Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Archive 31

message: Carl Bernstein said something last night on The Daily Show that struck me as appropriate here.  (I'm going from flawed memory...)  "The problem is that we're spending more energy defending (political) ideology than we are dealing with Terrorism."  I've noticed that since recent events, we're not talking TO each other, but AT each other.  Please, let's focus on the article, not our own views and motivations.  Bright Blessings.--ghost 15:32, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My compliments to the team.  Over 48hrs, we started talking TO each other again.  That's what the Talk page is for, and it improves the article.  Kudos.--ghost 01:46, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perspective 

message: Grace Note, I don't agree with your adding that she passed into a PVS because it begs the question. We go on to say that seven said X, and one said Y, so we shouldn't pre-empt that by stating one thing or another as fact. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:37, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
:Also, the intro was voted on and accepted by a then majority.  This is my reasoning for my support, even though it isn't perfect.  If you need me to dig the vote out of the Archives, please let me know.--ghost 03:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Past votes have no effect on current editors. This is a wiki. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:51, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
I don't understand which question you think it begs. When a condition is something diagnosed by doctors, you are in it if they say you are in it. If the only demurral is from a discredited quack, it may be mentioned but it cannot be considered a rebuttal of the fact. Please see our policy on neutral point of view, which is clear about how minority views should be treated. Our article on Earth states as a fact that it is an oblate ellipsoid. That there are those who say it is not has not prevented us from stating that it is. There is a separate section on other views. This is as mandated in the NPOV policy. Hammesfahr's views are fully covered in this article. The only reason we say seven said X, one said Y is that it is a (clearly vain) attempt to prevent argument over the intro. I look at it like this: clearly, there was a dispute over Schiavo's condition, just as there is a dispute over, say, whether there is evolution by natural selection; however, we present evolution as fact in Wikipedia because this is the majority view, overwhelmingly supported by the facts; so we do the same with Schiavo's being in a PVS, as diagnosed; and we mention the dissent, as we do with evolution, although again, it doesn't make it to the intro. This intro, as I left it, gives more weight to the dissenting opinion than we generally do in articles. I feel that that's acceptable because so much was made of the dissent. However, it does not scrub out the fact of her being in PVS, any more than the dissent of creationists makes evolution not a fact. Grace Note 05:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

text: GraceNote, you talk that 7-1 language, as if you don't know of other doctors. Since you seem bolstered and supported by SlimVirgin's claim (and she may be correct) that you are not bound by concessus, let me assure you that you risk an edit war by bucking concessus: For example, if you insist on 7-1, then others will likely look at the edit I made a little bit ago in the intro bringing in four MORE neurologists besides those eight, and 3 of 4 agreed that Terri was not PVS. Do you see where this is going? I prefer the longer intro, but I can live with the shorter one -yet, you seem bent on it being unbalanced, no matter the size: Right before SlimV defended your right to edit, she criticized your assertion that Terri was really PVS. This was a finding of the court, yes, but only two people really know if Terri was PVS: Terri herself, and God Almighty. It is correct to say that you are neither of those, so your assertion is without merit. As much as I don't think Terri was PVS (according to my interpretation of Florida Law (remember my Habeas Corpus big court case which almost saved Terri's life), nonetheless, I would not state in a news article that Terri was unable to meet the definition of PVS. That sort of stuff belongs in advocacy and commentary, you know, opinion pieces, not news articles. I am a writer, and I write both news AND commentary on my website: I know the difference, and I trust my fellow editors here do too. We have choices: How shall you vote on the intro?--GordonWattsDotCom 06:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro again

message: Could this heading be possibly shortened... makes things a little tight in 800x600. - RoyBoy 800 05:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Application of diagnosis—the "do-not-resuscitate" order 

message: I have removed a sentence about Dr. William Hammesfahr that he has disputed (via email to Jimbo).  Please do not replace it without very careful sourcing and wording.  There is likely to be more to follow on this. -- sannse (talk) 22:14, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of sentence

message: From wikipedia
:Minor edits generally mean spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearrangement of text.
Gordon, I don't know if your last couple of edits qualify as minor, but when you look at them together, they don't. FuelWagon 14:27, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: First, other then the link added, it appears that my edits were minor, because they changed the order to conform with what is chronologically correct. Maybe the Wikipedia definition needs to be changed. Uh, strike that: It looks OK so far. Since the Wikipedia quote above allows for minor rearrangement of text, I think that my "chronological rearrangement" qualifies. Second, the link was added to source (verify) the claim, not to introduce POV bias; it too conceivably could be considered minor, but my use of the "m" indicator is moot because gave an explanation in the edit summary, so you could come to your own conclusion. Lastly, the whole shmoe is moot because between what I added, how Ann corrected your edit, and the lack of action further, the matter seems to be fixed, except for the link. You may be right about mentioning it later in the article, so I will not make an issue of that: It can go both ways, and maybe "less is more."--GordonWattsDotCom 01:18, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor edit

message: Someone has gone in and banged on his/her keyboard here and there throughout the article and also edited height and weight information to be ridiculous.
I'm new to Wiki - any way we can revert it?  It's going to be a lot of work clearing out each nonsense change the person did.  --STufaro 16:11, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, someone's fixed it.--STufaro 16:16, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi STufaro!  Welcome to Wikipedia.  I see you've noticed that the page has already been reverted.  See here for how to revert a page to a previous version.  Admins can do it quicker, because they have a special rollback tool.  Ann Heneghan 16:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert?

message: I moved a number of sections around from the "Michael Schiavo generic holding tank for random information" and attempted to put them into some sort of chronological order either within an existing section or creating a new section. I would like to see the entire Michael Shiavo section evaporate at some point, and move all teh remaining tidbits to the proper location within the full article. too tired at the moment. may work on it some more tomorrow. FuelWagon 05:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Schindler section has now evaporated to it's various, more appropriate subsections. that's enough for tonight. FuelWagon 05:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: moving sections around

message: I see your edit here: your Revision as of 05:14, 28 July 2005. I did an edit->"find on page" for this text: "The Schindlers stated that, even if Schiavo had told them of her intention to have artificial nutrition withdrawn, they would not accede. ," and I could not find it anywhere in the article.
In commenting on this, I take no position on whether the text needs to be in the article, and I'm not accusing you of deleting it without replacing it or anything. I am just giving you a heads up on this, in case you think it needs to be somewhere in the article.--GordonWattsDotCom 07:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is in this section. Apparently, this attitude came out during a guardianship challenge as part of the Schindler's testimony. Wolfson mentions it in his report, and I replaced the old text with a direct copy/paste from Wolfson's report. The word "accede" always bothered me. And I used Wolfson's words to keep it accurate. FuelWagon 13:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thx; I thought that I'd seen that sentence & that it looked like it said the same thing; Thanks for clarifying that and for paring it down so it said what was needed without repitition/duplication.--GordonWattsDotCom 12:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wagon, does this removed text need to be in the article?