Talk:Civilian Public Service

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleCivilian Public Service has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 7, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
August 31, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
July 4, 2009Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Boxing?[edit]

Does anyone find it curious that boxing was practiced in camps largely composed of conscientious objectors?68.116.99.140 20:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A little, but it was more common in that era to teach young men to box as a basic form on exercise. My understanding is that most of the stigma attached to the sport was developed by the next generation. --Ahc 02:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it was a very common physical education sport in that era. Also, amateur boxing is general about scoring points, not knocking your opponent unconscious like in prize fights. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 03:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My father served in CPS. He was also an amateur boxer and played semi-pro football. Being a CO is not about shunning physical competition. It's about intent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Str8dg (talk • contribs) 08:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible missing word?[edit]

The sentence associated with reference #29 is:

The men later indicated they would have volunteered for this project had they known how rigorous it would turn out to be.

It's a strange way to state that they would have happily volunteered, even had they known the difficulty of the exercise, but it'd be a very natural way to state that they would NOT have volunteered for the project had they fully understood it. The reference appears to be to a book which I do not possess; can anyone check it? Jouster  (whisper) 17:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be caused by conflicting sources. The not was removed here, which disagrees with either the Gingerich or Keim source of the original statement. ✤ JonHarder talk 02:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed this particular sentence. It is not significant to the article and it would be difficult to concisely represent and document the variety and complexity of the participant's later responses. ✤ JonHarder talk 14:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slavery?[edit]

Isn't this whole concept a 13th Amendment issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.6.59.39 (talk) 14:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. CPS was an alternative to the military draft. The Supreme Court ruled some years ago that the draft is constitutional. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This WAS slavery. My father was in the CPS camps, and he would complain that they were paid about $2.00 or $2.50 a month (from the Quakers, not the Federal Government). The German POWs in America were paid $0.10 an hour for their work, but not a cent was paid by the U.S. Government for work done by American COs. They served their country during WWII, but do they receive Veterans benefits for this, NO. This was slavery, pure and simple. The Supreme Court allowed slavery until the 1860s, and the U.S. Constitution was written with the implicit acceptance of slavery. So much for the rule of law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.76.39 (talk) 15:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Low wages beats getting shot at. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Civilian Public Service/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

This article has failed to meet the Good Article criteria because it does not have sufficient references, per WP:CITE. A significant amount of information, including the "Camp life" section, the "Medical experiments", and the " Epilogue", don't have any references or only have one for an entire section.

Once this issue has been resolved, please renominate the article. Gary King (talk) 16:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review #2[edit]

Transcluded from Talk:Civilian_Public_Service/GA2. Placing on hold for up to a week for editors to address. Jclemens (talk) 16:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    Typos: 1) "Mennoniite Publishing House" 2) WWI -> WW I. I've never seen WWI (without the space) be used in print before, but I see that WWI is a redirect to World War I so I'm willing to be convinced that is acceptable. 3) C. Everett Koop block quote--reference outside quotation marks.
    • All three of these have been addressed plus taking references out of other quotes.[1] ✤ JonHarder talk 22:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    1) ISBNs are missing from multiple books listed as references. 2) "This research aided in development of more effective new drugs that proved more effective than quinine.[43]" Specify, or drop it. If they suffered and died futilely ruling out potential vaccines, say that. If they actually aided in finding a real one, say that too. Feels weasel-y the way it's worded now. 3) I have a generalized concern that too many of the extraordinary claims of medical mistreatment and experimentation are based on one, perhaps two sources--the PBS documentary and Keim's book, assuming that PBS didn't use Keim for its own source. I believe it appropriate for the editors of this article to assemble a better array of sources to deflect skepticism that will likely arise. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary documentation, and I just don't feel comfortable that this has met this threshold yet. I see that a number of additional footnotes have been added since last GA review, but it still feels sparse.
    • The Gingerich and Krahn books predate the ISBN system; it is likely the Dyck book never received an ISBN number (none is listed in the book). I moved a non-reference book into "Further reading" and provided the ISBN.
    • I removed the "more effective than quinine" sentence. I can't find a source that gives more details than the Keim book.
    • I add a third source, Gingerich, to the medical experimentation section. [2] ✤ JonHarder talk 22:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Only one concern: Image:CPS18erosioncontrol.jpg -- it's not easy to see at all what this depicts in thumbnail size. Consider removal or resizing.
    • I removed the image. Even at full size it is difficult to make out what is depicted.[3] ✤ JonHarder talk 22:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Jclemens (talk) 05:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it possible to take the image out of the notes section?
    • I'm not seeing a real problem with the image in the notes section. ✤ JonHarder talk 22:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you shrink the main image; it makes reading the lead pretty difficult.

Just a few other minor notes, on request from Jclemens... the GA review generally looks good, and the article is pretty close too! —Giggy 07:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: Please update this article. The week given on hold for time to make improvements has expired. Jclemens (talk) 18:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per conversation on his talk page, the nominator is out of town. I will be out of town for a few days as well, so leaving this in hold status for an additional week. Jclemens (talk) 07:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further Reading?[edit]

Any thoughts about adding a short 'Further Reading' section? There are a number of good books published about the CPS. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 00:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review #3[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Civilian Public Service/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
GA review (see here for criteria)

Please consider addressing the remaining issues and pursuing FAC for this article. It's informative, educational, and well-researched.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    Generally good prose, although certain usages (e.g. "Friends" to refer to members of the Society of Friends) might be a bit obscure for readers not familiar with those usages. Do have a copyeditor unfamiliar with such work through the article before an FAC.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Almost every paragraph has a citation, and the most contentious assertions are cited well, but it's going to need better citations for FA. I generally use books with {{cite book}} sans page numbers and then use {{rp}} to indicate page numbers, but I don't think the way you've done it violates the MOS--and certainly not the GA MOS standards.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Great work. If there's one thing more that this article COULD cover, it's what happened to the 1 in 8 who eventually transferred from CPS to the military.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    No issues.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
    If anything, it's been neglected!
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    File:CPS31snow.jpg is a bit hard to understand at its thumbnail resolution. Consider enlarging it.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    A few minor issues remain, but not sufficient to preclude GA recognition. Congratulations!

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Civilian Public Service. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Civilian_Public_Service&oldid=1206705802"