Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Archive 30

Archive 29
The recent activity has made archiving some material absolutely necessary. Ann, I recall that you wished to comment further on the "Eventually" issue, and I held on for as long as possible, but Talk has grown impossibly long. As I'm loath to disturb the historical sequence of the archives of pages such as this one, I didn't remove that section and place it here. If you wish to comment on that, do feel free to start a section and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terri_Schiavo/archive29#.22Eventually.22_choosing_to_withdraw_life_support. link], or reproduce the relevant comments under your new section. Best.~ Neuroscientist | T | C → 21:55, July 12, 2005 (UTC) Update: The rapid addition of comments to the bottom of the page necessitates archiving, I believe. It's loading very slowly. The oldest 9 sections have been added to Archive 29.~ Neuroscientist | T | C → 06:21, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Intro and query
I added to the intro what the autopsy report said about PVS, about her brain size, and about her blindess, as these are the key points, and belong in the intro, in my view. I also added that one neurologist who examined her dissented and called her condition a "minimally conscious state," as that's needed for NPOV and accuracy.

A query: the intro says the other seven neurologists diagnosed an "irreversible persistent vegetative state." Did they all say it was irreversible, or did they merely say PVS? Is there a good source we could link to after that sentence, briefly summing up what each neurologist said? SlimVirgin (talk) 15:18, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Did I miss a meeting?
Was there consensus by the active editors (or anyone else) to submit the article to a massive edit despite the CONTROVERSIAL TOPIC - please read the talk page discussion before making substantial changes tag at the top of the edit page and despite the fact that we are in mediation? If so, I didn't get the memo. Duckecho (Talk) 19:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * There has been no massive edit, just a copy edit, and an insertion into the intro of the autopsy report, which I mentioned above. I appreciate your paying close attention to this page, and I understand the reasons for it, but people have to be allowed to edit it. I have tried to do so carefully. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:16, July 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * this is not a massive edit? what world do you live in? FuelWagon 19:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * It isn't a massive edit, and if you'd actually read the diffs, you'd see that. The only reason a lot of it is showing up in red is that the edits caused some sections to shift, and these show up in red even though they're unchanged. The only substantive change I made, apart from copy editing, was to the intro, where I introduced material from the autopsy, and added that one neurologist said she was in a minimally conscious state. You haven't yet explained why you want to exclude that information. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:45, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Reverting
Whoa Fuelwagon, you just reverted a couple of hours of copy editing. Please say what your specific objections are, rather than reverting. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:16, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Fuelwagon, you're well out of order here. Stop reverting and please discuss your objections on talk. You're reintroducing errors. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:19, July 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, madam, it is you who are out of line. I only got through two of your edits before toting up fully a dozen problematic changes. Many of the things you are copy editing represent the introduction of errors to material that has been laboriously worked over by dozens of conscientious editors over a period of &gt;three months. It is simply beyond chutzpah to imagine someone can come in and conduct four hours of changes to that months of work that aren't at the very least damaging to the product. Many of the errors you have introduced have already been tried, discussed, exposed for the problems they are, and rightfully discarded. If you had done a scintilla of research into the archives you would have been aware of that. For the record, you have now reverted at least three times, and I now notify you that you will be held accountable for any 3RR violations you commit. I will also put you on notice that there are two apparent reverts attributed to my sig two minutes apart. That was a Wiki-software malfunction over which I had no control and do not acknowledge nor accept responsibility for more than one revert as the identical diffs will disclose. Duckecho (Talk) 20:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Madam??


 * If you feel I've introduced errors, please list them on talk, and I will go through them with you. But do list them. Don't make unsubstantiated claims. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:15, July 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm going to go to a random wiki article and perform a massive rewrite of it... blind. I'm going to hit the "edit this page" and then I'm going to just start typing text that feels good. And when people who've been working on the article revert me, I'll demand that they keep every single change I've made and that they must list every single issue they have with my edits so that we can talk through them and then perhaps I'll concede that they can revert them. Yeah. That'll go over real good. FuelWagon 20:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I suppose the message at the top of this page that says:
 * This is a controversial topic, which may be disputed. Please read this talk page discussion before making substantial changes.

is really just window dressing? Or do such things simply not apply to you? FuelWagon 19:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and this:
 * Recovery of awareness is unprecedented after two years. <--Is this true? I seem to recall a case in England where a man woke up after a long time in PVS.-->

Just rubs of arrogance. That line that says recovery of awareness is unprecedented is from the American Neurological Association. And you embed a note that casts doubt on the ANA because of unsourced urban legend? FuelWagon 19:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * First, the hidden notes telling people not to edit have no validity. This is a wiki, and people are allowed to edit it. As I said above, I appreciate and respect the reasons you're watching this page closely, but it can't be watched so closely that only a select group of editors is allowed to touch it.
 * Secondly, if your edit "recovery of awareness is unprecedented after two years," is from the ANA, it should be clearly attributed to them, as in "According to ...". I will try to find a source for the man in the UK that I mentioned in an invisible comment. However, please note No personal attacks and don't accuse me of arrogance because I question an unsourced edit.
 * As you reverted all my edits, I'm assuming the above can't be your only objection, so please lay them out here so I can go through them with you. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:33, July 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * don't accuse me of arrogance because I question an unsourced edit.
 * It is not an "unsourced edit". The entire paragraph is the ANA's position on PVS recovery. The "source" is clearly included at the end of the paragraph as a standard URL link. FuelWagon 19:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * It is not sourced correctly or clearly. You should say "According to ...", for an edit like this, because it's extremely unlikely that this is accepted by all neurologists everywhere in the world, and if it is, that would need a source too. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:15, July 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * And yet you feel it perfectly acceptable to embed what amounts to urban legend into the article without an "according to" in front of it or a URL after it? Give me a break. FuelWagon 20:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

You're making no sense. I didn't delete the edit you're referring to. All I did was make an invisible comment which said something like "Are you sure this is correct?" I did not add it to the article. I repeat: your edit is not properly sourced. There are sourcing problems throughout this article, with (a) claims not clearly attributed, or not attributed at all; (b) quotes without citations; (c) sentences in quotation marks though they appear not to be actual quotes; and (d) sources used to support certain sentences when the sources don't say what the sentence says. The page needs a thorough copy edit: first, to tidy the writing, and second, to go through every claim that needs to be sourced and find a reputable source for it. Why would you want to stand in the way of someone willing to do that work? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:42, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

- I want you to take a look at your diff here. The embedded note that USED to be there said:


 * <-- This paragraph is a direct quote from Dr. Bernat's testimony before the U.S. Senate in April 2005. Dr. Bernat's testimony was approved by the AAN Executive Committee. The two links provided document the testimony and the AAN approval.-->

YOU DELETED THAT NOTE. And then you inserted THIS little gem in the same paragraph further up:


 * <--Is this true? I seem to recall a case in England where a man woke up after a long time in PVS.--><--What levels of "prognostic certainty"?:

And you tell me you didn't know where this "unsourced" paragraph came from? You go and wipe out an embedded note that gives the source of an entire paragraph, and then you insert your own embedded note questioning the accuracy of the entire paragraph based on some urban legend you HEARD SOMEWHERE? AND I"M SUPPOSED TO READ YOUR EDIT AS ANYTHING OTHER THAN RECKLESS/CLUELESS EDITING AND/OR VANDALISM? FuelWagon 21:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC) -


 * I ask you again to change your tone and stop the personal attacks. And there's no need to SHOUT. You must attribute challenged edits to sources in the article, not invisibly, but visibly, and preferably as part of the sentence in the case of a claim like the one we're discussing: for example, "According to X ..." then linking, if a link is available, or offering a regular citation in brackets after the sentence if it isn't; or a footnote if you don't like inline citations. There are too many invisible instructions and invisible sources in this article. The "instructions" need to be made in the form of requests on the talk page, and the sources need to be visible. You also need to make sure that the sources actually say what you're claiming they said, because in some of the cases I checked they didn't. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:19, July 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I meant to add: the paragraph you're referring to made little sense. If it's a quote, it should be in quotation marks with a full citation. If it's not a quote, what the doctor said may have been paraphrased by an editor who left something out. Go back and read it and you'll see what I mean. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:24, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Alright, that did it. You are the one who screwed up on this one. not me. The paragraph had a note that clearly gave the source. You deleted it FOR NO REASON. And then you lecture me that "sources need to be visible". But you didn't take the embedded note and turn it into a visible source, YOU DELETED IT. On top of that, you REPLACE it with your own embedded note consisting of nothing more than urban legend, no source, no URL, and while questioning the accuracy of the paragraph. And then you lecture me AGAIN about how the article must have visible sources and somehow that explains why you deleted the only reference to the source of that material, visible or otherwise. Well, if it has to be visible, why did you delete it completely? Then, you post some rant at the bottom of the talk page about how I've taken "ownership" of the Terri Schiavo page. And after that little slander, you tell me "no personal attacks". Let me just get something straight here. You screwed up. Do you read me? And you continue to hide behind "I'm just COPYEDITING" and "they're taking ownership of the page". No. Sorry. That ain't how this is going down. You messed up. Not me. Deleting that embedded note had nothing to do with "copyediting", it was a stupid edit. And me reverting it back it had nothing to do with "owning" the page. You deleted good information. And hiding behind "well, sources should be visible" ain't gonna cut it. You could have made it visible, but you deleted it instead, and in it's place inserted doubt on the ANA's position and forwarded some urban legend. FuelWagon 21:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

6RR ?
I don't know what the heck is going on, but there are now SIX edits in the history that say
 * Reverted edits by Duckecho to last version by SlimVirgin

FuelWagon 20:07, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I would assume it's vandalism reversion. Jtkiefer 20:08, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Server problems. It keeps saying "server not responding" when in fact it has saved the edit. I've been getting it all morning. Why on earth would you assume it was vandalism? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:09, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Mediation
May I suggest that parties to the mediation avoid making any "reversions"? Moreover, an Edit Summary like revert to last version by Stanselmdoc doesn't really sum anything up.

Our mediation seems to have stalled. Your choices at this point are (1) fire me, or (2) return to the Mediation. I've never failed yet, but if you feel I have failed you, say so. Don't just sneak away. Uncle Ed 20:58, July 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Ed, I don't think at all that you have failed, nor that mediation has failed. I do think the process has, as you say, stalled. A group of editors have worked hard over this article (in part or in whole) and contributed immensely to bringing it to where it is today; when one compares it to where it was even a few months ago (if you've a sturdy heart, see for example ), the improvement is very encouraging. However, part of this group of hard-working aditors have not been able to contribute more actively to Mediation, for reasons that have probably to do with personal commitments. I note in particular the absence of Ann Heneghan, who I feel has very valuable points of view to contribute.


 * While this has stalled the Mediation process temporarily, it need not fail. It would have to move more slowly, by necessity, but a lot can still be accomplished. I proposed once before, privately, to Ghost (another sterling editor), that the medication may work best if each point of contention is addressed in turn, one at a time. You could table the topic to be discussed, the editors could discuss it, and a decision can finally be made - it may not fully satisfy everyone, but perhaps it might be understood that that is the best decision.


 * Writing 500 word summaries is an excellent way to begin getting a feel for everyone's broad POV, and identify some of the issues that need mediation and discussion. But further progress is unlikely to occur unless the precise points of contention are considered in turn. In line with this, I seem to remember your request from a few days back where you suggested something similar, on the mediation page.


 * The technicalities of the process - whether the article needs to be locked or not, etc - are better commented on by wiser heads than mine. FWIW, I'm sceptical that that is ideal.


 * The Terri Schiavo article is old, and it has always been controversial. It will likely stay this way for some time. But we should be able to make some progress, if we work at it.~ Neuroscientist | T | C → 21:50, July 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * I have just noticed that the revert war may begin once more, this time with Ann starting it. Ed, I think the most productive way of moving this forward is to discuss specific points of contention. The state of the article and the version it should remain in (if any one in particular) during this period is something I think you'll have to decide, as Mediator. If there are daily revert wars going on, with each editor keeping score of their revert "opportunities," while Mediation proceeds in the next page, I wonder how it will be possible to make much progress.~ Neuroscientist | T | C → 22:21, July 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Hello, Uncle Ed, my recent silence on the mediation page has been partly because I was busy, but also partly because I wasn't sure what you wanted us to do. I understood that we each had 500 words.  I provided my summary, and then I waited.  Another editor commented.  I disagreed with some of his comments.  He seemed to imply that it was slighty petty to worry about whether or not it's true that Michael Schiavo was woken by a noise in the night.  I feel strongly that things should not be asserted as facts when they have not been proved.  They should be clearly identified as "he said", "she said", etc.  I can only imagine the fury that would be provoked if I inserted into the article that Michael Schiavo used to ask "when is that bitch gonna die?", rather than stating the Nurse Iyer claimed that he used to say that.  I might add that I wouldn't dream of making such an edit.  I do not deny that my personal sympathies lie with the Schindlers.  However, I do not support the insertion of any uncorroborated statements in support of either party, without clearly identifying them as hearsay.  When one editor made a long comment on another editor's summary, and the other editor then claimed that that gave him the right to a second turn, the first editor responded offensively (in my view), and the whole mediation seemed to fall apart.  I didn't want to get involved.  I'm very happy to continue with the meditation (although I have to do a project proposal before next Wednesday), if I know that I'm supposed to continue adding comments.


 * And hello, Neuroscientist. Thank you for your kind remarks above.  No, I certainly will not get into a revert war, unless I feel that another editor's dignity is being deliberately attacked (as has, unfortunately, happened in the past).  If you look at my contributions,  you'll find that my proportion of reverts is very low.  I reverted once last night, because I felt that the reverting of SlimVirgin's edits and the comments on the talk page were not in keeping with Wikipedia policy, which encourages a welcoming attitude, the avoidance of aggressive comments, and discussion before reverting.  Of course, that would not apply to vandalism.  But SlimVirgin's edits, while they certainly went against the POV of FuelWagon and Duckecho, were not vandalism, nonsense, or POV pushing.  If I remember correctly (I haven't looked it up recently), Wikipedia policy suggests that editors should try to improve an edit, rather than revert it, and that if they disagree with an edit, they should discuss it on the talk page before reverting, in the hope that the other editor may agree, and may even make the change himself.  I don't always follow that myself, but I do not think that SlimVirgin's edits should have been treated as vandalism.  The main point about those edits, in my opinion, was that they annoyed two editors who adhere to the majority POV, and who have therefore been left largely unopposed in their edits.  I didn't go straight to bed after reverting last night, so I saw that Duckecho had reverted to what he called "the last stable version before the attacks", but I left it like that.  I don't think it was appropriate to call SlimVirgin's edits "attacks".  You may not agree - in fact, you probably won't - but that's okay.  I just want to explain my edit.  And by the way - this is to everyone - if ever I fail to explain an edit properly, please understand that it's simply because I don't have time.  Ann Heneghan 17:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Ownership of this page
It appears that a small group of editors, currently consisting of User:FuelWagon and User:Duckecho have taken ownership of this page and won't allow others to edit without their consent. This isn't allowed.

I completely understand the motivation to keep the page free of nonsense, and I also understand the urge to assume ownership of articles where you've worked on them a lot. But this is a wiki. You can't insert invisible instructions telling people not to make certain changes and expect others to obey them.

This is in many ways a well-written, comprehensive, careful article. But there are areas with awkward English (as there are in all articles, no matter how carefully written); some grammatical errors; and some inconsistencies in the way terms are used. Above all, there are problems with the sources. Some quotes have no citations; some sections are attributed to sources that don't support them, and so on. The page would benefit from a thorough copy edit. I had started to do that, and meant to continue today, but have now had to stop because of the reverting. I reverted back to my version three times so I could continue, but can't revert again, so the two of you have stymied work for the day, which is senseless.

As for my changes to the intro, which were not just copy editing, neither of you has said what your objection is. Seven neurologists said PVS, but one (who examined her) said minimally conscious state. That needs to be in the intro. Something from the autopsy also needs to go in the intro, as it's a key document, and it needs to be made clear that (a) the pathologists found massive brain damage, and a brain around half the weight it ought to be, and (b) that they were unable to confirm, or comment on, the diagnosis on PVS, because that's a clinical diagnosis based largely on behavior, which you need a living patient for. I put that part in quotes so that I wasn't interpreting or re-phrasing what the pathologists actually wrote. Please state your objections.

Also note that when you glance at the diffs, it looks as though I made a lot of major changes only because some of my edits caused the text to move, and displaced text comes up red, even though it's unchanged. If you read the diffs, you'll see that, apart from the intro, my changes were not substantive. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:11, July 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * User:FuelWagon and User:Duckecho have taken ownership of this page and won't allow others to edit without their consent. Thank you for that bit of personal slander. Please have a look at No Personal Attacks when you have some free time. FuelWagon 21:46, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I have reverted back to SlimVirgin's version. I don't like making reversions, and I do it very seldom.  In fact I try to reserve reversions for edits that were abusive or scornful towards other Wikipedians.  But I think that disagreements should be discussed on the talk page.  And I also feel that invisible "do not change this" comments should be used very sparingly.  I would prefer to reserve them for cases where anonymous (I.P. editors) are likely to come along in good faith, without even knowing that there is a talk page, and re-introduce some error which has already been thoroughly discussed.  Anyway, I'm tired after the weekend in London, so I'm not going to stick around tonight. Ann Heneghan 21:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll tell you what my objections to your changes in the intro are:
 * You can't insert invisible instructions telling people not to make certain changes and expect others to obey them. If you'd had a little more experience on this article you would understand the necessity. For example, I am personally aware of at least five times that someone has changed Terri's name at the top of the article to Schindler-Schiavo despite the fact that it is POV and that there is no record whatsoever of her ever using that name. Once we (I believe it was Ann Henneghan who put it there) put the invisible note speaking to that we've had no further problems in that regard. There are a dozen or more instances of invisible notes in the article for precisely the same reason. Well meaning (but ignorant of the history of the article) editors, such as yourself, often see something in the article that they feel doesn't fit their understanding of events, and being wiki, they jump in and edit their version in, despite the fact that on the Talk Page that very issue and its veracity has been thoroughly resolved. It's lost in the history of the archives so someone even trying to do research before editing would have difficulty finding it, but an invisible note in the article makes it abundantly clear to all but the most intransigent.
 * &hellip;so the two of you have stymied work for the day, which is senseless. What was senseless was expending &gt;3½ hours in seven + edits (that doesn't count your revert warring or inserting your "don't bother me, I'm important" tag) without having spent more than a minute to compose a single note concerning an edit you had already made and still had a question as to the accuaracy.
 * &hellip;but one (who examined her) said minimally conscious state. That needs to be in the intro. Why? In Judge Greer's order from the 2002 evidentiary hearing he excoriated that doctor and lent him no credibility whatsoever. In Ronald Cranford's "Facts, Lies, &amp Videotapes" he's even less kind. That sort of nonsense can be introduced in the article and properly dispensed with (and is) but it absolutely does not belong in the intro.
 * Something from the autopsy also needs to go in the intro&hellip; Well, yes, the autopsy is mentioned and it has its own section in the article. That's all that's necessary. A 77 word regurgitation does nothing but add bloat to an introduction we're trying to pare down to a reasonably sized four paragraphs (your invocation).
 * So, those are some specifics for you. Where are your specifics for us? General claims that the article needs copy editing isn't good enough when you're either excising significant material or adding spurious material. And without an awareness of how difficult it's been to come to what we have over the months, imperfect though it may be, between vandal attacks, flat earthers with conspiracy theories, well intentioned but misinformed editors whose main source of information was from the blogosphere, and conscientious people who albeit with POV difficulties of their own nevertheless held our feet to fire on POV issues, you want to waltz in without so much as a by your leave and scorch the earth with your uninformed ideas. Ownership? No. I'm proud of my contribution here, and I recognize that it's an open forum, collaborative work. But I'm somewhat parochial about our good work and more than a little defensive when someone ignorantly undoes (whether intentional or not) significant quality work. Moreover, if you'd been here more than a day you'd know that there are far more contributors than just FuelWagon and me. Good faith is welcome; ignorance is not. Duckecho (Talk) 22:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply. I disagree with you about the autopsy material in the intro. It speaks directly to the issues being debated, and it's the most up-to-date solid piece of information there is. It seems obtuse not to mention its key findings in the intro.
 * Regardless of who has criticized the neurologist who diagnosed minimally conscious state, he did make that diagnosis, and you have no right to pretend it doesn't exist, no matter how strongly you disagree with it. A neurologist counts as a reputable source for WP in matters of neurology, particularly as he examined her. The way I introduced the information made it clear that his was the minority, dissenting view.
 * Regardless of your reasons for wanting so many invisible "instructions" - and I accept that you have good reason for wanting them - you can't expect anyone to heed them. This is a wiki.
 * If these are your only objections, I don't know why you reverted all my edits.
 * Finally, I'm a little confused about your references to the months of work you've put in. Your user account was opened mid-May and has only made 213 edits to articles. Are you editing under another account? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:44, July 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Is there some sort of plebe time we have to do before we're accorded legitimacy? If there is, include me out. I'm far too old to play those sort of seniority games. I was winning prizes for my writing before you were born, so that should be the end of that particular tack. I did edit as an anon for a while, but none of that is germane. See my remarks elsewhere as to 213 edits. I'd much rather make 213 substantive, quality edits that receive acclaim than thousands of poor ones, so I believe that will be the end of that tack, as well. Are there any other questions you wish to raise about how long I've done what and how many times I've done it? If there are, please put them in some sort of context of importance to the task at hand. Duckecho (Talk) 01:25, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * In any event, perhaps you'll point me to the wiki page that tells what what the standards for an intro are. I'm ignorant in that area, but I can tell you what I believe an intro should do. It should be short (you said four paragraphs&mdash;is that a style rule somewhere or did you make it up?) and its structure should be to describe generally what things took place. Its purpose should be to give the reader enough information to have an idea what the subject is and what attendant issues there were. It's a précis. What it should not do is make a case for anything. That's what the article is for. She lived, she was injured, people argued about her, there were trials, there was other judicial action, there was media attention, there was legislative drama, she died, there's a report. The introduction is not the place to lay out the details of one of the trials. The introduction is not the place to explain how a diagnosis is made. The introduction is not the place to cite the cause of death when it's known that removing a feeding tube was a central issue. The introduction should be written to entice the reader to go read further, not bog him down with 615 grams of mass. The body of the article is where all those details are fleshed out. There is a perfectly good discussion of the autopsy report replete with cites and agonizing minutia, including the manner of death, in the body of the article. There is a perfectly good discussion replete with cites for the Terri's wishes trial in 2000 in the body of the article. There is a perfectly good discussion replete with cites for the evidentiary hearing in 2002 in the body of the article. There is a perfectly good discussion replete with cites for the special therapy hearing in 2003 in the body of the article. Get the idea? That's where to find out the details, not in the intro. Why in the name of succinct editorship would we want to bloat the intro and discourage people from reading the article? Duckecho (Talk) 01:25, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

natural ferilizer
natural fertilizer is having someone do a lousy, massive, edit on an article, and then rather than reverting them en total and telling them to RTFA and RTF-talk page and RTF-talk archives, I instead have to tell them why each and every one of their edits are lousy. FuelWagon 22:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC) -

"During this time, the Schindlers allegedly encouraged Mr. Schiavo to get on with his life, and he introduced them to women he was dating."

Well, inserting the word "allegedly" might be technically not untrue, it casts a whole lot of doubt without any context. This statement about dating was reported by a guardian ad litem to the court. It is the guy's job to get the facts right, not present one pov. I can't recall, but I'm prety sure the guardian ad litem did not use the word "allegedly" in his report. and as far as I know, the Schindlers never challenged that statement at the time, either. Though I believe they may have challenged it much (years?) later, when they were willing to challenge anything possible. FuelWagon 22:33, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

There's a URL right by that line with an embedded note saying <-- quoting from page 11 of 38 of Wolfson report -->, in case anyone was wondering where the "alleged" statement came from. FuelWagon 22:37, 11 July 2005 (UTC) -

"The noise awoke Michael Schiavo, and he called 911 emergency services. <--I'm deleting "immediately" wherever I find it, because it's journalese and usually unverifiable, not because I think it wasn't immediate.-->"

Ya know, Govorner Bush launched an investigation specifically into whether or not Michael called 911 "immediately" or whether there was foul play on his part. The DA recently dropped the investigation saying Michael's story was consistent and that the cause of Terri's collapse was probably cardiac arrest. but hey, it's unverifiable. FuelWagon 22:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC) -


 * Then provide sources for your edits, and not invisible ones. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:47, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * That's a little bit ungracious. This is explained in the talk archives, which you would have seen had you read them. -- Grace Note


 * It is of zero use having material hidden in the archives. The sources need to be on the page, making clear which sentences they're acting as sources for, and not invisible. The sources are there for the readers, not just for other editors. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:36, July 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * It's unreasonable to expect all the archives to remain on the main talk page. There's 28 pages, averaging around 300k in size.  I make that 9.6 Mb of discussion about a 70 k article.  So I appreciate that the archives are way too big to wade through and find one point; this makes referring to the archives more than a little difficult, particularly for an editor who hasn't been keeping up to date with everyone day in day out.  Probably not the point you're trying to make, but I think it needs to be said. Proto t c 08:30, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

"(PVS), according to seven neurologists who examined her, or a minimally conscious state (MCS), according to one other."

This compares 7 to 1 as if they were equals. What you fail to mention is that the one dissenting neurologist was a nutjob who used the "National Enquirer" as a reference. FuelWagon 22:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Are you saying he wasn't a real neurologist? SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 22:47, July 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Get real. The guy is a quack. The JUDGE said nearly as much when he said the neuro's "therapies" were, what was the word, "spurious", I believe. You can't count him alongside the others as equals. Attempting to do so introduces POV and slants the article far away from the truth. If you want to include him, you need to include his background, his quackery, and the fact that he was specifically hired by the Schindlers to oppose the PVS diagnosis in court. Rather than sit there and demand that we "provide sources for our edits" like a broken record, you need to do a little bit of research before you take that machete to an article, and then we wouldn't have this problem. FuelWagon 23:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * This point was discussed at great length in the archives, I believe. The point is that this guy didn't actually examine her and SlimVirgin's version makes it seem that he did. Some guy saying that she was MCS, regardless of his professional qualifications, is not something that should be included up front. Lots of people have an opinion. The point, Slim, was that he did not make a diagnosis. -- Grace Note


 * Why do you say he didn't examine her, and imply that he's not a neurologist? He did and he is, unless you're using the word "examine" in a very particular way. He cast doubt on the PVS diagnosis and made the reasonable point that when the previous neurologists had looked at her, the term MCS was not in frequent use, as it's relatively new. I've found references to it in the literature back to 1997, but most of them are from 2003 onwards. There's no reason at all to exclude the dissenting opinion from the introduction. We're not here to uphold any particular POV, though we must make clear which is majority and which minority POV, and the majority POV should be given priority - but the majority POV can't take up the whole of the intro. You won't find that in any other well-written Wikipedia article. The intro should briefly refer to the opposing medical POVs. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 02:43, July 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually Grace, I believe you're confusing Hammesfahr and Cheshire. Hammesfahr was one of the Schindlers' witnesses in the 2002 evidentiary hearing. He's a neurologist and a quack and he did examine Terri and he claimed MCS. Greer virtually laughed him out of court. Cranford called him a charlatan on national TV and completely ripped him up in his article. You wouldn't think he could get away with that if Hammesfahr had any defense for it. Cheshire, according to Neuroscientist, is a quality, board certified neurologist. However he didn't examine Terri. He did a walk through, but it was by no means a neurological examination and thus his opinion of MCS isn't a diagnosis. Duckecho (Talk) 03:12, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * God yes, I was lost in the bickering here. Hammesfahr! He claimed she was practically up and about and dancing a jig. I think describing what he produced as a "diagnosis" is an astonishing stretch of the word, but fair enough, if Slim thinks a guy almost universally derided, not least by the presiding judge, is reputable, then she should be allowed to add that he dissented. The problem with all this discussion is that the intro has been distorted by POV pushers who insist that we cannot just say she was in PVS but must make out that there was a real doubt. This is a bit like suggesting that one may not write articles about geology without their mentioning in their opening paragraph that there's some guy in Arkansas who has written a book saying the earth is only 6000 years old. --Grace Note


 * Nevertheless, he also cast doubt on the PVS diagnosis, even though he'd met her too. I think you see these diagnoses as way too concrete. They're not at all like that. They represent opinions about what her internal experience was, which is something that no one can know. People can only make degrees of educated guesses. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 03:48, July 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * Stop being so abusive. There is no need for it.


 * I'm happy to add that he was hired by her family. And his diagnosis is not being equated with the PVS diagnosis. I made it clear that seven said PVS, and one said MCS. To add that is not to introduce a POV.


 * You seem to have strong feelings about the Schiavo case. I don't. I have no reason to want to introduce a POV in either direction. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 23:07, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

- ''At this time, Schiavo's weight was 120 pounds. She had also stopped menstruating. <--A weight of 120 pounds for a woman her height is not light; in fact, many would say it's slightly overweight, so it's not in itself indicative of the cause of her menstrual-cycle problems. Needs a good source if we're going to claim it is. In the meantime, I've separated the two issues. -->''

Thank you doctor SlimVirgin. Where exactly does the article say that her 120 pound weight is the "cause" of her menstrual cycle problem? This is a embedded note addressing a non-problem. FuelWagon 22:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The way it was written, the sentence appeared to link the two issues - her weight had dropped and her menstrual cycle had ceased - so I unlinked them.  You're scraping the barrel if these are your objections. Also, would you mind addressing previous issues before introducing others? Was the neurologist I referred to in the intro (a) a qualified, practising neurologist and (b) did he examine her? If yes to both, no matter who has criticized him, his dissenting opinion ought to be included in the introduction. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  22:59, July 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Was the neurologist I referred to.. Ya know, that is the problem right there. You just edited BLIND. Didn't you? And you keep squawking "provide sources for our edits". Why don't YOU provide sources for YOUR edits? I am NOT your research department. Go find answers for your own questions. Next time you make a change like that, feel free to follow your own advice and "provide sources for your edits". This is complete and absolute, hypocritical. FuelWagon 23:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I know the answer. It seems that you don't. If he was a practising neurologist, his diagnosis belongs with the others. You're showing a fundamental ignorance about the difference between PVS and MCS, as though one group of neurologists said black and another said white. It's not as simple as that, and bear in mind that there isn't a neurologist alive who can define consciousness. You're writing as though these are clear-cut issues, and that everyone who supports your POV is absolutely right, while the others are devils. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 23:21, July 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * If you already know the answer then go trolling for responses somewhere else. FuelWagon 23:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

- Before: In March 1994, guardian ad litem'' John H. Pecarek was appointed by the court to determine if there had been any abuse by Michael Schiavo. Pecarek's report found no evidence for any inappropriate actions, and indicated that Michael had been very attentive to his wife. <--Do not remove Pecarek's statement. It is quoted in several court orders and GAL reports, however Pecarek's report is unavailable on the internet. -->''

SlimVirgin's Edit: In March 1994, guardian ad litem'' John H. Pecarek was appointed by the court to determine whether there had been any abuse by Mr. Schiavo. Pecarek's report found no evidence of any inappropriate acts, and indicated that Mr. Schiavo had been attentive to his wife. <--attentive? did he actually use this word?-->Mr. Schiavo remained his wife's guardian.<--Might it be worth explaining the sense in which he remained her guardian when there were court-appointed guardians?-->''

So, once again, an informative embedded note is deleted (the one saying the statement from Pecarek is QUOTED in several court orders but NOT available directly on the internet). And it is replaced by a question of accuracy "Did he really use that word?" Yes, this is "copyediting". FuelWagon 23:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * You're missing the point of that edit. One sentence began: "Pecarek's report found no evidence for any inappropriate actions .." which is poor English. I tidied it to: "Pecarek's report found no evidence of any inappropriate acts .." which is better (though still not what I'd have written). There is awkward English of that kind all the way through the article.
 * The reason I had to ask the invisible question is that the claim is unsourced. That you mention invisibly that a source exists, but you won't cite it is unhelpful. "Attentive" is a POV term. If it's to be used, it has to be a quote, and if it's quoted, it needs to be attributed and accompanied by a proper citation. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 23:34, July 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Sure, and that PERFECTLY explains why you HAD to delete the embedded note explaining the source of that material. It is so clear to me now. The phrase you're looking for, though I doubt will ever cross your fingertips are "I, SlimVirgin, made a mistake. I was wrong. I made a bad edit." All I'm hearing thus far is nothing but lame excuses and hypocrical advice to "source my edits". FuelWagon 23:37, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

- ''the low potassium could very well have been a spurious result caused by the intravascular administration of fluids during the attempt to resuscitate her. <--argumentative; needs a source-->''

"argumentative"??? all this says is that Terri might have had low potassium because they didn't measure her blood until AFTER they gave her a liter or two of intravenous fluids at the emergency room. This explanation is given in the autopsy. This embedded note reflects zero research into the topic by the editor. FuelWagon 23:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Then link to the autopsy if that's your source, or better still, quote from it! This is all about your poor use of sources. You're not writing this article for editors who have researched it. You're writing it for readers who have not. So write it accordingly, and use scholarly and encyclopedic standards of writing and sourcing material. And stop being so insulting. You are way out of line. I blocked you last month for 3RR after exactly this same kind of irrational intransigence, blind reverting, and abuse of another editor because he dared to disagree with you. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 23:42, July 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Nope. This has nothing to do with what I did a month ago, on another page, with another editor. This is all about you, SlimVirgin, and a massively bad edit on your part. At a minimum, you deleted two important embedded notes containing pertinent source information. Yet you chastize us with "source your edits". When that little diversion of blame doesn't work, you invoke your administrator priviledge and reference something that happened a month ago on another page with another editor. Nice. As far as I can see, this is an abuse of your administrator status. You made a bad edit and you'll blame anyone but yourself. FuelWagon 23:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

- Before: '' Other neurologists — Drs. Jeffery M. Karp, James H. Barnhill, and Thomas H. Harrison — also examined Mrs. Schiavo over the years and made the same diagnosis; they also shared a very poor opinion about her chances for recovery.''

SlimVirgin Version: Other neurologists &mdash; Dr. Jeffery M. Karp, Dr. James H. Barnhill, and Dr. Thomas H. Harrison — also examined Schiavo over the years and made the same diagnosis, which entailed a poor prognosis.

Apparently you like the word "prognosis", because you scattered it throughout the article. "chances for recovery" is fine by me, but then I kind of like putting things in plain language so everyone can understand a sentence without having to link every other word. Besides that little annoyance, you changed the emphasis on the second half of the sentence from "all shared the opinion of poor chance for recovery" to "Terri's chances for recovery were poor", but it's no longer clear that this is something that all the doctor's believed. FuelWagon 23:47, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I wonder whether you know what PVS is. You wouldn't find a doctor alive who would make a diagnosis of PVS but add that the prognosis was good. The diagnosis entails a poor prognosis, and the longer the state lasts, the worse the prognosis becomes. To say that "they also shared a very poor opinion about her chances for recovery" - apart from being bad writing - adds no meaning to the sentence. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 00:06, July 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * I have a pretty fair idea what PVS is. During the time I've been working on this article (since early April, thank you very much, and I would have thought 213 edits was a lot when they're substantive edits, not just changing from to for&mdash;I'm quite sure that doesn't include the Talk Page edits&mdash;see that's what we've done here&mdash;discussed the topics a lot before we massage the narrative). I've learned a lot. However, I hope that the person that wrote that particular passage (and several others that relate to PVS) identifies himself and verifies the correctness of the narrative. He knows something about the subject that you are clearly guessing at. Duckecho (Talk) 00:56, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you once again, Doctor SlimVirgin, I didn't know you were also a neurologist. I am a simple editor, so all I can do is quote the ANA regarding PVS, which says
 * The prognosis for recovery of awareness in PVS has been quantified, and, in general, the prognosis depends on the cause and duration of PVS. It is worse after cardiac arrest and after a long duration of PVS. Patients remaining in PVS for greater than three months after cardiac arrest have only a slight chance of recovery of awareness. Recovery of awareness is unprecedented after two years. With head injury causing PVS, the times necessary to show these levels of prognostic certainty are one year and five years, respectively.
 * So, apparently, there are some varying levels of prognosis, depending on whether it was caused by a head injury or not, and depending on how long the patient is in PVS. The doctors the article is referring to at this point in the article have diagnosed Terri sometime early in her condition. I'm not certain of dates, so I can't place whether it was greater than or less than 5 years. Also, some people have accused michael of attacking Terri which caused her collapse, so some could argue that a head injury might be the cause of her PVS. so, some might argue that Terri could have had a "slight" chance for recovery, based on the ANA definition of PVS and based on their interpretation of events. This seems markedly different than all the doctors saying her chance of recovery was "poor". FuelWagon 00:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

NPOV problem
This has to stop. I'm asking FuelWagon and Duckecho to read Neutral point of view, No original research, Cite sources, and No personal attacks, and to start editing in accordance with them. A key point in NPOV is that debates should be described, not engaged in. You two are engaging in, not describing, the Schiavo dispute on this page, and effectively holding this article hostage, which can't be allowed to continue, because you've been doing it for too long, and the result is a POV and poorly cited article. The effect of that is that the "other side" comes charging in to make what they see as NPOV corrections, but goes too far in the other direction, leading you two to become even more possessive. The dynamic has to stop.

Thank you Fuelwagon, I know what PVS is. The prognosis is always poor, but at the beginning it's more hopeful than after months and years. You're arguing now for the sake of it. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 01:30, July 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * POV article? Cite the POV issues you have with it. You claimed you were copy editing for style and readability, now you're claiming there are POV problems? I suggest you read this: . The article has already been peer reviewed and the general consensus was that it was "about as NPOV as it can get" (as I recall the quote). I wish you would make up your mind what your problem with this article is. In any event, I'm not interested in your personal advice although I'd suggest you start in at home, first. Duckecho (Talk) 02:57, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Don't exaggerate about the peer review. One editor said it was NPOV; one said it was not. The article is POV as it stands, and if it isn't cleared up, I intend to tag it. The most pressing issue is the intro: it needs to include the dissenting neurological opinion. Regarding my problems with this article, I have told you ad nauseam today already: (a) the writing is poor in places, (b) in some places, the sourcing is poor to non-existent, with quotes unsourced, and sometimes phrases in quotation marks that I think may be acting as scare quotes rather than quotation marks, (c) the intro is POV because it excludes dissenting opinion, and (d) there are some POV turns of phrase in it, which a good copy edit would get rid of. Here's one way to look at the problem. It's very obvious by your attitude that you support the POV of Michael Schiavo. But it shouldn't be obvious. Ideally, I should have no idea which position you support. So let me ask you this. You saw the copy edit I did, the material I added to the intro, and the arguments I've made on this talk page. Which position do I support? SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 06:53, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

errors
SlimVirgin posted ''If you feel I've introduced errors, please list them on talk, and I will go through them with you. But do list them. Don't make unsubstantiated claims.''

Several alleged errors were listed on talk, including two that entailed the deletion of important information in embedded notes. As SlimVirgin went "through them" with us, it apparently came down to every single one of his edits were perfectly fine, and it is really a matter of us needing to source our edits (never mind that SlimVirgin doesn't source SlimVirgin's own edits, an advantage, apparently of being an administrator).

Not a single error in SlimVirgin's edits. Not one jot. Not one whit.

Amazing. FuelWagon 00:29, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Show me one error I made in the article, either factual or grammatical. Your invisible comments are inappropriate and shouldn't be there in the first place in such numbers, so quit complaining that some were deleted, because most of them should be deleted. And you must stop the personal attacks and the pointless sarcasm. Your contribs show that almost all your edits have been to just three articles: Terri Schiavo, Nuclear option (filibuster), and Intelligent Design, but particularly this one, and on all their talk pages, there's evidence of you abusing any editor who stands up to you. It's not on. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 01:16, July 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I have a question: why did you change the text in this diff from  never exhibited awareness of her self to appeared not to exhibit awareness of herself? What was your basis for that? Cite? Actually, I have another question: If you have so much time to research how many edits I've made and where all FuelWagon has edited, how come you couldn't take the time to find out what some of the compromises were that had been crafted among many editors in the development of the article? Duckecho (Talk) 01:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not a party to any of the agreements between previous editors. There's poor writing, poor sourcing, and POV in the article, and they need to be fixed. Fixing them will not introduce a POV; it will just make the piece slightly more encyclopedic. If you read my edits, you'll see I was tweaking, not rewriting, and I was nowhere near finished. If you had allowed the edits to stand, you might have started to see the sense of them, and you would almost certainly have agreed with how I intended to improve the sourcing.


 * Second, I wrote "appeared not to exhibit awareness of herself" because the judgement that a person exhibits awareness is a subjective one and the word "appeared" stresses that. No cite is needed for an edit like that. A cite is needed, however, if you want to state it as a fact that she failed to show awareness; in that case, you'd need to say something like: "Dr X stated that ..." then link to where he stated it, or offer a citation if there's no link.


 * If this is the only issue you can find with my copy edit, why did you revert it? SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 02:10, July 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm waiting for an answer from FuelWagon or Duckecho that might explain the blind reverts. Show me one factual or grammatical error that I edited into the article. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 06:55, July 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * You already got my answer. I listed SEVERAL problems with your massive revert and NOT ONE concession from you. NOT ONE. You DELETE two embedded references to the source of material, and then you INSERT your own embedded note saying "Is this accurate?", and then when I point out your edit, you say "Well, you should have sourced it properly." No, YOU SHOULD HAVE READ THE EMBEDDED NOTE AND SOURCED IT YOURSELF, not delete the only reference to the source of the material. And yet, you have NOT ONCE said anythign to the effect of "Yeah, maybe I could have read that note" or "Yeah, maybe I could have written that better." NOT ONCE. Instead, your only response has been "source your edits", but NOT ONCE DID YOU SOURCE YOURS. And when that fails, you DREDGE UP something that happened a month ago on another page and make vague inuendo that you blocked me before and may have to do it again. You start a whole new section in the talk page saying I'm taking "ownership" of the article and that isn't allowed. You made a bad edit and you don't CONCEED EVEN A SINGLE POINT. Source your edits. Squawk! Ownership, Ownership, Squawk! Remember what you did last month, SQUAWK! What we have here is a Fonzi scenario, ala Happy Days. We've got an editor by the name of SlimVirgin who made a massive edit on the article that has a laundry list of problems. And NOT ONCE has SlimVirgin conceeded a single error, a single overstep, a single mistake. Fonzi could never say the phrase "I'm sorry". And SlimVirgin will do ANYTHING, include slinging mud, to avoid saying "Yeah, I did a bad edit there. I'm sorry." FuelWagon 14:05, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Schiavo as a term
Perhaps I should have put the information about the term "schaivo" in a seperate article with a disambiguation page for just "Schaivo" (to prevent confusion of Schaivo family members and "schaivo"). What do you people think? BTW, this article is kind of long and maybe should be broken down into several parts. Just putting in my 2 cents. --Uthar Wynn 01 05:59, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and I don't really want to hear any complaints about how "insensitive" my addition was or any crap like that. The article mentions that the terminology can be considered offensive and my addition is totally NPOV, so just keep those kind of comments to yourselves if you were thinking about flaming me. --Uthar Wynn 01 05:59, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I think this section is unencyclopedic. I'm sure there have been bad-taste Schiavo jokes, and this is an example of them, but they'll die fairly quickly. So there are my 2 cents to balance yours, and I suggest the next person who comes along feel free to remove the section.-gadfium 06:35, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Yup, I did indeed feel free to do that. Proto t c 08:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to say it's offensive, because I don't care, but it is unencyclopedic. You have the barest shred of a case for inclusion of slang terms based on the name (a shred... or, to paraphrase, "no"), but the section of examples is crap, this isn't a humor site. You've got about 5 minutes to post a reeeally compelling counter, than I revert. I guarantee you'll hit your 3RR rule before your opponents do.
 * Fox1 18:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with Fox1. User:Uthar Wynn 01 has made some strange edits, including adding Terri Schiavo to List of sex symbols. --Viriditas  | Talk 19:40, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with Fox1, Proto, and gadfium.~ Neuroscientist | T | C → 19:48, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * I was referring to how Terri Schaivo is a "sex symbol" to people with a PVS fetish, but I can't really back up that classification of Schaivo, so I'll let your removal of her from the list stand. --Uthar Wynn 01 21:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Please read No original research. --Viriditas | Talk 21:03, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I said I wasn't going to put her back on the list. --Uthar Wynn 01 21:09, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia totally got bugged for me. No joke, I had a response right away but I tried to submit my reply and Wikipedia was totally inacessible.

You could argue that perhaps the section on the slang usage of "schaivo" should be in an separate article, and merely linked to from the Terri Schaivo page, but to claim that my contributions are altogether without encyclopedic merit is absurd. My section on the usage of "schaivo" was completely NPOV and I attempted to present the information in a professional manner. On the "George Bush" page, one can learn about "Bushisms", tell me, how is this any different? As far as the examples go, they aren't just there to be funny, usually when explaining uncommon terms one should attempt to provide examples of their proper usage, and the examples I provided depicted how the slang terms are used in an informative, if not entirely realistic (I had to give some context, I couldn't just put "Man, I'm so schaivo") manner (how the kind of person who would use these terms might say it). The only reason I can think of that someone could object to my contribution is that the find the terms offensive, and if you are easily offended Wikipedia is not the place for you. Besides, I mentioned that the terms were, indeed, offensive and that their usage is “not recommended in polite conversation”.

Sorry for responding past your “deadline”, but due to technical problems I actually lost my first response while trying to submit it, this is my second write. Can’t we just agree to disagree on this? Maybe you should read the parts in the guide about leaving things in “even if you don’t think they make the article any better”, and also the section where they tell you to “give people the benefit of the doubt”. --Uthar Wynn 01 20:42, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Please cite reputable sources demonstrating common usage. Wikipedia has a strict plicy about no original research. --Viriditas  | Talk 20:47, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't need sources for this. Take a look at the various pages listing slang.  It's hard to find a "reputable source"  demonstrating usage, and a term hardly has to be "common" to be listed.  Also, this isn't "original research". --Uthar Wynn 01 20:56, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Unverified claims require sources. Please consult the relevant policy pages, including No original research, Cite sources, Verifiability, and NPOV. --Viriditas  | Talk 21:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * NPOV? How is it not NPOV? Cite all the policy pages you want, I don't care.  The defenition of a policy violation is more or less determined by precedent, and if you delete this section, you'll have to delete hundreds of "unverified" slang terms on Wikipedia. --Uthar Wynn 01 21:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Here, I'll quote policy at you. Assume good faith

I found a source, this is indeed real slang. It's at the bottom of the page, there you go. http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=11699524&postID=111627648979419840 --Uthar Wynn 01 21:30, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 1. The comment section of an anonymous, abandoned blog is not an authoritative source for an encyclopaedia.
 * 2. The content of your proposed addition is "unencyclopaedic" and of little value.
 * 3. Why not make more substantive contributions? You're most welcome too.~ Neuroscientist | T | C → 22:29, July 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * A space alien (see eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terri_Schiavo#Scoring ) just told me that you posted your own comment to prove your statement. Is that circular reasoning? Besides, I can get away with it: I have an "inside line" to the little green men...


 * Viriditas, yo da man! ~ With all due respect to the newcomer, Uthar Wynn 01 (interesting name; how'd you chose it, Uthar? Is that your real name?), I DO have a good sense of humor, and had a good laugh, but really, you've got to find sources, or it's all made up, that is, "Original Research," which is not permitted; just look around the Internet -I'm sure you can find some links to back up your suspicions that we've got some interesting new "Schiavo" terms, just like "Bork" became a verb -remember that? (That judge was BORKED!) eg not allowed a vote, like judge Robert Bork... look around for some links that back you up, but really, the server overload happens when too many people post, and we've got serious business pending, so please give us a little space, ok. Take care,--GordonWattsDotCom 21:09, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Please keep this neologism out of the article. Thanks. Rhobite 21:47, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion for SlimVirgin
I have a suggestion (yes, just like the title says) - SlimVirgin, perhaps you could reach a compromise by creating a reworking of the article on a temp page. Your amendments could then be discussed, we could all see how you think the article should read, and things may become a little more civil on both sides.

Now, whilst Fuel and Duckecho are noticeably being unwelcoming to people involving themselves with the article (entirely against the ethos of Wikipedia), you have to understand that there have been countless, countless trolls and POV-pushers who have carried out mass editing, reverted anyone who tries to amend them, and argued the case retrospectively. I am positive you're not of that ilk, but there is more than an air of paranoia about regular editors on the Schiavo page.

As I'm sure you're aware, the article is currently under mediation; perhaps you could read the issues detailed there to gain some understanding of the point I'm trying to make.

One more point, I don't think the implied threats to FuelWagon about blocking him (again?) for 24 hours were helpful; to me, as someone who doesn't know the history of that, it looks as though you're waving that around as a threat purely because he vehemently disagrees with you on copyediting. You're an administrator, rise above it.

But yeah, my main point is perhaps make a temp version (either here or in your own namespace) illustrating your changes. Save the current article there first so we can use the edit history to see exactly how you perceive the changes should go. Proto t c 08:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that suggestion, Proto. I was thinking of continuing with the copy edit on a user subpage tomorrow, and then putting bits up as and when I'd finished them. But I could certainly compromise, complete the first copy edit, and show it to editors here first. I have two concerns about that, which perhaps the others can help to alleviate: (1) I'm not prepared to do this only to have each and every point disputed and turned over, creating more archive pages. Many of the disputes I've seen in the archives have been frivolous. I noticed today that minor edits I made that were perfectly straightforward and correct (e.g. improvements to sentence structure) were being questioned as though I'd rewritten the whole page. That way lies madness. (2) There can't be any sense in which editors on this page are requiring people to seek consent before they make an edit. So long as I hear an acknowledgement from Duckecho and FuelWagon that they will allow other editors to make edits unmolested (vandalism and rampant POV pushing apart), then I'm happy to compromise.


 * The point about FuelWagon: I wasn't threatening to block him. I can't take admin action over pages I'm editing. I was reminding both of them about policy and asking that the personal attacks stop. For making a copy edit, I was yesterday called ignorant, arrogant, stupid, a troll, and referred to as Madam by two editors I'd had no previous editorial dealings with, and therefore no pre-existing baggage that might explain it. It's unacceptable.


 * Finally, I take your point about the POV pushing and vandalism this article has seen, and I understand why editors act protectively toward it. But I feel that FuelWagon and Duckecho are POV pushing too by insisting, for example, that no dissenting voice be heard in the intro. That attitude causes POV pushers on the other side to try to introduce their POV whenever they can, which makes FuelWagon and Duckecho even more protective, and on it goes, until you end up with 10MB of archives and a toxic talk page. NPOV doesn't mean this POV should be pushed, then that one. It means trying to take a disinterested view, write in an encyclopedic style, stick to decent sources, cite them properly whenever you make a contentious edit, and give due space to all majority- and significant-minority views, according to how widely those views are held by reputable published sources, not according to how dearly the views are held by editors here. That's the essence of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. I find most disputes melt away when editors stick to them rigidly. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 09:30, July 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * But I feel that FuelWagon and Duckecho are POV pushing too by insisting, for example, that no dissenting voice be heard in the intro.


 * Unless you can QUOTE a DIFF from me that shows me EVER saying "no dissenting voice in the intro", then you are officially a liar. SHOW ME ONE DIFF WHERE I EVER SAID THAT. Could you be any more misleading? Could you twist my words around any possibly MORE? I said if you include Hammerhead, you need to include that his "treatment" was practically laughed out of court as quackery, I said that it misrepresents the facts to compare Hammerhead on equal footing with the other seven neurologists. I NEVER said anything as assinine as "no dissent in the intro", and you're mounting a rabid STRAWMAN against me. FuelWagon 14:15, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, and in case you're wondering, the words you're looking for at this point would be something along the lines of "FuelWagon, it was an unfair of me to misrepresent your words and then attack you for something you never said. I am sorry. SlimVirgin" Just in case that Fonzi brain-lock kicks in and you can't actually type it, you could just cut and paste it and then sign it yourself. FuelWagon 14:22, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Scoring
I hate to do this, but it looks like there is more controversy, but before anyone starts squawking, let me assure you, I'm NPOV: I won't take ANYONE's side: I find some faults (and merits) on both (all) sides. So, as Grandmaster Flash once said:


 * Pull up your seats, class is in session
 * The master’s gonna teach you all a good lesson
 * It’s an open invitation despite what you’ve heard
 * And the first to come will be the first served


 * You're a little bite weird, aren't you, Gordon? If it works for you carry on, by all means, but it needed to be said.
 * Fox1 20:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * And the spacecraft just landed to drop ME off here to FIX this problem. But just remember ONE thing, El Primo Zorro: If We look weird to you Native Earthlings ...Y'all look weird to US too.!.--GordonWattsDotCom 20:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Anyhow, here's the scorecard: SCORECARD:
 * SlimVirgin: 5
 * FuelWagon: 4
 * Duck: (Scoring is complicated: I may let this proceed between Slim & FW so no mobbing advantage accrues to either side) "1" tentative points (see math below)
 * others...

Let's begin:

CAVEAT / Disclaimer: SlimVirgin did not discipline Duck for gaming the system as much as she could have, so some comments below which defend her (I oppose her on some issues) should not be understood as bias; Also, I will never forget how Duck helped me out by putting a link in the article page two days before my birthday linking my court case, which almost saved Terri's life.

1) Regarding SlimVirgin’s edit at (Revision as of 18:38, 11 July 2005), she asks for a source on a claim that PVS is unprecedented after two (2) years. Comments: -the source, a big-fat PDF file did in fact claim that recovery from PVS after 2 years is unprecedented, but that is factually false, as SlimVirgin correctly pointed out (and citing an example, for which she later promises a link) -she doesn't need the link: I'm sure I could find a LOT of cases diagnosed as PVS which were recovered after much longer. (PVS is misdiagnosed almost 50% of the time, so such a claim is false on its face.) She asks for a source, but in fact there was a source given in the article, but the article made the claim carte blanch, not "according to such-and-such" doctors, PVS recovery after two years is unprecedented. (Duck has pointed out in the past that any recovery proves the person was never PVS, but this strawman is moot: Since PVS is so often misdiagnosed, statements about PVS are not relevant because they are unprovable; We need to concern ourselves with the "diagnoses" of the doctors: Claims a doctor made certain diagnoses are provable; claims the diagnoses are correct is not.)
 * Scoring:
 * 1 point for slim: the article wasn't correct in its claim: It should have said "according to so-and-so doctor..."
 * 0 (zero) points each for slim and FuelWagon: Both could have (but didn't) edit the article to make this correction; this is BAD because the link was there, you could have opened the file, and done a keyword search in the PDF using the binoculars icon, like I did.
 * 1/2 point for FW because the doctor really did say this false claim, but slim missed it; half a point only as this doctor's claim is false: "Unprecedented" means "it didn't happen previously," but it has several times, Terri Wallis being one such example.

2) Duck (19:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC)) calls slim virgin's edits "massive" at 19:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC), Fuelwagon concurs. I looked at ALL the diffs this morning (headache), and noticed LOTS of red, but I saw that the paragraphs were misaligned, and upon closer inspection, I saw that very little had been edited. It's a "wiki" software problem. I never saw FW or Duck apologize, admit they were wrong, etc., and I read all the comments up to a few minutes ago. Comment: I had not read her comment about the "red" coloring misalignment, and yet had figured it out; I don't see why the "brains" on the other side missed it...?
 * Scoring:
 * 1 point for Slim Virgin. (Although she had two critics, she only gets ONE point; "mobbing" is unfair, even if it's in defensive scoring, like it is in "offensive" attacks where several editors revert one person, pushing the lone opponent past the 3RR. Sorry, Slim: only one point for you, lol.)


 * This is helpful. FuelWagon 17:46, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * What's more, you rack up some major points on points you made, FW, but I don't know if it will be enough for a clear victory. We'll find out when scoring is complete.--GordonWattsDotCom 17:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

(Also, her problems with the computers making multiple edits is reasonable, but, sorry, a freak mistake: Sorry SlimVirgin: No points for you, as it was not Duck's or FuelWagon's fault -even tho I believe it wasn't your fault either. Freak computer happening.)

3) FW and Duck take major issue (by reverting) her edits. This is beyond merely calling them massive. I looked at ALL the edits, one by one, and find no major problem. Ann Heneghan, another educated editor, has made comments that concur with me, and she reverted. This is one of my few subjective calls (not objective fact), so scoring will not be a full point. There are enough dissenting views, indicating mediation, arbitration, etc. would be more of a solution to this complex problem, as Proto rightly hints, when he explicitly suggest a sandbox test.
 * Scoring: 1/2 point for Slim

BREAK: "::I would assume it's vandalism reversion. Jtkiefer 20:08, July 11, 2005 (UTC)" He/she didn’t check to find out the SlimVirgin is an admin in good standing. Virgin's explanation was reasonable: The new wiki software has had some bugs recently. (No points for slim, because that would introduce a "mobbing" advantage, as mentioned above: Jtkiefer was not one of her principal critics in the present dispute. Sorry, Slim. Take solace in being ahead on points for the time being.)

WIKI Break part 2: Uncle Ed, the talking horse, and quoting Uncle Ed in a copy and paste below --in italics to indicate Uncle Ed didn't post it here:

''May I suggest that parties to the mediation avoid making any "reversions"? Moreover, an Edit Summary like revert to last version by Stanselmdoc doesn't really sum anything up.''

''Our mediation seems to have stalled. Your choices at this point are (1) fire me, or (2) return to the Mediation. I've never failed yet, but if you feel I have failed you, say so. Don't just sneak away. Uncle Ed 20:58, July 11, 2005 (UTC)''

Gordon comments: I think Uncle Ed’s doing ok -and told as much to Jimbo, but Ed’s got two problems:
 * a) He’s got to deal with lack of screening of editors (like employees do with prospective employees), and this allows crap vandalism that uses up resources (finical, computing, time, stress, etc)
 * b) We editors aren’t paid, and neither is Uncle Ed (as far as I know), so it makes it harder to do a good job; I add that these aren’t Uncle Ed’s fault.

4) Fuel Wagon (hereinafter abbreviated FW) takes issue with two times Slim removed hidden comments in reference to links (and replaces them with questions or the like). In one instance, SlimVirgin removed a comment referencing the quote about PVS recovery beyond two years being unprecedented; in the other, she removed a hidden comment about a certain document being unavailable. Comments: In one case, she was right to remove the comment because the link should have been quoted verbatim, and cited as that doctor's opinion; her question was appropriate because the article made a claim instead of saying "such and such" doctor said. However, she also failed to read the PDF, so no points for anyone here: All were wrong. The second hidden comment that was removed was this: '''"--Do not remove Pecarek's statement. It is quoted in several court orders and GAL reports, however Pecarek's report is unavailable on the internet. --"''' While it might be good to remove (or blank out & make hidden) the statement that needs this source or link, it is not right to remove a factual statement in the article's hidden comments: Maybe this item WILL become available in the future; we need reference available.) point for FW.
 * Scoring:
 * 1 point for FW

Another FW concern: “You could have made it visible, but you deleted it instead, and in it's place inserted doubt on the ANA's position and forwarded some urban legend.” True, but FW would have probably reverted her work; she messed up here (and that's why FW got a point above, lol), but this was one small error. Most of her edit was good, and should have been challenged in talk -point by point -or left alone; the large "red" areas in the diffs made her edits look larger than they were, so I understand why others over-reacted. THEREFORE, no points for SlimVirgin. Sorry, but I must be fair. However, I must say that addressing FW's (and Duck's) concerns would probably NOT have helped: Since they reverted en masse, when most of it is good, and refuse to accept any of her good edits (great in number), adding one more good element would probably not help, but I might be wrong: Let's see...
 * Scoring:
 * A nullity: No points. Premature at this point to speculate, but good points to see the trend and address concerns.


 * Gordon, scoring, and using words such as 'battle' and 'combatants' is really, really, really, really, really not helping. Also, I don't think Duck 'gamed' anything ... you're picking up neat terms from scrolling through Arbitration decisions again, aren't you? Proto t c 19:29, 12 July 2005 (UTC) Thank you very much for that display of sense, Proto. Gordon, this is absolutely not helpful — at all. You've set up shop on the Talk page scoring the argument, in the pose of some sort of judge; no one, however, appointed you to do this — certainly not on the Talk page. If you must amuse yourself with these scores, please place them on your own page. They don't belong here.~ Neuroscientist | T | C → 19:45, July 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * NS, if you can't be part of the solution, the don't be part of the problem: Either follow -lead -or get the hack out of the way. The "talk page" IS the proper place for talk about the article page. Chill out. If you disagree on a particular point, you can weigh in -respectfully. I will respect your viewpoint, but not asking you to shut up; Should you not do that for others -even if they're dumber than a stump?--GordonWattsDotCom 19:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC) Gordon, I am not asking anybody to "shut up." In fact, I'm certain that you are capable of adding very productively to the discussion. Please post your thoughts on the content of SlimVirgin's and Fuel's and anyone else's comments. But I think setting up shop here to "score" "combatants" is not helpful.~ Neuroscientist | T | C → 19:58, July 12, 2005 (UTC) I don't think "combatants" really hurt thing,s but I see y'alls' point, and I allowed Slim to change my title per Proto's request and your subsequent support; OK, now also: Thx for your giving me room, however, without scoring, there's no way to see who's doing what. Yes, I am sure there will be a winner & a loser, and this may seem insulting, but it must be objective, so we can get a feel for the overall trend; but, let me assure you that even the "loser" will probably be able to add productively. If schools didn't score, how would we know if we passed? And, aren't we supposed to learn here? You see my point, but thanks for your opinion.--GordonWattsDotCom 20:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC) I give up.~ Neuroscientist | T | C → 20:11, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't mean to use combative words: That is only the "title" to get the attention of the people who need it most (the opposing sides), ...good point, Proto, but don't judge the "book" by its cover: You'll see I'm being fair & accurate! As to your other question: Good guess, but no, I don't have time to look into the ArbCom or 3RR decisions. Sorry to disappoint. I'm not quite a super-fast robot, yet. As far as your opinion to Duck, I think I myself gamed the system a little, but it was necessary to put a BAD EDIT in check. I "gamed the system" by only giving Duck minimal notice about his revert problems, but notice was given, and he admits this. Next time, I hope to be more patient and give more notice, but his edit was bad, especially for those with high screen resolution, where things ALREADY look small. "Neat terms?" Yes, I'll agree there. Thx for your suggestions, ...now, I have to get back to work.--GordonWattsDotCom 19:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

"Gordon, scoring, and...is really, really, really, really, really not helping." Scoring IS going to help, because it is more objective to look at and analyze (read: add up points) all the facts. I really don't know who's more wrong, so I'm scoring them. What could be more fair than that!? "Also, I don't think Duck 'gamed' anything..." Yes, he did: He used creative editing to get around the 3RR; I myself admitted (see above) that I gamed the system, so I'm not playing favorites.--GordonWattsDotCom 19:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Apology: I didn't mean to put the title header back in, but had saved a version in a word processor, and accidentally copied and pasted -regarding Proto's request and SlimVirgin's subsequent edit change. Sorry about that. OK, it's real crowded in this room, but I'm back to work. Let's pray to the great "Wiki Gods" that we somehow wait in turn so there isn't any "edit conflict" when posting.--GordonWattsDotCom 19:57, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

5) SlimVirgin’s concerns: “It appears that a small group of editors, currently consisting of User:FuelWagon and User:Duckecho have taken ownership of this page…There are too many invisible instructions and invisible sources in this article. The "instructions" need to be made in the form of requests on the talk page, and the sources need to be visible. You also need to make sure that the sources actually say what you're claiming they said, because in some of the cases I checked they didn't.” Comments: "taking ownership" is an opinion, and while I agree mostly, sorry, Slim: No points. As to invis. instructions, some of those are needed, but, again, it's subjective, and while I agree that it might stymie or hinder future editors, I'm sure they will "be bold" if they've go a point. No point: Opinion, case by case. As far as the sources really supporting the assertions: I found MANY factual errors, unsupported, but this is only one claim you made, unrebutted, so sorry, only one point. (My 500-word summary and the overflow that didn't make the 1st 500 word cu support the factual inaccuracy claims you made.)
 * Scoring:
 * 1 point for SlimVirgin

6) Like a "Duck" in water, the Echo has some comment posted at 22:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * He challenges Slim's objection to invisible comments. Since I didn't give slim a point for her claims here, Duck doesn't get one either: No harm, no foul (points that is)
 * Slim said her work was stymied, and Duck replied that she's only been working on the page for a few hours vs. several months. If FW had made this comment, I would have given Slim a 1/2 a point: "prejudice" against one who has not edited here much recently; The merits of her edits is not necessarily dependant on the length of time she's edited, as we're finding out (very few sustentative criticisms), 1/2 "negative" point: We assume that Duck agrees with FW on most all points, and then add or subtract from FW's total depending on Duck's unique contributions to the discussion; this is the only way to be fair to Duck & score him in this 2-on-1 situation. (Only 1/2 point, as this BAD logic is prejudice, but still opinion.)
 * Duck opposes the intro being balanced re the Neurologists being mentioned. POV violation EASILY worth 1 point: We must mention all the facts, and what doctors said what is FACT.
 * Duck objects to the autopsy being in the intro: He is wrong, I think, because it is a MAJOR document in this case, but he loses no points because it is in fact mentioned later in the article, and also, this is a subjective opinion-based edit decision.
 * Scoring: Negative 1 1/2 points applied to Duck's tentative score

7) FW questions SlimVirgin's use of word "allegedly" earlier today or yesterday in talk regarding the claims that Terri's parents told Mike Schiavo to get on with his life, get a girlfriend, etc. Since the GAL, Jay Wolfson said this in his report, and since I vaguely recall Terri's parents (eventually) telling Mike Schiavo all they wanted was their daughter and making no requests for Mike to dump his girlfriend, FW is correct that "allegedly" would introduce POV by unnecessarily calling into question a known fact. Comment: FW pointed out that the embedded "hidden" comment pointed out the page number of the GAL report where Guardian ad litem made this claim, and some PDF docs ARE searchable, thus SlimVirgin should have looked at it, as has suggested, but no points awarded: No "double jeopardy," thank you. The score is tied right now.
 * Scoring:
 * 1 point for FW


 * Note: Last night, Lakeland FL got a thunderstorm, and phone, power, and computer were hit; Modem fried and phone still out, so I'm not online, and must use Internet cafe, so I ask that my colleagues give me space and not edit for a little while so I can finish my analysis without edit conflict; In addition, these computers have NO floppy drive, so I must finish my work from my notes, manually. Thx for the consideration. Will let y'all know when I'm up to full speed and no longer need "extra space" to edit. Continuing below: --GordonWattsDotCom 20:23, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

8) At 22:34 on 11 July, 2005, Slim Virgin asked Duck about his number of edits, as she was curious about how he'd done lots of work with only "213" edits; Comments: At of last night, Kate's tool said that Duck had 609 edits, and we recall he edited anonymously from an IP before that. This error on her part was not intentional; also, since we understand that an editor's number of edits is not necessarily related to quality (whether it be Slim, Duck, or whomever), it is moot, and for information only.
 * Scoring: If FW had caught her error, it would not have yielded any points, so in scoring Duck, he gets no "gain points," but he will pick up some "extra credit" later for his work and is encouraged to hang in there and no give up: There are still a few rounds to go, and you might be like FW and make a late comeback.--GordonWattsDotCom 20:49, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

9) On 11 July 2005, at 22:45, FW claims you can't compare Hammesfahr w/ the other seven neurologists, using the "national Enquirer" argument. Comments: Being featured in media, even there, is generally good, even if it doesn't guarantee that the doctor’s totally great. However, if FW wants to mention the "Nobel prize" controversy (and other things) to give a "complete" picture on Hammesfahr, I won't score any points for the opposing views' team: Unless, he is selective and objects to mentioning the failures of (for example) Cranford to diagnose correctly at least one of his patients, who were diagnosed PVS, in this search: FW wants all the story on Hammesfahr - OK, so long as this standard is not selective; would introduce omission POV problem. --GordonWattsDotCom 20:49, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * "David Mack" cranford
 * http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22David+Mack%22+cranford
 * http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=%22David+Mack%22+cranford&fr=FP-tab-web-t&toggle=1&cop=&ei=UTF-8
 * Scoring: No harm, no foul - FW doesn't mess up yet, so no penalty

10)  Very WEIRD :  Revision as of 23:35 indicates that FW opposed SlimVirgin when she challenged a statement in the article about the "intravenous fluid" aka "IV" explanation for the low potassium. Here, FW would have argued FOR keeping an edit that gave an alternative explanation to Mike Schiavo's "dieting" theory, effectively undermining mike Schiavo. FIRST, this is weird, because it has been the view of many the FW is "Pro-Mike-Schiavo." SECONDLY, it gets weirder: SlimV has been perceived as Anti-Mike-Schiavo, and she would have argued against this edit, supporting both parties claims of being neutral, and NPOV. This is weird, but unfortunately is non-pointable, and is useful hopefully in stimulating thought. Comments: "Pro-Terri" is not used to describe, because as Duck pointed out once, it can mean supporting those who would remove feeding tubes, supposedly helping her to fulfill her alleged but unknown wishes. Also, SlimV's request for a link is reasonable.--GordonWattsDotCom 21:03, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

11) At 1:54, 12 July 2005, Duck asks SlimV why she changed "never exhibited awareness" to "appeared not to exhibit awareness,' or to that effect; he also asks why, if she had time to look up number of edits, why she couldn't find out about compromises that had been researched in article. ''Comments: Her edits did not touch upon disputed themes that would be subject to compromise, generally. In cases where they might, inquiring about the full history would be difficult, and not a one-person task, but this is minor: no penalty against Duck. However, the challenge from a guess to a factual statement is poor judgment; Duck asks why SlimV wanted to avoid being psychic and guessing ; a not good thing; you're bright, so don't shoot yourself in the foot with statements or questions like that.--GordonWattsDotCom 21:13, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Scoring: 1 penalty point assessed against Duck. This brings his overall score to negative one, by the current scoring system.

12) Duck points out that the Terri article was highly praised in peer review. It was praised mostly or totally, as I recall, true; however, I was one of those who praised it until I saw it more closely: "The 'devil's' in the details."--GordonWattsDotCom 21:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Scoring: No penalty: Both sides had a good point; see Mediation 500-word summaries to support claims of problems with article

13) FW takes issue with SlimV's alleged misrepresenting his view: He did not object to Hammesfahr being in intro, so long as it is mentioned he was laughed out of court. comments: FW is probably correct, based on a liberal reading of SlimV's comments, but such human errors are to be overlooked in light of the fact that this would require mentioning also the fact that the other doctors had misdiagnoses problems (see Cranford discussion above) and the fact that Mike Schiavo's doctors were hired by his side and not objective, but "hired guns," as the saying goes, an edit that has thus far not been introduced by SlimV's opponents, a NPOV-type mistake in my opinion.
 * Scoring: Errors cancel - no penalty.

EXTRA CREDIT: This takes into account "intangibles," but "tangible" to someone Comments: Earlier, I gave 1/2 a point to SlimV for having made good edits, but the work she did spanned several days, and many hours of work; While FW and Duck are comparable in talent to SlimVirgin, this "scoring" is based mainly on this edit dispute, and I weighted her contributions to weakly. While it is based "mainly" on the edit dispute, contributions of the past to the Schiavo article cannot be ignored either.
 * Scoring:
 * SlimVirgin: 2 more points for excellent editing on the article itself: 1/2 point for indirectly protecting the Schiavo article in the past, mainly as an administrator working too many hours for too little pay.
 * FW: 0 points for editing the article during the dispute: The "edit" being questioned was SlimVirgin's edit, not FW's; 1 1/2 points for FW's consistent editing and being on the lookout for vandalism, copy edit, etc.
 * Duck: 0 points for edit in dispute (see above) - 2 points for excellent work editing, copy edit, and suggesting ideas, being fair in many but not all edits on Schiavo article in the past and for helping patrol for vandalism
 * other comments: extra credit and adding tentative final scores - comments hopefully to follow if I have computer access: "scoring" is fun, but we must learn from it & avoid past mistakes--GordonWattsDotCom 21:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Short Version "CONCLUSION / SUMMARY" comment, if I don't have time to expound upon point: Look at the areas above, and see where all parties did well or messed up. Whether you are one of the three parties in the main "competition" or not, the idea is NOT to compete, but have fun & learn from mistakes, so try to do the "good" things that got points above, and try to avoid the "bad" things above that resulted in penalties or points for the opposition. OK, I hope that help, and I hope it was interesting.--GordonWattsDotCom 21:54, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks
FuelWagon, I can no longer deal with you regarding editing this article. In the last 24 hours, you have called me an arrogant cuss, a jerkoff, a f**%!ng jerk, arrogant, ignorant, a troll, and a f**%!ng *$$s0le. I've seen language like this on WP only from the very worst offenders and vandals, and you can't be allowed to continue doing it, whether to me or to anyone else. I'm therefore withdrawing from editing this article, I hope only temporarily, until I decide whether it's appropriate to approach this as an admin, or whether to pursue dispute resolution as an editor. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 18:06, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * All personal attacks should be removed on sight. --Viriditas | Talk 19:43, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

other diversions
I find it just hilarious that a website that has an article dedicated to a topic such as can't handle cussing. But hey, anything to divert attention away from the real issue. To me, the real issue is whether the article is made better or worse by an edit. And while SlimVirgin may have fixed a verb tense or two in his massive edit, the overall result, including the deletion of important embedded notes being replaced by unfounded questions of accuracy and urban legend, made the article far worse than it was. Several other problems have been listed as well. None of which, apparently are problems in SlimVirgin's mind. Apparently they all make the article better.

What we have is one massive diversion here. The article was made worse. But SlimVirgin can't admit it. Instead he will divert attention by saying his change was simply "copyediting", that I and another editor are trying to "own" this page, that it all comes down to editors like me inserting unsourced edits, that I'm POV, and finally that I swear too much. SlimVirgin, you have acted as nothing but a victim of your circumstances. You have not taken responsibility for a SINGLE thing you have typed on the article or the talk page. It is ALWAYS someone else's fault.

This is what I'll admit to doing: I admit I broke wikipedia's rules and swore on the talk page. I'm not particularly sorry about it, but I'll take down the language if people have that much of a problem with it. Every single other accusation you, SlimVirgin, have leveled against me is false. I have not violated NPOV on the article. I have not attempted to own the page. I mounted a personal attack by calling you an explitive, but I won't apologize since it was in direct response to you completely distorting my words into something I would never say. I would never say something as moronic as "no dissent in the intro". Yet I've noticed you have neither "sourced your edit" to show where you are quoting me, nor have you apologized for what would be a strawman attack. (out of curiosity, does wikipedia: no personal attacks include strawman attacks and otherwise completely misquoting another editor? will have to look that one up.)

But hey, lets not talk about that. Let's focus on the bad words that FuelWagon used on the talk page.

Whatever. FuelWagon 20:30, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Let's remove all the personal attack stuff and just leave the comments that only discuss the page. I think the both of you are great editors and will accomplish more by working together than against each other.  Of course, sometimes that's not possible but in this case it is.  I'm asking both parties to take the higher ground and assume good faith. --Viriditas  | Talk 20:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Fuel has been blocked. What a sorry mess.~ Neuroscientist | T | C → 22:09, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Article's main photo should be as recent as possible.
Whereas the 1990 photo is more suited for its "early life" section. Shem(talk) 21:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

The SlimVirgin edits (on the Introduction)
The new contributor has asked a number of questions, edited a number of sections, and made a number of charges.

I would like to address some of them. I have made the assumption that SlimVirgin is a woman.

The Introduction
The edited paragraphs may be seen here:.

In justifying the changes, she wrote:
 * I added to the intro what the autopsy report said about PVS, about her brain size, and about her blindess, as these are the key points, and belong in the intro, in my view. I also added that one neurologist who examined her dissented and called her condition a "minimally conscious state," as that's needed for NPOV and accuracy.


 * [The autopsy report] speaks directly to the issues being debated, and it's the most up-to-date solid piece of information there is. It seems obtuse not to mention its key findings in the intro. Regardless of who has criticized the neurologist who diagnosed minimally conscious state, he did make that diagnosis, and you have no right to pretend it doesn't exist, no matter how strongly you disagree with it. A neurologist counts as a reputable source for WP in matters of neurology, particularly as he examined her. The way I introduced the information made it clear that his was the minority, dissenting view.

She has made similar points elsewhere. There are a number of problems with this.

Firstly — and without prejudice to the substance of her edits — she has a different belief about the purposes of an introduction than many of the regular editors here do. I understand the introduction to a work of non-fiction to be those opening sentences that offer a broad overview of the subject that is being dealt with. It is factual — but does not encumber the reader with factoids. It is informative - but is not stuffed with trivia. It is graceful and inviting — and it cannot be if it is struggling to be clear and concise. It tells the reader the various topics he may expect to read about — but it will not if it focuses on one or two topics alone.

If I were commissioned to write an article about the solar system, I will not litter its introduction entirely with references to Saturn and Jupiter. These are important subjects in their own right, and they are crucial to an essay on the solar system — no one disputes that. But if my introduction to the solar system spoke ponderously about the mass of Jupiter and the nature of Saturnian rings, it fails.

Exactly as SlimVirgin's version of the Schiavo introduction fails.

The regular editors have been trying to craft a good introduction for quite some time, and recently there has been much progress. Prior to recent versions, the introduction essentially told the whole story from beginning to end, and was therefore quite large. There was a recent move to make it clearer and more concise, yet fair and accurate. We essentially want to say, simply, that this is the story of a young lady who had a devastating brain injury, whose loved ones had disagreements over what to do after that, that these disagreements happened over issues of great significance to all of us (such as end-of-life care, guardianship of the incompetent, etc), that at its height the story involved the highest levels of the executive and judicial branches of government, and that finally, a decision was made, and the young lady died.

That she had multifocal cortical laminar necrosis was fine and all, and true, no doubt, but these are matters that properly belong in the body proper, not the introductory remarks of an article.

Or so we thought.

Neuropathology
Secondly, I find difficulty with the substance of some of SlimVirgin's claims. For example, she claims that "the key points" are the "size" [sic] of Schiavo's brain, and "[Schiavo's] blindness" [sic].

This is incorrect. These were interesting findings that were made post-mortem, certainly; lay individuals without any education in neurology, neuropathology or neuroscience jumped at them. However, they are far from "the key points." If we generously take SlimVirgin's meaning of this phrase to be "the most important findings of the autopsy," then she is badly mistaken about them. The critical findings of the autopsy were the pathological condition of her cerebral cortex, in particular the profound, total loss of large pyramidal neurons and accompanying multifocal laminar necrosis; the pattern of gradient antero-posterior loss of cortical neurons; the damage to the thalami bilaterally; and the total loss of Purkinje cells from her cerebellum. I would also regard the relative sparing of her lower brainstem as very important.

The mass of Schiavo's brain on the other hand is simply a crude indication of the extent of damage that her nervous system endured. It has little, if any, intrinsic discriminatory value as a clinico-pathologic feature. In fact, focus on this aside has actually been misleading: witness the uninformed but all too common riposte that many people who underwent epilepsy surgery as children have lighter brains. This is true, but of course it has absolutely nothing to do with the functional capability of an adult brain wrecked by an anoxic insult that destroyed very many specialized regions. But the confusion persists. SlimVirgin seems to have been misguided by a similar confusion.

In fact, the comments that SlimVirgin has made elsewhere conclusively indicate that she has an exceptionally poor understanding of elementary neuroanatomy, neurophysiology, and neuropathology. On the Talk page of Grace Note, she writes,
 * However, if you read my intro, I also added the brain size from the autopsy report. I did that in order to make it clear that any diagnosis of reversible minimal consciousness was unlikely to have been correct. In controversial articles like this, and particularly in the intros, the facts have to be allowed to speak for themselves in a subtle way.

And further,
 * Sure, when you know the person only has a half a brain, consciousness in any meaningful sense &mdash; what we would call a subjective experience or perception of I &mdash; becomes increasingly unlikely. But they didn't know she only had half a brain at the time. It was all guesswork, some of it educated and probably right, some of it less so.

Now, I’d like to put this very gently, but I do not know how else to accurately convey it except to say that this person has absolutely, totally, completely , no idea of what she’s talking about. This is an example of the worst in Wikipedia, when complete, arrant nonsense serves as the basis for editorial decisions.

Brain size, per se, has no direct correlation with consciousness. At all. As I’ve just mentioned, there are children walking around after hemispherectomies who’re perfectly conscious and self-aware, and whom you’d never think had so much as sore thumb wrong with them. Yet, a person can lose a tiny amount of brain in the right spot, and simply die.

If we imagine a hypothetical (and horridly bizarre) situation in which SlimVirgin demands a craniotomy and has me remove parts of her brain just to see what happens, I can cause her to become completely paralyzed on one side of the body by removing a portion of brain not much larger than a quarter; I can cause her to go blind by nicking 3cm³ worth of nerves; I can cause her to be incapable of balance and always walk like a drunk by snipping of some fibers at the back of her brain; I could render her comatose by destroying a small bit of brain just above her pons; and I could stop her heart from beating and her lungs breathing by removing just a couple of cm³ worth of her medulla oblongata. I could also remove much larger portions of her brain elsewhere, and she’d hardly feel a difference.

The brain is not like the liver, where every cell is exactly like every other cell. The brain is exquisitely complex — and the clinical manifestation of any damage that occurs depends on precisely where the damage occurred, how fast it occurred, what cells were involved, and sometimes how old the patient was when it happened.

So if SlimVirgin insists that specific details from the autopsy must be provided in the introduction, then she would have to include the following, which are far, far more "key" than a crude and passing indication of cerebral injury:

1. total loss of large pyramidal neurons throughout the cortex; 2. multifocal cortical laminar necrosis; 3. gradient antero-posterior loss of cortical neurons; 4. damage to the thalami bilaterally; 5. total loss of Purkinje cells from her cerebellum; and 6. relative sparing of her lower brainstem.

These are the set of findings that speak to Schiavo's neurological condition, and the diagnosis that was central to the entire Schiavo story. If an editor insists that the introduction must contain details of the autopsy — and these by necessity have to be the most crucial details — then I will insist that the above details are included, for if other, minor details are included in their place I can only conclude that bias and “POV editing” are at play.

Whoever has to fit that into a readable introduction has both my very best wishes and my heartfelt sympathies.

Does everyone now understand why some things are better said in the body of an article rather than in the introduction?

Cortical blindness
SlimVirgin is also wrong when she writes,"The pathologists found massive celebral[sic] atrophy with a brain weight[sic] of 615 grams, roughly half that[sic] of the expected weight, and cortical blindness, indicating she had been unable to see."

This is nonsense, of course. Dr. Nelson did not "find" cortical blindness. He found that Schiavo's visual cortex had been severely damaged, such that it was exceedingly unlikely that Schiavo was capable of sight. Cortical blindness is the clinical correlate of severe destruction of the visual cortex. One does not "find" cortical blindness in an autopsy. One either finds it in life through clinical examination, or deduces it in death upon finding a destroyed visual cortex.


 * This is nonsense: While much of your discussion on SlimVirgin's edits makes sense (like how the mass of the brain is not as important as its functionality, in regards to priority of placement in introduction), nonetheless, this is empty: First, you said that Dr. N did NOT find cortical blindness, and THEN you say he DID (but using different terminology of 'deduces it' --OK, so he found it by deduction --actually, what's most likely is that the truth is inbetween as NCdave's pointed out: Probably Terri was visually impaired but not blind. The argument you are rebutting below, NS, is one of "context": SlimV's argument about context makes sense, because proximity of sentences can lead to ambiguous meaninig of cause and effect, or of correlation. Thus, her attempt to make it explicit is not harmful. (The parable below you mention appears to refer to the apparent correlation between low body weight and menustral cycle irregularities.) - Hey, colleagues, it's not easy to access spell-check on this backup computer; other one got fried modems; so, if I mis-spell, please forgive: The word processor does NOT light up misspelled words like good computer, unless I manually do spell check one by one!--GordonWattsDotCom 11:27, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

To conclude this section :

1. There are a number of factual errors in SlimVirgin's writings on the neuropathology of the Schiavo case.

2. She makes a logical error of the form:
 * A. Details X and Y are true about a subject P.
 * B. Details X and Y are important about a subject P.
 * C. Therefore, details X and Y  must  be mentioned in an introduction to an article on subject P.

C unfortunately does not follow A and B, and she has yet to show us why it must — especially when
 * I. in truth, she is very wrong about the details themselves,
 * II. Subject P in our case (Schiavo) has important details n → ∞

~ Neuroscientist | T | C → 05:41, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

The SlimVirgin edits (on Hammesfahr)
The new contributor's version of the introduction includes a reference to Hammesfahr's contention that Schiavo was in the MCS prior to her death.

There seems to be a little confusion about Hammesfahr, so I'll just paint a quick picture (no references here, but they are widely available on the net and in the Talk archives).

1. Did Hammesfahr examine Schiavo?
 * Yes, he certainly did. He also videotaped his examination, and the video was available to Judge Greer to scrutinize.

2. Is Hammesfahr a "real" neurologist? (Does she imagine we imagine he's imaginary?)
 * He is a board-certified neurologist (yes, I know, unbelievable, but there you go). He is however not a member in good standing of the American Academy of Neurology, and is the only one of the eight neurologists who examined Schiavo who isn't.

3. Is this guy a quack?
 * Many in the neurological community have, for years — and well before his involvement in the Schiavo case — considered Hammesfahr to be, er, highly unorthodox. In private conversation the term charlatan is often bandied about (although some have no qualms even on national broadcasts). For years, he has been claiming to treat patients with a diverse variety of ailments with completely unscientific treatments, with no evidentiary basis in the literature. He has never formally published the results in peer-reviewed journals¹, although he has managed to successfully get published in the National Enquirer as well as a journal magazine called Lifelines on whose board of editors he sits (and whose address, I believe, is his). It must be a matter of some regret to him that these prestigious works have not garnered him the applause of the people he thinks of as his professional colleagues.
 * ¹ A search of the entire electronic bibliographic database of the US National Library of Medicine, which contains a record of virtually every biomedical paper ever written in any indexed peer-reviewed journal in the past 50 years, discloses not one single paper by Hammesfahr, on any subject. Not one single one.

4. Is he a Nobel laureate?
 * He has claimed, for many years, to be a "nominee" for the Noble Prize "in Medicine" (the title varies: sometimes it's "Nobel Peace Prize in Medicine," whatever that means - both titles are bogus). This is an enormous load of pure, unadulterated horseshit. Charlatanism in the truest sense. I have elaborated on this elsewhere; more details are easily found online.

5. Is he a practising neurologist?
 * Unfortunately, I believe he is, yes.

6. Is what he says trustworthy?
 * Now, this is less straightforward. Just because he's blatantly lied in the past, and appears to continue to deceive people, does not mean he always lies. All claims must be examined on judged on their merits. In re Schiavo, Judge Greer had complete access to this guy's examination, and he did an excellent job as a judge - he studied everything first hand to determine its veracity. From his judgement,


 * "Dr. Hammesfahr testified... he gave 105 commands... Mrs. Schindler gave an additional 6 commands... he asked her 61 questions and Mrs. Schindler, at his direction, asked her an additional 11 questions. [total 183]. The court saw few actions that could be considered responsive to either these commands or those questions. While Dr. Hammesfahr testified that she squeezed his finger on command, the video would not appear to support that and his reaction on the video likewise would not appear to support that testimony."


 * "...It is clear that this therapy (vasodilatation therapy) is not recognized in the medical community. ...What undermines his [Hammesfahr's] credibility is that he does not present to this court any evidence... he offered no names, no case studies, no videos, and no tests [sic] results to support his claim that he had success in all but one of them. If his therapy is as effective as he would lead this court to believe, it is inconceivable that he would not produce clinical results of these patients that he has treated. And surely the medical literature would be replete with this new, now patented, procedure. Yet, he has only published one article and that was in 1995 involving some 63 patients, 60% of whom were suffering from whiplash. (Note: I believe this to be a publication of the infamous Lifelines journal.)


 * "It is clear from the evidence that these therapies [hyperbaric oxygen and vasodilatation] are experimental insofar as the medical community is concerned with regard to patients like Terry [sic] Schiavo which is borne out by the total absence of supporting case studies or medical literature. ...The other doctors, by[sic] contrast, all testified there was no treatment available to improve her quality of life. They were also able to credibly testify that neither hyperbaric therapy nor vasodilatation therapy was an effective treatment for this sort of injury."

So there you go. The Judge decided he wasn't credible. Note that this is not the same as deciding that Hammesfahr had a valid point of view, but the others' view was more sound; this decision impeached the credibility of Hammersfahr's findings.

This issue is a lamentable part of the Schindler story. I will never understand how, with all that external funding and advice, they managed to pick him. (I have said before that I wished they'd chosen Cheshire or someone like him from the start; although I disagree with them, they deserved their day in court and this charlatan screwed up any hope they had).

Hammesfahr's credibility issues add a layer of difficulty for others (like us) who're trying to maintain a NPOV. If the disagreement was legitimate, then the solution is clear: include the legitimate "minority opinion," as SlimVirgin puts it, in the introduction. However,  no legitimate alternative diagnosis was made here : as Greer's example illustrates, Hammesfahr gave Schiavo something like 180+ commands, and she seemed to make some sort of response, that was not clearly non-reflexive, in a very small handful (IIRC from other sources, approx 5); with this and similar observations, Hammy said she was MCS.

Greer did not simply say that Hammesfhar had no evidentiary support for his methods in the literature. He threw out  the credibility  of Hammersfahr's  clinical observations , and since a diagnosis, PVS or MCS, rests on the integrity of those observations, Greer in effect has shown that no clinically sound, legitimate alternative diagnosis has ever been made.

Now, this is very different from finding that one clinician made observations that were legitimate and consistent with a suspicion of the MCS, but that since 7 other physicians didn't, and the MCS diagnosis requires reproducibility, then the opinion of the 7 is more likely to be true than the opinion of the one. That is not what happened in Schiavo: Greer found one physician's clinical observations to be not credible.

So I understand Fuel's and Duckecho's reticence to include reference to Hammesfahr in the introduction. They were <U>not opposing divergent points of view in the introduction, and anyone who has been involved with this article for any length of time would know that they’ve supported versions of the introduction in the past that included many divergent PsOV. But they are opposed to this particular fellow, and as I’ve shown there are excellent, fair reasons to hold that view.

Having said that, I would now like to enter a defense — of SlimVirgin.

SlimVirgin on Hammesfahr: a defense
We must bear in mind the version of the introduction SlimVirgin happened upon. In part, it went like this:


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


 * On February 25, 1990, Schiavo (pronounced SHY-voh, International Phonetic Alphabet: ) suffered severe brain damage from cerebral hypoxia, after experiencing cardiac arrest from an undetermined cause. She briefly lapsed into a coma, then passed into an irreversible persistent vegetative state (PVS) as determined by more than a half dozen neurologists, and so remained the last 15 years of her life.

It is easy to see why some contend this violates the NPOV. The sentence in bold goes to quite a bit of effort to enter into details, but seems to present details that are "in favor" only of one side of the dispute.

I can understand SlimVirgin's attack on the introduction (in a way I cannot with some of her other editing efforts). She was trying to introduce what she perceives to be the NPOV - and it is a view that will likely be shared by many, many others.

Now, objection to SlimVirgin's editing of the introduction has thus far centered mainly on its undesirability from a literary and stylistic standpoint. I concur with this criticism, as my first post above will make clear. However, by that same standard, I suggest that the version she came upon was really not much better.

Seriously guys, don't you think this is clunky?
 * She briefly lapsed into a coma, then passed into an irreversible persistent vegetative state (PVS) as determined by more than a half dozen neurologists, and so remained the last 15 years of her life.

It does exactly what we say we've been trying to avoid. It has detail that is best dealt with in the body of the article. It has unnecessary numbers. How is numbering the neurologists different from numbering the brain mass? If you feel mention of Purkinje fibers is out of place in the introduction, why is mention of the number of neurologists relevant?

A proposed solution
I think there is a way out of this. Ann and I demonstrated it a few days ago, as a matter of fact.

 We can all find a way to agree on a version of an article, without agreeing on our reasons for it .

I am going to ask Fuel and Duck and Ghost and Proto and every one of the other regular editors to agree to work on creating a better introduction. A few days ago, there was a version of the sentence now under dispute that had been chiseled from the hard stone of many arguments, and had come to stand the test of time (for a Wiki). It avoided the "POV issue" by simply being simple, and not getting into numbers or unnecessary detail. I really like that sentence for my own reasons. Ann likes it for hers. Duck and Fuel and some others may prefer another version, but I think they can live with that one, and maybe even like it. A bit.

If I'm reading SlimVirgin's attack on the intro correctly, she moved because she perceived the introduction to violate the NPOV. Most of her assumptions were wrong. But not all of them. If we move around a fair objection by writing a sentence that cannot be seen as biased, I sincerely believe she will lay down her sword.

Please consider this:
 * Despite heroic resuscitative measures, she suffered severe brain damage from the ensuing cerebral hypoxia, briefly lapsed into a coma, and spent the remaining 15 years of her life in a condition diagnosed as an irreversible persistent vegetative state (PVS).

What say thee?

~ Neuroscientist | T | C → 05:41, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

The SlimVirgin edits: Actions & Intentions
I have addressed in the preceding posts the SlimVirgin edits to the introduction.

It is possible to go through each further edit in turn, methodically, and to show that they are in some instances excellent, and in others woefully ill-informed, or weak.

I do not have the time to do this.

I will address only some issues in this post, and mainly confine the following questions and remarks to certain events that I do not yet fully understand.

We have lost one exceptionally valuable, bold, hardworking editor in this absurd flare-up. I hope there aren't anymore blocks, including of the new contributor (can admins nevertheless get blocked?). There are however a few observations to be made about this incident.

Firstly, I would like to say that I think SlimVirgin was well within her rights to edit the page in the manner she did. Wiki policy is slanted toward encouraging bold editing, and the nature of the Wiki is such that edits are to be expected — they are inevitable.

However, I do not think the manner SlimVirgin went about this was wise, nor fruitful. The same page that promotes boldness also says:


 * But please note: be bold in updating pages does not mean that you should make large changes or deletions to long articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories, such as Israeli-Palestinian conflict or Abortion. In many such cases, the text as you find it has come into being after long and arduous negotiations between Wikipedians of diverse backgrounds and points of view. An incautious edit to such an article can be akin to stirring up a hornet's nest, and other users who are involved in the page may react angrily. Even so, the editing of glaring grammatical errors is welcome.


 * If you encounter an article on a controversial subject that you would like to edit, it's a good idea to first read the article in its entirety, read the comments on the talk page, and view the Page history to get a sense of how the article came into being and what its current status is.


 * If you are an experienced Wikipedian, you will probably have a good sense of which edits will be accepted, and which should be discussed first.
 * (all emphases mine)

Now, some background first. User:SlimVirgin is not new to Wikipedia. If the boast on her user page is to be believed (and I see no reason it shouldn't be), she is in fact an extremely experienced Wikipedian, with some 12,000 edits to her name. A look at the subjects she's been involved with discloses wide experience with a slew of highly controversial articles.

She is also an administrator.

At the time SlimVirgin edited the Schiavo article, she was perfectly aware of its controversial nature.

She was perfectly aware that it was so controversial it was in an ongoing Mediation. In fact, just before she began her work on Schiavo, she was involved in adjudicating a dispute between two regular Schiavo editors over, of all things, a revert war.

She then came over, and did this.

Now, I completely and totally agree with SlimVirgin that that picture gives the misleading impression that more words were changed than was really the case, because of paragraph movements. However, I also think it's absurd to suggest this wasn't in fact a  major  edit. In an article like Terri Schiavo, where almost every single sentence and paragraph has been passionately argued over, waltzing in and rewriting the entire introduction is itself a major edit — especially since even a cursory look at the Talk page and archives would have disclosed it was actually undergoing active editing and discussion at the time.

It was not in any way wrong to go right ahead and edit, but would it not have been more sensible (and courteous) to simply join the discussion first? Rewriting the entire introduction that other editors have worked on is not a minor edit. No one should have to tell a 12,000-edit veteran this.

But even so, I know that this was not what provoked the revert war. When SlimVirgin had completed editing the introduction, Duckecho was online, and he posted a bemused remark on my Talk page. It was a parenthetical afterthought:
 * (by the way, take a look at the intro edit made just a few minutes ago. It'll make you want to cry.) Duckecho (Talk) 16:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I seriously doubt he was going to revert it, especially since random Wikipedians have even in recent days made "drive-by" changes to the introduction that he found absolutely silly, but nevertheless didn't even touch.

But then SlimVirgin did something rather extraordinary. She "locked" the page with a "Major Edit" tag (irony) for 1 hour, 31 minutes, while she went through the page "copy editing."

This was incredible.

Many of the changes were minor, and involved removing embedded notes within the article. However, fantastically, even as she removed embedded notes — and she has since decried their use on the Talk page — she actually placed many embedded notes into the article herself. What gives?

Worse, her notes, criticisms, and suggestions — and some of them, I thought, were excellent — could more easily, more clearly, and more effectively been placed in Talk. Why did she go through her extraordinary “copy edit,” instead of simply setting up a nice post in Talk enumerating her concerns? We could all have had a jolly good go at them, accepted the excellent suggestions, talked about the rest, and referred the genuinely disputed to the mediation page. It would have been swell. What happened?

I do not know, and faced with the standing of this individual on Wikipedia, I’m unable to explain it.

One reason that occurred to me was simply principle. That is to say, she was determined to push the principle that Wiki is open to bold editing, no matter how controversial the article. Fair enough. However, when the very wise Proto suggested a very similar action to posting in Talk, she readily agreed. This is mystifying — was this really so inapparent a solution on July 11?

SlimVirgin claims the "copy edits" she made were all free of error (of both fact and grammar), with the implication that they should simply have been accepted. After one of the first reverts, she said "you are reintroducing all the errors." Leaving aside the hubris it must take to say that, the claim of course was simply untrue. I have already shown that her assumptions of fact in her version of the introduction are riddled with error; further, there are constructions of hers that are most aptly described with one of her favored phrases: "awkward English."

But the problems are not limited to the introduction. Many of the further edits are problematic (and, as I’ve also repeatedly said, others are very good — if she’d done this smartly, she’d have gotten support not only from me and many of the others, but probably also from Duck and Fuel).

I have already said I have no time at the moment to write out a response to each and every one of her edits. If fellow editors would like my thoughts, I may be able to get back to this later in the week, but this is unlikely. This episode has taken a lot out of my enthusiasm for Wikipedia.

My final impressions here are that this User demonstrated very, very,  very  poor judgment by doing what she did. She had a right to do it, but there are some things which are very dumb to do, even when one has the right to do them. A simple post on Talk, a simple gesture of courtesy to the regular editors, could have prevented this whole mess. Now there is ill-feeling between her and the two editors who reverted her, and at least one of them — an excellent, bold, intelligent, and hardworking editor — is blocked.

He was blocked for some of his actions which are indefensible, yes. And he bears full responsibility for those actions.

But great responsibility for this occurence falls on the shoulders of the 12,000-edit administrator who doesn’t seem to have learned the corollary to the Wiki call to be bold: do not be reckless. ~ Neuroscientist | T | C → 05:52, July 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * Neuroscientist, I've withdrawn from editing this page for the time being. I'm responding here only because of your lengthy post.


 * 1) I came to his page because of complaints made to me by Gordon and Duckecho. Gordon left complaints on my talk page about Duckecho, and Duckecho e-mailed me about Gordon. The complaints were long-winded and I wasn't entirely sure what was meant, but I got the impression of bullying or system-gaming on Duckecho's part, so I came &mdash; as an admin, not as an editor &mdash; to see what was going on.


 * 2) What I saw was an article containing significant POV, poor and unclear sourcing (or none), a toxic talk page, a set of absurd archives, what appears to be a stalled mediation, two editors taking control of edits, and a set of invisible instructions embedded into the text about what future editors may or may not do.


 * 3) I decided to try to improve the page, at least by getting the sources sorted out, and started what would have been a five-stage copy edit: (1) tone down some of the POV language (no rewrites, just tweaks); (2) get rid of some, not all, of the invisible comments; (3) remove the sources given invisibly and restore them to the text, after checking they were the right sources, and that they said what they were purported to say; (4) find new sources where the ones offered weren't correct; (5) create a proper references section.


 * 4) I also decided to add a mention of the dissenting neurologist to the intro, and I left a note about this on the talk page, as that was a substantive edit, not just a copy edit. Seven neurologists who examined her are mentioned; the eighth must be mentioned too, and without commentary. (His credibility can be discussed in the text.) However, I also felt it was important to highlight that the PVS diagnosis had more credibility, but without explicitly saying so. Although NPOV says we must include all majority and significant-minority published POV, it also says that majority published POV must be accorded more weight. I therefore added the brain size from the autopsy report, which goes some way toward speaking for itself; and I added a quote from the report to the effect that an autopsy can't confirm a diagnosis of PVS. I felt that those edits offered a rounded and up-to-date summary of the official position.


 * 5) I'd made the additions to the intro, and had got some way through the copy edit, when FuelWagon and Duckecho began blind reverting, and I had to stop. So the series of edits you're looking at represents a partial picture. If they'd waited until I'd finished, they'd have seen clear improvements. I try to leave pages in a better condition than they were in when I started, and I don't think you'll find an editor who knows me who'll say otherwise.


 * My position is this: Everyone editing this page must stick to WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and Cite sources. This means writing in a disinterested tone; no weasel words; no omission of views we disagree with; no insults; no talking up of people we approve of; no quotes without citations; no scare quotes; no unsourced contentious edits. The article does contain sources but many of them are invisible, and there's little point in that. The sources are for our readers and must be on the page. I also found sources linked to that didn't say what the sentence claimed they said; and invisible comments like: "This is contained in the statement by Dr. X but we can't find an online copy," which isn't helpful. If we know where something is contained and we can't link to it, we give an ordinary citation in the text, not a vague mention of it invisibly.


 * As for FuelWagon, you do Wikipedia no favors by trying to place responsibility for that behavior elsewhere, and this page isn't the only one he does it on. It's unacceptable, no matter what it's in response to, and no editor should tolerate it.


 * Finally, I don't appreciate the personal comments you've lobbed at me. A feature of this page, and this pertains to all the archives too, is that editors have repeatedly attacked one another, instead of concentrating on content. I'm sorry you felt it necessary to continue that tradition. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 07:04, July 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * We cross-posted, and I didn't see your response when I posted "Unstated Thoughts," below. There is little to add. I know that you must have good intentions — I never doubted it. I only


 * 1. pointed out your errors of fact, (which I'm sure you'll agree is important)
 * 2. wondered about your judgement in doing the "copy edit" the way you did it.


 * I have never excused Fuel's cursing, and I certainly do not blame you or anyone else for it — I do not know how much more clear I could have made that. But I also think that just as he bears responsibility for his mistakes, so do you bear responsibility for yours. And I hope — after the above — you might acknowledge and learn that you have, in fact, made some mistakes. Nothing wrong with that. We all do. Best regards.~ Neuroscientist | T | C → 07:22, July 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * One final remark. I have never, ever launched a personal attack against you. I have not called you names, or anything even remotely resembling that. I have pointed out your errors, as I see them. But saying that you were wrong about this or made a silly statement about that is not a personal attack. Brilliant people make stupid mistakes all the time — I happen to have intimate knowledge of that. So do please note, if I or anyone else says "This statement by SlimVirgin is nonsense," that is  not  a personal attack. It is a comment on that statement, not on you personally.~ Neuroscientist | T | C → 07:32, July 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * Accusing someone of very, very, very poor judgment is a comment about a person, not about their edits. I've asked several times for someone to point to one error of fact I edited into the article and so far no one has come up with one. You also mention errors of fact, but again, don't cite any. Please do.


 * Don't write copy edit in scare quotes. I made a series of minor adjustments; the only reason the edit looks extensive is that the displaced text shows up red. This isn't being bold. A rewrite would be bold. These were tweaks, and editors shouldn't have to check on talk pages before making grammatical adjustments or checking sources. This goes to the heart of the matter, namely that the impression is given that this page is off-limits. Duckecho has already been warned about it by another admin.


 * The one area that was a substantive change was the intro, and I posted about that change on talk, and wouldn't have minded if someone had objected or reverted it.


 * Your award of a barnstar to FuelWagon suggests that you don't, in fact, take his behavior seriously, even though it's exactly the opposite of what Wikipedia's meant to be about. You do him no favors by facilitating it.


 * Most importantly, look at the number of words spent on this issue in the last two days, and the archives show it's been going on for a long time. In the meantime, the article sits there, in need of improvement, and someone who wanted to do that was stopped, attacked, and has withdrawn. Explain the sense of that to me. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 08:27, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Unstated thoughts
I have received some email in re my recent posts. And one thought that occurs to me is that this was all such a shame. SlimVirgin may have been ignorant about some technical details that is not her usual business to know, and there is absolutely no harm in that. She may have been wrong to be so sure about things she actually understands very little about, but all of us have been there. She may have made a poor judgement call when she stepped into this the way she did - and she was not really helped by the reaction some of us had - but. But, she is a damn good editor, and she is smart, and she has already made valuable criticisms (she is absolutely right about some of the sourcing, for example). The article could have used her voice; as Ghost likes to say, it's always great to have many voices, even if they sing different parts. I hope she comes back, I hope Fuel and Duck and her have one of those grudging but respectful handshakes, and I hope the article improves for it.

Regards.~ Neuroscientist | T | C → 07:13, July 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * Neuroscientist, I appreciate the sentiment, but I have to ask you to stop writing in such a patronizing tone. If I made a factual error, point to it. If you can't or won't, please stop the derogatory remarks. (Well, please stop them anyway; just point to the mistakes.) SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 08:31, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Finis
Thank God the Schiavo case is over and done with. Terri is freed from her earthly shackles, and her parents can go back to their normal lives (whatever those may be), their celebrity having gone way past its allotted 15 minutes. This was about money and control and ego. Nothing more. And the media sucked up this circus with relish. It was great theater. But then the Pope died. Aha! A real story! Kiss off, Schindlers, you've had your moment in the Florida sun. You're yesterday's news now. Wahkeenah 06:28, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

A Response to SlimVirgin: Errors of Fact

 * I've asked several times for someone to point to one error of fact I edited into the article and so far no one has come up with one. You also mention errors of fact, but again, don't cite any. Please do.

SlimVirgin, this is rather extraordinary. I have written three extensive posts, with multiple subsections, related to your edits; the first two posts directly address in detail just one portion of the edits you made to the article (the introduction), and I've gone to some length to point out the errors in that edit and the errors in the factual assumptions underlying that edit.

Your saying that no one has pointed out some of your errors is very perplexing. I actually scrolled up to make sure that the posts had gone through, because it seemed to me the only way you could say that is if the posts hadn't turned up on your monitor screen, or for some reason you couldn't read or understand them. The only thing I can think of doing now is to help you see where my responses are and ascertain if you understand them. If you can't, maybe someone else could help explain it better.

1. One of the major changes you made to the introduction was to include many pathologic details. In your introduction, you wrote,


 * The pathologists found... "cortical blindness," indicating she had been unable to see.

This is a factual error. I have explained in detail why it is wrong in subsection 17.1.2 Cortical blindness, here.
 * please acknowledge that you can see that,
 * please say whether you understand it,
 * if you understand it, please acknowledge your error (this is simply a factual issue, there is no subjectivity involved. If you can understand it, the error will be clear).


 * I commented on this point elsewhere, but I'll comment here: You used two different verbs to say the same thing -above in the "Cortical blindness area." Semantics, not substance...--GordonWattsDotCom 13:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

2. You have claimed that the pathologic details you included in your version of the intro are necessary. You implied that Duck was "obtuse" to not want minute details like that in the intro.

You have said,
 * I added to the intro what the autopsy report said about PVS, about her brain size[sic], and about her blindess[sic], as these are the key points, and belong in the intro, in my view.

This is erroneous. I have explained why the mass of Schiavo's brain and the finding of visual cortical loss were not "the key points," in subsection 17.1.1 Neuropathology, here. Those findings can be said to be interesting, but they are most certainly not "the key points" of the autopsy report. The key findings are those that spoke to the fundamental medical problem Schiavo had, ie. the PVS. The actual mass of the brain that you quote in your intro is correct. However, the assumptions that led you to believe that this information was "key," and that it must be in the introduction, and to imply that those who disagreed were "obtuse," are in fact erroneous.
 * please acknowledge that you can see the section,
 * please say whether you understand it,
 * if you understand it, kindly acknowledge your error.


 * SlimV's assertion is one of opinion, and you disagree with her (another opinion) -I don't find that the argument is about fact, but opinion, so neither one of you could be wrong (within reason), and both of your opinions seem reasonable, if not equal.--GordonWattsDotCom 13:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

3. You have made the claim elsewhere that,
 * I also added the brain size[sic] from the autopsy report. I did that in order to make it clear that any diagnosis of reversible minimal consciousness was unlikely to have been correct.

There are variations of this statement elsewhere. This is mistaken. I have explained in detail why it is mistaken, also to be found in subsection 17.1.1 Neuropathology, here(scroll down please, it's in the bottom half of the section). This explanation of the factual error is very important because your major edit of the intro was premised in part on this erroneous understanding of the relationship between brain mass and consciousness. In truth, stating the mass of Schiavo's brain does not do anything to inform a reader whether a PVS or "reversible minimal consciousness"[sic] was more likely. This is because they aren't related.
 * please acknowledge that you can see the section,
 * please say whether you understand it,
 * if you understand it, kindly acknowledge your error.


 * Supporting evidence to show that one thing (MCS as opposed to PVS) is "more likely" is NOT a factual inaccuracy: CERTAINLY one thing can show that another is more likely; While you would have been correct to have said SlimVirgin should never say one-hundred (100%) percent sure, she didn't so no false claim was lobbed. For example: I would not be false to say that "I did that [studying for a final exam] in order to make it clear that any diagnosis of [poor knowledge on the subject matter] was unlikely to have been correct." Similarily, I would NOT be false in saying that I might win the lottery...! You are a Jedi: You see a false statement where none exists, ;-)--GordonWattsDotCom 13:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

4.You have made the claim that,
 * Seven neurologists said PVS, but one (who examined her) said minimally conscious state. That needs to be in the intro.

I can understand this point of view. Some editors believe that Hammesfahr's opinion on Schiavo's state of consciousness is not as legitimate as commonly believed, because of Judge Greer's explanation of the flaws in his (Hammesfahr's) testimony (and related exam). In Section 18 The SlimVirgin edits (on Hammesfahr) (here), I try to explain this view. However, I do not have a strong opinion either way; I do think that mention of any neurologists in the intro is unnecessary — because those are specific details that are treated well in the body of the article. I believe the introduction should give a good general overview of the Schiavo saga that is fair, holds a NPOV, is well-written, and invites readers to read further, where they can learn the details of the case. Mentioning this neurologist and that neurologist causes unnecessary problems. In fact, in the past, through wholesome discussion among regular editors here, a good version of the sentences involved had been agreed upon, and it remained in the article for a long time. In subsection 18.1 SlimVirgin on hammesfahr: a defense (here) I defend your edit in regards to Hammesfahr, and in the following section I proposed a solution that I think all of us might agree upon. (This worked for previous editors, anyway).
 * please acknowledge that you can see the section,
 * please let us know that you understand why some editors don't accept the legitimacy of Hammesfahr's diagnosis (and do let us know your opinion of that, if you chose),
 * please let us know what you think of the proposed solution, and please offer other versions if you disagree.


 * Thank you for understanding her POV, Neuroscientist, but this matter is one of opinion, where something belongs; you might have a better -more concice version -but unless you are GOD, you don't know which "version" is better: They are matters of subjective opinion. Slim Virgin did not make an "ERROR OF FACT" statement, as your title seems to imply above...? What am I missing here...? THANK YOU also for asking her to suggest a better version; While your version is not NECESSARILY better, it's OK, and you did suggest it, and you have been polite, if a bit "know-it-all" up there, big Dog. (Don't forget NS, that while I was in college, I did not study law: I studied Biology and Chemical Science, so I know when you're blowing smoke... Slim Virgin may suggest a long-AKA-bad intro, but she commits no factual inaccuracies. I was an honors student, don't forget: Look at my webpages to see the biological, chemical, and psychological research I've done...

5. You wished for editors to point out any grammatical errors that you made, and you have (usually rightly, in my opinion) made attempts to improve what you call the 'awkward English' of the article.

Since you say have an interest not only in the factual errors you have made but also in the way you’ve written your edits, may I ask what you think of the construction of the following sentence, which you claim improved the introduction?


 * "The pathologists found "massive celebral[sic] atrophy" with a brain weight[sic] of 615 grams, roughly half that[sic] of the expected weight, and "cortical blindness,"[sic] indicating she had been unable to see."

I think this should be enough for now.~ Neuroscientist | T | C → 06:43, July 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * Here's where I prove my skill ...a little (for fun ;-o) ... you're right if you imply grams are "mass" as opposed to "weight," but both measures apply, even though the (variable) "weight" varies slightly depending where the (unchanging) "mass" is in relation to the center of mass of the earth."--GordonWattsDotCom 13:35, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

A Response to SlimVirgin: "copy edit"

 * Don't write copy edit in scare quotes. I made a series of minor adjustments; the only reason the edit looks extensive is that the displaced text shows up red. This isn't being bold. A rewrite would be bold. These were tweaks, and editors shouldn't have to check on talk pages before making grammatical adjustments or checking sources. This goes to the heart of the matter, namely that the impression is given that this page is off-limits. Duckecho has already been warned about it by another admin.

Firstly, please read my post in Section 19 (here). Please acknowledge that you can see the following sentence, and understand it:
 * Now, I completely and totally agree with SlimVirgin that that picture gives the misleading impression that more words were changed than was really the case, because of paragraph movements.


 * You are a true gentleman and scholar for acknowledging and agreeing with your neighbor's plausible claims.--GordonWattsDotCom 13:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I am the author of that sentence. So, I agreed with you that the edit looks more extensive than it actually is. Please acknowledge that you understand that.

Secondly, as I have already stated, the edits you performed and which were reverted nevertheless cannot be described as minor. The intro edit alone, on so controversial an article, was clearly and patently major, and you yourself acknowledge that (thank you). 
 * While they were large in number, you have made few if any good arguments against her (see my other comments above), so this conclusion is not well supported.--GordonWattsDotCom 13:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The other edits are debatable; I think they are not all minor (because important meanings and interpretations were changed) but I freely acknowledge that this is a matter of interpretation, and on a Wiki, an editor who performs such edits is perfectly and absolutely within her rights to do so — in fact it must be expected. New-comers frequently do this, and should be encouraged, given the benefit of the doubt, and helped if they wish to contribute further to the Wiki. In my personal view, and this is a view shared by Wiki policy, "experienced Wikipedian[s]" on the other hand should have the "good sense" to know "which edits will be accepted, and which should be discussed first." You believe that you made a good call. I believe, in this particular instance, you didn’t. None of this is particularly crucial to moving forward from here, so I think the best thing to do is agree to disagree and move on.
 * I think the truth is about halfway between or so: When I myself was making a major overhaul of the http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Abortion page, I felt justified in hauling BUTT; however, I did things very slowly, and got strong concensis first. I also wasted a lot of time that could have been used sleeping or working, so SlimVirgin's GOOD edits, while hasty and fast are understood and accepted on their MERIT, not their (possibly frightening or offensive) speed and velocity!--GordonWattsDotCom 13:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Thirdly kindly refrain from ordering me over how I use my punctuation, on a Talk page. That is quite unusual. I placed copy edits in inverted commas because I do not believe they were simply copy edits, although that is the term you seem to prefer to use. This is a legitimate point of view, and I’m not the only editor here who can see that; some of the edits you choose to call "copy edits" changed the meaning of the sentences they were applied to.
 * Kids, quit arguing: Neuroscientist, she can use her first amendment, and SlimVirgin, he can use "scare quotes" if he wants: If he's wrong, he looks bad, and you can tell him so. OK, now: Mountains and Molehills.... y'all get the picture...--GordonWattsDotCom 13:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I have said from the outset that I have no time to methodically go through each of your edits in the way I did with your introduction. My experience so far, with your response, suggests that it was indeed very wise not to expend the time to do it.  After putting in so much time, in a good faith effort, to address the problems that have been raised just in the intro, I got a summary response actually denying that any factual objection had even been made. This is a highly unusual response, and I am both saddened and mystified by it. Before I or anyone else takes the time to address your other errors in turn, please demonstrate good faith by


 * 1.Acknowledging at least that objections of fact have been raised so far, to many of your edits (see my posts in Sections 17, 17.1, 17.1.1, 17.1.2, 18, and 22)


 * Even if SlimV misses one point I make, you might want to address it ...or not. It's all you.--GordonWattsDotCom 13:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * 2.Either accepting you have made errors of fact, or showing why you believe you haven’t by engaging the substance of the above arguments.


 * You have made many good suggestions as alternatives, and shown your brilliance, but on the point of factual inaccuracies, or whatever, ...NOT! ...whoops--GordonWattsDotCom 13:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

~ Neuroscientist | T | C → 06:43, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Judgement, personal comment, awards etc
You have made the serious assertion that I have committed personal attacks against you. 17, 33, 71.

I consider this a very serious accusation, and ask you to please desist, as I believe it is both untrue and unfair.

Talk:Terri_Schiavo, accepting that dissenting views need mentioning, and then offering your own proposed solution sentence: "Despite heroic resuscitative measures, she suffered severe brain damage from the ensuing cerebral hypoxia, briefly lapsed into a coma, and spent the remaining 15 years of her life in a condition diagnosed as an irreversible persistent vegetative state (PVS)." (very accurate, succinct, and NPOV)--GordonWattsDotCom 14:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Your knowledge base and command of English are great, NS, and you even offer to defend her side of the story:


 * But the title to your header implied that SlimV made factual inaccuracies by posting under this header: A Response to SlimVirgin: Errors of Fact ~ Huh? I found a few mistakes she made my own self, but those that YOU mentioned were NOT inaccuracies or falsehoods, so your title above implies that she was factually inaccurate (which was generally false, except for a few typos / human errors I caught). You said that "You have made the serious assertion that I have committed personal attacks against you." Well, it doth appear you have implied such.--GordonWattsDotCom 14:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * My conclusion: You must have slipped into a persistent vegetative state (pregnant pause) ... I was joking (but funny!) -- don't forget my more serious points above. Thx. Take care, --GordonWattsDotCom 14:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Throughout my posts about your edits (Sections 17, 17.1, 17.1.1, 17.1.2, 18, 18.1, 18.2, 19 and 22) I have been cordial to you personally. I definitely do think many of your edits and statements are factually mistaken, I have taken pains to point them out in detail, and I have not shrunk from calling claims that are sheer nonsense precisely that; but at no time have addressed unkind remarks to you as a person. I have never said you were stupid, or racist, or an ass, or heaped any kind of abuse on you as an individual. On the contrary, I have in fact praised you as being "smart," a "damn good editor," and someone who has "already made valuable criticisms."

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia edited by many people, some of whom are knowledgeable about what they write about. If factual errors cannot be pointed out on the discussion pages, there will be no way to improve articles. In fact there would be no point to Wikipedia. Pointing out mistakes should not be misconstrued as personal attacks. I am asking you to please stop saying that I have personally attacked you, or made derogatory remarks about your person as an individual. Please read WP:FAITH; I hope you will respond to the content of my critiques about your edits, and not make untrue insinuations.

'''Then there is also the issue of judgment. ''' This incident on the Schiavo Talk page and article that began with your edits to it on July 11, 2005 is controversial. There has been a great deal of discussion about the propriety of the manner the edits done, of the reverts to the edits, and of the conduct of the participants on both sides during and after the edits and reverts.

You have made numerous controversial statements about the judgments of Duckecho and Fuel, including making the claim that they took "ownership of the page," and even that they didn’t allow competing points of view in the introduction, which is a demonstrably, empirically false claim (as the histories over the last several months would show). You also continue to claim that they made "blind reverts" 33 (you do not use the quotes), despite evidence that, whatever the rightness or wrongness of their views, they made individualized responses to your edits on the talk page.

Now, none of this concerns me. This is between you and them; it is of interest here only to show that you have yourself made known your opinions of the actions and judgments of other editors.

As an editor who has worked quite hard on this very controversial article, I observed, as a complete non-participant, what happened on July 11 and 12. And I offered the opinion later on, in Section 19, that in this particular incident, you made a poor judgment call to edit the article in the manner you did. I did not, at any time, ever make the comment that "you have no judgment" or any kind of similar personal remark.

This is the very sentence I wrote 55:


 * My final impressions here are that this User demonstrated very, very, very poor judgment by doing what she did. 

This is NOT saying that you have no judgment as a person.

Indeed, compared to the things that have been said on this page by many of the participants, on both sides, on July 11 and 12, it is immeasurably milder.

Finally you say,


 * Your award of a barnstar to FuelWagon suggests that you don't, in fact, take his behavior seriously, even though it's exactly the opposite of what Wikipedia's meant to be about. You do him no favors by facilitating it. 

This is an incredible statement. I awarded Fuel a barnstar for precisely the reasons stated on the award. He is a very hardworking editor, he is passionate about the subjects he writes about, he is truthful, he is not afraid of taking on controversial subjects, he pays an enormous amount of attention to detail — which is especially impressive in his work on the Schiavo article, because he took the trouble to actually learn up technical details before spouting off, something many editors don’t do — and his editing efforts have broken deadlocks many times. If you were a regular contributor to this article you would know that. It is very disrespectful to second guess the awards your fellow Wikipedians give out. Fuel is not perfect, but perfection is not a criterion for awards.

Fuel has a problem with his temper, and he curses too much. Your claiming I am facilitating it however is absolutely untrue – I have repeatedly cautioned him about it, both on his Talk page and through email. That was a thoughtless accusation, and I hope you will apologize for it.

~ Neuroscientist | T | C ? 06:43, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Epilogue
So much progress has been made over the article recently. One has only to take a look at what this article used to be, and what it is now. In particular, over several days from last week, it was improving almost by the hour. A group of editors paid a great deal of attention to it, scoured sources, even corresponded with primary participants in the Schiavo affair, seeking guidance to good references.

Now, two editors are stopping contributions to this article. One editor is blocked. Since July 11, 2005, there has been no meaningful work, except for pointless discussion over an incident which could easily have been avoided.

Where is the sense in that?

~ Neuroscientist | T | C → 06:43, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Block expired
"I'll let everyone know when I'm back online."

My 40-hour block has expired. I am back online. FuelWagon 14:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

F**K
Meant to use an anonymous IP on that last revert back to my edits. Oh well... *sigh* --Uthar Wynn 01 03:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Still POV
Why is it everyone says there's been so much good stuff happening to this article (and I agree, it's come an awfully long way), yet there's still such an extreme bias between the section on Michael Schiavo and the Schindler family? There's like 8 paragraphs for Michael, and just a small tiny section for the Schindlers. How has everyone just let this go? Oh yeah, that's right I forgot, it's because no one cares about being NPOV on this page. How about we give both sides equal coverage for once? Just because the law went his way doesn't mean the Schindlers don't have as much a right to be represented as Michael. Stanselmdoc 14:57, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * You may or may not be correct on there being bias present in the article. That said, I think both the specific method you used to determine bias, and the underlying idea behind it, are flawed. First, simply counting lines under different sections doesn't measure bias, it measures volume of information. This may very well be a sign of bias, depending on the situation, but it is by no means a litmus test. Second, we're not under any obligation whatsoever to "represent" parties in an article with "equal coverage." In fact, we are neither engaged in journalism nor providing what I would consider "coverage" or anything. Our task is to present encyclopedic information on issues, to allow individuals to understand the who, what, where, etc. of a topic, should their be more information available or pertinent on one "side" of an issue than another, than that will neccessarily manifest in the article, nothing wrong with that.
 * If your argument is that specific information is missing from one section or another, than you should consider it your duty to address those items, not simply complain that no one is doing it for you.
 * Fox1 15:30, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Stanselmdoc, we WERE in the process of whittling the 8 paragraphs for Michael and the 'tiny section' for the Schindlers down to nothing, and then, uh... other events, got in the way. If you go back a few days and check the history, we had been taking the very odd bits and pieces out of these two specific sections (Michael/Schindlers) and putting them into a more chronological order, sometimes giving them their own section, or in some cases deleting it because it was duplicate information. At the moment, I have zero motivation to work on this because of, uh, other events. I will probably pick up where I left off before other events delayed our work on those two pieces. It has nothing to do with NPOV or whatever other accusation you wish to make. We were working on those two specific sections when other events completely sidetracked the entire article. FuelWagon 16:17, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I posted the intent to do this here. The 8 paragraphs of Michael and the "tiny section" for the Schindlers were under a section titled "Family disputes". If you read the last part of that diff, I mention taking the pieces out of "family disputes" and putting them in chronological order with the rest of the article. FuelWagon 16:22, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The side-tracking involved FuelWagon preventing someone from trying to improve the article. Judging by the feedback I've had in the last few days, many editors seem to agree that this article is POV and unencyclopedic in places, and that editing it has become a problem. I agree with your argument, Fox1, that editors should add to it rather than complain that others aren't doing so, but there are users who won't allow normal editing to take place. While the article has to be protected against nonsense, it can't be protected against legitimate editing, even if some of you disagree with the edits. There needs to be less argument on this talk page, less reverting, a greater focus on content, and no attititude of ownership. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 16:31, July 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * "The side-tracking involved FuelWagon preventing someone from trying to improve the article." No personal attacks, please. I was blocked for swearing at you, not for preventing anyone from improving the article. FuelWagon 16:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

You're right, point taken, maybe I shouldn't have called it POV. But it is a kind of issue considering...it's almost like, omitting things. How tirelessly the Schindlers worked for the case, bobby quit his job, how many talks bobby gave to many groups and how many interviews etc. I would argue that a lot of things are important enough to go into the article, but the reason I don't put them in the article is because why bother? 1.It'll be deleted anyway 2.Even if I take the time to argue about it on the talk page, it'll be ruled out that it shouldn't be on the page. Because ultimately, everyone will argue that it's not "encyclopedic". And frankly, I don't see the point in trying. Because if everyone truly wanted this to look like an encyclopedia, it would look very different. It would be much more concise, for one. And it's not hard to find sources of information on the Schindler fight. If you google bobby schindler's name, you get plenty of sources. I'm not asking anyone to do it for me. Because I don't care if it's done or not. Even if it gets done, it'll get undone. And this is just my source of complaint. And I apologize for taking out my frustration in a nice way, instead of doing something stupid and getting blocked. you know, Bobby did loads of interviews with fox news, with Glenn Beck, but it really isn't about his fight. And it's not about Michael's either. And I just don't know why I should bother. Stanselmdoc 18:10, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with this. With so much reverting, it gets to the point where editors stop contributing. Stanselmdoc, you should write up your edit, if you want to, and then seek help from others in making sure it stays in, or at least, making sure it's edited and not simply deleted. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 18:15, July 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * BTW, I created a Terri Schiavo/sandbox a while back for just such a thing. I understand that an article of this size and detail is difficult to edit, and the sandbox helps.  Unfortunately, it's rarely used.--ghost 03:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Response to Neuroscientist
Neuroscientist, I must ask you again to change your tone. Concentrate on content, and stop the ad hominem remarks. If these are the only objections, the copy edit should be reinstated, though I accept the introduction should be discussed.

Here's my response (your points numbered; my replies bulleted):

The intro
1) Cortical blindness: "This is nonsense, of course. Dr. Nelson did not "find" cortical blindness."


 * You're objecting to the word "found," is that right? If so, you're splitting hairs. When used like this, it doesn't refer to any kind of physical find. I find your posts to be quite rude, but that doesn't mean I encounter them lying in the street with the word "rudeness" written on them. If you prefer "deduce," edit, don't revert.


 * I believe the finding of blindness to be significant because one claim about Schiavo was that consciousness could be deduced from her eyes appearing to follow the movement of people around the room.

2) "She makes a logical error of the form:

"A. Details X and Y are true about a subject P; B. Details X and Y are important about a subject P; C. Therefore, details X and Y must be mentioned in an introduction to an article on subject P."


 * You've misunderstood what a logical error is. What you mean is that you disagree with me. Also, this isn't an error in the article. I asked for a list of factual errors you felt I'd inserted into the article.

3) "Brain size, per se, has no direct correlation with consciousness."


 * I didn't say it did, and if you read my posts more carefully, you'll see that I precisely argue that consciousness cannot be definitively deduced from anything, never mind from brain size. If you want to add a more detailed description to the intro of the key neurological findings at autopsy, by all means do so, so long as they're not too long or so technical that no one will understand them.

4) The judge found Hammesfahr "not credible."


 * Although you provide other quotes from the judge, you failed to provide one that said this, and if there is one, we should quote the judge, not omit a reference to his diagnosis. The judge did not agree with Hammesfahr, and nor did the other neurologists. He's a controversial doctor because he offers alternative treatments and doesn't publish in peer-reviewed journals. But he's a board-certified neurologist who examined her, and as such, in my view, we have no right to exclude his diagnosis from the intro as though it was never made, while mentioning the diagnosis of the seven neurologists the court agreed with. We're not here to reflect the view of the court (though its view is the majority one and should be given priority). We're also not here to reflect your view of Hammesfahr, and you've made it clear that you have strong feelings about him. Please read Neutral point of view. We could say after a reference to him that the court rejected his findings, so long as we don't poison the well. You may be right that the Schindlers made an error in choosing Hammesfahr when there were other, more mainstream neurologists who might have reached the same conclusion. But that's your POV. The fact remains that they chose him, and we can't simply ignore the MCS diagnosis in the intro. Edit, don't revert.

(5) You quoted the following apparently without a response, so I may have missed your point: "The pathologists found massive celebral [sic] atrophy with a brain weight of 615 grams, roughly half that of the expected weight, and cortical blindness, indicating she had been unable to see." Are you referring to the typo, or was there something you didn't like about the sentence, other than the points already raised? If so, you could have deleted that sentence, instead of (as you appear to do) condoning the revert of the entire copy edit.

The copy edit
6) "I have said from the outset that I have no time to methodically go through each of your edits in the way I did with your introduction."


 * In that case, I'd appreciate it if my copy edit could be reinstated. It made improvements, and any that were not improvements could be changed by others; or I might have changed them myself when I went back to check it, as it wasn't finished. What editors shouldn't do is blindly revert a long edit that an editor in good standing invested time in. You've pointed to very few errors (in your opinion), and it would have taken a lot less time to edit those points than to engage in this seemingly endless debate. This is why there's a 10 MB talk archive and an article still unencyclopedic in places. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  17:56, July 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * SlimVirgin, I find no issue with Neuro's tone. This is a Talk page.  And Neuro is responding in the manner I'd expect to see in any medical Peer Review.  If you'd prefer to have all of us involved in some type of Edit war, then your suggestion makes sense.  Personally, I'd prefer to see a 10mb talk archive in which people try to reach concensus.  And usually we do.  Things may get heated here, but it's better than an edit war, and serves the interests of the article.--ghost 20:17, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree. The article is badly in need of improvement, so its interests have clearly not been served. I'm very surprised by this attitude. Other pages either don't suffer this problem, or when they do, the editors on the page are aware of it. Here we have a page where only "permitted" editors are allowed to edit, where a particular POV is being pushed, and talk pages in which personal abuse is the norm. And yet none of you condemns it. Please do condemn it! Fox 1 suggests on your mediation page that you adopt a zero-tolerance policy toward personal attacks and innuendo, and I strongly encourage you to adopt his suggestion. Concentrate on the content. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 21:42, July 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * I will do no such thing. Zero-tolerance implys that the crafters of the policy know better than anyone else, now and forever.  While I share your concerns about the tone of the Talk page, POV pushing by both sides, and personal abuse (some of which has been aimed at me by both sides), silencing the voices of hard working contributors thru Dogma is not the way to fix the issue.  That's why I asked for Mediation.  That's why I invited you to join it.  And Fox has been welcomed there as well.  And I will support any other editor wishing to be involved in Mediation, provided that they sincerely want to see things improve.


 * I regret that you appear to have been manipulated into getting involved in these issues. But now that you are here, is it so wrong to ask everyone to take a deep breath and work together?  Despite our differences, I want your help in making a better article.  But by creating a zero-tolerance policy, you will become the thing you've accused others of being.  The enforcer of an "permitted" list of editors.  I'll ask Jimbo to close up shop and sell out to Encarta before I see that happen.--ghost 03:46, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, we do have a policy against personal attacks, and it's policy not a guideline, so we're already pretty close to zero tolerance. What's being asked is that editors on this page adhere to it, and it's not a question of permitted editors, but prohibited behavior. But I agree with you about the need to work on the article instead of having discussions about discussions. The introduction you showed me is far superior, in my view, to the one that's up there now, so perhaps a start could be made by inserting it. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  05:59, July 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Well... yes, I said that, but... (my thriving inferiority complex makes it hard for me to deal with things I said being referenced, as well as eternally surprised by it) in context that was part of a somewhat flippant wish-list. I would certainly like to see les personal attacks, but I don't think any actual zero-tolerance policy is implementable. As I said to Gordon on the mediation page, we don't get to craft any special rules for this page outside policy. I think was Slim was getting at was more voluntary adhesion to zero-tolerance for one's own posts... which is standard policy now anyway.
 * Fox1 12:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

RFC
I have filed a request for comment on SlimVirgin. You can visit the page by going here. FuelWagon 22:09, 14 July 2005 (UTC)