Talk:Terri Schiavo case

Mediation

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

Archives

Archives of the talk from this page can be found here (currently 28 archives): Talk:Terri Schiavo/archives

Archive 28

I have archived several inactive sections from the top of this page. They have gone into Archive 28.~ Neuroscientist | T | C 17:06, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Reading for the Enemy

NPOV encourages us to write for the enemy. One of the things I've wanted to do for a while now is read for the enemy. This is difficult, as I must walk in someone else's shoe, and I'd ask editors that normally disagree with my to try to help me view the article thru their eyes. If you like, I'll try to help you see it thru mine.--ghost 3 July 2005 05:01 (UTC)

The first thing that leapt out at me is the description of Terri's collapse. First, the family's claim that the initial collapse happened at 4:30am, rather than 5:40am. Should this be dealt with in the 'Schindler Family' section? Also, I'm seeing conflicting stuff on Bobby Schindler's presence at Terri's collapse. The IME's autopsy report indicates he was there. The police report does not. That's plain odd. Is this a mistake on the IME's part, or was he the first family member to respond to Michael's call? If so, why didn't the cop interview him? Finally, we may want to rework the 1st sentences of 'Initial medical crisis' to read:

On the morning of February 25, 1990, Mrs. Schiavo collapsed. At approximately 5:30 a.m. EST, she went into cardiac arrest in the hallway of the St. Petersburg apartment she shared with her husband. Michael Schiavo said a thud woke him, and he found his wife unconscious on the floor. He immediately called 911 emergency services and his wife's parents.

This subtle change may appease Terrisfight fans.ghost 3 July 2005 05:01 (UTC)

The two times that are known about that morning are 1. The time the 911 call went through (5.40ish), 2. The time the medics got there and started work on Schiavo (5.50 something). The Schindler claim that Mike did something to her at 4.30 that caused her to arrest, then called 911 only at ~5.40 cannot withstand scrutiny: it is medically impossible to remain in an arrest for 1 hour 20 minutes and not be dead (ie, the brainstem will have died long before, not just her neocortex, thalamus, basal ganglia, cerebellum). The most likely explanation is the common-sense one: when Mike was recalling on Larry King, >10 years later, what happened that night, he mistakenly said 4.30 instead of 5.30.

Re Bob Schindler, I have no opinion on this. Presumably if he wasn't there he would have taken the opportunity to call Mike a liar by now. If he was there, I don't know how it changes things.

Re arrest v collapse. Sequence is important. See this.

Re Mike said he heard a thud, woke up, called, etc etc. This is a point Ms. Heneghan has been persistently making. I agree with her. The only problem in my mind is deciding how far youre going to take it. "He said he called emergency services immediately..."

Good thoughts on NPOV, ghost.~ Neuroscientist July 3, 2005 06:21 (UTC)

I spoke to this on the mediation talk page. In response to a complaint similar to the one you cite I wrote: "Does it matter to the story of Terri Schiavo whether the utterly unprovable or disprovable above statement in the current article is entirely factual? We are truly trying to separate fly shit crap from pepper when we have gotten down to arguing about things like that." I stand by that. And to take it further, can you imagine the State Attorney, for example, in the investigation called for by the governor, doing as you did, noting the time of the 911 call, and noting the logged time of arrival of the EMTs, and who is then left with only one other source of data: Michael.

Q: Mr. Schiavo how much time elapsed between when you heard the collapse and made the call?

A: Uh, I don't remember, maybe a few minutes.

That will be the beginning and end of the investigation. There is nothing else findable. While there may be some sport in speculating whether the answer is true or not, no one will ever be able to prove it. Terri's story truly starts from the fact of the cardiac arrest. So maybe we should write the first paragraph in the intro to say,

"on 25 February 1990 paramedics responding to a 911 call found Terri Schiavo face down in her apartment in cardiac arrest."

Do you think for one second that will stop the critics from saying, "wait a minute, who made the call? Why did she go into cardiac arrest?" which is the same place we are now. Duckecho (Talk) 3 July 2005 13:33 (UTC)

I just reread the intro and these comments and realized you guys weren't talking about the intro. I think that first paragraph reads just fine. My other remarks still obtain, and I don't know that we gain much reworking the other area, save paying particular attention to NS' warnings about sequence. Duckecho (Talk) 3 July 2005 15:12 (UTC)

Of course those questions (now struck out) don't go to the story of Terri, either. They are unknowable, unprovable, not disprovable—the very essence of conspiracy theories. And there is nothing we can do to the article to insulate it from those. Duckecho (Talk) 3 July 2005 13:33 (UTC)

Just a minor suggestion. Change: Michael Schiavo said a thud woke him, to Michael Schiavo said he was wakened by a thud. FuelWagon 4 July 2005 12:57 (UTC)

Yeah, and folks, for what it's worth, I know the feeling. Reading for the enemy...hurts. I mean it's almost physically painfull. Lemme give you a personal note here: My Great-uncle was on Apollo 17. When I hear the conspiracy theorists who want you to believe we never went to the Moon, I get infuriated. I can't see straight, because they're calling a member of my family a liar. But that doesn't give me the right to come to Wikipedia and trash the moon-conspiracy theorists.

This is the touchstone I use to understand the folks who come here believeing that the article is a pack of lies. This article must present the facts without infuriating those who view things differently. I know I'm asking us to walk a razor's edge. So be it. If we cannot create the space to respect their POV, we can never expect them to respect us, even if the facts hold up.--ghost 4 July 2005 17:09 (UTC)

"Eventually" choosing to withdraw life support.

Re the sentence,

Years later, Michael would be accused of going back on his word that he wanted to "spend the rest of his life with Terri," because he chose eventually to withdraw life-support.

Ann Heneghan reverted my addition of the word eventually to the sentence, stating this to be "POV." It is not immediately apparent to me why this is so. It is clear that Mr. Schiavo did not at one time wish to withdraw life support for his wife. It is equally clear that later he did. We know from the report of Guardian ad litem Wolfson that it took Mr. Schiavo "more than three years to accommodate this reality and [begin] to accept the idea of allowing Theresa to die naturally..."

Hence eventually seems to me a perfectly acceptable adverb. Why is it "POV?"~ Neuroscientist July 4, 2005 01:47 (UTC)

It is not. Taking three years to reach a decision is eventually reaching a decision. Utterly fair use of the word. Proto t c 4 July 2005 12:03 (UTC)

I also agree that it's not POV, from our POV. However, it is from Ann's. So I reread the section, reading for the enemy. When you read the Wolfson quote that follows this sentence, "eventually" becomes unnecessary because Wolfson so thoroughly dismisses the accusation. It's ironic that Ann's suggestion seems to strengthen Michael's position, but it is less redundant, so let's respect her and go with it.--ghost 5 July 2005 15:21 (UTC)

If we're being pedantic (and I am), it should be "... as he chose to eventually withdraw life-support". I still don't think it's POV, in any way, shape, or form. Proto t c 5 July 2005 15:41 (UTC)

Redundant, perhaps. Unnecessary, perhaps. I could understand those arguments. But try as I might, I can't see the bias argument. How is it any more POV in that sentence than its appearance just two paragraphs earlier? I think sometimes people work very, very hard to find a way to be offended. Duckecho (Talk) 5 July 2005 16:02 (UTC)

And don't get me wrong. I agree with you, it's not POV. We're splitting hairs. But if this minor gesture allows us to accommodate the views another editor, I'm all for it.--ghost 5 July 2005 16:07 (UTC)

Hi guys. I'm going to make this brief, as I owe Duck a good discussion and Gordon something rather less cordial. The sentence, before I decided to meddle with it, looked like this:

Years later, Michael was accused of going back on his word that he wanted to "spend the rest of his life with Terri," because he chose to withdraw life-support.

My main intention in editing it was to change was to would be (for grammar); after changing that, I noticed the "chose to," and felt the sentence would be improved by "chose eventually to."

One of the things I learnt when writing papers for publication was to always re-read the work imagining you were 1. a complete non-expert in the subject, and 2. reading the paper for the very first time. When you do this, there are usually a number of things that stand out as candidates for improved writing. (Try it for the Schiavo article - there are quite a few sentences that can be made simpler and/or clearer.) Now, reading this way from the start until this sentence we're talking about, it seemed to me that the addition of "eventually" would make the timing clearer (to someone coming to the story for the first time): the reason Michael was being accused of going back on his word was that even though at the start he seemed keen on taking care of his wife "forever," at some point afterward (ie. eventually) he changed his mind, and decided to remove life-support.

I'm not pissed or anything that Heneghan reverted it. It's only that it's not immediately apparent to me what she's trying to say - I'm trying to understand her POV. (Using Ghosts "reading for the enemy," various plausible reasons and scenarios suggest themselves, eg. not proscribing the view that Michael actually always intended to "murder" his wife, so he never actually eventually changed his mind etc) but none of them are logically compatible with accepting "chose to" while rejecting "chose eventually to."

So I'm only seeking to understand the objection. I agree with Ghost that it's not worth going into a fit over. Also, Proto is absolutely right re as for because.~ Neuroscientist | T | C July 5, 2005 18:34 (UTC) Note, I've altered the placement of this note in view of Fuel's suggested alternative, which I read after I wrote the above~ Neuroscientist | T | C July 5, 2005 18:34 (UTC)

This is crap. "eventually" is not POV. The problem is that without "eventually" or some adverb to show change, then it can be read that michael always wanted to disconnect life support. I rewrote the sentence to (1) credit the schindlers for the accusation and (2) to show a change in Michael from thinking she'll get better to accepting that she will never improve. FuelWagon 5 July 2005 17:40 (UTC)

The Schindlers accused Michael of going back on his word that he wanted to "spend the rest of his life with Terri" once he decided to withdraw life-support. However, Guardian ad litem Jay Wolfson wrote ...

..without "eventually"...then it can be read that michael always wanted to disconnect life support. - Yes. And I think this was the intent. But I'm in danger of putting words into the mouths of editors here. I think your edit is better, and difficult to refute by either side. I'm curious what Ann would say.--ghost 5 July 2005 18:25 (UTC)

This is crap. "eventually" is not POV. The problem is that without "eventually" or some adverb to show change, then it can be read that michael always wanted to disconnect life support. The (great) thing about Fuel is he never leaves anything to the imagination <chuckle>. This sentence looks better. But if the reason Ann reverted "eventually" really is what we think it is, I'm not sure she would be happier with this version.~ Neuroscientist | T | C

Hello, everyone. I'm extremely busy at the moment. Can you give me a day or two to explain more fully what my objections were? I'll be brief now. I prefer FuelWagon's version. I didn't have strong objections to eventually; there are other things in the article that bother me more. FuelWagon writes, without "eventually". . . then it can be read that michael always wanted to disconnect life support. Actually, I wouldn't have objected to "later". Ghost, I appreciate your willingness to accommodate an editor who is on the other side, in a case where it is possible to bend. Ann Heneghan 5 July 2005 23:26 (UTC)

The first thing that occured to me when I saw your edit summary was that you must have felt eventually was doing too much work. That is to say, eventually might reasonably be expected to imply that Michael gradually came to his decision over a long period of time, whereas strictly speaking we have no evidence for this: he may have decided to withdraw life support abruptly one night three years later, after quite suddenly coming to the realization that it was all futile. This is fair, although I was using eventually to mean "in the end," or "finally" (if you use the OED, the sense defined in the entry under #3).

What threw me was the "POV" claim, which seemed to imply the tantalizing possibility that I had done something to alter the narrative with undue bias in favor of Michael. I couldn't figure out how, thus this Talk page entry.

I'm glad you're fine with Fuel's very effective sentence.~ Neuroscientist | T | C

family disputes / legal disputes

there are two main sections titled "Family Disputes" and "Legal Disputes" that have many, many subsections. It occurred to me that the section titles are fairly pointless and that the subsections should be raised up a level. i.e. delete the family dispute and legal dispute levels, and move the subsections up one level. The bits and pieces of teh family dispute section can be moved into chronological order in their own sections. FuelWagon 5 July 2005 22:17 (UTC)

that probably didnt make any sense at all. lemme try again. instead of this:

5 Family relationship and malpractice suit

6 Family dispute

6.1 Michael Schiavo

6.2 Schindler family

7 Legal disputes

7.1 Life-prolonging procedures

7.2 PVS and the law

7.3 Guardianship

7.4 Do not resuscitate

7.5 Legally in a PVS

7.6 End of life wishes - Schiavo I

7.7 Oral feeding

7.8 Three appeals - Schiavo II

7.9 Evidentiary hearing - Schiavo III

7.10 Second PVS diagnosis

7.11 Diagnosis ruling - Schiavo IV

7.12 Bone scan

7.13 2003 petition

7.14 Oral feeding II

8 Diagnosis dispute

we could have something like this:

5 Family relationship and malpractice suit

6 Life-prolonging procedures

7 PVS and the law

8 Guardianship

9 Do not resuscitate

10 Legally in a PVS

11 End of life wishes - Schiavo I

12 Oral feeding

13 Three appeals - Schiavo II

14 Evidentiary hearing - Schiavo III

15 Second PVS diagnosis

16 Diagnosis ruling - Schiavo IV

17 Bone scan

18 2003 petition

19 Oral feeding II

20 Diagnosis dispute

The "family dispute" section contains a nugget or two that could remain, but any specific events could be taken out and given their own section with all the other numbered sections. I never particularly liked the separation between "family disputes" and "legal disputes", and this would simply report various events in chronological order, wehther family related or legally involved.

any thoughts?

FuelWagon 5 July 2005 22:22 (UTC)

(These remarks apply to your original post in this section. I'll look at the above in a moment.)

As far as the Legal Disuptes section goes, while I was working on it over the weekend (the subsection structure wasn't my original work), it struck me as adding extraordinary order and functionality by having the subsections, especially once I got things comparmented properly and in chronological order. It's also handy when using the article as a reference as one can easily find one's place in time through the use of the headings. It is my very strong suggestion to leave them as is. Moreover, I think it makes the ToC more useful. Duckecho (Talk) 5 July 2005 22:49 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to see the family dispute rolled into the legal area, even if chronologically, if that's what you're suggesting. In my opinion, understanding the legal aspects is fundamental to understanding the case (not that the family disputes were merely a sideshow). If I were to come to this page as a stranger, the chronology of the legal dispute would be central to my interest and my edification. Duckecho (Talk) 5 July 2005 22:49 (UTC)

Was that you changing the subheading titles? They're mostly okay except the one about the DNR. I agonized over that a lot but couldn't think of a way to shorten it. I think it needs to somehow include DNR, PVS, and first since that was the bellwether event when the diagnosis was first used as justification for an action, and when it became a legal rather than medical issue, which sets the tone for the eventual Schiavo I, et al. Duckecho (Talk) 5 July 2005 22:49 (UTC)

Nope, not me. FuelWagon 6 July 2005 02:15 (UTC)

Point by point

most of the stuff in the family dispute section is redundant. I was the original author of this section and had attempted to put things into some sort of context, but now the rest of the article has grown and this section has pretty much been made pointless. Here is the cut/paste from family section. my comments are indented:

Under Florida law and supported by rulings of State and Federal courts, Michael Schiavo, Schiavo's husband, was her legal guardian.

already covered in another section. FuelWagon 6 July 2005 02:26 (UTC)

Mr. Schiavo began to study nursing at St. Petersburg College around 1991 because, as he testified later in the 1992 malpractice suit, "I want to learn more how to take care of Terry [sic]." [18] Eventually, he became a respiratory therapist and emergency room nurse. [19]

already covered in another section FuelWagon 6 July 2005 02:26 (UTC)

In March 1994, guardian ad litem John H. Pecarek was appointed by the court to determine if there had been any abuse by Michael Schiavo. Pecarek's report found no evidence for any inappropriate actions, and indicated that Michael had been very attentive to his wife.

already covered in another section FuelWagon 6 July 2005 02:26 (UTC)

In addition to Pecarek, a number of guardians ad litem and hospital staff members have described Michael Schiavo as a supportive husband who berated nurses for not taking better care of his wife; in 1994, the administration of one nursing home unsuccessfully attempted to get a restraining order against him because he was demanding more attention for his wife at the expense of other patients' care. [20] According to Jay Wolfson, one of Schiavo's court-appointed guardians, due to the attention Schiavo had received in the fifteen years she was bedridden, she had never developed any bedsores.

parts are already covered in another section. bedsores comment could be moved to chronological position. FuelWagon 6 July 2005 02:26 (UTC)

On June 18, 2000, Michael signed an agreement stating he would not withdraw or terminate his wife's medical care or treatment for potential fatal infections, without prior notice to the court.

Probably should be put in chronological order. FuelWagon 6 July 2005 02:26 (UTC)

In an appearance on ABC News's Nightline on March 15, 2005, Michael Schiavo cited the willingness that Schiavo's parents expressed to keep her alive by multiple extreme measures, including quadruple amputation if needed, as an important reason for denying transfer of guardianship to them or other parties with similar desires. [21]

This should be put in order of when the Schindlers stated this, and then mention that Michael refered to it as a reason in 2005. FuelWagon 6 July 2005 02:26 (UTC)

A claim that Michael Schiavo stood to inherit the remainder of Schiavo's malpractice settlement upon her death raised the issue of a possible conflict of interest. However, the December 2003 Wolfson GAL report, [22] submitted to Governor Jeb Bush pursuant to Florida's "Terri's Law," notes that Michael had, prior to his 1998 request to the court to determine Schiavo's wishes, "formally offered to divest himself entirely of his financial interest in the guardianship estate" (p. 12). In 2005, Michael publicly responded to the alleged conflict of interest by claiming that less than $50,000 of the original award from the suit was left, the rest having been spent under a judge's supervision on medical care for Schiavo and the ongoing legal battle. He also had a contract drafted stating that, should the Schindlers refrain from any further legal action, he would donate whatever his inheritance might be to charity. The Schindlers refused the offer.

almost all of this is redundant.

On March 11, 2005, media tycoon Robert Herring (who believes that stem cell research could have cured Schiavo's condition) offered $1 million to Michael Schiavo if he agreed to waive his guardianship to his wife's parents [23]. The offer was rejected. George Felos, attorney for Michael, described the offer as "offensive." He also stated that Michael had rejected other monetary offers, including one of $10 million.

this is public opinion stuff, or should be placed in chronological order when the 10 million dollar offer was made. FuelWagon 6 July 2005 02:26 (UTC)

Michael Schiavo has been criticized for entering into a relationship with another woman, Jodi Centonze, while still legally married to Terri. Michael and Jodi Centonze have had two children together. Michael denies wrongdoing in this matter, stating that the Schindlers actively encouraged him to "get on with his life" and date since 1991. Michael said he chose not to divorce Terri and relinquish guardianship because he wanted to ensure her final wishes (to not be kept alive in a PVS) were carried out.

This can be put in chronological order as to when he entered relationship with Centonze. FuelWagon 6 July 2005 02:26 (UTC)

During the final stages of the court battle in March 2005, around 30 individuals made a variety of complaints to the Department of Children and Families alleging various abuses. These included Terri supposedly being in pain from recent dental work, Terri not having had any dental work for years, and even the blinds in her room not being open wide enough. DCF investigators found the claims to be groundless, stating that there were "no indicators" of abuse in any of the cases and concluding that "[t]he preponderance of the evidence shows that Michael Schiavo followed doctors' orders [regarding] Ms. Schiavo's diagnosis of being in a persistent vegetative state and that he provided her with appropriate care." [24]

this is already covered. FuelWagon 6 July 2005 02:26 (UTC)

[edit] Schindler family Schiavo's parents and siblings had battled her husband over her fate since 1998. Even though the courts consistently upheld the ruling that Schiavo would choose to have her life support discontinued, her parents used every legal measure available to prevent the disconnection of her feeding tube. The Schindlers stated that even if Schiavo had told them of her intention to have artificial nutrition withdrawn, they would not accede. [25] The issue of conflict of interest raised by guardian ad litem Pearse, attached to the Schindlers, as well, he reported, since, had they prevailed in the various litigation over guardianship, as presumed heirs-at-law they would have inherited the remainder of Mrs. Schiavo's estate upon her death. [26]

already covered FuelWagon 6 July 2005 02:26 (UTC)

The Schindlers took videos of Schiavo that purportedly show her responding to them. In an attempt to foster improvement in her condition, they contacted Galaxywave, Inc.[27], psychic healers who claim to possess a Remote Healing ADAM (Aphysical Dimension Access Manager) Technology. 28 On several occasions, the Schindlers attempted to put these psychics in contact with Schiavo via cell phone during their visits with her. [29]

Video stuff is already covered. the psychic healer stuff is not, could add it in order. FuelWagon 6 July 2005 02:26 (UTC)

Her parents claimed that Schiavo was a devout Roman Catholic who did not wish to violate the Church's teachings on euthanasia by refusing nutrition and hydration, and that she had never expressed such a desire to anyone in her birth family or circle of friends. The Schindlers' legal fight was funded by a variety of sources on the political right. [30]

Could insert this in wherever legal dispute about Terri's wishes is located. That is where it is relevant. FuelWagon 6 July 2005 02:26 (UTC)

Schiavo's father, Bob Schindler, criticized Judge Greer as he never called Terri Schiavo into the courtroom or visited her to observe her condition firsthand. Schindler described the court order to remove the feeding tube as "judicial homicide." [31]

practically irrelevant. this could be deleted. FuelWagon 6 July 2005 02:26 (UTC)

When Michael Schiavo had Terri's ashes interred on June 20, the Schindlers' attorney stated that the family was notified by fax only after the service; by then, the Schindler family had already started getting calls from reporters. [32]

could put at end of article. FuelWagon 6 July 2005 02:26 (UTC)

So are you saying that about 90% of that is covered elsewhere? Sounds like it could be deleted. If what's left is all there is, then, with appropriate sectioning, I don't see why it couldn't be interleaved with the legal stuff. With the caveat, however, my personal bias is to leave the legal stuff quite clearly discernible. Duckecho (Talk) 6 July 2005 02:49 (UTC)

I think most of it is covered elsewhere. the legal stuff should use clear language to say what legal actions were taken, so legal stuff should be fairly clear anyway. It might not all be like that now, but that would be the goal. FuelWagon 6 July 2005 13:56 (UTC)

OK. I took a stab at whittling down the family stuff. most of teh schindler stuff was moved or deleted. If I wasn't sure if something was covered elsewhere, I left it in place. Someone else can take a turn at it. FuelWagon 6 July 2005 15:14 (UTC)

BTW, FW, kudos cutting down the redundancies. Sorry I haven't been able to be more involved. Been "putting out fires" IRL.--ghost 6 July 2005 16:42 (UTC)

Lead/Intro/Summary section

Fuel, I saw your split of the lead into an untitled, one-line, first para, and a multi-para section entitled "Summary." This is similar to a recent version with the title "Introduction."

An editor who has recently taken an interest in the Schiavo article (likely after being made aware of our complete lawlessness over the TOCright template issue) has been trying to tell us that an article lead comprises all paragraphs normally thought of as introductory, and should have no header or title of its own. This appears to be the encyclopaedic convention followed by Wikipedia. I agree with the idea that we should follow a standard house-style where textual editing is concerned (although I do not think this should imply rigid requirements about such things as the placement of TsOC or images).

I believe the recent moves to provide the introductory para with a header of its own had a practical basis: the introduction was recently the focus of some intensive editing, and a separate header obviated the need to "Edit this (whole) Page" whenever we wanted to tweak the intro. I thought this was fair, but wonder if we may revert back to the standard form now, if only so this editor won't blow a gasket and move to ban the Terri Schiavo article and its editors. Or something. If we're going to stick to the split, for whatever reason, may I record a preference for "Introduction" rather than "Summary" for a title.~ Neuroscientist | T | C July 6, 2005 14:37 (UTC)

"if only so this editor won't blow a gasket" If by "this editor" you mean tabushidayu, then I don't feel particularly obliged to appease someone who only seems interested in pendantic enforcement of style guidelines. Mostly I switched it because Duck changed it and then tabushidayu seems to have done a driveby to change it back. I'm personally not attached either way. But if Duck was intending on doing some edits to the intro and the header made it easier, so be it. If Duck's finished, then switch it back. FuelWagon 6 July 2005 14:46 (UTC)

"if only so this editor won't blow a gasket"If by "this editor" you mean tabushidayu then I don't feel particularly obliged to appease someone... Yeah. I was speaking in jest re "appeasement", but to be perfectly serious, on this issue I agree with him. The introductory paragraphs normally thought of as the lead section should be untitled. As far as I can see we're done with the intro edits (for now), so I'll revert, if you don't mind.

BTW, I've decided I heart Fuel. You're a no-BS, kick ass editor. We should probably just sit back and let you do all this editing stuff.~ Neuroscientist | T | C July 6, 2005 15:25 (UTC)

I heart Fuel as well. He kickeths asseth. Proto t c 6 July 2005 15:29 (UTC)

I, ahem, echo those sentiments, NS. In another venue regarding another article a colleague once opined about FW, "what he lacks in people skills, he makes [up] for as an editor." I responded, "I like his people skills. He tells people where the bear shit in the buckwheat." He does that. Although it's difficult for someone with an ego the size of mine to concede superiority on any skill, FW is clearly a superior editor. He is fearless, he is ruthless, and he is fair. Duckecho (Talk) 6 July 2005 15:59 (UTC)

LOL. "what he lacks in people skills.." That would be your's truly. :-) I think when I invited him over to Intelligent Design. I think I still owe you for that one, FW.--ghost 6 July 2005 16:32 (UTC)

A big "Thanks" to everyone for the kudos. It is appreciated. FuelWagon 6 July 2005 17:20 (UTC)

By the way, I'm the guilty party on subheading the intro. You have precisely grasped my motive for doing so. It wouldn't bother me to leave it that way for a while, no matter what ohdamntoobadjoe or whatever his name is, thinks (trolling for Benny Hill fans). However, I'm also not so wedded to it now that it would cause me heartache to remerge it. It is important to remember that not all of us are on broadband, and that coupled with the slow server response that Wiki has, not having to load a full, oversized page for a minor edit at the very top makes for a fuller Wiki experience by leaving time for other edits. Duckecho (Talk) 6 July 2005 16:10 (UTC)

The London bombings

I know this strictly doesn't belong on this page, but I just wanted to say I hope all is well with our British contributors, and express my deepest sympathies over this tragedy. Of the regulars, I know only Proto is from the UK (and works for the NHS!) - hope you're well. I believe Ann is Irish - hope she wasn't travelling anywhere near the blasts. Anyway, take care, all. This was awful.~ Neuroscientist | T | C July 8, 2005 01:50 (UTC)

Nowhere near it, don't worry. Thanks. Now, get back to work! :) Proto t c 8 July 2005 09:15 (UTC)

Thanks, but no, I was safely in Dublin. However, I am going to London tomorrow morning, and will be there for the next few days, with no computer access. Could I request that anyone who decides to archive this page in the next few days would leave the "eventually choosing" thread here, as I would like to answer it more fully. I just don't have a free minute right now. Ann Heneghan 8 July 2005 22:28 (UTC)

"Diagnosed"

(I split Ann's post as I feel it would be indelicate to respond to the subject of the second part of the message given the subject matter of the first. I hope she doesn't mind) Duckecho (Talk) 8 July 2005 23:14 (UTC)

By the way, as might be expected, I am not at all happy with today's change from "diagnosed as" etc. to "in an irreversible" etc. I had the impression that we had reached some kind of consensus on the talk page, and that this had even led to a dying down of the edit wars. Surely "diagnosed as" can be left in. It doesn't take up a lot more space. It doesn't violate the beliefs or principles of those who agree with the diagnosis, and it shows some willingness to compromise with those who dispute it. I don't like edit wars, and I don't intend to try to do anything about it right now, but I hope on my return from London to discover that there is some willingness to compromise on this issue again. I could understand the resistance if I were requesting that the article should say that she was in a MCS. People who disagreed would feel obliged, for the sake of truth and accuracy, to resist. The "diagnosed as" compromise adds at the very most four words. It does not sacrifice truth, accuracy, neutrality, or style. Please think about it. Ann Heneghan 8 July 2005 22:28 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more. At one time we only seemed to be aware of three neurologists who had diagnosed PVS. Contrasted to the two Schindler doctors, it appeared on the face of it to perhaps be a close call. That's no longer the case. In light of recently acquired information or at least the winnowing of previously available information, and in simplistic terms, if we were counting votes, it's now more of a 7 to 1 tally, and considerable question as to the efficacy of the one has been raised, not the least of which was by Judge Greer. That is seven clinical examinations by seven neurologists dating back to 1990, all concluding PVS. There is no longer an issue of agreeing with the diagnosis. Wikipedia shouldn't care a whit that there is some lay person who disputes the diagnosis of seven experienced experts trained in the field, and thus shouldn't report it. Frankly if some lay person has a belief or principle that incorporates an inability to accept the consensus finding of seven board certified experts in their own field based on actual clinical examination, I believe that's an issue that needs to be settled by introspection, not by compromising the integrity of the article. Having said that, our resident expert in the field has said he prefers the qualifier, not because there's any serious question that PVS was the case, but as a professional concession to epistemic humility, I believe he put it, and on that basis I concur. Context and motive is everything in the wording. I support it fully on the one basis and will argue vehemently against it on the other. Duckecho (Talk) 8 July 2005 23:14 (UTC)

Am glad you're ok. Do take care in London. In re "diagnosed as" in the intro, that's something I've favored (see below), although I suspect for different reasons than editors on the "other side;" for me it's a question of epistemic accuracy, and does not detract from what, as a clinician with an interest in neurologic disease, I know to be the only sound diagnosis that could have been made in this tragic case. The evidence was simply overwhelming, spanning the clinical, electrophysiological, pathological and neuroradiological domains. I have no objections to either rendition of the sentence, so you will find no opposition from me if you revert.~ Neuroscientist | T | C July 8, 2005 22:48 (UTC)

Thank you. As you'll see, I've replaced the "diagnosed as" - my last edit before leaving for the airport! (And I'm sure I'll be fine in London: I don't expect to be using public transport at all.) Will respond to some more issues when I get back. Ann Heneghan 9 July 2005 05:31 (UTC)

Ann, I had not seen your note, but I responded under the "The Intro. Part quatre" section protesting this same point; it looks like FW's tryin' to get some free donuts, ha ha. He's not crazy ...he's, merely "diagnosed" as being in a Persistant HUNGRY state he heh. (When we pick on you, FW, you're one of the crowd, even if you're a little, uh...)--GordonWattsDotCom 06:14, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Someone owes me a dozen donuts. FuelWagon 9 July 2005 15:46 (UTC)

Autopsy rewrite

I have completely rewritten the autopsy section, which had contained a substantial number of factual errors, and was rather less well organized than it might have been. The present version describes the participants and the most important findings systematically (which in Schiavo's case was overwhelmingly neurologic), summarizes some of the other important conclusions, contains a live, stable link to a CNN news report, and ends with the examiner's thoughts on her death. I also wanted the language to be more "encyclopaedic," which is probably a good thing but may not be, depending on your perspective of how Wikipedia articles should be written.

Accept, edit, revert or delete as you please.~ Neuroscientist | T | C July 8, 2005 07:49 (UTC)

it says "Aside from a focal, healed inflammation, her heart and coronary vessels were healthy." Was that supposed to be "local"? FuelWagon 8 July 2005 14:23 (UTC)

The word that Dr. Stephen Cohle used was "focal," Fuel (p24 of 39 in pdf). It however means the same thing; if we substitute with "local," the form should be "localized."~ Neuroscientist | T | C July 8, 2005 14:47 (UTC)

Also, the autopsy report specifically mentioned a couple of sections of brain where absolutely no neurons were found under microscopic examination. I think that ought to be included somehow. The current version is good, and just a little overwhelming with the medical jargon. A more plain-language sentence could be included somewhere for those of us not trained in teh field. Or something. FuelWagon 8 July 2005 14:23 (UTC)

You're right. I think the weakness of the current version is the jargon. I struggled with trimming it down, yet trying to maintain some specificity, but I can't think of a way to mention which parts of the brain were damaged without actually naming the parts. Where possible I did use the anglicized version of the medical term (e.g. midbrain instead of mesencephalon), but of course, that's not much of an improvement for those who normally don't deal with these terms. One solution is simply to not name them: "There was extensive damage to many areas of the brain," for example. The downside is we loose information. This may ultimately be a worthwhile trade off, though. Which is why I've put it up to the best judges: you guys, the regular readers (and editors).~ Neuroscientist | T | C July 8, 2005 14:47 (UTC)

Oh yes, re the completely damaged areas. The notable things that were completely destroyed were the Pyramidal cells of the cortex (throughout the entire cortex, BTW), the Purkinje cells of the cerebellum, and the basal ganglia. The visual cortex overlying the occipital lobe was also probably all gone, but they don't actually say that in so many words. This was one area in the old version that was a bit poor - for example, it said "the cerebellum was completely destroyed," which is absolutely untrue. If we specifically name those (important) things that were completely necrosed, we'll have to write "pyramidal neurons of the blah blah blah," which I thought would make the average reader tend to want to say WTF.~ Neuroscientist | T | C July 8, 2005 14:57 (UTC)

Well, if nothing else, maybe there is a plain-language way to clarify that of the remaining brain mass, it wasn't all neurons, and that some sections of the brain had no neurons present. It doesn't have to go into specific section names or cell types, it just needs to clarify that the 615 grams wasn't like 615 grams of normal, healthy brain. Conspiricists see 615 grams of brain mass and argue that people have had half their brain cut out in an injury and survive. The article should be clear that the 615 grams of remaining brain tissue had a lot less neurons than normal tissue. FuelWagon 8 July 2005 15:29 (UTC)

I've changed focal to localized because its better. There are also short articles on some of the brain parts on Wiki; maybe linking them might help with the demystification. There's something in the section that's a bit ironic, though. For most doctors, the single most important part of the autopsy is the description of the pattern of neuropathologic damage - because it is so consistent with the clinical diagnosis, as well as pathologic studies of patients who died with PVS. However, that's the most incomprehensible part of the section. I'll take it out. The only way to include that much detail on Wiki, I suspect, would be to write a separate article and take the time to explain everything with diagrams and stuff.~ Neuroscientist | T | C July 8, 2005 15:16 (UTC)

I think you wrote a readable version right there: "The pattern of Terri's neuropathologic damage was consistent with other patients who died with PVS". FuelWagon 8 July 2005 15:29 (UTC)

Hmm. Hang on, I have an idea.~ Neuroscientist | T | C July 8, 2005 15:39 (UTC)

To quote an esteemed editor for whom I have the greatest respect, "That [statement] is so well worded that it is difficult to see a reasonable counter-argument." Duckecho (Talk) 8 July 2005 15:44 (UTC)

LOL. Ok, hang on. My computer froze for a bit. I'm going to work on para 3 of the autopsy now.~ Neuroscientist | T | C July 8, 2005 15:53 (UTC)OK, done. Computer kept misbehaving, very unusually. First sentence of para 3 is a simple statement of the gist of it. When I took out the first gawdawful technical para, I replaced it with just one simple line, but then it looked severely weakened. Now there's a bit of explication of some of the path matchups, but I hope it's still readable. Good thing there are stubs for some of the terms.Neuroscientist | T | C July 8, 2005 16:46 (UTC)

I like it. It seems to flow really well now from overview in para 1 to gritty details in para 3. I tweaked the word order in two places, but the content seems spot on. FuelWagon 8 July 2005 17:48 (UTC)

Our ahistorical account of the Schiavo story

I have made some changes to the Lead section. I thought I’d explain some of the changes (underlined).

Theresa Marie "Terri" Schiavo(December 3, 1963–March 31, 2005), was an American woman from St. Petersburg, Florida. On February 25, 1990, Schiavo (pronounced SHY-voh, IPA: /'ʃaɪvoʊ/) experienced cardiac arrest and collapsed in her home. Despite heroic resuscitative measures, she suffered severe brain damage from the ensuing cerebral hypoxia, and lapsed into a coma which lasted for two and a half months. Schiavo spent the remaining 15 years of her life in a condition diagnosed as an irreversible persistent vegetative state (PVS).

This diagnosis was the center of a major dispute between her parents (Robert and Mary Schindler) and her husband (Michael Schiavo, her court-appointed legal guardian. The Schindlers believed Schiavo was not in a PVS, and filed numerous court cases over the course of several years to dispute this. In her last years, Schiavo was examined by at least eight neurologists, of whom all but one concluded that she was in a PVS. An evidentiary hearing held in a Florida circuit court to determine the most credible assessment of her state of consciousness found that the "evidence overwhelmingly supports the view that Terry Schiavo [was] in a persistent vegetative state [1]." This finding was subsequently upheld on every appeal, both in state and federal courts.

I take it that gems such as "of whom all but one of whom" don’t need further deliberation (aside from moving to drop Neutrality a line about the importance of careful drive-by shootings, perhaps. That construction had stayed in the article since the Jul 6 edit at 16:38, and cannot have done much for the article’s (and our) credibility).

Regarding the other changes:

Para 1: This is trivial. I placed all "background" neurologic events (i.e., cerebral hypoxia, brain damage, coma) in one sentence. I made the last sentence of the para a simple declarative sentence with one piece of info, that she had gone into sorry, been diagnosed with a PVS. The PVS was the central medical issue in Schiavo, and this leads off well, I think, into the next para where the dispute is addressed.

Para 2. This is slightly less trivial. In the original, pre-Neutrality version, which was arrived at by consensus of most of us, the para started off with this: This diagnosis was the center of a major dispute between her parents (Robert and Mary Schindler) and her husband (Michael Schiavo, her legal guardian by court appointment), and led to numerous court cases over the course of several years.

After that came the sentence about the neurologists. I have two concerns.

Firstly, in this version no idea is given about what the dispute was. Remember, imagine you’re an average Wiki reader a few years from now, you’ve never heard of Schiavo, you have a vague idea that the PVS is some kind medical-brain-death-coma-thingy – perhaps not even that. But reading the current version you basically get: Schiavo went into a PVS, her parents and husband had a dispute... eight neurologists saw her and 7 said "PVS", court said PVS... all the while, the reader has no idea what the dispute was (at the most basic level who was Pro-PVS and who was Anti-PVS, to put it crudely). This is answered soon enough, but in working toward that "perfect article" I think a weakness like this can be remedied. I broke the sentence in two, added that it was the Schindlers who didn’t buy PVS, and that this disagreement was at the heart of the trials. It also avoids the problem of claiming that the diagnosis of PVS (rather than the dispute over it) caused the court cases, which is what the original does.

NB: I would actually prefer removing the 8 neurologists sentence, and moving that to the relevant part of the body of the article.~ Neuroscientist | T | C July 8, 2005 09:37 (UTC)

But my second concern is a bit more serious (and, I should add, is unresolved by my edit). I think we are giving an ahistorical account of what happened.

The way we have written the article, the narrative is that this was a tragic saga in which a wife and daughter fell dangerously ill and nearly died, but didn’t quite. The husband and the doctors thought she had lost all capacity for cognition, awareness of environment, awareness of self, perception, capacity for voluntary movement, etc. The parents didn’t think so, and they always opposed it. When the husband acted on the natural course of action predicated on his belief that his wife was gone, the parents acted on the natural course of action predicated on the belief that she was "still there."

But this narrative is not true. Terri collapsed in February 1990. By late 1990, it was already clear (to the docs) that she was in PVS (in fact, she would probably have met permanent VS criteria by June or July 1990). I don’t know precisely when the diagnosis was first made, but I do know Desousa had completed the relevant examinations and testing to confirm the diagnosis in 1990. Certainly, the diagnosis had been made well before 1993, when the first signs of Schindler-Schiavo trouble began and the Schindlers tried to remove Michael’s guardianship. Gambone (non-neuro) made his diagnosis in 1992.

Yet, there was no infighting at that time. There was no (reported) wailing and whining that the PVS diagnosis was wrong. Why?

Yeah, I noticed this way back when, when I was working on the timeline article. At the time, I thought there was only one doctor who diagnosed Terri as PVS, and then the 5-banger court case settled it. But now, knowing that there were FOUR doctors who diagnosed her as PVS before the 5-banger court case, it seems fairly clear that the Schindlers didn't care HOW they kept Terri alive (challenge Michael's guardianship, challenge PVS diagnosis, challenge Terri's end-of-life choices, and even go so far as to wage a media campaign and lobby the govorner and president of the US to intervene) as long as she was kept alive. It seems to really fit in with the Schindler's statement that they would be willing to perform quadruple amputation on Terri to keep her alive. Kind of disgusting that when the autopsy report came out the Schindlers had a news conference saying "Remember, this is about what Terri would have wanted". It seems pretty clear that this was completely about what they wanted, come hell or high water. FuelWagon 8 July 2005 14:44 (UTC)

In fact, the initial legal actions by the Schindlers were all directed at removing Michael’s guardianship – first through GAL Pecarek in 1994, then GAL Pearse in 1998. There was no disputing the PVS diagnosis then, even though it is certain it had long been made. The Schindlers wanted control over Schiavo, whatever anyone said her diagnosis was, because they wanted the tube in her and they wanted her to be kept alive. There was also the underlying current of the money dispute – which contrary to popular opinion cut both ways. There was a financial conflict of interest on the part of both the Schindlers as well as Michael. Of course I've no idea how much a role this actually played for either of them.

The earliest crack in the relationship developed after Michael wouldn’t split his money with the Schindlers. The way I read the story, the Schindlers’ prime motive throughout was to be able to keep Schiavo fastened to a tube. When Michael and they were on the same wave length, they were fine. In fact, I’m sure they wouldn’t have given a flying **** if their neurologist had said she had monkey hemorrhoid syndrome of the cerebrum or something. As long as they were allowed to keep Terri, have the tube in her, and push the food in.

But in 1998, Michael decided to petition to pull the PEG. This is when matters came to a head. The Schindlers fight it tooth and nail. GAL Pearse is appointed. Karp does his eval, and confirms PVS. Pearse has at his disposal the diagnoses of Desousa, Karp, Gambone, Barnhill, possibly Harrison (I’m not sure when precisely Harrison entered the picture). Pearse determines that the evidence shows Schiavo is in a PVS. Judge Greer then makes his first decision in 2000 with these data and with testimony from Barnhill. He decides 1. Terri is in a PVS, 2. Terri would not want to be kept alive artificially, 3. The PEG should be pulled.

The sh*t hits the fan.

From here onwards, the diagnosis of PVS really becomes an issue. The Schindlers see it as the thing that enables Michael to carry out the PEG order. So now, at this stage, they call the goons in. Hammer & Maxfield. They get some bozo to go around collecting affidavits from docs using the 4 minute edited video.

So when we imply that the Schindlers always opposed, on principle, the PVS diagnosis, we are simply (if unintentionally) making up a story. The main thing was always keeping the tube in. Everything else was secondary to that (ie. the objection wasn’t an objection on principle – it was made for other ends).

Our account is ahistorical.

I recognize however that we have few options here. We aren’t biographers and historians. We have no access to primary data that can recreate an honest rendition of what took place here. We can make careful observations of available material, but that’s as far as it goes.~ Neuroscientist | T | C July 8, 2005 09:37 (UTC)

I think Fox1 crystallized on the mediation page the problem we have had to deal with. We are (and have been forced to, to an extent) writing for the enemy but writing for the wrong reasons. We should be able to craft a narratiive that matches the known, reported facts; the chronology; and the results. The product came under attack because those criteria didn't fit the blogoshpere POV. As a result we started writing, not defensively, but almost apologetically. I am not only guilty as charged, but I am also of the opinion that as more and more light gets shed on this case, the bolder we can be in excising the chaff of timidity in the narrative. As I said before, I know FuelWagon is firm (although not, I am sure, entrenched) in his belief that the opening paragraph needs as much hedge as it has to forestall POV criticism (or more accurately NPOV criticism). I think it's time to write it as the précis it really should be and then let the reader go to the body of the article where the supporting facts are fleshed out. Now that Cranford's document is in the public domain, we know much more than heretofore about the early years of diagnosis and ought to be able to incorporate that knowledge in our efforts, much as NS sets out above. Duckecho (Talk) 8 July 2005 16:15 (UTC)

With regard to Neutrality's drive-by edits, I don't know what we can do about that other than remain vigilant just as we do with the blogo-vandals and the regular vandals. He thinks he is above everyone else and is unpersuaded otherwise. I am amused to see the blanking vandals reverted within a minute of their perfidy. Apparently there are a lot of people watching the page. In any event, I reverted his bulimia entry very shortly afterward, too, and I inserted the hidden comments concerning the eating disorder issue. His other edits at the time were relatively benign, although he moved the IPA crap (sorry, I just don't think it adds one whit to the article) from the first line into the body where it fits less well than it did in the first line. I may experiment with putting it at the end of the intro. Duckecho (Talk) 8 July 2005 16:15 (UTC)

Terri Template, refs house style, italics, etc

1. The Terri template that links related documents has a link to the Government involment article and the public involvement article that actually links not to these articles, but to the sections in this parent article. Was this the intention? Seems a bit redundant considering the TOC does that, no? ~ Neuroscientist | T | C July 8, 2005 08:35 (UTC)

I noticed that the other day, and I agree; redundant. Duckecho (Talk) 8 July 2005 14:25 (UTC)

Ghost? You're the boss on this one. I like the info box, just wondering if those two links shouldn't point right at the subarticles?~ Neuroscientist | T | C July 8, 2005 16:58 (UTC)

2. We need to standardize ref styles. How about this way:

Words Words Words Words.[1]

(i.e., follows period. No space between period and ref).

In cases where the sentence ends with a quote, ref is just outside, no space.

Words, "words words words."[2]

In the middle of sentence, next to punctuation, place "inside."

Words words words words[3]; words words words.

~Neuroscientist | T | C July 8, 2005 08:35 (UTC)

My personal feeling is to have the ref (cite) surrounded by whitespace. I feel not having a space gives a cluttered appearance. I also learned while reading up on desktop publishing a few years ago that whitespace isn't a bad thing. I recognize that there may be some stylistic convention (Chicago, APA) of which I am unaware, that mandates the close proximity , but to my (admitttedly untrained) eye an extra space (except when punctuation follows it as in your middle of sentence example) keeps things uncluttered. Duckecho (Talk) 8 July 2005 14:25 (UTC)

Us medical types use the Vancouver style usually, the Havard style sometimes (depending on journals). The Vancouver style uses numbers. However, they are superscripted. The reason they abut the thing you want them to refer to is so that there is no confusion what the ref is for. For example,

Neuron neuron neuron neuron[1]; however, glia, glia glia glia.

Here, there is no doubt that the ref is for the neuron clause. Same with ends of sentences. The best thing to do is probably follow the Wiki house style. Does anyone have a link to this? I haven't been able to find it in the MOS.~ Neuroscientist | T | C July 8, 2005 16:58 (UTC)

3. Court cases are italicized. E.g., Schiavo II. ~ Neuroscientist | T | C July 8, 2005 08:35 (UTC)

Guilty. I'm the one who placed the particular titles cited. I have no problem with the italicization, although I would campaign for bolding as well, to make the cases easy to find—they are the definitive judicial affirmances in the story. Perhaps italicizing (with bolding) down in the reference section, bolding with no italicizing in the headers. As above, there may be style dicta that would settle the question. Yes? No? Duckecho (Talk) 8 July 2005 14:25 (UTC)

I have no strong prefs re bold. Fine with having it or not having it. However, I feel quite srongly that they must be italicized, because that's the convention. Someone look up Roe Wade or something and see how they do it. PS. Duck, you're not guilty of anything. We all make edits, and down the line someone will remember something we forgot. I'm sure all my trespasses will soon be found out. Just wait till NCdave gets back from wherever he's gone to. <chuckle>~ Neuroscientist | T | C July 8, 2005 16:58 (UTC)

I just wanted to step up and explain how I could explain why it was done that way. Anyway, I've italicized the names in the references section. Also, almost all of the other cases in that section at one time had in re Guardianship of Schiavo; Schindler vs. Schiavo, or some such in the link. That seemed unnecessarily redundant (hmm, just like that) since all of the related cases are so named, and it severely affected the readability of the section, so I had excised that from them some time ago. Duckecho (Talk) 8 July 2005 18:04 (UTC)

Agree, disagree, comment?~ Neuroscientist | T | C July 8, 2005 08:35 (UTC)

Intro again

Heeding my own counsel (above). I've boldly reworded and extensively trimmed the intro. I'm still a little iffy about paragraph Four (Authorization to have…)—I suspect even it's too much info for the intro. I invite your discussion. Duckecho (Talk) 8 July 2005 17:49 (UTC)

Duck, like this a lot. This is exactly the way I've always envisaged it should be. There are some minor things that need tweaking, for example the lead sentence,

Theresa Marie "Terri" Schiavo (December 3, 1963–March 31, 2005), was a St. Petersburg, Florida woman whose medical circumstances and the legal battles pertaining to them led to landmark court decisions, historical legislative initiatives, and intensive media attention.

Underlined bit needs attention. Also a couple of other sentences need some work, but this is exactly the right idea. Good job - wish you'd done it before I wrote that freakin essay!~ Neuroscientist | T | C July 8, 2005 18:11 (UTC)

How about their attendant legal battles? I also thought about unprecedented media attention to better complement the other two adjectives and for style. What think you? Your freakin' essay got me off bottom dead center. Don't disparage its value. Duckecho (Talk) 8 July 2005 18:34 (UTC)

I'll bet a dozen donuts that you'll have someone complain that PVS is presented as fact rather than saying she was "diagnosed" PVS. But nothing ventured, nothing gained. I also notice that the removal of the doctor head count, while streamlining the intro, leaves no central location for all the doctors who examined and diagnosed Terri. There is nothing that presents the hard fact that 8 neurologists examined her and 7 said she was PVS. It's sort of scattered through the chronology of the article now. If someone just read a bunch of blog-propaganda saying Terri was walking and talking and three dozen doctors signed affidavits saying she wasn't PVS, then the FIRST thing I'd want them to read are some hard facts that put their propaganda in check. Otherwise, they'll end up inserting crap we'll have to revert. The chronology is good, but I think we need something near the top that gives the headcount on neurologists over the years. FuelWagon 8 July 2005 18:19 (UTC)

Oh yes, for sure. In an article like this, whenever you substantially alter one section (either adding or removing stuff), you'll have to also adjust the rest of the article. Now that TL&V has been published in the public domain, we'll need to incorporate that info into the article, anyway. I'd name names now (ie. Desousa, Karp, etc). Re the "diagnosed as PVS" bit, I actually have no objection if it's written that way - in fact I'd prefer it. As a doc, you learn a kind of epistemic humility about what you do, and the truth of the matter is Schiavo was indeed diagnosed with PVS. Of course, it is, by far, the most likely diagnosis (practically, it was a certainty); I will strongly oppose any kind of attempt to imply that some other diagnosis was even comparably close.~ Neuroscientist | T | CThere was an edit conflict with Duck.

I won't take that bet, but I think we can defend it. Your point is taken about the eight docs—we need to get that coalesced into a visible and easily locatable part of the article. With Cranford's article in hand (and NS' commentary) I had thought to work on that with a view to getting the earliest diagnoses woven into the chronology. SWMBO and I are headed out to lunch. I'll look at it later this P.M. Duckecho (Talk) 8 July 2005 18:34 (UTC)

Hey! We got our first outside quality edit on the new intro—by an anon, no less. Pretty good edit, too, although I don't care for the em dashes around additionally. Progress accrues. By the way, nice touches, NS. Duckecho (Talk) 8 July 2005 20:41 (UTC)

bush investigation

[2] Gov. Jeb Bush has declared an end to the state's inquiry into Terri Schiavo's collapse 15 years ago, after Florida's state attorney said there was no evidence that criminal activity was involved.

Bush had asked State Attorney Bernie McCabe to investigate Schiavo's case after her autopsy last month. He said he now considers the state's involvement with the matter finished.

Did you see Gibb's comment? "[it] appeared rushed…" and ""[w]e had thought they [the state attorney's office] would meet with the family…" Can you imagine what that interview would have been like? They just cannot let go. Duckecho (Talk) 8 July 2005 18:44 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed. If the Schindlers had any information that would convict Michael of criminal wrongdoing for actions the morning Terri collapsed, they would have brought it up that day. They just want the world to subscribe to their version of reality. The yahoo article said Gov Bush gave a two sentence reply. It would seem that the politicians are trying to distance themselves from this. They set the Michael up to be the dragon, Terri the helpless maiden, and the schindlers were something like the 7 dwarves or something. Now that the truth is showing the Schindler fairy tale can't hold water, they're quietly distancing themselves from their mistakes. No doubt, they'll invoke vague references to the "culture of death", but my guess is that references to Terri won't be showing up in too many political speeches. FuelWagon 8 July 2005 19:17 (UTC)

Initial Medical Crisis

Just wanted to drop a note here to let folks know I've rewritten the above section. In case you've long dreamed that it would always have been left pristine and pure - sorry, ain't happening. Accept, edit, revert, delete - your choice. OK, gotta go.~ Neuroscientist | T | C July 9, 2005 00:59 (UTC)

Diagnosis dispute

Maybe it's just me, but I look through the article and see the improvements in organization, the strengthening of the narrative, and the addition of significant factual data and I feel as if the article has really come a long way. And then I look at the Diagnosis dispute section and it stands out like an ugly wart on the article's face. There are descriptions of at least five different issues, some of it irrelevant, much of it apparently pandering to our elsewhere desribed mythical reader. Does anyone have any thoughts on taking a blue pencil to this thing and ruthlessly paring it down? Duckecho (Talk) 9 July 2005 03:29 (UTC)

that section is where much of the people who didn't examine Terri, but gave their opinion anyway went. I wanted to keep the examining doctors separate from all the riff-raff. it could be broken up into chronological sections, I suppose. FuelWagon 9 July 2005 15:49 (UTC)

The Intro. Part troix.

1. On February 25, 1990, Schiavo (pronounced SHY-voh, IPA: ʃaɪvoʊ) experienced cardiac arrest and collapsed in her home. Despite heroic resuscitative measures, she suffered severe brain damage from the ensuing cerebral hypoxia, briefly lapsed into a coma, and spent the remaining 15 years of her life in a condition diagnosed as an irreversible persistent vegetative state (PVS).
2. Questions of rehabilitation, life-prolonging interventions, and custody were the focus of disputes between her parents (Robert and Mary Schindler) and her husband (Michael Schiavo, her court-appointed legal guardian). Litigation concerning the foregoing and—additionally—guardianship, level of care, potential treatments, state of consciousness, abuse, and determination of her wishes was extensive and on some issues reached the United States Supreme Court.
3. Authorization to remove her gastric feeding tube (which had been inserted to provide Mrs. Schiavo with artificial nutrition and hydration) was granted; the tube was twice removed and, pending appeal, reinserted. Appeals courts ultimately upheld each removal and the feeding tube was removed a third and final time on March 18 2005.
4. Considerable media coverage was given to the judicial and legislative iniatives in the case during the last few weeks of her life and sparked a fierce debate over bioethics, legal guardianship, federalism, and civil rights.
5. Mrs. Schiavo died on March 31, 2005 at around 9:05 a.m. EST. An autopsy report was released on 15 June, 2005.

Paragraph 1 is the best that its likely ever going to be. Personally I'm satisfied with it. Paras 2 & 3 need a lot of work. Please help to make them better. I suggest thinking deeply about precisely what broad, general ideas about this whole case do we want to express in an intro, and edit accordingly. I think it should look very different by the time we are "done." (To the extent a Wiki article is ever "done.") Para 4 might be consolidated in the new 2/ 2&3. Para 5 is good.~ Neuroscientist | T | C

Gulp. I guess I have to remove the mitre of pride here and try and be objective. One of the things I was happy about in the intro rewrite was the visual aspect. Now insofar as facts are concerned, esthetics have little to do with the product, and none at all in the main article. However, the intro is about salesmanship, and if it has a pleasing appearance it is more likely to attract readership and act as the hook (incentive to read further) that it should. I felt paragraphs 1 through 4 were generally visually balanced which was a significant improvement over the old version. The size of 5 seems to be just right for the dramatic denouement. Duckecho (Talk) 9 July 2005 16:47 (UTC)

I agonized over #3 (as I think I mentioned somewhere) because it begins to address specifics as opposed to the general concepts as were addressed in the other paragraphs, and it probably shouldn't be there. I wouldn't mind if it were either removed or significantly reduced (although that affects the visual balance). Combining 2 and 3 plus 4 doesn't strike me as a good idea solely for esthetic reasons and readability. Combining 3 and 4 would be okay for visual balance, but their subjects are totally unrelated. Duckecho (Talk) 9 July 2005 16:47 (UTC)

Getting the feeling I like it as is? Well, yeah, so I'll shut up. Except the em dashes around additionally must go. But I'll let someone else do that (please!). I'm too parochial about this already. Duckecho (Talk) 9 July 2005 16:47 (UTC)

Duck, sorry, I should have explained. It's not that I don't approve of the new intro, quite the opposite. As I said earlier, this is exactly the type of intro I think is best for the article, with broad, overarching themes. However, there is room for it to be refined. I suggested it when I did because in the last 24 hours there's been a real impetus for change, and three editors have managed to improve the article by quite a bit. Now, if you look at it closely, the intro now is the way it is because it evolved from the skeleton of the old one. Para three is talking about the PEG tube removal and proceedings. Para 2 concerns disputes about Schiavo's diagnosis and the dispute over that. Etc etc.

Maybe we could change that. One longish para could talk about the clashes over the peg removal, the surrogate decision making issues/ all other disputes. One short para could talk about the national effect this case had - both on ordinary people and even congress (maybe some interesting stats could come in handy here). Close with #5.

Just a thought.~ Neuroscientist | T | C 23:11, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

PVS, family relationship,

FuelWagon, I saw that you had moved my no dissent sentence to another area of the subject section. I placed it where I did to set the chronological tone that up until at least 1993 PVS was not an issue (in accordance with NS' observations above). By putting it at the head of the section which begins "From 1990 to 1993" it makes it seem that only in perhaps the first year was there no dissent. It should be made clear that there was no argument about PVS from the Schindlers until as late as the 2000 "Terri's wishes" trial ("...the unrebutted evidence remains that Terri Schiavo remains in a persistent vegetative state. " from Greer's order of that trial) when the Schindlers didn't even challenge it there. It wasn't until later that they remembered after ten years that, oh, yeah, we have to dispute this PVS stuff so that we can enjoin the beast from legally executing proxy for the ward. Duckecho (Talk) 9 July 2005 16:47 (UTC)

real life showed up. I was going ot post something to talk. catching up now. I agree with what you are saying, but I think there is a larger picture to paint here. I think the first PVS diagnosis should mention that it was not disputed at the time it was given. And then the article should say that the diagnosis was not disputed until (insert year). The section title of the first time the PVS diagnosis was actually disputed by the Schindlers ought to be changed to indicate as much, and the text for that year should call out the fact that this is the first instance of the Schindlers disputing the diagnosis of the previous (insert number of doctors up to this point that diagnosed Terri as PVS). I don't know what year they did this, so I can't do it myself. basically, I think this ought to be called out as an important part of the entire article, not just one subsection. FuelWagon 05:01, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

The Intro. Part quatre

1. Theresa Marie "Terri" Schiavo (3 December 1963–31 March 2005), was a St. Petersburg, Florida woman whose medical circumstances and attendant legal battles led to landmark court decisions, historical legislative initiatives, and intense media attention.
2. On 25 February 1990, Schiavo (pronounced SHY-voh, IPA: ?a?vo?) suffered severe brain damage from cerebral hypoxia after experiencing cardiac arrest from an undetermined cause. She briefly lapsed into a coma, then evolved into an irreversible persistent vegetative state (PVS) as determined by more than a half dozen neurologists, and so remained the last 15 years of her life.
3. Questions of rehabilitation, end-of-life wishes, and custody were the focus of disputes between her parents and her husband. Litigation concerning the foregoing and additionally: guardianship, level of care, potential treatments, state of consciousness, abuse, and substitute of judgment by proxy was extensive and on some issues reached the United States Supreme Court. During the last few weeks of her life heightened public awareness centered on the judicial and legislative initiatives in the case which sparked a fierce debate over bioethics, legal guardianship, federalism, and civil rights.
4. The most recognizable issue was her feeding tube, which was twice removed and, pending appeal, reinserted. The courts ultimately upheld each removal and the feeding tube was removed a third and final time on 18 March 2005. Mrs. Schiavo died on 31 March, 2005 at around 9:05 a.m. EST. An autopsy report was released on 15 June, 2005.

237 words (down from 260). This was painful, like carving up your own kid. But I think it's better. It also retains some visual balance for us artistes… Back to y'all. Duckecho (Talk) 01:34, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

The intro, paragraph 2 says:

Questions of rehabilitation, life-prolonging interventions, and custody were the focus of disputes between her parents and her husband. Litigation concerning the foregoing and additionally: guardianship, level of care, potential treatments, state of consciousness, abuse, and substituted judgment by proxy was extensive and on some issues reached the United States Supreme Court. During the last few weeks of her life heightened public awareness centered on the judicial and legislative initiatives in the case which sparked a fierce debate over bioethics, legal guardianship, federalism, and civil rights.

May I suggest that the paragraph stick to listing specific litigation questions and not list any subjective headings under "fierce debate". FuelWagon 15:25, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

"May I suggest that..." NO! ... Just kidding ... however, if you mention all those ancellary items, Euthanasia must stay, and if it goes, they must go too.--GordonWattsDotCom 16:01, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Gordon, you seriously need to chill out. FuelWagon 01:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm suggesting something more like this:

disputes between her parents and her husband included questions of rehabilitation, life-prolonging interventions, guardianship, level of care, potential treatments, state of consciousness, and abuse. The legal battles were extensive and on some issues reached the United States Supreme Court. During the last few weeks of her life heightened public awareness centered on the judicial and legislative initiatives in the case which sparked a fierce public debate around the topics of dispute.

I'm not attached to the exact wording. My point, though, is that the article should list only the facts of the case, namely the disputes brought before the courts between Michael, the Schindlers, and whoever else brought a case. That it created a public debate is undeniable. What terms would legitimately describe those debates are completely subjective. Some called Michael a murderer, but I won't stand to see the article say this "generated a debate about murder of handicapped patients". The article should only report that it generated a fierce public debate, not call it "euthenasia" or whatever. That's the way I'm thinking right now. FuelWagon 02:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

well, not much of a response. I'll just try putting it in the article and see what happens. FuelWagon 13:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

It's okay. I thought the version of it I put up yesterday incorporated most if not all of what you suggest. I had edited it based on your earlier suggestion to not get involved listing all the subjects of the debate. I would like to see something about the substituted judgement by proxy in your list, though. That is kind of the biggie. Duckecho (Talk) 13:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

The phrase "substituted judgement by proxy" is not contained anywhere in the article. Isn't that the same as a guardian making a decision? If it's added to the list, the phrase ought to be contained somewhere in the article and explained, because laypeople like me don't know what it means. I also dropped the word "custody", because I don't think this was ever legally considered a custody battle. FuelWagon 14:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's the guardian making the decision. Actually, I think custody played a large role, although perhaps not in the strictly legal arena. NS laid out an excellent analysis somewhere here (I think in his ahistorical post) as to what the real issues were as they played out, which caused me to rethink the whole case, reanalyze the data, reread court orders, etc., and I've come to the conclusion that we have indeed been looking at this the wrong way. That's why I put in the bit about PVS not being in dispute to some point. I can't even find a reference all the way up until the 2002 evidentiary hearing in which PVS was in dispute. And there it was an issue only because some doctor's affidavit led the 2nd DCA to ask for it in Schiavo III—not because PVS was in dispute but because the affidavit made claims for treatment that would be contraindicated for a PVS patient (oddly, that doctor never testified, which puzzled the 2nd DCA in Schiavo IV). I also believe there's a nexus between Gibbs' arrival and when PVS became an actual dispute, (i.e. the Schindlers suddenly remembered after ten years that they needed to dispute the PVS diagnosis in order to take substituted judgement by proxy off the table) but I don't know what time frame that actually was. The control issue was that they wanted control of their daughter's destiny, either because they wanted a pity trophy or they truly believed she could recover. Or, in the case of the 1993 petition to remove Michael as guardian, they were probably just pissed off over the money, but it was a control issue, nonetheless. The 1994 battle over the DNR was about control. When the 1998 request for discontinuation of feeding came along, they fought it to keep their daughter alive—no mention of dispute of PVS, but the guardianship question (a control issue) was raised in GAL Pearse's appointment. In the 2000 Terri's wishes trial, they fought the wishes determination to keep their daughter alive—no mention of dispute of PVS, although there was a contemporary petition to remove MS as guardian again—control. In denial of PVS is not the same as in dispute of PVS, although the one allows the perpetuation of the other. Duckecho (Talk) 15:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Duck, thanks for going to work over some worthwhile edits (Gordon, take notes. That's the way to better spend your time. Not by launching a revert war over the size of numbers in the bibliography. I still can't believe that happened).

The above version is much improved, although 2 was better the way it was, IMO. What I actually had in mind was something like this:

Lead sentence (unchanged): Theresa Marie "Terri" Schiavo (3 December 1963–31 March 2005), was a St. Petersburg, Florida woman whose medical circumstances and attendant legal battles led to landmark court decisions, historical legislative initiatives, and intense media attention.

1.On February 25, 1990, Schiavo (pronounced SHY-voh, IPA: ʃaɪvoʊ) experienced cardiac arrest and collapsed in her home. Despite heroic resuscitative measures, she suffered severe brain damage from the ensuing cerebral hypoxia, briefly lapsed into a coma, and spent the remaining 15 years of her life in a condition diagnosed as an irreversible persistent vegetative state (PVS).

2. During her final years, a major dispute broke out between her parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, and her husband and legal guardian, Michael Schiavo. Mr. Schiavo felt that his wife would not have wished to be maintained in an irreversible vegetative state through artificial means; the Schindlers disputed this. Their disagreement led to years of acrimonious court battles, and focused attention, in a very public way, on controversies over legal guardianship, substitute decision-making, civil rights, and end-of-life care. In the highly publicized court disputes that ensued, even the medical diagnosis of Schiavo's altered state of consciousness was questioned and litigated.

3.At its height, the dispute made its way into the chambers of the United States Congress, when a law was passed to transfer jurisdiction of the Schiavo case from the Florida state courts to federal courts.

4. The courts, at both state and federal levels, consistently ruled in favor of removing artificial nutrition that was being used to maintain Schiavo in an irreversible vegetative state. Terri Schiavo died on 31 March, 2005 at approximately 9:05 a.m. EST.

Thoughts? Best,~ Neuroscientist | T | C 22:08, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Euthanasia

I have not spent time here in the Schiavo Universe much, as I've been called away on other duties, but the above, while pretty good (more good than not), has some naughty parts: Namely, first, you will certainly (trust me), "make the natives restless" with respect to the fact that you do not soon enough say that Terri was "diagnosed" as PVS; the mention of the fact it was "determined" later in the sentence is sub-par, and it probably won't be good enough; I thought we had that agreed upon in mediation -and here in talk. Regardless of what your views or my views were on the actual happenings with Terri (e.g., was she "euthanized?" -such views of us editors not being which important), let me remind you that this sparked a fierce debate over euthanasia. According to google (and, as mentioned in my 500-word mediation summary), "euthanasia" was much more prevalent in the debate as proven by web pages worldwide than the other items, namely "bioethics, legal guardianship, federalism, and civil rights." Be good kids and put euthanasia back where it belongs, and wikify it. ArbCom would be justified over this alone. There may be other problems, but I am not on a witch hunt. I'm just pointing out the obvious flaws here.--GordonWattsDotCom 02:05, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Gordon, you could probably find a lot of hits if you google "Terri Schiavo" and "murder", but I'll be damned if I'll let anyone put "murder" in the list. FuelWagon 05:03, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Now, hold on a second: both the Chinese Wiki (And I quote: "persisted 移除 itslife support programbehavior has caused a series of aboutthe biological ethics,the euthanasia,the guardiansystem,the federal systemas well asthe civil rightsserious argument.") ---and the Spanish Wiki (wherein I quote: "...debate sobre temas como la eutanasia, la bioética y los derechos civiles en su país.") seem to think that Euthanasia were in debate here. Now, the Chinese are well-known for their intelligence, and the Spanish people are both unbiased (not american) and also quite smart. Should WE be the odd ones out? (Besides the Chinese and Mexican Wikis, also Google and Myself - total four sources - say Euthanasia was debated. Period.) You're using a straw man argument, in murder, and i reject that; ALSO, what's up with making the "^and" tags to make the numbered links so small? You got a magnifying glass I can use?! ** Now, I know you were probably well-meaning on that edit, but unless you can give me some reason (or tantamount of consensus) on why those "grain-of-sand" link font sizes stay, then I shall revert that portion only.--GordonWattsDotCom 05:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I took Chinese and Spanish in college, and while I'm not as good as C-3PO, "He never tires of mentioning that he is "fluent in over six million forms of communication," probably several thousand of them human languages. Besides, Babelfish Translations and I are quite smart together. Nin hau, ma? Nin ne? Wo bu dong, duibuchi! Tengan Usted un beun noche, hombre.--GordonWattsDotCom 05:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Gordon, how's it going? Your method of determining subjects that are worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedic entry fascinates me. So I searched google[3] for the "Big Bang Theory". 240,000 returns in 0.09 seconds. Which is pretty impressive. Until you search for "Flat Earth" - 317,000 in 0.07 seconds.

I'll be enjoying your undoubted forthcoming excursions to the Big Bang page, when you make the case for putting the flat earth theory "back where it belongs." No, don't thank me. The joy of gratitude of those editors as they see your coming will be thanks enough.~ Neuroscientist | T | C 07:10, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play? Oh, well; nothing ventured, nothing gained. It's up. No donuts for you! One year! Duckecho (Talk) 13:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC). Sincere apologies, Mr. Taylor. What Fuel said: there's this thing that keeps popping up that disrupts my constant presence on Wikipedia. My thoughts on the intro are in The Intro. Part quatre.~ Neuroscientist | T | C 22:08, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

(Grr... Just when I started to edit, Duck quacked; what coincidence.) Your point is well taken, NS -and quite fascinating too, as Spock would have said. However, I wonder if we are comparing apples and oranges: Let me see what happens if I look for the ACTUAL item in the same subject (e.g., "Big Bang Theory" would be in the same subject as "Intelligent design" that is in the "Creation" category; "Flat earth" is NOT about creation, because it could be flat from either evolution OR creation, depending on which theory is right: Apples and Oranges.) So, what happens: "Intelligent Design" is in google.com about 829,000 times and took a whooping 0.11 seconds, an eternity in "dog years," uh, I mean "computing years."

OK, but I have THREE other points that support inclusion of the "euthanasia" into the article as one of the items: One, the Mexicans think it belongs; Two, I think it belongs, because in fact it WAS "hotly debated," among with the other things; and three, the Chinese think it belongs. When you can't win one argument, just address the one you can win, like #4: Google thinks it belongs, when properly compared, as an apple, not an orange.

It is so obvious, in fact, that the article may not even need to mention it, but this strong case gives me a bully pulpit, and a free ticked to ArbCom, if i get itchy trigger fingers, but maybe y'all can keep things smooth so I can fly back to my own planet and chill, lol. Anyhow, comparing apples & oranges NS is: But, which one is the Flat Earth?--GordonWattsDotCom 13:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Gordon, you can't seem to get the point. What you've done so far is produce the following "arguments" for why euthanasia, of all things, deserves mention in an article about Terri Schiavo:

1. The Chinese Wiki mentions it (so you claim)

2. The Mexican/Spanish Wiki says it (ditto)

3.Google "thinks" it deserves a mention

4. You think it deserves a mention.

These aren't, by any standard, in even the remotest sense, "arguments," Gordon. Google doesn't "think" anything: it's a search engine. If you type in garbage, it can spit out garbage. That is simply no basis at all for sticking something into an encyclopaedic article. There are sites out there which say that the Schindlers' are evil. Shall we include that too? I'm sure you could even find a couple that claimed they were aliens. That there are websites talking about stuff is no indication of the appropriateness of said stuff for an article - how is this not obvious to you? By the way, you have misunderstood my intent in listing search results for the "Big Bang theory" and "flat earth." That they are apples and oranges is exactly the point. There will always be clowns who insist they can see a connection where none exists. "Terri Schiavo was euthanized" is in fact the product of one such brainfart.

If you really think something needs to be incorporated, provide an argument. What is it exactly about euthanasia that you think is relevant? Would you just like to pepper the article randomly with the word "euthanasia"? If not, what do you have in mind? Do you want to say Schiavo was put down like a sick pet? If so, what are your arguments that she was? Make them. Don't parrot that you've found fify million god-freakin-quintillion sites that mention the words euthanasia and Schiavo. That doesn't mean jack.~ Neuroscientist | T | C 23:06, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

"May I suggest that..." NO! ... Just kidding ... however, if you mention all those ancellary items, Euthanasia must stay, and if it goes, they must go too.--GordonWattsDotCom 16:01, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

You, sir, are not in a position to dictate what must stay or what must go. Just because you learned a new word, ArbCom, and have beat us over the head with it five or so times today (so far), does not mean you carry any bigger stick than anyone else. I suggest you power down and approach the subject without the hubris. Propose euthanasia. If it survives the discussion (it hasn't so far, and for good reason), then, and only then it might go in. But not on your say so and not on your terms. Duckecho (Talk) 21:12, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not telling you what to do; you will do what you want, now won't you? I'm telling you what should be. Also, whether it survives or not is not necessarily dependant or a function of "good reason," as you seem to suggest: Just because something happens, that does not always make it right. However, I will take no position on your recent edit, making the intro more general here in this 20:58, 10 July 2005 diff. If your experiment survives, it will either be because someone's trying to teach me a lesson, or maybe your edit was good? Or both... Hmm... (quoting you) "Propose euthanasia. If it survives the discussion (it hasn't so far..." It sure HAS survived over on Chinese and Spanish wikis... But, I wouldn't call the edit style used by the Chinese and Spanish-based wikis stupid, if I were you, as you indicate by rejecting the tried and true tact THEY took on mentioning euthanasia. I'M sure not going to call them stupid.--GordonWattsDotCom 21:53, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Size doesn't matter

I apologize, Fuel Wagon; I see it was Duck who did the pin-head size-down edit, not you. Instead of reverting, I may just do what they did in Operation Desert Kick butt: Precision editing. Be right back.--GordonWattsDotCom 05:51, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Duck, what's with this edit, in which you make the links into these little small texts? Did you secretly check with several editors and get consensus? If so, please enlighten me. I don't have to remove them: My text editor can remove all the "^{" and "}" tags by simply telling it to "replace" them with null spaces. It's a feature of Microsoft works, and most likely Word also. I removed those tags previously; don't you recall having to put them back in? What's the utility? If it's needed, I'm all for it.--GordonWattsDotCom 13:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Dude! You decided to make your edits without consensus or discussion or a logical reason; I'm reporting this to our mediator, and it appears to be a "sustentative" if not "technical" 3RR; I'm now asking for ArbCom on the issues mentioned in my message to our mediator. (I add that you might have expected me to be baited into 3RR myself, but not so.)--GordonWattsDotCom 14:32, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Chinese Gordon, after failing to convince anyone that the blogoshpere's argument concerning euthanasia needs attention in the article, despite its alleged appearance in the Mexican and Chinese versions of the article (Mexican? and anyone have any donuts to bet on how it got there?), now decides that his considerable talents are needed to fight a size war over the link markers (not the link, mind you, nor the text) in the Articles section. Ignoring the utterly obvious fact that I didn't initiate the size convention, only the superscript, he has proceeded to revert the baby with the bathwater three times. Notice hereby officially given. Duckecho (Talk) 15:10, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Please NOTE: You have now reverted four times, and you have been reported. If check the diffs and see who put in the small tags and when, and who did what, you will find I am justified, but I did paint you in good light. Notice hereby officially given.--GordonWattsDotCom 16:05, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I guess if you count an original edit which subtracted nothing as a revert then you might be right. Of course that's not a Wiki definition and no one will buy that convoluted thinking, so I have nothing to fear. I suggest you check the diffs and see who put in the <small> tags and when. You will find that the <small> tags have been in the article for >1000 edits dating back at least as far as 23 April. I didn't check any further back since 1000 edits and 2½ months were more than adequate to impeach you. I await your short apology here and your retraction of the 3RR complaint on the appropriate page, where, in any event, I've posted a thorough rebuttal. Twit. Duckecho (Talk) 20:05, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

(quoting Duck)"I await your short apology here..." I will apologize -AGAIN, as I had on 3RR, but it will be short, as the only point mistaken was the amount of stuff you reverted; I overlooked thru human error the facts of the small tags having been in the original versions, but the sup tags weren't, and when you changed them, it "reverted" to a different version, which utilized manual edits instead of the revert tool. Nice try, but you didn't fool me: The "spirit of the law" is that we don't continue edit-warring, and that's what you did. If you have a case for the smaller text, lay it out in talk -and convince us. I'm big enough to admit my mistake, but I'll let you walk your own path. You always do, don't you?--GordonWattsDotCom 21:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

…but the sup tags weren't [in the original version], and when you changed them, it "reverted" to a different version… So let me see if I have this straight. In the version before my first edit (under discussion) there were no <sup> tags. I edited that version by adding <sup> tags (not changing them). When I did that, it "reverted" to a different version, which now even I can't understand. It appears by your definition, every edit is a reversion. That is one magic concept. Please cite this exciting, omnibus new definition so we can all be enlightened. Duckecho (Talk) 23:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

(quoting Duck in italics) "It appears by your definition, every edit is a reversion." Bingo! You got it. "Please cite this exciting, omnibus new definition so we can all be enlightened." OK: "This can also apply to those that try to "game" the rule on a regular basis, such as by making fourth reversions just outside of the 24-hour time period, or by making complex reverts which attempt to disguise the restoration of the editor's preferred wording." Cite: 3RR#Enforcement, 4th Paragraph, 2nd Sentence. Trying to make a complex revert like you did almost fooled SlimVirgin, but thanks to your smart remark to me, I looked up the exact cite, and I shall bring this to her attention. While I don't think that you will get blocked this time, I am certain that you tried to "game the system."--GordonWattsDotCom 01:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I stipulated to #'s 2, 3, and 4 of your complaint as reverts on the 3RR page. No, they did not take the form of reverts as often used in reverting. I wasn't particularly hiding, either. However, try as you might, until you start using that magnificent, double honors, trade school valedictorian, Supreme Court petitioner brain of yours, you are not going to grasp that you cannot define the simple edit of #1 as a revert. How many people pointing that out to you will it take for you to grasp it? Use your brain. This concludes my discussion with you. Go elsewhere with your mindless ramblings. Duckecho (Talk) 02:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

What do you do all day? Edit Wiki? Don't let it eat up your time. Besides, ArbCom now has a solid basis for intervention, since mediation is not working (or if it is, it's not working fast enough), and the various other violations creeping up. ArbCom is the Arbitration committee, and is binding, unlike mediation. Let's avoid that, if we can, but if you want to play...--GordonWattsDotCom 16:11, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Bring it on, señorita. Your paper trail will sink you faster than the Hood. Duckecho (Talk) 20:05, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

...burp!--GordonWattsDotCom 21:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Gordon: Re the revert war. Contrary to what you've claimed here and elsewhere (including Ghost's page [4]) you are indeed the one who started the recent revert war, Gordon. The evidence is sitting in the histories. Duck made an edit. You reverted, and continued to revert once it became clear Duck wanted his edit to stay. I understand that you thought you couldn't see the font, but you should have stopped, started a discussion on Talk, and asked Duck why he edited it that way. Try it some time - we're all reasonable people. By being hasty, you jumped to the conclusion that it was he who made some changes that were apparently already there for months, you reverted, and you actually pushed this to Ed's attention and the administrator's 3RR page. Another thing you might want to consider is not all of us see the page the same way. It depends on the size of the monitor, the OS type, the skin you use for Wikipedia - all sorts of things. For instance, to me the numbers were perfectly legible after his edit. I don't understand myself why Duck wanted the numbers in superscript, but the thing to do then is to freakin ask him.~ Neuroscientist | T | C 23:01, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

..."you are indeed the one who started the recent revert war, Gordon" OH? Let's look at the evidence. You're comments first: "Duck made an edit. You reverted" ~ Actually, neither one of us "reverted" in the classic sense, because we didn't revert to a previous version. However, Duck's edit reverted to a version of his choosing, although it was technically a regular edit, as he rightly points out. By the same token, I didn't "revert" to a previous version; I merely edited out some of his changes, manually, I add, leaving everything else the same. It depends on your definition of "revert." "...but you should have stopped, started a discussion on Talk, and asked Duck...but the thing to do then is to freakin ask him." But I did ask him: first by speaking about him, in plain sight, to get his attention in talk, then by making comments in the edit summaries TO him, repeatedly, if you'll notice. (Will you?) Then, in this edit, I directly asked him what was up. That last edit was on 13:46, 10 July 2005, which in Eastern Standard Time, was 9:46am! I probably asked him more times too, and I know i did in all the edit summaries. The Great Duck Echo chose not to answer me in talk. He simply reverted with, and I quote all four tags from more recent to most ancient:

• (NOTE: You have now reverted three times. You will be reported if you do it again. You might also want to check the diffs and see who put in the small tags and when.)
• (Where's YOUR justification and consensus? The link markers have been small in that area for quite a while. I didn't do that. All I did was superscript them. There's nothing to read except a number.)
• In the 2nd edit, here, the great Duck explainer explained NOTHING!
• "Sources - Added article to "Articles" section." in 1st edit.

In short, he did not answer me anywhere, choosing, instead to "pass the buck," that is, shift the burden of responsibility to me. In reality, the only thing I "reverted" or changed were the "small" markers that were originally there, but not only did I need to do so for readability, but I explained myself in talk. Lastly, I did not know that they were originally there, but that was of no import: They did not belong, and I excised them. "By being hasty, you jumped to the conclusion that it was he who made some changes that were apparently already there for months..." I was man enough to admit this oversight, which, even HAD I known the tags were there, would not have changed the need I felt to remove them. "Another thing you might want to consider is not all of us see the page the same way. It depends on the size of the monitor, the OS type, the skin you use for Wikipedia..." Well, I don't know about the skins, but, yes, I considered that. In fact, my monitor resolution is set to maximum, so I see a lot but with smaller text. I can understand why you might have been able to see it better at something less, like maybe 800x600. However, YOU should be bright enough to know that OTHERS might have 1600x1200 rez or such. Do you not care about them? Don't you think that they should be able to read the links?

Neuroscientist, I have answered you with info that was plainly available, and I know you aren't stupid. Your handle has "scientist" as part of its name! That really peeves me. #1) I DID ask him about it (#2-to no avail), #3) SOME PEOPLE DO have small text settings, as you rightly guessed; #4) I early-on admitted that duck didn't "revert" in classical senses, but merely changed the content manually, but achieving the same thing. So, WHAT if I overlooked a minor detail of what he changed? He DID change sustentatively, HARMFULLY, and without any consensus; He violated the spirit and meaning of the writers of the 3RR, if not the letter of the law; You CAN be blocked for violating the spirit of the law, if the admins think it is disruptive, and he missed it, and your bright brain missed it, and apparently (?) falsely claimed you addressed my concern "below" as you said at one point, above a section wherein you didn't address said question. #5-Lastly, I was as fair as possible to Duck in my explanation of events, and you know that. Use your brain.--GordonWattsDotCom 01:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I never realized superscript could be so dramatic. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:46, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

It's not the size of the dog in the fight. It's the size of the fight in the dog.~ Neuroscientist | T | C 04:56, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Gordon: 1. This is an incredibly stupid, idiotic thing to waste so much time over. I kept out of it at the start, and only posted when I felt it had gotten out of hand and was subsuming all other discussions; I made an honest attempt to stop it. I failed. I am not going to answer further, after this. If you wish to have the last word, go ahead; I'd ask you to kindly stop afterward.

2. No one who knows anything about Wiki editing can fail to see that it was you who initiated the revert war battle. There is simply no way to deny this, Gordon. The sequence is clear:

• 03:52, 10 July 2005. This was an edit, in which a change that was thought to be useful was introduced for the first time.
• 05:57, July 10, 2005. This was you reverting Duck's edit. That is to say, you removed the edit he introduced, apparently because you felt it was not a good edit.

No amount of twisting and turning is going to change Duck's edit into a revert, Gordon. It simply defies common sense. If that was a revert, then every single edit that every single editor introduces to every single article is a revert. This is absurd. Your taking this to the 3RR admin forum and trying to twist the evidence to fit your accusations appalled me. The contortions you went through there make it seem to reasonable people that you were willfully lying. It was a new low, Gordon, whatever your intentions. That's what made me post; I hoped, foolish me, to stop the spiral.

I'm sorry I disappointed you, NS; In my initial post to the 3RR column, I was clear that the "revert" by Duck was NOT a "technical" revert; I never tried to deceive; As far as your concern that I redefined "revert" to include "every single edit," I answered Duck in the affirmative when he asked the same type question: YES, I did loosely define that term, but I felt that he (morally) violated the spirit of the rule, which I (later) found to be "gaming the system."--GordonWattsDotCom 12:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

3. As to your contention that you made attempts to communicate, in the early stages, with Duck — I wholeheartedly agree. However, you're being disingenuous by suggesting you acted completely in good faith, because you kept reverting. You didn't stand down until you guys had a chance to talk things out. Wiki policy is slanted towards encouraging "bold editing". If you don't like someone's edits, you ought to demonstrate good-faith by being willing to discuss it first; reverting before talking things over is bad form (unless you're dealing with vandals or people who are breaking previously agreed-upon conventions).

You are right in all you say in this paragraph -especially about my impatience to edit without waiting a day or so for a reply; I would like to have talked it over with Duck a little more, but his edit was REAL BAD, and I was merely impatient. Since I did not harm him (annoyed him is *hopefully* the worst thing), I feel good about my actions, but I am sorry if I were too impatient, and may be more patient in future disputes; I really thought his edit was bad.--GordonWattsDotCom 12:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Why did you revert, and only then ask a question — not a particularly nice one, incidentally? Why did you charge Fuel with making the edits, before you checked the history and found out it wasn't him? Why did you revert and impute that Duck started the small tags, and only then think to check your facts — and find out it wasn't him either?

I never meant to offend Duck by asking him to explain his edit; Also, I made a human mistake, and apologized to FuelWagon; I am human & make mistakes. With regard to the "sup" & "Small" tags, I admitted (and apologized to Duck) about accusing him of putting in "small" tags that I thought were BAD; however, he DID put in the "Sup" tags de novo, that is, for the first time in recent memory! (I was only half-wrong, and I apologized for that half for which I was wrong.)--GordonWattsDotCom 12:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Why do you shoot first, ask questions later, and think never?

"...and think never?" ~ I think a LOT, so a few mistakes here and there is still a small percentage; plus, I will be glad to apologize (and make restitution for) any harm I cause, if within my powers.

I do not know why Duck didn't respond to you immediately, but I can hazard a guess from his responses. You reverted his edit, without bothering to discuss it with him first and obtain an answer, and you accused him of doing something he hadn't done. The guy's a smart bloke who's been around the block more often than you or I: he probably knew he could stop your reverts using 3RR, because Wiki policy (and the 3RR rule) favor the bold — the editor who introduces the edit. That should be pretty clear to you now, if nothing else is: if you start the revert war, you most likely won't end it.~ Neuroscientist | T | C 04:56, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

"If you wish to have the last word, go ahead; I'd ask you to kindly stop afterward." I interpret that top include that my replies be BRIEF and also polite (and hopefully correct). I hope I filled the bill & answered your questions well.--GordonWattsDotCom 12:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Apology to the group

This unfortunate exercise has gone on far too long. And it's partly my fault. I acknowledge my part in it and apologize for it. I will make every sincere effort to avoid it in the future.

I have avoided this kind of drama for many weeks by simply not responding to Gordon Watts. When he first came aboard I tried to calm some of his rhetoric by pointing out the errors in his thinking. I quickly learned that it is impossible to have a dialogue with him. I made a conscious decision to shun him. What he did this morning, however, irritated me, both in process and description. I reverted his revert. I broke my own counsel.

I could have taken the high road and let it go. Frankly, I don't even care about the damn superscripts. It was an experiment that I tried when I saw the <small> tags in the articles links that have been there since before mid-April. I might have even edited them back out myself later in the day. But I took a visceral reaction that was nevertheless within my means to control.

I can't abide playing fast and loose with facts. That also fueled my endeavor. It was still within my means to control and I didn't. If there's any solace for me in the process it's that an easily tracable pattern of deception and duplicitous behavior has been chronicled that will ill serve the perpetrator.

My vow to the group is I will re-enact my shun and will respond no further to Gordon Watts. That will quell at least a small part of the reams of nonsense we are so often forced to endure, save what will likely be a voluminous response to this post.

I reiterate—I am sorry for my part in this childish drama. I hope to not put myself in this position again. Thank you to those who figured out the truth and supported me—rightly in the abstract, and gently in my behavior. I didn't deserve support for that.

Now, may we pleae return to crafting quality edits for this article. Duckecho (Talk) 05:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

NS eloquently defended you, and I feel bad that I too was impatient; however, it is inherently wrong of you to ignore responding, and you were right the first time (where you admitted you could and/or should have responded to me in your post here: "I have avoided this kind of drama for many weeks by simply not responding to Gordon Watts.") ~ you were wrong (in your later dialogue above) in stating that ignoring certain others' concerns is good. As far as playing fast and loose with the facts (read: Gordon lied!!), I did not intentionally try to deceive anyone, as I pointed out above and in my 3RR postings. I am sorry if you misunderstood me; ask me if you don't understand something: While I don't always have time to respond as much as I'd like, to the limited amount of my mortal life, I will be glad to answer dissenting concerns.--GordonWattsDotCom 12:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Intro and query

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

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

Did I miss a meeting?

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

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

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

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

Reverting

Whoa Fuelwagon, you just reverted a couple of hours of copy editing. Please say what your specific objections are, rather than reverting. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:16, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Fuelwagon, you're well out of order here. Stop reverting and please discuss your objections on talk. You're reintroducing errors. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:19, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

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

Madam??

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

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

I suppose the message at the top of this page that says:

This is a controversial topic, which may be disputed. Please read this talk page discussion before making substantial changes.

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

Oh, and this: [5]

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

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

First, the hidden notes telling people not to edit have no validity. This is a wiki, and people are allowed to edit it. As I said above, I appreciate and respect the reasons you're watching this page closely, but it can't be watched so closely that only a select group of editors is allowed to touch it.

Secondly, if your edit "recovery of awareness is unprecedented after two years," is from the ANA, it should be clearly attributed to them, as in "According to ...". I will try to find a source for the man in the UK that I mentioned in an invisible comment. However, please note Wikipedia:No personal attacks and don't accuse me of arrogance because I question an unsourced edit.

As you reverted all my edits, I'm assuming the above can't be your only objection, so please lay them out here so I can go through them with you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:33, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

don't accuse me of arrogance because I question an unsourced edit.

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

6RR ?

I don't know what the heck is going on, but there are now SIX edits in the history that say

Reverted edits by Duckecho to last version by SlimVirgin

FuelWagon 20:07, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Mediation

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

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

Ed, I don't think at all that you have failed, nor that mediation has failed. I do think the process has, as you say, stalled. A group of editors have worked hard over this article (in part or in whole) and contributed immensely to bringing it to where it is today; when one compares it to where it was even a few months ago (if you've a sturdy heart, see for example [6]), the improvement is very encouraging. However, part of this group of hard-working aditors have not been able to contribute more actively to Mediation, for reasons that have probably to do with personal commitments. I note in particular the absence of Ann Heneghan, who I feel has very valuable points of view to contribute.

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

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

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

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

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

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

And hello, Neuroscientist. Thank you for your kind remarks above. No, I certainly will not get into a revert war, unless I feel that another editor's dignity is being deliberately attacked (as has, unfortunately, happened in the past). If you look at my contributions, [7] you'll find that my proportion of reverts is very low. I reverted once last night, because I felt that the reverting of SlimVirgin's edits and the comments on the talk page were not in keeping with Wikipedia policy, which encourages a welcoming attitude, the avoidance of aggressive comments, and discussion before reverting. Of course, that would not apply to vandalism. But SlimVirgin's edits, while they certainly went against the POV of FuelWagon and Duckecho, were not vandalism, nonsense, or POV pushing. If I remember correctly (I haven't looked it up recently), Wikipedia policy suggests that editors should try to improve an edit, rather than revert it, and that if they disagree with an edit, they should discuss it on the talk page before reverting, in the hope that the other editor may agree, and may even make the change himself. I don't always follow that myself, but I do not think that SlimVirgin's edits should have been treated as vandalism. The main point about those edits, in my opinion, was that they annoyed two editors who adhere to the majority POV, and who have therefore been left largely unopposed in their edits. I didn't go straight to bed after reverting last night, so I saw that Duckecho had reverted to what he called "the last stable version before the attacks", but I left it like that. I don't think it was appropriate to call SlimVirgin's edits "attacks". You may not agree - in fact, you probably won't - but that's okay. I just want to explain my edit. And by the way - this is to everyone - if ever I fail to explain an edit properly, please understand that it's simply because I don't have time. Ann Heneghan 17:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Ownership of this page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'll tell you what my objections to your changes in the intro are:

• You can't insert invisible instructions telling people not to make certain changes and expect others to obey them. If you'd had a little more experience on this article you would understand the necessity. For example, I am personally aware of at least five times that someone has changed Terri's name at the top of the article to Schindler-Schiavo despite the fact that it is POV and that there is no record whatsoever of her ever using that name. Once we (I believe it was Ann Henneghan who put it there) put the invisible note speaking to that we've had no further problems in that regard. There are a dozen or more instances of invisible notes in the article for precisely the same reason. Well meaning (but ignorant of the history of the article) editors, such as yourself, often see something in the article that they feel doesn't fit their understanding of events, and being wiki, they jump in and edit their version in, despite the fact that on the Talk Page that very issue and its veracity has been thoroughly resolved. It's lost in the history of the archives so someone even trying to do research before editing would have difficulty finding it, but an invisible note in the article makes it abundantly clear to all but the most intransigent.
• …so the two of you have stymied work for the day, which is senseless. What was senseless was expending >3½ hours in seven + edits (that doesn't count your revert warring or inserting your "don't bother me, I'm important" tag) without having spent more than a minute to compose a single note concerning an edit you had already made and still had a question as to the accuaracy.
• …but one (who examined her) said minimally conscious state. That needs to be in the intro. Why? In Judge Greer's order from the 2002 evidentiary hearing he excoriated that doctor and lent him no credibility whatsoever. In Ronald Cranford's "Facts, Lies, &amp Videotapes" he's even less kind. That sort of nonsense can be introduced in the article and properly dispensed with (and is) but it absolutely does not belong in the intro.
• Something from the autopsy also needs to go in the intro… Well, yes, the autopsy is mentioned and it has its own section in the article. That's all that's necessary. A 77 word regurgitation does nothing but add bloat to an introduction we're trying to pare down to a reasonably sized four paragraphs (your invocation).

So, those are some specifics for you. Where are your specifics for us? General claims that the article needs copy editing isn't good enough when you're either excising significant material or adding spurious material. And without an awareness of how difficult it's been to come to what we have over the months, imperfect though it may be, between vandal attacks, flat earthers with conspiracy theories, well intentioned but misinformed editors whose main source of information was from the blogosphere, and conscientious people who albeit with POV difficulties of their own nevertheless held our feet to fire on POV issues, you want to waltz in without so much as a by your leave and scorch the earth with your uninformed ideas. Ownership? No. I'm proud of my contribution here, and I recognize that it's an open forum, collaborative work. But I'm somewhat parochial about our good work and more than a little defensive when someone ignorantly undoes (whether intentional or not) significant quality work. Moreover, if you'd been here more than a day you'd know that there are far more contributors than just FuelWagon and me. Good faith is welcome; ignorance is not. Duckecho (Talk) 22:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I disagree with you about the autopsy material in the intro. It speaks directly to the issues being debated, and it's the most up-to-date solid piece of information there is. It seems obtuse not to mention its key findings in the intro.

Regardless of who has criticized the neurologist who diagnosed minimally conscious state, he did make that diagnosis, and you have no right to pretend it doesn't exist, no matter how strongly you disagree with it. A neurologist counts as a reputable source for WP in matters of neurology, particularly as he examined her. The way I introduced the information made it clear that his was the minority, dissenting view.

Regardless of your reasons for wanting so many invisible "instructions" - and I accept that you have good reason for wanting them - you can't expect anyone to heed them. This is a wiki.

If these are your only objections, I don't know why you reverted all my edits.

Finally, I'm a little confused about your references to the months of work you've put in. Your user account was opened mid-May and has only made 213 edits to articles. Are you editing under another account? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:44, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

horse manure

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

---

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

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

There's a URL right by that line with an embedded note saying [8]<-- quoting from page 11 of 38 of Wolfson report -->, in case anyone was wondering where the "alleged" statement came from. FuelWagon 22:37, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Then provide sources for your edits, and not invisible ones. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:47, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

That's a little bit ungracious. This is explained in the talk archives, which you would have seen had you read them. -- Grace Note

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

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

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

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

Are you saying he wasn't a real neurologist? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:47, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You seem to have strong feelings about the Schiavo case. I don't. I have no reason to want to introduce a POV in either direction. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:07, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

You're missing the point of that edit. One sentence began: "Pecarek's report found no evidence for any inappropriate actions .." which is poor English. I tidied it to: "Pecarek's report found no evidence of any inappropriate acts .." which is better (though still not what I'd have written). There is awkward English of that kind all the way through the article.

The reason I had to ask the invisible question is that the claim is unsourced. That you mention invisibly that a source exists, but you won't cite it is unhelpful. "Attentive" is a POV term. If it's to be used, it has to be a quote, and if it's quoted, it needs to be attributed and accompanied by a proper citation. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:34, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

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

---

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you once again, Doctor SlimVirgin, I didn't know you were also a neurologist. I am a simple editor, so all I can do is quote the ANA regarding PVS, which says

The prognosis for recovery of awareness in PVS has been quantified, and, in general, the prognosis depends on the cause and duration of PVS. It is worse after cardiac arrest and after a long duration of PVS. Patients remaining in PVS for greater than three months after cardiac arrest have only a slight chance of recovery of awareness. Recovery of awareness is unprecedented after two years. With head injury causing PVS, the times necessary to show these levels of prognostic certainty are one year and five years, respectively.

So, apparently, there are some varying levels of prognosis, depending on whether it was caused by a head injury or not, and depending on how long the patient is in PVS. The doctors the article is referring to at this point in the article have diagnosed Terri sometime early in her condition. I'm not certain of dates, so I can't place whether it was greater than or less than 5 years. Also, some people have accused michael of attacking Terri which caused her collapse, so some could argue that a head injury might be the cause of her PVS. so, some might argue that Terri could have had a "slight" chance for recovery, based on the ANA definition of PVS and based on their interpretation of events. This seems markedly different than all the doctors saying her chance of recovery was "poor". FuelWagon 00:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

NPOV problem

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

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

POV article? Cite the POV issues you have with it. You claimed you were copy editing for style and readability, now you're claiming there are POV problems? I suggest you read this: [9]. The article has already been peer reviewed and the general consensus was that it was "about as NPOV as it can get" (as I recall the quote). I wish you would make up your mind what your problem with this article is. In any event, I'm not interested in your personal advice although I'd suggest you start in at home, first. Duckecho (Talk) 02:57, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

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

errors

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

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

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

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

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

Well, I have a question: why did you change the text in this diff [10] from never exhibited awareness of her self to appeared not to exhibit awareness of herself? What was your basis for that? Cite? Actually, I have another question: If you have so much time to research how many edits I've made and where all FuelWagon has edited, how come you couldn't take the time to find out what some of the compromises were that had been crafted among many editors in the development of the article? Duckecho (Talk) 01:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

If this is the only issue you can find with my copy edit, why did you revert it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:10, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

I'm waiting for an answer from FuelWagon or Duckecho that might explain the blind reverts. Show me one factual or grammatical error that I edited into the article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:55, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

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

Schiavo as a term

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

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

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

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

I'm not going to say it's offensive, because I don't care, but it is unencyclopedic. You have the barest shred of a case for inclusion of slang terms based on the name (a shred... or, to paraphrase, "no"), but the section of examples is crap, this isn't a humor site. You've got about 5 minutes to post a reeeally compelling counter, than I revert. I guarantee you'll hit your 3RR rule before your opponents do.

Fox1 18:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Fox1. User:Uthar Wynn 01 has made some strange edits, including adding Terri Schiavo to List of sex symbols. --Viriditas | Talk 19:40, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Fox1, Proto, and gadfium.~ Neuroscientist | T | C → 19:48, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion for SlimVirgin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scoring the combatants: An analysis of Slim Virgin's opponents

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

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

Anyhow, here's the scorecard: SCORECARD:

• SlimVirgin: 2 1/2
• FuelWagon: 1 1/2
• Duck: (Scoring is complicated: I may let this proceed between Slim & FW so no mobbing advantage accrues to either side)
• others...

Let's begin:

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

1) Regarding SlimVirgin’s edit at (Revision as of 18:38, 11 July 2005), she asks for a source on a claim that PVS is unprecedented after two (2) years. Comments: -the source, a big-fat PDF file did in fact claim that recovery from PVS after 2 years is unprecedented, but that is factually false, as SlimVirgin correctly pointed out (and citing an example, for which she later promises a link) -she doesn't need the link: I'm sure I could find a LOT of cases diagnosed as PVS which were recovered after much longer. (PVS is misdiagnosed almost 50% of the time, so such a claim is false on its face.) She asks for a source, but in fact there was a source given in the article, but the article made the claim carte blanch, not "according to such-and-such" doctors, PVS recovery after two years is unprecedented. (Duck has pointed out in the past that any recovery proves the person was never PVS, but this strawman is moot: Since PVS is so often misdiagnosed, statements about PVS are not relevant because they are unprovable; We need to concern ourselves with the "diagnoses" of the doctors: Claims a doctor made certain diagnoses are provable; claims the diagnoses are correct is not.)

• Scoring:
• 1 point for slim: the article wasn't correct in its claim: It should have said "according to so-and-so doctor..."
• 0 (zero) points each for slim and FuelWagon: Both could have (but didn't) edit the article to make this correction; this is BAD because the link was there, you could have opened the file, and done a keyword search in the PDF using the binoculars icon, like I did.
• 1/2 point for FW because the doctor really did say this false claim, but slim missed it; half a point only as this doctor's claim is false: "Unprecedented" means "it didn't happen previously," but it has several times, Terri Wallis being one such example.

2) Duck (19:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC)) calls slim virgin's edits "massive" at 19:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC), Fuelwagon concurs. I looked at ALL the diffs this morning (headache), and noticed LOTS of red, but I saw that the paragraphs were misaligned, and upon closer inspection, I saw that very little had been edited. It's a "wiki" software problem. I never saw FW or Duck apologize, admit they were wrong, etc., and I read all the comments up to a few minutes ago.

• Scoring:
• 1 point for Slim Virgin. (Although she had two critics, she only gets ONE point; "mobbing" is unfair, even if it's in defensive scoring, like it is in "offensive" attacks where several editors revert one person, pushing the lone opponent past the 3RR. Sorry, Slim: only one point for you, lol.)

Comment: I had not read her comment about the "red" coloring misalignment, and yet had figured it out; I don't see why the "brains" on the other side missed it...?

This is helpful. FuelWagon 17:46, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Scoring: 1/2 point for Slim

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

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

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

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

Gordon comments: I think Uncle Ed’s doing ok -and told as much to Jimbo, but Ed’s got two problems:

• a) He’s got to deal with lack of screening of editors (like employees do with prospective employees), and this allows crap vandalism that uses up resources (finical, computing, time, stress, etc)
• b) We editors aren’t paid, and neither is Uncle Ed (as far as I know), so it makes it harder to do a good job; I add that these aren’t Uncle Ed’s fault.

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

• Scoring:
• 1 point for FW

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

• Scoring:
• A nullity: No points. Premature at this point to speculate, but good points to see the trend and address concerns.

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

• NS, if you can't be part of the solution, the don't be part of the problem: Either follow -lead -or get the hack out of the way. The "talk page" IS the proper place for talk about the article page. Chill out. If you disagree on a particular point, you can weigh in -respectfully. I will respect your viewpoint, but not asking you to shut up; Should you not do that for others -even if they're dumber than a stump?--GordonWattsDotCom 19:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

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

"Gordon, scoring, and...is really, really, really, really, really not helping." Scoring IS going to help, because it is more objective to look at and analyze (read: add up points) all the facts. I really don't know who's more wrong, so I'm scoring them. What could be more fair than that!? "Also, I don't think Duck 'gamed' anything..." Yes, he did: He used creative editing to get around the 3RR; I myself admitted (see above) that I gamed the system, so I'm not playing favorites.--GordonWattsDotCom 19:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks

FuelWagon, I can no longer deal with you regarding editing this article. In the last 24 hours, you have called me an arrogant cuss, a jerkoff, a f**%!ng jerk, arrogant, ignorant, a troll, and a f**%!ng *$$s0le. I've seen language like this on WP only from the very worst offenders and vandals, and you can't be allowed to continue doing it, whether to me or to anyone else. I'm therefore withdrawing from editing this article, I hope only temporarily, until I decide whether it's appropriate to approach this as an admin, or whether to pursue dispute resolution as an editor. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:06, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

All personal attacks should be removed on sight. --Viriditas | Talk 19:43, 12 July 2005 (UTC)