Talk:National Civilian Community Corps/Archive 2

Old Talk Archived, Copy Protect Request Granted

OK, lets start new. The previous talk page reached the 100 kb limit and initiated a request to archive. I've done that (thanks to Dbiel who wisely preemptively set up the Wiki infrastructure that allowed this to happen easily). Also, I made a request for protection, which was granted by an administrator. Unfortunately, Coterminous snuck in reverts, but those can be dealt with as the discussion furthers. Now is the time for all of us to start new and initiate some constructive dialog regarding this article. Coterminous, now is also the time for you and I to bury past hatchets and work to make this a better article. Whether this is possible or not will be up to you. My only "mission" here is to ensure that the NCCC article remains within the purview of the various Wikipedia guidelines. I will do my level best to help you as a new Wikipedia user to understand these rules without getting abrasive, but in turn, I think you have to be receptive to the rules (which themselves are very clear), good-faith suggestions of other users that are intended to help you as a new user to understand this site and maybe concede that many of your past additions weren't appropriate for a Wikipedia article. Please, please seek out tutorials on how this site works and its intent. No one is here to 'rationalize' the rules, which is what the previous talk page devolved in to; we're simply here to make sure that they're followed correctly so the article can remain 'encyclopedic and NPOV. Either way, the discussion can now start here- fresh, new, and in good faith from all parties. Hopefully, it can remain that way. If not, we will have to go to the last step on the moderation chain, which is almost always best avoided. If we have to resort to that, someone is going to "lose" and no one wants to see that happen --LoverOfArt 04:58, 11 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)

WP: Notability

I believe the article in its present state exhibits WP: Notability issues. Quotations and excessive sourcing from the parent organization is explicitly addressed by WP: Notability and discouraged. Also, singular newspaper articles and 'achievement quotes' are pretty clearly self promotion, given that they clearly don't address events that are of note to anyone other than people interested in promoting the program. Furthermore, I believe that some of the additions could be merged into a more efficient "Achievements" heading, instead of individual headings for firefighting, mentoring, disaster relief, etc. Lastly, I don't think that 'Founding Directors' should have it's own heading. I seriously question whether its relevant at all, but if we are to include it, I believe it should be under the "History" section. I believe this article is best off by following traditional Wikipedia guidelines. I don't believe there is anything particularly unique about it that would suggest we should be more lenient on soapboxing or self-promotion quotes than we would be in other articles. I'd like to hear thoughts on this. --LoverOfArt 05:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Assume Good Faith Does Not Mean Have Blind Faith Despite the Facts

By repeatedly -- for months -- citing a book published by St. Martin's Press (New York), "Feeling Your Pain," as a source of chapter-long damning criticism of the National Civilian Community Corps, LoverOfArt was abusing the name of a respected publishing house and misleading Wikipedia readers.

That St. Martin's Press would publish a book does not of course imply that no competing or contradictory facts exist. But it does imply that the information has survived a responsible vetting process by fact checkers and lawyers.

(By the way, according to the flap copy of the book,"Feeling Your Pain," (at least as published in hardcover by St. Martin's Press, 2000), the writing of the author, Bovard, "has been denounced by FBI Director Louis Freeh, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, the White House AIDS czar, as well as by the Chiefs of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the U.S. International Trade Commission.")

As is now clear, "Feeling Your Pain" does not even mention NCCC or the National Civilian Community Corps (except in the footnotes, referring to one speech by then-President Clinton -- not exactly a source of documented criticism of a program he signed into law), in a chapter devoted to what was then 50,000 members of AmeriCorps, not the 1100+ Corps Members of NCCC.

So to Dbiel and Che Nuevara: It took a lot to get me to sound off about LoverOfArt. I responded calmly to his repeated rants about me, saying I was foaming at the mouth, my writing was Lunacy, fluff, and similar crap. At this point his "editing" of the National Civilian Community Corps has been conclusively demonstrated as biased and maliciously distorted: his doctoring of quotes into misleading criticisms of the National Civilian Community Corps (quoting NCCC as having been labeled a "fraud" in an article he cites that does not mention NCCC) should disqualify him from being part of this group.

When I read what he wrote and posted at Wikipedia, quoting the author of Feeling Your Pain as calling NCCC a "fraud" in an article he cites (untrue), saying the author devoted an entire chapter of his book to criticism of NCCC (untrue) -- in a book published by St. Martin's Press, even I started to doubt the litany of glowing reports from credible and verifiable sources that I had read about this organization.

Someone unfamiliar with positive reports about NCCC would have been even more likely to greet news of the demise of NCCC - something ardently sought recently by persons using the same kinds of arguments LoverofArt posted -- with detachment, if not pleasure.

That his statements -- quotes -- about NCCC are now known to be false and misleading means that he no longer enjoys an assumption of Good Faith.

So I would like you to spare me your lectures about my supposed sins. "No information is better than misleading information," as Jimbo Wales liked to say. LoverOfArt has no business mauling the content of this page, nor does Wikipedia have any business disseminating his posts.

I am perfectly ready and willing to work respectfully and cooperatively with any editor who has not used the vicious and underhanded methods that LoverofArt has resorted to.

I have shown a willingness to respond to your editorial concerns. Dbiel wanted more notable sources. I posted a number of them quickly, including citations from the Baltimore Sun, the NY TImes, The Washington Times, and an Arizona newspaper - news outlets reflecting a spectrum of points of view. (LoverofArt discounted all of the Baltimore Sun citations, saying none were notable.)

I don't maintain that my copy (or my view of what should be at the NCCC page) is perfect or unassailable or that other's work has no place. I have labeled some posts "suggested edits." I have no problem with honest content that is in context that runs counter to my perspective.

But LoverofArt is clearly willing to resort to dishonest (or at the very least, grossly misleading) editing to ensure that his view prevails. My editing reflects my perspective, but it is not dishonest: I present information that is verifiable and accurate, to the best of my ability. If I make a mistake, and I sometimes do, I try to correct it, and I would welcome the correction of others - I do not want to be have a part in disseminating inaccurate or misleading information.

I left LoverofArt's Criticisms page on the NCCC article for a long time, until I could verify whether or not it was accurate. That is the mark of responsible editing.

Dbiel, I respect your knowledge of the Wikipedia way of doing things. I expect some return respect in return, in part for the knowledge I have of this subject, which is not something you have immersed yourself in before, so far as I know. From your recent remarks to me, I may expect too much. I will settle for honest editing.Coterminous 13:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I have already responded to much of this on your personal talk page, where it was first posted, so I will not repeat my comments here.

If we are to move forward, we need to stay focused on the issues of the article, not the faults or perceived views of the editors.

You have made some claims about the article by Bovard, now lets wait and see it LoverOfArt has any rebuttal. Dbiel ^(Talk) 13:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Your 5 page encyclicals that completely fail to address the point are getting very old and hint that further administration may be inevitable. You've fulminated again and again about one sentence in the article- your perceived validity about Bovards criticism- yet that issue is a sideshow at best. The real issues here are; what do or do not constitute encyclopedic entries, what entries seek to balance POV and what do or do not constitute WP: Notability entries. The excessive length and disorientation of your talk page soabbox replies are absolutely synonymous with your entries to this article. THAT is where the problem lies. We can debate the Bovard issue in time (I'll be glad to- many of the criticisms levied by Bovard had to do with projects undertaken by NCCC teams in spite of the fact that he refers to "Americorps" as a synonym for any CNS project) but again, that would distract us from what the real issue is. The real issue here is that an enormous amount of your entries (some of which I alluded to above, and you completely failed to address) are not appropriate wikipedia content. You certainlly aren't the first new user to make POV additions in good faith and think they are OK for Wikipedia just because they're "factual" and you won't be the last. You've made precisely zero effort to understand the rules and philosophies of this site, instead, taking it all "personally" and furiously distracting away from the fact that almost every entry you make to the NCCC article is inappropriate for Wikipedia based on a litany of criteria that I and others have pointed out. I've outlined the beginnings of what I feel is inappropriate about this article. I would like to have a dialog about that, instead of an argument about who's the big meanie. It all begins above, with the WP: Notability entry. --LoverOfArt 15:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

An Advisory Role

LoverofArt: Dbiel has agreed with my reference from within Wikipedia itself that not all citations must be external. Rather than edit material to make it work, you remove independent, credible citations, then criticize their absence. Your machinations are transparent to anyone who has been paying attention. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dbiel/ScratchPad/NCCC_accomplishments for numerous reliable external sources of information about NCCC that could be incorporated into this article.

I regret that detailed explanations are too much for you and try your patience. That's your issue. If you really want to edit complex material, get used to it, or get out.

What I take "personally" is anyone - and in this case that means you -- who uses scurrilous and unethical practices to demean something like NCCC that has been of great value to hundreds of thousands of vulnerable Americans and will be badly needed in the future.

You should hang your head in shame and back out of this process. Find something to do where you cannot injure something of value.

Those who reflexively defend your efforts out of misguided sympathy are not doing a whole lot better. I want no part of any editorial "team" that includes you, unless you are confined to an advisory role. You committed plagiarism at the NCCC site, manufactured inaccurate and defamatory quotes, falsely described book content in a defamatory manner.

Unlike you, I am making statements here based on facts, not resorting to ugly name-calling as you so often have. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:National_Civilian_Community_Corps/Archive_1)

Any editor who wants to write down and communicate specific edits that make content better suited for Wikipedia, rather than simply delete that content, has my regard. So far, I have seen almost none of that from anyone -- just vague references to one Wikipedia tenet or another followed by an ultimatum that content will be deleted, which occurs in spite of a good-faith response.

(The point about St. Martin's Press, which you profess not to understand, below, is that you abused their good reputation by using it while falsely stating that St. Martin's Press published a book with an entire chapter of criticism of NCCC. A trifecta - you do a disservice to St. Martin's Press, to Wikipedia, and to NCCC (not to mention misleading the public).Coterminous 17:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Coterminous, PLEASE refraim from these types of comments, they do NO good what so ever and will only result in an extension of the article protection. The goal is to move forward with the article, not lock it as it currently stands. Dbiel ^(Talk) 17:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Screw the begging and pleading. I'm done with that. I'm going to move this up the chain now. I'm done trying to be cooperative or patient with this person. There are sinking ships where you just cannot bail the water fast enough. There are Wikipedia users who just refuse to listen to reason. What we have with this user is a three way confluence of ignorance (about Wikipedia) stubbornness, and incorrectness. When you have someone who is ignorant about what they're doing, incorrect in their actions yet refusing to accept the fact that they're wrong, there's nothing more you can do. This person isn't providing 'detailed explanations'- they're replying with long-winded psuedo-legal briefs in an attempt to rationalize their being incorrect about a simple matter of the rules (you will notice how he/she refuses to address the WP: Notability heading, instead choosing to foam and wax philosophical about everything else but). We've treaded this ground before on many other articles- sadly, it's now struck the NCCC article. A user and IP block is the only answer to this problem. Either that, or some sort of administrative intervention that "snaps Coterminous out of it" and changes his/her present course. I've contacted the admin who protected the page, and I'll start the process there. I understand that Coterminous has strong "feelings" about NCCC (as do I: after all, I'm the only one in this conversation who has given a year of my life to the program) but as we all know, Wikipedia isn't a site for rationalizing ones "feelings" about a particular issue. The criteria are clear, the criteria have been explained and this new user refuses to accept them because he/she believes that their "feelings" about the program are more important that the rules that seek to establish what is or isn't encyclopedic and appropriate for Wikipedia. Isn't it ironic; the only person in this discussion who is actually an NCCC alum is the on the side of those who DON'T support inappropriate additions, just because the speak favorably about the program. (pats self on back for objectivity) --LoverOfArt 17:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: St. Martin's Press (vis a vis its being falsely called a Source of a Chapter of Criticism about NCCC)

In order to understand my comments above about St. Martin's Press, (for those, if any, unfamiliar with it):

http://www.stmartins.com/Footers/aboutsmp.html

"Founded in 1952 by Macmillan Publishers Limited of England, St. Martin’s Press is now one of the largest publishers in America. Best known for the strength and breadth of our list, we publish 700 titles a year, and are equally committed to finding and nurturing the first-time author as we are to bestseller publishing. From our home in the Flatiron Building in New York, St. Martin’s operates eight separate imprints ..."

http://www.stmartins.com/Footers/aboutsmp.html

"St. Martin’s prides itself on having the largest and broadest list of any U.S. publisher, expressing the widest possible range of human experience."Coterminous 13:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I wish I could decipher some sort of a point to this. --LoverOfArt 16:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts

Please note that a Wikiquette alert has been request regarding editor behavior related to this article. Dbiel ^(Talk) 19:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, now that we've gotten that out of our systems: WP: Notability

I'm going to post this again, to maybe recieve some feedback. From here, I'm going to request administrative edits. I would really appreciate constructive feedback on this.

I believe the article in its present state exhibits WP: Notability issues. Quotations and excessive sourcing from the parent organization is explicitly addressed by WP: Notability and discouraged. Also, singular newspaper articles and 'achievement quotes' are pretty clearly self promotion, given that they clearly don't address events that are of note to anyone other than people interested in promoting the program. Furthermore, I believe that some of the additions could be merged into a more efficient "Achievements" heading, instead of individual headings for firefighting, mentoring, disaster relief, etc. Lastly, I don't think that 'Founding Directors' should have it's own heading. I seriously question whether its relevant at all, but if we are to include it, I believe it should be under the "History" section. I believe this article is best off by following traditional Wikipedia guidelines. I don't believe there is anything particularly unique about it that would suggest we should be more lenient on soapboxing or self-promotion quotes than we would be in other articles. I'd like to hear thoughts on this. --LoverOfArt 20:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

While I understand what you're trying to say, I have to take issue with your application of WP:N. In fact, the page specifically says:

Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles, which is governed by other guidelines such as those on using reliable sources and on handling trivia. The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standards of the notability guidelines.

I think the real issues here are WP:NPOV and WP:RS. I believe in a healthy dose of skepticism, and I'm of the opinion that, while primary sources are great for noncontroversial details like mission statement, they're not appropriate sources for accomplishments and the like without outside substantiation.

You are probably right that some consolidation is in order. The quotation on this page of late has been excessive. - Che Nuevara 21:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct- the most applicable criteria would indeed be WP:NPOV and WP:RS. I do think there is a fairly distinct notability component here, given that the majority of the quotes in question are self-promoting and aren't particularly "notable" in any context other than a debate about NCCC where someone has something to prove. I think the best working model of this article should start with deleting most of the self-promotion and NPOV POV. From there, we can determine what is "notable" as well as whatever consolidations might be most appropriate. --LoverOfArt 00:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure you meant: deleting most of the self-promotion and NPOV"? I think you meant to say: deleting most of the self-promotion and POV. Dbiel ^(Talk) 00:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course that's what I meant. --LoverOfArt 00:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal

This has been in place for a while now, but the case is still in the new file as we have not taken the next step which is the selection and approval of a Mediator.

Che Nuevara has offered his services as a member of the Mediation Cabal. He has been active in Wikipedia for 2-1/2 years and has work on the Mediation Cabal previously. I feel that he would be a good choice. But for mediation to work, every one must agree to it. So this will be a simple yes / no form to see where we stand, but feel free to add any comments you would like, but limit them to the issue of Mediation, not issues with the article or other users. Note: the names of the most active users have been pre-added to the list. If your name is not listed, feel free to add it to the bottom of the list of name for both questions. Thank you in advance for taking the time to answer the two key questions.

Question #1 - Are you open to mediation?

• Dbiel - YES
• Coterminous - Possibly - Not if CheNuevara is the mediator, however. His comments on my talkpage demonstrate his lack of suitability for this role in this instance. A mediator should come to this process without strong predetermined emotions about the situation.Coterminous 11:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• LoverOfArt - YES --LoverOfArt 00:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Question #2 - Are you willing to accept Che Nuevara as the mediator?

• Dbiel - YES
• Coterminous - NoCoterminous 11:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• LoverOfArt - YES --LoverOfArt 00:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Posted by: Dbiel ^(Talk) 00:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no issues with this. We are in need of consequential mediation here. --LoverOfArt 00:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts on this

I am ready to start over here. Square one. Back to basics. Tabula rasa. Insert some more clichés.

Coterminous - I'm sorry you feel that way. Of course, I made it perfectly clear that I have no feelings one way or the other about NCCC. What I do have strong feelings about is incivility. But I condemn the action and embrace the actor. You'll notice that I also said to LoverOfArt, on multiple occasions, that I thought his behavior was unacceptable and reprehensible.

I bear no grudges for questionable actions. I am perfectly willing to assume good faith on behalf of any editor who professes an earnest desire to act in good faith. I have no opinions about you, Coterminous -- I don't know you at all, and I imagine I never will. I have feelings about your actions, feelings which were echoed by User:Philippe. And I highly doubt you will find anyone willing to mediate this case who does not believe that incivility and personal attacks are reprehensible and unacceptable.

All I would ask is a brief acknowledgment from every editor involved that he agrees to move forward with this process peaceably and respectfully, and then, as far as I'm concerned, this whole episode up until now never happened.

If you do not think I am neutral enough on this issue, I challenge you to find someone who is more neutral than I am. In the meantime I don't intend to abandon this article, and will continue to work with all editors who welcome my presence here. - Che Nuevara 16:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. I'm all for this, philosophically. I would like to caveat by saying that calls for peace, civility and cooperation have already been made numerous times, yet one single user refuses to participate. I will sign on to this most recent implore for cooperation, however, when the inevitable 5,000 word reply comes and it's themed just as all the others have been in the past, how many more calls like this are we to make before we realize it's utterly pointless? I'm all for peace, I'm all for civility and I'm all for burying the hatchet, but I'm not for burying the hatchet time and time and time and time and time and time and time again and then the next time the hatchet comes up, you bury it yet again, delusionally hoping that it won't reappear (which it invariably does). In short, I'm kind of in the "Whatever" phase at this point regarding any further dialog ot structured attempts at cooperation with this user. I guess my life experience tells me that people like this just cannot be guided or made to follow procedures or rules of any kind and this user has reaffirmed that notion in spades. They're too bound up in the confines of their own mind to produce anything of value to anyone but themselves. But sure. Yeah. OK. Want to re-re-re-re-re-re-"Start Over"? OK. Let's give it a try. Ya never know. Maybe the seventeenth time really is the charm. --LoverOfArt 17:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Regrets The Errors

[Suggested Text]:

From June to September of 2007, several false and misleading critical statements appeared at the National Civilian Community Corps (also known as AmeriCorps NCCC) page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Civilian_Community_Corps), in violation of Wikipedia standards. This is the false text as it appeared:

National Civilian Community Corps

"...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"

Wikipedia relies on its readers and volunteer contributors to avoid or challenge and correct misleading or false information.

The following has been called to our attention:

1. The statement that read "...Bovard has been one of the most vocal Americorps NCCC opponents, calling it a "waste and fraud," cited as its source an article at this address by Bovard: http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1000americorps.htm Nowhere in that article does Bovard make that statement. No mention of "AmeriCorps NCCC" nor of the "National Civilian Community Corps" appears in that article, nor is AmeriCorps NCCC called a 'waste and fraud." We regret the error.

2. The same sentence went on to state the following: "...Bovard has been one of the most vocal Americorps NCCC opponents, calling it a "waste and fraud", in addition to dedicating an entire chapter of criticisms of the program in his book "Feeling Your Pain ..."

Upon investigation, this statement turns out to be untrue. Bovard's book (published in hardcover by St. Martin's press) does not contain a chapter of criticisms of AmeriCorps NCCC in the book "Feeling Your Pain. In fact, neither "AmeriCorps NCCC" nor the "National Civilian Community Corps are mentioned at all in the text of that book nor in the book index. (The chapter in question concerns the umbrella program, AmeriCorps, but does not mention the program known as "AmeriCorps NCCC'" or the "National Civilian Community Corps".

(The only mention to NCCC is in the footnotes, referring to a speech by then-president Clinton, praising, not criticizing, the NCCC.)

In sum, the book "Feeling Your Pain" does not dedicate "an entire chapter of criticisms" of AmeriCorps NCCC, contrary to the information posted at the Wikipedia website. We regret the error.

3. Also untrue was the sentence "Robert Sweet, the former director of the National Institute of Education, labeled it [i.e., AmeriCorps NCCC] "a fraud". This sentence was misleading and false. It was placed at the National Civilian Community Corps page and referred to the antecedent in the previous sentence, the AmeriCorps NCCC.

The claim relied on the article by Bovard at http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1000americorps.htm. No mention of either the "National Civilian Community Corps" nor of "AmeriCorps NCCC" appears in that article. No evidence has been put forward to support the statement that Mr. Sweet ever labeled AmeriCorps NCCC a "fraud." We regret the error.

Wikipedia deeply regrets that this misleading text appeared at our National Civilian Community Corps website and that it persisted for as long as it did.

The editor responsible for its appearance and continued re-emergence will no longer have access to the National Civilian Community Corps Wikipedia entry.

Signed: _____

Calls to move forward on the National Civilian Community Corps page, to be a team player, etc., would be better received by this editor if Wikipedia posted a note something like the above at the NCCC site - not to mention, it might restore some of Wikipedia's credibility on this subject. Given the nature of the NCCC - a substantial and serious component of U.S. disaster relief and mitigation capacity - and its recent near-demise following misleading claims like those posted at Wikipedia, the statement above is not written as amusement.Coterminous 17:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Coterminous: Wikipedia editors are not authorized to speak for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an open project, and it represents the entire community. There are only three entities which can speak for Wikipedia:

1. Jimmy Wales
2. the Foundation
3. the community with consensus on an issue

It's pretty obvious that we have none of those here.

If you would like to personally state your regrets to NCCC, nobody will stop you. However, a small band of editors cannot and should not attempt to speak for Wikipedia. - Che Nuevara 17:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Note on my last edit summary: My edit summary says "speak to Wikipedia". Clearly I meant "speak for Wikipedia". - Che Nuevara 17:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, Per "Now That We've Gotten That Out Of Our Systems"

I think it's time we make some actual practical, progress in improving this article rather than constantly being distracted into chasing our tails. In the WP: Notability heading above, we discussed the need to cull some entries per WP: NPOV and WP: RS. I think a large number of the recently added 'achievement quotes' constitute self-promotion and NPOV and should be cut. Also, I believe a number of the headings could be combined into a more efficient heading.

If someone disagrees with this, please speak now. If someone agrees, please speak now. I will file an administrative request to edit a protected article once we decide what's appropriate. --LoverOfArt 23:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I would be interested in your response to the sub page concept. No one has yet to comment on it. I did note that you have made some edits to your copy of the critisim section. My thoughts were to then limit the discussion of the section to the talk page that is attach to it, as such, if you are to the process, I would like to see you comments as to why the changes you made are an improvement. Note: I am making no judgement on the changes at this time, simply trying to define the process. And as stated any comments would be on the other talk page.

Since the article is locked, the only way to really work on it at this time is via the use of sub pages. as such I will attempt to set up another sub page which will probably include several sections. Dbiel ^(Talk) 23:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Change of Heart - Page orgainization first

After a bit more thinking, it might be best to talk and argree on the overall orgainization of the page first, and then start editing those sections one at a time. The current layout is: Contents [hide]

• 1 History
• 2 Founding Directors of NCCC
• 3 Program Accomplishments
• 4 NCCC and Environmental Conservation
• 5 NCCC and Education
• 6 NCCC Fire Fighting and Fire Mitigation
• 7 Criticisms of the National Civilian Community Corps
• 8 NCCC Funding
• 9 See also
• 10 Footnotes
• 11 External links

Actually I think that I will drop this onto a sub-page as it will be easier to work with their Dbiel ^(Talk) 23:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I think history is a good first heading. I think founding directors should be culled all together WP: Notability or merged into the history section if people think the first appointed directors are particularly notable (I absolutely don't). Program accomplishments should absorb #'s 4, 5 and 6. Also, those same numbers need to be shortened and examined for WP:NPOV, WP:Notability and WP:RS extensively. Criticisms should have it's own heading (obviously, for POV reasons, given that there are plenty of people who have criticisms of the program). We are going to have to address "criticisms" more carefully and examine it more closely. A number of criticisms levied about "Americorps" in general have resulted from NCCC projects (and vice versa) even though "Americorps" is the general nomenclature used. When I was in NCCC, we were almost exclusively referred to by our project sponsors as "Americorps teams", not "NCCC teams". I don't think NCCC is a 'magic word' in prospective criticisms. I've emailed Jim Bovard directly through his website to see if he can't lead me to any of his published material that is more specific, or, that he can affirm specifically addressed NCCC content. If I don't hear back, there are plenty of other sources- I simply picked him because he was one of the most vocal critics. If not, oh well. Plenty of other published criticisms to add. I believe funding should be shortened only to that which is notable. per WP:Notability. Right now, I think it's pretty close to being good. --LoverOfArt 01:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Could I get you to look at sub page: Talk:National Civilian Community Corps/Structure and add your comments and suggestion. Keep in mind that those edits were done prior to your comments here, so feel free to repeat yourself on the other talk page. Dbiel ^(Talk) 02:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

My very strong preference is that article work be done here, and not on a subpage. I think for archival purposes, it would be easier to keep everything in one place. - Philippe | Talk 02:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding self promotion quotes... The "According To" quotes have got to go. They are totally unencyclopedic. Starting in the main heading, "According to Charles Moskos, professor emeritus of sociology at Northwestern University:

"According to the executive director of a Nature Conservancy..." under NCCC and Environmental Conservation (which itself should be merged elsewhere)

"According to Senator Mikulski of Maryland..." under fire fighting (which, again, doesn't need its own heading)Fire fighting also suffers from another "according to" quote. with "In 2006, the Boulder Colorado Ranger District..."

Per WP:Notability, under "Education" there is an irrelevant anecdote that should be culled and replaced with something better and/or more encompassing. "An example of a National Civilian Community Corps educational project is its work with the Harford County, Maryland..." --LoverOfArt 17:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I fully understand your objection to these passages. Now would be the time for anyone to object to the removal and propose new ideas if they have them.

I have to insist, however, that you shy away from the line of argumentation that they should be removed per WP:N. Your objections seem to be in line with WP:RS -- they are not necessarily qualified to speak on NCCC nor are their opinions necessary neutral or neutrally applied. As I said above, however, WP's notability guidelines apply only to article subjects, not to content of subjects that have already been deemed notable.

I'm glad to see this is going so well in the last 24 hours. - Che Nuevara 18:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I will agree that the phrases: according to really do not belong; but more importantly the references to the multiple sections really needs to be worked on first as that will have a bearing on just how the rest of it is developed. I will point right back to Talk:National Civilian Community Corps/Structure. I would love to see some feed back on the changes I made. Hopefully someone can make some impovements. Dbiel ^(Talk) 18:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest something slightly different. Bear in mind I don't know a lot about the topic, but I would organize it like this:

History

Structure

Leadership

Funding

Programs (with subs as you've done)

Impact and reactions

Accomplishments

Criticisms

I would say that "accomplishments" (but a neutral presentation thereof) is more relevant to the article than "praise", because it's obvious that the people involved with the program or the people supporting the program are going to praise it; their praise doesn't actually add any information to the article. Similarly, the criticisms of the program should focus heavily on substantial criticisms -- mentions of ideological criticisms are fine in order to put criticisms in context, but clearly libertarians are going to object to it on principle, and discussion of the merits or lack of merits of the program itself are what is illuminating.

Obviously this would have to be done neutrally and without original research. - Che Nuevara 21:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I'm moving the structure page to Talk:National Civilian Community Corps/Structure -- mainspace subpages are disabled on en.wiki, so this actually shows up as an article. - Che Nuevara 21:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

We have to keep in mind that establishing some of the criticisms might require some pretty aggressive "clarification" that might be construed as WP:OR depending on who is doing the construing. A number of criticisms made about "Americorps" have been directly predicated on projects undertaken by NCCC teams, even though "Americorps" or "Americorps Team" is the most common phraseology. For example, if someone chastises "Americorps" for painting a mural on the side of a pawn shop in Indiana and it turns out that "Americorps" really means a NCCC team, how do we address that if the only published 'criticism' is unspecific? Even though "Americorps" is the only nomenclature used, the criticism was directly addressing actions undertaken by a NCCC team. This is VERY common with criticisms of Americorps where "Americorps" is criticized without any specific nomenclature cited to specify exactly what program is in question. --LoverOfArt 01:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It has to be clearly demonstrated in that instance that the NCCC team was what was intended. If it really is that cut-and-dry, then that shouldn't be a problem. - Che Nuevara 18:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

As posted at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Philippe

[regarding a suggested "Wikipedia Regrets the Errors"; regarding the "According to ____ format for information cited; regarding mediation.]

"This most recent 'fantasy oriented' post is emblematic of a large part of the reason why I requested this user be blocked. In addition to generally incorrect and inappropriate edits to the NCCC article all around, it's pretty apparent that we are dealing with a fairly severe personality disorder. You can start from square one with all of the patience and good faith that many of us have already extended and expended, but we've tried that (see discussion log) and it's utterly pointless. I'll renew my call for a permanent user and IP range block. --LoverOfArt 17:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)"

"Coterminous, you're right about one thing: there's not a snowball's chance in hell of anything like that being published by this encyclopedia, and certainly not under my signature. Administrators are not empowered to make statements such as you suggest, and I assure you that they are out of the norm for the project. I encourage you, for the final time, to take advantage of the dispute resolution procedures, beginning with mediation. If you do not accept mediation, other steps will have to be taken. - Philippe | Talk 19:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)"

Ugly Personal Attacks - You Approve??

"Good Morning, Philippe. The post above yours, by LoverofArt, is typical of his posts in my direction. An ugly personal attack, by a person who has in essence defamed a widely respected organization -- the National Civilian Community Corps -- by posting false and misleading information at the Wikipedia website. If your / Wikipedia's best idea is that what should happen next is that I enter into a prolonged dialogue with that person, hoping to reason with him/her, while he/she continues to exert control over content and issue ugly diatribes, then your processes leave a great deal to be desired. A responsible adult -- a real Editor -- should have interceded long ago.

He/she and the others working over the NCCC text at this time seem to feel that any statement introduced by the phrase "According to ___," does not belong at Wikipedia. As I read it, there was objection at one of your pages to placing references at the end of that phrase rather than at the end of the quotation. Why an encyclopedia would have as a policy including bald claims (as if fact) without reference to the source in its text eludes me. It would give the impression that the encyclopedia had evaluated the statement, which is obviously not the case.

I appreciate Wikipedia's effort to provide freely accessible information to the public. I am not impressed, however, by the response to gross errors made at the Wikipedia site. Your crew is attacking the messenger at least in part because it is the message that it does not like. A pretty sorry performance, which you seem to be joining by failing to address the issues I raise or the attacks on me. Pull LoverofArt out of this situation and I will join in a dispute resolution process regarding editing the NCCC site. I refuse to have further dealings with him/her.Coterminous 11:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)"

Someday, I imagine we are going to do something about this user, once and for all... Until then, here we are again, being baited into chasing our tails. Again... We aren't discussing philosophy. We are arguing with a user who has an abject lack of knowledge about Wikipedia rules and believes that their own "good intentions" and the same "good intentions" of the program should trump the structures of the site. At this point, Coterminous, I think you're seriously overestimating the desire of other people regarding actually wanting you in the article. In the beginning, there seemed to be some hope, however, at this point, you've proven to be nothing more than a marginally sane disruption without a clue as to what is or isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. Keep burning up what little good faith you have left- I already know how this is going to turn out for you (people like yourself are remarkably consistent with cementing your own fates) and when it finally does, we can all more forward with improving this article for the better, free from the distractions caused by tantrums and lunatic ravings.

Admins, we are about to lose page protection in a few more days- as you can see, the dialog regarding improving this article has been limited to a few select individuals, without any constructive participation by the person who caused the need for our page protection request in the first place. Can we p l e a s e do something definite about this? The concept of good faith doesn't mean being blind to the facts or delusionaly avoiding the inevitable. --LoverOfArt 15:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought we were going to put this all behind us and move on. Complaining about other editors does no good. To say, kick him out and then I will participate is childish. Get over it. This applies to everyone. Lets deal with the article rationally, ONE point at a time in a discussion manner. So far Coterminous is the only one not to agree to mediation. Dbiel ^(Talk) 12:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

please put on the breaks

Okay, guys. This whole ordeal is getting way out of hand. One or both of you is going to get blocked if this continues this way.

There's no reason it has to go down like this. But the disruptiveness and personal attacks need to stop, without condition or qualification, on both sides.

The most reasonable conclusion to this would be if everyone involved puts the breaks on personal attacks and disruptions and starts engaging all other editors in a civil and peaceable fashion. I'm not going to ask anyone to agree to do this. I'm simply going to say I expect it of everyone. It's Wikipedia policy, and it's not negotiable.

Every editor has the right to expect civility from every other editor and has an obligation to be civil to every other editor. - Che Nuevara 16:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Affirmed and endorsed. My patience with this discussion is now exhausted. The very next personal attacks and/or inuendo and/or disruptive editing out of either of the parties in questions will be met with the gravest possible consequences. - Philippe | Talk 16:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, good. So we've all arrived back on the same page that we've all already been on for the past week. Hooray. Can we get back to working on the article now? --LoverOfArt 17:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Structure

If we combine leadership and funding under a "structure" heading, how about adding some sort of a "teams" heading that would outline the corps member "team" structure? There's a lot written about the teams, and since they are the central component of NCCC, I think that a "teams" subheading would be appropriate under the "Structure" main heading. Clearly, we would have to avoid the addition of anecdote and irrelevant "quotes" - ie- "According to Bozo Jonze, Professor Emeritus of Feel-Good University..." but I do think we could add a substantive "teams" subheading using existing WP:RS. --LoverOfArt 18:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It would work best if you simply edited the structure page to indicate what you are talking about Dbiel ^(Talk) 18:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The admin requested that we not use the other page. I personally disagree with this as the structure page seems to make the most sense, but it was a request and I'll abide by it. --LoverOfArt 18:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The request was not to use the other page to discuss the issue, in fact that page has actually been deleted. What is left is a working page to display the changes, discussion should happen here, but testing can be done there Talk:National Civilian Community Corps/Structure Remember the main page is protected. The sub page gives use some working space. Dbiel ^(Talk) 18:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Dbiel is correct -- the request was not to make a mediation subpage. We're not doing that. Obviously, with the article locked, any editing progress naturally needs to be made on a temp article, which the subpage allows. This is standard practice. - Che Nuevara 19:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, OK, good. I'll start with some ideas there. --LoverOfArt 19:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, since we are re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-"Starting Over", does anyone have any objections to my archiving this talk page so we can all start fresh and new with quality discussion about the article itself? --LoverOfArt 18:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Last call for objections regarding archiving this talk page and starting with a new one? --LoverOfArt 19:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)