Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Archive 29

Archive 28

I have archived several inactive sections from the top of this page. They have gone into Archive 28.~ Neuroscientist | T | C 17:06, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Reading for the Enemy

NPOV encourages us to write for the enemy. One of the things I've wanted to do for a while now is read for the enemy. This is difficult, as I must walk in someone else's shoe, and I'd ask editors that normally disagree with my to try to help me view the article thru their eyes. If you like, I'll try to help you see it thru mine.--ghost 3 July 2005 05:01 (UTC)

The first thing that leapt out at me is the description of Terri's collapse. First, the family's claim that the initial collapse happened at 4:30am, rather than 5:40am. Should this be dealt with in the 'Schindler Family' section? Also, I'm seeing conflicting stuff on Bobby Schindler's presence at Terri's collapse. The IME's autopsy report indicates he was there. The police report does not. That's plain odd. Is this a mistake on the IME's part, or was he the first family member to respond to Michael's call? If so, why didn't the cop interview him? Finally, we may want to rework the 1st sentences of 'Initial medical crisis' to read:

On the morning of February 25, 1990, Mrs. Schiavo collapsed. At approximately 5:30 a.m. EST, she went into cardiac arrest in the hallway of the St. Petersburg apartment she shared with her husband. Michael Schiavo said a thud woke him, and he found his wife unconscious on the floor. He immediately called 911 emergency services and his wife's parents.

This subtle change may appease Terrisfight fans.ghost 3 July 2005 05:01 (UTC)

The two times that are known about that morning are 1. The time the 911 call went through (5.40ish), 2. The time the medics got there and started work on Schiavo (5.50 something). The Schindler claim that Mike did something to her at 4.30 that caused her to arrest, then called 911 only at ~5.40 cannot withstand scrutiny: it is medically impossible to remain in an arrest for 1 hour 20 minutes and not be dead (ie, the brainstem will have died long before, not just her neocortex, thalamus, basal ganglia, cerebellum). The most likely explanation is the common-sense one: when Mike was recalling on Larry King, >10 years later, what happened that night, he mistakenly said 4.30 instead of 5.30.

Re Bob Schindler, I have no opinion on this. Presumably if he wasn't there he would have taken the opportunity to call Mike a liar by now. If he was there, I don't know how it changes things.

Re arrest v collapse. Sequence is important. See this.

Re Mike said he heard a thud, woke up, called, etc etc. This is a point Ms. Heneghan has been persistently making. I agree with her. The only problem in my mind is deciding how far youre going to take it. "He said he called emergency services immediately..."

Good thoughts on NPOV, ghost.~ Neuroscientist July 3, 2005 06:21 (UTC)

I spoke to this on the mediation talk page. In response to a complaint similar to the one you cite I wrote: "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." I stand by that. And to take it further, can you imagine the State Attorney, for example, in the investigation called for by the governor, doing as you did, noting the time of the 911 call, and noting the logged time of arrival of the EMTs, and who is then left with only one other source of data: Michael.

Q: Mr. Schiavo how much time elapsed between when you heard the collapse and made the call?

A: Uh, I don't remember, maybe a few minutes.

That will be the beginning and end of the investigation. There is nothing else findable. While there may be some sport in speculating whether the answer is true or not, no one will ever be able to prove it. Terri's story truly starts from the fact of the cardiac arrest. So maybe we should write the first paragraph in the intro to say,

"on 25 February 1990 paramedics responding to a 911 call found Terri Schiavo face down in her apartment in cardiac arrest."

Do you think for one second that will stop the critics from saying, "wait a minute, who made the call? Why did she go into cardiac arrest?" which is the same place we are now. Duckecho (Talk) 3 July 2005 13:33 (UTC)

I just reread the intro and these comments and realized you guys weren't talking about the intro. I think that first paragraph reads just fine. My other remarks still obtain, and I don't know that we gain much reworking the other area, save paying particular attention to NS' warnings about sequence. Duckecho (Talk) 3 July 2005 15:12 (UTC)

Of course those questions (now struck out) don't go to the story of Terri, either. They are unknowable, unprovable, not disprovable—the very essence of conspiracy theories. And there is nothing we can do to the article to insulate it from those. Duckecho (Talk) 3 July 2005 13:33 (UTC)

Just a minor suggestion. Change: Michael Schiavo said a thud woke him, to Michael Schiavo said he was wakened by a thud. FuelWagon 4 July 2005 12:57 (UTC)

Yeah, and folks, for what it's worth, I know the feeling. Reading for the enemy...hurts. I mean it's almost physically painfull. Lemme give you a personal note here: My Great-uncle was on Apollo 17. When I hear the conspiracy theorists who want you to believe we never went to the Moon, I get infuriated. I can't see straight, because they're calling a member of my family a liar. But that doesn't give me the right to come to Wikipedia and trash the moon-conspiracy theorists.

This is the touchstone I use to understand the folks who come here believeing that the article is a pack of lies. This article must present the facts without infuriating those who view things differently. I know I'm asking us to walk a razor's edge. So be it. If we cannot create the space to respect their POV, we can never expect them to respect us, even if the facts hold up.--ghost 4 July 2005 17:09 (UTC)

"Eventually" choosing to withdraw life support.

Re the sentence,

Years later, Michael would be accused of going back on his word that he wanted to "spend the rest of his life with Terri," because he chose eventually to withdraw life-support.

Ann Heneghan reverted my addition of the word eventually to the sentence, stating this to be "POV." It is not immediately apparent to me why this is so. It is clear that Mr. Schiavo did not at one time wish to withdraw life support for his wife. It is equally clear that later he did. We know from the report of Guardian ad litem Wolfson that it took Mr. Schiavo "more than three years to accommodate this reality and [begin] to accept the idea of allowing Theresa to die naturally..."

Hence eventually seems to me a perfectly acceptable adverb. Why is it "POV?"~ Neuroscientist July 4, 2005 01:47 (UTC)

It is not. Taking three years to reach a decision is eventually reaching a decision. Utterly fair use of the word. Proto t c 4 July 2005 12:03 (UTC)

I also agree that it's not POV, from our POV. However, it is from Ann's. So I reread the section, reading for the enemy. When you read the Wolfson quote that follows this sentence, "eventually" becomes unnecessary because Wolfson so thoroughly dismisses the accusation. It's ironic that Ann's suggestion seems to strengthen Michael's position, but it is less redundant, so let's respect her and go with it.--ghost 5 July 2005 15:21 (UTC)

If we're being pedantic (and I am), it should be "... as he chose to eventually withdraw life-support". I still don't think it's POV, in any way, shape, or form. Proto t c 5 July 2005 15:41 (UTC)

Redundant, perhaps. Unnecessary, perhaps. I could understand those arguments. But try as I might, I can't see the bias argument. How is it any more POV in that sentence than its appearance just two paragraphs earlier? I think sometimes people work very, very hard to find a way to be offended. Duckecho (Talk) 5 July 2005 16:02 (UTC)

And don't get me wrong. I agree with you, it's not POV. We're splitting hairs. But if this minor gesture allows us to accommodate the views another editor, I'm all for it.--ghost 5 July 2005 16:07 (UTC)

Hi guys. I'm going to make this brief, as I owe Duck a good discussion and Gordon something rather less cordial. The sentence, before I decided to meddle with it, looked like this:

Years later, Michael was accused of going back on his word that he wanted to "spend the rest of his life with Terri," because he chose to withdraw life-support.

My main intention in editing it was to change was to would be (for grammar); after changing that, I noticed the "chose to," and felt the sentence would be improved by "chose eventually to."

One of the things I learnt when writing papers for publication was to always re-read the work imagining you were 1. a complete non-expert in the subject, and 2. reading the paper for the very first time. When you do this, there are usually a number of things that stand out as candidates for improved writing. (Try it for the Schiavo article - there are quite a few sentences that can be made simpler and/or clearer.) Now, reading this way from the start until this sentence we're talking about, it seemed to me that the addition of "eventually" would make the timing clearer (to someone coming to the story for the first time): the reason Michael was being accused of going back on his word was that even though at the start he seemed keen on taking care of his wife "forever," at some point afterward (ie. eventually) he changed his mind, and decided to remove life-support.

I'm not pissed or anything that Heneghan reverted it. It's only that it's not immediately apparent to me what she's trying to say - I'm trying to understand her POV. (Using Ghosts "reading for the enemy," various plausible reasons and scenarios suggest themselves, eg. not proscribing the view that Michael actually always intended to "murder" his wife, so he never actually eventually changed his mind etc) but none of them are logically compatible with accepting "chose to" while rejecting "chose eventually to."

So I'm only seeking to understand the objection. I agree with Ghost that it's not worth going into a fit over. Also, Proto is absolutely right re as for because.~ Neuroscientist | T | C July 5, 2005 18:34 (UTC) Note, I've altered the placement of this note in view of Fuel's suggested alternative, which I read after I wrote the above~ Neuroscientist | T | C July 5, 2005 18:34 (UTC)

This is crap. "eventually" is not POV. The problem is that without "eventually" or some adverb to show change, then it can be read that michael always wanted to disconnect life support. I rewrote the sentence to (1) credit the schindlers for the accusation and (2) to show a change in Michael from thinking she'll get better to accepting that she will never improve. FuelWagon 5 July 2005 17:40 (UTC)

The Schindlers accused Michael of going back on his word that he wanted to "spend the rest of his life with Terri" once he decided to withdraw life-support. However, Guardian ad litem Jay Wolfson wrote ...

..without "eventually"...then it can be read that michael always wanted to disconnect life support. - Yes. And I think this was the intent. But I'm in danger of putting words into the mouths of editors here. I think your edit is better, and difficult to refute by either side. I'm curious what Ann would say.--ghost 5 July 2005 18:25 (UTC)

This is crap. "eventually" is not POV. The problem is that without "eventually" or some adverb to show change, then it can be read that michael always wanted to disconnect life support. The (great) thing about Fuel is he never leaves anything to the imagination <chuckle>. This sentence looks better. But if the reason Ann reverted "eventually" really is what we think it is, I'm not sure she would be happier with this version.~ Neuroscientist | T | C

Hello, everyone. I'm extremely busy at the moment. Can you give me a day or two to explain more fully what my objections were? I'll be brief now. I prefer FuelWagon's version. I didn't have strong objections to eventually; there are other things in the article that bother me more. FuelWagon writes, without "eventually". . . then it can be read that michael always wanted to disconnect life support. Actually, I wouldn't have objected to "later". Ghost, I appreciate your willingness to accommodate an editor who is on the other side, in a case where it is possible to bend. Ann Heneghan 5 July 2005 23:26 (UTC)

The first thing that occured to me when I saw your edit summary was that you must have felt eventually was doing too much work. That is to say, eventually might reasonably be expected to imply that Michael gradually came to his decision over a long period of time, whereas strictly speaking we have no evidence for this: he may have decided to withdraw life support abruptly one night three years later, after quite suddenly coming to the realization that it was all futile. This is fair, although I was using eventually to mean "in the end," or "finally" (if you use the OED, the sense defined in the entry under #3).

What threw me was the "POV" claim, which seemed to imply the tantalizing possibility that I had done something to alter the narrative with undue bias in favor of Michael. I couldn't figure out how, thus this Talk page entry.

I'm glad you're fine with Fuel's very effective sentence.~ Neuroscientist | T | C

family disputes / legal disputes

there are two main sections titled "Family Disputes" and "Legal Disputes" that have many, many subsections. It occurred to me that the section titles are fairly pointless and that the subsections should be raised up a level. i.e. delete the family dispute and legal dispute levels, and move the subsections up one level. The bits and pieces of teh family dispute section can be moved into chronological order in their own sections. FuelWagon 5 July 2005 22:17 (UTC)

that probably didnt make any sense at all. lemme try again. instead of this:

5 Family relationship and malpractice suit

6 Family dispute

6.1 Michael Schiavo

6.2 Schindler family

7 Legal disputes

7.1 Life-prolonging procedures

7.2 PVS and the law

7.3 Guardianship

7.4 Do not resuscitate

7.5 Legally in a PVS

7.6 End of life wishes - Schiavo I

7.7 Oral feeding

7.8 Three appeals - Schiavo II

7.9 Evidentiary hearing - Schiavo III

7.10 Second PVS diagnosis

7.11 Diagnosis ruling - Schiavo IV

7.12 Bone scan

7.13 2003 petition

7.14 Oral feeding II

8 Diagnosis dispute

we could have something like this:

5 Family relationship and malpractice suit

6 Life-prolonging procedures

7 PVS and the law

8 Guardianship

9 Do not resuscitate

10 Legally in a PVS

11 End of life wishes - Schiavo I

12 Oral feeding

13 Three appeals - Schiavo II

14 Evidentiary hearing - Schiavo III

15 Second PVS diagnosis

16 Diagnosis ruling - Schiavo IV

17 Bone scan

18 2003 petition

19 Oral feeding II

20 Diagnosis dispute

The "family dispute" section contains a nugget or two that could remain, but any specific events could be taken out and given their own section with all the other numbered sections. I never particularly liked the separation between "family disputes" and "legal disputes", and this would simply report various events in chronological order, wehther family related or legally involved.

any thoughts?

FuelWagon 5 July 2005 22:22 (UTC)

(These remarks apply to your original post in this section. I'll look at the above in a moment.)

As far as the Legal Disuptes section goes, while I was working on it over the weekend (the subsection structure wasn't my original work), it struck me as adding extraordinary order and functionality by having the subsections, especially once I got things comparmented properly and in chronological order. It's also handy when using the article as a reference as one can easily find one's place in time through the use of the headings. It is my very strong suggestion to leave them as is. Moreover, I think it makes the ToC more useful. Duckecho (Talk) 5 July 2005 22:49 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to see the family dispute rolled into the legal area, even if chronologically, if that's what you're suggesting. In my opinion, understanding the legal aspects is fundamental to understanding the case (not that the family disputes were merely a sideshow). If I were to come to this page as a stranger, the chronology of the legal dispute would be central to my interest and my edification. Duckecho (Talk) 5 July 2005 22:49 (UTC)

Was that you changing the subheading titles? They're mostly okay except the one about the DNR. I agonized over that a lot but couldn't think of a way to shorten it. I think it needs to somehow include DNR, PVS, and first since that was the bellwether event when the diagnosis was first used as justification for an action, and when it became a legal rather than medical issue, which sets the tone for the eventual Schiavo I, et al. Duckecho (Talk) 5 July 2005 22:49 (UTC)

Nope, not me. FuelWagon 6 July 2005 02:15 (UTC)

Point by point

most of the stuff in the family dispute section is redundant. I was the original author of this section and had attempted to put things into some sort of context, but now the rest of the article has grown and this section has pretty much been made pointless. Here is the cut/paste from family section. my comments are indented:

Under Florida law and supported by rulings of State and Federal courts, Michael Schiavo, Schiavo's husband, was her legal guardian.

already covered in another section. FuelWagon 6 July 2005 02:26 (UTC)

Mr. Schiavo began to study nursing at St. Petersburg College around 1991 because, as he testified later in the 1992 malpractice suit, "I want to learn more how to take care of Terry [sic]." [18] Eventually, he became a respiratory therapist and emergency room nurse. [19]

already covered in another section FuelWagon 6 July 2005 02:26 (UTC)

In March 1994, guardian ad litem John H. Pecarek was appointed by the court to determine if there had been any abuse by Michael Schiavo. Pecarek's report found no evidence for any inappropriate actions, and indicated that Michael had been very attentive to his wife.

already covered in another section FuelWagon 6 July 2005 02:26 (UTC)

In addition to Pecarek, a number of guardians ad litem and hospital staff members have described Michael Schiavo as a supportive husband who berated nurses for not taking better care of his wife; in 1994, the administration of one nursing home unsuccessfully attempted to get a restraining order against him because he was demanding more attention for his wife at the expense of other patients' care. [20] According to Jay Wolfson, one of Schiavo's court-appointed guardians, due to the attention Schiavo had received in the fifteen years she was bedridden, she had never developed any bedsores.

parts are already covered in another section. bedsores comment could be moved to chronological position. FuelWagon 6 July 2005 02:26 (UTC)

On June 18, 2000, Michael signed an agreement stating he would not withdraw or terminate his wife's medical care or treatment for potential fatal infections, without prior notice to the court.

Probably should be put in chronological order. FuelWagon 6 July 2005 02:26 (UTC)

In an appearance on ABC News's Nightline on March 15, 2005, Michael Schiavo cited the willingness that Schiavo's parents expressed to keep her alive by multiple extreme measures, including quadruple amputation if needed, as an important reason for denying transfer of guardianship to them or other parties with similar desires. [21]

This should be put in order of when the Schindlers stated this, and then mention that Michael refered to it as a reason in 2005. FuelWagon 6 July 2005 02:26 (UTC)

A claim that Michael Schiavo stood to inherit the remainder of Schiavo's malpractice settlement upon her death raised the issue of a possible conflict of interest. However, the December 2003 Wolfson GAL report, [22] submitted to Governor Jeb Bush pursuant to Florida's "Terri's Law," notes that Michael had, prior to his 1998 request to the court to determine Schiavo's wishes, "formally offered to divest himself entirely of his financial interest in the guardianship estate" (p. 12). In 2005, Michael publicly responded to the alleged conflict of interest by claiming that less than $50,000 of the original award from the suit was left, the rest having been spent under a judge's supervision on medical care for Schiavo and the ongoing legal battle. He also had a contract drafted stating that, should the Schindlers refrain from any further legal action, he would donate whatever his inheritance might be to charity. The Schindlers refused the offer.

almost all of this is redundant.

On March 11, 2005, media tycoon Robert Herring (who believes that stem cell research could have cured Schiavo's condition) offered $1 million to Michael Schiavo if he agreed to waive his guardianship to his wife's parents [23]. The offer was rejected. George Felos, attorney for Michael, described the offer as "offensive." He also stated that Michael had rejected other monetary offers, including one of $10 million.

this is public opinion stuff, or should be placed in chronological order when the 10 million dollar offer was made. FuelWagon 6 July 2005 02:26 (UTC)

Michael Schiavo has been criticized for entering into a relationship with another woman, Jodi Centonze, while still legally married to Terri. Michael and Jodi Centonze have had two children together. Michael denies wrongdoing in this matter, stating that the Schindlers actively encouraged him to "get on with his life" and date since 1991. Michael said he chose not to divorce Terri and relinquish guardianship because he wanted to ensure her final wishes (to not be kept alive in a PVS) were carried out.

This can be put in chronological order as to when he entered relationship with Centonze. FuelWagon 6 July 2005 02:26 (UTC)

During the final stages of the court battle in March 2005, around 30 individuals made a variety of complaints to the Department of Children and Families alleging various abuses. These included Terri supposedly being in pain from recent dental work, Terri not having had any dental work for years, and even the blinds in her room not being open wide enough. DCF investigators found the claims to be groundless, stating that there were "no indicators" of abuse in any of the cases and concluding that "[t]he preponderance of the evidence shows that Michael Schiavo followed doctors' orders [regarding] Ms. Schiavo's diagnosis of being in a persistent vegetative state and that he provided her with appropriate care." [24]

this is already covered. FuelWagon 6 July 2005 02:26 (UTC)

[edit] Schindler family Schiavo's parents and siblings had battled her husband over her fate since 1998. Even though the courts consistently upheld the ruling that Schiavo would choose to have her life support discontinued, her parents used every legal measure available to prevent the disconnection of her feeding tube. The Schindlers stated that even if Schiavo had told them of her intention to have artificial nutrition withdrawn, they would not accede. [25] The issue of conflict of interest raised by guardian ad litem Pearse, attached to the Schindlers, as well, he reported, since, had they prevailed in the various litigation over guardianship, as presumed heirs-at-law they would have inherited the remainder of Mrs. Schiavo's estate upon her death. [26]

already covered FuelWagon 6 July 2005 02:26 (UTC)

The Schindlers took videos of Schiavo that purportedly show her responding to them. In an attempt to foster improvement in her condition, they contacted Galaxywave, Inc.[27], psychic healers who claim to possess a Remote Healing ADAM (Aphysical Dimension Access Manager) Technology. 28 On several occasions, the Schindlers attempted to put these psychics in contact with Schiavo via cell phone during their visits with her. [29]

Video stuff is already covered. the psychic healer stuff is not, could add it in order. FuelWagon 6 July 2005 02:26 (UTC)

Her parents claimed that Schiavo was a devout Roman Catholic who did not wish to violate the Church's teachings on euthanasia by refusing nutrition and hydration, and that she had never expressed such a desire to anyone in her birth family or circle of friends. The Schindlers' legal fight was funded by a variety of sources on the political right. [30]

Could insert this in wherever legal dispute about Terri's wishes is located. That is where it is relevant. FuelWagon 6 July 2005 02:26 (UTC)

Schiavo's father, Bob Schindler, criticized Judge Greer as he never called Terri Schiavo into the courtroom or visited her to observe her condition firsthand. Schindler described the court order to remove the feeding tube as "judicial homicide." [31]

practically irrelevant. this could be deleted. FuelWagon 6 July 2005 02:26 (UTC)

When Michael Schiavo had Terri's ashes interred on June 20, the Schindlers' attorney stated that the family was notified by fax only after the service; by then, the Schindler family had already started getting calls from reporters. [32]

could put at end of article. FuelWagon 6 July 2005 02:26 (UTC)

So are you saying that about 90% of that is covered elsewhere? Sounds like it could be deleted. If what's left is all there is, then, with appropriate sectioning, I don't see why it couldn't be interleaved with the legal stuff. With the caveat, however, my personal bias is to leave the legal stuff quite clearly discernible. Duckecho (Talk) 6 July 2005 02:49 (UTC)

I think most of it is covered elsewhere. the legal stuff should use clear language to say what legal actions were taken, so legal stuff should be fairly clear anyway. It might not all be like that now, but that would be the goal. FuelWagon 6 July 2005 13:56 (UTC)

OK. I took a stab at whittling down the family stuff. most of teh schindler stuff was moved or deleted. If I wasn't sure if something was covered elsewhere, I left it in place. Someone else can take a turn at it. FuelWagon 6 July 2005 15:14 (UTC)

BTW, FW, kudos cutting down the redundancies. Sorry I haven't been able to be more involved. Been "putting out fires" IRL.--ghost 6 July 2005 16:42 (UTC)

Lead/Intro/Summary section

Fuel, I saw your split of the lead into an untitled, one-line, first para, and a multi-para section entitled "Summary." This is similar to a recent version with the title "Introduction."

An editor who has recently taken an interest in the Schiavo article (likely after being made aware of our complete lawlessness over the TOCright template issue) has been trying to tell us that an article lead comprises all paragraphs normally thought of as introductory, and should have no header or title of its own. This appears to be the encyclopaedic convention followed by Wikipedia. I agree with the idea that we should follow a standard house-style where textual editing is concerned (although I do not think this should imply rigid requirements about such things as the placement of TsOC or images).

I believe the recent moves to provide the introductory para with a header of its own had a practical basis: the introduction was recently the focus of some intensive editing, and a separate header obviated the need to "Edit this (whole) Page" whenever we wanted to tweak the intro. I thought this was fair, but wonder if we may revert back to the standard form now, if only so this editor won't blow a gasket and move to ban the Terri Schiavo article and its editors. Or something. If we're going to stick to the split, for whatever reason, may I record a preference for "Introduction" rather than "Summary" for a title.~ Neuroscientist | T | C July 6, 2005 14:37 (UTC)

"if only so this editor won't blow a gasket" If by "this editor" you mean tabushidayu, then I don't feel particularly obliged to appease someone who only seems interested in pendantic enforcement of style guidelines. Mostly I switched it because Duck changed it and then tabushidayu seems to have done a driveby to change it back. I'm personally not attached either way. But if Duck was intending on doing some edits to the intro and the header made it easier, so be it. If Duck's finished, then switch it back. FuelWagon 6 July 2005 14:46 (UTC)

"if only so this editor won't blow a gasket"If by "this editor" you mean tabushidayu then I don't feel particularly obliged to appease someone... Yeah. I was speaking in jest re "appeasement", but to be perfectly serious, on this issue I agree with him. The introductory paragraphs normally thought of as the lead section should be untitled. As far as I can see we're done with the intro edits (for now), so I'll revert, if you don't mind.

BTW, I've decided I heart Fuel. You're a no-BS, kick ass editor. We should probably just sit back and let you do all this editing stuff.~ Neuroscientist | T | C July 6, 2005 15:25 (UTC)

I heart Fuel as well. He kickeths asseth. Proto t c 6 July 2005 15:29 (UTC)

I, ahem, echo those sentiments, NS. In another venue regarding another article a colleague once opined about FW, "what he lacks in people skills, he makes [up] for as an editor." I responded, "I like his people skills. He tells people where the bear shit in the buckwheat." He does that. Although it's difficult for someone with an ego the size of mine to concede superiority on any skill, FW is clearly a superior editor. He is fearless, he is ruthless, and he is fair. Duckecho (Talk) 6 July 2005 15:59 (UTC)

LOL. "what he lacks in people skills.." That would be your's truly. :-) I think when I invited him over to Intelligent Design. I think I still owe you for that one, FW.--ghost 6 July 2005 16:32 (UTC)

A big "Thanks" to everyone for the kudos. It is appreciated. FuelWagon 6 July 2005 17:20 (UTC)

By the way, I'm the guilty party on subheading the intro. You have precisely grasped my motive for doing so. It wouldn't bother me to leave it that way for a while, no matter what ohdamntoobadjoe or whatever his name is, thinks (trolling for Benny Hill fans). However, I'm also not so wedded to it now that it would cause me heartache to remerge it. It is important to remember that not all of us are on broadband, and that coupled with the slow server response that Wiki has, not having to load a full, oversized page for a minor edit at the very top makes for a fuller Wiki experience by leaving time for other edits. Duckecho (Talk) 6 July 2005 16:10 (UTC)

The London bombings

I know this strictly doesn't belong on this page, but I just wanted to say I hope all is well with our British contributors, and express my deepest sympathies over this tragedy. Of the regulars, I know only Proto is from the UK (and works for the NHS!) - hope you're well. I believe Ann is Irish - hope she wasn't travelling anywhere near the blasts. Anyway, take care, all. This was awful.~ Neuroscientist | T | C July 8, 2005 01:50 (UTC)

Nowhere near it, don't worry. Thanks. Now, get back to work! :) Proto t c 8 July 2005 09:15 (UTC)

Thanks, but no, I was safely in Dublin. However, I am going to London tomorrow morning, and will be there for the next few days, with no computer access. Could I request that anyone who decides to archive this page in the next few days would leave the "eventually choosing" thread here, as I would like to answer it more fully. I just don't have a free minute right now. Ann Heneghan 8 July 2005 22:28 (UTC)

"Diagnosed"

(I split Ann's post as I feel it would be indelicate to respond to the subject of the second part of the message given the subject matter of the first. I hope she doesn't mind) Duckecho (Talk) 8 July 2005 23:14 (UTC)

By the way, as might be expected, I am not at all happy with today's change from "diagnosed as" etc. to "in an irreversible" etc. I had the impression that we had reached some kind of consensus on the talk page, and that this had even led to a dying down of the edit wars. Surely "diagnosed as" can be left in. It doesn't take up a lot more space. It doesn't violate the beliefs or principles of those who agree with the diagnosis, and it shows some willingness to compromise with those who dispute it. I don't like edit wars, and I don't intend to try to do anything about it right now, but I hope on my return from London to discover that there is some willingness to compromise on this issue again. I could understand the resistance if I were requesting that the article should say that she was in a MCS. People who disagreed would feel obliged, for the sake of truth and accuracy, to resist. The "diagnosed as" compromise adds at the very most four words. It does not sacrifice truth, accuracy, neutrality, or style. Please think about it. Ann Heneghan 8 July 2005 22:28 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more. At one time we only seemed to be aware of three neurologists who had diagnosed PVS. Contrasted to the two Schindler doctors, it appeared on the face of it to perhaps be a close call. That's no longer the case. In light of recently acquired information or at least the winnowing of previously available information, and in simplistic terms, if we were counting votes, it's now more of a 7 to 1 tally, and considerable question as to the efficacy of the one has been raised, not the least of which was by Judge Greer. That is seven clinical examinations by seven neurologists dating back to 1990, all concluding PVS. There is no longer an issue of agreeing with the diagnosis. Wikipedia shouldn't care a whit that there is some lay person who disputes the diagnosis of seven experienced experts trained in the field, and thus shouldn't report it. Frankly if some lay person has a belief or principle that incorporates an inability to accept the consensus finding of seven board certified experts in their own field based on actual clinical examination, I believe that's an issue that needs to be settled by introspection, not by compromising the integrity of the article. Having said that, our resident expert in the field has said he prefers the qualifier, not because there's any serious question that PVS was the case, but as a professional concession to epistemic humility, I believe he put it, and on that basis I concur. Context and motive is everything in the wording. I support it fully on the one basis and will argue vehemently against it on the other. Duckecho (Talk) 8 July 2005 23:14 (UTC)

Am glad you're ok. Do take care in London. In re "diagnosed as" in the intro, that's something I've favored (see below), although I suspect for different reasons than editors on the "other side;" for me it's a question of epistemic accuracy, and does not detract from what, as a clinician with an interest in neurologic disease, I know to be the only sound diagnosis that could have been made in this tragic case. The evidence was simply overwhelming, spanning the clinical, electrophysiological, pathological and neuroradiological domains. I have no objections to either rendition of the sentence, so you will find no opposition from me if you revert.~ Neuroscientist | T | C July 8, 2005 22:48 (UTC)

Thank you. As you'll see, I've replaced the "diagnosed as" - my last edit before leaving for the airport! (And I'm sure I'll be fine in London: I don't expect to be using public transport at all.) Will respond to some more issues when I get back. Ann Heneghan 9 July 2005 05:31 (UTC)

Ann, I had not seen your note, but I responded under the "The Intro. Part quatre" section protesting this same point; it looks like FW's tryin' to get some free donuts, ha ha. He's not crazy ...he's, merely "diagnosed" as being in a Persistant HUNGRY state he heh. (When we pick on you, FW, you're one of the crowd, even if you're a little, uh...)--GordonWattsDotCom 06:14, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Someone owes me a dozen donuts. FuelWagon 9 July 2005 15:46 (UTC)

Autopsy rewrite

I have completely rewritten the autopsy section, which had contained a substantial number of factual errors, and was rather less well organized than it might have been. The present version describes the participants and the most important findings systematically (which in Schiavo's case was overwhelmingly neurologic), summarizes some of the other important conclusions, contains a live, stable link to a CNN news report, and ends with the examiner's thoughts on her death. I also wanted the language to be more "encyclopaedic," which is probably a good thing but may not be, depending on your perspective of how Wikipedia articles should be written.

Accept, edit, revert or delete as you please.~ Neuroscientist | T | C July 8, 2005 07:49 (UTC)

it says "Aside from a focal, healed inflammation, her heart and coronary vessels were healthy." Was that supposed to be "local"? FuelWagon 8 July 2005 14:23 (UTC)

The word that Dr. Stephen Cohle used was "focal," Fuel (p24 of 39 in pdf). It however means the same thing; if we substitute with "local," the form should be "localized."~ Neuroscientist | T | C July 8, 2005 14:47 (UTC)

Also, the autopsy report specifically mentioned a couple of sections of brain where absolutely no neurons were found under microscopic examination. I think that ought to be included somehow. The current version is good, and just a little overwhelming with the medical jargon. A more plain-language sentence could be included somewhere for those of us not trained in teh field. Or something. FuelWagon 8 July 2005 14:23 (UTC)

You're right. I think the weakness of the current version is the jargon. I struggled with trimming it down, yet trying to maintain some specificity, but I can't think of a way to mention which parts of the brain were damaged without actually naming the parts. Where possible I did use the anglicized version of the medical term (e.g. midbrain instead of mesencephalon), but of course, that's not much of an improvement for those who normally don't deal with these terms. One solution is simply to not name them: "There was extensive damage to many areas of the brain," for example. The downside is we loose information. This may ultimately be a worthwhile trade off, though. Which is why I've put it up to the best judges: you guys, the regular readers (and editors).~ Neuroscientist | T | C July 8, 2005 14:47 (UTC)

Oh yes, re the completely damaged areas. The notable things that were completely destroyed were the Pyramidal cells of the cortex (throughout the entire cortex, BTW), the Purkinje cells of the cerebellum, and the basal ganglia. The visual cortex overlying the occipital lobe was also probably all gone, but they don't actually say that in so many words. This was one area in the old version that was a bit poor - for example, it said "the cerebellum was completely destroyed," which is absolutely untrue. If we specifically name those (important) things that were completely necrosed, we'll have to write "pyramidal neurons of the blah blah blah," which I thought would make the average reader tend to want to say WTF.~ Neuroscientist | T | C July 8, 2005 14:57 (UTC)

Well, if nothing else, maybe there is a plain-language way to clarify that of the remaining brain mass, it wasn't all neurons, and that some sections of the brain had no neurons present. It doesn't have to go into specific section names or cell types, it just needs to clarify that the 615 grams wasn't like 615 grams of normal, healthy brain. Conspiricists see 615 grams of brain mass and argue that people have had half their brain cut out in an injury and survive. The article should be clear that the 615 grams of remaining brain tissue had a lot less neurons than normal tissue. FuelWagon 8 July 2005 15:29 (UTC)

I've changed focal to localized because its better. There are also short articles on some of the brain parts on Wiki; maybe linking them might help with the demystification. There's something in the section that's a bit ironic, though. For most doctors, the single most important part of the autopsy is the description of the pattern of neuropathologic damage - because it is so consistent with the clinical diagnosis, as well as pathologic studies of patients who died with PVS. However, that's the most incomprehensible part of the section. I'll take it out. The only way to include that much detail on Wiki, I suspect, would be to write a separate article and take the time to explain everything with diagrams and stuff.~ Neuroscientist | T | C July 8, 2005 15:16 (UTC)

I think you wrote a readable version right there: "The pattern of Terri's neuropathologic damage was consistent with other patients who died with PVS". FuelWagon 8 July 2005 15:29 (UTC)

Hmm. Hang on, I have an idea.~ Neuroscientist | T | C July 8, 2005 15:39 (UTC)

To quote an esteemed editor for whom I have the greatest respect, "That [statement] is so well worded that it is difficult to see a reasonable counter-argument." Duckecho (Talk) 8 July 2005 15:44 (UTC)

LOL. Ok, hang on. My computer froze for a bit. I'm going to work on para 3 of the autopsy now.~ Neuroscientist | T | C July 8, 2005 15:53 (UTC)OK, done. Computer kept misbehaving, very unusually. First sentence of para 3 is a simple statement of the gist of it. When I took out the first gawdawful technical para, I replaced it with just one simple line, but then it looked severely weakened. Now there's a bit of explication of some of the path matchups, but I hope it's still readable. Good thing there are stubs for some of the terms.Neuroscientist | T | C July 8, 2005 16:46 (UTC)

I like it. It seems to flow really well now from overview in para 1 to gritty details in para 3. I tweaked the word order in two places, but the content seems spot on. FuelWagon 8 July 2005 17:48 (UTC)

Our ahistorical account of the Schiavo story

I have made some changes to the Lead section. I thought I’d explain some of the changes (underlined).

Theresa Marie "Terri" Schiavo(December 3, 1963–March 31, 2005), was an American woman from St. Petersburg, Florida. On February 25, 1990, Schiavo (pronounced SHY-voh, IPA: /'ʃaɪvoʊ/) experienced cardiac arrest and collapsed in her home. Despite heroic resuscitative measures, she suffered severe brain damage from the ensuing cerebral hypoxia, and lapsed into a coma which lasted for two and a half months. Schiavo spent the remaining 15 years of her life in a condition diagnosed as an irreversible persistent vegetative state (PVS).

This diagnosis was the center of a major dispute between her parents (Robert and Mary Schindler) and her husband (Michael Schiavo, her court-appointed legal guardian. The Schindlers believed Schiavo was not in a PVS, and filed numerous court cases over the course of several years to dispute this. In her last years, Schiavo was examined by at least eight neurologists, of whom all but one concluded that she was in a PVS. An evidentiary hearing held in a Florida circuit court to determine the most credible assessment of her state of consciousness found that the "evidence overwhelmingly supports the view that Terry Schiavo [was] in a persistent vegetative state [1]." This finding was subsequently upheld on every appeal, both in state and federal courts.

I take it that gems such as "of whom all but one of whom" don’t need further deliberation (aside from moving to drop Neutrality a line about the importance of careful drive-by shootings, perhaps. That construction had stayed in the article since the Jul 6 edit at 16:38, and cannot have done much for the article’s (and our) credibility).

Regarding the other changes:

Para 1: This is trivial. I placed all "background" neurologic events (i.e., cerebral hypoxia, brain damage, coma) in one sentence. I made the last sentence of the para a simple declarative sentence with one piece of info, that she had gone into sorry, been diagnosed with a PVS. The PVS was the central medical issue in Schiavo, and this leads off well, I think, into the next para where the dispute is addressed.

Para 2. This is slightly less trivial. In the original, pre-Neutrality version, which was arrived at by consensus of most of us, the para started off with this: This diagnosis was the center of a major dispute between her parents (Robert and Mary Schindler) and her husband (Michael Schiavo, her legal guardian by court appointment), and led to numerous court cases over the course of several years.

After that came the sentence about the neurologists. I have two concerns.

Firstly, in this version no idea is given about what the dispute was. Remember, imagine you’re an average Wiki reader a few years from now, you’ve never heard of Schiavo, you have a vague idea that the PVS is some kind medical-brain-death-coma-thingy – perhaps not even that. But reading the current version you basically get: Schiavo went into a PVS, her parents and husband had a dispute... eight neurologists saw her and 7 said "PVS", court said PVS... all the while, the reader has no idea what the dispute was (at the most basic level who was Pro-PVS and who was Anti-PVS, to put it crudely). This is answered soon enough, but in working toward that "perfect article" I think a weakness like this can be remedied. I broke the sentence in two, added that it was the Schindlers who didn’t buy PVS, and that this disagreement was at the heart of the trials. It also avoids the problem of claiming that the diagnosis of PVS (rather than the dispute over it) caused the court cases, which is what the original does.

NB: I would actually prefer removing the 8 neurologists sentence, and moving that to the relevant part of the body of the article.~ Neuroscientist | T | C July 8, 2005 09:37 (UTC)

But my second concern is a bit more serious (and, I should add, is unresolved by my edit). I think we are giving an ahistorical account of what happened.

The way we have written the article, the narrative is that this was a tragic saga in which a wife and daughter fell dangerously ill and nearly died, but didn’t quite. The husband and the doctors thought she had lost all capacity for cognition, awareness of environment, awareness of self, perception, capacity for voluntary movement, etc. The parents didn’t think so, and they always opposed it. When the husband acted on the natural course of action predicated on his belief that his wife was gone, the parents acted on the natural course of action predicated on the belief that she was "still there."

But this narrative is not true. Terri collapsed in February 1990. By late 1990, it was already clear (to the docs) that she was in PVS (in fact, she would probably have met permanent VS criteria by June or July 1990). I don’t know precisely when the diagnosis was first made, but I do know Desousa had completed the relevant examinations and testing to confirm the diagnosis in 1990. Certainly, the diagnosis had been made well before 1993, when the first signs of Schindler-Schiavo trouble began and the Schindlers tried to remove Michael’s guardianship. Gambone (non-neuro) made his diagnosis in 1992.

Yet, there was no infighting at that time. There was no (reported) wailing and whining that the PVS diagnosis was wrong. Why?

Yeah, I noticed this way back when, when I was working on the timeline article. At the time, I thought there was only one doctor who diagnosed Terri as PVS, and then the 5-banger court case settled it. But now, knowing that there were FOUR doctors who diagnosed her as PVS before the 5-banger court case, it seems fairly clear that the Schindlers didn't care HOW they kept Terri alive (challenge Michael's guardianship, challenge PVS diagnosis, challenge Terri's end-of-life choices, and even go so far as to wage a media campaign and lobby the govorner and president of the US to intervene) as long as she was kept alive. It seems to really fit in with the Schindler's statement that they would be willing to perform quadruple amputation on Terri to keep her alive. Kind of disgusting that when the autopsy report came out the Schindlers had a news conference saying "Remember, this is about what Terri would have wanted". It seems pretty clear that this was completely about what they wanted, come hell or high water. FuelWagon 8 July 2005 14:44 (UTC)

In fact, the initial legal actions by the Schindlers were all directed at removing Michael’s guardianship – first through GAL Pecarek in 1994, then GAL Pearse in 1998. There was no disputing the PVS diagnosis then, even though it is certain it had long been made. The Schindlers wanted control over Schiavo, whatever anyone said her diagnosis was, because they wanted the tube in her and they wanted her to be kept alive. There was also the underlying current of the money dispute – which contrary to popular opinion cut both ways. There was a financial conflict of interest on the part of both the Schindlers as well as Michael. Of course I've no idea how much a role this actually played for either of them.

The earliest crack in the relationship developed after Michael wouldn’t split his money with the Schindlers. The way I read the story, the Schindlers’ prime motive throughout was to be able to keep Schiavo fastened to a tube. When Michael and they were on the same wave length, they were fine. In fact, I’m sure they wouldn’t have given a flying **** if their neurologist had said she had monkey hemorrhoid syndrome of the cerebrum or something. As long as they were allowed to keep Terri, have the tube in her, and push the food in.

But in 1998, Michael decided to petition to pull the PEG. This is when matters came to a head. The Schindlers fight it tooth and nail. GAL Pearse is appointed. Karp does his eval, and confirms PVS. Pearse has at his disposal the diagnoses of Desousa, Karp, Gambone, Barnhill, possibly Harrison (I’m not sure when precisely Harrison entered the picture). Pearse determines that the evidence shows Schiavo is in a PVS. Judge Greer then makes his first decision in 2000 with these data and with testimony from Barnhill. He decides 1. Terri is in a PVS, 2. Terri would not want to be kept alive artificially, 3. The PEG should be pulled.

The sh*t hits the fan.

From here onwards, the diagnosis of PVS really becomes an issue. The Schindlers see it as the thing that enables Michael to carry out the PEG order. So now, at this stage, they call the goons in. Hammer & Maxfield. They get some bozo to go around collecting affidavits from docs using the 4 minute edited video.

So when we imply that the Schindlers always opposed, on principle, the PVS diagnosis, we are simply (if unintentionally) making up a story. The main thing was always keeping the tube in. Everything else was secondary to that (ie. the objection wasn’t an objection on principle – it was made for other ends).

Our account is ahistorical.

I recognize however that we have few options here. We aren’t biographers and historians. We have no access to primary data that can recreate an honest rendition of what took place here. We can make careful observations of available material, but that’s as far as it goes.~ Neuroscientist | T | C July 8, 2005 09:37 (UTC)

I think Fox1 crystallized on the mediation page the problem we have had to deal with. We are (and have been forced to, to an extent) writing for the enemy but writing for the wrong reasons. We should be able to craft a narratiive that matches the known, reported facts; the chronology; and the results. The product came under attack because those criteria didn't fit the blogoshpere POV. As a result we started writing, not defensively, but almost apologetically. I am not only guilty as charged, but I am also of the opinion that as more and more light gets shed on this case, the bolder we can be in excising the chaff of timidity in the narrative. As I said before, I know FuelWagon is firm (although not, I am sure, entrenched) in his belief that the opening paragraph needs as much hedge as it has to forestall POV criticism (or more accurately NPOV criticism). I think it's time to write it as the précis it really should be and then let the reader go to the body of the article where the supporting facts are fleshed out. Now that Cranford's document is in the public domain, we know much more than heretofore about the early years of diagnosis and ought to be able to incorporate that knowledge in our efforts, much as NS sets out above. Duckecho (Talk) 8 July 2005 16:15 (UTC)

With regard to Neutrality's drive-by edits, I don't know what we can do about that other than remain vigilant just as we do with the blogo-vandals and the regular vandals. He thinks he is above everyone else and is unpersuaded otherwise. I am amused to see the blanking vandals reverted within a minute of their perfidy. Apparently there are a lot of people watching the page. In any event, I reverted his bulimia entry very shortly afterward, too, and I inserted the hidden comments concerning the eating disorder issue. His other edits at the time were relatively benign, although he moved the IPA crap (sorry, I just don't think it adds one whit to the article) from the first line into the body where it fits less well than it did in the first line. I may experiment with putting it at the end of the intro. Duckecho (Talk) 8 July 2005 16:15 (UTC)

Terri Template, refs house style, italics, etc

1. The Terri template that links related documents has a link to the Government involment article and the public involvement article that actually links not to these articles, but to the sections in this parent article. Was this the intention? Seems a bit redundant considering the TOC does that, no? ~ Neuroscientist | T | C July 8, 2005 08:35 (UTC)

I noticed that the other day, and I agree; redundant. Duckecho (Talk) 8 July 2005 14:25 (UTC)

Ghost? You're the boss on this one. I like the info box, just wondering if those two links shouldn't point right at the subarticles?~ Neuroscientist | T | C July 8, 2005 16:58 (UTC)

2. We need to standardize ref styles. How about this way:

Words Words Words Words.[1]

(i.e., follows period. No space between period and ref).

In cases where the sentence ends with a quote, ref is just outside, no space.

Words, "words words words."[2]

In the middle of sentence, next to punctuation, place "inside."

Words words words words[3]; words words words.

~Neuroscientist | T | C July 8, 2005 08:35 (UTC)

My personal feeling is to have the ref (cite) surrounded by whitespace. I feel not having a space gives a cluttered appearance. I also learned while reading up on desktop publishing a few years ago that whitespace isn't a bad thing. I recognize that there may be some stylistic convention (Chicago, APA) of which I am unaware, that mandates the close proximity , but to my (admitttedly untrained) eye an extra space (except when punctuation follows it as in your middle of sentence example) keeps things uncluttered. Duckecho (Talk) 8 July 2005 14:25 (UTC)

Us medical types use the Vancouver style usually, the Havard style sometimes (depending on journals). The Vancouver style uses numbers. However, they are superscripted. The reason they abut the thing you want them to refer to is so that there is no confusion what the ref is for. For example,

Neuron neuron neuron neuron[1]; however, glia, glia glia glia.

Here, there is no doubt that the ref is for the neuron clause. Same with ends of sentences. The best thing to do is probably follow the Wiki house style. Does anyone have a link to this? I haven't been able to find it in the MOS.~ Neuroscientist | T | C July 8, 2005 16:58 (UTC)

3. Court cases are italicized. E.g., Schiavo II. ~ Neuroscientist | T | C July 8, 2005 08:35 (UTC)

Guilty. I'm the one who placed the particular titles cited. I have no problem with the italicization, although I would campaign for bolding as well, to make the cases easy to find—they are the definitive judicial affirmances in the story. Perhaps italicizing (with bolding) down in the reference section, bolding with no italicizing in the headers. As above, there may be style dicta that would settle the question. Yes? No? Duckecho (Talk) 8 July 2005 14:25 (UTC)

I have no strong prefs re bold. Fine with having it or not having it. However, I feel quite srongly that they must be italicized, because that's the convention. Someone look up Roe Wade or something and see how they do it. PS. Duck, you're not guilty of anything. We all make edits, and down the line someone will remember something we forgot. I'm sure all my trespasses will soon be found out. Just wait till NCdave gets back from wherever he's gone to. <chuckle>~ Neuroscientist | T | C July 8, 2005 16:58 (UTC)

I just wanted to step up and explain how I could explain why it was done that way. Anyway, I've italicized the names in the references section. Also, almost all of the other cases in that section at one time had in re Guardianship of Schiavo; Schindler vs. Schiavo, or some such in the link. That seemed unnecessarily redundant (hmm, just like that) since all of the related cases are so named, and it severely affected the readability of the section, so I had excised that from them some time ago. Duckecho (Talk) 8 July 2005 18:04 (UTC)

Agree, disagree, comment?~ Neuroscientist | T | C July 8, 2005 08:35 (UTC)

Intro again

Heeding my own counsel (above). I've boldly reworded and extensively trimmed the intro. I'm still a little iffy about paragraph Four (Authorization to have…)—I suspect even it's too much info for the intro. I invite your discussion. Duckecho (Talk) 8 July 2005 17:49 (UTC)

Duck, like this a lot. This is exactly the way I've always envisaged it should be. There are some minor things that need tweaking, for example the lead sentence,

Theresa Marie "Terri" Schiavo (December 3, 1963–March 31, 2005), was a St. Petersburg, Florida woman whose medical circumstances and the legal battles pertaining to them led to landmark court decisions, historical legislative initiatives, and intensive media attention.

Underlined bit needs attention. Also a couple of other sentences need some work, but this is exactly the right idea. Good job - wish you'd done it before I wrote that freakin essay!~ Neuroscientist | T | C July 8, 2005 18:11 (UTC)

How about their attendant legal battles? I also thought about unprecedented media attention to better complement the other two adjectives and for style. What think you? Your freakin' essay got me off bottom dead center. Don't disparage its value. Duckecho (Talk) 8 July 2005 18:34 (UTC)

I'll bet a dozen donuts that you'll have someone complain that PVS is presented as fact rather than saying she was "diagnosed" PVS. But nothing ventured, nothing gained. I also notice that the removal of the doctor head count, while streamlining the intro, leaves no central location for all the doctors who examined and diagnosed Terri. There is nothing that presents the hard fact that 8 neurologists examined her and 7 said she was PVS. It's sort of scattered through the chronology of the article now. If someone just read a bunch of blog-propaganda saying Terri was walking and talking and three dozen doctors signed affidavits saying she wasn't PVS, then the FIRST thing I'd want them to read are some hard facts that put their propaganda in check. Otherwise, they'll end up inserting crap we'll have to revert. The chronology is good, but I think we need something near the top that gives the headcount on neurologists over the years. FuelWagon 8 July 2005 18:19 (UTC)

Oh yes, for sure. In an article like this, whenever you substantially alter one section (either adding or removing stuff), you'll have to also adjust the rest of the article. Now that TL&V has been published in the public domain, we'll need to incorporate that info into the article, anyway. I'd name names now (ie. Desousa, Karp, etc). Re the "diagnosed as PVS" bit, I actually have no objection if it's written that way - in fact I'd prefer it. As a doc, you learn a kind of epistemic humility about what you do, and the truth of the matter is Schiavo was indeed diagnosed with PVS. Of course, it is, by far, the most likely diagnosis (practically, it was a certainty); I will strongly oppose any kind of attempt to imply that some other diagnosis was even comparably close.~ Neuroscientist | T | CThere was an edit conflict with Duck.

I won't take that bet, but I think we can defend it. Your point is taken about the eight docs—we need to get that coalesced into a visible and easily locatable part of the article. With Cranford's article in hand (and NS' commentary) I had thought to work on that with a view to getting the earliest diagnoses woven into the chronology. SWMBO and I are headed out to lunch. I'll look at it later this P.M. Duckecho (Talk) 8 July 2005 18:34 (UTC)

Hey! We got our first outside quality edit on the new intro—by an anon, no less. Pretty good edit, too, although I don't care for the em dashes around additionally. Progress accrues. By the way, nice touches, NS. Duckecho (Talk) 8 July 2005 20:41 (UTC)

bush investigation

[2] Gov. Jeb Bush has declared an end to the state's inquiry into Terri Schiavo's collapse 15 years ago, after Florida's state attorney said there was no evidence that criminal activity was involved.

Bush had asked State Attorney Bernie McCabe to investigate Schiavo's case after her autopsy last month. He said he now considers the state's involvement with the matter finished.

Did you see Gibb's comment? "[it] appeared rushed…" and ""[w]e had thought they [the state attorney's office] would meet with the family…" Can you imagine what that interview would have been like? They just cannot let go. Duckecho (Talk) 8 July 2005 18:44 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed. If the Schindlers had any information that would convict Michael of criminal wrongdoing for actions the morning Terri collapsed, they would have brought it up that day. They just want the world to subscribe to their version of reality. The yahoo article said Gov Bush gave a two sentence reply. It would seem that the politicians are trying to distance themselves from this. They set the Michael up to be the dragon, Terri the helpless maiden, and the schindlers were something like the 7 dwarves or something. Now that the truth is showing the Schindler fairy tale can't hold water, they're quietly distancing themselves from their mistakes. No doubt, they'll invoke vague references to the "culture of death", but my guess is that references to Terri won't be showing up in too many political speeches. FuelWagon 8 July 2005 19:17 (UTC)

Initial Medical Crisis

Just wanted to drop a note here to let folks know I've rewritten the above section. In case you've long dreamed that it would always have been left pristine and pure - sorry, ain't happening. Accept, edit, revert, delete - your choice. OK, gotta go.~ Neuroscientist | T | C July 9, 2005 00:59 (UTC)

Diagnosis dispute

Maybe it's just me, but I look through the article and see the improvements in organization, the strengthening of the narrative, and the addition of significant factual data and I feel as if the article has really come a long way. And then I look at the Diagnosis dispute section and it stands out like an ugly wart on the article's face. There are descriptions of at least five different issues, some of it irrelevant, much of it apparently pandering to our elsewhere desribed mythical reader. Does anyone have any thoughts on taking a blue pencil to this thing and ruthlessly paring it down? Duckecho (Talk) 9 July 2005 03:29 (UTC)

that section is where much of the people who didn't examine Terri, but gave their opinion anyway went. I wanted to keep the examining doctors separate from all the riff-raff. it could be broken up into chronological sections, I suppose. FuelWagon 9 July 2005 15:49 (UTC)

The Intro. Part troix.

1. On February 25, 1990, Schiavo (pronounced SHY-voh, IPA: ʃaɪvoʊ) experienced cardiac arrest and collapsed in her home. Despite heroic resuscitative measures, she suffered severe brain damage from the ensuing cerebral hypoxia, briefly lapsed into a coma, and spent the remaining 15 years of her life in a condition diagnosed as an irreversible persistent vegetative state (PVS).
2. Questions of rehabilitation, life-prolonging interventions, and custody were the focus of disputes between her parents (Robert and Mary Schindler) and her husband (Michael Schiavo, her court-appointed legal guardian). Litigation concerning the foregoing and—additionally—guardianship, level of care, potential treatments, state of consciousness, abuse, and determination of her wishes was extensive and on some issues reached the United States Supreme Court.
3. Authorization to remove her gastric feeding tube (which had been inserted to provide Mrs. Schiavo with artificial nutrition and hydration) was granted; the tube was twice removed and, pending appeal, reinserted. Appeals courts ultimately upheld each removal and the feeding tube was removed a third and final time on March 18 2005.
4. Considerable media coverage was given to the judicial and legislative iniatives in the case during the last few weeks of her life and sparked a fierce debate over bioethics, legal guardianship, federalism, and civil rights.
5. Mrs. Schiavo died on March 31, 2005 at around 9:05 a.m. EST. An autopsy report was released on 15 June, 2005.

Paragraph 1 is the best that its likely ever going to be. Personally I'm satisfied with it. Paras 2 & 3 need a lot of work. Please help to make them better. I suggest thinking deeply about precisely what broad, general ideas about this whole case do we want to express in an intro, and edit accordingly. I think it should look very different by the time we are "done." (To the extent a Wiki article is ever "done.") Para 4 might be consolidated in the new 2/ 2&3. Para 5 is good.~ Neuroscientist | T | C

Gulp. I guess I have to remove the mitre of pride here and try and be objective. One of the things I was happy about in the intro rewrite was the visual aspect. Now insofar as facts are concerned, esthetics have little to do with the product, and none at all in the main article. However, the intro is about salesmanship, and if it has a pleasing appearance it is more likely to attract readership and act as the hook (incentive to read further) that it should. I felt paragraphs 1 through 4 were generally visually balanced which was a significant improvement over the old version. The size of 5 seems to be just right for the dramatic denouement. Duckecho (Talk) 9 July 2005 16:47 (UTC)

I agonized over #3 (as I think I mentioned somewhere) because it begins to address specifics as opposed to the general concepts as were addressed in the other paragraphs, and it probably shouldn't be there. I wouldn't mind if it were either removed or significantly reduced (although that affects the visual balance). Combining 2 and 3 plus 4 doesn't strike me as a good idea solely for esthetic reasons and readability. Combining 3 and 4 would be okay for visual balance, but their subjects are totally unrelated. Duckecho (Talk) 9 July 2005 16:47 (UTC)

Getting the feeling I like it as is? Well, yeah, so I'll shut up. Except the em dashes around additionally must go. But I'll let someone else do that (please!). I'm too parochial about this already. Duckecho (Talk) 9 July 2005 16:47 (UTC)

Duck, sorry, I should have explained. It's not that I don't approve of the new intro, quite the opposite. As I said earlier, this is exactly the type of intro I think is best for the article, with broad, overarching themes. However, there is room for it to be refined. I suggested it when I did because in the last 24 hours there's been a real impetus for change, and three editors have managed to improve the article by quite a bit. Now, if you look at it closely, the intro now is the way it is because it evolved from the skeleton of the old one. Para three is talking about the PEG tube removal and proceedings. Para 2 concerns disputes about Schiavo's diagnosis and the dispute over that. Etc etc.

Maybe we could change that. One longish para could talk about the clashes over the peg removal, the surrogate decision making issues/ all other disputes. One short para could talk about the national effect this case had - both on ordinary people and even congress (maybe some interesting stats could come in handy here). Close with #5.

Just a thought.~ Neuroscientist | T | C 23:11, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

PVS, family relationship,

FuelWagon, I saw that you had moved my no dissent sentence to another area of the subject section. I placed it where I did to set the chronological tone that up until at least 1993 PVS was not an issue (in accordance with NS' observations above). By putting it at the head of the section which begins "From 1990 to 1993" it makes it seem that only in perhaps the first year was there no dissent. It should be made clear that there was no argument about PVS from the Schindlers until as late as the 2000 "Terri's wishes" trial ("...the unrebutted evidence remains that Terri Schiavo remains in a persistent vegetative state. " from Greer's order of that trial) when the Schindlers didn't even challenge it there. It wasn't until later that they remembered after ten years that, oh, yeah, we have to dispute this PVS stuff so that we can enjoin the beast from legally executing proxy for the ward. Duckecho (Talk) 9 July 2005 16:47 (UTC)

real life showed up. I was going ot post something to talk. catching up now. I agree with what you are saying, but I think there is a larger picture to paint here. I think the first PVS diagnosis should mention that it was not disputed at the time it was given. And then the article should say that the diagnosis was not disputed until (insert year). The section title of the first time the PVS diagnosis was actually disputed by the Schindlers ought to be changed to indicate as much, and the text for that year should call out the fact that this is the first instance of the Schindlers disputing the diagnosis of the previous (insert number of doctors up to this point that diagnosed Terri as PVS). I don't know what year they did this, so I can't do it myself. basically, I think this ought to be called out as an important part of the entire article, not just one subsection. FuelWagon 05:01, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

The Intro. Part quatre

1. Theresa Marie "Terri" Schiavo (3 December 1963–31 March 2005), was a St. Petersburg, Florida woman whose medical circumstances and attendant legal battles led to landmark court decisions, historical legislative initiatives, and intense media attention.
2. On 25 February 1990, Schiavo (pronounced SHY-voh, IPA: ?a?vo?) suffered severe brain damage from cerebral hypoxia after experiencing cardiac arrest from an undetermined cause. She briefly lapsed into a coma, then evolved into an irreversible persistent vegetative state (PVS) as determined by more than a half dozen neurologists, and so remained the last 15 years of her life.
3. Questions of rehabilitation, end-of-life wishes, and custody were the focus of disputes between her parents and her husband. Litigation concerning the foregoing and additionally: guardianship, level of care, potential treatments, state of consciousness, abuse, and substitute of judgment by proxy was extensive and on some issues reached the United States Supreme Court. During the last few weeks of her life heightened public awareness centered on the judicial and legislative initiatives in the case which sparked a fierce debate over bioethics, legal guardianship, federalism, and civil rights.
4. The most recognizable issue was her feeding tube, which was twice removed and, pending appeal, reinserted. The courts ultimately upheld each removal and the feeding tube was removed a third and final time on 18 March 2005. Mrs. Schiavo died on 31 March, 2005 at around 9:05 a.m. EST. An autopsy report was released on 15 June, 2005.

237 words (down from 260). This was painful, like carving up your own kid. But I think it's better. It also retains some visual balance for us artistes… Back to y'all. Duckecho (Talk) 01:34, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

The intro, paragraph 2 says:

Questions of rehabilitation, life-prolonging interventions, and custody were the focus of disputes between her parents and her husband. Litigation concerning the foregoing and additionally: guardianship, level of care, potential treatments, state of consciousness, abuse, and substituted judgment by proxy was extensive and on some issues reached the United States Supreme Court. During the last few weeks of her life heightened public awareness centered on the judicial and legislative initiatives in the case which sparked a fierce debate over bioethics, legal guardianship, federalism, and civil rights.

May I suggest that the paragraph stick to listing specific litigation questions and not list any subjective headings under "fierce debate". FuelWagon 15:25, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

"May I suggest that..." NO! ... Just kidding ... however, if you mention all those ancellary items, Euthanasia must stay, and if it goes, they must go too.--GordonWattsDotCom 16:01, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Gordon, you seriously need to chill out. FuelWagon 01:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm suggesting something more like this:

disputes between her parents and her husband included questions of rehabilitation, life-prolonging interventions, guardianship, level of care, potential treatments, state of consciousness, and abuse. The legal battles were extensive and on some issues reached the United States Supreme Court. During the last few weeks of her life heightened public awareness centered on the judicial and legislative initiatives in the case which sparked a fierce public debate around the topics of dispute.

I'm not attached to the exact wording. My point, though, is that the article should list only the facts of the case, namely the disputes brought before the courts between Michael, the Schindlers, and whoever else brought a case. That it created a public debate is undeniable. What terms would legitimately describe those debates are completely subjective. Some called Michael a murderer, but I won't stand to see the article say this "generated a debate about murder of handicapped patients". The article should only report that it generated a fierce public debate, not call it "euthenasia" or whatever. That's the way I'm thinking right now. FuelWagon 02:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

well, not much of a response. I'll just try putting it in the article and see what happens. FuelWagon 13:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

It's okay. I thought the version of it I put up yesterday incorporated most if not all of what you suggest. I had edited it based on your earlier suggestion to not get involved listing all the subjects of the debate. I would like to see something about the substituted judgement by proxy in your list, though. That is kind of the biggie. Duckecho (Talk) 13:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

The phrase "substituted judgement by proxy" is not contained anywhere in the article. Isn't that the same as a guardian making a decision? If it's added to the list, the phrase ought to be contained somewhere in the article and explained, because laypeople like me don't know what it means. I also dropped the word "custody", because I don't think this was ever legally considered a custody battle. FuelWagon 14:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's the guardian making the decision. Actually, I think custody played a large role, although perhaps not in the strictly legal arena. NS laid out an excellent analysis somewhere here (I think in his ahistorical post) as to what the real issues were as they played out, which caused me to rethink the whole case, reanalyze the data, reread court orders, etc., and I've come to the conclusion that we have indeed been looking at this the wrong way. That's why I put in the bit about PVS not being in dispute to some point. I can't even find a reference all the way up until the 2002 evidentiary hearing in which PVS was in dispute. And there it was an issue only because some doctor's affidavit led the 2nd DCA to ask for it in Schiavo III—not because PVS was in dispute but because the affidavit made claims for treatment that would be contraindicated for a PVS patient (oddly, that doctor never testified, which puzzled the 2nd DCA in Schiavo IV). I also believe there's a nexus between Gibbs' arrival and when PVS became an actual dispute, (i.e. the Schindlers suddenly remembered after ten years that they needed to dispute the PVS diagnosis in order to take substituted judgement by proxy off the table) but I don't know what time frame that actually was. The control issue was that they wanted control of their daughter's destiny, either because they wanted a pity trophy or they truly believed she could recover. Or, in the case of the 1993 petition to remove Michael as guardian, they were probably just pissed off over the money, but it was a control issue, nonetheless. The 1994 battle over the DNR was about control. When the 1998 request for discontinuation of feeding came along, they fought it to keep their daughter alive—no mention of dispute of PVS, but the guardianship question (a control issue) was raised in GAL Pearse's appointment. In the 2000 Terri's wishes trial, they fought the wishes determination to keep their daughter alive—no mention of dispute of PVS, although there was a contemporary petition to remove MS as guardian again—control. In denial of PVS is not the same as in dispute of PVS, although the one allows the perpetuation of the other. Duckecho (Talk) 15:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Duck, thanks for going to work over some worthwhile edits (Gordon, take notes. That's the way to better spend your time. Not by launching a revert war over the size of numbers in the bibliography. I still can't believe that happened).

The above version is much improved, although 2 was better the way it was, IMO. What I actually had in mind was something like this:

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

1.On February 25, 1990, Schiavo (pronounced SHY-voh, IPA: ʃaɪvoʊ) experienced cardiac arrest and collapsed in her home. Despite heroic resuscitative measures, she suffered severe brain damage from the ensuing cerebral hypoxia, briefly lapsed into a coma, and spent the remaining 15 years of her life in a condition diagnosed as an irreversible persistent vegetative state (PVS).

2. During her final years, a major dispute broke out between her parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, and her husband and legal guardian, Michael Schiavo. Mr. Schiavo felt that his wife would not have wished to be maintained in an irreversible vegetative state through artificial means; the Schindlers disputed this. Their disagreement led to years of acrimonious court battles, and focused attention, in a very public way, on controversies over legal guardianship, substitute decision-making, civil rights, and end-of-life care. In the highly publicized court disputes that ensued, even the medical diagnosis of Schiavo's altered state of consciousness was questioned and litigated.

3.At its height, the dispute made its way into the chambers of the United States Congress, when a law was passed to transfer jurisdiction of the Schiavo case from the Florida state courts to federal courts.

4. The courts, at both state and federal levels, consistently ruled in favor of removing artificial nutrition that was being used to maintain Schiavo in an irreversible vegetative state. Terri Schiavo died on 31 March, 2005 at approximately 9:05 a.m. EST.

Thoughts? Best,~ Neuroscientist | T | C 22:08, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Euthanasia

I have not spent time here in the Schiavo Universe much, as I've been called away on other duties, but the above, while pretty good (more good than not), has some naughty parts: Namely, first, you will certainly (trust me), "make the natives restless" with respect to the fact that you do not soon enough say that Terri was "diagnosed" as PVS; the mention of the fact it was "determined" later in the sentence is sub-par, and it probably won't be good enough; I thought we had that agreed upon in mediation -and here in talk. Regardless of what your views or my views were on the actual happenings with Terri (e.g., was she "euthanized?" -such views of us editors not being which important), let me remind you that this sparked a fierce debate over euthanasia. According to google (and, as mentioned in my 500-word mediation summary), "euthanasia" was much more prevalent in the debate as proven by web pages worldwide than the other items, namely "bioethics, legal guardianship, federalism, and civil rights." Be good kids and put euthanasia back where it belongs, and wikify it. ArbCom would be justified over this alone. There may be other problems, but I am not on a witch hunt. I'm just pointing out the obvious flaws here.--GordonWattsDotCom 02:05, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Gordon, you could probably find a lot of hits if you google "Terri Schiavo" and "murder", but I'll be damned if I'll let anyone put "murder" in the list. FuelWagon 05:03, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Now, hold on a second: both the Chinese Wiki (And I quote: "persisted 移除 itslife support programbehavior has caused a series of aboutthe biological ethics,the euthanasia,the guardiansystem,the federal systemas well asthe civil rightsserious argument.") ---and the Spanish Wiki (wherein I quote: "...debate sobre temas como la eutanasia, la bioética y los derechos civiles en su país.") seem to think that Euthanasia were in debate here. Now, the Chinese are well-known for their intelligence, and the Spanish people are both unbiased (not american) and also quite smart. Should WE be the odd ones out? (Besides the Chinese and Mexican Wikis, also Google and Myself - total four sources - say Euthanasia was debated. Period.) You're using a straw man argument, in murder, and i reject that; ALSO, what's up with making the "^and" tags to make the numbered links so small? You got a magnifying glass I can use?! ** Now, I know you were probably well-meaning on that edit, but unless you can give me some reason (or tantamount of consensus) on why those "grain-of-sand" link font sizes stay, then I shall revert that portion only.--GordonWattsDotCom 05:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I took Chinese and Spanish in college, and while I'm not as good as C-3PO, "He never tires of mentioning that he is "fluent in over six million forms of communication," probably several thousand of them human languages. Besides, Babelfish Translations and I are quite smart together. Nin hau, ma? Nin ne? Wo bu dong, duibuchi! Tengan Usted un beun noche, hombre.--GordonWattsDotCom 05:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Gordon, how's it going? Your method of determining subjects that are worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedic entry fascinates me. So I searched google[3] for the "Big Bang Theory". 240,000 returns in 0.09 seconds. Which is pretty impressive. Until you search for "Flat Earth" - 317,000 in 0.07 seconds.

I'll be enjoying your undoubted forthcoming excursions to the Big Bang page, when you make the case for putting the flat earth theory "back where it belongs." No, don't thank me. The joy of gratitude of those editors as they see your coming will be thanks enough.~ Neuroscientist | T | C 07:10, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play? Oh, well; nothing ventured, nothing gained. It's up. No donuts for you! One year! Duckecho (Talk) 13:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC). Sincere apologies, Mr. Taylor. What Fuel said: there's this thing that keeps popping up that disrupts my constant presence on Wikipedia. My thoughts on the intro are in The Intro. Part quatre.~ Neuroscientist | T | C 22:08, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

(Grr... Just when I started to edit, Duck quacked; what coincidence.) Your point is well taken, NS -and quite fascinating too, as Spock would have said. However, I wonder if we are comparing apples and oranges: Let me see what happens if I look for the ACTUAL item in the same subject (e.g., "Big Bang Theory" would be in the same subject as "Intelligent design" that is in the "Creation" category; "Flat earth" is NOT about creation, because it could be flat from either evolution OR creation, depending on which theory is right: Apples and Oranges.) So, what happens: "Intelligent Design" is in google.com about 829,000 times and took a whooping 0.11 seconds, an eternity in "dog years," uh, I mean "computing years."

OK, but I have THREE other points that support inclusion of the "euthanasia" into the article as one of the items: One, the Mexicans think it belongs; Two, I think it belongs, because in fact it WAS "hotly debated," among with the other things; and three, the Chinese think it belongs. When you can't win one argument, just address the one you can win, like #4: Google thinks it belongs, when properly compared, as an apple, not an orange.

It is so obvious, in fact, that the article may not even need to mention it, but this strong case gives me a bully pulpit, and a free ticked to ArbCom, if i get itchy trigger fingers, but maybe y'all can keep things smooth so I can fly back to my own planet and chill, lol. Anyhow, comparing apples & oranges NS is: But, which one is the Flat Earth?--GordonWattsDotCom 13:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Gordon, you can't seem to get the point. What you've done so far is produce the following "arguments" for why euthanasia, of all things, deserves mention in an article about Terri Schiavo:

1. The Chinese Wiki mentions it (so you claim)

2. The Mexican/Spanish Wiki says it (ditto)

3.Google "thinks" it deserves a mention

4. You think it deserves a mention.

These aren't, by any standard, in even the remotest sense, "arguments," Gordon. Google doesn't "think" anything: it's a search engine. If you type in garbage, it can spit out garbage. That is simply no basis at all for sticking something into an encyclopaedic article. There are sites out there which say that the Schindlers' are evil. Shall we include that too? I'm sure you could even find a couple that claimed they were aliens. That there are websites talking about stuff is no indication of the appropriateness of said stuff for an article - how is this not obvious to you? By the way, you have misunderstood my intent in listing search results for the "Big Bang theory" and "flat earth." That they are apples and oranges is exactly the point. There will always be clowns who insist they can see a connection where none exists. "Terri Schiavo was euthanized" is in fact the product of one such brainfart.

If you really think something needs to be incorporated, provide an argument. What is it exactly about euthanasia that you think is relevant? Would you just like to pepper the article randomly with the word "euthanasia"? If not, what do you have in mind? Do you want to say Schiavo was put down like a sick pet? If so, what are your arguments that she was? Make them. Don't parrot that you've found fify million god-freakin-quintillion sites that mention the words euthanasia and Schiavo. That doesn't mean jack.~ Neuroscientist | T | C 23:06, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

"May I suggest that..." NO! ... Just kidding ... however, if you mention all those ancellary items, Euthanasia must stay, and if it goes, they must go too.--GordonWattsDotCom 16:01, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

You, sir, are not in a position to dictate what must stay or what must go. Just because you learned a new word, ArbCom, and have beat us over the head with it five or so times today (so far), does not mean you carry any bigger stick than anyone else. I suggest you power down and approach the subject without the hubris. Propose euthanasia. If it survives the discussion (it hasn't so far, and for good reason), then, and only then it might go in. But not on your say so and not on your terms. Duckecho (Talk) 21:12, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not telling you what to do; you will do what you want, now won't you? I'm telling you what should be. Also, whether it survives or not is not necessarily dependant or a function of "good reason," as you seem to suggest: Just because something happens, that does not always make it right. However, I will take no position on your recent edit, making the intro more general here in this 20:58, 10 July 2005 diff. If your experiment survives, it will either be because someone's trying to teach me a lesson, or maybe your edit was good? Or both... Hmm... (quoting you) "Propose euthanasia. If it survives the discussion (it hasn't so far..." It sure HAS survived over on Chinese and Spanish wikis... But, I wouldn't call the edit style used by the Chinese and Spanish-based wikis stupid, if I were you, as you indicate by rejecting the tried and true tact THEY took on mentioning euthanasia. I'M sure not going to call them stupid.--GordonWattsDotCom 21:53, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Size doesn't matter

I apologize, Fuel Wagon; I see it was Duck who did the pin-head size-down edit, not you. Instead of reverting, I may just do what they did in Operation Desert Kick butt: Precision editing. Be right back.--GordonWattsDotCom 05:51, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Duck, what's with this edit, in which you make the links into these little small texts? Did you secretly check with several editors and get consensus? If so, please enlighten me. I don't have to remove them: My text editor can remove all the "^{" and "}" tags by simply telling it to "replace" them with null spaces. It's a feature of Microsoft works, and most likely Word also. I removed those tags previously; don't you recall having to put them back in? What's the utility? If it's needed, I'm all for it.--GordonWattsDotCom 13:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Dude! You decided to make your edits without consensus or discussion or a logical reason; I'm reporting this to our mediator, and it appears to be a "sustentative" if not "technical" 3RR; I'm now asking for ArbCom on the issues mentioned in my message to our mediator. (I add that you might have expected me to be baited into 3RR myself, but not so.)--GordonWattsDotCom 14:32, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Chinese Gordon, after failing to convince anyone that the blogoshpere's argument concerning euthanasia needs attention in the article, despite its alleged appearance in the Mexican and Chinese versions of the article (Mexican? and anyone have any donuts to bet on how it got there?), now decides that his considerable talents are needed to fight a size war over the link markers (not the link, mind you, nor the text) in the Articles section. Ignoring the utterly obvious fact that I didn't initiate the size convention, only the superscript, he has proceeded to revert the baby with the bathwater three times. Notice hereby officially given. Duckecho (Talk) 15:10, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Please NOTE: You have now reverted four times, and you have been reported. If check the diffs and see who put in the small tags and when, and who did what, you will find I am justified, but I did paint you in good light. Notice hereby officially given.--GordonWattsDotCom 16:05, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I guess if you count an original edit which subtracted nothing as a revert then you might be right. Of course that's not a Wiki definition and no one will buy that convoluted thinking, so I have nothing to fear. I suggest you check the diffs and see who put in the <small> tags and when. You will find that the <small> tags have been in the article for >1000 edits dating back at least as far as 23 April. I didn't check any further back since 1000 edits and 2½ months were more than adequate to impeach you. I await your short apology here and your retraction of the 3RR complaint on the appropriate page, where, in any event, I've posted a thorough rebuttal. Twit. Duckecho (Talk) 20:05, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

(quoting Duck)"I await your short apology here..." I will apologize -AGAIN, as I had on 3RR, but it will be short, as the only point mistaken was the amount of stuff you reverted; I overlooked thru human error the facts of the small tags having been in the original versions, but the sup tags weren't, and when you changed them, it "reverted" to a different version, which utilized manual edits instead of the revert tool. Nice try, but you didn't fool me: The "spirit of the law" is that we don't continue edit-warring, and that's what you did. If you have a case for the smaller text, lay it out in talk -and convince us. I'm big enough to admit my mistake, but I'll let you walk your own path. You always do, don't you?--GordonWattsDotCom 21:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

…but the sup tags weren't [in the original version], and when you changed them, it "reverted" to a different version… So let me see if I have this straight. In the version before my first edit (under discussion) there were no <sup> tags. I edited that version by adding <sup> tags (not changing them). When I did that, it "reverted" to a different version, which now even I can't understand. It appears by your definition, every edit is a reversion. That is one magic concept. Please cite this exciting, omnibus new definition so we can all be enlightened. Duckecho (Talk) 23:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

(quoting Duck in italics) "It appears by your definition, every edit is a reversion." Bingo! You got it. "Please cite this exciting, omnibus new definition so we can all be enlightened." OK: "This can also apply to those that try to "game" the rule on a regular basis, such as by making fourth reversions just outside of the 24-hour time period, or by making complex reverts which attempt to disguise the restoration of the editor's preferred wording." Cite: WP:3RR#Enforcement, 4th Paragraph, 2nd Sentence. Trying to make a complex revert like you did almost fooled SlimVirgin, but thanks to your smart remark to me, I looked up the exact cite, and I shall bring this to her attention. While I don't think that you will get blocked this time, I am certain that you tried to "game the system."--GordonWattsDotCom 01:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I stipulated to #'s 2, 3, and 4 of your complaint as reverts on the 3RR page. No, they did not take the form of reverts as often used in reverting. I wasn't particularly hiding, either. However, try as you might, until you start using that magnificent, double honors, trade school valedictorian, Supreme Court petitioner brain of yours, you are not going to grasp that you cannot define the simple edit of #1 as a revert. How many people pointing that out to you will it take for you to grasp it? Use your brain. This concludes my discussion with you. Go elsewhere with your mindless ramblings. Duckecho (Talk) 02:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

What do you do all day? Edit Wiki? Don't let it eat up your time. Besides, ArbCom now has a solid basis for intervention, since mediation is not working (or if it is, it's not working fast enough), and the various other violations creeping up. ArbCom is the Arbitration committee, and is binding, unlike mediation. Let's avoid that, if we can, but if you want to play...--GordonWattsDotCom 16:11, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Bring it on, señorita. Your paper trail will sink you faster than the Hood. Duckecho (Talk) 20:05, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

...burp!--GordonWattsDotCom 21:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Gordon: Re the revert war. Contrary to what you've claimed here and elsewhere (including Ghost's page [4]) you are indeed the one who started the recent revert war, Gordon. The evidence is sitting in the histories. Duck made an edit. You reverted, and continued to revert once it became clear Duck wanted his edit to stay. I understand that you thought you couldn't see the font, but you should have stopped, started a discussion on Talk, and asked Duck why he edited it that way. Try it some time - we're all reasonable people. By being hasty, you jumped to the conclusion that it was he who made some changes that were apparently already there for months, you reverted, and you actually pushed this to Ed's attention and the administrator's 3RR page. Another thing you might want to consider is not all of us see the page the same way. It depends on the size of the monitor, the OS type, the skin you use for Wikipedia - all sorts of things. For instance, to me the numbers were perfectly legible after his edit. I don't understand myself why Duck wanted the numbers in superscript, but the thing to do then is to freakin ask him.~ Neuroscientist | T | C 23:01, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

..."you are indeed the one who started the recent revert war, Gordon" OH? Let's look at the evidence. You're comments first: "Duck made an edit. You reverted" ~ Actually, neither one of us "reverted" in the classic sense, because we didn't revert to a previous version. However, Duck's edit reverted to a version of his choosing, although it was technically a regular edit, as he rightly points out. By the same token, I didn't "revert" to a previous version; I merely edited out some of his changes, manually, I add, leaving everything else the same. It depends on your definition of "revert." "...but you should have stopped, started a discussion on Talk, and asked Duck...but the thing to do then is to freakin ask him." But I did ask him: first by speaking about him, in plain sight, to get his attention in talk, then by making comments in the edit summaries TO him, repeatedly, if you'll notice. (Will you?) Then, in this edit, I directly asked him what was up. That last edit was on 13:46, 10 July 2005, which in Eastern Standard Time, was 9:46am! I probably asked him more times too, and I know i did in all the edit summaries. The Great Duck Echo chose not to answer me in talk. He simply reverted with, and I quote all four tags from more recent to most ancient:

• (NOTE: You have now reverted three times. You will be reported if you do it again. You might also want to check the diffs and see who put in the small tags and when.)
• (Where's YOUR justification and consensus? The link markers have been small in that area for quite a while. I didn't do that. All I did was superscript them. There's nothing to read except a number.)
• In the 2nd edit, here, the great Duck explainer explained NOTHING!
• "Sources - Added article to "Articles" section." in 1st edit.

In short, he did not answer me anywhere, choosing, instead to "pass the buck," that is, shift the burden of responsibility to me. In reality, the only thing I "reverted" or changed were the "small" markers that were originally there, but not only did I need to do so for readability, but I explained myself in talk. Lastly, I did not know that they were originally there, but that was of no import: They did not belong, and I excised them. "By being hasty, you jumped to the conclusion that it was he who made some changes that were apparently already there for months..." I was man enough to admit this oversight, which, even HAD I known the tags were there, would not have changed the need I felt to remove them. "Another thing you might want to consider is not all of us see the page the same way. It depends on the size of the monitor, the OS type, the skin you use for Wikipedia..." Well, I don't know about the skins, but, yes, I considered that. In fact, my monitor resolution is set to maximum, so I see a lot but with smaller text. I can understand why you might have been able to see it better at something less, like maybe 800x600. However, YOU should be bright enough to know that OTHERS might have 1600x1200 rez or such. Do you not care about them? Don't you think that they should be able to read the links?

Neuroscientist, I have answered you with info that was plainly available, and I know you aren't stupid. Your handle has "scientist" as part of its name! That really peeves me. #1) I DID ask him about it (#2-to no avail), #3) SOME PEOPLE DO have small text settings, as you rightly guessed; #4) I early-on admitted that duck didn't "revert" in classical senses, but merely changed the content manually, but achieving the same thing. So, WHAT if I overlooked a minor detail of what he changed? He DID change sustentatively, HARMFULLY, and without any consensus; He violated the spirit and meaning of the writers of the 3RR, if not the letter of the law; You CAN be blocked for violating the spirit of the law, if the admins think it is disruptive, and he missed it, and your bright brain missed it, and apparently (?) falsely claimed you addressed my concern "below" as you said at one point, above a section wherein you didn't address said question. #5-Lastly, I was as fair as possible to Duck in my explanation of events, and you know that. Use your brain.--GordonWattsDotCom 01:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I never realized superscript could be so dramatic. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:46, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

It's not the size of the dog in the fight. It's the size of the fight in the dog.~ Neuroscientist | T | C 04:56, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Gordon: 1. This is an incredibly stupid, idiotic thing to waste so much time over. I kept out of it at the start, and only posted when I felt it had gotten out of hand and was subsuming all other discussions; I made an honest attempt to stop it. I failed. I am not going to answer further, after this. If you wish to have the last word, go ahead; I'd ask you to kindly stop afterward.

2. No one who knows anything about Wiki editing can fail to see that it was you who initiated the revert war battle. There is simply no way to deny this, Gordon. The sequence is clear:

• 03:52, 10 July 2005. This was an edit, in which a change that was thought to be useful was introduced for the first time.
• 05:57, July 10, 2005. This was you reverting Duck's edit. That is to say, you removed the edit he introduced, apparently because you felt it was not a good edit.

No amount of twisting and turning is going to change Duck's edit into a revert, Gordon. It simply defies common sense. If that was a revert, then every single edit that every single editor introduces to every single article is a revert. This is absurd. Your taking this to the 3RR admin forum and trying to twist the evidence to fit your accusations appalled me. The contortions you went through there make it seem to reasonable people that you were willfully lying. It was a new low, Gordon, whatever your intentions. That's what made me post; I hoped, foolish me, to stop the spiral.

I'm sorry I disappointed you, NS; In my initial post to the 3RR column, I was clear that the "revert" by Duck was NOT a "technical" revert; I never tried to deceive; As far as your concern that I redefined "revert" to include "every single edit," I answered Duck in the affirmative when he asked the same type question: YES, I did loosely define that term, but I felt that he (morally) violated the spirit of the rule, which I (later) found to be "gaming the system."--GordonWattsDotCom 12:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

3. As to your contention that you made attempts to communicate, in the early stages, with Duck — I wholeheartedly agree. However, you're being disingenuous by suggesting you acted completely in good faith, because you kept reverting. You didn't stand down until you guys had a chance to talk things out. Wiki policy is slanted towards encouraging "bold editing". If you don't like someone's edits, you ought to demonstrate good-faith by being willing to discuss it first; reverting before talking things over is bad form (unless you're dealing with vandals or people who are breaking previously agreed-upon conventions).

You are right in all you say in this paragraph -especially about my impatience to edit without waiting a day or so for a reply; I would like to have talked it over with Duck a little more, but his edit was REAL BAD, and I was merely impatient. Since I did not harm him (annoyed him is *hopefully* the worst thing), I feel good about my actions, but I am sorry if I were too impatient, and may be more patient in future disputes; I really thought his edit was bad.--GordonWattsDotCom 12:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Why did you revert, and only then ask a question — not a particularly nice one, incidentally? Why did you charge Fuel with making the edits, before you checked the history and found out it wasn't him? Why did you revert and impute that Duck started the small tags, and only then think to check your facts — and find out it wasn't him either?

I never meant to offend Duck by asking him to explain his edit; Also, I made a human mistake, and apologized to FuelWagon; I am human & make mistakes. With regard to the "sup" & "Small" tags, I admitted (and apologized to Duck) about accusing him of putting in "small" tags that I thought were BAD; however, he DID put in the "Sup" tags de novo, that is, for the first time in recent memory! (I was only half-wrong, and I apologized for that half for which I was wrong.)--GordonWattsDotCom 12:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Why do you shoot first, ask questions later, and think never?

"...and think never?" ~ I think a LOT, so a few mistakes here and there is still a small percentage; plus, I will be glad to apologize (and make restitution for) any harm I cause, if within my powers.

I do not know why Duck didn't respond to you immediately, but I can hazard a guess from his responses. You reverted his edit, without bothering to discuss it with him first and obtain an answer, and you accused him of doing something he hadn't done. The guy's a smart bloke who's been around the block more often than you or I: he probably knew he could stop your reverts using 3RR, because Wiki policy (and the 3RR rule) favor the bold — the editor who introduces the edit. That should be pretty clear to you now, if nothing else is: if you start the revert war, you most likely won't end it.~ Neuroscientist | T | C 04:56, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

"If you wish to have the last word, go ahead; I'd ask you to kindly stop afterward." I interpret that top include that my replies be BRIEF and also polite (and hopefully correct). I hope I filled the bill & answered your questions well.--GordonWattsDotCom 12:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Apology to the group

This unfortunate exercise has gone on far too long. And it's partly my fault. I acknowledge my part in it and apologize for it. I will make every sincere effort to avoid it in the future.

I have avoided this kind of drama for many weeks by simply not responding to Gordon Watts. When he first came aboard I tried to calm some of his rhetoric by pointing out the errors in his thinking. I quickly learned that it is impossible to have a dialogue with him. I made a conscious decision to shun him. What he did this morning, however, irritated me, both in process and description. I reverted his revert. I broke my own counsel.

I could have taken the high road and let it go. Frankly, I don't even care about the damn superscripts. It was an experiment that I tried when I saw the <small> tags in the articles links that have been there since before mid-April. I might have even edited them back out myself later in the day. But I took a visceral reaction that was nevertheless within my means to control.

I can't abide playing fast and loose with facts. That also fueled my endeavor. It was still within my means to control and I didn't. If there's any solace for me in the process it's that an easily tracable pattern of deception and duplicitous behavior has been chronicled that will ill serve the perpetrator.

My vow to the group is I will re-enact my shun and will respond no further to Gordon Watts. That will quell at least a small part of the reams of nonsense we are so often forced to endure, save what will likely be a voluminous response to this post.

I reiterate—I am sorry for my part in this childish drama. I hope to not put myself in this position again. Thank you to those who figured out the truth and supported me—rightly in the abstract, and gently in my behavior. I didn't deserve support for that.

Now, may we pleae return to crafting quality edits for this article. Duckecho (Talk) 05:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

NS eloquently defended you, and I feel bad that I too was impatient; however, it is inherently wrong of you to ignore responding, and you were right the first time (where you admitted you could and/or should have responded to me in your post here: "I have avoided this kind of drama for many weeks by simply not responding to Gordon Watts.") ~ you were wrong (in your later dialogue above) in stating that ignoring certain others' concerns is good. As far as playing fast and loose with the facts (read: Gordon lied!!), I did not intentionally try to deceive anyone, as I pointed out above and in my 3RR postings. I am sorry if you misunderstood me; ask me if you don't understand something: While I don't always have time to respond as much as I'd like, to the limited amount of my mortal life, I will be glad to answer dissenting concerns.--GordonWattsDotCom 12:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)