Talk:Government involvement in the Terri Schiavo case

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

04/18/2005[edit]

This is a good start. It seems slightly verbose, but we can all address that later. I'd like to seem some mention of Pres. Bush's snap trip back to Washington to sign the Palm Sunday Compromise. This was later characterized as very partisian by many folks when compared to the administration's handling of the Red Lake High School massacre. It may give the reader a better understanding of the political atmosphere that surrounded the issues.--ghost 16:22, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Change of Ms. Schiavo to Schiavo[edit]

I disagree with these changes in the strongest possible terms. I will wait a short period to change the article to allow others the oppurtunity to revert it on their own. See my explanations on User talk:Professor Ninja. See also the Ms/Mrs. entries on Talk:Terri Schiavo. --ghost 05:57, 19 Apr 20e05 (UTC)

I'd like to bring this article into line with FuelWagon's recent edit of the Terri Schiavo page. Comments, questions?--ghost 20:16, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Done. Switched to informal. Switched some of the "Mrs. Schiavo's parents" references to "the Schindlers".--ghost 04:07, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Judge Greer's Jurisdiction[edit]

I removed/edited some of the following:

  • Republican leaders in the House of Representatives, including Dennis Hastert of Illinois, Tom DeLay of Texas and Tom Davis of Virginia, opened a congressional inquiry of the House Government Reform Committee, which was to take place in Clearwater on March 25, and issued subpoenas for Terri and Michael Schiavo and several hospice workers. Because of her condition, Schiavo obviously would not have been able to testify; however, the subpoena gave her federal protection as a prospective witness, as it is a federal crime to prevent a person from testifying before Congress. Greer struck the subpoenas down as unconstitutional, although as a state judge, he did not have the legal authority to strike down congressional actions. Congress, however, did not appeal or assert it's authority to issue the subpoenas.

The last section may be POV, since I could find not backing of Judge Greer's authority in the matter. Since it was upheld, does it matter?--ghost 17:35, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I find the comment on Congressional inaction interesting. If they subpoenaed her, to a hearing I suppose, what happened to the hearing? I was wondering if they would be "allowed" to put a glass of water at the witness table. The only thing that matters to me is whether your statement is factual or not. If it is correct (not a misunderstanding on your part), then it's fine with me, and actually I would like to know more about the balance of power among the branches. Martin | talk • contribs 03:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved Advocacy and Commentary section[edit]

My compliments to Viriditas and GordonWattsDotCom for the recent work. The page is improved for it. One minor problem is the overall tone if the following:

Advocacy and commentary

  • Official website of Terri Schiavo's family
  • Blogs For Terri
  • Abstract Appeal legal blog (commentary on Schiavo case, supporting the courts' actions)
  • "U.S. Supreme Court Protects Liberty In Schiavo Case." ACLU Online, March 24, 2005 [1] (commentary supporting courts' actions)
  • "Analysis of “Terri’s Law:” Is constitutional?" The Register, October 31, 2003 [2], [3] (commentary opposing courts' actions)
  • MELONE, MARY JO, "Passion invested in Terri's Law must somehow give way to reason." St. Pete Times, September 27, 2004 (commentary opposing Terri's Law) [4]
  • Smith, Wesley J., "Terri Schiavo's Plight: A Case Study in Judicial Bias." Life News, Originally published January 30, 2004 (commentary opposing courts' actions) [5]

I'm concerned that the overall effect of these links presents a POV. My first thought was to add other POV links; then I thought we could yank 1/2 of it; I decided it was better move it here. This sub-article should focus presenting the legal and political issues behind the case. Not argueing them.--ghost 03:09, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your move, and my old computer's Internet Explorer window finally unfroze, and allowed me to respond. first, we note that "advocacy and commentary" is a theme in all the sources sections, so this section is not more "legal" than the next, or even if it is, it needs & deserves Advocacy & Commentary.
Secondly, your concerns are valid; I think I achieved NPOV, but I don't exactly recall, so let me pull the full data base -and we can analyze it. OK, here we go: The other links in the section were omitted by you, and the whole section stands as a unit. Here are the missing links:

Articles

  • "House GOP files Supreme Court brief on Schiavo." Washington Times, March 23, 2005 [6]
  • LEVESQUE WILLIAM R., "Court strikes down Terri's Law." St. Pete Times, September 24, 2004 [7]
  • Cunningham, Laurie, "Fla. Supreme Court Declares 'Terri's Law' Unconstitutional." Daily Business Review (Law.com), September 24, 2004 [8]
  • Florida court strikes down 'Terri's Law'. CNN, September 23, 2004 [9]

Legal documents

  • Florida Supreme Court compilation of briefs in "Terri's Law" case [10]
OK, let me post this, and then I will look at your concerns logically and mathematically -and with the open mind that I could be wrong or accidentally POV. By the way, thank you for your positive feedback, Ghost, on our contributions.--GordonWattsDotCom 03:55, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, now that I have two windows open -and can look at what I posted here goes: First, I will assume for the moment that advocacy and commentary is needed for Terri's Law, but I won't defend that point "at this point," and leave it for part 2. Now, looking at the numbers "as a whole," here's what we've got: (Judges, get the score cards.)
(For the sake of simplicity, I will assume ALL parties are "pro" Terri, even those that didn't want to feed her; but, in this context, "Pro" shall mean "Pro FEEDING Terri," OK?)
Terri's family's site=PRO; Blogs for Terri=PRO; Abstract Appeal's comments, where he first answers a reader -and when he was interviewed by the Times, both place him as ANTI, but he is neutral on a good many other subject not related to the courts' decisions, like whether or not mike beat his wife; The ACLU piece is ANTI; The Register piece (one piece at two mirrors) is PRO; Mary Jo Melone is clearly ANTI!! Wes Smith is PRO. The news articles that I posted to the page, and then reposted here are all neutral, and thus I shouldn't have needed to post them. Whoops! 4-3, not equal numbers.

Ok, let's count the votes: Pro opinion pieces are: four in number. Anti pieces are: three in number. Oops! There is slight POV problems, but I recommend adding one more link to an article with an anti point of view. Using Google.com, that should not be too hard. To delete any of the opinion pieces would be sin, as they are all high quality. Also, I now make my argument to keep advocacy and commentary: The reader should not be cheated on this page, because of internal personal feelings. If all the pieces are indeed quality (and I think they are), then they should be available for review for the reader. The Register piece is especially detailed, probably more lengthy and detailed analysis than any other piece, pro or con, and I am told that it has received lots of positive feedback, but in praising this one piece, do you sense any conflict of interest. Also, would any conflict of interest necessarily be a good excuse to deprive the reader of these scholarly works? I recommend looking for one more opinion piece on the other side, and I, Gordon Watts apologize to the great spirit of WIKI for accidentally linking 4-3 pro and introducing slight numerical POV; It was an accident. I would have linked 4-4, had I been paying attention.--GordonWattsDotCom 04:13, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some candidates:
  • http://www.buchtelite.com/2005/0322/opinion_02.shtml "Focus on Schiavo," by Mike Hixenbaugh, March 22, 2005 Issue, buchtelite.com, clearly an ANTI feed Terri piece. "Is sucking food through a tube living? Schiavo has been forced to suffer as he watched this shadow of his former wife lay helplessly in a hospital bed for too long."
Argh...!! I am having trouble finding article that support starving Terri anywhere! LOADS of "feed Terri" commentary are floating around the net, proof that our side has support. Just a second; I will keep looking, "just to be fair."

"Exploiting Terri Schiavo," Boston Globe, March 22, 2005 "THE US Congress has no place at Terri Schiavo's bedside. Neither does the president of the United States." This is also an "ANTI" piece. I have brought "balance to the force." Let's do it! We can now safely post links that are not POV. If you post both of those, we will need one more "PRO" link, but I think I am up to the task.--GordonWattsDotCom 04:44, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ghost, I got your message and responded on your page, explaining what I'm doing. I added the additional links to eliminate POV and am copying the "format" used in the Intelligent Design links section: [11].--GordonWattsDotCom 07:13, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Gordon, I think you misunderstood my intent. I'm questioning if this article should have an advocacy section at all. And I was concerned that the "equal numbers of Pro vs Anti" would be distracting. Which it is. Instead, what about an expanded legal ref section? I'm hoping that this article could be the quality that a law student could lean on for both links to case law and debatable topics. You're better at legal research than I am, so I need your help. And maybe Mia-Cle as well. But let emphasize: (1) I want to avoid Pro- & Anti- altogether. Why create a POV problem if we don't have too? (2) We could and should touch on the underlying legal issues on the State and Federal levels. I know you're more involved in Terri's Law, but I'm more focused on the Palm Sunday Compromise. There's a middle ground here, someplace...and that middle ground may assist the next people to argue similar cases. It's my prayer that a well written article can minimize the grief on all sides.--ghost 17:26, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The controversial Intelligent Design page in WIKI, see link here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design#External_links has this format, and it seems to work. There is no such thing as a NPOV, whether the "N" stands for "Neutral" or "No" as in "No point of view." There will always be some point of view, but the way to balance it is by equal representation, and have faith in the Intelligent Design editors, and trust their methods. Also, I am in favor of an expanded legal documents section. We can borrow from other WIKI pages -or look on the web. Let me suggest that the legal documents on these pages would be helpful:
  • [12] From Terri's official family site
  • [13] Many court docs you won't find anywhere else, including petition to UN
  • [14] mirror
  • [15] Find Law's compilation (also listed below --oops, I duplicated)
  • [16] Docs on a Hospice Patients Alliance site
  • [17] One Video of Terri which had not been released; some links bad, site not maintained, but first link is good, and has a mirror site to this formerly unreleased video, now floating all around the internet
  • [18] mirror
  • [19] A compilation on one of Gov Bush's official websites
  • See also that links for court documents which are already on the main Schiavo page, copied and pasted here:

Compilations

Tampa Bay Online's compilation (http://reports.tbo.com/reports/schiavo/)

The University of Miami Ethics Programs' compilation (http://www.miami.edu/ethics/schiavo_project.htm) Information sites

I hope this helps.--GordonWattsDotCom 11:29, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Intellectual Honesty: In case you didn't notice, ghost (and friends), some of the links I'm suggesting above are my own. Two of them are not maintained well, and have bad links, but I included them just to be on the safe side. As a matter of "intellectual honesty," when I promote links, and I run into a few of my own pages, in a routine Internet search (or memory search), I ask myself if this information is useful for the reader. Usually (but not always) it is. So, while I am caught between the ethical dilemma of not promoting my own websites -or, in cheating the reader, sometimes I come down on the side of providing the reader with all the information he or she needs to get the full picture. However, in order to be "intellectually honest," I must also say and admit that I just wanted to be honest and let you know of my disposition here about not hiding selected links, just because they happen to be my own. But, I am not an island unto myself. Right of wrong, my views and actions are still subject to the community review and analysis. Since I have shown by my actions that I have the interests of the reader at heart, I would ask that others would have the same goal, and put politics and personal biases aside, and merely look at the quality of the material: The web pages in question (mine included) will not be here forever! And, neither will the readers, so we must "strike while the iron is hot." In fact, I may be here less than I would like, as I have to prepare for a job search, and I am ill equipped at the moment, my personal belongings having been allowed to grow very disorganized whilst I was in court, on the web, and at protests. (In other words, my room is as messy as H-ll!) I hope my points are clear and not offensive. Take care,--GordonWattsDotCom 11:47, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • ::::: * Update: I fixed the section, per above; The only two pages I left out above were two of mine, but they were not maintained well and got the boot. All the rest meet my high-standard seal of approval and should stay, I think.--GordonWattsDotCom 13:30, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Much better. Thank you. Although I continue to disagree on an Advocacy section being appropriate in this article, I sincerly appreciate the work on the legal section. I also appreciate the removal of your links. I know you feel that they add value, but they create the appearence of a conflict of interest.
There are two issues in dispute. One is the use of an advocacy page. The other is links to some of my research. You are right -they give the appearance of conflict. There are a total of four (4) links in that section to my sites, but I am hesitant to actually remove them myself. I know you may not like my decision, but I am promoting you to "manager." As such, I would like you to click on all the links, to make sure they're good. Then, I want you to offer your opinion on whether or not they should stay. That way, the appearance of a conflict of interest is eliminated. I won't interfere in your decision-making process, since i've already cast my vote. I would hope and ask that you get someone else's input, preferably Viriditas or someone else who is both level-headed and has been involved in these pages here, and ask them about the two points of disagreement here, that is, whether or not to have the Advocacy section (if you still have misgivings), and then, whether or not to include links to my pages. I feel that by challenging the concept of an "Advocacy & Commentary" section itself, you are creating more barriers to an improved links section, and making public access to the "commentary" pages have to jump through extra hoops -in some cases, two. For example, let's say that one of my "commentary" peices on Terri's Law is a good one that is unequalled in merit. If, for example, you ask for feedback on the Advocacy section and then later ask for feedback on one of my websites, you are running the risk of the feedback coming back "well, let's approve the Advocacy section but vote against the Gordon links" and making this seems as a compromise. This is creating "extra hurdles." I would ask that you look at both the main Schiavo page and the "Intelligent Design" page, and note that they both have Commentary sections for the reader. This proposition is "neutral" and would waste our time to consider. Then, you would have a much better chance of getting a "fair hearing" on the few links that I provide. If you can't find my links (all four are on this article page), then that is good proof that they are quality. So, I have let you know how I feel. I don't plan to remove the links, as I feel they should be there, but I will not stop you and your colleague editors from removing them. You are on your honor to be fair and just.--GordonWattsDotCom 16:45, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Question: You also did extensive work on the legal refs on the Palm Sunday Compromise. Why aren't the federal legal refs here as well? It gives the impression that this is the Terri's Law page, dba Gov. involvement... If you want to avoid duplication, we should point the reader more interested in federal issues to the Compromise page. But I prefer to have this as a one-stop-law-student-shop.--ghost 14:23, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"Why aren't the federal legal refs here as well?" This is a state case, not a federal case. The only federal references that should be listed (if we can find them) would be the appeal to any federal courts on this particular case, not the other "Terri's Law" case. There were two Terri's Law cases: One was the Jeb Bush state case, and the other was the Federal "Habeas Corpus" case. By the way, I was the first person to try Habeas Corpus for Terri. Others copied me, and one lawyer for Terri's family, whose name shall remain private, emailed me asking for another copy of that court brief after he/or/she lost the one I had served on their Gibbs law firm. The president to Not Dead Yet also emailed me and congratulated me for my close call. She is crippled, something I didn't know when first trying to enlist their help. (They said "no.") In short, however, let me conclude: The federal and state "Terri's Law" pages (this one, and the other one), may be able to be merged, but in attempting that, you would draw in a lot of biased editors who would delete my pages without checking them out first, and this would be wrong. They could theoretically have been merged, but they just as easily can be linked together. I tell you what -linking them together should not be controversial at all, so I will do that, and that should take care of the problems you envision for any young law students. If they're linked together, then any half-way normal law student should be able to find out what he/she needs to, so your problem should be solved. What do you think?--GordonWattsDotCom 16:45, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Edit War between me and User:Calton[edit]

Here are the 2 links & in question & the diff[edit]

Here is the diff in question.

Here are the 2 links: One is an opinion piece, and the other a news piece: Don't we treat news items t oa higher standard than opinion pieces; After all, opposing opinion pieces routinely appear, even even though one of them is bound to be a lie, we include both, don't we?--GordonWatts 20:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--GordonWatts 20:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments: Remember, we need to focus on the links, not the edit war[edit]

In this edit, an edit war began between me and Calton. He removed links that had been on the page for ages -link which seemed to comply with current Wikipedia policy. I reverted his edit as vandalism, because I felt he was trying to take a swipe at me by removing links to web pages I maintained. Note if you would that in that edit, I did not, per se, add any links of my own -or any links at all, for that matter: i merely reverted to the last stable version.

Eventually, Calton was prompted to justify his edit, and in the edit summary of this edit summary, he offers three links.

I shall comment on them. Observe:

  • My reply: User:MartinGugino aptly pointed out here that indeed I have "special standing," which I believe would probably qualify me a "recognized authority."
  • Second: Calton cites WP:EL#Advertising_and_conflicts_of_interest, which states, in succinct part, that "You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked."
  • My reply: This, on the face, makes sense, but my "rvv" revert of his edit, did not, per se, make an edit to add my links; it merely reverted what I felt was vandalism on his part. (He does make the good argument here in "Terri Schiavo" TALK that links are not necessarily good just because they've been on a page for a while.) However, this policy doesn't apply: I am not adding links; I was reverting his vandalism.
  • My reply: Calton fails to specify what exactly the problem here is. One of the links he removed was to an opinion piece on Terri's Law, which should not be construed as news. Opinion is not news. The other links he removed was to a petition before the United Nations, which qualifies as news.

So, the question arises: Is the news source credible? We turn to the Wikipedia on that link above, which states: "When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications."

Indeed, even as Martin pointed out, the Florida Supreme Court commented on my case, and gave me three "support" votes, three more than Governor Jeb Bush on the same subject. Also, I have been published in other, lesser known, journals on the subject of Terri Schiavo.

  • These would see to indicate that he is wrong on the point; I feel uncomfortable making an edit to revert his vandalism -because while this is permitted even under the more stringent policy (that edit did not explicitly add links: It merely reverted to a previous, stable version), the end result is that it does re-add the links back, and I certainly have a conflict of interest: I am the manager of those sites.
  • I am not sure what I will do - I think I will solicit input from other editors: Indeed, I am a Christian and follow the example of Jesus, as John 13:15 asks me to do, and Jesus would not push his own agenda, but that of God; however, in the end, maybe I need to act to bring attention to this matter, and maybe I do need to revert Calton. I will try to polite approach first, as a hatt-tip to Jesus.--GordonWatts 14:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gordon, label that edit as 'vandalism' one more time when it is not, and you will be in risk of losing your edit privileges. That goes for labelling any edit, not just that one.
To be very clear: you have created your own Geocities opinion site, and are linking to it. This is directly and explicitly ruled out in Wikipedia policy, as you mention above. You are not a "well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise". Even if you were, and you are not, this falls afoul of our guidelines on conflict of interest. The link stays out. Proto::► 16:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your obsessive focus on my news paper indicates you did not read my arguments, so I will ask the obvious: If you say that I am "not a "well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise"," then this begs the question: What about the links to sites such as Terri's Fight and Terri's Blogs? Government_involvement_in_the_Terri_Schiavo_case#Advocacy_and_commentary Are these people "experts" in their field? Not only are they not experts, they are "Johnny One Note" websites, dedicated to one purpose, not more general, and objective news papers, such as my paper. Also, most of them were not involved in the Terri Schiavo ordeal (maybe Terri's immediate family, but certainly not most of those who write for Terri's Blogs and certainly not the "The Buchtelite, Independent voice of the University of Akron." Yet we approve all three of these links, both pro-Terri's Law and anti-Terri's Law. I submit to you that the only reason we are making such a big deal about this is because I am an editor, and picking on someone is all the vogue in Wikipedia. If I were not an editor here, but the editor for the Akron paper -or one of the Terri's Blogs writers, we'd find THEM being attacked with these same arguments. I was more involved as an "expert," and my paper is just as much (or more) of a paper than such as the Terri's Blogs, yet we chose to keep them and pull out the link to my paper? Are you not biased? If not, then please explain why all those links are OK, and the one to my paper isn't? I will patiently wait for an explanation (I could be wrong), but if you or no one else proffer one in due time, I shall revert. Thanks in advance for your feedback.--GordonWatts 00:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have stated my response above, and I shall not repeat myself; Did you not read my response here?--GordonWatts 16:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be very clear: you have created your own Geocities opinion site, and are linking to it. The links had been on these pages for ages, and I only reverted Calton's edit; That is not the same as "linking" to a page. Big difference: Reverting an edit (which is what was done here) and adding a link to a page are 2 different things--GordonWatts 16:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Proto and, for the record, I did read through the description above in its entirety. The link, which is inappropriate as outlined at WP:External links, should not be included in the article, and GordonWatts should refrain from editing the article as he has made his conflict of interest apparent. Removal of the link is not vandalism, and it is incivil to repeatedly label an edit which follows policy as vandalism. Leebo86 16:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully dissent, but I have outlined my replies to all 3 arguments raised by Calton, and the only one that somewhat convinces me is the conflict of interest argument. Although I technically did not add any links just now, I did make a revert which "effectively" added them, and so, I agree that I violate the "spirit" of "conflict of interest" even if not the letter of the law.
However, you are entitled to your opinion; So noted that the current opinion on this matter is 3-2, with my supporting the links and MartinGugino supporting some of my main arguments -even if not explicitly commenting on the links in question; and, you and Calton and Proto are in opposition. Thank you for weighing in. Even if the article loses these valuable recourse links, the wiki is able to function open and in the light with input from editors. That's what it's all about in wiki-land.--GordonWatts 17:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The link, which is inappropriate..." Hold on a sec, Leebo86: There were TWO links deleted by Calton. Are you sure you read through the edit history too?--GordonWatts 17:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Before you fall for Gordon's latest snow job, note that BOTH of the sites are his. --Calton | Talk 17:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do realize that, and phrased it singularly because I considered it to be one site despite 2 links. Both links were inappropriate. Leebo86 17:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was using the plural you (as in "y'all"), not you specifically, Leebo. --Calton | Talk 17:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No offense taken; I wanted to make my response to GordonWatts at the same time. Leebo86 17:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have not been following this situation as I have been having my own problems with Calton [23]. It is from my experience that Calton will make the changes he wants with no consensus, insult the people who try to correct him in the most polite way to begin with and he becomes he more incivil when the editor gets fed up and brings in an admin for help. Anytime that you do try to talk to him on your own, he just deletes your message from his talk page and then insults you on yours. There is also an arbitration going on in a seperate matter between him and another member.
Sorry, I don't have much to add to this conversation other than a little information on Calton. - SVRTVDude (Yell - Toil) 18:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Gordon. I've looked at the links, and I've looked at the policy pages here, and I cannot see any way in which it would be appropriate under Wikipedia policy to link to your site. I think you need to step back and forget that they're your sites, and just think of the normal Wikipedia guidelines, which would accept links to The Times, but not to a geocities homepage of some private individual. And I hate saying this, but you are not more notable than Governor Bush. I really wish, though, that everyone would stop sneering and/or bickering. ElinorD 21:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon's career as a legal beagle[edit]

...the Florida Supreme Court commented on my case, and gave me three "support" votes, three more than Governor Jeb Bush on the same subject

To learn how empty that boast is, see the legal history outlined at User talk:Duckecho. --Calton | Talk 17:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How... enlightening. So, does this essentially mean that Gordon's conflict of interest isn't even that tangible, considering the fact that his attempts to file were dismissed? Is that his only claim to being a "recognized authority" on the matter? Leebo86 17:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ask Google or Yahoo about me if you want to know. It is not right that I comment on myself here, so I shant do so.--GordonWatts 18:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here, let me help you:
Google.com Results 1 - 10 of about 951 for "Gordon Watts" "Terri Schiavo". (0.36 seconds)
and
Yahoo! 1 - 10 of about 195 for "Gordon Watts" "Terri Schiavo" - 0.40 sec.
--GordonWatts 18:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Through searching, I found your site and some trivial blog and news posts that seemed as unaware about what really happened as I was when I first read your description. I didn't see anything that would substantiate your claim to being a recognized authority in light of Duckecho's talk page. Leebo86 18:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Count the votes: I did better than the Governor -before the same panel of judges -on the same topic matters. Observe:
The Governor lost 7-0.
I (Gordon) lost 4-3.
If the governor is notable, I am more so. The court was an objective, 3rd-party, voice. Re-read the Wikipedia guidelines about sources and notability.--GordonWatts 18:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gordon, I just read Duckecho's talk page, which Calton linked in the first post of this thread. Why are you trying to convince me that the two rulings are on the same thing when yours was dismissed without hearing any facts? They weren't the same issue. Leebo86 18:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question, both the governor and I lost our initial petitions to save Terri; Yes, I lost 1-0 the 1st time, since I did not get a hearing before the judges themselves, but I asked for a rehearing. I almost got a grant of rehearing, whereas the Gov lost by a shutout. Also, I add that the University of Miami here considers me an expert. Observe the 3rd to the last link. This, in addition, to the Supreme court's ruling on my case, established that I have standing as described by MartinGugino in this edit.--GordonWatts 18:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
interjecting You have special knowledge as to your own motions. and you have the standard knowledge of one who has been interested in the case for a long time. That's what I felt I meant. Martin | talk • contribs 19:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Elaborating: "When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications." Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources The U of Miami and the Fla Supreme Court would qualify as 3rd party.--GordonWatts 18:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I already referred to your "special standing" in this case in my first post in the thread. It doesn't seem like you actually got anywhere in your effort to file your papers. What are the standards that must be met for the University of Miami to add a link to your site? Is it just the personal addition of a member of their Ethics department staff? There's no designation on their site that they regard you as anything more than a webmaster, not as an expert on the case based on your failed filing. Leebo86 19:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"It doesn't seem like you actually got anywhere in your effort to file your papers." Fair enough: Half the people in any given case lose, so the fact I lost is not a fatal blow. Three of the Justices felt my case had enough merit to grant me a rehearing. Although I have already made the argument that "I did better than the Gov," and I shall not dwell on that, let me emphasize that NONE of the judges wanted to rehear his case, yet he is so notable that he is often mentioned by name in articles; heck, he even has his own page: Jeb_Bush. Now, to those who would say that "Gordon is not the Governor," let me remind you this article is not about the Governor, but rather about Terri. If you look HARD enough at any link, you can find faults with it, and yes, I'm not God, nor am I the New York Times, but when I write a story about my petition to the UN on my newspaper, it should be taken as true -I don't lie. The other link was to an opinion piece about Terri's Law, and it should have not been removed, since it was not a news item, but rather an opinion piece; You always have two opposing views in opinion pieces, necessitating that one side is a lie, but you still don't disqualify one side or the other. Regarding the U of Miami, you have to ask them their standards. I don't know. We're getting nit picky here. If you think the links to the papers I manage are bad, you could probably find something wrong with half the links on Wikipedia. If you don't believe me, just look at a few pages, OK?--GordonWatts 20:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

QUESTION FOR Leebo:

In opposing the inclusion of my links, by citing Wikipedia policy, you are effectively saying that you don't trust that what I have posted to my online news paper is true.

Is that what you intended to say?

The two links in question are in the edit history, and I posted them above. Also, I would like you to comment on the other links in the Schiavo articles; I feel that if my links are called into question, you should look at the other links and see what they are, and hold them to the same standard. I'm not trying to pick on you by naming you specifically, but rather, you seem to have an opinion on which I would like clarification. Rather, I feel I am being picked on and singled out: By that, I mean that if we took ANY of the various links listed in the mammoth article, you could come to a similar conclusion, yet we aren't. Thanks in advance for clarification on these points.--GordonWatts 21:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of content (be it a section or whole article) is nothing more than adherance to the policy, not a comment on the veracity of your statements. The fact that they may be true does not make your site a reliable source. Leebo86 21:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
GORDON'S REPLY: Thanks for the feedback, but look at your own words: "Reliable" and "true" basically mean the same thing here. Why, you might ask? Well, the website is expected to be reliable, for what? For telling the truth. I was there when I filed the petitions to the UN in this matter, and it really, truly happened. (I was reliable for having told the truth - truth in reporting, folks; I don;'t lie as a reporter.) Now, the questions that might be more appropriate are these: Is my opinion on the matter notable? (Remember: One of the links is to my opinion on Terri's Law.) The other would be: Are my filings to the UN notable? (That hinges on my involvement in this case, or my notability.)--GordonWatts 21:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, can you stop referring to Jeb Bush's filing? The comparison is not fair, because the two rulings were for different things. He actually had evidence reviewed, while you never got that far because your papers were not filed properly and in a timely manner. Leebo86 21:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
GORDON'S REPLY: Yes, Jeb got his case heard, and I didn't, and he's a big, tall governor, while I'm a small, skinny country boy, but at the end of the day BOTH our cases were dead. When we both went before the Florida Supreme Court to ask for a "rehearing" in our cases, and I almost was granted one; He was run over by the court in a landslide. Thus, although I concede in the matter of the hearing of the case, he did better, in the matter of the rehearing, I did far better. But, hey, all of us are better at some things and worse at others...--GordonWatts 21:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Leebo86 here. In any case, whether you lied or not (and I'm sure you didn't), this policy says that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."
By the way, I really don't like the title of this section. ElinorD 21:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
GORDON'S REPLY: Although I would like to change the title of this section AND the other section (to be more polite), I will leave this one alone (Gordon's career as a legal beagle) -out of deference and respect for the one who wrote it; If I am not offended, it should be OK, and I am a bigger person than that. As far as changing the title to the above section (Edit War between me and Calton), it is more neutral than the "behavior" title I once had -plus, I posted invites to this page, using that link, I recall, so I can't change it per se, or else readers will get confused.--GordonWatts 21:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ANOTHER REPLY to ElinorD:
You wrote: In any case, whether you lied or not (and I'm sure you didn't), this policy says that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."
Thank for for giving me the benefit of the doubt, Elinor, but I looked at the actual policy, and it says: "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source.
In that context, it looks like I have been published in many other places (the Fla Supreme Court commented on my case 4-3; The University of Miami published a link to my site; Google and Yahoo! shows many references to my sites and research), and not only that, my news paper, in and of itself, is credible, since it publishes on many topics and never has been sued for slander, libel, or defamation of character. I even made a retraction for a typo, which any good paper will do when it make one. Also, I am not the only writer, only the most prolific one, as editor. So, when you say a reliable source, I can assure you the The Register has a track record of reliability: Would you disagree with any of the articles published? Go look around, and then get back with me:
http://members.aol.com/gww1210/myhomepage/consumer.html MIRROR: http://gordon_watts.tripod.com/consumer.html
http://www.geocities.com/gordon_watts32313/legal.html MIRROR: http://gordonwatts.com/legal.html
http://Members.aol.com/Gww1210 MIRROR: http://www.geocities.com/gordon_watts32313
The Register is not unlike any other news paper - just smaller and less frequent in publishing.
How does this square with policy?--GordonWatts 22:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I asked earlier about the other links being used, and i never got any response; If indeed you say that my websites are not reliable, what about the numerous other links used in these articles? Many of them are mere news reporters; I am not only a news reporter (albeit with a smaller publication), I am also one of the participants in the Schiavo matter. My news paper is not a "Johnny One Note," like TerrisBlogs and Terri's fight, yet those website ARE listed. Is that not just a little unfair? Thanks in advance. --GordonWatts 22:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a democracy. m:Polls are evil. Discuss, don't vote. Poll archived. Period. Yuser31415 01:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vote Tally[edit]

Editors supporting inclusion of The Register links, see talk above:

  • Gordon Watts
  • MartinGugino has made statements which support some of my arguments but he has not explicitly stated a vote (I will count as half a vote)

Patsw

Editors opposing inclusion of The Register links above:

  • Calton
  • Proto
  • Leebo86
  • ElinorD
  • Hipocrite
  • Fredrick day
    • Tally is:
    • 2.5 Support
    • 6.0 Oppose
    • 0.5 undecided

--GordonWatts 00:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to point out that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Decisions are made through consensus and discussion, not voting. Leebo86 00:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So noted, but how do we know the consensus if not through voting? Also, I still don't see why you support all the current links and oppose mine? For example, of the 3 I highlighted, two do not have any expertise or experience (The Akron paper and the Terri's Blogs), and two of them are not actual newspapers like my paper: Terri's Fight and Terri's Blogs are not actual newspapers, like The Register, my paper. Whereas they are Johnny One Note publications, The Register publishes on a wide range of hisses, many not related to Terri Schiavo at all -and not all are conservative; I am not the only writer either, so it is not a one-person thing either; I am merely the most prolific writer. So, since links to my paper are superior to those outlined above, I don't see why you are obsessing over the links to my paper. Obsession and myopic focus on one thing alone is not good, but it is this focus by you and others that necessitate my replies, which,m themselves might appear one-tracked. So, why are all those links good and my paper not, when The Register outdoes their links in both objectivity (not Johnny one note-one issue) and in expertise (few of them have involvement like I do)? Thanks in advance!--GordonWatts 00:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion of your link, which is what I noticed and came to participate in, does not generate vicariously any opinion for myself as to the validity of the other links. I will review them and remove them if they don't meet Wikipedia's guidelines for external links, just as you should if you feel they don't. Leebo86 00:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your attention to the matter, but I will tell you this: I approve of all the present links, both those on the "pro-Terri's Law" side and those against; maybe you would interpret this as a lower standard, but when dealing with an opinion piece, verifiability is not applicable: It is not alleging a news item happened, so the lower standards are ok. Regarding those that are news items, they look legit to me, so I would not support their removal, but if you agree with me on this (and I hope you do), then I would submit that you should not hold my paper to a much higher or different standard than the other links. I am glad you are being fair and reviewing the other links too, but don't go and just remove one to "prove" you're fair -and support your case. That would be wrong and deprive Wikipedia of its major forte: Diversity. Thanks again for your concern.--GordonWatts 00:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to point out that Wikipedia is not a democracy. He knows this, because he's tried this stunt before, arguing vociferously that, to quote Curps at Gordon's unsuccessful Admin bid (see oppose vote #26), "he considers that 4-3 in his favor is a consensus, yet 24-3 or more against him isn't that a 4-3 was a 'consensus'". The links are obvious violations, Gordon, and your spin on your "expertise" isn't the slightest bit convincing. They're staying out.
...maybe you would interpret this as a lower standard I interpret it as a self-serving standard -- part of long-term pattern, really. --Calton | Talk 01:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon, since you asked[edit]

I don't think that a link to your site which shows that you petitioned the UN is essential to the story, since nothing significant came of it, and no one coming to Wikipedia is likely to be coming wondering if anyone petitioned the UN.

Incorrect: The UN was the next logical step, as they indeed handle similar human-rights abuses; I am surprised no one else petitioned the UN, but I suspect that if they did, they were ignored; The UN petition is no less important than any other news item -most especially since we want to include all relevant legal action, and the UN was no less important than, say, the state US supreme court action.--GordonWatts 11:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do find it somewhat amazing that you did that, and the document itself seems to have at least some of the appropriate boilerplate on it.

Thank you; and, for that reason, other readers might also find it interesting to find out what all happened and who did what to seek legal intervention on both sides.--GordonWatts 11:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cant say I am shocked that the UN did not immediately begin to investigate.

I agree: The UN is not very proactive -but you miss another point, which no one addressed; Even if the UN petition news item was not "newsworthy" or "notable," why would not the links to the opinion piece be improper? Links to "less notable" opinion piece writers are present in this article -or related articles. Though I disagree with the UN link dis-inclusion, I shall accept consensus, but since the other link was not even discussed, I shall soon put it back in -if no discussion ensues. Fair is fair: People can't arbitrarily make decisions about a group of things, when only one was discussed; This is inherently un-wiki, thus unfair.--GordonWatts 11:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That being said, I do think that you have overstepped in the following ways:

  • voted on my behalf
    • Note, if you would, I was quite clear that I was not speaking for you but rather informally interpreting the evidence and statements, but your comment is duly noted.--GordonWatts 11:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • characterize an edit as vandalism that is, on the face of it, not vandalism
    • This is a good point: I don't know Calton's motives, but based on his endless pattern of deleting good links (not just mine), I saw that as a pattern -when he deleted mine shortly after I started editing; I felt that he was exacting revenge against me for the prior disputes we have had about inclusion of other links. I could be wrong: Maybe he really believed he was acting in good faith, so I shall Assume Good Faith here, as you imply.--GordonWatts 11:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • link from an article to your own site. You can link from the talk page if you like.
    • The recent edit in question merely reverted Calton's edit, but I do admit that this effectively put links to my newspapers back in -links which had been there for years without complaint. In the spirit of honesty, I do admit that I seem to recall that I put in the links in question many years ago, but this was after much discussion and consensus had been reached, and no one opposed the matter, so it became well-established and unrefuted consensus.--GordonWatts 11:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • carry on an endless argument, with a multiplying of words
    • This is a good point, but you miss the larger picture, Martin: Calton has done this with MANY good links. Just deleted them. What, should an encyclopedia be deprived of its references now? Also, I have yet to have a clear answer on why many other links to sites by those with less expertise/involvement are left in -and website that aren't even newspapers -when my paper indeed is a newspaper, even if not on par with thr New York Times. The lack of answers here indicates that there is no valid reason to treat links to The Register any differently, so what's the problem?--GordonWatts 11:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martin | talk • contribs 02:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's where to discuss the recent edit -re-instating opinion link[edit]

If anyone wants to discuss the recent edit to the article page here, this is the thread.

As I noted in the talk page here, two links were in question, but arguments were bandied about mainly about one link, the news link.

The opinion link need not be "verifiable," since, after all, it is an opinion piece.

I borderline on conflict of interest, which, while not outright prohibited, is highly discouraged, but I accepted consensus on one link, and the other one I put back in was a simple "partial revert," not a direct addition, so I didn't actually "add my link," I merely partly reverted. (I did, however, add it many years ago, after much debate and consensus supported it.)

Thanks in advance, but don't just make a blind edit. Either state your case (like some of you did in the prior issue) or accept the new edit as "new consensus.": Whether I am right or wrong is not even the main issue here: The blind deflationists attitude of editors who simply say "don't add your own link" without actually looking at what the facts are is -not just my paper, but many good resources are deleted because people don't like the view they espouse -and simply hid behind some Wikipedia policy to pretend the link is "non-notable" (I don't speak of my page; I speak of MANY good pages and news resources, which any good encyclopedia would have.)

Since Calton has said that I'm a bad editor on numerous occasions, I would like to point out there is an active RfC about his behavior, and while he may have been right on some things he said here, if he says I'm a bad editor, I will simply show evidence of his behaviour, but this page is NOT about personalities or behavior, so let's ignore that, if we could, but if Calton or others want to speak about that, then I will go get the RfC link for the active complaints against him. Is that how we want to be? Let's just leave this argument alone, OK, and just focus on whether links in question fir or not, OK? Thx.

Briefly, if anyone disputes my edit here, please be ready to show why all other advocacy and commentary is acceptable -even when most of those writers had no legal involvement -and some are mere blogs or personal "one issue" sites -in contrast the my paper, which is NOT a one-issue website, but rather just another of many newspapers -albeit smaller than most.--GordonWatts 11:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop it. Inserting blogs and personal webpages as links and sources is not acceptable. Inserting your own is doubly not acceptable. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see you regularly edit regarding blogs and personal pages (I see the notice on your page), so I won't erroneously think you are picking on me; however, that does not make your edits any more correct. "your own is doubly not acceptable." If you didn't notice, this recent edit was not me "adding my own link," but rather a revert to a stable prior version -and a only partial revert at that. "Inserting blogs and personal webpages as links and sources..." Secondly, this link is not a "source," rather, it is an opinion piece. There is a difference. Had I linked to source a news item, I could see your point, but many, many blogs are listed under opinions and advocacy, such as Terri's Fight and Blogs for Terri. [24] If you actually answer my points here, I will not revert you -even if I disagree with you -but I don't like it when a person just willy-nilly deleting something without getting the facts. I will revert in a heartbeat when I see that. Now, this time, Hipocrite, please try to look at the opposing arguments and answer them BEFORE you make an edit. I will keep my word here, but you need to read my post here again just to make sure you see I made such a promise.--GordonWatts 12:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your revert on this page is here. It merely reinserts external links to geocities.com and hometown.aol.com. Both of those sites are maintained by "Gordon Watts," which I am led to believe is you. Review WP:EL and WP:COI. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your site may simply be an "opinion" piece, as you put it, but all external links are held to a standard of reliability, no matter what they cover. A personal site isn't reliable, and opinions don't really belong on Wikipedia anyway unless they are asserted through neutral reliable sources. Leebo86 13:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If those links are put in at all, they would have to be put in by someone other than Gordon, I feel. Gordon, you're coming across as wanting those links too badly. I don't feel that blogs or personal websites from non-notable people are appropriate under WP:EL and WP:RS. Gordon, please don't continue to revert; since nobody supports you, it is just edit warring at this stage. I'm sorry to have to be so direct. I have no doubt that you reported honestly in your website, but really, when you start equating yourself as being as notable as Governor Bush, you lose a lot of support that you might otherwise gain. By the way, you're asking how Terrisfight can be justified if your site isn't. At the time of the case, I was following it on BBC News, and they linked to Terrisfight. They never mentioned, or linked to, anything by Gordon Watts. The fact that Terrisfight was set up by Terri's blood family, in their struggle against her husband, makes it notable, in my view. I don't have any particular opinion on blogsforterri. If people feel it should go or stay, then that's fine. ElinorD 13:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving aside the crimes against webdesign and panpipes that the geocities.com site represents, it seems to be a slightly ranty editorial site - I say NO to it's inclusion, I do not see what it adds to the article - I could not get the AOL site to open but I would guess it's more of the same. --Fredrick day 14:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was involved in some of the edit wars in creating this article. The current dispute seems to be a personal vendetta that has spilled over into this article rather than an effort to make this article a better article. To say that "nobody" supports Gordon, is now untrue. I support him, or more precisely, I was around when these links entered the article and would have supported their entry and the time among many editors who were active in the article if they were disputed then. I support their inclusion now.
Since the actual events of the article are now nearly two years old, and the facts have not changed, and the Wikipedia policies have not significantly changed, it seems that odd new quibbles about "notablity" are concealing some spite against Gordon Watts and they have nitpicked this article as a soft target for that agenda. patsw 05:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would probably "nitpick" over these same "quibbles" with anyone trying to add a personal site to an article, no less their own personal site. Leebo86 05:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What changed since 2005? Nothing at all -- except that he got caught. These were always inappropriate, and there's no statute of limitations on bad links.
The current dispute seems to be a personal vendetta that has spilled over into this article rather than an effort to make this article a better article That would be a figment of your imagination, but nice attempt at misdirection.
So, any arguments grounded in actual policy? Now would be the time to bring them out. --Calton | Talk 05:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is a "misdirection" to call this a dispute over "a personal site". Gordon Watts presented in good faith the reason why these links represent his own significant activity in the Schiavo case and merit inclusion. As an editor I endorse their inclusion and am satisfied they appear in the article in the appropriate section, conform to WP:EL, WP:COI, and WP:RS.
It's my judgment that this is a petty dispute and this old article was selected as a proxy battleground for it opportunistically. It is unfair to characterize Gordon Watts as wanting these links included too badly. He didn't start the recent edit dispute in this article. If you want to play the "examine their motives" game, others want the links deleted too badly.
  • So what was the trigger for the de novo review of these links anyway?
  • What exactly is being claimed about the linked pages: that they are untruthful, improperly labeled as neutral, or something else? patsw 14:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

can you explain how you feel that the links conform to and by extension Gordon Watt's actions conform to WP:COI and WP:RS as I cannot see how they meet these standards? --Fredrick day 14:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • It is a "misdirection" to call this a dispute over "a personal site". Not even wrong. See, a rebuttal requires more than aping the argument's wording and turning it around, it should have a discernible meaning of its own.
  • Gordon Watts presented in good faith the reason why these links represent his own significant activity in the Schiavo case and merit inclusion "Good faith", "bad faith", or "no faith whatsoever" is immaterial, the actual evidence is -- and the evidence is, to say Gordon had "significant activity in the Schiavo case" is flatly false.
  • As an editor I endorse their inclusion and am satisfied they appear in the article in the appropriate section, conform to WP:EL, WP:COI, and WP:RS. You'll have to do better than "Because I said so", because your belief is entirely unsupported by anyone else. So, how, exactly, do they dodge these basic policy restrictions? The "recognized authority" rationale won't fly, and the claim of his "significant activity " won't fly, either, since, you'll note, there's not a breath of a hint of a suggestion of Gordon's "significant activity" anywhere in the 69K of material that makes up the article.
  • It's my judgment that this is a petty dispute and this old article was selected as a proxy battleground for it opportunistically. Your judgment is entirely fact-free and self-serving -- and again, stop with the attempt to deflect the issue.
  • It is unfair to characterize Gordon Watts as wanting these links included "too badly". Nope, completely fair and completely in character with his past edit-warring.
  • He didn't start the recent edit dispute in this article. Actually, he did, both when he originally added them against policy, and then again when he -- completely alone -- tried to put them back. Given that it's Gordon -- and only now, you -- trying to do this, characterizing this as an edit dispute, as if there were two equal sides, is false; or, more charitably, spin.
  • If you want to play the "examine their motives" game, others want the links deleted too badly Ah, false dichotomies, you gotta love 'em.
* So what was the trigger for the de novo review of these links anyway? de novo? This ain't the 5th Circuit, Mr. Dershowitz. And there's no statute of limitations for bad material, so you can stop trying to imply that as a rationale.
* What exactly is being claimed about the linked pages: that they are untruthful, improperly labeled as neutral, or something else? The answers are, in order, irrelevant, irrelevant, and asked and answered. For the last choice, simply raise your eyes slightly and you should be able to spot them. --Calton | Talk 15:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who happened upon this article in the middle of this dispute, I am confused as to how there is any ambiguity in WP:EL being applied here. No evidence has been presented that the author of the linked sites is recognized as an authority on the subject by any independent entity. The links go. It seems pretty cut and dry to me.--RWR8189 22:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some arguments by Gordon for link inclusion[edit]

THIS: Wikipedia consensus process flowchart might be of help here!]]

  • Hipocrite asks: Your revert on this page is here. It merely reinserts external links to geocities.com and hometown.aol.com. Both of those sites are maintained by "Gordon Watts," which I am led to believe is you. Review WP:EL and WP:COI. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply by Gordon: Yes, they are maintained by me as editor-in-chief, but I am not the only writer, and they are not personal sites, but rather news sites. My personal sites, http://GordonWatts.com and http://GordonWayneWatts.com are personal sites; The news sites sit on Geo and AOL, but where they sit is not important; The site itself is in question, not its domain name.--GordonWatts 05:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Leebo asks: Your site may simply be an "opinion" piece, as you put it, but all external links are held to a standard of reliability, no matter what they cover. A personal site isn't reliable, and opinions don't really belong on Wikipedia anyway unless they are asserted through neutral reliable sources. Leebo86 13:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply: No, these links are not personal sites. My personal sites are listed in my answer above. Big difference -and wrong to mischaractarize a news site as a personal site.--GordonWatts 05:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment by Frederick Day: Leaving aside the crimes against webdesign and panpipes that the geocities.com site represents, it seems to be a slightly ranty editorial site - I say NO to it's inclusion, I do not see what it adds to the article - I could not get the AOL site to open but I would guess it's more of the same. --Fredrick day 14:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply by me: All opinion pieces should seem 'ranty' -after all, they espouse one view and oppose another. While we all try to write opinion pieces objectively, they still will seem 'ranty' and 'opinionated' -that's why they call them opinion pieces, hello? So, your argument, while well-intended, has no merit.--GordonWatts 05:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Frederick asks: can you explain how you feel that the links conform to and by extension Gordon Watt's actions conform to WP:COI and WP:RS as I cannot see how they meet these standards? --Fredrick day 14:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply about COI: When I initially put in the links, it was by concensus and discussion, even if it was by few or many. Since the edit was not challenged, even if it were a bad edit, it bacame concensus. See e.g., the picture off to the right margin of the flow chart: The edit becomes consensus. Then, when I reverted Calton, even though I was the one making the edit, I was not "inserting" links, but rather "reverting" -and the reinsertion of the papers links was merely a collateral consequence of my edit -not as a result of any edit insertion by me.--GordonWatts 05:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply about RS: Briefly, the links were to news articles on a reliable website that publishes on a variety of subject; The fact that the writer had involvement in the Schiavo case only helps the reliability, but it does open the door for bias. Since I do not publish false stories, the site is reliable, not matter what current policy may say about something being true but not reliable. If my paper has a track record of publishing the truth -and quickly redacting or correcting any known errors -then it is reliable. Period.--GordonWatts 05:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • My own question: If my news paper is not reliable, even though it has never published a false news item (except in one case, where the typo was quickly redacted), but the New York Times published a VERY false story, then, maybe we need to question the reliability of these other papers, and if not, then the burden is on YOU to tell us how THESE links are reliable news sources. If you can't then it is only fair that these other news links be deleted too.--GordonWatts 05:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gordon, the sites are operated by you, on free webhosting sites. They're personal sites. Leebo86 05:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am the editor, but I am not the only writer; These are not personal sites: My personal sites are listed above; These asre general news sites -and not "one-sided" ones either, but rather, having news content on a wide variety of subject. However, you will always see it is a personal site; What if I was the editor of the Lakeland Ledger (a newspaper) talking to you? Would you then say the ledger is a personal site? Just because I use Geocites or AOL does not make it any more -or any less -personal -and if you wouldn't slam the editor of The Ledger, then -if you are fair -you shoud lnot slam me, but I am a small guy who is making it big, huh, and an easy target huh? Let's not get personal -let's just look at the sites, not the persons, OK?--GordonWatts 05:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I could create a site that looks like that on geocities with similar editorial content in less than an hour (anyone with an Internet connection could). I could get my friends to help, so I wouldn't be "the only writer". That wouldn't make me a reliable source. This isn't personal, this isn't about you, it's about a site that wouldn't be reliable if anyone tried to add it to the article. Leebo86 05:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You raise good points: We need to study WP:RS#Non-scholarly_sources and see if, say, my paper, the NY Times, or the NC Gazette measure up. OK? I'll have to sub-section it, and I agree you have some valid arguments against mine, but in all fairness, we have to look at to pros as well as the cons. Be right back...--GordonWatts 06:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More studied reply to Leebo: OK, I studied the actual policy in the section below, and I don't see any major problems. Patsw is right: The Register links are on equal footing with other papers. In fact, it is better in some areas (no Jayson Blair type scandal - Has writers with expertise in more than just writing, etc.) Also, the Wikipedia policy you cited (and which I looked at below, see? I looked at your link!), that policy has nothing to say about whether a site is on AOL, Geocities, or for that matter, on the moon, OK? If you rebut me, please answer below, where the ACTUAL POLICY is discussed, OK?--GordonWatts 07:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-scholarly_sources[edit]

To help address Leebo's concern's here's analysis of ACTUAL policy, OK?...--GordonWatts 06:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:RS#Non-scholarly_sources, we find these standards, and I shall, as an example, use three newspapers familiar to us all -as examples, OK?--GordonWatts 06:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-scholarly sources

Some criteria that can assist editors in evaluating non-scholarly sources:

  • Attributability—The more we know about the originator, either organisation or individual, of source material, the better. This helps us measure the authority of the content.
    • My comments here are indented.
    • In the case of the NY Times, we know that it is a large paper made of mostly of liberals but with some conservatives. More writers help offer balance.
    • In the case of the NC Gazette, we know the last 2 writers were both very much for Terri's Law, but that paper published on a wide variety of subjects.
    • The Register also is small, has a few pro-life writers, and most articles are written by the editor himself; however, it too published on a variety of subjects, not just Terri Schiavo. It even defends liberal causes on occasion (recount of votes; environment; vegetarianism,etc.)--GordonWatts 07:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Expertise of the originator about the subject—An academic expert in one subject is more reliable when writing about that subject than when writing about another. For example, a biologist is more reliable when writing about biology than when writing about nuclear physics.
    • Some of the NY Times writers are "experts" in a given field, but most are mere writers.
    • The Gazette 's writers are professional writers -have been doing it for years, but still just writers.
    • The editor of The Register has a BS with honors and a double major from Florida State University and an AS for a 2-year electronics degree and was valedictorian at United Electronics Institute; He also has filed legal papers which, while not heard on the merits in the Schiavo case, were given more votes for a rehearing than all other rehearing cases COMBINED in this case; all other reheating petitions were much less successful; The other writers include a nurse and a computer engineer, whose diverse expertise is varied and helps in their area of expertise.--GordonWatts 06:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Bias of the originator about the subject—If an author has some reason to be biased, or admits to being biased, this should be taken into account when reporting his or her opinion. This is not to say that the material is not worthy of inclusion, but please take a look at our policy on Neutral point of view.
    • It is safe to say that all writers have bias; All 3 papers outlined here are biased, but Watts never endorsed the claims that Michael Schiavo beat his wife; He is less biased than some writers, but is pro-life, which is a form of bias.--GordonWatts 06:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Editorial oversight—A publication with a declared editorial policy will have greater reliability than one without, since the content is subject to verification. Self published sources such as personal web pages, personally published print runs and blogs have not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking and so have lower levels of reliability than published news media (e.g. The Economist) and other sources with editorial oversight, which is less reliable itself than professional or peer reviewed journal (e.g. Nature).
    • The 2 smaller papers (Gazette and Register) have less editorial oversight, but here recently The Register made a typo about an article about Hillary Clinton and quickly retracted it.--GordonWatts 06:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neither The Register nor the Gazette have been caught in a scandal of making up false news (we don't count the typo on the Hillary story as "made up news"; it was a typo of register writer, Gordon Watts and quickly redacted.) However, NY Times writer, Jayson Blair has made up LOADS of stuff, and gotten that paper in a heap of trouble. I think that these smaller papers are not worse -and sometimes better -in reliability, OK?--GordonWatts 07:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Replicability—The conclusions of the source can be reached using the information available and there is no indication of gaps in the thinking or process of derivation. Essentially, this criterion asks if there are any leaps of faith in the source.
    • This is a subjective analysis of the papers in question; Opinions may vary.--GordonWatts 06:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Declaration of sources—A source which is explicit about the data from which it derives its conclusions is more reliable than one which does not. Ideally, a source should describe the collection process and analysis method.
    • The Register cites its sources; For an example of this, please see: Consumer Advocacy article about milk and diet.
    • Recent requests by several people for sources of The Gazette I recall were met with a reply to the person that they could get public records from the courts to verify the claims made in the article, and the editor told him (a friend of mine) that she was able to get these records, and he could get them like her.
    • The New York Times sometimes uses confidential sources but not always. So, all in all, these 3 papers meet this standard.--GordonWatts 06:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Confidentiality—Sources which are considered confidential by the originating publisher may hold uncertain authority. Given that the original cannot be used to validate the reference, these should be treated with caution.
    • I already addressed that above.--GordonWatts 06:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Corroboration—The conclusions match with other sources in the field which have been derived independently. If two or more independent originators agree, in a reliable manner, then the conclusions become more reliable. Care must be taken to establish that corroboration is indeed independent, to avoid an invalid conclusion based on uncredited origination.
    • For the most part, these papers' claims about the Schiavo case seem to be substantiated from outside sources. I once reported on a hearing where I was the only reporter, an oral argument with George Felos and an ACLJ attorney, and no other news media corroborated my story, but that happens with ALL stories; Sometimes only one paper or one TV station shows up, but you can still use them as a source if the news source is credible in general.--GordonWatts 06:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Recognition by other reliable sources—A source may be considered more reliable if another source which is generally considered reliable cites or recommends it. Sources which have been attacked, or have rarely or never been cited, may be more suspect.
    • For example, the University of Miami cites one of Watts' articles, as discussed above. All three papers are cited by many people, as you can tell from a google or Yahoo! search, so I don't see any problem here.--GordonWatts 07:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Age of the source and rate of change of the subject—Where a subject has evolved or changed over time, a long standing source may not be accurate with respect to the current situation. To interpret utility one must appreciate how the subject has changed and if that change has impacted any of the salient points of the source information. Historical or out-of-date sources may be used to demonstrate evolution of the subject but should be treated with caution where used to illustrate the subject. If no newer sources are available, it is reasonable to caveat use of sources with an indication of the age and the resulting reduction in reliability.
    • The Terri Schiavo case is too new for this standard to apply; The news stories on it just aren't that old. The subject's rate of change has slowed to a crawl on any "new developments," so this doesn't apply either.--GordonWatts 07:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Persistence— If a reader goes to the cited source to validate a statement, or to gain further understanding of the topic, the form cited should remain stable, continuing to contain the information used by the editor to support the words. In this sense a book or journal citation is superior to an online source where the link may become broken. Some web resources have editorial policies which lead to a lack of persistence; therefore, web citations should be treated with caution.


These issues are particularly pertinent to Wikipedia where various editors involved in an article may have their own expertise or position with respect to the topic. Not all sources on a topic are equally reliable, and some sources will have differing degrees of reliability in different contexts.

In general, a topic should use the most reliable sources available to its editors. Common sense is required to determine what sources to use; this guideline cannot be applied robotically. If you have questions about a source's reliability, discuss with other editors on the article's talk page, or if the source is already used in the article, you can draw attention to it with the {{unreliable}} template.

"use three newspapers familair [sic]..." - I fixed my spelling error in my post above, but I shall not edit your post.--GordonWatts 07:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An exercise in the ridiculous[edit]

File:Beating 2Da 2Ddead 2Dhorse.gif

I shall, as an example, use three newspapers familair [sic] to us all -as examples, OK?

This is an exercise in the ridiculous, not so much a case of comparing apples and oranges, but of comparing apples, monkey wrenches, and Nerf balls.

Given that initial premise is utterly false in every particular --- calling a blog and a badly designed Geocities site "newspapers" doesn't make them so -- the rest of the attempt at amateur legalism is moot and not worth the electrons to refute, though your attempt to claim that open and outright bias as somehow a GOOD thing should probably be noted.

You wasted a lot of time typing that, Gordon. --Calton | Talk 06:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, a more succinct rebuttal to the right, there. --Calton | Talk 07:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Selected replies to Elinor[edit]

  • From above, Elinor writes this, which I shall copy and paste here and reply to:

If those links are put in at all, they would have to be put in by someone other than Gordon, I feel.

I agree, but very few editors initially even showed ANY interest in this page -either for or against the links to my news papers, so I had to WO:Be Bold and add them -as they looked on-topic and related: The UN petition was the only of its kind, and its uniqueness made it valuable. Had I been only one of 100 people who petitioned the UN, then I would be non-notable, I would assume. Also, as a major court participant, my editorial WAS notable, even if not as notable as some writers. If you doubt I am notable, please note that MANY people link to my newspapers, including the University of Miami: here - 3rd link from the bottom.--GordonWatts 05:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon, you're coming across as wanting those links too badly.

Correct; That is the perception, but it is a false image: To see my true motives, please remember that I supported the North County Gazette links, and that site is NOT my own site; It too is a news site -and it too is a small paper with few writers -I think it is down to one writer now days -and thus the smallness makes it a target for the vultures, but it is, as you see, a news site, doing news and commentary on a wide variety of topics. Vultures back off!--GordonWatts 05:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel that blogs or personal websites from non-notable people are appropriate under WP:EL and WP:RS.

You are new to Wikipedia, as you say, so you should study the policy more and listen to the arguments less from others. In fact I myself need to study them before commenting much on what should be done, so that's why I have only posted a few brief rebuttals -no theses or paper n the subject.--GordonWatts 05:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon, please don't continue to revert; since nobody supports you, it is just edit warring at this stage.

I agree here, but earlier, my attempts to discuss the matter were ignored; No one addressed the actual points in question, so I needed to edit a bit to get the attention of any dissenters -or see if there WAS any dissent.--GordonWatts 05:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to have to be so direct. I have no doubt that you reported honestly in your website, but really, when you start equating yourself as being as notable as Governor Bush, you lose a lot of support that you might otherwise gain.

OK, I'm not as notable as the Governor, but I am indeed notable -more than many people; Who else almost got their case reinstated in the Terri Schiavo ordeal. NO ONE. I am the only one! I am at least somewhat notable as a subject or expert, OK? Secondly, I don't even NEED to be "notable" to be a writer. After all, how many of the Tampa Tribune or St Pete Times writers are "notable" in this fashion? None. They are just plain writers, and I am too. Just because my paper has less writers and published less often than most is no reason to say that the news items are bad links. Just WHAT about the other writers of these other papers makes them any more notable than me here?--GordonWatts 06:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, you're asking how Terrisfight can be justified if your site isn't.

I apologise here - I stand corrected: I had overlooked that blogs to sites from the participants was an exception, thus Terri's Fight is OK. It is by the blood family of those involved.--GordonWatts 06:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of the case, I was following it on BBC News, and they linked to Terrisfight. They never mentioned, or linked to, anything by Gordon Watts.

No, but a lot of other people do. Not only did the Supreme Court grant me more rehearing votes in my case than any other person EVER received in ANY other petition for rearing in the Schiavo case, the U of Miami linked my site, and so do many others. Just ask Google, and before someone says they're blogs, so what? MANY people view my paper as a valid source. Observe:
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,130 who link to my papers
1 - 10 of about 202 who link to my papers--GordonWatts 06:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Terrisfight was set up by Terri's blood family, in their struggle against her husband, makes it notable, in my view.

Correct - I had overlooked that, but I was mistaken.--GordonWatts 06:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any particular opinion on blogsforterri.

But you should - it is part of our job to have an opinion -like a thermostat has an opinion of the temperature of the room -and THAT is precisely how it tells the heater or air conditioner what to do.

If people feel it should go or stay, then that's fine. ElinorD 13:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes. People who want to delete a link to a "Gordon" site will delete links to many other sites to pretend that they are not picking on me personally -but doing it to all sites. Now, I know that not all editors who remove smaller newspapers and such are doing it out of spite, but did you notice the massive deletions of sources to the articles here and, even more, in the Terri Schiavo page? We must "cite our sources" in any article, and I am quite sure that there will be a backlash about how the article is now making claims without sources. This "mass deletion" policy by some is not good. We need to rethink our plans before we just scratch out things willy-nilly.--GordonWatts 06:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes. People who want to delete a link to a "Gordon" site will delete links to many other sites to pretend that they are not picking on me personally -but doing it to all sites.
Since you also not a certified mindreader, either, you will either retract that bit of paranoia or back it up. --Calton | Talk 07:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
People either indent too much -or not enough -argh!... OK, I'm not certified as a mindreader (yet), but YOU aren't certified as a ...READER: You can't read: I didn't say that there EXIST people who have said motive, and I certainly did not accuse you, so are you feeling kind of guilty? Hmm... this hints that the maybe you DO have ill motives. What I said was that people (if they exist) who meet criteria "A" (deleting my links for ill motives) will take action "B" (deleting other links to cover up their actions). I never said that any such person existed, but we all know that evil people exist. NO ONE is perfect, so while I didn't name anyone specifically, I would probably not be wrong to say these people exist, but I concede I probably should have clarified: "IF such evil people exist in this instance, who delete my link for the wrong motives, then..." OK, I clarified and apologised; You make typos too, don't you?--GordonWatts 07:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While your wikilawyering is impressive (but actually do you no favours), I've see nothing that convinces me that this is not a straight forward application of WP:COI or WP:RS. Even if Carlton does not remove the links in future, I will. --Fredrick day 07:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you -for the compliment, but I am not Wiki-lawyering; I am simply studying the actual policy - something we all should have done a long time ago. It appears YOU are wiki-lawyering yourself. I notice that after you read my lengthy post applying actual policy and then answering Leebo86, you never actually addressed the points in that application -or otherwise. If you have an actual and real argument, state it; If you don't, then don't just babble. I admitted that I was not totally familiar with actual policy - and then I admitted that I was not as right on all the points as I had initially thought; I do admit that I can not be objective on my own newspaper, but what IF I am right in my application of the policy to the 3 papers I chose as representative examples? Also, while you can be correct in saying I should not edit about MY paper (even if it is a good source), what about all the other mass deletions currently taking place? How then will we cite our sources when we delete willy nilly? The main Terri article, last I checked, had lots of good links removed, and I believe, but can not prove, it was at least partly done to justify removing my links. However, I think that Hipocrite really did believe that massive deletions are OK. I saw him doing that before he got here. (In other words, I don't think Hipocrite is acting out of revenge or spite here.:-) But that still doesn't make it right. How then will we cite our sources when every Tom, Dick, and Harry thinks it's alright to just delete anything that doesn’t make a warm fuzzy feeling at the moment. Lots of valid links were deleted recently -not just links to my paper. so, it's "larger than just you and me" here, OK?--GordonWatts 07:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what newspaper? - I had a look at the page and it's just a very badly designed geocities site. Dramatic claims of having a newspaper when it's clear it's nothing of the sort are unhelpful. (I do not have the right keys on my phone to sign - an IP editor).

Noted, but many people find these articles helpful, even though the design is a little bit lengthy and not as organized as I'd like. Many people must enjoy it, as many also link to it. Just do a google search here or a Yahoo! search here to see what people think aobut its editor.--GordonWatts 09:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved user asked to take a look[edit]

Ok, having had a brief look over this, as far as I can see: the geocities page that is run by GordonWatts is not reliable source nor is it notable. In general, blogs are not notable and are not reliable sources(there are some exceptions to this, but they are few and far between). If any other blogs or personal webpages are being used as reliable sources they should be replaced with other sources and should almost never be listed in external links. Hipocrite was correct to remove them. Now, opinions on blogs are sometimes notable. They are notable if the blogger is a) notable as a blogger or b) was somehow directly involved in the events that the blogger is commenting on(I'll come to that in a minute). Watts' claim that the website in question somehow constitues a newsource is at best unconvincing. There appears to be no masthead, no list of regular contributors, no description of who writes what and edits what, no description of how frequently issues appear (the annoying music in the background and the poor formating do not help matters). The attempt to compare it to the New York Times is nothing sort of ridiculous.

Now, the one claim that Watts might possibly have is that he was directly involved. This claim is also unpersuasive. The banner at the top of the page claims that "This site maintained by Gordon W. Watts, who lost his pro se bid to save Terri by a 4-3 margin in Florida's Supreme Court. Watts' case, SC03-2420, is shown here and a saved copy is here. Florida Governor, Jeb Bush also tried to save Terri's life, and went before the same court in case number SC04-925. Bush's rehearing, unlike Watts', was denied by a 7-0 margin. Watts' experience and ability to speak with some credibility is shown by the fact that he did markedly better in his rehearing before the same panel than Bush. Governor Jeb Bush's case is shown: here and a save copy is here. Mr. Watts is also shown on page 17 of 25 in this Federal Court's opinion: Court Website Copy or Saved copy of case No. 05-11628. Related case here in the Tampa Tribune." This is an at best inaccurate description. Watts' "case" appears to be no more than a denied motion, and he is in the merely mentioned incidentally as a minor interested party on page 17 and makes no reference to him anywhere else. This does not seem to be any different than the many people who file amicus curae and similar briefs at almost any major case. Having such briefs and similar material denied does not make one's opinion relevant. JoshuaZ 08:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some claims and analyses you make are correct, but where you state "does not seem to be any different than the many people who file amicus curae and similar briefs at almost any major case," I must dissent: My actions were quite different: Many such requests for rehearing were granted in the Schiavo case, and traditionally, it is very hard to get a rehearing (once the court has made up its mind, that's usually it!), while many such requests were made for rehearing, all were denied by 100% margins, except mine, and I almost was granted this. Also, in addition, I was personally at the hospice, whereas most writers who wrote on this did not have first-hand witness of the actions. Lastly, I have some expertise on Biology and Chemistry, something my college degree confers upon me, something most writers didn't have. But the larger picture is now what do we do about the massive deletions to this article and the main Terri Schiavo article? Numerous links were removed -most, of course, not to my newspaper, but we must cite our sources. Some of the deletions seem to have been in revenge by people who deleted other small papers and links to pretend that they were "not just picking on Gordon," but other deletions, particularly those of Hipocrite, a long-time editor, seem to be in good faith but still very damaging to the Wikipedia project. If you disbelieve that conclusion, Joshua, ask yourself why most people do not consider Wikipedia a reliable source itself? You know why? You have unpaid editors making rash decisions (such as mass deletions here), and you get what you pay for: Unprofessional quality. 'nuff said.--GordonWatts 08:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"There appears to be no masthead, no list of regular contributors, no description of who writes what and edits what, no description of how frequently issues appear (the annoying music in the background and the poor formating do not help matters)." OK, good points; I could do better, but this paper is an unpaid paper, and, like Wikipedia, the quality suffers -but here, the quality in appearance is the only thing that suffers, and while your points are very good, you are nitpicking: Appearances are not always accurate: The Register is a fairly reliable news source, and I make a point-by-point analysis if this above, looking at actual Wikipedia policy, not your opinions on the type of Master -or type of background head I use.--GordonWatts 08:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having your brief rejected by a wider margin isn't evidence of enough notability.
Perhaps you are correct, but it IS evidence of SOME notability.--GordonWatts 13:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your claim that you were present also doesn't help at all,
Yes, it does: I can speak from first-hand witness: I saw and heard many of the events in question. Who would you rather hear from? The eye-witness who was there at the hospice and met with all the high-people -or some 3rd party writer who got his information 2nd-hand? I may be biased and lack the "oversight" or a "big" editorial review board, but I have standards as a writer, and I have good motive to not lie, or else my paper will suffer in reputation. I do have some standards, and in many cases, higher than those of "professional" writers, who skew the truth, or selectively leave out key facts.--GordonWatts 13:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
and having a background in biology and chemistry isn't terribly relevant either (any random doctor already is more qualified than you in that regard).
I am more qualified than someone who lacks these credentials. You can *always* find someone more qualified, but that doesn't negate or cancel the qualifications I had -I earned my college degree that HARD way: I worked for it (double major with honor in Biology and Chemical Science) -and i have the college debt to prove it!--GordonWatts 13:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for your comments regarding the nature of Wikipedia they are a bit off topic but I will comment that a Wiki by nature is never reliable anyways.
I concede that I was wrong to ONLY attack Wikipedia -but that element WAS necessary to demonstrate how true you are about the nature of a wiki, as you state above; I should have concentrated more on showing how MY involvement was noteworthy. OK, let me ask you this, if you're in possession of the answers: When you visit THIS google link, you see a message that says: "Results 1 - 10 of about 1,130." Now, I realise that many are links from either blogs or my own websites, but come on, you're telling me that 1,330 references to MY involvement in the Schiavo case are wrong, and this small group of wikipedia editors are right? Meh.--GordonWatts 13:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My above complaints regarding masthead etc are not just appearance, there is certain basic information that a reliable source gives, masthead info to start with, name of the parent corporation (there appears to be none).
There IS information, but you have to search around the site to get it; however, you are quite correct. I am not as polite to my readers as I'd like to be, but having limited time, when I am forced to chose between "pretty" and "accurate/reliable," you know which I chose. (I made some rare spelling corrections in your post, which I normally don't do, but I figure you won't mind this time.)--GordonWatts 13:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, appearance does matter in so far as the duck cliché goes. Your earlier attempts to claim that it meets Wikipedia's reliable source criteria seem more like attempts to wikilawyer than anything else. The bottom line is that as far as we can see it is a personal website that happens to have multiple people working on it. This makes it not very different than a random group of blog where the bloggers have a friend who edits all their stuff. JoshuaZ 15:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with JoshuaZ here. ElinorD (talk) 01:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And, who is to say all blogs are unreliable? If they have been on the web for a while and have a track record of not having lied or made up stories -like the NY Times did with Jayson Blair, you should be able to trust them to some extent. Same with my small paper. Lastly, what of those 1,330 references to MY work. I bet you won't find YOUR name listed with that many references. Note, if you will, that my full name AND Terri's name have to be on that page to be listed: 1,330 references to MY involvement vis-a-vis ZERO listings for some other Watts. Hmm... You saying all those other references are wrong about my notability, and you and your cadre here are right? Yes, I'm not totally notable, but I am notable enough to get listed SOME times, OK?--GordonWatts 13:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Massive deletions make Wikipedia an unreliable source[edit]

I have observed massive deletions...

Folks, we must cite our sources: This is not about "gordon's links," for if you note: MOST of the links are NOT mine, and they can't ALL be bad... And we wonder why Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source itself? Ironic isn't it that the very thing editors claim about other links not being reliable is what contributes to Wikipedia itself not being reliable:

  • Wikipedia not reliable paper source; Tony Sapochetti; Issue date: 5/5/06 Section: News [25]
  • "Growing pains for Wikipedia: Post 6 of 17: Recently found it was not reliable" [26]
  • "Wikis and the Idiocy of Crowds" [27]
  • "Wikipedia does not have a lot of credibility within academe, and detractors of the online, open-source encyclopedia say it devalues the notion of expertise that is the bedrock of higher education..." http://chronicle.com/live/2006/10/halavais
  • "The Mirror Front Page > News "You get what you pay for: Wikipedia, free encyclopedia, not considered reliable source by some students" By: Joe Carretta; Issue date: 11/2/06 Section: News [28]
  • Wikipedia : growing pains challenge credibility by Jason A. Martin @ 8:00 am. Filed under Media [29]
  • "Of course the INQ comes in for a mention now and then: "I don't count the Inquirer as independent for an article about the meme; they claim to have discovered/started it. Blogs and forums are not reliable sources, and that is all that has been offered here," comments a wiki in favour of deletion." http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=37165
  • "Wikipedia is a joke. It's basically half a million articles about Star Trek characters. Most of the country articles are re-heated CIA factbook copies. It's very unreliable, and the writing is of a juvenile quality. In other words - it's the product of thousands of geeks with articles that geeks will be interested in." Posted by Karl Jonson at April 7, 2005 12:13 PM
  • "I'm not a huge fan of Wikipedia, perhaps for the reasons one might expect. The idea is somewhat sound and parts of it are useful, but their attempts to establish “academic credibility” are ill-considered. And as long as they insist on having lengthy articles about people and events they'll eventually end up turning into just another encyclopedia. The most sensible thing is to never use it, and for a totally obvious reason: it's not reliable, and in its present form never can be. [30]
  • Bottom of 3rd paragraph: "Even teenagers chimed in on how Wikipedia was not reliable information in the eyes of their teachers." [31]
  • "Letter to my students on 051203: Friends, Please DO NOT use Wikipedia as a reference source in your semester project. You have a free on-line subscription to Encyclopedia Britannica through the Norwegian School of Management library, and you have access to many other excellent reference tools. Wikipedia is not reliable. [emphasis added] The story below is an example. There is now enough serious incidents of false and defamatory information in Wikipedia biographies to warrant prohibiting this as a reference source in universities and university-level professional schools." [32]

"Thangs that make ya go 'Hmm...'."--GordonWatts 09:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying, "Massive deletions make Wikipedia an unreliable source." And I have to say, "What?" Editing Wikipedia sometimes requires removing large amounts of material (and the diffs you linked didn't even remove very much material). If the material being removed is not reliable, like your site, then it's a good choice to remove it, and it doesn't "make Wikipedia a unreliable source." I think it's pretty disingenuous to attribute a whole slew of quotes about a Wikipedia-wide issue with the material that anyone can edit based on a few examples of removing content according to policy. I'll say it again clearly, there is nothing wrong with removing material (it doesn't matter how much material) if that removal is according to policy. Leebo86 11:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that deleting something is not necessarily bad; Also, I agree that it is not necessarily true that the deletions I outlined had an effect on the quality of Wikipedia -that is, causation does not necessarily mean correlation. However, on the merits, although you and others have made some good points, I feel, for the most part, a very strong (and unproductive) deletionist attitude, some of it maybe well-intended, but you just can't cut and slice and expect it to still work in the end. If I thought my website was a bad source, I wouldn't tell you of others who list it or link to it -even IF I don't have the same reliability of God, all the same, -and the very fact that many people link to my various web sites ought to tell you something. Are you listening to what it is telling you? Thanks once again for your feedback, even thought we disagree in part here. Remember: It is a broader issue about more than just my paper and such. I plan to edit less in the future due to time constraints. Have a nice day,--GordonWatts 13:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There comes a time in every discussion where the parties have to agree to disagree. We have reached that time. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with both your analysis and most of what Leebo and Frederick write below; also, you may archive this section of the talk page since the concensus (as reflected by the number of votes) doesn't look apt to change any time soon; however, and this is the take home message. These issues are about many different links, not just the ones to my websites (which I agree should look more neat and clean, but I can't always be neat and professional looking in my broiler plate, header, and please everyone with my style; I'll settle for messy but reliable any day), but I don't get paid to publish my site; it is a free service, and I am lucky it is as "reliable" as it is, operating on a shoestring. I concur that this is a dead issue, but this is bigger than just a disagreemenet about my paper - step back -see the big picture. Remember, if you all mess up -whether it is in the usage of sources (we discussed here) -or in unrelated issues (like slander and libel), people may either sue or speak badly about wikipedia. I don't wish any bad things upon the great wiki project, no matter how much we may disagree, and in spite of the problems I have with it, wikipedia is still pretty useful for information, just not totally reliable. Well, that's all I have to say except I'm sorry I didn't publish the NY Times and provide everyone with "perfect" sources; I did the best I could with my small papers. Take care.--GordonWatts 14:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this discussion is going to go in circles for the foreseeable future. Wanting to remove a link that doesn't meet WP:External links isn't "deletionist", but I think this discussion is not productive. Leebo86 13:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look the consensus of experienced editors (both those previously involved in this matter and those like me who arrived here via AN/I) is clearly currently that the links do not meet WP:EL - we can go around the houses with all those smoke and mirror issues all we like - but that's it. At this present moment, I do not see what else needs to be said - this has far more time than most single-purpose accounts trying to push their own free-hosted webpages have! --Fredrick day 14:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, this is ridiculous. The notion that removing content that is problematic or unreliable makes Wikipedia less trustworthy is simply ridiculous. JoshuaZ 15:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enough[edit]

Enough, Gordon. The next step if you don't will be a direct request for a community ban on you for exhausting the community's patience. Permanent blocking. No more arguments, no more rationalizations, no more long-winded, disruptive, self-serving rebuttals -- one more argument or attempt to edge in justifications and it's straight to the Community noticeboard. So stop. --Calton | Talk 14:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To put it in context, please note that there were 1,130 references to my involvement and ZERO to some other Watts. Now, since the references had to have my FULL name -and not just the words Gordon and Watts somewhere in the page, you can see they referred to ME.
Yeah, Calton; You're right and about 1,130 other people who cite my involvement are wrong. You’re also paranoid, as we'll later see...--GordonWatts 13:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's necessary. The whole thing seems to be winding down. Gordon's free to rebut, but I get the impression that most are done discussing, and that it won't be an issue unless the links are reinserted. I don't think an ultimatum is required, and it would be extreme anyway. Gordon doesn't really seem to take much interest in articles outside of the Schiavo case, so perhaps a break from editing Schiavo articles would be satisfactory. Leebo86 15:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right or wrong on the issue of the links, Leebo is right in all his statements here, which means that you are wrong, and hence a tad paranoid; Chill out, Calton: It's only a wiki! Go do something else for a few days; The world won't come to an end, ya know...?--GordonWatts 12:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gordon's free to rebut. No, he's not. That way lies madness and ever-more disruptive arguments further detached from reality. It stops, and it stops now. And if Terri Schiavo is all he cares about, then he's a single-purpose account who should explore picking up a different hobby altogether. --Calton | Talk 22:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On this, Calton, I partially disagree. Gordon is free to rebut. He should, however, be aware that we are no longer debating this with him - unless he can gather a substantial number of wikipedians, then consensus that his links are innapropriate has not changed, and we will not respond to his rebuttals. He is certainly not free to insert his links. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All debate about the concensus aside, what of the about 1,130 other references by websites to my involvement in the Schiavo ordeal? You're saying that THEY'RE all wrong and a handful of editors here is right? I know that I don't have time to be 100% in any area (professional writer at the NY Times, successful litigant in the Schiavo case, Doctor with a PhD and MD behind my name), but I've done a little of ALL these, and so my suggestion that the many references to my site are at least SOMEWHAT legitimate is not so out of bounds, now is it? But, really, can all those 1,330 references be wrong, and your small group right? ???.--GordonWatts 12:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how much you know about the internet but 1000 google hits is an indicator that something is insignificant not an indicator of importance. Even then, many of them seem will be a) repeats of the same feed b) you posting in various place etc. 1000 google hits is nothing to be worked up about. Anyway I thought you'd agreed to stop beating this dead horse? or are you as one of your google hits suggests a "shameful self-promoter" --Fredrick day 13:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that I am not as noteworthy in references as, say, Terri Schiavo's lawyer, probably, but look at the links above in my reply to Calton: YOU missed a little bit here: To put it in context, please note that there were 1,130 references to my involvement and ZERO to some other Watts. Now, since the references had to have my FULL name -and not just the words Gordon and Watts somewhere in the page, you can see they referred to ME. So, I am at least somewhat notable, and a heck of a lot more notable than all my friends here combined -at least on the Terri Schiavo matter. YOU are probably notable in some other area where I am not.--GordonWatts 13:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Anyway I thought you'd agreed to stop beating this dead horse? or are you as one of your google hits suggests a "shameful self-promoter"" If you notice, I agree with many of the opposing points all throughout this page, look closely, for example, I noted I was not as notable as, say, the family lawyer; However, I must speak the truth, and the numbers don't lie, not in this case anyhow. However, they sometimes exaggerate or devalue, I admit, the true facts.--GordonWatts 13:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The numbers don't lie" - leaving aside the fact that 1000 ghits is nothing, if you remove the posts that you yourself have made, the links to wikipedia archives, the links to wikiquote - what are you left with? Nowhere near 1000. Anyway, this is a pointless conversation, clearly your objective has not changed, you wish to have your links inserted and you will wikilawyers all of our time away. I think that Carlton is entirely right and your presence is disruptive and distracting. I will support any community ban that prevents you from editing Terri Schiavo articles and/or put your freehosted websites on the spam blacklist (which actually might be the quickest and easiest solution). I see no point in any further debate on this matter. --Fredrick day 13:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Gordon is free to rebut. No, he isn't: hundreds and thousands of words of his self-serving nonsense -- supported by (almost) no one -- filling up the page is disruptive and distracting. It always has been, it is now, and -- given Gordon's track record of not understanding plain-English explanations to him, his sense of righteousness unencumbered by evidence or outside opinion, and his inability to disengage unless absolutely forced to (and even then merely as a pause before trying a different tactic later on) -- always will be. Enough is enough, and encouraging him is ill-advised. You'll note that even people who are sympathetic to him still get the full-on Gordon Watts loghorrea when contradicting him, which is as disruptive a way of driving off disagreement as I can think of not involving personal threats as I can imagine. --Calton | Talk 00:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As promised, Gordon: Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard#Community_ban_request_on_User:GordonWatts.
the numbers don't lie No, it's people who use them who do. And Gordon, it's not 1,130 hits, it's 120 -- 107 if you leave off Wikipedia -- and a great number of them are due to comments you've posted YOURSELF on various blogs promoting yourself. These include this [refactored by Sarah]. Your name's not linked because of anything resembling agreement with your views or credibility, that's for sure. --Calton | Talk 13:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

In spite of the somewhat lopsided voting and many arguments, I would like to thank the small handful of editors who have made arguments for and against the links in question.

This is only right because I asked for input from all of the editors who have edited the main Schiavo article since last Christmas (a large number), and very few people responded.

For the most part, apathy dominates. As I write this, I see a request of some sort to ban me or something. As long as you make arguments against me, I am free to rebut them. The best thing for those making this complaint would be to simply ignore the matter: I am certainly not going to start talking to myself, and your continued pushing of this matter even after all parties agree to the concensus is pointless bickering and will do nothing to help the quality here.

Even though I have stopped editing on Schiavo articles (what point would a ban do? I've stopped editing already), the problem won't go away: Even as one of my opponents states here, "I'm active on other pages, and I'm finding that blogs and personal websites are being ruthlessly removed, with the instruction to find the same information elsewhere, or leave it out."

I agree: Even though I no longer edit on the Schiavo pages (where I have usually had no troubles), the problem ElinorD outlines will still be present -long after my departure, even as I had predicted and promised. Banning me when I've quit editing sounds like revenge; If the 3 editors who made this complaint have a problem, they should ignore it, but ban a good user -if you like; It will only detract from the civility -as people will say: "They banned a use who accepted concensus, stopped editing, and merely made a few replies to posts?" --They will say: "If others post, certainly this editor has a right to reply."

I have accepted concensus -and abided by it. Your move.--GordonWatts 14:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link rot[edit]

This is disturbing. We are now looking at merging back into Terri Schiavo case if this cannot be resolved. Viriditas (talk) 00:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who's "we"? Per WP:SUMMARY, that's actually a questionable idea. Look, just because two editors of this article have made a sprawling, grotesque show of bashing each other's brains out in public view doesn't mean the article itself is faulty. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 06:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Government involvement in the Terri Schiavo case. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Government involvement in the Terri Schiavo case. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Government_involvement_in_the_Terri_Schiavo_case&oldid=1219012278"