User:Authenticfolk/Carrie Buck

Carrie Buck

 * Article title
 * Carrie Buck


 * Article Evaluation
 * Start class article
 * Seemingly good bio, but the court case information and the social impact of the ruling and procedure could be expanded


 * Sources
 * The Eugenics Crusade. Documentary. PBS, 2018. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/films/eugenics-crusade/ .
 * *Notes in class's OneNote section*
 * Historical Collections at the Claude Moore Health Sciences Library. “Buck v. Bell: The Test Case for Virginia’s Eugenical Sterilization Act.” Eugenics: Three Generations, No Imbeciles: Virginia, Eugenics & Buck v. Bell, 2004. http://exhibits.hsl.virginia.edu/eugenics/3-buckvbell/ .
 * biased towards favoring Carrie Buck's perspective and discrediting the eugenics movement
 * rape pregnancy --> parental shame --> admittance to Virginia Colony
 * prove Carrie inherited her mother's inferior traits --> legitimize/prove eugenics and Virginia Colony policies
 * trial ignored evidence like Emma Buck's marriage license
 * brief origin of Virginia Colony
 * brief origin of Virginia Colony's sterilization initiative
 * attributed to Superintendent Albert Priddy, depicted as imposing his own misguided morality via eugenics
 * before and after Eugenical Sterilization Act (1924) passed in Virginia
 * Albert Priddy (superintendent, died before appeals case finished), Aubrey E. Strode (drafted the Racial Integrity Act of 1924), and Irving P. Whitehead (Buck's attorney) depicted as the masterminds behind the Buck v. Bell case, such as them being existing acquaintances
 * inadequate effort on the part of the defense
 * Harry H. Laughlin's problematic written testimony
 * flawed family heritage
 * syphilis
 * illegitimate child
 * biased testimony from a teacher against Carrie
 * Supreme Court ruling
 * Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes took precedence from Jacobson vs. Massachusetts (1904), which approved the smallpox vaccination of schoolchildren
 * Carrie Buck was sterilized on October 19, 1927
 * First Virginian since the Eugenical Sterilization Act (1924) passed
 * Lombardo, Paul A. "Facing Carrie Buck." The Hastings Center Report 33, no. 2 (2003): 14-17. Accessed November 5, 2020. doi:10.2307/3528148.
 * based towards favoring Carrie Buck and her perspective and depicts the prosecution and similar figures as immoral or misguided
 * in December 1982, Lombardo met and discussed with Buck before three weeks before her death (p.14)
 * origin of the sterilization law (p.14)
 * malpracticing doctor avoiding lawsuits
 * Buck had a disloyal lawyer (p.14)
 * Vivian revealed as an "honor roll" student -- contradicts accusations of an inferior intellect (p.14)
 * tries to fill in the research gaps via university archives, etc.
 * Arthur Estabrook facilitated the sterilization of Buck through studying her and her family at the behest of the Virginia Colony's attorney in 1924 (p.15)
 * examinations, interviews, photographs
 * details Carrie Buck's arrival to Virginia Colony (p.15, 16)
 * Alice Dobbs was the foster mother of Carrie and her infant daughter Vivian (p.16)
 * argues the tests done on Carrie and Emma were not formal enough to be legitimate (p.16)
 * Estabrook's intelligence tests on Vivian used as evidence of a three-generation span of defection (p.16)
 * Virginia Governor Mark Warner's (as of 2002) apology to Buck and condemnation of the eugenics movement (p.16)
 * "shameful effort"
 * Richmond Times-Dispatch condemns eugenics (p.16)
 * "state sanctioned butchery"
 * ironic because it had previously supported it at the time
 * the Eugenical Sterilization Act (1924) inspired Nazi Germany's sterilizations (p.16)
 * One Wikipedia user references part of Lombardo's research that is included in this source, but they cite Lombardo indirectly via another source. Should I suggest replacing the citation with this one? Does it matter?
 * Fisher, Louis. "PRIVACY RIGHTS." In Reconsidering Judicial Finality: Why the Supreme Court Is Not the Last Word on the Constitution, 121-41. University Press of Kansas, 2019. Accessed November 5, 2020. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvqmp2sk.11 .
 * Relevant content: p.123, 124, 126
 * origins of mandatory sterilization (p.122)
 * Buck was mentally a nine-year-old (allegedly) (p.123)
 * state's perspective: Buck's sterilization --> better society (p.123)
 * Buck v. Bell -- 8-1 ruling for sterilization (p.123)
 * Justice Pierce Butler "dissented" (p.123)
 * Buck was not a criminal-minded -- no evidence (p.123, 124)
 * no scientific background check for Buck v. Bell (p.124)
 * prosecution-defense collusion (or at least bias) (p.124)
 * Irving Whitehead knew the sterilization law's drafters (p.124)
 * the proceedings of Buck v. Bell as a "friendly suit" contributed to misinformation due to the lack of prosecution vs. defense competition (p.124)
 * Court didn't know Buck was normal, a rape victim, and on the "honor roll"
 * confirms "honor roll" discovery that Lombardo brings up (p.124)
 * mention of Virginia Governor Mark Warner's apology (p.126)
 * mention of Virginia Governor Mark Warner's apology (p.126)

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
The section of Carrie Buck's representation in media has more, albeit limited, sections than her early life and Supreme Court case that are of equal length. Carrie Buck's first husband is listed in the biography box at the top of the article as dying in 1941, but in the article he is listed as dying 1965, the year Buck remarried.

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
The article appears neutral, but the section on her legacy heavily implies the court ruling and subsequent sterilization was unjust.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
The reasons for Buck leaving home and the prosecution during the trial are the main focus of the article.

Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
Citation #1's link works, but the source lists Buck's birthday as July 2nd, while the article lists it as the 3rd.

Citation #2's link works, but the source does support the claims in the article. The first reference to this citation claims the Racial Integrity Act of 1924 approved the sterilization, but the reference's source only lists accordance with a Virginia statute. However, the only ruling mentioned in a related section of the source is Jacobson v. Massachusetts. The second reference to this citation seems to be supported in the article, although it is risky to assume what Virginia's "best interest[s]" are. The third reference to this citation is a direct quote from the source, but there are two grammatical errors. The mistakes are that ", if" should be "if," and "crime, or" should be "crime or."

Citation #3 does not have a link because it is for a printed book. It is unclear whether the source supports the claims in the article.

Citation #9's link works and the source does support the claim in the article.

Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
Not every fact has a reference, and some are informal websites. Some references do not have links, making it difficult to look up the source. Some sources appear neutral, while the article "Dakota Johnson to tell the fucked-up true story of the government sterilizing “unfit” women" for example, is very biased. There does not seem to be any warning of biases for the sources.

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
The only websites with years are from 2004 and 2009. The news articles "Dakota Johnson to tell the fucked-up true story of the government sterilizing 'unfit' women" and "The Supreme Court Ruling That Led To 70,000 Forced Sterilizations" are from 2017. The journal article and books are from 1984, 2007, 2008, and 2016. The social ramifications of Buck's trial would be a welcome addition to the Wikipedia article.

Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
Two users debate why Buck did not leave the Virginia State Colony for Epileptics and Feebleminded. Another user requests help finding Sterlilzation of Carrie Buck by J. David Smith and K. Ray Nelson, as it is frequently cited by Adam Cohen in Imbeciles. The final user requests that the image John Dewey (23298371893).jpg be deleted.

How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
"Carrie Buck" is a start class article and is a part of "WikiProject Biography," "WikiProject Virginia" and "WikiProject Albemarle County."

How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
The skeleton of Buck's background and trial are there, but there is missing the social context and significance of her life. The only things really mentioned about her legacy are that there may have been manufactured trial evidence and that a previous Virginia governor, Mark R. Warner, apologized for what eugenics did to Buck.

Article Contribution Plans
I plan to add missing details to Carrie Buck's time at the the Virginia State Colony for Epileptics and Feebleminded and her trial summary as well as explain the important takeaways from Buck's life and legacy. For example, the trial summary really only covers the prosecution and the U.S. Supreme Court ruling. What did the defense have to say? What did Buck's experience mean other than providing a legitimizing win to the eugenics movement?

That being said, the other Wikipedia article "Buck v. Bell" mentioned in this article does address the ramifications of the trial.

Provide "See also" links to "Nazi eugenics." Replace "compulsory sterilization" in the introductory paragraph with the link to "Compulsory sterilization."

Figure out how to add in time stamps to film citation(s).

Three Paragraphs to be Contributed to "Carrie Buck"
Paragraph #1: origin of the the Eugenical Sterilization Act (1924), its implications on Buck, and that it partially inspired Nazi Germany's sterilizations

Virginia's General Assembly passed the Eugenical Sterilization Act in 1924. According to American historian Paul A. Lombardo, the law was written to benefit a malpracticing doctor avoiding lawsuits from patients that were the victims of forced sterilization. Buck became a tool by eugenicists to legitimize this law. Following the 1927 ruling of Buck v. Bell, over two dozen states enacted similar laws, including Oregon and the Carolinas. Buck because the first Virginian sterilized since the 1924 Eugenical Sterilization Act passed. The Virginia sterilization law would later inspire Nazi Germany's four hundred thousand sterilizations, including those sanctioned under the 1933 Law for Protection Against Genetically Defective Offspring.

Paragraph #2: defense/Carrie's attorney and the trial's limitations/corruption

Buck was assigned Irving P. Whitehead as her attorney who was a known eugenicist. He was an acquaintance of Aubrey E. Strode, who drafted the 1924 Racial Integrity Act, and Albery Priddy, the superintendent of Virginia Colony at the start of the trial. Whitehead failed to adequately defend Buck and counteract the prosecutors. Thus, his case failed to convince the Supreme Court to vote in favor of Buck. The cross examination and witnesses produced by Whitehead were ineffectual, and allegedly a result of his alliance with Strode during the trial. Additionally, Whitehead was also familiar with the sterilization law's drafters. There was no real competition between the prosecution and defense, and thus the Supreme Court did not receive sufficient evidence to make a fair decision on the "friendly [law]suit."

Paragraph #3: ramifications of the trial (ex. precedent for other states' laws that soon followed)

Bell sterilized Buck on October 19th, 1927, roughly five months after the Supreme Court trial verdict. According to famed eugenicist Harry H. Laughlin, who's written testimony was presented during the trial in his absence, attributed Buck's legal defeat as signaling the end of "eugenical sterilization's 'experimental period,' had come to an end." A wave of states passing sterilization laws occurred as a result, doubling American sterilizations from 6,000 to more than 12,000 by 1947.

Three Paragraphs to be Contributed to "Carrie Buck" -- Edited
Paragraph #1: origin of the the Eugenical Sterilization Act (1924), its implications on Buck, and that it partially inspired Nazi Germany's sterilizations

Virginia's General Assembly passed the Eugenical Sterilization Act in 1924. According to American historian Paul A. Lombardo, politicians wrote the law to benefit a malpracticing doctor avoiding lawsuits from patients that were the victims of forced sterilization. Eugenicists used Buck to legitimize this law in the 1927 Supreme Court case Buck v. Bell through which they sought to gain legal permission for Virginia to sterilize Buck. Following the 1927 ruling of Buck v. Bell, over two dozen states enacted similar laws, including Oregon and the Carolinas. Buck became the first Virginian sterilized since the 1924 Eugenical Sterilization Act passed. The Virginia sterilization law would later inspire Nazi Germany's four hundred thousand sterilizations, including those sanctioned under the 1933 Law for Protection Against Genetically Defective Offspring.

Paragraph #2: defense/Carrie's attorney and the trial's limitations/corruption

Irving P. Whitehead, a known eugenicist, served as Buck's attorney. He was a close confidante of Albert Priddy, the superintendent of Virginia Colony at the start of the trial, and a childhood friend of Aubrey E. Strode, who drafted the 1924 Eugenical Sterilization Act. Whitehead failed to adequately defend Buck and counteract the prosecutors. Thus, his case did not convince the Supreme Court to vote in favor of Buck. The cross examination and witnesses produced by Whitehead were ineffectual, and allegedly a result of his alliance with Strode during the trial. Additionally, Whitehead was also familiar with the sterilization law's drafters. There was no real competition between the prosecution and defense, and thus the Supreme Court did not receive sufficient evidence to make a fair decision on the "friendly [law]suit."

Paragraph #3: ramifications of the trial (ex. precedent for other states' laws that soon followed)

Bell sterilized Buck on October 19th, 1927, roughly five months after the Supreme Court trial verdict. According to famed eugenicist Harry H. Laughlin, who's written testimony was presented during the trial in his absence, Buck's legal defeat signaled the end of "eugenical sterilization's 'experimental period.'" A wave of states passed sterilization laws as a result, doubling American sterilizations from 6,000 to more than 12,000 by 1947.