Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Terri Schiavo/archive3

Terri Schiavo

 * The page is protected due to constant reverts. Please someone close this nomination down. Marskell 09:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The page is nominated based in its own merit, not that of troublemaker-editors. Please close the troublemakers down. We will not let them win on my watch.--GordonWatts 21:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

"Standard heading such as self-nom": Self-nomination per permission from Mark:

UPDATE: I reduced the size from 84Kb to 80 KB 79KB 46 KB in one small set of edits. We're making progress, and it would be sin to stop here.--GordonWatts 13:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

He made the promise that it would be OK to renominate after a few weeks : discussed here and referenced, but here, Worldtraveller says in edit comments to "see FAC instructions - move old nomination to an archive, make fresh nomination; please don't re-insert old nomination discussion."

I took WT up on his offer, and, since I don't edit much in Terri Schiavo any more, I am more objective, and the edit war has disappeared, removing the last of the problems.

 Renominate .

Remember, this vote is about the article, not controversial "I'm right a lot" Gordon:

Either vote for Terri or against her, but in the end, let's not have any hard feelings, OK?

--GordonWatts 12:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Object. Bad faith nomination. Few, if any, of the objections from the last nomination have been amended, least of all the ones concerning article size. / Peter Isotalo 13:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Comments: My renom is not in bad faith; I'm not trying to "get revenge" on anybody, and my nomination, whether successful or not, will not harm anybody, so it is not in bad faith. If you carefully look at the links I provided, you will see that many, many objections were addressed. Maybe not all of them were addressed to your satisfaction, but we all tried our best.--GordonWatts 14:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * It's still hopelessly crufty and preoccupied with insignificant details relevant only to the truly obsessed. And what's up with section titles like "Notable court cases in the Terri Schiavo saga"? Definetly not serious material. And what's up with section titles like "Notable court cases in the Terri Schiavo saga"? Definetly not serious material. The article isn't stable either. Considering how hotly disputed the topic is, I'd like to see some relative peace and quiet for at least a few months and I can really recommend to those who are the most active with the article to try editing articles on completely different subjects for a change. Obsessing this much about one very narrow subject is hardly going to lessen the amount of disputes. / Peter Isotalo 19:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I went to special trouble today here to both fix the ref section AGAIN! and also avoid all "vanity" links -even to the point of not citing sources, and explain here why I am so stressed out (for reasons unrelated to Wikipedia). Yes, Peter, I want a totally stable article, but, like "consensus," this is an ideal -that is NEVER achieved in heaven. (Are we in heaven? No.) I moved the legal section to a sub-article to reduce the main article size, so I do not understand your objection here. "And what's up with section titles like "Notable court cases in the Terri Schiavo saga"? Definetly not serious material." Yes, of course the legal sage is important. Why should it not be? Also, if you don't like my title, then change it; I am not married to this title, and you are able to fix this "minor" problem, so I don't see why you don't. "Obsessing this much about one very narrow subject..." I'm not 'obsessing," but merely spending the proper time to fix all the important details -which is a "good" thing.--GordonWatts 20:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Object. Agree with above comments. In addition, why is this article being brought back for a vote so soon? Yes, the article was somewhat stable for the last week, but as has been stated before (endlessly stated), the article should be allowed to sit a month or two to show everyone how stable it is. The last four edits on the article are all rvs--this would indicate it is still not stable.--Alabamaboy 13:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * " In addition, why is this article being brought back for a vote so soon? " I'm taking a Wikibreak, and will not be around for a while. I wanted to do something positive to get the ball rolling before I went on break . Your objections are well meant and thoughtful, as I recall in the past, and have some merit, but I disagree, AlabamaBoy, on the emphasis you have assigned to waiting.--GordonWatts 14:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. for the same reasons as before. GordonWatts, we do not vote "for Terri or against her", we are talking about an article. Rama 13:23, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your thoughts, Rama; I assume good faith on your part.--GordonWatts 14:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Object – 1) its *not* stable. Look at the history of reverts between Sep 13 and 20. 2) 87 kb. I told you to reduce the page size. =Nichalp «Talk»=  13:32, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Likewise, thank you, Nichalp. Whether I was right or wrong, I addressed that above.--GordonWatts 14:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Object for all the reasons above and more. The page size seems excessive (I thought we'd pared it down already!) and one caption does not follow the standards of Captions. Johnleemk | Talk 14:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Support. If you read all the links provided, you will see that Mark really did say it would be OK to renominate in a couple of weeks -and we see the page has experienced actual improvement in many areas; if you don't focus in on a few areas in need of improvement, then you can see the many strong areas of the article, which we had fixed.--GordonWatts 14:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. I'd like to see the article made more concise and the readibility improved. The introduction should be much stronger and more of a summary (too many details in the intro right now). I also agree with other comments that the article should be more stable before being nominated. Carbonite | Talk 14:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thx 4 your feedback, C; We had a slightly better intro, which is still preserved in the Chinese and Spanish wiki articles on Schiavo, but it was tossed out a while back after my 4-3 vote was forgotten or overridden on that matter. Since, as I've said, I'm taking a wiki break (too much time online! -not from any hard feelings or anything), I am editing there much less; We have a new crew of replacement editors (Marskell and admin Taxman). FuelWagon, Ann, and Patsw are all regular editors, very familiar with the ins and outs and still edit there regularily. If you'd like to help out, you are more than welcome. I've done the best I can with it as far as I can see. Thanks again for the feedback, even if it is not quite what I wanted.--GordonWatts 14:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Object To be clear, this is a too-hasty nomination but it is not bad faith. I have discussed with Gordon extensively and edited myself—this is earnest and good faith, he is just pushing it forward too soon. Stability is almost there but length has still not been addressed. I agree completely with comment on intro. In fact, I think the second and third paragraph should be reduced to a single sentence. There are other parts which could similarly be made more readable. Marskell 15:23, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. As above objectors. Why was this renominated with outstanding objections clearly unaddressed? In this light, nominator appears to lack understanding of requirements to be made a featured article. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Christopher, you raise good points. See the below in comments.--GordonWatts 21:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The article is the same length as it has always been. Thus, how you can claim that the objection that the article is too long has been addressed is beyond me. When the page is smaller, perhaps around 40-50 KB, renominate; until then, people will continue to object. If you keep renominating without fixing these problems, which have repeatedly been pointed out to you, you're just wasting your time. BTW, if you wish to reference the previous nominations it might be useful to link to them. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * "article is the same length ...how you can claim that the objection that the article is too long has been addressed is beyond me." I thought that when Mark scratched out the length objection and when I agreed, that this was sufficient proof, but apparently consensus disagrees, so I will try to address it; "BTW, if you wish to reference the previous nominations it might be useful to link to them." If you click on the links in that little paragraph below (the one I created especially for your concerns), it will lead you to links from both of the archives; I promise you. The sentence begins: "Comments: User:Christopherparham raises some good points..." Also, it has other links, and is best read chronologically, clicking on each link as you read.--GordonWatts 12:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Neutral while I helped Gordon with the image issues, I am not sure if they meet the Fair use rules that Carnildo has and I believe that three nominations in three weeks is a bit too many. Zach (Sound Off) 20:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * They do: See below, Zach.--GordonWatts 21:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

 Comments : User:Christopherparham raises some good points. Since it is the primary responsibility of the nominator to try and address them, here goes.


 * Here, an Aug. 26, 2005 nomination for Terri Schiavo, a stable article, was narrowly defeated by what looks to be a 6-11 or 7-10 margin, and it had problems, but Mark, the FA-editor says here that we fixed most of them, and suggest renominating in a few weeks. However, here, when it was renominated on Sept. 05, 2005, a few weeks later, after all his concerns were addressed, and then re-nominated, as Mark had suggested, it was rejected by Mark, who has the authority to make decisions: He went with concensus, instead of the policy, which (as others have repeatedly explained to me) states that he has the absolute power to promote if the actionable objections are addressed.

Since I addressed ALL of Mark's concerns (see below), this nom was a shoe in -a given -a certain to pass nomination.

However, since then, the edit war on that page (the only problem outstanding on my list) has calmed down, making it reeligible. Since he's a good editor, admin, bureaucrat, and have made many contributions, I expect he'll keep his word here -after an uncertain delay as his discretion.

However, was "my list" really the "correct list?"

Let's take a closer look at this diff. The speaker is Mark, aka Raul654, the FA editor, and, while he may not address *every* concern on your list, he was very representative of the groups views, and took me to town on many problems:

Mark says, in relevant part: "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. &rarr;Raul654 04:34, August 26, 2005 (UTC)"

and

"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. &rarr;Raul654 02:24, August 28, 2005 (UTC)"

In plain English, that means that the only problems at his last pass then were "references' (which I built from scratch) and images (which I fixed in large part but not completely -by personally driving to Terri Schiavo's grave and taking pictures and GNU releasing them under GFDL).

Now, Mark thinks the article size is not too long, and I agree. Also, there are a few Fair Use pics in the article, but does this create a problem? Well, recently the September 10 Featured Article about Scientology had a picture which is definitely Fair Use. (So, we see that a few Fair Use photos are acceptable if that's the best you can do -and it is.)

So, the only lingering problem was the recent, brief edit war. It is long over, the page has calmed way down, and so much so that I have "retired" and am now on a "wiki-break," and feel like an old man, being worked to death.

While I think all your concerns were addresses (assuming Mark correctly represented you and did a good job as FA-editor), then the page is ready for FA-status, but that raises another question: Why did I have to show you all this, when it is clearly in the archives of the 1st and 2nd failed nomination??

Thx!--GordonWatts 21:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * "was narrowly defeated by what looks to be a 6-11 or 7-10 margin" - You don't seem to get it - if it had a hundred support votes, all it takes is one ectionable objection which is not properly addressed, and the FAC will fail.
 * "Since I addressed ALL of Mark's concerns (see below), this nom was a shoe in -a given -a certain to pass nomination." - Raul does not make unilateral decisions for or against promotion, he makes the decision based on the discussion for the FAC. Even if you fixed everything he points out, if editor A makes an actionable objection that Raul feels is not properly acted on, then the FAC will fail.
 * "Now, Mark thinks the article size is not too long, and I agree." - First, everybody thinks the article is too long. That you agree, yet still brought it to FAC, only betrays either your continued ignorance of the Criteria (and of wikipedia policies and community norms), or exposes what in essence is a bad faith nomination.
 * By the way, Object per all above. Though the nominator has good intentions, this article will not be ready until there is a complete overhaul by the nominator in line with the repeated objections raised throughout the past three FACs, or a different group of editors begin editing the article in line with the Criteria.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Jeffrey, as I mention below, another editor is actively working on getting the article length reduced and clutter removed; I may help out, but I've over-worked myself; I thought the length was not an issue, and that's why I renominated, but I will see what I can do to fix this.
 * Object: this article is entirely over-detailed, not just in the verbatim extracts from the various court cases but also in the inclusion of such details as the name of the church where the Schiavo's married (ask yourself, is this really encyclopaedic?). In fact, it reads more like a chapter from a book on contentious medical cases rather than an encyclopaedia entry. I also note that the Fair Use tag for the lead image contains the phrase "use of this photo is not reccommended (sic) for articles", so why is it in this one? Indeed, why is it here at all if it should not be used in articles?. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Filiocht, We are working to reduce the length. Marskell, one of the newer editors is making good progress. I would help out mre, but I have over-worked myself in the past, and need time to rest a little, but I will help out if/when I can to get the article smaller -if I can find things that take up extra space -and delete (or shorten) them. You are welcome to help out, but it may be eye strain, lol.--GordonWatts 12:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment: Nominated 26th August, 5th September and now on the 21st September. Not excatly what I understand as a 'few weeks'... While I do realise there is no fixed time between a failed FAC and a renom, there was virtually no time between the first two, and jusat ten days between the second and this one. Wouldn't it be better to wait until people relax and also give the article time to _prove_ that it is indeed stable? WegianWarrior 09:15, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * WegianWarrior, see my answer to AlabamaBoy: I am going on (am on) wiki-break to address "real life" responsibilities, and want to get the process going before I leave. We are working on the length issue too.--GordonWatts 12:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * In that case, would it not make more sence to finish working on the lenght issue, take your wiki-break (we all need those from time to time) and then nominated it? That would also give the article time to prove stable? Anyhow, it is your choice to push it so soon after the last failed nomination, but I still don't think it was the best idea. Enjoy your wikibreak =) WegianWarrior 09:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. Too long and too much frivolous detail. This objection was brought up so many times before that saying previous objections have been dealt with is specious. The article also fails to give an overview of the importance of the case and what effects or impact it had on anything. The details of the case and day by day events need to be shrunk to less than half of what the article currently has and only detail important enough to be kept at all should be moved off to subarticles. Since that is directly in the criteria, and it has been pointed out so many times, ignoring that does border on bad faith. How long do we need to have this sit here before we remove it? Gordon, if the most important objections are not adressed, the article does not meet the criteria and will not be promoted. Please lets remove this nomination and not have more fuss over it. - Taxman Talk 12:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * It's still borderline too long, but the bigger issue is the lack of balance in the article. It fails to cover the various topics in relation to their importance, which is key for an article in proper summary style as the criteria call for. It still lacks overview and impact discussion. For ex I don't think anywhere it mentions the attention the case brought to living wills/medical powers of attorney, except the link to your article which is innapropriate by the way. The only link of yours that is proper is one that covers important legal information covered nowhere else. I'll let other editors decide if that article is important enough, but the others have to go. Sorry, but as we told you, properly summarizing this article will take some time. - Taxman Talk 23:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

NOTE: I just noticed a lot of "hidden comments" that make the article look larger than it really is: -- a LOT of them -this might make the article look 5-10% larger than it reallt appears to the reader, the main point of importance. (We assume that it will load fast, even with extra HTML hidden comments.)--GordonWatts 13:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC) UPDATE: I reduced the size from 84Kb to 80 KB 79KB 46 KB in one small set of edits. We're making progress, and it would be sin to stop here.--GordonWatts 13:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I get the picture: "Consensus" thinks this Terri is too long, and, as I speak, I am reviewing what can be cut out of the article. However, I did not nominate in bad faith. See Marskell's comment on that order; Further, Mark, the FA-editor (who will no doubt take heat for his statements) did indeed edit here that he was scratching out this statement: " it's 80 kilobytes long and should be shortened and/or broken into subarticles, " meaninig it was OK by him, and then, he went on to say here "so if/when this nom fails, it might be a good idea to renominate it again in a couple weeks." That supports my claim that the article was not perceived to be too long, and that I acted in good faith; Nonetheless, Marskell and I are working on reducing the length to address your objection.
 * That being said, thank you for your work on the article; if you have time (and I know you are busy), your continued help wouold be appreciated.--GordonWatts 12:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * So now you see the picture? Why not the 23 other times people told you it was too long and therefore didn't meet the criteria? Even if he did scratch that out (and that is weak evidence that he doesn't think it is too long anymore), 2 or so editors thinking it is not too long and 20 thinking it is outweighs that. More than that, even one reasonable, actionable objection can keep an article from being featured. There must be consensus that the article meets the criteria, and not some percentage of rough consensus--full consensus is typically needed. So leaning on this one thing that Mark said is very weak. Also, when he said a few weeks, that is not a blanket endorsement to apply if the major objections to the article have not been fixed. Summarizing an article is not easy and it is not really possible for it to meet the stability criteria for a while after that. That's why so many people kept telling you not to renominate the article until it had been summarized and then still wait a bit. All these things added up mean that if the nomination wasn't in bad faith, you were unreasonably leaning on very weak reasons to renominate and being rude to the multiple editors that had valid objections that were ignored. So this nomination should be removed. - Taxman Talk 13:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * On the whole, I agree in principle with you Taxman, but given recent history on RfA, I'd suggest that this nomination should be allowed to run its course. Who knows, it may even produce a salutary lesson in how consensus emerges on Wikipedia. Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * While I applaud such efforts, I remain skeptical on the practicability of paring down the article in time for this nomination to succeed (although I do not endorse scrapping this nomination, as per Filiocht's comment). I recall around the last time, we made excellent progress, reaching about 50 or 60kb before people began accusing us of destroying the article and the consensus it reached. I feel this article is in a bit of a quandary. You see, it has to meet two (in this case) opposing criteria: ample length, and sufficient stability/consensus on the article's current state. However, the only way to satisfy the whims of every editor involved is to bloat the article beyond a reasonable size. To reduce it would lead to condemnation because detail X is not included, as occurred in the last nomination. (This conundrum reminds me of the messy Ashlee Simpson business, where one or two ardent Ashlee fans destabilised the article after it was pared due to comments on FAC, leading to not one but two major arbitration cases. Hopefully this article doesn't go so far.) Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see both conditions fulfilled, but alas, it seems the only way to pare down the article will be to ruffle the feathers of a sufficient number to block this FAC. Johnleemk | Talk 14:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the good analysis: Excellent point here, John: I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't: Notice that I've reduced it from 84 to 80 and then to 79 Kilobyters today (and now to 46 Kb), which addresses concern "A" -the length, but in a traditional catch 22, I might be accused of "destabilizing" the article, thus missing concern "B" --the stability issue. OK, I'm still making progress. Everybody can go take a lunck break now and relax.--GordonWatts 14:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * You're not in a catch-22, you were well informed of the fact that the article needed to be summarized and that it would take a while to reach stability and high quality after that. That's why you were told so many times to wait longer before nominating again. As it is the article suffers from some pretty severe issues. - Taxman Talk 23:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say that the length was really addressed. When a 500 lb person loses 50 lbs, they're still not considered to be fit. Yes, reducing the size of the article is an improvement, but there's still plenty more cutting that needs to be done. There's too much in the article right now, especially since there are multiple sub-articles to deal with many of the details. Carbonite | Talk 14:58, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Frankly, it makes me sad to be harsh while GordonWatts obviously works a great deal to improve the article, but I think it is important to understand that by saying "reduce the size", we do not mean "cut a few things here and there". For me, and apparently for some other contributors here, the point is that the article should be a summary of the whole affair, a condensed text. What we see here is just a collection of random facts taken here and there, without any global understanding of the whole topic. It is the very nature of the articele which is at odds with the status of featured article, and a complete re-work of it is, I fear, necessary before it achieves a featurable status. Rama 15:43, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Interim Update
 * OK, thank you for the kind words, Rama. Now, I did even more copyedit, and read the entire article, word-for-word (except the "reference section, which I wrote from scratch) --I conclude that every bit of "extra stuff" has been removed, and the article appears to be now 46KB (was 84 KB), and the only way to further reduce article size would be to remove stuff to sub-article.
 * Any suggestions?
 * Also, when looking through the article, I will again make an honest disclaimer: I think that several links (compilations, reference, advocacy, articles) go back to papers I once managed: Three of them are extras which can easily be replaced, if someone feels that I added links that were not of good quality (vanity links) -one is a reference to a court action, and it is one where no other news media showed up -it is (I think) irreplaceable -unless someone can find news coverage elsewhere of that item. I would not touch those sections, as they seem to have been accepted over the months by the other regular editors, but I am telling you to be honest.
 * That being said, if anyone has any ideas on moving stuff to sub-articles, I will be glad to hear it. (I personally would jam the article to FA status to set a new standard for article length: 79 or 80 KB is OK -but that's just my feeling here, that this would be OK. All the same, the article length is now 46 Kb; Everybody happy?) I may look again at the sub-article thing, but now, I'm going to take a break. Remember: I'm on a wiki-break and didn't expect to go into 3rd overtime.--GordonWatts 15:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment The move to split everything in to sub-articles was a touch unilateral. I certainly cannot change my vote as stability becomes an issue—other editors may not like it and while I knocked 5+ off myself this really required some talk discussion. Two things, since you are not responding on talk there Gordon:
 * Cutting an article in half is NOT a minor edit. I guess some people get in the habit of hitting minor for everything but you should avoid it.
 * 33 edits is impossible for others to wade through. Featured article requests are indeed a way to promote rapid improvement but having at it willy-nilly for three hours and then asking "everyone happy?" is just not the way to go. Marskell 18:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Answer Yes, it was unilateral, but I did not make any "substantive" changes, except to shorten things by replacing "words" with numbers (eg blah blah for 2 years...) and use of abbreviations (eg blah blah said Terri couldn't do this blah blah). Therefore, the "split" did not affect the stability. "Cutting an article in half is NOT a minor edit." Yes, it was, since the substance stayed the same. "33 edits is impossible for others to wade through. Featured article requests are indeed a way to promote rapid improvement but having at it willy-nilly for three hours and then asking "everyone happy?" is just not the way to go." No; 33 edits = 15 minutes (or less) if you have a fast connection. Page through the history. OK, I answered all your questions, and I made constructive improvements, so the "5 edit/day" aggreement can be waived under that exception. Your move. PS: Thanks for your assistance.--GordonWatts 18:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

No no no. You've taken an established article and moved 40% of it to a side. This is not minor. It simply isn't. It shouldn't have even been done without discussion on talk, especially given how touchy this article is.

And 33 edits = 15 minutes indicates a lack of forethought more than a fast connection. The whole point of our agreement was to think about every change made. To put this in perspective, I was editing while you were: I read the full article and made two dozen minors in one edit—much easier for the next person coming along. Of course the edit conflict killed the changes. Marskell 18:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * "and moved 40% of it to a side" 43.0378% to be (almost) exact (34/79=43%+change). "This is not minor." It is if the substance is not changed. It was not. It shouldn't have even been done without discussion on talk" It was discussed in talk: This talk, not the Talk:Terri Schiavo, which has been dormant and vacant for a little bit; The "Talk" said to reduce size, presumably by a split. This was the only way to do it without removing stuff and starting World War III. "especially given how touchy this article is" -or because the article is touchy, I acted to preserve the work done in the past. "think about every change made." I did. I think fast. If you don't believe me, then try and find even one error in my last several day's edits. OK? "two dozen minors in one edit—much easier for the next person coming along" I did one section at a time, to keep from overloading my brain. "Of course the edit conflict killed the changes" oh, and to preserve my changes, save your work; Even though they looked lost, you can hit "back" and get your work, copy it into Microsoft Word, save it, and introduce it later --or save it to Word (and spell-check it like I do) before you hit "save page."
 * PS: The job got done; I am sorry if you lost some work; please save your work next time. Did I do OK, all the same?--GordonWatts 18:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment: The massive reduction in article size was certainly needed and may prove to be very beneficial long-term. However, so many changes were made that this article can not possibly become an FA on this nomination. Other editors are undoubtedly going to spend time re-adding text that was moved out. In short, this article is currently as unstable as an article can be.

Unless there are objections, I suggest closing this nomination and letting the article stabilize over the next month or two. Discussion on how to improve the article should move to the talk page. I believe this will give the article its best chance at becoming a Featured Article. Carbonite | Talk 18:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * "Other editors are undoubtedly going to spend time re-adding text that was moved out" No text was lost. I merely moved it, and, in its place, added a small section summarizing the court cases. To add text would duplicate unnecessarily. Since no sustentative change was made, the article is stable, but I'd prefer someone review my work. "Discussion on how to improve the article should move to the talk page." We are quite happy, thus no major improvements are needed, which leads me to my last point: Unless there are objections, I suggest closing this nomination and letting the article stabilize over the next month or two." I object: I think the article is stable, except for one minor thing: Uncertainty on the reliability of the work Marskell and I did in reducing it; If others can review our work, that would offer confidence in the accuracy, hence stability. "I believe this [your suggestion to wait] will give the article its best chance at becoming a Featured Article." I disagree with your premise, because the underlying theory on which it was based (e.g., that things needed to be added to the article) was flawed, but thank you for the kind words. So, would someone please step up to the plate and do their part, namely a review of our work? (If we did not err, then the stability was not affected.)--GordonWatts 19:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Whether you or I think anything needs to be added to the article is basically irrelevant. Whenever an article goes through such a major change, it remains unstable for a period of time. Unstable articles are not suitable for being promoted to Featured Article.


 * There's really two ways to proceed on this:
 * Continue to argue that the article should be promoted on this nomination. With the unstability of the article and amount of opposition, this just isn't going to happen. However, continuing to press the issue does have the potential to generate enough ill will that the article's future chances are harmed. This needs to be avoided.
 * Let the nomination close and move discussion to the article talk page. Let other editors improve the article for a reasonable length of time (a month or two sounds about right). When the article is stable (no major changes for a while), find someone uninvolved with editing the article will nominate as a FAC. The objections at this point should be much easier to address.
 * Carbonite | Talk 19:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I may not agree with consensus, but I will accept it, in this case too. Now, I would like to point out that:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Terri_Schiavo
 * is not updated to the most current version of this page -that is:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Terri_Schiavo
 * So, not all may have heard that the article split; and, some may agree with my assertion of stability, and change consensus. I am willing to let the nomination proceed as is, and accept the results of a few more days' discussion, with the hopes that our consensus can be actioned by Mark, in whatever way he deems appropriate. You don't mind letting this new development get reviewed do you, Carbonite? Your suggestions are for me to wait, and you seem thoughtful and reasonable, but I ask you to wait a few days before the hastily passed action one way or another. Is that cool?--GordonWatts 19:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to remove the nomination, nor will I demand that anyone else do so. My comments were advice and you're quite free to ignore it if you wish. However I would suggest that you remember what you hopefully learned from your RfA: Pushing the issue often ends up working against you. I'll leave you with a pertinent quote "The chief cause of failure and unhappiness is trading what you want most for what you want now." Carbonite | Talk 19:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed; this was essentially my concern.
 * [ Note: Marskell was agreeing with Carbonie here, apparently, but I posted between their 2 posts.--GordonWatts 19:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC) ]
 * Gordon, by "killed the changes" I meant they had become redundant. I do of course do a copy before saving. As for whether it's a minor, you are wrong. Minor edit: "A major edit is basically something that makes the entry worth relooking at for somebody who wants to watch the article rather closely." Splitting 43% of it absolutely qualifies. It made me want to re-look at it and I can't imagine that wouldn't be true of anyone else who watches it. Put another way, you want people to change their votes based on the changes—how could they be minor? In any case, we have to wait and see if other involved editors approve of the split. And Carbonite is right—move it back to talk there. Marskell 19:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Simply look at the last version before I touched it, page through the history diffs, and if no error exists, then pass it. PS: Please note the "sub-article" is the exact information that was in the main article, except I had to make sure full names were used when introducing characters. In other words, the split was claen. "It made me want to re-look" Good; That's what I am requesting: A review of our work.--GordonWatts 19:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment. The article looks vastly better with the edits and the spinning off of the sections into their own article. The lead is also much improved. I think this article is on the right track. That said, I think the editing cut out something important. The article seems to be missing a section on the falling out between Michael and her parents. This missing section, which would come after the section titled "Rehabilitation efforts and the malpractice suit," is needed. I can't believe I'm saying to add to the article, but it needs this section to be complete. Otherwise, this is now a very good article. The key, though, will be to see if the article remains stable for a time (I believe, though, that using the subarticles will help the stability issue). If it can remain stable for a week, I will vote to support it.--Alabamaboy 20:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * While I haven't had time to look at the article in detail, I think Alabamaboy's assessment is correct - while I'm not sure if it's FA material, it's definitely on the right track now (assuming it stays this way). &rarr;Raul654 20:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * "That said, I think the editing cut out something important. The article seems to be missing a section on the falling out between Michael and her parents. This missing section, which would come after the section titled "Rehabilitation efforts and the malpractice suit," is needed." You gave me a scare, AlabamaBoy: I thought I needed to add something back in; however, upon closer inspection, all is well: For example, look right after Terri_Schiavo, and you'll see: Terri_Schiavo. Then, click on that link, which would be: Selected_court_cases_in_the_Terri_Schiavo_case, and read the very first sentence: "On February 14, 1993, Terri's husband, Michael Schiavo, and the Schindlers had a falling-out..." That having been said, I think I will add a sentence or two in the main article referencing that. (I may also review the recent deletions others have made and see if anything was indeed deleted that is of import.)--GordonWatts 12:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Ditto Raul. Johnleemk | Talk 12:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * FYI, I fixed that paragraph in the main article, in response to AlabamaBoy's concern: went from 45-to-46Kb, but I'm not sweating at this point.--GordonWatts 13:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Notice: Under the text move guidelines (a proposed policy), I am moving text from the Terri Schiavo article to the two related talk pages (this one and the "regular" talk page. Here is the text removed from that page:


 * The Register ' s compilation The Register ' s mirror link


 * Watts, Gordon W. "Living Wills: Unexpected Weaknesses." The Register, 11 April 2005.


 * The Register mirror link

Edit summary:

Current revision GordonWatts (Talk | contribs) Removing links that would give the appearance of impropriety and biased conflict of interest related to vanity links

PS: I give credit to Taxman for reminding me of my responsibilities here: "The only link of yours that is proper is one that covers important legal information covered nowhere else. I'll let other editors decide if that article is important enough, but the others have to go...- Taxman Talk 23:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)"

--GordonWatts 00:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Object, article clearly not stable: Of the last ten edits at the time of voting, five is described in the edit summary as a revert. I'm begining to wonder if this article will ever be stable enought to be an FA. WegianWarrior 09:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment': my object above still stands but more so given the reversions that are going on. Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The article talk page is terrorized by FuelWagon who has upset the progress I made; Please do not blame me or punish me for it; I have worked tirelessly to improve the article, and he has messed up the references section and made many edits against Cite_sources and Verifiability policy, when he removed references, which were approved here regarding adding of controversial links that were needed to cite sources -and also continues to argue about article length here in this page's talk -even when all consensus says he is wrong. REASON: The reason the page is unstable is due to ONE SINGLE editor, FuelWagon, and the reason he is allowed to violate consensus is because ALL YOU simply do nothing to stop him, and you do not file a RfC or participate in talk. Mark and others think that progress is being made, but if we fail, it will be because YOU did nothing; I have done all I can: I am an editor -not a "miracle worker."--GordonWatts 01:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * You are thinking about this in entirely the wrong terms. You are not being blamed or punished. The article simply does not meet the FA criteria and will not until it is properly summarized (addresses the points in relation the their importance) and stable. That will not happen soon, even without the current dispute. No one said getting articles to featured status was easy, but currently the article is in a terrible state (in any of the recent versions) in regards to meeting the FA criteria. If you let this nomination be removed as it should have long ago (and likely would have been if not for your combative edit warring to put it back last time), then the article can proceed on to improve. FAC is not the place to resolve an editing dispute. - Taxman Talk 13:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree completely. Last week I suggested that the best course of action would be to remove the nomination and let the article stabilize. Of course this suggestion was met with strong resistance from Gordon. This really is the best way to move forward since no progress has been or will be made on this particular nomination. Carbonite | Talk 13:47, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Mee too. Gordon, let it drop for a while to see if a real consensus can be found around what should be in the article. This must be the first time that an FAC entry threatened to rival the article for size. Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:54, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Re .: Edit wars You may think that lack of edit wars prove stability, and that edit wars are bad. (To some extent, this is true.) However, consider this: Do we have any edit wars in articles like Underwater Basket Weaving (if there is such an article)? No! You know why? 'Nobody cares'' about this mundane, obscure stuff. In Terri Schiavo's case, the edit wars, while bad, are reflective of the high level of interest in the issue: A "good" thing.--GordonWatts 05:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

RfC assistance requested re FuelWagon's disruption here, where he argues with &rarr;Raul654
 * "This must be the first time that an FAC entry threatened to rival the article for size." Oh, we've worked that hard? That is a good omen and sign that we've made positive progress. Great!--GordonWatts 03:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * In reply to Filiocht & Carbonite's concerns: " But miracles still happen ." --GordonWatts 02:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Since we all are complaining about the article length (and some of us are complaining about FuelWagon's disruption here), I was wondering if some brave admin would either co-opt with me for a RfC re: FuelWagon --or take action to keep him from de-stabilising the Terri Schiavo page. I just barely get it fixed when he keeps messing up the references section, taking out approved references to cite our sources; As we discussed in talk, I removed all links that look like vanity links except those approved by the resident Admin, Taxman.

So, will someone assist me in combating this editorial vandalism here by the argumentive FuelWagon. (I do not mean this is disrespect; I too wanted the article length to stay the same, but I am man enough to comply with consensus here.) Thx.--GordonWatts 03:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I didn't approve any links darn it. Stop misrepresenting me. I said only a link covering important legal information should be allowed to stay, and that I would let others decided if it was important. It seems like people dispute the article contains anything truly important. - Taxman Talk 13:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Brief Clarification to Taxman: I never said you approved of any specific links. All the same, the one link of mine that I tried to tie down and keep was indeed the only reporting of the Terri's Law Oral Arg. hearing in Lakeland: I know: I was there. So, it is for this reason that I assert that this link qualifies as needed by your good descriptions.--GordonWatts 02:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * "It seems like people dispute the article contains anything truly important." Yes, but we will beat the deletionists incorperated: Teamwork -and Faith.--GordonWatts 02:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Object - lacks coherent timeline (10 year gap where everything happens), not stable, I fear that The Register will reappear as a source. Buried comments in the source are also troubling. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 21:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * "lacks coherent timeline (10 year gap where everything happens" Comment: You can't have your cake and eat it too. (American Idiom: You can't have both things; Choose one or the other.) If you shorten the article, it will arbitrarily make a time-gap (which is covered in the sub-article). If, on the other hand, you choose to report *all* the facts, the article length will be about 80 Kb. "not stable" Some "edit warriors" are not stable, and need to be disciplined; The article is like a lake: Large fluctuations in wind temperature result in only small changes in water temperature: The lake (and, by extension, the article) is relatively stable. "I fear that The Register will reappear as a source." That is not my fault: I have removed ALL "Register" sources from the visible comments: If others chose to put them in, you will have to accept the consensus: "Consensus" does not always go our way, but if we are mature, we accept that: You must accept that too. "Buried comments in the source are also troubling." Huh? What comments? I removed ALL of them, and only put a few back in to notify others that I had removed the links to my paper, The Register. What would you like me to do? Lie about it? Be silent and not up-front? Put the sources in NON-hidden sections for the public viewing? Please clarify, Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo;, or, otherwise, I will discount this particular criticism. Since it is my responsibility to answer critics, however, I hope that I have answered them all.--GordonWatts 00:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The article can be shortened without cutting relevent facts. It takes at least two to edit war, and one of those is you. The Register remains in hidden comments. It is a non-notable, non-reputable source. I'd like you to stop pushing your newspaper into the body of articles. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 14:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 *  The Register remains in hidden comments. I think it should be treated like any other source, but I will agree to your compromise; BTW, thank you for not wanting to remove it altogether as some are: It should remain for future generations as we need to cite our sources. "I'd like you to stop pushing your newspaper into the body of articles." Done, according to your wishes. "It is a non-notable, non-reputable source." Hold on a sec: I asked you on the Terri board:Do you think I lied about the news report of that Oral Argument hearing? By the way, a reporter need not be notable -none of us reporters are usually notable, but we still produce reliable news coverage. In what way is my news coverage unreliable or false? Here are links to the news stories in question:
 * # From Staff Reports. (Watts, Gordon W., Editor-in-Chief) "Lakeland Appeals Court holds Oral Arguments for Terri's Law," The Register, June 14 2004 link mirror link
 * # Ford, Cheryl, R.N. "News Coverage of Terri Schiavo's family's challenge to Mike Schiavo's guardianship," The Register, June 16 2004 link mirror link
 * I await your answer to my question. Thank you for your time.--GordonWatts 22:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * There is an edit war that was ongoing, so it can't be a featured article till this is sorted out, however: I can see one or two sentence paragraphs in several sections. This doesn't look too good. I don't really think a footnote in the lead section is such a good idea: this material should be covered in the main section and readers should read on to find out more info. I feel that the structure is not clear - someone should look into making this a lot clearer. - 203.134.166.99 03:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Grace Note, is that you at this Australian IP address? Well, whomever you are, thank you for your input, but instead of talking about problems, why don't you try to help us with solutions (or, if you already are and have, THANK YOU for your assistance here).--GordonWatts 03:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * One solution: (1) Block anyone and everyone who's monkeying up & disrupting the article; (2) Fix it; (3) Feature it; (4) Relax and smile!--GordonWatts 03:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)