Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Archive 24

intro
Can we agree on a couple of things for the intro?

First, can we keep it in sequential order? I don't know why people like to mention the last two weeks of her life, but it's stupid to mention that, out of sequence, and then jump back to the previous 14 years leading up to it.

Second, do we HAVE to say "Terri was PVS." ??? I mean, I wrote a version that states the facts of the overwhelming diagnosis in that favor, the court rulings that affirm it, and the two doctors who said she was MCS. That is all factual, isn't it? It represents the truth, doesn't it?


 * Many more than two doctors disputed the MCS diagnosis. The Schindlers submitted dozens of affidavits from doctors who disputed the PVS diagnosis and/or said that (the doctors) they believed that Terri could benefit from therapy. NCdave 20:51, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Basically, I'm sick of fighting off the vandals and morons like NCdave who take out "Terri was PVS" and replace it with utter nonsense about how a conspiracy of doctors, the courts, the police, and her husband all conspired to get her diagnosed as PVS when she was really MCS. And I was hoping by avoiding saying the sentence "Terri was PVS" it would keep the flat-earthers away from the page. -Fuelwagon


 * "the vandals and morons like NCdave" and ''"flat earthers"" are flagrant personal attacks. Please stop it, Fuelwagon.


 * The fact is that most of the doctors who offered sworn opinions in the case disputed the PVS diagnosis. Do you think that they are all part of some sort of vast right-wing conspiracy? NCdave 20:51, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If folks can't agree on this and insist on saying "Terri was PVS" then you might as well revert the intro to what it was before I did a complete re-edit of it yesterday. My version is bulkier and there is no sense in taking on all that extra weight dancing around not saying "Terri was PVS" but listing the overwhelming evidence, if you're just going to friggen modify it to say "Terri was PVS" anyway.

Do people get my drift here? If you're going to say the three words "Terri was PVS" then the list of overwhelming evidence in the intro is pointless when people can read it later. The idea was instead to list the overwhelming evidence, including the minority of evidence that disputes it, and let the reader decide. If you can't handle this and insist on the three words "terri was PVS" being in the intro, then revert the whole intro to the way it was before I touched it yesterday.

FuelWagon 21:47, 7 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The only thing is, the statement "In every case and in every appeal, the courts ruled that Terri was in a PVS" isn't quite accurate. As I understand it, one court ruled at trial that she was in a PVS and that judgement was upheld by all of the other courts. That's a subtle but important legal distinction. If you could clarify that it would help.


 * That the ruling was made and affirmed makes the diagnosis a matter of judicial fact and is not only ipso facto NPOV but refutes a priori all challenges by others that she was MCS or whatever else someone wants to think. If NCdave could get his arms around that irrefutable legal fact (despite that he disagrees with it) a lot of his rewriting would be unnecessary. No one can legitimately claim, as a matter of fact, that she wasn't in a PVS. The courts have ruled that she was--period.


 * There is an imbalance in the mention of the the doctors in the Introduction, as elucidated in the post highlighted at the differention right here: . In short, when mentioning doctors whose presence was not mandated by the court, either mention all of them in the intro --or none of them at all; the intro mentions some "pro-PVS" doctors of this sort, but none who held an "anti-PVS" view. The fact that those who held anti-PVS views did not examine Terri is not relevent to the item's newsworthiness. The fact that they were well-credentialed in the relevent medical fields in a case of high public interest makes their mention very relevent -or newsworthy, that is, of interest to your average reader. Re-read this section and the links if you don't get it. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 09:10, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

"The fact that those who held anti-PVS views did not examine Terri is not relevent to the item's newsworthiness." That says it all. We're not writing a blog here, bucko. Newsworthiness! Whatever next? Grace Note 14:56, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, as Dr. Frist correctly pointed out, the doctors who examined Terri the longest disagreed with her PVS diagnosis. The doctors who diagnosed her as PVS all did so on the basis of very cursory examinations:
 * '"Although the court has ruled that Terri is in a Persistent Vegetative State – or PVS – many doctors are not convinced of this. Fifteen neurologists have signed affidavits that Terri should have additional testing by unbiased, independent neurologists.
 * "PVS is difficult to diagnose. A 1996 British Medical Journal study, conducted at England's Royal Hospital for Neurodisability, concluded that there was a 43% error rate in the diagnosis of PVS. It takes a lot of time to conclude that a patient is in a PVS. Unfortunately, the doctors who made the diagnosis of PVS for Terri spent very little time with her. In contrast, the doctors who concluded she is not in PVS spent a lot of time with her." NCdave 20:51, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I would think that doctors who did not examine Terri would be less relevant, but not totally unrelevant. However, as I think I've said on other occasions, let's anylize WHY they couldn't examine Terri: The court denied them, and, while this -in and of iteself -is not major "item," the fact that MANY people (not just little Flash Gordon Watts here) have a beef with the court's decisions does make this item a point of public interst, about which the public would want to be educated. Remember, we're not writing for our own benefit; we're writing for people who may not have any ide of what in the world happened. You seem at least somewhat objective and informative, and I haven't forgotten, Grace Note, when you helped me learn to put comments in the edit diffs, so I will let you think over my points, such as those above. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 02:19, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Remember, a lot of readers have a beef with the court's limitation of examination (as well as did the media, who certainly wanted to examine Terri, but maybe for different motives, lol). If you consider the concerns, feelings, and unanswered questions of "Joe Average Reader," you might be guided here. Yes, some things are minor, but when a point rocks the boat of LOTS of people, where do we draw the line and say 'minor' any longer? --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 02:19, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The diagnosis of doctors who did not examine Schiavo is worth as much as your opinion of her condition, Gordon. It's worth noting that they contested it but it does not in any way question the fact of her being in a PVS. You may not draw any conclusions from the court's not permitting agenda-pushing doctors to examine Schiavo, because Wikipedia does not allow original research, although you may cite those who drew conclusions if you like. If you can get the NY Times to print your speculations, Gordon, you can cite them in the article. However, you can only cite them in an appropriate place and you may still not draw conclusions from such citation. I do not in fact consider the feelings of "Jone Average-Reader" because I believe I'm here to educate eir, not pander to eir. Grace Note 03:08, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Are you trying to confuse me? I looked up the definition of Original research to see if that would substantiate your prior claim that the doctors' opinion = "Gordon's opinion." First, I'm not a doctor, and even my Bachelor in Science with honors in Biological and Chemical Science (double major from The Florida State University) would not make my opinion equal to theirs -because none of us had examined Terri personally, and their credentials are lots longer than mine, to easily break the tie! (The only real way I could stay on par with them would be to do something extraordinary, like what I did in court; Whether I am being a braggard or not, my feat is unequaled, lol, but this is not the point of your comments above, so let's get to your concern.) --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 04:42, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


 * "It's worth noting that they contested it but it does not in any way question the fact of her being in a PVS." You're right -it is worth noting, however, whether is questions her PVS diagnoses as having been accurate is left up to the reader. The fact that the court ruled a certain way -or that some doctors agreed with the court -is a historical fact, and you can relax regarding this point; no one's planning on snipping those out, even if we respectfully dissent with the rulings. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 04:42, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Now, on that page about Original research, I see that: "Original research refers to original research by editors of Wikipedia. It does not refer to original research that is published or available elsewhere (although such research may be excluded if editors consider the source to be disreputable or inappropriate)." Now, with that in mind, let me assure you that NUMEROUS article exist with regards to the allegations that the other doctors had offered professional opinions --and the fact that the court prevented most of them from being able to examine Terri. (I did not go and research this independently; it is "published elsewhere," as WIKI requires.) That is, WIKI clarifies that: "Original research is research that produces primary sources or secondary sources." With this definition in mind, let me assure you that I did not independently research the raw data --and then interpret it; It is published elsewhere -in many places! Thus, it is not my own original research.


 * Since the two matters (doctors' various analyese of Terri -and the fact the court said "no" to their wish to examine her first-hand) are not a mere "apple pie," they need both primary and secondary verification - (Quoting Wiki: "A mix of primary and secondary sources is preferred. In some cases, where an article makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events)." Much raw data as well as interpretation "published elsewhere" exists, but I will not link to it -just to have the link deleted -unless we come to a consensus to obey this WIKI rule, OK? Since you seem to be OK with - say, citing to the NY Times or something, maybe I will ponder your suggestion further. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 04:42, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


 * By the way, what is "eir," an abbreviation you use above? (You mean to say that you don't want to pander to each and every individual reader's pet peeves and beliefs, just educate? that's ok, but remember that many of them are not educated, i.e., may thought that Terri was as flat as a board, not moving, and hooked up to hundreds of machines, like heart-lung- and gizmo/Frankenstein medical machines, lol... --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 04:42, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I am simply not going to read endless screeds of nonsense, Gordon. Brief answers if you're addressing them to me. What I meant by original research was that you must not build cases or theories on the pages of Wikipedia. You report views, not use them as evidence for your pet theory. "Eir" is a gender neutral pronoun. Grace Note 23:49, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


 * "I do not in fact consider the feelings of "Jone Average-Reader" because I believe I'm here to educate eir, not pander to eir." 1) Is "eir" a possesive pronoun replacing "his or her" --or, instead, is it a standard pronoun (replacing "him or her")? 2) Since I still don't get the gist of eir as justification for you not wanting to educate the reader, it does not rebut your assertion. Thus, I respectfully dissent: WIKI is supposed to educate the reader; what, after all, do you think an encyclopedia is? --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 06:08, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


 * How the reader interprets the reporting of views is their business, not ours: Our business also is not to discuss the actual case, bit, instead, to report actions (that are documented with links) and views (from both sides, and again, documented). Is that breif enough, and -again -why not educate the reader, Grace? --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 06:08, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

"Schiavo" vs. "Terri"
Why were all the references to Terri Schiavo in this article changed from "Schiavo" to "Terri"? Why is Terri Schiavo different from every other human being with an article in Wikipedia? Wikipedia style is to use the subject's last name on second and later references. In the case of any ambiguity, a title can be used and, in those cases (in sentences in which both Michael and Terri Schiavo are both mentioned, for example), I also wouldn't have an objection to using "Terri" for clarity's sake. But in parts of the article where it's absolutely clear which Schiavo is being referred to: why are we now using "Terri"? That goes utterly against Wikipedia style, and is arguably a political and POV statement - as hardcore fundementalists evidently don't like seeing her husband's name (inventing "Schindler-Schiavo" in some cases, which she evidently never used. I can find sources for this usage on the web, if people haven't already seen it) and in fact they generally always referred to her just as "Terri" in any media discussions of the case.

Terri Schiavo is not a unique human being in terms of Wikipedia policy. There is no possible justification for deciding that she should be called by her first name in unambigious references, while every other person about whom there is a Wikipedia article is called by their last name. If someone thinks they have a justification, please let us in on the secret. Moncrief 01:02, May 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * This was discussed extensively in Archive 14 & Archive 23.  The MoS states it's position as a suggestion.  Mrs. Schiavo's case is certainly (& unfourtunately) not unique.  However, with the numerous references to various Schiavos, the decision was made to use Informal Style to make the article easier to read, and  to offend as few people as possible.  Other alternatives may include Journalistic Style (the Wikipedia default) or Formal.  If you are dissatisfied with Informal Sytle you may wish to change the references to Formal Style, although this will require reworking a number of sentences and references.  Since Mrs. Schiavo is recently deceased, I have argued that Journalistic Style ("Schiavo") is inappropriate.  It also makes the article much more difficult to follow.  With the passage of time, a switch to Formal, or even Journalistic, Style may be appropriate.  For now, the issue(s) is raw enough to warrant compassionate handling.--ghost 16:21, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Since Mrs. Schiavo is recently deceased, I have argued that Journalistic Style ("Schiavo") is inappropriate.


 * In other words, you're saying that you believe that journalists don't use "journalistic style" when writing about dead people? That all Wikipedia articles about dead people shouldn't use "journalistic style" (i.e., Wikipedia policy)?   I mean, if your invented "informal style" is to apply to one person who is dead, why doesn't it apply to all people who are dead?  You're making up rules to fit this one article. Why?  Moncrief 18:39, May 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm saying nothing of the sort. I am saying it's up to us.  And that myself and others have indicated a preference to something other than Journalistic Style.  Outside the U.S., journalists typically use Formal Style to refer to the recently deceased.  Informal Style is a recognized style that uses someone's first name in preference to their surname.  I would recommend the links onArchive 23or try the Manual of Style.  Rather than take offense, rewrite the article in Formal Style.  BTW, in Archive 14 the majority vote was for Mrs. over Ms.  Something I continue to disagree with, but it's a community project after all.--ghost 19:43, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I have read the archive and you don't seem to understand something that others tried to explain to you a number of times: the Ms. vs. Mrs. vote was only for ambigious references to Terri Schiavo, where it wasn't already clear which Schiavo was being referred to. At the time of that vote, there was no consensus either to change every reference from "Schiavo" to "Terri" nor to change every reference from "Schiavo" to either "Ms. Schiavo" or "Mrs. Schiavo" - ONLY the ambigious ones. Why is it so important to you that she be called "Terri" in all the unambigious references?  What is about her that necessitates such an "informal style" and not for other articles about recently-dead people on Wikipedia?  Why don't you want to call Saul Bellow "Saul" throughout his article or Susan Sontag "Susan" througout hers?  (Do you?  If so, why aren't you over there arguing this point). I suspect the answer has something to do with the POV you've brought to this article and don't seem to be able to check at the door.  Moncrief 20:42, May 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * I will freely admit to having a POV. As do you, and everyone else.  Wikipedia welcomes that.  Let me state, for the record, that I was not advocating use of Informal Style.  I was advocating that we switch to Formal.  Informal was chosen to seek a middle ground.  I didn't make those changes to this page.


 * As to your examples, they were both entertainers and/or celebrities for which the Journalistic "Sontag" is entirely appropriate, since they chose their notoriety. They were also not (to my knowledge) wrapped up in messy familial legal proceedings that were referenced repeatedly in their articles.  As to the ambiguous references, look back a few weeks to the time before the style was changed.  The article was a mess using all three styles at various places.  The suggestions in Archive 14 hadn't been followed at all.  As to my motivation...Yes, I feel that Mrs. Schiavo's memory should be treated with the upmost respect.  I feel Formal Style conveys that, as does Informal, and that Journalistic does not.


 * That said, you asked what the reasoning was. I told you why others changed it. You go after me.  Hello?--ghost 22:22, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Wait a second? Why should Terri Schaivo's memory " be treated with the upmost respect" any more than any other dead person's memory?  That is such a blantantly POV statement I don't know where to begin.   It's also POV for you to say that  Informal style, i.e. calling someone by their first name, conveys respect.  Actually, it generally conveys the opposite: familiarity, which isn't anything like respect.  It's an invention of YOUR mind that people who "choose their noteriety" should be referred to in one style and that others, whose "memories deserve [more... how else should I say it? You've quantified it by saying sh. deserves a certain type of respect that others don't] respect," should be referred to an entirely different way.  That's a total self-created belief system, and nothing to do with Wikipedia policy.  I also didn't say you couldn't have a POV. I said I think you have trouble keeping that POV in check when you hit Edit.  How else to explain this idea that Terri Schiavo "deserves" the "utmost respect" that others evidently don't deserve, and that we should refer to her in a unique way because of it.   Moncrief 22:31, May 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, that fact that I have a POV does not make me any more or less empowered in this matter. And, as you've ignored, I have made quite an effort to keep my POV here, rather than in the article.  The Talk section is were POV should be welcomed, not flamed.  I agree that Informal is less respectful than Formal.  I told you, it was someone else's compromise.  If you don't like it, fix it.  As to "people of noteriety", this guideline is in every Manual of Style I've been able to find via the Web, and some that I've checked offline, including the Chicago MoS.  Finally, I don't think Mrs. Schiavo should receive singular treatment.  In fact, I spent alot of effort on the Village Pump and the MoS Talk page trying to get a clarification on if the editors of the article have the right to choose the style.  We do.  Every person, imo, deserves to be treated with respect upon death.  Mrs. Schiavo is unusual in this regard because the events around became famous, not because she chose to be that way.  Thus, I feel she deserves the respect accorded to every private person in Formal Style.  Her, and you, and me.--ghost 23:21, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Theresa Marie Schindler Schiavo or just Theresa Marie Schiavo?
In the very first sentence of the article and in the infobox, it has her name listed as "Theresa Marie Schiavo". Would it be more appropriate to include her maiden name or just leave it as it is? I would include her maiden name, but considering this is a very controversial article and that I'm also rather new, I wanted to get people's opinions first. Thanks! Columbia 05:49, May 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that "Theresa Marie Schiavo, née Schindler" would be technically accurate, if not pedantic, and "Theresa Marie (Schindler) Schiavo" as is seen in high school reunion documents, would also suffice.


 * The hyphenated version used by some advocates is grossly POV and would probably offend her were she around to opine about it. Such a use is quite unconventional and represents a specific personal statement by a woman and is not one conferred by someone else. I'm unaware of any evidence that she ever used it.

RickK deleted quotations to the law -an inappropriate censure.
After I figured out how to use this technically difficult editing process, I notice that the citations to the law I posted -and linked -were deleted.

NickK writes on a discussion page "Your edits to the Terri Schiavo article are problematic. Your personal opinion as to her treatment and the legality of her even being placed in a hospice have no place in the article. RickK 06:22, May 9, 2005 (UTC)"

Maby I was a little "biased" by stating that Greer violated the law (as a statement of fact), but that is in keeping with the intro in which it states that Terri "spent the last 15 years of her life in a persistent vegetative state (PVS)." Both her PVS classification *and* her "terminal" classification (which allowed her to be placed in hospice care) are disputed, and may not belong here as de facto statements.

In my opinion, Nick was out of line by carte blanche deleting the who section in his May 09 edits. He also deleted links to pages on The Register, at which I am the editor in chief ("my pages," so to speak). This may seem appropriate if I am promoting myself, but review those pages and note that these are in fact resources, particularly the "Court Cases" compilation -good resources no less than Abstract Appeal's slanted viewpoint that the judges never violated some laws. (Abstract Appeal is usually pretty good, but once in a while gets a little "slanted" or biased.)

What is the consensus of the community regarding these two points.

1) How the view points are displayed: Should the "PVS" classification really be shown as "She's in PVS?" ~ Or, instead, should it not be listed as "The trial court found Terri in PVS, and all the higher courts upheld this definition"?

2) Should NickK be permitted to willy nilly delete my links to the law? (If you disagree with him, you may revert back, as I am sometimes too busy.)

By allowing people like Nick to delete opposing points of view, Wiki becomes biased, but I am open to the idea of changing the language in my edits from a statement of fact to say, instead, that "many feel that Greer broke the following laws..." with an explanation.--Gordon Wayne WattsGordon Wayne Watts, Lakeland, FL, USAW 03:22, May 9, 2005 (EST)

Oops~ I was trying to place this comment in the little "archive" section at the top, not take up half a page, or something, but I raise two important concept points that need to be mulled on: I will leave this post and wait for replies.

Before you answer, keep in mind that the community will not accept some disputed things listed as facts and others listed as "some peoples' opinions" ~ maybe it would be best to state most or all of the points as differing points of view, even if they're fact. Secondly, removing brief cites to the law is arbitrary and heavy-handed. I challange anyone anywhere to disagree with that assessment. (Removal of links to my web paper, The Register, is not as serious as deletion of a cite to a relevent law, but listing of "my pages" was still a relevent link that fit in with the othetr links, and I would hope that my colleagues would see fit to support linking them, as much as you might want to link a relevent site you've created or found somewhere.)--Gordon W. WattsGordon Wayne Watts, Lakeland, FL, USAW 03:28, May 9, 2005 (EST)


 * Wikipedia has strict guidelines against vanity. If your pages are indeed relevant, and unbiased, then someone else will add it.
 * And no, trying to add it with an anonymous IP or a single-post sockpuppet does not count.--Fangz 16:02, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Gordon, it's unfortunate that you feel Wiki is awkward. It's better than some others.  Oh, and you're thoughts will be archived in due time.  I have deleted some of your links prior to today with reget and only following careful review.  As to your contention that Judge Greer violated the law, I dispute it and deem it inappropriate on several levels:


 * Most of the laws in question are local or state, and were ruled in violation of the Florida or US Constitutions
 * Judge Greer's decisions in these matters were upheld by the Appellate, Florida, US District & US Supreme Courts
 * The plaintiffs in the effected cases exhausted their appeals, or neglected to pursue the issue


 * Thus, the issue of Judge Greer's alleged infractions is moot and heresay. At best, one could contend that, "...it is alleged...".  To do otherwise is unwise, incorrect and potentially libelous.  If you wish to do so in your paper, so be it.  It's inappropriate here.  As to your questions: 1) the diagnosis issue was discussed at length in the Archives with the concensus being that the article should use what was upheld in the various appeals. 2)Absolutely.  I am too busy to undo most of your work.  Or NCDave's, or FuelWagon's.  This is the strength and weakness of Wikipedia & any opensource project.  It is the sum of you and me and 1000 other contributors.--ghost 17:27, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

GHOST, thank you for replying. I am getting the hang of it, but let me point out that only ONE law was ruled unconstitutional -the Terri's Law that was "hastily passed" back in 2003. All the others were NOT. (Show me one other law that was ruled unconstitutional...)

The fact that Greer's decisions were upheld is moot for two reasons:
 * "Two (or 3 or 4...) wrongs don't make a right, even if those two ( or 3 or 103) wrongs are committed by different judges.
 * The law is the law, and the judges rulings were in conflict with the varios laws.
 * Your 2nd and 3rd points are the same, that the matters were upheld on appeal, and that appeals were exhausted. You are right here, but the rulings (and appeals) violated the law.


 * Where were you when your civics class covered American jurisprudence? The judiciary interprets the laws. The checks and balances in place for potential judicial error is the appeals system. When a judge rules a fact and it is affirmed on appeal, it becomes the law of the land. So, yes, two (or 3 or 4...) rulings do make a right in this country.


 * The appeals system in only one check and balance; others include the ability to impeach (both judges and governors and presidents) as well as the ability to call out the national guard. Also, two wrongs don't make a right, no matter who committed them. See e.g., my discussion on the Dred Scott decision, where the US Supreme Court ruled that Blacks were slaves, an upheld on appeal a lower court ruling saying the same thing. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 15:09, 10 May 2005 (UTC)


 * If, as you assert, Judge Greer's rulings were in conflict with various laws, how do you explain that they were upheld on appeal, multiple times, by various courts? There are only two possible explanations: all of the other judges and courts engaged in a vast conspiracy to subvert the statutes or you are dead wrong in your assertion. There's no third choice.


 * Let's get one thing straight - I never said there was a "conspiracy," even if there were, so don't accuse me of the conspiracy theory accusation. How do I explain they were upheld and could still be wrong? You're saying then, that it couldn't happen? I'll prove you wrong. See below, where I posted to ghost: "In Dred Scott v. John Sanford, a MAJORITY of the HIGHEST court in the land, not to long ago held that "[T]he negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit." Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, writing for the Court. Dred Scott v. John F. Sanford 15 L.Ed. 691; 19 How. 393; 60 US 393 at 407.(US 1857))." (Let me point, Fuel Wagon, out that below I listed links to search engined, so I won't repeat myself here.) Whether it's a conspiracy, or merely a bunch of dumb judges acting individually, I don't know, and it doesn't matter -Most of the judges ruled incorrectly, and proof that it is not impossible is given by many stupid court ruling, particularly the case cited here. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 15:09, 10 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Just because you (or NCdave) don't like a judge's ruling doesn't mean the judge was wrong (or acted illegaly).


 * Are you a lawyer? I'm guessing you're not, particularly based on your point #2 above (not to mention some of the spelling and grammar I see on your blog). If that's the case, perhaps you should consult one to see just what the incidence of unchecked judicial error is in our system. That's what you're saying when you assert that Greer, the 2nd CoA, the FL Supreme Court, the Federal Court, and the U.S. Supreme Court not only violated the law, but failed to reverse or at least remand for correction the error. Remember, an opinion different from yours not only isn't illegal, it's probably not even wrong.


 * You ask me if I'm a lawyer, and it's not simply because you're curious, but your clear insinuation is that I must be a lawyer to understand what in the heck I'm talking about. I will undermine that premise.


 * For example, we need only look at the U.S. Supreme Court justices; they are the highest lawyers in the land. (Yes, judges are merely advance lawyers because they must be lawyers before becoming judges under our current system.) Alright, you have the nine HIGHEST American Lawyers regularly disagree over a wide range of subjects and split 5-4 on many decisions. Now, obviously one side is wrong, as their votes are mutually exclusive --either they should have voted for or against a certain case. So, you're telling me that lawyers are smart? They may have book knowledge and technical information about laws, but in areas of common sense, they fall pitifully short. (Probably a good reason there are many lawyer jokes, but not nearly as many as for, say, janitors or plumbers.)


 * Furthermore, I got further than ANY lawyer, so that alone is proof that one need not be a lawyer to go far. True, I lost, but no one else got a 4-3 decision on any case or any rehearing motion. The closest anyone came to me was when Bush was defeated 4-3 for his motion to amend a petition (make a minor typo correction or the like). He was shot down 7-0 for his rehearing, much worse than what happened to me, so don't even go there.


 * As far as minor typos, we all make spelling errors, and considering what I get paid to fight for Terri, I do pretty good. Even on an absolute scale, FUEL WAGON, I make relatively few spelling or grammatical errors, so don't monkey with another man's monkey. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 15:30, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Your point that my allegations are hearsay is a good point, and, like I said, I will make that correction in my presentation --even IF I am right, I probably won't present it as fact but merely one theory.

FANGZ, your comment is not a bad idea, but sometimes a person has to toot his own horn. After all, you didn't wait for someone to post for you --you posted for yourself. Links to my pages truly belong with the other pages, because that section is for biased commentary, and all the pages listed there fit. Links to my court cases page belong also, as this is merely a compilation of many court cases, some of them mine --with little or no commentary. However, I will probably not post links to my webpages in their places at this time. Since I have not corrected the slight bias that I introduced when I posted certain things as fact, I do not deserve to post my links.

FUEL WAGON made some good comments on that subject above, when he suggested no one say Terri was PVS unless they offer documentation --and implied that it might not be a good idea at all. (I got the feeling he way suggesting we merely post the points of view as "points of view," not as fact.) His suggestions have merit, and it is with regret that I tore into his comments, but I answered him here all the same:


 * Whoah there. Don't drag me into this out of context. I tried rewriting the intro to avoid saying "Terri was PVS" simply because flat-earthers like you can't seem to get it into your thick skull that she was PVS and I'd rather morons who think they're a lawyer/neurologist stop vandalizing the friggen page. Every day or two some knucklehead comes in and whines "you can't say she is PVS because this is disputed." Well, that's not how it works. Flat earthers dispute the earth is round, but their fucking morons. Same goes for the ignoramousus who can't seem to get that Terri was PVS and a moron with a dispute doesn't change that fact. FuelWagon 22:13, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GordonWattsDotCom

Although he was a butt-H*le here, I think I will survive, and in absentia I will accept his apology if he feels he was wrong there.


 * Wrong?!?!? Hell no. You tried justifying putting links to your personal website on the main Terri Schiavo article and that is complete horseshit. I checked out your site and it is complete POV conspiracy theories, through and through. Oh, and if you insist on writing massive tomes on the talk page that span many many paragraphs, you might want to consider signing each paragraph so the rest of us can figure out where your stuff ends and where someone's reply begins. FuelWagon 22:13, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * So? A lot of websites are biased, like for example, the Terri's Fight and Terri's blogs, and such. So, why aren't you deleting those websites? Afraid you'd get disciplined and banned, blocked, etc.? In all truth, my websites are less biased than the Terri's Fight, because I am not an immediate family member of Terris Schiavo, and thus have some objectivity, even if I agree with some of their views. QUESTION: Why don't you delete them, if you're so all over it for deleting biased links, which those are? ''(Another question that you can't and won't answer. Maybe you should take a deap breath and go out for a snack or something... go fuel up, Wagon.) --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 01:34, 10 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey, knucklehead, get your story straight. Someone ELSE deleted your biased, vanity links, not me. you whined about it on the talk page. And I posted a reply saying they deserved to be deleted. go bitch and whine to THEM about deleting links and whether they're afraid of being banned. why don't you go out for a snack and pay attention to who you're bad mouthing. FuelWagon 04:08, 10 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey FuelWagon, please cease your name-calling. NCdave 20:54, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey, FUEL WAGON, "LEARN TO READ" - I never ever said that you deleted anything! I simply asked why you didn't delete the other links, and you can't understand that I'm not accusing you of deleting anything, so it's no wonder you can't put together a cogent answer... **sigh** Yes, I do recall who deleted some of my edits, namely Rick. Of course, I made edits where I linked to and/or quoted State Law, and these edits were not deleted, which makes sense.


 * You fucking asshole. Here is your [diff]. and here are the excerpts from it why aren't you deleting those websites? Why don't you delete them, if you're so all over it for deleting biased links. Wagon Fuel never tells us why he's deleting the Gordon Watts links So don't give me this bullshit that you never accused me of deleting your precious vanity links. fuck off. FuelWagon 16:52, 10 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I apologize for missing that. You must think I can remember everthing like some sort of computer. Let me tell you, in no uncertain terms, that I did a page search of the word delete and did not see that post of mine. I probably thought it was written by someone else as it was written in the third person. Remember, Fuel Wagon, when I did my search, I was still quite new and did not fully have a feel of the page formatting. (Also, your aberrant behavior may have been what initially caused me to think you were deleting my posts; If it quacks like a duck, it just may be a duck, so, if you don't want me to think you're a "delete posts" duck, stop quacking unnecessary complaints.)


 * OK, now that I'm owned up to my mistake (which occasionaly does happen), let me answer your other question, about why don't I delete those links. ANSWER: The look like relevent links. (If the only mistake I ever made was overlooking some post, tantamount to a typo, things would be great; Have you ever made a faux pas mistake?) --172.135.172.203 18:43, 10 May 2005 (UTC)


 * You must think I can remember everthing like some sort of computer., stop quacking unnecessary complaints Wow. I don't know why, but after reading that, it almost feels like its my fault that you wrongly accused me of deleting your links. Have you ever made a faux pas mistake? Yeah, plenty of times. and when I do, I don't blame anyone but myself. FuelWagon 00:07, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, you're the one that started slinging mud, and when I answered you, you blew a gasket. I never called your name; you, on the other hand, called me, and most of what you said was wrong. In a few areas where I overstepped my place, I made an apology and changed my direction, so don't get all bent about me "whining" -- that's what you did, and I answered all your criticisms where I've seen them, so chill out. (PS: Most people wouldn't admit they did anything wrong; you should be glad I did admit I may have been wrong in stating certain things as facts where they were disputed.

--GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 14:58, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Gordon Wayne Watts, Lakeland, FL, USA 15:29, May 9, 2005 (EST)


 * Show me one other law that was ruled unconstitutional... *picks up gauntlet*
 * Dismissal of petition to invoke all writs, by the Florida Supreme Court in reference to the Congressional subpoenas
 * Refusal to overturn ruling against retrial en blanc of the Palm Sunday Compromise by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals
 * Bush v. Schiavo, by the Florida Supreme Court in reference to Gov. Bush's authority
 * Need I go on? The supreme law of the land is the U.S. Constitution (last time I checked).  This is interperted by the judiciary, not the legislative or executive branches.  Thus, a legislative or executive body can enact a law that the sky is green.  It is then green until it is ruled upon in court.  Then is becomes what the courts rule it to be.  Therefore, since the courts have ruled unanimously in favor of Judge Greer's decisions, he never broke the law.  Because said laws were never valid to begin with.  Welcome to U.S. Law 101.  Have a nice day.--ghost 22:00, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

That is a very valient attempt, and you make some good points, namely that the courts more or less unanimously disagreed with the other two branches and the "Save Terri" side. However, as unfortunate (and wrong) as I think that was, I don't dispute that it actually happened. Nonetheless, ghost, please notice that the things the courts ruled on were all decisions in interpreting the law (except that one case of Terri's Law) -- all the laws that were used by both sides were ALL accepted as valid State and Federal Laws...all, that is, except the Terri's Law.

Now, building on the premise that both sides accepted all the laws as valid (e.g., constitutional), then we have a valid basis for me to post laws as "fact," which are unbiased and objective. Let me re-iterate and conclude: NONE of the laws -except the Terri's Law -were overturned as invalid / unconstitutional and thus cancelled out except the "state" Terri's Law passed in 2003. None were even questioned, except that one and the "Federal" Terri's Law, the "federal habeas review" law --but, even in that case, GHOST, we see that the courts never ruled that law unconstitutional --and CERTAINLY they NEVER "overruled" as unconstitutional this law here: Florida Law 825.102(3), which, if you read real closely, you'll see was violated by Greer. He denied not only feeding tubes, but also food, and remember that chapter 825 felony law makes NO excpetions for perople if they're "PVS," "terminal," or even if it's "their wishes," or even I fthe've got eating difficulties. (They refused to test Terri in recent times; what were they trying to hide, I wonder?)


 * what were they trying to hide, I wonder? OK, that does it. You're now in my "crackpot conspiracy theorist" list. Terri couldn't swallow. She was PVS. If Terri was consciously aware, responding to voices, and perfectly capable of swallowing, (she even snuck out to play tennis when no one was watching), the conspiracy required to pull it off for so many years and so many doctors and so many court cases is outrageous. I can only conclude you have a weak grasp on reality and a strong grasp on whatever dogma you cling to. Go play with your bible and stop trying to hang galileo. FuelWagon 23:16, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, that does it. You're now in my "crackpot conspiracy theorist" list. You didn't answer my question; Why didn't they test Terri to see if she really could eat or drink, FUEL WAGON? You simply stated your conclusion, the thing I asked you to prove, and then you used that unproved and unproven conclusion as proof. Can someone say "circular longic," or maybe "begging the question."


 * see previous post about "unfalsifibility" and conspiracy theories. See also "burden of proof" with regards to the person making the assertion. sorry, no "circular logic" or "begging the question" on my part, just pointing out your unfalsifiable, totally unproven, logical fallacy. FuelWagon 04:22, 10 May 2005 (UTC)


 * You know, you really seemed normal, but you're busting loose in rabid slobbering, of late. Let me tell you that if you really had an argument, you'd use it, not just make fun of the other side and sling names like crackpot.


 * Ok, let me help you out here: You know why they didn't test Terri? Well, for one, she might be able to eat and drink a little, and this would embarrass the "good judge" who had, for so many years, denied her testing, therapy, rehab, etc.


 * For another, if she talked, testimony of spousal abuse might ensue, and don't give me that "PVS" lame excuse: Even IF she wasn't able to talk, she might have been able to point to a keyboard, kind of like this kid I saw in Believer's Fellowship, where I went to church yesterday morning. This fellow sort of flopped around like Terri Schiavo did when she was alive, but when I asked him his name, he pointed out on a keyboard on his wheelchair "W-I-L-L," and thus we wonder if Terri could've done similar. Let me tell you, Mike Schiavo would have NO motive for wanting her to stay silent and be denied speech therapy --unless he beat her. (Mind you, I'm not accusing him; I don't know his motives ~ maybe he's just weird or crazy, lol.)


 * if she talked, testimony of spousal abuse might ensue And monkeys might fly out your butt. And the world might be flat. and elvis might be alive. and you might be a twit. (mind you, I'm not calling you a twit, I'm just saying it might be true.) FuelWagon 04:23, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

The Great Fuel Wagon wouldn't answer my question because all roads lead to my answer above. Better fuel up a little more before trying this lame logic. (Hint: Simply avoiding a question is not the right way to win converts to your point of view.) BOTTOM LINE: We have no busniess debating the views, as this page itself says: "Please Use This Talk Page Correctly...The Talk pages are not a place to debate which views are right or wrong or better." We should simply accept that others views differ and be glad that we are able to contribute to the chronicle of the history in an unbiased way, and not feel the need to name call if we want to disagree with some point of view. I didn't even disagree with you; I simply asked why she would be denied examination if the courts had nothing to hide; maybe it was your guilty conscience that provoked you? "Remember, an opinion different from yours not only isn't illegal, it's probably not even wrong," as you said above --is still true for all of us, including you. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 01:22, 10 May 2005 (UTC)


 * What is your problem? I didn't answer your question because what are they trying to hide? is an assinine conspiracy theory that is UNFALSIFIABLE. don't get all logical falacy on me when you're asking me to disprove something that is unfalsifiable. "prove to me they don't have something to hide." Sorry. Logic don't work that way. You make the assertion that they're up to something, then you gotta supply the evidence to prove it. i.e. wikipedia cannot say Greer and Michael are in conspiracy unless you can prove it. She was denied swallowing tests because she had already had several and failed and because there was nothing to show that VitalStim would work on a PVS patient. No guilty conscious here. just someone who refuses to swallow your conspiracy theory. FuelWagon 04:15, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

You can read the law and my post her and come to your own conclusions, but you see what I'm saying... (PS: I wasn't using CAPITOL letters to yell, only bold face stuff, and I don't know the bold face or underline funtion yet; maybe next time.)--Gordon Wayne Watts, Lakeland, FL, USA 18:31, May 9, 2005 (EST)

It's Rick, by the way. :) Gordon, thanks for remaining civil, a lot of people don't when their personal opinions are challenged.  See FuelGauge above.  I deleted the links to your page because they are vanity links, which are deprecated on Wikipedia, and they don't add anything new to the argument.  I also deleted your interpretations of Florida law because, as said, they were your personal interpretations, and violations of the Wikipedia policy of Neutral point of view.  If you want to point to a legal expert who supports your contentions, then by all means, add them in a neutral style.  But they're moot, since all of the legal appeals decided that your points are not valid in Florida or federal law, so they also don't really mean much in the whole scheme of things.  So far as I know, none of your interpreations were argued before the courts, and even if they were, the courts ruled otherwise.  RickK 22:42, May 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey, Dick, I mean, Prick, er, uhm Rick, I get uncivil when assholes accuse me of deleting their links and harassing me about it, WHEN I DIDN"T FUCKING DELETE THEM. SOMEONE ELSE DID. I also get uncivil when assholes throw out conspiracy theories like "what are they trying to hide?", something that is unfalsifiable, with no evidence to support it, and they start HARASSING ME ABOUT LOGICAL FALLACIES, BEGGING THE QUESTION, AND CIRCULAR LOGIC. And I get uncivil when someone gets condescending towards me, telling everyone how "uncivil" I am, WHEN THEY"RE OBVIOUSLY TALKING OUT THEIR ASS AND HAVE NO CLUE WHAT"S BEEN GOING ON LATELY. FuelWagon 04:33, 10 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Uh, Fuel Wagon, See the section a few paragraphs above this where it says "Hey, FUEL WAGON, "LEARN TO READ" - I never ever said that you deleted anything!"


 * As far as me asking you a question, yes I did ask you what they judge had to hide. Maybe he had nothing to hide, and if that was the case, you could've said so, but then that begs another question: If the judge had nothing to hide, then he must have had another reason for insisting Terri get no swallowing tests and trying to order her immediately cremated upon death. That effort didn't quite happend, but he did succeed in making sure she got no swallowing tests and was not examined by additional doctors, who would have examined and treated her for free. So, you get upset at me asking a question? Better go in for a checkup -you have a low threshold for irritation. I'd hate to see what happens if someone really did violate your rights or something, ... --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 15:37, 10 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Um, Gordon, I think you need to hit the caselaw links. In the second, re:Palm Sunday Compromise, the 11th Circuit actually states that the Compromise was unconstitutional.  There's your other case.  As if that wasn't enough, the other rulings state violation of Seperation of Powers, which is unconstitutional.  In fact, although only two rulings use the word, every other ruling points to conflicts with either the Florida or U.S. Constitution.  But I digress.  You are incorrect in your fundemental premise that, "all the laws that were used by both sides were ALL accepted as valid State and Federal Laws".  Once they were ruled against, these sections of these laws no longer applyied to the case.  Thus, for Judge Greer, it became No Harm, No Foul.  You are welcome to disagree.  Many of us do.  That is irrelevant.  We CANNOT state as fact that Judge Greer, or anyone else, committed a crime for which he (or they) has not been found guilty.  Much less, even indited on.--ghost 23:07, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

GHOST, the other Terri's Law may HAVE been overturned; I don't recall, but my point being that the other laws were not --even IF they were not applied to this case. Your inuendo that lack of indictment is proof Greer is innocent is no less false than a claim that the Dred Scot judges were innocent bacause they weren't charged with high crimes in their ruling that Blacks were slaves. (They were not charged, but they WERE guilty, and their ruling led to the Civil War.)

In Dred Scott v. John Sanford, a MAJORITY of the HIGHEST court in the land, not to long ago held that "[T]he negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit." Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, writing for the Court. Dred Scott v. John F. Sanford 15 L.Ed. 691; 19 How. 393; 60 US 393 at 407.(US 1857)).

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22negro+might+justly+and+lawfully+be+reduced+to+slavery%22

http://msxml.excite.com/info.xcite/search/web/%2522negro%2Bmight%2Bjustly%2Band%2Blawfully%2Bbe%2Breduced%2Bto%2Bslavery%2522

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=%22negro+might+justly+and+lawfully+be+reduced+to+slavery%22&fr=FP-tab-web-t&toggle=1&ei=UTF-8

RICK, I was the first person anywhere to do a habeas or QUO WARRANTO, and many of my arguments or tactics WERE in fact borrowed by others like Pat Anderson, and possibly David Gibbs, who definitely compied some of my legal moves, as I recall when I was in the Tampa court and heard him argue before Wittemore.

“Gordon, thanks for remaining civil” No problem Rick. Now, you talk that "legal expert" language, eh?

At: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FuelWagon I claim to be the foremost legal expert. Let me quote from his page:

OPEN QUOTES I was the most successful litigant on the "losing" side, the side that lost in court. Compare how well I did in court with the lame governor, and ignore, for a moment (if you could) that he got lots of press, and I didn't.

Now, just why do you think that I scored better than the Gov.: http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk/disposition/2004/10/04-925reh.pdf who lost 7-0 on rehearing motion, when I lost here: http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk/disposition/2005/2/03-2420reh.pdf in the SAME case 4-3, trying to save Terri? (He got a 4-3 decision to amend his petition, but that was minor; when we both tried to get rehearing, I was more successful, and NO ONE else got a higher percentage of panel votes in attempts to dave Terri: My 4-3 loss represented about 42 or 43% of my panel. You do the math,...) "Things that make you go 'hmm...'." CLOSE QUOTES (My case was SC03-2320, Bush's case was SC04-925; I probably did better because he asked that new law be written, whereas I asked that enforcement of current law be had, where current state laws on abuse were pretty good.)

However, RICK, it is perfectly ok to post the fact that some people dispute, for example, a disgnosis of PVS, or that some people felt hospice wasn't appropriate, and it's furthermore OK list some relevent law. (So long as both interpretations are mentioned, and the outcome is mentioned, it's OK; In fact, sometimes there may be 3 or 4 possible theories as to what happened.) That's merely reporting the events as they happened. The fact I might add a cite to a law is actually pretty mandatory, and certainly welcomed.

Earlier, FUEL WAGON said: "Second, do we HAVE to say "Terri was PVS." ??? I mean, I wrote a version that states the facts of the overwhelming diagnosis in that favor" 172.138.142.29 I had initially interpreted that to mean that he didn't want people to say she was PVS unless they offered proof. Actually, I think he meant that they didn't NEED to say she was PVS because the proof was supposedly overwhelming.

While I initially may have misinterpreted him, his point was a good one: Doon't list conclusions, just facts.

However, I thought that the standard was to go ahead and list something as a fact if you could back it up, which ticked off the community... oops!

Now that I've decided to list the various alternatives, and list them as theories, WIKI can get a true encyclopaedic description of various viewpoints, so I don't see why that approach can't be taken. (When I quote a law that has been accepted as OK by all sides, I will list it as "fact." When I list an interpretation, I will list it as a theory.)

After all, even though we know that the earth is NOT flat and that Jews are NOT inferior, I'm sure various encyclopedias have entries that chronicle the fact that these viewpoints were held by some people, and offering some of their arguments.

Does this approach not have merit? Thx for the collective review to my colleagues. --Gordon Wayne Watts, Lakeland, FL, USA 19:13, May 9, 2005 (EST)

Wagon Fuel is creating lots of discussion in the category above.
In the category above, it is hard to tell, but Wagon Fuel never tells us why he's deleting the Gordon Watts links (that are admitedly somewhat biased) and not deleting the Terri's Fight / Terri's Blogs, etc.,. websites which (by their very name) are real biased.


 * I made a typo here; Fuel Wagon was apparently not the one deleting my posts, but his complaints made me believe this, and later when he complained I was falsely accusing him, I could not find my post here and remembered only that RickK deleted my links. I apologized for my oversight above. All the same, differing theories (and the arguments supporting and opposing said arguments) are a part of history, and should be recorded in the Encyclopedia, er... WIKIpedia --172.135.172.203 18:54, 10 May 2005 (UTC)


 * And, apparently I also forgot to be signed in when I posted that. "Not this time," though. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 19:02, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

He also never tells us why the Judge was so adament on refusing to test Terri Schiavo for an ability to eat or drink or get speech therapy or physical rehabilitation, etc.

I'm making this new category because he dialogue above is so convaluted and hard to follow, so here's the heads up. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 01:48, 10 May 2005 (UTC)


 * look, jerkoff, you're really pissing me off now. You're the one generating a lot of discussion here, not me. You throw out conspiracy theories with no evidence and ride my ass because I don't disprove them? My logic is convoluted and hard to follow? What the fuck? You don't HAVE any logic. You have UNANSWERED QUESTIONS. what do they have to hide? that's not logic you moron, that's begging the question, and the lack of an answer does NOT mean its true. YOU have to prove they have something to hide. I don't have to disprove this kind of crap. you have to prove it. Stop talking about logic because its painfully clear you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. logic requires that the person making the assertion supply the proof. You don't get to jump to the conclusion and demand that I disprove all possibilities. That aint logic. it's pulling conclusions out your ass. FuelWagon 04:40, 10 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Get a grip Fuel Wagon. You don't need to cuss to make a point. Number TWO, I don't believe I ever said there was a "conspiracy," but even if I had, I would have evidence, namely the laws of the land clearly state in section 825.102(3) of Florida Statutes that it's illegal to deny a handicapped or elderly person food or necessary medical services. In case you didn't know, a judge is allowed to interpret the law, not rewrite it. (This is legislation from the bench and is prohibited by the separation of powers limitations.) If the judge doesn't like the law, he can ask his lawmaker to change the laws... I don't have to prove anything, because it is already proved in the law. Let me quote it for you, if you can be literate enough to read -" "Neglect of an elderly person or disabled adult" means: A caregiver's failure or omission to provide an elderly person or disabled adult with the care, supervision, and services necessary to maintain the elderly person's or disabled adult's physical and mental health, including, but not limited to, food...A person who willfully or by culpable negligence neglects an elderly person or disabled adult without causing great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to the elderly person or disabled adult commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084." Dig? Got it yet? --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 15:48, 10 May 2005 (UTC)


 * It seems pretty clear that the Gordon Watts link is a vanity link, which are generally discouraged. As for the second one, there's a lot of speculation inherent in that, which is probably a bad idea unless it's comprehensively cited.  Furthermore, if the judge agreed with the PVS diagnosis, then by definition she can't eat, drink, etc. so personally I don't see why we need to say anything about it.  JYolkowski // talk 02:01, 10 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Which link? I have several, some of them "commentary and advocacy," placed in the right categories, and some of them flat hard facts and court docs. Maybe you are a vanity link, but let me assure you that listing ones own website is NOT forbidden, so long as the person has contributed something. I did better than Jeb: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2005/2/prweb212613.htm ...so I guess this qualifies me -whether or not I got lots of press on it. Look at the vanity page from WIKI: "An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous. There is presently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required for a page to be included in Wikipedia (although consensus exists regarding particular kinds of article, for instance see WP:MUSIC). Lack of fame is not the same as vanity...Furthermore, an article is not "vanity" simply because it was written by its subject. Articles about existing books, movies, games, and businesses are not "vanity" so long as the content is kept to salient material and not overtly promotional."


 * If you feel the link is relevant, I would suggest getting someone else to add it. That would render my previous argument invalid.  JYolkowski // talk 20:56, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Ok, that being said, here are comments I made to someone who claims to be neutral, but may not be, and I make them here to save them in case some nut deletes them... Compilations

COMMENTS: --NEUTRALITY, you edited out the web pages linking court documents; That was not very neutral. You also did not leave a comment about it. Do me two favors: #1 either leave a comments explaining why Conigliaro's page of documents remains, while you deleted mine, and don't give me that "biased" stuff: All the pages are biaed, including Conigliaro's because he makes the biased claims, in a recent Sp Times article, in which Conigliaro said that judge Greer followed the law: http://sptimes.com/2005/04/30/Tampabay/Lawyer_shares_lessons.shtml #2 FAVOR: Please tell me how I can include a comment when I edit something. JUST TO GET YOU ATTENTION NEUTRALITY, I will repost the court doc links, and expect an answer pronto. These pages are court documents, and let me remind you that I got further than both Conigliaro and Bush combined, in my near win in court: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2005/2/prweb212613.htm "Florida Supreme Court splits 4-3 on surprise last-minute filing in Terri Schiavo Case," so I contributed a little more than them or you, and thus I and my court doc web pages are a part of history, jsut as is Conigliaro, Bush, Gibbs, etc. GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida Now, don't start a Wiki war: You know I am right and that you have no valid complaint; You're just picking on me because I'm less well known than the former, and that is not a valid reason to pick on me. The pages are documents, not advocacy; LEAVE THEM ALONE!


 * The Register's Geo mirror compliation (legal documents relating to the Schiavo case)
 * The Register's Hometown mirror compliation (legal documents relating to the Schiavo case)

Advocacy and commentary

COMMENTS: This is advocacy, and it IS expected that these pages will be biased and NOT objective, so please do not go deleting them willy nilly. If you delete a page for being BIASED ADVOCACY, then please wait until a COMMENTARY ADVOCACY page appears as something it's not!!


 * Terri Schindler-Schiavo Foundation
 * Abstract Appeal
 * Blogs For Terri
 * The Empire Journal
 * The Register Geo mirror
 * The Register Hometown mirror
 * End-of-Life Choices
 * Hospice Patients Alliance
 * Compassion in Dying, End of Life Choices
 * Links and Dialogue re Schiavo by Reason McLucus & Jalexson

--GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 02:53, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Swallowing Tests
It is clear from some of the dialogue above and in the archives that the Flat Earthers have not even read relevant materials. If you would only read the Wolfson report you would see that Terri had swallowing tests on three different occasions; 1991, '92, and '93. What did you think recent tests were going to show; that after twelve years in whatever state you want to call it that she had regained her ability to swallow when more recent CT scans had shown increased cortex atrophy? Please, do yourself and the rest of us a favor and go read the report. Or is Wolfson part of your grand conspiracy?

Well, hello, person who doesn't sign your name! If swallowing tests were such a bad idea, then why did Wolfson reccomend that Terri have swallowing tests performed in his GAL report? Maybe you should go back there and do your homework.

(condescending and ironic lecture snipped)

--GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 03:01, 10 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Again, read the report. Wolfson was trying to forge common ground between Schiavo and the Schindlers. Getting them to agree to swallowing tests was part of that mission. Schiavo was convinced from the '91, '92, '93 tests and didn't see the necessity of confirming what had already been confirmed--three times. You and others seem to need four. The Schindlers were hanging their hat on any scrap of hope they could find; witness the 4½ minutes of video out of four+ hours they released. Person who doesn't sign his (or her) name. (Get over it.)

Would someone please tell me how I can place comments in the history page to explain why I changed what I change? For example, Moncreif graciously fixed a spelling error where I said "lot's" instead of "lots" --and he made a comment about it being an embarrassing error in the history page. How'd he do that, somebody...?

--GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 03:06, 10 May 2005 (UTC) (Which is really 11:06pm or so in Eastern Standard Time)


 * When you click on "Edit", a box with the text to edit is opened. Just underneath that box, it says "Edit summary".  There may be something in that field, to show what part of the page you're editing (unless you clicked on the option of editing the whole page;  that option is at the top).  If has something filled in that shows the part of the page you're editing, it will have /* at the beginning, and */ at the end.  As I type these words, the Edit summary says, /*Swallowing Tests*/ . Just  type a summary of your change immediately after the /*    */ bit.  So, it could say "/*Swallowing Tests*/ removed comma", or something like that.  If the the /*    */ bit isn't there, then just type "removed comma" (or whatever) directly into that place.  Ann Heneghan 20:47, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Burial : 39 Days Later
Last week I wrote that it's time for a placeholder that the ashes of Terri Schiavo have not been buried. At the time of her death, the press accounts were that Michael Schiavo was permitted to cremate the body and was required by the court to disclose to the Schinder's any burial or memorial service.

I was challenged by anonymous that the Schindlers may have been informed of a burial and chose not to make their knowledge of this public. This is highly improbable but on May 6 it was possible. Today it's no longer possible. The Schindler's have said that they have not been informed of the burial and Michael Schiavo was unavailable for comment. AP

Proposed wording: ''On May 7, 2005 the parents of Terri Schiavo made public a complaint that they had not been informed if, when, and where the ashes of their daughter were (or are to be) buried by Michael Schiavo. He was ordered by court to provide this information to them.''

The wording can be left intact if nothing else happens, or changed depending on events. patsw 03:04, 10 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I support that. Ann Heneghan 05:30, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Sources--Legal Documents
I do not see any discussion on the talk page(s) as to why this subsection was added; so, I am going to advocate that it be removed for the following reasons:
 * (1) it's redundant--when a court document is cited in the article, it already has a direct link to the court document as a footnote (or, it should--if it doesn't, this can be easily inserted) and the "compilations" section already has three excellent sources for the court/legal documents:  findlaw, UM, and abstractappeal, of which the latter two provide a comprehensive, chronological access to the relevant documents; and,
 * (2) this particular list is selective, without having a rationale for its selectivity.

--Mia-Cle 23:01, 10 May 2005 (UTC)


 * On the surface, this section seems like a good idea because of the large potential impact this case(s) will have on U.S. law. However, the article is currently 18pgs, and we need to trim for legibility.  Perhaps we could relocate the section to the Government involvement in the Terri Schiavo case article?  I'd hate to waste the effort.  Otherwise, let's leave it to Findlaw, and trim it.  I don't see were it's selective, but I may not be the best judge.--ghost 21:50, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Relocating to the government involvement article works for me. I'd prefer not to limit the legal document sources here to findlaw, as findlaw isn't as comprehensive as UM and abstractappeal.--Mia-Cle 23:59, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

--172.164.39.118 02:05, 14 May 2005 (UTC)== Mr. Watts: what, specifically, are your issues with regard to this article ==

I have tried reading the above to determine what, exactly, are the issues being addressed in the above talk sections (that begin RickK and Wagon Fuel), but the digressions overwhelm whatever point is being made (or not made). So, Mr. Watt, could you please state with some specificity exactly what your issues are with respect to the article as written or edited, and what your particular stand is with regard to that issue? That way, we all can address these points. For example, I think you are attempting to address the following:
 * (1) how PVS is handled in the article's introduction, and
 * (2) the court document links within the article.

Could you please state concisely what your stand is? For me, with regard to point (2), I think that the court document links should be to an external source such as the UM site because these documents tend to have some indicia that they came from a court source, the UM website is a stable site (i.e., not likely to disappear anytime soon), and the UM site is neutral. My preference for court-filed motions is that they be complete--motion with accompanying affidavits. --Mia-Cle 23:38, 10 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, First, Miami-Cleveland, I should apologize to EVERYBODY for arguing about the merits of my argument. I was wrong, because this is not the place to do it (e.g., this page clearly says: "The Talk pages are not a place to debate which views are right or wrong or better. If you want to do that, there are venues such as Usenet, public weblogs and other wikis," a quote which someone else clipped/deleted when I used it earlier to blame others before I saw my error here.)


 * Someone else started arguing about whether my case was valid or a conspiracy theory, and I took it to a whole new level. We were all wrong to do this, most of all me, because this page is not the place for that type of discussion -it is an inappropriate use of space because this page should be limited to discussion of whether the edit is actually something we'd see in an encyclopedia, describing Terri Schiavo.


 * Ok, to answer your question, yes, I do have some problems with the way this page is handled, and thank you for asking. There are at least five (5) areas in which there is major dispute (plus a #6 area of additional dispute), something that is a "historical fact" that should be included in any encyclopedia, namely the following:


 * 1) Whether Terri was PVS
 * 2) What her wishes were
 * 3) Whether she was terminally ill and whether this disqualified her placement in a hospice
 * 4) Whether Terri was illegally denied therapy, rehabilitation, examination, etc.
 * 5) The "big" one: Whether Terri was the victim of felony abuse, and whether certain rulings of the judge to deny regular food and water (after the feeding tube were pulled) stepped over the line and violated various state and federal laws.


 * You know that any good encyclopedia tells us that Nazis thought Jews were not fit to live, and while most of us know that is garbage, these encyclopedias also list things that the Nazis used to try to prove their argument. If Nazis get chronicled, I certainly do. I think my arguments are right, and let's not forget that I played a central role in the Schiavo case, and, in some instances did better than the Florida Governor in court. Most or all of you all played no role in this saga.


 * Additionally, some people get bent over actual human errors (like my spelling, which I fixed here), things that, in all likelihood, did not harm them. I would be open to making restitution of I damaged or harmed someone, have faith, that's true; however, we should focus on presenting the historical facts, because even if we all agreed, it would be hard enough.


 * 6) That being said, if my success in court was so great, even in the absence of news coverage (see e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vanity_page#Does_lack_of_fame_make_a_vanity_article.3F ), my success should merit coverage. After all, do a web search, and you'll notice that many of these "big" Blogs list me and my websites. Maybe it was bad social skills for me to post my own site, which, of course, is biased, but is not the Terri's Blogs, and the official Terri’s Fight site biased? Even Matt Conigliaro, the attorney who hosts Abstract Appeal, is biased, as evidenced by his comments to the reporter in which he claims that the judges followed the law: http://sptimes.com/2005/04/30/Tampabay/Lawyer_shares_lessons.shtml GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida this is false, as far as I'm concerned, even though he rarely lets his bias slip out. Abstract Appeal, while not as correct, is clearly less biased, but if the official website for Terri Schiavo's family is listed, and it is clearly the most biased site (taking stances on the husband that even I am not sure about), then why should the two Register mirror front page news be omitted from the "commentary / advocacy" links --and also, why should The Register's Court Cases compilation be omitted? It too is a "compilation, which fits in one of the top categories.


 * We all have our personal opinion, but, at this rate of argument, we aren't going to do encyclopedias justice at recoding the actual facts. FuelWagon, for all his ranting and raving, makes one good point earlier that bears repeating: We should not state anything as fact unless it is unambiguous and agreed on by all people, even if it is only to shut up the nuts on either side of the argument. So, when I decide to post a link to a state or federal law, if it is not lengthy and if it's relevant, it should NOT be stricken, thank you. These encompass my arguments as best as I can see them. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 17:25, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * FuelWagon makes one good point earlier that bears repeating: We should not state anything as fact unless it is unambiguous and agreed on by all people Uhm, no. That is not what I said. If we wait until an assertion is agreed on by all people before it is considered fact, then we could't even say the world is round. All I said was that the flat-earthers start foaming at the mouth like pavlov's dogs whenever they see the three words "Terri was PVS" put in sequence, so if we state the fact that she was PVS without triggering the rabid response of an army of knuckleheads, we might be better off. It's apparent to me now that the flat earthers will never be happy until wikipedia and the whole world agree to their point of view, namely that Terri was perfectly healthy, working as a telemarketer from her hospice bed at night, and sneaking out at night to play tennis after all the protesters left, and it was a vast conspiracy of her husband, a dozen doctors, many hospice workers, and every judge who worked on the case that kept her handcuffed to her bed for 15 years until her murder could be arranged. So, no, I don't think "fact" requires agreement by everyone on the planet. I simply thought wikipedia could avoid triggering pavlov's dog response from the more rabid folks out there. You, Mr. Watts, have convinced me of the futility of my suggestion. The Don Quixote's of the world will continue to tilt at this windmill to their graves, unmoved by objective reason, confident in the comfort of their delusion. Some folks just have to have an evil dragon to joust, and they've made Michael their dragon, and Terri is the helpless virgin princess sacrificed to add to his hoard of gold. There is too much personal benefit to give up when someone has cast themselves as the hero in their hollywood-movie version of life. Why be normal, average, everyday, human in an objective and somewhat mundane world when people can cast themselves as the knight in shining armor trying to save a helpless maiden from an evil dragon? FuelWagon 18:46, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I couldn't have said it better.--ghost 22:20, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, so you didn't go that far in saying it; That's fine by me, and I'm sorry I'f I knocked you off your rocker by misquoting you, but two points bear mentioning at this point:


 * 1) I see where you said: "Do people get my drift here? If you're going to say the three words "Terri was PVS" then the list of overwhelming evidence in the intro is pointless when people can read it later. The idea was instead to list the overwhelming evidence, including the minority of evidence that disputes it, and let the reader decide," but  I'm not sure if you're trying to say we should say Terri is PVS and list some documentation -or, instead that she's merely been "declared" PVS by the courts. OK, are you happy, now? Whatever you meant, I think its best that most points not be listed as "fact," unless it something like a quote from a law, which is unambiguously the law (so long as it has not been ruled unconstitutional). People may disagree with the rulings or the laws on the books, but their mention as historical facts is not disputable -i.e., the Laws DO say certain things, and the courts HAVE ruled certain ways, whether they are true or merely judicial activism; We should let the reader decide the "truth" and merely present the bland, dry facts.


 * But the fact is that the courts ruled her to be PVS and that decision was upheld many times. That's as close to "facts" as you can get. Once the courts rule someone guilty of murder, you don't have to say "allegedly" anymore, you can say "John is a murderer". FuelWagon 19:47, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Close, but no cigar. When there is this much dispute, it is traditional to say that "so and so was FOUND to be guilty," not "so-and-so WAS guilty," and the former statement would be just as correct. A Ghost below echoes your points, but misses the point that only 1 or 2 laws were found unconstitutional, not the whole lot of them, and I make brief comment... --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 23:00, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * 2) My post, and your response were gone when I looked at this page a moment ago, but appear here in the edit dialogue. Is some high-WIKI admin tampering with the editing and display features?


 * In conclusion, let me reiterate that the good encyclopedias list both points of view on controversial topics (like should the Nazis have killed lots of Jews) --and also these good encyclopedias indicate the arguments that each side used to support their respective views. WIKI shouldn't fall behind times here... --172.174.41.253 19:08, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Oop - forgot to sign. (PS: Duck Echo makes comments on my talk/discussion page, and I answered him. Duck Echo, in case you're reading, you can read my reply there on the merits of your points.) --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 19:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * That's as close to "facts" as you can get. Once the courts rule someone guilty of murder, you don't have to say "allegedly" anymore, you can say "John is a murderer".-FuelWagon
 * And that was exactly my point earlier. Anyone is entiled to privately state that the courts were wrong or misguided until their face turns blue.  (And if you listen to the radio, many are...)  But in our society, the law is what the courts say it is.  If a "law" is on the books, but has been ruled unconstitutional, then it's not a law.  Thus, it doesn't belong here, unless to mention that the ruling is disputed.  Since the legal disputes have ended, it doesn't belong.  If you don't understand this, I suggest you examine the Separation of Powers.  This is why the appointment of judges is considered crucial by both sides.--ghost 22:20, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Much of what you say is correct, but I will ignore your many correct statements, according to the Occam's Razor Rule, and correct the few incorrect claims or innuendos. Above I pointed out WHY you and FuelWagon were wrong in saying that you can call a person a murderer in disputed cases; Further, the law is not what the courts say it is -this would be the interpretation and application of the law, not the law itself; Next, you don't say it, but you hint that all the laws involved were declared unconstitutional in some way, shape, or form, by the rulings, but, in truth, only the 1 or 2 Terri's Laws were struck down, not any of the others, including my favorite felony law, 825.102(3), which you can look up at http://FLSenate.gov/Statutes ; You are wrong to say that chronicling of the disputes on PVS don't belong "since the legal disputes have ended." One sentence above this, you say: "...it doesn't belong here, unless to mention that the ruling is disputed." Well, MANY people around the world dispute this, whether or not the court is still "considering" it, so, as you say here, it doesn't belong unless disputed. Well, it is disputed, and thus it belongs, even according to your own words. As far as separation of powers is concerned, many people think the judge violated this doctrine, so, without addressing the merits of their claims here, this fact belongs. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 23:07, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

It appears that you and I will continue to disagree ad nauseum on substance. But perhaps I can offer a compromise. Where the issues have been legally resolved, but continue to be debated in the the court of public opinion, they could be described something like:
 * Judge Greer (took action)...Critics continue to contend that this was (their opinion). (footnote)

That's it. No dissertations. This would present the legal facts as such, while informing the reader that they may wish to dig deeper, and allowing them to do so. Both without POV.--ghost 12:54, 12 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Mr. Watts: going back to your numbered issues, I believe that #1 and #2 are already covered, quite comprehensively -- with the findings of fact/conclusions of law (never overturned) that she was in PVS and her wish was to refuse life-prolonging procedures and then the Schindler position (that she was not in PVS and that this was not her wish) discussed in detail in the various sections.


 * Yes, point 1 is covered moderately well, except for the "Florida compromise" that I propose regarding the edit was going on about how to describe the PVS diagnoses. NCDave is one of the participants, and I hope my compromise is helpful, as I don't fully side with either side. As to point 2, I don't know if there was full coverage of dispute over what was TERRI'S "Point of View" (her wishes). --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 02:51, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * As for points #3-6: these are arguments by the Schindler partisans and are far more appropriately discussed under the Schindler family position and the activism section.  For example, under activism there could be a paragraph that includes your pro se filing, I believe someone else attempted or threatened civil arrest of Judge Greer (there may still be a link to it from the empire journal), the civil disobedience/trespass at the hospice, the death threats, etc., as showing the lengths to which the Schindler supporters were willing to go and a brief explanation of why.  Nos. 1-2 are overarching issues (which as I mentioned above are already addressed), while #3-6 are really just a sideshow (try and shelve your personal involvement and look at the NPOV big picture) that simply don't merit an overinflation of their importance beyond being mentioned as part of the activism.


 * I did not (until just now) see your reply, and your suggestions have merit. Also, I corrected a minor capitalization error in your paragraph above and cast my "vote" in support of it, generally. (That's 2 "votes" already, even though numbers of votes are not the last word, I understand.) --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 02:51, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * As for your great success in court--I hate to burst your bubble and point out reality, but: you lost. Close only counts in horseshoes.  7-0, 6-1, 5-2, 4-3=Loss.  You did not win.  Further, there is no way of knowing (and there never will be) as to whether or not the Schindler attorneys or government attorneys considered the argument that you made as part of their overall strategy in addressing the key issue:  would a medical treatment so change her quality of life that she would have changed her wish to refuse life-prolonging procedures.  (obviously, strategy discussions are privileged).  For all you know it was considered and rejected as a losing argument, which, in the end, it was (a losing argument). But as I mention above, it could be mentioned as a part of the activist actions.


 * My involvement would be "activism" regarding my website and my visits to the hospice, yes, but my legal involvement is not dissimilar to that of other "losers," in the end, as you say. Lots of other "losers" get mentioned all the time, do they not? ...maybe Pat Anderson and Gibbs team (Schindler family attorneys) and Ken Connors (Bush attorney) need to be mentioned as well. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 02:51, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Your legal involvement is not at all similar to the cadre of lawyers involved in this case: first, you are not a lawyer/practicing attorney but someone that appeared pro se as a friend; second, the Schindler lawyers and the Schiavo lawyers were hired and duty-bound to represent their respective clients zealously, which also applies to the state attorneys, and their actions were within the framework of that representation while yours was not.  That said, I do not care if names are mentioned, although I personally find them irrelevant--it's not the lawyer that's important, but the client.  Also, you missed my point, which is that you need to shelve your ego and view your attempt within the bigger framework.  As such, it is not nearly as important as you would like to think, although it does merit mention within the activist section.--Mia-Cle 22:32, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * This was your conclusion from an earlier post, and sounds good by me. As far as my ego, did you not see where I told Meat Wagon and friends that they could take care of business and handle all the disputed edit situations (like NC Dave's ongoing battles) as they see fit? How much less of an ego do you want? (Pro se involvment is "usually" minor, as you put it, but this was not your "usual" reaction from the court, which would typically be crunching the poor litigant like a pancake.) Besides, I also proposed a few of my own compromises, which you can see if you scan the "diffs." --172.164.39.118 02:05, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Stop bringing up Dred Scott. That decision was overturned by constitutional amendment over one hundred years ago and is no longer good law.  It's a non-issue not pertinent to the discussion.  I don't believe any thinking person holds that each and every Supreme Court decision is the penultimate perfection of a decision.  Further, Dred Scott probably tops every top ten list of worst Supreme Court Decisions ever, with Plessy v. Ferguson and Korematsu following close behind.  If you wish to discuss pertinent case law, I recommend Marbury v. Madison for federal constitutional law/separation of powers and there are a number of relevant Florida decisions on the Florida constitutional law/separation of powers.  I highly recommend In re Browning (Fla.) for the issues in this particular case (Schiavo v. Schindler).  Finally, Dred Scott is a staple argument of the pro-lifers/anti-abortionists--raise the Dred Scott case when you wish to attack Roe v. Wade or any judge whose position is not in line with the pro-life platform--and that definitely does not belong in this discussion.


 * Good point, but remember that I did bring up Browning... in the "proper" setting, namely in court. THIS, on the other hand, is the court of public opinion, and Dred Scot did have a purpose, namely to indicate the weaknesses of the court system, but you seem to imply (or at least infer) that I should not over do it here. If that is the case, you good point is duly noted. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 02:51, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The alleged legal violations --in particular, the alleged violation of S. 825.102(3)-- simply doesn't merit more than a mere mention as part of the activist allegations. For one thing, you completely ignore the overarching right of every Florida citizen to refuse medical treatment.  Florida Statutes have to comport with the Florida Constitution, not the other way around.  You cannot use statutes to circumvent constitutional rights.  This particular argument also seems to be based on a complete misconception of the role of the judiciary in this case--a misconstruing of the role of the judiciary that was dismissed as completely lacking merit by the federal judges in this case.  If you wish to write a law journal article on this, feel free;  however, it simply doesn't merit the amount of attention you wish to give it other than placing it where it belongs -- a mention in the activist section.--Mia-Cle 00:39, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * "The alleged legal violations --in particular, the alleged violation of S. 825.102(3)-- simply doesn't merit more than a mere mention as part of the activist allegations." Maybe, but it should at least be mentioned, and maybe expounded upon...? "Florida Statutes have to comport with the Florida Constitution, not the other way around." True, but no one said that this statute was overruled or nullified by the privacy rights of the constitution. Conversely, the judge did not address chapter 825, and this in and of itself is noteworthy. "...a complete misconception of the role of the judiciary in this case..." The judicial branch is not allowed by separation of powers to write law from the bench, only interpret good law, overturn bad law, or clarify gray areas --or areas in which laws conflict. However right I am, nonetheless, your question on the merits, however tempting, should best be restricted to -say -my own talk page, as we must limit our discussion to the merits of listing the item, not the merit of the item itself. (As you well know, both sides can't be right on Terri -either they should have don’t so-and-so or they shouldn't have; but, we SHOULD indicate both disputed views on major points of dispute --and their arguments, as the newly-minted "Gordon's Rule" (see below) dictates. (I knew that Gordon's Rule would elicit some response from The Wagon, how did I know...?) --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 02:51, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * (I knew that Gordon's Rule would elicit some response from The Wagon, how did I know...?) Because you're Wiiiiileey Coyooooteee, suuuuuuper geeeeenious.... FuelWagon 03:09, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * No, sorry, S.825 is not an area of major dispute, it's minor at best. It's "importance" is only that it was raised by activists.  Further, it's a weak argument (I am being generous) and as such barely merits that mention.  S. 825 does not apply.  No one had to or has to address 825 b/c it doesn't apply.  Since it doesn't apply, that a judge did not address it is not noteworthy.  Repeating over and over that in your opinion it does apply will not make it apply b/c there is no legal basis for your assertion.  It merits little more than a mention in the activist section.


 * 825 applies because it deals with food (not to be confused with feeding tubes), a key point of the Schiavo saga. Food and water were denied after the feeding tube was removed. The major/minor argument is an subjective analysis, not an objective fact. The fact that you think it merits attention, however, is good enough for me. I can "compromise" and bend to avoid breaking. Are we all happy now? --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 02:08, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Additionally, you are wrong in persisting in sloganeering that the judiciary violated the separation of powers in this case, when in reality it was the legislature and the executive that engaged in unconstitutional behavior at both the state and federal levels. The decisions in this case are good law, which is why they were upheld despite the numerous appeals.  As such, claims of judicial activism belong only in the activist section.  (If you want to read about recent judicial activism, I suggest you start with Professor Thomas Keck's book The Most Activist Supreme Court in History: The Road to Modern Judicial Conservatism (2004).)  Your POV is coloring your editing of this article.  Try to stay honest--you just don't like the judges' decisions even though they were thoughtful, legally valid decisions.  Keep the pro-life shibboleths on your blog, don't edit them into the article by giving them more importance than they merit.--Mia-Cle 22:32, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * What my feelings are on actions of the various judges is not relevent to this discussion (although I certainly have opinions). The fact that a LOT of people have a beef, however, makes this a matter of dispute. "Lots" of people vs "just 'Flash' Gordon Watts" is a matter of degree and does make a difference -the crucial difference, if you will. If you want to relegate this item to the activist section, it is fine with me. "Shiboleth," huh, that sounded familiar, and I know why. I remember the Bible story about this, and see that you are making reference to things I say that betray or reveal my point of view. While you know some of my viewpoints, you certainly don't know all of them. Did you know, for example, that I really don't like feeding tubes? Or, that I don't accuse Mike Schiavo of abuse? While feeding tubes are useful, I prefer avoiding them, except in temprary situations, like casts for a broken arm -temporary. ALSO, you are wrong to pigeon-hole me: While Mike Schiavo's denial of speech therapy is VERY suspicious, I never accuse him of abuse. I only state that there was probable cause to investigate this further, which I feel wasn't done. And, one more thing: Various criticism of mentioning doctors who didn't examine Terri is not all bad. But, since they were denied examination by the court, the court's denial should be mentioned, which would compensate for their lack of examination --and bring back to 100% the analysis, which -as we know -are of issues about which your Joe Average reader would want to read. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 02:08, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Surname Etymology
Should we mention about Schiavo's surname etymology? Schiavo means slave in Italian. I tried to insert it the other day but the edit was reverted. Is there any policy that regulates such actions? --Dennis Valeev 07:24, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm just not sure how relevant it is. The Schiavo family appear to be assimilated (even that word is silly to describe them) Americans who probably don't speak Italian.  Why is the meaning of their name in Italian all that relevant?  Moncrief 08:37, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

PVS diagnosis
I can't find anything that disputes that Terri was diagnosed as being in a PVS. While that diagnosis was challenged and continues to be controversial, the challenge itself does not undo the existence of the initial diagnosis. As a result, I'm going to change the HTML comment placed after "an irreversible persistent vegetative state", as the existence of the initial diagnosis is not disputed &mdash; even if one disputes the diagnosis itself.

Additionally, calling the diagnosis "nonsense" is strongly POV unless it is in an attributed quote.

Remember, the goal in this article is not to push one's POV; it is to document the whole situation as completely and neutrally as possible and to let the reader decide for him- or herself. - jredmond 16:34, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * More importantly, the diagnosis was adjudged in court as correct and upheld by every reviewing court, so that not only does it have a medical basis, it's a matter of legal fact.


 * That someone disagrees with it or believes something else, does not make the diagnosis POV or wrong. It's inarguable at this point. Duckecho 18:00, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Whether you are correct or not, your use of the court's decision to support your argument is invalid, as the courts have been shown to be an UNRELIABLE standard: In Dred Scott v. John Sanford, a MAJORITY of the HIGHEST court in the land, not to long ago held that "[T]he negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit." Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, writing for the Court. Dred Scott v. John F. Sanford 15 L.Ed. 691; 19 How. 393; 60 US 393 at 407.(US 1857)).


 * See e.g., http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22might+justly+and+lawfully+be+reduced+to+slavery+for+his+benefit.%22


 * or: http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=%22might+justly+and+lawfully+be+reduced+to+slavery+for+his+benefit.%22&sm=Yahoo%21+Search&fr=FP-tab-web-t&toggle=1&ei=UTF-8


 * or even: http://msxml.excite.com/info.xcite/search/web/%2522might%2Bjustly%2Band%2Blawfully%2Bbe%2Breduced%2Bto%2Bslavery%2Bfor%2Bhis%2Bbenefit.%2522


 * Use more than that to prove your point, but, even if you are right, the fact that it is a disputed matter makes it newsworthy, even as the dispute over slavery was newsworthy. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 23:13, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Gordon. If we were still living in a pre Civil War era I'd agree with you, but we are not. The point of all this is that a legal standpoint T. Shaivo was PVS. Yes the courts are wrong at times. Yes there is injustice in this country and there will continue to be for someone until the sun freezes into a cold hard ball. Nevertheless, it's important for the article to be as factual and NPOV as possible in relationship to the present.  Let the reader decide what is right or not based on the facts at hand. What is in the article now is factual or based on information which is as close to factual as possible. This includes medical diagnoses.


 * For example, the article says She went into a coma for two and a half months, and was later diagnosed as being in an irreversible persistent vegetative state (PVS), a state that lasted until her death 15 years later. 


 * Well, in case you're curious, WJ Bean, I don't have any problem with this language here. I think that the quote above is not only correct. In additiom, I think this type of expressing things should serve as a role model on how to express disputed points, that is, as "being diagnosed as" or as having been "ruled on" a certain way, not as "she was definitely and certainly PVS." That being said, I think the "tensions," if you call it, should subside at this point.


 * I indented your paragraph just a tad to make it easier to read, I hope you don't mind. Also, Duck Echo, if you're reading, let me say that on my talk page, when you made a minor error on the differences between the three standards of evidence, and later admitted you were wrong, I want to assure you that I was not trying to rub it in or anything. As you may notice, I have made a few errors, myself, some due to being new to WIKI, like when I broke the rule about discussing the merits of the case here. We know that this talk page is to discuss the merits of whether to add an item or not, and we leave the merits of the item itself to, say, an opinion page or editorials.


 * This does not mean that she was PVS, only that she was diagnosed PVS. Doctors are often wrong too, again though; some distant medico who has not even seen T. Shaivo qualifies as medical authority in this particular case. And such a practitioner most certainly does not qualify when the attending physicians who did examine her directly came to the same conclusion.


 * Whether the medico qualifies or not is a measure of the merits of the case. As we've been telling one another, the things we are trying to share with the annals of history are the important points, right or wrong, that are newsworthy.


 * So picking apart the sentence she went into a coma for two and a half months.. no one denies or disputes this. , and was later diagnosed as being in an irreversible persistent vegetative state... is also correct as a diagnosis is a determination of condition based on the available facts. Wjbean 23:28, 2005 May 11 (UTC)


 * We don't know if it was a correct diagnosis, WJ Bean. PVS is not understood well, even by the medical professionals, and we certainly don't need to consider whether it was a correct diagnosis or not. Remember the purposes of an encyclopedia, but my points above addressed the standards, I trust. --172.158.130.245 02:35, 12 May 2005 (UTC) Ouch! I was signed in and it didn't stamp my name, just my IP address... Probably because I opened up another browser, who knows. Let me try again to sign my name... --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 02:41, 12 May 2005 (UTC)


 * How would we know to your satisfaction though? PVS is a state as defined by doctors and as diagnosed by doctors. It's not something whose definition floats on the aether, to be discerned by an observer who is acute enough. You're in it if they say you're in it. If the doctors who examined her diagnosed her as in PVS, she was in PVS. (It might help you to think about psychiatric disorders, many of which are similar -- they exist as labels for states of being decided by consensus among doctors. There are diagnostic criteria and if you fit them, you're suffering from the disorder.) You can argue whether courts should make decisions based on that diagnosis but it's correct if she fit the criteria. She did and it was. Grace Note 03:00, 12 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Grace Note, the consensus of the community seems to be that if there is a disuted point that the point not be described as cold, hard fact. (RE-read the discussions on this talk page.) But, to RE-iterate, while not all WIKI-pedians agree, it is my assessment that the community consensus is that in cases such as you describe, the matter be described as "the court ruled so-and-so" or "so-and-so was diagnosed as PVS," etc., ad nauseum --not that "so-and-so is in PVS." If there is any major disagreement with my assessment, then we simply need to take a vote on the matter, dig?


 * The consensus of the community is just another way to hide your attempt to define FACT as an assertion that requires everyone's agreement. It doesn't. Terri was PVS. It is fact. The earth is round. It is fact. That her parents refused to accept the diagnosis doesn't change the fact. That a murderer's parents refuse to accept the conviction doesn't change the fact. You can keep trying to dance around this all you want, but the facts are that Terri was PVS. grow up. learn the scientific method. deal with it. FuelWagon 19:27, 12 May 2005 (UTC)


 * One other thing, Grace Note: With reference to your revision here,, I think you're picking on me and taking advantage of the fact that I'm new and have had a few disagreements and/or made a few mistakes of my own. I address that point at: , but I since I think I'm being I'm being picked on, I respectfully seek a straw vote of no less than nine participants, like on the US Supreme Court (where you have 9 justices), and here is the quote from your talk page, for others' consideration, thank you:


 * "I have two questions about the revision you made on the link for Schiavo:


 * 1) How were you able to put in a comment in the history explaining what you did? (I'm new, so could you explain it nice and slowly and step by step?) Thx.


 * 2) Yes, it is linked properly ...in the top of the article, but down below, a whole new topic emerges, evolving around issues of dispute, PVS being one of them, distinct and different from the intro. Thus, the reader may want to click on it. In fact, I think that the phrase "persistent vegitative state" which follows the initial abbreviation in that section, should also be linked. now, of course, anything beyond that would simply be unnecessary "bells and whistles," but a minimal number of obligatory links in the top of each separate section is nothing less than obligatory.


 * I feel I'm being picked on. What up! I feel we are being trivial and cheating the reader -or at least, making it difficult for him/her to follow the points and follow-up links, and this would be a good time to ask for a consensus on this point." --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 04:03, 12 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Sigh. The Dred Scott case, viewed from the perspective of 148 years (not not to [sic] long ago) does look like a horribly wrong decision. However, we tend to look at it (and many decisions) from all kinds of angles except that of the law. In 1857 the justices had the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and little else on which to base their decisions. Recall, too, that the XIVth amendment, which almost certainly would have obtained in the case, was not available for another thirty years.


 * If you read their decision you will see that it boils down to Articles III and IV and that the crux of the matter is U.S. citizenship. Keep in mind that slaves were not considered the same as non slaves. Right or wrong, that harkens back to the very framing of the Constitution and the Three Fifths Compromise, if you'll recall. That's the mindset from which you must evaluate the Dred Scott decision. From the standpoint of the law, it was probably the most correct decision the court could make at the time.


 * 148 years later we have different sensitivities, different legal frameworks, different culture and it isn't fair to judge the efficacy of the Dred Scott decision in light of our own awakening. The Court would have been wrong to so rule today, but it probably wasn't at the time with the tools with which they had to work.


 * This makes sense, and while not directly relevent to the value of the various edits, puts us in the proper frame of mind to anylize the edits that need to be done, I think.


 * Today, the courts have affirmed the judgement of PVS at every level. Are they wrong? Not in the framework of the laws with which they have to work. A good example is the issue of life support. Like it or not, Florida law defines the type of feeding tube Terri had as life support. If you don't hold that personal view, or if you live in a state that doesn't define it the same way, a ruling that discontinuation of life support is a legitimate extension of Terri's wishes as adjudged by clear and convincing testimony, seems wrong to you, but in fact, is in accordance with the law.


 * You're right, Duck, as far as feeding tubes being currently considered life-support by Florida Law, but standard food and water is not, and that is the crux of some of my disagreements, but let me stop there and not address the merits of the allegations themselves, and let us limit ourselves to discussion of the merits of the newsworthiness, if you would, of these various allegations. Since a very large segment of the population (maybe more than 50%, I don't know) holds a differing viewpoint than the trial court and the various courts above that level, then this item certainly becomes something worthy of chronicling. OK, everybody, we've seemed to have come to some tentative agreements, it looks like, and while I'm busy with my own personal responsibilies and desires (which limit my time here), the whip is cracked, and back to work. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 02:50, 12 May 2005 (UTC)


 * If you think that you have somehow reached a consensus that the article needs to be bloated with a load of alternative opinions, speculations, or theories that are at odds with the adjudicated facts of the case, then you are seriously misinformed. Yes, we can agree that the courts definitely ruled (based on the presentation of evidence by qualified medical experts) that she was in a PVS. Although I don't care if someone disputes the ruling or not, I suppose I could go so far as to agree that we can mention that it is disputed. But beyond that, to questions about what a fourth swallowing test would have accomplished, or whether her husband must have abused her therefore he wanted her killed to silence her, or if yet more CT scans than had already been done could possibly show evidence of a miraculous brain recovery, I'm not interested in memorializing the Flat Earth conspiracy theorists' views of what might have been. Duckecho 04:09, 12 May 2005 (UTC)


 * No, I am not a proponent of "hundreds of theories." Usually, there are only two competing viewpoints, and sometimes 3 or 4. (For example, some think Mike Schiavo abused his wife, some think he didn't, and some don't know. In this example, I fall into the third category, and opine that whether he abused his wife or not does not affect the validity of many of the other arguments over Terri's treatment by the court system.) You can relax. No one wants 1,000,000 theories -just the main opposing theories when there are some major public disagreement over something of note. "...I suppose I could go so far as to agree that we can mention that it is disputed. But beyond that, to questions about what a fourth swallowing test would have accomplished..." Most or all of us would no doubt "go as far as to" agree with your first sentence here, and since no one really knows what would have happened if so and so, you can relax and stop worrying about mystic speculation. We have more relevant issues to discuss. Let me point out that minor improvements, like insertions of relevant links, are unjustifiably deleted or reverted routinely. Can we act like adults here...? --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 04:27, 12 May 2005 (UTC)


 * 148 years from now it could be that we'll have different laws, different technologies, a different culture and some citizens in that time might view the Terri Schiavo case as a miscarriage of justice, but they'll have to consider the law at the time and the culture at the time, so they'll almost have to view it as a difficult but courageous exercise in jurisprudence in the finest traditions of American law. Duckecho 00:55, 12 May 2005 (UTC)


 * DuckEcho. This is precisely the point of a venue like Wikipedia. If at some later date T. Shaivo is found to have been aware and consious this article will most certainly change. The same can be said of M. Shaivo's actions. This is an "open source" encyclopedia. Changes in the known facts will be relfected here. Wjbean 13:19, 2005 May 12 (UTC)


 * Yes, but speculation about what might have been does not belong here. That's what Gordon wants to do. He wants to include all the opposing viewpoints for balance. The article isn't supposed to be balanced, it's supposed to be NPOV factual. They are not synonymous. Duckecho 23:20, 12 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree. What I'm trying to point out here is that if Gordon or NCDave's assertions become more than assertions the article will most certainly change. And not due solely to their efforts either. Wjbean 01:10, 2005 May 13 (UTC)


 * Let me clarify: When I first got to WIKIpedia, I thought it was OK to say she WAS in pvs, but have receded from that view. I view the right way to explain it, as I've said before, in cases of disputed issues, to state that she was "diagnosed" or "ruled as" PVS. Dave's insistence that both diagnoses be mentioned initially is not bad, but they are mentioned a few sentences down, so all is well. No, I don't intend to write that Terri "was" or "was not" PVS. You can relax. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 02:04, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * EVERYBODY needs to quit having edit wars over the PVS diagnoses; Here's my proposed compromise: NCDave and the conservative crew want mention of the minimally conscious state right at the top; left-leaners don't want that. I support the left-leaners in their wish to omit it because after only a few sentences in the introduction, it DOES mention other doctors diagnosed Terri as minimally conscious. However, the article mentions both sides of the court doctors, but only one side of the NON-court-appointed doctors, namely the doctors that Mike Schiavo personally picked. This is biased presentation, and either they need to be deleted (this is option one) --or, (option two) there needs to be mention that a long line of doctors the Schindlers picked also questioned Terri's PVS diagnosis. The fact that many of them could not examine Terri personally is not Terri's parent's fault, and this fact would need to be mentioned is "option two is picked."


 *  but only one side of the NON-court-appointed doctors, namely the doctors that Mike Schiavo personally picked. Wrong again, Sherlock. The article mentions the two picked by Michael AND the two picked by the Schindlers:
 * Two doctors selected by Schiavo's parents diagnosed her to be in a "minimally conscious state." 
 * that "long line of doctors the Schindlers picked" who questioned her diagnosis never actually examined her, some of them basing their diagnosis off of video tape made and heavily edited by her parents, some basing it off of news stories. Those doctor's opinions do not deserve the same weight in the article as doctors who actually examined Terri. FuelWagon 03:04, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * You misunderstand what I said above - I point out that both sides of the court appointed doctors are representd (both those 3 that thought she was PVS and the other 2 who didn't). This is fair. (In parenth, actually of the five "court appointed" doctors, really 2 were picked by the Terri's parents' attorney and the other 2 picked by Mike Schiavo's attorney; The 5th was either picked by mutual consent or by the court, if they couldn't agree -I forget which it was.) --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 08:29, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * However, notice, if you would that of the ones not associated with the court's mandate of the 5-doctor panel, only those on Mike Schiavo's were mentioned. THAT is where the unfairness creeps in; Either list the other extraneous doctors (that submitted affidavits for the family) --or don't list any extraneous doctors, and that would be fair. Capish? --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 08:29, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * That having been said, the language of the intro probably should be corrected to reflect that only 1 doctor at most was picked by the court -if it got to that point --or maybe he was picked by mutual consent. The other 4 doctors, while "court mandated," were in all truth picked by the opposing sides, 2 from Terri's parent's camp & 2 from Mikey's camp, thus the intro's language should be more precise. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 08:29, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The intro, last I read, said 1 was picked by the court, 2 by michael, and 2 by the schindlers. It also lists the doctors who had examined terri prior to that case: her primary physician, Cranford, and one other, I think. No one else examined terri. That is the entire laundry list of doctors who examined her. Everyone else was an armchair diagnosis. Of the three dozen affidavits from doctors that the Schindlers submitted at one point, many of them state in their affidavits that they based their diagnosis on video supplied by the Schindlers. FuelWagon 04:57, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Here is a copy and paste from the intro as of now: "Six doctors that examined Schiavo (her family physician, three doctors selected by the courts, and two doctors selected by Michael) diagnosed her to be in a persistent vegetative state. Two guardians ad litem concurred with this decision. Two doctors selected by Schiavo's parents disagreed that she was in a PVS." your analysis seems more correct, so why don't you edit it to correct what looks like ambiguity in the current version.


 * I don't know what ambiguity you're talking about. I just read the intro again, and the only POSSIBLE confusion (and it would take someone pretty dense to not get it) is that the intro doesn't specifically state that the Schindlers picked two doctors who examined Terri who found Terri to be other than PVS. The piece missing is that these two doctors are the two doctors that examined Terri for the Schindlers. It's fairly obvious, but I tweaked the intro to clarify. FuelWagon 06:04, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I was not aware that 6 different doctors had all said she was PVS, but if this is factual, it is a better clarification. Related, but distinct, is the issue of the long line of doctors who wanted to examine Terri --and the even longer line of citizens who demanded such, and this seems relevent in another section even if that "long line" of citizens is less than those citizens opposing that view. This issue was a hot topic, and deserves mention somewhere, as well as the verious arguments for and against letting a few more doctors examine her or try to feed her (something that was not allowed). --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 07:08, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


 * They don't deserve any weight at all. They deserve mention but they are not even a consideration when we discuss whether she was in a PVS or not. This would be like equating I M A Wacko's opinion on the state of the moon's cheesiness with that of a scientist who had examined the moon rocks brought back from the moon, backed up by other scientists who have examined the moon spectrographically and found it to be nonfromaginous.Grace Note 03:38, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Since they did not examine Terri, you would be correct in saying they deserve less or no "weight," as you call it. However, remembering why they didn't get a chance to examine Terri, an explanation is due, namely that the court would not -for whatever reason -permit them to examine Terri. Thus, when the court denied examination, it shifted responsibility from the doctors that were denied to itself, and the total amount of "news coverage," on the whole matter remained the same, being split between the doctors that were denied (thus their diagnoses was less reliable, but NOT totally unreliable) and the courts who denied them. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 08:29, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * they didn't get a chance to examine Terri, an explanation is due... No. It isn't. The courts blow your fantasy out of the water. This is yet another conspiracy, another version of "what are they hiding?". All the doctors responsible for Terri said she was PVS but she Schindlers disputed this and so the courts had 5 doctors weigh in, and the result was still that she was PVS. The courts found that terri was PVS and the schindlers got their explanation there. The Schindlers never showed sufficient evidence afterward to warrant a new case, they simply disputed the ruling that she was PVS. Therefore, the explanation is already given. The facts found that Terri was PVS and the schindlers had nothing but empty arguments with zero evidence to show this ruling was incorrect. FuelWagon 04:57, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


 * If I were the only person that had a beef with it, you would be correct, but a large number of people are ticked over the denials to allow additional exams or testing, and that, in and of itself a historical fact directly relevent to the topic. If the court's final decision is so paramount, then the whole entire article could merely say: Court Ruled for Mike Schiavo, and Terri is dead," but it doesn't, thus my points are meritous. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 05:16, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I have sided partially with both sides, and I think this compromise is fair. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 02:17, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

UPDATE: Viriditas, At this link, which is saved in this  diff, I reply to you on my home page's talk/discussion page. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 13:12, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

'''Before anyone makes any major modifications or reverts (effectively deletes of a lot of work), please read the discussions above & below, and the varied consensus that is documented in the diff links onsite. There were many small points and minor improvements attempted.''' --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 13:15, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Viriditas, see this diff, in which it was suggested that it would be OK to list my websites, since they are relevant to the topic. ( Quote: "...[Gordon], you need to shelve your ego and view your attempt within the bigger framework. As such, it [my involvement and court case, as shown by my website] is not nearly as important as you would like to think, although it does merit mention within the activist section..."  ) This don't violate the Wiki Vanity page policy, even if I am listing my own links. I know you may have been here longer than me, but you are wrong to slash and burn, and that is why I reverted; Many of us argued and discussed the intro changes and the use of vanity links, and it was accepted by consensus -I also beefed up Matt's link. Let me remind you that some of the other pages are even more biased than my own, and you just can't arbitrarily cry "vanity" when a person posts a link to his or her own page; your accusation must be backed up by fact. Did you know you deleted changes I made to the court documents section too? Did you know you deleted the fine work that Cantus put in his edit with regards to "...a fierce debate over bioethics, euthanasia, legal guardianship, federalism, and civil rights."? Did you know you almost deleted FuelWagon's clarifications? --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 10:58, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Viriditas, You might want to submit my edits to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion is you are sure in your case, but I was the most successful litigant on the losing side; do your research. Further, re-read the WIKI link on vanity pages above; it says in cogent part: "Does lack of fame make a vanity article? [No.] An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous." That is what you are doing. Just because you cry wolf does not mean that there really is a wolf. I made a whole lot of changes and I take very high offense at your willy-nilly wholesale deletion. Did you go to court for years on end in the Schiavo case, as did I? Are your web pages relevant to the subject? (Do you even have any webpages relevant to the subject?) --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 10:58, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Individual edits are not subject to Vfd - that's for entire articles. The policy being referred to is External links:
 * Wikipedia disapproves strongly of links that are added for advertising purposes. Adding links to one's own page is strongly discouraged. The mass adding of links to any website is also strongly discouraged, and any such operation should be raised at the Village Pump or other such page and approved by the community before going ahead. Persistently linking to one's own site is considered Vandalism and can result in sanctions. See also External link spamming.
 * In short, Viridian (and others) do not need to justify their reversions. It is neccessary for you to justify your own notability, to achieve an agreement, and then using this permission, to add it. Or else, get some other independent individual to add it. Continued adding without permission counts as vandalism. Which is bad.--Fangz 14:02, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you carefully review each and every change I made in the diffs, and then take the matter up either on the "Votes for Deletion" page referenced above -or on the talk page. Don't just delete everything and "revert" back to the caveman ages because one thing looks off. You are in violation of the Vanity pages policy: "Furthermore, an article is not "vanity" simply because it was written by its subject." (This quote came from WIKI's Vanity page, Viriditas, so click on it and re-read it.) '''TRANSLATION: "IF it works, don't try to fix it -or revert it." ' --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 10:58, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Cantus has made a questionable edit on the intro without checking with the community -at least recently as far as I've been here. The fact the he (or she?) has apparently been on a Wikipedian project (see his homepage) does not justify the slash and burn edit style, but I am hesitant to revert it because he leaves in a more comprehensive section to which many or most of have agreed. While the intro should be looked at for accuracy and completeness (as well as balance), I am not so sure that Cantus' edit is the best way to edit it; I may yet adjust the surprise edit about the PVS comment -yet leave in the comments about how it generated news media discussion over bioethics, euthanasia, legal guardianship, federalism, and civil rights. His surprise edit is rather rash and premature; it needs proper analysis and consensus. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 08:55, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Gordo, first of all I moved your most recent remarks to the bottom of the queue, in time order, rather than leave them hidden where others aren't likely to see them.


 * Second, you claim you have a consensus but I haven't noticed anyone agreeing with much at all of what you have been breast beating about here on talk. In fact I specifically told you a few days ago that you were seriously misinformed if you thought you did have a consensus. Your grasp of reality is slender at best.


 * You are rapidly approaching the status of NCdave in becoming an automatic revert. Duckecho 13:29, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, Duckecho, I was a major player in the Schiavo saga - Dave, for all his intention to detail -was not, so I would have more merit listing one of my links than would he (not that he did). Also, 1 or 2 at least agree (in theory) that my (vast) websites/pages would be appropriate if / when mentioned in the advocacy section, and i even provided one "diff" to document this; I don't feel like looking for it, so you will simply have to re-read my replies. As far as you moving things to the bottom, I didn't know that was the convention; I simply figured everybody would look at the diffs to see what was changed, but that trick of yours was cool; I hope you didn't have to do it manually... Also, while I have disagreed with both Wagon and also Cantus on previous occasions, both of them have made edits which I support -Cantus went too far, and when I changed his edit, I left in some of his work from his revision, proof I have been a good neighbor and compromised. Also, we came to a compromise of the PVS link I wanted in each section, settling on just one additional link, not two more (one for each of two subsections near the bottom of the page.) Also, let's not forget, my addition of the state laws to one or several sections of the Schiavo and/or PVS pages has stood the test of time. All in all, I am quick becoming a Master -and knowing that the Wiki rules are not necessarily against me even when someone says they are. I discuss some of the Wiki rules at length, and the fact I am new and a little more educated on the topic (by virtue of my experience) may (probably does) prompt some people to wanna "revert" something that looks a little different, but all these people reverting others' work is sheer and mere craziness: A "revert," let's remember, totally erases all the edits --all the edits I say --done since the revision picked. (Translation: That's throwing one's work in the trash, and no one likes to be trashed.) --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 13:51, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Solution: We all should simply look at the various changes one-by-one in the diffs (we all know how to do that, right?) and debate them individually if there is disagreement. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 13:51, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

In conclusion, my changes were well thought out; Besides, how does everybody think I got to where I am today with my near win in court? Just by being a dumb country boy hillbilly, lol, he heh... Thus, whilst minor adjustments are certain to be needed, we can all trust my judgment on this: The page as it stands is very good, and the edits I've made today are trustable and safe, and should not rock anyone's boat. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 13:51, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Duckecho, I see where you made a changes in this revision. Did you see all the things you changed? You changed so many things that it was as if you time-traveled into the past and "changed history." While some people automatically think a person can't list his own link, the Wiki rules at: Vanity_page clearly say differently. Can somebody say "dispelling myths?" Just because a person can revert, doesn't mean they should -would you like your stuff reverted after having put in many hours of research and tedious hard work? Might wanna check this link here and see what you erased and ask yourself if it was appropriate. Remember, I wasn't posting my links to say "Hey, I'm somebody." My pages were sources not unlike those others listed in the links and sources sections. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 14:10, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


 * You got hit a lot in school, didn't you? Yes, in fact, you are attempting to post your links to lend apparent legitimacy to your existence. No, your changes are not well thought out. If your pages are not unlike those others listed in the links and sources section, then they are redundant and won't be missed. There, I've said it. We have a consensus. Out they go. Out they stay. Gordon's Rule 1.1. (see below).Duckecho 14:16, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

If you really had an argument, you wouldn't try to make fun of someone you don't know and know only via edits: "You got hit a lot in school, didn't you?" If you had an argument, you'd use it. "...you are attempting to post your links to lend apparent legitimacy to your existence." My existance has nothing to do with a webpage, but even if it did, I have credbiliy:

For example, look at http://www.terrisfight.org/pressrelease.html -the ptimary website of all tose on Wiki relating to Terii -and note the 01-21-04 press release: I am the private citizen; See also on http://www.blogsforterri.com/ --the number 2 "pro-Terri" link Wiki lists for Terri --where Gordon watts' website is mentioned. Guess whose site that is? (Mine)

So, do I really have to prove credibility? Let's not forget that I came closer than the Florida Governor to having saved Terri in court:

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2005/2/prweb212613.htm http://press.arrivenet.com/nfp/article.php/603000.html

Not credible? Need to prove something. You are a bully, and that is sad... You are really only hurting yourself --and Wiki readers.

Now, next you say that if my pages ARE similar, then they need to go, because they are duplicating, right? Well, this behavior is bullying, and needs to be reported, in para materia with your other actions. Let's say, for example, that you ARE right and my pages are similar. Then what does that say about the remaining pages on WIKI? They must be all different -but, if that's the case, then remember that initially your critique was that my page was DIFFERENT in that it was a vanity link. Since different pages must go, then you sould remove all the links on the sources section except one. Pick just one link you like OK?

Can we stop living in fantasy world for a second. I do admit that my two mirrors are very similar, and may be duplicitiave: hometown.aol.com/gww1210 and the geo mirror, but the Court Cases compilation is vastly different: It is a compilation of court cases, with little or no commentary, and thus does belong: http://www.geocities.com/gordon_watts32313/CourtCases.html or http://hometown.aol.com/Gww1210/myhomepage/CourtCases.html

Face it: I came very close to winning in court in the most celebrated case of the century (see links above), and you didn't and you are jealous. That is ... childish. Grow up. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 15:23, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Only one judge, who never even saw the patient himself, accepted testimony on the issue of Terri's diagnosis. That was George Greer, whose outrageously blatant bias in the case provoked national outrage.
 * Not according to polls who show most supported Greer's rulings. Let's not forget that Greer is a republican, and the church he attended was opposed to the ruling.


 * Greer ruled that Terri was in a PVS, to a "clear and convincing" legal evidentiary standard -- despite the fact that most of the doctors who weighed in on the question of Terri's condidtion disputed that diagnosis. No jury ever considered the evidence, and no other court ever accepted testimony regarding that issue.  Just Greer.
 * If the Schindlers believed that they were not allowed to make their case adequately, then they could have mentioned it. The courts bent over backwards for them when they tried to dribble in further affadavits. The job of the appeals courts are to affirm whether Greer made his decision correctly on the evidence he was shown. That's the state of the law. The laws were followed.


 * Yet the article says, "The court determined that Schiavo was indeed in a PVS, and this ruling was upheld on every appeal, by 19 different judges, both in state courts and later in federal courts." That's just plain false.  In fact, most of the courts didn't even consider the issue of Terri's diagnosis at all.


 * To reach his conclusion, Judge Greer limited the expert testimony he would consider to that of just five doctors, one of which he chose himself. He permitted the Schindler family to choose two doctors to examine Terri, but then he declared that the two doctors chosen by the Schindler family were not credible (even though they had spent much more time examining the patient than did the other three doctors).  Greer did not permit the Schindlers to substitute other doctors.  Then, having eliminated all the expert testimony from one side of the argument, he issued his ruling on the basis of the testimony of the remaining three doctors: the one doctor who he chose, and the two doctors chosen by Michael Schiavo's attorney, George Felos (a famous euthanasia activist).  Between the three of them, those doctors spent a grand total only about two hours with Terri.
 * So? Their case was based on EEG and CAT evidence. Their stance is supported by the vast majority of the medical community.


 * The current version of the article (from which the "neutrality disputed" tag has been removed -- again) says, "Eight doctors examined Schiavo. Six of these examining doctors (her family physician, three doctors selected by the courts, and two doctors selected by Michael) diagnosed her to be in a persistent vegetative state." That is factually inaccurate, severely slanted, and highly deceptive:


 * 1) In fact, only the doctors selected by Michael Schiavo and his attorney, euthanasia crusader George Felos, diagnosed Terri to be in a PVS to a "clear and convincing" or better standard of evidence. One other doctor, who was selected by Judge Greer (after he had already ruled that Terri should be dehydrated to death!) said only that it was more likely than not that she was in a PVS ("preponderance of evidence"), which is less than the "clear and convincing" standard of evidence which Greer claimed in his ruling.
 * Clear and convincing is a measure of legal judgement, not a matter of medical conviction. It's the judge's job to evaluate the totality of evidence. Only he can make the statement on what he found to be clear and convincing.


 * 2) The doctors who spent the most time with Terri said that they believed she was not in a persistent vegetative state. Many other observers, including nurses, family members, and others say that she is at times obviously alert and responsive.


 * 3) In fact, to the best of my knowledge, no doctor who spent more than an hour with Terri (either in a single visit, or cumulatively, over a few days, weeks, or months) agreed with Cranford's PVS diagnosis. Not even one!
 * Why does this matter? Spending time with Terri for hours on end doesn't matter. It's what you do in this time that matters. Simple observation is known to be deceptive - just as the number of instances where Schiavo apparently shows consciousness can accumulate, you have to bear in mind that this is exactly what PVS implies. Scattered anecdotes of occassional responsiveness can never be strong scientific evidence, because of inherent confirmation bias.


 * 4) The paragraph doesn't even mention the numerous other doctors who disputed the PVS diagnosis, many of them in sworn affidavits, on the basis of video recordings showing her responsiveness to stimuli, and other medical evidence.


 * 5) The reason that most doctors who said that Terri was most likely not vegetative did not examine her in person was that they were not allowed to. Michael Schiavo and his attorney, George Felos, used every legal means available to keep doctors away from Terri who were not already committed to supporting her death.  Yet the evidence of her awareness and responsiveness was so compelling that numerous doctors were nevertheless comfortable swearing that in their professional opinions she was not in a persistent vegetative state.


 * 6) In the 1992 medical malpractice trial, Michael Schiavo's attorney argued that, "she knows her husband and looks into his eyes."
 * Different trial, different attorney. And this attorney was no medical expert.


 * 7) Michael testified in the 1992 medical malpractice trial (as a videotape of Terri's swallowing therapy was played) that the speech pathologist used "different flavors" to coax Terri into swallowing. Of course, patients in a PVS cannot taste flavors and never respond to stimuli.  Patients in a minimally conscious state respond to stimuli intermittantly -- as did Terri.
 * Michael testified that he was hoping he can get her to the point where she swallows. The pathologist did not succeed.


 * 8) The man which the current version of this article refers to as Terri's "family physician," Dr. Victor Gambone, was actually one of the doctors hand-picked by Michael Schiavo after he hired Felos to fight the legal battle to have Terri killed. Gambone never gave Terri any meaningful medical care at all.  "Gambone testified that he visits Terri 3 times a year. His visits last for approximately 10 minutes. He also testified, after viewing the court videotapes at Terri’s recent trial, that he was surprised to see Terri’s level of awareness."


 * 9) The other two doctors selected for the evidentiary hearing by Michael Schiavo and attorney George Felos were euthanasia activist Dr. Ronald Cranford, and the very elderly Melvin Greer (in his upper 70s), who each spent only about 45 minutes with Terri. Cranford always testifies for terminating food & hydration; he even did so in the case of a man who could navigate an electric wheelchair and catch a ball tossed to him.  Dr. Greer (who I think is now retired) neither treated nor diagnosed PVS in his practice.


 * 10) The one (not three!) and only physician "selected by the court," Dr. Peter Bambakidis, was chosen by Judge Greer. (BTW, Bambakidis's brother is Felos's fraternity brother.  Hmmmm... small world, I guess.)  Bambakidis is not expert on brain injuries, and neither treats nor diagnoses PVS in his practice.  But after seeing videotapes of Terri visually tracking a balloon, and responding ther her mother's kiss, Bambakidis fretted in court that, "I was concerned as to whether or not there may have been some minimal consciousness there."  Yet he spent only about 30 minutes with Terri, on a day when she had a bad cold (the same day that Crandford examined her), and on the basis of that cursory examination testified that a preponderance of the evidence supported the PVS diagnosis.  However, it is notable that "preponderance of evidence" is a legal term which means simply "more likely than not."  Bambakidis, no stranger to legalease, carefully chose legal terminology which meant that his certainty was less than the "clear and convincing" legal standard.


 * 11) It is impossible to validly diagnose PVS in just 30-45 minutes, since a PVS diagnosis requires observation of consistent absence of responsiveness, and observation of consistency requires prolonged examination. The competing diagnosis, MCS, is characterized by "inconsistent but discernible evidence of consciousness".  PVS is a diagnosis that can only be made on the basis of extended behavioral observation, because even occasional or intermittant responsiveness is proof that the patient is not in a PVS.
 * Not responsiveness. Conscious responsiveness. Again, the diagnosis of PVS was not based on behavioural observations, but on the administration of tests and measurements. Her cerebral cortex was gone. The totality of evidence from behaviour did not contradict this, according to the judgement of the courts.--Fangz 13:09, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


 * 12) The opening section of the article entirely omits the conclusions of the independent physician who spent the most time evaluating Terri. Dr. Wm Cheshire, the Mayo Clinic neurologist who examined Terri for the Florida Department of Children and Families, isn't even mentioned until about 30 paragraphs down in the article.  Dr. Cheshire was a neutral party, highly credentialed, unbiased, and not hired by either side.  He spent twice as much time examining Terri as did either Dr. Cranford or Dr. Greer, and three times as much time with her as did Dr. Bambakidis.  His affidavit regarding Terri's responsiveness which he observed is compelling, and his conclusion was that Terri was most likely not'' in a vegetative state, but rather that she was in at least a minimally conscious state.


 * The facts do not support the statement that Terri was in a persistent vegetative state. The overwhelming preponderance of evidence is that Terri was not in a PVS.  Nevertheless, I would be satisfied if the article evenhandedly gave the facts about the two different diagnoses: MCS and PVS (even without noting that the MCS diagnosis has much more support).


 * But when anyone tries to change the article to give even equal weight to the MCS diagnosis, they get reverted, insulted, and even blocked by administrator Neutrality, (who is a self-described Progressive Democrat, which certainly makes his Wikipedia handle ironic). NCdave 09:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Congressional subpoenas
In regard to the paragraph below.

Several members of the United States Congress who are also physicians offered medical opinions about her medical condition without having conducted their own examinations. Congressman Phil Gingrey, who is trained in obstetrics and gynecology, stated that, "The tragedy of the situation is that with proper treatment, now denied, Terri's condition can improve."

I'm not sure why this particular entry was struck. It's true, on the record, and lends to the NPOV requirements. I know that NCDave entries have become automatically suspect, but frankly this is a good entry. It should be allowed to remain in the article. Wjbean 20:10, 2005 May 11 (UTC)


 * NCdave's edits have become automatic reverts as far as I'm concerned. Unfortunately, he put in a bunch of stuff over several edits and people did some edits in between. I should have simply reverted to just before his first edit and have people redo their edits. But if someone else wants to put in yet another armchair diagnosis of a doctor who didn't examine Terri, sure, why not, the party's started. Isn't there a wikipedia article that has all the government involvement? I think it should be put there, rather than here. It qualifies alongside other political grandstanding as far as I'm concerned, and is only indirectly related to the the immediate issues around Terri, Michael, and the Schindlers. FuelWagon 21:13, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, the Government involvement in the Terri Schiavo case article has gone largely ignored in recent weeks. The discussion about the need for a seperate article can be found here. I agree that statements such as this are more appropriate in that article than this one.  Perhaps a review of political issues in the main article is in order, with a bias to move the fluff to the sub-article(s).  As it is, we're at 18pgs.  It's getting unwieldy again.--ghost 21:31, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Copied Congressional Subpoenas and added NCDaves addenda to Government involvement in the Terri Schiavo case Wjbean 23:47, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

Resolving link wars and review of the "Issues in Dispute" section
WIKI-wars have ensued, and one vote (me) is to include a minimal number of obligatory links at the top of each page. Grace Note and Viriditas seem to think the links to the PVS Wiki page don't belong except in one place.

LINKING WARS

Grace petitions her point of view: People will read thru the entire article.

My counterpoint answer: We have really unrelated links (like links to certain dates), so why not include links to relevant items -at the least, at the top of each sub-header.

Grace replied on my talk page: I can delete these date-type links as well, if I like.


 * This isn't a particularly good example. Full dates (i.e. month day, year) should always be linked as per Manual of Style (dates and numbers) and Manual of Style (links), so that the user's date preference will be used.  Other terms should be linked once per article or once per section at the most (see the MoS link above).  JYolkowski // talk 00:16, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * You're saying that dates are more "relevant" than technical terms used throughout the article. I respectfully dissent, and note that Fangz has proposed a compromise in which only one of my two revision links stay. While this is less than what I had hoped for the reader, I will accept it. I have no dog in the fight (no ulterior motive). --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 01:18, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

We have come to an impasse' if we argue over trivia such as this. While the others of you are welcome to "vote me down" to put me in my place (pick on the fellow who almost won in court -be jealous), that might not be such a good idea: Remember that we are here for Joe Average reader who may -or may not read from start to finish and see all the links. So, a few guideposts at the top of each sub-section is appropriate.

Other issues of dispute

Also, I believe I have outlined 5 or 6 other issues that are in dispute:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terri_Schiavo#Mr._Watts:__what.2C_specifically.2C_are_your_issues_with_regard_to_this_article

While the PVS issue was given balanced review and documentation as far as the differing points of view (AND the arguments used to support the various parties' claims), the same cannot be said of the other issues.

Why doesn't some other person examine the other issues of dispute. I give my "vote" for that, and I've laid the framework by identifying several issues of public interest and in dispute.

'As just one example, we have not broached the performance of the judge. Here's an example:'

"The appeals courts and federal courts consistently upheld Greer's rulings. Nonetheless, major differences still exist in public opinion over whether the judge acted within the law. Proponents of the judge point to the appeals courts which upheld the judge and say that Jeb Bush and Florida lawmakers violated the separation of powers doctrine by trying to overturn a decision of a court. Opponents of this view hold that the judge overstepped his authority and violated separation of powers by ruling that both the feeding tube and oral food and water be denied. Proponents of this theory point to such statutes as 825.102(3) as proof that the judge was not allowed by law to deny food and water, after the feeding tube had been disconnected. The supporters of the judge generally oppose this argument by claiming the Terri could not eat anyway and that it was moot, and the other side usually bring up the fact that this state law makes no exceptions for people with alleged eating difficulties, such as Schiavo..."

You get the picture. If someone expands this section, it will be a tedious job, but think it out, and if y'all like this idea, go for it.

Read. Re-read. Consider. Act. Later. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 09:08, 12 May 2005 (UTC)


 * See my proposal above. Intelligent people are sometimes verbose to a fault.  FuelWagon's gift is succinctness.  Grace is right, if the article weren't 18pgs long.  Try this rewrite of the above:
 * The Appeals Courts and Federal courts consistantly upheld Greer's rulings. Nonetheless, major differences still exist in public opinion over whether the judge acted within the law. Both sides point to problems with the Separation of powers.
 * I know that it may not address all of your or my issues. Perhaps that's for the best.--ghost 13:31, 12 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Fuel Wagon is usually to the point, but like all of us, jumps off the wagon and errs from time to time -even if it is an error of omission, which is just as bad as an error of commission.


 * are you some kind of punk? exactly where did I make so many errors that it qualifies for your quantifier of "from time to time"? Lets keep the record straight here, you screwed up, accused me of deleting stuff I didn't, started a whole section on teh talk page specifically about it, and kept beating the issue until I finally gave you a diff. That I didn't answer your "begging the questions" is not an error of ommission on my part, it was a conscious decision to refuse to get dragged down into your conspiracy theories. "What are they afraid of?" doesn't prove jack. If that is your "omission", it only reflects your ignorance on how logical arguments work. It is not an error of ommision. Now you state as fact that I've made enough errors to warrant "from time to time" and hide it in ad hominem terms of "we all make mistakes from time to time". You messed up. Not me. Deal with it. FuelWagon 01:34, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * You committed errors of ommission by not telling me why the judge has any compelling motive to deny testing in this very controverial case, but none of us had any business arguing over the merits of the case itself, as this page is limited to arguments over the newsworthiness of an item. I owned up to my mistake, and calm down; I'm not calling you a murder... You also committed errors or commission by telling me that links to my website did not belong becuase they were biased. True, they're biased, but is not Terris Fight dot org? And to defend your argument you suggested I delete all the links, as I recall, and if my recollection is correct, that is a stupid suggestion.


 * You committed errors of ommission by not telling me why the judge has any compelling motive  You don't seem to get this, do you? I DO NOT HAVE TO ANSWER YOUR LEADING QUESTIONS. AND THE FACT THAT I DON"T ANSWER YOUR LEADING QUESTIONS IS NOT AN ERROR ON MY PART, IT IS BULLSHIT ON YOUR PART. UNLESS YOU CAN PROVE THEY HAVE SOMETHING TO HIDE, ASKING "WHAT DO THEY HAVE TO HIDE?" IS LEADING. "have you stopped beating your wife?" you suggested I delete all the links... Unless you show me a diff, that is heresay. but you're pretty good at heresay. accusations and no evidence. questions and no answers. maybe that's why you lost that court case you seem so proud of telling us about. FuelWagon 02:44, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * "I DO NOT HAVE TO ANSWER YOUR LEADING QUESTIONS." Well, technically, I admit you are RIGHT. It's your choice. Are you happy, now. Furthermore, like I said earlier, none of us had (or have) any business even discussing the actual case here, where we should be concerned with merely what items are newsworthy, but I, being new, jumped to reply to the merits. However, remember that when you start criticizing a person's point of view by (for example) labeling a person a conspiracy theorist, you just might get an answer! By the way, since you were criticizing MY web sites for being biased and talking impeachment, why don't you share your wisdom on this: http://www.terrisfight.org/press/031005.html press release from the official Terri's Fight site, which clearly says: "Disability and Eldercare advocates need to be calling for his immediate impeachment," or maybe THESE many calls for impeachment shown on a Google.com lookup: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=site%3Ablogsforterri.com+impeachment of the Blogs for Terri. Using your standard, we'd need to remove those links too. Let's not forget that Matt Conigliaro was biased FOR the judge when he said that Greer followed the law in his recent interview with the Times of St Pete: http://www.sptimes.com/2005/04/30/Tampabay/Lawyer_shares_lessons.shtml where he said: "I don't take a side, but I do support the legal rulings. I think the judges followed the law." ...uh right! If you support the very disputed claim (correct or not) that Greer followed the law, then duh! --you DID take sides and ARE biased, Mr. Attorney Conigliaro of http://abstractappeal.com/ ---should we delete his link too... OK, enough trivial bickering; I only argued all sides of this to show you that it DOESN'T need to be argued. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 08:48, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Besides, even if WIKI doesn't list my links, they are listed on both the front page of http://www.blogsforterri.com/ as well as the press release at: http://www.terrisfight.org/pressrelease.html (I was mentioned in the 01-21-04 press release; I was the private citizen, now rather retired, thank you.) I think I'll let the Gods worry about where to place my many links. It's less stressful that way... --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 08:48, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Here's your diff:, where you say: "Why don't you delete them, if you're so all over it for deleting biased links" --here, you quoted me, but did not make clear that this is who you were quoting, and I took your statement at face value -and inferred you as the speaker, who was advocating deletion of all kinds of links. If this offends you, I am sorry, but that was neither the intent, not, in all liklihood, the actual result. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 04:24, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * So, what you're saying is that this really comes down to YOU blaming ME for your fuck up once again. You didn't recognize your own words. Yeah, I guess the part that says "and here are the excerpts from it:" is just too fucking obvious for you to figure out that I'm quoting you. Or the fact that all your quotes are italicized and listed one right after another. If this offends you, I am sorry. Ever hear of the term "conditional apology"? It's a way for a weasel like you to say a bunch of shit about someone and then weasel their way out of giving a full apology like "I am sorry." You're just a bunch of fucking excuses, aren't you? It's my fault you misread your words as coming from me. It's my fault that I might get upset at yet another one of your false accusations. And you again show a lack of balls in either giving a simple apology with no excuses or simply shutting up. Instead you put it back on me, again. No. Sorry. You fucked up. Not me. FuelWagon 04:38, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * "Conditional apology" ?? Why would I need to apologize to you if you weren't offended or harmed? You ever heard of "no harm, no fowl,?" Since you think you were harmed, I will trust your judgement even if I don't get the details. I apologize for offending you and for various other oversights or misquotes. I also had offered to make restitution, here "... tell me the damange, and I will work out some remuneration." and here  "I would be open to making restitution of I damaged or harmed someone, have faith, that's true; however, we should focus on presenting the historical facts..." --but you did not reply on that point, and that is why I believed you had not suffered major harm, but I guess I was wrong again. Maybe this is too much bother for me to be deeply involved in editing WIKIpedia, and, since I was planning to spend less time on WIKI anyway, you might enjoy this. You say you are right on a great many points. This seems to imply you are intelligent. Well, if that is so, then you can resolve the disputes with NCDave and others. Happy now? --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 04:53, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Why would I need to apologize to you if you weren't offended or harmed? If you had any sense of honor or integrity then you would understand. That you feel no compulsion to correct a lie unless someone else 'suffered major harm, shows a lack of respect for your own words. FuelWagon 05:21, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course I feel compeled to try to right a wrong, and this compulsion, as you call it, motivated me to attempt to get Theresa Schiavo proper medical help -and also motivated me to attempt to right the wrongs that I sometimes commit against global neighbors. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 05:31, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Don't put fuel on the fire. What are you accomplishing by arguing over trival matters? "De Minimis

adj. Latin meaning "of minimum importance" or "trifling." Refers to a small, little, or minuscule difference that is so tiny that the law will not consider it. For example: a $10 mistake is de minimus in a million dollar cover-up" ALSO relvent to the point: Occam's Razor, which states: "In its simplest form, Occam's Razor states that one should make no more assumptions (or aguments, I add) than needed. When multiple explanations are available for a phenomenon, the simplest version is preferred."


 * That is, it is trivial and trite, I believe is the term and an argument or explanation on your part that is not needed as it serves no useful purpose: I am not threatening you, and told everybody earlier that if I had harmed someone, I would make good. In the very rare event that my mistakes (and I did commit some accidental error) injured you, tell me the damange, and I will work out some remuneration. Otherwise, replace adding fuel to the fire with adding fuel to the wagon, lol. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 01:47, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * What are you accomplishing by arguing over trival matters? Hey, asshole. Printing stuff that basically say "FuelWagon makes errors from time to time" may seem like trivia to you, but it's fucking bullshit to me. Your "ommission error" argument is bullshit. It ain't trivial anymore. comprende? Here's the problem: You fucked up and you're too fucking immature to own it as your own problem, so you have to try and spread the blame around to people around you with your "FuelWagon, like all of us, makes mistakes from time to time." No. Sorry. You fucked up all by yourself here. FuelWagon 02:55, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * You yourself admit you make errors, so I add nothing new to the situation, and it seems unlikly you are harmed, but subscribing to your theory that somehow that matter is not trivial, implying you are harmed seriously, I am greatly sorry and would apologize. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 04:24, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * You yourself admit you make errors... So, once again, the blame is back on me? I am greatly sorry and would apologize.  Oh, you would apologize, now, would you? You're a real piece of work, you know that? FuelWagon 04:44, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * "...would..." - see my reply on conditional apologies above. ... No, on 2nd thought, I'll go ahead and spare you; Since you think you were harmed or suffered loss, I will trust your judgement; I apologize for the harm. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 04:53, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Regarding your suggestion, it is good, but it is also incomplete. Since I don't feel like addressing it now, I will support your suggested revision and wish to opine on NCDave's battles as well:


 * His suggestion that the various minimally conscious diagnoses be included in the very top is not unbiased, but, since it is included only a few sentences below also, it is not such a problem for the article if Dave does not get his way. That is, his revision was not biased, but it was minor and could be OK with or without it. However, as I've said before, we need to assume that the reader will sometimes jump to a subsection, and make sure the intros to each subsection are not misleading or incomplete.


 * The reader may want to know the story behind the other areas of dispute, which leads to the "Gordon Rule." This rule (I'm just making up the term now, thank you) means that, as a rule, the history of the dispute should be chronicled, with both sides described. Showing both sides eliminates a biased POV; this must include the arguments that both sides use to support their assertions. (The 2 terms are distinct.) As "support" documents, links to (1) opinion/advocacy pieces; and, (2) cites to the law or constitution should be used; and, (3) cites to compilations of court documents or related articles should be used too. The fact that one website is biased should not disqualify it. (Most or all websites have some bias, one way or another.) --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 01:18, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, now that we've calmed down a little (I hope?), maybe we collectively can consider how to be unbiased and follow the "Gordon Rule," the example I used above is now boldface and like several paragraphs above. Instead of trying to tell you how the Gordon Rule operates, let me refer you to the example, which is, I admit, incomplete in that it doesn't have many links, but can give you some idea of how to get the job done. Do I follow my own rule? Is it a good example that others can follow? --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 01:28, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * "Gordon's Rule"??? Man, you're so vain, you probably think this Terri Schiavo article is about you. Don't you. Don't you. (Hm, considering how many times you keep telling us of your involvment in the story, there might be something there.) Most or all websites have some bias. Chuckle. That's an interesting "well, everyone's doing it" argument to justify your propaganda site. sorry. No pass. FuelWagon 01:38, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm bad to the bone in my legal prowess, and I have gone where "no man has gone before..." (and would probably not want to go, he he...) --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 04:24, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * And, just exactly how much more did you accomplish in this dispute? What brave legal accomplishments have you incurred? And, who exactly did better than me in court in trying to save Terri with regards to the cold, dry facts of success? (Remember: The standard is that someone has to equal or beat 43% of the sitting panel. I was defeated 4-3, meaning 3/7 is almost 43%. Of course, the opposing side "did better," in that they won, but I am not comparing myself to them.) --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 01:55, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * What brave legal accomplishments have you incurred? None so brave as you, Don Quixote. You slay those windmills right to the ground. I am in awe. FuelWagon 02:57, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't see any windmills arguing with me. Do you? --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 04:24, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

wacky edit
I don't know what happened on this edit here but it has my name by it. I sure don't remember doing it. did something get messed up in the database or something? FuelWagon 00:07, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * That's entirely possible. I figured it was accidental &mdash; most people who deliberately remove things from Talk: pages are a bit more precise in their editing &mdash; so I went ahead and reverted it. - jredmond 00:14, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

another wacky edit


NCdave's version is described as the 'less POV version'. now THAT is whacky. FuelWagon 03:20, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

The vandal has been reported here FuelWagon 04:01, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * You did not document your claim on that page as well as you did here; I clarified and affirmed some of your claim and overturned other of it here: --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 04:44, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

"Minimally conscious state"
Did the physicians nominated by the Schindlers use this phrase in their testimony? I think they just denied she was in PVS. Hammesfahr claimed she had some living tissue in the cortex and that by using some quack therapies he could "improve function". He didn't say how. Cheshire said she was in a minimally conscious state some time afterwards. Can the editors who want to associate MCS with Hammesfahr and Maxfield please cite them doing so? I'm editing the passage in question and hope that other editors will prevent its reversion until you do so cite them. Grace Note 03:53, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe that is a more accurate representation of the facts. FuelWagon 04:03, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

This is his report of the exam he made. Note that he doesn't mention MCS. He actually claims that Schiavo is in far better shape than even that diagnosis would suggest. Grace Note 04:18, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Crackpot Links
I rev*rted another DimWatts perversion. He keeps adding his three links, two of which are identical, all of which are out of date, two of which violate good website design principles by forcing the visitor to listen to music, and none of which offer anything new that isn't available on any of the other links posted. Duckecho 14:07, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh, following Gordon's Rule (that if it's mentioned once by one's self on the talk page it's a consensus&mdash;at least that's my Gordon's Rule), I now have a consensus to keep DimWatts' vanity links off the article page. Duckecho 14:07, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Now, Duckecho, you know you shouldn't try to slyly talk behind someone's back when you know you've picked an argument that's a little thin. OK, shall I answer your point on consensus?


 * I didn't talk behind your back. I said it right here, in plain sight.


 * Only because I was able to use the diffs tool, was I able to locate your comments beneath this maze of words; otherwise, I'd be looking all day for the current add-on... --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 16:09, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

1. On this diff, at 22:32, 13 May 2005, Mia-Cle (Miami-Cleveland) may not agree with me when she says: "Your legal involvement is not at all similar to the cadre of lawyers...," but she certainly agrees with me when she says that I "...need to shelve [my] ego and view your attempt within the bigger framework. As such, it is not nearly as important as you would like to think, although it [my involvement in the court cases, as shown by appropriate links] does merit mention within the activist section."


 * Yes, he did say that&mdash;in the "activist section, not three links in the link section. I will write an appropriate edit in that section. NB: one person conceding a minor point on one subject does not equal a consensus on an overall major (and duplicate) addition to another section.


 * One person conceded a point, and no one else challenged our agreement. You must love edit wars, because you seem to do your best to aviod stopping them of late... --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 16:09, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

2. On this diff, at 03:08, 14 May 2005, while Grace_Note may not agree about how much a certain set of doctors' opinion is worth, nonetheless she agrees with me that: "It's worth noting that they contested it [the PVS diagnosis..."


 * Yes, and the article reflects that dispute. And that discussion has nothing to do with adding links to the bottom. NB: one person conceding a minor point on one subject does not equal a consensus on an overall major (and duplicate) addition to another section.


 * Again, this premise was NOT challenged by ANY in the community; Also, YES, you're right, it is not related to links, but proves my claim that I work by seeking consensus -something you used to know how to do, but have forgotten as I recall your eariler posts...? (get back on the ball!) --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 16:09, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

3. On this diff, at 06:04, 14 May 2005, while FuelWagon can't see where I thought there was ambiguity in the intro, we nonetheless agree that is sounded better with his revision, which spelled out exactly which doctor came from where and what he said in his diagnosis.


 * Yes, his revision. And that discussion has nothing to do with adding links to the bottom. NB: one person conceding a minor point on one subject does not equal a consensus on an overall major (and duplicate) addition to another section.


 * "consensus" does not always start with "Gordon's revision," although it oft times does. I AM not the center of the universe.... --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 16:09, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

4. Notably, on this diff, at 14:02, 14 May 2005, Fangz may mean well, but still says that: "In short, Viridian (and others) do not need to justify their reversions. It is necessary for you to justify your own notability, to achieve an agreement, and then using this permission, to add it..." (Huh ? Am I reading this right, or did he say I need to justify my proposed edits, but others don't need to the same...?) Even if'' that is the case, I have justified why my work on the Schiavo case was notable --I came closer than anyone to having won Terri's freedom in court; and if that doesn't justify mention, then nothing does, except maybe that the other side won ... I think people on this board are jealous of my accomplishments, and this is not the right place to play that game.)
 * You may have made arguments in that direction, but you have not achieved agreement. Re-read the policy on external links again. While there are no such things as absolute rules on wikipedia, the emphasis is clear that the default position is that of opposition to any attempts to link to oneself. Since you are challenging the default consensus, rather than upholding it (which is what the others are doing), you need to justify yourself. This isn't a discussion board. Wikipedia is not a place to express oneself.--Fangz 15:26, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I would agree that the "burden of proof," if you would, is on my shoulders, but you seem to be saying that it is impossible to justify listing my WebPages; Even if you say it is theoretically possible, you offer no sound justifications for your actions being different than your words. Also, the other minor mods I've made (look at the diffs) are justified and clarify things. Look, I say, go back and look at the diffs; y'all all know how to do that, right? --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 15:31, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm tackling one issue at a time. The current issue is your addition of links to your own webpages. To show notability and relevance, you need to either (a) get an independent witness to add it for you, (b) show a more significant presence in or  etc. Fewer than 50 results, mostly from the same decidedly un-neutral blog/website, does not much notability make.--Fangz 15:45, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Tackling one issue at a time is maybe easier, but please be aware that I had made a number or minor edits (not related to my websites) which were simply erased, thus prompting the call for review/discussion (talk). Also, that was a neat trick you showed me in Google here:, but check *this* link: , jumping my mention from like 116 to like 265 - let's see what happens when only my first and last name is used (there is another Gordon Watts who has occasionally discussed Schiavo, so this last figure might be inflated) - here goes: ok, only 180, but I got lots of mention in the "Blogesphere" or the "Internet Universe," as it were; Also, I saw your comment that you though I acted prematurely by posing my link. I will take your advice, because, even though I was indeed a mojor participant who (I think) was denied by those jealous of my unique (and very financially costly) accomplishment, it might be better for my link to not appear -even if it belongs -in the interests of peace. History will show I am right, and I will survive, but WIKI will be diminished in this act. It's not like I am trying to post a "Gordon Watts" link; heck, my site deals more with Schiavo than does Matt's abstract appeal site; Also, someone apparently DID think I was right in prior comments that matt was over-represented: Someone deleted one of his links and left the other: They were exact duplicate links, but maybe his front page should be listed as one link and his "schiavo" page as another; Likewise, I have both "front page news" and purely "Schiavo" pages. See this: --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 07:42, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


 * and --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 07:42, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


 * PS: I am a proponant of posting a "mirror" link: What if one site goes down? A link only takes up a tiny bit of space on the page, and DOES usually still fit on one line, so why not put it in? --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 07:42, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Because if we put one link in, that sets a precedent, and we will end up having to put every link in. The huge list you posted is proof of this. And no, your google searches are insufficient, because we are counting unique entries only. See :
 * In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 45 already displayed.
 * Many of your results were in fact forums and the like, pages with a great many subpages and sub-conversations that inflate the result. For example, searching for MY forum username produces over 3000 results. But only 33 of them are unique. Compare with Abstract Appeal, with 536 unique results, and Terrisfight, with over 700. You still aren't notable.--Fangz 19:05, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Searching your involvement in the Schiavo case: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=fzplus+schiavo shows you had no involvement. Let's look for my name without limiting it to merely schiavo entries: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22gordon+watts%22 Wow! Over 7,000 and many of them mine. (There are other Gordon Watts' but not many Gordon W Watts: see http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22gordon+w+watts%22 listing about 330 entries, still quite a few - more than the 40 or 50 I think is the standard.) --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 05:55, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


 * "You still aren't notable" The numbers are there, plus my achievement in court was better than that of the big players, and thus merits at least as much mention, lol. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 05:55, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


 * An actual attorney has already pointed out to you (as have I) that there are no points for second place in litigation. You didn't come closer to not losing&mdash;you lost. If you keep playing the other people...are jealous and people are picking on me, you squander what little credibilty you have. [e]xcept maybe that the other side won...??? Uh, the other side winning justifies everything. They are the ones that prevailed. That is what makes the article&mdash;any article. NB: one person conceding a minor point on one subject does not equal a consensus on an overall major (and duplicate) addition to another section.


 * If I had not had "credibility," I would have not only probably lost 7-0 in that court case, but probably they would not have even considered my case; you do know that some cases aren't even considered -just tossed as fast as they enter --better check with your attorney friend... Re-read my points above; you seem to miss that I have either gotten others to agree with my propositions, or, sometimes, agreed to theirs, like that time when I wanted to put in 2 PVS links and we all agreed (or allowed?) 1 link. You do remember, don't you -or do you want me to fish out THAT diff to... lol... **sigh** --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 16:09, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

5. On this diff, at 07:17, 14 May 2005, we find Cantus making major revisions, and while I took major exception to that, we both agreed that his entry of the following text was a good idea: "...battles to disconnect her feeding tube generated tremendous media coverage during the last two weeks of her life and prompted a fierce debate over bioethics, euthanasia, legal guardianship, federalism, and civil rights." (Not only were Cantus and myself in apparent agreement on that sentence, which "set the tone," I saw no one else take issue with it


 * Yes, his entry. And that discussion has nothing to do with adding links to the bottom. NB: one person conceding a minor point on one subject does not equal a consensus on an overall major (and duplicate) addition to another section.


 * This is not a relevant point to your claims about my links -- this was mentioned to show that I am flexible and work with others ...the Wiki rules don't have a problem with my links, because, while the standard is high to show they're related to the case, I've met the standard; WIKI doesn't have a problem with listing my outside links, and neither should you. Remember: what comes around, goes around, and you don't want to start bad Karma. (I'm not threatening you, as I'm about fed up enough to leave you all to stew -but stew and edit-wars you will, I warn you now.) --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 16:09, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

--yet other slash and burn deleters surely did delete this revision. the closest anyone came to criticizing that sentence was when Viriditas, as this diff opined in comments that: "Your changes confuse the lead..." not a criticism of the actual sentence. no criticism, but y'all deleted it like shooting ducks in a pond. Ducks don't like to be shot, and neither do we!@

In conclusion you make the same mistake as Viriditas in saying that I have no business to "...advertise your web site," as he put it. I am not selling anything; It is a non-profit site. As for the music, there are no rules of which I am aware against that, so you have no basis to complain here. I will keep my own counsel on which pages have music for my readers.


 * That's fine (keeping your own counsel&mdash;nothing else). And the majority of the editors will keep theirs on whether amateurish, redundant, self aggrandizing webtrash belongs in the article. NB: one person conceding a minor point on one subject does not equal a consensus on an overall major (and duplicate) addition to another section.

Lastly, you must not have an argument, or else you would not make fun of my name and try to call me a dim wit -er, DimWatts, as you put it.

In conclusion, I am in consensus with (many people on many points, namely...) 1,2,3, and 5 of the above on various points, and number 4, well-meaning or not, plays a double standard, which by the definition is unfair, and in DIS-agreement with known logic. none of which offer anything new that isn't available on any of the other links posted ..huh? I mention my appeal before the UN, which NO one else mentions in this detail -if at all, but it is real and relevant. I may not have won, but neither did Gibbs or Pat Anderson, and, Matt Conigliaro, the Abstract Appeal webmaster did not participate in ANY court proceedings in this case, less than did I. His site is biased, as I documented in prior posts, but it is linked in two places in the sources section -and the SAME page, not even a mirror; this is duplicative and inappropriate: Either his page is a "source of documents" or it is "commentary/opinion/advocacy." You can’t have it both ways, and your support of him indicates your bias. When I linked a page in the "compilation" section -it really was a compilation of court documents, Duck!


 * My support of him? Please cite.


 * Your actions speak louder than your words. By your refusal to delete the Abstract Appeal site, you show that you support him. Your argument is short- running out of steam, I see. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 16:09, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

'Also, I am not in violation with the WIKIpedia rules on vanity. Re-read the rules' before you start name calling behind ones back. You are lowering the bar to civility... (as well as not grasping the rules; the only favorable thing I can say of your argument is you have several supporters who are fellow-deleters, but this does not prove your argument, only force me to answer more protesters, and make me question myself just to make sure I am right in my claims; I am not objective -those are my sites -but I am right, you know, it's not impossible for a person to post and link his own page.


 * It wasn't behind your back, it was right here in plain sight. I have more supporters for deleting your vandalism than you have for any kind of consensus. NB: one person conceding a minor point on one subject does not equal a consensus on an overall major (and duplicate) addition to another section.


 * What does "NB" mean in your context? I am not a walkng accronymn thesaurus? --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 16:09, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

"Crackpot links" -- your accusations above are crackpot, as evidenced by my very well documented answer here. You should recede from your accusations, and make reasoned analyses if you have a case. Slash and burn gets no where, because you will set precedent: After many days of work on your edits, someone may just come in and destroy days of edits, and, let's remember, your involvement in this case is nowhere near as credible as is mine. You are a viewer; I am an actual participant in the saga. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 15:02, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Correction, an actual loser. My presence here, as everyone else's, is equally, if not more, credible than yours. After all, none of the rest of us have a losing record of litigation in the matter. Duckecho 15:37, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Heads up, Einstein: One side ALWAYS loses, whether right or wrong; That one side lost does not disqualify them from mention. If your crackpot proposition were true, then you would not allow mention of the Schindlers; after all, they lost even more than did I, right? But you do mention them, underming your premise, and showing it to be childish. So, you should back off your criticisms, and understand that while I'm not perfect, and sometimes err, such criticisms are not the way to make your argument. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 16:09, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


 * If you keep making such a big deal about more people being on your side (whether true or not), I will let you handle the inevitable Wiki-edit-wars that ensue, I will not defend you (as I will have left), and I may address this childish behavior to the Wiki overlords, and let you deal with them; as I've done nothing worthy of wrath, I have nothing to fear by involving the overseers and demi-gods. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 16:09, 14 May 2005 (UTC)in your own bed: You made it.

Time for RFC?
Maybe the above dispute has gone on long enough. Sign underneath, if you think it's time to go to Request for Comment, or beyond.--Fangz 16:19, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

One dispute that should be resolved is whether to list the links to the web page of he who was not equaled in court in efforts to save Terri -and whose links are listed on Terri's Fight, Terri's Blogs, and in other places:[2] (http://www.prweb.com/releases/2005/2/prweb212613.htm), [3] (http://press.arrivenet.com/nfp/article.php/603000.html), [4] (http://hometown.aol.com/gww1210/myhomepage/PressRelease02-25-2005.html), [5] (http://geocities.com/Gordon_Watts32313/PressRelease02-25-2005.html) My links are no less relevant than the links from Terri's Blogs and Terri's Fight. In fact, both places have listed my links, so if they think my pages are relevant, WIKI should no dispute this. for example, look at http://www.terrisfight.org/pressrelease.html and note the 01-21-04 press release: I am the private citizen; See also on http://www.blogsforterri.com/ where Gordon watts' website is mentioned. Guess whose site that is? (Mine) Wiki should see the trend, and note that I have become a part of history, whatever else my human faults may be... and my advocacy - commentary pages have less spelling errors than here, I think... Stongly discourage, yes, but adding links to my page is almost obligatory, so it should be done for the sake of the "Wiki" encyclopedia reader.

In conclusion, I note that one dispute is whether to list my links (the 2 mirror news/commentary sites and my personal site) --also at issue is whether it is right that minor edits I have made are reverted as if I am some fool. You don't like it when days of work that has been allowed by consensus is flushed down the toilet because someone doesn't like 1 link you place or the music on the page is disquieting, lol. Yes, I sign on to your two requests for comment and resolution. And, you will be lucky if you get my help; No offense, I hope your WIKI page does well, but this is a royal waste of time. Work. Trash it. Work. Trash it. Bull cr@p! --We need to grow up and not act like children, lol. I sign on - please review my various comments on my page and on this talk page for details. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 16:34, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

If Terri's fight and Terri's blog feel my site is credible (not all are), I don't see what the problem with Wiki should be. I will list just 1 site in the commentary, even though the same Abstract appeal site is listed twice -once in compilations and once in advocacy. If you dispute it, you take it up amongst yourselves. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 16:34, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


 * A simple Yes, I want RFC is enough. (unsigned comment by User:Fangz)
 * Yes, I want an RFC FuelWagon 00:36, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Maybe we do. Unfortunately, what appears to have been dispute over small issues has been blown up, possibly out of proportion.  I would like to make a suggestion that might help to avert the need for an RfC, though.


 * Gordon, I don't feel the problem is credibility; rather, I think that most people are removing the links because they're in violation of External links, which states that "Adding links to one's own page is strongly discouraged" etc. What I would suggest is for you to stop adding links to your personal sites to the article, and add a new section on this page (the other ones are a bit of a mess...) saying that you would like to add the links you mentioned, but don't want to do it yourself because of External links.  Ask for someone else to do it for you (feel free to contact a few people on their talk pages too, if you want).  If someone else adds the link, then that's okay.  If no-one else does, then it would appear that there is no concensus for the link to appear in the article.  Sound okay?


 * If this doesn't work out and/or no-one else offers any other suggestions to help defuse this dispute, it may be time for an RfC. JYolkowski // talk 17:04, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I am just now catching up on messages; Yes, JY, good idea, and maybe better than my plan. However, even after having added links after a long process of consensus, I envision some jolly nut coming along an wrecking the page, and then the "fixing" of it later to an inferior state. I think the very common edit wars that delete hours, nay, days of work of many people to be a counterproductive atmosphere and diminishes WIKI. I will review and reply briefly to the other comments, one-by-one. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 07:58, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


 * You (Watts) could do a whole lot to defuse the acrimony with one simple expedient: make the minor edits you consider relevant and well thought out. I haven't seen a lot of concern over them. See if they get reverted. I will even accede to waiting before reverting you automatically as a vandal to review and let others review the edits for efficacy.


 * However, if you continue to bundle your minor edits with your unacceptable (that is, against wiki policy) inclusions of your personal website(s), you will continue to be treated as a vandal (also in accordance with wiki policy) and your baby will be thrown out with the bath water. Such bundling is like when Congress votes on an omnibus entitlements bill which no one wants to oppose but on which certain odious amendments are tacked such as billion dollar grants to campaign contributors or the like (it's a metaphor; I don't have a cite; use your imagination).


 * This approach seems safer, the step-by-step approach. I think I may try it, if I get around to trying anything... good Congressional and misc. analogies, and your point has merit. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 08:14, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Moreover, if, as you say, "...whose links (yours) are listed on Terri's Fight, Terri's Blogs, and in other places..." then there seems to be adequate access available for those who wish to admire your work. That has to be your only reason for wanting to put your links here since the information contained therein is readily available elsewhere.


 * now, wait a second, Duck; you were on the right track above, but this logic here is bad: If it is true that links available elsewhere should be omitted as you say, then the case is even stronger for omitting the Abstract appeal links, cuz their availability on the Internet is more numerous than are those which are "mine." --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 08:14, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


 * NB: nota bene, meaning mark well or "hey, look at this, it's important." I would have thought a well (self) publicized blogger who calls himself a journalist and who has failed at the highest levels in the state would be well acquainted with such a common literary contraction.


 * I don't know it all; Didn't Einstein need to use a table to see how many feet were in a mile, lol... Anyhow, I still hope you readers enjoy my vast Internet universe, and to bring up another point you or someone else at one point made, YES, my pages are NOT "updated up to the minute" all the time, but, for those who've NEVER read all my pages, ...to THEM these WebPages WILL be new, and thus "updated," aka "useful." --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 08:14, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Also, I have taken official note of your threats. I eagerly await your presentation with the powers that be. Duckecho 17:40, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Message received, Duck. Quack. While I don't like conflict, and understand the chance I might lose -even if I'm right (a lesson I learned in court), if pushed I (or anyone) would (will) holler. After all, wasn't it the late Gov. Lawton Chiles that said "A cut dog hollers," in response to media criticism of him getting upset at a comment made by gubernatorial opponent Jeb Bush in a long-ago race for Governor? (I was cut, so it is expected I holler, but I don't intend to pick any fights.) --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 08:14, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid I feel Gordon is not just a partisan and a POV pusher but a menace. He has become a Wikipedia editor, it seems, solely to try to impose his POV on this article. If you won't revert him on the spot, I assure you I will, unless he makes small edits, cogently argued in fresh sections on this page, and properly sourced. I don't mind that he intends to convince "Jone Average-Reader" of the rightness of his cause but I do mind that he doesn't feel that he must convince us first. I don't care that Terri's fight linked his blog. It would linked my dog if it had barked that Terri should be fed. Grace Note 03:45, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


 * See below, Grace Note, where I made "small edits" as you suggest -and show the diff as a source for where I "cogently argued" my case, and "properly sourced" the edits with several balanced links and a concluding sentance that suppoted the opposite POV, namely that Terri was PVS. GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida I took your advice, but you still complained below. ?? --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 06:36, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


 * (I think you meant "Joe-Average...," -typo?, lol) ...and while you seem to be quite ticked, I think you may have a point: you're the 2nd person (Duck being the 1st) in recent times to suggest little-by-little and non-controversial edits. I think (as I said earlier) that I will try to go at a step-by-step pace if/when editing. You have to remember, however, that this is a very slow process, so, when at the keyboard, sometimes I might be tempted to get all the birds with one stone, but I think I'll try to resist my temptation. Also, if you are a guy, I am sorry if I labeled and referred to you as "she." It was a Freudian slip, based on my inference of your login and a guess. Both men and women, I add, however are important. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 08:14, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

UPDATE: I tried taking your advice, Grace Note: See e.g., first this diff, where we had discussion on the PVS page, and Hondje's suggestions to me were accepted by others, and then later by me; see, next: this  diff, of the front page of the article, here: Persistent_vegetative_state. My additions were factual, balanced, and after some level of discussion and talk; you can't get 100% consensus, but I think I set a fair example, and let's remember, this is a minor change and balanced. Did I set the standard high enough to be OK but low enough that it is not an impossible feat? I hope my additions made the reader feel like he/she could understand what was going on an dsee both sides of the conflict. I hope you all can fix my work with minor adjustments if i miss the mark. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 09:21, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for drawing it to my attention. I have removed your videos from the page. There's already way too much on that page about Schiavo, given that it is a general page about PVS and not a discussion of your pet subject. Are you aware that PVS has been much discussed outside of Schiavo? If you want to add something to the PVS article, google up Tony Bland and get busy. Those videos have absolutely nothing to do with PVS. Are they supposed to illustrate it in some way?


 * BTW, I meant "Jone". I don't assume the readers of Wikipedia are men. Also, "grey" is the UK spelling of the colour. Please don't correct to your preferred spellings. Both are acceptable on Wikipedia. Grace Note 00:04, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I indented your paragraphs above; Now, you thank me for helping you undo what I did after there was some level of consensus reached? Why don't you take up your disagreements with Hondje who made those suggestions to me -instead of simply reversing someone else's hard work; I complied with his requests, I do believe. So, take it up with him... --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 06:30, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

"If you want to add something to the PVS article, google up Tony Bland and get busy." Your suggestion may be well meant, but is flawed for the same reason that it was a flaw for me to believe you would give weight to the concensus reached with Hondje --and not questioned on that page -by discussing it among those page memebers then: Any such actions I make to make you happy here would, no doubt, be reverted by some moron bigmouth, who talks the language of "automatic reverts." (I'm not referring to any particular person, so don't read that into it; I'm speaking of morons in the general sense.) Yet, who would get blamed? Me, because this page has become a page of argument, not of logic and discussion and consensus: For example, every several days, major changes are made by people after much consensus is reached. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 06:30, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

"Those videos have absolutely nothing to do with PVS." Of course they do: They depict the most well-known subject who is associated with the subject of PVS, and while Mr. Bland is not out of place on this page, I'll let you do that, if you think it is such a good idea; If you don't take your own suggestion, then I will have my proof that your suggestion to me was a red herring distraction, but I won't accuse you prematurely without waiting to see your response. "Are they supposed to illustrate it in some way?" Yes! They illustrate the facts of what Terri was like -and, while these images are helpful to support those who questioned her PVS diagnosis, the presentation was balanced, as evidenced in the end of the edit, which mentioned that the courts consistently upheld the PVS diagnosis. The fact you don't like balanced information is not my fault! Would you have preferred I leave out that last sentence that mentioned the courts found and upheld the PVS diagnosis?! (It would have been POV unbalanced had I done so.) --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 06:30, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

UPDATE was right: Proof for Grace Note, See this diff, where the other user was pleased with my edits. You are outnumbered 2-1, but that still does not mean you're wrong; argue your case and get other consensus (not counting the "automatic revert" crowd; They would be prejudiced in pre-judging.) --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 07:10, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Here are some links that you may find helpful
Here are some links that you may find helpful:


 * "Advocacy and Commentary"
 * http://www.prolifeblogs.com/ (Obvious why this is relevant: Pro-Terri)
 * http://www.highway2health.net/ (Pro-Terri)
 * http://www.theempirejournal.com/ (2nd rate, but very informative; Pro-Terri)
 * http://www.thedavidallenshow.com/ (Radio Talk show host; David Allan IS an attorney; Pro-Terri)
 * http://www.apfn.org/ (Message Board; rather pro-Terri and Anti-Government)
 * http://www.hospicepatients.org/ (The name says it all; Re: Hospice care; very pro-Terri)
 * www.freerepublic.com/ (Another well-known message board; somewhat pro-Terri)
 * http://AbstractAppeal.com (An Attorney's blog; purports to be neutral, and usually is, but author made Anti-Terri comments in St Pete Times article recently (Matt said Greer followed the law); This link is NOT on Wiki, but probably should be --his compilation is in Wiki sources section.)
 * http://www.carltonfields.com/attorneys/bio.aspx?SectionID=5&bioid=000001639003 (Matt's personal page; he is the author of Abstract Appeal - this page is NOT listed in Wiki, but could be an active link where his name is shown; doing this would take up no more space on Wiki page at all)
 * http://www.glennbeck.com/ (Known supporter of Terri Schiavo but not active recently)
 * http://www.societyfortruthandjustice.com/ (Known supporters of Terri)
 * http://www.worldnetdaily.com/ (Has done Pro-Terri news coverage in the past)
 * http://libertytothecaptives.net/ Private site of woman who has done Pro-Terri commentary / research
 * http://saveterrislife.com/ Another private site - Very lengthy - Pro-Terri
 * http://www.fight4terri.blogspot.com/ - Blog - Pro-Terri
 * http://www.aclu.org/ National ACLU website - Very Anti-Terri
 * http://www.aclufl.org/ FLORIDA ACLU website - Very Anti-Terri
 * http://hometown.aol.com/Gww1210 (The Register - balanced, but pro-Terri)
 * http://geocities.com/Gordon_Watts32313 (mirror, in case AOL server is busy or times out)
 * http://gordonwatts.com/ (Personal website to Register editor - has links to 2 paper mirror - Gordon is Pro-Terri )
 * http://www.aclj.org/ American Center for Law and Justice - Very Pro-Terri
 * http://www.nrlc.org/ National right to life (Pro-Terri)
 * http://www.notdeadyet.org/ (Not Dead Yet, Pro-Terri, but LIBERAL leanings and represents handicapped folk)
 * http://katesjourney.com/ (Personal website of a woman who was declared PVS but wasn't - VERY GOOD! and scary...)


 * Compilations
 * http://www.thedavidallenshow.com/topics/terrischindler/ (David Allen's compilation - Pro-Terri)
 * www.freerepublic.com/focus/search?m=all;o=time;s=schiavo (Lookup / Search compilation in Freepers; somewhat pro-Terri)
 * http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html (Abstract Appeal "Info Page" compilation - this IS in Wiki but is listed here for contrast to show which link is which; Somewhat Neutral; see above comments)
 * http://reasonmclucus.tripod.com/terri.html (Compilation / dialogue with linked documentation; Seems Neutral)
 * http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/saveterrislife/ (Private group - read only - Pro-Terri)
 * http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/articles4/terrifrms.htm (Private site - a very good compilation of links / advocacy - Pro-Terri)
 * http://hometown.aol.com/gww1210/myhomepage/schiavo.html -In depth analysis (somewhat pro-Terri) of Terri's Law
 * http://www.geocities.com/gordon_watts32313/schiavo.html (mirror to above site - in case link is down or busy)
 * http://hometown.aol.com/Gww1210/myhomepage/CourtCases.html - Compilation of Court Case documents - rather neutral
 * http://www.geocities.com/gordon_watts32313/CourtCases.html - mirror to said site; in case one link is down or site busy
 * http://terrisfight.org/links.html (Compilation of LINKS from official website - very complete)

PS: There are NO duplications above, as best I can see; every page is different, even if a few have the same root page; that was on purpose.

Sorry folks, I could only find a few "anti" Terri sites or compilations, but I did try. You are welcome to include more. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 10:08, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... Someone in Tiawan or China is reading my pages? (From my web tracker)

Date/Time: 5/14/2005 7:18:35 AM <> Domain Origin: Taiwan Browser: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322) Referring Page URL:



Requested Pages 5/14/2005 7:18:35 AM And, no, I didn't put my link on the Chinese Wiki site: Check for yourself: (I'm not bragging; this is just freaky, ...) --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 10:46, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


 * What does this have to do with the article?--Fangz 16:34, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


 * 2 things: 1- it showed a slightly wider appeal for one of my links than was otherwise thought, and 2-it was a lighthearted brief diversion; we all needed that. Before we discuss any of the links, note 2 more things: 1-my sites have varied pages: not all are alike (some news, some commentary, some compilations or court documents, some compilations of links, like front page, for example) --2- there are many links, not meant to overwhelm, but to provide sufficient documentation for anything that may come up. Readers want documentation, and I provide it, in spades. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 05:37, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Pro vs anti
Gordo, please dispense with your POV pro/anti labels. The judgement of the court was to affirm by clear and convincing evidence that Terri's wish was to not continue to live on artificial life support. Most of the subsequent appeals and motions dealt with fulfilling the found sentiments of the ward (you must read them carefully&mdash;the judge ordered people to not interfere with the fulfillment of Terri's wishes).

While you may not like that decision, it is the law of the land (that is, has been affirmed at every appellate level). Therefore, when someone takes a position in agreement with that ruling, they are pro-Terri, and those who disagree (as yourself) are anti-Terri. Quite out of step with your mis-characterizations. Duckecho 17:28, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Duck, There was much concern that both links and comments should be presented in a balanced way (not with all presenting one point of view), so, in order to help the causal Wiki editor (like you, for example) sift through the mountain, I made notes. If you don't like them, close your eyes, but I included the comments to help you, so you need not complain. Further, I acted appropriately, in discussing links (in the 1st place) before adding them; would you have been happier had I just snapped a few links on the page without discussion? I acted on your hint to discuss maters **argh!** don't complain when one makes special detail to help his fellow editor and be a good neighbor. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 05:42, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Duckecho, Judge Greer did, indeed, so rule, but he did so in defiance of the evidence, not conformity to it. The evidence is overwhelming that Terri never expressed such a wish.


 * Before the malpractice award, the remainder of which Michael Schiavo stood to inherit upon Terri's death, neither he nor anyone else ever suggested that she had ever expressed a desire to not live in her brain-damaged condition.


 * Moreover, during the first couple of years after her injury, Michael Schiavo often said that that he had no idea what Terri would want (according to sworn testimony by multiple witnesses).


 * In his sworn testimony during the 1992 malpractice trial, Michael promised to care for Terri for the rest of his life, with no hint that she might not want to be cared for. After the malpractice award, which meant that he would receive hundreds of thousands of dollars upon her death, he ordered that she receive no more therapy, not even routine medical and dental care or basic "range of motion" therapy.  More than four years went by, but despite the paucity of care Terri didn't die.  Michael made it clear that he wished his wife would hurry up and die.  Yet in all those years, still Michael never suggested to anyone that Terri had ever said she would want to die in such circumstances.


 * But then, after he hired euthanasia activist Felos as his attorney in 1997, Michael suddenly "remembered" conversations in which Terri had supposedly said that she would not want to be kept alive. How convenient!


 * Think of that: for aproximately eight years Michael Schiavo had no idea what Terri would want. Then, shortly after he hired an attorney famous for his expertise in winning right-to-die cases, Michael Schiavo, a man who swore under oath that he didn't even notice his wife's bulimia, suddenly "remembered" long-forgotten remarks that Terri had supposedly made a decade earlier, that she wouldn't want to live.


 * That sudden "memory" became the linchpin of his legal argument for ending Terri's life, and thereby enabling him to inherit something like (at that time) half a million-dollars from her medical trust account.


 * Terri's former guardian ad litem, Richard Pearse, concluded that Michael Schiavo's claim that Terri had expressed such a preference was not credible. Here's what he (Pearse) reported:


 * ''After February, 1993, Mr. SCHIAVO'S attitude concerning treatment for the ward apparently changed. Early in 1994, for example, he refused to consent to treat an infection from which the ward was then suffering and ordered that she not be resuscitated in the event of cardiac arrest. The nursing home where she resided at that time sought to intervene, which ultimately led the ward's husband to reverse his decision and authorize antibiotic treatment. It also resulted in a transfer of the ward to the nursing home where she now resides. ...


 * ''Mr. SCHIAVO indicated strongly to the undersigned that his petition to withdraw life support has nothing to do with the money held in the guardianship estate, which he would inherit upon the ward's death as her sole heir-at-law.


 * ''Mr. SCHIAVO has admitted at least two romantic involvements since the ward's accident...


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


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


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


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


 * Additionally, two close friends of Terri's, Diane Meyer and Jackie Rhodes, both recall that Terri once expressed the strong opinion that Karen Ann Quinlan should not have been removed from a respirator. Terri's remark was in apparently in response to a joke about Karen Quinlan. "What is the state vegetable of New Jersey?" Meyer asked Terri. The punch line was "Karen Ann Quinlan."


 * "She said the joke wasn't funny and did not approve of what was going on in the Quinlan case," Meyer testified, referring to the legal battle to remove Quinlan from a respirator. "I remember one of the things she said is, 'How did they know she would want this?'"


 * The evidence is compelling: Terri never expressed a wish to die rather than live with a feeding tube. NCdave 16:18, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, I do not have the time to address the numerous errors in the above, but I will say the following. As you should be aware, people have different interpretations of the same set of facts (and I refer to facts in general, not the legal sense).  The above is your personal interpretation of a judicial ruling with which you do not agree and it does not contain any valid legal argument.  Throughout the above, you display a complete lack of knowledge--or deliberate misunderstanding--of court procedures, the rules of evidence, the presentation of evidence, the judicial role in weighing evidence in this case, the role of the court/judge, and the court system in general.  Your personal opinion, which is shared by a faction--does not have the substance necessary to raise it to the level of a direct counterargument to the judicial decision.  (As you well know, this decision--both findings of fact and conclusions of law--and all decisions in this case were upheld precisely b/c they are good law.)  Thus, while I do believe your POV merits mention as part of the Schindler/activist behavior, it should never be given any more credence than that.--Mia-Cle 21:56, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Parody OK?
A while back someone (I don't remember who) added a sub category of Parodies under the heading of See Also and put a link to a South Park episode which apparently did a, well, parody of the Terri Schiavo case. So far as I recall there was no discussion whatsoever about its addition. Does anyone have a problem with that being in the article? Duckecho 21:50, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't, but let's remember that real people who had key involvement in the case ("I did better than the Gov") take precedence over cartoons! I'm not just speaking for myself, but I think I'm a person. (Parody OK? -  not bad, but let's keep our priorities straight.) --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 06:00, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with parody. FuelWagon 05:58, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Revert Gordon Watts on sight
This is my personal request to any wikipedian reading this: Revert any edit by Gordon Watts on sight,in bulk, in totality. I agree with the assessment a ways up: Gordo has become a menace. Thank you for your time. FuelWagon 00:36, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Agreed.

He's either crazy or he's playing an elaborate prank/hoax on us.

In either case he's long since exhausted our capacity for humoring him.

--AStanhope 03:48, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I "resemble" that comment. If you don't believe I am telling the truth in my involvement, call up the Gibbs Law firm or the Terri Schindler foundation and ask them. Or, if you have proof I'm lying, let's hear it; Other than that, no more left-handed compliments. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 05:46, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, for the court involvement a simple docket search suffices -- and case no. SC03-2420.--Mia-Cle 00:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


 * But that doesn't prove notability.--Fangz 00:22, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


 * "left-handed compliments"? You're an idiot running amuck with a keyboard, tearing through an article that a lot of us have worked long hours to make the best. You've yet to list any specific complaints other than that your vanity links should be in the article, and that your involvment in the case deserves star treatment. You're a Don Quixote, a meglomaniac with delusions of grandeur, and a self image as a knight in shining armor, unwilling or unable to notice that you're behaviour is more like a drunken bum staggering through the streets leaning on the shoulders of complete strangers telling them your theories of life while blowing beer breath in their faces. Your posts are like someone who suddenly loosens their tongue when they get drunk, but then through their alcohol haze, they fail to have a point, often repeat something they said two minutes ago, and insist that everyone listen to them. You seriously need to find some self-worth. enlist in the army. You'll get your ass kicked and will be the better for it. FuelWagon 05:55, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Please cease your insults and bullying, FuelWagon and Astanhope. Gordon Watts has made numerous careful and constructive contributions, and he does not deserve the abuse you are heaping on him.  Do you care nothing for Wikiquette, and just plain common decency?  NCdave 12:07, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism discussion
I did an lookup of the recent vandalism, and see it listed as:


 * OrgName:   Asia Pacific Network Information Centre
 * OrgID:     APNIC
 * Address:   PO Box 2131
 * City:      Milton
 * StateProv: QLD
 * PostalCode: 4064
 * Country:   AU
 * NameServer: TINNIE.ARIN.NET


 * Going to the Asia look up at:


 * I find:


 * inetnum:     220.110.164.80 - 220.110.164.87
 * netname:     AST
 * descr:       Advanced School for Technomists
 * country:     JP
 * admin-c:     AF748JP
 * tech-c:      AF748JP
 * remarks:     This information has been partially mirrored by APNIC from
 * remarks:     JPNIC. To obtain more specific information, please use the
 * remarks:     JPNIC WHOIS Gateway at
 * remarks:     http://www.nic.ad.jp/en/db/whois/en-gateway.html or
 * remarks:     whois.nic.ad.jp for WHOIS client. (The WHOIS client
 * remarks:     defaults to Japanese output, use the /e switch for for
 * remarks:     English output)
 * changed:     apnic-ftp@nic.ad.jp 20030929
 * source:      JPNIC


 * While I think that there may be merit in the change in format, I have two problems with it:

1) It was not discussed at all. (Even with all my being vilinized, I TRY to reach a consensus.

2) The intro indicated that Terri WAS in PVS, not that she was diagnosed or ruled as that way. Whether she truly was (or wasn't) PVS, it is my understanding that saying that she WAS or WAS NOT is "POV," and prohibited.

I find that the change in format has merit -and should be discussed, but I uphold the current version that says Terri was diagnosed as PVS and upheld by the courts. For the court of public opinion, --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 06:48, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Gordon, to have to say this to a lawyer, and just a few hours after your birthday, too, but... This argument is over a medical diagnosis, so IMO what should count is what the doctors said, more than what the lawyers said.


 * There were differing diagnoses from the doctors, but most of those who weighed in on the issue disagreed with the PVS diagnosis.


 * Three doctors selected by Felos & Michael Schiavo said she was in a PVS, but all three saw her only briefly. One doctor selected by Greer (after he had already ruled once that Terri was in a PVS), and who had no experience diagnosing or treating PVS, and who spent only about 30 minutes with Terri, also said that it was more likely than not that she was in a PVS (but with less than the "clear and convincing" standard of evidence that Greer claimed in his ruling).


 * Two doctors selected by the Schindlers for the evidentiary hearing, who were permitted to see Terri, said that she was not in a PVS, as did many other doctors who Felos/Michael would not permit to see her, but who saw videotapes and other medical evidence that they found compelling.


 * One doctor selected by the Florida Dept. of Children and Families was also allowed to see her, and he also concluded that it was most likely that she was not in a PVS. NCdave 11:53, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


 * only in re Mr. Watts: Mr. Watts is not a lawyer (or an attorney), and pro se is by definition not a lawyer/attorney but someone representing him/herself without an attorney.--Mia-Cle 00:43, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

This refers to --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 06:56, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


 * M E  L  T  D  O  W N ~-...

My brain is melting down from overuse, and I'm tantamountly physically fatigued from overuse of the mouse and keyboard, so I shall hope to take an unspecified several number of days off (much, I'm sure, to the glee and happiness of certain, you know who you are). (By coincidence, today is the 39th anneversery of my birthday, having been born on Monday, 16 May 1966.) --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 11:27, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Y'all take care of the board and enjoy the suggestions and contributions I've put forth. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 11:27, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Before I go, let me tell you 2 important things I've learned: 1) I listen to others when they're open to opposing views; 2) Others listen to me more when I'm open to their opposing views. (Are these really the same? Can you dig it; are you with it?) --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 11:27, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Attention user: 200.83.181.18
In one of your many attempts to edit you asked "[w]hy are we deleting a concise opening paragraph detailing the importance of this woman and the reason for her inclusion in this encyclopedia? Why are we also removing a standard biography infobox?"

The answer in the first case is because that information is already contained in the article and although your version may be concise, without editing the redundant information contained therein from following paragraphs all your addition does is clutter up the already lengthy article.

The answer in the second case is because the information contained therein is redundant, being represented elsewhere on the page within inches of your infobox. Moreover, although it is known that she grew up in the Philadelphia area, it apparently is uncertain (or at least undocumented) that she was born there. Consequently, your information is also inaccurate.

Finally, your edit isn't even formatted correctly, as your info box has state, city, country in the Born area and city, state, country in the Died area. Very sloppy work and not worthy of keeping in the article.

In any event, you've been advised on at least three occasions to bring a discussion of your proposal to the talk page and you've declined to do so, putting you in the category of vandal and subject to automatic reversion. Duckecho 22:08, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

False accusation of vandalism by FuelWagon/Neutrality
I've never vandalized anything, as FuelWagon and Neutrality well know. This is my most recent edit to the Terri Schiavo article. In it, I changed a biased POV paragraph about Terri Schiavo's diagnosis into a balanced NPOV one, and corrected a factual inaccuracy.

In thanks, I got insulted and falsely accused of vandalism by FuelWagon, reverted by Jredmond, and blocked for 3 days by Neutrality.

The truth is that different doctors gave differing diagnoses in that case, but most of the doctors who weighed in on the case supported a diagnosis of MCS or better, and only a few supported the diagnosis of PVS which was accepted by Judge Greer.


 * (1) The version FuelWagon likes begins, "She went into a coma for two and a half months, and was later diagnosed as being in an irreversible persistent vegetative state (PVS), a state that lasted until her death 15 years later." Surely anyone can see that that is heavily POV!


 * (2) My version begins, "She went into a coma for two and a half months, and later awoke from her coma to a profoundly disabled condition that was variously diagnosed as a Minimally Conscious State (MCS) or a a Persistent Vegetative State (PVS), a condition that lasted until her death 15 years later." Surely everyone can see that that is much more neutral and balanced!

Likewise, if the article is going to describe Michael Schiavo's relationship to Terri, then it should not include just the factoid that Michael Schiavo wants you to know ("he's her legal guardian"), it should also include the factoid that the Schindler family wants you to know ("he has a new family: a 'fiancée' that he's lived with for 10 years, and has 2 kids with"). To include just the information that one side wants you to know is POV-pushing. So I added the needed balance:


 * (1) The version FuelWagon likes says, "...her husband (Michael Schiavo, Schiavo's legal guardian)."


 * (2) My version says, "...her husband (Michael Schiavo, who was her legal guardian, despite having started another family with another woman)." Surely everyone can see that that is much more balanced!

In addition, the version FuelWagon likes says, (1) "The court determined that Schiavo was indeed in a PVS, and this ruling was upheld on every appeal, by 19 different judges, both in state courts and later in federal courts." But that statement is just plain false. The fact is that most of the judges and courts never even considered the question of Terri's diagnosis, and only Judge Greer heard testimony on the issue. My version adds information about the various doctors' opinions (esp. Dr. Cheshire), who actually did consider her diagnosis, and my version replaces the false statement about 19 judges upholding Greer's PVS determination to say, instead, (2) "the trial court judge, George Greer, ruled that Schiavo was indeed in a PVS, and this ruling was upheld on appeal." In other words, I made it accurate.

What I wrote was dispassionate, factual, and balanced. I didn't call Michael Schiavo a serial adulterer (which he is), nor even "estranged" (which he is). As Sgt. Joe Friday would say, it's "Just The Facts."

But changing (1) to (2) got me accused of vandalism by FuelWagon, reverted by Jredmond, and blocked for 3 days by their ally Neutrality.

"Vandalism" has a clear definition here on Wikipedia. "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." It certainly doesn't include the NPOV changes that I made. In fact, it doesn't even include POV pushing and endless reverts of FuelWagon/Jredmond/Neutrality/etc. ("the following things are not vandalism... NPOV violations").

So even if you're sure that all those doctors and nurses who said that Terri was responsive were complete idiots or part of a vast rightwing conspiracy with the Schindlers, and even if you think that everything they said was nonsense or lies (along with what Michael and his lawyer both said in the 1992 malpractice trial), it still would be false to characterize my edits as vandalism.

I am asking FuelWagon and Neutrality to please read the definitions of vandalism and npov, and then apologize. I also ask for an end to the personal attacks and insults (like "you're an idiot running amuck with a keyboard" -FuelWagon to Gordon Watts), the false accusations (like "vandalism"), and the instant antagonistic reverts. Your misbehavior is driving off good and careful editors like Gordon Watts, to the detriment of Wikipedia and all it is supposed to stand for.

Please, won't you make an effort to work in good faith with people whose opinions differ from your own, for an accurate, npov article? NCdave 11:22, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


 * NCdave, I can always count on you to give me a chuckle. You've become Sancho Panza to Gordon's Don Quixote. . remember your delusions about Iyer's testimony? How you wanted to joust that windmill so badly? And even after I laid out all the problems with Iyer's accusations, you still wanted to defend her words. You and Gordo have nothing but unanswered questions, unsubstantiated accusations, and conspiracy theories that require dozens of people to be in on the conspiracy over the course of several years. And you keep asking me to respect you for jousting a windmill. FuelWagon 13:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Dave, that was far too long and had far too much bold text for anyone to want to read it. I think you are getting reverted because you are making the same old edits without anything new to add. However, I think you should feel listened to. This is what I suggest, just my opinion, take it or leave it: suggest small edits here on the talkpage, with short explanations; allow full discussion and show a willingness to adapt your edits depending on the discussion; make your edits after that discussion. I really think you'd have more joy in pushing your POV if you tried that.

As for Gordon Watts, I don't think he has done one constructive thing since he came to Wikipedia. He could also benefit from taking the approach I've outlined. Writing very long comments that are little more than tirades aimed at fellow editors with close to zero actual substance is not going to incline anyone to agree with him, let alone bring them to consider that he is a good and careful editor (particularly when he has not taken the trouble to learn how to edit pages properly). However, I don't want anyone to be driven off from Wikipedia and I'm a firm believer that all voices should be heard, even if ultimately they will not be echoed as loudly as they'd like in the articles they are concerned with. Grace Note 12:03, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Dave, I am shocked at the level of abuse on the Terri Schiavo talk page, in particular the use of sexual and scatological language which goes unrebuked. I am also shocked at accusations of anonymous vandalism made against you when an anonymous user puts the POV tag back in place.  I do not think that Neutrality accused you of vandalism, however.  His message indicated that you were blocked for revert wars.  I accept that you do not vandalize.  I accept that you do not edit anonymously, except by accident when you think you're logged in.  I do not apporove of the "revert on sight" policy.  I believe that the revert wars would not happen if the atmosphere here were less hostile.  You seem to be outnumbered.  Ann Heneghan 12:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you. You are right that Neutrality accused me of POV-pushing, not vandalism.  I should have said, "I am asking FuelWagon and Neutrality to please read the definitions of vandalism and npov" respectively .  (I meant that FuelWagon should read the definition of vandalism, and Neutrality should read the definition of npov.)


 * I wish that we could maintain decorum here, and treat one another with consideration and respect. To get to a balanced, npov article will require contributions from people sympathetic to both sides of the Schiavo/Schindler battle.  That won't happen until we find a way to work together.  That can't happen with all this rancor, and when people play Wack-A-Mole / revert-on-sight against those with differing opinions. NCdave 17:26, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's very productive to suggest that Dave is some sort of martyr. He's a ferocious POV pusher, who is trying to insert the same material over and over. I've suggested a means for him to include his edits. It's the route all reasonable editors take when they want to edit controversial topics. That he has eschewed that route is one of many reasons that other editors are fed up with him. Grace Note 00:13, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Ann, at 12:53 on 5 May 2005, IP 69.134.182.251 inserted the POV tag. At 17:00 on 5 May 2005, I post a message to the talk page saying NCdave is back posting anonymously from that IP.  To identify this IP as NCdave, the same IP address posted this message, signing it NCdave  NCdave never clarifies that his edit accidentaly occurred whie not logged in. I call that an attempt at anonymous vandalism. FuelWagon 05:55, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Fuel Wagon, I have examined the diffs. I refer in particular to the one which you use as proof that I.P. 69.134.182.251 is NCdave's computer address. You say that he made an edit from that computer and signed it NCdave. Look at it carefully. On the left, the older revision, you can see that it was already signed NCdave. On the right, the new revision, made by 69.134.182.251, you can see that an anonymous user changed the formatting. I have sometimes changed the formatting of other people's contributions - it doesn't mean that I am the other person. NCdave may or may not be 69.134.182.251. To me, it seems unlikely, but you haven't asked him, and I think it's contrary to Wikipedia policy to make that accusation based simply on the fact that on 13 April, 69.134.182.251 changed the formatting of something that NCdave had earlier written. Regardless of Wikipedia, it's certainly contrary to ordinary standards of good manners.

From looking at the evidence, it seems that 69.134.182.251 has made three edits. Considering the number of edits he has made in his own username, it would hardly seem worthwhile to deliberately make three edits from an anonymous computer, unless these three edits contained something which he would not be prepared to acknowledge, such as abuse or obscenities. However, it is clear that the obscenities on the Terri Schiavo talk page do not come from NCdave.

As further evidence, this diff shows NCdave acknowledging an anonymous contribution he had made, while not realizing that he was not logged in. The edit summary says "I am 209.170.129.106 - how did I get logging off again?"

He may have access to two computers. Other people may have access to 69.134.182.251. But since it seems that he hasn't been asked whether or not he made that contribution, it is wrong to accuse him.

With regard to the accusation about vandalism, I am not at all sure that your definition of vandalism is in keeping with the Wikipedia one. I have no doubt that the pro-life views and the edit wars annoy you, but if you go strictly by the Wikipedia definition of vandalism, NPOV violations should not be included (even assuming that you're perfectly neutral in thinking that Terri's feeding tube should have been removed, and that NCdave is biased in thinking that it shouldn't).

With regard to another accusation you made against NCdave, you deleted a paragraph from the Terri Schiavo page, saying in the edit summary, "NCdave snuck this in earlier when he did a full page edit".

As far as I can tell, from going through the history of the page, that particular paragraph originated with DoctorDoctorGimmetheNews. It was modified by the same editor in the next edit.

NCdave posted a message to your user page saying,

"FuelWagon, in one of your edit summaries on the Terri Schiavo page, FuelWagon, you wrote "NCdave snuck this in earlier when he did a full page edit," and deleted a paragraph from the article. But I didn't write that paragraph. (You shouldn't have deleted it either -- it was good and probably accurate information.) Before you write that I did or said something, please make sure that I really did so."

You deleted his entire message without reply. In your edit summary, you wrote, "Schiavo page - NCdave stinking up my talk page".

Could you clarify (preferably without resorting to foul language):

1) Do you think it's in keeping with Wikipedia policy to make accusations against NCdave based on an anonymous change in formatting to an acknowledged contribution?

2) Do you think it's in keeping with Wikipedia policy to make utterly groundless accusations about something you think he "snuck" in, and then to make no apology, and simply to delete his protest with a remark that he is "stinking up" your talk page? Ann Heneghan 12:00, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Ann, the complete list of NCdave's attempts of vandalism is here. If NCdave simply forgot to log in, I apologize. (I don't believe it, but I'll apologize anyway.) As to the paragraph that got "snuck in" and by whom, I'll retract that it was NCdave and apologize. That takes two bullet off the list and leaves over 100 other items that I call vandalism. You can sweat the little stuff, but I'll focus on the big picture. NCdave has contributed nothing to the Terri Schiavo article other than POV pushing. FuelWagon 22:08, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Ann.


 * 69.134.182.251 is my IP address (currently). The three anonymous edits from that address were from me (by accident, when I didn't realize that I wasn't logged in).


 * I have two Internet lines (yes, I am a geek).  My DSL IP address is 209.170.129.106.  It is static and never changes.  69.134.182.251 is my current cablemodem IP address.  It is a dynamic address, and could change at any time, but in practice it doesn't seem to change very often.  It last changed about two months ago.


 * I don't know who DoctorDoctorGimmetheNews is. Thank you for going to the trouble of identifying the source of the edit which FuelWagon mistakenly attributed to me.


 * As you noted, the third edit that I made from 69.134.182.251 (while not realizing that I wasn't logged in) was a minor formatting change to my own Talk:Terri_Schiavo message that I had posted (and signed) the previous day, which I why I didn't add a new signature: because it was already signed "NCdave."


 * Also, thank you for showing me how to display the edits from a particular IP or user, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=69.134.182.251. That's useful to know!  (But I'm embarrassed to see that I've also made the mistake of accidentally posting while not logged in from 209.170.129.106, too.  I'll try to be more careful in the future.) NCdave 17:04, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

See my suggestion for mediation below.--ghost 19:24, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

The great non-win court case
If you're tired of hearing about the celebrated court case that nearly tipped the balance of the world as we know it, I have a detailed analysis of it on my talk page. No charge. Duckecho 20:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

There's now a response to it from the guilty party&mdash;clueless as ever. Duckecho 23:32, 23 May 2005 (UTC)