Jump to content

Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Mediation/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Ground Rules

  1. Anyone who agrees to these rules may post here.
  2. I will refactor this page frequently.
  3. As much as possible, please add all comments to the bottom. Try to avoid "threaded" discussions.
  4. "Seek first to understand, then to be understood"

Participants

Summary of Key Points

Please sign with pound star tildes #*~~~~, where you agree that a particular wording should go into the article. (The Mediator will put your name in italics, pending your confirmation.)

Persistent vegetative state

  1. Some doctors issued a diagnosis of PVS.
    • Ann Heneghan 21:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
    • --GordonWattsDotCom 07:09, 17 July 2005 (UTC) (I add that Ann's edit summary on 14:04, 16 July 2005 in the Schiavo page here said that "Introduction - I think ghost, SlimVirgin, and Neuroscientist are happy with "diagnosed as". (I certainly am.) See mediation page." Furthermore, I personally recall FuelWagon supporting this method because he "didn't want the natives to get restless" (or words to that effect), referring to pro-lifers. Thus, the agreed upon model was "Terri Schiavo was diagnosed as PVS..." I am Gordon Watts, and I approve of this message.--GordonWattsDotCom 07:09, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
    • --GordonWattsDotCom 07:18, 17 July 2005 (UTC) has this to say: See Ghost's comments below, dated: 06:21, 16 July 2005 (UTC) -he seems to agree with the "diagnosed as." YO, Ghost, bro. Sign! Thx.--GordonWattsDotCom 07:18, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
    • ghost 13:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC) - I had voted for the older shorter intro previously. While I agree that it may gloss over certain items, they belong in the body of the article, not the intro. However, please see my reservations below.
  2. She might have partially recovered with the right type of therapy.
    • Ann (Well, when I originally signed, it didn't say above that I was to sign if I thought that wording should go in the article. I signed it just to acknowledge that that was my (not-very-relevant) opinion. And note that it was might, not would. However, I am not at all saying that it should go in the article. The article should not say that she could or would or might or couldn't have recovered. The article should make it clear that Michael Schiavo and Judge Greer and George Felos and several doctors etc. said that she couldn't improve, and that the Schindlers and several other doctors, speech pathologists, etc. said that she might or could or would. So, if my signature indicates agreement with that statement, here it is Ann Heneghan 22:20, 17 July 2005 (UTC). But if it is a vote for putting that wording into the article, then no, I'd have to cross it out Ann Heneghan 22:20, 17 July 2005 (UTC)!)
    • --GordonWattsDotCom 07:09, 17 July 2005 (UTC) (She might -or might not have. Only God knows that answer to this. I'm not God.--GordonWattsDotCom 07:09, 17 July 2005 (UTC))
  3. She had no hope of regaining consciousness, let alone substantial communication with her family. []
Comments
  • I could sign to "She might have partially recovered with the right kind of therapy." That would be in keeping with the testimony from a speech pathologist, which Gordon managed to track down after it had disappeared from the Schindler website [1]. However, I don't think the article should state as a fact either that she could or that she couldn't have recovered. They are just personal opinions of some editors. The article, in my view, should state simply what Sara Green Mele said, and what Judge Greer said, etc. My beliefs about which one was right are not really relevant. I'm stating them simply because I've been asked to, not because I want my views to go into the article. Ann Heneghan 21:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Further, my beliefs are not important, and what's more, I don't know. See above. I am not God.--GordonWattsDotCom 07:09, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

You cannot vote on the content like this! Our opinions are totally irrelevant to this article. This is a preposterous way of making an NPOV article. What, we all have a vote and then we weight the article accordingly? Grace Note 06:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I concur: Grace Note is right: Our opinions of the situation are not important. Our opinions of what needs to be in the article are what is relevant. (Bold & color face for clarity/emphasis -not to yell: This is a key point.)--GordonWattsDotCom 00:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I am disturbed that the list of choices for voting has the appearance of a Push poll. Thus, I feel I have been sandbagged into voting for something I don't entirely endorse. It is, however, the lesser of evils.--ghost 13:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Other Key Points: YOUR VOTE IS NEEDED HERE

These points shall be based on intro disputes. I am invoking the new Text Move rule, created by Uncle Ed recently: I am pasting disputed text here to be analyzed. Text is as follows and based on a comparison between two recent versions at this diff:

On February 25, 1990, Schiavo (pronounced SHY-voh, IPA: ʃaɪvoʊ) suffered severe brain damage from cerebral hypoxia, after experiencing cardiac arrest from an undetermined cause. She briefly lapsed into a coma, and then spent the remaining 15 years of her life in a persistent vegetative state (PVS). Seven neurologists in good standing who examined Schiavo diagnosed her to be in a PVS. One whose standing has been questioned, Dr. William Hammesfahr, said she was minimally conscious. Another neurologist, in good standing, Dr. William P. Cheshire Jr., after having visited Schiavo, stated that he questioned the diagnoses of PVS. [2] Many other medical professionals submitted affidavits [3] or statements to the press questioning the PVS diagnosis and calling for further testing. For example, three of the four neurologists recently interviewed (Dr. Mack Jones, a neurologist in Florida; Dr. Thomas Zabiega, a neurologist in Chicago; Dr. William Bell, a professor of neurology at the Wake Forest University Medical School) reported that they believed that Terri was responding to her father, and was attempting to form words. The fourth, Dr. Peter Morin, a neurologist researching degenerative brain diseases, demurred, saying that he did not want to venture an opinion based on an audio recording without accompanying video. [4] Thus, it is no surprise that much controversy arose over whether her condition was irreversible or treatable.

Gordon, please be careful that the Mediation page does not turn into an auto-move for the Talk:Terri Schiavo page. It disturbs me that people aren't talking to each other enough there.--ghost 14:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

How do we address "PVS" issue in intro?

  • --GordonWattsDotCom 01:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)Terri should be described as having been "diagnosed as PVS." After that, clarification can be added. She should NOT be described "as PVS, according to...": That is POV, and may be false. Only Terri and God know if she were PVS. None of us here today are either one of those two people.--GordonWattsDotCom 00:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: THIS ITEM SEEMS TO HAVE REACHED CONCENSUS: (a minor success) This issue has been voted on before (informally) and also in the section above. I don't know why I put it in here -except to be consistant. Since I shall make reference to other editors' votes, I wll use black text, not dark blue: I thinkj that FuelWagon, Ann, NCdave, and others also concurred: It must be "diagnosed as." So, Ed, you are making progress: We're voting on disputed issues. Good job. Let's NOW all vote on the below -any other issues need to be voted on?--GordonWattsDotCom 02:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • ghost 13:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC) - Yes. Ann and I agree on the older, shorter intro that includes it. It's a key issue for the article, and it's something I want my kids to be able to easily research later. Eliminating PVS from the intro would hamper that.
  • No way. If you are "diagnosed as" in a PVS, then you are in it. It's a medical term for the condition you are supposed to be in, not a description of a pathological condition. This is made clear by the neurological examiner at Schiavo's autopsy. I think Ann and Gordon are showing a fundamental misunderstanding of a/ what PVS is and b/ what difference it would make were Schiavo in one or not in one. B/ has two parts. Medically, it makes no difference what you diagnose her condition as, of course, because what mattered was that she would not recover (I direct you to her autopsy report, Ann; this side of a miracle -- and I don't mean something slightly odd that's unexpected, I mean the full supernatural, cerebrospinal fluid back into neurons type of miracle -- she had no prospects of recovery); legally, it matters because the diagnosis determined her legal treatment. But what you are ignoring -- I doubt wilfully -- is that it is simply shorthand for "Will she ever have a life in which she can function?", not a disease such as measles, which may or may not be treated. I have no problem with an intro that says that there was dispute, primarily on the Schindlers' part, that she was in a PVS, but I certainly do over one that suggests that the facts are actually in doubt or that perverts the language to try to suggest that doubt. -- Grace Note
Grace, I think the resistance to "is PVS" is somewhat pendantic. basically, the phrase "diagnosed PVS" is active tense, and brings with it the implication that a human gave testimony about Terri's condition. The phrase "is PVS" is passive tense, and implies absolute truth, it also ignores individual testimony and makes blanket statement. Now, I think Terri was PVS. But I can be happy reporting that 7 neurologist diagnosed her to be PVS, and one quack said otherwise. Those convinced that Terri was sneaking out at night to play tennis will never be convinced otherwise, so it doesn't really matter what the wording says to them. I think most people who come in with an unbiased background can read the facts/history of the case in the article and will get where reality is. So, while I think Terri was PVS, I'm not averse to reporting that seven neurologists diagnosed her PVS. FuelWagon 15:29, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, the "diagnosed as" phrasing is essentially a nod to possibility that other POVs exist. I personally agree that Terri was, but we create the appearence of POV by stating it in a fact-like manner. Better to fall back more open language that still states fact in the intro. This way we prevent "driveby" reader from feeling compelled to engage in the upteenth edit war over the intro. It may not be the best solution, but if it cools down the debate over the article as a whole, it's a good thing.--ghost 15:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

How do we address "quantity" of doctors in intro?

  • --GordonWattsDotCom 01:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)Several ways are OK. Method A: This would include mention of ALL the known doctors (could be too lengthy, per Neuroscientist's past warnings). Method B: Mention ONLY the neurologists who opined, whether or not they examined Terri. They did opine, and express a QUALIFIED medical opinion. (Better, for this would reduce the intro, since like 30-40 doctors weighed in & submitted statements, affidavits, etc.) Method C: Mention NONE of the doctors at all. (Even better, but you'd better be right, because I have a list which reveals that close to HALF of all medical professionals (maybe more than half) sided with the NOT pvs diagnosis. Methods which are UNAPPROPRIATE are mentioning more or less of one side than the other, which is a blatant POV violation. If one doctor was less credible, that is OK, but he/she is still a doctor, but it can be mentioned. See the "quality" section: This is the "quantity" section.--GordonWattsDotCom 01:02, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • This is typical of Gordon's methodology. Method A might just as well be extended to anyone who expressed an opinion. Method B is ridiculous. Most neurologists who "opined" did so without examining the patient. Some had only seen the heavily edited video. Method C is fine so long as we say she was in a PVS, which she was. It's of absolutely no account how many medical professionals opined that she was not in a PVS, just as it would be of no account how many tax lawyers have opined on Roe vs Wade, say. It is totally appropriate to mention more of one side than another, because of those who examined her, all bar one diagnosed her as in a PVS, and the other was a quack on a mission. What we must not do is seek a presentation of the facts that denies the truth. We do not have to be balanced between two opinions if one is an expression supported by the facts and the other is not. I direct Gordon to articles on Earth, which does not suggest in its introduction that it is flat, and on evolution, which does not suggest it has not happened and does not happen. But hold on! Loads of scientists have suggested that there is no evolution. There's a list on the Discovery Institute site of nutters scientists who suggest exactly that. Surely our article should reflect that? Well no. The article reflects the overwhelming majority of informed opinion. So should this one. Fat chance, obviously, but that's the ideal. Gordon, you simply have to accept that, rightly or wrongly, those who examined her diagnosed her as in a PVS, and they are supported by the physical evidence; the man who did not diagnose her so frankly lied about her condition -- he claimed she was practically up on her feet; not even her greatest supporters would claim that; and he also claimed that he could regenerate her cortical tissue, which, given its absence and the lack of experimental proof for his method, was to say the least a longshot. -- Grace Note

How do we address "quality" of doctors in intro

  • --GordonWattsDotCom 01:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)Some want to mention the problems that Hammesfahr had with credibility. OK, but only if you mention also that another judge said something positive about him (eg Florida physician declared "the first physician to treat patients successfully to restore deficits caused by stroke" says Judge Susan Kirkland of the Florida Department of Health. -see "PVS" section below -or, if deleted, in this diff here. Also, you need to mention that the Congressman who "nominated" Hammesfahr ALSO thought he was a good doctor, even if the nomination was not legal according to Nobel Rules. ALSO, you need to mention that Cranford had credibility problems (as did Judge Greer). Cranford misdiagnosed at least one patient, when he wasn't really PVS, and Greer has a HIGH rate of reverals, indicating he is not making sound judgements. See e.g., Schiavo's 'Dr. Humane Death' Got 1980 Diagnosis Wrong and Schiavo Judge Has 76% Reversal Rate Outside Rule. You want to demonize Hammesfahr and Terri's parents? Fine. You also need to say that the only doctors who found Terri to be PVS were actually in some way, shape, or form, hired by Mike Schiavo or appointed by the now-tainted George Greer.--GordonWattsDotCom 01:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • NEW ITEM: Offset by black text color: Should the article mention that “cerebral cortex missing” claims by Cranford were DISPROVEN!! by autopsy? Gordon's vote: Yes, probably; however, if you don't make critical remarks about Cranford, and many could be made, then you can't make critical remarks about Hammesfahr, and you must include Cheshire, etc. Fair is fair: NPOV.
  • Again absolutely typical. Cranford made a mistake 25 years ago that he learned from. He learned that you need to do a CAT scan to support your diagnosis, and if it does not, you must reconsider the diagnosis. We have learned more about PVS since then. As for Greer, Florida overturns a lot of decisions on appeal (three-quarters of death sentences for example!). It should be noted that appellate judges are appointed by the governor. I doubt Greer votes Bush. -- Grace Note

Which other issues should be mentioned in intro re: "generated much controversy?"

  • My vote is explained in this exact diff at 16:01, 10 July 2005 in Schiavo talk: While both the Spanish (es.wikipedia.org) and Chinese wiki's (zh.wikipedia.org) say such things as that the Schiavo situation sparked much debate over Euthanasia, Bioethics, Federalism, Guardianship, Civil Rights, etc... Please notice that while these two wiki's are not exactly the same, nonetheless, BOTH of them include "Euthanasia" as an item where it notes that it sparked debate; Plus, google.com confirms that Euthanaisa was a top item in debate, as do the older versions of the English (American Language) wiki (en.wikipedia.org) -and my own notes on what sparked debate on what. That is my vote.--GordonWattsDotCom 02:02, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Ghost, there weree at least two versions of the old intro. One of them had most or all of the above, and included "euthanasia," the main point that debate sparked (see my analyses -plural of analysis -in archive/reboot). The other version omitted "Euthanasia." So, you'll have to find the diff or suggest the language you prefer. I prefer mentioning ALL of them: I'm an [inclusionist].--GordonWattsDotCom 01:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

The article cites certain laws; Which others should be mentioned?

  • A quick look at the article finds that it mentions the Florida Law definition of PVS in certain places; 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 Terri's parents (and others too) think it violated felony law, arguably the most important dispute regarding Greer. Article mentions Terri_Schiavo#Rehabilitation_efforts by family but OMITS 744.3215(1)(i), the "rehabilitation" law cited by Terri's parents' lawyers (and many disability advocates). These laws too should be mentioned in article. 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." It is not Wikipedia's policy to "take sides," but the law here deals with hospoce placement and should be cited: We report. You decide.--GordonWattsDotCom 03:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Should the article mention additional credibility problems?

Should the article mention that “cerebral cortex missing” claims by Felos were disproven by autopsy? Yes, probably; however, if you give Felos a free pass, then, to be NPOV, you must do the same for Hammesfahr, and others, to whom you would lob criticism.--GordonWattsDotCom 03:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Perhaps you didn't understand the autopsy. It's very technical. In layman's terms, her brain was severely and irreversibly damaged. Her brain weighed about half what it should have at her age. The pathologist was very clear though that PVS is a clinical diagnosis and he could not confirm or deny it. This is unfortunate because it allows people like you to suggest she really was minimally conscious when it is quite clear that she lacked the apparatus. You'd have to be a true charlatan to suggest she could function with the brain she had left. -- Grace Note

Should we add additional links, such as those to Gordon Watts' sites?

Example include: "Advocacy/Commentary" or links to his "court cases" pages, or other useful links, stored in this exact diff of Archive 24 of Terri Schiavo's talk page.

  • --GordonWattsDotCom 03:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)Yes to the first two: They are relevant; maybe to the others. Yes, I know they're my web pages in some cases, and they haven't been updated in a while, but they provide useful repositories of information on the web.--GordonWattsDotCom 03:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • ghost 14:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC) - We should avoid links the editor's sites. Gordon, we need to avoid the appearence of Vanity Links. You sites have some good material, but you are now so deeply involved in the Wiki article that you create the appearance of a conflict of interest. I have faith that you don't intend to push POV, but if readers make that assumption, it colors their view of the entire article.

Archive / reboot

This is getting too long. I'm not going to have the time to read through every word of this.

Would someone please archive everything after the Mediator's summary? And then each person who has agreed to mediation, please write a summary (less than 500 words, I will be counting ;-) of what you think needs to be improved in the Terri Schiavo article.

Thank you. the Mediator

Done. FuelWagon 28 June 2005 23:26 (UTC)

/summaries


Well?

It has been 4 days since the last contribution to this Mediation. Is everyone giving up, or what? I didn't feel particularly good about putting a user block on FuelWagon, but does that change anything?

You want another Mediator? You want to continue with me? What do you all want to do? Uncle Ed 19:41, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

As I say in other recent posts, my computer was damaged, and I was busy mediating "World War 3" at the Abortion "Wiki-Quotes" page, and thus busy & unable to respond; still not up to full speed, but Ed was my role-model on how to mediate, and I wasusccessful in my resulotion of others' dispute-...see other posts recently in this page for details. You're doing good, Uncle Ed; let's address specific points more and agree to find concensus, not agree to disagree, haha.--GordonWattsDotCom 08:55, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm not giving up. I've had work overtake my life, as I've mentioned to a few of you. I wish to apologize if my absence impacting things. However, I'm VERY disappointed in what's gone on while I've been absent.
  • Members of this Mediation dragging in other Admins
  • Users/Participants being blocked
  • Users dropping off Wikipedia altogether
  • Still no real progress
Ed, I had hoped that, as Mediator, you'd put forth some type of compromise solution. If you want us to do that for you, fine. Email me, and I'll get on it this evening in spite of my other responsibilities. If you no longer feel comfortable as Mediator, please let us know. But if you're going to stick it out (and I hope you do) please give us your guidance, not the back of your hand. And could you please encourage the other Admin that's gotten involved to either join us here, or cool their jets? Despite our differences with you, I don't think that you're the person that's driving other Users away.--ghost 19:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not quitting. I've never quit a Mediation. As they said in Ghostbusters, "that would be wrong".

But perhaps I've been too harsh or made other mistakes. Every dispute is different, and we'll just have to keep plugging away at it until we find the key that unlocks the door.

I believe in the magic ... Uncle Ed 20:06, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

You know why I'm glad I'm not the mediator? Half the time, I can tell these people are upset with those people, but I can't figure out what the dispute is.
That said, if I had to blurt out a proposed fix, no matter how outlandish, right now, I would say this:
  • A new, ultra-low tolerance policy on personal attacks, including accusing other editors of being pro-this, anti-that, or even general references to "the so-and-so camp/so-and-so supporters."
  • An agreement to tackle each disputed change individually. In addition, editors posting more than 500 words per post will be keel-hauled. Editors nesting more than 200 words into an existing post will be fired into the sun via super-gigantic cannon.
  • All parties who have agreed to mediation must reach consensus on a statement detailing what the purpose of the article should be before performing any more edits other than obvious vandalism reversion.
Fox1 20:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
A ghost invited me to join in this discussion, though I see Ed has asked that only parties to the mediation join in, which I am not, so Ed, feel free to delete this comment as you see fit. I've read through the summaries above, and I agree completely with the comment from Fox 1. This article has been turned into a POV warzone, with no one paying attention to the fact that we want it to be read, and that therefore it has to be readable. This means concision, tight prose, good sources that are presented correctly and are easy to access, and above all, neutrality, which is currently lacking. But neutrality isn't gained by stating POV 1, then countering it with POV 2, then again with POV 3. Neutrality means writing in a disinterested way throughout. My outsider's suggestion is that any editor with strong views about the Schiavo case ought to stop editing the article for a few weeks, and allow it to be looked over by editors who have no emotional investment in it. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:16, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
This mediation has accomplished nothing that I can see, except generate more comments from the editors. I think we declare this an official failure. FuelWagon 22:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
any editor with strong views about the Schiavo case ought to stop editing Whew! That was close. I just have strong views about bad edits. I guess I can stay. FuelWagon 05:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
lol--ghost 05:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Uncle Ed, I apologize for my silence. I was away for a few days, and then came back to see how intense things had got in that short period. I explained here [5] that I wasn't sure what you wanted us to do. I didn't want to post long (and possibly irritating) essays after you had told us to stick to 500 words. Also, I was, and still am, extremely busy. I have to submit a university assignment in the middle of next week, and should be more free after that. Just now, all I have time to say is that I still support mediation. I agree with Fox1's suggestions about personal attacks, although I would personally have no problem with the use of such phrases as "Michael Schiavo supporters" or "Schindler supporters" as long as they are used for ease of reference rather than bandied around as accusations. I would also be happy to go along with SlimVirgin's suggestion that those with strong views would stop editing for a few weeks. That it was necessary to block someone for personal attacks is not at all a reason for or a sign of failure of this mediation, unless people want it to be such. We should all be able to rise above this. I am extremely sorry to see that FuelWagon has now filed an RfC against SlimVirgin. Ann Heneghan 23:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
(Welcome back, Ann.) I have to disagree with Slim's conclusions in the strongest terms. This article's being a POV warzone is nothing new. It's been like that since January. It's better now than it's been. And there are editors who are interested in readability. We are those editors. The POV 1/2/3 example is valid, but is directly contradicted by NPOV. We have a responsability to present both majority and minority views. Finally, I left for a week and a war broke out. I have no interest in walking away. What Slim may not appriciate yet is that we are each voices of groups of editors on this issue. If we all go away for a month, you'll eventually see the same arguments, with different signatures. *shakes head* No, we as a group are closer to concensus than previous editors. Let's stick with it.--ghost 05:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Welcome back; see above for my own positive feedback for the mediator's good efforts.--GordonWattsDotCom 08:55, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

We can do this

I think Slim made an error or two, but nothing we can't resolve right here on this page.

"Slick" RickK and/or others have accused me of being biased in favor of SlimVirgin, but a close reading of my analysis says diferently. However, I am "slim" myself, and also a person of morals, so I would have a pro bias for her choice of user names, but I don't ley my bias prevent correct and unbiased, objective NPOV analysis.--GordonWattsDotCom 09:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

She's in the mediation now, whether we like it or not.

Fox is on the right track, and I'll say more about that in a minute (er, "in a while" I mean).

Fox's suggestions are good, expecially about tackling each problem individually, but Fox trivializes some minor viewpoints, a bit too much, in my honest opinion.--GordonWattsDotCom 09:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I have offered to bow out if asked, but no one has directly asked.

FuelWagon has very graciously responded to an unprecedented "block by an admin who was also conducting the Mediation he was in" - if I've phrased that correctly. My head is still spinning, anyway.

Wagon tries to improve the page and works hard, even if he doesn't see eye-to-eye on all my points (see "crying witch" vs "crying wolf" in archives), so, while his temper wasn't appropriate, I am not going to personally be offended; I myself make mistakes...--GordonWattsDotCom 09:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

This is a confusing, emotionally laden situation. (This, the sixth paragraph, is the only one I'm really clear about!)

Okay, let me catch my breath for a couple of minutes. Do go on, while I collect my thoughts. Uncle Ed 01:37, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Why are we here?

In other words, what are we trying to do?

Fox said we needed:

"a statement detailing what the purpose of the article should be"

I think that would help. Also, Slim pointed out the need for neutrality.

Would a fresh start help? We could:

(A) move the entire article to Terri Schiavo/disputed, and start with a micro-stub.
(B) create a Terri Schiavo/moderated page (also with a micro-stub)

...and then follow the rules I posted at Wikipedia:NPOV violation. Uncle Ed 01:43, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand what purpose moving the article would serve. There is a sizable segement of the general public that needs access to this article. Despite its flaws, it's been cited as the best, most thorough treatment of this subject on the web. (By conservatives at that ;-) ) As long as we're not taking it out of the hands of the public, I might support this. Please explain further.--ghost 04:51, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
I concur; Fix, not replace, and then, later, if we get concensus, LOCK the page, and make edits by submitting them to a "screened and paid" editorial board.--GordonWattsDotCom 09:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
We can't do that, Gordon (the locking), at least, not for any useful length of time. I'm not saying the idea wouldn't do wonders for this article, it probably would, but we can't buck the core philosophy of Wikipedia, no matter how messy this article gets. Locking can only be used for short periods in the face of unusual events like overwhelming vandalism. Even this mediation only applies, voluntarily, to those of use who agreed to it, no one else.
Fox1 12:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Correct, and thus my hope has always been that we could develop party platform from which to build. Our various views and positions are not unlike those within political parties, in that we all share the goal of improving the article. I know this sounds odd, but hear me out. If we can use the caucus method of working out planks with which to build a platform, we can become the example the other editors need to be led with. But this will require some give and take on all our parts. I'm not asking anyone to compromise their morals or views, but to make space for the morals and views of the rest of the group. And I know we can achieve this, based on the commitment we've all shown.--ghost 13:06, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
That sounds good, ghost. Uncle Ed 15:54, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Is it a failure?

I conceded that it is not a success - yet. But I refuse to admit that a problem which has taken so long to come into being, is insoluble merely because it couldn't be solved in a month (or less) of public on-line discussion.

Actually I think we're just starting to get at the real issues here. Which is the prerequisite for resolving them. Uncle Ed 02:29, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

LOL. Think of it as a 10-step program, all. I'd like to start by saying, "Hi. My name is Ghost, and I'm a Wikiholic...." Where are we if we lose out sense of humor?--ghost 04:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

"Is it a failure?" No: In fact, Uncle Ed, you were my role model and guide when World War III broke out over at the Wiki Quotes Abortion page! In recalling your distinctive style of identifying the various conflicts, and then identifying them, I coipied YOU: I identified a multitude of problems, and scored a direct 'hit', when one of my proposals for format change was accepted over the other alternatives. As you can see, things quitened down when I learned from you, and copied, monkey see, monkey do, but with all the monkey business and you forgetting how or what to do, look at the current Abortion page situation, and re-learn your specialty.--GordonWattsDotCom 08:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I am slower today, as the good computer was hit by lightening and fried BOTH modems (DSL and dial up; I almost got fried Tuesday), plus the stupid space bar in this keyboard is very unresponsive, and my word processor (used to save edits and spell-check) doesn't automaticaLLY LIGHT up the misspelled words like on my good computer, and must be pasted a certain place below header or it won't past; and "copying," the opposite, must be done manually in THIS aol window,m and won't accept Edit-select all-copy. ~~ In short, I AM not up to top speed, and feel unable to express myself well; This is why I have not participated since the lightening strike Tuesday in a "Florida thunderstorm,": and I mayt be slow the rest of this week? ~~ OK,. enough of my moaning; Just wanted to let everybody know why I wAS SLOWQ- HAD TO USE iNTERNET CASE AND PUBLIC LIBRARY AND FINally figured out how to get the old standby computer online bu dialup somwhow.. --OK, Yes, Uncle Ed, you have my vote of confidence, but as I said before, you are undermined by two things: 1) Editors are not screened here like "regular" places of employment; and 2) We don't get paid (and I would imagine even y'all admins & sysops probably don't get paid, or if you do, it's a pittance) -not paying the help is what stymies the quality:" You get what you pay for, if I can end this once phrase with a preposition this time.--GordonWattsDotCom 08:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Two quick points, before I dash off to a meat world obligation:
  • Ending a sentence with a preposition is an affront up with which I will not put. ;-)
  • I'm glad my failure has provided a good example for you. :-) Uncle Ed 12:34, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
All right Winston Churchill, ;-o--GordonWattsDotCom 15:45, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I fixed "4 Archive / reboot" above. Reason? I'm getting sleepy andmy computers are kind of sleepy acting too sometimes, and if I don't show up for a couple days (working, sleeping, etc.), then I want ALL the objections to get voted on if I'm not around. (If there's a vote, and someone's absent, count their vote based on their summary, OK?)
  • Don't get me wrong: I DO want to participate, but it doesn't pay, so your help is unreliable and has other responsibilities. REQUEST: Ed or Ghost, who requested mediation, or somebody, Please make sure EVERYBODY ELSE's voice is heard, even if it slightly exceeds the 500-word thing. (See Archive - reboot: I reformatted the titles, but I left some people out because I don't feel like searching for extra views on them, even tho their voice IS important... (I'm human & limited I made sure ALL of the points of summaries squeezed in: I changed the rules, like was done in the Kobayashi Maru -so we would win!) Cheers!

PVS

If you want all the facts about Shiavo's diagnosis, it would be something like this: FuelWagon 22:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC) 

Eight neurologists examined Shiavo.
Seven neurologists diagnosed her to be in a PVS. 
All seven were members in good standing of American Academy of Neurology.
One neurologist (Hammersfahr) diagnosed her to be MCS.
Hammersfahr was not a member in good standing of American Academy of Neurology.
His vasodilatation therapy is not recognized in the medical community.
He has claimed, on multiple occaisons, to be a "nominee" for the Nobel Prize "in Medicine",
however this is not true.
He was also hired by the Schindlers specifically to challenge the PVS diagnosis in court.
When he testified in court as to his diagnosis of Shiavo being MCS,
the court impeached the credibility of his diagnosis.

And if you want the short version for the intro, I'd say this FuelWagon 22:07, 15 July 2005 (UTC) 

Seven neurologists diagnosed Shiavo to be in a PVS.

Yes, I think Hammersfahr is enough of a quack to be disregarded in the intro. FuelWagon 22:07, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

This is helpful, FuelWagon. And I'll be back soon. Uncle Ed 22:46, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
I concur, it is helpful, but incomplete; let me add just one missing piece here, not meant to be a complete laundry list of my beefs: It could/should/would also include "Cranford and Felos (and others) were also hired by Michael Schiavo specifically to support the PVS diagnosis in court and make sure Terri got her feeding tube removed." Hmm... you want to add your sentences, which are not all bad, I admit, but you must include the whole story to be fair. The "short intro" argument is gaining momentum, and I fear that both our pet sentences will get the boot.--GordonWattsDotCom 02:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I'm unlocking the article. Fuel, please apply your intro (let's see what happens). Slim, you are welcome to this Mediation. Fox, thanks for insisting that we all avoid personal remarks. Ann, don't spend too much time away from your schoolwork. Ghost, well, think of something! Gordon, "less is more". Sorry if I missed anyone else.

I'll be offline Sunday, so please play nice, kids. ;-) Uncle Ed 12:31, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

"Fuel, please apply your intro" Done. FuelWagon 20:21, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

If you don't mention Hammesfahr, then you must also exclude Cranford, who has misdiagnosed. However, if you include the seven (7) who said Terri was PVS, then you must also include Cheshire AND Hammesfahr, who both -to some extent -examined her. Further, if you include statements about Hammesfahr that are negative in nature, you must also include a critique of ALL the other neurologists. You can't "pick and choose." Furthermore, I just recently read that Hammesfahr had gotten positive reviews by some circuit judge. Let me see if I can find something on the net about this.--GordonWattsDotCom 07:26, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

  • I found them: Here is the PRWeb.com text version, the alternate release, and the copy off of his web site.
  • FACTS: The release says that "Florida physician declared "the first physician to treat patients successfully to restore deficits caused by stroke" says Judge Susan Kirkland of the Florida Department of Health." (a supposedly good thing)
  • In the critics' favor: The doctor himself makes these claims.
  • In the doctor's favor: These claims about Judge Kirkland are apparently NOT challenged nor rebutted ANYWHERE on the Internet.
  • Conclusion: The are probably true, and if you report the bad, then you must report the good too -to be fair and factual, and unbiased, that is, NPOV.--GordonWattsDotCom 07:38, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Ann's report

I shouldn't be here; I should be studying, but - I took a peep at the unlocked article, and then changed it back to "diagnosed as". This isn't meant to be the beginning of another war. If I'm reverted, I won't revert back without discussing it first. I would probably have left it alone, except that Uncle Ed forgot to put two square brackets on both sides, so his wikification didn't work. Here are the reasons for my change:

A long time ago, the article used to state (as fact) that she was in a PVS. This generated a lot of complaints and some edit wars. I'm not pushing for a claim that she was MCS. All I want was that something controversial should not be stated as a fact. Eventually, a consensus was reached that the article would say "diagnosed as". (This would not violate the beliefs of those who agreed with the diagnosis.) After that change, there was peace for a while.

Just before I went to London, Duckecho removed the "diagnosed as". He did this without any prior discussion on the talk page. (He also inserted an invisible instruction not to change this!) Ghost wasn't around. FuelWagon bet a dozen donuts that someone would complain. (But he backed up Duckecho, saying something like, "Nothing ventured, nothing gained.") I pointed out why I wasn't happy. Neuroscientist gave me some support, while making it clear that his support was for reasons of "epistemic accuracy", and not because he doubted the diagnosis. Duckecho accepted that he could allow "diagnosed as" for Neuroscientist's reasons, but not for mine. I reinserted "diagnosed as", just before going to London.

While I was in London, Duckecho again removed the "diagnosed as" changed that bit to "evolved into an irreversible persistent vegetative state (PVS) as determined by more than a half dozen neurologists." Then SlimVirgin arrived on the scene, and changed it to "a persistent vegetative state (PVS), according to seven neurologists who examined her, or a minimally conscious state (MCS), according to one other." I think everyone reading this knows what happened in the next few days. Then the article was locked. Ghost came back. SlimVirgin told Ghost (on his talk page) that she'd be happy with the "diagnosed as" version. She also wrote (about Duckecho's version): "The PVS was a disputed diagnosis. The issue split America in two. And yet our introduction is written as though there was no dispute at all. The PVS diagnosis was by far and away the majority one, and it was supported by the courts, and the sentence should be written to reflect that, but the other diagnosis can't be ignored."

Uncle Ed's edit summary (May I) suggested that he wouldn't take offence if someone changed it, and I had to change the bad link anyway.

I'm not offended at all; I'm rather pleased. :-) I'm actually very difficult to offend. I'm collecting a list of user talk:Ed Poor/ways to offend me, but it's rather short right now. (So far, nobody's been able to add to it - I wonder why ;-)
Anyway, I appreciate the storyline. Now I see much that I did not. I'm not as smart as Gandalf, and I don't have one of those magic crystal balls that the Queen and the Steward had {see palintir), but I just finished my ninth reading of LOTR last month and it gave me new inspiration.
Now, where was I? Oh, well, maybe it doesn't matter. Let's just carry on with the article. This is my day off, actually. Uncle Ed 15:24, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

One further point. FuelWagon has made various claims about Dr Hammesfahr, in justification for leaving his diagnosis out of the introduction. If we go along with the "diagnosed as", which is what we had before Duckecho changed it, we won't need to argue over whether or not to mention seven neurologists or seven plus one. However, if we don't agree to leave "diagnosed as", we'll have to decide exactly how fair it is to put all that stuff about Hammesfahr in the introduction. Neuroscientist wrote a very helpful clarification of Hammesfahr's position recently, and I have more questions. I'm not going to write them now. Maybe after a few hours of study, as a break. That's all for now. Ann Heneghan 14:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

See above; I comment that we must be balanced and simply report the facts.--GordonWattsDotCom 07:42, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Update - my questions to Neuroscientist can be seen here. I think the introduction flowed better before "seven neurologists" etc. was added to it. It sounds a bit abrupt now. Anyway, I can't see why it has to be in the introduction, if the introduction says that she was in a condition "diagnosed as" a PVS. It's also unfair, since there are question marks about Cranford also, and since the Schindlers were only permitted to have two doctors of their choice examine Terri. (I'm also interested in what Neuroscientist would say about the relevance of a radiologist's testimony, since one of their chosen doctors, who sided with them, was a radiologist.) There were many affidavits (seventeen?) from doctors (neurologists?) and some from speech pathologists who believed either that she wasn't or that she might not be in a PVS. They have been discussed at length on the talk pages, and their evidence has been disregarded because it was based on videos of Terri. Well, they weren't allowed to examine her in person, were they? If video evidence is really so worthless, wouldn't all the doctors who filed the affidavits have known that? I think in that case they would have said, "She sometimes looks as if she's responding, but that's completely meaningless, so if our colleagues who examined her say she's in a PVS, she must be."

Are we being completely NPOV if we put the diagnosis of seventeen neurologists into the introduction and leave out the dissenting medical opinions? Leave them both out, or put them both in. My preference would be to leave them both out, and to cover the dispute in the main body. But even in the main body, I think it's important that a new reader, unfamiliar with the story, would realize that the Schindlers were not allowed to have any more doctors examine Terri. Back to my books now. Ann Heneghan 17:38, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Ann. If reference to the seven neurologists is made in the intro, the dissenting opinion ought to be mentioned too. Or else leave out both references, and deal with the issue in detail in the body of the story. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:45, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Ann's logic is correct. I too agree; see e.g., below for discussion:--GordonWattsDotCom 21:05, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
what Neuroscientist would say about the relevance of a radiologist's testimony. Neurscientist said something to the effect that PVS is a clinical diagnosis, meaning you need to interact with the patient and know what the heck it is you're looking for to make the proper diagnosis. And radiologists are not trained to do that. They're trained to look at X-rays and interpret them. (NS, correct me if I'm wrong here.) FuelWagon 18:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Good so far; I just wanted to acknowledge so you know I'm really reading your post here, FW.--GordonWattsDotCom 21:05, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
It's also unfair, since there are question marks about Cranford The questions about cranford are ad homenim attacks about his opinions about a patients end-of-life rights. He is a member in good standing in the AAN, and whatever diagnosis he made on other patients, the AAN felt they did not deserve any sanctions against him. FuelWagon 18:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
False about the "questions": Cranford misdiagnosed this one guy as having been PVS who woke up and was clearly NOT in a PVS. I think is was Police Sgt. David Mack. Can somebody look that up?--GordonWattsDotCom 21:05, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
There were many affidavits Yes. Three dozen, I believe. All based on 4.5 minutes of video edited by the Schindlers down from 4.5 hours of raw footage. Their affidavits generally did NOT say that Terri was MCS, they ONLY said "she appears to be responding in the tape. more tests should be done". Some of the affidavits suggested doing tests that had already been done, indicating they had little or no objective information about Terri's condition, only what the Schindlers presented to them. FuelWagon 18:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
This is a non sequitor, for it does not follow that they would have been unqualified to have submitted the affidavits or make diagnoses. Maybe one crackpot. Maybe two, but NOT a whole load of doctors, nurses, medical professionals. If they felt like five SECONDS was enough, they still affirmed in affidavit form, with their credentials to back up their arguments.--GordonWattsDotCom 21:05, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
the Schindlers were not allowed to have any more doctors examine Terri. Well, the Schindlers didn't even question the PVS diagnosis at first. several doctors had examined her and diagnosed her PVS, and they did not dispute it. They instead simply tried to take guardianship away from Michael, tried to say that Terri would not want to be taken off life support. it wasn't until years of court battles about other stuff that they decided to try disputing the diagnosis. FuelWagon 18:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Fine. Then put a state that too.--GordonWattsDotCom 21:05, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Leave them both out, or put them both in. In the article for the Apollo program, I don't think they need to include in the introduction the opinion by some crackpots that the whole moon mission was faked, filmed in the dessert in arizona. It should be in the article, but not in the intro. FuelWagon 18:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Your parable/analogy/comparison is UNEQUAL/unbalanced: NOT many people do not subscribe to the flat earth theory, but MANY (and OVER HALF, according to some polls), DO subscribe to the theories proposed and put forth by the medical professionals who submitted affidavits; So, some of them were unaware of the exact tests performed. Big whoop! ALL of the medical professionals make mistakes. Your above argument was interesting, but UNEQUAL, therefore not applicable to the currenct situation.--GordonWattsDotCom 21:05, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Look, the Schindlers disputed the diagnosis, so that should be in the intro. As for her actual diagnosis, 8 neurologists actually examined her, and one of them had his diagnosis thrown out by the court for quackery. For the other seven to be wrong requires an amazing conspiracy (and we have no evidence for a conspiracy theory but for some extremists with blogs) or an amazing cascaded failure (imagine, having seven parachutes when you go skydiving, and every single one of them fails.) OK, so say Cranford got it wrong once, so maybe his parachute fails, but you still have six others, and they all say PVS. There are no alternative explanations. conspiracy or an amazing cascaded failure. Neither one stands any test of reason. FuelWagon 01:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
To report it as if it were a cascaded failure, the video-diagnosis would have to be based on all 4.5 hours of video, not just 4.5 minutes of clips to have some weight. You cannot make a video diagnosis of PVS/MCS when all you have is 4.5 minutes of clips whittled down from 4.5 hours by the Schindlers. There is not enough data to show a statistically significant response rate that could just as easily be explained by random behaviour from Terri lining up with random interactions from teh Schindlers. PVS patients open their eyes, their eyes move around, they make sounds. All of it happens randomly. sit with someone who is PVS for 4.5 hours and it is statistically will within the bel curve to get 4.5 minutes of good video where it looks like there is interaction. FuelWagon 01:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
FuelWagon, you continue to argue the Schiavo case, as though that's what we're not here to do, but we're not. This isn't a debating society. We're here to report what happened, whether we personally agree with it or not. If you have a citation where the judge actually said: "I am dismissing Dr. Hammesfahr's diagnosis because he's a quack," we report that. If not, we don't. Read WP:NPOV.
If the seven PVS diagnoses are mentioned in the intro, the eighth MCS diagnosis ought to be mentioned too. As some people seem to prefer that the latter not be mentioned, let's delete the former, and just leave it as diagnosed as PVS. It was Duckecho changing the intro that seems to have triggered this recent round of disputes, and now you adding back seven neurologists hasn't helped, so I suggest we go back to Ann's version and then just leave it. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:31, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
"It was Duckecho changing the intro that seems to have triggered this recent round of disputes," Um, I don't know if you have noticed, but User:Duckecho left wikipedia as of four days ago, a particularly sore point for a number of editors remaining. I was the one who changed the intro and it was because Ed said to do it somewhere on this page. FuelWagon 11:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Yes, FuelWagon, you changed it recently, but I think that SlimVirgin is referring to Duckecho's edit on 8 July, where without prior discussion on the talk page, he got rid of "diagnosed as" and made the article say that Terri was in a PVS. He also inserted an invisible comment, saying "Do not change without authoritative documentation to the contrary and without discussion on talk page". I was very disappointed that an editor would single-handedly, and without discussion, undo a change that had been agreed on, and also instruct future editors not to change back. We had reached consensus some time before that "diagnosed as" would prevent edit wars. Several editors had indicated that they would be happy with that or with something similar. I replaced it on 9 July after discussion on the talk page, and then Duckecho removed it again on 10 July. I don't know if it was discussed before he made this change. I rather think not, but the language on the talk page when I got back from London does not exactly make me feel like going through all the diffs.
With regard to your recent edits, I see you're still putting your seven neurologists into the introduction, and leaving out reference to any dissenting opinion, except for "Shiavo's [sic.] parents". As I have said before, Hammesfahr is a qualified, board-certified neurologist. I deplore the deception concerning the Nobel Prize nomination, but really, if you're a liar in claiming that you can fly, it doesn't prove that you can't swim. Neuroscientist may be too busy to answer my questions, but in any case I think we all accept that Hammesfahr is a board-certified neurologist, and if he falsely claims to be more, it doesn't mean he's less. Your edit makes it seem as if it was only her parents that disputed it. And that is very misleading. Professional medical people disputed it. Hammesfahr is a qualified neurologist. And, as I pointed out elsewhere, if the neurologists who wrote affidavits based on video testimony were properly qualified, and if the responses she "appeared" to give on video were meaningless, they would have known that they were meaningless. It is simply a suppression of facts to omit from the introduction that the Schindlers had medical support. Leave it as "diagnosed as" in the intro, without mentioning the neurologists and the Schindlers, OR put in that other doctors disputed the diagnosis. My preference is for the former.
And yes, she had noticed Duckecho's departure. She removed some rather nasty personal attacks from his farewell message on his user page. Ann Heneghan 16:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
So Duckecho changed got rid of "diagnosed as" and made the article say that Terri was in a PVS. To put "diagnosed as" kind of implies that there was doubt, that the fact she was in a PVS was just an opinion. If you'll excuse me making another analogy, this would be like saying on the JFK assasination that the fact he died of a bullet wound the head was merely the opinion of the doctors, rather than presenting it as indisputable fact that he died because an assasin blew his brains out. --Uthar Wynn 01 21:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
I've made that sentence invisible until we decide. As things stand, people don't seem to want it, but that may change when other editors join the discussion. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:50, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps the eighth diagnosis should inded be mentioned, but to mention it on an equal footing as the others would be very misleading. The fact is that Hammesfahr is widely considered to be, how shall I put this nicely, a little "unothorthoordox" :( ... "unorthodox" in his methods, and more than a little "unprofessional". Long story short, the reputable sources pretty much agree that he is, indeed, a "quack", and while this should be worded more nicely and it should be clear that this is merely an opinion, treating Hammesfahr as equal to the others is downright deceptive. --Uthar Wynn 01 05:01, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
I've changed the intro to read:
She briefly lapsed into a coma, and then spent the remaining 15 years of her life in a condition diagnosed by seven neurologists as a persistent vegetative state (PVS). This diagnosis was disputed by Shiavo's parents.
The "diagnosis was disputed" sentence used to be in there but must have gotten wiped out in all the reversions. Since the Schindlers were a major player in this whole story, the fact they disputed the diagnosis deserves being reported in the intro. However, since their evidence disputing this diagnosis is quackery, I'm not listing that in the intro. And I removed the bit that said something like "One doctor not in good standing diagnosed her as MCS" because "not in good standing" is a very loose paraphrase of facts. He is not a member in good standing with the AAN. His diagnosis was also tossed by the court. those two facts would be the minimum listing of his credibility problems that would need to go alongside any of his diagnosises. FuelWagon 12:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
I've changed back to Grace Note's version, but have changed "claimed" to "said" of the minority diagnosis.
Is this mediation page taking the place of the talk page? SlimVirgin (talk) 17:59, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Areas of dispute

Can anyone outline in just a few sentences what the areas of dispute are in this mediation? I've read through the archives and I don't see anything that couldn't be sorted out easily between reasonable editors. However, I may have missed something, so if anyone could tell me what the big sticking points are, that would be very helpful. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:50, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

I think the big issue isn't so much the individual points of contention, but what philosiphy should be applied to the article as a whole. Should it merely report what the courts and all of the reputable medical sources say, what appears to be the factually correct reality?
Or should information that is pretty much established fact be second guessed at every opportunity and all sorts of unlikely alternate realities be presented? Should, in fact, the article on the first moon landing include all sorts of counter-claims by conspiracy theorists? Should equal weight be given to the idea that man really did land on the moon and the idea that it was all some incredibly elaborate hoax? Should every article referencing the scientifically accepted geographical status of the earth also include the claims made by the Flat Earth Society? Should articles referencing the geologic and biological hitory of our planet include the scientifically unsubstantiated claims that the Earth was only created 4000 years ago? Should history articles presume that the Holocaust actually occured or should they give equal status to claims by Holocaust deniers and neo-Nazis that it is all some big hoax, that the millions who died were never murdered by the Nazis?
The age-old conflict of science vs. religion, logic vs. ideology, critical thinking vs. "deeply held beliefs", thoughtful objectivity vs. passion politics, is the real issue here, and attempting to achieve a compromise on every contested point in these case will result in a mediocre conclusion and satisfy nobody. One must decide what stance an "informative" or "neutral" article will take: to merely present the facts as they appear to be or to give equal standing to the alternatives, no matter how improbable?
This is the big problem here, this is truly what the dispute is all about. --Uthar Wynn 01 05:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Why do you juxtapose science vs. religion (reason vs. faith)? Are you not aware that the Church created the University? Are you not aware that the Church, including two popes, LAUDED Gallileo publicly for his heliocentric theory and continued to fund him and encourage him to lecture far and wide? Are you not aware that Gallileo caused his own problems because he had no proof of what turned out to be a correct THEORY - but even though he had no proof, he taught it as true. The Church - who ran the University system and were responsible for safeguarding its respectability and reputation - forbade Gallileo simply to teach his then UNPROVEN theory as if it were fact. Gallileo refused and, contrary to scientific and academic standards, falsley taught his theory as proven truth. In fact, we know that the "proofs" he offered for heliocentrism were actually either erroneous or no proof at all, so although he was correct about heliocentrism, he did not reach the conclusion through a rationally explicable proof-analysis - in other words he had a hunch that turned out to be correct. Those are the historical and scientific facts. Faith fostered Gallileo's genius, nurtured it, and encouraged him to pursue his scienific pursuits. But his pride took over in the end. Again, my question: Why do ou juxtapose faith against reason as if they were at all incompatible or at odds? 214.13.4.151 17:07, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
So nice to see you, 214. What took you so long? ;-) I think Uthar's problem is that he is trying to prove the case. That is not Wikipedia's job. Our job is simply to report the facts. SlimVirgin sums it up nicely in one of her posts. HOWEVER, I will explicity state where Uthar (and I myself & many others) have erred, and I cite this diff: [6]--GordonWattsDotCom 22:02, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Slim, my read on the issues can be found in my RfM and my 500 word, which I did as bullets. I continue to stand by them. And although Uthar wasn't invited, he summary in his first paragraph is pretty close.--ghost 15:13, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
I agree. The facts are clear enough but a few editors want them to be second-guessed and attacked, in the same way that they were throughout the Schiavo affair. They want equal coverage for minority views and frank distortions. They are demanding "balance" but this is balance between a neutral, fair representation of the facts and opinions about the facts on one hand and partisan opinion on the other. There is no way that should be acceded to. -- Grace Note
And Gordon, the problem is that you give different "facts" equal standing: on the one hand, the considered diagnoses of the neurologists who examined Schiavo; on the other, a partisan quack who was asked to find a different diagnosis and did so; on the one hand, the findings of the courts; on the other, the prattlings of wingnuts on their blogs; on the one hand, the physical evidence of a woman entirely unable to respond to stimuli for hours on end and a severely damaged brain; on the other, a heavily edited video, which, if you have a very good imagination and a prior disposition to believe in miracles, shows a woman smiling (and if you do not have both of those, shows a woman displaying quite normal signs of a person in a PVS, which will coincide with stimuli if you hang around long enough -- a fact that the video seeks to hide by not being "as live"); on the one hand, the complete absence of any evidence that Schiavo was abused by her husband (with the only small piece of evidence that there was conclusively shown to be a misunderstanding by the medical examiner); on the other, her parents' insistence that she must have been. -- Grace Note

Please Use This Talk Page Correctly

From Wikipedia:Wikiquette

  • Wikipedia articles are supposed to represent all views (more at NPOV). 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.
In summary: Uthar is trying to prove the PVS diagnoses could be true simply because the dissenting doctors do not make their views correct. Uthar may be correct about the PVS diagnosis. (Only God and Terri know if she really was PVS.) However, this is NOT the place to debate that. "We report; You decide." Period. What Wikipedia is not? It is NOT the place to argue the matter.--GordonWattsDotCom 22:02, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Uthar sums it up. Wikipedia requires that all points of view be reported. But someone's POV is distinct from facts. Terri was PVS. This is a fact in so far as the medical community can produce any fact in such a subjective area. This is a fact based on seven experts whose job it is to diagnose these sorts of things. The Schindlers disputed the diagnosis. That is their POV. But their evidence is the diagnosis of a quack neurologist and affidavits from video diagnosers. None of which is anything of substance to counter the fact that Terri was PVS. What they have is basically heresay in the form of affidavits (which were tossed by the courts) and a chunk of the American population weighing in with their own point of view that Terri was MCS. These points of view should be reported. That the schindlers point of view was they disputed the diagnosis should be in the intro. But the only relevant fact regarding her condition was that she was diagnosed by seven neurologist as PVS. All other evidence submitted to dispute this diagnosis has no medical credibility and should not be brought into the intro. FuelWagon 12:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Exactly. The Schindler's point of view should be mentioned, obviously, but to present their alternate view as if it were factually equal to the medically accepted diagnosis would be very POV. There is sufficient consensus among the medical community for us to list her PVS as a fact, not as just another "viewpoint". --Uthar Wynn 01 14:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

"Your parable/analogy/comparison is UNEQUAL/unbalanced: NOT many people do not subscribe to the flat earth theory, but MANY (and OVER HALF, according to some polls), DO subscribe to the theories proposed and put forth by the medical professionals who submitted affidavits; So, some of them were unaware of the exact tests performed. Big whoop! ALL of the medical professionals make mistakes. Your above argument was interesting, but UNEQUAL, therefore not applicable to the currenct situation." GordonWattsDotCom.

Your reasoning is highly flawed, in my opinion. Since when was reality defined by what "the majority" of people think? Since when was the truth defined by the opinions of the ignorant masses? Your own logic would imply that the flat earth theory was somehow more valid way back in the day when people were too ignorant to imagine that the earth could be any other way. Last time I checked, reality was not defined by opinion polls, maybe if you took a poll (this is hypothetical, don't try and tell me what the real results would have been) back in the 1490's the majority of people would agree with Columbus's assesment the the world was much smaller than we now know it to be.

It wouldn't have made Columbus somehow not have been completely dead wrong. He never got even close to Asia, and if it weren't for his completely accidental landing in North America, if the continents of the Western hemisphere were instead just more ocean (as they predicted, they never expected to run into the Americas), he and his entire crew would have all died at sea. They wouldn't have "magically" made it to Asia just because an opinion poll backed up his wrong beliefs.

But all of this is beside the point. Your "survey data" is dead wrong, there were articles in many mainstream news publications about how the congressional interference backfired, about how almost 80% of the population thinks they shouldn't have interfered.

At least 2/3 of the US population backed up the medical assessment of Schaivo's condition, to say a majority disagreed is absurd. But as I said, it doesn't matter. --Uthar Wynn 01 05:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. If such things mattered, we would have taken a vote in 1973 and abortion would still be criminal, instead of having the Courts suddenly discover ghosts of "choice" and "privacy" in the Constitution. 214.13.4.151 17:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Hi Uthar, WP:NPOV says that we must present all majority and significant-minority positions held by reputable or credible published sources. We shouldn't present tiny-minority positions. Therefore the flat-earth, moonlanding, and Holocaust-denial analogies don't fit here, as these are examples of tiny-minority POVs, and should either be given their own space or none at all. Regarding the views we do include, they are given equal standing in the sense that we don't poison the well against certain views, but it should be made clear throughout what the majority view is, and that view should be given more space. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:37, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
Exactly. Presenting all majority and significant-minority positions held by reputable or credible sources would exclude Hammesfahr's diagnosis and the affidavit guys from the article. And as far as making it clear what the "majority view" is goes, if 100% of the credible sources are in agreement, there is absolutely no reason to potray a contrary view as any sort of serious alternative. --Uthar Wynn 01 21:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Every last doctor who made a genuine examination of Schaivo agreed that she was in a PVS, except for Hammesfahr. However, I don't think we're really obligated to include the "diagnosis" of a quack and possibly a pathological liar. We're talking about a guy who claimed he got the "Nobel Peace Prize of Medicine" or some crazy-ass lie like that. To say he can be trusted as a credible source is really pushing it. --Uthar Wynn 01 21:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
"Every last doctor who made a genuine examination of Schaivo agreed that she was in a PVS, except for Hammesfahr." Wrong! You can't count. Both Cheshire and Hammesfahr examined her and opined in official capacity, plus there were three or four more neurologists. Actually, by my counting, I think it may have been MORE neurologists who said Terri was NOT pvs, but it's so close I'm not sure. Furthermore, there were loads and loads of other medical professionals who opined in their official capacity as medical professionals that Terri wasn't PVS and/or that she needed to be tested further.--GordonWattsDotCom 21:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

This isn't meant to be a personal attack Gordon, but you (have your opinion) regarding the facts on Terri Schaivo. You constantly act as if the medical community was 50/50 on whether she was PVS or not, as if whether she was PVS or not is an issue in which both sides are equally valid. This isn't a matter of ideological slant, this is a matter regarding the factual accuracy of the Terri Schaivo article. The doctors and the courts ruled that she was PVS, and the autopsy more or less confirmed the degree of brain damage. The facts are that the overwhelming majority of the doctors who examined Terri Schaivo found her to be PVS, and the only real dissenting opinion came from an established liar (completely insane claims of winning the Nobel Peace Prize of Medicine) and alleged quack.

And you say we have to "mention credibility problems with ALL the doctors or none at all"? What, we have to make up credibility problems for the credible doctors so the article will be "fair"?! I hope you aren't serious because that is possibly the most (interesting) thing I have ever heard as far as article suggestions go.

And why are you even bringing up the "public's view"? The public's view, regardless of how it was split doesn't matter one bit. You obviously missed the earlier discussion about how reality is not defined by polls. It's absolutely (interesting) how you say over 50% of all groups, then make a whole pile of exceptions (lets only poll conservatives?) to decrease the number of people who don't hold the view you happen to like. Even though it's really none of your business, I'll have you know that I am absolutely not a "liberal", and I am not a "conservative" either, I am a registered independent who doesn't play (interesting) ideological games and is only trying to have articles on Wikipedia be in touch with reality. I suggest you (reconsider more interesting possibilities) regarding Schaivo's PVS or stop interfering with this article, Wikipedia is supposed to be a factually accurate resource, not a soapbox for all sorts of unlikely and insane little theories. --Uthar Wynn 01 00:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh, nice. while I was editing I found you created a whole section from which to launch (interesting opinions) me. Great job gordon. --Uthar Wynn 01 00:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

mediation means what, exactly?

So, I'm a little confused as to how mediation works exactly. do we just keep editing the article to say whatever we want it to say? or do we start out where it was and come to some sort of agreement before anythign changes? I'm asking because Ed indicated to add the seven neurologists to the intro[7], and other editors keep putting in the dissenting opinion of a single quack. Just curious what mediation does. FuelWagon 18:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Grace Note isn't part of the mediation, so he can do whatever he wants. Normally mediation will identify the key areas of the dispute and will try to find a consensus consistent with WP's policies regarding those areas. This is why I asked above what the key areas are. So far I can see one: the introduction. But what are the others? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:05, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
Ok, Grace Note didn't agree to mediation, but you did. So why did you "Reverted edits by FuelWagon to last version by Grace Note" here? I added mention of the 7 neurologists here as per Ed's instructions. And then you just wiped it out here. How did that happen? And your last revert basically maintains your version of teh intro, justifying it that you were reverting back to Grace Note, as if that edit was better than mine. Where is the mediation that's supposed to be happening between the editors? FuelWagon 19:32, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure whether I am part of the mediation. I didn't ask to be. Ed has said he doesn't mind me p osting here, though I feel these posts should be on the talk page. Anyway, the point is that Grace Note's version was more neutral than yours, though I prefer Ann's, as it doesn't get into how many neurologists. The problem here, FuelWagon, is that you are pushing a particular POV, and seem to be at Wikipedia at the moment only to do that. I would say that is why the page is in such turmoil. I am 100 per cent certain that Ann, Grace Note and myself, even though we may have quite different views, could sort out the disputed areas between us within hours, because we would all be willing to make concessions. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:53, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Whether anyone's version is more neutral than anyone else is a bit subjective, I would think. I haven't had time to dig around wikipedia, but I was hoping someone more familiar with its guidelines could point to something that explains how to deal with wildly different views with wildly different levels of objective data to support it. (8 neurologists who actually examined Terri, versus three guys who looked at a CAT scan.) I've read the npov article, but but I don't recall it having the level of detail we need to work through this. It suddenly feels like we're trying to hit a bullseye and we don't even really know where the target is. Ideally, if someone has an issue with a sentence in the article they could cite some wikipedia guideline or something. like "that's not neutral because this [wikipedia guideline] says heresay should be treated like this". I'm probably wishful thinking, but I was kind of hoping there would be some wikipedia guidelines that would be detailed enough that we could muddle through this one agonizing word at a time. I don't mind heavy lifting as long as we're making progress, and even one word at a time is progress. but as it is, people are citing concepts like "neutral" which by by itself not specific enough to use as a legitimate yardstick. i.e. enough room for subjective interpretation that any side can make "neutral" mean whatever their version of an edit happens to be. I mean really, doesn't wikipedia have some specifics laid out anywhere? FuelWagon 01:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
I was hoping someone more familiar with its guidelines could point to something that explains how to deal with wildly different views with wildly different levels of objective data to support it. (8 neurologists who actually examined Terri, versus three guys who looked at a CAT scan.) That would be me, but we're seven level indented at this point, and I need you to answer my question at the bottom of the page first. Then I will answer yours. Uncle Ed 01:25, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Normally mediation will identify the key areas of the dispute and will try to find a consensus consistent with WP's policies regarding those areas. OK, Gordon just inserted "Yet Another Diagnosis Dispute" in the introduction. This is not working. All it will do is push the entire article into the introduction. We already tried that and it was too long. Cheshire did not conduct a neurological exam. He visited Terri to investigate claims of abuse. He claimed Terri "watched him for half a minute" but the autopsy 2 weeks later says Terri was probably cortically blind. Every medically related dispute regarding the diagnosis is half-baked. And all this is doing is pushing in the dispute without pushing in the facts behind the dispute like all the problems with Hammer's credentials, or the discrepancy between Cheshire saying she could see/watch him and the autopsy saying she was blind. This is turning into POV pushing because it mentions the disputes against PVS but minimizes all the problems of credibility around the dispute. FuelWagon 21:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
This is why I asked above what the key areas are. So far I can see one: the introduction. But what are the others? We can't even get past the intro with any sort of agreement. until we sort out some sort of workable mediation that ends up in some sort of result that everyone can stand behind, there's no point in mucking up every other section in the article. Pretty much people are editing the article like they normally would and they're using the mediation page for talk instead of teh talk page. We need a controversial topic article role model to do some comparisons and we need some specific wikipedia guidelines about where to put crackpot claims and quackery diagnosis. We actually had an intro at one point that a lot of people agreed to, and bit by bit it got beaten down into the current mess. FuelWagon 21:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
"We need a controversial topic article role model to do some comparisons and we need some specific wikipedia guidelines about where to put crackpot claims and quackery diagnosis." Those suggestions are about the best I've heard so far: Two candidates for an example (Wikipedia being consistent with itself) are abortion and slavery, both controversial, but rather good articles. Also, I might look for rules (Wikipedia being consistent with "known fact," that is guidelines, rules.) Good job, Wagon, but the examples are the best bet: I intend to "Monkey-see-Monkey-do." ~ OK, I forgot to sign just then, but look what I found out: Slavery nowhere says that slavery was either "good" or "bad." It merely present cold, dry facts, such as THIS good example / role-model: "Finally, the Dred Scott decision which asserted that slavery's presence in the Midwest was nominally lawful (when owners crossed into free states) turned Northern public opinion against slavery." (About the 9th paragraph under Slavery#Slavery_in_North_America, right under the photo of a slave.)--GordonWattsDotCom 02:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Well, if you're worried about putting too much information in the introduction, take out Gordon's addition and your own addition, and leave it as "diagnosed as". However, if you put in the seven neurologists, then it's only fair that Gordon should balance it by putting in the dissenting doctors. What's the problem with "diagnosed as" and a short introduction? I'm happy with it. I don't have the right to speak for others, but going by previous comments, I think that you were once happy with it, SlimVirgin is happy with it, ghost is happy with it, Gordon is happy with it, Neuroscientist is happy with it, Duckecho has gone but he said that he could accept it for Neuroscientist's reasons but not for mine, NCdave would certainly like diagnosed as PVS better than was in a PVS. Surely if some of us were the extreme POV pushers that you seem to think, we'd be insisting on diagnosed as MCS! Anyway, I can't see why it's so essential to put into the introduction the doctors who diagnosed PVS as if the others didn't exist. Have you any objection to the version that you once accepted? Ann Heneghan 21:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Ann, I didn't just agree to the old version, I wrote it. From what I've learned since that time, the closest version for the diagnosis section would say something like "7 neurologists diagnosed her to be PVS, 2 guardian ad litems concurred. one neurologist, Hammer, diagnosed her to be MCS. The court found Hamer's diagnosis to be (insert whatever legal description for getting tossed) and declared Terri to be PVS." I'm writing this from memory, so I may have to tweak it a bit. FuelWagon 22:00, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, here's a slightly more fleshed out version:

Eight neurologists examined Terri over the years. Seven diagnosed Terri to be in a "persistent vegetative state" (PVS). Two guardian ad litems supported this diagnosis. One neurologist, Hammer, diagnosed Terri to be in a "minimally conscious state" (MCS). In court, Hammer's diagnosis was found to be ____(questionable) and was ____ (tossed) and the court declared Terri to be in a PVS. In every appeal, the courts ruled that Terri was in a PVS. (See the section below titled "Terri's Condition" for more information on her medical condition.)

There's a couple of legal terms I can't remember off the top of my head so I left blanks. How does that look? It includes all the examining neurologists, the guardian ad litems (who are supposed to have Terri's best interest at heart and should protest if there was any problem with the diagnosis), and the court system, including all the appeals. FuelWagon 22:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

This is not working

All these personal remarks and comments about other contributors' "behavior" are just not helping. So we have to try something different.

We're going to zero-tolerance mode, as suggested above. Perhaps you took my initial approval of this idea lightly. Perhaps you took my initial "partial agreement" with Fuel as a sign of vacillation. Well, you couldn't be more wrong.

This is an Article Mediation, not a personality conflict. We are all going to leave personalities out of it.

Next one to violate Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks is out. That's right: out of the Mediation. And also restricted from the article and the talk page.

Just talk about ways to improve the article, or don't talk to us at all. And don't go sneaking around to the talk pages, I see you passing notes in the back row! Uncle Ed 00:25, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Admin sub-section

Slim, you wrote:

you are pushing a particular POV, and seem to be at Wikipedia at the moment only to do that.

Fuel, if this is true then you can't be here. And stop that wriggling! You are not a worm on a hook, you are a mature man (or a teenager pretending? ;-) and I expect a straight answer.

straight answer: no, it is not true.

(I know you can toe the line, because you just refactored all of U's personal remarks - better, in fact, than I could have done myself.)

Please take sufficient time to think it over, and explain in 200 words or less: why are you here? Uncle Ed 01:07, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

I'm really good at two things: heavy lifting and word-cutting. Heavy lifting means I can read through text and sop it up like a sponge (if it's written well enough) and then squeeze out the important bits. And I can cut through words to get to the meat of what someone is saying or find out they're blowing smoke. I cannot stand lying. I detest when people abuse words to mislead or misdirect. I can smell it almost immediately. I generally pay no favorites but to the words. The words must be true, wherever truth may lead. That is who I am. As to why I am here, well, because wikipedia is the one place where I can get used up that way. It's like I'm fuel, looking for something that can consume me, a fire that can burn me, something that can use me for what I am. And to stumble across wikipedia, it's like, 'yes, I could throw myself on that fire and it would actually use up all the best parts of me.' To be put to full use, that is why I am here. FuelWagon 02:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Ed, I feel like I handed in a term paper and never got a grade. I was thinking maybe a "B+". (had to lose some points for going over the 120 word limit.) FuelWagon 23:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
No, you get an A. Uncle Ed 01:26, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
I believe you for what it's worth, FW, and I highlighted a good question you asked earlier; look in the diffs, and see another example. As far as your imagined failure, Uncle Ed, you may not have changed a lot, you have made it easier to get concensus on at least one contentious issue (a minor success) here: The "diagnosed as" language, and I expounded upon that, hoping to augment your methods. I found 3 or 4 good points in need of votes / feedback / comments. I hope I chose well: Please vote above. (I shall change the header to refactor my ideas.)--GordonWattsDotCom 02:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
I also vouch for FW. His diction is sometimes quite offensive. But it is, with rare occasion, meant to be only for emphasis. And not to be taken personally. Having worked with people who talk like this everyday over my career, I have a thicker skin than some other editors. But I see FW making an effort to improve, and he should be lauded for it. And despite the fact that some may intially think FW is here purely to "push" his POV, he IS willing to negotiate, as he has done with me. You must be clear, logical and consistant. And it helps to put up with his BS. ;-) But if you fail those criteria, he *ehm* show you the flaws in your logic in no uncertain terms.
BTW, (Ed) since you had previously chided us (rightly so) for personal attacks, why is one editor being questioned while the other is not? The text you copied rises to the level of personal attack previously defined (sans expletives). But I can't find the source and maybe reading it out of context.--ghost 14:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Found it. It rises to the level previously set by SlimVirgin. Perhaps Slim missed your post.--ghost 15:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
I don't know if you were directing your question at me or not, but I would hope to not pick ono only one editor for behavior. As far as the newcomer, Uthar, yes, I was a little hard on him, but I reassured him that if he behaved, he would be welcome -at least by me. And, yes, Wagon also was one of the main supporters of the "diagnosed as" language, and contributed heavily to its success. While I don't agree with some of his points, I certainly agree with your view that he really is making a valid effort, and that is what counts. As far as language, I cuss once in a while, and while it's wrong, I do not get easily offended, and I would hope no one thinks I am offended for something like that. If I'm upset, I will speak up, generally. Now, I may be offline for a little bit whilst I try to install a repacement modem and try it out my old but working computer (to see if it works), and then try to get the "big computer" back online. GHOST, I agree with your suggestion to make the intro smaller, like before, but you can also rest assured that I have contributed about as much as I think I need to for a while, so you all chew on what I've posted. Talk to y'all in a little bit, God willing. Duck, if you're reading this, you are invited to give feedback and such on my proposals above. Take care,--GordonWattsDotCom 16:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, the question was directed to Uncle Ed.--ghost 17:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
No problemo; got it. Thx, Señor Ghost.--GordonWattsDotCom 01:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Reply to FW

Thanks for posting your explanation, FW. It's clearly heartfelt and goes some way to explaining your position. I appreciate your honesty. I wonder whether the fire analogy is part of the problem. One editor, who has one of the best grasps of NPOV on WP, once wrote something to the effect that the best editors are the ones who don't care, and there's a lot of truth in that. SlimVirgin 18:46, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

I never used the word "care". And you are taking the word "fire" and making it mean something else. Why did you put the time, energy, and effort to contribute 12,000 edits to wikipedia? Did you not care about something? About making wikipedia better? About the kind of benefit it could have? We are not machines. We all have motives. And mine are as sincere as yours. FuelWagon 19:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Yes, point taken, and I don't doubt your sincerity. But it's perhaps a problem that you concentrate your edits on such a small number of articles. It may mean you come to care too much about them. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:11, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Here's an example from another page of the problems I'm talking about. On Intelligent Design, you wrote, or have been defending, the following:

The idea that some outside intelligence created life on Earth is a priori (without observation) knowledge. ID proponents cite some complexity in nature that cannot yet be fully explained by the scientific method ... ID proponents intuit that an intelligent designer is behind the part of the process that is not understood scientifically. Since the designer cannot be observed, it is a priori knowledge.

You've defended it to the point of mounting personal attacks on those who disagree with you ("you arrogant cuss" etc). And yet you're arguably quite wrong about it. I can see a philosopher mounting an argument that ID is based on a priori intuitions like causation, for example, but it would be an argument, not something that's demonstrably true. I think your ideas are perhaps based on a misunderstanding of a priori (because, for example, you talk about a priori "knowledge"). But even if you were right, it stills count as a case you're trying to build, which makes it a violation of Wikipedia:No original research. If you want to say ID is based on a priori intuitions, you have to find a reputable source that has said precisely that, and attribute it. SlimVirgin 18:46, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Dave (the guy I swore at) and I are cool. That blow out happened a month ago. We ended up having a discussion on my talk page some time later, and came to a point where we were having a genuine discussion about the topic to see the other's point of view. As for whatever edits I made to the article, they may not have been perfect, but after some back and forth from other editors, we seem to have come to a version that works. I haven't actually worked on the ID page much for a while. It seems to have reached a fairly stable point now. FuelWagon 19:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
He wasn't the only one you were swearing at, so far as I could tell, and not the only one I've received complaints from. Bear in mind that when you leave that kind of language on talk pages, it makes the page toxic for everyone, not just the one it's directed against.
I think you missed my point above. Your edits weren't only not perfect. They were arguably false and a clear violation of the NOR policy, and yet you defended them at length, vociferously and abusively. It's the absolute certainty that you're right that I'm asking you to address. If you want to put forward arguments like that, you need scholarly sources to back you up, and if you had looked for any, I don't think you'd have found them, which would have told you something. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:11, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Why do you keep bringing up something that happened a month ago? The only person I recall shouting at was Dave, and I've apologized to him, he accepted, and we've even had a couple of good threads on our talk pages talking shop since. If someone else is secretly begrudging me, there isn't much I can do about it. I've opened a apology request form for anyone who is willing to come forward and say they need something from me to set things right. But if someone wants to sit and stew in silence about something that happened a month ago, if they'd rather make me out to be a monster and be righteous about it rather than come forward and say "hey, we need to straighten something out", there isn't much I can do about it. If anyone has complained to you about me, you should refer them to my apology request form. FuelWagon 22:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
You could apologize to the people you've sworn at, or otherwise caused a problem for, without waiting for them to fill in your "apology request form." SlimVirgin (talk) 22:25, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Ed asked me to avoid you, and I'm finding it quite difficult since you have posted some interesting comments directed towards me here and on other pages. I posted something on the Wikipedia:RFC page, and though you hadn't posted there in months, you replied to my thread soon after I started it [8] [9]. On the last one, you said I hadn't apologized, so I posted a formal apology to you on your talk page here. I made no excuses. I did not defend my actions. I said I was sorry. And I said it wouldn't happen again. Then I went over to Dave's page and apologized to him here. We had already seemed to have made amends, but I figured what the heck. He posts his reply here, saying he "actually tried to take down my comments against" me, but that the RFC had already been deleted. He also said that you came to him and had him look at your situation with me, and that was part of the reason he weighed in on the RFC in the first place. But in the end he said "forgive and forget". You, on the other hand, never acknowledged my apology either way. And I see that you recently archived it without comment. I assumed it was sufficient to make amends. But now when Ed asks me to write a hundred word essay about why I'm here, you make some interesting comments about my religion, and about stuff that happened on the ID page a month ago. Dave forgave me a month ago and the only reason he weighed in on the RFC was because you brought him in on it. The person who hasn't forgiven me is you. And I don't know what to do about it. I've made a flat-out, no excuses apology, and you made no reply. I am at a loss. Ed said it is uncivil to demand an apology (not sure if that meant it was against wikipedia guidelines or not) but anyway, to beat down that hurdle, I opened a section on my talk page saying "it is perfectly OK to demand an apology here". I might not grant exactly what you want, but at least we can be honest about it. Other than that, I don't know what to do. FuelWagon 23:13, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Well, I wasn't sure what to make of your apology, to be honest, as it arrived at the same time that I saw your apology request form, which I read as irony. If it was a genuine apology, then thank you, and it's certainly accepted. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:29, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
If it was a genuine apology I can tell you that I posted the apology to you and Dave around the same time that I posted the "anyone else need an apology?" thing on my talk page. I intended it to be a genuine attempt to clean up any problems I might have with any editors. If you don't believe that, then you haven't really accepted my apology as genuine, and there may be more I need to do. Do you accept my apology as genuine? Or do you feel the need to qualify it because you still doubt it? Is there something more I need to do? FuelWagon 19:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
You are a noble and honorable person for accepting Wagon's apology, SlimV. And Wagon, you are an honorable and noble person for being mature enough to ask for an apology -and also for being open enough to hear others' criticisms and/or requests for apology/restitution/etc.--GordonWattsDotCom 01:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

The problems at Terri Schiavo are the same - a strong atheist POV being pushed in the face of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, and also in the face of being encyclopedic i.e. writing in a dry, disinterested style. SlimVirgin 18:46, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

"a strong atheist POV" Whoa, Nelly. My religious beliefs are none of your concern. Seriously. And you have no idea what you're talking about if you call me an atheist. I just happen to hold my religious beliefs to be completely personal and completely private because I don't need someone throwing it in my face. It is none of your business. FuelWagon 19:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Here's the aggression again. You could try saying "No, you've got that wrong." That's my perception based on your edits. But the nature of the POV is not the issue. It's the violation of policy and the vociferous nature of the arguments that cause the problem. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:11, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
You question my religion, I tell you it's none of your business, and you call that 'aggression'? What if I had said "you edit like a Jew"? I find the remark completely insulting and prejudiced. And it's not aggression for me to say "my religion is none of you business". FuelWagon 22:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
It's a question of choosing the right words. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:25, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

I'm writing this here in an effort to be constructive, by the way, not just to air the criticism. I think if you could find a way to put out the fire (or at least not act on it while you're editing Wikipedia), the editing problems might well disappear, and you'd be left with the good stuff - the heavy-lifting and word-cutting, both very important skills, which not many people have. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:46, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin 18:46, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

"I think if you could find a way to put out the fire" Again, I think you misunderstand what I mean by "fire". It's nothing more than the satisfaction you get that inspired you to make 12,000 edits to wikipedia. FuelWagon 19:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
There are a few issues I care a lot about, and I tend not to edit articles about them for that reason. When I do, I'm careful to write in a tone that suggests I don't care about them, I include POV I disagree with, and when I feel myself getting proprietorial about a page, I stop editing it for a few weeks. That might be something you could try. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:11, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Why are we turning this page into a defacto RfC on an editor? A question was asked, it was answered. Why isn't that the end of it? Why are the neutrality and religious beliefs of not only that editor, but a large number of other editors being considered? Why are those considered more relevant than editors that stand on the other side of an issue? These questions are rhetorical, meaning I don't want them answered.
This borderline Inquisition into the motives of an editor needs to stop, and stop now. I appreciate the advice being given from one experienced editor to another, but that can be done elsewhere. This is the Talk:Terri Schiavo/Mediation page.--ghost 21:17, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
And this page is necessary because of the intransigence of some of the editors who've been editing the article. I've asked twice for someone to explain the key issues, and so far the introduction is the only sticking point that's been mentioned, so this seems to me like a problem of editing style rather than a substantive content dispute. It's perfectly appropriate to discuss that here, insofar as anything is likely to help, though I have my doubts that anything will. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:25, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
(quoting you above) I've asked twice for someone to explain the key issues..."Yo! Red Alert!! I know I was a tad slow in responding, but didn't you see my 500-word essay here: Talk:Terri_Schiavo/Mediation#Archive_.2F_reboot? The exact link is here: Talk:Terri_Schiavo/Mediation/summaries, and, as if we didn't let loose enough, there, didn't you see the new section I created here Talk:Terri_Schiavo/Mediation#Other_Key_Points:_YOUR_VOTE_IS_NEEDED_HERE??--GordonWattsDotCom 01:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Let me add that your ability to find POV errors, SlimVirgin, is not unlike NCdave's excellent skill. For example, when I first was asked how I thought of the page in the peer review or whatever they call it, I said it was OK. However, after I got to looking at NCdave's criticisms, and looked closer at the language and accuracy, I not only found 500-words, but like Dave, had to go above-and-beyond with additional comments. People like you and Dave (and Rush Limbaugh) are my heroes for finding errors that are otherwise unnoticeable (and Wagon's not bad at this either, though his findings seem typically to sway more to the center or liberal left, in my opinion). Therefore, it is of high surprise that you couldn't find "key issues," either yourself, or those we've identified. (A folder of 500-word essays awaits you.) Likewise, when Uncle Ed was my own role model and example on how to solve a dispute, a method I successfully copied to be the "great negotiator" and put out "World War III" at the http://en.WikiQuotes.org "Abortion" quotations web page, it was likewise a surprise that Uncle Ed fancied himself the failure at negotiations, that had somewhat stalled: Talk:Terri_Schiavo/Mediation#Well.3F, "It has been 4 days since the last contribution to this Mediation. Is everyone giving up, or what? I didn't feel particularly good about putting a user block on FuelWagon, but does that change anything?" Uncle Ed's only problems are having to deal with UNscreened employees (editor/writers), who are NOT paid employees (quality is "you get what you pay for") --and, none of us (far as I know) are paid. CONCLUSION: You all are my role models, and brighter than you may appear, so scratch for answers -and have a good time off, while Uncle Ed takes a wiki vacation -probably to work at a "real, paying" job or rest up.--GordonWattsDotCom 01:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, today I gave a training class on wiki collaboration for an organization which does screen its employees. Apparently I was the answer to their prayers. Uncle Ed 02:33, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

We're all very busy, so here's some links that may help:

Talk:Terri Schiavo/Mediation/summaries - Here you'll find summaries by most of the original mediation editors.
Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Archive 17 - Here you'll find the original request that I submitted, that was later endorsed by others.

I believe the following items need mediation:

  • POV issues surrounding Ms. Schiavo's condition (PVS, MVS, etc.)
  • POV issues surrounding the legal status Ms. Schiavo's family (legal guardianship of Terri; Michael's relationships; etc.)
  • POV issues regarding terminology discussing the judge's ruling(s)
  • Behavior on the Talk Page

I hope this helps clarify what the issues were. We have made progress, glacial though it may seem.--ghost 02:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Turning point

I would like to declare this Mediation a success. There is substantial agreement on key points, and Slim & Fuel are back on speaking terms.

I spent a lot of time on this, but I would like to take a wiki-vacation until August 1st. Those who agree, please sign below. Uncle Ed 00:17, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Success:

  1. --GordonWattsDotCom 01:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC), says: "Yes, there are some successes, both on points of agreement and also on people getting along with one another. Have a good vacation: You've earned it. (Maybe we need some time off too.)"

Unresolved:

  1. --GordonWattsDotCom 01:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC), says: "There are still unresolved points, and while I didn't get all the answers I would've liked, thank you to the various parties who've either given answers/feedback/"votes" and/or those who've tried, but gotten too busy." On the subject of behavior, --GordonWattsDotCom 01:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC), adds: "While many of the arguments over behavior are important, this page should focus on how to write our article, and let me remind you: Name calling, as bad as it is, is NOTHING compared to being fired, not hired, unjustly being kicked off some property because of some STUPID guard's fault for not getting permission, racial prejudice, and/or not having food/clothing/shelter, ALL of which have happened to me except (thank God), the last one (food,clothing,shelter). My point? Be thankful for our blessings, and don't make mountains out of molehills. Try to get along. SlimVirgin, thank you for forgiving Wagon. He specifically asked. your points are valid, but please be polite when expressing them, and if Wagon thinks you're impolite, let him know whether you're angry. ALSO, Wagon's simultaneous posting of a "Request for forgiveness form" and asking forgiveness himself are NOT mutually exclusive or contradictory, and, while you are OK to be suspicious, understand that both of these are good actions, and be open to the other side of the view. FuelWagon, SlimV is a little more slow to admit minor mistakes, typos, etc., than I'd prefer, but in the same way that I myself (and your friend David, the mathematician scientist, I recall? at that diff you posted?) have both told you that being cussed at doesn't offend us, likewise, I'd hope that SlimV's silence on occasion or attitudes are not offensive. I think she means well, and she is also quite bright and on the ball. ("Also" implies in addition to you and others.) You said to tell you if something offends me? Just like David, I also don't like to be reverted on sight. (That's prejudiced, and unless I really, REALLY earn it, not right, not appropriate nor justified.) ALSO, like David, I like an argument of why I'm wrong, not just empty arguments. See my past arguments to verify that I don't like to accept empty or "unequal" arguments, like comparing flat-earthers to Terri's Parents: We all know that many buy into Terri's parents' arguments, but not many flat-earthers exist. Thus, we should report that a sizeable portion (majority maybe?) believe Terri's parents, and only like a few "nut jobs," er... sorry, a few "extremists" believe the earth's flat. OK? so, in short, don't make mountains out of molehills, be thankful for our blessings, and get along. We only get one life. (I "said it all," so no one needs to repeat it: This page is already growing exponentially, uh... just agree, disagree, or comment, but don't try to repeat my "soap box" speech; also, if your name wasn't mentioned, still my advice to SlimV and Wagon man might be good for you; God bless, and take care,--GordonWattsDotCom 01:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  2. ghost 02:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC) - With regret. Ed is certainly entitled to a Wikibreak, but items remain in play. Perhaps we can make a final push...(see below)
  3. FuelWagon 05:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC) progress made, but there is also unresolved stuff, which may never get resolved I suppose. You deserve a break, Ed.
  4. Ann Heneghan 22:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC) Unresolved as yet, but definitely making progress. Maybe there should have been three options, since unresolved sounds a little bit like failure, and it's definitely not a failure. My problem with mediation is that I'm now getting confused as to what messages should go on the talk page and what messages should go here (see below). Anyway, have a good break, Uncle Ed, and we'll try to behave ourselves until you get back.

Comments

If I may allowed some humor....Does Gordon voting on both sides of the item count as a hanging or dimpled chad? Gordon, as our Floridian, perhaps you'll know. LOL, just kidding....--ghost 02:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
HA ha! By the way, I "led the push" to get the recount of ...the 2002 debacle, for Democrat Janet Reno's votes. Hmm... I'm a concervative republican, but she was (illegally) denied. I lost that lawsuit too.--GordonWattsDotCom 05:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Final Push?

Of the original items spelled out in the RfM we have a tenative guideline on three items, with one remaining:

  • POV issues surrounding Ms. Schiavo's condition (PVS, MVS, etc.) - We're in agreement on "Diagnosed as" for the intro. Can we carry this thruout, provided that the MVS argument is given it's space and voice?
  • POV issues surrounding the legal status Ms. Schiavo's family (legal guardianship of Terri; Michael's relationships; etc.) - Untouched. Can we use the court's findings as a default?
  • POV issues regarding terminology discussing the judge's ruling(s) - We can, and should, present the court's rulings as a POV. Perhaps this should be the default majority POV. The dissenting POV can be provided, but needs documentation. Dissents that slander, or dissolve to conspiracy, are not appropriate.
  • Behavior on the Talk Page - This has made improvement.

Am I reading the situation correctly?--ghost 03:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

You can agree all you like that the article should say she was "diagnosed as PVS" but I'm going to continue to edit it to say she was in one. Why? Because PVS is a clinical diagnosis, not a pathological one. If she is diagnosed as in one, she's in one. The implication of "Schiavo was diagnosed as in a PVS" is that she wasn't really, that there was some doubt and we are expressing that. We do not say about the Earth that it is said to be egg-shaped, or that it's the opinion of many scientists that it is. We say that it is. It's intolerable that POV pushers can insist that their opinions are presented in any way as fact when the facts are perfectly clear. I shudder at the notion that the introduction to evolution might on the same basis suggest that evolution might happen but perhaps not because there is some guy somewhere who says otherwise. This is why we insist on credibility and reputability in sources. Evolution is not blighted by creationist POV because they can't get their rubbish printed in a peer-reviewed journal. This article should not be blighted by "prolife" POV because their guy is not in good standing (not reputable), was laughed out of court (not reputable) and was partisan. Not to mention that his diagnosis was laughable and is strongly refuted not just by the autopsy evidence but by his own lack of experimental evidence for his claims. -- Grace Note
On the 1st point, yes: She was "diagnosed as PVS." As far as how to mention MCS without starting World War III edit war, I don't know, but yes, it probably should be mentioned some place. Can we use the court's view as a default. Never, even when the court rules in our favor. We merely must report what happened and how the parties (and general public) reacted. That being said, I just noticed that to which you referred. There was much less dispute on the legal status of Michael Schiavo, and his relationship with, for example, Jodi Centonze. Most folks on both sides don't dispute these facts -whether or not they think the courts acted appropriately, so maybe yes, this time the court's view IS the default view, but that is not necessarily the rule, only the exception, or "case by case" basis, "as the case may be." ~ Regarding "terminology," Ghost, I don't understand your question. You mean legal terms and descriptions? Just explain what happened like an encyclopedia. As far as dissenting POV, yes, facts asserted need links (or off-line references) documenting. That's my take, to answer your questions. Yes, I'm glad things have calmed down too. Seeing Grace Note's recent edit to the contrary of the concessus on the "diagnosed as" language, and Slim Virgin's surprising defense of that edit, by her claim that this is wiki, and GraceN is not bound by concessus, we are headed for edit arguments and disputes, if not an edit war. Let's hope it can be discussed instead. Right before she defended him (as you recall), she argued against his edit. Strange. Let's pray for our success -and survival! Open your Bibles, bow your head, let's pray -"Hey, I can't read the Bible with my eyes closed!"--GordonWattsDotCom 05:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Re: Terminology - My interest in a mediated framework started shortly before your involvement in the article. At the time, rulings were having adjectives slapped onto them by some editors. My suggestion is to take Ed's concept of the court's rulings and clearly present them as, "...The court ruled...(ruling).(link)" And that, without conditioning either statement, it be followed by a dissenting view & link. Is this workable? Does it go far enough to illustrate that the ruling is the courts' POV, without ramming down the readers throat as fact?--ghost 12:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


I think that there has been some improvement in the article recently, and also in the talk page behaviour. However, I'm getting confused about what this page is for. I'm not even sure if we're supposed to vote on Gordon's points or not. Could some kind person please let me know:

  • what kind of comments are appropriate for this page and not for the Terri Schiavo talk page?
  • what kind of comments are appropriate for the Terri Schiavo talk page but not for here?
  • Is there any kind of contribution that would be appropriate for both pages?

And by the way, I got my assignment finished! Ann Heneghan 22:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

"I'm not even sure if we're supposed to vote on Gordon's points or not." Well, we are permitted to do so, and in the absense of any other items on which to vote, I think the default position lies in favous of the ideas I identified and elucidated; however, that having been said, if any others have better questions than mine, feel free to append and amend, but if not, then mine may have merit. (The correct answer, Ann, depends, I think, on the contributory factors of others.) I hope this helps. Cheers.--GordonWattsDotCom 00:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I have tried to stay out of the dispute as much as I could, but there's one point on which I actually do have an opinion:

"Can we use the court's view as a default. Never, even when the court rules in our favor. We merely must report what happened and how the parties (and general public) reacted."

I think this is an adequate re-statement of NPOV policy, and I hope you'll all agree to accept it. Please don't think about who said it - even though you can just scroll up a few inches to see. And don't think about winning or losing an argument. It's simply Wikipedia policy. Trust me, I'm fairly conversant with policy. Ask any of the founders, the trustees, or the stewards. If you'll accept the three quoted sentences above, the final push will take you quite far. :-) Uncle Ed 01:25, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

I'll accept the results of the Mediation, even if I don't like them. Just like I have accepted that I was doing 53 in a 35 zone, and paid the fines. And if anyone can't accept it, there's a clearcut policy to appeal. But if we fail to establish a "default setting" for the validity of relationships in the Schiavo case, we open a Pandora's box of conspiracy theory. If the court's decisions aren't the default, what is?
I could care less who says what, as long as a standard is agreed on, and everyone does their level best to adhere to it. My interest is in the article; not winning any given argument. (And if we can do this the right way, we can set a standard that can be used in other controversial articles. THAT I see as a benefit to the entire Wiki community.)--ghost 16:08, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Well, of course it's going to set a standard. Why do you think I've spent so much time on this? (Sorry, didn't mean to snap at you.) I haven't done any writing to speak of, for nearly 2 months now, because administrative tasks such as this mediation have been an all-consuming concern. If we can accomplish our civility and neutrality goals, we can take quality to a whole new level. That would be a nice way to start off this new millenium. :-) Uncle Ed 18:31, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

What is the real issue?

Nobody has mentioned this, and so I thought it was none of my business but Wagon rolled in with this comment, and it sparked something:

I can be happy reporting that 7 neurologist diagnosed her to be PVS, and one quack said otherwise. Those convinced that Terri was sneaking out at night to play tennis will never be convinced otherwise, so it doesn't really matter what the wording says to them.

Look at the 4.5 minute video clip. Terry's parents were convinced that she was "alive" - "in there", somewhere. They didn't want her killed while there was any chance of her recovering - even slightly - because they loved her and wanted to have loving interactions with her.

This touches on so many hot-button / deep issues that I hardly no where to begin. And I must apologize for springing this on everyone before my vacation. (If it's any consolation, I'm taking a busman's holiday - not just loafing by the pool with a cold drink in my hand.)

It's not just about was the diagnosis correct? but about the related issues. People used this case as a proxy (or springboard) to have a showdown on a host of issues. Uncle Ed 15:52, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

I believe that to be absolutely the case, Ed, and I think I've hinted at it before, maybe not as succinctly. I think coming up with factual statements about the issue is not really the sticking point, the problems are problems of implication. Most segments removed from this article are not removed for factual inaccuracy, but for tone, being off-topic, or insinuating or assuming another, unspoken point to be true.
My suggestion for this has always been to pare the article down to bare factual statements, and to use wikilinking as much as possible (not as a supplement, but to avoid re-explaining contentious issues completely). Most of the editors here, in my opinion, give this issue too much importance. Sure, it was significant at the time, but what if we tried to be this inclusionary about a topic of truely monumental importance? I think most would realize the absurdity of making a single article of truely inclusionary spirit on a topic such as World War II, and that event touched far more lives than this ever will. What do we really need here? Who she was (briefly, her life as an individual is of little encyclopedic importance), she suffered an injury of indeterminate cause but having such and such observable effects, diagnosis was as such, there was disagreement, legal wrangling, final judgements were as so, she expired, the events touched on issues such as: (wikilinks), external references.
As an example, why is the memorial section multiple paragraphs long? Who cares who gave the sermon at the memorial where she was not buried? Today, maybe a few do, but that information is available with some research. In 5 years, almost no one. We are not the Internet Archive.
I would gleefully take an axe to this article, but I know that wouldn't go over well, because most of those same few individuals interested in every minutiae of the events are here editting the article!
Fox1 16:18, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
It sure would be nice to come back from the lake and read the Fox1 version of Terry Schiavo. Uncle Ed 16:22, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
Oops, I walked into that one, didn't I? Well, as long as you stay at the lake til next week, there's a chance of that happening.
Fox1 17:17, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Fox, as someone who has taken an axe to an article covering a contoversial subject before, you have my support. Would that I had the time to do this myself. Your suggestions are valid, and are consistant with the style that was followed on Intelligent Design and Nuclear option (filibuster). The "machette" work eventually went thru it's own set of revisions, but seemed to deal with the needs of a number of editors. The articles seem better for it. Might I suggest the use of Terri Schiavo/sandbox for rough drafting just such an effort. It's why I created it.
BTW, Ed. You hit the nail on the head. The diagnosis debate is a metaphor for the larger issues. Some of those are too painful to deal with directly.--ghost 18:35, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

"pare the article down"

Terri Schiavo

Terri Schiavo (December 3, 1963–March 31, 2005), was a St. Petersburg, Florida woman whose medical circumstances and attendant legal battles led to landmark court decisions, historic legislative initiatives, and intense media attention.

On February 25, 1990, Schiavo (pronounced SHY-voh, IPA: ʃaɪvoʊ) suffered severe brain damage from cerebral hypoxia, after experiencing cardiac arrest from an undetermined cause. She lapsed into a coma for two months, and spent the last 15 years of her life in a condition diagnosed as an irreversible persistent vegetative state (PVS). This diagnosis was disputed by Schiavo's parents and became the center of a court battle. Eight neurologists examined Schiavo. Seven of those diagnosed her to be in a PVS, a diagnosis supported by two guardians ad litem. One neurologist, Dr. William Hammesfahr, diagnosed her to be in a "minimally conscious state" (MCS). The court found Hammesfahr's diagnosis lacked credibility, noting that his vasodilatation therapy was not recognized in the medical community,[10]and ruled Schiavo to be in a PVS. Her parents appealed this decision, but in every appeal, the courts ruled that she was in a PVS.

{{Terri Schiavo}}

Schiavo's parents disputed many decisions made by her husband and legal guardian, as well as issues such as guardianship, level of care, end-of-life wishes, life support, and level of consciousness. There were also charges of physical abuse and neglect. Litigation lasted several years, and some issues reached the United States Supreme Court. The final decisions by the courts were that Schiavo was in a PVS and would not want to be kept on life support in her condition. The court ordered her gastric feeding tube removed. Appeals caused the feeding tube to be reinserted twice.

During the last few weeks of her life, Schiavo's parents took their case to the Governor of Florida, the United States Senate, and the President of the United States. This resulted in several legislative initiatives, including Terri's Law, which were struck down by the courts. Schiavo's feeding tube was removed a third and final time on March 18, 2005, 13 days before she died.

On March 23, 2005, a week before she died, another neurologist, Dr. William P. Cheshire Jr., filed an affidavit questioning the PVS diagnosis. This was based on a visit he had made to Schiavo on March 14. Her parents filed a motion to the courts including the affidavit from Cheshire. The court found insufficient new evidence to appeal the ruling that Schiavo was in a PVS. She died on March 31, 2005 at around 9:05 a.m. EST. An autopsy report was released on June 15, 2005. Although an autopsy cannot confirm a clinical diagnosis related to a patient's level of consciousness, the pathologic findings of the autopsy were all consistent with someone in a PVS. [11] (pdf) .com/mld/miamiherald/living/health/11011204.htm]

See also

4.250.138.148 20:02, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terri_Schiavo_case/Mediation/Archive_3&oldid=1034088840"