Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Mediation/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Ground Rules

  1. Anyone who agrees to these rules may post here.
  2. I will refactor this page frequently.
  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

Summary of Key Points

Please sign with pound star tildes #*~~~~, where you agree that a particular wording should go into the article. (The Mediator will put your name in italics, pending your confirmation.)

Persistent vegetative state

  1. Some doctors issued a diagnosis of PVS.
    • Ann Heneghan 21:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
    • --GordonWattsDotCom 07:09, 17 July 2005 (UTC) (I add that Ann's edit summary on 14:04, 16 July 2005 in the Schiavo page here said that "Introduction - I think ghost, SlimVirgin, and Neuroscientist are happy with "diagnosed as". (I certainly am.) See mediation page." Furthermore, I personally recall FuelWagon supporting this method because he "didn't want the natives to get restless" (or words to that effect), referring to pro-lifers. Thus, the agreed upon model was "Terri Schiavo was diagnosed as PVS..." I am Gordon Watts, and I approve of this message.--GordonWattsDotCom 07:09, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
    • --GordonWattsDotCom 07:18, 17 July 2005 (UTC) has this to say: See Ghost's comments below, dated: 06:21, 16 July 2005 (UTC) -he seems to agree with the "diagnosed as." YO, Ghost, bro. Sign! Thx.--GordonWattsDotCom 07:18, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
    • ghost 13:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC) - I had voted for the older shorter intro previously. While I agree that it may gloss over certain items, they belong in the body of the article, not the intro. However, please see my reservations below.
  2. She might have partially recovered with the right type of therapy.
    • Ann (Well, when I originally signed, it didn't say above that I was to sign if I thought that wording should go in the article. I signed it just to acknowledge that that was my (not-very-relevant) opinion. And note that it was might, not would. However, I am not at all saying that it should go in the article. The article should not say that she could or would or might or couldn't have recovered. The article should make it clear that Michael Schiavo and Judge Greer and George Felos and several doctors etc. said that she couldn't improve, and that the Schindlers and several other doctors, speech pathologists, etc. said that she might or could or would. So, if my signature indicates agreement with that statement, here it is Ann Heneghan 22:20, 17 July 2005 (UTC). But if it is a vote for putting that wording into the article, then no, I'd have to cross it out Ann Heneghan 22:20, 17 July 2005 (UTC)!)
    • --GordonWattsDotCom 07:09, 17 July 2005 (UTC) (She might -or might not have. Only God knows that answer to this. I'm not God.--GordonWattsDotCom 07:09, 17 July 2005 (UTC))
  3. She had no hope of regaining consciousness, let alone substantial communication with her family. []
Comments
  • I could sign to "She might have partially recovered with the right kind of therapy." That would be in keeping with the testimony from a speech pathologist, which Gordon managed to track down after it had disappeared from the Schindler website [1]. However, I don't think the article should state as a fact either that she could or that she couldn't have recovered. They are just personal opinions of some editors. The article, in my view, should state simply what Sara Green Mele said, and what Judge Greer said, etc. My beliefs about which one was right are not really relevant. I'm stating them simply because I've been asked to, not because I want my views to go into the article. Ann Heneghan 21:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Further, my beliefs are not important, and what's more, I don't know. See above. I am not God.--GordonWattsDotCom 07:09, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

You cannot vote on the content like this! Our opinions are totally irrelevant to this article. This is a preposterous way of making an NPOV article. What, we all have a vote and then we weight the article accordingly? Grace Note 06:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I concur: Grace Note is right: Our opinions of the situation are not important. Our opinions of what needs to be in the article are what is relevant. (Bold & color face for clarity/emphasis -not to yell: This is a key point.)--GordonWattsDotCom 00:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I am disturbed that the list of choices for voting has the appearance of a Push poll. Thus, I feel I have been sandbagged into voting for something I don't entirely endorse. It is, however, the lesser of evils.--ghost 13:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Other Key Points: YOUR VOTE IS NEEDED HERE

These points shall be based on intro disputes. I am invoking the new Text Move rule, created by Uncle Ed recently: I am pasting disputed text here to be analyzed. Text is as follows and based on a comparison between two recent versions at this diff:

On

persistent vegetative state (PVS). Seven neurologists in good standing who examined Schiavo diagnosed her to be in a PVS. One whose standing has been questioned, Dr. William Hammesfahr, said she was minimally conscious. Another neurologist, in good standing, Dr. William P. Cheshire Jr., after having visited Schiavo, stated that he questioned the diagnoses of PVS. [2] Many other medical professionals submitted affidavits [3] or statements to the press questioning the PVS diagnosis and calling for further testing. For example, three of the four neurologists recently interviewed (Dr. Mack Jones, a neurologist in Florida; Dr. Thomas Zabiega, a neurologist in Chicago; Dr. William Bell, a professor of neurology at the Wake Forest University Medical School) reported that they believed that Terri was responding to her father, and was attempting to form words. The fourth, Dr. Peter Morin, a neurologist researching degenerative brain diseases, demurred, saying that he did not want to venture an opinion based on an audio recording without accompanying video. [4]
Thus, it is no surprise that much controversy arose over whether her condition was irreversible or treatable.

Gordon, please be careful that the Mediation page does not turn into an auto-move for the Talk:Terri Schiavo page. It disturbs me that people aren't talking to each other enough there.--ghost 14:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

How do we address "PVS" issue in intro?

  • --GordonWattsDotCom 01:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)Terri should be described as having been "diagnosed as PVS." After that, clarification can be added. She should NOT be described "as PVS, according to...": That is POV, and may be false. Only Terri and God know if she were PVS. None of us here today are either one of those two people.--GordonWattsDotCom 00:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: THIS ITEM SEEMS TO HAVE REACHED CONCENSUS: (a minor success) This issue has been voted on before (informally) and also in the section above. I don't know why I put it in here -except to be consistant. Since I shall make reference to other editors' votes, I wll use black text, not dark blue: I thinkj that FuelWagon, Ann, NCdave, and others also concurred: It must be "diagnosed as." So, Ed, you are making progress: We're voting on disputed issues. Good job. Let's NOW all vote on the below -any other issues need to be voted on?--GordonWattsDotCom 02:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • ghost 13:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC) - Yes. Ann and I agree on the older, shorter intro that includes it. It's a key issue for the article, and it's something I want my kids to be able to easily research later. Eliminating PVS from the intro would hamper that.
  • Ann Heneghan 21:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC) Yes, I vote for the old introduction. "Diagnosed as", and leave the rest for the main body.
  • No way. If you are "diagnosed as" in a PVS, then you are in it. It's a medical term for the condition you are supposed to be in, not a description of a pathological condition. This is made clear by the neurological examiner at Schiavo's autopsy. I think Ann and Gordon are showing a fundamental misunderstanding of a/ what PVS is and b/ what difference it would make were Schiavo in one or not in one. B/ has two parts. Medically, it makes no difference what you diagnose her condition as, of course, because what mattered was that she would not recover (I direct you to her autopsy report, Ann; this side of a miracle -- and I don't mean something slightly odd that's unexpected, I mean the full supernatural, cerebrospinal fluid back into neurons type of miracle -- she had no prospects of recovery); legally, it matters because the diagnosis determined her legal treatment. But what you are ignoring -- I doubt wilfully -- is that it is simply shorthand for "Will she ever have a life in which she can function?", not a disease such as measles, which may or may not be treated. I have no problem with an intro that says that there was dispute, primarily on the Schindlers' part, that she was in a PVS, but I certainly do over one that suggests that the facts are actually in doubt or that perverts the language to try to suggest that doubt. -- Grace Note
Grace, I think the resistance to "is PVS" is somewhat pendantic. basically, the phrase "diagnosed PVS" is active tense, and brings with it the implication that a human gave testimony about Terri's condition. The phrase "is PVS" is passive tense, and implies absolute truth, it also ignores individual testimony and makes blanket statement. Now, I think Terri was PVS. But I can be happy reporting that 7 neurologist diagnosed her to be PVS, and one quack said otherwise. Those convinced that Terri was sneaking out at night to play tennis will never be convinced otherwise, so it doesn't really matter what the wording says to them. I think most people who come in with an unbiased background can read the facts/history of the case in the article and will get where reality is. So, while I think Terri was PVS, I'm not averse to reporting that seven neurologists diagnosed her PVS. FuelWagon 15:29, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, the "diagnosed as" phrasing is essentially a nod to possibility that other POVs exist. I personally agree that Terri was, but we create the appearence of POV by stating it in a fact-like manner. Better to fall back more open language that still states fact in the intro. This way we prevent "driveby" reader from feeling compelled to engage in the upteenth edit war over the intro. It may not be the best solution, but if it cools down the debate over the article as a whole, it's a good thing.--ghost 15:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

How do we address "quantity" of doctors in intro?

  • --GordonWattsDotCom 01:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)Several ways are OK. Method A: This would include mention of ALL the known doctors (could be too lengthy, per Neuroscientist's past warnings). Method B: Mention ONLY the neurologists who opined, whether or not they examined Terri. They did opine, and express a QUALIFIED medical opinion. (Better, for this would reduce the intro, since like 30-40 doctors weighed in & submitted statements, affidavits, etc.) Method C: Mention NONE of the doctors at all. (Even better, but you'd better be right, because I have a list which reveals that close to HALF of all medical professionals (maybe more than half) sided with the NOT pvs diagnosis. Methods which are UNAPPROPRIATE are mentioning more or less of one side than the other, which is a blatant POV violation. If one doctor was less credible, that is OK, but he/she is still a doctor, but it can be mentioned. See the "quality" section: This is the "quantity" section.--GordonWattsDotCom 01:02, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • ghost 13:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC) - Method D. None of the above. Old intro. 'Nuff said.
  • This is typical of Gordon's methodology. Method A might just as well be extended to anyone who expressed an opinion. Method B is ridiculous. Most neurologists who "opined" did so without examining the patient. Some had only seen the heavily edited video. Method C is fine so long as we say she was in a PVS, which she was. It's of absolutely no account how many medical professionals opined that she was not in a PVS, just as it would be of no account how many tax lawyers have opined on Roe vs Wade, say. It is totally appropriate to mention more of one side than another, because of those who examined her, all bar one diagnosed her as in a PVS, and the other was a quack on a mission. What we must not do is seek a presentation of the facts that denies the truth. We do not have to be balanced between two opinions if one is an expression supported by the facts and the other is not. I direct Gordon to articles on Earth, which does not suggest in its introduction that it is flat, and on evolution, which does not suggest it has not happened and does not happen. But hold on! Loads of scientists have suggested that there is no evolution. There's a list on the Discovery Institute site of nutters scientists who suggest exactly that. Surely our article should reflect that? Well no. The article reflects the overwhelming majority of informed opinion. So should this one. Fat chance, obviously, but that's the ideal. Gordon, you simply have to accept that, rightly or wrongly, those who examined her diagnosed her as in a PVS, and they are supported by the physical evidence; the man who did not diagnose her so frankly lied about her condition -- he claimed she was practically up on her feet; not even her greatest supporters would claim that; and he also claimed that he could regenerate her cortical tissue, which, given its absence and the lack of experimental proof for his method, was to say the least a longshot. -- Grace Note

How do we address "quality" of doctors in intro

  • --GordonWattsDotCom 01:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)Some want to mention the problems that Hammesfahr had with credibility. OK, but only if you mention also that another judge said something positive about him (eg Florida physician declared "the first physician to treat patients successfully to restore deficits caused by stroke" says Judge Susan Kirkland of the Florida Department of Health. -see "PVS" section below -or, if deleted, in this diff here. Also, you need to mention that the Congressman who "nominated" Hammesfahr ALSO thought he was a good doctor, even if the nomination was not legal according to Nobel Rules. ALSO, you need to mention that Cranford had credibility problems (as did Judge Greer). Cranford misdiagnosed at least one patient, when he wasn't really PVS, and Greer has a HIGH rate of reverals, indicating he is not making sound judgements. See e.g., Schiavo's 'Dr. Humane Death' Got 1980 Diagnosis Wrong and Schiavo Judge Has 76% Reversal Rate Outside Rule. You want to demonize Hammesfahr and Terri's parents? Fine. You also need to say that the only doctors who found Terri to be PVS were actually in some way, shape, or form, hired by Mike Schiavo or appointed by the now-tainted George Greer.--GordonWattsDotCom 01:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • NEW ITEM: Offset by black text color: Should the article mention that “cerebral cortex missing” claims by Cranford were DISPROVEN!! by autopsy? Gordon's vote: Yes, probably; however, if you don't make critical remarks about Cranford, and many could be made, then you can't make critical remarks about Hammesfahr, and you must include Cheshire, etc. Fair is fair: NPOV.
  • Terri_Schiavo#Rehabilitation_efforts by family but OMITS 744.3215(1)(i), the "rehabilitation" law cited by Terri's parents' lawyers (and many disability advocates). These laws too should be mentioned in article. 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." It is not Wikipedia's policy to "take sides," but the law here deals with hospoce placement and should be cited: We report. You decide.--GordonWattsDotCom 03:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Should the article mention additional credibility problems?

Should the article mention that “cerebral cortex missing” claims by Felos were disproven by autopsy? Yes, probably; however, if you give Felos a free pass, then, to be NPOV, you must do the same for Hammesfahr, and others, to whom you would lob criticism.--GordonWattsDotCom

03:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

  • ghost 14:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC) - Ibid.
  • Perhaps you didn't understand the autopsy. It's very technical. In layman's terms, her brain was severely and irreversibly damaged. Her brain weighed about half what it should have at her age. The pathologist was very clear though that PVS is a clinical diagnosis and he could not confirm or deny it. This is unfortunate because it allows people like you to suggest she really was minimally conscious when it is quite clear that she lacked the apparatus. You'd have to be a true charlatan to suggest she could function with the brain she had left. -- Grace Note

Should we add additional links, such as those to Gordon Watts' sites?

Example include: "Advocacy/Commentary" or links to his "court cases" pages, or other useful links, stored in this exact diff of Archive 24 of Terri Schiavo's talk page.

  • --GordonWattsDotCom 03:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)Yes to the first two: They are relevant; maybe to the others. Yes, I know they're my web pages in some cases, and they haven't been updated in a while, but they provide useful repositories of information on the web.--GordonWattsDotCom 03:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • ghost 14:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC) - We should avoid links the editor's sites. Gordon, we need to avoid the appearence of Vanity Links. You sites have some good material, but you are now so deeply involved in the Wiki article that you create the appearance of a conflict of interest. I have faith that you don't intend to push POV, but if readers make that assumption, it colors their view of the entire article.

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)

/summaries


Well?

It has been 4 days since the last contribution to this Mediation. Is everyone giving up, or what? I didn't feel particularly good about putting a user block on FuelWagon, but does that change anything?

You want another Mediator? You want to continue with me? What do you all want to do? Uncle Ed 19:41, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

As I say in other recent posts, my computer was damaged, and I was busy mediating "World War 3" at the Abortion "Wiki-Quotes" page, and thus busy & unable to respond; still not up to full speed, but Ed was my role-model on how to mediate, and I wasusccessful in my resulotion of others' dispute-...see other posts recently in this page for details. You're doing good, Uncle Ed; let's address specific points more and agree to find concensus, not agree to disagree, haha.--GordonWattsDotCom 08:55, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm not giving up. I've had work overtake my life, as I've mentioned to a few of you. I wish to apologize if my absence impacting things. However, I'm VERY disappointed in what's gone on while I've been absent.
  • Members of this Mediation dragging in other Admins
  • Users/Participants being blocked
  • Users dropping off Wikipedia altogether
  • Still no real progress
Ed, I had hoped that, as Mediator, you'd put forth some type of compromise solution. If you want us to do that for you, fine. Email me, and I'll get on it this evening in spite of my other responsibilities. If you no longer feel comfortable as Mediator, please let us know. But if you're going to stick it out (and I hope you do) please give us your guidance, not the back of your hand. And could you please encourage the other Admin that's gotten involved to either join us here, or cool their jets? Despite our differences with you, I don't think that you're the person that's driving other Users away.--ghost 19:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not quitting. I've never quit a Mediation. As they said in Ghostbusters, "that would be wrong".

But perhaps I've been too harsh or made other mistakes. Every dispute is different, and we'll just have to keep plugging away at it until we find the key that unlocks the door.

I believe in the magic ... Uncle Ed 20:06, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

You know why I'm glad I'm not the mediator? Half the time, I can tell these people are upset with those people, but I can't figure out what the dispute is.
That said, if I had to blurt out a proposed fix, no matter how outlandish, right now, I would say this:
  • A new, ultra-low tolerance policy on personal attacks, including accusing other editors of being pro-this, anti-that, or even general references to "the so-and-so camp/so-and-so supporters."
  • An agreement to tackle each disputed change individually. In addition, editors posting more than 500 words per post will be keel-hauled. Editors nesting more than 200 words into an existing post will be fired into the sun via super-gigantic cannon.
  • All parties who have agreed to mediation must reach consensus on a statement detailing what the purpose of the article should be before performing any more edits other than obvious vandalism reversion.
Fox1 20:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
A ghost invited me to join in this discussion, though I see Ed has asked that only parties to the mediation join in, which I am not, so Ed, feel free to delete this comment as you see fit. I've read through the summaries above, and I agree completely with the comment from Fox 1. This article has been turned into a POV warzone, with no one paying attention to the fact that we want it to be read, and that therefore it has to be readable. This means concision, tight prose, good sources that are presented correctly and are easy to access, and above all, neutrality, which is currently lacking. But neutrality isn't gained by stating POV 1, then countering it with POV 2, then again with POV 3. Neutrality means writing in a disinterested way throughout. My outsider's suggestion is that any editor with strong views about the Schiavo case ought to stop editing the article for a few weeks, and allow it to be looked over by editors who have no emotional investment in it. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:16, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
This mediation has accomplished nothing that I can see, except generate more comments from the editors. I think we declare this an official failure. FuelWagon 22:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
any editor with strong views about the Schiavo case ought to stop editing Whew! That was close. I just have strong views about bad edits. I guess I can stay. FuelWagon 05:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
lol--ghost 05:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Uncle Ed, I apologize for my silence. I was away for a few days, and then came back to see how intense things had got in that short period. I explained here [5] that I wasn't sure what you wanted us to do. I didn't want to post long (and possibly irritating) essays after you had told us to stick to 500 words. Also, I was, and still am, extremely busy. I have to submit a university assignment in the middle of next week, and should be more free after that. Just now, all I have time to say is that I still support mediation. I agree with Fox1's suggestions about personal attacks, although I would personally have no problem with the use of such phrases as "Michael Schiavo supporters" or "Schindler supporters" as long as they are used for ease of reference rather than bandied around as accusations. I would also be happy to go along with SlimVirgin's suggestion that those with strong views would stop editing for a few weeks. That it was necessary to block someone for personal attacks is not at all a reason for or a sign of failure of this mediation, unless people want it to be such. We should all be able to rise above this. I am extremely sorry to see that FuelWagon has now filed an RfC against SlimVirgin. Ann Heneghan 23:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
(Welcome back, Ann.) I have to disagree with Slim's conclusions in the strongest terms. This article's being a POV warzone is nothing new. It's been like that since January. It's better now than it's been. And there are editors who are interested in readability. We are those editors. The POV 1/2/3 example is valid, but is directly contradicted by NPOV. We have a responsability to present both majority and minority views. Finally, I left for a week and a war broke out. I have no interest in walking away. What Slim may not appriciate yet is that we are each voices of groups of editors on this issue. If we all go away for a month, you'll eventually see the same arguments, with different signatures. *shakes head* No, we as a group are closer to concensus than previous editors. Let's stick with it.--ghost 05:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Welcome back; see above for my own positive feedback for the mediator's good efforts.--GordonWattsDotCom 08:55, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

We can do this

I think Slim made an error or two, but nothing we can't resolve right here on this page.

"Slick" RickK and/or others have accused me of being biased in favor of SlimVirgin, but a close reading of my analysis says diferently. However, I am "slim" myself, and also a person of morals, so I would have a pro bias for her choice of user names, but I don't ley my bias prevent correct and unbiased, objective NPOV analysis.--GordonWattsDotCom 09:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

She's in the mediation now, whether we like it or not.

Fox is on the right track, and I'll say more about that in a minute (er, "in a while" I mean).

Fox's suggestions are good, expecially about tackling each problem individually, but Fox trivializes some minor viewpoints, a bit too much, in my honest opinion.--GordonWattsDotCom 09:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I have offered to bow out if asked, but no one has directly asked.

FuelWagon has very graciously responded to an unprecedented "block by an admin who was also conducting the Mediation he was in" - if I've phrased that correctly. My head is still spinning, anyway.

Wagon tries to improve the page and works hard, even if he doesn't see eye-to-eye on all my points (see "crying witch" vs "crying wolf" in archives), so, while his temper wasn't appropriate, I am not going to personally be offended; I myself make mistakes...--GordonWattsDotCom 09:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

This is a confusing, emotionally laden situation. (This, the sixth paragraph, is the only one I'm really clear about!)

Okay, let me catch my breath for a couple of minutes. Do go on, while I collect my thoughts. Uncle Ed 01:37, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Why are we here?

In other words, what are we trying to do?

Fox said we needed:

"a statement detailing what the purpose of the article should be"

I think that would help. Also, Slim pointed out the need for neutrality.

Would a fresh start help? We could:

(A) move the entire article to Terri Schiavo/disputed, and start with a micro-stub.
(B) create a Terri Schiavo/moderated page (also with a micro-stub)

...and then follow the rules I posted at

Wikipedia:NPOV violation. Uncle Ed
01:43, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand what purpose moving the article would serve. There is a sizable segement of the general public that needs access to this article. Despite its flaws, it's been cited as the best, most thorough treatment of this subject on the web. (By conservatives at that ;-) ) As long as we're not taking it out of the hands of the public, I might support this. Please explain further.--ghost 04:51, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
I concur; Fix, not replace, and then, later, if we get concensus, LOCK the page, and make edits by submitting them to a "screened and paid" editorial board.--GordonWattsDotCom 09:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
We can't do that, Gordon (the locking), at least, not for any useful length of time. I'm not saying the idea wouldn't do wonders for this article, it probably would, but we can't buck the core philosophy of Wikipedia, no matter how messy this article gets. Locking can only be used for short periods in the face of unusual events like overwhelming vandalism. Even this mediation only applies, voluntarily, to those of use who agreed to it, no one else.
Fox1 12:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Correct, and thus my hope has always been that we could develop party platform from which to build. Our various views and positions are not unlike those within political parties, in that we all share the goal of improving the article. I know this sounds odd, but hear me out. If we can use the caucus method of working out planks with which to build a platform, we can become the example the other editors need to be led with. But this will require some give and take on all our parts. I'm not asking anyone to compromise their morals or views, but to make space for the morals and views of the rest of the group. And I know we can achieve this, based on the commitment we've all shown.--ghost 13:06, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
That sounds good, ghost. Uncle Ed 15:54, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Is it a failure?

I conceded that it is not a success - yet. But I refuse to admit that a problem which has taken so long to come into being, is insoluble merely because it couldn't be solved in a month (or less) of public on-line discussion.

Actually I think we're just starting to get at the real issues here. Which is the prerequisite for resolving them. Uncle Ed 02:29, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

LOL. Think of it as a 10-step program, all. I'd like to start by saying, "Hi. My name is Ghost, and I'm a Wikiholic...." Where are we if we lose out sense of humor?--ghost 04:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

"Is it a failure?" No: In fact, Uncle Ed, you were my role model and guide when World War III broke out over at the Wiki Quotes Abortion page! In recalling your distinctive style of identifying the various conflicts, and then identifying them, I coipied YOU: I identified a multitude of problems, and scored a direct 'hit', when one of my proposals for format change was accepted over the other alternatives. As you can see, things quitened down when I learned from you, and copied, monkey see, monkey do, but with all the monkey business and you forgetting how or what to do, look at the current Abortion page situation, and re-learn your specialty.--GordonWattsDotCom 08:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I am slower today, as the good computer was hit by lightening and fried BOTH modems (DSL and dial up; I almost got fried Tuesday), plus the stupid space bar in this keyboard is very unresponsive, and my word processor (used to save edits and spell-check) doesn't automaticaLLY LIGHT up the misspelled words like on my good computer, and must be pasted a certain place below header or it won't past; and "copying," the opposite, must be done manually in THIS aol window,m and won't accept Edit-select all-copy. ~~ In short, I AM not up to top speed, and feel unable to express myself well; This is why I have not participated since the lightening strike Tuesday in a "Florida thunderstorm,": and I mayt be slow the rest of this week? ~~ OK,. enough of my moaning; Just wanted to let everybody know why I wAS SLOWQ- HAD TO USE iNTERNET CASE AND PUBLIC LIBRARY AND FINally figured out how to get the old standby computer online bu dialup somwhow.. --OK, Yes, Uncle Ed, you have my vote of confidence, but as I said before, you are undermined by two things: 1) Editors are not screened here like "regular" places of employment; and 2) We don't get paid (and I would imagine even y'all admins & sysops probably don't get paid, or if you do, it's a pittance) -not paying the help is what stymies the quality:" You get what you pay for, if I can end this once phrase with a preposition this time.--GordonWattsDotCom 08:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Two quick points, before I dash off to a meat world obligation:
  • Ending a sentence with a preposition is an affront up with which I will not put. ;-)
  • I'm glad my failure has provided a good example for you. :-) Uncle Ed 12:34, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
All right Winston Churchill, ;-o--GordonWattsDotCom 15:45, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I fixed "4 Archive / reboot" above. Reason? I'm getting sleepy andmy computers are kind of sleepy acting too sometimes, and if I don't show up for a couple days (working, sleeping, etc.), then I want ALL the objections to get voted on if I'm not around. (If there's a vote, and someone's absent, count their vote based on their summary, OK?)
  • Don't get me wrong: I DO want to participate, but it doesn't pay, so your help is unreliable and has other responsibilities. REQUEST: Ed or Ghost, who requested mediation, or somebody, Please make sure EVERYBODY ELSE's voice is heard, even if it slightly exceeds the 500-word thing. (See Archive - reboot: I reformatted the titles, but I left some people out because I don't feel like searching for extra views on them, even tho their voice IS important... (I'm human & limited I made sure ALL of the points of summaries squeezed in: I changed the rules, like was done in the Kobayashi Maru -so we would win!) Cheers!

PVS

If you want all the facts about Shiavo's diagnosis, it would be something like this: FuelWagon 22:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC) 

Eight neurologists examined Shiavo.
Seven neurologists diagnosed her to be in a PVS. 
All seven were members in good standing of American Academy of Neurology.
One neurologist (Hammersfahr) diagnosed her to be MCS.
Hammersfahr was not a member in good standing of American Academy of Neurology.
His vasodilatation therapy is not recognized in the medical community.
He has claimed, on multiple occaisons, to be a "nominee" for the Nobel Prize "in Medicine",
however this is not true.
He was also hired by the Schindlers specifically to challenge the PVS diagnosis in court.
When he testified in court as to his diagnosis of Shiavo being MCS,
the court impeached the credibility of his diagnosis.

And if you want the short version for the intro, I'd say this FuelWagon 22:07, 15 July 2005 (UTC) 

Seven neurologists diagnosed Shiavo to be in a PVS.

Yes, I think Hammersfahr is enough of a quack to be disregarded in the intro. FuelWagon 22:07, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

This is helpful, FuelWagon. And I'll be back soon. Uncle Ed 22:46, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
I concur, it is helpful, but incomplete; let me add just one missing piece here, not meant to be a complete laundry list of my beefs: It could/should/would also include "Cranford and Felos (and others) were also hired by Michael Schiavo specifically to support the PVS diagnosis in court and make sure Terri got her feeding tube removed." Hmm... you want to add your sentences, which are not all bad, I admit, but you must include the whole story to be fair. The "short intro" argument is gaining momentum, and I fear that both our pet sentences will get the boot.--GordonWattsDotCom 02:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I'm unlocking the article. Fuel, please apply your intro (let's see what happens). Slim, you are welcome to this Mediation. Fox, thanks for insisting that we all avoid personal remarks. Ann, don't spend too much time away from your schoolwork. Ghost, well, think of something! Gordon, "less is more". Sorry if I missed anyone else.

I'll be offline Sunday, so please play nice, kids. ;-) Uncle Ed 12:31, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

"Fuel, please apply your intro" Done. FuelWagon 20:21, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

If you don't mention Hammesfahr, then you must also exclude Cranford, who has misdiagnosed. However, if you include the seven (7) who said Terri was PVS, then you must also include Cheshire AND Hammesfahr, who both -to some extent -examined her. Further, if you include statements about Hammesfahr that are negative in nature, you must also include a critique of ALL the other neurologists. You can't "pick and choose." Furthermore, I just recently read that Hammesfahr had gotten positive reviews by some circuit judge. Let me see if I can find something on the net about this.--GordonWattsDotCom 07:26, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

  • I found them: Here is the PRWeb.com text version, the alternate release, and the copy off of his web site.
  • FACTS: The release says that "Florida physician declared "the first physician to treat patients successfully to restore deficits caused by stroke" says Judge Susan Kirkland of the Florida Department of Health." (a supposedly good thing)
  • In the critics' favor: The doctor himself makes these claims.
  • In the doctor's favor: These claims about Judge Kirkland are apparently NOT challenged nor rebutted ANYWHERE on the Internet.
  • Conclusion: The are probably true, and if you report the bad, then you must report the good too -to be fair and factual, and unbiased, that is, NPOV.--GordonWattsDotCom 07:38, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Ann's report

I shouldn't be here; I should be studying, but - I took a peep at the unlocked article, and then changed it back to "diagnosed as". This isn't meant to be the beginning of another war. If I'm reverted, I won't revert back without discussing it first. I would probably have left it alone, except that Uncle Ed forgot to put two square brackets on both sides, so his wikification didn't work. Here are the reasons for my change:

A long time ago, the article used to state (as fact) that she was in a PVS. This generated a lot of complaints and some edit wars. I'm not pushing for a claim that she was MCS. All I want was that something controversial should not be stated as a fact. Eventually, a consensus was reached that the article would say "diagnosed as". (This would not violate the beliefs of those who agreed with the diagnosis.) After that change, there was peace for a while.

Just before I went to London, Duckecho removed the "diagnosed as". He did this without any prior discussion on the talk page. (He also inserted an invisible instruction not to change this!) Ghost wasn't around. FuelWagon bet a dozen donuts that someone would complain. (But he backed up Duckecho, saying something like, "Nothing ventured, nothing gained.") I pointed out why I wasn't happy. Neuroscientist gave me some support, while making it clear that his support was for reasons of "epistemic accuracy", and not because he doubted the diagnosis. Duckecho accepted that he could allow "diagnosed as" for Neuroscientist's reasons, but not for mine. I reinserted "diagnosed as", just before going to London.

While I was in London, Duckecho again removed the "diagnosed as" changed that bit to "evolved into an irreversible

persistent vegetative state (PVS), according to seven neurologists who examined her, or a minimally conscious state
(MCS), according to one other." I think everyone reading this knows what happened in the next few days. Then the article was locked. Ghost came back. SlimVirgin told Ghost (on his talk page) that she'd be happy with the "diagnosed as" version. She also wrote (about Duckecho's version): "The PVS was a disputed diagnosis. The issue split America in two. And yet our introduction is written as though there was no dispute at all. The PVS diagnosis was by far and away the majority one, and it was supported by the courts, and the sentence should be written to reflect that, but the other diagnosis can't be ignored."

Uncle Ed's edit summary (May I) suggested that he wouldn't take offence if someone changed it, and I had to change the bad link anyway.

I'm not offended at all; I'm rather pleased. :-) I'm actually very difficult to offend. I'm collecting a list of user talk:Ed Poor/ways to offend me, but it's rather short right now. (So far, nobody's been able to add to it - I wonder why ;-)
Anyway, I appreciate the storyline. Now I see much that I did not. I'm not as smart as Gandalf, and I don't have one of those magic crystal balls that the Queen and the Steward had {see palintir), but I just finished my ninth reading of LOTR last month and it gave me new inspiration.
Now, where was I? Oh, well, maybe it doesn't matter. Let's just carry on with the article. This is my day off, actually. Uncle Ed 15:24, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

One further point. FuelWagon has made various claims about Dr Hammesfahr, in justification for leaving his diagnosis out of the introduction. If we go along with the "diagnosed as", which is what we had before Duckecho changed it, we won't need to argue over whether or not to mention seven neurologists or seven plus one. However, if we don't agree to leave "diagnosed as", we'll have to decide exactly how fair it is to put all that stuff about Hammesfahr in the introduction. Neuroscientist wrote a very helpful clarification of Hammesfahr's position recently, and I have more questions. I'm not going to write them now. Maybe after a few hours of study, as a break. That's all for now. Ann Heneghan 14:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

See above; I comment that we must be balanced and simply report the facts.--GordonWattsDotCom 07:42, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Update - my questions to Neuroscientist can be seen here. I think the introduction flowed better before "seven neurologists" etc. was added to it. It sounds a bit abrupt now. Anyway, I can't see why it has to be in the introduction, if the introduction says that she was in a condition "diagnosed as" a PVS. It's also unfair, since there are question marks about Cranford also, and since the Schindlers were only permitted to have two doctors of their choice examine Terri. (I'm also interested in what Neuroscientist would say about the relevance of a radiologist's testimony, since one of their chosen doctors, who sided with them, was a radiologist.) There were many affidavits (seventeen?) from doctors (neurologists?) and some from speech pathologists who believed either that she wasn't or that she might not be in a PVS. They have been discussed at length on the talk pages, and their evidence has been disregarded because it was based on videos of Terri. Well, they weren't allowed to examine her in person, were they? If video evidence is really so worthless, wouldn't all the doctors who filed the affidavits have known that? I think in that case they would have said, "She sometimes looks as if she's responding, but that's completely meaningless, so if our colleagues who examined her say she's in a PVS, she must be."

Are we being completely NPOV if we put the diagnosis of seventeen neurologists into the introduction and leave out the dissenting medical opinions? Leave them both out, or put them both in. My preference would be to leave them both out, and to cover the dispute in the main body. But even in the main body, I think it's important that a new reader, unfamiliar with the story, would realize that the Schindlers were not allowed to have any more doctors examine Terri. Back to my books now. Ann Heneghan 17:38, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Ann. If reference to the seven neurologists is made in the intro, the dissenting opinion ought to be mentioned too. Or else leave out both references, and deal with the issue in detail in the body of the story.
WP:NPOV.
If the seven PVS diagnoses are mentioned in the intro, the eighth MCS diagnosis ought to be mentioned too. As some people seem to prefer that the latter not be mentioned, let's delete the former, and just leave it as diagnosed as PVS. It was Duckecho changing the intro that seems to have triggered this recent round of disputes, and now you adding back seven neurologists hasn't helped, so I suggest we go back to Ann's version and then just leave it. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:31, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
"It was Duckecho changing the intro that seems to have triggered this recent round of disputes," Um, I don't know if you have noticed, but User:Duckecho left wikipedia as of four days ago, a particularly sore point for a number of editors remaining. I was the one who changed the intro and it was because Ed said to do it somewhere on this page. FuelWagon 11:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Yes, FuelWagon, you changed it recently, but I think that SlimVirgin is referring to Duckecho's edit on 8 July, where without prior discussion on the talk page, he got rid of "diagnosed as" and made the article say that Terri was in a PVS. He also inserted an invisible comment, saying "Do not change without authoritative documentation to the contrary and without discussion on talk page". I was very disappointed that an editor would single-handedly, and without discussion, undo a change that had been agreed on, and also instruct future editors not to change back. We had reached consensus some time before that "diagnosed as" would prevent edit wars. Several editors had indicated that they would be happy with that or with something similar. I replaced it on 9 July after discussion on the talk page, and then Duckecho removed it again on 10 July. I don't know if it was discussed before he made this change. I rather think not, but the language on the talk page when I got back from London does not exactly make me feel like going through all the diffs.
With regard to your recent edits, I see you're still putting your seven neurologists into the introduction, and leaving out reference to any dissenting opinion, except for "Shiavo's [sic.] parents". As I have said before, Hammesfahr is a qualified, board-certified neurologist. I deplore the deception concerning the Nobel Prize nomination, but really, if you're a liar in claiming that you can fly, it doesn't prove that you can't swim. Neuroscientist may be too busy to answer my questions, but in any case I think we all accept that Hammesfahr is a board-certified neurologist, and if he falsely claims to be more, it doesn't mean he's less. Your edit makes it seem as if it was only her parents that disputed it. And that is very misleading. Professional medical people disputed it. Hammesfahr is a qualified neurologist. And, as I pointed out elsewhere, if the neurologists who wrote affidavits based on video testimony were properly qualified, and if the responses she "appeared" to give on video were meaningless, they would have known that they were meaningless. It is simply a suppression of facts to omit from the introduction that the Schindlers had medical support. Leave it as "diagnosed as" in the intro, without mentioning the neurologists and the Schindlers, OR put in that other doctors disputed the diagnosis. My preference is for the former.
And yes, she had noticed Duckecho's departure. She removed some rather nasty personal attacks from his farewell message on his user page. Ann Heneghan 16:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
So Duckecho changed got rid of "diagnosed as" and made the article say that Terri was in a PVS. To put "diagnosed as" kind of implies that there was doubt, that the fact she was in a PVS was just an opinion. If you'll excuse me making another analogy, this would be like saying on the JFK assasination that the fact he died of a bullet wound the head was merely the opinion of the doctors, rather than presenting it as indisputable fact that he died because an assasin blew his brains out. --Uthar Wynn 01 21:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
I've made that sentence invisible until we decide. As things stand, people don't seem to want it, but that may change when other editors join the discussion. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:50, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps the eighth diagnosis should inded be mentioned, but to mention it on an equal footing as the others would be very misleading. The fact is that Hammesfahr is widely considered to be, how shall I put this nicely, a little "unothorthoordox" :( ... "unorthodox" in his methods, and more than a little "unprofessional". Long story short, the reputable sources pretty much agree that he is, indeed, a "quack", and while this should be worded more nicely and it should be clear that this is merely an opinion, treating Hammesfahr as equal to the others is downright deceptive. --Uthar Wynn 01
05:01, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
I've changed the intro to read:
She briefly lapsed into a coma, and then spent the remaining 15 years of her life in a condition diagnosed by seven neurologists as a persistent vegetative state (PVS). This diagnosis was disputed by Shiavo's parents.
The "diagnosis was disputed" sentence used to be in there but must have gotten wiped out in all the reversions. Since the Schindlers were a major player in this whole story, the fact they disputed the diagnosis deserves being reported in the intro. However, since their evidence disputing this diagnosis is quackery, I'm not listing that in the intro. And I removed the bit that said something like "One doctor not in good standing diagnosed her as MCS" because "not in good standing" is a very loose paraphrase of facts. He is not a member in good standing with the AAN. His diagnosis was also tossed by the court. those two facts would be the minimum listing of his credibility problems that would need to go alongside any of his diagnosises. FuelWagon 12:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
I've changed back to Grace Note's version, but have changed "claimed" to "said" of the minority diagnosis.
Is this mediation page taking the place of the talk page? SlimVirgin (talk) 17:59, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Areas of dispute

Can anyone outline in just a few sentences what the areas of dispute are in this mediation? I've read through the archives and I don't see anything that couldn't be sorted out easily between reasonable editors. However, I may have missed something, so if anyone could tell me what the big sticking points are, that would be very helpful. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:50, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

I think the big issue isn't so much the individual points of contention, but what philosiphy should be applied to the article as a whole. Should it merely report what the courts and all of the reputable medical sources say, what appears to be the factually correct reality?
Or should information that is pretty much established fact be second guessed at every opportunity and all sorts of unlikely alternate realities be presented? Should, in fact, the article on the first moon landing include all sorts of counter-claims by conspiracy theorists? Should equal weight be given to the idea that man really did land on the moon and the idea that it was all some incredibly elaborate hoax? Should every article referencing the scientifically accepted geographical status of the earth also include the claims made by the Flat Earth Society? Should articles referencing the geologic and biological hitory of our planet include the scientifically unsubstantiated claims that the Earth was only created 4000 years ago? Should history articles presume that the Holocaust actually occured or should they give equal status to claims by Holocaust deniers and neo-Nazis that it is all some big hoax, that the millions who died were never murdered by the Nazis?
The age-old conflict of science vs. religion, logic vs. ideology, critical thinking vs. "deeply held beliefs", thoughtful objectivity vs. passion politics, is the real issue here, and attempting to achieve a compromise on every contested point in these case will result in a mediocre conclusion and satisfy nobody. One must decide what stance an "informative" or "neutral" article will take: to merely present the facts as they appear to be or to give equal standing to the alternatives, no matter how improbable?
This is the big problem here, this is truly what the dispute is all about. --
Wikipedia:Wikiquette

  • Wikipedia articles are supposed to represent all views (more at NPOV). 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.
In summary: Uthar is trying to prove the PVS diagnoses could be true simply because the dissenting doctors do not make their views correct. Uthar may be correct about the PVS diagnosis. (Only God and Terri know if she really was PVS.) However, this is NOT the place to debate that. "We report; You decide." Period. What Wikipedia is not? It is NOT the place to argue the matter.--GordonWattsDotCom 22:02, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Uthar sums it up. Wikipedia requires that all points of view be reported. But someone's POV is distinct from facts. Terri was PVS. This is a fact in so far as the medical community can produce any fact in such a subjective area. This is a fact based on seven experts whose job it is to diagnose these sorts of things. The Schindlers disputed the diagnosis. That is their POV. But their evidence is the diagnosis of a quack neurologist and affidavits from video diagnosers. None of which is anything of substance to counter the fact that Terri was PVS. What they have is basically heresay in the form of affidavits (which were tossed by the courts) and a chunk of the American population weighing in with their own point of view that Terri was MCS. These points of view should be reported. That the schindlers point of view was they disputed the diagnosis should be in the intro. But the only relevant fact regarding her condition was that she was diagnosed by seven neurologist as PVS. All other evidence submitted to dispute this diagnosis has no medical credibility and should not be brought into the intro. FuelWagon 12:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Exactly. The Schindler's point of view should be mentioned, obviously, but to present their alternate view as if it were factually equal to the medically accepted diagnosis would be very POV. There is sufficient consensus among the medical community for us to list her PVS as a fact, not as just another "viewpoint". --Uthar Wynn 01 14:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

"Your parable/analogy/comparison is UNEQUAL/unbalanced: NOT many people do not subscribe to the flat earth theory, but MANY (and OVER HALF, according to some polls), DO subscribe to the theories proposed and put forth by the medical professionals who submitted affidavits; So, some of them were unaware of the exact tests performed. Big whoop! ALL of the medical professionals make mistakes. Your above argument was interesting, but UNEQUAL, therefore not applicable to the currenct situation." GordonWattsDotCom.

Your reasoning is highly flawed, in my opinion. Since when was reality defined by what "the majority" of people think? Since when was the truth defined by the opinions of the ignorant masses? Your own logic would imply that the flat earth theory was somehow more valid way back in the day when people were too ignorant to imagine that the earth could be any other way. Last time I checked, reality was not defined by opinion polls, maybe if you took a poll (this is hypothetical, don't try and tell me what the real results would have been) back in the 1490's the majority of people would agree with Columbus's assesment the the world was much smaller than we now know it to be.

It wouldn't have made Columbus somehow not have been completely dead wrong. He never got even close to Asia, and if it weren't for his completely accidental landing in North America, if the continents of the Western hemisphere were instead just more ocean (as they predicted, they never expected to run into the Americas), he and his entire crew would have all died at sea. They wouldn't have "magically" made it to Asia just because an opinion poll backed up his wrong beliefs.

But all of this is beside the point. Your "survey data" is dead wrong, there were articles in many mainstream news publications about how the congressional interference backfired, about how almost 80% of the population thinks they shouldn't have interfered.

At least 2/3 of the US population backed up the medical assessment of Schaivo's condition, to say a majority disagreed is absurd. But as I said, it doesn't matter. --Uthar Wynn 01 05:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. If such things mattered, we would have taken a vote in 1973 and abortion would still be criminal, instead of having the Courts suddenly discover ghosts of "choice" and "privacy" in the Constitution.
WP:NPOV says that we must present all majority and significant-minority positions held by reputable or credible published sources. We shouldn't present tiny-minority positions. Therefore the flat-earth, moonlanding, and Holocaust-denial analogies don't fit here, as these are examples of tiny-minority POVs, and should either be given their own space or none at all. Regarding the views we do include, they are given equal standing in the sense that we don't poison the well against certain views, but it should be made clear throughout what the majority view is, and that view should be given more space. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:37, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
Exactly. Presenting all majority and significant-minority positions held by reputable or credible sources would exclude Hammesfahr's diagnosis and the affidavit guys from the article. And as far as making it clear what the "majority view" is goes, if 100% of the credible sources are in agreement, there is absolutely no reason to potray a contrary view as any sort of serious alternative. --Uthar Wynn 01 21:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Every last doctor who made a genuine examination of Schaivo agreed that she was in a PVS, except for Hammesfahr. However, I don't think we're really obligated to include the "diagnosis" of a quack and possibly a pathological liar. We're talking about a guy who claimed he got the "Nobel Peace Prize of Medicine" or some crazy-ass lie like that. To say he can be trusted as a credible source is really pushing it. --Uthar Wynn 01 21:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
"Every last doctor who made a genuine examination of Schaivo agreed that she was in a PVS, except for Hammesfahr." Wrong! You can't count. Both Cheshire and Hammesfahr examined her and opined in official capacity, plus there were three or four more neurologists. Actually, by my counting, I think it may have been MORE neurologists who said Terri was NOT pvs, but it's so close I'm not sure. Furthermore, there were loads and loads of other medical professionals who opined in their official capacity as medical professionals that Terri wasn't PVS and/or that she needed to be tested further.--GordonWattsDotCom
21:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

This isn't meant to be a personal attack Gordon, but you (have your opinion) regarding the facts on Terri Schaivo. You constantly act as if the medical community was 50/50 on whether she was PVS or not, as if whether she was PVS or not is an issue in which both sides are equally valid. This isn't a matter of ideological slant, this is a matter regarding the factual accuracy of the Terri Schaivo article. The doctors and the courts ruled that she was PVS, and the autopsy more or less confirmed the degree of brain damage. The facts are that the overwhelming majority of the doctors who examined Terri Schaivo found her to be PVS, and the only real dissenting opinion came from an established liar (completely insane claims of winning the Nobel Peace Prize of Medicine) and alleged quack.

And you say we have to "mention credibility problems with ALL the doctors or none at all"? What, we have to make up credibility problems for the credible doctors so the article will be "fair"?! I hope you aren't serious because that is possibly the most (interesting) thing I have ever heard as far as article suggestions go.

And why are you even bringing up the "public's view"? The public's view, regardless of how it was split doesn't matter one bit. You obviously missed the earlier discussion about how reality is not defined by polls. It's absolutely (interesting) how you say over 50% of all groups, then make a whole pile of exceptions (lets only poll conservatives?) to decrease the number of people who don't hold the view you happen to like. Even though it's really none of your business, I'll have you know that I am absolutely not a "liberal", and I am not a "conservative" either, I am a registered independent who doesn't play (interesting) ideological games and is only trying to have articles on Wikipedia be in touch with reality. I suggest you (reconsider more interesting possibilities) regarding Schaivo's PVS or stop interfering with this article, Wikipedia is supposed to be a factually accurate resource, not a soapbox for all sorts of unlikely and insane little theories. --Uthar Wynn 01 00:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh, nice. while I was editing I found you created a whole section from which to launch (interesting opinions) me. Great job gordon. --Uthar Wynn 01 00:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

mediation means what, exactly?

So, I'm a little confused as to how mediation works exactly. do we just keep editing the article to say whatever we want it to say? or do we start out where it was and come to some sort of agreement before anythign changes? I'm asking because Ed indicated to add the seven neurologists to the intro[7], and other editors keep putting in the dissenting opinion of a single quack. Just curious what mediation does. FuelWagon 18:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Grace Note isn't part of the mediation, so he can do whatever he wants. Normally mediation will identify the key areas of the dispute and will try to find a consensus consistent with WP's policies regarding those areas. This is why I asked above what the key areas are. So far I can see one: the introduction. But what are the others? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:05, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
Ok, Grace Note didn't agree to mediation, but you did. So why did you "Reverted edits by FuelWagon to last version by Grace Note" here? I added mention of the 7 neurologists here as per Ed's instructions. And then you just wiped it out here. How did that happen? And your last revert basically maintains your version of teh intro, justifying it that you were reverting back to Grace Note, as if that edit was better than mine. Where is the mediation that's supposed to be happening between the editors? FuelWagon 19:32, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure whether I am part of the mediation. I didn't ask to be. Ed has said he doesn't mind me p osting here, though I feel these posts should be on the talk page. Anyway, the point is that Grace Note's version was more neutral than yours, though I prefer Ann's, as it doesn't get into how many neurologists. The problem here, FuelWagon, is that you are pushing a particular POV, and seem to be at Wikipedia at the moment only to do that. I would say that is why the page is in such turmoil. I am 100 per cent certain that Ann, Grace Note and myself, even though we may have quite different views, could sort out the disputed areas between us within hours, because we would all be willing to make concessions. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:53, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Whether anyone's version is more neutral than anyone else is a bit subjective, I would think. I haven't had time to dig around wikipedia, but I was hoping someone more familiar with its guidelines could point to something that explains how to deal with wildly different views with wildly different levels of objective data to support it. (8 neurologists who actually examined Terri, versus three guys who looked at a CAT scan.) I've read the npov article, but but I don't recall it having the level of detail we need to work through this. It suddenly feels like we're trying to hit a bullseye and we don't even really know where the target is. Ideally, if someone has an issue with a sentence in the article they could cite some wikipedia guideline or something. like "that's not neutral because this [wikipedia guideline] says heresay should be treated like this". I'm probably wishful thinking, but I was kind of hoping there would be some wikipedia guidelines that would be detailed enough that we could muddle through this one agonizing word at a time. I don't mind heavy lifting as long as we're making progress, and even one word at a time is progress. but as it is, people are citing concepts like "neutral" which by by itself not specific enough to use as a legitimate yardstick. i.e. enough room for subjective interpretation that any side can make "neutral" mean whatever their version of an edit happens to be. I mean really, doesn't wikipedia have some specifics laid out anywhere? FuelWagon 01:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
I was hoping someone more familiar with its guidelines could point to something that explains how to deal with wildly different views with wildly different levels of objective data to support it. (8 neurologists who actually examined Terri, versus three guys who looked at a CAT scan.) That would be me, but we're seven level indented at this point, and I need you to answer my question at the bottom of the page first. Then I will answer yours. Uncle Ed 01:25, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Normally mediation will identify the key areas of the dispute and will try to find a consensus consistent with WP's policies regarding those areas. OK, Gordon just inserted "Yet Another Diagnosis Dispute" in the introduction. This is not working. All it will do is push the entire article into the introduction. We already tried that and it was too long. Cheshire did not conduct a neurological exam. He visited Terri to investigate claims of abuse. He claimed Terri "watched him for half a minute" but the autopsy 2 weeks later says Terri was probably cortically blind. Every medically related dispute regarding the diagnosis is half-baked. And all this is doing is pushing in the dispute without pushing in the facts behind the dispute like all the problems with Hammer's credentials, or the discrepancy between Cheshire saying she could see/watch him and the autopsy saying she was blind. This is turning into POV pushing because it mentions the disputes against PVS but minimizes all the problems of credibility around the dispute. FuelWagon 21:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
This is why I asked above what the key areas are. So far I can see one: the introduction. But what are the others? We can't even get past the intro with any sort of agreement. until we sort out some sort of workable mediation that ends up in some sort of result that everyone can stand behind, there's no point in mucking up every other section in the article. Pretty much people are editing the article like they normally would and they're using the mediation page for talk instead of teh talk page. We need a controversial topic article role model to do some comparisons and we need some specific wikipedia guidelines about where to put crackpot claims and quackery diagnosis. We actually had an intro at one point that a lot of people agreed to, and bit by bit it got beaten down into the current mess. FuelWagon 21:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
"We need a controversial topic article role model to do some comparisons and we need some specific wikipedia guidelines about where to put crackpot claims and quackery diagnosis." Those suggestions are about the best I've heard so far: Two candidates for an example (Wikipedia being consistent with itself) are abortion and slavery, both controversial, but rather good articles. Also, I might look for rules (Wikipedia being consistent with "known fact," that is guidelines, rules.) Good job, Wagon, but the examples are the best bet: I intend to "Monkey-see-Monkey-do." ~ OK, I forgot to sign just then, but look what I found out: Slavery nowhere says that slavery was either "good" or "bad." It merely present cold, dry facts, such as THIS good example / role-model: "Finally, the Dred Scott decision which asserted that slavery's presence in the Midwest was nominally lawful (when owners crossed into free states) turned Northern public opinion against slavery." (About the 9th paragraph under Slavery#Slavery_in_North_America, right under the photo of a slave.)--GordonWattsDotCom 02:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Well, if you're worried about putting too much information in the introduction, take out Gordon's addition and your own addition, and leave it as "diagnosed as". However, if you put in the seven neurologists, then it's only fair that Gordon should balance it by putting in the dissenting doctors. What's the problem with "diagnosed as" and a short introduction? I'm happy with it. I don't have the right to speak for others, but going by previous comments, I think that you were once happy with it, SlimVirgin is happy with it, ghost is happy with it, Gordon is happy with it, Neuroscientist is happy with it, Duckecho has gone but he said that he could accept it for Neuroscientist's reasons but not for mine, NCdave would certainly like diagnosed as PVS better than was in a PVS. Surely if some of us were the extreme POV pushers that you seem to think, we'd be insisting on diagnosed as MCS! Anyway, I can't see why it's so essential to put into the introduction the doctors who diagnosed PVS as if the others didn't exist. Have you any objection to the version that you once accepted? Ann Heneghan 21:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Ann, I didn't just agree to the old version, I wrote it. From what I've learned since that time, the closest version for the diagnosis section would say something like "7 neurologists diagnosed her to be PVS, 2 guardian ad litems concurred. one neurologist, Hammer, diagnosed her to be MCS. The court found Hamer's diagnosis to be (insert whatever legal description for getting tossed) and declared Terri to be PVS." I'm writing this from memory, so I may have to tweak it a bit. FuelWagon 22:00, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, here's a slightly more fleshed out version:

Eight neurologists examined Terri over the years. Seven diagnosed Terri to be in a "
persistent vegetative state" (PVS). Two guardian ad litems supported this diagnosis. One neurologist, Hammer, diagnosed Terri to be in a "minimally conscious state" (MCS). In court, Hammer's diagnosis was found to be ____(questionable) and was ____ (tossed) and the court declared Terri to be in a PVS. In every appeal, the courts ruled that Terri was in a PVS. (See the section below titled "Terri's Condition" for more information on her medical condition.)

There's a couple of legal terms I can't remember off the top of my head so I left blanks. How does that look? It includes all the examining neurologists, the guardian ad litems (who are supposed to have Terri's best interest at heart and should protest if there was any problem with the diagnosis), and the court system, including all the appeals. FuelWagon