Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Archive 35

Rethink top to bottom
An odd point occurred to me: not until the first sentence of the third paragraph is notability proven. "Theresa Marie "Terri" Schiavo (December 3, 1963 – March 31, 2005) was a woman from St. Petersburg, Florida." Why not: "My grandma (December 12, 1912 - June 1, 2000) was a woman from Toronto, Canada" and then a description of her final years and medical treatment?

Now obviously TS is notable but this article is written in medias res—it just assumes we all know the issue. Suggestions:


 * Make the intro three sentences rather than three paragraphs. This often has an enormous affect on article stability.
 * Reduce the chronology to bullet points and eliminate certain sections altogether. Early life, for instance, is unencyclopedic. She weighed 200 pounds and went on NutriSlim. Do we need to know this?
 * Eliminate scrapbook, tacked-on feel (i.e., in memorial section).
 * Avoid over-long quotes (ie., section 13 on Terri's law simply quotes about 500 words from the 'GAL' report).

I think this article will be much better when it's half the length. Also, to plug an idea I've been working on, check: (Recentism). Marskell 09:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The history of this article shows that anytime something is removed, the "Michael murdered Terri" faction comes out of the woodwork and howls about how we're suppressing evidence. Case in point, the Carla Iyer affidavit, Carla submits an affidavit saying that while she was a nurse where Terri was located, Michael Schiavo said to her "when is that bitch gonna die?" several times. She also detailed a sequence of events that Judge Greer said amounted to a conspiracy theory spanning a couple years and involving the nursing home staff, Michael, the police, and even the Schindlers. He tossed the affidavit. Yet if you delete that from the article, you'll get howls of protest. As far as I'm concerned, it's better to include all the accusations of witchcraft against michael, and then show how the guardian ad litems, the courts, and everyone else responded to those accusations. Better to shed some light on the nonsense then to let it fester in the dark. The article has remained relatively stable for some time. The recent events have consisted of GordonWatts inserting his own editorialization on whether Terri should have been transferred to a hospice, him inserting more accusations of witchcraft around the motion to feed terri by mouth, and him inserting links to his personal web pages as "sources". FuelWagon 14:18, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Substantial points need not go, just unnecessary tangents. I know this is an old argument, but I edited RFK's page today and thought I'd compare: Terry Schiavo 8000+ words (excluding references), RFK 1600+. For good measure: JFK 4400+ words and Abe Lincoln 7000+. Terri Schiavo gets more space than Abe f***ing Lincoln. More than the Kennedy brothers combined.


 * Ya ya, it's not paper and the other pages can be made longer but I sometimes think "it's not paper" is used to justify all sorts of unencyclopedic BS. Unfortunately, this article is really too long and too prone to edit wars to seriously alter now. A user page would have to be started and a different version suggested. Maybe wait another half year before trying that. Marskell 15:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Marskell - the reason this article is quite long is because its both controversial and more importantly, current. Current things are always going to be longer than things than past things because there are a lot more people actively interested in the subject, and to a lesser extent because in order to be NPOV in a subject like this you need address everything which makes a long article. Take a look a the GWB article - longer than any other president probably. So, there's nothing wrong with it (in fact it could be a good thing) as long as it sticks to the important facts, and it shouldn't affect the FAC status of the article Ryan Norton T 15:58, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * "Maybe wait another half year before trying that" That was my plan. The section that GordonWatts is currently editing now about motions to feed Terri are irrelevant to the big picture as far as I'm concerned. Terri was PVS, she had no hope of recovery, she could not swallow, she would not want to be kept alive in her condition. There are dozens and dozens of motions and most of them were rejected by the courts. There is no need to include each one in the article. But as long as someone pushes to have it inserted, the only alternative I have is to put in the court's response, the guardian ad litems response, etc. I figured let it cool down a bit and then some of the more minutia stuff could be removed. FuelWagon 15:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Marskell - the reason this article is quite long is because its both controversial and more importantly, current. Current things are always going to be longer than things than past things because there are a lot more people actively interested in the subject, and to a lesser extent because in order to be NPOV in a subject like this you need address everything which makes a long article. Take a look a the GWB article - longer than any other president probably. So, there's nothing wrong with it (in fact it could be a good thing) as long as it sticks to the important facts, and it shouldn't affect the FAC status of the article Ryan Norton T 15:58, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Of course it's long because its current and controversial—that's part of my point. But it's a non-sequitur to then conclude "so, there's nothing wrong it." The article is: And yes, sorry, it privileges a subject that would be no more than three paragraphs if this were written twenty years from now. If we were writing even 7 yrs ago how big would Monica Lewinsky be?
 * Too long to edit.
 * Often tangential.
 * At times redundant (considering side articles).
 * Lacking in proportion when using quotes.

And no, more is not always better. This site can't simply be a placeholder for anything possibly relevant to any given subject. Cogency and relevance come first. Check this for an example of what this article might look like in future; a subject of about equal notability just seperated in time by 35 yrs. Marskell 16:47, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Articles are written by editors and editors can pretty much put in whatever content they wish as long as it is factual, reports a POV from a notable source, and has some sort of URL or something to confirm it. If someone wants to insert the Carla Iyer affidavit, there isn't much you can do to keep it out. Believe me I've tried. The only response that I've seen that works is to let others put in the facts they wish to report, and then report the other points of view around that same topic. In that light, you can talk all you want about how an article should be, but articles are purely a matter of consensus. If you think this article has gotten the way it is because no one objected to some of the more silly claims, because no one objected to the completely unfounded accusations, or because no one objected to the attempts to insert emotional pleading and advocacy in the article, you have a short view of the history of this article. The article has only recently become "stable", for some definition of "stable". This is the best we've been able to produce with what we had to work with, which includes the editors who have decided to work on it. If you wish to tackle some of the more nonsensical sections, I'll be willing to help. But just saying how the article should be is sort of missing the point of what it means to be a wiki. No one person gets to say. All you can do is try to get consensus, find a version that most people will agree to. FuelWagon 17:25, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The article is locked with the suggestion to work it out on talk so, no, I'm not missing the point of what it means to be a wiki. I've stopped by many times but never waded in as it seemed pointless. There's nothing wrong with comparing to other articles and nothing wrong with describing how you think it should look (there's no rule against being prescriptive in talk). The suggestions at the top of this section are all valid and were an attempt to draw out comments. It is true for instance that notability isn't actually asserted in the first two paragraphs. Marskell 17:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * an example of witchcraft accusations is going on right now. GordonWatts is trying to insert some weasel words saying that Terri should not have been transferred to a hospice because a hospice is only for terminal patients. On the grand scale of things, this is completely irrelevant. But Gordon insists on putting it in the article. That's why the article is currently locked. he put it in. i took it out. he went running for an admin, and now the article is locked. More likely than not, he knew he would have been quickly outvoted in a 3RR fight. so instead he gets a lockdown. Anyway, the point is simply this: Gordon wants to insert weasel words to the effect of suggesting that Terri's transfer to a hospice was atypical and illegal. He has thus far produced nothing that supports this as a fact, only countless links that show the Schindlers made the accusation and numerous websites support the notion. However, so far, not a single URL that shows the court ruled it was an illegal transfer, or that a guardian ad litem (who are supposed to have Terri's best wishes at heart) found anything wrong with the transfer. All he has is an accusation and he insists on putting it in the article. requesting a page lock if he cant. This is what you get to deal with on this article. You want to talk about the way the article should be, fine. You want to do something about it, tell Gordon that his edit is weasel words, asserting a POV as if it were fact, and give some consensus that it should not be inserted in the article. This is the kind of stuff you have to deal with if you work on this article for any length of time. FuelWagon 01:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

New Template Created to stop instability
New News:

New Template Created to stop instability in this article -so it can be featured, if the Wiki-Spirits find favor and want to give a blessing:

See the 4th picture, which says: "This article is protected from modification because it is currently or will soon be on the Main Page."

My explanation of events.--GordonWattsDotCom 01:48, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I haven't been following the FAC votes, but it sounds like people are concerned the this article is too unstable to deserve FAC status. You have no one to blame for that but yourself, Gordon. You kept pushing this POV stuff into the article, and knowing 3RR would prevent you from keeping it in, you requested the article be locked instead. Yeah, the article is unstable because of YOU. You couldn't just drop it or find neutral wording and instead you ran to an admin to lock the page. That makes the article look unstable as hell. And if an article is so disputed to cause an edit war and page lock DURING a FAC vote, then editors will see it as a sign of problems and vote against. What did you expect? FuelWagon 13:20, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

weight
The article says:
 * By her senior year in high school, Schiavo was overweight....She may have developed an eating disorder around this time in order to cope with her perceived weight problem.

If the article says she was overweight, the how was her weight problem perceived? Either she was overweight or she perceived herself to be overweight. It can't be both. Kingturtle 03:59, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * It can certainly be both. Some people are overweight but do not believe themselves to be so, or acknowledge their overweight status while not caring.  There are also differences between being overweight and having a "weight problem". — ceejayoz &#9733;  00:41, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The article is not locked due to any disputes about Terri's weight; it is locked for disputes on whether or not to simply report on the facts regarding the concerns of the various parties about Terri's FIRST admission to a hospice; and the major versions are put forth by me and FuelWagon, and an admin is waiting patiently for concensus on that issue --therefore it is NOT logical to debate non-relevant issues that have not bearing on the article's fitness at this point; hold off on that if/when we reach concensus on the other issues and unlock the article -and, your studied review would be helpful here.-- GordonWattsDotCom 01:45, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

friends' suspicions
The article says:
 * Schiavo's friends began to have suspicions about her eating habits. After meals out, she would immediately excuse herself to go to the bathroom.

Which friends? Friends from Pennsylvania? New friends in Florida? This article needs to be specific here - otherwise it sounds like hearsay. Furthermore, the article needs to clear. Which friends? Who! Kingturtle 04:05, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Wow. It's remarkable what sort of stuff gets deleted from the article as unverifiable or disputed and magically gets added back. patsw 04:11, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Three minutes of googling found this link . quoting: "During the malpractice case, at least one of Schiavo's friends testified they knew she was bulimic because after meals out, she always immediately excused herself to go to the bathroom." Enjoy. FuelWagon 17:21, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I am very familiar with that article. In the same trial, Michael, his family, the Schindler's, and Terri's other friends testified to the contrary they did not observe this obvious indicator of bulimia.  And, again, if she had been forcing herself to vomit to the extent it would eventually cause the potassium imbalance that caused her collapse, there would have been scarring of the esophagus and stomach evident in the autopsy.  The persistence of speculation of an eating disorder remains a problem in the article. patsw 17:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * well, lets get rid of all this bulimia speculation so we can report what really happened: Michael abused Terri and strangled her the night of her collapse. FuelWagon 18:33, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

things that need attention
There is a common misconception that Terri was brain dead. this article should inform the reader that she was not brain dead.

Other items to consider:

The article says:
 * Schiavo's friends began to have suspicions about her eating habits. After meals out, she would immediately excuse herself to go to the bathroom.

Which friends? Friends from Pennsylvania? New friends in Florida? This article needs to be specific here - otherwise it sounds like hearsay. Furthermore, the article needs to clear. Which friends? Who?

The article says:
 * In 1989, the Schiavos began visiting an obstetrician and receiving fertility services and counseling in the hopes of having a child. At this time her weight had dropped to 120 pounds, and she had stopped menstruating.

Did she stop menstruating before or after she started seeing the obstetrician? It is difficult to tell because of the syntax. I was under the impression that her failure menstruate precipitated her visiting the doctor. This language needs to be more clear.

The article says:
 * While initially fed by means of a nasogastric feeding tube, she eventually received a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) feeding tube—inserted through the abdominal wall.

Eventually? Does that mean a month later? A year later? please be very specific here.

The article says:
 * Schiavo came home to her family in September; however, after becoming overwhelmed with her needs, the family sent her back to the College Park facility.

Came home to her family, meaning her husband or her parents? The family sent her back, meaning her husband or her parents? This needs to be exactly clear.

College Park facility? This is the first time in the article that facility is mentioned. In fact, it is the only time it is mentioned. When was she there before? Why isn't it hyperlinked?

The article says:
 * ...Schiavo entered an unusual state of altered consciousness. She regained a sleep-wake cycle, but never exhibited repeatable and consistent awareness of herself or environment. This peculiar state....

Unusual state and peculiar state don't sound very scientific. They sound rather POV. This needs to be fixed.


 * Ah, that is probably a leftover from the "Terri was PVS" versus "Terri was MCS" war. Since no one could find a sentence that everyone agreed on that describe her recovered state, someone suggested that language and it stayed. You can change it, but be aware if you change it to any sort of scientific language (such as "vegetative") then it will be similar to swatting a hornet's nest. The best thing might be to delete most of it. I'm not attached. FuelWagon 13:14, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

This article says:
 * they also shared a very poor opinion about her chances for recovery.

A very poor opinion? That sounds like the author doesn't like the opinion. Does the author mean to say instead that "the doctors shared the opinion that her chances for recovery were poor?" And isn't the word poor an understatement? PVS is thought by most to be irreversible.


 * Memory tells me that the language is from the guardian ad litem reporting on what the doctors said. FuelWagon 13:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * It is located on page 2 of Pearse's report as guardian ad litem . The word "poor" isn't there, but it says several doctors shared the same opinion of her diagnosis being PVS and her chances of recovery being zero. FuelWagon 14:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

The article says:
 * The cause of her cardiac arrest has never been determined....However, there has never been any hard evidence that Schiavo had an eating disorder.

That paragraph needs to mention that a jury found her obstetrician's failure to test for an eating disorder led to her current condition.


 * Then it would also need to say the case was appealed and eventually settled out of court, so I'm not sure what the legal standing on the issue is. FuelWagon 13:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Kingturtle 07:11, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The malpractice cases never were based on proving that she had an eating disorder, much less that the verdict concluded that she had an eating disorder as a finding of fact. Nevertheless, the article continues to have much speculation that at 120 lbs and 5 ft 3 in, she had an eating disorder when the NIH charts  give Terri a very standard, and healthy BMI of 21.  The article continues to imply that "10-15 glasses of iced tea" were indicator of an eating disorder which was the probable cause of the collapse because it was Jay Wolfson's finding -- but contradicted by the autopsy’s finding of no evidence of past bulimia or eating disorder.  It's an odd thing that while other things included in the autopsy triggered edits of the article's old material, the eating disorder speculation remains in several places. patsw 16:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: Schiavo Fac nom.: I told you so
Mark, (and I shall cross-post it to Violet Riga’s page -and the Schiavo talk and nomination pages)

As the Terri Schiavo nomination was being considered, I hinted (and may have outright said??) that its nomination would actually increase stability (even though you thought that the article was indeed moderately stable at some point).

However, the lack of nomination has de-stabilized it. All out edit warring and a PAGE LOCK has now occurred. I told you that the article should have been nominated -and accepted -I told you so. (No offense meant.)

Here, to prove my allegations that the "Front Page" status would stabilize it are these diffs:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Template_messages/Maintenance&diff=22810758&oldid=22664771#Protections


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages/Maintenance&diff=22812630&oldid=22812588#New_template

In these diffs, the creation of a new template to handle this problem has been suggested and -even after much exposure -not opposed -and why should they be? Since it is fair to "lock" images on the front page, why not articles as well -to avoid, for example, pornographic or foul language vandalism.

Anyhow, I wanted to give the article time to be reviewed, but now I regret my decision to wait: It was ready for Fac status, but now it is sliding in the opposite direction -and the edit warring was due in large part to FuelWagon, who has, in the past, opposed clear concensus -and, yes, I provide the diffs to verify my allegations.

The page is locked, and (other than one over-worked admin who has a second job AND college classes), NO HELP IS IN SIGHT.

I made blood sacrifices (literally, due to the energy/stress expended) to obtain a relevant "references" section and non-Fair-Use images and clean up the article.

This problem happened on your watch: Help .--GordonWattsDotCom 21:34, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

My proposed solution:

 * My proposed solution would be to do this, and in this order:
 * 1: Re-Nominate Terri Schiavo, a sentiment shared by many.
 * 2: Feature it as a Featured Article.
 * 3: Lock the images with the existing tools.
 * 4: Lock the article with "Gordon's Tool," the newly created template, shown at the diffs above.
 * 5: Grab a cold one, most preferably non-alcoholic, and relax for a well-earned rest.
 * -- GordonWattsDotCom 23:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * RE your solution:
 * A re-nom is absolutely too soon and is, basically, a self-nom for an article you care about. I don't say that to disparage your work but I "really really want this to be featured" is annoying and misses the point.
 * Having read the previous nomination I was struck by the fact that most of the Objects started with the point I've tried to impress recently on talk: This article is too long. Period. It is.
 * I do broadly agree with FuelWagon's criticisms of your behaviour here (even if I don't agree with the insinuation that you have to have dealt with minute details to have a fair opinion).
 * Effectively, I think you want to lock the version you want. It doesn't work like that. Marskell 23:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * "Effectively, I think you want to lock the version you want" I don't have "admin-lock" powers, and, furthermore, what I want in the article is not so important -even though I think my version is right -like my prior versions, in which I got the majority of the votes: What is important, Marskell, is that we feature quality article -with NO regard to an "emotional" plea to wait: If the article has fixed the problems associated with its failed candidacy (and most feel it has), then it should be featured. Period. To do otherwise would disrespect the other editors.


 * As far as which version is featured, if and when this occurs, that is a matter of concensus, not Gordon's version, Wagon's version, or even The Devil's version. Dig? What really bothers me, however, is the ease with which Wagon and others disregarded concensus in the past (see this page for diffs), in the same easy manner in which a criminal breaks laws --yes, that's how others have violated or broken past concensus.


 * "...a self-nom for an article..." No, it's not a "self-nom," that is, for  Gordon Watts  (who, by the way, is non-notable, and resultantly, red-linked). It is a nomination for  Terri Schiavo  -and -indirectly -the collective "wiki" work of ALL the editors, you included.-- GordonWattsDotCom  23:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * "(even if I don't agree with the insinuation that you have to have dealt with minute details to have a fair opinion)." QUESTION: Marskell, you seem to be trying to say something positive about me, as a contrast to "behavior," but I don't quite get the gist of your statement (which I quoted here) -What is it that you are saying I am doing right here?? Thx!-- GordonWattsDotCom 02:06, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Gee Gordon, last "consensus" that I remember went something like this: you opened for a vote, got a couple people in your favor, added some previous comments to vote for people, then you closed the vote, announced consensus and tried to leave it at that. Yeah, I had a problem with your version of consensus. FuelWagon 02:30, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Let's all stop bickering
Hey, I thought things had cooled down. What's with all this fussing again?

My quick fix approach would be this: Each party makes ONE edit per day. And only ONE comment per party, on any given edit.

So if 4 people are editing, this would mean:
 * 1) Four edits.
 * 2) Each edit would get 4 comments (max) for a total of 16 comments (you can comment on your own edit).

Want to try that for a week?

(your former Mediator), Uncle Ed 00:00, September 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * Having read through all of the above, it's clear to me that:
 * Both Gordon and FW are rather entrenched into their respective positions and
 * My opinion is not going to be enough to create any sort of consensus by itself.
 * It seems that the best course of action is to put up a Request for comment for the issue at hand, and get more voices to chime in on this. When we have a significant number of editors looking at it, we can reach a consensus.
 * I realize that putting this on RfC is going to attract just as many POV warriors as it will disinterested third parties, if not more. With that in mind, I will keep as close an eye as I can on this article and the goings on here at the talk page in the days to come.
 * In the interest of fostering easy-to-comprehend discussion, I have a pair of suggestions:
 * Try to minimize the number of subheadings created on the talk page, for clarity's sake and
 * Don't interject comments into the midst of someone else's chronologically superior comments when you are trying to speak to certain points.
 * I think if we keep things like that in mind, and if we try to foster as level-headed a discussion as possible, we will succeed in coming to a consensus. I urge both of you, Gordon and FW, to keep in mind that this is only Wikipedia; it's important, but not important enough to pop a blood vessel. You're both clearly sick to death of one another, and maybe a day or two away from the project wouldn't be a bad idea. That said, you're both intelligent adults and no one has any power to tell you what to do, regardless.
 * I am going to submit this article for RfC shortly, and for the sake of clarity, I'm going to archive anything on the talk page that does not directly impinge upon the matter at hand. I hope that this is agreeable to all. Fernando Rizo T/C 01:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * "I hope that this is agreeable to all." Yes, all that=agreeable // except that (maybe) you could speed up the RfC, if that is possible, or, maybe I will look into speeding it up??-- GordonWattsDotCom 02:11, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The article has been put up for RfC. Fernando Rizo T/C 02:33, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Article RFC
Since an article RFC has been filed, here is the short version of the issue:

GordonWattsDotCom recently added the following paragraph to the second guardianship challenge


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

An edit war ensued. Gordon ran out of reverts and asked an admin to lock the page before his edit got reverted again. The page has been locked since. The dispute has deadlocked and there are currently two proposals.
 * I left my reasoning in a below section with this edit. Basically the paragraph is not needed at all because it is not an important enough point. The page has been protected too long over such a small point and Gordon should simply agree not to add it until consensus is there for having it be in the article. - Taxman Talk 18:03, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll second Taxman for the sake of moving forward. Marskell 18:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC) And I'll further suggest that the disputed section not be edited by Gordon or FuelWagon for, say, three days. Let (helpfully) disinterested editors prune it. Obviously, this would just have to be a good faith promise on the part of Gordon and FW. Marskell 18:37, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * to put all the comments in one place, Grace Note posted "Gordon, FW is right on this one: you're trying to bias the article by unduly weighting a discussion of hospices etc,"