Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

"End of life"

It was debated earlier but seems to have returned: inaccurate terminology with respect to "end of life". Usage of this term presumes that in some sense Terri was at "end of life" in 1990 or prior to 2005. The more accurate (and frankly more neutral) terms to use here are "medical choices for the incapacitated" or "health care proxy". patsw 20:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

First paragraph of the court order says:

"The court has carefully reviewed its notes, the transcribed testimony of those non-parties who testified to conversations with Terri Schiavo regarding end of life declaraions, the report of Guardian Ad Litem..."

So, "end of life" seems to be grounded in legal documents. FuelWagon 22:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

That's interesting. I'll see if there's a document or analysis disputing the Greer's application of the label "end of life" or at least show that it's usage applied to the Schiavo case to be controversial. A great deal of the order refers to the Browning precedent which applies to medical decisions for the incompetent/incapacitated. patsw 22:48, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

sic

The use of "sic" to describe a spelling transcription error in oral testimony is not appropriate, both in a legal and a journalistic sense. The testimony did not include the misspelling, and, as such, "thus" is not an appropriate term to describe it.Hipocrite 19:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC) (late sig)

You refer to this 17:54, 4 August 2005 Hipocrite (sic removed) diff.

Hello, Hipocrite - you did not sign, so here is your signature from the history: 18:09, 4 August 2005 Hipocrite (sic)

First, I think it is appropriate, because we're not quoting the testimony, but, instead, quoting the page in question (which, parenthetically, but not importantly, quotes the testimony).

However, I was about to change your problem, and put the "[sic]" back in -and put a space between the sic and the word described, but I found a LARGER problem: When I went to the purple kangaroo link and did an "Edit-->Find on this page" search, I could NOT find the phrase, that is, the exact quote -there were lots of things, but no exact quote.

So, I issue this Red Alert "Heads Up."--GordonWattsDotCom 18:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Apologies on the failure to sign. The phrase is, in fact, in the transcript. The quote, however, is not from the transcript - in fact, it is attributed to "When asked why, he explained." Said explanation was given orally, and, as such, could not be mispelled. The error was not in the source, which is what "sic" - "thus" means. What is the reason to leave a transcription error in an verbal quote? Hipocrite 19:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

No problemo - apology accepted. I see you also changed the title back. Maybe I should tone down to a Yellow Alert, huh? OK, I see you say the phrase is in the transcript, but I could not find it -spelled either way; What line is it? If you cite a line, I shall hope to scroll down to said line and look for it by exact location. NOW, on the error question, if you say the original transcript has no error, then why no cite this version, and link to it? Is the link unavailable? CAVEAT: I ask a bunch of questions here; please don't forget one for the sake of the other; if you're able, I'd appreciate answers on all my points. Thx,--GordonWattsDotCom 19:41, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

• Here is where you can piece together the quote: pg 28 ln 1 "Because I enjoy it and I want to learn more how" pg 28 ln 2 "to take care of Terry."...

pg 28 ln6 "I see myself hopefully finishing school and taking" ln 7 "care of my wife."

pg 28 ln9 "I want to bring my wife home."

pg 29 ln1 "I" ln 2 "married my wife because I love her and I want to spend the" ln 3 "rest of my life with her. I'm going to do that."

• I am not commenting on the transcript, which is clearly in error - it uses Terry throughout. If we were talking about the transcript then I would want it littered with "sic." We are not, however, talking about the transcript - rather, we're talking about what he said, and he said teari(Brooklyn) or teerrye(Irish), or teahrii(English), or tereuh(Georgia). However, when we quote people, we correct their spellings, because you can't tell the spelling

• I believe that handles the lot of your questions. If you feel one remains, please reask it. I apologize for any mistakes.Hipocrite 20:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Hipocrite. Michael Schiavo did not misspell his wife's name in the oral testimony. So, if we're quoting Michael's spoken words, and just acknowledging the transcript as the source of information, we should say, "Michael said . . . Terri". If we're quoting the court transcript, we should say, "According to the court transcript, Michael said . . . Terry [sic.]" The article, as it currently stands, is quoting Michael ("Michael explained", rather than, "According to the court transcript, Michael explained".) Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 22:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

We have come a long way if the thing we're arguing about is whether or not the word "sic" should be in the article. If we're voting, put me down for "whatever gets the fewest reverts". I'll support either one as long as it means we can drop it as an issue. FuelWagon 00:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Hipocrite: The reason I couldn't initially find the quotes on the page was due to my searching for a phrase which had been fragmented or broken up by the mandatory line breaks; If I had searched for a smaller section of the phrase, I would have avoided that problem. I generally agree with FuelWagon that this is a minor problem, and don't see it is damaging the article; however, to be actually correct, we look at the textbook definition of "sic", and we find that it is plain and strait forward: If the source is misspelling the word, then we use it. If you want to avoid using it, you might then list the actual source as the real transcript -and either list it's online source as a link to a webpage -or, if not available online, note that it is unavailable online, and cite the second source as having quoted the first source.--GordonWattsDotCom 14:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Definition: sic1 (sĭk) adv.

Thus; so. Used to indicate that a quoted passage, especially one containing an error or unconventional spelling, has been retained in its original form or written intentionally.

[Latin sīc.] [1]

(Please note that the actual definition does not give any exceptions, such as the one you and Ann suggest, but I think and hope both of my alternatives fit within the meaning of this grammatical rule.) As Mr. Spock might say, "That's what logic would lead us to conclude."--GordonWattsDotCom 14:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The source in this case is the oral testimony of an individual. He did not mispell anything. I have not suggested any exceptions. Can I repeat a question that hasn't been answered yet - "What is the reason to leave a transcription error in an verbal quote?" Can you tell me what is motivating you to contest this? Hipocrite 15:01, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

"Can you tell me what is motivating you to contest this?" Yes: Your method (supported by Ann) implies that the transcript on the GeoCities.com site spells the name correctly. This is incorrect. I offered two alternatives (see above), as I recall, and they appear more accurate than your suggestion. While this is not a major issue, I think it's right to say that "it's the principle of the thing -and principles matter," because this is a template or example/role model for future actions and a discipline of the mind. Does that answer your question?--GordonWattsDotCom 16:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

To be clear, your alternatives fail because the intial transcript, and all copies there of, mispelled the name. The individual giving the testimony, however, mispelled nothing, as he did not spell anything. In this case, the source is listed as "Michael testified," not "A transcript reads." Hipocrite 17:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Query: Do you mean the original transcript -the one done by the court reporter -misspelled Terri's name. Or, instead, do you mean that the original one got it right and the GeoCities.com web page misspelled or otherwise garbled the spellings? Thanks.--GordonWattsDotCom 17:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

To be as clear as I can, there is no official transcript of the hearing in question that does not have Terri mispelled as Terry. The original transcript, the copy on the geocities cite, and all others, unless corrected by a third party, contain the word "Terry" numerous times, and the word "Terri" not once.Hipocrite 17:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

"...there is no official transcript of the hearing in question that does not have Terri misspelled as Terry." It seems you're saying the original transcripts misspell it. I know how the court reporters can misspell words, because they type them as fast as we speak -in real time, and probably don't correct them later. So, I guess that it's accurate to say "Michael Schiavo said" and then spell it right, however, I would personally be happier if you could find a link to an official copy of the transcript and report it as "The original transcript reads" and then include "[sic]" to show the misspelling. GeoCities is cool, but it is not an official transcript page, unless it is run by some person in authority, yet it is better than nothing. If an "official" source is not available, then we must use the GeoCities page. If you insist on using the "Michael said" method, I will concede that this is technically right. I'm sure Fuel Wagon will be very happy now that this is settled with my preferences above and my acceptance reluctantly here.--GordonWattsDotCom 17:43, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

So, no one ever answred my paramount question: Is an "official" copy of the transcript available somewhere online, and, if so, what's the link? (If you can find it, use BOTH links.)--GordonWattsDotCom 17:43, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, if the choice is to say

(1)Michael said "blah Terri"

or

(2)the court transcripts quote Michael as saying "blah Terry [sic]"

Then I'd have to vote for (1). FuelWagon 17:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Heads up; Neutrality made major changes in intro

I'm not weighing in as of yet, but I wanted to give everybody a heads up: Neutrality has made a lot of changes without discussion or consensus recently. Most appear minor or otherwise innocuous, but one was a major rewrite of the intro. The paragraphs didn't line up, so it's hard to see what the exact changes were, and he doesn't tell us -and I wanted to make a note of it. One of the more notable changes he made was addition of this section:

The judicial and legislative battles over the removal of her feeding tube spawned considerable media coverage during the last few weeks of her life and sparked a fierce debate over bioethics, legal guardianship, federalism, and civil rights.

He ominously omits mention of euthanasia, even though this was the most preeminent issue over which debate was sparked. It smacks of POV pushing, when we take into account his similar edit in the past on this issue, but I'm merely like FOX News: I report; You decide.--GordonWattsDotCom 18:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

FYI,

From the CHINESE Wiki, we find this quote: "夏沃丈夫坚持移除其zh:生命支持系统的行为导致了一系列关于zh:生物伦理学，zh:安乐死，zh:监护人制度，zh:联邦制以及zh:民权的严重争论," which is to say:

"...persisted 移除 its life support program behavior has caused a series of about the biological ethics, the euthanasia, the guardian system, the federal system as well as the civil rights serious argument."

From the Hispanic Wiki, we find this: "Theresa Marie Schiavo (3 de diciembre 1963 – † 31 de marzo 2005), más conocida como Terri Schiavo era una mujer estadounidense en estado vegetativo irreversible que abrió un acalorado debate sobre temas como la eutanasia, la bioética, tutela legal, federalismo, y los derechos civiles en su país."

From http://Google.com we can find that the points from the debate were more about euthanasia than any of the other terss, or so I found at last looking:

• http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=euthanasia+schiavo 142,000
• http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=bioethics+schiavo 48,200
• http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22civil+rights%22+schiavo 193,000
• http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=federalism+schiavo 27,100
• http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=guardianship+schiavo 31,500
• http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22legal+guardianship%22+schiavo&btnG=Search 613 - that's all, just six hundred thirteen

--GordonWattsDotCom 18:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Wagon, here above are my arguments regarding the slight modifications I made on neutrality's version; I make no specific arguments on his original version other than these two:

1) He supported it, and i do, so that is a little bit of consensus; 2) His version is superior to the version that was before, and I tweaked it to make it even better. Additionally, (#3), you may evaluate my changes here in talk at no major risk. --GordonWattsDotCom 20:41, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Heads up. You won't be putting "euthenasia" into the intro. That was one battle already resolved. The version that was stable prior to User:Neutrality's recent edit didn't list any laundry list about whatever topics of dispute may have been raised by the Terri Schiavo case. That you and he support it is not "consensus" by any stretch of the imagination, nor is it an excuse to blow away a version of the intro that's been stable since mediation settled down. FuelWagon 21:18, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

At lot of material, for which there has been a long process of establishing consensus and neutrality, has been swept away by these frequent solo efforts at reorganization. There's too much bad faith editing by pro-Michael POV pushers.

The past and present editing cabal wants to conceal what's really significant: It is the first case in the U.S. where a dispute over substituted judgment ended with a court order to remove nutrition and hydration from a human being and directly cause her death, not otherwise at risk of death. patsw 21:41, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

While I certainly don't agree with Neutrality's POV, the fact is that on Wikipedia, anyone who isn't a vandal is entitled to make changes, regardless of invisible instructions, regardless of consensus, regardless of past votes. I don't endorse Neutrality's changes, but this is a wiki, and he does not need to obtain majority approval before he edits. It may be wise and courteous to do so, but it's not a requirement. If an edit goes against general consensus, it will probably be reverted pretty soon.

If I remember correctly, Neutrality was one of the ones who kept taking out the reference to euthanasia. People may argue that this wasn't euthanasia under Florida law - although it was certainly a violation of the official teaching of Terri's religion concerning euthansia - but I don't see how they can possible argue that the case did not cause a huge debate over euthanasia, among other things.

By the way, since there are doubts over the bulimia theory, I'm wondering do we really need all that stuff about her eating habits and dieting in the "Early Life" section? How reliable is the Miami Herald? (I read the article a few months ago, but you have to register now.) A few interviews with friends? (I can think of a few interviews with friends that would meet with strong opposition if a Schindler supporter tried to insert them!) Can we make the article shorter, not longer? Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 22:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone speak Chinese or Spanish? (Just kidding, lol.) OK, in the spirit of compromise, I won’t complain about you changing the title's color format, but I get to keep using <font color=000099> "Blue," Wagon, since my purpose was to simply draw attention to the issue.

However, in all seriousness, you raise a point about consensus that needs to be addressed. As far as I see it, there were two issues on the table on this point:

• 1 - Whether Neutrality's version should appear in the form that he had it at all.

• 2 - If his version of the intro was allowed to stand, whether the public issues of controversy that was argued and debated should include Euthanasia (or not?).

Since approval of #2 would make moot #1, I will address #2 first: VOTE COUNT: It's the time of truth:

Ann is right: Neutrality kept removing "Euthanasia" without comment, so his vote was "against," and you say your vote is too. (I think Duck may have been against, but I'm unsure.) OK, you have 2 1/2 votes on your side, but my count. I think Ann is right, and (while i admit I don't have the old diff), I vividly remember NCDave supporting my arguments. I would guess (but am not sure) that Pat Sweeny (Patsw) would agree with my logic to include mention of Euthanasia here.

So, by my count, there are 3 1/2 votes FOR inclusion of euthanasia vs 2 1/2 AGAINST. That is slim but ever=present consensus. No, wait a second: I think Neuroscientist may have been for your version. OK, it's tied at 3 1/2 each. Tie-breaker, please?

Tie Breaker, at your request: No less than two other wikis (see talk above) concur with the version on which Ann and Dave and I concur. Lastly, when comparing apples with apples (terms with terms), google.com supports my version in its strongest terms. I will check to see if that version was honored, length notwithstanding.

Since the vote has gone in my favor (did I count right?), then consideration of #1 above is moot and does not matter. I counted votes, Wagon, and gave you the benefit of the doubt on Neuroscientist's vote, even though I can't recall his exact stance, yet you are voted down this time. You will survive, right?--GordonWattsDotCom 18:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

---

I made said changes; The accuracy of the changes is not a problem, nor is the POV, Wagon. If you want to make an argument against me, your best bet is to take a two-fold approach here:

* 1 - Argue for length, as in "it's too long for an intro."

* 2 - Get additional concensus for your version.

* BONUS 3 - Read the recent diff HERE from the page history -to see the exact changes, and read the page to see "how it flows." Read, listen, look, think, twelve times before acting or editing once.--GordonWattsDotCom 19:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

---

I don't have to do anything. You're attempts to insert "euthanasia" are transparent POV pushing. People have objected to that word since I started working on this article. It's POV, which makes it against policy. The entire laundry list of subjective descriptors are problematic. And the solution that worked was to delet all of them. Rather than have a list with euthenasia, and have people complain, there is NO list, and pretty much everyone went along with that. Except you, Gordon. "euthenasia" is completely POV, and it doesn't belong. FuelWagon 20:09, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Of course euthanasia is part of the article:

• Where people are debating the Terri Schiavo case they are debating euthanasia and using that word.
• Where people are debating euthanasia they are debating Terri Schiavo and naming her.

This sounds like another appearance of Wiki-alternate-universe where the editing cabal can declare what's going on in the real world to be POV and suppress it from the article.

There were, is now, and will be discussion and debate linking euthanasia and Terri Schiavo.

(1) What is subjective or POV about euthanasia?

(2) So what exactly was Terri's death? FW, if it wasn't depriving her of food and water mercifully to hasten death, what are you calling it? An assisted suicide or something else? patsw 20:46, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for demonstrating the very reason why I oppose this laundry list of subjective and highly partisan terms. This has nothing to do with reporting facts and has everything to do with people wanting to insert their righteous anger and accusations of witchcraft into the article. I call Terri's death a tragedy that resulted from her heart attack 15 years ago. And I call the decision to withdraw life support to have been true to her desire not to be hooked up on a machine in a persistent vegatative state. FuelWagon 21:25, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

WHAT?! What are you talking about, FuelWagon? Listen to yourself. "Subjective and highly partisan terms"? "righteous anger"?? (Which I might point out, if you're calling it righteous, you're admitting you're wrong, because they have a right to be angry). or my favorite, "Accusations of witchcraft"??? What's the definition of euthanasia?

The act or practice of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition, as by lethal injection or the suspension of extraordinary medical treatment.

By the definition, Terri Schiavo was euthanized, ergo her "final wishes" were to be euthanized. If I said I wanted someone to pull the plug on me in that state, I'm saying I want them to euthanize me. It's not POV; people use the term all the time from the pro-side and the con-side. And if you think that the actual word is POV, then my guess is YOU are the one with the POV, not the people trying to put the word in the article. If you disagree with the above definition of euthanasia (which I took right from dictionary.com), what definition would you give it? It's obviously a different definition than that, since that definition would clearly apply to Terri Schiavo's case, and you wouldn't have a problem with it. What makes the word "euthanasia" POV? The stigma attached to it? If you're problem is with the stigma that's attached to it, I suggest you ask yourself why you have a problem with that stigma, and why that stigma IS attached to it. Stanselmdoc 21:47, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

from euthanasia, emphasis added by me:

Euthanasia in the strict sense involves actively causing death (active euthanasia). This is in some cases legal in the Netherlands and Belgium, but in no other countries (as of 2005). Euthanasia in a wider sense includes assisting sufferers to commit suicide, in particular physician-assisted suicide; this is legal in a small number of jurisdictions.

Allowing death—e.g. by not providing life support or vital medication—is not considered euthanasia if it is the patient's wish. It is sometimes called passive euthanasia in cases where the patient is unable to make decisions about treatment. Living wills and Do Not Resuscitate orders are legal instruments that make a patient's treatment decisions known ahead of time; allowing a patient to die based on such decisions is not considered to be euthanasia.

So, "euthanasia" is illegal in the US. And yeah, I have a problem with the article saying what happened to Terri was illegal. FuelWagon 22:03, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

"Bioethics" is a term that includes "euthanasia." Neutrality^talk 21:34, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

So what aspects of bioethics, other than euthanasia, are part of the Terri Schiavo discussion? Does the Wikipedia describe Tiger Woods as an athlete or as a golfer? (After all, the term athlete includes golfer) patsw 23:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Gordon, Stanselmdoc, and Patsw. And, quite frankly, I can't understand the opposition. If someone suggested that the article should say that the case of Terri Schiavo was a euthanasia case, I could understand that some of those who supported Michael Schiavo would object, and would say that it wasn't euthanasia. But this discussion is not over whether or not the article should say that it was euthanasia; it's about whether or not the article should say that the case sparked a debate about euthanasia. Are the opponents arguing that it didn't spark a debate about euthanasia? Or do they agree that it did, but prefer that the article should not report that fact?

I disagree that the matter was already resolved. There was never an agreement. Those who support the Schindlers are in the minority here and are often overruled - we sometimes disappear for a while, and we are sometimes more concerned with more serious problems in the article. I have objected for months to the Wikipedia article reporting as fact unverifiable accounts that favour Michael Schiavo - e.g. that Terri collapsed in the hallway, that the noise woke Michael, and that he immediately phoned 911. (I have also made it clear that I don't favour a she-collapsed-under-mysterious-circumstances-while-alone-with-her-husband wording. I have voiced my objections several times. Just because I don't repeat my objections every week doesn't mean I have now come to accept it. Some months ago, when I voiced my objection in the talk page to the one example in the article of stating as fact that Michael's motive for studying nursing was a desire to learn how to take care of his wife, one of Michael's supporters immediately responded by inserting a second example of that objectional phrase into the article - and got away with it! There was nothing I could do, as I was in the minority, and in any case, I don't like edit wars. But it wasn't an experience that would encourage me to voice my concerns on the talk page.

So yes, I vote for saying that the case sparked a debate about euthanasia, rather than the more vague term bioethics, which includes euthanasia, but includes many things that are not in any way connected with Terri Schiavo. I'd also go along with FuelWagon's suggestion of leaving out the whole list, which would make the article shorter, anyway. But, if there is a list of deabes sparked by this case, euthanasia should be on it. (And by the way, I acknowledge that FuelWagon did some useful - and presumably time-consuming - work on the chronology. Thanks, FW.) Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 00:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

33 affidavits

The "diagnosis dispute" section mentions 33 affidavits. I just found a decent link here that explains that these 33 affidavits include Iyer and Hammersfar over the course of a couple of years. Some of these 33 affidavits are already covered in other sections of the article. In other words, 33 misrepresents the number of affidavits that disputed the diagnosis, because it reads as if they were additional affidavits, when then were actually part of some of the already mentioned affidavits. Apparently 17 of the affidavits were submitted Mar 5, just before Terri died according to this. I want to move these 28 into chronological order, and I would like a link to the court's response. Anyone got anything? FuelWagon 21:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I think I figured it out. Greer mentions 33 affidavits in the "Oral Feeding" section. I pulled some quotes from his decision and used them in the article. I should put the other link back in though... FuelWagon 00:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

leftover agreement

I've got one bit left over from the "Michael Schiavo" section.

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.

I don't think this is important enough to put in its own subsection. Does anyone have any suggestions as to where it could go? Or just leave it out? FuelWagon 00:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Chronological

I think I've got all the chunks, bits, and subsections that were floating around with odd bits of information and have managed to put the entire article into mostly chronological order. No doubt it is not perfect, but I think it qualifies as an improvement over what it was before. FuelWagon 00:56, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

hm, I just skimmed through it one more time, and I know it's an improvement. Yeah, baaaabyyy. FuelWagon 01:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Euthanasia?

How is the word "euthanasia" POV pushing? Especially in reference to the debate that was fueled by the Terri Schiavo case...how is it pushing POV by using the word? The "case" on Terri Schiavo may not have been 'euthanasia-specific', but many of the "debates" that were fueled by it were very definitely 'euthanasia-specific', so how is it pushing POV in that instance? The argument makes no sense. The word "euthanasia" should be used when talking about the debates. Lord I give up on this article.Stanselmdoc 21:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The word "bioethics" is used as a generic term for all medical/ethical issues, including euthanasia. Neutrality^talk 21:49, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Fine, "bioethics". It just cheeses me off that I spend most of an entire day doing a major overhaul of the article and all some people care about is putting their POV hot-button word in the intro again. Did anyone even notice that the entire article has been put in chronological order? that those annoying chunks of random and unrelated bits of information are gone? That the wolfson report has it's own section? whatever. Go with "bioethics". FuelWagon 22:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

So what aspects of bioethics, other than euthanasia, are part of the Terri Schiavo discussion? Does the Wikipedia describe Tiger Woods as an athlete or as a golfer? (After all, the term athlete includes golfer) patsw 23:27, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Give me a break. Terri Schiavo is to the term "euthenasia" like Tiger Woods is to the term "nigger". FuelWagon 00:10, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

That was uncivil of you, FW. I will not reply in kind. Are we at an impasse? Should I ask for formal dispute resolution? Wasn't Terri Schiavo deprived of nutrition and hydration from March 18 to March 31 in order to hasten her death? patsw 00:22, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't uncivil. You attempted to assert that "euthenasia" is a subset of "bioethics" like "golfer" is a subset of "athlete" with your Tiger Woods analogy. My point is that "euthanasia" is about as neutral to Terri Schiavo's case as "nigger" is to Tiger Woods. Both are partisan, both are hotly disputed, and neither should be inserted into the releveant articles because neither qualifies as undisputed fact. Polls show that the majority of americans don't think this was euthanasia, so the term is disputed by a significant portion of the population, let alone that it is disputed by the courts, the guardian ad litems, and Michael. And you're begging the question about "wasn't Terri deprived of nutrition" conveniently ignores the euthanasia entry in wikipedia itself that explains that withdrawing life support is not euthanasia. We are at an impasse as long as you want to keep inserting as fact a term that is disputed by major players in the article.

Do not have the article state "this was about euthanasia". If you want to do this NPOV, then report the different views from their sources. Which means report ALL the POV's around any particular point of contention. Before Gordon takes that as a blank check to insert every conspiracy theory and every hot button term he can drag up, I'll point out wikipedia's rules for sourcing your edits. And I'll also point out the recent deletion to the article after Hammersfarh emailed Jimbo Wales. Reporting highly charged and emotional words from various sources cannot be done haphazardly. So, we need independent and reliable sources, we need QUOTES, not historical revisionism, and we need all the sides of the story. The place I suggest to start would be newspaper articles, rather than blogs or partisan sites, because newspapers at least have some requirement to represent different sides of a story and are subject to libel suits if they misquote someone. A good format for a sentence reporting different views while following NPOV policy would be something of the form: FuelWagon 12:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Regarding (specific event) that occured on (date), (name1) said "quote1", (name2) said "quote2", (name3) said "quote3", etc. (URL containing quotes) FuelWagon 12:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

We can then insert them into the article within the subsections that relate to whatever specific event that occurred. The example I can think of at the moment is that a main player said a particular court decision was "judicial homicide". That was a quote made by someone specific on a certain date about a particular judgement. It would need to be presented as a quote and a URL would have to support it. To keep the article NPOV, once this view is inserted, all the other major views around the same judgement need to be represented. Michael's view of the judgement. The Judge's view. Any appeal's court view. Any guardian ad litem's views, etc. This is not a blank check to insert all teh partisan quotes with no other points of view that opposed them.FuelWagon 12:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Once some of the editors show they can follow this procedure and the article is ammended to report some of the POV's during various stages, and neutrality is maintained, then we'll actually have some source information to use to decide how we want to represent the overall POV's in the intro. If this simply results in some editors inserting quotes from a million different blogs that call this murder, then that will reveal who can follow NPOV policy, and who is simply POV pushing, and then I would agree that dispute resolution is needed. FuelWagon 12:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I would also remind certain editors of the wikipedia requirement for reliable sources. A good faith effort would start with mainstream newpapers and similar. If this turns into an attempt to insert comments from someone's personal partisan website, then bad faith is revealed, and I will do my damndest to oppose it. If this becomes a snowball effect to overwhelm the article with one side's POV, I'll do my damndest to revert the whole thing. Play nice and follow wikipedia policy and this should make the article better. push POV and ignore policy and there's gonna be trouble. The ball is in your court. FuelWagon 12:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon...it...it almost hurts to respond to you. How often do you hear the term "euthanasia" on the news? Eh, frequently enough I suppose. People use it in regular conversations every now and then. It's in medical dictionaries and such. But um...last time I checked, didn't hear the word "nigger" on tv anywhere. Nor in any newspaper, regular conversations, or in any sort of medical dictionary. I can't believe you're trying to compare a medical term to what most people consider a foul word and don't use it. Next you're going to tell me that the very word "abortion" is "inherently POV", along with "coma" and "paralyzed". Your very argument is flawed. What you said wasn't even "uncivil" as patsw says; it was just dumb. It makes no sense. You attempted to assert that "euthenasia" is a subset of "bioethics" like "golfer" is a subset of "athlete" with your Tiger Woods analogy. What do you mean he attempted? He drew a much better analogy than you did. Golfer IS a subset of Athlete. Euthanasia IS a subset of general Bioethics. It's right there next to mercy killing, right-to-die issues, etc.

"Polls show that the majority of americans don't think this was euthanasia" - First, what polls are you speaking of? Where's the research? And second, it doesn't matter anyway, because wiki isn't supposed to be about presenting the "popular" or the "majority" idea. It's supposed to present the facts, like an encyclopedia. AND YOU JUST PROVED OUR ARGUMENT. Someone had to have asked these people if they felt Terri Schiavo’s death was euthanasia, and they clearly answered yay or nay = there was a debate over it! If there’s a poll on it, clearly people were discussing it! Hence, clearly it should be mentioned that people were debating euthanasia as a result of Terri.

And once again, this isn't about whether to say Terri was "euthanized" or not. This is about whether her death sparked discussions on euthanasia. IT DID! It was all over the news. I agree with you, FuelWagon, if you want to display all sides of the argument blah blah blah and make the article much longer than it should be, whatever, let's do it. But the FACT is, it would be much simpler to say that her death sparked hot debates from all sides of the euthanasia debate, including exactly how to define euthanasia. Geez, I can't even believe I took the time to write this. This is like arguing whether or not the word "abortion" should be used in the article on Roe v. Wade. Stanselmdoc 17:34, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

You want to use "Roe v. Wade" instead? Fine. What would you say about this in that article? "Roe v. Wade generated a huge public debate over women's reproductive rights, contraception, and murdering the unborn." Now try it on the Terri Schiavo article: "Terri's case generate huge debate over bioethics, guardianship, euthanasia, and judicial homicide." I do not dispute the fact that some people hold the view that abortion is murder, or that Terri was euthanized, or that Greer committed judicial homicide. But you cannot tell me that it is NPOV to simply present those views were topics for neutral debate. I won't buy it. Euthanasia is illegal in the US. Following someone's end-of-life wishes when they are terminal is not. Murder is illegal, following someone's end-of-life wishes is not. "Terri's case generated huge debate over murder" is not neutral. FuelWagon 17:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

So what you're saying is your argument has changed? Before, you were saying that "euthanasia" shouldn't be mentioned in the article, now it seems that you would be willing to put it in, as long as it's in a neutral tone. Is that correct? If so, would you mind if it was worded like "Terri's case generated huge debate over bioethics, guardianship, judicial homicide, and the definition of euthanasia." OR "Terri's case generated huge debate over bioethics, guardianship, and judicial homicide. In some instances, many people argued Terri's death was an act of euthanasia." OR something else like that? I think it sounds reasonable enough to state that there were discussions on euthanasia after her death, even if her death wasn't ruled as euthanasia.

And the term "euthanasia" is not POV. What would you prefer to have? "Mercy killing"? "Right-to-Die"? I don't think "bioethics" is good enough, because it's so broad. And I'm glad you compared "euthanasia" to "murdering the unborn", but you skipped from NPOV to POV. "Murdering the unborn" is obviously POV (even though it's true, so it makes no sense), but you should have compared it to "abortion". Again, your analogy makes no sense. It would either have to be: "euthanasia" is to "abortion" OR it would have to be: "murdering the handicapped" is to "murdering the unborn". But this doesn't matter anyway because you're still avoiding the point. The question is: was the term "euthanasia" used in the debates sparked by Terri's case? And the answer is YES. So it should be mentioned just as it is, and regardless of whether you think it's POV, or regardless of whether you want to hide the truth of the instance behind pretty words, it shouldn't be sugar-coated if that's what they were talking about. If the Roe v. Wade article said the case sparked debate over "murdering the unborn", I would change it to the medical term "abortion". Just like if this article said the case sparked debate over "murdering the handicapped", I would change it to the medical term "euthanasia". Not the social term "mercy killing" just because some people don't want to think about what euthanasia really means. Stanselmdoc 18:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

His argument hasn't changed, you're just paying more attention to semantics and arguing for arguing's sake than the actual article. Your assertion that bioethics is not sufficient is baseless, give me an example of what use of the specific term euthanasia adds to the article. There were many, many words "used in the debates sparked by Terri's case" and that's a useless watermark for determining inclusion in the article.

Fox1 18:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

This whole thing is about semantics, Fox1! I didn't start this argument, I came in in the middle, so I don't see how your accusation of me using semantics to argue semantics means anything. It would only prove 1. that the argument over the word "euthanasia" is dumb and 2. that the people arguing it are dumb. Well.....yes. This is a dumb argument and frankly we're all dumb for continuing the argument. And this whole article is dumb as well for that matter. TERRI IS DEAD. And we're arguing over a crappy wiki article. A woman died, has been dead for some time, and we don't have the respect to lay off of the petty details of her article. That's so sad. And I'm including myself in that. But I'd at least like to defend her any chance I can, since she got no defense on this earth.

And I wasn't arguing against the word "bioethics" at all. I was arguing FOR the word "euthanasia". Don't confuse the two. What I specifically said was I don't think "bioethics" is good enough, because it's so broad. If we have a consensus to use the word "bioethics", that's fine. I was just giving my opinion, because (God forbid) I prefer being specific rather than broad. But I don't have any particular hatred of the word "bioethics" being used. Except that FuelWagon himself got mad when patsw tried to place euthanasia under bioethics. So by his own reasoning, bioethics isn't a sufficient word to use, since it doesn't cover euthanasia. I'm just trying to cover to euthanasia. And the point I was trying to make (which obviously didn't work, since you misunderstood) wasn't about the different words used in the debates. It was about the subjects of the debates. One of the subjects was euthanasia. Another one was bioethics. So I don't see the point in removing the word "euthanasia" just because someone thinks the word is inherently POV. We may as well remove the judicial homicide because "judicial homicide" is a POV term against judges and lawyers. That's the kind of reasoning I'm seeing. And I think it's bogus reasoning. And don't tell me I'm arguing for arguing's sake. That's an attempt at trying to get me to let it go and just let FuelWagon have his PC way. But you know what, I may just do that anyway. Terri's memory is already too caught up in legal crap for anyone to realize anymore that she was actually a human person who died of dehydration as a result of her feeding tube being removed (euthanasia), and not as a result of her collapse years before. Where has our common sense gone? Out the PC window. God bless, Stanselmdoc 19:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

The question is: was the term "euthanasia" used in the debates sparked by Terri's case? That's not the question. The question is does the sentence "The case sparked a debate over euthanasia" avoid the requirement of representing different point of views because it is undisputed fact? My answer is no, because many would say the debate was not about euthanasia, something which is illegal in the US. People use the term "murder" when they talk about abortion, but that doesn't mean "an abortion debate is about murder". I do not know how to be any more clear on this. There were no debates about euthanasia. Terri's case was not about euthanasia. People may have argued the case using terms like euthanasia, but that is their point of view, which is disputed by other players in the case. Therefore it cannot be said as undisputed fact that the case was "about euthanasia". FuelWagon 19:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh and thanks for completely ignoring my very honest and pointed question, FuelWagon, when I asked if you would consider something like "Terri's case generated huge debate over bioethics, guardianship, judicial homicide, and the definition of euthanasia." OR "Terri's case generated huge debate over bioethics, guardianship, and judicial homicide. In some instances, many people argued Terri's death was an act of euthanasia." I was actually trying to find a way to write something to represent what you were saying. But since it's all or nothing for you, I'll just forget about compromise. God bless, Stanselmdoc 19:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I said above that one way to solve this would be report the different point of views: "Regarding (specific event) that occured on (date), (name1) said "quote1", (name2) said "quote2", (name3) said "quote3", etc. (URL containing quotes)" You're reply to that post called it "dumb", among other things. So, I may have missed that you were actually proposing a compromise. Let me have a look. ... Ok, I gave it another read. if you're going to present the point of view that some people considered Terri's case to be euthanasia, don't you think it ought to include the countering views? Michael, the courts, the guardian ad litems, and some chunk of the american population didn't think this was euthanasia. That was sort of my point in my dumb argument that it should say (name1) said "quote1", (name2) said "quote2", etc. Another alternative is to use a list of terms that are not disputed, such as "bioethics" and the like, and avoid POV terms like "euthanasia" or "judicial homicide" (a quote from Bob Schindler). Another solution that I tried, and actually worked until Gordon got obsessed with "euthanasia" was to remove the list altogether. The article was actually fairly stable for awhile after the list was removed. That's what I see as possible solutions:

1. remove the list completely and make no pronouncements as to what any debates were "about",
2. list terms for debate that are undisputed, or
3. list the individual POV's from all sides so that one side can call it "euthanasia" and another side can call it "following the law with regard to end-of-life choices for a patient who expressed the wish not to be kept on life support".

But stating as fact that this was about euthanasia is straight out. FuelWagon 20:10, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

...until Gordon got obsessed with "euthanasia"... Maybe I was a little "obsessed" over accuracy and consistency, by using what had been a good solution for ALL THREE wikis (English, Chinese, Hispanic) until recently --however it was NEUTRALITY, not myself, that reintroduced the "laundry list." I merely "cleaned up" the incomplete list.--GordonWattsDotCom 22:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

How about a small sentence saying that "In addition to the massive legal debates, the Schiavo case fueled many human rights debates before and after her death." or something. I think (in the interest of keeping the already really long article as short as possible) that a small mention is enough, without needing any defense per side.Stanselmdoc 20:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't know. It's neutral enough, but it doesn't say much, either. You want this instead of "bioethics"? Or is that in the sentence before? Is this option 1, 2, or 3? I think this is (2), but I'm not sure. Are you taking approach (2)? I'm assuming that you're saying "human rights" is not disputed. "bioethics" didn't do it for you? or is that still in the sentence before? Or is the list gone and replaced with just "human rights"? I'm so confused right now. Real world is calling anyway. I'll ponder it a bit more. FuelWagon 20:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

NEW ANALYSIS of Foreign Wiki's

If I'm reading the debate right, it looks like we can make FuelWagon happy by letting him put in some counter-description in addition -to counter or balance the "euthanasia debate" statement, which, by the way, is fact. I am open to such a compromise, but before I finish this paragraph, let me remind everybody that the Chinese Wiki used all FIVE terms, including "Euthanasia" -and, while the Hispanic Wiki sometimes used less than ALL FIVE terms, Euthanasia was ALWAYS used in recent times. That ought to tell you something. WAGON, are you saying all the other wikis missed something. Yeah, right: Say that all are wrong, and you are right -but I am open to the compromise that you and Stanselmdoc seem to favor.

One other thing: Wagon, you want sources, right? Well, the Google.com data in this talk page PROVES that it sparked debate about euthanasia -more than anything else. PS: Thanks for making all the right points, Stanselmdoc: You argued a flawless argument.--GordonWattsDotCom 20:44, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

just a quick note: Gordon, stop using wiki as a source for wiki. It doesn't qualify. FuelWagon 20:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Where is that in the rules? It is true that a wiki can not be used as a source for itself, because that would mean that you could use an error as a source for itself -begging the argument -circular reasoning, so to speak -but these are different wikis. EVERYONE uses wikis as sources? Why not us? Unless you are prepared to call ALL those wikis AND myself and NCdave, AND patsw AND Ann AND Stanselmdoc ALL stupid, your argument falters.--GordonWattsDotCom 20:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Better, instead, concentrate on the compromise that you and Stan seem to favour.--GordonWattsDotCom 20:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Distinguishing one dispute from another

There are several disputes, and I fear that we are getting them confused:

First, not in dispute, but worth mentioning, Wagon, when I left a note on SlimVirgin's page, asking for her to weigh in and vote (as an editor, not as an admin), I made a point that you had made many positive edit contributions. Hold on a sec, and let me get that diff: Here it is, "Revision as of 19:48, 9 August 2005" on SlimV's page.

• One possible dispute is whether use of "Euthanasia" says that Terri was euthanized. As Ann points out, the edit does not say that Terri WAS a victim of euthanasia. (Even though she probably WAS "euthanized," I would not support that edit, because that is POV-pushing.) However, the article doesn't say that with the edit in question: It says that the situation sparked a debate about Euthanasia. That is a dry recitation of the facts, not POV.

• "Those who support the Schindlers are in the minority here..." In the past, when NCdave voted on this, we were probably not in the minority, and we DEFINITELY are not now: "I agree with Gordon, Stanselmdoc, and Patsw." (quoting Ann) That is a majority, by my count, a supermajority, if you will, supporting inclusion of Euthanasia in the list -but that is contingent on the list being used in the first place.

• Should we even use the list I proposed? Ann voted 1/2 and 1/2 here: "So yes, I vote for saying that the case sparked a debate about euthanasia, rather than the more vague term bioethics, which includes euthanasia, but includes many things that are not in any way connected with Terri Schiavo. I'd also go along with FuelWagon's suggestion of leaving out the whole list, which would make the article shorter, anyway." I can't tell which way she votes, but it appears she accepts two methods, as do I, but I vote for the edit I made, and merely accept the other if it happens.

• Neutrality has said in large font size, at least twice, that Bioethics includes euthanasia, but most people don't understand that distinction in the general readership. His implication that we can use "Bioethics" as a stand-alone has apparently been voted down, by my count -and rightly so, but I must give Neutrality the credit for "sparking the debate" on this issue in the first place -with his random gung-ho editing.

CONCLUSION: It looks like My version has enough more than enough votes, but I haven't checked the page to see if it was allowed to stand. If it is, FuelWagon, you can relax, because the "laundry list," as you call it, was accepted by the Hispanic AND Chinese wikis, and your only objection (and a weak argument, I think) would be that it is too long: It pushes no point of view and merely states facts: The controversy sparked debate. Period. --GordonWattsDotCom 01:43, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

In the interest of not blowing my mind making my own individual response to FuelWagon, I'm going to just vote on Gordon's version. I think there is nothing wrong with mentioning what this case sparked, as long as it doesn't get into it's own debate about it. Stanselmdoc 01:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

The vote is now closed: Six participants constitutes a quorum: You and I and Pat and Ann voted FOR mentioning euthanasia in the intro; Neutrality and FuelWagon voted against it. The vote was ruled 4-2 in your favor. Neutrality also made the guardianship link not active, and I will fix that since wiki encourages active links, if they are a Wikipedia link, and further, this matter was not debated, so it falls in favor of "wikifying" the link if it was not voted down. Scratch that -I see he corrected himself on this point, but is stubborn and refuses to accept consensus on the other point: I will change it, and if they give any more trouble, I will notify ArbCom and ask for either mediation or arbitration.--GordonWattsDotCom 01:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

"vote is now closed". There was no vote, Gordon. You simply took the bits and pieces that you wanted from people's posts and voted for them. Once you accumulated enough "votes", you declared it "closed". Not only are you ballot stuffing, you're declaring when elections can be held, and when they can be closed. And you file an arbcom against someone who "voted" the other way??? unbelievable. FuelWagon 18:12, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

You don't get to hold votes, close votes or in any manner make them binding, Gordon. Why don't you go ahead and count my 'vote' against, making it 4-3, which isn't consensus... but then, 4-2 wasn't consensus either. The inclusion of euthanasia adds absolutely nothing beyond what bioethics adds to the article, and you're being contentious for no better reason, that I can see, than that you think you can get away with it this time.

This is not a personal attack, it is a warning: beware delusions of grandeur.

Fox1 18:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Vote against it, do you, Fox ?? Are you saying the Chinese AND the Hispanic wikis AND myself AND Pastw AND Ann AND Stanselmdoc AND Google.com ALL wrong? Yeah, right! Delusions and dream on...are ALL stupid? Yeah, they/we are all stupid, and you're right. If you believe that, then guess who 'really has the delusions of grandeur.--GordonWattsDotCom 20:53, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Gordon, I was addressing your individual method of discourse on this page, don't try and make this an 'us vs. them' thing, because it has nothing to do with Pat, Ann, etc. As far as you being 'wrong,' I didn't say you were wrong, I said I disagree... since this isn't a factual issue, it's an issue of style, formatting and editorial priorities.

Additionally, I never called anyone 'stupid' or used any even vaguely equivalent term and I would appreciate if you turned the level of bombast down significantly.

Fox1 13:05, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

"Gordon, I was addressing your individual method of discourse on this page...As far as you being 'wrong,' I didn't say you were wrong, I said I disagree... since this isn't a factual issue, it's an issue of style..." I am sorry that I misunderstood that on which you were voting. "Additionally, I never called anyone 'stupid' or used any even vaguely equivalent term..." Well, I didn't exactly say you did, but I am sorry if I incorrectly implied this; MY method to think this was the thought that "actions" (e.g., your "vote" against whatever) speaks louder than your words. "...and I would appreciate if you turned the level of bombast down significantly." OK, I'm sorry if I shouted or jumped up and down, but I simply was happy (overjoyed actually) that both the Chinese and the Hispanic wikimasters (and numerous fellow editors, current and past) had agreed with me on a point (including mention of "euthanasia" debate") on which I thought I was (stylistically) right. However, other than the slight "length" problem, I think this matter has become moot. I give my "STAMP of APROVAL" on the current version of the page, having noted that most participants on various sides of the issue (myself included) are happy with it.--GordonWattsDotCom 04:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Update, pursuant to Neutrality's threats [here], he has been reported to ArbCom here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee&diff=20666603&oldid=20664909#Potential_admin_abuse_by_Neutrality

--GordonWattsDotCom 03:08, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I think arbcom reports should be reserved for more serious matters. Yes, I disagree with Neutrality, but removing euthanasia from an article is something that any Wikipedian has the power to do; it doesn't require admin powers so it can't be an abuse of admin powers. I think invisible instructions of the "do not change this" nature should be used very sparingly, mainly in cases where new editors frequently arrive and insert or remove something without knowing that has been discussed thoroughly on the talk page. As SlimVirgin said some time ago, you can't insert invisible instructions and expect future editors to obey them on Wikipedia. I think they shouldn't be used for something where there is a current disagreement and where the only people likely to make a change are people who are already engaged in the discussion on the talk page. So, I don't think Neutrality should have inserted <!--Bioethics is a general term that includes many of the issues involved in the case including euthanasia. Do not remove, replace, or add the term "euthanasia"-->[2], but any ordinary contributor can insert invisible comments - I've done so in the past - so it has nothing to do with use or abuse of admin status. Also, I don't think a vote can be closed so quickly. And, to quote SlimVirgin again, past votes have no effect on future editors - this is a wiki. Can we keep up the discussion? Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 07:01, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

"I think arbcom reports should be reserved for more serious matters." Yes, I agree, but even Duckecho complained about Neutrality's hit-and-run editing style, where he acted on his own and without a team effort, so this is a repeat offense, that is, a "pattern of behavior." "it doesn't require admin powers so it can't be an abuse of admin powers." To some extent, you're right: It's "editor" abuse, or whatever, but since he is an admin, his actions are slightly intimidating: That is why a captain of a ship or manager of a restaurant or an officer in the army is held to higher standards for infractions such as adultery or fraternizing with subordinates: the "Intimidation" factor.

One more thought on admin abuse: Since we see Neutrality's lack of clear reasoning here AND since we remember how he blocked NCdave for three days a few months back (and for what good reason? no justification), his admin qualifications are called into question, because an editor with poor judgement should not be an admin. However, let us not forget that Neutrality is otherwise intelligent and very hardworking. I wonder why he is acting so out of character -I wonder why anyone would oppose a common sense edit. He needs to be examined, and so does anyone else that argues for such a trivial point. ??

His actions constitute a "pattern of behavior," and thus, when we say, "it's the principle of the matter," we refer to precedent being set to lower the standards of behavior. "past votes have no effect on future editors" Well, in ArbCom, there is more likelihood that past votes do matter, and if ArbCom is fair and follows the rules like a computer, the outcome will be well. If not, "oh well," it is a good investment with the odds in favor of the right. My concern is that he is fighting for something in which, if he were to "lose," no harm would befall, and I am concerned about Neutrality, the person, as much as I am about "Terri Schiavo," the article.

On an unrelated note, you are putting in two spaces between sentences, but in the page, it only shows one. For example, look at this sentence in the edit dialogue, and then on the page. See the difference? I know that double spacing is a norm in some writing circles, but it has no real utility to my mind.--GordonWattsDotCom 10:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Current status of "sparked a fierce debate over euthanasia" edit

FW made a revert here of my edit; and my edit was effectively a revert (or "revision") of Neutrality's edit.--GordonWattsDotCom 22:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

If my argument really has merit, another editor will probably replace the offensive deletion. If that doesn't happen, then our arguments weren't meritous enough.

I won't "revert" per se, because that would not be the "wiki" thing to do, but I may attempt a compromise as Stan and Wagon were discussing below -even though this would increase the word length and is not favored.--GordonWattsDotCom 22:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• OK, I've granted your request, Stan, to include the proposed language, and Wagon, I've not only provided a source, but I've provided the "counter viewpoint" -with a source too -as you've requested. Now, are you happy?--GordonWattsDotCom 22:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Gordon, knock it off. Stop saying your version has "consensus" or satisfies a "compromise" when we're still talking about it. There has been no agreement or compromise yet that has any sort of consensus. Your use of google as a "source" is laughable, and "some" and "others" is generally a red flag for weasel words. How about some specific people actually involved in the case. Do you have a quote from the Schindlers calling this euthanasia? What did the courts call it? the appeals courts call it? the doctors? the guardian ad litems? Michael? Those were the main players in this story. Don't give me "some" and "others" and a google search for your POV phrase as a "source". Find what ALL the players said. Give links to everyone's quotes. Do some actual work. Stop pushing POV. I didn't work on this article for all these months just to have you slap "This was euthanasia" in the intro. Sheesh. I can't leave you alone for a second.... FuelWagon 22:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Wagon speaks: "revert Gordon. There was no "compromise". the matter is still in discussion on talk. and "some" and "others" often qualifies as weasel words. Anything to say "euthanasia", eh Gordon?" Now, don't put words into my mouth: I didn't say "Euthanasia." I said that is sparked debate, and even bent to your requests to provide other views -and links.

You'll do anything to suppress accurate and complete reporting of the facts, won't you? Part of the story is all you want to get out. You didn't lie; you merely selectively reported the truth, but incomplete is inherently POV, so, you suggest a solution that would include the FACTS and TRUTH about the "debate on euthanasia." (Be glad I'm not a weirdo, or I'd insist on language that included "murder" and "starvation," which, by the way, are factually true and correct, but probably a bit POV.) Wagon disputes acceptance of compromise; However, what would HE propose to report the truth and the WHOLE truth? Scratch that; He answered me as I was typing...--GordonWattsDotCom 23:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

"Do you have a quote from..." OK, when I was typing this, I had not seen your recent edit, and had an edit conflict. I may be able to scare up something concrete -and, yes, I'll try to get "both" sides of the story from "reputable main player" and with links/sources. Was hoping y'all would, but let's see what can be done...--GordonWattsDotCom 23:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Not "both", Gordon, I said, "all". I gave you a list of players. The Schindlers, Michael, the guardians (Wolfson, Pearse, Pecarek), Judge Greer, appeals courts, all were direct players in this story. What did they ALL say? Not what did "some" and "others" say. Remember the big battle we had a while ago that basically said teh court ruling is just another point of view, not truth, so report the courts point of view too. The guardian's are appointed to be in Terri's "shoes" (to quote Wolfson), so they have a point of view as well. That's four main views from actual players in the case right there: Schindlers, Michael, Guardian Ad Litems, Courts. FuelWagon 23:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

The ACLU spoke on behalf of Mike Schiavo (in a legal representation capacity) - they qwualify, and i listed tham -and sourced them --the Vatican represented Terris' parents (in a religios capacity), so they too are major players - I listed them -and sourced/verified it with a link --Lastly, I listed both sides of the "debate" --OK, happy now? Gee Whiz,,, I hope so.--GordonWattsDotCom 23:22, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

The vatican spoke on behalf of the Schindlers???? give me abreak. I gave you a list of the players that were directly involved. The Schindlers, Michael, the guardians, and the courts. Rather than fishing for a source that fits your POV and trying to explain that the "vatican" somehow represents the Schindlers, why don't you quote what the Schindlers actually say? Get something by Michael or his lawyer, don't "proxy" his POV to the ACLU. And where are the guardians, Gordon? They are all supposed to have Terri's best interest at heart. They are appointed to make sure her wishes are followed and no shenannigans occur. And the courts, what did they say about all this? Did they call this euthanasia? Four views of four direct players. get their words, Gordon. No proxies and standins. Unless, of course, you wish to claim that the Schindlers, Michael, the guardians, and the courts, had nothing to say on whether this was euthanasia. FuelWagon 23:27, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

"...Michael or his lawyer, don't "proxy" his POV to the ACLU..." Newsflash: The ACLU did represent Michael Schiavo. Look at the Fla. Supreme Court website to verify that -however, I can see where you're coming from on your other views. While I disagree with your stance on the Vatican, I think you still raise a reasonable point, and I will try to find info from the primary sources. ALSO, if I can find something more close than the ACLU, like a "more major" player, than I will -to make you happy, OK?--GordonWattsDotCom 23:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Euthanasia is the accurate word to describe what people are debating outside of Greer's court. The fact that the term was avoided there doesn't change the rest of the world. (1) Is anyone still disputing this debate is taking place? (2) What aspects of bioethics other than euthanasia are people talking about when they are discussing Terri Schiavo? (3) So what exactly was Terri's death? If it wasn't depriving her of food and water mercifully to hasten death, what else is there to call it? An assisted suicide or something else? patsw 23:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Euthanasia is illegal in the US. And if you don't see the POV in that word, I don't know how to explain it to you. FuelWagon 23:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

And you are in denial of the reality that the death of Terri Schiavo has been the basis for an intense national debate on euthansia. It was the first time in our country where a human being was ordered by a court to be deprived of hydradation in order to hasten her death, in a situation where the patient's own care choices were disputed over several years. This explains the great public interest in the case. How can all those people debating euthanasia connecting it to Terri Schiavo be wrong and FuelWagon be right? I'll ask directly: Are you doubting that this debate exists or that it exists but the question is not framed around euthanasia but something else? patsw 23:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Your questions make good points, Pat, but I've granted Wagon's request to a tee, so he should be happy -man, I feel like a Forest Ranger or fireman, putting out wildfires galore! Forest Ranger, or Forest Gump... sometimes I wonder. OK, I'm nice and burnt feeling.--GordonWattsDotCom 00:09, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

"to a tee"???? I list at least 4 POV's from people actively involved with teh case, and you cite the vatican and the schindlers as one and make a passing attempt at Michael as the second. You came up a few short. I added the POV of teh guardian ad litem Wolfson, mention of the 2000 trial that determined Terri's wishes and the law, and quote a 2005 court decision that lists just how much due process was afforded Terri's case in all these years. You want to call this "euthanasia" and hide behind the Schindler's point of view, fine. We'll report all teh point of views around "euthanasia" from all the people who had a direct impact on Terri. The guardians, the court decision around her end of life wishes, florida law, and due process. Now I'm happy. FuelWagon 01:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure as heck not happy, this is exactly the kind of rapidly expanding cruft that makes this article suck. Why in R'lyeh does all this crap have to be crammed into the intro?! This continuing preoccupation with 'reporting the facts' as if this were a venue for journalism, the embattled partisanship of most editors here, the endless proselytizing... does anyone pay any attention to whether the article is any good?

Fox1 13:29, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

The different points of views around euthanasia

Since Gordon insist that the intro somehow (any way possible) include the word euthanasia, he introduced it by quoting the Vatican and the Schindlers' support of their statement. He then listed Michael's POV that this was Terri's wishes and links to the neutral source of "fox news" for a source.

Since he left out several other POV's, in an effort to bring the article back into NPOV, I added mention Greer's opinion from the 2000 trial that determined that yes, in fact, this WAS Terri's wishes, the guardian ad litem's position that this was well within florida statutes and that that evidence was sound, and the 2005 ruling that clarifies that no, really, after serveral dozen legal rulings, this really, really, is Terri's wishes, and really really satisfies any requirement for due process.

Yes, the intro has exploded. But if you want to show all the POV's around whether this qualifies as active euthanasia (an illegal act in the US) or whether it qualifies as following a patient's wishes not to be kept on a machine within the law and determined by due process, this is what it looks like. FuelWagon 01:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

tried to tighten the intro a bit. still long, but I don't know what to do about it tonight. My brain is fried. FuelWagon 04:15, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I corrected a minor grammar typo of yours ("the Schindlers' support of their statement" is correct, with the apostrophe after the last "s") -a small reminder -in any case, I approve of (agree with) your edits, and have noted in the edit comments such. "Yes, the intro has exploded." That's about the only possible objection, and I was concerned about that -even with my huge 1280x1024 Screen resolution, which struggled to fit it all in one "page," but it is either right -or close to it. Good job, Wagon. "I am Gordon Watts, and I approve of this message."--GordonWattsDotCom 04:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Sheesh! I leave you guys alone for 12 hours, and look what happens! Hahahaha. I thought we were getting somewhere with the small mention? Am I the only one who cares about the excessive length of this article to begin with? I don't agree with ANY of anyone's edits. Not to mention the fact that it seems like all of you are caring waaaay more about your own POV on the case than on the NPOV of the article (even though I clearly have my own opinion of the case, I'd rather try to work toward something consistent than keep arguing over ONE word.) You make your arguments and then back them up with your own sources and stuff. That's a good thing. But the article is already really long, and the subject isn't about the debates that occurred as a result of Terri's case. It's about Terri's case. So the debates that it sparked shouldn't be a huge long description, unless you want to make it a second article. Maybe something like "Controversy from Schiavo Case" or "Debates from Terri Schiavo Case" or whatever. Wow, I'm really bad at making up names. Which I'd be all for, because it would sure as heck move the arguing from this article into one that would be made for arguing.

I don't see the point in listing off all the points of view, when everything can be summed up in saying that debates were spurned, regardless of the differing views. The word "debate" represents the different views. If everyone had had the same opinion, it wouldn't have been a debate.

And just a little note, FuelWagon. The argument that saysEuthanasia is illegal in the US. And if you don't see the POV in that word, I don't know how to explain it to you. FuelWagon 23:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC) isn't really valid either. Murder, rape, arson, infanticide, same-sex marriage (in most states), and a million other things are illegal in the U.S., but there's certainly debates on them. And that doesn't invalidate any of those words, or make them POV.

But that's not really important, because I thought we were getting somewhere above. (My actual example that I gave you was from choice Number 1). I would be in favor of removing all aspects of the "debates" completely and be satisfied with just a mention that there were debates over human rights issues. That covers both sides, without having to get into details that this article can't afford to get into.

And if my co-editors must have the word "euthanasia" in the article, let it be something that says there were debates over the definition of euthanasia, and/or whether her death could be considered it. Stanselmdoc 13:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

"Murder, rape, arson, infanticide, ... are illegal in the U.S., but there's certainly debates on them." If you think it would be NPOV for the Roe v. Wade article to say "RvW sparked debates about murder" and you would happily support that sentence because of your same arguments above, then we'll just have to agree to disagree because we're so far apart in our interpretation of NPOV that we'll never agree. FuelWagon 14:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

That's fine, let's agree to disagree. But what do you think about what I said other than that? The intro to this article was obscene before, now it's just ridiculous. Something needs to be fixed. Stanselmdoc 14:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes the intro is long. But it is actually close to being a narrative of the entire Terri Sciavo case. I'm thinking that the first paragraph could be left as the intro, and the rest of the current intro could just insert a new subsection titled "overview" or something. Rather than having to read 80k of text, the overview gives a good sequence of highlights. FuelWagon 14:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

That looks good, FuelWagon. And it is very nice to have something a lot shorter for people who don't feel like reading the whole article. Stanselmdoc 14:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Peer review

Well, I listed the article for peer review. It looks good to me, but not everyone's happy. I thought maybe some fresh eyes might help the article. I just hope it doesn't spawn an edit war. FuelWagon 23:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

All I can find wrong with it is spelling errors, and I'm sure you'd agree that if that's all there is wrong with it, then it should stay as is. Even the questions about length of the intro don't look problematic, because it "flows" properly, and the two tables of contents (one "main one" on the right and the other "related articles" one on the left) change the tone after the intro and give the article good ebb and flow, so I think no changes are needed unless someone wants to add a few "gordon watts dot com" links to the court documents or advocacy links sources.

PS: Occasionally, I edit the entire article, copy and paste it into Microsoft works, and see the "lit up" misspelled words, and correct them and paste the result back into the edit dialogue: That's my "Jedi" trick for my spelling prowess.--GordonWattsDotCom 04:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I must be getting burned out. I did everything for the peer review except list it on the peer review page. shhessh. I think it's fixed now, and maybe we'll get some outside opinions. FuelWagon 14:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Table of contents

Yo homies. I moved the TOC on the article up a bit, as it looked like ass on an 800x600 screen alongside the Schiavo template. If you don't like that and want it back where it was, move it, don't blind revert (as I also threw in a few typo fixes), and move the Schiavo template instead. They shouldn't be alongside one another. Proto t c 23:12, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Cool. thanks.FuelWagon 00:05, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I have reviewed all the edits, and it all looks good.

• Your tweak put the table of contents in a more accessible place -I tried something like this, but I got it too high and had it on top of text.
• Wayward caught some things my spell-checker missed -plus the spelling of "Judgment" that he used is more common than the one I used, even though mine was technically a correct spelling. so, all in all, the tweaks all look good and the page looks good overall too -I think. LOCK THE PAGE, for Gordon's sake already -it's fixed.--GordonWattsDotCom 03:26, 13 August 2005 (UTC)