Talk:Eugenics Board of North Carolina

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Proposed merger[edit]

The articles Eugenics Board of North Carolina and North Carolina Eugenics Board duplicate the same topic and scope. Looking at the length and history of the two articles, I suggest merging North Carolina Eugenics Board into Eugenics Board of North Carolina and making North Carolina Eugenics Board a redirect. --BlueCanoe (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree. All the info is duplicated here pretty much already. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 18:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Update needed[edit]

I am not a native speaker of English but I want to signal that following the recent news this article may need update; some sources: (Nenalizard (talk) 16:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC))

Updating Page[edit]

As part of a course on Public Policy Analysis, I will be updating this page to improve references, citations and overall narrative.Hammancheez (talk) 01:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I will be working to enhance the content of this article by providing additional citations and adding more information on the subject matter. This is a part of my interdisciplinary application of biology course and I am looking forward to being an active contributor! Nkhudgens (talk) 19:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)nkhudgens
Both of these proposals sound to be fine. Make sure you don't both try to edit at the same time, else you will get an edit conflict. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Major update coming[edit]

This evening I will be uploading a major rewrite of this page. It comprises several new sections, 40 new citations, and several images. Existing sections will be heavily modified. Preview can be seen on my sandbox page. Hammancheez (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Possible Changes[edit]

Looking over your page I see that there is a Eugenics Board of North Carolina page and a North Carolina Eugenic Board page, it seems to me that these two pages should be merged into one page to make all the information more concise and in one central location. Another thing that can be merged together is the number of victims and the stories of the victims, I think that these two could potentially become one and be label under victims. Also the page needs to be properly cited, with reliable sources. You can also add hyperlinks to link this page to others; Making the page easier to navigate for users. Also the controversy tab could be update, and you could potentially add a couple of paragraphs under that section. To give the article visual aids add a couple of figures and pictures, maybe one from the Department of Public Welfare under the organization and administration tab. Furthermore it seems like there could be more information added under the organization and administration tab. I know you are still working on the page but so far you have done a good job, keep up the good work!--Mespinos (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Well I will answer about the duplicate articles. A merger was proposed above in January. Just hasn't been done yet. I for one was waiting to see which one would be worked on more and was looking into what the correct board name was. Now I don't see any reason to not redirect North Carolina Eugenics Board to this article. Will correct that now. The other stuff I'll let others look at before doing anything else with it. Think you are right, though, about the victims sections being consolidated. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I've added my rewrites (per post above). It includes many of the points above (organizing information, adding citations, etc). Hammancheez (talk) 23:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Article Rating Change & Improvements[edit]

As a Wikipedia Ambassador, I have read many good articles produced by students. I must say this is one of those that is quite well done. On top of the good writing, I think this has the length and content quality to reach B class. It is a very good read, and from what I can tell, the sources are very accurate, especially on a difficult topic such as this. I have a few notes about this. First, lob off the overview, instead incorporate it into the introduction at the top of the article. It should be 2-3 paragraphs summarizing the article, citations are fine, but are not necessary. Next, there are many paragraphs (such as in the dates sections early on), the quote under the legal sections, and all bullet points that need citations at the end of them. I can tell which source they are coming from, but you all have to cite the source at the end of each paragraph and bullet point. This way it is clear that it coming from the same source (or multiple sources if you cite 2+ at the end of each paragraph). Overall great article, and I hope you all can make these changes because the citations are very well done and the article is very expansive and informative on this topic. All that were involved should be proud. Kayz911 (talk) 02:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Tightened up intro, added specific reference links to paragraphs in legal sections and bullet points. Hammancheez (talk) 15:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Hat's off to Hammancheez!! You did an outstanding job! I am the instructor for the other two students who were working on the page; we'll find something else for their assignment. Waterbug42 (talk) 17:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Why the F*** is there a Justification section?[edit]

Where's the "justification" section for the holocaust wiki? Why not lay out the "good" that it would do? Christ.

-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Updating Links and Page[edit]

Hi, I think this page could benefit from being updated. The External Links section has beneficial links to the North Carolina Office of Justice for Sterilization Victims, unfortunately the three other links do not work. This includes the links to for Elaine Riddick, The Winston Salem Journal, and the news article by Martha Waggoner. These should probably either be updated or removed all together. The other way I think this article could be improved is in update on the restitution process. The last information given from 2013 said that restitution money was allocated in the appropriations bill. Did restitution ever come to fruition? If it hasn't why is that so? I think the article can benefit from exploring the opposing viewpoint in terms of restitution. Is this opposing group preventing restitution from being given? Mcogden (talk) 02:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)