Talk:North Carolina Community College System policy on admission of undocumented students

Wikipedia Ambassador Program assignment
This article was the subject of an educational assignment at Western Carolina University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program&#32;during the 2012 Q2 term. Further details are available on the course page.

Above message substituted from on 14:17, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Discission
If anyone has any suggestions, post them here. Overall I feel this article is very well done, and I am moving it up to a C class article for now. Kayz911 (talk) 03:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Illegal aliens
The phrase "illegal aliens" is used 11 times in this article. For many people, the phrase "illegal aliens" is considered derogatory and pejorative and the phrase "undocumented persons" is preferred. For example, the title of this article uses the phrase "undocumented students" rather than "illegal alien students". (And yes, I know there are those who think that "illegal aliens" is exactly the right term to use.) I hesitate to make this change unilaterally so I thought I'd bring up the issue here and let someone else closer to the article consider the issue and make the changes if appropriate.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Concerning the cleanup tag
User Stuartyeates put a cleanup tag on the article. User Catamount800 deleted it without a reason given in the edit summary. I restored it and have been working on the article some because, frankly, I agree with some of the reasons given in the cleanup tag. Maybe not all of them. I have been told that this was part of a kind of drive-by, mass tagging of some articles. Even if that is so, the article does need some work. Maybe that tag is not the best one to use, but just saying "I think this is a great article" is not really good enough. Catamount800 has taken it off again and I do not intend to restore it, but know that the article DOES need some work. It has not reached the WP:GA status yet, anyway. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 20:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I have added the "Clean up" tag back to the article. I do not really know what this means or what else can be added. I have written 99% of the article and given every resource I could find. The only other possibility I feel like that could be added is the criticism given in news paper articles. If anybody can help me to get this article on the "good article" level, I would really appreciate it. This is up to Wikipedia users to decide how this page should be. Any addition to this article would be a lot of help. I feel as if I have done a great part for this policy and I want to learn more about it from other users. Thank you. Catamount800 (talk) 20:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The list of things that I included reads Merge many references, add wiki links, increase diversity of reference, rewrite lede for an international audience, etc. Taking these in order: Merge many references Many of the references are letters compiled into a single PDF. There is absolutely no need for these to be cited in such a voluminous fashion add wiki links Links to other articles are what holds wikipedia together. There need to be more of them, usually when a term is (re)introduced for the first time. (I'll do the first para shortly) increase diversity of reference All the references are form the last twenty years, did no one in NC consider this before then? Has this situation not arisen in other states? rewrite lede for an international audience I suspect that this is going to have to be done by someone not immersed in the issue. I hope this feedback helps. BTW reporting third party speculations of motive isn't usually productive. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I just corrected much of the citation overkill with the duplicate references, but left wanted someone else to look over it to see if there could be other consolidation before I took it out of the cleanup tag. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 21:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And also wikilinked some more terms. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 21:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

When I was writing this article, the pdf document is what I had the most trouble with. I had no idea how to cite it best and so the way I cited it was the only way I could think of. So you have answered my question from a long time ago of how to cite this. Thank you! Catamount800 (talk) 21:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem. Reference formatting tends to be an issue a lot of newer (and sometimes even experienced) users have some issues with. I don't think it was the research that you did being called into question (at least, not by me). Most of it was just technical formatting and Manual of Style issues. Some things might need rewording, possibly, but just keep up the good work. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've done the links now. Is there a sane reason why this article and Undocumented students in the United States seem to exist in parallel universes without talking about any of the same things? I've just added a link from here to there. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The reason would be that I am new to wikipedia and this article is brand new. The other article may be much older. The person who wrote the other article probably does not even know about North Carolina's policy. Just a theory of course. But I am sure glad somebody liek you came in and fixed that for the wikipedia world Catamount800 (talk) 00:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)