Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Archive 33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

→

Archive 40

archived

Things seem to have settled out a bit. I decided to push everything into archive 32. FuelWagon 15:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

A Fine Article

After all the hard work, screaming and scratching, you all have produced a fine, factual page. Everyone deserves a barnstar, IMHO Paul, in Saudi 18:05, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks. Does wikipedia have "article" barnstars the way the military has "theatre medals"? Then I can say "I served on teh Terri Shiavo war". ;) FuelWagon 20:38, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for recognizing all of our hard work and giving ALL one million of us barnstars. You da man!--GordonWattsDotCom 01:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't a million. I just went through and gave all the old-timers a star. FuelWagon 01:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Now, I remember that, despite my disagreements with Neutrality over "Euthanizing" a certain E-word in the intro, he had a good idea a while back about suggesting that the Terri article be nominated for a featured article. I'm not much into jumping up and down and investing much more time (due the the unstable nature of wiki articles), but I do think that his idea is a good one. Would someone like to suggest that it be nominated? Would that be done at, say, the Village Pump?--GordonWattsDotCom 02:26, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Red Alert: Firestorm at FAc - need your help

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Terri_Schiavo

Firesorm here. Need help.--GordonWattsDotCom 06:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and fixed some of the biggest presentation problems, but the FAC still contains a lot of significant unresolved issues. The biggest is the structural organization of this article is terrible. (Consider - If the evolution article were written the same way as this article is, it would be 950 kilobytes long and the TOC would have 150 listings). →Raul654 17:51, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

OK, Mark, I've reviewed and tweaked all of your edits. After all of the fuss over the lack (or deficit) of a sufficient number of sub-articles, I don't see why you wanted to remove the sub-article box present. Plus, after all the fuss over "article length," I don't see why you like all that white space between the table of contents (left side) and the photo. I fixed both of those. I prefer the Table of contents RIGHT -as Jesus has, but I am flexible and am OK with your preference to put it on the left side. I appreciate your interest and knowledge on the issue, but please make sure your contributions don't remove positive elements and "make the natives restless."--GordonWattsDotCom 01:14, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I made additional comments on your talk page.--GordonWattsDotCom 01:33, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

featured article comparisons

the Dred Scott v. Sandford article is a featured article. And it sort of has the same feeling as the Terri Schiavo history: a long legal battle all the way to the supreme court. but obviously, it happened a long time before TV and the web was invented, so I'm sure there are details of the case that didn't make it into the Dred Scott article. Everythign about Terri Schiavo is pushed to the web for immediate dissemination and so some editors push to have that included in the article. Anyway, does anyone have any articles that cover a topic as contentious as the Terri Schiavo situation so we have something to compare to? FuelWagon 14:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Evolution is a featured article. →Raul654 17:40, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

I'd say not nearly as contentious given the spectrum of beliefs/acceptance of evolution one could have, Terri is more equivalent to Abortion in my estimation. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:34, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Possible improvements

Due to intermittent internet access, I fear I cannot be of much assistance in snipping the article down to proper size for a featured article. I very much want the current nomination to succeed, however, so I thought I'd provide a bullet-point list of the remaining things I would fix, given the chance (this also provides an opportunity to discuss the changes, as some of them might be controversial).

• Compress the overview enough to fit into the lead section. It's no good to have two different introductions, one long and one short.
• The small sections (one to four paragraphs long) might be more logically combined into one section, and the material trimmed from them, offloaded into the subarticle for the section they are combined under.
• The PVS and the Law section might make a useful article of its own, and a wikilink could be used to link the two articles together.
• The fourth paragraph of the Another Guardianship Challenge could have its long quote summarised into one or two sentences, with the full quote being placed elsewhere or on Wikiquote.
• In the fifth paragraph of the same section, it might be logical to omit the date and place where Michael made his comment (every little bit counts; I've learned that from having to summarise articles like Mozilla Firefox).
• The Wolfson Report, if combined with some other small sections into its own section, could have the full quotes placed in a subarticle, and have the contents of the report summarised into one paragraph instead of the six paragraphs of quotes as it is now.
• The detailed description of the grave marker could be placed in a subarticle.

These are just some brief suggestions I thought of after skimming through the article. I hope they help, because I really feel this is close to getting featured. Johnleemk | Talk 15:12, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

• I'm trying to get this article into some sane shape. I deleted that awful summary section, I'm in the process of reorganizing the rest of it (for example, this article tries to tell the story in a chronological fashion, but fails to introduce people properly before mentioning them, for example). It also uses a lot of pointless html comments. Cleaning this up will take a while. →Raul654 00:36, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Further work

Ok, I've gone through and made some rather extensive changes - the big things:

• I deleted some moderately large sections of what I judge to be irrelavant material (such as the 4 paragraphs describing Florida law Re: Persistant vegatative states), and I compressed other sections.
• I deleted Template:Terri Schiavo because it is completely superfluous now - every single item in the template is linked to from this article (some of them many times)
• I reorganized it so that the TOC is no longer overwhelming
• I wrote an introductory section
• I deleted the "sources" section and replaced it with a (currently blank) reference section.

So what's left? We need pictures with acceptable copyrights (or fair use justifications, 'etc), and someone need to go through and change the citation style to the inline+references section that the featured article criteria call for. The ref/notes style, while common, is not required. →Raul654 02:04, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Mark, I've been using dark blue text color, so please don't be surprised at my post here. Anyhow, you are close, but no cigar: For example, the following three links are missing from or unclear in the main Schiavo article:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo_timeline (there is a link, but it is not clear that this is what it is) Well,... maybe it can be found by the diligent reader. I think I'll drop my complaint here.
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_will (There is NO link for this in the article - maybe I will fix that) OK: I see you've added that. GOOD.
• Also, what about the "references" section? Why don't you re-name the sources "references" if that is your preference, but it needs "references," "sources," or whatever you want to call them. What's the difference?--GordonWattsDotCom 02:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

• Re: living will - I thought I linked the term during yesterday's changes, but I was mistaken; I have just remedied this. It is linked from 'Discontinuation of life support' section now.
• The timeline is linked rather prominently from the second paragraph, in the lead of the article. It doesn't get much more prominent than that.
• The featured article criteria call for inline linking and a references section (which contains a list of all the sources used in the inline citations). This article does have good inline referencing, but it uses html comments for references (which, because it is not visible to the user, is not an acceptable style). The commonly used ones are the ref/note style (see libertarianism) or academic style (see Yom Kippur War). →Raul654 02:32, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

PS: I was acknowledging your repairs, when I had an edit conflict. Making good progress...--GordonWattsDotCom 02:36, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

"...inline linking and a references section..." I thought we were doing fine in this area, but I don't see your point. I think I will chill out and let you fix the format and then and only then think to tweak it. Cool, eh?--GordonWattsDotCom 02:50, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Basically, someone has (1) uncomment all the html citations, (2) convert them into an acceptable style, and then (3) list them all in teh references section. It's a lot of work and after spending the better partof two days fixing up this article I'm not really keen on doing this part myself. →Raul654 02:52, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, you mean find all the links to "extrnal" (NON-wikipedia) pages in the article itself and then convert them into a format that shows them as "references" to a section below -and then that section has the citations in "research paper" format -along with the extrnal links. Is that what you mean?--GordonWattsDotCom 03:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Um, not exactly. Every source used (inline) in the article should be listed in the references section. For example:

He was encouraged by the Schindlers to date, and he introduced his in-law family to women he was dating.[http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/WolfsonReport.pdf]<!-- quoting from page 11 of 38 of Wolfson report --> On [[June 18]], [[1990]], the court appointed Michael Schiavo as his wife's legal guardian. Michael Schiavo's appointment was undisputed by the Schindlers. [http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/WolfsonReport.pdf]<!--page 8 of Wolfson report-->

Someone has to go through, find html comments like that, uncomment them and convert them into an acceptable style. For example, Academic style:

He was encouraged by the Schindlers to date, and he introduced his in-law family to women he was dating. (Wolfson 11) On [[June 18]], [[1990]], the court appointed Michael Schiavo as his wife's legal guardian. Michael Schiavo's appointment was undisputed by the Schindlers. (Wolfson 8)

Then, once all that is done, someone needs to go to the referneces section, and list all the sources referenced by the article. For things like the Wolfson report, you link to the pdf in the references section (only) →Raul654 03:09, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Had problem - need guidance

I was placing links to references, the proper method that Mark taught me, when I came upon a senond link to the SAME Newsweek website. Well, I could have placed the link to the reference, but it would have caused the numbering system to be messed up.

Here's what I mean: There were seven links to seven references -each link had the SAME number to it's reference below. OK, so far.

However, when I was about to put in the link to the Newsweek site, it would have been link EIGHT, but there were only seven references below -because the newsweek reference was already there (It was number ONE), so the number EIGHT link, in the text, {{ref|Newsweek}}, which turns into [8], up top in the article, then links to [1] on the bottom, and then the next number in the text (number [9] in the top of the page, in text, that is) would link to a reference on the bottom of the page numbered eight [8].

Therefore, I don't know how to handle this -unless I simply make a "Newsweek2" link just like the first one -but that would be duplicative and take up extra space. I don't know what to do, so I am stopping and asking for help.--GordonWattsDotCom 04:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

PS: I'd rather not monkey with the references section: It's large.--GordonWattsDotCom 05:06, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Just make the extra entry. I don't think it's a big deal if you repeat entries. →Raul654 05:09, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Acknowledged and noted. Thx.--GordonWattsDotCom 05:23, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

churn and burn

This is nice. In an effort to get the article on featured article status, I see it has been completely churned. I also see that a few hotly disputed POV issues have conveniently been reintroduced by recent edits. I appreciate the effort. yeah, lets take an article that was wildly controversial and had actually hit a stable point and completely gut it and start over. Now POV warriors can use "we need to change it to get it to featured article status" as a nice excuse to hit the reset button. Unbelievable. Nice work. congratulations guys. I appreciate it. wonderful. great job. Commence the churn and burn. FuelWagon 14:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

major edit flag. Hey, I appreciate everyone using this FAC nonsense as an excuse to turn on the "major edit in progress" flag, and edit the article carte blanche. I especially appreciate it when people do it without so much as a peep on the talk page to mention what it is they are actually attempting to fix. Nice bulldozing folks. keep up the good work. Churn and burn, baby. Churn and burn. FuelWagon 04:31, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Assume good faith, please. Johnleemk | Talk 11:44, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

United States, perhaps

I'm not sure what you think about this, but I think the introduction should point out that the theatre of this intense attention was the United States. I think the following sounds quite good:

...whose medical circumstances and attendant legal battles led to landmark court decisions, historic legislative initiatives, and intense media attention in the United States.

Comments welcome. — Sverdrup 15:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

It was big news in Ireland, while she was dying, but I'm sure it was bigger news in the USA. I've no problem with your change, except that I feel at this stage, we should be trying to take things out, rather than put them in (unless something is particularly important or relevant). The article is already too long, and I feel we should be going through it now to see how it can be made shorter without sacrificing essential content. However, your addition is only four words. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 22:06, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

intro, again

Ok, I rewrote the intro. The shindlers and michael didn't always have a contentious relationship. I also tried to give a brief history of events of the major cases that actually made it to trial. The end-of-life wishes was a major trial. And the PVS diagnosis was a major trial. I then give the laundry list of all the other minor cases that either didn't go to actual trial or was quickly turned down or whatever. This should actually give some historical context of the last 15 years of Terri's life. Oh, And without looking, I'll just take a wild guess that it was Gordon who inserted the "debate over .... euthanasia". That is POV. The only way to make it NPOV is to report the different views. And that took four paragraphs, so there isn't room in the intro to do that. we can put the views in the article body if needed. FuelWagon 16:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Your new introduction is a big step backwards. Not only is it much longer than an introduction is supposed to be and mentions quite a few things that do not belong in the introduction (such as the fact that michael became a nurse, the fact that hte trial was a week long, 'etc), but it's almost totally unwikified. If you object to the other introduction, fine - I admit it was imperfect and could have used fixing - but that doesn't justify replacing it with something far worse. →Raul654 16:47, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

No. Sorry. Your version is "a big step backwards" and your version is "something far worse". This topic covers dozens and dozens of court battles, maneuvars, motions, and this intro is a cartoon simplication of reality.

"fought a legal battle for custody." Not even close. There were two or three court cases for guardianship, and a boatload of others that had nothing to do with guardianship. This is gross simplification and ignores the actual court cases.

"Michael wanted to remove the gastric feeding tube" Sure, and this completely ignores that the courts had a whole bunch of witnesses (people related to Terri) testify that she had actually said she wouldn't want to be kept on a machine.

"abortive intervention by the Republicans in Congress" Wow. amazing research. You took something that was practically irrelevant to Terri's case and gave it front page news.

"sparked a fierce debate over euthanasia" Yeah, we've already beaten this horse to death. Euthanasia is illegal in the united states. By definition it is the active killing of a patient. The removal of life support qualifies as the right of a patient ot refuse treatement, and therefore is not euthanasia in any NPOV version of reality. The pope may have declared it euthanasia and the Schindlers may have called it that, but every court that looked at this case, every guardian appointed to look after Terri's best interests, said that Terri would have wanted to refuse treatment.

What is important to this case is that the overwhelming diagnosis was that Terri was PVS and the courts called witnesses to determine that she would have wanted to refuse treatment given her condition. That is the core of this story.

Your intro is no better than a Television soundbite taken from the last weeks of her life. It is meaningless. It has nothing to do with what Terri wanted, and has everything to do with focusing on the feeding tube as if it were all that were in question. And your mention of the republican measures is nothing more than reporting on grandstanding. At the heart of this story is whether or not Terri was aware, whether she had any chance fo recovery, and whether she would have wanted to be kept alive in that condition. Everyhting else is irrelevant.

Also, by reporting nothing but the debate over the feeding tube, you completely ignore the fact that Michael and the Schindlers actually worked together for a few years, that it took Michael 8 years to petition the courts to remove life support, and that the courts actually did their jobs in trying to get to the bottom of terri's end of life wishes (she didn't have a written living will) and her medical condition. That is what is at the heart of this story, not some moronic, grandstanding idiot in DC trying to get his face on a TV campaign.

I'm sorry if my version is too long to qualify for featured article status, but some arbitrary length requirements and some FAC banner shouldn't mean that we take the story about Terri Schiavo and condense it down into a soundbite the last week of her life.

FuelWagon 03:03, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Since the major concern seems to be length and mentioning that Michael started training to be a nurse, I've attempted a condensed version of my intro. No mention of nurse training is made. Also, the challenge to guardianship, while shows the evolution of Michael/Schindler's relationship, is not as important as what was Terri's condition and what she would have wanted. The diff is here. Oh, and if wikifying is really that important, feel free to wikify words rather than revert again. FuelWagon 03:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

three paragraph intro

The introduction is now three paragraphs long. Read it here. That should be an acceptable length for an article that was 80K long and has many, many subarticles. FuelWagon 03:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that lead had some flaws (such as forgetting to properly introduce Michael), but the current version seems to lack those flaws. It's worth noting that you don't neccessarily need to make proper academic references in the lead, however (I assume this is due to Gordon's hard work). The lead is a bit long-ish, but considering the article's length and its topic's controversy, not unpardonable. My main qualm now is with the length; I'll have to go over the article again before deciding whether to vote to support its candidacy for being featured. Johnleemk | Talk 11:46, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Too long. hm. Well, it's now shorter. FuelWagon 14:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

It's looking better now. →Raul654 15:36, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

---

I'd like to change this...

Her husband and legal guardian, Michael, took her to California for several months for an experimental thalamic stimulator implant in her brain. Within three years of her collapse, four neurologists had examined Schiavo and diagnosed her to be in a persistent vegetative state (PVS) with little chance of recovery.

In 1998, Michael petitioned the courts to allow removal of the gastric feeding tube keeping Schiavo alive.

to this...

Within three years of her collapse, four neurologists had examined Schiavo and diagnosed her to be in a persistent vegetative state (PVS) with little chance of recovery.

In 1998, Schiavo's husband and legal guardian Michael petitioned the courts to allow removal of the gastric feeding tube keeping Schiavo alive.

With all links intact of course...I figured since the thalamic stimulator is already mentioned later in the article with slightly more detail, and the sentence was throwing off the wordflow (IMO anyway), it was better to simply remove it. Feel free to revert or whatever, no skin off my nose. :) justsomechick·chat·stuff 19:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Comments from Gordon

Proof that I was libeled, character defamed, mis-quoted, etc.

I'm not saying that fellow editors did this on purpose, but anyhow, here, Taxman says, in relevant part that "That the facility wasn't supposed to allow a non terminal patient establishes nothing important," and yes, that is the current version, but I do not propose we use the strong editor's voice, as some call it, to say this about the hospice; contra, I suggest we merely report on the various reactions by the major players (some of which hold this view, some of which don't) --see also Marskall's quote here, he ALSO uses the Strawman method of argument: He objects to a point that I am NOT supporting: Here is his quote:

• "<s>that this was a facility which is was prohibited by state law from admitting nonterminal patients [14] and prohibited by federal law from taking federal funds if it did admit nonterminal patient [15]. The court eventually ruled A-B-and-C. </s>. Per FuelWagon. Bullet ''31 of 50''. Gordon unless you can show that there was something particularly vital about this one objection, or that it was the centrepiece of the petition, I must agree it doesn't belong. [[User:Marskell|Marskell]] 18:28, 10 September 2005 (UTC)"

Indeed, I am not insisting that we keep the strong editor's voice about the hospice's role -as Marskell wrongly accuses me of doing; In addition, I am supporting Wagon's insistence that we quote major players. He always asks me to do that, and I always try to grant his request. I am all for removing the current version, but we must replace it with language with introduces this fact --and reports on the reactions of both sides: My proposal does that -and it's not too long. Please read what I write, and quote me correctly.--GordonWattsDotCom 23:44, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

"suggesting that this paragraph be deleted in its entirety, with no mention of the hospice." Gordon, my proposal mentions the transfer to the hospice as well. So, saying that we're trying to delete the paragraph with no mention of the hospice could just as easily be considered slander/libel/misquoting against those of us who simply support a shorter version. I propose mentioning it, I just don't see a reason for a whole paragraph. This is bullet 31 of 50 bullets, in one motion out of literally many dozen motions filed by the Schindlers. The courts tossed it. The guardian ad litems never report a concern about it. No charges were brought. No convictions were handed down. And the hospice never had its federal funding cut. This is taking one minor bullet in a motion and trying to turn it into a criminal case where none exists. FuelWagon 23:51, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Chill out and relax: I am not accusing all y'all of that -only Taxman and Marskell --Also, I long pointed out that your version is quite similar to mine, except that you somehow are obsessed with hiding the reporting of the Schindlers' reaction to the illegality of the transfer (but at least you have sense and have no objection to the "financial" complaints with the transfer, which, while important, are not as important as the "illegality" claims by the Schindlers). Also, let me clarify that, while I am mad about being misquoted by our colleagues, I am not accusing them of doing this purposely, but the end result is still la lack of education and people voting on something about which they have little clue; We are all smart and intelligent an many point, and I hope that brightness extends to the one point on which we disagree here.--GordonWattsDotCom 23:58, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• Edit conflict: When I posted that above, I had an edit conflict, but it still posted -and apparently your did too; The Wiki-gods are blessing the editors in strange ways.--GordonWattsDotCom 00:03, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

• Ok, I'm done here. You're so willing to jump in and claim libel, which is total BS. I did not state you wanted some other POV version of the article. My quote above says nothing of the sort. I read your compromise versions and I stand by the fact that the whole issue is very unimportant to the overal scheme. She is not known as the woman in the hospice and if she was it would be obvious that is because MS was trying to allow her life to end. A detail such as the hospice not supposed to be able to take here is incredible minutae, and establishes nothing either way, so I can't even see how it is a POV issue. But I'm not going to put up with this kind of abuse, and don't contact me on my talk page about it, because then you can be even more sure I'll never help with this article. - Taxman ^Talk 01:43, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

• • "...so willing to jump in and claim libel, which is total BS." I'm sorry that I hurt your feelings; That was not my intention, but, yes, you did misrepresent and libel me: Your statement above ("That the facility wasn't supposed to allow a non terminal patient establishes nothing important,") can mean only one thing in the context of my proposal: You can only mean that I supported saying that "the facility wasn't supposed to allow a non terminal patient." False! I did not say that: I said that we should report that one of the major players had objections of the sort. (The Schindler family and their attorney, that is. --And, of course, report on the other side's view too, and the eventual court ruling.)

• • Now, if you're really not saying that I supported the version that is in the currently locked article (the version which indeed says "typically" and "legally" that "the facility wasn't supposed to allow a non terminal patient"), then I am sorry and apologize that I misread you, but you should make clear which version (or versions, plural) you oppose: I can't read minds. Later, yes, I do see where you say there should not be any mention of the hospice matter, but I am sorry: Too many people on both sides view this as relevant, so you will have to accept that the article reports on the key facts: "She is not known as the woman in the hospice " I'm sorry: She is known as "the woman in the hospice -by people on both (all) sides of the issue: That is her claim to fame, so we must tell how she got there: That is the basis -the foundation -of the whole saga. Now, if you are truly concerned about fluff in the article, and since it's almost certain that the hospice admission will be reported, then why don't we work to remove other things of less relevance -but, please, no tempers.--GordonWattsDotCom 04:50, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

• • "*Ok, I'm done here...and don't contact me on my talk page about it, because then you can be even more sure I'll never help with this article." Dude, you're really stressed; If you get stressed so much that my post on your talk page is burdensome, maybe you're too busy to edit here on Wikipedia, and unpaid job, by the way. "A detail such as the hospice not supposed to be able to take here is incredible minutae, and..." This is what I mean: Do you mean to say that this "detail IS not supposed to take HOLD" here? When you're so stressed that you can't even put in a verb to your independent phrases -a professional Wikipedia admin such as yourself and probably a professional (based on your user name) in your job as well, this is further indication you are stressing over -what? -Wiki pages? I was very clear that I was not trying to offend you, and we both miscounted the "votes" in the recent FA-nomination, but I didn't get mad at you about it, and furthermore, I understood your more central point about it still being less than needed to pass, so relax: No one's out to lynch you. You're going to have health problems if you continue to stress, really: One step at a time, and the job gets done.--GordonWattsDotCom 05:12, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Gordon, I don't really think that this section is helping us resolve any of the differences on the article, and certainly isn't getting us any closer to unprotecting this page. Why don't you move this stuff to your talk page, and we can do some informal mediation? Let's keep the Schiavo talk page for Schiavo talk. Fernando Rizo T/C 05:49, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

• My only real purpose here was to get people to actually read what the varied proposals are; I am not so upset at possibly being misquoted, but instead my POV possibly being misunderstood, which means people sometimes vote on something without knowing that for which they vote. (It's hard enough to deal with people who really do disagree with you, but now, I feel that some editors would probably not object to my simple request to report on main facts -but they sometimes don't see what's on the table.)--GordonWattsDotCom 06:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• The page is too long for my tastes, but since I am trying to apologize for possibly misreading some comments which may have been unclear to me, I wish to leave this hear long enough for the major players to see and respond. (One of them has said that he doesn't want me to post on his page --so moving it prematurely will prevent him from seeing my apology for misinterpreting him, and, if indeed I misunderstood him, it is sustentatively important for his health and stress that he understand I don't mean to accuse him, and that he see why I was unclear on the matter. Then, once he and the other editor see and have a chance to understand why I felt that they were characterizing my POV as I interpret, I will gladly move it -and then it will save space on talk here, but I feel maybe sometimes others don't read the posts and object to something that the other user isn't really supporting. Please wait until the other two users named above weigh in, and if both of them (Taxman and Marskell) do not object, I will gladly move it, regardless of any other events.--GordonWattsDotCom 06:15, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

That's fine with me, Gordon, but in the future let's keep anything not directly related to getting this article off of its talk page. What we really need here is focus. Fernando Rizo T/C 06:40, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Thx. The agenda, I as I see it, should be -first to see if the two editors above OK the move you suggested, and we dispense with any hard feelings; Second, we should identify the various proposals for addressing that one small paragraph, which I don't think gives "undue weight," as FuelWagon suggests; Then, -third, there are concerns from others over the introduction, about introducing why Terri was notable; Fourth, there is concern about article length, not just "it's long," but some remarks about how minute little details bloat and distract. Lastly, I have grave concerns over enforcing any concensus, and have, in the past, given one example of how concensus was apparently ignored, but this is Wiki, after all, and "open editing -wiki style" allows people to be bold and violate concensus, but maybe we should not address that right yet.--GordonWattsDotCom 06:49, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

One thing at a time, like you said. Gordon, honestly, you ought to just move this now. Make a subpage to your user page if you'd like. I'm not going to push the issue, but this is almost holding the article talk page hostage. The priorities that you've delineated are good ones, and the sooner we get back to discussing those, the better. Fernando Rizo T/C 06:58, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Gordon, I find it ironic that under a section you've created titled proof how you were "libeled, character defamed, mis-quoted" contains a continuing misrepresentation from YOU about ME. You last version of "consensus" was not a consensus. you declared that you had consensus and then declared voting was closed and end of discussion. If you want people to stop misrepresenting you, then it would probably help if you didn't misrepresent them. FuelWagon 13:50, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

What did I say that you perceive as incorrectly describing you? As I recall, I said that there was a 4-3 concensus for the old intro, but that later someone (maybe you) removed and replaced it anyway. This is getting distracting: I am going to set up a tentative voting area -and comments are welcome, but please keep the voting section clean -this page is WAY too long!--GordonWattsDotCom 20:50, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

THE Voting Booth on SEVERAL POINTS OF CONCERN--DISPUTE

The removal of a section pertaining to misunderstandings, NOT the article

The First item on which I ask a vote is a "closed vote" that only pertains to two other participants, and the method here was agreed upon by the admin moderating:

• • MODERATOR: "Why don't you move this stuff [title section: Proof that I was libeled, character defamed, mis-quoted, etc.] to your talk page, and we can do some informal mediation? Let's keep the Schiavo talk page for Schiavo talk. Fernando Rizo T/C 05:49, 12 September 2005 (UTC)"
  • GORODN: "...since I am trying to apologize for possibly misreading some comments which may have been unclear to me, I wish to leave this hear long enough for the major players to see and respond. (One of them has said that he doesn't want me to post on his page --so moving it prematurely will prevent him from seeing my apology for misinterpreting him...and if both of them (Taxman and Marskell) do not object, I will gladly move it, regardless of any other events.--GordonWattsDotCom 06:15, 12 September 2005 (UTC)"
  • MODERATOR: "That's fine with me, Gordon, but in the future let's keep anything not directly related to getting this article off of its talk page. What we really need here is focus. Fernando Rizo T/C 06:40, 12 September 2005 (UTC)"

In order to remove the "Proof that I was libeled, character defamed, mis-quoted, etc." section, we've agreed that Taxman, Marskell, and I all agree to remove (or delete?) it. Please vote below:

• IS IS OK to remove this section in which I accidentally misrepresent the views of Taxman and Marskell -where I claim incorrectly they said I represented one version of the disputed paragraph?
• Gordon: "YES."--GordonWattsDotCom 21:04, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Marskell: Based on the appropriateness of the situation and permission to remove this by the admin who is the lead moderator (Fernando Rizo), I will "estimate" the "vote" from Marskell to be a "YES," and notify Marskell of my proxy vote for him, since he had a chance to vote and didn't -then I shall add this section to the most recent current archive. PS: I don't want to vote for anyone else: Voting for "you" is your job, not mine.--GordonWattsDotCom 03:26, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Taxman:Anyone else find it humorous 2kb of text was spent deciding if an irrelevant section should be archived? Yes of course archive it, you don't need permission, especially since who can find it in this flood. - Taxman ^Talk 02:55, September 13, 2005 (UTC)