Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Mediation/summaries

NCdave's contributions belong here too:

Dave's submission, here is longer than 500-words, but additional points of others, where available were added above. These additional points are important or else the writers would not have purposely written more AFTER their 500-words was done.

FuelWagon 500 word summary

I think the article is pretty good as it is. There are no major disputable changes that I would suggest we make to it. (I recomend polish and some restructuring, but I don't think those suggested changes are disputed) I'm now taking the approach that the only thing to mediate is changes rather than my philosophy of a good article. and since I don't have any major changes, my 500 word essay can be removed. We can instead focus on the changes that NCdave, Gordon, etc, wish to insert into the article and mediate those. FuelWagon 7 July 2005 15:22 (UTC)

Fuel Wagon's additional points

At the Crying Witch diff.

Ann Heneghan 500-word summary

One problem is the idea that a court ruling (unless overturned by a higher court) become a fact, and is therefore automatically neutral. This seems to be contrary to Wikipedia practice elsewhere. For example, the article on Anne Boleyn does not say that she was guilty of witchcraft and adultery. Even though no court ever overturned the verdict, Wikipedia says that most historians believe the charges were false. Wikipedia does not say that Edmund Campion was a traitor. It says that Louise Woodward, Roy Whiting, etc. were “found guilty of” killing, not that “they killed”. It does say that Ted Bundy killed, but he did plead guilty.

There is a tendency to endorse Michael Schiavo’s version of events when presenting it. For example, in “Initial Medical Crisis”, we have, “The noise awoke Michael Schiavo, and he immediately called his wife's parents and 911 emergency services.” There were no witnesses – we don’t know if Michael’s version is true. Isn’t Jeb Bush trying to investigate a delay in calling 911? I’m not personally an advocate of the Michael-strangled-Terri position, but it was suggested by her family and at least one doctor, and we simply should not present his account as if it is a verified fact.

The opening section no longer says that she was PVS, but simply that she was diagnosed as PVS. Good. As stated in my first paragraph, Wikipedia doesn’t have a policy elsewhere of saying that something is so just because the courts said it was so – especially something controversial and disputed. However, in the “Initial Medical Crisis” section, it says, “and eventually resulted in a persistent vegetative state (PVS)”.

The article used to endorse Michael’s version by stating that he studied nursing because he wanted to learn how to take care of Terri. I deleted this motive, because we had only his word for it. It was reinserted on the grounds that the source had been found – a transcript of Michael’s testimony in the malpractice suit. Patsw agreed with me that that verified only that he said that, not that it really was his reason. Another user, following my complaints, changed it to “because, as he testified . . . I want to learn . . .” I pointed out on the user talkpage that this was still supporting Michael. (Think of the difference between “John said it was a nice day”, and “As John said, it was a nice day.” The speaker is endorsing John’s statement the second time, but not the first.) The article still endorses Michael’s testimony with “as he testified”. That needs to be changed.

I’ve commented elsewhere on the abuse that takes place on talk pages. I believe also that we’re spending too much time (and space) arguing about whether Michael or the Schindlers were right. I’m guilty of that myself sometimes, but I think it’s not what those pages are for. Each party’s version should be clearly labelled as such. Whether or not we believe any version is entirely irrelevant. (499 words) Ann Heneghan 01:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gordon Wayne Watts' 500-word summary

Sorry I'm so slow to respond; the challenge to get every issue addressed within 500 words (even avoiding behavioral problems, which may need 500 more words —later) is a daunting task. I'm currently analyzing both the article and ALL other concerns by fellow editors and should be on task here shortly.--GordonWattsDotCom 03:27, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

UPDATE: I am still analyzing the raw data (mainly the article itself), and having to take breaks -because there is so much of it. Please be patient, because the main article is not as neutral as I once thought: There are so many factual errors and POV omissions that I'm in meltdown from the overload. With the help of my Higher Deity, I hope to be finished soon.--GordonWattsDotCom 06:37, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(Quoting Uncle Ed) "...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." OK: Here goes:--GordonWattsDotCom 00:09, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(Word count ticker of my piece below, focusing mainly on POV omissions: 500 words used out of 500 permitted; notes: I remove the invisible links before asking word counter for a figure because they are pasted -even after a "text only" copy and paste!)
Article mentions motion "...to Provide Terri with Food and Water by Natural Means," and Greer denial but OMITS main dispute opponents had with Greer's decision, namely that it violated felony law, arguably the most important dispute regarding Greer EVER!
Article mentions Terri_Schiavo#Rehabilitation_efforts by family but OMITS 744.3215(1)(i), the most relevant "rehabilitation" law, and MAIN dispute ALL opponents had with Greer's denial of rehab.
Article NOWHERE mentions when (or why?) handicapped Terri was put in hospice, nor does it mention critics repeatedly disputed as a violation of 400.6095(2), state law, which restricts hospice admission to patients with "diagnosis and prognosis of terminal illness." Since State Law (765.101(17)), doesn't define specifically, it would be POV to omit the federal law, TITLE 42 USC 418.22, which DOES define terminal (as "prognosis is for a life expectancy of 6 months or less if the terminal illness runs its normal course"). (Reasonable persons would want to know why crippled people are placed in hospice, and if it's against any laws.)
Intro "sparked a fierce debate over..." OMITS "Euthanasia," which (according to Google.com), was MOST fiercely debated regarding Schiavo of all terms listed. Also state law regarding Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide found NOWHERE in article!!
NOWHERE does article mention that Terri's parents tried to get a "trial by jury" in RECENT state AND federal cases for Terri. This is the most protected right of all: See e.g., Pages 18&19 for laws that should be cited to support Schindlers' claims.
Schindlers have questioned why Michael delayed litigating about Terri's alleged wishes and the legal reason preventing him from doing so. Article omits BOTH: Res Judicata prevents from litigating Terri's wishes because he had a chance during Medical Malpractice trial and didn't.
Article DOESN'T mention that “cerebral cortex missing” claims by Felos and Cranford were DISPROVEN!! by autopsy.
Autopsy states on page 17 that "persistent vegetative state and minimally conscious state are clinical diagnoses, not pathologic ones," and report doesn't rule out either, but this isn't stated in article!
Only ONE doctor was actually "court-appointed," not three: Factual inaccuracy.
Article mentions videos, but NOWHERE has links for them.
Dr. Wolfson recommended both "swallowing tests and swallowing therapy", but article DOESN'T mention this -and conveniently omits that "swallowing studies" were only conducted "ten years ago," not recently.
Article omits that Dr. Peter Bambakidis (the only "court-appointed" doctor) didn't say that Terri was PVS by “clear and convincing standard,” but merely by “preponderance of the evidence. Alt.Link
Factual inaccuracy: Article says Terri Schiavo HAD heart attack. (Thogmartin said she didn't.)
Most statements in 1st paragraph of "Initial medical crisis" are presented as facts, but are uncorroborated and should be qualified, "according to Michael Schiavo."
If we mention Cheshire is conservative Christian and Drs. Frist & Weldon have political motives, only fair to mention Cranford & Felos are liberal "right to die" activists *AND* that Cranford misdiagnosed David Mack and that Gambone, was picked by Michael’s attorney, not hospital/court/etc.
Add links, MRI/PET-denials, proof of 43% PVS misdiagnosis rate
[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38255 Article DOESN'T mention Terri lost five teeth!]

Gordon's additional points

At the Crying Wolf diff.

Ghost's summary

The Terri Schiavo case is tragedy. We have a responsibility to presenting a subject which stikes at the core of what it means to be human. Its reach into the subjects of life, death, privacy and marital rights is far reaching. Currently, the article is on the verge of being among the best. It has been pointed to as the most balanced, detailed, compassionate independant reference on the subject availible. We all acknowledge it can be better.

What is needed is a measuring stick. One that all can refer to and say, "...this does/doesn't belong." One we can reach about 80% agreement on. If we ever reach full agreement, we're ignoring someone else's POV. We should build on what we agree on:

Terri was a person. The events surrounding her were tragic. Her's is the one POV that we won't know in this lifetime.
The article's purpose is the educate and inform the reader(s). Not support or undermine any indiviual or group, with the possible exception of Mrs. Schiavo.
The events surrounding Mrs. Schiavo have the potential to impact all our lives, and the reader should be informed as much.
Extensive use of rhetoric and code words to manipulate public opinion. This is neither good or bad. It simply is.
The courts, while fallible, have a reliably documentable POV that must be presented.
Doctors have a POV, and are as fallible and manipulable as the courts.
Other POVs are less easily documentable and, unless confirmed by 2 other reliable sources, should be considered hearsay.
Blogs are inherently POV. While providing vast material, they should not be considered reliable and viewed with skepticism because of that POV. Blog links should be avoided as they convey POV.
Parts of the article that fail to engage the average reader undermine #2. If we can, say it in two sentences + a link, instead of 3 paragraphs, do it. Our goal is neutrality and depth in <36kb.
Tone matters (see NPOV). This may come second to fact, but the reader(s) should not be sandbagged into any POV, even if those "facts" seem inevitable to us.
Terri's relatives may read this (and probably will) at some point. A compassionate tone to both sides is appropriate.
The article will never be perfect. Nor should it. Such is the strength of open source. There's always someone else who can make it better than us.
Editors that are negative should be viewed as trying to improve the article. Abuse should be avoided, understanding that this is an emotional subject and people will express themselves in strong terms, so we must all have thick skins. But those that demonstrate that they have nothing to contribute over time should be recognized, and dealt with accordingly.

This is far from complete, but it's a start. An it harm none, do what thou wilt.--ghost 21:15, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Duckecho quacks

In the normal process of writing an article, one searches out background information and then drafts a narrative. With a committee-like environment such as wikipedia, the process is repeated—sometimes frequently—and becomes further and further refined. However, not every word has (or needs to have) a cite to prove its value to the narrative. As an example, the Ted Bundy article in the first paragraph below the introduction asserts at least three things that are not supported by any sort of cite. Not one of those things detracts from the overall story of Ted Bundy.

In an above essay the author cites our article as flawed in that it says, "[t]he noise awoke Michael Schiavo, and he immediately called his wife's parents and 911 emergency services." The essayist then says, "[t[here were no witnesses – we don’t know if Michael’s version is true…" Does it matter to the story of Terri Schiavo whether the utterly unprovable or disprovable above statement in the current article is entirely factual? We are truly trying to separate fly ~~shit~~ crap from pepper when we have gotten down to arguing about things like that.

The Michael-is-evil partisans have a history of tenacity in challenging every statement that even remotely casts anything more than gray hue to an event in the narrative. They don’t mind attempting to put in cat killing theses or innuendo about wedding vows, but they sure are quick to complain that we don’t know what Michael thought.

We have a party who thunders repeatedly that Michael didn’t remember for eight years that Terri had told him her wishes concerning a terminal condition and life prolonging procedures (and would put it in the article if he could get away with it). Why don’t the nitpickers attack that utterly unknowable comment with similar zeal?

There’s too much name calling and too much complaining about name calling while in turn calling names at the same time. There’s too much intransigence—too much entrenched thinking.

At some point everyone who truly wants to contribute to a quality product is going to have to step back from their position and reevaluate the other positions—not just positions of theory of the case, but positions of accuracy and seeing POV. I’ve already done that. Many others have, too.

We asked once for a peer review and got it. The consensus was that the article was about as neutral as it could be. We got outside, unsolicited accolades that went to both accuracy and neutrality. You may not like to hear it, but there are basically three or perhaps four people who are making it necessary to mediate. Outside of our circle, the world thinks we’re doing a good job.

What does the article need? Some polish. There is still some amateurish phrasing. A lot of work is being done on structure which will make it more readable. I have dreams of making the intro a compact, true introduction and not the mini article we've been forced to craft for the nitpickers. Duckecho (Talk) 02:44, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Input from Fox1

Hopefully no one minds me entering my 418 words of text at this point; I have some time constraints, and, quite frankly, I can only stomach spending a fairly small amount of time on this article these days. I originally went to the article to try and help mediate between participants a bit, unofficially, and my meager attempts at that were such a miserable failure that I left Wikipedia for a few months. Now, as then, I have almost Zero personal interest in the issues of the article, my interest was purely as a Wikipedian trying to help the Wiki.

I'll be blunt. This is a fine article, always has been, and has the potential to be a great example of Wiki writing. It will never reach that point, because we are constantly diverted from polishing the article. I believe the only problems with this article are that individuals with highly visible vested interest have turned this article into a warzone. Under the guise of being "inclusionary," this article has been assaulted with an epic flood of... crap. There is, quite obviously, an enormous amount of blogosphere activity on one side of this issue, and most of the article activity has been fighting over adding information that can only be defended as not original research when viewed through goggles of an extremely specific and pervasive tint. I am not an inclusionist, we cannot replicate the entire internet here, and eventually, parties interested in a topic will need to go elsewhere if they wish to continue studying a subject. This is the case with every single topic on Wikipedia. What this article needs is not more of anything, it needs quite a bit less.

Bottom line, this article is destined be a mediocre battleground piece with visibly substandard construction until such time as the editors are allowed to write concise prose in a structured framework that makes sense, instead of each and every sentence being obfuscated by its own weight in weasel words, insinuations, rebuttals to anticipated inferrals, and seven other kinds of unneccesary additions designed for a fictional reader whose first and only exposure to this issue will be this article. It's worth noting that even if this person exists, this article is still not being written for them, but for a highly impressionable mental construct of this fictional individual who, if not sheperded carefully by certain editors, may come away with "the wrong idea" (horrors!). Holy Cthulu, describing conduct on this $*%& is like writing science fiction.

Fox1 6 July 2005 15:40 (UTC)

Most constructive comment to date. Thanks. Uncle Ed July 7, 2005 15:01 (UTC)

Meeemories... Light the Corners of My Mind...

I just wanted to thank everyone for the great entertainment that has been Talk:Terri_Schiavo over the past few months. I had an inkling when I first saw video of the protesters in St. Petersburg, to myself I said: "I'll bet you the Wikipedia article for this is a real knockdown drag-out cage match!" ... So I checked it out, Wikipedia did not disappoint, and I've been a rapt spectator ever since.

It is, to me, a testimony to the eternally wonderful enigma that is Wikipedia that so many thousands of kilobytes, hundreds of thousands of keystrokes, thousands of man hours, hundreds of cold pizzas and warm beers, thousands of kilowatt-hours and billions of CPU cycles have been expended to bring us a well-vetted and (hopefully) "short and accurate" reference article on a person who, although beautiful and special in life, I'm sure time will tell will be as important in the grand scheme of history as "that little girl who fell down the well" or perhaps Kato Kaelin.

I'd like to thank NCDave for never giving up the dream, FuelWagon for valorously representing reality, and Gordon Watts for showing up late in the game to keep things interesting, and finally the Academy... "You like me, you really like me!" Music swells

70.146.39.18 05:40, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problemo, user 70.146...BellSouth.net Inc user in between NetRange: 70.144.0.0 - 70.158.255.255 (ala: http://www.arin.net/whois Lookup) -- better late than never! And, you never give up the dream. "Flash" --GordonWattsDotCom 13:55, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]