Talk:National Civilian Community Corps/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title: Sorry to Interrupt

message: 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)
thread_title: Question about quoted statements

message: 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)
thread_title: I Reguest that Lover Of Art Be Frozen From Editing the NCCC Page 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  "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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Criticisms Section Not Substantiated by the Footnotes Provided 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Why Quoting Falsely is Unwise and Out of Bounds

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: LoverofArt: Be Careful Not to Plagiarize

message: 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)
thread_title:  Borderline Lunacy 

message: 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.http://www.state.tn.us/environment/tn_consv/archive/ccc_onemansjourney.pdfhttp://www.sunherald.com/editorials/story/141099.html
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)
thread_title: NCCC History

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree on both these points. - Che Nuevara 21:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future Direction of the Article 

message: 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)
thread_title: Founding Directors Section

message: 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. 
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)
thread_title:  Breadth of the recent additions and WP:Notability 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: 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)

message: 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)
replies: text:  Absolutely none of this denotes notable activities.  --LoverOfArt 18:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Independent, Reliable, Notable Reports of NCCC Activities

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Short Addition to Page, quoting Professor Moskos

message: 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)
thread_title: Added quotation from N.Y. Times to Program Accomplishments

message: 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)
thread_title: Updated Funding Section

message: 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)
thread_title: Enhanced Funding Section

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  New Sub Pages 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Slash and Burn Editing