Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Archive 11

Straw poll
What adjective should be used in this sentence to describe the significance of Randall Terry and the primary purpose of his organization in the most specific, meaningful, brief, informative, and neutral way?:
 * ...activists such as Randall Terry, head of the __________ group Operation Rescue, denounced Jeb Bush for failure to take action.

Pro-life

 * 1) Macdougal 19:03, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) john k 19:14, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Professor Ninja 20:32, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Dbiv 23:09, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) FlyingCowOfDoom 23:46, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) --Hoovernj 18:02, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Schweizer 19:53, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Political right

 * 1) The group is not pro-life for convicted african americans for example. Thepish 29 Mar 2005

Anti-abortion

 * 1) Neutralitytalk 18:52, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) They oppose abortion. They don't oppose death. --SPUI (talk) 18:57, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 3)  BRIAN  0918   18:58, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) silsor 19:02, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) nsh 19:06, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Zerbey 19:06, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Guettarda 19:45, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Vik Reykja (talk)  20:52, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) RickK 20:54, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) BLANKFAZE | (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;??) 20:58, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Peter Isotalo 23:09, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Iceberg3k 23:54, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Phobophile 02:38, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Fox1 02:53, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Viriditas | Talk 03:18, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) /sɪzlæk  ˺/  08:29, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Acceptable perhaps.  I'd rather it said "controversial Christian anti-abortion organization"--Its founder's words: "I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good...Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty, we are called by God, to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism." -Randal Terry, quoted in the New Republic, 1994.  He comes across as basically a Thug for Jesus. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:25, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, if you believe what the people hate him say about him, the things they claim he says, then he does come across as a thug. But you should not believe those things.  For what he actually says, read his web site. NCdave 23:39, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * If he hadn't said that, word for word, he'd have a libel lawsuit tightly wrapped up. He's not afraid to use the courts to get what he wants, so clearly if he had a lawsuit he'd have brought it. Which leaves on to know that he did, in fact, say just that. And that makes him come across as a Thug for Jesus. Professor Ninja 00:54, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * You certainly don't know much about American law regarding defamation, Professor Ninja. Randall Terry is a public figure, and so to win a libel lawsuit he would have to prove not just that the quote was false (and how does one prove that one never said something, anyhow?), but also that those who used the quote knew it was false, and also that they used the false quote with actual malice toward him -- an impossible burden of proof.  Moreover, even if that impossible standard were met, he would also have to document the level of real monetary damages for recovery -- which would probably not approach his legal expenses.  The bottom line is that you are safe: Randall Terry has no realistic legal recourse against you and Tony for repeating this lie. NCdave 05:18, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Even if you (and it seems only you) dispute this quote, you surely cannot seriously claim the organisation values life? You need not rely on this quote for that. For example, when an innocent man was due for execution Bob Enyart (and this was posted on his own website) stated "The homos, the perverts, the rapists, the Democrats, the Libersals and Hillary Clinton ALL love democracy. See democracy brings socialism because the people vote to steal from other people. You cannot avoid the end-result of socialism". Yes it is irrelevant to his point, it is also incoherent and ignorant, but then so are most so-called Pro-Lifers. Our difficulty is in finding any quotes from them that do indicate any concept that life is valuable. Terry's actual supporters - those who care for her enough to value her as a person, not a "symbol" - are like me. I them am a "Pro Life" advocate in the true sense. I do not want to use a person as a pawn. I know what is life and what is not. Those who advocate the killing of non-whites and non-christians have no right to the term. How about "Pro-parody-of-life"? At least it would be accurate.
 * 1) Sandover 17:57, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Rickyrab 21:42, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Mrfixter 22:08, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Zoso Jade 22:11, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) This is the term favored by the AP Style Guide as being the most neutral and useful. Moncrief 01:19, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) David.Monniaux 08:30, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC) but, from what I see above, I'd even say "reactionary Christian anti-abortion group" (note: reactionary is not pejorative, but describes well the attitude expressed in Tony's quote)
 * 7) Thue | talk 18:08, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Theocratic Dominionist

 * 1) 65.11.101.198 01:17, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just Leave as Group
Comment Pro-life is rather a weasely term (as is pro-choice - to be fair), and as such should be avoided. There is nothing wrong, of course, with denoting that these people / groups prefer another term. nsh 19:06, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC) Why, when this discussion has just started, is there a poll on this? Sometimes voting may be neccessary (a neccessary evil, some would say), but why jump into it so quickly? Jonathunder 23:25, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)
 * 1) Pescatoro 25 Mar 2005
 * 2) Bill 20:17, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) CVaneg 20:45, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) JYolkowski 20:49, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Wahoofive 23:14, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) 24.245.12.39 07:13, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Preisler 15:17, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * If we don't use pro-life, what do we use for so-called "pro-choice" groups? "Pro-abortion rights"?  This seems dubious to me, since it is not a term actually in use.  But it would be deeply POV not to use "pro-life" but to use "pro-choice."  I don't like the term pro-life very much myself, but I think we have to use the terms that groups use for themselves. Otherwise we're opening a can of worms towards us making up names for positions.  john k 19:14, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Let me add that I think that the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" have become so familiar that they are largely divested of their literal meanings. Does discussing the "Republican" party imply that the Democrats are not republican?  Does discussing the "Democratic Party" imply that the Republicans are not in favor of democracy? john k 19:17, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Why bother with trying to characterize the group in this article. I would just leave it as "activists such as Randall Terry, head of the group Operation Rescue."  If the reader wants they can click over to see comments on Operation Rescue - plus it is more NPOV. --Pescatoro25 Mar 2005
 * I'm with Pescatoro. Even "group" is not necessary. If, however, a characterization is felt to be necessary, abortion is not germane to Terri Schiavo, but the issue of life, of course, is. &mdash;Bill 20:17, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Quite right. These people aren't weighing in because Terri Schiavo is going to be aborted. Most of these groups also are accepting of abortion in certain cases, like if the health of the mother is threatened... so they aren't anti-abortion, they are pro-life. Their opponents are pro-choice. Neither has to be anti-anything, and the issue of abortion is entirely non-relevant to Terri Schiavo. Professor Ninja 20:32, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * They're horning in in order to make these precedents of the courts and the executive interfering so that they can then point to them later on in abortion cases. RickK 20:54, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Their ulterior motives, which I'm sure everybody in this has, don't really matter. Are we going to further bloat the article based on what everybody might want after this? God, I hope not. Professor Ninja 21:50, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Might I add that in the interest of countering vote splitting that if pro-life was turned down, I would choose to leave it as just the group name. I'm least in favour of "anti-abortion." Professor Ninja 21:53, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Similarly, if "just group" was turned down, I would choose "pro-life", for the reasons others have stated. I'm least in favour of "anti-abortion." Bill 22:04, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, the reader with no knowledge of who Randall Terry and Operation Rescue are can follow the link, but it would be better if at least some reference was made to their general stance. That being said, it is better that people be described as being in favour of things. Those who are pro-life are not anti-choice, but merely believe the choice involved violates a more important consideration. I do not think that implies that their opponents in this argument are pro-death. Dbiv 23:09, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually this was debated under "pro-life" vs. "anti-abortion" in a section above this one. --CVaneg 23:40, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Could I just ask everyone who voted for "anti-abortion" to explain whether a) they think that Pro-Life should be moved to Anti-Abortion, and what they think should be done with pro-choice. As long as the article is at pro-Life (yeah, I know, the capitalization is funky), there is no reason to have any discussion of this question here, it seems to me. john k 00:38, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think that the term "Pro-Life" should not apply to a group that is not anti-death penalty as well. So, as an adjective (or verb), it shouldn't be there.  However, "Pro-Life Movement" (a noun) is entirely appropriate since that is what they call it.  I had this discussion at Talk:Pro-Life a long time ago.  (Didn't convince anyone, granted).  Guettarda 01:39, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Not being anti-death penalty can't be interpreted as not being pro-life. A pro-life group may interpret the death penalty as being a mitigation to certain aspects of the right to life. Or they may officially have no opinion of criminal suspension of the right to life either way. I think a good compromise may be to refer to them as a Religious group or Christian group. Professor Ninja 01:45, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Jeez. Isn't this page contentious enough without having to expand onto an entirely new and equally controversial topic? :-) --CVaneg 01:55, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I would like to note that I don't believe that the "other side" should be able to describe themselves by aligning themselves with a general value anymore than the anti-abortion groups should be able to. I think the appropriate term is "abortion rights group" (no, not pro-abortion rights, not everything needs a positive or negative modifier). This succinctly and accurately reflects the goals of the organization in question in a NPOV manner.
 * Fox1 03:06, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Guettarda - yes, I saw your arguments there. In terms of my own political preferences, I certainly am not a fan of those who are anti-abortion and pro-death penalty. However, to say that anyone with these positions should not be described as "pro-life" is to create your own definition of what pro-life means, and is thus original research. john k 02:13, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In addition to my points in the above discussion, I also believe that the use of "pro-life" is quite possibly U.S. or Western-centric, as the literal meaning of the term gives little to no insight into the objectives of the groups involved. Fox1 02:53, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This seems irrelevant - it is a U.S. organization, there is no reason not to use a U.S. term, provided it is properly linked (which it is). The term pro-life has a clear, unambiguous meaning, even if it is not what you would expect it to be from its etymology. john k 04:02, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The New York Times Manual of Style considers both "pro-life" and "pro-choice" polemical terms, suggesting "abortion rights" and "anti-abortion" as alternatives (5). Although Wikipedia's NPOV policy isn't quite the same as what would be appropriate for a newspaper like the NYT, I think it helps to see their perspective on this issue. As far as whether the anti-abortion movement "prefers" the term "pro-life," I think trying to comply with what any particular movement "prefers" to call itself would lead us into a serious POV minefield. Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that opponents of universal health insurance adopted the term "healthcare choice movement" for their cause. Would this mean every reference in Wikipedia to those who oppose universal insurance should use that term? Both "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are terms coined by political movements intended by their supporters to cast their respective movements in the light they want it to be cast. /sɪzlæk ˺/  08:29, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. This is more or less what I've been trying to say, I think you did a bit better job though.
 * Fox1 09:14, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the point you're both missing is that nobody is trying to perform an abortion (don't get pedantic, in the medical jargon sense of the word) on Terri Schiavo. It is therefore nonsensical to refer to their interest in this case as anti-abortion. Professor Ninja 09:55, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * But Operation Rescue is not 'pro-life' in an unbiased sense of the word; I'm sure they have no stance on say the death penalty, and many of their members support it. So saying "the pro-life group Operation Rescue" is biased, no matter what the context is. --SPUI (talk) 11:26, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, yes. It's pointless either way. If this was in the context of abortion, I'd agree with you. I suppose the best thing to do would be to give a basic descriptor of the group's purpose and let the link speak for itself. I'm not for just the group name, it's a little glib, but maybe "the conservative religious group Operation Rescue" would be appropriate. It's a fair, NPOV description that doesn't fall into "sides" as it were. Professor Ninja 12:06, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I absolutely agree that no one is attempting to abort Terri, Prof. Ninja, but the fact remains that these are the actions of a group that, up until this isolated case, was defined by their opposition to abortion. I just don't think it's necessary to give them a new descriptive term simply because they decided to grap a chunk of spotlight on an issue of high national interest dealing with an cause they had not previously been active on. That said, I'm growing closer to agreeing with your closing suggestion, this is taking too long, and it's not terribly central to the core of the article.
 * Fox1 13:00, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * The more I think about it the more sure I am that [conservative] religious group is the appropriate description here. I think anybody can take away what they need from that, and ascertain their main function as well as their "new" agenda in this without needing to click the link. Professor Ninja 13:15, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Can I just say that so long as we have articles at "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice," I don't see why we should be having this discussion here. "Pro-life" means "anti-abortion." Yes, the term is polemical, but it is in general use, and, to be honest, I doubt there is a single American who really hears "pro-life" and doesn't realize that this term simply means "anti-abortion." It is not confusing. It is politically useful to pretend that it is confusing, perhaps. But if wikipedia is to do something that is politically useful to somebody (which, in some situations, we have to do), we should take the side of the conventionally used term, and not the side of the original researchers who are shocked, shocked that pro-life groups don't care about the death penalty, or who are horrified at the suggestion that using this term means we think that the pro-choice movement is "pro-death." At any rate, my point is this: this is not a discussion that belongs on this page. Bad cases make bad law, and there is no reason to make a usage decision that pertains to numerous articles throughout wikipedia here on this page. Until SPUI changed it yesterday, the [Operation Rescue] article described the group as pro-life. Look, I dislike Operation Rescue as much as the next agnostic pro-choice liberal Democrat, but it seems to me that this is a decision which has to be made in a general way, not on the basis of this single article. Why don't we move the discussion of this to Pro-Life? john k 16:25, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Since they call themselves that, Pro-Life as a noun is fine. Pro-Life as an adjective is POV, because it requires that we buy into the doublespeak.  Guettarda 17:44, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * "I doubt there is a single American who really hears "pro-life" and doesn't realize that this term simply means "anti-abortion." &mdash; Wikipedia has an international audience, all of which have a right to understand articles discussing US-specific topics without knowing US-specific terminology in detail, when clear and precise alternatives exist. David.Monniaux 12:42, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * We should describe organizations as they describe themselves. A US organization should be described using US terms, just as European organizations should be described by European terms.  For instance, using the term "liberal" to describe, say, the German FDP is probably confusing to most Americans.  But that doesn't mean we shouldn't describe it as a liberal party. john k`

Public reactions removed
I was very confused to find that the important section about the public's reaction has been removed. The article now looks like the Americans have endorsed the recent Congressional and Presidential actions, but that is not true, as the ABC and CBS polls have shown. What isn't impartial about such polls? I admit that such polls were devastating for the Congress and the President, and that therefore the supporters of maintaing Terri's senseless "living" state have an interest in removing such poll results from the article. Keimzelle 08:24, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, sorry about that. I was half-asleep. Yes, I think the polls section is very important and should be reinstated. This is the final copy before it was removed by User:Astanhope, who cut out lots of sections due to "bloat" (if need be, and written well, I'd be in favor of even branching out into daughter articles). Mike H 10:16, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mind at least two daughter articles: One for the timeline, and one for the controversial nature of the case, while allowing the Terri Schiavo article to remain facts-only (take out the Schiavo/Schindler accusation badminton and legal wrangling, public reactions, lump them all into a seperate Controversy surrounding Terri Schiavo case article, restore and expand the see also section a little, etc.) This page, as it is, is becoming confusing to wade through. Professor Ninja 12:10, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

See User_talk:Keimzelle and User_talk:Viriditas about this topic. Keimzelle 16:22, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * The "bloat" is a serious concern. Citing specific poll data in an encyclopedia starts to drag it down.  Since the poll data changes and since there are miltiple organizations polling and since everybody wants their pet poll data in there, the poll data paragraph had already become something like:


 * "on March XX the ABC poll said this while the NBC poll said this while the WSJ poll said this yet on March YY a CNN poll said this and a FoxNews poll said this and a WaPo poll said this while on March ZZ The LATimes said this and the Boston Globe said this and the Houston Chronicle said this..."

In other words, it becomes worthless.

We can all agree that based on a tremendous amount of polling data that we know that American public opinion is strongly on Michael Schiavo's "side" of the argument, on the side of Terri Schiavo's "right to die" and very strongly against the Congressional and Presidential intervention. The message can be said as simply as that with a link to a newspaper article that cites one or more of the many polls out there. --AStanhope 17:15, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * ...so I will attempt to do just that. --AStanhope 17:19, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not just American public opinion -- the rule of law is on the side of Michael Schiavo, and the paragraph that was added by 138.130.201.204 is highly misleading. In this case, the courts consider a feeding tube for nutrition and hydration as a form of artificial life support.  Michelle Malkin's opinion is not only in error, it's irrelevant and will be removed from the article.--Viriditas  | Talk 10:56, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OK - I added a new "Public Opinion" section just before "Recent Developments" where I put a general NPOV sentence in saying that numerous polls indicate American public opinion feels XYZ and I included a link to an article that cites multiple polls. This is a great deal more efficient than dissecting each and every poll that comes down the pike. Here is the text I added:


 * Numerous polls show that a majority of Americans believe that Michael Schiavo should have the authority to make decisions on behalf of his wife and that the United States Congress' intervention in the case was an overstepping of bounds.

I think this is a good solution. --AStanhope 17:32, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

P.S. If somebody can find a better article that is a roundup of multiple poll results, that would be great. There is a nice one on Salon, but Salon is a pain unless one has a subscription. --AStanhope 17:37, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Politicians
I may be picky, but when it says:

"Editorials in publications such as National Review, The Weekly Standard, and The Wall Street Journal have vocally supported the Schindlers' position to keep the feeding tube in place (with some of their commentators dissenting); The New York Times and others have supported the rights of Michael Schiavo."

I think it should either be:

1) National Review, The Weekly Standard, and The Wall Street Journal have vocally supported the Schindlers' position to keep the feeding tube in place (with some of their commentators dissenting); The New York Times and others have supported Michael Schiavo's position to keep the feeding tube removed.

or

2) National Review, The Weekly Standard, and The Wall Street Journal have vocally supported Terri's right to life (with some of their commentators dissenting); The New York Times and others have supported Michael Schiavo's rights.

I think the current wording puts biased emphasis upon Michael's side by putting the Schindlers' position in neutral terms and Michael's position as trying to preserve his rights. I personally believe the first alternative would be the best, because the second one could be seen as putting undue emphasis upon the "rights" of Terri. Tonyr1988 15:20, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * Tony, this article is a bad joke, a massivly POV-biased pile of anti-Terri propaganda, riddled with factual inaccuracies and outright lies (like, "Schiavo's cerebral cortex has been completely destroyed (and has been replaced by cerebrospinal fluid"). This article is an example of why Wikipedia gets so little respect. NCdave 20:34, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * The current wording is correct. In a case where the wishes of a patient are unclear, the right to determine their course of treatment always goes to their next of kin (who if they are married, is their spouse). Iceberg3k 15:42, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, you may have a point, but #2 is definitely not good as it implies that her right to life has been abrogated, a major point of contention to say the least. I don't really have a problem with #1, but chances are others will, as Iceberg3k discusses above. --CVaneg 00:39, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * She's being killed, yeah, I'd say her right to life has been abrogated. No kidding.  It is only a point of contention to those whose biases are so severe that they can't bring themselves to admit even the most straightforward facts.  She is being killed by decree of a County Probate Court judge, who has never even troubled himself to look at her face.  She is condemned to die having never been convicted of a crime, having never had a jury decide the facts in her case, and having never had her case considered by a federal court -- rights which all condemned murderers have in this country. NCdave 20:19, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * So do scores of people daily. Where's your righteous indignation for them, NCdave, or do you just attach yourself to whatever cause celebre you can find? People like you regularly fog, not illuminate, the facts. You're as ironic with your cries of bias as a neo-nazi who harps about freedom of speech. The truth is always biased in favour of those who tell it, NCdave. I'm sorry for you that that's the way the universe works. Professor Ninja 01:36, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * "So do scores of people daily" what? I don't know who you are talking about.  Who else, besides Terri, has been ordered by an American judge to die by being dehydrated to death, specifically by being deprived of food and hydration even by mouth, with no jury, and no federal review?  (And can you please stop with the incessant insults, comparisons with nazis, etc.?) NCdave 05:26, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep it Simple - De-Link De-Link De-Link
I'd like to encourage something completely apolitical... Can we un-Wikify a lot of what is linked? There really isn't any informational value to having 1990 or Florida linked even once in the article, let alone every time they appear. Links for important peoples' names and organizations demonstrate the power of interactive media for presentation of encyclopedia information. Linking every date and every other word is a throwback to 1994 when everybody's first webpage hyperlinked every single word. A basket of snakes.

On a practical level, including scores of unnecessary links in an article has an additional "cost" in terms of storage, bandwidth consumption and most importantly, page load speed.

Keep it Simple - De-Link De-Link De-Link --AStanhope 20:02, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree, but note that dates (not years) "should be wikified so that each reader sees the dates formatted according to their own preference". (from WP:MOS). JYolkowski 20:19, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I think a link to Florida is highly worthwhile, since it's playing out in Florida courts. RickK 20:54, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, linking years such as 1990 could allow people to see what occurred around the same time period as the event... Rickyrab 21:46, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I REALLY disagree and I can't believe you dewikied references to St. Petersburg, Florida and the Philadelphia suburb where she grew up. Why??  People, particularly from countries outside the U.S., might want more information about these places.  Why would you de-wiki them?  Isn't the ability to click between articles a major reason for Wikipedia's uniqueness as an encyclopedia? Fine, de-wiki 1990 (certainly if it's wikid more than once, though personally I'd keep the first ref to 1990 wikid for the reason Rickyrab gave above) and don't wiki "American," but why de-wiki St. Petersburg, Florida?  Bucks County Community College?  That makes NO sense to me.  And certainly, fortunately, yours is a minority position at Wikipedia.  I have every confidence many of these will be rewikid and kept so. User:Moncrief (not logged in at the moment)


 * Good feedback. Have you folks clicked through to 1990 or to Florida or to the Philadelphia suburb where she grew up and seen what is there?  Please do so (seriously), then come back and report here whether or not you think the information on those pages is directly applicable to the topic at hand.  I am sincerely interested in hearing what you think, particularly about 1990, for example.  --AStanhope 22:29, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Isn't this the whole point of Wikipedia? Link-link-link?  It isn't a matter of whether the links are relevant - it's a matter of coming across something, saying "I don't know what that is" and finding out.  You can't flip through the pages of Wikipedia to find something, like you can in an paper encyclopaedia.  You link so people can navigate, you link so people can find things out.  Ease of editing should never trump information content.  Guettarda 22:49, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * What Guettarda said. I'm not sure how I can add to Guettarda's statements other than to say that your experience of Wikipedia must be so radically different from mine, AStanhope, if you need every link you click on to be directly "relevant" to the one from which you've clicked.


 * Later edit: And yes, to answer your question directly, I did click on the link to the Philadelphia suburb in which she grew up. I am interested in East Coast geography and I wanted to get a sense of the location of this suburb, and what county it was in.  I wanted to get a sense of the racial and economic demographics of that suburb.  The Census information in the article and the link to the homepage of the township was useful in getting a sense of what the place was like.  So, yes, that was directly relevant.  The link to the Florida article might be relevant to someone (perhaps someone not in the US who lacks the knowledge of Florida that you might have) reading this encyclopedia who wants not only a better sense of Florida in relation to this case but who also just wants to check out the Florida article for whatever other reason.   There are articles on this site that do have too many red links, to be sure, and I've even criticized a few for that, but as long as articles exist on these topics it's not as if it's 1994 (to use your analogy) and we're linking "every word."  Moncrief 01:13, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * Clearly we have differences of opinions on this one. I am very pleased with where the article stands in this respect now, save for the Wikified years.  I cannot for the life of me understand how there is any value in clicking on 1963 in Terri Schiavo's birthday and getting the 1963 page.  I perceived the Day/Month date links as being similarly useless, but I now understand thanks to JYolkowski that keeping those links live allow them to reformat for users' date prefs.  There may still be some problems with multiple links to the same thing, however I no longer see any glaring ones.  (Earlier edits had every occurrence of Florida linked, for example).  Finally, an unseen benefit not easily perceived is a great reduction in article size which will make for faster loading and reduced resource consumption.  A very apparent benefit is in readability.  Thanks, everybody!  --AStanhope 01:27, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I accidentally delinked Democrat while leaving Republican - this was an honest mistake. Had I noticed, I would have delinked both of them. I disagree that any readers need to click through to find out what Democrats or Republicans are, however since Moncrief feels strongly about these links, I shall leave them alone. Thanks. --AStanhope 03:08, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * " I disagree that any readers need to click through to find out what Democrats or Republicans are."  That's quite a US-centric viewpoint then.  This is an internationally-read encyclopedia and, while most educated English-speaking readers around the world are likely to know that those are the names of the primary political parties in the US, it's also true that - in the true Wikipedia spirit - such readers  might have large gaps in their knowledge of the parties or they may just find that their curiousity has been piqued and they want to know a bit more about one or both of the two parties.  They should have the chance to easily click through to said article.  That's what this website is about, in large part.  I don't believe you have any consensus to continue to dewikify linked articles here.  Moncrief 03:14, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, Moncrief, you must have missed where I said: however since Moncrief feels strongly about these links, I shall leave them alone... --AStanhope 05:08, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with Moncrief--as an American, I quite frequently wikify words in articles about, say, Great Britian, especially ones pertaining to nobility or politics. While the (presumably) British original author might have known perfectly well what things like a Westminster System of government, the Home Office, or a viscount are and how they work, I certainly didn't--at least not to my satisfaction--and I wish I hadn't needed to make the wikilinks myself to find out.  While I agree that every instance of Florida or specific years shouldn't be wikilinked, linking the first occurance certainly is appropriate, and also consistent with Wikipedia's editorial standards.
 * I can't believe you de-wikified Republicans and Democrats, as that would be something that a foreign reader may very well have wanted more information about, especially with respect to understanding how their political ideologies shape their (general) views on this particular issue. Certainly relevant to the topic at hand, in my opinion.
 * To de-wikify liberally is to make judgments about what other people deserve to be interested in, with respect to the context of the particular article. It is obviously every contributor's perogative to link or not to link within the content that they author, but to remove another's links simply because they don't contribute materially to your comprehension of the subject matter at hand is making up every reader's mind for him.  As long as each link points to a topic appropriate to its usage in the article, its 100% relevance to the overall subject of the article is immaterial--let the reader decide whether to click and don't force him to type in the search box to explore. (See also: Make only links relevant to the context v. Build the web) Chris 23:26, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)