Talk:She-She-She Camps

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted on 3 April 2015 by reviewer Onel5969 (talk · contribs).

Women's History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women scientists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women scientistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women scientistsTemplate:WikiProject Women scientistsWomen scientists articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Feedback[edit]

not really a newbie, but any help is gratefully accepted. This draft is a result of trying to source BLM firefighters just after the onset of WWII being drafted and being replaced by women in jobs that were seasonal fighting wildland forest fires. Many came from the She-She-She program of 33'-37'. BeeCeePhoto (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per request, here is some feedback...

First, it appears that a number of sentences have been lifted from other sources. This is a copyright violation - please rewriting thing in your own words.
The article should start by defining your subject ("The She-She-She Camps were...), then give a brief outline of the subject. Your current first section should probably be sectioned off as "History" or something like that.
The subject appears to be notable, so you are in good shape there. This seems like a worthwhile topic that should be covered.
I'm not sure why Roosevelt's childhood is relevant
Don't use Wikipedia as a source (ref1). If you copied text from other Wikipedia articles, it was be attributed as explained in WP:Copying within Wikipedia
Use text like this: <nowkik>==Header==</nowiki> to create section headers - this will generated the tale of contents automatically for you

Let me know if you have any questions or are ready for more feedback. --ThaddeusB (talk)

Thanks. Is there a way to check over an article for the the errors you pointed out? As to the history, FDR created the new deal and this one was from his own preferences, so I thought it relevant to the story. The section on Forestry is just the opening paragraph, but the She-She-She content is about right.None of it is from wiki, but I did use brackets that referenced wikis... BeeCeePhoto (talk) 20:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For instance, the 1st ref is to a wiki, the CCC, but it highlights in red as if the link is bad. How to resolve that:BeeCeePhoto (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is "She-She-She Camps" literally the official name of the camps established by this program? What was the official name of the program, at any point? Is "She-She-She Camps: a slang term? Also, I get the impression it was always a separate entity from the CCC, but find no explicit statement on that, or the reverse. It is an interesting article but quite chatty at several points but the title/name and official status seem key to ask about.Kcor53 (talk) 15:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article already exists[edit]

I am about 99% sure that this article already exists and it is called: Civilian Conservation Corp. I am old enough to remember my parents and grandparents talking about this FDR program that it existed to stimulate the economy back in the 30s or 40s. It used to be referred to as: the CCC. I am thinking that is what you are trying to make the title sounds like. The content of your article also matches the content of this already existing article. I'm not sure how you want to proceed from here. But let me know what you want to do next. Best Regards

Bfpage |leave a message 20:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thats the pun it's detractors used in calling them She's[edit]

This article is about Eleanors pet project, the women hired in much the same way as the CCC enrollees, maybe a read will clarify?.?...

See entry under Minorities in the CCC article... once this is approved hope to link it there...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Conservation_Corps it's the only mention of women in that entire article...

So, how ready is this for moving to draft space for review? :BeeCeePhoto (talk) 20:49, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm such a dork! I should read your message more carefully I'm so embarrassed. I will be glad to help you out. (Is my face red?)

Bfpage |leave a message 21:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, that was a bear sized trout. Gotta break, here, started this at 9:30 and shot my day to shittus. Be back later to search for the bad stuff. If you find bad lines, cut them and hopefully I'll see the missing from my ver.... BeeCeePhoto (talk) 21:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Started editing…[edit]

I started sprucing up the article and I think I have lead paragraph roughed out. So take a look and tell me what you think. In the meantime I'll try to fix up the references add some templates, look for some photos find an appropriate info box, put in some wiki links and other little tidbits that make it look more like a real live article. I'll check back tomorrow to see if you like what I'm doing. I can't believe how dumb I was! This really is going to be a great article. It really is and ready for review yet.

Bfpage |leave a message 21:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Assist, it looks like it'll Fly[edit]

I'll have to adjust a few chords to fit the facts, but it looks pretty tweaked. I didn't know about the women's history portal, it should absolutely be great for it. I have to say that having someone take the time to go over and make edits is really helpful, maybe the next one I'll even ask for advice. (it's already written, but that's jumping the pen...), anyhoo, the change in title from Leftists to Critics Ill have to sleep on; I think most of the anti-she+ block and media attention came from conservatives who label anything they didn't agree with as subversive, AKA Reds (commie-pinko-fascist), or leftist. [[n. Smith also wanted to teach “workers’ education”, a term that had a strong communist association. She related years later, “I hardly dared mention it because it was so unpopular.”

Workers'education was ... "unusual because it involved three groups virtually ignored at the time: women, blue collar workers, and blacks..

And what is workers' education? I think the first thing is to say what workers' education is and what it is not. I'd like to say, first, it is not vocational education. Many people think that that is what it is; it's not trade training for workers. That's entirely separate, should supplement workers' education and go along with it. But it is not the same thing. Workers' education is a specialized branch of adult education. It covers in general the economic and labor problems related to the experience of industrial workers, office workers, farmers, anything that touches the economic field. It is also and usually supplemented with much work in English, with elementary science, social psychology, with history, with a background of life in the United States. It touches: employers' problems, trade union problems, the worker in the community as citizen, the government's relation to industry and to the labor movement.

Interview with Hilda Worthington Smith, Franklin D. Roosevelt Library, Hyde Park, NY, October 17, 1963Robco311 17:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

However, the program failed to get off the ground.]] Smith was later removed from being able to create curriculum or direct management of the camps. It was what dominated stories against the camps and hearing of a short lived riot at one camp in montana (might need to add that tidbit) plus lurid 'escapees for sex' attacking the mens camp next valley over, well, titling it Critics may be the better take....Should I open it for review? p.s. found relevant pictures, how to place them in a gallery at end? BeeCeePhoto (talk) 06:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having trouble with this sentence...[edit]

The Native American women were paid an additional allotment to find rental housing and travelled with the men who went off the reservation to work, as no camp for Native American men was established, and many travelled as a family group.Robco311 03:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeeCeePhoto (talk • contribs)

Article looks amazing![edit]

I'm responding to a message that you left on my talk page. The quote that you mentioned is over 78 years old so yes it would be in the public domain. I think it would fit good with the article. You've done an amazing job on this article. You've brought it to life in such a short time. Many times articles take weeks and weeks of work to get it to the state that yours is in right now. I'll try to take a closer look at it later today. Congratulations! I hope you are planning on writing more articles because it looks like this is something you are good at.

Bfpage |leave a message 11:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, Your help was invaluable in creating this article and making it fly on Wikipedia!! For your help, == A barnstar for you! ==

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Your article She-She-She Camps is wonderful! You've done such a great job. Robco311 15:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

A Version from January, 2021[edit]

Even though the cost per man was almost double that per women times 50, - ($39 vs $80, 8,500 vs 2.5 million men = 295x) was removed as uncited, returning that along with removing a few of the 'citation required' that were added before this citation was published. Really good version of the article with maps. https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/02050ee5b4d543cf93821f56382367c2 CaptJayRuffins (talk) 14:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]