Talk:Marjory Stoneman Douglas

Marjory Stoneman Douglas is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

Marjory Stoneman Douglas is part of the Everglades series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 27, 2010.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 29, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
January 29, 2008	WikiProject peer review	Reviewed
February 15, 2008	Peer review	Reviewed
May 2, 2008	Featured article candidate	Promoted
August 2, 2008	Featured topic candidate	Not promoted
July 6, 2010	Featured topic candidate	Promoted
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on May 14, 2017, May 14, 2018, and April 7, 2023.
Current status: Featured article

Biography

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article has had a peer review which is now archived.

Florida High‑importance

	Florida portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Florida. If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.FloridaWikipedia:WikiProject FloridaTemplate:WikiProject FloridaFlorida articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Miami Top‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Miami, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the Miami metropolitan area on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.MiamiWikipedia:WikiProject MiamiTemplate:WikiProject MiamiMiami articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Environment Low‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Feminism Low‑importance

	Feminism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women writers High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

POV

quite POV "humble and charming", "sharp mind", "eminent", "best of these", etc... --Ruben 14:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Counties versus counties

I don't want to get into an editing war, but Broward and Miami-Dade Counties should be Broward and Miami-Dade counties. County is capitalized when it is the name of one county. Broward County, Miami-Dade County, etc but when they are strung together, it is not capitalized, e.g. Broward and Miami-Dade counties. The same rule covers things such as streets, e.g., First Street, Second Street, etc., when combined become First and Second streets. Former English teacher clariosophic (talk) 03:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC) Reference: Goldstein, Norm, editor, Associated Press Stylebook and Briefing on Media Law, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Perseus Press (2000) p. 61, states: County Capitalize when an integral part of a proper name: Dade County, Nassau County, Suffolk County ... Lowercase plural combinations: Westchester and Rockland counties. clariosophic (talk) 04:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is changed. --Moni3 (talk) 04:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA pass

Great article. Easily passes. Wrad (talk) 01:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, thanks! That was very quick. Thank you for reading and reviewing the article. --Moni3 (talk) 01:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions

The shooting that took place on February 14, 2018, in Parkland, Florida, happened at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. This is just a point of data and I leave it to others to decide whether it has any relevance to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.219.70.14 (talk) 18:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Moni3!

It's gets more fun each time i read it, as it all comes into focus. :) Unfortunately, I'm really tired so I'm not sure how far I'll get tonight. Here's just an initial list of things I noticed. Willow (talk) 07:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mention her suffrage work in the lead, maybe as part of an expanded topic sentence in the 2nd paragraph?

I had a little trouble following the chronology in the Writing section. Maybe you could add some dates there?

You do a great job of bringing her to life! :) I was curious about the yeoman story, though?

A little historical context section, maybe at the very beginning, before she's born, might be good. It seems important to know who was threatening the Everglades and why, and what Douglas was up against. It's interesting to me that the sugar barons were so powerful in Florida; I remember reading how they also used American troops to subjugate the kingdom of Hawaii in 1893.

Wow, I did not expect you to read it so soon! I mentioned her suffrage and civil rights interests in the lead. The last paragraph under Freelance writer I had below River of Grass, but it seemed odd there, so I moved it back up. Is it confusing there? Where were you looking for dates - in The Miami Herald Section? The yeoman story in her autobiography is odd. There are a few parts where she completely detaches from being in the situation, like the period after her college graduation and her marriage. Again, when she signed up for the Navy, she termed it as "found myself signing up for", as if she wasn't present. She does explain a bit about why she didn't like it - how much detail would you like to see?

I think it might be good to have some background, but not until the Everglades work section, She moved to Miami when less than 5,000 people lived there and it was a frontier town with dirt streets and wooden plank sidewalks (I might add a couple sentences about that, though). There was no Big Sugar when she went there. But in her lifetime, she saw the enormous expansion of South Florida. I can add some details about that.

Thanks again, Willow! Please drop by to give more suggestions at any time. --Moni3 (talk) 13:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting

(1) In-house only

(a) It works only for the WP "elite".
(b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
(c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.

(2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences

(a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.

(3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates

(a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
(b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
(c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.

(4) Typos and misunderstood coding

(a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
(b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
(c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.

(5) Edit-mode clutter

(a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.

(6) Limited application

(a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
(b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis/ The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 09:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, Tony. You can do this to all of my FAs. Although I see you did it to Restoration of the Everglades and it was reverted soon after. Not sure if you're watching how these stick, or how much agreement there is about the changes. --Moni3 (talk) 12:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC) So from everything that we have learned she truly was a wounderful person that will be added to this worlds great history of figures that will be look upond in the near life time.[reply]

References

Maybe I am being extremely dense, but is a reference section on this article missing? I can't find anything that gives the full details of what the Grunwald/Douglas etc listed in the notes section are. --Slp1 (talk) 16:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I don't get what you're asking. Can you clarify, please? --Moni3 (talk) 16:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grunwald gets mentioned in the notes section with page numbers etc, but there is no reference section mentioning the title, publisher, date of publication etc. I just checked the FA version and a reference section under the notes was there then. Maybe it got deleted sometime by mistake? --Slp1 (talk) 16:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this is too weird. Half the time I load the article, the reference section and the external links section are missing and half the time they are there. Must be something wrong at my end I guess. Sorry for bothering you!! Great article.--Slp1 (talk) 16:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check the References section, where all print materials from which multiple citations are used, are listed. --Moni3 (talk) 16:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

such a great article

but such a horrendous picture. plz change infobox pic!!!--Rr556 (talk) 17:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas herself may have chided you for wanting a 103-year-old woman to be physically appealing. Although there are photographs of Douglas, image rights keep them from being freely used on Wikipedia. Friends of the Everglades allowed this image to be used. Otherwise, I do not know who owns other images of Douglas, and therefore permissions to use them would be problematic. --Moni3 (talk) 17:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a lovely picture. :) --Beloved Freak 19:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UnWikipedian Comment - What an Awesome person and thanks to the editors for creating this

I got smitten decades ago by "River of Grass" and then by the mind and perspective and knowledge deeply-rooted-in-everglades background of a person who could write such a book, and her quest that it stemmed from.

Thanks to the editors for creating this. And yes, the picture has numerous severe photography problems. The side view combined with severe shadows combined with parts of her face glared out. Nothing to do with her being "appealing" or not appealing. Thanks again to the editors.

Something seems to be malfunction in the signing software, but this is by North8000 North8000 (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Marjory Stoneman Douglas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marjory Stoneman Douglas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080703163228/http://www.nwf.org/about/inductees_douglas.cfm to http://www.nwf.org/about/inductees_douglas.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas?

According to the article Douglas was the last name of her con-artist ex-husband with whom she was married only a year. I don't understand why then is Douglas associated with her name? Did she identified herself as "Stoneman Douglas"? Thinker78 (talk) 00:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American women of World War I

Hi. Shouldn't that category be considered for her given her role in France? Opinions? CoryGlee (talk) 12:06, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]