Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Archive 33

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

message: After all the hard work, screaming and scratching, you all have produced a fine, factual page. Everyone deserves a barnstar, IMHO Paul, in Saudi 18:05, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool. Thanks. Does wikipedia have "article" barnstars the way the military has "theatre medals"? Then I can say "I served on teh Terri Shiavo war". ;)  FuelWagon 20:38, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for recognizing all of our hard work and giving ALL one million of us barnstars. You da man!--GordonWattsDotCom 01:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it wasn't a million. I just went through and gave all the old-timers a star. FuelWagon 01:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Now, I remember that, despite my disagreements with Neutrality over "Euthanizing" a certain E-word in the intro, he had a good idea a while back about suggesting that the Terri article be nominated for a featured article. I'm not much into jumping up and down and investing much more time (due the the unstable nature of wiki articles), but I do think that his idea is a good one. Would someone like to suggest that it be nominated? Would that be done at, say, the Village Pump?--GordonWattsDotCom 02:26, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A Fine Article

message: Due to intermittent internet access, I fear I cannot be of much assistance in snipping the article down to proper size for a featured article. I very much want the current nomination to succeed, however, so I thought I'd provide a bullet-point list of the remaining things I would fix, given the chance (this also provides an opportunity to discuss the changes, as some of them might be controversial).
*Compress the overview enough to fit into the lead section. It's no good to have two different introductions, one long and one short.
*The small sections (one to four paragraphs long) might be more logically combined into one section, and the material trimmed from them, offloaded into the subarticle for the section they are combined under.
*The PVS and the Law section might make a useful article of its own, and a wikilink could be used to link the two articles together.
*The fourth paragraph of the Another Guardianship Challenge could have its long quote summarised into one or two sentences, with the full quote being placed elsewhere or on Wikiquote.
*In the fifth paragraph of the same section, it might be logical to omit the date and place where Michael made his comment (every little bit counts; I've learned that from having to summarise articles like Mozilla Firefox).
*The Wolfson Report, if combined with some other small sections into its own section, could have the full quotes placed in a subarticle, and have the contents of the report summarised into one paragraph instead of the six paragraphs of quotes as it is now.
*The detailed description of the grave marker could be placed in a subarticle.
These are just some brief suggestions I thought of after skimming through the article. I hope they help, because I really feel this is close to getting featured. Johnleemk | Talk 15:12, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible improvements 

message: This is nice. In an effort to get the article on featured article status, I see it has been completely churned. I also see that a few hotly disputed POV issues have conveniently been reintroduced by recent edits. I appreciate the effort. yeah, lets take an article that was wildly controversial and had actually hit a stable point and completely gut it and start over. Now POV warriors can use "we need to change it to get it to featured article status" as a nice excuse to hit the reset button. Unbelievable. Nice work. congratulations guys. I appreciate it. wonderful. great job. Commence the churn and burn. FuelWagon 14:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: major edit flag. Hey, I appreciate everyone using this FAC nonsense as an excuse to turn on the "major edit in progress" flag, and edit the article carte blanche. I especially appreciate it when people do it without so much as a peep on the talk page to mention what it is they are actually attempting to fix. Nice bulldozing folks. keep up the good work. Churn and burn, baby. Churn and burn. FuelWagon 04:31, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Assume good faith, please. Johnleemk | Talk 11:44, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: churn and burn

message: I'm not sure what you think about this, but I think the introduction should point out that the theatre of this intense attention was the United States. I think the following sounds quite good:
:...whose medical circumstances and attendant legal battles led to landmark court decisions, historic legislative initiatives, and intense media attention in the United States.
Comments welcome. — Sverdrup 15:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was big news in Ireland, while she was dying, but I'm sure it was bigger news in the USA. I've no problem with your change, except that I feel at this stage, we should be trying to take things out, rather than put them in (unless something is particularly important or relevant). The article is already too long, and I feel we should be going through it now to see how it can be made shorter without sacrificing essential content. However, your addition is only four words. Ann Heneghan (talk) 22:06, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: United States, perhaps

message: ===Proof that I was libeled, character defamed, mis-quoted, etc.===
I'm not saying that fellow editors did this on purpose, but anyhow, here, Taxman says, in relevant part that "That the facility wasn't supposed to allow a non terminal patient establishes nothing important," and yes, that is the current version, but I do not propose we use the strong editor's voice, as some call it, to say this about the hospice; contra, I suggest we merely report on the various reactions by the major players (some of which hold this view, some of which don't) --see also Marskall's quote here, he ALSO uses the Strawman method of argument: He objects to a point that I am NOT supporting: Here is his quote:
*"that this was a facility which is was prohibited by state law from admitting nonterminal patients [14] and prohibited by federal law from taking federal funds if it did admit nonterminal patient [15]. The court eventually ruled A-B-and-C. . Per FuelWagon. Bullet 31 of 50. Gordon unless you can show that there was something particularly vital about this one objection, or that it was the centrepiece of the petition, I must agree it doesn't belong. Marskell 18:28, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "suggesting that this paragraph be deleted in its entirety, with no mention of the hospice." Gordon, my proposal mentions the transfer to the hospice as well. So, saying that we're trying to delete the paragraph with no mention of the hospice could just as easily be considered slander/libel/misquoting against those of us who simply support a shorter version. I propose mentioning it, I just don't see a reason for a whole paragraph. This is bullet 31 of 50 bullets, in one motion out of literally many dozen motions filed by the Schindlers. The courts tossed it. The guardian ad litems never report a concern about it. No charges were brought. No convictions were handed down. And the hospice never had its federal funding cut. This is taking one minor bullet in a motion and trying to turn it into a criminal case where none exists. FuelWagon 23:51, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Chill out and relax: I am not accusing all y'all of that -only Taxman and Marskell --Also, I long pointed out that your version is quite similar to mine, except that you somehow are obsessed with hiding the reporting of the Schindlers' reaction to the illegality of the transfer (but at least you have sense and have no objection to the "financial" complaints with the transfer, which, while important, are not as important as the "illegality" claims by the Schindlers). Also, let me clarify that, while I am mad about being misquoted by our colleagues, I am not accusing them of doing this purposely, but the end result is still la lack of education and people voting on something about which they have little clue; We are all smart and intelligent an many point, and I hope that brightness extends to the one point on which we disagree here.--GordonWattsDotCom 23:58, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

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

text: Thx. The agenda, I as I see it, should be -first to see if the two editors above OK the move you suggested, and we dispense with any hard feelings; Second, we should identify the various proposals for addressing that one small paragraph, which I don't think gives "undue weight," as FuelWagon suggests; Then, -third, there are concerns from others over the introduction, about introducing why Terri was notable; Fourth, there is concern about article length, not just "it's long," but some remarks about how minute little details bloat and distract. Lastly, I have grave concerns over enforcing any concensus, and have, in the past, given one example of how concensus was apparently ignored, but this is Wiki, after all, and "open editing -wiki style" allows people to be bold and violate concensus, but maybe we should not address that right yet.--GordonWattsDotCom 06:49, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: One thing at a time, like you said. Gordon, honestly, you ought to just move this now. Make a subpage to your user page if you'd like. I'm not going to push the issue, but this is almost holding the article talk page hostage. The priorities that you've delineated are good ones, and the sooner we get back to discussing those, the better. Fernando Rizo T/C 06:58, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Gordon, I find it ironic that under a section you've created titled proof how you were "libeled, character defamed, mis-quoted" contains a continuing misrepresentation from YOU about ME. You last version of "consensus" was not a consensus. you declared that you had consensus and then declared voting was closed and end of discussion. If you want people to stop misrepresenting you, then it would probably help if you didn't misrepresent them. FuelWagon 13:50, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What did I say that you perceive as incorrectly describing you? As I recall, I said that there was a 4-3 concensus for the old intro, but that later someone (maybe you) removed and replaced it anyway. This is getting distracting: I am going to set up a tentative voting area -and comments are welcome, but please keep the voting section clean -this page is WAY too long!--GordonWattsDotCom 20:50, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments from Gordon 

message: I'm not saying that fellow editors did this on purpose, but anyhow, here, Taxman says, in relevant part that "That the facility wasn't supposed to allow a non terminal patient establishes nothing important," and yes, that is the current version, but I do not propose we use the strong editor's voice, as some call it, to say this about the hospice; contra, I suggest we merely report on the various reactions by the major players (some of which hold this view, some of which don't) --see also Marskall's quote here, he ALSO uses the Strawman method of argument: He objects to a point that I am NOT supporting: Here is his quote:
*"that this was a facility which is was prohibited by state law from admitting nonterminal patients [14] and prohibited by federal law from taking federal funds if it did admit nonterminal patient [15]. The court eventually ruled A-B-and-C. . Per FuelWagon. Bullet 31 of 50. Gordon unless you can show that there was something particularly vital about this one objection, or that it was the centrepiece of the petition, I must agree it doesn't belong. Marskell 18:28, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "suggesting that this paragraph be deleted in its entirety, with no mention of the hospice." Gordon, my proposal mentions the transfer to the hospice as well. So, saying that we're trying to delete the paragraph with no mention of the hospice could just as easily be considered slander/libel/misquoting against those of us who simply support a shorter version. I propose mentioning it, I just don't see a reason for a whole paragraph. This is bullet 31 of 50 bullets, in one motion out of literally many dozen motions filed by the Schindlers. The courts tossed it. The guardian ad litems never report a concern about it. No charges were brought. No convictions were handed down. And the hospice never had its federal funding cut. This is taking one minor bullet in a motion and trying to turn it into a criminal case where none exists. FuelWagon 23:51, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Chill out and relax: I am not accusing all y'all of that -only Taxman and Marskell --Also, I long pointed out that your version is quite similar to mine, except that you somehow are obsessed with hiding the reporting of the Schindlers' reaction to the illegality of the transfer (but at least you have sense and have no objection to the "financial" complaints with the transfer, which, while important, are not as important as the "illegality" claims by the Schindlers). Also, let me clarify that, while I am mad about being misquoted by our colleagues, I am not accusing them of doing this purposely, but the end result is still la lack of education and people voting on something about which they have little clue; We are all smart and intelligent an many point, and I hope that brightness extends to the one point on which we disagree here.--GordonWattsDotCom 23:58, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

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

text: Thx. The agenda, I as I see it, should be -first to see if the two editors above OK the move you suggested, and we dispense with any hard feelings; Second, we should identify the various proposals for addressing that one small paragraph, which I don't think gives "undue weight," as FuelWagon suggests; Then, -third, there are concerns from others over the introduction, about introducing why Terri was notable; Fourth, there is concern about article length, not just "it's long," but some remarks about how minute little details bloat and distract. Lastly, I have grave concerns over enforcing any concensus, and have, in the past, given one example of how concensus was apparently ignored, but this is Wiki, after all, and "open editing -wiki style" allows people to be bold and violate concensus, but maybe we should not address that right yet.--GordonWattsDotCom 06:49, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: One thing at a time, like you said. Gordon, honestly, you ought to just move this now. Make a subpage to your user page if you'd like. I'm not going to push the issue, but this is almost holding the article talk page hostage. The priorities that you've delineated are good ones, and the sooner we get back to discussing those, the better. Fernando Rizo T/C 06:58, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Gordon, I find it ironic that under a section you've created titled proof how you were "libeled, character defamed, mis-quoted" contains a continuing misrepresentation from YOU about ME. You last version of "consensus" was not a consensus. you declared that you had consensus and then declared voting was closed and end of discussion. If you want people to stop misrepresenting you, then it would probably help if you didn't misrepresent them. FuelWagon 13:50, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What did I say that you perceive as incorrectly describing you? As I recall, I said that there was a 4-3 concensus for the old intro, but that later someone (maybe you) removed and replaced it anyway. This is getting distracting: I am going to set up a tentative voting area -and comments are welcome, but please keep the voting section clean -this page is WAY too long!--GordonWattsDotCom 20:50, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proof that I was libeled, character defamed, mis-quoted, etc.

message: ===The removal of a section pertaining to misunderstandings, NOT the article===
The First item on which I ask a vote is a "closed vote" that only pertains to two other participants, and the method here was agreed upon by the admin moderating:
**MODERATOR: "Why don't you move this stuff [title section: Proof that I was libeled, character defamed, mis-quoted, etc.] to your talk page, and we can do some informal mediation? Let's keep the Schiavo talk page for Schiavo talk. Fernando Rizo T/C 05:49, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  THE Voting Booth on SEVERAL POINTS OF CONCERN--DISPUTE 

message: The First item on which I ask a vote is a "closed vote" that only pertains to two other participants, and the method here was agreed upon by the admin moderating:
**MODERATOR: "Why don't you move this stuff [title section: Proof that I was libeled, character defamed, mis-quoted, etc.] to your talk page, and we can do some informal mediation? Let's keep the Schiavo talk page for Schiavo talk. Fernando Rizo T/C 05:49, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The removal of a section pertaining to misunderstandings, NOT the article