Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:27, 6 July 2005

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Misplaced Pages:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

• Talk:Terri Schiavo/Mediation Archive 1 (17 June 2005 to 28 June 2005): some initial discussions, findings of court, Gordon's solution, Gordon's links, Poor Ed, First day round up, second day, framing, NCdave and the NPOV tag, time to deal with the bully, for as long as he shall live, the Schindlers as per se POV, crying witch, crying wolf
• Talk:Terri Schiavo/Mediation Archive 2 (next to start):

Ground Rules

• Mediator: Ed Poor

1. Only those parties who have agreed to Mediation may post here.
2. I will refactor this page, so that the top unresolved issues are always at the head of the page.
3. As much as possible, please add all comments to the bottom. Try to avoid "threaded" discussions.
4. "Seek first to understand, then to be understood"

Participants

Those that have voted for mediation

• ghost
• FuelWagon
• Ann Heneghan
• User:GordonWattsDotCom
• Mia-Cle
• Duckecho
• NCdave

Others who seem to favor mediation

• Grace Note -- No. Not on these issues and not in these terms.
• patsw
• Fox1 I agree, to mediation. I did before, forgot to do so formally Fox1 19:17, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A belated invitation may be appropraite for Viriditas | Talk. Viriditas has been deeply involved from time to time, but seems to have had other commitments recently. Objections?--ghost 12:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Has he voted for mediation? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 16:04, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Particpants

Those that have voted for mediation

• A ghost
• Ann Heneghan
• Duckecho
• FuelWagon
• GordonWattsDotCom
• Mia-Cle (not in last 500 posts)

Others who seem to favor mediation

• Fox1
• Grace Note
• NCdave - I vote for mediation. NCdave 28 June 2005 22:33 (UTC)
• 59 words: Patsw - I vote for moderation patsw 17:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Uninvited

• ChrisO
• Neuroscientist - I was unaware that one cannot post here without invitation. My apologies.~ Neuroscientist
• Proto - ditto. Proto t c 28 June 2005 09:05 (UTC)

I don't speak officially for the mediator or Misplaced Pages, but as far as I'm concerned, you're welcome to participate Neuroscientist, if you like -and, if it doesn't get to crowded, a limited number of others would be ok with me too; it is quite understandable that you could have overlooked a rule (if, in fact, that is the case here).--GordonWattsDotCom 03:34, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I second the motion. The fact that these editors joined us late is less important than the value they may add.--ghost 19:16, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That they shared their input seems to me to be congruent with a vote for mediation, hence sufficient justification for their presence even absent a formal invitiation, which I hope would be forthcoming. Duckecho (Talk) 19:41, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

congruent with a vote for mediation, hence sufficient justification for their presence - Very logical, Mr. Spock. I've beamed back up, after an extended hibernation period. I, too, should be able to quack shortly.--GordonWattsDotCom 22:29, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mediator's Summary Section

Numbers in brackets are diffs showing who supports each position. Bullets are Mediator's side comments. Note that Mediator will not "decide" anything, but rather help participants to reach consensus.

Courts and judges

Terry's parents vs. Terry's husband

1. The article should side with the POV of Terry's parents.
2. The article should side with the POV of Terry's husband.
3. The article should report the parents' POV and the husband's POV impartially, giving no particular weight to either side.

Petitions

1. It's okay to give just one side (the accusations)
2. The article should give both sides (accusations and rebuttals)

Judge Greer

1. He's biased.
2. He's impartial.

What does this have to do with this article? We do not do research. We report what others have said. So our opinions on Greer's bias are of no account. Others' claims that he is are. This is nonsense. You cannot "mediate" these issues. What you need to discuss is whether the article should spend great length reporting that wingnuts think Greer is biased. --Grace Note

Do courts find the facts?

1. Yes, a court's "finding of fact" establishes a proposition as an incontrovertible and neutral fact - as opposed to POV.
2. No, court rulings do not make facts true.

Are Court findings inherently neutral?

1. Yes, so Misplaced Pages ought to take the court's ruling as its neutral position, adjusting its position to be in concert with the law of the land.
2. No, legal findings of fact should not be considered "fact" for the purposes of the Misplaced Pages articles.

Conspiracy theories

1. The problem is the conspiracy theorists, and their wholly unsubstantiated claims.

What does it mean to agree to mediation?

1. Mediation must be binding, or else there's no point to it, but POV-pushers will never agree to this.
2. Lock page during mediation.
3. No reason for us contributors to refrain from editing during mediation.

Concern that contributor voices might be stifled

1. On-going, day-to-day changes to the article will keep happening and can't be stopped unless the page is locked.
2. Having a separate room could hurt more than it helps

Personal imperfection of the Mediator

1. Ed's neutrality has been questioned, and what's with those recent edits to the NPOV page?

• If I fail to maintain neutrality on this issue, I'll have to recuse myself.
• If my edits to NPOV or POV are challenged, we can check with Jimbo. In the past, he's always backed me on this - but I'm fallible.

Length of time for issues to remain open

1. Some want half a week to a week.
2. Not long enough.
3. Gives unfair advantage to those with copious free time

Archive / reboot

This is getting too long. I'm not going to have the time to read through every word of this.

Would someone please archive everything after the Mediator's summary? And then each person who has agreed to mediation, please write a summary (less than 500 words, I will be counting ;-) of what you think needs to be improved in the Terri Schiavo article.

Thank you. the Mediator

Done. FuelWagon 28 June 2005 23:26 (UTC)

FuelWagon 500 word summary

ANY accusations made in a court petition should be presented the way all the other legal disputes are presented. The accusations are listed, Michael's response is listed, the court's response is listed. Listing just the accusations and leaving out everything else is POV. Making accusations in an unrelated section and referencing some other section for Michael's rebuttal and the Court's response is POV. Accusations from non-players (blogs, editorials, armchair diagnosis) should be kept to the public opinion section, since such instances does not give michael a chance to face his accuser or to defend himself. FuelWagon 20:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Arm Chair Diagnosis" should be treated as heresay. Dr. Boyle, one of NCdave's favorites, never examined Terri, however he has a blog and has used it to make such neutral statements as "why are Democrats trying to murder Terri?" Senator Frist, who is an MD, never examined Terri (not sure if he even looked at her in person). But he made some "remote diagnosis" that NCdave keeps bringing up. The fact that Frist is actively courting the religious-right for a possible 2008 presidential election (appearing on a christian TV/radio program simulcast into hundreds of churches across the nation to lobby for support for his "nuclear option") should eliminate his "diagnosis" as anything but grandstanding for voters. And the "dozens" of doctors that NCdave LOVES to mention dispute the PVS diagnosis, were doctors who were asked BY THE SCHINDLERS to watch 4.5 minutes of video of Terri that they edited down from 4.5 hours of raw video and sign an affidavit. Their "video diagnosis" was an attempt by the Schindlers to retry the case that had 5 doctors examine Terri and diagnos her. The courts had ruled Terri PVS, and the Schindlers were attempting to get a new trial without any new evidence. The courts throw them out. FuelWagon 03:32, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NCdave has over 100 edits listed on his RFC page. about two dozen people support the evidence as showing NCdave is a relentless POV editor (NPOV violator). A total of FOUR people oppose it. Despite the RFC, NCdave has not modified his behaviour and continues pushing POV for the article. Since he won't restrain himself voluntarily, the issue needs to be elevated to some sort of binding resolution. FuelWagon 04:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Partisans such as NCdave scream the Michael "didn't remember" that Terri would not want to be kept on life support until years after she collapsed. Guardian ad litem reports that this was in part Michael coming to terms with her diagnosis and accepting that she would never recover. would like some resolution on this one. FuelWagon 04:32, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ann Heneghan 500-word summary

One problem is the idea that a court ruling (unless overturned by a higher court) become a fact, and is therefore automatically neutral. This seems to be contrary to Misplaced Pages practice elsewhere. For example, the article on Anne Boleyn does not say that she was guilty of witchcraft and adultery. Even though no court ever overturned the verdict, Misplaced Pages says that most historians believe the charges were false. Misplaced Pages does not say that Edmund Campion was a traitor. It says that Louise Woodward, Roy Whiting, etc. were “found guilty of” killing, not that “they killed”. It does say that Ted Bundy killed, but he did plead guilty.

There is a tendency to endorse Michael Schiavo’s version of events when presenting it. For example, in “Initial Medical Crisis”, we have, “The noise awoke Michael Schiavo, and he immediately called his wife's parents and 911 emergency services.” There were no witnesses – we don’t know if Michael’s version is true. Isn’t Jeb Bush trying to investigate a delay in calling 911? I’m not personally an advocate of the Michael-strangled-Terri position, but it was suggested by her family and at least one doctor, and we simply should not present his account as if it is a verified fact.

The opening section no longer says that she was PVS, but simply that she was diagnosed as PVS. Good. As stated in my first paragraph, Misplaced Pages doesn’t have a policy elsewhere of saying that something is so just because the courts said it was so – especially something controversial and disputed. However, in the “Initial Medical Crisis” section, it says, “and eventually resulted in a persistent vegetative state (PVS)”.

The article used to endorse Michael’s version by stating that he studied nursing because he wanted to learn how to take care of Terri. I deleted this motive, because we had only his word for it. It was reinserted on the grounds that the source had been found – a transcript of Michael’s testimony in the malpractice suit. Patsw agreed with me that that verified only that he said that, not that it really was his reason. Another user, following my complaints, changed it to “because, as he testified . . . I want to learn . . .” I pointed out on the user talkpage that this was still supporting Michael. (Think of the difference between “John said it was a nice day”, and “As John said, it was a nice day.” The speaker is endorsing John’s statement the second time, but not the first.) The article still endorses Michael’s testimony with “as he testified”. That needs to be changed.

I’ve commented elsewhere on the abuse that takes place on talk pages. I believe also that we’re spending too much time (and space) arguing about whether Michael or the Schindlers were right. I’m guilty of that myself sometimes, but I think it’s not what those pages are for. Each party’s version should be clearly labelled as such. Whether or not we believe any version is entirely irrelevant. (499 words) Ann Heneghan 01:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gordon Wayne Watts' 500-word summary

Sorry I'm so slow to respond; the challenge to get every issue addressed within 500 words (even avoiding behavioral problems, which may need 500 more words —later) is a daunting task. I'm currently analyzing both the article and ALL other concerns by fellow editors and should be on task here shortly.--GordonWattsDotCom 03:27, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

UPDATE: I am still analyzing the raw data (mainly the article itself), and having to take breaks -because there is so much of it. Please be patient, because the main article is not as neutral as I once thought: There are so many factual errors and POV omissions that I'm in meltdown from the overload. With the help of my Higher Deity, I hope to be finished soon.--GordonWattsDotCom 06:37, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(Quoting Uncle Ed) "...please write a summary (less than 500 words, I will be counting ;-) of what you think needs to be improved in the Terri Schiavo article." OK: Here goes:--GordonWattsDotCom 00:09, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• (Word count ticker of my piece below, focusing mainly on POV omissions: 500 words used out of 500 permitted; notes: I remove the invisible links before asking word counter for a figure because they are pasted -even after a "text only" copy and paste!)
• Article mentions motion "...to Provide Terri with Food and Water by Natural Means," and Greer denial but OMITS main dispute opponents had with Greer's decision, namely that it violated felony law, arguably the most important dispute regarding Greer EVER!
• Article mentions Terri_Schiavo#Rehabilitation_efforts by family but OMITS 744.3215(1)(i), the most relevant "rehabilitation" law, and MAIN dispute ALL opponents had with Greer's denial of rehab.
• Article NOWHERE mentions when (or why?) handicapped Terri was put in hospice, nor does it mention critics repeatedly disputed as a violation of 400.6095(2), state law, which restricts hospice admission to patients with "diagnosis and prognosis of terminal illness." Since State Law (765.101(17)), doesn't define specifically, it would be POV to omit the federal law, TITLE 42 USC 418.22, which DOES define terminal (as "prognosis is for a life expectancy of 6 months or less if the terminal illness runs its normal course"). (Reasonable persons would want to know why crippled people are placed in hospice, and if it's against any laws.)
• Intro "sparked a fierce debate over..." OMITS "Euthanasia," which (according to Google.com), was MOST fiercely debated regarding Schiavo of all terms listed. Also state law regarding Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide found NOWHERE in article!!
• NOWHERE does article mention that Terri's parents tried to get a "trial by jury" in RECENT state AND federal cases for Terri. This is the most protected right of all: See e.g., Pages 18&19 for laws that should be cited to support Schindlers' claims.
• Schindlers have questioned why Michael delayed litigating about Terri's alleged wishes and the legal reason preventing him from doing so. Article omits BOTH: Res Judicata prevents from litigating Terri's wishes because he had a chance during Medical Malpractice trial and didn't.
• Article DOESN'T mention that “cerebral cortex missing” claims by Felos and Cranford were DISPROVEN!! by autopsy.
• Autopsy states on page 17 that "persistent vegetative state and minimally conscious state are clinical diagnoses, not pathologic ones," and report doesn't rule out either, but this isn't stated in article!
• Only ONE doctor was actually "court-appointed," not three: Factual inaccuracy.
• Article mentions videos, but NOWHERE has links for them.
• Dr. Wolfson recommended both "swallowing tests and swallowing therapy", but article DOESN'T mention this -and conveniently omits that "swallowing studies" were only conducted "ten years ago," not recently.
• Article omits that Dr. Peter Bambakidis (the only "court-appointed" doctor) didn't say that Terri was PVS by “clear and convincing standard,” but merely by “preponderance of the evidence. Alt.Link
• Factual inaccuracy: Article says Terri Schiavo HAD heart attack. (Thogmartin said she didn't.)
• Most statements in 1st paragraph of "Initial medical crisis" are presented as facts, but are uncorroborated and should be qualified, "according to Michael Schiavo."
• If we mention Cheshire is conservative Christian and Drs. Frist & Weldon have political motives, only fair to mention Cranford & Felos are liberal "right to die" activists *AND* that Cranford misdiagnosed David Mack and that Gambone, was picked by Michael’s attorney, not hospital/court/etc.
• Add links, MRI/PET-denials, proof of 43% PVS misdiagnosis rate
• Article DOESN'T mention Terri lost five teeth!

Ghost's summary

The Terri Schiavo case is tragedy. We have a responsibility to presenting a subject which stikes at the core of what it means to be human. Its reach into the subjects of life, death, privacy and marital rights is far reaching. Currently, the article is on the verge of being among the best. It has been pointed to as the most balanced, detailed, compassionate independant reference on the subject availible. We all acknowledge it can be better.

What is needed is a measuring stick. One that all can refer to and say, "...this does/doesn't belong." One we can reach about 80% agreement on. If we ever reach full agreement, we're ignoring someone else's POV. We should build on what we agree on:

1. Terri was a person. The events surrounding her were tragic. Her's is the one POV that we won't know in this lifetime.
2. The article's purpose is the educate and inform the reader(s). Not support or undermine any indiviual or group, with the possible exception of Mrs. Schiavo.
3. The events surrounding Mrs. Schiavo have the potential to impact all our lives, and the reader should be informed as much.
4. Extensive use of rhetoric and code words to manipulate public opinion. This is neither good or bad. It simply is.
5. The courts, while fallible, have a reliably documentable POV that must be presented.
6. Doctors have a POV, and are as fallible and manipulable as the courts.
7. Other POVs are less easily documentable and, unless confirmed by 2 other reliable sources, should be considered hearsay.
8. Blogs are inherently POV. While providing vast material, they should not be considered reliable and viewed with skepticism because of that POV. Blog links should be avoided as they convey POV.
9. Parts of the article that fail to engage the average reader undermine #2. If we can, say it in two sentences + a link, instead of 3 paragraphs, do it. Our goal is neutrality and depth in <36kb.
10. Tone matters (see NPOV). This may come second to fact, but the reader(s) should not be sandbagged into any POV, even if those "facts" seem inevitable to us.
11. Terri's relatives may read this (and probably will) at some point. A compassionate tone to both sides is appropriate.
12. The article will never be perfect. Nor should it. Such is the strength of open source. There's always someone else who can make it better than us.
13. Editors that are negative should be viewed as trying to improve the article. Abuse should be avoided, understanding that this is an emotional subject and people will express themselves in strong terms, so we must all have thick skins. But those that demonstrate that they have nothing to contribute over time should be recognized, and dealt with accordingly.

This is far from complete, but it's a start. An it harm none, do what thou wilt.--ghost 21:15, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Duckecho quacks

In the normal process of writing an article, one searches out background information and then drafts a narrative. With a committee-like environment such as wikipedia, the process is repeated—sometimes frequently—and becomes further and further refined. However, not every word has (or needs to have) a cite to prove its value to the narrative. As an example, the Ted Bundy article in the first paragraph below the introduction asserts at least three things that are not supported by any sort of cite. Not one of those things detracts from the overall story of Ted Bundy.

In an above essay the author cites our article as flawed in that it says, "he noise awoke Michael Schiavo, and he immediately called his wife's parents and 911 emergency services." The essayist then says, "[t[here were no witnesses – we don’t know if Michael’s version is true…" Does it matter to the story of Terri Schiavo whether the utterly unprovable or disprovable above statement in the current article is entirely factual? We are truly trying to separate fly shit crap from pepper when we have gotten down to arguing about things like that.

The Michael-is-evil partisans have a history of tenacity in challenging every statement that even remotely casts anything more than gray hue to an event in the narrative. They don’t mind attempting to put in cat killing theses or innuendo about wedding vows, but they sure are quick to complain that we don’t know what Michael thought.

We have a party who thunders repeatedly that Michael didn’t remember for eight years that Terri had told him her wishes concerning a terminal condition and life prolonging procedures (and would put it in the article if he could get away with it). Why don’t the nitpickers attack that utterly unknowable comment with similar zeal?

There’s too much name calling and too much complaining about name calling while in turn calling names at the same time. There’s too much intransigence—too much entrenched thinking.

At some point everyone who truly wants to contribute to a quality product is going to have to step back from their position and reevaluate the other positions—not just positions of theory of the case, but positions of accuracy and seeing POV. I’ve already done that. Many others have, too.

We asked once for a peer review and got it. The consensus was that the article was about as neutral as it could be. We got outside, unsolicited accolades that went to both accuracy and neutrality. You may not like to hear it, but there are basically three or perhaps four people who are making it necessary to mediate. Outside of our circle, the world thinks we’re doing a good job.

What does the article need? Some polish. There is still some amateurish phrasing. A lot of work is being done on structure which will make it more readable. I have dreams of making the intro a compact, true introduction and not the mini article we've been forced to craft for the nitpickers. Duckecho (Talk) 02:44, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your Mediator greets you all

Thank you, Duck, Gordon, Ghost, Ann, & FuelWagon. Everybody came in between 450 and 600 words - that's close enough, and a very impressive effort all around.

I won't single anyone out for their archiving help (no teacher's pet here!) but you'll get points from your co-mediators.

I promise to study everyone's summary carefully. -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 29, 2005 02:24 (UTC)

Okay, I read each one, rapidly. But I didn't take notes. I want to sleep on it and get a fresh start tomorrow. But the 5 summaries look good. I'm almost tempted to ask you all if this Mediation can be concluded! But others have yet to weigh in, for one thing. (All right, let this east coast American boy get some sleep, and I'll check in again tomorrow. Good night! :-) -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 29, 2005 02:40 (UTC)

What about Dave?

P.S. When I was reviewing how the archive was done, I ran across some discussion of NC Dave. We need to clarify whether it's just you five who submitted 500-word summaries, or what. (1) Are Fuel, Ann, Gordon, Ghost & Duckecho willing to conduct a Mediation with NC Dave? (2) If so, do you want a different Mediator for the 5 vs. 1 thing? (3) And, hello, Dave! Where do you stand on this? Are you willing to write a 500-word summary as the others did? (4) To everyone, is there an inter-contributor problem here, or is it just about the article? Please be honest yet forthright. We can always get more help if needed. -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 29, 2005 03:02 (UTC)

NCdave only agreed to mediation as of today, which then officially allowed him to revert ghost's cleanup. Before agreeing to mediation, NCdave managed to insert some rather massive posts to this mediation page, which probably should have been deleted, since he hadn't actually agreed to mediation yet. NCdave's only other edit since agreeing to mediation was a minor comment. He has not submitted a 500-word essay. My only inter-contributor problem I have with NCdave is reflected here. Perhaps that should be escalated before dealing with mediation. See the archive section titled it's time to deal with the bully. I also mention it in the second to last paragraph of my 500 word essay. It is my belief that we are in mediation as a direct result of NCdave's behaviour more than anything else. If mediation will bind him to cease and desist, then I'd say we should just go with mediation. If not, I'm not sure what the next best step would be. perhaps mediate, and then when NCdave continues his behaviour, then showing that mediation failed, we may be more likely to raise the issue to the next level. The alternative is to attempt to escalate this first, and then mediate after. Just because I'm so sick of it, I'm leaning to mediation right now, cause I wanna get it over with. FuelWagon 29 June 2005 03:39 (UTC)

I'm working on mine, Uncle Ed. But the 500 word limit is difficult. NCdave 29 June 2005 04:35 (UTC) (email)

The problem is that the article is nearly 9000 words long, and more than half of the paragraphs are biased and/or inaccurate. I can give you a list of about 100 distinct instances of bias and/or factual inaccuracy. But I can't describe them in 5 words each. Just quoting the inaccurate and biased passages exceeds 500 words.

How about 1500 words not counting quotes from the article?

Note that the article wasn't always such a mess. Once upon a time it was reasonably well-balanced: NCdave 29 June 2005 08:51 (UTC) (email)

Work with me on this, people. Please.

I would like to let FuelWagon's statement above suffice. Dave and I are talking by private e-mail.

I'm the Mediator, right? Let me lead. -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 29, 2005 13:42 (UTC)

Yes, you are the mediator, but you did ask "To everyone, is there an inter-contributor problem here, or is it just about the article? Please be honest yet forthright." which sort of led into replies from ghost and duckecho (currently deleted). FuelWagon 29 June 2005 13:46 (UTC)

The reason NCdave probably picked Feb 27 was because that was right about the time that he did a bunch of edits to it. FuelWagon 29 June 2005 13:47 (UTC)

You are right, and I am right. Okay?

Anyway, I found Dave's 1200-word essay in the archive. I will read it there. He doesn't have to boil it down to 500 words. The 500 words thing was just to get you all to condense you ideas sufficiently that a man of limited capacity like me, could grasp it. You think it's easy to harmonize the creative work of five or six people? Just give me a little freedom here. I've never failed yet at a Misplaced Pages Mediation. People either work together, or one of them realizes ON HIS OWN that his goals and Misplaced Pages's are inconsistent, and they quit. I can give a dozen examples.

Have confidence in me, we WILL get through this. -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 29, 2005 13:51 (UTC)

Ed, you're going to have to be a little more specific with what you want from us, then, because I don't know anymore. You asked if there was an 'inter-contributer problem' and we answered but you deleted the posts, with the comments "tsk tsk" and "take it easy". So, now I'm just a little cautious about answering any questions you might ask, because I'm thinking you might not actually want us to answer. You asked for 500-word lists for issues, but you're using 1500 words from NCdave. So, when you make a request, I'm wondering just how much you actually mean it. And rather than take a public approach, you're talking with NCdave via email. So, now I have no idea where this is going anymore. Are we going to work on what people come up with in their 500-word essays, or is it an open-ended, keep going with whatever someone throws out, approach? Can you get why I'm a little uneasy here? FuelWagon 29 June 2005 15:27 (UTC)

I understand the 500 word guideline. I can't stand reading more than a few pages of point-counterpoint myself. (As I've shown. *sheepish grin*) But if Ed feels that one editor's 1500 words articulates one of the conflicting POVs, and wants to respect that, so be it. I think FW is giving voice to the idea that it may send the wrong message, and I agree. But the end may justify the means here. Let's wait for the results.--ghost 29 June 2005 15:52 (UTC)

My request to Dave stands. I would like a 500-word condensation from him. I've read his 1200 word thing - it's linked at mediation/dave in "side currents" (see below). I'm not going to refuse to read something, just because it's too long.

When I asked whether there was a problem, I was looking for a yes or no answer. Like, Yes, none of us can stand him. (I should have been more specific; sorry; anyway, your responses aren't deleted - see the 2 history linkse in "side currents" below).

But I see a new problem: I'm calling it the "five against one" thing. Now, without re-hashing all the issues you guys have with Dave, just tell me: can we do article mediation with him? Or would any of you like to request a Mediation with him personally? The original request is at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_mediation#Terri_Schiavo_and_the_Talk:Terri_Schiavo_pages. -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 29, 2005 16:51 (UTC)

Well, if you must label it, it would more accurately be a "three against one (or three)" thing, since Ann and Gordon have both expressed, if not support for NCdave, then at least disinclination to seek sanction for his behavior. In any event, I don't think I care for the characterization, no matter how accurate the numbers. Duckecho (Talk) 29 June 2005 17:52 (UTC)

"can we do article mediation with NCdave (I am looking for a yes or no answer)?" Since I still don't know what exactly "mediation" is or will result in, I'm not sure. But since personal mediation or article mediation will ultimately have the same powers and/or limitations, I'd say lets try "article" mediation first, and failing that, I'll move for individual mediation. to put it in yes/no form: yes, I vote for article mediation with NCdave. FuelWagon 29 June 2005 18:17 (UTC)

"Can we do article mediation with him?" - I can, yes. Provided Dave chooses to modify his behavior and follow the guidelines that you (Ed) have laid out. "Or would any of you like to request a Mediation with him personally?" - Not at this time. I feel the ball is in Dave's court to choose to work with the team, or against it. And if he chooses to work against it, I'll likely skip Mediation to Arbitration as I can document that this is an extreme case. I pray that Dave instead chooses to work with the team from here out, in which case this could eventually be viewed as water-under-the-bridge.--ghost 29 June 2005 20:57 (UTC)

Okay, Dave, you can come out now. I believe the consensus is that you are welcome to participate in this article mediation. Please post your 500-word summary above, and let's get on with this.

And to all and sundry, please forgive my abrupt or cryptic remarks. I'm not the best at phrasing stuff, nor am I know for my politeness. But I get the job done. Every topic at Misplaced Pages which was mired in disputes, where people let me take the lead, has been permanently settled. <pats self on back modestly>.

We have made tremendous progress already. Don't underestimate that. -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 29, 2005 21:11 (UTC)

(Makes note of 24hrs of silence.)--ghost 30 June 2005 21:35 (UTC)

I can't stand the silence. (cues 'crickets chirping' mp3 loop) FuelWagon 30 June 2005 22:08 (UTC)

I'd have been whistling the Jeopardy theme but after 24 hours I'd have had no embouchure left. Duckecho (Talk) 1 July 2005 00:57 (UTC)

Okay, okay. Dave seems to be taking his time on the 500 words thing. Meanwhile, as long as no "personal battles" erupt I hereby declare a Clean Slate status on this Mediation page.

We have 5 summaries on the table, and one in a subpage. That's the best we can do for now. That gives us a team of 6 editors + 1 Mediator.

I will try to pick out some key points from the summaries tomorrow. I regret to announce that I will have no time for this on the weekend. I gave a little speech tonight (on acceptance, trust, and "living for the sake of others", if you must ask!) and it went over a bit too well: now I have to take it on the road. -- Uncle Ed (talk) July 1, 2005 03:13 (UTC)

"I gave a little speech tonight (on acceptance, trust, and "living for the sake of others"...now I have to take it on the road." Uncle Ed, don't worry; your speech will go well. You practice what you preach, and just need some rest. PS: I understand Fuel Wagon's concern, and considering your generous comment to read stuff even if it goes slightly over, please, as my request, accept FW's argument with me as "extra material," so he won't feel slighted, and accept my extra points as well (crying wolf vs crying witch side-current) -and offer to let Ann, Ghost, and Duck submit another 500-words, if they like; Then Fuel Wagon will not be cheated by your generous look at Dave's 1,100 or so word submission.

On another note, I have meditated over the controversy surrounding Dave, and I conclude that only a few (if any) of his edits are actually bad or POV or inaccurate (after further analysis). The only faults I could find in him, and this is a stretch, is that he is sometimes too talkative on the talk page, and sometimes is too impatient in implementing his proposed changes, not waiting for a vote or consensus. However, I feel that -like Nelson Mandela -Dave was unfairly persecuted (recently by Neutrality, who, in my opinion, unnecessarily overreacted).

While my analyses may not please some fellow-editors who want stronger sanctions against Dave, I feel that my suggestions for Dave to be more patient, wait for consensus, and less talkative will make these editors feel at ease and welcome. After all, we've all been guilty of arguing the case, instead of arguing the merits of a particular edit, the latter being OK, the former being off-topic for the talk page. Don't smack Dave: We've all been guilty of violating the guidelines, which clearly say: "The Talk pages are not a place to debate which views are right or wrong or better. If you want to do that, there are venues such as Usenet, public weblogs and other wikis."--GordonWattsDotCom 1 July 2005 03:47 (UTC)

Thanks, Gordon. I agree with all of that except the submit another 500-words part. The point was not to give all the kids the same size slice of cake (!) but:

1. to enable the Mediator to understand each editor's approach.
2. to get each editor to demonstrate their commitment

I personally am satisfied with all six of you on both points, and if Dave is having trouble with his "homework" I'm willing to give him a pass if "you five" are. Do we have to vote on this? No? Then start hitting those keys: that ought to drown out the sounds of chirping crickets ;-) -- Uncle Ed (talk) July 1, 2005 11:27 (UTC)

If by "give NCdave a pass" you mean we do mediation without a 500 word essay from him, then sure, I'm for that. I'm definitely not of the mind to take Gordon's approach and open the floodgates. FuelWagon 1 July 2005 13:41 (UTC)

To answer Uncle Ed, yes, it's OK with me for you to accept just my 500 words but let Dave have 1,200 or whatever he wrote. (I'm sure that you would listen to any further suggestions I had if I still had concerns.) In answer to FW's concerns for opening the floodgates, I take it that you don't want to let the rest of us five submit an additional 500-words. That is very generous to Dave, FW! However, remember that you and I already submitted additional material (crying wolf/crying witch), and "officially allowing" this additional material (which Ed probably already read and incorporated into our viewpoints) would NOT really add anything. All it would do would be to let Ann, Ghost, and Duck add more. I wouldn't be so confident to speak for them, but if they are cool with it, then I am. CONCLUSION: While Dave would be good to include his 500-word summary, I think we have enough info (actually, a little extra) when we combine all our 500-plus-word summaries. Now, all we need to do is simply read the dog-on things!--GordonWattsDotCom 2 July 2005 02:27 (UTC)

Good, because I've already read Dave's 1200-word summary. -- Uncle Ed (talk) July 1, 2005 14:52 (UTC)

Commentary for recently added Terry's parents vs. Terry's husband section

Terry's parents vs. Terry's husband

1. The article should side with the POV of Terry's parents.
2. The article should side with the POV of Terry's husband.
3. The article should report the parents' POV and the husband's POV impartially, giving no particular weight to either side.

Clearly no one can rationally argue for either 1 or 2. The problem with 3 is that rather than restricting inclusions in the article to strictly the parents' POV or the husband's POV there are those who bring outside POV opinions (largely from the blogoshpere) into the picture. They don't belong, but a considerable amount of resources are expended watching for them (the opinions), debating their merit, and reverting them when they're edited in. Duckecho (Talk) 1 July 2005 18:20 (UTC)

For example, we hear about Greer allegedly commiting a felony by denying oral food and water. The Schindlers petitioned to do that, were denied, they appealed, and were denied. I'm unaware that they argued that the law was violated in the decision. They didn't like it, and we could include that, but the charge of felony starvation has never (to my knowledge) been brought by appropriate authorities, nor has any judicial sanction been brought against Greer (to my knowledge). It's hard to imagine that 2nd DCA would have affirmed all three instances in which Greer denied the petition had violation of other statutes obtained. Duckecho (Talk) 1 July 2005 18:20 (UTC)

There are other, similar allegations by armchair lawyers of violations of statute (state and federal) but I am unaware of either the Schindlers adopting any of the positions (in which case they don't belong in the article) or of competent authorities pursuing the allegations. Duckecho (Talk) 1 July 2005 18:20 (UTC)

I hope to pass the IQ test put by the Mediator by voting for #3, but with the (what I consider obvious) caveat that inclusion be strictly limited to the Schindlers' or Michael's stated POV and not points put in their mouths by outside observers. Duckecho (Talk) 1 July 2005 18:20 (UTC)

(quoting Duck from above) "The problem with 3 is that rather than restricting inclusions in the article to strictly the parents' POV or the husband's POV there are those who bring outside POV opinions (largely from the blogoshpere) into the picture. They don't belong, but..." Dude, they do belong —in some cases: Ann Heneghan eloquently makes the point that another Ann, Anne Boleyn, was not merely described by some limited terms, such as "guilty" (or, I add, "not guilty") of Witchcraft. for example, the POV is NOT limited to one side or the other in the debate: (From the intro) "Modern historians tend to insist that it was summer of 1501. In recent years the debate has been re-opened..." and this timely quote: "Feminist historian, writer and activist, Karen Lindsey, in 'Divorced, Beheaded, Survived' believes Anne's story is one of the great feminist parables of all time and explores sexual harassment, psychological conditions at the time and says that the traditional image of Anne as a morally-loose ambitious homewrecker, 'makes for great melodrama, all it lacks is accuracy'." While some might say that the Blogs are not "historians," who is to say that they aren't "modern" historians. Even Karen Lindsay, quoted above, is also an activist, so there is definitely strong precedent in Misplaced Pages for the inclusion of a number of points of view! Even the abortion article nowhere limits the debate to the in-court participants alone, for, indeed, the article clearly states that: "Advocates for making or keeping induced abortion illegal are usually termed Pro-Life. Advocates for making or keeping abortion legal are usually termed Pro-Choice." Duck's points make us think, but at the end of the day, we see that his view is out of step with the mainstream approach in how to include information, be it factual data or the views and reactions of those following the debate.--GordonWattsDotCom 2 July 2005 01:57 (UTC)

(quoting Duck in the section above) "...we hear about Greer allegedly commiting a felony by denying oral food and water. The Schindlers petitioned to do that, were denied, they appealed, and were denied. I'm unaware that they argued that the law was violated in the decision." Well, first of all, I just showed above CLEAR examples of why you are wrong in your assertion that it was required that the Schindlers (or some other court participant) allege something before it can be included in the article. Nonetheless, they DID allege such: You apparently didn't read THIS answer I gave to FW here:

• "No one brought charges..." False: In this google.com cache of this court document, we find Pat Anderson, then attorney for the family, making such charges, and I quote her: "As the Court well knows, it is a felony to withhold food from a disabled or vulnerable adult, pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 825.102(3)."

"...or of competent authorities pursuing the allegations." I pursued the allegations. Am I a competant authority? Who is to say I am any less competant, than, say, FW, Duck, NCdave, Ann, or Ghost? Hmm...--GordonWattsDotCom 2 July 2005 02:12 (UTC)

"I hope to pass the IQ test put by the Mediator by voting for #3" You get an "E" for effort.--GordonWattsDotCom 2 July 2005 02:12 (UTC)

• Duck's funny comment in the previous edit summary said: "(→Commentary... - For the record: The only comments moved in my restore were mine. I didn't touch anyone else's.)" HA ha... Well, I guess I will take your word for it. Since you moved your comments, mine were without context and "looked moved." A matter of ... uh... perspective, I will have to say. (But y'all know what I was trying to say.)--GordonWattsDotCom 2 July 2005 05:06 (UTC)

The rest of the story:

As the Court well knows, it is a felony to withhold food from a disabled or vulnerable adult, pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 825.102(3). The Court has entered no order forbidding oral feeding, although the Court has denied attempts to secure swallowing therapy to teach Terri to eat by mouth again, on the grounds that such therapy might result in her death.

My, my, my. Including the very next sentence sure makes that read differently. Duckecho (Talk) 2 July 2005 05:39 (UTC)

First off, it is moot whether or not the court actually entered an order at that time, prohibitting "oral feeding." The fact is that the judge stood by and did nothing while Terri starved and did not enforce 825.102(3). (This was effectively the same as issuing an order that oral feeding was a no-no.) His excuse that Terri might choke was jsut that: An excuse. Why? Well, she DEFINITELY would die if denied ALL food, but there was only a "partial" chance she'd die if fed by mouth. So, the judge, in denying her ALL food (both feeding tube and orally fed food) was trying to kill her, and his claims that he was trying to save Terri's life from choking - hollow!--GordonWattsDotCom 2 July 2005 06:59 (UTC)

Secondly, the court later DID rule aganst a legal and lawful request that food be given, even though denying it was prohibitted:--GordonWattsDotCom 2 July 2005 06:59 (UTC)

• On February 28, the Schindlers filed an "Expedited Motion for Permission to Provide Terri with Food and Water by Natural Means." This second motion asked for permission to "attempt to feed" Schiavo by mouth. (http://floridasky.us/terri/022805EmMotionNaturalFeeding.pdf)

• On March 8, Judge Greer denied the second motion, saying "it has become clear that the motion is part and parcel of motion on medical evaluation. The same declarations are being used for both motions and the motion appears to be an alternative pleading to the motion. Both are asking for an experimental procedure." The first motion requests that Schiavo be given VitalStim swallowing therapy, which had never been performed on a patient who was in a PVS. The second motion simply asked permission to attempt to feed her by mouth, asserting that she might be able to swallow naturally. Greer then explained that if the first motion is approved, then the second one isn't needed, and if the first one is denied, the second one would be denied as well. (http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder030805.pdf) This was the second time that oral feeding had been denied.

If you want that "second sentence" in there, that is fine —so long as you include that it was illegal. (The Florida State Law, like the "judge's rulings," as you might say, are NPOV, and must be included, ha ha!)--GordonWattsDotCom 2 July 2005 06:59 (UTC)

Charge means accuse or claim. Anyone can charge (claim) that a felony was committed (and it's clear in the quote above that no one did). It has no legal weight whatsoever, except that someone could file a civil suit based on their claims or charges. Duckecho (Talk) 2 July 2005 05:39 (UTC)

Charge means accuse or claim. Anyone can charge (claim) that a felony was committed (and it's clear in the quote above that no one did). Oh? Why don't you tell that to the face of Terri's family? (I personally know ALL the Schindlers and ALL of the lawyers involved too.) The sentence above might not say verbatim, word-for-word that the judge disobeyed the law, but it does quote the law, and, knowing that the judge did something eles, implies the he broke this law, thus, it is safe to say that Terri's family "charge" the courts (and Mike Schiavo) with wrongdoing; Also, looking at this google.com cache of one of the Terri's family's sites undergoing renevation (actual site is offline), it is clear that they charged (publically blamed) Michael Schiavo with this crime, as this quote states:--GordonWattsDotCom 2 July 2005 06:59 (UTC)

• Dear Mr. McCabe,

As citizens and registered voters, we are outraged that a criminal investigation of Michael Schiavo has not been enacted in the case of Terri Schiavo. Setting aside the 1991 bone scan showing severe trauma, there are numerous current violations of Florida regarding abuse and neglect. 1) Fla. Statute 825.102(3) (a) defines neglect as...

File charges or bring charges (indict) is a function of a government agency (such as the State Attorney) or a professional regulatory body (such as the Bar Association). When someone is charged (accused or indicted) they then face a hearing and/or trial. Private individuals do not have the authority to bring charges against another individual. Duckecho (Talk) 2 July 2005 05:39 (UTC)

Competent authority means State Attorney, Attorney General, Bar Association, etc. Private citizens do not have the authority to bring charges against another individual. Duckecho (Talk) 2 July 2005 05:39 (UTC)

You know full well that I mean that others made charges as claims of wrongdoing, meaning 10 in Dictionary.com's difinition of "charge"

10. To put the blame for; attribute or impute: charged the accident to the driver's inexperience.

NOT that I thought the Schindler family or myself were some sort of "authority," like a state attorney or anything, as in meaning 9:

9. To make a claim of wrongdoing against; accuse or blame: The police charged him with car theft. Critics charged the writer with a lack of originality.

You sure like to argue over trivial points where you know that OBVIOUSLY I don't mean something, but instead mean something else. Why don't you come out of retirement and be a lawyer, ha ha...--GordonWattsDotCom 2 July 2005 06:59 (UTC)

You know full well that I mean that others made charges as claims of wrongdoing Yeah, and by your definition,[REDACTED] would be begging for a libel suit. You don't use the word "charge" in that context unless it means "criminal charges". If[REDACTED] said "Michael was charged with murder by some blogger" we'd be a laughingstock. I just have a few brief instructions for you, Gordon, that should help this issue: STOP TRYING TO BE A LAWYER. STOP TRYING TO BE A JUDGE. STOP TRYING TO BE A JURY. STOP TRYING TO BE A DISTRICT ATTORNEY. You know just enough about the law to get[REDACTED] in trouble. FuelWagon 2 July 2005 15:28 (UTC)

Now, that was funny! FW thinks I have enough ...whatever (the Force if with me!) to knock over the great Misplaced Pages corperation. Talk about David v Goliath. -Gordon

:::I'm sure that if I was able to do that, it would have been dealth with by other, more capable, persons than you or me... But, on the other hand, it doesn't hurt style to be UNambiguous. While I'm on that subject, I'm sure I would have NO trouble saying that many people "charged" Michael, his lawyer, and some judges with being crooked --wihtout connotating the "filed charges" meaning; perhaps, I could say that "many citizens both in America and around the world tend to believe that the judge committed felony crimes, not unlike past blunders by the Catholic Church (in persecuting Galileo Galilei), the American Government (discrimination, slavery, driving the economy to bankrupcy), and the German Government (persecution of Jews)..." ...Oops - did I "Godwinize" this thread? Not quite: I only mentioned Naziism as a minor part of a larger example of failures. Well, the First amendment allows us to STATE OUR OPINION and speak up. You know what happens when we don't use our first amendment? Same thing that happened to ...THESE folk:

*"First, they came for the Jews. I was silent. I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists. I was silent. I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists. I was silent. I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me. There was no one left to speak for me." (Martin Niemoller, given credit for a quotation in The Harper Religious and Inspirational Quotation Companion, ed. Margaret Pepper (New York: Harper &Row, 1989), 429 -as cited on page 44, note 17, of Religious Cleansing in the American Republic, by Keith A. Fornier, Copyright 1993, by Liberty, Life, and Family Publications.

(Actually, they may not have come for the Jews first, as it's far more likely they came for the prisoners, mentally handicapped, and other so-called "inferiors" first -as historians tell us -so they could get "practiced up;" But, they did come for them -due to the silence of their neighbors -and due, in part, to their own silence. So the general idea is correct: "Speak up now, or forever hold your peace." --Gordon)

Truth is the strongest, most stable force in the Universe.

TRUTH doesn't bend to the will of tyrants.

--GordonWattsDotCom 2 July 2005 18:03 (UTC)

Get Truth.