Talk:Terri Schiavo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Terri Schiavo article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
Good article Terri Schiavo has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement only, not for engaging in discussion for discussion's sake.
Do not use this page as a discussion forum.
See talk page guidelines.

Contents

[edit] Archives

The archives for the Terri Schiavo page may be found here:

  • Talk:Terri Schiavo/archives (currently 45 archives) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GordonWatts (talk • contribs) 04:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC).
  • Ah, yes, that was me. Thank you for catching the oversight here, HagermanBot. PS: Quite a cool quote on your page: "Little is it known that the HagermanBot signed the United States Declaration of Independence in lieu of John Hancock who left early and forgot to sign."

Go get'em! :-) --GordonWatts 04:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Voting is Evil"

Gordon, do you require re-education regarding your misunderstanding about "voting" and "consensus"? --Calton | Talk 12:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] North Country Gazette

Whatever the legitimacy of this source, it seems clear a recent spat of edits on Schiavo related pages is related to the promotion of a new book by the website's publisher. Some of the edits have referred specifically to the new book. Ace-o-aces 15:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

>>NEWER REPLY:>>>>I just now saw your comment about the book; I looked at the article page, and it seems to promote MANY books. That alone is not problematic, but I concede that the prior editor made an edit that listed TWO links to the North County Gazette; That might be a bit extreme, so I propose a compromise with only one link. If no one says anything, I may make the edit and note it myself. Awaiting further input.GordonWatts 17:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I think that the author of that book is a weirdo -for many reasons, but her writings (on the subject) seem to at least be "opinion," and quite possibly correct -but the latter is not a requirement to be listed in the section we placed her. Hello, Calton. How's it hanging there in Japan?GordonWatts 08:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
The current "vote-count" (consensus or not) is as follows:
  • Add link(s): Zenger + GordonWatts + V-Man737
  • Leave link off: Ace-o-aces + Calton +Proto
    • Summary: Tie vote: 3-3
    • Comments: The author threatened to sue even those on her side for copyright infringement -even when doing so jeopardized her fight to save Terri's life. However, this is not germane to the listing of her link. She need not even tell the truth: Her link was listed in the opinions / commentary section. Since she was one of the major writers regarding the Schiavo saga (opinions of editors notwithstanding), thus she qualifies to be listed, and the argument to list her link was greater than the argument to not list it.GordonWatts 09:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Updated Summary: Tie still un-broken: 3-3

Gordon, am I going to have to go back and dig out all the opinions which -- universally -- explained to you your fundamental misunderstanding about "votes" and which saw through your incredibly tendentious and self-serving interpretations thereof?

In my prior edit, I was correcting your spelling error, and I was going to answer in the same edit, but I hit the ENTER key accidentally before I could make a proper Edit summary -anyhow, the archives are not relevant: All that is relevant here is whether or not this edit is a good one. Not only might you stir up strife (your specialty), but you also might sprain a muscle or something, so I would advice against this heavy lifting...GordonWatts 16:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
the archives are not relevant - Your past behavior, your fundamental misunderstanding of how decisions are arrived at here, your past attempts to enact your fundamental misunderstandings, and the NUMEROUS corrections you received from countless editors and the utter lack of support for your interpretation are in fact relevant, as you appear poised to repeat your behavior as if nothing had ever happened. Bringing them up to remind you -- and to educate new editors -- can only help keep you from digging the same hole for yourself again. --Calton | Talk 23:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

she was one of the major writers regarding the Schiavo saga

You quote me here, but your own evidence shows that she is a major writer. You're making a case for your opposition. ??GordonWatts 16:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Complete bull. A look through the Google News Archives pulls up 63 hits -- almost all of them from "North Country Gazette", which is just as much a newspaper as your personal so-called "news site" (Alexa Traffic Rank for northcountrygazette.org: 273,530. This isn't a reliable source, it's not in the same ballpark as a reliable source, it's not in the same COUNTY as a reliable source. --Calton | Talk 14:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

One last thing: Even IF she's not a reliable source (and I admit that she is not as "founded and grounded" as, say, the New York Times), I say, even IF she's not a completely reliable news source, that is not relevant: She offers a counter-point of opinions. Lastly, I submit that she IS a fairly reliable news source: She has not been sued for libel, slander, or defamation of character, so your case is weak. She indeed, even as you point out, was a major writer, and that is the only real qualification here: Google is not biased. Maybe I'll call others in to weigh in on this.GordonWatts 16:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
She indeed, even as you point out, was a major writer From complete bull to complete bullshit. Kindly stick to actual facts, however you mangle, misinterpret, and bend them, but don't resort to outright fabrication. --Calton | Talk 23:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Clarification regarding Google.com
Earlier, both you and I tried to use Google to prove a point, but I wasn't clear. I think you used Google to show that June Maxam is highly associated with her newspaper. Duh... That is to be expected. However, I just saw in google the following:
This google news search for "Terri Schiavo" news currently shows the following hits (which change with time)
  • Terri Schiavo Judge George Greer to Speak at Jury Trial Conference
  • LifeNews.com, MT - 22 hours ago
  • Dallas, TX (LifeNews.com) -- Judge George Greer continues to travel the lecture circuit despite his controversial ruling allowing Terri Schiavo's former ...


  • TerriPAC Files Amended FEC Reports
  • North Country Gazette, NY - 9 hours ago
  • Terri Schiavo died March 31, 2005, 13 days after her feeding tube was removed by order of probate court George W. Greer. The FEC had imposed a deadline of ...


  • Karen Finley's Laura Bush/Terri Schiavo Makes Chicago Debut Jan. 3
  • Playbill.com, NY - Jan 2, 2007
  • Internationally renowned performance artist Karen Finley performs the Chicago premiere of her works The Dreams of Laura Bush/The Passion of Terri Schiavo ...


  • Life and Family Catholic Church Scandals of 2006
  • Lifesite, NY - 17 hours ago
  • ... in his local Catholic Church despite the fact that the Vatican condemned as murder his order to have his disabled wife Terri Schiavo starved to death. ...
My point? June's "paper," or whatever you want to call it, beats everyone except one paper; The NCG is currently ranked #2 in the world in Google news about Terri Schiavo. Google does not let just anybody list their "blog" as a "news source." There have been documented cases of "papers" getting the boot for being biased; One case that sticks out in my mind was this one "paper" that insulted Muslims, under the guise of news -it got the boot; The North County Gazette did not, so according to the number 1-ranked search engine, The NCG is "news." I rest my case and ask for other input, votes on this link.GordonWatts 16:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I think you used Google to show that June Maxam is highly associated with her newspaper. Duh...
Noooo, I'm pointing out that she's ONLY associated with her "newspaper", making her, in effect, self-published. Duh... I'm not seeing the slightest sign anyone anywhere else cares about her or has paid attention to her as a "major writer", other than, perhaps, the St. Petersburg Times (an actual newspaper, by the way) devoting a short article to her rumor-mongering and conspiracy theories [1] -- and even there she's not the primary subject, the county sheriff she was trying to smear was.
My point? June's "paper," or whatever you want to call it, beats everyone except one paper...
Your "point" breaks new ground in long-winded irrelevancy. Clue: Google News deals with current events and Terri Schiavo, being dead for nearly two years, is NOT a current event. Therefore (follow this carefully) that says nothing about the actual prominence about the top results -- not mention your jumping to the conclusion that being at the top of the results a priori confers superiority over the others. Your case is rested, but only in the same way that the this parrot is "merely resting". --Calton | Talk 23:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
You have a thing for dead parrots? Have you told your psycologist this?GordonWatts 09:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
You have a thing for dead parrots? I have a dislike of parrots, yes: sucks to be you then, I guess.
Have you told your psycologist [sic] this? I don't have one. You, on the other hand, require someone to teach you how to dress: Image:GordonWattsRallyCropped.jpg --Calton | Talk 14:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Put one of the links in, noting clearly what exactly it is, so that those who will get offended by whatever it says will avoid it. Then kiss and make up, and both of you take a wikibreak. Of course it may get frustrating to make edits only to have them undone minutes later, but that's what makes Wikipedia what it is. You'll have to learn to accept it without focusing on each others' human flaws. V-Man737 20:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Seeing no other votes, this matter is settled, and the compromise accepted: The V-Man has spoken, and the tie is broken; I shall insert the "lesser offensive" of the two possible links -as the book promotion seems more controversial. Thx 4 your participation. To answer your other point aboyut peace and making up, I shall not raise any accusation against Cal or any others, even if matters go against me: I have my own religios beliefs and gratitude. WATTS to Bridge: One to beam up; Energize...GordonWatts 02:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Seeing no other votes, this matter is settled What did I tell you about outright fabrication, Gordon? And once again, the umpteenth time in the last two years: WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A DEMOCRACY AND VOTE COUNTS MEAN NOTHING and your utterly bogus "tie-breaker" excuse means LESS than nothing. Why don't you understand this? Why hasn't this sunk in after two years of numerous people telling you so? Free clue for you and V-Man737: since no one has died and left him in charge, saying "he has spoken!" is meaningless. --Calton | Talk 14:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Heyyy, everyone can wait for a few more votes! It's all gonna be okay. How about a nice cup of tea? V-Man737 14:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Guy, if you don't know what you're doing, don't pretend and don't practice mindless equivalency.
For your educational purposes:
Gordon -- under his current name and previous name of GordonWattsDotCom (talk • contribs) -- has a LONG history of tendetious edits, long-winded Wikilawyering, complete misunderstanding of basic policies, and near-universal opposition to his attempts to bend this article to float his pet conspiracy theories, as a quick skim of the 44 talk page archives he's helped fill up would show. So again, don't play referee if you don't understand the game. Your so-called compromise is no such thing: that link doesn't belong, period/full stop. --Calton | Talk 15:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Just to back Calton up on this - straw polls are evil, because if they were used, all we'd see would Wikipedia policy and the requirements for reliable sourcing and referencing being subverted by numbers. No. I don't care how well Google's notoriously unreliable pageranking system has been gamed. The link is not acceptable, so do not add the link. Proto::► 15:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 ;_; *sigh* if you say so. So basically there's nowhere we could put that link? You know, just in case someone looks up the Wikipedia entry about Terri Schiavo to see if they can find websites about her case that are totally biased? And yeah, User:Calton's right. I really shouldn't try to contribute to important articles like this one until I have as much experience as he does. Of course with my miniscule and insignificant 238 edits, how could I have expected to be bold without getting bitten? I'll go sulk in the corner now. V-Man737 16:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Your so-called compromise is no such thing: that link doesn't belong, period/full stop. (quoting Calton from above; The dark Jedi get red)
So basically there's nowhere we could put that link? (quoting V-man from above)
Answer: I found a place to place the link; i.e., see e.g., below.GordonWatts 09:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
This was partly my doing, so I take responsability: I backed up the 1st editor of this dispute, Zenger. However, Even though the matter went to a tie, I still think you were on the right mark, V-Man: Indeed, you gave more clarity and description to the link and were more unbiased than even I was: I will unfortunately accept the outcome: In a tie situation (this is a tie with six editors, a respectable number, not a straw poll) -the "status quo" is the tie-breaker, and before this dispute, the Gazette link was not present, so it shall determine the tie. However, The Gazette DOES make for "commentary," so, if it your edit that was reversed by Cal and backed by Proto was not that type, I shall add it; If it was, I shall think it over. To conclude, you were closer to unbiased, new editor, V-Man, than any of us, even myself, whether or not you were in the losing side of the vote, and your suggestion to relax over what IS INDEED a trivial matter was correct, Cal's thoughts notwithstanding, no offense meant to Cal; He is entitled to his opinion too.GordonWatts 06:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] North County Gazette dispute: A new approach to compromise

Regarding the dispute above, I have noticed a different Wikipedia page which has links such as Zenger, myself, and V-Man suggest, and I placed the disputed link among other links of its type, since I surmise it shall fit in appropriately.

This was the logical place to place the edit -and... This is the edit in question.

In closing, I note, however, that the links section on the main Terri Schiavo page probably would do better if it was more well-rounded and balanced such as the links section on the page above. Just an idea -but Calton, it may be ruled that way, and if it does, don't fret: The links section seems to be working on the sister page, so its inclusion on the Terri Schiavo page seems quite logical. However, this is a big change, and I would not be appropriate to enact it without concensus. That's my input here.GordonWatts 07:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

'Well-rounded and balanced' - the sub article contains 5 links in favour of removal of the feeding tube, and 25 opposing (it was 26, but I have re-removed the NCG spamlink you inserted again. I fail to see how this is well-rounded and balanced. Also, Gordon, please note that adding a promotional link on another page because it was not allowed on this one is not a 'compromise'.
I recommend you halve the number of "pro life / anti-removal of feeding tube / anti-Michael Schiavo / anti-euthanasia / call them what you will" links on the Public opinion and actuvusm, or double the links for the other side of the argument. If you do not, I will, and I will just pick them at random, as the balance of links on the subpage is heavily skewed towards one point of view. Proto::► 12:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I have gone ahead and removed all the links from the subpage that were not about Terri Schiavo directly (instead being about euthansia issues as a whole), I've removed the polls (as a poll is not advocacy, it's a poll), and another piece from the North Country Gazette, which is not (despite its misleading name) a newspaper (it's a blog). Proto::► 12:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, you make a logical point, Proto, and I would tend to agree, but please do not blame me: I have not edited this thing in ages! Well, I would agree that balance is a good goal to seek unbiased reporting, but if you must chose, please remember: I'm an inclusionist, and with very good reason: It works! So, I would prefer that links be added to balance, rather than removed. Tally ho!GordonWatts 19:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, with the inappropriate links (ie, not related to the topic of the subpage, or not about Schiavo directly) removed, the balance is a lot better anyway. Proto::► 00:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I've aligned the tables, and I see it is 9-9 - a perfect balance, as far as "how many" on each opposing side. With the tables aligned on that sub-page, it's easier to keep track of said balance, but I'll bet my bottom dollar that Calton will try and find something wrong with this, my latest edit of the Public_opinion_and_activism_in_the_Terri_Schiavo_case#Other_external_links subpage's links subsection somehow construing it as "biased" or something; However (and giving even Cal the benefit of the doubt, like we all should), I could be wrong, and I hope I am. PS: Cal, I used cooler colors to keep you happy, while still having enough of a contrast (this is brown text) to show readers where the new comment was just added.--GordonWatts 04:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I found something new, Proto, related to June Maxam's paper's credibility: Since there was talk of her not being reported or supported by major media (remember, Calton raised this point above?) - therefore, see that http://www.trt-ny.org/ArtTUnion_EB_2-17-04.htm at the bottom of the page indicates Calton is wrong: "The Albany Times Union has picked up on the story of June Maxam and her effort to publicize the fact that dozens of County and Supreme Court Judge's in New York State have not properly filed their oath of office..." This, then shows that, while it is not on a "Schiavo-related" matter, Maxam is credible as a news source: I add that this is similar to judge Greer's lack of oath of office issues, but this is not a strike against June Maxam's paper: Her paper has credibility, regardless of what you think about her as a person, so at least a few of her links seem appropriate and in order.--GordonWatts 04:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
see that http://www.trt-ny.org/ArtTUnion_EB_2-17-04.htm at the bottom of the page indicates Calton is wrong: Bullcrap: the article -- one article -- is about June Maxam and her local crusade. It doesn't say -- or even hint -- that the "North Country Gazette" is an actual newspaper or that she's an actual journalist, especially given that the reprinted piece begins with Armed with little more than a home computer and righteous indignation.... And, most especially, there's not a single mention of Terri Schiavo, a strange omission when talking about a "major writer" on the subject.
So, to steal from Wolfgang Pauli, Gordon, you're not right, you're not even wrong. What you ARE doing is grasping at straws. --Calton | Talk 04:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
UPDATE: I found this link which verify's the claims I made above (claims which come from some blog) - http://www.AlbanyLaw.edu/media/user/archivemediacomm.pdf ---which, when opened (bottom of page 16 and top of page 17), say this:
Schiavo is not on trial here -The North County Gazette is; And, mentioning Schiavo is besides the point when addressing whether or not Maxam's paper is credible. See also...the updated info I found which substantiates this claim:
February 18, 2004 - 2
Albany Times Union
Point of law sparks woman's crusade - ELIZABETH BENJAMIN
Armed with little more than a home computer and righteous indignation, June Maxam ....has been fighting for several years
to have many of the state's roughly 3,300 judges removed from their posts because she believes they did not properly file
their legally mandated oaths of office....
Albany Law School Professor Vincent M. Bonventre said it's highly unlikely the state's highest court would vacate hundreds
of decisions -- even if the judges who made them hadn't met their oath requirements. "This is really more of a ministerial
matter," Bonventre said. "If the statutes were applied literally, it would upset far, far too many things. I can't imagine the
Court of Appeals allowing that to happen."
....But Bonventre deemed Maxam's quest "perfectly viable."
"We have so many laws on the books that there's no way anybody can know all the laws they're supposed to be obeying,"
Bonventre said. "But, that said, ignorance of the law is no excuse."
Conclusion: Maxam is credible as a news source, according to Major Media.--GordonWatts 04:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
ALSO: To address your specific points - whether or not she uses a computer or is specifically called by the word "journalist," is not relevant: Actions speak louder than words, and her endorsement (read the word "viable" above), is the point; If her quest is viable, then her tenure as a journalist is; In fact, she has been a journalist possibly longer than you've been alive. (Do your research next time: She has been in journalism for like 35 years or so.)--GordonWatts 04:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Schiavo is not on trial here -The North County Gazette is
You need to keep your stories straight: the whole point of this longwinded exercise in vigorous handwaving is June Maxam's standing and credibility as a "major writer" on Terri Schiavo and therefore includable here. You have failed -- utterly -- to demonstrate that a) she's a "major writer" on Terri Schiavo; b) she's a "major writer"; c) she's a writer, at least in actually being an actual journalist, your unbacked claims about her "career" notwithstanding; d) her "North Country Gazette" is anything more than personal blog all dressed up, Of course, you were making the same bogus claims about your own self-described "online newspaper", so perhaps you don't actually understand what "journalist", "major writer, or "newspaper" means, either. Given that absolutely no one bought your claims of being a journalist, you might have taken a hint there.
If her quest is viable, then her tenure as a journalist is
I wish I hadn't already used the Wolfgang Pauli line, since this chain of so-called reasoning is even more untethered from reality. What does the first clause have to do with the second? The only thing connecting them is a comma
Conclusion: Maxam is credible as a news source Repeating exactly the same nonsense doesn't change a thing. Keep grasping at those straws, Gordon, but it'll do you no good. --Calton | Talk 05:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
WATTS' First Law of Argument: When one has no credible counter-argument, one resorts to ad hominem attacks. Since the show fits, wear it.--GordonWatts 07:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC) corrected; see below:--GordonWatts 07:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Since you didn't indent in a uniform manner (and indeed, I also indented wrongly and fixed both mine and your error on that edit), so I temporarily missed your counter-argument ...you actually made one; I'm sorry I accused you of not making one, so I will try to address the points above. A) As shown by the amount of articles she has written, it is a fact that Maxam's paper IS a major reporter on Schiavo, whether true or not -whether news or opinion. (I say "paper" because she was not always the only writer for it, which also gives more credibility, not that it is needed since I also answer the points below). B) She's a major writer, as evidenced by the news reports of "major" media which featured her (The St Pete Times and that Albany paper, to name a few) -AND the dirt she has uncovered as an investigator -and featured later in other media, which shows it was "real" news -not mere a writer who copies other peoples' stuff. C) Your point "C" above, where you use the word "journalist" instead of "writer" is redundant, and I've already addressed that point in "B" above. D) "Blogs" are news sources, as evidenced by the Pro-Life and Fight for Terri-type blogs traditionally listed in the commentary link sections of Wikipedia "Schiavo" article -and possibly also as sources of news items. So, your point about her "paper" being a blog (if it indeed is one) is not valid criticism: Blogs are the wave of the future in news sources. You don't make a strong case; Yes, her "paper," or whatever you want to call it may not be the New York Times, but there are "times," that I would trust her over the Times on certain issues, if not all issues. Sometimes David is stronger than Goliath, after all. Even if he were not, he is still a good, loyal soldier, and by analogy, The North County Gazette is still some form of news source.--GordonWatts 07:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
PS: While you're mulling on that, Cal, why don't you show me documentation of where the North County Gazette has been caught in a lie -not a difference of interpretation on an opnion piece, but where there was an actual lie. (Even if you do find such, we recall the NY Times has occasionally published "fabrications," so you're going to have to get a doosey to convince me the Gazette is not newsworthy. -Awaiting your reply on these last 2 posts.-GordonWatts 07:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Below, I altered the colours temporarily for two purposes: #1: To make clear who is saying what, and #2: to wake up the other fellow with whom I'm conversing; He is slightly adverse to colours, and might likely change them back, but until then, my old quote (where he writes, but quoting me) is in dark blue, his is in dark red, and my current quote is indented once more and in bright blue.-GordonWatts 07:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
you actually made one
I was referring to "you actually made a reply," because I mistakenly thought Cal did not reply, due partly to my human error and partly due to formatting irregularities.-GordonWatts 07:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I've been doing nothing BUT, even if you keep pretending not to see them or choose to mangle/misstate/redirect them. And speaking of which:
why don't you show me documentation of where the North County Gazette has been caught in a lie -not a difference of interpretation on an opnion piece, but where there was an actual lie
Why don't I explain why the "North County Gazette" is neither a dessert topping nor floor wax instead, since it's just as relevant because I did not write, say, whisper, hint, imply, or even idly think that the North County Gazette was lying about anything whatsoever. You've gone from misquoting/misreading/mangling what I've said, straight to Making Shit Up. I'll deal with the rest of your handwaving nonsense later (being in two newspaper articles automatically makes her a major writer, especially since neither of them refers to her as a writer? "Blog postings" = "journalism"? "Lots of blog postings" = "major journalism"? Lord.), but I thought I'd highlight the most immediately ludicrous, untethered-from-reality statement. --Calton | Talk 08:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've fixed the indenting to make it coherent; Now, to answer your point above about misquoting, etc: I never claimed that you accused the Gazette of lying, and I'm sorry if you inferred such; What I mean, rather, was that if the Gazette has published a lot on Schiavo and none is discerned as having been dishonest, then it follows that it is "reliable" enough -even if it is not the New York Times. That is my take on reliability on a news source: It must be true, and if true, then that carries the day to qualify it as "major," unless, of course, it only published like 1 or 2 editions, but that is not the case here.-GordonWatts 23:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
No, Gordon. A large amount of content on a topic does not magically make it a reliable source. It is a blog. It is not a news source. You have been pointed in the direction of Wikipedia:Reliable sources enough times. Proto::► 08:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
You are mixing apples with oranges, Proto. Although I personally think that the Gazette is a very reliable source of information, size notwithstanding, that is not the point I was trying to make: It may (or may not) be a good source of news, but it DEFINITELY and abundantly qualifies as a good source of commentary. The point of view espoused -or the reliability -are not factors at all. The very definition of commentary is an expression of opinion, which may or may not be correct and true. "News," on the other hand, is supposed to be both true and without a slant or bias. Therefore, the Gazette easily qualifies as commentary. If it does not, then why?-GordonWatts 22:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Oops, I just noticed: That WAS the point I was trying to make there. (I was arguing that the Gazette is reliable news, and I know of no times it was inaccurate.) However, I was trying to make another point: It is also commentary.-GordonWatts 22:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Distinguising between Schiavo 1, 2, 3, and 4 - regarding a recent edit

I saw -and reverted -a recent edit that looked wrong, but I'll admit it was confusing even for me.

Here's the data I got on which one was which:

http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:5pNwyRwC7W0J:www.2dca.org/opinion/March%252016,%25202005/2D05-968.pdf+%22schiavo+I%22+%22schiavo+II%22+%22schiavo+III%22+%22schiavo+iv%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=6

See In re Guardianship of Schiavo , No. 90-2908-GD (Fla. Pinellas Cir. Ct.Feb. 11, 2000) (order authorizing discontinuation of artificial life support); In reGuardianship of Schiavo, 780 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (Schiavo I), reviewdenied, 789 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 2001); In re Guardianship of Schiavo, 792 So. 2d 551 (Fla.2d DCA 2001) (Schiavo II); In re Guardianship of Schiavo, 800 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 2d DCA2001) (Schiavo III), review denied, 816 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 2002); Schindler v. Schiavo exrel. Schiavo, 829 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (table citation denying motion); In reGuardianship of Schiavo, No. 90-2908-GD-003, 2002 WL 31876088 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Nov.22, 2002); In re Guardianship of Schiavo, No. 90-2908-GB-003, 2002 WL 31817960(Fla. Cir. Ct. Nov. 22, 2002); Schiavo v. Schiavo, No. 8:03-cv-1860-T-26TGW, 2003 WL22469905 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 23, 2003); In re Guardianship of Schiavo, 851 So. 2d 182(Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (Schiavo IV), review denied, 855 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 2003); Schindlerv. Schiavo, 865 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (table decision denying prohibition);Advocacy Ctr. for Persons with Disabilities, Inc. v. Schiavo, 17 Fla. L. Weekly Fed.D291 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 21, 2003); Schiavo v. Bush, No. 03-008212-CI-20, 2003 WL22762709 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Nov. 4, 2003); Bush v. Schiavo, 861 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 2d DCA2003); Schiavo v. Bush, No. 03-008212-CI-20, 2004 WL 628663 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 2004);Bush v. Schiavo, 866 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Schindler v. Schiavo, 866 So. 2d140 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Bush v. Schiavo, 871 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004);Schiavo v. Bush, No. 03-008212-CI-20, 2004 WL 980028 (Fla. Cir. Ct. May 5, 2004);Bush v. Schiavo, 885 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 2004), cert. denied, 125 S. Ct. 1086 (2005);Schindler v. Schiavo, No. 2D04-3451, 2004 WL 2726107 (Fla. 2d DCA Nov. 24, 2004)(table decision); In re Guardianship of Schiavo, No. 90-2908-GD-003, 2005 WL 459634(Fla. Cir. Ct. Feb. 25, 2005).

Original source: http://www.2dca.org/opinion/March%2016,%202005/2D05-968.pdf

--GordonWatts 23:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediplex

The article currently says: Michael returned to Florida with her in January 1991 and admitted her to the Mediplex Rehabilitation Center (specializing in brain[citation needed] injuries) in Bradenton, Florida ... The "[citation needed]" has been in place for a long time, with no citation forthcoming. In the meantime, the website for Mediplex has disappeared, and it is not listed in this listing of rehab facilities: [2]. I see that the Rehabillation Institue of Chicago's Brain Injury Medicine and Rehabilitation Program is not listed either, so I won't delete the phrase in parentheses after all. However I can't find any evidence to support the claim. Oh wait, yes Chicago [3] is listed under Rehabilitation Institute. So I will delete the phrase in parentheses. Here is a reference to Mediplex in the vita [4] of Gail Ward at Morton Plant Rehabilitation Hospital, so Mediplex did exist. Gail's career path was Mediplex in 1987, eventually COO, to Tandem Health Care in 1998 to Morton Plant in 2005. Morton is where Terri's tube was reinserted in 2003. MartinGugino 02:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Adding link to images of Mediplex, in Florida, that I captured from the web in 2005 or so. There was one more location, but the picture of it didn't have the same orientation, so it didn't fit nicely. It was a storefront location. My guess is that Terri was at Point West, but that's just because its the only Medical building I see. The rest are storefronts. [[5]] MartinGugino 09:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC) Feb 8th update.

Adding this link to Mediplex residue still left in the internet. It is for the 6015 Pointe West #201 address. I found it by looking up the phone number from the picture: 941-782-0201. The information contained there about the facility is: Employee Size:10 to 19 / Sales: $500,000 - 1 Million / Type of Business: Physical Therapists / Computers: 2 - 9 PCs /

  • so clearly they are not using the entire building. Hmmm. I dont get it. Martin | talk • contribs 10:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me like Mediplex is now Stryker Physiotherapy Associates, based on the Pointe West address, and the Publix Plaza (I75 and Rt 70). Martin | talk • contribs 11:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Admitted means inpatient

Admitted to a hospital means she was an inpatient there. All inpatients get "24 hour care", but this doesn't mean more than there is someone in the facility that they are assigned to at the time. It does not mean that there is anyone in the room. Does that clarify the meaning of my change that you questioned? Twenty-four hour care tends to overstate, it seems to me, the number of hours of care she received. MartinGugino 05:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC) What if I change it to "she was admitted as an inpatient..". Would that be ok? I don't think that they were as sophisticated as Morton Plant Rehabilitation Hospital in Clearwater. [6] MartinGugino 06:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC) Google map of Morton Plant Rehabilitation [[7]]

  • Change was made to article Jan 23rd it looks like. Martin | talk • contribs 21:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I cant find a Mediplex facility that takes inpatients. Does anyone know which Mediplex facility Terri Schiavo was in? Here is Mediplex's own website, one of five archived copies:(2004/Apr&Dec, 2005/Oct&Nov, 2006/Jan): [8] Martin | talk • contribs 04:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Sun Healthcare (apparently the owner of Mediplex from 1995 to 1997) sells its (outpatient) clinics. [9]
Martin | talk • contribs 05:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sabal Palms

It looks like the transfer to Sabal Palms is a transfer to a facility of less care then Mediplex. They have 244 beds and 12 RNs, so that is 4 RNs a shift at most. There are 6 Physical Therapy equivalents. The comment that Terri received "regular" care, strictly speaking, only means periodic care, or regularly scheduled, or scheduled on a regular basis as opposed to an irregular basis. I change my car's oil on a regular basis. The staffing levels do not seem to support the implication that she receive therapy on a frequent basis. MartinGugino (talk • contribs) 06:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC). Google Map to Sabal Plams, showing Clearwater also [[10]] MartinGugino 06:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Citation for Sabal Palms facility capabilitites added Martin | tk 02:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • A ratings cite listing Sabal Palms

Martin | talk • contribs 08:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DNR and "This Section Contradicts Itself" - how?

I don't see how this section contradicts itself. I just don't think it does.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MartinGugino (talk • contribs) 07:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Your recent edits look OK, I just thought I'd mention. Sometimes it can get very quiet around here.--GordonWatts 07:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Thanks... The bot seems to be always around though. MartinGugino 08:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

  • article has been updated to reflect this. Martin | talk • contribs 21:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Americans don't want to live "with no hope of improvement,"

Isn't this a scary sentence? What it says is "Once you have passed your peak ......" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MartinGugino (talk • contribs) 08:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] re: "Perhaps the greatest effect"

Quote taken from the last paragraph.

Sorry, but that's a little too happy a conclusion for me. I left it alone however.

I know that many people were shocked, appalled, stunned that this could happen. Er, like, in "America". I think a lot of people were not ready for this. To me, for example, it seems an insane result. What a fiasco.{{The precedingunsigned comment was written at 08:31, 23 January 2007, by MartinGugino. So says GordonWatts 09:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)}}

I'm upset at the outcome too, per the last half of chapter 25 of the Gospel according to Matthew, where Jesus says that he doesn't like anyone denying the least of these, his brethren, including his sisters, of course, a cup of water. The feeding tube issue is moot: So what if the feeding tube was denied? Does that mean Jesus is happy with the denial of the food and water too? No! Reference: Matthew 25:21-46, Holy Bible.
OK, this is not a religious article, and we can't use the Bible as a standard, no matter how right it is: We must use the laws as standards, but even there, I think the laws were violated. Just do a google search on my name and Terri Schiavo's name, and you'll quickly find out what I thought of these Kangaroo "Kourts."--GordonWatts 09:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More help needed to resolve ongoing Schiavo disputes

At this diff, we again find Calton causing trouble. He revered my edit, removing every single link that I put in, supposedly because of angst with one particular link that is a blog.

I don't think he is right to oppose that, but at least he makes a half-way argument about not being notable. (I say this to contrast the arguments Proto made about blogs not being acceptable; Of course, he is wrong: Many blog links had been in the article after his edit.)

I will be fine with any consensus by the community on the links in question -if for not other reason than to make Calton stop arguing, a worthwhile motive, but not the best motive, I admit. (We should have as motives simply to make an Encyclopaedia article with sufficient details -and references to back them up.)

So, in short, Terri Schiavo's article seems OK, but help is needed at the Public_opinion_and_activism_in_the_Terri_Schiavo_case article -specifically, the links section.

PS: Any user can look at my recent contributions to see that I am a responsible editor, just in case anyone wants to know. Plus, I was the one who created the pretty Template:TOCcenter template you see at the top of the Wikipedia_talk:Village_pump page and seen in the page history here, which, for some reason, is needed: The Table of Contents doesn't automatically show on the Village Pump's talk page, like it used to -and like it does on this page. Anyone can help here??

In closing, if I am not around to vote, then my "vote" for each and every link enumerated is "add this link," but in the end, if some links are voted down, I would hope that at least some of them could stay -to strengthen the references section.--GordonWatts 09:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and made an edit revision and reverted to a prior stable version, but although I did not include the North County Gazette link, I want to clarify: My "vote" for each link is to "add" -including the Gazette link. I just wanted to clarify that I'm voting "for" its inclusion, and the only reason I don't myself add it is because I'm a peace-living person who does not want to be responsible for World War Three on this wiki.--GordonWatts 09:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The opening sentence

The open sentence is rather vague. It is certainly possible to tell the read about the main two factual aspects of Terrir Schivo without all that vagueness. How about:

  • Theresa Marie "Terri" Schiavo (December 3, 1963 – March 31, 2005), of St. Petersburg, Florida, was a diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state (PVS) after experienced respiratory and cardiac arrest. While Terri was in a coma for 15 years, her husband and parents eventually legally struggled over whether to continue life support. The husband, Michael, wanted to terminate life support. While the parents escalated their resistence to the State and Federal level, eventually leading to the Congress of the United States to passing legislation in order to prevent termination of Terri's life support, Michael eventually prevailed and life support was terminated. During this time and in the days leading up to Terri's death, this story dominated the national news and, to a lesser degree, the international news.

This way, you stop trying to characterize Terri and you simply say "what happened", mentioning only the most important aspects of the story and keeping the narrative following the timeline. -- 64.9.234.5 21:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

At first glance, your version seems to have perfect grammar, spelling (except Terri's 1st & last name & the word "resistance"), punctuation, and also make sense -and is a bit shorter. Being shorter can be an advantage -and a disadvantage: You version, in my honest opnion, leaves out a little bit of relevant introductory material; furthermore, I don't see how the opening section here mischaracterizes Terri at all.--GordonWatts 13:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
It is not a matter of mischaracterization. It is a matter of clarity, brevity and directness. For instance, in the current opening sentence, most readers do not need to be informed that Terri Schiavo was "a woman". How many other biographies start with the correct statement that the subject is "a man" or "a woman" or "a person"? The problem is that the opening sentences use passive constructs. Ideally, the sentences should be "subject-past_tense_verb-object" and read in a clear, direct and fair narrative of factual events of "what happened", not characterizations. If Terri was an important artist, then maybe we would want to try to "characterize" her artisitc work, but that is not the case here. Ideally, each sentence should also be something that the reader readily recognizes as an essential event of the story that also asserts the story's importance or enhances clarity. -- 199.33.32.40 19:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I am returning the page to its prior state, but I do note that you reverted and erased your initial comment above to buy time to rethink your argument; It is wise and logical to think a bit before you talk, as Spock might say. I wanted to apoligise for my own typo in the edit summary of the article page, regarding (ironically) reverting (apparently) another editor, where I said: "but the prior version of 911 was less ambiguous than the 9-1-1 version, which had a disambiguation page)," clearly I got the 911 and 9-1-1 mixed up, and I meant to say that the 9-1-1, not the other, was less ambiguous. Anyhow, I shall read your comment before I think to reply.--GordonWatts 20:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, I took your advice and made the section more clear - see the history page end edit summary -The use of the passive voice ("she was so-and-so" --- "HE was president of ...") is quite common and stays -as you recommended. Word and character length is about the same, but it is clearer.--GordonWatts 20:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
After looking at other biographies, here is a suggestion:

Theresa Marie "Terri" Schiavo (December 3, 1963 – March 31, 2005), of St. Petersburg, Florida, was a hospital patient diagnosed as...

and then the same as above. During the time of her notability, that is what she was: a hospital patient. I note that GordonWatts got reverted, but maybe we can still make progress. -- 68.127.150.225 04:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I note that you use the conjunction, "but," implying support for my edit, so I put back in mention of the fact Terri was well-known for the feeding tube. Heck, that was the thing for which she was MOST well-known, even though, in my honest opinion, food and water were more important than feeding tubes. AGAIN, I ask you (68.aa.bb.cc) and 70.xx.yy.zz (and the other anon, User:199.aa.bb.cc) to all REGISTER, already, OK? That was, people won't accuse us of all being the same person, OK?--GordonWatts 17:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I decided to go for "long-term hospital patient". There is no loss of dignity in that. Plus, it introduces the reader to the subject at the time she becomes notable, which was around 2003. It provides the background and setting and then gets the reader through the rest of the story in one paragraph, emphasizing the fact that she died because her husband prevailed in the drawn-out struggle. -- 68.127.150.225 04:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, now we are getting somewhere. I will state this again: you want to introduce the reader in, say, 2002, as if the reader were a fellow physician. The most important things are: the initial event that landed our patient in the hospital and what her current diagnosis is. Then, briefly(!), the family feud. Then all the legal intervention stuff. Then he wins, she croaks and it's a wrap. -- 64.9.237.81 16:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I corrected 3 minor typos in your post, something I almost never do now days out of courtesy, but I suspect you won't mind; Also, I ask you to register because some may suspect I am using an anonymous screen name: I note that your writing style (use of the word "note" and also style of editing) is so similar to mine that some may accuse me of being you, so I think you should register to disambiguate and reduce confusion on who is who; Also, I shall shortly comment on your edit, but I am not finished analyzing it yet.--GordonWatts 16:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC) (THX 4 signing for me 70.xx.yy.zz that was fast! --GordonWatts 16:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC))

GW: A bit of advice: dwelling on the feeding tube is asking for people to misread your intentions. This is because the perception of "loss of dignity" for the patient is central to much of the conflict about this article. I admit that "long-term hospital patient" is a little vague, but since the patient was not quite "comotose", I leave that adjective out (it would have been handy, because comatose implies feeding tube). Too many readers (and W editors) will interpret any terse mention of "feeding tube" as a loss of dignity for the patient. It ultimately falls in the realm of diplomacy and anticipating a re-fight over this fought-over ground. I am not going to revert your latest change, but I expect that somebody else will. Hoepfully they will not revert deeply, but I am taking a wait-and-see approach. -- 70.231.140.181 17:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

One more change: "most well-known for" is always asking for trouble. Let's me try to take a physician's approach to the description (I am not a physician, but I am trying to take the POV os a good doc and see if that elevates the level of the conversation and the prose). -- 70.231.140.181 17:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I did another re-word to avoid phrases like "well-known". How does it look to you now? -- 70.231.140.181 17:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Fairly well, except where I have made changes - apparently, if I changed something, I thought it needed tweaking. Overall, all you anonymous editors have been doing very well, thank you!--GordonWatts 07:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

A real pediatrician I met recently took a quick look and suggested that the parent's legal argument be added. I did my best to do so but to also keep it brief. -- 70.231.140.181 18:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

And to emphasize once again: the media coverage and "fame" is the least-important aspect of this story because it is the most ephemeral and derivative of the relevant facts. Let's strive to keep it as the last item in the paragraph. -- 70.231.140.181 18:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I am happy with this new, brief first sentence. Nobody else gets to interfere. The prose just takes the reader to Terri in her quiet but lonely hospital bed. It says only what needs to be said about her role, but still, it cannot help but to invoke thought and compassion from within the reader for this human being:

Theresa Marie "Terri" Schiavo (December 3, 1963 – March 31, 2005), from St. Petersburg, Florida was a long-term hospital patient who was dependent on a gastric feeding tube.

A wise person once pointed out to me that on your deathbed, you can be surrounded by family and friends, but death is an individual and private experience: you die alone. If I may:

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 1 Corinthians 15:22

--69.236.33.219 05:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Now, let's use the failed FA feedback

OK, now that the opening paragraph is crisp (not brilliant prose yet, but crisp), let's see what we can do to move in the direction of FA quality. Sure, this one article is not going to get us to WP:100K, but it could be progress towards, say, 2K FA's at W. It seems like the sections called "Initial medical crisis" and maybe the whole "Five years of family conflict" is where things really start to bog down for the reader. In everything else, something happens and the story moves along, but these two sections have several qualities:

  • They do not delegate any of their content
  • They are lengthy and high in medical detail
  • From the reader's piont of view, they are poorly movitivated. There is an ongoing suspicion that the husband directly contributed to the his wife's collapse. It is kind of like those bumper stickers that say "O.J. did it." (BTW: Neither will ever be criminally prosecuted, so let's not get into that) If we fail to explain right up front that this is why we are dwelling on tiny details of the "initial medical crisis", the reader misses the point and gets bored. Either we explain WHY we are dwelling on the details or we condense the thing. I am open to other ways to get to brilliant prose on this. Any other suggestions?
  • There are right-to-life/right-to-die factions that created this thing as if by committee and the prose suffers for it. This story is OVER. Most Americans do not even remember it. Let's care about Wikipedia for a while and get this thing to FA. We have to be sensitive about the subject and maintain her dignity (and little missteps still provoke reverts) but let's finish this thing. Terri deserves FA. Wikipedia deserves FA. OK? Heck, I am in a good mood this morning, even Jimmy Wales deserves this thing to be FA. After all, it all happened within miles of where he lives. But now it is old news and it deserves NPOV and quality and FA. Let's do it. Read the failed FA feedback and let's do it. -- 70.231.140.181 17:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey, 70.aaa.bbb.ccc, you didn't see? There was an edit change in the lead paragraph three (3) minutes after you initially posted: WATTS_Word_97-2003 found numerous errors -and corrected them all! I'm Gordon Watts and I approve this message. Also, I note that at least I made edit summaries that justified my each and every edit change, even when I made multiple changes per edit. That is something that I note that Rosemary did not do, but she is a vegan like myself, so she's not all bad. One more thing, 70.xx..., I'd ask that you register so people don't accuse you of being me or vice verca, OK? Thx!!--GordonWatts 17:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
So let's talk about the family feud. They fought over guardianship and there were lots of appeals. The current version of the story dwells on the details of the patient and the court cases, rather than the diagnoses and decisions by the licensed professionals. Why is that? Do we doubt that the licensed professionals were competant? Put yourselves in the mind of the judge: is he going to second-guess the professionals and dwell on all the details? No: he is going to rely on the fact that the Florida professional boards will discipline the doctors, nurses and lawyers if they do anything against their rules of ethics. The pathway to condensation is to stop dwelling on the details and start focusing just on the professional opinions of the on-the-scene professionals. That is what happens in real life and in the courts. In a sense, we ask the doctors and lawyers, just like we ask to courts, to hold the balance and ask which way the scales fall. Just like the opinions of juries, we ultimately have to accept the opinions of the professionals who were on-the-scene. They had fair access to the complete set of detailed evidence and put their reputations and their licenses on the line. If they were wrong and, in effect, "O.J. did do it", then we will never know because, even with hindsight our access to the evidence is vastly inferior because of our own lack of training and experience and also: confidentiality rules that continue to obscure our view to the full set of evidence. I think that both the medical and legal details belong on some kind of delegated data sheet or timeline. The readers are sick of slogging through a lot of true factual details (too often still uncited) that do not give conclusive progress to the storyline. -- 70.231.147.149 20:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Can we just remove the Wolfson report or make a one-sentence reference to it? It changes nothing about the story at all. I mean, I do NOT want to read that "there was no evidence this..." and "there was not evidence that...". I want to read that there WAS evidence about something but not every iota of that evidence. Just that that WAS evidence about SOMETHING that actually really happened. Please! -- 64.9.239.102 06:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The Wolfson report details and the Nurse Iyer details are back, but the citations are better, so we are making progress on other FA objections. OK. Where else is there excess and inconclusive detail (or stuff that was suspected but, AFAIK, never is known to have happened) to be trimmed in this story? -- 199.33.32.40 22:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ethics investigation

It seems that Judge Greer campaigned in 2004 for re-election in Florida and some of the police officers (the Sheriff and two deputies) did a commercial for him and only now is some kind of ethics investigation is resulting. Is this part of Terri's story? Does it fit into some medical/legal ethics thing? -- 71.141.252.50 20:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

As I read the cited story, it involves improper use of government assets and employees, for a non-governmental purpose: a re-election campaign ad. Not relevent to Terri. There may be other ethical questions about Greer; such as being an ex-board member of the Hospice, and that Terri was not dying and so should not have been there. MartinGugino 06:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wolfson report

The Wolfson report has its own section. Is ths appropriate? I ask because it is my impression that Wikipedia should speak in its own voice. It should report, in its own authentic voice

  • fact
  • both sides and the judgement handed down of final court cases
  • if room allows, the spectrum of possiblities, including brief allowanes for plausible speculation if the reader will benefit from such speculation

Also, while blue-ribbon investigative commissions occasionally get a section, such as the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster#Rogers Commission investigation and even the Columbia Accident Investigation Board, the report itself is treated as a document to be used in references. If people want to criticize our sources, then they should be able to go to the "Notes" section and get the whole picture. Personally, I feel that we should just "digest" the Wolfson report, extract the new facts and refer to the report only in the refs.

To be honest, I think that the same should be done for many of the other documents generated by the court cases. The cases themselves are not notable: only the truths revealed in those procedings that are relevant to the article's subject matter. Our subject sits in her lonely hospital bed, waiting. All of the fighting is about her, but only what it tells us about HER really matters. The facts (or claims) should be sorted out chronologically as to when they happened, not when they were claimed or later discovered.

The Barbaro story suffered from this same problem early on, with every sportwriter dramatically piping in about the creature's prospects, until somebody just went in last summer and "objectified" the aritlce, focusing on the horse's foot and how it broke and the medical procedures actually performed. Some editors claimed that the new version bled the story of its spirit, but that new, objective version stood the test of time, and that story is ongoing, with new events even in the past few days. That article was transformed to speak in its own authentic voice, much to its unification and increase in its readability. This article should be also. There is no loss of dignity to Terri in this comparison because this argument is about the brilliant prose. Brilliant prose should be intricate, poetic, and very conscious about the perspective imposed upon the reader. When we learn something new from the court battles, we should be always re-sort the facts by chronological order and then take the reader back to Terri's lonely bedside, and THEN continue the discussion and the footnoting.

One user characterize the Barbaro linear narrative as "lifeless" and longed for the lively day-to-day commentaries during that creature's July 2006 crises. That style was very easy, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper, nor it is a daily version of Sports Illustrated. Wikipedia should present a timeless account of the enternal Truth within that Truth's chronological context, as it pertains specifically to the subject. Even in the past year, there is ongoing sequella with Nurse Iyer, who was ultimately exonerated and her nursing license restored (but this does not change the relevance of her affidavit), and the county Sheriff and some of his buddies, who are the subject of some kind of politically-realted ethics investigation. While that is interesting, it does not belong in this article because those are sideshows of the non-notables. We already have a "Related articles & documents" template for those notables who ended up involved in the story and their details are on their pages. Now, it is time to focus on our subject in her hospital bed. It strikes me that the "legacy" section could be expanded because the reality is that the precedents set by the legal and politcal events are what still matter today and perhaps for decades to come. How should we deal with the long list of legal procedings of the 1998-2003 period? In my humble opinion, they are just a bunch of line items of decisions handed down (and a rather monotonous list at that). The rest of the revealed facts should be incorporated back into the storyline. I am not in a rush: I just want people to think about this and respond.

Why do the nations so furiously rage together? 1. Why do the heathen rage, and why do the people imagine a vain thing? Psalm 2:1

-- 71.141.246.35 16:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

As if my reference was some sort of kiss of death, that horse was euthanized in the past few hours. -- 71.141.246.35 18:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Schiavo memo

Can we just move the Schiavo memo to the Palm Sunday Compromise? I am still probing for what else can be trimmed out w/o somebody taking offense. The other two targets, in my mind, are still the Wolfson report and the 2003 petition. Any dialog at all would be appreciated. --199.33.32.40 01:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Response: One of the constant ideas of the Schiavo case is that the elected politicians, executive and legislative, are spineless panderers who would do anything for political advantage. The Shiavo memo is the only hard evidence that supports this opinion, and upon which to base disdain for the positions those august bodies seemed to be driven to.

I do think that the memo is a tangential, and minor, issue. MartinGugino 07:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: trimmed out
I am trying to think what needs to be kept. What the organizing principle should be - and then all the detail pushed away, available as support. Aspects that somehow should be included in what is left

  • why the story was divisive. Characterize the differing positions fairly - at the highest level of abstraction. say ("respect for life") vs ("privacy") vs ("futile treatment") vs ("what Terri wanted")
  • factual narrative: a) medical: where she was, what she got b)legal: request, evidence, argument, decision. Could be summarized, probably a lot.
  • cast of characters? possibly - for motives.
  • look at of Florida legislature/executive role and of presidential and congressional role

[edit] With only three members present

What does this mean? How can the senate pass a bill with only 3 votes? I generally don't like parentheses. Could this be rewritten without the parentheses? MartinGugino 05:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Changed it to unanimous consent - the bill was passed under unanimous consent rules. Any senator could have vetoed it. The comment about only three senators present is true but misleading. There was more to that than that. Martin | talk • contribs 12:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC) Martin | talk • contribs 21:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC) Article updated. Paragraph closed. Martin | talk • contribs 21:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The first paragraph says

"In 1998, her husband and guardian Michael Schiavo petitioned the courts to remove her feeding tube; her parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, opposed this and they took legal action. The parents' argument was that Schiavo's brain damage was not as extensive as the PVS diagnosis suggested."

I feel better about something like this:

"In 1998, Michael Sciavo, Terri's husband and guardian, petitioned the courts to remove her feeding tube. Her parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, opposed this, claiming that Terri recognized them, and that Michael had conflicts of interest.

This allows

  • Michael to be called "husband", factually true, while it flags the problem with that designation, which the guardian ad litem also noted. It does not even say "In 1998, as soon as it became legal to do so, Michael" which is also true.
  • It removes the possible misunderstanding that Robert and Mary first involved the courts (took legal action) when for the most part they were excluded from knowledge of the legal proceedings Michael took, and responded, probably too late, only after problematic factual determinations had been made.
  • It also reflects their view that Terri was 'still in there', something that others (Weller, Pavone) also felt and reported.

MartinGugino 06:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC) (could you all use names instead of IPs?)

The focus should be on "what happened". In the lead section, adding more and more circumstances around any action tends to suggest the primary motivation for the action without necessarily presenting all of the circumstances fairly. If the reader wants to know what somebody was (or might have been) thinking before they took an action or made a decision, then they can read the body of the article. Who, what, when and where are fine in the lead section. "Why" is always the problem and should be dealth with in the body.-- 71.141.242.194 19:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


Hmmm. Ok, then:

"In 1998, Michael Sciavo, Terri's husband and guardian, petitioned the courts to remove her feeding tube. Her parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, opposed this. , claiming that Terri recognized them, and that Michael had conflicts of interest.

MartinGugino 21:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trimming the first section to just this

How about:

The "Terri Schiavo" case was a cause celebre that divided American opinion on the right-to-life vs ?government-meddling ?death-with-dignity issue.
Theresa Marie "Terri" Schiavo (December 3, 1963 – March 31, 2005), from St. Petersburg, Florida collapsed in her home on Feb. 25, 1990. Her heart and lungs stopped and she suffered severe brain damage, requiring that she be institutionalized for the next fifteen years. In 1998, Michael Sciavo, Terri's husband and guardian, petitioned the Pinellas County Circuit Court to order her feeding tube removed. The Court granted his petition, finding Terri to be in a persistent vegetative state, and that she would not wish to be kept alive. For the next seven years, her case was considered by all branches of the Federal and state governments, and discussed widely in the media. The ruling of the county circuit court was upheld, and her feeding tube was removed on March 18th, 2005. She died two weeks later.

End MartinGugino 10:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

  • revised my paragraph above, incorporating some comments below Martin | tk 02:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Hold on a sec: Several proposals were made. For example, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terri_Schiavo#The_opening__sentence as well as the current version. It will take a few minutes at least for me to analyse all 3 versions - then I will get back with you, OK?--GordonWatts 02:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
hey sure.. Glad that you are thinking about it.... Martin | tk 03:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I just realised something: I am an inclusionist, and you might have given me ideas on how to add small elements, and this runs contrary to your idea to trim it, but I shall not hope to add much at all -in the interests of concise brevity.--GordonWatts 03:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
New reply: Based on your recomendations, Martin, I added as follows: "(minor grammar/clarification edits: add ... + date + wikilink of date + time span of institutionalization + clarify *which* court was petitioned by Michael + grammar of "upholding" lower court decision)" - however, I oppose removal of things, such as court details, the mention of politicians and advocacy groups, and the addition of the brain damage info. It is ovbious that she suffered some sort of brain damage, so that is not needed. This helps keep it trimmed. The "all branches of gov't" language you suggest is short and correct but lacking in details. See my edit to see what I did; I trust my edit finds favour with my fellow colleagues.--GordonWatts 03:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I am mildly underwhelmed Martin | tk 04:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry I didn't live up to your expectations, but I did the best I could/can. Most of my edits seem to be standing the test of time, a good sign.--GordonWatts 10:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The two institutions are (were? whatever) both skilled nursing facilities and she needed 24-hour care. She was also home briefly but, since this was a 15 year period we are referring to, that should not clutter the first sentence. The characterization conveys her situation well enough: bed-ridden and dependent in a profound way and, for all practical purposes, not a "resident" of the facility but a "patient" who are regularly assessed by a physician. If you think about it, the only difference in the care she received after leaving a regular hospital (or towards the end of her hospital stay, if you are going to split hairs) was the amount of money that the bed cost. These biographies always start with a "characterizing" sentence. I think that this story is too complex to get into any events in the first sentence. Based on past differences among the editors, it seems best to mention the brain damage later (the extend of the damage is nominally what most of the legal fights was about) and to keep this first sentence conservative, dignified and terse.--71.141.242.194 18:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

My point was to cut the text in half. I do not understand the point that you are making.

? Are you saying that it should mention that she was hospitalized (that is, convey the idea that she was not at home?)
? Oh I think I see. You ARE saying she got "a lot" of care when you say: not a "resident" of the facility but a "patient" who are regularly assessed by a physician. You also say "and she needed 24-hour care". "24 hour care" might be a possible characterization for a patient in an intensive care unit, but wasn't Terri's care limited to feeding and hygene?

May I note that one of the points of conflict in the Shiavo case has been whether she received appropriate care. One goal should be to characterize her treatment with sensitivity to that issue. MartinGugino 20:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence could be changed, to accommodate the first comment, to

Theresa Marie "Terri" Schiavo (December 3, 1963 – March 31, 2005), from St. Petersburg, Florida collapsed in her home in 1990 and experienced respiratory and cardiac arrest leading to severe brain damage and institutionalization.

If you don't like the "brain damage" comment, that could be omitted, but there is little controversy about whether her brain was damaged, or whether that played a major part in the story.

Thanks for the feedback. I updated the paragraph, above, rather than modifying it and copying it here.

Do you think that this shorter version leaves out anything that is currently there, or adds anything that is too much?

MartinGugino 20:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Differing opinions about facts of the story

These different understandings partly explain the wide divergence in public attitude towards the outcome (live vs die)

her level of mental function
the level of care that she received

Darn, it really hard to create a tree of the issues, like a Mind_map

MartinGugino 21:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Also not commented on explicitly by the right-to-lifers is that the courts' job is to enforce the law. The law in Florida says, explicitly, that water may be withheld, doesn't it. So why rage against the courts?

You asked: '"The law in Florida says, explicitly, that water may be withheld, doesn't it. So why rage against the courts?"' I covered just that point in my brief, here in HTML format (or here in Microsoft Word format, doing actually better than big Jeb!. I recall that the state law was silent on the matter of water, but it spoke volumes regarding food; Federal Law, surprisingly, was more restrictive on what you had to do to avoid being hauled off to the pokey and visiting with the ball-and chain-gang.
Sources:
http://gordonwatts.com/TerriSupremeCourt.html
http://gordonwatts.com/TerriSupremeCourt.doc
http://members.aol.com/gww1210/myhomepage/TerriSupremeCourt.doc
http://members.aol.com/gww1210/myhomepage/TerriSupremeCourt.html
http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk/disposition/2005/2/03-2420reh.pdf
http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk/disposition/2004/10/04-925reh.pdf
http://www.gordonwatts.com
http://www.gordonwaynewatts.com
http://Members.AOL.com/Gww1210
http://GeoCities.com/Gordon_Watts32313
http://Gordon_Watts.Tripod.com/consumer.html
--GordonWatts 07:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Gordon! Thanks for the references. I will look at them. MartinGugino 07:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
No problemo, Martin; It's not just everyday that a mere mortal such as myself can lay claim to having been the most sucessful litigant -even on the "so-called" losing side -in the most profound court case of the millenium. I have to "propogate the info" every chance I can get. (There is an element of me bragging to Bush's lawyers in there, about how they didn't quite do all they could have, but we ALL are mere mortals and I would have had a hard time filling the Guv's shoes I must admit.)--GordonWatts 07:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I think you are putting words in the mouths of the right-to-lifers. They did some protesting. While I disagree with them on this one, I think what they wanted was for Terri to remain alive. It is talked about in Public opinion and activism in the Terri Schiavo case. The autopsy might not have satisfied every last person about her mental function, but...do I really need to point out the obvious? The "level of care" or "standard of care" or whatever was not the subject of the corresponding medical review boards in Florida.--64.9.233.132 02:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not putting words "in" the mouths of right-to-lifers; I was commenting on their silence about the law. Is the law a bad law or a good law?

I am also having some trouble with the idea that giving water is not legal, but giving penicillin is mandatory. Was the difference that in the meantime the court accepted Michaels testimony that Terri would not want to live like she was now, which is pretty much the same as she was in 1993, unless she deteriorated since 1993.

Yes, I agree, they wanted Terri to remain alive.

Correct; the autopsy did not satisfy everyone on her mental function. I feel that this was because she was dead at the time of her autopsy.

I hadn't heard about Medical Review Boards. I will Google that. The "level of care" was a subject raised by the Schlindlers. For example, Michael instructed the staff at Sable Palms in 1993 to not give her antibiotics. This would have caused her to die. The Schindlers considered this to be not aggressive enough care. [11] MartinGugino

This might be Wikipedia, but it's still not the Wizard of Oz. There might be good witches and bad witches in that story, but there is little that Wikipedia can do about good and bad laws except to write articles about their effect. The parents raised a lot of objections. In their position, I might have also. The public raised a some objections. The religious people raised objections. There were lots of objections. But...well, you know what happened. So we are mostly arguing on this talk page about the balance between how much time we should be reporting "what happened" to our patient and years-long hurricanes of hot air that swirled around her.--64.9.238.65 15:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a tangential musing about why there was no criticism of the Florida Legislature for making the laws that the courts were only enforcing. Then Gordon posted some info. Let me go back then, to my two questions.

  • What do you think about the rewrite, the version, I posted above, for the lead paragraph? It is about half as long, and to me reads better. Are there points that are missing from it, etc?
  • Wouldn't it be good to have a tentative list of the main points of contention between the two sides, that we need to be careful about, so as to maintain a NPOV?
  • MartinGugino 22:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
The reason I do not like your approach on the lead paragraph is that you start with an event. Most biographies start with a single sentence that attempts to define the subject's role in a static way. It is a matter of uniformity with the other biography articles (at least, the GA and FA ones). While there are many minor "one news event" bios, this is not one of them.
On your "main points" idea: I am receptive to the 1998-2003 arguments being summarized and the appeals simply being listed by date, but I expect problems. Neither the current format or a "main points" list is necessarily going to suppress bloat as the pro-life side of the argument tries to elaborate on each point.
Interjecting: No, I meant for us, the writers, to get an understanding of what the "main points" of disagreement were, so we can "watch" how we phrase things. But I will read what you said anyway, to see what you're saying. Martin | tk 05:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
By that I mean, if that each main point got elaborated on by ten different experts and pundits, they will want all that mentioned. How can we broach the issue without it just becoming another struggle for time/space for the pro-life to re-argue its points? The husband ceded control to the court (search for "surrogate decision-maker" in the Abstract Appeal link). In other words, this whole thing could have been wrapped up in 1998 and you still would have had the same outcome except that our patient would have had seven less years of bed time and seven less years of life.
The court made its determination and it then took five years of appeals and two more years of legislative interventions before the will of the court was carried out. The "main points" would just be a long list of additional experts, objections all of which failed to deter the court in carrying out its determination. I am receptive to the idea only because I think that the typical reader would also appreciate an organized list like that. I would say that what we are running up against is a disagree of values and what is Important. On the pro-lifer's side, each appeal happened and is documented, and, since each bought our patient more time (or, if you will, more life) then each is notable. On the historian's side, a long list of delaying actions are only important in toto and what matters is the final outcome.
Be aware that the only thing that imposes order on the current article is the timeline and the boundaries of the courtroom: we all agree on when the appeals occurred and each point or expert as they emerged in court (as opposed to what the experts might have said on TV afterwards). A "main points" approach could easily result in an article that is even BIGGER if every shred of evidence and every pundit's comment gets listed for each point. Note also that there are 21 PDF's of legal documents that suggest a complex matrix-like relationship with this or that "main point". I agree that a "main points" approach can be done, but we might be forced to enumerate that main point W was argued in appeals X, Y and Z, etc, or at least end up with footnotes that look like such. --199.33.32.40 20:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I am looking at point 4 of 70.231.147.149's comment in paragraph "Now, let's use the failed FA feedback", which I need to look at still. I think the goal should be to get the story out in one or possibly two pages. Put all the litigation details off to the side. I just assume that that history of the litigation, per se, is not going to be what is of primary interest in the future. The question is then, what is the story? What is the significance of the story? Why will anyone want to read about Terri Schiavo, and how can we help them find out what they want to know? Hmmm. I don't know the answer to that, but I think it is important to know that.

As far as the "main points" go, I meant that for us, so as to not "tilt" the story inadvertantly, to maintain a NPOV, on disagreements over issues that each side thinks is important. My tentative list, which I started, above, was:

  • what was her level of mental function?

Really, I think, that was the quintessential point of disagreement. Secondarily, possibly, were

  • Did she want / would she have wanted / to die?
  • How much treatment did she get? This is the pretty much the same issue as "did Michael have a conflict of interest or have other interests?" I think. If he tried his best, that's all one can ask, unless he did a really really bad job of it.

Martin | tk 06:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hereis an audio file that contains a conversation that shows the extreme shock and dismay that this case caused, and highlights exactly the "main points" that I noted just above.

  • Martin | tk 03:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I am simply acknowledging your edit here -and reassuring other editors that an editor can see the most recent edits by looking in the page history -even when you post in the middle of the page. I have met John Sipos (the fellow doing the interview here) at a rally; I live in the Tampa Bay area, specifically Lakeland.--GordonWatts 04:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FA Feedback? (I cant find any feedback)

70.231.140.181 wrote, above, that there was some feedback on the FA (?) process. I assume that means that someone or a panel looked at the article for quality, and said it needs some work, and specified what they thought the areas needing work were, or the directions along which they thought the article needed to change.

I cant find that. I looked in the latest archive.

Martin | tk 07:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

This talk page now uses {{ArticleHistory}}. You have to click the "show" link in that template before you can see the link to the failed FAC feedback.--199.33.32.40 22:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Got it. Martin | tk 09:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Selected disputes involving Calton about which I would like to talk

THIS: Wikipedia consensus process flowchart might be of help here!
THIS: Wikipedia consensus process flowchart might be of help here!

I really hate to make points about people -instead of the article, but Calton is back making false accusations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Calton&diff=105816228&oldid=105811737#Terri_Schiavo

I just wanted to bring this to the attention of public scrutiny to see if, in fact, there was anything more that I could have done.

In short, I reverted an editor who made massive changes without proper use of an edit summary and told her that I would not necessarily oppose her edits if she specified her reasoning in edit summaries (Wikipedia policy, by the way), and Calton then accused me of inserting a link -when in fact someone else (I think THIS editor) had inserted.

If this were an isolated incident, I would not bring it up, but Calton is very argumentive, and this is merely the latest. Just a heads up.--GordonWatts 16:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Post from banned editor Amorrow (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) removed. Musical Linguist 21:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Gordon's reply: Correct: He did not see who made what edit before making accusations, but we all make mistakes. I myself made reference to the wrong editor in my edit summary, but I apologised to Nutmeg when I saw my error, since, even as ElinorD says, edit summaries can't be changed if you make a typo. While Calton needed to be chastised, the purpose here is behaviour modification and attitude change, not revenge, so we hope that Calton learns; we SHOULD NOT hope that he becomes bitter.--GordonWatts 03:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
This edit summary is unhelpful, and his it's true that the material that Calton was removing had been there before Gordon arrived. I've looked back as far as 28 November 2006, ESkog, and it was presumably there before that. As far as I can tell, it was Zenger who originally added the North County Gazette link on 3 January,[12] although Gordon reverted the person who reverted Zenger.[13] It's my understanding that unkind or unjust comments can be crossed out or deleted, but an insulting edit summary remains in the history forever, even if you realise that the accusation you made in it was false. All the more reason not to use edit summaries for insulting an opponent. I don't take any position on the link, but I certainly can't see that Gordon did anything dishonest or sneaky. When I look at the history of the article, I see a disturbing pattern of Gordon's edits being reverted with popups (I thought they were meant to be used for reverting vandalism rather than for content disputes?) and errors being reverted with extremely aggressive edit summaries. And I am sure that Gordon's use of "Cal" was intended just as an abbreviation, whereas Calton's reply of "And the name is "Calton": only my friends get to call me "Cal", Gordy-boy"[14] seems deliberately intended to show contempt. I'm quite interested in this article, but I'm not sure that I want to get involved if the atmosphere is like this.
Gordon's reply: Your analysis is correct, and now that I've properly highlighted Calton's attitude, I need not repeat myself -or rub it in. He is not the only person who made a mistake, only the most recent.--GordonWatts 03:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Just out of interest, if someone can tell me without shouting, what is the problem with the North Country Gazette? I've looked at WP:RS and would like to adhere to it, but I don't know anything about that website. It would be so much more helpful if someone could politely and coherently explain the objections. Also, the bit about Nurse Iyer is well known. I saw a television interview with her where she was making the same claims. Obviously we don't report those claims as if they're true. But I see no reason not to report that she made them. If the North Country Gazette isn't reliable, there must be some reliable source that reports that she made those claims. ElinorD 21:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Post from banned editor Amorrow (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) removed. Musical Linguist 21:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Gordon's reply: The NC Gazette is not as "reliable" as, say, the NY Times, but it is fairly reliable as a source of news, and it is no LESS reliable if it is the only one reporting on one small aspect: Occasionally ALL news media gets a scoop. However, since the standards are lower for commentary links (they need not be true, only opinions), The Gazette is more appropriate as a "opinion and commentary" link -unless absolutely necessary as a news source.--GordonWatts 03:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
The "North Country Gazette" is a blog pretending to be a newspaper, hence in no way, shape or form a reliable source (and if they're the only source for this, that ought to tell you unsuitable it is here). Gordon Watts has attempted to insert links to "North Country Gazette" multiple times -- which he did again, no matter how he tries to spin it. I'm not the only one who's removed it, no matter how hard Gordon tries to poison the well with his "warning".
Gordon's reply: Cal has a point here: Neither I nor anyone else should not poison the well with further comments about his false accusations and insulting edit summaries; Once is enough unless the matter repeats.--GordonWatts 03:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
One little comment, I said above that I felt your use of "Cal" was just intended as an abbreviation. However, once he states that he doesn't want you to use it, wouldn't it be better to oblige? Otherwise it gives the impression either that you want to annoy him or that typing three extra letters in order not to annoy someone is too much trouble. This seems to be a page with a very hostile atmosphere, and I'm not sure to what extent I want to get involved, but it seems a bit silly to make it worse unnecessarily. I mean, if you think a link should go in, and someone else thinks it shouldn't, you might both feel strongly enough to keep fighting. But Cal versus Calton simply isn't worth it. ElinorD 12:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Gordon's reply: You ask: "One little comment, I said above that I felt your use of "Cal" was just intended as an abbreviation. However, once he states that he doesn't want you to use it, wouldn't it be better to oblige?" My answer: If you haven't noticed, I have almost always replied to Calton addressing him by his full name -as he has suggested -which should be a sign and signal that I am not trying to provoke him; I made one exception here, not to insult him, but to demonstrate that nicknames are not bad: -If you read the context: Note, if you would, that I was agreeing with him; Therefore, it is logical to conclude that if I called him "Cal" this one time, and was agreeing with him ("Cal has a point here: Neither I nor anyone else should not poison the well with further comments about..."), then I an astute reader should understand I am not trying to provoke him, but I think I will take your advice to avoid ambiguity -see also the title change and comments below which further support my claims to peace.--GordonWatts 10:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the above post. The paragraph title "cal is back" is ... not good, unless it is a general welcome to a long lost poster. The title should control the thrust of the discussion under it, and this title seems to send the conversation off in the wrong direction. Would you two be open to deleting this whole paragraph, and recommence with the discussion on another foundation, or perhaps restate the disagreement as you both now more narrowly understand it? "Your" disagreement is a tiny fraction of the larger disagreement on the "Terri Schiavo" case, and you might present to us an example of how to begin to contain these conflicts.? Martin | talk • contribs 21:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Gordon's reply: I have followed your implied suggestion -please note that the title is changed; Please note that my comment above notwithstanding, I have every other time addressed Calton by his full name proper -as he suggested, which should be a sign and a signal that I am not trying to provoke him; Indeed, I am not, and I grieve at the very thought that Calton gets stressed out over these minor matters such as an article's minor points.--GordonWatts 10:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
And before you buy his "warning" about how "Calton is back!", I'd advice you to check his track record as a tireless -- and tiresome -- axe-grinder on this topic by going back through the multiple archived talk pages. Pick some at random and skim them -- or if you want a concentrated dose of the full Gordon Watts Experience, try this to see all the wikilawyering; handwaving; tiresome argumentation; contempt for rules, norms, and guidelines; and general detachment from reality that constitute GordonWatts' contributions to Wikipedia, all in one place. The real warning should be, "Oh God, Gordon Watts is back." --Calton | Talk 00:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Gordon's reply: So what if I disagreed with an admin vote. That is my right. We still have free speech, don't we? I never insulted, falsely accused, threatened, etc. Eh? That should count for something -if your eyes see fairly.--GordonWatts 03:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Fine. I've no problem in accepting that the "North Country Gazette" isn't suitable. I had never heard of it anyway. I don't know if they're the only source for it, and apparently neither do you. Gordon, perhaps you could find a reliable source with the same information. And if you do, please bring it here first rather than inserting it straight into the article, just to avoid more nastiness.
Gordon's reply: Good point; I initially DID insert it a while back, but after a few reversions and comments, I supported the concensus to keep it out; however, I still do offer my vote of support for it, now or later, if it is ever put to a vote, OK? Not a perfect paper, but stronger than my newspapers on the web. I'm only part-time.--GordonWatts 03:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I've looked through the archives, and they're pretty horrifying - full of foul, aggressive, toxic, venemous outbursts. I haven't seen anything remotely like it anywhere else on Wikipedia. And I'm not referring to Gordon's posts (or yours for that matter). Surely you're not going to argue that if someone gets on your nerves badly then it's okay to abuse him in edit summaries, like this one. People make mistakes. I made mistakes when I joined Wikipedia, and I'll probably make more. You left a message for Gordon a few hours ago on his user page and not his talk page, but nobody reverted you with an edit summary saying "Calton, if you don't understand the difference between user and talk pages, DON'T SCREW AROUND WITH THEM." And the accusation of lying seems extremly unfair. Gordon seems to have simply reverted some massive changes back to an earlier version, which happened to include a link that he was in favour of. Unless he said he was reverting to Nut-meg and then reverted to him/her while also inserting a link he wanted, which hadn't been in Nut-meg's version, I don't see anything sneaky about it. Isn't there some policy called WP:AGF? Terri Schiavo is a very controversial subject, so there are bound to be strong feelings. All the more reason to make an effort to remain patient, so that it doesn't become difficult for people with opposing views to work together.
Gordon's reply: Actually, I reverted Supermom401's edit (not Nutmeg's); I made a typo here, and apologise to all parties for such. Also, yes, because editors aren't required to give their real name and be vetted and screened properly, we get lots of "Keyboard Rambo's" who do "Edit Kung Fu" and hide behind screen names -which contributes much to the poor discipline and "toxic nature" of the editors in this Wiki.--GordonWatts 03:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
For the record, I don't agree that someone should be reverted for not using edit summaries, or that mass reversion can be seen as vandalism. When I joined Wikipedia, my first few edits didn't have summaries, and someone sent me a very helpful message telling me how to use them. ElinorD 01:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Gordon's reply: You're not necessarily wrong, ElinorD, but if a person makes MANY changes in one edit, and he or she puts in no edit summary, then a reversion is appropriate -especially of some of the changes were bad -and Supermom401's edits were not all good. That's why I reverted to the prior version. She acted hastily without concensus. Heck, even I get reverted for making little changes here & there without getting concensus, so reverting her massive and somewhat questionable edit was not out of line -when no concensus and no edit summary were present.--GordonWatts 03:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
If the North Country Gazette isn't reliable, there must be some reliable source that reports that she made those claims. That's not a reason, that's wishful thinking: there MUST be some reliable source, why, exactly?
Gordon's reply: Calton can't show why it is not reliable. MANY blogs are used as sources, so don't let him scare you. I'm not saying he's wrong simply because it's a blog -or because he has been rude of late, but you need to keep an open mind and ask for proof when someone like him says it's unreliable; He may be incorrect!--GordonWatts 03:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Find a reliable source with context (the "affidavit" label was very misleading, as I recall) and it goes back in. Not before then. --Calton | Talk 00:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
You ask why I think there must be some reliable source. Well, because I saw and heard Nurse Iyer speaking on television in 2005, saying basically the same thing that she said in the extract that you took out. So, assuming that I wasn't hallucinating, there really is a person called Carla Iyer, and she really did make those claims. (I've also seen copies of Judge Greer's dismissal of her claims, but nowhere have I seen it suggested that she didn't make those claims.) So, since the Terri Schiavo case attracted a lot of media attention, and since Carla Iyer exists, and since she did make claims about Michael saying "When is that bitch going to die?", etc., and since she did speculate about insulin, then I submit that there must be a reputable source somewhere that reports that she claimed that. I get the impression that you don't believe Nurse Iyer's claims. Well, I don't believe Nadine Milroy-Sloan's claims, but I don't doubt that she made them, and since the people she accused were very notable, I don't doubt at all that I'd find a reliable source to report that she made those claims if I wanted to work on that article. (Maybe I will; the Terri Schiavo atmosphere isn't very inviting.) ElinorD 01:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Gordon's reply: I've met Carla; She really exists! She live in my old hometown of Plant City, a few miles from Lakeland where i currently reside.--GordonWatts 03:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if they're the only source for it, and apparently neither do you.
I was responding to the anon commenter directly above my comments. To refresh your memory: "but NCG is the only source bothering with such aftermath.".
So, assuming that I wasn't hallucinating, there really is a person called Carla Iyer, and she really did make those claims.
Easy enough to prove from an actual reliable source, ennit? Go forth and find it if you feel it's important.
I get the impression that you don't believe Nurse Iyer's claims.
I don't believe anything coming from Gordon's favorite blog, no.
Gordon's reply: MY favorite "blog" is my newspaper, The Register, but The Gazette often covers things in a more timely manner than I can.--GordonWatts 03:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Surely you're not going to argue that if someone gets on your nerves badly then it's okay to abuse him in edit summaries
That's not abuse, that's a warning: Gordon has a long track record of understanding little on Wikipedia -- from basics of wiki syntax to its basic pillars -- while simultaneously proclaiming that he understands it better than anyone else, and breezily passing over the frequent corrections and lessons he gets from a multitude of editors and admins. It's not that he's ignorant, it's he's aggressively ignorant, the single-purpose Ed Wood, Jr of Wikipedia. Again, this should provide a clue.
And if you're going to gas on about my "abuse", perhaps you should note Gordon's alleged warning, his po-faced claim about me being argumentative, and his denials about his slipping in his favorite link again -- again, another one of MULTIPLE attempts to do so.
Isn't there some policy called WP:AGF
No, there's some policy called "Assume Good Faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary". There being a freight trains's worth of evidence to the contrary -- Gordon's staggeringly unsuccessful attempt to become an admin providing at least one full carload -- that's not even close to being applicable here. --Calton | Talk 02:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Gordon's reply: I was insistent and hard-headed, in my admin request, but I was academic AND POLITE, something you are not. You are not either, Mr. Calton. Chill out and make your case with logic and honour -IF you have a case.--GordonWatts 03:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I've looked at it, Calton, and I looked at the archives, as you suggested, and I can say that nothing in the requests for adminship page shocked me like the abuse hurled at him and others of seemingly similar beliefs that I found in the archives. Anyway, that's not really relevant to how we can improve the article, and I still think that we can improve it better if we try not to insult other editors. Gordon, can you find a source that other editors will consider reputable to report that Carla Iyer made those claims? ElinorD 12:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Gordon's reply: Correct regarding the archives; I fight hard, but I try not to insult or offend. Regarding the link, I may, if possible, find other links, but the fact that a link is the only one that documents a claim is not, in and of itself, reason to toss it. In the "best case" scenario, if a link's claim is correct, then BOTH or ALL links should be added. In diversity, we find our strength. If I don't find another link (which may be the case, as I'm spread thin currently), feel free to, ElinorD, or any other editor.--GordonWatts 10:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More current dispute involving User:Calton

THIS: Wikipedia consensus process flowchart might be of help here!
THIS: Wikipedia consensus process flowchart might be of help here!

Please see this diff of the Government_involvement_in_the_Terri_Schiavo_case page for details. Input sought - as I have a clear conflict of interest.

The links in question have been on the page for ages -without conflict -until I just recently started posting; Either the links are bad - or Calton is trying to provoke another editor -or both.--GordonWatts 08:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

No, the links are gone because I found them while looking for spam: look whose name floats nearly to the very top when doing a link search for geocities.com. And Gordon, there's no statute of limitations for bad material, bad external links, and conflicts of interest (it's YOUR site, so doubly bad). If your actions can't stand up to scrutiny to the point you have to resort to ad hominem fallacy arguments to distract people from them, you ought not to do them. to begin with. --Calton | Talk 16:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I am sure that you are aware that Gordon does have a special standing in this case, one that does not apply to you or to me: He was a petitioner in a case that was commented on by the Supreme Court, and so, as to that petition, he is an original source of information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MartinGugino (talk • contribs) 07:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
That is correct, but I will not comment much on this here - other than to say that the world's wisest man had something to say about Martin's comment. Observe: "Let another man praise thee, and not thine own mouth; a stranger, and not thine own lips." Proverbs 27:2 (King James Version) To understand this in context, it means that Martin or another person offering positive feedback or confirming praise about me carries more weight than anything I might say -even when I speak the correct truth. That is because he can be objective, while I can merely be subjective and correct.--GordonWatts 19:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Here: WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided #11, WP:EL#Advertising_and_conflicts_of_interest, & Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Using_online_and_self-published_sources - don't make up nonsense, Gordon. So Gordon's "special standing" notwithstanding, not even a borderline case. Of course, that "special standing" claim is utter nonsense to begin with, as laid out here. --Calton | Talk 00:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It would help me

If you just put down the text or link that is in question. Rather than try to analyze the motives, could you (just) say what the change is, and the pro's and con's? And what is NCG? There is tons to read besides the above argument. Martin | tk 06:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

NCG=North Country Gazette. I see. Martin | tk 23:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The contentious link in question is any link from the NC Gazette website; Occasionally, it is the only source for info. Generally, it seems to be an accurate news source -like most others commonly cited. Since it is called into question, I think it should only be used when no other source would do, but as a link for opinions and advocacy, it is perfectly appropriate. Even though I would support its use as a news link, under the assumption of accuracy in reporting, the standard is lower for advocacy and commentary (opinion) articles, and this link would be perfectly appropriate for that. The only other remaining criticism commonly raised by editor (such as Calton) is basically that this is not "well-known" or big-time, like the NY Times or something. This criticism should be stricken on sight, since we often-times use small blogs and smaller 'web-newspapers' for sources AND opinion/commentary/advocacy links.
This is not to say that the NCG is the only or the best -only that it should not be treated differentially in a biased manner in comparison to the other links we often use.--GordonWatts 02:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I have seen articles in the NCG a few times recently, from Google searches. Just ran across one now. It has a definite opinion against Terri's death. It publishes often, and seems to have a done a good deal of work to pull together information to support its raising questions about what happened. Martin | tk 03:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Correct -it has a bias, but so does the NY Times, yet we use it; So do the blogs that oppose killing Terri, yet we use them. It seems too legit to quit -at this point: bias does not necessarily spell doom.--GordonWatts 03:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree. As long as one is objective about the facts. This case has split American opinion, deeply and for a long time to come. I believe many will try to dismiss the "other side" because to take them seriously is too scary. Martin | tk 04:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] dependent on feeding tube

I changed this to "unable to feed herself". If I could revert this I would. You can if you want to. The changed text omits the meaning that she couldn't swallow. "Couldnt feed herself" I would take to mean more that her hand is paralyzed, and is silent on swallowing, leaving open the idea that others might feed her, which was not the case. Martin | tk 07:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note 9, re: uphold the court ruling that Schiavo would want to cease life support.

I cannot get this footnote to work. I want to read what Greer said - how he phrased his finding. It is note #9 I am assuming. The link to the 6th circuit court works, but the search there on Shiavo does not produce the document. The link to the pdf document hangs. ? Martin | tk 08:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

  • This later case, looks like it quotes the former case's wording. So I got it. Martin | tk 09:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Footnote [5] does not support statement re: awareness

The footnote [5], "facts lies and videotape" contains the paragraph:

  • The Schindler family, Pat Anderson, the Schindler lawyer, various vitalist groups, and the two physicians testifying at trial on behalf of the Schindlers, as well as numerous health care professionals signing affidavits who never examined Terri but instead relied on the short videotapes, have consistently maintained the following facts-Terri Schiavo is aware, responsive, follows commands, smiles in response to the family, and has emotions;

to support the statement:

  • Dr. Garcia J. DeSousa, a board-certified neurologist in St. Petersburg, Florida, cared for Schiavo during her initial admission to hospital; both he and Dr. Victor Gambone, an internist and Schiavo family physician, independently made the PVS diagnosis within approximately one year after Schiavo's cardiac arrest. Other neurologists—Drs. Jeffery M. Karp, James H. Barnhill, and Thomas H. Harrison—also examined Schiavo over the years and made the same diagnosis; they also shared a very poor opinion about her chances for recovery. No dissent regarding Schiavo's condition or the PVS diagnosis was raised by any parties at this point.[5][6]

The "no dissent" comment might easily be read to mean that the Schindlers did not at that point dissent from the diagnosis of PVS.

Changing statement. 09:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC) signing Martin | talk • contribs 01:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Feb 9th The footnotes, [5][6] are both copies of Dr Cranford's testimony titled 'facts,lies, videotape...'. My clarification of "no dissent" to "by all treating neurologists", while accurate, may not be the best change to make. There were four treating neurologists mentioned by Dr Cranford, and all four are mentioned in the prior sentence. To say "all treating neurologists" at this point may lead one to believe that Dr Cranford is referring to more than the four cited about. His paper does contain another slightly broader statement somewnat farther down: From the initial hospitalization in February, 1990, until the present time, there have been no significant changes in Terri’s neurological findings, and nothing in the medical records to suggest any disagreement whatsoever among Terri’s attending and consulting physicians about the underlying diagnosis and prognosis for recovery.
In my opinion, it would be better to use this statement as the basis for the statement footnoted as [5][6]. Martin | talk • contribs 05:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Early Life : Nutra-systen diet in 1980

paragraph currently says: "She may have developed an eating disorder around this time.[4]"

"A Life That Matters", pg 27 says:

The moment she graduated from high school, she came to me. "I'm ready to lose weight," she said. I took her back to Dr Ickler. He put her on a Nutra-System diet, at that time a new kind of weight-loss regimen, and slowly, gradually, the pounds came off.
Her loss of weight triggered a transformation in Terri that ....
  • The eating disorder comment (in the early life paragraph) is unsupported speculation; at least that's how it reads. I am therefore modifying it in line with the above quote, and footnoting. Martin | talk • contribs 07:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I left the sentence in for the time being anyway. I am not sure what to do. The statement does not agree with the citation. Sandia Nair, the writer cited, does not say that an eating disorder may have begun at the time of Terri's graduation, nor does it say she lost 55 pounds - it says she lost 100 pounds from 250. I am not sure if Sandia Nair is just speculating about Terri as an "example" of the dangers of eating disorders, or if she is intending to convey facts specific to Terri's case. Martin | talk • contribs 07:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The above quote from "A Life That Matters" says that Terri went on Nutra System diet right after graduating, but the current text says that she went on Nutra System in 1980 then graduated in 1981. That looks like a mistake in the current text to me: I am sure her mom remembers that incident correctly, given how sensitive young women are to their weight, and their moms are to them. Martin | talk • contribs 07:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The third paragrpah - can we reduce or remove it

It reads: Despite intervention by the other branches, the courts continued to uphold the circuit court ruling that Schiavo was in a PVS, and that she would want life-prolonging procedures withdrawn. Her feeding tube was removed a third and final time on 18 March 2005. She died thirteen days later of dehydration at a Pinellas Park hospice on 31 March 2005, at the age of 41.
Most of this is contained in the prior two paragraphs.

  • intervention by other two branches
  • circuit court upheld
  • ruling executed in 2005

Maybe just say Terri Schiavo died of dehydration at a Pinellas Park Hospice on 31 March 2005, at the age of 41.

[edit] Amenorrhea

current text is: and she was not menstruating (lack of menstruation, or amenorrhea is sometimes associated with excessive weight loss, as is thought to be the case with Schiavo). The statement as is thought to be the case with Schiavo is not attributed. The juxtapostion is enough to indicate that at least someone thinks that that fact is relevant and might be of note here. To note, in the passive voice, that some do think that, is not to add anything. It would be interesting to know "who" it is that thinks that that is the case, with a citation. Failing that, the phrase is redundant. Martin | talk • contribs 08:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hypokalemia (low potassium)

It would be nice if a doctor would comment on her low potassium. Do we know if her other electrolytes were looked at (magnesium?). And whether trauma also affects magnesium? [15]. The citation says that severe low potassium is below 3.0, other sites say under 2.5. Possibly 3.0 is severe (unusual?) as a result of trauma. No sense speculating... Martin | talk • contribs 08:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] fertility treatment

On Larry King, Michael says that he and Terri were going to Dr Igel for fertility treatments. That assertion is included in the current article. But Dr Stephen Igel, the one that settled for $200k, is an ob/gyn, not a 'fertility' doctor. The other doctor in the malpractice case, Dr Prawer, the million dollar award, is described as their family doctor. It makes sense that Terri, who was not menstruating, was going to an ob/gyn to find out what was wrong. What were these 'fertility treatments'? [16] Martin | talk • contribs 11:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
modified Martin | talk • contribs 15:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yet another dispute involving User:Calton

Input is sought here: Talk:Government_involvement_in_the_Terri_Schiavo_case#Edit_War_between_me_and_User:Calton; additionally, for all those who prefer active instead of passive voice, I seek said input.--GordonWatts 14:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Gordon, give it up: blog postings -- with very distinct exceptions -- are prohibited as reliable sources and adding YOUR OWN sites is doubly so. Not even close to borderline, no matter how many anon IPs you canvass. Oh, and spinning this as "another dispute involving User:Calton", given your long, long track record of losing battles LONG before I ever came on the scene is, fundamentally, dishonest. --Calton | Talk 16:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
"...and adding YOUR OWN sites is doubly so." If you look at the edit history, you will see that those recent edits by me were reverts of your edits -not the adding of any sites or links: Big difference - 2 different things here. "Oh, and spinning this as "another dispute involving User:Calton", given your long, long track record of losing battles LONG before I ever came on the scene is, fundamentally, dishonest." That is not dishonest; It is a dispute involving you. In my post to a few talk pages of recent editors, I did not opine on whether you were wrong or not, thus I could not have lied. If you are feeling upset at this matter, it must be your conscience speaking to you, because I never lied at all. I made my case, and I asked for input. That is not a lie: I indeed was seeking input and seeking consensus, which is the Wikipedia way; Would you rather me simply revert you again? That is what will happen if you push me. It's your move.--GordonWatts 16:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
because I never lied at all Funny thing to say, since you, in fact, just did so by indulging in some doubletalk: If you look at the edit history, you will see that those recent edits by me were reverts of your edits -not the adding of any sites or links: Big difference - 2 different things here. Gordon, those links did not magically appear in the article: you added them. Whether you added them yesterday or last year is immaterial, your attempt at misdirection by talking about "recently" notwithstanding. They don't belong, you shouldn't have added them to begin with, you don't revert-war to add them back, and you absolutely don't make up specious and nonsensical attempts to deflect your responsibility for them. And you've been told they're inappropriate by other people already. --Calton | Talk 17:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Gordon, I'll take a look, but I have a feeling I'm going to agree with Calton, here. ElinorD 17:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Before you make up your mind, please see the discussion on the talk pages of the article in question. HERE is a permadiff of the most current doings.--GordonWatts 18:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Blogs and Geocities links should not appear in this or any other article as a source. They are simply not reliable sources.--Isotope23 15:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Where is the actual policy does it state that Geocities sites or blogs can not be used? This is why many people consider Wikipedia an unreliable source; While you have a point -and probably mean well, you are not getting paid enough money to force you to actually check out the actual facts and policy -you are wrong here, or if you disagree, please cite actual policy -not mere opinions. When I am occasionally wrong (about Terri's Fight being a good link, since it involved blood family), I admitted I was wrong, so you can be sure that if you find the actual policy, I will really read what you write, but you are wrong; Blogs, while discourages can and are used as sources. Show me in policy where Geocities or blogs are forbidden. I await your studied reply.--GordonWatts 08:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Massive deletions make Wikipedia an unreliable source

I have observed massive deletions...

    • New: When controversial material is deleted, it is traditional to put it on the talk page (here) so editors can review and discuss it -and reach consensus (sometimes voting is used to see what consensus is, yes, a mathematical method is objective, not subjective: WP:CONSENSUS#Consensus_vs._supermajority). So, my post here is not meant to cause argument, but, rather, to stir discussion: What belong in -and what belongs out? If a better source is needed, can we get one? Can we use several sources? It seems in these links above that a small consensus exists to exclude the materials, and I accept that, but, at the same time, I keep the material under review, and my "vote" as it were, is "include" for every single delete above. That is my vote, for the record -and let the record reflect such -whether I am active in editing or not -for future generations.--GordonWatts 04:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

--Fredrick day 13:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Folks, we must cite our sources: This is not about "gordon's links," for if you note: MOST of the links are NOT mine, and they can't ALL be bad... And we wonder why Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source itself? Ironic isn't it that the very thing editors claim about other links not being reliable is what contributes to Wikipedia itself not being reliable:

  • Wikipedia not reliable paper source; Tony Sapochetti; Issue date: 5/5/06 Section: News [17]
  • "Growing pains for Wikipedia: Post 6 of 17: Recently found it was not reliable" [18]
  • "Wikis and the Idiocy of Crowds" [19]
  • "Wikipedia does not have a lot of credibility within academe, and detractors of the online, open-source encyclopedia say it devalues the notion of expertise that is the bedrock of higher education..." http://chronicle.com/live/2006/10/halavais
  • "The Mirror Front Page > News "You get what you pay for: Wikipedia, free encyclopedia, not considered reliable source by some students" By: Joe Carretta; Issue date: 11/2/06 Section: News [20]
  • Wikipedia : growing pains challenge credibility by Jason A. Martin @ 8:00 am. Filed under Media [21]
  • "Of course the INQ comes in for a mention now and then: "I don't count the Inquirer as independent for an article about the meme; they claim to have discovered/started it. Blogs and forums are not reliable sources, and that is all that has been offered here," comments a wiki in favour of deletion." http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=37165
  • "Wikipedia is a joke. It's basically half a million articles about Star Trek characters. Most of the country articles are re-heated CIA factbook copies. It's very unreliable, and the writing is of a juvenile quality. In other words - it's the product of thousands of geeks with articles that geeks will be interested in." Posted by Karl Jonson at April 7, 2005 12:13 PM
  • "I'm not a huge fan of Wikipedia, perhaps for the reasons one might expect. The idea is somewhat sound and parts of it are useful, but their attempts to establish “academic credibility” are ill-considered. And as long as they insist on having lengthy articles about people and events they'll eventually end up turning into just another encyclopedia. The most sensible thing is to never use it, and for a totally obvious reason: it's not reliable, and in its present form never can be. [22]
  • Bottom of 3rd paragraph: "Even teenagers chimed in on how Wikipedia was not reliable information in the eyes of their teachers." [23]
  • "Letter to my students on 051203: Friends, Please DO NOT use Wikipedia as a reference source in your semester project. You have a free on-line subscription to Encyclopedia Britannica through the Norwegian School of Management library, and you have access to many other excellent reference tools. Wikipedia is not reliable. [emphasis added] The story below is an example. There is now enough serious incidents of false and defamatory information in Wikipedia biographies to warrant prohibiting this as a reference source in universities and university-level professional schools." [24]

"Thangs that make ya go 'Hmm...'."--GordonWatts 09:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Wikipedia isn't considered a reliable source has nothing to do with "mass deletions". It is because some editors feel that it is acceptable practive to post material sourced to non-reliable sources or to leave unsourced material in an article while we look about for a source because they "know that it is true". Every one of the diffs you pointed out above were removal of information that was cited with sources that fall well short of what could be considered a reliable source for citing text on Wikipedia. Removal is warrented. We have a page history here and if at some point reliable sources can be found for a passage, it can always be pulled out and added along with the source, but leaving text in an article unsourced or sourced to a blog, personal website, or college newspaper is the wrong way to go about it. That is what leads to Wikipedia being deemed unreliable as a source.--Isotope23 16:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
In sort of a logical way, your comment is humorous: That is, both of us are agreeing that Wikipedia is less than totally reliable but arrive at that conclusion based on opposing (mutually exclusive) arguments. I do agree that using less than pristine sources is not preferred, but this is the real world, and in one case on my mind now, I know of one such "oral argument" hearing in the Terri Schiavo case where only ONE reporter was present to report on George Felos and some ACLJ attorney, but should we exclude that encyclopaedic entry simply because the web-newspaper of that reporter is somehow unclean? If there is doubt as to the truthfulness/reliability/verifiability (see note below) of the news report, then a note can be included in the Wikipedia article, but to fail to report on it is being a bad and unfaithful historian! (A historian must report on ALL things, notable and non-notable, and if non-notable, then make a note that it is "non-notable" and provide a rationale.) OK, here's that note I promised: Yes, I know that WP:Verifiability (a related article to the link you gave) plainly says that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." However, this statement does not perforce prove itself! To accept that statement as proof of ITSELF would be simply Circular_logic aka Begging the question. That is, the proof you use must come from an objective outside area. To conclude, the policy statement is basically implying that something that is from a non-notable source is incapable of being "verified," but this is false. In the example I used above, the reporter present at the hearing with Michael Schiavo attorney, George Felos, was me, and this can be verified by speaking with the blood relatives of Terri Schiavo. Any news reporter can verify this, so, while technically it is true to say that verifiability [is not] not truth, the implication that non-notable sources are unverifiable is false. "Real" encyclopedias often use even LESS verifiable "sources." Observe: [The Encyclopedia of Arkansas History & Culture Project] cites to even LEGENDS, hello? To quote: "The Legend of Petit Jean is a romantic Arkansas tale that purports to explain the origin of the name of Petit Jean Mountain. Although there are other explanations that are both more logical and more mundane, when someone refers to “The Legend of Petit Jean,” the person is most likely alluding to the romantic one." Even Fox News has the right idea: We report, you decide: Wikipedia should report the oral argument news story by news reporter, Gordon Watts, A.S., B.S. (me) and the related story by Nurse and news reporter, Cheryl Ford, R.N. here -unless it can be shown that the paper or reporters had contrived a story like news reporter Jayson Blair did. Watts and Ford are Innocent Until Proven Guilty -and, Mr. Blair was also, but he has been shown to be guilty of false reporting. Thus, Watts and Ford should be able to be used for sources -so long as they have a good history of truthful reporting -innocent until proven guilty of being a "non-reliable source." We still live in America, right? It still is innocent until proven guilty, right?--GordonWatts 05:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
The bottom line: reliable sources can be used, unreliable sources cannot. Much of what you are refering to above would entail WP:OR, but I suspect you already know this. Wikipedia isn't an exercise in semantics Gordon and this isn't a court of law so many of your arguments simply don't apply here. Sorry, your own personal websites simply don't meet the requirements of being a reliable source and are a conflict of interest. They should not appear in the articles. End of story.--Isotope23 14:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, even with unjust sanctions NOT supported by "community consensus" (just a minority of the community), it appears I still have my "one post per day," so I'll cut to the chase: I think you know better; When I report on local or international news, it is NOT "Original Research." You know that Original Research is something that "introduces a theory, method of solution, or any other original idea." (You did read the policy you cited, right?!) Now, COI does not prohibit me from discussing the idea either; In fact (you did reads this too, right?), policy on COI clearly states: "If you feel it necessary to make changes to Wikipedia articles despite a real or perceived conflict of interest, we strongly encourage you to submit content for community review on the article's talk page or file a Request for Comment to the wider community, and to let one or more trusted community members judge whether the material belongs in Wikipedia." You don't have a problem with policy, there, do you, eh? LASTLY, the issue of reliability is NOT objective as you might have it; The NY Times HAS published false "news," which it had to retract. The Register has recently had to redact a news item, but mistakes happen -what we publish is reliable enough for MANY people -don't make it too complicated: Just use the "common sense" approach: If most readers would believe our news stories (even though we are human and -yes! we make mistakes as writers), then full-stop period: The news items are (at least somewhat -and possibly quite) reliable. Don't make it more complicated than necessary!--GordonWatts 14:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Common sense that isn't complicated - If it was published in a newspaper... say the New York Times... and could be cited to such as a WP:RS. If it was published at hometown.aol.com and written by you = WP:RS and WP:COI if you added it to the article. Your suggestion of "this can be verified by speaking with the blood relatives of Terri Schiavo..." would constitute WP:OR on the part of any editor going out to try and "verify" this. It is not complicated; it is very simple.--Isotope23 15:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't make it more complicated than necessary! Oh, the irony. Let me refresh your memory:

Per Wikipedia:Community noticeboard#Community ban request on User:GordonWatts:

  • You may not edit articles related to Terri Schiavo
  • You may not link or suggest links to your own sites
  • Your participation in Schiavo articles is restricted to making a very small number of brief comments to Talk pages, of the order of one per day. Note that this does not mean one thread, edited numerous times, it means one edit.

It's over, Gordon. Done. They're never going in. --Calton | Talk 14:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC) --Calton | Talk 14:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Five years of struggle

The recent change to the first paragraph needs some work. It is true that, after the court made the determination to pull the tube, the Schindler's were fighting the court rather than Michael. Martin | talk • contribs 06:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
The new addition of "on the other hand" (which I have not read closely) I think is taking this in the wrong direction. Martin | talk • contribs 20:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I took back out "on the other hand". Michael's article makes it clear from the Robert Herring offer that the option was there. What else should we add or remove?--70.231.141.99 22:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Were you the one that put it in? Just curious. Martin | talk • contribs 01:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Curiosity killed the cat.--64.9.237.9 17:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hopes of having a child (citation needed)

Michael said something like this* on CNN/Larry King. However at the malpractice trial, he said that he never talked to Dr Igel. The discharge notes from Humana say that Terri was seeing a ob/gyn for a vaginal infection, and she had had no other notable treatments. Martin | talk • contribs 06:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
At the July 27 92 deposition, Michael said that Dr Prawer, the family doctor, referred Terri to Dr Igel, the obgyn, because Terri missed her period. Martin | talk • contribs 01:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

.*from CNN/Larry King SCHIAVO: No children. Terri and I were trying to have children. We were back and forth to a doctor for a year or so, trying to find out why we weren't getting pregnant.[25]. Martin | talk • contribs 04:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] excessive weight loss and amenorrhea

Article says: Lack of menstruation, or amenorrhea is sometimes associated with excessive weight loss. Dr Prawer's records indicate* that Terri was between 120 and 124 the four times he saw her in the year prior to her collapse. Michael does testify (jul 27 p 65)that she had weight swings, but later backs off (p 85) from that when presented with Prawer's records. But the comment, as written, is speculative.
.* Medical Malpractice Trial, July 27 1992 p85
Martin | talk • contribs 01:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Early Life

Regarding : "she may have developed an eating disorder at this time" Medical Malpractice deposition July 27th, 1992 of Michael Schiavo p.88 of MS Depo Med Mal Pt 4 072792.pdf
1 with Dr. Igel?
2 A No.
3 Q You never spoke with -- did you ever speak
4 with Dr. Igel?
5 A No.
6 Q Did -- talking about the Schindlers, did they
7 ever say anything to you about the fact that she had
8 any kind of eating disorder when she was young, before
9 you met her?
10 A Never mentioned it to me, no.
11 Q I think you mentioned you never spoke to Dr.
12 Igel at all, right, at any time?
13 A I don't recall speaking to Dr. Igel.
Conclusion: Michael "never heard" that she developed an eating disorder in college or in high school. The sentence quoted above is also speculation. Martin | talk • contribs 03:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Death by dehydration

This text was added: "One objection the parent had was to Schiavo dying by dehydration. However, numerous studies have shown that terminally ill patients dying with dehydration generally have peaceful, "good" deaths which are not associated with suffering.[11][12][13][14][15][16]" Of course the primary objection the parents of Terri Schiavo had to her death by dehydration was it was wrong to kill her. (To use force to prohibit anyone from helping her.) The question is not whether many people have enjoyed dying by dehydration, but how it was for Terri. Felos said she looked great. Others said not so great. The statement that terminally ill patients who die of dehydration have a generallly peacful death seems too counter-intuitive to add in without discussion. Martin | talk • contribs 03:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Citation [13] says: It shows that for dying patients there is neither an abrupt cessation of food and fluid nor any sign of suffering attributable to the decline in oral intake. Instead there is a gradual decrease in intake, and providing good mouth care is undertaken, patients do not suffer the ill effects of terminal dehydration.
Not abrupt. Martin | talk • contribs 03:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Citation [14] says: including administration of sedation to the level of unconsciousness as a last resort
meaning that if it does become painful, one can always (legally) administer pain killers. Martin | talk • contribs 15:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The text had stated that dehydration in the terminal phase was very unpleasant, referencing another Wikipedia article. First of all, it was unreferenced (other Wikipedia articles do not meet WP:V or WP:RS). Second, it conflicted with the observation of poeple who actually work with dying patients, or who have studied dehydration at the end of life. The studies cited all suggest that dehydration in a terminally ill patient is not a cause of suffering. Perhaps the references should be trimmed, but for instance, PMID 11977821 states that "There is increasing evidence to support the view that dehydration might aid comfort and reduce stress in the final days of terminal illness." I'd be fine with removing the whole paragraph, since no source is given for the Schindlers' concern over dehydration in particular. However, if that's left in, then I'd suggest there be some indication that the medical literature describes dehydration at the end of life as not being a cause of suffering. Alternately, you could just leave it as "The Schindlers were concerned about dehydration" (with a source) - what I objected to was the litany of horrible effects of dehydration which was a) unreferenced and b) inaccurate with respect to the medical literature. MastCell 18:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I thought your summary of the articles cited was too optimistic.
.Terri was not "in the final days of terminal illness", according to the malpractice trial
.Death of animals by dehydration is cruelty. That's a reasonable basis.
Martin | talk • contribs 05:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Death of otherwise healthy animals (or humans) by dehydration is cruel and unpleasant. This is a very different situation. But like I said, I'm fine with removing that sentence - I just don't want to see an unsourced statement claiming that dehydration, in a terminally ill patient such as Terri Schiavo, is horrible or unpleasant when the evidence suggests otherwise. I'm not aware of any reliable source stating that Terri appeared to be suffering or uncomfortable at the end of her life - if you know of one, then please add it. MastCell 17:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Would you accept the testimony of eyewitnesses? Martin | talk • contribs 20:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I (and more importantly, Wikipedia) would accept anything verifiable, reliably sourced, and presented neutrally. MastCell 21:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Here you go. [26] Martin | talk • contribs 04:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, a blog posting from the leader of Priests for Life, who is dedicated to ending "euthanasia" and who apparently jumped on the Schiavo case to advance his political/social agenda. You'll forgive me if I question the objectivity of his description. MastCell 04:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
You don't think he can say what he saw? Michael wouldn't let many people or any cameras in. There were few eyewitnesses. Martin | talk • contribs 04:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Article: "Stopping foods and fluids at the end-of-life" " A 2003 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine surveyed 307 hospice nurses (3). Overall, the nurses rated quality of death of those patients who refused food and fluids at the end-of-life good, with an average score of 7 on a scale of 0-9 where 0 is ‘a very bad death’ and 9 is ‘a very good death.’ According to the nurses, the most important factor in stopping food and fluids is the patient’s readiness to die." Terri did not want to die. [27] Martin | talk • contribs 05:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, neither you nor I are in a position to know what Terri Schiavo wanted. The court determined that, as she was incapacitated, her spouse was the appropriate person to interpret her wishes, in keeping with medical ethics and legal precedent. We're off topic here. MastCell 05:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, at least you are saying that you don't have any information on the "most important factor". Here is something on that.[28]
Does Dr Kevorkian work for you? Dr Kevorkian said, about her manner of death, if used for a prisoner: "It would take about two seconds for the court to strike it down as cruel and unusual." [29] In context, it is clear that he meant that this was not a good way to do it. Martin | talk • contribs 19:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
We seem to be discussing our own viewpoints here, rather than what to do with the article, in violation of the talk page guidelines. I'm as guilty as you, but I'm going to stop now. My 2 cents about the article are above. MastCell 04:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


My 2 cents' worth: I have sometimes been accused of being talkative -both in real life -and also here: Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard#Community_ban_request_on_User:GordonWatts -so, I can speak with some personal experience -and authority on the subject: Martin not only is an intellectual (and seems to be a pro-life leaning and responsible editor like me), but is also polite. However, it is my opinion (my 2c worth here: Sometimes less is more) that he is discussing details when it is not totally necessary. See the flow chart, here: You don't need to discuss every edit -if you make an edit, and it is accepted as concensus, then all is well. No offense meant: Martin is a good guy, in my honest opinion, and he has been kind enough to speak with me by phone regarding mutual goals to get info related to documenting the Schiavo ordeal. Respectfully submitted--GordonWatts 04:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Gordon! I looked for the BanRequest but didn't see it. Thanks. Martin | talk • contribs 07:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard#Community_ban_request_on_User:GordonWatts
--GordonWatts 16:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Extraordinary measures vs life-prolonging

The court determined that Terri would not wish to continue extraordinary measures to prolong her life.
The court used the term "life-prolonging" measures in the November 22,2002 order. See the paragraph above titled "Note 9" and the off-page link to that order. Characterizing food as "extraordinary" would leave only air and blankets as "ordinary".
Martin | talk • contribs 07:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] euthanasia (good death)

article: However, numerous studies have shown that for terminally ill patients who choose to die, deaths by dehydration are generally peaceful, "good" deaths, not associated with suffering, when supplemented with adequate pain medication.
I removed the phrase "good" death. It suggests that Terri's death was "good" in some sense beyond the senses mentioned in the adjacent phrases. The studies cited were restricted to the context of patients

  • with end stage terminal illness
  • who choose to die, and
  • have palliative pain medication used to the point of unconsciousness.

This context did not apply in Terri's case. -- Martin | talk • contribs 23:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a good edit. Thanks Martin. MastCell 23:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I second that. Vague terminology like "good death" triggers too many unproductive arguements.--71.141.224.170 00:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] low potassium

current: It was speculated that her low potassium level had in turn been caused by an eating disorder
Bulemia is the eating disorder that is associated with electrolyte imbalance, because of vomiting or use of laxatives.
changed to: Electrolyte imbalance can be cause by [ [ bulemia | loss of fluids ] ]. -- Martin | talk • contribs 06:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandelism

What is it about this article that has so many Vandals on it? I have this on my watch list and was going to try to add to it but it seems like people keep putting garbage in it. I like calm and nice with articles so I haven't posted until now. --Crohnie 00:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/e/r/Talk%7ETerri_Schiavo_fd37.html"