Talk:Mental health reform in North Carolina

United States: North Carolina / Government Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	North Carolina portal This article is supported by WikiProject North Carolina (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Mid-importance).

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Discussion

This is my first article on wikipedia and I am looking forward to your constructive criticism. Jefiner (talk) 01:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the DYK nomination, I have reviewed this article and found it to be of a C-class rating. With a bit more work, it should easily be a B-class rating. Please post discussion and feedback here. Keep up the good work. A Few notes on my end would be expanding this article a bit, writing a 2-3 paragraph lead in summary, and creating a supporters and opponents response to these reforms. Kayz911 (talk) 19:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions. Last night of class is tonight. See you there! Jefiner (talk) 20:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Close paraphrase

The first paragraph of the "Mental health reform history" section is nearly identical to the first paragraph of the History section of the cited source. —Shelley V. Adams 12:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. —Shelley V. Adams 13:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Out of date

A lot's happened and continues to happen on this topic. This should probably be watched for updates about every six months. North Carolina has been through multiple rounds of consolidation of its regional authorities, with more to come. Kind of hilarious that someone has posted a note expressing concern about "recent" bias in a story that is so glaringly out of date. That problem could be fixed by updating the headline to reflect the time window, which is since 2001 when the first major reform package was passed. Of course there were periods of reform earlier. But this is an article about contemporary public policy, not North Carolina history. Ftjrwrites (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ftjrwrites: I certainly agree the article needs updating, but the narrow focus on events since 2001 is exactly what the WP:RECENTISM hatnote is meant to highlight. Comprehensive coverage of the topic requires both historical background and up-to-date information. My own skill set leans in the direction of digging for background info. Perhaps you're better at keeping up with the latest news. Don't hesitate to jump in and update the article. If you've got some good sources but lack time to edit, you can list them here for others to use. —Shelley V. Adams ‹blame
credit› 20:32, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ShelleyAdams: The 21st century "reforms" are so distinctive that they should not be treated in the same article as one focusing on the historic legacy of reform. This is a different animal, not "recent" bias. Earlier mental health reform in North Carolina was mostly in step with similar movements throughout the United States in the 19th and 20th centuries. Those reforms sought better care and the implementation of whatever science, or whatever passed for science at the time, considered best practices. But the 21st century wave of "reform" has not been medical in its inspiration. It has focused on the structural nature of the mental health care system in North Carolina with an eye on efficiency and centralized control. Thus these are really very different movements even though the label of "reform" has been applied to both. For this reason, the charge of "recentism" is absurd. It is a recent phenomenon that did not exist previously. What existed previously were unrelated phenomena. Ftjrwrites (talk) 01:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ftjrwrites: Agreed! 21st century policy changes in this realm are more about cost control than medical science. However, based on what I've heard from local (Triad area) advocates and the sources I've managed to scrounge up -- e.g., NC Med J 64(5) -- the sorry fiscal situation of NC's MH/SA/DD services in the late 20th century has had a major influence on the overall arc of those policy decisions. The connection between program bankruptcies in the mid-1990s and MCO mergers in 2016 is more zig-zag than straight line, but that connection is still significant. —Shelley V. Adams ‹blame
credit› 02:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at and Western Carolina University supported by WikiProject United States Public Policy and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Spring term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]