Misplaced Pages

Talk:Terri Schiavo case: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:33, 9 September 2005 editA Train (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users9,385 edits →Let's all stop bickering: RfC posted← Previous edit Revision as of 02:56, 9 September 2005 edit undoFuelWagon (talk | contribs)5,956 edits →Let's all stop bickeringNext edit →
Line 547: Line 547:
::'''"I hope that this is agreeable to all."''' <font color=000099>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??--] 02:11, 9 September 2005 (UTC)</font> ::'''"I hope that this is agreeable to all."''' <font color=000099>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??--] 02:11, 9 September 2005 (UTC)</font>
:::]. ] ]/] 02:33, 9 September 2005 (UTC) :::]. ] ]/] 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

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

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.


==Gordon's proposal==
GordonWattsDotCom has proposed replacing the above paragraph with the version here:

:In ] ], in the midst of the guardianship challenge, Schiavo, widely described as the "brain-damaged Florida woman" {{ref|CNN.com.story}} at the heart of this legal battle, was admitted to a ], ] ] {{ref|AbstractAppealInfoPage}}, amid objections by her family {{ref}LibertyLink.AndersonMotion}} that this was a facility which is was prohibited by state law from admitting nonterminal patients {{ref|StateLawOnHospices}} and prohibitted by federal law from taking federal funds if it did admit nonterminal patient {{ref|A.New.Miami.U.Link}}. The court eventually ruled A-B-and-C.

==FuelWagon's proposal==
FuelWagon opposes the paragraph that GordonWatts wishes to add and has proposed adding a line to one of the already existing paragraphs (the bolded text):

:In 2000, the Schindlers again challenged Michael's guardianship. Their new evidence ostensibly reflected adversely on Michael Schiavo’s role as guardian, citing "that he had relationships with other women, that he had allegedly failed to provide appropriate care and treatment for Theresa, that he was wasting the assets within the guardianship account '''(according to the Schindlers, transferring Schiavo to a "hospice after it was clear that she was not “terminal” within Medicare guidelines" bullet 31)''', and that he was no longer competent to represent Theresa’s best interests." By this time, while still legally married to Terri, Michael was in a relationship with Jodi Centonze, with whom he had fathered two children. Michael denied wrongdoing in this matter, stating that the Schindlers had actively encouraged him to "get on with his life" and date since 1991. Michael said he chose not to divorce his wife and relinquish guardianship because he wanted to ensure her final wishes (to not be kept alive in a PVS) were carried out.




==FuelWagon's objections==
The Schindler's challenged Michael's guardianship in 2000. Bullet 31 of the motion says that Terri's transfer to the hospice after it was clear that she was not terminal was wasting Terri's assets, and was one of their reason's for removing Michael as guardian. The court's dismissed the motion, and Michael remaind guardian. The court appointed guardian ad litems never mentioned Terri's transfer to a hospice as being an issue. ] 02:56, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

What Gordon has done is create a whole new paragraph to introduce a "fact" that Florida state law says it is illegal for a hospice to admit a nonterminal patient and federal law prohibits a hospice from recieving federal funds if they admit a non-terminal patient. But the courts didn't find Terri's transfer to be illegal, the hospice was never charged and they never had their funds cut. Michael was never charged and the motion to remove him as guardian was tossed and he remained Terri's guardian. Therefore Gordon's paragraph gives to the law, hospices, and terminal patients, and leaves the implied sense that it has something to do with Terri. The only thing it has to do with Terri is that the Shchindlers brought it up in a motion (as bullet 31 of 50 bullets total), and the courts dismissed the motion. Introducing an entire paragraph about an aspect of the law when the motion was tossed, no charges were filed, no one was convicted, and the hospice funds were not cut, only serves give undue weight to the law, implying the law was broken. It was not. ] 02:56, 9 September 2005 (UTC)



==Gordon's objections==
Gordon can put a couple paragraph explanation here.

Revision as of 02:56, 9 September 2005

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Terri Schiavo case article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

 For those who have agreed to Mediation, there is an enclave set aside for your use at Talk:Terri Schiavo/Mediation.

Terri Schiavo case received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

To-do list for Terri Schiavo case: edit · history · watch · refresh

To-do list is empty: remove {{To do}} tag or click on edit to add an item.

Template:FACfailed is deprecated, and is preserved only for historical reasons. Please see Template:Article history instead.
Former FACThis article (or a previous version) is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed.
For older candidates, please check the Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations.

The archives for the Terri Schiavo page may be found here:

Euthanasia, again

I removed the sentence from the intro that insert the POV hot-button word "euthanasia" . Knock it off. We've beaten this horse a million times. The term "euthanasia" is POV. The Pope and the Schindlers called it "euthanasia". The courts, the guardian ad litems appoited to hold Terri's best interests at heart, and Michal, all contend that this had nothing to do with euthanasia.

This sentence would be no different to insert the following sentence into the abortion article:

The Roe v. Wade decision generated massive debates about reproductive choices, women's rights, and murdering unborn children.

If you think I'll ever let you put this POV thing in, you are sadly mistaken. FuelWagon 16:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think your analogy holds, because euthanasia is not comparable to "murdering", "murdering" is moral characterization. Euthanasia is actually a euphamism for mercy killing, and "mercy killing" itself, is not as condemning as "murdering".--Silverback 16:35, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Euthanasia is illegal in the US. So, the analogy to "murdering unborn children" is accurate. Withdrawing life support is considered a patient's right to refuse treatment, which is completely legal in the US. There is no way you can neutrally say this has anything to do with euthanasia. None. FuelWagon 16:39, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
However illegal euthanasia is, it happens quite often and is socially acceptable in the US, and only raises a legal issue in extreme circumstances. Doses of morphine sufficient to supress respiration are quite common in suffering cancer patients. BTW, I thought murdering unborn children was legal in the US?--Silverback 16:49, August 30, 2005 (UTC)


ATTENTION: I will be glad to compromise, as we have in the past, but this statement is not saying that euthanasia either occurred or didn't -it merely reports that the shchiavo controversy sparked much debate (which is quite true). ~~ to that end, I will attempt to put your additions back in, as if they would add balance somehow, and then proceed to repair the damage you did. Is that compromise or what?--GordonWattsDotCom 16:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I put the entire text into the body of the article here. FuelWagon 17:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Text move: FuleWagon's dispute on this edit

  • His edit comments were this: Stop inserting this POV assertion. you can't hide the term "euthanasia" in this laundry list, not give the courts, the guardians, or Michaels POV, and claim this is neutral in any way. I request further input, per the "text move" rule that Uncle Ed made recenty, and I'm moving the text in question here before reverting.--GordonWattsDotCom 16:30, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

euthanasia points of view

The version containing all the different POV's regarding "euthanasia" is located here. It reports at least four different points of view. The Schindlers (and the Pope), Michael, the guardians, and the courts:

David Gibbs III, the lead lawyer for Terri Schiavo’s parents, supported Vatican statements which condemned her treatment as euthanasia. Pope John Paul II stated that health care providers are morally obligated to provide food and water to patients in persistent vegetative states. This led to a challenge by Schiavo's parents, who requested a new trial about whether their daughter, as a devout Catholic, would wish to go against the Church's teaching. Judge Greer rejected their request..
Schiavo's husband insisted that she had expressed her wishes not to be kept on life support with no hope for improvement.
During a trial in 2000, testimony was heard from witnesses on both sides to establish Schiavo's wishes regarding life support. The court determined that she had made "credible and reliable" statements that she wouldn't want to be "kept alive on a machine no hope of improvement" and that her condition in a persistent vegetative state had "long since satisfied" the requirement that there be no hope of improvement. ,
In 2003, guardian ad litem Dr. Jay Wolfson was appointed by Florida legislature to "deduce and represent the best wishes and bests interests" of Schiavo. He reported to Governor Jeb Bush that "the evidence that served as the basis for the decisions regarding Theresa Schiavo were firmly grounded within Florida statutory and case law, which clearly and unequivocally provide for the removal of artificial nutrition in cases of persistent vegetative states," and that the evidence regarding Schiavo's medical condition and intentions had been "deemed by the trier of fact to be clear and convincing." "The reasonable degree of medical certainty associated with her diagnosis and prognosis is very high."

These are the various points of view regarding whether this had anythign to do with euthanasia or not. You want to put one point of view in, you put them all in to keep the article neutral. anything else is POV. FuelWagon 16:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I personally, don't think her death was euthanasia, because there is no evidence that she was suffering, or for that matter would care whether her previously expressed end of life wishes were followed or not.--Silverback 16:55, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

self promotion

While I'm at it, how did this get in there? A link to a partisan website authored by wikipedia editor GordonWatts? Is this self promotion? I have a problem with this link being in the article. FuelWagon 17:31, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

It is advocacy, I think, and belongs. ALL the links in that section are partison. Bring it to the attention of the other editors and talk about it first -but before you do, make sure you understand why an item was placed there. That link is in no way out of place -other than, of course, my "conflict of interst," but I think it stands on its own -all things considered, escpecially considereing my deep involvement in this morrass.--GordonWattsDotCom 17:37, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
I will have to look up wikipedia's rules on self-promotion to see if this is a problem. I know of editors on wikipedia who have wikipedia articles written about them, and they do not edit their own articles to prevent any percieved "conflict of interest" from occurring. FuelWagon 17:50, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Kenneth O'Keefe edited his own article and it survived an RfD, although he did the editing as a anon.William Connolley also edited his own article. Jimmy Wales edited his own article. Chip Berlet edited his own article. These are the only editors with their own articles that I am aware of, and they all edited on their article page.--Silverback 19:21, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
There's several dozen of 'em: Misplaced Pages:Wikipedians with articles. Indeed, editting one's own article seems to be a pretty common sport; starting one's own article is by no means unknown, either. Alai 04:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
OK.--GordonWattsDotCom 17:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Not only is it pretty blatant self promotion (IMO), but it smacks of original research too. →Raul654 19:20, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

That controversial, self-promoting flake

Yeah, I mean me. ;-) Anyone need my help here? I guess my vacation is now officially over - asked for one week, took six. How's it going? Uncle Ed 22:20, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Hello, Uncle Ed. I'm glad you're still here. I'm not sure what the others think, but I feel that the atmosphere is much better than it was before you came along. So, even though very little has been posted to the special mediation page, and even though the article still has a lot of room for improvement (in my view), I think something has been achieved. Do stay around. Ann Heneghan 02:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Seems like we hit a fairly stable point and the article remained unchanged for a week or so. Probably a record. Then Gordon nominated it for Featured Article status and that stirred it up again. apparently the links were not formatted "to spec". I think they look gawd-awful now, but that's just me. Other than that, a brief tiff over the intro that seems to have sorted itself out. The Featured Article vote looks pretty grim, though. The images have questionable copyright status. and people still complain its too long even after someone chopped it down to 50k. I think getting it to featured status may not be possible, but Gordon seems to have kept his optimism about it. Otherwise, I think it settled out for now. FuelWagon 06:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
If the article length Nazi's still dominated those who vote for featured article status, then blow it off. There is no way thoroughness should be sacrificed, and this subject doesn't merit spinoff articles.--Silverback 06:22, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
"apparently the links were not formatted "to spec". I think they look gawd-awful now, but that's just me." Huh? Is that good or bad -I mean, does the references section look better or worse, now, based on your personal overview? And, why do you think it looks (good/or/bad)? Thx. "...but Gordon seems to have kept his optimism about it." Thanks. I try.--GordonWattsDotCom 06:27, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
I assume that the changes you've made to the links are needed to qualify for featured article status. I'm just saying that I think the requirement for FAS should be changed to allow inline links. What you're doing is fine. It's the policy that I would change. FuelWagon 06:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
I'd agree with that. I think this article is probably the only place to get an overview of the entire history of what happened with Terri in one spot. FuelWagon 06:28, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, I agree -I think the "links" standards are too high, but #1: What's done is done; & 2: The current format DOES show more info to the reader. Now, in regards to the "length" issue, I agree with SilverBack's recent post on the Fac Schoavo talk page: I think the "length" requirements are too LOW, and he (she?) suggests we withdraw the candicacy so Schiavo won't get hacked, as he puts it. Eh? I responded to that interesting comment with all KINDS of font color and bells-&-whistles, he heh he...--GordonWattsDotCom 06:44, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Infinite Editing Loop

I've been looking at the recent edits and reverts. Let me tell editors who believe that the article is biased towards Michael's POV: At the end of about two or three months of involvement in the editing process, I realized that the whole framework of discussion of this case is dictated by the vocabulary and characterizations chosen by the guardians ad litem and Judge Greer.

The case record often refers to "end of life" when Terri was not at risk of death. It refers to "life support" to include assisted oral feeding and drinking. There are many other such objectionable examples. But the record, especially the orders of the court are the enduring record. Online testimony, affidavits, and media interviews are begining to disappear. We are stuck with the GAL's and court's POV such as it is. patsw 02:06, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

End-of-life refers to living-will choices. A patient has the right to refuse medical care if they wish. Florida law allows this to include a PVS patient to refuse being hooked up to a feeding tube in a vegatative state with no hope of recovery. Whether Terri was about to die or not didn't matter. A patient has the right to refuse medical treatment. And if they don't have a living will, the court can get witnesses to figure out what they wanted. FuelWagon 05:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

clean up after churn

I made some edits after the last churning. enjoy. FuelWagon 15:54, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

advocacy site categories

Look people, "right to live" is POV. No one ever argued that Terri didn't have a "right to live". The question is whether SHE would have wanted to continue or withdraw the feeding tube in her condition. The court did not come out and pronounce Terri did not have a right to live. There is no way you can use the "right to live" as a category and stay within NPOV policy. FuelWagon 19:30, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree that "right to life" is POV, but so is "right to die". When the two are placed side by side, they slightly neutralize each other, in my view. Actually, calling a feeding tube "life support" or "medical treatment" is also POV, and is contrary to the official teaching of the religion that Terri Schiavo herself practised. Your recent version — "Advocating Terri Schiavo would have wanted to keep/withdraw feeding tub" — is more neutral, I think, but I find the sentences too long for elegance. I've tried "Advocating/Opposing removal of Terri Schiavo's feeding". Ann Heneghan 22:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Making references invisible

I found a few examples of something like (page 3 of 12 pages) near the beginning of the article. I thought it was a bit unencyclopedic to have them like that. I didn't want to remove them completely, as occasionally when editors are discussing problems on the talk page, they may want to know did Greer really say that, etc. However, for ordinary readers, I don't think it's necessary to give references like that. References, where they're necessary, should follow some agreed style. So I made them invisible, rather than deleting them so that no one could find them again. However, I found more in another section, and then in another, and another. I think I shouldn't hide any more until I know what people want. I don't want someone to have to put them all back tomorrow, and I don't particularly want to have to do it myself, either! Is it okay if I continue? It means that where people find that they want to give a full, professional-looking reference for some claim, they won't have to search in vain for the information. But I don't think they should be left in the article the way they are right now. Ann Heneghan 22:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I made the references visible so our readers could see them. I cited page number and sometimes paragraph, however I do not know whether this is appropriate reference format. Sorry, but I tried my best.--GordonWattsDotCom 10:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
I stumbled upon Misplaced Pages:The perfect article yesterday. I don't know if it answers the question of how to make the "perfect" reference. haven't had time to look yet. FuelWagon 23:22, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't know about this, but the style of simply listing all the references and not bothering to point out exactly where you got which piece of data from has worked for me before (see my user page for a list of featured articles I have worked on). I'm not sure, however, as this article is definitely far more controversial than any Beatles song or even Mozilla Firefox or Coca-Cola. Johnleemk | Talk 10:10, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, it's probably been a little more controversial than Coca-Cola. ;) Pretty much this story is nothing but 15 years of a war of words between Michael and the Schindlers, so the words are all you can report on. about the only thing both sides agree on is the very beginning incident (Terri collapsed and went into a coma) and the very last (Terri died). Almost everything in between is completely different points of view about what happened. FuelWagon 20:37, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
See Misplaced Pages:Footnote3. Rich Farmbrough 09:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Legal documents

I've removed the legal documents section from the external links - all or most of them are linked from the article already (and if they aren't, given the length of this article, then they are probably of questionable value anyhow)

Shorten

Misplaced Pages is not a memorial so... 16.2 Memorial should be shortened or removed (at least two of the pictures anyhow). This isn't a scrapbook.

Also, if we have a side article for Government involvement why do we spend nine paragraphs on it here? The chronology of the Palm Sunday compromise is gone over extensively despite having a side article. Delete the side or eliminate the redundancy on this one.

As a general note this is a classic example of "too long to edit" and "so long I don't want to read." Enough time has passed that the fluff can start to go. Marskell 17:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I suppose the Sylvan Abbey photo isn't necessary, and one of the two photos of the grave could go. (Also, the formatting of the inscription – so big and centralized – could be removed now that we have the photo.) But I would personally favour keeping one of the grave photos, and the photo of the hospice (which could be made smaller). Ann Heneghan 17:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm not attached to any of the photos in the memorial section. If we're reporting facts, we can transcribe the text from the gravestone into the article without a picture. Stuff like a picture of a CAT scan is hard to transcribe and needs a photo. See what the other editors say and go with consensus. FuelWagon 20:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Responding to the concerns:
Memorial Pictures: The recent Featured Article Candidate nomination here FAILED due in large part to using too many "Fair Use" images, so after I had more-or-less had about as much complaining as I could handle, I took out a million dollar loan from Loan-Sharks-R-Us Banks, fueled up my large boat, and sailed on over to Clearwater and took numerous pics that are released under GNU, and posted several and removed one similar fair use pic -and, note, please, that I had to post several of the new GNU pics so the "percentage of fair use" pics could be driven down --way down. Besides, ALL pics I posted relate directly to the text, and none are duplicates, so the remaining pics could not "duplicate" their usefulness. Don't blame me for this: Fair Use is legal, legit, and valid, but I did what I had to do to silence my loud critics, so take it up with them if you like. These editors who had such a problem with the lack of GNU pics all reside at (have made comments in) the talk page whose link I cited in this paragraph above --uh, or maybe I can print out the link in "long form" here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Terri_Schiavo/archive1
The "side article for Government involvement" vs. the "nine paragraphs on it here" in Schiavo: Hey, I didn't write the whole article, and I was not responsible for this situation. Check with other for explanations for why they wrote this --and before you think to make any sustentative changes.--GordonWattsDotCom 22:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

should clarify

Gordon, tell me why this addistion is relevant? . I see no legitimate reason to say Greer "didn't clarify" his order. Do any of the main actors complain that Greer "didn't clarify"? Or are you just adding that language yourself? The way you've added this wording, you've presented it as undisputed that he didn't clarify with the implied language that he should have clarified. This is POV. Unless you source this wording, I am going to remove it. FuelWagon 00:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Are you ok, man? I not only cited a source, but I directly quoted Anderson. This quote may not have specifically mentioned that particular motion, but it was from the same time-period and relates because the Schindler attorneys (especially the one quoted here) were all the time complaining that Terri was supposed to -by law -supposed to be fed orally.
"As of today, Friday, 31 October 2003, I have just viewed a brief by Pat Anderson, Schindler family attorney, in which she claims that the courts did not order the withholding of regular food and water, as I have previously claimed, and do so here, so, when I make these claims below, it is with the caveat that new information shows it may not be true, but I will leave in these sections due to the uncertainty on this point. Anderson is quoted as saying: “This Court is aware the removal of the feeding tube is a separate act - in this case carried out pursuant to court order - distinct from the withholding of food and water thereafter. The later was not ordered by the Court but by Michael Schiavo.” (Attorney Patricia Fields Anderson, Esq., Fla. Bar. No. 35287; SPN 00239201, In Re: The Guardianship of Theresa Schiavo, Incapacitated, Schiavo vs. Schindler, File No.: 90-2908GD-003, 6th Circuit Court, Pinellas County, Fla. Probate Division, Brief served on 29 October 2003)"
You can look on the Internet, and there is no mention of this particular quote, but I, when I used to full-time report for The Register, saw the brief with my own eyes. Oh, wait -I take that back: this google search shows other references, but they may have just been quoting The Register, which they trusted as a reliable news source on that issue.
Since you seem so concerned that I get a specific quote from one of the major players on the actions by the court -and not merely the law, I may have to update this section by adding one more quotation with reference and note. Thanks for the heads up.--GordonWattsDotCom 01:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
(quoting you, Wagon) "Unless you source this wording, I am going to remove it." I sourced it -in spades -duplicate or triplicate, if I recall correctly, and depending on which quote is sourced.--GordonWattsDotCom 03:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Typically only legally

Gordon, this edit shows you using the phrase "typically only legally allowed" terminally ill patients as a way to imply that Terri's transfer was atypical or not legal. Please familiarize yourself with wikipedia's concept of "weasel words". Since the courts saw nothing wrong with the transfer, since the guardian ad litems saw nothing wrong with the transfer, it cannot be stated as fact that this was either atypical or illegal. FuelWagon 03:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Wagon, this edit shows me using the phrase "typically only legally allowed" terminally ill patients as a way to imply that Terri's transfer was atypical or not legal: That is correct; it was not typical: Since the state law on hospices was never challenged or found as "unconstitutional," the transfer was in contravention of it, and legal or not, certainly atypical: Every school kid knows hospices are for those at the brink of death; regardless of whether or not the guardians ad litem saw nothing wrong with the transfer, it is a fact that this was either atypical or illegal, but I'm not going to opine on which one: That would be POV: We are only here to report the facts, not speculate, and while "atypical" may seem like "opinion," it is NPOV: The transfer was actually illegal, and the reading of "atypical" actually UNDERstates the atypical-ness, very NPOV.--GordonWattsDotCom 03:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
All you've got is your own personal research on the legality of the subject, and that is "ORIGINAL RESEARCH" and does not belong. You cannot personally declare something illegal and "report" it in wikipedia. FuelWagon 04:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
I didn't report it as "illegal"; I reported it as "atypical" or to that effect: See the page itself before you accuse me. Thx again, nonetheless, for your concern: you're right: To say it was "illegal" (whether it is or not) is POV.--GordonWattsDotCom 05:46, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
"All you've got is your own personal research on the legality of the subject, and that is "ORIGINAL RESEARCH" and does not belong." From Original_research#Primary_and_secondary_sources, we learn that what I said "typically only legally," is a one of the class of "Secondary sources present a generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data." I "generalized," FuelWagon. Now, is that permitted? "The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication..." Clearly, the state law on hospices is reputable. I sympathize with your desire to quote the main players, but please understand that they did not bring up every point that concerns the subject, and readers want to know the full scoop. "Original research refers to original research by editors of Misplaced Pages. It does not refer to original research that is published or available elsewhere..." The "original research" to which you refer, was the state law, which said that you can't be admitted to a hospice without being terminal. In that context, maybe I should have said (like I've seen channel 28-TV in my area do), that it apparently violates the law, but I wanted to be less controversial. NONETHELESS, to make you happy, I'll try to find a quote from the family, and present it too -to compliment the law cite from a reputable source, the Fla. State Laws.--GordonWattsDotCom 19:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
You reported the hospice "typically only legally allowed" terminally ill patients. the word TYPICALLY and LEGALLY imply that the transfer was neither TYPICAL nor LEGAL. If the schindlers filed a motion saying this, then we can report that, and report the court's response. To do this, you will need to provide a URL to some site that shows the Schindlers using this phrasing. Otherwise, I will continue to assume that this is original research, that this is phrasing YOU created and added to the article. FuelWagon 14:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Typically only legally, part 2

Gordon, did the schindlers challenge the transfer arguing that hospice's "typically only legally" accept terminally ill patients and that Terri didn't qualify? If "typically only legally" phrasing didn't actually come up in the court proceedings between the Schindlers and Michael, then it is not relevant. It may, at best, be moved to the "public opinion" section, but only if it is followed by a URL that shows SOMEONE CHALLENGING THE TRANSFER. If no one challenged the transfer when it happened, then you are inserting your own POV into the article. It isn't "public opinion" simply because it is YOUR opinion. You must find a NOTABLE SOURCE that questions the legality of the transfer. If NO ONE used that language, then YOU ARE DOING ORIGINAL RESEARCH. You can NOT point to some hospice law, and make claims that the transfer was ILLEGAL. We do NOT declare that someone did something illegal if it never even went to the courts or got a conviction. FuelWagon 14:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

"Gordon, did the schindlers challenge the transfer arguing that hospice's "typically only legally" accept terminally ill patients and that Terri didn't qualify?" Yes, in so many words, and on repeated occasions: 1ST CITE: "The IME’s report also confirms that TERRI WAS NOT TERMINAL." From this official site, 2nd paragraph. 2ND CITE: Here, another reporter snatch it off of http://www.terrisfight.org/documents/PetitionToRemoveGuardian.pdf before that site went down, and we find that: "16. By definition a hospice provides only a “continuum of palliative and supportive care for the terminally ill patient and his or her family” and “alliative care’ . . .services or interventions . . . are not curative.” Fla. Stat. § 400.601."-- See also the 3RD CITE, this quote: "But, what if the patient isn't dying or terminally ill?" from the official site, and I'm sure I could find more quotes showing that, YES, they did challenge said detention in hospice care: 4TH and best CITE: Here at official Miami.edu site, says the Schindler attorney told the court that: "31. Schiavo’s decision to hold Terri at Hospice after it was clear that she was not “terminal” within Medicare guidelines was an improper use of the ward’s assets./ Terri’s attending physician, Dr. Victor Gambone, agreed at the evidentiary hearing before this Court in October, 2002, that Terri is not terminal and is not in any sort of crisis." 5TH CITE: CNN documents that the Schindler attorney(s) said that: "Their report shows what we have said -- that Terri was not terminal," said the Schindlers' attorney, David Gibbs. "Terri Schiavo was not in an end-of-life situation..." GordonWattsDotCom 19:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Here's a copy of this Revision as of 04:57, 7 September 2005, the diff in question:

In ] ], in the midst of the guardianship challenge, Schiavo, widely described as the "brain-damaged Florida woman" {{ref|CNN.com.story}} at the heart of this legal battle, was admitted to a ], ] ] {{ref|AbstractAppealInfoPage}}, a facility, which in her state of Florida, is typically only legally allowed to admit terminally ill patients. {{ref|StateLawOnHospices}}

--GordonWattsDotCom 18:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

OK Gordon, I'm gonna try this again: Give me a link to the court motion that the Schindlers filed that questioned the legality of Terri being transferred to a hospice on the grounds that Terri was not "terminal" and a hospice is "typically only legally" used for terminal patients. The answer should be ONE LINK to a motion filed by the Schindlers. If it's a long motion, give me a page number too. FuelWagon 19:56, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I did some poking around all the links you swamped me with. The closest thing I could find was this link bullet 31: "Schiavo’s decision to hold Terri at Hospice after it was clear that she was not “terminal” within Medicare guidelines was an improper use of the ward’s assets"
That is NOT the same as saying Terri's transfer was not typical or not legal. This says the Schindlers POV was to motion that transfering Terri to a hospice was an improper use of her assets and that Michael should not be Terri's guardian. And the court POV was to dismiss the motion. FuelWagon 20:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
The miami U link is more "reputable" -by itself, but the "Liberty" link is valid, and I know that because their link here is the same as WAS on terri's family's "official" site, as shown by this google cache, but the official site link is down, due to financial problems and server troubles. The "Liberty" link is better then the Miami U link as far as questioning the legality of placement in the hospice; Maybe I will find some more links after I drink a little soft drink and charge up. Be right back... PS: The other links "swamping you" are a good "general" statement from the "major playa'z."--GordonWattsDotCom 22:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Wagon's Solution (I, Gordon, propose this)

Possible Solution per talk: <--~ by --GordonWattsDotCom 23:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

In ] ], in the midst of the guardianship challenge, Schiavo, widely described as the "brain-damaged Florida woman" {{ref|CNN.com.story}} at the heart of this legal battle, was admitted to a ], ] ] {{ref|AbstractAppealInfoPage}}, amid objections by her family {{ref}LibertyLink.AndersonMotion}} that this was a facility which is was prohibited by state law from admitting nonterminal patients {{ref|StateLawOnHospices}} and prohibitted by federal law from taking federal funds if it did admit nonterminal patient {{ref|A.New.Miami.U.Link}}. The court eventually ruled A-B-and-C.

--GordonWattsDotCom 23:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Note:If this version is used, then the citation to the state law {{ref|StateLawOnHospices}}, would have to be changed to the same law as the law that the motion cited (there are SEVERAL laws on hospices), but that would only require changing the {{note|StateLawOnHospices}} at the bottom in "references," not the "ref" in the article's text. ALSO, let's heed AlamamaBoy's suggestion to learn how to use notes and references, OK?--GordonWattsDotCom 23:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
"a facility which is was prohibited by state law from admitting nonterminal patients" Do you not see how this is "Begging the question"? What does this have to do with the price of tea in china unless they admitted a nonterminal patient? There is no reason this should be here unless it relates to something else. It doesn't. it does nothing but imply that the hospice admitted a nonterminal patient. I won't support it. I proprosed something that included the Schinlder's accusations against Michael, but I will NOT support ANY version of text that you come up with that implies the law was broken when the courts NEVER ruled that. FuelWagon 13:38, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Swamped with Links

SWAMPED with LINKS
A few more possibly helpful links:

  • World Net Daily, an Internet news agency says: "Usually, to be admitted to a hospice, a patient must be terminally ill and in the final stages of an incurable disease -- which Terri certainly wasn't, nor is she to this day. But Felos was on the board of hospice and made the arrangements. Her family protested the move, calling it a kidnapping, and demanded her return to the nursing home, but Judge Greer upheld it and Terri had to stay where she was placed."

--GordonWattsDotCom 23:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

--GordonWattsDotCom 23:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

  • the bizarre! -Life Issues reports that: "This man was admitted to a hospice quite aware, relatively pain free and certainly not dying. Three days later the family is notified that he died. There are stories of the nurse even telling the family that she was increasing the dose of morphine and within a few hours the patient would be dead." Gordon: "My God!"--GordonWattsDotCom 23:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • HPA, one of the sites to which we link documents here in wikipedia reports (about 1/2 way down the page) that: "The United States Office of Inspector General has issued its warning to the public about questionable hospice agency practices...Hospices are not licensed to care for the chronically ill. In order for a patient to be admitted to hospice, the physician must "certify" that the patient is likely to die within six months due to a terminal illness. Terri Schiavo has no terminal illness; the only cause of death in her case would be her intentional murder by those intent on ending her life." <--~ a federal gov't warning about hospice practices, showing that Terri's placement was possibly illegal -definitely "atypical"--GordonWattsDotCom 23:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • More crackdown for fraud- CERTAINLY atypical, probably illegal: "by Mary Therese Helmueller, R.N....In fact, this hospice has recently been under investigation for accepting hundreds of patients who had no terminal illness."--GordonWattsDotCom 00:00, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Ibid. albeit this NEWS is admittedly from a "commentary/advocacy" site: "At almost exactly the same time Terri was illegally admitted to the hospice unit, a Medicare Fraud Bulletin was issued to investigators to look out for patients being prematurely admitted to hospice facilities in order to access those benefits. They also cited a large increase in fraudulent certifications of patients as terminally ill who were not, and therefore did not qualify for hospice care." THIS IS Fraud, -again! --big Dog, Grrr.....--GordonWattsDotCom 00:11, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Special for FuelWagon Since you're a fan of only quoting the major players, please find a use for this quote: It is from Prof. Robt. Destro, the co-counsel for both Gov. Bush and Terri Schiavo's parents in re: Terri's Law: "Attorney Robert Destro represented Florida Governor Jeb Bush (R) as well as Terri Schiavo’s parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, in the legal case." (paragraph two to the left and par. 5 % 6 to the right here)"In Bush v. Schiavo petitions to the Florida and U.S. Supreme Courts, Destro emphasized what he referred to as Greer’s illegal position of simultaneously acting as Terri’s judge and surrogate guardian. “It was absolutely forbidden,” Destro stressed. “A judge is a fact-finder and decision maker. His job is to identify the law, hear the facts and decide the case. A surrogate stands in the shoes of the incompetent person and makes decisions on his or her behalf. A guardian ad litem is the legal representative of the incompetent person. This person bears the responsibility to argue on behalf of the client alone — without regard to the wishes or needs of others.” Destro added, “Florida law expressly requires probate judges to see the incompetent patients whose cases are pending before them, but Greer never went to see Terri.”"--GordonWattsDotCom 00:25, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • reporter Ruby has this transcript for our review (bottom of page 51 & top of 52):
19 Q. Aren't patients admitted to Hospice Woodside
20 expected to die within six months?
21 MR. FELOS: Your Honor, I believe that
22 question calls for a legal conclusion by the
23 witness. I would object.
24 THE COURT: Overruled.
25 BY MS. ANDERSON: (That is, Pat Anderson, one of the Schindler attorneys.)--GordonWattsDotCom 00:32, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
52
1 Q. What's the answer to that question, Doctor?
2 A. I estimate that at Hospice -- Terry is the
3 resident who has been here the longest. They said they
4 have had no other resident that are in Hospice Woodside
5 a for longer period.
(Wow! VERY "atypical," maybe illegal?)--GordonWattsDotCom 00:32, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

less is more

Gordon, basically, you gave me no new information. What you provided was equivalent to what I already mentioned, namely that the Schindlers filed a motion to remove Michael as guardian and submitted as evidence that Michael put Terri in a hospice. The rest of it is stuff that can only go in the public opinion article. You are quick to quote court testimony of one witness, now quote what the court ruled. Did they find the transfer to be illegal? If not, you cannot state as fact that it was illegal, nor can you imply by use of weasel words that it was illegal. your use of the word typical is also a weasel word. this entire case is atypical. I don't want fifty links. I don't want fifty websites. I don't want anything except for what the court ruled on the case where you quoted the testimony. That's it. One URL, and a one sentence summary of the court ruling. FuelWagon 01:28, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I state neither legal NOR illegal in the article. It's news. I made my suggestion right here PS: I've made a new template that will protect our article while it basks in the light of the front page. my commentary.--GordonWattsDotCom 01:40, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Gordon, then all you've got is a Schindler POV, which was asserted during the second guardianship challenge, which the court tossed. This is so irrelevant that it's a waste of space. At most, we could add something in the guardianship challenge that the Schindler's also listed Terri's transfer to a hospice as an abuse of funds (or whatever language was from bullet 31). immediately after that the same court POV can be reported to say the courts tossed the motion and Michael remained her guardian. Your sentence about the transfer is POV and is disputed by the court POV, and therefore cannot be stated as fact. Nor can it be implied with your weasel words about "typically only legally". We can change the paragraph to quote bullet 31 from the Schindlers and that's as good as you're going to get it. Nothing else you've added can be presented as undisputed fact. FuelWagon 02:30, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

proposed Oral feeding and the Second Guardianship Challenge

Oral feeding is not considered a life prolonging procedure, and on or about March 2, 2000, the Schindlers filed a motion to permit oral feeding of Schiavo. Since clinical records indicated that Schiavo was not responsive to swallowing tests and required a feeding tube, Judge Greer ruled that insufficient nutrition and hydration could be ingested orally to sustain Schiavo and denied the request. The Medical Examiner in his report was more definitive and concluded that Schiavo could not have swallowed and thus could not have received sufficient nutrition or hydration by mouth to sustain life.

In 2000, the Schindlers again challenged Michael's guardianship. Their new evidence ostensibly reflected adversely on Michael Schiavo’s role as guardian, citing "that he had relationships with other women, that he had allegedly failed to provide appropriate care and treatment for Theresa, that he was wasting the assets within the guardianship account (according to the Schindlers, transferring Schiavo to a "hospice after it was clear that she was not “terminal” within Medicare guidelines" ), and that he was no longer competent to represent Theresa’s best interests." By this time, while still legally married to Terri, Michael was in a relationship with Jodi Centonze, with whom he had fathered two children. Michael denied wrongdoing in this matter, stating that the Schindlers had actively encouraged him to "get on with his life" and date since 1991. Michael said he chose not to divorce his wife and relinquish guardianship because he wanted to ensure her final wishes (to not be kept alive in a PVS) were carried out.

The court denied the Schindlers' motions to remove the guardian, allowing that the evidence was not sufficient and in some instances, not relevant. It set April 24, 2001 as the date on which the tube was to be removed.

Gordon, above is my proposal to change the article. I started with the version we had BEFORE your recent addition caused a lockdown and added the piece that is bolded. The guardian ad litem already mentioned that the Schindlers charged Michael with "wasting the assets within the guardianship account", and I've added the wording from bullet 31 of the motion that specifically calls out the transfer to a hospice. This is the best I can do with what you gave me. The rest of it is disputed and/or public opinion. Is there a consensus among the editors that this is satisfactory? FuelWagon 02:40, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

My addition of the paragraph you omitted did not cause the lockdown. Your reaction to a small portion of that paragraph (a facility, which in her state of Florida, is typically only legally allowed to admit terminally ill patients. ), and my reaction to your reaction caused it. Did you even look at my proposal here? I OMITTED the "typically" language -as you requested (in my proposal above, and linked below), and in the same proposed language, I also quoted Atty. Anderson. Since you repeatedly asked me to quote major player, and since I did that for you as well -to make you happy, now, what's the holdup?
Look, this is now covered TWICE in my proposed version. First, the guardian ad litem reporting the Schindler's accusation that Michael is "wasting assets", and second the Schindlers court motion saying it was because of "transferring Terri to a hospice after it was clear she was not terminal". That isn't good enough for you because you want to make the transfer look ILLEGAL. The only minor problem with that is THE COURTS DIDN"T FIND IT ILLEGAL. Accusations were brought to court and the court dismissed them. End of story. quoting testimony with the hope of implying this was illegal is POV. You're trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. None of the guardian ad litems questioned the transfer. The courts didn't question the transfer. I propose that we report the guardian ad litem and the schindler's motion, giving two versions of this, and then report the court's POV that dismissed the whole mess. Calling attention to testimony that occurred DURING the trial in the hopes of making it look illegal doesn't jive with the fact that the court dismissed their allegations, so the testimony doesn't line up with everything else that occurred around this. You want to call attention to something that the courts dismissed, that the guardian ad litems had no problem with. And I won't support it. Having TWO versions (the guardian ad litem's report and the Schindler's accusations in their motion) already too much in my opinion considering that the courts threw the entire thing out. FuelWagon 13:34, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
The links I provided document that Pat Anderson, the Schindler family attorney at the time, did say what I quoted her as saying; I used two links to source that, one from Miami U. and one from Liberty to the Captives. The fact that you want to find excuses doesn't negate the fact that I properly sourced and verified my claims.
The sentence you added (according to the Schindlers, transferring Schiavo to a "hospice after it was clear that she was not “terminal” within Medicare guidelines" ) is covered in the sentence that I added (was admitted to a ], ] ] {{ref|AbstractAppealInfoPage}}, amid objections by her family {{ref|LibertyLink.AndersonMotion}} that this was a facility which is was prohibited by state law from admitting nonterminal patients {{ref|StateLawOnHospices}} and prohibited by federal law from taking federal funds if it did admit nonterminal patient {{ref|A.New.Miami.U.Link}}). My sentence is a little longer, because it documents two claims (federal AND state laws that Anderson thought were violated).
Are you afraid to add the stronger language of Anderson regarding her objections regarding her concerns that the state laws were broken in admission; and, if so, why?--GordonWattsDotCom 06:14, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Vote

please vote on this proposed addition to the article .

support FuelWagon 02:40, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

mixed (Comments: You only supported one quote with attribution and source related to one of the attorney's objections, not the two relevant objections I include, so I give your version a 50%, which is like an F+ in standard grading; I have no problem with you stating the other players' views. I gave you plenty of links, and I am sorry that I could only find a few that relate to court action, but they are both legit, even the Liberty site, since it quoted the official Schindler site, which is down -but saved in a google cache here, but the google cache will disappear soon, so that is why we must put the links both in the article to keep from losing the written record.)--GordonWattsDotCom 06:35, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon

I have had it up to here with you regarding your desire to vote. The admin who locked the page told me that he would not take sides, but merely enforce the concensus, which is a factor below...

Since you have made genuine contributions to the article, prodding and pushing me to find additional documentation, I have overlooked and excused your behavior here, but you insist on having a vote on this issue, which I am sure will go in my favor of including ALL of (actually just both; "two") viewpoints of Atty. Anderson, regarding her representing Terri Schiavo's parents. (I am sure I will prevail in this minor effort to include her remarks, because my "religious" beliefs, whatever they are, tell me good will win in the end, and I think I am right to seek reporting of all the relevant facts.)

However, that leads me to my next point: I really hate to do anything that even "looks" like a personal attack, but your past actions have left me no choice: Here, in the archives, we find that you did not abide by the past concensus to include the traditional intro about A--B-C-D-and-E sparked fierce debate. "Our" side won the vote 4-2, in the end, but the remarks were still taken out by you, as I recall, and remain omitted from the intro.

Therefore, when you call for any "new" votes, I wonder if you are acting in a non-genuine way, and I am planning to ask for enforcement of all the concensus (making reference to the admin named in the paragraph at top, or others?) -like maybe we need to refer to past "accords and negotiations" as if they were laws that were passed. (Maybe you will ignore any new vote results, and this undermines my confidence in the process, because it has not fully disciplined you.)

I am not trying to be mean; I know you really care, and that shows: You did some "heavy lifting" as well, as the edit history shows, and I (and others) are very grateful for your continued assistance and vigilance. So, why not simply accept my version, which is short, concise, sources/verified/referenced --and with the assurance I have no problem including other views besides Schindler family attorney, Pat Anderson.--GordonWattsDotCom 19:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

So why not accept your version? Because it is POV. Because the courts never ruled that the transfer was illegal. because michael was never arrested and charged with anything illegal. because the courts never removed him as guardian because they thought this was improper. because none of the guardian ad litems even mention it as improper. because following npov policy means we report what the schindlers accused michael of and we report what the courts decided, end of story. You want to push more accusations into the article that have nothing to support them. That's why. FuelWagon 20:22, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
You don't need to indent twice -even once is questionable... anyhow, you say that "following npov policy means we report what the schindlers accused michael of and we report what the courts decided," so since Anderson really said that in one court brief (which is only able to be documented as "official" so long as the google cache is still floating in cyberspace), then we report it -and the other actions/reactions of the other major players. End of Story, as you say. I'll let you write the "reactions" part if you insist, but you can't be too lengthy, ok? If you're not up to it, holler, and I’ll do it.--GordonWattsDotCom 20:28, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
I proposed the guardian's POV using language from his report and the Schinlder POV using language from their motion. If Anderson is one of the Schindler attorneys, then that's just another Schindler POV. How is that "official"? It isn't a court ruling. The court's tossed the motion to remove michael as guardian. That is the "official" response to the Schindler's accusations against Michael. FuelWagon 20:39, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Hey, what's up? You OK? You were the one who suggested we report all sides of the issue above. RE-read your own comments -and where I quote you. Of course the court eventually tossed the challenge to the hospice move: We know that because it is common knowledge, but we must report the facts as is -all the facts of her placement there, not just the ones you like. I have no problem with reporting the court's reaction and any comments the GAL may have made -if you can source it with a link. You also ask: "If Anderson is one of the Schindler attorneys, then that's just another Schindler POV. How is that "official"?" ANSWER: If the link comes merely from the Liberty to the captives site, then I fear you may question it's validity (in the same way you say The Register is not notable as a source of info, lol), but since this info can be verified as having been posted on http://TerrisFight.org at one time (via my google.com cache link), then it really is an official representation of Anderson's brief -i.e., it is no "made up."--GordonWattsDotCom 20:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
All sides are already reported: The Schindlers motion is quoted saying the transer to the hospice was an improper use of Terri's assets. That's the wording from bullet 31 of their motion to remove Michael as guardian. They don't say the transfer was ILLEGAL. They say it was an improper use of Terri's assets. Big difference. And for the record, the points of view that need to be reported here are the Schindlers, Michael, the guardian ad litems, the doctors who examined Terri, nd the courts. the point fo view of the "Liberty" site or the register or wherever is irrelevant. The Schindlers point of view is reported by quoting their motion. It is also reported by the guardian ad litems report about their action against michael. FuelWagon 21:03, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Websites like "Liberty" or the "Register" are sources of information the same way the Wall Street Journal or the Chicago Tribune are sources. Sources are used to document the pov of the people. The points of view here are the Schindlers, Michael, guardians, doctors, courts, etc. These pov's may be reported in various sources. So, whether or not the Liberty site or the Register site said one thing or another is irrelevant to "report all the views" thing that I said. The "report all the views" means report what the Schindler's said, what Michael said, what the courts said, what the guardians said, what the doctors said. The source is just a place for a URL to point to to document that the POV is reported accurately. FuelWagon 21:07, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
And I just double-checked your court testimony. The only thing it proves is that Terri had been the longest patient at that particular hospice. You add the comment after it saying "possibly illegal?". Your testimony doesn't prove anything illegal happened. And the court dismissal of the motion would seem to follow that conclusion. Michael remained Terri's guardian. Michael was never charged with any criminal wrongdoing in transfering Terri to the hospice. the guardian ad litems never mention this transfer as something agaisnt the best interests of terri's wishes. All your court testimony establishes is the answer to the trivia question: Who was the longest patient at some particular hospice in Florida? Answer: Terri. So what. It is trivia and therefore irrelevant. FuelWagon 20:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
I didn't say it was "possibly illegal?" -- I said that she was admitted amid CONCERNS FROM THE FAMILY and their ATTORNEY that it was illegal. What I suggested as an edit is both factually correct and, since it allows all sides to be reported on, also NPOV.--GordonWattsDotCom 20:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
You said right here "maybe illegal?". The testimony you quoted says NOTHING about it being "illegal", that word is nowhere in that diff except where you add your personal comment. If they had CONCERNS that the transfer was ILLEGAL, then that testimony does not establish it. FuelWagon 20:59, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I expressed opinions in TALK, --not in the article. That is 1st Amendment-permitted. What I put in the article was reporting of facts -which -in some but not all cases -may agree with my own point of view. My point of view is umimportant. Reporting the facts, as they happened, is important. You are trying to bait me are you?--GordonWattsDotCom 21:04, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Facts? You added the following to the article:
In April 2000, in the midst of the guardianship challenge, Schiavo, widely described as the "brain-damaged Florida woman" at the heart of this legal battle, was admitted to a Pinellas County, Florida hospice , a facility, which in her state of Florida, is typically only legally allowed to admit terminally ill patients.
This qualifies as weasel words since "typically only legally" implies that Terri's transfer was ILLEGAL. There is no reason for this to be here except to introduce doubt. Read up on weasel words. FuelWagon 21:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Man, you've gone to 9 levels of indenting, and you STILL don't get it: I will be glad to remove the "typically" language and replace it with reporting what the major players said. Gee Whiz... There are TWO little colored boxes in talk here. One is what IS --one is what is PROPOSED, go it?--GordonWattsDotCom 21:34, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

STAY OF EXECUTION

OK, that's it. I just stumbled across THIS little gem where you give a link the title "STAY OF EXECUTION" with regard to Terri's feeding tube being removed. Keep pushing this POV and you will find yourself banned. I am completely serious. KNOCK IT OFF. Edits like this are completely unacceptable and completely non-negotiable. FuelWagon 03:58, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Now, I know you're losing it:
#1, the link title is hidden, so even if it were POV, that wouldn't be an issue.
#2, the title is a correct representation of the link: Go to that link, referred to in that reference, and see the first sentence, which uses that phrase: These are the judge's own words. Knock it off. You're nit-picking, and all you'll find are boogers.--GordonWattsDotCom 04:05, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Greer means it as in execution of the court's order. You mean it like Terri is being executed. It is unacceptable. FuelWagon 04:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
"You mean it like Terri is being..." You don't know what I (or others?) mean: To prove it, I will not object to the new link title. I merely thought it was easy to remember, but -heck -you can name the links {{ref|Link1}} + {{note|Link1}} ... {{ref|Link123)) + {{note|Link123}} etc. ad nauseum, for all I care -but if it makes you happy, go ahead and keep the link title the way you want it.--GordonWattsDotCom 18:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
"Greer means it as in execution of the court's order..." No, Greer was merely stating that he was responding to a motion by this title. Pat Anderson, the Schindler familty attorney, was the one who decided to use that language, but the judge used that language simply to acknowledge her motion, so there would be a proper paper trial and record of court events.--GordonWattsDotCom 18:44, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Vanity links

Gordon I've removed the vanity links to your website here. User pages for geocities and aol can be created by anyone and are considered non-notable. FuelWagon 04:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I saw that, but thx 4 mentioning. I will allow it this time, since there are other links that serve the same purpose, but please note that The Register was the ONLY news agency in Lakeland (my home town) covering one set of oral arg. hearings, and I will not brook removal of that link, if you can find it. That should be a fair compromise to show that I'm not a vanity link pusher, but, instead, a reporter for this article, as well as fair editor.--GordonWattsDotCom 04:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Let me point out that http://www.google.com/search?q=%22placement+in%22+hospice+schiavo&hl=en&lr=&start=10&sa=N shows a routine search for links about placement in hospice -and Google.com says that The Register (one of "my" sites) was ranked fourteen in the world for sites with these terms: Hmm... Also, let me point out that actions on your part, whether retaliation or not, can be construed in that way, when you decide after the fact to start re-writing history to remove my involvement and news stories on which I contributed or were the editor. You aren't retaliating, now, are you, Wagon? My "vanity links" have high status, because they deserve it, according to this google search.--GordonWattsDotCom 22:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
"User pages for geocities and aol can be created by anyone and are considered non-notable." Show me that in Wiki-policy; Let me assure you that when I write a story -or one of my writers, and I publish it, I make abcde SURE the story is correct; Can you say that for the New York Times, especially after scandel-after-scandel -where nutty reporters just made stuff up, eh... eh? You should have said: "User pages for NY Times can be written by any nutty writer, and are not necessarily correct." Besides, I'm not asking that anyone create an article about me: I'M NOT NOTABLE! However, I am a writer and publisher, like any other: BIG DIFFERENCE.--GordonWattsDotCom 23:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

you reverted without labeling it "revert" - Wagon:

At this diff: here you reverted. I know that because you REintroduced the spelling errors that I corrected -even if you were crazy, I know you wouldn't do that.

You not only:

1-- reverted without labeling it as a revert, you also

2-- reverted a NPOV sentence. in addition to that, you

3-- removed the "ref" tags without removing the "note" tags, and this messes up the link numbering, so that references after that point are not the same number as ther relative notes.

you have shown a lack of NPOV here: It is true that a hospice is "a facility, which in state of Florida, is typically only legally allowed to admit terminally ill patients." If you don;t believe that, then go into any hospice here in Florida -any hospice -and try to find a cripple or handicapped, or brain-damaged person. You won't. All you'll find are people with terminally ill conditions, and at death's door: Therefore, it is true to say that Terri's admission was "not typical," but for your curiosity, I've provided links to show it is also illegal --VERY atypical, but I won't go that far.

for that reason, i'm reverting, and asking Ed for help, as he asked if I needed any.--GordonWattsDotCom 04:29, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Especially on a subject like this it might be wise to have a refute to the "brain-damaged woman" quote wherever its mentioned.... also "typically only legally" messes up the flow - somebody should decide whether it's typically OR legally (or if both expand on the point - as is it doesn't really make sense either - as it suggests that they admitted her illegally or something, ;) ) :). Anyway, fell free to disagree of course :). Ryan Norton 05:58, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Rethink top to bottom

An odd point occured 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: (Misplaced Pages: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 Shiavo said to her "when is that bitch gonna die?" several times. She also detailed a sequence fo 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 fo 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 unencylcopedic 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 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 tehm 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 rsponse, 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 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:

  • Too long to edit.
  • Often tangential.
  • At times redundant (considering side articles).
  • Lacking in proportion when using quotes.

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?

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 affadavit, there isn't much you can do to keep it out. Believe me I've tried. The only response that I've seen taht 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 nonsensicle 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)

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 imbalanance 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 bulimea 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 "vegatative") 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 irreversable.

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 autoposy's finding of no evidence of past bulemia 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:

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, Marshall, 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: Marshall, 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:
  1. Both Gordon and FW are rather entrenched into their respective positions and
  2. 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:
  1. Try to minimize the number of subheadings created on the talk page, for clarity's sake and
  2. 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 Misplaced Pages; 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" at the heart of this legal battle, was admitted to a Pinellas County, Florida hospice , a facility, which in her state of Florida, is typically only legally allowed to admit terminally ill patients.

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.


Gordon's proposal

GordonWattsDotCom has proposed replacing the above paragraph with the version here:

In April 2000, in the midst of the guardianship challenge, Schiavo, widely described as the "brain-damaged Florida woman" at the heart of this legal battle, was admitted to a Pinellas County, Florida hospice , amid objections by her family {{ref}LibertyLink.AndersonMotion}} that this was a facility which is was prohibited by state law from admitting nonterminal patients and prohibitted by federal law from taking federal funds if it did admit nonterminal patient . The court eventually ruled A-B-and-C.


FuelWagon's proposal

FuelWagon opposes the paragraph that GordonWatts wishes to add and has proposed adding a line to one of the already existing paragraphs (the bolded text):

In 2000, the Schindlers again challenged Michael's guardianship. Their new evidence ostensibly reflected adversely on Michael Schiavo’s role as guardian, citing "that he had relationships with other women, that he had allegedly failed to provide appropriate care and treatment for Theresa, that he was wasting the assets within the guardianship account (according to the Schindlers, transferring Schiavo to a "hospice after it was clear that she was not “terminal” within Medicare guidelines" bullet 31), and that he was no longer competent to represent Theresa’s best interests." By this time, while still legally married to Terri, Michael was in a relationship with Jodi Centonze, with whom he had fathered two children. Michael denied wrongdoing in this matter, stating that the Schindlers had actively encouraged him to "get on with his life" and date since 1991. Michael said he chose not to divorce his wife and relinquish guardianship because he wanted to ensure her final wishes (to not be kept alive in a PVS) were carried out.

FuelWagon's objections

The Schindler's challenged Michael's guardianship in 2000. Bullet 31 of the motion says that Terri's transfer to the hospice after it was clear that she was not terminal was wasting Terri's assets, and was one of their reason's for removing Michael as guardian. The court's dismissed the motion, and Michael remaind guardian. The court appointed guardian ad litems never mentioned Terri's transfer to a hospice as being an issue. FuelWagon 02:56, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

What Gordon has done is create a whole new paragraph to introduce a "fact" that Florida state law says it is illegal for a hospice to admit a nonterminal patient and federal law prohibits a hospice from recieving federal funds if they admit a non-terminal patient. But the courts didn't find Terri's transfer to be illegal, the hospice was never charged and they never had their funds cut. Michael was never charged and the motion to remove him as guardian was tossed and he remained Terri's guardian. Therefore Gordon's paragraph gives undue weight to the law, hospices, and terminal patients, and leaves the implied sense that it has something to do with Terri. The only thing it has to do with Terri is that the Shchindlers brought it up in a motion (as bullet 31 of 50 bullets total), and the courts dismissed the motion. Introducing an entire paragraph about an aspect of the law when the motion was tossed, no charges were filed, no one was convicted, and the hospice funds were not cut, only serves give undue weight to the law, implying the law was broken. It was not. FuelWagon 02:56, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


Gordon's objections

Gordon can put a couple paragraph explanation here.

Categories:
Talk:Terri Schiavo case: Difference between revisions Add topic