Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Mediation/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Miscellaneous

1. we need to discuss the nature of findings themselves, but we can't deal with the fundamentals because it immediately turns into 300 lines of specific arguments not yet germane to the discussion. [1]
2. Gordon says he can use blue [2]

Discussion

"I've been asked by ghost to step in as Mediator. How do you feel about that? And where (if anywhere) shall we discuss all this?"

Hi. I feel fine about it. Probably on Talk:Terri Schiavo but I'm not attached. FuelWagon 23:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Now on my watchlistFuelWagon 20:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ed. I asked you because: a)Yours was the only name I recognized on the list of Mediators at the time (Mgm hadn't made the list yet). b) I'd seen you be involved in controversial subjects before that seemed to have reached resolution. I have two concerns we should vent now. First, you were sucked into a controversial subject (Gitmo) on which your neutrality was questioned. Second, there have been heavy edits to the NPOV page recently, of which you've been a part. I mention this now only because I want to give you the opportunity to address them now, rather than have them jack-in-the-box later.

We need help with developing a standard for the Terri Schiavo page, and that's been seen as a moving target. Please help us pin it down. I'm concerned that discussing a standard here stifles the voice of the larger editing base. But that may also give us room to reach agreement. If I have to choose, I'd go with Talk:Terri Schiavo. Wikipedia is, and should be open.--ghost 12:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's what I'm here for. And by the way, does everyone agree to the ground rules? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:53, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

No problems with the ground rules here. Anyone else?--ghost 21:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm new to this mediation thing. What does it mean to agree to mediation? Is mediation binding or nonbinding? NCdave 01:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

By mutual consent (or acceptance), I have chosen dark blue as my color for text. To answer your question, -- Uncle Ed (talk), I feel fine with it too; if you're tight with Jimbo and Angela, you're alright with me; besides, as I mentioned on another page, your approach seems fair and respectful. Also, you ask, "And where (if anywhere) shall we discuss all this?" I'm cool with this page. Let me catch a breath, check with Solomon and his wisdom, and I'll weigh in on the disputes.--GordonWattsDotCom 10:18, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm okay with the ground rules, but here's a thought that I'd like you to consider, Ed: although wikipedia is open to anyone to edit, I would like you to agree to recuse yourself from editing the article until your appointment is completed for the following reasons:

• It removes completely any appearance of impropriety when you are in the position of making decisions (as a mediator must do) that must arise if at the same time you remain active in the editing process which is in fact being mediated. This is not an accusation of any sort, but just an appeal to a common sense position of neutrality.
• I don't mean to criticize, but the article has enjoyed some first rate contributions, not only in content, but in form and style. The one edit you made didn't, in my opinion, rise to that standard, which I suspect was less editing prowess than it was new territory insofar as your exposure to the particular project. After some time spent around the group (and also in light of request #1) I would welcome your contribution.
• Because of the complexity, sensitivity, and volatility of the subject, we simply need fewer chefs just now, not more.

Duckecho 21:53, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree, and this edit from 3 days ago will be my last edit. Good suggestion, thanks! -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:58, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Would it help if the same applied to those in this Mediation? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 23:10, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

I think this is the place to have this discussion. Having voted on mediation signifies a commitment to the quality of the product, and if one can't even sign on with an opinion on mediation, how can we take seriously their contribution to the mediation much less the article? Moreover, the signal-to-noise ratio on the Talk page is far too low to try and keep up with this segment of the discussion while trying to separate the wheat from the chaff there.

Duckecho 21:53, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Duck is using ham radio terms (signal to noise ratio) and agriculture terms used in Bible parables (wheat vs chaff); DUCK means to say that there is a lot of chatter, and implies we need to be concise and to the point to not get lost in the page; (Good point; I'll try to do so.) I agree with Uncle Ed that we should look at the "edit history" to keep up; I agree with DUCK that this is the right page to discuss points of disagreement.--GordonWattsDotCom 10:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

One addendum. I've noticed some of our users are more or less active during the week/weekend. Therefore, how long should we leave subjects open? I week is too long; 3-4 days?--ghost 22:14, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How long have subjects been in need of mediation? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 23:09, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

I'm retired and have no life, consequently I'm here every day. And, I have to keep the camel's nose out from under the tent. It has been my observation that although traffic is definitely higher during the week, rarely do three days go by that all of the major players haven't weighed in at one point or another. Three to four sounds about right. No more than four, though—that seems an eternity here. Duckecho 23:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I sometimes find myself pulled away by more pressing matters in real life, for a week or more. I don't think a week is long enough. NCdave 01:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think we should leave them open for a week, even though I think I can reply sooner -but just to be on the safe side. I think that I understand DCdave's views well enough to represent him if he's slow to respond. I don't know but think that he would be OK with me guessing his contributions. (Quoting ghost) "Therefore, how long should we leave subjects open?" It's waited this long. One week is just about right, I think -unless we get a major agreement much sooner. We'll see.--GordonWattsDotCom 10:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would say at least a week. Otherwise it gives an unfair advantage to those who are more free. Some of us work. Some of us might be sick or away for a few days. Ann Heneghan 13:02, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re: Would (editors refraining from editing the Terri Schiavo page) help if the same applied to those in this Mediation?--Uncle Ed I don't see that as being as helpful. First, because most of those in this mediation have been among the best vandalism police on the main article and it's subs. We don't want to take all the police off the streets for a meeting. Second (and this may sound odd, but go with me on this) it risks demotivating the editors. What distingushes this group is their passion for both the topics, and for presenting the topics in what they perceive to be the best manner. Pulling this key group of editors out of the loop may replace the need to make the best article, with the need to reach a settlement. The article can't afford that. Especially in light of recent events/changes.--ghost 12:57, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ghost took the words out of my mouth regarding the cops at a meeting (that was the essence of my camel's nose out from under the tent remark). Moreover, though, my point in asking you to refrain was based on your position as moderator. Our position is significantly different and, in fact, is not a decision making position. There's no reason for us contributors to refrain from editing as we have no potential for conflict of interest (or undue command influence, or whatever other pejorative term we can conjure up). Duckecho 16:29, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Addendum of my own, although my second position above still obtains, I woud have no objection to us not editing while in mediation if the page was locked. Whatever mechanism is necessary to keep the Huns (or is Vandals really the apt metaphor) from the door. Duckecho 17:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Duckecho that my case is special. I'm not a disputant. I only made a couple of edits as a way of "looking" at the article. Like my Korean teacher, said, when you say May I see that? and your friend hands his shiny new bling-bling cell phone over, you don't merely stare at it. You open up the clam shell, press the buttons, etc. At any rate, there seems to be no squabble about me voluntarily refraining from article or talk edits while conducting this Moderation. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:02, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Ready for some discussion under Significance of court findings? I'll start

I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding here, and I may be partly to blame. I discussed it in response to you, Ed, on the talk page several days ago. The essence of it is this: disputes on fact are taken to our courts every day (and I'm speaking solely of the American court system here). Trials are held, evidence is admitted, testimony is taken, cross examination is conducted, witness affect is observed, all in an effort to divine the best truth. When the judge (or jury) has heard, seen, read, all of the evidence and testimony, they render a decision and issue a ruling. Where before there were the opinions of the parties, now a court has made a finding of fact.

For our purposes this fact has at least two significant properties:

• it will naturally approximate the POV of one of the parties; and...
• because it is fact (not opinion; since, as a judgement, it is incontrovertible outside of the legal process) it has a neutral quality which will be nearly congruent with the prevailing party's POV.

Despite that congruency, it is not, however, inherently POV itself—it is a neutral fact.

Generally that entire process takes place only in the court of first instance. Should the party who does not prevail wishes, they may appeal the decision. Subsequent courts up the chain of appeal, and occasionally on crossover to the Federal system, are called upon to review the judgement. At the very least they will review the legal decisions (sustained or overruled objections, reconciliation of the decision with the facts, legality of jury instructions, if any, and any other potentially reversible errors brought to its attention). On occasion, the appeal court may look closer, examining the evidence, reviewing the testimony, etc. (in fact, the Florida 2nd District Court of Appeals did just that after the 2002 trial). They don't get the witness affect (in his decision in the Terri's wishes' trial, specifically Greer made note of body language, pregnant pauses, etc.—that is affect), but they get most everything else.

As I understand it, they have four options, affirm, overturn, refuse to consider (which has the effect of affirm—that is, the previous court's decision—if the first appeals court overturned, and the higher court refused to hear, the decision of the court of first instance remains overturned), or remand (sometimes with instructions). It is this process that tends to smooth any errors that may have crept into the process of litigation—sort of the internal checks and balances, as it were. And it's the reason why courts can't rule any way they like. They are compelled to consider the evidence and follow the law, and it's assumed by all parties that they do. That doesn't mean they don't make mistakes or make bad decisions. What we can depend on is that all things considered, the process is quite dependable, and in fact, it's the only process we have.

In any event, at the end of the process (when all appeals have been heard, all decisions have been made), we are left with either affirmation of the original judgement, or an alternative judgement. Either of these have the same properties as the original judgement: it is fact, and it is likely congruent with one of the parties' POV. It still, however, as fact, is inherently NPOV itself.

Thus, with all of that, my argument is that citing court findings is not POV pushing. It must be inherently NPOV, particularly if the entire appeal process has played out.

If in fact, wikipedia has stated the court's ruling as its neutral position, then of course the overturning of the court's ruling must cause wikipedia to adjust its position to be in concert with the law of the land. A great many segments of society have to do the same occasionally. One other thing to consider: there is a huge segment of the population who does not understand the process. We cannot allow that ignorance to compromise our consideration of the inherent neutrality of court findings of fact. Duckecho 01:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay, any comments from the others? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 03:26, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

---

In the Schiavo case, the key "findings of fact" were all made by one highly controversial activist judge, George W. Greer, a man with a 76% reversal rate on appeal in cases other than this one. No jury examined the facts, and no other court ever accepted testimony regarding the key findings of fact.

Judge Greer's key findings ranged from dubious to absolutely ridiculous, and all of them favored the M.Schiavo/Felos side of the case.

One key finding was about Terri's medical condition. Greer has no special medical expertise, but he ruled, supposedly on the basis of expert medical testimony, that, to a "clear and convincing" standard of evidence, Terri was in a Persistent Vegetative State. The problem is that, even though he sharply limited the medical experts who could examine Terri and offer expert testimony, his conclusion was nevertheless contradicted by dozens of medical experts!

In fact, Greer was in agreement only with the medical opinions of the doctors hired by Felos/M.Schiavo, i.e., those doctors who were hired specifically to support the legal arguments for ending her life, and all of whom gave Terri only very cursory examinations. Even the one outside physician selected by Judge Greer, himself (after he was compelled by a higher court to conduct an evidentiary hearing) disagreed with his expressed certainty that Terri was in a PVS, and concluded only that a "preponderance of evidence" (the weakest evidentiary standard) supported a PVS diagnosis.

The other physicians who were allowed to see Terri all spent much more time with her[3], and all concluded that she was at least minimally conscious. Even the physician who examined Terri for the Florida DCF concluded that Terri was probably at least minimally conscious. But Greer, who never even bothered to see Terri himself, claimed to be so certain of the correctness of his medical diagnosis that in a subsequent written decision, in which he refused to permit the swallowing tests and therapy that had been recommended by GAL Wolfson and requested by Terri's family, Judge Greer even dismissed as "fatally flawed" the expert opinions of three speech pathologists -- the experts on such matters -- explicitly because they disagreed with his prior medical diagnosis that she was in a PVS.

His "finding of fact" w/r/t the evidence of Terri's expressed intentions was, if possible, even more ridiculous. Greer's ruling contradicted the conclusion of guardian ad litem Pearse, who found M.Schiavo's 8-year-late recollection of Terri's supposed expressed desire to die not credible. Pearse reported:

The only direct evidence probative of the issue of the ward's intent is the hearsay testimony of her husband, Mr. SCHIAVO, who seeks withdrawal of the ward's feeding tube which would inevitably result in her death. However, his credibility is necessarily adversely affected by the obvious financial benefit to him of being the ward's sole heir at law in the event of her death while still married to him. Her death also permits him to get on with his own life.

In the opinion of the undersigned guardian ad litem, Mr. SCHIAVO'S credibility is also adversely affected by the chronology of this case. ... At or around the time the litigation was finally concluded, he has a change of heart concerning further treatment ... From that point forward, the ward's husband has isolated the ward from her parents, has on at lest one occasion refused to consent for the ward to be treated for an infection, and, ultimately, four years later, has filed the instant petition for the withdrawal of life support on the basis of evidence apparently known only to him which could have been asserted at any time during the ward's illness.

...the undersigned guardian ad litem is of the opinion that the evidence of the ward's intentions developed by the guardian ad litem's investigation does not meet the clear and convincing standard. ...

...it is the recommendation of the guardian ad litem that the petition for removal [of life support measures] be denied.[4]

Yet Greer found as "fact" that there was "clear and convincing" proof that Michael Schiavo really did suddenly remember Terri telling him that she wouldn't want to be kept alive like that, nearly eight years after her accident. Greer accepted that claim despite the fact that it was pure hearsay, colored by a half-million dollar conflict of interest, and despite the fact that Michael's sudden recollection was even inconsistent with his own prior sworn testimony in the 1992 malpractice trial!

Furthermore, according to the affidavits of two witnesses (Trudy Capone and Cindy Shook, former friends of Michael who, unlike Michael, had no financial interest in the case nor other conflict of interest), Michael had previously been telling his friends that he had no idea what Terri would want.

Furthermore, two other friends of Terri, who also had no financial or other conflict of interest, both swore that Terri had told them just the opposite of what Michael belatedly claimed to recall her saying. M.Schiavo's implausible claimed recollection of Terri's utterance was supported only by the even more belated recollections of two of his relatives, who, because of their relationship to Michael, shared his financial conflict of interest. Greer also ignored the obvious likelihood (supported by the chronology) that Michael's hiring of lawyer Felos, who knew the legal necessity for that utterance by Terri, was the cause of Michael's sudden, convenient memory of that supposed utterance, nearly eight years after her injury.

Think of that: for approximately eight years Michael Schiavo had no idea what Terri would want. Then, shortly after he hired an attorney famous for his expertise in winning right-to-die cases, Michael Schiavo, a man who swore under oath that he didn't even notice his wife's bulimia, suddenly "remembered" long-forgotten casual remarks that Terri had supposedly made a decade earlier, that she wouldn't want to live. Yet, as ridiculous as that is, it was accepted as "fact" by Judge Greer -- and the M.Schiavo partisans here say that it is for that reason a "neutral fact" which should be stated as NPOV fact in the Wikipedia article.

Judge Greer also blatantly exceeded what was permitted by law when he ordered that Terri not be allowed to receive nutrition and hydration even by natural means. Florida statutes permit the withholding or withdrawing of nutrition and hydration by artificial means, only (when there is clear and convincing proof of the patient's intent). But Greer didn't feel constrained by the letter of the law: he had long ago concluded that Terri should die, and so he defied the statute and ordered that she not be permitted even natural feeding.

Judge Greer's misbehavior in this case was so outrageous that it provoked a furious national debate about judicial activism, and so outrageous that his own church asked him to leave, and so outrageous that both the Florida legislature and the U.S. Congress passed special legislation to overturn him! To suggest that Judge Greer's grossly biased opinions are "neutral fact," and that all those differing opinions should be suppressed from the article, is completely absurd. NCdave 03:42, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is a very good example of why this page has so been so difficult to work with. Dave has his own points about the judge involved, but what we should be getting at first is the more general question of: are legal findings of fact to be considered "fact" for the purposes of the article. Now, to try and calm Dave down a bit, I'll preface by saying I don't really agree with that practice, but I also think that this is a perfect example of the counterproductive nature of Dave's proselytizing. The specifics of Judge Greer's findings aren't even the topic yet, we need to discuss the nature of findings themselves, but we can't deal with the fundamentals because it immediately turns into 300 lines of specific arguments not yet germane to the discussion. Then, others whose views are opposed to Dave's can't restrain themselves from posting somewhat inflammatory counterpoints to his somewhat inflammatory statements... and... and, that's why we're still at the point we're at, I guess. Most of my own conflicts with Dave have NOT been over the article, I hardly ever edit the text itself except to revert vandalism, I've historically been more involved with trying to keep the talk page concise and productive in order to make real progress on the article. To my surprise, there's been some resistance to this.

Fox1 15:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

Well, Uncle Ed, you're about to earn your pay if you can sort through all of that. Since NCdave has thrown these same arguments at the talk page over and over again, I'll give you some shorthand: FuelWagon 05:21, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"(Greer's) conclusion was nevertheless contradicted by dozens of medical experts!"

Terri's parents videotaped her for 4.5 HOURS. They then selectively whittled that tape down to 4.5 MINUTES of video showing about 6 clips where Terri appears to interact with her parents, for the most part by looking at them. The Schindlers then showed these 4.5 minutes of video to doctors and asked them to diagnose Terri. They found three dozen who said something that was usually to the effect of "Terri appears to respond. More tests should be done". Judge Greer threw out the affidavits because they were based on doctored video and news reports. They had already had their case with 5 doctors who actually examined Terri, and three said she was PVS. two said she was not. So greer ruled she was PVS. The dozens of affidavits was an attempt by the Schindlers to retry the case.

Judge Greer even dismissed as "fatally flawed" the expert opinions of three speech pathologists

More video-diagnosis. Greer threw it out.

Yet Greer found as "fact" that there was "clear and convincing" proof that Michael Schiavo really did suddenly remember

There was a court case for this. I think something like 18 witnesses testified about stuff they heard Terri say. It wasn't only michael who "remembered", it was several people. Also, NCdave seems to think that when you go into a hospital with your spouse for what you think will be recoverable treatment, you should still announce your spouse would not want to be kept on life support. Michael's behaviour fits that of someone who thought Terri would get better for the first few years, and finally accepted that she would never recover. This is when he "remembered".

Judge Greer also blatantly exceeded what was permitted by law when he ordered that Terri not be allowed to receive nutrition and hydration even by natural means.

This has it's own section in the article already under life-prolonging procedures. Basically, the schindlers wanted to retry the case and Greer said no. They then argued that they should be able to attempt to feed Terri orally, and if she dies, then nothing was lost. However, tests showed that she couldn't swallow, and she had gotten aspiration pneumonia because people had tried to feed her and she inhaled food/water. life support laws allow doctors to unplug feeding tubes, but they don't allow doctors to feed a patient so that they'll choke and die.

so outrageous that both the Florida legislature and the U.S. Congress passed special legislation to overturn him!

When the Schindlers lost all their legal cases, they launched a mass media campaign, got the religious right involved, and lobbied Republican politicians to step in. A few of them saw the reelection potential and took them up on their offer.

---

Gordon's solutions

OK, I've read through the entire talk page here, and gotten quite a headache! (lol - due mainly to length, not content) --However, I have some helpful feedback, and I shall #1 - identify problem; and, #2 - propose solution, OK?--GordonWattsDotCom 10:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

PROBLEM #1: The main problem as I see it so far is the dispute over how to handle (a) the court's findings of fact; and (b) the court's conclusions of law (their final rulings) --good so far?--GordonWattsDotCom 10:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

SOLUTION #1: We need to take a look at how other controversial pages (e.g., abortion, slavery, and/or intelligent design) do it, and strive to copy when it seems to be working. --ok?-- (I think the three pages I cited will agree with me; see below to see if my guess is right.) GordonWattsDotCom 10:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Urrrk ... I wouldn't use the abortion page as an example of how to do anything, except perhaps for the lame edit wars page.

EXAMPLES to support my solution #1:

• From the Slavery#Apologies page we clearly see that there is another POV than the one that the courts were right to declare slavery to be legally right. (Remember: This was reviewed by all the courts -all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court in the Dred Scott decision; by Duck's standard, we must declare the court's decision as fact, but we know that is wrong, hence Duck's method is fallible. Furthermore, the Slavery#Reparations section not only shows WHAT the opposing POV is -but WHY they believe that way "...slaves are exactly those people who have no access to the legal process." (Note: The article does not take a point of view or support which side is right; it lets the reader decide.)

• I'll let you read the other 2 examples -as homework; Applying it to the Terri Schiavo article, we must include the POV held by many (NCdave, for example) that the judge violates the law, namely §825.102(3), Florida LAW, which makes it a FELONY, hello!? to deny food or basic medical treatment (not to be confused with feeding tubes) regarding handicapped and elderly. Note: There is no exception for the "wishes" or the patient, the "wishes" of the judge, or whether or not the person was "PVS" or "terminally ill." However, is this POV present in the article? I am not sure, but I don't think it is, therefore the article's POV might be justified to have been "disputed" when NCdave put up said "NPOV" tag in the past. To be sure, I have identified at least six (6) ways the both Greer and the appeals judges most probably violated the law: [5], namely:

• • 1:Denial of oral food and water & medical treatment violates state & FEDERAL law;
  • 2:Denial of therapy/rehab/examination violates state & federal law too;
  • 3:Terri was labeled PVS when she did not fit the legal definition (state law);
  • 4:She was put in hospice care when said placement was violating state & federal law;
  • 5:Whether or not her wishes were to die, either euthanasia or assisted suicide (depending on her wishes) state law was violated; and,
  • 6:She was deprived of a trial by jury, a state & federal constitutional guarantee (and protected by state laws and other provisions) in the litigation of the most recent cases. Not covered but also true was this:
  • 7:the violation of the principle of [res judicata], which means that mike Schiavo should have litigated her wishes back then -but missed his legal chance: "Under res judicata, a final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties or their privies from relitigating issues that were or could have been raised in that action." (Emphasis added for clarity.) So, since listing other points of view is WIKI policy (see Jimbo Wales' comments below) --and this is in line with how other controversial articles handle it, it is safe to say that there are "other points of view" that need to be listed to avoid NPOV problems.--GordonWattsDotCom 11:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

PROBLEM #2: Another problem I see is the way to lay out the differing points of data whilst remaining NPOV.--GordonWattsDotCom 10:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

SOLUTION #2: Let me re-iterate, OK? We might law out the dispute as in what is being argued --and where (and then provide a link). Then, we could (if applicable) announce any court rulings or other factual happenings (then list a link -actually SEVERAL to be safe -kind of like having a flat tire). Lastly, we should mention any major opposing opinions or points of view (and list a link). By listing "just the facts," we let the reader decide. (The trick here is to list the "main" opinions or points of view, even if there are 3-4, but usually there will be only two; if a viewpoint is subscribed to be just a very few, it is a crackpot theory and does not belong; however, the veracity or opinions of the majority -or the court do NOT disqualify a theory or POV. (The top brass seem to agree with me; see below.) --GordonWattsDotCom 10:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

WHAT Jimbo SAYS about #2: (Jimbo Wales is the founder and top dude in Wikipedia, so listen closely as I quote him, OK?) "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." [6] Google cached at: [7] He says that the viewpoints of the REAL small crowd doesn't belong, so, by contrast, he's saying the other two categories DO belong, even if it is a view held by a minority, for example, that the courts were dead wrong. This goes against that Duck seems to be saying. Sorry Duck: Jimbo is the top dude; what he said here is actual policy.--GordonWattsDotCom 11:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

CONCLUSION: Since these two problems above are similar in nature, they can be handled both at once (killing two birds with one stone). The SCHIAVO article is not bad, and in fact, some of my harshest critics not only make many good edits (see the talk page for Schiavo), but also have put in a link to the court web site featuring MY court cases. (Good and fair.) Nonetheless, in some cases, some advocates not only want to remove some viewpoints (violation of #2 above) but also replace them with the court decisions and treat the court rulings and such as fact (violating #1 above). Thus, we can "kill two birds with one stone" and solve both problems by allowing opposing viewpoints on ALL the major issues (the 7 above and perhaps others), and tell those critics to stop calling opposing viewpoints "crackpot conspiracy theories" and let them in to add balance to the viewpoints held by the court. Thus, Wikipedia does not take any viewpoint but merely present facts and let the reader decide. If you don't believe me, ask [Jimbo Wales] or his colleagues.

This would apply to links as well; there are many pages out there that would either all into "Advocacy and Commentary" or "court documents compilation" categories --and a few of such pages are ones I manage; To be fair, it is NOT a violation of Wikipedia vanity pages policy to include pages by me; it is actually a violation to refuse them, since NON-famous people can list their pages --this is discouraged, but not prohibitted. I have many pages -and so do many other people:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terri_Schiavo/archive24#Here_are_some_links_that_you_may_find_helpful (pasted in below from one of the archives)

--GordonWattsDotCom 12:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Here are some links that you may find helpful

Here are some links that you may find helpful:

These were archived at Talk:Terri Schiavo/Mediation/Gordon's links.

User:GordonWattsDotCom|GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida]] 05:37, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Poor Ed.

I hope you don't hurt your neck from continually shaking your head as you try to digest one unfathomable non-sequitir after another. Duckecho 16:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Like water off a duck's back. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 19:56, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Nyuk, nyuk     (nyuk, nyuk) <---echo

Duckecho 20:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

An echo of your mind

I don't know if this comment belongs here—feel free to move it more appropriately if necessary. There's a fundamental problem in this section, an order of magnitude worse than any of the others. A deal killer, if you will. Everyone has a side on this story. Take all of the politics away, take all the blogosphere conspiracy away, take all the I-believe-Michael-was-doing-the-right-thing away, and you're left with one huge elephant in the room: Judge Greer. Everything revolves around him. He's the tryer of fact and it's his decisions and his rulings that drive every aspect of the case. I can tell you now, I'm confident that there is no gray on this subject (even I, try as I might, would have a very difficult time agreeing on a position significantly deviated from my own—ordinarily I wouldn't try to speak for NCdave, but I have $1K that says his feeling is the same). Duckecho 18:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually *cough* no it doesn't. The summary area is where I boil everything down to its essence. And where I photograph and weigh the elephant in the living room. Nothing will be ignored here. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:17, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

The review that was undertaken by James Whittemore, a U.S. district judge, was merely procedural, i.e. Greer followed applicable Florida law and not that he misapplied the "clear and convincing" standard to hearsay from interested parties, etc. So all of the discretionary decisions of Greer were not given the review which according to the drafters of the legislation was their intent in passing the bill which was signed by President Bush. So it was not merely the findings of Greer but the inability of the judicial, legislative, and executive branches at the state and federal level to provide a rexamination of the testimony and evidence upon which Greer made these findings. Such reviews are common in criminal cases and should have been applied here where the final order would cause Terri's death by dehydration. patsw 14:09, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Such reviews are common in criminal cases and should have been applied here" Patsw, please advocate somewhere else. FuelWagon 14:50, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's not my advocacy. I am explaining why in public opinion, shared by both houses of Congress and the President of the United States, there is a controversy which extends beyond George Greer personally to the system which infused Greer's legal opinions with finality different from similar cases in criminal law where there is a judicial order imposing death. patsw 15:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's not my advocacy. However, you're just regurgitating the mantra of some members of the legislative and executive branches of the government who wish to engage in a turf war with the judicial branch in order to exercise control over them. It's precisely the same issue that got Terri's Law overturned. It was ruled an unconstitutional encroachment by both the legislative and executive brance (state level, in this case) into the judicial branch. In truth, there was not a lot of popular support for that intrusion in any case. When courts make decisions that some politicians don't like, all of a sudden they're labeled rogue judges, judicial activists, and loose cannons. Duckecho 16:31, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

First Day Round-up

Well, you've certainly all established that you can post yoru comments faster than I can read, digest and summarize them. I'm still behind on getting the major points, but the objectivity of the courts seems to be a sticking point - so at least I've figuered that out.

I also read the article, finally, word for word. And, well, it really should be a candidate for "brilliant prose" or *cough* Featured Article as we call it these days.

Can we get into what is specifially wrong with the article? I really don't want to have to read the talk page, it's like 290 KB of swampland. I'm way behind on my Bible reading, and talk:TS rivals the size of the New Testament!

No, I won't be imposing my Bible views on anyone - not this time, in case anyone remembers my little faux pas from a coupla years ago. Hey, nobody's perfect. Let's do this thing together. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 02:03, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

I think that the problem isn't really with the court decisions. The article, for the most part, reports those as court decisions, not simple facts. Same goes for medical opinions. That was the reason I reverted your edit that said "Terri was pvs" and changed it back to "Terri was diagnosed pvs". subtle but important difference. Anyway, the problem I see isn't the courts or the doctors, its the conspiracy theorists, and their wholly unsubstantiated claims. NCdave has a laundry list of accusations from the blogsforterri sites and he keeps regurgitating them on the talk page. For the most part, the accusations are completely unfounded (no evidence to back it up). Some accusations actually contradict empirical data, doctor diagnosis, court rulings, etc. The entry NCdave put on this page contains some of his favorite accusations. I replied to several and put them in context of the rest of the data. The dozens of doctors who "diagnosed" Terri by watching 4.5 minutes of video edited from 4.5 hours by the Schindlers is one of his pet claims. It is mentioned in the article in full context, but NCdave keeps bringing it up on the talk page. Carla Iyer filed an affidavit that said Michael often shouted "when is that bitch gonna die" and other similar statements while she was a nurse caring for Terri. This is also covered in teh article. Judge Greer threw out the affidavit as "incredible to say the least". It is covered in its own section in the article (2003 petition, I think), but NCdave likes to keep harping on it as fact on the talk page. So, what I'd like to see are the topics that are generally michael-murdered-terri-conspiracy-theory-claims ruled to be sufficiently and properly covered so that they can be put to bed. the topics that I responded to from NCdave's post would be a good start. If we can get some sort of decision that says they're covered properly and neutrally and whatever, then I think we'd be making serious progress. FuelWagon 02:28, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Second Day

If mediation fails, the dispute will normally be referred to the Arbitration Committee for binding resolution.

I have no idea how this would apply to an "article mediation", but why worry about a failure? (We don't plan to fail here, do we? :-)

Are there any deeper questions? C'mon people, let's really get this thing in gear. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:24, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Like, was she really incurable? Does the 4 1/2 minute (edited) video prove anything about the possibility of rehabilitation? Remember, I have no opinion - and if I develop one, I'm sworn to keep it to myself. You can speak freely here. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:26, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

I'm a little stumped here, Ed. I'm not sure what exactly you want us to bring up for mediation. Everything? A few things at a time? When I think about ALL the disputes, I feel a little overwhelmed. I also don't quite get specifically what I should bring here. Do you want us to list disputes? or do you want to list the way we think it ought to be? I could list a bunch of questions that I'd like some final answers to. It's my first time at mediation, please be gentle. FuelWagon 20:55, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Anti-Terri people think the 4½ minutes of video is solid gold evidence that Terri was carrying on conversations with her folks, eating food, doing shooters (I might have made that up), practically a few tough rehabilitation months away from going back to school. The Pro-Terri people think the 4½ minutes of video is among the worst cases of media maniupulation since WWII (I don't want to say by whom, lest I Godwin-ize the thread). As a matter of fact, you can line up virtually every single question you can come up with and the results will fall in lock step, one side or the other, but predictably and reliably as to who thinks what. I don't even have to look at the signature on a post to know who wrote it (that's on the talk page; the article is much, much more neutral—as one peer reviewer put it, probably as neutral as it can get). I'm with FuelWagon, this is my first time, too. If there was something that could be mediated, I'd like to see if there's a way to avoid getting a 400-1200 word essay from some parties every time they think they have a thought. I'm not quite so bad—this is only around 200. Duckecho 22:17, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Two points: So what if people interpret the videos differently? Shouldn't we just concentrate on presenting the facts and the major ways people have interpreted them? Secondly, what is your beef with the video? In fact, the videos showed Terri MORE active and alert than Dr. Stephen Hawking, the British physicist who has Lou_Gehrig's_Disease, commonly known as ALS, or "amyotrophic lateral sclerosis." The little scientist can't even look straight at you or do anything, and without his little computer, he looks PVS. (He moves a joystick on a computer and types messages.) I recall several very intelligent people with motor skill problems so bas that people thought that "no one was in there." No wonder the misdiagnoses rate for PVS is close to 50%! [8][9][10] (Maybe my 2nd point is unrelated to the actual content of the page, but your ability to see that you could be wrong about Terri's alleged PVS would help me have faith that your reasoning ability and higher-order logic are intact, which indirectly helps Wikipedia.)--GordonWattsDotCom 09:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The question is whether or not the video is presented NPOV, in full context of how it was created, by whom, for what purpose, and what was done with it. The alternatives are to present it the way NCdave does: as proof positive that Terri was playing tennis with her mother when the doctors weren't looking. You have no problem with "armchair diagnosis", since you're doing it right now comparing Hawking to Terri, like you were some sort of medical expert. And the schindlers used dozens of "armchair diagnosis" to attempt to completely retry the case after the courts had 5 doctors actually examine terri and diagnose her, and the courts rule Terri was PVS. Out of context ("dozens of doctors said Terri didn't appear PVS"), it sounds like a conspiracy, which is exactly what you want. My point is whether it is presented sufficiently in context and objective that these armchair diagnosis are shown to be exactly what they are: fished affidavits based on a few minutes of video that was heavily edited by the Schindlers to support their pov. FuelWagon 14:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Some random issues that keep popping up: FuelWagon 22:47, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Swallowing tests (when were they done? why did they stop? conspiracies abound that Terri could swallow, but that Greer/Michael/Felos conspired to prevent testing from being done.)

Swallowing tests lead directly to "feed by natural means" conspiracies abound that Terri could have survived by oral feeding, that the shindlers petitioned to be able to attempt to feed terri once her feeding tube was removed, and they argued that if she died, then it would prove she couldn't swallow. Greer denied it, and howls of coverup abounded.

Videotape hijinks. The shindlers taped Terri for 4.5 hours, edited it down to 4.5 minutes of clips where she appears to interact with her parents, and then used that to fish for affidavits from doctors, and eventually released the clips to the internet as part of their mass media campaign. The original, raw, 4.5 hours of footage apparently has been destroyed, even though it showed Terri playing racquetball with her mother.

Cheshire's "diagnosis". Cheshire worked for the state and visited Terri conveniently "to investigate reports of abuse". He found none. But then he took it upon himself to write an affidavit that Terri was MCS, that she looked at him for half a minute, and seemed to be aware. Politicians used the affidavit as an excuse to pass various laws to keep Terri alive. That Cheshire might have been invited by those very same politicians to visit Terri in the first place is merely convenient speculation.

Bulimia. Was Terri bulimic? I don't know, but it seems the pro-schindler side wants to erase any mention of bulimia, eating disorders, etc as a cause for her collapse. They can then use the vacuum to insert their various conspiracy theories that Michael "strangled her with a pillow, or with a chokehold that leaves no marks". No evidence at all to support these accusations.

Iyer claims that Michael said "when is this bitch gonna die" and similar comments many times, that he jumped up and down, clicked his heels, and shouted for joy, anytime Terri's condition got worse. No other person taking care of Terri backs up any of these claims, but "bitch gonna die" comments are continued as if they had been captured on videotape.

that's a start.FuelWagon 22:47, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Another one that keeps popping up, over and over, is the failure of certain parties to accept the findings of the autopsy - she was' defintely blind; she was not conscious, her brain was not just half-size - it was half weight (and what was left was severely atrophied, etc etc etc. Apparently everyone was involved in a mass-conspiracy (not exactly sure why, or what all these judges, doctors etc would have to gain from it) to kill Terri Schiavo. Proto 10:23, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I honestly have to wonder if this mediation is going to achieve anything. This is not simply an argument over facts. One side (arguably both, though it's much more obvious for one of the two sides) is effectively treating its arguments as a matter of faith. This dispute seems very much like the one over, for instance, flood geology, where the evidence is massively against the positions of creationists but they continue to press their case regardless. If you're convinced of something as a matter of faith, (dis)provable facts simply don't matter. I'd be willing to bet that Gordon Watts and NCDave are creationists, btw; the mindset seems very familiar... -- ChrisO 10:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(At this point, the conversation went substantially off-topic. If this deletion is deemed inappropriate, please replace it from the History.--ghost 16:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC))

I too support the several deletes you made: We had a good dialogue on faith/creation, and it served its purpose, so you were OK to delete it; Also, my links were clogging up the page, and it is OK that you put them in a sub-folder.--GordonWattsDotCom 11:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I support the deletion, but refactoring can draw fire here. Fox1 16:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Understood. And I'll take my lumps, if needed.--ghost 17:50, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since ChrisO is speculating about and disparaging my Faith (and Gordon's), and says he is "willing to bet" that I am "a creationist," which he equates ("[[young earth creationism|creationists]]") with "young earth creationism," because of my "mindset" that "facts don't matter," please permit me to clarify my beliefs.

In fact, I am a Christian, who believes in intelligent design, which is a form of creationism, but not young earth creationism. IMO, if the earth is really only 6000 years old, then God is a prankster, because He created so many different kinds of evidence for a much older earth. While I do not contend that he couldn't do that, it seems out of character for the God of Truth. OTOH, I am much more comfortable with young earth creationists (who, IMO, err by interpreting scripture too literally), than I am with those who fail to take the teachings of scripture seriously at all, or who easily dismiss whatever in scripture makes them uncomfortable.

And that, I hope, can be the end of this little digression about my religion. Please?

Also, I have a favor to ask. Would everyone here please stop the insults, name-calling, criticism of editors' religion, and other personal attacks? NCdave 22:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Proto wrote, "...the failure of certain parties to accept the findings of the autopsy... [that] she was not conscious..." But the autopsy report said no such thing. In fact, it specifically said that they could not reach that conclusion from the condition of her brain, in which the frontal areas were "relatively preserved." Here's what it actually says:

"The persistent vegetative state and minimally conscious state, are clinical diagnoses, not pathologic ones. ...Neuropathologic examination alone of the decedent's brain ... cannot prove or disprove a diagnosis of persistent begetative state or minimally conscious state."

I don't understand how Proto (and CBS News!) can take such a clear and explicit statement in the autopsy report, to the effect that they could not tell from her autopsy whether or not she had been conscious, and misinterpret it to mean just the opposite?

Proto also wrote, "her brain was not just half-size - it was half 'weight (and what was left was severely atrophied, etc etc etc." But that reflects his confusion about the meaning of the word "atrophied." "Atrophied" simply means reduced in mass. It is nonsensical to say "what was left was severely atrophied." NCdave 22:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nobody ever suggested that Terri was "curable." That was a strawman from the M.Schiavo camp. Rather, the arguments about her condition were:

• Was she a "vegetable" (or "vegetative"), with her entire cerebral cortex missing, as M.Schiavo/Felos claimed? Or was she at least minimally conscious, as the Schindlers and various prior caregivers claimed? (There were doctors on both sides of this argument.)
• Could she have been helped by therapy, as the Shindlers believed (and as Michael claimed to believe when testifying in her 1992 medical malpractice trial)? Or would therapy have been futile, as Michael more recently claimed? (There were also doctors on both sides of this argument.)
• How did she get like that? M.Schiavo/Felos said that she collapsed due to cardiac arrest resulting from a chemical imbalance resulting from bulimia. The Schindlers said that they thought that Michael had assaulted her. The autopsy report gave little support to either theory.

NCdave 22:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Framing

I have seen a recent increase in rhetoric and code words. I would like to cool down the fire behind the flaming. Let's do this: Drop the use of Pro/Anti-*insert individuals name here*. Most of us don't know these people personally, so we aren't really Anti-anything. We might personally feel we are Pro-something, but it's not wise to use that to beat one another over the head with it.

If you need new rhetoric, I'm sure we can find some, but personalizing these issues is getting us nowhere fast. Let's try to use the rules we learned in Kindergarden.--ghost 13:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is important not only for the reasons asserted here, but also because it's often factually wrong. In my case, my position in the Schiavo matter is essentially classical liberal; so, much to my amusement, I've been called "pro-Michael" and even "anti-Schiavo," which of course is the most absurd thing to call someone supportive of some of her most fundamental human rights. ~ Neuroscientist 15:19, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Having just read some of the above, I agree that some of these jaundiced manifestations of prejudice are really quite appalling. Gordon's list of links is very revealing: he lists a bunch of sites that oppose the Courts' decisions as "Pro-Terri," and some of those in support of the decisions as "Very Anti Terri." What an absurd way of classifying things. From one thoroughly defensible POV, the folks who made the eminently humane and rational decision to oppose the Schindlers' horrific attempts to cruely prolong Terri's death are just about the most "Pro-Terri" people on earth. Since this is obviously controversial, if you really must use a person's name when representing a POV, why not leave Terri out of it (because each side was fighting for her, from their POV), and just use "Pro-Schindler" and "Pro-Michael" (as unsatisfactory as those terms are?)~ Neuroscientist 16:04, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Look, I appreciate the point you make, Neuroscientist, about how both sides think they are "Pro-Terri." However, I was not (am not) trying to be prejudiced. Number one: I was (am) simply trying to provide some helpful links to fellow editors. OK? Secondly, to make reading a little faster, I tried to offer an edit-summary about each of those links, so you wouldn't have to spend time looking at each one, and I used "ProTerri" and "AntiTerri" to signify whether the page supported feeding/caring for/etc. Terri, or, instead, letting her die. (Quoting you above: "What an absurd way of classifying things.") Maybe, but I was trying to do something that was not too confusing. Maybe, I should have simply mentioned whether the websites in question "supported" or "opposed" the court decisions. Your point is well made, and others seem to agree that my classification was a little simplistic, but you don't have any justification that I am prejudiced; to the limited extent I am able to find time to edit, I want to provide both (actually ALL) sides, as there are certainly more than two sides to this story. Just thought I'd clarify it up. Now, about the links themselves, many of them are certainly "Advocacy and Commentary" or "compilations of court documents," so you might find them helpful. (And, YES, I am the editor of a small handful of the pages, but that doesn't detract from their value. My pages aren't always the best, but they are better than some, I grant you that.) Have an open mind, and enjoy yourself; I hope my contributions are helpful.--GordonWattsDotCom 11:16, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Because, as an editor it is my duty to set aside my views, and be Pro-Wikipedia first. Pro-everything else second. IMHO, those who cannot learn to do this need to censor themselves. As an aside, this does take a while (it certainly is for me), and thus we need to be more considerate of one another.--ghost 16:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I confess to initiating the use of Pro/Anti modifiers on this page. I did it for precisely the reason to which Neuroscientist alluded. Those on the Schindlers' side want to co-opt the very emotionally powerful Pro to lend moral weight to their cause. I, too, found it a repugnant position given their purpose and chose the use I did of the prefixes here to highlight the paradox. Maybe if I made a Tom Delay apology it would help—I said something in an inartful way, and I shouldn't have said it that way, and I apologize for saying it that way. There, perhaps that will make, um, how can we say it, those on the other side of the issue, yeah, that's it, those on the other side of the issue feel as much better now as I did when Delay said it. Duckecho 16:23, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We were all guilty of that, but least of all you: You used "Pro-Terri" to mean you supported the courts' decisions, which you thought were right. This role-reveral made us think, and that was good. (That is why, in my opinion, you were the "least" guilty, if in fact any were guilty of any social faux pas.) However, in the future, maybe my suggestion above is optimum: Pro-Courts or Anti-Courts.--GordonWattsDotCom 11:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're being unneccesarily apologetic, Duck; several people, Dave being the one that springs to mind most readily, have been using "pro-michael", at least, for months before you started contributing. I always found it rather grating, I was never specifically referred to as being pro- or anti- anything, but I assumed some blanket statements were intended to include me, and I found it absurd. Especially bothersome is the fact that controverting anything done by certain individuals is declared Pro-Michael. I personally don't give a fig about Michael or that nefarious mastermind Felos, they could spontaneously combust right now and it would affect me not a whit. The fact that some of the posters here feel a driving need to create two (and only two) "sides" in this "battle" is exactly the problem with this situation. Additionally, it makes some of the traditional contributor roles such as playing the devils advocate difficult, as making an argument on either side has the potential to embroil you in some sort of personal conflict with a much too personally involved editor on the "opposing" side. It's really what drove me away from the article for 2+ months, no one wants to work professionally.

Fox1 16:57, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"..what drove me away from the article for 2+ months, no one wants to work professionally." And that, team, is precisely why I requested mediation in the first place. I think we're in agreement that we all want a common rule, yardstick, whitepaper, boundries, whatever. As a Project Manager, part of my job is to define these types of things, and I saw the need for one here. One which, when appropriate, can be held up against an edit to the main article for us to say, "Yep, this does/doesn't belong here." And bring it into line, if it's borderline.

To achieve this I propose we develop something here, put it to a vote, and repeat until we can get about 80% support. We will not all agree 100%. But if we're in roughly 40% agreement now, we can use that as a foundation on which to build.--ghost 18:02, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hey there Ghost, just to make it absolutely clear, I'm fully supportive of what you're saying here. When I wrote, Since this is obviously controversial, if you really must use a person's name when representing a POV, why not leave Terri out of it, the "you" in that sentence does not refer to you (ghost), but rather to folks (like NCDave and Gordon) who use, very disingenuously, the terms "Pro-Terri" and "Anti-Terri". Just sayin.~ Neuroscientist 08:56, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, I've carefully avoided making any edits to the Schiavo article - as I've said earlier I've neither the time nor the taste to get into edit wars. I leave this in the capable hands of the experts. :) I'll probably be most useful offering clinical and neurological thoughts on the talk page, when the need arises. Also, contributing to the purely technical articles (eg. coma, brain death, PVS) is probably where I can be most helpful to the Wiki project. I'll of course be watching the Schiavo page.~ Neuroscientist 08:56, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

I admit that I to have avoided making a large number of edits for the same reason. (I don't like the stress of edit wars, and, like my fellow-scientist here, prefer to make suggestions; it's easier.)--GordonWattsDotCom 11:42, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NCDave and the NPOV tag

I got livid over NCDave's umpteenth use of the NPOV flag today. He's already been thru disciplinary action over this. And yet, instead of working with the editing team, he will put in a minimum of effort and then slap the whole page with an NPOV tag. This is behavior he knows I view as an insult to every editor on the article. I section flagged the item that he has an issue with today, but clearly it'll be something else tomorrow. (What FW famously named Whack-a-Mole.) I tired of this.

Therefore, I move that we give NCDave one more chance. If he displays this type of unilateral behavior again during mediation, that it disqualifies him from being involved further. I say we make it a choice. Work with us now, or stand against us from here out.

I'll go cool my jets now.--ghost 20:49, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I admit sometimes it's hard to remember all of the fine points Dave raises, but he makes many good suggestions, such as at: [11], where he suggests that all the observations by medical professionals be included, for fairness. Further, his pointting out that many people were able to live normal lives with half a brain -or less, is VERY relevent to the discussion, because, while Terri's case was unique, she definitely had brain problems not totally unlike the individuals Dave mentioned in talk. These are cold, hard facts, and relevent, because there is SOME comparison. No, you won't EVER find a 100% identical case, but Dave has made many good contributions. Also, while I don't personally prefer the NPOV tag, I do agree and several others also, as I recall, that the page is not totally deviod of POV, either by inclusion of leading information or EXclusion of balancing information, links, etc. The logical thing to do, ghost, is to simply ask Dave what his gripes are, and deal with them on a point-by-pont basis, voting if necessary. Cool? When I was asked, I answered in spades, did I not? (Some of it you archived; and, I await feedback on my suggested improvements yet.)--GordonWattsDotCom 11:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"These are cold, hard facts" and completely irrelevant. FuelWagon 13:48, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He doesn't plan to be with us, now or ever. He started laying the groundwork the very first day asking if mediation was binding. You can bet the mortgage that if it is he won't submit to it. Duckecho 00:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I removed the tag. This is one of the more assinine maneuvers from NCdave. He's even used it as a negotiating tactic to attempt to change the article the way he wants it to be. This is a controversial subject, but that doesn't mean the article is NPOV or inaccurate. FuelWagon 21:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not that I really care, but I'm trying to remember—from the time I've been involved (late March), has Dave made a single worthwhile contribution to the article? I can't remember one. Has he moved as much as one nanometer off of any position he's taken on any aspect of the case since the beginning? I can't remember one. I don't believe this is someone we need to take guidance from on either POV or accuracy. Duckecho 00:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I suppose the NPOV for Leo Frank in 1915 would be that he killed Mary Phagan if we had a Wikipedia back then. Anyone coming to the Schiavo case will see that both Michael Schiavo and the Schindler's present compelling stories for the two criticial conflicts which the court resolved: Terri's expresion of intent not be fed by a tube should she lose the capacity to make that judgment met the legal standard of clear and convincing, and Terri's PVS diagnosis was accurate to a medical certainty. I don't think it's over: Books are already being witten and published on this case, previously secret records will be made public, etc. This case is full of implications and precendents for subtituted judgment, health care proxies, guardianship disputes, the ethical questions of dehydration non-terminal brain-injured patients, and the measurment of the loss of congitive ability in the brain-injured. The article as it is now written has Michael's POV. To the extent possible I hope editors include text consistent with the Wikipedia's concepts of handing controversy that allow the reader to see the case that the Schindlers made: Terri did not wish to be denied water in order to live in the event that she suffer a severe brain injury and the she was MCS and not PVS. The winning side shouldn't be the only authors of this article. Good editing is what it will take to fix this and not playing games with the NPOV tag. patsw 02:34, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I mostly agree, Pat. The "winning side" is (and will be) the article, Wikipedia, Terri's memory and those who follow us. In the end, that's the only POV that matters. I've said many times, but it bears repeating: Write/Edit this article for your children. They will bear witness to many of these same, tragic issues in their lifetimes. (Indirectly, I pray.) In order for our societies to learn and grow from this, we must not let them forget their history. But remember, we're here to summar-ize, not re-vise it.--ghost 02:55, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's time to deal with the bully

From the Talk:Terri Schiavo section Glacial Improvement:

It would help more if it were truthful. Style and structure are far less important than accuracy. Right now it is a pro-death propaganda piece. NCdave 15:35, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This individual was disciplined in the past (See Terri Schiavo, Archives. All of them. And Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NCdave). Most of us have made efforts to work with him. It is obvious that trying to deal with his issues is like trying to catch a phantom. He was warned here, and elsewhere prior, to posting this bit of venom.

So, I ask that the team declare NCDave a Cyberbully. Since this type of recidivist bullying has no place in Wikipedia, Ed, I ask that you help us take elevated action against it. We talked to him, to others, polled, voted, disciplined, embraced, and (indirectly) involved him in mediation. I, for one, have had it. Most everyone else gave up a long time ago. NCDave refuses to modify his behavior, or even admit that it's part of the problem. It's time for him to go. Dave, please do so voluntarily. The sooner, the better.--ghost 19:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Aye. Anyone who looks at the article as a whole and calls it a "pro-death propaganda piece" is hopeless. I do not recall NCdave recanting a single accusation he has ever made on the talk page. And his "pro-death propaganda" accusations happen regularly. He is, in large part, why we are in mediation now, because the RFC didn't stop his antics. The RFC contains a laundry list of bad faith actions. He is a menace and should be blocked from any page that contains the words "Terri Schiavo". FuelWagon 20:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have no time to search for diffs now. If anyone wishes for a particular reference, please let me know. I oppose, on the following grounds:

While I sometimes wish that NCdave would act with more prudence, I am sensitive to the thought that when a user is in the minority and is constantly ridiculed and abused by others, he may become more confrontational than he might otherwise be. NCdave has been accused of vandalism when he was at most guilty of POV pushing. Duckecho, ghost, and FuelWagon have all modified their own userpages to make jokes about NCdave; in the cases of ghost and FuelWagon, it is less obvious, because a newcomer might not know that their "quote of the month" refers to NCdave. Astanhope and Lulu of the Lotus Eaters both vandalized NCdave's user page. (The latter has not been much involved with the Schiavo article, but did sign the RfC.) Professor Ninja called NCdave an evil, lying troll. FuelWagon has frequently addressed NCdave with foul language and such phrases as, "Listen, you little punk", "Listen, jerk", "Listen, you moron", "You're an idiot", etc. This [12] is an example of the kind of abuse that I mean, and it shocks me that anyone who could pass by that with no indication of disapproval would call for disciplinary action against the author of this[13]. I would not have written what NCdave wrote, but I can understand that he may have been provoked by the behavior of other editors towards him. And, for the record, he is certainly not alone in disputing the neutrality of the article.

FuelWagon removed a section from the Schiavo article, putting in the edit summary: "NCdave snuk this in when he did a full page edit." NCdave posted a message to his talkpage saying that that section had not come from him. FuelWagon simply deleted his protest with the edit summary "NCdave stinking up my talk page". As I was rather disgusted by this, I spent a lot of time searching through the history to find the origin of that section, and finally found it. As NCdave said, it did not come from him. It was only after I posted the result of my considerable trouble to the Schiavo talk page that FuelWagon withdrew his accusation.

Furthermore, FuelWagon went back to the (by-now) old RfC and added to the list of accusations that NCdave appeared to be editing anonymously from an IP address. I thought it was most unlikely that the anonymity was deliberate, since the edit in question was similar to NCdave's normal edits (so he'd have no reason to hide under anonymity), and since he had on an earlier occasion clarified in an edit summary that a previous edit was his and that he had inadvertently got logged off. I pointed this out, and NCdave clarified that the edit in question did indeed come from him and that he had not realized that he was logged off. FuelWagon then replied that he didn't believe NCdave, but would apologize anyway. (A little contrary to the Assume Good Faith policy, I think.) FuelWagon has returned to the RfC page a few times since then, but has never modified what he had earlier written about the anonymous edits.

To sum up - NCdave has been treated with hostility, incivility, and ridicule. My understanding of bullying is that someone picks on people who are smaller, weaker, or more vulnerable. I am puzzled at how it can be applied to someone who might hit back when he is being attacked on all sides. I am bringing up all these matters simply because I think NCdave has been been given provocation. I am not trying to offend anyone. I am not calling for action against anyone.

Ghost, since it was you who made this appeal for action against NCdave, I will make an appeal to you. Would you consider removing your favourite quote from your userpage? I don't think it helps in building up the community. I personally think that the last nine words of your own contribution here [14] would make a far better quote of the month. I'm sure you meant those words - how about proving it? Ann Heneghan 23:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So, lemme get this straight: NCdave does enough crap to get an RFC, with over 100 instances of diffs submitted as partisan editing, 20 people sign their name to support the position, another 20 say he's POV but not enough to warrant discipline, and only FIVE sign in to say the accusations are wrong. But the ONE thing you bring up is how in the middle of those 100 edits or so, I wrongly accused NCdave of "sneaking in" ONE EDIT that turned out he hadn't done? I eventually withdrew my accusation after being shown evidence that I was wrong. Have you heard NCdave admit ONCE that ANY of his edits were wrong, incorrect, partisan, POV, or biased???? I haven't. No, he vomits on the talk page, and if enough people tell him to knock it off, he submerges and runs silent for a while till the storm passes. And you expect me to believe that his partisan-pushing edits, and his behaviour on the talk page, is because WE abuse HIM? Lemme clue you in on a little thing called "causation". I didn't describe NCdave's behaviour as "whack-a-mole" until AFTER he did it repeatedly on the talk page. I didn't start calling him a punk until he started saying crap like "so, fuelwagon, what you're saying is...." followed by some completely assinine mangling of reality that he attributed to me. There is a good example of it just today where NCdave said something like "FuelWagon, I know you think everyone who disagrees with you is evil." Yeah, that's exactly what I was thinking. sure. Give me a break. NCdave has contributed NOTHING to this article. He actually CAUSES EXTRA WORK on the talk page because he'll vomit a thousand word laundry list of conspiracy theories he read on some blog and demand we prove him wrong. And then he'll vomit those exact same conspiracy theories a month later, and do it all over again. He still brings up the "bitch gonna die" comment. He still loves to quote Boyle who never even examined Terri and is a partisan blogger who accused Democrats of the world of trying to "murder" Terri. This is the sort of crap he brings to the talk page. and you want to talk about me wrongly accusing him of a "sneak" edit that I admitted I was wrong? Are you saying all 100 of those diffs on NCdave's RFC page are because we provoked him? Is he not responsible for a single one of them? We made him do it? FuelWagon 02:22, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. He is not a team player. He has one mantra and one mantra only. It can be summarized as Michael abused Terri, botched the job, won a lot of money, hired a goon to file for permission to kill/murder/assassinate/ Terri, killed the cats, bought a judge and on and on and on. Illuminating is this diff from his very first post on 18 February. This was his idea of an NPOV contribution to the article. Below his first four lines for the intro:

• Terri Schiavo (born Theresa Marie Schindler on December 3, 1963) is a mentally handicapped American woman whose estranged husband's efforts to have her starved to death have prompted a fierce debate over euthanasia.
• Her husband, Michael Schiavo, who lives with and has two children by another woman, contends that she is "a vegetable" and would not wish to live in that state.
• Her family (parents and siblings) contest that claim, and say that Michael seeks Terri's death so that he can inherit her estate.
• The question of whether people with profound mental handicaps have a right to live has been hotly debated as a result of Terri's case. Liberal "right to die" activists contend that "living in a vegetative state isn't truly living," and support the ability of the estranged husband to control the destiny of his wife. Conservative "pro-life" activists protest for Terri's "right to live."

Imagine the wandering innocent coming across that in their search for information. That edit could have been done yesterday—that's how far he's come in building consensus. At just a quick glance I've been unable to find evidence of his participation in any other article since 15 March. Apparently, he's not just a pest, he's our pest. It's hard enough trying to keep the signal to noise ratio up when he's posting, but the worse part is that he infects others who might be more inclined to building together a quality product. He is not a positive influence for the Terri Schiavo project in particular and Wikipedia in general. Duckecho (Talk) 00:00, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So now I'm being a "bully" for wanting this article to be truthful? The fact is that the M.Schiavo supporters here have subjected me and other people who disagree with them (like Pat and Gordon) to a continual barrage of vicious personal attacks, which neither I nor any of the other Terri-supporters have never stooped to. So who's the "bully?"

My criticism is directed toward the faults of the article. This article is grossly inaccurate and severely POV-biased. For example, consider this excerpt from the opening section:

"three doctors selected by the courts ... diagnosed her to be in a persistent vegetative state."

That's just plain false. There were not three doctors selected by the courts. There was only one doctor, Dr. Peter Bambakidis, who was selected by Judge Greer after he had already ruled that Terri should die. The other two court-selected doctors apparently do not even exist. (Anyhow, three weeks have elapsed since I challenged the M.Schiavo supporters here to identify them, and nobody has done so.)

Here's a little bit more context:

"Eight doctors examined Schiavo. Six (her family physician, three doctors selected by the courts, and two selected by Michael) diagnosed her to be in a persistent vegetative state. Two guardians ad litem concurred with this decision. The two remaining doctors (both selected by Schiavo's parents) dissented, arguing that Schiavo was in a 'minimally conscious state.'"

Consider the numerous inaccuracies and examples of POV bias in just that little snippet:

• It invents two non-existent doctors "selected by the courts" who (supposedly) diagnosed her to be in a PVS. (I first pointed out this problem weeks ago, and nobody expressed disagreement with me, and nobody was able to identify the two mystery doctors... but the false statement remains in the article.)
• It ignores the disagreement between Judge Greer and his chosen doctor, Peter Bambakidis. Even Bambakidis did not rule out the possibility that Terri was conscious. He said only that a "preponderance of evidence" (the weakest evidentiary standard) supported PVS.
• It omits the Cheshire diagnosis, that Terri was probably in a MCS. Cheshire the doctor who examined Terri for the Florida Department of Children and Familes. He was arguably the only unbiased, independent physician to examine her, and he concluded that she was most likely conscious.
• It hides the fact that the so-called "family physician" (Victor Gambone) was actually part of the M.Schiavo/Felos-selected team working for Terri's demise. He was hand-picked by Michael Schiavo and his attorney, George Felos, shortly before they sued to have Terri's feeding tube removed. He was Terri's physician in name only, and never gave her meaningful treatment. He testified that, after an initial one-hour examination, he visited Terri three times per year, and that his visits lasted for approximately 10 minutes. NCdave 00:16, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• It omits mention of the numerous affidavits from other doctors who disagreed with the PVS diagnosis. The Schindlers were only allowed to have two doctors examine Terri, ever. Even that was allowed only because a higher court ordered it -- Greer didn't want them to have even that opportunity. Yet, the evidence of Terri's consciousness was so compelling that, nevertheless, dozens of doctors came forward and swore that in their professional opinions, based on the evidence available, the PVS diagnosis was flawed.
• It fails to mention that, as Dr./Sen. Frist put it, "PVS is difficult to diagnose. A 1996 British Medical Journal study ... concluded that there was a 43% error rate in the diagnosis of PVS. It takes a lot of time to conclude that a patient is in a PVS. Unfortunately, the doctors who made the diagnosis of PVS for Terri spent very little time with her. In contrast, the doctors who concluded she is not in PVS spent a lot of time with her.[15]
• It omits the fact that the autopsy refuted the Cranford/Felos/M.Schiavo contention that she could not have been conscious because her cerebral cortex had been replaced by spinal fluid.
• It omits the fact that the autopsy report gave equal credence to the PVS and MCS hypotheses.
• It puts scare quotes around the MCS diagnosis.
• It includes non-expert GAL (lawyer) opinions in favor of the PVS diagnosis, which is circular, because those opinions were supposedly based on the doctors' opinions (though GAL Wolfson had proven a bias against Terri before his appointment as GAL, by expressing his opinion on local television that she should be allowed to die). Yet it...
• ...omits mention of the sworn testimony of numerous eyewitnesses, corroborated by video recordings of her behavior, that Terri was intermittently responsive to a variety of different stimuli, which is incompatible with a diagnosis of PVS.

The fact is that no doctor who examined Terri without being vetted by M.Schiavo/Felos expressed certainty that she was in a Persistent Vegetative State, and only one such doctor thought it even probable (presumably because he only saw her for 30 minutes; because he had been told, falsely, that she had no remaining cerebral cortex; and because he had no prior experience or special expertise treating or diagnosing PVS patients).

Those are the facts. But if you were to believe the opening section of the Wikipedia article on Terri Schiavo, you'd think there was no real doubt that Terri was in a Persistent Vegetative State. You'd think that the only doctors who doubted that PVS diagnosis were the two hired by the Schindlers, and that three unbiased doctors examined Terri and agreed with the PVS diagnosis and with the doctors selected by Michael Schaivo, and that no unbiased doctors at all agreed with the Schindlers.

That terribly deceptive wording exists because that is what the supporters of Michael Schiavo's position want the article to say. If anyone tries to fix it (as I have) they are instantly reverted and insulted. In fact, that is why I was "disciplined" (suspended) by user User:Neutrality, who is a strident supporter of M.Schiavo's POV. It was not for violating any Wikipedia rules, it was for trying to correct the inaccuracies in the article, or, in the alternative, flag the article as "neutrality disputed" or "accuracy disputed."

I have tried repeatedly to work with the M.Schiavo supporters here, but I just get insulted in return. For example, even though the article is both severely inaccurate and severely biased, and richly deserves the "neutrality disputed" and "accuracy disputed" warning tags, I offered, in a spirit of compromise, to accept either warning tag on the article, rather than both. In response, Duckecho wrote, yesterday:

"You surrendered any credibilty you might have had in lobbying for it when you earlier asserted that the article is also far from accurate yet you were willing to capitulate your integrity and compromise to solely the NPOV tag. Duckecho 19:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)"

That's apparently what ghost means by, "most of us have made efforts to work with him." The truth is that their idea of compromise is to respond to every attempt at restoring neutrality to the article with an instant revert and a fusillade of insults.  :-( NCdave 00:16, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That would be another bucket of vomit right there. It should be deleted on sight. You are a menace. FuelWagon 02:30, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, FW, it's evidence. Ann, (nods) by your request. I am fully commited to ensuring that this article be the best it can be. Something for all of us, the Wikipedia community, and maybe Terri's family to be proud of. Something the public can truely refer too, without fear of spin. I have reached the unfortunate conclusion that this dream cannot be fulfilled as long as NCDave continues to edit the article.

Dave, I did you the courtesy of bringing this to your attention because I felt it proper to give you the chance to defend yourself. Instead, you waste you time belittling the combined efforts of everyone on this page, and countless others that have contributed. You unrelenting propaganda campain is having the effect of driving people away from both the talk, and the article itself. Does that serve Terri's memory? Does it serve the children who will read this in years to come? Or does it just make you feel better about yourself?

I have come to view your repeated attempts to to call attention to yourself, one of the most ghoulish exercises in self-aggrandizement I've ever seen. In spite of repeated requests for you to curb your behavior, many by me, you continue to disregard, outrage and harrass the editing community as a whole. And I can see no other point to you doing this, than to help you feel powerful because you can force us to pay attention to you.

Check the record, I rarely engage in anything approaching a personal attack. I have immense respect for Patsw, Ann, and even Gordon (in fact Gordon and I converse off-line frequently). And as much as I see your behavior as borderline sociopathic, the strength of your convictions is admirable. But you're not contributing. And now you've stooped to insulting my Grandfather's memory, while refusing yet another request to curb your behavior. I guess denigrating Terri's memory isn't enough anymore.

If you were truly interest in improving the quality of the article, you'd have taken advantage of the oppurtunity mediation has given you to help us reach concensus. Instead you've broken the agreement you made when you signed up for it. Worse, you work to torpedo the effort by offering up nothing but criticisms. Look at what sparked my conclusion. I commited the sin of making a positive statement, and you twist it into yet another slap in the community's face. You've gotten smart enough to avoid targeting individuals now, and play the victim whenever possible. But you forgotten that this community, and this group in particular, has it's own soul. And it's that soul that you are pathologically abusing.

You have a choice to make, Dave: walk away; find a way to work with all of us; refer my dispute with you to formal action; or continue unabashed. Please don't choose the latter. Because if you do, I'll push for you to be banned. Your move.--ghost 04:01, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

for as long as he shall live

yet another attempt to slant the article with implied accusations that Michael broke his wedding vows and lied under oath when he testified during the malpractice trial that he wanted to take care of Terri as long as he lived. I brought in some more testimony to put his statement in context (he was going to nursing school. why? to take care of his wife. why? because he honored his vows and wanted to take care of her for the rest of his life. oh.) Then I called out the implied accusation that michael lied under oath saying he wanted to take care of Terri for teh rest of his life, because years later, when he came to accept that she was vegatative adn would never recover, he decided to pull life support. The rat bastard. FuelWagon 04:32, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It was not Michael's decision to make. The Florida statute required that evidence be presented that Terri Schiavo expressed the desire that she would choose to refuse life prolonging procedures which at the time of Terri's injury did not include nutrition and hydration. The court ruled that Terri would make this choice, based on the law as amended during the period when she was incapable of indicating her choice, to the standard of clear and convincing. I am not asserting that Michael lied in 1992. I am letting the testimony speak for itself.

Public opinion on Michael is shaped by his testimony and his actions. To exclude a significant statement he made under oath (i.e. "for the rest of my life") which later became part of the conroversy in the guardianship cases and is frequently raised in the news media accounts is simply introducing POV to protect Michael's public image from criticism. patsw 13:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"I am letting the testimony speak for itself." Yeah, sure, but picking and choosing the words that take his intent most out of context, and then "letting the reader decide", which is a code phrase for "imply an accusation without actually saying it, and hang the bastard in the court of public opinion". Give me a break. This is completely biased editing. FuelWagon 14:00, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To exclude a significant statement he made under oath (i.e. "for the rest of my life") which later became part of the conroversy in the guardianship cases I never excluded that quote. I took out the part about his marriage vows. Unless you can show that the Schindlers specifically challenged Michael's marriage vows, then his marriage vows are irrelevant information and you're including for emotional pleading only. People have specifically challenged his statement that he would take care of her for the rest of his life, so that can be included in context, and with his point of view to counter it. FuelWagon 15:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate the opportunity to have a dialog on this quote, but FuelWagon is not in the role of approving or disapproving my editing. This is mediation. In general, relevance is not only established by the Schindler's "challenge" but by the published media accounts which refect the great public interest in the story. There are thousands of references to the wedding vows (as discussed in the 1992 malpractice trial) on the Internet's many accounts of this case, but none in the Wikipedia article. I don't pick and choose among the various primary and secondary sources available to me and say "I can't use that one, it's emotional." To have emotions about Terri Schiavo is to be human, it's part of the story.

To FuelWagon's point of where the Schindlers specifically challenged the Michael's marriage vows, it was already in the article -- and linked here to the University of Miami Ethics Program [16] which Duckecho deleted - a petition to the court to have Michael Schiavo removed as guardian. How bizarre is it that exactly the evidence that FuelWagon demanded to support the relevance of a quote, is exactly what Duckecho deleted because he believed the University of Miami Ethics Program has POV. patsw 16:11, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

exactly what Duckecho deleted because he believed the University of Miami Ethics Program has POV. You will kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth and quoting things I did not say. I challenged the cite (not the site) as POV, which it is. I never characterized the University of Miami Ethics Program as anything. I never even referred to them. I believe this is the very first post of mine in which the words University of Miami Ethics Program have appeared. Is this another example of the accuracy to which you allegedly aspire? I await your apology. Duckecho (Talk) 17:04, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Eleven hours later and no response. What a surprise. When you're proved wrong you don't even have the moral fiber to stand up and acknowledge your error. Duckecho (Talk) 04:12, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

OK patsw, lets take this in order. FuelWagon 16:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

first of all, I checked your reference. the affidavit (or whatever it is) by the Schindlers says:

This scheme of abuse, neglect and exploitation includes the provision of certain care and testimony prior to receipt of a substantial medical malpractice award in early 1993, all of which was designed to cast Schiavo in the role of the loving, devoted husband who would spare no expense to see to the medical and rehabilitative needs of his wife for a long, full lifetime[7].

the footnote [7] quotes michael:

I believe in the vows that I took with my wife, through sickness, in health, for richer or poorer. I married my wife because I love her and I want to spend the rest of my life with her. I’m going to do that.

So, the schindlers took Michael's testimony out of context to further their POV. Wikipedia shouldn't take his testimony out of context to continue that POV. The version I edited actually puts his comments into full context, which was answering a chain of questions around nursing school and what he thought would happen from that and why he was doing it.

If you want to emphasize the Schindler's version of reality and wipe out any context for Michael's words, then this is complete POV crap.

Second, the footnote bolds the words "I want to spend the rest of my life with her" which was still in my version and was the point of the schindlers contention.

third, what exactly happened with all these accusations filed in court? The Schindlers accused Michael of being an adulterer and said he should be arrested for lewd behaviour. They used the word "murder" and "kill" multiple times. They said Michael was just milking Terri for the money. Was Michael convicted of adultry? was he convicted of lewd behaviour? Was he convicted of breaking his marriage vows? was he convicted of Murdering Terri? Was he found to be a terrible guardian?

What we have here is the Schindlers throwing shit and trying to get as much of it to stick as possible. The courts, as far as I know, said none of these accusations were founded. And yet, you want to throw that same shit, insert the Schindlers accusations VERBATIM in the article, USE THEIR EXCERPTS of michael's words, which forwards their POV, all while claiming this is NEUTRAL? This is total POV bullshit.

If Alice accused Bob of murder, filed a bunch of court papers, etc, and then the courts never convicted Bob of murder, just exactly HOW do you think it is neutral to continue Alice's accusations verbatim as if they were simple fact?

---

FuelWagon, you keep bringing up the question of context as a justification for deleting the quote. As a compromise, please add the context you believe is necessary to connect Michael's comments on his wedding vows to his nursing vows or whatever you believe the true context to be so I can evaluate that. Or are you claiming that is simply impossible as a matter of text editing to do that?

While the Schindlers are part of the story they are not in a position to rebut your accusations. It seems to me sometimes, FuelWagon, that you are arguing the case here rather than dealing with the editing tasks in preparing the article. I am not going to re-argue the case. The "wedding vows" quote is part of the record of the case in both the public discussion of the dispute and the Schindlers court petitions. I am not creating a new dispute but bringing to the article something that's been mentioned thousands of times in the discussion of the case elsewhere. I am not pushing a POV but presenting in summary the other side of the dispute. The Wikipedia reader is not served by an article which excludes the issues raised by the Schindlers. There are examples of how the Wikipedia handles controversial verdicts which I've read to help my editing OJ Simpson Leo Frank Scottsboro Boys Sacco and Vanzetti Alger Hiss to name a few. patsw 18:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'll tell you what context means. It means that the accusations made by teh Schindlers [17] here] needs to be presented separate from the malpractice suit. It is a legal dispute unto itself. It should have it's own section like the 2003 petition does, or any of the other sections in the legal disputes. Then it can be presented in the context that the Schindlers made some accusations in court, Michael rebutted thusly, and the court found such and such. What you've done is slip in another "yeah but" in an unrelated section. You brought up the Schindlers accusations inside the malpractice section, so that they're not presented in context, so that michael's response has no space, and so the court's rulings on those accusations, are conveniently MISSING. THAT is what I mean by context. What you did is in the malpractice section say "michael said he'd honor his marriage vows and take care of terri as long as he lives. The schindlers say he's a lying, murdering (their words from their accusations), bastard. Did YOU insert Michael's response to those accusations????? NO. Did you insert the court's response to the Schindler's accusations that he should be convicted of adultry, lewd behaviour, murder, etc, etc??????? NO. What did you insert?????? Just the Schindler's point of view, nothing else. And you cry that you're just putting in the facts, "How can testimony be NPOV?", "whaaaaa!". Give me a fucking break. You put in the pieces you want to damn michael with, and you left out EVERYTHING ELSE related to those accusations. As far as I know, the court ruled them groundless. Did you even MENTION that? no, so it's POV. deal with it. FuelWagon 19:36, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Patsw, maybe this would help you make peace with FuelWagon's position. Inserting the Schindler's accusations there, while possibly factual, is not chonological. I've advocated reorganizing the article chronologically (which it's fast approaching). Then I'd invite you to insert said accussations in the correct place in the timeline. Then their context becomes unassailible. I'm not asking you to agree with FuelWagon. Just trying to give you the space to forgive each other, make an effective contribution, and move on.

Oh, and on the vows issue. I'm male. I stated wedding vows that were vitually identical. Thankfully, my marriage as never been tested by that level of tragedy. But I know what my vows, and most other husband's, were. There's brow beat me with them.--ghost 20:46, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You know what's even more significant, Ghost? My wife and I over the years have had numerous discussions about possible scenarions such as the circumstances Michael and Terri wound up in. That's what couples do. We did it early, we still do. Pull the plug. Move on. Remarry (if you want) (those are not necessarily sequential, by the way, and I'm not saying all couples or individuals have the same sentiments). But there is no question that they know what the other wants. Here's something really important: my wife is a pretty staunch Catholic, probably rivaling any here. She's also an RN. Her knowledge of medical reality trumps her faith on some principles. Pulling the plug under certain circumstances is one of them. Duckecho (Talk) 04:12, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

One other aspect. My daughter is 31 years old and has been married for six years. Six months after the wedding (and probably six months before) her husband knew more about her, her thoughts, and her convictions than we did in the 18 years we had her. We brought her up well but kids start forming their own identity in their teens. Their parents aren't in on all of it, no matter how close they are, and I yield to no one in the closeness of my relationship with my daughter. The Schindlers' claim that they knew more about what Terri wanted than Michael is complete hogwash. Duckecho (Talk) 04:12, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Issue for Mediation: The Schindlers as per se POV

• mini-summary
  1. Should include Schindler family's POV [patsw]

Pat

The statements the Schindlers made in published public media appearances and in petitions to the court are part of the story and not per se POV. Their statements from primary and secondary sources which are relevant and accurate to the topic of Terri Schiavo are in fact necessary for the article to fairly present their side of the controversy. patsw 17:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

FW

The accusations made in a court petition should be presented the way all the other legal disputes are presented. The accusations are listed, Michael's response is listed, the court's response is listed. As long as you slip in just the accusations and leave out everything else, it's POV. FuelWagon 19:39, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fuelwagon, is that your 500 - word summary? ;-) -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:10, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot. I started it above. FuelWagon 20:35, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Crying Witch

Most of Gordon's 500 word essay is a bunch of third-party claims, accusations made by people not directly involved with the Terri Schiavo case, people with blogs pretending to be doctors or lawyers, thinking they're actually involved with the case, acting as if they know what's going on, making wild accusations, and not having to prove them in court, not having to give Michael or anyone a chance to rebut them. They are completely POV, because they tell one side of the story. FuelWagon 28 June 2005 15:02 (UTC)

• Article mentions motion "...to Provide Terri with Food and Water by Natural Means," and Greer denial but OMITS main dispute opponents had with Greer's decision, namely that it violated felony law, arguably the most important dispute regarding Greer EVER!

"main dispute ... violated felony law" is arm-chair-lawyerism from a bunch of blogs. No one brought charges against Greer for committing a felony. This is trying to justify a witchhunt.

"No one brought charges..." False: In this google.com cache of this court document, we find Pat Anderson, then attorney for the family, making such charges, and I quote her: "As the Court well knows, it is a felony to withhold food from a disabled or vulnerable adult, pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 825.102(3)."--GordonWattsDotCom 28 June 2005 17:44 (UTC)

Fine, then we might need to add an entry in the "legal disputes" section that says the schindlers challenged Michael's guardianship in january 2004, and that the court ruled against them. What happened to this case, Gordo? As far as I know, Greer was never convicted of violating felony law. Was he? So, it gets presented in teh context of whatever motion the Schindlers filed and how the courts responded. This is not a blank check to bring accusations in without any context. FuelWagon 28 June 2005 20:59 (UTC)

• Article mentions Terri_Schiavo#Rehabilitation_efforts by family but OMITS 744.3215(1)(i), the most relevant "rehabilitation" law, and MAIN dispute ALL opponents had with Greer's denial of rehab.

If a case was brought to trial specifically citing this law, then it can be included in the same form as all other "legal disputes". Otherwise, it's just a bunch of people crying "witch" and can go in the "public opinion" stuff.

You say that [i]f a case was brought to trial specifically citing this law, then it can be included in the same form as all other "legal disputes". So? Dude, it was brought to trial citing this law: [18] [19]. Since you don't specifically ask that my proposed inclusion be stricken, and since it WAS brought to trial by the Schindlers on this specific law, I take it to mean you must support me. Do you? (Don't just cry wolf, uh, I mean WITCH; either provide a valid reason -or ANY reason for your complain, or don't MAKE said complaint.)--GordonWattsDotCom 28 June 2005 18:07 (UTC)

I don't support you in any way, Gordo. You're a menace nearly as bad as NCdave. If a case was brought, it can be put into the legal section as another dispute. But that doesn't mean you get to pick and choose the words you want the article to say. What was the purpose of the dispute, what evidence was submitted, how did michael respond (if at all), and how did the courts rule. I am not "supporting" that you be able to say "And some claim michael violated fedaral law." No, there is a historical context to any legal dispute, so the whole thing gets put into that context. Not your spin/version of it. Oh, and yeah, I meant "witch", not "wolf", because this is a witchhunt, plain and simple. FuelWagon 28 June 2005 20:59 (UTC)

• Article NOWHERE mentions when (or why?) handicapped Terri was put in hospice, nor does it mention critics repeatedly disputed as a violation of 400.6095(2), state law, which restricts hospice admission to patients with "diagnosis and prognosis of terminal illness." Since State Law (765.101(17)), doesn't define specifically, it would be POV to omit the federal law, TITLE 42 USC 418.22, which DOES define terminal (as "prognosis is for a life expectancy of 6 months or less if the terminal illness runs its normal course"). (Reasonable persons would want to know why crippled people are placed in hospice, and if it's against any laws.)

I think it mentions "when". I think any attempt to say "why" would be speculation. Michael may have reported his reasons were "whatever", and the Schindlers may have come out and said they think he did it because of "some other reason". But unless the schindlers actually brought a case to trial saying his actions violated state law, this is yet ANOTHER example of trying to pass off public opinion as if it were part of the actual events involving Terri.

OK, it mentions "when?" I did a key word search of the article, using "hospice" as my keyword, and do NOT find ANYWHERE it mentioned when. Furthermore, it is NOT a requirement that the Schindlers bring a suit using this specific law for it to be reported because it is THE law on the subject, and, indeed, since there was a dispute over her placement in the hospice, it is appropriate to mention the sundry and various laws dealing with them, as we have with, say, the PVS definition laws: We quote the law, cite the source, and then shut up, and let the reader make up his/her mind. This mindless chatter from you to purposely leave out the relevant laws is very POV bias. If you have a better set of laws, you may include them, to make your case, or whatever, or, if you can prove that the laws I cited and quoted are NOT related to this particular dispute (whether or not the Schindlers themselves used these laws), then make your case. Don't just say I'm wrong in my claim that this was a major dispute, or "public opinion," as you put it above: Indeed, there WAS a major dispute over her placement in hospice care, the main claim being that she was not terminal: [20] [21], thus laws dealing with this should be included; if you dispute me on this, then kindly remove ALL the cites (and quotes) to state and federal laws ...uh, didn't think so. Include the appropriate laws then, otherwise you are POV by omission. Why do you want to keep facts from readers? Let them read the laws and other facts and make up their own minds. Dude.--GordonWattsDotCom 28 June 2005 18:07 (UTC)

"it is NOT a requirement that the Schindlers bring a suit using this specific law for it to be reported because it is THE law on the subject". Sorry Gordo. You are wrong. Wikipedia cannot say someone was guilty of murder unless that person was convicted of murder in a court of law. You cannot be judge, jury, and executioner and use wikipedia to forward whatever personal ruling you would make. Wikipedia cannot say someone violated ANY law except if a court ruled it. Despite your delusions of grandeur in being some great legal impact on the Terri Schiavo case, your interpretations of law do not belong on wikipedia. FuelWagon 28 June 2005 20:59 (UTC)

• Intro "sparked a fierce debate over..." OMITS "Euthanasia," which (according to Google.com), was MOST fiercely debated regarding Schiavo of all terms listed. Also state law regarding Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide found NOWHERE in article!!

This was not "euthenasia". The fact that people have used hot-button words like euthenasia and murder to describe what happened is emotional pleading that doesn't belong in the intro. NCdave's favorite, Dr. Boyle, said on his blog that Democrats are out to MURDER terri. But we're not putting in the intro that this "sparked a fierce debate about murder".

I never suggested the article say that it WAS (or was not) euthanasia; I simply want to fix the POV bias that Neutrality botched in his recent edit (which I hope to discuss shortly). It indeed DID spark a fierce debate over euthanasia: 143,000 hits on euthanasia and schiavo, but only 48,600 on bioethics and schiavo, and even less, around 31,600 on federalism and schiavo. So, there was more fierce debate on euthanasia than probably any other topic. This statement is true, so if you ask that it not be included, you'd have to ask the other more minor "debates" be omited to; however, if you don't dispute them being in (and, in fact, there WAs debate on those topics), then you would be POV by omission to suggest the euthanasia item not be mentioned; FW, sometimes I think you argue just to argue, even when the objective numbers (from Google.com this time) dispute you!--GordonWattsDotCom 28 June 2005 18:16 (UTC)

Well, we could say Terri's case caused a huge debate about "right-wing-religious-nut-jobs", but I wouldn't support that either because it's emotional pleading. Same goes for "euthenasia". Just because some religious nutjob wants to call this euthenasia is irrelevant. the case had NOTHING TO DO with euthenasia. FuelWagon 28 June 2005 20:59 (UTC)

By definition, euthanasia is, "The act or practice of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition, as by lethal injection or the suspension of extraordinary medical treatment."[22] Since I am of the opinion that food and water are not "extraordinary medical treatment," even when given by feeding tube, I must agree with you that the killing of Terri Schiavo was not truly eutanasia. But those who supported killing her insisted otherwise, insisted that her feeding tube constituted medical "life support," which means that, by the parameters of those who killed her and supported killing her, it was euthanasia. Certainly, the case ignited a firestorm of debate about euthanasia.

Fuelwagon, my interpretation of what you are saying is that you think that all conservative Christians are "nut jobs." Ridiculing people of faith is not constructive. Or, if that is not what you mean, if you are not ridiculing all conservative Christians as "nut-jobs," then please tell me what conservative Christians you do not consider nut-jobs. NCdave 29 June 2005 00:51 (UTC)

• NOWHERE does article mention that Terri's parents tried to get a "trial by jury" in RECENT state AND federal cases for Terri. This is the most protected right of all: See e.g., Pages 18&19 for laws that should be cited to support Schindlers' claims.

If they brought a case, it can be put in the "legal disputes" section, like all the other cases.

For once you agree with me explicitly. Thank you. Even though you might not have put it in the section I would have, as long as it's in there in some logical fashion, it's OK.--GordonWattsDotCom 28 June 2005 18:16 (UTC)

• Schindlers have questioned why Michael delayed litigating about Terri's alleged wishes and the legal reason preventing him from doing so. Article omits BOTH: Res Judicata prevents from litigating Terri's wishes because he had a chance during Medical Malpractice trial and didn't.

"why" is complete speculation, especially if you're trying to allow the Schindlers to explain "why" Michael did ANYTHING. if they brought a case, put it in the "legal disputes".

Of course, we don't know "why" Michael delayed litigating the issue of Terri's disputes. (We can only speculate.) However, that was not my suggested improvement: We need to cite "res judicata" as a legal reason that many have alleged bars Michael from litigating a "previously litigated and decided" issue. "Why" many people think he was not allowed to bring that suit is what is missing. Read the link on Res Judicata, and you'll see that not only are previously decided issues precluded (prevented) from future litigation (except by a timely appeal when losing), but ALSO, any issue that COULD have been litigated (such as Terri's wishes) and wasn't is res judicata barred. The fact that there was a dispute on this point should be included. Res Judicata is the law of the land. Look it up, dude!

• Article DOESN'T mention that “cerebral cortex missing” claims by Felos and Cranford were DISPROVEN!! by autopsy.

Wow. I'm impressed.

Yes, I admit I "borrowed" this idea from Dave, but since neither of us are sockpuppets, I figure I'll use my First Amendment Rights and speak up. You don't seem to dispute my point after quoting it, so I guess you must have "no objections" to my proposed "inclusion." (I'm an inclusionist, in case you haven't noticed.)--GordonWattsDotCom 28 June 2005 18:45 (UTC)

Oh, I have objections to you putting this in. I'm just impressed by how desperate you'll go to grasp for straws. Cheshire said Terri watched him for half a minute. The autopsy said she was cortically blind. What exactly did Cranford/Felos say? And how does that compare to a brain with half the normal mass, and much of the mass devoid of any neurons?

Actually, Terri's brain mass was half of an average female brain, not half that of a normal female brain. More precisely, it was 51% of an average normal female at death, but 69% of the lower end of the "normal" range.

Nor was her brain, or any section thereof, even incuding the most severely damaged areas (the occipital lobes, responsible for vision) "devoid of any neurons." Drs. Thogmartin and Nelson made it very clear that they could not tell from the autopsy whether or not Terri was conscious. NCdave 29 June 2005 00:43 (UTC)

• Autopsy states on page 17 that "persistent vegetative state and minimally conscious state are clinical diagnoses, not pathologic ones," and report doesn't rule out either, but this isn't stated in article!

PVS is explained fairly well in the PVS section.

But, is this salient quote quoted and cited?--GordonWattsDotCom 28 June 2005 18:45 (UTC)

• Article mentions videos, but NOWHERE has links for them.

Last I heard, they weren't publicly available. I remember someone put them on a website somewhere, but I think they had to take them down. What I'd like to see is a link to the original 4.5 HOURS of video. THEN we'd be talking about accuracy.

Having trouble finding the vids, are we? Assuming you DO want to grab a few copies of said vids (a shout out to all my video-freak peeps out there, word) then these web links directly apply because if they didn't, some lawyer'd done have taken them all down:--GordonWattsDotCom 28 June 2005 18:45 (UTC)

Gordon, you HAVE no "peeps". Stop talking like you do, dude. FuelWagon 28 June 2005 20:59 (UTC)

• http://www.blogsforterri.com/video/ConversationWithTerri.wmv
• http://conservacast.com/ConversationWithTerri.wmv
• http://www.eeng.net/eeng/ribbon/ConversationWithTerri.wmv
• http://gordonwatts.com/ConversationWithTerri.wmv
• http://hometown.aol.com/GordonWWatts/myhomepage/ConversationWithTerri.wmv

--GordonWattsDotCom 28 June 2005 18:45 (UTC)

Thanks, Gordon, for the links. NCdave 29 June 2005 00:48 (UTC)

• Article omits that Dr. Peter Bambakidis (the only "court-appointed" doctor) didn't say that Terri was PVS by “clear and convincing standard,” but merely by “preponderance of the evidence. Alt.Link

More armchair lawyerism and hair-splitting. The majority of your points mirror the basic approach by most pro-schindler folks: find any possible situation on which to cast doubt on Michael, Doctors, Judges, etc. Dont' PROVE anything, just cast doubt. Inside that opening of doubt, lay the seed for whatever alternate reality you wish to encourage. Don't give any PROOF for that reality, just cast doubt on the other side, and plant the seeds of conspiracy, murderous husbands, cover-up judges, bloodthirsty lawyers, euthenistic doctors, etc.

"Don't give any PROOF for that reality, just cast doubt..." Dude, you're really getting on my nerves! I DID provide proof: Didn't you see those links in the original post? I was proving that my assertion and claim that the good doctor realyl said this, and that is merely reporting on the events, which is NPOV. If you want to report on relevent events, use your brain, and do so. The doctors' various diagnoses are relevent events on which we should/shall report.--GordonWattsDotCom 28 June 2005 19:07 (UTC)

Bambakidis said Terri was PVS. That was his diagnosis. If he didn't think she was PVS, HE WOULD NOT HAVE DIAGNOSED HER THAT WAY. Whatever "probability" game you want to play, Bambikidis voted PVS. If there was enough doubt in his mind that Terri was MCS, then HE WOULD HAVE VOTED MCS. You just want to bring in the "probability" crap as a way to cast doubt on his diagnosis. But he could only vote PVS or NOT-PVS and he voted PVS. Bambikidas did NOT play your probability game with his diagnosis. If he thought terri was probably MCS, then he should have said she was MCS or he wouldn't be doing his job. So, here's the Gordon probability game: Gordon falls down some stairs in a hotel and breaks a leg. He sues the hotel saying the stairs were uneven and caused him to fall. the hotel says Gordon is a klutz. The jury has to decide that Gordon's version is true by at least 50% to award him money. So, the jury comes out and rules against Gordon. They don't award him any money. Your "preponderance of doubt" argument is basically attempting to cast doubt on the jury's decision because you argue that your version of the story could still be "49% true". No. That isn't how it works. The jury decided what it decided and that was the end of it. Bambakidis decided what he decided. And that his decision/diagnosis was some percentage of certainty is irrelevant. If he had thought she was MCS, he would have diagnosed her MCS. This is just an attempt to cast doubt on his diagnosis. FuelWagon 28 June 2005 20:59 (UTC)

No, after a 30 minute cursory exam, Bambakidis said only that it was more likely than not that Terri was in a PVS (that's what "preponderance of evidence" means). He pointedly did not express certainty about that diagnosis. NCdave 28 June 2005 23:02 (UTC)

• If we mention Cheshire is conservative Christian and Drs. Frist & Weldon have political motives, only fair to mention Cranford & Felos are liberal "right to die" activists *AND* that Cranford misdiagnosed David Mack and that Gambone, was picked by Michael’s attorney, not hospital/court/etc.

Cheshire wasn't part of any trial like the 5 doctors were. Cheshire took it upon himself to visit Terri and render his own diagnosis and submit it as an affidavit to the courts for the Schindlers. Cheshire inserted himself into the case. And as for Crandford's misdiagnosis, did he get sued for it? Lose a malpractice suit? lose his license to practice medicine? Any sort of "official" ramifications for that diagnosis? As far as I know, there wasn't. So this is a bunch of non-doctors looking at a diagnosis and trying to cast it as a "bad thing", cast doubt and plant the seeds of an alternate reality.

"Cheshire wasn't part of any trial like the 5 doctors were." So? Reporting on some non-trial doctor, as you point out, is relevent, so reporting on the ACTUAL court participants is even MORE relevent. Besides, I'm not unfair: I don't ask that we remove mention of the facts about the affiliations and/or possible motives that Cheshire, Weldon, and Frist have describing them; you just want your facts included, and this is biased.--GordonWattsDotCom 28 June 2005 19:07 (UTC)

The only people who call cranford a "liberal, right to die activist" are "right-wing-religious-nut-jobs". And if allow us to call them "right-wing-religious-nut-jobs" in the article, then I'll agree to allow the article to say that they call Cranford a "liberal, right to die activist". Deal? If not, then you just want your emotive, highly charged accusations, included, but not all. FuelWagon 28 June 2005 20:59 (UTC)

Actually, that would be an improvement, since the pro-Michael Schiavo editors keep deleting the "neutrality disputed" warning tags. Calling folks who opposed killing Terri, and who don't agree with killing off Alzheimer's patients (and conscious but brain damaged patients like Robert Wendland), "right-wing-religious-nut-jobs," would serve to show readers what the article's bias is. NCdave 28 June 2005 23:02 (UTC)

• Add links, MRI/PET-denials, proof of 43% PVS misdiagnosis rate

MRI/PET denials were mentioned at one point, I thought they were still in the article. It doesn't go into a big conspiracy theory about what those denials mean, which it shouldn't. 43% misdiagnosis rate was a british study of british doctors, if I'm not mistaken. And I think it also studied patients who were diagnosed as PVS by a single doctor, not half a dozen like Terri. Something from the American Neurological Association that talks about misdiagnosis rates would be more applicable.

OK, I admit I messed up on one point (you happy, I hope) -Functional MRI's ARe mentioned (I did an edit->Find on this page / CNTL (control) "F" "Keyword search" and found it) --but the article does NOT mention the PET scans that were sought but denied. You should search the page before making broad statements of any type and get the facts; are you getting tired? Take a break and then, when you're charged up, do those keyword searches... OK, so you don't appear to oppose mentioning the denial of PET scans, which is progress, no what's that about the 43% figure? If you can find other studies that are more applicable, I don't object to them being includedl; also, if you want to distinguish that the British study was not exactly the same, you may draw comparisons and contrasts in its inclusion. Or, instead, should I put in the edit?

"If you can find other studies that are more applicable" But in the meantime, you're saying we should include a non-applicable study. Is that what you're saying? You admit it isn't applicable. But you want to include it with some disclaimers to allow you to include it anyway? FuelWagon 28 June 2005 20:59 (UTC)

Gordon, I think you are mistaken about the patients in the British study having all been diagnosed by a single doctor. I've read both the paper in question, and Cranford's editorial about it, and neither suggested that all the patients were diagnosed by a single doctor.

The BMJ study is highly applicable to the Schiavo case:

• [Misdiagnosis of the vegetative state: retrospective study in a rehabilitation unit BMJ 1996;313:13-16 (6 July)]

"Results: Of the 40 patients referred as being in the vegetative state, 17 (43%) were considered as having been misdiagnosed; seven of these had been presumed to be vegetative for longer than one year, including three for over four years. Most of the misdiagnosed patients were blind or severely visually impaired. All patients remained severely physically disabled, but nearly all were able to communicate their preference in quality of life issues--some to a high level.

"Conclusions: The vegetative state needs considerable skill to diagnose, requiring assessment over a period of time; diagnosis cannot be made, even by the most experienced clinician, from a bedside assessment..."

Note that Terri was severely visually impaired, and that her PVS diagnosis was made on the basis of bedside assessments of 30 minutes to an hour. None of the doctors who diagnosed her as in a PVS assessed her over a substantial period of time. It is hard to imagine study more perfectly applicable to Terri's case.

Here's more confirmation, also from the British Medical Journal:

• [Letters: Misdiagnosis certainly occurs BMJ 1996;313:944 (12 October)]

"Keith Andrews and colleagues' study... closely duplicates our findings regarding misdiagnosis of the vegetative state. ... we continue to encounter misdiagnosis of the vegetative state in our practice."

The study is highly applicable because it shows that Terri could not have been validly diagnosed as PVS on the basis of the cursory examinations she received by the doctors who supported that diagnosis, and because it reports that patients in Terri's condition, i.e., with severe visual impairment, were the most likely to be misdiagnosed. NCdave 29 June 2005 00:43 (UTC)

• Article DOESN'T mention Terri lost five teeth!

Or the fact that someone gave her a really bad haircut. The reason soemthing like this probably keeps getting cut out of the article is because people who think michael is a murderer have probably tried to insert it as proof of michael's devious ways, rather than reporting simple facts. i.e. taking arm-chair diagnosis and passing it off as part of the people actually involved with Terri. Did the Schindlers ever bring this up in one of their cases? Did a guardian ad litem bring it up as a concern? Did Michael have a response? Did the courts rule anything? Otherwise, all this is, is a bunch of bloggers crying "witch", and wikipedia should report it under "public opinion" if at all.

"reporting simple facts" = something WE ought to be doing. "Did the Schindlers ever bring this up in one of their cases?" I think so, but they CERTAINLY complained about it, which is noteworthy to mention as "reporting simple facts." "Did a guardian ad litem bring it up as a concern?" I don't know. Why don't you research this and find out, and report what you find in the article, in the appropriate place? "Did Michael have a response?" Now this is making me curious, so I'll check it out: "Michel Schiavo contends that Terri’s teeth needed to be removed due to a lack of use of her part." [23] For a more current link, see: [24] or [25], which state: "To date, the husband has refused to OK antibiotics or dental work -- "Her teeth are fine; she doesn't eat," he has said. She has not had physical, occupational, recreational or speech therapy for years. She has not had a mammogram or pap smear for four years. When a complete physical was ordered for her in preparation for the current hearing, a urinary tract infection was discovered." ~ Since the article DOESN'T mention Terri lost five teeth! -maybe it should.--GordonWattsDotCom 28 June 2005 19:07 (UTC)

"Why don't you research this and find out" Because I think this is simply an attempt to cast accusations of abuse/mistreatment/neglect on Michael, and I don't think they deserve the time of day. Florida services investigated reports of abuse/neglect/bad treatment how many times? And did they EVER say Michael had abused/neglected/mistreated Terri? So, the 5 teeth is about as relevant as a bad haircut. You just want to include it because even though Florida services didn't find abuse ONCE, you still want to cast doubt. You still want to cry witch without a single shred of evidence. FuelWagon 28 June 2005 20:59 (UTC)

Actually, having to have teeth pulled, at Terri's age, is evidence of neglect (dental neglect, to be specific). That's why it is relevant. NCdave 29 June 2005 00:43 (UTC)

Oh, and just as an aside, you're signature with all the fonts is annoying as hell. It takes up 5 lines of text in my editing window, which is bigger than many paragraphs. I know your self-inflated ego thinks you deserve 5 lines of signature, but for the sake of us simple mortals, do you think you could use something without special colors and fonts? FuelWagon 28 June 2005 20:59 (UTC)

Crying WOLF: Since FW got a 2nd turn, so do I: Stuff that couldn't fit but was noteworthy

"Since FW got a 2nd turn" You are such a pain in the ass. FuelWagon 28 June 2005 21:03 (UTC)

Stuff that didn't make it into the 500-word final product -but was good enough to include here for your review:

First, I wish to offer positive feedback on things I like -or mere observations of small typos:

• Chapter 765.101(12) - article does mention PVS definition; OK.***
• “Diagnosed” as PVS - not “she WAS pvs” -- good. Don’t wanna get the natives restless, now do we?***
• I don’t dispute use of quotes around “minimally conscious state,” as does Dave; it is not pejorative this time.***
• “never recovered or exhibited any evidence of higher cortical function.” --this is disputed; further, the videos are mentioned throughout, but NO links to them are provided. - good point, but insufficient room in 500-word essay.***
• Typo City: Under “Family relationship and malpractice suit,” word “Terri” is misspelled “Terry.” Is this quoting a source, which misspelled it? (If so, cite source, and put in “[sic].” If not, correct spelling.) -- UPDATE: It looks like Duckecho fixed it in this diff.
• Another style error: “Eventually, he became a respiratory therapist and emergency room nurse. [18]” under “Family dispute” is a repeat of sentence under previous header.***
• Style error: Brackets around link to autopsy report PDF not needed.***
• Style: Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Court = “Pinellas County Circuit court for the Sixth District.”***
• “the first [was denied by the court claiming it was] as the request was for an experimental procedure, and the second [request to feed Terri was denied] on procedural grounds (timeliness of a Rule 1.540(b)(5) request)” (Wording in brackets is missing, and sentence is hard to understand.)***
• Under Government Involvement: “Judge Baird [82] (http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder05-04.txt) and the Florida Supreme Court [83] (http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/pub_info/summaries/briefs/04/04-925/Filed_09-23-2004_Opinion.pdf) both overturned the law as unconstitutional.” Should include Judge’s full name, and also incorrect in claiming Fla. Supreme Court overturned anything; it merely upheld the lower court ruling.***
• “where the ashes of their daughter were (or are to be) buried” (Is this grammatically incorrect? Should it not say “(or WERE to be) buried?”)***
• Also, under “Palm Sunday Compromise” section in Schiavo article, there is NOT a direct link to the “Palm Sunday Compromise” PAGE on Wikipedia. It takes no less than two hops, from the “Government Involvement” link, but I fixed that.***

Suggested Improvements for Schiavo article below: ***** (that didn't make it into my 500-word finished analysis)

• ...omits mention of the sworn testimony of numerous eyewitnesses, corroborated by video recordings of her behavior, that Terri was intermittently responsive to a variety of different stimuli, which is incompatible with a diagnosis of PVS. Is Dave's concern here addressed in article?

• Dr. Cheshire, probably not biased, needs mentioning: Diagnosed Terri MCS. (Not mentioning him at intro is possibly omission POV bias.)

• Also, since Greer’s rate of reversal by higher courts is not mentioned, this factual piece of information regarding his fitness as a judge, and should be included somewhere in the article to balance POV bias in describing main participants.

• While we don’t want to clutter intro with “billions of doctors,” it is worth mentioning that many other medical professionals submitted affidavits; proper solution: link to a section in the article for a reader reading the intro.

• Under header “Rehabilitation efforts,” the fact that the experimental procedure (electrode implant done on Terri in California) was not approved by the court is not mentioned.

• Under “Family dispute“ section: “He also had a contract drafted stating that, should the Schindlers refrain from any further legal action, he would donate whatever his inheritance might be to charity. The Schindlers refused the offer.” --should add “to keep him from starving their daughter,” to clarify that Michael wasn't simply giving Terri back to family if they chilled out and didn't sue.

• “Hammesfahr had previously made claims about vasodilation therapy that a court found spurious.” Word “spurious” is synonym of “false,” but court did not find Hammesfahr false: All it says is: “Dr. William Hammesfahr claimed that vasodilation therapy and hyberbaric therapy "could help her improve." He could not testify that any "specific function" would improve. He did not claim that he could restore her cognitive functions. He admitted that vasodilation therapy and hyberbaric therapy were intended to increase blood and oxygen supply to damaged brain tissue to facilitate repair of such tissue. These therapies cannot replace dead tissue. Although the physicians are not in complete agreement concerning the extent of Mrs. Schiavo's brain damage, they all agree that the brain scans show extensive permanent damage to her brain.”

• After 2nd DCA affirms, it should be noted that higher courts’ refusal to intervene effectively upheld, without making judgments on the legal arguments, findings of fact, or correctness of the lower courts. (This addition would help the Pro-michael people feel justified; see, I told you I was fair.)

• Under “Life Prolonging Procedures” heading, after “a feeding tube is a life-prolonging procedure (also known as life support),” it fails to mention that this definition was not the law when Terri collapsed, thus prompting many to claim that she could not have meant that she wanted to be denied feeding tubes (assuming she said the she didn’t want life support, as Michael alleged).

• “They included the affidavits of doctors and speech therapists to support their case.” How many? Who were they, and what were their qualifications. Provide a few links, not just one, in case one link goes bad, and make it clear in article that mirrors are provided. (Article may have mentioned a few numbers of doctors who provided affidavits, but more details needed.)

• “On February 25, 2005, Judge Greer issued this order which excluded both feeding by tube and orally:” I don’t dispute that Greer WANTED this, but the order, as I read it, does not make a distinction or specifically deny oral feeding. It was worded rather ambiguously, so the Wiki sentence appears false.

• “the police officer stationed outside the room said she could not recall hearing the vocalization…” but Weller claimed that a female officer, possibly this one, started to break down in tears in response to Terri trying to talk.

• Under “Public opinion” section, there is mixed use of numerals (1, 2, and 3) and words (one, two, three) for numbers; this may give biased or unbalanced edge to one side or the other. Perhaps the “double” method should be used: Forty-four percent (44%) of people responded as such…”

• ACLU mentioned; wikify it to a link; ACLJ not mentioned; mention and wikify it; also, when Jesse Jackson is mentioned as a nonconservative (liberal) supporter of Schindlers, mention also Ralph Nader, and either wikify or link them.

• “overturning the legal process” phrase under Palm Sunday Compromise section is POV, because such a phrase would not be used for post conviction relief of a person wrongly convicted but who wants, say, DNA testing to “overturn” his or her final judgement and conviction. Find the phrase that would apply to post-conviction relief of criminals on death row, and use that description instead to describe what Terri's parents wanted to do.

• “The cerebellum contained no neurons” (Autopsy section) Is the statement an accurate quote from the autopsy report? If so, quote it -or at least link to autopsy report.

No, it is a falsehood. The autopsy says no such thing. The autopsy could not be more clear about the fact that Terri's brain damage was not too severe to admit of the possibility that she was conscious. NCdave 29 June 2005 01:00 (UTC)

• “Because of extensive damage to her occipital lobes, she would have been cortically blind.” This is not necessarily true; it is merely a finding of the autopsy, as I recall. The autopsy, like the medical exams, merely “diagnosed” or “concluded” these thing; that does not make them so. Don’t want to “make the natives restless,” now do we?

Right -- and that conclusion was disproven by the recorded evidence of her visual responsiveness. But the conclusion was almost correct: Terri's vision was severely impaired. NCdave 29 June 2005 01:00 (UTC)

• Next to Nancy Cruzan, should also mention both Rev. Rus Cooper-Dowda and Kate Adamson, who had similar cases. (Critics say these were not PVS, but they and Terri were DIAGNOSED pvs, so comparison prevails.)

This is a load of crap. Lets compare Jack the Ripper to some poor slob who was convicted of murder but then was exonerated ten years later because DNA testing proved it wasn't him. Sure. "comparison prevails". what a bunch of bunk. FuelWagon 28 June 2005 21:34 (UTC)

I don't know what FuelWagon's point is here (other than to ridicule Gordon). NCdave 29 June 2005 01:00 (UTC)

• Behavior: Neutrality removed “euthanasia” link; Also did not provide edit summary on at least one occasion, as pointed out by Duckecho:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terri_Schiavo&diff=15271025&oldid=15268560 (Revision as of 03:23, 16 Jun 2005 rv to version by 63.123.85.214. What part of " read this talk page discussion before making substantial changes" do you not understand?)

• Also, Neutrality did the same to MY edit, and removed Euthanasia link, even though a google search shows it was MUCH more often linked within the fierce debate of the Schiavo matter than the other related links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terri_Schiavo&diff=13977980&oldid=13977808 (Revision as of 15:33, 20 May 2005 Neutrality m)

• Again (once to me, once to Duck, probably to others), Neutrality did not give an edit summary or discuss the matter in talk and get a consensus before acting.

• Discuss use of foul language (it is inappropriate, as Ann and others point out, but we should overlook trivial things and listen to our neighbor when they try to express a point)

• NPOV and Accuracy tags: I think they are deserved for now, but not a major point unless we fail to address and vote on concerns raised in mediation. Translation: I don't care if NPOV & accuracy tags are on or off for the moment.

• name calling. Mention attacks on Dave, and point out his contributions as listed in top of my notes here; Mention how he and others (myself included!) can be long-winded and argue the merits of case, instead of the merits of including an edit. This is waste of time, and rightly a violation of WIKI policy. We‘ve all been guilty, I‘m sad to say: “The Talk pages are not a place to debate which views are right or wrong or better. If you want to do that, there are venues such as Usenet, public weblogs and other wikis.” (I add: Sandbox also good way.)

• Ask what was wrong with the 18:50pm, 18 Feb. 2005 (Schiavo page) edit of Dave that caused it to get reverted. Few if any problems exist; could have remained.

• Ghost asked for disciplinary measures against Dave. Address that: I've pointed out some good contributions of Dave above and also one fault above; this should bring a balanced view to ghost's concerns, and I hope you all don't argue too much, which would detract and distract ---as well as offend.)

--GordonWattsDotCom 28 June 2005 19:29 (UTC)

ghost's mass deletion

I've undone ghost's mass deletions. Perhaps I'm especially sensitive to the censorship of others because I've been so often censored myself. I strongly disagree with the notion that one person should delete hours of work by other editors, because "it was too much to read." Below is the comment ghost added to explain what he did. NCdave 28 June 2005 22:29 (UTC)

Ok, guys. That got COMPLETELY out of hand. 43kB of you guys going round and round, after the Mediator asked us all to keep it 500words or less. I'm sure some may say I'm out of line, but it was too much for any human being to have to read. BTW, I'm emailing a copy to both of you, Duck and myself. I'm not interested in destroying your work, but please follow the playground rules.--ghost 28 June 2005 22:17 (UTC)

...And had I in fact destroyed hours worth of work, this reasoning might've had some traction. Since both were welcome to undo the deletion, AND I took the trouble to copy/paste the whole mess to both of them and a third party, this could be viewed as no harm/no foul. So now that two if the other kids broke the playground rules (<500 word summaries), you see fit to step in. Ok, great. If you can do so in a way that builds concensus, and lets us build a better article, be my guest. I've already outlined the alternatives.--ghost 28 June 2005 22:37 (UTC)