Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Archive 39

message: The legal history has been regutted. The only thing that vaguely resembles consensus is a mandate from FA to make the article shorter. That does not mean that people will suddenly approve the article just because it is short, especially if all the important history is now in a subarticle. This quest for featured article status has become quixotic, to the point of doing anything and everythign to appease outside commenters without regard to the final quality of the article. there was no consensus to remove the legal history so I resinserted it. Taxman has now re-removed it, saying that the legal history can be summarized without all the detail and telling me to go on the FA talk page. 
The only problem is, now there is no summary in the article, either, so anything doing with the legal history has been pushed to another article. So, rather than have too long a history or a summary history, we now have no history. This all to satisfy FA.
Until we get a summary, the history should remain in teh article, otherwise the topic is not covered at all. And it is equivalent to submitting to FA an article that is not complete (the summary has not been written). And with only a couple editors and only 2 edits a day, this is going to be nigh impossible to get done anytime soon. Until then, the history should be covered in teh article. Even if it is in minute detail, that is better than in zero detail.  FuelWagon 19:12, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Some eggs have to be broken to make an omlette. If the detailed court history is in an article and we point to it with Main article:TS Court history or something like that, then no material is lost, we're just not overwhelming people on this page. This page clearly should not have that much detail, so instead of complaining about the removed material write a summary. The article is worse with all the detailed court history in it so it should stay out until a summary is written. And no this article won't reach FA quality soon, but steps to get it to that level of quality need to be made. - Taxman Talk 19:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "so instead of complaining about the removed material write a summary." did you not read what I just posted? Writing a summary that everyone agrees on will be a hard as writing the article in the first place. You can't just say "write a summary" and expect that will happen overnight. I just wasted two of my edits to have them reverted by you, so I'm not exactly motivated to do much of anything right now. You've grossly oversimplified your proposed path, and you're full reverts and your blanket deletions are not encouragement for anyone to attempt anything different. I'll be wasting my time if I'm just going to get reverted by the likes of you. Thanks for the team effort. FuelWagon 19:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

text: The legal history covers a 10 year period of Terri Schiavo's life. the piece before "legal history" is the malpractice suit which covers up to about 1993. The piece after "legal history" is government involvement which began in 2003 with Terri's Law. There is now a ten-year hole in the article. I spent a great deal of time getting the article into chronological order to cover all the events from start to finish, and now 10 years of the most heavily disputed issues have been completely deleted. All, apparently, in an attempt to win Featured Article status. This is supposed to be the Terri Schiavo article, not the initial collapse and final autopsy of Terri Schiavo article with sub articles for everything in between. FuelWagon 16:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "There is now a ten-year hole in the article." False. It was moved to a sub-article. "I spent a great deal of time getting the article into chronological order..." And it still was when I last touched it. "...and now 10 years of the most heavily disputed issues have been completely deleted." No! It is in the sub-article. "All, apparently, in an attempt to win Featured Article status." Yes, but to also improve the article quality. Look, I did not agree with removing the legal battle and making it into a subsection, but consensus both here and here overwhelmingly says the article needs to be split, and I made the cleanest split possible. "This is supposed to be the Terri Schiavo article, not the initial collapse and final autopsy of Terri Schiavo article with sub articles for everything in between." You and I were voted down. I'm man enough to accept it and live with it. You too should follow suit and follow my example.--GordonWatts 02:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: September/October is the busiest time of year for me, and it's almost impossible to keep up with what's happening here, but for the record, I agree with Gordon, Markell, and Taxman on this matter. The article is too long. This has nothing to do with Featured Article status – anytime you do a whole page edit, you get a message saying it's longer than is desirable. Ann Heneghan (talk) 07:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: legal history

message: The initial agreement which we accepted here was to limit ourselves to 2 edits/day if an admin would unprotect the page:
*Revision as of 11:32, 13 September 2005
*Taxman (Talk | contribs) 
*Moving on - agreed, I'm unprotecting
This agreement was conditional, that is, "if we limit number of edits," then "the admin will unlock." (I personally did not agree to limit my number of edits forever and ever, time unending.) This was in the context of the edit war, in which FuelWagon did not want the "typically legally" language in the article. We eventually all came to an agreement to find a replacement to that paragraph to which Wagon objected, and the evidence is right here, where it is fixed without the "typically legally" language.
Through a misunderstanding of consensus reached the "Project Page" for Featured Articles, I thought that this consensus to reduce size over-rode the other consensus, and I exceeded what we had agreed to do here. While I think that (a) This consensus might have superceded our agreement here; and/or (b) Our agreement was in violation of policy  (and thus, not my fault), I admit I was unclear on whether I continued to agree to be bound by the agreement, and thus I do not context being blocked for my human error.
Since then, we agreed here:
"That said, 2 article edits is too few, especially if we stick to a hard 1 revert per day. With that I think 5 edits a day would be reasonable, but still keep edits well thought out. For sake of clarity lets define a day for these purposes as a 24 hr calendar UTC day. You may want to set your preferences to a 0 UTC offset to make that easier. - Taxman Talk 12:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Gordon, the only reason you're withdrawing from this is because you want to reinsert your vanity links. First of all, it was a motion that was dismissed, so the importance of the motion is minor. it's clear you goal is to cut anything to get the article short enough to meet FA requirements, but keep in some minor court motion that was dismissed because that motion links to your personal website. This isn't for the benefit of the article, it is for your own benefit. FuelWagon 19:52, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Gordon, the only reason you're withdrawing from this is because you want to reinsert your vanity links." False! I removed three such links. See this page's discussion on that point. The remaining link, as I discuss, was approved specifically by the admin overseeing this and also tacitly by ALL other members who all this time have not objected. If, however, you can verify this court hearing (which did occur: See court docket) by another (non-Register) link, fine with me, but I was there in the court room, and I was the reporter assigned, and I can tell you: No other news media showed up. And, no, I'm not the "only reporter" for that paper, as I discuss elsewhere. We have numerous contributing writers!--GordonWatts 02:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Gordon, just so you know 3 is not a consensus. Keep it up. FuelWagon 20:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "not a consensus"? Yes it is: here we see overwhelming consensus to split the article, and here, the FA-editor, who is an admin, bureaucrat, and moderator, tells you that you are wrong. Get it in your head: You are wrong. Be a man, like I have been: Accept when consensus voted us down on the article length issue.--GordonWatts 02:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Agreement Voided: See talk here

message: I just spent some time googling for Gordon Watt's "The Register". I can find nothing that separates "The Register" from his personal pages at geocities and aol.com. As far as I can tell, Gordon created "The Register" as his personal online newspaper, declared himself "editor in chief", and started publishing her personal opinion as newspaper articles. I think someone's personal page, especially someone with a severe bias on this case, should not qualify as a notable source in this situation. If someone can show me a link to "The Register", show me that it wasn't just some pet project of Gordon's, I'd appreciate it.  FuelWagon 20:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Along those lines, you also said here that: "Gordon, the AOL and Geocities website are personal sites. Anyone could create a page there." When you made your recent revert, I don't see you saying anything about the Purple Kangaroo website, (note "8" in the references section), which is also on GeoCities: http://www.geocities.com/purple_kangaroo_angela/Malpractice/malpractice5nov1992michael.txt So, I think you are making a personal attack. What other conclusion could I come to? I'll assume good faith and allow an answer here. "I can find nothing that separates "The Register" from his personal pages at geocities and aol.com." False! I am be far not the only writer there -it is not "my" page: See e.g., this lengthy explanation, with links to many other writers -not just "Gordon Watts." "If someone can show me a link to "The Register", show me that it wasn't just some pet project of Gordon's, I'd appreciate it." You promise that you'd sure appreciate it, but when I showed you the links, you didn't keep your promise, **sigh**.--GordonWatts 02:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: the register

message: Gordon, somehow you always manage to mention the pope "involvement came in the form of various statements by the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope John Paul II, generally in opposition to the way the American court system handled the affair." without out ever mentioning any other POV about the same topic. This violates NPOV. FuelWagon 20:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't like that section, then add a few sentences about the "other point of view," but don't revert a whole scad of edits, representing hours of work!--GordonWatts 02:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: the pope

message: When I say in edit comments to "see talk," it's here.--GordonWatts 03:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop calling it consensus, Gordon. The consensus was only that the article was too long for FA status. That isn't "consensus" to cut the legal history. And as far as consensus on this article in particular, 3 is not a consensus. 10 years of information about Terri is now gone. That it is in another article only means the article has been split in two, not shortened in any meaningful way, just shortened in a "what's the word count" way. FuelWagon 21:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The revert of Sept 26, 2005: Discussion in talk page

message: I removed ALL "vanity" links; only one link to a story I wrote remains in references: It's the only online reference to verify this event; One of my writer's stories also stays, as this is her story, not mine: No vanity there. See above before discussing this topic.--GordonWatts 03:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vanity links removed and references re-inserted

message: Michael did make "credible" according to the court, but I’ll change this to read "Terri made credible statements" about her wishes, as Wagon's version sounds better.--GordonWatts 03:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "TERRI made credible statements"

message: Wagon contested this matter in his revert, so I'll add in something to balance.--GordonWatts 03:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The matter of the Pope

message: Here, Taxman says: "so instead of complaining about the removed material write a summary," and here, Mark, a bureaucrat, says "[article length] changes [that Gordon made] were definetely for the better, your editorial opinion not withstanding," in other words, you're wrong. See also: here.--GordonWatts 03:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop calling it consensus, Gordon. The consensus was only that the article was too long for FA status. That isn't "consensus" to cut the legal history. And as far as consensus on this article in particular, 3 is not a consensus. 10 years of information about Terri is now gone. That it is in another article only means the article has been split in two, not shortened in any meaningful way, just shortened in a "what's the word count" way. FuelWagon 21:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus on article length

message: Gordon Watts continues to insert the following links 
# 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
# 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
"The Register" claims to be an online newspaper, listing Gordon Watts as "editor in chief", but to the best of my knowledge, "The Register" is little more than a webpage that Gordon Watts created and started posting his opinions about the Terri Schiavo case. It isn't a newspaper in any sense of the word. It doesn't even appear to be a website run by any sort of organization or a group of people. It appears to be run by Gordon Watts himself, directly, having appointed himself "Editor in chief" of his own webpage, and running a one-man website trying to pass itself off as an "online newspaper".
Gordon Watts explains here that the homepages for "The Register" are
http://hometown.aol.com/Gww1210/
and 
| http://www.geocities.com/Gordon_Watts32313/
These pages are nothing more than free personal pages that anyone can create on aol or geocities.
He then explains here that other people write articles for "The Register". And cites for example an article "passed on by Cheryl Ford, RN"  and "Letters to the Editor" written by people to Gordon Watts, editor in chief .
It would seem that "The Register" is little more than Gordon's personal opinion on the Terri Schiavo case. And he continues to push to have wikipedia articles reference his websites.
He has also inserted a "Copyright Template" a couple of times at the top of the talk page that says "The content of this article has been derived in whole or part from User:GordonWatts". 
And he also inserted a "You have new messages" banner on the Terri Schiavo talk page  and on his talk page  that actually links to his home page. 
As far as I can tell, "The Register" is nothing more than a personal website run completely by Gordon Watts and he seems bent on using links on wikipedia to increase traffic to his own site, of using wikipedia to promote his personal site, and using the Terri Schiavo to advertise his name. FuelWagon 21:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My short and sweet comment: neither of these links belong. At all. --Marskell 22:42, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Links to the Watts site should be judged by the same criteria as all other links.  That he is the editor is irrelevant.  The size of the editing staff is irrelevant.  The only questions that would concern an NPOV encyclopedia entry are: how relevant is the information on the site, how balanced is the information, how factual is the information, does any POV information balance opposing views in the entry?  --Black Angus 23:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Links to the Watts site should be judged by the same criteria as all other links. They have been. They were found wanting. They go, Gordon Watts' tireless self-promotion notwithstanding. --Calton | Talk 23:59, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Did you follow the links? I assume not. Marskell 23:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Article RfC sources

message: Jimbo Wales posted this on the Karl Rove talk page regarding the sort of sources to quote:
:"My opinions about this matter are not particularly complicated: sources have to be handled with care, and citing extremely biased sources without qualification is a very bad thing. (I should note that in order to maintain my own impartiality in this little discussion, I've chosen not to even look at what sources are being disputed here.) I will give an example that might be pertinent: citing Indymedia (or similar) for anything factual having to do with Karl Rove would be quite a bad idea for the twin reasons that Indymedia is not a reliable news source and they would tend to have a strong bias against Rove. Citing a reputable news source like the Guardian would be fine, even though they would also tend to have a strong bias against Rove, because while the Guardian has a certain 'spin', it is also a reliable source for basic facts. If there actually is a legitimate controversy about the facts, it should be easy enough to find multiple reputable sources on different sides of the issue." --Jimbo Wales 
I would say that "The Register" is neither reliable with the facts Gordon presents or the facts that Gordon ignores and does not present, nor is it unbiased, given how Gordon likes to tout his court case he brought on Terri's behalf and given his POV editing on the Terri Schiavo article itself. FuelWagon 02:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Jimbo Wales and sources

message: Notice: Under the text move guidelines (a proposed policy), I am moving text from the Terri Schiavo article to the two related talk pages (this one and the "Featured Article" talk page). Here is the text removed from that page: 
*The Register's compilation The Register's mirror link
*Watts, Gordon W. "Living Wills: Unexpected Weaknesses." The Register, 11 April 2005.  
*The Register mirror link
Edit summary:
Current revision
GordonWatts (Talk | contribs) 
Removing links that would give the appearance of impropriety and biased conflict of interest related to vanity links
PS: I give credit to Taxman for reminding me of my responsibilities here: "The only link of yours that is proper is one that covers important legal information covered nowhere else. I'll let other editors decide if that article is important enough, but the others have to go...- Taxman Talk 23:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't make insulting comments about me being logged out; Even if I were anonymous, the reasons were given in edit comments; however, to verify that you're wrong to insult me here, plz see Bug Report number: Bugzilla 310129 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=310129 to verify that your claims are false. Calton: Assume Good faith, little brother. As to your revert, your claims of vanity links are false: #1, I removed them -read the post above -the one with your name in it; #2, I obtained outside permission -both from an admin -and in accordance with policy. The article needs to cite its sources. Consensus -even if it went against me here -is overridden by policy: Wikipedia:Consensus says in part that "Consensus should not trump NPOV (or any other official policy)," including those cited in the edit comments -which you illegally reverted -illegal in the sense that it violated the policy cited in edit comments.--GordonWatts 02:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

text: "And since you claim to "get it", how's about some actual relevant quotes instead of empty blustering handwaving?" For quotes to policy, see directly above.--GordonWatts 02:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

text: "I'll let other editors decide if that article is important enough..." I didn't say that: False: I quoted someone else who said that, so do not misquote me here.--GordonWatts 04:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

text: "law school" That was not my major. Did you not read my user page? I am a scientist.--GordonWatts 04:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Calton: Vanity links: Now Removed ''per'' [[User:GordonWatts]] 

message: See this diff, in which User:Angela, a very high ranking authority in Wikipeida, confirms FuelWagon's request that I don't need the template in the talk page regarding the photos I released under GFDL. (She answered in the Revision as of 10:21, 28 September 2005 in her talk page.)--GordonWatts 20:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: More comments for today, 28th Sept: Angela supports your request, Wagon

message: I was about to make the same objections as Ann had made, but she beat me to it; Since I had noticed that Wagon never complained about Neutrality’s photo edit back then, and was getting ready to ask the same question, this then is a real and relevant point/
Now, today, I fixed the references section, and, let me be very clear: I am not in a good mood now: I went to extra special trouble to make sure that the links to any "Gordon" or "The Register" sites are hidden and not in the text, but I am leaving them in hidden comments, because future editors must have a chance to see how we cite our sources, and they can add them if and when they choose. I am not adding links to my newspaper because I shall not give the appearance of bias; I will hold myself to a higher standard.
OK, why am I in a bad mood? Well, my computer screen incessantly blinks, more so when the weather is damp and moist. (We have NO working air conditioner in my home; We're poor, lol, so damp moisture in the air affects my computer, and I've found I can reset the resolution multiple times to somehow fry away some of this effect, maybe electro-evaporating dampness in the computer monitor -the screen.)
Additionally, both of arms have become chronically sore from over-use on the computer, so when I have added that edit to fix the references section (whose numbering was damaged by Wagon and other editors -carelessly/accidentally), I do not want to see a revert: I have bent over backwards to make everyone happy, and my father thinks that this place is full of idiots who continue to try and delete my pictures after (as he puts it) jeopardized myself and safety by driving many, many miles to take some photos and (I presume) do other work. (Lastly, I need to take time off from editing to "get a job" --I'm poor and must pay back the College Loan, so I don't have any extra time for people to delete good edits that are fair, expecially when I have removed all the links that Wagon hates.)
I have granted every request regarding vanity links and things -even to the point of not citing sources -so, if anyone starts reverting and deleting, then I will guarantee World War III. The only area of uncertainty is that maybe a news story similar to that of Cheryl Ford's news report (she contributed one story to my paper) might be found elsewhere (someone who is less over-worked care to ask Google.com?), but the Oral Arg. story was only covered by one news reporter: me. So, while I shall not post it, nonetheless, to cite sources, it needs to at least stay in hidden comments: If anyone starts getting on my bad side, I will then post it for public view, and simply say "citing sources" overrides "vanity," the latter being not 100%, the former being policy. OK, now can everyone get along here?--GordonWatts 19:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments about 28 Sept 2005 edits from Gordon