Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Archive 40

Archive 35

←

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

→

Archive 45

Few Points

1. I like pics. You can argue about the relevance of them of course, but they break up the page and irrelevance aside they never hurt (the way mis-information can). I initially edited the memorial section and removed a pic (we don't need two of the same thing!) but one is fair enough.
2. Gordon, if you pursue an RfC against FuelWagon you will get no support from me. None at all. Indeed I will attempt to support FW as best I can—and, BTW, drop the Be A Man bullshit. It doesn't do anything for you. FuelWagon has been frustratingly frustrated the last few days—i.e., I've argued about edits that I thought he was ignoring consensus on but he has not hijacked the article. I do feel, Gordon, that you have hijacked this, for the sake of the FA nom.
3. Further we need a vote on whether to revert the side article removal OR PROCEDE FORWARD. I moved the resuscitation (sp!) order back to here, for instance, in effort to proceed forward. But I want to know: edit as if the court cases are gone or debate about their re-insertion.

"resuscitation (sp!)" -- Spelling fixed by Microsoft Works (not Word, but close), I hope you don't mind?--GordonWatts 00:44, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

So please, tell me Marskell 23:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd say reinsert the legal history and then start trimming the fat on it. Some of the stuff is either redundant or never amounted to anything in court. FuelWagon 23:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Brief Reply by Gordon on several points

I agree with Wagon on several key points:

• The template: The "permissions" template at the top of the page smells like "vanity" -even thought it is policy, but I think there is a "legal loophole" that will allow us to use the pictures without posting the template on the page, but I'll have to check it out and report back. As a "gesture of good faith," I'll leave the template off the page for the moment while I check. (We all need more "gestures of good faith," lol, don't we??)
• Article Length: Since Wagon's getting beat up by many people (self included), I am glad that I can say I agree with him on "article length" too, but I was viciously beaten down by overwhelming consensus, and i graciously yielded to the wises of the larger good. To answer Marskell: While I was upset that I had to split it, the split was "destiny, and I accept it, thus I shall vote to keep the legal "sub-article" separate. (It is preserved in links leading to selected legal time-lines.)
• "we need a vote on whether to revert the side article removal OR PROCEDE FORWARD" Gordon has no problem voting, and I say "proceed forward" --and do not revert to the more lengthy version. "Have Faith," -trust me. "Would I lie to you?" (Quoting Joe Isuzu)
• An article CAN INDEED have fair use photos and still be a Featured Article (which I know to be true, because the recent "Scientology Space Opera" Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/September_2005, the FA-for Sept. 10, 2005, had one Fair Use pic. Article: Space_opera_(Scientology) and pic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:LRonHubbard-Dianetics-ISBN1403105464-cover.jpg
• There was indeed one grave pic by Neutrality, which I replaced because Jumbo said to replace Fair Use with GFDL is possible, and I went to Terri's grave, said a prayer for her, took a pic, said a prayer for myself, and uploaded, not necessarily in that order.
• Yes, an article like this should have ample pics, GFDL if possible. I like pictures, since I can't read. ... (Pregnant pause) ha ha...
• No, Marskell, I did not mean to offend Wagon by the "be a man" speech; I meant only a little encouragement, to show him that, since I survived, he will survive too -and a little humor -that's all. If you are still uncertain, read my post here, and notice that I'm trying to argue Wagon's points if and when possible.
• Did I cover all points? I hope.--GordonWatts 00:44, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• The policy for attribution of the pic I took and released says here that:

"You should add a note to the effect that permission has been confirmed on the article's talk page (not in the article itself), but avoid disclosing unnecessary personal details such as email addresses or telephone numbers. You may wish to use the {{confirmation}} template for this purpose."

• Conclusion: We can make a note here in this post that I gave permissions for some picture(s) currently in the article under GFDL. I officially state this and sign my name here. Is this sufficient to "add a note" to this talk page, as opposed to using the template. What say my favorite lawyers?--GordonWatts 00:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

The Calton-edit war

Mark (Raul654) protected the main article space here and posted the edit war tag, which suggest that "resolved on the discussion page," namely here.

Calton, in his provocation, made these edit comments: "Removing mention of legal motion: all other motions are in separate article, so no reason to make an exception here," in his 3:44 AM (UTC) revision here, but I have reviewed the chronology of the paragraph, and the section removed is an explanation of what the court did in response to the prior paragraph -it could not honestly go in the sub-article, because the time-line would be broken.

The only way to do that would be to move the whole section (meaning paragraphs above and below so the time-line is not broken -in a way that would confuse readers of what order events occurred).

Regarding the "vanity" links, they are not visible to the public, so the fact they're hidden is irrelevant. Hidden comments are appropriate when the content is disputed. It is. They should stay until future generations (who actually participate in talk in large numbers) come to a consensus one way or the other. One editor or even two is not going to do that. "Take it to the talk page, and discuss it."

"Repair, don't revert."

Let it be on record that should this Featured Article nomination fail, I will hold Calton and FuelWagon responsible -not revenge (that is the Lord's and I wish good will and cheers), but responsibility for one's action: I have taken the lead and removed ALL "questionable" or "vanity" types links from the visible page --as it stands, the reference section numbering is off. (Count the references and the notes; Calton's edit messed that up, as have FuelWagon's edit; Compare my versions and see how the number of references are the same as the number of note -and in order and links working.)

They want us to take it to talk, and I am; Any others care to? --GordonWatts 04:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

For God's sake, I am on vacation, and using my time to try and get a job; Can't people just leave things alone and stop persecuting me; I am trying to comply with everybody's wishes, but some things are non-negotiable: When you start picking apart an article "randomly" to make a point -and leave it more damaged than when you begin -seeing also as I have indeed removed these "vanity" links from public view -I am justified in claiming persecution. But, am I? I won't answer that, for whilst I feel justified, it is not my place to defend myself: I shall not.--GordonWatts 04:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

If the only cite for whatever facts are being disputed is your personal GeoCities page, I would argue that there is no notable cite for whatever facts are in dispute, and they must be removed from the article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

"...no notable cite for whatever facts are in dispute..." Hold on a sec: I just now get the picture: You and FuelWagon don't believe that the news story I wrote is accurate, is that right? I don't mind if you call me a liar; I don't mind if you say I am truthful; What I do mind is when people beat around the bush. Do you think my story has falsehoods in it?

Here are the two reference notes in question:

#{{note|OralArgNewsStory}} From Staff Reports. (Watts, Gordon W., Editor-in-Chief) "Lakeland Appeals Court holds Oral Arguments for Terri's Law," The Register, June 14 2004 link mirror link #{{note|QuoWarranto}} Ford, Cheryl, R.N. "News Coverage of Terri Schiavo's family's challenge to Mike Schiavo's guardianship," The Register, June 16 2004 link mirror link

If you say I am lying or incorrect, then:

1) Tell me what specifically; and,

2) Tell my why you think it is false.

If you say I am not lying or incorrect, then:

The Register should be treated as any other paper. (PS: My paper did not get caught in a scandal making up stories -like the New York Times did: NY Times + Jayson Blair on Google.com or The NY Times "Jayson Blair" scandal on Yahoo!)

I await your answer.--GordonWatts 03:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

"If the only cite for whatever facts are being disputed is your personal GeoCities page..." No. the official court docket [1] also indicates that there was an oral argument hearing that day, and thus it is logical to look for news reports of this event. (Google confirms this: [2].) In this case, The Register beat out the other news agencies, and, since the article is not about the register, but, instead, about the hearing, it is appropriate. I would not have published the story were it false, and, in this case, I was the one who carefully went over notes to write the story (not from memory, but from notes). I did a good job in the area of "scribe" and thus, while not perfect, the story is no different than any other news outlets, some greater, some smaller. Not being paid means I had less of a motive to alter facts, thus less conflict of interest. For a comparison, compare the recent New York Times debacle in which writers make stuff up. You don't find that at The Register. While not all agree on the editorials of either The Register or The Times, The Register is as reliable (or more) for factual accuracy -not that it need be, but our writers take pride in accuracy -the hallmark of a good reporter.--GordonWatts 20:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Then cite the transcript. The Register is not a reputable source. You having "less of a motive to alter facts" than a professional reporter with a reputation to protect doesn't pass the laugh test. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

If you are not a troll, Calton, I apologize, but it is your responsability to explain your actions: PS: I feel bad about reverting Calton, but, in the end, he wasn't serious about putting legal stuff in the legal sub-article -or else he would have put all that paragraph in the sub-article. He did not, thus betraying his (sorry!) troll-like behavior. If I am wrong about my feeling that he is a troll (and I hope I am wrong), he can come to the table and argue either for the Terri's Law section to ALL stay in the main article -or ALL go in the sub-article. We won't be having any "split up" confusion on my watch -because the story should (for ease of reading) be chronological. I personally think he was editing out events in which The Register reported -and then using this as an excuse to remove references and notes, but, sorry, Calton: We report on the facts as they happen, not on "what looks 'non-Gordon'." We don't pick and choose: If it happened -and it is important -then "We Report, You Decide," as Fox News would say, lol.--GordonWatts 20:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Gordon, if the Schindler's own personal website doesn't mention this motion, just exactly how important are we to take this motion? If it was something important, something they think would prove their case or help their cause, I'd think they'd list it on their website somewhere. That they don't should indicate how unimportant this motion is in the scheme of things. When we reintegrate the 10 year legal history, we'll need to cut unimportant bits. This motion is an unimportant bit. YOU are the only person who is "reporting" it. It is not a notable motion. Oh, and your personal website doesn't qualify as notable either. FuelWagon 22:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not enthusiastic about Wikipedian editors adding links to their own sites or to sites that they have a close connection to. However, the fact that The Terri Schindler-Schiavo Foundation does not mention this motion proves nothing. Most of the information about court cases, affidavits, etc. was removed from the website after Terri's death, and the website was completely redone. Its original purpose was to save Terri's life; its purpose now is to "educate the general public regarding current guardianship laws and state laws on death by dehydration and starvation". I have no opinion as to how notable the motion was or wasn't. But the silence of the Schindlers' website in its current state is not an argument. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 22:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, Ann, as Gordon has pointed out, there is no website reporting on this motion. Gordon's cardboard facade called "The Register", with Gordon Watts Editor-in-Chief and (sole) staff reporter, is the only "newspaper" that apparently has bothered to report on this motion. So, while I pointed out the Schindler's site specifically, it was simply an example of a larger problem: namely that no one mentions this motion, except Gordon. The entire "save Terri" mob on planet earth, and none of them bothered to mention it. This is the basis for Gordon's argument that we must use his website, because he is the only one who reports on this motion. But if he is the only one, just how important is this motion? not a single site mentions it? Gordon is making a mountain out of a motion-molehill. FuelWagon 02:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

"But if he is the only one, just how important is this motion?" Are you calling my news story a lie, and me a liar? See my dialogue to Hipocrite along these lines.--GordonWatts 03:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say you were a liar, Gordon. I said the motion can be considered completely unimportant given it's complete lack of coverage anywhere on the web (with the exception of your "newspaper" of course). FuelWagon 03:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Well said, but remember: By implying that the story's worth derives from the paper reporting it, you are saying that my paper is somehow less; Yet, it is as reliable as the NY Times (See links above in which they had Jayson Blair scandals; My paper didn't). This premise is flawed, so your conclusion can not follow: My paper was as reliable as the next, and thus, the event's "notability" is based on the event -not the paper(s) or TV station(s) reporting it.--GordonWatts 03:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Image overkill?

I have a question, do you think three photos in the section with Terri's grave is an overkill of the use of photos. I do not mind having one photo of her grave, then we could upload the other photos to the Wikimedia Comnmons, so we can let other Wikipedia's use the photos Gordon took (thanks again). Also, I believe that if we have legal texts that are in the public domain relating to this case, we could post them at Wikisource. Zach (Sound Off) 05:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I was OK with one, but others started tampering with the article, and I said "let's improve it" --no revenge or anything, but frustration. For the record, another editor was OK with two images, having removed one -and then craziness happened and removed ALL of them (several editors had ganged up on me, but we cleared them out). Then, one pic was put back. Three? Yes, it's a lot, but this is a long article. The other issues overshadow the image dispute -and need our attention even more.--GordonWatts 05:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

"I was OK with one, but others started tampering with the article, and I said "let's improve it"" That qualifies as disrupting wikipedia to make a point rather than to make an article better. The article was down to one or zero photos. Because you wanted one and I deleted it, you decided to push in three photos instead. That is blatantly a bad faith edit, Gordon. FuelWagon 21:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

"disrupting wikipedia to make a point" No. I am not trying to "make a point." Two or three pictures do belong, or otherwise (1) I would not have put them in; (2) Marskell would not have put them in after they were deleted; and, (3) Most others would not have remained silent and raised no objection; However, #'s 1, 2, AND 3 are quite true. Most do believe the pics are a good thing -and pretty, so, I'm standing on principal, not "making a point." Are you not jealous that I took the pics? If so, then you can take some and GFDL release them. If not, then cheer me on -and cheer on Terri Schiavo's article.--GordonWatts 01:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Three pictures of the gravesite, gravestone, and cemetary; you're saying they all belong? You're saying that given a biographical article about someone's life, that an image of them alive, a cat scan, and three photos of their grave is appropriate? You're not standing on principle, Gordon, you're standing on nothing but bullheadedness. The debate was 1 photo or 0 photos. When I voted for 0 photo, you pouted and bumped it to 3, and then caused a little edit war and got the article locked. That's not principle, that's a temper-tantrum. FuelWagon 02:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I've been watching this from a distance, but perhaps if the gravesite and ceremonies is of notable status in and of itself, several images could belong with a (new?) article about the gravesite, the memorial, etc? The images are then put to good use, the knowledge about the subject is expanded, and there is less of a battle over the images being on this particular page? Ronabop 08:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

One is absolutely fine. I dropped it from three to two and someone else dropped it to one. I have no idea why FuelWagon has been removing it with the comment "adds nothing to the page." It's been here for quite a while. Marskell 15:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'm happy with one image, and I think it looks nice, and makes it easier on the eye. Long web pages with only text place an extra burden on the reader. I'm frankly puzzled at FuelWagon's persistence in removing Gordon's images, when he made absolutely no protest about Neutrality's very similar (but copyrighted) image. My vote would be for the SchiavoGrave.jpg image – the one that's currently on the bottom right of the "Memorial" section. My second choice would be the SchiavoHeadstoneAndGrave.jpg image, on the left. I see no need for SylvanAbbey.jpg, although I appreciate that one takes lots of photos and then makes a judgment as to which ones are most appropriate. I particularly liked the photo of the hospice, which is now gone, but that whole section seems to have been removed. I think it's a bit strange that the first mention the article makes of the hospice is in the context of Greer forbidding the DCF to remove Terri from the hospice in March 2005. (How did she come to be in a hospice in the first place?) It doesn't strike me as good writing to introduce new information as if it's already known. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 17:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

With POV warriors like Gordon, I don't have the luxury of addressing every one of my concerns about the article. I never liked the photo of the gravestone, but Gordon and his POV churn and burn generally kept me busy fixing other stuff. Now that he's drawn attention to it, I'll make my opinion known that I think its a useless photo. Same with the hospice photo. And it doesn't fix any "Fair use" issues, anyway, which is a problem with Featured Article status. adding other photos doesn't change the fact the the two main photos are there under the defense that they qualify as "Fair Use". FuelWagon 22:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

One more time: Why GFDL can help Fair Use

Wagon made the point that more GFDL pics don't help the current Fair Use pics, but here is why he is wrong:

Suppose you had an article with one line (one sentence) of text and about 20-25 photos that were Fair Use: You know what would happen? LAWSUIT, hello?!

OK, now, suppose you had an encyclopedia with, say, 20,000 or 30,000 pages, and 20-25 Fair Use pics, BUT with MANY lines of text --AND about 4,000-5,000 GFDL pics -in which the Fair Use pics were thinly spread out -simply to make a point or to clarify -but were not the article themselves. (You know, like when a writer of a LONG article makes like 1 or 2 quotes of a famous person -and gives credit to the copyright holder -under fair use.)

You know what? It would be OK.

AN EXAMPLE for User:FuelWagon: When I was a student at Florida State University, one student, Robert Potter got the University in BIG trouble with local media (Google lookup & "Florida State U. Accused of Bullying Outspoken Student"). He harshley criticized FSU, and the President, Sandy D'Alemberte, complained about it -and this made the local papers.

So?

One newspaper printed the letter that ran in the other newspaper -but it was Fair Use: The story was about that -no lawsuit.

However, had the FSView printed EVERY letter that ran in the Tallahassee Democrat's letters pages -then, we'd be having copyrvio lawsuits a jumpin'.

OK, Wagon, get the picture? If the Fair Use pics are a "small percentage" of the article, then OK, so increasing quantity of GFDL pics reduces the Fair Use percentage. Yo, I'm tired, and upset that I'd have to explain this, but I hope it helps.--GordonWatts 20:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Gordon. You obviously know nothing of copyright law. It doesn't matter what percentage is "fair use" versus GFDL. A photo is either "fair use" or it is not. The two important photos in the article (Terri and the cat scan) are both fair use. Adding a picture of her gravestone doesn't change that in any way. It can still be disputed in court by the copyright owners, and it is problematic for anyone who makes downstream derivatives of wikipedia because GFDL doesn't apply to those two photos. You haven't fixed anythign by adding another separate photo. You've only attempted a shell game that doesn't work for anyone who knows copyright law. FuelWagon 22:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

But you haven't explained why you object so strongly to having one photo of the grave added by Gordon, when you didn't object to Neutrality's. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 22:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Fuelwagon's explination that he removed the GFDL picture because we have two fair use pictures makes absolutely no sense. I strongly agree with Ann - having a single picture of the grave is a very reasonable thing to do. →Raul654 22:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

And Raul's refusal to get it is due in no part to multiple attempts by me to explain. Gordon says adding GFDL photos will help get FA status. FA status doesn't like "Fair Use" photos because "fair use" is tenable at best, lawsuit at worst. It also makes downstream derivatives problematic since downstream versions need to know what is not GFDL so a downstream version doesn't take just the "fair use" photo from wikipedia and publish it by itself, which no longer qualifies as fair use. You can try to get away with calling a picture of Terri to be "Fair Use" when embedded in a large article. But if you take the photo by itself and attempt to publish it alone, you no longer qualify for "Fair Use" protection. The problem is the picture of Terri and the image of the cat scan can only be used under "fair use", which is tricky and teneble. Adding photos of Terri's grave doesn't change the issues with "fair use". Gordon's excuse of adding the pictures to fix the problem with "Fair use" is a strawman. It doesn't fix anything around "fair use". You guys get a keyboard and think you can slap a GFDL license on anything? That isn't how copyright works. So, gordon cant hide behind the false "it fixes fair use" excuse. The only reason to add it would be because it makes the article better. And someone, please, tell me, how many biographical articles on wikipedia show a picture of their gravestone? I poked around and didn't find any. This photo adds nothing to the article. No other biographical article includes a similar photo. And the article loses nothing if the image is removed. FuelWagon 02:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

"someone, please, tell me, how many biographical articles on wikipedia show a picture of their gravestone?" If you tell me how many cases had direct intervention bu a governor, president, and pope, then I'll tell you the answer to your question.--GordonWatts 03:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, sure, you make yourself sound so reasonable, Ann. All I needed to do was object to the photo earlier, and then it would be OK. Sure. Lemme spell it out for you. You are giving me static about one photo. Imagine what this talk page would look like if I raised every objection that I have with the article simultaneously. Yeah, you, gordon and the whole POV team would be having a coniption fit. I've been focusing on more important stuff like getting the 10 year legal history gaping whole back into the main article (with special thanks to gordon for cutting it out in the first place in his obsessive compulsive pursuit of FA status). I've let other stuff go. If something is marginal and the focus is somewhere else, I'll leave it alone. But now, Gordon is pushing the issue, he's launched his little edit war to the point of inserting three pictures that are pointless into the article. He has now disrupted wikipedia to make a point, again. So, now I'm focused on it. I never liked the photo. I find it pointless in adding anything of value to the article, and I find it to be insincerely appealing to emotions in a very tragic case. Just how many biographical articles in wikipedia have pictures of the person's gravestone? FuelWagon 22:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

"...he's launched his little edit war to the point of inserting three pictures that are pointless into the article. He has now disrupted wikipedia to make a point, again." Uh... No. I am not trying to "make a point." Two or three pictures do belong, or otherwise (1) I would not have put them in; (2) Marskell would not have put them in after they were deleted; and, (3) Most others would not have remained silent and raised no objection; However, #'s 1, 2, AND 3 are quite true. Most do believe the pics are a good thing -and pretty, so, I'm standing on principal, not "making a point." Are you not jealous that I took the pics? If so, then you can take some and GFDL release them. If not, then cheer me on -and cheer on Terri Schiavo's article.--GordonWatts 01:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Tell me, Gordon, how many biographical articles on wikipedia about someone notable and recently deceased that contains three images of their gravesite? You weren't trying to make a point? What were you trying to do? Certainly not make the Terri Schiavo article conform to any other biograhical article on wikipedia. FuelWagon 03:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

If you tell me how many people who received direct intervention from Congress, a Governor, a president, and a pope, then I'll tell you the answer you seek.--GordonWatts 03:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Direct intervention by congress, state governor, and president would justify why Terri Schiavo is notable. That doesn't justify putting a picture of her tombstone in a biographical article. It certainly doesn't explain or justify three pictures. Congressional intervention has nothing to do with a picture of her tombstone. Try answering the question for once, Gordon. This is a red herring. FuelWagon 03:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Courtcases mergeback

Some of the most important bits of the timeline were offloaded to the subarticle while some of the total irrelevencies that would be gone if this article were not in a constant state of POV war remain here. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I support a merge back in general but the length remains the issue. The court cases sub-article is 39 K. Cut that by 40% and I say yes. Marskell 15:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Compromise. If you can get someone in a Featured Edit capacity to stop complaining about article length's affect on FA-criteria to the extent that this good article is FEATURED already --and, if you will not delete even one whit, not a jot or a tittle, not a bit -then I will support merge-back -if and only if these conditions are met. Came known as "The Watts Compromise of 2005."--GordonWatts 01:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

How about we cut lots of stuff from both articles? Hipocrite - «Talk» 01:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Gordon, this is not going to be featured. Please, please forget about that for the moment. You can blame trouble-making editors as you like but there is not a single support vote on the FA nom before or after your changes. Not one. So forget FA and place (please again!) a short comment about whether the material you moved should be re-inserted. Broadly, I think it should and in this I agree with FuelWagon (though I am wondering if his repeated pic removals were really good faith). Marskell 01:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

How many biographical articles on wikipedia about someone recently deceased contains a picture of their gravestone? The photo adds nothing. And despite any jailhouse lawyering, it does nothing to solve any "fair use" problems associated with the other photos in the article. I think it should be removed. Gordon's reaction of inserting three pictures of the gravesite are clearly not good faith. FuelWagon 03:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Honestly, as soon as the most recent FA is closed I'm going to ask an admin for a moratorium on FA noms for this article. Marskell 01:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC) "...not going to be featured..." Marskell, I can neither prevent nor compel a Featured Article. Withdrawing the nomination might influence things, but if it's going to be featured, I would be stupid, and if it's going to be withdrawn, then it will happen independent of my action. I don't have that typo authority.--GordonWatts 03:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Certainly, a number of FA comments said something to the effect that an article should be stable before getting FA status. Given Gordon's recent gutting of a 10 year history, his vanity links thrashing, and yesterday's edit war and subsequent "lock" on the page, I think it's safe to say that Gordon has pushed any possibility of FA status out by at least 6 to 12 months. The best version of this article was just before Gordon nominated it for FA status and started a quixotic mission of trying to win consensus when the voting was overwhelmingly against. FuelWagon 03:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Giving Calton help defending his point:

OK, I think the article should have stayed at its original approximately 80 KB length, but I was voted down and accepted consensus here, but when Calton claimed that the paragraph he deleted belonged in the legal sub-article, I think he was not really serious; BUT, let's say he was serious: How would we do what he (and apparently Wagon) are asking -to take the paragraph and delete it?

Well, when you take out that paragraph, you have to take out everything in between it and the next closest point on the legal timeline -so you have a "continuous" legal sub-article.

IN PLAIN ENGLISH: If you remove a paragraph from the "Government involvement" section and place it in the new sub-article titled "Selected court cases in the Terri Schiavo case," then you would have to remove the whole "Government involvement" section and the "Do-not-resuscitate order" sdection -at the very least -since the "Do-not-resuscitate order" section is in-between and would need to be in the sub-article to stay in chronological order -and be in with the other legal stuff.

I say that we don't need chop the article as much as Wagon and Calton want --but, on the other hand, I oppose merging back as Marskell requests; I support a "compromise" in which the split that exists remains -but no more splits. We work with what we have: We need to be tough soldiers.--GordonWatts 03:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Gordon, can you ever give a short reply? No, we don't need a compromise, we need a good article. (and how is it that every compromise you propose turns out to be everything that you wanted anyway?) a 10 year hole isn't a good article. if you have to read two articles to find out the various points of view about Terri's wishes and condition and the like, then you don't have a stand-alone article. Reading about Terri's collapse, then clicking over to a different article to read about all the court cases and medical disputes, then popping back to teh first article to read about the autopsy isn't a good article. rejoin and trim. We need a whole article, not a two-part sequel. FuelWagon 03:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

"Gordon, can you ever give a short reply?" OK, this will be short but to-the-point. "and how is it that every compromise you propose turns out to be everything that you wanted anyway?" Luck? God's blessing? I didn't make it up; I really do want to split is less than you and Calton -but more than Marskell. "if you have to read two articles to... then you don't have a stand-alone article...then clicking over to a different article...then popping back to teh first article to read about the autopsy isn't a good article." OK, I don;t like it either, but it will work if the person really wants to see the story -he-she can click on the links. If it makes you feel any better, you can quote me as supporting your stance, but if the "consensus gods" go against us, and say 80 Kilobytes is too long, we must accept fate and destiny's blessings. "We need a whole article, not a two-part sequel." Well-said, but we are voted down; Accept it; You'll be less stressed, Wagon.--GordonWatts 04:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Gordon, just stop using the word "consensus". You've never used it to mean what consensus actually means. You've only bandied it about as an excuse to do something that you wanted to do anyway. "Consensus made me do it". No, You wanted to do it, and you call 4-3 a "consensus". You use FA comments saying that the article is "too long" and use it as an excuse that "consensus demands" that we cut out the legal history. No, that isn't what consensus demands. That was your particular attempt at satisfying the FA voters. The article can keep it's entire history and ismply trim down and satisify the FA voter "consensus" that way. Every time you hijack the article you cite "consensus" is on your side. There has never been a consensus behind any of your major churn and burn edits, Gordon. Never. Stop abusing that word. FuelWagon 04:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Protection

I notice that FuelWagon has requested unprotection (WP:RFPP). Does anybody object? --Tony Sidaway^Talk 18:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

If

• Gordon agrees to remove all links to his sites (buried or otherwise) based on consensus against their inclusion and
• FuelWagon agrees to keep the memorial pic based on consensus for its inclusion (you seem to have high standards in this regard FW, but it's 5-1 by my count)

then I agree. If the two could just give a brief comment that would be fine. Oh and Tony do you mind closing the FA nom. Marskell 19:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Agree, subject to the two conditions suggested by Marskell. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 19:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Just to pile on, I agree with both Marskell and Ann. →Raul654 19:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Nobody gave me a single biographical article in wikipedia that included a picture of a gravestone. Not even the Jim Morrison article contains a picture of his grave, and Morrison's grave is famous in and of itself. But sure, I'll agree to leave a pointless photograph in the article until a new consensus says otherwise. And yes, the FA nomination needs to be closed for this to take effect. FuelWagon 19:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

To invert that: if someone did post a picture of Morrison's grave there'd be absolutely no problem. Maybe someone should :). Marskell 19:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

an in the case of Jim Morrison, I'd say a picture of his grave has some importance to the article, given that his grave is important in and of itself. FuelWagon 19:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with The Register links being removed from plain sight, but to remove them from hidden comments accomplishes nothing (for, indeed, I've agreed to not post "conflict-of-interest" links for public view). I conclude that, since nothing would apparently be gained, that the motive for anyone and everyone who supports removing "hidden comments" would be merely to act vindictively -or "bowing to peer pressure" at the least; however, I may not be correct in assigning a motive. I am open to "compromise": Removing the links from plain view but keeping them in hidden comments to cite sources and reference for future editors to this article.--GordonWatts 21:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Whatever is the vote with regards to the links, while I vote against for removing the "plain view" links and vote AGAINST removing the "hidden comments" about the links, I will nonetheless accept consensus graciously. Regarding the photo, I support as many as possible, but once again, I will accept consensus on this matter. BTW, Wagon, re my question to you you never told me of another case of the pope, the president, and a governor interceding on a person's matter, so I don't owe you an answer about someone else's grave. (If you show me a person who meets all these conditions besides Terri BUT without a grave photo, I'll admit you're maybe right, but Jim Morrison did not have presidential or Papal or gubernatorial intervention, lol.)--GordonWatts 21:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Gordon, I answered your irrelevant question. That congress intervened is what makes Terri Schiavo notable. That has nothing to do with why you need to put a picture of her gravestone in the article. Your logic is nothing but non-sequitors, red herrings, and other fallacies. One has nothing to do wtih the other. Try staying on topic for once. FuelWagon 23:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I stand by the conditions above, but I could also accept having Gordon's links invisible. By the way, the Terri Schiavo case was notable long before congress intervened. And there was a lot of reporting about the gravestone – in particular the "departed this earth 25 February 1990" and "I kept my promise" bits. Both of those lines were newsworthy. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 23:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I think your stance is entirely correct here, except that -were I in your shoes -I would support the links to The Register because they are what one would normally find in an encyclopaedia -indicated by the fact that many other websites use my paper's links in an encyclopaedic reference manner -but, while i disagree, I respect your opinion on that point.--GordonWatts 04:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to wander, so: Gordon's links do not have consensus and they are not sources we consider acceptable elsewhere. The pic definitely has support. The case was interesting before but I would dispute notable before gov't intervention (neither here no there, really—it's notable now). I take Gordon as accepting: if this is unprotected they will be removed. So it should be unprotected. And yes, the FAC should be stopped first. Marskell 23:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

"they are not sources we consider acceptable elsewhere." Au Contraire! Look, for example, at:

http://bamapachyderm.com/archives/2005/02/26/gordon-watts-on-terri-schiavo (Whole article citing The Register and myself)

http://www.blogsforterri.com (look for my personal links, which are even less noteable than my paper, but link to them --in the left and column

http://www.prolifeblogs.com/index.php?cat=5 Look for The Register in the news links)

http://www.rense.com/general63/shc.htm Rense write on how I nearly won a rehearing on Schiavo in the Fla Sup Ct

http://www.libertytothecaptives.net/michael_schiavo_remove_criminal_investigation.html Liberty cites me too

http://www.edthibodeau.com/nonplussed/2004/03/terri_schiavo_r.html Another writer -this time a blog -cites me

http://info-theory.blogspot.com/2005/02/terri-schiavo-pledge-drive-ii.html Yet another cite

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/custom/blogs/breaking/entries/2005/03/23/protesters_remain_outside_schiavos_hospice.html The Atlanta Constitution Journal has an article on me -albeit not my paper (By GAYLE WHITE | Wednesday, March 23, 2005, 09:46 AM The Atlanta Journal-Constitution: "Protesters remain outside Schiavo’s hospice" -

Pinellas Park, Fla. — A handful of faithful protesters today braved a steady rain with occasional thunder and lightning to stay outside the hospice where Terri Schiavo lies.

Gordon Watts of Lakeland, Fla. , spent the night in his Chevrolet Monte Carlo. Watts has been fasting except for water for three days to show solidarity with Schiavo, whose feeding tube was removed Friday.

“The situation is desperate,” he said after hearing that a panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta had refused to order the feeding tube reinstalled.

http://reasonmclucus.tripod.com/terri.html "Reason" cites me...

http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/03-30-05/discussion.cgi.75.html Even APFN cites me...

http://www.firn.edu/supct/pubinfo/summaries/briefs/04/04-925/Filed_07-29-2004_AmicusGordonWatts.pdf Oh, yes: The Florida Supreme Court even cites me...

Need I go on? I could...--GordonWatts 04:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

That list is full of incredibly disingenuous, mischaracterized or cites that belie your credibility. From the top - partisan blog, partisan blog, partisan blog, Not reputable [3], partisan blog, partsian blog, you slept in your car, some guy's homepage, partisan blog, that's not the court citing you, it's you writing an amicus brief.

If the list is designed to prove to us all that you are an advocate for one POV, then congratulations, you've proved to us all that you are an advocate for a POV. If the list is designed to enhance your credibility, or the credibility of the register, you fail. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your points Hipocrite - «Talk», (actually, you forgot the info-theory website in your list -right before the "slept in car story), but I am not worrying over small typos or little human mistakes the we all make, lol: The bigger point is that, yes, these are mostly partisan blogs and personal pages, but the fact that so many of them mention me and/or my paper as a reference cannot be discounted. For all intents, the two "Terri" blogs are an encyclopedic chronicle of the history, albeit partisan, not unlike, say, a religious website or newspaper or religious encyclopedia (partisan). Additionally, you never tell me if you think I put in falsehoods in the story that I wrote, and I went to the trouble to post on your page thinking you missed it. No, I'm not trying to say you called me a liar (I don't think that), and yes, I understand that I can be well-intentioned but wrong, but nonetheless, if I am writing a story, should it not be taken as a reliable reference if I have not in the past been shown to write false news reports? (Editorials are one thing, but news reports are taken at face value: Contrast The Register to the recent New York Times scandal involving, for example, LYING reporter, Jayson Blair, AND his INCOMPETANT and/or BIASED editors who showed bias/favoritism to their reporter, permitting his stories to NOT get reviewed: via Google or via Yahoo! -The Register has never knowingly printed a lie or a falsehood, lol).--GordonWatts 20:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we can do much harm by showing good faith and unprotecting, I'll do that now. Steady as she goes. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 00:18, 1 October 2005 (UTC)