Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Mediation/Archive 2

What about Dave?
P.S. When I was reviewing how the archive was done, I ran across some discussion of NC Dave. We need to clarify whether it's just you five who submitted 500-word summaries, or what. (1) Are Fuel, Ann, Gordon, Ghost & Duckecho willing to conduct a Mediation with NC Dave? (2) If so, do you want a different Mediator for the 5 vs. 1 thing? (3) And, hello, Dave! Where do you stand on this? Are you willing to write a 500-word summary as the others did? (4) To everyone, is there an inter-contributor problem here, or is it just about the article? Please be honest yet forthright. We can always get more help if needed. -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 29, 2005 03:02 (UTC)


 * NCdave only agreed to mediation as of today, which then officially allowed him to revert ghost's cleanup. Before agreeing to mediation, NCdave managed to insert some rather massive posts to this mediation page, which probably should have been deleted, since he hadn't actually agreed to mediation yet. NCdave's only other edit since agreeing to mediation was a minor comment. He has not submitted a 500-word essay. My only inter-contributor problem I have with NCdave is reflected here. Perhaps that should be escalated before dealing with mediation. See the archive section titled it's time to deal with the bully. I also mention it in the second to last paragraph of my 500 word essay. It is my belief that we are in mediation as a direct result of NCdave's behaviour more than anything else. If mediation will bind him to cease and desist, then I'd say we should just go with mediation. If not, I'm not sure what the next best step would be. perhaps mediate, and then when NCdave continues his behaviour, then showing that mediation failed, we may be more likely to raise the issue to the next level. The alternative is to attempt to escalate this first, and then mediate after. Just because I'm so sick of it, I'm leaning to mediation right now, cause I wanna get it over with. FuelWagon 29 June 2005 03:39 (UTC)


 * I'm working on mine, Uncle Ed. But the 500 word limit is difficult.  NCdave 29 June 2005 04:35 (UTC) (email)
 * The problem is that the article is nearly 9000 words long, and more than half of the paragraphs are biased and/or inaccurate. I can give you a list of about 100 distinct instances of bias and/or factual inaccuracy.  But I can't describe them in 5 words each.  Just quoting the inaccurate and biased passages exceeds 500 words.
 * How about 1500 words not counting quotes from the article?
 * Note that the article wasn't always such a mess. Once upon a time it was reasonably well-balanced: NCdave 29 June 2005 08:51 (UTC)  (email)

Work with me on this, people. Please.

I would like to let FuelWagon's statement above suffice. Dave and I are talking by private e-mail.

I'm the Mediator, right? Let me lead. -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 29, 2005 13:42 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are the mediator, but you did ask "To everyone, is there an inter-contributor problem here, or is it just about the article? Please be honest yet forthright." which sort of led into replies from ghost and duckecho (currently deleted). FuelWagon 29 June 2005 13:46 (UTC)


 * The reason NCdave probably picked Feb 27 was because that was right about the time that he did a bunch of edits to it.  FuelWagon 29 June 2005 13:47 (UTC)

You are right, and I am right. Okay?

Anyway, I found Dave's 1200-word essay in the archive. I will read it there. He doesn't have to boil it down to 500 words. The 500 words thing was just to get you all to condense you ideas sufficiently that a man of limited capacity like me, could grasp it. You think it's easy to harmonize the creative work of five or six people? Just give me a little freedom here. I've never failed yet at a Wikipedia Mediation. People either work together, or one of them realizes ON HIS OWN that his goals and Wikipedia's are inconsistent, and they quit. I can give a dozen examples.

Have confidence in me, we WILL get through this. -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 29, 2005 13:51 (UTC)


 * Ed, you're going to have to be a little more specific with what you want from us, then, because I don't know anymore. You asked if there was an 'inter-contributer problem' and we answered but you deleted the posts, with the comments "tsk tsk" and "take it easy". So, now I'm just a little cautious about answering any questions you might ask, because I'm thinking you might not actually want us to answer. You asked for 500-word lists for issues, but you're using 1500 words from NCdave. So, when you make a request, I'm wondering just how much you actually mean it. And rather than take a public approach, you're talking with NCdave via email. So, now I have no idea where this is going anymore. Are we going to work on what people come up with in their 500-word essays, or is it an open-ended, keep going with whatever someone throws out, approach? Can you get why I'm a little uneasy here? FuelWagon 29 June 2005 15:27 (UTC)


 * I understand the 500 word guideline. I can't stand reading more than a few pages of point-counterpoint myself.  (As I've shown. *sheepish grin*)  But if Ed feels that one editor's 1500 words articulates one of the conflicting POVs, and wants to respect that, so be it.  I think FW is giving voice to the idea that it may send the wrong message, and I agree.  But the end may justify the means here.  Let's wait for the results.--ghost 29 June 2005 15:52 (UTC)

My request to Dave stands. I would like a 500-word condensation from him. I've read his 1200 word thing - it's linked at mediation/dave in "side currents" (see below). I'm not going to refuse to read something, just because it's too long.

When I asked whether there was a problem, I was looking for a yes or no answer. Like, Yes, none of us can stand him. (I should have been more specific; sorry; anyway, your responses aren't deleted - see the 2 history linkse in "side currents" below).

But I see a new problem: I'm calling it the "five against one" thing. Now, without re-hashing all the issues you guys have with Dave, just tell me: can we do article mediation with him? Or would any of you like to request a Mediation with him personally? The original request is at Requests_for_mediation. -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 29, 2005 16:51 (UTC)


 * Well, if you must label it, it would more accurately be a "three against one (or three)" thing, since Ann and Gordon have both expressed, if not support for NCdave, then at least disinclination to seek sanction for his behavior. In any event, I don't think I care for the characterization, no matter how accurate the numbers. Duckecho (Talk) 29 June 2005 17:52 (UTC)


 * "can we do article mediation with NCdave (I am looking for a yes or no answer)?" Since I still don't know what exactly "mediation" is or will result in, I'm not sure. But since personal mediation or article mediation will ultimately have the same powers and/or limitations, I'd say lets try "article" mediation first, and failing that, I'll move for individual mediation. to put it in yes/no form: yes, I vote for article mediation with NCdave. FuelWagon 29 June 2005 18:17 (UTC)


 * "Can we do article mediation with him?" - I can, yes. Provided Dave chooses to modify his behavior and follow the guidelines that you (Ed) have laid out.  "Or would any of you like to request a Mediation with him personally?" - Not at this time.  I feel the ball is in Dave's court to choose to work with the team, or against it.  And if he chooses to work against it, I'll likely skip Mediation to Arbitration as I can document that this is an extreme case.  I pray that Dave instead chooses to work with the team from here out, in which case this could eventually be viewed as water-under-the-bridge.--ghost 29 June 2005 20:57 (UTC)

Okay, Dave, you can come out now. I believe the consensus is that you are welcome to participate in this article mediation. Please post your 500-word summary above, and let's get on with this.

And to all and sundry, please forgive my abrupt or cryptic remarks. I'm not the best at phrasing stuff, nor am I know for my politeness. But I get the job done. Every topic at Wikipedia which was mired in disputes, where people let me take the lead, has been permanently settled. .

We have made tremendous progress already. Don't underestimate that. -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 29, 2005 21:11 (UTC)

(Makes note of 24hrs of silence.)--ghost 30 June 2005 21:35 (UTC)

I can't stand the silence. (cues 'crickets chirping' mp3 loop) FuelWagon 30 June 2005 22:08 (UTC)

I'd have been whistling the Jeopardy theme but after 24 hours I'd have had no embouchure left. Duckecho (Talk) 1 July 2005 00:57 (UTC)

Okay, okay. Dave seems to be taking his time on the 500 words thing. Meanwhile, as long as no "personal battles" erupt I hereby declare a Clean Slate status on this Mediation page.

We have 5 summaries on the table, and one in a subpage. That's the best we can do for now. That gives us a team of 6 editors + 1 Mediator.

I will try to pick out some key points from the summaries tomorrow. I regret to announce that I will have no time for this on the weekend. I gave a little speech tonight (on acceptance, trust, and "living for the sake of others", if you must ask!) and it went over a bit too well: now I have to take it on the road. -- Uncle Ed (talk) July 1, 2005 03:13 (UTC)


 * "I gave a little speech tonight (on acceptance, trust, and "living for the sake of others"...now I have to take it on the road." Uncle Ed, don't worry; your speech will go well. You practice what you preach, and just need some rest. PS: I understand Fuel Wagon's concern, and considering your generous comment to read stuff even if it goes slightly over, please, as my request, accept FW's argument with me as "extra material," so he won't feel slighted, and accept my extra points as well (crying wolf vs crying witch side-current) -and offer to let Ann, Ghost, and Duck submit another 500-words, if they like; Then Fuel Wagon will not be cheated by your generous look at Dave's 1,100 or so word submission.


 * On another note, I have meditated over the controversy surrounding Dave, and I conclude that only a few (if any) of his edits are actually bad or POV or inaccurate (after further analysis). The only faults I could find in him, and this is a stretch, is that he is sometimes too talkative on the talk page, and sometimes is too impatient in implementing his proposed changes, not waiting for a vote or consensus. However, I feel that -like Nelson Mandela -Dave was unfairly persecuted (recently by Neutrality, who, in my opinion, unnecessarily overreacted).


 * While my analyses may not please some fellow-editors who want stronger sanctions against Dave, I feel that my suggestions for Dave to be more patient, wait for consensus, and less talkative will make these editors feel at ease and welcome. After all, we've all been guilty of arguing the case, instead of arguing the merits of a particular edit, the latter being OK, the former being off-topic for the talk page. Don't smack Dave: We've all been guilty of violating the guidelines, which clearly say: "The Talk pages are not a place to debate which views are right or wrong or better. If you want to do that, there are venues such as Usenet, public weblogs and other wikis."--GordonWattsDotCom 1 July 2005 03:47 (UTC)

Thanks, Gordon. I agree with all of that except the submit another 500-words part. The point was not to give all the kids the same size slice of cake (!) but:
 * 1) to enable the Mediator to understand each editor's approach.
 * 2) to get each editor to demonstrate their commitment

I personally am satisfied with all six of you on both points, and if Dave is having trouble with his "homework" I'm willing to give him a pass if "you five" are. Do we have to vote on this? No? Then start hitting those keys: that ought to drown out the sounds of chirping crickets ;-) -- Uncle Ed (talk) July 1, 2005 11:27 (UTC)


 * If by "give NCdave a pass" you mean we do mediation without a 500 word essay from him, then sure, I'm for that. I'm definitely not of the mind to take Gordon's approach and open the floodgates. FuelWagon 1 July 2005 13:41 (UTC)


 * To answer Uncle Ed, yes, it's OK with me for you to accept just my 500 words but let Dave have 1,200 or whatever he wrote. (I'm sure that you would listen to any further suggestions I had if I still had concerns.) In answer to FW's concerns for opening the floodgates, I take it that you don't want to let the rest of us five submit an additional 500-words. That is very generous to Dave, FW! However, remember that you and I already submitted additional material (crying wolf/crying witch), and "officially allowing" this additional material (which Ed probably already read and incorporated into our viewpoints) would NOT really add anything. All it would do would be to let Ann, Ghost, and Duck add more. I wouldn't be so confident to speak for them, but if they are cool with it, then I am. CONCLUSION: While Dave would be good to include his 500-word summary, I think we have enough info (actually, a little extra) when we combine all our 500-plus-word summaries. Now, all we need to do is simply read the dog-on things!--GordonWattsDotCom 2 July 2005 02:27 (UTC)


 * Good, because I've already read Dave's 1200-word summary. -- Uncle Ed (talk) July 1, 2005 14:52 (UTC)

Commentary for recently added Terry's parents vs. Terry's husband section
Terry's parents vs. Terry's husband


 * 1) The article should side with the POV of Terry's parents. []
 * 2) The article should side with the POV of Terry's husband. []
 * 3) The article should report the parents' POV and the husband's POV impartially, giving no particular weight to either side. []

Clearly no one can rationally argue for either 1 or 2. The problem with 3 is that rather than restricting inclusions in the article to strictly the parents' POV or the husband's POV there are those who bring outside POV opinions (largely from the blogoshpere) into the picture. They don't belong, but a considerable amount of resources are expended watching for them (the opinions), debating their merit, and reverting them when they're edited in. Duckecho (Talk) 1 July 2005 18:20 (UTC)

For example, we hear about Greer allegedly commiting a felony by denying oral food and water. The Schindlers petitioned to do that, were denied, they appealed, and were denied. I'm unaware that they argued that the law was violated in the decision. They didn't like it, and we could include that, but the charge of felony starvation has never (to my knowledge) been brought by appropriate authorities, nor has any judicial sanction been brought against Greer (to my knowledge). It's hard to imagine that 2nd DCA would have affirmed all three instances in which Greer denied the petition had violation of other statutes obtained. Duckecho (Talk) 1 July 2005 18:20 (UTC)

There are other, similar allegations by armchair lawyers of violations of statute (state and federal) but I am unaware of either the Schindlers adopting any of the positions (in which case they don't belong in the article) or of competent authorities pursuing the allegations. Duckecho (Talk) 1 July 2005 18:20 (UTC)

I hope to pass the IQ test put by the Mediator by voting for #3, but with the (what I consider obvious) caveat that inclusion be strictly limited to the Schindlers' or Michael's stated POV and not points put in their mouths by outside observers. Duckecho (Talk) 1 July 2005 18:20 (UTC)


 * (quoting Duck from above) "The problem with 3 is that rather than restricting inclusions in the article to strictly the parents' POV or the husband's POV there are those who bring outside POV opinions (largely from the blogoshpere) into the picture. They don't belong, but..." Dude, they do belong —in some cases: Ann Heneghan eloquently makes the point that another Ann, Anne Boleyn, was not merely described by some limited terms, such as "guilty" (or, I add, "not guilty") of Witchcraft. for example, the POV is NOT limited to one side or the other in the debate: (From the intro) "Modern historians tend to insist that it was summer of 1501. In recent years the debate has been re-opened..." and this timely quote: "Feminist historian, writer and activist, Karen Lindsey, in 'Divorced, Beheaded, Survived' believes Anne's story is one of the great feminist parables of all time and explores sexual harassment, psychological conditions at the time and says that the traditional image of Anne as a morally-loose ambitious homewrecker, 'makes for great melodrama, all it lacks is accuracy'." While some might say that the Blogs are not "historians," who is to say that they aren't "modern" historians. Even Karen Lindsay, quoted above, is also an activist, so there is definitely strong precedent in Wikipedia for the inclusion of a number of points of view! Even the abortion article nowhere limits the debate to the in-court participants alone, for, indeed, the article clearly states that: "Advocates for making or keeping induced abortion illegal are usually termed Pro-Life. Advocates for making or keeping abortion legal are usually termed Pro-Choice." Duck's points make us think, but at the end of the day, we see that his view is out of step with the mainstream approach in how to include information, be it factual data or the views and reactions of those following the debate.--GordonWattsDotCom 2 July 2005 01:57 (UTC)


 * (quoting Duck in the section above) "...we hear about Greer allegedly commiting a felony by denying oral food and water. The Schindlers petitioned to do that, were denied, they appealed, and were denied. I'm unaware that they argued that the law was violated in the decision." Well, first of all, I just showed above CLEAR examples of why you are wrong in your assertion that it was required that the Schindlers (or some other court participant) allege something before it can be included in the article. Nonetheless, they DID allege such: You apparently didn't read THIS answer I gave to FW here:


 * "No one brought charges..." False: In this google.com cache of this court document, we find Pat Anderson, then attorney for the family, making such charges, and I quote her: "As the Court well knows, it is a felony to withhold food from a disabled or vulnerable adult, pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 825.102(3)."


 * "...or of competent authorities pursuing the allegations." I pursued the allegations. Am I a competant authority? Who is to say I am any less competant, than, say, FW, Duck, NCdave, Ann, or Ghost? Hmm...--GordonWattsDotCom 2 July 2005 02:12 (UTC)


 * "I hope to pass the IQ test put by the Mediator by voting for #3" You get an "E" for effort.--GordonWattsDotCom 2 July 2005 02:12 (UTC)


 * Duck's funny comment in the previous edit summary said: "(→Commentary... - For the record: The only comments moved in my restore were mine. I didn't touch anyone else's.)" HA ha... Well, I guess I will take your word for it. Since you moved your comments, mine were without context and "looked moved." A matter of ... uh... perspective, I will have to say. (But y'all know what I was trying to say.)--GordonWattsDotCom 2 July 2005 05:06 (UTC)

The rest of the story:
 * As the Court well knows, it is a felony to withhold food from a disabled or vulnerable adult, pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 825.102(3). The Court has entered no order forbidding oral feeding, although the Court has denied attempts to secure swallowing therapy to teach Terri to eat by mouth again, on the grounds that such therapy might result in her death.

My, my, my. Including the very next sentence sure makes that read differently. Duckecho (Talk) 2 July 2005 05:39 (UTC)


 * First off, it is moot whether or not the court actually entered an order at that time, prohibitting "oral feeding." The fact is that the judge stood by and did nothing while Terri starved and did not enforce 825.102(3). (This was effectively the same as issuing an order that oral feeding was a no-no.) His excuse that Terri might choke was jsut that: An excuse. Why? Well, she DEFINITELY would die if denied ALL food, but there was only a "partial" chance she'd die if fed by mouth. So, the judge, in denying her ALL food (both feeding tube and orally fed food) was trying to kill her, and his claims that he was trying to save Terri's life from choking - hollow!--GordonWattsDotCom 2 July 2005 06:59 (UTC)


 * Secondly, the court later DID rule aganst a legal and lawful request that food be given, even though denying it was prohibitted:--GordonWattsDotCom 2 July 2005 06:59 (UTC)


 * On February 28, the Schindlers filed an "Expedited Motion for Permission to Provide Terri with Food and Water by Natural Means." This second motion asked for permission to "attempt to feed" Schiavo by mouth. [43] (http://floridasky.us/terri/022805EmMotionNaturalFeeding.pdf)


 * On March 8, Judge Greer denied the second motion, saying "it has become clear that the [second] motion is part and parcel of [the previous] motion on medical evaluation. The same declarations are being used for both motions and the motion appears to be an alternative pleading to the [previous] motion. Both are asking for an experimental procedure." The first motion requests that Schiavo be given VitalStim swallowing therapy, which had never been performed on a patient who was in a PVS. The second motion simply asked permission to attempt to feed her by mouth, asserting that she might be able to swallow naturally. Greer then explained that if the first motion is approved, then the second one isn't needed, and if the first one is denied, the second one would be denied as well. [44] (http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder030805.pdf) This was the second time that oral feeding had been denied. [45]


 * If you want that "second sentence" in there, that is fine —so long as you include that it was illegal. (The Florida State Law, like the "judge's rulings," as you might say, are NPOV, and must be included, ha ha!)--GordonWattsDotCom 2 July 2005 06:59 (UTC)

Charge means accuse or claim. Anyone can charge (claim) that a felony was committed (and it's clear in the quote above that no one did). It has no legal weight whatsoever, except that someone could file a civil suit based on their claims or charges. Duckecho (Talk) 2 July 2005 05:39 (UTC)


 *  Charge means accuse or claim. Anyone can charge (claim) that a felony was committed (and it's clear in the quote above that no one did). Oh? Why don't you tell that to the face of Terri's family? (I personally know ALL the Schindlers and ALL of the lawyers involved too.) The sentence above might not say verbatim, word-for-word that the judge disobeyed the law, but it does quote the law, and, knowing that the judge did something eles, implies the he broke this law, thus, it is safe to say that Terri's family "charge" the courts (and Mike Schiavo) with wrongdoing; Also, looking at this google.com cache of one of the Terri's family's sites undergoing renevation (actual site is offline), it is clear that they charged (publically blamed) Michael Schiavo with this crime, as this quote states:--GordonWattsDotCom 2 July 2005 06:59 (UTC)


 * Dear Mr. McCabe,

As citizens and registered voters, we are outraged that a criminal investigation of Michael Schiavo has not been enacted in the case of Terri Schiavo. Setting aside the 1991 bone scan showing severe trauma, there are numerous current violations of Florida regarding abuse and neglect. 1) Fla. Statute 825.102(3) (a) defines neglect as...

File charges or bring charges (indict) is a function of a government agency (such as the State Attorney) or a professional regulatory body (such as the Bar Association). When someone is charged (accused or indicted) they then face a hearing and/or trial. Private individuals do not have the authority to bring charges against another individual. Duckecho (Talk) 2 July 2005 05:39 (UTC)

Competent authority means State Attorney, Attorney General, Bar Association, etc. Private citizens do not have the authority to bring charges against another individual. Duckecho (Talk) 2 July 2005 05:39 (UTC)


 * You know full well that I mean that others made charges as claims of wrongdoing, meaning 10 in Dictionary.com's difinition of "charge"
 * 10. To put the blame for; attribute or impute: charged the accident to the driver's inexperience.
 * NOT that I thought the Schindler family or myself were some sort of "authority," like a state attorney or anything, as in meaning 9:
 * 9. To make a claim of wrongdoing against; accuse or blame: The police charged him with car theft. Critics charged the writer with a lack of originality.


 * You sure like to argue over trivial points where you know that OBVIOUSLY I don't mean something, but instead mean something else. Why don't you come out of retirement and be a lawyer, ha ha...--GordonWattsDotCom 2 July 2005 06:59 (UTC)


 * You know full well that I mean that others made charges as claims of wrongdoing Yeah, and by your definition, wikipedia would be begging for a libel suit. You don't use the word "charge" in that context unless it means "criminal charges". If wikipedia said "Michael was charged with murder by some blogger" we'd be a laughingstock. I just have a few brief instructions for you, Gordon, that should help this issue: STOP TRYING TO BE A LAWYER. STOP TRYING TO BE A JUDGE. STOP TRYING TO BE A JURY. STOP TRYING TO BE A DISTRICT ATTORNEY. You know just enough about the law to get wikipedia in trouble. FuelWagon 2 July 2005 15:28 (UTC)


 * Now, that was funny! FW thinks I have enough ...whatever (the Force if with me!) to knock over the great Wikipedia corperation. Talk about David v Goliath. -Gordon


 * It doesn't take anything but a moron to edit wikipedia to say something that could get wikipedia sued for libel. All you're doing is playing word games with what "charged" means and while fun for you will get wikipedia in trouble. Knock it off. And the rest of this crap below is nonsense, emotional pleading, and windbagging. spare me. FuelWagon 3 July 2005 02:36 (UTC)

While I'm on that subject, I'm sure I would have NO trouble saying that many people "charged" Michael, his lawyer, and some judges with being crooked --wihtout connotating the "filed charges" meaning; perhaps, I could say that "many citizens both in America and around the world tend to believe that the judge committed felony crimes, not unlike past blunders by the Catholic Church (in persecuting Galileo Galilei), the American Government (discrimination, slavery, driving the economy to bankrupcy), and the German Government (persecution of Jews)..." ...Oops - did I "Godwinize" this thread? Not quite: I only mentioned Naziism as a minor part of a larger example of failures. Well, the First amendment allows us to STATE OUR OPINION and speak up. You know what happens when we don't use our first amendment? Same thing that happened to ... THESE  folk:

*"First, they [Nazis] came for the Jews. I was silent. I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists. I was silent. I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists. I was silent. I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me. There was no one left to speak for me." (Martin Niemoller, given credit for a quotation in The Harper Religious and Inspirational Quotation Companion, ed. Margaret Pepper (New York: Harper &Row, 1989), 429 -as cited on page 44, note 17, of Religious Cleansing in the American Republic, by Keith A. Fornier, Copyright 1993, by Liberty, Life, and Family Publications.

(Actually, they may not have come for the Jews first, as it's far more likely they came for the prisoners, mentally handicapped, and other so-called "inferiors" first -as historians tell us -so they could get "practiced up;" But, they did come for them -due to the silence of their neighbors -and due, in part, to their own silence. So the general idea is correct: "Speak up now, or forever hold your peace." --Gordon)

Truth is the strongest, most stable force in the Universe.

TRUTH doesn't bend to the will of tyrants.

--GordonWattsDotCom 2 July 2005 18:03 (UTC)

Get Truth.


 * Gordon, please, let Ed do his thing. Enough is enough for now.--ghost 3 July 2005 01:09 (UTC)

A good example
Ed, Talk:Terri Schiavo is a great archetypeal example of the contrast in the various editors POVs over what is/isn't fact. I thought we may wish to examine it. BTW, if think this one's got nothing to do with the court's POV.--ghost 2 July 2005 06:10 (UTC)

Inter-contributor relations
I wish you guys would stop bickering. I like to take an occasional day or two off from this mediation. Can't I go to the lake for a weekend without bringing my notebook and wi-fi card?

I'm not going to do all the work for you. I want you to make proposals for how the article should be changed. You've all read each other's summaries, right? -- Uncle Ed (talk) July 4, 2005 01:37 (UTC)


 * So, I just read the Terri Schiavo article from start to finish. There are no major changes that I see it needing. Some of the content may need some polish, but it seems to me that all the pertinent information is pretty much there. If you simply want to mediate changes, then we should look at the stuff that NCdave and Gordon wants to insert in the article. Then perhaps we can get some sort of concrete progree: "yes, we should put that in" or "no, that should not go into the article." As far as I'm concerned, the article is pretty good as it is now. FuelWagon 4 July 2005 13:19 (UTC)


 * I agree in part. So far as content is concerned, it's hard to imagine that we could add much more (this is the area in which I completely agree). So far as structure is concerned, there are still some things I'd like to see (I did some work on the Legal Disputes area over the weekend, for example, which I think will help). And there's still some work to be done on some of the narrative for continuity, style, and professional appearance. Duckecho (Talk) 4 July 2005 16:12 (UTC)


 * "If you simply want to mediate changes, then we should look at the stuff that NCdave and Gordon wants to insert in the article." Yeah, do it! (Let me clarify; Like FuelWagon, I think the article is good, but I think it needs improvement and additions, both in links and content, and therefore I think that it is good to hurry up and organize and put together a vote; please announce the questions, and please give each user like one week to vote. Thank you.)--GordonWattsDotCom 6 July 2005 02:27 (UTC)