Block, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, Check users, delete, edit, Moderators, move, oversight, protect, ratelimit-exempt, rollback
19,965
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 52:
Line 52: + + +
Wide vs. Focused meaning
AmesG. is an incompetent in the legal scholarship he pretends to (and the very falsities he stands on to elevate himself, he uses as a means, and the elevation as a position, to insult others), and thus I intend to restore the material and undo the damage of his interpolations by removing them altogether without further examination. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 16:16, 24 September 2014 (EDT)
AmesG. is an incompetent in the legal scholarship he pretends to (and the very falsities he stands on to elevate himself, he uses as a means, and the elevation as a position, to insult others), and thus I intend to restore the material and undo the damage of his interpolations by removing them altogether without further examination. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 16:16, 24 September 2014 (EDT)
==Wide vs. Focused meaning==
I don't want to blunder into an old DMZ, but I'd just like to point out one thing. In the intor paragraph, I see a good description of the general topic of eugenics. However, the last sentance of the intro seems out of place, when it suddenly shifts to a very specific topic of eugenics by saying, "What this meant, in actual practice, was forced sterilization of American immigrants and minorities (particularly in California.)" If this page is about eugenics as a whole, shouldn't the perspective stay wide? In other words, shouldn't such a comment go into a subsection, like "Cases of Eugenics," rather than right in the intro to a general topic? (Am I even making any sense here?) --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|talk]]) 12:26, 7 March 2016 (EST)