Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Terri Schiavo/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Terri Schiavo

[edit]

The previous nomination can be found here

"Once the objections have been addressed, you may resubmit the article for featured article status." I am re-nominating Schiavo, and the process led me to this archived page, so I will go ahead and use it.

New info (ATTN: Nichalp) re Article Length: I just saved the Terri Schiavo page in *.txt format on my computer: My computer says that it is "69.7 KB (71,438 bytes)." which is accurate. Wikipedia claims says of "Talk" page that: "This page is 119 kilobytes long," so are my computer's numbers are accurate?? My computer says the "Talk" page "117 KB (120,015 bytes)," so my computer is telling the truth about the article page too, I believe. (PS" I saved the talk and article pages in HTML format, but I shall not discuss those figures, as they are not accurate.) So, in conclusion, since I can't pull up the edit dialogue and get "wikipedia's" assessment, we will have to guess that my computer is accurate: Terri Schiavo is larger than 55Kb or 65Kb, yes, but it is not 80Kb; it is more like 70Kb, references and all, FYI. Look at it yourself and see if I've read right, please. Thx.--GordonWattsDotCom 19:20, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • New News: Today's FA uses a "Fair Use" image, so apparently Fair Use is OK for Featured Articles
  • NEW News: I have not fully studied all there is on the Fair Use issue, but I have new news on that standard -which I'm refactoring and placing at the top here: The Main Page lists a "Featured Article," Space opera in Scientology doctrine, which uses two images: One is made up with software, but the other, here, is clearly copyrighted and used under "fair use"; Since this is in a "Featured Article," then this feature shows by example that some images can indeed be "Fair Use." While I would like to personally visit Bob and Mary Schindler or email them, if that's not possible, then we can use the images we have, and still be legal --AND "pretty enough" to be a "Featured Article." I consider this concern closed unless someone can show how today's FA and Schiavo are different; However, Carnildo, raised good points in his links: If we use too many fair use images, then other will be limited on what they can copy; however, the few images on Schiavo are not enough to warrant that concern. The only other problems that remain are the length, which is a tad long, by some standards (??), and the edit war, which I expect to end soon, but I do NOT consider that a problem for the article -only for the editors.--GordonWattsDotCom 10:08, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE. Since there is ongoing concern of the edit war, please let me point out that I asked my father about it, and, if you want to remain credible in my eyes, I ask you to read this entire page, at least once, and pay special attention to my father’s remarks concerning the edit war. See e.g., below, before the page gets too long to be manageable.--GordonWattsDotCom 01:31, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the previous FAC nomination of this article. That FAC nomination has undergone heavy editing since it was archived on September 3, 2005. Lupo 07:51, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • NEW:Here's Talk:Terri_Schiavo the talk page, and the disagreement is "important," but both sides are close to an agreement, so don't come here if you are too lazy to actually educate yourself on the nuances of the disagreement; The actual disagreement that locked the page centers on one small paragraph: I wish to report both objections that an attorney had, and FuelWagon wants to report only one. He had in the past promised to not complain if I could quote a major player in the Schiavo saga, and said that this was superior to a mere description, accusing me of "original research" for merely reporting on facts; I did as he asked, and sourced (verified) it with links, so what's the holdup? Come and help out; PS: You remember Wagon as one of the six who favoured SUPPORT, as opposed to the eleven who OPPOSED Fac nomination. Thx.--GordonWattsDotCom 11:36, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"(If you are resubmitting an article) Use the Move..." Already did, but it still shows this page.

Reason for (re)nominating the article:

There will be initial criticism for renominating the article so soon after it failed, but many have stated to the effect that Terri Schiavo is FA-worthy; and, let me add that the recent "emotional concerns" do not matter for FA-worthiness, because its fitness as a candidate is a state function, that is, the fitness to be a featured article is a property of the Schiavo article that depends only on the current state of the system, not on the way in which the system got to that state. My fellow scientists will understand this logic is more logical than the emotional concerns to wait: We editors (including Mark himself) have fixed ALL the problems that Mark (Raul654, the Fac editor), brought, and most of the problems that other editors mentioned; Only a few concerns remain, such as the length, but George W. Bush is about as long, and Terri Schiavo was arguably comparably as well-known as Bush.

The article is very stable, having only a few edits in recent times; there is, however, a LOCK on the article at the moment, and this hints that there is instability, but the existence of disputes is not a guarantee of instability. In fact, with the lock -and the negotiations going on in talk, the article is very stable.

In fact, a lot of work was done recently to procure images, first-hand, to release under GNU and avoid Fair Use. As well, the references section was created anew and much copyedit was done -with much blood-sweat-and-tears on the part of many editors, who don't always agree on things: For example: FuelWagon, the one who provoked me to ask for page protection does not always agree with me on things, but we both think Schiavo is FA-worthy, and so do some other editors.

To keep things orderly, I will not participate much in this renomination, since I contributed heavily in the past, but I want to set up areas of concern, here, and if the article meets most or all of these, then support it:

Policy Concerns:

  • Exemplify Wikipedia's very best work.
  • Comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, and well-written.
  • Uncontroversial in its neutrality and factual accuracy,
  • Comply with the standards set in the style manual,
  • Have images where appropriate, with good captions and acceptable copyright status.
  • Have an appropriate length

Mark's concerns, addressed below:

  • TOCright breaks the manual of style, the TOC (with its 37 sections) is quite overwhelming - We fixed that, and Mark scratched that out.
  • the article has no introduction - We fixed that, and he scratched it out too.
  • it has no references section to complement the inline linking -I fixed that almost single-handedly. Come and see.
  • it has a see also section (which should be converted to prose, inserted into the article, and the section deleted) - we did that
  • every image used in the article is fair use - Not any longer.
  • it's 80 kilobytes long -We greatly cut the article down - You happy now?

Since the major problems have been ironed out, it is only logical to renominate, and I regret having waited: My inaction does nothing to honor the collective work of all the editors who have worked on this -and it does not honor the casual reader who wants to see a top-notch article.--GordonWattsDotCom 06:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. For the reasons above and below. Chiefly, the problems have been ironed out. If a few remain, deal with it: Life isn't perfect: This is a very quality article, representing the very best of Wikipedia and its editors. The few remaining disputes are discussed in Schiavo's talk page. Other than that, it;s good to go. For that reason, I support.--GordonWattsDotCom 06:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. Article is clearly not stable (it currently is even protected due to a recent edit war), and there are many unresolved points on the talk page. Lupo 07:58, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. 1) The page is right now protected. 2) The article stands at 87 kb. That's unacceptable for any FAC, and especially such an over-blown and over-politicized subject. 3) It's been, what? Two weeks since the last nomination? This thing needs at least six months, probably several years to cool down enough. This is not "the best of Wikipedia". It's merely an outlet for the frustrations and non-notable opinions of those closely involved or deeply engaged in the affair. Wikipedia is not the place for this kind of writing and it's very unbecoming an FAC. / Peter Isotalo 08:02, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you, Peter for your concern in comments above and below, but let me assure you that the "frustrations" of the participant, editors, etc., are a reflection on them, not on the article: We are not getting voted on; The article is. Also, since many complaints herein have been addressed or are not a reflection of the article itself (maybe a reflection on the "edit warring editors"), then many of the complaints (except maybe article length) are not actionable or relevant to the vote; Thank you, still, for your feedback, Peter.--GordonWattsDotCom 01:39, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • On a side not to Gordon: please don't use this nomination as yet another forum for intricate Schiavo-discussions. This is not the place for it. Accept votes as they are; if they're inactionable, Raul (and no one else) will decide if they're valid or not. No one with any formal powers will intervene and especially not Jimbo. Peter Isotalo 08:02, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object.
    1. Article is not stable, as evidenced by a recent revert war and current page protection.
    2. The images Image:TerriSchiavo2.jpg and Image:Schiavo catscan.jpg are claimed as "fair use", but have no fair use rationale. See Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale for what's needed, and the image description pages at Sunset Boulevard (film) for a good example.
    3. The image Image:TerriSchiavo2.jpg does not indicate the creator or copyright holder. Without that information, it's not possible to claim fair use.
    4. The image Image:Schiavo.jpg is claimed as "fair use", but the fair use rationale provided is inadequate.
    --Carnildo 08:09, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - This article is clearly not in a stable state yet. And it is far too soon after the previous nomination to renominate. The size does not worry me unduly, but query whether the legal toing and froing could be moved to a separate sub-article which is summarised here - this article should be about the person, not the legal cases. Also query whether all 79 references are required - in some sections, almost every other phrase has a footnote. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:53, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • ALoan, where do the rules say there has to be any mandatory waiting period? The rules simply say: "Once the objections have been addressed, you may resubmit the article for featured article status." I did that. Now, I agree with you on article length, but a few dissenters may compel the regular editors to look into that. Lastly, Mark, the Fac editor (Raul654 is Mark) is the one who called for the reference section, and this is policy; Yes, 79 or 80 references is a lot, but we must document, verify, source, and link to verify our claims. It will be OK; The "References" section is at the bottom and won't affect things. Oh, the "stability" issue: Yes, My father addressed that; see below.--GordonWattsDotCom 01:59, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • First let me say that I respect the effort that you and others are putting into getting this article featured: in principle, it certainly can and should be featured, but only when it meets the featured article criteria - that is to say, when it is comprehensive, accurate, stable, NPOV, well written, has appropriate images, and is of an appropriate length. Irrespective of its other merits, this article is still unstable (as evidenced by the edit war and page protection) and the only way to show that it is stable is for it to stay in an acceptable form, without significant revisions from day to day, for a substantial period (that is, for at least a few weeks - and no, this is not written down either, but it is what I would expect). I will reconsider my objection when the article is stable. Now, regarding your question, "the rules" also do not state that there has to be a waiting period between FAC nominations. It is, however, the usual practice to wait for a sensible period after a FAC fails before renominating (otherwise, as we are seeing here, everyone's time is wasted with the similar objections coming up all over again). And when an article is unstable, like this one, the waiting period is likely to be longer: the only way to demonstrate stability is to wait. It certainly takes more than one week after an unstable article fails FAC for the article be demonstrably stable. (Sorry, I don't see how your father's reported comments address the stability issue: you say "I told him about the dispute on the talk page, and asked him if an article could still be of good quality -even if its recent editors had questionable quality -as shown by disputed. He said that he didn't see why not." - I don't see how that contributes significantly to the issue of stability). Finally, this is a consensus process: you need to convince everyone with an actionable objection that this article meets the featured article criteria. It is really not necessary to write screeds of justification and rebuttal to do that. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:04, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm sorry Gordon, I warned you that you should have waited a while. This article is extremely unstable, with a recent page protection to boot! Borisblue 12:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Do not re-nominate unstable articles so quickly. Phils 13:06, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Agree fully with Peter. Renominating just because you feel it should be featured is inappropriate. There was consensus on the FAC talk page against it, so even if some people though you should nominate it, you should have been able to see this coming. Multiple objections have been levied for it being too long. Please use Wikipedia:Summary style to trim the article down without losing information. Yes it is possible, but no one said it was easy. Prioritize properly what information really needs to be included to give a proper overview. And no, that won't likely be possible to do and reach stability in a few days. - Taxman Talk 15:16, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Object. Too quick a renomination, edit warring, too big, etc. And I'm confused how you justify the size by saying that Terri Schiavo was "arguably comparably as well-known as Bush". Bush is the leader of the free world; Schiavo was a news story for perhaps a few months. Ral315 15:58, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • Ral315 My father addresses the stability issue below, and I address the "waiting period" issue in the answer to ALoan, above. "Bush is the leader of the free world; Schiavo was a news story for perhaps a few months." Terri Schiavo will remain a story for the rest of American History; She will be remembered along with Dred Scot, Abraham Lincoln, and others, but her article is longer for now because she, like George W. Bush are "current" news.--GordonWattsDotCom 02:07, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bush doesn't need or deserve such a large article either, regardless of being "the leader of the free world" (a statement which in itself is subject to debate, though this is the wrong place). Object for many of the above given reasons. Fredrik | talk 17:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak oppose, for reasons of instability stated above; the article itself is fair enough I suppose; but just because (even if) antagonists agree on a version, it does not follow that it is FA-worthy. Especially if both factions are (for different reasons) obsessed with the subject. Also, some annoying excess-linkage (stuffed animal (!), fax, dove, high school, iced tea..... I mean, seriously, what good is a link to testimony or April in this article?) dab (ᛏ) 20:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Conclusion.
    • Since the article was highly-praised by people on both sides of the issue who normally don't agree --even back in the peer reviews, and since the article has dramatically improved since then, it is more ready. The edit warring will quit ...if there is stability brought on by a Featured Article status. If the article was (almost) ready for FA-status in the peer reviews, and if it has had improvements since then -on several successive occasions -then how can it get less ready? I think it is nothing more than pack mentality. Are we not smarter than that?--GordonWattsDotCom 19:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • With all due respect, you seem to have this very backwards. We don't promote articles to featured status in the hopes they will become stable; we promote stable articles to featured status *because* they are, among other things, stable. →Raul654 19:22, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
        • It goes both ways: The article is deserving because it was almost ready in the past 2 peer reviews, and has improved much since. However, nomination also affects stability -in the same way stability affects quality of nomination. ~~ It works both ways -not one, not another, but both. However, if there is "Pack Mentality," no matter how ready the article is for Feature --the Featured Editors are not ready for the article. Pack Mentality, where one person follows another without a full examination of the logic.--GordonWattsDotCom 19:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • You seem to be having a really hard time understanding how this FAC process of gaining consensus works. We'll all give you some leeway because it is your first time, but come on now, you're not even trying to listen to what people have to say. With well over a year of sustained FAC participation, I can guarantee you this article will not be promoted if you keep up what you're doing. People have repeatedly told you the article needs to be trimmed down. Continuing to ignore that isn't going to help. Please, step away, and stop with the polemics. - Taxman Talk 20:31, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
            • I am flexible on the length issue, but many editors with 'expertise on editing this article think it should be this long; Who are you or I to disagree? PS: On the "concensus" thing, Taxman, I think you misunderstand what happened in the past three (3) reviews -the two peer reviews and the last FA-review. There were more positive comments than you imply, and you should ask yourself "why" if the article is that bad: And, it has improved, with the only "major" concern being the recent edit war, but I address that below, when I discuss what my father had to say about it, so I won't repeat it here. I've addressed all concerns, and any more opposition -even if it from many voters -is "emotional," not logical; see below for my answers on the lingering concerns.--GordonWattsDotCom 01:22, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. The article is currently protected from editing due to edit warring, is listed at WP:RFC, and thus does not meet the stability criteria that is required for featured articles. There also seem to be ongoing debates about the article's content on its talk page. Extraordinary Machine 20:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object since me and Carnildo's objections were never resolved last time around. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:33, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Object - Edit war, stability, and length. You mention that George Bush's article is also really long, but you might also note that George Bush's article is not featured, either. Fieari 21:26, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • First, I want to agree that a few things could be removed from the article, stuff like Terri's cat, for example. With that said, I will take an opportunity to tell you the feedback I received from my father, when I asked him about this.
    • What my father said, when I asked him about the edit war:
    • My father is not a "computer-type," but a common working man, but I called him up today and asked him about the edit war situation, the only thing that is a major concern (except now I think maybe a little fat can be cut from the article, but it still is quality). I told my father, born in 1935, who runs his own auto part sales business, the situation about the nomination and the edit war. (Pop used to be personal friends with "Big Daddy" Don Garlits, as both were in drag racing about 30 years ago, here in the Tampa Bay area, not that this affects his wisdom or anything.) Anyhow, I told him that a featured article represents the very best of our collective contributions.
    • I told him about the dispute on the talk page, and asked him if an article could still be of good quality -even if its recent editors had questionable quality -as shown by disputed. He said that he didn't see why not.
    • My opinion is that the edit war is possibly a reflection on the editor -however, this is not a popularity contest of the editor -but one of the page itself.
    • If you don't believe me, contact me, and I will put you in touch with my father.
    • Since the page was in the past considered by many for FA, and since the current status is much-improved (with no regard to the editors themselves in any edit war), then the transitive property reigns: If the past versions of Schiavo were good enough to be considered for FA; and, if the current versions are better, then the current versions are definitely better then the previous standards -which they passed well enough to get many positive rave reviews -in both peer reviews (see quotes, this page) -and the past FA-nomination (see archives, which show it was a closer vote than you and your fellow editors would imply here).
    • CONCLUSION: If the reader, you that is, don't at least read this entire page (it's not that long), then you are disrespecting the past three sets of editors, myself, and my father. Do you want to do that? I am not asking you vote "for" me (although that is my formal nomination request); I am, rather, asking you to either read the page and vote accordingly, or, instead, if you STILL have complaints, come and help out. Either help out -or don't complain -but you have no moral justification to speak unless you can certify that you have at least read this one small page here.--GordonWattsDotCom 01:09, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Object - The reasons given above by others are overwhelming and do not need repeating. The nominator has crossed the line into "abuse of the system" long, long ago. - Bantman 21:51, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • The article was considered for FA in the 1st two reviews, and it has improved since then. Did you even read the page, or are you just following the crowd? PS: Read the comments (above) from my father on the issue -and he is not a "computer person," by the way, but a common man.
    • Regarding abuse, let me point out that the FA candidacy is not a review on the nominator -or editor -or edit wars -it is a nomination of the article. If the article was seriously considered for FA twice in peer reviews, and almost passed the third time (the "vote" was close, if you actually counted them), then I am inclined to believe the abuse is on the part of people who seem to say that the editors in the past peer reviews were wrong or stupid to suggest a FA nomination. If I were the only one who shared the feeling that the Terri article was FA material, I'd be inclined to believe you might be right, but since the past three reviews (the two peer reviews and the recent FA review) had many positive comments, and since it has improved since then, I say you are abusing the process: Your "no" vote implies the past three (3) sets of reviewers were stupid abusers of the process by voting positively: No respectful at all. Your only valid concern is the recent edit war, and I address that above -and share insight that I got from asking my father about this. I hope you would respect him enough to at least look it over.--GordonWattsDotCom 01:16, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • We understand that you are nominating the article; however, the featured article criteria state that a features article should be "mostly static, and not change rapidly from day to day" and be "uncontroversial in its neutrality and factual accuracy, and not have ongoing edit wars". The Terri Schiavo article meets neither of these requirements. Also, since you have reverted Wikipedia:Featured article candidates more than three times in 24 hours, I have reported you at WP:3RR. Extraordinary Machine 03:25, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Correction: my apologies, you have not violated the 3RR, but I advise you not to pursue featured article status for Terri Schiavo for at least some time after this nomination fails. Extraordinary Machine 03:35, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • No problem, Extraordinary Machine , regarding the 3RR mistake: We all slip up; and, yes, there is a current edit war, but that is one (singular), not edit wars, plural. It was mostly static, as Mark said in the recent FA-nomination (see archive link at very top), and now it is very static, and when the page unlocks, it will probably be fairly static, based on the edit history of the last months. ""uncontroversial in its neutrality and factual accuracy" It is not an uncontroversial topic, but all sides usually agree that it is NPOV (with an exception on this recent edit war on a small section). "...after this nomination fails." Huh? You are assuming it will fail. While it looks bad, I have met the technical requirements, "Once the objections have been addressed, you may resubmit the article for featured article status," so I don't see the problem. The problem is perceived, not real.--GordonWattsDotCom 04:17, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support I don't know where these accusations of instability are coming from. What's the objective measurement of stability? It's a good article and is a better written and more complete summary of this very important case than you will find anywhere on the Internet. I have nothing against Sun Yat-Sen or the History of Alaska but the material in those articles organized in a useful way is duplicated all over the net. The Terri Schiavo article on the other hand is a unique demonstration of how the competitive editing process of the Wikipedia can produce timely, comprehensive, and good enough quality. patsw 04:08, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Stability" means that the article does not constantly change dramatically, as, e.g. in an edit war. Borisblue 05:31, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object – Currently protected from editing (thus not suitable for FA at this juncture), and definately needs a summary as the article takes up 54kb (excluding refs, ext links etc.) =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:15, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • Questions 1 & 2. (1)How do you see the size in Kb? (I used to know how but can't do it now-days, but even then, my "saved" copy was a different size than the Wikipedia servers said, lol.) (2)Also, where's the policy on article size that sets an upper limit? (If I get a chance, Wagon and I will maybe try to trim it down, but it's harmelss and complete as it, I think.)--GordonWattsDotCom 05:19, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • PS: Yes, it's long, Nichalp, but, as I've said before, current events (Bush, Schiavo, etc.) are going to be longer than ancient ones (Lincoln, Washington, etc.).--GordonWattsDotCom 05:23, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • When you click edit, if the article is above 32 kilobytes, above the edit window you'll get a message saying "This page is X kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size." 32 kilobytes used to be considered the approximate ceiling for how large our articles should go. Nowadays, with references and whatnot, we accept that around 45 or 55 kilobytes is a more reasonable ceiling. However, bigger than that is generally unacceptable. →Raul654 05:24, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
      • Thanks, Mark. I thought it was automatic, but since the page is locked, I can't get that function; ALSO, Nichalp, regarding the edit war, I address that above, hopefully to your satisfaction.--GordonWattsDotCom 05:27, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Brilliant Flash: Mark just now said that 55 Kb was alright for a total size, Nichalp, and the references can't push the total up that much more, and are very essential to document, source, verify, and such make it legit. So, I see no problems with the article length, but I admit I do not know it all, and should hope to see if any fluff exists, fat that can be cut off.--GordonWattsDotCom 05:35, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's incorrect. I removed the references, see alsos, notes, interwikis and the infobox and then previewed. Without all this the article content comes to 54kb, otherwise it touches 80kb. don't compare the article to GWB, that article is not a Featured one. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:38, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
          • I acknowledged your removal of the references in my comment above and was about to clarify that the addition of them might push the total up above the 55 Kb (but I had an edit conflict and could not clirify) but still the article is close enough for me; nonetheless, I admit I don't know all there is about the details, and have an open mind that maybe some extra fluff can be removed.--GordonWattsDotCom 05:41, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question for Nichalp re length: What happens if the article is featured as is? Do readers howl at the length if/when they click on it? I think they would simply ignore something if it were too long, and since the extra Kilobytes are merely boxes, notes, etc., then I don't think it would detract from the "look and feel" of the article; forget "legal" arguments: I "feel" that I am right, and I surf the web all the time, and apparently others feel this way: Many long pages exist, and one day will be featured articles, so this standard of 80-90 Kb is, IMHO, not too long, lol.--GordonWattsDotCom 05:46, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • [paste after edit conflict] Yes, it may be a current (ok recent past) event, and I don't deny that contemporary figures will have a lot of material about them, but that does not justify the need for having such a long article. You would need to add the detail to dedicated articles link you've done in the case of " Government involvement in the Terri Schiavo case". You need to summarise the text here. Newspapers and magazines summarise all the time, so it isn't too difficult to get a summary here. Also if you want to check the size of the page offline, save the material as .txt and see the file size. Your ultimate aim is to get it featured, but why don't you wait for a few more weeks till things cool over? As the history of FAC goes, articles which are submitted immediately after being failed have a lesser chance promotion than those which have been nominated after a sufficient period of time. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:49, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • In that case WW2 would have a massive entry. Wikipedia:Summary style will address your queries. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:51, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • "but that does not justify" does it not? Maybe - maybe not - "would need to add the detail to dedicated articles link" Hold on a second: You're saying one article is too long and the linked one is too short? So, why can't you just shift a little material and make it ALL good. Hmm... Interesting! "need to summarise the text here" We did. It is the intro. We all worked on that -well many of us here did. "if you want to check the size of the page offline," Thx! However, it gave me different measurements when I saved it -maybe I used HTML instead of Text formats. May check later to see if my version's the same size as what Wiki-servers say... " but why don't you wait" Why should I? Since fitness is a state function, the burden of proof is on those who oppose moving forward, and especially since "Once the objections have been addressed, you may resubmit the article for featured article status." "As the history of FAC goes..." Thx for your analysis, but might does not make right, nor do two wrongs (in past nomination history) make right. Right is right regardless of the "history." The article is what is being judged, not it's history, not the editors, not the edit wars: The article is fine whether or not there exists an edit war on some small (but important) point. We are judging the article, not the article's editors, lol. I know this page is growing faster than inflation, but you did read it all, Nichalp, right? I did! (As nominator, I hope I have upheld my responsibility to be responsive to ALL concerns; have I?)--GordonWattsDotCom 06:04, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still object - both for the fact that it's apparantly unstable (as proven by the fact that is has been protected) and for the problems with the images pointed out above. And of a wild tangent, what does the submitters father has to do with this??? WegianWarrior 06:19, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "And of a wild tangent, what does the submitters father has to do with this???" Two things: 1) His analysis makes sense: The fitness of the article is what is being assessed, not the fitness of the editors, and the editor arguments do not necessarily affect the article (because the "lock" will soon be over, I am sure) -and 2) Since many people have morals, I thought they would respect my father's opinion and increase the depth of understanding.--GordonWattsDotCom 06:34, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • So.. basicly you're asking us to support because your father says so? Uhm.. no, I don't think so. I'll support or object based on the article as it stands at the time I cast (or change) my vote. WegianWarrior 06:42, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • "So.. basicly you're asking us to support because your father says so?" Read what I wrote: I did not say my father said to support it; I said that he suggested that it could still be a good article -even if there existed arguments on the talk page; Furthermore, I don't ask you to do as my father suggest because he says sol I would ask that you look at his ideas that I shared and see if they make sense, but read them, which maybe you haven't? Thx for your interest.--GordonWattsDotCom 06:46, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object due to instability. A protected article can't become featured because it is profoundly unwiki -- page protection goes against the core principles of the Wikipedia project, and we can't be featuring articles that are the antithesis of the wiki spirit. In addition, I find the lead highly unsatisfactory because it doesn't state why this issue became such a high-profile event (i.e. the very reason it has an article at all). And I agree that the nominator's father's opinion on an article he appears to have not read is pretty irrelevant. If he thinks it's a worthy FA, he should become a Wikipedian and support on this page. Tuf-Kat 06:27, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
To be fair, Gordon's father's opinion wasn't on the article's FAC, but on the idea that edit war-ravaged articles shouldn't be featured. Borisblue 06:29, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"And I agree that the nominator's father's opinion on an article he appears to have not read is pretty irrelevant." Let me repeat it, since you may not have understood my comments above: My father did not comment on the article itself (he has not read it) -contra he commented that there is no problem in featuring an article (in general) if it's of good quality -whether or not there is an "edit war" among the editors; My father is just another person; However, if his idea has merit, I would hope you consider: Who is being judged: The editors -or the article? The name of this page is not "Featured editor candidates" -it is "Featured article candidates" --and the article is fine -very complete and refined in fact -even if we editors get crazy at times.--GordonWattsDotCom 06:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You have to realise, though that some articles attract more 'crazy' editors than others. And the fact is, if there is frequent warring, this page will have to be protected, have NPOV notices, etc. all of which would affect the article and look bad for Wikipedia. Stability is set in stone as a FA criteria. To get this article featured, you have to resolve that dispute with fuelwagon and get that page protection lifted, and then let the article go for two or three weeks without an edit war. Patience. Borisblue 06:50, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Stability is set in stone as a FA criteria"Wiki is, by the very definition, unstable, but for a very controversial topic, Schiavo has been surprisingly stable; Edit wars are normal for ALL pages -that does not affect the page -it affects the editors. The page is invariablely protected for a few days and then opened back up, and this will be the case here, barring disaster, so it is certainly stable enough for FA.--GordonWattsDotCom 06:59, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: At least two people (TUF-KAT and Wegian Warrior) have misquoted or misrepresented what I wrote about my father in this talk page, and a third person Bantman was kind enough to admit that he didn't study the what I quoted in regards to the history of the nominations entirely before voting; Since I am not going to get mad at you for disrespecting my father, I would hope you also don't get mad at me for criticizing you for not fully understanding and/or studying the fact.

My point here is not to offend a person by mentioning their name and saying they are a bad person; We all make mistakes and/or get too busy to fully read a page; Contra, my purpose in making this comment here is to point out that people have not studied the basic facts and arguments herein, and thus sometimes make uninformed decisions.

My conclusion is simple: Please just take a little time to read and study the facts; I am trying to study the materials that Carnildo asked me to research --before I comment further, and I would hope my global neighbors would do the same for me here -regardless of how you feel or vote --if you don't mind. Thank you for your concerns.--GordonWattsDotCom 06:59, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Misqouted or misrepresented? No, I'm confused what he has to do with this at all. Most wikipedians are sensible enought to realise that what they vote for (or against) is the article itself, not the editors or the edit history of the article. Please don't assume stuff because you gotten emotinaly involved. If the article stabilises, and if the issue with the images is cleared up (which should be easy enought), I'll reconsider my vote. If not.. well, then I won't cahnge it. WegianWarrior 07:12, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't pretend to know it all about copyright, but if the images were so bad, why have they remained to this day? Also, you did misrepresent what I wrote, but it's no big deal; if you re-read our dialogue, you'll see the nuances, but as to my question on the images... Hmm...? Emotionally involved? Does that invalidate the quality of the page, which has improved since in each sucessive review?--GordonWattsDotCom 07:18, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The images are not bad, they just need - as pointed out - better rationale for their use. Which is why, incidentaly, I pointed out it should be easy enought to fix.
Your involment don't invalidate the page - but it might make you, how to put it, liable to read things into comments other didn't intent.
As far as the misrepresentation go... see my previous point. Misunderstood, perhaps, and I still can't even see why you thought it nececarry to bring up. Again, most wikipedians are sensible enought to realise that what they vote for (or against) is the article itself, not the guys who wrote it. WegianWarrior 07:24, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your points are good; I admit I don't know the fullness of the image use issue, but getting GNU FDL images is easier said than done (harder done than said) -and should only be done if actually needed. I wonder if it is really needed, but if "justification" is all that is needed, you might be able to help fix that -ZScout370 is working on that as well. What do you think should be done? If you can suggest a proposed solution, I investigate doing it.--GordonWattsDotCom 07:30, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The very simple explonation is that you need to explain in full on the image-page why you feel that the use of the image in the article is fair use - the links Carnildo gave explains it pretty well. There is even a template sort of thingy at Wikipedia:Image_description_page#Fair_use_rationale. WegianWarrior 07:36, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
WW, I just looked at all seven images: Four I took myself and released under GNU; The other three have good explanations, two of which were done just now by ZScout270, and the other with a good rationale relating to ist release: Here, you can see for yourself: Terri Schiavo. --GordonWattsDotCom 07:47, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've just looked over the three 'non-free' images, and noted the following:
  • Image:TerriSchiavo2.jpg Still needs a rationale why it's important to have in the article (just noteing that others have used it isn't explaining why wikipedia uses it)
  • Image:Schiavo.jpg Should include _why_ it's important to the article (should be very easy to fix)
  • Image:Schiavo catscan.jpg Ditto - why is it important to the article to have it (well, I realise why, but it ought to be written at the imagepage) in the article?
Off course, it could be that my ISP has cached the page and won't show me the latest version properly. At least you seem to understand my concerns over the images and are working to adress them. Now if only something could be done to the issue of (apperant lack of) stability, we might be home and dry. WegianWarrior 08:08, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I most certainly did not misunderstand anything. You are apparently under the impression that anybody should care about your father's opinion -- I'm sure he's a wonderful and very intelligent man and all that, but I have no reason to suspect he knows anything about Wikipedia, encyclopedias, edit warring, featured-article-status or anything else relevant to the subject at hand. Your father thinks a disputed article can be featured... So your father's opinions overrides the opinions of Wikipedians who have spent a lot of time thinking about what the qualities of a great article are? We should all just drop our objections because some dude's dad thinks so? Guess what? I asked my friend, Jeff, and my other friend, Mark, and they both figured an article of disputed neutrality should not be considered "featured". On the other hand, my third friend, Tim, thought it was the stupidest question he ever heard (OTOH, he thinks Wikipedia itself is a stupid idea), and his dog responded by looking at me hungrily. So, do Mark and Jeff beat your dad, or are we to assume that your father's opinions are better-informed than theirs? Of course, if your dad, Mark, Jeff, Tim or Tim's dog were to write out their reasoning somewhere we could see it, such as for example, on a freely-editable page like this one, we could judge for ourselves instead of trusting you and I to adequately inform each other about our respective friends and family's ability to form rational conclusions on this subject. Tuf-Kat 07:43, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
The short answer (I'll stick to that) is that my father did not opine on the article itself -merely the concept of what can and can not be featured -but, yes, I'll agree he knows less about it than you or I --OTOH, let me point out that, since you ask for one: "to write out their reasoning somewhere we could see it, such as for example, on a freely-editable page like this one," let me point out that his opinion is so close to mine that my "reasoning" should represent his as well; Yes, he did say this, but I will write it out -again, my my: The edit war reflects on the editors who are at fault (as yet to be officially determined by a vote or admin analysis), but the article will only be locked for a little bit in all likelihood, and the "wiki" open nature of it will probably be little affected, and the article's fitness is like height or temperature: It is what it is -a state function -the daily tempers of the editors little affects the article, for few sustentative edits happen in relation to the article -it changes little over time: It is stable. Nominate. Vote to Support. Chill.--GordonWattsDotCom 07:54, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand correctly, your position is that the article is disputed but that this dispute will not amount to any substantive changes. I don't find that at all convincing, and I note that the article's lead still does not adequately explain why Schiavo is important. Tuf-Kat 08:30, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
"If I understand correctly, your position is that the article is disputed but that this dispute will not amount to any substantive changes." Correct. "I don't find that at all convincing," Time will tell, and probably find me correct. "and I note that the article's lead still does not adequately explain why Schiavo is important." OK, I agree it could use more clarification, but let me tell you why she was an important news item: A woman who had speech troubles might have been able to feel pain but was dehydrated slowly (which has happened to other people, falsely diagnosed as PVS, and who reported MUCH PAIN) -and that the average citizen said to himself - herself "Hmm... what if I can't speak; "Will they do this to me?" LET ME TRANSLATE: It scared the hell out of a lot of people! That's why it was news, he heh. Clarification: I'm not saying that Terri was PVS -I'm not rearguing the case; I'm instead saying that she may have been able to feel pain, and nobody knows because they refused to let her have communication or blink therapy.--GordonWattsDotCom 08:45, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak objection: there are at least a dozen spots in the article which need clarification. i listed them in Talk:Terri Schiavo a few days ago. i think eventually, the article can meet my standards of quality writing. Kingturtle 09:15, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Terri_Schiavo/archive2&oldid=1079026812"