Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Archive 38

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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

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

Was Terri's condition incurable?
 * Yes:
 * No:
 * Neutral/other:
 * I don't know; see below.--GordonWattsDotCom 02:10, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * No:
 * Neutral/other:
 * I don't know; see below.--GordonWattsDotCom 02:10, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral/other:
 * I don't know; see below.--GordonWattsDotCom 02:10, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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

Memorial Edit
I have dropped one pic from the memorial section and also removed the wording of the headstone from the text. Detailing the words is IMHO a) redundant given a clearly legible pic, b) unencyclopedic (wiki not memorial), c) a touch unsettling. This isn't to disparage at all Gordon's work in gathering these pics or editing the section. Marskell 11:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC) Also:
 * 2-of-5 for today: I'm not offended by your edit here, Marskell; I think my version was pretty good, but you got the general message across; Increasing the image size was a good idea in your edit, but my edit has the advantage of having MORE non-Fair-Use photos in total, making the overall percentage of Fair Use photos smaller. The recent version looks OK, but my recent RfA and FA nominations have frazzled my brain, and I will have to leave you all to find the links relating to Patsw's concerns for now.--GordonWatts 06:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


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


 * It was reverted without explanation, so If my request to that editor to explain in talk goes unheaded, I'm going to revert. Unexplained reverts are useless. As to the agreement, Gordon didn't violate it, but FW clearly did. It was the first day or so, so I think we can cut a bit of slack, but after this I won't hesitate to block for 12-24 hours to enforce the agreement. That said, 2 article edits is too few, especially if we stick to a hard 1 revert per day. With that I think 5 edits a day would be reasonable, but still keep edits well thought out. For sake of clarity lets define a day for these purposes as a 24 hr calendar UTC day. You may want to set your preferences to a 0 UTC offset to make that easier. - Taxman Talk 12:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Post 1 of 5 today: Taxman's suggestions above are all wise; I agree with Marskell's conclusion that we should follow the edit limist STRICTLY, but underscore the fact we're all human.--GordonWatts 06:19, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I reverted the edit by Marskell because upon scanning recent changes, I noticed a massive removal of text and images along with an introduced spelling error, which appeared to be vandalism. --Viriditas  | Talk 13:00, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Then please check the talk page and discuss there first. Ask before shooting gets us all farther. Thanks for explaining though. - Taxman Talk 19:01, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, considering how much vandalism I revert each day, that probably wouldn't work, however, I will endeavor to look closer at the diffs in the future. Nine times out of ten, content removal with the addition of spelling errors is blatant vandalism.  In this case, it wasn't, and I apologize for my mistake.  --Viriditas  | Talk 23:56, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Then it's five? I'll say OK but I suggest that it be completely absolute. If one of the editors in question makes a sixth edit, even if changing "a" to "an" they get blocked for 12 hours. Marskell 12:47, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes it's 5, and it's absolute. I also don't think we need to wait for more agreement since we're expanding the agreement, not constricting it. 5 should allow for more flexibity in improving, but still force thought out edits. I also think we should allow each talk response to be 150-200 words, as 50 is too constricting to get a point accross or make a proposal. I will also stick to my stance that changing the meaning of a paragraph back to one's preferred version, even if not strictly a revert will count as one for the purposes of this agreement. I'm fully prepared to make the blocks and I'm sure others can step in if I'm not able to get to it. 12hrs first transgression, doubling each time thereafter. It's not that hard to stick to the agreement, so that should be reasonable. - Taxman Talk 19:01, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


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


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

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

Well, the only way we seem to have resolved most of the disputes on this article was to quote the points of view of the people involved, rather than to let an editor say "such and such was true". The point of the quotations was to put in the point of view of teh guardian ad litem regarding various topics. The parts that are quoted state his point of view that: If you want to trim this, then you could turn teh verbatim quotes into paraphrasing with bits of quotes. He keeps referring to himself as "the GAL", and he's very thourough, but we probably don't need all the words that he uses. The above bullet list is definitely a lot shorter than the section in the article, so trimming is possible while still reporting the important bits. as long as teh above points are reported, it doesn't matter if we quote him verbatim or if we paraphrase most of it, and leave teh quotes for the parts that would be disputed, or parts that should probably defer to his words when he uses certain adjectives and otehr descriptors. The only other thing I was say is that if you completely paraphrase a paragraph, then it should be replaced with a page marker os that people can find where you got the information. the report is 40 pages long, I think, and trying to find something in there is a bit of work. Narrowing it down to a page helps a lot. Other than that, trim away. FuelWagon 21:17, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) he visited Terri and was unable to find any consistent response from Terri to show she was aware.
 * 2) he concludes that Terri was PVS with no likelyhood of improvement and that she could not take oral nutrition or hydration.
 * 3) He notes that Michael and the Schindler initially agreed on the PVS diagnosis, but notes that later, the Schindlers disputed the PVS diagnosis.
 * 4) He notes the Schindlers dispute they would keep Terri alive at all cost.
 * 5) He notes that there is nothing to substantiate any of the allegations that Michael was in it for the money or that he abused Terri.
 * 6) he concludes the trier of fact and evidence were firmly grounded in Florida law, which clearly and unequivocally allow for removal of artificial nutrition/hydration.
 * 7) he concludes the evidence regarding the diagnosis and the intent of teh parties to be clear and convincing.


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


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

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


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


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

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

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


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


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

Wagon, you were right after all: 4-3 not binding
"Rather than ask how to "enforce consensus" [1], the question should be what do you do with an editor who declares voting "open"...FuelWagon 18:37, 13 September 2005 (UTC)"


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


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


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


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


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

No_binding_decisions

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

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

See also
 * Don't vote on everything
 * How to hold a consensus vote

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

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


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


 * The good news is between us Gordon and I have knocked almost 10k off the article. However, you made 26 edits Gordon. I realize these were all an attempt to eliminate clutter and in your haste you were probably not thinking about the agreement to stick to five but part of the point was not to overwhelm others; 26 is nearly impossible to properly check (and also you are over-liberal in marking everything minor).
 * A few other things. I very much prefer "Schiavo" to "Terri." Last names are standard in any formal prose. Similarly, contractions are one way to eliminate clutter but I don't know if they are really appropriate. Marskell 17:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * "The good news is between us Gordon and I have knocked almost 10k off the article" I reduced it from 84 to 79 Kb earlier, so maybe we each did 5 Kb, but I just whacked it down to 45 Kb, by a unilateral split; I did not change anything substantive except (maybe) using contractions and roman numerals (eg., "instead of "blah blah said Terri could not eat for two years blah blah" turns into "instead of "blah blah said Terri couldn't eat for 2 years blah blah"). This was my initial attempt to reduce size, and it did a little, but more than anything, it bought me time to do a bigger, but minor split, and the result should fix the last problem. It is a "Featured Article" in my book.--GordonWatts 18:27, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

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

And how did we come to arrive at creating this Selected court cases in the Terri Schiavo case article? More bending over backwards to win featured article status? Shall we simply chop and hock the article and churn it until it gets featured article status? This is unbelievable. FuelWagon 17:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes. These issues have been raised on the Feature Article page. Gordon should have sought consensus here before chopping what he did. We were, incrimentally, reducing things and there's no reason we couldn't have continued but he wants a Feature Article (which isn't going to happen on this vote). Two edits was raised to 5 by Taxman; Gordon feels it is not relevant as the previous edit war was over—I disagree. I very very strongly suggested he not mark these minor and try to reduce the overall volume. Marskell 18:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I made the intro change. It was redundant with the rest of the article and raised as an issue in the FA discussion; only comment since has been positive. Indeed I'd like to chop the intro in half again. Assert notability, summarize briefly, and then get down to business. Marskell 18:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Well read Lead section again. That and some other guidelines call for about three full paragraphs. It should ideally summarize the whole article and topic well and explain why the topic is important. As for the rest of the article it needs to be properly summarized too with each topic covered appropriately in relation to it's importance. Moving out the detailed court coverage was good, but now some topics are out of balance and should be summarized similarly. The article fails to cover anything on impact or importance of the issue, at least in a clearly organized place. Gordon was out of line with his edits, and if people think it is worth blocking over because he broke the agreement, maybe we should. He wants a break anyway :). - Taxman Talk 18:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * "if people think it is worth blocking over" I'd say yes. I wouldn't have quibbled over it if they were really minor, but there is a huge swath of court history that was cut out of the article by his edits. A large amount of content was lost with the only benefit I can see of being making the article shorter. That plus he started a new article and made about 8 edits to that article alone. All of this, I'm sure in a frantic attempt to get FA status. I'm almost tempted to do a revert to just before this all started. FuelWagon 18:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Well in order to uphold the agreement the major editors here agreed to I'll make the block. But only in the interest of being consistent. Gordon needs a break anyway. :) - Taxman Talk 15:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, I don't support the new intro. The central issue is whether or not Terri was PVS, whether or not she had any chance of recovery, and whether or not she would have wanted to withdraw life support. This is key to the article. This is key to the whole story. It was also the topic of debate for two of the most important court battles around Terri. A lot of motions were filed, a lot of actions were attempted, but two cases that actually went all the way through and determined something were the one that found Terri had made reliable statements that she wouldn't want to be kept on life support, and the one where 5 doctors examined her and the courts ruled she was PVS with no hope of recovery. FuelWagon 19:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Gordon and his edits: I support a 24-hour block. He laid low and then hijacked the whole thing again. He needs to understand it isn't simply a matter of one revert war, but the degree to which he overwhelms this article and other people. Honestly, I support it.
 * The intro. I have read Lead Section and I stand by the change. I disagree about the "central issue." Aside from Schiavo's details, the only thing incumbent upon us to state in the intro is that the Florida Governor and eventually the U.S. congress became involved. It is this—not PVS or any individual court ruling—that makes Terri Schiavo notable and it is this that will remain salient over time. The debate over PVS is fascinating, but the fact that the legislature and executive very directly sought to circumvent and over-rule the judiciary is the "central issue."
 * That said! It doesn't have to be absolutely cursory. After: "Beginning in 1998 Schiavo’s husband Michael Schiavo and her parents Robert and Mary Schindler fought a series of court battles centering on Michael’s desire to remove the gastric feeding tube keeping Schiavo alive," I will add: "The court consistently agreed Schiavo was PVS and sided with Michael as to the legality of the feeding tube being removed." Fair? Marskell 22:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * "the only thing incumbent upon us to state in the intro is that the Florida Governor and eventually the U.S. congress became involved" What? That's like saying the only thing important about the Kennedy assassination is that there was an investigation afterwards. That doesn't make sense. Readers should get an overview of Terri, not some political grandstanding at the end. The central question about Terri was her medical condition, her chances for recovery, and whether she would have wanted life support withdrawn. While congress makes her notable, that doesn't mean that the intro should ignore Terri. FuelWagon 14:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

"Gordon and his edits" – why not simply revert and then discuss it on the talk page. Generally, if we can avoid causing bad feeling, we should do so. The history of this talk page is full of examples of cases where blocks should have been given and weren't. I think it would be counterproductive to start blocking for something that isn't a violation of any Wikipedia policy, when so many extremely nasty attacks against Gordon on this talk page (and on others) were completely overlooked in May, June, and July. An edit with which you disagree can be simply undone. An edit which attacks and ridicules another editor can never be fully undone. (I don't want to provide a whole string of diffs, because it seems petty, but I can assure the editors who haven't been long on this page that Gordon has been subjected to attacks that go far beyond anything like violating an agreement about the number of edits, or cluttering a talk page with comments that weren't relevant.) Yes, I agree that he shouldn't have made so many edits, but it's a relatively harmless thing to do, and can be reverted. I see that he has just – apparently voluntarily – removed the links to his site. Gordon has had a rather hard time on Wikipedia lately. Give him a break, please. Ann Heneghan (talk) 00:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * [this is talk posts 2 and 4 for today (my replacing of the template was #3), and #4 was a minor tweak to talk here] "Yes, I agree that he shouldn't have made so many edits" There was an overwhelming concensus to reduce article size, by whatever means necessary (in the Featured Article project page), and I further explain why I had forgotten the agreement here -right above the "Mr. Watts" post. "I see that he has just – apparently voluntarily – removed the links to his site." Correct, all but one. Additionally, Wagon has raised some other good points, but I have not been able to respond to them; I am overwhelmed with a backlog of other duties, and this is supposed to be my wiki-break. Give me a moment, and I will respond to his very good concerns. --GordonWatts 00:34, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * In addition, I apologize for forgetting the 5 edits/ day agreement, but I had stopped editing (I had zero edits on some days -mainly from the 14th to the 19th) -and thus, I did not think I would be editing again. I misinterpreted Taxman's initial quote: here in the Revision as of 11:32, 13 September 2005 that "I'll agree to it, and 2 edits a day is probably too little if someone is actually improving, but we can expand that if the article is improving." Now, I also saw later where he said that five edits was the absolute maximum, but I had forgotten that -selective memory due to the fact that I thought that I would not ever need to edit the article again extensively (except for occasional typos) --so I forgot that. Sorry. I think that I never fully agreed to that, but I don't know. In any case, when the new situation developed (I was monkey-jumped with complaints of article length), then I reacted logically; I reduced the article size, and I did it little by little (by the inch, it's a cinch; My the mile, takes a while) --so I did not edit it all at once, because I didn't want to overload my poor brain, lol.
 * So, in short, the Featured Article consensus totally made me forget about any agreement here -since there were many more of them, and this page had become inactive -and the edit war over, some days with ZERO edits -so, you see, I did not try to "game the system."--GordonWatts 00:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Wagon's concern re Copyrightvio template
Wagon asks this question here:

Revision as of 17:45, 23 September 2005 FuelWagon (Talk | contribs) the content of this article has been derived from all users who have contributed. why is GordonWatts called out specifically? Newer edit →

From this diff, one of the regulars on Jimbo's page told me of official policy when there are images used in an article. Indeed, Wikipedia emailed me back confirming this was legit:

Subject: Re: [Ticket#2005092010003755] To the Wikimedia PR department Date: 9/20/2005 12:12:33 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time From: permissions@wikimedia.org To: Gww1210@aol.com

Dear Gordon Watts,

Thank you. Your message has been archived and will be available by writing to this address should there be any questions.

Gww1210@aol.com wrote:

> Dear Wikipedia: Based on your request here, > _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Confirmation_of_permission_ > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Confirmation_of_permission), I am > giving you proof that some photographs used > in the _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo_ > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo) article  really were taken by > me, and not snatched off of  > the Internet.

Therefore, I placed the template, to keep the wiki from having the daylights sued out of it.--GordonWatts 00:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm sick of seeing your vanity stuff on and around this article Gordon. If someone sues wikipedia for copyright violations based on your photograph, they can easily be referred to the PR department or wherever there is a record that the photo is yours. Until then, I'm not having you advertise at the top of the talk page. People could sue for text violations as well, and we dont' have to put our names at the top of the talk page saying our text has been submitted by us. This is just more vanity stuff. FuelWagon 14:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)