget_justification.pdf

(Once this has been verified, it can be properly coded at the page.)

B.) Regarding the "Criticisms of NCCC" section (Note that this does not read "Criticisms of AmeriCorps,")

The first sentence until I just edited it read: AmeriCorps, which includes the NCCC program, has met with sharp criticisms from some fiscal conservatives who accused it of being a "boondoggle".[25]

My suggested interim change is this:

AmeriCorps (which includes the NCCC program) is "an American network of more than 3,000 non-profit organizations, public agencies, and faith-based organizations."[25] AmeriCorps has met with sharp criticisms from some fiscal conservatives who accused it of being a "boondoggle".[26]

(The quote above describing AmeriCorps is from the Wikipedia AmeriCorps entry.)

I believe that in fairness, the Wikipedia entry for AmeriCorps is where general criticism of that program belongs. However, if criticism of AmeriCorps that does not mention NCCC is to be included at the NCCC page, some explanation of the comprehensive scope of AmeriCorps belongs at the NCCC page as context.

C.) The footnote for the "boondoggle" quote goes to this source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188385,00.html At that page, here is the quote, in context: "Though the program was a Clinton administration pet, President Bush has received criticism for his previous backing of AmeriCorps. The president has supported AmeriCorps since his campaign for president in 2000, using it as an example of his "compassionate conservatism" ideal. But fiscal conservatives say it is a government boondoggle that should never have been created." This is a general criticism of AmeriCorps, not specific to NCCC.

D.) Regarding the following:

"Libertarian commentator James Bovard called it a "waste and fraud", in addition to dedicating a chapter of criticism about the program in his book "Feeling Your Pain: The Explosion and Abuse of Government Power in the Clinton-Gore Years."[26][27] Robert Sweet, the former director of the National Institute of Education, labeled it a "fraud" [28][dubious – discuss]

The risk of misleading readers is increased if Wikipedia does not make exactly clear whether AmeriCorps or NCCC is being referred to. Using the word "it" (as in "Libertarian commentator James Bovard called it a "waste and fraud") leaves much to be desired.

Signed post inserted into the middle of another longer post by the same user

• See "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information"

[Wikipedia Founder] Jimmy Wales jwales at wikia.com

Tue May 16 20:30:15 UTC 2006

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-May/046440.htmlCoterminous 16:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

End of insert reply Dbiel ^(Talk) 22:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

My suggested edit is "Libertarian commentator James Bovard called AmeriCorps (but not NCCC) a "waste and fraud"...

No verifiable quote has been produced that Bovard or anyone else called NCCC a fraud. Wikipedia should not permit language that might give that impression.

E.) The new footnote recently added "Allan Metz (2002). Bill Clinton: A Bibliography. Greenwood Press, 39." gives another citation to the same book by Bovard, "Feeling Your Pain." Searching the Metz book at <http://books.google.com/books?id=38x0dppzY14C&pg=PA39&sig=eA0OioiWvn4aOGkHycp_aYZHt_Q> for "NCCC" or "National Civilian Community Corps" produces zero results: "Your search - NCCC - did not match any documents"; "Your search - National Civilian Community Corps - did not match any documents."

F.) The same objection -- to insufficiently precise language that may give a misleading impression --applies to the use of the phrase "about the program" in this sentence: "Libertarian commentator James Bovard called it a "waste and fraud", in addition to dedicating a chapter of criticism about the program in his book "Feeling Your Pain: The Explosion and Abuse of Government Power in the Clinton-Gore Years."

Both NCCC and AmeriCorps are mentioned in the paragraph and the reader is at the National Civilian Community Corps page. This may well leave the impression that an entire chapter of criticism about NCCC is included in that book, which is evidently untrue.

At the Palgrove Macmillan (publisher of "Feeling Your Pain") website <http://www.palgrave-usa.com/catalog/product.aspx?isbn=031224052X> "Table of contents - AmeriCorps: Salvation via Handholding ..." This does not refer to NCCC, it refers to AmeriCorps.

G. I have ordered a used copy of that book which has unfortunately not yet arrived. But no references or footnotes, either in print or online, have yet been offered to substantiate any quotations from this book that mention NCCC or the National Civilian Community Corps.Coterminous 10:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

"Libertarian commentator James Bovard called AmeriCorps (but not NCCC) a "waste and fraud"...

There is an enormous problem with this sentence. If you follow this sentence through to its logical conclusion, it means that "James Bovard has not called NCCC a waste / fraud". Do you have a citation to back that up? If not, you clearly can't say it. - Che Nuevara 11:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• • The following was posted by another editor -- LoverofArt:

"Most notably, Libertarian pundit and commentator James Bovard has been one of the most vocal Americorps NCCC opponents, calling it a "waste and fraud"[74] The footnote was to this page: http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1000americorps.htm The article at that page does not mention NCCC. No one has produced any verifiable quote in which Mr. Bovard or anyone else has called NCCC a fraud. It is not up to me to read every word Mr. Bovard has written and "prove" he never called NCCC a fraud. Wikipedia would not want to publish a statement on its pages stating that a program -- NCCC -- has been called a fraud by Mr. Bovard or Mr. Sweet, formerly of the National Institute of Education, or anyone else, if no verifiable evidence is provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coterminous (talk • contribs) 12:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

NCCC History

For quite some time, the NCCC History section has included this sentence:

"The Civilian Conservation Corps focused its efforts on substantial, necessary domestic works projects (Building bridges, paving roads, constructing buildings, etc), whereas the NCCC model trends more heavily towards the "social program" archetype."

The phraseology, calling Civilian Conservation Corps projects "substantial" and "necessary," and transitioning to a description of the National Civilian Community Corps with the phrase "whereas the NCCC..." is not objective or accurate or fair, leaving an impression that NCCC projects are not substantial or necessary.

My suggested edit follows:

In some respects, NCCC teams resemble their CCC predecessors, who were also required to function under rugged conditions for prolonged periods and engage in strenuous conservation and wildfire-fighting projects, flood control, and disaster relief.

The footnotes provided substantiate this statement. At <http://www.state.tn.us/environment/tn_consv/archive/ccc_onemansjourney.pdf> is "The Civilian Conservation Corps: One Man's Journey," by Ryan Forbess. "(Ryan Forbess works as the East Tennessee regional planner for Tennessee State Parks. He has worked as a park ranger at T.O. Fuller and Montgomery Bell State Parks.)" Mr. Forbess writes at that page:

"The Civilian Conservation Corps was established in early 1933... Enrollees performed a variety of conservation activities including reforestation, soil conservation, road construction, flood and fire control, and agricultural management." ...

"Most CCC camps stopped work during the floods of 1937 to help with flood control and disaster relief."

At <http://www.sunherald.com/editorials/story/141099.html> is a Sept. 13, 2007 editorial by the Sun Herald (Mississippi) newspaper, titled ""A shocking slap at Americorps, heroes of Katrina."

""The U.S. House of Representatives has approved a budget that slashes NCCC funding .... This is unbelievable, as the thousands of Americorps volunteers who quickly came to the aid of South Mississippi following Katrina were among the very best representatives of our federal government, living proof of tax dollars that were effectively and efficiently expended in the behalf of a shattered region. ... Among the many who wear the name "hero" in our book of golden deeds performed here, the Americorps volunteers will forever have a place of honor in our memory - idealistic young people, and seniors also, who came here and lived in Spartan conditions for month after month, in military tents, going out day after day to help the people of South Mississippi pull themselves out of the debris and rebuild."

Note that the above quote mention NCCC teams (like the CCC) living in "spartan conditions" and doing flood relief.

At the National Civilian Community Corps page, verified accounts of NCCC (like CCC) doing reforestation and conservation and flood relief work is provided: (In flood-ravaged areas like West Virginia, after "unprecedented flooding" in 2002, NCCC teams were involved in welcome environmental restoration work.[8] NCCC teams join in organized efforts to chart and prevent soil erosion[9] and have planted hundreds of thousands of trees or seedlings in states across the country as part of environmental, flood abatement, and stormwater management programs.[10][11][12][13][14][15]).

Also at the National Civilian Community Corps page, verified information about CCC and NCCC firefighting is provided:

"All National Civilian Community Corps members are trained in CPR, first aid, and disaster services, and about 15 percent are red-card certified fire fighters. [19]

NCCC fire fighting continues the tradition started by the Civilian Conservation Corps in the 1930s. According to Senator Mikulski of Maryland, the Civilian Conservation Corps: "...provided the first truly organized wildfire fighting crews in the country...."

In sum, the suggested revised statement about NCCC History: "In some respects, NCCC teams resemble their CCC predecessors, who were also required to function under rugged conditions for prolonged periods and engage in strenuous conservation and wildfire-fighting projects, flood control, and disaster relief is a substantiated statement about the history of NCCC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coterminous (talk • contribs) 11:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

p.s. The wording as it appears now at the National Civilian Community Corps page: ""The Civilian Conservation Corps focused its efforts on substantial, necessary domestic works projects (Building bridges, paving roads, constructing buildings, etc), whereas the NCCC model trends more heavily towards the 'social program" archetype,'" has no footnotes.

When I replaced it with a verified substitute, LoverofArt reverted that to the unfootnoted version. I do not assert that NCCC has so social program aspect. But there is ample testimony from Governors, Senators, etc., that NCCC performs substantial, necessary, and arduous work as well.Coterminous 13:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

discussion, not soapboxing

I realize that everyone involved here has opinions they feel very strong about. And I realize that people have a lot to say about these things. However, I would like to make a plea:

Please, everyone, try to rein in the long polemical soapbox-diatribes.

I have seen many Wikipedia disputes come and go. And I have seen many come and never go. And one thing I can tell you is that enormously long posts dissecting all the problems with an article don't actually help. It is impossible to solve all the issues in a dispute in one post. It's not worth trying. It doesn't lead to discussion -- it leads to a battlefield of kilobytes as each person involved in the dispute dumps his or her arguments on top in an attempt to smother the other side. It's a waste of your time to write them, and it's inconsiderate of others' time to expect them to read them.

Drawing the battle lines by posting long lists of grievances won't make this dispute go away. It will only make it more contentious.

The only way to end a dispute is to try and find common ground and to work from that common ground. When this is all over, the likelihood that the article will be exactly like either of your ideal articles is very low. You need to accept that. And you need to be willing to discuss with each other, not just soapbox at each other.

I would suggest first trying to find some common ground, and then going through the article point by point to try and work out compromises that are amenable to you and also in line with Wikipedia policy.

Can we agree to do that? - Che Nuevara 12:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand you're taking the neutral, paternal position and addressing both parties equally, however, I think it's pretty apparent that both parties aren't equally culpable in this. A large part of the problem we have here is Coterminous being unable to reply without offensively long, laughably convoluted posts. You cannot have dialog with people like this. Its impossible. I may be a bit verbose or may extend my points from time to time, but as I said in the "Borderline Lunacy" heading, this person really needs to be set straight about this. It's getting ridiculous. --LoverOfArt 18:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You may not be as verbose as verbose as Coterminous, but you are just as guilty, if not moreso, of base personal attacks. Personal attacks are not okay ever. As per WP:NPA:

The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user. Wikipedia encourages a positive online community: people make mistakes, but they are encouraged to learn from them and change their ways. Personal attacks are contrary to this spirit and damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia.

I certainly don't think I need to point out to you all the attacking you've done of Coterminous. Including what you've just said right now. I am trying to help the both of you move past that. You've just shown that you're not ready to move on. Do you really and honestly believe that disparaging another editor will make the situation better? - Che Nuevara 19:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I really and honestly believe that this "editor" is affiliated with the NCCC program (their IP resolves to the same locale as NCCC headquarters and they've refused to address this matter when asked directly.) I really believe that this situation isn't going to get better with this particular editor engaging the article as they presently are. I am absolutely ready to help with making a neutral, unbiased article (as I've been doing up to this point), however, I don't think this is going to happen if we are expected to "respect" the additions of blatantly biased parties. There is a right and wrong answer to this question. I've been working to keep things neutral, coterminous has been working to slant the article as heavily as possible in favor of the NCCC proponents. Unless someone addresses this (and the person responsible for it) the article will never, ever be NPOV. You can point out the fact that I have strongly addressed Coterminous directly and personally, however, we're now arguing the minutiae of the talk page. Lets focus on the article. I'm willing to assist with whatever makes it NPOV. --LoverOfArt 20:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course there is a right and wrong answer. The right answer is to address the content and not the editor, which I see you have now resumed doing. That is good news. :) - Che Nuevara 20:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I for one, fully agree with what CheNuevara has just said. Deal with the issues one point at a time, then maybe progress can be made. Dbiel ^(Talk) 15:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

LoverofArt keeps deleting a more factual, verified account of NCCC History and replacing it with a misleading and undocument account

LoverofArt continues to revert to this misleading introductory statement:

"The Civilian Conservation Corps focused its efforts on substantial, necessary domestic works projects (Building bridges, paving roads, constructing buildings, etc), whereas the NCCC model trends more heavily towards the "social program" archetype."

It is false and misleading to write that NCCC engages only slightly in building construction.

If LoverofArt documents his statement, fine. The statement I have written is documented, too and should share space at Wikipedia. His decision to remove shows a disrespect for truth and for scholarship.Coterminous 19:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to start editing the chaff out of your posts and replies (particularly the huge swaths of quotes) just so they are coherent and reasonably succinct. As you are continuing to post them, they're almost impossible to read.

Any casual comparison of CCC to NCCC shows that the works undertaken (and the functional intent of the programs) are nearly opposite. Wikipedia prohibits original research, however, if I said that NCCC was the same as the NRA, I couldn't find any articles "disproving it" even though everyone knows it's the same. If you examine the charter intent of the CCC and then compare it to the NCCC- furthermore, compare the works undertaken by the CCC and then compare it to the works undertaken by NCCC- there's a tangential connection at best. The intent of each program, from the charter point forward are very different. --LoverOfArt 20:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, Coterminos, I do want to say: I believe your most recent additions have been productive and substantially closer to the intent of wikipedia than your edits of past. You and I could likely work together on this article to make it much better than it is- we just have to be mindful of keeping a NPOV stance and structuring everything within the confines that dictate the wiki model. --LoverOfArt 20:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Future Direction of the Article

It is good to see that we have started moving forward in a constructive manner. There are two things that I feel I need to point out:

Inserting a reply in the middle of someone elses talk page post needs to be done with great care to be sure that it is easy to follow who is speaking. Often it is better to simply quote the key issue and then reply rather that inserting into the original post.

Editing or deleting contents from another user's talk page post is a very bad practice and should be avoided.

I look forward for additional constructive discussions. Dbiel ^(Talk) 21:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree on both these points. - Che Nuevara 21:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Founding Directors Section

I have added a brief Founding Directors of NCCC section to the page, with footnotes. I noticed similar sections at the Wikipedia entries for the American Red Cross and the Peace Corps.Coterminous 13:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

New Section

After reviewing Wikipedia guidelines, I have added a revised NCCC and Education section. In a previous version, I had written the following: "The dedication of NCCC teams to their educational projects is illustrated by their accomplishments with the Harford County, Maryland school" Although I believe that the tone of that sentence was actually justified by the official statement of commendation from the school system, I have nonetheless tried to write with a more neutral POV. So, I have rewritten that sentence to read: "National Civilian Community Corps educational projects are illustrated by their work with the Harford County, Maryland schools."Coterminous 17:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

That sentence implies that the Harford County project is representative of all (or at least the majority) of NCCC projects. Do you have a citation for that? - Che Nuevara 18:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I used the word "illustrated" in the dictionary sense: "demonstrate (verb, intransitive): to give an example or instance" (Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 11th editionCoterminous 20:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Coterminous, I'm aware of the usage of the term. But you're generalizing, from Harford County to NCCC in general. You can say, "NCCC did XYZ in Q place", but you cannot say it is illustrative of their work in general unless another source says so. Do you see how this is original research? - Che Nuevara 20:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

To Che Nuevera - I am NOT (as you suggest) conducting new, original research and posting the results. That, as you probably know, is a violation of Wikipedia guidelines. The Harford County source is a reliable one, per Wikipedia guidelines. Your interpretation of what I stated is your own and is not supported by the Merriam Webster dictionary, which is a standard reference work of professional editors and publishers. HOWEVER, I have changed the wording to suit you better: it now reads: "An example of a National Civilian Community Corps educational project is its work with the Harford County, Maryland schools." In case you are interested, there is an excellent account of an NCCC corps member on an educational project at <http://www.americorps.gov/for_individuals/current/stories_detail.asp?tbl_stories_id=27> Emily Schneider-Krzys AmeriCorps*NCCC Don't Waste Your Time with That One

"... When the teacher would see me with him, she would call loudly to me from across the room, "Don't waste your time with that one. He hasn't been awake for a class in years!" ... The moral is this: I really cared about Johnny and showed him that all the time. I let him know that I didn't believe a word other people said about his abilities and showed him that I was willing to do whatever I could to help him. And that meant something to him. Having someone believe in him changed his whole attitude—toward himself, toward school, toward his future. My attention meant more than just something to him—in away, it meant everything."Coterminous 21:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I never said you were conducting original research. You are clearly misunderstanding. I am aware that the Harford source is legitimate. What I'm saying is that taking the Harford source and talking about it as if it applied to NCCC as a whole is original research per the Wikipedia policy on OR. Because the word "illustrates" was ambiguous in that context -- you may have meant it one way, but it has other interpretations which change the meaning of the sentence from that which you ascribe to it -- it confuses the facts and thus weasels the sentence.

And please don't patronize me. I know what the Merriam Webster dictionary is. I have one on my shelf.

You still haven't answered my question. Are you or are you not prepared to stop taking unilateral action on this article and actually work with the editors involved to discuss and develop a better article? - Che Nuevara 21:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

An edit conflict prevented this from posting, so I will repost it now and hopefully it will still be a bit helpful:

Unfortunately you are still unaware of how Wikipedia uses the term No Original Research. If the dictionary term was not used by another notable source then your use of the term is original research as defined by Wikipedia (unless of course you are simply using another term having the same meaning in the specific context it is being use in). Unless you can find some other source that has said

"National Civilian Community Corps educational projects are illustrated by their work with the Harford County, Maryland schools.

you can not say it. Note the reference does not have to use the exact same terms, but must clearly imply the same POV or thought. Your current reference does not seem to show it as being representative.

The current wording "An example of a National Civilian Community Corps educational project is its work with the Harford County, Maryland schools." seems fine to me.Dbiel ^(Talk) 22:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

"New" Section: NCCC Oral, Written, Photographic and Video Histories"

In a previous version, I tried writing a section called "The NCCC Experience." Questions were raised about point-of-view. For example, I wrote "Other AmeriCorps NCCC members have compiled and posted their remarkable "Stories of Service" online." I thought that a fair reading of those stories made that statement an accurate one, not a biased one. However, since others may not share this conclusion, I have deleted the word remarkable so that it now reads: "NCCC members have compiled and posted "Stories of Service" online."Coterminous 20:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

"I thought that a fair reading of those stories made that statement an accurate one, not a biased one."

This demonstrates exactly the problem with some of what you are saying. There is no "fair reading" of any text. That implies an assessment of a text. Such an assessment is expressly against Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia does not make judgment about the content of sources, only their quality (and in that, only whether or not they are acceptable).

The stories may be "remarkable" to you, and to many other people. But to say this is to pass a judgment upon their content. And unless you can find a reliable outside source whose opinion is noteworthy in the context of this article to say that they are remarkable, you can't say it. That is the Wikipedia original research policy.

I strongly suggest that you take the time to thoroughly read and consider Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. - Che Nuevara 22:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Original Research

I would agree with all of your objections had I written "National Civilian Community Corps educational projects are typified by their work with the Harford County, Maryland schools," rather than, as I did, "... illustrated by their work with the Harford County, Maryland schools"

Included among the OED definitions of "illustrate" are: "to throw the light of intelligence on"; "to make clear or evident by means of examples"; "to elucidate; "to give an example, instance, or illustration of..."

I was NOT offering my opinion, not synthesizing theories into a novel theory, I was stating the obvious: Here is an instance of an NCCC Educational project. (And, moreover, an example that sheds some light, given the extraordinarily negative portrayal of AmeriCorps educational projects posted at the NCCC criticism section.)

I do agree with you, however, that "illustrate" is less neutral than "An example of a National Civilian Community Corps educational project is..." so, in a nod to harmony, I introduced that alternative phrasing.

I am deepening my understanding of the Wikipedia definition of Original Research. Everyone starts at the beginning.

In my defense: My production of relevant, verifiable, documented information -- written and published by credible sources -- for the NCCC site is directly within that definition, as are my efforts to double-check to see that quotes are not taken out of context but are fairly represented.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research):

"Our verifiability policy (V) demands that information and notable views presented in articles be drawn from appropriate, reliable sources. Compliance with our Verifiability Policy and our cite sources guideline is the best way to ensure that you do not violate our NOR [No Original Research] policy. In short, the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article; the only way to demonstrate that you are not inserting your own POV is to represent these sources and the views they reflect accurately."

"Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."

Finally, for those who are tempted, I would like to commend this quote to your attention:

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-December/017796.html Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales jwales at wikia.com Thu Dec 16 20:02:20 UTC 2004

"If we get into a mode of kicking people out for pushing a POV, we run the risk of kicking people out who contradict *our* POV."Coterminous 04:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You are still missing the point on several separate points. "I was stating the obvious" is very much like the math statement A=B; B=C therefore A=C. Definately obvious, but in Wikipedia it is still original research unless someone else has first drawn that obvious conclusion.

Additionally "In my defense" has nothing to due with NPOV. There is nothing to defend unless it is to prove the point that what was said is both NPOV and notable and therefore should stand as is. You have already stated yourself that the change represents a more NPOV, which in itself, makes any defense of the original meaningless.

Finally the quote by Wales just does not apply in this case. No one is kicking you out for pushing a POV, only trying to help you see that it IS a POV and that it is not a NPOV. The goal is consensus, not proving you own POV.

It is impossible for anyone to maintain a totally NPOV. It is as we balance the varrious different POV's that we finally arrive at a NPOV.

The quoted sources were not being questioned about being notable themselves, what was being questioned was the conclusions that were being drawn from them. The goal of Wikipedia is not to find the right, good or better; it is to find the best and then to keep on improving on that if possible. Not to defend the previous, if the new is shown to be better. Dbiel ^(Talk) 06:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Coterminous: No one is trying to push you out of this article. Quite the opposite -- LoverOfArt and Dbiel have expressed a desire to work as a group towards a more neutral article and I, knowing nothing of the NCCC whatsoever, `do not feel I am in a position to pass any judgment on the organization, public or personal. On the other hand, you suggested multiple times that LoverOfArt be "frozen from editing" this page (I can only assume you meant banned from the article). Medice, cura te ipsum.

I second Dbiel's statements on both NPOV and OR.

And please stop quoting the dictionary at me. It's rather insulting, and you're not actually making your case any better.

I look forward to a reasonable and appropriate solution to this issue. - Che Nuevara 17:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Breadth of the recent additions and WP:Notability

I think we are running into serious WP:Notability issues here. The breadth of some of the recent additions, while definitely factual, don't qualify as being particularly notable. While they might be relevant in the context of a debate about NCCC, that obviously isn't the intent of a Wikipedia article. I think it's important that we be comprehensive in chronicling important matters and presenting both sides of an issue, but there is definitely a limit; things like founding directors, funding details, specific headings for specific NCCC functions, the "oral histories" section. Per the criteria set out in WP:Notability, very few of the recent 'additions' have been published in works that are independent of the subject (the Corporation for National Service). If you go down to the 'footnotes' section, an enormous percentage of the "sources" cited for various additions are .gov sources that resolve straight back to the orginization in question. This a clear, absolute violation of WP:Notability.

“ "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." (emp. add.)... "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including: self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc. ”

Those few citations that have been published independent of the parent orginization certainly don't have "comprehensive coverage" save for maybe the occasional, singular newspaper article here or there. Before I go through and make some big deletes and some big merges, I thought I'd open the discussion here and see what sort of opinions or consensus we might be able to reach. --LoverOfArt 23:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Notability and NCCC

First, LoverOfArt is doing the right thing by opening this for discussion rather than "slash and burn" editing, which simply invites the same.

Before I address this directly, a few brief quotes from the Wikipedia standards in question:

From the Wikipedia Notability guidelines for Organizations at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28organizations_and_companies%29 states: "Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice". At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Notability: "Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself, or: Ask the article's creator for advice on where to look for sources...

"General notability guideline "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."

NCCC has definitely attracted notice! See, for example:http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0708/29/acd.01.html for transcript of recent CNN on-site program and interviews in New Orleans by Emmy award-winning anchor with AmeriCorps NCCC team members (and others). CNN's Anderson Cooper Interviews AmeriCorps*NCCC Member Jared Kahan From Camp Hope, St. Bernard Parish, LA. See also http://anderson-cooper-effects.blogspot.com/2007/08/nola-blessed-volunteers.html, FRIDAY, AUGUST 31, 2007, CNN's Anderson Cooper Interviews AmeriCorps*NCCC Member Arielle Davis From Camp Hope, St. Bernard Parish, LA

As to the new sections added: The Founding Directors section is similar to (but more concise than) the sections at the Wikipedia entries for the American Red Cross and the Peace Corps, for example. Footnotes for the Directors section include citations to the Library of Congress website, a reliable and independent source. The qualifications of the Founding Directors are relevant to this article, because extensive debate has occurred about whether the NCCC program model is a valid one.

The Education Section is notable. Both the footnote to the Harford County school system and the footnotes in the Criticism section demonstrate attention given to Education projects. Education is one of the key areas for NCCC ("Projects fall in the areas of disaster relief, public safety, the environment, education, and other unmet needs.") In addition to the Harford County footnote about notable NCCC work, the American Council on Education, a reliable and independent source, is cited.

As for the NCCC Oral, Written, Photographic and Video Histories" section: one of the footnotes at that section is http://jscms.jrn.columbia.edu/cns/2006-02-28/fletcher-neworleansbudgetcuts/ which links to an article about NCCC published at the site of the Journalism School of Columbia University, a reliable and independent source. Another footnote at that section, http://redcross.tallytown.com/nccc-01.html is to an web page published by the Red Cross, an independent and generally respected organization, about notable NCCC work.

Other credible and independent sources have been brought to the attention of Wikipedia editors that attest to NCCC's Notability, including the editorial about NCCC by the Pulitzer Prize-winning newspaper, the Sun Herald.

The McClatchy newspapers are among the largest group of U.S. newspapers and a credible and independent source. Last month, they recently published this article about NCCC: ""'House, Senate, administration battle over volunteer program,' By Maria Recio, McClatchy Newspapers, Posted on Wednesday, September 12, 2007" See: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/staff/maria_recio/story/19661.html

The NCCC program is clearly Notable. A great many other independent and footnoted quotes from independent and credible organizations are available (as of now) at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dbiel/ScratchPad/NCCC_accomplishments

Perhaps some of these should be incorporated into the main article to improve its content.Coterminous 03:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

What is your point and why are you wasting so much time on it.

You are simply stating why this article is notable. NOBODY has EVER questioned that. It is the notability of the references that are an issue. Quotes from NCCC about itself are NOT notable and they definately can NOT be considered NPOV. If you have done as much research as you claim to have done, then you should be loaded down with notable sources, but so far you have failed to make use of them. Now it is possible I have miss read the most recent post by LoverOfArt, but as I see it, it is the current lack of notable content that may be making a separate article unnecessary, but that should be easy to fix. Dbiel ^(Talk) 05:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

As Dbiel already pointed out, you've completely failed to address the question, Coterminous. Unfortunately, a substantial portion of your additions are unacceptable under WP:Notability given that they clearly and unambiguously violate- to the letter- the criteria set forth therein. Before I trim a substantial portion of these additions, I would ask that you go ahead and make use of your other sources to cite those claims at this time. Please read the WP:Notability article so you have a better understanding of what I'm talking about. If you aren't able to produce these other sources- if all we have here are a bunch of self-promotion quotations from the Americorps website that clearly violates WP:Notability, I'm going to edit it all out. If anyone has any disagreements to this or can think of another way, please speak now, but WP:Notability is pretty clear and this is a picture-perfet textbook example of what the WP:Notability criteria seeks to protect against. --LoverOfArt 09:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Does Not Prohibit Quoting Organization's Material - Wikipedia Does Require that "Articles should not be built using only the subject itself as sole source." - (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Independent_sources)

The full context of the quote above is this:

"If Wikipedia is, as defined by the three key content policies, an encyclopaedia which summarises viewpoints rather than a repository for viewpoints, to achieve this goal, articles must demonstrate that the topic they are covering has been mentioned in reliable sources independent of the topic itself. These sources should be independent of both the topic and of Wikipedia, and should be of the standard described in Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Articles should not be built using only the subject itself as sole source." (emphasis added)

That statement is from a page arrived at from the main Notability page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Notability)

I have provided above some additional examples of credible and independent sources of information that can be incorporated into the article. I will provide additional examples this morning. I find no authority in Wikipedia so far for deleting all references that may derive from an organization, so long as they are not the sole source.

Notice, too, that the actual website of NCCC is http://www.americorps.gov/about/programs/nccc.asp which does not appear among the footnotes.

Take one example: Several official pages are cited to illustrate conservation work (planting of trees). Some are "official" documents (they have the logos of the USA Freedom Corps and the Corporation for National and Community Service on them) and one so far is an external, independent one. Why deny readers of an encyclopedia entry the possibility of consulting these? Perhaps it would be an improvement to add a qualifying statement in the article itself about the source of these statistics.Coterminous 12:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, it is not prohibited, BUT the more of it that is done the less notable the article becomes and the more likely that the entire article will be viewed simply as an self promoting advertisement (WP:ADVERT) which would then be subject to deletion. It this what you really want? Why not try to make the entire article notable and move away from the appearance of self promotion? Dbiel ^(Talk) 13:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Coterminous: I'll reply to all of your recent "replies" here. Simple citations from a parent org aren't "prohibited" all together. No one here is saying that it's entirely inappropriate to ever cite a quote from an organization. It is certainlly appropriate in many conceivable contexts. Again, you're replying to a discussion that we aren't even having. When the lions share of an articles content is "achievement quotes" that come straight from the articles parent website, that clearly violates WP:Notability. Also, the breadth of the additions is clearly running into the realm of self promotion. Wikipedia isn't a blog. Every single project that NCCC does or every single Op Ed piece written about NCCC doesn't qualify as being "notable" simply because it was published in a newspaper somewhere. I've gone ahead and cleaned the article up.It was in serious need of trimming based on WP:Notability. Also, I'm going to extend this case up the moderation chain, as everything has been tried- this person still doesn't understand "what Wikipedia is". And please, Coterminous, spare us all the 15,000 word, 5 subheading reply and allow someone else to offer their opinions on this. Your painfully excessive and off-topic rebuts are severely halting the dialog. --LoverOfArt 18:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Independent, Reliable, Notable Reports of NCCC Activities

Dbiel has asked me to provide additional examples. These are from one source, the Baltimore Sun. I will provide others.

"Workers in an AmeriCorps program head to Alabama to aid hurricane victims. ; Called to make a difference":[FINAL Edition] Josh Mitchell. The Sun. Baltimore, Md.:Sep 13, 2005. p. 1B

"Abstract" Photo(s); 1. National Civilian Community Corps workers (from left) Tess Hodges of Santa Barbara, Calif., Dimitri Antonellis-Lapp of Enumclaw, Wash., and Kyle Jaconsen of Austin, Texas, arrive at BWI. They were headed to Alabama to assist in hurricane-relief efforts. 2. Hodges picks up her e-ticket at BWI. After arriving in Alabama, workers will distribute water and move victims to shelters. 3. National Civilian Community Corps workers, including team leader [Adam Haigh] (center), head to their gate at BWI.

"Excerpt:" "So after graduating from college in 2003, Anderson joined the National Civilian Community Corps, an AmeriCorps program with its Northeast regional headquarters in Cecil County. She has helped save an Arizona town from invasive pine beetles, saved California backwoods from fire, and made a difference in the lives of tough youth at a middle school in Sacramento, Calif."

"Graduates delay college to experience real world ; Future: Teens search out ways to grow - and that doesn't have to mean college.":[ARUNDEL Edition] Joni Guhne. The Sun. Baltimore, Md.:Aug 7, 2005. p. 1G

Excerpt: "Then she learned from a friend about AmeriCorps*NCCC, a federally sponsored organization created in 1993 for 18- to 24-year-olds. The friend had worked with deaf people during her tenure and is now studying at Towson University to become a sign-language interpreter.... The tightly scheduled acceptance process of paperwork, interviews, medical forms and fingerprinting was an introduction to AmeriCorps' regimented program, which is designed to teach leadership with a strong helping of military discipline..."

"Firefighters on a cross-country mission ; Local volunteers battle flames and nerves on dangerous expeditions":[FINAL Edition] Artika Rangan. The Sun. Baltimore, Md.:Aug 18, 2004. p. 3B

Excerpt: ""It's hard, hot, dirty work," said Kronner, 46, yesterday morning as he and 19 others from the state's Interagency Wildland Fire Mobilization program mustered in Harford County for a trip to help battle wildfires in Northern California. "But it's fun. There's always an adventure." The Maryland crew includes AmeriCorps/National Civilian Community Corps members, state employees from the state forest service and volunteer firefighters."

"Repairing Isabel's damage ; Restoration: AmeriCorps volunteers and Havre de Grace residents unite to rebuild the town's signature promenade.":[FINAL Edition 1] Artika Rangan. The Sun. Baltimore, Md.:Jun 20, 2004. p. 1B

Excerpt: "Hot weather did not deter more than 200 nationwide AmeriCorps/ National Civilian Community Corps members and alumni from joining Havre de Grace residents yesterday to rebuild .... Yesterday's six-hour restoration project capped weeks of preparatory work. Yesterday's effort included placing the deckwork for more than 90 percent of the boardwalk, which was destroyed by Tropical Storm Isabel in September."Coterminous 13:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely none of this denotes notable activities. --LoverOfArt 18:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Independent, Reliable, Notable Reports of NCCC Activities (cont.)

New York Times editorial, Tuesday, March 14, 2006, "Save the Civilian Community Corps."

Excerpt: "The federal government did a lot wrong after Hurricane Katrina. But it did right by immediately dispatching well-trained teams from the National Civilian Community Corps ...The civilian corps includes some 1,100 highly motivated full-time volunteers, ages 18 to 24, who are based on five residential campuses for rapid deployment when emergencies arise, like wildfires and hurricanes.... Other volulnteer outfits ... also provide help with disaster relief. But the Civilian Community Corps is unique for its focus on disaster training and rapid response, and the overall intensity of its efforts...."

See http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/14/opinion/14tue3.html accessed 10 October 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coterminous (talk • contribs) 13:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Independent, Reliable, Notable Reports of NCCC Activities (part 3)

http://www.abqjournal.com/opinion/guest_columns/465013opinion06-02-06.htm Friday, June 2, 2006, Online Edition of the Albuquerque Journal, "Support Backbone of National Service," By Charles Moskos, Sociologist

Excerpt: "Speaking a few weeks ago, from the Senate floor, Democratic Sens. Barbara Mikulski and Robert Byrd emphatically praised the program.... Republican Sen. Thad Cochran said: "There have been more than 1,600 National Civilian Community Corps members in my state of Mississippi since the day after Hurricane Katrina struck our coast. They remain available at a moment's notice for deployment to any emergency in the country." ...

"In light of the above, a robust and enduring U.S. domestic national service capacity should be considered indispensable. Yet, this is precisely the time that Congress is being asked to eliminate the NCCC, the "backbone" of our national service infrastructure."

"Charles Moskos, an Albuquerque High graduate, is professor of sociology, Northwestern University."

(site accessed: 10 October 2007)Coterminous 14:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Short Addition to Page, quoting Professor Moskos

Dbiel has suggested "Why not try to make the entire article notable" - I have added this to the Introductory section, as a start:

According to Charles Moskos, professor emeritus of sociology at Northwestern University, "When NCCC teams are not fighting fires, responding to ice storms, hurricanes, or floods, they are providing grateful communities with high-energy assistance in environmental, educational, and public health projects, helping to tutor children, working on behalf of our elderly and people with disabilities, coordinating other volunteers, building and rebuilding homes while gaining knowledge and stamina for future disaster relief."[1]

(Although Moskos is identified as a "professor of sociology at Northwestern University" in the 2006 article cited, I double-checked at the University website, which refers to him as professor emeritus. I chose to refer to him that way, rather than place the description of him in quotes. I suppose either is acceptable.)Coterminous 16:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Added quotation from N.Y. Times to Program Accomplishments

In response to suggestions that independent, verifiable sources be added to this page to balance data emanating from government sources, have added this:

"A 2006 editorial by The New York Times stated: "The federal government did a lot wrong after Hurricane Katrina. But it did right by immediately dispatching well-trained teams from the National Civilian Community Corps ...The civilian corps includes some 1,100 highly motivated full-time volunteers, ages 18 to 24, who are based on five residential campuses for rapid deployment when emergencies arise, like wildfires and hurricanes.... Other volunteer outfits ... also provide help with disaster relief. But the Civilian Community Corps is unique for its focus on disaster training and rapid response, and the overall intensity of its efforts...."Coterminous 16:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Updated Funding Section

Added this quote: "The Senate bill would open two more training campuses for volunteers, one in Vicksburg, Miss., and the other in Vinton, Iowa."[63]

This is relevant - the closing of two of the five NCCC campuses was notable, and the potential opening of two campuses to replace them is at issue in Congress. This report was published by an independent source. (The McClatchy newspapers describe themselves at http://www.mcclatchy.com/ : "Since 1857 - The McClatchy Company is the third-largest newspaper company in the United States, a leading newspaper and internet publisher dedicated to the values of quality journalism, free expression and community service. Building on a 150-year legacy of independence, the company's newspapers and websites are steadfast defenders of First Amendment values and advocates for the communities they serve.") —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coterminous (talk • contribs) 16:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Enhanced Funding Section

Added the following quote from an independent newspaper source, The Washington Times:

In a June 5, 2006 (p. A11) Washington Times "Sgt. Shaft" column (archived at the Blinded American Veterans Foundation website by Sgt. Shaft author John Fales), the columnist wrote: "Dear former NCCC directors: 'It seems preposterous that as our military reserves and National Guard are spread thin because of other commitments, the U.S. Congress could even think of defunding this vital civilian disaster-relief partner. I urge the Congress to join the administration in continuing to fund this essential program.'"[61]

I did not spot this column still archived at the newspaper website: http://washingtontimes.com/ so I provided the publication information and the link to one of its archived locations (http://www.bavf.org/shaft/060605.htm) I have a scanned image of the original column that I can submit if that is called for.Coterminous 18:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Article Status

It is time to slow down and clean up the mess. I felt it was necessary to support the deletions made by LoverOfArt, not to say that some of them can not be returned; but we need a cleaner starting place. Lets try to discuss the changes in this talk page first, one point at a time, and maybe we will begin to make progress. Dbiel ^(Talk) 20:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed 100%. There may be portions of the article edits that can be property reintegrated, however, it was getting out of hand. Sadly, I don't think the other participant in question has even the slightest comprehension of what is appropriate for wikipedia, so I'm fast losing the good faith I had already lost in edits past... Also, does anyone know wikipedia policy on "cleaning up" talk pages? I think we all would be much, much better off if we could all start fresh and work from there. Does anyone know if this is addressed anywhere in wikipedia policy? --LoverOfArt 22:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Archiving this page is no problem and I will be happy to do it, but I think it best if we wait just a bit first and hopefully we will be at a point where we can actually do something constructive.

Another alternative that might work as well, is to set up a separate sub page for each major topic under discussion. I think that this might be a better option for this page; but we need to have some willingness to work together first or the mess will just continue to grow. Dbiel ^(Talk) 22:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Intellectual Dishonesty, Lack of Competence, Or Both

The Criticisms Section of NCCC posted by LoverofArt on 13 June 2007 was still there on 13 September 2007, three months later (see below). It contained statements already shown to be false (quotes calling NCCC a "fraud" footnoted to an article that did not mention NCCC or AmeriCorps NCCC or The National Civilian Community Corps, one of which is quoted below. A second appeared subsequently.)

Having received a copy of the book cited in that section ("Feeling Your Pain"), I see that another statement from LoverOfArts Criticism section is also false and misleading. Here is what LoverOfArt posted:

"Most notably, Libertarian pundit and commentator James Bovard has been one of the most vocal Americorps NCCC opponents, calling it a "waste and fraud" [4], in addition to dedicating an entire chapter of criticisms of the program in his book "Feeling Your Pain.'"

Neither AmeriCorps NCCC nor NCCC nor Civilian Community Corps nor the National Civilian Community Corps appear in the Index (pp 415-426 of the hardcover edition of that book published by St. Martin's Press in 2000).

I see not a single reference to NCCC (by any of those terms) in Chapter 2, which is devoted to AmeriCorps (titled "Americorps: Salvation Through Handholding"), pages 7-25.

The footnotes to Chapter 2, appear on pages 351 - 355. The only reference I see in this book to the National Civilian Community Corps is in the footnotes, citing "Remarks at the AmeriCorps National Civilian Community Corps Graduation Ceremony," Public Papers of the President, August 9, 1999, p. 1597)," which refers to a speech by then-president Clinton.

LoverofArt may be correct that the book refers to some activities of NCCC among its general description of the AmeriCorps program in this chapter, despite the absence of any documentation. But the book states on page 8: "AmeriCorps started with 20,000 recruits a year in 1999 and had 50,000 ... by 1999..."

NCCC deploys about 1100 or 1200 corps members a year, a small fraction of that total.

To write or post that Bovard dedicated "an entire chapter of criticisms" about NCCC was again false and misleading.

This is not the work of an editor likely to permit an accurate depiction of the work of the National Civilian Community Corps at this page that includes information not to his liking. By clicking on History at the top of the page, visitors to Wikipedia can seek versions of this article that have been least subject to his editing.

The quotes below document the introduction of this description by LoverOfArt and its continued presence three months later:

"This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LoverOfArt (Talk | contribs) at 23:32, 13 June 2007. It may differ significantly from the current revision."

"Criticisms" "The NCCC program has met with sharp criticisms from some fiscal conservatives who accused it of being a "boondoggle". [1] Most notably, conservative pundit and commentator James Bovard has been one of the most vocal Americorps NCCC opponents, calling it a "waste and fraud" [2], in addition to dedicating an entire chapter of criticisms of the program in his book "Feeling Your Pain: The Explosion and Abuse of Government Power in the Clinton-Gore Years"

But no Criticisms section is here at the previous version of the page: "This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LoverOfArt (Talk | contribs) at 23:26, 13 June 2007. It may differ significantly from the current revision.Coterminous 04:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)"

The criticisms section remained as late as 13 September 2007: "This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SmackBot (Talk | contribs) at 08:29, 13 September 2007. It may differ significantly from the current revision."

"Criticisms The NCCC program has met with sharp criticisms from some fiscal conservatives who accused it of being a "boondoggle". [3] Most notably, Libertarian pundit and commentator James Bovard has been one of the most vocal Americorps NCCC opponents, calling it a "waste and fraud" [4], in addition to dedicating an entire chapter of criticisms of the program in his book "Feeling Your Pain: The Explosion and Abuse of Government Power in the Clinton-Gore Years""Coterminous 21:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Locked out due to edit conflict, so inserted back in again

You are still not understanding the main issue. What the article looks like now, or what it use to look like is meaningless. The only thing that is important is how can it be changed to make it better. Long winded posts do very little to help make progress in making changes. If there are points you do not like, pick only one of them at a time, start a new heading on this page, summarize the problem, insert a rewrite (on this page, not the article) and follow that with an explaination of why it is better and then be prepared to discuss with the other editors and we shoud be able to come up with something that will be acceptable. Dbiel ^(Talk) 22:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry folks. This person is beyond hope. I'm moving this up the chain... --LoverOfArt 22:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

New Sub Pages

I have put together a sample of a working sub page. The links can be found at the top of this page just above the table of contents.

I chose the Criticisms of the National Civilian Community Corps section as a starting place as it seems to be the one under the most fire, but if the group would rather start with another section that is fine. This is only an example and I would like to get some feed back as to if it makes sense to go this way, or if the new pages should be deleted. Dbiel ^(Talk) 00:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: I deleted the bot autosignature of the index part of this page as it is meant to be an index, not a signed comment. Dbiel ^(Talk) 00:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Slash and Burn Editing

In case no one read it, I suggested to LoverOfArt above that he was doing the right thing by opening this for discussion rather than "slash and burn" editing, which simply invites the same. He should be reassigned to the Wikipedia Sandbox. He has lost any credible claim to an assumption of good faith, based on his abuse of editorial honesty. Time after time, I have raised the issue of defaming NCCC by attributing to it condemnations that were unsupported. The book in question is not online and not on every shelf. So, the vitriolic and misleading criticism stays on the NCCC site, even though LoverOfArt had every opportunity to edit the false and misleading statements, that he posted, himself. All we can count on from him, it is crystal clear now, is to restore false material, not correct it, while deleting credible and verifiable information.

If Wikipedia insists on giving free rein to persons who have demonstrated beyond any doubt violations of such fundamental standards, it will deserve the reputation it gains.Coterminous 01:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

That which deserves to be slashed and burned should be slashed and burned. Your own bizarre monologues aside, we've tried time and time again to resolve this issue with you. You stubbornly ignore numerous wikipedia rules and precepts to push your own agenda, and then criticize anyone who points out where your edits are off base. Your diatribes are almost always incoherent and more time than not, completely fail to address the point in question. Whenever you make these inappropriate edits, I will revert them again, and again, and again- to perpetuity- and I'm also advancing this up the chain of recourse. Your additions are unproductive and in so many aways, against NUMEROUS established Wikipedia procedures and criteria. --LoverOfArt 01:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)