Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Terri Schiavo/archive1

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

Terri Schiavo[edit]

Re: Schiavo Fac nom.: I told you so[edit]

Mark, (and I shall cross-post it to Violet Riga’s page -and the Schiavo talk and nomination pages)

As the Terri Schiavo nomination was being considered, I hinted (and may have outright said??) that its nomination would actually increase stability (even though you thought that the article was indeed moderately stable at some point).

However, the lack of nomination has de-stabilized it. All out edit warring and a PAGE LOCK has now occurred. ~~ I told you that the article should have been nominated -and accepted -I told you so. (No offense meant.)

Here, to prove my allegations that the "Front Page" status would stabilize it are these diffs:

In these diffs, the creation of a new template to handle this problem has been suggested and -even after much exposure -not opposed -and why should they be? Since it is fair to "lock" images on the front page, why not articles as well -to avoid, for example, pornographic or foul language vandalism.

Anyhow, I wanted to give the article time to be reviewed, but now I regret my decision to wait: It was ready for Fac status, but now it is sliding in the opposite direction -and the edit warring was due in large part to FuelWagon, who has, in the past, opposed clear concensus -and, yes, I provide the diffs to verify my allegations.

The page is locked, and (other than one over-worked admin who has a second job AND college classes), NO HELP IS IN SIGHT.

I made blood sacrifices (literally, due to the energy/stress expended) to obtain a relevant "references" section and non-Fair-Use images and clean up the article.

This problem happened on your watch: Help.--GordonWattsDotCom 21:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

My proposed solution:[edit]
  • My proposed solution would be to do this, and in this order:
1: Re-Nominate Terri Schiavo, a sentiment shared by many.
2: Feature it as a Featured Article.
3: Lock the images with the existing tools.
4: Lock the article with "Gordon's Tool," the newly created template, shown at the diffs above.
5: Grab a cold one, most preferably non-alcoholic, and relax for a well-earned rest.
--GordonWattsDotCom 23:09, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
I've listed your new {{ProtectedMainPageArticle}} template for deletion. Locking articles on the main page is not standard procedure. --Carnildo 00:06, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
"Locking articles on the main page is not standard procedure." Oh? Then, why, pray tell, must you insist on not deleting these "Locking images" templates, displayed here? (and shown below)
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Mpimgprotected
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:ProtectedMainPageImage
Apparently, there is sufficient reason, namely vandalism, to have these templates -both sets. See the template talk page here here please before you act in a way which contradicts your own lack of actions in regards to the image protect templates.--GordonWattsDotCom 00:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Images are locked because otherwise they will frequently get overwritten by Image:Autofellatio2.jpg. Similarly, Main Page is protected, as are Template:Main Page banner, Template:In the news, Template:Wikipedialang, Template:WikipediaSister, Template:donate, Template:newpagelinksmain, and the current Wikipedia:Today's featured article, Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries, and Wikipedia:Today's second feature subpages. The idea is to keep the visible contents of the main page under control. Featured articles are not visible on the main page, so they are not locked. --Carnildo 02:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, I understand that the images are more sensative, and need more protection, so if the concensus is this much against me, y'all go ahead and play loose and easy and allow max-access, if you like; It's wiki, after all! ** I really didn;t mean to give you hell and be annoying -I was just trying to help keep sensitive things protected, but moderation rules the day -right or wrong (a little of both, I imagine). --Thx for your clarifications, Carnildo.--GordonWattsDotCom 05:29, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

This page has been archived[edit]

This page has been archived, link here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Terri_Schiavo/archive1

(Apparently, what is written into this page is copied to the archive1 file too.)

(cur) (last) 04:53, 5 September 2005 GordonWattsDotCom m (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Terri Schiavo moved to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Terri Schiavo/archive1)

--GordonWattsDotCom 04:58, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Refactoring & Placing new news at the top: GNU FDL Images Obtained![edit]

OK, this should take care of some of the major remaining concerns: These photos are all released under GFDL, and they fall into three categories:

  • 1. Those photos that would "stylistically" fit into the Schiavo article (most of the pictures).
  • 2. A few photos of me (or a sign with my name on it) to prove that I took the photos, not someone else -that is, proof that I didn't snatch them off someone's website under "Fair Use."
  • 3. One "test" photo. (I had to test the camera out before I drove across the state!)

The images are stored as indicated below, and in multiple places, but I have not, as yet, uploaded them to commons.--GordonWattsDotCom 23:03, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

X
LARGE PDF's

(Very clear, but too large)
"Smaller" PDF's (neither
clear nor small file
sizes, but I haven't
figured out how to
delete them from Wikipedia)
VERY small file sizes!
-but still clear and
high-quality Jay Peg's
File name Off-line site Wikipedia Off-line site Wikipedia Off-line site Wikipedia
BobbyWattsAutoPart [1] [2] [3] [4] X [5]
GordonAndMonteCarloInFrontOfWoodside [6] [7] [8] [9] X [10]
PhotoByGordonWayneWatts [11] [12] [13] [14] X [15]
PondInFrontOfSchiavoGrave [16] [17] [18] [19] X [20]
SchiavoGrave [21] [22] [23] [24] X [25]
SchiavoHeadstoneAndGrave [26] [27] [28] [29] X [30]
SchiavoHeadstoneBehindGordon [31] [32] [33] [34] X [35]
SylvanAbbey X X X X [36] [37]
SylvanAbbeyThroughChevyMonteCarloWindow [38] [39] [40] [41] X [42]
WalkwaySchiavoGrave [43] [44] [45] [46] X [47]
WoodsideHospice [48] [49] [50] [51] X [52]

The recent "Fair Use" Controversy[edit]

HOMEWORK:
Since many of us here we are talking about "Fair Use," I think it is only fair that anyone who wants to opine on "Fair Use" read Fair use first. This applies to me too: I intend to "practice what I preach," and afterwards, I hope to offer my studied and educated feedback. (Please #1, don't be offended or think I am saying that anyone here is "un-educated;" Please #2, don't be afraid of this article: It is long but interesting and very useful.) -- I hope you enjoy your homework. See y'all in a little bit...--GordonWattsDotCom 16:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Here are the 4 factors to test for "Fair Use": (with comments)

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

Gordon Comments: Well, according to Wikipedia, Wikipedia is "sponsored by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation," and, of course, an encyclopaedia is, by definition, "educational."

2. the nature of the copyrighted work;

Gordon Comments: The four important factors here are:
a) Is is fictional or real?
Gordon Comments: Both Terri Schiavo and her grave site are real, not fictional works, such as a novel, but this is a photo, and this analysis may not apply to photos.
b) The Idea-expression_divide concept:
Gordon Comments: This is a valid concern, assuming a work is copyrighted: These are expressions, not ideas. So, we can not simply say that the photos are "ideas" or "concepts." The fact that she and her grave site are real things that were photographed does not prohibit Wikipedia from using the pictures. (But had they been mere ideas, we would have probably automatically qualified as "OK.")
c) Social usefulness of freely available information vs. copyright rights:
Gordon Comments: The Wikipedia article says it all here: "On the other hand, the social usefulness of freely available information can weigh against the appropriateness of copyright for certain fixations. The Zapruder film of the assassination of President Kennedy, for example, was purchased and copyrighted by Time magazine. Yet their copyright was not upheld, in the name of the public interest, when they tried to enjoin the reproduction of stills from the film in a history book on the subject (see Time Inc. v. Bernard Geis Associates, 293 F. Supp. 130)." Translation: If the work is copyrighted, the public's right to know can outweigh the copyright's grant of power to prevent distribution. That may be the case here, but the amount of the work used is probably the main factor in this situation. A "history book on the subject." Where have we heard THAT concept before? The Schiavo article: Is it not a "history book" on the subject, eh?
d) Whether the copied work has been previously published:
Gordon Comments: Well, these pictures ALL published quite extensively, so the concern that the authors have an "interest in controlling the circumstances of the first public revelation of his work, and his right, if he so chooses, not to publish at all" are NOT relevant: The works have all published.

3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

Gordon Comments: The amount of photos used is very small compared to the total amount of the article: This is a "critical review," like quoting one sentence here and one sentence there -it is "Fair Use." It is NOT reprinting, say, an ENTIRE New York Times article. Parody and critical review are permitted. See e.g., Fair_use#Amount_and_substantiality for amount used info.

4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Gordon Comments: The "fair market value" of the photos will NOT be adversely damaged; in fact, their fair market value just might go up. Also, here is a quote from this section, Fair_use#Effect_upon_work.27s_value:
"It is important to note that courts recognize that certain kinds of market harm do not oppose fair use, such as when a parody or negative review impairs the market of the original work. Fair use considerations may not shield a work against adverse criticism."
  • Final Comments: Our use of the images has held up in the past -because we made "fair use" of the images, which were a critical analysis, using only small portions, not unlike Fair_use#Fair_use_on_the_Internet, which allows use of Thumbnail images. Even if the images used are "regular" size, no one can dispute that they are "thumbnail" in comparison to the entire article. We are using the First Amendment and Fair Use. Does anyone have any reason to believe that our use of the Schiavo images fails any of these tests adversely?--GordonWattsDotCom 17:09, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, I did my homework. Anyone care to comment on this?--GordonWattsDotCom 17:12, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree: it is possible to use fair use images to illustrate this article. All Image:TerriSchiavo2.jpg and Image:Schiavo catscan.jpg need is for someone to make sure all the requirements for using fair use images are covered (see Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale). Image:Schiavo.jpg, on the other hand, has problems. The claim is that it is used to illustrate Terri's post-brain-damage behaviour, but since it's a single frame of a video, it shows no such thing. Image:Terri Schiavo grave.jpg simply cannot be used on Wikipedia as a fair use image, since it's quite possible for a Wikipedian to replace it with a free image. --Carnildo 20:42, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
"Image:Schiavo.jpg, on the other hand, has problems. The claim is that it is used to illustrate Terri's post-brain-damage behaviour, but since it's a single frame of a video, it shows no such thing." OK, I fixed that on the pic page at this diff, Revision as of: 10:01, 3 September 2005 (UTC). Now, the comments on the actual article, on the other hand, are not biased: The text in the diff, giving both sides of the story, was drawn from the page, so the only concern you have left is regarding the grave site. I would prefer to ask Mark (aka Raul654) whether or not we need to send me out to the grave site at this time.--GordonWattsDotCom 10:05, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

The recent "Word Count" Controversy[edit]

Since I know there is a concern here, let me point out that User:Justsomechick made a post on my page with this concern, and I finally analyzed and replied. Since the analysis was instructive to me, other editors might find it interesting or useful, so, here it is reprinted in another "little box," OK?

Terri Schiavo and World War I

Hi Gordon, I realize that an article on a person's life history is a bit different than one for WWI, but I figured that the WWI article (a featured article, BTW) might be a good example of how extremely complex subject matter can be comprehensive yet not overwhelming, through the use of a few (but not too many) sub-articles. FWIW, I thought everything through "Petition to Remove Feeding Tube" was very good and needs very few changes -- it's from "...Schiavo I" forward that I got lost. Also, since I'm here, I think the page numbers of the references you (or the collective you, since I'm not sure who did this) used belong where the other references are at the bottom - it's almost redundant as is since there are footnotes pointing to the source anyway, and it messes with the word flow. Good luck, I think it would be really cool to have it as an FA, and I hope to vote support in the near future. Have a good weekend. justsomechick·chat·stuff 19:40, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, the "scroll bars" for both articles looked about the same, with Terri's scroll bar actually being a tad longer, hinting that her word count is less. Hold on a sec, whilst I ask Microsoft WOKKS Word processor for a word count.
  • WWI is: 9493, not counting the “Wiki” text unrelated to the article WWI is 9652 total words on page. (There were 159 extra "wiki advertisement links, like the stuff on the top row and left column.)
  • Terri Schiavo is: 10,978, not counting "wiki text" comments/links, etc., like above, and is 11,091, total. (There were 113 "non-Schiavo" words, as above.)
OK, good point, but all said and done, Terri's article is not even fifteen-percent (15%) larger. No big deal. Next concern...?

(Gordon's math notepad: 11,092 / 9,652 = 1.14908827186 = 114.9% = 14.9% increase < 15% increase = Good!)

--GordonWattsDotCom 09:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  • ADDITIONAL COMMENTS on Just Some Chick's POST:
  • "through the use of a few (but not too many) sub-articles." Already covered. We have several sub-articles at present time. "FWIW, I thought everything through "Petition to Remove Feeding Tube" was very good and needs very few changes" A collective "Thank you" to you! "it's from "...Schiavo I" forward that I got lost." Sorry. It happens to the best of us, if we've been reading and get fatigue. "Also, since I'm here, I think the page numbers of the references you (or the collective you, since I'm not sure who did this) used belong where the other references are at the bottom - it's almost redundant as is since there are footnotes pointing to the source anyway, and it messes with the word flow." Well, I am the one who did that, and some feel that page numbers are needed at each juncture, so putting them at the bottom may be worse, since there are several sentences for each reference-note at the bottom, and each sentence may have a different page number -but that is just my opinion on the style used. I like it for how it "verifies" the page number too! "Good luck, I think it would be really cool to have it as an FA, and I hope to vote support in the near future." Thanks. "Have a good weekend." And you too and the other editors here as well.--GordonWattsDotCom 10:21, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

The rest of the comments[edit]

Well, the recent talk on the talk page has people from all sides either agreeing the article is great or simple silence -no actual complaints which I can recall -in the recent past that is. (Let me add that this is both a controversial -and a well-known -topic, and thus it should be a featured article if it can be protected from vandalism. MAIN REASON: Public interest on this topic from people on both sides --all sides --of the issue.) GordonWattsDotCom 04:11, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

All these math and science majors, but illogical comments. Wow! OK, let me try to reply below...--GordonWattsDotCom 06:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Object strongly. Here's the short list of what's wrong with the article: TOCright breaks the manual of style, the TOC (with its 37 sections) is quite overwhelming, the article has no introduction, it has no references section to complement the inline linking, it has a see also section (which should be converted to prose, inserted into the article, and the section deleted), every image used in the article is fair use, and it's 80 kilobytes long and should be shortened and/or broken into subarticles. →Raul654 04:34, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • "TOCright breaks the manual of style" Well, why do we even have a TOCleft if it's "wrong," Mark? Here's why: Raul654, the Table of Contents on the left side would be adjacent to the "sub-articles" contents box, and this would not only look funny but also maybe get people confused into thinking that they are the same thing; They are different: The Table of contents is for that page, and the other box is for related articles. "the article has no introduction" It does. Take a look at the first paragraph. Is that not an introduction? "it has no references section to complement the inline linking," OK, I agree with you on this point: You are welcome to add links to other pages, for example, some of my personal pages offer additional resources, but they have been voted down by other editors who didn't understand that the vanity policy only discouraged links to your own pages -and did not fully prohibit such. If you can fix this, then do. If not, we can ignore, as it's "close enough" to please me. "it has a see also section" OK, I must have missed that. Could you be more specific on exactly what paragraph you mean here? "every image used in the article is fair use" So? Have we violated policy? (I link to the laws below.) "and it's 80 kilobytes long and should be shortened and/or broken into subarticles" We've already broken it into sub-articles. Do you want us to tear it into small grains of sand. This article could even be longer (it was a "long ordeal" for the nation and the news media -and the family), but I think we've struck the right balance.--GordonWattsDotCom 06:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Erm, that box needs to be eliminated (along with the see also section), and the article broken up into sub articles with template:main. See our Evolution featured article to see an example of doing this properly. →Raul654 06:44, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
        • OK, I think this is a minor style difference, and if you want to change the format to say "main article" instead of "see also," I don't think it would create a fire-storm, but be careful: We've hammered out a lot of problems and have concensus after much work.
          • Um, no disrespect intended, but after reading your replies, I have to ask - have you actually looked at any featured articles? Or, for that matter, Wikipedia:What is a featured article?
            • I haven't studied featured articles, no, but I have seen a lot of other articles and think the Schiavo one can hold it's own, and yes, I did read the rules. Look at my very first edit on this page before ZScout removed some extra quotations of the rules.--GordonWattsDotCom 07:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
            • The introduction: Compare the introduction on Terri Schiavo with the introduction on today's featured article, Angkor Wat. The latter has an introduction that gives all the essentials, the who-what-when-where-why, whereas the Schiavo article has a single sentence that only describes, in the vaguest sense, who she was. "The lead should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article... The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article." - Wikipedia:Lead section. For an article of this size, an introduction of 2-3 paragraphs is appropriate; a single sentence is not.
              • Good point, but some others insisted in including extra stuff -it still is good to the reader.--GordonWattsDotCom 07:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
            • The images: "A featured article should... Have images where appropriate, with good captions and acceptable copyright status" - Wikipedia:What is a featured article. Fair use, while tolerated to a certain extent on Wikipedia, is generally to be avoided on featured articles except in the most limited of circumstances (generally when no alternative is available)
              • I'm not an expert here. You are welcome to fix the image legality situation, and then we can have a better article.--GordonWattsDotCom 07:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
            • The references section: We are not going to ignore featured article requirements because the editors on the article are too shortsited or ignorant of policies to permit it. Featured article criteria are not subject to negotiation.
              • Good point. This should be easy to fix for a person with authority like you. Can you put in the right links, eh?--GordonWattsDotCom 07:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
            • See-also: This section needs to be turned from a list into prose. If something is worth linking to in an article, it should be given in the form of a sentence indicating its relation to the subject.
              • Minor and easy to fix -if you'd like.--GordonWattsDotCom 07:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
            • The sub-articles: There are exactly three Terry Schiavo subarticles (at least I only found 3 - the organization of this article is such that these things could be easily overlooked). The ones I found were - Terri Schiavo timeline, Palm Sunday Compromise, Schiavo memo. The fact the main article is 80 kilobytes, and the sub articles are stubby (not counting the timeline which is actually a list) is indicative of serious organizational problems. →Raul654 07:20, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
              • The organization is clear to me: Under Terri_Schiavo#Early_life, I found a WHOLE bunch of sub-articles; Also, under Terri_Schiavo#Public_opinion_and_activism, we find this link clearly visible beneath the title: (Gordon Watts; I signed below, but had to split this paragraph due to the format of the link breaking the paragraph here in two.)
              • You did spot several sub-article, but there are LOTS, so the article IS sub-divided properly, in my honest opinion. Have you been up many hours? How could you have missed so many links here?--GordonWattsDotCom 07:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
                • OK, I've gone ahead and fixed most of the problems. However, the article still needs references (specifically, it has plenty of html commented references; people need to uncomment them into some acceptable inline style, and compile them into a references section) and add copyleft images. Also, given all the changes, it's rather unstable ATM (50% of the article disappeared or changed overnight) so if/when this nom fails, it might be a good idea to renominate it again in a couple weeks. →Raul654 02:24, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Way to long, and I can't see how this can ever be completely NPOVed. WegianWarrior 04:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes, WegianWarrior, it is long, but it would be longer if the sub-article were still in the main article -but some other editors removed them; As far as the NPOV, we don't strive to have a single "neutral" view, but instead, the policy of Wikipedia states that we must present all views with equal fairness, giving prominence, of course, to the main views, but also telling of minority view. Yes, we've argued, but this is about the most agreement you can expect on this type of controversial article, so smile and be happy -and consider: What do you seek here? Is it possible and/or reasonable? What do you expect us to do with the article? If you got any ideas, you come and help us edit it; I'm getting tired and fatigued from over-work, here and in my personal life, doing double-duty.--GordonWattsDotCom 06:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
To quote a suggestion from the last peer review this article went thru:
"Terri Schiavo (blah blah 19?? - foo foo 2005) was an American woman who was in a persistent vegetative state. (no discussion of PVS should be in this article whatsoever - just link to the PVS article) Although this diagnosis was disputed by a minority of doctors who diagnosed her (refs), it was upheld a number of times by the courts (refs). Her husband, Michael Schiavo, took the decision to have her feeding tube withdrawn, a decision which was hotly contested and challenged by her parents (refs). The case garnered widespread national and international media attention, splitting the American public. A number of attempts were made by various individuals, church leaders and politicians (refs) to overturn the decision to withdraw the feeding tube, but at each stage courts upheld the original decision (refs). Eventually, Terri Schiavo passed away x days after the removal of her feeding tube on foo foo, 2005."
Off course, it can (and possible should) be expanded with the section on her life _up to her accident_. The rest can easily be moved into sub-articles and referred from the article. In my opinion, the article as it stands now says virtually nothing about Terri Schiavo, but a whole lot about family relationship, family breaking up, discussions on PVS, legal battles and stuff... which bloats the article something fiercely.
Anyhow, that’s my opinion - VMMW, but as the article stands now I must still object to it being of worthy of being a FA. As a side note, the way I understand WP:NPOV, the article itself should be neutral, as opposed to your interpretation of providing several POV’s with in the article. WegianWarrior 07:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
      • WegianWarrior, what is "VMMW?" I can not find this acronym/abbreviation, like "IMHO" stands for "In my honest opinion" and rofl stands for "rolling on the floor, laughing." Thanks in advance.--GordonWattsDotCom 07:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
It's a typo for YMMW - Your Mileage May Wary. Sorry for the confusion WegianWarrior 08:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Oh, you must really be Norwegian, hense English may be a 2nd language. It is spelled "Vary" with a 'V', but you are doing well in English. Thank you; I should have recognized that -it was close to the right spelling.--GordonWattsDotCom 08:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
  • smiles* Off course I'm really Norwegian - I didn't pick this username randomly =) As for doing well in English - it's partly due to my line of work, partly due to other things. WegianWarrior 08:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
To put the length problem into perspective, this article contains approximately 10,000 words of prose, or 25 pages. Running it through some readability tests gives a Flesch-Kincaid grade level of 13 and a fog factor of 12.7 (foggy), so the average person will take 30-45 minutes to read it. A good article will take about 20 minutes to read, and be at a 10th grade reading level. --Carnildo 05:29, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I would also explain the reason why we have to use Fair Use on the pictures here. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Huh? What is your explanation, and how does it relate to the qualifications and merits of the Schiavo article as a featured article?--GordonWattsDotCom 06:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
See Carnildo's objection below. I mainly made my statement as a comment. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
  • PS: Thanks for removing my extra quotations from the rules. I'm kind of new to the nomination stuff.
While you are welcome about the extra quotations (you just list on why you want to nominate the article, since you and we assume that you have met all requirements at WP:WIAFA, but until yall deal with Carnildo's objection, I will also object to this article becoming a FA. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Needs a better intro, needs to be cleaned up, needs to be condensed, possibly moving text to sub pages, and I think it probably violates wikipedia's "Stable" requirement for FAs. Being featured, as mentioned, would likely exacerbate an already existing problem. I think the only way this can be fixed is time... as Terri Schiavo is moved out of "recent events" and into "history" it might be easier to get an more NPOV perspective on the issue. Fieari 05:42, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
"Needs a better intro" Well, what is wrong with it? "needs to be cleaned up" Huh? We have regular spell-checks and grammar experts who regularly keep it clean. "needs to be condensed, possibly moving text to sub pages" We already have many sub-pages; do we need more? Are you sure? If so, then help us out. If not, then please reconsider your analysis. I await your feedback.--GordonWattsDotCom 06:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I think you misunderstand the stability requirement - the stability requirement is meant to discourage articles that are *currently* unstable; it's not meant to apply indefinitely to the future. In the case of this article, it's only gotten 5 small edits in the last week, which (to me, as the person who wrote that requirement) is relatively stable →Raul654 05:48, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with you on this point. It (finally!) appears to be stable, and I personally think it should be protected and edited only by paid, screened, and trained professional editors, but that is my opinion and maybe not consensus, since this is "wiki," you know.--GordonWattsDotCom 06:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Object
    1. The image Image:TerriSchiavo2.jpg is claimed as "fair use". However, it does not have either a fair-use rationale or source information.
    2. The image Image:Schiavo catscan.jpg is claimed as "fair use", but does not have fair-use rationale or definitive information about who owns the copyright.
    3. The image Image:Schiavo.jpg is claimed as "fair use", but it doesn't really add anything to the article. Thus, any claim of fair use is doubtful.
You can certainly contact http://TerrisFight.org if you have concerns about this. They have a feedback form. Alternatively, you can take a look at the laws, (our Florida state laws, Federal, and International) here, here, or here. While I'm not a lawyer, I don't think tat we violate fair use. It shouldn't be that hard. We've had NO complaints from the official Terri's Fight website, the source of most or all the images, I would imagine. Most of these people are my personal friends, and I'm sure I would have heard something about it by now if there were a problem, but if you have doubts, contact Pamela Hennessey and crew at http://TerrisFight.org --GordonWattsDotCom 06:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
    1. The image Image:Terri Schiavo grave.jpg is claimed as "fair use". Unless there's something really unusual about Sylvan Abbey Memorial Park, it's quite possible for a Wikipedian to take a picture of the gravesite and place the photo under a free license. There is no reason to use a "fair use" picture here.
    --Carnildo 06:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
So, what you're saying is that this is just a photo of a public area and noting proprietary about it, right? So, that should be even more reason to not worry, right? Am I missing something here?--GordonWattsDotCom 06:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes, you're missing the fundamental nature of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia. That means that other people are free to take the content and create other works from it. This is not possible if parts of an article (such as the images) are under a non-free license such as "fair use". In an ideal world, Wikipedia would not have a single fair-use image in it. However, since in the real world it's hard or impossible to get free-use images for pop culture subjects, fair-use images can be used in articles. Their use should be kept to a minimum, though. --Carnildo 07:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
I believe the image of Terri with her mother comes from 6 hours of video that is part of the court record. Terri's parents took the video as part of a court case. They then took 4.5 minutes of that video, turned it into clips, and released it on the web. But the original images should be part of the court record. I'm not sure if that's public record or if it's sealed or what. Someone who knows the law could figure this out. FuelWagon 14:30, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
As a legal matter, you're wrong about the effect of ease of replacement on fair use. The easier it is for someone to replace a "fair-use" image with a free-use image, the harder it is to claim fair use on it. --Carnildo 07:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Carnildo, could you provide a legal source for that last claim (that the easier it is for someone to replace a "fair-use" image with a free-use image, the harder it is to claim fair use on it)? Cedars 08:13, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
    • My objection still stands. Nothing has been done about the image copyright problems. --Carnildo 19:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't disagree with you, but since I contributed to much of the other sections of the article, I expect someone else to address the copyright issues. That's not my specialty. Maybe, I'll catch a second wind and look into it, but don;t count on me: Those who raise the objection are expected to be the first to solve the problem, hint, hint.--GordonWattsDotCom 06:20, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I don't know all things about everything, but I do feel that the Schiavo article is a good treatise about Terri. That is one reason http://Google.com rates it THIRD in the world -here: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=terri+schiavo --for this reason and those stated elsewhere in this comment/talk/discussion page, I support the nomination. Sincerely,--GordonWattsDotCom 08:08, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have to correct you slightly... Google don't rank it third because its a good treatise (se Proto's comment below for that btw), but because a lot of people link to the article. There is a difference between that and being 'endorse' by Google (which is how I read your comment. Again, YMMW) WegianWarrior 08:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Logged and noted, WegianWarrior -you're right: The high rating in GOOGLE is due to people linking to the page -not due to accuracy (and in a "wiki" format, errors can creep in) -However, who do people link to it? Very Accurate, and EXTREMELY comprehensive. That's just my guess, but google.com indirectly gives the article a "good reference."--GordonWattsDotCom 00:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. I already commented on this article on its Peer Review, and few if any of the comments from myself and other editors on the Peer Review have been actioned, yet the article has still been nominated for FA status? Daft. Too long, too much 'he said she said', not encyclopaedic at all. It is indeed a (fairly) good treatise. A treatise is not an encyclopaedia article. Proto t c 08:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. With the recent cuts to the article, it's now a lot shorter. And I think the intro now qualifies as getting to the heart of the matter in spite of 15 years of legal wrangling and 4 trips to the US Supreme Court. FuelWagon 13:54, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I've already stated my "Support" in other places, but so I can't do much here other than thank you for your support, FuelWagon. I wish to note two things, however: (1) There are still some contentious issues, as I might expect -some of them your concerns, and (2), I am pretty much finished with my overhaul: I think the article is now ready for "Featured Article Status," length and "stability" notwithstanding; it is a good article on a tough subject. I'd like to see one of my critics do better. OK, that's my take, but remember, I've spent about 12 hours on the overhaul today and probably another 24-36 hours over the past few weeks, so doesn't that count for something? I'M VERY SLEEPY, TIRED, & Fatigued right now! Article overhaul is finished - it is much improved.**--GordonWattsDotCom 17:34, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

how to split it into anything smaller

4.250.168.27 19:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Object. This is way too long and way beyond the scope of Wikipedia. I think just the first 2 paragrphs, plus a little summing up statement of its significance should suffice. While this topic is obviously important to those close to the person, it gets a disproportionate amount of attention relative to other articles, and there is really very little in it that would interest a general public. What is needed here is some perspective. For example, the article on George Washington is less than half the size of this article. Is there really twice as much to say about Terri Schiavo than about George Washington that would actually interest a general public? This is not the forum to dispute issues, rather it is the place to put things into their proper perspective and to show how they fit with other aspects of knowledge. What is the historical significance of this case? Why should we remember it in 20 years? What does it tell us about the United States in 2005? Nrets 18:30, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. Maybe the Washington article is too short. See below RoyBoy's comment for WHY I think it is OK for the article to be as long as it is.--GordonWattsDotCom 00:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Strongly object. Basically everything Raul said. It's not our job to fix the article; it's the job of those who are interested. But as long as the article does not meet the standards of a featured article, I cannot support its nomination. I'm especially annoyed by the lack of a lead section as well as the inappropriately done up references (see Wikipedia:cite sources). And simply put, an 80kb article cannot be a featured article. A decent article has to be of a suitable length to ensure the average human being is not put off. Many consider a 40kb or 50kb article to be pushing it, but 80kb is simply way over the top. This is one case where I think we should seriously consider a few dozen subarticles. Johnleemk | Talk 16:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Object. As said by others, the lead is too short and the article is too long. It seems to me that in the quest to reach agreement on the article among various editors everything but the kitchen sink was dumped in. Nrets also raised an excellent point by comparing the George Washington article with the Schiavo one--if Washington's article is half this length, there is no reason for this article to be so long. The references are also not in any of the standard styles.--Alabamaboy 16:56, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Weak support just to make some points. I think FA status can be more fluid than this. Is the article long? Yes. Is the subject long. Yes. Why not sub-articles? That's all well and good but that's a hell of a lot of sub articles, and perhaps a conscious allowance for the recent occurrence of this event can allow more flexibility on that point for the time being.

Wikipedia is different; it gets to subjects fast and hard... and I understand the ethic of delivering relevant information fast and hard too (hence shorter articles). But at this moment moving things into sub articles may be premature given our ability to accumulate information as events take place. What's the waiting period, dunno, I suppose until the article is considered "stable"... and perhaps that has happened for this article since it is being nominated. Also maybe being given the FA status could be the *starting point* of moving things into sub-articles; rather than having it as a requirement a priori. - RoyBoy 800 19:48, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Good Point. Since this article has a LOT of information, "more is better" for the curious mind. Why do you think Google.com rates it so highly? ANSWER: As WegianWarrior points out, many people link to it. Why do they link to it? EXTREMELY COMPLETE and COMPREHENSIVE treatise on the subject, and yet also very accurate. That's just my take, but I think I'm right.--GordonWattsDotCom 00:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd perhaps tweak my standard when an article should be broken up is when interest in the subject is minimal. I'd say interest in this article is still relatively high, and as such it would actually be detrimental to keep splitting things off; since for now people are more likely to be interested in a complete narrative. In future, we can split it up since obviously the majority of readers will be looking for specific facts for research; and hence the article splitting won't effect them much. Yes an encyclopedia article should be brief, but at the same time it should not be fragmented. - RoyBoy 800 15:20, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
(Quoting you) "Yes an encyclopedia article should be brief, but at the same time it should not be fragmented." I could not have said it any better, so I'll just agree that readers probably WILL NOT want to look all over for info on this case. Yes, it's been fragmented, but we can "stop while we're ahead." I think the article would be damaged if it were split into smaller parts -and would confuse curious-George readers looking for the bottom line and full story. If they don't want to read the whole thing, at least it's better to have it handy and nearby. Therefore, the problems associated "dial-up" users, for example, downloading a large page are minimal. I could download it on dialup, and I can download it even FASTER! now that i have high-speed DSL -and those T1 LAN line users can download it still faster. Yes, I agree that the "length problem" is over-stated and over-rated and exaggerated.--GordonWattsDotCom 00:13, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

In reply to Raul654's post on the talk page, right before my reply here, is now recopied here:

OK, Mark, I've reviewed and tweaked all of your edits. After all of the fuss over the lack (or deficit) of a sufficient number of sub-articles, I don't see why you wanted to remove the sub-article box present. Plus, after all the fuss over "article length," I don't see why you like all that white space between the table of contents (left side) and the photo. I fixed both of those. I prefer the Table of contents RIGHT -as Jesus has, but I am flexible and am OK with your preference to put it on the left side. I appreciate your interest and knowledge on the issue, but please make sure your contributions don't remove positive elements and "make the natives restless."--GordonWattsDotCom 01:14, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
--GordonWattsDotCom 01:17, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Plus, I made additional comments on your talk page.--GordonWattsDotCom 01:33, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I really like what you've done with the article; it's more uniform with the style of other articles now. I think the only reason left to object now is that the article is too long (I'm not too bothered with the fair use pictures issue). I'd try my hand at shifting certain portions to subarticles myself, but my intermittent internet access (see my user page) isn't exactly helping. Johnleemk | Talk 14:54, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
      • "I really like what you've done with the article..." Thanks you. I see your comments here and in the Schiavo talk page, in which you seem to Support the Fac status, with the idea that a few improvements can fix it. Most of your improvements seem, however, related to splitting the article apart to make it several smaller fragments. See my comments to RoyBoy above about that.--GordonWattsDotCom 00:13, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
        • I support the efforts being made to improve it, which means I want to see this as a featured article. However, I do not want to compromise the criteria that all featured articles are meant to adher to. I've read your reply to RoyBoy, but I'm not convinced. Splitting an article doesn't mean it has to be ground into tiny pieces with a few dozen small articles and one medium-size main article. Rather, like with Mozilla Firefox, you should end up with several medium- to long-sized articles. Also, the main reason we prefer short articles is no longer for technical reasons but stylistic and readability issues — see Wikipedia:Article size. Johnleemk | Talk 14:23, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
          • Logged and noted, John. Time will tell.--GordonWattsDotCom 10:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I thought it was a pretty good article. One of the best 3 in the world on the topic. Maybe it will get even better after being featured. Uncle Ed 00:24, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

  • Thanks, for your Support Uncle Ed. I had to "translate" for you, and bold face it so it would be obvious that support is gaining. Also, Mark (aka Raul654, the Fac editor) and I (and others) are working on it, cutting it up and making it smaller and sleeker. I would prefer it be LARGE, but I feel the tide turning against me there. At least it is still a good article, so we hope and pray.--GordonWattsDotCom 02:11, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. The comments brought up in the PR have been completely ignored and the contributors seem to think that as long as a subject attracts a lot of dedicated editors, any reasonable definition of "encyclopedic" should be disregarded; clearly a sign that the article needs a few months (or years) to cool down. And the article is still at 60k+. Try getting it down to less than 20k if you're going to renominate it. And please, please, plsae don't write more sub-articles about Terry. At best they'll only please the contributors themselves and at worst not even that. / Peter Isotalo 22:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Uh...I think cutting it to less than 20k is very, very extreme. Most FAs are about 30k to 40k in size. I also don't see what's wrong with more sub-articles, as long as they're not all stubs. Johnleemk | Talk 09:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. However well this article may be written, the recentness of the subject and its bitter controversy are going to cause multiple edit wars and frivolous NPOV debates for some time yet. For this reason, it cannot yet satisfy the 'stability requirement' necessary for featured articles. Ingoolemo talk 23:43, 2005 August 29 (UTC)
  • Object<\s> neutral Too long, comprehensive, but not FA-quality, Peer Review has been ignored. May change my mind after overhaul has been complete. Borisblue 22:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I looked at the three peer reviews, and the only MAJOR complain was "too long," but this article HAS to be long to address the subject. Your concern is noted, but unless you have specific gripes, I don't see your point in objecting. Do you have specific concerns? If so, what are they?--GordonWattsDotCom 06:20, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Strongly Object FA-status represents a lower standard that no article should aspire to. Please withdraw this nomination, and stop hacking at the article.--Silverback 06:25, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your concern Silverback, but I don't plan to hack the article into a lower energy orbit, and I think I speak for a majority of the regular Schiavo editors, even those who often disagree with me on presentation of issues (FuelWagon is a good example here). Nonetheless, I don't plan to withdraw it. Either Fac raises its standards, or we get booted on our own merit, thank you. (PS: The article, while hacked a bit, is still improved, but, no, I agree with you: It DOESN'T need to be cut, hacked, and reduced any further:-) "FA-status represents a lower standard that no article should aspire to." Thank you for being so bold to speak your mind; I don't know if you're correct or not, but a) It's a good point to consider; and b) I HOPE that you're not right about that "lower standards" thing here. --GordonWattsDotCom 06:35, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I do not believe that is a valid reason to object. If you state what changes you feel have degraded the article, then that would be a valid objection. Johnleemk | Talk 11:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Thank you for supporting my quest for the full scoop, John. Silver Back may yet have good objections that would sway me to fix the article before declaring it "ready," but as of now, I think --- Mission Control -- IT'S a GO -- WE Have Liftoff. (Translation: Terri Schiavo's whipped into shape, and ready to be "featured." She can take on Rocky with just a little more training, FYI.--GordonWattsDotCom 11:31, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
        • I have temporarily changed to neutral, although I am pessimistic about what any pressure to shorten the article will do.--Silverback 14:36, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object: this article, though fair, is not one I would put forward as an example of Wikipedia; I must say that the tonitruous campaing of the instigator of this nomination lead me to ponder about his motivations. Rama 11:36, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
    • 1) What are my motivations? 2) Does that even matter? 3) You yourself say the article is fair, hense good, so what exactly is your objection. I had to look up "tonitruous," which means a thundering campaign on my part. Sometimes the majority is not right --remember: You are dealing with humans, whose history is less than sparkly, if you know what I mean. I think that a vote -for or against --without any expalation is really not a vote, but a defense -but a defense of what?
    • My "motives" are to show honor to the team efforts of MANY people. If I am one of them (conflict of interest), does that matter? I await any feedback on what IS wrong with it, not merely suspicians. MY EAR IS OPEN.--GordonWattsDotCom 11:44, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
I said "fair", not "brilliant". If we had to feature the gazillions articles which are at least as good as this one, we'd need to feature five articles a day. As for your motivations, your instantaneous rant about "Sometimes the majority is not right", "You are dealing with humans", etc. speaks for itself. Rama 12:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
"Ranting and raving," ?? I merely told the truth -- you have not specifically told me the objections you have, other than to say Schiavo's not "brilliant," or that we don't have room for "five articles a day" to be featured. Is that true? (Do we really have many more worthy candidates, such that Terri Schiavo is squeezed out? Do we? Which ones, and why??) OK -- Tell me "how," or otherwise, me ear will be "closed" to opinions --and count them as a "ranting and raving." I am not trying to offend you, but if you want to win me over to your point of view, you have to make an argument, not merely state a conclusion. Try again.--GordonWattsDotCom 12:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
I do not wish to "win you over". You clearly have stated that you would not change your mind on the matter, I can't see why I should waste my time trying to convince you then. Rama 12:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
False: You are wrong, when you say I won't listen. Just to give you one example of why this has proven false, let me point out that other objections that people had were "seriously considered": For example, Raul654, the Fac editor, suggested the references section was not using the proper format, and I spent about 12-hours yesteday and about 24-hours on a few other days, fixing that section: If you have a "real" complaint, we will listen; If you're just complaining, we won't listen.--GordonWattsDotCom 12:54, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
My objection not about mere formatting points. This article is well-arranged, factual, meticulous, and incredibly boring and overlong. There seems to be virtually no synthesis effort, and as it is, it looks more like a maniacal collection of every tiny bit of information of the subject, than a useable introduction to the subject. "From 1990 to 1993, Mr. Schiavo and the Schindlers enjoyed an amicable relationship. [5] (Page 3 of 30 of Court Ruling) The Schindlers even allowed Mr. Schiavo to live rent free in their condominium for several months."... I mean, come on. Rama 13:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Regarding the article length & all them little details..., I see what you mean, but for those interested in the subject, this won't matter. Besides, the intro is now much shorter. As far as the article being long, well, some people wanna put in their "pet project," and, as long as it isn't "rally disruptive," others generally allow it. It's the nature of teamwork, and, this way, it is complete. Just think about it this way: The short intro for the "short article" folks, and the "long part below" for those who want "in depth" info: The best of both worlds: Nominate. Vote Terri. Terri for President. oh, nevermind that --just ask yourself, "What do I want?" and then, ask yourself: Is the article OK? If so --> "YES" -- if not, maybe change a few things. I did my best --I don't get paid for this you know --unless you count The Creator. Is He paying me? (Yes)--GordonWattsDotCom 13:30, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Object - this article needs more time to stabilize, it's too soon. Perhpas in a year or so. --Quasipalm 14:36, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
    • The Abortion article is still not stabilized, and this is after over thirty (30) years since the 1973 Roe v. Wade court case. Therefore, waiting for it to "stabilize" will make us wait forever. I think this is bad, but thank you for your comments. If it needs to be stabilized further, the page can be protected and locked.--GordonWattsDotCom 09:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Changed to support. Come to think of it, they are plenty of controversial FAs (look at Turin Shroud for example) and they reflect really well on wikipedia, that we manage to write a good article that fills the middle ground. And Gordon, I have to warn you that your abrasive tone in this FAC is costing you votes. You need to be more diplomatic- use gentler language, and apologize to people that feel you insulted them. One of the reasons I voted neutral rather than support the first place was because I didn't like the way you treating your objectors.Borisblue 18:31, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your support. I am not trying to offend anybody. (My replies may seem agressive or pushy, but I am simply trying to fulfil my duties and obligations to answer all the critics: Since I am the one who nominated the article, it is MY responsibility/duty to answer concerns or criticisms.) If I have offended any Wikipedia editors, I apologize: All people are important, even if we are all humans and make mistakes. Furthermore, I am trying to help others as we produce a quality article for our world community. I am only one person, but I will do what I can to help others feel welcome and help the article improve.--GordonWattsDotCom 09:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
  • oppose-- the article is far from ready for the featured status. The article needs more editing, it is today too verbose, to chronological and too little sorting (information) has been done. The references need a better solution too, with some section having two references per sentence. The partitioning of the article is too arbitrary and does not resemble anything seen in a FA. — Sverdrup 23:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
    • "it is today too verbose" I apologize for this, but this subject is complex, and we editors are trying to avoid sacrificing quality. "to chronological and too little sorting (information) has been done." I apologize if this offends you, but I thought that being chronological was good organization. "The references need a better solution too, with some section having two references per sentence." I just did a lot of work, creating a brand new Terri_Schiavo#Notes_and_references section that had not been there before. Also, is is not GOOD to have two (2) references sometimes? It is like a spare tire on a vehicle -if one tire is flat, you can use another -a backup -an alternate. "The partitioning of the article is too arbitrary and does not resemble anything seen in a FA." How would you improve it? Thank you for your feedback.--GordonWattsDotCom 09:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
    I'd like to add that I really dislike how the nominator is pushing this article; applying to Jimbo to use his god powers (when did he have this power over content) is certainly not in the realm of wikipedia. Also, it seems the nominator was a big actor in the case the article documents: if I was the FA director, I wouldn't accept this personal agenda-pushing.
    — Sverdrup 23:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
    • "I'd like to add that I really dislike how the nominator is pushing this article; applying to Jimbo..." If a person thinks an article is good, should he or she not push and advocate? "(when did he have this power over content)" It is my understanding (I may be wrong??) that Jimbo has the last word, that is, that he does currently have power over content --but I have heard that he is decreasing his authority in the near future. "Also, it seems the nominator was a big actor in the case the article documents:" Yes, it is true. I went to court, and I almost won -I lost 4-3, and the Governor of Florida, Jeb Bush, lost 7-0. I did better than the "professionals," but how does this change things? All it means is that I have additional experience and knowledge (and, I admit, I might have a hidden "conflict of interest" or selfish motives) --however, we are not voting on "Gordon Watts' motives" --we are discussing an article about Terri Schiavo. "if I was the FA director, I wouldn't accept this personal agenda-pushing." Have you stopped to think that maybe this agenda is a good one? I am not saying that this is necessarily the case, but you must look beyond my motives and personal involvement -to the bigger picture: Do we work hard to make a quality product simply to become distracted by "personal agendas?" -- Do we act for ourselves; or, instead, do we think about out readers? Yes, the article is not perfect, but we are trying to improve it -and, I think it is good, even very good, even if not perfect.--GordonWattsDotCom 09:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Support This was an exciting project to work on. There's very little that's been published since Terri Schiavo's obituary that reflects a neutral point of view and presents so much information comprehensively, which accounts for its length. Books about this tragedy will be published for years but this article is ready now and the authors of such books will be looking at this article. It needs to be protected from vandalism. It's timely and of extraordinary public interest. (On the photo copyright status: The family pictures were simply distributed to the old media and blogs without copyright) patsw 13:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


Too long really,it could be a seperate website on it's own,Also it has too many details that don't belong in an encyclopedia.

  • Oppose, it really is too long and unwieldy at this time. It's a very good article, and not POV at all, which I find amazing since it hasn't been that long since she died - definitely worthy of FA status in the near future. However, I believe the article can be successfully broken down into smaller yet comprehensive articles without sacrificing the quality of information already provided. Also, the extensive quoting of various law statutes paragraph-length quotes of various opinions, as well as some law statutes can be significantly reduced if not eliminated, but my main concern is length. I don't think we need the 15+ articles that was suggested above, but 3-4 of them wouldn't be unreasonable. justsomechick·chat·stuff 21:43, 1 September 2005 (UTC) amended justsomechick·chat·stuff 21:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
    • In spite of the fact you oppose the article on length issues, thank you for amending your concerns about citing legal info. I must respectfully point out that I think the article is too short. Here is why: It doesn't hurt anything for all the info to be in one place (unless you are on dial-up, with a slow connection). Conversely, I think the reader can sort out what is important. Yes, it would still be "workable" with even more "reduction" of the article into more sub-articles (because we could link to them), but as it stands, there already are several sub-articles: The original version was broken into chunks, and any more would break it into bits and pieces. Do you really want that?
    • PS: You are not alone: Many people have a problem with the length, and I do too, but I think the article is too short, and that it should be put back together. I am the nominator of this Fac, and that is my view.--GordonWattsDotCom 15:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Far too unstable, with far too much controversy. Simply by virtue of it's subject, it will never attain a subjective status of full NPOV to all sides.--Fangz 13:26, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your opinion, Fang Zhou, but I respectfully dissent: You imply that anything with "too much controversy" is unsuitable to feature as a featured article; this alone should make me think the article should at least be considered: The fact it is so controversial means there has been much interest; and, if the article can be presented well, explaining all points of view, then it should be featured.
    • The important point here is the NPOV means Neutral Point of View, not "No Point of View"; While I admit is it very hard to please all parties when explaining the various points of view, if all "major" points are included, then they balance themselves, and the result is a fairy "neutral" point of view: Explaining both (or all) sides.--GordonWattsDotCom 14:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Support on condition that:
  1. it's made shorter,
  2. it's made more chronological,
  3. the references are tidied up, to look more professional, rather than having things like page 4 of 12, which are usful for those who want to look up the documents, but intrude if you're a newcomer and just want to read the story of Terri,
  4. the article does not assert as fact anything that is merely hearsay (even if a judge or guardian ad litem believes it) — examples would include: Michael was woken by the sound of a thud, Michael finally accepted that Terri was not going to get better, etc. Such POV-ish corroboration has been in the article before, and might creep back in.
I suppose that means that I'm giving it delayed support, if there is such a thing. And I'm going to be busy until around 19 October, so I can't do much tidying of the article. Ann Heneghan (talk) 15:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your support and kind words, Ann. I've already stated my opinions on the length; I agree that it should follow a chronological order, but I have not studied the article in fine detail; Yet, as far as I can see, the article is generally chronological: Most sections go in order of time, from a quick overview, it appears. As far as the "page 4 of 14" format, I think it could go both ways, and I am waiting for either a clear concensus or a "ruling by the authorities" on this, "authorities" meaning admins, such as Raul, overseeing the Fac. I agree on the last point: We should not state unproven opinions as facts, no matter which side they support.
  • For example, it would be wrong to say: "Terri was PVS."
  • It would also be wrong to say: "Terri moved around and was clearly not PVS."
  • We've agreed, by concensus, to say that Terri "was diagnosed as PVS" and that there was major disagreement, with an eventual court ruling one way on the issue, etc. That is the right way to state the facts for our reading audience.
I agree on some of your points, disagree on others, and am neutral on the references format.--GordonWattsDotCom 15:53, 3 September 2005 (UTC)