Talk:National Civilian Community Corps

Master Index of pages

• Discussion Sub Pages:

• Article structure sub page - to be use to test different structure options.

• Archive Pages

• Archive 1 - May 2007 thur October 10, 2007
• Archive 2 - October 11, 2007 thru Morning of October 15, 2007
• Archive 3 - The remains of the Criticisms Section sub page

OK, Old Talk Archived. Lets start over

I went ahead and made some changes to the structure page. Talk:National_Civilian_Community_Corps/Structure I added some other headings (Unmet Human Needs, Public Safety, etc). Also, I think that there are three distinct components to NCCC history. Inception, the time period from 1993 to the year 2005 when the program saw some dramatic funding cuts and the Post-Katrina era where the program and its intent saw an upsurge in interest and viability (which was immediately subsequent to the funding cuts and the OMB "ineffective" report). I made subheadings on the "history" main heading to reflect this. Also, on "Differing Points Of View", I specified "NCCC Philosophy" in the title, as that seems to be where most of the differences originate. Any thoughts? --LoverOfArt 19:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I still think that the "praise/criticism" distinction is a bit forced -- obviously people who like the program are going to have great things to say about it. Having "praise" section is quite unusual in a Wikipedia article. I suggested "impact and reactions" as a way to discuss first the actual effects of the program and second reactions to it. To juxtapose praise and criticisms implies that we are going to law out the moral and ethical arguments surrounding this program, which is not really the responsibility of Wikipedia. It's a little too OR-ish for my tastes. - Che Nuevara 20:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I like "Impact and Reactions." It does make more sense. I'll change it on the working page and if anyone has any objections to it, they can discuss it here. --LoverOfArt 20:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, what is meant by "Unmet human needs"? - Che Nuevara 22:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I like the changes to the structure, but agree with CheNuevara, "Unmet human needs"? I have no idea where that is headed. Dbiel ^(Talk) 23:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Unmet Human Needs is, word for word, a stated function of the program. Think working at homeless shelters, picking up garbage in "poor" neighborhoods, etc. Google nccc "UNMET HUMAN NEEDS" --LoverOfArt 03:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

When the section is expanded, then we can readdress the issue if needed, for the time being, the above explanation seems good. Dbiel ^(Talk) 11:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello All, Sorry to be late to the game, but I haven't read the wiki for NCCC lately, in fact the last time I read it, it was still a stub. After having combed through all the business of the last 90 or so days, I think something got lost, and I really want to contribute. The criticisms section cites an article that doesn't mention NCCC at all. Yes it rags on AmeriCorps, but in this context isn't that analogous to ragging on Kraft Cheese because they are owned by Phillip-Morris? Shouldn't it be moved to the main page? If you HAVE to have a criticism section, why not use the PART that OMB issued that can be found at expectmore.gov?? Just my 2 cents. And yes, to get it out of the way, I am an Alum, from the now-closed DC campus, which is A. why my IP is in VA and B. Why I care that NCCC is repped right. Thanks! BurgerNFries306 01:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually you are not late. We had an edit war going on which resulted in a one week protection lock on the article. The sub pages were an attempt to keep working on the article during the protection lock and in a way that might allow each editor to edit their own copy of the article or section of the article. It was an attempt that failed. I will be removing the sub page and archiving the talk portion of it. Editing has been slow since the lock was removed. I am glad to see someone else interested in the article. Dbiel ^(Talk) 01:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! Well, just to be sure, it is ok to make edits to the main page?? And before I do ANYTHING, I want to be clear that my intentions are as follows, 1) make sure that link to Bovard is still referenced, but on the MAIN Americorps Page, where is does make a good point 2) Instead reference the OMB PART report that was done in 2005, the only direct criticism of NCCC that I am aware of, or have been able to uncover. I appreciate the intent of LoverOfArt to ensure that POV issues are managed, but I strongly believe that the fox news article makes the wrong case...thoughts? I will wait until I see some feedback, or barring that, I will wait a given period of time, say a week, and then start in on my edits. Sound good? BurgerNFries306 18:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. All I ask is that you do make good use of the edit summary to expain what you just did especially on the article page. Personally I follow the advice another editor gave me, that every edit deserves an edit summary no matter how simple or where it is posted. Those that need an extensive explaination get a simple edit summary "See talk page entry XXXX" that includes a link to the talk page heading. Thanks for your interest in NCCC. Dbiel ^(Talk) 20:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Are we in agreement on the basic structure?

If we are in agreement on the basic structure, maybe it is time to start filling in the sections. Dbiel ^(Talk) 11:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Aye. - Che Nuevara 16:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep, seems OK to me. --LoverOfArt 22:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I've restructured the article to match the /structure subpage. However, I haven't really done work on the text, as I don't feel comfortable doing major revisions, not knowing anything about the subject matter. - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 17:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm a real bum on this one- I['ve been tied up. I'll start making additions in the next week, for sure. --LoverOfArt 02:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

And Thanks...

I do want to offer my most sincere thanks to the people who have put effort into this whole thing. I know some of you don't have any particular interest in the topic, save for interest in seeing the site run properly. Sometimes, it's easy to forget, when having discourse via the internet, that the little blue names on the computer screen represent a real, actual human being, out there somewhere spending their valuable time to make things run better for the benefit of us all. I would like to thank all parties involved, including for those times when I received legitimate and fair criticism for going a bit too far. In hindsight, it's apparent that this topic should be discussed a lot more calmly than it had been --LoverOfArt 22:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

What a nice comment.  :-) - Philippe | Talk 03:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

These things happen. The most important part is admitting it when they do. We all got a little edgy during this one. But that's only all the more reason to do it right from here on in. Cheers and wiki-love to all. - Che Nuevara 22:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Ditto Dbiel ^(Talk) 01:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Just an FYI- I'm going to be out of town until the 23rd, so I won't be able to make any contributions or discussed deletions/additions until that time. Don't want anyone to think that I "forgot" about the article. Just have some pressing business in DC that I have to attend to. --LoverOfArt 23:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm back. Nov 26. I'm going to start work on this article this evening per earlier discussions. --LoverOfArt (talk) 13:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced Statement in NCCC Entry

Re: "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."

I have deleted that statement. Placed at the start of the NCCC entry, phrased the way it is, it implies that NCCC projects are not as necessary. A column in the NY Times this week indicates that most of the CCC's time was spent doing projects just as NCCC does. Furthermore, the disaster relief / environmental restoration projects that NCCC completes successfully are both substantial and necessary.

See http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/opinion/13tues4.html

EDITORIAL OBSERVER Public Works: When ‘Big Government’ Plays Its Role

By ADAM COHEN Published: November 13, 2007

"...The Civilian Conservation Corps, Roosevelt’s favorite, sent hundreds of thousands of young people into the countryside. They landscaped, and made accessible, sites like the battlefields at Gettysburg and Appomattox, and cleared the way for Virginia’s Skyline Drive. Most of their time was spent on tree planting, flood control, soil erosion efforts and fire prevention...."

Coterminous (Yes, you are): I don't have a problem with that deletion, however, we've (wikipedia) gone over this a billion times. Op-Ed pieces or "opinion columns" from newspapers neither prove nor disprove abstract claims regarding viability, validity, importance, etc. You still don't seem to understand what is or isn't appropriate for Wikipedia, however, since I happen to agree with the general theme of your edit (for reasons having to do with NPOV), I won't revert it. We spent a long time trying to make clear to you that sourcing 'opinions' from newspapers isn't appropriate in most- if not all- circumstances. Please, lets not retread this already worn path. --LoverOfArt (talk) 13:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced statement - a major problem with this article

We continue to struggle to unsourced statements being added to this article. The most recent being added by User:70.89.160.222

"but will opening a new campus in Hattiesburg, MS sometime in the near future."

I did not revert the edit as the entire section 2005 - present suffers from the same problem. I hope that someone will be able to source the information before it needs to be deleted. Dbiel ^(Talk) 04:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI-- I don't have a news article reference, which is why I haven't edited to include at this point, but the 2008 budget explanatory statement on the AmeriCorps website references new campuses in Vinton, IA and Vicksburg, MS: "The amended bill includes language, as proposed by the Senate, that of the amount provided for NCCC, no less than $5,000,000 shall be for the acquisition, renovation, equipping, and startup costs for campuses--one located in Vinton, Iowa and the other in Vicksburg, Mississippi." Harsimrankaur (talk) 16:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced section

A new section has been added with the heading ===Rough Years for AmeriCorps*NCCC=== It is totally unreferenced. It was added by an unregistered user. I was tempted to delete the entire section, but will wait to see if some of it can be referenced and salvaged. Dbiel ^(Talk) 23:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I reverted it. By any measure, it isn't appropriate. If someone wants to salvage it, they can get the text from the edit history and add citations and clean up the non-encyclopedic overtones (which will be pretty hard to do, since something like a "rough years" subheading is likely going to have recurring POV issues and the topic itself is non-encyclopedic to begin with) --LoverOfArt (talk) 03:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Exploiting American youth at $4.18 per hour

If you do the math and take the average hours worked as 1850 multipled by the stipend hourly rate ($13/8 hr. day) of $1.625 you get pay of $3006.25 to which you may add the education award of $4,725 for a total financial return of 7,731.25 which if divided by the 1850 hours worked yields not quite $4.18 per hour.

Of course this does not take into account the value of room and board, which is probably very expensive, being a government project, but on the other hand, when a private employer pays room and board (and transportation) for a traveling worker, it is not counted as income to the worker, which is the fair way to view it in this case.

The U.S. minimum wage is currently 6.55/hr. Most college-bound youth (who would be attracted by the education award money) would be able to make better than this in most regions, but NCCC workers will get less than 2/3 of even the U.S. minimum.

If my calculations are correct, I think they should be included in the article because many prospective NCCC workers will consult this article before joining, and we ought to make it easier for them to see where their interests are best served. —Blanchette (talk) 23:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little troubled by this. On one hand, I agree with you for your reasons for wanting to put this information into this article. On the other hand, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as an encyclopedia, it really shouldn't contain opinion. If you could find sources that state that this opinion is out there, then I would certainly suggest you add the information to the article under the criticism section, provided that you properly source it. Illinois2011 (talk) 22:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It is absolutely inappropriate for Wikipedia, as it's an opinion. It's probably OK for us to debate the merits of Blanchettes claim here, but not to include it in the actual article. As it stands, she is simply compiling a series of facts about NCCC and drawing her own independent conclusion. Also, some of those 'assumptions' are very, very wrong, particularly the one where you suggest that the governments costs for room and board are overweight. Many of those costs are absorbed by the project hosts and in some cases, they are non-existent. I would also point out that the functional intent of the program isn't "to make money". It's for people in a certain age range to selflessly serve their country in various capacities. Obviously, if someone is out to "make money", than joining NCCC, the Peace Corps, City Year or other like programs isn't the best avenue for that. As anyone who is familiar with this article knows, I've been a strong proponent for a well formed, fact-based criticism section, as all Americorps programs are severely prone to boosterism by their proponents and alums. There *are* valid criticisms of NCCC, but unfortunately, the standards required for Wikipedia are usually to high for those criticisms to be included, as they're mostly anecdotal in nature. That said, I definitely don't think what's being proposed by Blanchette would be appropriate, until it's examined independently and published somewhere. --LoverOfArt (talk) 06:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm just saying that if Blanchette's claim is a widely held belief, it might be worth mentioning in the criticism section of the article, provided that it is properly sourced. I completely agree with you LoverOfArt. Perhaps Blanchette might not be the best person to put this information in the article, but it's definitely worth taking a look at. Illinois2011 (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

So Um i know that this is a great thing you have done here. However it still lacks information. Do y'all want to get together, online and make this a true source of3 information about the NCCC —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wjwetzel (talk • contribs) 03:05, December 2, 2008 (UTC)

It is a "true source" of information. If you're suggesting that we add anecdote and opinion, unfortunately, no, that isn't what Wikipedia is for. I'm a NCCC alum- I have plenty of anecdotes- both good and bad- that a prospective applicant would LOVE to hear, but Wikipedia isn't the rappropriate venue for that. --LoverOfArt (talk) 02:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

"Team Seepage"

There seems to be an edit war brewing. Someone is incessantly adding what amounts to personal blog content regarding NCCC involvement in the gulf oil spill and "Team Seepage". This includes a now-deleted (as non-notable) "Team Seepage" dedicated article and enriching the NCCC article with weasel words such as "... the legendary Team Seepage". So far, they've been reversed by a number of different editors, only to re-revert or re-add the content. I'd suggest we discuss this here and perhaps, be on the lookout for these edits. Save for a few instances a long time ago, this article has been surprisingly free of self-promotions by current or former corps members, so we might want to ensure it stays that way and remains encyclopedic. LoverOfArt (talk) 09:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)