Talk:Terri Schiavo case

 For those who have agreed to Mediation, there is an enclave set aside for your use at Talk:Terri Schiavo/Mediation.

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

• Talk:Terri Schiavo/archives (currently 35 archives)
• Peer review 1
• Peer review 2

Gordon's proposal

GordonWattsDotCom has proposed replacing the above paragraph with the version here:

In April 2000, in the midst of the guardianship challenge, Schiavo, widely described as the "brain-damaged Florida woman" ^[1] at the heart of this legal battle, was admitted to a Pinellas County, Florida hospice ^[2], amid objections by her family {{ref}LibertyLink.AndersonMotion}} that this was a facility which is was prohibited by state law from admitting nonterminal patients ^[3] and prohibited by federal law from taking federal funds if it did admit nonterminal patient ^[4]. The court eventually ruled A-B-and-C.

FuelWagon's proposal

FuelWagon opposes the paragraph that GordonWatts wishes to add and has proposed adding a line to one of the already existing paragraphs (the bolded text):

In 2000, the Schindlers again challenged Michael's guardianship. Their new evidence ostensibly reflected adversely on Michael Schiavo’s role as guardian, citing "that he had relationships with other women, that he had allegedly failed to provide appropriate care and treatment for Theresa, that he was wasting the assets within the guardianship account (according to the Schindlers, transferring Schiavo to a "hospice after it was clear that she was not “terminal” within Medicare guidelines" [5] bullet 31), and that he was no longer competent to represent Theresa’s best interests." [24] By this time, while still legally married to Terri, Michael was in a relationship with Jodi Centonze, with whom he had fathered two children. Michael denied wrongdoing in this matter, stating that the Schindlers had actively encouraged him to "get on with his life" and date since 1991. Michael said he chose not to divorce his wife and relinquish guardianship because he wanted to ensure her final wishes (to not be kept alive in a PVS) were carried out.

FuelWagon's objections

The Schindler's challenged Michael's guardianship in 2000. Bullet 31 of the motion says that Terri's transfer to the hospice after it was clear that she was not terminal was wasting Terri's assets, and was one of their reason's for removing Michael as guardian. The court's dismissed the motion, and Michael remained guardian. The court appointed guardian ad litems never mentioned Terri's transfer to a hospice as being an issue. FuelWagon 02:56, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

What Gordon has done is create a whole new paragraph to introduce a "fact" that Florida state law says it is illegal for a hospice to admit a nonterminal patient and federal law prohibits a hospice from receiving federal funds if they admit a non-terminal patient. But the courts didn't find Terri's transfer to be illegal, the hospice was never charged and they never had their funds cut. Michael was never charged and the motion to remove him as guardian was tossed and he remained Terri's guardian. Therefore Gordon's paragraph gives undue weight to the law, hospices, and terminal patients, and leaves the implied sense that it has something to do with Terri. The only thing it has to do with Terri is that the Schindlers brought it up in a motion (as bullet 31 of 50 bullets total), and the courts dismissed the motion. Introducing an entire paragraph about an aspect of the law when the motion was tossed, no charges were filed, no one was convicted, and the hospice funds were not cut, only serves give undue weight to the law, implying the law was broken. It was not. FuelWagon 02:56, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Someone needs to point out to Gordon that this article is just not an appropriate place to reargue the case for keeping Schiavo alive.

Can't we just stick to saying what happened? Let's leave the obiter dicta out of it, and just stick what happened in Schiavo's case. Gordon, FW is right on this one: you're trying to bias the article by unduly weighting a discussion of hospices etc, which is not of relevance to the fact of what happened: a motion was brought and the courts dismissed it. Your (and my and anyone else's) views on whether the courts were right to do so are beyond the point (although, yes, not entirely besides it). Grace Note 03:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Grace N., I'm not rearguing anything. Have you even read this talk page? I'm merely suggesting reporting on the actions and events -and reactions -by the major players. Additionally, Wagon's version is very similar to mine, omitting only two elements, and I address that as well. Please read this entire page -and then give me your word that you've read it --and then I'll discuss this matter with you.--GordonWattsDotCom 04:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are, Gordon. I don't have to read the whole talk page to see that from your proposed paragraph. I think FuelWagon's version is entirely more suitable. It's not inconceivable that I'd take your part in other disputes, but it's inconceivable that I'd agree that we should include interpretive material that is intended to sway a reader to a particular understanding of the facts. Grace Note 07:08, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

The proposed replacement I add only reports on what the players said; I now wonder if you did not even read my proposed edit here? ! Grace N., did you even read my proposed edit? It is like 2 sentences long, lol --GordonWattsDotCom 07:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Gordon's objections

Gordon can put a couple paragraph explanation here.

Well, there are three (3) versions of the paragraph in question:

1) The existing one:

• In April 2000, in the midst of the guardianship challenge, Schiavo, widely described as the "brain-damaged Florida woman" [25] at the heart of this legal battle, was admitted to a Pinellas County, Florida hospice [26], a facility, which in her state of Florida, is typically only legally allowed to admit terminally ill patients. [27]

2) My proposed replacement: (I fixed the small spelling typo, lol, below)

• In April 2000, in the midst of the guardianship challenge, Schiavo, widely described as the "brain-damaged Florida woman" [12] at the heart of this legal battle, was admitted to a Pinellas County, Florida hospice [13], amid objections by her family {{ref}LibertyLink.AndersonMotion}} that this was a facility which is was prohibited by state law from admitting nonterminal patients [14] and prohibited by federal law from taking federal funds if it did admit nonterminal patient [15]. The court eventually ruled A-B-and-C.

3) Wagon's version is very similar to mine, but he omits either version of the paragraph above and interjects this sentence into an existing paragraph)

• (according to the Schindlers, transferring Schiavo to a "hospice after it was clear that she was not “terminal” within Medicare guidelines" [16] bullet 31)

Therefore we can see that his version leaves out two important things. As Ann has pointed out, we need to tell when Terri entered into the hospice, and Wagon is leaving this out. Also, he would report only the attorney's objection on Federal grounds (financial mismanagement), not on state grounds (not allowed to even be placed in hospice).

He and Grace Note cloud the issue by bringing up "Gordon's views" (or words to that effect). Who cares about Gordon's views: Wagon has repeatedly said that we should report on what the major players said, and this is merely doing just that. If you don't believe that, please read this page -before it grows long like Pinocchio’s nose and becomes unmanageable in length to read.

My proposal would not harm anything -and it reports the various objections of the parties. I have no problem including the reactions of the other major players (Mike Schiavo, Court, Guardians, etc.) if they can be quoted correctly and sourced with some link.--GordonWattsDotCom 04:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Break Down

Let's break this down into its component points, before trying to put it back together without bias:

1. There was a guardianship challenge in April 2000.
2. Media reports at the time called Terry a "brain-damaged Florida woman".
3. A hospice in Pinellas County, Florida admitted Terry.
4. Terry's parents (or "family"?) objected to the admission.
5. The objection centered on the issue of whether Terry Schiavo was (A) terminal or (B) non-terminal
6. State law said the facility could admit only terminal patients
7. Federal law said that if the facility admitted a non-terminal patient, then it would be ineligible to take federal funds

Gordon, are these the points you are making?

Yes. The admin locking the page suggested I not interspace answers like I'm doing here, but I will respectfully disagree on this one minor point. He suggests I leave chronologically superior comments intact, but anyhow... to answer your question, yes.--GordonWattsDotCom 18:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon, which of these points do you agree with / dispute? Uncle Ed 14:19, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

"There was a guardianship challenge in April 2000."

not disputed, already in the article FuelWagon 15:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

"Media reports at the time called Terry a "brain-damaged Florida woman"."

irrelevant. I don't know why Gordon insists on inserting this here except possibly to say that Terri was "brain damaged" rather than "terminal". The introduction says Terri was brain damaged. This is simply Gordon's way of saying, "she wasn't terminal, she was just injured", which then goes back to his bias that tries to suggest that terri wasn't terminal, that the transfer to the hospice was illegal. Except that this was brought before the courts as part of the guardianship challenge and the courts tossed it. And the guardian ad litems appointed by the courts never reported this transfer as being a problem deserving the removal of Michael as guardian, the revocation of federal funds from the hospice, or anyone's arrest. FuelWagon 15:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, if you want to strike out the "brain-damaged" description, and nothing else, I will allow it as a compromise -but she was known as this, and you are coloring the issue.--GordonWattsDotCom 18:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

"A hospice in Pinellas County, Florida admitted Terry."

not disputed, it is in my proposed solution as well, I just put it in a short parenthetical statement. FuelWagon 15:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

"Terry's parents (or "family"?) objected to the admission."

not disputed. it is in my proposed solution as well.

"The objection centered on the issue of whether Terry Schiavo was (A) terminal or (B) non-terminal"

well, I don't know if it centered on it. the motion says that the transfer to a hospice was a misuse of assets, but terminal is part of the wording in the motion. FuelWagon 15:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

In April 2000, in the midst of the guardianship challenge, Schiavo, widely described as the "brain-damaged Florida woman" [12] at the heart of this legal battle, was admitted to a Pinellas County, Florida hospice [13], amid objections by her family {{ref}LibertyLink.AndersonMotion}} that this was a facility which is was prohibited by state law from admitting nonterminal patients [14] and prohibited by federal law from taking federal funds if it did admit nonterminal patient [15]. The court eventually ruled A-B-and-C.

Comments: I scratched out that one part per above comments, but the language, as shown by the court documents, indicate all else I allege was correct. I think you're stalling until the google cache of the official site is outdated, and then I think you hope to allege that Liberty site is not official, but I will not brook this, because I quoted valid sources.--GordonWattsDotCom 18:43, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't dispute that your reporting of the law is correct. I dispute putting in a separate paragraph about the law, implying the law was broken, when the courts and guardians don't consider the transfer to have been a problem. read up on "undue weight". FuelWagon 18:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I imply nothing. You infer or read too much into it. I made my compromise, and it stands. I have spoken.--GordonWattsDotCom 20:02, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

It is undue weight to a topic the courts and guardians found irrelevant. FuelWagon 21:33, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

"State law said the facility could admit only terminal patients. Federal law said that if the facility admitted a non-terminal patient, then it would be ineligible to take federal funds"

not disputed as fact, but disputed as undue weight. This doesn't need a whole paragraph explaining the law, with the implication that the law was broken, when the rest of the facts are that the court never convicted anyone of breaking the law. FuelWagon 15:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

"Weight?" That paragraph above is not too heavy; it merely reports facts. I took out the objectionable part, but a good reporter leaves the essentials.--GordonWattsDotCom 18:47, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

From reviewing this I don't see the need for the paragraph at all. That the facility wasn't supposed to allow a non terminal patient establishes nothing important and is an example of the extraordinary minutiae that this article suffers from. I'm willing to listen if the implications are a lot more important than I understand, but other than that the paragraph in either form is not valuable. An article should not include every single verifiable fact, but instead the most important facts, in a balanced way that portray the issue in the clearest way possible. Besides, on a practical matter, Gordon, all you have to do is agree not to add the paragraph until you have consensus to add it, and the article can be unprotected--an important goal in its own right. - Taxman ^Talk 14:01, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

I’m lost

i cannot follow the conversations here. i do not know what exactly the issues are at hand. what is being debated? what needs to be resolved? Kingturtle 09:12, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

My original proposal was here, but I compromised here by allowing a scratch out of one sentence; Wagon wants to do this, which leaves out the reporting of the Schindlers on the State law issue, and I think both cites objections of their lawyer should be reported; I source them, after all.--GordonWattsDotCom 09:25, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Gordon inserted a bunch of POV stuff, including two links to his own vanity sites, and some other stuff. I started taking the stuff out. He ran to an admin and got the page locked, and currently insists on keeping a POV paragraph in the article. It is explained here. FuelWagon 13:21, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

The core problem in my view has been the resistance expressed in nuisance-level tactics to suppress the mention in the article of claims which the Schindlers made unsuccessfully in court. The current editing dispute is yet another instance of this. The meta-dispute which I thought was resolved a long time ago was that neutral point of view included a presentation of Schindler petitions to the court and not merely the winner's point of view.

Either the Schindler's raised an objection to Michael's guardianship over the hospice move as violating state law or regulation or they didn't. This is a fact or it's not a fact. The reader can judge if this indicates a frivolous claim on the part of the Schindlers, or if it demonstrates an abuse of the court's discretion as to what weight it would give laws to protect patient rights from an abusive guardian. patsw 14:10, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow. That's one way of putting it. Another way would be that instead of this being about the "winners" writing history, this is basically another example of the Schindlers crying "Witch!" and none of the evidence supports it. None of the evidence supports it. It was also bullet 31 of 50 bullets in their motion to remove michael as guardian, and if we give EVERY SINGLE ONE of those 50 bullets the same weight that Gordon wants to give this one, then we'll need an article just for this motion to remove Michael as guardian. This is why the article is already so big, because Gordon and others find one tiny bit of an accusation and they want to dedicate an entire subsection to it. If Gordon's paragraph is inserted describing the law regarding hospices, then I will have to add the countering points of view saying that the court never found the law to have been broken to remove Michael as guardian, never found enough cause to charge michael with breaking the law, and the hospice never had its funding cut for breaking that law. As it is, Gordon's paragraph only presents the Schindler's point of view around this, saying the transfer was against the law. If it goes in, all the points of view go in, and the article continues to bloat. FuelWagon 15:02, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

In April 2000, in the midst of the guardianship challenge, Schiavo, was admitted to a Pinellas County, Florida hospice, amid objections by her family {{ref}LibertyLink.AndersonMotion}}.

• widely described as the "brain-damaged Florida woman" Redundant and apropos of nothing.
• that this was a facility which is was prohibited by state law from admitting nonterminal patients [14] and prohibited by federal law from taking federal funds if it did admit nonterminal patient [15]. The court eventually ruled A-B-and-C. . Per FuelWagon. Bullet 31 of 50. Gordon unless you can show that there was something particularly vital about this one objection, or that it was the centerpiece of the petition, I must agree it doesn't belong. Marskell 18:28, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Before you take sides, please note that you misquoted me: I agree that the article should (ideally) not say this or that about the hospice, but I am not asking that re report this. See Talk:Terri_Schiavo#Gordon.27s_objections, under the second paragraph, and note that I later agreed to drops the part about "widely described as" --you as disagreeing with the 1st paragraph, and I am saying, "no," I am advocating the second one at that link, my "proposed replacement."--GordonWattsDotCom 18:55, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

But you're still saying we should include information about what seems like an incredibly minor point. I've yet to see any substantiation on why that point is important enough to cover. Please read my post above, it may have gotten lost. If the issue is as Patsw says below, then simply remove some minutiae about Michael's claims, etc. The article needs to be trimmed down. The way to do that is to move material to articles on more specific topics and leave only higher level summaries here. That is the Wikipedia:Summary style we keep telling you should be used here. - Taxman ^Talk 12:48, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Fuel Wagon's reply shows why I (among others) had to withdraw from editing the article.

• He justifies his editing with his point of view regarding the sufficiency of the evidence. His point of view is irrelevant. The Schindlers claimed that the transfer was improper and a reason to remove guardianship from Michael. That's the fact.
• His claim of bloat was one that was made to me back in April when the article was 1/5 its current size. Yet since then material supporting Michael's POV never seemed to trigger the bloat objection. One can almost always predict when there will be a bloat objection - it will be in an edit presenting a claim made by the Schindlers.
• I'm not coordinating with Gordon on this particular edit, but if I were its primary advocate of it, I would state that it is representative of many claims made by the Schindlers in which the court's discretion was abused to unduly favor Michael's side of the case. This particular one is easy to understand: most readers will know that people go to hospices to die within weeks or months from a progressive disease such as cancer (Michael's goal) while people go to long-term medical care facilities or nursing homes to live to the indefinite end of their natural life and to receive care appropriate to their medical condition. (the Schindler's goal) patsw 22:11, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

WHAT THE (deleted)

I got to this entry through a second entry, and when reading I had NO IDEA WHO SHE REALLY IS?! I mean. Can someone please make this article less of bullshit? I now have (thanks to shitty editors) an idea that you can actually write 900 lines of some random sick person and post every plight and awful moment of one. Pleeeeeeeeeease!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Thanks, LOL! I must admit I had a good laugh to that one :). Userfied :). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 10:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

May I remind you about WP:NPA (no personal attacks) however :) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 11:07, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Other than the poor phrasing, it's a good point and one that was raised in the FAC nomination. The article never really establishes why the whole issue is important nor eases a reader into the issue. See Wikipedia:Lead section. The lead should discuss why it became such a big issue and that it was an incredible media frenzy with impassioned pleas, protests, and court appeals. That, in the first paragraph or so, would do a lot to improve the lead section. - Taxman ^Talk 12:52, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

This is the point raised twice above by myself and twice side-tracked by debates over tiny details. The lead sentence or at least paragraph has to establish notability. I take the first sentence of the third para, mention of pronounced government involvement, as the first point of notability. Older versions had an expanded first sentence that was no doubt subject to edit warring. Marskell 12:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

There's a dispute over the answer to this very question: What is significant about the life of Terri Schiavo after February 25, 1990 when she collapsed in her apartment?

• To Michael Schiavo and George Felos, it's about privacy, protecting guardianship from outside interference, and Terri's wishes.
• To the Schindler's it's a manipulation of the legal process to kill her daughter.
• To me, it is the first case in the U.S. where a dispute over substituted judgment ended with a court order to remove nutrition and hydration from a human being and directly cause her death, not otherwise at risk of death. patsw 13:49, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I hate to say that I am agreeing with about every editor above. I was about to write a paragraph identical to Marskell but see that he already wrote it. Patsw's points were certainly issues, but they are common issues of almost every court in America. These issues have been going on for centuries, see Robert Todd Lincoln using the courts to force medical care on his former first-Lady mother. But what made her notable was the level of interest created by the media that resulted in special interest group and political involvement in medical decisions. --Noitall 14:12, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. And I can see we're going to have some fun coming up with an NPOV lead. What that also leads to is the article is improperly focused the same way. It has incredible minutiae of the day to day events, but only the very last sub-section even attempts to give an overview stating that the issue was controversial and why, and what the implications were. That's more important that the content of the 32 court briefs and the play by play of the court battles. - Taxman ^Talk 14:22, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

If readers must be told why the person is notable by the first sentence or first paragraph (and assuming they can't possibly wait until the third paragraph of the intro), then the simplest solution would be to put the third paragraph first and do some copyediting to splice it in. This would then mention the four trips to the supreme court, the state laws passed in her name, federal involvement, etc. I question the insistence that an article must report notability in sentence 1, but if that really is the case, then moving paragraph 3 to the beginning would be the solution. FuelWagon 15:07, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be in the first sentence, but first paragraph is ideal. Also that third paragraph--after the first sentence--is little more than another play by play. It needs to discuss the media firestorm and the implications. State the importance (yes I reallize that is hard to do in an NPOV way), don't just list events. - Taxman ^Talk 16:41, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

4 trips to the supreme court, state legislation, congressional subpoena, etc is more than a play by play, it reports the notability. If media and public involvement needs to be reported to make it "notable", then we could add this to the third paragraph:

...and four denials from the United States Supreme Court, among others. [1] The last few months of Shiavo's life saw widespread media attention and public protests outside her hospice that resulted in 47 arrests. On March 18, Schiavo's feeding tube....

Meanwhile, the page is still locked because Gordon still insists on adding another paragraph to the article about the legality of Terri's transfer to the hospice. I proposed adding language from the Schindlers motion in parenthesis of the existing text. Gordon wants a whole paragraph, which would also need to add all the other points of view. If we can get some consensus around that paragraph, then we can get the page unlocked and fix the intro too. FuelWagon 17:27, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

notability

On second thought, I retract my suggestion of putting the third paragraph first. It makes no sense to list the court battles, legislation, and other reasons for notability with no context for why they happened. The reason the Schiavo case went to the supreme court four different times is because the Schindlers disagreed with Michael's decisions. Paragraph 1 and 2 show the dispute between the Schindlers and Michael and how it evolved into the Supreme Court visits, florida legislation, and everything else. Simply saying "Terri's story went to the supreme court four times" and listing all the other legal battles has no context as to who the battles were between or what the battles were about. I would like to see a policy rule that says notability must be explained in the first sentence. Otherwise, I'll stand by the intro in its currently locked state that explains Terri's history and establishes notability in paragraph 3. FuelWagon 16:11, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Start your article with a concise paragraph defining the topic at hand and mentioning the most important points. The reader should be able to get a good overview by only reading this first paragraph. [[6]] This is an obvious point about any descriptive prose you learn in grade eight. Topic sentences should describe topics and all the first sentence tells us now is that she was a woman from Florida.

This is, I believe, an older first sentence (I actually grabbed it off a user page): "Theresa Marie "Terri" Schiavo(December 3, 1963–March 31, 2005), was a St. Petersburg, Florida woman whose medical circumstances and attendant legal battles led to several high-profile court decisions and legislative initiatives and was the object of intense media attention."

Works for me. Marskell 17:28, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Alright. I don't have a problem with the first sentence being swapped out for that one.

Can some folks now weigh in on the article RFC here [7] so that some sort of consensus can be reached so we can unlock the page? FuelWagon 17:34, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

How about this: woman whose peculiar medical and family circumstances and attendant legal battles fueled intense media attention and led to several high-profile court decisions and involvement by prominent politicians and interest groups. --Noitall 22:45, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. I'd go with that one too. I think the word "peculiar" could be dropped and/or replaced with something else. It doesn't sound right. the rest of it is fine by me. FuelWagon 03:48, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

NPOV flag

Regarding the addition of the NPOV flag, the neutrality of this [8] paragraph is disputed:

In April 2000, in the midst of the guardianship challenge, Schiavo, widely described as the "brain-damaged Florida woman" [25] at the heart of this legal battle, was admitted to a Pinellas County, Florida hospice [26], a facility, which in her state of Florida, is typically only legally allowed to admit terminally ill patients. [27]

Specifically, the phrase "typically only legally" qualifies as weasel words that imply the transfer was not typical and was illegal. The courts and guardian ad litems appointed to have Terri's best interests at heart never found the transfer to be illegal or inappropriate.

Since the page is currently locked, no changes can be made to correct this paragraph. FuelWagon 16:27, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Comments from Ann

I have to admit that, although I've been involved with this article for ages, I'm a bit lost as well. I've been very busy in the last few days – filling in forms that had a deadline – and now I find the talk page is full over some dispute. I really don't have the energy to read through a lot of long postings at the moment (I might do it later), but for now I'll just make a few points. I agree with what patsw said in the "I'm lost" section. I don't have to read the whole talk page for that, because he's referring to a problem that has existed on this article for months.

• In my opinion, the article should definitely mention that she was transferred to a hospice, and that the Schindlers, their lawyers, and the organizations that supported them argued that this was improper – they may even have said illegal; let's find the reference – because a hospice is supposed to take people who only have a few months to live. Terri was not terminally ill in the normal sense of the word. She did not die of PVS (even assuming that she was in a PVS) – she died because a decision was taken to end her life by removing her nutrition and hydration. Whether or not she wanted to die is a separate issue, and we shouldn't clog up Wikipedia server space squabbling about it, since Wikipedia isn't supposed to take sides as to which party was "right". However, it is appropriate to discuss whether or not the article should report that this woman, who was not dying, was put in a hospice. (If she had been dying, there would have been no need to remove the tube.) Like a baby, she was incapable of feeding herself (and of speaking for herself), and therefore, when her feeding was removed, she died. We don't put babies in hospices arguing that they'll die unless we feed them since they're incapable of feeding themselves, and therefore they're terminally ill. So yes, the article should report that. There's no need to put it in a nasty, insinuating kind of way; I don't suggest we put it straight after "although she was not dying". It should be possible to find a wording that isn't POV (unless Michael Schiavo's supporters, of which there are many on this article, think that any reporting of facts that show Michael's actions as possibly suspect are by definition POV). It's not for Wikipedia to take sides, so we don't say that it was illegal. But we should say that it happened, and that it was challenged by the Schindlers on the following grounds, etc., and that their supporters pointed out that Michael Schiavo's lawyer was on the board of the hospice. Some of the more passionate editors on this article seem to spend most of their Wikipedia time on this article, but if they looked at other Wikipedia articles, they'd see that there is no policy of suppressing a piece of information about something that happened on the grounds that courts and guardians did not say that it was illegal.

• If the squabbling is about bulimia, the I have the following comments – since the time that I got involved with this article, the majority side here was on the side of Michael Schiavo. These editors, to a certain extent, controlled the article. (That was not the case earlier, I note, and some versions in February, for example, are heavily biased towards the Schindlers' POV.) Wikipedia policy is such that the majority side will always win edit wars, because of 3RR, but on this particular page there was a remarkable lack of civility, which, I believe, drove away many editors, ensuring that the Michael supporters were even more in the majority than they had been. The bulimia theory was disputed by Schindler supporters, but various attempts to insert words like "probably" or "possibly" were reverted by Michael supporters [9], [10], [11] [12], [13], [14], [15] and [16]. Incredibly, one of these editors kept pushing the bulimia theory even after the autopsy report had been released [17], [18]. Apart from that last-mentioned editor, the general argument in the edit summaries, or on the talk page, was that the court ruled she had bulimia, therefore she had bulimia. When the autopsy report came out, they quietly dropped their argument on that subject, but kept it up for their belief that Terri was in a PVS and that she wanted to die. Wikipedia does not take sides like that in other articles. I haven't looked at Michael Jackson recently, but last time I checked, it didn't say that Michael never did anything inappropriate when he was sharing a bed with children, even though the court found him not guilty. The article on Roy Whiting, last time I looked, didn't say that he killed Sarah Payne, merely that he was found guilty of killing her. As far as I can tell, Terri Schiavo page logic (the courts ruled it, therefore it's true, therefore it's neutral) has absolutely no foundation in Wikipedia policy. However, because of the 3RR rule – a rule I agree with and abide by – there is a (presumably unintended) Wikipedia policy that these things will get in to articles if most of the editors support a particular POV.

I have been arguing for months about the bias in this article. Examples of my objections were that the article claimed, as if these things were verifiable facts, that Michael had woken that night from the sound of Terri collapsing, that he had immediately called emergency services, that she had had bulimia, that she was in a PVS, that Michael had started studying nursing because he wanted to learn how to take care of Terri, that he had gradually come to accept that his wife wouldn't recover, etc. I have stuck around on a talk page that was filled with foul language, abuse, and ridicule – not usually directed against me, but certainly often directed against people who were making the arguments that I was making. I have found it depressing and wearing. No other Wikipedia page I've worked on has been like this. However, I believe that partly as a result of my persistence, the article is less biased than it was. I have never argued that it should say that she was not it a PVS, or that she collapsed under mysterious circumstances while alone with her husband, etc.

To get back to the bulimia issue – I made the point [19] that the bulimia bit did not belong in the article after the autopsy report had said that it was unlikely that she had had it. (As far as I can recall, my comment was never responded to, and was eventually archived.) Remember the report gave not only physical reasons for that conclusion, but also reasons based on evidence that she had eaten normally and that she would not have had an opportunity to vomit after dinner that night – or something like that, but I don't have it in front of me now. I imagine an official report like that carries more weight than a newspaper article. In any case, that newspaper article given as a source requires registration.

My suggestion – get rid of the bulimia claim in the article, except to say that her husband and his lawyers argued that she had had bulimia, a court had agreed, her parents had disputed it, and the autopsy report said that bulimia was unlikely.

Instead of trying to suppress the information that she was put into a hospice when she wasn't dying, let's try to find a neutral way of providing that information in a NPOV way. In other words, get rid of "editor's voice" saying things like "normally legally reserved for" etc. Let's say that she was put in a hospice. Her parents objected. They claimed that etc. They were parties to the court cases; we weren't.

From a very tired Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 18:19, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, but for the specific dispute at hand it's not suppressing anything if the thing simply isn't important enough to cover in the article. I'm about as neutral on this topic as they come, but the article is too long, and that fact adds very little important. Detailed material needs to be moved to sub articles that are focused on given specific topics. That way no material is lost, but this article can remain the proper overview that it should. - Taxman ^Talk 18:30, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the article is too long. I'm not particularly attached to the bit about the hospice being "normally legally" reserved for terminally-ill patients (and I wouldn't word it that way, anyway). The point I was making was that there is a tendency (since most of the editors of this article personally and even passionately sided with Michael Schiavo) to supress information that might reflect badly on Michael. I can even recall – but I can't find the diff right now – that one of them argued a few months ago that the article shouldn't mention that Michael Schiavo was living with another woman, since the article is about Terri not about Michael!!!

I hope I'm not misquoting anyone, but I think it was either patsw or Jdavidb (it could even have been both) who argued in April that if a piece of information favours the Schindlers' side, people say that there's no room, because the article is bloated, but if it favours Michael's side, room is somehow found for it. That has been my impression at times.

I would personally vote for keeping the hospice information in the article, but worded in a more neutral way. However, the article is too long, so I'd be happy to have it taken out if it's taken out as part of an honest effort to shorten the article. That would mean that other things would have to go as well, perhaps starting with the accounts of her getting up to vomit after meals. The most official source – the autopsy report – disputes it; the Miami Herald article link is a dead link. There are lots of other things that should go as well.

I apologize for making my last post so long. It was partly because there is now an article RfC, so I wanted to make a statement about issues that have bothered me for some time. Apart from the hospice issue and the bulimia issue, is there anything else that I'm missing from this long talk page? Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 20:48, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

sigh - You know I can't even read past your first bullet point up there, as the situation is so horrendous. Hats off to the people who can NPOV this etc. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 00:09, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Comments from Gordon

It appears from my reading of this entire page (yes, I do read every single diff), that Both Marskell and Taxman are saying that I am insisting on the current version of the hospice paragraph (the one that uses the "typically legally" language), which says (in the strong editor's voice) that the hospice is "typically only legally for terminal folk" or to that effect. Now, while that sentence is not inaccurate, I agree that it could be construed as POV, and I'm upset that I have been slandered -er, libeled, and my character defamed by having been misquoted:

I do not insist that the current (locked) version be kept: In case you haven't read my posts, I have offered a compromise, which grants FuelWagon's insistent request to quote only the major players, and I have further agreed to not insist that the language describes Terri as " widely described as the 'brain-damaged Florida woman'."

However, we have Marskell and Taxman simply suggesting that this paragraph be deleted in its entirety, with no mention of the hospice. Let me introduce you to a novel word: NO.

I'm not being mean, but here's the deal: The main point about Terri was that she was this somehow-famous woman in a hospice; but, really, why did she go there? Were there any objections? As Ann has eloquently pointed out in the past, the article never tells us why, and, no, this doesn't belong in some side-article; it is the main point of the issue: Why in the Sam Hill did this woman get in a hospice? What were the arguments of both sides to this issue?

The article absolutely has to tell us somewhere (in chronological order of event reporting) that she was placed in a hospice, and the events surrounding it; The article never did that until I came on the scene, lol. (No, I'm not claiming special intelligence or expertise, but I know a glaring omission when I see one.)

Homework to any editor who wants to discuss this matter: Read Talk:Terri_Schiavo#Gordon.27s_objections, where I show the current version, my proposed suggestion, and describe how Wagon's version is similar but lacking one key element on this key hospice topic. THEN, look about two-thirds the way down in the Talk:Terri_Schiavo#Break_Down section to see my ADDITIONAL compromise, OK? Then we can talk.

Additionally, I think Wagon is about right on the intro: It can be tweaked, as others suggests, but we don't have to put it all in the first sentence. Oh, by the way, we did have a good intro, with the "these things sparked debate" type intro, which was accepted by a narrow concensus in the past, but Wagon, on the losing side of the vote, kept arguing and reverting, and finally got that section deleted. You can look Talk:Terri_Schiavo#FuelWagon to see what happened, and that is why I am not fully confident that this concensus will be honored. However, I do NOT disagree with Wagon on explaining the other points of view. If you actually read my proposed replacement, you should see that it has this sentence: "The court eventually ruled A-B-and-C." OK, now, is it OK that the truth is told about me when I do not object to having other points of view being reported? I'm easy-going, and open to discussing matters, but please do not misquote me; With all due respect, the hospice placement is perhaps one of the key issues in this whole matter: THAT is what precipitated and caused the debate about her; it should be reported, along with the reactions by ALL the parties, not just one or the other, and NO, it won't take twenty-paragraphs to do: My proposal is pretty short, he heh, eh?--GordonWattsDotCom 23:15, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, PS: I am open to removing some non-relevant material, such as her cat and stuffed animals, if you know what I mean; Chill out, actually read what we write, and we can work on the few disagreements, ok?--GordonWattsDotCom 23:15, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

THE Voting Booth on SEVERAL POINTS OF CONCERN--DISPUTE

Reporting hospice placement: Key event or not?

The Second item is a surprise to me: I thought it was apparent that we needed to mention the key events, but apparently there is dispute. (Notes: Please keep this section clear of comments; We can talk in a section below it -please only place votes here.)

• SHOULD the description of events tell Wikipedia readers that Terri Schiavo was placed into a hospice at all, or, instead, should we keep it a secret?

(In alpha-numeric order, here are the current editors -did I leave anyone out? YES, moderators get to vote - especially if it's a tie situation.)

• Ann Heneghan: It appears you are voting YES, but this is a tentative vote unless otherwise noted: "In my opinion, the article should definitely mention that she was transferred to a hospice...a very tired Ann Heneghan (talk) 18:19, 11 September 2005 (UTC)"
• Ed Poor, e.g., Uncle Ed:
• Fernando Rizo:
• Fuel Wagon: Wagon, you appear to be voting "YES." "Gordon, my proposal mentions the transfer to the hospice as well... FuelWagon 23:51, 11 September 2005 (UTC)"
• Gordon Watts: My vote is "YES."--GordonWattsDotCom 21:17, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Marskell: No Marskell 08:50, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Pat Sweeney, e.g., Patsw: It looks like you are voting "YES" here: "Either the Schindler's raised an objection to Michael's guardianship over the hospice move as violating state law or regulation or they didn't. This is a fact or it's not a fact. The reader can judge if this indicates a frivolous claim on the part of the Schindlers, or if it demonstrates an abuse of the court's discretion as to what weight it would give laws to protect patient rights from an abusive guardian. patsw 14:10, 10 September 2005 (UTC)"
• Taxman: It appears you are voting "NO," based on your comments from this talk page: "A detail such as the hospice not supposed to be able to take here is incredible minutae, and establishes nothing either way...Taxman Talk 01:43, September 12, 2005 (UTC)" -- and, in your answer to "What to mention in the section about hospice transfer, if approved by above vote," you answer: "nothing, this and other minutae need to be covered in subarticles if at all. Summarize and remove other material also as needed to balance and make room for more important overiew and implication summaries. - Taxman Talk 02:55, September 13, 2005 (UTC)"
  • Analysis: It seems that the vast majority supporting the claim that Terri's transfer was a key event that needs to be mentioned, but I do not know if I have the official "power" to open and close votes -as some have hinted.--GordonWattsDotCom 21:34, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

What to mention in the section about hospice transfer, if approved by above vote

This is the Third item, in this series of requests to vote:

• Ann Heneghan: You said "In my opinion, the article should definitely mention that she was transferred to a hospice, and that the Schindlers, their lawyers, and the organizations that supported them argued that this was improper – they may even have said illegal; let's find the reference...Ann Heneghan (talk) 18:19, 11 September 2005 (UTC)"
• Ed Poor, e.g., Uncle Ed: ?
• Fernando Rizo: ?
• Fuel Wagon: From this diff, you say: "In 2000, the Schindlers again challenged Michael's guardianship. Their new evidence ostensibly reflected adversely on Michael Schiavo’s role as guardian, citing "that he had relationships with other women, that he had allegedly failed to provide appropriate care and treatment for Theresa, that he was wasting the assets within the guardianship account (according to the Schindlers, transferring Schiavo to a "hospice after it was clear that she was not “terminal” within Medicare guidelines" [17] bullet 31), and that he was no longer competent to represent Theresa’s best interests." [24] By this time, while still legally married to Terri, Michael was in a relationship with Jodi Centonze, with whom he had fathered two children. Michael denied wrongdoing in this matter, stating that the Schindlers had actively encouraged him to "get on with his life" and date since 1991. Michael said he chose not to divorce his wife and relinquish guardianship because he wanted to ensure her final wishes (to not be kept alive in a PVS) were carried out."
• Gordon Watts: In April 2000, in the midst of the guardianship challenge, Schiavo, widely described as the "brain-damaged Florida woman" [12] at the heart of this legal battle, was admitted to a Pinellas County, Florida hospice [13], amid objections by her family [14] that this was a facility which is was prohibited by state law from admitting nonterminal patients [15] and prohibited by federal law from taking federal funds if it did admit nonterminal patient [15]. The court eventually ruled A-B-and-C. I am compromising with Wagon and quoting only the major players --and striking out the "widely described as" language --and also proposing to NOT use the "typically legally" language. [Maybe add "why" she was transferred from Michael's viewpoint; Adding in views of guardian ad litems and my own view are too much.] NOTE: Wagon's version may look longer, but it is actually half a sentence shorter: He agrees to report about Terri's parents' concerns of the financial mismanagement, but not report their concerns that it was illegal at all.--GordonWattsDotCom 21:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Marskell: "...amid objections by her family. --> This bullet and the petition generally were dismissed by the court." Marskell 08:52, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Pat Sweeney, e.g., Patsw: ?
• Taxman: nothing, this and other minutae need to be covered in subarticles if at all. Summarize and remove other material also as needed to balance and make room for more important overiew and implication summaries. - Taxman ^Talk 02:55, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS: It looks like Ann agrees with my view to report both major objections to the transfer -and Wagon wants to omit mention of one; Please note that I have agreed to remove the "typically legally" language, and I recall "Ann's comments" that she agrees with me --and Wagon agrees with us on this one point, so "typically legally" looks like it will be voted down.--GordonWattsDotCom 21:57, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the additional input/participation and votes from editors.--GordonWattsDotCom 09:09, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Extra stuff to go, reduce article size

This is the Fourth item, in this series of requests to vote: This section is ready to go, but we aren't. We need to address the first three areas above, and then we can discuss and vote on things that really are unnecessary fluff -and bloat.--GordonWattsDotCom 22:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Moving on

I requested an unlock for this page which has yet to be acted on. Perhaps too hasty, but it can't be held hostage as has been pointed out repeatedly. I want to suggest this:

• Gordon has two edits on this page in any 24 hour period. Any edit counts and you cannot list anything as minor. Edits cannot involve more than two third-level sections (or second-level if not further sub-divided).
• Gordon has one talk addition in any 24 hour period. It cannot exceed six lines on the talk page (about 120 words).

Please support or oppose

• I support discussion about --and voting on --the major points of contention. Since no one did, then I ranted and raved, asking (begging) people to discuss & VOTE -and they did NOT --they merely talked about it. I've removed your inappropriate language, and replaced it with a euphemism; While this is wrong, I can sense and feel your frustration, but you are blaming me for the page lock when it was partly precipitated by FuelWagon; With only one of us or the other, it would not have happened, but you are wrong to characterize me as always reverting; I rarely revert, and save that for important matters. Now, if you want me to stop ranting and raving, and using up space on the page, please vote on the matters above. Just like in Board meetings, a person can propose a vote, and, if it is seconded by another person --it can go to a vote. Since all the matters in my "voting section" above are seconded by others as issues of importance (whether or not they agree with me on how to vote), then it's time for you ro vote more --discuss more --talk about these distractions less. You want me to take less space up in talk -I fully agree, but it's your move. You have talked ABOUT fixing the problem, but you have done little to fix it, forcing me to sort-of "guess" at your positions on certain matters. Let's get the show on the road, and we can come to concensus on these issues -or determine that concensus can't be reached. Now, do your part to contribute: I've gone to extensive trouble to set up the voting booth. By the way, Marskell, --in spite of your long-winded anger, and LACK OF VOTING after much discussion, thank you for at least not defacing my voting booth above. Now, it is your civic duty to vote: I've placed "tentative" voted for you, but we've already found out the hard way that I can't read your mind, and I apologize big-time for misrepresenting you and Taxman. Now do your civic duty -do or do not -there is no "try." I'm finished commenting for now -it's your move.--GordonWattsDotCom 00:53, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Naturally this is informal but if Gordon agrees than other observing editors can recommend a block to an admin if it's violated.

If this seems to single out Gordon, well his contributions are singular. He regularaly floods the talk page with (literally) thousands of words and he does revert to the max in the article with knowledge of no consensus on his points.

Plz, stop and consider because I can guess your rebuttals Gordon. First, limited edits is in your interest because it gives you a break and allows you to make pointed rather than on-the-fly changes. If you feel this should apply to FuelWagon as well, fair enough I will support that; I do believe FW's replies were effectively always a response to you so I see your repeated editing as the issue at the hand. As far as the disputed sentence goes, leave it. I will edit it, someone can revert it and...and we need to move on with this page, so f--- lets stop spinning the wheels over something talk cannot seem to resolve. The sense of ownership is getting to be too much.

Finally, I'm considering this an attempted intervention to avoid an RfA.. And please, Gordon don't flood this with commentary to make it unreadable. This is a suggestion to move on—respond but try to be brief so that others can understand. Marskell 23:37, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Gordon, people can't spend 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, on wikipedia, so yelling at them for "not voting" when you just put up your request for a vote a few hours ago is an unwarranted attack. I actually don't have time to respond beyond that right now. FuelWagon 01:51, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I do have reason to yell, but I did NOT yell for the most part. (Yelling is done with capitol letters, LIKE THIS!!) Why do I have justification to yell and get upset? Because people really did have a chance to vote, by making a voting template like I did -and furthermore, Marskell saw the voting template and chose not to vote, instead, placing comments about other matters under the template. The page was protected in the "Revision as of 08:59, 7 September 2005," and yet, over five days later, still few if any votes; I'm trying to keep us from spinning our wheels, and, instead, get constructive action like Jackson, dig? "I actually don't have time to respond beyond that right now." OK, take your time, no problemo. PS: While I feel justified in getting upset, I am trying to be polite and helpful, so please don't think I'm super mad at anyone, you or fellow editors -frustrated, yes --mad, no.--GordonWattsDotCom 02:06, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I also think that if everyone calms down and try to explain what we even are trying to decide here. While I was asked to come here and see what is going on, but I am just lost with all of this debate. But if this is about Terri being in a "hospice," that term was used by the news. Maybe, what we could do is just write an whole article about the hospice debate and look at relevant laws surrounding it. Zach (Sound Off) 02:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Zach, please read out talk page here, and then check out: Talk:Terri_Schiavo#Reporting_hospice_placement:_Key_event_or_not.3F.--GordonWattsDotCom 02:43, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• yes, please. Limiting Gordon's voluminous edits would help everyone including him and the article. But give him 5 posts a day 50 words each. Then he'll have to think more whether what he is adding has any value. Also, I suggest we impliment an immediate 1 revert max per day for everyone or else a 24 hour block, and with that I'm prepared to un protect immediately. This article cannot be held hostage like this any longer. - Taxman ^Talk 02:55, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you for taking time to vote on some matters, Taxman -even if you disagree with me; Also, the page is not held hostage by me (not that you accused me; you didn't, but I wish to clarify this), but rather it is "held hostage" by the actionable dispute between me and another editor. So, please don't single me out, as if I'm the prime mover or anything. But we seem to be getting close to an agreement.--GordonWattsDotCom 05:09, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Gordon, do you or do you not agree to:

• Two edits on this page in any 24 hour period. Any edit counts and you cannot list anything as minor. Edits cannot involve more than two third-level sections (or second-level if not further sub-divided).

Per Taxman:

• One revert only and this will apply to everyone.
• Five talk posts of no more than 50 words.

Again, yes or no so that this can be opened. Marskell 09:43, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Do you agree to such restrictions on how often you can edit?? By the way, since you are so stressed out that you don't want a reply to your message on your talk page, please rest assured that I answered you here in the Revision as of 09:18, 13 September 2005. I've archived my page, to reduce clutter, and you would miss it. If you don't want me to reply, then don't post something objectionable: If everyone had come to concensus a week ago, I would have "zero" posts in the talk page; if threatening a person with limited edits is not something you'd like done to yourself, so, instead, try persuasion. It's more effective, and also, earn our respect, like I have: I've spent untold hours not only editing the page, but personally traveling to Terri Schiavo's grave site -and creating the Terri_Schiavo#Notes_and_references section all by myself -and repairing it when others got the links mixed up. Read my words carefully, because typing on my end is even harder than reading on your end. (Besides, when I post a reply to you, others will be bound to see it, so you ought not to miss out.) If you think I'm too harsh, maybe you can travel out to the grave site and create a "references" section --and set up and manage a "vote" section, etc. You have it easy: Chill out and relax. So, would you like to have your edits limited, eh?--GordonWattsDotCom 09:58, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

So no then? Marskell 10:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you're serious, then I will agree to this -if it should apply to all of us. However, the moderators must agree to this as well, but think about it -you might limit yourself too much. OK: Yes, if "Two edits on this page in any 24 hour period," etc. applies to all of us -we can try out this new method: If it works, you will be famous for the "Marskell Method."--GordonWattsDotCom 10:41, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll agree to it for myself. Marskell 11:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll agree to it, and 2 edits a day is probably too little if someone is actually improving, but we can expand that if the article is improving. Lets also make it clear that changing the meaning of a paragraph back to substantially what you wrote before is considered a revert for the purposes here. Holding moderators to this standard isn't a good idea because someone's got to police the thing, but so be it. - Taxman ^Talk 11:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Why does text like this keep disappearing? (And why readers cannot trust this article to be accurate and NPOV.)

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

That's Michael Schiavo's testimony in November 5, 1992 and the testimony of rehabilitation specialists testifying on his behalf that Terri would have a normal life span led the jury to award close to $1 million for Terri and about $400,000 to Michael.

That's a fact. It's significant. And it's important to establish that Michael was of one frame of mind in November 10, 1992, and in a different frame of mind on February 14, 1993 when he instructs "Do Not Resuscitate" to be put on Terri's chart.

August 1993 is when Terri had her life threatening the urinary tract infection. It's one of the dates that Wolfson got wrong. It was corrected once, but that correction was undone. Michael Schiavo testifies to attempting to prevent the treatment of the infection in the November 1993 guardianship case.

With all the rewrites and reorgs, it's like magic -- facts and corrections just get dropped from the article. The legality of the hospice transfer is insignificant next to dropping the "vows" quote. patsw 04:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

We can add this to the list of things on which to vote, if you like; please make sure I voted correctly for you above -on the other issues; I have no problem with adding this quote -if you can "source" it with a link to verify is accuracy. Then, after the article's unlocked, add it, and if there's a dispute, we can come here and vote on it (hopefully next time without having to wait five days for people to log in and properly count votes).

Once that's done, assuming there were sufficient people to vote, we can write a list of "agreements," and if any bozo's dumb or brave enough to try and violate the concensus, then I can have a talk with User:Jimbo; he only works about 60-70 miles from where I live. Additionally, I have connection's with Jimbo's boss, God, and I can pull rank if we need further assistance. PS: I'm not bragging by "dropping 'big' names" here (e.g., Jimbo and The Almighty), but if I'm right about enforcing valid concensus, then I should not be wrong to be bold and ask for assistance from the powers-that-be.--GordonWattsDotCom 04:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

The testimony is in the malpractice suit section. Cries of "conspiracy" to hide it are unfounded. Michael gives that testimony during the malpractice suit in answer to questions as to why he started going to nursing school, so that's where it belongs in the article, in the malpractice suit section, in the context of teh question that he was asked by the lawyer. FuelWagon 13:26, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

So you don't have an objection to restoring the "vows" quote? You no longer object to the correction of the date of her urinary tract infection? If so, this is progress. patsw 14:08, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

First, the date of the DNR seems problematic. Guardian ad litem Pearse reports the DNR was filed early 1994 (on page 5 of 13). Guardian ad litem Wolfson reports that the DNR was filed "early 1994" as well (page 10 of 38). Do you have something that shows both guardian ad litems got the date wrong?

Second, are Michael's vows specifically mentioned in a court motion by the Schindlers? If not, I see little reason to include them in teh article other than for emotional pleading. If people are simply trying to convict Michael in the court of public opinion of breaking his vows, then I oppose mentioning them in the article. If his vows are specifically mentioned in a legal court motion, then I'd like to see a URL to the motion, and we can discuss. FuelWagon 16:09, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Before we get into "do I have something", do you believe the urinary tract infection was in 1994 and not 1993? Do you believe the first guardianship case was heard starting in 1994 and not 1993?

Of course, the vows testimony from the malpractice case came up in later pleadings by the Schindlers as evidence of Michael's failure to disclose to them and to the court Terri's wishes. Do you believe it didn't? patsw 18:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I was unaware that there was a dispute about the date of the DNR. I have read the wolfson and pearse reports a couple of different times, mainly because all of the guardian ad litems are appointed by the courts to have Terri's best wishes at heart, without bringing their own personal baggage. I have skimmed other sources. Do you have a URL that disputes the date?

As for the vows, it doesn't matter what I believe, it matters if they were specifically invoked by the Schindlers for some reason or other, in what context, and what the various other POV's were around that, such as the guardian ad litems and the court. the guardian ad litem reports don't mention Michael's vows that I recall (it's been a while since I read them though). Do you have a URL to a motion by the Schindlers that calls out the wedding vows? FuelWagon 18:52, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

What you believe matters because you are acting as the gatekeeper to edits to this article. It's helpful to know what you think believe because if you believe it, it goes into the article and if you don't, then I know that I have to overcome your objections as well as satisify the usual wikiness requirements. So getting an edit into this article where you don't believe it presents a unique challenge in the Wikipedia to any editor.

The 1993 date for the bladder/urinary tract infection and the Michael's testimony that he sought to allow it to progress untreated to hatsten Terri's death is in University of Miami Ethics Program which is already cited in the article. In his testimony, Michael Schiavo refers to it as UTI and is asked to define the term. Clearly the infection of which he speaks did not occur in 1994.

The May 2001 lawsuit gives July 1993 as the date of the do not recusitate order at Sabel Palms. Some statements to the media from the Schindlers put the date at February 1993, but I've not been able to find a petition that gives that date online, nor an assertion from Michael's side that the first do not recusitate order was in 1994. Because several of the nurses at Palm Gardens gave testimony in later cases, the 1994 do not recusitate order at that facility is perhaps better known and that is what confused the GAL's. As for the dates, there are 2 infections in 2 facilities in 2 different years (1993 and 1995) and not a single infection (1994) as some timelines incorrectly have it listed (perhaps using the Wikipedia article as a reliable source).

The 1992 vows testimony come back in the 1993 guardianship case where Michael Schiavo admits to intimate relations with other women. These women, of course, have names: Cindy Brashers Shook and Trudy Capone. I don't believe it is important to mention their specific names in the article. I expect books written on the case to be more objective and comprehensive, and they will include facts such as these which were taken out of the article under Fuel Wagon's editorial control. The vows quote is important not only because it is featured in the Schindler petitions, but because there was a consensus to include it earlier, it's not legal, political, or medical minutiae, and there is wide and frequent mention of it in the public discussion of the case as evidence of Michael's duplicity. patsw 01:21, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I act as gatekeeper to unfounded accusations entering the article, to cries of witchcraft being inserted without any other POV's being reported on that same accusation, of that I am guilty. This entire story is 90% "he said, she said", and NPOV is the only way it will ever find balance. I am sick of "original research" being inserted, of charges being invented by editors and inserted in the article that don't report what the actual players said, but rather report what the editor think was wrong.

two infections, exactly one year apart, two different locations? I'll have to read through the links you provide. What would clearly prove this isn't people getting the years wrong would be a motion by the Schindlers in 1993 protesting the first lack of infection treatment and a new motion by the Schindlers in 1994 protesting the lack of infection treatment. Or a motion by the Schindlers that lists a lack of treatment on two different occaisions, 1993, and 1994. If there were an error on a motion submitted to the court, then Michael would have a chance to dispute it. If he didn't dispute it, then it could be reported as fact. I've never heard anyone say there were two infections before now. FuelWagon 15:56, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Two infections are already in the record: The 1993 (Sabel Palms) infection came up in the 1993 guardianship trial. The 1995 (Palm Gardens) infection is in the public statements of the Schindler's and the Iyer affidavit submitted to the court which Greer disallowed as untimely in support of an order to vacate judgment. We don't have the medical records of course, and we don't have an explicit denial of the 1995 infection on Michael's part, nor an assertion that there was only one infection where he intervened in insisting that it not be treated.

It's an interesting bifucation of the record: Articles approaching this from the Schinder's POV and using the timeline according to them, have two infections (1993,1995) while articles approaching this from Michael's POV use the Wolfson (2003) report with its one 1994 infection. Wolfson has the date of the malpractice award as 1993 when the award was determined by trial and paid to Michael in 1992. I don't know why Wolfson got it wrong but his dates for the award and (first) infection are demonstrably incorrect. patsw 01:44, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

The problem I'm having is that there are two guardian ad litem reports that say 1994. So I'd have to see something as official as two court reports that say 1993. For example, in the motion filed by the schindlers, it says "Defendant Schiavo admitted under oath during his deposition on November 19, 1993, that he had given the aforesaid orders." What was the court response to this motion? If the courts acknowledge teh date mismatch, that's one thing. If the courts dismiss the motion as being wrong, that's another. Do you have a URL to the court's response? An even better solution might be a URL to the November 19, 1993 deposition, which should establish the time of Michael's testimony as part of court record. It may be that wikipedia can't say the DNR was 1993 or 1994, but only report that the guardian ad litems said it was 1994 and the Schindlers say it was 1993/1995. FuelWagon 06:20, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Votes on everything?

Votes are evil. What happens is that someone holds a vote, there's a majority and all it does is serve as a stick to beat other editors with. Wikipedia does not work on votes -- well, okay, yes, these days it does all too much -- but you will not gain consensus and accord by having people vote on the stuff you are trying to pump into the article. It will only cause more contention. And threatening to involve Jimbo (or God) is totally inadvisable. Jimbo generally does not involve himself in disputes over content, and if he ever does give his opinion, he generally tries to give it as just another editor.

Convince us, Gordon. Don't try to bully us, use a vote to end-run us or try to use the power structure to defeat us. Convince us you are right. We all want a fair, balanced article by our lights. So make us see your point of view as correct. But be brief. Grace Note 05:38, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

You want brief, but persuasive? OK, Grace Note: Check this out: Please read this page at least twice, slowly and in a good atmosphere, such as with a snack. (That's brief.) I've personally read every single recent diff that a person's posted, by scrolling through the page history -thus I can be assured to have read everything on the page. (That is persuasive, since you know I'm not lying, and are probably mildly impressed -and therefore be motivated to yourself read the page as I have.) Then, I'm sure my arguments contained herein will persuade you; if you still think that (for example) stuffed animals and Terri's cats stay, and crucial things (like PVS, hospice admission, family objections, etc.) go, then you may contact me by email, user talk page, telephone, or (if you live near by) a visit. Additionally, other wise editors have opined herein.--GordonWattsDotCom 08:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Voting on everything is not the way to go. Votes distort the issue and can lead to failing to uphold policy. Don't try to argue against that here, it's been held up many many times. See the history for WP:RFA Consensus is the way to go. - Taxman ^Talk 11:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

OK...

So I hope the agreement works. My two edits for the day are done: asserted notability in lead paragraph and touched up the disputed sentence. Marskell 12:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll use one of my 50-word daily talk posts and acknowledge your improvement; You messed up the link: remember, Marskell, when you delete {ref|Whatever.The.Heck}, you must also delete the corresponding {note|Whatever.The.Heck}, or else the numbering system will be off. Fixing this without "minor" edits will be hard, bu oh, well.--GordonWattsDotCom 12:16, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Now I know. And as G.I. Joe used to say, knowing is half the battle ;). Marskell 12:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

3 of 5. FuelWagon made four edits that were effectively one—the latter three removing links and a flag that had become redundant. Similarly, Gordon's correction of spacing isn't really a full edit so doesn't count. Thus, I figure you have one each left. Now, nobody can watch this minute-to-minute but let's stick to the spirit and note as I did at the top of this section what our two edits are. Marskell 14:16, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

That was 2-of-5 below (the gordon rule), and I will use 3-0f-5 here to tentative support Wagon's version of the hospice detail; the motion doesn't use those exact words, so we'll have to accept his version for now; it's "acceptable," if not "superior."--GordonWattsDotCom 15:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, ~--> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/GordonWattsDotCom <--~--GordonWattsDotCom 15:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

The "Gordon Rule" on edit-count-itis

I see the discussion on the counting of edits; I will not complain about minor typo fixes to the same section; That will all count for one edit. I also support Marskell's suggestion that we try to stick to the spirit of things, and I suppose this is good: We might slip up as humans.--GordonWattsDotCom 15:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• The GORDON RULE on edit-count-itis: If you make several edits to one paragraph (or even one whole section, including the notes to the references), that shall count as one edit in substance.

And, no, I don't intend to use this as an excuse to edit loads; I'm kind of tired right now, and even the angels have to sleep sometime. (I'm not claiming membership in that holy group, but anyhow...)--GordonWattsDotCom 15:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

A thought regarding the compromise

I see that you all have hammered out an accord in my absence. Great job, that. However, I have a recommendation to make in the strongest possible terms: if you've agreed to make x number of edits in one day, then make no more than x number of edits per day. Period. The slippery slope that you're going to get into questioning the validity of each other's edits and saying that multiple edits only count as one because they were grammatical is going to be viewed as "gaming the system" as soon as something controverial pops up, as it invariably will. I can't emphasize enough how important I think this is.

Regardless, good job reaching enough of a compromise to unprotect the article. Remember to stay civil. I'll be watching this article and helping out Taxman and the rest of you as much as I can. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. When I proposed this and Gordon agreed FuelWagon wasn't fully in the loop so I was clarifying rather than questioning what he was up to. I suggested not marking any edit as minor to avoid gaming the system. I think this should followed. Marskell 17:47, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. You can't keep grouping edits and calling them all one. Edits are edits so plan them well--that was the whole point. The only thing I would add to Marskell's point is if the edit is minor, mark it as such, but it still counts as one of your two edits. - Taxman ^Talk 21:01, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

If I have to make a minor repair of a link, I think it shouldn't count as a 2nd edit, but I will tentatively agree so the "gaming of the system" factors are reduced; I'm responding here and below with Ed's comments; Are these replies 2-in-1 Ok for one edit? PS: I may not be available to edit everyday, but I am here in spirit. (Cleaning room & preparing for job search.) See below also.--GordonWattsDotCom 02:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Scorecard

"You can't tell the players without a scorecard".

I forget who's on which side on the major issues, so do me all a favor and weigh in. I'll make a table (which I recently got rather good at) summarizing this.

Was Terri's condition incurable?

• Yes:
• No:
• Neutral/other:
  1. I don't know; see below.--GordonWattsDotCom 02:10, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

This matters, because it has a bearing on the hospice thing and the custody issue. We care who gets custody, because if they think she's curable they'll put her into therapy and try to get her cured so she can relate to her loving family (okay, that should have been past tense). If she's not curable, let her go to a hospice and die slowly. Or even stop feeding her, and let her die already so she won't suffer. Or take her to Northern Europe and give her euthanasia.

The hospice thing seems to really depend on whether you think she was terminal. How dare they put her in a "home for the dying" if she's not really terminal? Or, if her conditional is terminal and untreatable, what's wrong with a hospice?

You see, the weakness of the article (although it's far and above one of the best treatments on-line anywhere) - I say, the weakness is that it does not explain the relationships between the key concepts.

I suggest we start with a chronology. This event happened, and this person did that, and some other person made a legal objection or gave a legal opinion. The whole dozen-year saga.

Then: analysis. The family's POV was this, and they argued that one thing led to another, and they wanted to try this and that. The husband (later, ex-husband) felt this way, but then he felt that way.

Public opinion was divided on the following issues... They biggest point of contention was (a) keep her alive or (b) let her die. Arguments for and against these two options.

You guys have been tap-dancing around these - or sometimes mud-wrestling over precise wordings. Just do the chronology and the analysis, then there won't be anything to fight over. Simply agree to disagree. Uncle Ed 21:54, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

This grossly oversimplifies the problem of the article. First of all, there is almost no chronology that can be reported as simple fact and must be reported from various points of view. Was Terri curable can only be reported from teh various dozens of points of view. The only factual events that will be undisputed will be terri collapsed then, she was transferrd here, she was transferred there, she died. Most of the debate is over the subjective interpretation of the physical evidence. Terri collapsed. Was she strangled? Did she have bullimia? Michael ordered the feeding tube removed. Did he want to kill her off? Did he think that's what she would have wanted? Almost the entire history of dispute around this case revolves around the fact that we can't read someone else's mind and know with certainty what their subjective thoughts were. Terri's wishes are still disputed and must be reported from various points of view. The "relationship between the key concepts" can only be reported in terms of what the actual players said and did and then must be written in terms of fitting within an article and deciding whether something is notable or not. Anything else turns into "original research". Months ago, this article was little more than a reporting of some facts followed by huge swaths of editorializing on what those actions meant. Mostly using the language that the editors created. The article has made a lot of strides to reporting teh points fo views of teh people actually involved, rather than reporting the points of views of the various editors. FuelWagon 22:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with FW. While I appreciate Uncle Ed's intervention it just seems to be inviting controversy when half of my day (anyhow) was an attempt to get over spinning the wheels on talk and work on the article relatively harmoniously. I really have no desire to weigh in on "was Terri curable" and I suggest no one else weigh in either. This is 5-of-5 posts for me; I'm going to abide by my own attempt at mediation, stop editing, and make my two edits in good faith tomorrow. Marskell 22:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hospice&db=* says: "A program that provides palliative care and attends to the emotional and spiritual needs of terminally ill patients at an inpatient facility or at the patient's home." -and- "a facility or program designed to provide a caring environment for supplying the physical and emotional needs of the terminally ill" --plus-- http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?query=hospice&action=Search+OMD says:

• hospice
• An institution that provides a centralised program of palliative and supportive services to dying persons and their families, in the form of physical, psychological, social, and spiritual care; such services are provided by an interdisciplinary team of professionals and volunteers who are available at home and in specialised inpatient settings.

• Origin: L. Hospitium, hospitality, lodging, fr. Hospes, guest

Was Terri terminally ill? Probably not. Was she incurable? Well, we don't know (maybe she'd remain crippled/handicapped for the rest of her life -like many crippled citizens), but even people like Dr. Stephen Hawking, with "incurable diseases" should not be put to sleep -even if their illness is mental instead of a mere physical disability. I know it sounds harsh, but we are not savages -people will die soon enough, and furthermore, if they want to, they can generally kill themselves -or "will" themselves too ill to live -morbid, but true. Thou shalt not kill is still in effect, both here on earth (laws) and in Heaven; It was never repealled, lol.--GordonWattsDotCom 02:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Memorial Edit

I have dropped one pic from the memorial section and also removed the wording of the headstone from the text. Detailing the words is IMHO a) redundant given a clearly legible pic, b) unencyclopedic (wiki not memorial), c) a touch unsettling. This isn't to disparage at all Gordon's work in gathering these pics or editing the section. Marskell 11:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC) Also:

2-of-5 for today: I'm not offended by your edit here, Marskell; I think my version was pretty good, but you got the general message across; Increasing the image size was a good idea in your edit, but my edit has the advantage of having MORE non-Fair-Use photos in total, making the overall percentage of Fair Use photos smaller. The recent version looks OK, but my recent RfA and FA nominations have frazzled my brain, and I will have to leave you all to find the links relating to Patsw's concerns for now.--GordonWatts 06:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

(2 of 5) The agreement was partially broken yesterday and I was a little disappointed that it is already "cramping (Gordon's) style." I realize there is an issue with minors but let's follow Fernando Rizo's suggestion: 2 is 2 is 2. The whole point is to think before you edit; even if minors need to be done you should pause and decide what needs fixing and then do it all at once rather than repeatedly editing. Marskell 12:04, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

It was reverted without explanation, so If my request to that editor to explain in talk goes unheaded, I'm going to revert. Unexplained reverts are useless. As to the agreement, Gordon didn't violate it, but FW clearly did. It was the first day or so, so I think we can cut a bit of slack, but after this I won't hesitate to block for 12-24 hours to enforce the agreement. That said, 2 article edits is too few, especially if we stick to a hard 1 revert per day. With that I think 5 edits a day would be reasonable, but still keep edits well thought out. For sake of clarity lets define a day for these purposes as a 24 hr calendar UTC day. You may want to set your preferences to a 0 UTC offset to make that easier. - Taxman ^Talk 12:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Post 1 of 5 today: Taxman's suggestions above are all wise; I agree with Marskell's conclusion that we should follow the edit limist STRICTLY, but underscore the fact we're all human.--GordonWatts 06:19, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I reverted the edit by Marskell because upon scanning recent changes, I noticed a massive removal of text and images along with an introduced spelling error, which appeared to be vandalism. --Viriditas | Talk 13:00, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Then please check the talk page and discuss there first. Ask before shooting gets us all farther. Thanks for explaining though. - Taxman ^Talk 19:01, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, considering how much vandalism I revert each day, that probably wouldn't work, however, I will endeavor to look closer at the diffs in the future. Nine times out of ten, content removal with the addition of spelling errors is blatant vandalism. In this case, it wasn't, and I apologize for my mistake. --Viriditas | Talk 23:56, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Then it's five? I'll say OK but I suggest that it be completely absolute. If one of the editors in question makes a sixth edit, even if changing "a" to "an" they get blocked for 12 hours. Marskell 12:47, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes it's 5, and it's absolute. I also don't think we need to wait for more agreement since we're expanding the agreement, not constricting it. 5 should allow for more flexibity in improving, but still force thought out edits. I also think we should allow each talk response to be 150-200 words, as 50 is too constricting to get a point accross or make a proposal. I will also stick to my stance that changing the meaning of a paragraph back to one's preferred version, even if not strictly a revert will count as one for the purposes of this agreement. I'm fully prepared to make the blocks and I'm sure others can step in if I'm not able to get to it. 12hrs first transgression, doubling each time thereafter. It's not that hard to stick to the agreement, so that should be reasonable. - Taxman ^Talk 19:01, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

We are not here to "debate" the issues surrounding Schiavo's death. Are we forgetting that? It seems Ed is. We're not here to canvass one another's opinions. Our opinions are worth nothing. Nothing! What we do is report the facts, sourced to reputable sources. We have to weigh the facts, yes, and not give undue weight to those that have no place here: that is where the conflict lies. Grace Note 23:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually I was hoping that if we each were "up front" about our respective POVs, we could more easily stop insisting that our own POV be regarded as "the only correct perspective". This has worked in other articles which I've mediated on.

I might actually have to jump in here as an editor. Or would you all like me back as a Mediator? Or should I just butt out?

Remember, our mutual goal is to create a balanced, unbiased article. Uncle Ed 01:41, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I think we have it handled for now. The article seems to have stabilized. if it ain't broke and all that... FuelWagon 02:13, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Ed, you talk a good game, that's true enough, but I don't think that our "biases" are being hidden! Your method seems to me a great deal too close to canvassing opinions with a view of making the article match them. I'm sure that isn't your intent but I don't think it helps to encourage some of the more volatile elements into thinking that if they can win a vote on the talkpage they can bias the article to their POV. Grace Note 02:31, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Trim

Four days, no problems, good stuff. I think the verbatim GAL report paragraphs should be summarized at about half the length. I can't think of another instance of cutting and pasting that much text. I'd do this but wanted to see if I'd be stepping on toes. Marskell 18:47, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, the only way we seem to have resolved most of the disputes on this article was to quote the points of view of the people involved, rather than to let an editor say "such and such was true". The point of the quotations was to put in the point of view of teh guardian ad litem regarding various topics. The parts that are quoted state his point of view that:

1. he visited Terri and was unable to find any consistent response from Terri to show she was aware.
2. he concludes that Terri was PVS with no likelyhood of improvement and that she could not take oral nutrition or hydration.
3. He notes that Michael and the Schindler initially agreed on the PVS diagnosis, but notes that later, the Schindlers disputed the PVS diagnosis.
4. He notes the Schindlers dispute they would keep Terri alive at all cost.
5. He notes that there is nothing to substantiate any of the allegations that Michael was in it for the money or that he abused Terri.
6. he concludes the trier of fact and evidence were firmly grounded in Florida law, which clearly and unequivocally allow for removal of artificial nutrition/hydration.
7. he concludes the evidence regarding the diagnosis and the intent of teh parties to be clear and convincing.

If you want to trim this, then you could turn teh verbatim quotes into paraphrasing with bits of quotes. He keeps referring to himself as "the GAL", and he's very thourough, but we probably don't need all the words that he uses. The above bullet list is definitely a lot shorter than the section in the article, so trimming is possible while still reporting the important bits. as long as teh above points are reported, it doesn't matter if we quote him verbatim or if we paraphrase most of it, and leave teh quotes for the parts that would be disputed, or parts that should probably defer to his words when he uses certain adjectives and otehr descriptors. The only other thing I was say is that if you completely paraphrase a paragraph, then it should be replaced with a page marker os that people can find where you got the information. the report is 40 pages long, I think, and trying to find something in there is a bit of work. Narrowing it down to a page helps a lot. Other than that, trim away. FuelWagon 21:17, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

First, exactly--if you can narrow it to seven bullet points then the article itself can be made shorter and more cogent. I do like the GAL report; my only real acquaintance with the issue before editing here was reading it (all of it! actually quite interesting) about five months ago now. It can be quoted well as a strict NPOV source. Anyhow, I'll chew over it again and see if your bullets can be appropriately incorporated without losing the flow (and of course accomodating any additional comments). Marskell 22:36, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, of course I'd agree to the 7 bullet points above if you cut and pasted them into the article... I wrote them. The question is whether anyone would dispute the paraphrasing I used. I don't, but someone else might. If you agree with the language I used, then that's two people, and should be enough that you could just try cutting and pasting it verbatim into the article. Then see if anyone disputes the language. FuelWagon 05:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Eating disorder rv

Early life quite clearly states she might have had an eating disorder. I made this change to keep the article self-consistent. Little evidence is inaccurate--circumstantial evidence yes (comments about odd eating habits and the sheer enormity of weight loss) and disputable medical evidence yes (potassium levels). The various news links from early life and initial medical crisis on the topic all state she had an eating disorder quite colourlessly. Marskell 12:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

What's not in dispute is that years earlier she lost 60-80 pounds improving her general health. This is obvious from looking at photographs of her high school graduation. She was maintaining her healthy weight at the time of her collapse. The people who knew her best and ate with her the most (including Michael) denied that she had an eating disorder and specifically denied the so-called evidence given by one witness that she ran to the bathroom after every meal. The evidence that she had an eating disorder always was very weak and since there was no characteristic scarring of the esophagas and stomach in the autopsy, it has since been ruled out. Rather than being colorless, the agenda being pushed in those media accounts was that by not seeking help for her alleged eating disorder she was responsible for her own collapse. patsw 19:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I think you need to distinguish "evidence" in a medical sense from "evidence" in a more general sense, Marskell. You are inserting your change into a discussion of the autopsy, which found no evidence at all of an eating disorder and nothing much that was even suggestive of it. That there were rumours and a bit of this and that does not mean that anything was found at her autopsy! The evidence of the autopsy was conclusive and the examiner did make a conclusion. Suggesting otherwise is a plain error of fact. Please read the autopsy report before making the edit again. Grace Note 05:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

One small thing Grace: we have agreed to one revert per day, so edit rather than revert. I have changed "there is" to the "autopsy itself showed" so that it is clear.

Potassium levels half the normal range are not "weak evidence." Without potassium our heart does not beat and the main culprits in low potassium are water pills, laxative abuse or general malnutrition (to anticipate your objection—yes indeed, the report makes clear this could be a spurious result though I do believe "inconclusive" is still a fair word). This is not to say that it follows automatically there is an eating disorder. Eating disorders, like alcoholism, are the extreme edge of behavioural pattern that is present in a large number, even a majority, of people. We don't call dieting itself an eating disorder but people still need to be careful about how they diet. Marskell 08:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

AS I read it, Grace is taking a slight "Anti-Eating-Disorder" approach, and you are taking a more neutral approach; It is indeed inconclusive, as you say, but it is also true to say there is "little evidence" of an eating disorder. The two statements are similar shades of the nuance. I think the current version is OK, but you can add some professional opinions from doctors on the Internet if you can find them, quote them, and provide a link. Now, that "reference" system we're now using requires a "ref" in the text of the article and a "note" in the references section at the bottom. Got it? Good luck! PS: Ann, you did do a good job archiving, and even made a few "extra" sport for future archrivals. Cool.--GordonWatts 11:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

"Although it was widely speculated that Schiavo suffered from an eating disorder that caused a serious electrolyte disturbance, stopping her heart, the autoposy itself showed little evidence to support this claim." This would seem to be appropriate for the autopsy section. FuelWagon 15:05, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Wagon, you were right after all: 4-3 not binding

"Rather than ask how to "enforce consensus" [1], the question should be what do you do with an editor who declares voting "open"...FuelWagon 18:37, 13 September 2005 (UTC)"

"What if, say, another editor later added his vote, and claimed it was then 4-3, and enough editors kept voting?"

"Would the "concensus" change?" (Gordon's question)

"Isn't this covered under Wikipedia:No binding decisions? the iBook of the Revolution 03:34, 16 September 2005 (UTC)"

"Wikipedia:No binding decisions?" Ah! That means my decision, vote, concensus, or whatever you want to call it, was not (permanantly) binding. I learn something new every day.--GordonWatts 12:42, 20 September 2005 (UTC) [20]

• I guess you were right after all, Wagon -at least in the long run. (In the short run, my side won.) Now, you don't go getting a big-head or anything, OK?--GordonWatts 12:48, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No_binding_decisions

Wikipedia strives for consensus to build an encyclopedia. Decisions which are made about articles or policies should not be regarded as binding. Later objections to a decision might represent a change in consensus that may need to be taken in account, regardless of whether that earlier decision was made by a poll or other method. In order to reach the best possible decisions, we hold it important to listen carefully to each other's arguments, and to try to find mutually acceptable solutions in conflicts. Polls are the exception and not the rule, and where they do exist they are not binding.

It is the nature of the wiki to be ever-changing. New people visit every day, and through new information and new ideas, we may gain insights we didn't have previously. It is important that there is a way to challenge past decisions, whether they have been reached by poll or consensus. Decisions should therefore practically never be "binding" in the sense that the decision cannot be taken back.

See also

• meta:Don't vote on everything
• How to hold a consensus vote

--GordonWatts 12:51, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Intro change

I just cut about a third of the intro out. This is relatively dramatic but not unilateral. This point is specifically addressed in the current Featured Article vote and the general issue of length and too much minutae is the most consistent problem people are raising. Marskell 09:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Further, I have reduced the GAL entry by incorporating it rather than reproducing it verbatim. Nothing significant is lost. Marskell 09:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

The good news is between us Gordon and I have knocked almost 10k off the article. However, you made 26 edits Gordon. I realize these were all an attempt to eliminate clutter and in your haste you were probably not thinking about the agreement to stick to five but part of the point was not to overwhelm others; 26 is nearly impossible to properly check (and also you are over-liberal in marking everything minor).

A few other things. I very much prefer "Schiavo" to "Terri." Last names are standard in any formal prose. Similarly, contractions are one way to eliminate clutter but I don't know if they are really appropriate. Marskell 17:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

"The good news is between us Gordon and I have knocked almost 10k off the article" I reduced it from 84 to 79 Kb earlier, so maybe we each did 5 Kb, but I just whacked it down to 45 Kb, by a unilateral split; I did not change anything substantive except (maybe) using contractions and roman numerals (eg., "instead of "blah blah said Terri could not eat for two years blah blah" turns into "instead of "blah blah said Terri couldn't eat for 2 years blah blah"). This was my initial attempt to reduce size, and it did a little, but more than anything, it bought me time to do a bigger, but minor split, and the result should fix the last problem. It is a "Featured Article" in my book.--GordonWatts 18:27, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

agreement voided

Has the agreement to limit edits to 2 per day been rendered null and void? I find no explanation for Gordon's massive string of edits. He has marked them all as "minor", but the overall diff shows large sections of text has been removed. I can assume all in the name of finding the holy grail called featured article status. Also, the intro change has stripped out the court's point of view completely. The court found that Terri was PVS, with no chance of recovery, and that she would want life support discontinued. It was there before, and now its gone. FuelWagon 17:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)