Wikipedia

Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Mediation/Archive 3

< Talk:Terri Schiavo case | Mediation

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GordonWatts (talk | contribs) at 15:45, 15 July 2005 (→Is it a failure?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Latest comment: 19 years ago by GordonWattsDotCom in topic Is it a failure?

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.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

Previous discussions:

Ground Rules

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

Participants

Mediator's Summary Section

Latest comment: 19 years ago7 comments1 person in discussion

Hottest issues first, based on recent input on this page.

Persistent vegetative state

  1. She was essentially a vegetable, with no hope of regaining consciousness, let alone substantial communication with her family. []
  2. Some doctors issued a diagnosis of PVS, but this is just their point of view. [1]
  3. She might have recovered with the right type of therapy. []
  • She was "diagnosed as PVS." ~ 1 & 3 are not provable -thus unknowns. 2 is correct, and -to be fair -I add that the NON-pvs disgnosis was ALSO a POV. "diagnosed as PVS:" was reached as concensus: FW (as I vaguley recall) once said that calling Terri PVS would make the natives restless, and I agree.--GordonWattsDotCom 08:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

How to fix the mess

  1. Write concise prose in a structured framework that makes sense, instead of each and every sentence being obfuscated by its own weight in weasel words, insinuations, rebuttals to anticipated inferrals, etc. [2]

Courts and judges

Terry's parents vs. Terry's husband

  1. The article should side with the POV of Terry's parents. []
  2. The article should side with the POV of Terry's husband. []
  3. The article should report the parents' POV and the husband's POV impartially, giving no particular weight to either side. []
  • At first, I thought you had slipped from your normal high-standard and asked a "stupid": questuion, but this question may be the best: It provokes me to give the "non-intuituve," but correct answer: ALL answers above (1,2,&3) are wrong: It should include both the parents' AND Mike schiavo's views, BUT ALSO include any other views that were significant, even if held by a significant number of the minority, and this IS in keeping with Wiki policy. Right? Right. That should be choice four (4) above.--GordonWattsDotCom 08:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Petitions

  1. It's okay to give just one side (the accusations) []
  2. The article should give both sides (accusations and rebuttals) [3]

Judge Greer

  1. He's biased. [4]
  2. He's impartial. []

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

Correct: I add that "a significant number of people" (maybe a majority, maybe not depending on which poll is correct) feel that Greer is unqualified as a judge; others think he is very qualified, and there are those who think he is somewhat qualified --statements that should be QUANTIfied, but not LIGHTENING fried. (humor)--GordonWattsDotCom 08:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Do courts find the facts?

  1. Yes, a court's "finding of fact" establishes a proposition as an incontrovertible and neutral fact - as opposed to POV. [5]
  2. No, court rulings do not make facts true. [6]

No, or else slavery would have had to have been right and justified in American History. (judges are human - thus POV - period)--GordonWattsDotCom 08:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Are Court findings inherently neutral?

  1. Yes, so Wikipedia ought to take the court's ruling as its neutral position, adjusting its position to be in concert with the law of the land. [7]
  2. No, legal findings of fact should not be considered "fact" for the purposes of the Wikipedia articles. [8]

Conspiracy theories

  1. The problem is the conspiracy theorists, and their wholly unsubstantiated claims. [9]

So long as the view was held by a significant number, even as low as say 5 or 10% minority, reporting that people in general (or major players in particular) held such a view is acceptable; See wili policy on reporting different pov's--GordonWattsDotCom 08:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

What does it mean to agree to mediation?

  1. Mediation must be binding, or else there's no point to it, but POV-pushers will never agree to this. [10]
  2. Lock page during mediation. [11]
  3. No reason for us contributors to refrain from editing during mediation. [12]
  • AS I recall, the definition of mediation is NON-binding, distince from arbitration, which IS binding. Thus, this is not binding, and ArbCom is, because the "arb" in ArbCom stands for ARBitration (COMmittee); However, findings in mediation would surely have GREAT weight in ArbCom, should it happen; every body knows that.--GordonWattsDotCom 08:46, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Concern that contributor voices might be stifled

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

Personal imperfection of the Mediator

  1. Ed's neutrality has been questioned, and what's with those recent edits to the NPOV page? [13]
  • If I fail to maintain neutrality on this issue, I'll have to recuse myself.
  • If my edits to NPOV or POV are challenged, we can check with Jimbo. In the past, he's always backed me on this - but I'm fallible.

Length of time for issues to remain open

  1. Some want half a week to a week. [14]
  2. Not long enough. [15]
  3. Gives unfair advantage to those with copious free time [16]

Archive / reboot

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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)

NCdave's contributions belong here too:

Dave's submission, here is longer than 500-words, but additional points of others, where available were added above. These additional points are important or else the writers would not have purposely written more AFTER their 500-words was done.

FuelWagon 500 word summary

I think the article is pretty good as it is. There are no major disputable changes that I would suggest we make to it. (I recomend polish and some restructuring, but I don't think those suggested changes are disputed) I'm now taking the approach that the only thing to mediate is changes rather than my philosophy of a good article. and since I don't have any major changes, my 500 word essay can be removed. We can instead focus on the changes that NCdave, Gordon, etc, wish to insert into the article and mediate those. FuelWagon 7 July 2005 15:22 (UTC)

Fuel Wagon's additional points

At the Crying Witch diff.

Ann Heneghan 500-word summary

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

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

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

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

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

Gordon Wayne Watts' 500-word summary

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

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

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

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

Gordon's additional points

At the Crying Wolf diff.

Ghost's summary

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

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

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

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

Duckecho quacks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Input from Fox1

Hopefully no one minds me entering my 418 words of text at this point; I have some time constraints, and, quite frankly, I can only stomach spending a fairly small amount of time on this article these days. I originally went to the article to try and help mediate between participants a bit, unofficially, and my meager attempts at that were such a miserable failure that I left Wikipedia for a few months. Now, as then, I have almost Zero personal interest in the issues of the article, my interest was purely as a Wikipedian trying to help the Wiki.

I'll be blunt. This is a fine article, always has been, and has the potential to be a great example of Wiki writing. It will never reach that point, because we are constantly diverted from polishing the article. I believe the only problems with this article are that individuals with highly visible vested interest have turned this article into a warzone. Under the guise of being "inclusionary," this article has been assaulted with an epic flood of... crap. There is, quite obviously, an enormous amount of blogosphere activity on one side of this issue, and most of the article activity has been fighting over adding information that can only be defended as not original research when viewed through goggles of an extremely specific and pervasive tint. I am not an inclusionist, we cannot replicate the entire internet here, and eventually, parties interested in a topic will need to go elsewhere if they wish to continue studying a subject. This is the case with every single topic on Wikipedia. What this article needs is not more of anything, it needs quite a bit less.

Bottom line, this article is destined be a mediocre battleground piece with visibly substandard construction until such time as the editors are allowed to write concise prose in a structured framework that makes sense, instead of each and every sentence being obfuscated by its own weight in weasel words, insinuations, rebuttals to anticipated inferrals, and seven other kinds of unneccesary additions designed for a fictional reader whose first and only exposure to this issue will be this article. It's worth noting that even if this person exists, this article is still not being written for them, but for a highly impressionable mental construct of this fictional individual who, if not sheperded carefully by certain editors, may come away with "the wrong idea" (horrors!). Holy Cthulu, describing conduct on this $*%& is like writing science fiction.

Fox1 6 July 2005 15:40 (UTC)

Most constructive comment to date. Thanks. Uncle Ed July 7, 2005 15:01 (UTC)

Meeemories... Light the Corners of My Mind...

I just wanted to thank everyone for the great entertainment that has been Talk:Terri_Schiavo over the past few months. I had an inkling when I first saw video of the protesters in St. Petersburg, to myself I said: "I'll bet you the Wikipedia article for this is a real knockdown drag-out cage match!" ... So I checked it out, Wikipedia did not disappoint, and I've been a rapt spectator ever since.

It is, to me, a testimony to the eternally wonderful enigma that is Wikipedia that so many thousands of kilobytes, hundreds of thousands of keystrokes, thousands of man hours, hundreds of cold pizzas and warm beers, thousands of kilowatt-hours and billions of CPU cycles have been expended to bring us a well-vetted and (hopefully) "short and accurate" reference article on a person who, although beautiful and special in life, I'm sure time will tell will be as important in the grand scheme of history as "that little girl who fell down the well" or perhaps Kato Kaelin.

I'd like to thank NCDave for never giving up the dream, FuelWagon for valorously representing reality, and Gordon Watts for showing up late in the game to keep things interesting, and finally the Academy... "You like me, you really like me!" Music swells

70.146.39.18 05:40, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

No problemo, user 70.146...BellSouth.net Inc user in between NetRange: 70.144.0.0 - 70.158.255.255 (ala: http://www.arin.net/whois Lookup) -- better late than never! And, you never give up the dream. "Flash" --GordonWattsDotCom 13:55, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

some unapproved / questionable edits in schiavo

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Ed, I see three classes of unapproved / questionable edits in the Schiavo article:

(In item three below, changes were made without consensus; In #1, the change is only proposed, and #2 is a questionable change on which there is no clear consensus from mediation, but there IS consensus from other wikis, and the editors oppose this in EN.wiki.)

1) I thought we'd agreed upon the "diagnosed as PVS," but please note that they are trying to change it to: "then evolved into an irreversible persistent vegetative state (PVS)," as shown in this partial diff. (This proposed edit is "unapproved," that is, the consensus has been to NOT have it the way proposed, and while it hasn't been implimented, I'd like it to be addresses in your mediation, or in ArbCom.)

2) The debate included Euthanasia; I admit that this is still under mediation, but please see the current talk. Since it's hard to see, here's the set of paragraphs that discuss it, ironically the same particl diff as above. In spite of the fact:

  • Google, and
  • Myself, and
  • The Mexican wiki, AND
  • The Chinese Wiki all say the same things,

, nonetheless, I get argument from others or at least no support. Please note that I addressed this in my 500-word summary, but did not have enough time to cite the Chinese or Mexican wikis as support, and I honestly had not seen the new evidence either. (This item is questionable, but still under mediation.)

3) While I didn't completely revert, I nonetheless removed UNAPPROVED and unnecessary edits which made the text unecessarily small -twice: once here and again, repairing even MORE damage by Duck: [17]. Please note the edits and my comments and the lack of consensus on the HTML makrkup changes Duck made. I really think we need your help. (This item is unapproved by any consensus, and I fear that if it were looked at by other editors, they may make excuses to side with Duckecho to push the pro-life editors out of the debate.)

Thanks, --GordonWattsDotCom 14:14, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Well?

Latest comment: 19 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

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 [18] 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

Latest comment: 19 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

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)

Is it a failure?

Latest comment: 19 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terri_Schiavo_case/Mediation/Archive_3&oldid=18895386"